Is This True?
Jim McGinn
"Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by computer
models that served as the basis for the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-329es.html
Roger Coppock
In 2006, the reverse is true. Observed surface
warming is now running ahead of model projections.
Rumor has it that the IPCC is going to remove the
top estimate of projected global mean temperature,
just publishing a minimum temperature, in their
fourth assessment. "Tipping points" of positive
feedbacks are blamed.
Cato and Michaels are very poor sources for global
warming information, even when they are current.
H2-PV NOW
What the HELL are you doing visiting CATO INSTITUTE website in the
first place!
CATO was co-founded by Charles G Koch, son of Fred Koch (co-founder of
the John Birch Society). His brother and co-partner in KOCH INDUSTRIES,
David Koch sits on the board of director all these years watching over
the family interest. The family interests of Koch industries is OIL,
pipelines, OIL, fertilizers, OIL, petrochemicals, OIL, power utilities,
OIL and recently they bought Georgia Pacific for $14,000,000,000.00
cash from the profits of last summer's oil gouging. Oh, yeah, did I
remember to say they were in OIL?
CATO is part of an ORGANIZED CRIME operation engaged in FELONY FRAUD.
For many years they hired out to the Tobacco R.I.C.O. CRIME LORDS to
commit felony fraud science hoaxes. When the 46 states attorney
generals launched a full scale investigation of tobacco frauds they
used subpoena power to yank out secret documents and files --
40,000,000 pages -- from the conspirators archives.
The judge in the case ordered the tobacco criminals (and they also
agreed to pay $280,000,000,000.00) to publically post the private
documents that show their 50-year crime sprees and the henchmen they
hired. CATO was all over the files, along with felony conspirators
Michael Gough, Fred Singer, and Steve Milloy -- all paid henchmen doing
"whitecoats" science frauds for Big Tobacco. Fred Singer alone is
caught on a paper trail of four felony fraud science hoaxes committed
on two continents.
Singer's Frauds for Big Tobacco morphed seamlessly into Frauds for BIG
OIL. Philip Morris paid the bills for the "Heidelberg Appeal" group,
which has become a largescale fraud operation for big oil's felony
frauds. Philip Morris paid the bills for TASSC -- The A.S.S. Coalition
-- which made Steve Milloy the Junkman he is today. Philip Morris had a
vice president on the board of CATO almost continuously for many years,
only lately going low-profile and skipping the "honor".
While you know what Exxon's profits are as a public company making
annual reports, you don't know what the Killer Koch Brothers are doing
because they own the whole company and don't trade stocks publically.
FORBES magazine, which is not very good at keeping track of
billionaires, has each brother worth $4b and the company doing $25b/yr
gross.
Why don't you take a couple of hours and introduce yourself to one of
America's most ruthless crime families.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=150 Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=159 Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=161 Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=162 Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=173 Liars Lineup
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=140 C. Boyden Gray
Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=141 David Koch
Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=142 Dick Armey
Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=93 Kochtopus George
Mason
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=112 Walter Williams
Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=114 Walter Williams
Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=115 Walter Williams
Kochtopus
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=360 Tech Central
All People
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=126 Dirty Ten
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=147 Dirty Seven
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=174 Singer Michaels
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=175 Singer McKitrick
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=176 Singer Circle
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=177 Dirty Ten
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=183 CEI
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=356 CEI Key People
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=357 CEI All People
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=358 American Petroleum
Inst.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=359 AEI All People
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=361 Cato All
People
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=362 CSE Kochtopus
All People
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=84 Singer Thomas
Gale Moore
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=85 George Mason
University
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=88 Politicians
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=90 C. Boyden Gray
Kochtopus
I'm sure GOOGLE can educate you a bit deeper.
Jim McGinn
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1143506857.1...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> No, this was true in 1998, when it was published.
> In 2006, the reverse is true. Observed surface
> warming is now running ahead of model projections.
Uh, which models? References?
> Rumor has it that the IPCC is going to remove the
> top estimate of projected global mean temperature,
> just publishing a minimum temperature, in their
> fourth assessment. "Tipping points" of positive
> feedbacks are blamed.
So you're saying the science is very real and very clear. I think we
should be highly skeptical of these models. My hunch is that there is a lot
more uncertainty here than the scientists are letting on. For example, I've
read that the effects of cloud cover (which would increase on a warmer
planet) to regulate insolation (sunshine) are not well understood and,
consequently, ignored by the modelers.
Mostly I think people don't understand the limits of computer models. They
seem to not realize that small differences in modelling assumptions can
cause huge differences in model results.
Lastly there's the fact that the worst-case scenarios don't seem that bad.
We're supposedly going to stop using fossil fuels to avoid some future
discomfort based on conjectured drawn from "video game" technology.
>
> Cato and Michaels are very poor sources for global
> warming information, even when they are current.
What are the "good" sources?
Jim
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> So you're saying the science is very real and very clear. I think we
> should be highly skeptical of these models. My hunch is t...
> What are the "good" sources?
http://snipurl.com/oa9e
Results 1 - 100 of about 30,200 for "Warning to Humanity".
http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/warning.html
World Scientists' Warning to Humanity
18 Nov, 1992.
Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human
activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the
environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our
current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human
society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living
world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we
know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision
our present course will bring about. ...
The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach
and affect people everywhere. We need the help of many.
We require the help of the world community of scientists -- natural,
social, economic, political;
We require the help of the world's business and industrial leaders;
We require the help of the worlds religious leaders; and
We require the help of the world's peoples.
We call on all to join us in this task.
--------------------
Now you come Johnny-come-lately, Rip Van Wanker, claiming you slept
through the last 13 years and 6 months, and just now got around to
finding out if there is any problem, and all you could locate happens
to be on KILLER KOCH BROTHERS, OILMEN, website called Cato.
Isn't that special?
Scott Nudds
No it's a lie. Lying is the Cato Institute's stock and trade. That's how
they stay in business. Lying for profit.
Jim McGinn
"H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote in message
news:1143521158....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>
>> So you're saying the science is very real and very clear. I think we
>> should be highly skeptical of these models. My hunch is t...
>
>> What are the "good" sources?
>
> http://snipurl.com/oa9e
> Results 1 - 100 of about 30,200 for "Warning to Humanity".
You consider this a source?
Jim McGinn
>
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>> Is this true?
>>
>> "Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by
>> computer
>> models that served as the basis for the United Nations Framework
>> Convention
>> on Climate Change."
>>
>> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-329es.html
>
<snip rant>
Are you saying we should ignore the supposition that the observations have,
thus far, failed to confirm the validity of the models or are you saying
that you are aware of evidence to the contrary?
Jim
Jim McGinn
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
news:Pn3Wf.41786$fd.3...@read2.cgocable.net...
Isn't it true, though, that all this global warming hand wringing is based
on nothing but computer models?
Jim
H2-PV NOW
I consider it a WARNING TO HUMANITY, of which you are not a member.
Your sociopathy is what the warning was all about.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> Are you saying we should ignore the supposition that the observations have,
> thus far, failed to confirm the validity of the models or are you saying
> that you are aware of evidence to the contrary?
>
I'm say you are a stealth agent from ORGANIZED CRIME networks serving
polluting energy lords interests for 30 pieces of silver, or probably a
lot less, since cheap whore interns at the rightwing SEPTIC TANKS are a
dime a dozen. Koch's CATO gets them wholesale for about minimum wage
and sits them in boiler-rooms typing on keyboards like a million
monkeys proving that old saying is wrong -- your crap stinks and it's
not Shakespeare.
If it looks like a CATO duck, and it quacks like a CATO duck, and it
has feathers like a CATO duck, then it is probably a pus-sucking
sewer-swimming, feces-covered, brown-nosing crotch-slurping bumboy
getting an oil-pipeline enema of a Koch-Sucker.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> > No it's a lie. Lying is the Cato Institute's stock and trade. That's how
> > they stay in business. Lying for profit.
> >
>
> Isn't it true, though, that all this global warming hand wringing is based
> on nothing but computer models?
What's true is under the Information Superhighway lives the trolls from
hell, who pop up frequently to try to create some illusionary
"controversy about the science", who are paid for by FELONY FRAUD
ORGANIZED CRIME GANGS run by R.I.C.O. crimelords in the energy
business.
Not only is CLIMATE SCIENCE smarter than the trolls, but CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION SCIENCE is advanced enough to track and monitor organized
crime operating hundreds of front websites and ORGANIZED CRIME SEPTIC
TANKS.
IN SCIENCE there is ONE and only ONE penalty for science hoaxing --
ostracism. They are thrown out for life, outcasts whom NOBODY will
accociate with for life. There is no mercy, no commuting the sentence,
no repeals.
AT LEAST THREE "whitecoats" employed by CATO are known to have
committed mutiple felony science hoaxes. BY siding with them, giving
rich salaries, a soapbox for public propagation, CATO is likewise
expelled from the community of humanity for life without appeal,
without mercy, without possiblity of parole. It's over and done.
When you throw out the KNOWN FELONY FRAUDS, and all who associate with
them continuing past the exposure of their CRIMES, there is nobody
credible left in science who disputes the evidence of Global Warming
caused by Human Produced Greenhouse Gases. There are many independent
trails of evidence which buttress and support the consensus and nothing
whatsoever as a plausable alternative hypothesis which answers all the
evidence.
You didn't come here to learn what you obviously don't know about the
evidence about Global Warming. You came here with a link leading to an
ORGANIZED CRIME WEBSITE, after getting a hot enema of oilman gushing
stiff pipeline of propaganda up the bum. Do you know Jeff Gannon
personally? Did he ever "have his way with you"? You seem such a
Bareback Mountin' kind of a useful idiot cowboy, I just had to ask.
The Story of Jeff Gannon, White House Credentialed Press Corps:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html
Notice YOU MUST BE OVER 21 and REPUBLICAN to view this dirty picture of
a Whitehouse "Excort" in the nude.
XXX over 21! http://americablog.blogspot.com/bdnud.jpg
UNDERNEWS: ALL JEFF GANNON ALL THE TIME
One White House reporter expressed revulsion over the fact that it was
[Ari] ... AND GEORGE ARCHIBALD WASHINGTON TIMES, 1989: A
homosexual prostitution ring ...
http://prorev.com/2005/02/all-jeff-gannon-all-time.htm
The Washington Note: Comment on The White House's "Don't Ask, Don ...
Does anything happen in this White House without Rove's approval? ...
Let's see, a male prostitute gained access to the WH under an assumed
name. ...
www.thewashingtonnote.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=319
The Washington Note Archives
If he was already a prostitute, why not be one in the White House
... hope that a tawdry tale involving homosexual prostitution will
shock the
nation into ...
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000319.html
http://tinyurl.com/dwh6a
Results about 47,900 for Whitehouse homosexual prostitutes "Washington
Times".
The Child Prostitution Sex Ring Involving the Bush Whitehouse
HOMOSEXUAL CHILD PROSTITUTION RING INVOLVING GEORGE BUSH SR. ...
We now turn to some news stories that appeared in the Washington Times
more
than a decade ...
www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/article_archive.htm -
The Child Prostitution Ring that Reached Bush Whitehouse
BUSH CHILD PROSTITUTION COVER-UP - - - VOXFUX. ... The Washington
Times, Pg. A3 July 26, 1989 Headline: Secret Service furloughs
third White
House guard ...
http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/franklin.htm
The Franklin Coverup Scandal The Child sex ring that reached Bush ...
Boy prostitutes 15 years old (and younger) were taking midnight tours
of the ... Photographer for White House child sex ring arrested after
Thompson suicide ...
http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm
Homosexual Prostitution Inquiry Ensnares VIPs With Reagan, Bush Sr.
1989 Washington Times: Homosexual Prostitution Inquiry Ensnares VIPs
With Reagan, ... The byline reads, Call Boys Took Midnight Tour Of The
White House.
