PDA

View Full Version : Trickery - stifle scientific evidence on Climate-Change ?



Pages : [1] 2

Launch window
2004-Oct-27, 10:48 PM
Our administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said

:evil:


Quote :

"In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.

Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming.

Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that "fit predetermined, inflexible positions." Evidence that would raise concerns about the dangers of climate change is often dismissed as not being of sufficient interest to the public.

"This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster."

:x

Hansen said the scientific community generally agrees that temperatures on Earth are rising because of the greenhouse effect — emissions of carbon dioxide and other materials into the atmosphere that trap heat.

These rising temperatures, scientists believe, could cause sea levels to rise and trigger severe environmental consequences, he said.

Hansen said such warnings are consistently suppressed, while studies that cast doubt on such interpretations receive favorable treatment from the administration.

He also said reports that outline potential dangers of global warming are edited to make the problem appear less serious. "This process is in direct opposition to the most fundamental precepts of science," he said.

:(


read the full report on space dot com

Launch window
2004-Oct-27, 11:15 PM
the scotsman and dailystar also have a bit on it

'Suppressing Threat of Global Warming'


To appreciate how deep the skepticism of the scientific community is towards the current administration, one only need look at the world's two most prestigious science journals, Nature, an English peer-review journal, and Science, the American equivalent. Along with scientific reports, they offer science based opinion and news pieces. As such, not only does the science in these journals get wide readership but so too do the opinions, particularly on the relationship between politics and science. With regards to the current administration, both these journals have repeatedly expressed concern over its overt political influence on science.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development confirms the state of climate change when it says: "The frequency and impacts of natural disasters are on the rise, driven in part by an unpredictably changing climate. The poor are the most threatened by these catastrophes and the least equipped to recover."

It was not that the world was not aware of the potential threat to our security stemming from this phenomenon. Pursuant to the UN Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol was devised in order to address the harmful effects of global warming. More than 180 nations of the world had agreed to subscribe to the protocol in 1997 in Kyoto, but, until just recently, the protocol had not received the minimum 55 states' ratification that would make the it operative.


Russia, by ratifying the protocol has become the fifty-fifth nation accounting for at least 55 percent of developed country emissions, the minimum required to allow Kyoto's entry into force. By doing so it has infused life into what many had given up as a moribund agreement. With Russian ratification, the second threshold has now been met. Interestingly, the US alone accounts for most of the global GHG emissions
and interstingly again the protocol has not been ratified by the US, which disassociated from it in March 2001 when the new administration decided to pull out, ostensibly on the grounds of enlightened national self-interest, but which, according to some, was motivated primarily by the current leaders compulsions to preserve the interest of the big US corporate bodies that are the biggest contributors to his party and also to global warming. One wonders how much will the global community be able to achieve without the active participation of the single largest source of the threat, the US
One of the top NASA Nasa scientists, Hansen has spoken out against the party policy. Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that “fit predetermined, inflexible positions.” He also said reports that outline potential dangers of global warming are edited to make the problem appear less serious. “This process is in direct opposition to the most fundamental precepts of science,” he said.

Evan
2004-Oct-27, 11:17 PM
Launch window,

Do you have anything to say yourself?

Wolverine
2004-Oct-27, 11:22 PM
As per the FAQ (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/faq.php#0), it's best to just provide a URL to the article(s) rather than paste large segments of copyrighted text.

Launch window
2004-Oct-27, 11:49 PM
Thanks Wolverine from now on I'll put in the URL's

as to what I think, it's terrible. I don't think any party either Republican or Democrat should be allowed go ahead in Suppressing our Scientists and their real information and twist them for political means and to keep the public uninformed.

The skepticism of the scientific community might be very correct, I look forward to hearing more on this news item

Van Rijn
2004-Oct-28, 01:21 AM
Unfortunately, many scientific issues are also intensely political. Without getting into details because of board limits, I'll just note that I have agreed with both this administration and the prior one on their position on some scientific issues, and disagreed with both on others. Given that some of these subjects are extremely complex and different groups have their own agendas, this sort of thing is a fact of life.

In this case, there are definitely major factions on both sides of the global warming debate that I don't trust very much. I know what I would do, but it is also a political issue, so I don't see much chance of it happening:

I'd make a major push to get rid of fossil power plants and move to a nuclear energy base. Aside from the CO2, there would be a lot less of other junk in the ground and in the air, later I'd start phasing out hydrocarbons for transportation. Of course, most of the folks that are biggest on Global Warming are against nuclear power, so good luck. Frankly, I'm not sure how much the climate would improve, but I'd sure like to get away from dirty fossil fuels.

ChaosInc
2004-Oct-28, 02:12 AM
It seems to me that this topic is basically an opinion piece about politics and policy and not necessarily about the science behind the assertions. But, before this thread gets locked or at least moved, I have a few comments about the artcle referenced: I assume that Mr. Hansen is a climatologist, or at least directs the activities of similarly qualified individuals? What if the "predetermined, inflexible positions." are positions that the results must be backed up by sound scientific data and reasoning applied to that data?

The statement that the "the US alone accounts for most of the global GHG emissions" is, I am pretty sure, not true. I am sure that the US is the single largest producer of GHG emissions, but we don't produce 50%+. If you have data to back up that claim, I will defer.

(edit for bad english)

Evan
2004-Oct-28, 04:03 AM
The USA is by far the largest producer of GHG (as of 2000) but not 50%. See link below. It shows the US as producing around 20%. Scroll down to global emissions.

With the exploding industrial growth in China this is no longer accurate.


http://newsroom.wri.org/mediakits_text.cfm?ContentID=2864

Makgraf
2004-Oct-28, 04:58 AM
Interestingly, the US alone accounts for most of the global GHG emissions
and interstingly again the protocol has not been ratified by the US, which disassociated from it in March 2001 when the new administration decided to pull out, ostensibly on the grounds of enlightened national self-interest, but which, according to some, was motivated primarily by the current leaders compulsions to preserve the interest of the big US corporate bodies that are the biggest contributors to his party and also to global warming. One wonders how much will the global community be able to achieve without the active participation of the single largest source of the threat, the US
Well first of all Kyoto was defeated 95-0 in the Senate. The Bush Administration was more vocal, but to all extents and purposes it was dead in the US before they moved in.

It was always my understanding that the vast majority (something like 80%?) of all greenhouse gas emmissions were produced by cars. The cars are built by corporations but pretty much most things are, so saying that "corporate bodies" are the "biggest contributors" to "global warming" seems a little misleading.

Maybe the Bush Administration believes that ecologic progress comes from economic progess. The environment is a luxury just like any other good, that needs money to help pay for it. An example, a hybrid car is more expensive than a normal car (although if gas prices continue upwards...) so it costs extra money to buy. If you don't have that money, you have to buy the other car. Same with the economy, the cost Kyoto would impose on it would hurt ecologically friendly products and new technological developments.

Given that vast swathes of the world are exempted from Kyoto how is the world community actually going to "achieve" anything anyway on Kyoto? China is like a vacume for raw materials right now to feed its expanding industry and it'll keep on producing more and more emissions.

The US should do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I think Kerry's got some good ideas on that. But Kyoto's a bad treaty and no one, Democrat or Republican, is going to be able to get it ratified.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2004-Nov-10, 11:53 PM
not much will change , GW is holding fast to his rejection of curbs on greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming, despite a fresh report from 300 scientists in the United States and seven other nations that shows Arctic temperatures are rapidly rising to new highs. This week, a four-year study of the Arctic is showing that region is warming rapidly, affecting global climates
From NASA photos the net loss of ice was estimated to be 51 cubic kilometers a year, but could be even higher now. The area know as the Arctic Perennial Sea Ice could be gone soon, vanish by the end of this Century. NASA study finds that perennial sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster than previously thought -- at a rate of 9 percent per decade. Ice reflects light from the sun.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/arctic_temp_trend.jpgAs polar ice caps melt, less sunlight gets reflected into space. It is instead absorbed into the oceans and land, raising the overall temperature, and fueling further melting. Josefino Comiso has been working in NASA to check this out, the Arctic Ocean appears to be opeining up off eastern Siberia and northern Alaska.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/52538main_np_19990101.jpe
Nature reported a substantial reduction in the area of Antartic sea ice during winter. A 3 km long ice core from the Antartic, gives the climate history of 740,000 years of our Earth, the report is bad we haven't had CO2 levels as high as they are now for 440,000 years. The Antarcticis not warming a whole lot however like Greenland was slow to change this is in line with the predictions of most climate models, there are areas of the Antarctic are warming rapidly, notably the Wordie Ice Shelf and the northern part of the Larsen Ice Shelf. The US National Snow and Ice Data Center has collated all the available small mountain glacier mass-balance data. Their findings show that, not only are these glaciers melting, but the rate of melting is accelerating. The joint NASA and United States Geological Survey study has revealed that "The great majority of the world’s glaciers appear to be declining at rates equal to or greater than long-established trends". Glaciers on Mt. Kenya and Kilimanjaro have lost over 60% of their area in the last century and accelerated retreat has been reported for the Peruvian Andes Hastenrath and Greischar have done some reports and Mosley-Thompson have recent findings. You can find the news report on on the tropical and sub-tropical glaciers of Africa and South America by an English news paper here
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,440211,00.html
The glaciers of Mount Kilimanjaro in east Africa and the Andes of Peru are melting so fast that they could disappear within 10 to 20 years.
The news follows other warnings that the Arctic ice field is both shrinking in area and thinning in depth. A glacier in Antarctica has also retreated dramatically in the past decade.

John Kierein
2004-Nov-11, 12:01 AM
How do we know that arctic warming isn't due to the lessening tilt of the axis of the earth that is causing the arctic and antarctic circles to shrink in diameter? It seems the arctic regions are warming much faster than the earth in general, which would be the expectation from a shrinking arctic region. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eischao.html

sarongsong
2004-Nov-11, 07:07 AM
... What if the "predetermined, inflexible positions." are positions that the results must be backed up by sound scientific data and reasoning applied to that data?
This administration has co-opted the term "sound science" to mean "their science" in these matters, over the preferred "good science" term.
Also, 35% of the Environmental Protection Agency's staff is eligible to retire in the next four years, allowing current Administrator Leavitt "...to remake from the inside out the agency that takes the lead in enforcing air and water pollution and the cleanup of toxic dumps..."
http://tinyurl.com/62e3y
Follow the money these next four years, especially.

Meteora
2004-Nov-11, 08:26 AM
How do we know that arctic warming isn't due to the lessening tilt of the axis of the earth that is causing the arctic and antarctic circles to shrink in diameter? It seems the arctic regions are warming much faster than the earth in general, which would be the expectation from a shrinking arctic region. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eischao.html

It doesn't seem likely that such a small change would cause that much difference in the polar climates, especially considering that both poles are showing warming. Alterations in radiation patterns (such as those caused by altering the composition of the atmosphere) seem much more likely to have the described effects.

John Kierein
2004-Nov-11, 12:54 PM
You obviously didn't read the whole article. It says:

"By the same token, the Arctic Circle and the Antarctic Circle are currently moving poleward at the same rate. The world's temperate zone is expanding at the expense of the tropical and Arctic zones at the rate of some 1500 km2 per year! This is the Milankovitch cycle happening right before our eyes. "

This is direct measurement of the sun's elevation, not theory.

The changing tilt of the earth affects the amount of sun hitting both poles!

Glom
2004-Nov-11, 01:18 PM
Wasn't James Hansen the stooge of Al Gore? And didn't he retract what he originally said a few years ago?

And why is it that statements about suppression of science in favour of AAGW is splattered across the headlines but there is hardly a murmour about Sir David 'Lysenko' King trying to censor Russian scientists who criticise AAGW?


Hansen said the scientific community generally agrees that temperatures on Earth are rising because of the greenhouse effect — emissions of carbon dioxide and other materials into the atmosphere that trap heat.

Very clever. Yes, temperatures are increased because of the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide and other materials trap heat. All of that is true. It is interesting how they use a simple statement about how the Greenhouse effect works to imply AAGW despite no actual implication from the phrase.

Diamond
2004-Nov-11, 05:50 PM
not much will change , GW is holding fast to his rejection of curbs on greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming, despite a fresh report from 300 scientists in the United States and seven other nations that shows Arctic temperatures are rapidly rising to new highs.

Actually they didn't. They reported that ice was melting "twice as fast as expected", an expression which means precisely nothing. What they didn't say was that Arctic temperatures were not as high as they were in 1940.


This week, a four-year study of the Arctic is showing that region is warming rapidly, affecting global climates
From NASA photos the net loss of ice was estimated to be 51 cubic kilometers a year, but could be even higher now. The area know as the Arctic Perennial Sea Ice could be gone soon, vanish by the end of this Century. NASA study finds that perennial sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster than previously thought -- at a rate of 9 percent per decade. Ice reflects light from the sun.

Over four years? Is this meant to be a climate study? By the way the cliche "worse than previously thought" is sooo overused. Time to find another meaningless phrase to scare the public with.


http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/arctic_temp_trend.jpgAs polar ice caps melt, less sunlight gets reflected into space. It is instead absorbed into the oceans and land, raising the overall temperature, and fueling further melting. Josefino Comiso has been working in NASA to check this out, the Arctic Ocean appears to be opeining up off eastern Siberia and northern Alaska.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/52538main_np_19990101.jpe

Last year neither the NorthWest nor NorthEast passages opened at all, the first time in 50 years this has happened.


Nature reported a substantial reduction in the area of Antartic sea ice during winter. A 3 km long ice core from the Antartic, gives the climate history of 740,000 years of our Earth, the report is bad we haven't had CO2 levels as high as they are now for 440,000 years.

Except that the ice cores are depleted for carbon dioxide and spurious corrections are made to the results to eliminate high readings (some 40%) which give values for CO2 greater than the modern value.

Since they already know that CO2 wasn't as high in the past, why do they go to the trouble of measuring it and throwing data away to prove what they already know?

For more fun and games with ice cores, see a real scientist about them:
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm


The Antarctic is not warming

...in complete defiance of global warming models which says it should rapidly warm...


a whole lot however like Greenland was slow to change this is in line with the predictions of most climate models, there are areas of the Antarctic are warming rapidly, notably the Wordie Ice Shelf and the northern part of the Larsen Ice Shelf.

Reality check: 98% of Antarctica is actually cooling except for the tiny bit of the Antarctic Peninsula which is not within the Antarctic Circle and most exposed to ocean currents, which is warming. The West Anatarctic Ice Sheet is actually gaining mass - which means that it must be safely ignored while we worry about the Larsen Ice Shelf...


The US National Snow and Ice Data Center has collated all the available small mountain glacier mass-balance data. Their findings show that, not only are these glaciers melting, but the rate of melting is accelerating. The joint NASA and United States Geological Survey study has revealed that "The great majority of the world’s glaciers appear to be declining at rates equal to or greater than long-established trends". Glaciers on Mt. Kenya and Kilimanjaro have lost over 60% of their area in the last century and accelerated retreat has been reported for the Peruvian Andes Hastenrath and Greischar have done some reports and Mosley-Thompson have recent findings. You can find the news report on on the tropical and sub-tropical glaciers of Africa and South America by an English news paper here
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,440211,00.html
The glaciers of Mount Kilimanjaro in east Africa and the Andes of Peru are melting so fast that they could disappear within 10 to 20 years.

All of these glaciers have been retreating since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 17th Century, more than a hundred years before the dread Industrial Revolution.


The news follows other warnings that the Arctic ice field is both shrinking in area and thinning in depth.

But the temperatures are not rising in the Arctic - could it be that the Arctic ice thinning is a result of the release of heat accumulated before 1940?


A glacier in Antarctica has also retreated dramatically in the past decade.

Name that glacier. Let me guess - its right at the top of the Antarctic Peninsula :roll:

Demigrog
2004-Nov-11, 06:02 PM
Has anyone ever seen a reference to a specific paper that has been "suppressed"? I have not, and I distrust anyone who makes a claim of political supression of science without an actual example.

Glom
2004-Nov-11, 07:11 PM
Ah, here's (http://www.co2science.org/edit/v3_edit/v3n26edit.htm) an example. It was the one I was thinking of but it shows that Hansen didn't remain as steadfast to AAGW as Gore.

Here's (http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=177) another.

dgruss23
2004-Nov-11, 10:07 PM
Has anyone ever seen a reference to a specific paper that has been "suppressed"?

No! They've been suppressed! Their absence is clear evidence of the suppression. :lol:

pghnative
2004-Nov-11, 10:16 PM
Has anyone ever seen a reference to a specific paper that has been "suppressed"? I have not, and I distrust anyone who makes a claim of political supression of science without an actual example.I think that when someone makes this claim, they really mean that science is being suppressed when policies are being debated or presented. For instance, I believe this administration removed a number of scientists from an EPA advisory board and replaced them with people whose views mirrored the administrations. (sorry, no citation for this)

In my opinion, that is a far cry from "suppression of science". That's just politics as usual. A true suppression of science would involve arrests, stoppage of publications (as demigrog suggests), shutting down of journals, etc.

Glom
2004-Nov-11, 10:36 PM
But that kind of selectivity happens on both sides of debate.

pghnative
2004-Nov-11, 10:39 PM
That's just politics as usual.

But that kind of selectivity happens on both sides of debate.Exumptly

Manchurian Taikonaut
2004-Nov-12, 01:34 AM
If Chinese economic and industrial growth continues then Someday it will be China that becomes the number one producer of greenhouse gases. I hope China doesn't follow the example of GW and actually does sometimes to protect the globe from Climate change due to man, reducing Co2 emissions, and protecting the enviornemnt...as we could see from the Chernobyl disaster or the Testing of atmoic wepoans in Nevada man can have a real influence on the Enviornment, so I think this should be taken seriously.

Diamond I can see you like all that corporate sponsored science, I wonder if it was Shall-oil or Taxaco that backed some of those anti-Climatechange studies ? The slight changes in Antartica are moving along side predicted climate models, also at higher elevations, some of the glaciers have thickened, because of increased winter precipitation due to warming. Reality check Diamond the Antarctica has been actually warming but not significantly some of those oil-backed science folks will try to corrupt or twist data by comparing temperatures to when the Antarctica region was unusally high and they'll then declare shock-horrror the South pole is cooling rapidly. I can also show you the papers of a few China scientists that say Smoking is good for you and Cancer is a myth you see like oil is a big thing in texas, tobacco is really big with Chinese so you get plenty of sell-out scientists which tell you smoking is fine because they are in it for the money.


The UK Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, David King has condemned the current US administration for "failing to take up the challenge of global warming. Back in the USA, the Environmental Protection Agencyhas said the White House's top climate advisors are like foxes "guarding the chicken coop". In the Artic there are rather large changes, one of the bigger disappearances of ice so far has been over the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, north of Canada and Alaska. Some parts of the Arctic have warmed more than others (e.g., some parts of Alaska have warmed at 5-10 times the global average over the past 30 years) while some have even cooled slightly, this is why people call it climate change not global warming.
The scientists say that Alaska and other far northern continental regions should warm about twice as much as the average for the globe. There are two main reasons because of this as ice and snow melt, less heat is reflected amplifying warming. And at these latitudes, the atmosphere is more stable in winter and spring and so it confines more heat to its lower layers. Whatever the combination of causes of Alaska's warming, the catalog of effects is substantial. Thirty years ago, the temperature at Fairbanks reached 80 degrees for only about a week in the summer. Now it hits or exceeds that mark for a total of about three weeks. On average a summer day is about 11 percent warmer than it was three decades ago.
In the last two decades, the number of sub-40-degree days has dropped substantially compared with the three preceding decades. In the Bering Sea, scientists have found, the amount of sea ice has decreased by about 5 percent over the last 30 years. In Nanana, inland near Fairbanks, people since 1917 have taken great pains to record the exact moment when the Tanana River ice breaks up each spring. A lucrative lottery depends on the result. Four of the earliest breakups in that 81-year span have been in the 1990s. Arctic Ocean will be completely devoid of summer ice before the 21st century has ended, a NASA study predicts. The American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate has been looking into this and reporting that NASA's satellite images show dramatic shrinking of the perennial Arctic ice pack. Retreating Arctic ice, 1979-2003, based on data collected by the defense meteorological Satellite http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/images/arctic/ice_animation1_med.gif
It is true that scientists don't know whether this shrinkage is caused by real man made CO2 emissions
if it is natural climate change, by human activity or by some combination of the two. However there are many at the EPA who are very unhappy about the way the White House's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) censored passages on global warming in a major EPA report last year. It is now know that senior members of the council had close ties with the oil industry - one as a former lawyer who had represented the industry, another as a former executive of the American Petroleum Institute - there has been a mind-boggling conflict of interest if you just think about it for a second.

There is also new data out from Atmospheric scientists who discovered that some 4,000 tons of a new synthetic greenhouse gas have been released into the atmosphere; the gas, which takes 1,000 years to degrade, may be a by-product of weapons production. President George broke a campaign promise when he decided not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, humiliating Christie Whitman, his EPA administrator, the EPA are very unhappy with the whitehouse. The CEQ's intention is now to include controversial new research undermining claims about global warming, and to remove text approved by the US National Academies of Sciences reinforcing those claims. Jeremy Symons, a former EPA climate adviser has spoken out against the Bush policy saying "They basically wanted to sow confusion" into climate change. The US administration becoming increasingly isolated over international climate policy, the science of global warming looks set to grow politically ever hotter.
When we first found that Ozone was staring to vanish from Earth there was a large effort to cut down on harmful chemicals that would damage the ozone layer, the hole was indeed photographed by NASA satellites, reducing CFCs did indeed help things out and slowly the hole seems to be starting to shrink although it will take a lot more time to repair naturally.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/pictures/toms/ozonestill_090600t.jpg
People think that warming could be slowed by cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. Arctic ice is half as thick as 30 years ago, the report found. In the same period the distribution of ice has shrunk by 10 per cent, however there is also new data which shows that some so-called greenhouse gasses are actually contributing to a type of global cooling to cunter the effects of global warming by the molecules in the atmosphere reflecting the suns energy back into space, whatever the finding it seems Climate change due to man is indeed real.

Glom
2004-Nov-12, 05:31 PM
Would that be the same David King that through a temper tantrum at a Russian scientific conference because opponents of AAGW were allowed to speak? He insisted that only supporters of his hypothesis be allowed a say.

That man is no scientist. He is a Lysenko. :evil:

pghnative
2004-Nov-12, 06:47 PM
I wonder if it was Shall-oil or Taxaco that backed some of those anti-Climatechange studies ? Does it matter? Does this invalidate their data?? I would argue that this is a form of "supression of science".

Don't get me wrong --- I think researchers can have a bias in how data is interpreted, and I think therefore that you always need to read conclusions with a grain of salt, but it makes no sense to me to throw out data solely because you don't like the researcher. If you don't trust the researcher then look to see if someone has duplicated the results. Check the researcher's methods to see if bad techniques were used. Check the assumptions to see if the data is being mis-interpreted. Methods and assumptions can be and should be critically examined. But data is data.

Launch window
2004-Nov-15, 12:00 PM
How do we know that arctic warming isn't due to the lessening tilt of the axis of the earth that is causing the arctic and antarctic circles to shrink in diameter? It seems the arctic regions are warming much faster than the earth in general, which would be the expectation from a shrinking arctic region. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eischao.html

It doesn't seem likely that such a small change would cause that much difference in the polar climates, especially considering that both poles are showing warming. Alterations in radiation patterns (such as those caused by altering the composition of the atmosphere) seem much more likely to have the described effects.

yep good point, I don't believe the Earth has been tilting and causing this, but I'm willing to see more info on this
to prove or reject the tilt-idea

Glom
2004-Nov-18, 12:05 PM
Urban heat island effect refuted. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4021197.stm)

A few problems. First, no reference at all is made to the high altitude weather balloon or satellite data, which doesn't show warming and is the basis for suspecting the ground based readings of being less reliable. Second, this is all about effect and none about cause. I wouldn't be surprised at warming. I'm more surprised by sceptics who say there is no warming than warmers who say there is. We're emerging from a glacial period.

loandbehold
2004-Nov-18, 03:27 PM
Urban heat island effect refuted. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4021197.stm)

A few problems. First, no reference at all is made to the high altitude weather balloon or satellite data, which doesn't show warming and is the basis for suspecting the ground based readings of being less reliable.

Are you sure about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements


Second, this is all about effect and none about cause. I wouldn't be surprised at warming. I'm more surprised by sceptics who say there is no warming than warmers who say there is. We're emerging from a glacial period.

Not sure what you mean by this. My understanding is that the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2004-Nov-18, 03:34 PM
You obviously didn't read the whole article. It says:

"By the same token, the Arctic Circle and the Antarctic Circle are currently moving poleward at the same rate. The world's temperate zone is expanding at the expense of the tropical and Arctic zones at the rate of some 1500 km2 per year! This is the Milankovitch cycle happening right before our eyes. "

This is direct measurement of the sun's elevation, not theory.

The changing tilt of the earth affects the amount of sun hitting both poles!


It has been my understanding that the change in the Earth's climate due to changes in the orbit of the Earth was thought to be less sudden. For example it takes about 100,000 years for the orbit to change from rather elliptical to rather circular. As many of the folks here will explain the also Earth rotates on its axis and wobbles somewhat but in a very slow fashion for example our planet's wobbling effect means that the Earth is at times closer to while at times further away from the Sun, affecting the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth at a point. We now think that our current tilt points the Earth towards the North Star, Polaris SAO..whatever HD catelogue...anyway you know the star I'm talking of. It is thought that maybe it takes about 12,000-14,000 years for the tilt to point towards another North Star. So I could be wrong but I don't think there is a whole lot of evidence which says the melting of polar ice caps is due to the Earth's tilt. As far as I know I think loandbehold is pretty correct by saying the last one ended 10,000 yrs ago. I have also heard the arguement that city heat may have had a large influence on temperature because back in 1860, early 1910 and 1930 a lot of data was collected but I have been reading some reports before that said the meteorological info should actually be a lot cooler because of the places these temps were recorded, and urban heat would have corrupted data which might tell us about an overall warming or cooling trend, what we really need is correct and sufficient data that will tells us about the global mean standard temperature, let's level the political mega-corps out of it and find out if the GMST is really changing .

