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

Nowhere does it say that Obama is going to press for the end of CO2 emissions in the US.

A reduction in emissions is not an end to them.


You were hysterical in your claim. You seem to admit it now.

It looks like he isn't going to cut jobs either.

But then you were just doing some hysterical ranting rather than dealing with facts.

I will be watching for the reports which indicate the number of jobs that may be lost because of the ill-advised Presidential emphasis on the reduction of Co2.
I will search diligently for reputable sources which will point out the tensions between the effort to reduce co2 emissions while not losing jobs and creating massive inflation due to the increased costs of emission reduction.

But, Bjorn Lomborg( who, I am sure, will be tagged as hysterical by Parados, has written the following in his book-"Cool It"

quote--P. 119

"It will get progressively harder to convince people that they should pay substantial sums for rather negligible environmental improvements a century away. Second, as costs mount they will undercut the willing cooperation, since some nations will try to ride free and othres will claim to adopt the restrictions but give up during the process without obvious penalities. Third, high emission restrictions and low achievements will erode the support for future treaties. CLEARLY,THE FAILURE OF KYOTO TO DELIVER ANY SUBSTANTIAL RESTRICTION LOWER THE CHANCE OF A SUCCESSFUL FOLLOW-UP"

Parados cannot not and will not tell us how well Kyoto has worked. He cannot since it was a miserable failure.

I await his defense of the results of Kyoto or explanations on why that treaty was such a miserable failure.

Parados apparently does not know that there is a difference between promises made by a huckster and statistically verifiable achievements according to a pre determined time line and level.

Well, we told you Antarctica was warming, tho you kept saying it was cooling. Guess who was right.

"Antarctica study counters warming cynics
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 4:47 p.m. ET, Wed., Jan. 21, 2009
Challenging warming skeptics who note that parts of Antarctica have gotten colder, researchers on Wednesday reported that overall the continent has gotten warmer since the 1950s, and that even those colder spots would be warmer were it not for the ozone hole.

"Contrarians have sometime grabbed on to this idea that the entire continent of Antarctica is cooling, so how could we be talking about global warming," said study co-author Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. "Now we can say: No, it's not true ... It is not bucking the trend."

The study does not point to man-made climate change as the cause of the Antarctic warming " singling out a cause is a highly intricate scientific process " but a different and smaller study out late last year did make that connection."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28693329/

Shouldn't you be off watching something?

Yes, I am watching something. I am looking at the inability of a blabbermouth who talks about "hysterical" postings but yet cannot rebut facts when they are planted under his nose.

So, here we are again---parados---

Re: parados (Post 3545231)
I will be watching for the reports which indicate the number of jobs that may be lost because of the ill-advised Presidential emphasis on the reduction of Co2.
I will search diligently for reputable sources which will point out the tensions between the effort to reduce co2 emissions while not losing jobs and creating massive inflation due to the increased costs of emission reduction.

But, Bjorn Lomborg( who, I am sure, will be tagged as hysterical by Parados, has written the following in his book-"Cool It"

quote--P. 119

"It will get progressively harder to convince people that they should pay substantial sums for rather negligible environmental improvements a century away. Second, as costs mount they will undercut the willing cooperation, since some nations will try to ride free and othres will claim to adopt the restrictions but give up during the process without obvious penalities. Third, high emission restrictions and low achievements will erode the support for future treaties. CLEARLY,THE FAILURE OF KYOTO TO DELIVER ANY SUBSTANTIAL RESTRICTION LOWER THE CHANCE OF A SUCCESSFUL FOLLOW-UP"

Parados cannot not and will not tell us how well Kyoto has worked. He cannot since it was a miserable failure.

I await his defense of the results of Kyoto or explanations on why that treaty was such a miserable failure.

Parados apparently does not know that there is a difference between promises made by a huckster and statistically verifiable achievements according to a pre determined time line and level.

****************************************************************
You do know what the Kyoto Treaty was, don't you?

Monterey Jack--I certainly hope that the scientists in China and India read those studies. They are, I hope you know, controversial. But, I urge you to keep abreast of the December 2009 conference on a new Treaty to supercede the failed Kyoto Treaty( which, as you may know, was voted down by the US Senate--98-1 in 1997). But, if China and India back off of making committments to materially reduce Co2 emissions because they are developing countries and as such should not have restrictions placed on their economies, we will just have to wait to see whether the Antarctic continues to melt. Perhaps the conclusions are flawed.

