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

Really? I am very much afraid that you do not know how to do research.

Because the estimated total sea level rise was from 31 to 49 Cm. Look up
IPCC 2001 table a: table 11.13 1996a:383. Source: IPCC 2001a:figure 9,14,-figure 11.12 and also appendix, table II: 4 & 5.

And, my figures are corroborated by Bjorn Lomborg in his book "Cool It"

P. 60-61
quote
"In a 2007 report, the UN estimates that sea levels will rise about a foot over the rest of the century"( THAT IS WHAT I SHOWED ALSO) "The new prediction is LOWER than the previous IPCC estimates" "Sea level increase by 2050 will be about five inches-no more than the change we have experienced since 1940"


Your quotes do not match the findings of Bjorn Lomborg in
"The Skeptical Environmentalist"

P. 264

"The total sea level rise over the century is expected to be about 31-49 cm according to the 2001 IPCC reports"(see reference above)

"...this is slightly LOWER than the previously estimated increase of 38-55CM".

I am sure that you are misrepresenting the findings of the IPCC--Shame on you.

Inasmuch as Bjorn Lomborg is a respected professor of Statistics, I am sure that his findings are far more reliable that those of a left winger named Parados--Unless, of course, you are a Prfofessor of Climatolgy--But you would have to prove that!!!

Parados wrote_
quote
While 1995 is lower than 1990. 2001 is almost the same as 1995.
quote
Really? Is a range of 31-49( 2001 ipcc) "almost the same" as 38-55cm(1995 ipcc)

The point which you do not appear to understand,Parados, is that while AlGore and the rest of the loonies are screaming that we are about to be engulfed, the sea level predictions for the future are downwards.

31-49--midpoint--40
38-55-midpoint--46.5

40 cm. is 6.5cm LOWER than 46.5.

And Parados appears to have forgotten the IPCC prediction for Sea Level Rise in 2007.

Note data from the IPCC summary:

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)

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

Now, the midpoint of the Sea Level Rise predictions (2007)is between Scenario B2 and Scenario A1B ----- 20.5 cm-45.5 cm.

Compare this with the range for 2001---31-49 cm.

2001 IPCC report--midpoint---40 cm.
2007 IPCC report-midpoint---33 cm.

AGAIN - A LOWERING from 40 cm to 33 cm.

Poor Parados- He does not realize that he shot himself in the foot-

He wrote( quote)


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.

**********************************************************
38-55 isn't the range at all says parados!!!! BUT IT IS THE RANGE--IT IS THE RANGE REPORTED BY THE IPCC.

AND THEN PARADOS GIVES A CAVEAT---

"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"

OK- ILL TAKE THAT.

THE IPCC SAYS(in effect) EVEN THOUGH WE GAVE AN ESTIMATE OF SEA LEVEL RISE,WE AREN'T REALLY SURE WE ARE CORRECT!!

O F C O U R S E!!!

What you, as usual, fail to understand, genoves, is that when you compare numbers, you have to compare like with like, and there are differences in what the numbers in the TAR and the FAR contain. The analyses are different between the two. And the IPCC says, when you assount for the differences in analysis, the two are within 10% of each other (as wikipedia says +/-). Call me cynical if you wish, but on the whole I trust the IPCC more about what they say about their numbers than I do you.

From the FAR:



The central estimates for sea level rise in Table 10.7 are
smaller than the TAR model means (Church et al., 2001) by
0.03 to 0.07 m, depending on scenario, for two reasons. First,
these projections are for 2090-2099, whereas the TAR projections
were for 2100. Second, the TAR included some small constant
additional contributions to sea level rise which are omitted here
(see below regarding permafrost). If the TAR model means are
adjusted for this, they are within 10% of the central estimates
from Table 10.7. (See Appendix 10.A for further information.)
For each scenario, the upper bound of sea level rise in Table
10.7 is smaller than in the TAR, and the lower bound is larger
than in the TAR. This is because the uncertainty on the sea level
projection has been reduced, for a combination of reasons (see
Appendix 10.A for details). The TAR would have had similar
ranges to those shown here if it had treated the uncertainties in
the same way.
Thawing of permafrost is projected to contribute about 5 mm
during the 21st century under the SRES scenario A2 (calculated
from Lawrence and Slater, 2005). The mass of the ocean will
also be changed by climatically driven alteration in other water
storage, in the forms of atmospheric water vapour, seasonal
snow cover, soil moisture, groundwater, lakes and rivers. All
of these are expected to be relatively small terms, but there
may be substantial contributions from anthropogenic change in
terrestrial water storage, through extraction from aquifers and
impounding in reservoirs (see Sections 5.5.5.3 and 5.5.5.4).


