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

the planet has a gas mixture that all living things depend upon, to include potential humans. we have a moral obligation to do what we can to preserve that mixture, to not over stretch the earth systems that maintain this balance. We don't need to know for sure that we have damaged the earth before we know that we are wrong.

We have seen this very thing happen just in the past few years when China's economy started to pick up by leaps and bounds, and they started not only buying imported cars, but actually started factories to build cars. We all know what happened to gas prices when the demand in China increased to the point we saw demand outstrip supply, and a gallon of gas went up to $4.50/gallon, and oil was selling at close to $150/barrell.

It can happen again, because people are hungry to earn a decent living by producing products people around the world wants to buy. China and India's population represents half the world's population, and they are ready to build factories and use up raw materials as soon as demand picks up again.

rosborne is spot on! Nobody will need to push that car uphill or downhill; it'll take off on its own momentum.

NOTE: As China increased their production of toys and electronics, they managed to pollute one-third of their countries rivers. Big cities like Beijing are so polluted, there is still haze in the air that people breathe. When I was in Beijing in November two years ago, and blew my nose. It came out black.
Many villages in China no longer have fresh drinking water, and must have it delivered by truck. They are essentially killing themselves to increase their economy. I'm afraid India is right behind them.

I don't mean to be snippy or sarcastic, but do you honstly believe, given the history of CO2 on Earth that we know about, that the tiny percentage of CO2 that humans are pumping into the atmosphere are likely to be harmful to any living thing? That volcano about to pop its cork in Alaska will likely spew more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the humans on Earth will produce in decades.

To take precautions about something as natural and necessary as CO2 on the unlikely chance that it might harm something makes no more sense than refusing to leave your house because a meteor might fall on your head or refuse to eat any food because you might have developed an allergy since the last time you ate it or refusing to travel anywhere because the vehicle might crash. Of course it is wise to be cautious and of course it is foolish to take some foolish risk, but we know that plants enjoy moderate increases in CO2 while animals remain unaffected and, if AGW is not a factor, then there is no reason to fear whatever CO2 we are incidentally introducing into the atmosphere.

It is sad, rosborne979 that so few will stop to examine the evidence. All of it.

Instead we get moronic comments about nose blowing and black snot--as if that proved anything!

note

l. No one has proven that Dr. Singer's thesis on the fact that co2 has been a lagging indicator of global warming, not a causal factor. This has been shown in peer approved studies of the Ice Cores.

2. What did the IPCC say in 2007? Most of the bloggers on this site have never read the conclusions of the UN sponsored IPCC which, as anyone who has followed the controversy knows, is the MAJOR SOURCE OF RELEVANT DATA WITH REGARD TO THE ALLEGED "GLOBAL WARMING"

3. Note the findings of the IPCC. Note that these findings were made using models. That means that data were fed into computers by scientists to model what temperatures might be in ninety years. That means that the scientists who set up these models were able to ACCURATELY PREDICT THE ACTION OF CLOUDS, OCEAN CURRENTS AND VOLCANOES AND THE INTERACTION OF THESE FACTORS FOR THE NEXT NINETY YEARS

quote from Wikipedia on IPCC
********************************************************


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)



4. An examination of the IPCC findings shows that the MEDIAN TEMPERATURE RISE WILL BE( SEE SCENARIO B2 AND A1B) AND TAKE THE MID POINT BETWEEN THEM--2.6 C. rise by 2100.

It is most important to understand that the IPCC HAS REVISED ITS FINDINGS OVER AND OVER. THESE FIGURES ARE NOT WRITTEN IN STONE AND SINCE THEY ARE FINDINGS MADE THROUGH MODELING CAN SHOW DIFFERENCES.

Let us examine what the IPCC has said about Sea Level Rises---

In its report the IPCC estimates that sea levels will rise about a foot over the rest of the century..since 1860 we have experienced a sea level rise of about a foot--no major disruptions. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THE NEW PREDICTION IS L O W E R THAN THE PREVIOUS IPCC ESTIMATES AND MUCH LOWER THAN THE ESTIMATES FROM 1990 OF MORE THAN TWO FEET AND FROMTHE 1980'S WHEN THE EPA PROJECTED MORE THAN SIX FEET BY 2 100.


I do hope that someone will try to rebut me. I do not expect that it will happen. Few seem to be able to deal with Science and statistics. Most will make idiotic comments about blowing noses and getting black issue.

