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

overall doesn't seem to be--rising demand in developing countries.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

With the huge downturn in the world economy, does it mean greenhouse gas production is also down?

electricity and crude production are down so I would expect so is green house gas emissions. I would want to see solid data on coal before I claim it as fact, and I don't find this. China mines a lot of coal, and their self reporting is unreliable.

0 Replies

It was rising at least thru 2007 (as the posts of yesterday's news indicate)--don't know if the emission rate from 2008 has been done yet--as I remember there was a brief downturn in the rate of increase sometime maybe in the early 90s (Bush I's recesssion, maybe?), which it was suggested correlated with economic downturn.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

It was rising at least thru 2007 (as the posts of yesterday's news indicate)--don't know if the emission rate from 2008 has been done yet--as I remember there was a brief downturn in the rate of increase sometime maybe in the early 90s (Bush I's recesssion, maybe?), which it was suggested correlated with economic downturn.

no, emisions data will not be out for some time as it relates to the economic collapse. However the collapse started in Sep and nov/dec electricity and fuel production numbers are out, and do show that the economic collapse had an effect. Electric is down from pre crash 5-7% and crude production down 2-3%, based upon the numbers that I can find. There are also many reports of crude tankers sitting unused as they have not in years because of no loads to carry, which backs up the lower crude production numbers. There are also reports of crude and coal inventories rising, so use rates may be down near the electric production decline number, but we don't know yet.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Monterey Jack--I am sure that you can read. So I will give you something to read..

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

You are wrong--You obviously do not know how to read.

This is from the 2007 IPCC report. You do know who the IPCC is, I hope. They say they are the last word in reporting future climate.

This is from WIkipedia and it is virtually a copy of IPCC's 2007 report.

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)

1 Reply

@genoves,

Do I really have to hold your hand and point out to you that the midpoint between Scenario B-2 and Scenario A-1-B comes out to be roughly 13 inches?

Do I really have to point out that since 1860 we have had a sea level rise of about a foot which has not created any major disruptions?

See
Jevrejeva, S. et.al. (2006) Nonlinear trends and Multiyear Cycles in Sea Level Records--"Journal of Geophysical Research--Oceans, 111 C 9

1 Reply

@genoves,

Do I really have to sppon feed you, Monterey Jack? If you reference the IPCC 2001 a:table 11.13.1996a:383 you find that the IPCC predicted a sea level rise of from 31-49cm 0R 12.2.-19.3 inches. The midpoint of this predicted rise is 15.75 inches. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MID POINT OF THE PREDICTED SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE 2001 IPCC REPORT IS H I G H E R THAN THE 2007 REPORT----

Then, Monterey Jack, we go to the 1997 IPCC Report ---IPCC 1996a:364--

There we find that the predicted Sea level rise is 38-55 cm. That means that the predicted Sea Level Rise in 1997 was 15 to 21 inches- Midpoint 18 inches.

Review,Monterey Jack---Rise in 2007 IPCC report--12 inches
Rise in 2001 IPPC report-15.75 inches
Rise in 1997 IPCC report--18 inches.

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

Even a fifth grader can tell you that in subsequent reports by the IPCC, the prediction of sea level rise has been lowered.

1 Reply

Oh,yes.Monterey Jack..If you reference

Yohe,G. & Neumann, J. (1997) "Planning for Sea Level Rise and Shore Protection Under Climate Uncertainty" CLIMATIC CHANGE, 37(1), 243-270

You will find references to the EPA projection of a more than six feet sea rise from the 1980's.

If this trend keeps going, the next IPCC report will tell us that the Sea Level Rise by 2100 will be six inches.

0 Replies

TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES 1997 -2008
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
......jan....feb....mar...apr....may....jun....jul...aug....sep...oct....nov...dec....avg
1997 0.151 0.248 0.264 0.195 0.244 0.377 0.372 0.410 0.455 0.494 0.468 0.533 0.351
1998 0.489 0.749 0.547 0.641 0.593 0.604 0.671 0.644 0.392 0.418 0.353 0.447 0.546
1999 0.368 0.545 0.290 0.312 0.233 0.264 0.271 0.235 0.266 0.226 0.211 0.330 0.296
2000 0.206 0.358 0.328 0.450 0.239 0.232 0.256 0.338 0.319 0.192 0.152 0.169 0.270
2001 0.324 0.285 0.488 0.430 0.392 0.415 0.454 0.508 0.402 0.378 0.505 0.320 0.409
2002 0.600 0.612 0.607 0.445 0.441 0.475 0.477 0.420 0.410 0.359 0.395 0.329 0.464
2003 0.527 0.438 0.422 0.414 0.435 0.439 0.453 0.523 0.518 0.565 0.428 0.519 0.473
2004 0.505 0.571 0.510 0.495 0.324 0.347 0.371 0.419 0.446 0.477 0.526 0.376 0.447
2005 0.463 0.376 0.493 0.536 0.480 0.512 0.532 0.503 0.507 0.513 0.494 0.371 0.482
2006 0.296 0.443 0.385 0.357 0.338 0.443 0.434 0.488 0.417 0.481 0.441 0.536 0.422
2007 0.632 0.520 0.441 0.472 0.374 0.375 0.406 0.370 0.412 0.367 0.267 0.220 0.405
2008 0.030 0.192 0.481 0.277 0.280 0.307 0.415 0.392 0.366 0.453 0.400 0.307 0.325
......jan....feb....mar...apr....may....jun....jul...aug....sep...oct....nov...dec....avg
WILL IT GET WARMER OR WILL IT GET COLDER?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Because we are presently in the low cycle of solar irradiance it will get warmer.

