73
   

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

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2006 03:55 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The only real similarity that I see is that people have to intervene in both to prevent flooding.

Since flooding is the subject of our conversation at this point, I don't see how any other similarity would matter.

Foxfyre wrote:
And yes, my libertarian soul is offended by saddling the U.S. tax payer with the cost of returning tens of thousands of people to what I consider to be an unnecessary risk. If you have to bulldoze and rebuild it anyway, why not rebuild on high ground and use the low ground for purposes that do not put human life at risk?

A valid liberal response is to have the government build high enough dams. This eliminates the unnecessary risk in returning people to their homes. The Dutch have proven that this response can work in practice. Therefore, if Al Gore advocated the rebuilding of New Orleans and a heightening of its dams, that wouldn't necessarily make him irresponsible. It would only make him a liberal, as opposed to a libertarian or a conservative. Gore's persuasion is not yours, and it isn't mine either. But there are politicians whose political persuasions differ from mine and who are still responsible people. I can admit this without breaking a prong out of my crown.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2006 06:38 pm
Thomas writes
Quote:
A valid liberal response is to have the government build high enough dams. This eliminates the unnecessary risk in returning people to their homes. The Dutch have proven that this response can work in practice. Therefore, if Al Gore advocated the rebuilding of New Orleans and a heightening of its dams, that wouldn't necessarily make him irresponsible. It would only make him a liberal, as opposed to a libertarian or a conservative. Gore's persuasion is not yours, and it isn't mine either. But there are politicians whose political persuasions differ from mine and who are still responsible people. I can admit this without breaking a prong out of my crown.


So if obligating other people to do the more expensive thing rather than the equally effective less expensive thing is not irresponsible, what would you call it?

This is my whole problem with the whole global warming mindset. I have no problem with and even admire those who recycle, use energy responsibly, drive hybrid cars as a matter of principle, etc. I have no problem with my elected officials voting for reasonable restraints on pollutants or processes that destroy the natural beauty anywhere. I do consciously try to do my part.

But I have a huge problem with other nations who aren't able to meet specified environmental goals criticizing the United States for not buying into a gimmick that looks good on paper and accomplishes little or nothing. I'm sure the liberals think this is the responsible thing to do. I see it as irresponsible.

And I have a huge problem with somebody saddling me with the bill for doing the irresponsible thing; ie rebuild on below-sea-level ground when there is higher ground nearby on which the rebuilding could be done. If people wish to assume that risk for themselves, so be it. But they should pay for it and not expect others to do so.

Foolish or unnecessarily inefficient allocation of resources is not, in my opinion, responsible. Forcing others to relinquish unalienable rights and/or property to realize an unnecessary ideological objective is just plain wrong.

Otherwise, I have no problem with anybody's ideology and can even appreciate and admire an opinion that I do not share but which is adequately thought through and supported by reasonable logic and/or data.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2006 06:38 pm
Thomas writes
Quote:
A valid liberal response is to have the government build high enough dams. This eliminates the unnecessary risk in returning people to their homes. The Dutch have proven that this response can work in practice. Therefore, if Al Gore advocated the rebuilding of New Orleans and a heightening of its dams, that wouldn't necessarily make him irresponsible. It would only make him a liberal, as opposed to a libertarian or a conservative. Gore's persuasion is not yours, and it isn't mine either. But there are politicians whose political persuasions differ from mine and who are still responsible people. I can admit this without breaking a prong out of my crown.


So if obligating other people to do the more expensive thing rather than the equally effective less expensive thing is not irresponsible, what would you call it?

This is my whole problem with the whole global warming mindset. I have no problem with and even admire those who recycle, use energy responsibly, drive hybrid cars as a matter of principle, etc. I have no problem with my elected officials voting for reasonable restraints on pollutants or processes that destroy the natural beauty anywhere. I do consciously try to do my part.

But I have a huge problem with other nations who aren't able to meet specified environmental goals criticizing the United States for not buying into a gimmick that looks good on paper and accomplishes little or nothing. I'm sure the liberals think this is the responsible thing to do. I see it as irresponsible.

And I have a huge problem with somebody saddling me with the bill for doing the irresponsible thing; ie rebuild on below-sea-level ground when there is higher ground nearby on which the rebuilding could be done. If people wish to assume that risk for themselves, so be it. But they should pay for it and not expect others to do so.

Foolish or unnecessarily inefficient allocation of resources is not, in my opinion, responsible. Forcing others to relinquish unalienable rights and/or property to realize an unnecessary ideological objective is just plain wrong.

Otherwise, I have no problem with anybody's ideology and can even appreciate and admire an opinion that I do not share but which is adequately thought through and supported by reasonable logic and/or data.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2006 06:38 pm
Thomas writes
Quote:
A valid liberal response is to have the government build high enough dams. This eliminates the unnecessary risk in returning people to their homes. The Dutch have proven that this response can work in practice. Therefore, if Al Gore advocated the rebuilding of New Orleans and a heightening of its dams, that wouldn't necessarily make him irresponsible. It would only make him a liberal, as opposed to a libertarian or a conservative. Gore's persuasion is not yours, and it isn't mine either. But there are politicians whose political persuasions differ from mine and who are still responsible people. I can admit this without breaking a prong out of my crown.


So if obligating other people to do the more expensive thing rather than the equally effective less expensive thing is not irresponsible, what would you call it?

This is my whole problem with the whole global warming mindset. I have no problem with and even admire those who recycle, use energy responsibly, drive hybrid cars as a matter of principle, etc. I have no problem with my elected officials voting for reasonable restraints on pollutants or processes that destroy the natural beauty anywhere. I do consciously try to do my part.

But I have a huge problem with other nations who aren't able to meet specified environmental goals criticizing the United States for not buying into a gimmick that looks good on paper and accomplishes little or nothing. I'm sure the liberals think this is the responsible thing to do. I see it as irresponsible.

And I have a huge problem with somebody saddling me with the bill for doing the irresponsible thing; ie rebuild on below-sea-level ground when there is higher ground nearby on which the rebuilding could be done. If people wish to assume that risk for themselves, so be it. But they should pay for it and not expect others to do so.

Foolish or unnecessarily inefficient allocation of resources is not, in my opinion, responsible. Forcing others to relinquish unalienable rights and/or property to realize an unnecessary ideological objective is just plain wrong.

Otherwise, I have no problem with anybody's ideology and can even appreciate and admire an opinion that I do not share but which is adequately thought through and supported by reasonable logic and/or data.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2006 11:01 pm
Fox, So you feel that strongly about it that you post it three times and make us waste our time and resources dealing with it when it would have been equally effective (probably more so), to just post it once, since you exasperate us repeating it? Sounds like a violation of your own argument to me.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2006 11:21 pm
username wrote:
Fox, So you feel that strongly about it that you post it three times and make us waste our time and resources dealing with it when it would have been equally effective (probably more so), to just post it once, since you exasperate us repeating it? Sounds like a violation of your own argument to me.


I have no idea how it got posted 3 times. I apologize for that, but since I don't know how it happened, I don't know how to prevent it.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2006 11:28 pm
Just one more time, username, because it's a very important, and often overlooked point.

Thomas wrote:
. . . But there are politicians whose political persuasions differ from mine and who are still responsible people. I can admit this without breaking a prong out of my crown.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2006 11:36 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
So if obligating other people to do the more expensive thing rather than the equally effective less expensive thing is not irresponsible, what would you call it?

That I would call irresponsible. But it isn't clear to me that this is what the Dutch government did, and what the Army Corps of Engineers would do if it secured New Orleans against a category 5 hurricane.

The problem is that the benefits of high dikes include intangibles like the emotional attachment of people to their city. To account for such intangibles is a judgment call, not a simple matter of book keeping. Because it's a judgment call, reasonable people can disagree whether the benefits of higher dikes justify their cost or not.

Your arguments make a good case that the dikes should be paid by the city of New Orleans, which enjoys its benefits, rather than the federal government. They don't make a persuasive case that diking is less responsible than re-settling.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2006 11:37 pm
Mr.Kuvasz and Mr. Hinteler give evidence to show that Mr.Lindzner is not correct. What they do not do, however, is to rebut the points I gave in my first post.

Several of the points are crucial. I ask Mr. Kuvasz and Mr. Hinteler to do the following:

l. Prove that the Sun's changing magnetism( show that it is not happening and that it may not be causing some of the global warming) over the course of its sunspot cycle is NOT accompanied by a change in total energy output. This energy output has been found by satellite measurements. See Baliunas/Soon previously referenced.

2. Find data which shows which part of the "warming" is due to natural effects and which part is due to man-made effects. Only someone completely unware of the history of climate does not know of the changes in climate due to "natural" causes during the Medieval Warm Period when the temperture of the earth rose dramatically and then, later, when the little Ice Age occurred.

3. Point out in the evidence offered as a rebuttal to Dr. Lindzen exactly where it is proven that "the computer simulations that produce alarming levels of warming over the next centure ALL ASSUME that water vapor will amplyfy the small bit of warming expected from an increase in carbon dioxide in the air. I AM NOT AWARE THAT THIS ASSUMPTION HAS ACTUALLY BEEN VERIFIED BY MEASUREMENT. PLEASE REFERENCE THIS MEASUREMENT, IF INDEED IT EXISTS. As the prestigious National Academy of Science has pointed out--"The nature and magnitude of these hydrological feedbacks give rise to the largest source of UNCERTAINTY about climate sensitivity.

4. Without computer models, there would be no evidence of global warming, no predictions of disaster, no Kyoto. So far the earth has increased its temperature by just one degree in a century(far less than the increase from "natural sources" during the Medieval Period. By simulating the climate on giant, ultra-fast computers, scholars try to find out how it will react to each new stimulus--like a doubling of CO2. AN IDEAL COMPUTER MODEL, HOWEVER, 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. According to one researcher, such a model would ten million trillion degrees of freedom to solve, a computational impossibility on even the most advanced supercomputer.

As the National Academy of Science commented:

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

5. Explain why the prediction of a new "Little Ice Age" was given only thirty-one years ago by reputable scientists.

I will replicate my post so that it can be reviewed:
************************************************************
l. Any theory of "global warming" must disconnect "natural causes" of warming from "man made" causes. If natural causes are operating to raise the temperature, the question is, of course, what are they and how much are they contributing to global warming?

Those who would claim that there are, and can be, no natural causes are most unfamiliar with the facts that there has been a great deal of research. See http://www.oldfrazer.lexi.net/publication/books/g-wa

with regard to the sun's action( much more active lately) with regard to the earth's climate

2. Since there were no SUV's during the period known as the Medieval Warm Period( 600 --800 AD) it is undeniable that NATURAL causes were in play when the Climate in the Northern Hemisphere became so warm that the Vikings were able to intensively farm Greenland and Iceland. The English were able to grow grapes and it is recorded that the French complained that the English were cutting into their wine sales.
However, at the end of the Medieval Warm Period, there came a "little Ice Age in which there were times when the Thames was frozen.


All of this climatic change without the benefit of INDUSTRY.

It would seem that if there were "natural" causes which caused both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age following it, it would impossible to claim that there were no natural causes at work in the present day.

When I can view evidence which says "The rise in temperature recorded by our devices is broken down thusly--1.22234 degrees fahrenheit due to Man made processes and .99932 degrees fahrenheit due to Natural causes, I must maintain my skepticism.

3. China and India were not signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. They were classed as "developing nations" and therefore,exempt from its provisions.
Their pollution alone, if pollution is indeed a large part of the problem, will make any attempts at "Clean-up" moot.

4. On April 28, 1975, thirty one short years ago, Newsweek had a article entitled:

THE COOLING WORLD

"There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather may have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a draastic decline in food production...the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average and we must regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and Northern America between 1600 and 1900....years in which iceboats sailed the Hudson river almost as far south as New York City"

I respectfully challenge Mr. Walter Hinteler and Mr. Kuvasz, who appear so certain of their positions, to address each one of the points above and to rebut these points with EVIDENCE.

Regretfully, I cannot accept comments about 'red beans and cancer' as a complete rebuttal. Nor can I accept the comments of a scientist who finds Dr. Lindzen's theory inaccurate without, as I have already pointed out--A VERIFICATION OF THE ASSUMPTION THAT WATER VAPOR WILL AMPLYFY THE SMALL BIT OF WARMING EXPECTED FROM AN INCREASE OF CARBON DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION IN THE AIR.

A verification with data, not the words of a scientist who claims that to be a fact without data.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2006 11:52 pm
Mr.Kuvasz gives "evidence". Within that "evidence" is an extremely important point which is glossed over by the reporter.

But we can do better than simply speculating on the issue - we can look at the data and compare that to the models. The best examples to test this idea come from large and relatively rapid changes in the climate such as El Nino events, the eruption of Mt Pinatubo and the trends over the last few decades. In each case (Soden 1997; Soden et al 2002; Soden et al 2005), water vapour increases with warming, and decreases with cooling. There is some uncertainty about exactly how much it increases in the very uppermost troposphere (Misnchwaner and Dessler, 2004), but even those results show a positive feedback. So in summary, the data and the models both agree that not only is the water vapour feedback positive, it is quite close to the value suggested by the models - Lindzen's insistence on the converse (while it has generated increased attention on the subject) seems increasingly perverse.


NOTE- THERE IS SOME UNCERTAINTY ABOUT EXACTLY HOW MUCH IT INCREASES IN THE VERY UPPERMOST TROPOSPHERE.

Exactly--"The NASA satellites, AS COMPARED WITH SURFACE TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS, show little or no warming".
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2006 11:56 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
username wrote:
Fox, So you feel that strongly about it that you post it three times and make us waste our time and resources dealing with it when it would have been equally effective (probably more so), to just post it once, since you exasperate us repeating it? Sounds like a violation of your own argument to me.


I have no idea how it got posted 3 times. I apologize for that, but since I don't know how it happened, I don't know how to prevent it.

Username, that wasn't really helpful.
Foxfyre, my guess is that the page hung after you hit the "submit" button, so you hit it again. I used to make this mistake a lot.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 12:09 am
Here is data from Baliunas and Soon to show that satellite measurements DO NOT show a rise in temperatures:


Atmospheric And Surface Temperatures

In any case, what effect is the rise in CO2 having upon the global environment? The temperature of the Earth varies naturally over a wide range. Figure 2 summarizes, for example, surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea (a region of the Atlantic Ocean) during the past 3,000 years (7). Sea surface temperatures at this location have varied over a range of about 3.6 degrees Celsius (ºC) during the past 3,000 years. Trends in these data correspond to similar features that are known from the historical record.


Figure 4: Annual mean surface temperatures in the contiguous United States between 1895 and 1997, as compiled by the National Climate Data Center (12). Horizontal line is the 103-year mean. The trend line for this 103-year period has a slope of 0.022 ºC per decade or 0.22 ºC per century. The trend line for 1940 to 1997 has a slope of 0.008 ºC per decade or 0.08 ºC per century.
For example, about 300 years ago, the Earth was experiencing the ''Little Ice Age.'' It had descended into this relatively cool period from a warm interval about 1,000 years ago known as the ''Medieval Climate Optimum.'' During the Medieval Climate Optimum, temperatures were warm enough to allow the colonization of Greenland. These colonies were abandoned after the onset of colder temperatures. For the past 300 years, global temperatures have been gradually recovering (11). As shown in figure 2, they are still a little below the average for the past 3,000 years. The human historical record does not report ''global warming'' catastrophes, even though temperatures have been far higher during much of the last three millennia.

What causes such variations in Earth's temperature? The answer may be fluctuations in solar activity. Figure 3 shows the period of warming from the Little Ice Age in greater detail by means of an 11-year moving average of surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere (10). Also shown are solar magnetic cycle lengths for the same period. It is clear that even relatively short, half-century-long fluctuations in temperature correlate well with variations in solar activity. When the cycles are short, the sun is more active, hence brighter; and the Earth is warmer. These variations in the activity of the sun are typical of stars close in mass and age to the sun (13).

Figure 4 shows the annual average temperatures of the United States as compiled by the National Climate Data Center (12). The most recent upward temperature fluctuation from the Little Ice Age (between 1900 and 1940), as shown in the Northern Hemisphere record of figure 3, is also evident in this record of U.S. temperatures. These temperatures are now near average for the past 103 years, with 1996 and 1997 having been the 42nd and 60th coolest years.



Figure 5: Radiosonde balloon station measurements of global lower tropospheric temperatures at 63 stations between latitudes 90 N and 90 S from 1958 to 1996 (15). Temperatures are three-month averages and are graphed as deviations from the mean temperature for 1979 to 1996. Linear trend line for 1979 to 1996 is shown. The slope is minus 0.060 ºC per decade.
Especially important in considering the effect of changes in atmospheric composition upon Earth temperatures are temperatures in the lower troposphere at an altitude of roughly 4 km. In the troposphere, greenhouse-gas-induced temperature changes are expected to be at least as large as at the surface (14). Figure 5 shows global tropospheric temperatures measured by weather balloons between 1958 and 1996. They are currently near their 40-year mean (15), and have been trending slightly downward since 1979.



Figure 6: Satellite Microwave Sounding Unit, MSU, measurements of global lower tropospheric temperatures between latitudes 83 N and 83 S from 1979 to 1997 (17,18). Temperatures are monthly averages and are graphed as deviations from the mean temperature for 1979 to 1996. Linear trend line for 1979 to 1997 is shown. The slope of this line is minus 0.047 ºC per decade. This record of measurements began in 1979.


Figure 7: Global radiosonde balloon temperature (light line) (15) and global satellite MSU temperature (dark line) (17,18) from figures 5 and 6 plotted with 6-month smoothing. Both sets of data are graphed as deviations from their respective means for 1979 to 1996. The 1979 to 1996 slopes of the trend lines are minus 0.060 ºC per decade for balloon and minus 0.045 for satellite.
Since 1979, lower-tropospheric temperature measurements have also been made by means of microwave sounding units (MSUs) on orbiting satellites (16). Figure 6 shows the average global tropospheric satellite measurements (17,18) the most reliable measurements, and the most relevant to the question of climate change.

Figure 7 shows the satellite data from figure 6 superimposed upon the weather balloon data from figure 5. The agreement of the two sets of data, collected with completely independent methods of measurement, verifies their precision. This agreement has been shown rigorously by extensive analysis (19, 20).

While tropospheric temperatures have trended downward during the past 19 years by about 0.05 ºC per decade, it has been reported that global surface temperatures trended upward by about 0.1 ºC per decade (21, 22). In contrast to tropospheric temperatures, however, surface temperatures are subject to large uncertainties for several reasons, including the urban heat island effect (illustrated below).

During the past 10 years, U.S. surface temperatures have trended downward by minus 0.08 ºC per decade (12) while global surface temperatures are reported increased by plus 0.03 ºC per decade (23). The corresponding weather-balloon and satellite tropospheric 10-year trends are minus 0.4 ºC and minus 0.3 ºC per decade, respectively.



Figure 8: Tropospheric temperature measurements by satellite MSU for North America between 30º to 70º N and 75º to 125º W (dark line) (17, 18) compared with the surface record for this same region (light line) (24), both plotted with 12-month smoothing and graphed as deviations from their means for 1979 to 1996. The slope of the satellite MSU trend line is minus 0.01 ºC per decade, while that for the surface trend line is plus 0.07 ºC per decade. The correlation coefficient for the unsmoothed monthly data in the two sets is 0.92.
Disregarding uncertainties in surface measurements and giving equal weight to reported atmospheric and surface data and to 10 and 19 year averages, the mean global trend is minus 0.07 ºC per decade.

In North America, the atmospheric and surface records partly agree (20 and figure 8). Even there, however, the atmospheric trend is minus 0.01 per decade, while the surface trend is plus 0.07 ºC per decade. The satellite record, with uniform and better sampling, ismuch more reliable.

***********************************************************

I have seen nothing to rebut these statements--Nothing except scientists with a different opinion who SAY but do not PROVE that these findings are erroneous.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 12:19 am
Mr. Walter Hinteler and Mr. Kuvasz might wish to reference the link below:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/HL.758.cfm

It gives details which flesh out the following comments I have extracted from the report.

l. From 1900 to 1940, the surface of the earth warms strongly.

From 1940 to about the late 1970s, a slight COOLING trend is seen

From the late 1970's to the present, warming occurs.

Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases
from HUMAN activities--over 80 percent--OCCURED AFTER THE 1940'S
THIS MEANS THAT THE STRONG EARLY 20TH CENTURY WARMING
MUST BE LARGELY, IF NOT ENTIRELY NATURAL.



I hope that this uncomplicated and factual data will be of help to Mr. Walter Hinteler and Mr. Kuvasz.

I am sure that they cannot rebut it.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 08:50 am
more "whack-a-mole" fun with rainman, who ought to provide links. The single link presented in his postings leads to a 404 error.

Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/deja-vu/
Quote:
In early 2003, the small journal Climate Research published a paper by climate change "skeptics" Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which challenged the established view that the late twentieth century saw anomalously high temperatures. The paper didn't present original research; instead, it was a literature review. Soon and Baliunas examined a wide range of "proxy records" for past temperatures, based on studies of ice cores, corals, tree rings, and other sources. They concluded that few of the records showed anything particularly unusual about twentieth century temperatures, especially when compared with the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" a thousand years ago.

Soon and Baliunas had specifically sent their paper to one Chris de Freitas at Climate Research, an editor known for opposing curbs on carbon dioxide emissions. He in turn sent the paper out for review and then accepted it for publication. That's when the controversy began.

Conservative politicians in the U.S., who oppose forced restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, lionized the study. Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe called it literally paradigm shifting. The Bush administration attempted to edit an Environmental Protection Agency report's discussion of climate change in order to include reference to the Soon and Baliunas work. None of this should come as a surprise: The paper seemed to undermine a key piece of evidence suggesting that we can actually see and measure the consequences of human-induced climate change.

Soon mainstream climate scientists fought back. Thirteen authored a devastating critique of the work in the American Geophysical Union publication Eos. After seeing the critique, Climate Research editor-in-chief Hans von Storch decided he had to make changes in the journal's editorial process. But when journal colleagues refused to go along, von Storch announced his resignation.

Several other Climate Research editors subsequently resigned over the Soon and Baliunas paper. Even journal publisher Otto Kinne eventually admitted that the paper suffered from serious flaws, basically agreeing with its critics. But by that point in time, Inhofe had already devoted a Senate hearing to trumpeting the new study. However dubious, it made a massive splash.


soon and baliunas paper

http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/soon+baliunas.cr.2003.pdf

the cririque of the soon and baliunas paper

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0319.html

Quote:
Writing in the 8 July issue of the American Geophysical Union publication Eos, Michael Mann of the University of Virginia and 12 colleagues in the United States and United Kingdom endorse the position on climate change and greenhouse gases taken by AGU in 1998. Specifically, they say that "there is a compelling basis for concern over future climate changes, including increases in global-mean surface temperatures, due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily from fossil-fuel burning."

The Eos article is a response to two recent and nearly identical papers by Drs. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard‑Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, published in Climate Research and Energy & Environment (the latter paper with additional co-authors). These authors challenge the generally accepted view that natural factors cannot fully explain recent warming and must have been supplemented by significant human activity, and their papers have received attention in the media and in the U.S. Senate. Requests from reporters to top scientists in the field, seeking comment on the Soon and Baliunas position, lead to memoranda that were later expanded into the current Eos article, which was itself peer reviewed.

Paleoclimatologists (scientists who study ancient climates) generally rely on instrumental data for the past 150 years and "proxy" indicators, such as tree rings, ice cores, corals, and lake sediments to reconstruct the climate of earlier times. Most of the available data pertain to the northern hemisphere and show, according to the authors, that the warmth of the northern hemisphere over the past few decades is likely unprecedented in the last 1,000 years and quite possibly in the preceding 1,000 years as well.

Climate model simulations cannot explain the anomalous late 20th century warmth without taking into account the contributions of human activities, the authors say. They make three major points regarding Soon and Baliunas's recent assertions challenging these findings.

First, in using proxy records to draw inferences about past climate, it is essential to assess their actual sensitivity to temperature variability. In particular, the authors say, Soon and Baliunas misuse proxy data reflective of changes in moisture or drought, rather than temperature, in their analysis.

Second, it is essential to distinguish between regional temperature anomalies and hemispheric mean temperature, which must represent an average of estimates over a sufficiently large number of distinct regions. For example, Mann and his co- authors say, the concepts of a "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" arose from the Eurocentric origins of historic climatology. The specific periods of coldness and warmth differed from region to region and as compared with data for the northern hemisphere as a whole.

Third, according to Mann and his colleagues, it is essential to define carefully the modern base period with which past climate is to be compared and to identify and quantify uncertainties. For example, they say, the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) carefully compares data for recent decades with reconstructions of past temperatures, taking into account the uncertainties in those reconstructions. IPCC concluded that late 20th century warmth in the northern hemisphere likely exceeded that of any time in the past millennium. The method used by Soon and Baliunas, they say, considers mean conditions for the entire 20th century as the base period and determines past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving trends on a decadal basis. It is therefore, they say, of limited value in determining whether recent warming in anomalous in a long term and large scale context.

The Eos article started as a memorandum that Michael Oppenheimer and Mann drafted to help inform colleagues who were being contacted by members of the media regarding the Soon and Baliunas papers and wanted an opinion from climate scientists and paleoclimatologists who were directly familiar with the underlying issues.

Mann and Oppenheimer learned that a number of other colleagues, including Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) in Boulder, Colorado; Philip Jones of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, United Kingdom; and Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts in Amherst were receiving similar media requests for their opinions on the matter. Their original memorandum evolved into a more general position paper jointly authored by a larger group of leading scientists in the field.

Mann says he sees the resulting Eos article as representing an even broader consensus of the viewpoint of the mainstream climate research community on the question of late 20th century warming and its causes. The goal of the authors, he says, is to reaffirm support for the AGU position statement on climate change and greenhouse gases and clarify what is currently known from the paleoclimate record of the past one‑to‑two thousand years and, in particular, what the bearing of this evidence is on the issue of the detection of human influence on recent climate change.



As a practicing scientist I know that the scientific society isn't some kind of secret cabal. It is an open process: if there are holes in a theory, you can make a name for yourself by showing it. Consensus-busting papers stand more chance of being published (assuming equal technical merit) than those supporting it: purely because of the requirement for novelty which journals impose.

Any new theory on global warming should be able to show how the new theory is at variance with the currently accepted theories. If the new theory makes claims different from those made by currently accepted theories then it should cite experiments that have been done that decide between the new and old theories, or it must propose experiments that could be done to decide between the two.

Any "new" theory on global warming has to account for:

1. The planet is getting hotter.

(Lindzen has no legitimate explanation considering his view that it is not by increased CO2.)

2. CO 2 is a major greenhouse gas, and without the greenhouse effect the earth would be freezing.

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/artwork/globalwarming/globaltempchange.gif

(How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?)

http://realclimate.org/index.php?p=87


http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2486/24861403.jpg


3. Sunspots are not causing global warming: Take a look at the 1960 values. The sunspot graph predicts 1960s to be the hottest on record (using the arguments of the skeptics of global warming), when the reality is that we haven't had that cold a year since 1985

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/maunder.gif


Quote:
"Several independent indices on solar activity - which are direct modern measurement rather than estimations - indicate that there has been no trend in the level of solar activity since the 1950s.'


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/#more-277

Quote:
"There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming. Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earth's climate. Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earth's cloud cover. Svensmark and others have also argued that recent global warming has been a result of solar activity and reduced cloud cover. Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws. For one thing, it is clear that the GCR does not contain any clear and significant long-term trend (e.g. Fig. 1, but also in papers by Svensmark).


Svensmark's failure to comment on the lack of a clear and significant long-term downward GCR trend, and how changes in GCR can explain a global warming without containing such a trend, is one major weakness of his argument that GCR is responsible for recent global warming. This issue is discussed in detail in Benestad (2002). Moreover, the lack of trend in GCR is also consistent with little long-term change in other solar proxies, such as sunspot number and the solar cycle length, since the 1960s, when the most recent warming started."



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42


responding to Michael Crichton's State of Confusion in his novel "State of Fear"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

You ought to start reading this site and learn something about the earth's climate from real climatologists instead of right wing web sites that for purely political reasons or of oil industry whores who throw $hit on the walls for money deny global warming is a fact.

http://www.realclimate.org/

It is undeniably true that if George Bush came out and supported the facts on global warming you and those of your ilk would vociferously defend the same things you deny now. Your faux stab at intellectual integrity here by demanding rigorous analysis is laughable because you just don't believe that you can be convinced otherwise of your position. Your remarks are not meant as debate topics, but obfustication.

If an international scientific community as large as climate researchers were to reverse course on something that has been agreed upon like few other scientific issues in history, it would be an startling event. If anything, the research is building more evidence than ever that warming is accelerating, and bound to have an impact on human societies down the road. It you still think the data is false, and that the ever-clarifying warming signal is somehow being invented by an international conspiracy of anti-capitalist do-gooders to funnel money to scientific labs, I await the results of your investigation.


again.

1. The planet is getting hotter.

2. CO 2 is a major greenhouse gas, and without the greenhouse effect the earth would be freezing.

3. There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity and recent global warming.

4. your call for intellectual integrity is certainly correct, but you should pull the beam from your own eye before pointing out the mote in others
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 12:16 pm
I do not think that government expense has ever been used by a criteria, by anyone, for doing or not doing much of importance. Nor should it.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 11:00 am
kuvasz wrote:

1. The planet is getting hotter.

2. CO 2 is a major greenhouse gas, and without the greenhouse effect the earth would be freezing.

3. There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity and recent global warming.

4. your call for intellectual integrity is certainly correct, but you should pull the beam from your own eye before pointing out the mote in others


I didn't read all of your stuff, but about your sunspot graph, looks like about 1940 to present is about as active or moreso than about any comparable amount of time since 1620, per your posted graph. It appears to me that the graph may in fact support a natural cause for warming and cooling trends, including the trends we observe in recent years, contrary to your conclusion. I am not sure what the graph shows quantitatively, but please clarify and correct me with evidence if my interpretation does not agree with yours.

Also, your comment about 1960 should have been the hottest year ignores the obvious observation that sunspot activity may not influence earth temperature immediately. There may be a delay effect, whereby the climates may be influenced in an overally manner over a period of years or even decades in a general fashion rather than being manifested as very immediate direct effects.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 07:50 am
You have a good eye, Okie. Indeed, Mr. Kuvasz's chart shows that Mr. Kuvasz's own chart shows that the termperature in 1940 was the highest on the chart until 1980.

This is exactly in line with the comments made by Baliunas and Soon that the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere. Baliunas and Soon did indeed mention that since the increases in the greenhouse gases occurred after 1940 and therefore cannot be the cause of the 0.4 warming that occurred earlier in the twentieth century.

But, Okie, now we have more "EVIDENCE"!

Article in June 1, 2006- Chicago Tribune which references the journal "Nature"

Quote

"The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined--a Floridian year round average of 74 degrees"

end of quote

"much warmer than scientists imagined"? How could that possibly be true? Does this mean that scientists and their computer MODELS are not on target?

back to the article

quote

"And while they show that much remains to be learned about climate change, they suggest that scientists have greatly underestimated the power of greenhouse gases to warm the Arctic."

end of quote

I am astonished to learn that much remains to be learned about climate. How much more there is to learn is not discussed in the article but the article indicates that the scientists have greatly underestimated the power of greenhouse gases to warm the Arctic. I did not realize that scientists could underestmate or overestimate things like that.I thought their computer models were right on target.

So, the greenhouse gases warmed the Arctic more than scientists thought. How did the scientists come to the conclusion that was trumped by this study,namely, that the Arctic was much warmer than scientists imagined? Why, using computer simulations, of course. Those simulations were wrong!!

The greenhouse gases which warmed the Arctic 55 Million years ago were, of course, NATURAL- NOT MAN MADE.

Return to the article--


quote--
Something extra happens when you? push the world inton a warmer world and we just don't understand what it is"

end of quote.

Well, that's refreshing. "We just don't uinderstand what it is". I thought that the scientists who were predicting doom understood exactly what "it is"


But, Okie, the question that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever answered( I don't think it can be answered)- How much is any so called "Global Warming" due to Natural Causes and how much is man made.

No one will answer that question, Okie
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 09:14 am
I really like this:

Quote:
Two things remain certain. First, science is never immune to political pressure - and one of the clearest signs of that sort of pressure is that scientists are driven to claim to know more than they actually do. And second, politicians and pundits will continue to speak with great authority on subjects about which they know little or nothing.


Source: Debating global warming (Paul Campos for Scripps Howard News Service.)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 11:04 am
BernardR wrote:
You have a good eye, Okie. Indeed, Mr. Kuvasz's chart shows that Mr. Kuvasz's own chart shows that the termperature in 1940 was the highest on the chart until 1980.


BernardR, when I pointed out one of his charts might actually oppose his conclusion rather than supporting it, I received un-repeatable accusations by Mr. Kuvasz, at which time the thread was locked until now, so you can only imagine what was posted; I don't remember to be honest. Actually, I think the sunspot graph is fascinating because it appears to show a fairly decent correlation with the perceived slight increase in temperatures in the last decade or two. Apparently believing in man caused global warming is virtually a religion now. If anyone suggests opposing evidence, wow, the wrath is breathtaking.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 12:00 pm
okie wrote:
BernardR wrote:
You have a good eye, Okie. Indeed, Mr. Kuvasz's chart shows that Mr. Kuvasz's own chart shows that the termperature in 1940 was the highest on the chart until 1980.


BernardR, when I pointed out one of his charts might actually oppose his conclusion rather than supporting it, I received un-repeatable accusations by Mr. Kuvasz, at which time the thread was locked until now, so you can only imagine what was posted; I don't remember to be honest. Actually, I think the sunspot graph is fascinating because it appears to show a fairly decent correlation with the perceived slight increase in temperatures in the last decade or two. Apparently believing in man caused global warming is virtually a religion now. If anyone suggests opposing evidence, wow, the wrath is breathtaking.


no okie, i remember what i said it was impolite and i immediatly attempted to delete it, but you had responded to it and i could not. sorry for calling you a m***n.

nevertheless, instead of your banal and uncurious conjecture on the charts I displayed you could have taken the extra step normal intelligent people do if their curiosity is peeked and clicked on the links I provided, instead of basing you opinon on ignorance.

I believe in logic and exaimining the facts where ever they lead us when discussing science, unfortunately it is you who hold to ideology when examining this topic, because, as you have shown here you are unwilling to make the leap to find out what the facts are and instead cling to a position that has no real support in physical reality. that is faith, the realm of religion, not science you are beholden to.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/23/2025 at 04:50:23