I just watched An Inconvenient Truth

[SkepticLance]

To Peak Oil Man

 

I think you are falling into the same trap that 1veedo has succombed to. If you look at a graph of temperature versus CO2 that run to the present, you will see a good correlation. That is because the last 30 years is, indeed, a good correlation.

 

My claim was that between 1900 and 1976, warming/cooling correlated better to solar activity. Of course it is not a correlation of 1. That is because many factors apply. However, it is closer (IMO by far) than the correlation to CO2. Your graph shows sunspot number, which is not quite as good as sunspot activity, which takes into account the size and energetics of the sunspots.

 

If you do not believe me, print off your graph, cut out the relevent sections (1900 to 1976), and see which correlates better to temperature change - solar activity, or CO2.

 

Better still, print off the graph in my reference, and do the same.

[bascule]

To Bascule,

The phrase you quoted "most of the average temperature increases since the mid-20th century" is somewhat misleading. This is because the mid 20th century means 1950, and there was a net cooling from 1940 to 1976.

 

Your statement is just as misleading. You're trying to use "net cooling" to suggest that there were no temperature increases whatsoever during that period.

 

The temperature increases from the mid 20th were, in fact, all from 1976 onwards.

 

Wrong:

 

 

A more correct and less misleading statement would be "the temperature increases of the last quarter of the 20th".

 

I'd say the IPCC's statement is valid. Just because there was net cooling does not mean there were no temperature increases.

 

It is little tricks of language like the phrase above that are deliberately used by those with a political agenda to mislead.

 

You're nitpicking. Their statement is valid.

[SkepticLance]

Peak Oil Man

 

Take a good look at Bascule's graph. In spite of everything he says about warmings between 1950 and 1976, there are, in fact, only two warmings of any significance. That is 1910 to 1940; and from 1976 to the present.

 

The first of those two warmings is associated with a very small increase in greenhouse gases; only marginally greater than the CO2 increase that took place during the 1880 to 1910 cooling period. The second is, as I have always said, associated with substantial CO2 increase. But the 1910 to 1940 temperature increase cannot so easily be explained.

 

However, the 1910 to 1940 warming is also associated with a substantial increase in sunspot activity.

 

I cannot understand the insistence of Bascule and 1veedo that the cooling following 1940 had nothing to do with solar activity. The solar activity graph in my reference clearly shows a drop in sunspot influence exactly coinciding with that cooling.

 

Nor does it make sense to blame it all on sulphate aerosol. That type of pollution was strong for a much longer period that that theory suggests. Sulphates may have had an influence, even a strong influence, but it makes no sense to blame it all on something that was part of the world's atmosphere for much longer than the effect it is supposed to cause.

 

Incidentally, 1veedo might like to look at this graph and check the average temperature rise over the past 30 years. It is a lot less than 0.2 C per decade.

[1veedo]

On the graph you offered as a reference' date=' if you remove the data after 1976, the correlation between CO2 and temperature becomes weak.

 

If you want to see a good correlation for the 1900 to 1976 period, look at the graph in :[/quote']This is a red herring. I am not saying that the sun doesn't correlate with temperature. The fact if the matter though is that for the entire period between 1900 and today, CO2 matches much more closely to temperature then does the sun.

 

But this is irrelevant because it's also a red herring in the sense, that yes, the sun does fit very well if we ignore after 1976, but the topic of discussion is how much the sun has influenced the temperature and not how closely it follows temperature visually. So although the sun did correlate with temperature, it did not cause the temperature to increase by any large extent compared to human activities. The fact that the sun correlates with temperature does not change the fact that, at most, the sun could only have caused 16% to 36% of the total temperature increase between 1900 and 1950 and less then 10% between 1950 and 2000.

http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrest.../welcome.shtml

 

This graph shows solar activity versus temperature to 1976. The correlation is much closer.

You've posted this before, and someone else posted it even before you, and both times I pointed out that the study is flawed and has been found to be incorrect in peer-review. More specifically, the authors of the study actually used some dishonest methods to come up with the data.

