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

The number "10" means "approximately 10 x" and is inferred from the collection of studies (including the latest one, published March 22 2010). All the studies including the old one you linked state no certainty is possible. That includes this one on a related topic:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100210171413.htm
You post a source from 1997 and never even bother to read and follow-up on the links on the latest research - and THEN you have an opinion? You're entitled to one, of course, but that's the absolutely last link I'm posting to educate you - sorry.

What? It's inferred? You accuse me of not reading the most recent literature and then you can only tell me it is "inferred?" I asked you because I had seen no literature that stated it was 10x the current CO2 65 million years ago. Instead of providing me with literature or a source that confirms your statement you simply tell me I haven't read enough? If you have something that specifically states it is 10x, I will be happy to read it. That is why I asked for that reference.

Your latest link only confirms that mass extinctions occurred. Something I already knew. It doesn't tell me they occurred because the CO2 was 10x what it is now. It doesn't even mention CO2 so I don't see how I can infer anything about the level of CO2 at the time. I have seen no research that sets a minimum level of CO2 for extinctions to occur which would allow me to infer the level.

Since none of your links so far have supported the 10x claim, I don't see how you tried to educate me at all. I only see you throwing stuff out to obfuscate the fact that your claim seems to be unsupported.

P.S. for the record, I've no background in geology, organic chemistry, biology - I do know mathematical modeling, however, and - as any reputable mathematician will be able to confirm - therefore know that the IPCC "predictive" model isn't worth the paper it was written on or the computer time it wasted. The reasons are made clear in past posts (by me and George OB, who also knows computer modeling) on this thread and I'm not going to repeat them. I still think the latest research on the events of 200 million years ago are fascinating - especially since they arrived after 50 million years of chaos. If any of the geologists here (Okie, or Farmerman, or another if we have one) wants to post additional explanations I'm looking forward to reading them.

Currently, there is little evidence that human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere, 1958 to 2009, were the major cause of the CO2 atmospheric density increase during that period from approximately 316 ppm to 386 ppm.

We know that an increase in ocean water temperatures increases the rate of ocean water evaporation. We know that since ocean water contains a significant amount of CO2, the evaporation of ocean water into the atmosphere increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Consequently, the speculation that human caused CO2 emissions are the major cause of global warming has probably reversed real cause and effect. Global warming has probably caused the CO2 density in the atmosphere to increase far more than has human emissions of CO2.

What then has been the actual major cause of the less than 2 degree Fahrenheit increase in average annual global temperature 1910 to 2010? Probably a major contributor is the increase in the sun's irradiation intensity during that period. However, the sun's irradiation intensity may have begun a decreasing trend in 2000, that may explain the slight reversal of what was previously the increasing trend in the average annual global temperature . Is it a coincidence, or is the sun actually the major causative agent of global warming as well as cooling?

Can I prove my speculations? No! I caannot prove my speculations any more than can anyone prove that human CO2 emission are the major cause of global warming. This has been acknowledged by current scientists throughout the world--including many former IPCC scientists.

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.

High seas-You are absolutely correct. Paradox gives no real evidence that passes muster. Your comment about "computer modeling" would appear to be something that most people would have trouble with. Not so. Most people can understand-
"Garbage in-garbage out"--Now worthies like Parados and Monterey Jack will state:
"How dare you criticize "scientific" findings? "You do not have the background"

Note:
l. The recent scandals at East Anglia( a crucial IPCC outpost) clearly show that the scientists there were engage in attempts to scrub the data and to try to shut down criticism from other scientists.

2. Anyone who reviews the "findings" from IPCC( available on the Internet( See Wikipedia) can see that the COMPUTER MODELS-after being fed a succession of input will come. up with different scenarios DEPENDING on the input that they are given. That is why I replicated the Wikipedia note on the IPCC's findings concerning the rise in Sea Level. They have six Scenarios and the median findings is that the sea level will rise no more than one foot by 2100.

If this is correct( and there are many reasons why it may not be) then there is no point to destroying our economy and the economy of other countries by imposing draconian measures.

