tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2474551790734335767.post1523614468176224329..comments2023-08-27T17:57:57.065+07:00Comments on Global Warming: Why Cutting Carbon Emissions is not Enoughhernadikey-rismanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14818907835573484754noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2474551790734335767.post-58146652550127828322009-09-15T03:14:37.823+07:002009-09-15T03:14:37.823+07:00The following quotes are from the 2007 IPCC report...The following quotes are from the 2007 IPCC report. How much confidence does this verbage portray given the [error bar] levels and the stated “low” levels of understanding? <br /><br />“The direct RF of the individual aerosol species is less certain than the total direct aerosol RF. The estimates are: <br />sulphate, –0.4 [±0.2] W m–2; <br />fossil fuel organic carbon, –0.05 [±0.05] W m–2; <br />fossil fuel black carbon, +0.2 [±0.15] W m–2; <br />biomass burning, +0.03 [±0.12] W m–2; <br />nitrate, –0.1 [±0.1] W m–2; and <br />mineral dust, –0.1 [±0.2] W m–2. <br /><br />“Black carbon aerosol deposited on snow has reduced the surface albedo, producing an associated RF of +0.1 [±0.1] W m–2, with a low level of scientific understanding. Other surface property changes can affect climate through processes that cannot be quantified by RF; these have a very low level of scientific understanding.“<br /><br />You can read this yourself: <br />IPCC AR4 Report, <br />Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, <br />Chapter 2, Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing, <br />Page 132<br /><br />http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html<br /><br />How can anyone be more certain of the sum of factors than in the certainty of the individual factors? Error analysis 101 is the total error is the square root of the sum of the square of the errors. For the list of individual aerosol species above, the total and error would be -0.42 [±0.36]. <br />Oh, for heavens sake, that means cooling! The scientific understanding is LOW. Oh yeah, the model told me so! And a 1% change in low level cloud cover globally, that would be a radiative forcing 10 times greater than the above, and the understanding of clouds and how to include them in the models is very low. Keep drinking the Cool-aid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com