 

You can take a look back at post 84/87 and then 148 to help you remember a little bit.

I cannot understand the insistence of Bascule and 1veedo that the cooling following 1940 had nothing to do with solar activity. The solar activity graph in my reference clearly shows a drop in sunspot influence exactly coinciding with that cooling.

We are not saying it had nothing to do with the sun, but the data clearly shows that the largest factor for the cooling was increased particulate pollution.

Incidentally, 1veedo might like to look at this graph and check the average temperature rise over the past 30 years. It is a lot less than 0.2 C per decade.

Not according to satellite and ground temperature records. The 1.6 figure you like to quote is just about the lowest figure that has been found while the vast majority of temperature readings vary right around .2, and these are the most accurate as well. Also I'm wondering about the 1.6 figure because the only study that shows 1.6 is giving a figure for tropospheric temperature increase, not ground temperatures.

 

But aside from the data itself, every other secondary study about climate change uses .2, "almost .2," and "slightly more then .2" per decade. This includes the IPCC, NASA, the NAS, as well as the EPA. So even if we look at all the different temperature readings, the experts themselves see a temperature increase of .2C per decade most accurate.

[bascule]

I cannot understand the insistence of Bascule and 1veedo that the cooling following 1940 had nothing to do with solar activity. The solar activity graph in my reference clearly shows a drop in sunspot influence exactly coinciding with that cooling.

 

Uhh, I've said repeatedly that mid-century cooling was due to changes in the solar cycle and a resumption of volcanic activity, resulting in reflective, increased sulfate aerosols.

[SkepticLance]

To Bascule.

Sorry. I tend to lump my debate opponents together. A bad habit. Your correction is accepted.

 

 

1veedo said :

 

More specifically, the authors of the study actually used some dishonest methods to come up with the data.

 

As I have said before, accusing reputable scientists of dishonesty is not a good debate tactic. It reflects most badly upon the person using that tactic.

 

In addition, you would have to accuse a large number of people of being dishonest, since there are a number of studies that point out how solar activity (measured by sunspots) correlate with temperature change.

 

I still do not understand why you feel obligated to attack the view that sunspot activity was a potent influencer of global temperature prior to 1976. It does not actually affect your main thesis - that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (AGGs) are important drivers of global warming today. I have already agreed with that view.

 

 

1veedo said :

 

the sun does fit very well if we ignore after 1976, but the topic of discussion is how much the sun has influenced the temperature and not how closely it follows temperature visually. So although the sun did correlate with temperature, it did not cause the temperature to increase by any large extent compared to human activities.

 

??????

Do you realise how weak that argument is?

 

There is a significant problem in that no-one really understands how changes in sunspot activity affect global temperature. A leading theory is that it operates via cosmic rays and cloud formation. However, sunspot activity also leads to high UV flux. Maybe that has an impact?

 

Thus translating measured sunspot activity into solar forcings is something that cannot really be done. Once the mechanism is better understood, such a calculation may become more valid. We cannot even derive an equation from empirical data, since the whole business is multi-factorial, and separating the influence of the sun from other influences is not easy.

 

If we cannot calculate solar forcings accurately, then we cannot compare them to AGG influence directly. However, we know that AGG influence over 1910 to 1940 was low (roughly equal to AGG influence from 1880 to 1910 when the world was cooling). Solar activity from 1910 to 1940 however, was increasing at a substantial rate.

[1veedo]

In addition, you would have to accuse a large number of people of being dishonest, since there are a number of studies that point out how solar activity (measured by sunspots) correlate with temperature change.

Here you go again with those red herrings. It is true that most studies show a correlation between 1900 and 1976, and even at that for pretty much the entire history of our planet, but your study used some data retrieved very strangely after 1976 to make it look like solar irradiance was increasing after 1976, while other studies show just the opposite.

 

Most studies do not agree with the one that you posted. They only agree with it up to 1976. According to this page, for instance, the entire period from 1978 to today has seen no increase in solar irradiance at all.

