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

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

PARADOS tended to be uncareful in WHERE YOU GET THE STUFF YOU POST OR YOU DON'T SOURCE IT AT ALL.

That's because he is a fraud.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Since I know you are a careful researcher, Foxfyre, would you be so good as to specify which scientific opinions I have posted you don't think deserve certainty?
I am of the opinion that I can back up, with multiple links and sources almost every one of the posts that I made.

Awaiting your feedback!!!

0 Replies

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 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)

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>

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

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..

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Ican- I admire your tenacity in your debate with Parados. From what I can see, he is unable to respond to you adequately. I am asking you to take a moment to read my last post and to see if you disagree with any part of it. I can source most of the information in it from more than one reference if need be. Parados' rebuttal tends to go along the line of "Lomborg is full of s...! Really scientific and classy.

1 Reply

This debate on Global Warming will continue on these threads. However, there are some occurrences in the real world which make the arguments of the global warmists moot.

First of all, the Kyoto Protocol, set up a decade ago, has been a miserable failure.

More important is the fact that the countries of the world will meet in a conference which will try to replicate the guidelines set down at Kyoto.
I am predicting now that the "developing" countries of the world, especially given the economic slowdown that will still be felt all over the world in December when the conference is scheduled to meet, will refuse to burden their halting economies by turning to ridiculous industry crippling regulations.

I will be on these threads when that happens and then I want to see whether or not Parados and the other global warming hysterics still post absurdities WHICH THE COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD ON THE WHOLE WILL PAY LITTLE ACTUAL ATTENTION TO.

China, which opens new coal fired factories every week and India which is not far behind, will thumb their noses at the Global Warming hysterics.

0 Replies

Here is an interesting essay making some telling observations while illutrating how rigid all sides of this debate have become.

At the end of the essay--see bolded text--is a provocative question. To expand on it a bit: if it would be far more effective and certainly wouldn't cost any more and would likely cost less, and it wouldn't require any kind of changes in lifestyle, much less the draconian ones that some propose, plus it would be a much easier sell to the public, then why aren't we doing heavy research on and devleoping technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?

Quote:

Politics in the Guise of Pure Science
Published: February 23, 2009
Why, since President Obama promised to “restore science to its rightful place” in Washington, do some things feel not quite right?
Viktor Koen
TierneyLab

Is the president getting scientific advice from honest brokers?

First there was Steven Chu, the physicist and new energy secretary, warning The Los Angeles Times that climate change could make water so scarce by century’s end that “there’s no more agriculture in California” and no way to keep the state’s cities going, either.

Then there was the hearing in the Senate to confirm another physicist, John Holdren, to be the president’s science adviser. Dr. Holdren was asked about some of his gloomy neo-Malthusian warnings in the past, like his calculation in the 1980s that famines due to climate change could leave a billion people dead by 2020. Did he still believe that?

“I think it is unlikely to happen,” Dr. Holdren told the senators, but he insisted that it was still “a possibility” that “we should work energetically to avoid.”

Well, I suppose it never hurts to go on the record in opposition to a billion imaginary deaths. But I have a more immediate concern: Will Mr. Obama’s scientific counselors give him realistic plans for dealing with global warming and other threats? To borrow a term from Roger Pielke Jr.: Can these scientists be honest brokers?

Dr. Pielke, a professor in the environmental studies program at the University of Colorado, is the author of “The Honest Broker,” a book arguing that most scientists are fundamentally mistaken about their role in political debates. As a result, he says, they’re jeopardizing their credibility while impeding solutions to problems like global warming.

Most researchers, Dr. Pielke writes, like to think of themselves in one of two roles: as a pure researcher who remains aloof from messy politics, or an impartial arbiter offering expert answers to politicians’ questions. Either way, they believe their research can point the way to correct public policies, and sometimes it does " when the science is clear and people’s values aren’t in conflict.

But climate change, like most political issues, isn’t so simple. While most scientists agree that anthropogenic global warming is a threat, they’re not certain about its scale or its timing or its precise consequences (like the condition of California’s water supply in 2090). And while most members of the public want to avoid future harm from climate change, they have conflicting values about which sacrifices are worthwhile today.

A scientist can enter the fray by becoming an advocate for certain policies, like limits on carbon emissions or subsidies for wind power. That’s a perfectly legitimate role for scientists, as long as they acknowledge that they’re promoting their own agendas.

