Since I had to interrupt my rebuttal of Steve 4100( whose post had many unsupported statements, I will replicate what I had done in a previous post and then complete the rebuttal----
BernardR
Seasoned Member
Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 3264
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:40 pm Post: 2257377 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what Steve 4100 wrote and I ANSWERED EACH OF HIS POINTS IN CAPITALS UNDER HIS COMMENTS. SINCE HE WAS SO GOOD AS TO COMMENT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK HIM TO REBUT MY ANSWERS TO HIM.
HE WILL NOTE, I HOPE, THAT I USE SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES WHENEVER POSSIBLE---ARTICLES FROM PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS AND QUOTES FROM THE INTERNET WITH A LINK GIVEN WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
miniTAX wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
but it seems to me that over the years the general consensus scientific opinion seems to me getting more alarmist.
Problem is Steve, there is NO consensus in scientific opinion. A consensus would mean how many climatologists believe in AGW? 70%, 95%? There is not even 50%! (see von Storch survey for example).
There most certainly is a consensus. You might disagree with it, but dont tell me it doesnt exist.
Here it is
Quote:
The consensus has been summarized by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as follows:
1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2°C since the late 19th century, and 0.17°C per decade in the last 30 years.
2. "Most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate, with temperatures increasing by 1.4°C to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100, causing sea level rise and increasing extreme weather events like hurricanes. On balance, the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative.
*************************************************************
POINT ONE-WRONG---ON THE WHOLE, THE TEMPERATURE FROM 1956 TO 2000 HAS INCREASED BY 0.4C to 0.8C. CLOSER INSPECTION REVEALS THAT ALL OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY'S INCREASE HAS OCCURRED ABRUPTBLY WITHIN TWO PERIODS, FROM 1910 TO 1945 AND AGAIN FROM 1975 UNTIL TODAY( source--Barnett, T.P. Detection and Attribution of recent climatic change, a status report-Bulletin of the American Meterological Society 80(12):2,631-60
http://ams.allenpress.com
WHILE THE SECOND PERIOD FITS WELL WITH THE GREENHOUSE CONCERN, THE TEMPERATURE INCREASE FROM 1910 TO 1945 IS HARDER TO ALIGN WITH THE HUMAN EMISSION OF GREENHOUSE GASES SINCE THE CONCENTRATION AND INCREASE IN THE EARLY PART OF THE LAST CENTURY WAS SLIGHT.
(source-Tett, S. F, B. "Causes of twentieth century temperature change near the Earth's surface" "Nature" 399:569-72
THE IPCC I T S E L F FOUND THAT SOME OF THE INCREASE CAN BE EXPLAINED BY A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN SOLAR RADIATION FROM 1900 ONWARDS,WHICH HOWEVER IS STILL POORLY QUANTIFIED>
(SOURCE-IPCC 2001a:, 6, 15, 1)
NOTE THAT SOLAR IRRADIATION IS N O T C O2
********************************************
POINT 2 WHICH STATES THAT MOST OF THE WARMING OVER THE LAST FIFTY YEARS IS DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITY IS NOT SPECIFIC!!
WHAT IS MOST OF THE WARMING? HOW MUCH WARMING WAS THERE?
WHAT PORTION OF THE WARMING WAS DUE TO SOLAR RADIATION?
IS THE WARMING UNUSUAL?
IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE HAVE BEEN WARMER PERIODS IN THE PAST. Minitax HAS PROVED THAT WITH HIS EVIDENCE. I AM AFRAID THAT sTEVE 4100 DOES NOT KNOW THAT THE TEMPERATURE DURING THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD WAS SO FROM 2 TO 3C HIGHER AROUND GREENLAND ALLOWING THE VIKINGS TO CULTIVATE THAT LAND. I DO HOPE THAT STEVE 41OO KNOWS THAT THE TEMPERATURE DURING THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD WAS HIGH ENOUGH SO THAT THE B R I T I SH
GREW GRAPES AND HAD A WINE PRODUCTION TO RIVAL FRANCE'S OUTPUT. AND N A R Y A S U V I N S I G H T.
****************************
I will begin with point three ASAP. I will show, with evidence that all of Steve 4100's comments are either wrong or exaggerated. I do hope that he will take some time to examine the evidence I post and not, like some others do, ignore my assertions!
And, if he does attempt to rebut my evidence, I do hope that he will give his sources so that I may check them.
I shall return!
I have returned---
ON TO THE REBUTTAL OF POINT THREE-
THE STATEMENT THAT WARMING WILL CONTINUE TO RISE FROM 1.4C to 5.8C IN THE NEXT 95 YEARS IS A RIDICULOUS STATEMENT.