Yep there are many strange crew on this boat , one little blue gem called earth and who gets to protect it...the UK ministers close to Blair have been very outspoken saying it's like having Foxes protecting the chicks in the hen-house, having a Gale norton good idea or bad idea ? Well she's already championed drilling for oil in Alaska and questioned the science of climate change, tell you what why don't we have a look at Chernobyl, a look at the toxic fumes and oil smoke produced when Saddam started the first gulf madness and have a look at the pollution over the major Chinese cities across the globe and then let's continue to say man can not influence the enviornment. But we have new records which contradict population density, we now have Texas the top of the charts as the smoggiest in America. There has been much debate and reaction about the enviornment since the Valdez oil spill along the Alaskan coast line. What is one disturbing factor in the USA, is how for a 1st world nation ( unlike China which has had a backward past and is still developing ) but in the US as a 1st world nation... how little people have the ability to use clean drinking water without dirt or arsenic in sinks and pipes for drinking. If the CO2 levels only double, although in reality, much greater increases are likely, as China, Russia and India develop their industries we can expect maybe warming of 2-8 degrees, 1-3 feet increases in sea levels, worsening droughts and floods and storms, just remember global warming does not mean better weather this is why many refer to it as climate change. Many now believe they have identified a mechanism which can explain the thinning of the Arctic sea ice. The ice is melting from down below, rising air temperatures, possibly the consequence of cliamte change, are melting the ice from above. And warmer water is also rising from the depths to attack the ice from below. The NASA Climatological Data Files have show big changes in the ice sheets around the North pole. The NASA study has been finding out that perennial sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster than previously thought, it is staring to vanish at a rate of 9 percent per decade. People at NASA have said if these melting rates continue for a few more decades, the perennial sea ice will likely disappear entirely within this century.

Some have said that pulling the plug on Kyoto is payback for the energy industries which backed him, and due to the breaks given to the big companies parts of Texas were so engulfed by a black, smoke so thick that drivers had to use their headlights during daytime this was reported by the Guardian newpaper and Observer of London they also report Secretary Don Evans a man raised in oil has been doing little for Mother Earth. May have been shocked by the volte-face on carbon dioxide and disturbed also by the announced scrapping of regulations reducing arsenic levels in drinking water. Who knows maybe Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham will come up witha way of cleaning up the water by putting "schwarzenegger's Conan the Bacterium" into our food chain, or maybe the possibility of employing anthrax microbes to radically reduce polluted waters or to reduce the toxic effects of radioactive waste, this was actully something they have started to consider. No this ain't science fiction folks it was actually one of their ideas in the Forrestal Auditorium, Washington, DC. What next drastic measures should we take maybe shooting our sheep so wild dogs won't eat them would sound sane to some but simply wrong to others? The world has already got invaluable data from NASA's past missions which examine Earth such as the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS). Great information from this, combined with ground work helped in determining the root cause of ozone loss over the Antarctic--man-made chlorofluorocarbons (a compound consisting of chlorine, fluorine, and carbon) and halons , nowdays there is a much wider awareness of the dangers of mass productions of CFCs. There is also evidence that our Ozone layer is slowly starting to heal itself naturally. Can mankind do something to lessen this "Global change" on the Earth's climate ? Maybe so, it seems to be already working for CFCs so why not the reduction of CO2 emissions. The melting of ice cover in the Arctic circle has been displayed visually using data from the SSMI (Special Sensor Microwave Imagery) instrument and great details from NASA. It seems that the US has indeed contributed to much of climate change, and soon in the future it will be growing industries and economies like China and India that will make this world a whole lot dirtier and polluted, this is why I think it is important that the USA leads by example, maybe this is why some leading scientists and some at NASA have been outspoken.
.

Evan
2004-Nov-18, 04:00 PM
The tilt of the Earths axis changes by less than one degree over a 41,000 year cycle. This should not be confused with the precession of the Earths axis which does not change the tilt. Precession changes where the axis points in the sky. It does not change the amount of insolation at the poles except for an effect related to the elipticity of the orbit. Currently the tilt is such that the north pole is pointed away from the sun when Earth is closest to the sun, around Jan 6, IIRC. The precession cycle is about 26,000 years. In 13,000 years the north pole will be tilted towards the sun during periapsis which will have the slight effect of giving warmer summers in the northern hemisphere. However, the effect is more than balanced by the fact the Earth spends more time near apoapsis (see analemma) and the southern hemisphere will have slightly cooler summers as a result. The net effect is zero. The tilt of the Earth is not changing in any way that accounts for climate change in the present day or any time that matters. It is a spurious argument.

Glom
2004-Nov-18, 05:10 PM
You have to take into account El Nino first when looking at the satellite data.

Glom
2004-Nov-18, 05:24 PM
Yep there are many strange crew on this boat , one little blue gem called earth and who gets to protect it...the UK ministers close to Blair have been very outspoken saying it's like having Foxes protecting the chicks in the hen-house, having a Gale norton good idea or bad idea ? Well she's already championed drilling for oil in Alaska and questioned the science of climate change, tell you what why don't we have a look at Chernobyl, a look at the toxic fumes and oil smoke produced when Saddam started the first gulf madness and have a look at the pollution over the major Chinese cities across the globe and then let's continue to say man can not influence the enviornment.

Straw man. There is no doubting the need for pollution controls. Pollution in recent centuries created the smog of London. That has no been cleaned up. That's a benefit of being environmentally aware. We now have cleaner air. Except of course that without the pollution, more sunlight penetrates to the ground and so gives the false impression of it being warmer than before.


If the CO2 levels only double, although in reality, much greater increases are likely, as China, Russia and India develop their industries we can expect maybe warming of 2-8 degrees, 1-3 feet increases in sea levels, worsening droughts and floods and storms, just remember global warming does not mean better weather this is why many refer to it as climate change.

That's the prediction made based on dodgy climate models.


Many now believe they have identified a mechanism which can explain the thinning of the Arctic sea ice. The ice is melting from down below, rising air temperatures, possibly the consequence of cliamte change, are melting the ice from above. And warmer water is also rising from the depths to attack the ice from below. The NASA Climatological Data Files have show big changes in the ice sheets around the North pole. The NASA study has been finding out that perennial sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster than previously thought, it is staring to vanish at a rate of 9 percent per decade. People at NASA have said if these melting rates continue for a few more decades, the perennial sea ice will likely disappear entirely within this century.

Ice has been in recession since the end of the Little Ice Age before the Industrial Revolution.


Great information from this, combined with ground work helped in determining the root cause of ozone loss over the Antarctic--man-made chlorofluorocarbons (a compound consisting of chlorine, fluorine, and carbon) and halons , nowdays there is a much wider awareness of the dangers of mass productions of CFCs. There is also evidence that our Ozone layer is slowly starting to heal itself naturally. Can mankind do something to lessen this "Global change" on the Earth's climate ? Maybe so, it seems to be already working for CFCs so why not the reduction of CO2 emissions.

CFCs have been phased out but whether or not it was necessary was unclear. The hole was discovered in 1930, but it is unclear for how long it was there. In fact, GCRs can deplete ozone and since they get through at the poles, it's no surprise that ozone should be more depleted there.


It seems that the US has indeed contributed to much of climate change, and soon in the future it will be growing industries and economies like China and India that will make this world a whole lot dirtier and polluted, this is why I think it is important that the USA leads by example, maybe this is why some leading scientists and some at NASA have been outspoken.
.

Non sequitur. You displayed examples of ice retreats, nothing unusual or exotic, and then jumped to the conclusion this was the fault of the US. Total fallacy. Before you can make such accusation, you need to establish the connection. Your affirmed consequent works like this.

You: Ice caps are melting. This is the fault of the United States and its industry.
Me: How do you know it's the fault of the United States?
You: Because the ice caps are melting.

Tautological and invalid.

Makgraf
2004-Nov-18, 08:01 PM
What is one disturbing factor in the USA, is how for a 1st world nation ( unlike China which has had a backward past and is still developing ) but in the US as a 1st world nation... how little people have the ability to use clean drinking water without dirt or arsenic in sinks and pipes for drinking.
Arsenic levels are so minute to be effectively zero. We're talking parts per billion here.


Some have said that pulling the plug on Kyoto is payback for the energy industries which backed him, and due to the breaks given to the big companies parts of Texas were so engulfed by a black, smoke so thick that drivers had to use their headlights during daytime this was reported by the Guardian newpaper and Observer of London they also report Secretary Don Evans a man raised in oil has been doing little for Mother Earth. May have been shocked by the volte-face on carbon dioxide and disturbed also by the announced scrapping of regulations reducing arsenic levels in drinking water. Who knows maybe Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham will come up witha way of cleaning up the water by putting "schwarzenegger's Conan the Bacterium", into our food chain, or maybe the possibility of employing anthrax microbes to radically reduce polluted waters or to reduce the toxic effects of radioactive waste, this was actully something they have started to consider.
The Senate voted down Kyoto 98-0. Given that you need 2/3rds of the Senate to pass treaties... well Kyoto was pretty much dead in the water before Bush even got in. The rasing of the level of arsenic in water was a myth. Here's what happened. During Clinton's (more-so) lame duck period (i.e. when Bush had already been elected but before he would be sworn in) he issued an executive order reducing the amount of arsenic allowed in water. When elected Bush considered revoking that executive order but after a public outcry he didn't. Also neither Spencer Abraham or Don Evans are part of the administration any more. And the government isn't going to put anthrax spores into the water supply nor are they considering it.

Evan
2004-Nov-18, 08:38 PM
Some relevant recent news on arsenic (http://www.watertiger.net/articles/ferry_arsenic.htm)

genebujold
2004-Nov-19, 04:05 PM
Sounds to me as if it's a clear case of firm religious conviction against qualified scientific result.

Bottom line - history will tell all.

If the current adminstration cannot reconcile their policy in keeping with corroborated scientific theorem, then it's time they step down. As a Christian I have little difficulty separating the Bible from the latest in scientific discovery, provided it fits within established and documented models.

Sadly, I fear our current administration, even though I voted for them, are relying on poorly understood Biblical principals rather than well-understood Judeo-Christian-Secular principles with respect to how best to raise kids.

Evan
2004-Nov-19, 04:12 PM
...the latest in scientific discovery, provided it fits within established and documented models.

The history of science is filled with discoveries that throw out the old models and establish new more correct ones.

pghnative
2004-Nov-19, 04:28 PM
Sounds to me as if it's a clear case of firm religious conviction against qualified scientific result.

...snip...

Sadly, I fear our current administration, even though I voted for them, are relying on poorly understood Biblical principals rather than well-understood Judeo-Christian-Secular principles with respect to how best to raise kids.Forgive me, but I'm lost. Science and religion are often at odds with regard to Evolution (natural selection) issues, abortion/stem cell (i.e. when does life begin) issues and probably some others issues that I'm forgetting. But I am unfamiliar with religious convictions being at odds with discussions of climate change or arsenic levels. Am I the only one confused here??? (wouldn't be the first time I suppose)

And Evan, I'm not sure what your point was regarding the arsenic article, particularly since this thread seems to be about the US position on various environmental issues. Your posted article highlights a recent problem with arsenic in a certain water supply, but the article ends with the observation that the US limits on arsenic are more stringent than other countries, and is in fact becoming more stringent.

Evan
2004-Nov-19, 04:31 PM
The point was that the article mentioned just how much more stringent the US limits are compared to Canada. We are similar countries with similar expertise in medical science and on the same continent.

pghnative
2004-Nov-19, 04:38 PM
I guess it would be tough to obtain good data on what the limit should be. Unlikely that anyone would sign up for a clinical trial to determine what level of arsenic causes toxicity!

I would think that there might be some animal data around. But then you'd have to put in a safety margin, and there could be some wiggle room there between different countries. Actually, I'd argue that there isn't that much of a difference between 10 ppb and 25ppb. They're on the same order of magnitude, which is pretty reasonable. If one country was 10 ppb and the other 10 ppm, then you'd have to wonder what was up.

Evan
2004-Nov-19, 05:47 PM
I think there is plenty of data on human exposure. Arsenic used to be taken by women to improve complexion, which it does. It was also the treatment of choice for syphilis before antibiotics. I suspect the limits are grounded in real science, not just some sort of unscientific WAG. I also suspect the Canadian limits are set somewhat higher because arsenic is a very common natural contaminant in rural groundwater supplies which many of our rural towns depend on. Setting the limit any lower here would cause serious water supply problems, something that the article I linked shows.

pghnative
2004-Nov-19, 06:15 PM
I think there is plenty of data on human exposure. Arsenic used to be taken by women to improve complexion, which it does. It was also the treatment of choice for syphilis before antibiotics. I suspect the limits are grounded in real science, not just some sort of unscientific WAG. I also suspect the Canadian limits are set somewhat higher because arsenic is a very common natural contaminant in rural groundwater supplies which many of our rural towns depend on. Setting the limit any lower here would cause serious water supply problems, something that the article I linked shows.Thanks! Lot's of info I didn't know. So if ~ 20 ppb is not causing obvious harm to rural Canadians, that begs the question of why some people were up in arms about keeping the US limit at 10 ppb (vs lowering to 5 ppb).

fossilnut
2004-Nov-19, 06:35 PM
[quote="EvanThe history of science is filled with discoveries that throw out the old models and establish new more correct ones.[/quote]

Yup, a new discovery once proved that the Earth rides around on the back of the god, Atlas and not on the back of a giant tortoise as previously thought. (just kidding)

Global warming: I don't know. How would I know?

It's amusing, though, when 'proof' comes out in statements such as '25 thousand scientists sign a petition urging...'. so what? One of those surveys came around our office at the Geological Survey. I'm a geologist and paleontologist. How the 'beep' do I know if global warming is occuring and is cause by carbon based gases? If I filled out the survey and said 'yes'..so what? Meaningless.

I just look at the science involved when statements are made. What is this statement based on? Is it cherry-picking evidence? anecdotal evidence? a broad strke? I also give more credibility to reports that have qualifying words such as 'may be, possibly, indicates,etc.'. any scientific statement that is 'cast in stone' is just bad science when it comes to the environment...too many unknown variables to be 'certain'.

Science isn't about going out to 'prove' a point. Proponents of global warming seem almost gleeful when they find evidence...the more dire the happier they are. Opponents, rightly or wrongly, dismiss the evidence as agenda driven.

I just find the degregation science in the debate a sad statemnet of the place of science in our society today.

Evan
2004-Nov-19, 06:45 PM
...why some people were up in arms about keeping the US limit at 10 ppb...

Hysteria. It's like when NASA was first thinking about long duration spaceflight. They realized that water would have to be recycled, including urine. They surveyed the astronauts and asked how much urine remaining in the recycled water for drinking would be acceptable. Answer was "NONE!!!". In the public mind arsenic=poison. So, how much poison in your drinking water is acceptable?

dgruss23
2004-Nov-19, 07:06 PM
Science isn't about going out to 'prove' a point. Proponents of global warming seem almost gleeful when they find evidence...the more dire the happier they are.

This is one of the things that baffles me the most about the entire GW discussion. There have been plenty of discussions here highlighting evidence for the importance of the Sun's influence in climate changes. Yet that evidence seems to get ignored by the Pro-GW people. One has to wonder why.

Do they actually want to be right that something catastrophic is happening? It seems that way. One would think that information about the importance of the Sun's role in climate would be of interest to them - perhaps even a bit of a relief?

fossilnut
2004-Nov-19, 09:47 PM
dgruss.

Yes, I agree. There was a similar debate on Aids about 15 years ago. Those wanting more education, funding etc. were thrilled by reports of this disease rampaging through the community. Society would be brought to its knees. The 'plague' was so exaggerated it sounded more like the coming of the anti-Christ. The science was left far behind in the dust.

I see the same momentum with Global warming and the so-called causes of Global warming. How these advocates can be so certain in their beliefs is a mystery to me. I cringe when I read a report that starts with 'Experts say' or 'Most scientists believe'. What I want to see is what the Science indicates, the basis of those studies and how the conclusions are interpreted. I work in paleontology and understand that there's a hundred variables that could impact climate and an almost unlimited number of permutations of those variables acting on eachother.

Instead, a piece of evidence is cherry picked and I can hear in the voice of so-called scientists 'see, I told you so' as if it is a 'debate' about global warming. I don't see the scientific methodoloy needed to support or not support the idea that manmade greenhouse gasses is a cause of global warming. I've heard ridiculous links beteen an increase in droughts, tornados, floods, hurricanes, locust infestations and other phenomena with man puting greenhouse gasses into the air. The science linking these is so tenuous as to be laughable...but people lap it up as if its a religion to 'prove a point'.

Now here's the kicker. I'm a tree hugger myself. Voted 'Green Party' in our last federal election in Canada and this coming Moday we have a provincial election here in Alberta and I'm voting 'Green Party'. I care about the environmnet but I can't put aside all my decades as a scientist to embrace a global warming cult that is based as much on an ideology as it is on science.

Glom
2004-Nov-19, 10:55 PM
There's an ad at the bottom, "Help to reduce climate change." What a load of crap!

The climate is one of the most complex systems we have ever dealt with. To suggest that somehow we can stabilise and control it by controlling a very limited and minor set of variables is ridiculous. The phrase sustainble or stable climate is a contradiction in terms.

How many times have GCRs been mentioned in the mass media? I hadn't even heard of the effect of GCRs until Tunga brought it up but with that thought, the corrolation between sunspot activity and global temperatures made even more sense. GCRs cause cloud formation which results in global cooling. Reduced heliomagnetic activity allows more GCRs in, hence more global cooling. All things being equal of course. In reality, climate is extremely chaotic and so things don't happen nearly that neatly.

drradon
2004-Nov-21, 06:18 PM
I have to say that this is one of the most intelligent discussions on GW I have encountered in a long while.
I'd like to offer my two cents on the origination of this topic: suppression of scientific results (and inquiry in general).
Although the environmental faction makes all kinds of allegations about the Bush administration suppressing - or cherry picking - scientific results, it has been my experience that the EF, in fact, are far more prone to do this than anything I've seen Bush do. My basis for saying this is from direct experience. Some years ago I was heavily involved in research on the geothermal system in Hawaii. Given Hawaii's >90% dependence on fossil fuels for its electrical supply, I thought replacement of fossil generation with geothermal power would be good for the environment - not to mention the economy. Silly me... The obstructionist faction took up the cause and did everything they could to stop the development of commercial power from geothermal steam. One of their key strategies was to grossly exaggerate the likely environmental consequences of geothermal development and I was one of the few scientists willing to go out into the public forum and challenge their nonsense. When all was said and done, they - Sierra Club Legal Defense - successfully challenged the State's pursuit of geothermal development and, in a consent decree, one of the elements of the agreement was that the State would cease funding further research on geothermal energy. So much for my pursuit of knowledge in that field.

And to disabuse anyone of the idea that EPA is truly interested in the environment, they were in on the sand-bagging of the industry as well. They tried to trot out their "environmental justice" hammer in the effort to shut down a geothermal facility that was in compliance. I don't know whether I had any influence - but I did point out to them that much of the existing fossil fuel generation for that area was located in an area where home-owners were predominantly low-income, elderly, and of Hawaiian ancestry - and offered to take them to court on the "environmental justice" theory if they continued their effort to selectively enforce extraordinarily strict requirements on the geothermal production.

Apologies for the rant - but I don't have much sympathy for the eco-whiners and certainly don't accept any of their claims without ironclad, peer-reviewed science that can back it up.

dgruss23
2004-Nov-22, 12:52 AM
I have to say that this is one of the most intelligent discussions on GW I have encountered in a long while.

Here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10177&postdays=0&postorder=asc&hig hlight=maunder&start=0) is another long discussion we had on the topic a few months ago.


My basis for saying this is from direct experience. Some years ago I was heavily involved in research on the geothermal system in Hawaii. Given Hawaii's >90% dependence on fossil fuels for its electrical supply, I thought replacement of fossil generation with geothermal power would be good for the environment - not to mention the economy. Silly me... The obstructionist faction took up the cause and did everything they could to stop the development of commercial power from geothermal steam. One of their key strategies was to grossly exaggerate the likely environmental consequences of geothermal development and I was one of the few scientists willing to go out into the public forum and challenge their nonsense. When all was said and done, they - Sierra Club Legal Defense - successfully challenged the State's pursuit of geothermal development and, in a consent decree, one of the elements of the agreement was that the State would cease funding further research on geothermal energy. So much for my pursuit of knowledge in that field.

That's just absurd! What is their problem with geothermal energy. These people are the ones obsessed with alternatives to fossil fuels! :evil: And I have to ask - if a geothermal energy plant is unsatisfactory to them, then you'd have to imagine they'd object to the land usage that would be required to generate enough electricity directly from the Sun! Right?

I guess to meet the requirements of the Sierra club et al one must develop an energy source that makes no changes to the environment whatsoever. Hmm that rules out ... everything! When they get done shutting down the economies of the civilized world with these ridiculous restrictions and successfully achieve the goal of a harmonius cave man existence with nature I suppose they'll move on to the next major target - those rascally beavers that have the nerve to alter the landscape by blocking up streams to create lakes!

Kesh
2004-Nov-22, 03:56 AM
This past week, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (http://www.acia.uaf.edu/) was published. This was a joint effort by eight Arctic nations (Including the US, Canada, Russia and several European nations) about the current changes occurring in the Arctic.

There should be a PDF available for download at that site, overviewing the findings of the scientists. A more complete, peer-review scientific paper is due soon, along with recommendations to world governments by a political overview group.

Kesh
2004-Nov-22, 04:00 AM
That's just absurd! What is their problem with geothermal energy. These people are the ones obsessed with alternatives to fossil fuels! :evil: And I have to ask - if a geothermal energy plant is unsatisfactory to them, then you'd have to imagine they'd object to the land usage that would be required to generate enough electricity directly from the Sun! Right?!

I live here on Oahu, and let me say... the fuel companies have a serious hold here. While solar power is becoming more common, and garbage is being burned to suppliment the power plants, the fuel companies are making a pretty penny here. Since all our fuel has to be imported, prices are incredibly high and there's no real way to bring them down.

Plus, there's more to it than that. There's a combination of environmentalism (in the "don't touch anything!" extreme, quite often), local history (any construction project must be examined to make sure you're not disturbing native land or artifacts) and plain old fear of geothermal energy (we're on a volcanic island chain, after all!).

rleyland
2004-Nov-22, 11:02 PM
That's just absurd! What is their problem with geothermal energy. These people are the ones obsessed with alternatives to fossil fuels! :evil: And I have to ask - if a geothermal energy plant is unsatisfactory to them, then you'd have to imagine they'd object to the land usage that would be required to generate enough electricity directly from the Sun! Right?!

I live here on Oahu, and let me say... the fuel companies have a serious hold here. While solar power is becoming more common, and garbage is being burned to suppliment the power plants, the fuel companies are making a pretty penny here. Since all our fuel has to be imported, prices are incredibly high and there's no real way to bring them down.

Plus, there's more to it than that. There's a combination of environmentalism (in the "don't touch anything!" extreme, quite often), local history (any construction project must be examined to make sure you're not disturbing native land or artifacts) and plain old fear of geothermal energy (we're on a volcanic island chain, after all!).

Good grief,

Releasing a little Geothermal energy through a power plant is more likely to reduce possible volcanic action than anything else.

I seem to recall that geothermal plants in New Zealand have been blamed for the reduction of geysers and thermal pools near Rotorua.


cheers,
Robbo

Tunga
2004-Nov-23, 12:29 PM
A critical look at the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041116/dctu025_1.html

Glom
2004-Nov-23, 01:00 PM
The problem for these big organisations is that they are forced into being politically correct. Uncritically swallowing AAGW is politically correct.

Wolverine
2004-Nov-23, 02:39 PM
A critical look at the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041116/dctu025_1.html

One of the contributors, George Taylor, has offered further perspective here (http://www.techcentralstation.com/112204A.html). Interesting read.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2004-Dec-05, 03:46 PM
Urban heat island effect refuted. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4021197.stm)

A few problems. First, no reference at all is made to the high altitude weather balloon or satellite data, which doesn't show warming and is the basis for suspecting the ground based readings of being less reliable.

Are you sure about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements


Second, this is all about effect and none about cause. I wouldn't be surprised at warming. I'm more surprised by sceptics who say there is no warming than warmers who say there is. We're emerging from a glacial period.

Not sure what you mean by this. My understanding is that the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

you are right to bring up that Glacial period time-frame

dgruss23
2004-Dec-05, 05:07 PM
Urban heat island effect refuted. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4021197.stm)

A few problems. First, no reference at all is made to the high altitude weather balloon or satellite data, which doesn't show warming and is the basis for suspecting the ground based readings of being less reliable.

Are you sure about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements


Second, this is all about effect and none about cause. I wouldn't be surprised at warming. I'm more surprised by sceptics who say there is no warming than warmers who say there is. We're emerging from a glacial period.

