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

Quote:

partly due to the misleading and selective release of particular e-mails. I wish people would spend as much time reading my scientific papers as they do reading my e-mails.

. He's right. The IPCC's report stands. there are a couple really piddly errors, but nothing that changes the conclusions drawn from the several thousand other papers cited.It's the egregious misrepresentations of the email hackers, and the misrepresentations are virtually total, and the blatantly political spin of the deniers that are causing the problem.

0 Replies

I'm going to sleep now. Carry on if you wish to. Try to come up with something a bit more substantial. I'll rebut a good deal later.

0 Replies

Monterey Jack wrote:

This is a flatly loopy post. Of course I'm not rebutting the fact that sea level has risen a foot since 1860. It has.I explicitl;y deal with that fact, and the problems it has caused. Can't youu read? And what on earth does the cost of damage due to sea level rise have to do with costs from earthquakes and tsunamis? Why are you even saying they have to be compared? Sea level rise and earthquakes are independent phenomena. They BOTH have to be dealt with. The costs are independent and have to be dealt with as well. If there is no sea level rise from CO2 there will still be earthquakes and tsunamis to deal with. If there IS sealevel rise, there will still be earthquakes and \tsunamis to deal with. You deal with earthquakes among other things by building new buildings to be earthquake resistant, to flex rather than collapse. Youd do that no matter what else happens if you're in an earthquake zone, but of course if you're building in a place where sea level rises, you're a fool to build your earthquake-resistant builing somewhere where it'll be flooded as well.

I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT PROBLEMS THE RISE IN SEA LEVEL SINCE 1860 HAS CAUSED.

Bjorn Lomborg, in his book "Cool It" (P. 60) says "Since 1860. we have experienced a sea-level rise of about a foot, YET THIS HAS CLEARLY NOT CAUSED MAJOR DISRUPTIONS"

Please give clear evidence that the sea level rise of about a foot HAS indeed caused major disruptions.

I know that earthquakes and tsunamis have caused "major disruptions" and loss of many lives but I can find no evidence that the rise of sea level of about one foot since 1860 has caused, as Lomborg says, major disruptions.

I await your reply. But, please, no garbage about what sea level rise MAY cause, only the major disruptions that a sea level rise of about a foot since 1860 have caused.

I will still refer back to the data from the IPCC which I referenced as PRIMARY SOURCES( you , Monterey Jack, have referenced very little). It is clear to anyone that reads the IPCC data. These SIX SCENARIOS, based, of course,on computer simulations, which, have used, of course, as part of their input, data from the famous Hockey Stick, which, unfortunately has been partially LOST by the famous Dr. Phil Jones. What a shame. Now, we can't even check his work.

These six scenarios give various predictions of sea level rises in 2100. I leave it to other readers to look at the IPCC data so they may judge which scenario is most likely.

I would not accept the scenario which shows that the sea level is going to be very low. On the other hand, I would not accept the scenario which shows that the sea level rise will be very high. I will accept the middle scenarios.

I am sure that Al(Greenland is melting) Gore would not agree with me!!

0 Replies

Now, Monterey Jack.

Note:

I have referenced primary sources--ICPP report EASILY FOUND in Wikipedia

I have referenced the well known writer on Climate change-Bjorn Lomborg

1 Reply

Monterey Jack wrote:

He's right. The IPCC's report stands. there are a couple really piddly errors, but nothing that changes the conclusions drawn from the several thousand other papers cited.It's the egregious misrepresentations of the email hackers, and the misrepresentations are virtually total, and the blatantly political spin of the deniers that are causing the problem.
_________________________________________________
A couple of really piddly errors?

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnia.

Losing data means a couple of piddly errors?

