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

I am sure that no thinking person would want to bet Trillions of Dollars on an UNPROVEN thesis, Ionus. I am sure that you know that this thesis flies in the face of:

l. (as you mentioned)--"Guesses"( since that is all they are) made about the future based on models fed data.

2. Highly damaged credibility of the doomsayers. The East Anglia episodes, despite frantic attempts by friendly groups to spin the evidence, shows that the Global Warming crowd will lie and cheat in order to press their ideas on the unsuspecting public.

3. The rising opposition of the American Voter against the proposal that Global Warming is man made.

4. The strong opposition of critical countries like China and India to any plan which would impact their national economies. After all, as they say, they are "developing" countries.

5. The almost certain defeat of any left wing plan by the Obama administration to further ruin our economy( which has a horrendous unemployment rate) by causing thousands more to lose their jobs.

Ionus- Parados complained that my post giving the ideas of Dr. Lindzen reflected his position many years ago.

Well, Lindzen has really not changed very much. Now, Parados can fume and bluster but he really has the responsiblity( if he thinks Dr, Lindzen is wrong) to take each basic point in the following and give proof as to why it is incorrect:

I hope that Parados will note that these ideas were expressed by Lindzen ONLY THREE YEARS AGO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Opinion: Global Warming Fears Overblown
GUEST OPINION
By Richard S. Lindzen
Special to Newsweek
April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent post....

To Parody....what do you say to that ?

I am very much afraid, Ionus, that Parados will not respond except to make some irrelevant comments. He wouldn't dare try to take the points one at a time since he knows they are well nigh unassailable in the world of reason and evidence.
Thanks for your comment!

ROFLMAO..

So if the temperature today is one degree warmer than yesterday, there is no way you would believe that is warmer today or that it could be scientifically proven to be warmer today?

Even most deniers of anthropogenic warming agree that warming is scientifically shown to exist. But if you want to argue that it isn't science, go right ahead. We all love to watch you make a fool of yourself. You and ole possum.

This from the man that shows up here under 30 different names? Wow.. I would hate to see what passes for reason and evidence in your world.

You are very prone to exaggeration...I bet you didnt laugh but became angry and bitter as you usually do when you feel threatened.
As usual parody you understand very little if anything. Global Warming is taken by everyone, except you apparently, to mean man made climate change resulting in an increase in temperature. How is it scientifically proven that the planet is getting hotter due to man made carbon dioxide ? Unlike you, I derive no pleasure in watching people make fools of themselves though I should be used to it by now having read many of your pathetic attempts at science. Are you a lawyer ? You certainly are not a scientist.

Remember our little conversation where you thought there was only one Ice Age ? Rather a limited view of the world for someone predicting the future based on the past, dont you think ?

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

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.

ican made much of an alleged "cooling trend" in temps for the last several years and projected it as continuing into the future. It was repeatedly pointed out to him that that "trend" was temporary and was due to la Nina conditions, and temps would resume their upward trend when la Nina ended. One of us was correct. It was not ican.

From NOAA's May 2010 global climate analysis:

Really? Perhaps you can provide evidence to back up that silly claim..

Even the IPCC cites several NATURAL forcings that cause warming.

No I don't recall that conversation. I have never claimed there was only one ice age. I pointed out you have no physical evidence of more than one if we discount everything you demand we discount when looking at climatology and warming.

Solar Irradiance decreased slightly 1998 to 2009. If Solar Irradiance has entered an increasing trend starting in 2009 then A-AAGT will increase again. Any trend in A-AAGT is of course as temporary as any solar trend.

If you bothered to read a newspaper every now and then you would know that Global Warming is used interchangeably with anthropic temperature increases. Are you sure you have enough background knowledge for this discussion ?
I take it they are rather biased and if EVEN THE IPCC supports natural causes it must be true as they would never willingly support any criticism ?

I have no memory of that event. Good boy. That will come in handy at many stages of your career.
You wnet to great lengths to criticise me for saying the plural, Ice Ages, and now you say you never claimed there was only one ? I hope not all supporters of your position have Alzheimers.
????? I am quite adapt at following your twisting and manouvering, but this one baffles me.

Yawn.....

Your ability to manufacture "facts" out of thin air is quite amazing..

Now if you could provide a link to this supposed conversation, we could all see if your reality exists or not.

Our ice age conversation was around here Ionus...
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-720

Now if you could kindly point out my post where I claimed there was only ONE ice age you can make me look like a complete fool.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to show us such a post.

I have done that twice before, and whilst I like accuracy it gives me no pleasure to humiliate you as either a liar or plain stupid/forgetful. It is in this thread. You find it and apologise.

Not a complete fool, just someone with some degree of personality disorder who must believe in Global Warming to feel important.
Parados said : http://able2know.org/topic/44061-722#post-3760489
Ionus said : http://able2know.org/topic/44061-722#post-3760756

You have? Perhaps you can provide a link to those instances..

Again, I won't hold my breath.