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

Global warming is real. But its causes"and therefore its solutions"are more complex than most people seem to realize.

So says astronomer Hugh Ross, founder and president of the premiere science-faith think tank Reasons To Believe

Global Warming
By Hugh Ross/Jeff Zweerink

Global warming is real. But its causes"therefore its solutions"are more complex than most people seem to realize. We tend to think Earth’s climate will always be optimal for human civilization if we just take good care of it. But nothing could be farther from the truth. When we put emotion and politics aside and take a rational look at our planet’s history, we see a different picture.

Ice and sediment cores show that over the past four million years, the global climate has oscillated many times. The changes are caused by variations in Earth’s orbit. Each cycle lasts about 100,000 years with an ice age typically taking up 90,000 of those years, and a global warming effect, the other 10,000 years.

Many natural phenomena significantly affect the global climate. Atmospheric conditions are impacted by tectonic activity, erosion, and changes in Earth’s biomass, for example. While politicians and activists focus on the effects of fossil fuel burning, no one seems to mention that the breeding and domestication of cows and cultivation of rice, for example, actually do more harm than does the driving of SUV’s.

According to the Journal of Quaternary Science, over the last 8,000 years cattle farming and rice crop cultivation alone have nearly doubled the quantity of methane in the atmosphere. At the same time, deforestation has increased the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. Both methane and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases that trap the sun’s heat. Contrary to the claims of a few high profile politicians, celebrities, and environmentalists, some of our human activities in fact create a cooling effect. The release of aerosols and particulates actually blocks out sunlight and generates light-reflecting cloud layers, especially over densely populated and highly industrialized regions where pollution is loosely, if at all, regulated.

The bottom line here is that there are dozens of physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to both heating and cooling the planet. When any one of these factors gets out of balance with the others, Earth is at risk of losing its optimal climate for human civilization. This delicate balancing act of multiple and diverse natural processes and human activities gives us reason to be cautious. But to suggest that we can stop global warming simply by cutting back on fossil fuel combustion and altering our industrial processes is naive at best. If we ignore one or more of certain mechanisms that contribute to either global warming or cooling, our attempted solutions could actually make matters worse.

Scientifically speaking this intricate balance, designed specifically for humanity’s benefit, is no accident. The amazing fine tuning observed in all these complex processes gives us a clear picture of a Creator who exquisitely prepared a place for humans to live in and to launch"at least for awhile"a global high-tech civilization.
http://www.reasons.org/controversial-topics/global-warming/global-warming-0

Try the first sentence, fox.

Global warming is real. But its causes"therefore its solutions"are more complex than most people seem to realize.

Fine. I agree completely with the first sentence too. So does the IPCC, which looks at ALL the evidence and ALL the science and ALL the interactions, just as Ross suggests, and finds global warming to be real and a serious problem, as does Ross. The question is why you don't. Notice what Ross cites as complicating the problem: CO2, methane production, aerosol production, all anthropogenic, all considered at length by the research and the IPCC. Sorry, Inhofe blundered by including him in his "scientists".

The bottom line here is that there are dozens of physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to both heating and cooling the planet. When any one of these factors gets out of balance with the others, Earth is at risk of losing its optimal climate for human civilization. This delicate balancing act of multiple and diverse natural processes and human activities gives us reason to be cautious. But to suggest that we can stop global warming simply by cutting back on fossil fuel combustion and altering our industrial processes is naive at best. If we ignore one or more of certain mechanisms that contribute to either global warming or cooling, our attempted solutions could actually make matters worse

Fox, you claim you read the IPCC FAR summary for poicymakers. I suggest you reread it, and try reading the technical summary too, thistime. You are clearly missing something, sin ce as far back as the IPCC's second assessment report, now on the order of ten years old, they addressed ALL of the factors that you claim they don't deal with, EVERYTHING that Ross mentions, and more, and as far as I can tell, unless someone has come up with some new off-the-wall argument, all of the skeptics' cavils too: CO2, methane, aerosols, solar variability, cosmic ray influence, cloud cover effects, urban heat island effects, cement production (yes, it has an effect), volcanic contributions of aerosols and particulates, natural climatic variability, CO2 rise and lag since the last ice age, ocean warming and acidification, glacier and ice cap melting and sea level rise. They are ALL there and more, and as the name implies, assessed. And the consensus becomes stronger every day. The IPCC clearly has always said the problem is complex, which is why they make such an attempt to deal with ALL of the factors. And they also have always said the actions we need to take are complex and many-faceted. It's you denialists who are always trying to simplify it.

