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

Obtained from:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide2.png

Do you disagree with this Question

0 Replies

Obtained from:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide3.png

Do you disagree with this Question

0 Replies

Quote:

The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release.

"The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses.

Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

ican and foxfire believe that dr. seitz knows the truth about CC and the NAS does not - that's their privilege .

if anyone can show that the response did NOT come from the NAS or that the scientists of the NAS are wrong in their assessment of climate change , we'll have something to discuss .
for the time being i am willing to accept the statement attributed to the NAS .
hbg

0 Replies

Obtained from:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide4.png

Do you disagree with this Question

0 Replies

Obtained from:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide12.png

Do you disagree with this Question

0 Replies

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

I'd like to note that the solar activity from your graph does not match the Global average plot which you keep posting.

What I will conceed is that if the graph provided is honest, it MIGHT imply that polar climates are more governed by solar activity than other areas. It's alos important to remind you that nobody is arguing that solar output has no effect.

T
K
O

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

...
ican and foxfire believe that dr. seitz knows the truth about CC and the NAS does not - that's their privilege .

if anyone can show that the response did NOT come from the NAS or that the scientists of the NAS are wrong in their assessment of climate change , we'll have something to discuss .
for the time being i am willing to accept the statement attributed to the NAS .
hbg

You do not know what I believe about what Dr. Seitz believes. Besides that is irrelevant to the topic here.

What do you think about the graphs I posted today? Why?

What is your understanding of NAS's assessment of climate change?

What is your understanding of what the graphs I posted today show about NAS's assessment of climate change?

What is your understanding of what the graphs I posted today show about the validity of the theory that humans cause emissions into the earth's atmosphere that are the primary cause of climate change?

0 Replies

Yes. I disagree, and so do the scientists who did the work (see below) Note the last sentence of the abstract, where they say:"We find that the glacier contribution to sea level rise was 5.5±1.0 cm during the period 1850-2000 and 4.5±0.7 cm during the period 1900-2000." Doing the subtractions, from 1850-1900 glaciers contributed a 1 cm rise in sea level (or a rate of 2 cm per century). whereas from 1900-2000 they contributed a 4.5 cm level rise, MORE THAN TWICE AS FAST. No way you can have the same slope over the course of 1850-2000 with that difference. Further if you look at that really badly-done graphic of the "OISM", you can see glacier length essentially noodling around the same range from 1700 to about 1850-1870, and only starting a sustainedclimb after around 1850 to 1870, which is when hydrocarbon use started taking off. Further, as the abstract show, that climb was much steeper after 1900. And by all accounts of glaciologists, that climb has been steeper yet since the last decades of the 20th century. So, wherever Willie Soon is getting, or inventing his data, it's bunk.

The Cryosphere Discuss., 1, 77-97, 2007
www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/1/77/2007/
© Author(s) 2007. This work is licensed
under a Creative Commons License.

Reconstructing the glacier contribution to sea-level rise back to 1850

J. Oerlemans1, M. Dyurgerov2, and R. S. W. van de Wal1
1Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5, Utrecht 3584CC, The Netherlands
2Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, 10654 Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract. We present a method to estimate the glacier contribution to sea-level rise from glacier length records. These records form the only direct evidence of glacier changes prior to 1946, when the first systematic mass-balance observations began. A globally representative length signal is calculated from 197 length records from all continents by normalisation and averaging of 14 different regions. Next, the resulting signal is calibrated with mass-balance observations for the period 1961-2000. We find that the glacier contribution to sea level rise was 5.5±1.0 cm during the period 1850-2000 and 4.5±0.7 cm during the period 1900-2000.

Discussion Paper (PDF, 817 KB) Interactive Discussion (Closed, 6 Comments) Final Revised Paper (TC)

Citation: Oerlemans, J., Dyurgerov, M., and van de Wal, R. S. W.: Reconstructing the glacier contribution to sea-level rise back to 1850, The Cryosphere Discuss., 1, 77-97, 2007.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

Quote:
The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release.

"The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses.

Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

ican and foxfire believe that dr. seitz knows the truth about CC and the NAS does not - that's their privilege .

if anyone can show that the response did NOT come from the NAS or that the scientists of the NAS are wrong in their assessment of climate change , we'll have something to discuss .
for the time being i am willing to accept the statement attributed to the NAS .
hbg

Echoing Ican's response, I have not expressed what 'truth' I think Dr. Seitz knows, only that I do think it likely that his views re AGW will be exonerated at some point. The issue is not what response did or did not come from the NAS nor did my opinion reflect any opinion of the NAS.

I continue to believe that Dr. Seitz has a tremendously impressive resume, he has not been discredited in the scientific world which is supported by evidence of what I previously posted, and it is my opinion that he has been dishonestly smeared on this thread.

0 Replies

You're entitled to your opinion, Fox. The NAS disagrees with you. Of the two of you, I give more credence to the NAS.

