Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Foxfyre wrote:

A source is biased if it disagrees with the preferred opinion? I wonder what criteria is used to determine bias in the matter of global warming? And what criteria is used to determine benefit to the 'biased one' should he hold an opinion different from the 'perferred or popular one'?

I think if you look at the funding received by leading scientists who study global warming, you'll find those who benefit from there being a problem due to greenhouse gasses emissions will generally find one. Those whose funding is not dependent on there being a problem with greenhouse gasses emissions do not see so much of a problem or have differen opinions for what the problem actually is.

Do you have any evidence to suggest this? Are you arguing that NOAA is funded by partisan dollars? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Quote:

Is the climate warming?
Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6?C (plus or minus 0.2?C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4?F (0.2 to 0.3?C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data).

How about NASA and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)? And we shouldn't forget the paper produced by the Bush WH that also talks about global WARMING.

Quote:

Again, the fact that the US did not sign on to Kyoto is not because we have no concern for the environment. Many states are proceeding with their own plans to cut CO2 emissions while others are more inclined to want some more definitive evidence to do so.

So far the pro-Kyoto Accord folks in this thread have conveniently ignored accounts of the thousands of scientists who say there is no evidence to support CO2 emissions as the cause of global warming.

Who and where is the science from these "thousands of scientists?"

0 Replies

It was posted earlier in the thread Parados. You can look it up.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

A source is biased if it disagrees with the preferred opinion? I wonder what criteria is used to determine bias in the matter of global warming? And what criteria is used to determine benefit to the 'biased one' should he hold an opinion different from the 'perferred or popular one'?

Foxy, if you read what I posted you will notice that I didn't even say that Mortkat's sources were biased. Nevertheless, where would you be more inclined to look for bias, potentially:

a) in an author who has been paid by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, by the Cato Institute and by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who produces television shows like "Think Tank" and "Technopolitics" and who makes quite some money in catering to the critics of climate change

b) in the United States Department of Energy, the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the NASA, the United States Department of Commerce

Hm? Just wondering. I'm not American, I don't know how things are perceived in the public.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

OE - you forgot to mention that part of the reason for Germany's reduced emissions is the closing of all those inefficient factories in the east, following reunification.

As Walter said.

JustWonders wrote:

Canada's GHG emissions are up and I recently read that about half of their environmental scientists have resigned. Public officials are doubtful Canada will meet the goals set for them by the Kyoto Treaty.

The US and Austrailia proposed an environmental initiative last July and unlike Kyoto, it includes India and China (among others) without whose (in my opinion) active involvement global environmental reform is pointless. See here.

Yup, I know. Funny thing, I could have sworn the sub-headline on the page you linked to was Six-country partnership is complement, not alternative, to Kyoto Protocol

JustWonders wrote:

New Zealand is probably going to be the first country to jump the Kyoto ship and join up with us and Australia, having realized they can't possibly sustain Kyoto and a growing economy. (Kyoto goals not attainable without crushing the economy)

Did you read the bit about where the author said

"With nearly half our greenhouse gas emissions coming from agriculture, where there are no easy solutions, it will be very expensive if we have to try to wring the required national emission reductions out of the remaining sectors of the economy"???

Or did you read that bit

"We can not let climate change policies put a handbrake on the economy when we produce only 0.2 per cent of global emissions, half of which are from agriculture which is still the backbone of the economy"

That's a fundamentally different pretext than in the US, isn't it? Or are you going to tell me that the States are an agricultural society, in reality?

What I really loved about the article was this, though:

"Even Britain's Tony Blair has recently conceded that technology is the answer to the problem and that no country will willingly sacrifice its economic growth."

Hey, awesome! I think that's what I said in almost every single post here recently: use new technology!

JustWonders wrote:

I'm happy to be corrected on your feelings re Kyoto and curious as to what you consider its flaws to be. Regardless, it's never a bad thing to take our stewardship of the earth's resources seriously. Like Foxy, I believe the US is taking major steps forward and will prevail in a timely manner. Call that Americocentric if you like, but consider it's merely my opinion.