Here are some comments from a Wall Street Journal Editorial on the subject:

Results 1 - 10 of about 8,020 for global warming with the lid off wsj. (0.20 seconds)

Search ResultsWhat the Global Warming Emails Reveal - WSJ.com
Nov 24, 2009 ... The Wall Street Journal writes about the more than 3000 emails and documents released last week after ... Global Warming With the Lid Off ...
online.wsj.com/.../SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html

"Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unifie" view on the theory of man made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause", to advise each other on how to smooth over data so not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to"hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data"

0 Replies

Now, after all this theoretical discussion--what is happening in the "real world"

l. The Copenhagen meeting on Climate Change came up with NO solid committments on anyone'spart

2. It is quite clear that China and India will not curb their emissions in any meaningful way.

3. The Congress of the USA will not vote for "cap and trade" this year since such a bill would add to the horrendous unemployment rate.

4, When Barack Hussein Obama loses control of the House and/or Senate(there is a good chance that may happen this year), the Congress will roll back any pretensions advanced by the EPA.

0 Replies

@MASSAGAT,

That's funny MASSAGAT.... (in a sad sort of way)

MontereyJack posts a link to the interview.

You post a link to nothing.

And then you provide provide quotes that are CLEARLY someone else talking about what he said and not Phil Jones own words.

Do you know what "interview" means MASSAGAT? Based on your postings, I doubt it.

1 Reply

@MASSAGAT,

Quote:

I have referenced primary sources--ICPP report EASILY FOUND in Wikipedia

ROFLMAO..

You have only reference Lomborg about the IPCC. You have not referenced the IPCC.

1 Reply

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

CO2 Trend 1958-2008

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

Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F).

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

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

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F).

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
373
Engineer David Holland authored a November 2007 study titled "Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The ‘Hockey-Stick' Affair and its Implications" which was published in the scientific journal Energy & Environment. Holland also wrote a 2006 critique of the Stern Review for World Economics. Holland, who is a member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology, critiqued modern climate science methods and the UN IPCC process. "[Climate science] is by all measures as important a field of research as medicine, and ought to operate to standards at least as high, but it does not. On the contrary, it is steeped in bias, concealment and spin," Holland, wrote in his November paper for Energy & Environment. "Strong and well-founded scientific disagreement remains," he wrote. Holland took the IPCC to task. "The IPCC's governing principles are interpreted loosely, for example the strong scientific and statistical disagreements expressed by reviewers are not adequately, if at all, recorded in IPCC reports. Unpublished papers supporting IPCC orthodoxy are included even though their supporting data and methodology are not available. The use of non-disclosure agreements runs entirely counter to the IPCC's role," he wrote. (LINK)

0 Replies

Ican- I see that you are in agreement with the vaunted Dr. Phil Jones, he of the ill fated East Anglia crowd, that the Global Temperature is not rising.

It is really too bad, Ican, that Dr. Jones seems to have LOST some of the evidence pertaining to the Hockey Stick--the famous idiocy put forth by Dr. Mann. Now, there is really no way to check the original research is there. Too bad. It seems that the East Anglia crowd violated one of the most important scientific rules--
KEEP ALL YOUR ORIGINAL DATA PERTAINING TO IMPORTANT DISCOVERIES.

0 Replies

@parados,

Paradox--Do you know how to read?

Now, after all this theoretical discussion--what is happening in the "real world"

l. The Copenhagen meeting on Climate Change came up with NO solid committments on anyone'spart

2. It is quite clear that China and India will not curb their emissions in any meaningful way.

3. The Congress of the USA will not vote for "cap and trade" this year since such a bill would add to the horrendous unemployment rate

0 Replies

@parados,

Parados- Do you know how to use a dictionary?

reference- a direction to some source of information

Are you so ill equipped that you cannot understand the Wikipedia entry or are you saying that the entry is false or misleading? If so, please correct the entry.

Again, parados-

Temperature and sea level rise for each SRES scenario family
There are six families of SRES Scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises (excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow[5])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).

end of quote

That entry, Parados, does not come from Lomborg but from Wikipedia. However, if you feel it is not accurate, you know you can modify Wikipedia. Do not let such "errors" stand uncorrected. You won't do it because anything you attempt to post will not be accepted since the entry is completely accurate.

Sorry!!!

1 Reply

@MASSAGAT,

Wikipedia is not a primary source.

I think it is clear you don't know how to use a dictionary.

0 Replies

THE AVERAGE AND MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F) IN THE LAST 100 YEARS.

It is a fact that during the specific 90 year period, 1910 to 2000, CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increased, SOLAR IRRADIANCE increased, and ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increased.

It is also a fact that during the specific 10 year period, 2000 to 2010, CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increased, SOLAR IRRADIANCE decreased, and ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE decreased.

These facts logically imply, SOLAR IRRADIANCE increases and decreases are likely to be the major causes of ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increases and decreases, and CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increases are likely to be minor causes, if not negligible causes, of ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increases and decreases.

0 Replies

uh, ican, we're only three months into 2010. How do you know what the average global temperature for 2010 is yet? Besides, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, your practice of picking short intervals like this is heavily dependent on your end points and choice of intervals, and in fact yields contradictory results for most such intervals except for the one you cherry pick it for.

0 Replies

ican says:

Quote:

It is also a fact that during the specific 10 year period, 2000 to 2010, CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increased, SOLAR IRRADIANCE decreased, and ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE decreased

Since we're only three months into 2010, it is more than a little premature to make a judgment about 2010. Let's look then at the same length period as ican proposes, but is in fact already complete--a period that in fact ended less than three months ago--the period 1999-2009.

Look at ican's graphs. 1999 is that short year bar just to the right of the 1998 (el Nino year) peak. 2009 is that year bar at the extreme right. Global temp increased from 1999 to 2009.
Look at the graph of solar irradiance at "solar variation" in wikipedia. Solar irradiation decreased from 1999 to 2009. Of course, CO2 increased.
To recap, for the specific period 1999-2009, CO2 increased, global average temp increased, and sollar irradiance decreased.

It is therefore clear that solar variation has virtually no role in global warming and virtually all is due to CO2 increase.

0 Replies

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F).

1 Reply

ican says:

Quote:

It is also a fact that during the specific 10 year period, 2000 to 2010, CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increased, SOLAR IRRADIANCE decreased, and ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE decreased

Since we're only three months into 2010, it is more than a little premature to make a judgment about 2010. Let's look then at the same length period as ican proposes, but is in fact already complete--a period that in fact ended less than three months ago--the period 1999-2009.

Look at ican's graphs. 1999 is that short year bar just to the right of the 1998 (el Nino year) peak. 2009 is that year bar at the extreme right. Global temp increased from 1999 to 2009.
Look at the graph of solar irradiance at "solar variation" in wikipedia. Solar irradiation decreased from 1999 to 2009. Of course, CO2 increased.
To recap, for the specific period 1999-2009, CO2 increased, global average temp increased, and sollar irradiance decreased.

It is therefore clear that solar variation has virtually no role in global warming and virtua

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Recent%20solar%20irradiance
List of content

Recent visual sun

Recent sunspot activity

Recent solar irradiance

Sunspot activity since 1700

Solar irradiance and sunspot number

Solar irradiance reconstructed since 1610

Global temperature and sunspot number

Cosmic ray intensity and sunspot activity

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

It's not only solar irradiance, it's also the planet's axis tilt shifting, rotation speed slowing or speeding depending on our moon, continents on the move, asteroids crashing onto the planet, volcanoes and on and on - and even if it were only my SUV, neither I nor it were around 65 million years ago:

Quote:

....the probable course of events was this. The initial volcanism as North America split from Europe released carbon dioxide from deep inside the Earth. That produced a greenhouse effect which, in turn, melted seabed structures known as methane clathrates, which trap that gas in ice. This caused a massive release of 12C-rich methane into the atmosphere, explaining the initial drop in 13C concentrations. The methane, being a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, exacerbated things, while the carbon dioxide acidified the oceans, killing most of the animal shellmakers and fertilising the photosynthesis of planktonic plants. The subsequent plankton bloom sucked up the 12C and the isotope ratio veered off in the opposite direction.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15767263

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know