Global Warming vs. Terrorism

No, Bernard, you are the one with the skectchy knowledge, considering you and Steve Milloy completely missed what Spencer was doing in his paper. If you will remember the previous discussion, some hundred of pages ago on the other climate change thread--perhaps you don't--Mears and Wentz made several points in Science in 2005. One was that the orbital dynamics of the sensor satellites needed correction and when corrected the troposphere in fact was warmings as GCMs predicted. A second, lesser, point was that Spencer et al had made "a simple algebraic error", which made their calculation inaccurate. They had, in other words, committed a rather large oopsie. Spencer copped to that, and that paper is his recalculation, using the UAH model for satellite dynamics again. His calculation upped their figure for tropospheric heating by a third, from .09 to .12 dgrees/decade--not a negligible amount. He didn't deal with the RSS vs. UAH question at all, and if you'll actually read the paper you cited you'll see he's very timorous about the whole thing "reasonable people can differ honestly" or something like that.. Since Mears and Wentz are the people who know more about the way the remote sensors actually operate, and how they change over time, their model is the generally cited one now, not the UAH one. Spencer in no way rebuts Mears. He doesn't deal with it at all.

Bernard, read the damned chapter. Get some accurate background. Weart cites thirty years of reasearch and I am just not going to cite every one of them,.

Mr. Parados answers #3- 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.
Quote:
All reconstructions indicate that the direct effect of variations in solar forcing over the 20th century was about 20 to 25% of the change in forcing due to increases in the well-mixed greenhouse gases

*************************************************************Yes, I read the IPCC report and this is what I found--

IPCC(2001a:12.2.3.2)- quote

The indirect solar effect is "difficult to assess due to limitations in observed data and the shortness of the corrleated time series...we conclude that mechanisms for the amplification of the solar forcing are not well established.

BUT NOT, MR. PARADOS--- N O W, You claim( I WILL GLADLY ACCEPT YOUR CLAIM AND SOURCE THAT 20 TO 25% OF THE CHANGE IN FORCING OVER THE 20TH CENTURY ARE DUE TO SOLAR FORCING,


Keeping in mind the admonitions concerning various aerosols and the difficulty ( ACCORDING TO THE IPCC) of measuring their effects on radiative forcing, you then claim that the solar forcing causes 20-25% of the changes in the earth's temperature?

If you are correct, what do we do about the Sun?

What about a sun shield blocking the sun from the atmosphere???????

As Dr. Lomber has written-

quote

P. 277''

"The point is that a theory like the sunspot theory has created a possible correlation in that a shorter sunspot cycle duration, such as the one we are now experiencing, means more intense solar activity, less cosmic radiation, fewer low-level clouds, and therefore higher temperatures, THIS THEORY ALSO HAS THE TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGE COMPARED TO THE GREENHOUSE THEORY, THAT IT CAN EXPLAIN TEMPERATURE CHANGES FROM 1860 TO 1950 WHICH THE REST OF THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, WITH A SHRUG OF THEIR SHOULDERS, ACCREDITED TO
"n a t u r a l v a r i a t i o n"



It appears that some of the European IPCC scientists( honest and uncompromising I am sure) like to cherry pick data!!

Point # 4- then the confused Mr, Parados answers thusly:

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.

Perhaps I was unclear: the book is online, You do not have to buy it from Harvard University Press. Follow the link. It's all there, all the citations, thirty years of research.

Oh, I can;t read it until I finish "The Skeptical Envrionmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg but , username, you are quite in error. Please note carefully the material below:

Measuring the Temperature of Earth From Space
Even with Needed Corrections, Data Still Don't Show the Expected Signature of Global Warming

By
Dr. Roy Spencer
Senior Scientist for Climate Studies
NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center


Originally Published: 8/13/98

The paper published by Wentz and Schabel in Nature this week (August 14, 1998) is bound to generate controversy about the satellite measurements of global tropospheric temperatures. These measurements, for the period since 1979, have been made with the TIROS-N satellite Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) by myself and Dr. John Christy (The University of Alabama in Huntsville). We are grateful to Wentz and Schabel for discovering the first convincing evidence for needed corrections to our satellite-based global temperatures.

