The IPCC is Wrong

The math involved here is frankly beyond me, but you have to admit the claim should provoke discussion. I have no doubt there will be strenuous objections, and I'll be interested to see whether those are simple denunciations or someone will accept the math challenge.


The IPCC is Wrong

As a factor in Global Warming, increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 have been, and will continue to be, largely irrelevant. Guest essay submitted by William Van Brunt Copyright © William Van Brunt, 2016. All rights reserved. Summary The following are the basic principles and assumptions underlying the calculations set out in this paper:…
Continue reading →

. . . The following are the results of the applications of these principles:
A. The change in the Average Global Temperature for Land between 1880 and 2002 was 2.6oF. To effect such an increase requires an increase of 13.8 w/m2 in total Average Heating Power. The Maximum total increase in total Average Heating Power that the buildup of CO2 over this period could have effected is 1.6 w/m2 and the Maximum increase in the Average Global Temperature for Land that the buildup of CO2 over this period could drive cannot exceed 0.3 oF.
B. CO2 is not THE cause nor is it the primary cause of Global Warming
C. The Maximum increase in Average Global Temperature that a doubling of the concentration of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppmv can effect is 0.8oF. The IPCC’s predictions of 3.4oF to 7.9oF are 325% to 900% too high and this would require an increase in heating of 800% to 900% greater than that determined in accordance with the calculation set out in statement 3 above.
D. The IPCC is simply wrong. . . .

[h=3]Conclusion[/h]The IPCC’s determinations overstate, significantly, the role of CO2 in Global Warming and are wrong.
The change in the Average Global Temperature for Land between 1880 and 2002 was 2.6oF. To effect such an increase requires an increase of 13.8 w/m2 in Total Average Heating Power. The Maximum total increase in total Average Heating Power that the buildup of CO2 over this period could have effected is 1.6 w/m2. The Maximum increase in the Average Global Temperature for Land that the buildup of CO2 over this period could drive cannot exceed 0.3 oF. Comparing 1) the Maximum increase in heating power of 1.6 w/m2 to the required increase in power to effect a temperature change of Land of 2.6oF, 13.8 w/m2,2) the Maximum increase in temperature that can be effected by this increased heating of 1.6 w/m2, 0.3oF in the Average Global Temperature of Land, resulting from the actual increase in the concentration of CO2 between 1880 and 2002, to the actual temperature change of Land of 2.6oF and 3) comparing the correct prediction for a doubling of the concentration of CO2 of a Maximum increase of 0.8oF increase in Average Global Temperature compared to the IPCC’s range of 2.7 to 8.1oF, demonstrates, conclusively, that the IPCC is wrong. As a factor in Global Warming, increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 have been, and will continue to be, largely irrelevant.
This is not merely a scientific debate.
Governments across the globe are in the process of implementing and planning to implement, laws regulations, changes in taxing and offering direct and indirect subsidies and credits that in the future could result in costs that, in the aggregate, could equal the Annual Gross Domestic Product of the economies of all the countries in the World, based upon the determinations of and pronouncements from the IPCC. While potentially devastating to the economies and peoples of all nations, these efforts may not result in any meaningful reduction in the buildup of CO2, but even if they succeed in achieving this goal, this almost certainly will not result in a reduction of the Average Global Temperatures, because as a factor in Global Warming, the buildup of CO2 is largely irrelevant.

Jack Hays said:

[h=3]Conclusion[/h]The IPCC’s determinations overstate, significantly, the role of CO2 in Global Warming and are wrong.
The change in the Average Global Temperature for Land between 1880 and 2002 was 2.6oF. To effect such an increase requires an increase of 13.8 w/m2 in Total Average Heating Power. The Maximum total increase in total Average Heating Power that the buildup of CO2 over this period could have effected is 1.6 w/m2. The Maximum increase in the Average Global Temperature for Land that the buildup of CO2 over this period could drive cannot exceed 0.3 oF. Comparing 1) the Maximum increase in heating power of 1.6 w/m2 to the required increase in power to effect a temperature change of Land of 2.6oF, 13.8 w/m2,2) the Maximum increase in temperature that can be effected by this increased heating of 1.6 w/m2, 0.3oF in the Average Global Temperature of Land, resulting from the actual increase in the concentration of CO2 between 1880 and 2002, to the actual temperature change of Land of 2.6oF and 3) comparing the correct prediction for a doubling of the concentration of CO2 of a Maximum increase of 0.8oF increase in Average Global Temperature compared to the IPCC’s range of 2.7 to 8.1oF, demonstrates, conclusively, that the IPCC is wrong. As a factor in Global Warming, increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 have been, and will continue to be, largely irrelevant.
This is not merely a scientific debate.
Governments across the globe are in the process of implementing and planning to implement, laws regulations, changes in taxing and offering direct and indirect subsidies and credits that in the future could result in costs that, in the aggregate, could equal the Annual Gross Domestic Product of the economies of all the countries in the World, based upon the determinations of and pronouncements from the IPCC. While potentially devastating to the economies and peoples of all nations, these efforts may not result in any meaningful reduction in the buildup of CO2, but even if they succeed in achieving this goal, this almost certainly will not result in a reduction of the Average Global Temperatures, because as a factor in Global Warming, the buildup of CO2 is largely irrelevant.

Click to expand...

I would have thought that this was rather basic and a first steps kind of thing. As a matter of fact, I have seen simple calculations that contradict these conclusions. So it will be interesting to follow the discussions following this publication. After all, the author knew that he is poking into a hornets nest and that he is implying bad science of the save the climate scientists.

joG said:

I would have thought that this was rather basic and a first steps kind of thing. As a matter of fact, I have seen simple calculations that contradict these conclusions. So it will be interesting to follow the discussions following this publication. After all, the author knew that he is poking into a hornets nest and that he is implying bad science of the save the climate scientists.

Click to expand...

We shall see. Here's a bit about the author.

William Van Brunt is a practicing lawyer and President and CEO of JFA, LLC. Before attending law school, he was a senior scientist and part of a highly successful design team engaged in state of the art research and development for, and writing the complex software necessary to determine the aerodynamics and heating of hypersonic vehicles for the U.S. Air Force and Navy and probes into the planet Venus, for NASA. Relevant to this topic are the degrees he holds from the Pennsylvania State University, B.S. (Aeronautical Engineering) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, M.S. (Aeronautics and Astronautics), where he was elected to the Society of Sigma Xi. Fascinated by the claims made about the role of Carbon Dioxide in Global Warming and causes therefor, his is a novel, in depth and totally independent assessment of this topic.

Jack Hays said:

The math involved here is frankly beyond me.

Click to expand...

You have my sympathy. Then take a gander at this.

Nono said:

You have my sympathy. Then take a gander at this.

Click to expand...

Thanks.


Arctic / Sea ice
Evidence that multidecadal Arctic sea ice has turned the corner

Guest essay by Javier* Arctic sea ice has been on a declining trend since at least 1979, and probably since the bottom of the Little Ice Age. 2007 was a bad year for Arctic sea ice. It got to a low maximum in March, although not as low as the previous year that still holds…

Conclusions
Empirical evidence supports the notion that a change of trend in Arctic sea ice took place in 2007. Due to that change, Arctic alarmists have been reduced to make climate claims based on daily data. It is very likely that Arctic sea ice might not significantly melt or even grow during the next few decades. The pause in Arctic melting was predicted in the scientific literature by 2014 before it was evident in the data. The pause in Arctic melting that started in 2007 is hereby officially inaugurated.

Quoted by @Jack Hays
"Empirical evidence supports the notion that a change of trend in Arctic sea ice took place in 2007."

Maybe you should take a real gander at this satellite evidence rather than just blithely skipping it.
You see 2007 come and go. See any "change of trend"? Neither do I.

Nono said:

Quoted by @Jack Hays
"Empirical evidence supports the notion that a change of trend in Arctic sea ice took place in 2007."

Maybe you should take a real gander at this satellite evidence rather than just blithely skipping it.
You see 2007 come and go. See any "change of trend"? Neither do I.

Click to expand...

I have seen the satellite evidence before.

So how can we identify a change of trend without having to wait 30 years? Trends are very important in the stock market, so investors have tools to indicate when the chances of a trend change are increasing, and technical analysis of stocks includes a figure, the symmetrical triangle, that looks similar to what Arctic sea ice is showing (figure 3). This figure indicates that the force that was driving the previous trend is debilitating and the new equilibrium of forces is increasingly constraining the values. At some point the triangle is broken and the trend resumed (figure 3 A) or a new trend started (figure 3 B). With this figure it is important to wait for a confirmation of the breaking, because false breaks do happen, as in 2012.

