Global warming is happening. That is the scientific judgment
Donald L Ferrt
Headline:
An uphill battle?
Doing nothing a sure path to disaster
By Kevin Trenberth
Sunday, June 30, 2002 - The Bush administration has opted out of the
Kyoto Protocol, with its binding targets for emissions, on the grounds
that it would hurt the economy. It is not so clear that this has to be
so, provided that actions are implemented in the right way and, in
particular, in the right time. However, none of the arguments take
into account the very real costs of not doing anything.
Global warming is happening. That is the scientific judgment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, backed up by a special
report from the National Academy of Sciences. What this means is that
the observed changes in the composition of the atmosphere due to human
activities are now well enough established to have recently caused the
global climate to change outside the realm of natural variability of
the past 10,000 years.
In terms of the observed increase in global mean temperatures of 1.2 F
over the past 100 years, about 0.8 F - and probably by 0.7 F just
since 1970 - is likely caused by increases in greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. Changes in the sun are thought to have contributed to
modest warming in the first half of the 20th century.
There is no longer any argument about whether human activities are
causing global climate change. Instead, it is now about the details,
how much it will amount to in the future, and the impacts and costs.
But many of these arguments seem academic and, of course, they will
remain so until there are proven effects of global warming.
But there is the rub. It is almost impossible to prove that any event
is a consequence of global warming, because climate is made up of the
sum total of weather events. There is always a finite, albeit small,
chance that something weird will happen in the infinite variety of
weather. But, with global warming, the odds of certain kinds of
behavior change.
Global warming arises from increases in greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. The main source of the problem is the observed buildup in
carbon dioxide primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, and so it
is related to our energy usage. Since carbon dioxide has a lifetime of
more than a century in the atmosphere, emissions accumulate and are
spread around the world.
It is truly a global problem. So far, amounts of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere have increased by more than 30 percent, mostly since World
War II. The United States contributes about a quarter of the
emissions, much more than any other country.
Because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it traps the Earth's
radiation and therefore blankets the Earth, causing global heating (or
warming). This causes average global surface temperatures to rise. But
most of the heat at the surface actually goes into evaporating
moisture, creating drying. And once the ground is dry, the temperature
goes up.
And so global warming promotes drying and droughts. And then the
droughts promote heat waves and wildfires. But the moisture that goes
into the atmosphere does not disappear. It gets carried away by winds,
and gathered into storms often hundreds of miles away.
The additional moisture forms fuel for storms, both individual
thunderstorms and major cyclones, with their warm and cold fronts.
Storms are invigorated, and precipitation is heavier than it otherwise
would be, both because the storm is more severe and because there is
more moisture. So the risk of flooding increases. .... (cont)
Author:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
Kevin Trenberth is head of the Climate Analysis Section at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. Trenberth has
been active in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Scientific Assessment. He can be reached at tren...@cgd.ucar.edu, or
at his website, http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
WDA
causing global climate change...."
"... It is almost impossible to prove that any event is a consequence of
global warming...."
Then how do we know the solution is reducing our GNP by 7%?
WDA
end
Ian St. John
"WDA" <ball...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:4p0U8.1062$ka6.1...@news3.news.adelphia.net...
"The moon is a fruit loop."
"The moon is made of green cheese. "
So how do we know that we went to the moon?
Ian St. John
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3d20b6af$1...@audacity.velocet.net...
Note: The above was sarcasm, pointing out that taking two unattributed
statements and then making a third non-sequitor based on them does not
result in a debatable point.
Alastair McDonald
We don't. The solution may be to reduce GNP by 70%, if you want to
prevent the US turning into the American equivalent of the Sahara Desert.
We are not warning you about the 0.6 deg C rise that happened last
century. We are warning you about the 6 deg C rise that will happen
during this century.
Cheers, Alastair.
Norton
cheap fossil fuels is going to dry up (or at least make their use
prohibitively expensive for things like coal fired power plants and
automobiles). So what is the difference if we cut back on burning fossil
fuels now (thus extending their use over a longer time period), or we let
the free market decide on when they run out (thus resulting in them being
depleted sooner). Either way we are going to use them all up at some point
and put all that CO2 into the atmosphere. Either way some alternative is
going to have to be found. Either way, pollution control technology will
continue to improve. Is it more harmful to the earth if they are all used
up sooner or if it takes a few hundred extra years to burn through them?
I for one am very glad Bush isn't over reacting to all the hype about global
warming.
Matt
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.02063...@posting.google.com...
Amos Keppler
> I think most of us agree that at some point the freely flowing supply of
> cheap fossil fuels is going to dry up (or at least make their use
> prohibitively expensive for things like coal fired power plants and
> automobiles). So what is the difference if we cut back on burning fossil
> fuels now (thus extending their use over a longer time period), or we let
> the free market decide on when they run out (thus resulting in them being
> depleted sooner). Either way we are going to use them all up at some point
> and put all that CO2 into the atmosphere. Either way some alternative is
> going to have to be found. Either way, pollution control technology will
> continue to improve. Is it more harmful to the earth if they are all used
> up sooner or if it takes a few hundred extra years to burn through them?
>
> I for one am very glad Bush isn't over reacting to all the hype about global
> warming.
>
One who is certainly not happy about his lack of action is his fellow
repuclican from alaska:
WEEK 26 June 17th to 23rd 2002
REAL LIFE, PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED GLOBAL WARMING
Monday, 17 Jun 2002
In Alaska, some 4,000 miles from Capitol Hill, global warming is neither an
abstraction nor up for debate. It's simply a reality -- and not, generally
speaking, a pleasant one. High water is eating away houses and buildings,
mosquitoes are invading where once they were unheard of, hunters are getting
trapped on breakaway ice, permafrost is no longer permanent (meaning building
foundations are slouching and buckling), and on the Kenai Peninsula, a 4 million
acre spruce forest has been killed by hot-weather-happy beetles in the largest
forest loss ever recorded in North America. Sen. Ted Stevens, a Republican, can
hardly take the party line on climate change when he's witnessed the sagging
roads, crumbling towns, dead forests, and catastrophic fires that are
devastating his home state. Mean temperatures in Alaska have risen by 5 degrees
in summer and 10 degrees in winter since the 1970's, federal officials say, and
climate models predict that temperatures will continue to increase over this
century, by up to 18 degrees.
Editor’s notes: In Antarctica and Greenland evidence continues to mount over
melting glaciers. People in Siberia are experiencing similar overwhelming
problems as in Alaska. Islands in the pacific are “sinking”. Another heat-wave
is ravaging southern Europe… And so on.
Incidents written off as hysteria merely three years ago have become
commonplace.
Amos
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
THE WEEKLY REPORT
dangerous news and articles collected from around the world
http://www.midnight-fire.net/theweeklyreport/theweeklyreport.html
awareness, forums and discussions about PageOne news and facts
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
"Objection is when I say: this doesn't suit me. Resistance is when I make sure
that what doesn't suit me never happens again".
- Ulrike Meinhof, In Politics
Ian St. John
"Alastair McDonald" <abb...@nospam.abbemac.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:afqf8d$29j$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
I think 6 degrees is unsupportable even with the lack of good reduction
strategies. However, that is not the point anyway, IMO.
Two statements are made. Are they true?
1: "...There is no longer any argument about whether human activities are
causing global climate change...."
Answer: Untrue as yet. There is no argument about GW occurring and being
primarily due to anthropogenic GHG emissions.
But climate change?? There are huge debates about every new climate
phenomenon, and as yet no clear consensus of what causes them, much less if
that cause is specifically GW.
2: "... It is almost impossible to prove that any event is a consequence of
global warming...."
What level of 'proof' is needed is the first thing that comes to mind. To be
absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a direct link,
meaning that a warming of X degrees will result in a climate event Y?
No. We are not that definitive about any climate event.
Now, a true and a false statement mean? Nothing. There is no argument here
based on them.
The point is not whether Tropical Storm Alice was due to GW or not. The
question is whether there will be a worsening of climate as a result of a
higher planetary temperature. The answer to THIS question is yes, beyond
ordinaay doubt, mostly due to changes in the hydrological cycle in a warmer
atmposphere.
3: "Then how do we know the solution is reducing our GNP by 7%?"
There is no basis for this statement. Nobody has said that reducing GNP will
reduce GW. It may increase it, if lower cost fuels are substituted for
higher priced natural gas or hydro power, etc. The question is so silly as
to merit a serious sneer in response.
Now, the real question is, given uncertainties in the cost/benefit ratio of
trying to fight a fire, do you fight fires? Why? You cannot predict the
outcome with certainty. You may not even be able to bring the fire into
control, and waste the entire cost. The cost of water, equipment, time, etc
may exceed the value burned. Lives may be lost. All because of a small fire
that may not really exist and if it does may not burn much and if it does
burn a lot, may become too hard to fight, and there may be nothing you can
do about it, so why waste money?
Norton
another, or there is a few years of draught somewhere doesn't mean
increasing the cost of gasoline thru taxes is going to make the temperature
in that area never ever ever change.
Matt
"Amos Keppler" <amosk...@rockymountaineers.com> wrote in message
news:3D20CC1E...@rockymountaineers.com...
> is ravaging southern Europe. And so on.
Amos Keppler
> Just because the temperature goes up in one part of the world and down in
> another, or there is a few years of draught somewhere doesn't mean
> increasing the cost of gasoline thru taxes is going to make the temperature
> in that area never ever ever change.
Excuse me, but what did you just say...
The usual generalities and attempts at diversions, I presume.
You're evidently concerned about taxes.
But a lot of us see the problem in more definite, drastic terms.
The first step towards solving a problem, a threat is to realize its existence.
Many people, including you keep insisting it isn't any or you're coming with
your diversions.
Alaska, you see is just one example of many.
The permafrost is melting in Siberia. CO2 is literally rising from the ground.
WAIS (the west Antarctic Ice Shelf to you unenlightened out there) is melting
fast.
The ice at the top of Mount Everest, the highest elevation in the world is
melting.
Animals are found further north than they've ever been.
The growth season in both Canada and Northern have been increased with at
leaast 11 days (conservative estimate two years ago).
These are merely a few out of thousands upon thousands of alarming news, a
random selection.
======================================================================
The Weekly Report - Archives
http://www.midnight-fire.net/theweeklyreport/archives.html
WEEK 25 June 10th to 16th 2002
WARMING WORLD ON THIN ICE
Rapidly melting glaciers threaten death to millions by making huge areas
uninhabitable
Joanna Walters
Sunday June 9, 2002
The Observer
Ian McNaught-Davis has spent a long time in the mountains. Stocky and affable,
the president of mountaineering's international association, the UIAA, is not
easily fazed. But when he hiked into the glaciers
surrounding the world's highest mountains on a UIAA mission funded by the United
Nations Environment Programme, he was profoundly shocked. For generations of
explorers, environmentalists and local people, these
cold Himalayan valleys, with glaciers that stretch for miles, seemed to
symbolise a kind of cold, brutal permanence. After hiking through zero
visibility and atrocious weather for five days, McNaught-Davis emerged into a
sherpa village surrounded by breathtaking scenery. There he was confronted with
a shocking truth: the glaciers on Everest were melting alarmingly quickly.
McNaught-Davis listened as kinsmen of Nepalese sherpa Tenzing Norgay, who
conquered Everest with Sir Edmund Hillary in 1953, reported a rapid retreat of
the Khumbu glacier from which the two pioneers set out. Sherpas and Buddhist
lamas told him the glacier no longer reached to where Hillary's base camp tents
were pitched: it had melted three miles up the valley. To check their accounts,
McNaught-Davis climbed up to a glacial meltpool at 5,000 metres that 20 years
ago was marked on maps as a series of small ponds.
He found that the ponds had merged into a vast lake more than a mile long. 'It
was huge. I was completely amazed,' he said. 'Further up the glacier you can see
more ponds forming.' And it is happening so quickly
that map makers cannot keep up. Locally, the prospect of these glacial lakes
bursting their banks and obliterating whole villages is frightening. Globally,
McNaught-Davis believes what mountaineers are seeing first is a bellwether for
the climate change affecting us all.
'It is a harbinger, a clue that something terrible is happening. Some
scientists say "It must be other factors", but when you talk to people who have
lived and climbed in these mountains for 60 years they say it
is getting warmer, and the glaciers are shrinking at a sprint.'
Closer to home in the Alps, mountaineers report that rock pillars held on to
their crags by ice for thousands of years are simply crumbling away as the ice
melts. The climbing and skiing resort of Chamonix is under threat in the
longterm, as the peaks around Mont Blanc begin to lose their ice and become more
prone to avalanches.
McNaught-Davis said a recent visit to the Eiger in Switzerland was a shock
too. 'The north face used to have three massive ice fields. The last time I was
there, there was one left, and it was almost gone.'
Glaciers on the African peaks of Kilimanjaro and Mount Kenya are receding
rapidly, and the same is happening in the South American Andes.
It is not only the mountain glaciers that are melting. American Nasa
scientists say the rate at which the huge Greenland ice sheet is melting has
increased by a fifth in the last two decades. This is because more meltwater is
trickling down from the surface of the sheet to the bedrock 1,200 metres below.
The water 'lubricates' the path of the whole sheet, causing it to slip faster
towards the sea. Team member Jay Zwally said such a process had never before
been detected in large ice sheets.
Nasa believes global warming could be to blame - and it is the first time the
scientists (at NASA - editor’s note) have suggested such a link. This pattern is
repeated in all the world's coldest places. Antarctica has been the scene of
huge collapses of ice shelves. In the Arctic, seasonal melting around the North
Pole has led to a suggestion that soon shipping will be able to navigate the
North West Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
All this comes as the world's environment Ministers failed at a meeting in
Bali last week to agree tough action to halt global warming and wipe out
poverty. They now approach the Earth Summit in Johannesburg in August in
disarray and facing accusations of betrayal from environmental groups.
Kate Hampton, international climate campaigner for Friends of the Earth, sees
a direct link between disagreement among Western nations about how to tackle
pollution and the reports of vanishing ice sheets. 'Glaciers are the water
towers of the world - vital for storage. If they are melting fast this has grave
implications for the people who live locally but is also a sign of global
warming.
'Water supplies everywhere are under threat from climate change,' she said.
Water is a vital bargaining chip in any Middle East peace talks. While politics
and religion grab the headlines, shrinking water resources in this dry region
are always a major factor when negotiators draw lines on maps.
Hampton warned that without serious strategies to reverse global warming, the
next few decades would see tens of millions of 'climate refugees' fleeing
regions in Africa and Asia, where extreme drought and floods become the norm.
'What will happen when millions of Bangladeshis from the flood plains are
literally washed out, and end up spilling into poor parts of India?' she said.
In the US scientists are warning that the 'sunshine state' of California could
become the 'desert state'.
The Intergovernmental Conference on Climate Change has already established
that the average temperature on Earth rose by 0.6 C in the twentieth century.
They predict it will be between 1.4 C and 5.8 C warmer by 2100 than it was in
1990. The sea could rise by between nine and 88cms. The higher end of these
forecasts spells an environmental apocalypse. Today it means a few disappointed
ice climbers, but by the end of the century it could mean death for tens of
millions. In Britain the winters are already becoming warmer, with violent
storms and flash floods more frequent. Hampton said the reports of disappearing
Himalayan glaciers confirmed what many scientists and environmentalists had been
saying for a decade.
'This is a serious issue in areas where the people who live there are the
least responsible for causing the problem - industrialised nations are not
getting to grips with this in the face of the most overwhelming evidence,' she
said.
The Kyoto protocol was meant to make the climate targets reached at the Rio
Earth Summit 10 years ago more enforceable. But while the European Union is
preparing to sign up to the protocol this year the US first watered it down,
then walked away from it - holding the world's climate hostage, said Hampton.
Campaigners are worried that what should in effect be an emergency summit to
save the planet in Johannesburg will be at best a farce and at worst a
confirmation of the power of corporate America over the environment - with
President George W. Bush presiding as polluter-in-chief.
Ian McNaught-Davis believes every car-driving Westerner munching fruit flown
in from halfway around the globe must take a share of responsibility for pumping
climate-warming carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
'It's about time we slowed this whole thing down and stopped it. If the US
would get off their arses, maybe someone would sit up and take notice,' he
added.
Editor’s comment: Japanese scientists has already predicted that the
temperature will rise at least 10 degrees Celsius within the next thirty years,
stating that the IPCC numbers are far too conservative, that they fail totally
to take the acceleration process inherit in the system into account, and that
between 70 to 80 percent of all ice on Earth will melt within the mentioned 30
year period.
This will result in at the very least a 50 meter searise.
========================================
hanson
> between 70 to 80 percent of all ice on Earth will
> melt within the mentioned 30 year period.
> This will result in at the very least a 50 meter searise.
> "Objection is when I say: this doesn't suit me.
> Resistance is when I make sure that what
> doesn't suit me never happens again".
[hanson]
Is that quote from the terrorist Meinhof-Baader gang bitch?
Look what it got her :Committed suicide in prison.
You sure honor the memory of strange people, Amos.
Now, Amos,
50 meters you, say?
Great, I am gonna take my GPS, drive inland along the coast,
150 -250 ft above sea-level, and I will buy real estate at this
particular elevation. Cheap, 2nd-3rd tier lots ~ 1-2 mile inland.
These lots will become costly, hi-value, prime ocean front property.
You know, the old adage: Buy low, sell high.
I'll invite you for a great beach vacation stay,
if you are still gonna be around after this rise.......
Thanks for the tip, Amos.
hanson
PS: You know what's so neat about this, Amos?
The long, long time I can take to select and buy the best locations
for the least amount of dough. This is a capitalist's dream, an
investor's heaven, Amos! Get with the program Amos, instead of
whining about it and watch others walk away with the Profits, man!!
Norton
real smart scientists (much smarter than myself) on both sides of the issue
(petition of 17,000 qualified scientists on the side that there is no
convincing evidence of GW compared to petition of 2,600 maybe-not-so
qualified scientists on the side that immediate action is needed to counter
GW). http://www.heartland.org/studies/ieguide.htm#1.
Who's right and who's wrong.....no one knows for sure. The truth is
probably somewhere in the middle and anyone that says they are certain one
way or the other is blowing hot air, and all that hot air just compounds the
problem. I for one will tend to side on the side of good science over
tabloid headlines of regional climate changes that probably have absolutely
nothing to do with GW.
What is known for sure is that the earth's climate will undergo changes all
by itself and mankind cannot stop that from occurring. Even if greenhouse
gas emissions are cut by 100%, the climate will still change over time just
like it always has in the past. So what is the point of sending the economy
farther into the dump and thus taking more money out of my pocket to fix
something that may not be broken in the first place and even on the off
chance that it is broken, no amount of money may be able to fix it. All I
ask is for the decision makers to use common sense and listen to science,
not doomsayers....and I think that's what the Bush administration has done.
If there was a good consensus in the scientific community that found global
warming is a serious problem and needs to be immediately addressed by
spending billions of dollars, I would be on board, and Bush probably would
too.
Matt
"Amos Keppler" <amosk...@rockymountaineers.com> wrote in message
news:3D21115F...@rockymountaineers.com...
Tim Worstall
> Norton wrote:
>
> > Just because the temperature goes up in one part of the world and down in
> > another, or there is a few years of draught somewhere doesn't mean
> > increasing the cost of gasoline thru taxes is going to make the temperature
> > in that area never ever ever change.
>
> Excuse me, but what did you just say...
>
> The usual generalities and attempts at diversions, I presume.
>
> You're evidently concerned about taxes.
>
> But a lot of us see the problem in more definite, drastic terms.
>
> The first step towards solving a problem, a threat is to realize its existence.
> Many people, including you keep insisting it isn't any or you're coming with
> your diversions.
> Alaska, you see is just one example of many.
>
> The permafrost is melting in Siberia. CO2 is literally rising from the ground.
Here you have me confused.
The permafrost is melting.....OK, we´ll assume this is true. How does
this mean that CO2 is literally rising from the ground ? I mean it´s
just water metling right ? And CO2 dissolves ( to some extent ) in
water....
I don´t get it. Can you tell me what I´m missing here ?
This isn´t an attempt to start a shouting match.....I really would
like to try and understand this.
Tim Worstall
> scientists (at NASA - editor’s note) have suggested such a link. This pattern is
> Editor’s comment: Japanese scientists has already predicted that the
Joshua Halpern
Tim Worstall wrote:
> Amos Keppler <amosk...@rockymountaineers.com> wrote
> > The permafrost is melting in Siberia. CO2 is literally
> > rising from the ground.
> Here you have me confused.
> The permafrost is melting.....OK, we´ll assume this is true. How does
> this mean that CO2 is literally rising from the ground ? I mean it´s
> just water metling right ? And CO2 dissolves ( to some extent ) in
> water....
> I don´t get it. Can you tell me what I´m missing here ?
> This isn´t an attempt to start a shouting match.....I really would
> like to try and understand this.
Organic matter trapped in the permafrost can decay much
faster when the icy matrix in which it is trapped melts.
However, the bad scenerio is that vast amounts of
methane will be released if the ground above them
warms.
I think we've discussed the methane hydrate part since
you came in, but the organic decay part is often treated
implicitly.
josh halpern
Lloyd Parker
"Norton" <no...@none.com> wrote:
>Look, I'm not an expert on global warming, but I do know there are
plenty of
>real smart scientists (much smarter than myself) on both sides of the
issue
of years. Try going to the web sites of NASA, NOAA, NAS, ACS, etc.
>
>(petition of 17,000 qualified scientists on the side that there is no
>convincing evidence of GW compared to petition of 2,600 maybe-not-so
>qualified scientists on the side that immediate action is needed to
counter
>GW). http://www.heartland.org/studies/ieguide.htm#1.
That "petition" is a lie and a fraud.
>
>Who's right and who's wrong.....no one knows for sure.
YOU would, if you'd read the scientific literature.
> The truth is
>probably somewhere in the middle and anyone that says they are certain
one
>way or the other is blowing hot air, and all that hot air just
compounds the
>problem. I for one will tend to side on the side of good science over
>tabloid headlines of regional climate changes that probably have
absolutely
>nothing to do with GW.
>
>What is known for sure is that the earth's climate will undergo
changes all
>by itself and mankind cannot stop that from occurring.
But we can keep huge changes from happening in a century instead of a
millenium if it happens naturally.
> Even if greenhouse
>gas emissions are cut by 100%, the climate will still change over time
just
>like it always has in the past.
Perhaps (although there's more and more evidence the earth hasn't been
as hot as it's going to get in 100 years or so, for hundreds of
thousands of years), but the time frame will be drastically different.
> So what is the point of sending the economy
>farther into the dump
Actually, all the new technology that would come would be a boost to
whatever country decides to really make the jump.
> and thus taking more money out of my pocket to fix
>something that may not be broken in the first place
Right-wingers and industry-funded shills said that about CFCs
destroying the ozone layer too.
>and even on the off
>chance that it is broken, no amount of money may be able to fix it.
All I
>ask is for the decision makers to use common sense and listen to
science,
>not doomsayers....and I think that's what the Bush administration has
done.
Actually, why don't you listen to science? It's telling you something
quite different from what, in your ignorance, you think it is.
>
>If there was a good consensus in the scientific community that found
global
>warming is a serious problem and needs to be immediately addressed by
>spending billions of dollars, I would be on board, and Bush probably
would
>too.
Only if his business cronies were convinced they could make a huge
profit in the next quarter from it.
Norton
> of years. Try going to the web sites of NASA, NOAA, NAS, ACS, etc.
>
> >
Good idea...this is direct from NASA website
(http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/):
"On the other hand, there are those, some of whom are scientists, who
believe that global warming will result in little more than warmer winters
and increased plant growth. They point to the flaws in scientists'
measurements, the complexity of the climate, and the uncertainty in the
climate models used to predict climate change. They claim that attempting to
lower greenhouse emissions may do more damage to the world economy and human
society than any amount of global warming. In truth, the future probably
fits somewhere between these two scenarios. But to gain an understanding of
global warming, it is necessary to get to know the science behind the
issue."
"While the general consensus among scientists is that global warming is real
and its overall effects are detrimental, there are still some prominent
scientists who feel that the threat of global warming has been greatly
exaggerated."
This is almost exactly what I had said in my original post....that there are
reputable scientists on both sides of the issue. Is it 50/50, 70/30 or
30/70 doesn't really matter....it certainly isn't 90% to 10% one way or the
other. If the scientists can't come to a concensus, who am I (or you) to
think we know more than they by discounting one entire side of the
arguement. I'm not trying to say GW isn't occuring...I just don't think
there is enough evidence to show drastic policy changes need to be made
right now.
> That "petition" is a lie and a fraud.
>
Yes I've seen the arguement that the signers were duped into signing
something they didn't understand or they based their entire opinion on one
article included with the mailer. A little difficult for me to believe that
one. The other arguement I found was that the names were all made
up.....also a little difficult to believe. If you have any other good
sources of information that show that petition to be a fraud, I'd like to
check them out. Believe it or not I want to know the truth.
Matt
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@NOSPAM.emory.edu> wrote in message
news:afsugq$ln3$3...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
Jerry Okamura
nothing about it. What is the worse case scenario? Now let us assume that
the worst case scenario happens. What would then happen?
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.02063...@posting.google.com...
Ian St. John
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:LYqU8.68187$xy.20...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Let us assume that global warming is a certainty.
Why assume when we have the evidence?
> Let us also assume we do
> nothing about it.
Again, why assume when..
> What is the worse case scenario?
We don't know. Anything we can prove is still subject to an unknown, such as
THC shutdown, methane hydride release, collapse of greenland icesheet (7
meter sea rise ) or WAIS ice sheet collapse (5 meter sea rise), a variable
climate similar to the oscillation we now get between the polar vortexes
causing wild changes in weather over periods of a few weeks, etc, etc. We
only know a few likely scenarios to be certain. No matter what we imagine,
there may be another problem that we haven't even suspected.
> Now let us assume that
> the worst case scenario happens. What would then happen?
The worst case, of course.
Charlie Root
> Let us assume that global warming is a certainty. Let us also assume we do
> nothing about it. What is the worse case scenario? Now let us assume that
> the worst case scenario happens. What would then happen?
Would the tree make a sound if civilization werent there to hear it, kinda
thing?
Thomas Palm
>
> We don't know. Anything we can prove is still subject to an unknown, such as
> THC shutdown, methane hydride release, collapse of greenland icesheet (7
> meter sea rise ) or WAIS ice sheet collapse (5 meter sea rise), a variable
> climate similar to the oscillation we now get between the polar vortexes
> causing wild changes in weather over periods of a few weeks, etc, etc. We
> only know a few likely scenarios to be certain. No matter what we imagine,
> there may be another problem that we haven't even suspected.
>
> > Now let us assume that
> > the worst case scenario happens. What would then happen?
>
> The worst case, of course.
These kind of changes would cause crops to fail, and farmlands to be
flooded. The ensuing famine and large scale migrations destabilizes
the global political scene and lead to a new world war where nations
deliberately try to wipe out as many people as possible to get new
space to live, or to avoid beeing flooded by refugees. Using the
doomsday weapons available in 50 years humanity would then proceed to
wipe itself out in an orgy of nuclear and biological warfare.
Is that enough of a worst case scanario for you?
Scott Douglas
> This is almost exactly what I had said in my original post....that
> there are reputable scientists on both sides of the issue. Is it
> 50/50, 70/30 or 30/70 doesn't really matter....it certainly isn't 90%
> to 10% one way or the other.
Correct, it's more like 98% to 2%. And yes, percentages do matter.
There are still scientists who deny the theory of evolution, still
scientists who research UFO's and still scientists on the take of Tobacco
companies who argue that smoking isn't dangeous.
> If the scientists can't come to a
> concensus, who am I (or you) to think we know more than they by
> discounting one entire side of the arguement.
Yet from the very section you quote we read the following....
"While the general consensus among scientists is that global warming is
real and its overall effects are detrimental, there are still some
prominent scientists who feel that the threat of global warming has been
greatly exaggerated."
So is there consensus? Clearly your own quote that you use to try to claim
that there is no consensus, explicitly states that there is.
But denialists do have a habit of ignoring evidence that doesn't confirm
their perverse view of the world.
> I'm not trying to say
> GW isn't occuring...I just don't think there is enough evidence to
> show drastic policy changes need to be made right now.
Drastic policy changes are not being proposed right now. Only a minor
policy change of reducing emissions to the rates of he early 90's.
But drastic policy changes will be made, and made soon. And they will hurt
more than they need to because they were postponed from earlier dates.
>> That "petition" is a lie and a fraud.
"Norton" <no...@none.com> wrote in
> Yes I've seen the arguement that the signers were duped into signing
> something they didn't understand or they based their entire opinion on
> one article included with the mailer. A little difficult for me to
> believe that one.
Then why did the NAS accuse Singer of committing fraud?
"Norton" <no...@none.com> wrote in
> The other arguement I found was that the names were
> all made up.....also a little difficult to believe.
Different petition. Then please explain why many of the signatories can
not be found? Explain how some were found to be simply fraudulent?
Explain how the signatories were passed off as scientists when in fact the
list contains political flunkies, politicians, industry shills, weather
jockies, and truck drivers.
Lloyd Parker
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Let us assume that global warming is a certainty. Let us also assume
we do
>nothing about it. What is the worse case scenario?
Sea level rises several meters. Billions of people are displaced.
Climate changes -- agricultural regions become too dry, or too hot.
Other areas may become warmer, but a lot don't have the soil or the
infrastructure to take up the slack. Hurricanes and other storms
become more numerous and more violent. Tropical diseases move into
other climates. Wetlands become salty, and we not only lose them as
ecosystems but as purifiers of water. Ecosystems and species of plants
and animals are wiped out, as 100 years is too soon for them to adapt.
Glaciers melt, there's less snowfall, and lots of places (like Los
Angeles) depend on snow for their drinking water.
