Posted on 04/04/2007 5:41:57 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
We are not really concerned with actual temperatures so much as the trend.
According to Dr. Michael Mann's hallowed "Hockey Stick" data, Global-warming advocates insist that the earth's temperature is about to head toward infinity.
By the way, the "Hockey Stick" data has been proven fraudulent because the statistical methods employed were invalid (Global-warming zealots will deny this, of course).
I'll take a look.
Interpreting Massachusetts v. EPA (mp3 podcast)
Air pressure: The Supreme Court breathes down the government's neck
Global Warming on FreeRepublic
Latest from Global Warming News Site
Latest from Junk Science (scroll down)
Ozone Hole Leaks and Other Tales
Global Carbon Budgeting Requires Proper Accounting Of Inland Waters
US Pollution Cop Defends Bush Greenhouse Gas Record
And how do you know this since the resolution is 100's to 1000's of years in the older cores?
Postings have happened already, see my shpud.com/myths.html for some links. I have links to realclimate as well, showing their poor grasp of science like "tipping point".
1992 is the original date of publication of this paper??? I see. Well, I suppose I should have looked more closely at this refuted oldage before I pinged, but I had to put the Global Warming ping somewhere...
No one every accused Al Bore or those lefty Supreme Court lawyers of being intelligent.
From the article:
To be sure there are still some lingering uncertainties. Some recent data indicates that tropical upper tropopsheric water vapour does not quite keep up with constant relative humidity (Minschwaner and Dessler, 2004) (though they still found that the feedback was positive). Moist convection schemes in models are constantly being refined, and it's possible that newer schemes will change things . However, given the Pinatubo results, the models are probably getting the broader picture reasonably correct.
First off ...what is relative humidity telling you? What you really need is the specific humidity if you really are concerned about the equilibrium temperature. Second...the sentence on the computer model is really telling isn't it. Their projections are wrong...so they tweak them some more. Just like the IPCC has been downgrading all of their projections to fit their data. Given enough time they will see that the sky was not falling after all.
Water...unlike CO2 and the other supposed greenhouse gases absorbs across the entire spectrum of the infrared. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand for some.
I guess I’ll have to take a look at this soon.
As regards water vapor as a forcer, it has been tested, by the Pinatubo data, as the article notes "the models are probably getting the broader picture reasonably correct".
IMO, the way this is heading is pretty clear: 5 years or a decade from now the more scientifically literate skeptics here will be saying 'Well, in the mid 00s, we still had reason to be skeptical, and after all things didn't turn out to be as dire as suggested by the more pessimistic models."
BTW, I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge that there is a lot of questionable use of “science” as inputs into public policy decisions. Residential asbestos and increasingly residential radon abatement efforts are expensive public health initiatives undertaken on the basis of IMO very questionable assumptions about the relevance of data collected in industrial settings to the lives of ordinary citizens. And a lot of relevant information gets disregarded – on both sides of the ideological spectrum – as a result of a combination of ignorance and ideological bias, for example IMO exaggerated concerns about the health effects of DU ammunition on parts of the left, or the decades of denials of the link between smoking and cancer on parts of the right, are examples.
Link to Dr. Essenhigh's 2006 peer-reviewed paper expanding upon the 1992 paper. He sent it to me in response to an email I sent him.
From Dr. Essenhigh's email:
"On the matter of more, this is the Attachment, just published last year in another ACS journal, Energy and Fuels, that as a chemist you are probably familiar with. As you will see, this is more analytical, but it comes up with essentially the same result regarding the (radiative) dominance of water over CO2, and the conclusion that anthopogenic CO2 is unlikely to be possible to have significant impact on global warming. You will see one change between this and the original article which is setting the (average) water/CO2 absorption/emission properties to about 75-80% for water and 15-20% for CO2 compared with the (original) estimate of about 95%/5%. The change was taking into account the very much faster drop in water with altitude compared with CO2, but it still sets water as the dominant gas."
I have a better explanation. Pinatubo displaced millions of tons of ash, SO2 and SO3 into the atmosphere in the percent levels. This caused cloud formation. This caused the cooling.
If the greenhouse hypothesis is correct we should see higher concentrations of CO2 and higher temperatures as we travel upwards. That is not the case. So the global warming/greenhouse hypothesis due to CO2 is incorrect.
Especially when we are told that the "consensus" of scientists (the majority of whom specialize in areas of knowledge that have absolutely nothing to do with physics or engineering, much less climatology) is that anthropogenic global warming is real, the debate is over, and now we must implement global taxes and a global bureaucracy to address it.
It is well-known that the general circulation models cannot accurately predict what the weather will be like next year or ten years from now. People like you say that this is because weather and climate are different, then in the next breath you use current weather event anecdotes to "prove" that global warming is occurring.
Furthermore, the general circulation models do not model feedback mechanisms very well, and just about all the models drift to higher or lower temperatures over time. You say the ones that drift upward "prove" that global temperatures are about to go to infinity and anyone who doubts the computer models is a Luddite.
Computer models are a wonderful research tool, but to take the results of a research tool and use them to dictate global economic policy is criminal.
And the "anything not peer-reviewed is bunk" bullshit really pisses me off. The second article I linked to by Dr. Essenhigh appeared an a peer-reviewed journal a year ago, and you never even heard of it, all the while passing yourself off as some kind of expert. You said his original paper had been thoroughly discredited and he had never published another word on the matter. You are either a liar, or a pretentious, dilettante poser.
Peer-reviewed articles are unavailable to the general public. Individuals cannot afford to subscribe to every journal that might publish something relevant. The evidence is that there are a lot of peer-reviewed articles debunking anthropogenic global warming that nobody ever hears about because the agenda is to ignore them.
I’m with you. All you need to do is see one picture of the sun flaring, and you realize that it can raise temps.
Why the general public doesn’t get this is beyond comprehension.
Possibly it’s due to the natural phenomenon that what scares you is what you pay attention to.
The MSM / Al (bloated by his own natural gas) play that fiddle to perfection.
In which of the links does he make this statement? I'm not seeing it, and in the last letter to the editor I wrote, I used the 95/5 ratio. If that's wrong, I really need to know. If we are going to successfully argue this, we need to work with the latest information so the people on the wrong (left) can't come back and say the people on the right (us) are lying. Thank you.
This link.
I posted it two comments down from the letter quote. I hadn't realized the article was an attachment. I thought one of those links in his email went to it.
Since people started ranting about how the Arctic is meeeeellllltiiiiiinnnnnnng.
TREMENDOUS!
Time for me to run to Good Friday services, but I will spend a lot of time checking these sources from the good professor.
Of course, the alarmists will state “he’s been refuted”...
He hasn’t been, though... and solar scientists have been making it more and more clear that the SUN, not CO2, is responsible for the warming trend of the earth.
Eventually the UN may catch on... but they’re still in the throes of believing socialism is the best form of government, too... they’re a bit slow... as is algore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.