Global warming---fact or fiction
Charles E Bell
I heard about half a year ago about a report that said that since all of
the temps are taken at cities (most of which have grown) that the temps
are getting slightly exaggerated upwards. Has anyone seen this report?
I'd like a copy of it. Thanks.
Len Evens
Beware of attempts to oversimplify a complex issue by taking one
particular point, probably garbled in transmssion, and making decisions
on that alone. It is always comforting to be able to find a
`smoking gun' which relieves you of responsibility for actually understanding
the issues, but it seldom leads to much enlightenment.
There is considerable scientific discussion of whether or not average
global temperatures have risen in the past 150 years or so. One
problem is that historical measurements have not been done in a
simple consistent manner. Also, in determining _average_ global
temperature, one must be concerned about when and where measurements
are made to avoid biases. One such effect---certainly not the
only one---is the so-called heat island effect of cities. It is
certainly true that measurements from cities will show a bias towards
higher temperatures. The people who do this research are well
aware of that and try to compensate for it. Some critics maintain
that the effect is not entirely accounted for. It is also not true
that all the measurements are taken at cities. (A large number of
measurements are made on the open sea, for example.)
In any case, I think it is fair to say that the preponderant belief
is that there has in fact been a measurable warming in this period.
However, it is clear that this hasn't been steady; there have been
extended periods where colling took place. Even in recent measurements
where one would expect greater precision, there are contradictory
indications in the data. Satelite data of one kind of average
lower atmosphere temperatures since 1979
does not show any consistent average warming, but surface measurements
and radiosonde measurements appear to show warming.
It should be added that the crucial question is whether the observational
data supports _theoretical_ predictions of significant global warming
in the next centrury. Right now, I think the data is ambiguous on
that question. It is roughly consistent with those predictions, but
is also consistent with the thesis that everything just reflects
natural variability of climate. I should also add that scientists
who study these things don't look only at average temperatures. There
are a variety of other kinds of observations which could be used to
help verify climate predictions.
I did not give line by line references, but you can find detailed
descriptions of these matters in the Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (1990) and the Supplement to that
report (1992). I also vaguely remember a fairly well balanced
article in the Scientific American about the reliability of temperature
measurements in the 19th and early 20th century. The article was
some time in the past five years, and you can probably find it with
a little searching in your library.
Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
David Halliwell
Len Evens has already responded with a good discussion of the problems
involved. A couple of references which might be of use are:
Trends '90: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. T.A. Boden, P. Kanciruk,
and M.P. Farrell. (1990) Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. 257pp. (No ISBN)
For the die-hard that wants to do the anaylsis from the beginning. Actual
tables of data on atmospheric CO2, methane, and temperature records, from
a variety of sources. Provides a background discussion of the data sources,
with references to journal publications, and data availability.
Apparently there is also a "Trends '91" out, but our library is too
poor to afford it :-)
One of the temperature series presented in "Trends" is based on the
following:
Jones et al, 1986. "Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature
variations: 1851-1984", J. Clim. Appl. Met. 25, 161-179.
I give this example since I have it handy and don't need to type it in
again :-) It discusses many of the problems that Len referred to,
concerning the factors which need to be considered in taking the available
temperature data to create a global mean.
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Mark O. Wilson
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Gary Lear
>
>I heard about half a year ago about a report that said that since
>all of
>the temps are taken at cities (most of which have grown) that the temps
>are getting slightly exaggerated upwards. Has anyone seen this report?
>
*number* of studies trying to examine and/or correct this effect. As
far as I know, there is still no consensus on the subject. However, it
is certainly *not* the case that "all the temps are taken at cities";
several monitoring networks have been established to specifically
exclude urban areas in an effort to identify regional trends.
Brian Lovewell SE - Cincinnati Office
Have any of you taken a course on Time Series analysis. Look for references
on Time Series or Box-Jenkins (even their own book on Time Series). This
is not simple stuff to learn on your own, but if the principles are understood you
can easily see where some people or articles overstate the temperature game.
A rise, on average, of 0.6 degrees centigrade for the *entire* planet for the past
50-100 years.
How many measurements taken per day? How many locations? Did you simply
take a statistical average? If you take one measurement every hour from 1000
locations this would give you 24*365*1000 = 8760000 measurements all crammed
down into a single yearly number. Does this sound like reasonable treatment of
the data to you?
Another interesting bit on the global warming issue is the change that has occurred
since the 1970s where many telltale articles claimed that we were on the verge
of another ice age. Now, we are hearing just the opposite. Many of the same
people participated in both situations, Paul Ehrlich one of the most notable.
You simply cannot claim that 2 or 3 hot years in the 80's demonstrate a *statistical*
trend to sustained global warming. You need a great many unbiased measurements
and a model which reflects the true workings of the process you are studying in
order to formulate a statistical claim. I think people are seeing what they want
to see... coming disaster.
Speaking for myself and from my own opinions and understandings.
Brian Lovewell
Cincinnati, Ohio
Len Evens
> In article 18...@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU, ga...@NREL.ColoState.EDU (Gary Lear) writes:
> >In article chb...@badlands.NoDak.edu (Charles E Bell) writes:
> >>
> >>I heard about half a year ago about a report that said that since
> >>all of
> >>the temps are taken at cities (most of which have grown) that the temps
> >>are getting slightly exaggerated upwards. Has anyone seen this report?
> >>
> >I've heard this rumour many times over the years and there have been a
> >*number* of studies trying to examine and/or correct this effect. As
> >far as I know, there is still no consensus on the subject. However, it
> >is certainly *not* the case that "all the temps are taken at cities";
> >several monitoring networks have been established to specifically
> >exclude urban areas in an effort to identify regional trends.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Have any of you taken a course on Time Series analysis. Look for references
> on Time Series or Box-Jenkins (even their own book on Time Series). This
> is not simple stuff to learn on your own, but if the principles are understood you
> can easily see where some people or articles overstate the temperature game.
>
> A rise, on average, of 0.6 degrees centigrade for the *entire* planet for the past
> 50-100 years.
>
> How many measurements taken per day? How many locations? Did you simply
> take a statistical average? If you take one measurement every hour from 1000
> locations this would give you 24*365*1000 = 8760000 measurements all crammed
> down into a single yearly number. Does this sound like reasonable treatment of
> the data to you?
>
you would know the answers to all these questions. A good place to
start is the Report (1990) and Supplement (1992) of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. You will discover quite quickly that the
scientific papers on this subject which appear in refereed journals
are written by people who know everything you say and a lot you don't
even imagine. It is still not clear if in fact average global
termperatures have risen say since 1965 but this is because the
data has a lot of noise in it, not because the scientists working
in the field don't know what they are doing.
> Another interesting bit on the global warming issue is the change that has occurred
> since the 1970s where many telltale articles claimed that we were on the verge
What are those many telltale articles? So far I have seen one reference
to such an article in the scientific literature, and on examination it
turned out not to say exactly what the poster claimed it said.
See my posting on this subject last month.
> of another ice age. Now, we are hearing just the opposite. Many of the same
> people participated in both situations, Paul Ehrlich one of the most notable.
