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.

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!!