"danny" <user@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:vDWMj.181233$pM4.81311@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Roedy Green wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:20:16 -0700 (PDT), "$27 TRILLION to pay for
>> Kyoto" <rander3127@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
>> someone who said :
>>
>>
>>>As well they should. The "useful idiots" who sup****t the fantasy of
>>>global warming, out to DESTROY the Western economies. Guess what,
>>>enviroFAGGOTS? The other shoe has dropped.
>>
>>
>> Americans had the money, and the knowledge, but did BUGGER ALL about
>> the environment. They have not a leg to stand on now China is intent
>> on taking the planet to hell in a hand cart, following the economic
>> mad theories the Americans pushed on them.
>>
>> There is a certain satisfaction in having an I told you so, but I
>> would rather the Chinese were smarter and more self-preserving than
>> the Americans.
>>
>> You are an utter idiot. You blame the environmentalists for a mess
>> they did their damndest to prevent. Spit on those who worked hard to
>> put us in this pickle out of short sightedness instead.
>>
> My understanding of the data is that there is so much positive
> feedback
> in the system that even if the whole world became carbon neutral, we
> would still follow much the same course to some climatic endpoint.
>
> I would very much like to be wrong about this
Your wish is my command.
You are wrong about this!
Latest research indicates NEGATIVE FEEDBACK!
There is absolutely no sign of any positive feedbacks or mythical
"tipping points".
Climate Change Confirmed But Global Warming Cancelled
"We live on a benign planet - except when it occasionally gets damned
cold."
Owen McShane
7 Apr 2008
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=21153&cid=39&cname=NBR
QUOTE 1: "Atmospheric scientists generally agree that as carbon dioxide
levels increase there is a law of "dimini****ng returns" - or more
properly "dimini****ng effects" - and that ongoing increases in CO2
concentration do not generate pro****tional increases in temperature. The
common analogy is painting over window glass. The first layers of paint
cut out lots of light but subsequent layers have dimini****ng impact."
QUOTE 2: "However, there is a mechanism at work that "washes out" the
water vapour and returns it to the oceans along with the extra CO2 and
thus turns the added water vapour into a NEGATIVE feedback mechanism."
Quote 3: "A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to
the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of
industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be
profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening
experience.
Unlike so many of the hapless victims on TVOne's daily Crimewatch (also
known as One Network News) I have recently been lucky enough to be in
two right places at the right time.
In December last year, at the UN conference in Bali, I heard Viscount
Monckton present a paper prepared by himself, the Australian Dr David
Evans and our own Dr Vincent Gray (who were at Bali, too) that showed
while the IPCC models predict that greenhouse gases would produce an
extensive "hot spot" in the upper troposphere over the tropics, the
satellite measurements show no such hotspots have appeared.
Monckton and Evans found a large part of this discrepancy is the result
of some basic errors in the IPCC's *****sment of the Stefan-Boltzmann
equation. When they applied their revised factor to the effect of
greenhouse gases, the temperature rise was about a third of that
predicted by the IPCC.
So by late last year we not only knew IPCC forecasts of atmospheric
global warming were wrong; we were beginning to understand why they are
wrong.
The key issue in this debate is whether anthropogenic greenhouse gases
or natural solar activities are the prime drivers of climate change. A
closely related argument is whether the climate is highly sensitive to
carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Doubtful predictions
Put together, these uncertainties raise doubts as to whether the IPCC
models can accurately forecast the climate over the long term. If they
cannot, then we have to wonder how much damage we should risk doing to
the world's economies in attempts to manage the possibly adverse effects
of these "predictions."
The findings that the predicted "tropical hot spots" do not exist are
im****tant because the IPCC models assume these hot spots will be formed
by increased eva****ation from warmer oceans leading to the ac***ulations
of higher concentrations of water vapour in the upper atmosphere, and
thereby generating a positive feedback reinforcing the small amount of
warming that can be caused by CO2 alone.
Atmospheric scientists generally agree that as carbon dioxide levels
increase there is a law of "dimini****ng returns" - or more properly
"dimini****ng effects" - and that ongoing increases in CO2 concentration
do not generate pro****tional increases in temperature. The common
analogy is painting over window glass. The first layers of paint cut out
lots of light but subsequent layers have dimini****ng impact.
So, you might be asking, why the panic? Why does Al Gore talk about
temperatures spiraling out of control, causing mass extinctions and
catastrophic rises in sea-level, and all his other disastrous outcomes
when there is no evidence to sup****t it?
The alarmists argue that increased CO2 leads to more water vapour - the
main greenhouse gas - and this provides positive feedback and hence
makes the overall climate highly sensitive to small increases in the
concentration of CO2.