Not sure what you mean by this. My understanding is that the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

you are right to bring up that Glacial period time-frame

The "little ice-age" ended quite recently on geologic scales (and corresponded with a time period of low solar activity). Certainly you would expect a natural warming when the climate rebounds from such an event.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2004-Dec-05, 08:22 PM
NASA has showed us photos of the Polar caps melting at quickening rates. Scientists have often wondered what is causing this period of global climate change and a man made emissions of CO2 part of the problems ?Analysis revealed that during the last Ice Age, levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were significantly lower than they were before mankind began polluting the atmosphere, let's say about 200 years ago. Since carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas, it was believed that initial climatic changes resulting from orbital variations were somehow affecting the composition of the atmosphere, to the extent that a lowering of carbon dioxide concentrations was increasing the global cooling.
Human forebears, the hunters and cave-dwellers experienced a dozen or so major glaciations of the northern hemisphere, with the greatest ever occurring around 650,000 years ago. It is thought that the overall global temperature was lowered by around 5°C (or about 9F). Even children will tell you about this period, some kids may know a lot more about Climate change than the Bush admin thanks to many books and disney films like Ice-age . We know that Mammoth, mastodon, giant bison, large cats, roamed the landscapes. Changes of the Earth going around the Sun, alterations in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit have helped push the effects of climate change. It is very important that we are able to construct a historical record of the GMST on Earth. We have collected much evidence from ancient organisms. Earth's orbit can be greatly exaggerated to the extreme of shapes. Orbits of the Earth are not very circular and their are effects in the Earth's orbit around the Sun and the tilt of its rotation axis. The shape of the orbits has varied from very eliptical a greatly exaggerated shape about 98,000 years in the past. The effects of these orbital and axial tilt changes have had a real effect on Earth. We must also look at the changes in the Solar constant the alterations in Solar luminosity, it is thought it could be about 75% of its current value some 3,900Ma ago but changes in the past 9,000 years are said that they may be too small to be of any significance. There are some who say artifical Global warming is a good things, many with connections to the current US administration, benefits of global warming, the GES and the Subtropical Russia Movement. Scinetific evidence has mounted, from science studies and data colected by NASA and other evidence that global warming began in the last century and that humans may be in part responsible. There are new reports which say a third to a half of land animal and plant species will face extermination due to the effects of climate change and many have already died out due to makinds effect on the enviornment. They say that the absolutely best case scenario - with the minimum expected climate change and all of the species moving completely into new areas which become suitable for them, means we end up with an estimate of nine per cent facing extinction meaning about one million species would be doomed, assuming there are 10 million species in existence. However the extinction of some is not just the only concred, climate change may also bring about many un-wanted plants, animals and insects into the US eco-system and cost the USA's economy millions of dollars each year, the effects seem to be already happening. Some are laready asking why Florida experienced so many storms this year and was it due to climate changes. Cities and towns along the west coast of the US could be suffering from a serious water shortage by 2050 if predicted climate change models continue. It is difficult to rellay say what is causing climate change because there are so many factors and variables involved, but as some other people have pointed out a number of reports from NASA and scientific studies to bring about bad new for the climate. It is thought that we haven't had CO2 levels as high as they are now for over 410,000 years.

Kesh
2004-Dec-05, 09:44 PM
Paragraph breaks are your friend. 8-[

Glom
2004-Dec-05, 10:58 PM
NASA has showed us photos of the Polar caps melting at quickening rates. Scientists have often wondered what is causing this period of global climate change and a man made emissions of CO2 part of the problems ?

This period of climate change? When has there ever been a period without it? To blame a shift in climate, which would be happening in some form anyway, on one specific gas is a rather naive thing to do. Of course, such insulting simplification work well for big politics.


Analysis revealed that during the last Ice Age, levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were significantly lower than they were before mankind began polluting the atmosphere, let's say about 200 years ago.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant so we are not polluting the atmosphere by emitting it. The real question is why there was a period of prolonged warming before the Industrial Revolution as the climate pulled out of the Little Ice Age?


Since carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas, it was believed that initial climatic changes resulting from orbital variations were somehow affecting the composition of the atmosphere, to the extent that a lowering of carbon dioxide concentrations was increasing the global cooling.

Orbital variations? The orbit of Earth is a good circle and has been like that for quite a while. The interesting thing is that is appears that carbon dioxide levels lag temperatures changes not lead them.


Orbits of the Earth are not very circular and their are effects in the Earth's orbit around the Sun and the tilt of its rotation axis.

Yes it is.


We must also look at the changes in the Solar constant the alterations in Solar luminosity, it is thought it could be about 75% of its current value some 3,900Ma ago but changes in the past 9,000 years are said that they may be too small to be of any significance.

So the power house behind the climate does not affect it much when it varies.


There are some who say artifical Global warming is a good things, many with connections to the current US administration, benefits of global warming, the GES and the Subtropical Russia Movement.

I can make similar ad hominem remarks about the doomsayers and their agrarian ideals.


They say that the absolutely best case scenario - with the minimum expected climate change and all of the species moving completely into new areas which become suitable for them, means we end up with an estimate of nine per cent facing extinction meaning about one million species would be doomed, assuming there are 10 million species in existence.

However, this is all based on the accuracy of flawed climate models.


Some are laready asking why Florida experienced so many storms this year and was it due to climate changes.

Always. The climate changes, the incidence of storms change.


It is difficult to rellay say what is causing climate change because there are so many factors and variables involved, but as some other people have pointed out a number of reports from NASA and scientific studies to bring about bad new for the climate.

It is very difficult to predict and understand climate because it is the most complex and non-linear system we've ever encountered. The popular ideal that it can be so easily controlled and *struggling to hold back laughter* stablised by controlling a politically chosen set of variables is absurd.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-06, 12:32 AM
We must also look at the changes in the Solar constant the alterations in Solar luminosity, it is thought it could be about 75% of its current value some 3,900Ma ago but changes in the past 9,000 years are said that they may be too small to be of any significance.

That is not true. Here (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0409123)
is a study that finds 2/3 of the warming thought to have been measured the last 100 years can be accounted for by solar influences. Here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607073439.htm) is a summary of the results of a study that finds a solar climate influence during the last 100,000+ years.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2004-Dec-06, 12:45 AM
Paragraph breaks are your friend. 8-[

Get over it Kesh,
I'll present my postings with nice presentations and big paragraph breaks once you start responding to my posts in a lanague other than English or your native tongue a language such as French, German, Cantonese, Mandarin, Japanese or Korean the choice is yours.



ad hominem remarks

Glom,
It was American top scientists and even some folks at NASA who have said the current admin have suppressed and rigged scientific info on climate change. Even the UK ( America's No1 ally ) and the UK Government's Chief Scientific man David King has condemned the Bush administration for "failing to take up the challenge of global warming, also the Environmental Protection Agency has said the White House's advisors are like foxes "guarding the chicken coop". There are mnay of the who have direct connections to the big polluter companies and big Oil people, this is a fact it is not something false.
You accuse me of these ad hominem remarks when it is You that have been writing gibberish. You are the one who has made many attacks in your thread on Europeans calling them liars, and saying the EU are hypocrites. One of your climate-change threads was so strange that it didn't really say anything excpet that you supported the UK pro-independance party and these radical political folk who were called a low calorie version of the BNP by English newspapers. You also seem to have a bit of confusion over the word pollutant, would you like me to instruct you on the words and usage of the English language. Polluting material are substances which are harmful, unwanted change or cause damage to the enviornment, and we know CO2 is a pollutant. You have also said Russia was corrupt when it signed the Kyoto treaty and you said they were bribed into doing it.
There are real scientists and people who have real concerns over the possibility that our water levels may rise, over the change in the Earth's temperature and the efefct it will have on the world. Recently a
144-page report published first by oneworld dot net, said that the accelerated warming of the globe which can be blamed on the increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by the industrial age has been transforming the Arctic region dramatically. One of the top U.S. oceanographers Dr. Robert Corell said that the major message was that 'climate change is here and now in the Arctic'. Major sience groups have given us confirmed predictions about the climate of our Earth and the Ozone layer and NASA has confirmed Arctic ozone depletion. Another science study by NASA has found another pollutant, the regular black carbon soot. The teams from out of the NASA andthe Columbia University scientists, found airborne microscopics of black-carbon (soot) particles are even more plentiful around the world, and contribute more to climate change, than was previously accounted for. Black carbon or soot is generated from traffic, industrial pollution which means much will be coming from Texas as it has recently become the number-1 pollution state in the USA. NASA Climatologists have been doing incredible work, and Scientific American have named them in the Top 50 scientists, researchers at the NASA Goddard Institute have found that 1999 set a new record Global surface temperatures. Glaciers along the southeastern coast of Greenland were found to be thinning by more than 3 feet a year. Also the NASA high-tech aerial survey showed that more than 11 cubic miles of ice is melting along Greenland's coasts yearly, accounting for 7% of the annual global sea level rise.
As for the Solar effects on the climate yes I know of the climate changes that came about do to variations in the Sun's luminosity, sunspot activites and chnages in the solar luminosity had a chilly impact on Earth. It has been that a dimmer Sun reduced the model's westerly winds, cooling the continents during wintertime. Shindell's model shows large regional climate changes. Galileo Galilei made drawings of lower sunspot activity and records of sunspot activity during the time from other astronomers confirm the lower number of sunspots over the 70-year event.However new climate research at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the latest published research showing that changing levels of energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming. The study leads NASA's climate study and Shindell to conclude that greenhouse gases are playing the dominant role in warming the planet.

NASA's Space Flight Center has been finding that there is a less than a 2 percent chance that observed melting of arctic sea ice is the result of normal climatic variations and a much less than a 0.2 percent chance that melting over the last 46 years is the result of normal variations.There are those who support the idea of Global warming as the days that northern Alaska was cold enough to operate oil-drilling machinery without damaging them in the tundra may change for more profitable results. A NASA study recently used a computer climate model to simulate the last 50 years of climate changes and then project the changes over the next 50, they found out that if no emission reductions are made and they continue to increase at the current rate, global temperatures may increase by 1-2º Celsius (1.8º-3.6º Fahrenheit). There are also many who think that Arctic carbons might create many new Climate change scenarios, saying that if current warming trends in the Arctic continue, we can expect to see more of the old carbon now sequestered in northern soils enter the carbon cycle as carbon dioxide. This will act as a positive feedback, tending to enhance the greenhouse effect. NASA spacecraft have already found much melting in the polar ice caps, in the Arctic a satellites show a 3% reduction in ices. New NASA data has already found evidence that the arctic perennial Sea Ice could be gone in the next 70 years, and that Arctic ices were melting much faster than previously thought at a rate of 9 percent. Scientists are now looking at the possibility that the Arctic Ocean may become totally ice-free as a result of climate change.

Makgraf
2004-Dec-06, 01:16 AM
Paragraph breaks are your friend. 8-[

Get over it Kesh,
I'll present my postings with nice presentations and big paragraph breaks once you start responding to my posts in a lanague other than English or your native tongue a language such as French, German, Cantonese, Mandarin, Japanese or Korean the choice is yours.
Je réponds à votre poteau en français. Volonté vous s'il vous plaît avez maintenant mis quelques ruptures de paragraphe dedans? I am responding to your post in French. Now will you please put some paragraph breaks in? :)
Seriously though it's completely unrelated. The way you write your posts make them very hard to read. You are, of course, perfectly free to do this but it would be a nice gesture to just throw in a couple of paragraph breaks (as you did in your last post).



ad hominem remarks
You accuse me of these ad hominem remarks when it is You that have been writing gibberish.
This is a joke right? You're making a clever meta-ironic comment here?

I mean that's the only way I can interpret you rebuting the charge you're engaging in personal attacks by engaging in a personal attack.

bobjohnston
2004-Dec-06, 01:38 AM
Polluting material are substances which are harmful, unwanted change or cause damage to the enviornment, and we know CO2 is a pollutant.

This doesn't make sense. Calling CO2 a pollutant makes the term "pollutant" meaningless, since CO2 is produced by birds and bees and whales and spotted owls.


As for the Solar effects on the climate yes I know of the climate changes that came about do to variations in the Sun's luminosity, sunspot activites and chnages in the solar luminosity had a chilly impact on Earth.

So how do you separate the solar influence from the alledged human influence? This is a flaw in all the political hoopla about alledged climate change.


NASA's Space Flight Center has been finding that there is a less than a 2 percent chance that observed melting of arctic sea ice is the result of normal climatic variations and a much less than a 0.2 percent chance that melting over the last 46 years is the result of normal variations.

How can they quantify this? This is a misleading application of statistics if we haven't quantified the effect of solar and other natural influences (and we haven't).


A NASA study recently used a computer climate model to simulate the last 50 years of climate changes and then project the changes over the next 50, they found out that if no emission reductions are made and they continue to increase at the current rate, global temperatures may increase by 1-2º Celsius (1.8º-3.6º Fahrenheit).

These models are flawed. They must make the unproven assumption that human influences are the most important factor in climate change in the last 50 years, and they continue to produce results probably too high by a factor of 3-5. Even if we decide to trust these models, they give nearly the same outcome if emissions are reduced.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2004-Dec-06, 01:54 AM
Tres bon livre Makgraf ! Merci pour votre réponse en francais. Certains dit 'sommes en train de passer un point de non-retour au niveau écologique', explique moi ce que to penses ? Le réchauffement climatique constitue une grave menace pour les populations les plus pauvres ? Anyway I won't continue this discussion in French 'cos its hard enough for me to write in English :lol: But on the subject of climate change I think it would be nice if we could continue the debate without having other throw wild accusations ta Russia saying that they were corrupt, bribed or bought-out into putting their name on the Kyoto treaty. I think I maybe went over the top to Glom's accusations and his attack on various nations or bodies, so if I offended anyone I'm sorry however I don't expect him to say sorry to Europeans, Russians or any other nationality that he has offended in his posts. It is still not fully know what is really cuasing the current changes but their is much evidence from scientific studies and NASA research that shows mankind is contributing to climate change and it could be a real menace, it won't just alter the nations like India or Brazil but could cause a Global economic and climatic impact. Bad-Politics has destroyed much of the ideas and good work behind people who wanted the real answers of climate change. The politics has been a real road block at times, there is so much going on in climate studies and enough problems as there are in dealing with research so let's stick to the real science when debating this issue !?

Manchurian Taikonaut
2004-Dec-06, 02:21 AM
This doesn't make sense. Calling CO2 a pollutant makes the term "pollutant" meaningless, since CO2 is produced by birds and bees and whales and spotted owls.



:P Fantastic logic bob =D> ....:lol: , maybe we should start calling those Heroine, Morphine and Crack victims - Nature's natural victims and they didn't die of a drug overdose because all those endorphins and peptides are natural in the human body. Yep maybe the words drug and narcotic should be meaningless
Maybe we should start calling those Nagasaki and Chernobyl deaths Nature's natural victims. You know 'cos all that Uranium is one of the most abundant natural elements within the Earth's crust, and plutonium another one of natures elements...maybe we should start saying the term 'radiation' is meaningless.


.
So how do you separate the solar influence from the alledged human influence? This is a flaw in all the political hoopla about alledged climate change..


I didn't seperate the solar factor, check the reports from Columbia University, Canadian Enviormental scientists, Shindell's reports and studies by NASA's Goddard Institute. Ask them and all the rest of the scientific global community.


How can they quantify this? This is a misleading application of statistics if we haven't quantified the effect of solar and other natural influences (and we haven't)...


Don't tell it to me, if you see a serious problem tell it to Canadian Enviormental scientists, the Europeans and give NASA a call and tell them their science is all wrong





These models are flawed. They must make the unproven assumption that human influences are the most important factor in climate change in the last 50 years, and they continue to produce results probably too high by a factor of 3-5. Even if we decide to trust these models, they give nearly the same outcome if emissions are reduced.

There's not much use in telling me, if there's a report by a well respected scientific body then the public are likely to agree with their models and reports. If you say the models are flawed then you should write a letter to NASA or phone NASA and say 'your models are flawed'

bobjohnston
2004-Dec-06, 06:10 AM
The politics has been a real road block at times, there is so much going on in climate studies and enough problems as there are in dealing with research so let's stick to the real science when debating this issue !?

Yes, let's debate the science. You haven't addressed my points. Are you sufficiently familiar with the sources you cite to specify what, if any, responses they have to the issues I raise?

Your analogies regarding my point on the definition of pollutant are invalid. The releases from Chernobyl included artificial nuclides, for example. About half of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions of the last several decades is not in the atmosphere. We don't know where all of it has gone (one good reason the bureaucrats should not be writing regulations at this point), but much of it has been converted to living, growing biomass.

archman
2004-Dec-06, 09:45 AM
About half of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions of the last several decades is not in the atmosphere. We don't know where all of it has gone (one good reason the bureaucrats should not be writing regulations at this point), but much of it has been converted to living, growing biomass. Well, since I'm nominally an oceanographer of sorts I can partially answer that. A lot of the CO2 is being uptaked by the oceans. Technically its referred to as the "biological pump" or "carbon pump", and its a natural process that phytoplankton productivity depends on.

Significant elevations in dissolved CO2 have been noted by the oceanographic community recently. I think its double the recognized "normal value" or something... I'll have to check. Anyway its got our attention, as elevated CO2 will lower ocean pH, thus altering the ecology. If anyone tinkers with reef aquariums you'll know all about the dangers of even minute chemistry shifts.

Regarding plant biomass taking advantage of increased CO2, that was a very popular theory until quite recently. Studies are coming out showing that terrestrial plants aren't performing nearly as well as "expected", and as for the phytoplankton, they're not carbon-limited. So don't expect the oceanic productivity to show much in the way of elevated uptake. The excess CO2 will become sequestered into the deep-sea, as its been doing since time immemorial.

Wow, I hardly ever get to post on this board. Rarely have I anything relevant to contribute, and you guys scare me with your nasty comments to one another. This is a very good board for lurkers.

Glom
2004-Dec-06, 12:04 PM
Even the UK ( America's No1 ally ) and the UK Government's Chief Scientific man David King has condemned the Bush administration for "failing to take up the challenge of global warming,

Sir David King was the one who tried to get sceptics at a Russian conference of climatology silenced. Looks like he is the one trying to stifle debate.


You accuse me of these ad hominem remarks when it is You that have been writing gibberish.

I accused you of an ad hominem because you say the sceptics are aligned with polluters and therefore cannot be trusted.


You are the one who has made many attacks in your thread on Europeans calling them liars, and saying the EU are hypocrites.

I believe you are referring to the time I contradicted you on your statement that the Russians cared about the climate by pointing out that the reason they joined Kyoto was because the EU bribed them with economic benefits.


One of your climate-change threads was so strange that it didn't really say anything excpet that you supported the UK pro-independance party and these radical political folk who were called a low calorie version of the BNP by English newspapers.

I never stated I support UKIP.


we know CO2 is a pollutant.

No. Without carbon dioxide, there would be no life and increasing its concentration in the atmosphere will ensure improved growth of life. How does that behaviour constitute a pollutant. Even its role in the Greenhouse effect is beneficial because otherwise the surface would be subzero.


You have also said Russia was corrupt when it signed the Kyoto treaty and you said they were bribed into doing it.

I didn't say they were corrupt. I said that you were wrong to assert that Russia's signing was an example of environmental conscience.


There are real scientists and people who have real concerns over the possibility that our water levels may rise, over the change in the Earth's temperature and the efefct it will have on the world.

Equally, there are others that believe that take the climate for the chaotic system it is and don't try to pin the blame for its behaviour on a limited set of political expedient variables.


Recently a 144-page report published first by oneworld dot net, said that the accelerated warming of the globe which can be blamed on the increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by the industrial age has been transforming the Arctic region dramatically.

But this is another affirmed consequent. The Arctic is changing, but it is an insulting simplification to assume that one variable is to blame. But if the Industrial Age is to blame, then why is it that the glacial retreats started one hundred years before the Industrial Revolution?


One of the top U.S. oceanographers Dr. Robert Corell said that the major message was that 'climate change is here and now in the Arctic'.

That's a stupid statement. Of course climate change is here. Climate change is always here with or without our help.


Major sience groups have given us confirmed predictions about the climate of our Earth and the Ozone layer and NASA has confirmed Arctic ozone depletion.

Quel surprise! I'm hardly shocked to hear that ozone is depleted in regions to where the magnetic field is funnelling charged particles.


Another science study by NASA has found another pollutant, the regular black carbon soot. The teams from out of the NASA andthe Columbia University scientists, found airborne microscopics of black-carbon (soot) particles are even more plentiful around the world, and contribute more to climate change, than was previously accounted for.

We know about that and it was far worse a hundred years ago. One interesting thought is that as air pollution is reduced, more sunlight reaches the surface allowing it to be warmer. Perhaps one explanation for surface warming is that we cleaned up our pollution, not that we are putting out more of it.


Top 50 scientists, researchers at the NASA Goddard Institute have found that 1999 set a new record Global surface temperatures.

Warmer than the Medieval Warm Period?


Glaciers along the southeastern coast of Greenland were found to be thinning by more than 3 feet a year.

Good. Then maybe Greenland will become the lush fertile territory for which it was named over a millenium ago.


Also the NASA high-tech aerial survey showed that more than 11 cubic miles of ice is melting along Greenland's coasts yearly, accounting for 7% of the annual global sea level rise.

Shock horror! Greenland was always covered in ice before Industrialisation. Oh wait! No it wasn't!


The study leads NASA's climate study and Shindell to conclude that greenhouse gases are playing the dominant role in warming the planet.

Yes, because it's an either/or situation in systems as simple and linear as climate. :roll:


Scientists are now looking at the possibility that the Arctic Ocean may become totally ice-free as a result of climate change.

That will lower sea levels because ice is less dense than water.

frogesque
2004-Dec-06, 01:00 PM
Glom wrote:

MT wrote:
Scientists are now looking at the possibility that the Arctic Ocean may become totally ice-free as a result of climate change.


That will lower sea levels because ice is less dense than water.


Just a wee nit pick. If the ice is aready floating it won't make much difference (bouyancy) Melting polar caps and glaciers calving off land will add to the volume as will any water temperature rise above ~4C due to expansion. (Not sure of the exact figure for saline solution).

But hey, there are raised beaches and continental shelves all over the world that can attest to rising and falling land/sea levels. It's in the geological record.

If we build houses and cities on a flood plain or farm low lying arable or pasture land then we shouldn't be surprised if we get flooded now and again. That said I don't like pollution either - I'm old enough to remember the London/South East smogs we used to get when I was a kid. Thick soupy green stuff so bad I couldn't see my feet riding a bike. I can remember the taste of the awful rancid air. Pollution isn't just about CO2 (which is essential to plant photosynthesis), it's the rest of the garbage that cames with it.

We know so much more now, lead has been removed from petrol (gas), we no longer burn coal in major towns and cities to heat our homes; factories don't belch out huge plumes of unscrubbed flue gasses. Our world is a little more pleasant because of it.

Environmental lobbies have their place, so too do clean safe nuclear installations that take waste disposal into the equation. Nobody wants another Three Mile Island or Chernobyl nor do we want to go back to stone age subsistance. We are part of this wonderful Earth, not Masters that should whip it to do our bidding untill it dies. Burn coal and oil where appropriate, conserve where we can, recycle when it makes sense.

Hand waving and shouting over the garden fence gets us nowhere.

Glom
2004-Dec-06, 01:09 PM
I think I maybe went over the top to Glom's accusations and his attack on various nations or bodies,

Primarily because most of your accusations were false. I don't support UKIP. I never called the Russians corrupt.

I accused the EU of bullying and bribing the Russians, which is something all the powers do to suit their own ends. I accused the Greens of being more concerned about radical anti-human luddism than the environment. I accused Sir David King of being a Lysenko (not my words) because of his attempts to silence his critics. If AAGW proponents acted properly, I wouldn't be making these accusations.


Bad-Politics has destroyed much of the ideas and good work behind people who wanted the real answers of climate change. The politics has been a real road block at times, there is so much going on in climate studies and enough problems as there are in dealing with research so let's stick to the real science when debating this issue !?

Bad politics is revolved around the idea that somehow we can control the climate by altering a specific set of variables out of the millions that affect climate. Kyoto aims to create a stable climate, which is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as a stable climate. Therefore Kyoto is scientifically flawed, if politically useful for certain groups. If we're really that concerned about an apocalypse, natural or man-made, our efforts should not be put towards trying to prevent something when we have no idea how to do that or what it would mean, but rather towards adapting to the inevitable as we have always done.

Glom
2004-Dec-06, 01:37 PM
Just a wee nit pick. If the ice is aready floating it won't make much difference (bouyancy) Melting polar caps and glaciers calving off land will add to the volume as will any water temperature rise above ~4C due to expansion. (Not sure of the exact figure for saline solution).

Yeah. What I meant was that ice already in the sea will take up less volume as water, but you're right that it won't make that much difference. Sea level rise due to glacial melting is because of water previously stored as ice on land. However, the issue of sea level rise is exacerbated by the fact that the land doesn't remain fixed and certain places are sinking, which gives the illusion of a sea level rise.


Environmental lobbies have their place, so too do clean safe nuclear installations that take waste disposal into the equation.

Hail Generation IV.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-06, 02:24 PM
Regarding plant biomass taking advantage of increased CO2, that was a very popular theory until quite recently. Studies are coming out showing that terrestrial plants aren't performing nearly as well as "expected",

No hurry, but when you get a chance, I'd be interested in seeing references to studies that have concluded the plants are not performing well.


Wow, I hardly ever get to post on this board. Rarely have I anything relevant to contribute, and you guys scare me with your nasty comments to one another. This is a very good board for lurkers.

Gee, we're not that "nasty" are we? I thought it was "tough love" for the mis-informed?! :lol:

bobjohnston
2004-Dec-06, 03:28 PM
Well, since I'm nominally an oceanographer of sorts I can partially answer that. A lot of the CO2 is being uptaked by the oceans. Technically its referred to as the "biological pump" or "carbon pump", and its a natural process that phytoplankton productivity depends on.

