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

Nevertheless, Ros is more probably right than not based on what we can discern of the probable geological history of our planet. There is certainly not enough history in the current short trend that justifies the presumed certainty that is producing hysterics and religious zeal from those who want more control over people's lives, choices, freedoms, and opportunities.

Fox, that is just silly, and a complete misrepresentation of why the vast majority of scientists and concerned people (and politicians) think we have to act on global warming. Were the people who rewrote the building codes in California and Japan to require earthquake-proof buildings doing it to gain more control over people's lives? Were the people who built the levees on the Misissippi doing it to gain more control over people's liv es? When you see trouble for everyone looming, you act to prevent it. It's not a question of control, it's a question of insuring reasonable living conditions. You seem to see yourself as a model of fairness, yet you repeatedly insult the motives of those you disagree with (based, I might add, on absolutely no evidence but your own imagination).

Ros, unfortunately you're somewhat wrong--short-term trends certainly do matter, because that's the world we are actually living in--the world of what happens the rest of our lives or our kids' or grandchildren's lives, and that, in geological terms is a short-term trend. It really doesn't matter right now if the next ice age starts a thousand years from today if we screw things up for ourselves well before then.

ICAN: (1) Credible evidence has been provided that human produced CO2 is probably contributing to the increasing density of CO2 in the atmosphere.

PARADOS:Then why do you present an argument from people that deny that?

ICAN:Why shouldn't I present it? Their opinions are no less credible than mine or yours.

ICAN:(2) Credible evidence has not been provided that the increased absorbtion of infrared by the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has probably contributed more than a very minor amount to the increased AAGT (i.e., Average Annual Global Temperature). One reason for my skepticism that CO2 has more than a very minor effect on AAGT is the fact that CAD (i.e., Carbon Atmospheric Density) has been steadily increasing over the last 100 years, but SI (i.e., Solar Iraddiation) and AAGT have been increasing and decreasing over the same time period. That fact implies that SI has a very major effect on AAGT.

PARADOS:The fact that SI is the major cause of current global temperature doesn't argue against CO2 being a large cause of the increase.

ICAN: Sure it does! It argues that since SI is a major cause of AAGT, it is probable its fluctuations are a major cause of AAGT fluctuations.

PARADOS: This is the perfect example of your lack of logic. Let's look at another example of human introduced changes. Lighting at night. No one will disagree that the sun gives off far more light than humans output but does that mean humans are not the main cause of the increases in light at night? In fact one would have to say that humans are responsible for almost 100% of the increase of night time lighting. But the fact that the sun's light output is far greater does not change how much of the change is from human contribution.

ICAN:This argument OF YOURS is an excellent example of an irrelevant argument. The sun shines on the earth 24 hours per day. The fact that, say, half the earth only gets sunlight 12 hours per day has nothing to do with whether or not the sun is the major cause of fluctuations in AAGT (i.e., fluctuations in Average ANNUAL Global Temperature)

ICAN:(3) If AAGT is actually increasing, one would naturally expect that winters would be getting shorter all over the world. But winters are apparently not getting shorter in the southern hemisphere.

PARADOS: An interesting statement by you ican. Would you care to explain away this story which shows that migrating birds are arriving earlier and leaving later in Australia?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Global-warming-affects-bird-migration/2006/06/20/1150701529282.html

ICAN: No! I do not care to explain away that story. I assume its true. And I assume that so far as Australia and the rest of the globe are concerned the length of the seasonal temperature cooling and heating fluctuates prmarily with solar radiation fluctuations.

PARADOS:You also need to explain the loss of Antarctica ice shelves in the last years.

ICAN:I don't have to explain that either. I expect that the winters probably would be getting shorter all over the world when AAGT increases.

ICAN: (4) It has been alleged by a many scientists that SI variations probably contribute significantly to AAGT variations. Some of these scientist have also alleged that other natural phenomena have probably contributed more to the increased AAGT over the last 100 years than has the increasing CAD.

PARADOS:Oh. .the "alleged" science. I see. No reason to present any real science when you can just claim it is "alleged." It has been stated by IPCC that TSI has contributed to some of the warming. That is included in their science. This is where you fail the science test ican. There is no known physics that allow you to get more energy out of a watt than there is in a watt. Scientists can do math. The only possible explanation for getting MORE temperature than there is energy input is there MUST be a change in energy lost. This means something is causing energy to be retained. Now, since you have claimed there is some "alleged" science that shows SI is the cause for the increase, please present that which shows that CO2 is NOT the cause of what is beyond the increase from SI.