>
Paul Ehrlich is not a climatologist, so anything he says is second hand.
I haven't seen him quoted on this subject myself. However, I have
looked at what climatologists have been saying. Can you name
three climatologists who in the 70s claimed that we were in for
global cooling who now claim the opposite?
> You simply cannot claim that 2 or 3 hot years in the 80's demonstrate a *statistical*
> trend to sustained global warming. You need a great many unbiased measurements
> and a model which reflects the true workings of the process you are studying in
> order to formulate a statistical claim. I think people are seeing what they want
> to see... coming disaster.
>
See the IPCC Report and Supplement. Those who claim to have detected
a global warming signal base their conclusions on more than two or
three hot years in the 80s.
There seems to be a concerted effort by some to convince people that
there are no genuine scientists who believe that global warming is
a real possibility. This is just plain wrong. Anyone who understands
the basic science has to realize that the case for global warming is
strong, even if one concludes in balance that it is wrong. It is not
based on a bunch of crazy doomsayers. In order
to rebut that case, one has to present detailed informed scientific
arguments, not call people names.
>
> Speaking for myself and from my own opinions and understandings.
>
> Brian Lovewell
> Cincinnati, Ohio
>
>
--
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
|> Have any of you taken a course on Time Series analysis. Look for references
|> on Time Series or Box-Jenkins (even their own book on Time Series). This
|> is not simple stuff to learn on your own, but if the principles are understood you
|> can easily see where some people or articles overstate the temperature game.
I have taken several such courses, and I assure you that real experts on
statistical inference have looked seriously at the data. The increase in
observed temperature is real, accounting for known biases. The only doubt as
to whether the increase is physical is 1) whether by some unfortunate
coincidence there was compensating cooling in regions with very limited
temperature data (especially the south pacific) or 2) whether some unknown
bias has been introduced. Changes in measurement techniques and urban heat
island effects have been taken into account, and are the largest source of
uncertainty in the trend. However, there is no doubt that the trend is a
warming one, barring biases that are as yet unsuspected.
|> A rise, on average, of 0.6 degrees centigrade for the *entire* planet for the past
|> 50-100 years.
|> How many measurements taken per day? How many locations? Did you simply
|> take a statistical average? If you take one measurement every hour from 1000
|> locations this would give you 24*365*1000 = 8760000 measurements all crammed
|> down into a single yearly number. Does this sound like reasonable treatment of
|> the data to you?
Well, as a matter of fact, the cramming of it down to a single number would
seem to reduce the uncertainty in the number. What you may be complaining
about is an intuitive sense that since weather in each place is so variable,
the idea that global temperature would be other than very noisy seems
dubious. If you had applied the Time Series Theory you so proudly cite,
you would see that this method would actually reduce the noise.
What is more to the point, the global average temperature is physically
constrained by the principle of radiative equilibrium, in a way that
local temperatures are not. Energy moves around horizontally in the atmosphere
and ocean rather easily, but in the end what is emitted to space must balance
what comes in from the sun. (The equilibration time is on the order of a few
weeks.) The THEORY of global warming in its simplest and most testable form
gives a PREDICTION of the resulting GLOBAL AVERAGE warming.
Why the press is interested in the global mean temperature is anyone's guess.
Scientists are interested in the number because that is the number that
emerges most directly from the well-established physics of the situation.
You are repeating the usual plaint so often appearing in branches of the
press with an ideological interest in there not being a significant
greenhouse effect. You claim that the observed trend is not of great
significance, even if real, and even if extrapolated into the future. This
is true, but is entirely beside the point.
The largest reason the trend is interesting is to calibrate the past
sensitivity of the planet to human impacts. In this context, it is very
important to notice that the human impacts are increasing exponentially.
Also, please note that predictions of greenhouse warming, based purely
on physics and before any global climate record even existed, date
back to 1896. The warming predicted for a doubling of planetary CO2
was within the range of current predictions (a bit on the high side).
|> Another interesting bit on the global warming issue is the change that has occurred
|> since the 1970s where many telltale articles claimed that we were on the verge
|> of another ice age. Now, we are hearing just the opposite. Many of the same
|> people participated in both situations, Paul Ehrlich one of the most notable.
What Ehrlich says about the matter is of no more relevance than what, say,
Wm.F.Buckley says. Both are spectators responding in the way that their
political inclinations imply.
Worrying about an ice age is not entirely a frivolous pursuit. In fact,
evidence is mounting that we have seen less warming than simpler greenhouse
theories predict because of a countervailing aerosol (that's dust to you)
cooling effect, also resulting from human activities. If current trends
aren't dramatically slowed, the greenhouse warming will win on the time
scale of our lifetimes and the next few generations, according to most
serious analysis. There is a factor of about 3 in uncertainty about the size
of the warming, but very few remotely qualified people doubt that the
warming will be larger than natural variability.
|> You simply cannot claim that 2 or 3 hot years in the 80's demonstrate a *statistical*
|> trend to sustained global warming. You need a great many unbiased measurements
|> and a model which reflects the true workings of the process you are studying in
|> order to formulate a statistical claim.
Of course, we have all those things to some significant extent, though, as
someone working in the field, I have to say "further work is needed"!
|> I think people are seeing what they want
|> to see... coming disaster.
There is no doubt that some people are fascinated with this problem because
it fits in with their apocalyptic leanings, just as some people dismiss it
because they think an unconstrained market infallibly makes wise decisions.
If we are to make any progress, we have to put our inclinations on hold an
examine the evidence as objectively as we can manage. In the case of
greenhouse warming, the evidence that a significant observable effect is
imminent is almost incontrovertible, and that of quite serious impact is
sufficiently compelling to take the matter seriously,
If you take preservation of ecosystems as a valuable goal, the problem
becomes enormous. Already weakened ecosystems will very likely need to cope
with climate changes of a rapidity rarely if ever seen in nature.
On the other hand, initial fears of rapid sea level rise seem on further
study to not be realistic. Of course, those of an apocalyptic stripe
continue to quote these worst case guesses of an earlier and less precise
period in the science of climate change as established fact. Occasionally
one even sees talk of boiling oceans and an uninhabitable planet, which
are completely outside of the bounds of plausibilty. That the problem
is less cataclyusmic than some people claim does not necessarily mean that
the problem is trivial.
|> Speaking for myself and from my own opinions and understandings.
You're in a bit over your head, though.
I'd suggest you start with the Scientific American articles: 5/87, 9/89,
and 7/90. If you're still interested, come back and ask for more material
after that.
mt
Brian Lovewell SE - Cincinnati Office
Part II.
Please remember that these are the MEDIA articles and books and are not from the PRIMARY BODY
OF LITERATURE. This is my target, not the real science related to this topic.
The _MEDIA_ articles...
/////
GAIA: An Atlas of Planet Management (book)
Dr. Norman Myers, General Editor
page 112
"...The temperature record shows a global increase of 0.6 degrees centigrade since
1940. In addition, weather patterns are changing, and the decade of the 1980s saw
more hotter years than any previous decade..."