Significant elevations in dissolved CO2 have been noted by the oceanographic community recently. I think its double the recognized "normal value" or something... I'll have to check. Anyway its got our attention, as elevated CO2 will lower ocean pH, thus altering the ecology. If anyone tinkers with reef aquariums you'll know all about the dangers of even minute chemistry shifts.

Regarding plant biomass taking advantage of increased CO2, that was a very popular theory until quite recently. Studies are coming out showing that terrestrial plants aren't performing nearly as well as "expected", and as for the phytoplankton, they're not carbon-limited. So don't expect the oceanic productivity to show much in the way of elevated uptake. The excess CO2 will become sequestered into the deep-sea, as its been doing since time immemorial.

Wow, I hardly ever get to post on this board. Rarely have I anything relevant to contribute, and you guys scare me with your nasty comments to one another. This is a very good board for lurkers.

Well, I'm glad you joined in! I shouldn't imply that we don't know a number of major sinks, including the oceans. But we still don't have the sinks nailed down. My understanding is that we have quantified the oceanic sinks better than the land sinks.

Glom
2004-Dec-06, 03:28 PM
Also, although plants may not be doing as well as expected, but does that mean they are doing worse than when carbon dioxide levels were lower and are we sure it is related to carbon enrichment? Certainly in the past, warmer and enriched atmospheres have been good for agriculture with vineyards in England and other things.

Again, chaos theory makes it difficult to make anything out of anything, which is why adapting to what is happening is much better than trying to prevent what we think might happen.

archman
2004-Dec-07, 03:48 AM
[quote=archman]Regarding plant biomass taking advantage of increased CO2, that was a very popular theory until quite recently. Studies are coming out showing that terrestrial plants aren't performing nearly as well as "expected",


No hurry, but when you get a chance, I'd be interested in seeing references to studies that have concluded the plants are not performing well.

I must've read a recent quack report on CNN. After going through the reports from this wonderful site....
http://www.co2science.org/center.htm

most data reports nothing but positive terrestrial plant growth in relation to elevated CO2. I usually don't make mistakes like this; sorry.

This website has a neat link to balloon data. You plug in your dates and latitudes, and it plots measured temperature values over time.
http://www.co2science.org/temperatures/radiosonde.htm

I tracked down a carbon table from my newest marine ecology text (Valiela, 1995). It shows you where the carbon is.

Carbon Reservoir gC X 10-20
Atmospheric (circa 1973)....................... 0.000675
Ocean
...Inorganic Carbon (CO2)....................... 0.38
...Organic Carbon................................... 0.01
... Detrital carbonates............................... 0.0129
Terrestrial
... Organisms......................................... .. 0.0164
... Organic C in sedimentary rocks............. 68.2
...Carbonate rocks................................... 183

Rocks have most of the carbon, but its generally tied up and ecologically unimportant except on geologic time scales. The book quotes 50-60 times as much CO2 in the ocean basins than in the atmosphere. I didn't think it was THAT different... maybe I should have taken that chemical oceanography class after all.

I can't believe I copied a friggin' table. I am going to go lurk again now.

bobjohnston
2004-Dec-07, 09:08 PM
The last IPCC report gives the following values for carbon uptake (in Pg of C/yr, 1990s data):

into the ocean 1.7 +/- 0.5
net into land 1.4 +/- 0.7 (after subtracting land use change emissions)

see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/097.htm

dgruss23
2004-Dec-08, 04:26 AM
I can't believe I copied a friggin' table. I am going to go lurk again now.

That CO2 science site is pretty good. I've come across it before.

Don't beat yourself up! I'm still interested in your thoughts. :)

archman
2004-Dec-09, 01:08 AM
The last IPCC report gives the following values for carbon uptake (in Pg of C/yr, 1990s data):

into the ocean 1.7 +/- 0.5
net into land 1.4 +/- 0.7 (after subtracting land use change emissions)

see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/097.htm

This is a nice link, nice in that it makes my head hurt. It does however list in plain english the atmospheric CO2 levels from 1800 (280ppm) and 1999 (367ppm).

Even though carbon uptake is roughly similar between terrestrial and marine habitats, the oceans have the much larger stored reservoir. Don't know if that's relevant to this discussion, however.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-10, 02:48 PM
Here (http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/) and here (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm110697.html) are two very relevant and interesting examples of testimony given to the US Congress. They would seem to be pointing to some "trickery" on the part of GW advocates. Of course that is nothing new (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/17/wglac17.xml). It happens! (http://www.techcentralstation.com/062802B.html).

SSJPabs
2004-Dec-10, 03:34 PM
New Site formed by scientists:

www.RealClimate.org

geokstr
2004-Dec-14, 05:33 AM
The following three quotes (there are numerous others just like it) were taken from this site:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/quotes.html


"The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."- Nigel Calder, International Wildlife, June 1975

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialisation, mechanisation, urbanisation and exploding population."- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", 1971

"An increase by only a factor of 4 in the global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age."- S.I Rasool and S.H. Schneider Science, v173, p138, 9/7/1971.

I must be a little older than most of you, and I'm not a scientist. But when I saw this thread I immediately remembered the 1970's, where the catastrophe of the week was global cooling. Other quotes from scientists on that site predict reduced agricultural output for decades and blamed cooling for hundreds of thousands of actual deaths.

We were urged by scientists to spend billions of dollars to warm up the planet before the next ice age kills us all.

So we did. The government spent billions and private industry untold tens of billions doing exactly what scientists urged us to do. We cut pollution as Reid Bryson said we had to. We retooled our factories, redesigned our vehicles, reformulated our gasoline, and lots of other similar things to that end. Rasool and Schneider told us we had to change the propellants in spray cans and industrial use, and we did. All these things were supposed to make it warmer.

Now scientists, including some of the same ones who were in on the ice age fiasco, are telling us that we are actually going to die from global warming unless we spend trillions this time. That's real nice of you. So maybe the scientists who urged us to warm the planet should take some personal responsibility for this supposed global warming, don't you think?

And pardon us laypeople for being a bit skeptical about this warming stuff after that. Or were you just funning with us about that cooling stuff? You guys, you're such kidders.

It has much more to do with huge government grants to fund giant research projects than actual real science. There would be a precipitous drop in that funding if scientists said everything's going just fine. Got to cook up one overblown scare after another, as each one gets debunked when real science is done. Throw in political correctness, add some instant fame, and feed the junk science to a media looking for disasters to sell their papers and increase advertising.

Fool us once; shame on you. Fool us twice; shame on US. This has to be about the 257th time Chicken Little has tried to fool us. I sure hope we don't shame ourselves again.

Kaptain K
2004-Dec-14, 08:08 AM
...media looking for disasters to sell their papers and increase advertising.
FWIW - At least for newspapers. the amount of news does not drive advertizing. It's the other way around. There is always more news than will fit in the paper. Newspapers maintain a constant ratio of advertising to news. The more advertising they sell, the more news there is "room" for!

Glom
2004-Dec-14, 02:26 PM
So we did. The government spent billions and private industry untold tens of billions doing exactly what scientists urged us to do. We cut pollution as Reid Bryson said we had to. We retooled our factories, redesigned our vehicles, reformulated our gasoline, and lots of other similar things to that end. Rasool and Schneider told us we had to change the propellants in spray cans and industrial use, and we did. All these things were supposed to make it warmer.

Irony of ironies, it was probably the drop in the particulates and aerosols as processes quite rightly cleaned up, that has contributed to the warming. So while everyone is blaming pollution for global warming, it may very well be the lack of it that is causing warming (if any anthropogenic effects are significant at all).

bobjohnston
2004-Dec-14, 03:50 PM
When I was a kid I remember an issue of National Geographic in the 1970s (back when NG still did science) that discussed the uncertainty of climate future--that we might suffer global cooling or global warming. We still don't know.

Many misinterpret the uniformity of tales by scientists appearing in news sound bites as a consensus that we are warming the Earth. In fact, the majority of scientists consider the evidence insufficient to draw a particular conclusion, and as a result they don't enter the public arena with an opinion. I understand their perspective--lacking definitive evidence, they will not seek to change public policy--but the result is they abandon the public arena to a minority of scientists acting on weak evidence or logic.

ToSeek
2004-Dec-14, 04:54 PM
We were urged by scientists to spend billions of dollars to warm up the planet before the next ice age kills us all.

So we did. The government spent billions and private industry untold tens of billions doing exactly what scientists urged us to do. We cut pollution as Reid Bryson said we had to. We retooled our factories, redesigned our vehicles, reformulated our gasoline, and lots of other similar things to that end. Rasool and Schneider told us we had to change the propellants in spray cans and industrial use, and we did. All these things were supposed to make it warmer.

I don't recall any anti-pollution efforts predicated solely or primarily on the notion of preventing global cooling. There are already plenty of good reasons to cut down on pollution, particularly particulates.

SSJPabs
2004-Dec-14, 04:55 PM
I think just about all scientists agree that Humans are changing the Earth's Climate but whether that will warm the planet, cool it, or not really affect us much etc. is where the questions still lie.

Glom
2004-Dec-14, 06:23 PM
That point is fair. Changes in albedo through agriculture and urbanisations, affect radiative transfer. Changes in landscape alter water and air flow. Heat from cities changes convection patterns. And then there are the emissions.

The debate is not just what this will mean, which as you say remains completely uncertain. The climate is too chaotic to be able to predict much. The debate is also on how these things compare will other natural factors, such as tectonics, solar irradiance, GCRs etc.

What remains unfounded is the widely held assertion that the climate is as simple as CO2 on => catastrophe, CO2 off => stability. Even if we switch off CO2 emissions, what effect will this have? We can't know. The climate is chaotic and non-linear. Not emitting might make the climate more stable or on the other hand it might make it go haywire.

If we are worried about climate change, which is a certainty, because it is fact of life of a dynamic planet such as this one, our best bet would be to focus on adaptation to whatever the chaos throws at us. That would be more productive that investing effort trying to prevent hypothetical catastrophes which might not happen. One complaint I've heard about all the focus on greenhouse gases is that it diverts our attention away from real issues such as pollution.

Russ
2004-Dec-14, 07:21 PM
Thanks Wolverine from now on I'll put in the URL's

as to what I think, it's terrible. I don't think any party either Republican or Democrat should be allowed go ahead in Suppressing our Scientists and their real information and twist them for political means and to keep the public uninformed.

The skepticism of the scientific community might be very correct, I look forward to hearing more on this news item

It is, of course, not possible that the scientific community is coloring their words and point of view to promote their biased agenda! :roll: :roll: :roll: :-?

As I understand it, the reason our government has rejected the KP is because it is a BAD treaty. It requires the US to shoulder 90% of the costs and restrictions while permitting China, India and other countries to pollute to thier hearts content.

Between China and India they have seven times our population!!!! Do you realize what that means in terms of untreated excrements alone?! I've been both places and the US doesn't hold a candle to the pollution in either of those countries.

I know how politically incorrect this thought is but... what's bad for US business is bad for the US. Wheather you work for one of the big multinational companies or not, your paycheck comes from them one way or another. Think about that.

Glom
2004-Dec-14, 10:05 PM
Bush has tried a bit towards the naive goal of Europe. He's supported nuclear initiatives and hydrogen development (also naive). There has also been reforestation in America.

Launch window
2004-Dec-22, 06:55 AM
Sounds to me as if it's a clear case of firm religious conviction against qualified scientific result.

Bottom line - history will tell all.

If the current adminstration cannot reconcile their policy in keeping with corroborated scientific theorem, then it's time they step down. As a Christian I have little difficulty separating the Bible from the latest in scientific discovery, provided it fits within established and documented models.

Sadly, I fear our current administration, even though I voted for them, are relying on poorly understood Biblical principals rather than well-understood Judeo-Christian-Secular principles with respect to how best to raise kids.


The tilt of the Earths axis changes by less than one degree over a 41,000 year cycle. This should not be confused with the precession of the Earths axis which does not change the tilt. Precession changes where the axis points in the sky. It does not change the amount of insolation at the poles except for an effect related to the elipticity of the orbit. Currently the tilt is such that the north pole is pointed away from the sun when Earth is closest to the sun, around Jan 6, IIRC. The precession cycle is about 26,000 years. In 13,000 years the north pole will be tilted towards the sun during periapsis which will have the slight effect of giving warmer summers in the northern hemisphere. However, the effect is more than balanced by the fact the Earth spends more time near apoapsis (see analemma) and the southern hemisphere will have slightly cooler summers as a result. The net effect is zero. The tilt of the Earth is not changing in any way that accounts for climate change in the present day or any time that matters. It is a spurious argument.

We need more science in this area, global warming or climate change has to be one of the areas of study that has been the most affected and hindered by bad-politics from perhaps both sides who both have a stake in the scientific results, its time something is done to change this.
The Police force and the Hospitals serve the public, neither cares about politics as they do their job and help the nation. Enviornmental studies on floods, ice-caps, climate change, forest fires, rain storms , should have nothing to do with politics the groups studying the subject should serve the country and study the enviornment and not spin-doctor the results for political gain.

Evan
2004-Dec-22, 07:32 PM
Black soot alters way sunlight reflects off snow to affect global warming

Black soot may be responsible for 25% of the observed global warming over the past century, based on a computer simulation, report David Steitz and associates at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and at Columbia University. Soot in the higher latitudes of Earth ,where ice is more common, absorbs more of the sun's energy and warmth than an icy, white background. If snow and ice-covered areas melt, the warming effect increases as the soot become more concentrated at the snow surface. Even though soot can alter global climate, they still think that greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of global warming during this period. These findings are consistent with models showing that the largest warming effects tend to occur with heavy snow cover and abundant sunlight. (The Earth Observer 15[6]: 26-27, 2003)

dgruss23
2004-Dec-23, 10:38 PM
Black soot alters way sunlight reflects off snow to affect global warming

Black soot may be responsible for 25% of the observed global warming over the past century, based on a computer simulation, report David Steitz and associates at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and at Columbia University. Soot in the higher latitudes of Earth ,where ice is more common, absorbs more of the sun's energy and warmth than an icy, white background. If snow and ice-covered areas melt, the warming effect increases as the soot become more concentrated at the snow surface. Even though soot can alter global climate, they still think that greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of global warming during this period. These findings are consistent with models showing that the largest warming effects tend to occur with heavy snow cover and abundant sunlight. (The Earth Observer 15[6]: 26-27, 2003)

Any claims about anthropogenic greenhouse gases driving climate change are suspect as discussed in this article (http://www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf).

Evan
2004-Dec-23, 11:00 PM
Never mind the greenhouse gases. They are talking about soot. Before they built the very clean cogeneration power plant here the sawmills used to burn all their wood waste in beehive burners. It would turn a fresh snowfall dark grey with the ash fallout from the burners in 24 hours. I can tell you from experience it most certainly absorbs heat far better than clean snow. It will melt the snow in a hurry.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-23, 11:39 PM
Never mind the greenhouse gases. They are talking about soot. Before they built the very clean cogeneration power plant here the sawmills used to burn all their wood waste in beehive burners. It would turn a fresh snowfall dark grey with the ash fallout from the burners in 24 hours. I can tell you from experience it most certainly absorbs heat far better than clean snow. It will melt the snow in a hurry.

I was referring to this:


Even though soot can alter global climate, they still think that greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of global warming during this period.

I'm not concerned about the soot. Everybody agrees cleaning up emissions is an important step. These projections about the effect the soot could have on warming is just more GW hysteria. One might ask these people why the planet was cooling between 1940 and 1975 if soot has a warming effect. Certainly the pre-1970's air pollution/soot production was far greater than since - because of environmental legislation.

If soot is proposed as an important player, then either the 1940-1975 cooling trend suggests that soot has no significant effect, or it suggests that the effect is actually a cooling effect.

Evan
2004-Dec-24, 01:55 AM
China has been cranking out the soot in a major way since the middle eighties unlike ever before.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-24, 03:03 PM
China has been cranking out the soot in a major way since the middle eighties unlike ever before.

Exactly - and in the last 20 years there has been no observed warming detected by satellite and balloon measurements. In fact, the satellite and balloon readings indicate a slight cooling.

ChaosInc
2004-Dec-24, 04:21 PM
Dgruss:
I tend to think in terms of analogies and the like, seeing as how I am no scientist, but wouldn’t the balloon/satellite readings be lower due to “Global Warming”? Here is how I think about the GW in terms of something that I can understand: I picture a poor soul sleeping in a cabin in the great white north. He has a thin cotton sheet, two woolen blankets and a nice down comforter. If we put on another blanket wouldn’t the temperature, as measured farther away from his body, be less than before, even though he is warmer? Maybe I don’t understand how the balloon/satellites take their measurements. Are you referring to ground temperature measurements taken from above, or temperature measurements at the stratosphere?
But, keeping with my analogy, if the down comforter is equivalent to the water vapor in the air, and the blankets are like clouds and particulates, then the CO2 is the thin cotton sheet. When we get too hot then the solution is to reduce the thickness of the cotton sheet?? One of my problems with GW, besides the lack of good correlation between man-induced warming versus normal or natural warming, is that they/we always want to reduce the effect of the least effective agent.

Evan
2004-Dec-24, 04:24 PM
and in the last 20 years there has been no observed warming detected by satellite and balloon measurements. In fact, the satellite and balloon readings indicate a slight cooling.

Then why is it raining here this winter instead of -40?

The last 30 years here there has been a marked and steady increase in winter temperatures. It is especially noticable in the nighttime low temps which have increased markedly. We haven't had -40 temps in a decade or more. I have checked the temp records from the local airport and there is a steady and unmistakeable upwards trend. It is not imaginary. We now have rain in December, something that would have been laughable and unbelievable 20 years ago.

SSJPabs
2004-Dec-24, 05:37 PM
Conspiracy? Or just the facts?

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&auth or1=oreskes&searchid=1103210845409_5389&stored_sea rch=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31/2004

Glom
2004-Dec-24, 07:37 PM
Then why is it raining here this winter instead of -40?

Because British Columbia is not the entire world. This highlights the problem with trying to use a concept as crude as "global temperature".

Evan
2004-Dec-25, 06:07 AM
Rain forecast for tommorow..

Launch window
2004-Dec-25, 02:01 PM
and in the last 20 years there has been no observed warming detected by satellite and balloon measurements. In fact, the satellite and balloon readings indicate a slight cooling.

Then why is it raining here this winter instead of -40?

The last 30 years here there has been a marked and steady increase in winter temperatures. It is especially noticable in the nighttime low temps which have increased markedly. We haven't had -40 temps in a decade or more. I have checked the temp records from the local airport and there is a steady and unmistakeable upwards trend. It is not imaginary. We now have rain in December, something that would have been laughable and unbelievable 20 years ago.

:-? maybe more studies should be done in this area to check if winter
seasons have been getting warmer in the past decade or so

dgruss23
2004-Dec-26, 03:54 AM
and in the last 20 years there has been no observed warming detected by satellite and balloon measurements. In fact, the satellite and balloon readings indicate a slight cooling.

Then why is it raining here this winter instead of -40?

The last 30 years here there has been a marked and steady increase in winter temperatures. It is especially noticable in the nighttime low temps which have increased markedly. We haven't had -40 temps in a decade or more. I have checked the temp records from the local airport and there is a steady and unmistakeable upwards trend. It is not imaginary. We now have rain in December, something that would have been laughable and unbelievable 20 years ago.

First, weather on a given day or in a given year does not constitute evidence on climate scales. It was 45 a few days this week in upstate NY, but last week it was below zero for 2 days. I've seen Christmas Days where its been 65 deg F and I've seen very cold Christmas Days.

You have to be careful about surface measurements because they are contaminated by the urban heat island effect. Fig 13 (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf) of this paper gives an illustration. In fact the satellites which are much more accurate and have much greater coverage (the entire surface) have shown a slight cooling.

Evan
2004-Dec-26, 06:26 AM
There aren't any heat islands happening around here. See here (http://vts.bc.ca/ourhome.htm)

We would expect the temperature to be at least 20 degrees colder than it is now. This is not an isolated event, it has been the case for over a decade. Global warming may not be the correct desription but local warming most certainly is.

jrkeller
2004-Dec-26, 12:43 PM
and in the last 20 years there has been no observed warming detected by satellite and balloon measurements. In fact, the satellite and balloon readings indicate a slight cooling.

Then why is it raining here this winter instead of -40?

The last 30 years here there has been a marked and steady increase in winter temperatures. It is especially noticable in the nighttime low temps which have increased markedly. We haven't had -40 temps in a decade or more. I have checked the temp records from the local airport and there is a steady and unmistakeable upwards trend. It is not imaginary. We now have rain in December, something that would have been laughable and unbelievable 20 years ago.

I know what you mean. We just had our first snow in 14 years here in Houston. Things are getting colder.

It's called an average for a reason. I've looked at the temperature data for Texas and you know what, the trending of the temperature data over the past fifty years shows a downward trend.

Diamond
2004-Dec-26, 12:45 PM
and in the last 20 years there has been no observed warming detected by satellite and balloon measurements. In fact, the satellite and balloon readings indicate a slight cooling.

Then why is it raining here this winter instead of -40?

The last 30 years here there has been a marked and steady increase in winter temperatures. It is especially noticable in the nighttime low temps which have increased markedly. We haven't had -40 temps in a decade or more. I have checked the temp records from the local airport and there is a steady and unmistakeable upwards trend. It is not imaginary. We now have rain in December, something that would have been laughable and unbelievable 20 years ago.

I know what you mean. We just had our first snow in 14 years here in Houston. Things are getting colder.

It's called an average for a reason. I've looked at the temperature data for Texas and you know what, the trending of the temperature data over the past fifty years shows a downward trend.

Can you point to exactly which data shows this?

dgruss23
2004-Dec-26, 03:07 PM
There aren't any heat islands happening around here. See here (http://vts.bc.ca/ourhome.htm)

We would expect the temperature to be at least 20 degrees colder than it is now. This is not an isolated event, it has been the case for over a decade. Global warming may not be the correct desription but local warming most certainly is.

From the looks of things, you should be rooting for a little global warming! :)

Your last point is the important point. You may have some local warming, but the temperature records globally do not indicate any significant warming. Surface temp. records are contaminated by the heat island effect (even if your area isn't) and satellite measurements - the most reliable, indicate slight cooling. None of this is in accord with GW predictions.

Diamond
2004-Dec-26, 03:33 PM
There aren't any heat islands happening around here. See here (http://vts.bc.ca/ourhome.htm)

We would expect the temperature to be at least 20 degrees colder than it is now. This is not an isolated event, it has been the case for over a decade. Global warming may not be the correct desription but local warming most certainly is.

From the looks of things, you should be rooting for a little global warming! :)

Your last point is the important point. You may have some local warming, but the temperature records globally do not indicate any significant warming. Surface temp. records are contaminated by the heat island effect (even if your area isn't) and satellite measurements - the most reliable, indicate slight cooling. None of this is in accord with GW predictions.

Worse still, although the land appears to have some warming, the lower atmosphere is not warming at all - in complete contradiction to what greenhouse gas theory predicts.

I'll go further - greenhouse gas theory has lots of predictions and all of them have been falsified by empirical evidence. Not one, as far as I can tell, has been proven.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-26, 03:55 PM
There aren't any heat islands happening around here. See here (http://vts.bc.ca/ourhome.htm)

We would expect the temperature to be at least 20 degrees colder than it is now. This is not an isolated event, it has been the case for over a decade. Global warming may not be the correct desription but local warming most certainly is.

From the looks of things, you should be rooting for a little global warming! :)

Your last point is the important point. You may have some local warming, but the temperature records globally do not indicate any significant warming. Surface temp. records are contaminated by the heat island effect (even if your area isn't) and satellite measurements - the most reliable, indicate slight cooling. None of this is in accord with GW predictions.

Worse still, although the land appears to have some warming, the lower atmosphere is not warming at all - in complete contradiction to what greenhouse gas theory predicts.

I'll go further - greenhouse gas theory has lots of predictions and all of them have been falsified by empirical evidence. Not one, as far as I can tell, has been proven.

I agree! Where's the GWT beef? All they seem to have is a little bit of grizzle. The entire GWT fiasco is a perfect example of telling something that's not true enough times that it becomes accepted as truth. I'm not implying that people are lying. They're just consistently repeating the same refuted/unverified claims. I continue to marvel at the rise to prominence of a "theory" that suffers from such a complete lack of supporting evidence. And there is this bizzare psychology going on where some GW advocates seem to want the disaster scenario to turn out to be correct.

The thing is ... the basic scientific research examining the issue is sound. But the results of that research do not confirm any GW claims. Yet some researchers persist with the impending disaster claims. Sounds Woo-woo to me!

Launch window
2004-Dec-26, 11:01 PM
You obviously didn't read the whole article. It says:

"By the same token, the Arctic Circle and the Antarctic Circle are currently moving poleward at the same rate. The world's temperate zone is expanding at the expense of the tropical and Arctic zones at the rate of some 1500 km2 per year! This is the Milankovitch cycle happening right before our eyes. "

This is direct measurement of the sun's elevation, not theory.

The changing tilt of the earth affects the amount of sun hitting both poles!