ICAN:I think it's all alleged science! None of what the IPCC has presented or what its rebuters have presented is anything more than alleged science. So far, neither group has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is a significant cause of the increases of AAGT.

HERE'S WHAT I THINK
ICAN:(1) CAD has been increasing over the last 100 years.

PARADOS:But do you agree that CAD is increasing because of human activity? You seem to be avoiding agreeing with that.

ICAN:I have not avoided that! I have agreed that is probably true!

ICAN:(2) The increasing CAD over the last 100 years has not contributed more than a minor amount to increased AAGT.

PARADOS: But you have no other possible explanation other than to claim watts can suddenly produce more energy than physics says they can.

ICAN: I have claimed and do now for the umpteenth time claim that fluctuations in SI (i.e., w/m^2) are the major cause of fluctuations in AAGT.

ICAN:(3) AASHT (i.e., Average Annual Southern Hemisphere Temperature) has not been increasing as much as AANHT (i.e., Average Annual Northern Hemisphere Temperature) over the last 100 years.

PARADOS:That seems to contradict your claim above that it wasn't happening. Which is it? Is the Southern hemisphere warming or not? Why is the southern hemisphere not warming at the same speed do you think? Can you provide an explanation that makes sense according to real science?

ICAN: What did I claim wasn't happening? Presently both AANHT and AASHT appear to be currently cooling according to the graph I previously posted.

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

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2008

However, AASHT appears to be cooling faster than AANGT. I guess the difference is due to the higher ratio of land surface to water surface in the northern hemisphere.

ICAN:(4) The amount of increase in AAGT over the last 100 years has been less than 0.4% and is therefore not cause for any alarm. In fact, AAGT has been decreasing lately--over the last 11 years--more than 0.07%, while SI has decreased over that same time period more than 0.1%, and CAD has increased more than 5%.

PARADOS:Your percentages are meaningless ican. You use a number based on absolute zero. The problem is that humans survive in a very narrow range compared to absolute zero. Let's assume for a moment that the global temperature changes by 10%. 10% doesn't seem like much, does it? But if global temperatures changed by 10%, humans would likely not survive.

ICAN: My percentages are at most somewhat inaccurate. They are not meaningless. If you prefer to compute the percentage changes in AAGT relative to zero degrees Celsius , go ahead and do it. The result will be that all your AAGT percentage changes will be higher than mine. But when you do that, you must decide what higher SI base than zero to use for computing its percentage changes. Whatever higher SI base you choose, your percentage changes in SI will also be higher than mine. Perhaps to be consistent, you should choose a higher CAD base than I did. If you do that, the percentage changes in CAD will actually be lower than mine

That is much too sensible and nonpolitical. With Fox, everything is conservative ideology, regardless of how farfetched it may be. It seems that Fox and the other on the right get their marching orders from Kristol, Rush, and Sean.

I see. So you are just going to pretend you didn't say the winters are not shorter in the southern hemisphere.

ICAN: But winters are apparently not getting shorter in the southern hemisphere.

PARADOS: So you are just going to pretend you didn't say the winters are not shorter in the southern hemisphere.

~~ ~ !???! ~ ~~
~~~ (O|O) ~~~
....~~ ( O ) ~~....

It is rather shocking how you can say opposite things and not even realize you are doing it ican.

Are winters getting shorter in Australia or not? You first said they are not. Then you stated you don't have to explain away stories showing winters are getting shorter because you assume they are.

Earthquakes are a known quantity questioned by nobody and the way building codes are written has measurable and observable benefits. Likewise flood control not only along the Mississippi but everywhere has observable and measurable benefits. We know there are Earthquakes and, while there is nothing we can do about them, we can take measures to protect ourselves from the worst damage from them. We know that rivers flood from time to time, and while we can't do anything about that, we can take measures to protect ourselves from the worst damage from them.

But nobody is suggesting that we can stop earthquakes from happening or that we can stop rivers from having flood stages. And as long as people choose to live in earthquake zones or on flood plains, then the sensible thing is to learn how to live with conditions as they are.

I think you are not acknowledging the large number of people, politicians, and scientists who do not share your opinion of the urgency to act re global warming. I think a growing majority of those who are seriously looking at and considering climate science, especially those most qualified to offer informed opinion, are in agreement that there is no evidence that we need to act to stop global warming even if we could which most scientists believe that we cannot.

We don't try to stop earthquakes that are considered inevitable. We try to help people adapt to living with them. We don't try to stop river floods that are considered inevitable. We try to help people adapt to living with them. So why in the world would we presume to stop climate change which is also inevitable? Why aren't we focusing our efforts on helping people to live with it?

That seems to me to be the most reasonable approach we should take rather than demanding that people change their lifestyles and taking away their freedoms, choices, and opportunities based on AGW which more and more appears to be deeply flawed if not bogus science.

Yeah, I thought Monterey Jacks comparison of global warming to floods and earthquakes pretty silly too. I bought a house on a hill out of a flood zone, pretty logical, but I am not particularly worried about global warming nuts working themselves into a tizzy over much ado about nothing.

ICAN: But winters are apparently not getting shorter in the southern hemisphere.

PARADOS: So you are just going to pretend you didn't say the winters are not shorter in the southern hemisphere.

PARADOS: It is rather shocking how you can say opposite things and not even realize you are doing it ican.

PARADOS: Are winters getting shorter in Australia or not? You first said they are not. Then you stated you don't have to explain away stories showing winters are getting shorter because you assume they are.

~~ ~ !???! ~ ~~
~~~ (O|O) ~~~
....~~ ( O ) ~~....