http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1-Print-Ch10.pdf

You will note also that the FAR cites recent research which shows that ice flow increased substantially in the period 1993-2003, and new research has led to an improvement in knowledge of the parameters of ice flow,but they were unable to tell whether that rise would continue, so they essentially didn't include it in their projections. Apparently it has continued since then. They say if that is included it would increase the upper bounds of the scenarios, which would increase the medians.

So they disagree with you. And as a number of researchers have said since the FAR, they think its numbers are very conservative. Sorry.

But I will take the numbers reported by the ipcc in 1995, 2001 and 2007 at face value.

Parados has admitted that the 1990 numbers were higher than 1995-

1995 sea level rise predicted--46.5 cm
2001 sea level rise predicted-40 cm
2007 sea level rise predicted-33 cm

If we take the numbers at face value, the numbers are clearly decreasing.

However, if we read the caveat( provided by Parados) we learn that the ESTIMATES PROVIDED BY THE IPCC REALLY ARE NOT ACCURATE!!!

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

This leads to the same problem laid out in previous posts---the prediction of climate for 2100 is a fool's prediction since, according to the IPCC in their own caveat, there is a lack of UNDERSTANDING.

This is because, as many have pointed out, the prediction of climate in eighty years is almost impossible because we really do not thoroghly understand the contribution of the sun to warming( see Ican),or the role of clouds, which, according to many scientists is poorly quantified.

We must always remember that while search for climate levels in the past were informed by actual existing items( ice cores, tree rings, rock formations) the predictions of climate 80 years from now can only be done by scientists using models which are fed by statistics.

The inaccuracy of these statistics can be deduced by the caveat provided by Parados.

Monterey Jack-- I am not a statistician. I don't know what your background is but your paragraph would appear to be what we used to call a "snow job".

You don't explain the TAR andFAR. I did not find them in the Summaries.
Perhaps you can explain them( thoroughly) in readable english.

But, You trust the IPCC. That's fine. You will note that I used the IPCC as a basis for my posts. I also have read the output of a man who is a statistician---one Bjorn Lomborg---He does not mentionTAR or FAR.

What he does say is the following:

P. 67--"Cool It"

quote

"Summing up, this does not mean we will not experience sea-level rise due to global warming, but it will not be twenty feet or more,It will be closer to one foot over the century--about the same as we experiencedover the past 150 years>"

Here is an interesting article by Robert Samuelson--senior editor at Newsweek.

I think it presages the political confusion that will doubtlessly be found at the December 2009 meeting on Global Warming. I will comment on that meeting because I am certian that many countries, just as they have on Kyoto, will conclude that their nation's economy and reduction of Unemployment will take precedence against a tiny increase in global temperature. China and India, as self-styled developing nations, will certainly beg off.

Note:

Global Warming, a Lost Cause?






The Real Inconvenient Truth
Thanks to population growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions will likely double by 2050. Are we powerless to stop global warming?

by Robert J. Samuelson, Newsweek


July 5, 2006 - “Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the next century, but"regardless of whether it is or isn’t"we won’t do much about it. We will (I am sure) argue ferociously over it and may even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem, the less likely they are to be observed. Little will be done…. Global warming promises to become a gushing source of national hypocrisy.”
"This column, July 1997

Well, so it has. In three decades of columns, I’ve never quoted myself at length, but here it’s necessary. Al Gore calls global warming an “inconvenient truth,” as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That’s an illusion. The real truth is that we don’t know enough to relieve global warming, and"barring major technological breakthroughs"we can’t do much about it. This was obvious nine years ago; it’s still obvious. Let me explain.

From 2003 to 2050, the world’s population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in 2050. But that’s too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. Unless we condemn the world’s poor to their present poverty"and freeze everyone else’s living standards"we need economic growth. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.

