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

Parados, admit you don't understand my post, instead of running off on unrelated arguments having nothing to do with my post. It makes you look really stupid.

What that would tend to show is that as the CO2 increases the effect it has decreases as you put more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Lets make this simple for you again ican.
Let's run a furnace the same amount of time for each day and assume the temperature is the same outside all the time.
First we run it with an insulation of R3. The house will be cold or it will take a lot of energy to warm the house.
Now if we increase the insulation to R12. It will take less energy to keep the house at a temperature or the house will be warmer if the use the same BTUs as before.
But if we increase the insulation to R20, the energy change will not be the same as when we increased from R3 to R12. We won't save as much energy or the house won't warm the same number of degrees it did before using the same BTUs.
Increase it from R20 to R30 and the energy savings is less than from R3 to R12 but there is still an increase in temperature if you supply the same BTUs to the space.

So. Temp of house is AAGT
Furnace BTUs is SI
and CAD is insulation
If we increase the BTUs we see an increase in temp of house, increase, increase
If we continually increase the insulation we see an increase in temp of house but the ratio of Rfactor to BTUs decreases. increase, decrease. It doesn't prove that insulation doesn't work. It only proves that physics does. The physics you are ignoring.



Your statement doesn't prove that CO2 isn't acting as insulation. It only would show that CO2's insulation qualities are not linear. But then no one in science ever claimed CO2 did act in a linear fashion when it comes to global temperature.

I don't think YOU understand your post if you think I am making unrelated arguments.

I PLAN TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING THIS WEEK. THEY RELATE TO MY CLAIM THAT AAFT IS NOT DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO EITHER SI OR CAD.
==================================================
YEAR = 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
AAGT= ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBALTEMPERATURE in °K = 286.56 286.76 286.96 287.16 287.36 287.56
SI = SOLAR IRRADIANCE in W/M^2 = 1365.50 1365.60 1365.70 1365.80 1365.90 1366.00
CAD = CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY in PPM = 241.60 267.60 293.60 319.60 345.60 371.60
AAGT % 20 YEAR INCREASE xxxxxx 0.06979% 0.06974% 0.06970% 0.06965% 0.06960%
SI % 20 YEAR INCREASE xxxxxx 0.0073233% 0.0073228% 0.0073223% 0.0073217% 0.0073212%
CAD % 20 YEAR INCREASE xxxxxx 10.76159% 9.71599% 8.85559% 8.13517% 7.52315%
AAGT% 20 YEAR INCREASE/SI% 20 YEAR INCREASE xxxxxx 9.530290341 9.524340912 9.518399777 9.512466917 9.506542316
AAGT% 20 YEAR INCREASE/CAD% 20 YEAR INCREASE xxxxxx 0.006485419 0.007178343 0.007870301 0.008561295 0.009251328
AAGT % 100 YEAR INCREASE xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 0.34897%
SI % 100 YEAR INCREASE xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 0.03662%
CAD % 100 YEAR INCREASE xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 53.80795%
AAGT% 100 YEAR INCREASE/SI% 100 YEAR INCREASE xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.530290341
AAGT% 100 YEAR INCREASE/CAD% 100 YEAR INCREASE xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 0.006485419
===================================================

CORRECTIONS
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, DECREASES over time, while the ratio of AAGT % increases to CAD % increases, INCREASES over time..

Any chance you could summarize the components of your discussion into a little summary in language that us less-scientific types can read?

Can you flesh this out vis a vis the lies on Iraq and how you idiots continued to create false impressions?

I doubt he can make it make sense because it is complete nonsense.

The increase and decrease of his "ratio" doesn't mean anything because he ignores both science and math.

1. A ratio does not have to stay a constant factor to still have a ratio nor does the ratio need to be linear.

For example x^2 = y
x has a ratio compared to y but ican is arguing that because the difference between x and y when x is 2 is not the same as the difference between x and y when x is 10 then there must be no ratio. His argument is nonsense.

2. He makes a claim and says to test it, then turns around and makes different claims on what is supposedly the same data. He doesn't check his data and even his corrections end up being specious.

