U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'[W;96]

Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:

I am trying to make people aware of other AGW gases like Methane. Prior to most of the posts here being deleted, did you read that other article of Jorgenson that I told you about?

Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I don't think i saw a reference to it.

Is it an article, or another story?

Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Lord of Planar said:

No, I didn't. I don't think i saw a reference to it.

Is it an article, or another story?

Click to expand...

Errr... If you are going to call my sources as "another storie" then what are we doing here? I expect you to read my sources, critically evaluate them, and come back with an honest opinion.

If the previous AGW findings of Christianson & Gale (1999) are just more stories to you I do not see why I should provide you my main source!

I stated methane is another green house gas that causes global warming. On molecular level I stated that it is 10 times worse. You stated (without sources) that it is 30 times worse but that this effect would fade should methane be as widespread as CO2.

At which point I pointed to you why I was emphasizing methane as an interesting alternative AGW gas. The article then was removed due to the Debate's Saturday Malfunction issue.

So now I would like to re-post the removed article for it is my main source for this debate. But are you serious and interested? I do not wish to throw this out there to people who consider sources without reading that they are just "another AGW unfounded story!"

Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:

Errr... If you are going to call my sources as "another storie" then what are we doing here? I expect you to read my sources, critically evaluate them, and come back with an honest opinion.

If the previous AGW findings of Christianson & Gale (1999) are just more stories to you I do not see why I should provide you my main source!

I stated methane is another green house gas that causes global warming. On molecular level I stated that it is 10 times worse. You stated (without sources) that it is 30 times worse but that this effect would fade should methane be as widespread as CO2.

At which point I pointed to you why I was emphasizing methane as an interesting alternative AGW gas. The article then was removed due to the Debate's Saturday Malfunction issue.

So now I would like to re-post the removed article for it is my main source for this debate. But are you serious and interested? I do not wish to throw this out there to people who consider sources without reading that they are just "another AGW unfounded story!"

Click to expand...

Christianson, G. (1999). Greenhouse: The 200 year story of global warming. Walker and Company

Click to expand...

That is not an article. It is a book on history of warming... A story...

You keep referring to it and are incorrect in the only fact you state. How about quoting other facts?

You say CH4 is 10 time stringer than CO2 molecvile per molecule. At current levels, CH4 is more than 30 time stronger. You are off aby a factor of 3. Why should I attempt to read the book, when that fact is so far off?

Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Lord of Planar said:

That is not an article. It is a book on history of warming... A story...

You keep referring to it and are incorrect in the only fact you state. How about quoting other facts?

You say CH4 is 10 time stringer than CO2 molecvile per molecule. At current levels, CH4 is more than 30 time stronger. You are off aby a factor of 3. Why should I attempt to read the book, when that fact is so far off?

Click to expand...

According to which findings is it far off?

Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:

According to which findings is it far off?

Click to expand...

I'm losing my patience with you.

I have already stated I could find the first chapter in that book, and it didn't peak my interest to go out to pay money to read more of it.

Care to quote the pertinent parts?

DDD post #131 said:

Get a hold of this article, criticize it, and then we will talk:

Christianson, G. (1999). Greenhouse: The 200 year story of global warming. Walker and Company

Click to expand...

My God man. It's not an article. It's a book:

link: Greenhouse: The 200-Year Story of Global Warming

Greenhouse is the illuminating history behind a scientific idea that fills's today's headlines. Christianson, author of Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae, blends the research of a scholar with a novelist's storytelling skill. As the full range of its elements come into focus, global warming becomes both a memorable human drama and an integral part of our planet's history. An essential book for anyone interested in the history of science and the very nature of scientific inquiry and speculation.

Click to expand...

#143:

Lord of Planar post #143 said:

Found the first chapter available online. Didn't peak my interest at all.

I assume you own a copy. How about telling me where it disagrees with me and how. I assume you disagree with my points.

Click to expand...

DDD post #148 said:

Well briefly it mentions that carbon is more widely spread than methane. But as I said, molecule for molecule methane is 10 times worse than carbon. I based my position on this assertion. Hence if you want to criticize my position you need to deal with that study first.

Click to expand...

I did address this. It is the FACT that even us climate skeptics accept what the IPCC and other alarmists mean when they say "radiative efficiency," and the accepted value is more than 30 times. Not the 10 times you speak of. You completely fail to elaborate any insight on this 10 times, other than "Simon Says."

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Lord of Planar said:

I did address this. It is the FACT that even us climate skeptics accept what the IPCC and other alarmists mean when they say "radiative efficiency," and the accepted value is more than 30 times. Not the 10 times you speak of. You completely fail to elaborate any insight on this 10 times, other than "Simon Says."

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Click to expand...

You skeptics? That is like saying "scientists" or "experts" have said this or that! Planar, provide sources or references about the agreed upon 30 times radiative efficiency of methane if you please?

It would be interesting to see you provide a book or an article with 30 and I with 10. We can take it from there.

If you lost patience and no longer wish to continue, just know that my position was and is about making the audience aware of this gas. Most people speak of CO2 while methane is not mentioned as much. Methane too is damaging.

Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:

You skeptics? That is like saying "scientists" or "experts" have said this or that! Planar, provide sources or references about the agreed upon 30 times radiative efficiency of methane if you please?

Click to expand...

Wow...

I mentioned the IPCC. Have you ever turned to a single chapter of the AR4?

