Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

It looks like Daly's article is no more than 5 years or so old, as some of the articles in the bibliography have dates in the fall of 2000. Besides, some of the arguments are reasonable and still apply.

And the junkscience link is dated April, 2006. Did you read it Parados?

I think Mr.Parados is losing his enthusiasm. Okie. I posted Eight Points( each one with considerable evidence)-NOTE NUMBER EIGHT ON YOUR SOLAR POINT, OKIE-- on this thread. Mr. Parados responds with a weak blurb about time of publication.

I am very much afraid, Okie, that he is out of ammunition.

I've noticed that too. Parados, remember the heated debates we've had. Whats happened to you? Are you okay?

Parados deserves credit. He usually brings some evidence to back his points and he does not resort to name calling. At least I don't remember anything serious. The debates we've had have been stimulating and enjoyable, and pretty much above the belt.

You are correct, Okie. I do not remember Mr. Parados calling names. However( and I am not singling Mr. Parados out on this) when I post statements with evidence concerning topics pertaining directly to global warming, I expect that people will either agree with my post, disagree with my post and bring evidence to show why my post is erroneous or, even ignore my post.

What I do not expect is that people like Plain Ol Me will attack Ad Hominem( yes,I do know what it means) without even mentioning the substance of my posts.

Earth at warmest in 400 years
There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council.

The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s. The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years. In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year. Their graph depicting a rise in temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the "hockey stick."

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (2006)

(The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter.)

In looking at things as they are, I think that it is the hight of mankinds arrogance to believe that we can be having THAT much of an effect on an ecosystem that has been churning away happily for 100's of millions of years.

The earth has ALWAYS gone through changes in climate. Hotter, colder, more or less oxygen than we have now. All these processes were humming along LONG before mankind showed up on the scene and all of them will be clicking away long after the last human has gone to dust.

Imagining that we can turn back the planet's climatological clock by carpooling and turning the thermostat down is like a flea believing that he can control the dog he is on by playing the banjo.

Get a clue people, you are insignificant in the scheme of the planet. If it heats up, it's going to heat up whether we are here or not.

Oh, and just in case we get into the 'It's all America's fault syndrome:

EU way off course for meeting Kyoto targets: latest figures
by Richard Ingham
Thu Jun 22, 9:42 AM ET

PARIS (AFP) - New data has shown that the European Union (EU) remains embarrassingly off track for meeting its pledges under the Kyoto Protocol, the UN climate-change pact it championed after a US walkout.

Instead of falling, EU greenhouse-gas pollution actually rose in the latest year of monitoring, adding to the task of meeting the Kyoto goals, according to figures released by the European Environment Agency (EAA) in Copenhagen.

"Despite the various policy initiatives, this report highlights that the trend is still going in the wrong direction," declared EAA Executive Director Jacqueline McGlade.

"Europe must implement all planned policies and measures relating to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions," said McGlade.

She warned that EU members needed to take "ambitious" steps when crafting the next phase of their Emissions Trading System (ETS), a Kyoto mechanism designed to reduce pollution by big industry.

The EU-15 has pledged to reduce emissions by eight percent by 2012 as compared with a benchmark of 1990.

But between 2003 and 2004, emissions rose by 0.3 percent, or 11.5 million tonnes, marking the second annual year of increase, the EAA said in its annual report.

Emissions in 2004 were just 0.6 percent lower than the base year of 1990 -- more than four percentage points adrift of where they should have been by that time.

For the EU-25, after the "Big Bang" membership enlargement, the increase was 0.4 percent in 2004, or 18 million tonnes, over 2003.

"An increase of 0.4 percent may appear small; however, the magnitude of GHG (greenhouse-gas emissions) is such that the actual increase is significant," said McGlade.

"(It) is comparable to the amount of CO2 emissions released by three million people if they were to drive their cars around the world."

The EU saved Kyoto from collapse after the United States abandoned the treaty, then still in draft form, in March 2001 in one of President George W. Bush's first acts in office.