Consequently, the IPCC argues that while carbon dioxide may well "run
out of puff" the consequent eva****ation of water vapour provides the
positive feedback loop that will make anthropogenic global warming reach
dangerous levels.
This assumption that water vapour provides positive feedback lies behind
the famous "tipping point," which nourishes Al Gore's dreams of
destruction, and indeed all those calls for action now - "before it is
too late!"
But no climate models predict such a tipping point.
However, while the absence of hot spots has refuted one im****tant aspect
of the IPCC models we lack a mechanism that fully explains these
supposed outcomes. Hence the IPCC, and its sup****ters, have been able to
ignore this "refutation."
So by the end of last year, we were in a similar situation to the 19th
century astronomers, who had figured out that the sun could not be
"burning" its fuel - or it would have turned to ashes long ago - but
could not explain where the energy was coming from. Then along came
Einstein and E=mc2.
Hard to explain
Similarly, the climate sceptics have had to explain why the hotspots are
not where they should be - not just challenge the theory with their
observations.
This is why I felt so lucky to be in the right place at the right time
when I heard Roy Spencer speak at the New York conference on climate
change in March. At first I thought this was just another paper setting
out observations against the forecasts, further confirming Evans'
earlier work.
But as the argument unfolded I realised Spencer was drawing on
observations and measurements from the new Aqua satellites to explain
the mechanism behind this anomaly between model forecasts and
observation. You may have heard that the IPCC models cannot predict
clouds and rain with any accuracy. Their models assume water vapour goes
up to the troposphere and hangs around to cook us all in a greenhouse
future.
However, there is a mechanism at work that "washes out" the water vapour
and returns it to the oceans along with the extra CO2 and thus turns the
added water vapour into a NEGATIVE feedback mechanism.
The newly discovered mechanism is a combination of clouds and rain
(Spencer's mechanism adds to the mechanism earlier identified by
Professor Richard Lindzen called the Iris effect).
The IPCC models assumed water vapour formed clouds at high altitudes
that lead to further warming. The Aqua satellite observations and
Spencer's analysis show water vapour actually forms clouds at low
altitudes that lead to cooling.
Furthermore, Spencer shows the extra rain that falls from these clouds
cools the underlying oceans, providing a second negative feedback to
negate the CO2 warming.
Alarmists' quandary
This has struck the alarmists like a thunderbolt, especially as the lead
author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Spencer agreeing
that he is right!
There goes the alarmist neighbourhood!
The climate is not highly sensitive to CO2 warming because water vapour
is a damper against the warming effect of CO2.
That is why history is full of Ice Ages - where other effects, such as
increased reflection from the ice cover, do provide positive feedback -
while we do not hear about Heat Ages. The Medieval Warm Period, for
example, is known for being benignly warm - not dangerously hot.
We live on a benign planet - except when it occasionally gets damned
cold.
While I have done my best to simplify these developments they remain
highly technical and many people distrust their own ability to *****s
competing scientific claims. However, in this case the tipping point
theories are based on models that do not include the effects of rain and
clouds.
The new Nasa Aqua satellite is the first to measure the effects of
clouds and rainfall. Spencer's interpretation of the new data means all
previous models and forecasts are obsolete. Would anyone trust long-term
forecasts of farm production that were hopeless at forecasting rainfall?
The implications of these breakthroughs in measurement and understanding
are dramatic to say the least. The responses will be fun to watch.
Alarmists, 'experts' face a new inconvenient truth
Christopher Pearson, of The Australian newspaper (March 22), has written
up a remarkable ABC television interview with Dr Jennifer Marohasy, a
senior fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs, a Melbourne-based
think tank.
Dr Marohasy says the impact of the Aqua satellite and Spencer's
interpretation of the data and prompts the re****ter to conclude with
some pungent observations of his own:
"If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the
global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more
interesting.
"A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN,
most heads of government along with countless captains of industry,
learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly
embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.
"With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial
gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the
next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that
is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fa****on. The
delusion that by recycling and catching public trans****t we can help
save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense
it was all along.
RAIN CHECK: Spencer's analyses based on new satellite data pour cold
rain on warming theory
"The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way
toward prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their
carbon-footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with
Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.
"The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of
regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have
to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find
something more plausible to do.
The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate 'climate
refugees."
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"There is no compelling evidence that carbon dioxide has any significant
control over the direction of global temperature and climate. The
processes that regulate the interannual to decadal fluctuations of
climate are poorly understood and, as yet, unpredictable" William
Kininmonth, Meteorologist, Former Head, National Climate Centre, Bureau
of Meteorology, 1986-1998
|