Just keeping annual greenhouse gas emissions constant means that the world must somehow offset these huge increases. There are two ways: Improve energy efficiency, or shift to energy sources with lower (or no) greenhouse emissions. Intuitively, you sense this is tough. China, for example, builds about one coal-fired power plant a week. Now a new report from the International Energy Agency in Paris shows all the difficulties (the population, economic growth and energy projections cited above come from the report).

The IEA report assumes that existing technologies are rapidly improved and deployed. Vehicle fuel efficiency increases by 40 percent. In electricity generation, the share for coal (the fuel with the most greenhouse gases) shrinks from about 40 percent to about 25 percent"and much carbon dioxide is captured before going into the atmosphere. Little is captured today. Nuclear energy increases. So do “renewables” (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal); their share of global electricity output rises from 2 percent now to about 15 percent.

Some of these changes seem heroic. They would require tough government regulation, continued technological gains and public acceptance of higher fuel prices. Never mind. Having postulated a crash energy diet, the IEA simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today. The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent.

Since 1800 there’s been modest global warming. I’m unqualified to judge between those scientists (the majority) who blame man-made greenhouse gases and those (a small minority) who finger natural variations in the global weather system. But if the majority are correct, the IEA report indicates we’re now powerless. We can’t end annual greenhouse emissions, and once in the atmosphere, the gases seem to linger for decades. So concentration levels rise. They’re the villains; they presumably trap the world’s heat. They’re already about 36 percent higher than in 1800. Even with its program, the IEA says another 45 percent rise may be unavoidable. How much warming this might create is uncertain; so are the consequences.

I draw two conclusions"one political, one practical.

No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they’re “doing something.” The result is grandstanding. Consider the Kyoto Protocol. It allowed countries that joined to castigate those that didn’t. But it hasn’t reduced carbon dioxide emissions (up about 25 percent since 1990), and many signatories didn’t adopt tough enough policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. By some estimates, Europe may overshoot by 15 percent and Japan by 25 percent.

Ambitious U.S. politicians also practice this self-serving hypocrisy. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a global warming program. Gore counts 221 cities that have “ratified” Kyoto. Some pledge to curb their greenhouse emissions. None of these programs will reduce global warming. They’re public relations exercises and"if they impose costs"are undesirable. (Note: on national security grounds, I favor taxing oil, but the global warming effect would be trivial.) The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only salvation is new technology. I once received an e-mail from an engineer. Thorium, he said. I had never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel that is more plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems. It’s an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I gave up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is correct: Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it. Perhaps some system could purge the atmosphere of surplus greenhouse gases?

The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it’s really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don’t solve the engineering problem, we’re helpless.

sheesh, they are acronyms, which everybody else but you, apparently, uses, including the IPCC and wikipedia, which you claim to have read.

SAR= Second Assessment Report (the stuff from the IPCC around 1995)
TAR=Third Assessment Report (2001)
FAR=Fourth Assessment Report (last year)

The paragraph is not a "snow job". It is the IPCC explaining what you have to consider to compare the TAR and the FAR on sea level change, since the numbers in one do not contain exactly the same stuff they do in the other. You, like ican, just take numbers and never look at what they are actually measuring, Since they do in fact measure somewhat different things, you end up comparing apples to oranges.

Monterey Jack wrote:

The paragraph is not a "snow job". It is the IPCC explaining what you have to consider to compare the TAR and the FAR on sea level change, since the numbers in one do not contain exactly the same stuff they do in the other. You, like ican, just take numbers and never look at what they are actually measuring, Since they do in fact measure somewhat different things, you end up comparing apples to oranges.

end of quote--

I do not know what that means--"the numbers in one( which one?) do not contain exactly(EXACTLY?) the same stuff( STUFF?) as the other.

This is as meaningless a sentence as I have ever read>

Re: MontereyJack (Post 3576149)

But, You trust the IPCC. That's fine. You will note that I used the IPCC as a basis for my posts. I also have read the output of a man who is a statistician---one Bjorn Lomborg---He does not mentionTAR or FAR.

