On Fri, 03 Nov 06 11:22:33 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

The "greenhouse gases" has been defines as "CO2" it is clear as clear
can be! The "equivalent to" refers to "parts per million (ppm)" - a measure!

"gases" is plural, doofus.

That in no way addresses the challenge to the assertion that CO2 is a
"prototypical greenhouse gas, whose characteristics explain and define
all other GHGs..." -- which is what your "equivalence" implies...

It is history and it shows that high levels of CO2 does not correlate to
"human caused" as your dogma recites.

Nobody has ever claimed humans caused the CO2 to go up millions of years ago,
but we are the cause today.

So what?... Did 6000 ppm exterminate all life on Earth? Oh, that's
right...all life _was_ exterminated, which is why you are NOT arguing
with me now (since all life on Earth died)...

Wait, I think that I understand your argument Lloyd... Under your
model, all life _was_ exterminated and eliminated from the Earth (how
could it not be, at 6000 ppm of CO2). And then 6000 years ago _your_
god created life (and humans, and dinosaur bones, and pottery sherds
and...), and that's why you are now here to argue your creationist
nonsense with us...


Retief

In message , Retief
writes
On Fri, 03 Nov 06 11:22:33 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

The "greenhouse gases" has been defines as "CO2" it is clear as clear
can be! The "equivalent to" refers to "parts per million (ppm)" - a measure!

"gases" is plural, doofus.

That in no way addresses the challenge to the assertion that CO2 is a
"prototypical greenhouse gas, whose characteristics explain and define
all other GHGs..."

You've put this in quotes as though somebody had said it, but searching
for the phrase suggests otherwise.

CO2 is greenhouse gas. It doesn't explain and define others however,
but given that the effect of each gas can be measured and characterised,
any given amount of another gas can have an effect which can be
expressed as an amount of CO2 that would have the same effect.


-- which is what your "equivalence" implies...

In your dreams I think...


It is history and it shows that high levels of CO2 does not correlate to
"human caused" as your dogma recites.

Nobody has ever claimed humans caused the CO2 to go up millions of years ago,
but we are the cause today.

So what?... Did 6000 ppm exterminate all life on Earth? Oh, that's
right...all life _was_ exterminated, which is why you are NOT arguing
with me now (since all life on Earth died)...

Doesn't mean that modern life / agriculture / ecosystems etc would cope
well.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In article , Retief writes:
On Fri, 03 Nov 06 11:22:33 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

The "greenhouse gases" has been defines as "CO2" it is clear as clear
can be! The "equivalent to" refers to "parts per million (ppm)" - a measure!

"gases" is plural, doofus.

That in no way addresses the challenge to the assertion that CO2 is a
"prototypical greenhouse gas, whose characteristics explain and define
all other GHGs..." -- which is what your "equivalence" implies...


I do not think most climate models use equivalent CO2 anymore.
Nowadays it is mostly used as a way of expressing
the greenhouse gases as one number.


Øyvind Seland

In message , Retief
writes
On Thu, 02 Nov 06 11:35:01 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

No, it says: "The current level or stock of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere
is equivalent to around 430 parts per million (ppm) CO2, compared with only
280ppm before the Industrial Revolution. These concentrations have already
caused the world to warm by more than half a degree Celsius and will lead to
at least a further half degree warming over the next few decades, because of
the inertia in the climate system."

All the GH gases are equivalent to CO2 of 430 ppm.

This is simply not true:

http://www.profc.udec.cl/~gabriel/tu...cp1/1-11-2.gif

Clearly these different gases have different absorption spectra, and
can never be "equivalent to CO2"...

They can have a net thermal effect similar to CO2.


That is, the response of CO2 to a shifting spectrum is different than
the other gases.

What do you mean by a "shifting spectrum" ?


And NOAA notes that the solar emission spectrum has changed:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/p...olar_variabili
ty/lean2000_irradiance.txt

"Estimated increases since 1675 are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad
ultraviolet, visible/near infrared and infrared spectral bands, with
a total irradiance increase of 0.2%."

So ?


