PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming?



Pages : [1] 2

DrSmellThis
09-23-2005, 10:44 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/0

9/23/hurricane.cycle/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/23/hurricane.cycle/index.html)

According to this article, it appears there is currently insufficient

evidence within hurricane studies to pin the jump in number and intensity of hurricanes on global warming. That does

not mean global warming is not a factor in their number and intensity.

We have several problems in trying to

determine what is happening. First, natural cycles are large and chaotic, and there may always be some natural cycle

functioning that could be a greater effect than any human effect. That tends to mask the human effect from being

detected accurately by the "instruments" of science.

Does that mean there is no human effect? No! What that means

is that research "instruments" cannot currently detect the human effect on hurricanes (for example) amidst the

"noise" of natural fluctuations, with sufficient accuracy and precision to satisfy all the "hard science types".

Chaos theory and statistical models/methods are not yet advanced enough to subtract out the natural cycles; and/or

periods of study are not yet long enough, for this kind of strong data to be available. We might be able to do much

better than we currently are doing, however, with more state of the art models/methods.

Theoretically, another

way to factor out natural cycles in a particular phenomenon, (besides studying a particular phenomenon like

hurricanes) is to study different phenomena, and somehow detect trends across phenomena; trends which couldn't

therefore be traced to cycles within a particular phenomenon.

I do think this approach is important,

since this really is one of the reasons many believe in human caused climate change -- too many things are

happening, in little ways, everywhere you look. In order for science to keep pace with common sense, scientists need

to develop good models and measures of general climate change. Some of that can be made possible through

sophisticated statistical/mathematical/computer methods that factor out "noise" to make subtle effects more

detectable.

Since research methods can't currently address these questions, or convert everything to "apples and

apples", we are left with the opinions of those who experts in the environment and climate, as well as the opinions

of everyday people that are "sensitive to their surroundings".

On the other hand, greenhouse gas induced global

warming as an individual phenomenon is something researchers might eventually demonstrate. You can almost do that in

a laboratory. That is another angle. The greenhouse effect per se seems to be a solid theory, other things

being held equal.

But it is apparent that the original "hockey stick" studies -- attempts to trace global warming

to industrialization by looking at historical timelines -- need to be redone in a much more sophisticated manner.

We'll probably never get to reanalyze the original data, since the original scientists aren't cooperating with

those who want to do that. So we have to start over with that particular angle. I hope someone is doing this as we

speak. If it could be done before, it should be able to be done better now.

For myself, I currently believe

global warming is happening, and that humans are changing some things about their climate/environment for the worse.



I also suspect we are affecting global warming, and not in a positive direction. I cannot prove it, obviously.

But I am not sure how realistic it would be to demand proof, or overwhelmingly conclusive, unambiguous evidence;

where no alternate explanations would be possible; at the current time. Science never proves anything anyway. We can

demand the best possible research be conducted immediately, and be careful how we tread on the earth. I am allowing

myself to be influenced by expert opinions around the world in the mean time.

belgareth
09-23-2005, 04:38 PM
To preface my comments I will

agree that warming is probably taking place. However, there is no substantiated scientific evidence at this time

that global warming is the result of human activities. That does not mean human activities do not contribute but it

has not been demonstrated to date. There is, on the other hand, good solid data demonstrating that global

temperatures have varied with fluctuations in solar output, not perfectly but far to closelly to be pure

coincidence.



According to this article, it appears there is currently insufficient evidence

within hurricane studies to pin the jump in number and intensity of hurricanes on global warming. That does not mean

global warming is not a factor in their number and intensity.
That is not at all what they are

saying.


But don't rush to blame it on global warming, experts warn.

Max Mayfield,

director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, told a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday that we're in a period

of heightened hurricane activity that could last another decade or two.(

See scientists collect data -- 1:33 (http://javascript<b></b>:cnnVideo('play','/video/tech/2005/09/22/vergee.hurricane.tech.cnn');))

"The increased activity since 1995 is due to natural

fluctuations (and) cycles of hurricane activity driven by the Atlantic Ocean itself along with the atmosphere above

it and not enhanced substantially by global warming," he testified.

Mayfield's colleague at the National

Hurricane Center, meteorologist Chris Landsea, said two recent studies about global warming and hurricanes raise

more questions than they answer. He added that the impact of global warming is "minimal for the forseeable

future."

Landsea said the studies indicate global warming could increase hurricane wind speeds and

rainfall by about 5 percent --100 years from now. But, he added, more study is needed, looking back at

historical data and making it more compatible with modern reporting techniques.

As you can see, the

people who study hurricanes don't see global warming as the cause or as a major contributor to storm strength in

the forseeable future.


Brenda Ekwurzel, climate scientist of the Union of Concerned

Scientist National Climate Education Program, told CNN that while global warming might not be causing

hurricanes, it already is making them more intense.

"We would never point to a single weather event and

blame global warming," she said. "While hurricanes have bedeviled the Gulf Coast region for years, global warming

is making matters worse."

Ekwurzel points to recent studies indicating that carbon dioxide is raising ocean

temperatures.

"And those warmer oceans are converting low-grade storms into powerful hurricanes," she said. "In

short, the warm oceans are like fuel to a hurricane. It's like throwing gasoline on a

fire."

While those who are already sounding the alarm about global warming are quick to attribute

hurricane strength to global warming.


But not all hurricane experts are willing to make the

link between global warming and hurricanes. At least not yet.
They say the string of major storms that have

struck the southeastern United States over the past two seasons signal a return to normal.

Despite

the hurricane scientists' belief that hurricane intensity is no more than a return to normal.


"From 1970 to 1995, there weren't that many hurricanes, and the ones we had were nice, well-mannered,

housebroken hurricanes that stayed out to sea and didn't make a mess," said Hugh Willoughby, a hurricane

researcher at Florida International University in Miami.

"The only thing I can say," he added, "is this run

of good luck we had is ending."

"This year you can just say nature is averaging out its climatology,"

said Colorado State University's famed hurricane predictor, William Gray.

(See video of

the science of the storm --3:55 (javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/us/2005/09/22/hennen.science.storm.cnn');))

Katrina and Rita are what Gray calls "Bahama busters," storms that

form off the Bahamas rather than near the coast of Africa. They explode after feeding on the warm waters of the Gulf

of Mexico.

The past century saw 18 "Bahama busters," Gray said.

Even Katrina's and Rita's back-to-back

pounding of the Gulf Coast has a precedent. In 1915, Gray said, New Orleans and Houston areas were hit by Category 4

storms six weeks apart.

"You can't blame that on global warming," he observed.

Gray first sounded

the alarm in 1995, noting that the surface waters in the north Atlantic Ocean had warmed slightly. 1995 saw 11

hurricanes and eight tropical storms, the highest tally since 1933.

By 1997, Gray's annual forecasts warned of

"a new era" of hurricanes.

He put forth the theory that many climatologists, including Mayfield and Willoughby,

now embrace -- that hurricanes are driven by cycles of rising water temperature and salinity that affect the

speed of currents in the Atlantic.
The technical name for the engine driving the hurricane cycles is the

Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO for short. It can cause droughts in the West and hatch hurricanes in

the East.

"This cycle has been repeating back to the Ice Age," Willoughby said. "It's related to changes

in the ocean currents that move heat northward. If it's fast, we get a lot of hurricanes."

Studies show the AMO

was cool -- and the currents slower -- from 1900 to 1925, warm from 1926 to 1969, cool from 1970 to 1994 and warm

since 1995.

And so, to a generation of Americans with little experience with hurricanes, it seems like these

monsters are coming out of nowhere.

Gray and Willoughby are among the skeptics who doubt global warming can be

blamed for the trend of the past few years. They are joined by the hurricane trackers at the National Hurricane

Center.

"We're just entering a busy time here," said Chris Lauer, a meteorologist at the

center.

"You see a few decades of slower activity, followed by a few decades of higher oscillation," he said.

"Our position is the recent increase in hurricane activity is not caused by global warming."

Researchers at

the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia, suggested earlier this month that more than nature and

coincidence might be driving the storms

In the September's issue of the journal Science, Peter Webster and

Judith Curry documented a 60 percent global jump in major hurricanes with winds of 131 mph or more and a 1-degree

increase in the tropical ocean surface temperature.

But Webster warned on Georgia Tech's Web site that

more study was needed before blaming global warming.

"We need a longer data record of hurricane statistics,"

he said, "and we need to understand more about the role hurricanes play in regulating the heat balance and

circulation in the atmosphere and oceans."

Willoughby said he is keeping an open mind about the role of

global warming but believes it won't be a factor for at least another 100 years.

"The answer I give

everybody, because it has all been so politicized, is I don't know," he said.

Gray was more direct.

"There are all these medicine men out there who want to capitalize on general ignorance on this subject," he

said.

"With all the problems in the world, we shouldn't be dealing with this."

Willoughby believes

the debate over hurricanes and global warming is healthy. "It's good for the science," he said.

While I

included a lot of stuff the really important part is the information that this is a cycle that has been going on

since the last Ice Age. I don't think any rational person could honestly say these observed trends are anything but

natural. Of course that is always subject to new information. I have been happily digging around in my spare time

trying to find information for months now. Frankly, there is little real data that has not been twisted to one

purpose or the other available to the public.

DrSmellThis
09-29-2005, 07:43 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/28/arctic.melting.reut/index.html

DCW
09-30-2005, 10:43 AM
Two of my co-workers ages 57 and 45

were discussing the fact that when they were kids the weather was a lot cooler here in Houston.


DCW

belgareth
10-02-2005, 04:25 AM
Heated battle



Rita and Katrina fit normal storm patterns: meteorologist



By DR. JAMES J. O'BRIEN



Alarmists are claiming that

global warming - which they relate to the burning of fossil fuels - has increased the intensity or strength of

hurricanes. But for storms that hit the Southeastern United States, there is absolutely no scientific support for a

correlation between hurricane intensity and global warming.



At a time when Katrina and Rita have caused extensive damage, it may

seem like hurricanes are becoming worse, but that is a short-term view. We have excellent records going back to 1850

on the strength of hurricanes in the Atlantic. Newspapers, diaries and scientific sources from this time period -

before the burning of fossil fuels could have an impact on global climate - indicate the hurricane intensity was not

less than it is today.

Climate scientists disagree on the potential impact of global climate change on hurricane strength. But

experts agree that variations in surface temperatures of the ocean have a strong impact on the frequency and

strength of hurricanes.

A warmer surface temperature will intensify a storm - and this is why some people believe that global warming

will lead to stronger hurricanes. But there are no scientific calculations showing areas of the Atlantic warm enough

to cause a major shift that are increasing in size.

While it has

been predicted that the number of Atlantic hurricanes will increase over the next 10 to 15 years - compared to

recent years - fluctuations are common. When conditions are weak - between 1905 to 1925, for example, or between

1975 and 1994 -- the hurricane season is mild. The last major peak in hurricane activity occurred between 1940 and

1970.

Climate experts

claim that rising sea surface temperatures due to global warming increase the number of strong storms. But

scientific data on the ocean environment does not show a correlation between surface temperatures and category 3, 4

and 5 storms - the big ones.

While it is tempting to blame the

frequency or intensity of hurricanes on man, we must remember how variable - and powerful - nature is. The effects

of natural variations on hurricane intensity are much greater than the possibility of man's

interference.

O'Brien is a professor of meteorology and

oceanography at Florida State University and the director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction

Studies.

belgareth
10-02-2005, 04:29 AM
No one can say if warming caused Katrina, Rita By Maggie Fox, Health and

Science Correspondent

Tue Sep 27, 2:10 AM

ET



WASHINGTON

(Reuters) - Scientists say it's not easy to tell if global warming caused hurricanes Katrina and Rita but on Monday

they forecast more unpredictable weather as Earth gets hotter.

Even

skeptics agree that global warming is under way and that human activity is at least in part responsible. Climate

experts also agree that this warming is likely to make the weather more extreme -- colder in some places, hotter in

others, with droughts and severe rainstorms both more common.

"Global

warming, I think, is playing a role in the hurricanes," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National

Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

"But a lot of

what is going on is natural. What global warming may be doing is making them somewhat more intense," said Trenberth,

a member of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

James

Elsner, professor of geography at Florida State University, agreed.

"Certainly this is an unusual season," he said in a telephone interview. "However, the question of attribution

I don't think is very simple."

Katrina slammed into southern

Louisiana and Mississippi on August 29, wiping out entire towns, triggering the devastating flooding of New Orleans

and causing more than 1,000 deaths. Then on Saturday along came Rita, which briefly hit Category 5 strength with

winds higher than 155 mph (249 kph) before dropping Category 3 by the time it hit the Texas-Louisiana

coast.

"We have seen unusual seasons in the past and so we understand

that we tend to see more strong storms when the Atlantic Ocean temperatures are warmer, which has been the case in

the last 10 years or so," Elsner said.

"It was warm in the 1940s and

'50s and we saw lots of strong storms during that period."

So far,

2005 has not been the busiest year for storms, even though there have been 17 named tropical storms in the Atlantic,

Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.

"That distinction belongs to the year

1933, in which there were 21 storms that reached tropical storm strength," said Eric Gross, an associate professor

of history at Harding University in Searcy, Arkansas, who studies hurricanes and other natural

disasters.

There were 19 tropical storms in 1995, Gross said in a

statement.

In theory, warmer temperatures could bring more and

fiercer hurricanes, experts agree. Hurricanes are fed by warm ocean surface temperatures and by higher amounts of

water vapor.

Kerry Emanuel, a professor of meteorology at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published a study in the journal Nature last July that found big storms are

50 percent more intense and last 50 percent longer than those in the 1970s.

"My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential

and -- taking into account an increasing coastal population -- a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in

the twenty-first century," he wrote.

Emanuel also has found that the

IPCC-predicted rise in sea surface temperatures -- 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) -- would raise a

storm's intensity by 10 percent.

This temperature increase,

Trenberth said, will add water vapor to fuel a hurricane's fury.

Even if storms are not yet affected by global warming, experts like Emanuel and Trenberth predict they will

be.

"Global warming is remorselessly going on," Trenberth said.

"This is something that when you take action, the benefits take place in 50 years and beyond. It is not something

you can stop."

belgareth
10-02-2005, 04:31 AM
Study: Sun's Changes to Blame for Part of Global Warming

Robert Roy Britt

LiveScience Managing

Editor

LiveScience.com

Fri Sep 30, 2:00 PM ET





Increased output from the Sun might be to blame for 10 to 30 percent

of global warming that has been measured in the past 20 years, according to a new report.



Increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases

still play a role, the scientists say.

But climate models of global

warming should be corrected to better account for changes in solar activity, according to Nicola Scafetta and Bruce

West of Duke University.

The findings were published online this

week by the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Scientists agree

the planet is warming. Effects are evident in melting glaciers and reductions in the amount of frozen ground around

the planet.

The new study is based in part on Columbia University

research from 2003 in which scientists found errors in how data on solar brightness is interpreted. A gap in data,

owing to satellites not being deployed after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, were filled by less accurate data

from other satellites, Scafetta says.

The Duke analyses examined

solar changes over 22 years versus 11 years used in previous studies. The cooling effect of volcanoes and cyclical

shifts in ocean currents can have a greater negative impact on the accuracy of shorter data periods.



"The Sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of

the 1980-2002 global surface warming," the researchers said in a statement today.



Many questions remain, however. For example, scientists do not have

a good grasp of how much Earth absorbs or reflects sunlight.

"We

don't know what the Sun will do in the future," Scafetta says. "For now, if our analysis is correct, I think it is

important to correct the climate models so that they include reliable sensitivity to solar activity. Once that is

done, then it will be possible to better understand what has happened during the past hundred

years."

belgareth
10-02-2005, 04:49 AM
Scientists Clueless over Sun's Effect on

Earth

By Robert Roy Britt

LiveScience Senior Writer

posted: 05 May

2005

02:01 pm ET





While researchers argue whether Earth is getting warmer and if

humans are contributing, a heated debate over the global effect of sunlight boiled to the surface today.



And in this debate there is little data to go

on.

A confusing array of new and recent studies reveals that

scientists know very little about how much sunlight is absorbed by Earth versus how much the planet reflects, how

all this alters temperatures, and why any of it changes from one decade to the next.



Determining Earth's reflectance is crucial to understanding climate

change, scientists agree.

Brighter

outlook?

Reports in the late 1980s found the amount of sunlight

reaching the planet's surface had declined by 4 to 6 percent since 1960. Suddenly, around 1990, that appears to

have reversed.

"When we looked at the more recent data, lo and

behold, the trend went the other way," said Charles Long, senior scientist at the Department of Energy's Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory.

Long participated in one of two

studies that uncovered this recent trend using satellite data and ground-based monitoring. Both studies are detailed

in the May 6 issue of the journal Science.

Thing is, nobody knows

what caused the apparent shift. Could be changes in cloud cover, they say, or maybe reduced effects of volcanic

activity, or a reduction in pollutants.

This lack of understanding

runs deeper.

A third study in the journal this week, tackling a

related aspect of all this, finds that Earth has reflected more sunlight back into space from 2000 to 2004 than in

years prior. However, a similar investigation last year found just the opposite. A lack of data suggests it's

impossible to know which study is right.

The bottom line, according

to a group of experts not involved in any of these studies: Scientists don't know much about how sunlight interacts

with our planet, and until they understand it, they can't accurately predict any possible effects of human activity

on climate change.

Reflecting on the

problem

The percentage of sunlight reflected by back into space by

Earth is called albedo. The planet's albedo, around 30 percent, is governed by cloud cover and the quantity of

atmospheric particles called aerosols.

Amazingly, one of the best

techniques for measuring Earth's albedo is to watch the Moon, which acts like a giant mirror. Sunlight that

reflects of Earth in turn reflects off the Moon and can be measured from here. The phenomenon, called earthshine,

was first noted by Leonardo da Vinci.

Albedo is a crucial factor in

any climate change equation. But it is one of Earth's least-understood properties, says Robert Charlson, a

University of Washington atmospheric scientist. "If we don't understand the albedo-related effects," Charlson said

today, "then we can't understand the effects of greenhouse gases."

Charlson's co-authors in the analysis paper are Francisco Valero at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography

and John Seinfeld at the California Institute of Technology.

Plans

and missions designed to study the effects of clouds and aerosols have been delayed or cancelled, Charlson and his

colleagues write.

To properly study albedo, scientists want to put a

craft about 1 million miles out in space at a point were it would orbit the Sun while constantly monitoring Earth.



The satellite, called Deep Space Climate Observatory, was once

scheduled for launch from a space shuttle in 2000 but has never gotten off the ground. Two other Earth-orbiting

satellites that would study the albedo have been built but don't have launch dates. And recent budget shifts at

NASA and other agencies have meant some data that's available is not being analyzed, Charlson and his colleagues

contend.

'Spurious argument'

While some scientists contend the global climate may not be warming or that there is no clear human

contribution, most leading experts agree change is underway.

Grasping the situation is crucial, because if the climate warms as many expect, seas could rise enough to

swamp many coastal communities by the end of this century.

Charlson

says scientists understand to within 10 percent the impact of human activity on the production of greenhouse gases,

things like carbon dioxide and methane that act like blanket to trap heat and, in theory, contribute to global

warming. Yet their grasp of the human impact on albedo could be off by as much as 100 percent, he

fears.

One theory is that if humans pump out more aerosols, the small

particles will work to reflect sunlight and offset global warming. Charlson calls that "a spurious argument, a red

herring."

Greenhouse gases are at work trapping heat 24 hours a day,

he notes, while sunlight reflection is only at work on the day side of the planet. Further, he said, greenhouse

gases can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, while aerosols last only a week or so.



"There is no simplistic balance between these two effects," Charlson

said. "It isn't heating versus cooling. It's scientific understanding versus not

understanding."

belgareth
10-02-2005, 05:37 AM
My intent in

starting this thread was to foster open discussion of the facts surrounding global warming. In my opening posts I

brought up unanswered questions that the scientists I know believe need to be looked into. I do not claim the globe

is not warming nor do I claim that human activity is not associated. The first is a demonstratable trend, the second

is an unproven but widely believed statement popularized by the mass media.

My apologies for dumping so much

material into the forum at one time but there is a lot we need to learn before we can make intelligent, informed

decisions about how to respond. I tried to only put up articles that presented well balanced coments but found two

areas that have been discussed in the past for which there is no current discussion other than vague mention. One is

the fact that some scientists do not believe warming is occuring at all. Rather, they believe it is a normal,

fractional deviation expected in a dynamic system that is well within standard deviations. The other which seems to

indicate through long term climate studies, meaning over millions of years, that global temperatures may soon

plummet into an ice age.

On the face of it an ice age sounds far fetched. However, geological data predicts this

warming trend and anticipates it peaking soon then temperatures falling. Currently, we are following that trend line

pretty closely. Could the build up of the so-called greenhouse gases actually be preventing global cooling thus an

ice age? And if so, to what extent should we be concerned and take action?

There is another area of study that

I ran across recently that may be associated with this topic. 65 million years ago, in the period prior to the

asteroid impacting the earth, there was substantially less oxygen in the atmosphere than there was at other points

in time. After the dust cleared from that big rock crashing into the earth plant life spread out and flourished

resulting in a substantial increase in oxygen levels. Shortly after that the first of the ice ages began. A lot of

plant life was killed off and oxygen levels declined. The globe warmed again ending that ice age. So far there is

insufficient data to conclude anything but the coincidence is worth noting as that cycle seems to repeat itself. At

this point in time oxygen levels in the atmosphere are slightly higher than they were 65 million years ago. Is this

related? I don't know but it should be considered in the grand scheme of things.

One of the articles I posted

above mentions several satellites intended to study solar incidence and albedo, something I've mentioned before.

They are sitting in storage waiting to be launched. Also mentioned is the fact that solar gain could account for

10-30% of the global temperature increase but that estimate could be off by as much as 100% This is important as we

really don't have any proofs of what is causing global warming in reality. Albedo is important as are the aresols

that in part control the albedo. When all is said and done, global warming is primarily solar powered and heat loss

into space is a critical factor. Greenhouse gasses may act as a blanket but the other factors need to be considered

as well.

Now comes my rant...
We don't KNOW the causes of global warming and it is critical for us to learn

them as quickly as possible. Any remedial action taken prior to answering the basic questions of cause and effect is

little better than running in circles, flapping our arms and squawking. Let's not waste time, energy and resources

trying to fix something until we know how to fix it. Let's use those resources to discover the facts so we actually

know what we are doing and can do it right.

DCW,
Your comment is a good point even if it is subjective. The

temperatures have risen slightly all over Texas including here in the Dallas area. At the same time, humididty has

risen considerably making it seem even warmer. The humidity is actually a greater concern because water suspended in

the air drastically increases it's heat carrying capacity resulting in reduced heat loss during the night and

greater heat gain during the day.

belgareth
10-02-2005, 06:19 AM
As a last word (you believe

that, right?? :rant: ), Galileo was nearly hung for heresy by his fellow scientists. Einstien was called a crackpot

as was Newton, Franklin, Lawrence and Alverez. People knew Columbus was going to sail off the end of the earth. Just

because they disagree with the established (scientific) community, it does not make the wrong or right. A good

scientific discussion leaves the door open to all possiblities. Nor can you disprove anything through logic, you can

only demonstrate its probability or improbability. As my stats prof was fond of saying: "In a universe as big as

this one is, even the most improbable of events can and likely have occured many times."

DrSmellThis
10-02-2005, 02:34 PM
As a last

word (you believe that, right?? :rant: ), Galileo was nearly hung for heresy by his fellow scientists. Einstien was

called a crackpot as was Newton, Franklin, Lawrence and Alverez. People knew Columbus was going to sail off the end

of the earth. Just because they disagree with the established (scientific) community, it does not make the wrong or

right. A good scientific discussion leaves the door open to all possiblities. Nor can you disprove anything through

logic, you can only demonstrate its probability or improbability. As my stats prof was fond of saying: "In a

universe as big as this one is, even the most improbable of events can and likely have occured many

times."You may have meant to say you cannot prove or disprove anything through statistical

(probabilistic) reasoning or logic. That is true, by definition. With other kinds of logic you can prove and

disprove all sorts of things.

But thank goodness we have statistical logic, and can discuss probabilities, since

so much in nature appears chaotic in some range or another. In the face of chaos, statistical logic enables us to

make what are most likely the best choices, as opposed to having no idea.

So if our best guess of the

moment is that 10-30% of global warming is due to changes in solar activity, what of the other approximately 80%?

What will be the likely consequnces of global warming, assuming the most likely human factor (e.g., 80%, or a better

number if you have it), and the current rate and trajectories of things?

In short, from what I read it ain't

pretty, and represents an extremely huge risk. The bigger the risk, the more insurance is needed. So it

appears we need to invest in some insurance -- the best "policy" given all the risks, as we know them at this

moment. This is why we have every country in the world (except ours) wanting to make treaties. It's just to

purchase a little insurance for the children of humanity.

Meanwhile, I agree wholeheartedly that we need to place

greater emphasis on collecting data.

I'm all for skepticism and scientific openmindedness, but here is the

critical question with the "skeptical" position: Is the nature of this need for data such that we should freeze

other concerned activity (e.g., limiting greenhouse gas emissions) in the meantime, given the risks (not

certainties) of such inactivity?

If science turns up some compelling, final and definitive explanation of global

warming, would we not make adjustments as we go along in whatever actions we feel are currently needed?

If one

still wants to believe it would affect the world economy too much and too badly to do anything, then one has a

burden to answer this question: What would be the minimum economic cost of reasonable controls on greenhouse gas

emissions, and how would that be unacceptable? Since we are by far the worst "offender" in those terms, would not

the world impact be greatest here? What of the study I referenced suggesting the impact here would not be that

great?

Maybe the best way to look at it is that we might be taking somewhat of an economic risk in the short

term (since sustainable industry is more economic in the long term), a risk that cannot begin to compare with the

risk of inactivity. I don't believe we can afford to wait another ten years while we collect more data. How about

we just make our action subject to scientific review every so often?

But I am not going to accept the so far

groundless claim by the Bush administration, that doing something would hurt "our economy" (trans: his

economy -- I mean, excuse me, the economic well-being of all the world's poor :rolleyes: ) too much, given the

extreme greed, corporatism and nationalistic selfishness they promote. Call me "skeptical", but I doubt Bush's

reason for wanting to abstain from Kyoto is a greater scientific mind than the rest of the world.

Netghost56
10-02-2005, 03:52 PM
I would have a better

conscience going bankrupt trying to protect/save the environment than going bankrupt trying to ensure capitalism

never dies.

Whether global warming is a trend or not, one cannot dispute that there is a potential for

catastrophic changes in the global weather system.

Now, the environmental activist's views would be to let it

come, but I believe that "others" will want to do everything possible to prevent any negative aspects of global

warming to permeat their existence.

I'm SLIGHTLY leaning toward the environmental side, but I think that

cutting down the human stress on the environment would keep things from going to extreme levels. That, IMO, would be

the best course, without altering what would be considered normal.

Remember than in history animals and plants

did not fair well in drastic changes in the global weather. And with humanity putting such an enormous stress on the

planet (not so much pollution but agriculture, industrializing, overpopulation) there will be, IMO, hardships in

First World countries of the like already plaguing third world countries.

wood elf
10-02-2005, 05:01 PM
Kyoto is based upon a

potentially, not to say likely, flawed premiss. It is neither logical nor rational to assume that greenhouse gases

are the primary culprit in the face of current data. Nor is it logical to assume mankind is the sole or primary

contributor or even a major contributor. Having read much of this thread in the last day and reflecting on the

sceptical comments of scientists whose work I see daily and respect highly I find that reasoning to be self serving

more than rational. It matters little that Bush's administration is making the statements, Kyoto is flawed. Take as

an example your rationalization of the statistics related to solar gain. It is equally possible that it makes up

sixty percent or even more of the gain. It is also likely that other factors are contributing. Have you not yet

considered the amount of heat energy released by cooking, internal combustion engines, power plants and all the many

other sources of heat? How does the billions of BTUs generated through those forms effect the energy balance?



One article mention particulate matter absorbing energy which would lead to increased snow pack melt. The phase

change would account for still more energy released into the seas. Kyoto does not address the issues related to

particulate matter at any time. It is beyond doubt that particulate matter drifting from the Asian continent to be

deposited on the northern snows packs and glaciers is a primary factor in glacial melt. The ramifications of that

heat gain are substantial as it creates a large pool of free energy that would have reflected back into space had

not the darker partulate matter absorbed the energy and melted the ice. Do you understand the inherent energy

required to create such a phase change? Do you comprehend why warm air is less capable of carrying sufficient energy

to change the state of so much water where solar radiation in the ultraviolet range is capable? That is part of the

concept of albedo that you overlook completely. Once that energy is absorbed and re-radiated in the form of low

frequency energy it is far less likely to disperse or otherwise be lost into space. Instead after it loses energy

melting ice it will flow south in the form of cooled air causing greater freezes in sub artic climates. We have not

seen that occurance. Can the science alleging solar gain through greenhouse gas effects account for that? I think

not. Kyoto may be a concept not supported by the Bush administration but it also is not good science.

Once again

you overlook completely the other greenhouse gases such as methane, and CFCs. The South American and Asian

continents produce massive amounts of both gases. Another contributor is the earth itself in the form of numerous

geological activities. Kyoto does not address or even acknowledge these matters either. The only thing Kyoto does is

attempt to address one set of gases from developed countries and does not address all the other scientifically

relevent sources of heat gain. Your comments completely overlook those as well. Indeed, you overlook the majority of

the science involved in the entire global warming debate. I am sorry to say so and do not mean offense but you sound

as if the more important issue is the politics involved rather than the science. You certainly are not addressing

the scientific flaws in your position on the matter.

There was a story told me recently. Two environmental

scientists from University of Texas were asked to speak before the United Nations regarding the global warming

issue. Once they forwarded to the UN council their data, based on solid research and climatic data, the invitation

was revoked. I have read their research, it is good work but it demonstrates that Kyoto and much of the supporting

arguments for Kyoto is based on nonsense. I am told that shortly afterwards they both were forced to leave their

University jobs. Their grants had been revoked. It is not the only story of its kind around the world. Research that

counters Kyoto claims is being suppressed. Why is that? Why would any rational person take action based on flawed

and unsupportable science? It would not be a responsible action.

belgareth
10-02-2005, 08:45 PM
DST,

My statements in no

way were meant to imply that the other 80% were human caused and that 80% you cite for other causes could as easily

be 40 percent based on the assumption of 100% possible error and many of the 40% may be natural causes. In other

words, that is a fallacious argument but I think you already know that.

From what you read? Did you read any of

the thoughtful and well balanced articles I posted? What is the source of your information? Other than the global

warming crowd, whose credentials I'd like to see as I find them questionable, few real climate scientists see the

dire consequences you allude to. They express it as a possibility in need of greater study.

You know that I

strongly support protecting the environment. You have also presented the argument that we should take Kyoto style

action regardless of solid evidence. I didn't agree with you on the second point the first time you presented it

and I don't agree with it now. You also know I presented the economic argument a long time before the Bush crowd

did. Maybe their stance is based on science rather than politics? Their agreement with the Asian countries certainly

is not an economic benefit to anybody in the BBush camp.

I am never going to support wild flailing around in

the dark as opposed to rational forward movement. As I tried to point out repeatedly, the wild flailing around has

done little good and has often done harm. Taking action on the shoddy science supporting Kyoto is no more than wild

flailing around in the dark. I do find it curious that you accept the one brief study claiming that spending

billions of dollars to cut carbon dioxide emmissions in the US and around he world would not harm the economy but

you seem to be utterly disregarding or attempting to twist the facts presented disputing the theory of greenhouse

emmissions and their relationship to global warming.

I have not once argued against sustainable industry.

Rather, I am arguing for rationally approaching the issue and discovering what is sustainable. You've advocated a

common sense approach but I've learned that common sense rarely is and that the obvious is just as often

detrimental as it is helpful. As noted several times, acting without knowing the real facts has time and again cost

us both environmentally and economically. After all the times the environmental groups have misled and outright lied

to further their agenda, I see no reason to accept their claims any more readily than the government's. All I want

are facts from which to make rational decisions. It is not rational to act out of fear without sound scientific

evidence to support your actions. Frankly, Kyoto and the reasoning behind Kyoto frighten me as much as any of the

rest of it because Kyoto is designed to fulfill a political agenda, not protect the environment. I would not be the

least surprised to discover that Kyoto was fostered for some economic gain, just the same as the CFCs scare was.



Let me give you two hypothetical scenerios. The first is that the temperature changes are utterly out of man's

control without drastic measures such as a ring around the planet partially blocking sunlight. Should we tamper with

a natural phenomena? Should we spend trillions of dollars to change the natural course of nature?

The second is

the question of global cycles. What if the geological evidence is completely on target and the globe is really due

for another ice age? What if our finding a way to cut greenhouse gases actually plunges the earth into a premature

ice age that would kill billions of people? It is entirely possible that this scenerio is occuring in some

variation. Don't just shrug it off. The science behind it is far better than the hockey stick theory that Kyoto is

firmly based on.

I am not trying to be a doomsayer here. I am very concerned about what is happening but I am

also concerned that we are jumping in once again where we have no clue what we are doing. Why are you so eager to

jump into something that only has the slightest basis in good science while ignoring far stronger scientific

evidence?

belgareth
10-03-2005, 08:34 PM
Now, back to the point. I

started this thread in an attempt to discuss the scientific aspects of global warming or stated more accurately,

climate change. I have repeatedly presented questions that are being asked by real professional scientists in their

laboratories and even lunch rooms. So far, not one of the technical issues have been addressed. Am I wasting time

here? It is important and it very likely could affect your lives and those of your children. It could alter the face

of the earth forever!

I am not interested in political debate on the subject. My opinion of political anything

is very low. What politicians, political action committees or special interest groups have to say is utterly

irrelevent until backed up by good scientific evidence, which they have all managed to avoid thus far. Political

debates, ignoring facts in favor of political agendas and picking at the opposing party is not going to solve the

problems, it could quite possibly kill us and is by definition irrational.

Is there anybody out there interested

in scientific facts?

Netghost56
10-03-2005, 09:39 PM
I'm interested in fact;

after all, I am writing a book about the subject.

But there are times when I question your sources, just as you

question mine.

Let's say for a moment that global warming is a normal trend. What if we haven't reached the

peak yet? What if the peak is 100 years from now? 200 years? 1,000? What if when the peak occurs (or long before it)

the earth is inhospitable for humans (or impossible for a rational civilization to function)? What then? Should we

take steps to allow our continued existence? I would vote yes, in spite of my environmental leanings. I'm not so

much of a fatalist that I would wish the end of humanity:rolleyes: .

So how would we go about ensuring our

survival? Domed cities? Perhaps.

For years I have been greatly interested in the works of Paolo Soleri.

Arcologies. A single building that would sustain anywhere from 10,000 to ten million people. Wild stuff, yeah, but

already Japan is in the beginning stages of building what they call a superskyscraper, which has the same

fundamentals as Soleri's Arcology. In an Arcology, everyone is just a walk away from their home, their work, food,

water, utilities, stores and recreation. Personal living areas are supposed to be as big as an apartment, and the

area around your home is altered to your liking (and you'll be neighbored with people with similar likes). I guess

it's hard for most people to wrap their minds around the idea, but I think it's a fantastic possibility.

In any

case, if the environment becomes too harsh to live in, there will be limited resources. So conserving air, water,

and being totally efficient with food and waste will be a neccessity.
I've made a few diagrams on some ideas of

mine:
http://img120.imageven

ue.com/loc110/th_fd3_Air_Unit_Big.jpg (http://img120.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc110&image=fd3_Air_Unit_Big.jpg)
http://img111.imagevenue.com/loc227/th_472_Water_Unit.jpg (http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc227&image=472_W

ater_Unit.jpg)

Some have even

suggested using lunar diagrams for

inspiration:
http://img43.imageven

ue.com/loc105/th_aeb_homestead.jpg (http://img43.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc105&image=aeb_homestead.jpg)

Anyway, I'm rambling. I guess the question is this: Do we or

don't we try to do something to reverse global warming, whether it's a trend or not? And are we prepared for

further problems? If not, what should we do?

belgareth
10-03-2005, 11:06 PM
Actually, more to the point, is

global warming a real phenomena or are we seeing a normal cycle of heating and cooling? Thus far, the evidence for

global warming being a long term trend is extremely shaky and does not take a lot of facts into account. You have to

understand that my education is all physical sciences and many of my friends along with my girlfriend are bonafide

scientists. I am not just rambling, I am bringing up points that are discussed by people extremely well educated in

the physical sciences.

You are not only welcome to question my sources but you are encouraged to do so. Did you

read the articles I posted recently in this thread? Please note who the authors are, they are either scientists

doing or overseeing real research in these areas or they are quotes from the same types. Did you consider any of the

points brought up by wood elf? None of those points mentioned are being widely discussed publicly yet they are

important in understanding what is really going on. I'd love to see anybody addressing those points here rather

than just saying they question the sources or outright denying their validity.

To address your question, let's

say global warming is a cyclic trend. If you follow the historical cycles that have been occuring in a regular

pattern for almost 60 million years you'll see that the globe never gets too warm for life to exist. Often the

peaks were only slightly warmer than the current averages but sometimes they are considerably warmer. Now let's

imagine that the temperatures are approaching the peak and carbon dioxide build up in the atmosphere is a normal

part of it as may be indicated by studies mentioned above. We figure out some brilliant, far reaching means to

drastically reduce the carbon dioxide in the air resulting in a drastic cooling that brings an ice age crashing down

on us. Worse yet, because of our meddiling we have created a shortage of greenhouse gasses causing the globe to cool

far more than it would have other wise. Instead of a temperate band at the equator you have solid ice pole to

pole.

There are a lot of holes in that scenerio but it is actually more scientifically sound than global warming

theory as it is based on concrete, confirmed data. The biggest single hole in it is the negative feedback caused by

the depletion of greenhouse gasses simply because the theory of greenhouse gasses is not fact but theory with little

in the way of experimental confirmation. However, if we dismiss the greenhouse gasses and the ramifications of

depletion from the scenerio we logically must also dismiss it from global warming theory. Without the greenhouse

gasses theory the entire global warming scenerio falls apart. However, the global cooling is only weakened by the

lack of that element.

One point I find most incredible is the reliance placed on computer modeling. Let's keep

in mind that these are the exact same computer models that cannot accurately predict rainfall amounts or even

probability a week into the future. Yet we are taking the results over a 100 year time frame as gospel? Do you

realize the margin for error in a single year is more than 200% and is cumulative over the life of the predictive

model?

Please, if you are writing a book and have done good research on it you should have data and references

you can share with us. Is this a scientific study? Share with us any sources and information. I've invested a lot

of time studying this subject, much of it through non-public resources. If you have something you can share to

enlighten us, let us have it.

DrSmellThis
10-03-2005, 11:10 PM
Sorry, but I don't have the

mastery to argue all the technical issues, though I am not as incapable of distinguishing the quality of the

arguments and science as some might think. Everyone here is influenced by their politics. Due to lots of generic

science/research training, I'm adequately responsible and capable of integrating things when confronted with a

particular area of research, when I have the energy for it.

But some are almost fighting tooth and nail at

times, and I don't have the energy for it. Maybe I'm getting old/stupid/losing my mojo, and just want to enjoy my

interactions.

Though I have my questions about some of the scientific interpretations in this thread, for

example, as they dovetail with statistics (note: one link below suggests "50%" human causes) interpretations of

articles, or ideas (e.g., reducing our impact is artificially manipulating the environment, or dangerous) and have

many issues to learn more about and discuss, I honestly have only so much time to devote to this particular

context, in the manner this particular conversation has been collectively carried out (without commenting further,

or wishing to in the future.).

Moreover, I am not an expert, a climatologist, or anything else; and have made

that clear from the outset. So whether I personally omit or underemphasize this or that technical issue in my

discussions here matters little, as a result. My opinion matters little. To have more technical knowledge than me is

not difficult. I am only a lay consumer of information, and right now need to form opinions without obligation to

"teach" the stuff or write comprehensive, technical, scientific posts. I don't know how realistic it is to expect a

professional academic discussion here anyway. It's not that I haven't seen or read some of the stuff to get a

feel, even whenever I get the chance; but that's as far as it goes right now. I went to Al Gore's conference on

global warming a month ago here; but couldn't get in. I have been soaking in information as time and energy

permits, and have read most of the posts, if not all of them. I know that it is important, and have relatively high

intellectual standards, IMHO; but at this moment I cannot devote myself to becoming an adequate, artculate

spokesperson for any particular position. I have a lot of inescapable obligations to attend to right now, in

multiple areas, and need to manage my energy. I hope you all understand. Even talking about myself in this manner is

not my cup of tea. Who cares?

In the mean time, I still want to contribute something that could be of value to

some. I encourage everyone to judge for themselves, rather than go by opinions I might express, without the

expertise to back it up, or analyze the body of research conclusively. These are just a few links I have explored

recently. They are mostly pretty good starting points for a layperson, IMHO. I think it is better to start with some

global information and fundamentals, before potentially getting confused by technical subtleties.

Somewhere on

my computer I have another batch, from a month ago when I also didn't have the energy to post anything. I have also

explored a lot of the "skeptic" links, many of which have had very similar content to some of the posts here. Those

have been in the minority in my readings, though I have sought what appear to be solid sources of general

information using politically neutral search terms.

Since this thread has been dominated by "skeptics" of sorts,

seeing another side might be helpful to some.

Some of these links do in my opinion lead to information that

responds to some of the technical issues bought up here, though you might have to dig a little bit.

In many

cases, these links support the things I've said here and would say. In some cases, they just raise another side to

a multisided debate, where I am currently unwilling to see it as one sided. In other cases they suggest that the

discussion should not be limited to CO2, but suggest that we still need to target it as part of the picture, for

example.

Those who disagree with the linked information might well dismiss it. I nonetheless encourage

interested parties to read the links, and follow it wherever it takes

them.

http://www4.nationalaca

demies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument (http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument)



http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/



http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci

ence/global-warming-faq.html (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/global-warming-faq.html)



http://www.ucsusa

.org/global_warming/science/global-warming-the-need-for-more-research.html (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/global-warming-the-need-for-more-research.html)

http:

//www.ipcc.ch/ (http://www.ipcc.ch/)



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pale

odata.html (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleodata.html)



http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp



http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warm

ing/science/science-of-global-warming.html (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/science-of-global-warming.html)



http://www.ucs

usa.org/global_warming/science/emissions-of-heattrapping-gases-and-aerosols.html (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/emissions-of-heattrapping-gases-and-aerosols.html)



http://www.climatehotmap.org/



http://www.globalwarming.net/



http://www.ucsusa.org/global_wa

rming/science/ipcc-climate-change-impacts.html (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/ipcc-climate-change-impacts.html)

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/ (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-chan

ge/)



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html[/

url]



[url="http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/overview/overview4.asp"]http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/overvi

ew/overview4.asp (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html)

http://www.

ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html)



http://www.ucsusa.org/



http://www.ucsusa.org/globa

l_warming/science/sound-science-for-public-policy.html (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/sound-science-for-public-policy.html)



http://www.ucsusa.org/

global_warming/science/what-we-do-know-about-climate-change.html (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/what-we-do-know-about-climate-change.html)

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/crichton-thriller-state-

of-fear.html (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming

/science/crichton-thriller-state-of-fear.html)

belgareth
10-04-2005, 03:59 AM
Doc,

I can appreciate your

position. You'll recall me saying more than once that I am not qualified to make judgments on matters of phychology

for the same reasons. Despite my best efforts there is no way I could ingest enough valid information to feel

competent in that area.

Thanks for those links. A number of them I've already followed up an the rest will get

my attention in the near future. When I have time later I'll post a system for tentatively rating reliability of

data based on past experience. It has been pretty accurate in forecasting reliability of claims made by various

entities. Not perfect but helpful.

For the rest,

My chief complaint with the entire global warming debate is

that it begins with the hockey stick theory. In scientific circles it has in large part been debunked and Mr. Mann,

the creator has flatly refused to provide information to allow others to try to recreate his work. Most recently he

seems to be spending a lot of his time hiding in various obscure places. It appears that much of the current work

being done is predicated on that dead thesis. There is little doubt that there are changes ongoing in our world and

have been going on for many years. On first review it surprises me that the hockey stick was so easily accepted

until we note that it was not originally presented through scientific channels but was brought up through the mass

media and special interest groups who pressured politicians.

The biggest single reason for my surprise is the

obvious flaw in believing the earth's temperatures could have remained relatively stable for a thousand years

without stopping to scratch their heads and triple check the figures. Perhaps I am expecting too much from reporters

and politicians but that one detail is on the face of it absurd. The earth, indeed the solar system and the entire

galaxy is in a continuing state of change and evolution.

I am not here to argue the politics of it though. I am

honestly concerned both that changes are occuring that don't look good for mankind or the environment as we know

it. I am also concerned that efforts to control global warming may be on the wrong track. If that is the case it is

entirely possible that efforts could be futile or even detrimental to the environment. It would not be the first

time our eforts have done so.

Netghost56
10-04-2005, 01:15 PM
Belgareth: You’re

questioning the validity of the data, and I’m just asking what we should do in either case.

I’ve had people on

your side of the argument say that we can’t cause a noticeable difference in the environment, either negatively or

positively. So from their POV I doubt we could cause an ice age. My opinion is that: It’s easy to take something

apart, but very difficult to put it back together. The Humpty Dumpty principle, I guess.

I think the single

thing you fail to grasp that Doc and I are talking about is that if human activity has even the SLIGHTEST effect on

global warming then we have a responsibility to correct our part in it. That’s all. “You don’t let the getaway

driver go free if he never stepped inside the bank.” He’s an accomplice, no matter how small a part he played. If

human activity is an effect then we’re all guilty, equally. I do everything I can to conserve and recycle, but my

dedication just causes someone to pollute more. So in a way, we’re all guilty in some respect.

So I’m not

talking about bringing the global weather under our control, to be changed at our whim. I’m just talking about

adapting to the changes, rather than running from them or doing the opposite: Changing things to suit our needs.



An example:
One thing I’ve noticed in the past 10 years is that our seasons are slowly moving around on the

calendar. In the past our coldest month was December, our hottest was July, and our wettest was April and November.

Now, our hottest is August, coldest is Jan/Feb, and our wettest is May/June and December. Technically, that’s not

really a problem. Our calendar, like all timepieces, was created by man and therefore not subject to the laws of

nature. But has anyone thought about what this would mean to our economy? It too runs on a system of time. And

instead of adapting to the changes, bureaucrats and scientists will sit around and argue about how to put the

seasons back into their “right” place rather than to make paperwork changes on getting the economy to flow with the

changes. We can’t control the weather, we can’t control Mother Nature. We can, however, (or should) control our

human affairs, or at least attempt to do an adequate job of it. Which is easier?

I think that sums up my

attitude toward global warming.

My book, on the other hand, uses global warming as a setting in the second

volume. I put together a hypothetical future (something I do as a hobby. Futurism). I generally look at the effects

of warmer temperatures. My hypothesis is that global warming continues at the current pace for another 100 years

(within the span of my story). Hurricanes continue to plague the Gulf; drought forces the creation of another Dust

Bowl that stretches from the Rockies to the Appalachians. The temperate zone is redrawn based on weather and

climatologist reports, moving it up to include all of Canada and the Northwest Territories. The Tropic Zone expands

to include most of the southern US and northern half of South America. The ice caps melt down to a single chunk,

raising the sea level. Florida and Mexico become a chain of islands. All this forces the American public to migrate

to the Great Lakes. Chicago becomes the new Capitol. The East coast remains mostly unharmed, turning into a

rainforest. (I haven’t decided why people leave that area). The West Coast, however, turns into something resembling

Africa: Volcanoes, earthquakes, dry weather with annual monsoons. (I have something of a mystery element to be

played out here.)

I’m sure you’re going to bombard me with inconsistencies that I’ve never thought of, but I’m

using bits of info I’ve gather from here and there. I have only a high school science education, and that was pretty

limited. In fact, 8th grade was the last time we had geography and earth science, and my 9th grade physics teacher

slid everyone through, he only showed up once and week, and the class was party central all the time. So I’m

actually more limited in science knowledge than I want to be, but I’ve learned the parts I like by reading stuff on

the net. I can grasp ideas and theories, but any mathematical data is Greek to me.

That’s why I can question

some of your sources: I have no idea what they’re talking about because I’m too stupid :)

.

Ours is not to question why: Global warming is happening. We all know it, we're seeing it. I'm not disputing

your facts. I think that scientists should determine if there is a human factor in it; if not, then move on to the

next phase. If there is, then figure out a way to correct whatever part the human factor plays, then move on to the

next phase. What's the next phase? Ensuring that civilization doesn't crumble, anarchy doesn't break out, or some

doomsday paranoid with a big red button or hypodermic needle doesn't wipe us out. And ensuring that we can maintain

what we have or, if needs be, change to accommodate the new climate.

belgareth
10-04-2005, 02:58 PM
Belgareth:

You’re questioning the validity of the data, and I’m just asking what we should do in either case.

Ours is not

to question why: Global warming is happening. We all know it, we're seeing it. I'm not disputing your facts. I

think that scientists should determine if there is a human factor in it; if not, then move on to the next phase. If

there is, then figure out a way to correct whatever part the human factor plays, then move on to the next phase.

What's the next phase? Ensuring that civilization doesn't crumble, anarchy doesn't break out, or some doomsday

paranoid with a big red button or hypodermic needle doesn't wipe us out. And ensuring that we can maintain what we

have or, if needs be, change to accommodate the new climate.

You've hit one of my questions perfectly

and if you'll go back and look you'll see I've said just that. We don't know if human activity is causing global

warming. We need to figure out if it is. Once we've done that we need to determine if our impact on temperatures is

a good or a bad thing. Take my ice age scenerio. A well informed climatologist will tell you that it is one of many

possibilities but we don't know if that is going to come to pass either. If it is on the horizon, should we

consider doing something about it? What of the potential for starving billions of people in the case that it is

really what is happening? What are the downside issues? Once again, we don't know.

My point with this thread is

that we don't know. The hugely publicised scenerio of global warming and the relationship to greenhouse gasses was

built on a single study dubbed the hockey stick. In large part the hockey stick has been debunked but the frenzy

over global warming continues. It now has a life of its own. I prefer the term climate change because that is what

it really is. My whole contention through out this thread is that we don't know enough to take rational action. All

I ask is that we dive into the research and learn the truth as far as we are able. Then and only then can we make

logical, rational decisions that will be effective with a minimal risk of adverse side effects. From where I sit,

that seems the only rational approach. Anything else is, as I've said time and again, wild flailing around in the

dark. We cannot afford that.

So your fiction stories have inconsistancies? No problem, that's kind of why it's

called fiction. Since I am an avid sci-fi and fantasy fan I would be biting off my own nose to expect it to be

scientifically accurate.

Netghost56
10-14-2005, 09:55 AM
2005 set to be second

hottest year on record

2005 will be the second or third warmest year on record globally, Britain's

national weather service said on Friday, as climate concerns build among people in polar and low-lying areas and in

the insurance and utility industries.

&quot;Whether it is second or third depends on how Siberia reacts between

now and the end of the year,&quot; said Wayne Elliott, Met Office spokesman.

&quot;1998 was the warmest ever,

2005 is looking at being second. It will be another very warm year generally, which is in line with global climate

change research.&quot;

The Met Office bases its measurements on both land and sea temperatures.

After 1998,

the four hottest years globally were the last four years, according to Met Office data going back to 1861. The

second hottest year was 2002, followed by 2003, 2004 and 2001.

The trend adds weight to concern among many

scientists that the world is hotting up and that human activity including burning of fossil fuels and generation of

&quot;greenhouse gases&quot; by industry is playing a major part.

Two recent hurricanes have left the United

States with tight fuel supplies, energy companies say.

Meanwhile, in Europe Portugal and Spain have experienced

their worst droughts ever recorded, and further east, floods and torrential rain drenched Switzerland, Germany,

Austria and EU membership-candidates Bulgaria and Romania.

&quot;The vast majority of scientists would now say

that there is a significant, substantial human effect on the environment,&quot; Craig Hutton, project manager at the

GeoData Institute, University of Southampton, said on Friday.

&quot;I think that's good enough to get on and

start to plan in reality for the effects of climate change.&quot;

Southampton University is working with IBM to

research a early warning system for UK flood responses, to anticipate storm and tidal

surges.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20

051014/sc_nm/environment_weather2005_dc (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051014/sc_nm/environment_weather2005_dc)

Mtnjim
10-14-2005, 11:59 AM
Not to go into the environmentally

damaging effects of human activity, saying that 2005 is the second warmest year ever is an overstatement. Perhaps in

the past 100 or 200 years, but what about 10,000 years ago??

Also, if I remember right the "age of dinosaurs" was

even warmer. (You didn't know I was that old did ya'?? :lol: )

Netghost56
10-14-2005, 01:26 PM
2005 set to be second

hottest year on record

They didn't start keeping official records until about 150 years ago.

Mtnjim
10-14-2005, 03:26 PM
2005 set to be

second hottest year on record

They didn't start keeping official records until about 150 years

ago.

Yes, the whole point being that it has gotten warm before. (Not to mention wiping out whole

species!)

belgareth
10-14-2005, 04:53 PM
It was quite a bit hotter

during the renaissance period, for example. In geological measure the last 150 years has been far less

than the blink of an eye. The stats saying warmest, wetest, coldest etc. in that short of a period are meaningless.

The relative statistical universe is too small.

Netghost56
11-18-2005, 12:59 AM
I know it's pretty late in

the game, but I was perusing a bookmarks folder from back in the 90s and came across this lecture from the UN

University. It's really long but has lots of data- I haven't had a chance to read all of it yet, but as far as I

can tell it discusses the human impact and the consequences of climate

change.

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/lecture16-17.htm

l (http://www.unu.edu/unupress/lecture16-17.html#Climate)

belgareth
11-29-2005, 12:56 PM
While the title seems to be pointing to a major

issue, I'm not so sure that it is. Unlike many in the mass media this one is fairly well balanced and avoids being

alarmist in large part. One of the most telling statements in the article was the last one
In the most

extreme scenarios, global warming could drive up sea levels and drown coastal cities, cause floods, droughts and

freak storms, and create tens of millions of "climate refugees."
That's something I've been trying to get across for a while. We are mostly hearing worst case

information and hear very little else. That's part of what I mean when I say Alarmist.



Another interesting point was that during the period mentioned we have had Ice

Ages and warming that seem to have been in no way effected by carbon dioxide levels. It seems just a bit strange but

maybe another point in the article can shed some light on the reasons. Current carbon dioxide concentrations are

believed to be .000380% of the gases in the atmosphere. The estimated earlier levels were .000275% of atmospheric

gases. A 27% change sounds a lot more impressive than a difference of .000105%. When you consider that the

measurements were taken in a place like the antartic I have to question the validity of those measurements. I doubt

if that range of variation even comes close to the margin of error.

In any case, it's a good article that brings up some good points.





Global warming: Carbon dioxide levels highest for 650,000 years Thu Nov 24,

2005



PARIS (AFP) - Levels of carbon dioxide, the principal

gas that drives global warming, are now 27 percent higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years, according to

research into Antarctic ice cores.

The study, adding powerfully to

evidence of human interference in the climate system, appears in the run-up to a key conference on global warming

which opens in Montreal next Monday.