But too often, Dr. Pielke says, they pose as impartial experts pointing politicians to the only option that makes scientific sense. To bolster their case, they’re prone to exaggerate their expertise (like enumerating the catastrophes that would occur if their policies aren’t adopted), while denigrating their political opponents as “unqualified” or “unscientific.”

“Some scientists want to influence policy in a certain direction and still be able to claim to be above politics,” Dr. Pielke says. “So they engage in what I call ‘stealth issue advocacy’ by smuggling political arguments into putative scientific ones.”

In Dr. Pielke’s book, one example of this stealthy advocate is the nominee for White House science adviser, Dr. Holdren, a longtime proponent of policies to slow population growth and control energy use. (See TierneyLab, for more on his background.) He appears in a chapter analyzing the reaction of scientists to “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” a 2001 book arguing that many ecological dangers had been exaggerated.

Dr. Holdren called it his “scientific duty” to expose the “complete incompetence” of the book’s author, Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish political scientist. Dr. Holdren was one of the authors of an extraordinary 11-page attack on the book that ran in Scientific American under the headline, “Science defends itself against ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ ” " as if “science” spoke with one voice.

After reviewing the criticisms, Dr. Pielke concludes that a more accurate headline would have been, “Our political perspective defends itself against the political agenda of ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist.’ ”

“Public debates over climate change,” Dr. Pielke says, “often are about seemingly technical questions when they are really about who should have authority in the political debate. The debate over the science thus politicizes the science and distracts from policy.”

Dr. Pielke suggests that scientists could do more good if, instead of discrediting rivals’ expertise, they acknowledge political differences and don’t expect them to be resolved by science. Instead of steering politicians to a preferred policy, these honest brokers would use their expertise to expand the array of technically feasible options.

What would honest brokers tell the president about global warming? Dr. Pielke, who calls himself an Obamite, says he’s concerned that the presidents’ advisers seem uniformly focused on cutting carbon emissions through a domestic cap-and-trade law and a new international treaty.

It’s fine to try that strategy, he says, but there are too many technological, economic and political uncertainties to count on it making a significant global difference. If people around the world can’t be cajoled " or frightened by apocalyptic scenarios " into cutting carbon emissions, then politicians need backup strategies.

One possibility, Dr. Pielke says, would be to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the future. He calculates that it could cost about the same, in the long run, as making drastic cuts in emissions today, and could be cheaper if the technology improves. It could also be a lot easier sell to the public.

Yet research into this strategy has received little financing in past budgets or the new stimulus package because it doesn’t jibe with the agenda of either side in the global-warming debate. Greens don’t want this sort of “technological fix”; their opponents don’t want to admit there’s anything to fix. And neither side’s advocates will compromise as long as they think that science will prove them right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/science/24tier.html?_r=1&ref=politics

4 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

why aren't we doing heavy research on and devleoping technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?

I don't know whom you mean with "we" here, but it is done (most heavily e.g. by Klaus Lackner at Columbia University in the USA, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany ... ... ...).

0 Replies

http://able2know.org/topic/129722-1

Pretty much an official japanese position...

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxy-

The promise to "restore science to its rightful place" is ambiguous. It can just as easily mean lowering the status of science as raising it.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

http://able2know.org/topic/129722-1

Pretty much an official japanese position...

Depends on what you call "pretty much" and from where you got this information about the "official Japanese position".
The Japanese government has a different perspective:

The Japan Society of Energy and Resources (source for your linked article) is a private academic society "to promote the science and technology concerning energy and resources".

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

As I already said ican. Your question is unanswerable as asked.

kilowatts can't be calculated with time. When you include time it is kwh.

(If you can answer the following then maybe I can answer your question ican.)
Your question is like asking:

What is the volume in meters of a cube 30cm x 30cm x 30cm?

Or what is the speed in miles of a car traveling 60 miles in 3 hours?

Or better yet, tell me how many inches are in an hour.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

But the real question is..

IF the data ends in 2001
THEN how can you claim there is a trend from 2000-2008?

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Foxy-

The promise to "restore science to its rightful place" is ambiguous. It can just as easily mean lowering the status of science as raising it.

Well, I think he meant giving it the appropriate concern and attention that it should have, but you're right. If the statement just ambiguously means that we will rachet up 'the end of the world is upon us' theology of climate change, then we are still in danger of losing choices and freedom as well as further screwing up the economy based on what could likely be extremely flawed or bogus science.

0 Replies

This debate on Global Warming will continue on these threads. However, there are some occurrences in the real world which make the arguments of the global warmists moot.