Just in case some people are panicked about dying of heat stroke here in the U.S. anytime soon, 2008 was virtually the average for approximately the past 113 years here. Posted it once, but thought somebody might need some reassurance if they are overly worried about this country getting hotter.

Monterey Jack- You may be interested in the following which tracks the history of Antarctic "cooling".
*********************************************************************
Arctic Warming Update
JunkScience.com
January 15, 2005
Supplemented January 26, 2005
Notice of relocated data source June 3, 2005


Once again claims are flying thick and fast regarding dramatic, in fact, unprecedented Arctic warming.

Once again, we look at the available data, now updated to the end of 2004.

Once again, we find the claims to be dead flat wrong. Click on the following thumbnails to view the full size images in a new browser window.

Note: subsequent to NASA's server upgrade the correct URL for zonal temperature anomalies is: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/ZonAnn.Ts.txt

We begin, as is our want, with the bare annual mean temperature track for the region 64N-90N. We use this particular dataset since the Arctic Circle describes a line of latitude near but south of the north pole marking the northernmost point at which the sun is visible on the northern winter solstice and the southernmost point at which the midnight sun can be seen on the northern summer solstice - roughly the parallel of latitude approximately 66°33' north and we are thus confident of having captured the boundary between the North Temperate and North Frigid zones.

Rather obviously it indicates a sustained warming, followed by a cooling and recovery.

Of course, some people want (and others need) rather more aggressive highlighting of apparent trends and so we present the same data with shading and trend lines added. This next graphic shows the very same data with split trends and shading to highlight the warming trend 1880 through 1938 (the warmest year in the series). Had the pre-1938 trend continued there would certainly be some Arctic warming to talk about. Just as well we are not staunch advocates of post hoc, ergo propter hoc or we'd be claiming that increasing the rate of atmospheric CO2 increment stops Arctic warming.

We would be remiss if we did not point out the most significant warming in the series.

And now, trends 1918-1938 and 1966-2003 compared (yes, we know data is available in the series to include 2004 but the region's annual mean temperature fell two-thirds of one degree C from the partial series maximum value of 2003).

Finally, let's look at the low-high trend values for the warming periods before and after the cooling demonstrated 1938 - 1966.

In other words, we'll consider three decades of cooling an anomaly in the series and take a longer perspective - how has the Arctic recovery from the Little Ice Age varied over roughly one hundred and twenty years?

The answer is, it hasn't. The post-LIA recovery seems to be trundling along the same as before, despite an Earth-insignificant setback of a few decades in between. The last 3-4 decades are not the fastest warming period of the series nor the slowest, rather, with the longer-term perspective they appear very ordinary.

So, according to data from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), from this file hosted by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), there has been no net Arctic warming since 1938, the Arctic did warm quite abruptly over the two decades prior to that, has subsequently cooled and (nearly) recovered to what it was before being so rudely interrupted.

Beyond all doubt atmospheric carbon dioxide content has increased over the period, mainly from about the time the Arctic shifted to cooling mode for a spell. That trace gas increase has had no apparent effect on the Arctic's post-LIA warming.

Since the rate of warming is unchanged and the net Arctic temperature has not increased in almost 7 decades it is very difficult to see what all the hysteria is about.

Okie- great post- Thanks for the updated information!!

uh, genoves, are you aware that there is a difference between "arctic" and "Antarctica"? Like 180 degrees? They are at opposite ends of the world, you know.

Yes, of course. As Arnold said--"Ill be back">

Here you are, Monterey Jack--The game is simple. Each side issues a flurry of "scientific reports". Meetings are convened. Parameters are laid down.

The last group met in Kyoto. The countries of the world(not the developing countries and that is the basic problem) agreed on TARGETS. Kyoto failed miserably.

Now, each side issues more "evidence".

********************************************************************
JunkScience.com
Author
Steven Milloy

"Antarctica, Warming, Looks Ever More Vulnerable" - "A continent is quickly changing. The questions are how and why." (New York Times)



Antarctica, however, is not warming. While the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis insists the Antarctic should demonstrate the most dramatic response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels due to its cold, dry atmosphere, the simple fact is the Antarctic is not cooperating.


South Polar air samples record atmospheric CO2 rising from 328 ppmv to 373 ppmv subsequent to the 1949-1974 temperature increase - almost 15% increase apparently without affecting Polar temperatures, while startling temperature changes of ~4 C (+ve and -ve) are recorded in periods when we know atmospheric CO2 was increasing at a more leisurely rate.


