Werner

I think you will find a partial answer to your concern at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html

As you can see, there is a total net radiative forcing (causing climate 
change) of 1.6 W/m² ± 0.8 W/m². This wide uncertainty is due mainly to 
the cloud albedo effect, caused largely by the variable presence of 
aerosols (e.g., sulfates from power stations) in the stratosphere. I 
believe the IPCC are working hard to narrow down the uncertainty, but 
I've not yet seen any result. OTOH, the GHG components of the equation 
are tightly known. Whatever, even with the uncertainty, the net result 
shows that RF is positive because of GHG emissions.

I draw to your attention the relatively small contribution from cyclic 
natural sources (mostly solar irradiance) and its uncertainty. 
Obviously, volcanic activity has to be discounted because it is acyclic. 
In any case, major volcanoes cause only minor blips lasting, at the 
most, about 5 years, due largely to sulfate emissions thrown into the 
stratosphere. In terms of 30-year climate studies, this short period is 
of little consequence.

If you wish to know more with a balanced argument, pro and con, I can't 
do better than to recommend the book I reviewed at
http://www.cypenv.info/books/files/pittock.aspx
This is up-to-date (later than the above graphic), has precise language 
and exceedingly few scientific or technical errors (I found only one, 
possibly a typo), while presenting an equilibrium.

Brian

Werner Engelmaier wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian,
> Philosophical reflections are sorely needed—they do not seem to be going 
> on anywhere.
> I find the Global Warming issue particularly troublesome. I agree the 
> indications are that Earth is going through a warming phase, as it has 
> done many times before. Clearly, that there is some contribution from 
> human activities is logical. What is not at all clear is the extent of 
> the that contribution.
> However, for arguments sake, lets us assume that contribution is lets 
> say about 60%. If that were a fact, than nothing humanity can do could 
> really reverse this, short of getting rid of two thirds of the globe's 
> population, and the remainder reverting to the Middle Ages.
> I sure do not see that anything close to this can happen, and everything 
> else is essentially a knee-jerk placebo.
> Werner
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harvey Miller <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:08 am
> Subject: [LF] Fw: [LF] RE climate change -- humans or ?
> 
> Thanks, Brian.
> 
> The world could use more philosophical reflection and less biased passion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> 
> From: Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> 
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> 
> Sent: Fri, February 12, 2010 7:46:20 AM
> 
> Subject: [LF] NTC: Toxic computers (cont)
> 
> 
> 
> [rant]
> 
> I've been following the debate here and have deliberately not joined in, up to 
> 
> now, because it is not a single subject, but half-a-dozen completely independent 
> 
> ones, all mixed up, higgledy-piggledy. It is therefore impossible to follow a 
> 
> logical sequence of arguments. (In any case, although the LF forum may have been 
> 
> the correct place to start, this should really have gone to the EnviroNet 
> 
> board!)
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the newer members may not know me so please forgive me if I briefly 
> 
> state that I have been working with various high-level government agencies and 
> 
> the United Nations Environment Programme for nigh on 3 decades, initially on 
> 
> ozone depletion and later climate change, both atmospheric science-based. 
> 
> Notwithstanding, my academic background started 60-odd years ago in electronics.
> 
> 
> 
> In my environmental specialities, I doubt whether there are any serious 
> 
> atmospheric scientists who would deny today that ozone depletion, due mainly to 
> 
> man-made organic halogenated compounds, is fact, pure and simple. This was not 
> 
> always the case; when the Montreal Protocol was signed in September 1987, the 
> 
> science was certainly shaky, although there was considerable circumstantial 
> 
> evidence in its favour. Just one year later, the scientific proof was 
> 
> empirically demonstrated, combined with sound explanations why the so-called 
> 
> "ozone-hole" was found where CFCs etc. were not emitted. Scepticism is a healthy 
> 
> reaction to such explanations and even proof, and it took the best part of 10 
> 
> years before 99% of the scientific community realised that anthropogenic 
> 
> ozone-depletion was for real.
> 
> 
> 
> Moving to climate change, the science is already advanced and is improving 
> 
> daily. We are now at the stage where few atmospheric scientists deny the reality 
> 
> that humans are changing the atmosphere (there is plenty of solid proof, even 
> 
> confirming Arrhenius' hypothesis and calculations that CO2 emissions would cause 
> 
> climate change, well over 100 years ago). There may still be some doubt in the 
> 
> minds of the few more recalcitrant persons as to the respective proportions due 
> 
> to man-made and natural phenomena, but that is not the crux of the matter.  The 
> 
> science is now robust, even with the uncertainties of some of the details.
> 
> 
> 
> Coming back to the thread, I'm still amazed at the difference in attitude on the 
> 
> two sides of the Atlantic, not at the facts of life, but at the cynicism -- 
> 
> which is NOT the same as scepticism -- expressed on environmental matters on the 
> 
> west side. Even from the relative intelligentsia of some of the members of this 
> 
> forum, I shudder at some of the statements. I'm not sure whether this is due to 
> 
> ignorance or deliberate denial, in some cases. Don't get me wrong, some from the 
> 
> east side of that sea are also manifestly mistaken, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that some of this may be due to envirofatigue: nagging the same thing 
> 
> over and over again is a terrible waste of time and energy and the popular media 
> 
> must take a whole lot of blame for this. In particular, I decry the extreme 
> 
> scenarios (in both senses) that the tabloids so love to propagate (even those 
> 
> English ones that pretend to be serious, like the Daily Telegraph and Daily 
> 
> Mail) to try and convince everyone that it is baloney. These rags will change 
> 
> their tune, like the Sun, if a Conservative government gets in later this year.
> 
> 
> 
> I won't go into details because there have been so many right and so many wrong 
> 
> things, at least in my opinion, scattered around this subject. However, there is 
> 
> one thing I shall categorically state: the future of mankind, in the long term, 
> 
> must rest on recycling as many molecules and atoms as we can. All our physical 
> 
> resources are limited in quantity and everything that is thrown away and becomes 
> 
> irrecoverable is a resource lost to our children and grandchildren. I say this 
> 
> irrespective of cost: today's valueless PE or PP insulation may be tomorrow's 
> 
> fuel that drives us to work in our 8th generation hybrid car!
> 
> 
> 
> I therefore appeal for more thought and reflection on where we are really 
> 
> heading, rather than gut-feeling and especially total or partial denial.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to take this to a slightly more philosophical level than expressed in some 
> 
> of the other post. Let battle now be enjoined!
> 
> [/rant]
> 
> 
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> 
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee 
> 
> Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> 
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> with following text in
> 
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> 
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET 
> 
> Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> 
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> 
> Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for 
> 
> additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> or 
> 
> 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> 
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee 
> 
> Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> 
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> with following text in
> 
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> 
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET 
> 
> Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> 
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> 
> Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for 
> 
> additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> or 
> 
> 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------