Rick Monteverde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 9-5-08: ``... Stephen, I don't care what a majority of scientists or mainstream publishers or whatever have concluded, just as I'm sure Jed doesn't care how many think CF is bunk, in terms that situation having any bearing on the nature of the evidence or the conclusions he has come to regarding the evidence. They can all be wrong, and in the case of CF we're pretty certain they are, so there's your proof that a consensus does not necessarily mean much.
There is significant evidence pointing away from the warming cause being related to the "huge" (what, 4 tenths of a percent is it?) CO2 output we're responsible for. In addition, computer models used to support it as a cause are inherently flawed ...'' ----------- Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Friday, September 05, 2008 10:59 AM: ``... In any case, from what I've read, the "experts", while not 100% certain of the cause, are in near-universal agreement that it is *very* *likely* that the cause is anthropogenic greenhouse gases. One reason for concluding this, which doesn't take a sophisticated model to understand or reason about, is that anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 has been skyrocketing IN PARALLEL with the global temperature, [See remarks by Chuck Blatchley below] ... As someone put it, we're conducting an experiment in terraforming on an enormous scale and if the results don't work out well we're going to be in trouble. Perhaps we should scale back the pace of the "experiment", eh?'' --------------------- Rick wrote on 9-6-08: Robin, well and concisely put. I only take issue with #3 because of the assumptions that we should be trying to interfere with the situation, and that warming is necessarily a bad thing in the long run. Used to be a lot warmer, and for a very long time. I say let nature handle the climate. It's our job to adapt to it. So let's put our opposable thumbs and big brains to work on the right problems. That still leaves people like you for #6 in at least the same, if not an even better, position. Right? --------------- Hi All, As I've mentioned previously, the real issue is not whether burning fossil fuels is the main reason for global warming; the real issue is whether or not we are going to be trapped into sending young Americans to die for oil in the Kazakh War of 2020, which will make the current military adventure in Iraq look like a training exercise. The situation is scary: Paraphrasing a recent speech to a wildly cheering crowd, "My friends, my platform is more death, more recession, and eternal dependence on foreign oil." Jack Smith -------------------- Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Friday, September 05, 2008 11:35 AM ``Subject: Sunspotless In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:25:43 -1000: Hi, Rick wrote: The argument is whether there are anthropogenic causes to it. I say that the models are incapable of directing that conclusion because of their inherent shortcomings. Robin wrote: I agree that the models are only models and will never get it 100% correct, however a few facts are obvious. 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2) The temperature is rising. 3) Reducing CO2 is the only means we have of influencing the situation (albeit that we don't know exactly how (in)effective that will be). 4) As a byproduct of switching from fossil fuels, we get less air pollution which is better for our health. 5) If we do it right, we make a net profit rather than a net loss. 6) If my ideas on fusion are correct, then that is going to be a very large profit.'' -------------------- Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 9-6-08 ``While a warmer world might be nice in some respects, it could have major consequences for humanity. 1) Coastal flooding (where most major cities have been located for historical reasons). 2) Spreading of tropical diseases into temperate zones. 3) Possible major shifts in what will grow where. This could have a serious impact on agriculture. 4) Increases in the frequency and severity of weather extremes (which will also impact on agriculture). While we undoubtedly have the ingenuity to deal with all of these things, it is unlikely we can do so at no economic and political cost. By political cost, I mean the cost in lives lost due to wars brought on by major migrations of people when the region where they currently live becomes unsustainable. A primary example of this is Bangladesh. Therefore it seems wise to me to make a profit by pulling on the only lever we have and possibly making a difference, rather than just sitting back and doing nothing (while probably making the situation worse) while we incur considerable extra costs.'' --------------- Stephen wrote: I don't understand why you seem to feel humans have no control over human-generated carbon dioxide. Rick wrote: How you got that I don't know, but please don't tell me. Of course we can control (dramatically reduce) it, for instance by shutting down our economy and sharply curtailing personal liberty ... Here is an excerpt from a document signed by thousands of scientists primarily to refute the lie being circulated that scientific debate is over and there is an overwhelming consensus in favor of AGW: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." ...'' --------------------- To Cycles: ... Top 11 Warmest Yrs On Record In Last 13 Posted by: "g_etzkorn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] g_etzkorn Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:14 am ((PST)) ``Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2007) The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F. The University of East Anglia and the Met Office's Hadley Centre have released preliminary global temperature figures for 2007, which show the top 11 warmest years all occurring in the last 13 years. The provisional global figure for 2007 using data from January to November, currently places the year as the seventh warmest on records dating back to 1850 ... WMO's global temperature analyses are based on two different sources. One is the combined dataset maintained by both the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office, and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK, which at this stage ranked 2007 as the seventh warmest on record. The other dataset is maintained by the US Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which indicated that 2007 is likely to be the fifth warmest on record. Since the start of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74°C. But this rise has not been continuous. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 4th Assessment (Synthesis) Report, 2007, "warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level." Global 10 Warmest Years Mean Global temperature (°C) (anomaly with respect to 1961-1990) 1998 0.52 2005 0.48 2003 0.46 2002 0.46 2004 0.43 2006 0.42 2007(Jan-Nov) 0.41 2001 0.40 1997 0.36 1995 0.28 Adapted from materials provided by World Meteorological Organization. ... continue to link for the whole story http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm ------------------- 2c. ... Top 11 Warmest Yrs On Record ... Posted by: "Chuck B" [EMAIL PROTECTED] gumbo482001 Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:42 am ((PST)) Notice that the trend in the anomaly is steadily DOWN since 1998, when global temperatures peaked. The models predict that with continuing relatively rapid CO2 rise, global temperatures should be continuing upward, when they have actually gone down for the last nine years, although still above the reference level. --------------- 2a. The link between solar cycle length and decadal global temperature Posted by: "Chuck Blatchley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:18 am ((PDT)) http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10973 "Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always. So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down. NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year. Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results." His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary." A pdf version of Miskolczi's entire paper is here:'' http://met.hu/omsz.php?almenu_id=omsz&pid=references&mpx=0&pri=2&sm0=1