It has been my understanding that the change in the Earth's climate due to changes in the orbit of the Earth was thought to be less sudden. For example it takes about 100,000 years for the orbit to change from rather elliptical to rather circular. As many of the folks here will explain the also Earth rotates on its axis and wobbles somewhat but in a very slow fashion for example our planet's wobbling effect means that the Earth is at times closer to while at times further away from the Sun, affecting the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth at a point. We now think that our current tilt points the Earth towards the North Star, Polaris SAO..whatever HD catelogue...anyway you know the star I'm talking of. It is thought that maybe it takes about 12,000-14,000 years for the tilt to point towards another North Star. So I could be wrong but I don't think there is a whole lot of evidence which says the melting of polar ice caps is due to the Earth's tilt. As far as I know I think loandbehold is pretty correct by saying the last one ended 10,000 yrs ago. I have also heard the arguement that city heat may have had a large influence on temperature because back in 1860, early 1910 and 1930 a lot of data was collected but I have been reading some reports before that said the meteorological info should actually be a lot cooler because of the places these temps were recorded, and urban heat would have corrupted data which might tell us about an overall warming or cooling trend, what we really need is correct and sufficient data that will tells us about the global mean standard temperature, let's level the political mega-corps out of it and find out if the GMST is really changing .

Yep there are many strange crew on this boat , one little blue gem called earth and who gets to protect it...the UK ministers close to Blair have been very outspoken saying it's like having Foxes protecting the chicks in the hen-house, having a Gale norton good idea or bad idea ? Well she's already championed drilling for oil in Alaska and questioned the science of climate change, tell you what why don't we have a look at Chernobyl, a look at the toxic fumes and oil smoke produced when Saddam started the first gulf madness and have a look at the pollution over the major Chinese cities across the globe and then let's continue to say man can not influence the enviornment. But we have new records which contradict population density, we now have Texas the top of the charts as the smoggiest in America. There has been much debate and reaction about the enviornment since the Valdez oil spill along the Alaskan coast line. What is one disturbing factor in the USA, is how for a 1st world nation ( unlike China which has had a backward past and is still developing ) but in the US as a 1st world nation... how little people have the ability to use clean drinking water without dirt or arsenic in sinks and pipes for drinking. If the CO2 levels only double, although in reality, much greater increases are likely, as China, Russia and India develop their industries we can expect maybe warming of 2-8 degrees, 1-3 feet increases in sea levels, worsening droughts and floods and storms, just remember global warming does not mean better weather this is why many refer to it as climate change. Many now believe they have identified a mechanism which can explain the thinning of the Arctic sea ice. The ice is melting from down below, rising air temperatures, possibly the consequence of cliamte change, are melting the ice from above. And warmer water is also rising from the depths to attack the ice from below. The NASA Climatological Data Files have show big changes in the ice sheets around the North pole. The NASA study has been finding out that perennial sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster than previously thought, it is staring to vanish at a rate of 9 percent per decade. People at NASA have said if these melting rates continue for a few more decades, the perennial sea ice will likely disappear entirely within this century.

Some have said that pulling the plug on Kyoto is payback for the energy industries which backed him, and due to the breaks given to the big companies parts of Texas were so engulfed by a black, smoke so thick that drivers had to use their headlights during daytime this was reported by the Guardian newpaper and Observer of London they also report Secretary Don Evans a man raised in oil has been doing little for Mother Earth. May have been shocked by the volte-face on carbon dioxide and disturbed also by the announced scrapping of regulations reducing arsenic levels in drinking water. Who knows maybe Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham will come up witha way of cleaning up the water by putting "schwarzenegger's Conan the Bacterium" into our food chain, or maybe the possibility of employing anthrax microbes to radically reduce polluted waters or to reduce the toxic effects of radioactive waste, this was actully something they have started to consider. No this ain't science fiction folks it was actually one of their ideas in the Forrestal Auditorium, Washington, DC. What next drastic measures should we take maybe shooting our sheep so wild dogs won't eat them would sound sane to some but simply wrong to others? The world has already got invaluable data from NASA's past missions which examine Earth such as the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS). Great information from this, combined with ground work helped in determining the root cause of ozone loss over the Antarctic--man-made chlorofluorocarbons (a compound consisting of chlorine, fluorine, and carbon) and halons , nowdays there is a much wider awareness of the dangers of mass productions of CFCs. There is also evidence that our Ozone layer is slowly starting to heal itself naturally. Can mankind do something to lessen this "Global change" on the Earth's climate ? Maybe so, it seems to be already working for CFCs so why not the reduction of CO2 emissions. The melting of ice cover in the Arctic circle has been displayed visually using data from the SSMI (Special Sensor Microwave Imagery) instrument and great details from NASA. It seems that the US has indeed contributed to much of climate change, and soon in the future it will be growing industries and economies like China and India that will make this world a whole lot dirtier and polluted, this is why I think it is important that the USA leads by example, maybe this is why some leading scientists and some at NASA have been outspoken.
.

So GlobalWarming doesn't mean better sunnier weather ?

jrkeller
2004-Dec-27, 03:45 AM
and in the last 20 years there has been no observed warming detected by satellite and balloon measurements. In fact, the satellite and balloon readings indicate a slight cooling.

Then why is it raining here this winter instead of -40?

The last 30 years here there has been a marked and steady increase in winter temperatures. It is especially noticable in the nighttime low temps which have increased markedly. We haven't had -40 temps in a decade or more. I have checked the temp records from the local airport and there is a steady and unmistakeable upwards trend. It is not imaginary. We now have rain in December, something that would have been laughable and unbelievable 20 years ago.

I know what you mean. We just had our first snow in 14 years here in Houston. Things are getting colder.

It's called an average for a reason. I've looked at the temperature data for Texas and you know what, the trending of the temperature data over the past fifty years shows a downward trend.

Can you point to exactly which data shows this?


Give me some time to find the link. Basically, it is a site that lists weather station data over the past 25-75 years.

Evan
2004-Dec-27, 04:33 AM
I am not going to go to the effort of scanning the weather records for here and posting them, but, I have gone to the effort of obtaining them from the local airport. There is no doubt that the climate here is warming.

We have been experiencing a phenomenon known as the "Pineapple Express". This is a warm front that blows up from Hawaii and brings us rain instead of snow. This is a new phenomenon that did not ever happen until the last 10 to 15 years. It is unprecedented.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-28, 04:09 PM
I am not going to go to the effort of scanning the weather records for here and posting them, but, I have gone to the effort of obtaining them from the local airport. There is no doubt that the climate here is warming.

We have been experiencing a phenomenon known as the "Pineapple Express". This is a warm front that blows up from Hawaii and brings us rain instead of snow. This is a new phenomenon that did not ever happen until the last 10 to 15 years. It is unprecedented.

There is a lot of variation from location to location. While some regions show warming ... others show cooling. One of the global warming claims is that the poles will warm more than the equatorial region. You can test these claims with the satellite data (http://www.co2science.org/temperatures/msu.htm). In fact if you select within 10 degrees latitude of each pole you find contradictory results. Warming in the north polar region and cooling in the south polar region. And the equator ... about a 0.05 degree C cooling.

Its also interesting what the worldwide temperature trend is. The 1998 El nino really impacts the overall calculations. If you calculate from 1979 to 1997, there is a slight cooling. However, the 1998 El nino is readily evident on the graph and it creates a slight warming trend overall - about 0.10 degrees C.

Evan
2004-Dec-28, 04:44 PM
I have also made studies of tree ring growth of the trees on my property. I have several thousand Douglas Fir trees and have sampled several of them. The oldest one I have looked at dates back to 1871. The climate record is very discernable and clearly shows the droughts of the 1930s. My property was selectively logged in 1954-55 and that is also easily visible. What is interesting is how the growth rate over the last century shows a steady increase, even with the outlier data due to logging accounted for.

Because we used to experience approximately six months of dormant season weather for conifers even small amounts of warming can shorten the dormant season dramatically. This is visible as increased growth each year resulting in more widely spaced rings. By measuring the rings under a stereo microscope and plotting it as a scatter plot based over time the line of best fit shows a distinct positive correlation with increased growth. This correlates with a longer growing season. It is definitely warming up here, and for quite some time too.

Further evidence is that areas in the central interior of British Columbia that used to be desert are now greening up. Extensive studies of areas on the Fraser Plateau include pictures that date back to the 1920s. I have access to these images as I am a BC Parks volunteer. Trees are invading areas that formerly were sagebrush and scrub grass.

More evidence is the appearance of species of birds that have not been seen this far north in living memory. As well, certain species that normally migrate south for the winter have been staying instead. I saw a bald eagle a month ago which is the first time I have ever seen one so late in the year.

I have over the years spent a lot of time canoeing the far wilderness areas in this province. At the south end of Issac Lake in Borwron lake provincial park are permanent icefields high in the mountains. At least, there used to be. They have all but vanished since I first saw them in 1981.

Glom
2004-Dec-28, 10:57 PM
Deserts blooming? Growing seasons lengthened? You use dramatic language like "invading" but it sounds like warming is having a beneficial effect on British Columbia. It's becoming greener. Change is not always for the worse.

Further, if this pattern has been evident since the 19th century, then that seems to be a bit preemptive of when the anthropogenic catastrophe allegedly began.

Evan
2004-Dec-28, 11:09 PM
I didn't say it is a bad thing for us in this part of the world but it will cause some significant disruption, especially for animal species and humans. I am not arguing for anthropogenic causes entirely although I am pretty sure that is a part of it. We probably will see an overall benefit in this area although there are concerns such as possible decimation of the salmon runs that is occuring due to increased river temperatures. Also, it is not good for the polar bears in Churchill or the Inuit in Inuvik.

We also have had in the last several years monster forest fires in this province. They are in large part the result of it not becoming cold enough during the last 18 years or so to kill the bark beetles that kill the trees.

My main point is that there doesn't seem to be much doubt that warming is taking place, regardless of the causes.

Maksutov
2004-Dec-29, 09:37 AM
Conspiracy? Or just the facts?

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&auth or1=oreskes&searchid=1103210845409_5389&stored_sea rch=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31/2004)
SSJPabs, how about formatting your URL link so that we don't have to horizontally scroll back and forth about a whole page width to read the posts on page 4? If you're not familiar with how to do this, just click this post's "quote" button and you'll see the formatting as used on your URL.

Thanks.

BigD
2004-Dec-30, 04:19 AM
Being from Canada, I don't propose to comment on US politics or whether the current or past administrations are misusing science or whatever.

But global warming is real.

I used to live in the Yukon Territory in Canada from 1980 to 2002 and during that time the impact or climatic change has been incredible.

We used to get this lawn cleanup package for $99 the day after all the snow was off our lawn (i saved the receipts each year because it was tax deductible) by this landscaping company. Every year from 86 to 2002 the snow free lawn day moved forward a few days from june 16th in 1986 to may 4 in 2002. And same with the first snow fall that stayed, from Sept 30th in 1980 (family birthday so I remebered) to 2nd week of November this year.

Other first hand observations, the number of -40 days during winter have declined from 60-80 days per winter to none the last 2 years. The 8 of the 10 warmest years in recorded history in the Yukon have been in the last 10 years; many of them the warmest year ever, followed by the warmest year ever like 3 times in a row. All kinds of freaky weather phenomom (spelling?) that never happened before. The Methonsian (spelling??) glacier near Palmer, Alaska has receded year after year as we drove past to go fishing in Homer, Alaska and over 2 kms since 1980. New animals that previously never existed in the Yukon has migrated north because it is not that cold in winter anymore. Last week, Whitehorse, Yukon was the warmest city in Canada at +12 in December. That is just really screwed up and just plain wrong!!

It is all an elaborate intellectual debate until you see it first hand, happening right before your eyes, it is shocking!!

From what I have seen, no comment on causes, the weather is getting weirder and more variable as well as warmer. There will be more ice storms, floods, wind storms etc. The impact we will feel in our pocket books, as insurance rates climb for home and auto to pay for the damage weird weather causes.

That said, your suburban home in Bakersfield California will more than triple in value when it becomes beachfront property, as the sea level rises around the world. ;-)

BigD
2004-Dec-30, 04:24 AM
Damn, forgot my big finish and punch line ...


Global warming is real ... and I have the invoices and receipts to prove it!


.

Evan
2004-Dec-30, 05:34 AM
Something that is not appreciated about the warming phenomenon in these parts is that it is not generally becoming hotter during the day, summer or winter. What is happening is not higher highs but higher lows. It doesn't get as cold at night, especially during winter. If you really want to get a handle on it you can't just look at average high temperatures, they will generally look lower. What you need to look at is degree days for heating as used by the utility companies to determine heating costs. The change there is obvious and warmer.

Kaptain K
2004-Dec-30, 11:15 AM
Damn, forgot my big finish and punch line ...


Global warming is real ... and I have the invoices and receipts to prove it!


.
Sorry, but all you have proved is local, not global, warming!

Glom
2004-Dec-30, 12:26 PM
There will be more ice storms, floods, wind storms etc.

Actually, higher temperatures mean less severe weather because it is the difference between temperatures that cause storms, which are expected to be smaller on a warmer planet.


Something that is not appreciated about the warming phenomenon in these parts is that it is not generally becoming hotter during the day, summer or winter. What is happening is not higher highs but higher lows. It doesn't get as cold at night, especially during winter. If you really want to get a handle on it you can't just look at average high temperatures, they will generally look lower. What you need to look at is degree days for heating as used by the utility companies to determine heating costs. The change there is obvious and warmer.

I'm sorry. I don't see the problem. Heating bills are lower. The nights are less cold. The lows are climbing indicating the area is becoming more temperate. Where's the problem?

Launch window
2004-Dec-30, 12:54 PM
NASA has showed us photos of the Polar caps melting at quickening rates. Scientists have often wondered what is causing this period of global climate change and a man made emissions of CO2 part of the problems ?Analysis revealed that during the last Ice Age, levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were significantly lower than they were before mankind began polluting the atmosphere, let's say about 200 years ago. Since carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas, it was believed that initial climatic changes resulting from orbital variations were somehow affecting the composition of the atmosphere, to the extent that a lowering of carbon dioxide concentrations was increasing the global cooling.
Human forebears, the hunters and cave-dwellers experienced a dozen or so major glaciations of the northern hemisphere, with the greatest ever occurring around 650,000 years ago. It is thought that the overall global temperature was lowered by around 5°C (or about 9F). Even children will tell you about this period, some kids may know a lot more about Climate change than the Bush admin thanks to many books and disney films like Ice-age . We know that Mammoth, mastodon, giant bison, large cats, roamed the landscapes. Changes of the Earth going around the Sun, alterations in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit have helped push the effects of climate change. It is very important that we are able to construct a historical record of the GMST on Earth. We have collected much evidence from ancient organisms. Earth's orbit can be greatly exaggerated to the extreme of shapes. Orbits of the Earth are not very circular and their are effects in the Earth's orbit around the Sun and the tilt of its rotation axis. The shape of the orbits has varied from very eliptical a greatly exaggerated shape about 98,000 years in the past. The effects of these orbital and axial tilt changes have had a real effect on Earth. We must also look at the changes in the Solar constant the alterations in Solar luminosity, it is thought it could be about 75% of its current value some 3,900Ma ago but changes in the past 9,000 years are said that they may be too small to be of any significance. There are some who say artifical Global warming is a good things, many with connections to the current US administration, benefits of global warming, the GES and the Subtropical Russia Movement. Scinetific evidence has mounted, from science studies and data colected by NASA and other evidence that global warming began in the last century and that humans may be in part responsible. There are new reports which say a third to a half of land animal and plant species will face extermination due to the effects of climate change and many have already died out due to makinds effect on the enviornment. They say that the absolutely best case scenario - with the minimum expected climate change and all of the species moving completely into new areas which become suitable for them, means we end up with an estimate of nine per cent facing extinction meaning about one million species would be doomed, assuming there are 10 million species in existence. However the extinction of some is not just the only concred, climate change may also bring about many un-wanted plants, animals and insects into the US eco-system and cost the USA's economy millions of dollars each year, the effects seem to be already happening. Some are laready asking why Florida experienced so many storms this year and was it due to climate changes. Cities and towns along the west coast of the US could be suffering from a serious water shortage by 2050 if predicted climate change models continue. It is difficult to rellay say what is causing climate change because there are so many factors and variables involved, but as some other people have pointed out a number of reports from NASA and scientific studies to bring about bad new for the climate. It is thought that we haven't had CO2 levels as high as they are now for over 410,000 years.

The NASA images are something indeed

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/52530main2_Artic.Sea.Ice.1990.s.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/52610main_79.gif

Blue hues indicate cooling regions; red hues depict warming. NASA wants to know what's happening to our planet's ice, they are doing much study in this area because even small changes in ice could mean big impacts on the water cycle and ultimately the global climate. NASA studies have been finding that perennial sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster, the perennial sea ice will likely disappear entirely within this century

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002800/a002833/summerTrendStill_web.jpg




http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002800/a002833/summerTrend_320x240.mpg

Whatever the cause for this alarming trend, it is important that more work is to be done in this area and also important that politics doesn't stifle scientific evidence on Climate Change

dgruss23
2004-Dec-30, 02:41 PM
Launch Window, could you provide a link to a reference on what we're seeing. The video doesn't indicate enough. What are the temperature measurements ... surface, weather balloon, or satellite?

At any rate, the satellites show warming at the north polar region and cooling at the south polar region. The important question is why we don't observe warming at both poles... as expected by the "global" in global warming.

ToSeek
2004-Dec-30, 03:01 PM
I'm sorry. I don't see the problem. Heating bills are lower. The nights are less cold. The lows are climbing indicating the area is becoming more temperate. Where's the problem?

Ask a polar bear.

Jerry
2004-Dec-30, 03:26 PM
You have to be careful about surface measurements because they are contaminated by the urban heat island effect. Fig 13 (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf) of this paper gives an illustration. In fact the satellites which are much more accurate and have much greater coverage (the entire surface) have shown a slight cooling.[/quote]

Degruss, this is almost laughable...even if the atmosphere is cooling, the BTUs sucked into melting ice everywhere from Montana to pandoria, and the mean temperature change of the oceans add up to several degrees of atmospheric change.

We are literally seeing the tip of the iceberg on global warming, and the reflective heat sinks on either end of the globe are getting much smaller at a rate that is even surprising the alarmists.

You can debate the cause, but the effect is fact.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-30, 03:31 PM
I'm sorry. I don't see the problem. Heating bills are lower. The nights are less cold. The lows are climbing indicating the area is becoming more temperate. Where's the problem?

Ask a polar bear.

It has been claimed (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/03.22/09-mccarthy.html) that polar bears are suffering from global warming.

But as usual, those claims are soon after shown to be dubious (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138346,00.html) at best.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-30, 03:46 PM
You have to be careful about surface measurements because they are contaminated by the urban heat island effect. Fig 13 (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf) of this paper gives an illustration. In fact the satellites which are much more accurate and have much greater coverage (the entire surface) have shown a slight cooling.

Degruss, this is almost laughable...even if the atmosphere is cooling, the BTUs sucked into melting ice everywhere from Montana to pandoria, and the mean temperature change of the oceans add up to several degrees of atmospheric change.

We are literally seeing the tip of the iceberg on global warming, and the reflective heat sinks on either end of the globe are getting much smaller at a rate that is even surprising the alarmists.

You can debate the cause, but the effect is fact.[/quote]

Jerry, I've provided research article after research article after research article to back up what I'm saying. And when you say "even if the atmosphere is cooling" you've just acknowledged the key point. GW is supposed to warm the atmosphere ... everywhere. Both poles are supposed to warm, but what is seen is the arctic has warmed and the antarctic has cooled. The equator should warm, but it has cooled. There are natural variations at work here. The evidence shows that.

Try reading this article (http://www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf) for an excellent overview of the multitude of global warming myths. And I just finished Crichton's extremely well referenced "State of Fear" last night. He manages to fit into the story just about everything we've been talking about on these pages. He has references as footnotes, references in the story, and references at the end of the book. He includes graphs from NASA GISS data. No need to critique this as a piece of fiction ... his novel is more laden with journal references and genuine science than any of the web pages of GW advocates such as greenpeace.

I continue to marvel that in the face of such overwhelming contrary evidence, we continue to hear the exact same GW talking points being endlessly repeated. Is anybody willing to respond to the actual scientific evidence? Is there anybody able to show compelling evidence for anthropogenic GW? I'm waiting.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2004-Dec-30, 04:01 PM
NASA has showed us photos of the Polar caps melting at quickening rates. Scientists have often wondered what is causing this period of global climate change and a man made emissions of CO2 part of the problems ?Analysis revealed that during the last Ice Age, levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were significantly lower than they were before mankind began polluting the atmosphere, let's say about 200 years ago. Since carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas, it was believed that initial climatic changes resulting from orbital variations were somehow affecting the composition of the atmosphere, to the extent that a lowering of carbon dioxide concentrations was increasing the global cooling.
Human forebears, the hunters and cave-dwellers experienced a dozen or so major glaciations of the northern hemisphere, with the greatest ever occurring around 650,000 years ago. It is thought that the overall global temperature was lowered by around 5°C (or about 9F). Even children will tell you about this period, some kids may know a lot more about Climate change than the Bush admin thanks to many books and disney films like Ice-age . We know that Mammoth, mastodon, giant bison, large cats, roamed the landscapes. Changes of the Earth going around the Sun, alterations in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit have helped push the effects of climate change. It is very important that we are able to construct a historical record of the GMST on Earth. We have collected much evidence from ancient organisms. Earth's orbit can be greatly exaggerated to the extreme of shapes. Orbits of the Earth are not very circular and their are effects in the Earth's orbit around the Sun and the tilt of its rotation axis. The shape of the orbits has varied from very eliptical a greatly exaggerated shape about 98,000 years in the past. The effects of these orbital and axial tilt changes have had a real effect on Earth. We must also look at the changes in the Solar constant the alterations in Solar luminosity, it is thought it could be about 75% of its current value some 3,900Ma ago but changes in the past 9,000 years are said that they may be too small to be of any significance. There are some who say artifical Global warming is a good things, many with connections to the current US administration, benefits of global warming, the GES and the Subtropical Russia Movement. Scinetific evidence has mounted, from science studies and data colected by NASA and other evidence that global warming began in the last century and that humans may be in part responsible. There are new reports which say a third to a half of land animal and plant species will face extermination due to the effects of climate change and many have already died out due to makinds effect on the enviornment. They say that the absolutely best case scenario - with the minimum expected climate change and all of the species moving completely into new areas which become suitable for them, means we end up with an estimate of nine per cent facing extinction meaning about one million species would be doomed, assuming there are 10 million species in existence. However the extinction of some is not just the only concred, climate change may also bring about many un-wanted plants, animals and insects into the US eco-system and cost the USA's economy millions of dollars each year, the effects seem to be already happening. Some are laready asking why Florida experienced so many storms this year and was it due to climate changes. Cities and towns along the west coast of the US could be suffering from a serious water shortage by 2050 if predicted climate change models continue. It is difficult to rellay say what is causing climate change because there are so many factors and variables involved, but as some other people have pointed out a number of reports from NASA and scientific studies to bring about bad new for the climate. It is thought that we haven't had CO2 levels as high as they are now for over 410,000 years.

The NASA images are something indeed

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/52530main2_Artic.Sea.Ice.1990.s.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/52610main_79.gif

Blue hues indicate cooling regions; red hues depict warming. NASA wants to know what's happening to our planet's ice, they are doing much study in this area because even small changes in ice could mean big impacts on the water cycle and ultimately the global climate. NASA studies have been finding that perennial sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster, the perennial sea ice will likely disappear entirely within this century

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002800/a002833/summerTrendStill_web.jpg




http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002800/a002833/summerTrend_320x240.mpg

Whatever the cause for this alarming trend, it is important that more work is to be done in this area and also important that politics doesn't stifle scientific evidence on Climate Change

good video, but what does it all mean ?


Recycle ? Sure, that's just common sense. Drive a economical vehicle ? Why not. No need to drive a monster ride unless you need to. As Ben Franklin said.. 'a penny saved is a penny earned'. Live life in moderation.....most of the time.

ToSeek
2004-Dec-30, 04:07 PM
And I just finished Crichton's extremely well referenced "State of Fear" last night. He manages to fit into the story just about everything we've been talking about on these pages. He has references as footnotes, references in the story, and references at the end of the book. He includes graphs from NASA GISS data. No need to critique this as a piece of fiction ... his novel is more laden with journal references and genuine science than any of the web pages of GW advocates such as greenpeace.

Crichton's book is addressed here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74).

Glom
2004-Dec-30, 06:37 PM
Hmm. Selective inference to the chaotic nature of the climate. They want to imply that they do know how to accurately model the climate but invoke chaos to explain why they get it wrong. "Yes, this should have happened all things being equal, but it didn't because the climate is chaotic. It doesn't mean we're wrong." If chaos screwed up their modelling then, why should we believe it in the future?

Actually, their conclusions are quite vague, which is different from what I suspected. They criticise points about the book, but effectively leave by saying we don't really know what is going on. There was none of the characteristic alarmism, "Holy smeg! The climate is out of control!" They seemed to acknowledge various uncertainties and made no claims of threat.

Their points about the Urban Heat Island effect merit attention. But they seem to overlook the fact that no climate model has been properly validated and therefore cannot be considered a reliable prediction of what would happen in any emissions scenario. There is also no mention of the extra terrestrial connection or the shattering of the Hockey Stick, although that could be because Crichton didn't put them in his book.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-30, 06:40 PM
And I just finished Crichton's extremely well referenced "State of Fear" last night. He manages to fit into the story just about everything we've been talking about on these pages. He has references as footnotes, references in the story, and references at the end of the book. He includes graphs from NASA GISS data. No need to critique this as a piece of fiction ... his novel is more laden with journal references and genuine science than any of the web pages of GW advocates such as greenpeace.

Crichton's book is addressed here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74).

Addressed poorly it might be said. His(Gavin Schmidt) critique of Crichton's book is filled with the same poor reasoning that is running rampant through the GW hysteria.