Figure 3. Maximum (March) and minimum (September) Arctic sea ice extent trends according to the Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facilities (OSI SAF) of EUMETSAT. Purple and blue lines help define triangles of progressively decreasing range variation with two possible scenarios. Scenario A is a downward break with a continuation of the previous trend, while scenario B is an upward break with the confirmation of a new trend. September 2012 constitutes a false break because it was not confirmed afterwards. Source: OSI SAF Ice Graphs.

Jack Hays said:

The math involved here is frankly beyond me, but you have to admit the claim should provoke discussion. I have no doubt there will be strenuous objections, and I'll be interested to see whether those are simple denunciations or someone will accept the math challenge.


The IPCC is Wrong

As a factor in Global Warming, increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 have been, and will continue to be, largely irrelevant. Guest essay submitted by William Van Brunt Copyright © William Van Brunt, 2016. All rights reserved. Summary The following are the basic principles and assumptions underlying the calculations set out in this paper:…
Continue reading →

. . . The following are the results of the applications of these principles:
A. The change in the Average Global Temperature for Land between 1880 and 2002 was 2.6oF. To effect such an increase requires an increase of 13.8 w/m2 in total Average Heating Power. The Maximum total increase in total Average Heating Power that the buildup of CO2 over this period could have effected is 1.6 w/m2 and the Maximum increase in the Average Global Temperature for Land that the buildup of CO2 over this period could drive cannot exceed 0.3 oF.
B. CO2 is not THE cause nor is it the primary cause of Global Warming
C. The Maximum increase in Average Global Temperature that a doubling of the concentration of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppmv can effect is 0.8oF. The IPCC’s predictions of 3.4oF to 7.9oF are 325% to 900% too high and this would require an increase in heating of 800% to 900% greater than that determined in accordance with the calculation set out in statement 3 above.
D. The IPCC is simply wrong. . . .

Click to expand...

I haven't run his math, but it doesn't seem right. It appears he is using 0 W/m^2 as the zero point. Once we move away from simple black body calculations, and introduce feedback, the zero point is offset.

I agree with the approximate levels he derives, but remain skeptical on his methodology.

Lord of Planar said:

I haven't run his math, but it doesn't seem right. It appears he is using 0 W/m^2 as the zero point. Once we move away from simple black body calculations, and introduce feedback, the zero point is offset.

I agree with the approximate levels he derives, but remain skeptical on his methodology.

Click to expand...

Your call. I had you in mind when I posted this.

Jack Hays said:

The math involved here is frankly beyond me, but you have to admit the claim should provoke discussion. I have no doubt there will be strenuous objections, and I'll be interested to see whether those are simple denunciations or someone will accept the math challenge.


The IPCC is Wrong

As a factor in Global Warming, increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 have been, and will continue to be, largely irrelevant. Guest essay submitted by William Van Brunt Copyright © William Van Brunt, 2016. All rights reserved. Summary The following are the basic principles and assumptions underlying the calculations set out in this paper:…
Continue reading →

. . . The following are the results of the applications of these principles:
A. The change in the Average Global Temperature for Land between 1880 and 2002 was 2.6oF. To effect such an increase requires an increase of 13.8 w/m2 in total Average Heating Power. The Maximum total increase in total Average Heating Power that the buildup of CO2 over this period could have effected is 1.6 w/m2 and the Maximum increase in the Average Global Temperature for Land that the buildup of CO2 over this period could drive cannot exceed 0.3 oF.
B. CO2 is not THE cause nor is it the primary cause of Global Warming
C. The Maximum increase in Average Global Temperature that a doubling of the concentration of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppmv can effect is 0.8oF. The IPCC’s predictions of 3.4oF to 7.9oF are 325% to 900% too high and this would require an increase in heating of 800% to 900% greater than that determined in accordance with the calculation set out in statement 3 above.
D. The IPCC is simply wrong. . . .

Click to expand...

That can happen when predictive models are created with built-in assumptions that confuse cause and effect.
And THAT can happen when entire careers and industries depend on it.
It's an ugly conflation of career survival and hubris.

bubbabgone said:

That can happen when predictive models are created with built-in assumptions that confuse cause and effect.
And THAT can happen when entire careers and industries depend on it.
It's an ugly conflation of career survival and hubris.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but in this thread it's all about the math.

