Science and Technology news... :: View topic - OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere

Eeyore · Guest

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

[quote]On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than the
warming in the 1930s and is now over.

Joseph D>Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College,
says there may be a good reason why some land measurerments of temperature
detected a burst of global warming from 1990 greater than what satellites
could detect:

Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak of 6,000
stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff occurred around 1990.
Many of the stations that were dropped were rural. A larger

percentage of the stations remaining were urban.

And that>s precisely when the average temperature, as detected by the
remaining stations, soared (see graph 2). As D>Aleo asks, were these
stations measuring a warmer climate or just a suddenly higher proportion

of warmer cities?

This has been known since early in the 1970>s, but since it>s against
their dogma, the warmingists simply dismiss you as a "denialist". They
_KNOW_ they>re Right, because The Infallible Al has Revealed the Truth
to them.
[/quote]
Oh so true.

The same Al who had to resort to CGI animations for for his joke film.

Graham

Joerg · Guest

Kris Krieger wrote:
[quote]Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4884DFDB.9DC1AAE0@hotmail.com:

QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than
the warming in the 1930s and is now over.

Joseph D>Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State
College, says there may be a good reason why some land measurerments
of temperature detected a burst of global warming from 1990 greater
than what satellites could detect:

Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak of
6,000 stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff occurred
around 1990. Many of the stations that were dropped were rural. A
larger percentage of the stations remaining were urban.

[edited]

But why are glaciers world wide, and the Arctic ice cap, retreating at
unprecedented, and increasing, rates, as is clear not only from recent
measurements, but also from comparisons of old photos, with new photos of
the same areas?

[/quote]
We have one close by here in California, on Mount Shasta. That glacier
is persistently growing. So are numerous others. And we needed four
cords of firewood every winter now. It used to be less than two cords.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Kris Krieger · Guest

mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote in
news:77ee3a10-da6b-428e-9230-60227973d560@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

[quote]On Jul 21, 2:59 pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:4884DFDB.9DC1AAE0@hotmail.com:

QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less
than the warming in the 1930s and is now over.

Joseph D>Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State
College, says there may be a good reason why some land
measurerments of temperature detected a burst of global warming
from 1990 greater than what satellites could detect:

Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak
of 6,000 stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff
occurred around 1990. Many of the stations that were dropped were
rural. A larger percentage of the stations remaining were urban.

[edited]

But why are glaciers world wide, and the Arctic ice cap, retreating
at unprecedented, and increasing, rates, as is clear not only from
recent measurements, but also from comparisons of old photos, with
new photos of the same areas?

Got any photos from 200 years ago?

[/quote]
That doesn>t answer my question.

Kris Krieger · Guest

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:48851874.73C333BD@hotmail.com:

[quote]

Kris Krieger wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less
than the warming in the 1930s and is now over.

Joseph D>Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State
College, says there may be a good reason why some land
measurerments of temperature detected a burst of global warming
from 1990 greater than what satellites could detect:

Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak
of 6,000 stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff
occurred around 1990. Many of the stations that were dropped were
rural. A larger percentage of the stations remaining were urban.

[edited]

But why are glaciers world wide, and the Arctic ice cap, retreating
at unprecedented, and increasing, rates, as is clear not only from
recent measurements, but also from comparisons of old photos, with
new photos of the same areas?

Is climate supposed to be eternably stable ? The least I see is +/-
0.6C variations.

Locally possibly more.

Graham

[/quote]
THat doesn>t answer my question.

Kris Krieger · Guest

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in
news:TS8hk.13093$LG4.6279@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:

[quote]Kris Krieger wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4884DFDB.9DC1AAE0@hotmail.com:

QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less
than the warming in the 1930s and is now over.

Joseph D>Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State
College, says there may be a good reason why some land measurerments
of temperature detected a burst of global warming from 1990 greater
than what satellites could detect:

Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak of
6,000 stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff occurred
around 1990. Many of the stations that were dropped were rural. A
larger percentage of the stations remaining were urban.

[edited]

But why are glaciers world wide, and the Arctic ice cap, retreating
at unprecedented, and increasing, rates, as is clear not only from
recent measurements, but also from comparisons of old photos, with
new photos of the same areas?

We have one close by here in California, on Mount Shasta. That glacier
is persistently growing. So are numerous others. And we needed four
cords of firewood every winter now. It used to be less than two cords.