...
http://www.freepressinternational.com/franklin_121304_decamp_9h182g209k.html
Whiskey Bar: Pieces of the Puzzle
... credit card clients of a homosexual prostitution ring now under
investigation ... The focus on private White House tours came after
he Washington Times ...
http://billmon.org/archives/001692.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
:: Libertythink :: Encouraging Cognitive Liberty in an Age of ...
1989: Bush matriarch says White House manwhores no big deal ... That
investigation centered on a homosexual call-boy service that operated
out of a house on ...
http://www.libertythink.com/2005/02/1989-bush-matriarch-says-white-house_17
''Call Boys Took Midnight Tour of White House."
he Times reported, ``A homosexual prostitution ring is under ... The
Washington Times reported in an article titled ``White House Mute on
Call Boy
Scandal ...
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-09-05/discussion.cgi.82.html
Roger Coppock
you sound like Steve Schulin.
H2-PV NOW
Roger Coppock wrote:
> With all those stupid old lies,
> you sound like Steve Schulin.
It could be Schulin. The McGinn pseusoname logs in through SBC
prodigy.net, which erases the trail of origin.
Don't you find it the least bit coincidental that you never see Schulin
and McGinn in the same room at the same time?
Scott Nudds
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Are you saying we should ignore the supposition that the observations
have,
> thus far, failed to confirm the validity of the models or are you saying
> that you are aware of evidence to the contrary?
Exactly what models are you claiming have not been validated by
observation?
Of course all of the current models have.
Why continue to lie McGinn?
I guess lying is all you ever had.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-329es.html
No, hasn't been true for a while (if its ever been true).
See IPCC TAR, the spm, fig 4 I think.
Also wikipedia [[global warming]] will point you in the right places.
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Larry Caldwell
jimm...@sbcglobal.net (Jim McGinn) says...
> Lastly there's the fact that the worst-case scenarios don't seem that bad.
> We're supposedly going to stop using fossil fuels to avoid some future
> discomfort based on conjectured drawn from "video game" technology.
You are correct that global warming may not be that important, but there
is no doubt that the entire biosphere is in terrible trouble. From the
destruction of wildlife in South Asia to the collapse of the marine food
chain, human activities are causing destruction completely unrelated to
global warming. Most of the destruction has happened in only a few
decades, and the process is accelerating. By the time the Earth reaches
its projected human population of 9 or 10 billion, there will be nothing
left but domestic animals and vermin. Every other life form will have
been squeezed out of its available habitat by human encroachment.
Idiots like "H2-PV NOW" love global warming because it allows them to
demonize someone else while avoiding all responsibility for the
destruction occurring around them.
Thomas Palm
news:2s%Vf.48899$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
This is a report from 1998, which is a long time ago in this field. When it
talks about lower than expected warming it is based on now significantly
revised figures by Spencer&Christy (they had made a sign error in their
calculations). Furhermore Michaels when he talks about the expected warming
uses a distorted version of an article by Hansen. Hansen made three
scenarios: one as an upper limit, one as the lower and one as a best guess.
The best guess turned out to be fairly accurate, but when Michaels showed
that curve to congress he had edited out the lower two and only showed the
highest estimate to "prove" that the models were wrong.
Basically, if it comes from Cato or is written by Michael, assume it is
wrong unless you can get it confirmed by a more reliable source.
Raymond Arritt
> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> news:1143506857.1...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> No, this was true in 1998, when it was published. In 2006, the
>> reverse is true. Observed surface warming is now running ahead of
>> model projections.
>
> Uh, which models? References?
See the Third Assessment Report from the IPCC, published in 2001.
Better yet, wait for the Fourth Assessment Report, to appear early next
year. The newer models are doing much better than the mid-1990's models.
> So you're saying the science is very real and very clear. I think
> we should be highly skeptical of these models. My hunch is that
> there is a lot more uncertainty here than the scientists are letting
> on.
Yeah, we're a secret cabal. We're so sneaky that all the model results
for the next IPCC report are available on publicly accessible servers.
It's the "hide in plain sight" approach, you see.
> For example, I've read that the effects of cloud cover (which would
> increase on a warmer planet) to regulate insolation (sunshine) are
> not well understood and, consequently, ignored by the modelers.
The effects of cloud cover are imperfectly understood -- as are all
aspects of climate -- but definitely are not ignored. Radiative effects
of clouds are included in all present-day models.
> Mostly I think people don't understand the limits of computer models.
> They seem to not realize that small differences in modelling
> assumptions can cause huge differences in model results.
You're confusing climate with day-to-day weather. Climate models are
markedly insensitive to initial conditions. Nowadays, most climate
models run "ensembles", meaning that they do several runs from different
initial conditions. This lets us check the sensitivity to initial
conditions by looking at the variations from one ensemble member to another.
> Lastly there's the fact that the worst-case scenarios don't seem that
> bad. We're supposedly going to stop using fossil fuels to avoid some
> future discomfort based on conjectured drawn from "video game"
> technology.
>
>>
>> Cato and Michaels are very poor sources for global warming
>> information, even when they are current.
>
> What are the "good" sources?
The flippant answer is "almost anybody else." The serious answer is to
see the IPCC reports, or the professional literature. Probably the most
readable for the general public is the IPCC Summary for Policymakers,
available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf
Thomas Palm
> So you're saying the science is very real and very clear. I think we
> should be highly skeptical of these models. My hunch is that there is
> a lot more uncertainty here than the scientists are letting on.
The scientists are quite aware that there are large uncertainties,
although the are slowly shrinking. Nor do you have any reason to assume
that any errors they make are in our favor. When it comes to, for
example, melting of Greenland glaciers the surprise is that they are
melting much faster than models predicted.
> For
> example, I've read that the effects of cloud cover (which would
> increase on a warmer planet) to regulate insolation (sunshine) are not
> well understood and, consequently, ignored by the modelers.
Modellers certainly include clouds to the best of our understanding of
them! You are right that it is one of the largest remaining
uncertainties, but again you are wrong when assuming it will be in our
favor. There is no a priori reason to assume there will be more clouds as
the world heats up. Britain is cold and cloudy, Sahara is warm and clear,
just to show that there is no simple relation between temperature and
cloudiness.
> Mostly I think people don't understand the limits of computer models.
> They seem to not realize that small differences in modelling
> assumptions can cause huge differences in model results.
That's why people working in the field make sure to compare their models
with reality. Historical data can constrain the possible CO2 sensitivity
as well:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=274
> Lastly there's the fact that the worst-case scenarios don't seem that
> bad. We're supposedly going to stop using fossil fuels to avoid some
> future discomfort based on conjectured drawn from "video game"
> technology.
IPCC doesn't really give worst case scenarios since they were too scared
of being considered alarmist. Those senarios involve some kind of mode
flip of the climate system where you can get radically change climate
(even if the global average doesn't necessarily change more than
expected).
And if you don't think those scenarios IPCC presents are bad that may be
because you lack imagination or knowledge. Anyone claiming climate
studies are based on "video game technology" has a lot of reading to do.
I can assure you that Arrhenius didn't have access to a computer when he
made the first estimates of CO2 sensitivity in 1896.
>> Cato and Michaels are very poor sources for global
>> warming information, even when they are current.
>
> What are the "good" sources?
IPCC is a good reference, as close to an official position from the
climate scientist community as you can get:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
As you seem to read sceptic sites, this is a good reference for debunking
the more common myths they spread:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-
sceptic.html
Lloyd Parker
Yes, and so is "smoking does not cause cancer."
Al Bedo
> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:2s%Vf.48899$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> Is this true?
>>
>> "Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by
>> computer models that served as the basis for the United Nations
>> Framework Convention on Climate Change."
>>
>> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-329es.html
>
> This is a report from 1998, which is a long time ago in this field. When it
> talks about lower than expected warming it is based on now significantly
> revised figures by Spencer&Christy (they had made a sign error in their
> calculations).
Even after correcting for this error,
the 1979 through 1996 number was within
margin of error of 0.0C/century.
So it was the warming of the last decade,
not the correction which has boosted the LT.
The current UAH LT number is 1.3C/century.
This is knocking on the door of the IPCC but
still a hair below the low end of projections.
So for century trends, we have:
(obs since 1979)
IPCC(projected): 1.4C to 5.8C
Lindzen(projected): 1.1C
Hansen(projected): 1.5C
RATPAC Surface: 1.5C
GISS Surface: 1.6C
NOAA Surface: 1.7C
UAH MSU LT: 1.3C
UAH MSU MT: 1.2C
RSS MSU MT: 1.4C
RATPAC MT: 1.8C
RATPAC 300mb: 1.4C
RATPAC Tropics 300mb: 1.4C
Not much doubt the last 26 years have shown a
warming rate of around 1.5C / century.
> calculations). Furhermore Michaels when he talks about the expected warming
> uses a distorted version of an article by Hansen. Hansen made three
> scenarios: one as an upper limit, one as the lower and one as a best guess.
> The best guess turned out to be fairly accurate, but when Michaels showed
> that curve to congress he had edited out the lower two and only showed the
> highest estimate to "prove" that the models were wrong.
>
> Basically, if it comes from Cato or is written by Michael, assume it is
> wrong unless you can get it confirmed by a more reliable source.
I would invite you to offer evidence of any 'lie'
or even significant error that Michaels has put forth.
You would probably be disturbed at how much you agree with him.
Michaels does not dispute radiative forcing or likely
continued global warming. He does state that the extent and impacts
have been exaggerated and the benefits ignored,
and offers evidence from the peer reviewed literature to
substantiate his claims.
Eric Swanson
>
>Thomas Palm wrote:
>> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:2s%Vf.48899$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
>>
>>> Is this true?
>>>
>>> "Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by
>>> computer models that served as the basis for the United Nations
>>> Framework Convention on Climate Change."
>>>
>>> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-329es.html
>>
>> This is a report from 1998, which is a long time ago in this field. When it
>> talks about lower than expected warming it is based on now significantly
>> revised figures by Spencer&Christy (they had made a sign error in their
>> calculations).
>
>Even after correcting for this error,
>the 1979 through 1996 number was within
>margin of error of 0.0C/century.
>So it was the warming of the last decade,
>not the correction which has boosted the LT.
Maybe, however, the data thu 1997 includes the lingering effects of the cooling
from Pinatubo. Thats because the use of a linear trend exagerates the impact
of events near the end of the time series. The Pinatubo cooling influence
has long since been washed out of the trend calculation, infact it's beginning
to shift into the first half of the time series, thus we will see it's impact
as a slight warming in future trend calculations.
>The current UAH LT number is 1.3C/century.
>This is knocking on the door of the IPCC but
>still a hair below the low end of projections.
But, there's still question about the validity of the UAH calculations, for
example, over the Antarctic. The RSS group excludes the Antarctic data, the
reason given being the impact of high elevations on the MSU measurements.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>news:1143506857.1...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> No, this was true in 1998, when it was published.
>> In 2006, the reverse is true. Observed surface
>> warming is now running ahead of model projections.
>
>Uh, which models? References?
>
>> Rumor has it that the IPCC is going to remove the
>> top estimate of projected global mean temperature,
>> just publishing a minimum temperature, in their
>> fourth assessment. "Tipping points" of positive
>> feedbacks are blamed.
>
>So you're saying the science is very real and very clear. I think we
>should be highly skeptical of these models. My hunch is that there is a lot
>more uncertainty here than the scientists are letting on.
Yeah, all scientists are in a giant conspiracy to ruin the American economy.
>For example, I've
>read that the effects of cloud cover (which would increase on a warmer
>planet) to regulate insolation (sunshine) are not well understood and,
>consequently, ignored by the modelers.
>
>Mostly I think people don't understand the limits of computer models. They
>seem to not realize that small differences in modelling assumptions can
>cause huge differences in model results.
>
>Lastly there's the fact that the worst-case scenarios don't seem that bad.
>We're supposedly going to stop using fossil fuels to avoid some future
>discomfort based on conjectured drawn from "video game" technology.
>
Yeah, science is just so untrustworthy. I mean, it's not like computers work,
the sun shines, the earth stays in orbit, your body's chemical processes
function...
>>
>> Cato and Michaels are very poor sources for global
>> warming information, even when they are current.
>
>What are the "good" sources?
>
IPCC. NASA. EPA. NOAA. AGU. NAS. Scientific journals.
>Jim
>
>
Lloyd Parker
It's as proven as anything in science gets, short of being able to do
controlled experiments.
Lloyd Parker
about science.
Jim McGinn
"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Uh, which models? References?
>
> See the Third Assessment Report from the IPCC, published in 2001.
> Better yet, wait for the Fourth Assessment Report, to appear early next
> year. The newer models are doing much better than the mid-1990's models.
>
>> So you're saying the science is very real and very clear. I think
>> we should be highly skeptical of these models. My hunch is that
>> there is a lot more uncertainty here than the scientists are letting
>> on.
>
> Yeah, we're a secret cabal. We're so sneaky that all the model results
> for the next IPCC report are available on publicly accessible servers.
> It's the "hide in plain sight" approach, you see.
Do you have a link? Please provide it.
>
>> For example, I've read that the effects of cloud cover (which would
>> increase on a warmer planet) to regulate insolation (sunshine) are
>> not well understood and, consequently, ignored by the modelers.
>
> The effects of cloud cover are imperfectly understood -- as are all
> aspects of climate -- but definitely are not ignored. Radiative effects
> of clouds are included in all present-day models.
References?
>
>> Mostly I think people don't understand the limits of computer models.
>> They seem to not realize that small differences in modelling
>> assumptions can cause huge differences in model results.
>
> You're confusing climate with day-to-day weather. Climate models are
> markedly insensitive to initial conditions. Nowadays, most climate
> models run "ensembles", meaning that they do several runs from different
> initial conditions. This lets us check the sensitivity to initial
> conditions by looking at the variations from one ensemble member to
> another.
The models are built upon assumptions which are deliberate simplifications
of real-world assumptions. Consequently the level of confidence associated
with the results of any such model can only be very low. Small differences
in modelling assumptions can cause huge differences in model results. Are
climatologists making the effort to make this low confidence evident to the
public. Or are they, maybe, basking in the limelight that results when we
myopically focus upon the more dramatic of the models. It wouldn't the the
first time that scientists have acted in such a manner as to justify their
own existence.
>
>> Lastly there's the fact that the worst-case scenarios don't seem that
>> bad. We're supposedly going to stop using fossil fuels to avoid some
>> future discomfort based on conjectured drawn from "video game"
>> technology.
>>
>>>
>>> Cato and Michaels are very poor sources for global warming
>>> information, even when they are current.
>>
>> What are the "good" sources?
>
> The flippant answer is "almost anybody else." The serious answer is to
> see the IPCC reports, or the professional literature. Probably the most
> readable for the general public is the IPCC Summary for Policymakers,
> available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf
I think the asssumptions that are plugged into these models need to be made
as explicit as possible.
Jim
Jim McGinn
"H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote
>> > http://snipurl.com/oa9e
>> > Results 1 - 100 of about 30,200 for "Warning to Humanity".
>>
>> You consider this a source?
>
> I consider it a WARNING TO HUMANITY, of which you are not a member.
> Your sociopathy is what the warning was all about.
Yes, I know. The sky is falling.
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:e0bq0k$fnr$2...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <D23Wf.48936$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>>news:1143506857.1...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> No, this was true in 1998, when it was published.
>>> In 2006, the reverse is true. Observed surface
>>> warming is now running ahead of model projections.
>>
>>Uh, which models? References?
No answer.
>>
>>> Rumor has it that the IPCC is going to remove the
>>> top estimate of projected global mean temperature,
>>> just publishing a minimum temperature, in their
>>> fourth assessment. "Tipping points" of positive
>>> feedbacks are blamed.
>>
>>So you're saying the science is very real and very clear. I think we
>>should be highly skeptical of these models. My hunch is that there is a
>>lot
>>more uncertainty here than the scientists are letting on.
>
> Yeah, all scientists are in a giant conspiracy to ruin the American
> economy.
Like all scientists, and all humans, they are trying to jusify their own
existence.
>
>>For example, I've
>>read that the effects of cloud cover (which would increase on a warmer
>>planet) to regulate insolation (sunshine) are not well understood and,
>>consequently, ignored by the modelers.
>>
>>Mostly I think people don't understand the limits of computer models.
>>They
>>seem to not realize that small differences in modelling assumptions can
>>cause huge differences in model results.
>>
>>Lastly there's the fact that the worst-case scenarios don't seem that bad.
>>We're supposedly going to stop using fossil fuels to avoid some future
>>discomfort based on conjectured drawn from "video game" technology.
>>
>
> Yeah, science is just so untrustworthy. I mean, it's not like computers
> work,
> the sun shines, the earth stays in orbit, your body's chemical processes
> function...
You guys fall in love with you computer models and you expect the rest of us
to just follow like sheep.
>
>>>
>>> Cato and Michaels are very poor sources for global
>>> warming information, even when they are current.
>>
>>What are the "good" sources?
>>
>
> IPCC. NASA. EPA. NOAA. AGU. NAS. Scientific journals.
Can you be more specific. I'm especially interesed in the assumptions that
are plugged into these computer models.
Jim
Jim McGinn
"Larry Caldwell" <lar...@teleport.com> wrote
> You are correct that global warming may not be that important, but there
> is no doubt that the entire biosphere is in terrible trouble. From the
> destruction of wildlife in South Asia to the collapse of the marine food
> chain, human activities are causing destruction completely unrelated to
> global warming. Most of the destruction has happened in only a few
> decades, and the process is accelerating.
The biosphere regenerates itself constantly. Species go extinct all the
time and are rapidly replaced by other species that fill the empty niche.
There is no emergency here.
By the time the Earth reaches
> its projected human population of 9 or 10 billion, there will be nothing
> left but domestic animals and vermin. Every other life form will have
> been squeezed out of its available habitat by human encroachment.
So what.
Al Bedo
>> The current UAH LT number is 1.3C/century.
>> This is knocking on the door of the IPCC but
>> still a hair below the low end of projections.
>
> But, there's still question about the validity of the UAH calculations, for
> example, over the Antarctic. The RSS group excludes the Antarctic data, the
> reason given being the impact of high elevations on the MSU measurements.
Perhaps.
However, as you saw in the run down of surface, raob, and RSS MSU,
the 1.3 number is pretty close to the 'average' 1.5 number.
And the UAH MT number of 1.2 is pretty close to the RSS MT number
of 1.4 which AIUI excludes Antarctica and high altitude locations.
So, while there may well be some errors in all the analyses,
(surface, raob, MSU), there is a lot more consistency than
there is conflict in measurement of the last twenty six years.
Jim McGinn
Jim McGinn
> We're saying you should ignore anything Cato tells you, including their
> lies
> about science.
Should we not also be skeptical of scientists and their motives?
Jim
Lloyd Parker
economy, which will make us rich and powerful, and then we'll enslave the rest
of the world, making them mine diamonds for us along with Sleepy and Dopey.
Lloyd Parker
not needed to know AGW is happening today. That comes from data.
The models are fed many different scenarios as to what the emissions of CO2
will do in the future, so they give many different outcomes. But they all
predict warming with serious consequences. If you can tell us how much CO2
the world will be emitting between now and, say, 2050, the models are quite
good at predicting what climate will be like then.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>So, in your opinion we should accept the word of climatologists unexamined?
>
>
surgery, or would you ask your neighbor and your mailman their expert opinion?
w...@bas.ac.uk
>> For example, I've read that the effects of cloud cover (which would
>> increase on a warmer planet) to regulate insolation (sunshine) are
>> not well understood and, consequently, ignored by the modelers.
Isn't this funny? The effects, you have heard, are not well understood -
and yet you understand them, it seems. Quick - publish!
-W
Jim McGinn
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:FlgWf.617$pZ3...@newsfe20.lga...
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>> So, in your opinion we should accept the word of climatologists
>> unexamined?
>
> fucking dumb and incompetent to examine anything science related.
>
> You're dumber and shit and you don't even know it.
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Mostly I'm trying to distinguish the emotion based noise from the science
based fact. Thanks for making it so easy on me.
Jim
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
> The models try to predict the future warming and its consequences. They
> are
> not needed to know AGW is happening today. That comes from data.
>
> The models are fed many different scenarios as to what the emissions of
> CO2
> will do in the future, so they give many different outcomes. But they all
> predict warming with serious consequences.
And some of these consequences may be seriously good: warmer winters, higher
precipitation to promote crops and repair of rainforest, the ability to
raise crops at higher latitudes, and more security from the threat of
extinction due to rapid cooling that may result from meteors or volcanoes.
Let us not forget that current human progress was made possible because of
the warming about 8 to 11 kya. The facts seem to indicate that warming is a
good thing. Co2 effects more environmental stability--not less.
> If you can tell us how much CO2
> the world will be emitting between now and, say, 2050, the models are
> quite
> good at predicting what climate will be like then.
Jim
David M. Besonen
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:27:44 GMT, Larry Caldwell <lar...@teleport.com> wrote:
>http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
another oregonian :-)
hi larry. are there any other oregonians in here? i live in cottage grove.
i think this is my first ever post to sci.environment. glad to be here.
ciao,
david
Eric Swanson
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>
>>> The current UAH LT number is 1.3C/century.
>>> This is knocking on the door of the IPCC but
>>> still a hair below the low end of projections.
>>
>> But, there's still question about the validity of the UAH calculations, for
>> example, over the Antarctic. The RSS group excludes the Antarctic data, the
>> reason given being the impact of high elevations on the MSU measurements.
>
>Perhaps.
>
>However, as you saw in the run down of surface, raob, and RSS MSU,
>the 1.3 number is pretty close to the 'average' 1.5 number.
I suppose.
>And the UAH MT number of 1.2 is pretty close to the RSS MT number
>of 1.4 which AIUI excludes Antarctica and high altitude locations.
The UAH TLT is not computed the same way as the MT product and has
a different characteristic over the Antarctic. Besides, the MT product
is known to contain a cooling trend which bleeds in from the Stratosphere.
>So, while there may well be some errors in all the analyses,
>(surface, raob, MSU), there is a lot more consistency than
>there is conflict in measurement of the last twenty six years.
And we see a very strong warming trend in the Arctic, as predicted.
Jim McGinn
"Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@somewhere> wrote
>> So you're saying the science is very real and very clear. I think we
>> should be highly skeptical of these models. My hunch is that there is
>> a lot more uncertainty here than the scientists are letting on.
>
> The scientists are quite aware that there are large uncertainties,
Do you think they may have dropped the ball when it comes to communicating
these uncertainties to the public?
> although the are slowly shrinking. Nor do you have any reason to assume
> that any errors they make are in our favor. When it comes to, for
> example, melting of Greenland glaciers the surprise is that they are
> melting much faster than models predicted.
Which models? references?
>
>> For
>> example, I've read that the effects of cloud cover (which would
>> increase on a warmer planet) to regulate insolation (sunshine) are not
>> well understood and, consequently, ignored by the modelers.
>
> Modellers certainly include clouds to the best of our understanding of
> them! You are right that it is one of the largest remaining
> uncertainties, but again you are wrong when assuming it will be in our
> favor. There is no a priori reason to assume there will be more clouds as
> the world heats up. Britain is cold and cloudy, Sahara is warm and clear,
> just to show that there is no simple relation between temperature and
> cloudiness.
Yes, and all they can really do is make assumptions--educated guesses--and
plug these into the computer and hope the results tell us something relevant
and accurate. But we shouldn't let these computer models lead us by the
nose.
Thanks for the reference. This site seems very level headed.
I copied what follows from this website. My reading of this is that it
confirms suspicions that global warming is not all that big of a deal:
********* begin cut and paste ********
2.2 How Much is the World Warming?
<snip>
2.2.7 Summary
Global surface temperatures have increased between 0.4 and 0.8°C since the
late 19th century, but most of this increase has occurred in two distinct
periods, 1910 to 1945 and since 1976. The rate of temperature increase since
1976 has been over 0.15°C/decade. Our confidence in the rate of warming has
increased since the SAR due to new analyses including: model simulations
using observed SSTs with and without corrections for time-dependent biases,
new studies of the effect of urbanisation on global land temperature trends,
new evidence for mass ablation of glaciers, continued reductions in
snow-cover extent, and a significant reduction in Arctic sea-ice extent in
spring and summer, and in thickness. However, there is some disagreement
between warming rates in the various land and ocean-based data sets in the
1990s, though all agree on appreciable warming.
New analyses of mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures continue to
support a reduction in the diurnal temperature range with minimum
temperatures increasing at about twice the rate of maximum temperatures over
the second half of the 20th century. Seasonally, the greatest warming since
1976 over land has occurred during the Northern Hemisphere winter and
spring, but significant warming has also occurred in the Northern Hemisphere
summer. Southern Hemisphere warming has also been strongest during the
winter over land, but little difference between the seasons is apparent when
both land and oceans are considered. The largest rates of warming continue
to be found in the mid- and high latitude continental regions of the
Northern Hemisphere.
Analyses of overall temperature trends in the low to mid-troposphere and
near the surface since 1958 are in good agreement, with a warming of about
0.1°C per decade. Since the beginning of the satellite record (1979),
however, low to mid-troposphere temperatures have warmed in both satellite
and weather balloon records at a global rate of only 0.04 and 0.03°C/decade
respectively. This is about 0.12°C/decade less than the rate of temperature
increase near the surface since 1979. About half of this difference in
warming rate is very likely to be due to the combination of differences in
spatial coverage and the real physical affects of volcanoes and ENSO (Santer
et al., 2000), see also Chapter 12. The remaining difference remains
unexplained, but is likely to be real. In the stratosphere, both satellites
and weather balloons continue to show substantial cooling. The faster rate
of recession of tropical mountain glaciers in the last twenty years than
might have been expected from the MSU and radiosonde records remains
unexplained, though some glaciers may still be responding to the warming
indicated by radiosondes that occurred around 1976 to 1981.
********* end cut and paste ********
I don't see anything to be concerned about here.
>
> As you seem to read sceptic sites, this is a good reference for debunking
> the more common myths they spread:
> http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-
> sceptic.html
Thanks for the link. I found what follows there:
The reason we don't get a runaway Venus type greenhouse is, I believe but am
not 100% sure, because of the abundance of water. As the temperature would
rise, cloud cover would increase to the point that enough sunlight would
simply not penetrate thereby stopping any warming trend.
Moreover, CO2 is a source of temperate stability. So an atmosphere with
more CO2 is actually a more stable atmosphere. Just the opposite of what
some are lead to believe.
Jim
Jim McGinn
Jim
Raymond Arritt
> "Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Yeah, we're a secret cabal. We're so sneaky that all the model
>> results for the next IPCC report are available on publicly
>> accessible servers. It's the "hide in plain sight" approach, you
>> see.
>
> Do you have a link? Please provide it.
No prob. It's right here:
https://esg.llnl.gov:8443/index.jsp
You have to register in order to download the actual data but I've never
heard of anyone being turned down. Give it a shot.
>>> For example, I've read that the effects of cloud cover (which
>>> would increase on a warmer planet) to regulate insolation
>>> (sunshine) are not well understood and, consequently, ignored by
>>> the modelers.
>>
>> The effects of cloud cover are imperfectly understood -- as are all
>> aspects of climate -- but definitely are not ignored. Radiative
>> effects of clouds are included in all present-day models.
>
> References?
Go to this web page and click on the link for the model you're
interested in:
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/ipcc_model_documentation.php
Here you will find brief summaries of the configuration for each model,
including its cloud parameterization, along with email contacts and
pointers to more details in literature references. A couple of the
models don't have info posted (at least not yet). If you're interested
in those you can contact the modelers directly, or Google, or if all
else fails ask me again.
> The models are built upon assumptions which are deliberate
> simplifications of real-world assumptions. Consequently the level of
> confidence associated with the results of any such model can only be
> very low.
We do make simplifications, and modelers will be the first to tell you
that the models are far from perfect. Whether the results are "good
enough" depends on what you're interested in, and especially on the
spatial scale. Uncertainty increases rapidly as the scale gets smaller.
Note also that in the real world we routinely make simplifications that
depart from the "truth." The earth is round, but we don't take the
curvature of the earth into account when digging the foundation for a
house; nor do we consider relativistic effects when figuring how long it
will take to get to the nearest town when driving on the highway. So it
doesn't follow that "deliberate simplifications" necessarily imply "very
low" confidence as you have stated.
> Small differences in modelling assumptions can cause huge differences
> in model results. Are climatologists making the effort to make this
> low confidence evident to the public.
Definitely. Look at the IPCC Third Assessment Report as cited in my
previous post.
> Or are they, maybe, basking in the limelight
Hmm, we're not exactly rock stars... ;-)
> that results when we myopically focus upon the more dramatic of the
> models. It wouldn't the the first time that scientists have acted in
> such a manner as to justify their own existence.
Based on the number of people who attend conferences and so forth, I'd
guess there are at least 1000 to 2000 people around the world who are
actively engaged in the science of climate modeling. Some are in
countries that are geopolitical rivals of one another. It's hard to
imagine a unified conspiracy to defraud -- or even to keep a secret --
when there are so many people involved from around the world.
> I think the asssumptions that are plugged into these models need to
> be made as explicit as possible.
I fully agree, and take pains to do so in my own work -- as do the great
majority of modelers. But in the end all we can do is publish and
report. We can't force people to read the stuff.
Part of the problem is that much of what we do gets filtered through the
popular press. Reporters are notoriously uninterested in reservations
and caveats as opposed to something that will make an attention-grabbing
headline. This may well be where your impression of a "myopic focus on
on the more dramatic" results comes from. If someone tells a reporter
that sea level could rise by 0.01 to 10 meters, with the extremes being
very unlikely, it's virtually guaranteed that the resulting headline
will be "Scientist Forecasts Seal Level Rise Of Up To 10 Meters."
Jim McGinn
<w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:4429...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
Am I reading you correctly here, William. It would appear--assuming I'm
interpreting you correctly--that you do not dispute my supposition that the
effect of increased cloud cover on a warmer planet are not understood and/or
included in the models. Why should we trust any model that fails to
incorporate such an obvious factor?
Jim
Larry Caldwell
dav...@panix.com (David M. Besonen) says...
Good to run across you. This is kind of a weird group. Most of the
posters seem to be urban enviros with an axe to grind, totally oblivious
to the fact that they have completely destroyed their own environment.
It's kind of like hiring a bunch of rapists to teach sex ed.
H2-PV NOW
NO more or less than you should skeptical of butchers and their
motives, bakers and their motives, candlestick makers and their
motives.
At some point you have to accept that you can't do everything -- you
can't do your own brain surgery, you can't make the sparkplugs for your
car, you can't fabricate the ICs in your PC. You have to learn your
limitations. Although you have demonstrated no ability to do science,
you have to trust that some people have scientific skills and knowledge
because there are satellites and TVs and MRI machines beyind what you
understand.
When you have been given LEGAL NOTICE, the law kicks in and places on
you a MANDATORY DUTY which you evade at dire consequences to yourself,
to not aid and abet a reported CRIME in progress. From the time your
eyes saw a message telling you that ORGANIZED CRIMES are occurring
based from CATO INSTITUTE any further spreading of their FELONY FRAUD
is now on your hands.
YOUR MANDATORY DUTY, required by LAW, is to do DUE DILIGENCE
investigation as any person of ordinary intelligence would do to comply
with the law, and not pass on facts "as if they were true" which you
have not personally verified are in fact true. While CATO might have
committed the initial crime, it is seperate and distinct from YOUR
CRIMES, punishable by law, which you do in concert, collusion,
collaboration, conspiracy and/or jointly as part of an "enterprise"
using WIRES or the US MAILS in commission of one or more acts
prohibitted by law. There is a FEDERAL RACKETEER AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS ACT which applies to CATO and applies to YOU.
There are also state crime laws which restrict your wanton fraud and
lying, which makes it an additional crime punishable by the state and
punishable by citizens offended by your crimes in civil court lawsuits.
YOU are besmirching an entire profession on behalf of the Killer Koch
Brothers and their front organs, whom have admitted guilt in FEDERAL
COURT, and been fined $35,000,000.00 for CRIMES. YOU are the one
consorting with KNOWN CRIMINALS, whose OWN TWIN BROTHER on national TV
called them ORGANIZED CRIME.
Hitler wasn't defeated by killing him personally. Hitler was defeated
by smashing into pulp his soldiers so there was nobody left to defend
him when it was his turn to face the music. YOU are a soft target with
zero defenses, and making you zero use to the ORGANIZED CRIME outfit is
fairly simply, bubba. NO harder than squishing a cockroach from my
point of view, and no better on your part than the cockroachs. They
can't even defend vice president Halliburton's chief of staff, and YOU
don't have a spit's worth of value to them.
It won't be fun squashing you, but I'll get over it in about five
minutes time. NEXT!
Coby Beck
news:ymlWf.10024$tN3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@somewhere> wrote
>> IPCC is a good reference, as close to an official position from the
>> climate scientist community as you can get:
>> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
>
> Thanks for the reference. This site seems very level headed.
>
> I copied what follows from this website. My reading of this is that it
> confirms suspicions that global warming is not all that big of a deal:
>
>
> ********* begin cut and paste ********
>
> 2.2 How Much is the World Warming?
...
>
> ********* end cut and paste ********
>
> I don't see anything to be concerned about here.
This passage is about how much the world has warmed so far. The main
concern is for the future. The cause for concern that should be apparent in
the quoted passage is in comparison between the past and what is happening
now.
>> As you seem to read sceptic sites, this is a good reference for debunking
>> the more common myths they spread:
>> http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
>
> Thanks for the link. I found what follows there:
>
> The reason we don't get a runaway Venus type greenhouse is, I believe but
> am not 100% sure, because of the abundance of water. As the temperature
> would rise, cloud cover would increase to the point that enough sunlight
> would simply not penetrate thereby stopping any warming trend.
this is a quote from that site
> Moreover, CO2 is a source of temperate stability. So an atmosphere with
> more CO2 is actually a more stable atmosphere. Just the opposite of what
> some are lead to believe.
this is not.
I would not mind a comment on the quoted passage, I wrote it in a comment.
Is it a reasonable thing to say, the earth will not "runaway warm" because
of the abundance of water and an eventual clouding over?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Jim McGinn
"H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote
>> Should we not also be skeptical of scientists and their motives?
> NO more or less than you should skeptical of butchers and their
> motives, bakers and their motives, candlestick makers and their
> motives.
> At some point you have to accept that you can't do everything -- you
> can't do your own brain surgery, you can't make the sparkplugs for your
> car, you can't fabricate the ICs in your PC. You have to learn your
> limitations.
So, you essentially admit that you are not qualified to verify the
scientific validity of the thinking that underlies the scientists'
conclusions. And, in your opinion, we should just take it upon faith that
this thinking is sound.
You are a fool.
Coby Beck
news:ZcdWf.16$9h3....@news.uswest.net...>> news:2s%Vf.48899$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
>>> Is this true?
>>>
>>> "Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by
>>> computer models that served as the basis for the United Nations
>>> Framework Convention on Climate Change."
>>>
>>> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-329es.html
>>
>> This is a report from 1998, which is a long time ago in this field. When
>> it talks about lower than expected warming it is based on now
>> significantly revised figures by Spencer&Christy (they had made a sign
>> error in their calculations).
>
> Even after correcting for this error,
> the 1979 through 1996 number was within
> margin of error of 0.0C/century.
> So it was the warming of the last decade,
> not the correction which has boosted the LT.
>
> The current UAH LT number is 1.3C/century.
> This is knocking on the door of the IPCC but
> still a hair below the low end of projections.
You are confusing observations with projections. The warming is projected
to accelerate and has accelerated over the last century.
> I would invite you to offer evidence of any 'lie'
> or even significant error that Michaels has put forth.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf
Michaels erased two of three projected trends Jim Hansen had presented to
congress 10 years earlier and claimed that Hansen's predictions had been way
off. In fact, the middle scenario, the one that very closely matched what
actually happened in terms of emissions and volcanism, was pretty much right
on the money. Michaels only showed the "extreme" scenario with no volcano
and much more GHG emissions and a temperature that went much higher than
observations to support a lie that the models were "alarmist".
He may have redeeming qualities, but for me until that is explained or
retracted and apologized for, he is severly damaged goods.
Thomas Palm
>
> "Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@somewhere> wrote
>
>>> So you're saying the science is very real and very clear. I think
>>> we should be highly skeptical of these models. My hunch is that
>>> there is a lot more uncertainty here than the scientists are letting
>>> on.
>>
>> The scientists are quite aware that there are large uncertainties,
>
> Do you think they may have dropped the ball when it comes to
> communicating these uncertainties to the public?
Scientists rarely communicate directly to the public. It's journalists who
decide what to write in papers and on TV. I don't know what kind of madia
you read, but you seem to have had no problem learning about the
uncertainties, at the contrary it seems as if you have learned little else.
>> although the are slowly shrinking. Nor do you have any reason to
>> assume that any errors they make are in our favor. When it comes to,
>> for example, melting of Greenland glaciers the surprise is that they
>> are melting much faster than models predicted.
>
> Which models? references?
Start by reading this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=276
>> Modellers certainly include clouds to the best of our understanding
>> of them! You are right that it is one of the largest remaining
>> uncertainties, but again you are wrong when assuming it will be in
>> our favor. There is no a priori reason to assume there will be more
>> clouds as the world heats up. Britain is cold and cloudy, Sahara is
>> warm and clear, just to show that there is no simple relation between
>> temperature and cloudiness.
>
> Yes, and all they can really do is make assumptions--educated
> guesses--and plug these into the computer and hope the results tell us
> something relevant and accurate. But we shouldn't let these computer
> models lead us by the nose.
Nonsense! Scientists travel round the world doing measurements, flying
aircraft through clouds to measure their properties, measuring reflection
and transmission of light, studying changes in different types of weather
etc and then use all these data to improve the models.
>> IPCC is a good reference, as close to an official position from the
>> climate scientist community as you can get:
>> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
>
> Thanks for the reference. This site seems very level headed.
>
> I copied what follows from this website. My reading of this is that
> it confirms suspicions that global warming is not all that big of a
> deal:
What you copied is just a little part of the history, the start up phase of
the warming. It's when it continues it start getting real problematic. You
can't just pick a single passage and state that this particular passage
doesn't sound too bad and thus the problem can't be bad. The wg1 report I
linked to only gave the dry scientific information about changes in the
climate. How this is likely to impact humanity is described in another
part:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm
Then there are other effects of our CO2-emissions. For example, the pH of
the oceans are dropping to levels not seen for millions of years and this
is going to cause problems for essential ecosystems as coral reefs.
>> As you seem to read sceptic sites, this is a good reference for
>> debunking the more common myths they spread:
>> http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warmin
>> g- sceptic.html
>
> Thanks for the link. I found what follows there:
>
> The reason we don't get a runaway Venus type greenhouse is, I believe
> but am not 100% sure, because of the abundance of water. As the
> temperature would rise, cloud cover would increase to the point that
> enough sunlight would simply not penetrate thereby stopping any
> warming trend.
You do have a talent for selective reading. What's so interesting about
that paragraph? No one seriously think that Earth is going to turn into a
new Venus. All this say is that we shouldn't expect hundreds of degrees of
warming, which isn't much of a comfort.
> Moreover, CO2 is a source of temperate stability. So an atmosphere
> with more CO2 is actually a more stable atmosphere. Just the opposite
> of what some are lead to believe.
The more intense hurricanes are increasing in a warmer world, so much for
"stability". And what is so great about stability anyway? The most stable
system would be one with no winds and no rain. This would mean that the
continents would dry out and all water would collect in the oceans.
You suffer from a serious case of wishful thinking it seems.
Scott Nudds
> > No it's a lie. Lying is the Cato Institute's stock and trade. That's
how
> > they stay in business. Lying for profit.
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Isn't it true, though, that all this global warming hand wringing is based
> on nothing but computer models?
No it's a lie. Lying is the Cato Institute's stock and trade. That's how
they stay in business. Lying for profit.
Scott Nudds
economy.
Apparently. I guess AmeriKKKa had better not produce any more scientists
or engineers.
God will provide.
Scott Nudds
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Like all scientists, and all humans, they are trying to jusify their own
> existence.
Scientists dedicate themselves to the search for a better understanding of
how the universe works. - or the portion of the universe they have
specialized in.
That is the justification. You can't accept this fact, because you are
too detached from reality to comprehend it.
Thomas Palm
>
> <w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:4429...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
>> >Jim McGinn wrote:
>>>> For example, I've read that the effects of cloud cover (which would
>>>> increase on a warmer planet) to regulate insolation (sunshine) are
>>>> not well understood and, consequently, ignored by the modelers.
>>
>> Isn't this funny? The effects, you have heard, are not well
>> understood - and yet you understand them, it seems. Quick - publish!
>
> Am I reading you correctly here, William. It would appear--assuming
> I'm interpreting you correctly--that you do not dispute my supposition
> that the effect of increased cloud cover on a warmer planet are not
> understood and/or included in the models. Why should we trust any
> model that fails to incorporate such an obvious factor?
What William did was use a subtle and often misunderstood method called
irony. You have to make up your mind: you can't at the same time claim that
we don't understand anything about the climate and make definite statements
about how it will change. You claim modellers do not understand clouds,
which is wrong, but at the same time you claim you are so much smarter than
them because you understand what is going to happen. If you know more than
anybody else you should publish that knowledge in a scientific paper!
Let's se you justify the statement that clouds will be enough to counteract
our warming. And while you are at it, please explain how this changed cloud
cover you predict will change precipitation patterns around the globe. What
areas are likely to see more drought or floods?
Scott Nudds
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> And some of these consequences may be seriously good: warmer winters,
higher
> precipitation to promote crops and repair of rainforest, the ability to
> raise crops at higher latitudes, and more security from the threat of
> extinction due to rapid cooling that may result from meteors or volcanoes.
Indeed some may. It is also true that you may receive some benefit by
being shot in the head. An old deaf man in Italy once regained his sense of
hearing after being shot.
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Let us not forget that current human progress was made possible because of
> the warming about 8 to 11 kya.
In other words if some is good, more must be better.
Calories are good, they keep you alive. Without calories you would die. If
some is good and therefore more must be better, as you assert, then more
calories must be better since some are good. Hence growing increasingly fat
is good for one's health, according to your logic.
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> The facts seem to indicate that warming is a good thing.
Tell that to the residents of New Orleans, the drout ravaged central U.S.,
the drout ravaged areas of Africa, the low residents of low lying islands
that will be overtaken by the ocean, and of course the residents of all
coastal towns and cities that will be flooded.
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Co2 effects more environmental stability--not less.
This is a violation of the basic observation of dynamically stable
systems. Perturbation of such a system must necessarily result in higher
levels of instability.
This is also exactly what is being observed in global weather patterns.
Stronger hurricanes, stronger storms, larger precipitation extremes, larger
temperature extremes, etc.
Stupid... Dishonest...McGinn...
Scott Nudds
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> The biosphere regenerates itself constantly. Species go extinct all the
> time and are rapidly replaced by other species that fill the empty niche.
> There is no emergency here.
So then scientists are wrong when they claim with authority that Mankind is
causing the most devistating period of species extinction since the asteroid
impact that caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs and associated
organisms?
Stupid... Dishonest... McGinn
Thomas Palm
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>
>> The models try to predict the future warming and its consequences.
>> They are
>> not needed to know AGW is happening today. That comes from data.
>>
>> The models are fed many different scenarios as to what the emissions
>> of CO2
>> will do in the future, so they give many different outcomes. But
>> they all predict warming with serious consequences.
>
> And some of these consequences may be seriously good: warmer winters,
> higher precipitation to promote crops and repair of rainforest, the
> ability to raise crops at higher latitudes, and more security from the
> threat of extinction due to rapid cooling that may result from meteors
> or volcanoes. Let us not forget that current human progress was made
> possible because of the warming about 8 to 11 kya. The facts seem to
> indicate that warming is a good thing. Co2 effects more environmental
> stability--not less.
Where did your emphasis of all the uncertainties go? Now you sound as if
you know exactly what is going to happen. Higher preipitation isn't so
great if it comes in the way of floods. With glaciears that have worked as
a buffer for precipitation melting we are likely to see more uneven flow in
major rivers around the world, most seriously in souther Asia as the
glaciers in Himalaya disappear.
That a little bit of something is a good thing doesn't necessarily mean
that a lot more is much better. In particular, even if you postulate based
on your secret knowledge about future climates, that the future will have a
in some way better climate, the transition period is going to cause
turmoil. Farmers, and even more forests rely on a reasonably stable and
predictable climate. You think rainforests will thrive, but why should they
when temperatures along the equator is going to be higher than experienced
for a very long time? At the contrary scientists fear that large areas of
the little remaining rainforest will die from heatstress later this
century.
Scott Nudds
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
> We're saying you should ignore anything Cato tells you, including their
lies
> about science.
Ignoring liars is always the best policy. Hence ignoring CATO is always a
good policy.
Scott Nudds
> > We're saying you should ignore anything Cato tells you, including their
> > lies about science.
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Should we not also be skeptical of scientists and their motives?
Having been trained in science, I am skepical about everything.
But I am most skeptical about your motivations Mr. McGinn. You don't
appear to conduct yourself in a honest or competent manner.
I tend to trust the incompetent and the dishonest, which is why all Global
Warming Denialists are untrustworthy.
Thomas Palm
> Thomas Palm wrote:
>> calculations). Furhermore Michaels when he talks about the expected
>> warming uses a distorted version of an article by Hansen. Hansen made
>> three scenarios: one as an upper limit, one as the lower and one as a
>> best guess. The best guess turned out to be fairly accurate, but when
>> Michaels showed that curve to congress he had edited out the lower
>> two and only showed the highest estimate to "prove" that the models
>> were wrong.
>>
>> Basically, if it comes from Cato or is written by Michael, assume it
>> is wrong unless you can get it confirmed by a more reliable source.
>
> I would invite you to offer evidence of any 'lie'
> or even significant error that Michaels has put forth.
Sigh! You even qouted the part where I explained such a lie. Or do you
find nothing wrong with distorting the view of another researcher to make
him seem incompetent?
Then there is this little pearl William Connolley found long ago:
"the stat. prob. that a given year will be one stdev above the average is
math. defined as 0.167 or one in six. The chance that one of 2 successive
years will be hot is 2 * .167 or 0.333, and the chance that one in three
will be is 3 * .167 or .5. Thats 50%, with or without global warming."
world climate review, v3, number 1, p3.
How many errors do you find?
> You would probably be disturbed at how much you agree with him.
Not really.
> Michaels does not dispute radiative forcing or likely
> continued global warming. He does state that the extent and impacts
> have been exaggerated and the benefits ignored,
> and offers evidence from the peer reviewed literature to
> substantiate his claims.
Michaels picks only those articles that agree with his position and
consistently makes his best to make the danger appear as little as he
possibly can, and he doesn't mind distorting the statements even of the
pepers he does cite, especially when he write for laymen like in that
piece from CATO.
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>> I don't see anything to be concerned about here.
>
> This passage is about how much the world has warmed so far. The main
> concern is for the future.
The concern is unfounded. There is no doubt that increased CO2 will result
in a warmer planet. But so what.
> The cause for concern that should be apparent in the quoted passage is in
> comparison between the past and what is happening now.
It had the exact opposite effect on me.
>
>>> As you seem to read sceptic sites, this is a good reference for
>>> debunking
>>> the more common myths they spread:
>>> http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
>>
>> Thanks for the link. I found what follows there:
>>
>> The reason we don't get a runaway Venus type greenhouse is, I believe but
>> am not 100% sure, because of the abundance of water. As the temperature
>> would rise, cloud cover would increase to the point that enough sunlight
>> would simply not penetrate thereby stopping any warming trend.
>
> this is a quote from that site
>
>> Moreover, CO2 is a source of temperate stability. So an atmosphere with
>> more CO2 is actually a more stable atmosphere. Just the opposite of what
>> some are lead to believe.
>
> this is not.
>
> I would not mind a comment on the quoted passage, I wrote it in a comment.
> Is it a reasonable thing to say, the earth will not "runaway warm" because
> of the abundance of water and an eventual clouding over?
Yes, it's perfectly reasonable. But it kinda takes the wind out of the
global warming hysteria.
Coby Beck
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>>> I don't see anything to be concerned about here.
>>
>> This passage is about how much the world has warmed so far. The main
>> concern is for the future.
>
> The concern is unfounded. There is no doubt that increased CO2 will
> result in a warmer planet. But so what.
I don't know if there is a meaningful way to define an "optimum" average
temperature. Surely it is better on earth now, not having as much land
trapped beneath ice sheets as there was 20K years ago. But between the
climate 100 or 200 years ago and the worst one we may be heading for with
tropical forests inside the arctic circle, one degree Celsius seems just as
good as any other. But the critical issue with what is going on today is not
where the temperature is or is not at, but how fast it is moving.
Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited
to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal
behaviours. The rate at which the global temperature is rising today is very
likely unique in the history of our species. It is also very rare in
geological history though perhaps not unprecedented. But, once you look at
the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of
some historical precedent or another becomes anything but reassuring.(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum )
What we know about ecosystems and what geologic history demonstrates is that
such dramatic changes - up or down or sideways - are a tremendous shock to
the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. And that, all in all, is not
likely to be a good thing.
>> The cause for concern that should be apparent in the quoted passage is in
>> comparison between the past and what is happening now.
>
> It had the exact opposite effect on me.
Because you don't know anything about natural changes and how they differ
from today's. I guess there is alot of truth in the old line, "ignorance is
bliss".
>>>> As you seem to read sceptic sites, this is a good reference for
>>>> debunking
>>>> the more common myths they spread:
>>>> http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
>>>
>>> Thanks for the link. I found what follows there:
>>>
>>> The reason we don't get a runaway Venus type greenhouse is, I believe
>>> but am not 100% sure, because of the abundance of water. As the
>>> temperature would rise, cloud cover would increase to the point that
>>> enough sunlight would simply not penetrate thereby stopping any warming
>>> trend.
>>
>> this is a quote from that site
>>
>>> Moreover, CO2 is a source of temperate stability. So an atmosphere with
>>> more CO2 is actually a more stable atmosphere. Just the opposite of
>>> what some are lead to believe.
>>
>> this is not.
>>
>> I would not mind a comment on the quoted passage, I wrote it in a
>> comment. Is it a reasonable thing to say, the earth will not "runaway
>> warm" because of the abundance of water and an eventual clouding over?
>
> Yes, it's perfectly reasonable. But it kinda takes the wind out of the
> global warming hysteria.
There are many degrees of catastrophy, and below that are shades of
disaster, farther down the scale are tragic hardships, difficulties and
inconveniences. You want to take solace in the fact that we are not facing
sterilization of the planet's surface??
Forgive me for not taking you or your opinions very seriously.
Jim McGinn
"Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@somewhere> wrote
> Where did your emphasis of all the uncertainties go? Now you sound as if
> you know exactly what is going to happen. Higher preipitation isn't so
> great if it comes in the way of floods.
It's nice if it comes in the way of higher crop yields.
> With glaciears that have worked as
> a buffer for precipitation melting we are likely to see more uneven flow
> in
> major rivers around the world, most seriously in souther Asia as the
> glaciers in Himalaya disappear.
That's it? (As if ground seepage doesn't cause the same thing.)
>
> That a little bit of something is a good thing doesn't necessarily mean
> that a lot more is much better. In particular, even if you postulate based
> on your secret knowledge about future climates, that the future will have
> a
> in some way better climate, the transition period is going to cause
> turmoil.
We're in the transition period. Where's your doomsday scenario?
Farmers, and even more forests rely on a reasonably stable and
> predictable climate. You think rainforests will thrive, but why should
> they
> when temperatures along the equator is going to be higher than experienced
> for a very long time? At the contrary scientists fear that large areas of
> the little remaining rainforest will die from heatstress later this
> century.
Pure nonsense. There will be minimal change in temperature at the equator.
Jim McGinn
"Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@somewhere> wrote
> . . . you can't at the same time claim that
> we don't understand anything about the climate and make definite
> statements
> about how it will change.
This is my point.
Jim
Jim McGinn
"Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@somewhere> wrote
> Scientists travel round the world doing measurements, flying
> aircraft through clouds to measure their properties, measuring reflection
> and transmission of light, studying changes in different types of weather
> etc and then use all these data to improve the models.
>
>
>>> IPCC is a good reference, as close to an official position from the
>>> climate scientist community as you can get:
>>> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
>>
>> Thanks for the reference. This site seems very level headed.
>>
>> I copied what follows from this website. My reading of this is that
>> it confirms suspicions that global warming is not all that big of a
>> deal:
>
> What you copied is just a little part of the history, the start up phase
> of
> the warming. It's when it continues it start getting real problematic.
Or so you choose to believe.
You
> can't just pick a single passage and state that this particular passage
> doesn't sound too bad and thus the problem can't be bad. The wg1 report I
> linked to only gave the dry scientific information about changes in the
> climate. How this is likely to impact humanity is described in another
> part:
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm
speculative nonsense.
>
> Then there are other effects of our CO2-emissions. For example, the pH of
> the oceans are dropping to levels not seen for millions of years and this
> is going to cause problems for essential ecosystems as coral reefs.
What, now a pH crisis also. The sky is falling.
>
>>> As you seem to read sceptic sites, this is a good reference for
>>> debunking the more common myths they spread:
>>> http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warmin
>>> g- sceptic.html
>>
>> Thanks for the link. I found what follows there:
>>
>> The reason we don't get a runaway Venus type greenhouse is, I believe
>> but am not 100% sure, because of the abundance of water. As the
>> temperature would rise, cloud cover would increase to the point that
>> enough sunlight would simply not penetrate thereby stopping any
>> warming trend.
>
> You do have a talent for selective reading. What's so interesting about
> that paragraph? No one seriously think that Earth is going to turn into a
> new Venus. All this say is that we shouldn't expect hundreds of degrees of
> warming, which isn't much of a comfort.
What 0.4 increase per decade. I'm going to invest in bathing suits.
Thomas Palm
>
> "Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@somewhere> wrote
>
>> Where did your emphasis of all the uncertainties go? Now you sound as
>> if you know exactly what is going to happen. Higher preipitation
>> isn't so great if it comes in the way of floods.
>
> It's nice if it comes in the way of higher crop yields.
Will it?
>> With glaciears that have worked as
>> a buffer for precipitation melting we are likely to see more uneven
>> flow in
>> major rivers around the world, most seriously in souther Asia as the
>> glaciers in Himalaya disappear.
>
> That's it? (As if ground seepage doesn't cause the same thing.)
That's one example. And no, ground seepage is not enough. However it is
clear that discussion with ou is pointless. You have made up your mind to
only consider things that are good and ignore those that are bad.
>> That a little bit of something is a good thing doesn't necessarily
>> mean that a lot more is much better. In particular, even if you
>> postulate based on your secret knowledge about future climates, that
>> the future will have a
>> in some way better climate, the transition period is going to cause
>> turmoil.
>
> We're in the transition period. Where's your doomsday scenario?
We're in the start of the transition period. Hurricanes are getting
stronger, the heat wave in Europe a couple of years ago would have been
extremely unlikely without global warming, but in the future we'll have
to expect more of similar or worse. Australia is facing a long drought.
As for "doomstay" scenario it seems that you are happy as long as
humanity doesn't go extinct from a runaway greenhouse effect.
>> Farmers, and even more forests rely on a reasonably stable and
>> predictable climate. You think rainforests will thrive, but why
>> should they
>> when temperatures along the equator is going to be higher than
>> experienced for a very long time? At the contrary scientists fear
>> that large areas of the little remaining rainforest will die from
>> heatstress later this century.
>
> Pure nonsense. There will be minimal change in temperature at the
> equator.
It must be nice to be such an expert on everything as you are. There will
be less change at the equator, but on the other hand there are no plants
adapted to that higher temperature. As the planet warms ecosystems will
have to migrate towards the poles, leading to extinctions for species
that already live at the poles and have nowhere to go and in the other
end to places with temperatures that no plants are adapted to. Sure,
given some thousands or tens of thousands of years plants will begin to
adapt *if* we make sure to stop and let the climate stabilize a bit.
Thomas Palm
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
Then you are totally confused.
Thomas Palm
>
> "Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@somewhere> wrote
>> What you copied is just a little part of the history, the start up
>> phase of
>> the warming. It's when it continues it start getting real
>> problematic.
>
> Or so you choose to believe.
Based on the available evidence.
> You
>> can't just pick a single passage and state that this particular
>> passage doesn't sound too bad and thus the problem can't be bad. The
>> wg1 report I linked to only gave the dry scientific information about
>> changes in the climate. How this is likely to impact humanity is
>> described in another part:
>> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm
>
> speculative nonsense.
Assujing that the climate will be "better" as we increase CO2 levels as
you do is speculative nonsense without backing in science. IPCC is on the
other hand using the best available science to come up with future
climate and the impacts it will cause.
>>
>> Then there are other effects of our CO2-emissions. For example, the
>> pH of the oceans are dropping to levels not seen for millions of
>> years and this is going to cause problems for essential ecosystems as
>> coral reefs.
>
> What, now a pH crisis also. The sky is falling.
Did you have any scientific argument? This is a science group, after all.
Sticking your head in the sand and pretending something can't be
happening just because it would be bad is crazy.
> What 0.4 increase per decade. I'm going to invest in bathing suits.
You live in a city, right? You obviously haven't got a clue how little
change it takes to cause great disruptions in ecosystems. In a city where
all you have to worry about is how much to wear on the way to work
climate may not seem important, until you start thinking about how the
food you eat is getting produced, or until your city gets hit by a
hurricane.
Jim McGinn
"Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@somewhere> wrote
> That's one example. And no, ground seepage is not enough. However it is
> clear that discussion with you is pointless.
Yes, I noticed that also. It probably has to do with differences in our
intellect. Maybe if you make an effort to be smarter and I make an effort
to act dumber we can have some common ground.
> You have made up your mind to
> only consider things that are good and ignore those that are bad.
You prefer to wallow in the bad.
>
>>> That a little bit of something is a good thing doesn't necessarily
>>> mean that a lot more is much better. In particular, even if you
>>> postulate based on your secret knowledge about future climates, that
>>> the future will have a
>>> in some way better climate, the transition period is going to cause
>>> turmoil.
>>
>> We're in the transition period. Where's your doomsday scenario?
>
> We're in the start of the transition period. Hurricanes are getting
> stronger, the heat wave in Europe a couple of years ago would have been
> extremely unlikely without global warming,
Pure nonsense. The weather is not more dramatic now than in the past.
>> Pure nonsense. There will be minimal change in temperature at the
>> equator.
>
> It must be nice to be such an expert on everything as you are.
Mostly it involves not being a putz.
There will
> be less change at the equator, but on the other hand there are no plants
> adapted to that higher temperature. As the planet warms ecosystems will
> have to migrate towards the poles, leading to extinctions for species
> that already live at the poles and have nowhere to go and in the other
> end to places with temperatures that no plants are adapted to.
You can't be serious.
Jim McGinn
"Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@somewhere> wrote
> You obviously haven't got a clue how little
> change it takes to cause great disruptions in ecosystems.
Fragile ecosystems.
Life has survived on this planet for billions of years. Enough with the
hand wringing.
w...@bas.ac.uk
><w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:4429...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
>> >Jim McGinn wrote:
>>>> For example, I've read that the effects of cloud cover (which would
>>>> increase on a warmer planet) to regulate insolation (sunshine) are
>>>> not well understood and, consequently, ignored by the modelers.
>>
>> Isn't this funny? The effects, you have heard, are not well understood -
>> and yet you understand them, it seems. Quick - publish!
>Am I reading you correctly here, William. It would appear--assuming I'm
>interpreting you correctly--that you do not dispute my supposition that the
>effect of increased cloud cover on a warmer planet are not understood and/or
>included in the models. Why should we trust any model that fails to
>incorporate such an obvious factor?
You're completely wrong. Please don't take the fact that people aren't
correcting every single one of your errors to mean that they agree with
you. Now, how about answering my point? It seems to me that you are just
skipping on to a new thing each time you're questionned, which verges on
trolling.
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Thomas Palm
>
> "Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@somewhere> wrote
>
>> That's one example. And no, ground seepage is not enough. However it
>> is clear that discussion with you is pointless.
>
> Yes, I noticed that also. It probably has to do with differences in
> our intellect. Maybe if you make an effort to be smarter and I make
> an effort to act dumber we can have some common ground.
If you acted any dumber you'd trip on your own shoelaces. So far the only
"science" you've come up with in this discussion is a short quute from an
eight year opinion piece from Cato. Otherwise your typical response to any
scientific argument is like this:
> Mostly it involves not being a putz.
or this:
> You can't be serious.
Come on, show us your superior intellect by some real science!
Thomas Palm
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>
> "Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@somewhere> wrote
>
>
>> You obviously haven't got a clue how little
>> change it takes to cause great disruptions in ecosystems.
>
> Fragile ecosystems.
>
> Life has survived on this planet for billions of years. Enough with the
> hand wringing.
Life will survive this too. Do you think this is enough to make it a happy
outcome?
Al Bedo
> Al Bedo <refle...@mirror.com> wrote in
> news:ZcdWf.16$9h3....@news.uswest.net:
>
>> Thomas Palm wrote:
>
>>> calculations). Furhermore Michaels when he talks about the expected
>>> warming uses a distorted version of an article by Hansen. Hansen made
>>> three scenarios: one as an upper limit, one as the lower and one as a
>>> best guess. The best guess turned out to be fairly accurate, but when
>>> Michaels showed that curve to congress he had edited out the lower
>>> two and only showed the highest estimate to "prove" that the models
>>> were wrong.
>>>
>>> Basically, if it comes from Cato or is written by Michael, assume it
>>> is wrong unless you can get it confirmed by a more reliable source.
>> I would invite you to offer evidence of any 'lie'
>> or even significant error that Michaels has put forth.
>
> Sigh! You even qouted the part where I explained such a lie. Or do you
> find nothing wrong with distorting the view of another researcher to make
> him seem incompetent?
At least as far as his book 'Meltdown' is concerned,
Michaels points out it is the IPCC which misrepresents likely outcomes.
The IPCC indicates the 'range' of global warming to be 1.4C to 5.8C
circa year 2100. This leads ordinary bears to presume a Gaussian
distribution and a likely result of ~3.6C.
But the model runs considered are highly skewed toward the low end.
Michaels further notes the tendency of the GCMs toward a linear
temperature increase. If the last twenty six years' warming are
due to longwave forcing and the GCMs are mostly accurate,
then we have a good idea that likely future warming will
be around the 1.5C rate we have seen.
What do you find inaccurate or misleading about that?
Al Bedo
> Al Bedo <refle...@mirror.com> wrote in
> news:ZcdWf.16$9h3....@news.uswest.net:
>
>> Thomas Palm wrote:
>
>>> calculations). Furhermore Michaels when he talks about the expected
>>> warming uses a distorted version of an article by Hansen. Hansen made
>>> three scenarios: one as an upper limit, one as the lower and one as a
>>> best guess. The best guess turned out to be fairly accurate, but when
>>> Michaels showed that curve to congress he had edited out the lower
>>> two and only showed the highest estimate to "prove" that the models
>>> were wrong.
So,
you're saying Michaels was correct that the 'high' simulation was wrong?
So he was 'lying' by being right?
Al Bedo
> Then there is this little pearl William Connolley found long ago:
>
> "the stat. prob. that a given year will be one stdev above the average is
> math. defined as 0.167 or one in six. The chance that one of 2 successive
> years will be hot is 2 * .167 or 0.333, and the chance that one in three
> will be is 3 * .167 or .5. Thats 50%, with or without global warming."
> world climate review, v3, number 1, p3.
>
> How many errors do you find?
Trends and normals aside, this is not highly relevant.
Al Bedo
>> The current UAH LT number is 1.3C/century.
>> This is knocking on the door of the IPCC but
>> still a hair below the low end of projections.
>
> You are confusing observations with projections. The warming is projected
> to accelerate and has accelerated over the last century.
If you have a citation for this, please post it.
As you know, most model runs for most scenarios do
not indicate an acceleration of warming, but rather
a steady linear increase in global temperature.
Michaels makes the case that this gives us
confidence that future warming should be near the
current 1.5C/century trend.
Evidently, Hansen agrees.
Coby Beck
news:QzwWf.12$rZ3....@news.uswest.net...
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
>>
>> You are confusing observations with projections. The warming is
>> projected to accelerate and has accelerated over the last century.
>
> If you have a citation for this, please post it.
Warming ~1900 to ~1940: .4oC
Warming ~1975 to ~2005: .6oC
> As you know, most model runs for most scenarios do
> not indicate an acceleration of warming, but rather
> a steady linear increase in global temperature.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm
Temperature and sea level both rise exponentially at least until mid 21st
century. These projections are of course dependant on GHG emissions.
warming over the last 3 decades is about .2oC/decade, midpoint projection
over 21st century is about .3oC/decade.
> Michaels makes the case that this gives us
> confidence that future warming should be near the
> current 1.5C/century trend.
Nothing Michaels says can be trusted. Was this is a peer reviewed journal?
That I would pay more attention to.
> Evidently, Hansen agrees.
Citation?
Thomas Palm
Michaels was lying when he pretended that the 'high' simulation was the
only one Hansen had made and when he claimed this was the development
Hansen had expected.
Simulation results depend on assumptions. For example, in the lower two
simulations Hansen had included volcanic eruptions, and concidentally
there was a significant eruption just a few years off. Without any
volcanic eryptions the high curve might very well have been closer to
the truth. (Note that volcanic eryptions cause short time change that is
enough to be important over a few years but not enough to explain the
20th century trend)
> So he was 'lying' by being right?
Aparently you have already made up your mind, and no fact will make you
change your mind.
Thomas Palm
Really? That Michaels didn't know the definition os standard deviation is
irrelevant, that he can't add probabilities correctly is irrelevant, that
he sneakily changes from "above average" to "hot" in the middle of the
discussion is irrrelevant?
Coby Beck
news:kRqWf.60388$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@somewhere> wrote
>
>> That's one example. And no, ground seepage is not enough. However it is
>> clear that discussion with you is pointless.
>
> Yes, I noticed that also. It probably has to do with differences in our
> intellect. Maybe if you make an effort to be smarter and I make an effort
> to act dumber we can have some common ground.
Too soon, Jim. The script says to string people along for many days if not
a week or two and frustrate *them* into the insults. This way you can cry
"ad hom" and launch into the second phase about "bias" "religious beliefs"
and "desparate insults due to no sound science", you know, all that stuff.
Better get a new handle and start over.
Scott Nudds
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> So, you essentially admit that you are not qualified to verify the
> scientific validity of the thinking that underlies the scientists'
> conclusions. And, in your opinion, we should just take it upon faith that
> this thinking is sound.
Actually anyone with at least a grade 11 comprehension of basic physics is
qualified to verify the basic science of global warming.
Add more CO2, and you reflect more heat back to the earth's surface, and
that warms the surface.
It's really quite simple. Only Republicans and their NeoConman Handlers
seem incapable of comprehending such a simple cause and effect relationship.
Stupid... Stupid... McGinn....
Phil Hays
>Thomas Palm wrote:
>>>> calculations). Furhermore Michaels when he talks about the expected
>>>> warming uses a distorted version of an article by Hansen. Hansen made
>>>> three scenarios: one as an upper limit, one as the lower and one as a
>>>> best guess. The best guess turned out to be fairly accurate, but when
>>>> Michaels showed that curve to congress he had edited out the lower
>>>> two and only showed the highest estimate to "prove" that the models
>>>> were wrong.
>So,
>you're saying Michaels was correct that the 'high' simulation was wrong?
>So he was 'lying' by being right?
No, he was lying by showing only one curve. This form of lie is a
"lie by omission".
--
Phil Hays
Coby Beck
news:xowWf.7$rZ3....@news.uswest.net...
> Thomas Palm wrote:
>> Al Bedo <refle...@mirror.com> wrote in
>> news:ZcdWf.16$9h3....@news.uswest.net:
>>> Thomas Palm wrote:
>>
>>>> calculations). Furhermore Michaels when he talks about the expected
>>>> warming uses a distorted version of an article by Hansen. Hansen made
>>>> three scenarios: one as an upper limit, one as the lower and one as a
>>>> best guess. The best guess turned out to be fairly accurate, but when
>>>> Michaels showed that curve to congress he had edited out the lower
>>>> two and only showed the highest estimate to "prove" that the models
>>>> were wrong.
>>>> Basically, if it comes from Cato or is written by Michael, assume it
>>>> is wrong unless you can get it confirmed by a more reliable source.
you asked:
>>> I would invite you to offer evidence of any 'lie'
>>> or even significant error that Michaels has put forth.
>> Sigh! You even qouted the part where I explained such a lie. Or do you
>> find nothing wrong with distorting the view of another researcher to make
>> him seem incompetent?
>
> At least as far as his book 'Meltdown' is concerned,
> Michaels points out it is the IPCC which misrepresents likely outcomes.
What kind of a response is this? The guy lied, you asked for evidence now
you just change the subject?
> Michaels further notes the tendency of the GCMs toward a linear
> temperature increase. If the last twenty six years' warming are
> due to longwave forcing and the GCMs are mostly accurate,
> then we have a good idea that likely future warming will
> be around the 1.5C rate we have seen.
>
> What do you find inaccurate or misleading about that?
GHG forcing is increasing. 1.5oC further warming is achievable only if we
cease CO2 emissions within the next very few decades. That is what is
misleading. Michaels is a partisan obfuscator. He is pid to confuse people
like you. Why don't you show a little backbone and resist the propaganda?
You are being used.
Coby Beck
news:kqwWf.8$rZ3....@news.uswest.net...
So you have no sincere interest then. You don't have to be one of the
sharper tacks in the box to see the lie by omission.
Hansen said in 1988 about year 2000: "if A then 1, if B then 2 if C then 3".
B happened, 2 was correct. Hansen's prediction was accurate.
Micheals lied to congress: "Hansen said 3 and as you can see 2 happened.
Hansen and the climate community can not be relied apon." Patrick Michaels
is a liar. It is his job description to mislead, don't be his bitch.
Coby Beck
Aren't you concerned to know if this man that you read, trust and quote to
others is reliable? Don't you want to know if he is lying here or totally
incompetent? Doesn't that speak to his credibility? Did he retract this
and acknowledge an error when it was pointed out? Don't you care?
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>
>> The models try to predict the future warming and its consequences. They
>> are
>> not needed to know AGW is happening today. That comes from data.
>>
>> The models are fed many different scenarios as to what the emissions of
>> CO2
>> will do in the future, so they give many different outcomes. But they all
>> predict warming with serious consequences.
>
>And some of these consequences may be seriously good: warmer winters, higher
>precipitation to promote crops and repair of rainforest, the ability to
>raise crops at higher latitudes, and more security from the threat of
>extinction due to rapid cooling that may result from meteors or volcanoes.
Well, maybe. Maybe we'll develop warp drive and then the Vulcans will contact
us too. I prefer not to experiment with our only planet.
Topsoil also determines how well crops grow. Rainfall patterns do too, and
it's hard to predict if it will rain enough where it becomes warmer. Again,
it's better to not experiment with our only planet.
>Let us not forget that current human progress was made possible because of
>the warming about 8 to 11 kya. The facts seem to indicate that warming is a
>good thing. Co2 effects more environmental stability--not less.
>
>> If you can tell us how much CO2
>> the world will be emitting between now and, say, 2050, the models are
>> quite
>> good at predicting what climate will be like then.
>
>Jim
>
>
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@somewhere> wrote
>
>>> So you're saying the science is very real and very clear. I think we
>>> should be highly skeptical of these models. My hunch is that there is
>>> a lot more uncertainty here than the scientists are letting on.
>>
>> The scientists are quite aware that there are large uncertainties,
>
>Do you think they may have dropped the ball when it comes to communicating
>these uncertainties to the public?
>
>> although the are slowly shrinking. Nor do you have any reason to assume
>> that any errors they make are in our favor. When it comes to, for
>> example, melting of Greenland glaciers the surprise is that they are
>> melting much faster than models predicted.
>
>Which models? references?
>
>>
>>> For
>>> example, I've read that the effects of cloud cover (which would
>>> increase on a warmer planet) to regulate insolation (sunshine) are not
>>> well understood and, consequently, ignored by the modelers.
>>
>> them! You are right that it is one of the largest remaining
>> uncertainties, but again you are wrong when assuming it will be in our
>> favor. There is no a priori reason to assume there will be more clouds as
>> the world heats up. Britain is cold and cloudy, Sahara is warm and clear,
>> just to show that there is no simple relation between temperature and
>> cloudiness.
>
>Yes, and all they can really do is make assumptions--educated guesses--and
>plug these into the computer and hope the results tell us something relevant
>and accurate. But we shouldn't let these computer models lead us by the
>nose.
>
>>
>>> Mostly I think people don't understand the limits of computer models.
>>> They seem to not realize that small differences in modelling
>>> assumptions can cause huge differences in model results.
>>
>> That's why people working in the field make sure to compare their models
>> with reality. Historical data can constrain the possible CO2 sensitivity
>> as well:
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=274
>>
>>> Lastly there's the fact that the worst-case scenarios don't seem that
>>> bad. We're supposedly going to stop using fossil fuels to avoid some
>>> future discomfort based on conjectured drawn from "video game"
>>> technology.
>>
>> IPCC doesn't really give worst case scenarios since they were too scared
>> of being considered alarmist. Those senarios involve some kind of mode
>> flip of the climate system where you can get radically change climate
>> (even if the global average doesn't necessarily change more than
>> expected).
>>
>> And if you don't think those scenarios IPCC presents are bad that may be
>> because you lack imagination or knowledge. Anyone claiming climate
>> studies are based on "video game technology" has a lot of reading to do.
>> I can assure you that Arrhenius didn't have access to a computer when he
>> made the first estimates of CO2 sensitivity in 1896.
>>
>>>> Cato and Michaels are very poor sources for global
>>>> warming information, even when they are current.
>>>
>>> What are the "good" sources?
>>
>> IPCC is a good reference, as close to an official position from the
>> climate scientist community as you can get:
>> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
>
>Thanks for the reference. This site seems very level headed.
>
>I copied what follows from this website. My reading of this is that it
>confirms suspicions that global warming is not all that big of a deal:
>
>
>
>2.2 How Much is the World Warming?
>
><snip>
>2.2.7 Summary
>Global surface temperatures have increased between 0.4 and 0.8°C since the
>late 19th century, but most of this increase has occurred in two distinct
>periods, 1910 to 1945 and since 1976. The rate of temperature increase since
>1976 has been over 0.15°C/decade. Our confidence in the rate of warming has
>increased since the SAR due to new analyses including: model simulations
>using observed SSTs with and without corrections for time-dependent biases,
>new studies of the effect of urbanisation on global land temperature trends,
>new evidence for mass ablation of glaciers, continued reductions in
>snow-cover extent, and a significant reduction in Arctic sea-ice extent in
>spring and summer, and in thickness. However, there is some disagreement
>between warming rates in the various land and ocean-based data sets in the
>1990s, though all agree on appreciable warming.
>
>New analyses of mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures continue to
>support a reduction in the diurnal temperature range with minimum
>temperatures increasing at about twice the rate of maximum temperatures over
>the second half of the 20th century. Seasonally, the greatest warming since
>1976 over land has occurred during the Northern Hemisphere winter and
>spring, but significant warming has also occurred in the Northern Hemisphere
>summer. Southern Hemisphere warming has also been strongest during the
>winter over land, but little difference between the seasons is apparent when
>both land and oceans are considered. The largest rates of warming continue
>to be found in the mid- and high latitude continental regions of the
>Northern Hemisphere.
>
>Analyses of overall temperature trends in the low to mid-troposphere and
>near the surface since 1958 are in good agreement, with a warming of about
>0.1°C per decade. Since the beginning of the satellite record (1979),
>however, low to mid-troposphere temperatures have warmed in both satellite
>and weather balloon records at a global rate of only 0.04 and 0.03°C/decade
>respectively. This is about 0.12°C/decade less than the rate of temperature
>increase near the surface since 1979. About half of this difference in
>warming rate is very likely to be due to the combination of differences in
>spatial coverage and the real physical affects of volcanoes and ENSO (Santer
>et al., 2000), see also Chapter 12. The remaining difference remains
>unexplained, but is likely to be real. In the stratosphere, both satellites
>and weather balloons continue to show substantial cooling. The faster rate
>of recession of tropical mountain glaciers in the last twenty years than
>might have been expected from the MSU and radiosonde records remains
>unexplained, though some glaciers may still be responding to the warming
>indicated by radiosondes that occurred around 1976 to 1981.
>
>********* end cut and paste ********
>
>I don't see anything to be concerned about here.
>
>>
Someone rather ignorant wouldn't. Project this out 100 years and we get
catastrophic warming -- enough to raise sea levels 20 feet or more. We get
drastic changes in climate, rainfall, etc. We get mass extinctions.
The last ice age was only about 6-8 deg cooler than now; we're talking about
the earth warming a similar amount.
>> As you seem to read sceptic sites, this is a good reference for debunking
>> the more common myths they spread:
>> http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-
>> sceptic.html
>
>Thanks for the link. I found what follows there:
>
>The reason we don't get a runaway Venus type greenhouse is, I believe but am
>not 100% sure, because of the abundance of water. As the temperature would
>rise, cloud cover would increase to the point that enough sunlight would
>simply not penetrate thereby stopping any warming trend.
>
>Moreover, CO2 is a source of temperate stability. So an atmosphere with
>more CO2 is actually a more stable atmosphere. Just the opposite of what
>some are lead to believe.
Huh? Stable? It gives increasing temp. Stability is the furtherest thing
from it.
>
>Jim
>
>
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>>> I don't see anything to be concerned about here.
>>
>> concern is for the future.
>
>The concern is unfounded.
Since you've admitted you're not a scientist, that remark is just plain
stupid. It's like me saying an engineer's concern over the structural
integrity of a bridge is unfounded.
> There is no doubt that increased CO2 will result
>in a warmer planet. But so what.
>
So a lot of stuff. Read!
>
>> The cause for concern that should be apparent in the quoted passage is in
>> comparison between the past and what is happening now.
>
>It had the exact opposite effect on me.
I bet a laxative would too.
>
>>
>>>> As you seem to read sceptic sites, this is a good reference for
>>>> debunking
>>>> the more common myths they spread:
>>>>
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-scepti
c.html
>>>
>>> Thanks for the link. I found what follows there:
>>>
>>> The reason we don't get a runaway Venus type greenhouse is, I believe but
>>> am not 100% sure, because of the abundance of water. As the temperature
>>> would rise, cloud cover would increase to the point that enough sunlight
>>> would simply not penetrate thereby stopping any warming trend.
>>
>> this is a quote from that site
>>
>>> Moreover, CO2 is a source of temperate stability. So an atmosphere with
>>> more CO2 is actually a more stable atmosphere. Just the opposite of what
>>> some are lead to believe.
>>
>> this is not.
>>
>> I would not mind a comment on the quoted passage, I wrote it in a comment.
>> Is it a reasonable thing to say, the earth will not "runaway warm" because
>> of the abundance of water and an eventual clouding over?
>
>Yes, it's perfectly reasonable. But it kinda takes the wind out of the
>global warming hysteria.
>
>
Yeah, because you're a big scientist, right? Why do people totally ignorant
about science think their opinion matters? They wouldn't try to tell a
physician how to do surgery or an engineer how to build a bridge. But every
dumb hick out there thinks his opinion about science is valid.
Lloyd Parker
Al Bedo <refle...@mirror.com> wrote:
>Thomas Palm wrote:
>> Al Bedo <refle...@mirror.com> wrote in
>> news:ZcdWf.16$9h3....@news.uswest.net:
>>
>>> Thomas Palm wrote:
>>
>>>> calculations). Furhermore Michaels when he talks about the expected
>>>> warming uses a distorted version of an article by Hansen. Hansen made
>>>> three scenarios: one as an upper limit, one as the lower and one as a
>>>> best guess. The best guess turned out to be fairly accurate, but when
>>>> Michaels showed that curve to congress he had edited out the lower
>>>> two and only showed the highest estimate to "prove" that the models
>>>> were wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Basically, if it comes from Cato or is written by Michael, assume it
>>>> is wrong unless you can get it confirmed by a more reliable source.
>>> I would invite you to offer evidence of any 'lie'
>>> or even significant error that Michaels has put forth.
>>
>> Sigh! You even qouted the part where I explained such a lie. Or do you
>> find nothing wrong with distorting the view of another researcher to make
>> him seem incompetent?
>
>At least as far as his book 'Meltdown' is concerned,
>Michaels points out it is the IPCC which misrepresents likely outcomes.
>
>The IPCC indicates the 'range' of global warming to be 1.4C to 5.8C
>circa year 2100. This leads ordinary bears to presume a Gaussian
>distribution and a likely result of ~3.6C.
The IPCC doesn't give a mean or median, does it? Just the outcomes of the
different scenarios?
>
>But the model runs considered are highly skewed toward the low end.
>
>Michaels further notes the tendency of the GCMs toward a linear
>temperature increase. If the last twenty six years' warming are
>due to longwave forcing and the GCMs are mostly accurate,
>then we have a good idea that likely future warming will
>be around the 1.5C rate we have seen.
0.5 C per decade -- so you're only going out 30 years?
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote
>
>>> Should we not also be skeptical of scientists and their motives?
>
>> NO more or less than you should skeptical of butchers and their
>> motives, bakers and their motives, candlestick makers and their
>> motives.
>
>> At some point you have to accept that you can't do everything -- you
>> can't do your own brain surgery, you can't make the sparkplugs for your
>> car, you can't fabricate the ICs in your PC. You have to learn your
>> limitations.
>
>So, you essentially admit that you are not qualified to verify the
>scientific validity of the thinking that underlies the scientists'
>conclusions. And, in your opinion, we should just take it upon faith that
>this thinking is sound.
>
>
>
>
Are you in a position to evaluate what your doctor tells you if he tells you
you need heart surgery?
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
>
>Jim
>
>
And stupidity doesn't realize it has any. Mirror time.