Comments on: Rachel recycles climate con

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:34:52 +0000

Hi em.

You say we “always” miss the point. But, strangely, you yourself miss mentioning our missed point; like the pot scoffing at that black kettle?

Rachel’s post accused Fed Farmers of climate “denialism” and in my post I asked Rachel for evidence of human-caused “climate change.” But please: feel free to explain the point we “missed.”

By: em

em — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:44:17 +0000

Well howdy-doody indeed. Interesting website. It’s a shame you fullas always miss the point. I thought you dinosaurs were extinct!
Cheers for the link to the skeptics against skeptics website, it’s great ;o)

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 01:51:23 +0000

Re GHG forcing calculations, this may be the paper we are looking for

Myhre, G., E. J. Highwood, K. P. Shine and F. Stordal. 1998. “New Estimates of Radiative Forcing Due to Well Mixed Greenhouse Gases.” Geophysical Research Letters 25, 2715–2718.

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 08:48:38 +0000

OK, no pressure.
I’ll stick to the peer reviewed stuff soon, but I see “Skeptical Science” kindly reproduces the “methane no problem” graph from AR4 here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm

It’s always fun to hit the warmists with their own propaganda. Here’s one, then.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 07:40:41 +0000

AR4 WG1 2.3.2 Atmospheric Methane cites Ramaswamy et al., 2001

Quoting:-

“Methane has the second-largest RF of the LLGHGs after CO2 (Ramaswamy et al., 2001).”

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3-2.html

Which turns out to be Chapter 6 of The Physical Science Basis.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=899821

But I can’t see any support for the above statement in Chap 6. Back at the bottom of the Atmospheric Methane page they say:-

“The RF due to changes in CH4 mixing ratio is calculated with the simplified yet still valid expression for CH4 given in Ramaswamy et al. (2001). The change in the CH4 mixing ratio from 715 ppb in 1750 to 1,774 ppb (the average mixing ratio from the AGAGE and GMD networks) in 2005 gives an RF of +0.48 ± 0.05 W m–2, ranking CH4 as the second highest RF of the LLGHGs after CO2 (Table 2.1).”

Table 2.1 is here:-

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#table-2-1

But I haven’t come across the “simplified yet still valid expression for CH4″. I suspect it’s in one of the Chap 6 References:-

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-references.html

That’s all I can manage on the hunt for the CH4 RF forcing expression for now.

Your shift now Andy.

By: Mike Jowsey

Mike Jowsey — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 05:32:39 +0000

I just won’t be able to sleep tonight with that graphic image in my mind. That gaze would make a rottweiller cringe. She looks like someone just called her [ad hominem removed]

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 03:12:55 +0000

That's a good defence following her original story. The impression I gained from David Codrea's comments was misleading in alleging Miss Stewart was making stuff up. This is an excursion off the topic, of course, and does nothing to alter my criticism of Miss Stewart's misrepresentation of the facts of global warming.

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:22:27 +0000

Richard – thanks for the links. I still can’t find where these figures for 21 times CO2 for methane are calculated.

It would be interesting to see how it is done. The figure keeps getting recycled but no one quotes a source document.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:53:08 +0000

Rachel Stewart responds here
http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/column-riding-shotgun/4524686/Annie-got-her-gun-and-they-didn-t-like-it

By: Alexander K

Alexander K — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:39:44 +0000

Wow! The lady in question’s little blog story about her experience in a Texas diner appears to be a fabrication – so she’s not only anti farming, she”s anti guns and also a fiction writer. Making blogs vanish then reappear later is a really dumb tactic too, but hey, feminists appear to imagine they have licence to do this stuff. Does the newspaper which employs her not have a few questions about her professional behaviour, or has NZ gone so far down the PC route that employers have little influence about what their staff can and can’t say or do?