Comments requested: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
John Miller
paper very interesting:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
by Arthur Robinson et al. (Robinson is the former President and Research
Director of the Linus Pauling Institute).
I'd like to know how much of this paper has been invalidated since its
publication in January 1998.
Thanks in advance,
John.
Robert Grumbine
The copyright is given on the page as 2001. One hopes that 1998 is
the true date.
Much of the paper was invalid or misleading on the day of publication.
As it was published by a political organization by authors at political
institutions, it isn't worth real time from me. If they have something
of scientific merit, they should publish in the scientific literature.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
John Miller
"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
news:9bcdta$ff0$1...@saltmine.radix.net...
> In article <v7hC6.27226$KQ2.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>,
> John Miller <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> >Forgive me if this has been addressed already but I found the following
> >paper very interesting:
> >
> >http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
> >
> As it was published by a political organization by authors at political
> institutions, it isn't worth real time from me. If they have something
> of scientific merit, they should publish in the scientific literature.
Can you demonstrate the political motivation of the OISM. It claims to
conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to
improvements in human life - including biochemistry, diagnostic medicine,
nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging?
Eric Swanson
>
>
>"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
>news:9bcdta$ff0$1...@saltmine.radix.net...
>> In article <v7hC6.27226$KQ2.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>,
>> John Miller <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>> >Forgive me if this has been addressed already but I found the following
>> >paper very interesting:
>> >
>> >http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
>> >
>> Much of the paper was invalid or misleading on the day of publication.
>> As it was published by a political organization by authors at political
>> institutions, it isn't worth real time from me. If they have something
>> of scientific merit, they should publish in the scientific literature.
>
>Can you demonstrate the political motivation of the OISM. It claims to
>conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to
>nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging?
What do these folks have to do with Climate Change research??
Isn't that the paper that was sent out formatted to look like a NAS report
(or what ever). If so, he caught hell for making it look like a peer reviewed
report.
BTW, to begin with, he uses that old MSU data from the period just before
the runup at the beginning of the current solar cycle. In 1998, there was
a big jump in the MSU results giving a positive trend, for what its worth.
Of course, 18 years of data is too short to conclude anything, given the
expected natural variations...
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Ball
wrote:
This is standard think-tank nonsense. After all, if it looks
like a research paper, it must be one...right? When the author's are
unwilling to publish their "evidence" in a peer-reviewed journal,
there is a problem. Warning bells should be going off.
Josh Halpern
First let me point out that Soon and Balunias list their affiliation
as the George Marshall Institute, which at least in Balunias' case
is interesting, as she has an appointment at the Harvard-Smithsonian
Center for Astrophysics. The Marshall Institute is a fairly right
wing think tank. OISM is itself interesting. It's interests
appear to be nutrition (Robinson's expertise), teaching civil defence,
nuclear war survival and home schooling. At one point I managed
to trace some of the board of trustees, and they too were of the
survivalist train of thought
As to the scientific merit of the report, it was, so to speak, DOA.
Here is a set of criticisms that appeared on the net soon after the
petition started to circulate:
Subject: SSI Info-Alert: Caution! Petition Project
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
Status: RO
SNIP....
***************************************
-- The "review article" accompanying the mailing is NOT a
peer-reviewed journal article, despite its apparently
deceptive formatting. Nor is likely that it could be
published in a mainstream science journal due to its
extensive use of selective, false, and misleading material.
-- The "review article" contains all the usual misstatements
about global warming popular with the skeptic community. It
contains, for example,
* An oft-quoted but thoroughly rebutted and discredited
"comparison" of satellite data with "an IPCC" climate model
(in fact, the model was not an IPCC model nor was it
appropriate for such a comparison in the first place).
* The short-term satellite data purporting to show a global
cooling trend since 1979. Not only is this time frame far
too short to be climatically relevant, the data is used
without citing the Geophysical Research Letters article
showing that, when corrected for El Nino and volcanic
activity, the satellite record shows the same warming trend
as the surface record. The same GRL paper shows that longer
term radiosonde data (often cited as confirming the accuracy
of the satellites) shows a warming trend, with or without
correction, consistent with the century long surface
temperature record.
* The myth that solar activity can fully account for the
observed warming trend. Changes in the sun's output can
influence the Earth's climate but the sun is only one
component affecting terrestrial climate. Current scientific
understanding suggests that the sun's influence is less than
one-fifth of the human-related climate influences, such as
emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and sulfate aerosols,
land use changes and ozone depletion.
* The misleading assertion that "as atmospheric CO2
increases, plant growth rates increase." The plant
fertilization effect of elevated CO2 has only been
demonstrated in laboratory conditions when plants have
unlimited access to water and nutrients. The long term
ecosystem effects are unknown. However, changes in
precipitation and temperature related to climate change may
have adverse effects (on soil moisture, disease and insect
infestations) that could negate any gains from CO2
fertilization.
--The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 1995
Second Assessment Report on climate change concluded that
the balance of evidence suggested a human influence in the
global climate system. This conclusion was grounded in the
analysis of over 20,000 articles from the relevant
literature. Hundreds of scientific and technical experts
were involved in preparing the report, and literally
thousands more were engaged to provide objective peer-
review. Where competing views were present, they were
reconciled through peer-review if possible; when consensus
was unachievable, the disagreements were characterized and
the issues for future clarifying research were identified.
Thus, the Second Assessment Report should be seen for what
it is: a massive, policy-neutral review of the current state
of understanding of climate change science.
-- Contrary to the Petition Project's contention, the Kyoto
Protocol is an important beginning to the decades-long
international effort to prevent serious global warming. It
requires industrialized nations to reduce their greenhouse
gas emissions on average by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels
during the first "commitment period" between 2008 and 2012.
It will lead to important initiatives promoting clean energy
and transportation technology both here in the US and
abroad.
-- This is not the first time that Frederick Seitz has been
involved in an effort to undermine the integrity of the
IPCC's conclusions. He was previously involved in falsely
accusing both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
and a member of the climate science community of intentional
deception and violation of procedure.
*** SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ***
-- Scientific resources for accurate information on climate
change:
**The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -
established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization
(WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to
assess the available scientific, technical, and socio-
economic information in the field of climate change.
[http://www.ipcc.ch/ch.ac.jp/titsoc/higuchi-lab/hari/]
The IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers: The Science of Climate
Change" is available direct at
http://www.ipcc.ch/cc95/wg1.htm.oc/higuchi-lab/hari/
**The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) - working
with research institutions to increase the skill of
predictions of seasonal-to-interannual climate fluctuations
and long-term climate change.
[http://www.usgcrp.gov/5/wg1.htm.oc/higuchi-lab/hari/]
**The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research -
the Centre provides up-to-date assessments of both natural
and human-induced climate change
[http://www.meto.gov.uk/sec5/sec5pg1.htmlhi-lab/hari/]
** The Global Hydrology and Climate Center - a joint venture
between government and academia to study the global water
cycle and its effect on climate.
[http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ec5pg1.htmlhi-lab/hari/]
**The MacKenzie Basin Impact Study - a six-year
collaborative research project sponsored by Environment
Canada to investigate a northern high-latitude region
sensitive to climate change.
[http://www.tor.ec.gc.ca/earg/mbis/mackenzie.htmhari/]
**The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - the
primary global-change data and information analysis center
of the U.S. Department of Energy
[http://cdiac.ESD.ORNL.GOV/about/intro.htmle.htmhari/]
Steve Schulin
led to stop at www.ssi.org -- an interesting site (about solar space power
stations and the like). But their E-mail update archives at yahoo required
registering to view, so I moved on to google. Sure enough, a 1998 TWTW
column from Fred Singer's site was near the top of the hitlist for "SSI
Info-Alert" -- and he answered my question as to who wrote it. Here's what
Dr. Singer had to say:
http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/1998/mar16_22.html
The Week That Was, March 16-22, 1998
The other day we received by e-mail a frantic "Info-Alert," cautioning us
about yet another right-wing conspiracy. No, it was not from Hillary, but
from s...@ucsusa.org -- none other than the Union of 'Confused' Scientists,
USA. (Apparently, there are also centers of confusion in Europe and
elsewhere; these things do metastasize rapidly when fertilized with
money.)
And what was the deep, dark scheme they uncovered. Why, a dangerous
Petition Drive addressed to scientists, pointing out the shortcomings of
the conventional climate science being peddled as the basis for the Kyoto
Protocol.
The UCS is a little late. The Petition Drive seems to be going full blast,
with over 10,000 signers, and with more signing up daily. It is
deliciously ironic to watch the UCS squirm. After all, they have made a
profession out of collecting signatures, not always from reputable
scientists, for various harebrained schemes -- from anti-nuclear crusades
to global warming disasters. They seem not to be bothered at all by the
oxymoronity of their causes; after all, nuclear energy releases no CO2 and
is the perfect solution if one were really concerned about greenhouse
warming. But if one has another agenda ....
The last big signature collecting effort we saw was engineered by Dr.