What he does say is the following:

P. 67--"Cool It"

quote

"Summing up, this does not mean we will not experience sea-level rise due to global warming, but it will not be twenty feet or more,It will be closer to one foot over the century--about the same as we experiencedover the past 150 years>"

Monterey Jack Wrote:

So they disagree with you. And as a number of researchers have said since the FAR, they think its numbers are very conservative. Sorry.

endof quote

And a number of researchers have said since the FAR, they think the numbers are not as conservative as they should be. Sorry! Sorry! Sorry!

I was talking about comparing the numbers in the TAR and the FAR, duh. As the IPCC's papargrpah makes clear, they contain different data and are done differently, duh.

Neither genoves/massagato nor Bjorn Lomborg seems to be very familiar with the vulnerability of coastal land and development to the rise, even of a foot or two (the latter very likely, since we are taking no steps to mitigate CO2 production: it's well within the confidence interval for unmitigated increase)of saea level. A third of coastal wetlands, which have important functions in water use, flood prevention, and wildlife habitat among other roles, could be converted to open water (bye, bye, Louisiana). 500o-10000 square miles of coastal dry land would vanish. Coastal beach communities and ports (which are, kind of by definition, at sea level) would be endangered. Dunes and protective barriers could vanish. 1-2 foot rise would increase storm damage by 45% per year. 100-year storms would become 25-30 year storms--e.g. tidal surges build on a higher base of water, going farther and wreaking more damage.

We've built right down to the water's edge. Even a foot, let alone two, is going to have severe consequences. Ask the EPA. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html

I did look it up. I also gave a link to it so anyone else can look at table 11.13.
Your statement is not accurate. table 11.13 does NOT state what you say it does.

It seems Lomborg is as full of **** as you are if he mentions table 11.13 as his source.

The problem is that you write things that are not true. Therefore, I doubt you would agree that if lower anomaly temperatures occur in 2009 etc. you would agree they are in fact lower.

The last time we got into this debate, you claimed that the decreasing anomalyies in the years following 1998 or the years following 2006 were not actually lower because they were not lower than the temperatures in 1997.

Now you are claiming the sun is at a low in its 11 year cycle, when 11 years ago, 1998, the sun was actually at a high in its 11 year cycle. Well if it were at its 11 year solsr cycle high 11 years ago prior to 2008, it's at its high 11 years later in 2008--and we're less than 2 months into 2009.

What you neglect is the fact that the sun goes through other cycles than only the 11 year cycle. See again how long the sun's 11 year cycles actually increased over a longer time. Perhaps the sun's 11 year cycles will decrease for a while. I don't know if those solar cycles will now continue to decrease. I do not believe you or anyone else knows either.

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001

YEAR . CAD /\ ... SI \/…. A-AAGT \/.
1998 367.61 1366.11 0.546
1999 368.59 1366.39 0.296
2000 370.33 1366.67 0.270
2001 371.83 1366.40 0.409
2002 374.45 1366.37 0.464
2003 376.71 1366.07 0.473
2004 378.23 1365.91 0.447
2005 380.78 1365.81 0.482
2006 382.55 1365.72 0.422
2007 384.60 1365.66 0.405
2008 386.20 1365.60 0.325

I am sure enough that I am willing to bet.

You are unsure. Gee.. you don't act unsure in all the crap you post. But it seems you are not willing to support your crap when something is on the line.

I'm unsure whether or not the sun's long term irradiation cycle will reverse its climb--from 1901 to 2001--and continue its current decline since then for more than the last sun spot cycle.

I am sure that a continuing increase in the density of CO2 in the atmosphere will have little effect on whether the earth will resume warming or continue cooling.

I am sure the sun's irradiation cycles are the major causes of variations in earth warming and cooling.

I am sure that the claim that CO2 density in the atmosphere has anything more than a very minor effect on global temperature is a fraudulent claim.

I am unsure whether you have the courage to recognize much less admit to yourself your serious errors in facts and logic.

I am sure you are currently unable to admit your errors in facts and logic.

Let's see what else you are unsure about..
Since early 1900s the solar irradiance has increased according to Lean by about 0.1%.

Meanwhile the temperature has increased by about .7 degrees Celsius which works out to about .24% increase in Kelvin.

Please tell us where the temperature increase comes from?