BTW, from a historical standpoint, we are at a very low atmospheric
CO2 concentration...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...on_Dioxide.png

Not from a human civilization standpoint. What does it matter what happened
millions of years ago? Heck, why not go back to the big bang -- CO2 was zero
then!

Oh, you mean that the Earth supports no life, because a "climate
catastrophe" (as you predict impending) has exterminated all life,
when those past CO2 concentrations went up to an estimated 5-6000 ppm?

I's sure that if he'd intended to say something stupid and out of
context he could have managed it without your help !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Orator
writes

Lloyd Parker wrote:


All the GH gases are equivalent to CO2 of 430 ppm.


Man, talk about spin-doctoring! How much are you getting paid for this?


Actually - all he's done to work out the meaning is read what's written.

Bull****! It is far far too simplistic, but then what else can one
expect from him?

Why can't you ?

I'm very good at doing that, and don't get taken in by raw flim-flam.


The "greenhouse gases" has been defines as "CO2" it is clear as clear
can be!


Where ?

In the text -more later.


The "equivalent to" refers to "parts per million (ppm)" - a measure!

Again in the unlikely event that it was intended as you say, it is no
less than scientific fraud to give a deliberate impression it is
solely CO2,


But they don't ! That's why they say "equivalent".

Oh yes they do say that in a footnote in barely readable size text! Then
they use "CO2e" as that. We know very well that "CO2" is Carbon dioxide
- the "e" is an unscientific private definition as other gasses cannot
be termed CO2! Who's ever heard of that notion in any event.

They use the comparison to CO2 alone:
"..compared with only 280ppm [CO2] before the Industrial Revolution."

....and this in the footnote:

"1 Referred to hereafter as CO2 equivalent, CO2e"

In other words, they imply a rise of 150ppm from "pre industrial
revolution" (whenever that was). This is a blatant lie as they don't
have a "pre-industrial" CO2e! It is a direct comparison to CO2 alone,
and assuming HONEST scientific reporting then the 430 must also be CO2
alone!

Nor do they tell, by what principles, or how they have worked out an
"equivalent" of other gases to CO2. I question the validity of such a
notion in any event. The source of each gas is different and has a
different remedy as a consequence.

and made even worse by then comparing it solely to CO2! It is _fraud_
on par with the Piltdown man!


Nonsense - it's just a way ox expressing the aggregate effect of a
basket of GHGs. There is nothing new here - at least not to those
familiar with the subject.

It is fraud and they focus on to use the singular "greenhouse gas" a
total of 22 times, and use "carbon" 87 times. They use "methane" 3
times, once in an explanatory term, once in "natural methane" and once
in a "the sky is falling" statement.

That is in the "executive summary" alone! So there is no question that
they have resorted to outright fraud on par with the Piltdown man!

Note these few examples of a number of such instances:
"...a direct result of rising carbon dioxide levels..."

"Costs will be incurred as the world shifts from a high-carbon to a
low-carbon trajectory...."

"...much as 75%, decarbonised by 2050 to stabilise at or below 550ppm CO2e"

"...of greenhouse-gas concentrations well beyond 750ppm CO2e,..."

"social costs of carbon on .... towards stabilisation at 550ppm CO2e,"

Then there are these kind of statements that requires close scrutiny:

A footnote in relation to temperatures: "5 All changes in global mean
temperature are expressed relative to pre-industrial levels (1750 - 1850)."

"Global mean temperatures" eh - bull****. That is nearing the end of the
Little Ice Age! If one is to believe the AGW muftis in this group then
it was only a "local" affair, not "global"! If one is to disregard the
AGW muftis it is still bogus as it is a comparison of temperatures from
winter to summer, and claiming "The sky is falling" because summer is
warmer than winter!

How on earth can this make any sense:

"To stabilise at 450ppm CO2e, without overshooting, global emissions
would need to peak in the next 10 years and then fall at more than 5%
per year, reaching 70% below current levels by 2050."

