What is the IPCC

[westwall]

Sorry...........changing the subject a little..........I kind of find it funny.......

Riddle me this.................what is the NF3 and what is it used for.................

Nitrogen Trifluoride is mainly used in the etching of silicon wafers.

 

[Crick]

Do you know what ppt stands for? Or the ratio between 0.5 ppt and 400 ppm? How about ((400ppm/0.5ppt)/17000)? I'll give you a hint: that last quantity has a value just under 50,000. That is,including your 17,000 times stronger greenhouse effect, the NF3 in the atmosphere has one-fifty-thousandth the total IR trapping ability of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Pretty good hint, eh?

Then there's the point that a PV panel is producing energy without fossil fuel for its entire lifetime while that NF3 only appears in the very brief period of the panel's manufacture.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/3_6_PFC_HFC_NF3_SF6_Semiconductor_Manufacturing.pdf

The report from the IPCC on this product and others...................

Does it fall in their domain......................

 

[Crick]

Sorry...........changing the subject a little..........I kind of find it funny.......

Riddle me this.................what is the NF3 and what is it used for.................

Nitrogen Trifluoride is mainly used in the etching of silicon wafers.

And what does that have to do with the thread topic Mr Westwall?

 

[Crick]

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/3_6_PFC_HFC_NF3_SF6_Semiconductor_Manufacturing.pdf

The report from the IPCC on this product and others...................

Does it fall in their domain......................

Hah!

 

[eagle1462010]

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/co2scandal.pdf

 

[eagle1462010]

thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3 percent), were arbitrarily rejected. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by top scientists, including two Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time. From among this treasure of excellent data (ranging up to
550 ppmv of measured CO2 levels), the founders of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (Callendar 1949, Callendar 1958, and From and Keeling 1986) selected only a tiny fraction of the data and doctored it, to select out the low concentrations and reject the high values—all in order to set a falsely low pre-industrial average CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv as the basis for all further climatic speculations. This manipulation has been discussed several times since the 1950s (Fonselius et al. 1956, Jaworowski et al. 1992b, and Slocum 1955), and more recently and in-depth by Beck 2007. The results of Ernst-Georg Beck’s monumental study of a large body of direct atmospheric CO2 measurements from the 19th and 20th Century, smoothed as five-year averages, are presented in Figure 5. The measurements show that the most important political message of the IPCC in 2007 is wrong: It is not true that the CO2 atmospheric level during the pre-industrial era was about 25 percent lower than it is now, and it is not true that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have caused what is actually our beneficially warm climate today. Direct atmospheric measurements indicate that between 1812 and 1961, the concentrations of CO2 fluctuated by about 150 ppmv, up to values much higher than those of today. Except for the year 1885, these direct measurements were always higher than the ice core data, which are devoid of any variations. During the 149 years from 1812 to 1961, there were three periods when the average CO2 concentration was much higher than it was in 2004, 379 ppmv (IPCC 2007): Around the year 1820, it was about 440 ppmv; around 1855,

 

[Old Rocks]

thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3 percent), were arbitrarily rejected. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by top scientists, including two Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time. From among this treasure of excellent data (ranging up to
550 ppmv of measured CO2 levels), the founders of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (Callendar 1949, Callendar 1958, and From and Keeling 1986) selected only a tiny fraction of the data and doctored it, to select out the low concentrations and reject the high values—all in order to set a falsely low pre-industrial average CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv as the basis for all further climatic speculations. This manipulation has been discussed several times since the 1950s (Fonselius et al. 1956, Jaworowski et al. 1992b, and Slocum 1955), and more recently and in-depth by Beck 2007. The results of Ernst-Georg Beck’s monumental study of a large body of direct atmospheric CO2 measurements from the 19th and 20th Century, smoothed as five-year averages, are presented in Figure 5. The measurements show that the most important political message of the IPCC in 2007 is wrong: It is not true that the CO2 atmospheric level during the pre-industrial era was about 25 percent lower than it is now, and it is not true that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have caused what is actually our beneficially warm climate today. Direct atmospheric measurements indicate that between 1812 and 1961, the concentrations of CO2 fluctuated by about 150 ppmv, up to values much higher than those of today. Except for the year 1885, these direct measurements were always higher than the ice core data, which are devoid of any variations. During the 149 years from 1812 to 1961, there were three periods when the average CO2 concentration was much higher than it was in 2004, 379 ppmv (IPCC 2007): Around the year 1820, it was about 440 ppmv; around 1855,

But no link to the source?