Jack Hays said:

Your call. I had you in mind when I posted this.

Click to expand...

I'll review it in more detail later. I may not have the time required to review it well for a few days. I like that it agrees with my beliefs, but that doesn't automatically mean I will endorse the methodology.

Jack Hays said:

[h=3]Conclusion[/h]The IPCC’s determinations overstate, significantly, the role of CO2 in Global Warming and are wrong.
The change in the Average Global Temperature for Land between 1880 and 2002 was 2.6oF. To effect such an increase requires an increase of 13.8 w/m2 in Total Average Heating Power. The Maximum total increase in total Average Heating Power that the buildup of CO2 over this period could have effected is 1.6 w/m2. The Maximum increase in the Average Global Temperature for Land that the buildup of CO2 over this period could drive cannot exceed 0.3 oF. Comparing 1) the Maximum increase in heating power of 1.6 w/m2 to the required increase in power to effect a temperature change of Land of 2.6oF, 13.8 w/m2,2) the Maximum increase in temperature that can be effected by this increased heating of 1.6 w/m2, 0.3oF in the Average Global Temperature of Land, resulting from the actual increase in the concentration of CO2 between 1880 and 2002, to the actual temperature change of Land of 2.6oF and 3) comparing the correct prediction for a doubling of the concentration of CO2 of a Maximum increase of 0.8oF increase in Average Global Temperature compared to the IPCC’s range of 2.7 to 8.1oF, demonstrates, conclusively, that the IPCC is wrong. As a factor in Global Warming, increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 have been, and will continue to be, largely irrelevant.
This is not merely a scientific debate.
Governments across the globe are in the process of implementing and planning to implement, laws regulations, changes in taxing and offering direct and indirect subsidies and credits that in the future could result in costs that, in the aggregate, could equal the Annual Gross Domestic Product of the economies of all the countries in the World, based upon the determinations of and pronouncements from the IPCC. While potentially devastating to the economies and peoples of all nations, these efforts may not result in any meaningful reduction in the buildup of CO2, but even if they succeed in achieving this goal, this almost certainly will not result in a reduction of the Average Global Temperatures, because as a factor in Global Warming, the buildup of CO2 is largely irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Wow! So all the people on this planet, with the exception of the fantastically wealthy elite, will be taxed to fight global warming caused by CO2, but in the end it won't make any difference at all because CO2 buildup is largely irrelevant in causing global warming?!?

So who is going to challenge the IPCC's determinations for proof that they are correct; why are the extremely wealthy pushing this agenda; who is going to receive all the money collected, and who will determine how it will be spent? BTW, these questions have all been asked many times before, but I've never yet seen them answered! :thumbdown:

polgara said:

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Wow! So all the people on this planet, with the exception of the fantastically wealthy elite, will be taxed to fight global warming caused by CO2, but in the end it won't make any difference at all because CO2 buildup is largely irrelevant in causing global warming?!?

So who is going to challenge the IPCC's determinations for proof that they are correct; why are the extremely wealthy pushing this agenda; who is going to receive all the money collected, and who will determine how it will be spent? BTW, these questions have all been asked many times before, but I've never yet seen them answered! :thumbdown:

Click to expand...

Good evening, polgara.:2wave:

Keep in mind this is just a provocative math exercise to this point.:mrgreen:

Jack Hays said:

Good evening, polgara.:2wave:

Keep in mind this is just a provocative math exercise to this point.:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

The article seems to state that CO2 emissions are not the sole or major cause of global warming. The article seems to admit that global warming has occurred of the last 200 years. But the Article does not suggest an alternative cause for Global Warming.

Perhaps the real cause of Global warming is Methane gas, CH4, caused by an increase in dairy and beef consumption, together with careless oil and gas drilling..
Perhaps the answer to Global Warming is more Veggie Burgers, and non dairy milk. Together with more carefull oil and gas drilling.

