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

Okie- Your research and persistence in the face of refusals to answer and attempts to focus on only one part of a multifaceted problem is, if I may say so, highly commendable. You have really dug into the problem. May I point out some possible future concerns:

Okie- The left wing liberals who would love to see the US Economy destroyed because industry would be shut down will never ever accept Professor Lomborg's statements.

Again, if I may say so, Congratulations on doing a great job.

Keep it up.

And please be aware and not become discouraged if you meet the usual
attacks.

First, if they cannot rebut your evidence and are frustrated they will violate the TOS and call you names( as Mr. Parados did when he told me to stop"Playing with myself")

Second, they may choose to ignore your evidence because they cannot cope with it.

Post it again.

Then, they will accuse you of all kinds of things-Being a right wing tool and not understanding that our country will suffer unless you agree with them.

Ignore such idiocies and keep posting evidence and politely request that they rebut your evidence.

If they, like Mr. Parados and Mr.Old Europe did on this thread, try to divert you from the main thrust of the argument by focusing on one small part of it, politely point out what they are doing.

Good Luck,Okie!!!!

No. I have not asked you to accept any theory. I have asked you whether or not you would agree that the curves diverge (see above). Now, as far as I know, developing a theory is a bit different from merely looking at a graph. All I have asked you is to look at the graph that measures solar activity against terrestrial warming.

However, your answer was no, you wouldn't say that the curves diverge. I found that an interesting statement, but not one that is grounded in reality.

I don't understand what you are talking about, Mr. Old Europe.

First of all, I hope you are not so deluded as to think that the question of the effect of Solar Warming on the earth's temperature is the be all and end all of the controvesy about Global Warming?

Secondly, if you do not know by now by looking at a large variety of data that Solar Warming's contribution to the alleged Warming is NOT IN QUESTION, NOT IN QUESTION, NOT IN QUESTION, NOT IN QUESTION.

The focus must be on --Just how much of the warming is due to Solar Energy and how much is due to man made warming.

Again, I ask you( unless you are horribly deficient in math skills) to present some numbers--

Warming due to Anthropogenic Factors--------------

Warming due to Solar Activity------------------------

If you can't do that, sir, your posts are useless and just blah blah blah!!!

I gathered that much.

Old Europe, I do not think the curves diverge. They instead do not show the same peaks of amplification, however the curves do not contradict each other. As I've said before, I do not think temperatures track the solar cycle on a daily basis, and probably not on a yearly basis. I think we need to look at them over decades. In general, the last 100 years shows a good correlation. I think it is logical to conclude that solar cycles probably influence climatic cycles on earth. We will need to monitor the situation over the next 5, 10, 20 years and beyond to see how the theories pan out. In the meantime, no need to panic.

Bernard, I wish I could devote all day every day to this subject, as I find it very fascinating. I will confess I don't have the time to do that. I simply try to look at the data that I can dig up in a reasonable amount of time and make unbiased judgements. I cannot say I've dug into the problem that far, but I think far enough to recognize the subject is laced with a political agenda.

My bias is coming from a geological background, wherein theories come and go all the time. How many theories have we seen concerning how dinosaurs became extinct? Given the years spent in the geological field, I believe we might be seeing 2 or 3 pieces of a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle, and meanwhile earth scientists are going to sit there and tell me what the picture looked like? Same situation with archeology, a few broken bones and the experts tell us what the animal looked like, how they ran around, what they fed on, how come they died, on and on. Five years later, the theory has been revised to the exact opposite of the above. This happens all the time, Bernard. Junk science Bernard. I tend to get tired of reading new theories and say, give me a break, please. Don't get me wrong, I like science, and it is valid when we admit we don't know more than what is known.

So I am simply keeping my healthy skepticism. Let the groupees jump on the CO2 global warming bandwagon. For now, I'm staying put. If I live long enough to see enough data to be convinced otherwise, I will have to admit it, but the same goes for the greenhousers or global warmers.

You do realize it has been over 20 years since 1980. Don't you okie?
The curves have progressively diverged for the last 25 years of data. Since 1980, the solar line has gone down but the warming curve continues up.

The solar line is still up over what it was earlier in the century, Parados.

I presume it is the following graphs we are both looking at:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

Okie- Don't take your eye off the ball- Old Europe, who obviously never took a Science Course in his life, and Parados, who is as far left a left winger who hates the USA and all that is in it, are nibbling at only one item--Solar Warming and how much it affects the alleged Global Warming.

They do not address the entire question of global warming.

I will keep reminding them of their shortcomings by alluding to other parts of the controversy.

Do the same when you can!

Cheers,Okie

That graph is still using data that stops in 1998. It is presently 2006. Updated data through 2004 shows even more of a divergence as the peak in 2000 was less than the previous peak and the time frame was still less than 11 years, 10 years 6 months.

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/

We're all glad you will keep reminding us of your shortcomings Bernard by failing to address anything with the same standards you demand of others.

You are one of the funniest people on these threads. You should be called pusillanimous parados. You rarely rebut the evidence that bangs you on the side of the head, ride one of the disputed ideas to death( Solar Warming) even though there are other problems to encounter in order to prove global warming.