The pact requires industrialised countries that have ratified it to trim outputs of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases that trap solar heat and could wreak havoc with the planet's delicate climate system.

Making these cuts can carry a significant cost, in making equipment more fuel-efficient and cleaner or in weaning an economy away from dirty fossil fuels and converting it to renewable sources, which is why Bush walked out.

The EAA report makes these points:

-- Road transport contributed most to the increase, accounting for a rise of 12 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) among the EU-15. Iron and steel makers were also culprits, upping their CO2 pollution by eight million tonnes.

-- Spain and Italy had the biggest GHG rise, with 4.8 and 0.9 percent respectively. Spain switched to fossil fuels after the 2003 drought hit power from hydro. Italy emitted more through oil refining and road transport.

-- Germany, Denmark and Finland did best, seeing reductions of GHGs of 0.9 percent, 8.1 percent and 4.9 percent respectively. Germany offset a rise from the iron and steel sector by big reductions in CO2 in households and services. Denmark and Finland made further moves to switch from fossils to hydro in electricity production.

Friends of the Earth Europe reacted bitterly.

"Europes governments make grand statements about their commitment to reduce greenhouse gas pollution," it said.

"Yet economy and industry ministers continue to block or water down policy measures to switch to renewable energies, reduce energy waste or introduce fuel consumption standards for cars."

The report is the second bad jolt for the EU's Kyoto ambitions in less than two months.

In April, the ETS, a "carbon market" where companies buy and sell quotas of CO2 under the EU's cap-and-trade system, went into a tailspin. It emerged that some national governments had been hugely over-generous in allocating these firms pollution quotas in the first phase of the scheme.

The EAA report is sent to Kyoto's parent body, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), under clauses requiring signatories to provide an annual inventory of man-made GHGs.

Its sources are national governments, although the data is also reviewed by the European Commission and the EAA.

LINK

You guys SIGNED the fricken thing and screamed bloody murder when the U.S. claimed that the targets were unrealistic. Yet you can't begin to meet the limits of the danged thing.

You're right - that's one of the things, this EU-agency looks at.

cicerone, it should be no surprise that communist countries result in more environmental destruction than in free societies.

Okie- In 1997, the Senate of the United States voted against the ratification of the Kyoto Treaty 95-0( Ninety Five to Nothing), The main reason was that although the signatories were not unwilling to destroy the economic system of the USA, they were willing to give China and India free rein. China and India did not have to sign on because they were developing countries.

I know. Kyoto is a joke. If we are truly at the "tipping point" as the great Al Gore claims, it is too little too late, and the too little that Kyoto does is more than replaced by China, India, etc. It is purely and transparently political.

The scholarly Mr. Walter Hinteler produces a post which gives a link allegedly showing a rise in the earth's temperatures.

I do not think Mr. Walter Hinteler has examined the evidence based on scholarly articles and the findings of the IPCC which I set forth previously.

It is regrettable that people do not know how to read!!

Let us begin--

NOTE: I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN EVIDENCE BUT I CAN REPOST EVIDENCE FROM SCHOLARLY ARTICLES AND THE IPCC ON ANY OF THE POINTS BELOW IF REQUESTED.


l. Mr. Walter Hinteler's post indicates that "Evidence from Proxies" show that the earth is warming.

This is incorrect. The Ipcc, in its own reports, said that it is debatable whether there is enough temperature proxy data to be representative of hemispheric, let alone global climate changes given the lack of large spatial scale coherence in the data

2. The last 400 years were mentioned, but the Medieval Warm Period seems to have been overlooked. That was the period in 700 to 900AD when Greenland and Iceland was so warm that the Vikings farmed it.
I do not believe there were any SUV's in Greenland at the time.

3. If you read Mr. Walter Hinteler's link(I DID) you will find that it says that the s u r f a c e temperatures were level from 1856 to 1910, then rose to 1945, then declined slightly to 1974, then rose to the present.

The question must be asked Why did the temperatures rise from 1910 to 1945? If CO2 is the cause, there was very little put into the air during that period. If CO2 is the cause, why was there not a larger rise beween 1945 to 1974 when industry began to boom all over the world???

