When London is submerged and New York is awash...

[Clarence_A]

"keith" wrote

John Larkin wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
"Clarence_A" wrote:
"Winfield Hill" <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote
Clarence_A wrote...

Your positions are not expressed as opinions but
conclusions
which are frequently not even close to reality as I
perceive
it.
One opinion / conclusion I hold: you are an idiot and a
jerk.

Verify and validating my point about your bad habits!
You simply can not fathom anyone holding a different position
than
yours, and so turn a blind eye to much of the universe!

What do you expect from a leftist? Win probably thinks Ted
Kennedy is
an honorable man even though Kennedy was expelled from Harvard
for
cheating and "daddy" bought his way back in.
...Jim Thompson

But he was a hero for trying to rescue that girl near the
bridge.

Mary Jo Lopechne should get the Medal of Freedom, because she
gave her
life to make sure Teddy Kennedy would never become President.
--
Keith

At first I thought 'that' isn't funny. It isn't, but she will
never be Forgotten and she did give her life to protect our
freedoms! I think a suitable memorial and the Medal would be a
fitting tribute!

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:19:51 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

If you were to take some nice measurable parameter, say mean world
temperature or percent surface glaciation or sea level or something
like that, and graph it over the last million years maybe, the
variations would be stunning. I'd think that covering half of North
America with glaciers for a few millenia qualifies as "climate" as
opposed to "weather." We even had a mini-ice-age around 1700.

Thinking of such a measurable parameter as a signal, there's no
distinction between weather and climate but the observer's time scale.
The overall signal is noisy and chaotic, perhaps fractal on time,
perhaps having numerous periodicities.

It's obvious that the predictability of weather drops radically with
the prediction time, hitting zero in something like a week or so. You
conjecture that predictability somehow returns at longer time scales.
That sort if thing is certainly possible, but it assumes a signal that
has high-frequency noise but predictable slow behavior; I don't think
the geological record indicates anything like that. I also don't trust
dynamic simulations of chaotic systems that are untested and
untestable and politically divisive.

All I can suggest to you, John, is that you read the TAR with some thoroughness.
The section from Working Group I, in particular. I can't spoon feed you; the
earth is pretty complex. But over time, scientists have gotten a much better
handle on some of that complexity. You really need to get some respect for the
concept of climate, separate from weather. And I can't ram that into you. You
will have to burnish it in yourself, just as you have what you know about
electronics. It takes time and effort, no escaping it.

What is present now *is* worthy of your respect. But you will only see that
when you take some time to see. Let me point out a single detailed thread, in
order to make my point above.

In 1971, a peer-reviewed research paper (short, but to the point, by Rasool and
Schneider) pointed out that it appeared that the greenhouse effect of CO2 was
saturated and that dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't make any
difference, at all. It also covered some ideas on aerosols, as well, and these
indicated a cooling effect. The news reports of this paper started talking
about "global cooling" instead of "global warming."

Was the science good? Yes, as far as it went. In fact, the thrust on aerosols
is still useful. But the fact was that the R&S paper didn't predict the future
climate of the Earth. It did attempt to predict the climate sensitivity to CO2
and to aerosol forcings. The predicted CO2 sensitivity in R&S is today regarded
as 'rather low' and a footnote in R&S admits this and points out that even at
the same time other authors (Manabe and Wetherald) found sensitivities three
times as large.

A second footnote [footnote 14] in R&S, though, was really far more serious and
it gets to the nub of today's view of R&S. The footnote points out that the
sort of model used is only a 1D radiative model and is only suitable for
examining the effects of __small__ perturbations about current climate values.

Now, as an engineer, I'm sure you understand the difference between small signal
simulations for AC, for example, versus large signal analysis which cannot
ignore the non-linearities. The authors (R&S) were well aware of the
limitations of what they'd done and new that it was merely a 1st step, so to
speak.

What accounts for the differences with Manabe and Wetherald for example are
different CO2 abs coeffs, different lapse rate specs, and different CO2/H20
overlaps, to name a few. And the R&S model used is a 1D model that lacked
significant feedbacks (for one example, the albedo of ice.) It's a highly
simplified model.

Of course, the newspapers didn't understand any of this. They just saw the
"cooling" and reported that as the news of the day.

Meanwhile, criticism of R&S appeared in Science by three other climate
scientists and R&S not only agreed with much of it, but in their letter as a
response included a new very serious problem no one else had highlighted.

The concluding section contains some guesses towards future aerosol levels.
Quoting: "Even if we assume that the rate of scavenging and of other removal
processes for atmospheric dust [conflated with 'aerosol' in the article, I
believe -- JK] particles remains constant, it is still difficult to predict the
rate at which global background opacity of the atmosphere will increase with
increasing particulate injection by human activities. However, it is projected
that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years.
If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background
opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global
temperature by as much as 3.5 C. Such a large decrease in the average
temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be
sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have
largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production."

It's clear now, a third of a century later, that the R&S estimates of the
effects of CO2 were wrong. However, they *were* right on the central point that
the current levels of CO2 are indeed largely saturated in the main 15 micron
region. However, what they didn't know at the time was that the edges of that
band __are not__ saturated. In fact, a substantial effect remains from that
portion.

The R&S paper was simply mistaken about the net effect of CO2. Subsequent
work using so-called line-by-line calculations, using the latest emission
spectra from HITRAN and with realistic atmospheric conditions of pressure,
temperature, water vapor, etc., and detailed analysis of the depth that each of
these wavelengths reach in the earth's atmosphere go FAR BEYOND where R&S could
have hoped to have done, back in 1971. And today, these results clearly show
that there is a substantial, remaining forcing effect from additional CO2
releases in our atmosphere.

In other words, John, it takes a much deeper study to fully apprehend how it is
that the calculations are arrived at for the CO2 forcings alone. The details of
this aren't trivial. And this is just one part of the broader picture. But the
fact that the complexity today includes 3D spatial gridding, as well as time,
and carefully propagates wavelengths to compute which layers of the atmosphere
receive which energies from space ... none of this means it is wrong or poorly
done. It isn't. Each step of the way, many scientists carefully examine the
assumptions and the modeling and the choice of parameters that mediate between
different modeling scales of space and time, for example. And problems are
routinely reported, new areas suggested for further research, etc.

But enough time has now transpired that the central result is known. There is
still much more to do, wide uncertainties that need to be narrowed, more
assumptions to be vetted through new experimental testing, etc. But the central
result is know. The anthropogenic impact on the net forcings over
pre-industrial times is substantial and very likely more than 50% of that total
over the last 50 years, even including the cooling of human released aerosols
(which has a substantial, opposing effect.)

So, tell me, what caused the mini ice age? What caused the *big* ice
ages? What would be the natural trend NOW without human effects? Is
the conjectured human-caused warming aiding or bucking the natural
trend?

You can actually find information on the estimates in the TAR that I already
mentioned and in some of the reports I've cited. Particularly in:

"Historical evolution of radiative forcing of climate"
http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_atm_env01.pdf

Go look.

In addition, even that report is years old (2001). I also cited another report
that is 2004 and deals with new, better understandings of solar forcings.

Frankly, I get tired of repeating myself about looking at the reports, though.
There is so much excellent science done on the subject now and there is no real
excuse for not spending some time with it, if interested or if you plan to
express an opinion that you wish to be taken as an informed one.

On solar forcings, there is a new site here that includes a detailed overview
going back billions of years at:

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309095069/html/

You might also try that site. I mentioned it before, but then I'm never sure if
anyone ever bothers to read.

I cannot force-feed knowledge. No one can. It must be earned. Go read.
Learn. The information is there for the taking, readily available, well
prepared, and excellent.

Jon

 

[Andrew Holme]

Clarence_A wrote:

What nonsense! However 1 degree is not massive! The daily
variation is greater than that!

I saw that programme too. Yes, the daily variation is much larger.
What they measured was the difference between day max and night min,
which is relatively constant. This was much greater than normal
because the skies were clearer.

2. Global dimming has almost certainly indirectly caused the
deaths of
a million or so already, mainly children, due to its influencing
the
African monsoons.

Name one!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0613-08.htm

[snip]

If you believe the BBC your already in serious trouble. Even the
worst scenarios I have heard does not show a rise of more than 1
degree 'C' in a decade, and the rise is not cumulative over time.
After all it is a normal part of a recurring cycle!

Scientists are surprised we haven't seen larger temperature rises, as
predicted by their models. One factor is that "global dimming" is
partially cancelling the effects of global warming. Global warming
could now accelerate because we're already tackling the emissions which
cause global dimming.

 

[Guy Macon]

Andrew Holme wrote:

Scientists are surprised we haven't seen larger temperature
rises, as predicted by their models.

And yet this doesn't seem to reduce their faith that the
latest models are accurate...

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:33:36 GMT, "Clarence_A" <no@No.com> wrote:

"keith" wrote
John Larkin wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
"Clarence_A" wrote:
"Winfield Hill" <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote
Clarence_A wrote...

Your positions are not expressed as opinions but
conclusions
which are frequently not even close to reality as I
perceive
it.
One opinion / conclusion I hold: you are an idiot and a
jerk.

Verify and validating my point about your bad habits!
You simply can not fathom anyone holding a different position
than
yours, and so turn a blind eye to much of the universe!

What do you expect from a leftist? Win probably thinks Ted
Kennedy is
an honorable man even though Kennedy was expelled from Harvard
for
cheating and "daddy" bought his way back in.
...Jim Thompson

But he was a hero for trying to rescue that girl near the
bridge.

Mary Jo Lopechne should get the Medal of Freedom, because she
gave her
life to make sure Teddy Kennedy would never become President.
--
Keith

At first I thought 'that' isn't funny. It isn't, but she will
never be Forgotten and she did give her life to protect our
freedoms! I think a suitable memorial and the Medal would be a
fitting tribute!

Make sure you spell her name correctly, it's "Mary Jo Kopechne".

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:27:49 -0500, "mc" <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:25aeu0973f74lrr8578vtpfoukg32a8dof@4ax.com...

You're immersed in the mass-mess of academia, where you think
"peer-reviewed" has any final value... it doesn't.

A wise man told me in graduate school that peer review is not a court of
justice. It is an arena.

I'm no expert on the global warming question, but I'm willing to admit that
when research has political implications, and the scientific community has
widely adopted a political position, peer review tends to favor that
position.

Ever met a PhD who
could actually provide a workable solution to a problem?

I like to think I am one. I design things that work. Sometimes they are
even useful.

You are the rare exception. Today, particularly, I meet many whose
sole experience is using a simulator, with truly disastrous results.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:55:31 +0000, Terry Pinnell
<terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:

Winfield Hill <hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:

snip

And this, "The question of what to do about climate change is still
open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of
anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly
tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

There was a gripping edition of Horizon on BBC2 here last night which
strongly supported the reality of man-made climate change. Three main
points stood out for me:

1. What I hadn't realised up until now (to my shame I've only recently
started to take a serious interest in the subject) was the astonishing
effect of 'global/solar dimming'. In just 3 days, Sep 11-13, 2001,
across most of the USA, the average temperature rose by a massive 1
dec C. And that was just as a result of a temporary halt in only *one*
major polluter, airplane contrails.

Sounds like another urban legend to me. Cite a report?

2. Global dimming has almost certainly indirectly caused the deaths of
a million or so already, mainly children, due to its influencing the
African monsoons.

3. But the scariest prediction arose from the no-win situation we
appear to be in now. Reducing global dimming is essential. But it will
quickly accelerate global CO2 warming. A temp increase of 10 deg C in
UK would result by end of century. Already hot countries (or US
states) would be unable to sustain human life.

"Already hot countries"? Bwahahahahaha!

Never mind that CO2 produced by natural causes FAR EXCEEDS man-made.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <62mfu0hs379lmvkohlt1a6br7g5klbvr28@4ax.com>,
thegreatone@example.com says...

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:33:36 GMT, "Clarence_A" <no@No.com> wrote:


"keith" wrote
John Larkin wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
"Clarence_A" wrote:
"Winfield Hill" <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote
Clarence_A wrote...

Your positions are not expressed as opinions but
conclusions
which are frequently not even close to reality as I
perceive
it.
One opinion / conclusion I hold: you are an idiot and a
jerk.

Verify and validating my point about your bad habits!
You simply can not fathom anyone holding a different position
than
yours, and so turn a blind eye to much of the universe!

What do you expect from a leftist? Win probably thinks Ted
Kennedy is
an honorable man even though Kennedy was expelled from Harvard
for
cheating and "daddy" bought his way back in.
...Jim Thompson

But he was a hero for trying to rescue that girl near the
bridge.

Mary Jo Lopechne should get the Medal of Freedom, because she
gave her
life to make sure Teddy Kennedy would never become President.
--
Keith

At first I thought 'that' isn't funny. It isn't, but she will
never be Forgotten and she did give her life to protect our
freedoms! I think a suitable memorial and the Medal would be a
fitting tribute!



Make sure you spell her name correctly, it's "Mary Jo Kopechne".

Ah $#|+! ..and I even looked her last name up to get it right, then
fat-fingered it. :-(

--
Keith

 

[Guy Macon]

Andrew Holme wrote:

Guy Macon wrote:

Andrew Holme wrote:

Scientists are surprised we haven't seen larger temperature
rises, as predicted by their models.

And yet this doesn't seem to reduce their faith that the
latest models are accurate...

Well, that was the whole point ... the models didn't take account
of global dimming. When you factor that in, the gap between model
and observation closes. The models may be right after all, and
the predictions are scarey.

Maybe they finally got it right. And maybe Microsoft just
fixed the last bug in Windows. I wouldn't bet on either.

Or there may be a bunch of other things that the models still
dod't take account of. The predictions of global warming are
somewhat scary, but the predictions of global cooling (yes, I
was there on the first Eaeth Day...) are *terrifying*. Before
global warming started 18,000 years ago, most of the earth
was a frozen and arid wasteland. Over half of earth's surface
was covered by glaciers or extreme desert. Forests were rare.
Not a very fun place to live. Global warming over the last
18,000 years has changed our world from an ice box to a garden.
Today extreme deserts and glaciers have largely given way to
grasslands, woodlands, and forests. Much better. Assume for
the sake of argument that the 0.28% of the greenhouse effect
that is caused by human activity is cut in half to 0.14%
(wrecking the global economy in the process). Are you sure
that the present level of human-caused greenhouse effect
isn't the only thing keeping us from the next ice age?
Are you willing to take that risk? Whuch is more scary, a
temperature increase of a degree or two, or a 5,000 foot
thick ice sheet over chicago?


"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know
there is politics and, therefore, money behind it... I've
been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

-Dr. William Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:14:50 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

It seems all the models predicting doom assume a positive feedback effect
from increasing carbon dioxide levels. As an engineer the notion that there
is any significant net positive feedback the earth's climate system is
ridiculous. The earth's climate has been like a pin balanced on it's point
for millions of years and 'we' are going to knock it over in the next few
decades - yeah right.

Several comments are in order to bring this into some context. First, CO2 isn't
the only greenhouse gas in play or the only feedback system, either. There are
many other factors. For a "big picture" view, I recommend this:

"Historical evolution of radiative forcing of climate"
http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_atm_env01.pdf

It's *very readable* and puts much in decent context. If you read nothing else,
start here. I also highly recommend reading the IPCC 3rd assessment report
(TAR) at:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/index.htm

This report covers things in a comprehensive way. And the point I'd make to you
is that you *need* to have as comprehensive an understanding of the systems as
is currently available to you in order to properly put a fuller context to what
is known about these systems. It's hard work, but there is no other way to have
an informed opinion about these things. As they say, "if you are willing to be
selective, you could well believe the earth is flat."

There are various system feedbacks which impact the whole. Key among the
positive feedbacks is water vapor and ice albedo. As the earth warms, the air
can hold a little more water and since water is a greenhouse gas itself, this
causes further warming. Also, as the earth warms, the ice melts/retreats and
the albedo of earth declines, causing it to warm more. A feedback that can go
either way is cloud formation -- as the more water appears in the air, clouds
form -- whether these appear as high altitude or low altitude will cause the net
effect to be either towards more warming, or less, depending. And there are
other negative feedbacks. Also, logarithmic responses in the positive feedback
systems (such as the effect of CO2), aren't linear -- so there is some natural
"mathematical aberration against the linear assumption" that works to mitigate
against a simple, linear assumption.

The models today use a so-called "gold standard," by using line-by-line
(wavelength by wavelength) analysis, using the latest emission spectra (HITRAN)
and with realistic atmospheric conditions (pressure, temperature, water vapor,
and so on.) In the case of the CO2 greenhouse response in our atmosphere, it is
true that the center of the 15 micron band of concern is indeed saturated, so on
first blush one might imagine that additional CO2 would have no impact on
warming. But, in fact, the edges of that band __are not__ saturated. There are
enough secondary bands to cause a significant increase in absorption as you
increase the levels of CO2 above today's levels.

Current models cover this behavior:

dF= 3.35*(ln(1+1.2*C+5E-3*C^2+1.4E-6*C^3)–ln(1+1.2*C0+5E-3*C0^2+1.4E-6*C0^3))

(note: C0 is usually taken as a "pre-industrial value" for some comparison
purposes. I usually keep in my mind a figure of 285 ppmv for that figure,
though anything in the range of 280-285 ppmv is about right.)

Notice the use of fitted logarithmic equations here. The logarithmic behavior
gets at the center saturated bands in the 15 micron area, but also takes into
account the secondary band effects of CO2.

This is only one of many, many effects. See the IPCC TAR here:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/219.htm

"The new best estimate based on the published results for the radiative forcing
due to a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Wm^-2, which is a reduction of 15% compared to
the SAR. The forcing since pre-industrial times in the SAR was estimated to be
1.56 Wm^-2; this is now altered to 1.46 Wm^-2 in accordance with the discussion
above. The overall decrease of about 6% (from 1.56 to 1.46) accounts for the
above effect and also accounts for the increase in CO2 concentration since the
time period considered in the SAR (the latter effect, by itself, yields an
increase in the forcing of about 10%)."

Where does that 3.7 Wm^-2 figure come from? To see, use the simplified
logarithmic expression shown on the IPCC TAR site in Table 6.2 at

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm#tab62

dF= 5.35*ln(C/C0)

(It shows the more broadly based one I mentioned earlier, too.)

A "doubling" would mean:

dF= 5.35*ln(2.0) = 3.708 W/m^2

This is where that number derives.

Also, for comparison purposes, if you read the report mentioned above,
"Historical evolution of radiative forcing of climate," then you will see in
Table 1 an estimate (taken from other reports, earlier) of 1.38 Wm^2 as the
relative forcing for CO2 today versus pre-industrial times. This is based on
lots of good theory *and* good measurement. (You'll need to dig into further
reports to see all the details fleshed out.)

You will find that the "Historical evolution of radiative forcing of climate"
deals squarely with illustrating comparisons between anthropogenic and natural
forcings, as well. Including solar. The authors felt that enough new work had
transpired that it was time to take each of these various works and compile them
into a unified report that provides an idea of the relative forcing issues
against the whole of all of them. It's interesting, to say the least.

As I mentioned before and again, the general IPCC report is easily available
from this site:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/index.htm,

Look under "Scientific Basis" and in particular chapters 4 and 6.

By the way, to figure out the absolute forcing figure for today, the simplified
5.35*ln(C/C0) equation won't help you. Instead, you'll need the more complex
fitted equation I first mentioned:

dF= 3.35*(ln(1+1.2*C+5E-3*C^2+1.4E-6*C^3)–ln(1+1.2*C0+5E-3*C0^2+1.4E-6*C0^3))

From this, and a basic "initial conditions" approach, you realize that the
pre-industrial CO2 forcing is about 22 W/m^2. If you are interested in
evaluating this from one separate theory, you can do so.

For absorbed solar flux on earth and insolation, NOAA has figures which amount
to this:

outgoing longwave 235 W/m^2 (similar to BB radiation)
reflected 107 W/m^2 (ice and cloud albedo, and the rest)
------------versus------------
total incoming 342 W/m^2

(Also, see Langley's SRB data set at http://srb-swlw.larc.nasa.gov/)

These are averages based on the total 4*PI*r^2 area of the earth, so noon day
peaks at the equator, for example, will have bigger totals. (Solar insolation
in space, above the earth, is measured at 1366-1367 W/m^2.)