I'll critique his critique's of Crichton:

1. The 1940-1970 cooling. He disputes the significance of the 1940-1970 cooling period that was emphasized in Crichton's book (and here too). His defense ... there are many other factors that affect climate and can cause cooling such as aerosols, land use, solar variation, volcanic aerosols.

Its nice of him to notice that there are other factors. That's the point. Its not even established that CO2 is a significant climate forcer. The fact that we experienced 30 years of cooling during all this greenhouse gas buildup suggests the opposite. I might also note that he fails to mention that CO2 increases follow temperature increases in ice core studies - which means in the past they've probably responded to temperature increases.

He also says that recent warming cannot be matched without increases in CO2. Huh ... what warming is he referring to? There are regional warmings and coolings. There is no "global" warming. Absent the 1998 El Nino, satellites show a slight cooling.

2. At one point in Crichton's book a character refers to a graph that shows cooling and says "There's your global warming". Gavin takes exception to this noting that local warmings and coolings do not constitute proof of GW. All the records have to be "almalgamated" Gavin insists. Yeah - exactly. Crichton does this in the book. He shows numerous graphs, some warming and some cooling. But Gavin makes it seem as if Crichton picked one cooling graph and used that to try to show GW is incorrect. Not at all the case.

3. Gavin says that Crichton's point that the antarctic interior is cooling is "more or less correct" but that - again - local coolings do not disprove GW. Several points here. First the environmental movement loves to harp on local warming events as evidence of GW. Does Gavin go after them? Second, my understanding of all these GW predictions is that it is the polar regions that will experience the most significant warming. Equatorial regions expect very slight warming. So why is the antarctic cooling at all if CO2 is forcing a warming? Certainly we should be starting to see the effects by now. Finally satellites show antarctic cooling and arctic warming. Both should be warming if CO2 is the player.

4. He goes after Crichton for taking Hansen's comments out of context. I'd say his points in this part are disputable and at any rate of little importance to the actual science of the issue. Crichton backs up his citations of Hansen's comments with specific references. Anyone can go to those to decide for themselves. (Running out of material Gavin?)

5. Gavin quibbles about a point a character in the book made that "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming". He claims this is not true and refers the reader of his critique to a web pages. This is a delicious irony on Gavin's part because it follows his complaints that Crichton is taking Henson out of context.

What Gavin does not explain is that the character in the book saying this is an environmentalist - making a point that GW is a better crisis than ice ages to exploit. The statement is a piece of conversation without a provided reference by Crichton. Throughout the book Crichton provides citations to research references specifically for statements that he wants the reader to understand as factual/scientific/based upon research. This was not one of them.

As to the truth of the statement. You can only object to the use of the word "all", but it is clear that Crichton is not implying that every last scientist of the time thought an ice age was impending. It was a statement made by an environmentalist which by this time in the book are understood (in Crichton's view) to be unreliable statements. Nonetheless we have referenced here several times the 1975 newsweek article that discussed the impending ice age, blamed it on humans, and suggested melting the polar caps to warm the planet.

Finally, in a second irony, Gavin appears to object to the word "all" but in the meantime one of the responses we constantly get from the GW advocates is that there is a scientific "concensus" that GW is happening and being caused by anthropogenic CO2 when in fact there is no such concensus.

6.Gavin attempts to deal with the Urban heat island effect issue Crichton discusses in the book. Its pretty simple. Surface temperature records are contaminated by the growth of cities. I’ve noted this in articles I’ve cited. The more populous the city, the more warming is indicated. Crichton makes a lot of this in his book … because it is important. Gavin’s response is reference to a study that looked at Windy vs. still nights in the cities and found no difference.

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4021197.stm) is an article on it. The claim here is that wind should clear heat out of the cities and as a result windy nights should be cooler than still nights. The result of the study was that there was no difference between windy and still nights which the researchers claim is evidence that Urban heat island effects are not important.

But look at Fig 13 of this paper (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf). It clearly shows that population centers affect temperature measurements. The paper I cited for Jerry above provides additional graphs that show the same thing. What these researchers have done is proposed that winds will counteract this urban heat island effect if the urban heat island is real. But other data have already shown the urban heat island effect is real. What the windy/still nights results actually show is that winds aren’t that effective at counteracting the urban heat island. For goodness sakes it takes good data, but how about a dose of common sense and quality inferential skills to go with it?!

7. Sea level changes: Gavin apparently has an issue here with Crichton, but fails to spell it out clearly. Perhaps the most important points he makes here are that sea level is difficult to measure and sea level changes are dynamic and go both ways. Hey I agree with this … which means we’ll need to see some pretty dramatic evidence to conclude that sea level is undergoing an increase due to Anthropogenic GW. Anybody got that evidence?

8. He points to a few errors that he “generous”ly acknowledges probably were editing errors. The one I found interesting is that Crichton said there were 4 abrupt climate changes in the last 100,000 years of the Greenland ice core. Gavin says its closer to 40 – which he says is probably an “undercount”. First, it depends upon how “abrupt” is defined. Since neither Gavin nor Crichton define parameters for “abrupt” … does it really matter that Crichton said 4? But more intriguing. If Gavin is right about 40, that works out to an abrupt change every 2500 years. Seems like we’ve got a pretty active natural climate (which all the climate records in fact show). Perhaps Gavin could point to the evidence that anything going on right now is dramatically different from the other climate changes that have occurred the last 100,000 years.

Finally I might ask … why all the hysteria about the surface temperature records. Why didn’t Gavin discuss the satellite temperature records? The satellites cover the entire earth and the climate models predict temperatures 0.7 deg C warmer than the satellites find.

ToSeek
2004-Dec-30, 08:32 PM
Addressed poorly it might be said. His(Gavin Schmidt) critique of Crichton's book is filled with the same poor reasoning that is running rampant through the GW hysteria.

Not having read the book myself, I obviously couldn't address the quality of the rebuttal, but I'll provide a few responses to your critique.


I'll critique his critique's of Crichton:

1. The 1940-1970 cooling. He disputes the significance of the 1940-1970 cooling period that was emphasized in Crichton's book (and here too). His defense ... there are many other factors that affect climate and can cause cooling such as aerosols, land use, solar variation, volcanic aerosols.

Its nice of him to notice that there are other factors. That's the point. Its not even established that CO2 is a significant climate forcer. The fact that we experienced 30 years of cooling during all this greenhouse gas buildup suggests the opposite. I might also note that he fails to mention that CO2 increases follow temperature increases in ice core studies - which means in the past they've probably responded to temperature increases.

That issue is addressed on the same website here. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13#more-13)


He also says that recent warming cannot be matched without increases in CO2. Huh ... what warming is he referring to? There are regional warmings and coolings. There is no "global" warming. Absent the 1998 El Nino, satellites show a slight cooling.

The satellite data is corrupted by stratospheric cooling. Taking that out shows a match to surface measurements. Summary (http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040503/pf/429007a_pf.html) and press release. (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/uow-std112904.php)


3. Gavin says that Crichton's point that the antarctic interior is cooling is "more or less correct" but that - again - local coolings do not disprove GW. Several points here. First the environmental movement loves to harp on local warming events as evidence of GW. Does Gavin go after them? Second, my understanding of all these GW predictions is that it is the polar regions that will experience the most significant warming. Equatorial regions expect very slight warming. So why is the antarctic cooling at all if CO2 is forcing a warming? Certainly we should be starting to see the effects by now. Finally satellites show antarctic cooling and arctic warming. Both should be warming if CO2 is the player.

That's addressed here. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18#more-18) (In short, Antarctic temperature data is very limited.)

(Bunch of stuff I'm not in a position to address right now snipped.)


As to the truth of the statement. You can only object to the use of the word "all", but it is clear that Crichton is not implying that every last scientist of the time thought an ice age was impending. It was a statement made by an environmentalist which by this time in the book are understood (in Crichton's view) to be unreliable statements. Nonetheless we have referenced here several times the 1975 newsweek article that discussed the impending ice age, blamed it on humans, and suggested melting the polar caps to warm the planet.

I think that before continuing to make this claim you should see if you can find peer-reviewed scientific articles that support it, rather than a single sensationalistic magazine article.

Glom
2004-Dec-30, 09:43 PM
Oh no, you did not just dredge up that pathetic rationalisation for the lag!


The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

Absolutely pitiful! They admit it doesn't cause the increase. They fail to address what causes this behaviour during periods of decrease and end of the rise. So as far as they're concerned, it might cause the middle bit. Yes, it makes perfect sense now. Clearly everything about AAGW alarmism is correct because carbon dioxide may perhaps be causing the middle bit, although with other factors causing the beginning and end of warming phases and controlling cooling phases entirely, invoking carbon dioxide is a needless complication. They must be very desperate.

As for the Antarctic bit, the question is not the difference between the two levels of cooling but the fact that the theory says both should be warming, even if one is faster than the other. They might also ask the question as to why surface temperature measurements are considered valid when most come from land based stations. Hardly a representative sample from a planet covered two thirds by water.

This site is full of articles saying effectively, "You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right."

ToSeek
2004-Dec-30, 10:00 PM
To be fair, the site has only been in existence for less than a month. I would hope that it would eventually evolve into the climatological equivalent of Talk.Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/), but that's going to take time. In the meantime, I want to work on nudging them to address the issues you've been bringing up.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-31, 02:57 PM
ToSeek: That issue is addressed on the same website here.


Really, that is one of the weakest defenses I've ever seen anywhere of any scientific idea! Everybody following this should read that ... several times. He hinges his claim the CO2 lag does not disprove CO2 forcing on the fact that the overall warmings are about 5000 years long?! So he claims ... something natural gets it started, but CO2 - once it gets into the game - takes over and runs the show. No references are provided to back that up. This is the sort of weak, unverified reasoning that has led to the GW hysteria.

Here it is for everyone to read:


RealClimate: The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

I'm stunned that this is the best they can do. Its funny if you read it enough times.


The satellite data is corrupted by stratospheric cooling. Taking that out shows a match to surface measurements. Summary and press release.

But the articles say their analysis is disputed by others ... that's they've overcompensated for the stratospheric cooling effect:


However, critics contended the method overcompensated for the cooling effects of the stratosphere and thus overstated the amount of warming in the troposphere. The criticisms did not appear in peer-reviewed journals.

In the new study, Fu and Celeste Johanson, ...

Interesting little game being played in this quote from the second article. Notice they slip in the "did not appear in peer-reviewed journals" in an attempt to discredit the criticisms. But read the start of the next paragraph ... "In the new study". It takes time between the publication of a "new study" and publication of a "criticism in a peer-reviewed journal". More misleading writing!

They also do not mention in this article, as they do in the first, that the criticism comes from the satellite expert ... Cristy. He points out that in the new study they created a statistical model to try to remove the stratospheric cooling. Cristy notes that you need direct measurements to make these corrections. At any rate, the satellites are in agreement with the radiosonde balloon measurements (http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~hopkins/wx-inst/wxi-raob.htm). The balloon take measurements of temperature vs. altitude up to about 30 km.


That's addressed here. (In short, Antarctic temperature data is very limited.)

Well, this critique is another example of the vague commentary I'm coming to expect from RealClimate. Does he address the satellite data? I simply cannot tell ... he talks about how the data available is only from the last 2 decades, but doesn't specify whether he's referring to the satellite data or something else.

He talks a bit about factors that can counteract (the hypothetical) CO2 forced warming such as aerosols, oceans ... and so on. Again, that's the point ... there are a lot of forcings in the climate system and we do not yet understand how they interact well enough to make reliable predictions.

In fact he does nothing here to strengthen a case for Anthropogenic Global Warming. The research he cites indicates the significant influences of natural causes. What I also found interesting was response number 3 after the article - which is right on the money. RealClimate makes statements like this when confronted with evidence that contradicts GW predictions:


Real Climate: So what does this all of this imply? First, short term observations should be interpreted with caution: we need more data from the Antarctic, over longer time periods, to say with certainly what the long term trend is. Second, regional change is not the same as global mean change. ... (snip) However, the models also suggest that as we go forward in time, the relative important increasing radiative effects, compared with atmosphere and ocean dynamic, effects is likely to be felt. In short, we fully expect Antarctica to warm up in the future.

Funny how when confronted with contrary evidence GW advocate researchers call for caution and more data. But when lilacs bloom 4 days earlier than 40 years ago, we are told the signal of GW has been spotted! :roll:

dgruss23
2004-Dec-31, 03:10 PM
I want to return to Gavin's critique of Crichton's book because I missed something important yesterday, but as I was reading another article it suddenly hit me that another of Gavin's complaints was ironic.

He critiques Crichton about Hansen's prediction of GW being 300% in error. Gavin notes here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74) that Hansen had 3 different models for dealing with climate change. See the graph which has scenarios A,B, and C. Obviously model A is the one Crichton is referring to and you could argue Crichton is cherry-picking the model that gives him the best critique of Hansen.

But stop and think about it for a minute. If Hansen's models B and C are successful, then why do we always hear about model A from the GW crowd? Could that be why Crichton used model A? And if Hansen has models B and C in hand which seem reasonable to this point, then why is there emphasis on warming. Its very clear that model C predicts cooling to 2020. How does anybody justify picking model B over model C?

And why in his March 2004 Scientific American article does Hansen claim that even if the atmospheric composition does not change the Earth will still warm 0.40 to 0.70 deg C? He doesn't specify which of his models projects that, nor even by what year that should be expected.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-31, 03:29 PM
Another point about computer models. Take a look at figure 10 of this paper (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf). The computer models are of course giving us the projections for warming. Note that the uncertainty of 4 different radiative effects swamp the estimated forcing of CO2. In other words, they're trying to factor the impact of 5 w/m^2 from CO2 when the uncertainty from Ocean flux is 100 w/m^2.

Also note on the first page of the above article that natural fluxes of Carbon into the atmosphere total 150 Gigatons while the human contribution is about 5.5 Gigatons. The natural exchanges between land,ocean and the atmosphere dwarf the human contribution.

Also it should be noted that water vapor is over 95% of the natural greenhouse effect. The total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is ~0.3%.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-31, 04:49 PM
The satellite data is corrupted by stratospheric cooling. Taking that out shows a match to surface measurements. Summary and press release.

Here (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/FuEtAl2004.pdf) is the original Nature paper and here (http://www.techcentralstation.com/050504H.html) is the response to the claim that satellite data is contaminated by stratospheric cooling.

Launch window
2005-Jan-09, 12:46 AM
Some news items on the subject,
with lots of information, scientists ask if we are doing enough

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3686600.stm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219212232.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3686106.stm

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_16412.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4008761.stm

BobK
2005-Jan-09, 04:17 AM
Some news items on the subject,
with lots of information, scientists ask if we are doing enough

Being curious I read the links, but couldn't find one scientist asking if we are doing enough.
Now you've got me wondering if my browser is broken.

1st item says it's too soon to tell anything about glacier retreat.

2nd item was informative about measurement capabilities of ICESat.

3rd item had no scientists. Just a jounalist's take on things.

4th item talks about local conditions around Lake Tahoe. Evidently as justification for a new 13 million dollar research facility.

5th item talks about a couple Inuits falling through the ice recently and trying to blame it on the temperature. As if that hasn't happened in the past. The only quotes are from a politician that wants the climate to be a constant and not a variable. Because the Inuits don't want to have to make any adaptations to conditions.

I see nothing to get worked up about in any of them.

Glom
2005-Jan-10, 12:50 PM
The Inuits don't seem to ask the same thing of China and India, even though they will be the big bad guys soon.

There is nothing in those articles worthy of concern. Most of them refer to observed changes and understanding the systems. That doesn't imply that anthropogenic armageddon looms.

jofg
2005-Jan-10, 03:56 PM
I have a question on using recent weather changes to "support" GW...or even local warming - isn't it rather illogical to say that since temperatures have been rising in the last 10 years or rainfall has in creased in the last 30 years? I mean, the Earth is many thousands of years old. Humans have been on Earth for thousands of years. To take a trend over the last decade - or even over the last century - is really not valid evidence of anything, is it?

Glom
2005-Feb-06, 02:39 PM
Bush isn't the only one you shouldn't be picking on. (http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_30b.html)

So just remember, we might expect the fourth report to omit the fact that hurricane activity is not unusual in this day.

This comes just after I saw a nauseating performance on the ever so balanced BBC about how both flood and droughts are at the same time evidence of AAGW.

dgruss23
2005-Feb-06, 03:06 PM
Bush isn't the only one you shouldn't be picking on. (http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_30b.html)

So just remember, we might expect the fourth report to omit the fact that hurricane activity is not unusual in this day.

This comes just after I saw a nauseating performance on the ever so balanced BBC about how both flood and droughts are at the same time evidence of AAGW.

Another nice example of where the real "trickery" is taking place. On the other recent thread I asked for the compelling evidence that humans are responsible for GW. That challenge remains unanswered. It does not help their case when they have to invent evidence to prop up AAGW.

Launch window
2005-Feb-15, 08:16 PM
lots of info coming out, plus NASA photos of the melts are a worry
in a decade or so it may be China and India dumping all the toxins and doing the pollution

I hear Kyoto is going to be passed tomorrow



http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=3&ObjectID=10011238
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L15578290.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/15/business/kyoto.html
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5539165

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Mar-18, 12:37 PM
NASA ad ESA have some good info on the mapping of air pollution, study of Earth, forests and measurements of emissions,they also had some info on satellites supporting Kyoto
Envisat enables first global check of regional methane emissions
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMY9FRMD6E_index_1.html

more studies like this might help us better understand our planet and climate

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-18, 03:37 PM
isn't it rather illogical to say that since temperatures have been rising in the last 10 years or rainfall has in creased in the last 30 years?
I don't see why. It rains a lot in tropical regions, where temperatures are high. It doesn't rain much at all in Antarctica, where temperatures are very low... There is no negative correlation between temperature and rainfall.


I mean, the Earth is many thousands of years old. Humans have been on Earth for thousands of years. To take a trend over the last decade - or even over the last century - is really not valid evidence of anything, is it?
If there is a logic in that, I can't follow it.

Edited: 'negative correlation', not 'positive correlation'.

Glom
2005-Mar-18, 04:51 PM
The logic is that climate varies on geological time scales so what has been going on in the past century or so may not be a large enough sample to determine any important trends. It could just be fluctuations in a chaotic system.

It's kind of like saying that since it has been getting warmer around these parts over the last few weeks, global warming is happening. Actually, the reason it had been getting warmer is because spring is round the corner.

It's called the fallacy of limited scope.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-18, 05:27 PM
The logic is that climate varies on geological time scales so what has been going on in the past century or so may not be a large enough sample to determine any important trends. It could just be fluctuations in a chaotic system.
The available information about the climate is not limited to the past century or so, AFAIK.

Glom
2005-Mar-18, 09:39 PM
But direction information is only available on the order of a century and it is that information that gets the most attention. Most of the important conclusions of trends are based on the patterns observed over the last hundred years. jofg's point is valid that this is potentially a fallacy of limited scope.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-18, 10:00 PM
But direction information is only available on the order of a century and it is that information that gets the most attention.
Other kinds of information are available.


Instrumental data describing large-scale surface temperature changes are only available for roughly the past 150 years. Estimates of surface temperature changes further back in time must therefore make use of the few long available instrumental records or historical documents and natural archives or 'climate proxy' indicators, such as tree rings, corals, ice cores and lake sediments, and historical documents to reconstruct patterns of past surface temperature change.

realclimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7)

Glom
2005-Mar-18, 10:52 PM
But direct measurements are better because they are not subject to interpretation and as I said, it is the direct data from the past century that has been used to reach most of the conclusions about current trends which is the fallacy.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-18, 11:00 PM
But direct measurements are better because they are not subject to interpretation and as I said, it is the direct data from the past century that has been used to reach most of the conclusions about current trends which is the fallacy.
Do you have a source that says so?
Surely, the overall statement that temperatures have been increasing at a rate without precedent in known history cannot be based on measurements made on the last 150 years alone! :-?

Edited.

Glom
2005-Mar-18, 11:12 PM
That statement isn't even true when limited to the last 150 years. The fastest temperature increase in the past 150 years happened during the 30s, before 80% of the satanic gases were released.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-18, 11:24 PM
Sorry, I should have said greenhouse gases.
Here’s an excerpt of the report Climate Change Science – An Analysis of Some Key Questions (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUTQ4/$File/nas_ccsci_01.pdf) (pdf), elaborated by the Committee on the Science of Climate Change, which I quoted a while ago in another thread:


Concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) extracted from ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica have typically ranged from near 190 parts per million by volume (ppmv) during the ice ages to near 280 ppmv during the warmer ‘interglacial’ periods like the present one that began around 10,000 years ago. Concentrations did not rise much above 280 ppmv until the Industrial Revolution. By 1958, when systematic atmospheric measurements began, they had reached 315 ppmv, and they are currently ~370 ppmv and rising at a rate of 1.5 ppmv per year (slightly higher than the rate during the early days of the 43-year record). Human activities are responsible for the increase. The primary source, fossil fuel burning, has released roughly twice as much carbon dioxide as would be required to account for the observed increase. […]

Like carbon dioxide, methane (CH4) is more abundant in Earth’s atmosphere now than at any time during the 400,000 years long ice core record, which dates back over a number of glacial / interglacial cycles. Concentrations increased rather smoothly by about 1% per year from 1978, until about 1990. The rate of increase slowed and became erratic during the 1990s. About two thirds of the current emissions of methane are released by human activities such as rice growing, the raising of cattle, coal mining, use of landfills, and natural gas handling, all of which have increased over the past 50 years.
(page 2 of the summary)

Clearly, they are not just basing themselves on the last 150 years.

dgruss23
2005-Mar-19, 12:55 PM
The problem facing AAGW is that no matter what time scale you look at, evidence demonstrating that CO2 is an important climate forcer is non-existent. I've discussed this before - probably most specifically in the "Animosity" (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=18760&postdays=0&postorder=asc&hig hlight=animosity&start=0&) thread.

The specific references can be found there, but to recap:

1. During the 20th century climate changes correlate with solar activity - not CO2 increases. This is most evident during the 1940-1970 cooling for which CO2 forcing models would predict warming not cooling. But the Sun was less active during that cooling.

2. Prior to any anthropogenic CO2 increases, climate fluctuations have been shown to correlate with solar magnetic activity cycles: Little ice age, medieval maximum, major ice ages. This is found in studies going back ~200,000 years. So the longer scale fluctuations reveal another cause than CO2 forcing.

3. A major piece of contradictory evidence for CO2 forcing is the ice cores. Yes CO2 increases and decreases correlate with temperature changes - but temperature increases precede CO2 increases.

4. Finally, the fact that 95+% of the Earth's greenhouse effect is from water vapor is downplayed. CO2 is only ~3% and the human contribution is a fraction of that.

So in the AAGW scenario, we're being asked to accept that a gas making up less than 5% of the greenhouse effect - a gas for which there is no evidence it has ever been the primary forcer of climate change - is going to cause catastrophic climate change.

I ask again as I did in the "Animosity" thread - Where is the overwhelming evidence?

Glom
2005-Mar-19, 07:27 PM
Clearly, they are not just basing themselves on the last 150 years.

But jofg's point was about weather trends.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-19, 07:48 PM
It is not true in what concerns wheather trends either. See pages 16 and 17 of the report.

Glom
2005-Mar-19, 08:18 PM
Actually, the bit you mentioned does talk mostly about the last century. They also say that the observations are weird and any conclusions must be made with caution.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-19, 08:22 PM
Actually, the bit you mentioned does talk mostly about the last century.
But not exclusively.

Glom
2005-Mar-19, 09:18 PM
No, not exclusively, but it does indeed suggest conclusions about trends based on the last century or so. This potentially suffers from fallacy of limited scope as the article admits and that is what jofg's point was.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-19, 09:41 PM
No, not exclusively, but it does indeed suggest conclusions about trends based on the last century or so. This potentially suffers from fallacy of limited scope as the article admits and that is what jofg's point was.
What article?!

Glom
2005-Mar-19, 09:52 PM
The report rather.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-19, 10:03 PM
Where does the report I linked to admit that it "potentially suffers from fallacy of limited scope"?

Glom
2005-Mar-19, 10:18 PM
I didn't say they said it verbatim. But they admit that using a short time span can limit the ability to make valid conclusions about wider climate trends.


...as well as its cautionary statement to the effect that temperature trend based on such short periods of record, with arbitrary start and end points, are not necessarily indicative of the long-term behavior of the climate system.

Swift
2005-Mar-30, 04:07 PM
In the January-February 2005 issue (Volume 93, #1) of the American Scientist (the journal of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society) is a review piece on research looking for links between solar activity and global warming. IMHO it presents a good, politically neutral, science based review of the current state of knowledge; though it is more a "taste" and a "current state", rather than a complete review of all the literature.

Among other things, they cover how historic measures of sunspot counts are estimated, the connections between sunspot counts and solar irradiance, and mechanisms for possible links between irradiance and climate (Artic circulation patterns through UV output, effects on cloud formation). They mention a 2003 Journal of Geophysical Research paper by Solanki & Krivova that estimated that solar variability accounted for less than 30% of the rise in surface temperature since 1970.

The piece (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/39261;jsessionid=baad6XlISgnZbX) is on-line, available to the public.

dgruss23
2005-Mar-30, 05:19 PM
In the January-February 2005 issue (Volume 93, #1) of the American Scientist (the journal of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society) is a review piece on research looking for links between solar activity and global warming. IMHO it presents a good, politically neutral, science based review of the current state of knowledge; though it is more a "taste" and a "current state", rather than a complete review of all the literature.

Among other things, they cover how historic measures of sunspot counts are estimated, the connections between sunspot counts and solar irradiance, and mechanisms for possible links between irradiance and climate (Artic circulation patterns through UV output, effects on cloud formation). They mention a 2003 Journal of Geophysical Research paper by Solanki & Krivova that estimated that solar variability accounted for less than 30% of the rise in surface temperature since 1970.

