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

ican 711nm-- I could not replicate the entire study but it seems to me that this study backs up your position.

Note:


CONCLUSION



This evaluation, which takes into consideration the amplitudes, asymmetry coefficient and correlation coefficient obtained from the total solar irradiance reconstructions of Dr. Judith Lean (6) and Dr. Leif Svalgaard (7), is evidence for the theories on the increase of solar irradiance through the last three centuries immediately after the ending of the Maunder Minimum.

Here is another interesting approach --Ican. It sets solar variability as the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1,500 year oscillation of the climate since the last ice age.

G. Bond et al.

"A Pervasive Millenial Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates" Science 294 (2001): 2130-136

As the IPCC's parargrpha makes clear, they contain different data? Which parargrpha?

No. Montery Jack. You have no idea, no idea at all of the cost benefit analysis involved.

I will quote from Lomborg.( of course,Parados says he is "Full of ****" but I just might be Parados projecting)

P. 61

Sea level increase by 2050 will be about five inches--no more than the change we have experienced since 1940 and less than the changethose Art Deco hotels have already stood through. Moreover with sea-level changes occuringslowly throughout the century, economically rational foresight will make sure that the protection will be afforded to property that is worth more than the protection costs and settlement will be avoided where costs will outweigh benefits.

THE IPCC CITES THE TOTAL COST FOR US NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROPERTY ABANDONMENT FOR MORE THAN A THREE FOOT SEA LEVEL RISE( more than triple whatis expected )AT FIVE BILLION TO SIX BILLION OVER THE CENTURY."

Source--IPCC,2001b:396

end of quote

FIVE BILLION TO SIX BILLION OVER THE CENTURY???

Chump change--Just ask Obama to take it out of the TWO TRILLION!

7.2.2.2. 2001 IPCC report.

If sea-level changes occur slowly, economically rational decisions could be made to protect only property that is worth more than its protection costs. With foresight, settlements can be planned to avoid much of the potential cost of protection, given that between 50 and 100 years are expected to pass before a 1-m sea-level rise would be expected. Yohe and Neumann (1997) offer a method by which this planning might be applied. This method can reduce the costs of protection by more than an order of magnitude. Yohe et al. (1996) estimate discounted (at 3% yr-1) cumulative U.S. national protection costs plus property abandonment costs for a 1-m sea-level rise by the end of the 21st century at US$5-6 billion, as opposed to previous estimates of $73-111 billion (Smith and Tirpak, 1989).

It seems that you can't read,Parados,or else you are unable to compute---

Ithink I will have to treat you like my wife used to treat second graders-

QUESTION 1- Now,boys and girls, do you know what this is? This is a summary of the IPCC findings in

Clearly, a 100% x (1366-1365)/1365 = 0.073% increase in SI (i.e., Solar Irradiation) has produced the 100% x (1.0/((287.06-0.5))) = 0.35% increase in AAGT (i.e., Annual Average Global Temperature).

That is a ratio of 0.35/.073 = 4.8.

The sun shinning on the earth 24 hours per day, 365 days per year amplifies the net effect of its SI changes on earth's temperature by almost a factor of 5.

I know for a fact that temperatures in Texas during a typical summer 24 hour period, rise from a low of about (273 + 26) = 299°K, to a high about (273 + 36) = 309°K . That's a (309-299) = 10°K, or a 100% x 10/299 = 3.34% increase, merely going from night to day in summer in the northern hemisphere--while SI is approximately constant. So mere 12 hour increases in only the directness of SI produce large percent increases in AAGT.

It's no surprise to those who think in addition to feel that AAGT is NOT directly proportional to SI.

How's your perpetual motion machine working out for you ican?

Of course, if your math is correct that would mean the global temperature has risen about 3 degrees since the 1600s.

TSI (1366.5-1363.5)/1363.5 = .22% (Lean - 1645- 1700 never above 1363.5 for TSI)
ratio is X/.22 = 4.8
Solve for X = 1.05% increase in AAGT
288 = 1.0105Y where Y is the temperature when solar irradiation was at 1363.5 in the 1600s.
Y = 285

That means the temperature had to be 3 degrees cooler in the 1600's according to your math. Care to find some data to support your idiocy?

