Schwarzenegger Backs Global Warming Bill

Ridge wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe my comment was to read the 1988 study and then the most current, one of which I provided you. But if you want to take a cheap shot go ahead.

Your past several comments indicate you may be involved in the green movement, at least, the green bias is present.

You should read the many articles posted on the internet showing how flawed the computer models are. Why did the models fail to corectly recogniZe that in the souther hemisphere it is colder. Also the models incorrectly picture the upper atmosphere incorrectly. It is getting colder.

I read much of both. If I were not a mensuration expert I might have been impressed. People have been trying to sell me snake oil for 50 years - most of them had a better story.
Back to the drawing board until your models are calibrated.
Until then, you are taking 2 significant figures out to 15 places. Stop it! Berkeley deserves better.

what

Serar, if the US backs our economy off, the Philippeans will suffer.

Rick wrote:

<quoted text>
Why did the models fail to corectly recogniZe that in the souther hemisphere it is colder.

The southern hemisphere is not colder. Have a look at AR4 SPM, where every inhabited land mass on the plant saw sharp temperature rise in the 20th century, and will continue to see sharp temperature rises in the 21st century.

The exception is Antartica, which towers above sea level and exists in the most frigid conditions on earth. Realclimate.org says this about the models and Antarctica: "All models predict a comparably stable Antarctic ice sheet for the 21th century in which comparably moderate temperature changes in Antarctica are compensated by slight increase in snowfall."

Rick wrote:

<quoted text>
Also the models incorrectly picture the upper atmosphere incorrectly. It is getting colder.

What do you consider the upper atmosphere? The stratosphere or the upper troposphere?

The stratosphere is modeled to cool, which it has; the upper troposphere has been modeled to warm, which it has.

More on this from Realclimate.org :

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

Make one run with man's contribution unchanged, then another run with all changes demanded and tell us the difference. Open the software for evaluation.

Walter E Wallis wrote:

Make one run with man's contribution unchanged, then another run with all changes demanded and tell us the difference. Open the software for evaluation.

There is nothing mystical about modeling, and there is plenty of material on the web.

Also, different labs run different models. The one thing they all have in common: further warming.

What is the "correct" temperature of the Earth?

There's nothing mystical that says at this instant in history the temperature is exactly "right".

R Wray wrote:

What is the "correct" temperature of the Earth?
There's nothing mystical that says at this instant in history the temperature is exactly "right".

Actually there is a policy test which gives us a ballpark answer: something slightly cooler than the current temperature.

At the temperature of the earth currently, there is permafrost loss and land ice loss, and this will affect greenhouse gases and sea level, and will initiate a feedback system which will perpetuate the warming.

This dramatically alters habitats, which in turn affects man and other animal species, and many plant species as well.

The warmer the earth gets, the more these effects are enhanced, and other concerns begin to strengthen, such as shifting of wet/dry regions and the frequency and intensity of storms.

These consequences are expected to become noticeable as we proceed through the next 20 to 30 years.

In response to WaltBennett:

I assume the "policy" is in reference to people who want to gain power and control others through government edicts.(Others are those that are just anti-technology and anti-human life.)

The "hockey-stick" feedback has been discredited by many.

Farmers in Siberia and Greenland (and in most places)would disagree. Increased growing seasons are a good thing. Plants like CO2. The water released from melting ice would provide more rain.

It would save some people from moving south to escape the cold weather. People adapt easier to warmer than cooler temperatures.

This hysteria about the increased intensity of storms is unsupported.(The past hurricane season on the East coast amounted to nothing compared with the predictions of catastrophe.)

Here in Palo Alto, it's a little cool for me. I hope there is warming.

Mr.Bennet, I suspect I was modeling some time before you graduated from PlayDough. I became a denyer because the science didn't smell right. Have everybody lining up at the trough of boodle for compliant alarmist science take their little crystal ball programs and do exactly as I propose, no Mickey Mouse, no tweaking, no deleting "outliers,"
Then have them enter known historical weather and predict today.
This is science, not your pathetic, albeit profitable '"4 out of 5 Doctors prefer Camels" concensus crap. No model is worth the medium it is recorded on until it has been calibrated against reality. I read recently that some programs were actually having moments of coincidence with the real world. There is a saying about "Even a blind pig....
And why are the ice caps on Mars melting?

