Aerosoler dæmper temperaturen

Line-by-line analysis of the SPM reveals that all of the science that cuts against the Theory of Human Interference with Climate has been systematically omitted. In some cases, the leading arguments against human interference are actually touched on, but without being revealed or discussed. In other cases, the evidence against human interference is simply ignored. Because of these strategic omissions, the SPM voices a degree of certainty that is entirely false.

Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the "policymakers" as well as the press and the public who read the SPM will not realise they are being told only one side of the story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it

What is omitted is the fact that climate science cannot explain this contradiction. Greenhouse gases have to warm the atmosphere, where the heat is trapped, before warming the surface of the Earth below. If this science is correct, then one of the temperature records must be incorrect, most likely the surface record that shows the warming, because of known errors. But if there has been no warming in the last two decades, then many of the IPCC's claims which depend on such warming are simply false. Likewise, prior warming shown in the surface temperature record may be false.

Even worse, if both temperature records are correct, then our understanding of the greenhouse effect is incorrect. This is a huge dilemma for the science, and there is a great deal of speculation about it, some of which is alluded to in the third paragraph quoted

Human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a tiny fraction of natural emissions. The fact that the vast majority of all greenhouse gas emissions are natural is ignored

This parallel construction requires that there be a sentence explaining the fraction of CO2 emissions that are anthropogenic, but there is none. It would read as follows: "About one twenty-fifth of current CO2 emissions are anthropogenic." The important fact that the vast majority of CO2 emissions are natural has been omitted.

In addition, not even mentioned is water vapour, by far the most important greenhouse gas. Natural emissions of water vapour are so enormous that human emissions do not even measure in comparison. If this were explained, there would also be a sentence saying: "Virtually no water vapour emissions are anthropogenic."

The UN IPCC has ignored major scientific advances that undercut the theory of human interference, including the complex chaos science that is presented in the Third Assessment Report itself. According to the TAR, the climate is chaotic, so prediction of future states is impossible.....The profound fact of chaotic climate is simply ignored.

Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the "policymakers" as well as the press and the public who read the SPM will not realise they are being told only one side of the story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it

Human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a tiny fraction of natural emissions. The fact that the vast majority of all greenhouse gas emissions are natural is ignored

In addition, not even mentioned is water vapour, by far the most important greenhouse gas. Natural emissions of water vapour are so enormous that human emissions do not even measure in comparison.

The UN IPCC has ignored major scientific advances that undercut the theory of human interference, including the complex chaos science that is presented in the Third Assessment Report itself. According to the TAR, the climate is chaotic, so prediction of future states is impossible.....The profound fact of chaotic climate is simply ignored.

branner skrev:
Påstår manden virkelig, at 2500 forskere har indgået en hemmelig aftale om at skjule sandheden, og at alle frivilligt er gået med til dette? Hvem siger paranoia her?

Human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a tiny fraction of natural emissions. The fact that the vast majority of all greenhouse gas emissions are natural is ignored

Det er jo fuldstændig irrelevant, at den menneskelige andel af drivhusgasudslip kun udgør en lille del. Det er jo grundviden, at der også finder en drivhuseffekt sted uden menneskets tilstedeværelse (ellers ville Jorden være ubeboelig). Selv hvis menneskets andel kun udgør få procent, er det stadig disse procent, der er de interessante.

In addition, not even mentioned is water vapour, by far the most important greenhouse gas. Natural emissions of water vapour are so enormous that human emissions do not even measure in comparison.

Dette argument er en af de gamle gengangere, som jeg ærligt talt troede, man var kommet ud over. Igen som ovenfor: At vanddamp udgør 95% af drivhusgasserne er irrelevant, for så længe ændringen i CO2 stadigvæk betyder en (signifikant) ændring i temperatur, er det dette, der er interessant (vanddamp kan vi alligevel ikke gøre noget ved!).

The UN IPCC has ignored major scientific advances that undercut the theory of human interference, including the complex chaos science that is presented in the Third Assessment Report itself. According to the TAR, the climate is chaotic, so prediction of future states is impossible.....The profound fact of chaotic climate is simply ignored.

Hvis klimaet er udtryk for kaosteori, så ville det jo heller ikke give mening at tale om istider osv. Og den slags angriber Worjic vel ikke?

micheelsen skrev:
'Hemmelig aftale om at skjule sandheden' er dine ord. De gør ikke noget skjult såvidt jeg kan se. De har deres overbevisninger og den har de skrevet ned i fuld åbenhed. Men hvor mange er det der skriver de politiske anbefalinger? Er det ikke kun 20? Og hvor mange af dem er har en kendt holdning?

CO2 udgør 0,03% af atmosfæren. Årsagen til at vi har en drivhuseffekt er langtfra pågrund af CO2 alene. Og vand ER de facto den mest betydende drivhusgas overalt. Men hertil kan man så lægge CH4, N2O, masser af aerosoler der overgår betydningen af CO2 og kryderet med lidt sol variationer.

Hvis 95% procent af drivhusgassen skyldes vanddampe er det en kollosal energi der er gemt her (latent varme). Hertil ligger vi at 24/25 dele af alt atmosfærisk CO2 som er naturligt fremkommende og tilsidst 1/25 CO2 der er antropogent. Det er vildt svært for mig at acceptere at 0,012% ekstra CO2 skal have så stor betydning!

Hvis klimaet er udtryk for kaosteori, så ville det jo heller ikke give mening at tale om istider osv. Og den slags angriber Worjic vel ikke?

Den fangede jeg ikke. Så vil det netop give mening at tale om istider. Vi taler om at temperaturen globalt før i tiden kunne skifte i løbet af en menneskealder med over 15 grader. Det viser et skift mellem tilstande altså at klimaet re-konfigurer sig.

Ja, selvfølgelig er vand den mest betydende drivhusgas. Men man fristes til at sige: og hvad så?! For da vanddamp er en ren feedback-mekanisme, er den ret så uinteressant. CO2 må stadig siges at være den vigtigste udløsende (forcing) drivhusgas. Jeg mener, at Kim var inde på noget af det samme i et tidligere indlæg...

Hvis 95% procent af drivhusgassen skyldes vanddampe er det en kollosal energi der er gemt her (latent varme). Hertil ligger vi at 24/25 dele af alt atmosfærisk CO2 som er naturligt fremkommende og tilsidst 1/25 CO2 der er antropogent. Det er vildt svært for mig at acceptere at 0,012% ekstra CO2 skal have så stor betydning

Siden den industrielle revolution er CO2-indholdet steget med ca 40%, og så godt som alle er enige om denne stigning skyldes menneskets udledning

Klokken er mange, men jeg kom til at åbne og læse dit indlæg, og var nødt til at svar

Forhåbentligt blev det ikke en gang vrøvl...

GLAR skrev:
Hej Erik Micheelsen

Svovl dæmper ligeledes temperaturen, Danmark renser røggasser for svovl og forværrer dermed opvarmningen. Det skal nok ses i lyset af at svovl er rimeligt giftigt for dyr og mennesker ?