 

This study shows the same thing:

 

And another statement directly agrees with a study I linked to above, "...but there has not been any net change in solar output since 1978 when most of the 20th century warming occurred."

 

I've seen enough of these sorts of graphs to know what the norm looks like. Even if your study wasn't found to be incorrect in peer-review, it shouldn't change what every other study has found. We're not talking about one or two odd studies here; there is a lot of research in this field, and they all pretty much agree with each other (except yours, SkepticLance).

 

Naturally, different studies are going to show slightly different results. And you can also "fudge" it up to look differently without changing the data. For instance, I graphed one of the studies from here in openoffice and you can hardly tell the temperature increase.

 

http://1veedo.homelinux.com/misc/Screenshot.png

(I brought this up on wikipedia talk)

 

This is consistent with a graph of the same data found on a global warming denier website.

 

http://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif

 

The wikipedia graph appears to show a much greater increase, imo, mostly because of the line they draw through it. I figure most studies do this to illustrate their point. The wikipedia graph talks about global warming and the denier's graph talks about how global warming is false.

 

But just a quick google for the study in question finds some information showing that it's incorrect. Particularly Damon, but here's a nice little summary of what scientists have found out about this study,

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=11&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.environmentaldefense.org%2Fdocuments%2F5544_SolarActivity_One-pager.pdf&ei=RIP4RZTKBYiIgAT4jPHPBw&usg=__qWrMFyB7EwNF1311SYKP7kNOwjw=&sig2=nIJ-dRxce5ojkCfrffcBBg

 

"In 1991, a Science paper reported a remarkable correlation between solar activity and temperatures, prompting speculation that solar activity was causing global warming. 1 While the paper understandably received a great deal of attention at the time, and is sometimes cited today, its conclusions are flawed.2 The original 1991 analysis compared temperature data to records of sunspot cycle length (a proxy for solar output). However, the sunspot data used in the analysis were not uniform—some were filtered to smooth out temporal variations and others were not. Subsequent analyses (by these same authors) attempted to address the filtering issue but were plagued by mathematical errors. When the analysis was repeated without these errors, the relationship between solar activity and temperature fell apart."

 

If you look at the paper I linked to, it conveniently shows what happens when the "questionable" (what I referred to as dishonest) data points are fixed. When your study is "fixed," it actually agrees with the rest of the scientific community, which destroys the entire thesis of the paper.

Do you realise how weak that argument is?

 

There is a significant problem in that no-one really understands how changes in sunspot activity affect global temperature. A leading theory is that it operates via cosmic rays and cloud formation. However, sunspot activity also leads to high UV flux. Maybe that has an impact?

 

Thus translating measured sunspot activity into solar forcings is something that cannot really be done. Once the mechanism is better understood, such a calculation may become more valid. We cannot even derive an equation from empirical data, since the whole business is multi-factorial, and separating the influence of the sun from other influences is not easy.

 

If we cannot calculate solar forcings accurately, then we cannot compare them to AGG influence directly. However, we know that AGG influence over 1910 to 1940 was low (roughly equal to AGG influence from 1880 to 1910 when the world was cooling). Solar activity from 1910 to 1940 however, was increasing at a substantial rate.

Well at the same time, so did CO2 emissions -- they increase right along with the temperature. But this really doesn't matter.

 

I have provided references to support my position. You cannot change the fact, no matter what you say, that only 16% to 36% of the total increase in temperature from 1900 to 1950 was caused by changes in solar irradiance. For some reason you absolutely refuse to accept the data, but you cannot tip toe around this with red herrings.

 

"A denier refuses to accept data."

 

What is it, exactly, that you vehemently claim you are not, SkepticLance?

[SkepticLance]

1veedo

Again you attempt to put words in my mouth.

 

If you go back across this thread, you will find I do NOT claim that solar activity drives warming after 1976. In fact, I emphasize strongly that my statements apply only to the earlier period. Your statement below implies I am making a false claim.

