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

One of the frustrations often mentioned by Bernard is when a point is made with back up evidence, the opposition needs to properly acknowledge the evidence and provide an explanation of why he or she does not think the evidence is valid. Seldom do we see this.

One example, of several I could mention, is I think both Bernard and I have cited good evidence of solar cycles that may correlate with observed global temperature cycles. The opposition either scoffs at the whole theory, or they pick one minor point within the theory and attack that point rather than addressing the theory in an open honest manner.

...as the patient[/i] said to his doctors[/i].

I dont think you are simply trying to cut through the fog, I think you and others are deliberately creating fog around professional opinion which is quite clear.

But while you are quite at liberty to ignore doctor's advice and screw up your health, you are not, or rather should not be- at liberty to screw up the health of the planet.

Nor should you be able to impose policy, expenses, and compromise property of others on the basis of what you choose to believe. Some want assurance that it is necessary before signing on to restrictive, expensive, and/or possibly harmful policy and/or remedies. It isn't helpful to slander, criticize, ridicule, or insult those who have not yet closed their minds, nor is it useful to put words in their mouths or pretend that you are somehow privy as to what their intent is.

As you do not have such powers, however, and as Okie does not have the power you assigned to him, it would be more pleasant to continue to debate the pros and cons of the available data and maybe everybody might learn something.

. I'm not able to impose policy. Thats the job of government. Secondly its not what I choose to believe. This is not matter of picking the best religion, or most appropriate carpet colour. Its a matter of accepting reality, in so far as we can determine it. I'm no expert, and in this matter neither are governments. Thats why governments employ experts to give them advice. They can implement policy based on those recommendations, or they can ignore such, or decide on some middle way. What they are not at liberty to do is pretentd they didnt know or to shoot the messenger for bringing bad news. Personally I dont give a damn what they do. But the science is quite clear, and some governments do feel they have a responsibility to give leadership on this matter.

With reference to slandering others...I havent. If I've been critical or poked fun I would say not enough to stop their silly posts.

If the posts are silly to you, why read them? Or if you had the power to suppress them, would you? I always thought Brits valued freedom of speech and expressions as much as Americans do. But I've been wrong on stuff re data on global warming and climate as has been pointed out by those who are actually debating this issue. And I could be wrong about you too.

Foxfyre said:



Sorry, but this is done all of the time. Governments, countries....even business or industrial entities. Professional associations, it does go on.

Okie,
Sorry, I can not ascribe to your three points. My differences may seem minor, but they are not.

And we are not the "opposition".

Even in formal debates, the participants aren't required to back up their positions or arguments with verifiable facts. I do not have the time to become an expert in this area, and could not, in any event, without extensive formal education and training.

Do you wish to have all of our statements prefaced with "It is my belief..."?

I think the fact that stuff happens is not necessarily a good argument for not resisting other stuff.

Your point that nobody has the time and expertise to provide proof for all their opinions on most subjects is a good one. But, having some experience with formal debate, I can assure you that one better be able to back up his/her claims with something more than "because I said so" when the other side does have verification for an opposing point. Otherwise, the judge will score accordingly.

I would, however, appreciate being able to express an opinion without the implication that I'm an idiot if somebody disagrees with it. I very much appreciate those who correct me with a simple, "I think you are wrong about that, and here's why. . . . ." Those with the self assurance to be able to do that are in short supply it seems.

Because unfortunately one doesnt know they are silly until after reading them. I will admit however that certain names (present company excepted) trigger a pavlovian-like "silly" alarm, and like the great man's dogs I'm learning .

Free speech? Thats an interesting point. Is someone's sincerely held belief worthy of respect just because[/i] they sincerely believe it?

The right of a person to express a belief should be respected I think. I don't think we have to respect the accuracy of the belief. And I agree there are certain members who I just expect to be hatefully stupid. But I have also learned to (usually) scroll right on past their posts.

I read yours.

Thanks. I know you think I'm a bad tempered lefty tree hugging Brit, but thats only partly true.

LOL. It's okay. I'm an opinionated tree hugging conservative myself, and there are still a few people around willing to put up with me.

Now THAT back and forthing was very agreeable and parts were a real discussion.

I just turned off email updates to US, UN and Iraq, Part 10 because the back and forthing between the few people still posting there had become nasty, insulting, and most disagreeable. And had been that way for some time. Hardly a worthwhile discussion.

I hope I don't have to quit this thread because I am very concerned about the topic.

Check your figures. Check the date of the figures. Now include the figures from 1994 on. From 1994 on the solar decreases but temperature increases. There is something going on that is clearly more than just the solar activity.

Here is an update on this research..
http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/welcome.shtml#New

The new research states..


Updated research okie shows that the correlation that occured for hundreds of years is no longer there. Warming is occurring that can't be explained by solar activity alone.

Here is more research pointing to errors in Lassen's and other research in the early 90s claiming the correlation.
http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf


So Lassen has updated his research and shows less of a correlation even with math errors included.

Then there is this from 2002 on the cloud cover issue

http://folk.uio.no/jegill/papers/2002GL015646.pdf

All the recent research shows that GCR and solar activity can't account for the present warming.

Heritage body 'no' to carbon cuts
The World Heritage Committee (WHC) has rejected a motion calling for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

The WHC meeting in Lithuania heard evidence that 125 sites including the Himalayas and the Great Barrier Reef are at risk from climate change.

Campaigners wanted the WHC to agree that the only way to protect such sites was by reducing emissions, which would have obliged governments to make cuts.

But in discussions on Monday this option was rejected by the Unesco body.

A further clause encouraging countries to draw on projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) when assessing risks to World Heritage Sites was also rejected.


Environmental campaigners have reacted with frustration, and blamed the move on lobbying by governments opposed to restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.
"We are extremely angry that the World Heritage Committee has not taken any meaningful action to protect some of the most important sites on Earth from climate change," said Peter Roderick, co-director of the Climate Justice Programme.

"They are good at drawing up wonderfully drafted documents, but the idea of actually doing anything seems to pose a problem.

"The world is entitled to expect better from the Committee; bending over backwards as a result of fear of the US and Canada will tarnish its reputation."

'Irreparable' damage

Two years ago, Climate Justice co-ordinated petitions from environmental groups saying that three World Heritage Sites - Sagarmatha National Park in the Himalayas, Huascaran National Park in Peru and the Belize Barrier Reef - were being irreparably damaged by the impacts of human-induced global warming.


The Sagarmatha petition was backed by Everest pioneer Sir Edmund Hilary.
Subsequent petitions were lodged concerning the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park on the US-Canada border and Australia's Great Barrier Reef.

A survey conducted by the World Heritage Committee among its member nations found that 125 sites are threatened by climate change.

These include the Tower of London which could be damaged by rising sea levels.

"The survey by the World Heritage Committee suggests that climate change is already impacting on scores of the world's most spectacular natural heritage sites," said Catherine Pearce, climate campaigner for Friends of the Earth International.

"Unless the international community takes urgent action to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases the situation will get much worse."

The WHC meeting, in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius, runs until 16 July.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/5164476.stm

Published: 2006/07/10 20:58:09 GMT

Perhaps the reason is that most nations - large and small, poor and rich - don't want to pay the extremely high economic cost required to calm the environmentalist's fears, particularly given the rather large uncertainty implicit in their forecasts.

What specific actions are being called for by those who want prompt government action? There doesn't seem to be much that any government can do that will make the slightest difference over the short term. Passing regulations that effectively shut down major industries while increasing prices throughout the economy isn't going to fly; not with governments, industry, or the people at large.

The role can play is to grease the skids to bring more nuclear power plants in a short amount of time, and with less capital investment. Tax breaks for technologies that present less expensive alternatives to fossil fuels might work. Most important is funding for continued research related to energy production and climatology.

Mr. Parados has skipped over a great many items which he obviously cannot handle. I will repost them for him and then go to his latest posts where he has made egregious errors: I will show him where he has made those errors. In the meantime, he may rebut the following if he can.

I doubt that he will be able to. He will skip over the evidence and post one paragraph on a minor point.

Thank You, Okie. I was ready to show Mr. Parados how ignorant he was about the sun but you did it for me. Now, I will give him another opportunity to rebut my posts. He evidently either missed my arguments or cannot answer them. I do request that he answer all my rebuttals. Those he does not answer--stand!!!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parados gives a link and I blow it out of the water and HE DOES NOT RESPOND. He blithely goes on acting as if I had not destroyed his thesis and showed FROM HIS OWN LINK that the evidence is very very tentative.

When he is faced with Okie's comment about water vapor, Parados says:
quote
The science is still moving forward. It is being studied. The fact that they don't have the answers yet about cloud cover doesn't negate the present warming.

quote

Parados is not in possession of the facts. The water vapor theory is CRUCIAL in determining just how much warming is present.

NOW, THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH ALMOST ALL OF THE POSTS THUS FAR FROM THOSE WHO THINK THE WORLD IS ENDING---

IF( and I will give evidence) a. the Water vapor problem is not solved

and b. Computer Modeling continues to present
a problem with regard to getting hard data

and c. The Solar Warming is at least PART of the
warming

and d. Satellite measurements are AMBIGIOUS
about temperature in the Troposphere
and Stratosphere(IN PARADOS'S OWN
LINK


IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE WARMING TREND MEASURED BY THE IPCC MAY BE ON THE ORDER OF one half of a degree C during the last thirty years.

ONE HALF DEGREE C during the last thirty years.



NOW, given that possibility, is there anyone who is going to tell me that we did not go into a mini Ice age around 1200 AD and that we might not have come out of that mini ice age around 1970?

WHAT ALMOST ALL OF THE POSTERS FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE IS

THAT

C L I M A T E C H A N G E S!!!

It does not stay frozen in place.

What changed the climate in 800AD when the Vikings farmed Iceland?

SUVS?

First, I will review Asherman's post. He is, if I interpret him correctly, of the mind that IF, IF, CO2 is affecting our climate deleteriously, we must do something to counter that.

I POSITIVELY AGREE BUT

We need not close down our Economy to do so.. BECAUSE IF the Warming is not as great as the left would claim, the TECHNOLOGICAL STEPS TO BE TAKEN TO HELP DILUTE THE P O S S I B L E AND PROBABLY M I N I S C U L E WARMING CAN BE DONE BETWEEN NOW AND THE MID CENTURY.

The left wing would like to push the panic button. They would like to make it a political problem and not a technological one.


Mr. Parados's inability to rebut my posts after he gave the article which contained a great deal to show that the theory of Global Warming is fraught with problems, shows he knows little about the subject.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There has been a great deal of blah-blah-blah on this thread with almost no reference to Scientific Journals and Reports. Mr. Thomas has commented on those peer-reviewed references. MY POSTS, FOR THE MOST PART CONTAIN REFERENCES TO PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS AND REPORTS AND HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED.


Now, to Mr. Parados' references. I hope that he did not list the reference because he felt that no one could or would read it. I DID!!!


I will capitalize key words and then comment at the end of the quotation with a comment in parenthesis:
*************************************************************
Chapter 6- Page 125---from Reference by Mr. Parados


QUOTE---from CONCLUSION OF REPORT

However, most individual models considered in this report DO NOT MAKE USE OF ALL LIKELY IMPORTANT CLIMATE FORCINGS. In addition, many of the forcings ARE NOT YET WELL QUALIFIED. Models that appear to include the same forcings OFTEN DIFFER IN BOTH THE WAY THE FORCINGS ARE QUANTIFIED AND HOW THESE FORCINGS ARE APPLIED TO THE MODEL. This makes it DIFFICULT TO SEPARATE INTRINSIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MODELS FROM THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT FORCINGS...


(Report admits models don't use all imporant and likely climate forcings

Report Admits many of the forcings are not yet well qualified

Report shows that the same forcings are quantified differently in different models and how they are applied to the model)

(Mr. Parados evidently does not understand what I have alluded to in several of my previous posts--Computer Models are ONLY as good as the data and ASSUMPTIONS fed into them and as HIS OWN REFERENCE STATES, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REALLY COMPARE DIFFERENT COMPUTER MODELS TO FIND CONVERGENCE SINCE THE MODELERS--THE PEOPLE- THE SCIENTISTS--USE DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS, DIFFERENT QUANTIFICATION AND DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS).

I sincerely hope that this will not be too difficult for Mr. Parados to understand.

Now, on to the next point( I do have ten pages of notes on Mr. Parados' reference and will utilize them as necessary.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again- Quoting from Chapter 5 of Mr. Parados's reference--



quote

"This chapter has evaluted a widew range of Scientific Literature dealing with the possible causes of recent temperature changes, both on the earth's surface and in the atmosphere. It shows that MANY FACTORS IN BOTH THE NATURAL AND HUMAN RELATED CAUSES probably contributed to the change... Although computer models of the climate system are helpful, THEY TOO HAVE LIMITATIONS."

Limitations? You bet!!!!

Now here is my evidence--note the reference to peer reviewed Scientific Literature--Grassi, Hartmut 2000--"Status and improvements of coupled general circulation models" SCIENCE--288:1, 991-7

quote:


"Coupled atmosphere-ocean-land models assimilating near real-time data from the global observing system (including the ocean interior ) will allow the attribution of a large part of observed system variablity and change to natrual and/or anthropogenic causes, will be ready in about a decade"

(Since this article by an expert in computer modeling was written in 2000, that means that these advanced computers will not be ready until 2010.)


-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am certain that Mr. Parados does not understand the critical importance of the water vapor problem. He obviously does not know that if the computer simulations that produce alarming levels of warming over the next century ALL ASSUME that water vapor will amplify the small bit of warming expected from an increase of co2 concentration in the air.

THAT ASSUMPTION, HOWEVER, HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY ANY ACTUAL MEASUREMENT!!!






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is obvious that Mr. Parados does not have basic facts about Solar magnetism available to him. The amount of energy reaching us increases or decreases as the sun brightens or fades. And the change in solar magnetism or total energy output, is highly correlated with changs in the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere going back 240 years. The sun today is as magnetically active as it has been in 400 years of direct telescope observations.

Now, does this explain the total rise in Temperature since 1976?(somewhere between .50 and 1.00 C degrees depending on THE MODEL USED).

It does not. But it could logically explain a rise of .20 or .40 in the rise in global temperatures.

Again, the Global Warming fanatics all assume that the world is ending.

It is not. and any problems can be easily handled without destroying our economy by phasing in techological improvements during the next fifty years.




BernardR
Seasoned Member



Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1551

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:49 pm Post: 2135094 -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okie- Here is another item for Mr. Parados to look at-If he can understand its full meaning:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Periods of Earth warming and cooling occur in cycles. This is well understood, as is the fact that small-scale cycles of about 40 years exist within larger-scale cycles of 400 years, which in turn exist inside still larger scale cycles of 20,000 years, and so on.





Example of regional variations in surface air temperature for the last 1000 years, estimated from a variety of sources, including temperature-sensitive tree growth indices and written records of various kinds, largely from western Europe and eastern North America. Shown are changes in regional temperature in ° C, from the baseline value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record




Earth's climate was in a cool period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860, dubbed the "Little Ice Age." This period was characterized by harsh winters, shorter growing seasons, and a drier climate. The decline in global temperatures was a modest 1/2° C, but the effects of this global cooling cycle were more pronounced in the higher latitudes. The Little Ice Age has been blamed for a host of human suffering including crop failures like the "Irish Potato Famine" and the demise of the medieval Viking colonies in Greenland.

Today we enjoy global temperatures which have warmed back to levels of the so called "Medieval Warm Period," which existed from approximately A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1350.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"...the Earth was evidently coming out of a relatively cold period in the 1800's so that warming in the past century may be part of this natural recovery."


Dr. John R. Christy
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- U. of Alabama in Huntsville) (5)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




BernardR
Seasoned Member



Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1551

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:04 pm Post: 2135101 -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post below shows exactly why Mr.Parados' amazing ignorance about how the science of Global Warming is handled allows him to make ridiculous statements like:

*************************************************************
It is amazing how some people think surface temperature readings are models. I always thought recorded data from a thermometer was recorded data.
***********************************************************

I do hope you will read this carefully, Mr. Parados. You may learn something.

Surface temperature readings are by definition readings that HAVE TAKEN PLACE.

Mr. Parados is not able to understand that the "end of the world" as described by the sky is falling types is based on MODELS--COMPUTER MODELS.

THEY PREDICT THE FUTURE TEMPERATURES.

THESE MODELS ARE FED THE TEMPERATURES WHICH HAVE BEEN RECORDED( many of which are very questionable) AND THE FUTURE IS PREDICTED.

NOTE-

quote---

"IT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT ALL OF THE IPCC'S PREDICTIONS ARE BASED ON COMPUTER MODEL SIMULATIONS....IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THE RESULT OF SIMULATIONS DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON THE PARAMETERS AND ALGORITIMS WITH WHICH THE COMPUTER IS FED. C O M P U T E R S A R E N U M B E R C R U N C H E R S A N D N O T C R Y S T A L B A L L S>"


Source for above--"The Skeptical Environmentalist"--Bjorn Lomberg-P. 265.




BernardR
Seasoned Member



Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1551

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:24 pm Post: 2135113 -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sun's influence on the earth?
quote
Today, about 65% of the Earth is covered with clouds.