You do know, of course, that if you encounter a study with which you do not agree, it is YOUR RESPONSIBLITY--YOURS--MR. PUSILLANIMOUS PARADOS--TO PRESENT A STUDY WHICH SHOWS THAT THE FIRST STUDY WAS WRONG AND WHERE THE STUDY WAS NOT TOTALLY WRONG IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY( if you have any intergrity) TO SHOW JUST HOW CORRECT IT WAS.

Pick your teeth on the items below--Pusillanimous Parados.


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?

Furthermore, the most HILARIOUS aspect of this controversy comes when the two experts, Pusillanimous Parados and Old Old Old Europe CANT EVEN PRESENT THE MOST IMPORTANT AND CONTROLLING STATISTICS NEEDED IN THIS CONTROVERSY.

Mr. Pusillanimous Parados and Old Old Old Europe cannot even, AFTER BEING ASKED AGAIN AND AGAIN ON THIS THREAD provide the Surface Temperatures 1850-2006 and the PROJECTED MODELS OF TEMPERATURES DUE TO THE "g l o b a l w a r m i n g" WHICH WILL DESTROY THE WORLD, FLOOD NEW YORK AND MELT ALL OF THE GLACIERS IN THE NORTH POLE.

Now, if you have an ounce of integrity-give the figures. What do the scientists say about the past temperatures and the future ones?



You won't do it because you know I will destroy you with my research.


Go to sleep. Mr. Parados and dream of a conversation in which you can prevail.

With regard to the effects of Solar Warming, Mr. Parados----


First of all, I hope you are not so deluded as to think that the question of the effect of Solar Warming on the earth's temperature is the be all and end all of the controvesy about Global Warming?

Secondly, if you do not know by now by looking at a large variety of data that Solar Warming's contribution to the alleged Warming is NOT IN QUESTION, NOT IN QUESTION, NOT IN QUESTION, NOT IN QUESTION.

The focus must be on --Just how much of the warming is due to Solar Energy and how much is due to man made warming.

Again, I ask you( unless you are horribly deficient in math skills) to present some numbers--

Warming due to Anthropogenic Factors--------------

Warming due to Solar Activity------------------------

If you can't do that, sir, your posts are useless and just blah blah blah!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what Mr. Parados wrote:

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.
******************************
Of course, Mr. Parados evidently has trouble when reading scientific material. He will not find any post of mine or I believe Okie's which said that warming is NOT occuring that can be explained by solar activitity alone.

If he had read my posts on the subject he would know that. I fear that he cannot understand them.

Solar Activity is probably a small part of the global warming. The rest may indeed be due to man made effects. But how much warming is there?
What will the warming be in future years? How do we know? Is this warming part of climatological cycles? If we choose to attack global warming shall we lean on the Kyoto Protocol? What will this do? Has the Kyoto report even been followed by the European Countries that insisted it be put into place? What would following the Kyoto Protocol cost us? and most important of all- IS THE WARMING THAT HAS OCCURRED SOMETHING THAT WILL ACTUALLY FLOOD THE WORLD AND BRING THE SAHARA DESERT TO CANADA?

Doctor Lomborg says no, Brings evidence from the IPCC to show that the answer is No and, since Mr. Thomas has shown evidence that Professor Lomborg's thesis is quite acceptable, I must, regretfully for Mr. Parados and Mr.Old Europe, continue to give evidence from that source.

Mr. Parados- You never rebutted this post- You don't rebut very many.You obviously know little about the subject. You chose to attack Dr. Lomborg but Mr. Thomas, who is quite expert in these matters, put you in your place.

Again--

Mr. Thomas said that Dr Lomborg generally agreed with the IPCC findings although he had some criticisms of them.

I posted the following,which Mr. Thomas may have missed to show that indeed, Dr. Lomborg did generally agree with the IPCC findings but did have some criticisms of them.

QUOTE FROM LOMBORG --p. 322

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

I am sure that Mr.Thomas and anyone else reading this will understand that in his conclusion to the chapter of Global Warming, Dr. Lomber tells us that if we feel that Co2 MAY be accruing at a rate which may cause some difficulties down the road. we will have to make choices very carefully.( I hope you are reading this, GeorgeOB 1) .


That may be what Mr. Thomas means when he says that Dr.Lomborg generally agrees with the IPCC but is critical of some of their findings.

Now, Mr. Parados, if you have any integrity, address the last five posts. If you can't address them one by one to rebut them at least be honest enough to say so. Do not make it clear to all that you choose not to meet these ideas head on. It only reinforces your pusillanimous approach to the problem.

Parados, perhaps if you find time beyond rebutting all the posts of Bernard, maybe you could direct me to the file in your above link that shows a graph or graphs for the last few hundred years to include 2004, as you say is in your link. I opened a few files, showing nothing but figures and maybe a graph showing the last few years only. I'm not doing a research paper on this, Parados, so I don't have hours to spend sorting through all the files.

He won't do it , Okie. He has a habit of not answering posts which he cannot deal with.

You note, of course,Okie, that there are at least nine areas in which I presented evidence which neither Pusillanimous Parados or Old Old Old Europe has rebutted.

Apparenty, Okie, they are suffering under the delusion that if they don't pay attention to the post which undermines their position, the post will disappear!

By all means, let's look at the solar activity/terrestrial temperature correlation over a couple of decades! No wait, let's go back a bit further!



Interesting, huh? Do you see a deviation there between the solar cycle and the temperature curve for the last couple of decades, okie?

No, wait, let me guess: "No, no deviation! I want to see more data! No need to panic! Everything's alright!"