So the sun shines at night in Texas? The TSI is NOT constant in Texas day to night. You are a complete idiot for even suggesting that. How much solar radiation do you think you get at night in Texas ican? The output of the sun may be constant but the TSI reaching Texas is NOT constant.

Ican-Monterey Jack ignores the posts he cannot respond to--Note:

Re: MontereyJack (Post 3576188)
No. Montery Jack. You have no idea, no idea at all of the cost benefit analysis involved.

I will quote from Lomborg.( of course,Parados says he is "Full of ****" but I just might be Parados projecting)

P. 61

Sea level increase by 2050 will be about five inches--no more than the change we have experienced since 1940 and less than the changethose Art Deco hotels have already stood through. Moreover with sea-level changes occuringslowly throughout the century, economically rational foresight will make sure that the protection will be afforded to property that is worth more than the protection costs and settlement will be avoided where costs will outweigh benefits.

THE IPCC CITES THE TOTAL COST FOR US NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROPERTY ABANDONMENT FOR MORE THAN A THREE FOOT SEA LEVEL RISE( more than triple whatis expected )AT FIVE BILLION TO SIX BILLION OVER THE CENTURY."

Source--IPCC,2001b:396

end of quote

FIVE BILLION TO SIX BILLION OVER THE CENTURY???

Chump change--Just ask Obama to take it out of the TWO TRILLION!

Ican- Parados did not respond to your post. Note that in his last post to you,he was practically frothing at the mouth.Keep tossing your evidence to you and don't be put off by his irrelevant questions. PS.You areprobably aware of the research done by Dr.Sallie Baliunas on the sun's irradience and its probable effects on the alleged global warming. If not, google her research!

So, why are you still here genoves?

I love your childish way of taunting posters that happen to respond to you as if it makes your statements have substance.

You are suggesting that someone read an author that stated this?
Science says otherwise? Do you think Baliunas even agrees with her statement any more? Science doesn't agree with her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas
It's interesting how Baliunas work is shown to be factually incorrect with citations on wiki but you don't care about facts, do you genoves. You prefer to throw bombs.


(My post to you is done knowing that you will waste your time responding with dozens of posts that I will never see because like everyone else, I am ignoring you.)

Parados, you missed my point. I was giving you evidence that AAGT is not directly proportional to SI within a Texas summer's 24 hour period. Therefore, you should conclude there is no reason to require that an X% increase in SI must produce an X% increase in AAGT in order to validly conclude that SI variations are the major cause of AAGT variations..

SI has had an increasing trend since 1900 up to about 2000. AAGT has had an increasing trend since 1900 up to about 1998. Since 1998 AAGT has had a decreasing trend and since 2000, SI has had a decreasing trend. On the otherhand, CAD has had a steadily increasing trend ever since 1900. The fact that the percent changes in SI are not equal to the percent changes in AAGT does not support the farfetched conclusion that CAD increases are the major cause of AAGT increases just because CAD.has had a far far bigger percent change over 1900 to 2008 than has AAGT.

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


AAGT= ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE in °K

A-AAGT = ANOMALIES of AAGT = AAGT - CAGT in °K

SI = SOLAR IRRADIANCE in W/M^2

CAD = CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY in PPM

I don't know. I think you are giving evidence that you are a complete idiot.
It cools at night because the TSI goes to zero? Wow.. that's a shocker.

Your conclusions are based on what ican? The fact that changes in SI don't equal changes in AAGT only proves you don't have a clue about much of anything.

Ican711nm-Parados does not understand your evidence, Ican. He will never understand it. But be patient,Ican. In December, there will be a meeting of most of the countries of the world to discuss climate of the future. The rabid droolers who hysterically shout that the sky is falling will find out that most countries, and especially the developing countries like China and India, will not sign on to any Kyoto like targets( which, as I am sure you know, did not work). The world is in economic distress. I am certain that most of the countries of the world will not add to their unemployment rates by shutting down their industries.

Parados wrote:


(My post to you is done knowing that you will waste your time responding with dozens of posts that I will never see because like everyone else, I am ignoring you.)

Don't worry about it, Parados. Others will read my posts and they can make up their own mind about the contents.