[/quote]
Oh! - is that true for the US "lower 48" in general? I don>t know, which
is why I>m asking - I seem to recall that Alaskan glaciers are withdrawing,
but I might not be remembering correctly.

Joerg · Guest

Kris Krieger wrote:
[quote]Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in
news:TS8hk.13093$LG4.6279@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:

Kris Krieger wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4884DFDB.9DC1AAE0@hotmail.com:

QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less
than the warming in the 1930s and is now over.

Joseph D>Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State
College, says there may be a good reason why some land measurerments
of temperature detected a burst of global warming from 1990 greater
than what satellites could detect:

Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak of
6,000 stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff occurred
around 1990. Many of the stations that were dropped were rural. A
larger percentage of the stations remaining were urban.

[edited]

But why are glaciers world wide, and the Arctic ice cap, retreating
at unprecedented, and increasing, rates, as is clear not only from
recent measurements, but also from comparisons of old photos, with
new photos of the same areas?

We have one close by here in California, on Mount Shasta. That glacier
is persistently growing. So are numerous others. And we needed four
cords of firewood every winter now. It used to be less than two cords.

Oh! - is that true for the US "lower 48" in general? I don>t know, which
is why I>m asking - I seem to recall that Alaskan glaciers are withdrawing,
but I might not be remembering correctly.

[/quote]
Don>t know but Mt.Shasta ain>t the only one. This one ought to amaze:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Joerg · Guest

Kris Krieger wrote:
[quote]Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:48851874.73C333BD@hotmail.com:

Kris Krieger wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less
than the warming in the 1930s and is now over.

Joseph D>Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State
College, says there may be a good reason why some land
measurerments of temperature detected a burst of global warming
from 1990 greater than what satellites could detect:

Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak
of 6,000 stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff
occurred around 1990. Many of the stations that were dropped were
rural. A larger percentage of the stations remaining were urban.

[edited]

But why are glaciers world wide, and the Arctic ice cap, retreating
at unprecedented, and increasing, rates, as is clear not only from
recent measurements, but also from comparisons of old photos, with
new photos of the same areas?
Is climate supposed to be eternably stable ? The least I see is +/-
0.6C variations.

Locally possibly more.

Graham

THat doesn>t answer my question.

[/quote]
What he means is that, yes, it is likely that some parts of the world
are getting warmer but it does not have to be more than a cycle. Maybe
even as large a swing as the MWP when Greenland was much more hospitable
and less ice-covered than today. Else they wouldn>t have found Viking
utensils and stuff under the ice pack.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Guest

On Jul 22, 2:54 pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
[quote]Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote innews:RH9hk.30826$co7.19451@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:

Kris Krieger wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:48851874.73C333BD@hotmail.com:

Kris Krieger wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote

QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less
than the warming in the 1930s and is now over.

Joseph D>Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State
College, says there may be a good reason why some land
measurerments of temperature detected a burst of global warming
from 1990 greater than what satellites could detect:

Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak
of 6,000 stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff
occurred around 1990. Many of the stations that were dropped were
rural. A larger percentage of the stations remaining were urban.

[edited]

But why are glaciers world wide, and the Arctic ice cap, retreating
at unprecedented, and increasing, rates, as is clear not only from
recent measurements, but also from comparisons of old photos, with
new photos of the same areas?
Is climate supposed to be eternably stable ? The least I see is +/-
0.6C variations.

Locally possibly more.

Graham

THat doesn>t answer my question.

What he means is that, yes, it is likely that some parts of the world
are getting warmer but it does not have to be more than a cycle. Maybe
even as large a swing as the MWP when Greenland was much more
hospitable and less ice-covered than today. Else they wouldn>t have
found Viking utensils and stuff under the ice pack.

Oh, OK, thanks :) ! So sort of like the warming trend in Southern CA -
i twas reported that it was starting another 20-yr "extra warm" cycle
around 2003 IIRC.

Could be. The polar ice cap is prob. the most worrisome, although I
don>t know whether ice cores or any other methods are able to show
whether it has a melting-freezing cycle <?>.

I know about precession in the earth>s orbit, but actually, I don>t
knowwhere we are at this moment, i.e. whether the pole is tilted more
towards the sun, or more away from it.