I will post a long list of reasons why the global warmists may be mistaken and a proposal, made by many, as to how to SURELY save millions of people from death and disase in this world without spending triple or quadruple sums to stem a threat which has not been conclusively proven to be as damaging as some have stated,

Monterey Jack wrote:

In regard to your email, you should know that HadCrut and the University of East Anglia are not part the "IPCC Organization". The IPCC draws on their research. Mann et al are not part of UEA. Considering that Mann et al deal with climate change over the last 1500 years, and considering that HadCRUT interprets satellite data, and

Do you know how to read, Monterey Jack? It is clear that China is spewing out more CO2 than we are. Now, since you consider yourself brilliant, find me a sources which says, unequivocally, that the Chinese will commit themselves without reservations to a Kyoto like lowering of their co2 output in the future. You wont.

Scientists? Why would real scientists who know there is dissent concerning the alleged "global warming" destroy their evidence?

Note- Comments concerning East Anglia and the DESTRUCTION OF SUPPORTING DATA-
*****************************************************************************
Only "Value Added" temperature data exists, all raw data was destroyed!
Admin, Monday 30 November 2009


Today we learn that all supporting data for world-wide global warming (or climate change) has been destroyed by the guardians of that data. University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) claims to only keep “value added data”, data that they have modified.

All historic “raw” data from temperature measurement stations around the world has been destroyed! This makes it impossible for anyone to verify whether global warming is real or not (so much for peer review). In light of ClimateGate emails that have surfaced admitting to hiding, destroying, and modifying data it is no longer possible to believe anything coming out of that office or based off of their “value added” data. Most of the conclusions from the IPCC have their roots in this CRU data. The Mann hockey stick (which is also involved in ClimateGate " see below) bases the hockey stick curve upward on CRU data.

Anyone still believing that our climate scientists are impartial and that we have any accurate climate data must be a fool. Though there are undoubtedly honest climate scientists (and we really feel sorry for them right now) most of their work is based off invalidated data. Not only has the public been made fools of but so have the honest scientists.

*********************************************
MOST OF THE CONSLUSIONS FROM THE IPCC HAVE THEIR ROOTS IN THIS CRU DATA.

Do you really think that obfuscation can win the day, parados? There are many who are far more skilled that you who show that you are trying to simplify and obfuscate. Note:


Feb
21
2010
Phil Jones and the Lack of Warming; Or, Die, Statistical Significance, Die
Published by Briggs at 8:00 am under Climatology, Statistics

According to the stunning New York Times headline, which quoted climatologist Phil Jones, there has been no “statistically significant” global warming in the past 15 years.

Just kidding! The Times forgot to write about that. No doubt they were distracted by that golfer-guy’s TV event. Priorities!

Anyway, that’s what Mr Jones has said. Reader Francisco González has asked what that “statistically significant” means. It is an excellent question.

Answer: not much.

Here is what it absolutely, certainly does not mean: “There is a 95% chance that no warming occurred over the past 15 years.” It also does not mean: “There is a 100% chance that no warming occurred over the past 15 years.”

It also, most emphatically"slow down and read this thrice"in no way means: “We don’t know if any warming occurred.” I’ll tell you what it does mean in a minute.

It is time, now, right this minute, for the horrid term statistical significance to die, die, die (old-timers from Usenet days will grok that joke"sorry, couldn’t help myself with the second one). Nobody ever remembers what it means, and, with rare exceptions, almost everybody who uses it gets it wrong.

Statisticians have labored for nearly a century to teach the philosophy behind this term, and we just can’t make it stick. Partly it’s because the philosophy itself is so screwy; but never mind that. We must admit failure.

Here’s what “statistical significance” means in terms of global warming. Mr Jones fit a probability model to a series of data. That probability model had several knobs, called parameters, that needed to be tuned just so until the model fits. These knobs are like old-fashioned radio dials that must be twisted to just the right spot for the signal to be audible. (The data tells us the values at which to point them; only we’re never sure the data tells us the truth.)

Mr Jones looked at the array of knobs and set one of them to zero. He then calculated a statistic, some function of the data (like all the values squared then summed, then divided by another number, which is a function of the number of data points, but is not the exact number of those data points). Confused yet?