I see that you.like some others, are afraid of me and my ideas. I am not surprised since most left wingers dont have any cojones!

Ican- Since Parados is afraid of me since I jammed a couple of facts down his throat that he couldn't answer, I am giving you the research I have done on solar irradience, which contrdicts Parados's absurdities. Parados thinks he can kill an idea by trying to muzzle its adherents. How ridiculous!!!

Note--Ican--

*********************************
quote
When we consider a short period, for example an 11 years period we can argue that the intensity of the solar irradiance is decreasing; however, if we consider a longer period, for example 400 years, we can see that the intensity of solar irradiance has not decreased. Some 400 years ago the solar irradiance intensity was 1365.5946 W/m^-2, while in 2000 the total solar irradiance intensity was 1366.6620 W/m^2. This year the Sun has been mostly spotless, but the solar irradiance intensity has been 1365 W/m^-2. This constitutes evidence on the existence of other solar "pulses" that we have not understood well:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solcon.htm

Regarding the particularity of CO2 on the global warming, I don't see why to blame the CO2 of GW when its particular thermal characteristics show that the CO2 is not capable of producing any warming. The Pp of the CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 0.00034 atm*m, wich limits the absorptivity-emissivity of the CO2 to only 0.00092 (dimensionless value), not the 0.2 given by the IPCC. The absorptivity-emissivity of CO2 is 0.00092 conduces to its total emittancy of barely 0.414 W/m^2, not the 5.35 W/m^2 given by the IPCC. If I was to blame any atmospheric gas of a GH effect, I would blame the Water Vapor, not the the coolant CO2

endof quote

Ican-Since Parados is afraid to debate with me, I will let you ponder the answer I gave about the alleged HORROR of Sea Level Rises. Neither Parados( who is so sure of his stances that he is afraid of trying to rebut) nor Monterey Jack have been able to rebut the following:

Ican-Monterey Jack ignores the posts he cannot respond to--Note:

Re: MontereyJack (Post 3576188)
No. Montery Jack. You have no idea, no idea at all of the cost benefit analysis involved.

I will quote from Lomborg.( of course,Parados says he is "Full of ****" but that just might be Parados describing himself!!

P. 61

Sea level increase by 2050 will be about five inches--no more than the change we have experienced since 1940 and less than the changethose Art Deco hotels have already stood through. Moreover with sea-level changes occuringslowly throughout the century, economically rational foresight will make sure that the protection will be afforded to property that is worth more than the protection costs and settlement will be avoided where costs will outweigh benefits.

THE IPCC CITES THE TOTAL COST FOR US NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROPERTY ABANDONMENT FOR MORE THAN A THREE FOOT SEA LEVEL RISE( more than triple whatis expected )AT FIVE BILLION TO SIX BILLION OVER THE CENTURY."

Source--IPCC,2001b:396

end of quote

FIVE BILLION TO SIX BILLION OVER THE CENTURY???

Chump change--Just ask Obama to take it out of the TWO TRIL

Ican- Parados and Monterey Jack think that New York and San Francisco will be underwater soon. They have been watching too many cheap Science Fiction Movies.

Note_


7.2.2.2. 2001 IPCC report.

If sea-level changes occur slowly, economically rational decisions could be made to protect only property that is worth more than its protection costs. With foresight, settlements can be planned to avoid much of the potential cost of protection, given that between 50 and 100 years are expected to pass before a 1-m sea-level rise would be expected. Yohe and Neumann (1997) offer a method by which this planning might be applied. This method can reduce the costs of protection by more than an order of magnitude. Yohe et al. (1996) estimate discounted (at 3% yr-1) cumulative U.S. national protection costs plus property abandonment costs for a 1-m sea-level rise by the end of the 21st century at US$5-6 billion, as opposed to previous estimates of $73-111 billion (Smith and Tirpak, 1989)

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

Ican- Neither Monterey Jack nor Parados have been able to rebut this.

They blah, blah,blah a lot, and change the subject but almost never address what is put on a post.

Keep giving your evidence, Ican!!!

ROFLMAO...

I suppose if you want to ignore science you could make your claim.

I suggest you look at the which areas of the spectrum water vapor and CO2 absorb.