Re: [asa] tipping point?

I'd like to focus on the following

<quote>
The IPCC projections are completely unrealistic, in part because: 1)
They include completely unrealistic projections for future atmospheric
methane concentrations, and 2) They include unrealistic projections
for future CO2 emissions, and for future CO2 atmospheric
concentrations. Mark Bahner (environmental engineer)</quote>

See also Mark's 'prediction'
http://markbahner.50g.com/what_will_happen_to_us.htm

Trends for atmospheric CO2 http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.php
Trends for global CO2 emissions http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.htm

Others have also looked at Mark's claims and found them to be wanting

<quote>You write: "...there has never yet been a decade when the
concentration has increased by more than 15 ppm. So the odds of the
concentration increase averaging 20 ppm/decade over the next 6 decades
is virtually zero; yet, the IPCC is saying that there are 19 chances
out of 20 that atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase by at least
20 ppm/decade for the next 6 decades. That's just complete nonsense.
One wonders why IPCC scientists would even be paid to generate such
complete bunk."

Yet the data from NOAA (which is consistent with your data through
2000) indicates that the rolling decadal increases are ALL over 15ppm
and increasing:
15.6ppm/decade in 2001
16.3ppm/decade in 2002
18.2ppm/decade in 2003
19.0ppm/decade in 2004
18.7ppm/decade in 2005
19.6ppm/decade in 2006
21.0ppm/decade in 2007

Since you are clearly maintaining and monitoring your site, why do you
not include the last 7 years in your analysis? Looked at another way:
Jan 2000 (369ppm)
Jan 2007 (384ppm)
At this rate of 15ppm over 7years, it would not be surprising if it
exceed 20ppm/decade in 2010.

So 4 years ago in 2003, the decadal emission increase (ppm/decade) had
ALREADY EXCEEDED the rate given in the 5% probability scenario for
year 2030.

These are January numbers which I believe match your numbers through
year 2000. You should be aware that 3 recent months show decadal
increases greater than 20ppm:
April 2006 (20.4ppm/decade)
December 2006 (20.5ppm/decade)
January 2007 (21.0 ppm/decade)</quote>

Similarly the data from the ICPP AR4 draft report shows the amount of
global emissions and the CO2 atmospheric concentrations. Not
surprising using both human and natural forcings the ICPP found the
best match between data and observations.

SRES emission scenarios are proposed to determine the impact of
various scenarios on CO2 forcings http://sres.ciesin.org/

So the question becomes: Why should we reject the findings of the ICPP
and accept the musings of Mark, especially when compared to the
reality of the data?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Mar 4 16:15:07 2007