Here is one such chapter:

2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potentials

When I introduced my graph, I explained in effect, this part. Here is part of the linked material:

The radiative efficiency per kilogram of CO2 has been calculated using the same expression as for the CO2 RF in Section 2.3.1, with an updated background CO2 mixing ratio of 378 ppm. For a small perturbation from 378 ppm, the RF is 0.01413 W m–2 ppm–1 (8.7% lower than the TAR value).

Click to expand...

Look at this carefully: RF is 0.01413 W m–2 ppm–1. This means at the 378 ppm starting point, adding 1 ppm, will increase radiative forcing by 0.1413 watts per square meter. However, the chart below, and what the radiative efficiency has become is ppb. An increase in one molecule per billion rather than one molecule per million. The chart in the link has CO2 at 1.4 x 10[sup]-5[/sup] of increased forcing for the added 1 ppb. Please notice CO2 is the first line under "Radiative Efficiency (W m–2 ppb–1)." CH4 (methane) is next, at 3.7 x 10[sup]–4[/sup]. Now, if we divide 3.7 x 10[sup]–4[/sup] by 1.4 x 10[sup]-5[/sup], we get 26.4.

Oooops....

Looks like I'm wrong. It's more than 20 times greater, not more than 30. Closer to 30 than 20 though... Looking at molecule per molecule at starting levels.

Now look at my graph again. Please note how closely the IPCC numbers are to mine. My slope of 0.3664 on a ppm scale is 0.0003664 (3.664 x 10[sup]–4[/sup]) on the ppb scale. Very damn close to the IPCC number... My CO2 number is very close as well. 0.0141, or 0.0000141 on the ppb scale, (1.41 x 10[sup]-5[/sup].)

DDD said:

It would be interesting to see you provide a book or an article with 30 and I with 10. We can take it from there.

Click to expand...

You have never provided a link, as many times as I have asked.

I think it's all in your head.

DDD said:

If you lost patience and no longer wish to continue, just know that my position was and is about making the audience aware of this gas. Most people speak of CO2 while methane is not mentioned as much. Methane too is damaging.

Click to expand...

This audience is well aware of methane.

You haven't posted any links to support you contentions.

Is this a play to you?

I would like to add.

CO2 from preindustrial periods have increased by 36.3%, and CH2 has increased by 145.7%. Yet... the IPCC and other experts claim for this period, 1.66 W/m^2 of warming for CO2, and 0.48 W/m^2 for CH4.

Explain that... with the assumption CH4 is stronger than CO2.

Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Lord of Planar said:

Wow...

I mentioned the IPCC. Have you ever turned to a single chapter of the AR4?

Here is one such chapter:

2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potentials

When I introduced my graph, I explained in effect, this part. Here is part of the linked material:



Look at this carefully: RF is 0.01413 W m–2 ppm–1. This means at the 378 ppm starting point, adding 1 ppm, will increase radiative forcing by 0.1413 watts per square meter. However, the chart below, and what the radiative efficiency has become is ppb. An increase in one molecule per billion rather than one molecule per million. The chart in the link has CO2 at 1.4 x 10[sup]-5[/sup] of increased forcing for the added 1 ppb. Please notice CO2 is the first line under "Radiative Efficiency (W m–2 ppb–1)." CH4 (methane) is next, at 3.7 x 10[sup]–4[/sup]. Now, if we divide 3.7 x 10[sup]–4[/sup] by 1.4 x 10[sup]-5[/sup], we get 26.4.

Oooops....

Looks like I'm wrong. It's more than 20 times greater, not more than 30. Closer to 30 than 20 though... Looking at molecule per molecule at starting levels.

Now look at my graph again. Please note how closely the IPCC numbers are to mine. My slope of 0.3664 on a ppm scale is 0.0003664 (3.664 x 10[sup]–4[/sup]) on the ppb scale. Very damn close to the IPCC number... My CO2 number is very close as well. 0.0141, or 0.0000141 on the ppb scale, (1.41 x 10[sup]-5[/sup].)



You have never provided a link, as many times as I have asked.

I think it's all in your head.



This audience is well aware of methane.

You haven't posted any links to support you contentions.

Is this a play to you?

I would like to add.

CO2 from preindustrial periods have increased by 36.3%, and CH2 has increased by 145.7%. Yet... the IPCC and other experts claim for this period, 1.66 W/m^2 of warming for CO2, and 0.48 W/m^2 for CH4.

Explain that... with the assumption CH4 is stronger than CO2.

Click to expand...

I do not have links I have citations of books and articles. Here is another one for methane:

Jorgenson, A. K. (2006) Global warming and the neglected greenhouse gas. Social Forces, 84, 3, 1779-1798.

Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Also why would Christianson (1999) study state that methane is 10 times as worse while yours state 26 times? Could methane's radiative efficiency increased from 1999 up until 2007 until this study of yours took place?

References:

Christianson, G. (1999). Greenhouse: The 200 year story of global warming. Walker and Company.

Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:

I do not have links I have citations of books and articles. Here is another one for methane:

Jorgenson, A. K. (2006) Global warming and the neglected greenhouse gas. Social Forces, 84, 3, 1779-1798.

Click to expand...

Again, we understand methane. You obviously do not, since you cannot express it in your own words.

Goodbye.

Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Lord of Planar said:

Again, we understand methane. You obviously do not, since you cannot express it in your own words.

Goodbye.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you do, but not everyone else here might!

Also, I never said I was the expert on everything! Compared to just presenting an opinion I at least supported mine with references for the positions of my interest.

Farewell.

Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Besides, methane aside, people at the UN probably have data that point out to AGW be it with CO2, Methane, both and more!