George OB1- I have read many of your posts. May I say that you alwasy bring reason and equanimity to the discussion. I am going to tell you that I want you to look at the information below and I would like to have you comment on it. It may be that others do not have the ability to examine the evidence I am presenting. I am sure that you do have that ability.
You will note that the evidence I present is referenced and can easily be checked.It is referenced to Scientific Peer Reviewed sources--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems very clear to me that most of the posters have not only overlooked sumac's post from Samuelson but they have ASSUMED that there are NO problems involved in the data presented by the IPCC.
Surely, the many bright posters can show with evidence that the problems presented below are not really problems that lead to the mitigation of the so called "threat"!
******************************************************
Problem No. 1--"AS ESTIMATED BY CURRENT MODELS"
see Kerr, Richard A. 1997a "Climate Change" Greenhouse forecasting still cloudy" Science 276:1.040-2
quote:
"Most modelers agree that climate models will not be capable of linking global warming to human actions for at least ten years"
(AT LEAST 10 YEARS--THAT WOULD BE 2007-Kerr wrote in 1997)
Problem No 2--
"Data seem to indicate that there has been regular recurrences of episodes like the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period in a roughly 1500 year climatic cycle over the last 140,000 years WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT THE 1000 YEAR PERIOD I S T O O S H O R T
TO REVEAL THE RELEVANT CLIMATIC PATTERN"
See Broecker, Wallace S. "Was the Medieval Warm Period Global"?
Science 291(5,508):1497-9
Problem No. 3- Natural Forcings MAY have contributed to the observed warmings in the first half of the twentieth century BUT DO NOT explain the warming in the second half of the second century---
But the question that must be answered and must be answered by the COMPUTER MODELS is---Not whether the climate is affected by CO2 but HOW MUCH. If the effect on the climate of an increased amount of co2 in the atmosphere is slight, global warming may not be particularly important.
THE IPCC'S MODELS USING S U R F A C E TEMPERATURES FROM ONLY PARTS OF THE EARTH SAYS THAT THE TEMPERATURE HAS INCREASED BY 0.4 TO 0.8 FROM 1856- TO 2000 AND WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT IS DUE TO NATURAL FORCING.
BUT THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS USED BY THE IPCC ARE FLAWED. The IPCC acknowledged the problem of tropospheric temperature in MODELS and those in OBSERVATIONS--SEE ipcc 2001a:12:executive summary---
Actually, the observed Troposhperic temperature, as measured by the NOAA satellites WHICH ARE MUCH MORE ACCURATE AND COVER ALL OF THE AREAS OF THE EARTH( which are not covered by the Ipcc's surface measurements, as they admit) show essentially NO UPWARD TREND IN TEMPERATURE.
The last problem-No. 4 ---refers to the section which reads, "Uncertainties in Forcings"
Too many problems- but the major problem is the possible inaccuracy of the information fed into the COMPUTER MODELS and, more importantly, the gap between the satellite measurements and the surface measurements.
*********************************************************
The data on the surface measurements made by the IPCC and the satellite measurements they did not make is vital.
Perhaps, I do not understand this phenomenon. Can anyone rebut this point with regard to inaccurate measurement of Global Warming based on surface measurements as opposed to satellite measurements?
georgeob1 wrote:It is fairly evident from the photograp posted by Walter and the visible accumulation of loose debris at the foot of the peak that many chunks have previously fallen from the Eiger. Were they due to global warming as well? The smooth well rounded 3,000 foot peaks of the Appalachian mountians were once rocky jagged peaks that rose 15,000 or more feet above the surrounding terrain. (A similar comment couuld be made about the Urals in Russia or the somewhat higher Carpathian mountains in Eastern Europe.) Was it global warming that wore them down?
Reading is easy. Thinking is more difficult.
Yes, I agree. Those Swiss know nothing about their mountains.
But they do know about CooCoo Clocks!!! See Harry Lime in "The Third Man"!!!
:22 pm Post: 2131588 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George OB1- I have read many of your posts. May I say that you alwasy bring reason and equanimity to the discussion. I am going to tell you that I want you to look at the information below and I would like to have you comment on it. It may be that others do not have the ability to examine the evidence I am presenting. I am sure that you do have that ability.
You will note that the evidence I present is referenced and can easily be checked.It is referenced to Scientific Peer Reviewed sources--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems very clear to me that most of the posters have not only overlooked sumac's post from Samuelson but they have ASSUMED that there are NO problems involved in the data presented by the IPCC.
Surely, the many bright posters can show with evidence that the problems presented below are not really problems that lead to the mitigation of the so called "threat"!