Mr Jones looked at that statistic and asked, given that my model is true"given, that is, that it is the one and only model for this data"and given that this particular knob is set to zero, what is the chance that I would see another statistic as large (in absolute value) if the world were to restart and the climate repeated itself, only this time it was “randomly” different, and I recalculated my statistic on this new set of data?

If that probability is low"usually less than the mystical 0.05 level"then the model is said to be “statistically significant.” That probability, incidentally, is called the p-value, of which you might have heard.

If that probability is greater than the 0.05, the results are said not to be statistically significant. (People then leave the knob at zero and ignore what the data says about where to set it.)

Thus, Mr Jones, in saying “there has been no statistically significant warming” actually means “I believe my model is the one and only true model for my data, and that its particular knob should be set to zero.” And that is all it means, and nothing more.

This is bizarre, to say the least, and is why nobody can ever remember what the hell a p-value is saying. Nevertheless, it is consistent with the mathematics and philosophy of a school of statistics called frequentism.

But forget all that, too. Let’s ignore statistics and turn to plain English.

Suppose, fifteen years ago the temperature (of whatever kind of series you like: global mean, Topeka airport maximums, etc.) was 10o C. And now it is 11o C. Has warming occurred?

Yes! There is no other answer. It has increased. But now suppose that last year, it was 9o C (this year it is still 11o C). Has warming occurred?

Yes! And No! Yes, if by “has warming occurred?” we really mean “Is the temperature now higher than it was 15 years ago?” No, if by “has warming occurred?” we really mean “Has the temperature increased each year since 15 years ago?”

Also Yes, if by “has warming occurred?” we really mean “Has the temperature increased so that is higher now than it was fifteen years ago, but I also allow that it might have bounced around during that fifteen years?”

Each of these qualifiers corresponds to a different model of the data. Each of them has, that is, a different probabilistic quantification. And so do myriads of other model/statements which we don’t have time to name, each equally plausible for data of this type.

Which is the correct model? I don’t know, and neither do you. The only way we can tell is when one of these models begins to make skillful predictions of data that was not used in any way to create the model. And this, no climate model (statistical or physical or some combination) has done.

So has global temperature not increased? It has not, if by “not increased” we mean…etc., etc.
******************************************************************
WHICH IS THE CORRECT MODEL, PHIL JONES' MODEL OR ANOTHER MODEL?

I don't know and neither do you!!!!!!

Monterey Jack wrote:

Massagato, can you cite me a convincing argument that they shouldn't feel entitled to do the same. If we aren';t cutting back, and we have so much more, why co you think they should cut back their far smaller piece of the pie. Knowing your jingoistic style of politics, I'm pretty sure that had you been born in Beijing instead of Chicago you'd be rabidly against American energy squandering. China certainly can make a case against us. That you don't agree doesn't matter a whole lot in the scheme of things.

Why should we "cut back"? Why should China cut back? Do you think the Chinese are stupid? They have brilliant scientists in China. They are not convinced that the world will end in fire if we do not all become Goristas.

The Chinese know that any radical cut back in industrial production will cause huge problems in their country. Most clear thinking Americans, after viewing the lies and misdirection coming from Phil Jones and his crew as well as a great deal of sceintific questioning about the methods and data used in setting up the computer "models" do not consider the so-called global warming a major problem.

Don't you realize that our country, due to the misadministration of Barack Hussein Obama is suffering from a massive Unemployment Problem? How does 9.7% sound to you? Or, since you claim to be so good at statistics, \I don't think I have to explain a 16% Unemployment Rate from the BLS' U-6 category, do I?

The Chinese will bury us. Are you so Anti-American to press for draconian cuts in our industrial output now?

Of course, since you are a partisan, you would not examine comments made by the global warmists to show how exaggerated the "warming" data has become.

Focus on this if you really have an open mind-Monterey Jack----

Monterey Jack wrote:


In regard to your email, you should know that HadCrut and the University of East Anglia are not part the "IPCC Organization". The IPCC draws on their research. Mann et al are not part of UEA. Considering that Mann et al deal with climate change over the last 1500 years, and considering that HadCRUT interprets satellite data"

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

and "Acorn" is not part( sic) the Obama Administration!!

