All computer Climate Models Proven INCORRECT

Are you sure about that. SUV sales over that period didnt decline all that much.

I'll have to recheck the stats. But IIRC SUV's and trucks still outsell hybrids by a long ways

 

We have already exploited most of the available hydro. What remains are very small streams that might power one house in the mountains or wilderness hiking/skiing lodge.

And nuclear is a death warrant on the future, as you're talking about burying hundred-thousand year poison in 50-year containment technology.

I got news for you: The price increase is coming as demand mounts exponentially and supply decreases linearly. The question is: will we pay the real cost now and invest in renewables so we can make the transition, or will we continue to dump the real cost of fossil fuels (pollution) into the air where it will suffocate coming generations?

 

I got news for you after november you dream is coming to an end

 

What dream? I got no dream. I expect the worst, which is that megalomaniacal politicians and stinking greedy corporate bosses will continue screwing the world until the whole thing goes down the toilet.

What happens in November? Mid-term elections? Maybe you're hoping the pack of criminals you support will take over from the pack of criminals from the party you oppose. As if that would change anything! Dream on!

 

I can tell you this come november you tax pipe dream is done for

 

And we go back to the previous disaster? I am hoping people will have more sense than that.

Besides, do you think climate cares one bit about our economics or politics? At some point we have to do what has to be done. The sooner the cheaper.

 

If this country were a barge being steered downriver by our politicians, it would slam into the left side of the canal, then the right, then left, right, left, right...

I can just hear the steering directions: "HARD LEFT! HARD LEFT! 'Wham!' HARD RIGHT! HARD RIGHT! 'Smash' HARD LEFT HARD LEFT..."

Tom

 

"Lindzen will be credited..." and quite rightly so. But as we have discussed in these threads before, his latest on Iris (Lindzen and Choi 2009) is still under discussion. Trenberth et al 2010 point out that it excluded energy transfer outside the tropics, and at the atmosphere/sea interface. An earlier analysis by Forster and Gregory (2006) performed what appears to be a similar analysis and came to the opposite conclusion. Not cited by L&C unfortunately.

I would be the first to suggest that climate models have substantial weaknesses in this area. Schneider et al (2010) is one example suggesting how they need to be improved. If the Lindzen group participates in this, great. They certainly have the intellectual basis to do so.

(publications mentioned available by request )

The IPCC 21st century sea level rise most commonly cited (59 cm) is not sensational, if you ask me. In fact papers published more recently put it substantially higher. For me a suitable context to view past sea level is one two a few centuries. It is only during that period that we have had such large human populations near sea level, and depended so much on international shipping (the ports are at sea level) for the global economy. I am aware that on the glacial (let's say 40,000-year) time scale sea level varies by about 150 meters. But that is not nearly so relevant as the century scale.

 

What previous disaster? Oh you mean the lib crybabies altering even more data in an attempt to get their way?

 

The barge wouldn't actually reach the sides of the canal in your analogy. While politicians on both sides like to talk big ("steering directions"), if you look at actions there have been largely centrist policies for the last 20 years on the federal level.

Bush I signed the clean air act amendments and ADA.
Clinton signed welfare reform and balanced the budget.. and supported DADT, DOMA, etc.
Bush II signed medicare part D and no child left behind

All of the above generally support the use of military power.

 

Good point. Perhaps they aren't centrists, but are pushing so hard against each other that no one can steer.

Tom

 

deleted

 

Well, I guess I'll try one more time.

First, to be crystal clear, Susan Solomon never said that her research supported the iris hypothesis. You said she did, based on some random thing on the Wikipedia. I demonstrated that the text you were pointing to could not possibly be a quote from her paper, and I pointed you to the source of the text. So just to keep this clear, you were wrong.

Now, why am I so sure that she didn't?

I tried to explain once, based on the details: different part of the atmosphere, water vapor not clouds, up-then-down changes not trend.

But let me make this even simpler:

SOLOMON: Water vapor UP means temperature goes UP

LINDZEN: Water vapor UP means temperature goes DOWN.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

Solomon's model embodies positive water vapor feedback. More water vapor in the air warms the earth up.

With the Iris hypothesis, the conditions that put more water vapor into the atmosphere over the tropic ocean somehow ... fill in your own interpretation of the iris hypothesis here ... so more water vapor in the air, created in that fashion, stops the earth from warming up.

In Lindzen's world, increased water vapor in the tropical troposphere is associated, ultimately, through the action of the iris, with reduced warming. As I read Linden's original 2001 paper, the iris effect, at the minimum, acts to offset all the warming you'd otherwise expect from the additional water vapor, and at the maximum, acts to offset the impact of GHGs as well. The association you would see, between water vapor and the speed of warming, is negative.

By contrast, in Solomon's world, increased water vapor in the global stratosphere is associated with increased warming. The association you would see, between water vapor and the speed of warming, is positive.

Crudely put, Solomon's findings basically have the wrong sign, from the standpoint of supporting the iris hypothesis. (That's crude, because she isn't testing the iris hypothesis -- she's not looking the part of the atmosphere where the iris hypothesis is said to act.) In addition to being unrelated to the iris hypothesis because they don't involve clouds, don't involve the troposphere, and don't involve a long-term trend in atmospheric water vapor.

Incidentally, this is exactly why your statement that Lindzen doesn't state how this occurs is wrong. He has to state some plausible mechanism, because the first-order impact of more water vapor is more warming. So he has to posit that something more complex is going on. That's why all of his papers on the iris hypothesis mention clouds, and why his original 2001 paper starts with his observation about changes in cloud cover and mix as a function of tropical sea-surface temperatures.

OK, so maybe whatever Lindzen said or says about clouds is what caused the drop in stratospheric water vapor? Might be, though nobody has so much as taken a guess how that might occur. And, empirically, the long-term temperature trend has been up, the stratospheric water vapor first went up, then down. So it's tough to argue that Lindzen's prime mover -- tropical sea surface temperatures -- changed their impact on the stratosphere in 2000. So while, technically, you can't rule it out, it's pretty hard to rule it in, either.