A treasured hypothesis insists increasing atmospheric CO2 should lead to increasing temperature and the South Polar super-cold, super-dry air mass should respond dramatically. Well, we looked for the CO2 increment and it is obvious. We looked for the temperature increment and... what? Found it missing? There it was, gone?


We've already had the "you could see the warming if it wasn't being hidden by the cooling (which is being hidden by the warming)" thing - see "Stratospheric Cooling?" What is Big Warming going to come up with now - "Please Miss, the ozone hole ate my Antarctic warming"?

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

These studies are used by scientists who will be meeting in December to set up another KYOTO. If China and India do not agree to massive changes in their co2 emissions, the conference will be useless. I may be that the Indian and Chinese scientific delegation do not think that the so called "global warming" will be problematic enough for them to shut down their economies.

genoves, when you come back, I trust you'll explain to me why you feel that commentary by Steve Milloy, perhaps the world's foremost practicioner of junk science, about the Arctic is relevant to the Antarctic.

And, parenthetically, I'll bet Milloy wishes that he could do that one over. Because in the four years since he wrote that he's been proven totally wrong. The polar ice cap has retreated by more than 20%, as much as 20 years earlier than climate models suggested it would happen. Arctic temperatures have been as much as 5 degrees C above the century average, 3-4 times as high as the global average temperature change. 2007 saw the least extent of polar ice in historic times, and 2008 was almost as low (and much of the winter ice was new ice, which tends to melt come summer much more quickly than older ice). The other previous lows were 2002 and 2005. Interestingly NOAA says 2005 was the warmest year on record for the globe as a whole, and 2007 was tied for second.

If I were you, genoves, I wouldn't trust junkscience.com for anything, and you might want to look again at the question of polar "cooling". Either pole. They aren't.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16307-arctic-melt-20-years-ahead-of-climate-models.html

Further, the archaeological record suggests that the Inuit and their precursor cultures have been in the Arctic for around 4500 years, with a subsistence pattern that was based on winter ice cap exploitation--which already is impossible over most of the Arctic--the ice is just not there. Archaeological deposits that have been frozen for 4000 years (else they would have decayed) are thawing.

Let's cut the garbage, Monterey Jack. I do hope that you know that the final word on global warming has been given by the IPCC. You do know that, don't you?

I challenge you to disprove these statements.

In its 2007 reports, the UN estimates that sea levels wil rise about a foot over the rest of the century.

Since 1860, we have lexperience a sea level rise of about a foot and this has clearly not caused major disruptions.

It is important to realize that the prediction of a sea level rise of a foot by 2100 is LOWER than the prediction made by the IPCC in the nineties and LOWER than the eighties when the EPA predicted more than six feet.

Rebut those statements, Monterey Jack!!!

I don't know about the 90's, but the IPCC's TAR and FAR, the ones they've put out this century, agree within about 10% (actually some of the commentary has the FAR being slightly above the TAR, and the models have gotten several orders of magnitude better since the 90's (and even since the TAR in 2001). Deal with what's out there now, genoves, not what a model from last century might have said(and you might document those points--the contrarian community has a habit of distorting the statistics)

Monterey Jack. You don't really know very much about the alleged global warming do you? I challenged you to show that my comments were wrong. You could not. THOSE COMMENTS REFER TO THE 2007 IPPC reports. If you knew the basics about the IPCC, you would know that my comments refer to 2007, but since you are either an obfuscator or just ignorant, I will give you chapter and verse. Then, I dare you to compare the IPCC data with my postings.

FROM THE 2 0 0 7 IPCC REPORT!
The projected temperature increase for a range of stabilization scenarios (the coloured bands). The black line in middle of the shaded area indicates 'best estimates'; the red and the blue lines the likely limits. From the work of Working Group III.Model projections are made based on an analysis of various computer climate models running within different SRES scenarios. As a result, predictions for the 21st century are as shown below.