Why, hawkeye 10, do you believe: "the planet has a gas mixture that all living things depend upon, to include potential humans. we have a moral obligation to do what we can to preserve that mixture, to not over stretch the earth systems that maintain this balance.?"

That mixture has been changing "every witchaway but loose" for millions of years. What makes the current mixture so superior as to warrant preserving it?

And they can't even do it for tomorrow!!
LOL!!!
Of course the global warming zealots will tell me that they can't predict weather for tomorrow, but climate is somehow different, that they can predict climate. LOL!!!

(Incomplete data + guessed data + wrong data) = (Incomplete conclusions + guessed conclusions + wrong conclusions) = (Garbage in = garbage out).

You are correct, Okie--They can't even do it for tomorrow. Remember, in these computer models, the scientists must put into the programs not only their estimates of particu late matter spewed into the atmosphere but the action of CLOUDS, OCEAN CURRENTS, ANDVOLCANOES. These factors must be intercorrelated so as to predict the effect of each factor on the final result.

self preservation of the human species.

What makes you think the current mixture is better at preservation of the human species than a previous mixture high CO2 mixture that occurred during the existence of humans on this earth?

Huh?
What evidence? Al Gore's imagination does not count as evidence.

When was there a higher mixture when humans were on the earth?



CO2 is currently higher than at any time in the last 400,000 years according to the ice core data.
Humans have existed for about 200,000 years.

And......? Proving what, Parados?

okie, You show your stupidity so often, I have to wonder if you are either suffering from senility or atzheimers.

parados was answering a question.

of course, Parados cannot reply to the post below. All he is left with is a statement FOR WHICH HE GIVES NO SOURCE that Co2 is higher now than it was 400,000 years ago. Of course,he assumes that co2 is the only cause of higher temperatures, he assumes that temperatures on the earth have never been higher, he assumes that co2 is a causal factor of global warming and is not a lagging indicator, he neglects the fact that the ice core findings show a 1.500 year climate cycle during its 400,000 year length.

Source--"Unstoppable Global Warming--every 1,500 years" -Dr. Fred Singer.

And he appears to be totally incapable of rebutting any of mycommentary below which I have already posted.

Re: genoves (Post 3566480)
3. Note the findings of the IPCC. Note that these findings were made using models. That means that data were fed into computers by scientists to model what temperatures might be in ninety years. That means that the scientists who set up these models were able to ACCURATELY PREDICT THE ACTION OF CLOUDS, OCEAN CURRENTS AND VOLCANOES AND THE INTERACTION OF THESE FACTORS FOR THE NEXT NINETY YEARS

quote from Wikipedia on IPCC
********************************************************


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)



4. An examination of the IPCC findings shows that the MEDIAN TEMPERATURE RISE WILL BE( SEE SCENARIO B2 AND A1B) AND TAKE THE MID POINT BETWEEN THEM--2.6 C. rise by 2100.

It is most important to understand that the IPCC HAS REVISED ITS FINDINGS OVER AND OVER. THESE FIGURES ARE NOT WRITTEN IN STONE AND SINCE THEY ARE FINDINGS MADE THROUGH MODELING CAN SHOW DIFFERENCES.

Let us examine what the IPCC has said about Sea Level Rises---

In its report the IPCC estimates that sea levels will rise about a foot over the rest of the century..since 1860 we have experienced a sea level rise of about a foot--no major disruptions. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THE NEW PREDICTION IS L O W E R THAN THE PREVIOUS IPCC ESTIMATES AND MUCH LOWER THAN THE ESTIMATES FROM 1990 OF MORE THAN TWO FEET AND FROMTHE 1980'S WHEN THE EPA PROJECTED MORE THAN SIX FEET BY 2 100.


I do hope that someone will try to rebut me. I do not expect that it will happen. Few seem to be able to deal with Science and statistics. Most will make idiotic comments about blowing noses and getting black issue.

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

I know that parados will not go near the findings of the IPCC on sea level rise. It shows that over time, the IPCC has revised its findings downward.
Parados cannot abide this so he will not comment.

And, Okie,never mind Cicerone Imposter. You will note he has nothing to add to the discussion except a two line rejoinder--meaninless, unsourced and capable of being done by a well trained chimpanzee.

and, Ican, if, as the left wingsays,co2 in the atmosphere should be lessened, can it be done?

