Re: [asa] tipping point?

From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun Mar 04 2007 - 15:01:44 EST

At 09:35 PM 3/3/2007, Randy Isaac wrote:

>He, as a non-scientist, doesn't do any models,
>doesn't do any scientific work, doesn't tell us
>his methodology, doesn't know how to do
>statistics, and comes up with a very precise
>number which is somehow more to be trusted than
>that of the scientists. I better go scratch my
>head a little more on this one. ~ Randy

@ QUOTE: [Scientists] "models differ by 400%
in their estimates, so his guess is as good as theirs.":

To reiterate what I posted on Thu, 01 Mar 2007:

# 69
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
QUOTE: ".. I disagree with Gavin Schmidt: Dr.
Schmidt seems to think that the temperature
projections in the IPCC Third Assessment Report,
or TAR (i.e., a temperature rise of 1.4 to 5.8
degrees Celsius from 1990 to 2100) are better
than Michael Crichton's projection of 0.8 degrees
Celsius from 2000 to 2100. But the IPCC TAR
projections are clearly worse, if one places the
same range of temperatures around Michael
Crichton's estimates that exist in the IPCC TAR.
That is, the IPCC TAR has a mean value of 3.6
degrees Celsius increase, +/- 2.2 degrees Celsius.
If Michael Crichton's value of 0.8 degrees
Celsius is taken with a range of +/- 2.2 degrees
Celsius, it becomes a prediction of anything from
a cooling of 1.4 degrees Celsius, to a warming of
up to 3.0 degrees Celsius (with a mean value of
warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius). Even assuming a
warming of as much as 2.0 degrees Celsius from
2000 to 2100, Michael Crichton would still have a
better prediction than the IPCC TAR (i.e. 0.8
degrees is closer to 2.0 degrees than 3.6 degrees
is to 2.0 degrees). As I noted, I will post again
(when I have more time) on why Michael Crichton's
prediction is *better* than the predictions in
the IPCC TAR. Comment by
<http://markbahner.typepad.com>Mark Bahner 25 Dec 2004 @ 1:58 pm

# 31. Gavin Schmidt writes, "He (Crichton) also
gives us his estimate, ~0.8 C for the global
warming that will occur over the next century and
claims that, since models differ by 400% in their
estimates, his guess is as good as theirs. This is not true."

I agree. That's not true. Michael Crichton's
guess of ~0.8 degrees Celsius for the 21st
century is far, far better than the IPCC
projections of 1.5 to 5.8 degrees Celsius (from
1990 to 2100). I discuss this fact on my website
(my own prediction is for ~0.7 degrees Celsius
warming in the lower troposphere):

A review of IPCC projections versus historical
and likely future
trends http://markbahner.50g.com/what_will_happen_to_us.htm

The IPCC projections are completely unrealistic,
in part because: 1) They include completely
unrealistic projections for future atmospheric
methane concentrations, and 2) They include
unrealistic projections for future CO2 emissions,
and for future CO2 atmospheric concentrations.
Mark Bahner (environmental engineer)

And as far as any "tipping point" goes --- that
isn't reached until after "the big lie" is stated
long enough and loud enough where enough people
actually come to believe it and put pressure on
elected officials to "do something". The "real"
tipping point is articulated quite well below:

"... I used the term "least-worst" deliberately.
The "worst" thing is to panic over GW, and
cripple our economies -- with all the social
upheaval that would entail. Given that a
"tipping-point" seems to have been reached;
whereby no politician can be seen to be opposed
to "doing something" about the "problem" -- one
of the least worst thing would be a carbon tax.

Moderately-worst "solutions" include things like
mandatory fuel efficiencies for auto
manufacturers (less flexible than a carbon tax).
Sending billions to China and Russia for "carbon
credits" (the only good thing being that this is
one of the cheapest ways to achieve Kyoto targets).

Some of the most-worst "solutions" that are being
bandied about (or tried out) include: strict
rationing; forced closure of coal-fired power
plants; and, draconian population-reduction programs."

10 posted on 02/01/2007 3:38:10 PM EST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1777511/posts?page=10#10

"Those who favor a cap are the like of GE which
does 10 BILLION in wind turbine and alternatative
energy business, and also power companies who
have a heavy part of their electricity being
generated by nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas
and other less carbon intensive methods. They see
a huge competitive advantage by requiring those
companies relying on coal to clean up or pay
carbon taxes. This is a sham, just like the
ethanol/ADM cabal is foisting on us."

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1777511/posts?page=6#6>6
posted on 02/01/2007 3:15:30 PM EST by milwguy

"Carbon futures is a fine way to game the system coming and going."

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1777511/posts?page=7#7>7
posted on 02/01/2007 3:17:23 PM EST by RightWhale

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Mar 4 15:02:06 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 04 2007 - 15:02:06 EST