In article ,
Retief wrote:
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).



You're confusing intensity with temp. They are 2 different things.

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?


Please list the extent of human civilization a million years ago.

Flooding what is now New York wouldn't have had much effect a million years
ago. Would it today?

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 , Orator
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Orator
writes

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

???

Which scientists ?


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.

No - you are citing the NASA zero level as definitive, and as such it
appears to indicate less warming. As you regard the NASA graph as
definitive, I'm asking YOU why YOU think they put the zero level higher
than most other people who draw that graph ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Retief
writes
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.

They are similar in that they are greenhouse gasses.

They are similar in they cause net amounts of energy to be retained
which affects temperature. That they absorb different amounts at
different wave lengths doesn't mean that different amounts of various
green house gasses can't achieve the same energy retention / temperature
increase as some particular amount of CO2.


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

Well - you begged it - you got an answer.


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?

Could do, but it interesting to compare the 'potency' of various
greenhouse gasses, and if CO2 is the one with the biggest effect, it's
not surprising that people adopt it as a bench mark, but contribution to
heat retention and heat flows are calculated. Candle power would be
rather a small unit to use though.


"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...

Not a matter of any particular bogey - just causes, effects and
mitigation.


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).

OK - and how significant do you claim this is ?


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,

So far so good.


and thus those gases are NOT
_equivalent_ to CO2. Their behavior is qualitatively and quantitively
different.

Yes - they all cause different amounts of heat to be retained per
amount of greenhouse gas released, but that doesn't mean that the total
heat retained can't be represented as being equivalent to a particular
amount of carbon dioxide.


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?

Well, you mentioned a figure of 6000 ppm I believe. How well would you
cope physiologically at that concentration ?


Again, current CO2 levels are exceptionally low, compared to past
history.

Geological history yes, but as I understand it, not human history.


And we note that those high levels did not exterminate life
on Earth.

Which doesn't mean humanity would have survived. I suggest that if,
warming aside, 6000 ppm CO2 concentrations pose a major physiological
challenge to us and other animals, that in itself is a global
catastrophe.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Orator wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article ,
Retief wrote:


On Wed, 01 Nov 06 11:32:08 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:



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!

That's a lie. It's 360 now, man!

Hey, would you look at that! Lloyd got an answer CORRECT! Yes Lloyd,
it's about 360 ppm now, but the article claims that it's 430 ppm... So
Lloyd (and Orator) are correct, in stating that the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...6_exec_sum.pdf

....has lied about the concentration, by claiming it is 430 ppm...



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.

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


You know, most communities have adult literacy programs.

I quoted the article. You lied about it.



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.

See my message on the 7th, the one you have studiously ignored!

John Beardmore wrote:
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.

The article makes that claim, doesn't matter if you can't see the
precise text. The meaning is there nevertheless.

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.

Wrong wrong wrong. The purpose of the "paper" was to point to a remedy
not debate the cause and effect. As I have noted elsewhere, that their
"remedy" is solely related to CO2, and THAT is what defines the "gasses"
as being CO2 alone, irrespective of the use of the plural!

_IF_ it was as you and the AGW Mufti Lloyd say then they have missed
out including the most important of all "greenhouse gases" - water
vapour! Why would they do that if they intended an "equivalent to.."
meaning for all greenhouse gases? I'll tell you why, because it would
have been too blatantly obvious that it is all a SHAM.


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


In your dreams I think...

You are unable to arrive a conclusions from a given set of conditions?

John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Orator
writes

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Orator

writes

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

Which ones ?


???


Which scientists ?

Does it matter? Isn't that a ridiculous request that has no value? Can
you name every AWG scientist?

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.


No - you are citing the NASA zero level as definitive, and as such it
appears to indicate less warming. As you regard the NASA graph as
definitive, I'm asking YOU why YOU think they put the zero level higher
than most other people who draw that graph ?

As I am not the person selecting the bogus "reference" points, then *I*
cannot state the authors reasoning.

I do not, and have never claimed the NASA ref. point to be "definitive",
so your attribution of that notion to me is totally false. I point to
the ridiculous situation of not having a reference point at all!

However, I can point to the bleeding obvious that is there for all to
see without me _needing_ to point them out.

1- We don't have a genuine mean global temperature. It doesn't exist.

2- The Stern figure is for a period 1750 to about 1850, giving an even
colder the "usual" mean than the one taken from near the end of the
Little Ice age at 1850 (NASA)!

Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Retief wrote:



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).

You're confusing intensity with temp. They are 2 different things.


You are saying CO2 is comparable to temperature, aren't you? If not then
your comment is unintelligible.

Orator wrote:
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?


Isn't it interesting to see the AWG mob dared not touch this at all. :-)

In message , Orator
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
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)" -
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.

The article makes that claim, doesn't matter if you can't see the
precise text. The meaning is there nevertheless.

Seems to be a pretty sloppy approach to quoting.


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.

Wrong wrong wrong.

I don't think so.


The purpose of the "paper" was to point to a remedy not debate the
cause and effect.

So ?


As I have noted elsewhere, that their "remedy" is solely related to
CO2, and THAT is what defines the "gasses" as being CO2 alone,
irrespective of the use of the plural!

I don't think it does. It would be pretty to stupid to deny the
existence of other GHGs, even if you only plan to act by cutting carbon
emissions.

This said, whatever the strap line, I've yet to see a climate change
remediation program that would turn down the change to cut the emissions
of GHGs other than CO2.


_IF_ it was as you and the AGW Mufti Lloyd say then they have missed
out including the most important of all "greenhouse gases" - water
vapour! Why would they do that if they intended an "equivalent to.."
meaning for all greenhouse gases? I'll tell you why, because it would
have been too blatantly obvious that it is all a SHAM.

This is an ancient and unworthy diversion as nobody disputes the effect
of water. You should know better, but it is interesting that you are
clearly of the opinion that GHGs do exist, and are "important".


-- which is what your "equivalence" implies...
In your dreams I think...

You are unable to arrive a conclusions from a given set of conditions?

No - I think I understand perfectly well, that unable to find anything
of significance wrong with Stern, you will pick at anything to try and
discredit it.

Unfortunately for you, most readers will be familiar with equating the
effect of one GHG with another and won't be fooled, and others may read
it and make up their own minds.

You aren't going to turn the tide without something more substantive
than you have 'found'.


J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Orator
writes
Lloyd Parker wrote:

You're confusing intensity with temp. They are 2 different things.


You are saying CO2 is comparable to temperature, aren't you? If not
then your comment is unintelligible.

I'm sure that if he'd meant that, he could have written it !


J/.
--
John Beardmore