Interview: Christian Scientist on Global Warming
Dr. Ross spoke to our Christian Today correspondent last week about global warming and what he believes are overlooked factors that cause the increase warming of the earth.
by Michelle Vu, Christian Today US Correspondent
Posted: Thursday, December 28, 2006, 12:49 (GMT)Font Scale:A A A

Dr. Hugh Ross, founder/president of the ministry Reasons to Believe, based in the US, is an astronomer-turned-apologist specialising in Bible-science issues. Dr. Ross spoke to our Christian Today correspondent last week about global warming and what he believes are overlooked factors that cause the increase warming of the earth, including: the earth's orbit, domestication of cows, cultivation of rice, and deforestation.

How do you believe Christians should feel towards environmental issues?

Ross: God put the human race in charge of managing the resources of the entire planet for the benefit of all life. Therefore we of all people on this planet should be concerned about environmental issues and doing what we can to enhance the beauty and productivity of the natural realm.

Why is everyone focused on fossil fuel burnings as the main factor contributing to global warming?

Ross: Well, that certainly has gotten the public attention. A lot of it has to do with the fact that we simply are not aware of other human activities that make as big or bigger contributions to global warming. The fact is the planet is warming right now and it is easier to blame it on some human activity rather than saying we should better understand the whole problem and recognise there are natural conditions that are impacting this too.

Another factor is that we human beings have gotten too use to the fact that we have an exceptionally benign global climate right now. We don't appreciate how finely tuned the characteristic of the whole galaxy, solar system, and earth must be to bring about those conditions. If you look at the past record of the earth, we have to realise that this is very temporary.

I had pointed out earlier the earth's history over the past several million years is that for every 100,000 years, we go through a dramatic climatic cycle where we get 90,000 years of ice age and 10,000 years of a warm period. I think people today just have the expectation that we deserve a perfectly benign climate forever.

Is what you're saying radical?

Ross: I don't think that it is a radical idea. Our main point is that this is a very complicated issue with many contributions, both natural and human, and we can easily make a mistake by putting too much emphasis on one factor and ignoring other factors. The potential in many environmental issues is that if you undertake corrective action without appropriate understanding of the problem then you wind up doing more harm than good.

The Evangelical Climate Initiative's statement cites the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change as saying most of the warming is due to human activities, in particular, the burning of fossil fuels. This is contrary to what you are saying. What is your response?

Ross: That is probably the most significant in terms of new human activities, but the fact is that we human beings have been altering the climate through other factors literally for thousands of years.

I mentioned the domestication of cows and the way we harvest rice these days by irrigating fields. Those two activities alone have nearly doubled the amount of methane in the atmosphere and methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

The other thing we have done is cut down a lot forest to make pastures and agricultural land. Forests are a big factor in absorbing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I don't think the United States has gotten enough credit for the fact that we have actually planted a lot of forests. There are now more forests covering the United States than before "white men" showed up, so in that sense the United States has contributed to the lessening of the climate warming because now we got more trees absorbing carbon dioxide. In one sense, that helps counter all the fossil fuel burnings that we are doing.

What are some suggestions you have for reducing global warming?

Ross: A better understanding of the natural processes that are at work. We don't fully comprehend the orbital effects on the climate. Scientists are now coming to recognise that this is probably the biggest factor governing climate change.

We need a better understanding of what human activities do and not just the warming effects but the cooling effects too.

We need to develop a plan that takes into account all these factors rather than just emphasising the one and not dealing with the others.

And we need to recognise that no matter what we do, the ice age is going to hit us. I mean eventually we are going to have a serious cooling problem and in one sense human activities have delayed the onset of the next ice age. But we need to recognise that there is no way we can sustain a perfectly benign climate forever; it has always been temporary and will continue to be temporary.

What do humans do to cause a cooling effect?

Ross: Aerosol production blocks out the light of the sun. Also what we do in the Artic has a huge effect because the Artic has a long season where there is snow and ice on the ground and the kind of plants that inhabit the Artic can do a lot to reflect or absorb light from outer space.

There is a recent research paper that documents that the color of Artic vegetations has a huge impact on adjusting the climate.

So paying more attention to that and recognising there are a lot of little things we can do without expenditure of money that can make a huge difference.

Do you have any further comments?

Ross: I think a measure of humility is necessary here to realise we are not as smart as God and He understands the whole issue. I think that there is a tendency in our human context to simplify the problem and not realise how delicately balance everything is.

