Global Warming vs. Terrorism

You know how to read,.Mr. Parados, and if you think you are well infomed on Global Warming( you are not) you will be able to rebut the findings in this article-Especially those from Dr. Spencer who effectively shoots down the satellite temperature REVISIONS TO 19C per decade.


Revised data heats up Global Warming controversy


Corrections on satellite, balloon measurements don't dispell scientific doubts


Thursday, August 25, 2005
by Steven Milloy

Is the debate now over for skeptics of global warming hysteria? Readers of USA Today may certainly have that impression.

"Satellite and weather-balloon research released today removes a last bastion of scientific doubt about global warming, researchers say," reported USA Today on Aug.12.

Certainly the USA Today report was partially correct - the researchers did, in fact, "say" [read "claim"] that "the last bastion of scientific doubt" had been removed. But claims and reality often don't match up.

Three papers published in the journal Science last week purport to debunk an important argument advanced by skeptics of the notion of catastrophic, manmade global warming. The skeptics' argument is that while temperatures measured on the Earth's surface seem to indicate that global temperatures have increased at a rate of about 0.20 degrees Centigrade per decade (deg. C/decade) since the 1970s, temperatures measured in the atmosphere by satellite and weather balloons have shown only a relatively insignificant amount of warming for the same time period (about 0.09 deg. C/decade).

The implication of the skeptics' argument is that whatever warming seems to be happening on the Earth's surface, similar warming isn't happening in the atmosphere. This might mean that any observed surface warming is more likely due to the urban heat island effect -- where the heat-retaining properties of concrete and asphalt in urban areas artificially increase local temperatures -- rather than increasing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

One of the new Science studies reported that the satellites had drifted in orbit, causing errors in temperature measurement. Corrections to the satellite data, according to the researchers, would increase the atmospheric warming estimate to 0.19 deg. C/decade -- more in line with the 0.20 deg. C/decade warming of the Earth's surface. Another study reported that heating from tropical sunlight had skewed the balloon temperature measurements.

Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, one of the studies' authors, told USA Today that, "Once corrected, the satellite and balloon temperatures align with other surface and upper atmosphere measures, as well as climate change models."

So is it really game-set-match in favor of the global warming alarmists? Not so fast, say the skeptics.

When University of Alabama-Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, a prominent climatologist, factored the newly reported corrections into his calculations, his estimate of atmospheric warming was only 0.12 deg. C/decade -- higher than the prior estimate of 0.09 deg. C/decade, but well below the Science study estimate of 0.19 deg C/decade and the surface temperature estimate of 0.20 deg. C/decade.

As to the claimed errors in the weather balloon measurements, Spencer says that no other effort to adjust the balloon data has produced warming estimates as high as those reported in the new study and that it will take time for the research community to form opinions about whether the new adjustments advocated are justified.

Climate expert Dr. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project says the temperature adjustments are "not a big deal."

"Greenhouse theory says (and the models calculate) that the atmospheric trend should be 30 percent greater than the surface trend -- and it isn't," says Singer. "Furthermore, the models predict that polar [temperature] trends should greatly exceed the tropical values -- and they clearly don't ... In fact, the Antarctic has been cooling," adds Singer.

Singer also had some related thoughts concerning the gloom-and-doom forecasts concerning future temperatures.

Last January, a study in the journal Nature estimated that a doubling of atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide would increase global temperatures anywhere from 1.9 degrees Centigrade to 11.5 degrees Centigrade by mid-century. But Singer says the researchers "varied only six out of many more parameters necessary to model clouds… Their result confirms… that clouds are still too difficult to model and that climate models underlying the Kyoto Protocol have never been validated."

So it's far from "case-closed" on global warming skepticism. Moreover, aside from the controversy over the satellite and weather balloon data, many key climate questions remain unanswered including: whether humans are causing significant warming; whether warming is undesirable; and whether anything be done to avert any undesirable warming.

Because of its prohibitive costs, alarm over global warming has been rejected numerous times by President Bush and the U.S. Senate. European nations are already discovering that their economies can't live with the Kyoto Protocol that was just implemented in February.