((I still think pollution is bad, though.))
[/quote]
We should have been starting another ice age a thousand years ago or
so, but pre-industrial anthropogenic global warming (from rice paddes
and farting cows, amongst other things) seems to have prevented it
from getting under way. Polar tilt - of itself - doesn>t make much
difference to gobal mean temperatures, so it didn>t take much
anthropogenic warming to block the positive feedback mechanisms -
mainly more (highly reflective) snow cover in the northern hemisphere.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Guest

On Jul 22, 8:58 am, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net>
wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than the
warming in the 1930s and is now over.

Joseph D>Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College,
says there may be a good reason why some land measurerments of temperature
detected a burst of global warming from 1990 greater than what satellites
could detect:

Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak of 6,000
stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff occurred around 1990.
Many of the stations that were dropped were rural. A larger

percentage of the stations remaining were urban.

And that>s precisely when the average temperature, as detected by the
remaining stations, soared (see graph 2). As D>Aleo asks, were these
stations measuring a warmer climate or just a suddenly higher proportion

of warmer cities?

This has been known since early in the 1970>s, but since it>s against
their dogma, the warmingists simply dismiss you as a "denialist". They
_KNOW_ they>re Right, because The Infallible Al has Revealed the Truth
to them.
[/quote]
Nice of Rich to share his revealed truth to us. Pity about the real
world truth content. As Don Klipstein has pointed out, ground level
weather stations are no longer our only source of data about global
temperature, which is probably why the rural weather stations have
been closed down, though Joseph D>Aleo, former Professor of
Meteorology at Lyndon State College, doesn>t seem to have taken this
on board. Exxon-Mobil wouldn>t like him as much if he had.

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200712040002

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Guest

On Jul 22, 9:21 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than the
warming in the 1930s and is now over.

Joseph D>Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College,
says there may be a good reason why some land measurerments of temperature
detected a burst of global warming from 1990 greater than what satellites
could detect:

Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak of 6,000
stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff occurred around 1990.
Many of the stations that were dropped were rural. A larger

percentage of the stations remaining were urban.

And that>s precisely when the average temperature, as detected by the
remaining stations, soared (see graph 2). As D>Aleo asks, were these
stations measuring a warmer climate or just a suddenly higher proportion

of warmer cities?

This has been known since early in the 1970>s, but since it>s against
their dogma, the warmingists simply dismiss you as a "denialist". They
_KNOW_ they>re Right, because The Infallible Al has Revealed the Truth
to them.

Oh so true.

The same Al who had to resort to CGI animations for for his joke film.
[/quote]
At least his animations weren>t paid for by Exxon-Mobil. Eeyore
strains at a gnat while swallowing an elephant.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John Larkin · Guest

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:15:16 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

[quote]Kris Krieger wrote:
Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in
news:TS8hk.13093$LG4.6279@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:

Kris Krieger wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4884DFDB.9DC1AAE0@hotmail.com:

QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less
than the warming in the 1930s and is now over.

Joseph D>Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State
College, says there may be a good reason why some land measurerments
of temperature detected a burst of global warming from 1990 greater
than what satellites could detect:

Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak of
6,000 stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff occurred
around 1990. Many of the stations that were dropped were rural. A
larger percentage of the stations remaining were urban.

[edited]

But why are glaciers world wide, and the Arctic ice cap, retreating
at unprecedented, and increasing, rates, as is clear not only from
recent measurements, but also from comparisons of old photos, with
new photos of the same areas?

We have one close by here in California, on Mount Shasta. That glacier
is persistently growing. So are numerous others. And we needed four
cords of firewood every winter now. It used to be less than two cords.

Oh! - is that true for the US "lower 48" in general? I don>t know, which
is why I>m asking - I seem to recall that Alaskan glaciers are withdrawing,
but I might not be remembering correctly.

Don>t know but Mt.Shasta ain>t the only one. This one ought to amaze:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens
[/quote]
Wow, 14 m/year is a lot of snow.

When I tell my East Coast relatives that the base at Northstar is 16,
they think that>s great. Then I tell them it>s feet, not inches.

John

Kris Krieger · Guest

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in
news:RH9hk.30826$co7.19451@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:

[quote]Kris Krieger wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:48851874.73C333BD@hotmail.com:

Kris Krieger wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less
than the warming in the 1930s and is now over.

Joseph D>Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State
College, says there may be a good reason why some land
measurerments of temperature detected a burst of global warming
from 1990 greater than what satellites could detect:

Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak
of 6,000 stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff
occurred around 1990. Many of the stations that were dropped were
rural. A larger percentage of the stations remaining were urban.