JustWonders, that's not what I would call Americocentric. I actually find that a quite reasonable position. Especially if you are actively promoting or supporting those major steps.

What I would call Americocentric would be a position where you'd say, "Hey, we don't give a damn about the world climate, because our economy is more important than the harm that's being done to this planet".

I have to admit that dozens of cities implementing the Kyoto protocol or the White House talking about global warming seem to be a shift from that position and a rather different approach towards the issue than the former one.

And let me add, once more, that I wouldn't be envious if the United States all of a sudden became the world leader in clean energy, new technologies and zero-emission policies. I would, in fact, be quite happy about that and propagate that Europe follow such a positive example!

0 Replies

Hey, Foxfyre,don't you DARE try taking any of the credit for what we here in New England are trying to do (see Foxfyre's cite above). We're doing it because the damned Bush feds have been sitting on their collective butts, ignoring the science, weakening clean air laws, allowing other states to dump their emissions on us for years.

The Bush administration ain't doing it. The United States isn't doing it. The United States is doing nothing. We in the Northeast just got sick of the inaction and what others were doing to us, and are gonna do it ourselves. As you say, nobody is giving the United States credit for what it is doing, you don't get credit when you're not doing anything.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

As Walter said.

Walter's wrong. Look it up.

old europe wrote:

Yup, I know. Funny thing, I could have sworn the sub-headline on the page you linked to was Six-country partnership is complement, not alternative, to Kyoto Protocol

We had to word it that way. Otherwise, the EU would have thought we were trying to sandbag them Smile

We weren't, of course.

old europe wrote:

Did you read the bit about where the author said

"With nearly half our greenhouse gas emissions coming from agriculture, where there are no easy solutions, it will be very expensive if we have to try to wring the required national emission reductions out of the remaining sectors of the economy"???

Or did you read that bit

"We can not let climate change policies put a handbrake on the economy when we produce only 0.2 per cent of global emissions, half of which are from agriculture which is still the backbone of the economy"

That's a fundamentally different pretext than in the US, isn't it? Or are you going to tell me that the States are an agricultural society, in reality?

I wasn't comparing the two countries and don't know how you drew that conclusion. I was merely citing New Zealand's plight with Kyoto and stating my opinion that they'll most likely withdraw. It isn't working for them.

old europe wrote:

What I really loved about the article was this, though:

"Even Britain's Tony Blair has recently conceded that technology is the answer to the problem and that no country will willingly sacrifice its economic growth."

Hey, awesome! I think that's what I said in almost every single post here recently: use new technology!

And I agree. It makes much more sense than Kyoto.

old europe wrote:

JustWonders, that's not what I would call Americocentric. I actually find that a quite reasonable position. Especially if you are actively promoting or supporting those major steps.

What I would call Americocentric would be a position where you'd say, "Hey, we don't give a damn about the world climate, because our economy is more important than the harm that's being done to this planet".

We've never said we don't give a damn about world climate, Nearly 100% of our representatives in the Senate, however, recognized the harm Kyoto would cause not only our economy but that of other nations and chose not to ratify it, knowing there was a better alternative.

old europe wrote:

I have to admit that dozens of cities implementing the Kyoto protocol or the White House talking about global warming seem to be a shift from that position and a rather different approach towards the issue than the former one.

And let me add, once more, that I wouldn't be envious if the United States all of a sudden became the world leader in clean energy, new technologies and zero-emission policies. I would, in fact, be quite happy about that and propagate that Europe follow such a positive example!

We're working on it. We just don't plan to spend trillions of dollars on a snipe hunt.

You forgot to mention what you think Kyoto's major flaws are.

0 Replies

username wrote:

Hey, Foxfyre,don't you DARE try taking any of the credit for what we here in New England are trying to do (see Foxfyre's cite above). We're doing it because the damned Bush feds have been sitting on their collective butts, ignoring the science, weakening clean air laws, allowing other states to dump their emissions on us for years.

The Bush administration ain't doing it. The United States isn't doing it. The United States is doing nothing. We in the Northeast just got sick of the inaction and what others were doing to us, and are gonna do it ourselves. As you say, nobody is giving the United States credit for what it is doing, you don't get credit when you're not doing anything.

I didn't say the Bush adminsitration was doing it. I said the American people are doing it, which is sort of the way it was intended for this country to work. If you don't want credit for what you're doing, fine. I have not taken any credit for what you are doing there. I am taking credit for what the rest of us are and have been doing.

0 Replies

OE, I look for bias in a) those who have regularly demonstrated bias or b) in those who stand to personally benefit if a research project produces a particular result.

0 Replies

Hmmm...

Mulling over the warm period when the Vikings raided Europe and cultivated Greenland, etc. Iceland is a volcanic eruption. Could volcanic activity in the vicinity have contributed to warming the waters and combined with warm Gulf stream from Florida lead to warming Europe?

0 Replies

Some might be interested in what the official Bush policy is related to the environment:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020214-5.html

0 Replies

We refering to old news if recent statements are even more flattery?

President Bush Is Addressing Climate Change

0 Replies

Old Europe--Please!!

I don't know if you have a perticular area of expertise but if you are not a climatologist I really must insist that you provide evidence for your statements.

You are really quite mistaken in many of them.

First of all, you critique my usage of Ronald Bailey.

I am now doing research on some of the scientists who have provided the ASSUMPTIONS in the computer model which predict the "end of the earth" due to alleged "global warming".

The National Academy of Sciences( Are they baised also, Old Europe said:
AND I QUOTE--YOU DONT

"Climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty in interpreting their answers that exhibit almost as much complexity as in nature"

The National Academy of Sciences' report also highlights the difficulty in understanding NATURAL climate changes. And if we can't understand those, then WE CAN'T FIGURE OUT THE HUMAN EFFECT. One major natural component in changing the climate is, not suprisingly, the sun. New findings, based on satellite measurements, suggest that heat emanating from the sun to the earth changes SIGNIFICANTLY on time scales of decades to centuries. NASA scientists have uncovered the fact that the sun's changing magnetism over the course of its sunspot cycle is accompanied by a change in total energy output. THIS MAY BE THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION FOR ANY TEMPERATURE CHANGE ON EARTH..CHANGE IN SOLAR MAGNETISM, OR TOTAL ENERGY OUTPUT IS

HIGHLY CORRELATED

WITH CHANGES IN THE TEMPERATURE OF THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE GOING BACK 240 YEARS.

I await your refutation of the facts above. Your own unadorned commentary won't do, I am sorry. I am asking you to provide reputable scientific sources. I will provide my sources for the above.

OF COURSE, THE SCIENTISTS AT THE NAS ARE ALL IN THE PAY OF THE OIL COMPANIES!!!!!!!

www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html?onpi_newbooks_060801

I await your links to buttress your statements, Old Europe- You "forgot" to make any!!

Now, on to the next problem with your exposition!

0 Replies

I will take a detour to address 72000. I am very much afraid that your suggestion that the Medieval Warm Period from 800-1200 being due to volcanic activity in Iceland is interesting but not backed up by ANY scientific data. If you have any, please provide.

The Medieval Warm Period, which lasted for about 400 years and was followed by a widespread cooling which devestated Europe and was called a "Little Ice Age" lasted until the late 19th or early 20th centuries. Evidence from ice cores, boreholes, tree rings, deposits of microscopic animals on the sea floor, pollen in lake beds, and mineral deposits in caves show clearly that surface temperatures in some centuries have been very different from temperatures in others. The earth's cycles of warming and cooling PREDATE HUMAN EXISTENCE--NOT TO MENTION SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES.