 

your study used some data retrieved very strangely after 1976 to make it look like solar irradiance was increasing after 1976,

 

The bit I am mainly talking about is 1910 to 1940. If you check your own graph of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (AGG) increase, you will see that 1880 to 1910 (cooling) is little different to 1910 to 1940 (strong warming). Simple logic says that the warming and cooling cannot be both due to AGG increase since they are close to the same for both periods. So we look for an alternative cause, and there it is, on the graph you just posted.

 

Since the AGG factor was pretty much the same for the cooling (1880 to 1910) and warming (1910 to 1940) period, then the added factor (solar activity) must have been pretty damn potent to cause such a different result.

 

You said :

 

You cannot change the fact, no matter what you say, that only 16% to 36% of the total increase in temperature from 1900 to 1950 was caused by changes in solar irradiance. For some reason you absolutely refuse to accept the data, but you cannot tip toe around this with red herrings.

 

The reason we differ here is that you accept the 16 to 36% figure as data, which it is not. It is, in fact, the result of a calculation. As I pointed out on my last post, it is not possible to calculate solar forcings with reliability, since we do not even understand the actual mechanism by which they work. Then you quote a figure (16 to 36%) which is based on a highly questionable calculation, and call it data. I got news for you.

 

Observing a correlation between sunspot activity and temperature is one thing. Quantifying it exactly is another.

[Dr. Dalek]

Observing a correlation between sunspot activity and temperature is one thing. Quantifying it exactly is another.

 

Here is a little anicdote I thought might be relavent;

Long ago people thought that the World would end by drying up. They believed that water erroded caves were evidence that all the water on Earth was slowly penetrating downward into the Earth and that in centuries the Earths surface would be dry and unable to support life. Naturaly this theory later turned out to be false when we learned more about the Earths interior and its workings, but it was the most reasonable logical outcome of the knowlage they had at the time. I read this in high school in a book about caves.

[rthmjohn]

Well mr. pangloss... what do you think should be done? Do you even think global warming is a problem?

[Pangloss]

Well mr. pangloss... what do you think should be done? Do you even think global warming is a problem?

 

Please be more specific in terms of what you're replying to. It's been several pages since I replied to this thread. Are you responding to the post in which I discounted your feeling that global warming is to blame for your current local weather issues?

 

If that's the case, my response is that due to the IPCC statements I've come to the general conclusion that global warming is a real phenomenon, and that we should act on that basis even if the human level of contribution to the problem ultimately turns out to be minor. I simply don't think it's scientifically legitimate to blame the weather on any given day on global warming. Weather trends, perhaps (i.e. "the warmest winter on record"). But not "gosh it sure is a hot day today".

 

We need to move past the stage where the left-wingers point to the hot days and the right-wingers point to the cold days, and the moderates see that and figure it's a wash.

[1veedo]

If you go back across this thread' date=' you will find I do NOT claim that solar activity drives warming after 1976. In fact, I emphasize strongly that my statements apply only to the earlier period. Your statement below implies I am making a false claim.[/quote']I didn't say you were making this claim, the study that you presented made this claim. I was just explaining why other scientists found it to be flawed. A quick google on your part and you could have already known this. The only data of question was after 1976, and I clearly pointed this out.

The reason we differ here is that you accept the 16 to 36% figure as data, which it is not. It is, in fact, the result of a calculation. As I pointed out on my last post, it is not possible to calculate solar forcings with reliability, since we do not even understand the actual mechanism by which they work. Then you quote a figure (16 to 36%) which is based on a highly questionable calculation, and call it data. I got news for you.

 

Observing a correlation between sunspot activity and temperature is one thing. Quantifying it exactly is another.

This reminds me of the old "God of the Gaps" argument. The basic tactic is probably as old as time itself. Recently holocaust and evolution deniers have been using it, and Big Tobacco used this tactic as it's primary line of defense against the increasingly clear science that smoking is bad for you. The idea is to make things seem more uncertain then they actually are. Yes, there are uncertainties, but this doesn't change what we do know. What we do happen to know is that the solar contribution to global warming before 1950 is somewhere between 16% and 36%. We don't know exactly where, but this is our uncertainty range. And I guess you could argue that it's a rather large range, but no matter where the "actual" value is, even if it's up there w/ 36%, it doesn't change the fact that humans have caused the majority of warming.

