Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Point # 8--
Do the Computer Models return only one answer for alleged temperature growth? Does the IPCC present a series of scenarios. How many scenarios do they present? Are these scenarios realistic?


Can Mr. Parados present evidence that the scenarios have covered all of the possible permutations and combinations of future world action in the energy sphere?

I now await Mr. Parados' answers to the questions. They should be easy to answer without obfuscation or juggling of numbers. It should be simple to prevent avoidance of certain parts of a question as when a long post is made. Mr. Parados is put on notice that if he avoids answering any of the eight questions, he will be reminded which of the questions he has not answered!

Bernard,

You have yet to answer my question as you promised.

You have yet to deal with your numbers that are different from Milloy, Samuelson, Gray, and Lomborg.

Just keep throwing crap out there Bernard. I love the ignorance displayed in your questions. You even go so far as to ask a similar question to what I asked you.

1. Ignorant question. Recent data shows that the troposhpere is closer to the predicted warming. The warming isn't .19 as one researcher claimed but it is still warmer than readings 6 years ago because of changes. There is no "Should be" in the readings. There are predictions. You don't seem to understand the word "prediction"

2. There are not "spikes" in the 20th century. There are periods of warming. If you bothered to read even half the crap you post you would have known this. Where is your citation for 5 times the CO2 today vs the early part of the century?
A little hint for you Bernard. Anthrogenic CO2 doesn't make up the majority of CO2 in the atmosphere. Another hint - temperature doesn't increase at the same rate as CO2 concentrations
SO2 acts to cool the earth. That is why we had cooling in the mid 20th century. 2 large volcanic eruptions increased the SO2.
Actually, the surface temperatures are slightly warmer than most of the computer models predicted they would be.

3. The IPCC mentioned it only briefly? Perhaps you haven't read the IPCC report at all.
chapter 6
chapter 12
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/254.htm#tab613
The IPCC never says there is no effect with solar radiation. It says.




4. You seem to not understand the nature of predictions or modeling. What will the stock market be in 2050, 2075, 2100? Does you inability to give me a precise answer prove that the stock market doesn't go up?
Statistical modeling is a % of accuracy 90-95% is the usual standard. Go take a statistics class if you want to know more.
The predictions have been talked about before here.

5. If you had bothered to read the IPCC report you would have your answer. You might want to start with chapter 7 of the IPCC report
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/260.htm

6. Computers can handle trillions upon trillions of pieces of data. The only question with the computers is the time it takes to do all the computation. Computers, after all, model nuclear explosions.
The models are based on reasonable statistical analysis. Again, take a statistics class.

7. Uncertainity is part of prediction. It is also part of statistics. A 95% certainty means there is still some uncertainty. Your question shows ignorance. How can you be certain the sun will come up tomorrow? You can't. There is always uncertainty in any future prediction. You create a reasonable certainty using statistics and backward checking of the model.

8. Computer models return a range of answers. Statistics again Bernard. The range of answers within a 95% certainty is the usual range given. You know the IPCC presents 6 scenarios if you ever read what you posted. Silly question on your part. We have already answered this question of how realistic when you did your math wrong earlier in the thread. Go back and read it again.

ORVILLE HUNTINGTON'S childhood summers were full of water. An Athabascan Indian from the interior Alaska village of Huslia, Huntington grew up next to the Koyukuk River in a landscape dotted with lakes and wetlands. "When I was a boy hunting here, all these hills were full of lakes," he says. But during the past two decades, much of that water has become only a memory. More than half the area's lakes, Huntington estimates roughly, have simply vanished. "They turn into meadows," he says. "Then they turn into grass."

The Huslia region is not alone. Bodies of water reportedly are drying up all over Alaska. "I've heard it everywhere," says Huntington, who has traveled the state working as a liaison between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Native groups. "Not just in the interior but in all the villages I've gone to."