0 Replies

Please post evidence that the NAS disagrees with me. I was unware that the NAS had any opinion of me at all, or my opinions. But thank you for allowing me an opinion. That is more charitable than some are willing to allow.

I would also be quite surprised to find out that the NAS has smeared Dr. Seitz or condoned dishonest smearing of Dr. Seitz. Disagreement or holding opposing views is not a hateful thing to just everybody.

0 Replies

foxfire wrote :

Quote:

I continue to believe that Dr. Seitz has a tremendously impressive resume, he has not been discredited in the scientific world which is supported by evidence of what I previously posted, and it is my opinion that he has been dishonestly smeared on this thread.

indeed dr. seitz has an impressive resume .
he also is entitled to state his opinion .
the impression i get from the NAS statement is that dr. seitz used the mantle of the NAS in his petition drive .

the NAS saw it necessary to issue a statement about the petition drive by dr. seitz :

Quote:

"The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release.

if he had made NO reference to the NAS in his petition drive , i doubt that they would have it found necessary or even been able to issue the rather blunt statement they did .

perhaps i am reading too much into the statement issued by the NAS .
i have to conclude that they did NOT want to be identified with the petition drive by dr. seitz - anyone have a different interpretation of the action taken by the NAS ?
hbg

0 Replies

Hamburger, Seitz in no place attributed the Petition Project to the NAS. The letter did identify him as a past president of the NAS, which he is. It was intended to verify his stature in heading the project; not to suggest that it was a NAS project. The NAS may have strongly objected to the project and may have reacted to assumptions that the Project itself did not make.

They did not however smear Dr. Seitz nor do they to this day to the best of my knowledge.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Hamburger, Seitz in no place attributed the Petition Project to the NAS. The letter did identify him as a past president of the NAS, which he is. It was intended to verify his stature in heading the project; not to suggest that it was a NAS project. The NAS may have strongly objected to the project and may have reacted to assumptions that the Project itself did not make.

Yes, that's correct:

Quote:

Many atmospheric scientists and ecologists who believe global warming to be a serious threat had expressed anger and alarm over the article because it was printed in a format and type face similar to that of the academy's own journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

NYT, published: April 22, 1998

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Hamburger, Seitz in no place attributed the Petition Project to the NAS. The letter did identify him as a past president of the NAS, which he is. It was intended to verify his stature in heading the project; not to suggest that it was a NAS project. The NAS may have strongly objected to the project and may have reacted to assumptions that the Project itself did not make.

Yes, that's correct:

Quote:
Many atmospheric scientists and ecologists who believe global warming to be a serious threat had expressed anger and alarm over the article because it was printed in a format and type face similar to that of the academy's own journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
NYT, published: April 22, 1998

So because its similiar that means it was meant to look like an NAS article?
Since when did the NAS own the rights to any specific format or type face?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

...
I'd like to note that the solar activity from your graph does not match the Global average [temperature] plot which you keep posting.
...
T
K
O

While they don't match exactly, the solar activity and global average temperature plots match extraordinarily well.

What doesn't match worth a damn is the start of the 1977 to 2005 part of the temperature rise and the start of the 1945 to 2005 much more rapid rise in the world's hydrocarbon use. The former is leveling off alittle, while the latter is continuing to increase its rapid increase.

Of course one must remember that less than 5% of the atmosphere's CO2 came from human caused emissions. More than 95% came from evaporation of the ocean and other sources.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Since when did the NAS own the rights to any specific format or type face?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Since when did the NAS own the rights to any specific format or type face?

Since they got copyright © protection .... which is given with any issue by US- and International law.

I know an article can be copyrighted, as can any other intellectual work.
But, I dont think that a format or typeface can be copyrighted, unless there is something very different and unique about it.
If a format or type face could be copyrighted, that would eliminate almost all of the available formats, wouldnt it?
After all, if a type face or format could be copyrighted, there would be no way to write, print, or otherwise use the written word to communicate without paying someone for every word typed or writtedn

0 Replies

username wrote:

You're entitled to your opinion, Fox. The NAS disagrees with you. Of the two of you, I give more credence to the NAS.

What is NAS's actual disagreement with Foxfyre and me?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
mysteryman wrote:

Since when did the NAS own the rights to any specific format or type face?

Since they got copyright © protection .... which is given with any issue by US- and International law.

I know an article can be copyrighted, as can any other intellectual work.
But, I dont think that a format or typeface can be copyrighted, unless there is something very different and unique about it.
If a format or type face could be copyrighted, that would eliminate almost all of the available formats, wouldnt it?
After all, if a type face or format could be copyrighted, there would be no way to write, print, or otherwise use the written word to communicate without paying someone for every word typed or writtedn

That is absolutely correct. As a longtime writer and editor, I can testify that given editorial license, the format and preferred type will be remarkably similar no matter who I am writing for. As Dr. Seitz probably had some serious input into NAS editorial style, it is quite understandable that the same style would be comfortable to work with and look good to him when he moved on to other things.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know