The piece (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/39261;jsessionid=baad6XlISgnZbX) is on-line, available to the public.

Yes that's well established that solar variations can directly account for ~ 30% of the warming. For example this paper (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0409123) notes that solar energy fluctuations can account for 0.16 C of 0.57 C warming - or 28%.

However, I saw that American Scientist article when it came out and it did not mention the indirect solar influences. Solar activity affects cosmic ray flux in the Earth's atmosphere. The paper linked to above finds that when you account for the cosmic ray influence of the Sun the total solar influence is ~0.37 C of the 0.57 warming - or 65%.

What about the remaining 0.20 deg C? Well we know about the contamination from urban heat island effects as well as the recent NASA results that demonstrate jet contrails could cause 0.50 C of warming over the U.S. Even if that 0.20 C is anthropogenic, there is still a ways to go to demonstrate its because of CO2.

2005-Mar-30, 07:10 PM
But direct measurements are better because they are not subject to interpretation and as I said, it is the direct data from the past century that has been used to reach most of the conclusions about current trends which is the fallacy.

That's fine then, Glom...We'll collect data for another 10,000 years before we decide what to do, if anything... 8-[ 8-[

Swift
2005-Mar-30, 07:14 PM
<skip>However, I saw that American Scientist article when it came out and it did not mention the indirect solar influences. Solar activity affects cosmic ray flux in the Earth's atmosphere. The paper linked to above finds that when you account for the cosmic ray influence of the Sun the total solar influence is ~0.37 C of the 0.57 warming - or 65%.

From the article:

The second possible amplifier involves cosmic rays. The argument goes like this: When cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, they not only form the cosmogenic nuclides, they also form ions, which give rise (through complicated and as yet poorly known ways) to cloud-condensation nuclei. That is, cosmic rays may spur the growth of clouds. An active Sun partially shields the Earth from the normal barrage of cosmic rays, leading, presumably, to fewer clouds. Clear skies in turn let in more light and heat the surface more intensely than normal.
Is this what you are referring too?

pghnative
2005-Mar-30, 07:19 PM
But direct measurements are better because they are not subject to interpretation and as I said, it is the direct data from the past century that has been used to reach most of the conclusions about current trends which is the fallacy.

That's fine then, Glom...We'll collect data for another 10,000 years before we decide what to do, if anything... 8-[ 8-[
That's fine then, Pete. We'll just blindly take illogical actions based on popular hysteria before we decide how to think, if at all.8-[ 8-[

dgruss23
2005-Mar-30, 07:30 PM
<skip>However, I saw that American Scientist article when it came out and it did not mention the indirect solar influences. Solar activity affects cosmic ray flux in the Earth's atmosphere. The paper linked to above finds that when you account for the cosmic ray influence of the Sun the total solar influence is ~0.37 C of the 0.57 warming - or 65%.

From the article:

The second possible amplifier involves cosmic rays. The argument goes like this: When cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, they not only form the cosmogenic nuclides, they also form ions, which give rise (through complicated and as yet poorly known ways) to cloud-condensation nuclei. That is, cosmic rays may spur the growth of clouds. An active Sun partially shields the Earth from the normal barrage of cosmic rays, leading, presumably, to fewer clouds. Clear skies in turn let in more light and heat the surface more intensely than normal.
Is this what you are referring too?

Yep - that's what I was referring to. I guess I should have re-read the article because I forgot it had mentioned the cosmic rays. What the article does not make clear is whether or not the Krivova study accounted for cosmic rays. At any rate the Shaviv study I cited clearly did and was able to account for 65% of the warming.

Nergal
2005-Mar-31, 07:44 PM
At the risk of being ToSeeked: Study Finds Dandruff in Air Pollutants (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/03/31/dandruff.pollution.ap/index.html)


Aerosols, tiny particles in the air, are widely studied because they are an important factor in regulating climate, variously absorbing heat to warm the air and reflecting sunlight to cool it. They are also important in forming rain and snow.

...

The new finding means researchers should take biological materials seriously in climate ing, in cloud physics and in hygienic questions such as allergies, Jaenicke said.

"Don't regard that as a minor contribution," he said.

Glom
2005-Apr-02, 11:42 AM
I heard the 30% figure as well from a lecturer at the university, but he said that it was a simple radiant heat transfer analysis and doesn't take into account the complexities of the climate.

Remember, more magnetic activity doesn't just mean more solar irradiance, it also means less GCRs to cause cloud formation.

Launch window
2005-Sep-01, 02:17 PM
Are the floods, Katrina and Climate change linked ?

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says that 53 percent of the U.S. population now lives along a coastline, and that the rate at which people are moving to the coast is larger than population growth. Much of the new development is right on the water’s edge.

The cost of the damage inflicted is put at a staggering $25 billion.

General scientific consensus on climate change and hurricanes is this: Hurricanes won’t necessarily become more frequent, but they will become more intense. NOAA simulations indicate that global warming over the next 80 years could increase hurricane wind speeds an average of five to 10 percent, which means a jump of half a category in hurricane-intensity measurement. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Hurricane activity in the Atlantic has been higher than normal in nine of the last 11 years
New Zealand Herald reports that Katrina’s force should be seen against the backdrop of unusual weather events in Europe. “From deluged south-eastern Europe, where 43 died in tumultuous rainstorms, to tinder-dry Portugal, where 11 new fires flared despite weeks of desperate firefighting.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,372026,00.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jason_le_050831_global_warming_and_w.htm
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article309471.ece

Glom
2005-Sep-01, 05:08 PM
Only the most opportunistic people are linking Katrina to AAGW. The intense hurricanes are due to cyclical mechanisms, and the weather problems in Europe are due to a change in the Jetstream, not due to AAGW.

Launch window
2005-Sep-01, 06:03 PM
Only the most opportunistic people are linking Katrina to AAGW. The intense hurricanes are due to cyclical mechanisms, and the weather problems in Europe are due to a change in the Jetstream, not due to AAGW.

Louisiana requested that Texas provide shelter for the evacuees Many parts of southern Germany were under water and have been best navigated by boats, make shift raft or submarine. German politicians are eager to appear compassionate and resourceful but the press are more concerned by the wider questions, is global warming starting to bite ? Portugal and Spain have seen some of the worst forest fires.
Skin cancers have risen sharply in Chile, Falklands, Australia and south Argentina, with scientists pointing to the Ozone layer hole.Interstate 10 from Louisiana to Alabama, U.S. Highway 90 from Louisiana to Alabama, U.S. Highway 49 from Seminary to Gulfport, and U.S. 98 from Mobile to Hattiesburg will remain closed. More than 656,000 homes and businesses across Alabama were without electricity Tuesday, and water and debris still closed off many roads. Other roads closed include Interstate 59 from Louisiana to Alabama, Mississippi Highway 63 from Lucedale to Moss Point, Mississippi Highway 607 from I-10 to Stennis Center, and Mississippi Highway 84 from Collins to Waynesboro. Mississippi authorities said at least 121 people have died from Katrina, with search efforts continuing.
Katrina is just the latest in a rash of powerful hurricanes that have been pummeling the Atlantic in recent years, including a record-breaking 33 between 1995 and 1999. Scientits have not directly blamed Katrina on the greenhouse effect, but a number of people such as scientists at NASA and David King, the British Government's chief scientific adviser, has warned that global warming may not cause the number of Hurricane to rise but increase their destructive power and intensity.

Glom
2005-Sep-01, 06:10 PM
Erm, you ignored completely what I said and just repeated your previous post with added emphasis on the dramatic value for the sake of the affirmed consequent.

Launch window
2005-Sep-01, 06:28 PM
NASA has showed us photos of the Polar caps melting at quickening rates. Scientists have often wondered what is causing this period of global climate change and a man made emissions of CO2 part of the problems ?Analysis revealed that during the last Ice Age, levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were significantly lower than they were before mankind began polluting the atmosphere, let's say about 200 years ago. Since carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas, it was believed that initial climatic changes resulting from orbital variations were somehow affecting the composition of the atmosphere, to the extent that a lowering of carbon dioxide concentrations was increasing the global cooling.
Human forebears, the hunters and cave-dwellers experienced a dozen or so major glaciations of the northern hemisphere, with the greatest ever occurring around 650,000 years ago. It is thought that the overall global temperature was lowered by around 5°C (or about 9F). Even children will tell you about this period, some kids may know a lot more about Climate change than the Bush admin thanks to many books and disney films like Ice-age . We know that Mammoth, mastodon, giant bison, large cats, roamed the landscapes. Changes of the Earth going around the Sun, alterations in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit have helped push the effects of climate change. It is very important that we are able to construct a historical record of the GMST on Earth. We have collected much evidence from ancient organisms. Earth's orbit can be greatly exaggerated to the extreme of shapes. Orbits of the Earth are not very circular and their are effects in the Earth's orbit around the Sun and the tilt of its rotation axis. The shape of the orbits has varied from very eliptical a greatly exaggerated shape about 98,000 years in the past. The effects of these orbital and axial tilt changes have had a real effect on Earth. We must also look at the changes in the Solar constant the alterations in Solar luminosity, it is thought it could be about 75% of its current value some 3,900Ma ago but changes in the past 9,000 years are said that they may be too small to be of any significance. There are some who say artifical Global warming is a good things, many with connections to the current US administration, benefits of global warming, the GES and the Subtropical Russia Movement. Scinetific evidence has mounted, from science studies and data colected by NASA and other evidence that global warming began in the last century and that humans may be in part responsible. There are new reports which say a third to a half of land animal and plant species will face extermination due to the effects of climate change and many have already died out due to makinds effect on the enviornment. They say that the absolutely best case scenario - with the minimum expected climate change and all of the species moving completely into new areas which become suitable for them, means we end up with an estimate of nine per cent facing extinction meaning about one million species would be doomed, assuming there are 10 million species in existence. However the extinction of some is not just the only concred, climate change may also bring about many un-wanted plants, animals and insects into the US eco-system and cost the USA's economy millions of dollars each year, the effects seem to be already happening. Some are laready asking why Florida experienced so many storms this year and was it due to climate changes. Cities and towns along the west coast of the US could be suffering from a serious water shortage by 2050 if predicted climate change models continue. It is difficult to rellay say what is causing climate change because there are so many factors and variables involved, but as some other people have pointed out a number of reports from NASA and scientific studies to bring about bad new for the climate. It is thought that we haven't had CO2 levels as high as they are now for over 410,000 years.

The NASA images are something indeed

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/52530main2_Artic.Sea.Ice.1990.s.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/52610main_79.gif

Blue hues indicate cooling regions; red hues depict warming. NASA wants to know what's happening to our planet's ice, they are doing much study in this area because even small changes in ice could mean big impacts on the water cycle and ultimately the global climate. NASA studies have been finding that perennial sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster, the perennial sea ice will likely disappear entirely within this century

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002800/a002833/summerTrendStill_web.jpg




http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002800/a002833/summerTrend_320x240.mpg

Whatever the cause for this alarming trend, it is important that more work is to be done in this area and also important that politics doesn't stifle scientific evidence on Climate Change

good video, but what does it all mean ?


Recycle ? Sure, that's just common sense. Drive a economical vehicle ? Why not. No need to drive a monster ride unless you need to. As Ben Franklin said.. 'a penny saved is a penny earned'. Live life in moderation.....most of the time.

MSNbc, national geographic and Seattle Post report
The new study in the journal Nature found that hurricanes and typhoons have become stronger and longer-lasting over the past 30 years. These upswings correlate with a rise in sea surface temperatures.
The duration and strength of hurricanes have increased by about 50 percent over the last three decades, according to study author Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.
Other leading scientists agree the Atlantic Basin and Gulf Coast regions are being battered by a severe hurricane phase that could persist for another 20 years or more. It has whipped up warming debate
Yet some say the conclusive link to stronger hurricanes is still missing

Argos
2005-Sep-01, 08:14 PM
As global temps rise, the polar ice caps melt, cooling the oceans. So, any impact on hurricanes wouldn´t be felt until a great deal of the ice in the polar caps was depleted. It could well take one century. In fact we could expect a decrease in hurricane force in the first phase of the accelerated polar melting (the next 30 years).

Alarmist articles (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/01/katrina.warming.ap/index.html) are showing up.

Launch window
2005-Sep-22, 11:48 PM
A nasty picture is emerging of Australia's climate and health in the year 2100.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1465924.htm

Fossil salamanders unearthed in Yellowstone National Park have kept a record of the effects of climate change over the past 3,000 years, according to a large-scale study of the amphibian remains.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050919/salamander.html

Japan's government said it might begin to buy carbon dioxide (CO2) credits
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/32614/story.htm

dgruss23
2005-Sep-23, 12:18 AM
The article about the salamanders mentions that they grew larger during the Medieval warm period. This corresponds with a period of high solar activity.

Glom
2005-Sep-23, 12:18 PM
A nasty picture is emerging of Australia's climate and health in the year 2100.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1465924.htm

I believe this could be categorised under "begging the question". This assume the validity of the models. Also, we note the lack of any discussion of reduction in cold related deaths. Since GWT predicts most of the warming occuring at winter and at night, then we would expect a greater reduction in cold related deaths than an increase in heat related deaths as has been predicted for Britain, but even so, the lack of any mention of reduction in cold related deaths smacks of cherry picking for sensationalism. Note, that we also have hints of the static society fallacy, particularly with reference to the spread of Dengue Fever as though nothing new will come to stave off this predicted increase. Besides, this warning seems similar to the now debunked malaria fear in Europe.


Fossil salamanders unearthed in Yellowstone National Park have kept a record of the effects of climate change over the past 3,000 years, according to a large-scale study of the amphibian remains.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050919/salamander.html

Not much going on there. Reports of animals responding to climate change. Interesting in itself, but nothing to note with regard to this debate. They acknowledged the effect of the MWP. The references to GWT are yet more "begging the question". It assumes the validity of the theory and does not offer anything in support of it.


Japan's government said it might begin to buy carbon dioxide (CO2) credits
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/32614/story.htm

Business news.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Sep-25, 08:29 PM
I'm sorry. I don't see the problem. Heating bills are lower. The nights are less cold. The lows are climbing indicating the area is becoming more temperate. Where's the problem?

That is an incorrect statement, climate models predict far worse results. One of the biggest mistakes made by some people is to assume global-warming means better weather.

Glom
2005-Sep-25, 09:51 PM
That is an incorrect statement, climate models predict far worse results. One of the biggest mistakes made by some people is to assume global-warming means better weather.

I was referring to the actual observations made by Evan, which incidentally are not in contradiction with climate models that predict most of the warming during night, winter and high latitudes (in other words the coldest situations).

Taks
2005-Sep-26, 08:52 PM
That is an incorrect statement, climate models predict far worse results.different climate models predict different things. some say deserts in kansas, some say increasing intensity and variability of storms and others say larger tropical regions. if we could find a bunch that agreed on anything, maybe we'd be more likely to believe them.


One of the biggest mistakes made by some people is to assume global-warming means better weather.one of the biggest mistakes made by some people is to assume global warming means worse weather.

taks

Launch window
2005-Sep-27, 03:31 AM
one of the biggest mistakes made by some people is to assume global warming means worse weather.



are you feeling ok ?

Taks
2005-Sep-27, 05:42 AM
i am feeling fine. perhaps you should refrain from ad-hominem remarks that attempt to imply my statements are meaningless. i do not insult you thusly.

there are numerous links in this thread and others, not just news stories either, that demonstrate quite clearly that warmer temperatures will mean reduced gradients (i.e. less variation). also, increased warmth will result in more el ninos, which cut down on atlantic hurricanes.

taks

Glom
2005-Sep-27, 11:12 AM
are you feeling ok ?

I have refrained from rising to your insulting comments about me, but you are beginning to over step the line. If you don't clean up your behaviour I will report you.

Argos
2005-Sep-27, 01:33 PM
General scientific consensus on climate change and hurricanes is this: Hurricanes won’t necessarily become more frequent, but they will become more intense.

I don´t know if it is really a consensus. Given the fact that the force of the hurricanes stems from low pressure systems, and there is a lower limit for pressure (is it possible that the air pressure comes further down than 870 mb?), I´d expect that the strength would remain roughly the same, with an increased number of occurrences [i.e., that´s exactly the opposite of the authorities claims]. I´m still waiting for a good defense of the "increased intensity" argument.

GOURDHEAD
2005-Sep-27, 02:39 PM
Hurricanes do better when originating and traveling over warmer ocean water. That said, a cooler earth could distribute heat, on occasion, such that a particular portion of some ocean got warmer at the expense of some other portion losing heat. The combination and permutation of the many factors affecting the many artifacts of the Earth's atmosphere is much too complex for our current state of technical competence to resolve. Convictions sould be tempered accordingly while we continue dulling our picks attemptig to quantify global warming, it's causes, effects, and what actions can reasonably be taken without creating an even worse set of difficulties.

Argos
2005-Sep-27, 02:52 PM
Hurricanes do better when originating and traveling over warmer ocean water.

Hurricanes can only originate on warm waters. Warmer oceans will lead to more frequent hurricanes, affecting larger areas of the planet [northeastern and eastern south america, for instance]. However, the bottom line for hurricane strength is atmospheric pressure.

Editing to add: In fact my first sentence is not quite correct. In 2004 a hurricane (F1) formed in southern Brazil from an extra-tropical cyclone ( i.e., over cool waters), gaining strength over an unusually warm ocean. That´s the inverse of normal hurricane development. Brazilian meteorologists are arguing that such configuration may become more frequent in the future.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Sep-28, 06:35 PM
A nasty picture is emerging of Australia's climate and health in the year 2100.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1465924.htm

Fossil salamanders unearthed in Yellowstone National Park have kept a record of the effects of climate change over the past 3,000 years, according to a large-scale study of the amphibian remains.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050919/salamander.html

Japan's government said it might begin to buy carbon dioxide (CO2) credits
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/32614/story.htm


what does Australia think of the Kyoto ?

Glom
2005-Sep-28, 06:40 PM
what does Australia think of the Kyoto ?

Very little. They didn't sign up and have now joined the Asia-Pacific Partnership.

publiusr
2005-Sep-29, 05:17 PM
I don't know if this has been pointed out already--but a recent (Discover) mag article had a bit on William Gray and how he got no funding during Clinton/ Gore. Weatherwise Magazine in the past few issues has some interesting blurbs.

Launch window
2005-Oct-01, 03:45 AM
Never mind the greenhouse gases. They are talking about soot. Before they built the very clean cogeneration power plant here the sawmills used to burn all their wood waste in beehive burners. It would turn a fresh snowfall dark grey with the ash fallout from the burners in 24 hours. I can tell you from experience it most certainly absorbs heat far better than clean snow. It will melt the snow in a hurry.

this soot is another factor again

jsellers
2005-Oct-14, 02:10 AM
I think that you have great views on this most touchy subject to say the least. You should consider writing an article on this subject and send it to articles@expertnthought.com

There many more people whom will be able to engage your thoughts. I think it would be perfect. See what other people are writing about there; one guy was lost in the desert during Desert Storm and the US Army never apologized about it. He was left behind for two months; that's ridiculous.

http://www.expertnthoguht.com

Taks
2005-Oct-14, 06:12 AM
exactly who are you referring to jsellers ? er, is it whom?

taks

Ken G
2005-Oct-15, 09:20 PM
(1) many scientists believe there is sufficient evidence for global warming due to CO2 emissions. They could be wrong, or they could be right. Which is worse, to assume they are wrong and make no effort to reduce CO2, only to end up with global warming, or to assume they are right and take actions that are actually unecessary to reduce warming, but will just end up causing a more rapid transition to sustainable energy policies that will be needed anyway?
(2) If global warming comes, it could be awful, or just peachy. Which is worse, to assume it will be awful and take unnecessary steps that lead to... (see above), or to assume it will be just peachy and end up with catastrophic loss of life when it's too late to do much about it?

Glom
2005-Oct-15, 09:39 PM
(1) many scientists believe there is sufficient evidence for global warming due to CO2 emissions.

Appeal to consensus. Fallacy.


They could be wrong, or they could be right.

That's what we are discussing.


Which is worse, to assume they are wrong and make no effort to reduce CO2, only to end up with global warming, or to assume they are right and take actions that are actually unecessary to reduce warming, but will just end up causing a more rapid transition to sustainable energy policies that will be needed anyway?

Precautionary principle. Fallacy. You assume that no negative effects come from these mitigation efforts.


(2) If global warming comes, it could be awful, or just peachy.

That's what adaptation is for.


Which is worse, to assume it will be awful and take unnecessary steps that lead to... (see above), or to assume it will be just peachy and end up with catastrophic loss of life when it's too late to do much about it?

Catastrophic loss of life? Who have you been listening too? Chicken Little?

Ken G
2005-Oct-15, 10:07 PM
You assume that no negative effects come from these mitigation efforts.

Wrong. I'm waiting to hear what they will be. Yes?



Catastrophic loss of life? Who have you been listening too? Chicken Little?
Forgive me, I thought droughts, hurricanes, and major weather shifts killed people. Obviously I'm uniformed.

Glom
2005-Oct-15, 11:30 PM
Wrong. I'm waiting to hear what they will be. Yes?

For one, if another Maunder Minimum is indeed on the way, then trying to stop global warming would be a big negative. Nearer term, these mitigation efforts distract resources and undermine our ability to adapt to change that would happen anyway.


Forgive me, I thought droughts, hurricanes, and major weather shifts killed people. Obviously I'm uniformed.

Ah, I was right. None of those events are major predictions of GWT. Hurricanes are more supported in colder climates due to increases in temperature differential, which models predict will decrease as most of the warming happens at high latitudes. Increased water holding of the atmosphere (necessary for those infamous positive feedbacks) will mean generally more moist weather.

Of course, the climate is variable spatially, but on average (whatever that means but we seem to want to deal with it) that is the case. It's just like the heatwaves leading to 2,000 heat related deaths a year in the UK being offset by a reduction in 20,000 cold related deaths.

Sorry if I seemed a bit curt before.

Ken G
2005-Oct-16, 12:24 AM
It's all right Glom, we all get inflamed and end up losing patience. Part of the problem is, the same ideas must keep being repeated, and that's frustrating.
My position is, I don't believe any global climate model's ability to predict what global warming will do, and it's not very productive to argue person A's model versus person B. My entire point was based on the cost of being wrong. In my view, if you mess with your environment, you may pay a terrible cost, and climate models won't be much help then. Maybe you won't pay such a price, but maybe you will. I frankly don't trust the motivations of the people in a position to exert influence over the debate of CO2 emission reduction. I don't include your motivations, of them I know nothing.

Glom
2005-Oct-16, 11:18 AM
My position is, I don't believe any global climate model's ability to predict what global warming will do, and it's not very productive to argue person A's model versus person B.

That's what we've been saying all along.


My entire point was based on the cost of being wrong. In my view, if you mess with your environment, you may pay a terrible cost, and climate models won't be much help then. Maybe you won't pay such a price, but maybe you will.

But we all hear about mitigation, but where is the concept of adaptation? We don't know what's going to happen, so expending effort to try and eliminate cause of what we know nothing about is futile. Emissions reductions will happen naturally as a result of newer and better technology. This need to do something yesterday is going over the top. If we always went hysterical over any potential threat by always assuming and acting on a suspected worst case scenario, we'd all go insane.

Then there's the precautionary principle, which is self-forbidding. What if another Maunder Minimum is on the way? Maybe global warming could spare us the troubles of the last one. If we don't know what's really going on then mitigation could make things worse in one way or another. Therefore, under the precautionary principle, we shouldn't do that. That's why the precautionary principle is fallacy.

Ken G
2005-Oct-16, 02:10 PM
You make the point that we will need to alter our energy policies to adapt to new technology and dwindling resources. I agree with you there. My question is, what energy policy? The AGW debate really goes much deeper, it is a debate about whether the world, as a whole, should seek a cogent mutually-agreed upon energy usage policy, that takes into account issues like environmental impact (along with what would be fair versus what is greedy, self-serving, and oppressive to future generations of humanity). That's all the AGW folks are really saying, that if we know CO2 levels are rising, we should view that as a climatic pollutant because it is a Greenhouse gas, and we ought to factor that into our global energy policy. Anti-AGW folks are saying that ought not to be factored in because it is a red herring. All right, maybe it's true and maybe it isn't, but which camp are actually the ones working for a sane, fair, renewable, and mutually beneficial world energy policy, and which camp is simply making it easier for the rich to get richer? I accept that your arguments are scientific Glom, and are as solid as any on the other side that I've heard, not being an expert. But I think you are being naive about the geopolitical factors at play here.
No-- I retract that last bit, with apologies. For all I know, you could be Karl Rove. Maybe you are!

dgruss23
2005-Oct-16, 05:03 PM
That's all the AGW folks are really saying, that if we know CO2 levels are rising, we should view that as a climatic pollutant because it is a Greenhouse gas, and we ought to factor that into our global energy policy. Anti-AGW folks are saying that ought not to be factored in because it is a red herring. All right, maybe it's true and maybe it isn't, but which camp are actually the ones working for a sane, fair, renewable, and mutually beneficial world energy policy, and which camp is simply making it easier for the rich to get richer?

That is a terrible approach to this debate. I get real tired of the "good intentions" argument used to support environmental movements. Its a fallacy to argue that the pro-AAGW have good intentions while the anti-AAGW people have bad intentions. Who says this is about a mutually beneficial world energy policy anyway? Either there is evidence that humans are causing catastrophic climate change that we need to mitigate through actions - or there isn't such evidence. Glom,taks and myself have been arguing that there is no basis for AAGW claims.