Surface air warming in the 21st century:
Best estimate for a "low scenario"[9] is 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Best estimate for a "high scenario"[10] is 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
A temperature rise of about 0.1 °C per decade would be expected for the next two decades, even if greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations were kept at year 2000 levels.
A temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios.
Confidence in these near-term projections is strengthened because of the agreement between past model projections and actual observed temperature increases.
Based on multiple models that all exclude ice sheet flow due to a lack of basis in published literature,[11] it is estimated that sea level rise will be:
in a low scenario[9] 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 inches)
in a high scenario[10] 26 to 59 cm (10 to 23 inches)
It is very likely that there will be an increase in frequency of warm spells, heat waves and events of heavy rainfall.
It is likely that there will be an increase in areas affected by droughts, intensity of tropical cyclones (which include hurricanes and typhoons) and the occurrence of extreme high tides.
"Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic … In some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century."
Scenario-specific projections are based on analysis of multiple runs by multiple climate models, using the various SRES Scenarios. "Low scenario" refers to B1, the most optimistic scenario family. "High scenario" refers to A1FI, the most pessimistic scenario family.


[edit] Temperature and sea level rise for each SRES scenario family
There are six families of SRES Scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises for each scenario family.

Scenario B1
Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
Scenario A1T
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
Scenario B2
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
Scenario A1B
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
Scenario A2
Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
Scenario A1FI
Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)

IF YOU KNOW HOW TO READ,YOU WILL NOTE THAT MY PREVIOUS POSTING WAS CORRECT..EVEN THE H I G H ESTIMATE OF SEA LEVEL RISE IS ONLY 10 to 23 inches with the MEDIAN ESTIMATE BEING
8 to 19 INCHES.

THE MEDIAN SCENARIO FOR TEMPERATURE RISE IS 2.8C BY 2100.

read the report dunderhead. and please, no more bull. THE IPCC report is the official report of the UN which will be used as the basic scientific model in the upcoming December 2009 conference on "global warming">

Monterey Jack. You don't really know very much about the alleged global warming do you? I challenged you to show that my comments were wrong. You could not. THOSE COMMENTS REFER TO THE 2007 IPPC reports. If you knew the basics about the IPCC, you would know that my comments refer to 2007, but since you are either an obfuscator or just ignorant, I will give you chapter and verse. Then, I dare you to compare the IPCC data with my postings.

FROM THE 2 0 0 7 IPCC REPORT!
The projected temperature increase for a range of stabilization scenarios (the coloured bands). The black line in middle of the shaded area indicates 'best estimates'; the red and the blue lines the likely limits. From the work of Working Group III.Model projections are made based on an analysis of various computer climate models running within different SRES scenarios. As a result, predictions for the 21st century are as shown below.

Surface air warming in the 21st century:
Best estimate for a "low scenario"[9] is 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Best estimate for a "high scenario"[10] is 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
A temperature rise of about 0.1 °C per decade would be expected for the next two decades, even if greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations were kept at year 2000 levels.
A temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios.
Confidence in these near-term projections is strengthened because of the agreement between past model projections and actual observed temperature increases.
Based on multiple models that all exclude ice sheet flow due to a lack of basis in published literature,[11] it is estimated that sea level rise will be:
in a low scenario[9] 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 inches)
in a high scenario[10] 26 to 59 cm (10 to 23 inches)
It is very likely that there will be an increase in frequency of warm spells, heat waves and events of heavy rainfall.
It is likely that there will be an increase in areas affected by droughts, intensity of tropical cyclones (which include hurricanes and typhoons) and the occurrence of extreme high tides.
"Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic … In some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century."
Scenario-specific projections are based on analysis of multiple runs by multiple climate models, using the various SRES Scenarios. "Low scenario" refers to B1, the most optimistic scenario family. "High scenario" refers to A1FI, the most pessimistic scenario family.


[edit] Temperature and sea level rise for each SRES scenario family
There are six families of SRES Scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises for each scenario family.

Scenario B1
Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
Scenario A1T
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
Scenario B2
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
Scenario A1B
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
Scenario A2
Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
Scenario A1FI
Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)
********************************************************************
IF YOU KNOW HOW TO READ,YOU WILL NOTE THAT MY PREVIOUS POSTING WAS CORRECT..EVEN THE H I G H ESTIMATE OF SEA LEVEL RISE IS ONLY 10 to 23 inches with the MEDIAN ESTIMATE BEING
8 to 19 INCHES. AND THIS IS BY 2100!!!!

THE MEDIAN SCENARIO FOR TEMPERATURE RISE IS 2.8C BY 2100.

read the report , and please, no more bull. THE IPCC report is the official report of the UN which will be used as the basic scientific model in the upcoming December 2009 conference on "global warming" or do you want me to prove that to you also?