The evidence comes from the

world's deepest ice core, drilled at a site called Dome Concordia (Dome C) in East Antarctica by European

scientists who battled blizzards and an average year-round temperature of minus 54 Celsius (minus 65 Fahrenheit) and

made a thousand-kilometer (650-mile) trek to bring up supplies.

The

core, extracted using a 10-centimetre (four-inch) -wide drill bit in three-metre (10-feet) sections, brought up ice

that was deposited by snows up to 650,000 years ago, as determined by estimated layers of annual

snowfall.

Analysis of carbon dioxide trapped in tiny bubbles in the

ancient ice showed that at no point during this time frame did levels get anywhere close to today's CO2

concentrations of around 380 parts per million (380 ppm).

CO2 levels

began to rise with the Industrial Revolution, when coal began to be burned in large quantities, and have surged in

recent decades as more countries become industrialized and millions more cars take to the road.



As a result, billions of tonnes of CO2 are now being released into the air each year

from fossil fuels that previously were underground. In pre-industrial times, the CO2 concentration was just 278

ppm.

Today's rising CO2 concentrations are 27 percent higher than

at the highest level seen over the 650,000-year time scale, according to the study, which appears in the weekly US

journal Science.

The Dome C core, extracted by the 10-country

European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA), outstrips by 210,000 years the previous record-holder,

drilled at an Antarctic site called Vostok.

"We have added another

piece of information showing that the time scales on which humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere are

extremely short compared to the natural time cycles of the climate system," said lead author Thomas Stocker of the

University of Bern's Physics Institute in Switzerland.

Skeptics

about man-made global warming point out that Earth has been through many periods of higher and lower temperatures in

its history as a result of natural processes.

Volcanic eruptions

that disgorge CO2 and other greenhouse gases, oscillations in the planet's axial spin and minor changes in its

orbit can have a major impact on surface temperatures, sometimes plunging Earth into prolonged Ice Ages, the last of

which ended some 11,000 years ago.

But over the past decade, a

mountain of scientific evidence has accumulated about Man's impact on temperatures through the unbridled burning of

fossil fuels.

In the past five years, the average global temperature

has risen by 0.2 C (0.36 F) -- 100 times higher than is normal for such a short time scale -- and 2005 is on course

for being the hottest year on record.

Glaciers in the Alps,

Greenland and the Himalayas are shrinking and ice shelves are cracking in the Antarctic peninsula in what appear to

be early signs of dangerous climate change, according to recent studies.

The 12-day Montreal talks, gathering members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), will

focus on the future of the Kyoto Protocol after this pact, aimed at curbing carbon pollution, runs out in

2012.

Scientists say political progress for tackling the problem

falls miserably short of what is needed to avoid long-term damage to the climate system.



In the most extreme scenarios, global warming could drive up sea levels and drown

coastal cities, cause floods, droughts and freak storms, and create tens of millions of "climate

refugees."

Netghost56
11-30-2005, 08:59 PM
Now this is what "The Day

After Tomorrow" was about.

Key warming ocean current slowing down: scientists

The Atlantic Conveyor, a

life-giving ocean current that keeps northern Europe warm, is slowing down, scientists said on Wednesday.

If the

30 percent slowdown seen over the past 12 years is not just a blip, temperatures in northern Europe could drop

significantly, despite global warming, they added.

Scientists have long forecast that the Atlantic Conveyor that

carries warm surface water north and cold deep water back to the equator could break down because of global

warming.

According to the theory, rising air temperatures cause ice caps to melt, making the water less salty

and therefore less dense so it can't sink and flow back south.

The scientists on Wednesday said this was the

first time that observations had put flesh on the bones of the theory.

"This is the first time we have observed

a change in the current on a human timescale," oceanographer Harry Bryden said, noting that it had completely shut

down during the ice ages.

But he said the latest figures were far from proving a trend and that constant and

long-term monitoring was needed.

"It is like a radiator heating the atmosphere and is too important to leave to

periodic observations," Bryden told a news conference to flesh out a paper he co-authored in Nature science

journal.

FROM MOROCCO TO MIAMI

The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research has calculated that if

the current stopped, temperatures in northern Europe could drop by up to six degrees centigrade in 20 years.

The

latest figures, collated last year, are from a string of monitoring devices at various depths in the Atlantic from

Morocco to Miami.

It was the fifth snapshot since 1957 taken in the same area of the temperatures and currents

in shallow, mid and deep ocean.

While measurements in 1981 and 1992 had shown little change, those in 1998 and

2004 had shown a major shift, with less of the warming Gulf Stream getting up to Greenland and less of the cold,

deep returning current coming back.

The so-called Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current is known as the

Atlantic Conveyor, of which the Gulf Stream is the surface component.

"This is tantalizing evidence that there

may be a large change in ocean circulation under way that paradoxically could cause regional cooling," said Phil

Newton of Britain's independent Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

However, the scientists stressed

that they could not be completely sure what was driving the change or how it might alter or be compensated for by

winds that pick up the radiated heat and circulate it.

-----------

Not much detail, but they mention a 6

degree drop. From what I've read, a temp change of only 2 degrees is substantial and could be catastrophic(sp).



Now, I don't think it's going to cause an Ice Age, a la Hollywood- but there isn't enough evidence yet. And

for the most part, it talks about Europe being under the gun. Naturally so, since they have a temperate climate but

are situated almost completely in the Artic zone.

belgareth
12-01-2005, 05:40 AM
Netghost,

This article

highlights something I mentioned early in this thread. We don't know what is happening to the climate! It is

changing, certainly. But how and why? An article last week mentioned glacial melting and included areas of Europe in

that forecast. Yet this article mentions that European temperatures my drop substantially. Glacial growth, increased

snow pack and cloud cover could increase the amount of energy reflected back into space resulting in over all global

cooling. It may not even be associated with carbon dioxide,they don't really know that either. Some scientists have

suggested that the globe is about to enter a cooling trend on it's own. Could this be a percursor to that?



There was a discussion about global warming at my house a few weeks ago. Beer and BS session but the majority of

the people involved were science types. There was a lot of disagreement about where things are going but the one

thing they did agree on was the weak conclusions and the need for a fresh approach. The best suggestion that came

out of all the talk was to clear all assumptions, wipe the slate clean and compile the data, all the data in logical

groupings to create sound models and establish probabilities for various scenerios. All agreed that the models being

used right now are flawed by previous assumptions and biased research.

Gegogi
12-01-2005, 06:56 PM
Global warming may soon be a moot

point. The earth's protective magnetic field is weaker than any point in it's distant past. Our magnetic field

helps deflect solar and cosmic radiation, basically protecting us from the worse of it. Some researchers believe it

may be fading fast due to the cooling of the earth's core (like what happened to Mars). It could be only a matter

of a few decades before it becomes so weak solar flares and cosmic radiation begin stripping away our atmosphere.

That would pretty much be it for global warming...

belgareth
12-01-2005, 08:09 PM
The magnetic poles have shifted

and wavered quite a few times. The core hasn't cooled significantly in the past few million years, the mass is just

too great and the crust provides too much insulation for rapid cooling. That's also not what holds the atmosphere

in place. It would be interesting to know more about what was said. Do you have a reference on that?

Gegogi
12-01-2005, 09:46 PM
I saw it a program (Dangerous

Science?) on the National Geo channel yesterday. They discussed the usual theories about pole reversal but also

mentioned Mars had a strong magnetic field once that faded once its molten core cooled, allowing its atmosphere to

largely be stripped away by solar radiation. This article covers most of it, save Mars and the newer theory about

our fading magnetic field being more than a mere

flip.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html

belgareth
12-02-2005, 12:15 AM
Thanks. I'll look at it. There

are always a few theories like that out there but most are pretty weak. One with more teeth I read recently is the

chunk of rock that passed through earth orbit not long ago and will again in about 20 years. Tat one is serious

enough that preperations are being made to deflect it if the odds of impact get any closer.

Considering the

number of times the magnetic field has switched I'm not overly concerned but will do some looking into it. I don't

know the figures off hand for that type of thing so really don't have much to go on other than a semi-educated

guess.

belgareth
12-02-2005, 07:56 AM
Ok, I spent a couple hours last night looking this stuff up. Interesting stuff and learned a number of

things. To begin, this is not a new theory only one revived recently in an attempt to prove a point. It originated

back in 1973 with a theory that was based on the notion the earth is basically a ball of iron and nickel hanging in

space with no other influences. Based on that idea, electromagnetic principles say that over time the field will

decay until it finally collapses. Once it collapses the Van Allen belts would go away, they are what help protect us

from electrically charged particles from the sun and other sources. There are a number of flaws

here.



The group that revived the theory are the creationists

who want to prove the earth is only 6,000 years old. They claim the magnetic field’s decline helps to prove their

point. Part of their evidence is a graph showing a logarithmic curve of declining magnetic field strength. First,

they plotted this curve using a base point of 6,000 years ago and assumed a given field strength for that time. Then

they used all of two data points to generate the curve. That is silly on the face of it. A straight line would be

more logical if you don’t have a known starting or ending point. If you have a starting point and a curve really is

implied you have to look at a greater model. After all, a segment of a parabola or a fragment of a sine wave can

both be plotted that way yet both reverse at some point along the time axis.



Reality is that the earth is not in a steady state just hanging in space. Rather, it is actually a

dynamo. The earth’s core is a solid ball of super heated iron and nickel roughly the size of the moon. The intense

pressure is what keeps it solid. Wrapped around that is the mantle which is in a liquid state, molten rock mostly

made up of nickel and iron. Several forces keep the mantle in motion. Of the minor forces, the sun’s and moon’s

gravity generate a constant flux. Of the major forces, planetary rotation and conduction currents cause constant

motion within the mantle. The constant motion is what generates a large part of the earth’s magnetic field but also

generates heat much like an electric motor. I’m not going to get into all of the details but for several reason

certain things cause the magnetic fields generated to align in a given pattern. Over time these patterns are not

stable resulting in the poles moving or even reversing. Evidence indicates that this has happened many times over

the last couple billion years and has had little, if any effect on terrestrial plant and animal

life.



One of the points the creationists try to use is that

the magnetic field will decay allowing the atmosphere to be stripped away by solar winds. They use mars as an

example to prove the point. First, there is insufficient evidence to determine if mars’ core is molten though it is

probably much cooler than the earth’s but mars does have a magnetic field. It is true that mars has a very thin

atmosphere. That’s because mars is only 1/3 as massive as the earth therefore having a far weaker gravity field. The

lighter gases simply escaped into space. Solar wind had nothing to do with it.



An interesting point I ran across that actually makes this topic related to global warming. As I

mentioned, one of the products of the interactions within the earth was heat which like in any engine is increased

as the engine does more work. Various forces have combined to cause the earth to spin a little faster since the

magnetic field last reversed. As a result, the earth has been getting warmer. The predicted consequences would be

polar warming, glacial melting and strange changes in ocean currents. Not to beat the topic to death but that sounds

strangely familiar.



It’s actually a good thing the poles

reverse because were they to not do so the globe would continue to warm until all life on it was destroyed. However,

once the poles reverse the globe should see a cooling trend potentially resulting in ice ages. While none of this is

proven yet, there is a lot of evidence and more is being added all the time to indicate this may be truly what is

happening with our planetary climate or is at least one of the factors, and a major one. It is very interesting

though not conclusive evidence of a relationship that the cycle of global warming and cooling coincide nicely with

the cycle of magnetic field shifts.



Please understand that I

glossed over a lot here. This is not intended to be a rigid scientific handling of the matter but a general overview

to respond to Gegogi’s statement. I read a lot of material last night but only included a small chunk of it. Below

are some of the links I followed to a more rigid handling of the matter if anybody is interested.





http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm[/

url]

[url="http://earthsgeomotor.com/"]http://earthsgeomotor.com/ (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm)



http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/amag.html (http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/amag.html)



http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/q279.html (http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/q279.html)



http://modelweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/models/igrf.html (http://modelweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/models/igrf.html)



http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10851.html (http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10851.html)



http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/earth_poles_991027.html[/s

ize] (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/earth_poles_991027.html)

[size=3]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html)



[url="http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/mars_mag/"]http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/mars_mag/[/

url]

[url="http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/Lunar/"]http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/Lunar/[/url

]

belgareth
12-14-2005, 02:13 PM
I was doing some studying

recently and ran across some related information on climatology that seemed related to all the global warming talk.

Seven hundred thousand years ago lions, elephants, zebra and other creatures roamed Europe and England. The climate

there was warm enough for them to be comfortable. Since that time, the climate has cooled considerably forcing those

creatures to migrate to the warmer equatoral regions. According to archeological climate data the average year round

temperatures in England at that time were comparable to those commonly seen in the Serengeti plains of today. In

other words, while the average year round temperature in London is now somewhere around fifty degrees, in the past

it was at least seventy degrees.

belgareth
12-21-2005, 10:33 AM
British biologist uses carbon trading to grow forests By

Clarence Fernandez

Tue Dec 20, 2005



KUCHING, Malaysia (Reuters) - British biologist Ian

Swingland took up the idea of trading commodities to fund afforestation programs after he witnessed the devastation

caused by logging in the Malaysian rainforests of Borneo in 1998, two decades after his first visit there.



Swingland lived alone for two years in the 1970s on the coral atoll

of Aldabra in the Indian Ocean. There he studied the giant tortoises, numbering around 154,000, the island's only

other inhabitants.

Now his company has bought about 10,000 hectares

(25,000 acres) of Kangaroo Island, Australia's third-largest island, to demonstrate that afforestation can offer a

major investment opportunity through trading in carbon credits.

"Conventional conservation is a disaster story," Swingland, the founder of Britain's Durrell Institute of

Conservation and Ecology at the University of Kent, said in an interview.

"What isn't a disaster is where you make a business of it, and everybody's lives are improved by it, and we

give them ownership of their own future."

Kangaroo Island, off the

state of South Australia, is home to two nature reserves with koala populations, but about 34,000 hectares (85,000

acres) of native bushland exists on privately held land.

"We are

going to reforest the area with pine and eucalyptus species that are indigenous to the island," said Eric

Bettelheim, chairman of Sustainable Forestry Management Ltd, the company he and Swingland have set up with a third

partner.

Carbon trading is a key part of the European Union's

strategy to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases under the Kyoto Protocol.

The EU Emissions Trading Scheme, launched this year, covers 11,500 European manufacturing plants and power

stations and lets companies that emit below their limits sell credits into the market where they trade as a

commodity. Under the scheme, 230 million tons of carbon dioxide, which is blamed for global warming, have been

traded. Industry groups forecast the value of business this year at $5.3

billion.

A major initiative in trading of emission credits is the

clean development mechanism that gives companies credits for funding environmentally friendly projects in developing

nations.

"A WIN-WIN SITUATION"

Other scientists welcomed Swingland's initiative at the meeting in Sarawak, one of the two Malaysian

states on the island of Borneo, which teems with luxuriant plant and animal

life.

"I think it's a win-win situation," said Mick Poole, former

chief of Australia's CSIRO Center for Environment and Life Sciences and an expert on how climate change affects

farming.

"Not only do you put in trees, it has other benefits, such

as improving soil salinity, and the watershed, and so on."

New South

Wales is the only Australian state where carbon is traded, said Noel Ryan, a climate change analyst with the

Wilderness Society. But other states and national territories are in talks to establish a national emissions trading

system.

"There's a lot of opposition from the federal government at

the moment, but everybody expects that there will be carbon trading everywhere in the future," Ryan

said.

Analysts say Australia's federal government, which is not a

signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, believes that putting caps on emissions of gases would hurt industry, and curb job

growth.

Sustainable Forestry Management, which has similar projects

in 13 countries from Brazil to Morocco and Tanzania, chose Australia for its mature financial and forestry sectors

and experienced local partners who could meet Western standards of accountability and transparency, Bettelheim said.



Trees in tropical countries store far more carbon than those in more

temperate zones, offering Asia an edge in the carbon storage business, said Bettelheim, a lawyer who worked on

derivatives trading contracts in Chicago.

"There's a lot of rain, a

lot of sunshine, and it never freezes," he said. He estimated that a tropical tree could absorb up to 15 tons of

carbon from the atmosphere each year, against just one ton for a tree in a temperate zone.



Sir Peter Crane, director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew,

agreed with Bettelheim. "I could believe that," he said. "It's quite likely that you have a lot more biomass locked

up in lowland forests. I could believe certain types of forests in the tropics, not all forests, but certain types

of forests."

Bettelheim said his company had 24 investors, mostly

individuals, who had poured in tens of millions of dollars. But he gave no names or sums.



The firm hopes to start operations in Asian countries such as

Malaysia or India once they begin to frame legal and financial rules to permit carbon trading, he added.



Malaysian officials are examining carbon trading regimes across the

world to understand how they could benefit.

Sarawak forestry

official Cheong Ek Choon said the state was studying different nations' schemes but had made no decision.



"Some types of plantations qualify, some don't," he said. "At least

now there is some monetary value being placed on trees."

Chief

Minister Mahmud Taib said it was a tough balancing act to weigh Sarawak's development needs against conservation

aims, and only the prospect of concrete benefits would spur people to protect the environment.



"As you know, this carbon sink scheme has never taken off the ground

very much," he said. "If you don't even have incentives, how can you get people to look after the environment?"

belgareth
01-01-2006, 12:39 PM
I'm sure everybody remembers

last summer when France was experiencing record heat. The global warming crowd crowed about how it helped to prove

their point.

Let's note that ALL OF EUROPE is experiencing record cold right now. Has anybody besides me

noticed the loud silence from the global warming crowd?

Netghost56
01-01-2006, 03:48 PM
Once again let me remind you

that global warming was the reason behind "The Day After Tomorrow". Remember? They had a global warming protest in

India and it was snowing? The supercell storms that froze people instantly??

Global warming IMO will cause the

weather to get out of control. HOT or COLD. In fact, as I sit here, January 1st, in my T-shirt, all the windows in

the house open, while outside its a balmy 76 degrees, I'm confident in the fact the global warming is at work.



And I'm not even going to mention California, as I wouldn't want to embarass you.:rasp:

belgareth
01-01-2006, 05:22 PM
The Day After Tomorrow didn't

even have a vague relationship to scientific reality. If you are basing your understanding of the world climate on

that, you've got a long way to go.

What about California? Sometime you should go out there and see some of the

high water marks from previous years. What relationship or embarrasment are you anticipating?

Climate change is

a reality!!! It's been changing for 4 billion years and will continue to change. It may even warm (normalize?) to

the temperatures where lions and elephants wandered europe. Global warming is a joke or a fairy tale for the

uninformed.

Netghost56
01-01-2006, 05:24 PM
Global warming and climate

change is the same thing, to me. One is just slower than the other.

Icehawk
01-01-2006, 08:58 PM
I'm sure

everybody remembers last summer when France was experiencing record heat. The global warming crowd crowed about how

it helped to prove their point.

Let's note that ALL OF EUROPE is experiencing record cold right now. Has

anybody besides me noticed the loud silence from the global warming crowd?

My belief was that they were

staying quiet, due to the fact that most of the population believes global warming is just that, warming. To be more

correct, shouldnt we call this simply climate change? Climate change can be responsible for record highs and lows,

but Global Warming can only do so much...:rasp:

On another note didnt the run out of names for this hurricane

season. What was it tropical storm Zeta?

"Earlier this month, Hurricane Epsilon became only the fifth hurricane

to form in December in 154 years of record keeping — though Romano said some storms could have fallen through the

cracks before technology such as satellites was available to help find and track tropical

systems."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051230/ap_on_re_us/tropical_weather

belgareth
01-01-2006, 09:34 PM
My belief was

that they were staying quiet, due to the fact that most of the population believes global warming is just that,

warming. To be more correct, shouldnt we call this simply climate change? Climate change can be responsible for

record highs and lows, but Global Warming can only do so much...:rasp:

On another note didnt the run out of

names for this hurricane season. What was it tropical storm Zeta?

"Earlier this month, Hurricane Epsilon became

only the fifth hurricane to form in December in 154 years of record keeping — though Romano said some storms could

have fallen through the cracks before technology such as satellites was available to help find and track tropical

systems."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200512

30/ap_on_re_us/tropical_weather (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051230/ap_on_re_us/tropical_weather)
They can believe whatever they want, I'm talking about science and

facts. The global warming crowd is great at claiming any anomoly potentially related to increased heat is caused by

global warming but completely ignore facts that dispute their claims or any other potential explanation of rthe

phenomena, including ones that better cover the known and observable facts.

Climate change is the dynamic

process that has been going on for more than four billion years and includes ice ages, warm periods, even the

introduction of oxygen into the atmosphere a couple billion years ago. Global warming, as understood by the mass

media and much of humanity, is allegedly the result of build up of so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

That whole thing is predicated on one man's theory called the hockey stick, which has long since been debunked.

Additionally, it has never been shown that the greenhouse theory of trapping energy withing the atmosphere actually

works. There is not one shred of scientific proof.

Unfortunately for everybody, the theory has taken on a life

of it's own despite being built on sand. I say unfortunately because the belief in that debunked theory is wasting

valuable resources that could better be used to determine what is really going on and deciding on a rational method

of dealing with it.

There certainly has been an increase in hurricane activity. Hurricane experts (Not within

the global warming crowd but real hurricane experts) have repeatedly stated that it is no more than a return to a

busier portion of the natural cycle.

Netghost56
01-01-2006, 10:57 PM
I'm passionate about global

warming because I can't see that all the smog, smoke, and chemicals we've thrown into the atmosphere for the past

hundred years has HELPED.

Global warming is a stepping stone to all the other bad things we've done to the

planet. In order to create awareness of certain problems, there has to be a spark- a related issue that gets

mainstream attention.

If the idea of global warming is such that it motivates public opinion into being more

concerned about the environment, is it still a bad idea simply because it's not correct?

belgareth
01-02-2006, 05:01 AM
I'm shocked that you could

even ask that question. If you want to get into the scientific and technical issues involved in working towards

fixing a non-existant problem you should go back and review all the discussion on that topic first.

You are

asking if, in your opinion the end justifies the means, is it alright to lie to the people? When you lie to the

people, no matter how noble you think your cause, it is still a lie. In this particular case prices will increase

and resources needed for the very survival of millions of people will be used to pay for your programs. Potentially,

thousands could starve and potentially immeasurable harm could be done both to the environment and the people. And

you think it would be ok to lie to achieve those ends?

There is never a justification for that, not under any

circumstance or condition and when you start following that path it is a never ending series of additional lies to

support your first set.

Just out of curiosity, what gives you the right to use dishonesty to coerce people into

doing what you decide is right? That action and attitude puts you into exactly the same ethical group as the

government that lies to us. It's wrong for them and it's wrong for you and it's wrong for everybody else all the

time and every time.

Netghost56
01-02-2006, 09:32 AM
Just out of

curiosity, what gives you the right to use dishonesty to coerce people into doing what you decide is

right?
I resent the fact that you accuse me of lying when all I did was pose a question.

As for lying,

all I meant to say is if global warming wasn't entirely accurate. I still think its real. Very few things in this

world are entirely accurate.


In this particular case prices will increase and resources needed for the

very survival of millions of people will be used to pay for your programs.
And things are better now, how?

What programs are you talking about??

I'd be insane if I thought that we could change everything without

hurting anyone. But there's an argument about a different issue that brings up the same rebuttal: Do we try to

change and hopefully help everyone or just sit back and wait for oblivion? Just sitting around talking about it

doesn't help either.


That action and attitude puts you into exactly the same ethical group as the

government that lies to us.
We've tried to appeal to people by being honest and forthcoming. It hasn't

helped. So logically the next course would be to play by their rules.

I'm NOT saying I would do it. But if the

time came, I would justify it. Or perhaps you have a better idea?

rant

I'm willing to say that we both are

somewhat misguided in our approach to the problem. I have enough integrity to admit that. I don't claim to have all

the facts, nor do I claim to have the Only, Right solution. Far from it. All I know for sure is that we have cause

damage to the enviroment, and I want to change that. By any means possible.

/rant

Icehawk
01-02-2006, 12:20 PM
At least could we agree that the

ozone hole is a bad thing that people did? As far as I've researched, it was stable, people made it bad, now we

have record amounts of skin cancer due to human impact.

In the end we change nature, we adapt to nature, nature

adapts to us.

"According to National Geographic magazine, we dump about eight billion metric tons of

carbon into the atmosphere every year but 4.8 billion metric tons disappears into the seas and land vegetation. If

we consider this to be the limit some interesting figures emerge. Coal is mostly carbon, natural gas is mostly

methane and oil is converted mostly to octane. Let's take a look at the chemical reactions:

C+O2--->CO2

CH4+ 2O2----> CO2+2H2O C8H18+17O2--->8CO2+18H2O
12+32 = 44 16+64 = 44+36

114+544 = 352+324

Thus, 4.8 billion metric tons of coal adds an equal amount of carbon to the

atmosphere. About 6.4 billion metric tons of methane puts 4.8 billion tons of carbon into the air and 5.7 billion

tons of octane adds 4.8 billion tons of carbon, the apparent limit. This equates with 105 Quads for coal at 10,000

BTU/lb., 280 Quads for methane at 20,000 BTU/lb. and 250 Quads for octane at 20,000 BTU/lb.

In 1998, the

world used 152 Quads of oil, 85.5 Quads of natural gas and 88.6 Quads of coal. It looks like we used 85.5/280=0.3

or enough methane to add 1.46 billion tons of carbon to the air and 152/250=0.6 or enough octane to dump 2.92

billion tons of carbon into the air. That's a total of 4.38 billion tons of carbon. Coal, on the other hand,

added 88.6/105=0.843... 0.843*4.8 billion=4 billion tons of carbon to the air. The total, 8.38 billion tons agrees

with National Geographic's claim that we dumped eight billion tons of carbon into the air each year in recent

years. Oil and gas combined are below the 4.8 billion ton limit of the seas and land plants. Coal is the worst

offender because it is entirely made of carbon whereas the other fuels contain hydrogen and we aren't worried about

water vapor emissions yet..."
That's got to do something

destabalizing...
http://www.moonminer.com/More_about_Quads.ht

ml (http://www.moonminer.com/More_about_Quads.html)

belgareth
01-02-2006, 04:53 PM
I resent the

fact that you accuse me of lying when all I did was pose a question.

As for lying, all I meant to say is if

global warming wasn't entirely accurate. I still think its real. Very few things in this world are entirely

accurate.
Go back and read it again. I didn't accuse you of lying. However, misrepresenting facts to

coerce people into doing what you want is worse, which is what you said you'd do.

You can think whatever you

like, it's utterly irrelevent until you start telling people it's a fact so they'll fulfill your agenda. That

puts you on the same ethical level as our dearly beloved leader, King George I.



And things

are better now, how? What programs are you talking about??
Any and every program designed to reduce

global warming would take resources from the global economy forcing higher prices worldwide. People would starve for

a fantasy ie: Global Warming. Whether you like it or not, there is no scientific proof that global warming is

happening or that so called greenhouse gases are causing it. You might think that's alright, starving people

because you choose to believe in global warming but I think it's dead wrong.



I'd be insane

if I thought that we could change everything without hurting anyone. But there's an argument about a different

issue that brings up the same rebuttal: Do we try to change and hopefully help everyone or just sit back and wait

for oblivion? Just sitting around talking about it doesn't help either.


We've tried to appeal to people by

being honest and forthcoming. It hasn't helped. So logically the next course would be to play by their rules.



I'm NOT saying I would do it. But if the time came, I would justify it. Or perhaps you have a better idea?



Under no conditions would I be willing to lie or misrepresent facts to support my agenda. If honesty

won't work then I don't have a solution but I will not use coercion nor support its

use.


rant

I'm willing to say that we both are somewhat misguided in our approach to the

problem. I have enough integrity to admit that. I don't claim to have all the facts, nor do I claim to have the

Only, Right solution. Far from it. All I know for sure is that we have cause damage to the enviroment, and I want to

change that. By any means possible.

/rant
I don't have a solution at all. I want the facts so honest,

intelligent people can work out the realities of the issue. I don't care about being right or wrong, all I care

about is finding the truth. Global Warming is not the truth, very few open minded and well educated people believe

in itany longer.

If you'll go back and read through this thread slowly and carefully you'll see that

protecting the environment is my goal. The wild flailing at a puff of smoke that is the whole global warming scam is

exactly that. Before you respond, read what the real expert have to say, not what the global warming crowd keep

crowing.

You may feel that any means possible is fine, from my point of view it makes you no different from any

dictator in history. Lies and coercion are not going to solve the problems.

InternationalPlayboy
01-02-2006, 06:15 PM
I started this as a

PM to belgareth to give him my support in this matter, but decided to grow the balls to post it publicly. I have

been skeptical of the global warming issue since the 1990s, when freon products were outlawed. From what I

understood at that time, there were one or more active volcanoes spewing out more florocarbons than man has created

since his existance.

The reason I'm coming out from under my rock though, is

this:


All I know for sure is that we have cause damage to the enviroment, and I want to

change that. By any means possible.

That just floored me. "Any means possible" would include

population control through manufactured "designer" diseases, forced sterilization, etc., which some of the more far

out conspiracy theorists claim are on the agendas of those who are in control.

Not that I believe the

theorists. But when I hear a phrase like "any means possible," especially to affect the outcome of something that

is debatable as a fact, it makes me think of totalitarian societies.

Netghost56
01-02-2006, 07:38 PM
You've taken me way out of

context. First off, we've done worse things to ourselves than what you've mentioned. Why is it people will justify

going to war, and murdering, but they won't justify keeping the population from exploding? I'M NOT JUSTIFYING

DISEASE OR FORCED STERILIZATION! = before you start trying to string me up.

You can't just sit around and talk

and think and hope for the best. You'll still be debating the cause long after the consequence has come and

gone.

Speaking of debating, in college I had to debate population control. I was on the proactive side. We used

China and Japan's birth policies as a control. Who needs 10 kids? It's ridiculous. In the past, a large number of

children were usually needed to help run a farm.

But now with the majority of the population living in suburbs,

is it still necessary? No. But you still have families with more than 3 children. And you have movies like "Cheaper

by the Dozen" promoting the idea of large families. We're killing ourselves by allowing population to spiral out of

control. .......But that's another argument.


To get back on the subject- "by any means possible." Yes. BUT

WITHIN THE REALM OF SANITY. I'm not talking about breaking laws! Why do you always assume the worst? That's my

job! :D

A few examples: "Force the automotive industry to stop production of gas-powered autos and develop

alternatives." Even if it means a few companies go bankrupt. Now would be a good timefor a auto company to start up,

with an inventory of only alternatively powered autos.

Expensive? Sure! But compared to gas/oil prices and all

those problems? To me, worth it. And besides, look how much the auto industry lost this year. Still too

expensive?

"Force the oil companies to move on to other sources of energy." Even if it means Mr. CEO has to sell

all his private jets and the villa in Pago Pago. One could get alot done here. Yes, alternative energy is costly

right now(read "RIGHT NOW"). And it's only costly because there isn't alot of attention or funding for it. Why?

Because people need to be made aware of it.

And it angers me greatly that these talking heads on TV sit around

and say, "Well, it's expensive", or "It's not as good as oil", or "It's years from being perfected"> It's like

they want to push it under the table, so that BIG OIL can reign eternal. But it CAN'T!

Yes, I understand that

millions of jobs could be lost. But more can be created. In the 1920s, the auto industry boomed. In the 40s, the oil

industry boomed. In the 80s-90s, the computer industry boomed. Now we need something new. Something everyone cash in

on.


One recurring theme that I've noticed lately is that instead of trying to FIX the problem, people either

sweep it under the rug or subsitute a solution that doesn't fix the problem, just makes it less of a problem for

THEM. That's not helping anybody, regardless of what one may think. I don't believe in the philosophy of "Putting

a band-aid on the problem" like our fearless leader. Solve the problem and move on! Let it fester and you'll pay

the consequence. Normally I'm not a man of action, but in this case I'm not going to take the role of someone who

just sits idly by.


If you're still reading this with an unbiased mind, then you might wonder why I have this

attitude. Well, I live in Arkansas. Arkansas is known for its forests. Indeed, in my town there are many pine

plantations and lots of wooded areas. Well, there used to be. In the past year alone at least 8 different properties

have been clearcutted. The common theme is people moving in front out of town. They buy a house with several acres

of woods surrounding.

Obviously they don't see trees as I do, but as financial value. They have the woods

stripped, collect the money, then spend the money. Quick and easy cash, right? But at what cost? Used to I could

drive to town and see the trees, and I'd imagine I was driving in Colorado or Washington state. Now, I drive to

town and mostly what I see is West Texas. People just don't care about anything but themselves. It's

sickening.


Look, I have said this earlier in the thread:



I would have a better conscience going

bankrupt trying to protect/save the environment than going bankrupt trying to ensure capitalism never

dies.


Let's say for a moment that global warming is a normal trend. What if we haven't reached

the peak yet? What if the peak is 100 years from now? 200 years? 1,000? What if when the peak occurs (or long before

it) the earth is inhospitable for humans (or impossible for a rational civilization to function)? What then? Should

we take steps to allow our continued existence?
I would vote yes, in spite of my environmental leanings. I'm not

so much of a fatalist that I would wish the end of humanity.


if human activity has even the

SLIGHTEST effect on global warming then we have a responsibility to correct our part in it.


We

can’t control the weather, we can’t control Mother Nature. We can, however, (or should) control our human affairs,

or at least attempt to do an adequate job of it. Which is easier?


I think that scientists should

determine if there is a human factor in it; if not, then move on to the next phase. If there is, then figure out a

way to correct whatever part the human factor plays, then move on to the next phase. What's the next phase?

Ensuring that civilization doesn't crumble, anarchy doesn't break out, or some doomsday paranoid with a big
red

button or hypodermic needle doesn't wipe us out. And ensuring that we can maintain what we have or, if needs be,

change to accommodate the new climate.
And I stand by all of that. I don't think I've ever deviated from

my position. I also want the truth. Maybe I'm hiding under the Global Warming umbrella with a slightly offset

agenda. I can admit that. My agenda is removing all the toxins that we have put into the environment. If that means

hardships placed on our economy, if that means we have to do without some things (luxuries), then so be it. I've

learned to live without.

belgareth
01-02-2006, 09:33 PM
Icehawk,



Thanks, that’s a cool link. I did some

exploring on that site. A bit of it is pretty far out in left field but there’s a lot of good stuff there too. They

also overlook some significant things. Almost everything they say about fusion reaction is unsupported. The reactor

designs are tentative, at best, because researchers have yet to generate a sustained fusion reaction. Until that

happens, fusion reactors are a thing of theory and their designs are fantasy. Theory says it’s possible but we’ll

see.



When discussing space travel I saw nothing regarding the

space elevator yet research is progressing nicely along that line. It’s possible I missed it and hope so. That’s an

incredibly promising technology.

Please excuse the following.

Between chronic insomnia, never watching TV, being an avid reader and being around science all my life, I tend to

get carried away when I read BS about science. That and I am a frustrated teacher, only being allowed a few hours

each semester to expound on my vast knowledge. :POKE: :LOL:



So, let’s talk about ozone. Sorry to disagree with you but nobody

knows if man caused or worsened the ozone hole. It was not discovered until about thirty or so years ago that there

was a hole and the causes are all theoretical. It easily could be a natural phenomena, all we are doing is guessing.

First, the record increase in skin cancer cases is hardly related to the hole in the ozone. I say that because the

hole is situated over the Antarctic. Unless you happen to be a penguin or walrus you are probably in no greater

danger than you would have been a hundred years ago. Less danger really. The last in-depth study I saw on the

subject of skin cancer was attributing it to more people getting tans and also all the former beach bunny baby

boomers that are starting to show the effects of too much sun. The percentage of the population getting skin cancer

has not really increased all that much, just more people are getting older so are showing the signs of a misspent

youth. Beyond a doubt ultraviolet light can increase the incidence of skin cancer but that applies to the light

produced by tanning booths as well. For the record, completely removing the ozone layer would only increase the

amount of UV reaching the surface by a few percent. Since plants use UV in photosynthesis they would be quite happy

about it, especially with increased carbon dioxide available.

Thank

you, International Playboy for making a very good point about volcanoes and CFCs. I was terribly amused when, after

reading an article about that volcano in the Philippines blowing up and blasting tons of CFCs into the upper

atmosphere, Greenpeace was claiming the hole was shrinking. Rather a non sequitor.

Let’s start at the beginning. Ozone is a molecule comprised of three atoms of oxygen and it is

inherently unstable. It’s also a very light, tiny molecule easily moved around on the breeze. Many tons of ozone are

generated daily down here in the biosphere by all sorts of electrical equipment and even lightening and is a major

component of smog. One wonders why such a small, light molecule isn’t blown into the upper atmosphere with the CFCs

but I’ll get to that.

Another source of ozone is, of all things,

ultraviolet light impinging on the upper atmosphere. The light energy strikes the stable O2 molecule causing it to

split. Some of these stray oxygen atoms end up colliding with other O2 molecules temporarily bonding with them. CFCs

can also bond with the stray oxygen atoms depriving them of the opportunity to bond with O2

molecules.

Now, a couple stray thoughts. How do these big, heavy CFC

molecules get clear up to the very fringes of outer space when the tiny, very light ozone molecule can’t manage it,

instead being relegated to becoming a part of smog? Since the earth spins at an impressive rate, why do the CFC

molecules attack the ozone over the South Pole instead of migrating to the equatorial regions that the laws of

physics say they should do? If you add some rather vigorous volcanoes spewing millions of tons of CFCs upward it all

begins to make sense. I could beat up on that subject all night but wanted to touch on one more thing and I imagine

I’m boring the majority of you to tears by now.

You posted that

excellent article about carbon and I appreciate it. It opens all sorts of things to discussion but leaves a few

gaping holes. First, that article assumes that is the limit of carbon absorption, why is that? No real good reason.

First lets note that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 380 parts per million. All those

millions of tones of added carbon sound pretty impressive until you realize that it makes up an increase of

something like 170 parts per million, a somewhat insignificant number which was only recorded in one part of the

world and never duplicated elsewhere. A 28% increase sounds really impressive but think about it. If you have a

penny and add another penny to it you have made a 100% increase but it is still insignificant in the grand scheme of

things. The same applies to the increase in carbon dioxide. Just out of curiosity, why doesn’t carbon dioxide

migrate to the upper atmosphere with the CFCs?

I’d like to clear up

something about carbon. Do you know why petroleum has so much carbon in it? Petroleum is from organic matter,

decomposed dinosaurs to be specific. Do you have any idea how much carbon is absorbed daily by the world’s plants?

Or how much is released by their decomposition? Hell, most of you eat quantities carbon daily in the form of sugar

which is no more than carbon and water, two of the basics of life on this planet. The fact is that the carbon cycle

is the true cycle of life on our planet. Every life form you know relies on it extensively to help create and

sustain life itself. That’s why it’s all around us. Always has been and always will be. The earth and every plant

and animal on it has been absorbing and re-releasing carbon since the first single celled organism moved in the

primordorial slime pools. Carbon, in and of itself, is not only not a bad thing but is in reality a super important

part of life on this earth. Increased available carbon is not going to harm plant life; rather, it is going to help

it grow stronger, bigger and faster.

Ok, lectures over. Wake up the

person in the next chair and send them off to their next class.

InternationalPlayboy
01-03-2006, 05:59 AM
A few examples: "Force the automotive industry to stop production of gas-powered autos

and develop alternatives." Even if it means a few companies go bankrupt. Now would be a good timefor a auto company

to start up, with an inventory of only alternatively powered autos.

Expensive? Sure! But compared to gas/oil

prices and all those problems? To me, worth it. And besides, look how much the auto industry lost this year. Still

too expensive?

"Force the oil companies to move on to other sources of energy." Even if it means Mr.

CEO has to sell all his private jets and the villa in Pago Pago. One could get alot done here. Yes, alternative

energy is costly right now(read "RIGHT NOW"). And it's only costly because there isn't alot of attention or

funding for it. Why? Because people need to be made aware of it.

And it angers me greatly that these talking

heads on TV sit around and say, "Well, it's expensive", or "It's not as good as oil", or "It's years from being

perfected"> It's like they want to push it under the table, so that BIG OIL can reign eternal. But it

CAN'T!

Yes, I understand that millions of jobs could be lost. But more can be created. In the 1920s, the

auto industry boomed. In the 40s, the oil industry boomed. In the 80s-90s, the computer industry boomed. Now we need

something new. Something everyone cash in on.


One recurring theme that I've noticed lately is that

instead of trying to FIX the problem, people either sweep it under the rug or subsitute a solution that doesn't fix

the problem, just makes it less of a problem for THEM. That's not helping anybody, regardless of what one may

think. I don't believe in the philosophy of "Putting a band-aid on the problem" like our fearless leader. Solve the

problem and move on! Let it fester and you'll pay the consequence. Normally I'm not a man of action, but in this

case I'm not going to take the role of someone who just sits idly by.


If you're still reading this with

an unbiased mind, then you might wonder why I have this attitude. Well, I live in Arkansas. Arkansas is known for

its forests. Indeed, in my town there are many pine plantations and lots of wooded areas. Well, there used to be. In

the past year alone at least 8 different properties have been clearcutted. The common theme is people moving in

front out of town. They buy a house with several acres of woods surrounding.

Obviously they don't see trees

as I do, but as financial value. They have the woods stripped, collect the money, then spend the money. Quick and

easy cash, right? But at what cost? Used to I could drive to town and see the trees, and I'd imagine I was driving

in Colorado or Washington state. Now, I drive to town and mostly what I see is West Texas. People just don't care

about anything but themselves. It's sickening.


Look, I have said this earlier in the thread:








And I stand by all of that. I don't think I've ever deviated from my position. I also want

the truth. Maybe I'm hiding under the Global Warming umbrella with a slightly offset agenda. I can admit that. My

agenda is removing all the toxins that we have put into the environment. If that means hardships placed on our

economy, if that means we have to do without some things (luxuries), then so be it. I've learned to live

without.

Again, I think of totalitarian governments.

I don't subscribe to the whole Neo-Tech

philosophy, but I feel this "Advantage" is true:



Neo-Tech Advantage #80
INITIATORY FORCE

-- THE PRIME EVIL
Force, coercion, threat of force, or fraud[ 42 ] initiated against any individual

for any reason by any individual, groups of individuals, societies, or governments is morally wrong. That is the

only categorical moral statement possible. That statement must, by its nature, be the categorical, irreducible, and

fundamental standard for all conscious beings, always, everywhere. That statement is the moral axiom upon which

every Neo-Tech/Psychuous Concept rests. The initiation of force and fraud among conscious beings is not only the

basic moral wrong and evil, but is the primary tool used by all professional mystics and neocheaters to survive

through value destruction.

No exceptions to the immorality of initiatory force exist. No matter how "noble"

the ends, they never justify the means of initiating force, fraud, or coercion against any individual. Any

government or activity that depends on or uses initiatory force, threat of force, or coercion is immoral and

destructive. Therefore, all taxation backed by force, all conscription backed by force, and all laws that regulate

or control by force or coercion are immoral.

The only laws that are objectively just and moral are those

that protect the life and property rights of individuals from initiatory force and fraud. All other laws that

regulate people's lives or property are morally wrong, contrary to human nature, and harmful to everyone. Such

immoral laws include those that restrict or prohibit drugs, alcohol, prostitution, abortion (of the fetus at any

age), or any form of censorship or restriction of voluntary sexual activity. All such laws are morally wrong because

they use threats or force against individuals.

While all governments have the power, none ever have the

moral right to initiate force or coercion against any individual. The only beneficial and moral laws are those

designed to protect the life and property rights of individuals from initiatory force, the threat of force, and

fraud. In turn, the only moral use of force is for self-defense: That is for protection of oneself, property, or

country from force initiated by other individuals or governments. ...Self-defense by any means, including force, is

not only a basic moral right, but a moral duty.

No government has ever helped an individual produce more

values or greater happiness than that individual could have produced without government. Governments differ only in

the degree they harm people. In fact, except for protecting individual rights, no valid reason for government

exists. Indeed, the entire concept of government is invalid and mystical. Government is nothing more than a

mystical, big-lie hoax perpetuated through the centuries by neocheaters through force, non sequiturs, and the

manipulation of mysticism.

Government is not the equivalent of one's country. Governments are based on

invalid mystical notions that have no basis in reality; countries are objectively real entities of defined

territories. A person can love his or her country, but properly despise the government that with usurped power

constantly harms and drains everyone within its realm.

For it is those that oppose initiatory force who

are the true patriots, and the true lovers of freedom for all conscious beings...

You can argue

that your body is your individual property and so that you have the right to protect it, and that would be a valid

argument. But government intervention will not solve perceived problems such as pollution or global warming. Free

enterprise might though. If you don't want a gas burning car, don't buy one. Speak through your wallet in these

matters. But for the government to force a manufacturer to produce something there is little demand for at the

present will result in shoddy and expensive goods. And as for the forest or wooded lands in your areas, it's too

bad they're being cut back. But you don't own the property, so don't have much say in the

matter.


Yes, I understand that millions of jobs could be lost. But more can be created. In the 1920s,

the auto industry boomed. In the 40s, the oil industry boomed. In the 80s-90s, the computer industry boomed. Now we

need something new. Something everyone cash in on.

And those industries were created by free

enterprise, not forced by government mandate.

belgareth
01-03-2006, 07:07 AM
IP,

Great stuff. It's nice

to know that thee are others out there that live by those rules. Thanks for posting it.

Netghost56
01-03-2006, 08:15 AM
Unbelievable. I'm talking

about the environment, and you're talking about government.

Icehawk
01-03-2006, 08:15 AM
Icehawk,



Thanks, that’s a cool link. I did some

exploring on that site. A bit of it is pretty far out in left field but there’s a lot of good stuff there too. They

also overlook some significant things. Almost everything they say about fusion reaction is unsupported. The reactor

designs are tentative, at best, because researchers have yet to generate a sustained fusion reaction. Until that

happens, fusion reactors are a thing of theory and their designs are fantasy. Theory says it’s possible but we’ll

see.

Yeah they may be a little nutty, but at least some facts are right. At least I

persume the carbon one. Also their ideas on liquid ammonia cars are rather promising.





When discussing space travel I saw nothing regarding the space

elevator yet research is progressing nicely along that line. It’s possible I missed it and hope so. That’s an

incredibly promising technology.

Yeah, actually the space elevator theory is rather

obsolete. These guys are the cheap access to space pioneers

currently.
http://www.liftport.com/



Please excuse the following. Between chronic insomnia, never watching TV, being an avid reader and

being around science all my life, I tend to get carried away when I read BS about science. That and I am a

frustrated teacher, only being allowed a few hours each semester to expound on my vast knowledge.

:POKE: :LOL:

So, let’s

talk about ozone. Sorry to disagree with you but nobody knows if man caused or worsened the ozone hole. It was not

discovered until about thirty or so years ago that there was a hole and the causes are all theoretical. It easily

could be a natural phenomena, all we are doing is guessing. First, the record increase in skin cancer cases is

hardly related to the hole in the ozone. I say that because the hole is situated over the Antarctic. Unless you

happen to be a penguin or walrus you are probably in no greater danger than you would have been a hundred years ago.

Less danger really. The last in-depth study I saw on the subject of skin cancer was attributing it to more people

getting tans and also all the former beach bunny baby boomers that are starting to show the effects of too much sun.

The percentage of the population getting skin cancer has not really increased all that much, just more people are

getting older so are showing the signs of a misspent youth. Beyond a doubt ultraviolet light can increase the

incidence of skin cancer but that applies to the light produced by tanning booths as well. For the record,

completely removing the ozone layer would only increase the amount of UV reaching the surface by a few percent.

Since plants use UV in photosynthesis they would be quite happy about it, especially with increased carbon dioxide

available.

Ok, shows that I know nothing of the envirenment.

Also, I dont recall excatly but skin cancer rates in southern Chile and Argentina have skyrocketed. I dont think

thats a myth.



Thank you, International Playboy

for making a very good point about volcanoes and CFCs. I was terribly amused when, after reading an article about

that volcano in the Philippines blowing up and blasting tons of CFCs into the upper atmosphere, Greenpeace was

claiming the hole was shrinking. Rather a non sequitor.

Let’s start

at the beginning. Ozone is a molecule comprised of three atoms of oxygen and it is inherently unstable. It’s also a

very light, tiny molecule easily moved around on the breeze. Many tons of ozone are generated daily down here in the

biosphere by all sorts of electrical equipment and even lightening and is a major component of smog. One wonders why

such a small, light molecule isn’t blown into the upper atmosphere with the CFCs but I’ll get to that.



Another source of ozone is, of all things, ultraviolet light

impinging on the upper atmosphere. The light energy strikes the stable O2 molecule causing it to split. Some of

these stray oxygen atoms end up colliding with other O2 molecules temporarily bonding with them. CFCs can also bond

with the stray oxygen atoms depriving them of the opportunity to bond with O2 molecules.



Now, a couple stray thoughts. How do these big, heavy CFC molecules get clear up to

the very fringes of outer space when the tiny, very light ozone molecule can’t manage it, instead being relegated to

becoming a part of smog? Since the earth spins at an impressive rate, why do the CFC molecules attack the ozone over

the South Pole instead of migrating to the equatorial regions that the laws of physics say they should do? If you

add some rather vigorous volcanoes spewing millions of tons of CFCs upward it all begins to make sense. I could beat

up on that subject all night but wanted to touch on one more thing and I imagine I’m boring the majority of you to

tears by now.

Ok, shows that no one really knows anything

about ozone, or CFCs for that matter.



You posted

that excellent article about carbon and I appreciate it. It opens all sorts of things to discussion but leaves a few

gaping holes. First, that article assumes that is the limit of carbon absorption, why is that? No real good reason.

First lets note that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 380 parts per million. All those

millions of tones of added carbon sound pretty impressive until you realize that it makes up an increase of

something like 170 parts per million, a somewhat insignificant number which was only recorded in one part of the

world and never duplicated elsewhere. A 28% increase sounds really impressive but think about it. If you have a

penny and add another penny to it you have made a 100% increase but it is still insignificant in the grand scheme of

things. The same applies to the increase in carbon dioxide. Just out of curiosity, why doesn’t carbon dioxide

migrate to the upper atmosphere with the CFCs?


One one

side, we done know much about anything thats obvious. I can say that 30% carbon dioxide increase is huge, and you'll have to agree, on the other, its 170ppm which globaly so

far has no noticable effect. Time will tell I guess.





I’d like to clear up something about carbon. Do you know why

petroleum has so much carbon in it? Petroleum is from organic matter, decomposed dinosaurs to be specific. Do you

have any idea how much carbon is absorbed daily by the world’s plants? Or how much is released by their

decomposition? Hell, most of you eat quantities carbon daily in the form of sugar which is no more than carbon and

water, two of the basics of life on this planet. The fact is that the carbon cycle is the true cycle of life on our

planet. Every life form you know relies on it extensively to help create and sustain life itself. That’s why it’s

all around us. Always has been and always will be. The earth and every plant and animal on it has been absorbing and

re-releasing carbon since the first single celled organism moved in the primordorial slime pools. Carbon, in and of

itself, is not only not a bad thing but is in reality a super important part of life on this earth. Increased

available carbon is not going to harm plant life; rather, it is going to help it grow stronger, bigger and

faster.

Ok, lectures over. Wake up the person in the next chair and

send them off to their next class.

I think thats, what it gets down to. Both sides might

concede that there is not enough research/information on the subject. One side being envirenmentaly protectionist

wants to slow down/halt envirenmentaly impacting progress, while the other believes that the earth and humans are

resilient enough to weather whatever change might come, if any.
The house might be on fire, it might be catching

fire, or not on fire at all. No one really knows for sure.

Icehawk
01-03-2006, 08:19 AM
Im not sure if it has been

posted, but some interesting points.

"Britain faces big chill as ocean current slows


Jonathan Leake, Science Editor


http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif

CLIMATE change researchers have detected the first signs of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream — the

mighty ocean current that keeps Britain and Europe from freezing. They have found that one of the “engines” driving

the Gulf Stream — the sinking of supercooled water in the Greenland Sea — has weakened to less than a quarter of its

former strength.


The weakening, apparently caused by global warming, could herald big changes in the current

over the next few years or decades. Paradoxically, it could lead to Britain and northwestern and Europe undergoing a

sharp drop in temperatures.

Such a change has long been predicted by scientists but the new research is among

the first to show clear experimental evidence of the phenomenon.

Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at

Cambridge University, hitched rides under the Arctic ice cap in Royal Navy submarines and used ships to take

measurements across the Greenland Sea.

“Until recently we would find giant ‘chimneys’ in the sea where columns

of cold, dense water were sinking from the surface to the seabed 3,000 metres below, but now they have almost

disappeared,” he said.

“As the water sank it was replaced by warm water flowing in from the south, which kept

the circulation going. If that mechanism is slowing, it will mean less heat reaching Europe.”

Such a change

could have a severe impact on Britain, which lies on the same latitude as Siberia and ought to be much colder. The

Gulf Stream transports 27,000 times more heat to British shores than all the nation’s power supplies could provide,

warming Britain by 5-8C.

Wadhams and his colleagues believe, however, that just such changes could be well

under way. They predict that the slowing of the Gulf Stream is likely to be accompanied by other effects, such as

the complete summer melting of the Arctic ice cap by as early as 2020 and almost certainly by 2080. This would spell

disaster for Arctic wildlife such as the polar bear, which could face extinction.

Wadhams’s submarine

journeys took him under the North Polar ice cap, using sonar to survey the ice from underneath. He has measured

how the ice has become 46% thinner over the past 20 years. The results from these surveys prompted him to focus

on a feature called the Odden ice shelf, which should grow out into the Greenland Sea every winter and recede in

summer.

The growth of this shelf should trigger the annual formation of the sinking water columns. As sea water

freezes to form the shelf, the ice crystals expel their salt into the surrounding water, making it heavier than the

water below.

However, the Odden ice shelf has stopped forming. It last appeared in full in 1997. “In the past we

could see nine to 12 giant columns forming under the shelf each year. In our latest cruise, we found only two and

they were so weak that the sinking water could not reach the seabed,” said Wadhams, who disclosed the findings at a

meeting of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna.

The exact effect of such changes is hard to predict

because currents and weather systems take years to respond and because there are two other areas around the north

Atlantic where water sinks, helping to maintain circulation. Less is known about how climate change is affecting

these.

However, Wadhams suggests the effect could be dramatic. “One of the frightening things in the film

The Day After Tomorrow showed how the circulation in the Atlantic Ocean is upset because the sinking of cold water

in the north Atlantic suddenly stops,” he said.

“The sinking is stopping, albeit much more slowly than in

the film — over years rather than a few days. If it continues, the effect will be to cool the climate of northern

Europe.”

One possibility is that Europe will freeze; another is that the slowing of the Gulf Stream may

keep Europe cool as global warming heats the rest of the world — but with more extremes of weather.

"

Netghost56
01-03-2006, 09:23 AM
According to some people,

that's all a bunch of hooey.

Netghost56
01-03-2006, 09:43 AM
If you don't want a

gas burning car, don't buy one. Speak through your wallet in these matters.Oh sure. Easy for you to say.

You could probably afford several hybrids.