A lot of research we do here at Reasons to Believe examines how exquisitely designed our planet and our solar system is to make possible, for a short period of time, a high-technology global human civilization. We need to appreciate that that level of fine-tuning is so extraordinary that it can't be attributed to natural causation; it has got to be credited to the supernatural, super-intelligent design of the God of the Bible.

We also need to realise that there a reason why God wanted us to have a global high-technology civilisation and that was to quickly fulfill the Great Commission. So I say to believers, let's take advantage of these benign conditions that God has given us, recognise that God has given it to us, and fulfill the purpose that He has given us to do.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/interview.christian.scientist.on.global.warming/8876.htm

My research tells me that the IPCC is made up of mostly people commissioned to come up with a politically correct solution that will increase the financial, political, and social power of those who commissioned the IPCC. The Summary for Policymakers is a political document that achieves the desired end. And frankly, I think it has very very little to do with honest science. The fact that the research and data of serious skeptics is not included tells me that the end product is not reliable as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Quote:

So I say to believers, let's take advantage of these benign conditions that God has given us, recognise that God has given it to us, and fulfill the purpose that He has given us to do.

Completely inadequate IPCC models produce the ultimate deception about man made global warming
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, December 22, 2008

E. R. Beadle said, “Half the work done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does this with purpose and great effect. They built the difference between appearance and reality into their process. Unlike procedure used elsewhere, they produce and release a summary report independently and before the actual technical report is completed. This way the summary gets maximum media attention and becomes the public understanding of what the scientists said. Climate science is made to appear what it is not. Indeed, it is not even what is in their Scientific Report.

The pattern of falsifying appearances began early. Although he works at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Stephen Schneider was heavily employed in the work of the IPCC as this biography notes.

Much of Schneider’s time is taken up by what he calls his “pro bono day job” for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II of the IPCC from 1997 to 2001 and a lead author in Working Group I from 1994 to 1996. Currently, he is a Coordinating Lead Author for the controversial chapter on “Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and the Risks from Climate Change,” in short, defining “dangerous” climate change.” - Pubmedcentral.nih.gov

He continued this work by helping prepare the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released in April 2007.

Schneider, among others, created the appearance that the Summary was representative of the Science Report. However, he provides an early insight into the thinking when speaking about global warming to Discovery magazine (October 1989) he said scientists need, “to get some broader based support, to capture the public’s imagination…that, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have…each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.” The last sentence is deeply disturbing--there is no decision required.

The Summary for Policymakers is designed to convince everyone that global warming is due to human production of CO2. In SPM AR4 issued in April 2007 they say, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.” The term “very likely” is from a table reportedly produced by Schneider and means greater than 90%. Professor Roy Spencer says about probabilities in this context. “Any statements of probability are meaningless and misleading. I think the IPCC made a big mistake. They’re pandering to the public not understanding probabilities. When they say 90 percent, they make it sound like they’ve come up with some kind of objective, independent, quantitative way of estimating probabilities related to this stuff. It isn’t. All it is is a statement of faith.”

So they create an appearance of certainty about a human cause of warming. But what is the reality? The only place where CO2 is causing temperature increase is in the IPCC computer models. In every record of any duration for any time period in the history of the Earth, temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. So an incorrect assumption that a CO2 increase will cause temperature increase is built into the computer models. That is damaging enough, but the computer models themselves are completely inadequate to represent global climate or make any predictions about future climate. But don’t believe me. The IPCC Technical Report (“The Physical Science Basis”) produced by Working Group I and released in November 2007, says so.

Problems begin with the definition of climate change used because it requires they only consider human causes. From the United Nations Environment Program (article 1) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.” But you cannot determine the human portion unless you understand natural climate change. As Professor Roy Spencer said in his testimony before the US Senate EPW Committee, “And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research.”

Media and public are allowed to believe the IPCC make climate predictions, but they don’t. The First Assessment Report (Climate Change 1992) said, “Scenarios are not predictions of the future and should not be used as such.” While the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios says; “Scenarios are images of the future or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts. Climate Change 2001 continues the warnings; “The possibility that any single in emissions path will occur as described in this scenario is highly uncertain.” In the same Report they say, “No judgment is offered in this report as to the preference for any of the scenarios and they are not assigned probabilities of recurrence, neither must they be interpreted as policy recommendations.” This is a reference to the range of scenarios they produce using different future possible economic conditions. Of course, they didn’t build in the recent financial collapse.

MORE HERE:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7116