I am willing to bet on the average anomaly of the next 3 years being higher than the average of last 3. How about you ican? You willing to bet on it?

Say a simple bet of $5,000?

2 Replies

@parados,

I'll "hold" the money on your bet, so's there won't be any misunderstanding about failure to pay. LOL

1 Reply

@genoves,

I always find your posts most uniformative genoves.

This is table 11.13 from the IPCC 2001. It says nothing about total predicted sea level change in that table.

Quote:

Table 11.13: Calculations of ice sheet mass changes using temperature and precipitation changes from AOGCM experiments following the IS92a scenario for the 21st century, including the direct effect of sulphate aerosols, to derive boundary conditions for an ice sheet model. See Tables 8.1 and 9.1 for further details of models and experiments.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/427.htm

The range of sea level rise in the 2001 report is actually .2 to .86 meters.
table 11.14 with the best guess being .49 meters.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/428.htm

This is from the 1995 summary

Quote:

Average sea level is expected to rise as a result of thermal expansion of the oceans and
melting of glaciers and icesheets. For the IS92a scenario, assuming the "best estimate"
values of climate sensitivity and of icemelt sensitivity to warming, and including the effects of
future changes in aerosol, models project an increase in sea level of about 50 cm from the
present to 2100. This estimate is approximately 25% lower than the "best estimate" in 1990
due to the lower temperature projection,

While 1995 is lower than 1990. 2001 is almost the same as 1995.

But then the 2007 reveals the slight of hand being used.
you claim 38-55 is the range for sea level rise but that isn't the range at all.
That is the upper range for the scenarios while ignoring the caveat posted with those numbers.

Quote:

Because understanding of some important effects driving sea
level rise is too limited, this report does not assess the likelihood,
nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

So in other words, your numbers are nothing but BULLSHIT genoves. They have little to do with actual numbers used by the IPCC and ignore statements by the IPCC about how the numbers should not be used.

A fifth grader can't tell much of anything other than you are lying big time genoves.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Thanks CI. I'll keep it in mind when ican agrees.

1 Reply

George Will is so typical of so many conservative contrarians who lie or baselessly ignore the scientific evidence on global warming.

ENVIRONMENT -- GEORGE WILL MAKES UP FACTS IN HIS COLUMN DENYING GLOBAL WARMING: In the Washington Post yesterday, conservative columnist George Will chastised Energy Secretary Stephen Chu for "doomsaying" about global warming, arguing that concerns about climate change are just "eco-pessimism." As evidence to support his point, Will claimed that "according to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979." But as TPMMuckraker notes, the Arctic Climate Research Center (ACRC) quickly disputed Will's claim. "We do not know where George Will is getting his information," wrote the organization on its website "but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979." In its statement, the ACRC added, "It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts." Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt told TPMMuckraker that "he'd try to respond to questions about the editing process later today." The site has yet to hear back from him. Noting other factual problems with Will's column, The American Prospect's Ezra Klein slammed Will, writing that "sadly, our political pundits have outsourced their scientific research to an intern charged with a superficial skim of Newsweek covers." He added, "I look forward to [Will's] correction."

--americanprogressaction.org

0 Replies

@parados,

Obama will be holding all our money within the next 11 years!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

chicken! You just mouth off and won't support your own opinions; not unexpected.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cecerone imposter wrote:

chicken! You just mouth off and won't support your own opinions; not unexpected.

How much are you willing to bet that this opinion of yours is valid?
I'll bet you $10,000 that this opinion of yours is not valid.

Put up or shut up!

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Because we are presently in the low cycle of solar irradiance it will get warmer.

I am willing to bet on the average anomaly of the next 3 years being higher than the average of last 3. How about you ican? You willing to bet on it?

Say a simple bet of $5,000?

I asked : "WILL IT GET WARMER OR WILL IT GET COLDER?"
I asked that question after I posted data that showed that in the last 11 years, 1998 to 2008, the temperature decreased slightly--despite a continuing almost linear increase in CO2.

I don't have enough data to know the answer to my question. Neither does anyone else.

By the way, I wouldn't wage that either you or Cice would actually deliver to me the money you wage on your answer to my question, if you're wrong--no matter what the amount you wage.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

I do have enough data to answer the question. I told you what my data was. The solar irradiance is at a low point in the 11 year cycle.

I am a man of my word. There are ways to proceed by having some entity hold the wagers if you think you have a chance.

Simple rules.
The average of monthly anomalies for 3 years 2006-2008 compared to 2009-2011. Factored by adding up the anomaly for each month divided by 36 months. If the resulting number is greater for 2006-2008 you win. If it is greater for 2009-2011 I win.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know