I AGREE: THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE GROUP IN WHICH TO DISCUSS THE REALITY OF HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE.
THIS IS A FINE DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER GROUP, BUT MERELY A DISTRACTION HERE. On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Oliver Wingenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