"Climate-Calamity" Jane Lubchenko, who as president of the venerable
American Association for the Advancement of Science managed to hook up the
AAAS with Ozone Action, a Washington-based pressure group. Just before
Kyoto, they proudly presented the White House with 2600 names, with very
few qualified climate scientists amongst them. CSE (Citizens for a Sound
Economy) had a field day, analyzing the weird qualifications of many of
the signers. We happened to notice the huge contribution from the State of
Oregon -- not surprising perhaps, when we found an e-mail letter from Jane
to the deans of Oregon State University suggesting that they do a little
arm-twisting on their faculties and graduate students.
Now it feels good to see the shoe on the other foot and watch all that
foaming at the mouth. The "Info-Alert" complains about the sponsors of the
Petition (which the UCS assumes are the Oregon Institute of Science and
Medicine and the George C. Marshall Institute) and claims to know that the
enclosed scientific summary (by Arthur and Zachary Robinson, Sallie
Baliunas and Willie Soon) has not been peer-reviewed. But the summary
agrees with what Nature tells us -- the actual observations -- unlike the
climate models cited by the IPCC, the UN science advisory group.
The UCS science, such as it is, is pitifully out of date and fully exposed
in their "Alert" and in their highly selective reading list. BTW, they
don't they list Hot Talk, Cold Science? How can we ever take them
seriously?
But never mind, to many politicians the science is already "settled."
Mostly lawyers, they find it so much easier to stipulate the science than
to rely on data from the real world. With this mindset, it's not
surprising to find the White House forcing the federal agencies that fund
the $2-billion-a-year US Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP) to
divert money from real research into what's called "assessment." It is
little more than a giant effort to brainwash the public into accepting the
1997 Kyoto Protocol, and gain grassroots support for the $6.3 billion
welfare program for corporations, the Climate Change Technology Initiative
proposed by the White House.
To shape public opinion, this new "program of national assessment" (can
you guess who thought this up?) focuses federal agency efforts, and money
stolen from climate research, on all sorts of imagined consequences of
hypothetical climate warming. A future warming is taken for granted in
this exercise, and its consequences --surprise, surprise -- are all bad.
The main component of this assessment of the regional consequences of
climate variability and change is a series of regional workshops--18 in
all (!), in different regions of the country. (That零 supposed to produce
pressure on Congress.) An Aspen Global Change Institute meeting of
regional workshop participants was held last July and a National Climate
Forum was held in Washington DC last November, just before Kyoto -- all
part of a costly public relations exercise.
In his address to the Forum, Dr. John Gibbons, science adviser to
President Clinton and director of OSTP, explained "the move from science
toward implications and impacts is a matter of practical necessity." (Yep,
we notice that he has just resigned his job.) Let's not worry about
understanding the physical climate system; we are now required to pay more
attention to "societal needs." "When the USGCRP began in 1989, it was
organized into various scientific disciplines. Now the program is more
goal oriented," admitted Dr. Michael MacCracken, head of the National
Assessment Coordination Office. (We'll bet he had to swallow hard when he
said that.)
By design, the revamped "research" program now devotes resources to
establishing and maintaining a dialogue between global change scientists,
policymakers, and a broad range of stakeholders (how trendy!) that include
farmers, businessmen, insurance industry representatives, and a host of
others whose livelihood might be impacted by climate change. It also
includes representatives from environmental pressure groups whose
livelihood depends on maintaining a state of alarm about global warming.
We don't know where it will all end. Much depends on the oversight and
appropriations committees of Congress. But we'll keep an eye on it and let
you know. But not by next week...
This week's TW2 was compiled by S. Fred Singer. Regular writer Candace
Crandall will return in a few weeks.
[END OF ARTICLE]
In article <3ADA5839...@mail.verizon.net>, Josh Halpern,
vze2...@mail.verizon.net, wrote:
- www.nuclear.com - home of "daily full text in a single file" editions of Congressional Record, Federal Register, and Commerce Business Daily
Josh Halpern
> I wondered about the origin of that SSI Info-Alert you posted. First guess
> led to stop at www.ssi.org -- an interesting site (about solar space power
> stations and the like). But their E-mail update archives at yahoo required
> registering to view, so I moved on to google. Sure enough, a 1998 TWTW
> column from Fred Singer's site was near the top of the hitlist for "SSI
> Info-Alert" -- and he answered my question as to who wrote it. Here's what
> Dr. Singer had to say:
>
> http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/1998/mar16_22.html
I'll cut what you put onto my quote and my quote. But you do note that
Singer's polemic addresses NONE of the substantive points made in
the SSI Infor Alert. BTW, I have a wonderful quote from Singer, in
a book, where he says that changing the structure of the atmosphere
is an inherently dangerous thing to do.