However, we believe that there are a few important points that should be considered when reporting on this paper.

1) The spurious cooling in the satellite record due to the orbital decay ("downward drift") effect was only estimated by Wentz and Schabel as an average adjustment to our processed satellite data. The effect, which will have different values for the eight different satellites in the record, should instead be removed one satellite at a time before the satellites in the record are intercalibrated. We (John Christy and Roy Spencer) have performed this adjustment, with the results given below.

2) The effect reported by Mr. Wentz had been partly offset by an east-west drift in the satellites' orbits. The valuable discovery of the downward drift effect by Wentz and Schabel allowed us to separately quantify two consequences of the east-west drift (MSU instrument temperature change, and observation time-of-day change). We have now performed these adjustments as well (below).

3) The global decadal temperature trends, for the period 1979-1997, from the various satellite, weather balloon, and surface temperature measurements are as follows, in order of increasing temperature trend:



DEEP LAYER MEASUREMENTS


Weather balloon trend (Angell/NOAA) -0.07 deg. C/decade
Unadjusted satellite trend: -0.04 deg. C/decade
Weather balloon trend
(Parker, UK Met Office): -0.02 deg. C/decade
Our Adjusted Satellite Trend: -0.01 deg. C/decade
Wentz-estimated adjusted satellite trend: +0.08 deg. C/decade





SURFACE MEASUREMENTS


Sea surface and land surface temperatures
(U.K. Met Office): +0.15 deg. C/decade



It can be seen that the adjustment by Wentz and Schabel does not agree with our (more complete) adjustments, or to the weather balloon data. Instead, their adjustment comes closer to the surface thermometer measurements, and herein lies a temptation to jump to conclusions.

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.
***********************************************************

nOT ONLY IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TEMPERATURES MEASURED FOR THE SATELLITES WHICH YOU NOTED IN YOUR POST BUT THERE IS A SECTION WHICH YOU COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED IN THE MATERIAL ABOVE.


QUOTE

climate models suggest that that deep layer measured by the satellite an d weather baloons should be warming about 30% faster than the surface,

THIRTY DEGRESS FASTER!!!!!!!!!!!NO ESTIMATESD ARE NEAR THESE VALUES!!!

The research from 2005 supercedes anything from 1998. Or are you going to go all the way back to Ptolemy vs. Copernicus. Even if, as you seem to, you regard Spencer, 2005, as correct, despite the concensus behind Mears, you are stuck with the awkward fact that his daTa indicate the troposphere IS warming, despite your frequent posts, in caps, no less, that THERE IS NO WARMING TREND IN THE TROPOSPHERE.

YES, BERNARD, THE TROPOSPHERE IS WARMING, IS WARMING, IS WARMING. GET USED TO IT.

and might I sugest you learn the difference between percent and degrees?

Excuse the interruption. I was rebutting username/

Now--again--
Point # 4- then the confused Mr, Parados answers thusly:

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.
END OF QUOTE

Mr Parados apparently thiniks that computer models are akin to God like interventions. They aren't...

His point about the Stock Market is ludicrous. Markets have always gone up in the long run but the climate has NOT alwaus gotten warmer. We have had Ice Ages. I hope he knows that. And I hope that he knows, that if, God forbid, we ever have a world war with nuclear devices being used, there will be a nuclear W I N T E R!!!!

