On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:31:25 +0000, Daniel B. Wheeler wrote:

"Titan Point" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 06:16:35 -0800, Donald L Ferrt wrote:

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/sta...750406,00.html

More rain, little benefit predicted
Increased moisture over next 100 years expected to be lost to
evaporation

By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News
February 17, 2003

Drought-weary Coloradans may want to get used to life without lawns.

A leading climate researcher predicts that the state, along with the
rest of the West, will get more rain and snow as the planet warms
over the next 100 years, but evaporation and parched soils will
quickly drink up the moisture - more than erasing the benefit of
greater precipitation.

That scenario is part of the seemingly paradoxical nature of global
warming, which will put more water vapor into the air, but leave many
regions drier than they were over the past 1,000 years, the
researcher said Sunday at the American Association for the
Advancement of Science meeting in Denver.

Warren Washington, senior research scientist for the National Center
for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, said that increasingly precise
computer models show the planet warming by a range of nearly 3 to 11
degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100.

The bulk of that temperature rise appears linked to human combustion
of fossil fuels, which is loading the atmosphere with heat-trapping
greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, Washington said, a
conclusion supported by an international panel of scientists, and
more recently by a 2001 assessment from the National Academy of
Sciences.

Since 1870, global temperatures have risen about 1.25 degrees, but
almost a full degree of that came in the past 25 years, he said. That
sudden rise, and the sharper rise expected by 2100, contrasts with a
relatively stable temperature pattern over the past millennium.

Not according to the GISS, and graphed up by that nasty John Daly
fellow:

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/boulder.gif

Still what's an inconvenient fact when compared to saving the world?

"Recent experiments and routine monitoring have found evidence of
global climate changes already occurring that are much larger than
can be explained by the climate's natural variability," Washington
said.

Climate models are increasingly sophisticated, and scientists have
increasing confidence in their predictions, Washington said. One key
reason: The models, when fed climate data from the past, accurately
predict current conditions.

One supercomputer, the so-called Earth Simulator in Japan, can do an
unprecedented 35 trillion calculations per second and sports an
annual electricity bill of $12 million. That, and other models, are
all churning out varying predictions of the planet's warming, with
the bulk of forecasts in the range of 3.6 to 7.2 degrees over the
next century, he said.

Washington focused on the global picture, but offered a broad view
about the fate of the Rocky Mountain region.

"There'll be more precipitation, but evaporation tends to win out,"
Washington said. "It will be drier in terms of soil moisture and
river flows."

He cautioned that Colorado's current drought is less likely linked to
global warming, but more to cycles involving the interplay of ocean
temperatures and production of storm systems.

Washington, an NCAR researcher for 40 years, said public policy
should employ a combination of scaling back on greenhouse gas
emissions and "adapting" to a changing climate. Adaptation is
necessary, he said, because the climate will keep warming no matter
what the world does in the near term, noting that a carbon dioxide
molecule emitted today remains in the atmosphere for 90 to 100 years.

But, he added, we should start chipping away at the problem now to
lessen the impact for those who follow.

"If we don't deal with it," he said, "this problem is going to be
enormous in terms of our future."

I recommend a big wodge of taxpayers money to find out if it will be
"worse than previously thought"

Sounds like you are believing what you wish to believe.

Warren Washington was just elected chairman of the National Science
Board, which advises the president and Congress. He has been advising
presidents since Bush Sr. (whom we hope has read the results to his
son).

Washington has publicly stated that the debate about global warming is
now over. The only question is what to do about it.

G. Jr's own hand-selected panel on GW already determined that global
warming is not only a reality, but is worse than Clinton's panel said.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

The debate is not about global warming but about anthropogenic global
warming.

The climate has warmed about 0.6C since 1900. There is no dispute about
this from anyone. The question is whether the increase in carbon dioxide -
over and above that which would be expected to be produced by a warming
climate - is significant to force the climate warmer in a significant AND
biologically negative way.

Even that net rise disguises a lot of variation. The warmest decade of the
20th Century was the 1930s, and temperatures are not quite as high now as
they were then. Temperatures during the 17th Century were some 1C lower
than they are today. Temperatures during the 12th Century were around 1.5C
warmer than they are today. Temperatures during the last major glaciation
were 5-6C cooler than they are today. Temperatures during the Eocene
period 50 million years ago, were around 5-6C warmer than they are today.

Whether you accept that the earth warming or cooling currently, depends on
what baseline you use. By no means is the global temperature rise
experienced unusual, "unprecedented", unwarranted or any other negative
connotation you like to place on it.

Since Washington's computer model prediction of a 10C rise in 100 years is
much greater than any other AGW model prediction, you've got to ask how
reliable such a prediction is, through testing of its assumptions.

Whether Washington can declare global warming is "proven" is either
chutzpah or arrogance. As I posted earlier, climate science has very large
uncertainties in its modelling which overwhelm the very small underlying
trends which are so important.

Climate model predictions are not facts. Some people here seem to think
that they are.