ctg

ctg

55p

131 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

487 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - People talkin' (open t... · 0 replies · +1 points

Bugger.

Here it is in full: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/...

But it's still you that's wrong.

487 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - People talkin' (open t... · 0 replies · +1 points

It would interesting to extend Tamino's bet idea to the ETS.

People (and businesses) should be free to choose their tax rate under the ETS. The actual taxes due would then be linked to temperature. If you chose a rate that was more than the actual warming that occurred, you would get a rebate. If you chose a rate that was lower than the actual warming, you would be liable for the difference between what you had paid and what you should have paid.

It's then up to everyone to make their own decisions about what is actually going to happen, rather than just hoping AGW is going to go away.

Girma, for instance, is so firmly convinced that there is going to be cooling any day now, that he would pick a zero tax rate, because then he doesn't have to pay any tax now, and will make money once temperatures start to drop.

Of course, in the real world, he'd be faced with mounting evidence of the folly of his ways, but hey - that's his choice.

487 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - People talkin' (open t... · 1 reply · +1 points

Looks like a 'D' to me.

As in 'D' for Denial...

487 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - People talkin' (open t... · 0 replies · +1 points

All of the above is wrong, as I have explained before.

For a start, as I said before, even if CO2 were the only forcing agent (which it's not), then seeing the same rate of warming at two different periods would not disprove CO2's effect, as CO2 has a logarthmic effect.

But as I have also said, you are not looking at the effects of CO2, you are looking at the net radiative forcing. The IPCC does not dispute the fact that net radiative forcing has changed over time.

You are arguing against a straw man, Girma.

487 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - People talkin' (open t... · 4 replies · +1 points

So, what does that mean for your graph?

Well, you are doing a univariate analysis of temperature against time. This means that in your analysis, temperature is acting as a proxy for the net radiative forcing, not just for CO2.

If you wanted to see what contribution CO2 has made to temperature changes, you would need to do a multivariate analysis, including temperature, CO2, CH4, N20, O3, Black carbon, aerosol direct effects, cloud albedo, solar irradiance and volcanic activity.

But you haven't done that - you are only looking at changes in temperature, so all that tells us is that the net radiative forcing has changed over time.

The flat period in the 1940s - 1970s is easily explained due to the massive increase in aerosols from the spike in industrial activity starting in WWII. The various clean air acts and acid rain legislation led to a drop in aerosol production (relative to CO2), which then reducing the offsetting negative forcing.

In short, then: all your graph shows is that net radiative forcing has changed over time. It does not, and cannot show the effects of CO2 alone. Your conclusion is therefore 100% incorrect.

487 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - People talkin' (open t... · 2 replies · +1 points

It's interesting that you chose not to answer my question, but instead answered a completely different question. Why is that, I wonder?

Okay, so I will state it again: Does the IPCC claim that CO2 is the only factor that influences climate?

As I very much doubt you will ever answer this question, I will answer it for you: No.

As you can see here, there are many different forcing agents, some of which are positive, and some of which are negative. (There are also some other natural forcings that are not shown, as these have not changed significantly in the last 150 years).

At the bottom of the graph it shows the "net radiative forcing", which is the sum of all the negative and positive values. Not that the net forcing is a bit less than that of CO2 alone, and substantially less than the total of all the manmade GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, halocarbons) - because of the offsetting effects of aerosols and cloud albedo.

Note also that this graph refers to the forcings in 2005 as compared to pre-industrial. The relative contributions of each of the components has varied over time.

487 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - Terry keeps his clips on · 0 replies · +1 points

Odd sort of cross-examination, where the witness doesn't get to respond, and where the lawyer gets to make up what the witness says.

If only the real legal system worked like that...

487 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - People talkin' (open t... · 10 replies · +1 points

Just answer one question, Girma - yes or no.

Does the IPCC claim that CO2 is the only factor that influences climate?

Yes or no?

487 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - People talkin' (open t... · 0 replies · +2 points

I showed you several reasons why your chart is bogus. You responded by simply repeating your original assertions.

But the first and foremost problem is that your whole approach is simply invalid, as I have pointed out several times.

You cannot say what is causing changes in temperature just by looking at the temperature graph, no matter how you twist it, detrend it, turn it upside down or whatever.

Cannot. End of story.

Your conclusions about whether CO2 is causing warming or not are completely without scientific merit, as you would very quickly discover if you did submit a scientific paper to a real scientific journal.

Frankly, your stuff is so unscientific, I doubt even E&E would publish it.

487 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - People talkin' (open t... · 4 replies · +1 points

Well, because he would have to change the content to get it published in a real journal. Like including some actual statistics, for example.

But, no, I think our Girma is happier publishing in blog science, where physics doesn't matter, and he can make up his own statistics to his heart's content.