Not a single source showing the other view was presented in the list in the back of the book. This was
presented because I mentioned it in my first posting. I was not quoting my own conclusions nor was
I saying that scientists in this area are saying it either. My apologies again because this was not made
clear.
Contributors include:
James(John) Lovelock
Paul Ehrlich
John Gribbin (only as a reference, not primary contributor.)
/////
Healing the Planet (book)
Paul and Anne Ehrlich
This is full of attacks on all parts of society and demands immediate crisis response...
Reviewer's (other media) praise on the back cover (just one of many):
"The Ehrlichs provide a healthy dose of basic science and demonstrate that such
knowledge is central to understanding and resolving our current environmental situation."
/////
AGENDA 21: The Earth Summit Strategy To Save Our Planet
(I forgot to note the page before coming to work)
"Environmental changes to the atmosphere or oceans can fundamentally affect the
habitability of the entire planet. The ways in which human activities affect these
essential global resources are diverse and complex, yet the severity of human influence
on the atmosphere and oceans is beyond question."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is it really beyond question? Or is it more realistic to say that a significant body of knowledge exists to
state that man has an effect, but the extent is not completely clear?
/////
Other books which contain the same general appeal.
The 1993 Information Please
Environmental Almanac
Compiled by World Resources Institute
1993 Earth Journal
////
**** HERE ARE THE ICE AGE REFERENCES I AM STARTING WITH ****
These come from a book entitled "Environmental Overkill" by Dixy Lee Ray. She has also written a
book called "Trashing the Planet." These are also _MEDIA_ books. Again it is important to note
that these are MEDIA books and not from the PRIMARY BODY OF LITERATURE, but this is still
crucially important because these are the items which the majority of lay-people read.
She was Former Governor of the State of Washington, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission,
Assistant Secretary of State in the US Bureau of Oceans, member of the Zoology Faculty at the University
of Washington, and Associate Professor of Zoology at the University of Wisconsin. She did not mention
any disclaimers to her comments on these "Ice Age" claims. Since I have not reviewed them myself, I am
providing them merely as a starting point and intend to investigate this myself.
But, she has nothing to gain and much credibility, as a policy maker, to lose by making the statements
she does and pointing these things out. I have not seen any reason to doubt they exist and intend to follow
up in an even more concise manner than I have in the past.
Dixy Lee Ray takes all quotations remembering the scare of global cooling taken from the article, "The
Ice Age Cometh," by Anne J. Bray, Policy Review, Fall 1991, pp. 81-84.
"The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into past ice ages.
They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a
likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, "In the Grip of a New
Ice Age," International Wildlife, July 1975
"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change
dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production-with
serious political implications for just about every nation on earth."
Peter Gwynne, Newsweek, April 28, 1975
"According to the academy [National Academy of Sciences] report on climate, we may be
approaching the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a full-blown
100,000 year ice age a real possibility...with ice packs building up relatively quickly from
local snowfall that ceases to melt from winter to winter."
Science, March 1, 1975
"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since World War II is also in accord with the
increased global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization,
and an exploding population, added to a renewal of volcanic activity..."
Reid Bryson, "Environmental Roulette," Global Ecology: Readings
Toward a Rational Strategy for Man, John P. Holdren and Paul R.
Ehrlich, editors, 1971.
The sensitivity of climate was pointed up independently by a Soviet and an American
scientist, who concluded that a permanent drop of only 1.6 to 2 percent in (solar) energy
reaching the earth "would lead to an unstable condition in which continental snow cover
would advance to the Equator... [and] the oceans would eventually freeze,"
according to a recent US scientific advisory report.
Samuel W. Matthews, "What's Happening to Our Climate?" National
Geographic, November 1976.
Now, these are _MEDIA_ sources, but I would say that these are used to scare the public and influence
public policy. And it is working, look at Al Gore's book. He is convinced and look at his position.
I say again:
THE PUBLIC WILL NOT TAKE THE TIME TO REVIEW THE REFEREED JOURNALS AND
SO THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.
An acquaintance of mine works for Green Peace in San Francisco and I have taken the opportunity
speak with her and learn her background. She is an ex-reporter for a newspaper with no background
in science AT ALL and spends a good deal of her time promoting this doom and gloom picture as well.
She has no background and she is ardently pushing this view!!!
Certainly she must accept responsibility for her actions. After learning her views and her understanding
of the situation it was clear that she would NOT take any precautions for her activities.
/////
Lowell Ponte, author of the book, The Cooling, published in 1976, was one of many scientists who
believed that the "Earth's climate has been cooling rapidly for the past three decades, and this has already
caused drought and famine in major areas of the world... At least a thousand people will have starved
[in the near future] because of the impact climate instability already has had on food production."
/////
Now, of course to counter these items are media reports from real scientists in this area. One example
I have reviewed thoroughly is:
Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns
Edited by, Dr. Jay H. Lehr
with contributions by
S. Fred Singer
Hugh W. Ellsaesser
Sherwood B. Idso
Peter E. Black
I have read many of the things these scientists say and they certainly promote caution over panic and crisis
warnings. I have seen some of their graphs on temperature changes over history. These have been
generated with the most careful detective work worthy of public mention, but does not reach the general
ears of the public for the most part.
/////
The Heidelberg Appeal also states caution in the instrument of public policy (that's government actions,
regulations, and taxes). It also states that the scientists who signed it do NOT agree with the general public
perception.
/////
Another book, readily available to the public and much more likely to be read than
refereed journals is:
Jon Erickson, Greenhouse Earth, Tomorrow's Disaster Today (1990)
"Global warming is no longer a distant threat, but a shockingly present reality."
/////
Regards,
Brian Lovewell
Cincinnati, Ohio
Brian Lovewell SE - Cincinnati Office
My comments came quickly and were not fully expounded upon. I accept full responsibility for them and if
taken to be a criticism of the scientists in this arena, I am truly sorry. This is not what I believe and if you
wish to pursue the true nature and spirit of my interest I invite you to follow on.
This apparently requires some clarification. I have been looking into this topic from the initial perspective
as someone who was not trained or done research in this area. Being a research and development engineer
for some time in digital signal and image processing working with ultrasonic signals. My work has involved
a great deal of work with signal analysis and ultrasonic propagation modeling. I have extensively used
Box-Jenkins, Time Series analysis as well as other methods for modeling, synthesis, and filtering of data
to achieve better inspection of composite materials to be used in aircraft engines. We have successfully
performed inspections that the FAA would not accept until they arrived with their experts and reviewed the
material and inspections for themselves. They admitted very happily that they could not believe the work
we performed when research centers could not detect what we did. Presently I work for another company since
layoffs in the aerospace industry made working in that environment... not too much fun.
Now, this begs an interesting question. Is it possible for someone who understands the subtleties of signal
processing, Time Series analysis, and the filtering of noise to understand their application in an area of
science where they are not trained? I think it is quite possible. Becoming acquainted with the data and the
models of the processes involved is a matter of time and I am pursuing it.
