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

And my waistline has increased and decreased and increased....I probably have 10 different sizes clothing hanging in varius closets around the house.

But yes, I agree that on planet Earth nothing stays the same but everything is always in a state of flux. Hasn't that been our whole point in all these months--years now--and all the pages of this thread?

It is interesting watching scientific opinion change though. I don't share Genoves certainty in some of the scientific opinion he has posted and I sure don't share Parados' confidence in a graph he picked up on some guy's blog. I rather think I do share your scientific view based on probability that we can know some things about our planet and our climate but nobody yet knows for sure what drives it from one eon to the next.

I do think the propensity of the evidence at this time makes it probable that human kind is not having a significant or dramatic effect on climate though I think it is probable that humankind is having some effect on it, especially in highly populated and industrialized areas. I am not convinced that we need to do anything dramatic or especially ambitious based on what we know about that at this time though.

My interest all this time has been in two areas:

1) I want to do what I can to ensure that we have clean water, air, soil, and preserve the aesthetic beauty of our planet as much as possible and take reasonable care of the creatures on it.

2) I do not want my government to force me to make radical life changes, to restrict my choices, to restrict my opportunities, or restrict my freedoms for a theory that is probably based on at least some flawed if not bogus science.

I don't think that's too much for us to ask.

Luckily, these localized effects stay right where they're placed, eh, Foxy?

Parados did not respond to this article:

The truth about global warming - it’s the Sun that’s to blame
Well I would never expect to read this from the Telegraph, but new research is claiming that increased temperatures on the Sun are the real contributor to increased global temperatures. From the article;

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: “The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. “Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth,” he said. “I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world’s politicians and policy-makers are not.

“Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock

Parados is afraid to respond to Farmerman's challenge--

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) .

PARADOS THINKS A DEBATE ALLOWS A DEBATER TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT HE WILL RESPOND TO...THE DEBATER MAY DO THAT, AS PARADOS IS DOING BUT THE JUDGE WILL DECLARE THAT THE SNIVELING COWARD PARADOS LOST.

Parados STILL has not been able to rebut the fact that the IPCC has lowered its predictions of sea level rise after each report.

What a coward!!!!!


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>

Ican- Parados STILL has not been able to address the last paragraph of this post which is a quote from the IPCC.

Re: genoves (Post 3578815)
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.

PARADOS IS UNABLE TO RESPOND TO THAT!

Parados has not rebutted the evidence in this post. Why not?



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)

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

AND ACCORDING TO THE IPCC SUMMARY WHICH I HAVE POSTED SEVERAL TIMES, THE SEA LEVEL RISE IS INDEED TAKING PLACE SLOWLY..

Did you look at the graph Fox? It shows how global warming has increased as pirates decreased. You think I have confidence in it? Wow.. No wonder you don't see through ican's crap if you can't tell that pirates vs global warming is a false argument made to poke fun at others that make specious arguments.

Genoves,
The following is additional evidence to the evidence you have already provided that CAD increases are not the major cause of AAGT increases or decreases. SI is the major cause of AAGT increases and decreases. Over the period 1900 to 2008, AAGT generally increases with increases in SI and decreases with decreases in SI. On the otherhand CAD has not ever decreased over that same period. Consequently, CAD cannot be shown to be a causative factor 0f AAGT increases AND decreases over that same period.

The data that follows for the period 1900 to 2008 supports my allegation directly and indirectly. The actual values of AAGT, SI, and CAD support my allegation directly.The ratios of AAGT to SI, and AAGT to CAD support my allegation indirectly in that the ratio of AAGT to SI is more consistent with the observed changes in AAGT than are the ratios of AAGT to CAD.

These are the links to the data I've posted below:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
AAGT = Average Annual Global Temperature, 1850-2008

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg
SI = Solar Irradiance, 1611 t0 2001

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
CAD = CO2 Atmospheric Density Trend, 1958-2008
================================================================================
AAGT, SI, AND CAD DATA FROM THE FIVE 20 YEAR PERIODS 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 AND THE 8 YEAR PERIOD 2000 to 2008 ______________________________________________________________________
AAGT= ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE in °K = 286.56 286.76 286.96 287.16 287.36 287.56 287.38
(INCREASES over every 20 year period 1900 to 2000 and DECREASES over the period 2000 to 2008)

SI = SOLAR IRRADIANCE in W/M^2 = 1365.50 1365.60 1365.70 1365.80 1365.90 1366.00 1365.60
(INCREASES over every 20 year period 1900 to 2000 and DECREASES over the period 2000 to 2008)

CAD = CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY in PPM = 241.60 267.60 293.60 319.60 345.60 371.60 386.20
(INCREASES over every 20 year period 1900 to 2000 and INCREASES over the period 2000 to 2008)
_______________________________________________________________

AAGT / SI = 0.209857195 0.209988284 0.210119353 0.210250403 0.210381433 0.210512445 0.210445226
(INCREASES over each of the 20 year periods and DECREASES over the period 2000 to 2008)

AAGT / CAD = 1.186092715 1.071599402 0.977384196 0.898498123 0.831481481 0.773842842 0.744132574
(DECREASES over every period)

______________________________________________________________

Okay Parados. I did miss the joke and now appreciate it as a good joke. Sorry about that.

