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

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

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?

Thats because you can't believe Obama when he promises anything.
How many promises broken now?

No lobbyists.
An open and honest process.
A serious vetting of appointments.
Demand of the highest honesty in government and members of his cabinet
Bipartisanship
No earmarks
Responsible budgeting
Totally withdraw from Iraq

Anyone, feel free to add to the list.

P.S. Anyone wish to bet he keeps his promise of weaning the U.S. off Middle Eastern oil, or cartel oil, in 10 years?

Is this man sane?

1 Reply

@okie,

Okie, here's another Obama promise that he will break:

Barack Obama: "We need to make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy."

Kimberley Strassel: "Electricity from solar power costs, about, 15 cents per kilowatt hour. Electricity from natural gas costs about four cents."

Obama can easily accomplish making "renewable energy the profitable kind of energy" with the help of his Democrat Congress. All they have to do is, either raise taxes on natural gas to equalize natural gas cost with solar power cost, and/or increase the federal subsidy of solar power to ostensibly reduce its cost. Of course, increasing federal subsidies, increases deficits and taxes. Tax increases are an additional cost to those paying those tax increases. This same subsidy/tax increase approach has already been taken with the production of ethanol.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

I'm guessing that electricity from coal fired plants might be a bit less than that?

Anyhow, George Will writes in his usual pedantic style, but if you can get through that, his column this week is interesting and instructive:

Quote:

February 27, 2009
Just the Facts on Global Warming Alarmism
By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Few phenomena generate as much heat as disputes about current orthodoxies concerning global warming. This column recently reported and commented on some developments pertinent to the debate about whether global warming is occurring and what can and should be done. That column, which expressed skepticism about some emphatic proclamations by the alarmed, took a stroll down memory lane, through the debris of 1970s predictions about the near certainty of calamitous global cooling.

Concerning those predictions, The New York Times was -- as it is today in a contrary crusade -- a megaphone for the alarmed, as when (May 21, 1975) it reported that "a major cooling of the climate" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950." Now the Times, a trumpet that never sounds retreat in today's war against warming, has afforded this column an opportunity to revisit another facet of this subject -- meretricious journalism in the service of dubious certitudes.

On Wednesday, the Times carried a "news analysis" -- a story in the paper's news section, but one that was not just reporting news -- accusing Al Gore and this columnist of inaccuracies. Gore can speak for himself. So can this columnist.

Reporter Andrew Revkin's story was headlined: "In Debate on Climate Change, Exaggeration Is a Common Pitfall." Regarding exaggeration, the Times knows whereof it speaks, especially when it revisits, if it ever does, its reporting on the global cooling scare of the 1970s, and its reporting and editorializing -- sometimes a distinction without a difference -- concerning today's climate controversies.

Which returns us to Revkin. In a story ostensibly about journalism, he simply asserts -- how does he know this? -- that the last decade, which passed without warming, was just "a pause in warming." His attempt to contact this writer was an e-mail sent at 5:47 p.m., a few hours before the Times began printing his story, which was not so time-sensitive -- it concerned controversies already many days running -- that it had to appear the next day. But Revkin reported that "experts said" this columnist's intervention in the climate debate was "riddled with" inaccuracies. Revkin's supposed experts might exist and might have expertise but they do not have names that Revkin wished to divulge.

As for the anonymous scientists' unspecified claims about the column's supposedly myriad inaccuracies: The column contained many factual assertions but only one has been challenged. The challenge is mistaken.

Citing data from the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, as interpreted on Jan. 1 by Daily Tech, a technology and science news blog, the column said that since September "the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began." According to the center, global sea ice levels at the end of 2008 were "near or slightly lower than" those of 1979. The center generally does not make its statistics available, but in a Jan. 12 statement the center confirmed that global sea ice levels were within a difference of less than 3 percent of the 1980 level.

So the column accurately reported what the center had reported. But on Feb. 15, the Sunday the column appeared, the center, then receiving many e-mail inquiries, issued a statement saying "we do not know where George Will is getting his information." The answer was: From the center, via Daily Tech. Consult the center's Web site where, on Jan. 12, the center posted the confirmation of the data that this column subsequently reported accurately.

The scientists at the Illinois center offer their statistics with responsible caveats germane to margins of error in measurements and precise seasonal comparisons of year-on-year estimates of global sea ice. Nowadays, however, scientists often find themselves enveloped in furies triggered by any expression of skepticism about the global warming consensus (which will prevail until a diametrically different consensus comes along; see the 1970s) in the media-environmental complex. Concerning which:

On Feb. 18 the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that from early January until the middle of this month, a defective performance by satellite monitors that measure sea ice caused an underestimation of the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles, which is approximately the size of California. The Times ("All the news that's fit to print"), which as of this writing had not printed that story, should unleash Revkin and his unnamed experts.
[email protected]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/just_the_facts_on_global_warmi.html

0 Replies

I note that Parados either does not have the ability to rebut the last post I wrote or he is afraid that it shows that his ideas are inaccurate.

He purports to be an expert in irradience but he does not know or is afraid to know the following:

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.
end of quote

Parados probably can't understand what Dr. Lindzen is talking about!!!