You want to leave every thing up to popular opinion. The problem with

that is people are lied to every day. People are given this false sense of euphoric optimism, that "Everythings OK",

"Nothing's going to happen", and then Katrina happens. California storms happen. Oklahoma fires happen. But no,

"Everything's Ok"...


And as for the forest or wooded lands in your areas, it's too bad they're being

cut back. Not being cut back, being STRIPPED. As in, nothing left but dirt.


But you don't own the

property, so don't have much say in the matter. You're right! You're absolutely right. I'm just being an

immature, whining, punk that doesn't know what is like to get a paycheck. Ok! Let's cut all the trees down. "Hey,

it's good money!" What about the birds and the wildlife? "Well, you see any, shoot'em!" Sure. What about the fish?

"Well, I got an idea. Kill off half the fish, and the price will go up. We'll be rich!"

You see where I'm

going with this? I completely respect the right to property. I'm thankful for the right to protect mine. But

what's the use if we're destroying everything?


I'm not advocating using physical force. I'm talking about

using intellect and pressure. Educate people about what's going on. People are going to do things for money,

because they need it. Ask them, "If you didn't need the money, would you still do it?" Most would probably be

unable to comprehend the idea of "not needing money". But still, (and here's where I'm an optimistic) I think that

if money wasn't an issue, people would conserve and be more concerned about the environment. That's why you see

celebrities donating large sums to groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. Why do you think Hollywood is so

liberal? If everyone was as comfortable as them, we wouldn't be having this argument.


As far as pressure, if

everybody stopped buying gas-powered cars, the auto industry would implode. They'd be forced to create a product

that people would buy. In a sense, the rising cost of oil could do all this without an environmentalist ever having

to raise a finger. But it'd be hard on everybody, and cause serious economic damage. Gradually weaning everybody

over to hybrids or fuel-cells would do much less damage.


And those industries were created by free

enterprise, not forced by government mandate.They didn't need to be forced. That's the whole point. They

were allowed to happen naturally because they were popular ideas. But with alternative energy, you've got opponents

like auto and oil that want to keep it from ever becoming popular.

InternationalPlayboy
01-03-2006, 01:19 PM
Oh

sure. Easy for you to say. You could probably afford several hybrids.

I wish.


You want

to leave every thing up to popular opinion.

Popular opinion is just that. The flavor of the day. I

want the respect of individual property. Popular opinion does not respect that in most

cases.





I'm not advocating using physical force. I'm talking about using intellect and

pressure.

That's more on track with my point.


That's why you see celebrities

donating large sums to groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. Why do you think Hollywood is so liberal? If

everyone was as comfortable as them, we wouldn't be having this argument.

In my opinion, they do it

because of the guilt they have in earning huge sums of money without producing anything of real

value.



In the 1920s, the auto industry boomed. In the 40s, the oil industry boomed. In the

80s-90s, the computer industry boomed. Now we need something new. Something everyone cash in on.




And those industries were created by free enterprise, not forced by

government mandate.


They didn't need to be forced. That's the whole point.

They were allowed to happen naturally because they were popular ideas. But with alternative energy, you've got

opponents like auto and oil that want to keep it from ever becoming

popular.


"Force the automotive industry to stop production of gas-powered

autos and develop alternatives." Even if it means a few companies go bankrupt. Now would be a good timefor a auto

company to start up, with an inventory of only alternatively powered autos.




"Force the oil companies to move on to other sources of energy." Even if it

means Mr. CEO has to sell all his private jets and the villa in Pago Pago. One could get alot done here. Yes,

alternative energy is costly right now(read "RIGHT NOW"). And it's only costly because there isn't alot of

attention or funding for it. Why? Because people need to be made aware of it.

A bit contradictory

there.


Unbelievable. I'm talking about the environment, and you're talking about

government.

I brought up the government, because when I hear someone wanting change "forced" upon

someone or something else, I think of more laws written to create that "force," backed up by the threat of guns,

jail, and the seizure of property.

Using education and economic pressure on the other hand is another

story.

Netghost56
01-03-2006, 02:52 PM
And those industries

were created by free enterprise, not forced by government mandate.
They didn't need to be forced.

That's the whole point. They were allowed to happen naturally because they were popular ideas. But with alternative

energy, you've got opponents like auto and oil that want to keep it from ever becoming

popular.
"Force the automotive industry to stop production of gas-powered autos and develop

alternatives." Even if it means a few companies go bankrupt. Now would be a good timefor a auto company to start up,

with an inventory of only alternatively powered autos.
"Force the oil companies to move on to other

sources of energy." Even if it means Mr. CEO has to sell all his private jets and the villa in Pago Pago. One could

get alot done here. Yes, alternative energy is costly right now(read "RIGHT NOW"). And it's only costly because

there isn't alot of attention or funding for it. Why? Because people need to be made aware of it.
A

bit contradictory there.

Not really. Just a lousy choice of words on my part.

I apologize for being so

aggressive with my point. I tend to get emotional about the subject.

InternationalPlayboy
01-03-2006, 05:59 PM
I apologize too, if

I seemed attacking. I revert back to my Neo-Tech/Ayn Rand days when I hear someone promoting the use of "force" to

push their viewpoints onto others.

I am skeptical about global warming and think it may be a natural

occurence. At the same time, we can cut down on oil consumption and pollution. I'd love to have a hybred car to

commute to work and cut back on my $25-$30 a week gas bill. Did you know that due to the long waiting list that they

sell for more used right now than they do new?

Between where I live and San Diego, they have erected huge

power windmills in the mountains on the Tecate Divide. Though it's a shame that the natural landscape is broken up

now, they are cool looking and I like the fact that there is an alternative energy source there. And they aren't

any worse looking than all of the mountainside homes that have popped up further west on Interstate 8 in the last

ten years. Or the huge Acorn Casino that has been built on the next mountain top over for that matter.



Nearer to home, there was geothermal experimentation a couple of decades ago but I don't think so much

anymore as it isn't cost effective yet. I was all for that and was interested in maybe working in that field if the

experiments had grown into a working facility.

And I do feel bad about the clear cutting in your area. Not

only does that change the landscape, but also causes other problems, such as erosion and flooding.

a.k.a.
01-03-2006, 08:54 PM
I find that a bit of history can

clear up a lot of fog:

The notion of global warming goes back to 1896 when the Swedish scientist Svente

Arrhenius calculated that doubling the Earth’s concentration of carbon dioxide would raise average global

temperatures by 5-6 C. But I don’t think it became a political issue until 1988 when NASA climatologist James Hansen

told Congress he believed that a long-term warming trend had begun, probably caused by the “greenhouse effect”. At

this point, environmentalists began to call for reduced emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, and many vested

interests fought back.
In 1988, under the auspices of the United Nations, scientists and government

officials inaugurated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a global scientific body that would

eventually pull together thousands of researchers to evaluate the issue of global warming. The IPCC was supposed to

establish the “gold standard” of climate science.
One year later, the petroleum and automotive industries and

the National Association of Manufacturers established their own “gold standard”: the Global Climate Coalition (GCC),

which sought to prove that global warming was a natural phenomenon, if not an outright hoax.
In the

IPCC’s first assessment report, published in 1990, the science remained open to reasonable doubt. But the IPCC’s

second report, completed in 1995, concluded that amid purely natural factors shaping the climate, humankind’s

distinctive fingerprint was evident. And with the release of the IPCC’s third assessment in 2001, a strong consensus

had emerged: Notwithstanding some role for natural variability, human-created greenhouse gas emissions could, if

left unchecked, ramp up global average temperatures by as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.
The

National Academy of Sciences endorsed the IPCC’s assessments and many old “skeptics” (most notably Shell, Texaco,

BP, Ford, GM, and Chrysler) pulled out of the GCC — which eventually went defunct in 2002.
At this point

ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute switched their focus from the scientific community to the business

community and began funding numerous think tanks and public policy groups (like the Cato Institute, the American

Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, the Advancement of Sound Science Center, and the Free Enterprise

Action Institute). These groups were able to target opinion leaders within the business community and reach a

broader audience through web sites such as JunkScience.com, CSRWatch.com and TechCentralStation.com. They were also

able to organize high profile public events with familiar names (such as Michael Crichton).

In other

words industry lost the battle of science vs science (GCC vs IPCC) and has now switched to the PR front, where it

holds a decisive advantage.
A good example of how this works is the recent “controversy” surrounding the Arctic

Climate Impact Assessment, released on November of 2004.
The ACIA was and international study — commissioned

by he Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum that includes the United States — that combined the work of nearly

300 scientists. The study warned that the Arctic is warming “at almost twice the rate as that of the rest of the

world,” and that early impacts of climate change, such as melting sea ice and glaciers, are already apparent and

“will drastically shrink marine habitat for polar bears, ice-inhabiting seals, and some seabirds, pushing some

species toward extinction.”
Senator John McCain took the report seriously and called for a Senate

hearing on the issue.
FoxNews.com columnist Steven Milloy (an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute)

published an opinion piece entitled “Polar Bear Scare on Thin Ice”. (Citing a single graph from a 146-page overview

of a 1,200+ page, fully referenced report, Milloy claimed that the document “pretty much debunks itself” because

high Arctic temperatures “around 1940” suggest that the current temperature spike could be chalked up to natural

variability.) Two days later the Washington Times published the same column (without referencing Milloy’s ties to

the oil industry or the ACIA author’s rebuttal to his “critique”).
Shortly thereafter TechCentralStation.com

published a letter to Senator McCain from 11 “climate experts,” who asserted that recent Arctic warming was not at

all unusual in comparison to “natural variability in centuries past.” Meanwhile, the George C. Marshall Institute

($310,000 in Exxon-Mobil donations) issued a press release asserting that the Arctic report was based on

“unvalidated climate models and scenarios…that bear little resemblance to reality and how the future is likely to

evolve.”
The day of McCain’s hearing, the Competitive Enterprise Institute put out a press release, citing

the above critiques as if they should be considered on a par with the massive, exhaustively reviewed Arctic report:

“The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, despite its recent release, has already generated analysis pointing out

numerous flaws and distortions.” The Fraser Institute ($60,000 from ExxonMobil) also released a statement, calling

the Arctic warming report “an excellent example of the favored scare technique of the anti-energy activists: pumping

largely unjustifiable assumptions about the future into simplified computer models to conjure up a laundry list of

scary projections.”

All this drama gives the impression of a scientific controversy when really there is

none.
Naomi Oriskis, a science historian at the University of California at San Diego, reviewed nearly a

thousand peer-reviewed papers on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003, and was unable to find one

that explicitly disagreed with the consensus view that humans are contributing to the phenomenon. That doesn’t mean

no such studies exist. But given the size of her sample, it’s safe to assume that the number is “vanishingly

small.”

The real controversy is political. As of last February, 140 governments have signed on to the Kyoto

Protocols for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The US — which is by far the largest source of these emissions,

accounting for something like 25% of the total — has refused to take action.
Americans aren’t stupid.

Computer models may be incredibly complex and maybe you can’t get two scientists to agree on which variables should

be included. But the basic structure of the “greenhouse effect” can be demonstrated in a 6th grade science lab.

(Take 3 aquariums, 3 heat lamps, 3 thermometers, and three stopwatches. Add a bowl of backing soda and vinegar to

one aquarium, a bowl of soda lime to another, and plain old vinegar to the third. Turn on the heat lamps and measure

the rise in temperature over 30 second intervals.)
The only reason all this oil industry PR is taken seriously

is that it’s telling us something we want to hear.
The bottom line is that people don’t want to give up their

way of life (or their national supremacy) for no scientific theory.

Netghost56
01-03-2006, 10:17 PM
The only reason

all this oil industry PR is taken seriously is that it’s telling us something we want to hear.
That's

exactly what I was saying.

All in all, a good piece. I've mentioned before that if human interaction has

altered any natural phenomenon, then I believe we have a responsibility to correct the alteration.

belgareth
01-04-2006, 07:47 AM
Nice write-up, AKA. Not

entirely accurate but well done. It really doesn't clear up much, if any fog.

Mostly, the errors are ommissions

that you may not be aware of even though I've touched on and posted articles regarding some of them them. First, it

is not a cut and dried dispute between two factions like your post makes it sound. You fail to mention the thousands

of unaffiliated scientists who dispute those conclussions, many of who have had their research suppressed, grants

revoked and even been dismissed from their jobs for their opinions and attempts to bring those opinions to the

public eye. Admittedly, there are also thousands of unaffiliated scientists who believe in global warming too.

However, except in a few rare cases (mostly associated with the Bush admin), their research has not been suppressed.

I wonder why a group so sure of their data and conclusions finds it appropriate to suppress dissension. That is not

at all what I'd call good science.

The global warming theorists cannot account for a number of things and

completely ignore others. For instance, why is the artic warming faster than everywhere else? That implies some

other mechanism is at work. What is that mechanism and how does it fit into the global warming theory? Unaccounted

for items include increased thermal energy due to the fluctations of the earth's magnetic field, changes in the

over all reflectivity of the planet and changes in solar output. All of those and many other issues are not taken

into account. Nor do they take into account the fact that the earth is substantially cooler than it has been. 3/4 of

a million years ago the average temperature was about 20 degrees F higher. How does the natural cycle of warming and

cooling fit into the equation? In every study I've seen it has been ignored or dismessed as irrelevent which it is

not. I'd like to know why global warming theorists have repeatedly deleted relevent temperature changes from the

charts? How does the recent increase in volcanic activity for into the picture with the huge amounts of carbon

dioxide ejected into the environment?

Kyoto specifically addresses so-called greenhouse gases. It does not

address particulate emmissions whatsoever. However, solid, well documented research and well known thermodynamic

principles indicate that it is relevent, even of critical importance to one of the global warming crowd's favorite

topics, the artic. For more than 5,000 years eastern asia has been emitting ever increasing amounts of soot. This

soot drifts north on the constant winds in that area and are deposited on the glaciers and snowpacks all the way to

the north pole. The same has been true of Europe and the US for a shorter time but in greater concentrations. This

dark soot increases absorbed solar energy and causes rapid melting of ice and snow. In many cases it doesn't wash

away with the melt and remains in place for hundreds of years. Good scientific work seems to indicate that it is a

major contributor to artic melt and warming of the artic. While Kyoto does not address this very important issue,

the US and several Asian nations have signed agreements to help reduce this problem

http://en.wikipedia.or

g/wiki/Asia_Pacific_Partnership_on_Clean_Development_and_ Climate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Pacific_Partnership_on_Clean_Development_and_ Climate). As a side comment, I note that Australia who

is very environmantally concious is a signature of this agreement but has also refused to join Kyoto.

That

aquarium experiment was an amusing one. First, look at the concentration of carbon dioxide in your aqauriums, I'm

assuming they are sealed to avoid outside influences. The one with baking soda and vinager would have concentrations

of CO2 as high as 5% and possibly higher compared to the global concentration of 0.038%. I imagine if you increased

the concentration of CO2 in the human body by the same 100+ times you would have certain health issues. Scientists

have scoffed at the methodology of massive overdoses for a long time. Leaving that, let's set up another aquarium

along with the other three. This one will have normal earth atmosphere in it. On the bottom of the tank sprinkle a

very thin layer of black dust. How rapidly will it heat up?

I have never said we are not screwing up our

environment, nor have I said that we don't need to do something about it. My whole purpose to starting this thread

is to open discussion of real science that includes suppressed and ignored information. I keep seeing the same old

song and dance about global warming is doing this and that, or that global warming scientists say this and that. I

have asked a lot of pertinant questions about related issues and brought up numerous points for discussion. Not one

of those points have been addressed other than by telling me that global warming is doing this, that and the other

thing. That is not science nor is it discussion, it sounds like mostly evasion.

a.k.a.
01-04-2006, 08:22 PM
Hi Belgareth,
You did

start this thread so I’ll try to respect your right to determine which questions are pertinent and which aren’t.


One of your issues, in starting this thread, was the lack of studies that went further back than 100 years. To me,

this issue is tangential to questions of how we may be altering our climate today, but here is a link to a

discussion of changes over the past 650,000 years, and I will try to better address more of your issues in further

posts:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221

Interesting that you find my

aquarium demonstration amusing. I find your notion of independent scientists amusing. We are obviously coming at

this issue from radically different perspectives. And that’s what I’ll try to address in this post.



First of all... If you put a lid on the aquariums you are creating a real greenhouse rather than investigating an

atmospheric effect. (Just be sure that negative air is turned off, if your lab is that sophisticated.) Also if you

line one aquarium with black soot you aren’t really proving/disproving anything about the role of CO2. (As I see it,

that’s the central question.)
Regarding the “overdose” of CO2... The point is to demonstrate CO2’s

capacity to retain heat, not to provide an accurate model of the Earth’s atmosphere. Once that is established, two

lines of investigation are opened up: Science and Public Policy. With regards to Science, the central question seems

to be, “How do carbon dioxide emissions effect the Earth’s climate.” With regards to Public Policy the central

question is, “Do carbon dioxide emissions pose a potential risk?”
(I am obviously coming at the issue of

global warming from the perspective of public policy.)
Research from either line of investigation may

frequently overlap, but two distinctly different standards should be in effect. Science operates under the principle

that we must disprove the “null hypothesis” (that is we must DISPROVE that extraneous factors are responsible for

measurable differences in weather phenomena). Public Policy supposedly operates under the “precautionary principle”

(that is we must PROVE that CO2 emissions pose no significant risks.)
The FDA routinely requires testing

of massive overdoses of food additives, dyes and preservatives before clearing them for public consumption.
Of

course the policy debates surrounding the “greenhouse effect” have followed a course exactly opposite to the

“precautionary principle”. The global economy was already deeply dependent on fossil fuels before apparent dangers

entered the public discourse. The IPCC was put in the position of having to disprove extraneous factors before

governments were willing to commit to any type of action.
I think this was a shamefully irresponsible

approach, but that’s “water under the bridge” if you accept the IPCC’s 3rd assessment; because we now have evidence

of potential dangers above and beyond the “precautionary principle”.
This thread has many posts regarding

the famous/infamous “hockey stick”. A veritable cottage industry has sprung up around this “critique” (I’ve even

seen it in the WSJ, of all places) Even if this critique is valid, I don’t see how it has any bearing on the IPCC’s

assessment that humans are CURRENTLY causing rising temperatures. But since this is such a bone of contention for

the “anti-global warming crowd”, here’s a link to a Pro “Hockey Stick” article with a few references to

peer-reviewed journal articles:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11#falseclaims

And

I'd like to draw your attention to this particular paragraph which seems to contradict a lot of what you've been

saying about the "global warming crowd":

MYTH #3: The "Hockey Stick" studies claim that the 20th century on

the whole is the warmest period of the past 1000 years.

This is a mis-characterization of the actual

scientific conclusions. Numerous studies suggest that hemispheric mean warmth for the late 20th century (that is,

the past few decades) appears to exceed the warmth of any comparable length period over the past thousand years or

longer, taking into account the uncertainties in the estimates (see Figure 1 in "Temperature Variations in Past

Centuries and The So-Called 'Hockey Stick'"). On the other hand, in the context of the long-term reconstructions,

the early 20th century appears to have been a relatively cold period while the mid 20th century was comparable in

warmth, by most estimates, to peak Medieval warmth (i.e., the so-called "Medieval Warm Period"). It is not the

average 20th century warmth, but the magnitude of warming during the 20th century, and the level of warmth observed

during the past few decades, which appear to be anomalous in a long-term context. Studies such as those of Soon and

associates (Soon and Baliunas, 2003; Soon et al, 2003) that consider only ‘20th century’ conditions, or interpret

past temperature changes using evidence incapable of resolving trends in recent decades , cannot meaningfully

address the question of whether late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term and large-scale

context.

As far as I know, the “hockey stick” critique first appeared in 2003 in an article published

in the journal “Climate Research” by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for

Astrophysics. Soon serves as “science director” to TechCentralStation.com, is an adjunct scholar with Frontiers of

Freedom, and wrote (with Baliunas) the Fraser Institute’s pamphlet “Global Warming: A Guide to the Science.”

Baliunas, meanwhile, is “enviro-sci host” of TechCentral, and is on science advisory boards of the Committee for a

Constructive Tomorrow and the Annapolis Center for Science-based Public Policy ($427,500 from ExxonMobil), and has

given speeches on climate science before the AEI and the Heritage Foundation ($340,000 from ExxonMobil).
I

didn’t mention the “thousands” of independent climate scientists that have had their research suppressed, because

I’m not convinced that such a creature exists. But I will admit that I’m not qualified to judge whether a

climatologist failed to make it past the peer-review process because of politics or shoddy methodology. (Are

you?)
I do know a few things about how the world works however. History is full of examples where

groundbreaking science was suppressed or ignored because it didn’t fit the dominant paradigm. But I can’t think of

single example where somebody’s work was suppressed because it FAVORED powerful vested interests. That scenario is

just too far fetched to have passed through my mind.
I mentioned the Oreskes study because she seems to

have made a concerted effort to find reputable studies opposed to the IPCC consensus. This obviously reflects a bias

towards peer-reviewed literature, but how else is a non-scientist supposed to separate science from opinion?



I have a friend who’s been studying the loss of permafrost in Alaska and parts of Canada. He’s got some

really creepy home movies of forests where the ground has sunk in and all the trees have drowned at the roots. You

get him in front of a podium and it’s impossible to pin him down on any particular position. Get him drunk and he’ll

tell you it’s the end of the world as we know it.
But that’s just one man’s opinion. That’s not science.


Speaking of which... He is currently involved in an international project attempting to factor permafrost loss into

computer climate models. (Since permafrost is supposed to be a “carbon sink” which releases CO2 as it melts.)


This could be a possible explanation for increased warming in the arctic, as could the dominant paradigm of

decreased land mass. I don’t know and I don’t see how that is relevant to the IPCC’s assessment that human

intervention is increasing AVERAGE GLOBAL temperatures.

I think I mostly agree with your comments on Kyoto

(although I don’t see how they are relevant to my points) but I have to cut this short.
So I’ll try again

later, hopefully with a bit more science and a bit less politics.

belgareth
01-05-2006, 02:11 PM
Although I’ve actually addressed most of your comments, I’ll do it again. The most obvious reason is

that my questions are about alleged global warming. I make no argument that we are screwing up the environment. I am

contesting the validity of the global warming argument. To look at a snapshot of our environment over the last 100

or even 1000 years and use it to claim that we are causing global warming is fallacious. Remember that apparent

correlations do not necessarily mean connections, as any scientist will tell you. For any rigidly scientific

handling of the matter you have to start with a baseline. The cyclic nature of the earth’s climate demands we look

at a large enough picture to determine patterns. The longer the period the better chance we have of getting a handle

on the full range of potential variables. With that in mind, the last known significant event that we are fairly

certain of that was not part of the natural cycle was about 65 million years ago when an asteroid supposedly

collided with the earth. after a few million years for the dust to settle and you have a pretty significant window

of data on which to base future projections. Now you have a decent statistical universe in which to base

projections. Anything beyond the standard deviation could be considered anomalous. So far, that hasn’t

happened.

That’s a good article you posted the link too. As you can

see, atmospheric CO2 concentrations in a small area have fluctuated widely. Do you know why? I don't. Maybe the

penguins had factories belching smoke.:POKE: Unlikley but who knows. Nor do I know of it was a global phenomena. I’d

like to see more data associated with volcanic and other seismic activity as well as other ‘greenhouse gas’

generating phenomena such as the percentage of the globe involved in forests and swampland, especially swampland as

that generates a ton of gasses. I’d also like to see the relationship to net temperatures and Arctic/Antarctic ice

packs.

If you don’t put a lid on the aquariums you are introducing

extraneous factors regardless of controlling air vents in the room. You will still have eddy currents every time you

move and worse when somebody opens a door in addition to the natural convection currents that would by necessity be

greater in the aquarium with only room air thus invalidating any possible results you might have. If you are simply

trying to demonstrate heat retention or inversion layers in an air mass you can also do that with water vapor. Since

water vapor holds more energy than CO2 I’d be willing to bet that the net thermal energy retained would be greater

in an aquarium of water vapor as well as the associated temperature gradient. You’d need to be a bit more

sophisticated to measure it and account for the differential in mass but it could be done. Of course, if I am proven

right we can safely conclude that global warming is really caused by exessive relative humidity which we then must

find a way to control, right? :hammer:

I suggested the black dust

as an additional data source because it seems reasonable to believe soot is contributing to the glacial and arctic

melt. Even with a very thin layer it would still create a greater heat gain and would hold more of that heat than

CO2 because of its greater mass. However, we must keep in mind that unlike CO2, soot is both suspended in the air

and deposited on the ground. Its heat absorbing and retaining capabilities are significantly greater than any gas

could possibly be. We are, after all, really discussing increase energy retention not net temperature since its

energy that causes phase change, not temperature.

Massive overdose

or beyond reasonable design parameters is called break or destructive testing and despite what the FDA demands it

proves little. You can prove anything is a bad thing that way. A glass of water is a good thing; a hundred galloons

dumped on you can be irritating and not real good if you try to breathe it. You can list thousands of examples of

why massive excess is a bad thing where a small amount is anywhere from non-impacting to beneficial.



As far as needing to prove a null hypotheses, that’s not at all

what I am saying and I do not regard this as a political issue. If anything, politics is making matters worse, which

it usually manages to do. I am saying that we need facts. No more and no less. As mentioned at least once in this

thread, we have taken action time and again based on insufficient evidence, inaccurate data, public opinion or

political need and later found that we screwed up once again. This is too important an issue to be floundering

around. Let’s do it right, collect the evidence and gather well meaning people with the proper educations to

evaluate the evidence and suggest actions without agendas. I don’t think that is so complicated but its probably

asking a lot of our hyped up and emotionally motivated public.

I

don’t ask or expect you to believe what I said about suppressed research. I encourage you to do the legwork yourself

and find out for yourself instead of just catagorically denying it, which appears to be kind of closed minded.

That’s the best way to learn anything. However, I do ask you to respond in the hypothetical sense. If what I said is

true, why do you suppose it would be done? You can respond that hypothetical questions are a waste of time but I

already know that it is happening so don’t regard it as hypothetical and am only trying to get a committal response

from you.

I covered the issue of the hockey stick several times.

Data was left out of it, large amounts of significant data. The hockey stick is invalid for that reason alone. It is

also irrelevant based on the overly short time frame. Nothing of significance can be shown by it even when all the

correct data is in place. I would like to know the justification for deleting significant temperature

variations.

The same applies to the CO2 bubbles in the ice pack.

While interesting, it proves little. Were those bubbles formed right after permafrost melt off? How about a similar

bore hole a mile away? Same data? How about at higher or lower elevations? How about 100 or 5000 miles away? One

location does not make good data. If you are going to create a model, create a valid one.



All in all, global warming has not been proven or even demonstrated as highly

probable. Human impact on global warming is a theory based on a theory. Other factors are not being considered. Both

sides are following an agenda and are as much interested in proving they are right as anything else. None of that is

acceptable. I’ll accept the term climate change then ask that we get to work figuring out if it is normal, cyclic

change or if there is something going on here and, if so, what are the causes. None of that has been done yet. We

are still at ground zero gathering data.

belgareth
01-06-2006, 04:55 PM
US to push nuke, hydrogen power at meeting




NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Energy Secretary Sam

Bodman will meet with officials from five Asia-Pacific countries in Australia next week in a U.S.-led pact promoting

technology such as nuclear energy and hydrogen that could cut greenhouse gases, an aide to the official said on

Friday.

China, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia are the other members of the group, called the

Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. The group meets January 11-13.

The pact falls outside

of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming that went into effect earlier this year.

Countries in the Asia-Pacific

partnership account for more of the world's emissions and population that those in the Kyoto pact.

The United

States and Australia pulled out of Kyoto saying it would hurt their economies and it unfairly left rapidly growing

developing nations without emissions limits. Kyoto seeks to lower emissions of heat-trapping gases through mandatory

limits and timetables.

Bodman will speak with the other ministers about energy efficiency, carbon sequestration,

hydrogen and next generation nuclear power, said Anne Kolton, an aide to the secretary.

The U.S. Department of

Energy has engaged Japan and South Korea, among other nations, to develop future nuclear power plants known as

Generation IV nuclear.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been scheduled to attend the meeting, but she

canceled the trip because of concerns over the condition of critically ill Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said

officials informed of the decision on Friday.

belgareth
01-08-2006, 05:40 AM
Record snow in Japan, cold in Delhi as Asia shivers

By

Isabel Reynolds



TOKYO (Reuters) - Troops and volunteers shoveled snow from roofs and roads in Japan and India's capital New

Delhi recorded its lowest temperature in 70 years as a cold wave swept across parts of Asia on Sunday.



In China, cattle have died of the cold in the far western province

of Xinjiang and a 42-km (25-mile) section of the Yellow River has frozen over in eastern Shandong, officials and

news reports said.

At least 20 people have died from exposure,

disease and malnutrition in northern Bangladesh over the past three days because of a cold snap there, local

newspapers said.

In Japan, troops and workers tried to clear snow

that had piled up to more than three metres (10 feet) high in some of the worst-hit areas of Niigata prefecture and

to re-open blocked roads in Nagano prefecture. Both areas are northwest of

Tokyo.

At least 63 people have died and over 1,000 have been injured

since the unusually heavy snowfall began last month, Kyodo news agency said, citing a survey of local

governments.

Many of the dead were elderly people who fell from their

roofs while trying to clear snow, while others were crushed when their houses collapsed under the weight of the

drifts.

"It's frightening," one woman in Akita City in the north of

Japan's main island of Honshu told private broadcaster TV Asahi as local government workers began to shovel snow

from her roof.

"There were creaking sounds and I couldn't open the

doors because of the weight of the snow."

China is in the midst of

its coldest winter in 20 years, the China Daily as said.

Even in the

usually mild province of Guangdong in the south, temperatures dipped as low as 5 degrees celsius (41 degrees

Fahrenheit) on Friday while some local highways have frozen over with 1-3 cm of ice, China Central Television

said.

In Xinjiang, where heavy snowfall and temperatures as low as

-43 degrees Celsius forced the evacuation of almost 100,000 people earlier in the week, conditions remained

testing.

In the province's northern Altay region, temperatures were

hovering around -26 degrees Celsius after falling to -37 degrees Celsius and killing cattle over the past few days,

an official from the local meteorological bureau said by telephone.

FROST IN DELHI

In India, residents of the capital awoke on

Sunday to the coldest morning in 70 years with the temperature falling to around freezing point, forcing officials

to shut primary schools for 3 days.

Local TV footage showed a thin

layer of ice on the grass in parks and on the roofs of cars as people came out for early morning

walks.

"I was so excited. This is the first time I have seen it

(frost)," a teenage girl wearing a thick sweater told a local channel.

But thousands of homeless and those without heating were hard hit.

"My family kept shivering all night as we don't have a heater. How could one sleep in this cold?" said

Premchand Upadhyay, a middle-aged security guard in New Delhi who stays in one room with his wife and a

five-year-old daughter.

More than 100 people have died in northern

India since December due to the cold.

The coldest recorded

temperature in the city is -0.6 degrees celsius (30.92F) in 1935.

Further north, Indian Kashmir continued to shiver on Sunday as overnight temperatures dipped to -6 degrees

celsius.

"It is terribly cold, I feel like we are living in a

refrigerator," said 34-year-old housewife Rubina Malik.

For the

first time in 10 years, parts of the famous Dal lake in the regional capital Srinagar were frozen. Local media said

authorities banned children ice skating on the lake after one child fell into the water and drowned when the thin

ice cracked.

a.k.a.
01-08-2006, 10:33 AM
To look at a snapshot of our environment over the last 100 or even 1000 years and use it to claim that

we are causing global warming is fallacious.

Yes, but what makes you think this

is what the “global warming crowd” is doing?
Here is a very clear and concise summation of the

methodological premises in the IPCC’s own words:

Detection is the process of demonstrating that an observed

change is significantly different (in a statistical sense) than can be explained by natural variability. Attribution

is the process of establishing cause and effect with some defined level of confidence, including the assessment of

competing hypotheses. The response to anthropogenic changes in climate forcing occurs against a backdrop of natural

internal and externally forced climate variability. Internal climate variability, i.e., climate variability not

forced by external agents, occurs on all time-scales from weeks to centuries and even millennia. Slow climate

components, such as the ocean, have particularly important roles on decadal and century time-scales because they

integrate weather variability. Thus, the climate is capable of producing long time-scale variations of considerable

magnitude without external influences. Externally forced climate variations (signals) may be due to changes in

natural forcing factors, such as solar radiation or volcanic aerosols, or to changes in anthropogenic forcing

factors, such as increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases or aerosols. The presence of this natural climate

variability means that the detection and attribution of anthropogenic climate change is a statistical “signal to

noise” problem. Detection studies demonstrate whether or not an observed change is highly unusual in a statistical

sense, but this does not necessarily imply that we understand its causes. The attribution of climate change to

anthropogenic causes involves statistical analysis and the careful assessment of multiple lines of evidence to

demonstrate, within a pre-specified margin of error, that the observed changes are:

* unlikely to be due

entirely to internal variability;
* consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of

anthropogenic and natural forcing; and
* not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations

of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings.



http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/025.htm#e1



For any rigidly scientific handling of the matter you have to start with a baseline. The cyclic nature

of the earth’s climate demands we look at a large enough picture to determine patterns. The longer the period the

better chance we have of getting a handle on the full range of potential variables.



Not exactly.
Establishing a baseline, ruling out cyclical variations and getting a handle on all the

variables are three different problems.
If the goal is to measure the impact of anthropogenic CO2 as a

climate forcing mechanism, you establish a baseline by comparing a time period when atmospheric concentrations are

known to be relatively stable to a time period where they are known to be on the rise.
Everybody agrees

that cyclical variations should be ruled out of current temperature gains. And we can argue on the relative weight

given to something like solar activity. But there’s no reason to assume that going back 2 million years is going to

give us a better measure of cyclical variations taking place today.
The most dramatic cyclical variation most

scientists agree on is the ice ages. And this reflects centuries of steady change, not decades of acceleration. The

Milankovitch Cycle (attributed to eccentricity in the Earth’s cycle around the sun) is still controversial, but it

proposes an even more dramatic variation: 22.1 - 24.5 degrees over a 41,000 year cycle. Still peanuts compared to

the effect of CO2.
The longer the cycle, the less statistically significant it is likely to be.
As

far as getting a handle on the full range of potential variables... Let’s say that we went back 2 million years and

discovered a temperature spike comparable to the one currently attributed to greenhouse gases. What would that tell

us about what’s going on today? Nothing unless we could deduce the cause. And how could we deduce the cause? Using

the known physics of our day.
The bottom line is we have to work within the constraints of our era to

resolve the problems of our era.


With that in mind, the last

known significant event that we are fairly certain of that was not part of the natural cycle was about 65 million

years ago when an asteroid supposedly collided with the earth. after a few million years for the dust to settle and

you have a pretty significant window of data on which to base future projections. Now you have a decent statistical

universe in which to base projections. Anything beyond the standard deviation could be considered anomalous. So far,

that hasn’t happened..

That’s absurd.
Why should current temperature gains

be on a par with some catastrophic event that occurred 65 million years ago before they are considered significant

for us today?


If you are simply trying to demonstrate heat

retention or inversion layers in an air mass you can also do that with water vapor. Since water vapor holds more

energy than CO2 I’d be willing to bet that the net thermal energy retained would be greater in an aquarium of water

vapor as well as the associated temperature gradient.

Yes, but water vapor has a

much shorter atmospheric life-span than CO2. And it can only accumulate to a point. (It never rains or snows CO2.)

As the world’s most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor is weighed as the most significant feedback mechanism in

climate models. So, if we want to include a tank with water vapor, we might want to seal the tanks and take further

measurements after one week, two weeks, and a month.


Of

course, if I am proven right we can safely conclude that global warming is really caused by exessive relative

humidity which we then must find a way to control, right? :hammer:

Not unless

we can also prove that relative humidity is on the rise, that this rise is independent of known cycles or forcing

mechanism and that temperatures consistent with the radiative forcing of water vapors correlate with observed

temperatures.
I never said the aquarium demonstration proved anything. I said it demonstrated the basic

mechanism of global warming in a way that most 6th graders could grasp.


I suggested the black dust as an additional data source because it seems reasonable to believe soot is

contributing to the glacial and arctic melt. Even with a very thin layer it would still create a greater heat gain

and would hold more of that heat than CO2 because of its greater mass. However, we must keep in mind that unlike

CO2, soot is both suspended in the air and deposited on the ground. Its heat absorbing and retaining capabilities

are significantly greater than any gas could possibly be. We are, after all, really discussing increase energy

retention not net temperature since its energy that causes phase change, not

temperature.

There’s a difference between heat retention and heat radiation. I

don't know how many molecules, if any, exhibit a 1:1 correlation. I can’t say if soot is more significant than CO2

when it comes to glacial melting because I haven’t looked into that issue. (On the surface, it might be a reasonable

assumption with regards to Tibet and even the Alps, but I’m not so sure about tropical deglaciation.)
With

regards to soot’s role in raising global surface temperatures...
The IPCC estimates the global climate

forcing by black carbon aerosols as 0.2 W/m2. I’ve seen estimates as high as 0.8 W/m2. (Which would make soot more

significant than methane at 0.5W/m2.) CO2 is calculated at 1.5 W/m2 and its radiative effect has been shown to

increase logarithmically with increased concentrations. Which means that we can expect an acceleration (rather than

a steady rise) in temperature gains as CO2 concentrations increase.
From a policy perspective, this is all

academic because fossil fuels are the main culprit behind increases in soot, CO2 and methane.





As mentioned at least once in this thread, we have taken action

time and again based on insufficient evidence, inaccurate data, public opinion or political need and later found

that we screwed up once again.

Yes, this was discussed quite energetically. But

false analogies were drawn and no rational points were made. Sometimes we try to improve things and make a bigger

mess. Sometimes we try and things really do get better. So what?
Unlike catalytic converters, cutting back on

fossil fuels does not necessarily imply the introduction of new, untested technologies.
It does imply

cutting back on our consumer lifestyle and global supremacy. And I’ve addressed this as the “bottom line” when it

comes to people’s rejection of the global warming consensus.

It seems I’ve also come across a discussion

about not falling prey to alarmist proclamations.
It’s one thing to be skeptical across the board and another

thing when you scoff at one side’s disaster movie scenarios and willfully embrace the other’s.
This is not

a discussion about nuclear vs. wind power, or hydrogen cell engines vs. light rail. It’s about wether we should

accept anthropogenic global warming as a risk in the first place.



I don’t ask or expect you to believe what I said about suppressed research. I encourage you to do the

legwork yourself and find out for yourself instead of just catagorically denying it, which appears to be kind of

closed minded.

Well I started my legwork by following up on Roger Pielke Sr., whose

resignation from the Climate Change Science Program was brought up in one of your posts. I read a pdf of his press

release regarding his resignation (not quite like the AP piece reported it but close enough), skimmed through his

blog and read his testimony to Congress SUPPORTING the notion that humans are causing global

warming.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/07252002Hearing676/Pielke,Sr.1144.htm



n It seems his position is well within the global warming consensus that: a) the Earth is getting hotter, b)

CO2 emissions are the principal cause, and c) this process is likely to accelerate. And he strongly believes that

something ought to be done about it. (He is extremely political, and that is as likely a reason his work was edited

behind his back as any.) His beef with the IPCC “orthodoxy” (as he calls it) is that their focus on CO2 emissions

tends to minimize the role of other anthropogenic causes for global warming. And he believes that the rate of

warming is going to be much higher than the IPCC consensus.
He HAS taken a somewhat independent position on the

“hockey stick” debate.
His view is that focus on this issue has given the public a false impression of it’s

significance to the science of global warming and has distracted attention away from the IPCC’s 2001 policy

recommendations. And, in his blog, he has challenged proponents of either side (pro or con) to demonstrate that the

validity of the hockey stick even matters with regards to public

policy.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.html#000618





However, I do ask you to respond in the hypothetical sense.

If what I said is true, why do you suppose it would be done? You can respond that hypothetical questions are a waste

of time but I already know that it is happening so don’t regard it as hypothetical and am only trying to get a

committal response from you.

I don’t know what this has to do with a committal

response, and maybe I should resent the implication that I am being shifty, but this sounds like fun. So...


According to the Oriskis study (mentioned in my first post), 70% of all peer-reviewed climate studies pertain to

global warming. So this appears to be a very competitive field.
Let’s make a safe assumption that 70% of the

editorial staff of all peer reviewed climate journals has built their reputation on research that backs up the

global warming consensus. Then, let’s say, along comes some young upstart with research that effectively disputes

the global warming paradigm. Let’s say one of the editors starts worrying about their own future and decides not to

publish the upstart’s research (even though it meets all the objective criteria of the journal). Let’s assume just 1

out of every 5 editors with a global warming background has such a corrupt outlook.
This would mean that every

time a young upstart tries to publish in a journal with an editorial staff of 7 or more, there’s a good chance

someone will want to reject his or her research before even looking at the science. If they submit to two small

journals with an editorial staff of 4 or more, there’s a good chance one of the journals will want to reject the

work.
Conversely... Let’s say a young upstart wants to publish a rebuttal to some skeptic’s critique of

the global warming consensus. Every time he or she submits to a journal with an editorial staff of 7 or more at

least one reviewer will want to publish the study if the science is merely adequate.
Pretty soon all the

young upstarts are going to figure out the game and start toeing the global warming line. Who in their right mind is

going to try building a carreer on research that is less likely to be published and more likely to be

rebuked?


I covered the issue of the hockey stick several

times. Data was left out of it, large amounts of significant data.

Not really.

But the “hockey stick” has been reproduced in numerous studies using a variety of data and methodologies. Tell me

which data you would like to see and I’ll try to find you a study that includes it.
Just try to be fair in your

request. I’m sure you know that the further you go back the more you have to rely on proxy data. And you may also

know that there is a relative lack of proxy data for the southern hemisphere.


The hockey stick is invalid for that reason alone. It is also irrelevant based on the overly short

time frame. Nothing of significance can be shown by it even when all the correct data is in

place.

Sorry. Not sure I follow that.
It seems like your saying that the

“hockey stick” is inaccurate because it lacks data. But even if we had more data it would be meaningless unless we

stretched it back x number of years.
Surely you know that the further back you go the less data you’re

going to find.
So could I sum up your argument as, “We don’t know, and there’s no way we ever will

know.”?


I would like to know the justification for deleting

significant temperature variations.

I’ll go back over the thread and see what

“significant variations” you’re talking about. Must have missed that part.
If you’re talking about the

so-called “Medieval Warm Period”... Yes, there have been some studies which claim that current temperatures are

comparable to periods between the 10th and 14th centuries. (Do I need to mention who they were sponsored by?) But

the scientific consensus seems to be that these projections are based on a number of false premises: a) confusing

past evidence of drought/precipitation with temperature evidence, b) failure to distinguish regional from

global-scale temperature variations, and c) using the entire 20th century to describe "modern" conditions thereby

failing to differentiate between relatively cool early 20th century conditions and the anomalously warm late 20th

century conditions. (In other words... they cherry picked the data.)


All in all, global warming has not been proven or even demonstrated as highly

probable.

Did you phrase this correctly? Because if we can’t trust NASA or the WMO to

provide reliable temperature readings then, yes, the whole paradigm is worthless. I don’t subscribe to this view,

and consider it less plausible than the notion that our government is hiding alien space ships in Area 54.
If

you mean the (“greenhouse effect”) THEORY of global warming hasn’t been proven...
Proof, simply put, consists

in demonstrating that we are experiencing a significant rise in global temperatures that can only be attributed to

anthropogenic causes: most notably CO2 emissions.

The most understandable part of your argument is

that all factors have not been accounted for. But this is simply untrue. Every factor mentioned in this thread has

been accounted for by at least a dozen scientists within the global warming consensus.
Either you are

misinformed or overdramatising (because maybe these factors haven’t been given the weight you think they

deserve).
If you are misinformed, do your homework.
If you are overdramatising we can pursue this line

of argument further.

The part that I don’t understand (and I’m not saying it’s your fault) seems to be

that current temperatures aren’t significant because global warming scientists don’t have enough data and haven’t

gone far enough back in their projections to demonstrate the significance of current temperature gains.
If

we are experiencing gains that can only be attributed to our reliance on fossil fuels, that’s already significant in

my book. And this is what your friend Roger Pielke Sr. is saying as well. He calls on proponents of the “hockey

stick” to forget their egos, quit wasting the public’s time with this debate, and admit that their research is

simply not that important within the bigger picture.
You mentioned that we need to establish a baseline

and rule out cyclical patterns. I’ve expressed my understanding of these issues so maybe you can point out where I

got it wrong or missed the boat entirely.


Human impact on

global warming is a theory based on a theory.

More precisely, it’s a theory based

on long established principles of physics and widely accepted data collection methodologies. If you junk global

warming theory in any principled way, you’re going to have to junk a whole lot of other established science in the

process.



Other factors are not being

considered.

Yes they are. But maybe they are not being given the weight you

think they should.



Both sides are following an agenda and

are as much interested in proving they are right as anything else.

I, for one,

would very much like to see the whole thing turn out to have been a big hoax. (I’ve even had quite pleasant dreams

to this effect.) The more you research this issue, the gloomier your outlook becomes. Whatever ego gratification is

derived from being right, tends to be clouded by a nagging feeling that we’re all doomed.
But, then again, I

have no vested interests in this issue — other than wanting the good life for myself and future generations. So you

may be right.
Even so... This only becomes significant when one side cherry picks the data, fudges the

methodology or, as in the case of oil industry “experts”, misrepresents the other side’s research.
That’s why I

say the scientific debate is over. There is plenty of reliable evidence that the Earth is getting hotter, scientific

proof that fossil fuels are the principal cause and well grounded theory that it is likely to accelerate. The

current ruckus over global warming is most accurately described as a public policy battle of science vs. PR. (And I

may not know much science, but I do know how the PR game is played.)


None of that is acceptable. I’ll accept the term climate change then ask that we get to work figuring

out if it is normal, cyclic change or if there is something going on here and, if so, what are the causes. None of

that has been done yet. We are still at ground zero gathering data.

I humored

you, now let’s see if you can humor me.
Let’s say (hypothetically, of course) that you are wrong and all the

significant data— with respect to public policy — is in. What do you hypothesize the collection of even more data

will accomplish?

belgareth
01-08-2006, 10:42 PM
Yes, but what

makes you think this is what the “global warming crowd” is doing?
Here is a very clear and concise summation of the

methodological premises in the IPCC’s own words:

Detection is the process of demonstrating that an observed

change is significantly different (in a statistical sense) than can be explained by natural variability. Attribution

is the process of establishing cause and effect with some defined level of confidence, including the assessment of

competing hypotheses. The response to anthropogenic changes in climate forcing occurs against a backdrop of natural

internal and externally forced climate variability. Internal climate variability, i.e., climate variability not

forced by external agents, occurs on all time-scales from weeks to centuries and even millennia. Slow climate

components, such as the ocean, have particularly important roles on decadal and century time-scales because they

integrate weather variability. Thus, the climate is capable of producing long time-scale variations of considerable

magnitude without external influences. Externally forced climate variations (signals) may be due to changes in

natural forcing factors, such as solar radiation or volcanic aerosols, or to changes in anthropogenic forcing

factors, such as increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases or aerosols. The presence of this natural climate

variability means that the detection and attribution of anthropogenic climate change is a statistical “signal to

noise” problem. Detection studies demonstrate whether or not an observed change is highly unusual in a statistical

sense, but this does not necessarily imply that we understand its causes. The attribution of climate change to

anthropogenic causes involves statistical analysis and the careful assessment of multiple lines of evidence to

demonstrate, within a pre-specified margin of error, that the observed changes are:

* unlikely to be due

entirely to internal variability;
* consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of

anthropogenic and natural forcing; and
* not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of

recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings.



http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/025.htm#e1[/ur

l]

Maybe its the fact that every piece of evidence they provide is based on those ranges, even the ones

in the link you provided. Other historical data is ignored. For instance the evidence that Europe and England were

about 20 degrees F warmer about 650,000 years ago. There is some evidence of moderate sea level rise but not the

cataclysimic rise forecast. How many other times in history have the temperatures been that high?





Not exactly.
Establishing a baseline, ruling out cyclical variations and getting a handle on all

the variables are three different problems.
If the goal is to measure the impact of anthropogenic CO2 as a climate

forcing mechanism, you establish a baseline by comparing a time period when atmospheric concentrations are known to

be relatively stable to a time period where they are known to be on the rise.
Everybody agrees that cyclical

variations should be ruled out of current temperature gains. And we can argue on the relative weight given to

something like solar activity. But there’s no reason to assume that going back 2 million years is going to give us a

better measure of cyclical variations taking place today.
The most dramatic cyclical variation most scientists

agree on is the ice ages. And this reflects centuries of steady change, not decades of acceleration. The

Milankovitch Cycle (attributed to eccentricity in the Earth’s cycle around the sun) is still controversial, but it

proposes an even more dramatic variation: 22.1 - 24.5 degrees over a 41,000 year cycle. Still peanuts compared to

the effect of CO2.
The longer the cycle, the less statistically significant it is likely to be.
As far as getting

a handle on the full range of potential variables... Let’s say that we went back 2 million years and discovered a

temperature spike comparable to the one currently attributed to greenhouse gases. What would that tell us about

what’s going on today? Nothing unless we could deduce the cause. And how could we deduce the cause? Using the known

physics of our day.
The bottom line is we have to work within the constraints of our era to resolve the problems

of our era.

Of course they are different problems but to make a valid study of geological significance

you need that data. How can you otherwise determine if relationships between solar fluctuation, global temps,

volcanic activity, CO2 concentrations, etc. Grabbing any one data set without correlation to other related data sets

does not give you a complete picture.




That’s absurd.
Why should current temperature gains be

on a par with some catastrophic event that occurred 65 million years ago before they are considered significant for

us today?
Sorry, I stated that one poorly. The temperature variation between when the dust settled (60

million years ago) and today are significant and should be taken into account.



Yes, but water

vapor has a much shorter atmospheric life-span than CO2. And it can only accumulate to a point. (It never rains or

snows CO2.) As the world’s most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor is weighed as the most significant feedback

mechanism in climate models. So, if we want to include a tank with water vapor, we might want to seal the tanks and

take further measurements after one week, two weeks, and a month.

True that water has a far shorter

duration in the atmosphere but it is also renewed more often by literally every inch of the globe to some degree.

I'd agree on sealing the tanks as that is what I said in the first place.




Not unless we can

also prove that relative humidity is on the rise, that this rise is independent of known cycles or forcing mechanism

and that temperatures consistent with the radiative forcing of water vapors correlate with observed temperatures.
I

never said the aquarium demonstration proved anything. I said it demonstrated the basic mechanism of global warming

in a way that most 6th graders could grasp.

It demonstrated one of the potential mechanisms of climate

change :POKE: Actually, you'd want to determine if net water content has risen as the total amount is what holds

energy, not the relative amount which is a function of temperature. If you demonstrated that despite increased

temperature relative humidity was stable or rising you would be demonstrating that a greater amount of water was

being held in the air with the potential for a greater storage of energy.



There’s a difference

between heat retention and heat radiation. I don't know how many molecules, if any, exhibit a 1:1 correlation. I

can’t say if soot is more significant than CO2 when it comes to glacial melting because I haven’t looked into that

issue. (On the surface, it might be a reasonable assumption with regards to Tibet and even the Alps, but I’m not so

sure about tropical deglaciation.)
With regards to soot’s role in raising global surface temperatures...
The IPCC

estimates the global climate forcing by black carbon aerosols as 0.2 W/m2. I’ve seen estimates as high as 0.8 W/m2.

(Which would make soot more significant than methane at 0.5W/m2.) CO2 is calculated at 1.5 W/m2 and its radiative

effect has been shown to increase logarithmically with increased concentrations. Which means that we can expect an

acceleration (rather than a steady rise) in temperature gains as CO2 concentrations increase.
From a policy

perspective, this is all academic because fossil fuels are the main culprit behind increases in soot, CO2 and

methane.

I'm sorry, you seem to take it for granted that if the IPCC says it, it's true. I don't

accept that.

Soot does several things. It has considerably more mass than any gas so can hold a lot more energy

regardless of the actual ratio of re-radiation. One is to absorb solar energy transmitted in the UV range before it

reaches the surface. It is then re-radiated in the IR range. Since much of the suspended soot is above the inversion

layer levels of the atmosphere much of the generated convection currents would rise until lost to space, which makes

a great heat sink. Another is to absorb solar energy while lying on or near the surface of snow/ice. Conduction then

transmits much of that energy to the snow/ice. Had the soot not deposited on the snow/ice a far greater percentage

would have been reflected back into space. There have been a number of good articles about that in the past.

Fortunately, it seems that is being addressed by several countries.

I don't know the effects on tropical

glaciers either. It would be worth checking into. However, the comments that the arctic is warming faster than the

rest of the globe makes the soot deposits in the arctic of considerable potential importance.






Yes, this was discussed quite energetically. But false analogies were drawn and no rational points

were made. Sometimes we try to improve things and make a bigger mess. Sometimes we try and things really do get

better. So what?
Unlike catalytic converters, cutting back on fossil fuels does not necessarily imply the

introduction of new, untested technologies.
It does imply cutting back on our consumer lifestyle and global

supremacy. And I’ve addressed this as the “bottom line” when it comes to people’s rejection of the global warming

consensus.

It seems I’ve also come across a discussion about not falling prey to alarmist proclamations.
It’s

one thing to be skeptical across the board and another thing when you scoff at one side’s disaster movie scenarios

and willfully embrace the other’s.
This is not a discussion about nuclear vs. wind power, or hydrogen cell engines

vs. light rail. It’s about wether we should accept anthropogenic global warming as a risk in the first

place.

It wasn't started for that reason either. It was to discuss whether global warming is real. If

global warming is not real or if it is not something related to man's activities I question whether we should or

can do anything about it. As I've said many times in this thread, we need good evidence before we act. So far the

evidence is not convincing if you view both sides with equal distrust and you look at the longest possible window

for data. That is not to say it isn't real or that man is not the culprit. It's saying that it is far from

conclusive. Acting in a way that is going to harm others without better data is unconcionable.






Well I started my legwork by following up on Roger Pielke Sr., whose resignation from the Climate

Change Science Program was brought up in one of your posts. I read a pdf of his press release regarding his

resignation (not quite like the AP piece reported it but close enough), skimmed through his blog and read his

testimony to Congress SUPPORTING the notion that humans are causing global warming.