First of all, the Kyoto Protocol, set up a decade ago, has been a miserable failure.

More important is the fact that the countries of the world will meet in a conference which will try to replicate the guidelines set down at Kyoto.
I am predicting now that the "developing" countries of the world, especially given the economic slowdown that will still be felt all over the world in December when the conference is scheduled to meet, will refuse to burden their halting economies by turning to ridiculous industry crippling regulations.

I will be on these threads when that happens and then I want to see whether or not Parados and the other global warming hysterics still post absurdities WHICH THE COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD ON THE WHOLE WILL PAY LITTLE ACTUAL ATTENTION TO.

China, which opens new coal fired factories every week and India which is not far behind, will thumb their noses at the Global Warming hysterics.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

The following,Foxfyre, may answer your question about technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It may very well be, Foxfyre, that Obama's worst enemy regarding the diminution of Co2 in the atmosphere is his friend--the corrupt man he endorsed as governor of Illinois(Obama's home state).

Note the following:

Founded in 1962. Suspended in 1983. Reorganized in 2008.
The road to Kyoto runs through Illinois
with 3 comments

Ads by Google
Clean coal is a myth
A new energy policy is necessary
Sign the CLEAN Energy Act today!
www.TheClean.orgVehicle Emissions Testing
Worldwide Auto Emissions Exams And
Inspections. Request A Free Quote!
www.us.tuv.com

If President-elect Barack Obama is serious about curtailing U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, he may find that his biggest hurdle is his home state of Illinois. For Illinois is one of the top greenhouse gas engines in the country, if not the top one, and the development plans backed by the Democratic Party establishment will increase the production of climate changing gases.

Illinois’ claim to the greenhouse gas title rests on its dependence on two of the dirtiest sources of fossil fuel energy: coal and tar sands.

According to the U.S. government’s Energy Information Agency, coal-fired power plants produce approximately 34 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere in the United States, and Illinois is fifth in the nation in coal power generation. Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, has pushed coal power as the key to the state’s economic future.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Electric Technology Laboratory reported that during the Blagojevich administration, Illinois has entertained more proposals for new coal-based electric power plants than any other state. The proposed plants approved by the state government would account for more than 10 percent of the generating capacity of all proposed coal-fired power plants nationwide. Environmental groups have contested many of those approvals before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and federal courts.

And while three of the five top coal power generating states " Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas " are reducing their reliance on coal, lllinois’ dependence is increasing. Electricity from coal projects moving forward in Illinois will increase the coal power generation capacity in that state more than 20 percent.

A recent decision by an appeals board of the U.S. EPA could steer the president-elect into an early confrontation with his home state. On November 13, 2008, the Environmental Appeals Board, an independent body of adjudicators within the Environmental Protection Agency, ordered the agency to consider whether to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants before it approves construction of new coal-fired power plants. The decision came in response to an appeal from the Sierra Club of EPA permit for construction of a new coal-fired power plant in Utah. Carbon dioxide is the most common of the greenhouse gases.

Sierra Club Chief Climate Counsel David Bookbinder said the decision will delay construction of any proposed coal-fired power plant in the U.S. by at least a year. It puts pressure on the new Obama administration to either reverse course or proceed to regulate industrial carbon dioxide releases, not just from power plants, but also from petroleum refineries and other industrial facilities.

The appeals board based its ruling on a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year in Massachusetts v. EPA that declared that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

What is Clean?

As a Senator and candidate for president, Obama supported “clean coal.” Blagojevich likewise portrays his energy policy as advancing “clean coal.”

A spokesperson for Blagojevich’s Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, Marcelyn Love, said,“Coal is very important to Illinois’ economy, and will be even more so in the future.”

In 2002, Illinois initiated a Coal Revival Program, which provides grants to assist with the development of new, coal-fired electric power plants. In July 2003, Blagojevich signed legislation that expanded the program by offering $300 million in state-backed bonds to help finance the construction of “advanced technology” coal-fueled projects. Two years later, he signed legislation that expanded the program to include coal gasification plants or integrated gasification-combined cycle plants. On Oct. 12, 2006, he announced $3 million in state grants to help Power Holdings of Illinois, LLC develop a plant to produce synthetic gas from coal.

The governor has billed every coal-fired power plant supported by his administration as “clean.” He called the 1,600-megawatt Prairie State Energy Campus under construction in Washington County in southwestern Illinois, for example, “among the cleanest coal plants in America and a model for new generation.” He said the 630-megawatt Taylorville Energy Center uses “cutting edge clean-coal technology” and “is a great example of how we can grow our economy and create good paying jobs while protecting our environment.” Love said those plants are central to the governor’s energy program.