Of course, we could achieve almost instantaneous stabilization of the atmosphere's co2 content by banning all use of fossil fuels right now but at the same time doing so would practically bring the world to a standstill. We could also let things take their course--assuming, of course, that we would agree to the deleterious consequences of CO2 emissions. In between these two extremes, we have the option of reducing co2 emissions somewhat and accepting some greenhouse warming.

William Nordhaus of Yale University has produced the first computer model to evaluate the pros and cons of different political choices. Nordaus has discovered that reduction is not only difficult IT IS EXTREMELY COSTLY. He found that the cost of cutting the first tonof carbon is almost nil whereas when cutting back 40 % the last ton wil cost about $100 dollars.

source--"The Skeptical Environmentalist"--Bjorn Lomborg--

I think we should, as Bjorn Lomborg states,examine not whether MAN MADE CO2 increases global temperature but HOW MUCH--Whether this effect will be negligible, significant or even devestating( See IPCC data in my post on these pages).

This question turns out to be very tricky.

I will quote from Lomborg-

"Essentially, answering the question about temperature increase from co2 means predicting the global temperature over the coming centuries-no mean feat given that the earth's climate is an incredibly complex system. It is basically controlled by the Earth's exchangeof energy with the sun 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 thse five basic elements is enormously complicated and CRUC IAL MECHANISMS ARE STILL UNKNOWN...It is imporatant to point out that the results of simulations depend entirely on the parameters and algorithms with which the conputer is fed. Computers are number crunchers, not crystal balls."

Lomborg-P.264--"The Skeptical Environmentalist" P. 266.

We must then, believe that the number crunchers at the IPCC have been able to correctly and PRECISELY calculate data from( as listed above) a. the oceans, the land surface, the atmosphere, the ice sheets and the Earth's biosphere and PRECISELY calculate the effects of each one of these elements on the other four.

It is supremely difficult to get cogent and unshifting answers depending on the parameters and algolrithms in a particular program. THAT IS WHY ACCORDING TO THE DATA ON THE IPPC THAT I HAVE POSTED,THE IPCC HAS REVISED ITS PREDICTIONS OF SEA LEVEL RISE DOWNWARDS EACH TIME IT HAS MADE A REPORT.

Of course, posters like Parados won't touch such a finding with a ten foot pole because it means that predictions about the climate and sea level rises for NINETY YEARS in the future are not written in stone.

Birds don't argue about it. They just vote with their wings. Global warming is happening. From msnbc and the Audubon Society:

updated 12:19 a.m. ET, Tues., Feb. 10, 2009
WASHINGTON - When it comes to global warming, the canary in the coal mine isn't a canary at all. It's a purple finch.

As the temperature across the U.S. has gotten warmer, the purple finch has been spending its winters more than 400 miles farther north than it used to.

And it's not alone.

An Audubon Society study to be released Tuesday found that more than half of 305 birds species in North America, a hodgepodge that includes robins, gulls, chickadees and owls, are spending the winter about 35 miles farther north than they did 40 years ago.

The purple finch was the biggest northward mover. Its wintering grounds are now more along the latitude of Milwaukee, Wis., instead of Springfield, Mo.

Bird ranges can expand and shift for many reasons, among them urban sprawl, deforestation and the supplemental diet provided by backyard feeders. But researchers say the only explanation for why so many birds over such a broad area are wintering in more northern locales is global warming.

Over the 40 years covered by the study, the average January temperature in the United States climbed by about 5 degrees Fahrenheit. That warming was most pronounced in northern states, which have already recorded an influx of more southern species and could see some northern species retreat into Canada as ranges shift.

"This is as close as science at this scale gets to proof," said Greg Butcher, the lead scientist on the study and the director of bird conservation at the Audubon Society. "It is not what each of these individual birds did. It is the wide diversity of birds that suggests it has something to do with temperature, rather than ecology."

Changing migration habits
The study provides compelling evidence for what many birders across the country have long recognized " that many birds are responding to climate change by shifting farther north.

Previous studies of breeding birds in Great Britain and the eastern U.S. have detected similar trends. But the Audubon study covers a broader area and includes many more species.


Full story at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29104238/

Here you go stupidcat..

You show your stupidity so often it is quite boring.

Do you know what probability is genoves?
I would guess the probability that you will make stupid statements is 100%.
The probability that you will abandon your present screen name and then reappear with another screen name pretending you have never been here before is about 98%.