0 Replies

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

Here is more evidence that sea level rise is slowing--

Defying Predictions, Sea Level Rise Begins to Slow

Michael Asher
Daily Tech
Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008

Satellite altimetry data indicates that the rate at which the world’s oceans are rising has slowed significantly since 2005. Before the decrease, sea level had been rising by more than 3mm/year, which corresponds to an increase of about one foot per century. Since 2005, however, the rate has been closer to 2mm/year.

The decrease is significant as global climate models predict sea level rise to accelerate as atmospheric CO2 continues to increase. In the 1990s, when such acceleration appeared to be occurring, some scientists pointed to it as confirmation the models were operating correctly.

Sea level rise was calculated from altimetry data from the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 satellite missions, published by the University of Colorado, Boulder.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

Dr. James Choe, a research associate with the University of Colorado, says the decrease is temporary. “Interannual variations often cause the rate to rise or fall”, he says. Choe believes an accelerating trend will reappear within the next few years. Oceanographer Gary Mitchum of the University of South Florida, says making any judgement from the limited data available is “statistically so uncertain as to be meaningless”.

Others disagree. Dr. Vincent Gray, a New Zealand based climatologist and expert reviewer for the IPCC, believes that the accelerated trends seen earlier were simply an artifact of poor measurements. “The satellite system has undoubtedly shown a rise since 1992, but it has leveled off”, he tells DailyTech. “They had some bad calibration errors at the beginning.”

Gray points to a study done by Flanders University using tide gauges which, he says, measured no perceptible increase in sea level over its entire 15 year period.

Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, some 20,000 years ago. During an episode known as “Meltwater Pulse 1A”, the world’s oceans rose by more than 5 meters per century, a rate about 20 times faster than the current increase.

end of quote

NOTE THE RISE OF 3mm per year before 1995 which has slowed to 2mm per year after that.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

I see rather than address your errors, you decided to just drop the whole thing.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados, your filibustering does not address your errors, but it is a source of amusement.

THESE ARE THE RELEVANT FACTS

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
YEAR . CAD /\ ... SI \/…. A-AAGT \/. AAGT \/.

1998 367.61 1366.11 0.546 287.606
1999 368.59 1366.39 0.296 287.356
2000 370.33 1366.67 0.270 287.330
2001 371.83 1366.40 0.409 287.469
2002 374.45 1366.37 0.464 287.524
2003 376.71 1366.07 0.473 287.533
2004 378.23 1365.91 0.447 287.507
2005 380.78 1365.81 0.482 287.542
2006 382.55 1365.72 0.422 287.482
2007 384.60 1365.66 0.405 287.465
2008 386.20 1365.60 0.325 287.384

CAGT = CENTURY AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE,1901-2000, in °K

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

AAGT= ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE in °K

SI = SOLAR IRRADIANCE in W/M^2

CAD = CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY in PPM

It is a fact that during the specific 90 year period,
1908 to 1998, CAD increased, SI increased, A-AAGT
increased, and AAGT increased. It is also a fact that
during the specific 11 year period, 1998 to 2008,
CAD increased, SI decreased, A-AAGT decreased, and
AAGT decreased. Because of these facts, SI increases
and decreases are likely to be the major causes of
A-AAGT and AAGT increases and decreases.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Facts that clearly dispute your idiotic claims.

By the way ican, you can admit you don't know KW vs KWH. We already know you are ignorant.

1 Reply

Parados, the coward, is afraid to try to rebut the following:

Here is more evidence that sea level rise is slowing--

Defying Predictions, Sea Level Rise Begins to Slow

Michael Asher
Daily Tech
Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008

Satellite altimetry data indicates that the rate at which the world’s oceans are rising has slowed significantly since 2005. Before the decrease, sea level had been rising by more than 3mm/year, which corresponds to an increase of about one foot per century. Since 2005, however, the rate has been closer to 2mm/year.

The decrease is significant as global climate models predict sea level rise to accelerate as atmospheric CO2 continues to increase. In the 1990s, when such acceleration appeared to be occurring, some scientists pointed to it as confirmation the models were operating correctly.

Sea level rise was calculated from altimetry data from the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 satellite missions, published by the University of Colorado, Boulder.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

Dr. James Choe, a research associate with the University of Colorado, says the decrease is temporary. “Interannual variations often cause the rate to rise or fall”, he says. Choe believes an accelerating trend will reappear within the next few years. Oceanographer Gary Mitchum of the University of South Florida, says making any judgement from the limited data available is “statistically so uncertain as to be meaningless”.

Others disagree. Dr. Vincent Gray, a New Zealand based climatologist and expert reviewer for the IPCC, believes that the accelerated trends seen earlier were simply an artifact of poor measurements. “The satellite system has undoubtedly shown a rise since 1992, but it has leveled off”, he tells DailyTech. “They had some bad calibration errors at the beginning.”

Gray points to a study done by Flanders University using tide gauges which, he says, measured no perceptible increase in sea level over its entire 15 year period.

Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, some 20,000 years ago. During an episode known as “Meltwater Pulse 1A”, the world’s oceans rose by more than 5 meters per century, a rate about 20 times faster than the current increase.

end of quote

NOTE THE RISE OF 3mm per year before 1995 which has slowed to 2mm per year after that.

0 Replies

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

I am sure that Parados doesn't understand what Dr. Lindzen is talking about--

I note that Parados either does not have the ability to rebut the last post I wrote or he is afraid that it shows that his ideas are inaccurate.

He purports to be an expert in irradience but he does not know or is afraid to know the following:

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.
end of quote

Parados probably can't understand what Dr. Lindzen is talking about

0 Replies

In 2001 Lindzen's claim of the iris effect was tested and found to be lacking.

Evidence against Iris effect proposed by Lindzen

Quote:

“Our results are based upon actual observations that are used to drive global climate models,” Lin concludes. “And when we use actual observations from CERES we find that the Iris Hypothesis won’t work.”

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Facts that clearly dispute your idiotic claims.

By the way ican, you can admit you don't know KW vs KWH. We already know you are ignorant.

Please leave your arrogant royal 'we' out of this. Is it really necessary to engage in this kind of childish insult in order to conduct a discussion with somebody with whom you disagree?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Don't worry, I left you out my "we" Fox. By "we" I referred to anyone with at least a little knowledge of the physical sciences.

All of known science disagrees with ican on this issue Fox. Ican is attempting to argue that a watt can produce more than a watt's worth of energy. Something that has never been observed.

I notice you haven't said a word to genoves about his childish insults contained in every post he seems to make. Is this your retaliation for asking you to support your statement on another thread after you said it was contained in your links and I pointed out it wasn't?

1 Reply

@parados,

THESE ARE THE FACTS

Quote:

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
YEAR . CAD /\ only SI /\ & \/ A-AAGT /\ & \/ AAGT /\ & \/

1988 352.16 1366.09 0.180 287.240
1989 353.56 1366.66 0.103 287.163
1990 355.15 1366.56 0.254 287.314
1991 355.91 1366.45 0.212 287.272
1992 356.27 1366.31 0.061 287.121
1993 357.59 1366.04 0.105 287.165
1994 359.65 1365.81 0.171 287.231
1995 361.29 1365.71 0.275 287.335
1996 362.78 1365.62 0.137 287.197
1997 364.89 1365.62 0.351 287.411
1998 367.61 1365.75 0.546 287.606
1999 368.59 1366.11 0.296 287.356
2000 370.33 1366.67 0.270 287.330
2001 371.83 1366.40 0.409 287.469
2002 374.45 1366.37 0.464 287.524
2003 376.71 1366.07 0.473 287.533
2004 378.31 1365.91 0.447 287.507
2005 380.87 1365.81 0.482 287.542
2006 382.64 1365.72 0.422 287.482
2007 384.64 1365.66 0.405 287.465
2008 386.33 1365.60 0.324 287.384

It is a fact that during the specific 90 year period,
1908 to 1998, CAD increased, SI increased, A-AAGT
increased, and AAGT increased. It is also a fact that
during the specific 11 year period, 1998 to 2008,
CAD increased, SI decreased, A-AAGT decreased, and
AAGT decreased. Because of these facts, SI increases
and decreases are likely to be the major causes of
A-AAGT and AAGT increases and decreases.

CAGT = CENTURY AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE,1901-2000, in °K
AAGT= ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE in °K
A-AAGT = ANOMALIES of AAGT = AAGT - CAGT in °K
SI = SOLAR IRRADIANCE in W/M^2
CAD = CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY in PPM

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

IT is a fact that AAGT increased and SI increased but it is also a fact that SI can NOT account for the total of the increase in AAGT.

1 Reply

Here's some help for you, Parados.

WATT-HOURS = WATTS x HOURS
KILOWATT-HOURS = KILOWATTS x HOURS

Here's some more help for you, Parados.

I recommend you substitute interesting sophistries for your silly sophistries.

For Example:
We do not now know how to compute what AAGT would have been at the end of 2008, if CAD equaled zero ppm then.

We do not know now how to compute what AAGT would have been at the end of 2008, if CAD equaled 400 ppm then.

So, when SI increases we don't know now how much of a consequent AAGT increase was caused by a CAD increase.

So, when SI decreases we don't know now how much of a consequent AAGT decrease was limited by a CAD increase.

Thus AAGT could be less if CAD were less, and AAGT could be more if CAD were more.

Therefore, to avoid the possibility of burning ourselves up, we should spend whatever it costs to stop increasing CAD now.

2 Replies

@parados,

Parados wrote:

IT is a fact that AAGT increased and SI increased but it is also a fact that SI can NOT account for the total of the increase in AAGT.

It is also a fact that we do not now know how much a given CAD increase, increases AAGT.

Therefore, because we don't know that now, we must spend whatever it costs now to reduce our CAD increase.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Here's some help for you, Parados.

WATT-HOURS = WATTS x HOURS
KILOWATT-HOURS = KILOWATTS x HOURS

OK.. here's a question for you then icna

If I have a 100w lightbulb and I have it on for 100 hours
How many watts?

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know