josh halpern
Steve Schulin
wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> > I wondered about the origin of that SSI Info-Alert you posted. First guess
> > led to stop at www.ssi.org -- an interesting site (about solar space power
> > stations and the like). But their E-mail update archives at yahoo required
> > registering to view, so I moved on to google. Sure enough, a 1998 TWTW
> > column from Fred Singer's site was near the top of the hitlist for "SSI
> > Info-Alert" -- and he answered my question as to who wrote it. Here's what
> > Dr. Singer had to say:
> >
> > http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/1998/mar16_22.html
>
> ... But you do note that
> Singer's polemic addresses NONE of the substantive points made in
> the SSI Infor Alert.
I don't note that at all. Did you miss the rather dismissive line "The UCS
science, such as it is, is pitifully out of date and fully exposed in
their 'Alert' and in their highly selective reading list." You say he
addresses NONE. Sounds like he addresses ALL. If you have any doubt he's
also previously discussed the issues pointed out by UCS individually,
providing on-the-record basis for his conclusions, feel welcome to use his
freely accessible, full-text-searchable, online archives.
> BTW, I have a wonderful quote from Singer, in
> a book, where he says that changing the structure of the atmosphere
> is an inherently dangerous thing to do.
When it comes to planetary-scale climate insights, Fred Singer is a
notable quotable greybeard, for sure.
Josh Halpern
Steve Schulin wrote:
> In article <3ADCEEEE...@mail.verizon.net>, vze2...@mail.verizon.net
> wrote:
>
> > Steve Schulin wrote:
> > > I wondered about the origin of that SSI Info-Alert you posted. First guess
> > > led to stop at www.ssi.org -- an interesting site (about solar space power
> > > stations and the like). But their E-mail update archives at yahoo required
> > > registering to view, so I moved on to google. Sure enough, a 1998 TWTW
> > > column from Fred Singer's site was near the top of the hitlist for "SSI
> > > Info-Alert" -- and he answered my question as to who wrote it. Here's what
> > > Dr. Singer had to say:
> > > http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/1998/mar16_22.html
> > ... But you do note that
> > Singer's polemic addresses NONE of the substantive points made in
> > the SSI Infor Alert.
>
> I don't note that at all. Did you miss the rather dismissive line "The UCS
> science, such as it is, is pitifully out of date and fully exposed in
> their 'Alert' and in their highly selective reading list." You say he
> addresses NONE. Sounds like he addresses ALL.
Ah yes, the magesterial wave of the great man's arm. C'mon,
there were specific objections raised by SSI, they didn't simply
wave their arms and say the OISM polemic was crap. They
pointed out some of the more serious and specific reasons
why the OISM polemic was crap.
> If you have any doubt he's
> also previously discussed the issues pointed out by UCS individually,
> providing on-the-record basis for his conclusions, feel welcome to use his
> freely accessible, full-text-searchable, online archives.
Piffle. Why don't you find them and post them, if they exist.
> > BTW, I have a wonderful quote from Singer, in
> > a book, where he says that changing the structure of the atmosphere
> > is an inherently dangerous thing to do.
>
> When it comes to planetary-scale climate insights, Fred Singer is a
> notable quotable greybeard, for sure.
Yes, he also was quite in favor of climate modeling, even in the 1970s
when it was not very good.
josh halpern
Steve Schulin
wrote:
Oh, you want to shift your argument? Suit yourself.
>
> > If you have any doubt he's
> > also previously discussed the issues pointed out by UCS individually,
> > providing on-the-record basis for his conclusions, feel welcome to use his
> > freely accessible, full-text-searchable, online archives.
>
> Piffle. Why don't you find them and post them, if they exist.
Not so much piffle, more like anticipatory of your shift. Tell you what.
Pick any two of the UCS issues -- you search sepp.org for coverage of one
and I'll do same for other.
>
> > > BTW, I have a wonderful quote from Singer, in
> > > a book, where he says that changing the structure of the atmosphere
> > > is an inherently dangerous thing to do.
> >
> > When it comes to planetary-scale climate insights, Fred Singer is a
> > notable quotable greybeard, for sure.
>
> Yes, he also was quite in favor of climate modeling, even in the 1970s
> when it was not very good.
It's still not good enough to serve as basis for the very expensive remedy
proposed by the alarmists.
>
> josh halpern
Josh Halpern
Steve Schulin wrote:
> In article <3ADE4EC4...@mail.verizon.net>, vze2...@mail.verizon.net
> > Steve Schulin wrote:
> > > In article <3ADCEEEE...@mail.verizon.net>, vze2...@mail.verizon.net
> > > > Steve Schulin wrote:
> > > > > I wondered about the origin of that SSI Info-Alert you posted.
> > > > > First guess led to stop at www.ssi.org -- an interesting site
> > > > >(about solar space power stations and the like). But their E-mail
> > > > > update archives at yahoo required registering to view, so I moved
> > > > > on to google. Sure enough, a 1998 TWTW column from Fred
> > > > > Singer's site was near the top of the hitlist for "SSI Info-Alert"
> > > > > -- and he answered my question as to who wrote it. Here's what
> > > > > Dr. Singer had to say:
> > > > > http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/1998/mar16_22.html
> > > > ... But you do note that
> > > > Singer's polemic addresses NONE of the substantive points made in
> > > > the SSI Infor Alert.
> > >
> > > I don't note that at all. Did you miss the rather dismissive line "The UCS
> > > science, such as it is, is pitifully out of date and fully exposed in
> > > their 'Alert' and in their highly selective reading list." You say he
> > > addresses NONE. Sounds like he addresses ALL.
> > Ah yes, the magesterial wave of the great man's arm. C'mon,
> > there were specific objections raised by SSI, they didn't simply
> > wave their arms and say the OISM polemic was crap. They
> > pointed out some of the more serious and specific reasons
> > why the OISM polemic was crap.
>
> Oh, you want to shift your argument? Suit yourself.
No, I want to know what I asked in the first place and I
shall quote again: What are your and Singer's responses to the
following points.
***********************************
************************************
I set out a small set of specific objections. I could
go through the OISM paper and present a detailed list several
pages long. Even from this short list you did not answer
any objection and simply attempted to waive them away. Then
you say that I was trying to change the subject.
> > > If you have any doubt he's
> > > also previously discussed the issues pointed out by UCS individually,
> > > providing on-the-record basis for his conclusions, feel welcome to use his
> > > freely accessible, full-text-searchable, online archives.
> > Piffle. Why don't you find them and post them, if they exist.
>
> Not so much piffle, more like anticipatory of your shift. Tell you what.
> Pick any two of the UCS issues -- you search sepp.org for coverage of one
> and I'll do same for other.
I'll take the one about how solar forcing can explain all of the
observed warming. In fact, Soon and Baliunas in a 1995
Astrophysical Journal (Reference 10 in the OISM polemic,
Baliunas, S. and Soon, W. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 450, 896-901)
showed that at best about half of the forcing could be attributed to
solar forcing. The balance they attribute to solar forcing. While
the Baliunas and Soon ApJ model has other flaws, it is shocking
to see how the same authors twist their own words in the OISM
document. There, they claim that there has been no increase in
global temperature based on greenhouse forcing.
Why don't you tell us about the MSU satellite record. Oh, BTW,
there have been some quite useful discussions on that one in this
group in the past year, and we have some real experts on
microwave sounders here. Since the MSU record is the
rock upon which most of the OISM paper rests, why don't
you tell us about how precise and accurate that record is/was
with reference to several re-evaluations of that record, it's
short length, calibration between multiple satellites, etc.
> > > > BTW, I have a wonderful quote from Singer, in
> > > > a book, where he says that changing the structure of the atmosphere
> > > > is an inherently dangerous thing to do.
> > > When it comes to planetary-scale climate insights, Fred Singer is a
> > > notable quotable greybeard, for sure.
> > Yes, he also was quite in favor of climate modeling, even in the 1970s
> > when it was not very good.
Well here is a bit from Uncle Fred"
"We can now turn to the second question and ask whether changes in
climate are necessarily bad. Since throughout history, climate changes
have been the rule rather than the exception, and since the biosphere
has survived and evolved, one might be tempted to make light of those
who decry a warming of the climate, while others worry about bringing
bact the ice ages. I am persuatded to think that ANY climate change
is bad because of the investiments and adaptations that have been made
by human beings and all of the things that supprot human existence on
this globe> Even minor fluctuations of climate could change the distribution
of fish (the cod has moved further north in the last few decades from
Iceland to Central Greenland), upset agriculture, (by forcing it onto soils
that are not suitable) and inundate costal cities (by rising sea levels). Such
changes could occur at a faster rate perhaps than human society can evolve."
> It's still not good enough to serve as basis for the very expensive remedy
> proposed by the alarmists.
Ah yes, very expensive, but not nearly as expensive as not
taking any action.
josh halpern