******************************************************
Problem No. 1--"AS ESTIMATED BY CURRENT MODELS"
see Kerr, Richard A. 1997a "Climate Change" Greenhouse forecasting still cloudy" Science 276:1.040-2
quote:
"Most modelers agree that climate models will not be capable of linking global warming to human actions for at least ten years"
(AT LEAST 10 YEARS--THAT WOULD BE 2007-Kerr wrote in 1997)
Problem No 2--
"Data seem to indicate that there has been regular recurrences of episodes like the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period in a roughly 1500 year climatic cycle over the last 140,000 years WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT THE 1000 YEAR PERIOD I S T O O S H O R T
TO REVEAL THE RELEVANT CLIMATIC PATTERN"
See Broecker, Wallace S. "Was the Medieval Warm Period Global"?
Science 291(5,508):1497-9
Problem No. 3- Natural Forcings MAY have contributed to the observed warmings in the first half of the twentieth century BUT DO NOT explain the warming in the second half of the second century---
But the question that must be answered and must be answered by the COMPUTER MODELS is---Not whether the climate is affected by CO2 but HOW MUCH. If the effect on the climate of an increased amount of co2 in the atmosphere is slight, global warming may not be particularly important.
THE IPCC'S MODELS USING S U R F A C E TEMPERATURES FROM ONLY PARTS OF THE EARTH SAYS THAT THE TEMPERATURE HAS INCREASED BY 0.4 TO 0.8 FROM 1856- TO 2000 AND WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT IS DUE TO NATURAL FORCING.
BUT THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS USED BY THE IPCC ARE FLAWED. The IPCC acknowledged the problem of tropospheric temperature in MODELS and those in OBSERVATIONS--SEE ipcc 2001a:12:executive summary---
Actually, the observed Troposhperic temperature, as measured by the NOAA satellites WHICH ARE MUCH MORE ACCURATE AND COVER ALL OF THE AREAS OF THE EARTH( which are not covered by the Ipcc's surface measurements, as they admit) show essentially NO UPWARD TREND IN TEMPERATURE.
The last problem-No. 4 ---refers to the section which reads, "Uncertainties in Forcings"
Too many problems- but the major problem is the possible inaccuracy of the information fed into the COMPUTER MODELS and, more importantly, the gap between the satellite measurements and the surface measurements.
*********************************************************
The data on the surface measurements made by the IPCC and the satellite measurements they did not make is vital.
Perhaps, I do not understand this phenomenon. Can anyone rebut this point with regard to inaccurate measurement of Global Warming based on surface measurements as opposed to satellite measurements?
BernardR wrote:But they do know about CooCoo Clocks!!! See Harry Lime in "The Third Man"!!!
I don't know what CooCoo Clocks are.
Cuckoo clocks are genuinely made in the Black Forest region, which is part of germany.
Harry Lime/"The Third Man" is situated in Vienna (mainly), which is the capital of Austria.
Thank you, Mr.Hinteler, for giving me the correct spelling--Cuckoo.
Well, Harry Lime( played by Orson Welles) in "The Third Man" did not think much of the Swiss, at least when compared to the Italians when it came to creativity.
LIme points out that the Swiss had 500 years of peace, as opposed to years of warfare in Italy and the Italians had nevertheless produced Da Vinci, Michaelangelo and Dante.
And what had the Swiss produced--Lime mockingly asked?
The Cuckoo clock!!!
BernardR wrote:And what had the Swiss produced--Lime mockingly asked?
The Cuckoo clock!!!
Thanks for bringing that well reputated historical source back to memory.
okie wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:And to think...
...these bozos actually use to make a big deal of liberals being "knee jerk" liberals.
What a huge laugh!
The knee-jerk conservatives can out knee-jerk the knee-jerk liberals every day and in every way.
This is so hilarious!
Frank, do you ever have any reasoned argument or post to make? All I ever see is some mindless sarcasm based on your own biased mindset. Can you at least give a fact or a reason for what you believe? The worst that can happen to you will be somebody can disprove your fact or reason with opposing evidence. Or your fact or evidence will stand, and the debate goes on, but as it is, you contribute nothing to this debate.
In contrast, Asherman is excellent. Parados presents evidence. Bernard provides facts and evidence by the bucketfull, and he is frustrated that they aren't all answered. Foxfyre is good. Even Cyclops and cicerone come up with something once in a while. (Don't worry posters, if I haven't mentioned your name, I just mentioned the ones that came to mind first) Frank, if you want to contribute something besides sarcasm, it would be nice.
You folks are not worth sarcasm...and it is not sarcasm I am offering. It is scorn.
SCORN!
You are a bunch of silly, knee-jerk fools pretending to be engaged in meaningful discussion...when in fact, you are merely pawns acting like pawns.
If I ever see improvement in the quality of your postings...something worthy of more than scorn, however, I promise I will elevate my comments to the level of sarcasm.
okie wrote:
Quote:I can agree on one thing, that is that oil is likely finite and non-renewable
Now there's a cognitive performance of notable magnitude for our boy.
And you think you might catch him up on that "likely" stuck in there? Not a chance. What about parallel universes, hey? Let's see some liberal 'scientist' prove there isn't lots and lots and lots of oil there/there/there/. And free enterprise will get to it too.
okie wrote:... I agree, let the specialists (or professionals) keep working.
so long as they dont come to any conclusions disagreeable to okie.
blatham wrote:okie wrote:
Quote:I can agree on one thing, that is that oil is likely finite and non-renewable
Now there's a cognitive performance of notable magnitude for our boy.