R Wray wrote:

In response to WaltBennett:
I assume the "policy" is in reference to people who want to gain power and control others through government edicts.(Others are those that are just anti-technology and anti-human life.)
The "hockey-stick" feedback has been discredited by many.
Farmers in Siberia and Greenland (and in most places)would disagree. Increased growing seasons are a good thing. Plants like CO2. The water released from melting ice would provide more rain.
It would save some people from moving south to escape the cold weather. People adapt easier to warmer than cooler temperatures.
This hysteria about the increased intensity of storms is unsupported.(The past hurricane season on the East coast amounted to nothing compared with the predictions of catastrophe.)
Here in Palo Alto, it's a little cool for me. I hope there is warming.

I was going to answer this point by point, but nevermind.

Rapid climate change devastates habitats and those who inhabit them. What does melted permafrost turn into? Mush. Can't do much with mush. Eventually if it keeps warming, the mush might become usable soil. And some wandering herd of surviving humans will stumble across it and start a new society.

Not much good that does this particular civilization in the next hundred years.

You are wrong about this, plain wrong. The planet is warming. Man-emitted CO2 is the cause. There is more warming to come, and much more if we don't slow our CO2 emissions.

This will lead to rapid changes, including lack of water to many populated areas (including the American southwest); rising sea levels, which will devastate low-lying populations, which in much of the world are some of the most impoverished; drying out of currently fertile regions, which will cause loss of agricultural output.

We will be playing 'spin the wheel with the future', and the losers will be our children and grandchildren.

My advice: stop calling that hysteria, and sounding so foolish.

Walter E Wallis wrote:

Mr.Bennet, I suspect I was modeling some time before you graduated from PlayDough. I became a denyer because the science didn't smell right. Have everybody lining up at the trough of boodle for compliant alarmist science take their little crystal ball programs and do exactly as I propose, no Mickey Mouse, no tweaking, no deleting "outliers,"
Then have them enter known historical weather and predict today.
This is science, not your pathetic, albeit profitable '"4 out of 5 Doctors prefer Camels" concensus crap. No model is worth the medium it is recorded on until it has been calibrated against reality. I read recently that some programs were actually having moments of coincidence with the real world. There is a saying about "Even a blind pig....
And why are the ice caps on Mars melting?

Please give me your name and a link to your published work.

I see that you provide your name, so all I will need are the links.

Walter E Wallis wrote:

Mr.Bennet, I suspect I was modeling some time before you graduated from PlayDough.

That means you were modeling in 1962.

I somehow doubt that.

What years did you model, and for whom?

Walter E Wallis wrote:

No model is worth the medium it is recorded on until it has been calibrated against reality....
And why are the ice caps on Mars melting?

Good thing they thought of that. They calibrate the models against reality in two ways: 1, they measure actual conditions of the last 15 years with model projections and find that they came close to the actual temperature change; 2, they run the models for previous periods where measurements were kept, and the modeled temperature changes also come close.

Considering that a model is by any other definition and educated guess, coming close is not a bad result. It allows policy makes to assess their options.

As for Mars: because they do. Then they freeze again.

Rick wrote:

<quoted text>
Why did the models fail to corectly recogniZe that in the souther hemisphere it is colder. Also the models incorrectly picture the upper atmosphere incorrectly. It is getting colder.

Oops. Wrong and wrong.

The every populated land mass in the southern hemisphere is warming. Antarctica is high altitude, the most frigid place on earth and obviously very poorly measured on the interior. Nobody knows for sure what's happening there, and we need to know. If Antarctica 'goes', big problem. That it's still apparently stable is good news, because it buys us a little time. The models also predict little change in Antarctic temperature in the near term.

The lower stratosphere is supposed to cool, because the troposphere bleeds less warmth as greenhouse gases rise.

This has been correctly modeled.

Go to RealClimate.org and use the search box to find articles on models.

You'll get your facts straight in short order.

Walt, what about the Martian ice cap melting?
Whatever happens in the future, a viable economy will have a much better chance of accomodating than will an economy impoverished by silly meaningless sacrifices and assaults on the freedoms that are the engine of that economy. Are you a Murtha constituant?

Green tech is at the beginning of a massive wave of private capital. Ask any VC. That will create jobs and economic growth. The eventual (given the pace of innovation this valley has shown itself capable of, likely in the short term) result will be huge savings in energy cost as renewable efficient energy sources dominate. Wind and biomass are getting close- greated deployment without new tech might make them competetive in the very short term. Hyrdo, too. Also good for the economy.

Melting martian ice caps. Too funny.

I am investing in rickshaws. They're a twofer - I charge for transportation and I also sell the pulling as the next fitness craze. You do expose the real force behind the green movement, the red interior of the watermelon, the hatred of corporations that, oddly, impells a rush to that greatest of corporations, the state, taking over all decisions.

Explain the humor in a phenomenon that suggests an extra-terrestral cause of warming, bucky. Or are earthly SUVs affecting mars?