Dear David, The prudent and conservative to do is to be cautious and try and maintain the status quo, which is our present climate or one not too long ago. It does know one in this country (well a lawyer could argue against this) any harm to conserve energy. It helps them personally, the countries trade imbalance and slows CO2 build up.
I went to the University Alabama Huntsville web site and could not find in the Huntsville temperature record you mentioned is better than the analysis of Hansen and his collaborators. If this work were so important, they would let it shine like a beacon. I think we need to continue to move away from the fringes of science, as this is killing precious time on real issue like solving our climate problem. Sincerely, Oliver Wingenter On Dec 6, 9:24 am, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike: > > I'm going to ignor your ad hominem attacks, as that is the ground rule for > this group. > > The article raises the point of what happens when a feedback mechanism > multiplies error. I did not cite to the entire article, but only that > portion that properly reflects the error bands in projecting 100 years into > the future with these models. It is an appropriate analysis for honest > scientists, and the IPCC does no such analysis whatever. If you want to > take issue with it, then do a proper error analysis and let us see it. I'm > not sure you have the expertise to do that, but I'm fairly sure you could > find or fund someone to do it for you. > > In the mean time, if you want to argue the matter of cloud feedbacks, and > good lord someone should, considering the massive impact of the feedback > assumption for clouds and the error that the feedback assumption propogates > within GCMs, then come on over to EPA, as described below, and take on Dick > Lindzen. He will be explaining his concerns about the projection of > temperature under uncertainty of the feedback effects of clouds. In fact, > I'll keep a careful watch for you and will take close notes that I can share > with the group so they can have a second hand view of your destruction of > Lindzen's science and credibility all in one. *December 9, 2008 Seminar > (Tuesday) - 1:30 PM - Room 1117A EPA East* Topic: "Global Warming: What Is > It All About?" Speaker: Richard Lindzen (MIT) > > Here's the most recent electronic flyer on these sessions. Anyone in the > Washington, D.C. area is welcome. You only need to call the contact person > to get access to the session. > > EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) will host our next > Climate Economics seminar on Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 2:00 PM in Room > 4144 EPA West. The seminar will be 90 minutes in length. Detailed > information is below. Our office is located in EPA West (1301 Constitution > Ave., NW, corner of 14th St. and Constitution Ave.). If you do not have an > EPA ID and wish to attend a seminar please contact Carl Pasurka to obtain > access to the building. Questions? Contact Carl Pasurka (202-566-2275). * > * If you have questions the day of the seminar, contact Carl Pasurka at > 571-276-5028 (cell phone). > > *NOTE to non-EPA attendees:* EPA Security requires ALL non-EPA (federal and > non-federal) visitors have a contact name and phone number in order to enter > EPA West. As a result, contact me if you plan to attend a seminar. I > recommend non-EPA attendees bring their cell phones and my cell phone number > in case problems arise the day of the seminar. > *"The Income-Temperature Relationship in a Cross-Section of Countries* > * and its Implications for Predicting the Effects of Global Warming " * > > John Horowitz > (University of Maryland) > > *Abstract:* > Hotter countries are poorer on average. This paper attempts to separate > the historical and contemporaneous components of this income-temperature > relationship. Following ideas by Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, we use > colonial mortality data to account for the historical role of temperature, > since colonial mortality was highly correlated with countries' average > temperatures. We argue that the remaining income-temperature gradient, after > colonial mortality is accounted for, is most likely contemporaneous. > > This contemporaneous temperature effect can be used to estimate the cost of > global warming. We predict that a 2 degree Fahrenheit temperature increase > across all countries will cause a decrease of roughly 4 percent in world > GDP. This prediction is robust across samples, functional forms, and two > methods for separating historical effects. > *Additional information:* > > A teleconference connection (only audio) will be established for this > seminar. If you are interested, send me an e-mail message. > ****************************************************** > *COMING ATTRACTIONS:* > > *December 9, 2008 Seminar (Tuesday) - 1:30 PM - Room 1117A EPA East* > Topic: "Global Warming: What Is It All About?" > Speaker: Richard Lindzen (MIT) > > *January 28, 2009 Seminar (Wednesday) * > Topic: "How Natural and Anthropogenic Influences Alter Global and Regional > Surface Temperatures: 1889 to 2006" > Speaker: Judith Lean (U.S. Naval Research Laboratory) > > *February 26, 2009 Seminar (Thursday) * > Topic: TBA > Speaker: Nicola Scafetta (Duke University) > > ****************************************************** > Carl Pasurka > U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1809T) > 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW > Washington, D.C. 20460 > > TEL.: 202-566-2275 > FAX: 202-566-2373 > E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Mike MacCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Hi David—Well, I read the article—what a lot of nonsense. Aside from little > > errors like not doing the math of the CO2 projection right to 2050 and not > > understanding how the greenhouse effect works, to major problems (as a > > start): > > > 1. The 2 plus 2 = 5 explanation of systematic errors is really flawed > > and (intentionally or ignorantly?) misleading. Imagine that we have a > > thermometer and we stick it into a pot of warming water. In that we are > > measuring at one point, we'll likely not get the exact integral of the > > pot > > of water's temperature—but we will likely be close. We likely cannot > > calculate exactly how close due to not being able to perfectly represent > > the > > physics of each eddy in the water, etc. So, there is a systematic > > difference > > from whatever the real temperature is. We might even discover that our > > placement of the thermometer toward the edge of the pot makes it be > > noticeably different than a test measurement at the center of the pot. > > Okay, > > so we are measuring the heat into the pot and the rate of temperature > > rise. > > That our measurement of temperature at the spot we have chosen has a > > systematic difference from the temperature in the center of the pot > > remains > > the case—but one does not use and then linearly grow that difference over > > time and say the rising temperature on your thermometer is meaningless. > > 2. And the author applies statements about the limits of prediction for > > detailed weather and seasonal climate anomalies to the issue of > > projecting > > changes in the average state of the climate system—the first is an > > initial > > condition driven issue, and the second is a boundary driven problem. > > Think > > of a washing machine churning away—the detailed position and size and > > movement of the bubbles represents the weather—know the IC well and one > > may > > be able to predict how the exact state of the bubbles will change for a > > short time—just as for weather prediction. Seasonal prediction instead > > would > > focus on predicting the changes in where there are masses of bubbles over > > time, and would also want information about the exact state of the moving > > waters and clothes underneath. One might imagine one could, at least in > > some > > locations, predict how the large clumps of bubbles might evolve for a > > period > > longer than the exact positions of the individual bubbles. Well for > > climate > > change, what is essentially happening is that the size of the tub is > > changing (or the rate of the agitator is changing. With a good model and > > a > > lot of experience from before, one might expect one would be able to > > project > > how the likelihood of the big and small batches of bubbles and even of > > changes in their size distribution would change—there is certainly no > > attempt to be predicting the position of each bubble from now into the > > indefinite future—just the statistical characteristics. And, I would add, > > that one does not just grow linearly errors in predicting the size of > > each > > original bubble indefinitely in time to get to 100 C errors—there are > > quite > > a number of other physics limits that prevent such error growth. > > > So, what that paper you are referring to shows me is what happens when > > someone from outside a field ventures naively in—you chide others when they > > venture into your field naively. Well, if you are going to belief this > > article, then stop rejecting anyone else coming into your field and putting > > out nonsense. > > > Mike MacCracken > > > On 12/5/08 2:46 PM, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mike: > > > Take the AR4 WG1 A2 scenario, apply a plus/minus 10.5% uncertainty to the > > feedbacks for clouds and you end up with the large variation. > > > See Figure 4,in Frank's article in the Skeptic v.14 No. 1 (2008), which > > I've attached for your review. It's simple math (well simple, if you run > > the GCMs). The IPCC uncertainty estimate is probably low, but using it gets > > you the temperature range to which I've alluded. > > > David. > > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Mike MacCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Dear David—Regarding your comment > > > On 12/4/08 10:13 AM, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] < > > http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/> > wrote: > > > After all, the IPCC has described the uncertainties of the projections as > > so large that forecasts of temperature 100 years from now are plus or minus > > more than 100 deg. C. That's rather a lot of uncertainty, and does not > > warrent harm to the global economy, since it is that economy to which we > > must look for ways to rebalance the carbon cycles. > > > What is your citation for this comment about 100 C? I know of nothing > > anywhere near that large. > > > Mike MacCracken > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:47 AM, John Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] < > > http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/> > wrote: > > > John is 100% right in all of these points. I t cant be proved till > > afterwards. Asking for proof in advance is just a way of guaranteeing more > > research and no action. It is also the wrong > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