 

This before 1950 stuff isn't even that relevant because most of the warming has occurred after 1950, and during this time we know that human activities caused over 90% of the increase in temperature.

[SkepticLance]

To 1veedo.

 

You and I do not think alike, clearly. I demand good empirical evidence before changing my ideas. You seem happy with a statement by someone from IPCC.

 

You have not answered my query. If 30 years of slight greenhouse gas increase (1880 to 1910) give rise to significant cooling, and the following 30 years of equally slight greenhouse gas increase give substantial warming, how can you ascribe the majority of the warming influence to greenhouse gases. That makes no sense at all.

 

However, at the same time, solar activity varied strongly, and in line with the cooling and warming. This does NOT support the 16 to 36% idea.

 

This is NOT God of the Gaps! There is no gap. The explanation for the difference is solid and clear. You just do not want to accept it. In this case IPCC is God and 1veedo is his prophet. And anyone who questions the gospel of "GG is supreme" is committing blasphemy.

 

I accept that after 1976, solar activity does not explain what is happening. Why are you not prepared to accept that, from 1910 to 1940, greenhouse gases do not explain what happened?

[natureboy]

Yes but who wants to take a chance like that!? I'd rather take a chance of being wrong than dead.

 

This is precisely the point. People don't truly want global warming to stop, just like people don't really want to save our bees (google "cell phone bees". yet another phenomenon is occurring that threatens our existence). If people truly wanted to stop global warming, we would have done it decades ago when scientists first started warning us. However, we did precisely what many people on this forum are doing: we thought to much. Some people made up stories in order to continue making profit in just the same way that people today are trying to explain away the phenomenon of the radiation created by our cell phones kill our bees. The truth is people would rather use their cell phones than have to worry about bees, or drive their car rather than worrying about cooling of a planet. If we were serious, we would stop using our cell phones and stop driving cars regardless of whether it is proven or not. The fastest way to prove something is to take away the cause and see if the effect goes away also (i.e. stop using cell phones and see if the bees stop dying). Besides, how much would it hurt to give up cells phones for a year? 10 years ago there weren't any. The same can hold true, to some extent, for cars.

 

I want to offer a different perspective. Have you ever seen a dog chase it's tail? Why does a dog chase it's tail? Well, it's because the dog doesn't know the the tail is its own! If you look at us humans, we are no different. We believe that we are in control of nature, but this is clearly false. I'll explain why.

 

Every war that is fought, including the Iraq war, who started it? Did humans decide to fight the war, or did nature order us to fight? If you think about it, the only reason that people fight is because resources are limited. Food is limited, precious metals and nutrients, oils, and women. This is all limited by nature. Right now we fight over oil. But we've always fought over something. Nature tells us to fight, when man was first put on this planet he had no choice but to fight.

 

Now, a very important question relevant to this thread. Is man responsible for global warming? Or did nature tell him to do so? Is man controlling his tail or is he following it? This seems like a complex question, but it really isn't. Nature told him to do so. When man made fire, he was already on his way to doing his duty of heating the earth. With fire, he was able to burn down trees. We have been on the planet a very short time and perfected this art of getting rid of trees and nature with tools even more powerful than fire. Man is a creation of nature; he evolved from something and was "dreamed" up by nature herself. Man didn't chose to be capable of making fire, he made it because he could; because nature allowed him to do such things. If man has a choice, he would had two options: "the option of not creating fire and living without global warming, in peace with the earth v.s. the option of living with global warming and changing the earth forever with likelihood of going extinct himself." He was given no such choice. He had to create fire and technology, and observe the effects. Man does not control nature. Nature controls man.