Source--Rossow and Schiffer--"Advances in understanding clouds from ISCCP" Bulletin of the American Meterological Society 80( 11).2.261-87.

quote

This is extremely significant when determining the warming effect of CO2 because the clouds help to keep the earth cool by reflecting the sun's rays, while at the same time warming it be keeping in the heat. THE OVERALL EFFECT FOR LOW LEVEL CLOUDS IS A COOLING OF THE EARTH SO THAT MORE LOW LEVEL CLOUDS MEAN LOWER TEMPERATURES, HOWEVER, THERE IS NOW A SHORTER SUNSPOT CYCLE D U R A T I O N. THIS MEANS MORE INTENSE SOLAR ACTIVITY, LESS COSMIC RADIATION, FEWER LOW-LEVEL CLOUDS, AND THEREFORE HIGHER TEMPERATURES. THIS THEORY ALSO HAS THE TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGE, COMPARED TO THE GREEN HOUSE THEORY, THAT IT CAN EXPLAIN THE TEMPERATURE CHANGES FROM 1860 TO 1950 WHICH THE REST OF THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WITH A SHRUG OF THE SHOULDERS ACCREDITED TO NATURAL VARIATION"


END OF QUOTE

Source--Svensmark, Henrik and Egil Friis Christensen
"Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage--a missing link in solar-climate relationships" Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Territorial Physics 59 (11):1,225-32

Foxfyre wrote:

Nor should you be able to impose policy, expenses, and compromise property of others on the basis of what you choose to believe. Some want assurance that it is necessary before signing on to restrictive, expensive, and/or possibly harmful policy and/or remedies. It isn't helpful to slander, criticize, ridicule, or insult those who have not yet closed their minds, nor is it useful to put words in their mouths or pretend that you are somehow privy as to what their intent is.

As you do not have such powers, however, and as Okie does not have the power you assigned to him, it would be more pleasant to continue to debate the pros and cons of the available data and maybe everybody might learn something.

*******************************************************

Foxfyre nailed it perfectly when he wrote ' SOME WANT ASSURANCE THAT IT IS NECESSARY BEFORE SIGNING ON TO RESTRICTIVE, EXPENSIVE AND/OR POSSIBLY HARMFUL POLICY AND/OR REMEDIES>

Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and a Professor of Statistics, University of Aarhaus, Denmark wrote-

P. 322

quote

"Do we want to handle alleged global warming in the most efficient way or do we want to use global warming as a stepping stone to other political projects...We should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a tiny slice of the global temperature increase there may be when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these funds far more efficiently in the developing world...THE KYOTO PROTOCOL WILL COST AT LEAST 150 BILLION A YEAR AND POSSIBLY MUCH MORE. UNICEF ESTIMATES THAT JUST 70-80 BILLION A YEAR COULD GIVE ALL THIRD WORLD INHABITANTS ACCESS TO THE BASICS LIKE HEALTH, EDUCATION, WATER AND SANITATION...Cutting back any CO2 emissions quickly becomes very costly, and easily counterproductive. We should focus more of our effort at finding ways of easing the emission of greenhouse gases OVER THE LONG RUN. Partly, this means that we need to invest much more in research and development of SOLAR POWER, FUSION, AND OTHER LIKELY POWER SOURCES OF THE FUTURE."

end of quote--


As I read Foxfyre and then Lomborg, I think they are on the same page and have given reasonable solutions to the problem.

Foxfyre wrote:

I would, however, appreciate being able to express an opinion without the implication that I'm an idiot if somebody disagrees with it. I very much appreciate those who correct me with a simple, "I think you are wrong about that, and here's why. . . . ." Those with the self assurance to be able to do that are in short supply it seems.

end of quote


Precisely. I have posted what I believe are cogent and scientifically based points concerning the alleged Global Warming. I find, however, that no one has taken even HALF of my statements based on Scientific Articles and tried to rebut them.

Mr. Parados has complained that I have posted Scientific Articles dated 2000 and 2001--FIVE WHOLE YEARS AGO.

I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Parados cannot, if he approaches this debate with any kind of reason or scientific analysis, merely say that the scientific article refererenced is invalid MERELY because it was written five or six years ago. I would respectfully suggest that MR. PARADOS, IF HE IS ABLE TO DO SO, FIND A SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE THAT S H O W S THAT MY REFERENCE IS INDEED IN ERROR>

If he does not do so, or cannot do so, I must insist that my evidence stands.


Foxfyre suggests that people write--'I THINK YOU ARE WRONG AND
H E R E'S W H Y!!!!

Exactly!!!