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

Same principle as a white car in Arizona. Go to AZ, look at how many light colored cars there are,and then compare it with, for example, MA. Lots more white cars there, lots darker cars here, where we can use a warmer car nine months of the year.

Same principle as a white car in Arizona. Go to AZ, look at how many light colored cars there are,and then compare it with, for example, MA. Lots more white cars there, lots darker cars here, where we can use a warmer car nine months of the year.

Same principle as a white car in Arizona. Go to AZ, look at how many light colored cars there are,and then compare it with, for example, MA. Lots more white cars there, lots darker cars here, where we can use a warmer car nine months of the year.

Same principle as a white car in Arizona. Go to AZ, look at how many light colored cars there are,and then compare it with, for example, MA. Lots more white cars there, lots darker cars here, where we can use a warmer car nine months of the year.

Same principle as a white car in Arizona. Go to AZ, look at how many light colored cars there are,and then compare it with, for example, MA. Lots more white cars there, lots darker cars here, where we can use a warmer car nine months of the year.

I didn't say the price of gas never goes up or down. I simply made the point that measuring price in tenths of a cent is exceeding the point of measurement accuracy. It isn't a perfect analogy to what I said about climate, but it illustrates the degree of accuracy issue.

SSorry, sorry, sorry. I hit reply, and nothing happened except the little progress bar appeared and promptly disappeared. So I hit reply again and nothing happened, so I opened a new browser window and went to the topic and nothing had appeared, so I went back to the original window and hit reply again and still nothing hap pened, and the hamsters still hadn't appeared and said anything about not being able to make a duplicate post. So for some reason their defenses were down, and I got FOUR. My apologies.

Re: MontereyJack (Post 3659862)
Monterey Jack has not kept up on his reading about China and the alleged Global Warming.

Note:

Wall Street Journal P. A6, May 22, 2009

Quote:

China, in a new document outlining its stance ahead of December climate talks in Copenhagen, says it wants developed nations to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 40% by 2020 from 1990 levels. But that is a far more aggressive cut than the level proposed in the U.S.'s Waxman-Markey bill. Europe, in turn, has pledged to cut emissions by at least 20% by 2020 from 1990 levels, and by 30% if other advanced economies follow suit.

The divergent views come as negotiations begin in earnest for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of 2012. China's 40% target represents the high end of cuts in emissions mentioned in the 2007 Bali road map, which stopped short of endorsing a specific target.


Beijing is urging wealthier nations to agree to tougher greenhouse-gas emissions standards.
China is also asking rich countries to donate at least 0.5% to 1% of annual gross domestic product to help poorer countries cope with climate change and greenhouse-gas emissions, it said in the document, which was posted on the Web site of the National Development and Reform Commission, its economic policy-making body.

China has resisted any mandatory quotas on carbon emissions. The country is widely considered to have surpassed the U.S. as the world's top polluter.

But the Obama administration's push to adopt limits on carbon emissions is also isolating China, which has argued that the U.S. should take steps before poorer nations do.

India has also refused to accept any carbon caps, arguing like China that they would limit economic growth and unfairly penalize late-developing nations. Europe and the U.S. generated the bulk of the carbon gas already in the atmosphere, they argue, and should bear a greater burden of the cost to fix it.

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

WHAT GALL!

China wants rich countries to donate o.5 to 1.0 of ANNUAL DOMESTIC PRODUCT to help poorer countries cope with climate change and Greenhouse Gas emissions???

When the US has a 10% Unemployment Rate?

When the Obama Administration is adding TRILLIONS to our national debt?

When large corporations are already (see GM) outsourcing jobs so that they do not have to spend the Billions necessary to attempt to reduce the alleged global warming?

