SEARCH BLOG: GLOBAL WARMING
Climate Science has a post regarding issues with the IPCC report. In that post is a link to:
A new contribution to the website Scitizen was posted on February 19, 2007. The title is “Missed Opportunity By The IPCC”A second link in that post is
"from the 2005 NRC Report “Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties” to illustrate the failing of the IPCC Report to accurately represent the perspective of views on the human forcing of the climate system."An interesting graphic from the executive summary:
Figure ES-2 shows the magnitude of several important forcings as estimated in the most recent synthesis report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001). The largest positive forcing (warming) in Figure ES-2 is from the increase of well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, nitrous oxide [N2O], methane [CH4], and chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]) and amounted to 2.4 W m−2 (watts per square meter) between the years 1750 and 2000. Of the forcings shown in the figure, the radiative impact of aerosols is the greatest uncertainty.
So, what is the purpose of showing this chart from the IPCC? Perhaps to point out that the models used to verify the equation that "greater CO2 equals greater global warming" have fairly high levels of uncertainty based on very low level of scientific understanding of how climate is impacted by several important factors.
Interestingly, one of those factors associated with a low level of scientific understanding is aerosols... you know, the stuff we are pumping into the air along with the CO2. Why do those have a negative impact roughly the same as CO2's positive impact? Or do they, since the scientific level of understanding is very low? Well, let's call it an educated guess based on a very low level of understanding. Oooops.
I plowed through the source report... "Radiative forcings..." one evening and it is not the kind of document that will be read by Sen. Levin or any other politician. But it is the kind of information that should be discussed before we start intentionally tinkering with our atmosphere after years of unintentionally altering it... especially at the cost of billions of dollars. So, just click on the link near the top of this post and start reading. Give yourself at least 1/2 day for the first read-through. Then go back through the parts that gave you the headache the first time.Now about that super-volcano at Yellowstone National Park that is about to annihilate us... nah, too much to think about. (For those who think annihilate and decimate mean the same thing, look them up... I prefer decimation given the two bad choices). The global warming issues don't approach either of those levels... anywhere near those levels... even worst case.