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

With relation to your remark about whether any countries in Europe are headed by the Green Party, the answer of course is NO but please do not attempt to say that the Greens do not have a greater influence in the politics of the EU in some countries than there is in the USA. If you are familiar with polls in the United States( I really don't trust polls entirely) you know that the citizens of the US are not really terribly concerned about the alleged Global Warming. But the Europeans, percentage wise are more concerned. Shall I reference some polls, Mr. Kuvasz.

For an honest thorough scientist, and I am not being satirical, Mr. Kuvasz, you have not analyzed Mr. Samuelson's essay very well. You responded to only a very small portion of it. I wonder why!!!

Mr. Kuvasz, who is an expert on the environment wrote:

Mr. Kuvasz, who is an expert on the environment wrote:

That is why science should not be left to the likes of you but to the moral, ethical, and intellectually honest people who do it.

Oddly, you did not ask about a time-frame of what "bad" implied, so you must be slipping. I refuse to play a game of adverbial tag. I have amonished you before for demanding a quantization on the terms such as "precisely and "exactly" when used in scientific discussions. I have explained clearly to you why the pedantic definitions you seek are meaningless. Please refer back to posts for my earlier remarks to refresh your memory and to educate you for any further foray you make with scientists so you do not look as unsophisticated to them as you do with me here.


I find it astonishing that all of the European Scientists who contributed to the IPCC results are moral, ethical and intellectually honest while people like Dr. Baliunas and Dr. Lindzen are evil puppets whose strings are pulled by the "oil cartel". Really- Mr. Kuvasz--Anyone who has viewed the operation of the highly corrupt UN, (Closely allied with many of the European Scientists who work for the IPCC) know that when it comes to corruption and dishonesty they can teach us a great deal.

Now, with regard to the definition of "bad", YOU, SIR, ARE THE EXPERT. Why don't you teach us all.

l. Give the various scenarios predicted by the IPCC. Surely, an expert like you is aware of the fact that there are at least 40 scenarios established with computer modeling which predicts the future temperature according to the amount and nature of FUTURE POLITICAL DECISIONS WORLD WIDE.

2. Give the temperatures that those 40 various scenarios predict.

You might wish, for economy's sake to limit your explanation to only the most "reasonable scenarios".


I have not, although I may have missed it, viewed your feedback on what we must do with regards to China, India and Russia. All of these countries pollute. Shall we solve our problems by nuking them into compliance thus exchanging a slow death from Global Warming to a quick one from Nuclear fallout?

Perhaps it is possible that the world leaders will conclude that Global Warming is a problem. I can safely predict that no nation- Not the EU or China or India or Russia will set in place any measures which will materially reduce their economic growth or cause heavy unemployment.

But, will they take the measured one step at a time approach of putting into place technological advances which will help?

They may and we surely will. Solar Power is in the cards for the USA. If we get slugs like Ted Kennedy to get out of the way, we can adopt wind farms( even though they will not produce more than 5-10% of our electrical needs--Tops)


Of course, there are more efficient measures. I am sure that Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is highly courageous, if nothing else-she did live with Bill) would show her true mettle and press for legislation to BAN all non-hybred vehicles from the highways of the USA within five years.


I can safely say that she and any legislators who would vote for such Draconian measures would not be re-elected.

That is why the pace of reform must be slow and measured and must not injure the American Economy in such a way that it would throw Millions of people out of work.

Mr Kuvasz wrote:

What is the argument here? That anti-nuke folk are socialist? I don't think that the issue makes one a socialist or a conservative, nor that being one or the other inherently produces a position of being pro- or anti-nuke. It might be that one who has a social conscience wants to ensure the utmost public safety is paramount before profits. Because what good is making a profit if safety is not secure?
end of quote.
I can, and will show that the clear majority of people and organizations who are Anti-Nuke are on the left wing of the political spectrum. I ask anyone who knows to cite major right wing politicians or organizations who are Anti-Nuke. The Anti-Nukes( and I will gather evidence) are the pathetic leavings of the hippie, earth worshipers of the sixties--Some Superannuated and others the offspring-Red Diaper Babies!!