Now, I have started my study of this topic since the Rio conference and started with what is presented in the
media. Since then I have moved into identifying the sources which you refer to, the refereed material which
contains the raw data and not the gloss that the media base their conclusions on. I think you will, probably
most grudgingly, agree that I am in complete agreement with you.
This requires an abstract which then defines the issue which bothers me.
///////////////////////////////
Abstract:
The public will not take the time to review the refereed journals AND SO THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.
This is an issue of media irresponsibility and should be treated as such. Remember, as well, that the overall public
opinion is that these people writing in media sources are scientists (or considered to be), although they may very
well be scientists in other fields. Also, organizations such as Worldwatch and Green Peace are thought to have
scientists in their midsts. This may be true, but it may not be as well. Since they have good intentions, our
good health and that of the environment, their conclusions and data are not challenged, in most media circles.
Before continuing, let me state a couple of definitions:
1. The primary, substantive literature on the subject of the climate and oceans is where refereed materials
are presented with substantive claims based on recorded data and working theories. These papers and
books are presented by scientists with training and experience in the methods and theories relevant
to science and the subject matter.
This will be called the PRIMARY BODY OF LITERATURE.
2. The media is where general materials are presented by journalists and others, including scientists from
disciplines outside the scope of issues which involve the climate and oceans. These articles and books
are presented in a manner which does not go through the referee process where peers in the field review
the work for real merit. This market is free game to anyone who can get something published.
This will be called the MEDIA.
Now, that all said...
It is my contention that many _MEDIA_ published people (journalists and others) are providing a picture which is
inappropriate and public policy decisions based on these materials are potentially dangerous both environmentally and
economically.
It is also my contention that this circus must be curtailed and the voice of reason be interjected. The media must open
up the microphone to eminently qualified scientists in the field to comment on the crisis(?) with a near-unified consensus.
If a consensus does not exists, then this MAY lead to the conclusion that no drastic, immediate measures need to be taken.
If there is a consensus, is the danger real or exagerated? If real, what are the prudent measures to take? This requires
responsibility on the part of both the media and the scientists in this field. I do not believe it is my place to state what
the realities are, nor is it the place of Paul Ehrlich, John Gribbin, Wm. F. Buckley, Rush Limbaugh, and Dixy Lee Ray.
BUT, WE SHOULD ALL RESERVE THE RIGHT TO HEAR THE TESTIMONY AND TAKE PART IN THE
DECISION MAKING PROCESS BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC DATA.
In any case, as responsible stewards of our own immediate environment, we must take prudent, reasonable measures
not to pollute or destroy our environment. My own personal belief, for whatever it is worth, is that real climatic changes
have occurred in the past. The careful studies and scientific detective stories have been published to create as clear a
picture of this as possible. But, do the activities of man have an impact? My belief, again circumspect at best in the real
scheme of things, is YES. Now, this begs a question. What is the nature of the impact and what are the alternatives?
Clearly defined, incontrovertible answers do not appear to exist as of yet.
But, it is also irresponsible to allow the media to incite fear and panic about a crisis from what appears to me to be a
situation where a clear consensus of the real dangers and consequences have _NOT_ been fully disclosed nor determined.
Now, the media is failing to level with us about how they really operate. The media does not check for accuracy or
correctness. They merely report. It is up to the individual to ascertain what the truth is. This is how the media works.
And this is very crucial. You may scoff and say that Paul Ehrlich is no more an authority than Wm. F. Buckley, but
this is NOT the point. What does the public believe? THESE GUYS. And when what these guys say becomes a part
of mainstream belief, then our policy makers make decisions based on them.
To quote Dixy Lee Ray (also a scientist--zoologist, but not on climate and oceans, and a policy maker)...
WHO SPEAKS FOR SCIENCE?!!!
///////////////////////////////
I have put together the MEDIA sources I have looked at so far. My research in the PRIMARY BODY OF
LITERATURE on this subject is not even close to being complete.
Please check Part II.
Tony C. Tweedale
>it fits in with their apocalyptic leanings, just as some people dismiss it
>because they think an unconstrained market infallibly makes wise decisions.
>
>If we are to make any progress, we have to put our inclinations on hold an
>examine the evidence as objectively as we can manage. In the case of
>greenhouse warming, the evidence that a significant observable effect is
>imminent is almost incontrovertible, and that of quite serious impact is
>sufficiently compelling to take the matter seriously,
>
>If you take preservation of ecosystems as a valuable goal, the problem
>becomes enormous. Already weakened ecosystems will very likely need to cope
>with climate changes of a rapidity rarely if ever seen in nature.
>
...and since seriously reducing CO2 & other GHG's would do dramatic things for
a developed countries' energy productivity, people who argue that GHG reduc-
tions are bad for economic growth have loose screws in their craniums...
tony tweedale (internet: es...@selway.umt.edu) tel 406-542-1709
grad, env studies prgm.
rankin hall, u. montana
missoula mt 59812
Brian Lovewell SE - Cincinnati Office
>>There is no doubt that some people are fascinated with this problem because
>>it fits in with their apocalyptic leanings, just as some people dismiss it
>>because they think an unconstrained market infallibly makes wise decisions.
The wisdom of decisions in a free market is not the driving theory in economic
circles. In as simplistic a manner as can be presented, it is self-determination
and competition that are key. Bad decisions will lead to poorly managed
companies that then will be unable to compete and they will go out of business.
Many successes in the market are not always due to the most brilliant
decisions. If incentives for production and consumption were removed
the economy would most certainly deteriorate.
Let's say that we mandated total central authority to Washington, D.C. to
determine what each individual would do for his vocation, what his
compensation would be for doing it, how much education he would
receive, and what he would be allowed to consume and to what degree.
We could also limit transportation. Then the central authority could also
determine what industries we would have and what products they could
produce. In all, we could reduce emissions and effluents from industry and
commerce as well as removing harmful chemicals and gases from our
local environments.
Yes, that's the ticket. I knew I tuned into this forum for something... :-)
>>If we are to make any progress, we have to put our inclinations on hold an
>>examine the evidence as objectively as we can manage. In the case of
>>greenhouse warming, the evidence that a significant observable effect is
>>imminent is almost incontrovertible, and that of quite serious impact is
>>sufficiently compelling to take the matter seriously,
>>
>>If you take preservation of ecosystems as a valuable goal, the problem
>>becomes enormous. Already weakened ecosystems will very likely need to cope
>>with climate changes of a rapidity rarely if ever seen in nature.
>>
>>mt
>
>....and since seriously reducing CO2 & other GHG's would do dramatic things for
>a developed countries' energy productivity, people who argue that GHG reduc-
>tions are bad for economic growth have loose screws in their craniums...
>
The issue is our sovereignty and the use of environmental arguments to attack
the United States through international agreements like AGENDA 21. I am all for
a reasonable approach to limiting our impact on the environment, but I am
certainly not in favor of the strong-arm tactics which currently exist in the
international community.
> tony tweedale (internet: es...@selway.umt.edu) tel 406-542-1709
> grad, env studies prgm.