Current alleged "level" = 430, to "stabilise" at 450 requires -5%/annum
= 427.5 ppm first year!! In ONE year the concentration would be LESS
than their alleged "current" figure! If somehow the 450 ppm mysteriously
occurred instantaneously (little green men dumping their waste in our
atmosphere?) and that was the "current level".

If incremental reduction of 5%/annum did occur, then the 70% total
reduction is achieved in 23 years, or by 2029, 21 years before their
"suggested" time frame. The CO2 "equivalent" would by then be less than
half the "pre-industrial" CO2 alone was, or 135 ppm of CO2e! The
pre-industrial target is reached in less than 10 years!

What do they want to do, create an ice age?

John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Orator
writes

Roger Coppock wrote:

HM Treasury's page where the entire 700+ pages may be downloaded:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Indepe...eview_economic
s_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm
A 27-page executive summary is found he
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...6_exec_sum.pdf

Just a couple of comments on this latest bit of hysteria.

The very first words in the "executive summary" are not factual:

"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents
very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response."

1 - There is no "scientific evidence" there are theories only, however
"soundly" based they may be, but "evidence" it is not!

2 - The claim that it "is now overwhelming", is bogus. There is a lot
of repetition of the same data/assumptions/theories. The repetition
of the same theory. doesn't make anything other than the noise level
"overwhelming".

3 - The: "climate change presents very serious global risks" is utter
nonsense and raw hysteria. We have had this same situation occur in
the relatively recent past and the world didn't end then either.

4 - "it demands an urgent global response" is more hyperbole and
scene-setting for even worse exaggerations to come!

All that in the opening lines alone!

Then we go to p3 where they claim "430" ppm of "greenhouse gases",
which they limit to only be "CO2". Then they use the 'conventional'
figure of "280ppm before the Industrial Revolution", for CO2! So now
we know they have padded the figure by some 70 - 80 ppm from the more
accepted figure of 350 - 360 ppm for CO2!

The pre-industrial values vary depending on who is reporting:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/07_1.shtml
"a pre-industrial value of 300 parts per million"

NASA claims an increase of 25% on the pre-industrial values and make
the present CO2 at 350 ppm, using the commonly accepted figure of 280
ppm as a base. That is another exaggeration in the summary to generate
hysteria.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/servic...hsci/green.htm

"[T]here has been little increase [in CO2] in the last 50 years, which
raises questions about whether we really have experienced the effect
of increasing CO2.


Yes, though the figure I've used from academic sources suggests about
280ppm in 1750, 310ppm in 1950, and 380 by around 2000.

So that's a

30ppm rise in 200 years

followed by a

70ppm rise in 50 years.


The pattern of changing global temperatures suggests that there may be
other factors influencing climate.


Only if you accept that "There has been little increase [in CO2] in the
last 50 years".

It seems that most people don't.


There is also the possibility that the sensitivity to greenhouse gases
is less than what most climate models indicate. Scientists feel an
increase of 1degree F ( 0.5 degrees C) in 140 years is not necessarily
outside the range of natural climate variability."


Which ones ?

???


More importantly we know that climate has been changing since time
immemorial and is not something "man made"!
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/04_1.shtml


Yes climate changes on its own. That doesn't mean we can't screw it
up !


But that isn't the only bit of bull**** they resort to.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/...1__Science.pdf
In the actual report itself the show a graph in "Figure 1.3" where
they claim: "The Earth has warmed 0.7°C since around 1900.". So how
the hell did they manage that? It was very simple, note the zero point
on the graph. Then note the zero point on the graph in the following URL:

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...M_Fig8_0_1.jpg

Note the reference point differs, and starts from a different point!
This only shows a rise in temperature of 0.29 degrees C! An amount
NASA states is "not necessarily outside the range of natural climate
variability"!

Of course, when you put 10 "economists" in a room and tell them to
predict an outcome for a given scenario you invariably get 12 answers.

Hysteria, nothing but rampant hysteria in the Stern report!


Yes, though please tell us why NASA put the zero level where they did,
because they haven't put it where many academics do !

You pose questions directed at the various authors - ask them not me.