> Now let us assume that
>the worst case scenario happens. What would then happen?
Huh?
Lloyd Parker
It is, more like 999 to 1, that (1) global warming is occurring and (2)
it's due to human activities.
The debate is over how much, how soon.
>If the scientists can't come to a concensus, who am I (or you) to
>think we know more than they by discounting one entire side of the
>arguement. I'm not trying to say GW isn't occuring...I just don't
think
>there is enough evidence to show drastic policy changes need to be
made
>right now.
>
>
>
>> That "petition" is a lie and a fraud.
>>
>
>Yes I've seen the arguement that the signers were duped into signing
>something they didn't understand or they based their entire opinion on
one
>article included with the mailer. A little difficult for me to
believe that
>one. The other arguement I found was that the names were all made
>up.....also a little difficult to believe. If you have any other good
>sources of information that show that petition to be a fraud, I'd like
to
>check them out. Believe it or not I want to know the truth.
I believe Scientific American did a nice little expose on that
"petition" a few years back.
Josh Morel
> reputable scientists on both sides of the issue. Is it 50/50, 70/30 or
> 30/70 doesn't really matter....it certainly isn't 90% to 10% one way or the
> other.
Well, if you take away all those who work for(or are funded by, or
have interest in, etc) polluting companies or the politicians who
support them then the scientific community is well above 90% in favour
of global warming being a serious problem that is caused by humans.
Scott Douglas
> causing global climate change...."
>
> "... It is almost impossible to prove that any event is a consequence of
> global warming...."
"WDA" <ball...@adelphia.net> wrote in
> Then how do we know the solution is reducing our GNP by 7%?
7% is a figure used by alarmists. The actual figure is negative. There
is benefit in not burning resources that need no be burned.
Scott Douglas
> fuels now (thus extending their use over a longer time period), or we let
> the free market decide on when they run out (thus resulting in them being
> depleted sooner).
Norton is asking what difference would there be if the rate of carbon
entering the atmosphere is lowered.
The difference is clear. When the rate of carbon entering the atmosphere
is lowered below the rate of accumulation then the temperature rise
attributable to the addiitonal CO2 will stop.
It's as simple as that. But apparently simple concepts confuse simple or
dishonest minds.
Scott Douglas
> Just because the temperature goes up in one part of the world and down
> in another, or there is a few years of draught somewhere doesn't mean
> increasing the cost of gasoline thru taxes is going to make the
> temperature in that area never ever ever change.
Exactly correct. When the average global temperature shows no increase it
can't be stated that the globe is warming.
However the global average temperature is observed to be increasing, and
attributed mostly to the gigatonnes of carbon man is pumping into the
atmosphere.
Scott Douglas
> Look, I'm not an expert on global warming, but I do know there are
> plenty of real smart scientists (much smarter than myself) on both
> sides of the issue (petition of 17,000 qualified scientists on the
> side that there is no convincing evidence of GW compared to petition
> of 2,600 maybe-not-so qualified scientists on the side that immediate
> action is needed to counter GW).
> http://www.heartland.org/studies/ieguide.htm#1.
And as you have been told that petition was a fraud.
Why do you continue to perpetuate a fraud Mr. Norton?
Scott Douglas
> Here you have me confused.
> The permafrost is melting.....OK, we´ll assume this is true. How does
> this mean that CO2 is literally rising from the ground ? I mean it´s
> just water metling right ? And CO2 dissolves ( to some extent ) in
> water....
> I don´t get it. Can you tell me what I´m missing here ?
The permafrost is frozen bog. It has a high organic content composed of
frozen lichen and the like. It melts, it rots and in the process releases
Co2 and methane.
Forkboy2
fraud. I've looked around on the internet and found a few websites that
claimed the names on the petition were all made up, or that the researchers
were tricked into signing something they didn't understand but that doesn't
seem very plausible. If it were a fraud I would think there would be a
pretty detailed examination of the petion somewhere explaining exactly why
it is a fraud. I've also seen claims that the 2,600 signers of the other
petition included just one climatoligist. So it seems to go both ways.
Then there are statments such as:
"Over one hundred climate scientists signed the 1996 Leipzig Declaration,
which stated in part, "there does not exist today a general scientific
consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of
carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that
actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming
whatsoever."
Or
"A survey of 36 state climatologists--scientists retained by state
governments to monitor and research climate issues-- conducted in 1997 found
that 58 percent disagreed with the statement, "global warming is for real,"
while only 36 percent agreed. A remarkable 89 percent agreed that "current
science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures
caused only by man-made factors."
Believe it or not I am trying to look at both side of this issue with an
open mind....I am just a very skeptical person. But I would like to find
out what the real story behind these two petitions is.
Matt
"Scott Douglas" <s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9241E2DF...@216.221.81.119...
Roger Coppock
scientific papers indexed by the key phrase "Global Warming,"
as I have, you will find that about 5 years ago the
scientific consensus switched in favor of anthropogenic global
warming. Today, less than 1 in a hundred peer-reviewed
published scientific papers challenge anthropogenic global
warming. Most of the research now deals with the magnitude
of, or the effects of, the problem, not whether the problem
exists.
--- --- --- Roger
--
A man didn't understand how televisions work, and was convinced that
there must be lots of little men inside the box, manipulating images at
high speed. An engineer explained to him about high frequency
modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, about transmitters and
receivers, about amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, about scan lines
moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the
engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the
argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now
understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few
little men in there, aren't there?"
- Douglas Adams, as retold by Richard Dawkins in "Lament for Douglas"
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Joshua Halpern
Forkboy2 wrote:
>
> Please point me to an article or website that shows the petition to be a
> fraud. I've looked around on the internet and found a few websites that
> claimed the names on the petition were all made up, or that the researchers
> were tricked into signing something they didn't understand but that doesn't
> seem very plausible. If it were a fraud I would think there would be a
> pretty detailed examination of the petion somewhere explaining exactly why
> it is a fraud. I've also seen claims that the 2,600 signers of the other
> petition included just one climatoligist. So it seems to go both ways.
>
> Then there are statments such as:
>
> "Over one hundred climate scientists signed the 1996 Leipzig Declaration,
> which stated in part, "there does not exist today a general scientific
> consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of
> carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that
> actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming
> whatsoever."
Google is wonderful, you don't have to write things twice
and you can look stuff up... from an old post of mine:
***********************
Interesting. If you cross-correlate the two lists of signers you find that
of the 80 scientists who signed the Leipzig Declaration, only 19 signed the
OISM petition. Since it appears that the OISM petition was only circulated
in North America, that is 19/53 North Americans signed both documents. or
aqbout 36%.
A real strong endorsement....\
**********************
In another letter.........
btw, this explains the difference between the 80 listed
above as the number of signers and the over a hundred in
your letter
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Well, it turns out that might have been a bit prematures. I
had looked at the list of signatures, but had not done a semi-
serious search. I turned up the information below last night;
Since the letter was marked with a copyright, I will excerpt
the relevant sections which have essentially eliminated my
respect for Singer...
***********************
http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let08.html
A Comment by Christian Jensen Note 1
From: Christian Jensen
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:13:44 +0000
Reply To: c...@dmi.min.dk
To: publ...@naturalscience.com
Subject: Fred Singer's comment on Trenberth's article
How many climate researchers support the
"Leipzig Declaration"?
SNIP....
it prompts scrutiny of the list of over 100
"bone-fide experts" who Singer claims have
signed his so-called Leipzig Declaration
SNIP....
Such an examination has been undertaken by
Danish Broadcasting Company (DR1) journalist,
Xjvind Hesselager (2). In late 1997 he
attempted to contact every signatory (82 at
the time) to the "Leipzig Declaration."
Of 33 European signatories:
there were four he was unable to locate
twelve denied having signed, and of these,
some had not even heard of the "Leipzig Declaration"
many signatories were not qualified in fields
even remotely related to climate research.
They included medical doctors, e.g., H. Metzner;
nuclear scientists, e.g., M.J. Higatsberger; and
one expert on flying insects, i.e., V. Svidersky
some signatories had financial ties to the German
coal industry or the Government of Kuwait (R. Balling and P.
Michaels).
These are hardly reliable authorities on climate research.
Confronted with these facts, Singer removed many from
the list, although not the five mentioned by name above
(Dr. Metzner apparently played a central role in compiling
the list of signatories). Other names were then added to
make a total, today, of more than 100.
Of the present signatories:
twenty-five are TV-meteorologists (here in Denmark,
being a TV-meteorologist does not imply any in-depth
knowledge of climate research)
nine do not appear, from the information provided
in the published list (2), to be involved in relevant
research
fourteen claim the title "Professor," but the list
gives no indication of their academic speciality or
institutional affiliation
forty-two are listed either as an oceanographer,
meteorologist, climatologist, or geophysicist or
as the employee of an institution involved with
climate research. However, in only a minority of cases
is it indicated by the list as currently published
(1) whether these individuals are actually doing
climate research.
SNIP....
Reference
(1) Signatories to the Leipzig Declaration:
http://www.sepp.org/LDsigs.html
(2) A DR1 (Danish Broadcasting Corporation)
report concerning the signatories to
the Leipzig Declaration:
http://www.dr.dk/root/klima/artikler/Bestem/flobby3.htm.
In Danish.
***************************
Josh Halpern
Scott Douglas
> 58 percent disagreed with the statement "global warming is for real,"
Matt, you need to learn how to evaluate your sources.
I found your reference in an on line magazine called Capitalism.com
The article containing the text is entitled
Special Report: Seven Facts About Global Warming - Joseph Bast.
At the end of the article we find the following...
Adapted from The Questionable Science Behind the Global Warming Scare by
Joseph Bast, Heartland Policy Study No. 89 October 30, 1998.
http://www.heartland.org/
Under that I see an anvertisement fot the Ayn Rand Institute, hardly
surprising because the publication Capitalism.com is a publication of the
Ayn Rand Institute.
---
Both the Heartland Institute and the Ayn Rand Institute are funded by
organizations Exxon and Enron whose motivation is to extract the
maximum amount of money from your pocket without conscience and without
care for you or your progeny.
These two organizations are two among several hundred others, like the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, the CATO institute, the Progress in
Freedom Foundation, the Scaif Foundation, the Liberty Institute, etc.
You will find the same cabal of authors regurgitating the same long
disproven propaganda over and over again in the publications of these
criminally deceitful organizations.
These are political organizations, that exist to sponsor a political agenda
rather than promote scientific truth. In fact, these organizations hold
that scientific truth must be oppressed when it doesn't support their tired
political rhetoric.
Consider that the Heritage Foundation wrote glowingly about Enron,
defending the company, claiming that it was acting in the best interest of
the people of California, all the while Enron was breaking the law,
illegally manipulating power prices, and stealing billions from the
California public.
Consider the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) who joined in the game
by regurgitating a claim made by the Greening Earth Society (another
propagand machine funded by the carbon industry) claiming that the reason
for the blackouts in California was not artificial shortages (as was stated
to be the case at the time, and as we now know to be the case), but the
expansion of the internet.
The CEI and the GES were later exposed as liars by scientists from the
Berkely national Science Lab who's opening paragraphs in their response
were as follows....
"In the past year and a half, I have been witness to an extraordinary
event: an analysis based on demonstrably incorrect data and flawed logic
has achieved the status of conventional wisdom, in spite of my and my
colleagues’ best efforts to refute its assertions. The results continue to
be cited by an unsuspecting press, and even by people who ought to know
better.
In May 1999, Mark P. Mills published a report for the Greening Earth
Society (summarized in an article in Forbes Magazine) that attempted to
calculate the "Internet related" portion of electricity use. This report
claimed that electricity use associated with the Internet totaled about 8
percent of all U.S. electricity use in 1998, that the entire “digital
economy” accounted for 13 percent, and that this sector would grow to
consume half of all electricity in the next two decades. Subsequent to the
publication of this report, there was an exchange of technical emails
between Amory Lovins, Joe Romm, Mark Mills, and others
(http://www.rmi.org/images/other/E-MMABLInternet.pdf).
My colleagues and I at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory examined
Mills' calculations of Internet-related electricity use in a technical memo
dated December 9, 1999 (Koomey et al. 1999). We found that Mills
significantly overestimated electricity use, in some cases by more than an
order of magnitude. We adjusted his estimates to reflect measured data and
more accurate assumptions, bringing Mills' overall estimate of
total Internet-related electricity use down by about a factor of eight.
..."
In this very newsgroup we have a member posting here by the name of Andrew
Langer, who was one of the propagand officers for the CEI. Several years
ago, he was caught positing CEI disinformation in this newsgroup in clearly
what was an attempt to dishonestly influence those who come here.
In a nutshell Matt, these organizations exist to lie to you and to the
american public. They are funded by corporate interets who see reduced
government oversite as a means of raping the american people.
You have to ask yourself. Who knows more about science? Dishonest
political propagandists from these right wing propaganda organizations? Or
the worlds scientific community?
It is actually very easy to find out what the scientific community is
thinking on this and other issues. Read the science journals, or in lue of
that read the synopsis of the articles as found on reputable science sites.
nature.com
newscientist.com
sciam.com
unisci.com
So which is it Matt? You going to believe the paid political propagandists
or the scientific community?
Robert Grumbine
Norton <no...@none.com> wrote:
>I think most of us agree that at some point the freely flowing supply of
>cheap fossil fuels is going to dry up (or at least make their use
>prohibitively expensive for things like coal fired power plants and
>automobiles).
There's enough known coal in reserve to take the atmospheric CO2
level to at least 12 times the preindustrial. 'at some point' could
be a rather long time in to the future.
--
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
Lloyd Parker
"Forkboy2" <no...@none.com> wrote:
>Please point me to an article or website that shows the petition to be
a
>fraud.
Scientific American did a piece on it a few years back.
> I've looked around on the internet and found a few websites that
>claimed the names on the petition were all made up, or that the
researchers
>were tricked into signing something they didn't understand but that
doesn't
>seem very plausible. If it were a fraud I would think there would be
a
>pretty detailed examination of the petion somewhere explaining exactly
why
>it is a fraud. I've also seen claims that the 2,600 signers of the
other
>petition included just one climatoligist. So it seems to go both
ways.
>
>Then there are statments such as:
>
>"Over one hundred climate scientists signed the 1996 Leipzig
Declaration,
>which stated in part, "there does not exist today a general scientific
>consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising
levels of
>carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact
that
>actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming
>whatsoever."
I bet the Institute of Creation Research makes similar sweeping claims
about thousands of scientists who don't support evolution.
>
>Or
>
>"A survey of 36 state climatologists--scientists retained by state
>governments to monitor and research climate issues-- conducted in 1997
found
>that 58 percent disagreed with the statement, "global warming is for
real,"
>while only 36 percent agreed. A remarkable 89 percent agreed that
"current
>science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global
temperatures
>caused only by man-made factors."
And of course, we've learned a lot in the last 5 years. This is like
saying, "In 1930, most scientists didn't believe in relativity."
>
>Believe it or not I am trying to look at both side of this issue with
an
>open mind....I am just a very skeptical person. But I would like to
find
>out what the real story behind these two petitions is.