In recent years, scientists too have taken notice of the phenomenon. "Evidence has mounted really quickly that this is a large-scale problem," says ecologist Brad Griffith of the Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Although much remains to be learned, big changes clearly are taking place in the plumbing of the Far North, and the effects are sure to reverberate through entire ecosystems. "If we begin to think it's happening in a lot of places, then the implications for wildlife and subsistence resources are pretty substantial," Griffith says.

More than half of Alaska's surface, including its water, sits on perennially frozen soil or ice?-called permafrost?-that has long served as a pool liner. As University of Alaska-Fairbanks (UAF) permafrost scientist Vladimir Romanovsky likes to point out, "The stability of Arctic ecosystems depends on the ice that holds them together." And there's the rub: As our planet heats up with global warming, permafrost is starting to thaw. The effect for many bodies of water has been "to pull the cork out from underneath," says ecologist Torre Jorgensen of the Fairbanks biological research firm ABR, Inc.

Other factors too are probably playing a role, as evidenced on Alaska's permafrost-free Kenai Peninsula, where lakes and wetlands are giving way to woodlands. Evaporation caused by higher temperatures and a drier climate may be among the reasons, but degrading permafrost looks like a major factor in the drying trend elsewhere in the state.


Not all permafrost is the same. It can be solid ice or frozen soil, and it varies greatly in depth and temperature. On the Arctic coastal plain north of the Brooks Range, the permafrost tends to be extremely deep. But in most of the rest of the state, it is relatively shallow and generally grows spottier toward Alaska's southern end. In much of the interior, the permafrost has warmed near the surface to within a few degrees Centigrade of zero, the melting point. In some places, including spots along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, it is within one degree of zero.

The drying effect of continued thawing is likely to lead to more wildfires. Two summers ago, Alaska experienced its largest wildfire season on record. Combined, the areas that burned exceeded the size of Massachusetts. Last summer too was a big wildfire year, the third largest on record. If the organic matter in the tundra burns through, little is left to insulate the frozen layer below from the warm air above. "After fires, permafrost is not recovering in many areas," says UAF hydrologist Larry Hinzman. "People think climate change is going to be gradual, but this is a phase change." In other words, the ecosystem in those areas could be shifting within just a few years to an entirely different system. Adds ecologist Dave Klein, also of UAF, "So you could likely have a rapid transition from boreal forest to a grassland savannah, with groups of trees scattered around."

One of the first studies to report that lakes were dwindling actually was intended to help researchers track the effects of fire cycles. The idea was to inspect satellite images for differences in land cover, such as trees and other vegetation. But as the researchers looked at their first sets of images, taken of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park in 1986 and 1995, they noticed an astonishing change: Out of 242 ponds and lakes, 156 had noticeably shrunk. Many had simply disappeared. "It was sort of like, ?'Whoa, check this out,'" recalls Dave Verbyla, a UAF forestry and remote-sensing expert.

In 2001, another UAF team reported that 22 of 24 lakes in a study area on Alaska's Seward Peninsula had shrunk noticeably between 1951 and 2000. "Many climate-change models say it's going to get wetter," says hydrologist Hinzman, who led the study. "We say it's going to get dryer."

Meanwhile, one of Verbyla's students, Brian Riordan, studied nine other sites around the state. In 2004, he reported in his master's thesis that at six of the sites, some lakes dwindled noticeably during the last half of the last century. The lakes with the most loss were the southernmost, in the Copper River Basin. Yet another study, published in spring 2005, found that lake loss is not confined to Alaska. During a 30-year period starting in the 1970s, a lake-studded part of northern Siberia lost 360 square miles of lake surface from a region covering 44,400 square miles. Although melting permafrost is not the complete explanation, wrote the researchers, led by University of California-Los Angeles geographer Laurence C. Smith, "the ultimate effect of continued climate warming on high-latitude, permafrost-controlled lakes and wetlands may well be their widespread disappearance."