ICAN: Your misquotes of my posts, parados, are really funny! Study these graphs after 2000 and then you decide ... if you can.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2008

So, you aren't taking away freedom, choices, and opportunities when you require people not build in flood plains or require buildings be built certain ways for earthquakes?

Your argument falls flat when you have argued for restrictions for building in flood areas and earth quake zones but then say we can't impose any restrictions to prevent global warming without taking away freedom.

Misquote?

I quoted you exactly ican. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of "misquote".

Your use of "apparently" doesn't change the meaning of your statement. It only shows you don't pay attention because you think something is "apparent" but then provide evidence that makes it "apparent" that what you said isn't true.

Not to speak for Foxfyre, but in my opinion, let people build in floodplains if they want to pay for the insurance, which will be sky high or non-existent.

To compare flood zone with some nebulus theory of how much hotter it will become or the oceans rise due to global warming is a big stretch, Parados. You certainly have a vivid imagination.

Again there are proven benefits to specific building codes in earthquake zones and in requiring flood insurance or assessing taxes to build and maintain protective levees etc. in flood zones. Such controls protect human life and promote the general welfare of the affected region. Those who do not choose to participate in such benefits can simply choose to not live in earthquake zones or on flood plains.

There are no demonstrable benefits to rules and regulations to reduce global warming. In fact there is no measurable results from humans reducing CO2 emissions--the CO2 keeps right on increasing even though global warming appears to have leveled off for the last several years.

If there was demonstrable effect of AGW that could be shown to be producing measurable harm, then controls for that would be appropriate and would promote the general welfare. But until science or technology or observable phenomena can show that AGW is having a detrimental effect on humans or anything else, there is no reasonable purpose to forced altering of lifestyle or taking away freedoms, choices, and opportunities. In fact such is much more likely to hurt people and have a negative effect on the general welfare.

I have no problem with people who choose to live in earthquake zones or on flood plains. I have a lot of problem with people who expect me to pay for their choice of risk, however. I have no problem with people who choose to reduce CO2 emissions or do whatever else they choose to do to protect the environment irregardless that there is no demonstrable need for such measures. I have a huge problem with those who presume to force their lifetstyle on me when there is no demonstrable purpose other than their own prejudices for that.

I guess I am a bit worried that the global warming nuts, based on nothing more substantial than religious zeal, will force me into radically changing my lifestyle and will take away my freedoms, choices, opportunities. In incremental steps they have already started doing that.

I am so libertarian (little "L") in my personal ideology, that I chaff whenever anybody presumes to tell me what I must believe or what my attitude must be or presumes the moral authority to tell me that I must think as they think or live as they live in order to be acceptable.

I do accept and strongly support social contract by which communities, states, or nations agree together on how best to order and regulate society to avoid as much as possible any material offense to one another or to generally improve the aesthetic quality of life for all. But always such agreement should be based on shared values and common sense. The First Amendment prohibits the government from imposing any religious beliefs on the people or imposing any consequence on them for what they do or do not believe. I think that should also apply to environmental extremism that is nothing more than a kind of religion and based on nothing more than blind faith.

Otherwise then sure. Let people choose to build on fault lines or on flood plains or as close to the coast as they can get. But let them assume and protect themselves against their own choice of risk. We'll even show up to help dig them out when the inevitable earthquake or flood or hurricane happens. But don't expect everybody else to pay for their damages.