Despite alarmist media reports, global warming-mania is melting. It's no wonder the alarmists are in such a hurry to close the book on the science.
***********************************************************
NO OBFUSCATION PLEASE MR, pARADOS, REBUT THE ARTICLE'S POINTS SHOWING THAT THE SATELLITE WARMING WILL BE ONLY 0.12C per Decade instead of the ridiculously high 0.19C per decade.

I hope you will not miss the point elaborated by Dr.Singer that the Satellite Temperatures ACCORDING TO THE GREEN HOUSE THEORY AND THE CALCULATIONS OF THE MODELS SHOULD BE 30% GREATER THAN THE SURFACE TREND AND IT I S N'T.

Dont make a fool of yourself by ignoring this clear evidence. If you don't rebut it with evidence or you ignore it, it stands. Of course, it says "New Satellite warming numbers according to Science Magazine Studies are inflated"

I am sure you have no answer for this Mr. Parados--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The US is currently involved( as I have made clear in another post) in setting up huge "clean" power plants. Recommendations have been made to set up wind farms to lessen our dependence on pollutants but, suprisingly, the obese and addled Ted Kennedy, the consience of the Senate. has proposed his opposition to wind farms outside of his "sailing" region near Nantucket. The extremist crazies from the Sierra Club and other organizations like them have shot down an obviously clean source of electric power( widely used in France)--nuclear power plants( none have been built for a long time because of left wing hysteria but recent improvements in nuclear power plant construction is such that they are adjudge to be very very safe. Nonetheless, research is on going and the country will have adopted numerous new technologies by 2050 that will substantially cut down Co2 emissions IF IN FACT THOSE EMISSIONS WOULD BE CAUSING S U B S T A N T I A L L Y HIGHER TEMPERATURES(unknown at this time except to the Computer models fed by the most objective and scientific minded European Scientists, who, of course, would never allow their tweakings of data be at all influenced by political concerns)


But, if we examine the PREDICTIONS OF THE IPCC, we find a range of predictions based on FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL INPUTS. The future inputs are, of course, tied to the actions taken by the world's"polluting countries" such as the USA, the EU and, unfortunately, China and India.

Note below:



FIGURE 5-1 Global CO2 emissions (billion tons of carbon per year) from all sources for the four scenario families (A1, A2, B1, B2) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). The four scenario families had different assumptions about population, technological and land-use changes, and gross domestic product (GDP) growth rates. Each colored band represents the range of results for each scenario from the six emissions models used in the SRES report. Within any one scenario family, the emissions models all used the same scenario-specific global input assumptions for population and GDP growth. SOURCE: Nakićenović et al. (2000).



There are obviously four scenarios. The IPCC does not, I repeat does not, tell us which one of these scenarios will be present in the future. It tells us where we will be under certain circumstances.

Only the hysterical will say that the world will end by 2010. Cooler heads predict that a slow infusion of technology will limit Global Warming to a level which is certainly consistent with the warmings we have seen in the world in past times--eg The Medieval Warming Period.

WHICH OF THE FOUR SCENARIOS IS THE ONE WHICH WE WILL ENCOUNTER IN THE FUTURE, MR. PARADOS? DO YOU KNOW?

How do you rebut this additional evidence from Mr. Samuelson, Mr. Parados> Don't dodge it or cherry pick it as you are wont to do--Rebut it or its STANDS>



Greenhouse Hypocrisy

By Robert J. Samuelson

Wednesday, June 29, 2005; Page A21

Almost a decade ago I suggested that global warming would become a "gushing" source of political hypocrisy. So it has. Politicians and scientists constantly warn of the grim outlook, and the subject is on the agenda of the upcoming Group of Eight summit of world economic leaders. But all this sound and fury is mainly exhibitionism -- politicians pretending they're saving the planet. The truth is that, barring major technological advances, they can't (and won't) do much about global warming. It would be nice if they admitted that, though this seems unlikely.

