uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged.

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9   Report Post  
Old February 19th 14, 05:03 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Mar 2007
Posts: 364
Default Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.

On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 16:28:20 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:44:50 -0800 (PST)

matt_sykes wrote:



On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 15:03:27 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:


On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:17:28 -0800 (PST)




matt_sykes wrote:








As you all probably know the direct warming effect of doubling CO2




from preindustrial times can be calculated at 1.2 C. This is well




known, there is plenty of data on line on this and there is not




argument about it, it is basic physics.








We do? I don't. But then I supposed it's all changed since I were a


lad.








". . . changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to CO2 [as




calculated by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative




humidity and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3C per 10 percent change


of




CO2 and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the




observed warming of the earth [sic] between 1880 and 1940. They


could,




however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5C




between now and the end of the century."








That's from "Understanding Climate Change - A Program for Action"




published in 1975 (March).








As for the forecast of a 0.5C rise in temperature by the end of the




century, it was actually 0.48C (using 11-year smoothing). Pretty


damn




close, I'd say.








Taking the longer view, a 3C rise for a doubling of CO2 would


account




for a 1.03C rise in temperature from 1866 to 2007 (mid-points of




11-year means). The actual rise was 0.87C.






Nearer 0.6 C


http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...m:1866/to:2007






Following anomalies are based on 1951-80 normal (or 1901-2000, same

thing).



11-year mean centred on 1866 is -0.28.

11-year mean centred on 2007 is +0.59



Care to do the sums on that and tell me whether your answer is nearer

0.6C or 0.87C?







--

Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'.

"Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate."

- BBC News subtitle


But you havent given your data source, its just figures. I have given you IPCC data, the official, global, agreed data, and it shows 0,6 ish.

And the last 10 years as flat as a pancake.
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why the storms are NOT due to CO2 matt_sykes uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) 2 February 18th 14 09:55 AM
PROOF: Rising Atmospheric CO2 Is Due To Natural Causes Not FossilFuels Martin Brown sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) 0 March 27th 09 08:51 AM
CO2 rise due to temperature rise. Phil Hays sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) 0 March 12th 08 11:52 AM
Atmospheric CO2 Increases, Due To Ocean, Rather Than Mankind Lloyd sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) 1 February 18th 08 08:03 PM
Storms, storms and more storms. (BBC) RailwayinnPL20 uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) 4 September 3rd 04 02:26 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 Weather Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Weather"

 

Copyright © 2017