[url="http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/07252002Hearing676/Pielke,Sr.1144.htm"]http://energycommerce.ho

use.gov/107/hearings/07252002Hearing676/Pielke,Sr.1144.htm (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/025.htm#e1)

It seems his position is well within the global

warming consensus that: a) the Earth is getting hotter, b) CO2 emissions are the principal cause, and c) this

process is likely to accelerate. And he strongly believes that something ought to be done about it. (He is extremely

political, and that is as likely a reason his work was edited behind his back as any.) His beef with the IPCC

“orthodoxy” (as he calls it) is that their focus on CO2 emissions tends to minimize the role of other anthropogenic

causes for global warming. And he believes that the rate of warming is going to be much higher than the IPCC

consensus.
He HAS taken a somewhat independent position on the “hockey stick” debate.
His view is that focus on

this issue has given the public a false impression of it’s significance to the science of global warming and has

distracted attention away from the IPCC’s 2001 policy recommendations. And, in his blog, he has challenged

proponents of either side (pro or con) to demonstrate that the validity of the hockey stick even matters with

regards to public policy.



http://sciencepolicy

.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.html#000618 (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.html#000618)




I don’t know what this has to

do with a committal response, and maybe I should resent the implication that I am being shifty, but this sounds like

fun. So...
According to the Oriskis study (mentioned in my first post), 70% of all peer-reviewed climate studies

pertain to global warming. So this appears to be a very competitive field.
Let’s make a safe assumption that 70% of

the editorial staff of all peer reviewed climate journals has built their reputation on research that backs up the

global warming consensus. Then, let’s say, along comes some young upstart with research that effectively disputes

the global warming paradigm. Let’s say one of the editors starts worrying about their own future and decides not to

publish the upstart’s research (even though it meets all the objective criteria of the journal). Let’s assume just 1

out of every 5 editors with a global warming background has such a corrupt outlook.
This would mean that every time

a young upstart tries to publish in a journal with an editorial staff of 7 or more, there’s a good chance someone

will want to reject his or her research before even looking at the science. If they submit to two small journals

with an editorial staff of 4 or more, there’s a good chance one of the journals will want to reject the

work.
Conversely... Let’s say a young upstart wants to publish a rebuttal to some skeptic’s critique of the global

warming consensus. Every time he or she submits to a journal with an editorial staff of 7 or more at least one

reviewer will want to publish the study if the science is merely adequate.
Pretty soon all the young upstarts are

going to figure out the game and start toeing the global warming line. Who in their right mind is going to try

building a carreer on research that is less likely to be published and more likely to be rebuked?

My

question/accusation was that research is being suppressed through various forms of pressure. People have had

research grants revoked and have been terminated from their positions. Regardless of who is doing this, what do you

feel should be done? If it were demonstrated that this was being done mostly to people who argued against global

warming, how would you feel about it? What if their antagonists were the IPCC?



Not really. But

the “hockey stick” has been reproduced in numerous studies using a variety of data and methodologies. Tell me which

data you would like to see and I’ll try to find you a study that includes it.
Just try to be fair in your request.

I’m sure you know that the further you go back the more you have to rely on proxy data. And you may also know that

there is a relative lack of proxy data for the southern hemisphere.

I've already said which data in

previous posts and tried to find a lot of it already but don't have the time to go through libraries right now in

search of it. Agreed about the proxie data and the limits on the southern hemishpere..



Sorry.

Not sure I follow that.
It seems like your saying that the “hockey stick” is inaccurate because it lacks data. But

even if we had more data it would be meaningless unless we stretched it back x number of years.
Surely you know

that the further back you go the less data you’re going to find.
So could I sum up your argument as, “We don’t

know, and there’s no way we ever will know.”?

Not really, we can use proxie data but it should be from as

wide a range of places and sources as possible. Microclimates are useless for determining what is happening

globally.



I’ll go back over the thread and see what “significant variations” you’re talking

about. Must have missed that part.
If you’re talking about the so-called “Medieval Warm Period”... Yes, there have

been some studies which claim that current temperatures are comparable to periods between the 10th and 14th

centuries. (Do I need to mention who they were sponsored by?) But the scientific consensus seems to be that these

projections are based on a number of false premises: a) confusing past evidence of drought/precipitation with

temperature evidence, b) failure to distinguish regional from global-scale temperature variations, and c) using the

entire 20th century to describe "modern" conditions thereby failing to differentiate between relatively cool early

20th century conditions and the anomalously warm late 20th century conditions. (In other words... they cherry picked

the data.)

And the little ice age. Just because they mentioned it, does that make it untrue? Even when

there are planty of historical references to it as well as archeological data that matches? I think those failures

have been on both sides of the debate. I don't really want to be in the position of defending either side of the

debate. As I said, both seem more interested in being right than in determining the issues.



Did

you phrase this correctly? Because if we can’t trust NASA or the WMO to provide reliable temperature readings then,

yes, the whole paradigm is worthless. I don’t subscribe to this view, and consider it less plausible than the notion

that our government is hiding alien space ships in Area 54.
If you mean the (“greenhouse effect”) THEORY of global

warming hasn’t been proven...
Proof, simply put, consists in demonstrating that we are experiencing a significant

rise in global temperatures that can only be attributed to anthropogenic causes: most notably CO2 emissions.

The

most understandable part of your argument is that all factors have not been accounted for. But this is simply

untrue. Every factor mentioned in this thread has been accounted for by at least a dozen scientists within the

global warming consensus.
Either you are misinformed or overdramatising (because maybe these factors haven’t been

given the weight you think they deserve).
If you are misinformed, do your homework.
If you are overdramatising we

can pursue this line of argument further.

Granted that I should have used "greenhouse effect" Proof is

not whether it can be attributed to some source until you can eliminate all other possible causes. That hasn't been

done.

You make my argument for me "Every factor mentioned in this thread has been accounted for by at least a

dozen scientists within the global warming consensus"
Why should I or anybody else accept that one group

as the final word? No, I'm not misinformed and have done considerable homework. That's why I find the IPCC less

than believable, for the reasons I've mentioned before. You can follow their conclusions if you choose but I prefer

to have data from other sources.


The part that I don’t understand (and I’m not saying it’s your

fault) seems to be that current temperatures aren’t significant because global warming scientists don’t have enough

data and haven’t gone far enough back in their projections to demonstrate the significance of current temperature

gains.
If we are experiencing gains that can only be attributed to our reliance on fossil fuels, that’s already

significant in my book. And this is what your friend Roger Pielke Sr. is saying as well. He calls on proponents of

the “hockey stick” to forget their egos, quit wasting the public’s time with this debate, and admit that their

research is simply not that important within the bigger picture.
You mentioned that we need to establish a baseline

and rule out cyclical patterns. I’ve expressed my understanding of these issues so maybe you can point out where I

got it wrong or missed the boat entirely.

So, every possible source has been eliminated except fossil

fuels? I'm sorry but that simply isn't true as I've mentioned several times starting with my first post. The data

is far from complete therefore you cannot claim that it can only be attributed to fossil fuels. I do grant that if

man is causing the global to warm, the burning of fossil fuels would be a likely contributing source though unlikely

the only one.



More precisely, it’s a theory based on long established principles of physics and

widely accepted data collection methodologies. If you junk global warming theory in any principled way, you’re going

to have to junk a whole lot of other established science in the process.

About 120 years ago a scientist

speculated that CO2 could cause the globe to heat up. That was a theory. Yes, a lot of data has been collected

covering a relatively short geological period of time. That does not mean it is right or wrong, only that a lot of

data has been collected but I believe more needs to be collected covering a lot longer period of time. So far, it is

still theory based on an earlier theory. Any good scientist would want as much data as possible before making

sweeping statements.

One of the differences here is that all I want is more complete data where others, on both

sides of the debate, say they have THE ANSWERS.




Yes they are. But maybe they are not being

given the weight you think they should.

No, as a matter of fact, they aren't.




I,

for one, would very much like to see the whole thing turn out to have been a big hoax. (I’ve even had quite pleasant

dreams to this effect.) The more you research this issue, the gloomier your outlook becomes. Whatever ego

gratification is derived from being right, tends to be clouded by a nagging feeling that we’re all doomed.
But,

then again, I have no vested interests in this issue — other than wanting the good life for myself and future

generations. So you may be right.
Even so... This only becomes significant when one side cherry picks the data,

fudges the methodology or, as in the case of oil industry “experts”, misrepresents the other side’s

research.
That’s why I say the scientific debate is over. There is plenty of reliable evidence that the Earth is

getting hotter, scientific proof that fossil fuels are the principal cause and well grounded theory that it is

likely to accelerate. The current ruckus over global warming is most accurately described as a public policy battle

of science vs. PR. (And I may not know much science, but I do know how the PR game is played.)

I'm not

much good at doomsaying and have been accused repeatedly of being a cold SOB when it comes to evaluating an issue.



There's plenty of evidence the earth is getting warmer. Earth's temperatures have varied dramatically many,

many times as a result of numerous causes. I consider it partially ego to assume we could be the only possible

source without gathering better, more complete evidence.

There is no conclusive proof that fossil fuels are the

culprit, there are theories that seem to indicate that might be the case. Let's follow up and be certain what is

going on before we act.



I humored you, now let’s see if you can humor me.
Let’s say

(hypothetically, of course) that you are wrong and all the significant data— with respect to public policy — is in.

What do you hypothesize the collection of even more data will accomplish?

I think I amswered that above.

If not, let me know. Public policy is not the issue, the real causes of climate change are the issue. The causes of

varifiable phenomena have not been completely pinned down. Once the issues are pinned down completely I have no

opinion on pubic policy, to have one at thins point would be silly. If climate change is man generated I'll have a

list of other questions. You want to see lifestyle changes, I don't believe you are going to get all of them.

Improving the lot of people who are still burning wood is a step in the right direction. Concern over various other

heat sources associated with modern man is something that has to be addressed. For example, lights, heaters, air

conditioning, computers, nuclear reactors and wind dynamos and so on almost endlessly all contribute to the net heat

within the biosphere. How can all that be addressed? The list is long.

I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying

that the evidence is inconclusive and want more gathered so we can determine long term past patterns including

relationships to data such as historic CO2 levels, volcanic activity, solar fluctuation and so on. I've listed a

lot of them before and I'm sure there are other related factors I haven't thought of. The reasons should be

obvious, is climate change really related to man and if so, what should we do.

Netghost56
01-08-2006, 11:43 PM
Trying to look at global

warming through Belgareth’s POV, this is what I’ve assembled:

Consider that for 200 million years the global

climate was such that it allowed reptiles to be the dominant animal. 90% of the land was tropical, extraordinarily

humid, and (theoretically) carbon dioxide was much more abundant in the atmosphere. In addition to reptiles, the

other dominant animals were insects and fish. Birds and mammals were rare by comparison. Since dominant reptiles

(dinosaurs) are present throughout the fossil record, it’s logical to assume that there never was a major Ice Age

until the comet impact.

So up until the comet impact, the global climate was pretty stable. After the impact

there was an Ice Age. It gradually went away, and was followed by another, smaller Ice Age. This cycle continued for

approx. 65 million years- a “global cooling” followed by a warming trend. A good analogy would be dropping a rock in

water. The comet impact initially disturbed the global climate, and over time the disturbance has leveled out.



So logic suggests that whatever the climate was before the impact is what the climate will eventually

return to.

Putting aside the enormous religious and philosophical implications, there is the nagging question:

Where does that leave us humans? Are we going to die out to be replaced by the original occupants, the dinos?? :D

Should we do something to ensure our survival, even at the risk of upsetting the natural balance? It’s paradoxical,

at best.

But here’s where I differ from that explanation:

While I have no problem believing all of the

above, I can’t see that the recent rapid rate of increase in global temps is “normal”. The past decade has seen an

increase of the same rate as the previous 10,000 years (Yes, I’m ballparking that estimate!) Also, I can’t see a

natural reason for the rapid increase. Why would the rate change after 65 million years? What’s changed?

Since

humans are the only creatures that can create something unnatural, which is something that does not have a place in

the natural environment, and is not bound by natural laws, then I’m forced to say that humans are the factor in this

problem.

a.k.a.
01-09-2006, 01:53 AM
There's plenty of

evidence the earth is getting warmer.

OK. So let’s figure out why.

I say let’s begin

with the “long established principles of physics": The earth is heated by the sun. The atmosphere retains heat from

the sun. And the ocean absorbs heat radiating molecules from the atmosphere.

The physics would suggest

three possible causes for the earth getting hotter: The sun could be producing more energy. The atmosphere could be

retaining more energy. The oceans could be absorbing fewer heat radiating molecules from the atmosphere.



Therefore the first order of data we need to look at is: Measurements of radiation reaching us from the sun.

Measurements of gases and particulates in the atmosphere. Measurements of molecular absorption by the

oceans.

Do you agree?

belgareth
01-09-2006, 04:57 AM
Trying to

look at global warming through Belgareth’s POV, this is what I’ve assembled:

Consider that for 200 million

years the global climate was such that it allowed reptiles to be the dominant animal. 90% of the land was tropical,

extraordinarily humid, and (theoretically) carbon dioxide was much more abundant in the atmosphere. In addition to

reptiles, the other dominant animals were insects and fish. Birds and mammals were rare by comparison. Since

dominant reptiles (dinosaurs) are present throughout the fossil record, it’s logical to assume that there never was

a major Ice Age until the comet impact.

So up until the comet impact, the global climate was pretty stable.

After the impact there was an Ice Age. It gradually went away, and was followed by another, smaller Ice Age. This

cycle continued for approx. 65 million years- a “global cooling” followed by a warming trend. A good analogy would

be dropping a rock in water. The comet impact initially disturbed the global climate, and over time the disturbance

has leveled out.

So logic suggests that whatever the climate was before the impact is what the climate will

eventually return to.

Putting aside the enormous religious and philosophical implications, there is the nagging

question: Where does that leave us humans? Are we going to die out to be replaced by the original occupants, the

dinos?? :D Should we do something to ensure our survival, even at the risk of upsetting the natural balance? It’s

paradoxical, at best.

But here’s where I differ from that explanation:

While I have no problem believing all

of the above, I can’t see that the recent rapid rate of increase in global temps is “normal”. The past decade has

seen an increase of the same rate as the previous 10,000 years (Yes, I’m ballparking that estimate!) Also, I can’t

see a natural reason for the rapid increase. Why would the rate change after 65 million years? What’s changed?



Since humans are the only creatures that can create something unnatural, which is something that does not have a

place in the natural environment, and is not bound by natural laws, then I’m forced to say that humans are the

factor in this problem.
I'm sorry but you aren't even close. The earth has been changing and evolving for

4.3 billion years. There is no reason to believe that it was ever stable for any period of time. There is no

evidence or reason to believe that carbon dioxide was in greater abundance during that time since plant life is the

reason there is oxygen in the first place which later allowed oxygen breathing animals to evolve. Plants freed

oxygen from th environment and oxygen was, as it is today, a waste product of the plant's use of carbon dioxide.

Nor were reptiles ever the dominant life form. If you mean dinosaurs, most scientists believe they were warm blooded

and much more like birds than reptiles. We've gone into that in this thread before. Nor is it logical to assume

that there were no ice ages prior to that. Since the asteroid impact there have been several ice ages, I think the

number is five but am not certain. Yo are trying to make an argument that the climate was once stable and is trying

to stabalize again. The only thing in the environment that is a constant is change which occurs constantly. :)



Your last question is silly. The temperatures have been changing constantly over the last 60 million years but

nobody knows how rapidly. There is clear evidence that tropical ferns grew in the arctic during that period. As I

have noted several times, the globe is quite a bit cooler than it has been as recently as less than a million years

ago.

Your statement that humans create things unnatural and unbound by natural laws is pointless from all

aspects. Everything is tied to natural laws, without exception. But let me ask you something. At what point does a

human's action become unnatural? A biology teacher once said that as soon as a human picks up a leaf and drops it

again it is no longer a natural occurance. Another person, possibly Arther Clark, said just the opposite. Man is

part of nature and all his acts are a part of him. Therefore, all acts of man are a part of nature. The latter makes

sense even though man destroys his envirnoment. How can we seperate ourselves from the chimpanzee who uses a rock to

kill fish other than in the number of fish our creations kiil. Since when does the number of something remove it

from natural occurances?

belgareth
01-09-2006, 01:01 PM
OK. So let’s figure out why.


I say let’s

begin with the “long established principles of physics": The earth is heated by the sun. The atmosphere retains heat

from the sun. And the ocean absorbs heat radiating molecules from the atmosphere.




The physics would suggest three possible causes for the earth getting hotter: The

sun could be producing more energy. The atmosphere could be retaining more energy. The oceans could be absorbing

fewer heat radiating molecules from the atmosphere.


Therefore

the first order of data we need to look at is: Measurements of radiation reaching us from the sun. Measurements of

gases and particulates in the atmosphere. Measurements of molecular absorption by the oceans.




Do you agree?



Ok, I'm

game. This sounds like fun. Be forewarned. I am an engineer and we like to pick at details. For the sake of

comprehensibility let’s only cover the major players, ok? From my perspective you are over-simplifying the issues so

I’ll start by delineating what I feel are the minimal considerations for a reasonable look into the

issues.

The basic precept of the entire global warming scenerio is

that the globe is warming at a greater rate and outside normal parameters. That has not been demonstrated as yet. It

is arguuable that since global temperatures have been much higher many times the concern over global warming is a

farce in its entirety. I am not maintianing that but we do first need to prove that global warming is real and

outside of natural cycles. We are dealing with net energy within an atmosphere. Let's look at heat gain

first.

Solar gain:

What is the range of solar gain, high and low. We know that it is about 429 BTU/Hr per square foot. What is

the range of variation?
Of that gross at the upper atmosphere, how

much is reflected directly off into space. That would be a function of reflectivity.


How much is absorbed by the atmosphere above the biosphere and how

much by mountains that high?
* In both of the above we can assume that

is lost energy. The following could be called net gain.
How much is

absorbed by plants on the surface and converted to food/growth and locked into the carbon cycle?


How much is absorbed by the surface and reradiated versus how much is reflected back

into space by the various surfaces such as ice/snow cover and bare ground. You can probably come up with reasonable

percentages for that but would have to adjust for multiple changes. In other words, if the percent of global ice is

greater your reflected energy is going to be greater thus net gain is reduced.
How much is trapped in ocean water or ice?
Ok, without going

into too much detail, once we figure out those variables we can take a number of BTUs for solar gain.


Gain from the planet itself:
Radiated

core heat. How much is gained from residual core heat? Since the core and mantle are molten thermodynamic principles

tell us that a certain amount of energy will come to the surface. There's an article posted in this thread

regarding thermal variations as a result of shifts in the magnetic poles which result in greater heating of the

core, those will be reflected in warmer surface temperatures and will cause a certain amount of melting of ice

packs. Scientists are pretty sure of the relationships between movements of the magnetic poles and core

temperatures. We need to know if there is also a direct correlation with global temperatures.


Volcanoes are another expression of core heat. Surface volcanoes will

heat the air and land. Undersea volcanoes will heat the sea and indirectly heat the air and land masses. In the case

of undersea volcanoes we have to ask how much is tied up in undersea life forms. Since the seas are deep, cover most

of the globe and have abundant life that number should be substantial.
Radioactive decay is again an issue not covered often and could logically be covered under gain from the

planet itself. There is a sizable contribution to the current energy budget and with an increase in the use of

nuclear power would contribute to the issue of global warming so I am adding it as a separate item.


Friction may not sound like much but the numbers are too impressive to ignore. The

earth spins while the atmosphere tries to stay in place resulting in friction heating of the

atmosphere.
While release of energy formerly tied up in coal beds,

petroleum deposits and natural gas reservoirs is not truly heat gained we did subtract it previously and it adds to

the current energy budget. We should in all honesty include it.
Other

activities of man include every light bulb, friction from tires rolling along the road and any other source of

energy released into the atmosphere. A single tire's radiated heat may seem trivial as does a light bulb. Multiply

that by the massive numbers and you start talking about some real numbers so this should be included. I don't

include the energy radiated by man himself or the plethora of other animal life as that is really secondary energy

formerly trapped within the plant cycle and it would be counting that energy twice. You could argue the same is true

of friction energy as well but lets not get too nitpicky. :)

Since

the majority of the earth is covered with water which absorbs energy from sunlight, has a far greater mass than the

air and is a great medium for storing energy, I don't believe we can honestly say the oceans are absorbing energy

from the air. Rather, it seems likely that the air recieves much of it's energy from the seas. The air may warm

fast but that's only because the air has so much less mass thus is easier to heat

quickly.

Heat loss:
While solar gain only effects 50% of the planet at any one time the shape of the earth, the fact that the

sun's output changes constantly, the earth rotates and different surfaces reflect and absorb energy at different

rates making the actual gain a wide variable. At the same time, potential re-radiation into space is a constant

making that part of the equation a little easier to handle. We can view potential loss by re-radiation into space as

a constant and only need to address inhibitors. We'll still need to look at how conduction and convection play into

it though.
Cloud cover is the first inhibitor. Since re-radiation

would necessarily be at the low end or long wave range cloud cover would significantly inhibit radiation into space.

Cloud cover will vary depending on the amount of available moisture suspended in the air. As the ambient temperature

increases so does the potential for evaporation increasing the amount of total water held in the air thus its heat

retaining capacity. However, as the temperature increases fewer clouds form allowing more energy to radiate into

space. I'm not sure how you would balance that against the greater heat retaining properties of the moisture within

the air but it would have to be accounted for to come up with a valid equation.
The next question would be similar, the balance between energy reflected and energy retained by

greenhouse gases as they would increase the over all energy reflected into space but may also act as a blanket to

retain the heat. The greater concentrations of gases in the atmosphere would both reflect more light and retain more

energy. The actual mechanism causing the retention of energy would be the question to answer. Are these gases acting

as a blanket inhibiting radiation of energy or are these gases retaining energy within themselves? If the former is

the case we have to address the insulating value of the greenhouse gases at a given concentration to ascertain how

much energy it is holding in place. If it is the mass retaining energy we would have to address the overall mass of

the gases. I suspect that the former is the true issue, that it forms a blanket that IR has trouble passing through.

Carbon Dioxide does not have that great of a mass so would not be able to hold a lot of energy. Assuming it is the

blanket effect we are looking at, what is the net gain? I think we can dismiss the lighter gases as they would

mostly rise to the top of the atmosphere where they have little effect and be blown away be solar winds or simply

escape into space.
A question that comes to mind is the increased CO2

effects on plants. It’s well known that increased levels of CO2 will encourage greater plant growth, especially in a

warmer climate and with greater atmospheric moisture available. How will that effect the equation? Can or will plant

growth increase to the point of uptaking enough carbon dioxide to make a significant impact on the over all levels?

That means we need to look more closely at both the land and the sea plants. Most people are not aware that the seas

are a primary source of oxygen because the plants under the sea are far more numerous than the land ones and also

use the carbon cycle. That, of course, also impacts something you’ve mentioned, the carbon dioxide absorbed by the

seas. It is apparent from the charts you linked to that something

reduced the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There appears to be a definate pattern of increase and decrease over a

period of time. The actual mechanism causing that should be explored.
Radiation from land and sea mass is another issue. Snow or ice inhibits radiation of energy and since we are

discussing the difference between masses with temperatures between 55 degrees and say zero F and the near absolute

zero of space there is quite a potential for energy transfer. As ice, snow, glaciers and polar caps melt the

potential reradiation and radiation of inherent core heat increases.
Ok, we’ve delineated the issues for the current heat gain questions. But we haven’t determined yet if

there is a correlation between atmospheric greenhouse gases and temperature so let’s look at that next. It is not

cut and dried that fossil fuel is the culprit. A good place to start is with historic temperatures. You really can’t

claim that there is a problem yet as you haven’t demonstrated that temperatures are outside the normal range or are

likely to go outside that range. Certainly, some scientists say the temperature is going to increase at a more rapid

pace but that’s based on their models which are full of assumptions we have yet to verify.


Global temperature ranges are a good place to start. The longer time span we can

work with the better statistics we can generate. Assuming the asteroid theory is correct we should use no more than

sixty million years because there’s a major but unrelated climate impacting issue beyond that point. At the least we

would want to chart the temperature peaks and valleys with an eye for durations so we can establish a curve. From

there we can extrapolate mean temperatures. That will give us some tools to compare with solar fluctuations, CO2

levels and other pertinent data.
So let’s start on CO2, where does it

come from?
Volcanoes are one of the largest sources of CO2. Through

geological evidence we can make some pretty sound estimates of when volcanoes were active in the past. The longer

term we can work with the better. Can we correlate that activity with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? We

should note both instances of correlation and when they don’t match.
Combustion is another source. Large burn offs of vegetation could increase the CO2 concentrations but

I don’t know if there is any evidence for it. However, we should look.
Swamp gases are greenhouse gases, mostly methane. At times large areas were covered with swamp or

marsh. AT other times there were massive plant life die-offs which would have released huge quantities of gases into

the atmosphere. Can a relationship with swamp gases and global temperatures be established? Being extremely light do

they actually stay in the biosphere or do they rise to the upper atmosphere where they would have a lesser

effect?
We now should plot out probable periods of high CO2 levels in

history and chart them on our time line. Is there a correlation with the temperature charts? Were there periods

where the CO2 levels were high but temperature was low or where the temperature was high and CO2 was low? That

implies other factors may have been at work during that period.
Plant

life is very fond of CO2 so we should next chart the abundance and size of plants along this chart. Again, is there

correlation with temperatures and plant growth and CO2 levels?
Solar

fluctuations should next be charted and added to the timeline. Undenyably, the sun fluctuates drastically and that

effects the climate. Again, is there a relationship shown here?
I

could go on but until historical and climatic model questions are answered there is no reason to believe that

extraordinary global warming is taking place. There is no reason to believe it isn’t either as neither argument is

conclusive or even persuading.
Some questions I keep asking are where

we are along the curve of temperatures, are we in a period of unusually low or high temperatures and which direction

is the curve moving today in relationship to the natural trends? Without those answers there is no way you can

rationally claim that there is any global warming outside the natural trends. The argument is being made that the

globe is warming, I can accept that. But until you can demonstrate that it is outside the normal trend lines you are

making statements without data. Further stating that fossil fuels are causing this purported heat gain is building

on nothing. There are people, respected scientists who are not associated with either party involved in the global

warming debate that believe the globe should actually soon be headed into an ice age. There are others that state

the earth is substantially cooler than the mean historical norm and that global warming is no more than

normalization. Still others who believe the apparent warming is no more than a statistical blip, something the

recent record cold waves in Europe, Japan and India seem to support. I have a lot of questions about the whole

scenario.

I will not accept a snapshot view of one hundred or even

one thousand years as a basis for making statements about what the global climate is doing. It is simply to little

data to base those claims on.

PS: I'm still curious as to how you

feel about suppressed research when it is done through revoking grants and terminations.

DrSmellThis
01-11-2006, 03:50 PM
[url="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0111-06.htm"]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0111-06.htm[/url

]

a.k.a.
01-11-2006, 11:02 PM
From my perspective you are over-simplifying the issues so I’ll start by delineating

what I feel are the minimal considerations for a reasonable look into the issues.[/size][/font]



Oh-boy. Just when I thought I’d figured out a way to tame the proliferation of points and counter-points...



You’ll have to forgive me for the delayed response. I needed help sorting through all your proposals. I can see you

didn’t want to play along, but I wanted to understand where you were coming from before venturing a response.


On first impression it seemed as if you just wanted to gather up a whole mess of data and see if we could make heads

or tails of it. On closer inspection, I’d have to characterize your approach as “brilliant oversight”. I’m almost

certain this wasn’t intentional but, despite all the seemingly insurmountable data requirements, you’ve effectively

excluded just about every factor that could possibly support the fossil fuels theory of global warming.

Just

to set the record straight, I simply asked if you could agree that measurements of radiation reaching us from the

sun, measurements of gases and particulate in the atmosphere, and measurements of molecular absorption by the oceans

was a good place to start looking for causes of recent climate change. I didn’t say, “Look over here. This explains

it all.”
Oversimplification would have been a valid argument for adding more variables into the mix. But a

systematic approach would have been nice. Also it doesn’t explain why you would want to reduce measurement of solar

radiation to net BTU’s. And it’s a poor argument for ignoring my other two proposals altogether.

So

here’s what I can make of your requirements (and I’m just going to touch on the most significant points

IMO):

1) You’ve begun with a false premise. The most elementary physical reduction of climate change is not

net energy gain/loss, it’s energy gain/loss over time across area.

2) I can agree that focusing on sun,

air and sea (although the three most powerful climatic forces) is a simplification. And I’m open to the argument

that it’s an over-simplification. But, if a model of climate as the interaction of three powerful forces is an

oversimplification, what do you call BTU’s in, BTU’s out, BTU’s retained? Ultra-oversimplification?
How

can this ever explain anything about how the climate works or why the planet would suddenly start getting warmer?

(Let’s say, for example, we discovered that radiated core heat has been increasing at a rate comparable to the raise

in temperatures. Is it physically possible, all else being equal, for the earth’s core to sustain a magnitude of

radiation large enough, at a rate quick enough, to heat the entire planet by .5 degrees over a 50 year period? If

not, the real cause would be core heat + whatever physical process is suddenly retaining that heat.)

3)

You’ve addressed the role of solar energy as if it was simply a question of how much heat is absorbed. Which

effectively excludes investigation of how solar radiation interacts with the atmosphere.
For example, you

want to count energy absorbed in the upper atmosphere as net loss. Which is valid within your framework. But it’s

still significant in that “Ultraviolet radiation at wavelengths below 300 nm is completely absorbed by the Earth's

atmosphere and contributes the dominant energy source in the stratosphere and thermosphere, establishing the upper

atmosphere's temperature, structure, composition, and dynamics. Even small variations in the Sun's radiation at

these short wavelengths will lead to corresponding changes in atmospheric

chemistry.”

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data_product_summary.html


4) You’ve

pretty much ignored chemical factors in climate change altogether. Which is fine if we want to get a rough estimate

before narrowing in on the details. But, at the same time, you are proposing we examine non-climatic variables such

as friction and combustion.
I’m all for approximations, but if you want details they should be across

the board.

5) You imply a climate model in which there are inhibitors but no feedback mechanisms. (And,

incidentally, you say that, “ as the temperature increases fewer clouds form”. Whereas the exact opposite is true.

Therefore cloud cover is not merely an inhibitor it is a potential feedback.)
Once again, I’m fine with

approximations, I'll plow through detailsif I have to... but I can’t accept double standards. If magnetic shifts

are significant, so are feedback mechanisms.

7) With respect to greenhouse gases... You make a good point

when you say “The actual mechanism causing the retention of energy would be the question to answer.” And you ask

some good questions, but you missed the most significant ones: a)what is the rate of energy absorption vs radiation

for the various molecules which comprise the atmosphere and b) how does this effect spectral absorption at different

atmospheric pressures.


Having said all that... I would be interested in seeing a rough

approximation of what range of temperatures could be calculated from a model like yours. As you say, potential re

radiation is a constant. Would you agree that the sun is the largest source of energy? If so, how about we get a

first approximation by treating the earth as a simple mass receiving/reflecting energy from the sun. What kind of

surface temperatures could we expect then?
This would give us a rough approximation of how much would have to

be accounted for by all the other factors.
As a second approximation (if you agree that the atmosphere is the

largest inhibitor) lets assume the atmosphere is a simple “blanket” — that is it merely reduces the rate of heat

transfer. (Incidentally, that’s a cozy metaphor you proposed — unless, of course, you've been smoking in bed and

the blanket catches fire.) Would we be able to calculate a fair aproximation of its inhibiting effect if we knew its

mass, density and thickness? If so, that would give us a rough idea of how much would have to be accounted for by

core heat, friction, convection, & etc.


PS: I'm

still curious as to how you feel about suppressed research when it is done through revoking grants and

terminations.[/size][/font]

I think it’s a bad idea. I say give them every opportunity to conduct

their own research. This way they won’t have any excuse for cherry picking through other people’s work for data that

supports their agenda.

a.k.a.
01-11-2006, 11:48 PM
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines

06/0111-06.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0111-06.htm)


The scariest part is the uncertainties. It’s a safe bet that the

albedo loss will be a factor for higher temperatures. But what is this going to do to the chemical composition of

the oceans? And how will this effect the ocean’s biodiversity?

For a real disaster movie scenario consider

this:
The vast system of water movement depends on the fact that cold, salty water, such as found in the

North Atlantic and the Antarctic, is denser than warmer, less salty water and tends to sink beneath it. The deeper

water then moves slowly toward the equator, while warmer water from lower latitudes moves toward the poles to

replace it. This “conveyor belt” keeps some mid and high latitude regions warmer than they would otherwise be.


About 12,900 years ago the North Atlantic circulation stopped (the Younger Dryas event), probably because of an

upset in the salt balance caused by an influx of too much fresh water from melting ice. In a decade or less the

climate plunged from temperatures similar to today’s into a full blown ice age.

belgareth
01-12-2006, 03:40 AM
Actually, I want to play along

but refuse to accept as a blanket statement that the earth is warming outside of normal parameters without evidence

and without excluding all other factors. I know it was a long post full of complex issues. I know I generalized many

things and glossed over many more things. I also would like you to add every related piece of data you can add. As

I've mentioned before, many of our friends who come here are academics/scientists and the questions/issues I bring

up are ones they brought up in beer and BS sessions around the barbecue. The list of other questions they've asked

is far longer and much of it was over my head.

Before we can have a discussion on how to solve the current

global warming we must first determine the real parameters. Is this warming trend we can all see outside of what the

globe has seen as a result of natural effects over time? You keep saying the climate was stable and that simply is

not true. The globe has been much warmer many times as well as much cooler. Until that is explained and the

mechanics involved are understood you have no case for anything. So instead of going in circles trying to solve

something in the here and now, let's start by determining if there is a problem that we have control over.

To

have any reasonable conversation about today we must understand what occured in the past and why. I suggest this as

a starting point for any rational discussion of today's concerns.
Question #1: What is the expected range of

climatic variation of the earth over time without outside influence?
Question #2: What were the causes of cyclic

warming/cooling trends of the earth over the longest measurable period without known outside influence?
Question

#3: How does todays warming trend relate to historical temperatures? What are the similarities and the

differences?
Question #4: If there were no unnatural influence, according to historical trends, what should we be

seeing in the range of global temperature changes? What is the standard deviation anticipated?

The intent is to

determine facts. Until those questions are answered all discussion of how to deal with global warming is a waste of

time because there is no way to determine if it is anything outside of what would have occured had man never

existed.

belgareth
01-12-2006, 04:31 AM
Oh-boy. Just

when I thought I’d figured out a way to tame the proliferation of points and counter-points...

You’ll have to

forgive me for the delayed response. I needed help sorting through all your proposals. I can see you didn’t want to

play along, but I wanted to understand where you were coming from before venturing a response.
On first impression

it seemed as if you just wanted to gather up a whole mess of data and see if we could make heads or tails of it. On

closer inspection, I’d have to characterize your approach as “brilliant oversight”. I’m almost certain this wasn’t

intentional but, despite all the seemingly insurmountable data requirements, you’ve effectively excluded just about

every factor that could possibly support the fossil fuels theory of global warming.

Actually, the intent

is to discover what is really going on. I've intentionally structured my questions and data requirements to exclude

nothing where global warming theorists exclude all potential causes except one. If by play along you meant that I

should accept the contention that the climate hasn't changed previously and that the current changes are caused by

some influence other than natural, no I'm not going to play along. It doesn't matter what the source is or who's

theory it is, all I want are sufficient facts to determine if there is an issue that could be caused by fossil

fuels. Frankly, you sound like it is your agenda to prove it is fossil fuels. Starting off with a predetrmined goal

is bad science.


Just to set the record straight, I simply asked if you could agree that

measurements of radiation reaching us from the sun, measurements of gases and particulate in the atmosphere, and

measurements of molecular absorption by the oceans was a good place to start looking for causes of recent climate

change. I didn’t say, “Look over here. This explains it all.”
Oversimplification would have been a valid argument

for adding more variables into the mix. But a systematic approach would have been nice. Also it doesn’t explain why

you would want to reduce measurement of solar radiation to net BTU’s. And it’s a poor argument for ignoring my other

two proposals altogether.

Your question seemed to imply that we were simply trying to determine if from

a snapshot position we could say that fossil fuels could cause the apparent global warming problem. There's no

debate there, it's entirely possible. The question is, is it the culprit? Without the other data you cannot

concllude that.


So here’s what I can make of your requirements (and I’m just going to touch on the

most significant points IMO):

1) You’ve begun with a false premise. The most elementary physical reduction of

climate change is not net energy gain/loss, it’s energy gain/loss over time across area.
You are the one

who started with a snapshot. I am arguing for a long term view because current global warming theory seems to

exclude a ton of data. For the purposes of that statement, the question was best phrased that

way.


2) I can agree that focusing on sun, air and sea (although the three most powerful climatic

forces) is a simplification. And I’m open to the argument that it’s an over-simplification. But, if a model of

climate as the interaction of three powerful forces is an oversimplification, what do you call BTU’s in, BTU’s out,

BTU’s retained? Ultra-oversimplification?
How can this ever explain anything about how the climate works or why

the planet would suddenly start getting warmer? (Let’s say, for example, we discovered that radiated core heat has

been increasing at a rate comparable to the raise in temperatures. Is it physically possible, all else being equal,

for the earth’s core to sustain a magnitude of radiation large enough, at a rate quick enough, to heat the entire

planet by .5 degrees over a 50 year period? If not, the real cause would be core heat + whatever physical process is

suddenly retaining that heat.)
[QUOTE=a.k.a.]
The planet didn't suddenly start getting warmer. It has been

varying in temperature for millions of years. We do not know how fast it has varied in the past or what the causes

were.

Some scientists think that core heat changes could and are significantly changing the earth surface

temperature. That could result in glacial melting and could result in increased artic water temperatures.


[QUOTE=a.k.a.]
3) You’ve addressed the role of solar energy as if it was simply a question of how much heat is

absorbed. Which effectively excludes investigation of how solar radiation interacts with the atmosphere.
For

example, you want to count energy absorbed in the upper atmosphere as net loss. Which is valid within your

framework. But it’s still significant in that “Ultraviolet radiation at wavelengths below 300 nm is completely

absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere and contributes the dominant energy source in the stratosphere and thermosphere,

establishing the upper atmosphere's temperature, structure, composition, and dynamics. Even small variations in the

Sun's radiation at these short wavelengths will lead to corresponding changes in atmospheric chemistry.”



http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data_product_summar

y.html (http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data_product_summary.html)


Simplifications. I was getting tired of typing. You and I both know we could write

several volumes trying to describe just those factors. Where should we stop?


4) You’ve pretty much

ignored chemical factors in climate change altogether. Which is fine if we want to get a rough estimate before

narrowing in on the details. But, at the same time, you are proposing we examine non-climatic variables such as

friction and combustion.
I’m all for approximations, but if you want details they should be across the

board.

Not at all. I touched on it briefly and it is implied in several things I've mentioned. However,

global warming theory gives it a lot of time. Let's also give other potential factors some room. I want that input

along with every other factor, bot historical and current, that we can bring into it. I want to really understand

what is going on. I don't believe the global warming theorists who keep insisting that nothing changed in many,

many years are as interested in such data as it implies a weakness in their position.


5) You imply

a climate model in which there are inhibitors but no feedback mechanisms. (And, incidentally, you say that, “ as the

temperature increases fewer clouds form”. Whereas the exact opposite is true. Therefore cloud cover is not merely an

inhibitor it is a potential feedback.)
Once again, I’m fine with approximations, I'll plow through detailsif I

have to... but I can’t accept double standards. If magnetic shifts are significant, so are feedback

mechanisms.

Untrue on the face of it. The questions about the blanket effect are stating that

implicitly


7) With respect to greenhouse gases... You make a good point when you say “The actual

mechanism causing the retention of energy would be the question to answer.” And you ask some good questions, but you

missed the most significant ones: a)what is the rate of energy absorption vs radiation for the various molecules

which comprise the atmosphere and b) how does this effect spectral absorption at different atmospheric pressures.




Having said all that... I would be interested in seeing a rough approximation of what range of temperatures

could be calculated from a model like yours. As you say, potential re radiation is a constant. Would you agree that

the sun is the largest source of energy? If so, how about we get a first approximation by treating the earth as a

simple mass receiving/reflecting energy from the sun. What kind of surface temperatures could we expect then?
This

would give us a rough approximation of how much would have to be accounted for by all the other factors.
As a

second approximation (if you agree that the atmosphere is the largest inhibitor) lets assume the atmosphere is a

simple “blanket” — that is it merely reduces the rate of heat transfer. (Incidentally, that’s a cozy metaphor you

proposed — unless, of course, you've been smoking in bed and the blanket catches fire.) Would we be able to

calculate a fair aproximation of its inhibiting effect if we knew its mass, density and thickness? If so, that would

give us a rough idea of how much would have to be accounted for by core heat, friction, convection, &

etc.

What model like mine? I'm asking questions and setting parameters to build a model. However, I do

not agree that the atmosphere is the biggest inhibitor simply because I don't know that yet.



I

think it’s a bad idea. I say give them every opportunity to conduct their own research. This way they won’t have any

excuse for cherry picking through other people’s work for data that supports their agenda.
Ok, then what do

you think should be done about those who inhibit research in order to forward their agenda?

Please forgive me if

I misunderstand you. You come across as having the agenda of proving that fossil fuels are the culprit and of having

the attitude that anybody who does not agree with that is against you. Nothing could be further from true. There are

a lot of very intelligent, well educated people asking good questions and getting what they percieve as BS answers.

All they want is too establish what the truth is so it can be acted on appropriately.

a.k.a.
01-12-2006, 10:08 PM
It’s true that I have an agenda.

(Not quite the one you mentioned, but close enough.) And it’s also true that I try to lead discussion towards issues

that support this agenda. But I don’t consider people that disagree as being against me personally. I consider them

to be against taking appropriate steps towards significantly reducing fuel emissions.
I tried to make all

of this clear in the concluding paragraphs of my first post.
If any of the above is in bad form, I

seriously don’t mind bowing out of this discussion. (With no hard feelings.)
Honestly... If we can’t

agree that atmosphere is the primary inhibitor, the scientific portion of this argument is at a deadlock anyway.

(And the political portion could get really ugly.)

belgareth
01-12-2006, 10:31 PM
No offense intended or taken.

My point in starting this thread and in every argument I've presented is that the whole global warming scenerio is

based on a lack of data. The atmosphere is possibly a primary inhibitor but until we collect sufficient data to look

at it and the variables associated with it, we just don't know for sure. Unless we start at the begining to truly

understand what is happening, the scientific issues discussion of global warming can never begin so are really not

finished.

I'm not against taking steps to reduce fuel emmissions but that wasn't the topic of conversation. I

do believe it is unrealistic to think that the public is going to accept a reduction in their quality of life to

accomplish that. Other, alternative means of providing energy are being explored and should be explored in greater

depth. Once again, careful analysis of the possible options should be explored. We so often dive into things without

looking carefully enough and find out we've screwed up again. Our environment is far to important for that.

You

ask about bad form? Of me? The one who blithely wanders around blowing all the politically accepted beliefs up? Oh,

come now. Be serious. :rofl: I enjoyed your participation and hope it continues. But you really wouldn't want me to

be less than honest with you, would you?

a.k.a.
01-12-2006, 11:01 PM
I’m not a scientist. My academic

background is in history. And my confidence in the fossil fuels theory comes from a historical survey (and the

little bits of science I was forced to pick up along the way).
From a historical perspective, the notion

that the atmosphere is the primary inhibitor is literally “square one”. About 175 years ago Joseph Fourier deduced

(with a rough approximation similar to the one I proposed) that the Earth’s atmosphere must be absorbing the sun’s

energy at a faster rate than it releases it.
I don’t expect you to accept something as given just because

a famous name proposed it. My confidence comes from the fact that I haven’t come across anybody that tried to

repudiate this.
(I speak of “confidence” rather than “certainty” because I don’t believe in certainty. But

that’s another debate in itself.)

belgareth
01-13-2006, 07:50 AM
I don't dispute the

possibility that he is correct. But I am an engineer in two seperate fields who grew up around the sciences.

Methodology is important and being certain of your variables is critical. Square one is and has to be the natural

patterns of the planet. To say that something is happening outside of those patterns we must first define those

patterns. You have mentioned yourself that the globe was much hotter in the past and have shown charts of historic

CO2 levels. It isn't honest to state that the globe is warming outside of what would be expected without

determining what would be expected first.

Let's talk about Fourier for a moment. His name rang a bell the first

time you mentioned him but since I am not a mechanical engineer or physicist I didn't remember who he was, college

was a long time ago. Please keep in mind that he was a mathmatician and physicist in the times when they did not

really have any knowledge of light and energy, he was a pioneer and brilliant. But he was also sometimes wrong and

his work was in a very narrow range. Actually he postulated that it could be absorbing energy at a faster rate than

it is being lost. He also postulated a number of other things that play into my questions to varying degrees. One is

that the greater the thermal differential between two masses the greater the rate of heat transfer. Restated, the

warmer the earth, the faster it will lose heat to space all other factors being the same. The other factors are not

the same so we must consider insulating effects of various types of atmosphere for purposes of conducted energy,

Opacity of cloud cover to infrared energy for purposes of radiated energy and conduction of energy between masses

along with convection currents to account for how heated air rises sapping energy of into space that way. All these

overlap each other and are all tied to his basic work which is in turn related to Newton's work. All this leads

back to a basic precept of physics called entropy which says that all energies strive to reach a balance and at that

point all motion will stop. (OK, I'm guilty of oversimplification again but this isn't a physics class. Give me a

break!:POKE: )

Once we go past his basic equations we have to consider the capability of a surface to radiate

it's energy and any impediments to that radiation. Lets take a flat black rock for simplicity. Thermodynamics

states that a given surface will reradiate at the same rate as it abosrbs under absolute conditions but that does

not take into account conduction and convection only reradiation.

This rock will absorb a certain amount of

energy from the sun and the air, mostly the sun as the air really doesn't have much energy carrying capacity due to

low mass. I'm going to simplify here again because it can get really complicated when we start discussing how deep

the energy gain is absorbed over a given time, thermal gradients and such. Let's say the rock absorbs enough energy

to bring it up to 100 degrees F. with a high air temperature of 80. While it is absorbing the energy it is losing

energy to the atmosphere at a relatively slow rate because the differential is not that great. Once the sun goes

down and the air cools the rock continues to radiate heat but at the same time conduction from the surface

increases. Air is heated which then rises to be replaced by cooler air which is in turn heated and rises.

All

this is leading somewhere. Air currents will rise dissipating energy upwards. Radiated energy will eventually find

its way upwards. Space is both very cold and virtually infinate so the potential for heat transfer is huge. Now we

need to concern ourselves with impediments to that transfer and variables on radiation. Cloud cover is one of the

issues. You were incorrect to some degree when you stated more clouds would form with greater humidity. That is

contingent on saturation and temperature. Clouds form when the air cools too far to maintain the amount of water

suuspended in the air and droplets are formed which is what clouds are. If the air is warmer, more water can be held

in the clouds without droplets forming or clouds. For purposes of this conversation, fewer clouds would be formed.

Pollutants will form a barrier to reradiation and in the case of temperature inversions are effective for that.

Where a temperature inversion is not present heated air will naturally rise to a point where the energy is lost, the

air cooled and falling again forming normal convection currents. Those convection currents will disrupt the ability

of the pollutants to trap energy. Incidently, they should also assist in increasing rainfall as raindrops only form

around particules thus returning those particules to the ground.

I mentioned above that a surface will absorb

and reradiate about the same amount of energy over a given time where all other things are equal. To expand on that,

a shiny surface will reflect far more and radiate less. That means that as the arctic ice pack melts radiated energy

will increase. Will it reach an equalibrium? I don't know. Other factors, some mentioned above, will play into it.



The point of this desertation is that it is not simply a matter of what pollutants can or will do. The earth is

a very complex engine that we really don't understand. Saying simply that CO2 and other gases could increase heat

retention is simplifying things way too far. I'm not trying to belittle you and am trying to cover some very

complex topics without using mathmatics or complex terminology. It isn't easy to do. In the end using Joseph

Fourier's simple statement to determine public policy or to unequivicoly state that the globe is warming as a

result of greenhouse gases is kind of like saying that a spark plug defines how a car works.

All I am trying to

do is get people to look at it critically. Nothing more or less. I'm not trying to debunk anything but want science

to do what scientists are trained to do. Set up a baseline, figure out why the mechanism works and demonstrate that

the climate is behaving outside historical norms. While a massive task, it is a bare minimum for acceptability under

scientific terms. Unless you truly understand what the climate is doing and the underlying mechanisms you cannot be

certain of what you are doing or why you are doing it.

If global warming is really happening and if it is

really man caused, our best chance of effectively doing something about it is by gaining a true understanding of how

it works. The longer we delay learning those facts underlying global climate change, the greater the probability

that any damage we may be doing will be beyond our control.

belgareth
01-14-2006, 07:28 AM
N.D. to House Hydrogen Refueling Station Fri Jan 13,

2006



MINOT, N.D. -

North Dakota State University's North Central Research Center, Basin Electric Power Cooperative and other partners

are planning a station here to refuel hydrogen-powered vehicles using wind power.



North Central Research Extension Director Jay Fisher said the

electrolyzer-based refueling station will be on research center property south of Minot. Ontario-based Hydrogenics

Corp., which is providing the equipment, said the project is expected to be operating later this

year.

The electrolyzer process, powered by the wind, puts electricity

into water and splits it into hydrogen and oxygen, Hydrogenics spokeswoman Jane Dalziel said. The hydrogen then can

be used for fuel, she said.

"From stem to stern, it's a clean

process," she said.

"We're ready to go," Fisher said. "This is the

spot — Minot, N.D. This is where it (research) is going to be done. This is a great fit for us because agriculture

uses a lot of energy and produces a lot of energy. Research is what we do."

Basin Electric owns two wind turbines south of Minot along U.S. 83.

Fisher said the research center got involved in the project because of its location between the wind turbines

and because of the research aspect of it.

"Right now, we have an

issue in North Dakota storing and transmitting the wind power we produce," he said. "Our transmission grids just

aren't large enough. We need to find a way to store that excess energy."

The Minot center is getting a hydrogen-powered forklift, Fisher said, and the technology is available to

operate other hydrogen-fueled vehicles, even city buses.

The project

was sponsored by the federal Energy Department and announced by Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record),

D-N.D., its organizers said.

Basin spokesman Daryl Hill said the next

step will be evaluating what types of vehicles to use at the station.

The electrolyzer is about the size of a room, Dalziel said. Other refueling stations have been opened around

the world, but hydrogen technology is still in its early stage, she said.

"This is an opportunity to show the practicality of hydrogen as a fuel," she

said.

"It's pretty new," Dalziel said. "The one at Minot is

definitely on the leading edge."

belgareth
01-14-2006, 08:09 AM
New source of global warming gas found: plants Wed Jan 11,

2006



LONDON

(Reuters) - German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to

carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.

The culprits are

plants.

They produce about 10 to 30 percent of the annual methane

found in the atmosphere, according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg,

Germany.

The scientists measured the amount of methane released by

plants in controlled experiments. They found it increases with rising temperatures and exposure to

sunlight.

"Significant methane emissions from both intact plants and

detached leaves were observed ... in the laboratory and in the field," Dr Frank Keppler and his team said in a

report in the journal Nature.

Methane, which is produced by city

rubbish dumps, coal mining, flatulent animals, rice cultivation and peat bogs, is one of the most potent greenhouse

gases in terms of its ability to trap heat.

Concentrations of the gas

in the atmosphere have almost tripled in the last 150 years. About 600 million tonnes worldwide are produced

annually.

The scientists said their finding is important for

understanding the link between global warming and a rise in greenhouse gases.

It could also have implications for the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for developed countries to cut their

emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

Keppler and his colleagues discovered that living plants emit 10 to 100 times more methane than dead

plants.

Scientists had previously thought that plants could only emit

methane in the absence of oxygen.

David Lowe, of the National

Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, said the findings are startling and

controversial.

"Keppler and colleagues' finding helps to account for

observations from space of incredibly large plumes of methane above tropical forests," he said in a commentary on

the research.

But the study also poses questions, such as how such a

potentially large source of methane could have been overlooked and how plants produced

it.

"There will be a lively scramble among researchers for the

answers to these and other questions," Lowe added.

a.k.a.
01-16-2006, 08:08 AM
If global warming

is really happening and if it is really man caused, our best chance of effectively doing something about it is by

gaining a true understanding of how it works.

The basic mechanism is actually simpler than

convection (although I don’t think I can describe it as clearly as you could):
Hotter objects radiate

energy at shorter wavelengths than cooler objects. Since the earth is cooler than the sun, radiation coming in

through the atmosphere is at longer bands than radiation going out. Certain gases absorb energy from the longer

bands of infrared radiation leaving the earth, but not the shorter bands coming in.
Of course

understanding how this works in the atmosphere, on a global scale, is a bigger question.
The most basic

formulation of the problem is determining the rate of infrared energy transfer from greenhouse gases in the lower

atmosphere to those in the upper atmosphere. Since energy doesn’t get “lost in space” until it reaches the upper

atmosphere. And energy doesn’t get lost from lower levels until it can be transfered to the higher levels.
The

basic formulas for calculating the rate of transfer are called “radiation calculus”; and they’re way over my head.

They are derived from principles of gas thermodynamics; which reads like a foreign language to me.
What I do

understand is the history of how radiation calculus was applied to progressively more realistic models of the

atmosphere over the course of about 100 years.
The first simple model was developed by Svente Arrhenius

(circa 1900), who I mentioned in my first post. It proposed a series of single columns of atmosphere, one point

thick, stretching from equator to 0 latitude. After each point was calculated, he averaged the results and

multiplied by the surface area of the globe.
Over the next 50 years various ways were discovered to

supplement this simple model with other climate variables. Most notably, convection and energy carried along wind

currents from tropics to the poles (not just as heat energy, but also as potential energy trapped in water

molecules).
In the 1950’s a significant modification was made to the basic calculus. The US conducted a lot of

expensive military research to narrow down the spectral bands at which infrared radiation was absorbed by various

gases at different altitudes. (Most of this research was geared towards the development of heat seaking missiles.)

It was discovered that, whereas at lower elevations H2O and CO2 have overlapping bands of IR absorption, at higher

elevations the bands of spectral absorption narrow and each gas absorbs IR at slightly different frequencies.


This indicates that CO2 had a greater impact than it’s relative concentration compared to H20 (which is, by far, the

most prevalent greenhouse gas). As CO2 traps energy in the upper atmosphere it acts as a sort of dam which raised

energy levels at lower levels.
In the 60’s scientists started using computers to create General Circulation

Models (GCM). The first GCM’s were extremely crude. Land masses weren’t distinguishable as continents and elevations

were averaged out. The oceans were modeled as simple water surfaces. Cloud cover was factored as average albedo. And

there was no accounting for particulates (like dust & soot). But there was fairly good accounting for wind currents,

convection, radiation along two axes, and latitudinal variations in incoming solar radiation.
Realistic

GCM’s (models that accounted for continents, elevations, ice &snow, vegetation, cloud cover, etc. ...) didn’t appear

until the 80’s. And models that could reasonably calculate climate change over time didn’t start appearing until the

90’s.
With regards to these later models, the role of cloud cover and ocean currents remains a sticking

point.
(Incidentally, you’re correct about cloud cover being contingent on saturation and temperature. But

it’s important to remember that the dew point is contingent on humidity. As air moves from high atmospheric pressure

to low, it expands and cools. The atmospheric pressure at which it reaches 100% saturation is dependent on it H2O

content. This is why, when you check the weather channel for dew points across the country, you generally see that

the dew point is set at really low temperatures in high, dry areas (like Denver, which has very little cloud cover)

whereas it can be quite high for low, humid areas (like Orladndo, which tends to get a lot of clouds).


Therefore, as higher temperatures increase H2O concentrations there should be more cloud cover. The problem, for

modelers, is that some clouds tend to reflect more radiation from the sun = a cooling effect. Other clouds tend to

slow down re-radiation from the earth = a feedback effect. It’s hard to predict the type of clouds that would be

formed, and at what altitudes.)