But don't expect people in Nevada or Kansas to buy earthquake insurance or you up on that hill well away from the coast to buy flood insurance. And don't expect those folks to assume responsibility for the risk that others choose to assume.

There is no good case made as yet for AGW being a demonstrable risk to anybody or anything. And until there is, I don't want others to be able to force me into buying into other people's paranoia or opportunism.

Based on the temperature graphs I previously posted, the general trends up to about 2100 are:
AAGT increased;
AANHGT increased;
AASHGT increased;
AANHGT increased to a higher value than did AASHGT.

The general trends after 2100:
AAGT decreased;
AANHGT decreased;
AASHGT decreased;
AANHGT decreased to a higher value than did AASHGT.

Where on earth do you get data about what's happening after 2100, let alone before, from your graphs which end at 2008? Why do you think yoyu can come to any valid conclusions when you repeatedly ignore one of the two major variables that affect annual emperature the most, according to NASA, i.e. elNino-la Nina-ENSO variation, which incidentally explains the 1997-98 peak and the 2007-8 dip, which neither CO2 nor SI do, and tells us why global average temp. is in fact increasing, not declining (The other significant factor, by the way, according to NASA /NOAA is anthropogenic CO2 increase, NOT SI).

OOPS! CORRECTION!
Based on the temperature graphs I previously posted, the general trends up to about 2001 are:
AAGT increased;
AANHGT increased;
AASHGT increased;
AANHGT increased to a higher value than did AASHGT.

The general trends after 2001:
AAGT decreased;
AANHGT decreased;
AASHGT decreased;
AANHGT decreased to a higher value than did AASHGT.

SI variation causes "elNino-la Nina-ENSO variation"

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

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2008

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

Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001

http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
2001 1366.40
2002 1366.37
2003 1366.07
2004 1365.91
2005 1365.81
2006 1365.72
2007 1365.66
2008 1365.60

ican, I have no idea what all your acronyms are supposed to mean. Since you are the only person in the entire universe who uses them, if you expect others to buy into your arguments. loopy as they are, give a key each time you use them.

Speaking of loopy, where did you get the idea that SI causes ENSO? That has absolutely no justification outside your imagination. There is no correlation between the two, and as NASA points out ENSO overrides the SI signal.

Your average global temperature inferences are flawed and result from cherrypicking the data and ignoring the actual variation. The major change in SI is cyclic, and occurs on roughly an 11 year cycl e. BUT IT'S NEVER EXACTLY ELEVEN YEARS AND IT VARIES IN LENGTH A BIT. the last cycle was around 12 years, so your repeated statements about what amounts to the SI change over about 10 1/2 years produce gibberish. The change is cyclic, so we should see a cyclic change in global temperature. No one has been able to convince the scientific community that we actually can state with confidence that it actually does produce a change in global temperature. That's because the maximum change in temp from max to min of SI is so small that the signal is swamped by the amount of change in the average temp that WEATHER causes. The best estimate of the maximum temp. change that could be caused by the 11 year SI cycle is only about 0.18 degree C from min to max (or max to min), and that is CYCLIC, remember. It goes up, it goes down, it goes back up, it goes back down. IT DOES NOT ACCUMULATE IN ANY ONE DIRECTION, UP OR DOWN. Which is why your SI/CO2/temp comparisons for short terms like 2001-2008, which you repeatedly post, are fatally flawed.

The only temp data you ever use is HadCRUT which has flaws, chief of which is that the way it is set up it effectively ignores the Arctic, which is by general agreement absolutely crucial to the argument, since the models predict that area to be the first to suffer major change, and it is in fact warming faster than the rest of the globe. If you examitbe ALL of the temp data, rather than cherry-picking, average global temperature is going UP since 200, (indeed since 1970), not down as you keep miusinterpreting the data. 2005 was the hottest year on record. 2007 was on track to beat it until a laNina started late in the year. la Ninas temporarily depress global temp, but their effect is temporary, and the baseline mean temp keeps rising, so even the laNina lows are higher than the la Nina lows of several decades ago.

In short, SI is not the major determinant of t emp change. As the Max Planck Institute says while SI was a predictor of temp variation befor eabout 1970, since then it has stopped being anywhere near as good as a predictor, because the change in temp due to CO2 has eclipsed it.

Your math, largely because you insist on reducing complex situations with many variables to a linear relationship with only one variable, is absolutely incapable of representing what's actually going on in the world.