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

The perfect example of genoves made up ****.

Why are you still here genoves? So you can spew more ****?

parados, I put genoves on Ignore; it has simplified my life ten-fold. LOL

More specifically, I think Parados FEELS he can MUZZLE an idea by trying to DISCOURAGE its adherents. He also FEELS he can artfully rebut arguments he disagrees with by falsifying those arguments and then rebuting those falsifications.

You might ask, why do I argue with a person like that? I argue with him not to convince him. I argue with him to convince others, who have succumbed or may succumb to his slanderous demagoguery, to help them recognize slanderous demagoguery when they encounter it.

For that reason, I now expand on one of my previous posts.

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 to 1, or rounding off, 5 to 1..

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 changes by almost a factor of 5.

I know for a fact that temperatures in Central Texas, during a typical summer 24 hour period, rise from a low of about (273 + 26) = 299°K in the early morning, to a high about (273 + 36) = 309°K in the early afternoon. That's a (309-299) = 10°K, or a 100% x 10/299 = 3.34% increase, even while SI received by the entire earth over an entire 24 hour period is approximately constant.

What is the % change in the SI received by Central Texas over that same--early morning to early afternoon--time period? Is there anyone who could rationally argue that during that same time period, that % change in Si is also equal to 3.34%?

The absence of such rational argument is not a surprise to anyone who thinks that % AAGT changes are NOT directly proportional to % SI changes.

Parados, the computations for the production of the graphs you posted presume equal quantitities of H2O vapor, O2, O3, and CO2 in order to compute the percent absorbtions of the light spectrum. However, the densities of each of these in the earth's atmosphere are far from equal. Of all four of these, the density of CO2 in the atmosphere is the lowest. Consequently, the quantity actually absorbed by CO2 is very low compared to the others.

The % change in SI for Texas over the 24 hour period is 100%. At night there is ZERO solar radiation reaching Texas. You are left with the residual heat for the period that it does get SI.

Heat is lost at night which is why it gets cooler. (Unless air movement brings in warm air from somewhere else)

To use a 24 hour time period when there is a period with zero watts/m^2 as evidence that solar radiation has a 5 fold effect is ridiculous on your part. The reason that TX doesn't drop to absolute zero at night is because heat has to be lost for it to do so. Luckily for you the heat retention of the earth through it's atmospheric conditions prevents such a large drop. This heat retention is in part the result of green house gases. CO2 is a green house gas. It absorbs some of the IR that would be lost much quicker without it. I don't have to falsify your arguments ican. Your arguments are silly on their own.

If the sun shining amplifies its effects by a factor of 5 and since we don't lose all the heat from the previous day wouldn't that mean every day would be warmer than the one previous based on your statement.

There is a simple problem with your claim ican. W/M^2 is a measurement of energy. You can't get MORE energy than what is produce by SI. Since you can't get more energy, then there is no "increase by a factor of 5".


But let's look at your 3.34% figure concerning a Texan day. That means that at night when you are getting no energy for the surface from the sun, the earth is still retaining almost 97% of the heat from the previous day.


You should look up the word "falsification" ican. A falsification of your argument is nothing more than disproving it.

I never said they were equal. I only pointed out that CO2 has a different absorption spectrum from the others. That means CO2 captures IR not captured by any of the others. It doesn't matter how much of the other molecules there are, they still won't capture any IR outside their spectra.

As an aside and update, another OOPS in the world of scientific opinion, this time re that pesky Arctic ice:



Also:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY

Good post, Foxfyre. It doesn't gender much confidence in the data, does it? What if it was intentional? Probably not, but I would not be surprised. And why did it take so long to discover a mistake the size of California? And why should we believe the problem does not apply going back before January? How can you ignore an area the size of California, until brought to your attention?

Kind of like printing a false accusation, even after proven wrong, the original false impressions linger for a good long time, which would not be an unwelcome phenomena among global warming enthusiasts, we can be sure of that.

It also suggests that all those pretty pictures that folks have been posting re all that open ocean and disappearing arctic ice are not based on actual photographs but are computer generated? Or am I misreading what the articles linked said?