As far as predictive power goes... There’s been hits and misses.

(One of the simpler models predicted current polar ice loss back in 1971. Todays most sophisticated GCMS can’t seem

to agree on regional differences in projected temperatures.)
The most significant point in all this — for

our discussion — is that in every model, from the simplest to the most complex, every time you add CO2 the

temperature goes up.
Today’s laptops are more powerful than supercomputers of the 60’s, but I bet you

can’t point me to a single skeptic (or independent researcher) that has created a model of the atmosphere (even a

simple model) which is based on known physics and demonstrates that adding CO2 does NOT raise temperatures.



With regards to time line studies...
I think there’s two things they can prove: a) if there is any

correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature and b) if current temperature gains are comparable to this or

that period in the climate’s history.

As far as the first point goes... I say there’s been plenty of ice

core studies (from the mid 70’s to the present) which demonstrate such a correlation. You say these studies don’t

account for this or that.
My questions is:
a) What difference does it make as long as the correlation

has been made? You yourself said that “correlation” is not “connection”. The connection has to be demonstrated in

the physics. And it seems to me the physics is pretty solid.

As far as the second point goes, my

questions are:
b) How does going back in time demonstrate whether or not current warming trends are

comparable to this or that ice age? Don’t we have to wait until the current trend either peaks or bottoms out to

make that determination?
c) And why does this even matter, with respect to public policy, if it’s already hot

enough to kill corral reefs, increase the migratory range of parasitic insects, and destroy the homes and

livelihoods of Inuit populations? And, most importantly, why does it matter, if the potential for greater

temperature gains has been demonstrated?

A point about methodology.
Many scientists are prone to

make a fetish of the Scientific Method. As if it could prove something independently of its practical

application.
I’ve seen some really stupid science with some very rigorous methodology. (Especially with

regards to human attraction.) I also know that the empirical method was formulated on the basis of some (I would

say) bizarre metaphysical premises. And it would have never caught on if it hadn’t demonstrated practical

applications for warfare, industry and medicine.
A large body of knowledge concerning climate and the role of

CO2 already existed before the world started recording record temperatures. I can see the point of allowing

alternative theories to prove their point. But I don’t see the point of dismissing 150 years of accumulated

knowledge because it doesn’t conform to somebody’s ideal methodology for tracking down the cause of global

warming.
I think scientists are doing their job. They’re building on the existing knowledge base, testing the

limits of theory and investigating what is not known on the basis of what is known.

belgareth
01-16-2006, 08:54 AM
It's always more interesting

when somebody does their homework. You do good research. Over all, you are correct in the general science. I only

have a few points of contention here.

1. 'Record high temperatures' is a nonsensical statement as is 'record

low temperatures'. More accurately stated, they are record highs and lows within a very brief geological period

which is statistically insignificant. They don't tell us anything. It wasn't all that long ago that people were

living like the Inuits in northern California. Nor was it all that long ago that tropical ferns were growing north

of the arctic circle.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I find it terribly amusing that the global warming

crowd made so much noise about the high temps in France last year and the heavy hurricane season being evidence of

global warming, which it wasn't, versus how quiet they've been about the 'record' low temperatures this winter.

Any honest scientist would, at the very least, investigate and try to say why it worked and how it fit within the

framework of their theory. You can argue that they are still working on it and to that I say that they sure were

fast to proclaim proofs of their theories.

2. It matters with respect to everything that you, nor any other

global warming scientist has never produced one bit of data demonstrating that 'global warming' is outside natural

parameters demonstrated over a statistically significant period regardless of how people are living or which insects

are migrating where. The globe has repeatedly warmed and cooled throughout histiory and archeological evidence

indicates that nature made those changes in the past. If and until it is demonstrated that it is outside natural

occurance the entire discussion is moot. To take action in an effort to change the natural course of events, if

that's what it is, is absurd.

3. Methodology is critical to reliable scientific data. Without controls,

reproducability and verifiable data you have nothing but a bunch of useless junk. Certainly, there has been junk

science with good controls and methodology. There's been a lot more without it. The entire concept of scientific

method is designed to prevent as much bad science as possible. Assuming that all baselines start with the climate

over the last thousand years is one example of such lousy methodology.

4. Ice core studies only demonstrate what

occured in one microclimate. You need to demonstrate that it is a global phenomena for it to have any

significance.

5. I don't dismiss 150 years worth of data. Rather, you and others are dismissing 60,000,000

years worth of important, relevent data. You keep talking as if that tiny window is the whole sum of the data or is

an appropriate baseline when it is not either. We do agree that some scientists are doing their jobs but they still

have not done the basics of developing a model of what should be expected within the realm of natural, historical

occurances.

I'm not excluding this apparent warming trend as being manmade, only waiting for data. You are

excluding it being natural, without any proof or even evidence.

DrSmellThis
01-16-2006, 04:35 PM
Just a note on general science to help allay any unnecessary confusion:

While

many treat the scientific method as if it was only talking about laboratory "experiments" to determine

causality, experimental method is only one kind of scientific method. True experiments

conducted in a laboratory to determine causality -- where every condition is controlled through establishing an

artificial world in the lab, often at the expense of real world applicability -- actually represent only a fraction

of scientific research.

A correlational study that shows, say, a strong correlation between CO2 levels and

temperatures over a given period of time is just as true to "the scientific method" as an experiment. It's just

very difficult to determine causality merely with correlational or historical studies. The only sure, easy

way to do that is to control everything about the experimental situation in a lab setting.

There is a sort of

exception here, though.

You can make a relatively compelling case for causality with a correlational

study if you control for the most plausible alternative explanations, control for method and error variance; and

have a strong theoretical basis to argue for causality; especially if you have some good, true experimental (lab

controlled in a completely artificial environment) evidence that supports your theory.

There is no hope of ever

establishing causality the easy and straightforward way with studies of global warming. You can't take the earth

throughout history and throw it into a lab.

All you will ever have are correlational studies, the opportunity to

control for method/error variance; and, at best, strong theories about physical effects that themselves can be

tested in a lab that would support causation. Then you compare the evidence for the most likely causal explanation

with that for alternative explanations. What you end up with is one explanation that is relatively more compelling

than the rest.

We can hope for nothing more. That is the best case scenario, practically speaking; the scenario

on which we have to base whatever life and death decisions we might have to face as a result of any climate

change.

So if a strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is established; it can be shown that

random error or method choice did not lead to this correlation, and that the theory of CO2 causing warming can be

reliably demonstrated in the lab, then you are ready to make a case about human caused global warming, from the

standpoint of every scientific standard. You can also make a similar case for alternative explanations, as well you

should.

But scientifically speaking, the burden is on those who would make an alternative case, to argue that

their causal explanation is instead the most compelling. Those folks can't just say "you can't prove it", or "you

can't be sure" (or obviously, "you have no evidence," in the specific situation I've descibed), and pretend to

come from a scientific place; to be thinking like a good scientist.

I'm not suggesting anyone in this thread is

being unscientific in this way. But are global warming/human effect skeptics meeting their scientific obligation in

this sense?

This necessary state of affairs within the sciences becomes relevant to everyday life and policy

making when we evaluate the potential risks and stakes we face, such as the risks inherent to making or not making

certain decisions about the way we treat the environment. From a policy perspective, doing nothing until we have

"proof" may not be an option.

If we establish that humans most likely caused relative global warming in

this available period of study; that messing with global temperatures is risky behavior, and that we can only

control our effect on nature; it then becomes a seperate but related question whether global temperatures have made

more extreme swings throughout history.

Here again, you have to make a compelling case; and compete to establish

the most prudent, least risky option. Here again, I think the debate is lacking.

Some of the problem in the

public debate seems due to a lack of good scientific thinking, and a misunderstanding of the proper function of

science in policy making.

belgareth
01-16-2006, 09:04 PM
The burden is on the party

claiming causuality, each party claiming has equal burden. To date, the facts do not support causuality of any

argument when compared to historical data. CO2 levels have been higher then dropped to lower the average levels of

their own accord, why? Temperatures have been higher then dropped to much colder, why? Global temperatures are not

matching the models within expected deviations, why? You still start at a snapshot and make majestic conclusions

without reference to available data or answering questions. You cheerfully gloss over all historical data! The

current period of study is insufficient as it does not reflect the true range of conditions occuring naturally.



I think the most curioous point in this whole debate isn't whether global warming is occuring or why since it is

obvious that temperatures are continuing to change. An entire field of science and all the followers refuse to

examine relative data and put today's climate into context. Without the context you have no correlation because you

cannot demonstrate anything is happening that wouldn't be happening without human intervention. Where is the harm

in bending every effort to determine the truth instead of glossing over facts so you can justify making random

decisions? I don't know where you learned scientific method but where I learned it that would have given you a

failing grade every time.

Public policy should be based on best knowledge and it isn't to any degree. As noted

time and again, until we have real information about what is going on, public policy that attempts to control this

phenomena is erroneous. I ask again, what if the global climate change issue is completely beyond our control and/or

solely natural in cause. After billions or trillions of dollars have been poured into another white elephant we

discover that all we did amounted to piling up the money and burning it? Or worse, what if our efforts result in

adverse effects? It certainly wouldn't be the first time based on the same kind of 'science' being foist

on us. In either case biilions of people would be forced to pay for your folly. Millions of them could literally

starve to death as a result of not collecting and analysing sufficient data soon enough.

I say that the refusal

to collect the data is the risky-est behavoir imaginable. Why are you so against spending the extra effort to really

know how it all goes together? Is your agenda so important to you that potential damage, wasted effort and human

suffering don't matter?

Please note, this is a very one-sided debate. You are insisting that this is what is

happening regardless of reasonable questions. I'm acknowledging the climate is changing and am advocating for well

thought out research to know exactly what is happening so we can move rationally instead of the blind flailing the

global warming advocates are pushing.

DrSmellThis
01-17-2006, 12:44 AM
The burden is

on the party claiming causuality, each party claiming has equal burden. True. That is what I have implied.

So far things are great in this discussion. Good reminder.
CO2 levels have been higher then dropped

to lower the average levels of their own accord, why? Temperatures have been higher then dropped to much colder,

why? Interesting questions, but you can establish a statistical correlation, whatever it turns out to be,

regardless of why either variable changes. A correlation is just two numbers changing together. Understand that I am

just making a neutral point about scientific methodology; not expressing an opinion on who is "right" in the debate

here or in the above post. That is something I am capable of offering, and I am sticking to that.


You still start at a snapshot and make majestic conclusions without reference to available data or answering

questions. You cheerfully gloss over all historical data! The current period of study is insufficient as it does not

reflect the true range of conditions occuring naturally. See above comment. I suggested little or nothing

about these issues in the above post, and am concluding nothing; but am talking about the basic methodological

issues of a basic, hypothetical claim. I am deliberately leaving the raw data to you and AKA. Please try to

avoid making aggressive, baseless accusations involving me in the future. It makes intellectual discussion

unnecessarily unpleasant.
Without the context you have no correlation because you cannot

demonstrate anything is happening that wouldn't be happening without human intervention. No. A

correlation in science is simply a statistical relationship between two numbers representing measured

phenomena, regardless of the cause of that relationship. Putting a correlation in context happens after you

have the correlation. For example, there is a very strong correlation between a person's height and shoe

size; regardless of the contextual reason for that relationship, and the fact that they are not causally

related.

However, what you are saying might apply instead to causality; or might not; depending on the

compellingness of any alternative causes of the correlation turns out to be.

I am just trying to help people

avoid confusing the meanings of the scientific terms and concepts, as I said, since that is a little something I'm

qualified to contribute. Otherwise I would have continued to keep my mouth shut and avoid the attacks, like most

everyone else is doing.
Where is the harm in bending every effort to determine the truth instead of

glossing over facts so you can justify making random decisions? I agree with the first part wholeheartedly.

The second half is very unfair. I have challenged neither you nor AKA on your facts, but am staying out of something

I have a lot to learn about. I am just tracing some general parameters for relating science to public policy, and

saying both sides have to make their case factually. Carry on, gentlemen.


I don't know where

you learned scientific method but where I learned it that would have given you a failing grade every

time.This is an ignorant, inflammatory, offensive, patronizing accusation. It would be boring and ironic to

defend my training in research methods, while simultaneously having to clarify the difference between "correlation"

and "causation"; something covered in the first week of an undergraduate class in research methods/design. Please do

not continue with this behavior, especially as a moderator who is setting a tone for the forum. I'll be happy to do

my part to be cordial, understanding and respectful of you; to find common ground where possible. But it has to be

a two way street.
Public policy should be based on best knowledge I agree, with the

provision that under some scenarios we might be forced to make our best guess as to what to do to minimize risk. I

will leave it up to you guys to hash this out, and will study it on my own over time.
I ask again,

what if the global climate change issue is completely beyond our control and/or solely natural in cause. I

will only comment on the general scientific issue.

If this were the case, in the available time frame, you would

see a weak correlation between CO2 and temperature; or, in the case of a strong correlation, you would have a

"confounding variable" that was also correlated with CO2 levels, assuming the "natural" position was correct. (I'm

hoping interested people know the definition of a "confounding variable" in research methodology, but I'll explain

it further if asked; or somebody could try Googling it.)

In this hypothetical case, where a strong correlation

over the time period between T and CO2 was contaminated by a confound (third, time-period-relevant, correlating

variable), I'm not sure what the confound could be. The nature based confound would have to be more compelling in

explaining CO2 levels over the time period than the level of human activity; or else would have to enjoy a higher

correlation with T over the same time period.

If the level of emissions, or human "industrial" activity,

however best defined, were highly correlated with CO2 levels, (please realize this time that this is a neutral,

hypothetical statement) one might be hard pressed to suggest a compelling alternative explanation for the change in

levels.

I do not know the numbers here, and will leave that to you guys.

Understand that you would not need

to show the ultra-long term, epochal significance of human activity on global temperatures to learn something

critical with this approach. In fact, you could even assume as an axiom that nature in general tends have a greater

effect on everything in climate, including T, than any part of nature such as humans, without changing the

significance of such hypothetical findings. You could then move on to the question of the possible significance for

humans of the human effect, the most likely significance; knowing that, say, a solar flare, unexpected ice age, or

something else beyond our control could make it all academic. In the mean time you want to monitor all such

possibilities to the best of your ability and incorporate any data in your relationship with the planet as

humans.
In either case biilions of people would be forced to pay for your folly. Millions of them

could literally starve to death as a result of not collecting and analysing sufficient data soon enough.Talk

about alarmist scenarios! Where is the evidence that managing CO2 would lead to that? The one study I saw and

posted in the forum suggested an insignificant effect on the American economy, but I'm no great student, much less

an expert here. I'm not saying this is wrong. I'm saying I've seen no credible evidence that this would happen or

have to.
I say that the refusal to collect the data is the risky-est behavoir imaginable. Why are

you so against spending the extra effort to really know how it all goes together? Is your agenda so important to you

that potential damage, wasted effort and human suffering don't matter? Wow. You sound like a talk show host

here. Another dramatic false accusation or two. Um, I have always agreed, and stated in this forum, that continued

data collection is critically important, especially to the extent that fruitful, promising, practical studies

can be designed to provide much better answers to critical questions.

Why don't you tell us what the most

important first study to design would be. I love hearing about good study designs, and would honestly be happy to

praise you for your insight here.
You are insisting that this is what is happening regardless of

reasonable questions. No. I am insisting no such thing. I am saying if X is happening, then Y; not that X

is happening. If you would listen to others words and logic before going off, you could avoid all this conflict a

good percentage of the time.

In actuality I don't care what is right, and only want the truth, as you say you

want. I do embrace my identity as a professionally trained research scientist in that way, regardless of what you

think. I'd prefer humans had nothing to worry about.

I realize you mistrust much of what a lot of people say,

thinking they have "an agenda" (as if you're less "guilty" of this somehow) Sometimes I wonder whether you also

dismiss and misunderstand what people say, because of this mistrust. That is none of my business, and I do not mean

to trigger defensiveness or a reply.

I am not trying to usurp anyone's position as King of the Hill in this

thread. I only know about what I know about. I was trying to make a very limited contribution in a limited realm,

and to respect others' expertise as best I could.

So lay off me, belgareth. Consider going easy on the

testosterone supplements, sir. I mean no offense, and am willing to be nice from here on out. But I am not,

personally, going to put up with being treated like that.

DrSmellThis
01-17-2006, 02:53 AM
It matters

with respect to everything that you, nor any other global warming scientist has never produced one bit of data

demonstrating that 'global warming' is outside natural parameters demonstrated over a statistically significant

period regardless of how people are living or which insects are migrating where. The globe has repeatedly warmed and

cooled throughout histiory and archeological evidence indicates that nature made those changes in the past. If and

until it is demonstrated that it is outside natural occurance the entire discussion is moot. To take action in an

effort to change the natural course of events, if that's what it is, is absurd.This key paragraph presents

an opportunity to further clarify something just stated in the last post.

Asking important questions of our

world is really the first step in the scientific method.

For me, as a citizen of the planet, the most

basic question is not whether global warming is outside what is "natural" over the history of the planet. It is very

likely not, for one thing. Nature is for all practical purposes all powerful, and the surface of the planet may even

have been unfriendly to humans at times. Assuming that does not make other questions moot.

I have in mind three

kinds of questions, having to do with taking responsibility for our role in nature:

1. One question is, "does

human activity cause warming, within whatever larger cycles that might be occuring?"

2. And if so, "what are

the risks to humans associated with any absolute human effect on warming, given where we are now?"

3. Further

questions would shift to the realm of public policy, such as the action-value of such risks.

If there

turn out to be theoretically solid risks to life connected with our behavior, it is of secondary importance

whether or not, say, nature might be about to do something else that renders all that moot, such as impose an ice

age, unless we would have extremely compelling evidence about what the earth is planning to do in the imaginable

future and why. I make no claim to know about those plans. If we can find this out, let's find it out. But we might

indeed be powerless to change those kinds of scenarios.

Given the huge uncertainties about everything in the

solar system and everything planetary that might affect climate, we need to make some simple assumptions based on

where we are now, to evaluate whether risks based on such simple assumptions are significant in absolute terms.

What our actions should be would be partially determined by those risks, given what we know at this time.

Of

course, we should still learn about those possible scenarios, and act prudently to preserve ourselves if

appropriate; if something emerges as a likely event.

Our main responsibility is to learn about the "micro" level

effects of our own actions, within the larger, "macro" cycles and forces of the history of the solar system. Just

because an effect is "micro" doesn't make it practically insignificant at a certain time in

history.

Incidentally, my tendency, or choice, is to trust Mother Earth's ability to support and nuture life for

now, and yet accept that nothing in the universe is permanent. So far, the earth "knows" more about how to sustain

life than humans do. Gaia is my boss, and the working assumption is that I shouldn't do anything to usurp her

decisions about how to nurture me. If I'm responsible for my own actions I can accept the rest.

belgareth
01-17-2006, 04:23 AM
Doc,

Please excuse the use

of the word you. It wasn't intended so much as you as a generic grouping of the people who want to take action on

what is so far a flimsy correlation. I should have waited until I had more time to write my thoughts out better.



Interesting you should mention Gaia as that comes closer to what I believe than anything else discussed here.

belgareth
01-17-2006, 05:04 AM
In your second post you list

three questions, two I have asked repeatedly without an answer or them even being responded too, the third I believe

is implied as well. I'm not saying the climate isn't changing but I am saying we simply do not know why yet. My

stand on the risks of our failure to seek long term evidence to ascertain the true extent of man's effect on the

environment is well founded. We screw things up when we don't make sure we have all our ducks in a row. The risks

inherent in tampering with the environment are emmense and our record is lousy.

In reply to your question about

initial studies, I've already answered that. At the very least we need to ascertain what can realistically be

expected of global climate change within the normal cycles of nature. We have a sixty million year window we can

look at. Once that is done, we need to determine any correlations between various gases, solar fluctuations,

magnetic pole shifts, global temperatures, volcanic activity, plant life cycles including growth patterns and die

offs etc. It's a long list but can and should be done.

Once that is done, we need to determine all the factors

involved in man made changes. It is very likely that greenhouse gases are one of the culprits if we are impacting

the climate. However, other issues are not being taken into account. One I keep mentioning is melt associated with

soot. Again, I don't claim it is the sole cause, is a major contributor, or is significant because I simply don't

know. However, the issue of reflected and absorbed energy indicate that it could very well be contributing to snow

and glacial melting. Over the past few days a volcano has been erupting in Alaska. Which way is the ash drifting? Is

it having some effect on snow pack? What a wonderful opportunity to further our knowledge of one potential facet of

the questions we need to ask.

To date, we know there have been tremendous cyclic changes in the environment but

we have only scratched the surface as to why those changes took place. That knowledge will help us to determine our

place in the changes. To simply say that the globe is warming is much like saying the car won't start. To say we

are the cause of it without understanding the true nature and pattern of those changes is much like checkiing the

air in the tires when the car won't start.

There are a lot of people out there saying that we have to do away

with the infernal combustion engine and accept lower living standards to protect our planet. Others are

pushing nuclear solutions to our power needs. Still others want to force protocools on the entire world without

proof that they are relevent and at huge expense to the entire human race. Each of those proffered solutions has

inherent risks and drawbacks. Many of them are simply not workable. Others do not fully address all the associated

issues or even come close.

DrSmellThis
01-17-2006, 05:15 AM
CO2 levels

have been higher then dropped to lower the average levels of their own accord, why? Temperatures have been higher

then dropped to much colder, why? Jeez. I can't believe I missed this one. I'm slipping.

I'm not sure

what time periods you are referring to, but think about the definition of correlation. Then read carefully what you

just asked.

belgareth
01-17-2006, 05:39 AM
That's my point, is there a

correlation? In either case, what caused the change in the CO2 levels in the first place?

DrSmellThis
01-17-2006, 05:53 AM
Wouldn't CO2 levels have

dropped from their maximum with the decline of hard industry, State emission (e.g., DEQ) standards, improved public

transit, and zero population growth in the U.S., all human factors?

And as you say, if temperatures dropped over

that same period, would those data points not suggest correlation? In order to establish the most accurate

correlation, you need greatest frequency of measurement of these, that is, many more data points. It doesn't seem

that hard to measure. I don't get it. Shouldn't we know what the correlation is?

belgareth
01-17-2006, 05:59 AM
If you'll go back and look at

what I wrote, I was referring to historical records in order to determine if we are having some effect on the

climate. The periods I refer to were long before the advent of factories and in most cases before the taming of

fire. I did not say that they happened over the same period. I asked if they did.

DrSmellThis
01-17-2006, 06:05 AM
So what is the correlation

between CO2 and T since people were first able to affect CO2? Shouldn't this be the first number that everybody

talks about?

belgareth
01-17-2006, 06:15 AM
I think it is one of the

numbers and a lot of people are talking about it already. However, if historical CO2 levels and temperature do not

coincide it might make the possible current correlation no more than a coincidence. Further, whether or not they do

coincide historically, we need to determine what CO2 levels were in the past relative to today's levels; were they

higher or lower and so on. We also need to determine why CO2 levels were where they were, especially if they were

higher.

There's an article I posted about growing plants producing large quantities of methane. It brings to

mind more questions about natural occurance of greenhouse gases. If plants produce so much methane, along with

animals and volcanic activity, how does plant coverage coincide with temperature fluctuations?

DrSmellThis
01-17-2006, 06:28 AM
Here I'm not talking about

the relation between CO2 and T over the aeons, when natural cycles, balances, equilibreii, and dynamics were doing

their thing; when no increase in CO2 happened in isolation from the larger earth processes that could have caused

both T and CO2 changes; and when our measurements are necessarily very flawed. I mean if you have access to this

information, fine. It would be nice to know how big an effect CO2 has had on planetary temperature in general, all

other things being equal.

That is different than the effect of human produced greenhouse gases, though, during

current and recent history. It must be considered its own effect, for the reasons I mentioned. I'm giving the

planet some credit here, and allowing for natural equilibreum.

A metaphor would be looking at the effect of body

temperature to fight influenza. The effect of increased temperature caused by a strong, whole body immune response

would be different from that caused by artificially dipping somebody -- whose whole immune system hadn't responded

in multifarious ways -- in hot water.

If you're going to isolate humans' effect, isolate it.

But that

relation over the time when people could have unilaterally spiked CO2 by their isolated actions. What is it? Let's

look at it year by year. If you have that many data points, not just general linear trends; along with some

measurements just before as an immediate baseline, that should be more than enough to establish a meaningful

correlation, beyond all meaningful statistical possibilities of chance. I mean, once you're that sure, you don't

have to beat the dead horse, do you?

All you need is a lot of data points, regardless of how many years you

use. That way the length of time is mathematically irrelevant. The strength of correlation determines how many

points you need.

You could even look at daily numbers over the course of a year, factoring out average seasonal

variation. This stuff must be at our fingertips somewhere.

For that matter lets look at all the greenhouse gases

combined, then lets look at the overall human industrial effect; or the correlation with industrial activity in

general. What are those numbers?

belgareth
01-17-2006, 07:02 AM
The problem with your

comparison is you have some inkling of how the human body should be behaving so you know that your fever is a

problem. With the global warming you do not have that knowledge thus the comparison is invalid.

The period just

prior to the baseline is not sufficient to establish a pattern. You are working from a snapshot. I could easily use

your example of the human body and state that the body was suffering from hypothermia at the time of the initial

measurement and you have no evidence to state otherwise. Since you have not established a normal pattern for that

body you have no way of knowing what is abnormal. There is solid evidence that the globe was much warmer in history,

did it have a fever or is it just coming out of hypothermia now? We don't know. The number of data points is only

somewhat relevent as it gives you a clearer picture to establish a small portion of your trend lines.

Looking at

the correlation is fine but until you establish that there is a direct, repeated relational aspect you are only

looking at what could be coincidence. There's also the possibility that other factors coincide with man's

industrialization. I'll point to the study regarding methane and plants again. It states that methane is produced

in greater quantities as the temperature increases. That sounds like a feedback mechanism contributing to warming.

How do we know that cycle had not already begun when we began to industrialize? Are there other, similar occurances

that we have not discovered?

DrSmellThis
01-17-2006, 07:30 AM
The problem

with your comparison is you have some inkling of how the human body should be behaving so you know that your fever

is a problem. With the global warming you do not have that knowledge thus the comparison is invalid.

The period

just prior to the baseline is not sufficient to establish a pattern. You are working from a snapshot. I could easily

use your example of the human body and state that the body was suffering from hypothermia at the time of the initial

measurement and you have no evidence to state otherwise. Since you have not established a normal pattern for that

body you have no way of knowing what is abnormal. There is solid evidence that the globe was much warmer in history,

did it have a fever or is it just coming out of hypothermia now? We don't know. The number of data points is only

somewhat relevent as it gives you a clearer picture to establish a small portion of your trend lines.

Looking at

the correlation is fine but until you establish that there is a direct, repeated relational aspect you are only

looking at what could be coincidence.I do not accept your terse dismissal of my comparison as "invalid",

since you apparently missed the point of it, which was comparing isolated with holistic or systemic change. It was a

good, illustrative comparison if you understood it, by any standards. Please try not to use extreme, derogatory

terms like "invalid", when you really meant to say that there is at least one relevant difference between the

metaphor and the reality -- no shock in any metaphoric comparison. That I'd be fine with, and that was the content

of your point. But I'm tired of attacks.

Within the metaphor, you can't just claim the guy had hypothermia. You

would have no evidence to expect that, except by random, astronomical chance. The odds of hypothermia being the

explanation in that case are exceedingly remote. All you can say is that there is opportunity for random error. But

most methods account for that error. You'd test 15 or 20 guys with fevers, and there would be no way they could

systemastically have hypothermia, unless you had a compelling reason to argue they did. This is a run of the mill

issue in every research design.

Your thinking about data points being of minor relevance and trend lines being

the point seems to reflect a misunderstanding of correlation and statistics. Trust me -- the reliability of a

correlation is directly related to the number of data points, as well as the size of the resultant correlation.

That's how you measure the reliability, in fact.

With the baseline, the same principle holds. You just need a

certain number of points to establish the baseline. the best time frame mathematically is something similar in

order to the other time frame you used; and you actually want to work with near history, in the same part of

history, when similar larger conditions existed. That is the best you can do for your primary comparison.

What

happened before is not the main point, since we are concerned with what is happening now, within whatever

aeonic cycle we are in. You can still see the "local effects" and correlations within that cycle. If you have

larger, slower cycles, you can still detect a spike within that, can you not?

Then we would be concerned with the

possible effects of whatever is happening on our lives. This fits in with the three questions I outlined.

At the

end of your post you are claiming that correlations lack reliability and could be random chance, when the whole

process of deriving a correlation in such a study involves accounting for these. A "direct repeated relational

aspect" is the very definition of a correlation, not something lacking in a correlation.

belgareth
01-17-2006, 07:59 AM
I do not

accept your terse dimissal of my comparison as "invalid", since you missed the point of it, which was just comparing

isolated with holistic or systemic change. It was a good, illustrative comparison, dude. Think again. Please try not

to use extreme, derogatory terms like "invalid", when you really meant to say that there is at least one relevant

difference between the metaphor and the reality -- no shock in any metaphoric comparison, is it? I'm tired of your

attacks.

It wasn't an attack. If you choose to take it that way its up to you but don't hold me

responsible for how you decided to take a statement. It was neither derogatory nor extreme except in your

perception.


No, you can't just claim the guy had hypothermia. You would have no evidence to

expect that, except by random, astronomical chance. The odds of hypothermia being the explanation are exceedingly

remote. All you can say is that there is opportunity for random error. But most methods account for that error.

You'd test 15 or 20 guys with fevers, and there would be no way they could systemastically have hypothermia, unless

you had a compelling reason to argue they did. This is a run of the mill issue in every research

design.

No more than you can claim that it is a normal situation since you do not have a group of test

subjects to work with. Without those test subject to work with you are working in a knowledge vacuum. You do not

know if at the time of your intitial measurement the subject was in what could be called a normal state or if some

other condition existed. I am attempting to eliminate all potential errors and coincidental data so we can get to

the real core of the matter. The inescapable fact is that the globe has been both cooler and warmer than it is now

and we don't know why. Did it have a fever or hypothermia and what was the source of

that?


Your thinking about data points being of minor relevance and trend lines being the point

seems to reflect a misunderstanding of correlation and statistics. Trust me -- the reliability of a correlation is

related to the number of data points,as well as the size of the resultant correlation.

It was not a

dismissal. It was an acknowledgement of data points within its timeframe. However, as I keep pointing out, you do

not have a base to work from other than a snapshot condition that we are not sure of it's relevence or of other

mitigating influences.


With the baseline, the same principle holds. You just need a certain

number of points to establish the baseline. the best time frame mathematically is something similar in order to the

other time frame you used; and you actually want to work with near history, when similar larger conditions existed.



Near history is a relevent thing. We are talking about something bigger than a single lifetime with

changes encompassing ages. A baseline only encompassing a period of a thousand years is not adaquit for the frame of

reference as it does not encompass known historical changes. We need to understand the relevence of those changes to

understand if and how we may be affecting them.


What happened before is not the main point,

since we are concerned with what is happening now, within whatever aeonic cycle we are in. Then we would be

concerned with the possible effects of whatever is happening on our lives. This fits in with the three questions I

outlined.
Here's the main point of contention. From my perspective, until you understand the machine you

cannot understand the relevence of current changes. I'd prefer a longer study period than the sixty million years I

keep mentioning. However, there was a cataclysmic event not too long before that which probablly skewed the data.



Let me ask again though, from your perspective, what is the harm in gathering the data and determnining if there

is relational information that will better our understanding of the rather short time frame we live within? Other

than possibly showing that global climate change has other potential causes, what harm would assuring we have the

correct information and baseline do?

Again, I'm not dismissing anything. I am arguing against dismissing

historical data that you appear to want to exclude for reasons of your own.

DrSmellThis
01-17-2006, 09:32 AM
I will hold you responsible

for attacks if they involve me, and will need to find a way that works, hopefully, for both of us. It would be

better if you just didn't do it. I am asking you to please work on this. You are a good guy, but are too often

unnecessarily, and too harshly, critical of others on this forum, IMHO. AKA has been very patient here, for example,

as have others, like netghost. You really ripped netghost, and he was trying to be nice. I have had to work on that

myself, and don't judge you. I'm not asking you to eat crow without being willing to eat some from time to time

myself. I am also more sensitive to this than average, and that is my issue. But I'm not imagining it.

I just

told you I'd have 15 or 20 guys and you're telling me I don't have a group of subjects? Whatever. It's my

metaphor and hypothetical example.

I accept your question about the possibility of coming out of an ice age or

whatever as significant to consider in some ways, but not really crucial for the time frame where humans could have

affected the climate. It's a separate issue. The gradual change from the most recent ice age could not mask sudden

effects of industrialization within that cycle.

Why does it matter if the globe has been warmer and cooler in

ancient history for detecting an effect that either happened over the last 150 years or did not? There is no reason

to require a baseline that extends into ancient history, you just need to compare the time period just before with

the time now to get the effect of primary interest. I'm not saying the rest is completely irrelevant.

In fact,

you don't even need a baseline, statistically speaking. You can establish a correlation based on degrees, not

absolute presence and abscence of something. Multiple baselines are a nice luxury. A baseline might tell you about

the effect of naturallly produced CO2, for example. But if there is a strong relation between levels of human

produced greenhouse gases and T, from day to day and year to year, there just is.

A baseline helps you with

determining the signicance of a climate change in planetary history. But we are more interested in significance of

the human effect, on the planet's supporting of human life and quality of life. That is the crucial information we

need right now, regardless of who is right or wrong.

Why do we need to know "all known historic changes"? Isn't

that just irrelevant for the question of primary interest? Again, I'm not saying ancient history is irrelevant. It

is relevant for determining the absolute level of any global warming you observe, on planetary scale. It's

historically interesting. It's also good for understanding what humans have done to adapt to different climate

conditions in history. But we can determine the practical effects and practical significance of warming on us now

without all of that.

There is no harm in gathering the data. It's good. I don't know why you are asking, since

we agreed before. I don't doubt that there might be other causes of climate change other than humans. But you

should be able to get some crucial information on specific human effects, already, from the standpoint of good

scientific practice.

Again, you should be able to demonstrate some human effects on global temperatures, and

estimate the near term risks of certain absolute changes; without knowing all the causes of climate change. There is

no scientific reason why you can't, and it is often the case in science that you know some causes and not others.

That doesn't mean the science failed.

belgareth
01-17-2006, 10:18 AM
I will hold

you responsible for attacks if they involve me, and will need to find a way that works, hopefully, for both of us.

It would be better if you just didn't do it. I am asking you to please work on this. You are a good guy, but are

too often unnecesarily, and too harshly, critical of others on this forum. AKA has been very patient here, for

example, as have others, like netghost. You really ripped netghost, and he was trying to be nice. I hate to break it

to you, but it's not just me. I have had to work on that myself, and don't judge you. I'm not asking you to eat

crow without being willing to eat some from time to time myself. I am also more sensitive to this than average, and

that is my issue. But I'm not imagining it. It is unreasonable to expect others to allow that forever, or to expect

to just tell people it's their issue. It's off putting to put it on others, given that you talk about how

absolutely responsibile you are.

It's no more an attack on you than the above is an attack on me. I

made a statement that you decided was an attack. No more and no less. What you decided to do with that statement was

entirely up to you.

If you refer to what I said to Netghost, he made a clearly inaccurate statement. I said so.

Then I went on to explain why it was inaccurate.

AKA has been great and I've said so several times. He really

does a good job with his homework and has been the best discussion in this thread. I didn't bother to go back and

debate each point with him, his information was great the applications sometimes weren't. But that was of no

matter.

You may be using more words than me but you are still doing the same thing as you attribute to me. I'm

not sure what your reason is and am not going to find out because it doesn't matter. I WAS NOT ATTACKING YOU, ONLY

MAKING A STATEMENT SIMILAR TO THOSE YOU MAKE YOURSELF. I have no control over your decision to interpret it that

way.


I just told you I'd have 15 or 20 guys and you're telling me I don't have a group of

subjects? Whatever. It's my metaphor and hypothetical example.

Please go back and read it again. I said

that in the case of the earth's climate you don't have the group of test subjects. You don't have controls. You

are starting from a point and assuming it is a valid baseline point.



I accept your question

about the possibility of coming out of an ice age or whatever as significant to consider in some ways, but not

really crucial for the time frame where humans could have affected the climate. It's a separate issue. The gradual

change from the most recent ice age could not mask sudden effects of industrialization within that cycle.

Why

does it matter if the globe has been warmer and cooler in ancient history for detecting an effect that either

happened over the last 150 years or did not? There is no reason to require a baseline that extends into ancient

history, you just need to compare the time period just before with the time now to get the effect of primary

interest. I'm not saying the rest is completely irrelevant.

In fact, you don't even need a baseline,

statistically speaking. You can establish a correlation based on degrees, not absolute presence and abscence of

something. Multiple baselines are a nice luxury. A baseline might tell you about the effect of naturallly produced

CO2, for example. But if there is a strong relation between levels of human produced greenhouse gases and T, from

day to day and year to year, there just is.

A baseline helps you with determining the signicance of a climate

change in planetary history. But we are more interested in significance of the human effect, on the planet's

supporting of human life and quality of life. That is the crucial information we need right now, regardless of who

is right or wrong.

Why do we need to know "all known historic changes"? Isn't that just irrelevant for the

question of primary interest? Again, I'm not saying ancient history is irrelevant. It is relevant for determining

the absolute level of any global warming you observe, on planetary scale. It's historically interesting. It's also

good for understanding what humans have done to adapt to different climate conditions in history. But we can

determine the practical effects and practical significance of warming on us now without it.

There is no harm in

gathering the data. It's good. I don't know why you are asking, since we agreed before. I don't doubt that there

might be other causes of climate change other than humans. But you should be able to get crucial information on

specific human effects, already, from the standpoint of good scientific practice.

Again, you should be able to

demonstrate human effects on global temperatures, and estimate the risks of certain absolute changes; without

knowing all the causes of climate change. There is no scientific reason why you can't, and it is often the case in

science that you know some causes and not others. That doesn't mean the science failed.

I'm repeating

myself again but you can only demonstrate casual relationships through that methodology. You cannot demonstrate that

it would not have occured without human intervention. Nor can you demonstrate that past climate change was gradual.

We assume it was but how do we know?

Perhaps, and I offer this as an olive branch, our training is significantly

different. The relationships that you appear to consider to be proof of human intervention would in the physical

sciences be considered a starting point to a research project. I say that from my own studies in the sciences as

well as that of those I am around on a regular basis. In other words, it may be no more than a matter of different

traiings that we are disagreeing on the importance and the relevence of the data.

Icehawk
01-18-2006, 11:36 AM
You cannot

demonstrate that it would not have occured without human intervention. Nor can you demonstrate that past climate

change was gradual. We assume it was but how do we know?


There in lies Belg's sticking point. Forget

the baselines, points, asteroids, medival warm periods. Just a clear corelation between temperature change due to

industrialization.:think:

belgareth
01-18-2006, 12:55 PM
There in lies

Belg's sticking point. Forget the baselines, points, asteroids, medival warm periods. Just a clear corelation

between temperature change due to industrialization.:think:
That's more or less correct. You can

demonstrate all day long that man COULD be the cause of global climate change. But nobody has demonstrated that man

is because nobody has demonstrated that any change outside the natural order is taking place. Without the data

showing other times and conditions you cannot really demonstrate that there is a change at all, much less a man

created/caused change. The current climate fluctuations could easily be well within normal variations of the

environment. Until you demonstrate it isn't you have no case whatsoever to claim there is any such thing as global

warming or any relationship to man.

As I said before, I am not trying to prove or disprove anything. I want the

data to determine what is really happening so I can judge for myself and so others can do the same. It isn't an

unreasonable expectation. Expecting anybody to accept global warming claims based on the above posted arguments

is.

tim929
01-18-2006, 03:52 PM
We have had minor ice ages in

recorded history more than once.Europe had issues with the a couple hundred years ago.Climate change is a fact of

life on this planet.When mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philipines,climatologists said that it did more damage to the

earths ozone layer in one day than industrialized man had done in history.They also said that this damage would

easily repair itself within a year or two.How is it that the ozone wont repair the little bit of damage we did but

it will repair a whole lot of damage done all at once by nature?

I work with ozone generators...the O3 molecule

has a very short life span at room temperature and even shorter when you apply heat.Its also very reactive,and as a

result tends to break down when its exposed to almost anything.Was it flurocarbons that desolved the ozone?Or was it

any number of thousands of other various things that find thier way to high altitude...man made and otherwise.To say

flurocarbons break down ozone is correct...so does mold,mildew,bacon fat...no joke...ozone reacts to anything

organic and breaks down.It also reacts with many metals...so what was the cause of ozone depletion?

I think its

kinda cute to hear about global warming now that Im almost forty.When I was a youngster in grade school,they had us

all wringing our hands and worrying about something totaly different.Durring the early 1970's,scentists had

concluded that as a result of polution,the earth was headed for a man made ice age and that by the year 2000 the

city of seattle would be under a perpetual blanket of ice and snow.Here it is 2006 and we are still complaining

about too much damn rain.All that time spent worrying and fretting about my bleak and dismal future as a snow man

and wondering if I could talk my mom and dad into moving to Pheonix...I could have been spending my time doing the

things that all the kids who slept through the films were doing instead...But noooo...I had to be paying attention

and actualy caring about becoming an ice creature...I missed out on alot of soccer and base ball and swimming and

bike riding because scientists who knew what they were talking about had told me I was gonna turn into a

Timmy-cicle...My older siblings had it worse...they were all spooked about the Ruskies and the bomb.They spent thier

childhoods diving underneath things every time a car backfired.Never mind forth of July...

The fact is that what

climatologists know about climate change is about as much as your family dog knows about building rockets and flying

to Mars.They have made alot of assertions in the past that have fallen appart and now they are making wild

assertions about something else.In order to generate funding from federal agencies and congress,they have to creat a

crisis,study the crisis,publicize the crisis and then offer a solution to the crisis.Once all that is done,the

funding drys up.What now? No jobs,mortgages dont get paid,cars get reposesed...etc,etc...So,what about creating

another crisis? Yeah! That will work! Then we can go to congress and ask for money to study the crisis and

maybe...if we are lucky...we will all be retired and be able to pass the torch on to the next generation of

scientists who will come up with the solution to this new crisis.Then they can go through the whole process of

creating another one and getting funding and so on and so on and so on and...

It realy is sort of stupid if you

sit down and look at the history of it all.Environmentalists have a very valid and valuable purpose,and that purpose

shouldnt need a crisis to make it all make sense.But...in a generation of sound bites and TV dinners,unless it poses

a threat,nobody cares.Unfortunatly,once you get people on board with the crisis approach,it becomes a religious

crusade to save humanity from the evils of ______________insert crisis here.

How do you think all the

astronomical observatories generate funding now? By looking for the dreaded "killer asteroid!" They are afraid that

if we dont spot one on its way to earth,that someone might get an eye put out or something.They have created thier

crisis and now the federal dollars are flowing like a pink champagne fountain."WOOO HOOO!!" they all cried,and

bought new homes and new cars(SUV's I might add) and bought new Carl Sagan lunch boxes and slide rulers...The party

is on for the astronomers these days.They are even featured as the heros in movies about big rocks in space.The

climatologists need to be paying attention so they can figure out how to become hollywood heros too.Otherwise they

run the risk of being marked as boring and loosing all thier funding.

Have I rambled on enough yet?I better

shut up befor I make any enemies.I dont wanna run the risk of ticking off an astronomer and not get told that Im

gonna get hit in the head by a rock from space...

belgareth
01-18-2006, 04:55 PM
Ok, now that I've cleaned up

the mess from spitting my water all over the desk while readin your post I'll say thank you for that breath of

fresh air. :box: Jeese! And I thought I was cynical. The unfortunate part is that I really can't disagree with

anything you've said.

The one thing I'd add is that despite my deep seated scepticism of the whole global

warming scenerio and those who promote it, the climate is still an important issue. It only makes good sense to

study the climate and learn as much as we can about it and any possible effects we have on it. Once people get off

the panic wagon and take a real look at the associated issues we stand a good chance of gaining true understanding

of the world around us. But until that happens, until people take off their blinders and stop making excuses for

lousy science, we'll keep going in circles and playing this panic the public for money game.

tim929
01-18-2006, 06:18 PM
Synical? Maybe...stark raving

sane is more like it though.The sad reality is that panic politics has become the main stream way of doing

business.There are plenty of reasons to study climate and funding shouldnt depend uppon creating a doomsday scenario

to present to the public in order to explore things that we should be exploring as a matter of practice anyway.It

results in funding that gets misdirected from legitimate goals of science toward projects designed to increase fear

for the purpose of manipulating the public.

An example of panic politics is the idea that only republicans are

qualified to deal with matters of national defense.If we leave it to the democrats there will be firefights in the

streets and Taliban tanks rolling through Washington DC. And only democrats are qualified to handle scocial

issues...if we leave that to the republicans there will be thousands of starving children lining the streets and the

elderly will be rendered down for dog food.

Americans have been trained over the years to respond only to the

most severe and shocking examples of anything in order to get our attention.Shock radio,shock television,shock news

casting....evrything has to create shock in order to get noticed.Look at all the various dramas surrounding

hollywood celebrities like Brad whats his-name and Angelina something-or-another.That Paris girl or Pamela

whats-her-name.Evrything about them has to shock people befor anybody even cares.At some point,mark my words...there

will be hollywood representatives in every home with cattle prods,making sure that when something happens that your

supposed to care about,you "moo" at all the appropriate moments or you will get a fifty thousand volt blast to wake

you up!

Give it time,the American public cant get much more numb than they are now and it will take those sorts

of extremes to motivate people to care enough to even eat.After we get done with a sixty or seventy hour work

week,pay bills with money we dont have,spend some quality time with the young people who might remember us as being

thier parents,and watch a couple hours of mind numbing flashing lights on a screen,it will take a cattle prod to get

anyone to care that there are tank battles and firefights going on in the streets,or starving children lining the

streets...by the way...where are my grandparents?

belgareth
01-18-2006, 08:36 PM
Well said, Tim. Unfortunately,

I expect this is the last I'll hear of you unless the newspapers publish your burning at the stake for heresy.

Maybe you'll be live at eleven?

tim929
01-18-2006, 09:04 PM
o0o0o0o0o...burned at the

stake...film at eleven...I like the sound of that.The news casters will like it too...its sure to get a rise out of

a weary and apathetic viewing audience.

I am realy on the fence with global warming.Kind of like Im on the fence

about global terrorism,SARS,avian flu and all the other doom and gloom that gets published in the interest of

getting attention.In the old days,if a half a dozen people died of a strange ailment that couldnt be identified it

was carefuly placed in a file marked "who gives a sh*$." Now its headline news and the CDC sends a C-130 and a

special reaction team out to find out the cause.And of course there are the ascociated press conferences and

telephone conversations with the Whitehouse regarding the latest in a long and growing number of "epidemics."

Special commities are assigned the task of sorting out who is going to handle it and where the money should be sent

(usualy to a Swiss bank account.)Doctors are briefed on the signs and symptoms of a desease that will probably never

amount to more than a flash in the pan.And it will amount to that much only because the news people got ahold of it

and ran the story.

Sorta like the newsy punk that overheard a cell phone conversation about the trapped miners

and took a statement totaly out of context and got it on the air...The next thing you know,twelve miners are being

brought out in body bags and one on a stretcher after the world had been told they were all alive.Or the time that

people stopped going to the polls to vote after they heard that the election was already won...even thought the

polls had only reported less than one percent of the returns at that point.The list goes on and on and on.

News

programs are like everything else.They are supported by advertising dollars.Those dollars go to the show with the

best ratings and to get those ratings you have to be "edgy" and "on the spot." Timing is everything.Accuracy in news

reporting means waiting to get the whole story.Its easier to make stuff up and go with it and correct it later than

it is to simply wait and get it right the first time.And when reporting on science issues,information may be years

or even decades in comming.That wont get ratings tonight so...make something up and run with it.The news media

creates more news than they report.Global warming,because of the absence of information,qualifies as one of those

issues that they just couldnt wait for so they just ran with it.And thats what the "scientists" wanted.That way they

could publish a bunch of scary stuff and get funding and grants for it.

Im sure...if you were to ply him with

enough beer...JVK could tell you horror stories about this kind of "science" where it pertains to his working

circles.Sensable people get pushed aside by folks with more exciting agendas...and to hell with the facts!

belgareth
01-18-2006, 10:09 PM
Let me be clear about

something. I am not now and have not at any time said the climate is not changing. I have clearly said the global

warming scenerio is a joke and still stand by that statement. Tim makes a very good point about how science is dealt

with in the news and the public eye. Once the public has a hold on the hype, they don't let go. Politicians are no

better than anybody else and they are trying to get reelected. So if the general public says to get naked, rub blue

mud in their belly button and dance around the campfire, that's what the politicians are going to do, just so long

as the people are looking. There's nothing new about it. II can't say even half as well what Tim has already said

about the science.

The globe may be warming or we may be headed into another ice age or a long list of other

possibilities. So long as people wear blinders and believe without asking critical questions and so long as they

make excuses for poor scientific methods and refuse to even acknowledge the need for real, in depth research, we are

never going to learn what is really happening. That really and truly scares the crap out of me!

Netghost56
01-18-2006, 11:47 PM
I guess I'm just too

emotionally involved (and too dumb) to argue this.

belgareth
01-19-2006, 05:09 AM
I'd agree with the emotional

involvement and that's never a good idea when you are dealing with science. The dumb part isn't true. You, like

everybody else, have been subject to the daily flood of garbage and sensationalism endemic in our society. It isn't

your doing that all these agenda driven organizations do such a good job of hyping their stories to the exclusion of

reality.

My suggestions are this. One is to turn off the TV and completely ignore what the general public

believes to be facts. Instead, at every opportunity go to classes and learn the important scientific methods,

accepted practices of good science and absorb as much of the real knowledge as you possibly can. Then suppliment

that with independent research whenever you need a point clarified. Most importantly, never, ever believe what any

agenda driven person or organization tells you until you have verified it through at least two unaffiliated

sources.

When you read of something, look for phrases like "Many scientists believe". It translates to "A bunch

of others disagree but their side was stiffled because it wasn't sensational enough for the ratings".

Try to

always take every issue apart and look at its underbelly. Ask why these things would happen as described then look

for the science that supports it. Don't ever take anything at face value. Be a sceptic. The way I was raised and

the way I live my life today make it implicit that I always look at things from that perspective. Anything else

would be a failure to what I've been taught.

Learn to look at the news as if it's half fantasy because it is.

Learn to look at all organizations as if they are agenda driven because they are. Always question motives. Sceptical

cynicism may irritate others but it often reveals the truth.

tim929
01-19-2006, 01:14 PM
I'd agree with the

emotional involvement and that's never a good idea when you are dealing with science. The dumb part isn't true.

You, like everybody else, have been subject to the daily flood of garbage and sensationalism endemic in our society.

It isn't your doing that all these agenda driven organizations do such a good job of hyping their stories to the

exclusion of reality.


Well said bel...the sad reality is that our world...yes,the one you see on the

news every night...is pretty boring.And because of that lack of interesting stuff going on,the news media,in the

interest of getting good ratings has to "spice things up." Ratings are critical in television.It doesnt matter if

its a Sweedish cooking show,prime time sit-coms or the news.Ratings are EVERYTHING! Those ratings are what determine

the price of advertising air time in that time slot for that program.If the news doesnt catch peoples interest the

way a sit com does,the ratings fall and the money dries up because nobody wants to pay a premium for the airtime in

a dead slot.

The result is all the news thats fit to exagerate,over dramatize and inflate beyond recognition.If

you hang around with anews crew for a while,you will quickly discover that life in the real world is frankly...kinda

boring and dull.But let the journalists get ahold of it and a simple bus ride becomes "THE RIDE OF DEATH!" A walk in

the park becomes "A JOURNEY OF LIFE AND DEATH!" A kid catches a cold at the local grade school and suddenly

"EPIDEMIC THREATENS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES!" Im not even gonna tell you what they could do if they got ahold of

your pet poodle "Fifi." "KILLER BEAST MAULS CHILDREN AND LEVELS SUBURB!"

Global warming has been treated much

the same way.There may be major climate changes happening and continuing to happen.But that nothing new or unusual

in the life of the planet.In fact...its so normal,Im not realy even sure why it bears mentioning.Its right up there

with news stories like "SCIENTISTS DISCOVER THAT RAIN IS WET! FILM AT ELEVEN!"

a.k.a.
01-19-2006, 06:56 PM
I guess I'm just

too emotionally involved (and too dumb) to argue this.

Being able to argue an issue and

understanding an issue are two different things.
If you feel like your argument skills are lacking, I

think you could learn a lot from Gerry Spence’s “How to Argue and Win Every Time” :

http://www.gerryspence.com/howtoargue.html

There is IMO a minimum intelligence requirement for

understanding the issue of global warming. But I think you, and the majority of Americans, are well above this

minimum.
The problem is that intelligence is just one factor in understanding an issue. The most important

factor is information. And the more complex an issue is the more information you need in order to understand

it.

In the case of global warming there’s quite a bit of information to digest simply in order to get a

handle on the scientific theory. And this is just the start.
In the final analysis, the future of this

issue is going to be determined by politics, not science. And the politics of global warming is considerably more

controversial, if not more complex, than the science.
To have a well rounded understanding, you need to

dig into both the science and the politics.

Whether or not emotions are appropriate to this endeavor

depends on what kind of emotions we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the kinds of emotions that arise when

someone contradicts your views, then I agree that these can only hinder understanding. If we’re talking about the

kinds of emotions that arise when you really care about the environment, the future of humanity, global justice or

the advancement of science... I think these emotions are essential if you want to remain motivated and focused while

digging through all the information.
This goes double for getting a handle on the politics of global

warming. Lose your heart and you will surely lose your way.

As far as where to start... I strongly

recommend reading the “IPCC’s Third Assessment Report” http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
This

document represents the broadest scientific consensus on a) whether global warming is real, b) whether human

activities are behind it, and c) whether there is a risk for future generations. It contains a very clear and

detailed summation of the premises, methodologies, and data behind the notion that we are putting our futures at

risk.
In itself, this single document won’t give you a complete understanding of the science behind global

warming, but it will give you a perfect picture of what IS NOT the science of global warming. When environmentalists

say something like, “Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming.”, you’ll know for yourself if that’s what the

theory is about. When skeptics say something like, “The notion of global warming ignores the role of cyclical

climate changes.”, you’ll be able to judge for yourself wether it does or doesn’t.
In other words, this

document will serve as a reliable gauge to sort out genuine criticisms (or applications) of the science from all the

common misrepresentations that accompany such a polticized issue. It’ll help you drawn the line that says, “This is

where I have to learn more about the scince, and this is where I have to get a firmer grip on the politics.”



In any case. Don’t feel bad if you feel out of place in the discussions coming out of this thread. This forum isn’t

going to change anything. At it’s best, it’s nothing more than an intellectual exercise. Mostly it’s just some

middle aged men venting our frustrations.

tim929
01-19-2006, 07:53 PM
In any case. Don’t feel

bad if you feel out of place in the discussions coming out of this thread. This forum isn’t going to change

anything. At it’s best, it’s nothing more than an intellectual exercise. Mostly it’s just some middle aged men

venting our frustrations.