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

Only Monterey Jack would buy something that quixotic and irrational

Ican--Here is a great study concerning sun spots. This study predicts the disappearance of the sun spots by 2015 which may cause a condition like the Maunder Solar Minimum. A new ICE AGE?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″.
2

06

2008
From the “I hope to God they are flat wrong department”, here is the abstract of a short paper on recent solar trends by William Livingston and Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson. It was sent to me by reader Mike Ward.

I previously highlighted a news story on this paper on May 21st, but didn’t have the actual paper until now. If anyone has an update to this paper, which uses data up to 2005, please use the comment form to advise.

Here is the complete paper, and below are some excerpts:

Abstract: We have observed spectroscopic changes in temperature sensitive molecular lines, in the magnetic splitting of an Fe I line, and in the continuum brightness of over 1000 sunspot umbrae from 1990-2005. All three measurements show consistent trends in which the darkest parts of the sunspot umbra have become warmer (45K per year) and their magnetic field strengths have decreased (77 Gauss per year), independently of the normal 11-year sunspot cycle. A linear extrapolation of these trends suggests that few sunspots will be visible after 2015.



Figure " 1. Sample sunspot spectra from the data set. The dashed line is from a sunspot observed in June 1991, and the solid line was observed in January 2002. These provide examples of the trends seen in the data, where the OH molecular lines decrease in strength over time, and the magnetic splitting of the Fe line decreases over time. A magnetic splitting pattern for the January 2002 Fe line of 2466 Gauss is shown, while the June 1991 spectrum shows splitting from a 3183 Gauss field



Figure 2. " The line depth of OH 1565.3 nm for individual spots. The upper trace is the smoothed sunspot number showing the past and current sunspot cycles; the OH line depth change seems to smoothly decrease independently of the sunspot cycle.



Figure 3. " A linear fit to observed magnetic fields extrapolated to the minimum value observed for umbral magnetic fields; below a field strength of 1500G as measured with the Fe I 1564.8nm line no photospheric darkening is observed.



Figure 4 " A linear fit to the observed umbral contrast values, extrapolated to show that by 2014 the average umbrae would have the same brightness as the quiet Sun.

They write: Sunspot umbral magnetic fields also show systematic temporal changes during the observing period as demonstrated by the sample spectra in Figure 1. The infrared Fe 1564.8 nm is a favorable field diagnostic since the line strength changes less than a factor of two between the photosphere and spot umbra and the magnetic Zeeman splitting is fully resolved for all sunspot umbrae. In a histogram plot of the distribution of the umbral magnetic fields that we observe, 1500 Gauss is the smallest value measured. Below this value photospheric magnetic fields do not produce perceptible darkening. Figure 3 presents the magnetic fields smoothed by a 12 point running mean from 1998 to 2005. The ordinate is chosen so that 1500 G is the minimum. A linear fit to the changing magnetic field produces a slope of 77 Gauss per year, and intercepts the abscissa at 2015. If the present trend continues, this date is when sunspots will disappear from the solar surface.

Let us all hope that they are wrong, for a solar epoch period like the Maunder Minimum inducing a Little Ice Age will be a worldwide catastrophe economically, socially, environmentally, and morally.

I’m still very much concerned about the apparent step change in 2005 to a lower plateau of the Geomagnetic Average Planetary (Ap) index, that I’ve plotted below. This is something that does not appear in the previous cycle:


click for a larger image

What is most interesting about the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index graph above is what happened around October 2005. Notice the sharp drop in the magnetic index and the continuance at low levels, almost as if something “switched off”.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

China is trying to do what Gore and many others have said that the US should do, which is put in place the economy (laws, public spending, and regulations) which promote the national green industry. The nation that leads the way in developing green technology will not only gain wealth but also boat loads of global respect.

The US has consistently refused, thus the door is open for China to lead. They are now pushing big time with clean energy, high speed rail, and pollution regulation. If China were to ever get the corruption under control they would have a decent shot at success in this endeavour.

