France is getting hotter

Go Fig staggered to the nearest keyboard and wrote:

The IPCC has been soundly criticized. From the choice of experts, to
their models that are nothing more than propaganda. Failure to
accurately include water vapor, clouds and even ocean currents. These
models failed to accurately reproduce the last 20 years of known data.

This is absolute bull****.

The models DO include water vapor, clouds, and ocean currents.
Accurately? Not perfectly accurately -- if you knew anything about
the physics of the atmosphere (which you obviously don't) you'd be
aware that nonlinearity makes this impossible. But the
parameterizations of these effects are constantly getting better. The
models are not perfect, and never can be, but they're the best tools
that we have available and they're steadily improving.

The models are "propaganda"? This doesn't even make sense. Pray
tell, how do you construct numerical solutions of partial differential
equations from a political viewpoint? I can see it coming now -- the
Socialist Spectral Truncation, the Worker's Equation of State, the
Liberal Democrat Semi-Lagrangian Advection Scheme...

The vast majority of scientists who are involved in IPCC have no
political agenda on the matter one way or the other. I am well
acquainted with the IPCC process, and by far the bulk of the political
pressure has been from Saudi Arabia and other oil producing states
trying to tone down the science.


--
hambu n hambu hodo

On 18/12/03 13:09, in article
, "Go Fig"
wrote:

In article ,
Earl Evleth wrote:


Not much in Europe. Of course, France is mostly on nuclear power
and so can easily make the targets if it tries.

Well if it is so easy why wasn't ratified 4 years ago ? That is the
definition of political debate.


Not at all. Ratifying things in Europe is not a problem. Once a
Government has committed itself the various Legislatures following
suit. So no hurry, people waited to see what others were doing.
There was no debate, most a lot of "ain`t if awful" comments
about the USA not going along. Having both US and French nationalities
I felt I was straddling the issues. I can see the traps the
Americans fell into.

The US ratifications goes through the US Senate. There are a number
of examples where treaties have been signed by US representatives
but the Senate refuses to go along. So the US has a reputation of not being
reliable along those lines, meaning that just because the "Government"
signs an agreement it will eventually go into force. Domestic American
politics often plays a key role in preventing international agreements
going into force.

Good grief, who do you think is buying this statement of yours ?

Do you claim that there is a political challenge to global warming
in Europe, in France in particular???

No, Kyoto yes.

Kyoto presented no problem in Europe, certainly
not like the US. The 15 signed it--from USAToday May 2002

(http://www.usatoday.com/news/science...5-31-kyoto.htm)

"UNITED NATIONS (AP) ‹ In a big boost to the global fight against climate
change, the 15 nations in the European Union formally ratified the Kyoto
Protocol on Friday and urged the United States to end its opposition to the
treaty."

The Europeans, with very high dependence on nuclear have done the
numbers, and have concluded Kyoto is in their economic advantage.

Only France has a high dependency. But the largest nuclear energy
electric production is in the USA, but the fraction is less than in
France. The problem with building more nuclear power plants in the
USA is more complex. The near disaster of 3 Miles Island brought
a stop to nuclear plant construction. But in addition the US has huge coal
reserves (high sulfur western coal) and so has a vested interest in using
this resource. This burning of coal is not only releasing CO2 but large
quantities of SO2, which becomes sulfuric acid deposition. So these
are doubly polluting. I can also talk about NOx emissions and nitric
acid rainout. The US is the world`s biggest emitter of SO2 and Nox
plus CO2.

The US also is more energy wasteful than Europeans, more energy consumption
with respect to GNP than the Europeans. The CO2 release per capita is also
much higher than in Europe. Can do better.

Where is the "Kyoto" for atomic waste, reckon there would be much debate
on this in Europe ?

Quite a bit of debate and Green Party action in Europe. One sees in the US.
The US waste handling problem is a NIMBY situation, nobody wants the stuff
buried in their back yard. Nevada has been selected. The problem
with nuclear power plants to date, are the accidents. The US never
experienced a Chernobyl. The fall out from that hit all of western Europe,
there still being a radio active cesium problem in eastern France. So
far there has been no accidents with waste, the fear revolves around the
security of long term underground storage. But none of these threats have
world scope and the danger attached to global warming.

I think the U.S. would sign that bill in a flash,
we have spent the billions already for the storage.

Almost all of US storage has been temporary. The Nevada site has just
gone on line. But the waste storage problem at Hanford is enormous and
a hold over from US military nuclear activity.

Further, it is not that temperatures are getting warmer, it is why!

The hypothesis of the green house gases being the major cause is
accepted in Europe.

I say hypothesis since there are legitimate challenges to green house
cases being the only cause. But as time goes on the other causes
have diminished in importance scientifically, solar radiance variation
being the major problem.

It is the problem, more than likely.

The IPCC has been soundly criticized. From the choice of experts, to
their models that are nothing more than propaganda. Failure to
accurately include water vapor, clouds and even ocean currents. These
models failed to accurately reproduce the last 20 years of known data.

No, that is no longer true. The best computer modeling can do this now.
What you said might have been true years ago so you have not kept up to
date.

The basic model is simple. The CO2 content at the depth of the ice age
was about 200 ppm, and this rises to just under 300 at the top of the
interglacial warming periods. This cycling of CO2 concentration has
gone one trough a number of ice ages and we have the CO2 concentration
variations down pat for the last 400,000 years. Data goes even further
back. The primary mechanism for CO2 absorption is not photosynthesis but
prebiotic inorganic chemistry in the ocean, removed by the calcium
and magnesium ions in the form of carbonates. The main CO2 sink
is the ocean. At one time in the earth's history that chemistry
had scrubbed most of the CO2 out of the atmosphere and the earth
was an ice ball. Volcanic CO2 release allowed more atmospheric
CO2 and global warming to take the earth out of the ice stage.

Roughly speaking, the average earths temperature is 7 or so degrees
lower than now at 200ppm, at 300ppm is a warm happy medium. Industrial
release of CO2 has driven the CO2 content up to around 370, which is
the highest level in hundreds of thousands of years. The simplest
computer models predict that at 370 (the figure rises abound 1ppm per
year) or where we will be the earth will heat up. It takes time to
do so and so the models have an margin of predictions between maybe
a low of 1 or 2 degrees to maybe 7. You don`t need a computer for
the simplist calculation, a back of an envelop will do.

No model predicts a drop in temperature. The complexities of cloud
formation are now taken into account as well as heat exchange between
the atmosphere and the ocean. These complexities produce lower
temperature increase predictions, but the temperature increase
in inherent in the model.

Next, solar radiance variations has only been measured in the last
20 or so years and even so the precision is on the edge of being
measurable.

Lastly, this is science going on, not propaganda. Saying it is
propaganda is disinformation on your part. If you are ready to
debate the science, I will go more into it. I am a scientists
by formation, now retired but I know this particular area
fairly well. My own actual work only skimmed the edge of atmospheric
chemistry but it was close enough to give me a basis for judging
was it going on. One of the nice things about living in Europe
is that one is remote from the junk science arguements which
permeate the political scene in the US.

Earl

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:50:32 GMT, Howard N. Lute wrote:

They continue to use
fireplaces for heating in many locales and that is outright banned in
sensitive areas of the US. On and on...

It's also normally banned in sensitive areas of Europe as well.

But true, the houses around where I live regularly burn wood for their
central heating. Still, there are thick growths of healthy lichens on the
trees and shrubs, so it can't be all that bad.
--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:41:49 +0100, Earl Evleth
wrote:

On 18/12/03 10:24, in article
, "Go Fig"
wrote:

In article ,
Earl Evleth wrote:



Lets see, Kyoto was drafted in '99 and today its almost '04... but no,
there's no political debate.

Not much in Europe. Of course, France is mostly on nuclear power
and so can easily make the targets if it tries.


Good grief, who do you think is buying this statement of yours ?