Europe is the citadel of hypocrisy. Considering Europeans' contempt for the United States and George Bush for not embracing the Kyoto Protocol, you'd expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990 (Kyoto's base year for measuring changes) to 2002, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the International Energy Agency. The U.S. increase was 16.7 percent, and most of Europe hasn't done much better.


Here are some IEA estimates of the increases: France, 6.9 percent; Italy, 8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands, 13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; Spain, 46.9 percent. It's true that Germany (down 13.3 percent) and Britain (a 5.5 percent decline) have made big reductions. But their cuts had nothing to do with Kyoto. After reunification in 1990, Germany closed many inefficient coal-fired plants in eastern Germany; that was a huge one-time saving. In Britain, the government had earlier decided to shift electric utilities from coal (high CO2 emissions) to plentiful natural gas (lower CO2 emissions).

On their present courses, many European countries will miss their Kyoto targets for 2008-2012. To reduce emissions significantly, Europeans would have to suppress driving and electricity use; that would depress economic growth and fan popular discontent. It won't happen. Political leaders everywhere deplore global warming -- and then do little. Except for Eastern European nations, where dirty factories have been shuttered, few countries have cut emissions. Since 1990 Canada's emissions are up 23.6 percent; Japan's, 18.9 percent.

We are seeing similar exhibitionism in the United States. The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently endorsed Kyoto. California and New Mexico have adopted "targets" for emission cuts, reports the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. All this busywork won't much affect global warming, but who cares? The real purpose is for politicians to brandish their environmental credentials. Even if rich countries actually curbed their emissions, it wouldn't matter much. Poor countries would offset the reductions.


YOU NOTE, OF COURSE, THE BASE YEAR FOR MEASURING CHANGES-1990. YOU NOTE, OF COURSE, THE ESTIMATE OF THE GROWTH IN EMISSIONS RATHER THAN THE LESSENING, DO YOU NOT?

Don't dodge this again. You just make yourself look silly!

Mr. Parados wrote:


Quote:
Dr.Lomborg wrote:

l. Do we want to handle global warming in the most efficient way or do we want to use global warming as a stepping stone to other POLITICAL projects?

and

2. We should NOT spend VAST AMOUNTS of money to cut a TINY SLICE of the global temperature increase when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use those funds FAR MOR EFFICIENTLY IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD.`
ROFLMAO.. that quote has NOTHING to do with CO2 emmissions or any lack of specificity with those emissions. It seems it is YOU that is confusing 'political will" with CO2 emissions.

First of all, I gave you evidence that the emission estimates made by the IPCC stemming from the new Satellite Temperatures were in error. READ MY POST ON THAT.

SECONDLY, DR. LOMBORG'S QUOTE HAS A GREAT DEAL TO DO WITH CO2 EMISSIONS. If You don't realize that countries who wish to do something about Co2 emissions do not have the political will, emissions will continue.

Because some European Scientists, working for the incorruptable UN, enter some data into computers, come out with scenarios, and then tell the world that the earth is in GRAVE DANGER, those numbers mean N O T H I N G if there is any doubt about their validity.

If you did not read my post quoting Dr. Spencer, you do not know what I am talking about. Spencer's calculations show a tropospheric warming of 0.60C by 2056. 12C per decade.

Again-Dr.Lomberg

quote

"We should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a TINY PIECE OF THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE WHEN THIS CONSTITUES A POOR USE OF RESOURCES"

You know how to read, Mr.Parados. Read it!!!

Watch out Parados, the self-proclaimed blowhard on a mission from God to save his state of Grace has thrown up a Chewbacca Defense on you, and seeks to overwhelm you with nonsensical arguments to confuse you and drown out legitimate and logical opposing arguments.



Next he'll try the dreaded Silly Monkey Defense!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense

ps: and massey's new moniker shall be henceforth and forever more, Stinky Britches.

I rest my case.

Yes, Mr. Parados, Kyoto is unreachable unless the world's economies are devastated.