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 07:58:09 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

The "greenhouse gases" has been defines as "CO2" it is clear as clear
can be! The "equivalent to" refers to "parts per million (ppm)" - a measure!

"gases" is plural, doofus.

That in no way addresses the challenge to the assertion that CO2 is a
"prototypical greenhouse gas, whose characteristics explain and define
all other GHGs..."

You've put this in quotes as though somebody had said it, but searching
for the phrase suggests otherwise.

Indeed, Lloyd Parker claimed it was "equivalent to"... That has
implications.

CO2 is greenhouse gas. It doesn't explain and define others however,
but given that the effect of each gas can be measured and characterised,
any given amount of another gas can have an effect which can be
expressed as an amount of CO2 that would have the same effect.

Nonsense. CO2 is quite unlike many other gases.

-- which is what your "equivalence" implies...

In your dreams I think...

Equivalence often falls in the realm of mathematics. In practice, if
A is equivalent to B (i.e. A=B), then A=B everywhere. If A and B are
curves (e.g. functions: A(X), B(X)), then A(X) and B(X) are identical
(or nearly so) for any value of X.

Even if you wish to use a less demanding definition, the behavior of
these functions had better be quite similar, else claiming
"equivalence" is nonsense.

It is history and it shows that high levels of CO2 does not correlate to
"human caused" as your dogma recites.

Nobody has ever claimed humans caused the CO2 to go up millions of years ago,
but we are the cause today.

So what?... Did 6000 ppm exterminate all life on Earth? Oh, that's
right...all life _was_ exterminated, which is why you are NOT arguing
with me now (since all life on Earth died)...

Doesn't mean that modern life / agriculture / ecosystems etc would cope
well.

Neither does that mean that modern life/agriculture/ecosystems, etc.,
will not cope well.

The assertion (from Lloyd and others) has been that they will not
cope. But it is just that, an assertion...

Retief

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 09:23:23 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

All the GH gases are equivalent to CO2 of 430 ppm.

This is simply not true:

http://www.profc.udec.cl/~gabriel/tu...cp1/1-11-2.gif

Clearly these different gases have different absorption spectra, and
can never be "equivalent to CO2"...

They can have a net thermal effect similar to CO2.

They absorb at different wavelengths, and they absorb at different
efficiencies. No, they are not similar.

The technique demonstrated by claiming "equivalence" is called
"begging the question" (a well known logical fallacy).

But if "net thermal effect" is what the comparison is all about, why
don't you compare it to something people can see and touch -- say, a
burning candle? "This is equivalent to XXX extra candles burning per
square mile of Earth's surface"... Oh, but then you wouldn't be able
to fold in the CO2 boogeyman...

That is, the response of CO2 to a shifting spectrum is different than
the other gases.

What do you mean by a "shifting spectrum" ?

The sun behaves approximately as a black body. If the sun increases
in temperature (and output), the spectrum shifts towards the blue (and
increased UV).

And NOAA notes that the solar emission spectrum has changed:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/p...olar_variabili
ty/lean2000_irradiance.txt

"Estimated increases since 1675 are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad
ultraviolet, visible/near infrared and infrared spectral bands, with
a total irradiance increase of 0.2%."

So ?

So, many of those other (so-called "equivalent") greenhouse gases also
interact with incoming solar flux, and thus those gases are NOT
_equivalent_ to CO2. Their behavior is qualitatively and quantitively
different.

BTW, from a historical standpoint, we are at a very low atmospheric
CO2 concentration...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...on_Dioxide.png

Not from a human civilization standpoint. What does it matter what happened
millions of years ago? Heck, why not go back to the big bang -- CO2 was zero
then!

Oh, you mean that the Earth supports no life, because a "climate
catastrophe" (as you predict impending) has exterminated all life,
when those past CO2 concentrations went up to an estimated 5-6000 ppm?

I's sure that if he'd intended to say something stupid and out of
context he could have managed it without your help !

He has asserted that CO2 will cause a global catastrophe. And we can
examine this claim by looking at historical records. You even quoted
Lloyd Parker's question "What does it matter what happened millions of
years ago?"