 

Based on this, it follows that even if we wanted to stop global warming, we couldn't do it. Why? Sure, as individuals we are smart and know that what we do is wrong. We know that global warming can be theoretically stopped using clever technology such as nuclear power, fusion, fuel cells, solar power, and controlling our population and saving our trees. If we know this, and have the means to do it, why aren't we expending all of our energy towards this goal? Why are we instead fighting wars over dwindling resources such as oils, building massive corporations, and arguing over who will be the next American Idol? The reason is we are up against the forces of nature, which are instructing man on how to behave in massive social groups. Nature, which has programmed man to continue making new technology; new fires. She has programmed us to continue this to the end.

 

Nature has a plan. Perhaps this is her way of starting over. If men could only see. If men could only understand her plan.... We, as individuals do not have to suffer because of natures plans. You can be at peace with nature to the extent possible and enjoy your time here. Life is a wonderful thing and the living should rejoice in being given a chance to enjoy it; even more so now that you know life, like oil, will one day be a limited resource on this planet. What will our world be like in 20-30 years when global warming starts to really destroy our civilization? I don't want to think about it. I just want to live.

[SkepticLance]

To natureboy.

 

I do hope you are kidding us.

 

Cell phones killing bees? Yeah. Riiiiight! Why is it that the scientists researching bee death are now concentrating on bee diseases?

 

Nature driving humans to cause global warming? Also, Yeah riiiight. Humans need no-one to drive us. We are real good at doing things the human way. Unable to affect global warming? Nonsense.

[SkepticLance]

To P.O.M.

 

Hi.

You pointed out this strategy to myself and others on another thread. It looks pretty good to me. I doubt that it will, of itself, solve all the world's woes. However, as part of an overall action plan, it looks like it has much to offer.

[Phil_H]

I'm not a scientist but I know that being skeptical is a a scientist quality. Al Gore and his movie has absolutely no scientist prove. It is pure propaganda. It looks scary and all. But we can make everything look scary.

If I was supporting the "man cause global warming" theory I would say " hey guys I don't support Al Gore!"

I don't support ignorant pollution but I'm against the fact of throwing out any theory and take serious measure against it.

 

here ares some interesting links

 

video about Al gore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMPkK5zpYg0

"The global warming swindle" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758&hl=fr

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" One-sided, Misleading, Exaggerated, Speculative, Wrong. http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf

What Every European Should Know About Global Warming. http://www.cei.org/pdf/4691.pdf

[Icemelt]

I sometimes wonder just how many of the guys that comment on this movie have actually seen it !

 

Have you actually watched it all the way through ?

 

Maybe take another look http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

 

There’s so much in your post and the associated links that one could disagree with, but here’s a few for starters:

 

1) Having watched the movie several times, it is pretty difficult to see how the director misquoted Professor Carl Wunsch, who was very eloquent and clear on the subject. He had a good chunk of time to speak and his comments were not restricted to just a few phrases taken out of context.

 

2) I also seem have a very vivid memory of it being alleged that weather was likely to become more stable with global warming, since unstable weather patterns were more likely with a larger difference between equatorial and polar temperatures, and these would be narrowing with global warming.

 

3) There would now seem to be few who would disagree, including the IPCC, that climate models are intended to show POSSIBLE scenarios, based generally on conditions that do NOT currently exist, and they should not be used as climate forecasts.

 

4) I notice that the tropospheric anomalies have been omitted from your post. Most of us are aware that the original temperature measurements of the troposphere showed the opposite to the results expected, so the measuring techniques were discredited and trashed and a fresh analysis was undertaken. All agreed that for GHGs to be the driving force behind global warming the troposphere must be warming SIGNIFICANLTY faster than the surface. But how many of us aware that the later set of measurements were, as the IPCC reported “INCONCLUSIVE”, and that in many cases showed the opposite to what one would expect if GHGs were the cause of global warming ?

[Icemelt]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one, and none of the information below encourages me to believe that anthropogenic GHGs are the driving force behind global warming - quite the opposite !

 

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis

Summary for Policymakers

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Available at http://www.icemelt.info/IPCCWGIAR4PSBFEB07.pdf

 

Page 4 of this report states

 

“New analyses of balloon-borne and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric temperature show warming rates that are similar to those of the surface temperature record and are consistent within their respective uncertainties, largely reconciling a discrepancy noted in the TAR. {3.2, 3.4}”

 

It does not say the troposphere is warming significantly faster, which is necessary for GHGs to be causing global warming.