"While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 28% of the warming CO2 contributes. Here is a graph of the various forcings that influence climate (methane is CH4, right above CO2).'

https://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm



Methane?s Contribution to Global Warming is Worse than You Thought | Latest News | Earth Island Journal | Earth Island Institute


Ch4 56 times more Greenhouse effect than CO2

Methane?s Contribution to Global Warming is Worse than You Thought | Latest News | Earth Island Journal | Earth Island Institute


"Environmental advocates are trying to change how policymakers consider the climate impacts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.The change, if implemented, could make natural gas a less attractive option for generating electricity in power plants.
At issue is the global warming potential (GWP), a number that allows experts to compare methane with its better-known cousin, carbon dioxide. While CO2 persists in the atmosphere for centuries, or even millennia, methane warms the planet on steroids for a decade or two before decaying to CO2.
In those short decades, methane warms the planet by 86 times as much as CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But policymakers typically ignore methane's warming potential over 20 years (GWP20) when assembling a nation's emissions inventory. Instead, they stretch out methane's warming impacts over a century, which makes the gas appear more benign than it is, experts said. The 100-year warming potential (GWP100) of methane is 34, according to the IPCC."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/







//

Jack Hays said:

The math involved here is frankly beyond me, but you have to admit
the claim should provoke discussion. I have no doubt there will be
strenuous objections, and I'll be interested to see whether those are
simple denunciations or someone will accept the math challenge ...

Click to expand...

Math? We ain't got no math, we don't need no math,
we don't have to show you no stinking math!​

All you have to do is look out your window. Winters here in the central
United States are warmer and summers are cooler. I've read accounts
that this pattern is true in other parts of the globe as well.

So, it takes this 13 watts/m2 to increase temperature by what was observed.

The sun seems to have increased by about a watt.
CO2 allegedly adds a similar amount.

Where's he think the rest of the energy is coming from?

part 1 of 2:

Gladiator said:

The article seems to state that CO2 emissions are not the sole or major cause of global warming. The article seems to admit that global warming has occurred of the last 200 years. But the Article does not suggest an alternative cause for Global Warming.

Click to expand...

There are several natural cycles. The IPCC uses 1750 as a starting point, near the end of the Maunder Minima. The sun started increasing in intensity 37 years before the start the IPCC uses. Since then, it has increased over 0.2% That may seem like a minimal amount of influence, but the rest of the earth systems are feedback to the input power of solar radiation. Here is how a 0.18% increase would change the earths energy balance applying the solar flux across the board:



Solar studies that try to determine changes vary by a great deal, and 0.18% is less than the average of them. The graphic I used is a simplified one of the study the IPCC AR4 used. They determined the total global warming in the AR4 was 1.6 W/m^2, and this shows that a 0.18% solar change is a rather large percentage of that.

Gladiator said:

Perhaps the real cause of Global warming is Methane gas, CH4, caused by an increase in dairy and beef consumption, together with careless oil and gas drilling..
Perhaps the answer to Global Warming is more Veggie Burgers, and non dairy milk. Together with more carefull oil and gas drilling.

Click to expand...

They alarmists reall have people fooled with them saying how much more potent CH4 is over CO2. That concept is far from the truth. They use RE (Radiative Efficiency) and GWP (Global Warming Potential) that have a specific meaning, and only over a very small percentage of change. Please understand this illustration:



The forcing of greenhouse gasses follow a log curve. RE and GWP only apply to one added ppb (part per billion) and doesn't carry through larger changes. Please note that on the power levels, CO2 is far stronger than CH4 at the same levels of concentration.

Gladiator said:

"While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 28% of the warming CO2 contributes. Here is a graph of the various forcings that influence climate (methane is CH4, right above CO2).'

https://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm

Click to expand...

The blog, Skeptical Science, is a punditry blog. They lie and misdirect to deceive. The 28% mentioned is not the difference in warming between CO2 and CH4, but the difference in change from 1750 to 2004. On a log curve, CH4 has about a 2 W/m^2 forcing, and CO2 about a 32 W/m^2. This makes CH4 only 6% of the warming that CO2 has. The AR4 claims a 1.66 W/m^2 increase for CO2, and a 0.48 W/m^2 increase for CH4. The 28% is the change, not the whole.

part 2 of 2:

Gladiator said:

Methane?s Contribution to Global Warming is Worse than You Thought | Latest News | Earth Island Journal | Earth Island Institute


Ch4 56 times more Greenhouse effect than CO2

Methane?s Contribution to Global Warming is Worse than You Thought | Latest News | Earth Island Journal | Earth Island Institute