Quote Lomborg--The Kyoto Protocol would cost at least 150 Billion a year and possibly much more. UNICEF estimates that just 70-80 Billion a year could give all third world inhabitants access to the basics like health, education, water and sanitation.

end of quote.

Self absorbed Scientists, thinking that their computer models are perfect, would waste vital resources.

And, of course, we can ameliorate a small amount by slowly and carefully switching our technology to solar and nuclear. Both are non polluting/ These will not meet the Kyoto targets since the pollution from China and India are on going but they will help and help in such a way that our economy will not be crippled because technological development will be phased in slowly and carefullly so that the economy can adapt.

YES, KYOTO IS UNREACHABLE GIVEN THE POLLUTION SPEWED INTO THE SKY BY CHINA AND INDIA.

I hope that you are no so foolish, Mr. Parados, to believe that somehow, the pollution from China and India will not affect the whole world>

But since we have an energy crisis and oil will become more difficult to remove from shale, we can help ourselves by slowly and carefully switching into new technology to provide energy!

Mr. Parados wrote:

Samuelson uses figures from 2002. Kyoto went into effect on Feb 16, 2005. 3 years after Samuelson's figures. I see a small problem with his claim. Do you?

end of quote
Do you know how to read? Samuelson used the base year from which emissions would be measured. According to that base year, Samuelson provides the percentage as of 2002 which is above or below the 1990 figure. Kyoto, dear sir, uses 1990 as the base year for measurement.


Don't you know that? and you are an expert in environment?

LOL

As an "expert" on the envvironment, Mr. Parados, you should be able to easily explain this UNUSUAL ANOMALY. If you cannot, you are no expert, if you do not, you are dodging-again- The surface temperature of the earth according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rose nearly .05C(about .016C per decade) from 1910 to 1940 when only about ONE FIFTH OF THE ALLEGED POLLUTION ( Co2) WAS POURED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. From 1940 to 2000, the surface temperature rose nearly .05C( about 0.0085 per decade) EVEN THOUGH AT LEAST THE AMOUNT OF CO2 ( which of course is the suspected agent of Global Warming) spewed into the atmosphere was judged to be FIVE TIMES greater than that which went into the atmosphere from 1910 to 1940.

Very strange--

The surface temperature of the earth rises 0.016C per decade from 1910 to 1940 and the surface temperature of the earth went up 0.0085C per decade from 1940 to 2000 despite the fact that 5(Five) times more Co2 was emitted into the atmosphere from 1940 to 2000 than was emitted from 1910 to 1940.

If CO2 is such a polluter, why didn't the temperatures go up much more rapidly from 1940 to 2000 or five times faster. The rate should have been 0.0425C per decade if CO2 was the controlling factor.

Could it be that the temperature rise from 1910 to 1940 was not anthropogenic?


Mr.Parados, You are an expert in this subject,please explain this anomaly>

I responded to Samuelson and your response was to not answer my question like you promised you would.. falsus in omnia Bernard.

Growth or reduction? All those states are supposed to reduce their growth by 2030. China is already producing less CO2 than it did in 1990
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/294/5548/1835

Meanwhile China's MPG for their fleet is almost double that of the US. Why does China have higher standards for CO2 than the US does? China has proposed doubling the MPG of its fleet in the next 10 years. If it doubles it again in the 10 years after that we will see an increase of almost 0 CO2 from its increase in vehicles. Isn't it grand using old data? Samuelson should check the latest reports from the IEA and stop using outdated statements.
Since they won't come true how can Mr Samuelson make any conclusions?
I agree we need to raise CAFE standards in the US. We need to reduce our dependence on oil. More efficient hybrid engines is a good goal. How do you propose we get to that Bernard?
I have now dealt with Samuelson. Step up to the plate and prove you can deal with my questions.

A major error in logic by Samuelson here. Because I can't predict what the stock market will do tomorrow is not an argument that I can't predict how it will act over the long term. In fact, the market is very predictable over the long term. I can't say what it will be at any given time but I can predict that the overall trend is up.