3. He ignores all other data that could affect the data he chooses and then claims his conclusions show something isn't possible. This is like recording the rainfall on a lake and then claiming the lake can't rise 2 feet because there was only 2 inches of rainfall.

I don' t understand what you're saying with this highly technical stuff any more than I understand what he is saying, Parados. But I have a few years' experience with you both now. I have yet to see Ican say ANYTHING that he can't provide a logical rationale for, nor is he prone to deal in any kind of ad hominem argument except in extreme frustration and that is rare. I have no reason to believe he can't back up his science. I would just like to know what conclusions he is drawing from it.

ROFLMA

You forgot the "O" on that but I'll say you almost got it right. That is a different kind of argument from you though.

The only people who ought to be unhappy about the news from the weathermen over the last year and a half or so are people who like really hot weather. We're probably not gonna see any more of it in any of our lifetimes.

Maybe since none of us know for sure what the short term will hold. But I'm guessing we will continue to see record hot temperatures and record cold temperatures somewhere on the planet every single day for the rest of our lifetime and for some time beyond until we have a whole lot more experience with accurate record keeping and the law of averages kicks in.

Fox..
Do you agree with any of my points?

That you laugh your ass off when you don't have any? Sure. (Just kidding. What points did you have in mind? I certainly don't agree that Ican can't back up his opinion whatever that is until he tells us himself that he is unable to back it up.)

This is ican's argument for you Fox, if you understand simple algebra

I will give you 2 equations:
x^2=y
z -2 = y

Now..
Lets say x = 2 that means y =4 and z = 2
if x = 4 that means y = 16 and z = 14
The increase of x is 200% and the increase of z is 700%

Now if we make x = 8 that means y =64 and z= 62
The increase of x is 200% but now the increase of z is only 443%

ican is arguing that because the ratio of the % increase of x/the % increase of z is getting smaller there is no relationship between x and z

Yet anyone that knows simple algebra can see that x^2 = z-2 and always will.

I listed 3 points why ican had no basis for his statements.

Foxfyre: Parados is a fraud. He refuses to engage me in a debate because I challenged him with evidence from the IPCC( definitely not a right wing source but rather the locus of all of the UN scientific findings about the alleged global warming.

l. I showed that the IPCC has LOWERED its own predictions about sea level rises. The sea level rise has gone down each time the IPCC has reported. The IPCC has made reports in 1990. 1996, 2001 and 2007. Parados has quibbled about a finding I posted from Bjorn Lomborg but the trend is unmistakable. The sea level projections are downward.

Foxfyre, gungasnake, Okie, Ican--Note the following:

I am, of course, aware that the major player in these scientific studies is the IPCC, sponsored by the UN. I have clear evidence to show that the IPCC's reports in 2007 showed a REVISION DOWNWARDS of Sea Level Rise.

If the IPCC revised their predictions from their previous studies, it is not at all unlikely that there may be revisions in the future.

Note:

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.

Note the above--Parados who is afraid of me has not rebutted the documented fact that the IPCC has lowered its predictions for sea level rise since it has been reporting>

Here is another post that Parados has not addressed. He has NOT rebutted the fact that Sea Level Rise predictions are being lowered:

This post is from Farmerman:

farmerman

1 Reply report Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:46 am TWo marine geologists, John Kraft and Rhoads Fairbridge had, in the late 1970's predicted a global sea level rise that ,since new elements of isostacy and continental movement were factored in, have since reduced their own (then) famous curves significantly. Much of these predictions of water temps and sea level elevations are WAG's at best, and downright fraudulent at worst. The rush to publish a lot of crap data is where weve gotten into a lot of messes with the entire global warming mantra. Axial precession, change in sol,ar luminosity, release of continental heat sinks and the various planetary cycles havent even been factored accurately into the equation and still many insist that global warming is human induced and weve gotta curtail all commerce to stem it.
Jeez, Im sorry, I try to be open minded about a lot but Im still not seeing the relationship even of CO2 as a "causitive element" in climate hange. ALl Im seeing in the paleoclimate data is that CO2 is a "following" indicator. (temperatures change, then CO2 is released)

Okie. Foxfyre, Gungasnake, Ican.

Here was another post that Parados was afraid to address.

Re: ican711nm (Post 3567205)
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--