Indeed! Why do we believe that increasing CO2 will be any more
catastrophic than it was a million years ago?

Again, current CO2 levels are exceptionally low, compared to past
history. And we note that those high levels did not exterminate life
on Earth.

Retief

In message , Retief
writes
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 07:58:09 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

The "greenhouse gases" has been defines as "CO2" it is clear as clear
can be! The "equivalent to" refers to "parts per million (ppm)" - a
measure!

"gases" is plural, doofus.

That in no way addresses the challenge to the assertion that CO2 is a
"prototypical greenhouse gas, whose characteristics explain and define
all other GHGs..."

You've put this in quotes as though somebody had said it, but searching
for the phrase suggests otherwise.

Indeed, Lloyd Parker claimed it was "equivalent to"... That has
implications.

Well share them then if you have a point ?


CO2 is greenhouse gas. It doesn't explain and define others however,
but given that the effect of each gas can be measured and characterised,
any given amount of another gas can have an effect which can be
expressed as an amount of CO2 that would have the same effect.

Nonsense. CO2 is quite unlike many other gases.

This statement, while true in many respects, is almost entirely useless.

Given that there are many gasses that trap heat in atmospheres, the
important thing is the extent of that similarity.


-- which is what your "equivalence" implies...

In your dreams I think...

Equivalence often falls in the realm of mathematics. In practice, if
A is equivalent to B (i.e. A=B), then A=B everywhere. If A and B are
curves (e.g. functions: A(X), B(X)), then A(X) and B(X) are identical
(or nearly so) for any value of X.

Even if you wish to use a less demanding definition, the behavior of
these functions had better be quite similar, else claiming
"equivalence" is nonsense.

This is no more difficult a concept that MTOE (Million Tons of Oil
Equivalent) which I'm sure you can understand.

Basically this sort of use of the word "Equivalent" is common custom and
practice that well and widely understood.

If this nitpicking is the best you can do, you don't have much do you ?


It is history and it shows that high levels of CO2 does not correlate to
"human caused" as your dogma recites.

Nobody has ever claimed humans caused the CO2 to go up millions of
years ago,
but we are the cause today.

So what?... Did 6000 ppm exterminate all life on Earth? Oh, that's
right...all life _was_ exterminated, which is why you are NOT arguing
with me now (since all life on Earth died)...

Doesn't mean that modern life / agriculture / ecosystems etc would cope
well.

Neither does that mean that modern life/agriculture/ecosystems, etc.,
will not cope well.

The assertion (from Lloyd and others) has been that they will not
cope. But it is just that, an assertion...

Well, there are lots of good reasons to assume that 6000 ppm would
radically alter human mood and wakefulness, never mind agriculture.

If you think such changes unimportant, I guess you should study
physiology, never mind ecology and climate !


J/.
--
John Beardmore

In article ,
Retief wrote:
On Fri, 03 Nov 06 11:22:33 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

The "greenhouse gases" has been defines as "CO2" it is clear as clear
can be! The "equivalent to" refers to "parts per million (ppm)" - a
measure!

"gases" is plural, doofus.

That in no way addresses the challenge to the assertion that CO2 is a
"prototypical greenhouse gas, whose characteristics explain and define
all other GHGs..." -- which is what your "equivalence" implies...

It is history and it shows that high levels of CO2 does not correlate to
"human caused" as your dogma recites.

Nobody has ever claimed humans caused the CO2 to go up millions of years
ago,
but we are the cause today.

So what?... Did 6000 ppm exterminate all life on Earth? Oh, that's
right...all life _was_ exterminated, which is why you are NOT arguing
with me now (since all life on Earth died)...

I do not really care if bacteria survive. I care if human civilization
survives.


Wait, I think that I understand your argument Lloyd... Under your
model, all life _was_ exterminated and eliminated from the Earth (how
could it not be, at 6000 ppm of CO2). And then 6000 years ago _your_
god created life (and humans, and dinosaur bones, and pottery sherds
and...), and that's why you are now here to argue your creationist
nonsense with us...


Retief