Do you claim that there is a political challenge to global warming
in Europe, in France in particular???

I am saying that the challenge is from vested interest political
forces in the US, not Europe.

Further, it is not that temperatures are getting warmer, it is why!

The hypothesis of the green house gases being the major cause is
accepted in Europe.

I say hypothesis since there are legitimate challenges to green house
cases being the only cause. But as time goes on the other causes
have diminished in importance scientifically, solar radiance variation
being the major problem. There is a lack of accurate historical data
of solar radiance. But these is a problem with knowing exactly how
much energy the earth has received.

Earl
Air quality in Europe is terrible when compared to air quality in the
US. They did not adopt clean air standards for their automobiles until
LONG after they were present in the US. They continue to use
fireplaces for heating in many locales and that is outright banned in
sensitive areas of the US. On and on...
H
Retired Teacher, Terrible Mechanic, Worse Plumber!
LPFM Page: http://home.att.net/~optcamel/fmradio.htm

In article ,
(Charles Hawtrey) wrote:

Go Fig staggered to the nearest keyboard and wrote:

The IPCC has been soundly criticized. From the choice of experts, to
their models that are nothing more than propaganda. Failure to
accurately include water vapor, clouds and even ocean currents. These
models failed to accurately reproduce the last 20 years of known data.

This is absolute bull****.

The models DO include water vapor, clouds, and ocean currents.
Accurately? Not perfectly accurately -- if you knew anything about
the physics of the atmosphere (which you obviously don't) you'd be
aware that nonlinearity makes this impossible. But the
parameterizations of these effects are constantly getting better. The
models are not perfect, and never can be, but they're the best tools
that we have available and they're steadily improving.

They did not reproduce existing data from the past 20 years. It does
not matter that they are the best, they are not accurate.


jay
Thu, Dec 18, 2003





The models are "propaganda"? This doesn't even make sense. Pray
tell, how do you construct numerical solutions of partial differential
equations from a political viewpoint? I can see it coming now -- the
Socialist Spectral Truncation, the Worker's Equation of State, the
Liberal Democrat Semi-Lagrangian Advection Scheme...

The vast majority of scientists who are involved in IPCC have no
political agenda on the matter one way or the other. I am well
acquainted with the IPCC process, and by far the bulk of the political
pressure has been from Saudi Arabia and other oil producing states
trying to tone down the science.


--
hambu n hambu hodo

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:27:18 +0000, Reid wrote:

Following up to Howard N. Lute

They continue to use
fireplaces for heating in many locales and that is outright banned in
sensitive areas of the US

They are certainly not allowed around here, but lets not stop the
yah booing.
Didnt California get into clean air because they had so much
smog?

LOL and the still rather fetching orange haze hovering over some of the
major cities is an environmental plus.
--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

Following up to Howard N. Lute

They continue to use
fireplaces for heating in many locales and that is outright banned in
sensitive areas of the US

They are certainly not allowed around here, but lets not stop the
yah booing.
Didnt California get into clean air because they had so much
smog?
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walking-food-photos, Wasdale, Thames, London etc "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
and same for Spain at "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:32:25 -0800, Go Fig wrote:

But we can do something about this, as for stabilizing the suns orbit...
that is beyond our control.

I just love anthropocentric physics, don't you
--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

Go Fig staggered to the nearest keyboard and wrote:

They did not reproduce existing data from the past 20 years. It does
not matter that they are the best, they are not accurate.

Pop quiz: What's the minimum period for measuring "climate", as
opposed to "weather"?


--
hambu n hambu hodo

Tim Challenger "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" staggered to
the nearest keyboard and wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:03:37 GMT, Charles Hawtrey wrote:

The problem is we don't really know. The present state of ocean
modeling is even worse than for atmospheric modeling, partly because
the important physical scales tend to be smaller and partly because
the important time scales tend to be much longer.

But the biggest problem is that we know almost bugger-all about the deep
waters.

I would say we know even less than that. :-)



--
hambu n hambu hodo