> rankin hall, u. montana
> missoula mt 59812
Regards,
Brian Lovewell
Cincinnati, Ohio
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
|> ...and since seriously reducing CO2 & other GHG's would do dramatic things for
|> a developed countries' energy productivity, people who argue that GHG reduc-
|> tions are bad for economic growth have loose screws in their craniums...
Thanks for agreeing with me, but I'm afraid I can't reciprocate at present.
Your assertion seems to me very unlikely. Do you have any actual evidence?
If this were true, then the free market could actually solve the problem
quite nicely, I would think. On what basis do you make the claim above?
Does it apply to third world countries with large coal deposits?
Do you take a libertarian stance on the issue, since your claim implies that
the market requires no tinkering to reduce the emissions? When can we expect
this fortunate turn of events, in your estimation?
mt
Tony C. Tweedale
Brian Lovewell SE - Cincinnati Office <love...@feynman.Central.Sun.COM> wrote:
>In article 87...@selway.umt.edu, es...@selway.umt.edu (Tony C. Tweedale) writes:
>>>There is no doubt that some people are fascinated with this problem because
>>>it fits in with their apocalyptic leanings, just as some people dismiss it
>>>because they think an unconstrained market infallibly makes wise decisions.
****
i did not compose this text!
****
>
>
>The wisdom of decisions in a free market is not the driving theory in economic
>circles. In as simplistic a manner as can be presented, it is self-determination
>and competition that are key. Bad decisions will lead to poorly managed
>companies that then will be unable to compete and they will go out of business.
>Many successes in the market are not always due to the most brilliant
>decisions. If incentives for production and consumption were removed
>the economy would most certainly deteriorate.
>
>Let's say that we mandated total central authority to Washington, D.C. to
>determine what each individual would do for his vocation, what his
>compensation would be for doing it, how much education he would
>receive, and what he would be allowed to consume and to what degree.
>We could also limit transportation. Then the central authority could also
>determine what industries we would have and what products they could
>produce. In all, we could reduce emissions and effluents from industry and
>commerce as well as removing harmful chemicals and gases from our
>local environments.
>
>Yes, that's the ticket. I knew I tuned into this forum for something... :-)
>
>
>>>If we are to make any progress, we have to put our inclinations on hold an
>>>examine the evidence as objectively as we can manage. In the case of
>>>greenhouse warming, the evidence that a significant observable effect is
>>>imminent is almost incontrovertible, and that of quite serious impact is
>>>sufficiently compelling to take the matter seriously,
>>>
>>>If you take preservation of ecosystems as a valuable goal, the problem
>>>becomes enormous. Already weakened ecosystems will very likely need to cope
>>>with climate changes of a rapidity rarely if ever seen in nature.
>>>
>>>mt
***
or this!
***
>>
>>....and since seriously reducing CO2 & other GHG's would do dramatic things for
>>a developed countries' energy productivity, people who argue that GHG reduc-
>>tions are bad for economic growth have loose screws in their craniums...
>>
>
>
>The issue is our sovereignty and the use of environmental arguments to attack
>the United States through international agreements like AGENDA 21. I am all for
>a reasonable approach to limiting our impact on the environment, but I am
>certainly not in favor of the strong-arm tactics which currently exist in the
>international community.
>
>
>> tony tweedale (internet: es...@selway.umt.edu) tel 406-542-1709
>> grad, env studies prgm.
>> rankin hall, u. montana
>> missoula mt 59812
***
i did write this...
tony tweedale (internet: es...@selway.umt.edu) tel 406-542-1709
grad, env studies prgm.
rankin hall, u. montana
missoula mt 59812
***
Brian Lovewell SE - Cincinnati Office
Tony, if I misquoted you or anyone else I apologize. I must have
got my messages crossed.
Regards,
Brian Lovewell
tony...@news.delphi.com
The phenomenon you refer to is called the "Urban Warming Effect." It is
a well-known bias in the land-based temperature record, and one which
incidentally doesn't exist in the Nasa sattelite record (which fails to
show the global warming trend the land-based record seems to.)
The idea is that many of the land-based temperature stations were
originally located just outside of cities, and as the cities grew to
surround the stations, they warmed (concrete and asphalt retain heat much
better than natural vegetation). I have heard of one study (which I haven't
read) that maintains that when the "urban warming" stations are excluded
from the American land-based record, the global warming trend *disappears*.
(Kukla, Gavin, and Karl, Journal of Climate and Applied Meterology, 1986,
v. 25 is the reference I have).
Tony Donadio
tony...@news.delphi.com
in the 70s who are now preaching global warming: I'll start with one:
Steven Schneider.
As far as the claims that "the experts in this field have taken all this
into account," that smacks of an argument from authority. Perhaps the
people making these remarks would care to spend a paragraph explaining
*why* the cited objection is unreasonable, instead of trying to reassure
sans evidence.
Tony Donadio
Len Evens
>ga...@NREL.ColoState.EDU (Gary Lear) writes:
>
>
>The phenomenon you refer to is called the "Urban Warming Effect." It is
>a well-known bias in the land-based temperature record, and one which
>incidentally doesn't exist in the Nasa sattelite record (which fails to
>show the global warming trend the land-based record seems to.)
Of course none of us can give _all_ the facts without reproducing the
entire scientific literature, but too selective a choice of facts can
give a misleading impression. It is true that the results of Christy
and Spencer from satelite measurements do not show a warming trend
for the period 1979 to the present. It is also true that radiosonde
data from the early 60s to the present does show a warming trend as do
surface measurements over a much longer period. The surface measurements
are based on land based measurements in many areas, not the just the US
and also on sea surface measurements. The satelite measurements
should be more reliable than the other measurements which are subject to
errors and restricted sampling, but I don't think this question has
been settled yet. My source for this information is the IPCC
Supplement (1992), section C3.3. The IPCC Supplement has an extensive
bibliography.
>
>The idea is that many of the land-based temperature stations were
>originally located just outside of cities, and as the cities grew to
>surround the stations, they warmed (concrete and asphalt retain heat much
>better than natural vegetation). I have heard of one study (which I haven't
>read) that maintains that when the "urban warming" stations are excluded
>from the American land-based record, the global warming trend *disappears*.
>(Kukla, Gavin, and Karl, Journal of Climate and Applied Meterology, 1986,
>v. 25 is the reference I have).
>
From the IPCC Report (1990), Section 7.4.1, it appears that there is an
extensive literature on the subject of `urban warming', and Karl is
one of the people who has studied this issue. My reading of this
section convinces me that the effect reduces the magnitude of the
observed land based warming, but does not eliminate it. The
last sentence of that section reads
In light of this evidence, the estimate provided by
Jones et al. (1989) of a maximum overall warming bias in all these
land data sets due to urbanization of 0.1 deg C/100 years, or less,
is plausible but not conclusive.
To show how complicated this issue is, I note that the above source
discusses the possibility that there could be a bias in the opposite
direction in urban temperature measurements caused by moving stations from
the centers of cities to outlying airports.