The Sierra Club, however, has derided those power plants as “dirty.”

“We think the trend to add to the coal fleet is a very frightening trend,” said Becki Clayborn, regional representative of the Sierra Club. Even though proposed coal-based power plants would spew less sulfur and nitrous oxides into the air than older plants, “that doesn’t mean they are the cleanest plants around,” she said. And, “they do not do much about carbon dioxide, and that is a problem,” she said.

The Sierra Club started its national campaign against coal in Illinois, “because more plants were proposed in Illinois than anywhere else,” Clayorn said. “We are at a crossroads,” she said, “either we continue adding to global warming problems or we look for alternatives.”

Although the Taylorville Energy Center would not burn coal, but would instead turn coal into a synthetic gas and then burn the gas to generate electrical power, Clayborn said it “does not address CO2 emissions at all.”

“One of our main concerns about adding coal plants without shutting down old ones is that you are just adding to CO2 emissions. If a plant does not have a mechanism to deal with the CO2 problem, it should not go forward,” she said.

That’s a concern shared by the National Resources Defense Council. According to Shannon Fisk, staff attorney with the National Resources Defense Council’s Midwest Office in Chicago, “If we are building new coal plants, we must have binding commitments to capturing and sequestering CO2 emissions, the best control of other pollutants, and a serious look at the mining practices of coal,” he said.

0 Replies

Parados--whose knees tremble when he sees a post he cannot rebut with his arcane and undeciperable pseudo science, STILL HAS NOT RESPONDED TO OR TRIED TO REBUT THE FOLLOWING:

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 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)

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>

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

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..

0 Replies

@genoves,

genoves wrote:

Ican ... I am asking you to take a moment to read my last post and to see if you disagree with any part of it. I can source most of the information in it from more than one reference if need be.

I can not find anything in your last post to disagree with. I have previously concluded that SI variations are probably the major cause of AAGT variations 1900 to 2008. What I do not know and cannot find evidence for is whether or not the decline in SI since 2000 will probably continue in 2009, and if so, how long this decline will probably continue.

If SI were to now begin a rapid and large increasing trend, there will certainly be a rapid and dramatic rise in AAGT with consequent melting and sea rise. On the otherhand, if SI were to now begin a rapid and large decreasing trend, there will certainly be a rapid and large dramatic fall in AAGT with consequent freezing and sea lowering.

The key question for me is whether or not we are headed for another ice age. That will do human life on this planet far more harm than the small AAGT increases currently forecast by the IPCC.

One thing I think highly probable is that CAD increases or decreases will have little effect on increasing or decreasing AAGT. What we should be doing is looking for more effective ways for humans to deal with SI caused AAGT increases or decreases.

genoves wrote:

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.

I agree that cloud variations probably represent A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF POTENTIAL ERROR in climate simulations. Clouds both absorb and precipitate SI heating effects. So depending on actual SI trends we will want
more or fewer clouds to help us, respectively, reduce or increase SI heating effects on AAGT.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Thank you - Ican-- If SI were to now begin a rapid and large increasing trend, there will certainly be a rapid and dramatic rise in AAGT with consequent melting and sea rise. On the otherhand, if SI were to now begin a rapid and large decreasing trend, there will certainly be a rapid and large dramatic fall in AAGT with consequent freezing and sea lowering.

I note our concordance on this issue.

Your paragraph below on clouds certainly is replicated by many respected climatologists.

I agree that cloud variations probably represent A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF POTENTIAL ERROR in climate simulations. Clouds both absorb and precipitate SI heating effects. So depending on actual SI trends we will want
more or fewer clouds to help us, respectively, reduce or increase SI heating effects on AAGT.

Note:

From Wikipedia--

The effects of clouds are a significant area of uncertainty in climate models. Clouds have competing effects on the climate. One of the roles that clouds play in climate is in cooling the surface by reflecting sunlight back into space; another is warming by increasing the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the atmosphere to the surface. [17] In the 2001 IPCC report on climate change, the possible changes in cloud cover were highlighted as one of the dominant uncertainties in predicting future climate change; see also [18].

end of quote.

and, Ican. some interesting findings from one of the premier climatologists in the United States--Richard Lindzen of MIT.

