theblogprof: BBC unintentionally admits that global warming is a hoax!
Now, what interested me about the article the most is the above argument is a tacit admission that any extra CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't stay in the atmosphere but is rather absorbed by various surfaces and media including the ocean. This undermines the alarmists claim that extra CO2 produced by man remains in the atmosphere and causes global warming. you cannot have both. Either the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere or it does not.Forests fight back all over the world - Nature, Environment - The Independent
Forests are often referred to as the planet's lungs, acting as huge carbon sinks that absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow and trap large amounts within their biomass and surrounding soil.Tom Nelson
CO2 dissolves in water as carbonic acid and converts to calcium carbonate. The calcium carbonate falls to the bottom of the ocean where it is used by creatures to make their shells. It happens quickly as you can see. There is enough Calcium in the oceans to combine with all the coal and oil produced CO2 currently in the Earth 100 times over.The Human CO2 Legacy Keeps Going and Going and Going – The Great Energy Challenge
Think of it, hundreds of thousands of years from now, some of the CO2 we emit today will still be in the atmosphere, keeping on warming it. A bit like ghosts from an enchanter fleeing…
You need to reexamine your logic.
If you have water running from a faucet, some of it goes down the drain. If less goes down the drain than the faucet emits, water builds up in the sink basin.
I think even a child could understand that.
How much of today's water will still be in my sink hundreds of thousands of years from now?
> How much of today's water
> will still be in my sink
> hundreds of thousands of
> years from now?
In what way is that question relevant to today's concerns about CO2?
Because the IPCC claims that co2 in the atmosphere has a resident half live just this side of plutonium.
Here’s what the IPCC actually says: “While more than half of the CO2 emitted is currently removed from the atmosphere within a century, some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many millennia” (IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch10 FAQ10.3 p824). The complete function is given in Fig 1a on the same page, and the CO2 response function (a sum of three exponentials, with the one decaying the slowest having an e-folding time of 172.9 yrs) in footnote a of IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch2 Table2.14 p212.
Do you disagree with these results and have better information?
I'm sorry, did you say results? Results are what you get from empirical analysis of actual data. The IPCC use models, not real data and the results are "predictions" not results. Moreover, the models from which these predictions arise are very low in accuracy (a fact the IPCC admits to) so though the reports when printed make good kindling for the fire, they not much use for anything else.
The IPCC certainly does NOT say that their predictions/projections are "low in accuracy."
In fact, here's what the 4AR WG1 Summary for Policymakers actually says:
"Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections."
And here's what the Executive Summary to the 4AR WG1 Ch8 says about models:
"Climate models are based on well-established physical principles and have been demonstrated to reproduce observed features of recent climate (see Chapters 8 and 9) and past climate changes (see Chapter 6). There is considerable confidence that Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental and larger scales. Confidence in these estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation)."
Note the words "considerable confidence."
> The IPCC use models, not real
> data and the results are
> "predictions" not results.
The IPCC uses models to project (not predict) future climate, because there is no other way to do it. They use real data, where it exists, to understand past climate. Their projections turn out to be fairly good -- certainly good enough to inform society that we need to do something about our GHG emissions.
You might also look at Figure 8.11 of the 4AR WG1 Ch8, which shows RMS errors of about 0.2 for temperature predictions, and about 0.75 for precipitation.
Post a Comment