The anecdotal evidence, too, has been adding up. "I've gone out with 1960s topo maps and walked to a lake expecting it to be a single lake and found it broken up into two or three small lakes," says UAF biologist Mark Lindberg, who has studied birds in the Yukon Flats. "You go, ?'Hold it. This isn't right. I should be able to paddle from this lake to that lake.' Instead, you find yourself dragging a canoe. Some lakes shown on the map don't even exist anymore."

Of course, Alaska for now contains an almost unfathomable amount of standing water. At last count, the state was dotted with no fewer than 3 million lakes. That water supports a wilderness spectacle almost unchanged by humankind.

Millions of migrant birds?-ducks, geese, loons and shorebirds?-use the Far North's lakes and wetlands for breeding, nesting, feeding, staging or molting. They are joined by other creatures large and small, from 1,500-pound moose to tiny wood frogs. In early spring, just after the ice melts, the 3-inch-long frogs come out of a suspended-animation deep freeze to congregate at water's edge and sing symphonies during a brief mating season. Throughout the summer, moose lumber into ponds to feed on mineral-rich, easy-to-digest underwater vegetation.

No one knows for sure how the drying may be affecting, or could eventually affect, these species. How deep a lake freezes, or even for how long, can determine what life it supports. Fish need deep water so they can huddle in unfrozen pockets. When a lake becomes so shallow that it freezes solid, it no longer supports fish or the animals that eat them. As it drains further, it fosters surface vegetation that supports grazers rather than divers. And if it dries up altogether, it will not even support birds like the Arctic tern, the world's champion migrant, which is not a picky eater: From its hovering position over ponds, the Arctic tern spies and dives to feed on a varied menu of fish, insects and other invertebrates.

Conservationists are particularly concerned about the yellow-billed loon, which nests close to water, does not cope well with disturbance and ranks as North America's rarest loon. "Any slight rise in the water level or slight lowering of the water level can make an otherwise good nesting area a bad nesting area," says Mike Frank, an attorney with the environmental law firm Trustees for Alaska. "If the shoreline is underlain with permafrost, and the permafrost melts, the shoreline may subside, and the nesting area may be lost." A coalition of conservation groups is petitioning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the species as threatened or endangered.

Almost all of the reports of vanishing lakes come from parts of the sub-Arctic where permafrost is spotty, or discontinuous. In the most northern regions of very deep permafrost, the frozen pool liner underneath the lakes will support the water for a very long time to come. But that doesn't mean all of those ecosystems are stable. In western Siberia, where the permafrost is ice-rich and extremely deep, an astonishing 390,000 square miles is becoming wetter, not drier. As the ice melts from the top down, the region is turning into an enormous bog. For other reasons, lakes also are growing in some parts of Alaska, including areas along the Koyukuk River, where warming water is thawing the permafrost edges.

Thawing permafrost also produces other effects. Researchers and other observers have reported seeing more landslides, with sheets of tundra sliding off hillsides and coming to rest in bizarre folds. In Fairbanks, the interior's largest city, sinkholes from melting permafrost ice wedges are opening up along roadsides and in yards. Some roads and bike paths look like roller coaster rides.


Even on the northern coastal plain, Inupiat Eskimos are noticing that permafrost is melting as they have never seen before. Last summer, when subsistence hunter Roy Nageak of Barrow and his son tried to retrieve muktuk?-a whale-skin-and-blubber delicacy?-and whale meat from their permafrost cellar for guests, they found that dripping water had coated their ladder with ice and that stalagmites of ice rose from the cellar floor. Nageak and others in the region are also starting to see water from their lakes escaping through channels in the permafrost. "Water," Nageak says. "When it finds a way, it will drain out."

Lisa W. Drew learned about ice wedges and permafrost sinkholes firsthand from scientists in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Catholics have never used The King James version: the very name should tell you that. They used the Douy-Rheims translated by the French seminary. The New Jerusalem was the work of an amazing committee of writers that included J.R.R. Tolkien.

This isn't a good or relevant argument. To equate science -- in fact, to equate the evidence of one's senses with the sort of superstition put forth by the religious right is silly.