 

Page 9 of the same report states

 

“Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings. Uncertainties in local forcings and feedbacks also make it difficult to estimate the contribution of greenhouse gas increases to observed small-scale temperature changes. {8.3,9.4}”

 

and on the same page

 

“It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere interdecadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th century warming evident in these records. {2.7, 2.8, 6.6, 9.3}”

 

It says "contributed to"

It does not say anthropogenic forcing was the major contributor

 

and more conclusively at:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=886

 

Independent Summary for Policymakers:

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

Publication Date: February 2007

 

"Executive Summary: The Independent Summary for Policymakers is a detailed and thorough overview of the state of climate change science as laid out in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report. This independent summary has been reviewed by more than 50 scientists around the world and their views on its balance and reliability are tabulated for readers. It carefully connects summary paragraphs to the chapters and sections of the IPCC report from which they are drawn, allowing readers to refer directly to what is in the IPCC Report, including:

 

Data collected by weather satellites since 1979 continue to exhibit some evidence of lower atmospheric warming, with estimated trends ranging near the low end of past IPCC forecasts. There is no significant warming in the tropical troposphere (the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere), which accounts for half the world’s atmosphere, despite model predictions that warming should be amplified there."

[sunsettommy]

ecoli,

 

Okay, maybe we need more research to be certain. I don't want to jump to conclusions and create widespread panic any more than the next guy. And, yes, I'm basing what I say in this thread purely on An Inconvenient Truth. But if I may do this, then what the data shows is that the current rise in temperature is anything but natural. We have never had a rise as sharp or as high as this in the past 650,000 - not even close. You say that the world has been warmer than it already is, but that's not what Gore said. The world goes through periodic warm and cold cycles, and he clearly pointed out that it never goes above a certain temperature. In the late twentieth century, we went past that ceiling by two times!

 

 

Millions of years ago there was a period of time when earth went through a "hothouse" climate phase.No ice was present at the poles and life struggles to survive.

 

Plus there are a number of times in the climate past where the planets temperature were way above what we have seen in the 20th century.

 

Gore is way off.

[Icemelt]

[/i][/b]

 

Hi Icemelt,

if I understand what you're saying correctly, this argument about the troposphere was used in the "Swindle" movie. (Which has now been shown to be of dubious character.)

 

John Houghton — head of the IPCC — replies to the "Swindle" arguments here.

 

[/color]

 

You are correct in as much as the original radiosonde measurements were discredited, however you are incorrect in saying that the matter has been resolved. Later measurements submitted and approved by the IPCC failed to confirm that the troposphere is warming significantly faster than the surface, which is essential for the GHG cause to be substantiated. In fact the April 2007 IPCC report confirmed that many of the measurements showed that the surface was warming faster than the troposphere, and that in their opinion the combined results from all latitudes were inconclusive.

[1veedo]

You are correct in as much as the original radiosonde measurements were discredited, however you are incorrect in saying that the matter has been resolved. Later measurements submitted and approved by the IPCC failed to confirm that the troposphere is warming significantly faster than the surface, which is essential for the GHG cause to be substantiated. In fact the April 2007 IPCC report confirmed that many of the measurements showed that the surface was warming faster than the troposphere, and that in their opinion the combined results from all latitudes were inconclusive.

Did you read a single thing Peak Oil Man posted or do you just enjoy repeating yourself over and over again?

[snake oil]

Hello, im new here too.

Is anyone here actually makeing bio diesel?i am making modified used vegetable oil ( similar to bio diesel). I am having trouble with the settling out process. I have been collecting used vegetable oil from chip shops and resturants wich is a mixture of red oil (good) white fat (not so good) and food waste (bad). This is then left in the sun in containers and is then thermically sorted into the three components.The red oil is then poured off the top into the filters and the first stage of filtration is complete.

If anyone has any tips on speeding up the settling out period i would be gratefull.