AMEN!:box:
As a nearly middle aged man,I feel strongly compelled to agree

with you on that one.But on the flip side,there is another aspect of that that you may be missing.If I tell two

friends,and they tell two friends and they tell two friends and so on and so on,suddenly there is a ground swell of

people who become interested or concerned with the issue at hand.Hence,my earlier post in another thread regarding

minimum wage and its effects on the economic health of our country.Or this thread on the effects of global warming

and its potential impact on our future.

There is realy nothing wrong with venting or speaking your mind.It can

be a very healthy practice and in the end,if its carried to any kind of conclusion by people who care,it can in fact

begin to change the world.forums like this,up until recently have been composed of small groups of people who vent

and are heard by only a few others.But sometimes information found in a forum like this one finds its way into the

main stream.Rare? You bet it is.But it does happen.

My sincere hope is that over time,forums like this one will

become jumping off points for discussions that will spread to larger and more viewed places to eventualy be

discussed openly among the masses and begin to effect change in the way we think and act and percieve our world and

our scociety.It might not happen in my life time,but these types of forums can have an impact if people start to

care enough and get active and maintain an open mind and heart toward others.

I have mentioned in other posts

about the forums in ancient Rome.These places were where scocial issues and political issues realy took hold and

spread from one province to another and eventualy to Rome itself.In those forums,people were able to bring thier

concernes and problems and work together to find answers to problems that existed and it gave people opportunity to

share different viewpoints on the same subject.A big part of critical thinking is to adhere to nothing with such

zeal that an opposing viewpoint is irrelevant.Instead,approach everything with an open mind and understand that none

of us has all the answers and by sharing different perspectives it becomes possible to expand our understanding of

the world around us.

The advantage we have is that people from all over the world have the ability to post in an

internet forum and express thier differing views with us and we have an opportunity to see life through thier eyes

for a brief moment and expand our limited understanding.That cant be a bad thing.

Its sad that a tool of such

amazing power like the internet would be used less as a tool for changing the world and more for a tool of

dispalying pornography and selling used crap on EBAY from our garages

DrSmellThis
01-19-2006, 09:02 PM
I would just like to see some

solid, logical, scientific reasoning here. I might not know the facts, and will gladly defer to others there; but I

know how to think like a good, professional research scientist in basic ways.

If there is a correlation,

C, between CO2 and T during the last 200 years, there just is. There is only one set of facts for that comparison --

the temperatures and the levels. There are no further kinds of studies possible for this specific question, in as

much as the first one was done right with accurate data and correct methodology (and I'm not saying it was.

Again, I am of course open to any arguments about the specific temperatures and emmission employed over the time

period, and any other methodological questions about the initial study). C is the basic number of interest for the

question of whether there is human caused warming; becauses it expresses the likely relationship between human

industrial activity and temperature, according to the theory you are testing, the greenhouse theory. Period. All

roads go through C.

Given C, you can conclude that, right now, over the measured time period, there is a

significant, reliable, sysematic, NON-CHANCE relationship between a prominent greenhouse gas and global

temperatures.

Again, if a strong C exists, and I am not saying it does, since I didn't see the

study, end of preliminary discussion. If both numbers move together every day, and both numbers go up and down

together often enough, day to day or year to year, you RULE OUT RANDOM CHANCE as a cause of the correlation.



No sane, good scientist can dispute this. Period. You cannot point to other periods in history,

and argue the correlation is due to chance! (unless you were just dealing with a few data points or

something having to do with a totally amateurish initial study) Hopefully, no one here would even think of

making this decidedly unscientific, illogocal argument (even though I saw a website that did). What you can do here,

I'll mention in a second. That doesn't answer all the questions, of course.

What questions remain, according

to scientific logic? In short, for this most basic issue, the follow up question must be, "What is the cause of the

correlation?" Specifically,

a) Does T cause CO2? (can't this be ruled out?)
b) Does CO2 cause T? (solid theory

backs this possibility up)
c) Or does a third cause cause them both?
d) It is also possible for a mixture

of a, b, and c to be true. But you'd have to have a solid theoretical basis to argue for that, as for the

others.

There are no other logical possibilities so far.

OK. Given C, the only way other historical

periods can be relevant for this question, so far, is if something about the time period we are in causes T and

CO2 to correlate. That is (c), the "third cause argument". You're arguing history is a confound, in other

words. Since I think like a scientist, I'm happy to entertain this possibility, in any way whatsoever. I'm all

ears.

(b) represents perhaps the most likely scenario. If (b); if CO2 causes T, resulting in observed correlation

C, the remaining questions here are:

1) Why does CO2 change T? (looks like the theory is strong here), and...
2)

What causes CO2 to change? (Is it humans, volcanic activity, levels of other gases, what?)

I'm happy to learn

more, and open to anything within this logical structure of basic scientific thinking. I could care less whether

the greenhouse theory is right or wrong. Honest!

But I am not open to unscientific arguments. The logic of

science does not change in different branches of science. If somebody thinks I'm missing something, please let me

know. But please do so firmly within this line of typical, basic scientific thinking. Otherwise, it's just

perpetuating confusion, in my book.

belgareth
01-19-2006, 09:12 PM
That link to the IPCC is great

and exemplifies my point. It also reminds me of a discussion I had with a minister a while back. The IPCC's

methodology is right because the IPCC says other methodologies are wrong. It doesn't really work that way.

My

advice is still the same to Netghost. Please read and absorb every word on the IPCC's site. Then go out and talk to

other scientists who have differing opinions and spend some time researching it for yourself. If you can spend the

time, take physics, meteorology, cosmology, archeology and ecology classes. They are well worth your time. Also,

spend some time learning true scientific methodology and it's applications. Without those classes or at least a

portion of them, you are not really qualified to judge the various claims. However, I do believe you are capable of

learning what you need to know to make honest and unbiased judgments for yourself and that's all I really want. The

IPCC is not unbiased, neither is the petrolium consortium or any government I know of.

I don't ask you to

accept a word I say. All I ask you to do is keep an open mind and learn from every source possible. I can assure you

the IPCC is not the only or the last word on the subject. But you are far better off learning it for yourself. I've

followed my own advice, along with having several very bright physical scientists to call on for information.



One last thing: Why would any organization be so bent on excluding all other viewpoints as the IPCC is?

belgareth
01-19-2006, 09:51 PM
Doc,

Now your starting

towards the right track but lets amplifiy on it a bit, ok?

a) Does T cause CO2? (can't this be ruled

out?)
Instead, lets ask if T causes greenhouse gases (GG) since CO2 is not the only gas to be concerned with. I

have refered to that article about methane a couple times. It indicates that to some degree T does cause GG. Also,

are there other sources of GG? If so, what are they and are they significant?
b) Does CO2 cause T? (solid theory

backs this possibility up)
Indeed it seems to. Again, lets replace CO2 with GG for clarity.
c) Or does a

third cause cause them both?
Interesting thought. Maybe I should have placed the question about other sources here.

Could there be a feedback loop where T causes GG which results in greater T which creates greater GG? Also, there

are indications of other issues that haven't been clarified. The shifts in the magnetic poles generates heat, for

example. How does that fit into this? Are there other sources of GG or T?
d) It is also possible for a mixture of

a, b, and c to be true. But you'd have to have a solid theoretical basis to argue for that, as for the others.



Now that we've defined a portion of the problem, what are some of the other aspects of it? How about the

possibility that something causes the GG and T levels to drop. Since there are records of it happening we need to

ask what that mechanism is. Are there other aspects to investigate to fully understand the problem?

Please

forgive me Doc, but I want to point out something here and I am not trying to demean you. How many times have I told

you in the past that I am not qualified to make judgments in certain areas? Several, as I recall. That's because

the phychological and endocrinological areas are something I've never studied in detail. Only the general stuff in

scientific or medical articles. Will you please give me the credit for the many years of study I have in the

physical sciences and for the fact that I have been around researchers in the physical sciences all my life? I have

a certain amount of training in this area and know a bit about how physical scientists work. In addition to that,

people who do research every day in the physical sciences visit my home and I their's regularly. One even lives

here, were married. I know the questions they are asking and you are blowing them off completely. It seems likely

that these scientists have good grounds for questioning the alleged facts behind global warming. Denying that or

failing to acknowledge their concerns is not rational.

I'm happy to discuss an issue but would really

appreciate if you didn't simply blow off the training and experience I have in that area. You are welcome to

disagree with me all you want, but to claim the methodology I and others have been trained into is illogical is not

honest or fair.

DrSmellThis
01-19-2006, 11:07 PM
Doc,

Now

your starting towards the right track but lets amplifiy on it a bit, ok?

a) Does T cause CO2? (can't this be

ruled out?)
Instead, lets ask if T causes greenhouse gases (GG) since CO2 is not the only gas to be concerned with.

I have refered to that article about methane a couple times. It indicates that to some degree T does cause GG. Also,

are there other sources of GG? If so, what are they and are they significant?
b) Does CO2 cause T? (solid theory

backs this possibility up)
Indeed it seems to. Again, lets replace CO2 with GG for clarity.
c) Or does a

third cause cause them both?
Interesting thought. Maybe I should have placed the question about other sources here.

Could there be a feedback loop where T causes GG which results in greater T which creates greater GG? Also, there

are indications of other issues that haven't been clarified. The shifts in the magnetic poles generates heat, for

example. How does that fit into this? Are there other sources of GG or T?
d) It is also possible for a mixture of

a, b, and c to be true. But you'd have to have a solid theoretical basis to argue for that, as for the others.



Now that we've defined a portion of the problem, what are some of the other aspects of it? How about the

possibility that something causes the GG and T levels to drop. Since there are records of it happening we need to

ask what that mechanism is. Are there other aspects to investigate to fully understand the problem?

Please

forgive me Doc, but I want to point out something here and I am not trying to demean you. How many times have I told

you in the past that I am not qualified to make judgments in certain areas? Several, as I recall. That's because

the phychological and endocrinological areas are something I've never studied in detail. Only the general stuff in

scientific or medical articles. Will you please give me the credit for the many years of study I have in the

physical sciences and for the fact that I have been around researchers in the physical sciences all my life? I have

a certain amount of training in this area and know a bit about how physical scientists work. In addition to that,

people who do research every day in the physical sciences visit my home and I their's regularly. One even lives

here, were married. I know the questions they are asking and you are blowing them off completely. It seems likely

that these scientists have good grounds for questioning the alleged facts behind global warming. Denying that or

failing to acknowledge their concerns is not rational.

I'm happy to discuss an issue but would really

appreciate if you didn't simply blow off the training and experience I have in that area. You are welcome to

disagree with me all you want, but to claim the methodology I and others have been trained into is illogical is not

honest or fair.I am not "starting towards the right track", (maybe I'm oversensitive, but this

strikes me as a tiny bit patronizing, like a pat on the head. My point, which you seem to be trying to claim as your

own, was that this thread does not seem to be on the basic track. Forgive me, but perhaps you are now better

on track? Because this basic scientific reasoning is the only way I have been thinking since I first considered this

stuff; the only way I can think; and the way all good, professional research scientists think. It's not especially

smart of me, or any professional researcher, to think this way. There is only one scientific methodology from a

generic point of view. Therefore I cannot be criticizing anyone else's methods (yours or your friends'), as long

as they are good research scientists (someone with a physical science PhD that doesn't know how to design, conduct

and write research, or merely knows scientific content, doesn't necessarily count for this).

I will not accept

suggestions about what anyone else who knows a lot of content thinks, on faith. That is where I am a stubborn

skeptic. Somebody will either use scientific logic in my face or they won't.

If we're going to go there, it has

been noted that most top climate scientists the world over believe in a risky human effect on global temperatures,

and in global warming. The same can be said of every living Republican and Democratic head of the EPA, former

and current, as of

today:

http://www.c

nn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/18/global.warming.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/18/global.warming.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest)

I respect your knowledge a lot,

belgareth. But there is a difference between a background in learning the facts of physical science, and a

background in designing, conducting and interpreting research studies. One is facts, the other is methology, theory

and research. To understand anything scientifically, you need both, and you and I only have one each; roughly

speaking. What we need here is someone with the research training, and specific research training in this area; who

understands study design, as well as a lot of content knowledge. Last I checked, no one like this has joined us. If

they do, I'll happily defer, when they demonstrate they know what they're talking about. I have been around the

block a few times myself. In this conversation, therefore, we might well need each other, so to speak. I have the

humility to accept that.

No, I don't want to rush off and start considering a bunch of other random issues,

when the basic question is what we need to focus on: a, b, c, and d. Period. I will not accept statements of the

form: "but x, y and z must be considered." No they don't. More content outside an organized framework of thought

(basic scientific reasoning) is not helpful. (Since people are trying to say the basic, criticial gg/T phenomenon

is just our imagination, they can't just drop that bomb and then go off on a tangent.)

If you have the key

correlation, you must as a scientist explain it, per a, b, c, and d.

In model terms, which is how I really

think about it, C must be a function of four effects: a, b, c, and d. (Note for math freaks: C=a+b+c+d. These

effects aren't necessarily nonzero, but one or more must be. I won't go obsessively nuts and account for additive,

multiplicative effects, etc. ;). But, to be more specific, (d) is a function of (a), (b) and (c). (c) is a function

yielding (a) and (b), plus some unique "(c) effect" (ce=c-a-b; if you must). Aaaargh, I'm already losing it!

:blink: But this is how I propose talking about it, to account for all the possibilities, and make it easy

to talk about them.)

Irrelevant content, no matter how extensive or true, is useless. One time a brilliant,

world famous philosopher and scientist told me: "If there were written the worst possible paper, to receive the

lowest failing grade, it would be titled: 'A number of things I know about X'". How much content knowledge a

person has is only helpful in being able to reason through the most basic question in a structured way, keeping at

all times to the most basic theme. That is how people get doctoral degrees, and get to be research

scientists.

Withing the logical framework of basic science I will go anywhere you want, and will defer to your

content knowledge at every opportunity. I already am, such as in my last post. Do you not get that I know

my place pretty well and am trying to stay in it? I only know how to reason through some set of given facts and

studies like a research scientist, and how to design appropriate studies. But I know crap about the facts.

Having

said that, please, let's explore that most basic issue (the correlation) one step at a time, without getting

sidetracked.

You tell me the cause of that critical correlation that reliably exists, day to day, and year

to year, between temperatures and the human production of greenhouse gases. It sure ain't random.

I'd like to

see the (a) study, and see what kind of effect size we are talking about (the key in that case).

Because

if it's mostly (b), if we know that we'll drive up temperatures the more GG we produce, and that we're already

doing so at this time, there are already almost forced policy implications to consider. This is why policy is

inseparable from the science.

Note that if it's the aformentioned (d) option, (a) and (b) equally in the form of

a feedback loop (d=ab ;)), the policy consideratons remain similar. (Of course, that's not the only (d)

option.)

The best shot the skeptics have, logically, is (c), unless (a) is a very strong effect, and stronger

than (b). I find a strong (a) model hard to believe at first blush, since the theoretical basis for it seems weak.

But if that were the case, we are probably really talking about (c) as the fundamental issue, since something else

would be causing both to go up besides just humans, moreso than humans; and both T and GG would be revealed as a

third, unitary, parent phenomenon. I have no idea what the theoretical basis for that could be. Do you?

So as

it stands, unless there is a compelling (c) effect argument (C=c), the human cause explanation (C=b) seems

most compelling so far, among the competing explanations, using the most obvious, parsimonious, and objective

scientific reasoning.

I am not wishing this to be the case, but that's where the science appears to be at

this moment, does it not?

If you disagree with any of this, please stick to the aforementioned logical

framework of the basic scientific question, so progress will be possible.

a.k.a.
01-19-2006, 11:41 PM
That link to the

IPCC is great and exemplifies my point. It also reminds me of a discussion I had with a minister a while back. The

IPCC's methodology is right because the IPCC says other methodologies are wrong. It doesn't really work that

way.

I think you misunderstood my point so let me put it another way:

When nations

debate the Kyoto protocols they refer to data in the IPCC Assessment . When Greenpeace wants to make a statement

about the future they refer to IPCC projections. When President Bush wanted to debunk global warming he asked the

National Academy of Sciences to critique the IPCC Assessment. When skeptics want to argue about how hot the medieval

warm period was they compare their projections with IPCC projections. And when you want to make a point about

suppressing independent research you refer to the IPCC.
Why? Is it because the IPCC is the vicar of God? No.

It’s because the IPCC Assessment represents the consensus of the largest number of scientists that believe global

warming is happening and that human actions are at the root.
So, if you want to decide if the CO2 theory

of global warming is right or wrong, or if it’s methodology is scientific it’s a good idea to start with the most

agreed upon summation of this theory. Likewise if you want to distinguish between criticisms that genuinely address

the CO2 theory of global warming and criticisms that address some misrepresentation of the theory, you want to know

what the largest number of scientists promoting this theory have to say.

That’s all I was trying to

say.

belgareth
01-20-2006, 11:59 AM
AKA, point taken. Not

completely agreed with but taken. Mostly semantics anyway.

Doc,

You come into this thread, call me a liar,

tell me I don't know what I am talking about and claim I insulted you! You refuse to see anything other than your

own narrow vision then have the temerity to demand the conversation revolve around your definition of a logical

framework? I'll pass. I'm not going to cowtow to you and your hypersensitive feelings while you insult me.



This thread was started by me to discuss issues brought up by knowledgable physical scientists that are not being

discussed in the public media. The questions asked are ligitimate ones and should be answered, regardless of whether

they fit in with your views or not. That they don't show up in your reading is really unimportant. It can be

continued as an open discussion without you setting the rules for it. If that isn't acceptable for your

participation, that's fine. However, from here on out, stick to the topic of discussion.

DrSmellThis
01-20-2006, 03:04 PM
I don't recall calling anyone

a liar. There have been other issues with your behavior that were not OK. I'm sorry if it seemed I was hinting you

didn't know what you are talking about. That wasn't the point I was trying to make. You seem to know a lot.

However, I do think the most basic issue and scientific reasoning has been short changed here in this thread in

favor of a greater number of issues. I haven't followed it very closely, but if people across the debate do that

kind of thing too much, one risk is to appear to be putting up a smokescreen, which I'm sure you don't want to

do.

I did do my best to "stick to the topic of discussion", even to go to the center of it. It just wasn't from

your view of things. My "rules" for your reply (not the entire discussion), were only conditional: If you

want to make a scientific point about global warming/human effect conclusions being silly, then you have to

address the main issue (or at least one of a couple main issues) without diverting it. I tried to help you do that.

You declined, and have therefore not yet successfully made your point, IMHO.

I can do without the manner of

debate on this issue myself. Cordial, constructive conversation, where the other person's points are shown due

respect, is preferable. I decided not to endure unnecessary verbal aggression this time without saying something,

since it had been, unfortunately, a pattern again recently, IMHO. It's typically made out to be the other person's

problem. It "takes two to tango". But I'd wager my own admitted sensitivity and defensiveness is not the only

issue.

belgareth
01-21-2006, 05:04 AM
Report: Calif. Worst in Soot Pollution Fri Jan 20, 2006







LOS ANGELES -

California has the worst rate of soot pollution in the United States, according to a report released Thursday by an

environmental group.

Environment California released the report,

"Plagued by Pollution," which lists data of fine particle, or soot pollution, from environmental agencies across the

country.

The Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area ranked as the

nation's top offender for soot pollution among large metropolitan areas. Pittsburgh ranked second, followed by the

Los Angeles-Orange County area. Atlanta ranked fourth.

Soot pollution

can lead to serious respiratory and cardiovascular problems, including heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks,

according to the American Lung Association.

The report blames

California's power plants and large numbers of diesel trucks, cars and ships for air pollution. Although the state

has tightened environmental regulations, a growing population may be contributing to more

pollution.

The metropolitan areas were ranked by micrograms of

pollution per cubic meter, or soot in the air. Soot particles are often released from fossil fuel combustion and

emissions from coal-fired power plants or factories.

Particulates are

sometimes carried by the wind, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

belgareth
01-21-2006, 05:53 AM
I don't

recall calling anyone a liar. There have been other issues with your behavior that were not OK. I'm sorry if it

seemed I was hinting you didn't know what you are talking about. That wasn't the point I was trying to make. You

seem to know a lot. However, I do think the most basic issue and scientific reasoning has been short changed here in

this thread in favor of a greater number of issues. I haven't followed it very closely, but if people across the

debate do that kind of thing too much, one risk is to appear to be putting up a smokescreen, which I'm sure you

don't want to do.

I am in complete agreement that scientific reasoning IS being short changed here.

Let's start over. We went to dinner last night with a group of people from the place where my wife does research.

More than half of them hold Ph.d's in a physical science and work in the research departments. The rest are like me

and hold at least one science degree and several of us hold more than one. These are our good friends and the source

of many of the questions I am asking. Without trying to offend you but, in my place, would you be taking their word

on what is relevent to the issues of global warming or would you be taking your own? From my own and from theirs,

the refusal to fully analyse the pre-existing conditions before making statements about human effects on current

conditions is a smoke screen and makes the entire global warming debate the source of scathing jokes rather than a

topic of serious debate. I think it is sad that an issue of such grave importance is being handled in such a way as

to evoke derision rather than concern within the scientific community.

I will admit that I have been blunt more

than once. It's mostly been the result of frustration when people with little to no scientific education repeatedly

blow off the thoughts, concerns and questions of people who really understand the issues. You have often expressed

the same frustration when people do that to phychological interests. That's why I tried to point out how I handle

myself in an area where I am not educated. You seemed to miss the point completely.


I did do

my best to "stick to the topic of discussion", even to go to the center of it. It just wasn't from your view of

things. My "rules" for your reply (not the entire discussion), were only conditional: If you want to make a

scientific point about global warming/human effect conclusions being silly, then you have to address the main

issue (or at least one of a couple main issues) without diverting it. I tried to help you do that. You declined, and

have therefore not yet successfully made your point, IMHO.

I am trying to address the main issue. The

topic of discussion was and is, in part, can we be certain that these climate changes were the result of human

interference. After indirectly mentioning your design criteria last night one of the people made a comment that

seemed appropriate. He said that indeed, your design would be correct once the foundations were laid correctly

which, in his professional opinion they have not been. I used your comparison of a person with a fever and his

answer was that any doctor is going to first take a history of the patient to understand pre-existing conditions

since the doctor will already understand how the human body is supposed to work, unlike the global climate. As

everybody at the table agreed, that hasn't been done. Another person laughingly pointed out that the IPCC

scientists (She used a more derisive term) love historical data and have invested millions in things like ice cores.

But the moment an area of exploration/investigation starts looking like it may produce contra-indicitive data it

becomes irrelevent and promptly loses its funding. Good scientific procedure there! Bury anything that disagrees

with you.


I can do without the manner of debate on this issue myself. Cordial, constructive

conversation, where the other person's points are shown due respect, is preferable. I decided not to endure

unnecessary verbal aggression this time without saying something, since it had been, unfortunately, a pattern again

recently, IMHO. It's typically made out to be the other person's problem. It "takes two to tango". But I'd wager

my own admitted sensitivity and defensiveness is not the only issue.
Then stop looking for excuses to

attack people and attack issue! Go back through this thread and show me where issues brought up from the very first

post, studies posted, questions asked have been addressed. Instead, non-physical scientists have blown them off in

bulk. These are valid question asked by scientists and they have been treated by non-scientists as if they don't

exist. That is not respect! I honestly had hoped that when you started asking questions a few posts back that you

were trying to get into an open conversation instead of looking for an opening in which to further try to demean the

questions of scientific professionals. Very disappointing.

You come here and start in on me instead of bringing

up or addressing a single point. You give credit to one party and say they have been patient with me when we were

having an interesting discussion of issues. You completely overlook my repeated compliments made to him so you have

an excuse to deride me. You come down on me for pointing out that somebody is making inaccurate statements then

explaining myyself in a manner far milder than you have repeatedly done to others in the past. You aren't avoiding

verbal aggression, you are creating it.

As for research projects, while I am not a bonafide researcher, I have

written a number of them for various post grad level classes. In every case, my project designs were well recieved

and earned high grades. I also was a major contributor to a research project design that helped a young woman earn

her Ph.D and a major job offer recently. Don't tell me I know nothing about designing them. Research design is

contingent on what you are looking for and as much is told by what you exclude as by what you include.

This

thread was started to discuss scientific issues that are not being addressed. It may never change the world or even

open a single eye. However, it was not started to give you a soapbox to put somebody else down. Would you like to

participate in a rational manner? Grab a hold of one of the dozens of issues brought up and dissect it like the

scientist you claim to be instead of telling us that it's irrelevent or illogical.

I'd also appreciate if

you'd stop trying to use the term personal responsibilty as a weapon since your most recent use as well as past

discussions demonstrate you have no understanding of what it means within my philosophy and frame of reference.

belgareth
01-24-2006, 10:48 AM
Apparently, some prestigous scientists in other countries see

the importance of learning the history of climate change. I guess that they are not very well trained in scientific

method either.

Japanese scientists dig up million-year-old ice
TOKYO

(AFP) - Japanese researchers said they had dug up ice in the Antarctic Ocean estimated to be one million years old

that could give more clues than ever about climate and environmental changes.

It is believed to be the oldest ice ever retrieved after an 800,000-year-old block collected by European

scientists in 2004.

The Japanese mission headed by the National

Institute of Polar Research drilled down more than 3,000 meters (about 10,000 feet) in the Antarctic Ocean to pull

out the slab deep in the ice core.

The group will bring the ice back

to Japan in April for research.

"We need further analysis but the

ice is expected to clarify things such as climate and environmental change or the evolution of microbes over the

past million years," said Yoshiyuki Fujii, director general at the polar

institute.

"Finding out the cycle and rhythm of climate change

in the past will help to forecast the future," he told AFP.

The

research group took three years to drill to the ice at Japan's Dome Fuji Station.

belgareth
01-25-2006, 05:02 AM
The following article indirectly makes a good point for me. It

mentions El Nino which is a warm ocean current as a cause for the unusually high temperatures in 1998. That is silly

on the face of it. Where did the thermal energy for an unusual El Nino come from? We are talking about a lot of

energy that seems to have come from nowhere then just vanishes. That does not happen, it defies known physical

principles!

I was told my demand for better evidence is

illogical and not good scientific methodology yet it seems other, world class, scientists are doing good research

right down the lines of investigation I was suggesting. Now, we have another factor that is not predicted in the

models and apparently cannot be accounted for under current global warming theory. I believe something is happening

to the environment! But I also believe people are so stuck on proving one sloppy theory that they have not bothered

to look at all the other possibilities or account for all the available facts. Along with being bad science, it

could do unbelievable harm to all of us.



With this vicious cold snap throughout Europe and Asia and even extending into

parts of North Africa I'm curious to see how that effects the global temperatures for 2006. Still a lot of silence

from the global warming group about the cold.

Last Year Was

Warmest in a Century By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer
Tue Jan 24,

2006



NEW YORK - Last year was the warmest in a century, nosing

out 1998, a federal analysis concludes.

Researchers calculated that

2005 produced the highest annual average surface temperature worldwide since instrument recordings began in the late

1800s, said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.



The result confirms a prediction the institute made in December.



In a telephone interview, Hansen said the analysis estimated temperatures in the

Arctic from nearby weather stations because no direct data were available. Because of that, "we couldn't say with

100 percent certainty that it's the warmest year, but I'm reasonably confident that it was," Hansen

said.

More important, he said, is that 2005 reached the warmth of

1998 without help of the "El Nino of the century" that pushed temperatures up in 1998.



Over the past 30 years, Earth has warmed a bit more than 1 degree in total, making

it about the warmest it's been in 10,000 years, Hansen said. He blamed a buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse

gases.

Jay Lawrimore of the federal government's National Climatic

Data Center said his own center's current data suggest 2005 came in a close second to 1998, in part because of how

the Arctic was factored in. But he said a forthcoming analysis "will likely show that 2005 is slightly warmer than

1998."

belgareth
01-25-2006, 07:00 AM
Deadly Cold Wave Sweeps Across Europe By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer



Tue Jan 24, 2006





VIENNA, Austria - Vienna's subway tracks cracked, German

authorities shut a key canal to ships after it iced up, and a zoo moved its penguins indoors Tuesday as a deadly

deep freeze tightened its arctic grip on much of Europe.

The killer

cold wave, which has been blamed for more than 50 deaths in Russia, claimed at least 13 lives in the past five days

in the former Soviet republic of Moldova, where authorities said another 30 people — many of them homeless — were

hospitalized with hypothermia.

Romanian authorities reported 15

deaths in the past few days, five of them homeless people, after temperatures dropped as low as minus 22

degrees.

Parts of Austria felt more like Siberia, with the mercury

plunging well below zero. The bitter cold hit an all-time low of minus 24 degrees in the Lower Austria town of Gross

Gerungs, while in the beer-making town of Zwettl, it was minus 12 — the chilliest Jan. 24 since

1929.

Vienna's subway system operator said morning rush-hour service

was interrupted in some areas of the capital because the severe cold — which hit a low of minus 2 — caused small

tears in the welds on sections of track.

Austria's largest

automobile club, OEAMTC, said it responded to hundreds of calls from motorists whose cars wouldn't start because of

dead batteries — along with dozens more from drivers who could not pry their way into their vehicles because the

doors were frozen shut.

In southern Germany, officials closed the

Rhine-Main-Danube canal to shipping for the first time in five years after it iced

over.

Thick sheets of ice stretching about 50 miles posed a danger to

ship propellers and lock systems, said Leonhard Hummel of the Office of Water and Navigation in Nuremberg. An

icebreaker had to help six ships in the canal — which links waterway systems between the North Sea and the Black Sea

— reach their destinations.

At the zoo in Dresden, Germany, 21

Humboldt penguins were moved from their minus 6 outdoor environment into a building where the temperature was a more

comfortable 32 degrees to ensure their feet didn't freeze, zoo director Karl Ukena

said.

In Moscow, which was held in an icy grip for the past nine

days, trolley buses and trams returned to full operation Tuesday, but record-breaking electricity consumption

continued to strain the Soviet-era power system. The Russian capital "warmed" to minus 7, balmy compared with

Thursday's minus 24, but the city's death toll rose to at least 28.

Serbia recorded its first cold casualty of the year when an elderly homeless man died in Belgrade. In

Kosovo, where tens of thousands lined up outdoors to pay respects to President Ibrahim Rugova, who died Saturday,

authorities urged mourners to bundle up and provided some with hot tea.

A 47-year-old man froze to death early Tuesday in the eastern Czech town of Sumperk, and in Prague,

workers erected heated tents for the homeless as temperatures in some parts of the country plunged to minus 22.

Tents also went up in Bratislava, the capital of neighboring Slovakia.

At least 35 towns and villages in Bulgaria were without electricity Tuesday after surging power demand led to

system breakdowns, the civil defense agency said. Schools in 18 of Bulgaria's 28 regions canceled classes, and an

elderly man's death was blamed on the cold.

In Croatia, temperatures

fell to minus 1 and winds gusting to 100 mph created a fearsome wind chill

factor.

Temperatures fell to 21 degrees across northern Italy early

Tuesday and plummeted to a record 3 degrees in alpine areas, whipped by winds of up to 75

mph.

Snow fell on Greece's ancient Acropolis and covered much of

Athens and its outlying suburbs Tuesday. The weather cut access to dozens of remote mountain villages, police and

civil defense authorities said.

a.k.a.
01-25-2006, 08:37 AM
For the record... Here is a link to

the 2001 IPCC Assessment report’s subsection on paleoclimates:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/072.htm
I counted references to over 100 studies before even

finishing the third page. That’s over 100 studies on a topic that the “global warming crowd” is supposedly

ignoring
The research seems to cover a pretty broad range of data — not just ice cores. But I do think it’s

ironic that skeptics want to dismiss actual air samples, taken from actual glaciers, as evidence of a correlation

between glaciation/deglaciation and CO2 concentrations. Yet they want the IPCC to accept North Atlantic tree rings

as evidence of a GLOBAL warming trend from 1000 to 1400.

Anyway. Here is the relevant summation from

the the executive summary:


Changes across the last 500,000 years

* It is very likely that

large and rapid decadal temperature changes occurred during the last glacial and its deglaciation (between about

100,000 and 10,000 years ago), particularly in higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. During the last

deglaciation, local increases in temperature are likely to have been as large as 5 to 10°C over a few decades. Over

the same period there is evidence of less pronounced but nearly synchronous changes worldwide, except in high

southern latitudes.
* Antarctic ice cores have provided new evidence of almost in-phase changes of

temperature, carbon dioxide and methane through the ice age cycles over the past 420,000 years.
* There is

emerging evidence for significant, rapid (time-scales of several decades or more), regional temperature changes

during the last 10,000 years. However, the evidence does not indicate that any such events were global in

scale.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/050.htm


With regards to El Nino,

it’s well known that ocean temperatures are rising faster thatn surface temperatures. El Nino’s effects are not a

question of new energy being introduced into the system. It’s a question of energy being shifted from one part of

the system to the other.

As far as cold temperatures go. It’s pretty widely acknowledged that the

first half of the 2Oth century exhibited the effects of a cyclical warming trend (making it difficult to determine

the “greenhouse effect”) whereas the second half exhibited a natural cooling cycle (making it easier to identify the

anthropogenic role).
“Silence” about recent weather (and weather is not climate by the way) doesn’t mean

the “global warming crowd” ignores cold snaps and hypes heat waves:

“In the United States, temperatures in

the last 50 years have cooled in the East while warming in the West. Over the last 100 years, the pattern is

similar, except that New England is warmer than 100 years ago because it warmed more in the first half of the 20th

century by more than it cooled in the second half. This pattern of warming and cooling may be part of a worldwide

pattern: while most of the earth has warmed, the regions that are downwind from major sources of sulfur dioxide

emissions have generally cooled (see the discussion on sulfates in the Atmospheric Change

section).”

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateTrendsTemperature.html

Netghost56
01-25-2006, 08:59 AM
Baffled Scientists Say Less Sunlight Reaching Earth



After dropping for about

15 years, the amount of sunlight Earth reflects back into space, called albedo, has increased since 2000, a new

study concludes.

That means less energy is reaching the surface. Yet global temperatures have not cooled during

the period.

Increasing cloud cover seems to be the reason, but there must also be some other change in the

clouds that's not yet understood.

&quot;The data also reveal that from 2000 to now the clouds have changed so

that the Earth may continue warming, even with declining sunlight,&quot; said study leader Philip R. Goode of the

New Jersey Institute of Technology. &quot;These large and peculiar variabilities of the clouds, coupled with a

resulting increasing albedo, presents a fundamental, unmet challenge for all scientists who wish to understand and

predict the Earth's climate.&quot;

Cloud changes

Earth's albedo is measured by noting how much reflected

sunlight in turn bounces off the Moon, something scientists call earthshine. The observations were made at the Big

Bear Solar Observatory in California.

The findings will be published Jan. 24 in Eos, a weekly newspaper of the

American Geophysical Union.

On any given day, about half of Earth is covered by clouds, which reflect more

sunlight than land and water. Clouds keep Earth cool by reflecting sunlight, but they can also serve as blankets to

trap warmth.

High thin clouds are better blankets, while low thick clouds make better coolers.

Separately,

satellite data recently showed that while the difference between high and low clouds had long been steady at 7-8

percent, in the past five years, for some unknown reason, the difference has jumped to 13 percent. High, warming

clouds have increased while low clouds have decreased.

Research shows condensation trails, or contrails from jet

airplanes, fuel more high-altitude clouds. But they have not been shown to account for all the observed change.



What about global warming?

Earth's albedo appears to have experienced a similar reversal during a period

running from the 1960s to the mid-1980s.

Goode's team says there may be a large, unexplained variation in

sunlight reaching the Earth that changes over the course of two decades or so, as well as a large effect of clouds

re-arranging by altitude.

How do the findings play into arguments about global warming and the apparent

contribution by industrial emissions? That's entirely unclear.

&quot;No doubt greenhouse gases are

increasing,&quot; Goode said in a telephone interview. &quot;No doubt that will cause a warming. The question is,

'Are there other things going on?'&quot;

What is clear is that scientists don't understand clouds very well,

as a trio of studies last year also showed.

&quot;Clouds are even more uncertain than we thought,&quot; Goode

said.
____________

belgareth
01-25-2006, 04:12 PM
Netghost,

Good article!

Thanks for posting it.

AKA,

Recently you pointed me to one place on the IPCC site that was saying historical

data was of little relevence. Now your pointing me to another location that uses historical studies? Please excuse

me but I am sceptical of their agenda as a matter of course. My expecations of long term data are something

independent scientists want to see. It doesn't matter who or where they are, the independent ones want to see data

that they believe is being both over looked and discouraged by the IPCC. Everybody I know who works in the research

fields agree on that point. Quoting the IPCC isn't going to change that opinion, only encourage it. I'm looking

for independent verification.

Icehawk
01-28-2006, 09:51 PM
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - NASA's top climate scientist said the Bush administration has tried to

stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture in December calling for prompt reductions in emissions of

greenhouse gases, The New York Times said on Saturday.

In an interview with the newspaper, James Hansen,

director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that officials at the space agency's headquarters had

ordered the public affairs staff to review his lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for

interviews from journalists.

"They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public,"

the Times quoted Hansen as saying, adding that the scientist planned to ignore the new restrictions.

A NASA

spokesman denied any effort to silence Hansen, the Times said. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," said

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs. "We promote openness and we speak with the

facts."

Rather, the spokesman said the restrictions applied to any and all NASA personnel who could be seen by

the public as speaking for the agency. Acosta added, however, that while government scientists were free to discuss

scientific findings, policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen, the Times said.



The story was posted on its Web site and will be published in Sunday's editions.

Hansen, a physicist who joined

the space agency in 1967, is an authority on climate who directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers

at Manhattan's Goddard Institute.

IOWA SPEECH

Since 1988 he has warned publicly about the long-term threat

from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide, that are a byproduct of burning coal, oil and other

fossil fuels, The Times said.

It said he fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after a University of

Iowa speech ahead of the presidential election in which he complained that government climate scientists were being

muzzled, adding that he planned to vote for Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry.

Hansen told the Times over the

course of several interviews that an effort began in early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he

says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.

Hansen said the recent efforts to quiet

him began after a lecture he gave on December 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San

Francisco in which he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly

in the case of motor vehicles.

Without leadership by the United States, he told The Times, climate change would

eventually leave the earth "a different planet."

Hansen said that NASA headquarters officials repeatedly phoned

public affairs officers, who warned Hansen of "dire consequences" if such statements continued. The officers

confirmed the warning to the Times.

The Bush administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but

not reverse, the growth of emissions, the paper

said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060128/sc_nm/environment_nasa_dc

DrSmellThis
02-04-2006, 04:45 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801021.html?sub=AR

DrSmellThis
02-04-2006, 07:01 PM
Apparently, some prestigous scientists in other countries see the

importance of learning the history of climate change. I guess that they are not very well trained in scientific

method either. No. That was not my point, per my words. The same applies to comments in

the italics in your next post.

This debate is not the best use of time, because points are not heard and

represented correctly from one post to the next. Therefore things go backwards, and confusion can never be lifted.

There is no control over this in a public forum, and no moderator or third parties to rescue us or help

"triangulate the reality". Either productive debate is there or it ain't.

I seem to have correctly identified

the central scientific question, (Bel's friend seemed to acknowledge that, since all "foundational" issues for the

central issue, by definition, revolve around the central issue.) but I failed to stimulate a discussion of the

central question in its own terms -- even though focusing the issue would not have elimenated historical or other

questions/issues; just cast them as how they are relevant to the central issue(s).

For example, and I am

repeating my logic, you can't just argue "warming of a globe (in general) could be caused by non-human

factors," when what you need to explain is a specific 150 year correlation between temperature and greenhouse

gases. This is already given, and is the central phenomenon in need of explanation. You are not explaining warming

that happens on a planet, you are explaining a given correlation between T and GG. During the past 150 years,

whenever one goes up, the other goes up. Whenever one goes down, the other goes down. That extremely critical,

disturbing correlation could only be caused by 4 kinds of things, as detailed. Logic allows for no other

possibilities, and that is where we need to focus. Other phenomena are relevant and important, especially the fact

of warming itself, record high temperatures, risks of warming, the possibility the earth could decide for its own

reasons to cool anyway, etc.; but for practical purposes they are really only important for the human race at

this moment by virtue of that correlation and what it means. That is the central number expressing our role as

humans in all this; humans who are under pressure to determine what to do, because of possible approaching points

of no return (see last post).

This point, though belabored, was apparently not understood. I can live with that.

But for the record, I don't think readers can get to the meat of things in this thread; (unless by some miracle

things should change) and I don't think there's anything I can do to help -- since I already made my best effort

to focus things (to pick one issue and dissect it, as Bel later implored me to do, as if I hadn't just done it.),

and explained why it was necessary, in great detail. Those seeds fell on hard ground.

IMHO, here readers can get

introduced to a smattering of interesting, loosely related issues that some in the debate talk about, for different

reasons -- issues that in their proper context are important to discuss, even if that context is underemphasized

here. That's all fine, and can be valuable for what it is. But I don't think people would be well served to get

their overarching opinion of the global warming debate, or a way to think about it, here, because of the overall

confusion. I assume Belgareth would not quarrel with the need for people to do their own research.

I also tried,

and failed, to make a process comment or three to help the manner of debate and set some personal limits. For

whatever reason, things were turned around and became a he said she said, defeat the other type of thing. No big

deal. You can't have that discussion with everybody. It's probably best for me to just let other issues drop at

this time. I'm not wanting to put anyone down, or to appear to be doing so. I don't consider myself an aggressive

person.

belgareth
02-04-2006, 07:19 PM
The point was clearly

understood but the relevence was disagreed with. Others, world class scientists see the reasons for investigating

historical patterns, my scientist friends here see the relevence. Not only does the last 150 years need to be

understood, in depth understanding of relationships must be understood. Without the foundation, you have nothing but

assumptions.

DrSmellThis
02-04-2006, 07:29 PM
Unless I missed something, you

simply assert all that to be the case, making appeals to authorities (those who disagree could appeal to even more

authorities), without yourself making a case; or demonstrating the importance of your "foundational issues" to

explaining the central observed phenomenon, the correlation.

What assumptions? The correlation itself

depends on no specious assumptions, as far as I can tell. The explanation of the correlation is open to

interpretation, however; which is the appropriate way to look at it, scientifically.

And there you go again

claiming I said history is irrelevant, one minute after I corrected you on that. So you still do not understand the

point. That virtually proves my point about this debate, "This debate is not the best use of time, because points

are not heard and represented correctly from one post to the next. Therefore things go backwards, and confusion can

never be lifted".

belgareth
02-04-2006, 10:52 PM
I have asked the same questions

over and over again. You blow then off. These are the same questions real live scientists are asking. The case is

made but you refuse to address any of the issues. Instead, you call them disconnected pieces of data.

The debate

is not about what you said, the debate is about global warming and nothing is proven. You are simply choosing to

attack me instead of addressing the iussues. Please stop.

DrSmellThis
02-05-2006, 05:32 AM
Bel, I'm as willing as the

average guy to own up to my mistakes, especially if it means resolving something. I will do my best not to attack

you if I can figure out how I am. But did I just attack you in that last post? Or did I question your logic and the

process of the debate, in a descriptive manner -- normal issues someone is supposed to raise in a debate? Maybe we

disagree, and sometimes get defensive? Are you also willing to take a look at not attacking, for example when you

are being "blunt"?

OK. Again, you are correct to say they are worthy issues to discuss. I'm not "unwilling to

address any of the issues" related to global warming. I am unable to address some of them, and defer to your or

others' information.

Others, I believe, are secondary to the ones I raised. But I'm just trying to question

from the center of it, as a citizen, from a generic scientific standpoint, and to address the most important issues,

as I see them, from a very basic, practical level. After the most basic question is addressed, or in service of the

most basic question, I'm more than willing to first look at how all the other issues impact the basic question.



Then I'm willing to look at every other issue, as far as someone who won't ever be an expert on it.

I have

been hearing loud and clear, for example, that there is some legit question, a less concrete question about effect

size, about whether the planet is warming outside some long term limits of natural variation. I have been hearing

loud and clear that there is another legit question about whether the globe might ultimately fall to below average

temperatures from a historic standpoint, for example. It would be incorrect to think I've not tried to factor these

issues into my perspective. You definitely don't want to ignore these issues as a field.

Right now these

questions are far from clear, and filled with uncertainties (like the planetary livability of any periods where T's

cycled higher in the distant past for other reasons, and how that would translate to modern civilization).

But

despite these highly variable uncertainties, which we should hope to know more about someday; if we already

do know that global temperatures and industrial emissions have consistently been related on this planet; from

year to year; and relative to respective amounts of each at any given moment; then there is a very real,

theoretically compelling possibility that we are causing global temperatures to change, however much they are

changing.

But we also, then, already know a lot about the effect size. The correlation squared yields the most

important and concrete estimate of how much effect that industrial emissions in fact have, if they are a

cause of that correlation (the simplest and most compelling interpretation at this point; but I'm not wed to it, as

I've said).

If there is also a significant possibility (or several) of harming ourselves by changing

global temperatures -- and I am "all ears" about this, though we seem not to lack for plausible disaster scenarios

-- then we ought to exercise due caution about what we are emitting, and how much of an effect on temperatures we

allow ourselves to have. That in itself is something to be worried about and avoid messing with, IMHO.

If there

is instead another plausible cause(s) to that correlation between emissions and temperatures, such as ash

production, fine. Let's look at all the possible causes, and their relative weights, as I've been saying. But if

several causes all relate to the same industrial emissions, for example in the case of ash, you might still have to

come to a similar practical conclusion.

What part of this logic is faulty? How am I somehow detracting from some

genuine, practical discussion of global warming to want to move this issue to the center for the time being? How is

this not just about the first question a reasonable person wants to ask when approaching the debate? I'm relatively

new to this, but I'd be very suprised if a lot of top scientists weren't trying to focus in the same direction,

for similar reasons.

belgareth
02-05-2006, 06:46 AM
There is nothing wrong with

that reasoning until you get to the point of taking action based on what little we think we know at this time. There

are good theoretical reasons to be concerned about our effect on the climate. But, as I have tried to point out time

and again, there are good, sound reasons to question those theories. While we are making progress and some

scientists are doing a great job trying to untangle the facts involving climate dymanics others on both sides of the

debate are suppressing data and refusing to listen to each other.

You know how I view things. Get a good handle

on the entire machine, and the global climate is a machine, then look at what it is doing. Define how the mechanism

works, why it does the things that it does. Once you've done that you can begin to create predictive models that

really work. Right now, the predictive models being used are unreliable for several reasons. We can discuss the

computer modeling techniques used and the flaws if you'd like.

Questions I'd like answered are numerous but

to make rational decions they are imparative. Let's look at just a few:

Greenhouse gas balance. We know that

volcanoes create far more CO2 gas, methane and CFCs than humans ever could or have. We have recently learned that

forests, especially tropical forests, produce large amounts of methane. Animals, including both domestic and wild

produce huge amounts of methane. We also know that in some parts of the world trees and plants are growing taller

and faster as a result of increased CO2 availability, which implies greater uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere. How

do all these things work together? What is their impact on the climate and where do we fit in? Are we a substantial

percentage of the whole? Are producing enough to actually tip the scales one way or another?

Thermal gain.

Energy does not just appear, it has to come from some place. What are the sources of energy and what is the

cumulative gain from those sources? I include internal combustion engines, nuclear reactors, light bulbs,

electro-magnetic energy from magma movement, solar gain, atmospheric friction and so on. As part of the equation, we

need to know the sources of energy to ascertain if the climate temperature gain is retention or not. Each of those

subject can be broken down into component parts to see if it has an effect but none should be discounted out of

hand.

Cyclic climate change. Is global warming real? Is it part of the normal patterns of the earth or are we

causing it or is there some other mechanism at work that we have not yet accounted for? This question and the

previous ones overlap but they need to be dealt with.

It's easy to start with a snapshot of the climate and 150

years is a snapshot when dealing with energies and masses as great as the earth, then to go on with theories about

why things have changed. But, so long as you use a statistically flawed basis like the hockey stick you are starting

off from a dishonest basis. Nor can you eliminate the possibility that the globe would be warming were humans not

involved at all. Right now, based on what little data we have, you cannot honestly say that the observed changes are

any more than statistical deviation, a blip on the charts. I'm not saying that's all it is, I'm asking what is

happening.

I am concerned about the climate but am not going to support action based on what little we think we

know at this point. I am willing to discuss the scientific aspects of possible climate change. I readily acknowledge

the possibility of it. However, I do not accept you as an expert in scientific method when working scientists are

asking the questions and suggesting the methods you are claiming are illogical. You may not like the fact that I

cannot ask the scientists I associate with to come on the forum to refute your opinions but that's something I

cannot do anything about. You can either accept that I am being honest about what they say or not, it really

doesn't matter.

From the very begining I have been asking questions and offering data from reasonably reliable

sources. Can we return to those questions that seem to be related to global climate change? I'm frankly and utterly

indifferent to the political issues or whether anybody likes or dislikes my questions. However, I'd appreciate if

everybody would keep the personal comments out of this and I'll do my best to do the same.

a.k.a.
02-05-2006, 05:10 PM
You know how I view

things. Get a good handle on the entire machine, and the global climate is a machine, then look at what it is doing.

Define how the mechanism works, why it does the things that it does. Once you've done that you can begin to create

predictive models that really work. Right now, the predictive models being used are unreliable for several

reasons.

There is already a great deal of knowledge about how climate works, and there is a

significant amount of uncertainty. The important point, with respect to “global warming”, is that the role of CO2 is

well understood, rigorously modeled and short term predictions have been quite accurate.
In 1991 James Hansen

accurately predicted the four year impact of major volcanic activity in the Pacific. More recently, he accurately

predicted a rise in deep ocean temperatures.
There is a great deal of discrepancy when modelers try to

recreate long term trends such as the ice ages, because complex systems (unlike machines) display “emergent

behavior”. That is you may have a set of factors {a, b, c...} which, over time, brings into play a new set of

factors {x,y,z...}.
(Having said that, the only place I’ve seen a 300% discrepancy is in Michael

Chricton’s novel. I’m not disputing the possibility of such discrepancy. Merely pointing out that discrepancies in

the 20% - 60% range are more common if you run a random survey of the models.)



We can

discuss the computer modeling techniques used and the flaws if you'd like.

This is a good idea

because a) climate models are central to the “global warming” argument and b) this is where the greatest uncertainty

lies.
But we should discuss the actual models used to defend particular conclusions. We shouldn’t draw

false analogies between models used to predict precipitation by your local weather station and models used to

calculate greenhouse forcing by climate scientists. And we shouldn’t draw conclusions about the role of CO2 in the

21st century by conducting a survey of models used to recreate thermohaline circulation during the last ice age.




Questions I'd like answered are numerous but to make rational decions they are imparative.

Let's look at just a few:

Greenhouse gas balance. We know that volcanoes create far more CO2 gas, methane

and CFCs than humans ever could or have.

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human

activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million

tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and

submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning,

cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et

al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more

than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like

Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million

tonnes/year)!

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html



We have recently learned that forests, especially tropical forests, produce large amounts of

methane.

Actually there has been exactly one study, which has yet to be reproduced, that

suggests plants may produce miniscule amounts of methane under aerobic conditions.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7073/abs/nature04420.html;jsessionid=D12262E188672184C6C4E0 E2583C241

2
The authors of this study extrapolated that, “If our measurements are typical for short-lived

biomass and scaled on a global basis, we estimate a methane source strength of 62–236 Tg yr-1 for living plants and

1–7 Tg yr-1 for plant litter (1 Tg = 1012 g). We suggest that this newly identified source may have important

implications for the global methane budget and may call for a reconsideration of the role of natural methane sources

in past climate change.”
(The lower figure of the authors’ extrapolation would fall within current levels of

uncertainty. The higher figure would seriously call for a reassessment of humans’ comparative role in methane

emissions — without, in any way, challenging the need to reduce such emissions.)





Animals, including both domestic and wild produce huge amounts of methane. We also know that in some parts of the

world trees and plants are growing taller and faster as a result of increased CO2 availability, which implies

greater uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere. How do all these things work together? What is their impact on the

climate and where do we fit in? Are we a substantial percentage of the whole? Are producing enough to actually tip

the scales one way or another?

Of course all of these factors have been addressed in the IPCC’s

Assessment report.
I think, in order for this argument to proceed in a constructive way, a single standard

should be applied to all positions. If research that appears in the IPCC Assessment can be categorically dismissed

(as if it never even happened), without any substantive criticisms offered. Huge extrapolations from a single,

unreproduced, study (which did not control for bacteria in the soil, by the way) should not be held up as common

knowledge.



Thermal gan. Energy does not just appear, it has to come from some place.

What are the sources of energy and what is the cumulative gain from those sources? I include internal combustion

engines, nuclear reactors, light bulbs, electro-magnetic energy from magma movement, solar gain, atmospheric

friction and so on. As part of the equation, we need to know the sources of energy to ascertain if the climate

temperature gain is retention or not. Each of those subject can be broken down into component parts to see if it has

an effect but none should be discounted out of hand.

The primary source of energy for our planet

is the sun. Since the 1980’s (with the advent of satellite data) we have had a pretty clear picture of quite subtle

variations in solar radiation and solar gain has been easily ruled out as a cause for recent warming.


Beyond this primary source... discerning the effects of greenhouse warming vs other factors is a “signal to noise”

problem. Scientists try to control for combustion engines, light bulbs, nuclear reactors and other urban energy

sources by using rural temperature readings to control for temperature changes recorded near urban

areas.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011027heatisland.html



Cyclic

climate change. Is global warming real? Is it part of the normal patterns of the earth or are we causing it or is

there some other mechanism at work that we have not yet accounted for? This question and the previous ones overlap

but they need to be dealt with.

It's easy to start with a snapshot of the climate and 150 years is a

snapshot when dealing with energies and masses as great as the earth, then to go on with theories about why things

have changed. But, so long as you use a statistically flawed basis like the hockey stick you are starting off from a

dishonest basis. Nor can you eliminate the possibility that the globe would be warming were humans not involved at

all. Right now, based on what little data we have, you cannot honestly say that the observed changes are any more

than statistical deviation, a blip on the charts. I'm not saying that's all it is, I'm asking what is

happening.

Statistics seems like a weak argument against physics. (Or maybe I just like things

explained to me in real world terms.) If none of the known climate forcing mechanisms and cyclical variations can

account for recent climate change — and if models introducing the “greenhouse effect” of rising CO2 concentrations

can account for the changes — the fact that recent warming is statistically insignificant compared to warming that

occurred 500,000 years ago is nothing more than a bit of geological trivia. It should have no bearing on global

emissions policy.



I am concerned about the climate but am not going to support action

based on what little we think we know at this point. I am willing to discuss the scientific aspects of possible

climate change. I readily acknowledge the possibility of it.