I do not mean to intrude on you< Mr. Kuvasz, but I am sure that you know that you have not responded to several of my posts. Shall I list them for you? I must regretfully note that since they are not answered- they stand- unrebutted.

And I must add that your inquiry as to my "repentance"( you said I was unrepentent) I adhere to the Roman Catholic procedure of self-confession with a sincere promise not to sin again. I am indeed repentant for my sins although, since you are not privy to my consience, you cannot know which of my actions I consider sinful!!

I know you may find it incomprehensible, Mr. Kuvasz, but I actually consider many of my posts on these threads as actions that will put me in "the state of grace" since they are, as far as my conscience is concerned, attempts to defend my country and my ideals. Can anyone do any less?

Bernard R wrote:

"Can anyone do any less?"

Certainly....but we have to fervently hope that all of us can do a good bit more.

Kuvasz wrote:

"And the lack of concept of higher numbers in the Amazon natives is not unlike the lack of concept of the multi-diminsional nature of the global warming problem to conservatives. "

Generally speaking, that is a commonly understood function of intelligence. i.e., walk and chew gum at the same time.

I will regret posting, but the devil made me do it.

So California signed a pact with the UK to fight global warming now.

The Guardian: Blair signs climate pact with Schwarzenegger

My last posting was in error. It relates to the abandonment of Germany by German Doctors who feel they are not being paid well enough.

It should have been on another thread.

But, I will ask Mr. Walter Hinteler if he is a fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is, after all, a native or Germany( Bavaria, I think)

Mr. sumac: You appear to be a very bright dedicated environmentalist. Perhaps you would like to stand in for Mr. Kuvasz who may be too tired or dispirited to defend his thesis.

As you know, if you have been following this thread, he has left a great many of my points unanswered and, of course, unanswered points STAND.

I would be most happy to review the unanswered points and restate them for you. Are you interested or are you only able to make useless hit and run statements that have no substance in them?

I can wait for your answer. In the meantime, I have more to post on this subject.

Schwarzenegger was an Austrian (from Steyria) before he immigrated.

I am sure that the learned Mr. Sumac can handle the objections made in the article below. If he cannot, it STANDS as testimony to the fact that recent claims about Satellite Temperatures are overblown and exaggerated.


Global Warming Doubt Dispelled? Not Really
Milloy Op-ed in Fox News.com
by Steven J. Milloy
August 18, 2005


Is the debate now over for skeptics of global warming hysteria? Readers of USA Today may certainly have that impression.


"Satellite and weather-balloon research released today removes a last bastion of scientific doubt about global warming, researchers say," reported USA Today on Aug.12.

Certainly the USA Today report was partially correct - the researchers did, in fact, "say" [read "claim"] that "the last bastion of scientific doubt" had been removed. But claims and reality often don't match up.

Three papers published in the journal Science last week purport to debunk an important argument advanced by skeptics of the notion of catastrophic, manmade global warming. The skeptics' argument is that while temperatures measured on the Earth's surface seem to indicate that global temperatures have increased at a rate of about 0.20 degrees Centigrade per decade (deg. C/decade) since the 1970s, temperatures measured in the atmosphere by satellite and weather balloons have shown only a relatively insignificant amount of warming for the same time period (about 0.09 deg. C/decade).

The implication of the skeptics' argument is that whatever warming seems to be happening on the Earth's surface, similar warming isn't happening in the atmosphere. This might mean that any observed surface warming is more likely due to the urban heat island effect -- where the heat-retaining properties of concrete and asphalt in urban areas artificially increase local temperatures -- rather than increasing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

One of the new Science studies reported that the satellites had drifted in orbit, causing errors in temperature measurement. Corrections to the satellite data, according to the researchers, would increase the atmospheric warming estimate to 0.19 deg. C/decade -- more in line with the 0.20 deg. C/decade warming of the Earth's surface. Another study reported that heating from tropical sunlight had skewed the balloon temperature measurements.

Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, one of the studies' authors, told USA Today that, "Once corrected, the satellite and balloon temperatures align with other surface and upper atmosphere measures, as well as climate change models."