This kind of confirms my mindset of looking at the data through a prism of great skepticism. How do we know the stuff is that accurate. I don't think we do. And all the temperature monitoring stations all over the world, many in urban areas instead of pristine or natural settings. And we are supposed to believe a difference of less than a degree?

I posted the above paragraph while you posted at the same time, but yes, Foxfyre, I don't know the answer to your question, but personally I take a dim view of anything posted about doomsday global warming. One big reason is I don't see it where I've always lived, and I remember some pretty hot days in Oklahoma growing up, not surpassed now by any means. They can call it anecdotal, but at least its accurate.

You would be misreading it Fox.



Sea ice extent has never been based on "photographs". It is based on microwave sensors.

I don't know what "photos" you think have been posted showing disappearing arctic ice.

Parados has not and will not answer this post. He is unable to rebut it. That is why he is hiding. I find it rather amusing that the left wing hysterics who think they know all about climate cannot even address the findings of THEIR IPCC.

Again, Ican, Parados, who is afraid of my facts and will not try to rebut them but instead posts ridiculous graphs and meaningless links. Apparently, he does not know that the questions about climate--How it changes, why it changes and the RELATIVE influence of each factor on climate and the interaction of these influences on each other---that these questions are unsettled.

Here, ICAN, is a major question which I am sure is not settled yet. Parados will not be able to answer it because he is hiding. But,I am sure you will be interested in it.

THE IPCC FOUND:

caps mine--
\
"Probably the GREATEST UNCERTAINTY in future projections of climate arise from clouds and their interactions with radiation...Clouds represent A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF POTENTIAL ERROR in climate simulations...The sign of the net cloud feedback is still A MATTER OF UNCERTAINTY, and the various models exhibit a LARGE SPREAD. Further UNCERTAINTIES arise from precipitation processes and the difficulty in CORRECTLY SIMULATING THE DIURNAL CYCLE AND PRECIPITATION AMOUNTS AND FREQUENCIES>"

ICAN-- that is a finding of the IPCC.

The cowardly Parados thinks I exaggerate the fact that the hysterics think the cities will drown--

Note:





GLOBAL: Climate change may drown cities 24 Oct 2008 18:20:10 GMT
Source: IRIN
Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.
JOHANNESBURG, 24 October 2008 (IRIN) - People in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, prefer to commute in three-wheeled autorickshaws, taxis and buses that run on compressed natural gas (CNG), in their bid to slow down global warming.

CNG produces a lower level of greenhouse gases and is an environmentally cleaner alternative to petrol. Dhaka's residents are among the most vulnerable to global warming and don't want to become "climate terrorists".

The city is among more than 3,000 identified by the UN-Habitat's State of the World's Cities 2008/09 as facing the prospect of sea level rise and surge-induced flooding. The report warns policymakers, planners and the world at large that few coastal cities will be spared the effects of global warming.

Asia accounts for more than half the most vulnerable cities, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (27 percent) and Africa (15 percent); two-thirds of the cities are in Europe, and almost one-fifth of all cities in North America are in Low Elevation Coastal Zones (LECZ).

During the 1900s, sea levels rose by an estimated 17cm; global mean projections for sea level rise between 1990 and 2080 range from 22cm to 34cm, according to the UN-Habitat researchers.

The report points out that by 2070, urban populations in river delta cities, such as Dhaka, Kolkata (India), Yangon (Myanmar), and Hai Phong (on the coast near Hanoi in Vietnam), which already experience a high risk of flooding, will join the group of populations most exposed to this danger. Port cities in Bangladesh, China, Thailand, Vietnam, and India will have joined the ranks of cities whose assets are most at risk.

African coastal cities that could be severely be affected by rising sea levels include Abidjan (Cote d'Ivoire), Accra (Ghana), Alexandria (Egypt), Algiers (Algeria), Cape Town (South Africa), Casablanca (Morocco), Dakar (Senegal), Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), Djibouti (Djibouti), Durban (South Africa), Freetown (Sierra Leone), Lagos (Nigeria), Libreville (Gabon), Lome (Togo), Luanda (Angola), Maputo (Mozambique), Mombasa (Kenya), Port Louis (Mauritius), and Tunis (Tunisia).

