Global warming is 'twice as bad as previously thought'
Ilena Rose
Global warming is 'twice as bad as previously thought'
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
27 January 2005
Global warming might be twice as catastrophic as previously thought,
flooding settlements on the British coast and turning the interior
into an unrecognisable tropical landscape, the world's biggest study
of climate change shows.
Researchers from some of Britain's leading universities used computer
modelling to predict that under the "worst-case" scenario, London
would be under water and winters banished to history as average
temperatures in the UK soar up to 20C higher than at present.
Globally, average temperatures could reach 11C greater than today,
double the rise predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, the international body set up to investigate global warming.
Such high temperatures would melt most of the polar icecaps and
mountain glaciers, raising sea levels by more than 20ft. A report this
week in The Independent predicted a 2C temperature rise would lead to
irreversible changes in the climate.
The new study, in the journal Nature, was done using the spare
computing time of 95,000 people from 150 countries who downloaded from
the internet the global climate model of the Met Office's Hadley
Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. The program, run as a
screensaver, simulated what would happen if carbon dioxide levels in
the atmosphere were double those of the 18th century, before the
Industrial Revolution, the situation predicted by the middle of this
century.
David Stainforth of Oxford University, the chief scientist of the
latest study, said processing the results showed the Earth's climate
is far more sensitive to increases in man-made greenhouse gases than
previously realised. The findings indicate a doubling of carbon
dioxide from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million would
increase global average temperatures by between 2C and 11C.
Mr Stainforth said: "An 11C-warmed world would be a dramatically
different world... There would be large areas at higher latitudes that
could be up to 20C warmer than today. The UK would be at the high end
of these changes. It is possible that even present levels of
greenhouse gases maintained for long periods may lead to dangerous
climate change... When you start to look at these temperatures, I get
very worried indeed."
Attempts to control global warming, based on the Kyoto treaty,
concentrated on stabilising the emissions of greenhouse gases at 1990
levels, but the scientists warned that this might not be enough. Mr
Stainforth added: "We need to accept that while greenhouse gas levels
can increase we need to limit them, level them off then bring them
back down again."
Professor Bob Spicer, of the Open University, said average global
temperature rises of 11C are unprecedented in the long geological
record of the Earth. "If we go back to the Cretaceous, which is 100
million years ago, the best estimates of the global mean temperature
was about 6C higher than present," Professor Spicer said. "So 11C is
quite substantial and if this is right we would be going into a realm
that we really don't have much evidence for even in the rock
[geological] record."
Myles Allen, of Oxford University, said: "The danger zone is not
something we're going to reach in the middle of the century; we're in
it now." Each of the hottest 15 years on record have been since 1980.
W. D. Allen Sr.
end
"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:989iv0tsiksvr8f39...@4ax.com...
Coby Beck
"W. D. Allen Sr." <ball...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:84adnZwssNS...@adelphia.com...
> "....computer modeling...." don't bother to read any further!
>
How would you suggest trying to predict the impacts of human activity on
global climate?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
owl
<ball...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>"....computer modeling...." don't bother to read any further!
>
>end
Post by Allen Sr. Don't bother to think any further.
owl
<ball...@adelphia.net> wrote:
Some of the new modelling parameters are barely out of test phase.
It's been noted in other artcles that previous generation simulators
tended to pick up bias from eachother - and that led to the 2-6d range
for temperature increases. One of the new versions sent increases
flying off the charts - it had no global water circulation.
If this thing pans out like the Seti search screen-saver (later,
better batch run options), you'll see fairly frequent updates
available as the models are enhanced and debugged. The Nature article
is PDF'd at:
http://www.climateprediction.net/science/pubs/nature_first_results.pdf
If you're looking to 'join the club':-
Jonathan Kirwan
>Myles Allen, of Oxford University, said: "The danger zone is not
>something we're going to reach in the middle of the century; we're in
>it now." Each of the hottest 15 years on record have been since 1980.
When Allen says this, can anyone tell me how this is resolved? When someone
says "hottest year on record," what record and how is the values adduced for it?
Does this mean going back 120 years or so, or going back to where tree rings
might take us (if we can find enough points around the globe to make a reasoned
guess about 'global' values), or ... what exactly. My own sense is that it
cannot go back too far as sorting things to parts of degrees seems to imply
fairly good global means.
Just trying to know what it means were I to repeat such a comment to someone
else.
Jon
Ian St. John
> "....computer modeling...." don't bother to read any further!
It is surpising that WDA made it that far. Must have had someone to help
with the big words.
owl
<jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:30:27 -0600, Ilena Rose <il...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Myles Allen, of Oxford University, said: "The danger zone is not
>>something we're going to reach in the middle of the century; we're in
>>it now." Each of the hottest 15 years on record have been since 1980.
>
>When Allen says this, can anyone tell me how this is resolved? When someone
>says "hottest year on record," what record and how is the values adduced for it?
Measuring devices and records started in Europe about 1700. By 1900
the manual record-keeping had spread throughout much of Europe and
North America. A decade later, sites were dotted across the Northern
Hemisphere and the tropical/temperate parts of the Southern Hemisphere
- mostly urban but not the modern heat factory cities. By the middle
of the century more standard approaches were in place, and more
stations were recording from rural areas to avoid urban intereference.
For the last quarter of a century, satellite measurements have
supplemented this.
Reverse timeline measurements have been inferred from x-refing known
weather years with tree rings.
>Does this mean going back 120 years or so, or going back to where tree rings
>might take us (if we can find enough points around the globe to make a reasoned
>guess about 'global' values), or ... what exactly. My own sense is that it
>cannot go back too far as sorting things to parts of degrees seems to imply
>fairly good global means.
It's more ambiguous than that. Conditioning changing around the
measuring device (towers lean, bushes/trees grow around ground sites).
There were cutbacks around 1980, and there are some hangover problems
with reliance on satellite measurements. Trying to finesse out the
urban-heat element in records, sometimes trying to gain an estimate
when the known instrument location(s) led to variance, is hard work.
Roger's pointed out that some games get played when the time-of-day
for recording the measurement changes.
>Just trying to know what it means were I to repeat such a comment to someone
>else.
Understand the context and limitations of the data. It's still a
study of the best evidence. X-ref and test the data against anything
and everything that lead to the best-estimates.
If you're passing it on - it's fair, and sometimes mandatory, to
challenge the data. It's not fair to either treat the data as
sacrosanct or dismiss the data as worthless.
>Jon
charliew2
suspect it's a slow day for silicone news when you are jumping on the
climate change bandwagon.
"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:989iv0tsiksvr8f39...@4ax.com...
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=604955
>
> Global warming is 'twice as bad as previously thought'
> By Steve Connor, Science Editor
> 27 January 2005
>
>
> Global warming might be twice as catastrophic as previously thought,
And Earth *might* get hit by a big asteroid, or the sun *might* turn into a
red giant.
> flooding settlements on the British coast and turning the interior
> into an unrecognisable tropical landscape, the world's biggest study
> of climate change shows.
>
> Researchers from some of Britain's leading universities used computer
> modelling to predict that under the "worst-case" scenario,
In other words, they fed the computer a bunch of crap, and followed the GIGO
principle - garbage in = garbage out.
> London
> would be under water and winters banished to history as average
> temperatures in the UK soar up to 20C higher than at present.
>
Why stop at a 20C increase? Keep fudging the numbers until you get above
the boiling point of water!
(cut)
owl
wrote:
>Gee, Ilena, I liked you better when you were ranting about silicone. I
>suspect it's a slow day for silicone news when you are jumping on the
>climate change bandwagon.
>
>"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:989iv0tsiksvr8f39...@4ax.com...
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=604955
>>
>> Global warming is 'twice as bad as previously thought'
>> By Steve Connor, Science Editor
>> 27 January 2005
>>
>>
>> Global warming might be twice as catastrophic as previously thought,
>
>And Earth *might* get hit by a big asteroid, or the sun *might* turn into a
>red giant.
... or you might understand the difference.
>> flooding settlements on the British coast and turning the interior
>> into an unrecognisable tropical landscape, the world's biggest study
>> of climate change shows.
>>
>> Researchers from some of Britain's leading universities used computer
>> modelling to predict that under the "worst-case" scenario,
>In other words, they fed the computer a bunch of crap, and followed the GIGO
>principle - garbage in = garbage out.
Here's something realllleee simple for you:-
CO2 in = garbage out
>> London
>> would be under water and winters banished to history as average
>> temperatures in the UK soar up to 20C higher than at present.
>Why stop at a 20C increase? Keep fudging the numbers until you get above
>the boiling point of water!
Because George Bamber did it 30 years ago in a sci-fi book called The
Sea is Boiling Hot. You might enjoy it - depressing fatalism -
playing out the string in a garbage dump world.
Ilena Rose
wrote:
>Gee, Ilena, I liked you better when you were ranting about silicone. I
>suspect it's a slow day for silicone news when you are jumping on the
>climate change bandwagon.
LOL ... Chuck ... as an activist raising awareness to the dangers of
breast implants ... I became under attack by the junk science
propaganda team ...
Check Milloy's Mug and you will see he was paid to claim that not only
breast implants and second hand smoke were "debunked" ... so was
global warming.
He is wrong on all three.
Alastair McDonald
"charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10vkmc6...@corp.supernews.com...
> > London
> > would be under water and winters banished to history as average
> > temperatures in the UK soar up to 20C higher than at present.
> >
>
> Why stop at a 20C increase? Keep fudging the numbers until you get above
> the boiling point of water!
No need. Once you reach 98.4F and 100% humidity you're dead anyway. It
is OK in Arizona where the air is dry, but in London which is a port, adding
another 36F to summer maximum temperatures would be catastrophic.
New York would suffer too with a 20C increase.
Cheers, Alastair.
David Ball
Except that work has already been done that shows the maximum
increase in temperature is capped at about 10C. Too bad, Alastair,
that the facts keep getting in the way of your strident protests.
owl
<wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Except that work has already been done that shows the maximum
>increase in temperature is capped at about 10C.
Okay, this is worth checking out. Show me the money!
moorehead
Coby Beck wrote:
> "W. D. Allen Sr." <ball...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:84adnZwssNS...@adelphia.com...
> > "....computer modeling...." don't bother to read any further!
> >
>
> How would you suggest trying to predict the impacts of human activity
on
> global climate?
How about instead of assuming, hoping, and wanting human activity to be
the cause of global warming, we look at the actual climate records and
evidence that clearly indicates global warming is a naturally occurring
event? Why does there have to be a bogey-man? The latest scientific
evidence strongly suggests that global warming peaked about 250 million
years ago, contributing to the extinction of plants and animals all
over the globe - yet there were obviously no people, SUV's, or manmade
sources of C02 back then - so why blame them for the current warming
trend?
mj
charliew2
"Alastair McDonald" <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
in message news:ctdocq$s1i$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:10vkmc6...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > London
> > > would be under water and winters banished to history as average
> > > temperatures in the UK soar up to 20C higher than at present.
> > >
> >
> > Why stop at a 20C increase? Keep fudging the numbers until you get
above
> > the boiling point of water!
>
> No need. Once you reach 98.4F and 100% humidity you're dead anyway.
LOL! Gee, Alastair ... it's typical Houston summer weather to see 95+ deg.
F and high humidity (though it doesn't get to 100% humidity at that
temperature). In those conditions, I practically never hear of people
dropping dead.
owl
<moorehea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> How would you suggest trying to predict the impacts of human activity on
>> global climate?
>
>How about instead of assuming, hoping, and wanting human activity to be
>the cause of global warming, we look at the actual climate records and
>evidence that clearly indicates global warming is a naturally occurring
>event?
For starters you didn't answer the question.
For a follow-on, the actual climate records are inferrential theories
and there's been a couple of them (the Permian extinction and the
Ordovician Ice Age) threaded here highlighting how and why 'the actual
climate records' don't sit there like a lab experiment.
For a finale, assuming enough evidence can be gathered tp look at past
natural climate cycles, there's still no compelling evidence of
mechanisms currently driving a natural climate change. There is
evidence around the globe than humans are a key source of non-natural
system effects. There is no reason to make climate an exception.
> Why does there have to be a bogey-man?
It's not bogey-man stuff, it's a fast imbalance thrown at the globe's
ecology.
> The latest scientific
>evidence strongly suggests that global warming peaked about 250 million
>years ago, contributing to the extinction of plants and animals all
>over the globe - yet there were obviously no people, SUV's, or manmade
>sources of C02 back then - so why blame them for the current warming
>trend?
It does no such thing. There is the Karoo Basin study. Somehow
you've compressed the time-lapse down to a gods' eye-blink (major
bad).
So why blame the current warming trend on human activity? Come up
with real, compelling, evidence that natural forces are at work and
human activity should be absolved. To be honest, after the amount of
change human activity has already thrown at the eco-system I'm more
surprised at how many bullets we've already dodged.
>
>mj
z
moorehead wrote:
> Coby Beck wrote:
> > "W. D. Allen Sr." <ball...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> > news:84adnZwssNS...@adelphia.com...
> > > "....computer modeling...." don't bother to read any further!
> > >
> >
> > How would you suggest trying to predict the impacts of human
activity
> on
> > global climate?
>
> How about instead of assuming, hoping, and wanting human activity to
be
> the cause of global warming, we look at the actual climate records
and
> evidence that clearly indicates global warming is a naturally
occurring
> event?
But not via computer modeling, I take it. How, then?
> Why does there have to be a bogey-man? The latest scientific
> evidence strongly suggests that global warming peaked about 250
million
> years ago, contributing to the extinction of plants and animals all
> over the globe - yet there were obviously no people, SUV's, or
manmade
> sources of C02 back then - so why blame them for the current warming
> trend?
Because nowadays we do not have volcanoes smothering the earth in a
blanket of sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide, but we do have manmade
carbon dioxide? Just a guess. If you want to insist the conditions
currently are the same as 250 million years ago, go ahead. At least you
don't have to worry about arguing with computer models.
z
David Ball wrote:
> Except that work has already been done that shows the maximum
> increase in temperature is capped at about 10C.
Oh, in that case, no problem.
owl
A guy goes to an astronomy lecture and nods off. The lecturer raises
his voice a bit and sez "So the models predict the Earth will explode
in a ball of fire in about three and half billion years."
The guy jumps up and sez "What!!!!????"
The lecturer quietly repeats his statement.
The guy slumps back down and sez "Oh ... I thought you said three and
half million."
DB didn't prove the cap, or put it in a timeframe context, but I'll
bet if you ran a decent simulation of a northern hemisphere heat wave
like last summer in France, and bumped it up by 10C ... it would
anagram France into Furnace.
Alastair McDonald
>
> "Alastair McDonald" <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> in message news:ctdocq$s1i$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote in message
> > news:10vkmc6...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > > London
> > > > would be under water and winters banished to history as average
> > > > temperatures in the UK soar up to 20C higher than at present.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why stop at a 20C increase? Keep fudging the numbers until you get
> above
> > > the boiling point of water!
> >
> > No need. Once you reach 98.4F and 100% humidity you're dead anyway.
>
> LOL! Gee, Alastair ... it's typical Houston summer weather to see 95+ deg.
> F and high humidity (though it doesn't get to 100% humidity at that
> temperature). In those conditions, I practically never hear of people
> dropping dead.
20,000 French people dropped dead in 2003 due to overheating
caused by AGW.
Once you get above body temperature, and you cannot lose heat by
sweating, then you die.
Of course you really need sea surface temperatures to reach 100F for
that to happen, but 100F is a lot less than 100C which is my main point.
Cheers, Alastair.
Alastair McDonald
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:t8qkv0hd8k7r2r7hs...@4ax.com...
I see it is not just my contributions that you do not read. Ilena's
post said:
> >> > temperatures in the UK soar up to 20C higher than at present.
We are talking about a rise of 20C only in the UK, not globally. In the
artic region of Canada we can expect a quadrupling of the global
temperature rise, taking it to 40C, i.e. into a Mediterranean climate. Don't
you know anything about paleoclimatology?
Cheers, Alastair.
Lloyd Parker
"moorehead" <moorehea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Coby Beck wrote:
>> "W. D. Allen Sr." <ball...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>> news:84adnZwssNS...@adelphia.com...
>> > "....computer modeling...." don't bother to read any further!
>> >
>>
>> How would you suggest trying to predict the impacts of human activity
>on
>> global climate?
>
>How about instead of assuming, hoping, and wanting human activity to be
>the cause of global warming, we look at the actual climate records and
>evidence that clearly indicates global warming is a naturally occurring
>event?
Because all the evidence says the current warming is a human-caused event.
> Why does there have to be a bogey-man? The latest scientific
>evidence strongly suggests that global warming peaked about 250 million
>years ago, contributing to the extinction of plants and animals all
>over the globe - yet there were obviously no people, SUV's, or manmade
>sources of C02 back then - so why blame them for the current warming
>trend?
>
The evidence suggests you're an idiot. Do you suppose things can have more
than 1 cause? Think! If exercise caused your body temp. to go up
yesterday, does that mean a virus cannot do it today?
>mj
>
moorehead
owl wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2005 11:18:40 -0800, "moorehead"
> <moorehea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> How would you suggest trying to predict the impacts of human
activity on
> >> global climate?
> >
> >How about instead of assuming, hoping, and wanting human activity to
be
> >the cause of global warming, we look at the actual climate records
and
> >evidence that clearly indicates global warming is a naturally
occurring
> >event?
>
> For starters you didn't answer the question.
Computer models are fine....play with them all you wish....but do so
with the knowledge that up to now, they've been painfully
innacurate...consider IPCC's GCM for predicting global tropospheric
temperature increases from 1979 through 2001 - it predicted a range of
temp increases from .3 degrees C as a minimum up to .6 degrees C on the
high end. After these predictions, the ACTUAL data from Satellites and
balloon-based measurements were looked at - the ACTUAL temperature
increase from 1979 through 2001 was a whole .07 degrees C. The IPCC
GCM predictions were so off the mark as to be laughable.
> For a follow-on, the actual climate records are inferrential theories
> and there's been a couple of them (the Permian extinction and the
> Ordovician Ice Age) threaded here highlighting how and why 'the
actual
> climate records' don't sit there like a lab experiment.
>
> For a finale, assuming enough evidence can be gathered tp look at
past
> natural climate cycles, there's still no compelling evidence of
> mechanisms currently driving a natural climate change.
No compelling evidence? Have you been living in a cave? Look at this
chart comparing increased solar activity with climate change - the two
lines mesh almost perfectly:
http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/
Consider the implications of the Karoo Basin study - volcanic activity
250 million years ago warmed the earth so much that 90 percent of all
living things died - correct me if I'm wrong, but there were NO SUV's
250 million years ago, correct? No oil companies? No chemical plants?
> There is
> evidence around the globe than humans are a key source of non-natural
> system effects.
No, there isn't "evidence". There IS, however, a cadre of lemmings who
believe what they so desperately WANT to believe, dismissing evidence
that doesn't support a preconceived agenda.
> There is no reason to make climate an exception.
>
> > Why does there have to be a bogey-man?
>
> It's not bogey-man stuff, it's a fast imbalance thrown at the globe's
> ecology.
Too bad you can't prove any of it. Might as well say that aliens from
Uranus are warming the earth - it's at least as believable.
> > The latest scientific
> >evidence strongly suggests that global warming peaked about 250
million
> >years ago, contributing to the extinction of plants and animals all
> >over the globe - yet there were obviously no people, SUV's, or
manmade
> >sources of C02 back then - so why blame them for the current warming
> >trend?
>
> It does no such thing. There is the Karoo Basin study. Somehow
> you've compressed the time-lapse down to a gods' eye-blink (major
> bad).
Pardon me? I did no such thing - have you read the study? The
evidence indicates the "great dying" occurred over the course of 15
million years...it was gradual. And it was natural. We are also
experiencing a gradual, natural warming, and if evidence of past
climate changes are any prediction, we are quite likely positioned in
an inter-glacial holocene. The earth warms, it cools, it warms, it
cools - gasp - all on it's own! Welcome to reality, enjoy your stay.
> So why blame the current warming trend on human activity? Come up
> with real, compelling, evidence that natural forces are at work and
> human activity should be absolved. To be honest, after the amount of
> change human activity has already thrown at the eco-system I'm more
> surprised at how many bullets we've already dodged.
Of course you are. Left-leaning "scientists" all over the world are
slack-jawed because the dire predictions of global cooling in the 70's
never materialized, the dire predictions of warming amounted to all of
.7 degrees over the last century and was explained by increased solar
activity, and now these "scientists" all look like complete fools, as
do those who blindly follow them.
I refuse to drink the Kool-aid. The doom and gloom assumptions don't
make sense, the GCM's are innacurate, and what we know factually about
the history of climate change on earth indicates clearly to any
rational mind that the very slight increase in surface temperatures of
the earth over the last century are normal and natural, having occurred
many times before. Furthermore, I find it to be beyond coincidence
that so many of the chicken little alarmists about global warming just
happen to be leftists who think that people should not own property,
capitalism is evil, accumulation of wealth is a sin, trees and animals
have more rights than people, etc. Peas of the same pod.
Gotta go fill the tank on my brand new Hummer - later!
mj
moorehead
The "great dying" occurred over a period of 15 million years...what,
did you think I was talking about volcanic activity on ONE DAY? Don't
be ridiculous. The warming that occurred 250 million years ago was
gradual, just as it is now. It was also natural, just as all evidence
suggests it is now.
mj
James Annan
> Why stop at a 20C increase? Keep fudging the numbers until you get above
> the boiling point of water!
I'm seriously tempted to have a go at this. I'll probably do it within
the next year, but for the time being have too much else on my plate.
(Just to be clear, the goal is to provide a model *that represents the
current climate as well as other models* and that also has extremely
high sensitivity.)
James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
owl
<moorehea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>owl wrote:
>> On 28 Jan 2005 11:18:40 -0800, "moorehead"
>> <moorehea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> How would you suggest trying to predict the impacts of human
>activity on
>> >> global climate?
>> >
>> >How about instead of assuming, hoping, and wanting human activity to
>be
>> >the cause of global warming, we look at the actual climate records
>and
>> >evidence that clearly indicates global warming is a naturally
>occurring
>> >event?
>>
>> For starters you didn't answer the question.
>
>Computer models are fine....play with them all you wish....but do so
>with the knowledge that up to now, they've been painfully
>innacurate...consider IPCC's GCM for predicting global tropospheric
>temperature increases from 1979 through 2001 - it predicted a range of
>temp increases from .3 degrees C as a minimum up to .6 degrees C on the
>high end. After these predictions, the ACTUAL data from Satellites and
>balloon-based measurements were looked at - the ACTUAL temperature
>increase from 1979 through 2001 was a whole .07 degrees C. The IPCC
>GCM predictions were so off the mark as to be laughable.
The satellite disagreement data is nothing new. It's like you're
leaning on decade-old news after the world has moved on. It's
irrelevant on whether the change was .07 v a computer projection of .3
if the impacts and trends of global warming keep showing up.
>> For a follow-on, the actual climate records are inferrential theories
>> and there's been a couple of them (the Permian extinction and the
>> Ordovician Ice Age) threaded here highlighting how and why 'the
>actual
>> climate records' don't sit there like a lab experiment.
>>
>> For a finale, assuming enough evidence can be gathered tp look at
>past
>> natural climate cycles, there's still no compelling evidence of
>> mechanisms currently driving a natural climate change.
>No compelling evidence? Have you been living in a cave?
No. Maybe that's why we've never met.
>Look at this
>chart comparing increased solar activity with climate change - the two
>lines mesh almost perfectly:
>
>http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/
Yea, I've seen this kind of material before. No one has ever stated
that natural climate swings don't take place or that solar activity is
not a key factor. It also doesn't absolve CO2 which shows the same
tracking pattern.
>Consider the implications of the Karoo Basin study - volcanic activity
>250 million years ago warmed the earth so much that 90 percent of all
>living things died - correct me if I'm wrong, but there were NO SUV's
>250 million years ago, correct? No oil companies? No chemical plants?
No, just a claim of a whole lotta CO2 shakin' goin' on. Btw - I don't
accept it. There's another thread here with links to NASA for other
causal evidence.
Beauti, another attitude-heavy post:-
> Computer models are fine....play with them all you wish....
> Have you been living in a cave?
> Might as well say that aliens from Uranus are warming the earth
> - it's at least as believable.
>No, there isn't "evidence". There IS, however, a cadre of lemmings who
>believe what they so desperately WANT to believe, dismissing evidence
>that doesn't support a preconceived agenda.
>Left-leaning "scientists" all over the world are slack-jawed
>I refuse to drink the Kool-aid.
> ... so many of the chicken little alarmists about global warming just
>happen to be leftists who think that people should not own property,
>capitalism is evil, accumulation of wealth is a sin, trees and animals
>have more rights than people, etc. Peas of the same pod.
>Gotta go fill the tank on my brand new Hummer - later!
You still didn't respond, just stuck out your e-tongue.
None of your evidence is either new or compelling. Lacking certainty,
you throw the problems at the wall thinking they'll stick. They
don't. All the attempts at polticial branding look as childish here
as they have in other threads.
Hope your hummer has A/C for the long-howl.
Joshua Halpern
> charliew2 wrote:
>
>
>> Why stop at a 20C increase? Keep fudging the numbers until you get above
>> the boiling point of water!
>
>
> I'm seriously tempted to have a go at this. I'll probably do it within
> the next year, but for the time being have too much else on my plate.
>
> (Just to be clear, the goal is to provide a model *that represents the
> current climate as well as other models* and that also has extremely
> high sensitivity.)
>
well AND have extremely high sensitivity. You probably have to jigger
the aerosol and albedo pretty seriously
josh halpern
James Annan
No, the cpdn results (so far) only match a steady state climate.
You are right that some sort of hindcast of past change is likely to be
an important constraint on the forecasts, and for that reason I suspect
that the extremely high sensitivity results recently reported are not
very realistic. We won't know for sure until they run the transient
simulations, though.
(I once saw some early results from an unfinished coupled a-o model that
had a steady-state sensitivity of 6C - but it gave a very poor match to
history, and when tuned to match history better, it gave a much more
reasonable forecast too.)
Athiest 4 Bush
> We are talking about a rise of 20C only in the UK, not globally. In the
> artic region of Canada we can expect a quadrupling of the global
> temperature rise, taking it to 40C, i.e. into a Mediterranean climate. Don't
> you know anything about paleoclimatology?
>
> Cheers, Alastair.
LOL.
Have another Scotch.
--
When the Rapture comes, can I have your car?
When global warming comes, can I have your coat?
Athiest 4 Bush
I have references which peg planetary albedo
from 29% to more than 32% a range of forcing
uncertainty more than five times greater
than surface level GHG forcing.
We don't even have a good starting point to jigger from.
charliew2
"moorehead" <moorehea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106948822.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
That should have read "your anus".
(cut)
moorehead
Neither is the continued dishonest attempts by warm-mongers hell bent
on scaring the masses with nonsensical predictions of catastrophe based
on computer models that are innaccurate more than accurate.
> It's like you're
> leaning on decade-old news after the world has moved on.
Um, yeah, genius - I mention a study that ended in 2001 and it's
"decades" old. You can't even do basic math and we are to believe your
climate predictions?
> It's
> irrelevant on whether the change was .07 v a computer projection of
.3
> if the impacts and trends of global warming keep showing up.
No, it is HIGHLY relevant when chicken littles are off and running with
claims of impending doom armed with outrageous upper-end GCM climate
predictions, and like-minded idiot politicians proclaiming the need for
strangulatory environmental regulations that will choke the economy and
livelihood of millions...
> >> For a follow-on, the actual climate records are inferrential
theories
> >> and there's been a couple of them (the Permian extinction and the
> >> Ordovician Ice Age) threaded here highlighting how and why 'the
> >actual
> >> climate records' don't sit there like a lab experiment.
> >>
> >> For a finale, assuming enough evidence can be gathered tp look at
> >past
> >> natural climate cycles, there's still no compelling evidence of
> >> mechanisms currently driving a natural climate change.
>
> >No compelling evidence? Have you been living in a cave?
>
> No. Maybe that's why we've never met.
Then how do you explain your obvious dementia?
> >Look at this
> >chart comparing increased solar activity with climate change - the
two
> >lines mesh almost perfectly:
> >
> >http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/
>
> Yea, I've seen this kind of material before. No one has ever stated
> that natural climate swings don't take place or that solar activity
is
> not a key factor. It also doesn't absolve CO2 which shows the same
> tracking pattern.
Only when looking at surface temperatures - not troposhperic
temperatures, which would be the true indicators of warming. What part
of this don't you understand?
>
> >Consider the implications of the Karoo Basin study - volcanic
activity
> >250 million years ago warmed the earth so much that 90 percent of
all
> >living things died - correct me if I'm wrong, but there were NO
SUV's
> >250 million years ago, correct? No oil companies? No chemical
plants?
>
> No, just a claim of a whole lotta CO2 shakin' goin' on. Btw - I
don't
> accept it.
You don't accept what? The conclusions of the Karoo basin study?
Typical. When faced with facts you can't refute, like the fact that no
significant tropospheric warming has occurred, despite IPCC GCM's own
predictions that it should, you dismiss them by saying I didn't
respond. Point of fact, YOU didn't respond, because you can't.
> None of your evidence is either new or compelling. Lacking
certainty,
> you throw the problems at the wall thinking they'll stick. They
> don't. All the attempts at polticial branding look as childish here
> as they have in other threads.
In other words, you can't think of one damn thing to say...I wish I
could say your were an original warm-monger, but ya ain't. You're just
typical.
> Hope your hummer has A/C for the long-howl.
A 12 volt fan would be sufficient for the amount of warming we're going
to experience of the next few decades. I am thinking, however, of
installing headers to contribute even more fossil fuel emmissions to
the atmosphere, and a second gas tank, so I can drive it longer. How's
your Yugo runnin', there, sport?
mj
charliew2
"Alastair McDonald" <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
in message news:cte9uv$v02$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:10vl47s...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Alastair McDonald" <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote
> > in message news:ctdocq$s1i$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote in message
> > > news:10vkmc6...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > > > London
> > > > > would be under water and winters banished to history as average
> > > > > temperatures in the UK soar up to 20C higher than at present.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why stop at a 20C increase? Keep fudging the numbers until you get
> > above
> > > > the boiling point of water!
> > >
> > > No need. Once you reach 98.4F and 100% humidity you're dead anyway.
> >
> > LOL! Gee, Alastair ... it's typical Houston summer weather to see 95+
deg.
> > F and high humidity (though it doesn't get to 100% humidity at that
> > temperature). In those conditions, I practically never hear of people
> > dropping dead.
>
> 20,000 French people dropped dead in 2003 due to overheating
> caused by AGW.
And ... most of these people:
* were very old
* were in poor health
* were without air conditioning
* continued to live indoors during the heat wave, where temperatures were
higher than ambient
Such circumstances can kill the same proportion of people in any country
that is equally as unprepared as France was. Your attempts to take a local
phenomenon and extrapolate it to a global warming catastrophe are noted.
>
> Once you get above body temperature, and you cannot lose heat by
> sweating, then you die.
Check out your facts, Alastair. Skin temperature is significantly below
core temperature. To hear you tell it, people should be dropping dead at
any temperature above approximatey 75 deg F at 100% relative humidity. The
fact that this doesn't happen says volumes about your assumptions.
>
> Of course you really need sea surface temperatures to reach 100F for
> that to happen, but 100F is a lot less than 100C which is my main point.
>
> Cheers, Alastair.
I don't think that you have thought out your main point very much. Think
about it some more, and get back to the NG.
Joshua Halpern
> Joshua Halpern wrote:
>
>> James Annan wrote:
>>
>>> charliew2 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why stop at a 20C increase? Keep fudging the numbers until you get
>>>> above
>>>> the boiling point of water!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm seriously tempted to have a go at this. I'll probably do it
>>> within the next year, but for the time being have too much else on my
>>> plate.
>>>
>>> (Just to be clear, the goal is to provide a model *that represents
>>> the current climate as well as other models* and that also has
>>> extremely high sensitivity.)
>>>
>> Too easy, it has to represent the temperature from 1850 onward pretty
>> well AND have extremely high sensitivity. You probably have to jigger
>> the aerosol and albedo pretty seriously
>
> No, the cpdn results (so far) only match a steady state climate.
Sorry, missed the reference and thought you were talking about creating
your own model, not modifying theirs. You are absolutely right on the
point.
>
> You are right that some sort of hindcast of past change is likely to be
> an important constraint on the forecasts, and for that reason I suspect
> that the extremely high sensitivity results recently reported are not
> very realistic. We won't know for sure until they run the transient
> simulations, though.
>
> (I once saw some early results from an unfinished coupled a-o model that
> had a steady-state sensitivity of 6C - but it gave a very poor match to
> history, and when tuned to match history better, it gave a much more
> reasonable forecast too.)
Rational.
josh halpern
>
> James
James Annan
> James Annan wrote:
>
>> Joshua Halpern wrote:
>>
>>> James Annan wrote:
>>>
>>>> charliew2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Why stop at a 20C increase? Keep fudging the numbers until you get
>>>>> above
>>>>> the boiling point of water!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm seriously tempted to have a go at this. I'll probably do it
>>>> within the next year, but for the time being have too much else on
>>>> my plate.
>>>>
>>>> (Just to be clear, the goal is to provide a model *that represents
>>>> the current climate as well as other models* and that also has
>>>> extremely high sensitivity.)
>>>>
>>> Too easy, it has to represent the temperature from 1850 onward pretty
>>> well AND have extremely high sensitivity. You probably have to
>>> jigger the aerosol and albedo pretty seriously
>>
>>
>> No, the cpdn results (so far) only match a steady state climate.
>
>
> Sorry, missed the reference and thought you were talking about creating
> your own model, not modifying theirs. You are absolutely right on the
> point.
If I did it, it would be with the Japanese model which I am currrently
playing with. But that is of a similar class to the one cpdn.net are using.
Alastair McDonald
>
> I don't think that you have thought out your main point very much. Think
> about it some more, and get back to the NG.
The human body has to be maintained at a temperature of 98.4F to remain
healthy. Under normal circumstances the environment is colder than that
and the temperature is held at the temperature by the digestion of food, ie
burrning carbohydrates. When the environment is warmer than body
temperature the mechanism of sweating is used to cool the surface. The
evaporation of the liquid from the skin leads to a loss of the latent heat
of evaporation. If you know of other ways in which the body controls
its temperature post them here.
For evaporation from the skin to operate, it is neccessary that the
humidity of the surrounding air is not saturated. That is why 80F
in the tropics where relative humidity is high, is a much less
pleasant experience than in 100F where the humidity is low.
This is just simple science, as it the idea of CO2 providing the
greenhouse effect which keeps the planet habitable. I suggest
that YOU think about those points before you post your redneck
philospohy here.
Cheers, Alastair.
David Ball
LOL. I never said it wasn't a problem. I merely pointed out
that Alastairs usual strident, "we're all going to die" was overdone.
Again.
Per.oxy
50 degrees north, 90 to 100% humidity is going to make the air instable
and rain out long before 2 m temperature reach 37 degrees celsius. I
therefore assume that above 11 centigrade temperature rise in the UK
scenarios/simulations include dry/less cloudy summer weather and
rainy/cloudy winters.
-. Per
Alastair McDonald
"Per.oxy" <endaen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107007982.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The highest recorded temperature in the UK was 100F in 2003. If you
add 20C to that you get 136F. Even if you can sweat fast enough to
keep your temperature down to 98F, you will probably die of dehydration!
The point is that it only needs that to happen for one day, and every one
is dead. So although it might be a rare event, it only has to happen once
for the effects to be disasterous.
It is thought that the Mediterranean climate will spread north to the UK
as a result of GW. If the effects are severe, then the climate of the
Sahara Desert could reach here. The UK is surrounded by water
so our climate is likely to develop so that it is similar to Florida
or Malaya, rather than Texas or Chad ie we can expect high humidity.
Clouds are formed when air rises. For every gram of air that rises
to form clouds, one gram must descend bring clear skies and hot
and sunny weather. Who knows what will happen to British
weather it could be hot and dry, or hot and cloudy.
Cheers, Alastair.
>
> -. Per
>
Per.oxy
Disagree, the sea water surrounding the UK is not going to heat up fast
enough in the spring to give London very high humidity/very rainy
tropical summers.
Btw, the simulation shown at the following site predict 2 - 4
centigrade rise in the UK and 14 C above the Amozon basin:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0127-01.htm
Alastair McDonald
No it won't cool down enough during the winter to prevent high
temperatures in the shallow water of the North and Irish Seas
during the summer. Have you got any evidence at all that
sea water will not heat up fast enough?
Cheers, Alastair.
Per.oxy
Well, if one assume an average radiation imbalance of 100 W m-2 during
the months of april, may and june and a temerature of 15 C in the top
50 m at the end of march, average top 50 m temperature end of june
would be around 18.7 centigrade.
(100 J/s m-2 * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours * 30 days * 3
months/(4200 J/s litre kelvin * 50 000 l) = 3.7 centigrade/kelvin
temperature rise)
Alastair McDonald
It already reaches 18C in the English Channel, so under global warming I would
expect it to get higher. See:
https://152.80.49.210/products/OTIS/ARCHIVE/2004090200.glbl_00_sst.gif
BTW the maximum temperature is at the end of August, not June.
Cheers, Alastair.
>
Per.oxy
In the end of august methinks there's not enough sunlight to feed
powerful afternoon thunderclouds caused by intense daytime warming(30 -
35 C daytime maximum temp ?) or prevent sea surface temps(24 - 27 C)
from falling with the evaporation rate needed to feed those clouds.
z
Nevertheless, if you actually read the 'latest scientific evidence' you
mention (i.e. somebody's idea of what happened), you'd see that it
describes creatures being killed by choking clouds of sulfur dioxide
from the volcanoes. It doesn't take 15 million years to do that, it
takes like 10 minutes. I don't see it happening now. Maybe you could
indicate to us where you see it.
>Don't
> be ridiculous. The warming that occurred 250 million years ago was
> gradual, just as it is now.
This looks gradual to you, does it?
<pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/climate2.jpg>
>It was also natural, just as all evidence
> suggests it is now.
Well, somebody who refers to a speculative hypothetical paper as 'the
latest scientific evidence' isn't going to make a very convincing point
by waving his hands around and referring to 'all evidence'. Sorry.
Jerry K
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:cte9nu$iqn$9...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>How about instead of assuming, hoping, and wanting human activity to be
>>the cause of global warming, we look at the actual climate records and
>>evidence that clearly indicates global warming is a naturally occurring
>>event?
>
> Because all the evidence says the current warming is a human-caused event.
I do not belive that is true. I do belive that it is generally accepted
that some component of global warming is attributed to cyclical warming and
cooling of the sun -- sun spots.
life...@atlantic.net
Jerry K wrote:
> "Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message :
>
> >>How about instead of assuming, hoping, and wanting human activity
to be
> >>the cause of global warming, we look at the actual climate records
and
> >>evidence that clearly indicates global warming is a naturally
occurring
> >>event?
> >
> > Because all the evidence says the current warming is a human-caused
event.
>
> I do not belive that is true. I do belive that it is generally
accepted
> that some component of global warming is attributed to cyclical
warming and
> cooling of the sun -- sun spots.
Let me guess, your first post to a science newsgroup, no?
The Milankovitch component of forcing is small and negative.
The solar irradiance change is very small.
The radiation component is negligible.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
charliew2
"Alastair McDonald" <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
in message news:ctftbv$5kg$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:10vlukp...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >
> > I don't think that you have thought out your main point very much.
Think
> > about it some more, and get back to the NG.
>
> The human body has to be maintained at a temperature of 98.4F to remain
> healthy. Under normal circumstances the environment is colder than that
> and the temperature is held at the temperature by the digestion of food,
ie
> burrning carbohydrates. When the environment is warmer than body
> temperature the mechanism of sweating is used to cool the surface. The
> evaporation of the liquid from the skin leads to a loss of the latent heat
> of evaporation. If you know of other ways in which the body controls
> its temperature post them here.
>
> For evaporation from the skin to operate, it is neccessary that the
> humidity of the surrounding air is not saturated. That is why 80F
> in the tropics where relative humidity is high, is a much less
> pleasant experience than in 100F where the humidity is low.
So, you realize that the driving force for heat transfer is a temperature
difference. Very good. If the environmental temperature is the same as the
core temperature of humans, and relative humidity is 100%, there is no way
for humans to maintain "normal" body temperature. Your 98.4F number is too
high.
>
> This is just simple science,
So simple that you got it wrong.
> as it the idea of CO2 providing the
> greenhouse effect which keeps the planet habitable. I suggest
> that YOU think about those points before you post your redneck
> philospohy here.
>
> Cheers, Alastair.
Gee, I detect a feeble attempt at insult. In Hanson's words, I apparently
cranked you.
Vendicar Decarian
> Neither is the continued dishonest attempts by warm-mongers hell bent
> on scaring the masses with nonsensical predictions of catastrophe based
> on computer models that are innaccurate more than accurate.
Ah, yes. All of the worlds climatologists are scare mongering, hate
filled, fools bent on the destruction of YankVille and the establishment of
a global socialist order, and the little undeducated high school dropout
that calls itself "MooreHead"
knows the real truth.
Heil Bush, says MoorHead. Heil the NeoFurher, and Gawd bless the coming
tribulation.
All conservatives die in a state of self imposed ignorance.
hanson
news:7t5nv0p61em4mtc1i...@4ax.com...
> >David Ball wrote:
> >> Except that work has already been done that shows the
> >> maximum increase in temperature is capped at about 10C.
>
> On 28 Jan 2005 12:47:18 -0800, "z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
> >Oh, in that case, no problem.
>
> LOL. I never said it wasn't a problem. I merely pointed out that
> Alastairs usual strident, "we're all going to die" was overdone.
> Again.
>
Don't begin to drool now, David, because I am delighted that
you appear to be veering away from the green turdism that
promotes nothing but fear and doom as whined about by
Poppock, A la stairs, Vendickarse and others.
Moreover let me that remark by noting a distinct shift in green
strategy and tactics in that now some unemployable enviros,
anarchistic green turds, pinko anti-American green shits like
some that infest these NGs have now become openly 2 faced
in that they hedge their bets and no longer do predict global
"WARMING" but whine about climate "CHANGE"....ahahaha.....
.....all in accord with time honored edicts of their green bible
that says:
*= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
*= Pure politics is driving dozens of public health issues, noteably
= global warming, tobacco and other green shit. Great lies do
= service for/in/of a "noble cause" which now trump truth &fact.
ahaha.... ahahanson
hanson
> "Alastair McDonald" <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> in message news:ctftbv$5kg$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote in message
> > news:10vlukp...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > I don't think that you have thought out your main point very much.
> > > Think > > > about it some more, and get back to the NG.
> >
> > The human body has to be maintained at a temperature of 98.4F to remain
> > healthy. Under normal circumstances the environment is colder than that
> > and the temperature is held at the temperature by the digestion of food,
> > ie
> > burrning carbohydrates. When the environment is warmer than body
> > temperature the mechanism of sweating is used to cool the surface. The
> > evaporation of the liquid from the skin leads to a loss of the latent heat
> > of evaporation. If you know of other ways in which the body controls
> > its temperature post them here.
> > For evaporation from the skin to operate, it is neccessary that the
> > humidity of the surrounding air is not saturated. That is why 80F
> > in the tropics where relative humidity is high, is a much less
> > pleasant experience than in 100F where the humidity is low.
>
> So, you realize that the driving force for heat transfer is a
> temperature difference. Very good. If the environmental
> temperature is the same as the core temperature of humans,
> and relative humidity is 100%, there is no way for humans to
> maintain "normal" body temperature. Your 98.4F number is too
> high.
>
> > This is just simple science,
>
> So simple that you got it wrong.
>
> > This is just simple science, as it the idea of CO2 providing the
> > greenhouse effect which keeps the planet habitable. I suggest
> > that YOU think about those points before you post your redneck
> > philospohy here.
> > Cheers, Alastair.
>
> Gee, I detect a feeble attempt at insult. In Hanson's words,
> I apparently cranked you.
>
ahahaha...... You probably did, Charlie!....... ahahaha...
Even mudBall noted to my pleasant surprise, that Alastair
has peculiar issues after his too many cheers and then rolling
down a la stairs into his notions that "we're all going to die" .
However Alastair must have a strange highly sensitive green temp.
regulation system, "a la stairs" so to speak, especially when he
has achieved his lofty level after many enviro-minty EtOH cheers.
Now then, Alastair, I don't mean to crank you nor interfere with
your cheers. Keep on as usual. For it is far better to "hear" enviro
doomsday stories from little green idiots like you, then to have
to "experience" these event which fortunately never do happen.
Take care you green old fart. I love you anyway.... even a la stairs.
ahahahaha..... ahahahanson
hanson
news:RS8Ld.1770$m22...@read1.cgocable.net...
> "moorehead" <moorehea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1106966592....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Neither is the continued dishonest attempts by warm-mongers hell bent
> > on scaring the masses with nonsensical predictions of catastrophe based
> > on computer models that are innaccurate more than accurate.
>
> Ah, yes. All of the worlds climatologists are scare mongering, hate
> All conservatives die in a state of self imposed ignorance.
>
You are driving off the deep end again, Scotty. You are
following Tooker Gomberg's evolution with an uncanny precision.
Don't do that, Scotty.... become a conservative... Go see Charlie.
Repent and become a reborn Christian..... ahahaha... AHAHA...
It'll free you from the curse you suffer from as seen here in your
partial NG record:
Instead of your red green whining help to fix it and bring back
some balance.
=== BUT NOT IN THE WAY YOU GO AFTER IT === as your
record shows where you said on Dec 20 2003 and on 01-18-04,
VD: **Torture Bush. Execute Bush. ** and on Jan 29 2004
"Vendicar Decarian" <V...@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:IKcSb.608$SY3.1...@read2.cgocable.net...
************
Re: Killing Bush now top priority of all Loyal Democrats
************
VD: "Re: Killing Bush now top priority of all Loyal Democrats"
Maybe Scotty's quasi exodus that barely made it across the border
and the fact that he lives now on the Canadian side and he is
afraid of the US border guards who won't let Scotty, a US Citizen,
back in is what makes Scotty so mad. But, in addition VD Nudds is
really not quite right in his head as can be seen from part of Scotty's
NGs legacy in the canned background of Nudds below:
Vendicar Decarian <V...@Pyro.net>, aka Vendickarse DickArian
aka Scott Nudds aka Scott Douglas, aka VD Scotty, aka "Scuttle Nutts",
aka Nuddley, the nuddler, nuddled as he is STILL here and has not left
as he promised. VD Scotty lies constantly like all pinko-green Lefties do.
In addition, VD Scotty fucked up twice now. First he was a Gore boar
and now he is a sour Kerry Berry.......ahahaha.......AHAHAHAHA
VD said on 03-08-04:
**** "Where any governance = Excessive governance" *****
but then on 05-17-04 VD confuses himself and loudly advocates that
"Environmentalism" [= governance = regulations ]......"More is needed"...
VD = Verbose Dunce, Very Dense and Very Dumb .......ahahahaha...
......ahahahahaha............ahahahanson
PS:
Here're many more, even funnier such fuck-up episodes by VD Scotty:in
news:w5LIc.967$mL5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... or in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=w5LIc.967%24mL5.612%40newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net&output=gplain
or at
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+hanson+author:hanson%40quick.net&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=w5LIc.967%24mL5.612%40newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net&rnum=1
wherein posters talk about VD Scotty's ...........
"VD's a custodian's gofer in an elementary school in Hamilton/Canada.
"Vendicar Decarian, your IQ is **minus 20**!
"VD you advertised ...that you are into blowing doggies.
"VD you're an Anti-Semite that glorifies Hitler.
"VD creamed in his pants when I [Naomi] took my bra off.
"the other guys laughed and called you "Scuttle Nutts".
....and many other episodes on/about VD Scotty self-anointed
state where VD Scotty announces:
VD: I'm a born again American. (04-11-04) and ...
VD: I'm an American soon to be jumping ship from this
VD: rapidly sinking state". (04-25-04), and on 05-06-04, VD said:
VD: I am living proof that rational, moral americans still exist....
......ahahahahaha......BUT, I see you are still here, VD Scotty!
What gives, VD dude? 2nd thoughts or more lies, Nudds?...<snicker>
....AHAHAHA ....HAHAHAhahaha...... ahahahaha......ahahanson
BTW, thanks for all the laughs, Scotty, .... carry on, but stay afraid
of these dudes, the Neocon and the Libertarian, who after you here:
http://www.terranova.net/content/images/mj-chase.jpg and don't ever
forget that you have already explained your philosophy, your politics and
your Weltbild much, much better in http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
PS: For foes or aficionados of Scotty's VD, for prosecutions or laughs
just google for "Vendickarse".... You'll get 360 hits for "Vendickarse"
or 370 hits for "Vendickarse" in groups.google.com/. ........ahahahaha
PS2: Hey Scotty, that O'Reilly can be seen in Canada now too!
The right wind is beginning to blow now up there too... ahahaha....
So long sucker, ahahaha..... <snicker>
ahahaha.... ahahanson
Jerry K
<life...@atlantic.net> wrote in message
news:1107038002....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> January 29, 2005
>>> Because all the evidence says the current warming is a human-caused
>>> event.
>> I do not belive that is true. I do belive that it is generally accepted
>> that some component of global warming is attributed to cyclical
>> warming and cooling of the sun -- sun spots.
> Let me guess, your first post to a science newsgroup, no?
Yes it is. Does it show much? I am starting to do some reading on the
subject and look forward to getting some other viewpoints.
> The Milankovitch component of forcing is small and negative.
> The solar irradiance change is very small.
> The radiation component is negligible.
Any supporting references to the statement on solar irradiance. I beive
that I have read otherwise.
Alastair McDonald
>
> >
> >David Ball wrote:
> >
> >> Except that work has already been done that shows the maximum
> >> increase in temperature is capped at about 10C.
> >Oh, in that case, no problem.
>
> LOL. I never said it wasn't a problem. I merely pointed out
> Again.
Yes, You thought I might be overdoing it when I said 6C was possible.
Now you are admitting 10C is possible. If a professional
meteorologist such as yourself can get it so wrong, then surely doom
and gloom could be just around the corner?
Cheers, Alastair.
Athiest 4 Bush
>>>>Except that work has already been done that shows the maximum
>>>>increase in temperature is capped at about 10C.
>>>
>>>Oh, in that case, no problem.
>>
>>LOL. I never said it wasn't a problem. I merely pointed out
>>that Alistair's usual strident, "we're all going to die" was overdone.
>>Again.
>
> Yes, You thought I might be overdoing it when I said 6C was possible.
> Now you are admitting 10C is possible. If a professional
> meteorologist such as yourself can get it so wrong, then surely doom
> and gloom could be just around the corner?
>
> Cheers, Alastair.
All things are possible ( wait an athiest says that? ).
But your buddy Michaels points out that the CMIPs
(Climate Model Intercomparison Projects) all indicate
a linear rate of temperature increase for EGHG worlds.
Hansen's recent Journal of Climate pronouncement
( the Alternative Scenario with improved ocean modeling )
was about 1.0C per century.
The last 30 years of GISS data, has a rate about 1.7C per century.
You should have a lot of reasons and evidence to back up
any numbers that vary so greatly from the observed and modeled.
life...@atlantic.net
>> Let me guess, your first post to a science newsgroup, no?
> Yes it is. Does it show much?
Honestly, yes it does, but you have to start somewhere.
Don't be afraid to be wrong, I am all the time.
The trick is to admit you are wrong, when you
find out that you are wrong, for instance,
I've been pounding on life on Mars, and
as it turns out, I could be very wrong.
But I will have learned a great deal.
-----
You can google it out :
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=solar+irradiance+proxy+data
There are variations over the 11 year sunspot cycle,
but the average has been fairly flat over the
last 50 or 60 years. Milankovitch cycles are
more relevant to long term climate, as the
variation in insolation is much greater.
I suggest you start here :
http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/globalwarming.html#Irradiance
http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/globalwarming.html
Don't be a 'flat earther'.
Vendicar Decarian
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:qD9Ld.1829$Nn1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Nothing of consequence. As Usual...
Watching Americans die in Iraq is pure entertainment.
"This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centres, stories of
which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the prisoners
who were freed ... were not, as some assumed, inflicted methodically, but
were excesses committed by individual prison guards, their deputies, and men
who laid violent hands on the detainees." - George W. Bush?
"This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centres, stories of
which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the prisoners
who were freed ... were not, as some assumed, inflicted methodically, but
were excesses committed by individual prison guards, their deputies, and men
who laid violent hands on the detainees." - Rudolf Hoess - SS commandant at
Auschwitz
Alastair McDonald
"Athiest 4 Bush" <ath...@for.bush> wrote in message
news:pdeLd.697$GY1....@news.uswest.net...
> Alastair McDonald wrote:
>
> >>>>Except that work has already been done that shows the maximum
> >>>>increase in temperature is capped at about 10C.
> >>>
> >>>Oh, in that case, no problem.
> >>
> >>LOL. I never said it wasn't a problem. I merely pointed out
> >>that Alistair's usual strident, "we're all going to die" was overdone.
> >>Again.
> >
> > Yes, You thought I might be overdoing it when I said 6C was possible.
> > Now you are admitting 10C is possible. If a professional
> > meteorologist such as yourself can get it so wrong, then surely doom
> > and gloom could be just around the corner?
> >
> > Cheers, Alastair.
>
> All things are possible ( wait an athiest says that? ).
No doubt you voted for Bush because he was the sort of guy who did
not give a sucker a second beak. The catch is, calling yourself an
atheist doesn't stop you from being taken for a sucker by GWB just
like the Christians!
> But your buddy Michaels points out that the CMIPs
> (Climate Model Intercomparison Projects) all indicate
> a linear rate of temperature increase for EGHG worlds.
Michaels is no buddy of mine.
> Hansen's recent Journal of Climate pronouncement
> ( the Alternative Scenario with improved ocean modeling )
> was about 1.0C per century.
Neither is Hansen.
> The last 30 years of GISS data, has a rate about 1.7C per century.
Comapre that with 0.6C for the last century. That means that the rate
is accelerating, at say 1.1C every 30 years. In 90 years time it will be
1.7 + 3.3 = 5C.
> You should have a lot of reasons and evidence to back up
> any numbers that vary so greatly from the observed and modeled.
The climateprediction.net model gave a range from +1 to +10 C for
global temperature change. Unfortunately I, nor does anyone else)
have observed figures for the next 100 years.
If you must post, keep them sensible. This is a sci. newsgroup.
Cheers, Alastair.
Athiest 4 Bush
LOL.
Have another Scotch.
Lloyd Parker
"Jerry K" <no-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>news:cte9nu$iqn$9...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>
>>>How about instead of assuming, hoping, and wanting human activity to be
>>>the cause of global warming, we look at the actual climate records and
>>>evidence that clearly indicates global warming is a naturally occurring
>>>event?
>>
>> Because all the evidence says the current warming is a human-caused
event.
>
>I do not belive that is true.
I don't care. Creationists don't believe evolution is true either.
Fortunately, science doesn't depend on convincing fools for it to work.
> I do belive that it is generally accepted
>that some component of global warming is attributed to cyclical warming
and
>cooling of the sun -- sun spots.
But not most of the current warming -- it's VERY generally accepted it's
attributable to human activities.
>
>
>
>
David Ball
Crawl back under your rock, Hanson, you malodorous little
troll. I've neither the time nor the inclination to waste on the
manure you post.
David Ball
LOL. No, you were overdoing it when you made the claim about
20C. Please pay attention.
Jerry K
> In article <TtCdnYlddoh...@comcast.com>,
> "Jerry K" <no-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:cte9nu$iqn$9...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>
>>>>How about instead of assuming, hoping, and wanting human activity to be
>>>>the cause of global warming, we look at the actual climate records and
>>>>evidence that clearly indicates global warming is a naturally occurring
>>>>event?
>>>
>>> Because all the evidence says the current warming is a human-caused
> event.
>>
>>I do not belive that is true.
>
> I don't care. Creationists don't believe evolution is true either.
> Fortunately, science doesn't depend on convincing fools for it to work.
(I don't care. as he stomps his feet and carries on) So I guess if I don't
believe in what you belive in that I am a fool. Nice open mind you have
there. One fact that I am pretty sure of is that there are reasonably
intelligent, well educated people on both sided of this debate. If you have
already decided which side is right and will just ignore the other side,
then I suggest that perhaps you are the bigger fool.
>> I do belive that it is generally accepted
>>that some component of global warming is attributed to cyclical warming
> and
>>cooling of the sun -- sun spots.
>
> But not most of the current warming -- it's VERY generally accepted it's
> attributable to human activities.
Again, there are reputible scientists that disagree. Yeah, I know, if they
disagree then they are not reputable ---- I could see that comming from a
mile away. I am not sure if I should be surprised by your closed mindedness
or should expect it given your ".edu" suffix on your eMail domain.
I have not made up my mind yet. I am doing some reading on the subject ---
both from sides of the isle. I am starting to participate in this group to
get some additional insights into the debate. You obviously have little of
importance to offer.
Lloyd Parker
"Jerry K" <no-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>news:ctlhm3$pis$6...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <TtCdnYlddoh...@comcast.com>,
>> "Jerry K" <no-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:cte9nu$iqn$9...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>>
>>>>>How about instead of assuming, hoping, and wanting human activity to
be
>>>>>the cause of global warming, we look at the actual climate records and
>>>>>evidence that clearly indicates global warming is a naturally
occurring
>>>>>event?
>>>>
>>>> Because all the evidence says the current warming is a human-caused
>> event.
>>>
>>>I do not belive that is true.
>>
>> I don't care. Creationists don't believe evolution is true either.
>> Fortunately, science doesn't depend on convincing fools for it to work.
>
>(I don't care. as he stomps his feet and carries on) So I guess if I
don't
>believe in what you belive in that I am a fool.
If you cling to dogma when facts show otherwise, yes, like a creationist,
you are a fool.
>Nice open mind you have
>there.
So you think the flat-earth theory is still open to discussion?
>One fact that I am pretty sure of is that there are reasonably
>intelligent, well educated people on both sided of this debate.
Then you haven't been keeping up with the debate.
>If you have
>already decided which side is right and will just ignore the other side,
>then I suggest that perhaps you are the bigger fool.
So you DO believe in letting the flat-earth theory have equal time?
>
>>> I do belive that it is generally accepted
>>>that some component of global warming is attributed to cyclical warming
>> and
>>>cooling of the sun -- sun spots.
>>
>> But not most of the current warming -- it's VERY generally accepted it's
>> attributable to human activities.
>
>Again, there are reputible scientists that disagree.
Sorry, there are not.
>Yeah, I know, if they
>disagree then they are not reputable ---- I could see that comming from a
>mile away. I am not sure if I should be surprised by your closed
mindedness
>or should expect it given your ".edu" suffix on your eMail domain.
No, all evidence shows the contrary. All scientific articles, all
scientific agencies, all scientific data. Have you looked at the IPCC
reports? The National Academy of Sciences? NASA? EPA? NOAA? Or are you
saying they're somehow "balanced" by Exxon and the electric power industry?
>
>I have not made up my mind yet. I am doing some reading on the subject
---
>both from sides of the isle. I am starting to participate in this group
to
>get some additional insights into the debate. You obviously have little
of
>importance to offer.
Then please read SCIENTIFIC sources, not industry front groups.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jerry K
>>>>>>How about instead of assuming, hoping, and wanting human activity to
> be
>>>>>>the cause of global warming, we look at the actual climate records and
>>>>>>evidence that clearly indicates global warming is a naturally
> occurring
>>>>>>event?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because all the evidence says the current warming is a human-caused
>>> event.
>>>>
>>>>I do not belive that is true.
>>>
>>> I don't care. Creationists don't believe evolution is true either.
>>> Fortunately, science doesn't depend on convincing fools for it to work.
>>
>>(I don't care. as he stomps his feet and carries on) So I guess if I
> don't
>>believe in what you belive in that I am a fool.
>
>
> If you cling to dogma when facts show otherwise, yes, like a creationist,
> you are a fool.
I cling to my position of not knowing for sure. While global warming MAY be
a real thing, I remain unconvinced that human activity is playing a MAJOR
role in it. There is certainly some data that shows some correlation
between CO production and warming. There is also data that suggests cooling
in areas where warming should be occurring. While some point to receding
glaciers as evidence, others point to that some of the glaciers being
referenced have been receding for hundreds of years. There are those who
say that global warming is a gradual process that primarilly effects night
time temperatures while another group says global warming is evident because
of suddenly higher daytime temeratures.
On "fact" that is clear to me: there is a lot of Bull Shit in this business.
My Bull Shit Warning meter is normally set to go off at the first signs of
closed minds, Ad Hominem attacks and name calling. You are starting to
trigger the alarm...
<snip>
>>One fact that I am pretty sure of is that there are reasonably
>>intelligent, well educated people on both sided of this debate.
>
> Then you haven't been keeping up with the debate.
No, actually I am just getting involved. I have done some reading on both
sides of the debate and found reasonable people on both sides that do not
happen to agree on either the data, or the interpretation of the data. And
a lot of un reasonable people on both sides of the debate that are more
interested in being noisy than productive.
>
>>If you have
>>already decided which side is right and will just ignore the other side,
>>then I suggest that perhaps you are the bigger fool.
>
> So you DO believe in letting the flat-earth theory have equal time?
Sure, why not. It may turn out that the earth is flat, but just appears
round to us because of something deep down in bowels of space-time / quarks
/ string theory.
I wonder if the proponents of the Flat Earth theory were as interested in
hearing this "silly " new theory about a round earth. Imagine the debates
whet it was proposed that the earth was not at the center of the universe.
Sure, why not. You keep your mind closed, I will try to keep mine open.
>>>> I do belive that it is generally accepted
>>>>that some component of global warming is attributed to cyclical warming
>>> and
>>>>cooling of the sun -- sun spots.
>>>
>>> But not most of the current warming -- it's VERY generally accepted it's
>>> attributable to human activities.
>>
>>Again, there are reputible scientists that disagree.
>
> Sorry, there are not.
Yes there are... (No there aren't) Yes there are ... (No there aren't)
Unless your definition of reputible is that they agree with you in which
case you are right.
>
>>Yeah, I know, if they
>>disagree then they are not reputable ---- I could see that comming from a
>>mile away. I am not sure if I should be surprised by your closed
> mindedness
>>or should expect it given your ".edu" suffix on your eMail domain.
>
> No, all evidence shows the contrary. All scientific articles, all
> scientific agencies, all scientific data. Have you looked at the IPCC
> reports? The National Academy of Sciences? NASA? EPA? NOAA? Or are
> you
> saying they're somehow "balanced" by Exxon and the electric power
> industry?
Oops, you have slipped off the edge. You really do need to get out a
little. While I can, with great effort, accept that you may not agree with
any of the opposition, for you to suggest that there is no opposition is a
sure sign that you are out of touch.
Jerry K
<life...@atlantic.net> wrote in message
news:1107144132.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> January 30, 2005
Thanks.
Alastair McDonald
The 20C claim is for the British Isles not globally, and it was not made by
me.
It was made by scientists at Oxford using a model from the Hadley Centre.
Clearly you are the one who should be paying attention!
Cheers, Alastair.
Joshua Halpern
highly unlikely. You might be able to match current climate with the
upper end of climate sensitivity from that study, but you would almost
certainly not be able to match the climate in the last ~100 years or
more. The problem is the study was not strongly enough bounded.
josh halpern
James Annan
> I think James Annan and others made it pretty clear why 10C is extremely
> highly unlikely. You might be able to match current climate with the
> upper end of climate sensitivity from that study, but you would almost
> certainly not be able to match the climate in the last ~100 years or
> more. The problem is the study was not strongly enough bounded.
Has the realclimate comment been mentioned here yet?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=115
James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
Lloyd Parker
"Jerry K" <no-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>news:ctlv0v$bc0$3...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>
>>>>>>>How about instead of assuming, hoping, and wanting human activity to
>> be
>>>>>>>the cause of global warming, we look at the actual climate records
and
>>>>>>>evidence that clearly indicates global warming is a naturally
>> occurring
>>>>>>>event?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because all the evidence says the current warming is a human-caused
>>>> event.
>>>>>
>>>>>I do not belive that is true.
>>>>
>>>> I don't care. Creationists don't believe evolution is true either.
>>>> Fortunately, science doesn't depend on convincing fools for it to
work.
>>>
>>>(I don't care. as he stomps his feet and carries on) So I guess if I
>> don't
>>>believe in what you belive in that I am a fool.
>>
>>
>> If you cling to dogma when facts show otherwise, yes, like a
creationist,
>> you are a fool.
>
>I cling to my position of not knowing for sure.
You've been implying you doubt CO2 causes warming, not that you're just
uncertain (kind of like the difference between an atheist and an agnostic).
If you are uncertain, why not ask questions here instead of making
(erroneous) assertions? Why not read scientific journals? Why not read
the IPCC report, or what the National Academy of Sciences says?
> While global warming MAY be
>a real thing, I remain unconvinced that human activity is playing a MAJOR
>role in it.
OK, what would it take to convince you? The data is all there, published
in scientific journals, summarized in the IPCC report.
> There is certainly some data that shows some correlation
>between CO production and warming. There is also data that suggests
cooling
>in areas where warming should be occurring.
We're talking global warming, not spot warming, you know.
> While some point to receding
>glaciers as evidence, others point to that some of the glaciers being
>referenced have been receding for hundreds of years.
Again, look at the data.
From AP(long):
By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent
CHACALTAYA GLACIER, Bolivia - Up and down the icy spine of South America,
the glaciers are melting, the white mantle of the Andes Mountains washing
away at an ever faster rate. "Look. You can see. Chacaltaya has split in
two," scientist Edson Ramirez said as he led a visitor up toward a
once-grand ice flow high in the thin air of the Bolivian cordillera.
A guide to different laptop breeds, plus the top 15 notebooks, and a look
at the future of tablet PCs.
In the distance below, beneath drifting clouds, sprawled 2-mile-high La
Paz, a growing city that survives on the water running off the shoulders of
these treeless peaks.
Chacaltaya, a frozen storehouse of such water, will be gone in seven to
eight years, said Ramirez, a Bolivian glaciologist, or ice specialist.
"Some small glaciers like this have already disappeared," he said as
melting icicles dripped on nearby rock, exposed for the first time in
millennia. "In the next 10 years, many more will."
They'll disappear far beyond Bolivia. From Alaska in the north, to
Montana's Glacier National Park, to the great ice fields of wild Patagonia
at this continent's southern tip, the "rivers of ice" that have marked
landscapes from prehistory are liquefying, shrinking, retreating.
In east Africa, the storied snows of Mount Kilimanjaro are vanishing. In
the icebound Alps and Himalayas of Europe and Asia, the change has been
stunning. From South America to south Asia, new glacial lakes threaten to
overflow and drown villages below.
In the past few years, space satellites have helped measure the global
trend, but scientists such as Rajendra K. Pachauri, a native of north
India, have long seen what was happening on the ground.
"I know from observation," Pachauri told a reporter at an international
climate conference in Argentina. "If you go to the Himalayan peaks, the
rate at which the glaciers are retreating is alarming. And this is not an
isolated example. I've seen photographs of Mount Kilimanjaro 50 years ago
and now. The evidence is visible."
"Ample" evidence indicates that global warming is causing glaciers to
retreat worldwide, reports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a
U.N.-sponsored network of climate scientists led by Pachauri.
Global temperatures rose about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the 20th century.
French glaciologists working with Ramirez and other scientists at La Paz's
San Andres University estimate that the Bolivian Andes are warming even
faster, currently at a half-degree Fahrenheit per decade.
The warming will continue as long as "greenhouse gases," primarily carbon
dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, accumulate in the atmosphere, say
the U.N. panel and other authoritative scientific organizations.
The Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement, mandates cutbacks in such
emissions, but the reductions are small and the United States, the biggest
emitter, is not a party, arguing that the mandates will set back the U.S.
economy.
As that pact takes effect Feb. 16, the impact of climate change is already
apparent.
An international study concluded in November that winter temperatures have
risen as much as 7 degrees Fahrenheit over 50 years in the Arctic, where
permafrost is thawing and sea ice is shrinking. Pacific islands are losing
land to encroaching seas, oceans expanding as they warm and as they receive
runoff from the Greenland ice cap and other sources.
Those sources include at least one gushing new river of meltwater in
western China, where thousands of Himalayan and other glaciers are
shrinking. In the Italian Alps, 10 percent of the ice melted away in the
European heat wave of 2003 and experts fear all will be gone in 20 to 30
years.
Such rapid runoff would do more than feed rising seas. It would end
centuries of reliable flows through populated lands, jeopardizing water
supplies for human consumption, agriculture and electricity.
In Peru, endowed with vast Andean ice caps and glaciers, 70 percent of the
power comes from hydroelectric dams catching runoff, but officials fear
much of it could be gone within a decade. Meanwhile, new mountainside lakes
are bulging from the melt, threatening to break their banks and devastate
nearby towns.
Here in impoverished Bolivia, the government has barely begun to plan for
climate change.
Tomas Quisbert, a hydrological engineer with the water company serving the
2 million people of the La Paz region, said 95 percent of its supplies come
from the mountains, either rain runoff or glacier melt. "But we can't say
precisely how much comes from the glaciers," he said.
Ramirez and fellow scientists are seeking government support to do a
complete assessment of water in the La Paz basin, linked to computer
modeling of future regional climate and its impact.
They'll soon move on from 17,500-foot-high Chacaltaya ("Cold Road" in the
native Aymara language) as it shrinks toward oblivion. But in 13 years of
intense study of the glacier, the scientists have gathered a rich lode of
data representative of countless small glaciers across the region.
A rugged hour's drive up from La Paz, with a simple mountain lodge beside
it, Chacaltaya was once the world's highest ski slope. But no one has skied
down its tongue of snow-coated ice since 1998. The melt has exposed rock
right across its midsection, splitting the glacier in two.
It covers an area of less than 15 acres, with ice less than 26 feet thick.
Ramirez said it lost two-thirds of its mass in the 1990s alone, and is now
probably a mere 2 percent the size it once was.
Chacaltaya and other Andean glaciers had been retreating since the 18th
century, when the "Little Ice Age" ended locally, but the rate has picked
up dramatically in recent decades, melting three times faster since the
1980s than in the mid-20th century.
Although rising temperatures are an underlying factor, glaciologists find a
complex cycle at work: A warming Pacific Ocean has created disruptive El
Nino climate periods more frequently and powerfully, reducing
precipitation, including snows to replenish glaciers. Less snow also means
glaciers that are less white, more gray, absorbing more heat. Newly exposed
rock walls then act like an oven to further speed melting.
Whatever the regional wrinkles, "it's a global view," said Lonnie Thompson,
one of the world's foremost glaciologists.
"What we see in the Andes is happening in Kilimanjaro and in the Himalayas.
We've just been in southeast Alaska, and 1,987 out of 2,000 glaciers are
retreating there," the Ohio State University scientist said in a telephone
interview from Columbus.
"It's a very compelling story," he said. The glaciers — "water towers of
the world" — are the most visible indicators that we are now in the first
phase of global warming, Thompson said.
> There are those who
>say that global warming is a gradual process that primarilly effects night
>time temperatures while another group says global warming is evident
because
>of suddenly higher daytime temeratures.
That's like saying "there are those who say the earth was created in 6 days
and those who say it took billions of years."
>
>On "fact" that is clear to me: there is a lot of Bull Shit in this
business.
>My Bull Shit Warning meter is normally set to go off at the first signs of
>closed minds, Ad Hominem attacks and name calling. You are starting to
>trigger the alarm...
Yeah, I react like that when someone thinks the earth is 6000 years old
too. If you don't understand the science, shut up and listen instead of
spewing forth.
>
><snip>
>
>>>One fact that I am pretty sure of is that there are reasonably
>>>intelligent, well educated people on both sided of this debate.
>>
>> Then you haven't been keeping up with the debate.
>
>No, actually I am just getting involved. I have done some reading on both
>sides of the debate and found reasonable people on both sides that do not
>happen to agree on either the data, or the interpretation of the data.
Again, if you read both sides of the "evolution debate" you might say the
same thing. But not if you educated yourself about science. You need to
do that here. I bet you've read web sites and that's it. Have you ever
looked at a science textbook? A scientific journal?
And
>a lot of un reasonable people on both sides of the debate that are more
>interested in being noisy than productive.
>
>>
>>>If you have
>>>already decided which side is right and will just ignore the other side,
>>>then I suggest that perhaps you are the bigger fool.
>>
>> So you DO believe in letting the flat-earth theory have equal time?
>
>Sure, why not. It may turn out that the earth is flat, but just appears
>round to us because of something deep down in bowels of space-time /
quarks
>/ string theory.
Yeah, and people live in the center too. Jeez, is this the state of US
education today?
>
>I wonder if the proponents of the Flat Earth theory were as interested in
>hearing this "silly " new theory about a round earth. Imagine the debates
>whet it was proposed that the earth was not at the center of the universe.
Well, the flat earthers had no data, no scientific principles. The other
side did. So that makes you GW denialists the flat earthers.
>
>Sure, why not. You keep your mind closed, I will try to keep mine open.
Fine. So you're still open to the idea that astrology might determine your
fate, that the earth might be 6000 years old, that thunder might be the
wrath of the gods.
>
>>>>> I do belive that it is generally accepted
>>>>>that some component of global warming is attributed to cyclical
warming
>>>> and
>>>>>cooling of the sun -- sun spots.
>>>>
>>>> But not most of the current warming -- it's VERY generally accepted
it's
>>>> attributable to human activities.
>>>
>>>Again, there are reputible scientists that disagree.
>>
>> Sorry, there are not.
>
>Yes there are... (No there aren't) Yes there are ... (No there aren't)
>Unless your definition of reputible is that they agree with you in which
>case you are right.
My definition is qualified in the field, publishing in peer-reviewed
scientific journals...
>
>>
>>>Yeah, I know, if they
>>>disagree then they are not reputable ---- I could see that comming from
a
>>>mile away. I am not sure if I should be surprised by your closed
>> mindedness
>>>or should expect it given your ".edu" suffix on your eMail domain.
>>
>> No, all evidence shows the contrary. All scientific articles, all
>> scientific agencies, all scientific data. Have you looked at the IPCC
>> reports? The National Academy of Sciences? NASA? EPA? NOAA? Or are
>> you
>> saying they're somehow "balanced" by Exxon and the electric power
>> industry?
>
>Oops, you have slipped off the edge. You really do need to get out a
>little. While I can, with great effort, accept that you may not agree
with
>any of the opposition, for you to suggest that there is no opposition is a
>sure sign that you are out of touch.
There is as much opposition to this as there is to evolution or the Big
Bang theory.
>
>
>
>
Vendicar Decarian
"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:1106945238.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Oh, in that case, no problem.
it would certainly mean the destruction of the U.S. as we know it.
A very good thing indeed.
charliew2
"Athiest 4 Bush" <ath...@for.bush> wrote in message
news:pdeLd.697$GY1....@news.uswest.net...
charliew2 wrote in a posting that James Annan responded to:
>>> It's a sad day when many go about bleating that computer simulations
with no
>>> corroborating evidence are valid scientific experiments.
>> There is corroborating evidence - the models produce reasonable
>> simulations of today's climate.
>> I am sure that by "corroborating evidence" you don't mean that you will
>> accept nothing less than that the model must be validated against the
>> climate that exists once CO2 has risen to 570ppm.
>> If you will accept less corroboration than this, then what level of
>> corroboration do you require?
>> James
See above, James. Also, I pass on this observation: even if all of the
accepted models accurately model past climate, is it reasonable to put faith
in the same models, when there is a wide range of predictions regarding
future climate in those same models? Such a broad range of predictions can
be due to several causes, including:
* the models are all accurate, but the *assumed* future CO2 emissions
scenarios vary greatly
* the models were all "force fit" on past data, effectively hiding modeling
errors of future predictions
* some enviros are deliberately reporting only the worst case scenarios from
model results
In addition, if you take the time to look in books on regression analysis,
you will note that there are confidence limits that go along with the model
predictions. The highest degree of confidence exists in the fitted data,
and the degree of confidence rapidly drops as any fitted model is
extrapolated. This fact should require some sort of measurement with real
world data, despite the fact that such a measurement is seen as
inconvenient.