I stopped looking at your stuff really closely when you tended to be uncareful in where you get the stuff you post or you don't source it at all - plus a bunch of numbers and symbols and acroynms don't mean a whole lot to me in anybody's posts. I go for the bigger picture that I can understand.

(I would probably benefit from a crash course in Scientific jargon 101)

By the way, the surface area of the earth is about 5.231 x10^14 square meters. Then the number of kilowatts of solar irradiation that are received by the earth over a 24 hour period for each watt per square meter of solar radiation received, is at about 523.1 trillion kilowatts.

No wonder AAGT is not below freezing ...

1. A linear regression of Hacrut3 numbers for 2000-2008 shows in INCREASE in temperature.
Not only that 2008 specifically was HIGHER in temperature than 2000
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Your numbers are flat out wrong. The final numbers in each line are yearly anomalies. 2008 at .324 is clearly higher than 2000 at .270


2. Your statement about SI is unsupported for 2000-2008. Lean's numbers stop in 2000.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

You need to retract your statement or provide a source other than Lean for your data.



Your final conclusions are based on faulty or non existent data and seem to undermine your argument.


Let's examine that statement.

AAGT/SI is basically saying Temperature per Watt/m^2
We know that Watt/m^2 can't provide MORE energy than it does. That means if temperature increases faster than the energy input something else has to be going on. Where heat is being lost to could be increasing in temperature or the speed at which heat is lost could be decreasing. I doubt that space is warmer than it was 100 years ago so that means the only other possibility is that something is slowing down heat loss to space. That could be CO2 since that is one thing we are seeing change drastically over the time period.


Here we have temperature per parts per million of CO2. Temperature per parts per million is decreasing which would lead to the conclusion that more CO2 reduces its ability to increase temperature. It doesn't lead to a conclusion that more CO2 will lead to cooling. That means more CO2 will still produce warming.

That statement doesn't make much sense ican. You can't get a kilowatt per watt.

I don't think your math is correct even if you are claiming kilowatthours per sq meter.

At midday the watts/m^2 is about 1000 that reaches the earth's surface. This equates to 1 kw. Assume every part of earth gets 1000 watts for 12 hours each day that works out to 12kwh per sq meter.

We have to divide the total surface of the earth by at least 2 since 1/2 is always facing away from the sun if you want to factor total kwh for the entire globe. Then you have to multiply it by the kwh per sq meter.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

AAGT = Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2008

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

SI = Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

CAD = CO2 Atmospheric Density 1958-2008

The Constitution says nothing about allowing these high levels of CO2. All those Hummer/Suburban/etc drivers, what a bunch of treasonous souls!

From your graph-
\

Your claim based on this data


Since the data ends in 2001, how do you know what SI did from 2001 to 2008?



I posted a link to the HADCRUT3 data. Your numbers don't match the data used to create the chart you claim is your source.

Parados, this is a test:

One watt per square meter = 1000 watts per 1000 square meters;

One thousand watts per one thousand square meters = one tillion kilowatts per one trillion square kilometers;

10,000 meters = 6.2 miles;

radius of the earth = 4,000 miles;

radius of the earth = (4000/6.2) x 10,000 = 6451612.903 meters;

Surface area of the earth = 4 x pi x radius^2 = 523 x 10^12 square meters;

523 x 10^12 square meters = 523 x 10^9 square kilometers;

One watt per square meter = 523 billion kilowatts per 523 billion square kilometers.

IF SI were one twenty-fourth of a watt per square meter of the earth's surface area per hour,
THEN how many kilowatts are received by the entire earth's surface area in 24 hours?

Therefore "these high levels of CO2 are allowed per the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the USA!

The entire surface of the earth is NOT receiving SI 24 hours a day.
Only a fool would think it does.

If we assume half the earth is in shadow and your numbers are correct then the total kilowatts for 1/24 watt per square meter is 10.896x 10^9 kilowatts

kilowatts times time gives kilowatthours. kilowatts is power and does not and can't include time in the calculation. Your question can't be answered as asked.

I didn't say the entire earth was receiving SI 24 hours per day.

I said: IF ... THEN ...

Furthermore, I was talking about the accumulated SI sum of what the earth was receiving over a 24 hour period. During each and every 24 hour period, some SI is received by some part of the earth.

Please answer my previous question ... if you can.