And you think you might catch him up on that "likely" stuck in there? Not a chance. What about parallel universes, hey? Let's see some liberal 'scientist' prove there isn't lots and lots and lots of oil there/there/there/. And free enterprise will get to it too.
Actually there is plenty of methane sloshing about in the solar system on places like Titan. Why we havent exploited this already is beyond me.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:okie wrote:... I agree, let the specialists (or professionals) keep working.
so long as they dont come to any conclusions disagreeable to okie.
At least Okie is willing to look at something other than the data being spoonfed to the Chicken Little ("the sky is falling") crowd. I am not seeing anybody on the other side claiming such certainty of their positions. But they are willing to have an open mind about it and at least look at other possibilities.
I don't recall another issue for which so many people were ready to implement sweeping, expensive, far-reaching, and possibly life changing policy based on so little verifiable evidence that it is necessary and/or would be even effective.
Foxfyre wrote:Steve (as 41oo) wrote:okie wrote:... I agree, let the specialists (or professionals) keep working.
so long as they dont come to any conclusions disagreeable to okie.
At least Okie is willing to look at something other than the data being spoonfed to the Chicken Little ("the sky is falling") crowd. I am not seeing anybody on the other side claiming such certainty of their positions. But they are willing to have an open mind about it and at least look at other possibilities.
I don't recall another issue for which so many people were ready to implement sweeping, expensive, far-reaching, and possibly life changing policy based on so little verifiable evidence that it is necessary and/or would be even effective.
And what data do you have that global warming is not occurring? There is no scientific data that presently disputes it.
parados wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Steve (as 41oo) wrote:okie wrote:... I agree, let the specialists (or professionals) keep working.
so long as they dont come to any conclusions disagreeable to okie.
At least Okie is willing to look at something other than the data being spoonfed to the Chicken Little ("the sky is falling") crowd. I am not seeing anybody on the other side claiming such certainty of their positions. But they are willing to have an open mind about it and at least look at other possibilities.
I don't recall another issue for which so many people were ready to implement sweeping, expensive, far-reaching, and possibly life changing policy based on so little verifiable evidence that it is necessary and/or would be even effective.
And what data do you have that global warming is not occurring? There is no scientific data that presently disputes it.
Much data has been presented to show global warming is occurring at this time, and some of it is persuasive. But then can we agree that the earth is always warming or cooling at any given time and that has been going on long before humankind had any measurable impact on much of anything? The earth has likely been warmer in the past than it is now and will likely be so again before or after the next cooling off period and/or the next ice age. And humankind and all other species able to do so have adapted to whatever they have to adapt to. Humankind did not cause the extinction of the dinosaurs and did not have one thing to do with the new species that have evolved to replace them.
I say lets keep watch and do what is necessary to be good stewards of our environment. I am not convinced that reverting to a less productive or more primitive lifestyle is necessary to do that.
Progress is being made, much progress, about global warming. How do we know? Because our president doesn't feel the need to do anything about it, especially if it were to hurt business or his friends in the fuel industries.
sumac wrote:Progress is being made, much progress, about global warming. How do we know? Because our president doesn't feel the need to do anything about it, especially if it were to hurt business or his friends in the fuel industries.
And then there are those in the debate who always want to throw in a red herring to polticize it. I don't think this is a 'us vs them' or "right vs left' or "Republican vs Democrat' issue. It is a people issue. The consensus to reject Kyoto was quite bipartisan in Congress and our former Democrat president was as opposed to Kyoto as the current President and just as reluctant to hamstring business and commerce based on unproven science.
Fault our President where fault is justified. It simply isn't on this issue.
Evidence that the earth is warming is overwhelming. The body of expert opinion is that it is anthropogenic. Its an uncomfortable message, so lets ignore it.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Evidence that the earth is warming is overwhelming. The body of expert opinion is that it is anthropogenic. Its an uncomfortable message, so lets ignore it.
Has anybody on either side said 'let's ignore it?' Can you provide a quote to that effect?
Foxfyre wrote:Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Evidence that the earth is warming is overwhelming. The body of expert opinion is that it is anthropogenic. Its an uncomfortable message, so lets ignore it.
Has anybody on either side said 'let's ignore it?' Can you provide a quote to that effect?
Continued disputation of the conclusions by non-expert opinion amounts to the same thing.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Evidence that the earth is warming is overwhelming. The body of expert opinion is that it is anthropogenic. Its an uncomfortable message, so lets ignore it.
Has anybody on either side said 'let's ignore it?' Can you provide a quote to that effect?
Continued disputation of the conclusions by non-expert opinion amounts to the same thing.
Does it? Or maybe those on your side who refuse to even consider opposing points of view are 'ignoring it'?