 

[Crick]

And when the source is located, perhaps he could be queried as to how he came to know the reason Keeling rejected those CO2 sources. I mean, besides the reasons he (Keeling) gave in his published papers.

I'm also curious how, for instance, a single measurement from 1820 gives global values.

 

[Crick]

Oh, there will be more AR5 updates in the meantime. And you'll work them in to your conspiracy theory somehow.

This will be interesting. As the evidence keeps piling up, your conspiracies will keep getting more difficult to maintain. You'll have to get even more imaginative.

Did you read, one of their lead authors says they are a scam? Are you kidding me? And you have the gall to publish such crap? shame on you.

How about a link supporting that claim? I've seen Edenhofer's statement. What I haven't seen is him or any other "IPCC official" stating that the IPCC is "a scam".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And when the source is located, perhaps he could be queried as to how he came to know the reason Keeling rejected those CO2 sources. I mean, besides the reasons he (Keeling) gave in his published papers.

I'm also curious how, for instance, a single measurement from 1820 gives global values.

Or how a flood in Texas is suddenly global, amiright?

 

[Crick]

Frank... I often have a hard time, understanding how you can assemble some comment to make without doing a little more BASIC thinking first.

A comet might be seen everywhere on the globe as it passes by. That does not make a single person looking up and seeing it a global event. Just because A is included in B does not mean that every part of B is A.

 

[westwall]

Frank... I often have a hard time, understanding how you can assemble some comment to make without doing a little more BASIC thinking first.

A comet might be seen everywhere on the globe as it passes by. That does not make a single person looking up and seeing it a global event. Just because A is included in B does not mean that every part of B is A.

And yet Mann and his little graph is taken from a SINGLE tree in Russia, and suddenly you want us to ascribe global valuation for that. Too funny. The IPCC got over a decade of propaganda from that ONE single little tree.

 

[jc456]

Frank... I often have a hard time, understanding how you can assemble some comment to make without doing a little more BASIC thinking first.

A comet might be seen everywhere on the globe as it passes by. That does not make a single person looking up and seeing it a global event. Just because A is included in B does not mean that every part of B is A.

still doesn't answer how seven feet of snow in Boston is local and a flood in Texas is global. Tell me please how that is?

 

[flacaltenn]

And when the source is located, perhaps he could be queried as to how he came to know the reason Keeling rejected those CO2 sources. I mean, besides the reasons he (Keeling) gave in his published papers.

I'm also curious how, for instance, a single measurement from 1820 gives global values.

Pretty much the same way that readings from Mauna Loa are CURRENTLY interpreted to be Global readings son... It's assumed to be a well mixed homogenous quantity. There ARE local variations. But not in the middle of Pacific Ocean on top of a mountain.

U Think???

BTW: the Annual variation at MaunaLoa is about 5 years of "climb" in the general long-term rate.
Where does that comes from Crickham? Of course -- TEMPERATURE changes cause variation in CO2... But not temperature changes in the realm of 0.5degC.. Mother Nature is cranking out about 5 years worth of man-caused CO2 atmos concentration from the Oceans every summer.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wildcard, all you have presented is stupid cartoons and unsupported flap yap. How about some evidence from real scientists, presented in a peer reviewed journal. You do know what those are, right?

Old Crock, all you have ever presented over and over is bullshit upon bullshit upon even more bullshit, and hoping that someone is convinced by your brainwashed beliefs.
How about some evidence to support the claims that you make? Oh I almost forgot, you can't.

AGW/CC is a lie and a scam.

And you are a liar and a fool;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Global Warming Science Union of Concerned Scientists

Scientists know that certain gases trap heat and act like a blanket to warm the planet. One of the most important is carbon dioxide (CO2), which we release into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels — oil, coal, and natural gas — to generate electricity, power our vehicles, and heat our homes.

As we overload our atmosphere with carbon dioxide, more and more heat is trapped — and Earth steadily warms up in response. How do we know? The scientific evidence is overwhelming.

Like I said before, no matter what you post in trying to prove AGW/CC is real, and that it's man-made and that it's a threat to the planet, it's all BULLSHIT!

You're just too ignorant to realize it.