This 235 W/m^2 is a net figure you'll see a lot of.

What is required to produce a one degree Kelvin change? Let's assume that the
earth is a black body (it isn't.) Assuming the 235 W/m^2 mean figure and using
Stefan's law to get the apparent mean temperature and then to get the
differential effect of a 1 degree Kelvin change:

4th root of (235 W/m^2)/(5.67E-8 W/m^2/K^4) = 253.73 Kelvin.

Using Stefan's, again, calculate what things would be at 254.73 Kelvin -- and
this comes up to 238.73 W/m^2. So, from the difference (238.73 - 235), I arrive
at this figure:

1 degree Kelvin change is about 3.7 W/m^2 change, as a nearby slope at
our current apparent temperature.

This is a very gross figure. It assumes true blackbody behavior of the earth
and we already know this is an incorrect assumption, for example. Also, there
are various system feedbacks which impact the relationship, even had it been
that the blackbody assumption was right -- such as the water vapor and ice
albedo I already mentioned.

The above calculation would suggest a sensitivity of about 0.27 Kelvin per 1
W/m^2 change in forcing. But because of the net-positive feedbacks in the
system, we actually expect the real sensitivity figure to be higher.

Current models show a sensitivity figure (these are found by those line-by-line
(LBL) calculations and careful 3D gridding in space and 1D in time and
re-accumulated back into an overall response) of about 2.5-4.0 degrees Kelvin
for that ever-popular "doubling of CO2."

As already seen in the IPCC TAR report, this is taken to suggest about 3.7 W/m^2
forcing over pre-industrial times. Roughly, this appears to be between 0.68 and
1.08 Kelvin per 1 W/m^2 change, should we be willing to risk an average figure
here, as compared to about a 0.27 Kelvin per W/m^2 that we'd calculate from
simplified blackbody assumptions and no feedbacks at all.

It turns out that this increased sensitivity (tripling, or so) is, in fact, due
to the nature of the positive feedbacks in the system and the differences of
reality from the blackbody assumptions. The confidence in this is supported by
the ice age temperatures and careful analysis of the forcings from ice cores and
other means. Plus, the simulations using these feedbacks and operated in the
wake of Pinatubo, for instance, appear to show the right amount of water vapor
feedback, given actual measurements. So there is good confidence now.

Getting back to the absolute, total forcing for CO2, we can now gain some idea
about what temperature difference 22.3 W/m^2 would mean. At the lower end of
the sensitivity scale, 0.68 K-m^2/W, we get about 15 Kelvin. At the higher end
of the scale, 1.08 K-m^2/W, we get about 24 Kelvin. Total GHG warming provides
some 35 Kelvin difference (from memory), so at least this provides some kind of
rationality check on the figures.

The main point I want to hammer in, though, is that you need to master a fuller
more comprehensive understanding through careful and close attention to all the
details known today, together with their uncertainties (much less for CO2
effects, much more for cloud effects), in order to apprehend the state of the
science on global warming and the reason for the essentially complete consensus
among scientists who *are* extremely well informed on the overall subject.

Jon

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:06:40 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:59:21 +0000, Guy Macon
_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:

I once asked my lovely and talented wife to stand behing the car
and tell me if the turn signal was working. She said:

"It's working. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is..."

I cannot say I understand your point, so I'll guess at it. You imagine that
climate GCMs need to predict weather? If so, you are sorely mistaken. And not
just a little bit, but entirely so.

Predicting the next flip of a fair coin is very hard. Predicting the average of
the next 10000 coin flips is much easier, Guy. Predicting the weather a month
from now at Astoria, Oregon is hard. Predicting the global mean temperature for
the decade from 2090 to 2100 given an estimate of human greenhouse gas emissions
is much easer.

As you should be aware, specific and chaotic transients are harder to model and
predict than the general and steady state.

I hope that makes the issue clearer for you.

Jon

Climate is just weather on a longer timebase. I suspect that weather
is fractal in time, erratic at all time scales. The only advantage in
claiming you can predict longterm trends over short-term ones is that
it's harder for people to call you on it.