[edited]

But why are glaciers world wide, and the Arctic ice cap, retreating
at unprecedented, and increasing, rates, as is clear not only from
recent measurements, but also from comparisons of old photos, with
new photos of the same areas?
Is climate supposed to be eternably stable ? The least I see is +/-
0.6C variations.

Locally possibly more.

Graham

THat doesn>t answer my question.

What he means is that, yes, it is likely that some parts of the world
are getting warmer but it does not have to be more than a cycle. Maybe
even as large a swing as the MWP when Greenland was much more
hospitable and less ice-covered than today. Else they wouldn>t have
found Viking utensils and stuff under the ice pack.

[/quote]
Oh, OK, thanks :) ! So sort of like the warming trend in Southern CA -
i twas reported that it was starting another 20-yr "extra warm" cycle
around 2003 IIRC.

Could be. The polar ice cap is prob. the most worrisome, although I
don>t know whether ice cores or any other methods are able to show
whether it has a melting-freezing cycle <?>.

I know about precession in the earth>s orbit, but actually, I don>t
knowwhere we are at this moment, i.e. whether the ploe is tilted more
towards the sun, or more away from it.

((I still think pollution is bad, though.))

Kris Krieger · Guest

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in
news:vE9hk.30825$co7.15155@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:

[quote]Kris Krieger wrote:
Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in
news:TS8hk.13093$LG4.6279@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:

Kris Krieger wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4884DFDB.9DC1AAE0@hotmail.com:

QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less
than the warming in the 1930s and is now over.

Joseph D>Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State
College, says there may be a good reason why some land
measurerments of temperature detected a burst of global warming
from 1990 greater than what satellites could detect:

Land-based monitoring Station drop-out has occurred-- from a peak
of 6,000 stations in 1970 to 2,000 today. The biggest dropoff
occurred around 1990. Many of the stations that were dropped were
rural. A larger percentage of the stations remaining were urban.

[edited]

But why are glaciers world wide, and the Arctic ice cap, retreating
at unprecedented, and increasing, rates, as is clear not only from
recent measurements, but also from comparisons of old photos, with
new photos of the same areas?

We have one close by here in California, on Mount Shasta. That
glacier is persistently growing. So are numerous others. And we
needed four cords of firewood every winter now. It used to be less
than two cords.

Oh! - is that true for the US "lower 48" in general? I don>t know,
which is why I>m asking - I seem to recall that Alaskan glaciers are
withdrawing, but I might not be remembering correctly.

Don>t know but Mt.Shasta ain>t the only one. This one ought to amaze:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens

[/quote]
"As of 2006, the ice had an average thickness of 328 feet (100 m) and a
maximum of 656 feet (200 m)..."

Wow! That>s a lot of snow!

Interesting bit, thanks for pointing me towards it.

Jonathan Kirwan · Guest

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:54:55 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in>
wrote:

[quote]I know about precession in the earth>s orbit, but actually, I don>t
knowwhere we are at this moment, i.e. whether the ploe is tilted more
towards the sun, or more away from it.
[/quote]
Um. That>s a problem that you don>t know. The pole tilts towards and
away from the sun, every year, just at opposite halves of that period.
So that has nothing much to do with polar ice cap melting and so on.

To get yourself up a little bit on the curve of understanding the
orbital Milankovitch cycles, there is a paper by Berger from 1988,
which included the newer numerical integration of the secular
equations (suggested by Laskar in 1986, I think.) It is available at:

http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/v026/i004/RG026i004p00624/RG026i004p00624.pdf

Look at figure 28, page 649.

I think the TAR included a nice graph paralleling the Vostok ice core
data with the Milankovitch cycles, but I haven>t looked for a repeated
version of it in the AR4. It>s easier on the eye than the above
Berger graph and ties into some other real-world data to help you see
the natural cycles. If I find it and think about it, I>ll post a link
to that, too.

According to Berger>s data above, though, you should be able to see
that we are a little bit on the downward slope of millennial-scale
insolation. You can see a bit of what>s up ahead and a lot of what is
in the past.

There are data sets going back many tens of millions of years and
going forward for a similar period, now. If you get to that point, I
can provide a link or two.

Another place to go is the PMOD WRC site at:
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

There you can see insolation as seen by satellites in space. That
makes a fairly direct measurement of what the sun is doing since about
1979, or so. The sunspot cycles are pretty obvious. We are at a low
of one of them, right now. Besides being perhaps 5-6 millennia after
the last Milankovitch peak and about 5 millennia away from one of the
coming low points.