Uncertainty is a given with any

scientific endeavor. But every bit of relevant policy information was already known in 1956: CO2 is a “greenhouse

gas”, burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere, CO2 concentrations are growing faster than the carbon

cycle can absorb it, and these concentrations will remain in the atmosphere for at least 1,000 years. It took 15

years after this knowledge had been gained before some scientist (Mikhail Budyko) decided to investigate possible

risks that could be associated with rising CO2 concentrations. It took 17 more years before some scientist (James

Hansen) decided to warn the public.
Scientists seem quite adept at dragging their feet. Therefore I am

incredibly unimpressed when a bunch of scientists can sit around and say, “Results are inconclusive. We need more

data.”
This goes double given the perverse political context of this “debate”. If modern societies valued

life above profit, the shoe would be on the other foot. Scientists would have to prove that burning fossil fuels is

safe and poses no risk to the climate. There would be no need for the IPCC.
Climate change is not a laboratory

experiment, and having a Ph.D. doesn’t give anybody the right to determine the volume of greenhouse emissions that

can be pumped into our atmosphere.
There is no neutral, apolitical position in this debate. “We need more data.

We need better methodologies.” translates into “Let’s not cut emissions yet. Let’s continue with business as

usual.”
Nearly 80% of global energy sources are derived from fossil fuels. There are many powerful vested

interests (much more powerful than the IPCC) behind our current energy budget. And they’re not ready to experiment

with a new economic paradigm. They’re not even ready to admit that a new paradigm is possible.
But that’s

the most pressing question IMHO: Are we ready to experiment with a new energy budget? Or would we rather continue

experimenting with the climate?
The uncertainties of climate science are interesting (as an intellectual

exercise) but a) they shouldn’t be blown completely out of proportion and b) they should be weighed against the

potential risks of inaction.



However, I do not accept you as an expert in scientific

method when working scientists are asking the questions and suggesting the methods you are claiming are illogical.

You may not like the fact that I cannot ask the scientists I associate with to come on the forum to refute your

opinions but that's something I cannot do anything about. You can either accept that I am being honest about what

they say or not, it really doesn't matter.

“I know some scientists that think you’re wrong.”

Isn’t really an argument. It doesn’t clarify anything. It doesn’t increase understanding. It doesn’t prove any

points. And it tends to silence, rather than facilitate, discussion.


From the very begining

I have been asking questions and offering data from reasonably reliable sources. Can we return to those questions

that seem to be related to global climate change?

I think DST’s points were related to a

particular aspect of the debate that you and I had some misunderstanding over. I thought it was pertinent to the

discussion taking place at the time. But I guess that’s besides the point.
If we do return to earlier topics, I

would like some clarification on the “snapshot of the climate” issue. It seems to come up in almost every one of

your posts and I still can’t comprehend what your point is. (Which may be why I haven't adressed it to your

satisfaction.)
In your first post, you said:
“There are a lot of things about the whole global

warming issue that disturb me and I’d like to open it up for discussion.”
“The first is the validity of the

models and the data set. The current model is based on several things. It only goes back a couple hundred years and

shows a flat temperature line until about the same time as Henry Ford invented the first car, which is also near the

beginning of the industrial revolution when the temperatures began an upward movement.”
How does data based

on instrumental records, pertaining to a period of time when CO2 emissions have been on the rise, turn out to be an

invalid data set for determining potential effects of these emissions? And how can the situation be fixed by going

back to a time when the only available evidence is proxy data, and all this data points to stable atmospheric

concentrations?

Much later, in a response to my second post, you commented on a link I gave you concerning

the IPCC’s “detection and attribution” methodology. The first page of this link showed three different graphs,

comparing global mean surface air temperature anomalies from 1,000 year control simulations with three different

climate models. It contrasted the expected variability given by these models with the instrumental record for a 150

year period from 1850 -200.
You said that my link proved your point because it didn’t provide a long

enough time frame. But CO2 concentrations have only been rising for about 150 years. So that would seem to be the

time frame of greatest concern if you are trying to determine the effects of increased concentrations.

You

state that you are looking for some statistical assurance that current temperature gains fall beyond the scope of

cyclical trends. This much makes sense.
The part that doesn’t make sense is why you suppose that taking a

longer time frame would give any sort of greater assurance. You’ve mentioned the need for establishing a baseline,

but how can we speak of an absolute baseline when CO2 has been a part of the earth’s atmosphere since the first

volcanoes erupted? And why don’t pre-industrial times serve as an adequate (relative) baseline if CO2 concentrations

haven’t varied more than 20 ppm in over 10,000 years prior to industrialization?

The consensus

approach to the question of statistical assurance is to factor cyclical trends into expected variance. If the data

set falls above this variance then we can reasonably assume the cause is something other than known weather cycles.


My guess is that you are confusing cyclical trends (temperature cycles associated with orbital variations,

ocean currents, warm air currents & etc.) with periods of paleoclimate change (such as the ice ages). If this is the

case, you are clearly wrong. If this is not the case, I think more clarification is in

order.



I'm frankly and utterly indifferent to the political issues or whether anybody

likes or dislikes my questions. However, I'd appreciate if everybody would keep the personal comments out of this

and I'll do my best to do the same.

belgareth
02-05-2006, 09:37 PM
There is already

a great deal of knowledge about how climate works, and there is a significant amount of uncertainty. The important

point, with respect to “global warming”, is that the role of CO2 is well understood, rigorously modeled and short

term predictions have been quite accurate.
In 1991 James Hansen accurately predicted the four year impact of major

volcanic activity in the Pacific. More recently, he accurately predicted a rise in deep ocean temperatures.
There

is a great deal of discrepancy when modelers try to recreate long term trends such as the ice ages, because complex

systems (unlike machines) display “emergent behavior”. That is you may have a set of factors {a, b, c...} which,

over time, brings into play a new set of factors {x,y,z...}.
(Having said that, the only place I’ve seen a 300%

discrepancy is in Michael Chricton’s novel. I’m not disputing the possibility of such discrepancy. Merely pointing

out that discrepancies in the 20% - 60% range are more common if you run a random survey of the

models.)
Your talking about short term results. In any model error factors are cumulative and build upon

one another. The other flaw is that you assume all other environment variables are stable or have predictable

behavoir. Chaos theory states otherwise. Once again, you have cumulative error factors to consider which are

magnified by the unpredictability of other factors. That's why I keep bringing up outside influences. Error factors

of 300% are understated in any model predictiing long term effects. James Hansen predicted the results within what

range of accuracy? He hit the results on the money? I doubt that very seriously. What was his error factor? What was

the deviation period and was it extrpolated over a long term? Lets keep in mind that he was predicting gross results

from a major, one time event.

Which Chriton book? I've read some of his stuff but don't recall that comment.

He's a little far fetched so I don't put much stock in what he has to say.





This is a

good idea because a) climate models are central to the “global warming” argument and b) this is where the greatest

uncertainty lies.
But we should discuss the actual models used to defend particular conclusions. We shouldn’t draw

false analogies between models used to predict precipitation by your local weather station and models used to

calculate greenhouse forcing by climate scientists. And we shouldn’t draw conclusions about the role of CO2 in the

21st century by conducting a survey of models used to recreate thermohaline circulation during the last ice

age.

Nor should we make conclusions without confirming that other factors are not involved. Completely

ignoring potential sources of heat gain is not good modeling. However it is done for several reasons. Easier

programing for one. Fewer lines of code to write and debug. Another is computing power. The more variables you

include the more processing power you need. Even the limited modeling done now is massive, even though set data

points are used instead of the true variables that should be there. It's rare that you have the opportunity to run

several super computers in tandem but that's the kind of computing power you need to do the job right.





Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that

volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year

(Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.

Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to

about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of

released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by

volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million

tonnes/year)!



http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/vol

gas.html (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html)


Ive seen other figures but since I wasn't able to locate the source will have to let

your statement stand with the understanding that I will try to find the other source material.






Actually there has been exactly one study, which has yet to be reproduced, that suggests plants may produce

miniscule amounts of methane under aerobic conditions.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7073/abs/nature04420.html;jsessionid=D12262E188672184C6C4E0 E2583C2412

(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7073/abs/nature04420.html;jsessionid=D12262E188672184C6C4E0 E2583C24

12)
The authors of this study extrapolated that, “If our measurements are typical for short-lived biomass and

scaled on a global basis, we estimate a methane source strength of 62–236 Tg yr-1 for living plants and 1–7 Tg yr-1

for plant litter (1 Tg = 1012 g). We suggest that this newly identified source may have important implications for

the global methane budget and may call for a reconsideration of the role of natural methane sources in past climate

change.”
(The lower figure of the authors’ extrapolation would fall within current levels of uncertainty. The

higher figure would seriously call for a reassessment of humans’ comparative role in methane emissions — without, in

any way, challenging the need to reduce such emissions.)


Please go back and read the study I posted in

this thread. Their results differ and do account for the methane blooms over the rain forests which the study you

point to does not do.



Of course all of these factors have been addressed in the IPCC’s

Assessment report.
I think, in order for this argument to proceed in a constructive way, a single standard should

be applied to all positions. If research that appears in the IPCC Assessment can be categorically dismissed (as if

it never even happened), without any substantive criticisms offered. Huge extrapolations from a single,

unreproduced, study (which did not control for bacteria in the soil, by the way) should not be held up as common

knowledge.

Why do you dismiss studies I post but insist any conclusion by the IPCC is fact? There is not

a single study referred to but a list of questions asked.




The primary source of energy for

our planet is the sun. Since the 1980’s (with the advent of satellite data) we have had a pretty clear picture of

quite subtle variations in solar radiation and solar gain has been easily ruled out as a cause for recent

warming.
Beyond this primary source... discerning the effects of greenhouse warming vs other factors is a “signal

to noise” problem. Scientists try to control for combustion engines, light bulbs, nuclear reactors and other urban

energy sources by using rural temperature readings to control for temperature changes recorded near urban

areas.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011027h

eatisland.html (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011027heatisland.html)


In effect you are dealing with a closed system. When you model a closed system

you account for everything you can. I am well aware of what it takes to build a valid model, having built several

myself and supervised others for different projects. The validity of the model is directly related to how accurately

you account for every factor. You are dismissing as noise massive quantities of energy that are producing heat that

is then trapped within the system. To build an accurate model you have to account for it. When a new factor is

determined you have to investigate how it fits within that model, not just dismiss it out of hand as you did with

the energy generated by the magma movement within the earth's mantle. The greater the proof of global warming the

more important these other energy sources become because they will effect how rapidly the globe

warms.



Statistics seems like a weak argument against physics. (Or maybe I just like things

explained to me in real world terms.) If none of the known climate forcing mechanisms and cyclical variations can

account for recent climate change — and if models introducing the “greenhouse effect” of rising CO2 concentrations

can account for the changes — the fact that recent warming is statistically insignificant compared to warming that

occurred 500,000 years ago is nothing more than a bit of geological trivia. It should have no bearing on global

emissions policy.

Statistics and mathmatics in general are an important tool in all forms of science.

Common sense solutions all too often turn out to be dead wrong when properly analyzed and mathmatically modeled.

Simply stating that something can be accounted for by some effect dodes not prove it. Recent warming is important

but so far you cannot prove that it would not be occuring if man were not here. You, yourself presented a chart

showing varying CO2 levels over some time period. Do we know that the temperature changed during that period in

accordance with current theory? If not, do we know why? How does that work within current theory? Understanding

relationships is important in any form of accurate modeling. Statistics are important to understanding those

relationships and any discrepencies. If there are discrepencies, we need to understand how it relates to current

conditions. The reliability and accuracy of current theory should be of major interest in emmisions policies.





Uncertainty is a given with any scientific endeavor. But every bit of relevant policy information

was already known in 1956: CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”, burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere, CO2

concentrations are growing faster than the carbon cycle can absorb it, and these concentrations will remain in the

atmosphere for at least 1,000 years. It took 15 years after this knowledge had been gained before some scientist

(Mikhail Budyko) decided to investigate possible risks that could be associated with rising CO2 concentrations. It

took 17 more years before some scientist (James Hansen) decided to warn the public.
Scientists seem quite adept at

dragging their feet. Therefore I am incredibly unimpressed when a bunch of scientists can sit around and say,

“Results are inconclusive. We need more data.”
This goes double given the perverse political context of this

“debate”. If modern societies valued life above profit, the shoe would be on the other foot. Scientists would have

to prove that burning fossil fuels is safe and poses no risk to the climate. There would be no need for the

IPCC.
Climate change is not a laboratory experiment, and having a Ph.D. doesn’t give anybody the right to determine

the volume of greenhouse emissions that can be pumped into our atmosphere.
There is no neutral, apolitical position

in this debate. “We need more data. We need better methodologies.” translates into “Let’s not cut emissions yet.

Let’s continue with business as usual.”
Nearly 80% of global energy sources are derived from fossil fuels. There

are many powerful vested interests (much more powerful than the IPCC) behind our current energy budget. And they’re

not ready to experiment with a new economic paradigm. They’re not even ready to admit that a new paradigm is

possible.
But that’s the most pressing question IMHO: Are we ready to experiment with a new energy budget? Or would

we rather continue experimenting with the climate?
The uncertainties of climate science are interesting (as an

intellectual exercise) but a) they shouldn’t be blown completely out of proportion and b) they should be weighed

against the potential risks of inaction.


Most of that is untrue. Because scientists are cautious does

not make them wrong and does not indicate that they or I feel it is good to not cut emmissions. However, there are

questions not being addressed that directly impact conditions that are attributable to global warming. I personally

believe that cutting greenhouse gasses alone is insufficient to resolving the problem. Good research has been done

that makes good sense within the realm of thermadynamics that indicate other factors are also contributing to the

problem. I've mentioned some of them several times and fortunately countries with larger populations that are

contributing to the problem are looking at the issue. You and the IPCC can ignore them if you like, I personally

believe that's plain foolish. In short, the policies you are encouraging and believe are critical are, in my

personal opinion, short sighted and inadaquit to address a major portion of the problem.

Personally, I'm not

sure the IPCC is worth anything. You revere them, not me. Tim929 did an excellent job of describing the situation in

a post a while back. There is a clear us against them mentality being displayed, no different than the one during

the cold war except the antagonists are different. It's the same mentality that has been used probably since man

came down out of the trees to frighten people into doing something. I don't believe for a minute that any group is

capable of callously destroying the environment any more than I believed the USSR was going to nuke us. I don't now

and probably will not later believe political groups are capable of controlling the problems. Premature action for

political reasons is no better and is possibly worse than inaction if it does not address the real problems. Science

is all about discovering the truth and acting on it.

As I noted in a previous post, premature action has created

some classic failures and fobars. MTBE comes to mind as does suppression of forest fires. Both were bad politically

motivated mistakes that science now has to fix. Another classic that comes to mind was the propoganda about

catalytic converters in the eightiies. "The only things coming out of the tailpipe will be carbon dioxide and water.

They will not harm the environment."





“I know some scientists that think you’re wrong.”

Isn’t really an argument. It doesn’t clarify anything. It doesn’t increase understanding. It doesn’t prove any

points. And it tends to silence, rather than facilitate, discussion.


Nor does refusal to even

acknowledge another persons points. If I could ask my scientists friends to join the conversation, I would.

Fortunately, the Japanese are at least doing some important work towards understanding the whole problem rather than

narrowly focusing on one small issue. Please read the article about the million year old ice core. In my opinion,

they are doing something very important towards the goal of figuring out what iis really going on. Hopefuully, they

or somebody else will make several more studies in geologically different places so the data can be coordinated.

Surface and subsurface temperature readings within the artic regions should also be done to address the potential

for increased core temperatures.




I think DST’s points were related to a particular aspect of

the debate that you and I had some misunderstanding over. I thought it was pertinent to the discussion taking place

at the time. But I guess that’s besides the point.
If we do return to earlier topics, I would like some

clarification on the “snapshot of the climate” issue. It seems to come up in almost every one of your posts and I

still can’t comprehend what your point is. (Which may be why I haven't adressed it to your satisfaction.)
In your

first post, you said:
“There are a lot of things about the whole global warming issue that disturb me and I’d like

to open it up for discussion.”
“The first is the validity of the models and the data set. The current model is

based on several things. It only goes back a couple hundred years and shows a flat temperature line until about the

same time as Henry Ford invented the first car, which is also near the beginning of the industrial revolution when

the temperatures began an upward movement.”
How does data based on instrumental records, pertaining to a period of

time when CO2 emissions have been on the rise, turn out to be an invalid data set for determining potential effects

of these emissions? And how can the situation be fixed by going back to a time when the only available evidence is

proxy data, and all this data points to stable atmospheric concentrations?

Much later, in a response to my

second post, you commented on a link I gave you concerning the IPCC’s “detection and attribution” methodology. The

first page of this link showed three different graphs, comparing global mean surface air temperature anomalies from

1,000 year control simulations with three different climate models. It contrasted the expected variability given by

these models with the instrumental record for a 150 year period from 1850 -200.
You said that my link proved your

point because it didn’t provide a long enough time frame. But CO2 concentrations have only been rising for about 150

years. So that would seem to be the time frame of greatest concern if you are trying to determine the effects of

increased concentrations.

You state that you are looking for some statistical assurance that current temperature

gains fall beyond the scope of cyclical trends. This much makes sense.
The part that doesn’t make sense is why you

suppose that taking a longer time frame would give any sort of greater assurance. You’ve mentioned the need for

establishing a baseline, but how can we speak of an absolute baseline when CO2 has been a part of the earth’s

atmosphere since the first volcanoes erupted? And why don’t pre-industrial times serve as an adequate (relative)

baseline if CO2 concentrations haven’t varied more than 20 ppm in over 10,000 years prior to industrialization?



The consensus approach to the question of statistical assurance is to factor cyclical trends into expected

variance. If the data set falls above this variance then we can reasonably assume the cause is something other than

known weather cycles.
My guess is that you are confusing cyclical trends (temperature cycles associated with

orbital variations, ocean currents, warm air currents & etc.) with periods of paleoclimate change (such as the ice

ages). If this is the case, you are clearly wrong. If this is not the case, I think more clarification is in

order.

I'm not sure how else I can explain it. Maybe the disconnect is our educations. I'm looking at

a dynamic system in which everything interacts. It's a massive system so we have to consider things like inertia

and latency on a vast scale. It isn't just the biosphere or even the atmosphere, its the planet as a whole which

includes everything from the sun to the core. Every piece between contributes.

In reality, CO2 has been part of

the atmosphere longer than free oxygen. As I mentioned at least once, oxygen was scarce at one time and was a deadly

poison. It is a waste product of the carbon cycle. Green growing plants released it into the atmosphere. The point

is that despite a far greater concentration of CO2, far more volcanic activity and far greater cloud cover, the

earth's atmosphere was cooling during that period. Of course, there were other factors involved.

Lets try this.

From my perspective you are like the guy who's car is running poorly so you tell the mechanic to put a new air

filter in. The mechanic wants to investigate why oil is dripping from underneath and the tail pipe is a sooty black

color. The air filter may provide a short term fix or it may not but you don't really know because you are only

looking at one part of the problem. A few tests should provide better information and could possibly prevent your

engine from freezing up in a few weeks.

a.k.a.
02-06-2006, 08:17 AM
James Hansen

predicted the results within what range of accuracy? He hit the results on the money? I doubt that very seriously.

What was his error factor? What was the deviation period and was it extrpolated over a long term? Lets keep in mind

that he was predicting gross results from a major, one time event.

With regards to the Mount

Pinatubo eruption, Hansen’s models predicted half a degree of average cooling, concentrated in higher northern

latitudes and lasting a couple of years. And this is exactly what was observed. I never paid attention to the error

factor.
(Hansen, James E., et al. (1992). "Potential Climate Impact of Mount Pinatubo Eruption." Geophysical

Research Letters 19: 142-58.)
As far as ocean modeling goes... the mean of five simulation runs was spot

on with the mean of 10 years worth of measurements. (The error factor for the models was .6 W year/m2. For the

measurements it was 1 W year/m2.) If you follow the link and click on “Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and

Implications” you can download a pdf which contains a graph of the simulation runs compared to the actual readings.

(There is some variance there.)
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/




Which

Chriton book? I've read some of his stuff but don't recall that comment. He's a little far fetched so I don't

put much stock in what he has to say.

“State of Fear”. pg. 247. He is referring to Hansen’s 1988

testimony before the senate, but he got the numbers wrong. (You can get away with that in fiction.)





Please go back and read the study I posted in this thread. Their results differ and do account

for the methane blooms over the rain forests which the study you point to does not do.

Please go

back and follow the link I provided. It leads to an abstract of the actual study that is referred to in the Reuters

article you provided. (Check the names of the authors.)
If you’re willing to pay a fee, you can read the

whole study. Their methodology involved growing plants in situ with a glass jar covering them. Air samples were

sucked out and extremely trace amounts of methane were found. The plants were irradiated to control for bacteria,

but methane is more comonly associated with bacteria in the soil — which was not irradiated.
Maybe this

is significant. Maybe it’s not. It is significant that there is no known mechanism for aerobic methane production in

plants. This study is either a botanical breakthrough or a fluke. In such situations, it’s customary for scientists

to reserve judgmenet (and avoid drawing conclusions) until the results have be replicated. (It’s not just me trying

to be difficult.)
According to the Reuters article which you asked me to go back and read, the bit about

methane plumes over rain forests was based on a second party’s commentary on the original research. It wasn’t a

different study. There’s only been one study on this topic.




Why do you dismiss

studies I post but insist any conclusion by the IPCC is fact?

I didn’t dismiss the study you

referred to. I adressed it. I quoted a relevant conclusion from the abstract, gave my opinion on the significance of

this conclusion, gave a valid reason for not jumping to any conclusions on the basis of this single study, and

implied that the same consideration be given to research referred to in the IPCC Assessment.




There is not a single study referred to but a list of questions asked.


In

effect you are dealing with a closed system. When you model a closed system you account for everything you can. I am

well aware of what it takes to build a valid model, having built several myself and supervised others for different

projects. The validity of the model is directly related to how accurately you account for every factor. You are

dismissing as noise massive quantities of energy that are producing heat that is then trapped within the system. To

build an accurate model you have to account for it. When a new factor is determined you have to investigate how it

fits within that model, not just dismiss it out of hand as you did with the energy generated by the magma movement

within the earth's mantle. The greater the proof of global warming the more important these other energy sources

become because they will effect how rapidly the globe warms.

It really does depend on what you

hope to realistically achieve with the model. If you aim to isolate climate forcing mechanisms from other sources of

heat energy, you need to operate within a “signal to noise” paradigm.



Statistics and

mathmatics in general are an important tool in all forms of science. Common sense solutions all too often turn out

to be dead wrong when properly analyzed and mathmatically modeled. Simply stating that something can be accounted

for by some effect dodes not prove it. Recent warming is important but so far you cannot prove that it would not be

occuring if man were not here.

Apparently I can’t convince you. But I am trying to argue that

“proof” is in the physics of CO2, the consistent heat gain observed in all models which introduce CO2 as a factor,

the correlation of modeled temperatures to measured temperatures, and the lack of correlation with alternative

models.



You, yourself presented a chart showing varying CO2 levels over some time

period. Do we know that the temperature changed during that period in accordance with current

theory?

Sorry. Is that the ice core study I linked to in my second post?
If so, there is not

a modeled correlation over time. There is only a rough estimate of mean temperatures, which are consistent with

current theory.



If not, do we know why? How does that work within current theory?

Understanding relationships is important in any form of accurate modeling. Statistics are important to understanding

those relationships and any discrepencies. If there are discrepencies, we need to understand how it relates to

current conditions. The reliability and accuracy of current theory should be of major interest in emmisions

policies.

So far the discrepancies have been atributed to a) uncertainties in all factors that

determine cloud formation and cloud albedo b) lack of mathematical formulas which can adequately represent

thermohaline circulation in the oceans and (as you indicated earlier) c) the lack of computers which can process all

the factors that are currently known.
As a general rule atmospheric-ocean circulation models that include

land mass, biomass, major greenhouse gases, major aerosols, SO4, and rough approximations of cloud formation are

pretty accurate within a ten year framework. It’s assumed that other factors (some of which you mentioned) could

increase accuracy; but the technology to do so simply doesn’t exist. So it’s important to focus on particular

questions which can lead to a greater overall understanding.
With regards to policy, it’s already a safe

bet that CO2 concentrations above 450ppm will lead to climate changes that human civilization is not currently

prepared to adequately manage.
It’s one thing to acknowledge uncertainties. Another thing to act as if

there is no human fingerprint in current warming.



I don't believe for a minute that

any group is capable of callously destroying the environment any more than I believed the USSR was going to nuke

us.

That must be a comforting belief. Unfortunately history is full of examples where this is

exactly what happened.


I don't now and probably will not later believe political groups

are capable of controlling the problems. Premature action for political reasons is no better and is possibly worse

than inaction if it does not address the real problems. Science is all about discovering the truth and acting on

it.

You’ve got it upside down. The scientific reasons for action are plentiful. Political-economic

interests are holding back progress.




I'm not sure how else I can explain it.

Maybe the disconnect is our educations. I'm looking at a dynamic system in which everything interacts. It's a

massive system so we have to consider things like inertia and latency on a vast scale. It isn't just the biosphere

or even the atmosphere, its the planet as a whole which includes everything from the sun to the core. Every piece

between contributes.

In reality, CO2 has been part of the atmosphere longer than free oxygen. As I mentioned

at least once, oxygen was scarce at one time and was a deadly poison. It is a waste product of the carbon cycle.

Green growing plants released it into the atmosphere. The point is that despite a far greater concentration of CO2,

far more volcanic activity and far greater cloud cover, the earth's atmosphere was cooling during that period. Of

course, there were other factors involved.

Roughly, which period of time are you referring to?




Lets try this. From my perspective you are like the guy who's car is running poorly so you

tell the mechanic to put a new air filter in. The mechanic wants to investigate why oil is dripping from underneath

and the tail pipe is a sooty black color. The air filter may provide a short term fix or it may not but you don't

really know because you are only looking at one part of the problem. A few tests should provide better information

and could possibly prevent your engine from freezing up in a few weeks.

Or maybe I’m the guy that

changes his break pads when they start to squeek — without bothering to have the drums checked. Then, from my

perspective, you would be the guy that turns the stereo up above the sound of squeeking breaks.

DrSmellThis
02-06-2006, 03:53 PM
Recent warming is

important but so far you cannot prove that it would not be occuring if man were not here.I'm going to

return to the issue I raised if people don't mind, since there still seems to be a critical need to (thanks, AKA,

for recognizing that I brought up the issue in the first place to clarify a specific misunderstanding between AKA

and Bel, not to take the thread somewhere else).

Part of my argument has been that you can't make the above

quoted point in isolation, when you already know that whatever warming is happening is closely correlated with

greenhouse gas emission levels. That is critically relevant, additional, available knowledge for addressing the

quoted issue.

Another way to look at it is to say that it is only critically necessary, at this moment, to show

that this warming we observe now is/is not caused by humans, rather than the rest of nature; not show causes

of global warming in general. This warming we have now is the kind that is correlated with greenhouse gas emissions.

That is the kind of warming that has been observed, is of primary concern, and must be explained.

The most basic

logical issue is now ruling out non-human causes of the observed correlation, not ruling out non-human causes of

temperature change as an isolated variable. One can't go backwards and pretend away the observation of fact.

To

my knowledge, there is not currently a remotely compelling theory that explains that this correlation could be

caused by anything other than human industrial activity (GG causes T). I am not emotionally wed to this conclusion,

so somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Given the available plausible explanations, if you know the effect size,

one estimate of which is related to the square of the correlation, then you already have an estimate of how much of

whatever warming we have can be attributed to GG, and how much is "noise", or due to other causes. But we know much

more, because of the physics and lab knowledge of the effect of CO2, as AKA mentioned in his last post. If the

observed correlation was not a reliable predictor of new temperatures, it would reflect poorly on the reliability of

the original correlation, obviously. So you're back to the same line of basic scientific logic. But hasn't this

predictive reliability been supported by the data?

On a related issue of statistical modeling, if you make a

more sophisticated, more comprehensive model of the correlates of current observed temperature change, the

potential is mainly to identify an even higher, more reliable correlation between GG and T, precisely because you

are filtering out more noise, by identifying the levels of other influences, and can "see" the critical relation

more clearly.

The effect of noise (a specific kind of error) would be to mislead us to reduce or underestimate

the correlation, not to increase or overestimate it. So if we have a solid number showing the GG/T relationship,

and that number is high enough to cause us concern, we are probably never going to allay our concerns by getting a

more sophisticated model of temperature correlates. Quite the opposite is likely true. Again, the only plausible

exception I can think of would be if somehow a third cause of the GG/T correlation turned up.

DrSmellThis
02-06-2006, 05:10 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009001/

http://www.msnbc.m

sn.com/id/6433717/

belgareth
02-06-2006, 09:57 PM
Actually AKA, I'm well known

for being just the opposite. When my brakes start to squeal I have the mechanic check the drums/rotors, bearings and

where applicable the differential grease. I also take the time to learn everything I can about it from every

available source. As both a qualified electrical engineer and a computer professional I am meticulous by nature.



The article about the million year old ice core I was referring to is the one I posted recently. Japanese

scientists believe it can help us predict what global climate change is going to do. I hope they or others do

additional cores of similar depth to verify their findings. I also hope that a lot of other research is done that

could indicate whether or not greenhouse gasses are the primary culprit or one of many potential contributors. The

IPCC's tunnel vision is a major mistake in my opinion. There are other factors that could account for some of the

evidence attributed to greenhouse gasses and can be correlated in a similar manner if, like greenhouse gasses, you

ignore certain other issues mentioned more than once.

Tim929 did have it right and I refuse to be stampeded into

hasty decisions. As noted and ignored several times, we screw it up regularly when we let that happen. Your comment

that I am comforted by my lack of belief that 2/3 of the world is going to casually destroy the environment is

offensive and unreasonable. You can believe the worst of people if you like, I rather believe the best and work with

people rather than try to force them to follow my beliefs.

a.k.a.
02-07-2006, 08:25 AM
Actually AKA, I'm

well known for being just the opposite. When my brakes start to squeal I have the mechanic check the drums/rotors,

bearings and where applicable the differential grease. I also take the time to learn everything I can about it from

every available source. As both a qualified electrical engineer and a computer professional I am meticulous by

nature.

Obviously, I was drawing an analogy. Not trying to make any statements about how

well you care for your cars.


The article about the million year old ice core I was

referring to is the one I posted recently. Japanese scientists believe it can help us predict what global climate

change is going to do. I hope they or others do additional cores of similar depth to verify their findings. I also

hope that a lot of other research is done that could indicate whether or not greenhouse gasses are the primary

culprit or one of many potential contributors.

My question got misconstrued. But no problem. I’m

glad you’re impressed by this work. Yoshiyuki Fuji, the man who headed the project, will be a contributor to the 4th

IPCC Assessment Report coming out in 2007.


http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/wg1authors.pdf


The IPCC's tunnel vision is a major

mistake in my opinion. There are other factors that could account for some of the evidence attributed to greenhouse

gasses and can be correlated in a similar manner if, like greenhouse gasses, you ignore certain other issues

mentioned more than once.

I have very few opinions about the politics of the IPCC. They appear

to be minor players in the bigger scheme of things. And I believe they were set up as a stalling maneuver. It seems

everytime governments are faced with public pressure to take immediate action on a major issue they set up a

committee to study the matter further.
I do put a lot of stock in their Assessment Reports. When peer

reviewed journal articles by 2000+ scientists from reputable institutions throughout the world are synthesized into

a consensus view on climate change, it’s not very prudent to dismiss the work.
From my perspective, the

2001 Assessment Report is where the bar is currently set. If global warming skeptics can’t jump over this bar — by

offering more reliable data, more pertinent theories, more compelling arguments — then my fears about the future are

not allayed.



Tim929 did have it right and I refuse to be stampeded into hasty

decisions. As noted and ignored several times, we screw it up regularly when we let that happen. Your comment that I

am comforted by my lack of belief that 2/3 of the world is going to casually destroy the environment is offensive

and unreasonable. You can believe the worst of people if you like, I rather believe the best and work with people

rather than try to force them to follow my beliefs.

I don’t know how a “group of people” (by

which I thought you meant the enrgy industries) suddenly turned into “2/3 of the world”. But nevermind. If this is

just a philosophical question about human nature, I do believe that 2/3 — even 90% — are capable of destroying the

environment. I never undersestimate the power of rationalization. On the other hand, I never implied

that people — even people running the energy industries — are impossible to work with. Getting people to work

together is my job.

a.k.a.
02-08-2006, 10:27 AM
Another way

to look at it is to say that it is only critically necessary, at this moment, to show that this warming we

observe now is/is not caused by humans, rather than the rest of nature; not show causes of global warming in

general. This warming we have now is the kind that is correlated with greenhouse gas emissions. That is the kind of

warming that has been observed, is of primary concern, and must be explained.


Here's one

approach to this question, from realclimate.org:

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human

activities?

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380

parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established

that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know

that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human

activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested

land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount

of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have

produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have

produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have

not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2

we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that

explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land

clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of

carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but

with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C

is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning

fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is

because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since

fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C

ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with,

the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed

time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to

measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because

during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material

in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in

atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have

the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes,

but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric

changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their

13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C

ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low

as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase

-- around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning.

Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean

waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a

few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals

and sponges -- whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric

chemistry -- show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2

production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of

measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that

the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is

actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change

in 13C/12C of the atmosphere -- which took many thousand years -- was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that

observed in the last 150 years.

For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references

are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the

atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 1731–1748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M.,

Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record

of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel

CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
---------------------------
Notes
*How much they can be

expected to absorb in the long run is an interesting and important scientific question, discussed in some detail in

Chapter 3 of the IPCC report. Clearly, though, it is our ability to produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere

can absorb that it is the fundamental cause of the observed increase since pre-industrial times.
**The

development of continuous series of tree rings going back thousands of years by using trees of overlapping age, is

known as dendrochronology (see the Arizona Tree Ring lab web pages for more information on this).
***There is a

graph illustrating the sponge data posted here. Thanks to F. Boehm for providing this

link.

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

InternationalPlayboy
02-09-2006, 07:23 AM
Global warming: blame the

forests (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1684289,00.html)

Alok Jha, science correspondent
Thursday January 12, 2006
The Guardian





They have long been thought of as the antidote to harmful greenhouse gases, sufferers of, rather

than contributors to, the effects of global warming. But in a startling discovery, scientists have realised that

plants are part of the problem.

They have long been thought of as the antidote to harmful greenhouse gases,

sufferers of, rather than contributors to, the effects of global warming. But in a startling discovery, scientists

have realised that plants are part of the problem.

According to a study published today, living plants may

emit almost a third of the methane entering the Earth's atmosphere.
The result has come as a shock to climate

scientists. "This is a genuinely remarkable result," said Richard Betts of the climate change monitoring

organisation the Hadley Centre. "It adds an important new piece of understanding of how plants interact with the

climate."

Methane is second only to carbon dioxide in contributing to the greenhouse effect. "For a given

mass of methane, it is a stronger greenhouse gas, but the reason it is of less concern is that there's less of it

in the atmosphere," said Dr Betts.

But the concentration of methane in the atmosphere has almost tripled in

the last 150 years, mainly through human-influenced so-called biogenic sources such as the rise in rice cultivation

or numbers of flatulent ruminating animals. According to previous estimates, these sources make up two-thirds of the

600m tonnes worldwide annual methane production.

Frank Keppler, of the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear

Physics, who led the team behind the new research, estimated that living plants release between 60m and 240m tonnes

of methane per year, based on experiments he carried out, with the largest part coming from tropical

areas.

David Lowe, of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, said the new

work, published in Nature, is important for two reasons. "First, because the methane emissions they document occur

under normal physiological conditions, in the presence of oxygen, rather than through bacterial action in anoxic

environments," he wrote in an accompanying article. "Second, because the estimated emissions are large, constituting

10-30% of the annual total of methane entering Earth's atmosphere."

Yadvinder Malhi, a specialist in the

relationship between vegetation and climate at Oxford University, said the plant source of methane had probably been

missed in the past because scientists have a poor understanding of the way methane circulates in the atmosphere.

"There are a variety of sources and sinks of methane and there are huge error bars on those terms," he said.

"What's been uncertain is where the methane is coming from and where it's going. Unlike carbon dioxide, methane is

much more dynamic; it lasts about 10 years in the atmosphere."

Biogenic methane has traditionally been

assumed to come from organic materials as they decompose in oxygen-free environments. But Dr Keppler found plants

emit the gas even in normal, oxygen-rich surroundings: between 10 and 1,000 times more methane than dead plant

material. When the plants were exposed to the sun, the rate of methane production increased. "Until now all the

textbooks have said that biogenic methane can only be produced in the absence of oxygen," Dr Keppler said. "For that

simple reason, nobody looked closely at this."

The discovery sheds further light on the complex relationship

between greenhouse gases and the environment. "If you're after predictions of global average temperature, it won't

make a huge amount of difference," said Dr Betts. "But it shows how complicated it is to exactly quantify

reforesting or deforesting in comparison with current fossil fuel emissions."

It will also intensify debates

on whether targets in climate change treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol should be based entirely on carbon

emissions, which are easily measured, or also take sinks into account, which remove carbon from the atmosphere but

are more difficult to measure.

For climate scientists, the new work clears up a few unexplained features in

the environment.

"The rate of methane increase in the atmosphere has slowed down in the last 10 years and

there was no really convincing explanation of why that's been going on," said Dr Mahli. "This paper argues that

tropical deforestation may be a factor there."

In addition, the new research could help to explain the source

of plumes of methane observed by satellites over tropical forests. "The sheer biomass of the forest may be a factor

there," said Dr Mahli.

The fact that plants produce methane does not mean that planting forests is a bad

idea, however. "Putting a tree where there was no tree before locks up a lot of carbon and this [new research]

perhaps reduces the overall benefit of that by a fraction," said Dr Mahli.

Some mysteries remain: how and why

plants produce methane is unclear. Dr Keppler's team said the search for an answer is likely open up a new area of

research into plant biochemistry.

Other surprise results

Tree planting

Researchers in North

Carolina found that planting trees to soak up carbon dioxide can suck water and nutrients from the ground, dry up

streams and change the soil's mineral balance

Aerosols

A recent study in Nature found cutting air

pollution could trigger a surge in global warming. Aerosols cool the Earth by reflecting radiation back into space.

Scrapping them would have adverse consequences

Global dimming

In 2003 scientists noticed levels of

sunlight reaching the Earth's surface had dropped by 20% in recent years because of air pollution and bigger,

longer-lasting clouds

a.k.a.
02-09-2006, 07:57 AM
"Aerosols

A recent study in

Nature found cutting air pollution could trigger a surge in global warming. Aerosols cool the Earth by reflecting

radiation back into space. Scrapping them would have adverse consequences"

I've read about this as well.

Since these aerosols don't have a very long atmospheric life time, it's kind of like a time bomb waiting to go off

as we discover cleaner technologies.

a.k.a.
02-09-2006, 07:59 AM
Here’s excerpts from another

realclimate.org piece. I think this one begins to address a recurring theme in this thread.

Natural

Variability and Climate Sensitivity

In this commentary, I will discuss the question "If somebody were to

discover that climate variations in the past were stronger than previously thought, what would be the implications

for estimates of climate sensitivity?" Pick your favorite time period – Little ice age, Medieval Warm Period, Last

Glacial Maximum or Cretaceous – the issues are the same. In considering this question, it is important to keep in

mind that the predictions summarized in the IPCC reports are not the result of some kind of statistical fit to past

data. Thus, a revision in our picture of past climate variability does not translate in any direct way into a change

in the IPCC forecasts. These forecasts are based on comprehensive simulations incorporating the best available

representations of basic physical processes. Of course, data on past climates can be very useful in improving these

representations. In addition, past data can be used to provide independent estimates of climate sensitivity, which

provide a reality check on the models. Nonetheless, the path from data to change in forecast is a subtle

one.

Climate doesn't change all by itself. There's always a reason, though it may be hard to ferret out.

Often, the proximate cause of the climate change is some parameter of the climate system that can be set off from

the general collective behavior of the system and considered as a "given," even if it is not external to the system

strictly speaking. Such is the case for CO2 concentration. This is an example of a climate forcing. Other climate

forcings, such as solar variability and volcanic activity, are more clearly external to the Earth's climate system.

In order to estimate sensitivity from past climate variations, one must identify and quantify the climate forcings.

A large class of climate forcings can be translated into a common currency, known as radiative forcing. This is the

amount by which the forcing mechanism would change the top-of-atmosphere energy budget, if the temperature were not

allowed to change so as to restore equilibrium. Doubling CO2 produces a radiative forcing of about 4 Watts per

square meter. The effects of other well-mixed greenhouse gases can be accurately translated into radiative forcings.

Forcing caused by changes in the Sun's brightness, by dust in the atmosphere, or by volcanic aerosols can also be

translated into radiative forcing. The equivalence is not so precise in this case, since the geographic and temporal

pattern of the forcing is not the same as that for greenhouse gases, but numerous simulations indicate that there is

enough equivalence for the translation to be useful.

Thus, an estimate of climate sensitivity from past data

requires an estimate of the magnitude of the past climate changes and of the radiative forcings causing the changes.

Both are subject to uncertainties, and to revisions as scientific techniques improve.

...
The Last

Glacial Maximum (i.e. the most recent "ice age", abbreviated LGM) probably provides the best opportunity for using

the past to constrain climate sensitivity. The climate changes are large and reasonably well constrained by

observations. Moreover, the forcing mechanisms are quite well known, and one of them is precisely the same as will

cause future climate changes. During the LGM, CO2 dropped to 180 parts per million, as compared to pre-industrial

interglacial values of about 280 parts per million. Depending on just what you assume about cloud and water vapor

distributions, this yields a radiative forcing of about -2.5 Watts per square meter. Global mean temperatures

dropped by about 7°C at the LGM. Does this mean that the true climate sensitivity is (7/2.5) = 2.8°C per (Watt per

square meter)? That would indicate a terrifying 11.2 °C warming in response to a doubling of CO2. Fortunately, this

alarming estimate is based on faulty reasoning, because there is a lot more going on at LGM time than just the

change in CO2. Some of these things are feedbacks like water vapor, clouds and sea-ice, which could be reasonably

presumed to the future as well as the past. Other forcings, including the growth and decay of massive Northern

Hemisphere continental ice sheets, changes in atmospheric dust, and changes in the ocean circulation, are not likely

to have the same kind of effect in a future warming scenario as they did at glacial times. In estimating climate

sensitivity such effects must be controlled for, and subtracted out to yield the portion of climate change

attributable to CO2. Broadly speaking, we know that it is unlikely that current climate models are systematically

overestimating sensitivity to CO2 by very much, since most of the major models can get into the ballpark of the

correct tropical and Southern Hemisphere cooling when CO2 is dropped to 180 parts per million. No model gets very

much cooling south of the Equator without the effect of CO2. Hence, any change in model physics that reduced climate

sensitivity would make it much harder to account for the observed LGM cooling. Can we go beyond this rather vague

statement and use the LGM to say which of the many models is most likely to have the right climate sensitivity? Many

groups are working on this very question right now. Progress has become possible only recently, with the

availability of a few long-term coupled atmosphere-ocean simulations of the LGM climate. Time will tell how

successful the program will turn out...

However that shakes out, if somebody were to wake me up in the middle

of the night tomorrow and tell me that the LGM tropical temperatures were actually 6°C colder than the present,

rather than 3C as I currently think, my immediate reaction would be "Gosh, the climate sensitivity must be much

greater than anybody imagined!" That would be the correct reaction, too, because the rude awakener didn't suggest

anything about revisions in the strength of the forcing mechanisms.
...
Now, how about the Holocene –

including the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period that seem to figure so prominently in many skeptics' tracts ?

This is a far harder row to hoe, because the changes in both forcing and response are small and subject to large

uncertainties (as we have discussed in connection with the "Hockey Stick"). What we do know is that the proposed

forcing mechanisms – solar variability and mean volcanic activity – are small. Indeed, the main quandary faced by

climate scientists is how to estimate climate sensitivity from the Little Ice Age or Medieval Warm Period, at all,

given the relative small forcings over the past 1000 years, and the substantial uncertainties in both the forcings

and the temperature changes. The current picture of Holocene climate variations is based not just on tree ring data,

but on glacial mass balance and a wide variety of other proxy data. If this state of knowledge were to be revised in

such a way as to indicate that the amplitude of the climate variations were larger than previously thought, that

could very well call for for an upward revision of climate sensitivity

Indeed, quantitative studies of the

Holocene climate variations invariably support this notion (e.g. Hegerl et al, Geophys. Res. Lett 2003, or Andronova

et al Geophys. Res. Lett 2004.). Such studies can reasonably account for the observed variations as a response to

solar and volcanic forcing (and a few secondary things) with energy balance climate models tuned to have a climate

sensitivity equivalent to 2.5C per doubling of CO2. If the estimates of observed variations were made larger, a

greater sensitivity would then be required to fit the data. Ironically, even arch-skeptics Soon and Baliunas, who

would like to lay most of the blame for recent warming at the doorstep of solar effects, came to a compatible

conclusion in their own energy balance model study. Namely, any model that was sensitive enough to yield a large

response to recent solar variability would yield an even larger response to radiative forcing from recent (and

therefore also future) CO2 changes. As a result, their "best fit" of climate sensitivity for the twentieth century

is comfortably within the IPCC range.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=229

belgareth
02-09-2006, 08:10 AM
Thanks IP.

I'd pretty much

given up on having an open and rational discussion. It's been plain for a while that few really understand the full

extent of the issues or the debates. I'm glad to see somebody else is willing to look beyond a very narrow set of

beliefs.

I/we do not dispute that the climate is changing. However, we do dispute the limited and narrow

perspective being pushed on us by a relatively small group of people. There is far more going on here than thses

simplistic viewpoints would have us believe.

Here are some other articles that either contradict IPCC/Global

Warming/CO2 theory or amplify on it:

Solar gain:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_s

un_effect.html (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html)
http://www.livescience.

com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html)
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050328_arctic_soot.html (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050328_arctic_soot.html

)



Cooling:
http://www.livescience.com/fo

rcesofnature/041217_sealevel_rise.html (http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/041217_sealevel_rise.html)
http://www.livescience.com

/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=0412_sealevel_rise2_02.gif&cap=A+general+warming+trend+was+interrup

ted+by+a+sudden+cooling+event+8%2C200+years+ago%2C +then+temperatures+quickly+rebounded.+Credit%3A+NO AA%2FVon+Grafens

tein+et+al (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_displ

ay.php?pic=0412_sealevel_rise2_02.gif&cap=A+general+warming+trend+was+interrupted+by+a+s udden+cooling+event+8%2C200+

years+ago%2C+then+temperatures+quickly+rebounded.+ Credit%3A+NOAA%2FVon+Grafenstein+et+al).



Debate:
http://www.livescience.

com/environment/060201_temperature_differences.html (http://www.livescience.com/environment/060201_temperature_differences.html)
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth

_bright.html)
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=

/20060205/NEWS08/602050317/-1/RSS (http://www.toledoblade.co

m/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060205/NEWS08/602050317/-1/RSS)

DrSmellThis
02-09-2006, 03:34 PM
I'd pretty

much given up on having an open and rational discussion. Apparently.
It's been plain for a while that

few really understand the full extent of the issues or the debates. I'm glad to see somebody else is willing to

look beyond a very narrow set of beliefs.When I saw Belgareth had posted I decided and committed to read it

with an open mind, reminding myself that I honestly do not care what the truth is about global warming and

greenhouse gases. I'm ready to be convinced.

There's nothing here to be open to, unfortunately. I'm still

waiting for an open and rational consideration of the central, critical issue I raised (AKA expanded on it nicely,

of course). It was a genuine, reasoned, basic point, phrased in a typical academic manner researchers should be

accustomed to. The dismissive response to it was puzzling. If someone was really secure in their understanding of

the issues, I'd have expected them to be glad I raised the question.

Simply admonishing people that their

discussion is "irrational, "narrow" and "simplistic"; that some scientist friends think they're being "illogical";

and that they "just don't understand" does not count as a substitute for basic reasoning.

An oft-seen statement

of the form "There are so many other issues we have to understand, for example:" also does not count as a rational

reply, or as an argument. The issues are simply listed, and not woven into a coherent logic that addresses the

central questions. This has been a problem throughout this thread, and I was trying to remedy it by asking a couple

basic questions. Those questions turned out to cause some trouble.
I/we do not dispute that the climate is

changing. However, we do dispute the limited and narrow perspective being pushed on us by a relatively small group

of people. There is far more going on here than thses simplistic viewpoints would have us believe. I don't

understand what it means to accept "that the climate is changing." The rest of the paragraph is again of the

form "you have to think of many other issues," without a logical framework that revolves around a central

issue.
Here are some other articles that either contradict IPCC/Global Warming/CO2 theory or amplify on

it:Thanks. I'll continue to read it with an open mind. So far, after following several links, I've seen

nothing to contradict the fundamental line of thinking I raised; a line of thinking that goes right to the heart

of the larger public debate at a basic level.

a.k.a.
02-09-2006, 07:21 PM
I read through the articles and

found nothing that contradicts the IPCC Report (the uncertainties are well documented), but I will take a closer

look to see if they amplify anything.
One of the articles mentioned the possibility that melting ice could

push our climate into another ice age. I’ve already brought up that possibility in my response to one of the

articles that DST posted on arctic warming.
The first article, commented that the sun was responsible for 10 to

30% of global warming. I checked this against the IPCC report:
I summed up the total estimated radiative

forcing of greenhouse gases, ozone, aerosols, biomass burning, solar radiation & etc. Because of variance in the

indirect role of aerosols (that is their effect on cloud albedo) I got two figures for the total global warming

effect. The high figure is 2.55 Watts per meter squared, the low figure is .95 Watts per meter squared. Solar

radiation is estimated at .3 Watts per meter squared. Therefore the sun’s role, according to the IPCC would range

from 12 - 32 % of total global warming. (Slightly HIGHER than what the article suggests.)
Here’s the link

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/251.htm#6131
Someone please tell me if I did the math

wrong.

In any case I saw nothing in any of the articles which contradicted the notion of CO2 as the #1

cause for global warming (and growing). Guess it’s because I’m too simplistic and irrational.

DrSmellThis
02-09-2006, 08:57 PM
Studying the climate is very similar to studying humans

in that you are studying a complex, holistic, open (can react with other systems, like the rest of the solar

system), multi-leveled (with micro subsystems) and dynamic natural system. There is much in common between the

two theoretical and research mentalities because of this central fact. The earth is very much like a person in

many ways, and methods applicable to studying one are therefore often profitable for the other.

This is in

contrast to chemistry, biology and physics, which tend moreso to study discrete reactions, effects and lab

phenomena. These scientists like to reduce everything to a set of simple laws that will account for everything. They

need to change their approach radically when moving to study these kinds of systems, and take extra training in this

mentality. The fact that climatology or environmental science is a so called "physical science" like theirs is a

similarity, but only one similarity.

As a psychology researcher with a committment to "holism" (looking at the

big picture and how everything relates) I nonetheless know that when studying such systems you cannot wait for the

whole system to be mapped out before being satisfied to act on your results when studying a specific question (BTW,

the narrative model is IMO the best shot at this mapping in psychology, currently; and maybe the Gaia idea is a

candidate in environmental science). The mysteries of such systems are infinite and perpetually baffling.

What

you have to do is narrow down and focus your inquiry on the most crucial effect(s), even though you are holistic in

study design and interpretation of results. You learn that you can successfully isolate most effects (like that of

CO2 on T) if you are meticulous and creative in your design. You have to rely a great deal on statistics and

statistical modeling in studying these kinds of systems, because of their appropriateness to handle complexity and

uncertainty. It takes a great deal of graduate-level training and study to understand statistical modeling applied

to natural systems, as well as the other methodological issues involved.

For example, you need to know what you

can say and what you can't with various approaches to systems research; know how to isolate the most crucial

variables for study, tease out effects, and draw conclusions. None of this is easy, and these competencies typically

cannot be achieved by however much intensive study of a content area to accumulate factual information. What I have

tried to do is post on these research/methodological topics -- like basic scientific reasoning about basic data --

to stay within an area in which I might contribute.
However, I do not accept you as an expert in

scientific method when working scientists are asking the questions and suggesting the methods you are claiming are

illogical. You may not like the fact that I cannot ask the scientists I associate with to come on the forum to

refute your opinions but that's something I cannot do anything about. You can either accept that I am being honest

about what they say or not, it really doesn't matter.Because I have the aforementioned

research/methodological training at a doctoral level, I like to think I have a place in this kind of discussion, a

small, yet legitimate role to play. I never used the word "expert," because I lack the specific content and

technical knowledge that people like AKA and Belgareth have more of. I don't know how to be any more humble than

this. I'm not going to roll over and pretend to be stupid.

I've gradually been reading more and more content.

Often in my reading of global warming skeptics I see an argument of the general form that we need to map out

everything about the climate before we conclude anything about greenhouse gas-correlated global warming for

practical decision-making.

This is a faulty and irrelevant argument. In complex, dynamic, open natural

systems science, you can't do this. That's not how science works. You go ahead and study individual effects as

best you can.

To me this is a prominent myth of the debate, the more I read of it; and one on display in

this thread.

wood elf
02-11-2006, 05:22 AM
Do trees share blame for global warming?





By Peter N. Spotts | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor





Cows burp it,

pipelines and landfills leak it, and vast amounts lie frozen beneath the ocean floor. Methane is ubiquitous - as

fuel for heating and cooking and as a source of concern for atmospheric scientists. Molecule for molecule, methane

packs thousands of times more punch as a "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide does.



Until now, scientists tracking debits and credits in the globe's

methane "budget" figured they had a pretty good handle on where the gas comes from - mostly from microbes breaking

down organic material in places where oxygen is relatively scarce.

Enter Frank Keppler. Working with colleagues from Northern Ireland and the Netherlands, Dr. Keppler has

discovered that plants may give off significant amounts of methane just by growing. And the amount they give off

appears to rise with temperature. The results have stunned many researchers because no one expected methane to form

biologically out in the open air, where oxygen abounds.





It's not that there's more methane in the atmosphere, but that

some of it is coming from a wholly unexpected source. The results imply that, at best, this new source of methane

may need to be taken into account as nations try to curb carbon-dioxide emissions by planting trees. Would increased

methane emissions erase the gains against CO2? At worst, the results imply that thawing tundra in the Arctic is not

the only worrisome source of methane in a warming world.





The experiments Keppler and his colleagues performed grew out of the

team's effort to measure the gases that plants give off only in tiny amounts. When they looked at emissions from

dead leaves, "we saw a pattern of methane" along with other gases, says Keppler, a scientist at the Max Planck

Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany. Others had detected methane from rice plants, but thought the

rice merely acted as a minipipeline for methane formed in the muck in which rice grows.



Keppler put fresh and dried plant materials, as

well as young plants, in special chambers. He removed possible sources of contamination - including microbes - and

found that from bananas and sugar cane to European ash and Spanish moss, the material yielded

methane.



From

individual plants, the amounts are small: from 12 to 370 billionths of a gram. (One gram is about .04 ounces - the

weight of two small paper clips.) But the collective effect could be large. The team roughly calculates that,

globally, living plants may contribute from 10 to 30 percent of global methane

emissions.



The

phenomenon appears to be connected somehow to the presence of pectin in plants. For humans, pectin is used to set

jellies and jams. For plants, it serves as a kind of glue for cementing cells together.



The results, published in the Jan. 12 issue of

the journal Nature, have drawn astonished reactions and skepticism from researchers, particularly regarding the

extrapolations of global emissions.





