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

We have a highly ambiguous set of data referring to the equilibrium point for solar radiation hitting the outer layer of the Earth’s atmosphere. Some solar physicists take 1371 W/m^2 as the equilibrium point, others take 1366 W/m^2, some say that the equilibrium is 1364.5 W/m^2 and others that it is 1360.5 W/m^2. Thus, given the state of things, we decided to consider the median of each database as the equilibrium point in all datasets of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).

Since there are at least 4 sets of SI numbers and you don't specify which ones biocarb is using, comparing their numbers to Lean's numbers from 1756 and 1900 is meaningless since biocarb could be using numbers that are off by as much as 11W/m^2 compared to Lean.

You also can't count the total solar radiation hitting the outer atmosphere in factoring forcings. You have to account for changes in radiation hitting the surface.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
314
ustralian marine scientist Dr. Walter Starck rallied around NASA's top administrator Michael Griffin's skeptical climate comments. "Griffin makes an important distinction between the scientific findings of climate change and dramatic predictions of catastrophic consequences accompanied by policy demands. The former can be evaluated by its evidence, but; the latter rest only on assertions and claims to authority," Starck said in a June 1, 2007 press release. "Alternate predictions of benefits from projected changes have been proposed with comparable authority and plausibility. For example, unless one chooses to define the Little Ice Age as ‘normal' and ‘optimal' the net effect of any warming has only been beneficial and any anthropogenic contribution very small indeed. Dramatic predictions of imminent disaster have a near perfect record of failure. Griffin's note of caution in the escalating concern over climate change deserves sober consideration," he added. (LINK)

If you do not do it, then I conclude probably you cannot do it.

If NO IPCC member does it, then I conclude probably no IPCC member can do it.

If no one does it, then I conclude probably no one can do it.

If we do not know whether or not increases in human caused CO2 enissions into the armosphere contributed to the 100 year global temperature increase, we cannot justify paying the cost of reducing those CO2 emissions.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
315
Meteorologist Paul G. Becker, a former chief meteorologist with the Air Force and former Colorado Springs chapter president of the American Meteorological Society, called Gore's view of climate change the "biggest myth of the century." "The most plentiful is water vapor making up 35 to 70 percent of all greenhouse gases. Mankind's total contribution to all greenhouse gases - this includes cars, trucks, manufacturing plants, boats, planes and any pollution producer you can name - the total is less than 1 percent. Mother Nature provides the other 99 percent," Becker wrote in a June 3, 2007 article. "Remember that most of the natural wonders of the world were caused by various ice ages and periods of global warming. We've warmed one-half of a degree in the last century, but Gore has Florida under water in a decade or so when the ice cap melts," he added. (LINK)

Parados I conclude from your failure to answer my questions that you are unable to answer my questions.

Can I conclude the same thing about your failure to answer questions?

What costs?

I conclude from your failure to answer my questions that you are unable to answer my questions.

Until someone does it, I conclude we do not know whether or not increases in human caused CO2 enissions into the atmosphere contributed to the 100 year global temperature increase.

If we do not know whether or not increases in human caused CO2 enissions into the atmosphere contributed to the 100 year global temperature increase, we cannot justify paying the cost of reducing those CO2 emissions.

Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Global Warming and the Sun
by Jonah Goldberg

On the last day of August, scientists spotted a teeny-weeny sunspot, breaking a 51-day streak of blemish-free days for the sun. If it had gone just a bit longer, it would have broken a 96-year record of 53 days without any of the magnetic disruptions that cause solar flares. That record was nearly broken last year as well.

Wait, it gets even more exciting.

During what scientists call the Maunder Minimum -- a period of solar inactivity from 1645 to 1715 -- the world experienced the worst of the cold streak dubbed the Little Ice Age. At Christmastime, Londoners ice-skated on the Thames, and New Yorkers (then New Amsterdamers) sometimes walked over the Hudson from Manhattan to Staten Island.

Of course, it could have been a coincidence. The Little Ice Age began before the onset of the Maunder Minimum. Many scientists think volcanic activity was a more likely, or at least a more significant, culprit. Or perhaps the big chill was, in the words of scientist Alan Cutler, writing in the Washington Post in 1997, a "one-two punch from a dimmer sun and a dustier atmosphere."

Well, we just might find out. A new study in the American Geophysical Union's journal Eos suggests that we may be heading into another quiet phase similar to the Maunder Minimum.

Meanwhile, the journal Science reports that a study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, has finally figured out why increased sunspots have a dramatic effect on the weather, increasing temperatures more than the increase in solar energy should explain. Apparently, sunspots heat the stratosphere, which in turn amplifies the warming of the climate.

Scientists have known for centuries that sunspots affected the climate; they just never understood how. Now, allegedly, the mystery has been solved.

Last month, in another study, also released in Science, Oregon State University researchers claimed to settle the debate over what caused and ended the last Ice Age. Increased solar radiation coming from slight changes in the Earth's rotation, not greenhouse gas levels, were to blame.

What is the significance of all this? To say I have no idea is quite an understatement, but it will have to do.

Nonetheless, what I find interesting is the eagerness of the authors and the media to make it clear that this doesn't have any particular significance for the debate over climate change. "For those wondering how the (NCAR) study bears on global warming, Gerald Meehl, lead author on the study, says that it doesn't -- at least not directly," writes Moises Velasquez-Manoff of the Christian Science Monitor. "Global warming is a long-term trend, Dr. Meehl says. ... This study attempts to explain the processes behind a periodic occurrence."