What obfuscation!! The University of East Anglia is a critical source of data for the UN and the IPCC. Stop the lies!!

East Anglia, Phil Jones and the IPCC. Not connected????

Leaked climate change emails 'won't bias UN global warning body' says chairman Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely " not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

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

'PROFESSOR PHILIP JONES, THE CRU(climate research unit)'s DIRECTOR, IS I N CHARGE OF THE T W O K E Y S E T S O F D A TA USED BY THE IPCC TO DRAW UP ITS REPORTS.

High Seas:

There are many reasons why the global warmists may be wrong. They just won't admit that possiblity. However, the almost criminal behavior of the East Anglia CRU group led by the famous Phil Jones has discredited a great deal of their research since it is obvious that they have massaged the data, lost a great deal of their original records and attempted to stifle any dissent.

But here are some problems the IPCC has not grappled with in an honest fashion:

l. Co2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate the earth has had, especially the Medieval Warming Period.

2. Most of the current warming took place before 1940. Before there was much human generated Co2 in the air. After 1940, temperatures declined until 1975.
Why?

3.Today's reports stem from urban heat islands. It is significant that some of the evidence of these temperature reports are missing from the files of the CRU.

4. CO2 Changes have lagged behind global warming. They are a lagging indicator not a causal factor. Ice cores have revealed that temperatures and co2 levels have tracked closely together during the warmings after the Earth's last three ice age glaciations. Global warming has produced more Co2 rather than more co2 producing global warming.

5. and perhaps most important, the predictions of planetary overheating require that the warming effect of additional co2 in the atmosphere. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE IS RETAINING MORE WATER VAPOR TO AMPLIFY THE CO2.

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

High Seas: Would you rather put your faith in computer models, which are fed by SELECTED DATA( has anything, anything been left out which could change the prediction??) or would you rather put your faith in items which could be measured such as Ice cores, historical data, tree rings. etc.?

Even after considering the obfuscations made by East Anglia, it is clear that the IPCC has not, I repeat, has not solved the long standing problems of the effects of water vapor and clouds on the so-called global warming. Note:

Global Warming - Problems with the IPCC Models The Scientific Basis by the The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the foundation document for Global Warming hysteria. It outlines what was known and explains some of the models that predict that humans are destroying the planet.
This page quotes what the IPCC says about its own models - basically, in my opinion, these experts admit that the entire theory of Human Produced Global Warming is based on models that don't work.

Please, don't just read the few quotes I've included below - read the entire report. (I've only read parts of it.) It is painfully obvious that none of the models are very good ... and clouds are almost ignored.



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

7.2 Atmospheric Processes and Feedbacks
Determination of the new equilibrium is complicated by the fact that water vapour is itself a potent greenhouse gas
Atmospheric Processes are the foundation of the "CO2 creates excessive Global Warming" theory ... apparently, the whole theory is based on an assumption that extra heat produces more water vapor which then traps even more heat. The problem with that theory is that, if true, then the Earth should overheat without needing to first add more CO2 to the atmosphere.
Thus, before you even consider the models, it should be obvious that the basic premise of this section is wrong.



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

7.2.1.1 Water vapour feedback
Attempts to directly confirm the water vapour feedback ... are difficult to interpret ... [but are] consistent with a positive water vapour feedback, but it still cannot be taken as a direct test of the feedback
Note that this section considers water vapor only - clouds and rain are considered separately in the next 2 sections.


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

7.2.2 Cloud Processes and Feedbacks
7.2.2.4 Cloud-radiative feedback processes

In response to any climate perturbation the response of cloudiness thereby introduces feedbacks whose sign and amplitude are largely unknown.
The sign of the cloud cover feedback is still a matter of uncertainty and generally depends on other related cloud properties.

Cloud optical feedbacks produced by these GCMs, however, differ both in sign and strength.