Mr. Parados wrote:

1. Ignorant question. Recent data shows that the troposhpere is closer to the predicted warming. The warming isn't .19 as one researcher claimed but it is still warmer than readings 6 years ago because of changes. There is no "Should be" in the readings. There are predictions. You don't seem to understand the word "prediction"

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

Note carefully what Mr. Parados ADMITS--

Recent data shows that the troposphere is CLOSER to the predicted warming( AND I AM CLOSER TO BEING A MILLIONAIRE- IF I ONLY HAD $400,000 EXTRA)

That means, of course, that the dreaded catastrophe of flooded cities and deserts in the Arctic will not be forthcoming.

Mr. Parados slyly avoids telling us EXACTLY how much the temperature in the Troposphere has gone up.


BUT MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, ( as Mr. Parados ALWAYS DOES) he does not address the very important point made with regard to what temperature the TROPOSPHERE NEEDS TO REACH BEFORE IT CAN AFFECT THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE.


Mr. Parados will dodge this also. He gives no temperature increase above( Why? Is it too miniscule?) and he SIGNIFICANTLY DOES NOT COMMENT ON THE EVIDENCE BELOW:


4) The adjusted satellite trends are still not near the expected value of global warming predicted by computer climate models. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 1995 estimate of average global warming at the surface until the year 2100 is +0.18 deg. C/decade. Climate models suggest that the deep layer measured by the satellite and weather balloons should be warming about 30% faster than the surface (+0.23 deg. C/decade). None of the satellite or weather balloon estimates are near this value.


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

C L I M A T E M O D E L S S U G G E S T T H A T T H E

D E E P L A Y E R M E A S U R E D B Y T H E S A T E L L I T E

A N D W E A T H E R B A L L O O N S S H O U L D B E W A R M I N G

ABOUT 30% ABOUT 30% ABOUT 30%

FASTER THAN THE SURFACE.

NONE NONE NONE NONE OF THE SATELLITES OR BALOON ESTIMATES ARE NEAR THIS VALUE>

Then Mr. Parados says: There is no "should be"in the readings.
I did not write "should be" in my post. Is Mr. Parados hallucinating?

He will not find "should be" in the post I wrote:

See below:

Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:11 pm Post: 2186882 -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point # 1---


Question for Mr. Parados--

Recent data have shown that the alleged warming of the troposphere has not achieved the temperatures noted by the Global Warming enthusiasts. Indeed, the new evidence has shown that the troposphere's temperature gain is BELOW that listed by the Global Warming hysterics and that the temperature needed in the troposphere to achieve the kind of warming needed to raise surface temperatures is far below what it should be.


DOES MR. PARADOS REJECT THE NEW EVIDENCE? IF SO, WHY?

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


Grade for Mr. Parados on his answer for Point No. 1--D minus--He tried, poor fellow.

You don't even know what words you write in your own posts.

You are correct, Mr. Parados,I overlooked two words. I am honest enough to say so- NOW IF YOU HAVE ANY INTEGRITY-- Respond to my downgrading of your posts!

Is my omission of the words Should Be, half as stupid as an environmental "Expert"-Mr. Parados writing ANTHROGENIC(sic) instead of ANTHROPOGENIC> iT IS NOT A TYPO, MR. PARADOS LEFT OUT TWO LETTERS, The environmental genius is unable to spell a critical word used often in Global Warming studies. The word is ANTHROPOGENIC, Mr. Parados.

Now on to the rest of your mistakes--

His answer to Point # 2

2. There are not "spikes" in the 20th century. There are periods of warming. If you bothered to read even half the crap you post you would have known this. Where is your citation for 5 times the CO2 today vs the early part of the century?
A little hint for you Bernard. Anthrogenic CO2 doesn't make up the majority of CO2 in the atmosphere. Another hint - temperature doesn't increase at the same rate as CO2 concentrations
SO2 acts to cool the earth. That is why we had cooling in the mid 20th century. 2 large volcanic eruptions increased the SO2.
Actually, the surface temperatures are slightly warmer than most of the computer models predicted they would be.