If this is going to get into another pointless debate about economics instead of the science, I will be bowing out until the science becomes teh focus again.

Glom
2005-Oct-16, 08:51 PM
That is a terrible approach to this debate.

I agree. Leave the left wing conspiracy theories at home.

Ken G
2005-Oct-16, 09:23 PM
You are right, this is a scientific forum, not a platform for political debate. But if my guess about the political leanings of the three you mentioned is correct, as your guess would be correct about my political leanings, it does reveal the hypocrisy of pretending that scientists can be purely scientific with no political influences in the conclusions we draw. If one of you three is a flaming liberal, I stand completely corrected.
Note added on edit: This is a topical issue because the thread is about political control of scientific inquiry, not whether or not the AGW scenario is scientifically supported.

Demigrog
2005-Oct-19, 09:12 PM
(1) many scientists believe there is sufficient evidence for global warming due to CO2 emissions. They could be wrong, or they could be right. Which is worse, to assume they are wrong and make no effort to reduce CO2, only to end up with global warming, or to assume they are right and take actions that are actually unecessary to reduce warming, but will just end up causing a more rapid transition to sustainable energy policies that will be needed anyway?

Technological advances are not going to be accelerated by legislating CO2 reduction. The short-term effect of plans like Kyoto are to cause steep increases in short term energy prices, triggering inflation and energy shortages (think gas prices are high now?). Worst case, this could disrupt the economy to the point that technological innovation stagnates and we never create an alternative energy infrastructure.

In the long term, technology will improve the feasibility of nuclear power, hydrogen fuel cells, and other alternative technologies regardless of our CO2 policy. We already do invest billions of dollars into R&D for alternative technology—and we do it without disrupting the world economy. I expect in the long term we’ll actually achieve the goals of Kyoto without even implementing it, whereas I’d expect the economic impact of an implemented Kyoto to eventually lead to its repeal—leaving only a lot of wasted time, a trashed economy, and even higher CO2 emissions.

One other ironic twist to consider—if we freeze our CO2 emissions, we’ve doomed ourselves to oil dependency for the near to mid future. Without more electrical generation, there can be no large scale switch to electric vehicles or hydrogen fuel until we can build a lot of new nuclear plants. (And personally I find vehicle emissions to be a much larger problem than CO2 for the environment!)

Ken G
2005-Oct-20, 02:29 AM
Technological advances are not going to be accelerated by legislating CO2 reduction. The short-term effect of plans like Kyoto are to cause steep increases in short term energy prices, triggering inflation and energy shortages (think gas prices are high now?). Worst case, this could disrupt the economy to the point that technological innovation stagnates and we never create an alternative energy infrastructure.
I'm afraid I don't follow this economic scenario. I thought that if energy prices were high, it would actually help alternative energy become economically feasible. $1 a gallon was an appallingly low price for a gallon of refined fossil-fuel energy, and $2 is still too cheap, for a non-renewable energy source. When fossil fuels cost the same as solar energy, we'll have a sustainable energy infrastructure. But I agree that cheap energy is a boon to the economy, so potential economic difficulties would have to be monitored closely.



One other ironic twist to consider—if we freeze our CO2 emissions, we’ve doomed ourselves to oil dependency for the near to mid future. Without more electrical generation, there can be no large scale switch to electric vehicles or hydrogen fuel until we can build a lot of new nuclear plants.

Unbelievably, you've actually argued that it would be a bad thing to not burn up our fossil-fuel reserves as quickly as possible!


(And personally I find vehicle emissions to be a much larger problem than CO2 for the environment!)
Then let's address both issues at once, and craft a responsible energy consumption policy.

Taks
2005-Oct-20, 04:48 PM
I'm afraid I don't follow this economic scenario. I thought that if energy prices were high, it would actually help alternative energy become economically feasible.he didn't say high, he said steep. a gradual rise is different than a quick jump. economic impacts due to steep price jumps can be devastating.



Unbelievably, you've actually argued that it would be a bad thing to not burn up our fossil-fuel reserves as quickly as possible!no, he didn't. there's a difference between burning them up in 20 years vs. 200 years. energy is required to create new technologies. as demand increases, so will price. eventually, market forces will drive consumers to alternate technologies, which are currently more expensive than oil.


Then let's address both issues at once, and craft a responsible energy consumption policy.i.e. tyrannical control over resources.

taks

Demigrog
2005-Oct-20, 07:52 PM
I'm afraid I don't follow this economic scenario. I thought that if energy prices were high, it would actually help alternative energy become economically feasible. $1 a gallon was an appallingly low price for a gallon of refined fossil-fuel energy, and $2 is still too cheap, for a non-renewable energy source. When fossil fuels cost the same as solar energy, we'll have a sustainable energy infrastructure. But I agree that cheap energy is a boon to the economy, so potential economic difficulties would have to be monitored closely.

The problem with making fossil fuels more expensive is that the alternatives are not cheap, just cheaper. Energy production would still chew up a larger percentage of our resources, impacting the economy.

Further, it is a fallacy to assume that cost is the only reason renewable energy is not viable-- there are capacity limitations on both solar and wind power, not to mention significant environmental impacts from 350 foot tall turbines and square miles of solar panels. Besides, we are already developing wind power at an astonishing pace. There has not been a single major new coal or gas turbine power plant order in the US since the energy bubble burst (~2001), yet there are thousands of new wind turbines being built.

Nuclear power could solve all of our energy problems; it is already cost competitive with fossil fuels and produces no pollution at all. It is frustrating beyond belief that we even have to debate CO2 reduction, when we already have the technology to make it a non-issue.

Solar power isn’t ready for prime time yet, but will be within a few years. Residential solar units are going to be a lot cheaper soon. I don’t expect to ever see widespread industrial scale solar, however, unless there is some breakthrough in PV efficiency.



Unbelievably, you've actually argued that it would be a bad thing to not burn up our fossil-fuel reserves as quickly as possible!

Of course that would be bad; given time, we will replace oil with alternatives in an orderly fashion. If we had to do it all at once, it would disrupt society like nothing since WW2.



Then let's address both issues at once, and craft a responsible energy consumption policy.
Really, there isn’t anything wrong with our current energy policy. The fast track plan to jump start nuclear plant construction should be expanded, but that’s about the only thing I’d change.

Ken G
2005-Oct-22, 03:21 AM
I'm surprised people don't see the potential importance of being the first nation to master alternative energy technologies. The next OPEC will be the nations that develop a viable alternative to fossil fuel.

Ken G
2005-Oct-22, 03:24 AM
i.e. tyrannical control over resources.

taks
Apparently, you don't see the tyranny of the free market. Or is that not tyranny by definition, in your view? Why is injustice so unpalatable when inflicted by governments, but so acceptable when inflicted by wealthy corporate influences? Or don't you think that greed is a tyrannical force in our modern world?

Taks
2005-Oct-22, 11:33 PM
Apparently, you don't see the tyranny of the free market.? you're joking, right? tyrannical control by some government agency or individual is much more deleterious than anything you can dream up regarding the free market.


Or is that not tyranny by definition, in your view?no, it is not. with the free market, you have a choice. period. that's what "free" means.


Why is injustice so unpalatable when inflicted by governments, but so acceptable when inflicted by wealthy corporate influences? Or don't you think that greed is a tyrannical force in our modern world?no, greed is not, unless being wielded in the hands of government agents. explain in simple terms how any corporation can inflict any form of tyranny without government influence. really, i'm waiting for a good whopper here.

taks

Ken G
2005-Oct-23, 12:04 PM
Tyranny is about power. Wealth is about power. Government becomes evil when ruled by lust for power, wealth becomes evil when dominated by greed. It will take me about 5 seconds to come up with a "whopper", without even trying. How many people each year suffer painful, awful deaths and shortened lifetimes due to cigarette smoking? Where is the government there? Or do you actually believe that was all just a tragic mistake, and the huge lawsuit that got all those anti-smoking ads on TV was actually the deleterious piece?
As for other examples, it's just too easy. But perhaps someone else would like to chime in there.
And that does not even count how wealthy interests control and influence government. Governments are just a tool used by greedy and powerful people, at least when not held in check by the democratic process (which sadly we are seeing less and less of). Do you believe the war in Iraq was primarily an action originated by the government, or by the oil industry? I mean, where did the idea come from, and who was pushing it through. Government or oil industry?

pghnative
2005-Oct-24, 12:56 PM
Careful folks --- the thread is moving away from the topic and towards a locking.

I happen to disagree with Ken G's "whopper", but I won't post my reasons since I don't want the thread to devolve into politics. I'll discuss via PM if anyone happens to care.

Wolverine
2005-Oct-24, 01:14 PM
It's drifting indeed. Political commentary falling outside the scope of the FAQ (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845#post564845) should be taken to PM, e-mail, or elsewhere.

Ken G
2005-Oct-25, 08:28 AM
I understand that political opinions are not really the purpose of this forum, but you may note the original post in this thread. The issue is, why would a government want to influence a scientific process? I think my posts are quite relevant to that question, but I'll leave it at that.

Launch window
2006-Jan-19, 11:20 AM
Six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency -- five Republicans and one Democrat -- accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/
"I don't think there's a commitment in this administration," said Bill Ruckelshaus, who was EPA's first administrator when the agency opened its doors in 1970 under President Nixon and headed it again under President Reagan in the 1980s.

a webpage from England
http://www.climatechallenge.gov.uk/understanding.html

Taks
2006-Jan-19, 05:14 PM
"I don't think there's a commitment in this administration," said Bill Ruckelshaus, who was EPA's first administrator when the agency opened its doors in 1970 under President Nixon and headed it again under President Reagan in the 1980s.isn't he also the guy that issued a "ban" on DDT in spite of the advice of the panel the EPA commissioned to investigate its environmental impact? well known for drawing conclusions before the science is present, i'd hardly trust the EPA or anyone affiliated. time's beach, love canal, lead scares, you name it, the EPA is involved.

republican or democrat, environmental ideology is still ideology.

taks

Hugh Jass
2006-Jan-19, 06:06 PM
You can't blame the EPA for making quick decisions really. The good evidence takes too long to compile and separate from the political ideological extremes on both sides. There is so much grey area to all environmental issues, and the black and white arguments are hidden so deep in political minutia it is nearly impossible to separate. The easiest way to describe this in terms EPA uses is “most conservative to the environment”. When two contradicting standpoints appear to have equal scientific value the decision made will be the one that is more conservative to the environment. That usually means a quicker decision as well.

I can’t believe I would be defending EPA, but the way I see it, they are pulled hard in two extreme directions and do a pretty good job of falling back in the middle. Look at how many decisions by EPA tick off both vocal extremes, it’s never enough for the enviro fundies, and always too much for the “capitalist extremists”.

EPA in itself is not political, but full of individuals with political agendas and the “evidence” and money they receive are from political sources. The money they get and the decisions they make are controlled by whatever current administration is in power from year to year. In this way yes there is trickery to stifle scientific evidence, there was some talk about this on the BA blog after the BA spoke with the author of “The Republican War on Science” (http://www.waronscience.com/home.php) its faily accepted that both parties do this, but the current administration seems more arrogant and crass in the approach to ignoring true scientific data.

Taks
2006-Jan-19, 08:15 PM
I can’t believe I would be defending EPA, but the way I see it, they are pulled hard in two extreme directions and do a pretty good job of falling back in the middle. Look at how many decisions by EPA tick off both vocal extremes, it’s never enough for the enviro fundies, and always too much for the “capitalist extremists”.i don't think the EPA cares about which way they are pulled. they're a government beuracracy with little oversight and heavy control over the US.


EPA in itself is not political, but full of individuals with political agendas and the “evidence” and money they receive are from political sources. The money they get and the decisions they make are controlled by whatever current administration is in power from year to year.yes and no, i think. yes, the individuals are agenda driven, we all are to some extent. however, the overall EPA direction seems to plunder along with the same heading regardless of the current administration. the primary difference, of course, is whether or not they get the funding for various "causes"... different administrations will have differing views which will drive different projects.


but the current administration seems more arrogant and crass in the approach to ignoring true scientific data.i disagree, however, we shouldn't debate this here.

taks

HenrikOlsen
2006-Jan-19, 11:12 PM
isn't he also the guy that issued a "ban" on DDT in spite of the advice of the panel the EPA commissioned to investigate its environmental impact? well known for drawing conclusions before the science is present, i'd hardly trust the EPA or anyone affiliated. time's beach, love canal, lead scares, you name it, the EPA is involved.

republican or democrat, environmental ideology is still ideology.

taks
Given that the policy at the time was "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand", I'd say a preemptive ban was reasonable.

V-GER
2006-Jan-19, 11:40 PM
Global warming or not, the weather is killing me right now, -20 centigrade today + the accursed wind chill factor. It is -40 in parts of Lapland however so what am I complaining...

Three days ago it was +2 .This climate change thing sure is a fast mover.

Taks
2006-Jan-20, 12:04 AM
Given that the policy at the time was "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand", I'd say a preemptive ban was reasonable.based on what? there's a dandy idea... let's make a preemptive decision (that has since resulted in the death of millions) simply because... of an ideology?

taks

Taks
2006-Jan-20, 12:05 AM
Global warming or not, the weather is killing me right now, -20 centigrade today + the accursed wind chill factor. It is -40 in parts of Lapland however so what am I complaining...

Three days ago it was +2 .This climate change thing sure is a fast mover.can't make up its mind, can it... oh wait, it's a chaotic system. forgot about that. hey, the good news is that the colorado mountains are getting a few feet of snow from the latest and greatest storm. even the south got hit with over a foot last night, and it's still snowing!

taks

V-GER
2006-Jan-20, 12:10 AM
can't make up its mind, can it... oh wait, it's a chaotic system. forgot about that. hey, the good news is that the colorado mountains are getting a few feet of snow from the latest and greatest storm. even the south got hit with over a foot last night, and it's still snowing!

taks

It snowed in Spain this winter before it did on south coast of Finland.

Stupid climate change...

Ken G
2006-Jan-20, 02:37 AM
based on what? there's a dandy idea... let's make a preemptive decision (that has since resulted in the death of millions) simply because... of an ideology?

Hang on, you're hanging the deaths of millions on Ruckelshaus' head for banning DDT in the U.S.? You're going to have to back that up, on the surface that certainly sounds like the kind of hysteria you are arguing against.

dgruss23
2006-Jan-20, 02:44 PM
Six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency -- five Republicans and one Democrat -- accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.


Neglect of AAGW is only a problem if there is compelling evidence that AAGW is a problem.

Taks
2006-Jan-20, 04:11 PM
Hang on, you're hanging the deaths of millions on Ruckelshaus' head for banning DDT in the U.S.?you have got to be kidding me!? i asked if he was the one. my actual words are "isn't he also the guy..." the ban itself (in the rest of the world) was ridiculous and millions have died because of it.


You're going to have to back that up, on the surface that certainly sounds like the kind of hysteria you are arguing against.no sir, YOU are the one expressing hysterics here. i suggest you go back and actually read what i said, not what you think i said.

taks

Taks
2006-Jan-20, 04:13 PM
oh, and for the record, if you didn't notice, DDT is not officially banned in the US. the EPA head in question merely recommended the ban. congress never followed up. that's why the word "ban" was in quotes...

taks

Fram
2006-Jan-20, 04:18 PM
you have got to be kidding me!? i asked if he was the one. my actual words are "isn't he the one?" the ban itself was ridiculous and millions have died because of it.

no sir, YOU are the one expressing hysterics here. i suggest you go back and actually read what i said, not what you think i said.

taks

Umm, you have said it twice now. According to you, millions have died because of the ban on DDT in the USA. I don't see how it is hysterical to ask for some factual backup of such a statement. I suppose you'll reference junkscience.com or Michael Crichton or so, and the malaria story. Too bad that the mosquitoes became DDT resistant, so DDT wouldn't be of much use anyway against it. Anything else?

Wolverine
2006-Jan-20, 04:46 PM
I suppose you'll reference junkscience.com or Michael Crichton or so, and the malaria story.

While it's perfectly reasonable to request that someone else cite a source, comments like the above are neither fair nor necessary. These discussions appear difficult enough to keep on topic without making statements destined to exacerbate the situation.

ToSeek
2006-Jan-20, 05:14 PM
based on what? there's a dandy idea... let's make a preemptive decision (that has since resulted in the death of millions) simply because... of an ideology?

taks

The "deaths of millions" accusation against the DDT ban is a myth, pure and simple. Most of the nations that suffer from malaria and don't use DDT, like Sri Lanka, don't use it because it doesn't work any more, not for any environmental reason. You should regard this claim as critically as you do the claims of AAGW proponents.

Taks
2006-Jan-20, 06:29 PM
Umm, you have said it twice now. According to you, millions have died because of the ban on DDT in the USA.no, not because of the ban in the USA, the ban in the rest of the world is actually where the problem lies. millions haven't died in the US, to claim so is ridiculous and to accuse me of saying that is just plain disingenuous. misprepresenting my position is not uncommon around here, however.

oh, and yes, ruckelshaus did issue the EPA ban... according to the wiki article:

The EPA held seven months of hearings in 1971-1972, with scientists giving evidence both for and against the use of DDT. At the end of the hearings, the hearing examiner, Edmund Sweeney, ruled that the scientific evidence provided no basis for banning DDT. In the summer of 1972 Ruckelshaus reviewed evidence collected during the agency's hearings as well as reports prepared by two DDT study groups (the Hilton and Mrak Commissions) that had both come to the opposite conclusion. He did not actually attend any of the EPA commission's hearings however, and according to his aides did not read any transcripts of it. Ruckelshaus overturned Sweeny's ruling and announced a ban on virtually all uses of DDT in the U.S., where it was classified in EPA Toxicity Class II. Ruckelshaus argued that the pesticide was "a warning that man may be exposing himself to a substance that may ultimately have a serious effect on his health." (Tren & Bate, 2004)(Milloy, 1999).

@ ToSeek, DDT is still useful, but not universally. here's a linky (http://www.malaria.org/DDTcosts.html).

taks

Fram
2006-Jan-20, 08:38 PM
While it's perfectly reasonable to request that someone else cite a source, comments like the above are neither fair nor necessary. These discussions appear difficult enough to keep on topic without making statements destined to exacerbate the situation.

For all clarity (although you probably know this and still think my comment unfair): junkscience.com is a real site with scientific information and has been referenced by Taks before. It is not intended as an indication that he is posting junk. Michael Crichton is one of the most vocal and high profile defenders of the "Banning DDT killed millions" story.
While presupposing that Taks based his ideas on those and similar sites/people and would use them was perhaps wrong, it was not intended as some OT ad hominem remark, as they are and were pertinent.
You can see this at random sites about this subject, e.g. here (http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/ddt.htm) (an article in the Weekend Australian referencing both junkscience and Crichton), or here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400130.html) (an article in the Washington Post).
The original Crichton speech about DDT can be seen on his own website (http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html). It also features in his novel State of Fear.

So again, I shouldn't have supposed beforehand what sources Taks would use, but my examples were not farfetched or ridiculous but actually quite predictable.

Fram
2006-Jan-20, 08:41 PM
no, not because of the ban in the USA, the ban in the rest of the world is actually where the problem lies. millions haven't died in the US, to claim so is ridiculous and to accuse me of saying that is just plain disingenuous. misprepresenting my position is not uncommon around here, however.

oh, and yes, ruckelshaus did issue the EPA ban... according to the wiki article:


And how did the ban of DDT in the US kill millions of people in the rest of the world? The EPA ban, issued by Ruckelshaus, was only for the US...

Wolverine
2006-Jan-20, 10:47 PM
For all clarity (although you probably know this and still think my comment unfair)
Correct on both counts. I know it wasn't intended as an ad-hom but it's really not allowing a fair chance, regardless.

Taks
2006-Jan-21, 12:09 AM
And how did the ban of DDT in the US kill millions of people in the rest of the world? The EPA ban, issued by Ruckelshaus, was only for the US...i never said it did. i said the ban, in general, is what killed millions.

that you would read more into that statement is, a) typical and b) disingenuous. you know full well the context of the DDT debate (just by being alive) and should also guess that i would too. choosing to state that i would think the US ban (which is only issued by the EPA, not really official otherwise) caused those deaths is ridiculous. the context is obviously sub-saharan africa as that's where malaria is prevalent, not in the US.

but, somehow with you, the debate is always about me, not the true content of the argument, right?

taks

Taks
2006-Jan-21, 12:39 AM
Correct on both counts. I know it wasn't intended as an ad-hom but it's really not allowing a fair chance, regardless.for the record, dismissing a website (or any evidence) because of who they are is, by definition, an ad-hominem. it does not have to be an insult to qualify. dismissing said website, or evidence, because of factual errors (consistent) is not an ad-hominem (such as i call into question the EPA's, continued, blatant, ignorance of the facts, evidence and science put before them).

and, also, i did not reference them (junkscience or michael crichton), though whether or not i do/did/will do is irrelevant (milloy was listed on the site i did reference, however, in the quote as a matter of fact... probably as the original reference author).

i've drawn my own conclusions based on reading the facts, long before i knew who michael crichton or steven milloy (junkscience) were. to my knowledge, i've never visited michael crichton's website.

this is what i do... read papers, study the numbers and draw conclusions based on all of the above.

taks

ToSeek
2006-Jan-21, 01:20 AM
i never said it did. i said the ban, in general, is what killed millions.

First, there is no DDT ban (not anywhere that matters, anyhow). Second, there's more evidence to indicate that the overuse of DDT has led to malaria deaths than its underuse.

Fram
2006-Jan-23, 10:27 AM
for the record, dismissing a website (or any evidence) because of who they are is, by definition, an ad-hominem. it does not have to be an insult to qualify. dismissing said website, or evidence, because of factual errors (consistent) is not an ad-hominem (such as i call into question the EPA's, continued, blatant, ignorance of the facts, evidence and science put before them).

I did not dismiss the "DDT killed millions" idea because of the sites and persons I referenced (junkscience.com and Michael Crichton), I gave thos two because you hadn't given any references for your bold statement and I thought these two were typical examples of what you probably meant (I had to guess as you weren't giving the info that was requested). As you haven't said that these two give another opinion than you had, I suppose they are typical and fairly high profile examples of your side of the debate. After giving those two examples, I gave my reason (very briefly) why I don't buy the story. That reason was not "those sites are untrustworthy" or so, but was to the point.
I have already agreed with Wolverine that I shouldn't have presupposed what sources you would use or what you meant with your statements, but as you didn't give the info yourself, it was a bit hard to debate. Furthermore, it looks like my sources were similar to yours (proposing and defending the same ideas, I mean). Finally, I did not dismiss them because of what they are, but because I think their reasoning is flawed because they minimize the resistancy issue. So your statement quoted above is, while as such correct, irrelevant to the debate.
I'll ignore the ad hominems in your other post, as they don't add anything to the discussion.

Launch window
2006-Feb-02, 10:20 PM
more of the news

Scientist says Bush administration tried to stop him from speaking to journalists about global warming
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=38096

Hansen may not be alone in his complaint.
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060130/full/060130-11.html
Steven Beckwith, a Johns Hopkins University astronomer and former head of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, says NASA has been known to "forbid its staff from talking to the press"; this includes at least one agency scientist he knows of who spoke out on the politically sensitive subject of whether the Hubble Space Telescope's life should be extended.

Bush tried to gag environment expert
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article341945.ece

Editorial: We need to hear the bad news
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18925373.200.html

pghnative
2006-Feb-03, 06:38 PM
Dean Acosta, NASA's deputy assistant administrator for public affairs, said the restrictions on Dr Hansen applied to all NASA personnel whom the public could perceive as speaking for the agency.
He said US Government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but policy statements should be left to policymakers and appointed spokespeople.

Seems reasonable to me.

Taks
2006-Feb-03, 11:45 PM
First, there is no DDT ban (not anywhere that matters, anyhow). Second, there's more evidence to indicate that the overuse of DDT has led to malaria deaths than its underuse.i have stated quite clearly that the "ban" in US is not really a ban (it was issued by the EPA, but congress must, to the best of my knowledge, formalize it). second, no, there is not more evidence to indicate that the overuse of DDT has led to malaria deaths than its underuse.

taks

ToSeek
2006-Feb-04, 02:56 AM
i have stated quite clearly that the "ban" in US is not really a ban (it was issued by the EPA, but congress must, to the best of my knowledge, formalize it). second, no, there is not more evidence to indicate that the overuse of DDT has led to malaria deaths than its underuse.

taks

Before you come to any conclusions, take a look at this graph (http://timlambert.org/img/chapinfig2small.png), which shows what happened in the most populous country in the world plagued with malaria when DDT was overused.

Taks
2006-Feb-04, 07:14 AM
unavailable website...
taks

Taks
2006-Feb-04, 07:27 AM
Before you come to any conclusions, take a look at this graph (http://timlambert.org/img/chapinfig2small.png), which shows what happened in the most populous country in the world plagued with malaria when DDT was overused.i'm assuming this would be india or china? most malaria deaths occur in africa, and that's where i've been referring to. malaria.org talks about using DDT indoors only, not outdoors, as outdoor treatments are apparently on par with DDT (actually work better).

i suppose if you overuse anything it will no longer be effective, but that does not mean DDT in general has caused more deaths than it has prevented.

there's certainly disinformation running around on both sides of the argument. the reason for its discontinuation, however, is to date the biggest bit of disinformation out there...

taks

ToSeek
2006-Feb-04, 09:50 PM
Well, I am sure that somewhere DDT was not used where it could have helped; however, some factions on your side blame every single malaria death that's ever happened on the inability to use DDT, which is nonsense. Where the balance lies, I don't know, and I don't have access to any source right now that I would trust to tell me.

I'll try to insert the graph below.

1861