Old Europe decided not to address this point!!! I wonder why!!!

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Walter's wrong. Look it up.

You might not be aware of it: but I do live in Germany ...

So, would you please present some right data which they hide here?
(And do you really think my eyes are so bad that I saw something wrong when being there?)

0 Replies

I am sorry but Old Europe did address the Warm Medieval Period. He did admit that Climate changes. Good for him. But now, his commentary about "windy nights" is just gobbledegook.

Let's review. I posted evidence from the United States Historical Climatology Network(Those records are also probably biased--right?)

They show the average temperatures yearly in cities and those temperature records go back, in most cases, seventy years.

Windy nights?

Rubbish!!!! One or two or even ten windy nights make no difference in the average temperatures of a year and the seventy years before.

The Urban Island Heat effect is real and it shows the problem with tempertures taken on the surface as opposed to Satellite temperature findings.

Again---If cities around the world like New York become larger and hotter than they were before, the will raise the average global temperature.

That is the Urban Island Heat Effect and New York, New York has gone from 51 F. yearly average in 1822(United States Historical Climatology Network) to 55 F. yearly average in 2000 --FOUR DEGREES.

While Albany New York has declined a half of a degree in a hundred eighty years.

No windy nights can disrupt those long term figures UNLESS ALL THE NIGHTS WERE WINDY!!!

0 Replies

Satellite Data?

Quote:

"changes in monthly average lower troposcopic temperature between latitudes 82 N and 82 S through August 1999 from satellite Microwave Sounding Unit measurements. The combined land and ocean surface record shows a warming trend of about 0.11C per decade( 1958-1998) and 0.19C per decade( 1979-1998) whilie THE SATELLITE TEMPERATURE RECORDS SHOW A WARMING TREND OF O.O5 PER DECADE.

The contrast in temperature trends between the surface and satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere is PUZZLING BECAUSE THE COMPUTER MODELS SAY THE CO2 PRODUCED WARMING TREND IN THE LOWER ATMOSPHERE SHOULD BE LARGER THAN AT THE SRUFACE, BUT IT IS NOT.

Source for above--

j. r. Christy- Analysis of the merging procedure for the MSU daily temperature time series---JOURNAL OF CLIMATE 11, 2016 ( 1998)

and

W. Soon et. al. Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide Climate Research, 13, 149 ( 1999)

I could find no mention of the CATO INSTITUTE

0 Replies

I am very much afraid that Old Europe is mistaken about water vapor.

QUOTE:

"Water vapor and water in clouds absorb nearly 90% of the infrared radiation, while carbon dioxide, methane and ther other minor greenhouse gases together absorb little more than 10% of the infrared radiation"

source:

http://www.marshall.org/guide.htm

0 Replies

You did notice on page 14, did you not, Mortkat, where the report you cite says that solar forcing is very small in comparison with anthropogenic forcing? ( Like about a third to a sixth, at most? .3W/m2 vs 1-2 W/m2 (that's supposed to be "meter squared" except I have no idea how to do exponents on this browser))You did actually read it, did you? Your "simplest explanation" is, as usual, one you seem to have decided yourself, in spite of what the exerts YOU cite say.

0 Replies

I cited no "exerts"

Correction on source citation-

www.marshall.org/article.php?ed=67

0 Replies

The Medieval Warm Period mostly affected the land around the North Atlantic. It was not a general climatic effect. I don't believe there was much effect on sea level (which would be caused by a large melting of polar ice, naturally). Now, by contrast, we see unprecedented melting of the Arctic ice cap, and unprecedented melting of arctic tundra--it hasn't happened since the last ice age. The Inuit and Dorset cultures have been there for around three thousand years, and there'sno evidence of the cultural changes that would have been necessary had there been previous such hot spells (and their culture continued unchanged during the medieval warm period, which indicates that that was indeed a relatively localized phenomenon).

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know