Dhaka is wedged between huge rivers like the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, with hundreds of tributaries swollen with increasing glacial melt from the Himalayan ranges as a result of soaring global temperatures.

"The elevation in Dhaka ranges between two and 13 metres above sea level, which means that even a slight rise in sea level is likely to engulf large parts of the city. Moreover, high urban growth rates and high urban densities have already made Dhaka more susceptible to human-induced environmental disasters," said the UN-Habitat report.

"With an urban growth rate of more than four percent annually, Dhaka, which already hosts more than 13 million people, is one of the fastest growing cities in Southern Asia, and is projected to accommodate more than 20 million by 2025.

"The sheer number of people living in the city means that the negative consequences of climate change are likely to be felt by a large number of people, especially the urban poor who live in flood-prone and water-logged areas."

A total 634 million people in the world live in LECZ that lie at or below 10 metres above sea level, according to a recent report, Planet Prepare, by World Vision, a Christian relief, development and advocacy organisation. Although LECZ constitute only two percent of the earth's landmass, they contain 10 percent of its population and have a higher rate of urbanisation than the rest of the world.

Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the UN, notes his concern about the prospect of large-scale devastation in his foreword to the UN-Habitat report, saying: "Cities embody some of society's most pressing challenges, from pollution and disease to unemployment and lack of adequate shelter. But cities are also venues where rapid, dramatic change is not just possible but expected."

Dhaka is preparing for flood protection. The government, prompted by frequent flooding in the 1980s, has already completed embankments, reinforced concrete walls and pumping stations in the most densely populated part of the city.

The UN report cautioned that Dhaka's solutions should also take into consideration unresolved development problems, such as the growing slum population, which has doubled in the last decade and shows no signs of abating.

The World Vision report pointed out that other urban centres not physically challenged by global warming would also face tremendous challenges, with the possible influx of "environmental refugees" from affected cities.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has urged global greenhouse gas emission reductions of 50 percent to 85 percent by 2050, based on 2000 emissions, to avoid a 2°Celsius increase in global mean temperature.

Such an increase is expected to destroy 30 percent to 40 percent of all known species, generate bigger, fiercer and more frequent heat waves and droughts, and more intense weather events like floods and cyclones.

The IPCC and activists have called on the global community to focus on preventing global warming from crossing the perilous 2°C threshold, which requires keeping atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations below 350ppm (parts per million).

"The problem is, they [concentrations] already stand at 385ppm (2008), rising by 2ppm annually," said the World Vision report. "Since there are no rewind buttons for running down emitted greenhouse gas stocks, implicational reasoning suggests immediate and stringent emissions cuts."

Eminent scientists, such as James E. Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, are warning that even the 2-degree threshold may likely not be safe enough to avoid "global disaster".

end of quote

But, ICAN,look back on this post if you wish. PARADOS HAS BEEN UNABLE TO REBUT THE FACT THAT THE IPCC HAS MADE PREDICTIONS ON SEA LEVEL RISES WHICH HAVE BEEN GOING DOWNWARDS-DOWNWARDS-DOWNWARDS.

That is probably the major reason he is hiding.

And, as a adjunct to this point, I hold that if the IPCC has been issuing predictions that the Sea Level Rises will be no more than about ONE FOOT by 2100, it is POSSIBLE, POSSIBLE, that the IPCC may even revise their predictions that the climate will be 2 C warmer in 90 years.

Ican- Parados says that Sea Ice is melting. But, he is, as usual, incompletely describing the situation;

Note:



Polar Sea Ice Not Melting!
December 15, 2008 · 2 Comments
From: Watts Up With That:

Much importance has been ascribed to tracking the change in Arctic sea ice, but what about the global trend? That doesn’t seem to get much press. However there is some important information that needs to be presented related to the global trend of sea ice as measured by satellite since 1979. The results are surprising.

Obviously people cannot make the claim that sea ice is being lost. It isn’t. The data shows that our trend is basically flat during this time of unprecedented temperatures. It’s clear that there has been no significant change in sea ice area.


This is almost enough to make me turn in my Skeptic union card, but increased CO2 warming the earth makes some sense to me, the magnitude is in question. The fact that polar sea ice not melting is not an insignificant point. It is also important to realize that the changes are too small to fit with IPCC statements about the trend. Unlike trees, ice does make a good thermometer. I can’t say this strongly enough" This is a strong indication of substantial errors in the computer models and temperature data which needs to be addressed before we throw what’s left of our global economy to the wind. How would Earth’s total sea ice ignore such substantial warming? It’s a good question which deserves an answer.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ICAN- Parados wrote_

quote
Sea ice extent has never been based on "photographs". It is based on microwave sensors.
end of quote

The previous post quote indicated that the measurement of sea ice extent was done by satellites. Why is Parados so imprecise?

Were all those blithering posts addressed to me genoves?

ROFLMAO..

Didn't you read my post where I said you would do exactly what you just did? You are SO predictable.

By the way, if you want precision, you will need to note that the sensors are on satellites which is in the story Fox linked to and I quoted from and you seem to be questioning the accuracy of. To accuse me of not being precise when I didn't mention satellites is rather silly.

Gad, I was hoping that would be your response!

OK!
Let SI reaching Texas in the early morning = SIo = 0.
Let SI reaching Texas in the early afternoon = SIn = n = a finite non-zero amount.

Then SIn/ SI0 = n/0 = infinity = an infinite % increase, while the temperature increased less than 4% during that same period.

If your conclusion is valid, then my conclusion that AAGT increases are not directly proportional to SI increases is further supported by you.

Thank you!

Now set aside your false characterization of what the percent change ratio of 5, or as you called it ,"5 fold effect," was characterizing.

Go back and reread my post. It actually related to the ratio of AAGT % increase divided by the SI % increase over the 100 year period, 1900 to 2000. I subsequently said AAGT increases are not directly proportional to SI increases. I said that because I cannot find any evidence that the ratio of AAGT to SI was constant (i.e., was about 5) throughout those 100 years. Rather, that ratio appears more likely a variable equal to some function of the magnitude of SI, AAGT, and time--but not to the magnitude of CAD. Thus, the computed ratio at the end of that 100 years is only an average over that entire 100 years. In other words, the ratio AAGT % change / SI % change over time is variable and insignificantly affected by the almost constant CAD % increase.

You can test this by examining the ratio of AAGT % increases to SI % increases, and the ratio of AAGT % increases to CAD % increases, say 1900 to 1920 and 1980 to 2000. Between those two 20 year periods, the ratio of AAGT % increases to SI % increases, increases over time, while the ratio of AAGT % increases to CAD % increases, decreases over time..

It doesn't prove anything other than you are complete idiot ican.

You fail to introduce any heat loss in your equations. Your argument violates physics. A house doesn't turn instantly cold when the furnace turns off simply because the heat has to be lost for the temperature to drop. The same with Texas at night. A furnace can only provide so many BTUs. The sun only provides so much energy.

Let's look at 2 homes, one with good insulation and one with bad insulation. If we run the furnace the same amount of time for both homes the temperature will not be the same for both homes. That does NOT mean one furnace has a higher heating factor. It means the heat loss is different. In order to get a similar temperature for both homes the furnace in the one with bad insulation would have to work a lot more.

Your calculation is bull **** ican. Anyone that owns a home and looks at their heating bill will understand why it is bull ****. Increasing the insulation in a home will drive down the energy requirements to keep a home at a certain temperature. If you insulate the home and run the furnace as much as previously the home will be warmer than before.

It is impossible for energy to provide more energy that it does. Temperature is the result of energy input and energy lost. Claiming every increase in temperature can only be a result of an increase in energy input shows you don't know what the hell you are talking about ican. There is no such thing as a "factor of 5" in watts/m^2. A 1% increase in energy is a 1% increase in energy. The only reason it can cause an increase in temperature greater than it's energy input is by changing the energy loss.