On the point of glaciers, they are in significant retreat all over the
globe. There is an inventory of sorts being maintained at the NSIDC
(National Snow and Ice Data Center) called GLIMS, I think. Look for
it. Last I checked, there were only a few where the mass balance was
increasing. Most are diminishing, where they are measured anyway.
(Not every mountain has researchers running around on them checking
out mass balance, which isn>t entirely cheap and easy to do. Some are
estimated, with significant error, by top cover from satellite or over
flights or else reseachers just walking the slopes.)

Since 1980, at least, there is a strong trend of increasingly negative
mass balances with average annual ice thickness losses measured in
decimeters. Since unchanged climatic conditions would cause mass
balances to approach zero values globally and over decade periods,
negative non-zero mass balance changes reflect continued positive
climatic forcing. The observed trend of increasingly negative
mass balances remains very consistent with accelerated global warming
and correspondingly enhanced energy flux towards the earth>s surface.

Jon

Don Klipstein · Guest

In article <hosb84511vutm40urevn7f5dt8a7ffsk2q@4ax.com>, John Larkin wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:31 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

QUOTE: I believe the recent warming is best comparable to or less than
the warming in the 1930s and is now over.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Figs 3 and 7 are interesting. I suspect that, 50 years from now, AGW
theory will be cited as a classic example of pathological science
married to political opportunism, and a blunder that killed more
people than WWII.
[/quote]
Fig. 1: This is a plot from 2002 to 2008, and late 2007 and 2008 had the
strongest La Nina in 20 years.
The sources are Hadley Centre (middle-of-the-road, cited by both sides
of the global watrming debade) and UAH lower troposphere determinations
from satellite data, often called just "UAH", which is probably the
least-warming-shoing of all datasets frequently cited and taken seriously
in debates on global warming.

Fig. 2: (Forecasts to 2020 as of 1988 and determinations of what
happened since so far)
Notably lacks a plot from the Hadley Centre, though Hadley Centre was
cited in Fig. 1. That would resemble curve E, except with the 1998 spike
about half a degree C higher.

The forecasts shown are indeed for temperature rise of .2 degree C per
decade, and the world has indeed warmed more slowly than that since 1988.

Fig. 3 and related discussion:

That concentrates on feedbacks, and discussion of a 3.26-3.28 degree
temperature rise if atmospheric CO2 concentration is doubled.
The figures for the feedbacks sound a little strange to me, with cloud
albedo shown as being the second strongest positive one and surface albedo
being hardly anything. Ice ages correlating with the Milankovitch cycles
and showing very strong positive feedback makes me think that surface
albedo is a major factor.

Fig. 4: I don>t know where they get the model with anthropomorphic
greenhouse gas warming occurring most in the tropics and so high up in
the atmosphere (6-9 miles or 10-15 km), especially since a negative lapse
rate feedback is mentioned.
(Warming from CO2 increase causes temperature difference between upper
troposphere and surface to increase since greenhouse gases cool the
stratosphere and upper troposphere. This increases convection, which
would cool the lower atmosphere or limit warming of the lower atmosphere,
especialy where it occurs more - where the lower atmosphere is hotter or
both warmer and more humid.)

I mostly see models projecting warming to occur most closer to the
surface and at latitudes where surface albedo decreases the most from
warming. RSS satellite data shows that to have actually been occurring.

Fig. 5: Shows four more models projecting warming to occur most in the
tropics and at altitudes centered anywhere from around 7 to 11 miles
(11-18 km) above the surface.

I don>t know where they get those, since most I see predict warming
being most closer to the surface and in the latitudes where surface albedo
is most affected (in and near the Arctic).

Fig 6: That is a determination of what actually happened, and the
forecast models I saw the most resemble this rather than resembling the
"general-circulation models" shown in that article. I suspect the article
cherrypicked a particular class of climate forecast models to show being
wrong.

Fig. 7: That shows lack of feedbacks when the world was warmer and
atmospheric CO2 concentration was higher.
I would expect much less feedback when the world is too warm to have any
ice sheets or icecaps. During the past half million years, feedback has
been so strong that the world had 10 degree C temperature variations in
response to the Milankovitch cycles affecting sunlight in the upper
northern hemisphere.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Electronics - design Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 15, 16, 17 Next
Page 2 of 17