"Environmental advocates are trying to change how policymakers consider the climate impacts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.The change, if implemented, could make natural gas a less attractive option for generating electricity in power plants.
At issue is the global warming potential (GWP), a number that allows experts to compare methane with its better-known cousin, carbon dioxide. While CO2 persists in the atmosphere for centuries, or even millennia, methane warms the planet on steroids for a decade or two before decaying to CO2.
In those short decades, methane warms the planet by 86 times as much as CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But policymakers typically ignore methane's warming potential over 20 years (GWP20) when assembling a nation's emissions inventory. Instead, they stretch out methane's warming impacts over a century, which makes the gas appear more benign than it is, experts said. The 100-year warming potential (GWP100) of methane is 34, according to the IPCC."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/

Click to expand...

More tripe, as I explained above.

The numbers are real for the way calculated, but it has no meaning in real application.

If you go back to the graph in my last post, CH4 has to increase by a factor of around 30 to equal the change that CO2 had with a 36% increase.

Jack Hays said:

Agreed, but in this thread it's all about the math.

Click to expand...

Glad we have the Lord for that so I don't have to try to piece it out.

Lord of Planar said:

part 1 of 2:


There are several natural cycles. The IPCC uses 1750 as a starting point, near the end of the Maunder Minima. The sun started increasing in intensity 37 years before the start the IPCC uses. Since then, it has increased over 0.2% That may seem like a minimal amount of influence, but the rest of the earth systems are feedback to the input power of solar radiation. Here is how a 0.18% increase would change the earths energy balance applying the solar flux across the board:

Solar studies that try to determine changes vary by a great deal, and 0.18% is less than the average of them. The graphic I used is a simplified one of the study the IPCC AR4 used. They determined the total global warming in the AR4 was 1.6 W/m^2, and this shows that a 0.18% solar change is a rather large percentage of that.


They alarmists reall have people fooled with them saying how much more potent CH4 is over CO2. That concept is far from the truth. They use RE (Radiative Efficiency) and GWP (Global Warming Potential) that have a specific meaning, and only over a very small percentage of change. Please understand this illustration:

The forcing of greenhouse gasses follow a log curve. RE and GWP only apply to one added ppb (part per billion) and doesn't carry through larger changes. Please note that on the power levels, CO2 is far stronger than CH4 at the same levels of concentration.


The blog, Skeptical Science, is a punditry blog. They lie and misdirect to deceive. The 28% mentioned is not the difference in warming between CO2 and CH4, but the difference in change from 1750 to 2004. On a log curve, CH4 has about a 2 W/m^2 forcing, and CO2 about a 32 W/m^2. This makes CH4 only 6% of the warming that CO2 has. The AR4 claims a 1.66 W/m^2 increase for CO2, and a 0.48 W/m^2 increase for CH4. The 28% is the change, not the whole.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

part 2 of 2:


More tripe, as I explained above.

The numbers are real for the way calculated, but it has no meaning in real application.

If you go back to the graph in my last post, CH4 has to increase by a factor of around 30 to equal the change that CO2 had with a 36% increase.

Click to expand...

Math and methane aside, it always seemed to me that the IPCC has continually chosen to accept studies that assume or ignore certain climate factors because they simply can't be measured other than in real time, and even then don't lend themselves to easy global data gathering. But those climate factors are not the ones under human control.
That practice started long ago and once started on that path it perpetuated itself.

The IPCC exposed themselves a long time ago. They arent about right or wrong. They are about a welfare wealth redistribution scheme. The only people that actually believe the IPCC WANT to believe.

bubbabgone said:

Math and methane aside, it always seemed to me that the IPCC has continually chosen to accept studies that assume or ignore certain climate factors because they simply can't be measured other than in real time, and even then don't lend themselves to easy global data gathering. But those climate factors are not the ones under human control.
That practice started long ago and once started on that path it perpetuated itself.

Click to expand...

Not very scientific. Is it...

bubbabgone said:

Math and methane aside, it always seemed to me that the IPCC has continually chosen to accept studies that assume or ignore certain climate factors because they simply can't be measured other than in real time, and even then don't lend themselves to easy global data gathering. But those climate factors are not the ones under human control.
That practice started long ago and once started on that path it perpetuated itself.

Click to expand...

Give several examples of this trend you've noticed.