Monterey Jack wrote:

Fox, the problem is that coal is cheap, plentiful, and readily available, but it is NOT environmentally friendly--failing your criteria.It not only produces the most CO2, it also produces the most other pollutants. There are environmentally friendlIER (not "friendly") ways to use it, but the US is abysmally backward in using them. Who is seemingly the greenest in using clean technology? CHINA, whom genoves/massagato loves to hate. I suggest you look up his citation from the NYT a couple pages back, and actually read it, which I don't think he did, then google "ultra supercritical coal power" and read aboout that (it sounds like some sort of superhero secret weapon, but that's actually what advanced coal power plants are called) . As far as I can determine, ALL the proposed coal plants, and the ones currently undeer construction in the States are conventional. Those are two generations behind the technology. China has at least four ultra supercritcal plants in commercial operation, and they brought them on line three years ago. They plan on building 40% of future plants as USC ones, and their building plan is so large that they get ec onomies of scale and can build them for nearly a third less than a conventional plant.

Since they run temperatures and pressures as much as three times larger than conventional plants, they get more power from a given amount of fuel, they burn it more completely, and they produce significantly less harmful byproducts, including CO2. The coal industry in the US got 5 billion dollars in subsidies from the Bush administration to R&D and demo clean technologies. So far I can find no evidence of all that "socialism"--in your terms--by the Bush administration having produced a damned thing from our domestic industry.


WRONG AND MISLEADING!

Note:


Wall Street Journal P. A6, May 22, 2009

Quote:

China, in a new document outlining its stance ahead of December climate talks in Copenhagen, says it wants developed nations to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 40% by 2020 from 1990 levels. But that is a far more aggressive cut than the level proposed in the U.S.'s Waxman-Markey bill. Europe, in turn, has pledged to cut emissions by at least 20% by 2020 from 1990 levels, and by 30% if other advanced economies follow suit.

The divergent views come as negotiations begin in earnest for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of 2012. China's 40% target represents the high end of cuts in emissions mentioned in the 2007 Bali road map, which stopped short of endorsing a specific target.


Beijing is urging wealthier nations to agree to tougher greenhouse-gas emissions standards.
China is also asking rich countries to donate at least 0.5% to 1% of annual gross domestic product to help poorer countries cope with climate change and greenhouse-gas emissions, it said in the document, which was posted on the Web site of the National Development and Reform Commission, its economic policy-making body.

China has resisted any mandatory quotas on carbon emissions. The country is widely considered to have surpassed the U.S. as the world's top polluter.

But the Obama administration's push to adopt limits on carbon emissions is also isolating China, which has argued that the U.S. should take steps before poorer nations do.

India has also refused to accept any carbon caps, arguing like China that they would limit economic growth and unfairly penalize late-developing nations. Europe and the U.S. generated the bulk of the carbon gas already in the atmosphere, they argue, and should bear a greater burden of the cost to fix it.

Hawkeye 10--Please read the post above. The Wall Street Journal says that the Chinese are asking that rich countries contribute one half to one percent of its GDP to China so that they can lower their Co2 emissions.

If you know this to be incorrect, please rebut.

It may be a ploy by China but if it is not, I would not consider it feasible to give China any part of our GDP, especially since Obama has thrown our economy into a tailspin giving us future deficits in the Trillions. A 10% Unemployment Rate does not allow us to give up that much of our GDP.

Parados is a fraud and a liar. He attempts to rebut the data I gave which showed that GLOBAL average temperature went UP between 1910 and 1940 and DID NOT rise between 1940 and 1980. This, of course, shows that despite the apparent increase in industrial output from 1940 to 1980, the co2 did not INCREASE the GLOBAL temperature.

Then, the fraud and the liar, Parados, gives a link that speaks about sulfates.

I looked at his link. HIS LINK DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT GLOBAL TEMPERATURES BUT TEMPERATURES IN THE ARCTIC.

NOTE THE FIRST PARAGRAPH IN HIS LINK.


Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming. ‘Though greenhouse gases are invariably at the center of discussions about global climate change, new NASA research suggests that much of the atmospheric warming observed in the Arctic since 1976 may be due to changes in tiny airborne particles called aerosols
********************************************************

research " s u g g e s t s" that "M U C h"( HOW MUCH?) of the warming observed in the Arctic since 1976 "M A Y" be due to changes in tiny airborne particles called aerosols.

How do you like that for a tentative statement?

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

Sorry, sir parados liar and fraud. That does not rebut my post!

Rewriting history already, massagato? W> Bush and his totally incompetent administration threw the economy into the tailspin. Obama is doing a pretty decent job of pulling it out, and the early signs are encouraging--e.g. recent news that banks are starting to lend again. It was the credit crunch caused by the massive unsecured debt the Bushies let financial institutions run up, and the resultant unwilingness to lend that ensued that did us in, and that all preceded Obama.

Foxfyre had a good link on Sarkozy. Here is one on the president of the Czech Republic.



CNSNews.com
Czech President Says Global Warming Activists Aim to Stop Global Economic Development
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
By Matt Cover




Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, listens as he is introduced by Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University, in New York, Monday March 9, 2009. Klaus delivered a keynote address titled "Europe, Global Warming and the Current Economic Crisis: As Seen from Prague," at the Columbia University World Leaders Forum.( AP photo)(CNSNews.com) " Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, told the International Conference on Climate Change that the true aim of environmentalists is to stop global development, not save the planet.

Klaus, an economist by trade and a skeptic of the theory of man-made global warming, delivered the keynote speech to an audience of more than 600, including 75 scientists, economists, and environmental policy experts, as the conference got underway in New York City on Sunday.

“Their true plans and ambitions: to stop economic development and return mankind centuries back,” he declared. “It is evident that the environmentalists don’t want to change the climate. They want to change our behavior. Their ambition is to control and manipulate us.”

Klaus, who also serves a president of the European Union, said that no modern economy could survive on “green power” alone because such methods are too expensive and unreliable.

“There is no known and economically feasible method or technology by which industrial economies can survive on expensive, unreliable, clean, green, renewable energy,” Klaus explained.

Klaus also criticized environmentalists who care more about an ambiguous future than they do about people living now. Klaus said we shouldn’t be less concerned with the people living in undeveloped countries today than we are with future generations.

“The questions which need to be answered are serious and non-trivial. Should we make radical decisions now? Should we tax today’s generations to benefit future generations? Should we be generously altruistic? Should we give preference to future generations and not to the people living in undeveloped countries today? My answer is no.”

Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorology professor Richard Lindzen, who also addressed the conference on Sunday, said that many of his colleagues simply accepted the man-made global warming theory because it made their professional lives easier.

“Most of the atmospheric scientists who I respect do endorse global warming,” he said. “The important point, however, is that the science that they do that I respect is not about global warming. Endorsing global warming just makes their lives easier.”

Lindzen also said that the intrusion of politics into science has corrupted the science, forcing scientists to adopt the “proper” political viewpoints in order to secure research funding.

“The process of co-opting science on behalf of a political movement has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science -- especially since the issue has been a major motivation for funding,” Lindzen explained.

“Most funding for climate would not be there without this issue,” Lindzen said, “and, it should be added, most science funded under the rubric of climate does not actually deal with climate, but rather with the alleged impact of arbitrarily assumed ‘climate change.’ ”

Anthony Watts, a retired meteorologist who currently studies how temperature is measured and presented his research results on Monday, said that while greenhouse gases can cause warming, the theory of man-made global warming has serious flaws.

“I believe that there is an effect from CO2 (carbon dioxide), no doubt about it,” Watts told CNSNews.com. “CO2 has made a change to our atmosphere and that change has resulted in some warming.

“But there are two components to the global warming theory that are in question right now. Many people believe that CO2--by itself--cannot explain all of the warming we have seen.

“The other problem has to do with the positive feedback mechanism. The positive feedback mechanism assumes--in the models and in the theory--that the warmer it gets on the Earth’s surface the more water vapor goes into the atmosphere; the more water vapor that goes into the atmosphere causes then more warming and therefore it builds on itself.”

This theory has problems, Watts explained, because it doesn’t account for how the atmosphere responds to an increase in water vapor--it rains.

“The alternate to that theory is that we have a negative feedback mechanism in our atmosphere and that once we reach certain points the natural systems will kick in and automatically reduce the amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere through precipitation.”

There’s much science doesn’t understand about the climate, Watts said, and anyone who thinks they completely understand it is delusional and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

“Anyone who claims that we fully understand our atmosphere in this day and age and can predict with accuracy any more than about a week or so out is deluding themselves because the atmosphere and our Earth’s systems are far more complex than we can model or we can predict given our current state of understanding.”

Scientists at the conference came from universities around the globe, including Harvard, Ohio State, University of Alabama, the London School of Economics, France’s Institute Pasteur, Canada’s Carleton University, Australia’s Monash and Central Queensland universities, Norway’s University of Oslo, the University of Virginia, Johns Hopkins and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.

Why do some scientists jump aboard the bandwagon when there are so many unanswered questions about the so called Global Warming? MONEY!

Note:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorology professor Richard Lindzen, who also addressed the conference on Sunday, said that many of his colleagues simply accepted the man-made global warming theory because it made their professional lives easier.

“Most of the atmospheric scientists who I respect do endorse global warming,” he said. “The important point, however, is that the science that they do that I respect is not about global warming. Endorsing global warming just makes their lives easier.”

Lindzen also said that the intrusion of politics into science has corrupted the science, forcing scientists to adopt the “proper” political viewpoints in order to secure research funding.

“The process of co-opting science on behalf of a political movement has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science -- especially since the issue has been a major motivation for funding,” Lindzen explained.

“Most funding for climate would not be there without this issue,” Lindzen said, “and, it should be added, most science funded under the rubric of climate does not actually deal with climate, but rather with the alleged impact of arbitrarily assumed ‘climate change.’ ”

Unanswered questions? You bet!

Note:

Anthony Watts, a retired meteorologist who currently studies how temperature is measured and presented his research results on Monday, said that while greenhouse gases can cause warming, the theory of man-made global warming has serious flaws.

“I believe that there is an effect from CO2 (carbon dioxide), no doubt about it,” Watts told CNSNews.com. “CO2 has made a change to our atmosphere and that change has resulted in some warming.

“But there are two components to the global warming theory that are in question right now. Many people believe that CO2--by itself--cannot explain all of the warming we have seen.

“The other problem has to do with the positive feedback mechanism. The positive feedback mechanism assumes--in the models and in the theory--that the warmer it gets on the Earth’s surface the more water vapor goes into the atmosphere; the more water vapor that goes into the atmosphere causes then more warming and therefore it builds on itself.”

This theory has problems, Watts explained, because it doesn’t account for how the atmosphere responds to an increase in water vapor--it rains.

“The alternate to that theory is that we have a negative feedback mechanism in our atmosphere and that once we reach certain points the natural systems will kick in and automatically reduce the amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere through precipitation.”

There’s much science doesn’t understand about the climate, Watts said, and anyone who thinks they completely understand it is delusional and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

“Anyone who claims that we fully understand our atmosphere in this day and age and can predict with accuracy any more than about a week or so out is deluding themselves because the atmosphere and our Earth’s systems are far more complex than we can model or we can predict given our current state of understanding.”

Quote from genoves post:

Amen!

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Ican-- Thanks for all of the documentation. I think you have scared Paradox off and the puny dribbles ofsome of the other left wingers mean nothing.

This is a very important topic, as you know. I will keep gathering evidence. Consider doing the same.

Cheers