Readers will note carefully that he veered away from the basic question as soon as possible. He was evidently scared to death of it.

Note My point #2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point # 2

It is accepted by all, even the global warming hysterics, that the surface temperatures in the Twentieth Century shows two spikes. One in the early part of the Century and the second after 1975. Given the accepted fact that the CO2 emissions, which the Global Warming Hysterics blame for warming, were only one fifth as high in the early part of the century with a spike in the temperatures, and then five times higher in the latter part of the century, why has the surface temperature in the latter part of the century not been higher?

Can you answer this, Mr. Parados

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

First of all, the word spikes is not necessary, periods of warming will do.

Secondly,in the third line, he hurries away from the question. Why did the surface tempearature increase almost as fast from 1910 to 1945 as it did from 1975 to 2000?

He does not answer that except with a vague allusion( AS USUAL HE GIVES NO REFERENCES TO SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS) to two large volcanic eruptions increasing the SO2--This is just not enough according to all the studies to have caused the extent of the increase from 1910 to 1945( I will show this with scientific reference and the So2 allusion made by Mr, Parados as causes is simply incorrect( I will show this with scientific references( which he, Mr.Parados, asking me to take his word for it-LOLLOLLOL--will not do)


First, If Mr. Parados can reference Barnett et. al. "Detection and Attribution of Recent Climate Change"

http://ams.allenpress,com

he would find that all of the twentieth century's temperature increase has occurred abruptly within two time periods from 1910 to 1945 and from 1975 to 2000. Rere

The same article notes that while 1975 t0 2000 fits well within the concerns of the envrionmental hystericsm the time period from 1910 to 1945 is harder to align with the human emission of grfeenhouse gases SINCE THE CONCENTRATION AND INCREASE IN THE EARLY PART OF THE CENTURY WAS S L I G H T( I will give evidence below)

But, first, a reference for Mr. Parados( if he is able to understand it).

"Global and hemispheric temperature anomalies-land and marine instrumental records"

Global temoerature 1856-2000

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html

Bernard,

I saw no need to answer your silly statement of temperature increasing almost as fast from 1910-1945 since you have shown there was no abrupt warming then.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2182287#2182287


Now. the IPCC shows warming from 1975-2000 of .2 per decade. .016 compared to .2 Using those 2 numbers, it warmed over 10 times faster in the later period. I don't know of too many rational people that would say something is "almost as fast" as another thing that is 10 times faster.

(Oh.. that's right. You won't respond when I bring up your numbers stating .016 per decade warming from 1910-1940..)

According to your figures Bernard there was almost no warming in that time period. Since there was no warming why did you ask the question?
Certainly the warming wasn't nearly as fast if we use YOUR numbers for 1910-1945. Using your numbers it is statistically insignificant in that time period

Falsus in omnia Bernard.

Really- Well Mr. Parados, you are either blind to evidence or a vicious liar:

Source: IAEA Bulletin 42,2; 2000

Global warming concerns firm up.

The science behind the politics of global warming took a step forward and also ratcheted up concerns with the release of the Third Assessment Report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in September 2001.

Among its findings:

Over the 20th century the global average surface temperature has increased by about 0.6 degrees C Most of the warming occurred from 1910 to 1945 and 1976 to 2000.
Globally it is likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year recorded (since 1861). Certainly this seems to be the case in the northern hemisphere not simply since 1861 but for the last ten centuries.
On average, between 1950 and 1993, night time daily minimum air temperatures over land increased by about 0.2 degrees C per decade, lengthening the freeze-free period in many mid to high latitudes.
Since the 1950s the lower part of the atmosphere has warmed at about 0.1 degrees C per decade, as snow and ice cover have decreased in extent by about 10%, and Arctic sea ice thickness more than this.
In parts of Africa and Asia, the frequency and intensity of droughts have been observed to increase in recent decades.
However, some important aspects of climate appear not to have changed, including storm frequency and intensity and the extent of Antarctic sea ice.
The observed changes are attributed almost entirely to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases caused by human activities, offset to some extent by other human effects:

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

The first paragraph, after among its findings, says you are either blind to evidence or a vicious liar.