So is it really game-set-match in favor of the global warming alarmists? Not so fast, say the skeptics.

When University of Alabama-Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, a prominent climatologist, factored the newly reported corrections into his calculations, his estimate of atmospheric warming was only 0.12 deg. C/decade -- higher than the prior estimate of 0.09 deg. C/decade, but well below the Science study estimate of 0.19 deg C/decade and the surface temperature estimate of 0.20 deg. C/decade.

As to the claimed errors in the weather balloon measurements, Spencer says that no other effort to adjust the balloon data has produced warming estimates as high as those reported in the new study and that it will take time for the research community to form opinions about whether the new adjustments advocated are justified.

Climate expert Dr. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project says the temperature adjustments are "not a big deal."

"Greenhouse theory says (and the models calculate) that the atmospheric trend should be 30 percent greater than the surface trend -- and it isn't," says Singer. "Furthermore, the models predict that polar [temperature] trends should greatly exceed the tropical values -- and they clearly don't ... In fact, the Antarctic has been cooling," adds Singer.

Singer also had some related thoughts concerning the gloom-and-doom forecasts concerning future temperatures.


Because of its prohibitive costs, alarm over global warming has been rejected numerous times by President Bush and the U.S. Senate. European nations are already discovering that their economies can't live with the Kyoto Protocol that was just implemented in February.

Despite alarmist media reports, global warming-mania is melting. It's no wonder the alarmists are in such a hurry to close the book on the science.

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

It is vital for the continued debate on this subject that Mr. Sumac or whoever else is interested not the statistics in the article above which CLEARLY SHOW AN EFFORT BY THE GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERICS TO OVERSTATE THE CASE.


Point No. 1

Roy Spencer, Noted Climatologist reported that his calculation of Satellite Temperatures, after recalibration because of drift of the satellites in orbit causing satellite temperatures to be slightly in error, that the claim made by in the Journal Science is in error.Dr Spencer reports that the Article claims that the new atmospheric warming was now corrected to show a 0.19C per decade( meaning of course, a 0.95C warming by 2056).

Dr. Spencer's own calculations show this to be in error, He claims that the new atmospheric warming is only 0.12C per decade. This would mean a warming of 0.60C by 2056 or slightly more than one half of one degree Centigrade by 2056.

(As Dr. Lomborg pointed out in his important book, The Skeptical Environmentalist--quote--WE SHOULD NOT SPEND VAST AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO CUT A TINY SLICE OF THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE WHEN THIS CONSTITUTES A POOR USE OF RESOURCES AND WHEN WE COULD PROBABLY USE THESE FUNDS FAR MORE EFFECTIVELY IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD)

Now, back to the article above---.Point No. 2

Dr. Singer added: Greenhouse theory says( and the models calculate) that the atmospheric trend should be 30 % GREATER than the surface trend and IT ISN'T>


I welcome any rebuttal to the above. If there is no rebuttal, IT STANDS!!!

Bernard,

Point 1
First of all .6 C would be in 50 years the same that .6 that the entire 20th Century warmed. That shows that the warming is getting faster. 50 years to warm the same as it took 100.

If the rate of increase is constant it would warm by .6 in 25 years after that and another .6 in 12 years. That would mean it would warm by over 2 degrees C in the next 100 years. A rate that you have argued isn't going to happen. Yet numbers you agree with show it to be just that.


Point 2.
Actually, Greenhouse theory is evolving. You and Dr Singer might want to get up to date.


Rebutted and shown to disprove your other claims.

I wonder if this is constitutional? Article 1, Section 10 provides that "[n]o state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;"

It's a "pact" - like Hessia has one with Wisconsin, like a couple of US states have "offices" in various German states as well as at the EU, ....

Great. Wake me up again when the theory is mature. There's no point in hard-wiring an evolving theory into laws and institutions.

I have no idea what the difference between a treaty and a pact is. Can you explain?

Theories have to be adjusted to fit the desired results, Parados.

Actually, I thought all of this was supposed to be as good as written in stone, Parados.