>
>Matt
>
Then get off your duff, go to a college library, and look at some
scientific journals and books!
Steve Schulin
news:<3D25422D...@adnc.com>...
> ... If you look at abstracts of
> scientific papers indexed by the key phrase "Global Warming,"
> as I have, you will find that about 5 years ago the
> scientific consensus switched in favor of anthropogenic global
> warming. Today, less than 1 in a hundred peer-reviewed
> published scientific papers challenge anthropogenic global
> warming. Most of the research now deals with the magnitude
> of, or the effects of, the problem, not whether the problem
> exists.
>
> --- --- --- Roger
>
Chambers and Brain, of the Centre for Environmental Change and
Quaternary Research at the University of Gloucestershire recently
published a paper describing their research into the shifts in climate
journal publications and what those shifts mean [Paradigm shifts in
late-Holocene climatology? The Holocene 12(2):239-249, 1 March 2002].
They come to conclusions that seem quite contrary to yours. Here's the
abstract:
The climatic consequences of major increases in the concentration of
atmospheric carbon dioxide were calculated over 100 years ago, but
only during the last two decades have the effects of human-induced
increases in various atmospheric gas concentrations become a concern
of a wide range of scientists. The near-century delay between the
propounding of the theory and the widespread recognition of the
consequences for climate of continuing human activities implies a
recent shift in either the perspectives or in the interests of
researchers. Here we use citation indices to discern a major shift in
the focus of research into climatic change. Scientific findings in the
1970s and early 1980s are identified as a trigger to the development
of wider scientific concern over human-induced climatic warming, while
the period from 1988 to 1991 at first sight appears to represent a
major paradigm shift. However, it is suggested here that an inferred
change in scientific emphasis was caused primarily by a combination of
(1) new evidence from ocean and ice cores, particularly concerning the
relationship between past atmospheric gas concentrations and climatic
change; (2) the availability and application of new tools, notably a
new generation of General Circulation Models (GCMs); (3) attribution
of human causation for other environmental problems; (4) a changing
science research agenda, driven by political and funding
considerations; and (5) the contemporary recording of apparently
increased 'global' temperatures, which reversed a previously recorded
cooling trend. We caution that the pre-eminence and longevity of the
'global warming' thesis is vulnerable either to meteorological data
that do not fit with model scenarios, or to the rise or resurrection
of other notions on the primary forcing factors in climatic change. To
obtain a clear perspective on late-Holocene climatic change, it will
be necessary to evaluate palaeoclimate data that derive from a wide
range of complementary sources - sedimentological, biological,
archaeological and documentary - and to compare the magnitude, rate
and frequency of past climatic changes implied in those data with
recorded twentieth-century 'global' changes and projected
twenty-first-century scenarios.
Ian St. John
"Steve Schulin" <nucl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fff3fd40.0207...@posting.google.com...
> Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote, in part, in message
> news:<3D25422D...@adnc.com>...
>
> > ... If you look at abstracts of
> > scientific papers indexed by the key phrase "Global Warming,"
> > as I have, you will find that about 5 years ago the
> > scientific consensus switched in favor of anthropogenic global
> > warming. Today, less than 1 in a hundred peer-reviewed
> > published scientific papers challenge anthropogenic global
> > warming. Most of the research now deals with the magnitude
> > of, or the effects of, the problem, not whether the problem
> > exists.
> >
> > --- --- --- Roger
> >
>
> Chambers and Brain, of the Centre for Environmental Change and
> Quaternary Research at the University of Gloucestershire recently
> published a paper describing their research into the shifts in climate
> journal publications and what those shifts mean [Paradigm shifts in
> late-Holocene climatology? The Holocene 12(2):239-249, 1 March 2002].
>
> They come to conclusions that seem quite contrary to yours. Here's the
> abstract:
>
> The climatic consequences of major increases in the concentration of
> atmospheric carbon dioxide were calculated over 100 years ago, but
> only during the last two decades have the effects of human-induced
> increases in various atmospheric gas concentrations become a concern
> of a wide range of scientists.
So the basic idea of CO2 or other GHGs increasing global temperatures has
been around a long time
OTOH, there was no indication that CO2 was not fully sequestered until
measurements were made that indicated a progressive rise and the question
became. If CO2 increase can cause warming, and CO2 levels are increasing, is
there a consequent change in the global temperaure?
Note: Climate consequences? Why are the authors including predictions of
ACC, where Arehennius only calculated the GW?? Why is this given this way?
The issues of GW are totally separate form issues of consequent climate
change.
> The near-century delay
between the
> propounding of the theory and the widespread recognition of the
> consequences for climate of continuing human activities implies a
> recent shift in either the perspectives or in the interests of
> researchers.
No. Arhennius only predicted what IS EXPECTED TO occur in a higher CO2
environment, based on thermodynamics. Interest was spurred by the discovery
that the CO2 levels WERE increasing. Something of a duh... not impressed by
this 'analysis'.
Note: Again emphasising the Arhennius theory in relationship to
'consequences for climate', which have nothing to do with his calculations
of thernal equilibrium.
> Here we use citation indices to discern a major shift
in
> the focus of research into climatic change. Scientific findings in the
> 1970s and early 1980s are identified as a trigger to the development
> of wider scientific concern over human-induced climatic warming, while
> the period from 1988 to 1991 at first sight appears to represent a
> major paradigm shift.
The shift was from one of expecting but being unable to completely confirm
GW to one where the 'signal' was temtatively found, but the attribution ot
GHG emissions was being challenged. This led to later analysis for solar,
aerosol, and other forces. It was the slow process of weeding out the
irrelevant ideas and determining the extent of the effect of the relevant
ones that took time.
> However, it is suggested here that an
inferred
> change in scientific emphasis was caused primarily by a combination of
> (1) new evidence from ocean and ice cores, particularly concerning the
> relationship between past atmospheric gas concentrations and climatic
> change; (2) the availability and application of new tools, notably a
> new generation of General Circulation Models (GCMs); (3) attribution
> of human causation for other environmental problems; (4) a changing
> science research agenda, driven by political and funding
> considerations; and (5) the contemporary recording of apparently
> increased 'global' temperatures, which reversed a previously recorded
> cooling trend.
I fail to see what his 'suggestion' is pointing to. I DO note that this is
'opinion'..
Number 1 is of course just part of the puzzle. There was no direct link
between CO2 levels and temperature in the record, nor could the cause of the
CO2 increase be industrial so it begs the question, which came first, the
temperature change or the CO2 level changes. This is still somewhat
irrelevant to the GW issue.
Number 2: is correct, to the degree that GCMs gave us a tool to study the
one factor, how much warming to expect. The other use of GCMs was to try to
find common and consistent patterns in responses to GW on climate This last,
however, wasn't part of establishing GW.
Number 3: Huh? That change happened in the 60's and 70's with the rise of
the environmental movement and the cities choking in their own smog.
Number 4: The usual complete whooeyy.. More funds were allocated to the
study due to more interest in the consequences and the setting up of
intergovernmental bodies to study the situation. The ideas that it was
*driven* by politics instead of politics being *driven* by concern is the
usual ass backwards logic of the anti-science crowd.
Number 5 is, of course correct, as previously noted. There would be very
little work done on the GW issue if they had *failed* to find a warming.
"the most convincing place for a lie is between two truths". I see that this
has been expanded to include spin doctoring and whooey.
> We caution that the pre-eminence and longevity of the
> 'global warming' thesis is vulnerable either to meteorological data
> that do not fit with model scenarios, or to the rise or resurrection
> of other notions on the primary forcing factors in climatic change.