7.2.2.5 Representation of cloud processes in models

In spite of these improvements, there has been no apparent narrowing of the uncertainty range associated with cloud feedbacks in current climate change simulations. A straight-forward approach of model validation is not sufficient to constrain the models efficiently and a more dedicated approach is needed.
Note - Section 7.2.2.5 has a graph showing which models consider clouds as positive or negative feedback mechanisms.

It is unbelievable that the most important feedback could make human produced Global Warming extremely serious or just a lot of nonsense - but they still can not determine even the sign of the feedback.

At least there is a consensus so that there is no longer a need for scientific inquiry.

Another comment on the all important Water Vapour "problem"

Climate Skeptic

February 17, 2010, 10:47 pm In most all of the climate models, the warming effect from feedback is actually much larger than the warming effect from CO2 alone. That is why I have said for years that it is a waste of time to debate “greenhouse gas theory” as the real theory that matters to the proposition that climate sensitivity to CO2 is high is the theory that Earth’s temperature system is dominated by strong positive feedback. And the largest feedback in climate models tends to be water vapor feedback, despite the fact that even the IPCC admits that such feedback is poorly understood. To this end:

In a third paper, accepted for publication by the Journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology, three scientists " two Australians and one American, revisit data on upper-atmospheric humidity. The three are Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking and Michael Pook, and they have found that, contrary to climate model predictions, water vapour in the upper atmosphere is acting as a brake on global warming.

Established climate models assume constant humidity at all levels in the atmosphere as the temperature rises. But, using data from weather balloons accumulated over 35 years, these researchers find this is not so. At the lower levels, it is higher than expected, dropping below normal at the higher altitudes.

This, they say, implies that “long-term water vapour feedback is negative " that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2.” This, in one fell swoop, challenges the central premise of the warmists that, once CO2 reaches a certain level, we experience runaway global warming.

********************************************************************
Please note the comment:"Even the IPCC admits that such feedback(water vapor feedback is POORLY UNDERSTOOD". And we are to dismantle our industries, raise the unemployment rate to 20% and radically lower our standard of living for a theory in which a basic factor in our atmosphere, water vapour, is POORLY UNDERSTOOD with relation to its function in the alleged global warming?

How are we supposed to take the people seriously that say global warming is happening, when they do stuff like this...



So now, it seems that energy companies CAUSED hurricane Katrina?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/29/global-warming-advocates-threaten-blizzard-lawsuits/?test=latestnews

Its people like this that make it real hard to take global warming activists seriously.

I'm surprised that it took that to make it hard for you to take global warming activists seriously mm. I never took them seriously from the get-go. Even the infantry came from two car families and flew thousands of miles for the hols. The generals were on another level.

They are the funniest long running joke I've seen since Lord Longford toured the vice dens of Europe to gather evidence for his clean-up campaign,

You are correct but taking the global warming activists seriously is one thing. Calling them out as liars and manipulators of basic data is another.

Here was an e-mail fromDr. Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia which feeds data to the IPCC( the main and most important proponent of global warming since it is an arm of the UN)--

Quote-Dr. Phil Jones--toMann( he of Hockey Stick Fame)

If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. He also wrote to Mann--"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re (The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report)?

Jones also wrote--

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years(from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 to hide the decline."

These are just two of the many e-mails which prompted the Scientific world to excoriate Phil Jones.

There are many indications that the "global warmists" have tried to massage the data. In some instances, they are somewhat like some of the posters on these threads--If you hew the political line they like, they will accept your ideas, if not, they will try to ban you.

Bjorn Lomborg tells of a high ranking spokesman, Tim Higham about a significant change in an IPCC Summary. He was asked what the scientific background was for the change. Higham responded:

"There was NO new science, but the sceintist wanted to present a clear and strong message to policy makers>"

Something along the line of Al Gore's" Greenland is melting "schtick>

And, Ican, you are seconded by one of the most brilliant men in meterology--Professor Richard S. Lindzen of MIT who wrote:

"The notion that complex climate "catasthrophes" are simply a matter of the respons of a single number GATA to a single forcing, Co2( or solar forcing for that matter0 represents a gigantic step backwardin the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all of these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors."