OT: AGW - to what depths will those crooks sink?

age

eem

e

n't

't

on. ADM

Few plants are well-suited to being eaten by us. Jahred Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel"

lays some emphasis on the limited number of plants lend themselves to domestication.

Ruminants can process a wider range of plants, but they too have their preferences.

So far we haven't found anything that is easy to process into motor fuel, and, it would be a great deal more efficient to use solar panels and solar power stations to turn the sunlight into electricity and use that to drive electric cars.

Not enough - on its own - to keep our economy turning over.

Check out figure 4 in the URL I gave you. Those levels lasted for about ten millions years, from 50 million years ago to about 40 million years ago. They were abnonrally hight.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

SNIP

The author is Trenberth is a dedicated alarmist and as a IPCC lead author I think he knows more about what the IPCC is saying than Bill.

According to Wikipedia:

/quote

Kevin E. Trenberth is head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He was a lead author of the

2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change (see IPCC Fourth Assessment Report)

/end quote

However I will agree with Bill's assessment that he is a liar.

Bill thinks Trenbarth is a liar and bizarre. Again I have to agree with Bill.

I am sure Trenbarth can use your help with the science as you clearly think you know more than he does.

Posted by Oliver Morton on June 04, 2007

Posted by Oliver Morton on behalf of Kevin E. Trenberth

Bill is now accusing Trenbarth of being a sceptic. I assume he will now be frozen out and fail all future peer reviews.

But hey Bill I've been forced to agree with your assessment of him twice. It looks like you're ahead on points:)

selection. ADM

Not really. The apparently the sun is now putting out about 30% more heat than it did back in the Pre-Cambrian, and we don't need as much CO2 in the atmosphere to keep distilling water out of the oceans to fall as erosive rain on the rocks, to expose fresh rock surfaces to soak up excess CO2.

This does seem to be the ultimate negative feedback mechansim that stabilises the surface temperature of the earth. The process is rather slow, with a time constant of a few hundreds of thousands of years, so it takes a while to clean up after volcanic eruptions, industrial revolutions and similar transient events.

There is a potentially terrifying long-term message, of course - the solar constant is going to keep on going up and eventually there won't be any CO2 left to take out of the atmosphere, and the earth will cease to be habitable, rather before the time the sun expands into a red giant - but this isn't the sort of message you find on denialist web-sites because it doesn't serve their political purpose.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

=94

In fact - now that I've read the whole of the text that he wrote, rather than your deceitful selection - I understand what he was saying, and am perfectly happy with it.

I'm less happy with Ravinghorde's habit of text-chopping, which can - as it did here - distort the meaning of the text by presenting it out of context.

If Ravinghorde showed any sign of understanding the text the throws about, I'd have to label him a liar, but the poor dear isn't really that competent.

Actually, you shouldn't.

Having read through the rest of the text - including the bits that Ravinghorde didn't see fit to quote - this now looks more like a rhetorical flourish (if an unfortuate one) than a serious claim. Trenbarth wants the climate models to be improved to the point where they can predict regional changes.

" I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized."

and he is devaluing the current generation of models because they don't do this. The text concludes with

"However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative! So the science is just beginning. Beginning, that is, to face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs.

We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not? How disruptive and how much loss of life will there be because we did not adequately plan for the climate changes that are already occurring?"

e

Since he says something tolerably similar in one of the bits of the blog that you didn't bother to quote, I think that it is your text- chopping that is at issue, rather than any real difference of opinion.

,

No. I'm accusing you of text-chopping.

Ravinghorde does enjoy his little fantasies

Far from it. You got me with a chunk of selected and unattributed text. Unsurprisingly, the full text makes rather better sense that the isolated chunk that appealed to your particular ignorant bias.

As usual, you have presented information that you think supports your point of view, but in fact turns out to contradict it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Too bas that the timing and of the Milankovich cycles does not match up properly for that.

Weather correspondence has only partial correlation, and there is not good enough records to do millennial (climate) scope comparisons. Nor does historical CO2 and mean temperature correlate all that well even when you get times arrow right.

The middle ages warm era is notably recorded every where that there has been decent proxies analyzed. But then again, it barely can be called climate because of the approximately 1000 year duration.

Well you seemed quite convinced they were correlated when you thought it disproved AGW :) It was you that posted the graph to show that!

Either way, as Bill pointed out with his "Suess effect", it is clear that the current observed rise in CO2 is not due to this.

--

John Devereux

SNIP

Here is the complete article.

/quote

I have often seen references to predictions of future climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), presumably through the IPCC assessments (the various chapters in the recently completedWorking Group I Fourth Assessment report ican be accessed through this listing). In fact, since the last report it is also often stated that the science is settled or done and now is the time for action.

In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ?what if? projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent ?story lines? that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.

Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today?s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.

The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity. It works for global forced variations, but it can not work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle. For instance, if the current state is one of drought then it is unlikely to get drier, but unrealistic model states and model biases can easily violate such constraints and project drier conditions. Of course one can initialize a climate model, but a biased model will immediately drift back to the model climate and the predicted trends will then be wrong. Therefore the problem of overcoming this shortcoming, and facing up to initializing climate models means not only obtaining sufficient reliable observations of all aspects of the climate system, but also overcoming model biases. So this is a major challenge.

The IPCC report makes it clear that there is a substantial future commitment to further climate change even if we could stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. And the commitment is even greater given that the best we can realistically hope for in the near term is to perhaps stabilize emissions, which means increases in concentrations of long-lived greenhouse gases indefinitely into the future. Thus future climate change is guaranteed.

So if the science is settled, then what are we planning for and adapting to? A consensus has emerged that ?warming of the climate system is unequivocal? to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause. Hence mitigation of the problem: stopping or slowing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is essential. The science is clear in this respect.

However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative! So the science is just beginning. Beginning, that is, to face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs.

We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not? How disruptive and how much loss of life will there be because we did not adequately plan for the climate changes that are already occurring?

Kevin Trenberth

/end quote

If you read the whole article it still means the models are crap.

Note the comment: "the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate."

SNIP

temperature

feedback

10'C

So

No, i posted the graph to show the reversal of axis. And thus of times = arrow.

temperature

CO2

we

am

to

and

That has not been shown as causal for weather changes in the past = century,=20 let alone of multimillenial (and thus climate) class.

Do you know anybody who has Lexis/Nexus and can look up the British Medical Journal from about the mid-1980s?

Thanks, Rich

Cancer is caused by denied self-hatred, just as all other diseases are.

Thanks, Rich

Notwithstanding it's impossible, theres kind of one in progress right now: The CO2 levels are increasing, and the average temperature isn't.

Hope This Helps! Rich

And it's just been demonstrated to the whole world that "the majority of climate scientists" are crooks.

http:

Hope This Helps! Rich

On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:38:26 -0800) it happened Rich the Philosophizer wrote in :

Do you also think that electronic and mechanical defects are caused by that?

Of course not. You're just being poopy. Most electronic and mechanical defects are caused by unaualified and negligent designers and manufacturers. Notwithstanding pieces of equipment aren't human beings, and so have no capacity for self-hatred or denial.

Admittedly, there is an occasional equipment failure, but in most cases, that can be traced back to batches of defective materials, again, caused by negligence at the factory, or negligence in maintenance/servicing.

Hope This Helps! Rich

On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:03:39 -0800) it happened Rich Grise wrote in :

Now think of living being as complicated machines, with both mechanical, electriocal, and chemical aspects, and maybe you will see what I was hinting at. You are just a self-replicator (if you do that I dunno) with a neural net with too much let's call it 'oh well I dunno', but the world is not exactly the same as the simulation that you play in your head.

No, just those in the central church. The rest are useful idiots.

Probably the same thing that's stopping the alarmists: lack of a few spare planets to experiment on.

John

Babies get cancer. Animals get cancer. Fish get cancer.

John

Actually it depends a lot on the shape. Nasty sharp rigid pointy fibres like blue asbestos do by far the most damage. Round blobs of soot less so - the jury is still out on carbon fibres.

If Rich the clueless Philosophizer really believes this then let him try exposure to dichlordimethyl ether or beta-naphthylamine

The latter is present in trace amounts in cigarette smoke. And was a major health hazard to workers in the dyestuffs industry until ~1970.

Both are exceptionally unforgiving chemical carcinogens in genetically susceptible individuals. Anything that mangles DNA by just the right amount can cause serious trouble. He already gets a dose of several nasty carcinogens in tobacco smoke and not just the particulates.

Regards, Martin Brown