That is just one of the reasons why, in a world with limited resources, we must not spend foolishly, as Dr,. Lomborg points out, to cut off a tiny slice of temperature when we have to work to save the world from nuclear destruction!!!

and

As Dr. Lomborg has pointed out(see his book previously referenced)--P. 266-

"It is important to point our that ALL the IPCC's predictions are based on computer model simulations.In principle, there is nothing wrong with computer simulations to describe complex systems.This technique is widely used in natural science and economics for example. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE, HOWEVER, THAT THE RESULT OF SIMULATIONS DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON THE PARAMETERS AND ALGORITHIMS WITH WHICH THE COMPUTER IS FED, COMPUTERS ARE NUMBER CRUNCHERS, NOT CRYSTAL BALLS."



and

a visit to the report of the National Academy of Sciences( The most prestigious US Scientific group) at

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html?onpi_newbooks_060801

will find this observation by the prestigious group of scientists-

quote:

"Climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is LIMITED by UNCERTAINTIES in their formulation, the LIMITED SIZE of their calculations,and the DIFFICULTY OF INTERPRETING THEIR ANSWERS THAT EXHIBIT ALMOST AS MUCH COMPLEXITY AS IN NATURE"

But that shows that Mr. Parados does not know what he is talking about when he writes about the nature of predictions or modeling but

WE MUST GET BACK TO THE QUESTION ORIGINALLY ASKED OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERT- MR. PARADOS

Mr. Username- Don't imitate the hapless Parados- You saw my demurrer- Respond to it--

climate models suggest that that deep layer measured by the satellite an d weather baloons should be warming about 30% faster than the surface,

THIRTY DEGRESS FASTER!!!!!!!!!!!NO ESTIMATES ARE NEAR THESE VALUES!!!

and, You tell me that the Troposphere is warming and I tell you that it is warming by less than the global warming hysterics predicted and I tell you that the climate models suggest that the deep layer measured by the satellite and weather balloons should be warming about 30% faster than the surface.

Rebut that- Mr. Username!!!

Now that Parados's foolish and distorted ideas about the nature of predictions and modeling have been straightened out- we must return to question No. 4-

I asked-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question # 4 Exactly what are the predictions for the alleged warming?

How many degrees will the earth warm by 2050? By 2075?By 2100?

A precise answer, please, Mr. Parados.

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


Since he almost soiled his diaper when he saw this question and was aware that any answer on his part would be disasterous, he did not answer.

SO, I AM VERY SORRY TO SAY THAT I MUST GIVE MR. PARADOS AN

I N C O M P L E T E

Then the environmental expert<Mr. Parados, who,up to now, has been very stingy with references says:

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
after I asked:

Point # 5

How does the IPCC make its predictions for the alleged future warming? Does it use Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation MODELS?

Are the assumptions loaded into these Models based on evidence?

So, UNLIKE THE POORLY INFORMED MR. PARADOS, I WENT TO HIS LINK ABOVE AND WHAT DO YOU THINK I FOUND AS AN ANSWER?



Executive Summary
Considerable advances have been made in the understanding of processes and feedbacks in the climate system. This has led to a better representation of processes and feedbacks in numerical climate models, which have become much more comprehensive. Because of the presence of non-linear processes in the climate system, deterministic projections of changes are potentially subject to uncertainties arising from sensitivity to initial conditions or to parameter settings. Such uncertainties can be partially quantified from ensembles of climate change integrations, made using different models starting from different initial conditions. They necessarily give rise to probabilistic estimates of climate change. This results in more quantitative estimates of uncertainties and more reliable projections of anthropogenic climate change. While improved parametrizations have built confidence in some areas, recognition of the complexity in other areas has not indicated an overall reduction or shift in the current range of uncertainty of model response to changes in atmospheric composition



Here are the words that caught my eye--

Uncertainties..arising from parameter settings.


Exactly what I have been saying.

In fact in the Report I previously referenced- The National Academy of Sciences Report--

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html?onpi_newbooks_060801

The Academy issued its report and in that 28 page report, they mentioned UNCERTAIN AND/OR UNCERTAINTY FORTY THREE TIMES--43 TIMES.

The Global Warming hysterics are really sure of their findings--

LOL


But, to make a brief return to Question # 4 where Mr. Parados shows us he does not really understand the use of computers and modeling when they ARE APPLIED TO SUCH A HUGE UNDERTAKING SUCH AS PREDICTING THE CLIMATE IN THE NEXT HUNDRED YEARS.