Note:

Humid and dry regions of the tropical atmosphere are very distinct. The image at left shows humidity measured by the SSM/T-2 Atmospheric Water Vapor Profiler at pressures ranging from 250 to 600 millibars (the mid-troposphere; note that the black areas in this image are where no data was collected). Lindzen reasons that areas of low humidity (white) opening and closing helps regulate the temperature of the Earth. Lindzen further hypothesizes that high sea surface temperatures would create storms that precipitated more efficiently, reducing the size of humid areas in the atmosphere. By linking the two ideas he came up with a mechanism that effectively offsets global warming due to a buildup of greenhouse gases by allowing more heat to escape to space. (Image from the IPCC report Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis)

So Lindzen’s team shifted its focus to clouds instead of humidity and used the Japanese Geostationary Meteorological Satellite-5 to make their measurements. That satellite, they reasoned, would provide them the best resolution over both time and space to meet their objective. That satellite’s field of view concentrated their focus on a large patch of Earth ranging from 30°N latitude to 30°S, and 130°E longitude to 170°W. This patch spans an area bordered by the Indonesian Archipelago to the west, the center of the Pacific Ocean to the east, southern Japan to the north, and southern Australia to the south. This area contains the world’s largest and warmest body of water, known as the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. Lindzen wanted to find out how the types and extent of clouds vary as a function of underlying sea surface temperature.

“We wanted to see if the amount of cirrus associated with a given unit of cumulus varied systematically with changes in sea surface temperature,” he says. “The answer we found was, yes, the amount of cirrus associated with a given unit of cumulus goes down significantly with increases in sea surface temperature in a cloudy region.”

This is the finding that led Lindzen’s team to propose that the Earth has an adaptive infrared iris"a built in “check-and-balance” mechanism that effectively counters global warming (Lindzen et al. 2001). Much like the iris in a human eye contracts to allow less light to pass through the pupil in a brightly lit environment, Lindzen suggests that the area covered by high cirrus clouds contracts to allow more heat to escape into outer space from a very warm environment.

0 Replies

By the way, the correct answer to my IF ...THEN ... test question for parados is 523 billion kilowatts.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Your answer is incorrect ican as I have said more than once.

You don't seem to know the difference between power and energy.
kilowatts is a unit of power. KWH is the unit of energy. Kilowatts remains constant whether the power is 1 second or 20 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt-hour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

Quote:

Confusion of watts and watt-hours

Power and energy are frequently confused in the general media. Power is the rate at which energy is used (or generated). A watt is one joule of energy per second. For example, if a 100 watt light bulb is turned on for one hour, the energy used is 100 watt-hours or 0.1 kilowatt-hour, or (60x60x100) 360,000 joules. This same quantity of energy would light a 40-watt bulb for 2.5 hours. A power station would be rated in watts, but its annual energy sales would be in watt-hours (or kilowatt-hours or megawatt-hours). A kilowatt-hour is the amount of energy equivalent to a steady power of 1 kilowatt running for 1 hour, or 3.6 megajoules.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_convert_Kw_to_Kwh

Quote:

How do you convert Kw to Kwh?

They don't exactly convert

http://www.ecoforward.com/index.php/home/17-blog/82-kwh-or-kw-what-is-the-difference

Quote:

The standard unit to measure how much electricity used in a time period, such as one month, is kilowatt-hours (kwh). The standard unit to measure how fast it is being used at any moment, or the highest rate of use in a month, is the kilowatt (kw). Kilowatt-hours is analogous to miles; kilowatts is analogous to miles per hour. To relate them, understand that to consume 1 kwh in 1 hour means the facility is using electricity at an average rate of 1 kw.

These units are not interchangeable and using the wrong term can sometimes create confusion and cost a lot of money. People sometimes use the term “kilowatts” when they should be saying “kilowatt-hours.”

http://www.tipsandtricks-hq.com/the-differences-between-power-watts-and-energy-kilowatts-hour-kwh-393

Quote:

What is the difference between Watt and Kilowatt-hour (kWh)?

Watt is the unit of power whereas kilowatt-hour (kWh) is the unit of energy.

http://www.gcse.com/energy/kWh.htm

Quote:

So, lets correct your error.

Quote:

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

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?

The kilowatts are 523x10^12*.25/1000
The correct answer for 523x10^12 square meters at .25 watts per meter squared is 130.75 x 10^9 kilowatts whether the area receives those watts for 1 second or 20 years.

For a 24 hour period the area would receive 523 billion KilowattHOURS.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know