Any idiot can claim we need research and development. Funding and the desire are the real driving forces. Since you have already pointed out CO2 sequestration is coming we see that there can be reductions in CO2. It isn't just renewable energy that is being proposed. We already are seeing that these technologies are NOT causing the economic doomsday you keep predicting.

I agree. Not much is being done other than speeches and plans by the Bush administration.
I agree. Policies motivated by short term political gain will inflict public pain in the future. New technologies have never caused the collapse of the economy. Why do you think they will now? Did the computer cause the collapse of the economy? It was predicted to do just that because it would take away all the jobs done by people. Instead we got more efficient and created new jobs. New energy technologies will do the same thing.

Now. go back and answer my question as you promised or prove you have no integrity.

I can't explain your numbers Bernard. The only explanation I can come up with is you pulled them out of the warm place you normally keep your head shoved.

The numbers make no sense and prove that either. 1. You are a liar or 2. That Samuelson, Lomborg and Milloy are liars.

Your numbers multiplied by the number of decades.
.016 x 3 = .048 degrees C
.0085 x 6 = .051 degrees C

Which shows an increase of only .099 degrees Centigrade from 1910 to 2000. Yet Lomborg, Samuelson and Milloy all use numbers quite a bit higher than your number Bernard.

Are you saying that all the people you are quoting are liars? It appears so.

falsus in omnia Bernard. Definitely falsus in omnia.

This is what the IPCC says..


http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/049.htm

Once a liar, always a liar, Bernard. falsus in unum, falsus in omnia

I know that the base year is 1990. I also know that the prediction is that CO2 production would increase until new technologies come on line. You however claimed....

I see you failed to address the false statement you made that EU countries had failed to meet there Kyoto goals in 2002.

It appears you leave out things you don't want to address Bernard. Things like your complete disregard for facts.

The list of falsehoods from you is getting longer every day Bernard.

Falsus in Omnia.

Mr Samuelson fails to address the issue that the timeframe for Kyoto is 2008-2012 based on the 1990 base year. By 2012, we should see almost half of the fleet in the EU turned over. What is the proposed MPG for 2012 in the EU? Do you know? What is the present MPG? What will the result be as the fleet moves from the present MPG to the future MPG?

Are you arguing from ignorance Bernard? I would say you are.

So Bernard. When are you going to live up to this statement by you?


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2177808#2177808


I have replied to Samuelson's article. Instead of answering my question you have posted a bunch of other crap that makes no sense.

I ask again -- probably in vain -- what skin off your nose would it be if you behaved as though you believed global warming is real and acted accordingly?

Actually, the expression skin off your nose is apt: there would be less chance of being sunburned!

You can continue to act like an energy pig and ignore the matter. If you are wrong, the world is hurt. If you are right, no one is hurt.

Or you can help the world. If you are wrong, no one is hurt. If you are right, perhaps the problem will abate.

What is there to argue about?

BTW, did you all watch the repeat of 60 Minutes' piece on squashing the work of scientists concerned about global warming?

plainoldme, Can you imagine the savings in energy if the general public drove at 55 mph rather than the 70+ on our freeways?

The same skin that would come off my nose if I acted as if the doomsday scenarios of some fundamentalist evangelicals were true, and behaved as their bibles tell me to: "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand" (Apocalypse 1:3). Incidentally, I have heard this very same logic from several evangelicals I'd met. In rejected their argument for the same reason I reject yours: because I refuse to be bullied by other people's doomsday visions, or to play along with their various versions of Pascal's wager.

Or, more generally, I won't let you shove environmentalism down my throat for the same reason I won't let Pat Robertson do it with Christianity.

Thomas old boy, I think you are putting an unfair burden on Pascal. I agree fully with your point as it relates to the purveyors of single-issue doomsday forecasts: it was well-stated and accurate. However, Pascal was not one of them, and his wager had more to do with his inner spiritual life than any particular view of the world and its politics.

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

Also, the Bible quote came from the King James translation, which I think is used by American Catholics but not by evangelicals. I just like to use it for reference because it's much better written than the more modern translations.