I heard one serious climate researcher say that several major
couplings were not only unknown in magnitude, they are unknown in
sign.

John

 

[Clarence_A]

"Daniel Haude" <haude@kir.physnet.uni-hamburg.de> wrote in message
news:slrncuahkr.20v.haude@kir.physnet.uni-hamburg.de...

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:31:17 GMT,
Clarence_A <no@No.com> wrote
in Msg. <VwaFd.1036$8Z1.12@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com

Which is why I was not specific. There is not only poor over
all
service, it is inconsistent!

OK, inconsistency aside, in what way is European health service
"poor over
all"?

Simple answer, it is a funds "Limited service"

However if your satisfied with it. Your welcome to it!

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

John Larkin wrote:

The US deficit spending will have bad effects, likely a bunch of
inflation to wash away the debt, but Europe has a serious demographic
problem looming: the birth rate is way down in Western Europe and a
huge aging population will be expecting a lot of retirement goodies
for a very long time. Retirement ages are down, longevity is up, and
fewer workers will be around to pay for it. A birth rate of, say, 1.2
per couple isn't good in the long term.

John,
you're basically right. Just that my generation knows that
we won't get the retirement benefits the now retired ones
are getting. We consider the current payments be they
for the eldery directly or into so called funds for us,
as gone.
Increasing the population is no solution.
We must reduce the number anyway.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:28:43 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:
....

Their signatures represent a strong statement about this
important issue by many of the best scientific minds
in the United States."

"Your pulse: Ninety-eight point six. Very scientific!"
"Quant Suff! Quant Suff!"

;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:00:15 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:35:30 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

The climate

a) is chaotic and thus not predictable

b) doesn't give a damn about peer reviews.

Wonderful explanation, John. Wrong, though.

Weather is chaotic, like a breaker-wave on the ocean. Climate is quite
predictable, like high, low, neap and ebb tides. You need to separate climate
and weather in your mind. Until then, you won't understand even the basics of
the science.

And, of course, none of nature cares the least about any theories about it. Yet
the theories exist to give meaning to the world around us and they work pretty
well, at times.

So, what's your plan? Browbeat people until the climate improves?

Ban all consumption of energy by human beings? Move back into caves? Mass
suicide?

Come on, you've identified the problem, so what's your solution? You must
know, since you know all the answers.

Asshole.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:22:53 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
....

I cannot force-feed knowledge. No one can. It must be earned. Go
read. Learn. The information is there for the taking, readily
available, well prepared, and excellent.

Problem is, we have. And we have learned that the GWA (Global Warming

Alarmists) are waving a boogeyman about in front of the Royal Treasurer.
It's another fraudulent imposition of religion in the name of science,
identical to the antismokerist power-grab, with just as gullible of a
constituency.

But you have the faith of the converted - it is futile to present you with
any actual factual data that gives the lie to your high priesthood and
their dogma.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:30:44 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:10:28 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:27:15 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:06:32 +0000, Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:28:27 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

Do Liberals float?

Of course, unlike neocons who are sunk by the weight of that stone they
have in place of a heart.

You still haven't defined "neocon".


"A Liberal who has been mugged by reality."

No, when the acrid left uses the term they really mean "damned joo".

Yes, another interesting realignment.

John

 

[Reg Edwards]

In the meantime, the Earth's future depends on the votes of USA gas-guzzling
car owners whose only consideration (the lowest on Earth) is the price of
gasoline.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:26:02 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Liberal
<eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

Sorry you don't like the truth.

First, only I can say what I like and don't like. You have no window into that
detail. Second, I wasn't addressing you, as you cannot answer what Jim had in
mind. Simple as that.

Regarding the "truth," I've no reason at all to consider you an important or
even minor source of it and most everyone here knows exactly why, since you have
provided an abundant source of all necessary data to come to a conclusion on
that score.

But you already knew that.

I do like you around, though. Never doubt that.

Jon

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:33:19 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
<g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote:

In the meantime, the Earth's future depends on the votes of USA gas-guzzling
car owners whose only consideration (the lowest on Earth) is the price of
gasoline.

Just wait until China starts burning coal in earnest. The gas will run
out; the coal won't.

John