Note below

source

http://www.sharpgary.org/Nature is Big.html

"Without computer models, there would be no evidence of global warming, no predictions of disaster, no Kyoto. . By simulating the climate on giant, ultra-fast computers, scholars try to find out how it will react to each new stimulus - like a doubling of CO2. An ideal computer model, however, would have to track five million parameters over the surface of the earth and through the atmosphere, and incorporate all relevant interactions among land, sea, air, ice and vegetation. According to one researcher, such a model would demand ten million trillion degrees of freedom to solve, a computational impossibility even on the most advanced supercomputer."


You got that, Mr. Parados? Ten million trillion degrees of freedom are needed.

What does that mean?

Ten Million degrees of freedom is the number of independent quantities necessary to express the values of all of the variable properties of a system.

Are you going to hold that the Computer models do this?

PLEASE!!!!!! Don't be ridiculous!!!

Then the confused Mr. Parados wrote:

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. end of Mr. Parados quote---
And I wrote:

Mr. Parados shows us he does not really understand the use of computers and modeling when they ARE APPLIED TO SUCH A HUGE UNDERTAKING SUCH AS PREDICTING THE CLIMATE IN THE NEXT HUNDRED YEARS.

Note below

source

http://www.sharpgary.org/Nature is Big.html

"Without computer models, there would be no evidence of global warming, no predictions of disaster, no Kyoto. . By simulating the climate on giant, ultra-fast computers, scholars try to find out how it will react to each new stimulus - like a doubling of CO2. An ideal computer model, however, would have to track five million parameters over the surface of the earth and through the atmosphere, and incorporate all relevant interactions among land, sea, air, ice and vegetation. According to one researcher, such a model would demand ten million trillion degrees of freedom to solve, a computational impossibility even on the most advanced supercomputer."


You got that, Mr. Parados? Ten million trillion degrees of freedom are needed.

What does that mean?

Ten Million degrees of freedom is the number of independent quantities necessary to express the values of all of the variable properties of a system.

Are you going to hold that the Computer models do this?

PLEASE!!!!!! Don't be ridiculous!!!


How long would it take to enter tens of trillions of data AND MAKE SURE THAT THE DATA HAS BEEN ENTERED CORRECTLY?

Tens of Trillions you say???????

And, as has been referenced previously on this point-


As Dr. Lomborg has pointed out(see his book previously referenced)--P. 266-

"It is important to point our that ALL the IPCC's predictions are based on computer model simulations.In principle, there is nothing wrong with computer simulations to describe complex systems.This technique is widely used in natural science and economics for example. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE, HOWEVER, THAT THE RESULT OF SIMULATIONS DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON THE PARAMETERS AND ALGORITHIMS WITH WHICH THE COMPUTER IS FED, COMPUTERS ARE NUMBER CRUNCHERS, NOT CRYSTAL BALLS."



and

a visit to the report of the National Academy of Sciences( The most prestigious US Scientific group) at

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html?onpi_newbooks_060801

will find this observation by the prestigious group of scientists-

quote:

"Climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is LIMITED by UNCERTAINTIES in their formulation, the LIMITED SIZE of their calculations,and the DIFFICULTY OF INTERPRETING THEIR ANSWERS THAT EXHIBIT ALMOST AS MUCH COMPLEXITY AS IN NATURE.


And what does Mr. Parados do? He says take a Statistics class. I am sorry but that is not enough of an explanation. Your reply is lacking substance. Grade D minus..

The hapless Mr. Parados talks about certainty

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.


REASONABLE CERTAINTY??????? What a hoot!!!!!

I have already referenced the National Academy of Sciences( I do hope that Mr. Parados knows who they are )and I have already outlined the enormous amount of computer input CORRECTLY ENTERED that is needed to make any kind of prediction about climate in the next fifty and/or hundred years, but, again---

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.10139.html?onpi_newebooks_060801

the National Academy of Sciences from its first page--

quote

"Because there is CONSIDERABLE UNCERTAINTY in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally, and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming shuold be regarded as TENTATIVE."

The addled Mr. Parados says--95% certainty. The National Academy of Scientists say--"regarded as tentative"


Student( Parados) claims more expertise than Academy and gives no linke or sources to show he is correct.

Grade F

And finally, Point # 8( I have 4 more points I have not raised yet, but since Mr.Parados has done so poorly thus far, I will not belabor him with those since he seems to have been unable to handle the first 8.

Point # 8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

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

and how does the environmental expert answer?


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.


First of all,it is clear that he is unresponsive. He does not answer the question. It may be that he does not know or that he is fearful that he will be trapped by his inability to answer adequately.

Second, according to Dr.Lomborg, the scenarios are SEVERELY FLAWED.

(Remember that this data is part of the data entered into the models which Mr. Parados says is 95% reliable. LOL LOL)

One scenario, called IS92a IS, ACCORDING TO DR.LOMBORG CLEARLY OFF TARGET

CLEARLY OFF TARGET


CLEARLY OFF TARGET

That scenario expects 8.4 Billion people in 2025 WHICH IS ALMOST HALF A BILLION BEYOND WHAT THE UN EXPECTS.

With garbage into the scenarios, we do not get the 95 % certainty that the confused Mr. Parados predicts, we get the garbage out.

There is much more on this particular scnario that is way off and then Dr. Lomborg tells of a new presentation

Quote

P.. 280

The 40 new scenarios(NO WONDER THE INFORMATION CHALLENGED MR. PARADOS DID NOT WANT TO GIVE ANY SCENARIO INFORMATION)

QUOTE Dr. Lomborg---

" Turning to the 4O NEW IPCC SCENARIOS, the modelers have EXPLICITLY ABANDONED THE IDEA OF PREDICTING THE FUTURE AND INSTEAD TALK ABOUT PROJECTIONS AND POSSIBLE FUTURES.

As one of the modeling groups fairly honestly point out, the IPPC scenarios are 'AN ATTEMPT AT COMPUTERIZED STORY TELLING.


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

Mr. Parados, an environmentalist expert, did not qnswer the question asked--GRADE F

Mr.Parados did very poorly. He, as usual, skipped over questions, avoided most of them, and listed very few references.

If he needs some extra help in understanding global warming or the lack of it, I would be happy to give him the appropriate references!

BernardR says

"Second, according to Dr.Lomborg, the scenarios are SEVERELY FLAWED.

(Remember that this data is part of the data entered into the models which Mr. Parados says is 95% reliable. LOL LOL)

One scenario, called IS92a IS, ACCORDING TO DR.LOMBORG CLEARLY OFF TARGET

CLEARLY OFF TARGET


CLEARLY OFF TARGET

That scenario expects 8.4 Billion people in 2025 WHICH IS ALMOST HALF A BILLION BEYOND WHAT THE UN EXPECTS.

With garbage into the scenarios, we do not get the 95 % certainty that the confused Mr. Parados predicts, we get the garbage out. "

One does have to wonder why Bernard places such faith in Lomborg, who does not do his own research and seemingly pulls numbers out of a hat, which Bernard believes uncritically. If Bernard did three minutes of research he would find that 8.4 billion people is somewhat below the UN high variant projections as made in 1996 and 2004. Their population range for 2025 is about 7.7 billion to 8.5 billion. So 8.4 is not at all CLEARLY OFF TARGET. Lomborg is OFF TARGET.

I didn't say it. The IPCC said it. This directly contradicted your claim that the IPCC denied solar forcing had anything to do with warming. Feel free to correct your statement. Some people cherry pick others just flat out ignore evidence.
Not only does the IPCC deal with solar forcing but it states it is partially the reason for warming. That directly contradicts you.

There is no sharpgary.org Bernard.

Your link doesn't work.

username -- Thanks for joining this thread.

I skipped over questions? You asked 8 questions numbered 1 - 8. I gave 8 answers numbered 1-8. You might not like my answers but to say I skipped the question is completely false.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2187092#2187092