On Saturday 10 May 2008 18:43:30 ken barber wrote:
> well the article said if there were significant melting. and the warming
> they expected did not happen so i'd take it to be opposite of your
> conclusion. less warming will mean less melting.

Sorry Ken I'm afraid I can't take credit for the conclusion, its in the 
article for anyone to see. The difference in the IPCC models prediction, and 
the "reality" is 2 inches - so its actually supporting the major tenet (that 
global warming will cause sea levels to rise) but by 2 inches less than the 
model predicts.

> the line that is most telling is : "The gap between prediction and reality
> seemed to be caused by the models overestimating the amount of water vapor
> in the Antarctic atmosphere." they are over estimating data in the models.
> that is a  key. the models they are using for all of this doomsday predict
> is estimates and not actual data.

Yes, you have the nub of it here. The article makes it clear that the model 
originally used estimated data, but now they have the actual data, the 
estimate for sea level rise was only 2 inches off.

By using real data (rather than estimated data) this should give you more 
confidence in the validity of the prediction.

> in 1984 they were giving global warming doomsday predictions that the world
> only had 20 years, 

Well "they" said there was a spaceship hiding behind Hale-Bop's comet in 1997. 
That was probably not true either.

It is important to consider who "they" are, before dismissing or accepting 
what "they" are saying. Von Daniken told us we are descended from spacemen, 
and sold millions of books from the publicity. Do you think he "believed" 
what he wrote, or was he more interested in collecting book royalties.

> (after preditions of an coming ice age in the 70's i 
> might add) come and gone and they are giving the same predictions. and now 
> we have actual data that the earth has not warmed in the past 7 years and
> some preditions of a cooling cycle ranging from 7-12 years depending on
> which predictors you wish to quote. there is hardly a really good record of
> climate predictions imo. and despite just plain missing they go on to
> continue to predict doom.

> the U.S. is doing better in reduction of pollution than your post would
> have is to believe.

Don't you think it could do better?

>   however on the chance to vote for a greenie, there is not much chance to
> miss this time around.
>

Cheers 

Deri

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy