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

Wow I just did a very quick back-of-the-envelope calculation and I make the cubic meters of fresh water trapped inside icebergs and icepacks to be quadrillions, maybe even quintillions!!!

OK OK I must calculate more carefully but I'm sure we're talking vast numbers --- perhaps is that melting water can be trapped at its source desalination may be unnecessary......

Louise, That's true; it's really evident at some while others are more difficult to notice - now that you mention it. But it's claimed that the glaciers hold 70 percent of the fresh water on our planet.

News flash to all you doomsdayers, you can relax and educate yourselves a little by reading the following.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=65

Also, I heard today that more trees could make the earth warmer, so quit planting so many. I couldn't find a link on the web, it is probably too new information. By the way, there are more trees already on the lower 48 than there were 200 years ago, so no need to plant a bunch more.

I'm sure you will all be glad it's only a false alarm about global warming so I thought I should let you know so you don't have to lay awake at night worrying about it any more.

Look several pages back. I commented on a recent report on NPR that suggested eliminating pollution from the atmosphere would lead to increased global warming. The same report indicated that mass tree plantings are not as benign as they are widely believed to be. I didn't hear the whole story, but what I did hear suggested that such plantings had deleterious effects on ground water with resulting ecological problems, I didn't hear anything about them contributing to global warming.

The point being that our knowledge of climatology and understanding of ecological chains of event is not at all complete. This is not to say that we have nothing to fear from air pollution or that trees present a greater threat to the environment that the emissions of fossil fuel burning engines, but I am hesitant to accept the expressed certitude of the global warming warnings; especially when they are presented by non-scientists.

The issue has become so politicized that's very hard to distinguish between the science and the politics in the opinions of so-called experts.

SHALL WE RETURN TO THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD- NAMELY GLOBAL WARMING? THE INCREDIBLE UNSOURCED GARBAGE SERVED UP BY BLOTHAM AND THE SKIMPY LITTLE MAPS GIVEN TO US BY WALTER HINTELER ARE MOST INSUFFICIENT. It is not enough for people like Steve to say- You are wrong. They must show how the assertions below which contradict the "global warming thesis" are incorrect:

l. Surface temperatures on the earth have varied throughout the centuries. The Medieval Warm Period manifested warmer temperatures than today without the benefit of co2 produced by man.

2. The US Senate decisively voted against acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol in July 1997 with a DECISIVE vote of 95-0. One of the major sticking points was that the C02 emissions of China and India were not to be cut back because they were both classified as "developing countries

3. The National Academy of Sciences published its report in 2001 and found that a large portion of the research on "global warming" could only be classified as 'UNCERTAIN"

4. There was a strong surface warming between 1890 and 1940 followed by a pronounced cooling between 1940 and 1970( and warnings of a catasthropic ice age to come) then rising tempertures from 1970 to today.
Since CO2 emissions were insignificant in the early 20th century, it is a puzzle why substantial warming happened anyway. It could have been due to natural causes of Climate Change.

5. Recent warming trends have been measured only on the earth's surface. There are major uncertainties connected with those trends, one of which is the heat island effect. The important point is that satellite measurements do not show the warming trends.

6. The Academy pointed out a serious problem with the theories concerning global warming. They noted that "The nature and magnitude of hydrological feedbacks give rise to the LARGEST SOURCE OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT CLIMATE SENSITIVITY since all of the computer models assume that water vapor will amplify the small bit of warming expected from an increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the air. If that assumption is untrue and the theories of Richard Lindzen, perhaps the US's foremost professor of Meterology at MIT hold true, then the thoery of global warming falls apart.
Dr. Lindzen holds that clouds tend to reduce much of the warming expected fromCO2 since he states that cirrus clouds act as thermostats. Dr, Lindzen points out that both clouds and water vapor-EACH MORE IMPORTANT IN THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THAN CO2 ARE SIMPLY NOT WELL ENOUGH UNDERSTOOD BY CLIMATOLOGISTS.


7. The National Academy of Sciences points out that without computer models there would be no evidence of global warming, no Kyoto. By simulating the climate on giant, ultra fast computers, scholars try to learn just how it will react to new stimulus--like a doubling of CO2. The NSA points out that AN IDEAL COMPUTER MODEL WOULD HAVE TO TRACK FIVE MILLION PARAMETERS OVER THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH AND THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE AND INCORPORATE ALL RELEVANT INTERACTIONS AMONG LAND, SEA, AIR, ICE AND VEGETATION.

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

8. Perhaps, more important, the NAS report highlights the difficulty in understanding NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE. If we can't understand those, then we can't understand the human effect. One of the MAJOR natural component in changing the climate is--the sun. New findings, based on satellite measurements,suggest that the heat emanating from the sun to the earth changes significantly on time scales of decades to centuries. NASA satellites 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. SINCE THE SUN IS AS MAGNETICALLY ACTIVE TODAY AS IT HAS BEEN IN 400 YEARS OF DIRECT TELESCOPE OBSERVATIONS, IT MAY BE THAT THE SUN IS HEATING THE EARTH WITH LITTLE THAT MAN CAN DO ABOUT IT.


I await some brave soul who really wishes to discuss the main points concerning "global warming". I fear that most of those who say the sky is falling do not have the ability to respond. I defy Walter Hinteler or Blotham to show that the observations above are incorrect. I will replicate the concerns Steve gave and then my answers. I do expect the "uniformed" to run away from the facts I state since I do not think they can handle them. If so, my posts stay unrebutted.

Shall we begin?


First of all, the point concerning the Warming Period in the Medieval Ages in which the Vikings farmed Greenland is indeed critical since it shows that climate can indeed vary and did vary WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF HUMAN PRODUCTION OF CO2. If you doubt that the Warming Period did indeed occur, please give evidence. If not, it stands unrebutted.

Secondly, the Senate of the US voted 95-0 against accepting the Kyoto Treaty. It PROVES that the Senate, which I am sure is privy to more information about the allleged "global warming" than either of us are, would not ruin the US economy by signing on to a treaty which ALLEGED an unproven "global warming" alleged to have been caused by Co2 emissions alleged by computer simulations which were done mainly by European scientists which, of course, despite their alleged scientific mind set, had, understandably, political ends in mind. I am not sure that you are aware, Steve, that the Senators in 1997 were outraged that the economies of China and India would suffer no set backs due to the enormous costs of suppressing CO2 emissions since they were developing countries.

Thirdly, if the NAS report is out of date, Please provide another report of similar quality and scope.

Fourthly, says who?

quote:

"Much of the observed temperature rise of o.5Coccurred before 1940, whereas most of the additional carbon dioxide ( over 80%) entered the atmosphere after 1940. Increased greenhouse gases cannot explain a temperature rise that occurred before the major increases in these gases existed in the atmosphere, Furthermore, from 1940 to 1970,carbon dixoide built up rapidly in the atmosphere, and according to the computer projections of climate, the temperature of the earth should also have risen rapidly"

source- D. E. Parker et al. Interdecal changes of surface temperature since the late nineteeth century, Journal of Geophysical Research 99, 14373 ( 1994)

and J. Hansen and S. Lebedeff, Global trends of measured surface air temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research 92, 13345 ( 1987)


Fifth- Heat island effect.

Some sites show increases in temperature since big cities create a small additional amount of heat because of their size and activities.

Proof?

All measurements taken from records of The United States Historical Climatology Network( USHCN)

New York, New York


Average Yearly Temp( F) in 1822- 51 degrees in 2000, 55 degrees in 2000.

Albany, New York 1822- 48.2degrees 2000- 47.9 degrees

Pasadena, California--1930- 62 degrees F. 2000-65 degrees F.

Death Valley, California-1930 76 degrees F. 2000- 76 degrees F.


There are many other measurements which show the presence of the heat island effect.


Sixth- No one, to the best of my knowledge, has rebutted Professor Lindzen's theory. Can you?


Seventh-I am sure that you are trying to be fanciful when you speak so disparagingly about the effect of the sun. If you can find any reputable research that shows that the sun, as studied by NASA and highly respected Astrophysicists may not have been responsible for some slight global warming, can you please provide it?

You may, of course, be able to find evidence that the sun is NOT as magnetically active today as it has been in the last 400 years of observation of the sun. If you have that, please provide.

Cheers-Steve!!!

Your points all obvious to anyone capable of using reason, and desirous of using reason in an atmosphere absent of politics. Unfortunately, what we are battling today is the highly charged political arena of "pop science." Garbage in, garbage out. Even without politics injected, I dealt with "garbage in, garbage out" geological models back in my working days in the field of geology, which is another field that lends itself to wild theories that were said to be proven before the data was even collected. Now, with a "computer model," it is possible to set up your own theory and feed it with the parameters you choose in order to come up with just about any conclusion you want it to by tweaking the parameters. I am not saying that science does not work. It works beautifully when used in the responsible and unbiased manner it was intended, but it doesn't work very well when customized for one's political aims. As the old saying goes, figures don't lie, by liars will figure.

Mortkat, no matter what logic is brought to bear on the global warming crowd, they will call you stupid and uninformed. It does not fit their political beliefs. If the warming trends begin to cool, then we will have to deal with the global cooling sky is falling crowd. Capitalism is evil. That is their political belief. The whacko environmental movement is the new home of the old communist / socialist crowd.

okie- They wont try to take my points one at a time because they cannot rebut them. Scroll back and look at the pitiful attempts by Steve. As far as I am concerned, my posts STAND UNREBUTTED and I will repost them as long as they are UNREBUTTED!!!!!

I commend you for your efforts. You have more energy or hopes that it does any good more than I do. It is difficult to reason with hatred, and I think the hatred for Bush is so intense among some folks, it is frankly impossible to use any reasoning at all. Good Luck.

Okie, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

This has been my whole argument all along. If credible scientists are unable to duplicate the models projecting global warming by using the data we have, then it only makes sense that those scientists using models that project global warming using data we don't have must be viewed in the arena of speculation rather than scientific fact.

I don't know whether humankind is affecting the climate and have no problem with knowledgeable people studying this provided they do so sans a political agenda. But until we know something that can be supported by credible science, I see no reason to accept what very well may be junk science to reduce the quality of life for millions of people and prevent millions more from acquiring a better quality of life.

okie dokey okie. What have you been smoking recently?

Okie- Steve apparently does not know or does not want to know that as recently as the early seventies or late sixties, there was a group of "scientists" who predicted an Ice Age.

Steve, like Blotham, apparently does not read.

Okie- You got it right!!! Go to:

http://;www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

There you will find an article from NEWSWEEK dated APRIL 28, 1975.

It is called "The COOLING world"

part of the article says:

quote

"A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell , from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported a DROP OF A HALF A DEGREE IN AVERAGE GROUND TEMPERATURE IN THE NOTYHERN HEMISPHERE BETWEEN 1945 AND 1968"

You can read it yourself, Okie and when you finish you can ask tell Steve that you are not smoking a thing, just reading the truth.

I am sure that Steve does not know about the panic concerning Global Cooling that took place JUST THIRTY YEARS AGO.

Steve fails to see the obvious. That is that nature is cyclical. If the temperatures drift slightly, it has to be our fault, and so panic sets in. Theres always been a few doomsdayers around. He wants to be one of them. Perfect stability in nature is rare to non-existent. Another example is species. Would it make sense for all species to be equally abundant, and for none to be rare, or even very, very rare.? I think not, but that is what some people must think. They make their living off trying to make nature perfectly stable, which it never has been and never will.

The fact is the climate of the globe has never been stable on a geologic time scale. The physical record of the planet is quite clear in the repeated cycles of ice ages, shifts in magnetic polarity, continental drift, and repeated mass extinctions of living creatures. In a shorter time scale, there are known cycles in global temperatures, involving periods of centuries - and they preceeded our industrial development. There is a known 10 - 14 year cycle in solar activity which is detectable in tree rings. Finally there are regional cycles due to shifts in ocean currents such as El Ninho, and these too predate the industrial age.

I don't think that anyone here is arguing against the proposition that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due to human activity, does indeed contribute to warming. What is less clear is whether in the short or long run this phenomenon will dominate other natural cycles. Even less reliable, from a scientific perspective, are the long range predictions of accelerating warming and the approach of a tipping point of instability.

The numerical extrapolations and integrations used to forecast future weather, based on curent data, are good for at most a few weeks, even with the best available computing power, due to the strong non-linearity of the equations involved and the sensitive dependence on initial conditions they exhibit. Why, in these circumstances, should we blindly accept far less accurate extrapolations, made with far less rigor in representing the basic processes involved, and requiring far greater time scales for their accuracy ? I am amazed that people blandly accept that these predictions are somehow meaningful given all that has been learned about complex, non-linear dynamic systems, sensitive dependence on initial conditions, chaos , and the self-regulating character of these dynamic systems themselves.

However the big argument here is whether the problem is worth fixing at all - will the cost of fixing it exceed the benefits of doing so? A related question is, would a system of rules and regulations limiting emissions to the degree necessary to contain the phenomenon - if such a thing can be achieved - really be the best way to address it? There is the very real risk, that the economic devastation that would accompany the limits able to accomplish this, would inhibit the development and deployment of the new technologies and power systems needed to both support the current population of the earth and reduce greenhous gas emissions enough to make a difference.

Snowfall in Japan, heaviest in history

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4591950.stm

It's so hot here I can cook marshmallows over the snow piles.

The point is, unprecedented changes in long-established weather patterns.

And in ocean currents, air streams leading to drought there, floods here, snowfalls elsewhere.

George, Your post 1774593 is excellent; it explains geological and atmospheric cycles very well with evidence to support it.

I understand your point, but I think your conclusion as to the cause is highly suspect.

I didn't count them but presumably some 1800 (or was it 18000?) scientists signed off on the findings of the Petition Project that includes a very scholarly discussion of the whole issue of global warming.

I wonder why some are unwilling to even consider scientific opinions like this rather than the doom and gloom forecasts put forth by proponents of the Kyoto Treaty?

Their conclusions following a lengthy scientific discussion are excerped as follows (emphasis mine):

"There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased.

We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if the current long-term natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. ''Global warming,'' an invalidated hypothesis, provides no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 as has been proposed (29).. . . .

. . . .Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.

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