4.And JUST HOW LARGE WAS THE TEMPERATURE RISE WORLD WIDE THIS LAST CENTURY?

O.6C six tenths of a degree centigrade SAYS MR. HINTLER'S LINK!!!

AND, DO NOT FORGET A MOST IMPORTANT POINT-

These were surface measurments.

5. Were they thorough surface measurements?

No, Not according to Mr. Hinteler's link which said:

QUOTE:

"The stations( those that measure temperature) are not spatially distributed to monitor all land areas with equal density. Unpopulated and undeveloped areas always tend to have poor coverage"


6. Mr.Hinterer's own link says that the stations do not monitor all land areas with equal density. Could there be a problem with S U R F A C E temperature monitoring?

Certainly-- according to the United States Climatological Network, New York City's average yearly temperature went up l degree Fahrenheit since 1930 while Albany,New York's temperature went down l degree F. since 1930.


Why? Scientists have named it the "Heat Island Effect"--Large cities generate so much of their own heat that they raise the temperature. The heat island effect is not caused by Co2.

7> Is there another way to measure Temperature changes?

Yes, a much better one. It is the measurement of temperatures from satellites which do not have the failings mentioned concerning surface measurement mentioned in No. 5 above by the IPCC themselves. IT IS VITAL TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE IPCC( THOSE WHO ARE PREDICTING GLOBAL WARMING) PREDICT THAT, ACCORDING TO THEIR COMPUTER MODELS, THE TEMPERATURE IN THE TROPOSPHERE SHOULD INCREASE AS FAST OR FASTER THAN THEIR SURFACE MEASUREMENTS.

AS A MATTER OF FACT THEY DO NOT!!!


I have provided 7 sections which show that the evidence provided in Mr. Walter Hinteler's link is not only weak but almost nonexistent.

Since this was a report done on request for the US Congress, I'm sure, you'll them about your findings .... otherwise they'll find this non-existent link by pure chance as well!

Mr. Walter Hinteler provides( thank you, Mr. Hinteler) a graph to show that, indeed, some of the pious European Countries which excoriate the USA for their alleged "pollution" have not met their Kyoto goals.

I am sure that Mr. Hinteler took a good measure of satisfaction( and he should) to report that Germany was the most "virtuous" country in the regard of compliane with Kyoto goals.

Alas, I am sad to say that Mr. Hinteler's satisfaction must have a short shelf life.

According to the New York Times< Tuesday June 20, 2006-Front Page, there is a story with the headline

FOR EUROPE, A GREEN SELF-IMAGE CLASES WITH A RELIANCE ON COAL.

The article explains that there is ONE power station that is being built in Schwarze Pumpe, Germany, which will be CARBON FREE.

The problem is that the new plant, A demonstration model, pales next to
' the EIGHT COAL-FIRED POWER STATIONS GERMANY PLANS TO BUILD FOR COMMERCIAL USE BETWEEN FROM NOW TO 2001- NONE OF THEM REALLY CARBON FREE"


How Shocking!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr. Hinteler- I respectfully request that you read my post and rebut it.

I know the report was done for the US Congress. A lot of things are done for the US Congress. That report is riddled with errors. I showed how it was riddled with errors.

Now, you show that my analysis is incorrect. If you can't, have a good evening. Drink some of that good German beer!!!

It's 7:37 in the morning here, but nevertheless thanks for your kind and friendly remarks.

Mr. Hinteler- Let me assure you that there have been times when some of my cohorts were drinking beer at 7:37 AM. However, they had still not gone to bed.

I enjoy a good German Beer. Or at least they say it is a German Beer. Is St. Pauli Girl really brewed in Germany? It is my favorite.

walter

Are you certain your time is well spent with these two?

Good essay/review here.

Thanks for the Link, Bernie.

Well, regarding your question - that keeps me fit, 'cause it stimulates the bloodpressure in the early morning.

walter

Truman Capote's technique was morning masturbation. As I include both your option and Truman's, I have to add in a cigarette to level myself out.