Global Warming - 2007 IPCC Report

Well, there is a new (2007) IPCC report that finally answers all the problems of the previous reports and finally proves that Anthropogenic Global Warming is true.

As of 04-30-07, the February 2007 report is still not available online ... so I will simply quote from the Summary for Policymakers.

As usual, please read the quotes in context - I don't want to mislead anybody by twisting what the report actually says.

Working Group I - Summary for Policymakers
The Physical Science Basis

These quotes are from page 9 of the Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Summary for Policymakers.
A decrease in diurnal temperature range (DTR) was reported in the TAR, but the data available then extended only from 1950 to 1993. Updated observations reveal that DTR has not changed from 1979 to 2004 as both day- and night-time temperature have risen at about the same rate.
Basically, this says that the Earth is still able to cool itself the same as before. Therefore, the change in temperature is NOT because of a change in the atmosphere.
Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show interannual variability and localised changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region.
Translated - Antarctica is not melting because the local temperature has not changed.

Elsewhere, the summary does state that the Arctic is warming ... and references data to support that position.

Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar temperatures at that time were 3°C to 5°C higher than present ...
Translation - Natural variability will account for all predicted temperature increases and we should not worry until sea levels are 12 to 18 feet higher than today. In all fairness, I did cut off the part of the quote that tried to attribute the higher temperature to variations in the Earth's orbit ... but that is still a very speculative theory, and to state it as fact is, in my opinion, irresponsible.

Well, I am sure glad that their summary has settled the questions.

More on Antarctica

I found this interesting, it appears to be a major reversal - page 17
Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance.

Working Group I - Radiative Forcing

These quotes are from the Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis" - Chapter 2 Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing.
The total global mean surface forcing is very likely negative. [page 132]
In English, this means that, even though CO2 is the highest ever, the Earth is actually cooling.

That's right, these frauds have been screaming for years about Global Warming and how CO2 is destroying this planet ... and then, in a document the press never reads, they admit that the data does not support their claims.

Trust me - this is NOT out of context. (Seriously, don't trust me, please read it for yourself. These people are unbelievable.)


This quote is utter nonsense
Aircraft produce persistent linear trails of condensation (‘contrails’) in regions that have suitably low temperatures and high humidity. Contrails are a form of cirrus cloud that reflect solar radiation and absorb infrared radiation. Linear contrails from global aircraft operations have increased Earth’s cloudiness and are estimated to cause a small positive radiative forcing.[page 137]
Clouds are known to have a negative radiative forcing during day light hours, and most airplanes only fly during the day, yet they say that contrails create a positive forcing? (Positive forcing at night, negative forcing during the day.) The fact that they absorb infrared radiation is totally irrelevant because they absorb and release radiation without changing the temperature of the air. Granted, some heat is released the first time that the clouds form, but that is heat generated by the plane engines (and everyone says to ignore that).

Table 2.14

Table 2.14 (section 2.10.2, pages 211-213) describes radiative forcing as [x Watts/(meter^2 ppm)]. This is nonsense. Forcing must have an associated dimension for the temperature of the atmosphere. Specifically, the radiative forcing of CO2 is given as 0.01413 W m–2 ppm–1 in the text and 1.4 x 10^-5 W m–2 ppm–1 in the table (0.000014). (Note - there is a difference of 1,000 in the 2 numbers.) Without some indication of temperature, that would mean that the heating potential of CO2 is the same when it is freezing as it is in a hot desert.

The same section uses both ppm and kilograms ... making the section unreadable without significant calculations.

In summary - this is a notch (or two) below pseudoscience and needs a good proof reader.

Author: Robert Clemenzi
URL: http:// / Global_Warming / IPCC_2007.html