Global Warming vs. Terrorism

More Bernard insanity..



The FAO report can be found here...
http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=6833&sitetreeId=32006&langId=1&geoId=0

% of forest in 2000 according to FAO 30.6%
% of forest in 1990 31.25%
% of forest in 2005 30.3%

Bernard's numbers as usual bear no relationship to reality.

How he subtracted 32.66 from 32.66 and got .44 I have no idea. Not only are his numbers completely made up his math is too.

okie,
I am still waiting for your evidence of a driver for Waste Connections being killed. Google gives me nothing. I doubt spilling 40 tons of garbage and a death was not news worthy.

My evidence is a personal friend that worked for the company. He went to the funeral not too long ago. Do I have to find something on the internet to prove it? If you don't believe it, I don't much care. Its a fact anyway.

Pathetic Parados evidently does not read:

He has, Okie been hit on the head so often and has been so tongue-tied that he is resorting to desperate tactics.

So, here is something for him to swallow,if he can!

Now, he should not, Okie that I am quoting from a source and that he must if he is any kind of a scientist( he isn't) REFUTE THAT SOURCE WITH HIS OWN SOURCE---

Source_-"The Skeptical Environmentalist" -By Bjorn Lomborg

quote- P. 114

"The UN carried out two surveys in 1995 and 1997 and evaluted a more limited definition of forest area for the period 1980-90 and 1990-95. The survey showed that the area covered by forest had shrunk from 27.15 percent to 25.8 percent, or by 1.35 percentage points, although THESE FIGURES ARE VITIATED BY CONSIDERABLE UNCERTAINTY BECAUSE RUSSIA WHICH HAS THE WORLD'S L A R G E S T FOREST COVER,WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SURVEY"

Okie- No response from Pathetic Parados- When he read this he soiled his diaper( See it in his avatar)

Again, Okie, when Pathetic Parados saw this one, he soiled himself again in fright but did not respond to the challenge--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic Parados posted a link. Unlike him, I do not soil myself in fear when I see a link. HE APPARENTLY NEVER READS A LINK OF MINE AND TRIES TO REBUT IT. NOW, I WILL POST THE'


CONCLUSION


TO HIS LINK.

page | Next page Other reports in this collection

3.7.4 Conclusions
The differences among the CO2 concentrations projected with the various SRES scenarios considered are larger than the differences caused by inclusion or omission of climate-mediated feedbacks. The range of uptake rates projected by process-based models for any one scenario is, however, considerable, due to uncertainties about (especially) terrestrial ecosystem responses to high CO2 concentrations, which have not yet been resolved experimentally, and uncertainties about the response of global NPP to changes in climate (Cramer et al., 1999). A smaller feedback would be implied if, as some models indicate, global NPP increases with warming throughout the relevant range of climates and no forest die back occurs. Larger positive feedbacks would be implied if regional drying caused partial die back of tropical forests, as some of the DGVMs in Cramer et al. (2001), and one coupled climate-carbon model study of Cox et al. (2000), suggest; however, another coupled climate-carbon model study (Friedlingstein et al., 2001) suggests a smaller feedback. Uncertainty also arises due to differences in the climate responses of ocean models, especially as regards the extent and effects (biological as well as physical) of increased stratification in a warmer climate (Joos et al., 1999b).

In conclusion, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are virtually certain to be the dominant factor determining CO2 concentrations throughout the 21st century. The importance of anthropogenic emissions is underlined by the expectation that the proportion of emissions taken up by both ocean and land will decline at high atmospheric CO2 concentrations (even if absolute uptake by the ocean continues to rise). There is considerable uncertainty in projections of future CO2 concentration, because of uncertainty about the effects of climate change on the processes determining ocean and land uptake of CO2. These uncertainties do not negate the main finding that anthropogenic emissions will be the main control.

Large-scale manipulations of terrestrial ecosystems have been proposed as a means of slowing the increase of atmospheric CO2 during the 21st century in support of the aims of the Kyoto Protocol (Tans and Wallace, 1999; IPCC, 2000a). Based on current understanding of land use in the carbon cycle, the impacts of future land use on terrestrial biosphere-atmosphere exchanges have the potential to modify atmospheric CO2 concentrations on this time-scale. Direct effects of land-use changes are thought to represent about 10 to 30% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Table 3.1), so there is scope for either intended or unintended changes in land use to reduce or increase total anthropogenic emissions. But the possibilities for enhancing natural sinks have to be placed in perspective: a rough upper bound for the reduction in CO2 concentration that could be achieved by enhancing terrestrial carbon uptake through land-use change over the coming century is 40 to 70 ppm (Section 3.2.2.2), to be considered against a two to four times larger potential for increasing CO2 concentraion by deforestation, and a >400 ppm range among the SRES scenarios (Figure 3.12).

END OF CONCLUSIONS-

Since I know you read this material, Okie, I am certain that you have noted how weak it is.

Look for Uncertainties

Uncertainties

A smaller feedback

Considerable Uncertainties

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

Indeed, Okie, as I already told Pathetic Parados,( but of course, he didn't even read it AS I JUST READ HIS LINK) the term UNCERTAINTY AND/OR UNCERTAIN APPEAR 43 TIMES IN THE REPORT FROM THE IPCC( P A R A D O S' S O U R C E).

If we access commentaries quoting from the report from the National Academy of Sciences

www.tcsdaily.com/article/aspx?id=060701F

which, reviews the IPCC REPORT REFERENCED BY PATHETIC PARADOS,

WE FIND THE FOLLOWING FROM PATHETIC PARADOS'S IPPC REPORT.

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 SHOULD BE REGARDED AS TENATIVE"


T H A T, O K I E, I S F R O M T H E I P C C R E P O R T CONCLUSIONS R E F E R E N C E D B Y P A R A D O S>

Will he explain it? No, Okie, he wont!! He is pathetic!!!


I am sure that he will not notice that I took his LINK apart!!!!!!!

He is too frightened to read and comment on mine!!!

HIS OWN LINK, OKIE, HIS OWN LINK!!!!

Okie- Never mind the cow's comments, she actually tried to post a comment about something she had HEARD in a debate--No link or evidence, just something she had HEARD!!

I believe your contention, Okie. You have posted evidence and documentation almost every time you made a post and, of course, Pathetic Parados overlooked it and responded with his infantile flatulent dribbles.

Okie- What Pathetic Parados does not know, or does not wish to know, that if there is any diminution of forests it is NOT in the USA but rather in those countries whose governments are so corrupt or inadequate that they either cannot or will not take care of their forests.

As usual, the USA leads in Forest management--Not so Africa.
Maybe Pathetic Parados can be encouraged to go to Africa to show them how to manage their forests.

I hear that the Congo has a large group of Cannibals, Okie!!!

Gee okie, I know someone that was killed by climate change so that disproves your silly claim that no one was.

Bernard expects to be taken seriously when he claims that the difference between 32.66 and 32. 66 is .44?


Then he refuses to deal with his simple math mistakes when they are pointed out. Tell us okie, do you agree with Bernard that 32.66 minus 32.66 is .44?

Parados expects to be taken seriously when he notes a typo instead of answering seventeen( 17) posts he has completely disregarded.

Pathetic Parados is quite aware that I did not make up that figure myself. It was taken from'The Skeptical environmentalist" P. 111. It reads--

"Global forest cover is estimated to have fallen from 32.66percent to 32.22 percent"

Now that the typo has been taken care of, ( I answer Pathtic Parados-He does not answer me since he practically defecates in his diapers when he sees some of my posts) we can go back to the seventeen( 17) questions YOU have not answered.

Clean your diaper, Parados and respond to this one. I am not afraid to respond to yours. This is No.1 of the seventeen you have not fully responded to--


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic Parados posted a link. Unlike him, I do not soil myself in fear when I see a link. HE APPARENTLY NEVER READS A LINK OF MINE AND TRIES TO REBUT IT. NOW, I WILL POST THE'


CONCLUSION


TO HIS LINK.

page | Next page Other reports in this collection

3.7.4 Conclusions
The differences among the CO2 concentrations projected with the various SRES scenarios considered are larger than the differences caused by inclusion or omission of climate-mediated feedbacks. The range of uptake rates projected by process-based models for any one scenario is, however, considerable, due to uncertainties about (especially) terrestrial ecosystem responses to high CO2 concentrations, which have not yet been resolved experimentally, and uncertainties about the response of global NPP to changes in climate (Cramer et al., 1999). A smaller feedback would be implied if, as some models indicate, global NPP increases with warming throughout the relevant range of climates and no forest die back occurs. Larger positive feedbacks would be implied if regional drying caused partial die back of tropical forests, as some of the DGVMs in Cramer et al. (2001), and one coupled climate-carbon model study of Cox et al. (2000), suggest; however, another coupled climate-carbon model study (Friedlingstein et al., 2001) suggests a smaller feedback. Uncertainty also arises due to differences in the climate responses of ocean models, especially as regards the extent and effects (biological as well as physical) of increased stratification in a warmer climate (Joos et al., 1999b).

In conclusion, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are virtually certain to be the dominant factor determining CO2 concentrations throughout the 21st century. The importance of anthropogenic emissions is underlined by the expectation that the proportion of emissions taken up by both ocean and land will decline at high atmospheric CO2 concentrations (even if absolute uptake by the ocean continues to rise). There is considerable uncertainty in projections of future CO2 concentration, because of uncertainty about the effects of climate change on the processes determining ocean and land uptake of CO2. These uncertainties do not negate the main finding that anthropogenic emissions will be the main control.

Large-scale manipulations of terrestrial ecosystems have been proposed as a means of slowing the increase of atmospheric CO2 during the 21st century in support of the aims of the Kyoto Protocol (Tans and Wallace, 1999; IPCC, 2000a). Based on current understanding of land use in the carbon cycle, the impacts of future land use on terrestrial biosphere-atmosphere exchanges have the potential to modify atmospheric CO2 concentrations on this time-scale. Direct effects of land-use changes are thought to represent about 10 to 30% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Table 3.1), so there is scope for either intended or unintended changes in land use to reduce or increase total anthropogenic emissions. But the possibilities for enhancing natural sinks have to be placed in perspective: a rough upper bound for the reduction in CO2 concentration that could be achieved by enhancing terrestrial carbon uptake through land-use change over the coming century is 40 to 70 ppm (Section 3.2.2.2), to be considered against a two to four times larger potential for increasing CO2 concentraion by deforestation, and a >400 ppm range among the SRES scenarios (Figure 3.12).

END OF CONCLUSIONS-

Since I know you read this material, Okie, I am certain that you have noted how weak it is.

Look for Uncertainties

Uncertainties

A smaller feedback

Considerable Uncertainties

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

Indeed, Okie, as I already told Pathetic Parados,( but of course, he didn't even read it AS I JUST READ HIS LINK) the term UNCERTAINTY AND/OR UNCERTAIN APPEAR 43 TIMES IN THE REPORT FROM THE IPCC( P A R A D O S' S O U R C E).

If we access commentaries quoting from the report from the National Academy of Sciences

www.tcsdaily.com/article/aspx?id=060701F

which, reviews the IPCC REPORT REFERENCED BY PATHETIC PARADOS,

WE FIND THE FOLLOWING FROM PATHETIC PARADOS'S IPPC REPORT.

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 SHOULD BE REGARDED AS TENATIVE"


T H A T, O K I E, I S F R O M T H E I P C C R E P O R T CONCLUSIONS R E F E R E N C E D B Y P A R A D O S>

Will he explain it? No, Okie, he wont!! He is pathetic!!!


I am sure that he will not notice that I took his LINK apart!!!!!!!

He is too frightened to read and comment on mine!!!

HIS OWN LINK, OKIE, HIS OWN LINK!!!!

Number two which makes Parados tremble in fear and soil his diaper-
You have not responded to this one either- Pathetic Parados--

N. Scafetta

Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA




B. J. West

Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Mathematical and Information Science Directorate, U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA




Abstract

We study the role of solar forcing on global surface temperature during four periods of the industrial era (1900-2000, 1900-1950, 1950-2000 and 1980-2000) by using a sun-climate coupling model based on four scale-dependent empirical climate sensitive parameters to solar variations. We use two alternative total solar irradiance satellite composites, ACRIM and PMOD, and a total solar irradiance proxy reconstruction. We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45-50% of the 1900-2000 global warming, and 25-35% of the 1980-2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted.


Received 19 December 2005; accepted 30 January 2006; published 9 March 2006.

Index Terms: 1616 Global Change: Climate variability (1635, 3305, 3309, 4215, 4513); 1626 Global Change: Global climate models (3337, 4928); 1650 Global Change: Solar variability (7537); 1699 Global Change: General or miscellaneous; 1739 History of Geophysics: Solar/planetary relationships.
*************************************************************

Note- Okie--done in March 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 3 you have not responded to because you fear that responding would destroy your lunacies!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct., Okie. I was hoping that Parados or Username would attempt to explain the unexplainable but you stated it precisely!

Dr. Lomborg's comment on this problem is illuminating( no pun intended) when he wrote:

"This theory( more intense solar activity) also has the tremendous advantage, compared to the greenhouse theory, that it CAN EXPLAIN THE TEMPERATURE CHANGES from 1860 to 1950 which the rest of the climate scientists WITH A SHRUG OF THEIR SHOULDERS HAVE ACCREDITED TO

" NATURAL VARIATION"


end of quote

Isn' t that nice, Okie--"Natural variation"!!!!

Here is another question you avoided, Pathetic Parados --- answer these questions:

l. HOW MUCH DOES THE INCREASED AMOUNT OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE AFFECT US? IF THE EFFECT IS SLIGHT, GLOBAL WARMING MAY NOT BE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT.

2.COULD THERE BE OTHER CAUSES BEHIND THE INCREASING TEMPERATURE?( I have posted some scientific peer-reviewed studies which claim that solar activity may be the cause of a great deal of the slight rise in temperature)

3. Are the scenarios written up by the IPCC reasonable? Some of the Assumptions fed into the IPCC scenarios are off the mark( just as the predictions made by the hapless purveyor of doom--Paul Ehrlich( who said we would all starve to death by 2000 because we could not control the population growth or grow enough food)

Ehrlich was way off. So are some of the IPCC assumptions!


Now, Pathetic Parados, Instead of just bloviating, I gave a link. Do you have one for your claims?

I have found that the defenders of Global Warming are quick to bloviate but cannot come up with scientific peer-approved studies.

Now, Parados, I know you have not even approached the five questions I repeated. Now I will replicate the sixth-----

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point # 6


Are the computer models good enough to incorporate all of the millions of pieces of data that needs to be fed into the models? How do we know?

Yes, Mr.Parados, How do we know that the computers are up to the job? This is no ordinary prediction but one involving the climate of the world in the future!

Here is another post you have completely ignored even though I have posted it several times. Is it because you have your thumb in your mouth. Parados?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank You-jp in Milwaukee. I am sure you stuck it to Parados and broke it off. Parados is completely intrangisent. He lets evidence pass by his uncomprehending eyes.

I have posted the following several times but the brain-dead Parados does not understand what it says--
Again--

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.


Like most forecasts, these won't come true. But unless they're wildly unreliable, they demonstrate that greenhouse emissions will still rise. Facing this prospect, we ought to align rhetoric and reality.

First, we should tackle some energy problems. We need to reduce our use of oil, which increasingly comes from unstable or hostile regions (the Middle East, Russia, Central Asia, Africa). This is mainly a security issue, though it would modestly limit greenhouse gases. What should we do? Even with today's high gasoline prices, we ought to adopt a stiff oil tax and tougher fuel economy standards, both to be introduced gradually. We can shift toward smaller vehicles, with more efficient hybrid engines. Unfortunately, Congress's energy bills lack these measures.

Second, we should acknowledge that global warming is an iffy proposition. Yes, it's happening; but, no, we don't know the consequences -- how much warming will occur, what the effects (good or bad) will be or where. If we can't predict the stock market and next year's weather, why does anyone think we can predict the global climate in 75 years? Global warming is not an automatic doomsday. In some regions, warmer weather may be a boon.

Third, we should recognize that improved technology is the only practical way of curbing greenhouse gases. About 80 percent of CO2 emissions originate outside the transportation sector -- from power generation and from fuels for industrial, commercial and residential use. Any technology solution would probably involve some acceptable form of nuclear power or an economic way of removing CO2 from burned fossil fuels. "Renewable" energy (wind, solar, biomass) won't suffice. Without technology gains, adapting to global warming makes more sense than trying to prevent it. Either way, the Bush administration rightly emphasizes research and development.

What we have now is a respectable charade. Politicians and advocates make speeches, convene conferences and formulate plans. They pose as warriors against global warming. The media participate in the resulting deception by treating their gestures seriously. One danger is that some of these measures will harm the economy without producing significant environmental benefits. Policies motivated by political gain will inflict public pain. Why should anyone applY

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

I have defied Parados to respond to ALL of the points listed by Samuelson.

He has not.

Why? He can not--It tears his Global Warming thesis to shreds!!!

I have posted six of the seventeen that Parados has NOT responded to. If and when he responds completely to these six,I will replicate the other eleven.

It is apparent that Parados does not know his derriere from a hole in the ground when he bloviates about Global Warming. HE RARELY CITES ANY SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES. Are we to assume that HE is a scientific article?
The Baby without a brain??????

So who might that be, the wooly mammoth?