Science is always vulnerable to new evidence. The lack of such evidence
under intense and well funded scrutiny by some fairly competent scientists
means that a major change in the analysis is only 'theoretical'. Expect it
right after you see a brick building falling upstairs.
>
To
> obtain a clear perspective on late-Holocene climatic change, it will
> be necessary to evaluate palaeoclimate data that derive from a wide
> range of complementary sources - sedimentological, biological,
> archaeological and documentary - and to compare the magnitude, rate
> and frequency of past climatic changes implied in those data with
> recorded twentieth-century 'global' changes and projected
> twenty-first-century scenarios.
Now that is crap. The relevance of paleoclimatology to CO2 driven GW is
non-existent. Nor is the climate of the 55 milllion years ago relevant to an
earth with continents drifted into different positions, ice caps ( a recent
phenomenon ) and continents which break up equatorial currents ( closing of
the gap between North and South America for example. There is not comparable
*recent* change in CO2 levels is there? By recent I am talking about since
the closing of the continents and the buildup of the icecap, i.e. similar
geography to today.
Steve? How many times are you going to post this crap? Should I save this to
cut and paste a response?
Note: They make suggestions, but do not really have a leg to stand on in
science terms. The opinion is generally that the consensus started about
1992, showed up in the 1995 IPCC report and was stregthened by the 2000 IPCC
report which included endorsements from all major science academies, some in
defiance of their own government. As far as I can see, this 'op-ed' piece
has no solid basis in science and what they did include ( Arhennius )
confused his thermodynamics ( GW ) with 'climate change'. Very not
impressive.
Forkboy2
I got the information directly from www.heartland.org, not capitalism.com.
Heartland.org is very up front about where their funding comes from and they
claim about 1/3 is from corporate sponsers. In fact they publish a list of
their corporate sponsers on their website (which does include Exxon, but not
Enron). I don't want to get into a big arguement over which foundation is
spreading the truth and which is spreading propaganda....let's just say they
all have their own opinions. I think we can assume there are propaganda
machines on both sides of the issue. I'm hesitant to believe any of them
entirely, but I must admit to having a predisposition for not believing
doomsayers. I do work in the environmental field and hear exaggerations all
the time on from people speaking on environmental issues they really don't
understand (for example, everyone thinks asbestos is banned)
Nevertheless, I'm still stuck on the petition by the Oregon Institue of
Science and Medicine. They have broken their petition down into a sub-list
of 2,660 Physicist, Geophysicist, Climatologists, Meteorologist,
Oceanographser and Environmental Scientists
(http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm) and another sub-list of over 5,000
Chemistry, Biology and Life Sciencers
(http://www.oism.org/pproject/b_sci.htm). Plus another 10,000 or so
"scientists". There has been several comments in this thread that this
petition is a fraud but no one has shown me why it is a fraud. Someone said
Scientific American did an expose on it, but I searched the Scientific
American website for past articles on Global Warming and couldn't find
anything specific to the petition. OISM also claims to have verified over
95% of the signatures and that the cost of the petition was paid for
entirely by private dontations and did not include any funding from sources
from within the coal, oil, natural gas or related fields
(http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm). If this is all a big lie, I
would think the the pro-GW side would have a detailed examination of the lie
on a website somewhere. I would also think the people whose names appear on
the petition would stand up and speak the truth if they were somehow tricked
into signing it or the petition didn't represent their true opinion on the
subject.
I'm not trying to say GW isn't occuring as I'm no where near qualified to
make such a judgement. What I am trying to find out if there really is a
consesus in the scientific community that the the effects of GW, if left
unchecked, are going to lead to climatalogical disasters on a planetary
scale. The OISM petition would seem to dispute that claim.
Matt
"Scott Douglas" <s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns924241A1C...@216.221.81.119...
Dain-B...@webtv.net
debates like this from outside the debate itself. Stories that have
nothing to do with it and therefore are not leaning one way or the
other. Example: During WW2 a B-17 and four P-38s enroute to England
diverted to Greenland and landed in a few feet of snow. Those airplanes
were recently found under two hundred feet of ice. Global warming is
pure fiction, it is nothing more than an anti-capitalist attack on the
American way of life.
Ian St. John
<Dain-B...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12752-3D2...@storefull-2356.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Global warming is still very much open for debate.
Not to anyone with an understanding of science. The debate among fools,
otoh, may continue..
>
l like to look at
> debates like this from outside the debate itself. Stories that have
> nothing to do with it and therefore are not leaning one way or the
> other.
There is no debate. There is consensus.
> Example: During WW2 a B-17 and four P-38s enroute to England
> diverted to Greenland and landed in a few feet of snow. Those airplanes
> were recently found under two hundred feet of ice.
Hmm. And what has this to do with GW? The accumulation of ice continues in
greenland. This has much to do with precipitation and the thickness of the
ice ( air forced over kilometer high ice sheets cools enough to snow).
Global Warming may have something to do with thinning of the eastern section
( arctic ocean warms increasing temperatures on that side) and general
reduction of the edges. But the depth of accumulation of snow over 50 years
in the central region says nothing.
>
Global warming is
> pure fiction, it is nothing more than an anti-capitalist attack on the
> American way of life.
I think you've mistyped your address Mr. Brain Damage.
Thomas Palm
> Nevertheless, I'm still stuck on the petition by the Oregon Institue of
> Science and Medicine.
Why does it matter that much to you? Petitions are a dime a dozen.
> They have broken their petition down into a sub-list
> of 2,660 Physicist, Geophysicist, Climatologists, Meteorologist,
> Oceanographser and Environmental Scientists
> (http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm) and another sub-list of over 5,000
> Chemistry, Biology and Life Sciencers
> (http://www.oism.org/pproject/b_sci.htm). Plus another 10,000 or so
> "scientists".
Do you have any idea of how many people who might label themself
"scientists"? You could easily get this number of names on a petition
for example denying evolution, if you just wanted to spend enough
money on it.
Try to take a random sample in the list. Pick some people with unusual
names and search for them on the web. If they are scientists they should
almost certainly be found, together with some indication of their field
of expertise. That way you can decide for yourself how relevant they
are.
Even better. Go to a library and look in some scientific journals
such as Nature and Science and see what kind of articles they publish.
The truth in science is not determined by polls, but who has enough
facts to get his ideas published. It didn't matter that lots of
scientists didn't believe Einstein was right at first. He could show
how his theory made sense, they couldn't disprove it.
> There has been several comments in this thread that this
> petition is a fraud but no one has shown me why it is a fraud.
Call it a fraud or not, but it was clearly made to collect as many
signatories using whatever dirty tricks required. It was sent to
_a lot_ of people, by a former president of the NSA including an
article that was formatted to look as if it had been published in
their journal while in reality it is propagandistic junk, not fit
to publish anywhere. (Although supposedly it was eventually published
in the "journal of borderline science".
Of course you will get some people to sign just because they don't
know anything about the subject, but assume that Sietz does and
that the supposed review article gives a fair account of the science.
You will get another bunch to sign because they dislike the Kyoto
treaty for political reasons, regardless of what they think about
the science.
> I'm not trying to say GW isn't occuring as I'm no where near qualified to
> make such a judgement. What I am trying to find out if there really is a
> consesus in the scientific community that the the effects of GW, if left
> unchecked, are going to lead to climatalogical disasters on a planetary
> scale. The OISM petition would seem to dispute that claim.
Scientists doesn't agree on _anything_. They make a living out of
questioning established truths. You want to find people who claim
gravity is a repulsive force, sure, I've met a couple. Does that
mean we don't have consensus on gravity being attractive? If you
want to be strict, we haven't, but usually the term is used to
indicate a large majority.