Not to mention that the earth has shown the premise false without any help from us..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

One of the larger Scientific Societies concerned with earth sciences.

You sure do love promoting the lies, don't you?

And you love to flap a lying yap, with zero support for your arguements. By the way, I thought that this was a Zone 2 now, or do those rules only apply to those that recognize science?

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action
Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased
sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.
Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed
global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because
natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide)
from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These
observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and
atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers,
snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐
understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to
human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with
explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

20 years without a rise in temperature, CO2 continues to rise... showing the whole premise a lie. And then we have satellite records that show the total rise you claim to be nonexistent and a matter of unjustified adjustments..

Posting that same ole lie over and over again doesn't make it true Old Fraud..

 

[eagle1462010]

thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3 percent), were arbitrarily rejected. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by top scientists, including two Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time. From among this treasure of excellent data (ranging up to
550 ppmv of measured CO2 levels), the founders of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (Callendar 1949, Callendar 1958, and From and Keeling 1986) selected only a tiny fraction of the data and doctored it, to select out the low concentrations and reject the high values—all in order to set a falsely low pre-industrial average CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv as the basis for all further climatic speculations. This manipulation has been discussed several times since the 1950s (Fonselius et al. 1956, Jaworowski et al. 1992b, and Slocum 1955), and more recently and in-depth by Beck 2007. The results of Ernst-Georg Beck’s monumental study of a large body of direct atmospheric CO2 measurements from the 19th and 20th Century, smoothed as five-year averages, are presented in Figure 5. The measurements show that the most important political message of the IPCC in 2007 is wrong: It is not true that the CO2 atmospheric level during the pre-industrial era was about 25 percent lower than it is now, and it is not true that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have caused what is actually our beneficially warm climate today. Direct atmospheric measurements indicate that between 1812 and 1961, the concentrations of CO2 fluctuated by about 150 ppmv, up to values much higher than those of today. Except for the year 1885, these direct measurements were always higher than the ice core data, which are devoid of any variations. During the 149 years from 1812 to 1961, there were three periods when the average CO2 concentration was much higher than it was in 2004, 379 ppmv (IPCC 2007): Around the year 1820, it was about 440 ppmv; around 1855,

But no link to the source?

I guess you ignored the link on the post directly above this one.................MAYBE!

 

[jc456]

thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3 percent), were arbitrarily rejected. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by top scientists, including two Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time. From among this treasure of excellent data (ranging up to
550 ppmv of measured CO2 levels), the founders of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (Callendar 1949, Callendar 1958, and From and Keeling 1986) selected only a tiny fraction of the data and doctored it, to select out the low concentrations and reject the high values—all in order to set a falsely low pre-industrial average CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv as the basis for all further climatic speculations. This manipulation has been discussed several times since the 1950s (Fonselius et al. 1956, Jaworowski et al. 1992b, and Slocum 1955), and more recently and in-depth by Beck 2007. The results of Ernst-Georg Beck’s monumental study of a large body of direct atmospheric CO2 measurements from the 19th and 20th Century, smoothed as five-year averages, are presented in Figure 5. The measurements show that the most important political message of the IPCC in 2007 is wrong: It is not true that the CO2 atmospheric level during the pre-industrial era was about 25 percent lower than it is now, and it is not true that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have caused what is actually our beneficially warm climate today. Direct atmospheric measurements indicate that between 1812 and 1961, the concentrations of CO2 fluctuated by about 150 ppmv, up to values much higher than those of today. Except for the year 1885, these direct measurements were always higher than the ice core data, which are devoid of any variations. During the 149 years from 1812 to 1961, there were three periods when the average CO2 concentration was much higher than it was in 2004, 379 ppmv (IPCC 2007): Around the year 1820, it was about 440 ppmv; around 1855,

But no link to the source?

I guess you ignored the link on the post directly above this one.................MAYBE!

He does that often

 

[Crick]

Frank... I often have a hard time, understanding how you can assemble some comment to make without doing a little more BASIC thinking first.

A comet might be seen everywhere on the globe as it passes by. That does not make a single person looking up and seeing it a global event. Just because A is included in B does not mean that every part of B is A.

And yet Mann and his little graph is taken from a SINGLE tree in Russia, and suddenly you want us to ascribe global valuation for that. Too funny. The IPCC got over a decade of propaganda from that ONE single little tree.

Prove it