QUOTE FROM BJORN LOMBORG-"THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST"p. 366.
'ESSENTIALLY, ANSWERING THE QUESTION ABOUT TEMPERATURE INCREASE FROM CO2 MEANS PREDICTING THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE OVER THE COMING YEARS- NO MEAN FEAT GIVEN THAT THE EARTH'S CLIMATE IS AN INCREDIBLY COMPLEX SYSTEM. IT IS BASICALLY CONTROLLED BY THE EARTH'S EXCHANGE OF ENERGY W I T H T H E S U N AND OUTER SPACE. THE CALCULATIONS COMPRISE FIVE IMPORTANT BASIC ELEMENTS: THE ATMOSPHERE, THE OCEANS, THE LAND SURFACE, THE ICE SHEETS AND THE EARTH'S BIOSPHERE. THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THESE FIVE BASIC ELEMENTS IS ENORMOUSLY COMPLICATED AND CRUCIAL MECHANISMS ARE STILL U N K N O W N OR E X T R E M E L Y S P A R S E L Y DOCUMENTED IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE."
Steve 4100's point about Sea level rise and extreme weather is contradicted by the IPCC and the NOAA. Note-
. The IPCC ITSELF reported the following---Source-IPCC 1996a::173
Quote: Overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variablity, has increased in a global sense, thorough the twentieth century....On regional scales there is clear evidence of changes in soeme extremes and climate variability indicators,. Some of these changes have been toward greater variablity; some have been toward lower variability.
end of quote
and a statement from the NOAA( the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association
Quote
Is the climate becoming more variable or extreme?
On a global scale there is little evidence of sustained trends in climate variability or extremes. This perhaps reflects inadequate data and a dearth of analyses. However, on regional scales, there is clear evidence of changes in variability or extremes.
In areas where a drought or excessive wetness usually accompanies an El Niño, these dry or wet spells have been more intense in recent years. Other than these areas, little evidence is available of changes in drought frequency or intensity.
In some areas where overall precipitation has increased (ie. the mid-high northern latitudes), there is evidence of increases in the heavy and extreme precipitation events. Even in areas such as eastern Asia, it has been found that extreme precipitation events have increased despite total precipitation remaining constant or even decreasing somewhat. This is related to a decrease in the frequency of precipitation in this region.
Many individual studies of various regions show that extra-tropical cyclone activity seems to have generally increased over the last half of the 20th century in the northern hemisphere, but decreased in the southern hemisphere. It is not clear whether these trends are multi-decadal fluctuations or part of a longer-term trend.
Where reliable data are available, tropical storm frequency and intensity show no significant long-term trend in any basin. There are apparent decadal-interdecadal fluctuations, but nothing which is conlusive in suggesting a longer-term component.
Global temperature extremes have been found to exhibit no significant trend in interannual variability, but several studies suggest a significant decrease in intra-annual variability. There has been a clear trend to fewer extremely low minimum temperatures in several widely-separated areas in recent decades. Widespread significant changes in extreme high temperature events have not been observed.
There is some indication of a decrease in day-to-day temperature variability in recent decades.
end of quote
**********************************************************
And now, Consensus!!
Thomas, with his usual highly intelligent analysis of scientific concepts_ He is a physicist although he will not belabor that fact wrote in rebuttal to the concerns about the alleged possible global warming-
Steve 41oo, quoting Chris Thomas, wrote:
Thomas said scientific observations had already found that -- as predicted by the climate models -- 80 percent of species had already begun moving their traditional territorial ranges in response to the changing climatic conditions.
end of quote
Thomas wrote:
I will accept, for the sake of the discussion, what Chris Thomas calls" the more extreme scenarios". Why would they be such a bad thing? What's so terrible about a future where elephants roam the tropical rainforests of England and Illionis? What's wrong with 22th century Londoners growing citrus fruits in their gardens, importing their strawberries from Greenland and Iceland? In fact, what's wrong with them starting up a new and improved London in Spitzbergen, where the climate will be just as in old, 20th century London?
My point is: Even if I accepted the most extreme global warming scenarios as gospels I don't see them as catastrophic for humanity. Human populations are very mobile on the timescale of centuries. (If we polled our fellow correspondents where their ancestors lived 100 years ago, few of the ancestors would live where the correspondents live now. In my case, none.) Most of the national capital stocks depreciate and get rebuilt several times over on this timescale. So while such warming would be a problem -- a fact I have never disputed -- I see it it as pure hype when people present it as a doomsday scenario.
All this is assuming that I accept the most paranoid projections as a given -- which I don't, for reasons I have discussed at length earlier.
end of quote.
and, again, consensus---