Now, back to Point 2 which is incomplete. Mr. Parados, as we shall see is failing fast

And does the fact that you pay no attention to the last paragraph prove you are either blind or a vicious liar, Bernard?

Ah, I see you edited your post before, apparently, anyone but me saw it, Bernard.

oh, nope, my bad, your charge is still there in the post before I thought it was in.

One does have to wonder why it is that Bernard repeatedly treats the slight cooling from roughtly 1940 to 1970 as if it were some sort of mystery and completely ignores the extensive literature over the last thirty years which rather convincingly attributes it to the sulfates and aerosols that were produced by the rapid and unprecedented growth in industry over that period, which masked the effect of CO2 increase. Sulfates and aerosols have short lives in the atmosphere, several years at most, so have to be continually replenished to have an effect. CO2 by contrast remains for, on average, around a hundred years. Once there, we've got it on our hands for longer than we'll live. Sulfates and aerosols, among other things, act as condensate nuclei for clouds and increase rain and cooling, which is well known (remember acid rain?). The switch from coal to oil to natural gas and the indtorduction of pollution controls in industry, and particularly in motor transport reduced their production and hence the effect of CO2, which had been their all the time, became again the primary cause of temp. increase.

Which is why, on the other global warming trend, someone, I think littlek, cited the German scientist who was suggesting we inject sulfur into the air in large quantities, to counteract global warming. Been there, done that, 1940-1970.

If you'd like a history of the whole sulfate question, and the research on it, try www.aip.org/history/climate "The Discovery of Global Warming", by Spencer Weart, Harvard University Press (you do place great credence in Harvard, don't you, Bernard?). It's available online there, and one chapter (5 or 7 if memory serves, and it may very well not), deals with it in exhausting detail.

Really? Where do you get the idea that the cooling comes from the sulfates and the aerosols. Username? Where is the study that shows that?

If you have no study or reference, I cannot accept your post since the studies I have read mitigate the influence of aerosols and sulfates.

Here you are, Username--

Here is what Dr. Lomborg writes in his book-The Skeptical Enviromentalist- P. 267_ Please do not obfuscate or dodge the questions posed below about sulfates and aerosols like the confused Mr. Parados does--reply to the stattement directly.

Quote- L:omborg

Basically, the aerosols in the IPCC models are posited to hide a srong warming from CO2 but this HINGES ON THE CLAIM that particlas overall have a large cooling effect. HOWEVER AS IS APPARENT FROM THE EVIDENCE(IPCC:Table 6.11,figure 6.6) THIS ESTIMATE IS V E R Y U N C E R T A I N. There are a large numbe of DIFFERENT effects from aerosols,both POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, AND ALL H A V E V E R Y L A R G E U N C E R T A I N T I E S( you do know what an uncertainty is, don't you, Username) sulphate particles have a significant cooling effect BUT WITH AN UNCERTAINTY FACTOR OF TWO--THE ACTUAL COOLING COULD BE HALF OR TWICE AS GREAT...Aerosols from biomass also have a smaller cooling effect with an uncertainty factor of THREE. Particles from fossil fuels make both black carbon with a warming effect( 2xuncertainty) and organic carbon with a cooling effect( 3x uncertainty) problematical....THE LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING FOR ALL THE EFFECTS IS JUDGED TO BE "V E R Y L O W" EXCEPT FOR THE DIRECT SULPHATE AEROSOLS, WHERE IT IS JUDGED TO BE LOW.

I N SUMMARY THE IPCC STATES QUOTE 'the effect of the increasing amont of radiative corcing is complex and not yet very well known.

Source Hansen et. al. "Climate forcings in the industrial era"
http://www.psnap.org


Why don't you read up, Username? You dont seem to know very much about the subject. Try Dr. Roy Spencer to start--You can find him easily on the Internet!!