>Tony Donadio
One point that has not received much discussion is that there are
other observations than temperatures which people studying the
possibility of global warming consider. These include measurements
of moisture content, snow cover, and a variety of other physical
quantities. The data for many of these also shows possible evidence
of warming but as with temperature it is quite noisy.
Finally, it is instructive to look at the results, as shown in
graphs, of the various different observations. What we have are
time series showing considerable year to year observation. What
various authors are trying to do is to see if they can detect
a warming `signal' amid the noise. For the satelite data, for
example, for the period 1979-present, it is clear that two volcanic
eruptions had major effects on the observations. It will be some
time before all the conflicting bits of information are sorted out.
I think that the original conclusion of the IPCC Report and Supplement
still hold. The observational record is consistent with a small
observed warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution,
but it is not possible to say that it results from increased
greenhouse gas concentration; it might just be the result of
natural variability. Any observed warming seems to be less than
would have been predicted by many of the computer models.
I would also add that it seems generally agreed that most of the
discrepency is due to the effect of aerosols, largely from burning
of sulfur containing fuels. This effect is not usually incorporated
in the models.
Len Evens
>In the attempt to name three scientists who were preaching global cooling
>in the 70s who are now preaching global warming: I'll start with one:
>Steven Schneider.
>
I have already dealt with this assertion about Stephen Schneider in
a previous posting. I went though all of Science for 1971-1979.
(Due to my university library having left out some indexes, I may
not have found everything Schneider published in that journal, but
I think I found most of it.) Schneider did publish a paper in
1971 (with Rasool) contrasting the effects of aerosols versus CO_2
and came up with temperature sensitivity for CO_2 doubling much
lower than other contemporary estimates and also present estimates.
(In light of more current work, I think his analysis was wrong,
and I would be surprised if he didn't readily admit that.)
However, my reading of the paper suggests that this was mostly an
intellectural exercise raising a possibility rather than a convinced
effort to prove a point. (Perhaps others could read that article
differently.) In any case, there are other articles by Schneider
during this time period which indicate that he was far from convinced
that cooling rather than warming was the predominant issue.
Of course, Schneider may have written extensively elsewhere, but
all that anyone has pointed to so far is his 1971 Science article.
I don't think a fair minded person can really support the contention
that Schneider was `preaching' global cooling in the 70s
on the basis of what appeared in Science in that decade.
The whole point of this discussion is the contention that those
scientists who are now predicting global warming were predicting
global cooling in the 70s. If we believe this, we _might_ conclude
that we need not pay any attention to such predictions. (Of course,
we might also consider the possibility that scientific work has
progressed and that people did not understand things as well 20
years ago.) Since the literature on climate contains many threads
about both warming and cooling---e.g., on long time scales, it
is possible that the earth is returning to a glacial period after
an extended interglacial period---it is certainly possible by
careful selection of papers and quotes to `prove' such a contention.
However, in historical analysis (which this is), one is obligated to
consider the whole record and in context. Picking crucial quotes
from original sources can be of some use but only if explained
carefully in the context at the time.
>As far as the claims that "the experts in this field have taken all this
>into account," that smacks of an argument from authority. Perhaps the
>people making these remarks would care to spend a paragraph explaining
>*why* the cited objection is unreasonable, instead of trying to reassure
>sans evidence.
>
I keep referring people to the IPCC Report and Supplement and their
extensive bibliographies. In some cases, the details of the arguments
are based of years of study and basic common assumptions agreed upon
in the field. I have found in my own professional work in mathematics
and in the little I understand about scientific work in other areas
that the first requirement for understanding is an appreciation of
what is relevant and what is not. There is no shortcut to such
knowledge. If we wish to be informed about important areas, we
need to some extent to rely on `experts' in the field. Of course,
we should do the best we can to understand the principles and try
to rely on more than one source. But in the end, we have to
accept what the people who have devoted their lives to these questions
have concluded.
Among other things I do, I administer a network of Sun workstations
in my department. I find it very frustrating when some of my
colleagues, who are very proficient in their areas of expertise,
insist on details of why certain things they want to do with their
computers won't work. This is usually because they have a faulty
conceptual model of what is going on which can only be corrected by
starting with the basics. Since mathematicians tend to be individualists,
they don't like to accept the argument `just do what I tell you', but
often it comes down to that. Of course, there always is an alternative.
Spend several years building up the specialized knowledge I have,
but few of them are willing to do that.
Finally, let me note that climate doesn't have to follow our political
and ideological debates. It is certainly possible that we could have
both warming and cooling in the future resulting from changes in
important global constituents affected by humanity's activities.
Thus, recent data on ice cores in Greenland reported in Nature
suggest the possiblity of rapid shifts in temperatures (at least
regionaly) during the past. It is possible that such shifts could
be brought about in the next 100 years, by changes in ocean circulation
patterns which in turn result from rapid global warming. This possiblity
has been the subject of some speculation in the scientific literature.
However, I hope no one will now claim that anyone is `preaching' that
scenario.
Robert Grumbine
post in question was asserting that a certain paper by Kukla et al in 1986
had shown that all the warming inn the surface temperature record was due
to the urban head island effect.
The paper is:
Kukla, G., J. Gavin, and T. R. Karl, Urban Warming J. Climate and
Applied Meteorology, 25, pp. 1265-1270, 1986.
Their abstract is:
Meteorological stations located in an urban environment in North America
warmed between 1941 and 1980, compared to the countryside, at an average
rate of about 0.12 C per decade. Secular trends of surface air temperature
computed predominately from such station date are likely to have a
serious warm bias.
I have not yet read the paper in detail. But, with respect to the poster
who suggested that the entire warming had been disproven, note:
this paper examined:
_North American Cities_, not the globe
1941-1980, not the entire historic record
Further, since there are data to prove that the bias exists, there are
data to either use instead of the urban data (in the regions specifically
examined in this paper), or to correct the urban bias with. The people
who do compute the global temperature curves are aware of this problem
and _do_ try to correct for it. One example is
Hansen, J. and S. Lebedeff Global trends of measured surface air
temperature J. Geophysical Research, 92, 13,345-13,372, 1987.
So, Kukla et al do show (presuming that they back up their abstract,
which is likely) that blindly using the urban stations will give you
biased results. They do not show that there was no general warming
at global scales over the past 100 years.
Bob Grumbine
rm...@access.digex.net
--
Bob Grumbine
rm...@access.digex.net
formerly rm...@grebyn.com
tony...@news.delphi.com
thinking of a section of Hilary Lawson's documentary, the Greenhouse
Conspiracy, in which Lawson confronts Dr. Schneider, on camera, with a
quote from his writings some years back. When I get a chance to watch it
again I'll follow up with the citation.
Tony Donadio
Len Evens
This is exactly the sort of thing we should avoid. Documentaries produced
by people with a point to prove may be entertaining, but no serious
historian would use something like that as evidence for an assertion.
The title of the documentary, `Greenhouse Conspiracy', suggests a less
that even handed objective investigation of the subject.
At the very least, Mr. Donadio should feel honor bound to find some
contemporary presentation by Schneider or someone sympathetic to him
in which he gets to address this point. If he really wants to know
what Schneider thought at the time, he should go back and read as
much of what Schneider wrote as he can find, and read it with
understanding and in context.