This overlooks the fact that solar cycles are permanent "periodic occurrences," a.k.a. a very long-term trend. Yet Meehl insists the only significance for the debate is that his study proves climate modeling is steadily improving.

I applaud Meehl's reluctance to go beyond where the science takes him. For all I know he's right. But such humility and skepticism seem to manifest themselves only when the data point to something other than the mainstream narrative about global warming. For instance, when we have terribly hot weather, or bad hurricanes, the media see portentous proof of climate change. When we don't, it's a moment to teach the masses how weather and climate are very different things.

No, I'm not denying that man-made pollution and other activity have played a role in planetary warming since the Industrial Revolution.

But we live in a moment when we are told, nay lectured and harangued, that if we use the wrong toilet paper or eat the wrong cereal, we are frying the planet. But the sun? Well, that's a distraction. Don't you dare forget your reusable shopping bags, but pay no attention to that burning ball of gas in the sky -- it's just the only thing that prevents the planet from being a lifeless ball of ice engulfed in darkness. Never mind that sunspot activity doubled during the 20th century, when the bulk of global warming has taken place.

What does it say that the modeling that guaranteed disastrous increases in global temperatures never predicted the halt in planetary warming since the late 1990s? (MIT's Richard Lindzen says that "there has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.") What does it say that the modelers have only just now discovered how sunspots make the Earth warmer?

I don't know what it tells you, but it tells me that maybe we should study a bit more before we spend billions to "solve" a problem we don't understand so well.
http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2009/09/02/global_warming_and_the_sun?page=full&comments=true

A major cost of jumping to the conclusion that human caused emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere are causing global warming, is the cost to our economy of not permitting greater use of coal and more domestic drilling for and lifting of oil (e.g., ANWR).

You might wish to know what is the exact cost of that is. Truth is I do not know the exact cost of not permitting greater use of coal and more domestic drilling for and lifting of oil (e.g., ANWR). But I do know that purchasing most of our oil from foreign sources will cost us more than purchasing most of our oil from domestic sources.

You might wish to know what is the exact cost of purchasing most of our oil from foreign sources instead of purchasing most of our oil from domestic sources. Truth is I don't know the exact cost of purchasing most of our oil from foreign sources instead of purchasing most of our oil from domestic sources.

But I do know that increasing the supply of oil domestically will increase the worldwide supply of oil. And, generally when one increases the supply of something relative to its demand, its price drops due to competition.

"There is no science that says we are all going to die because of global warming." Then perhaps scientists should object to what they are reported as saying.

"No one I know has ever done that." Just how many of the 6 billion people do you know ? Are you assuming you know everything ? Have you told God of your decision to take over ?

"How quickly do you think a km of ice will appear during an ice age? " How quickly do you think it will ? We have to do something about global warming within the next couple of decades, but global cooling will take thousands of years.

Why do they say global warming will produce global cooling if we have nothing to fear for thousnads of years?

"It's a little disingenuous to turn the "we" into "animal life" don't you think?" If both your parents were dead before you were born, what would happen to you ? If animal life suffered greatly during previous global warming, why are we here now ?

"LOL.. "x 2. "That is funny. " Thank you for laughing. Just one more piece of arrogance from someone who knows enough to feel superior to others. Why would anyone listen to you until you learn to control yourself and not be emotional? I get the impression you are a teenager. Do you think that people will think "oooohhhh...he sounds knowledgable because he spends so much time sneering....he must be good".

"The amount that comes from trees ..." you cant provide both sides of the argument, soundly thrash the opposing view and then pat youself on the back as being clever. You are not clever for stooping to such levels and you best hope people cant understand what you have written. For my part, I think they will se through your attempts to bully, insult and laugh your way out of a undefendable position. I never said the amount.

"Focus on carbon dioxide, the least provable of greenhouse gases and ignore the most obvious, water vapour which is given off by trees.

"Sulfur and chloride cool but methane warms so the statement has a falsehood in it." Does it ? Large amounts of methane were laid down during global cooling. If their effect is that great, what happened to your global warming then ? Your assumption is that the gases produce warming. What if it is the other way around ?

The warming produces the gases. When is it easier to light a fire and give off carbon dioxide? During winter or summer? Do they have a lot of forest fires in winter where you are or are there more in summer ?

Quote:
"f you can not argue without becoming hysterical, then I shall ask for you to be removed from this forum. Unless of course, you can prove I am lying."
You cut off the most important part of the quote. Do your associates still fall for that one, because here it has been done to death.

"For a native speaker, it is assumed that the list of numbered items that follow the colon would be directly related to the sentences that preceded it."
Wrong again. They would be directly related to the sentence that preceded it. Singular. When you put an 's' on the end, it makes it plural. This is typical of you making things up, inserting them into the other argument and declaring yourself the winner.

I love hysterics under the heading of science. Here is how to have a conspiracy on Global Warming:

"Best to just ask to have them removed so you can make false statements without them being questioned." Wrong. It is best to ask them to be removed if they do not promote an atmosphere of asking questions and they use every dirty trick in the book to win an argument including insults. The forum is called "Ask an Expert" not "Ask to be Insulted".

"...so you can make false statements without them being questioned." Isnt that what your problem is ? People who have the nerve to disgree with you ?