You're right about the warming, but I don't see where you get the cooling.
Posted on 04/03/2002 9:57:45 AM PST by cogitator
Earth Alert reports that NASA scientists found (as reported for the 1983 ENSO event) that El Nino slowed the planet's rotation by as much as 0.06 milliseconds on 5 February but the planet is picking up speed and days are now only 0.94 milliseconds longer.--
This has had an awful lot to do with much of the strange weather occurrences. It doesn't seem significant, but reality is that the winds generated by El Nino in 1997 were so strong that it literally redirected the jet stream.
Science is looking, (predicting,) another, equal to, or worse for this year beginning in May.
I've been wondering how they'll pin the evacuation of the American Southwest (Chaco Canyon, Mesa Verde, etc) in the 400s on those who live in the 2000s.
I also remember when I was in high school in the 1960s we were taught that we'd just come out of an ice age. The environmental breastbeaters and lawmakers of today must have been the "dumb kids in the back of the room".
His global warming models left 75% of the earth out of the equation!
And further on models, if their ability is to be believed, please explain to us why when they are feed KNOWN data from past years weather they are not able to produce results that are close to what happened?
"Based on data available at the time of this report, the global average land and ocean temperature for boreal winter (December-February) was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 1880-2001 mean, the second warmest winter season on record."
Confusing, isn't it?
It's MIGRATE stupid, not EXPAND.
Anyways, does this mean that WARMING IS BAD?
And, if so, does this also mean that COOLING IS GOOD?
Because if both WARMING and COOLING are bad and the only thing we should be happy with is exactly the kind of weather we are having now, than, it will always be bad. There's no way the climate can remain stationary.
You're right about the warming, but I don't see where you get the cooling.
These handwringers look to be building on Mann's "hockey stick" graph. Mann's tree ring approach, however, manages to completely miss historic events like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. (Which is especilly odd when one considers that Mann's sample is limited to the northern hemisphere where these events were particularly pronounced!) It's simply not a valid way to measure global climate.
You mean like this?
Forcings and Chaos in Global Climate Change
Read it and see if you think the models can't reproduce the past accurately.
Update: read this:
It's quite good.
And as far as "Warmest on Record" goes, when we have records from different agencies and on different matters dating back 150 years out of 4 Billion, the "warmest on record" is for all intents and purposes worthless.
Hansen has also now declared before the scientific community in a prestigious journal of the National Academy of Sciences that predicting global temperature with climate models is all but impossible (James E. Hansen, Makiko Sato, et al., "Climate Forcings in the Industrial era," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, vol. 95, pp. 12753-12758, October 1998.)
And the cooling of the last 30 or so years has been measured by satelitte. Ground measures show a slight warming and satelitte show a slight cooling. Which to believe?
And to be clear, i am operating under the guideline that I do NOT believe that humans, especially Americans, are causing the earth to warm. Which is the premise and theory that the envirowacko left is operating under.
No. The Kyoto Treaty is essentially useless. I favor James Hansen's Alternative Scenario, which advocates better controls on methane and black soot emissions (the latter would also aid health concerns in nations like India and China), and which expects CO2 emissions reductions via technological advances.
Not to worry, if it does warm up a little bit we can send ya'll some mesquite trees for your new climate.
Strange that you should mention that. On Monday night at 8:00pm Eastern time, the Discovery channel ran a program titled "Dangers of the Ice Age". It concerned the notion that - and I am summarizing the progam here; these are most emphatically not my opinions or beliefs - global warming caused by Evil Western Civilization was accelerating the onset of the next Ice Age!
As near as I could tell (the whole program was heavily slanted, completely one-sided and almost devoid of analytical reasoning), the latest theory goes something like this: Global Warming caused by Evil Western Civilization is leading to increased melting and run-off of water from the Greenland ice-cap. This, in turn, will eventually - in about 200 years from now - cause the great oceanic current that warms the Northern Atlantic ocean, Western Europe and Scandinavia to stop flowing. The ice will then return over the following 100 years or so.
There was also a side-riff that Evil Human Invaders had caused (as opposed to merely catalyzing) the extinction of the large fauna that had inhabited the North American continent prior to about 12000 years ago.
The main subtext of the program, of course, was that unless the whole world enacts the Glorious Kyoto Treaty at once, We Are All Gonna Die! And it will all be the fault of those Evil Capitalist Moneygrubbing Filthy-Rich Americans!
In other words, now that Human-induced Global Warming is being revealed as a hoax, Global Cooling is indeed making a comeback among those who embrace environazi Luddism.
.59C = 33F
1.06F = -17.2C
Try and engage your brain before offering an inane opinion.
---max
Try and engage your brain before offering an inane opinion.
---max
His models include the oceans now; check the reference I provided.
And as far as "Warmest on Record" goes, when we have records from different agencies and on different matters dating back 150 years out of 4 Billion, the "warmest on record" is for all intents and purposes worthless.
We can only compare to what we have available. Most of the "warmest on record" reports refer to an existing compilation of weather station records.
Hansen has also now declared before the scientific community in a prestigious journal of the National Academy of Sciences that predicting global temperature with climate models is all but impossible (James E. Hansen, Makiko Sato, et al., "Climate Forcings in the Industrial era," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, vol. 95, pp. 12753-12758, October 1998.)
Yeah, but he keeps trying:
Trends of Measured Climate Forcing Agents
And the cooling of the last 30 or so years has been measured by satelitte. Ground measures show a slight warming and satelitte show a slight cooling. Which to believe?
A recent National Academy of Sciences report (2000) indicated that both trends are probably valid, and that the discrepancy arises from an overestimation of the ability of convective processes to transfer heat from the surface to the mid-troposphere. Because the stratosphere is cooled (or warmed) radiatively and not convectively, data from the same satellites shows a pronounced stratospheric cooling trend -- exactly what would be expected if longwave radiation is being trapped at the surface and prevented from radiating back to space. The observation of stratospheric cooling is one of the strongest validations of the surface warming record. And to be clear, i am operating under the guideline that I do NOT believe that humans, especially Americans, are causing the earth to warm. Which is the premise and theory that the envirowacko left is operating under.
Whereas I, having read a lot of material and having tried to balance both the left and right, have concluded that there are these points of general agreement:
1. The warming that occurred at the beginning of the 20th century, about 1/3 of the total warming observed for the century, was likely due to an increase in solar radiation.
2. The remaining warming signal is most reasonably attributed to greenhouse gas forcing.
3. The likeliest range of warming for the next century is 1.5-2.5 degrees Centigrade. The IPCC upper bounds (4-5.8 C) are not supported by data or modeling.
4. The maximum effect and least economically disadvantageous program to address global warming would improve the efficiency of fossil fuel use and also seek to control methane, remaining CFC sources, and black soot aerosols. The latter of these three should be sold to Third World nations such as India and China on the basis of the improved pulmonary health benefits.
I.e. a change of 0.6 C corresponds to a change of about 1 degree F.
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.