Carl J Lydick
=In article 87...@selway.umt.edu, es...@selway.umt.edu (Tony C. Tweedale) writes:
=>>There is no doubt that some people are fascinated with this problem because
=>>it fits in with their apocalyptic leanings, just as some people dismiss it
=>>because they think an unconstrained market infallibly makes wise decisions.
=
=
=The wisdom of decisions in a free market is not the driving theory in economic
=circles. In as simplistic a manner as can be presented, it is self-determination
=and competition that are key. Bad decisions will lead to poorly managed
=companies that then will be unable to compete and they will go out of business.
=Many successes in the market are not always due to the most brilliant
=decisions. If incentives for production and consumption were removed
=the economy would most certainly deteriorate.
Of course, once you get beyond that extremely simplistic analysis, you start
running into things like externalities, joint products, markets in which the
production process still exhibits increasing returns to scale at the market
quantity, and so forth, and discover that in many cases, the free market
doesn't produce optimal solutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Brian Lovewell SE - Cincinnati Office
In article 29hb3a...@gap.caltech.edu, ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>In article <29297i...@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, love...@feynman.Central.Sun.COM (Brian Lovewell SE - Cincinnati Office) writes:
>=In article 87...@selway.umt.edu, es...@selway.umt.edu (Tony C. Tweedale) writes:
>=>>There is no doubt that some people are fascinated with this problem because
>=>>it fits in with their apocalyptic leanings, just as some people dismiss it
>=>>because they think an unconstrained market infallibly makes wise decisions.
Tony C. Tweedale did not write this...
it came from--> to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
>=
>=
>=The wisdom of decisions in a free market is not the driving theory in economic
>=circles. In as simplistic a manner as can be presented, it is self-determination
>=and competition that are key. Bad decisions will lead to poorly managed
>=companies that then will be unable to compete and they will go out of business.
>=Many successes in the market are not always due to the most brilliant
>=decisions. If incentives for production and consumption were removed
>=the economy would most certainly deteriorate.
>
>Of course, once you get beyond that extremely simplistic analysis, you start
>running into things like externalities, joint products, markets in which the
>production process still exhibits increasing returns to scale at the market
>quantity, and so forth, and discover that in many cases, the free market
>doesn't produce optimal solutions.
Of course...
I would even say that the free market does not even come close to optimal
solutions quite often. However, given the choice, I would opt for a system
where individuals were allowed to make their own choices, based on their
preferences for where they want live, education, vocation, their health care,
etc. and not for a system of strong central authority dictating what your
options would be.
Regards,
Brian Lovewell
David Halliwell
>The phenomenon you refer to is called the "Urban Warming Effect." It is
>a well-known bias in the land-based temperature record, and one which
>incidentally doesn't exist in the Nasa sattelite record (which fails to
>show the global warming trend the land-based record seems to.)
The IPCC report summarizes the comparison between satellite and
land-based records, and the differences are not statistically significant
(although they *are* different).
>The idea is that many of the land-based temperature stations were
>originally located just outside of cities, and as the cities grew to
>surround the stations, they warmed (concrete and asphalt retain heat much
>better than natural vegetation). I have heard of one study (which I haven't
>read) that maintains that when the "urban warming" stations are excluded
>from the American land-based record, the global warming trend *disappears*.
>(Kukla, Gavin, and Karl, Journal of Climate and Applied Meterology, 1986,
>v. 25 is the reference I have).
On the other hand, one commonly-used temperature record is:
Jones et al, 1986. "Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature
variations: 1851-1984", J. Clim. Appl. Met. 25, 161-179.
...and it discusses urbanization effects. (They claim to have removed
"suspect" sites from their analysis.)
David Halliwell
tony...@news.delphi.com (TONY_D...@DELPHI.COM) writes:
Ok, we'll ask the same of you :-) Just a couple of weeks ago someone
posted a quote from Schneider that was of the "if...then" form, rather
than a claim that there *would* be cooling. (I can dig up the post if you
want.) Do you actually have a reference to where Schneider said there
really would be cooling?
As for objections of urban heat island effects altering historical
records, I have posted a journal reference to one of the studies, which
claims that "suspect" stations were removed. I won't elaborate for the
moment, because I have a class reading the paper for discussion, and they
are required to read this group. We will likely post a summary after the
class is finished with it :-)
David Halliwell
I have tried a couple of times to post this without success. Apologies
if anyone sees multiple copies.
tony...@news.delphi.com (TONY_D...@DELPHI.COM) writes:
tony...@news.delphi.com
Documentaries by people with a point to prove?!? Check your premises, Mr.
Evans. Hilary Lawson began working on that documentary *accepting* the
theory of global warming, and intending to do an expose of the threat it
posed to our future. It was only AFTER he began his research and
consistently found what he saw as compelling evidence that the theory was
seriously flawed that he changed his approach.
It is far too easy to simply label anyone who disagrees strongly with the
global warming theory as "someone with an agenda," whose claims should
therefore be disregarded by any serious person (which I most certainly am).
How is your dismissal of Lawson objective, but my accepting his statement
as at least plausible not? And is Steven Schneider any less a person with
a "point to prove?" Whichever side one agrees with on this issue, one
cannot simply resort to labels of bias to discredit one's opponents.
I will dig out the citation and post it later tonight. And if anyone can
point me to a reference in which Dr. Schneider addresses this point, I
would be glad to check it out. I do this kind of research regularly.
Tony Donadio
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
|> l...@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
|> Documentaries by people with a point to prove?!? Check your premises, Mr.
|> Evans. Hilary Lawson began working on that documentary *accepting* the
|> theory of global warming, and intending to do an expose of the threat it
|> posed to our future. It was only AFTER he began his research and
|> consistently found what he saw as compelling evidence that the theory was
|> seriously flawed that he changed his approach.
I see two possibilities: the filmmaker was incompetent and misled by
partisans, or was misrepresenting his original intention by posing as
someone originally believing in the idea.
While there are alarmists aplenty to exagerrate the issue, it is far
outside the bounds of reason to imply that any concern about anthropogenic
greenhouse forcing is unfounded or conspiratorial.
I have little doubt that a film called "Greenhouse Conspiracy" is every
bit as irresponsible as a film called "Greenhouse Doom" would be.
The facts are that the transparency of the atmosphere to the infrared is
being changed significantly by emissions of artificial origin, and that the
transparency of the atmosphere is a controlling variable on the climate
system. If our eyes could detect infrared directly, we would be seeing the
color of the sky slowly changing.
|> It is far too easy to simply label anyone who disagrees strongly with the
|> global warming theory as "someone with an agenda," whose claims should
|> therefore be disregarded by any serious person (which I most certainly am).
|> How is your dismissal of Lawson objective, but my accepting his statement
|> as at least plausible not? And is Steven Schneider any less a person with
|> a "point to prove?" Whichever side one agrees with on this issue, one
|> cannot simply resort to labels of bias to discredit one's opponents.
And how is the title "Greenhouse Conspiracy" anything but an example of
this sort of empty smear-mongering?
Look, no matter what happens, someone is going to be in possession of a lot
of coal mines, and it will be in their interest to discredit theories that
argue very strongly against coal use. In the current environment,
misinformation seems to be considered an honorable profession. (You can make
a lot more money being an expert witness testifyong to the validity of
nonsense than you can actually examining the facts.) Alsmost every serious
environmental issue will have groups on both sides motivated to misrepresent
the information.
If you want to know if a report is fact or fiction, even the usual
jpurnalistic sources you trust have to be abandoned in issues with
scientific content. I tend to line up with, or at least respect, the New
Republic on most issues, but their report on the greenhouse problem was
complete ignorant malarkey.
So, if you don't take my word for it that the New York Times has been
exemplary and literally outstanding in covering this issue, you'll have to
go back either to the primary literature or the quasi-official statement
of the conventional wisdom among climatologists: the IPCC report, which
is full of references back to the primary literature to help you check
their assertions if you are so inclined.
That report is completely incompatible with any conspiracy theory. Climate
scientists believe the equilibrium response to a CO2 doubling is a change
in global mean temperature of between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, with
much larger changes over continetal interiors at middle and high latitudes.
Considering minor greenohuse gases, such a level of forcing is likely
within 40 years if no policy decisions are made to restrain the growth.
The system response has three parts: the air and land surface respond
essentially immediately (within a few weeks), the ocean responds over
decades, and the ice sheets over millenia. (Ice sheet responses are not
included in the equilibrium temperature predictions since they are so,
ahem, glacial.)
Observations are quite compatible with this theory, which would expect a
warming just beginning to emerge from the noise of natural variability.
Note that the perturbation concentrations of greenhouse gases are increasing
exponentially, so that predictions of serious problems in the next few
decades are NOT based on extrapolation. Note also that the ocean's inertia
indicates that the warming we see now is basically that which we had already
committed some decades ago, so even if emissions were so drastically reduced
that concentrations of greenhouse gases suddenly stopped increasing, we
would still expect a few decades of warming.
|> I will dig out the citation and post it later tonight. And if anyone can
|> point me to a reference in which Dr. Schneider addresses this point, I
|> would be glad to check it out. I do this kind of research regularly.
I agree that some climatologists were worried about an imminent ice age
twenty years ago. IN fact, at least one of them (Dr Reid Bryson, emeritus
professor at our department, and self-avowedly more of an archaeologist than
a theorist) still thinks it is more likely than a sudden severe warming. I
would also point out that some of the few climatologists now making a living
poo-poohing the greenhouse effect are on record claiming that CFCs cannot
possibly affect stratospheric ozone.
Nevertheless, we know it can. So we have examples of scientists claiming
that cooling was imminent and others claiming that ozone depletion was
not, on opposite sides of this question, each having made erroneous
statements in the past. Shall we call it a wash, and look at the evidence
instead of attacking the messengers?
We all have our biases and predelictions, and I think we ought to admit
it, or we can't make progress. Some of us are more inclined to worry about
global stability than others. On issues of such import, it is important for
us to think as critically as possible, lest we be deceived by our biases
into behaving irresponsibly. This applies quite symmetrically to both
predelictions.
Just the same, I know enough about the business to be inclined to think
that any report calling itself "Greenhouse Conspiracy" is either dishonest
or incompetent, or perhaps both, and is doubtlessly irresponsible and
misleading, at least in its choice of title.
mt
Michael Tobis
PhD Candidate
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
University of Wisconsin - Madison
these opinions are not necessarily those of the department or the university
Shawn William Miller
|> I would even say that the free market does not even come close to optimal
|> solutions quite often. However, given the choice, I would opt for a system
|> where individuals were allowed to make their own choices, based on their
|> preferences for where they want live, education, vocation, their health care,
|> etc. and not for a system of strong central authority dictating what your
|> options would be.
|>
Where *some* individuals are allowed such things, not all, and in fact,
probably a small minority. Of course, this is getting away from the subject
of this newsgroup, but the free market is only free to people who have fallen
into the right circumstances.
Live Long and Prosper,
Shawn
|===========================================================================|
| Shawn Miller, Graduate Research Assistant and Aspiring Musician |
| E-Mail: sh...@frodo.colorado.edu |
| Phone: (303)-492-8868 (lab) or (303)-492-0488 (grad office) |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research |
| University of Colorado, Boulder CO 80309 |
| Campus Box 431 |
|===========================================================================|
Shawn William Miller
|> l...@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
|>
|> Evans. Hilary Lawson began working on that documentary *accepting* the
|> theory of global warming, and intending to do an expose of the threat it
|> posed to our future. It was only AFTER he began his research and
|> consistently found what he saw as compelling evidence that the theory was
|> seriously flawed that he changed his approach.
|>
Whoa, whoa, whoa............please elaborate on the "serious flaws." It is
my understanding that the debate on global warming is not due to a sudden
discovery of serious flaws, but rather on the question of how do the various
feedbacks and processes in the Earth's climate give and take from one another.
At any rate, I highly doubt that it is possible for someone to have been
entirely on one side of the issue, carried out unbiased research, and ended
up entirely on the other side.
|> It is far too easy to simply label anyone who disagrees strongly with the
|> global warming theory as "someone with an agenda," whose claims should
|> therefore be disregarded by any serious person (which I most certainly am).
|> How is your dismissal of Lawson objective, but my accepting his statement
|> as at least plausible not? And is Steven Schneider any less a person with
|> a "point to prove?" Whichever side one agrees with on this issue, one
|> cannot simply resort to labels of bias to discredit one's opponents.
|>
I agree that labelling is bad and only takes us giant steps backward, but I
also think that it was Lawson's choice to *label* his documentary "The
Greenhouse Conspiracy," and he can't have expected any rational human being
to think the documentary itself was completly unbiased. The very name
draws argument.
Robert Parson
>Documentaries by people with a point to prove?!? Check your premises, Mr.
>Evans. Hilary Lawson began working on that documentary *accepting* the
>theory of global warming, and intending to do an expose of the threat it
>posed to our future. It was only AFTER he began his research and
>consistently found what he saw as compelling evidence that the theory was
>seriously flawed that he changed his approach.
This reminds me of a line that I frequently hear from Creationists:
"I used to believe in Evolutionism (sic), but when I started looking
into the scientific facts I saw that it was seriously flawed..."
It invariably turns out that the person had little understanding of
Evolutionary theory in the first place.
>It is far too easy to simply label anyone who disagrees strongly with the
>global warming theory as "someone with an agenda," whose claims should
>therefore be disregarded by any serious person (which I most certainly am).
>How is your dismissal of Lawson objective, but my accepting his statement
>as at least plausible not? And is Steven Schneider any less a person with
>a "point to prove?" Whichever side one agrees with on this issue, one
>cannot simply resort to labels of bias to discredit one's opponents.
OK then, let's dispense with all the personalities and start examining
the evidence. You brought up the "urban heat island effect", and several
people have answered you. Let's continue along those lines.
Robert