"This needs to be confirmed," says Michael Keller, a scientist with

the US Forest Service's International Institute of Tropical Forestry in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, and a visiting

scientist at the University of New Hampshire. "Until we have the basic mechanisms" for creating methane in plants -

"or at least we understand the controls," such as nutrients, heat, or moisture - "it's hard to do reliable

extrapolations."



Still, he says, the results may help explain the high methane emissions he and others have found over tropical

forests using ground and satellite measurements. Other scientists recently have reported increased emissions over

Arctic-river flood plains in eastern Siberia, invoking a variation of the "rice pipeline" hypothesis to explain

them.



Given all the

scrutiny plants have undergone, one of the open questions is how researchers could have missed these emissions.

Keppler speculates that because the methane emissions are so small, they wouldn't have been detected in field

studies. Any signal would have been swamped by much larger natural background levels. And microbial sources have

been so well established that no one has looked for another mechanism.



For some researchers, the evidence Keppler and his

team presents is sufficiently convincing to begin working them into computer models of the globe's greenhouse-gas

budget - especially the potential implications for land-use changes. To do that, scientists will need to see how

emissions might vary with plant species, says Alex Guenther, a senior scientist at the National Center for

Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

wood elf
02-11-2006, 08:12 AM
Belgareth has become disgusted

with this thread and on reading it I see why. The above article is a fine example of why he, I and many of my

colleagues feel actions suggested is precipitous. All discussion centers around carbon

dioxide concentrations mostly disregarding all other heat and heat retention sources. Those western entities

researching global warming have a mandate and are well known in the science community for not permitting

contra-indicative data to be published. Many were surprised that the above data was released.



Before continuing I must state something most laymen seem to not

know. The IPCC is not a neutral organization. They have a mandate to determine the effects of carbon dioxide on

atmospheric conditions. It is a narrow mandate which states many predetermined though unproven values and excludes

much work from all around the world. The leaders and scientists working or contracting to the IPCC are doing so out

of either a personal belief or financial motivation. As any other human they are unlikely to present evidence that

would cause them to become unemployed or unwelcome within the community in which they work. I see where comments are

made to the effect of all the published works within their venue. It is but a small fraction of the peer reviewed

and published work available to any researcher within the western world. Certainly, much is unavailable to the

layman but the IPCC, the European Union and the press make no effort to bring other data to public scrutiny. Many in

my field know from our own work that it is because so much of it would undermine the arguments of the global

warming/Carbon Dioxide theorists.

For some time prior to coming the

the US I studied in Britian. I still have many friends in the British scientific community as well as some within

the IPCC. Like many scientists I also attend conferences of my peers. As with any professionals, we talk and we

gossip about our profession. I tell you now from certain knowledge that you are correct that the Bush administration

is suppressing data and research. I also tell you that the European Union, the British goivernment and the IPCC are

doing the same. I also tell you that dissentors are being harrased by the IPCC. You need not like it or believe it

but it is a well known fact within my profession. This is but one of many reasons that in a perfect world politics

should never be allowed to impinge on scientific work. It invalidates much of our work through setting

pre-determined goals.

I ask that you keep in mind that much of what

Belgareth says here he cannot reveal sources as I, my co-workers and our research databases are his sources. I am a

research scientist and a professor working in the life sciences department in a major university. I am the one who

did not accept the research method DrSmellThis suggested and had one of my students brought those conclusions to me

I would have sent them back to check assumptions and prove the reliability of the variables. It is fine if you are

attempting to demonstrate a point within a very narrow area. If you wish to truly prove carbon dioxide is the major

contributing factor you must do far better than that. The research is full of holes.

Let us examine just one small facet and how it relates to the above article. I first would like to

state that the Max Plank Institute is held up as the epitome of good science and that they are one of the standards

we all wish we could emulate. The data presented above would not have been released had it not been completely

reviewed and defended. It will be examined in detail by other scientists around the world but many will be surprised

if any important flaws are found in the methodology, the results, the assumptions or the

extrapolations.

Working with a small area of rain forest we see that

it indeed is absorbing and using carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen. We also observe a plume of methane above the

forest. A first examination reveals bacteria releases methane thus we attribute the plume to bacterial action.

Further examination and checking of assumptions demonstrates that it is not likely the bacteria could produce the

noited quantity of methane. Independent research determines that plants may be producing it in greater quantities

than the bacteria. We now have several questions. The basic ones will look at how much methane the plants produce

under given conditions. Wider ones will examine the impact on local and global

conditions.

Research seems to indicate greater amounts of methane are

produced as temperature increases. That seems reasonable as plant growth activity also increases with temperature.

How does this effect relate to the environment? It is well known by science that methane is far better at heat

retention than carbon dioxide so we must ask ourselves if it is having an impact on the global temperatures and if

so, what that impact is. this is where we are now. The methane research must be verified. At the same time, the

changes in methane levels and impact on heat retention must be examined. Will increased methane effect the climate

models? Of course they will. It comes close to invalidating the entire model structure because we know methane is

released globally by many different actions.

Another example of poor

work and misinformation was shown in an article I recently read. They were discussing glacial melting and used both

the frozen man from Italy and moss that had been buried as evidence that glaciers were retreating more than they had

in five thousand years. This is true but an understatement of the facts. It also indicates that prior to five

thousand years ago the globe may have been warmer than it is today. That is not surprising as environmental evidence

indicates the globe is somewhat cooler than the average over time and ten thousand years ago the globe was far

warmer. When we attempt to correlate other data we find what seems to indicate public statements by the IPCC may be

erroneous. Despite global evidence of significantly higher temperatures some ten thousand years ago there is no

evidence to indicate the greater available fresh water resulted in the massive coastal flooding predicted.



Much of what has been argued in this thread is fallacious or a

glossing over of facts or the use of miniscule pieces to evade addressing the need to account for the world as a

whole. Some is a clear misrepresentation of facts. An item which comes to mind is the question of solar output. It

is stated that the sun is cooling. That is not conclusive and may be completely wrong. A single study seemed to say

the solar output has decreased. Yet other studies seem to say otherwise. It is still an open question as solar

variations are wide ranging and erratic to a large degree. What is not accounted for though Belgareth mentioned it

at one time is latency. Consider this: we are working with a great mass. An event occuring today may not be felt for

years. An instance is solar fluctuation. The earth surface is mostly ocean and currents move water from deep within

the seas to the surface drawing other water deeper. Suface water heated by the sun may be drawn deeper increasing

heat of deep sea water. A small fraction of one degree increase in heat spread over the entire ocean is a great

amount of energy. When this heat resurfaces it will impact sea surface as well as air temperatures. How long does

this take to occur? Science believes it may take hundreds to thousands of years as a result of the masses and

mechanics involved.

As I am on the subject of sea temperatures I feel

it is important to bring another subject to the forefront. Only one paper is released thus far on the topic of

magnetic flux generated thermal energy withinthe earth. Several other teams are working in this area with

interesting results. Preliminary results indicate that crust temperatures have increased by 0.1 degree C in the last

fifty years. A small number true. But a huge amount of energy that should account for a substantial fraction of

glacial melting and sea water temperatures. Results are not complete yet so Imust generalize but the energy should

be accounted for when discussing arctic and glacial melt rates.

None

imply the globe is not warming. We do say that the science and solutions presented are not a comprehensive and

reliable addressing of the issue. It is certain that there are more factors at work here than being addressed and

that those factors drastically effect the validity of the global warming/Carbon Dioxide scenerio.



Above is mentioned only

some very few of the hundreds of interlinked issues that must be addressed. Do not assume you know the answers until

you have asked the questions. The questions have not been asked to date thus the answers are unknown despite what

many both here and elsewhere would have you believe.


I will offer

one other belief of mine. History, most especialy recent history, is replete with examples of lies and

misrepresentaion used to manipulate public opinion to achieve some goal. Most often those were not worthy goals.

Defending the environment is a worthy goal and is able to stand on its own merit. It will not be accomplished

through lies, deception or manipulation of scientific fact. It will not be accomplished through coercive laws. It

can be done by making it worthwhile to people to do so. The people have been lied to so often that we find it hard

to accept anything stated any longer. To make progress today we must stop the lies, present the truth and prove it.

Then we must offer acceptable alternatives. Anything less is destined to fail.

Netghost56
02-11-2006, 10:06 AM
I guess what I'm about to

say will be ironic, considering where I stand on the issue.

This is not a forum of scientists. It's a forum of

people who are seeking to better themselves and their lives. So to have an intellectual discussion about something

so complex, and expect people to be able to follow along no matter how complicated the data becomes is foolish. I,

for my part, am a simple country bumpkin. I wish I was as smart as some people, but wishing doesn't make it

so.

As far as I'm concerned, I think this discussion has disintegrated into an intellectual strongman contest,

and I can't keep up with the mountains of data that's being heaped onto these pages.

Now for blasphemy: When

applicable, I let my conscience and my emotions affect my decisions. That's a loaded statement, but I assure you

it's not that significant. In this issue, to make my decision about where I stand, I simply look out my window. I

take note of what's out there, and decide, "Are things changing?" If not, then no worries. If so, then why? And I

just go from there.

Go ahead, call me an idiot and reduce me to bits.:D

While you're at it, call me a bigot

too.

I am very pessimistic about the human race. There's a line in the Matrix movie about humans being a disease

on this planet. That about sums up my feelings. To look at where the planet was 10,000 years ago, and where it is

now it's quite shocking to see how much we've ruined and destroyed. No other creature can claim that they've

affected the planet so.

That's why it's easy for me to see humans as the prime suspect in global warming.

We've messed up everything else, why not this?

For more than 40 years, people, like "hippies" or "tree-huggers"

have said that things were getting worse, but nobody cared. "Too much money" or "Nothing's wrong" was always the

answer. Now that people are finally getting concerned, others want to say "It's supposed to be like this". Public

opinion is feeble and fragile. Too much debate kills the interest, no matter how neccessary.

Here's my plan,

take it or leave it: Stop pollution, conserve and recycle everything, and see what happens. If it causes a positive

change in global warming, there ya go. If it doesn't, well, I'll owe you a Coke. :D

In all seriousness, if it

doesn't, at least we've cleaned up alittle. That can never hurt.

To end, I speak from the heart. And my heart

says that there's too many things that we've done wrong to not be suspect in global warming. Even if we're just a

little responsible.

DrSmellThis
02-11-2006, 10:26 PM
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/articl

e344690.ece (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article344690.ece)

...just passing along an article I came across today, not expressing an opinion on it -- but

some scary thoughts.

Is anyone really confident we're not in grave danger from our own actions? How do you

quantify the level of risk, in any case? At what risk level do you have to take the most promising actions NOW to

address those risks?

In the face of what I've seen so far, I just can't buy the argument that doing nothing

until the whole general picture of planetary climate change is someday understood is somehow minimizing overall

risk; compared to doing what we can now and remaining flexible as the future science progresses. I'm still open

to being convinced, but it would have to be a super-duper strong argument; and I've seen nothing even approaching

a strong argument.

wood elf
02-12-2006, 09:05 AM
Lindzen, Richard S.
lindzen@wind.mit.edu
(617)

253-2432
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences






Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary

waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of

the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in

global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the

observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the

current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the

tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in

producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause. He pioneered the study of how ozone

photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying the ways in which

unstable eddies determine the pole to equator temperature difference, and the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic

instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new

approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus

convection in heating and drying the atmosphere. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific

concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle

in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. In cooperation with colleagues and students,

he is developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of

cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases. Prof. Lindzen

is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member

of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of

the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center,

and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D.,

'64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about

human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.'

"Do you believe in global warming? That

is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of

Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.



"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to

understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief," Lindzen said.

His speech was titled, "Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was sponsored by the free market George C.

Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.


Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you

are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added.
According to

Lindzen, climate "alarmists" have been trying to push the idea that there is scientific consensus on dire climate

change.
"With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of

authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a

source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to

science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said. Alarmist predictions of more hurricanes, the catastrophic rise in

sea levels, the melting of the global poles and even the plunge into another ice age are not scientifically

supported, Lindzen said.
"It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be afraid, when there is no basis for

alarm. In response to the fear, they want us to do what they want," Lindzen said.
Recent reports of a melting

polar ice cap were dismissed by Lindzen as an example of the media taking advantage of the public's "scientific

illiteracy."
"The thing you have to remember about the Arctic is that it is an extremely variable part of the

world," Lindzen said. "Although there is melting going [on] now, there has been a lot of melting that went on in the

[19]30s and then there was freezing. So by isolating a section ... they are essentially taking people's ignorance

of the past," he added.

wood elf
02-12-2006, 09:06 AM
IPCC report criticized by one of its lead

authors

Politics, not science, drives

the United Nations' work on climate change, warns Dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the world's leading atmospheric

physicists
Written By: Paul Georgia
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: June 1,

2001
Publisher: The Heartland

Institute



The

Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), expected to

be released sometime in 2001, is already coming under heavy criticism from various directions. But none has been

more devastating than the one delivered on March 1 by one of the report's lead authors.



Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan

professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the world's leading atmospheric

scientists, told a standing-room only audience at a briefing sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition in the U.S.

Senate Environment Committee Room, that the IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science.



What are some of the problems with the IPCC

process, according to Lindzen? It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say. It uses language that means

different things to scientists and laymen. It exploits public ignorance over quantitative matters. It exploits what

scientists can agree on, while ignoring disagreements, to support the global warming agenda. And it exaggerates

scientific accuracy and certainty and the authority of undistinguished scientists.




No consensus here



The "most egregious" problem with the

IPCC's forthcoming report, said Lindzen, "is that it is presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps

thousands, of scientists . . . and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the

one or two pages they worked on."

Indeed,

most press accounts covering the January release of the TAR's "Summary for Policymakers" characterized the report

as the work of 2,000 (3,000 in some instances) of the world's leading climate scientists. IPCC's emphasis,

however, isn't on getting qualified scientists, but on getting representatives from over 100 countries, said

Lindzen. The truth is only a handful of countries do quality climate research. Most of the so-called experts served

merely to pad the numbers.

"It is no small

matter," said Lindzen, "that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as

'the world's leading climate scientists.' It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive

of the process."

The IPCC clearly uses the

Summary for Policymakers to misrepresent what is in the report, said Lindzen. He gave an example from the chapter he

worked on, chapter 7, addressing physical processes.

The 35-page chapter, said Lindzen, pointed out many problems with the way climate computer models

treat specific physical processes, such as water vapor, clouds, ocean currents, and so on. Clouds and water vapor in

clouds, for example, are badly misrepresented in the models. The physics are all wrong, he said. Those things the

models do well are irrelevant to the all-important feedback effects.



"The treatment of water vapor in clouds is

crucial to models producing a lot of warming," explained Lindzen. "Without them [positive feedbacks], no model would

produce much warming."

The IPCC summarizes

the 35-page chapter in one sentence: "Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models

have improved, including water vapor, sea dynamics and ocean heat transport."



That, said Lindzen, does not summarize the

chapter at all. "That is why a lot of us have said that the document itself is informative; the summary is not."



Lindzen briefly discussed a paper he

published in the March 2001 issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, clarifying the water vapor

feedback issue. Using detailed daily measurements, Lindzen and his coauthors from NASA showed that cloud cover in

the tropics diminishes as temperatures rise, cooling the planet by allowing more heat to escape.



"The effect observed," said Lindzen, "is

sufficient such that if current models are absolutely correct, except for missing this, models that predict between

1.5 and 4.5 degrees warming go down to about .4 to 1.2 degrees warming."




Not the way science is done



The IPCC claims its report is

peer-reviewed, which simply isn't true, Lindzen said. Under true peer-review, he explained, a panel of reviewers

must accept a study before it can be published in a scientific journal. If the reviewers have objections, the author

must answer them or change the article to take reviewers' objections into account.



Under the IPCC review process, by contrast,

the authors are at liberty to ignore criticisms. After having his review comments ignored by the IPCC in 1990 and

1995, Lindzen asked to have his name removed from the list of reviewers. The group refused.



The IPCC has resorted to using

scenario-building in its policymakers' summary to paint a frightening picture not supported by the science, Lindzen

charged. Ignoring the science allows the IPCC to build a scenario, for example, that assumes man will burn 300

years' worth of coal in 100 years. They plug that into the most sensitive climate model available and arrive at a

truly frightening global warming scenario.

"People wouldn't normally take that very seriously," said Lindzen, "but I think the IPCC

understands the media will report the top number. I don't think, any longer, that this is unintentional."



The IPCC also exploits what scientists do

agree on to support its agenda, according to Lindzen. For example, Lindzen said, scientists can more-or-less live

with the idea conveyed in the IPCC report that everything is connected to everything else, and everything is

uncertain.

Lindzen himself doesn't think

these ideas are particularly reasonable. But politicians and environmentalists take this minimal area of agreement,

and then claim that anything can cause anything and we must act to stop it.



Scientists agree, for example, that

atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased over the last 100 years. They also generally agree the

climate has warmed slightly. Uncertainties remain, however, regarding even those basic propositions. Contrary to the

impression given by the IPCC, there is no widespread agreement on what these two "facts" mean for mankind. Yet they

are deemed by the IPCC sufficient to justify precipitous action.


Fun with numbers

Perhaps Lindzen's most devastating critique is aimed at the IPCC's use of statistics.



The IPCC's infamous hockey stick graph,

for example, shows global temperatures have been stable or falling over the last 1,000 years, and that only in the

industrial age has there been an unnatural warming of the planet. But if you look at the margin of error in that

graph, "You can no longer maintain that statement," said Lindzen.



Lindzen also noted the margin of error used

in the IPCC report is much smaller, a 60 percent confidence level, than traditionally used by scientists, who

generally report results at the 95 or even 99 percent confidence level. The IPCC is thus publicizing results much

less likely to be correct than scientific research is generally expected to be.



To illustrate his point, Lindzen showed

estimates of some of the most precise numbers in physics with their error bars. He showed different measurements of

the speed of light, for instance, from 1929 to the 1980s. The error bars for the estimated speed of light in 1932

and 1940 do not even include the value we think is the correct speed of light today. "Error bars should not be taken

lightly," warned Lindzen. "There is genuine uncertainty in them."


Incentives matter

"Scientists are human beings," Lindzen concluded, "subject to normal instincts and weaknesses."

They respond to incentives just like everyone else. "Current government funding creates incentives to behave poorly

by maintaining the relevance of the subject," he said, noting that on some issues financial support for science

depends on "alarming the world."

Indeed,

Lindzen noted, Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry for their work on

ozone depletion--not for alerting the world, but for "alarming" it. "You don't want scientists to get hooked on

this as the key to fame and glory," he warned.

There's little doubt, Lindzen said, that the IPCC process has become politicized to the point of

uselessness. He advised U.S. policymakers simply to ignore it.

wood elf
02-12-2006, 09:11 AM
Dr.

Frederick Seitz was born in San Francisco on July 4, 1911.

Education:
1932 Bachelor's degree from Stanford

University (mathematics)
1934 Ph.D. from Princeton University (physics)
Former Postions:
1946-1947 director of

the training program on peaceful uses of atomic energy at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
1949-1968 professor

of physics at the University of Illinois
1957-1964 department head at the University of Illinois
1964-1965

Graduate College dean at the University of Illinois
1962-1969 president of the National Academy of Sciences


1968-1978 president of Rockefeller University
Frederick Seitz was one of the scientists that signed in 1995 the

Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change.
Current Positions:
chairman of Science and Environmental Policy

Project (SEPP)
member of the Risk Policy Center [1]

(http://www.oism.org/ddp/ddpnews/ddpmar01.htm)
Council

member of the Environmental Literacy Council
member of the National Advisory Board of Accuracy in Media
member

of the Board of Directors and Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute
President Emeritus of

Rockefeller University
Books
Frederick Seitz ,"Modern Theory of Solids", McGraw-Hill, NY, 1940, (reprint Dover

Publications, 1987: ISBN 0486654826)
W. Thüne, F. Singer, F. Seitz, Helmut Metzner, "Treibhaus-Kontroverse und

Ozon-Problem : Symposium der Europäischen Akademie für Umweltfragen Leipzig 9.-10. November 1995", Böttiger, 1996,

ISBN 3925725296
S. Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz , "Hot Talk Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate",

The Independent Institute, December 1, 1998, ISBN 094599978X


Letter from Frederick Seitz





Research

Review of Global Warming Evidence
Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of "global warming,"

and a petition in the form of a reply card. Please consider these materials carefully.
The United States is very

close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend

upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon

flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the

contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
The proposed

agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those

that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in

technologically underdeveloped countries.
It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who

have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.
We urge you to sign and return

the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.
Frederick

Seitz

Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.

President Emeritus, Rockefeller

University

*The above is a letter included in a petition drive. The greater than 17,000 signers one and all

are scientists. A number greater than 60% were holders of a Ph.D

wood elf
02-12-2006, 09:13 AM
November 18, 1998

Letter

to International Herald Tribune

It is regrettable that ecologist George Woodwell and energy policy specialist

John Holdren ("Climate-Change Skeptics Are Wrong, IHT , Nov. 14-15) find it necessary to use vituperative language

in their attempt to downplay the existence of widespread scientific dissent to the activist view of global warming.

They were commenting on an article by columnist Jeff Jacoby ("The 'Chicken Little' Mindset, IHT, Nov. 7), which

mentioned prominent scientists who oppose the Kyoto climate accord.

Both the 1996 Leipzig Declaration and the

1998 Oregon Petition (signed by over 17,000 scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees) are subscribed to by

well-recognized experts, including members of the National Academy of Sciences and scientist-participants in the

UN-sponsored climate reports. The names of all of the signers of the Oregon Petition were rechecked and verified. As

for the Leipzig Declaration, perhaps Woodwell and Holdren are confusing it with a 1997 pro-global warming petition

circulated by a Green group called Ozone Action; the OA petition was indeed found to have been signed by numerous

non-scientists. Signatories to the Leipzig Declaration, and their impressive credentials, are posted on the Internet

at www.sepp.org (http://www.sepp.org/). Each of those listed requested in writing that their name be

added.

More to the point, Woodwell and Holdren seem unaware that the observed temperatures, as recorded by

instruments on satellites and on weather balloons, show no discernible warming trend in the past two decades, which

strongly conflicts with the results of computer climate models. Based on the available evidence from actual

observations, most scientists would extrapolate at most a slight warming by the year 2100, which would barely be

detectable and most certainly inconsequential.

In contrast, the framers of the infamous Kyoto Protocol posit a

catastrophic climate "disruption", and then put forth a strategy that, even if stringently enforced, would reduce

their forecast warming by just 0.05 degrees. For this minute amount, the United States would have to cut its energy

use by about 35 percent within a decade, at a huge economic cost.

No serious scientist would endorse such a

plan, and more than 17,000 of them -- hardly a "handful" -- have said so, for the record.

Dr. Frederick Seitz,

Tel: (212)327-8423
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Tel: (703) 934-6940


Dr. Frederick Seitz and Dr. S. Fred Singer serve

as chairman and president, respectively, of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, a non-partisan, non-profit

organization of scientists. Dr. Seitz is a former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and of the

American Physical Society, and president emeritus of the Rockefeller University. He is recipient of the National

Medal of Science. Dr. Singer, an atmospheric physicist, received a White House commendation for his pioneering work

on instrumented satellites. He is a former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and devised the satellite

instrumentation for measuring stratospheric ozone.

S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.

President, SEPP

Expertise:

Global climate change and the greenhouse effect, depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, acid rain, air

pollution, importance and future of the U.S. space program, energy resources and U.S. energy policy.
S. Fred

Singer is internationally known for his work on energy and environmental issues. A pioneer in the development of

rocket and satellite technology, he devised the basic instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone and was principal

investigator on a satellite experiment retrieved by the space shuttle in 1990. He was the first scientist to predict

that population growth would increase atmospheric methane--an important greenhouse gas.
Now President of The

Science & Environmental Policy Project, a non-profit policy research group he founded in 1990, Singer is also

Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the

University of Virginia. His previous government and academic positions include Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of

Transportation (1987- 89); Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(1970-71); Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70);

founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first Director

of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics,

University of Maryland (1953-62).
Singer has received numerous awards for his research, including a Special

Commendation from the White House for achievements in artificial earth satellites, a U.S. Department of Commerce

Gold Medal Award for the development and management of the U.S. weather satellite program, and the first Science

Medal from the British Interplanetary Society. He has served on state and federal advisory panels, including five

years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. He frequently testifies before

Congress.
Singer did his undergraduate work in electrical engineering at Ohio State University and holds a Ph.D. in

physics from Princeton University. He is the author or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs, including

Is There an Optimum Level of Population? (McGraw-Hill, 1971), Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984), and Global

Climate Change (Paragon House, 1989). Singer has also published more than 400 technical papers in scientific,

economic, and public policy journals, as well as numerous editorial essays and articles in The Wall Street Journal,

New York Times, New Republic, Newsweek, Journal of Commerce, Washington Times, Washington Post, and other

publications. His latest book, Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, was published in late

1997 through the Independent Institute.


Dr. S. Fred Singer (singer@sepp.org)

Science & Environmental

Policy Project

1600 South Eads Street, Suite #712-S

Arlington, VA 22202-2907

Tel/Fax 703-920-2744

wood elf
02-12-2006, 09:30 AM
Please forgive my indignation.

I rarely have commented on this thread but have fed Belgareth much of the information he has tried to share with

you. While Belgareth is a highly intelligent and well educated man, he does not work in the sciences as I do.

Further information has been gleened from a wide variety of scientific sources. We have tried to share knowledge and

information in a form we felt reasonably understandable. Others have used many ploys of misdirection to present us

and the facts not as they are. We, Belgareth, our frends, fellow scientists and me are concerned. To any with an

open mind those concerns are apparent and reasonable, to those who are fanatics and wish to remain ignorant no

amount of fact will dissuade them. You may decide for yourself which is which. All any true scientist with a true

concern for the well being of our planet can do is present fact and seek knowledge in which to make proper

decisions. To be herded by those frauds who push us to precipitous and inappropriate action is to be a fool. I ask

all of you to consider why such important data is not brought to the attention of the public by the news services. A

brief search of no more than ten minutes provided all the above and far more. Each's credentials are shown to

demonstrate that they are unimpeachable. There are many, many more of such high credentials. I invite all with an

open mind to find them for themselves.

wood elf
02-12-2006, 12:07 PM
http://www.cei.org/pdf/4691.pdf



http://

academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/geology/leveson/core/topics/storm_surge/reliable_example_chc.html (http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/geology/leveson/core/topics/storm_surge/reliable_example_chc.html)

wood elf
02-12-2006, 08:43 PM
Predicting an 11°F

temperature rise in 100 years, the IPCC's new Policymakers Summary is the product of the most extreme climate model

run under the most extreme set of future emission scenarios

Global

Warming: Watson Indulges in Scare Tactics... Again

By Patrick J.

Michaels Ph.D. (January 2001)

[OBJECTIVE SCIENCE.COM] In early

January, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stepped up its campaign to coerce regulatory action

from the United States by releasing the Summary for Policymakers from the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (TAR).



Word from the IPCC meeting in Shanghai is that the upper range of

temperature rise during the next 100 years is nearly 11°F. "This adds impetus for governments of the world to find

ways to live up to their commitments . . . to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases," Robert Watson, chairman of the

IPCC and former Clinton science advisor, is quoted as saying.

Mind

you, Watson is the same scientist who, in 1992, predicted an imminent ozone hole in the Northern Hemisphere. You

remember the event; then-Senator and soon-to-be Vice President Gore called it "an ozone hole over Kennebunkport"

(former-President George Bush's summer compound). Watson's (and Gore's) purpose was to stampede the U.S. Senate

into a mandate that would reduce chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants. They succeeded, even though the ozone hole never

appeared.

This is Watson's second go at buffaloing a Bush

Administration. Big Media's eagerness to go along is breathtaking. The January 23 edition of The Washington Post

put this particular global warming story above the fold on its front page! The play could have been bigger only were

it in the upper left-hand corner rather than the right.





A model of a model





Neither the Post nor Watson mentions that this forecast of extreme

warming is the result of a computer model. And not just any model, either. It is a product of the most extreme

climate model run under the most extreme set of future emission scenarios. In other words, it's not a model based

upon present trends; it's a model of a model! Putting a fine point on it, this particular result was produced by

one (that's right, one) of 245 models the modelers ran.

In the

backrooms at science meetings, the technique Watson and the IPCC have used in this instance is derided as a "toy

model." This is because it treats the world largely as a uniform entity, one devoid of ocean currents, without

mountains, and with no thunderstorms. Ocean currents, mountains, and thunderstorms just happen to be the three

things that are the major movers of heat around our planet. They generally keep the Earth's surface temperature

cooler than it otherwise would be.

It's not that there weren't

other computer models available. There are. There were nearly 20 different sophisticated, but still flawed, models

tested in the IPCC's TAR called general circulation climate models (GCMs). If Watson were forthcoming, he would

have pointed out that the average for those models was a rise of only about 3.8°F--or some 2.75 times less than the

extreme value Watson and the Post trumpet.





Trouble with models





Even so, those models assume an increased rate in greenhouse gases

that has been acknowledged to be much larger than it has been for decades. So even those results are probable

overestimates.

Both the "toy models" and the GCMs have been

artificially "cooled" with sulfate aerosols for 10 years now to account for the fact they predict too much warming.

Admittedly, that's a mis-statement of what the modeling community is doing. Instead, the amount of warming

radiation reaching Earth's surface is "dialed down." There's no sulfate aerosol, per se, in the model. Instead,

the amount of heating potential is reduced because that's the only way to slam the square peg of model predictions

into the round hole of observed temperatures.

Why is that happening,

you reasonably ask? There was such a clamor about the models that include only greenhouse gas increases and their

inability to accurately simulate the climate as we know it to have been over the last 100 years (they warmed things

up much too quickly) that the modelers added another factor, sulfate aerosols, in order to offset a large amount of

the CO2-induced warming. The IPCC itself admitted this fact in its Second Assessment report

(1996).

In that report, the IPCC stated, "When increases in

greenhouse gases only are taken into account . . . most [climate models] produce a greater mean warming than has

been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity [to the greenhouse effect] is used. . . . There is growing

evidence that increases in sulfate aerosols are partially counteracting the [warming] due to increases in greenhouse

gases."

The "toy model" the Post and Watson rushed to report upon has

an unrealistic value of 11°F because in it the sulfate aerosols have been removed. That's right: What previously

was used to "fix" the computer models now has been taken out. The result? The previously acknowledged, unrealistic

warming rate is baaack.

Actually, according to the IPCC, the

influence of sulfate aerosols--both direct and indirect--on Earth's temperature is the most uncertain of the

factors considered. Their net global effect on surface temperature (according to the IPCC) is about twice the total

observed change in temperature for the last hundred years! Why so much uncertainty? Their net cooling (or warming)

of global surface temperature has never been measured. This gives rise to a huge uncertainty, through which a

careful manipulation of numbers at the extreme ranges of the uncertainty can produce a large warming. This is

precisely the exercise the IPCC has carried out in this report, and Watson's emphasis of this result is a scare

tactic, pure and simple.



Blaming the U.S.



But Watson doesn't stop there. He accuses the United States of being primarily responsible for an impending

climate catastrophe. "The United States is way off meeting its [emissions] targets [agreed to under the Kyoto

Protocol]. A country like China has done more, in my opinion, than a country like the United States to move forward

in economic development while remaining environmentally sensitive," he said.

While it is true that the U.S. is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, our economy is among

the most energy-efficient in terms of output. We produce more goods and services per unit of greenhouse gas emission

than all but a very few countries. Brazil and France come to mind. Brazil relies on hydroelectric energy and France,

nuclear fission.

Hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants are even

less eco-friendly than the fossil-fuel-fired power plants we rely upon. Even so, our efficiency continues to

increase. If the rest of the world achieved similar energy efficiency, global greenhouse gas emissions would be

about 20 percent less than they are.

But for Watson and the IPCC,

desperate times require desperate measures. Negotiations at The Hague, which sought to bind countries to the Kyoto

Protocol's emission targets, largely failed. The U.S. insisted that its carbon sinks--forests and crops--be

credited against its carbon emissions. European Greens replied, "No go." So no go it was.





Kyoto is

dead



Without U.S.

involvement, Kyoto not only is as good as dead, it's meaningless. Even if everyone, including the U.S.,

participates, the Kyoto targets will reduce global temperatures only by an undetectable 0.13°F by the year 2050

(according to Tom Wiley of the U.S. Center for Atmospheric Research).

Perhaps Watson felt he had to make the most dramatic case possible to bully a new President who is less

receptive to his pitch than were Clinton and Gore. Rather than succumb to "science by press release and executive

summary," a better starting point for the new Administration is a reassessment of the science used to produce the

IPCC TAR and (for that matter) the recent, equally nonsensical U.S. National Assessment of global

warming.

We can only pray that the time ahead for spreaders of

climate hysteria become more desperate indeed.

According to Nature

magazine, University of Virginia environmental sciences professor Patrick J. Michaels is probably the nation's most

popular lecturer on the subject of climate change. Michaels is coauthor of The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air About

Global Warming.



Made

available through the Heartland Institute's Environment & Climate News. Copyright 2001 Heartland.org. All rights

reserved.

a.k.a.
02-12-2006, 10:59 PM
Please forgive my

indignation. I rarely have commented on this thread but have fed Belgareth much of the information he has tried to

share with you. While Belgareth is a highly intelligent and well educated man, he does not work in the sciences as I

do. Further information has been gleened from a wide variety of scientific sources. We have tried to share knowledge

and information in a form we felt reasonably understandable. Others have used many ploys of misdirection to present

us and the facts not as they are. We, Belgareth, our frends, fellow scientists and me are concerned. To any with an

open mind those concerns are apparent and reasonable, to those who are fanatics and wish to remain ignorant no

amount of fact will dissuade them. You may decide for yourself which is which. All any true scientist with a true

concern for the well being of our planet can do is present fact and seek knowledge in which to make proper

decisions. To be herded by those frauds who push us to precipitous and inappropriate action is to be a fool. I ask

all of you to consider why such important data is not brought to the attention of the public by the news services. A

brief search of no more than ten minutes provided all the above and far more. Each's credentials are shown to

demonstrate that they are unimpeachable.

I guess it’s all a mater of perspective. In some

circles, working for public policy organizations that receive money from the oil industries is considered quite

impeachable.
Fred Singer is on the Editorial Advisory Board of The Cato Institute ($55,000 from

ExxonMobil in 2002-2003), Adjunct Scholar for the National Center for Policy Analysis ($105,000 from ExxonMobil in

2002-2003), Adjunct Fellow for Frontiers of Freedom )$282,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003), Advisory Board Member

(2002) for the American Council on Science and Health ($282,000 from ExxonMobil in

2002-2003).
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=21084385&CFTOKEN=29888831[/u

rl]
He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending

the industry's views.
[url]http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/91/11/1745#R39
And his organization,

Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), is on the Union of Concerned Scientists “watch list” for, among

other things, being “directly tied to ultra right-wing mogul Reverend Sung Myung Moon s Unification Church,

including receipt of a year s free office space from a Moon-funded group and the participation of SEPP s director in

church-sponsored conferences and on the board of a Moon-funded

magazine.”
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html



Richard Lindzen is a Member of Science and Economic Advisory Council of The Annapolis Center for Science-Based

Public Policy ($27,500 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving in 2003), Contributing Writer for The Cato Institute

($25,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003), and Contributing Writer for Techcentralstation.com ($95,000 from

ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003)

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=21084385&CFTOKEN=29888831
As

far as credentials go, he is probably the most distinguished scientist in the contrarian camp and he often figures

quite prominently in all their work. But he’s a rather eccentric figure to say the least. Here’s the transcript of a

sixty minutes face off between Lindzen and a working climate scientist (Lonnie Thompson). Note which side appeals to

the facts and which side resorts to insults and broad categorizations:

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2005_09_04/story_1498.asp
Lindzen says

that the IPCC failed to remove his name from a chapter in the 2nd Assessment Report, then — six year later, while

working with the National Academy of Sciences — he adds his signature to an NAS endorsement of the IPCC’s 3rd

Assessment Report. Several months later he goes public with criticisms of the report’s summary.

http://www.chriscmooney.com/archives.asp?start=3/1/2004&end=3/7/2004

With regards to the Leipzig

Declaration...
“When journalist David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times investigated the Leipzig

Declaration, however, he discovered that most of its signers have not dealt with climate issues at all and none of

them is an acknowledged leading expert. Twenty-five of the signers were TV weathermen - a profession that requires

no in-depth knowledge of climate research. Some did not even have a college degree, such as Dick Groeber of Dick's

Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio. Did Groeber regard himself as a scientist? "I sort of consider myself so," he

said when asked. "I had two or three years of college training in the scientific area, and 30 or 40 years of

self-study." Other signers included a dentist, a medical laboratory researcher, a civil engineer, and an amateur

meteorologist. Some were not even found to reside at the addresses they had given.
A journalist with the Danish

Broadcasting Company attempted to contact the declaration's 33 European signers and found that four of them could

not be located, 12 denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who did

admit signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an expert on flying insects. After discounting the

signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, it turned out that only 20 of the names

on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to

have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait

(a major oil exporter).”

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Clim ate_Change

I

saved the best (or at least the funniest) for last...
The Oregon Petition was sponsored by The Oregon

Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) which “is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a

long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a

home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to

survive nuclear war...”
“The OISM website says it has "six faculty members, several volunteers who work

actively on its projects, and a large number of volunteers who help occasionally." The only paid staff person,

however, is biochemist Arthur Robinson, the Institute's founder and president. None of its other "faculty members"

actually work at the Institute on a regular basis. "They come up on occasion to do some work with us," Robinson told

an interviewer in 1998...”
“The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in

a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what

appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie

Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide"

and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming

Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of

Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that

Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in

the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.”
“Robinson's paper claimed to show

that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated,

"plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under

drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result,

Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener

planet...
“None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more

standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary

(home-schooled by his dad), along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon

worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served

as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C.

Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially

founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense

Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program...”
“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..."
“Notwithstanding this rebuke, the

Oregon Petition managed to garner 15,000 signatures within a month's time..."
“Nebraska senator Chuck

Hagel called it an "extraordinary response" and cited it as his basis for continuing to oppose a global warming

treaty. "Nearly all of these 15,000 scientists have technical training suitable for evaluating climate research

data," Hagel said. Columns citing the Seitz petition and the Robinson paper as credible sources of scientific

expertise on the global warming issue have appeared in publications ranging from Newsday', the Los Angeles Times

and Washington Post to the Austin-American Statesman, Denver Post, and Wyoming Tribune-Eagle.”
“In addition

to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by

June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names,

however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and

conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific

credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website

against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by

environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . .”
“The names

of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city

of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the

Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional

characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt,

and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine

Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific

specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and

title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company

names...”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine



r
But enough with the jokes. Lets take a break from this battle of whose sources are more impeachable than the

other’s and examine the argument itself.
Let me begin by stating the obvious: Belgareth and Wood Elf are

promoting a political position. The probability that they may genuinely hate politics and political intrusions into

scientific research doesn’t change this fact.
Statements such as “ the science and solutions presented are

not a comprehensive and reliable addressing of the issue.” are directed against the movement to reduce fossil fuel

emissions.
Even more so with statements such as, “ History, most especially recent history, is replete with

examples of lies and misrepresentation used to manipulate public opinion to achieve some goal. Most often those were

not worthy goals. Defending the environment is a worthy goal and is able to stand on its own merit. It will not be

accomplished through lies, deception or manipulation of scientific fact. It will not be accomplished through

coercive laws. It can be done by making it worthwhile to people to do so. The people have been lied to so often that

we find it hard to accept anything stated any longer. To make progress today we must stop the lies, present the

truth and prove it. Then we must offer acceptable alternatives. Anything less is destined to fail.”
Whether or

not there is merit to these statements... Whether or not they are pertinent... Is another question. But let’s not

pretend that Belgareth and Wood Elf are politically neutral. They have a position and they are using this thread to

promote it.
Nothing wrong with that, IMO. I am trying to promote a political position myself. And I think

political debate is essential for democracy to function.
The problem arises when people try to promote their

political opinions behind a shroud of scientific objectivity.
So let’s examine Belgareth and Wood Elf’s

position as an argument against the reduction of fossil fuel emissions and see how well it holds up.



First of all, it takes absolutely no scientific knowledge to see that theirs is not a reassuring argument. Up until

the introduction of the Oregon Petition, they hadn’t made a single statement indicating, or even implying, that

increased CO2 concentrations are safe and give us no cause for concern.
Their implication is that the risks

and dangers have been blown out of proportion.
How far out of proportion? Hard to say, because they haven’t

addressed the central question of CO2’s impact on climate change. Many scientists speak of the climate’s sensitivity

to CO2 concentrations and there is in fact uncertainty with regards to this figure. From the earliest experiments

model estimates have ranged from around 2 to 5°C for a doubling of emissions from pre-industrial levels.
As

with most questions, the IPCC weighs in at the conservative end of the scale with a range of 1.5 to 4.5°. Belgareth

and Wood Elf have not weighed in at all.
I’m assuming their position is that science doesn’t know enough to

make a determination. So let’s take a look at what it is that science doesn’t know.

Does science not

know the radiative forcing potential of CO2 molecules (the amount of energy it introduces into the environment)? No

comment.
Does science not know the spectral absorption potential of CO2 ( the frequencies of longwave

radiation that CO2 absorbs as it is trying to leave the earth’s surface)? No comment.
Does science not

know the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 (how long it will be with us once we introduce it into the atmosphere)? No

comment.
Does science not know the concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere? Belgareth has implied that

science does know this.
Does science not know how much of recent increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations

can be attributed to human cause? Belgareth has tried to argue that the figures given by CO2 theorists are wrong.

But his most direct argument — that volcanos introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans ever could — is

misinformed. I’ve posted an article which uses two independent methods to demonstrate that virtually all of the

increase can be attributed to human agency.
Does science not know all the countervailing factors that could

minimize the radiative forcing potential of CO2? Belgareth has implied that science at least knows about aerosols

and cloud cover. No comment on whether other countervailing factors could have been missed.
Does science not

have adequate models for representing the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 concentrations? Belgareth’s argument is that

the models are inadequate. In his first post, he commented that some models have been 300% off. I never disputed

this. I merely questioned it. I gave two examples of models that were right on the mark. So far no examples of

models that were 300% off.
Wood Elf has presented us with an article that seems to make a strong criticism of

present day climate modeling: “Both the "toy models" and the GCMs have been artificially "cooled" with sulfate

aerosols for 10 years now to account for the fact they predict too much warming. Admittedly, that's a mis-statement

of what the modeling community is doing. Instead, the amount of warming radiation reaching Earth's surface is

"dialed down." There's no sulfate aerosol, per se, in the model. Instead, the amount of heating potential is

reduced because that's the only way to slam the square peg of model predictions into the round hole of observed

temperatures.”
It’s true that sulfate aerosols were introduced into models because projected temperatures

are too high without them. And it’s also true that there is great uncertainty with respect to these aerosols. In

fact, it’s hard finding two scientists that agree on what the range of this uncertainty is. But it’s not true that

“the amount of warming radiation” is simply “dialed down”.
The more sophisticated models are based on satelite

data, demonstrate regional variations and inclde the effects of aerosols on cloud formation and reflectivity.


(Here is an excellent introduction to the science of aerosol modelling:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/April03/Chuang.html )

In a previous post I suggested that we

pursue the question of climate models further, because whether or not Belgareth and Wood Elf’s assertions are

correct they are at least pertinent. And, as this is the area of greatest uncertainty, it’s important to understand

what this uncertainty means with respect to emissions policy.
So far there has been no reference to models

that have been used to substantiate a position that exceeded the model’s demonstrative intent. Models have been

judged on the basis of what Belgareth and Wood Elf think they should do = give a perfect picture of climate change

in all it’s aspects. Not on the basis of what they were designed to prove or demonstrate.
Furthermore, there

has been no explanation of why there has never been a single model in which increased CO2 concentrations DO NOT

demonstrate an increase in temperatures.

Belgareth’s strongest argument IMO, with regards to what

science doesn’t know, is that science might not know — or be able to account for — factors that mitigate the climate

forcing effects of CO2. Two conclusions could be drawn from this point (if it bears out to be true). One conclusion

could be that it might not be as bad as we think. Another (equally valid) conclusion is that it might be worse.


As I said. Not a very reassuring argument.

But there is more. In fact I haven’t even touched on the

heart of Belgareth and Wood Elf’s argument.
The bulk of this argument rests on the assertion that there are many

(hundreds according to Wood Elf) factors which COULD account for recent warming. But they are being ignored

(suppressed even) by the global warming consensus.
Have there been models to demonstrate that these alternative

factors could account for recent warming? Not to my knowledge, and nobody has introduced any to this debate.


Has there been any demonstrated correlation between these factors and recent warming? If there has, Belgareth and

Wood Elf have kept it to themselves.

What it boils down to is... On the one hand, we are asked to

disregard demonstrated correlations between CO2 and global warming — correlations backed by physical theories —

because of uncertainties in the models. (Uncertainties not about the warming capacity of CO2 but about the cooling

capacity of other factors.) On the other hand we are asked to accept the possibility that other factors COULD

account for recent warming... If they were only given a chance to demonstrate themselves.

Is this a

convincing argument? Or is this a feeble rationalization for inaction in the face of grievous dangers?

I

know I’m not going to convince anybody one way or the other. So I’ve resigned myself to an intellectual exercise of

trying to evaluate the merit of every point that the “let’s do nothing crowd” tries to make, as it arises.



Newly discovered sources of methane seem to be the latest installment in this exercise.
Wood Elf assures us

that the Max Plank institute is a reputable organization which would not allow faulty it’s researcher to engage in

faulty methodology.
Here’s another opinion:

Comment on:
Keppler et al., Methane emissions from

terrestrial plants under aerobic conditions, Nature 439, 187-191 (12 January 2006)

In the above citied letter

to Nature the authors concluded out of their experiments: "Here we demonstrate using stable carbon isotopes that

methane is readily formed in situ in terrestrial plants under oxic conditions by a hitherto unrecognized

process."
Reading their paper it is easily seen that their conclusion is not convincing because their

experimental strategy lacks and fails some simple tests to exclude or include known biogenic sources of

methane.
At that time common biologic knowledge is: Biogene methanogenesis is performed by archaea, (perhaps some

cyanobacteria, fungi and microalgae ) which can be divided into two groups:
- H2/CO2- and
-

acetate-consumers,
( both groups have proteins, carbohydrates or lipids an their derivatives as

source).

Like most organisms plants live ( on surface or interior) together with a lot of specialized

micoorganisms (bacteria, fungi) often supporting their metabolism. (e.g. mycorrhiza).To exclude their physiologic

possibilities as source of methane generation we have to block their metabolism. To exclude plant as biogenic source

of methane we also have to block their metabolism e.g. phytosynthesis.

1. Keppler et al. chose gamma ray

sterilization for blocking microbial methanogens. Some archaea are nearly unsensitive to high doses of gamma rays

and have the ability to fully regenerate their genome.1 Consequently the experiments showed no significant change of

results.

2. The authors omitted to use methyl fluoride as frequently used to specifically inhibit

acetoclastic methanogenesis.2 Adding actate has no influence because inside plant cell there is a sufficient

reservoir of sources to reduce to methane.

3. The authors omitted to incubate plants and parts of it in an

CO2 minimum atmosphere ( e.g. <0,01%) to reduce possible methanogenesis out of CO2 by plants and

archaea.

4.Question: Have the authors used intact plants with intact mycorrhiza or with effectively

sterilized soil for blocking soil bacteria or fungi?

5. Inside plants there are a lot of anaerobic

compartments for bacteria to live.

5. Pectin3 or lignin4 are common sources of methane by bacterial

methanogenesis.

My conclusion: experiments done by Keppler et al. gives no conclusion on a new methane

source. Possibility of thermophilic methanogensis by archaea is not excluded (see their results of temperature

sensitive methane emission).

Ernst-Georg Beck
Merian-Schule Freiburg
Germany
Department of

Biotechnology and Nutrition Science

References:

1. e.g. E. Jolivet et al., Physiological Responses of

the Hyperthermophilic Archaeon "Pyrococcus abyssi" to DNA Damage Caused by Ionizing Radiation,
Journal of

Bacteriology, July 2003, p. 3958-3961, Vol. 185, No. 13. (http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/185/13/3958.

Accessed 2006 Jan 22.)

2. eg. Holger Penning et al. , Effect of Inhibition of Acetoclastic Methanogenesis on

Growth of Archaeal Populations in an Anoxic Model Environment ,
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, January

2006, p. 178-184, Vol. 72, No. 1, (http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/72/1/178>. Accessed 2006 Jan

22.)

3. e.g. Bernard Ollivier et al., Thermophilic methanogenesis from pectin by a mixed defined bacterial

culture,
Current Microbiology Publisher: Springer-Verlag New York ISSN: 0343-8651 (Paper) 1432-0991 (Online) DOI:

10.1007/BF02092877 Issue: Volume 20, Number

2
(http://www.springerlink.com/(mc4bgg55xiv3kemnejrvmfyl)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=i

ssue,1,10;journal,193,284;linkingpublicationresult s,1:100355,1
Accessed 2006 Jan 22.)

4. e.g. W. F.

Hackett et al., Microbial Decomposition of Synthetic 14C-Labeled Lignins in Nature: Lignin Biodegradation in a

Variety of Natural Materials,
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1977 January; 33(1): 43â??51.

(http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=170572&pageindex=8#page. Accessed 2006 Jan 22.)




I personally don’t know. Just trying to add a little balance.
I’m not drawing any

conclusions and I’ve already pointed out that, in situations such as this, it is customary for scientists to refrain

from drawing conclusions until the study has been replicated.
But I will point out an obvious double

standard at play here. The infamous “hockey stick” has been replicated with 7 different methodologies. Here is the

latest: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5762/841 Yet the “let’s do nothing crowd”

insists that it is junk.
The Keppler conclusions have been replicated 0 times. Yet, for the “let’s do nothing

crowd” it’s not too soon to draw dramatic conclusions from it. Conclusions which are not even drawn by the authors

themselves.
The Keppler et al study is not junk. It does merit considerations. The question is what kind of

consideration.

Wood Elf states that “Further examination and checking of assumptions demonstrates that it

is not likely the bacteria could produce the noted quantity of methane. Independent research determines that plants

may be producing it in greater quantities than the bacteria.” But this conclusion didn’t come from the research. On

the contrary, the research would have us believe that plants produce methane is smaller quantities than bacteria,

and that’s why it was missed in previous measurements.
In other words, Wood Elf has, at best, jumped to her

own conclusions.
She goes on to say that “ Research seems to indicate greater amounts of methane are produced

as temperature increases. That seems reasonable as plant growth activity also increases with temperature. How does

this effect relate to the environment?”
This is a good question.
The actual research found extremely

low rates at 30° C. This reflects the top end for tropical range forests (18 to 30° C) and beyond that of temperate

forests (summer monthly T up to 28° C). Keppler et al found that the rate doubled every 10° C increase up to 70°C

(temperatures not observed on our planet).
Therefore, the answer to Wood Elf’s question is... real world

environmental effects, vis a vis temperature changes, are presently inconclusive, given the temperature ranges

studied.
Wood Elf concludes by asking, “Will increased methane effect the climate models?”
But the

research doesn’t even impute a greater quantity of methane in the atmosphere. (Data on the atmospheric

concentrations of methane is gathered quite independently of data used to impute the contributions from various

sources.) At best (if we accept the higher end of Keppler et al’s projections), the research suggests that

anthropogenic sources of atmospheric methane have been over-estimated relative to natural sources.
A serious

implication to be sure (and I will follow this post with a commentary on that implication). But hardly a paradigm

shifting revelation.
So where did this notion of “increased methane” come from. Obviously, Wood Elf has

read her own presumptions into someone else’s research.

She goes on to answer her question with, “Of course

they will. It comes close to invalidating the entire model structure because we know methane is released globally by

many different actions.” In other words. Nevermind measuring actual greenhouse concentrations in the atmosphere. We

know that there are lots of plants so lets chuck that notion that CO2 plays a greater role.

What do you

call an approach that begins by hyping the relevance of a particular study, reads stuff into the research that isn’t

there, draws conclusions that are beyond the scope of the study, and then proceeds to use all this hype,

misrepresentation, and confusion as an argument to do away with established science?
Is this analysis? Or

is this fishing for confirmations of a predetermined position?

Once again. I don’t presume that I can

convince anybody of anything. If you share Wood Elf’s values, you’re going to think, “Why is that idiot picking on

poor little Wood Elf?”
If you share my values, you may be thinking, “Yeah! Tell it like it is,

a.k.a.!”

Either way, I too have grown sick of this thread. I don’t like thinking about global warming

in the first place and I really don’t enjoy criticizing people — especially people that I like and respect.
But,

like Netghost, I feel compelled to speak my heart. Global warming is a very serious issue for me and I have

difficulty maintaining an upbeat attitude about the future as it is. It doesn’t help when people that should know

better use their credentials to push a dangerous political agenda on the basis of desperate rationalizations.


I don’t presume that my interventions will change anything in the real world. And they sure won’t make me popular

in this forum. But they do put my conscience to rest.

a.k.a.
02-12-2006, 11:04 PM
Watson's emphasis

of this result is a scare tactic, pure and simple.

I don't think so. Cooling factors have a much

shorter lifetime than CO2.
Anyway here's a different perspective from our friends at Max Plank:

Clearing

smoke may trigger global warming rise

* 18:59 29 June 2005
* NewScientist.com news service


* Fred Pearce

Global warming looks set to be much worse than previously forecast, according to new research.

Ironically, the crucial evidence is how little warming there has been so far.

Three top climate researchers

claim that the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere should have warmed the world more than they have. The

reason they have not, they say, is that the warming is being masked by sun-blocking smoke, dust and other polluting

particles put into the air by human activity.

But they warn that in future this protection will lessen due to

controls on pollution. Their best guess is that, as the mask is removed, temperatures will warm by at least 6°C by

2100. That is substantially above the current predictions of 1.5 to 4.5°C.

“Such an enormous increase would

be comparable to the temperature change from the previous ice age to the present,” says one of the researchers,

Meinrat Andreae of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany. “It is so far outside the range covered

by our experience and scientific understanding that we cannot with any confidence predict the consequences for the

Earth.”
Cool estimate

The calculations assume a doubling of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2)

in the atmosphere by 2100 compared to pre-industrial levels.

Andreae and his two British colleagues, Peter

Cox and Chris Jones, are leading authors from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These new findings

are likely to be reflected in the IPCC’s next assessment of climate change science, scheduled for 2007.

The

cooling effect of aerosols has been known for some time. But, says Andreae, past assessments have underestimated its

influence. Because of this, they have also underestimated the sensitivity of the atmosphere to the warming effect of

greenhouse gases.

The new modelling study finds that only high estimates of both aerosol cooling and

greenhouse warming can explain the history of global temperatures over the past 50 years.
One foot on the

gas

The problem for future climate is that the cooling aerosols only stay in the air for a few days, whereas

the warming gases stick around for decades or centuries. So while the cooling effect is unlikely to grow much, the

gases will accumulate and have an ever-bigger effect on global temperature.

The world, says Andreae, is

“driving the climate with one foot on the gas and the other on the brake. When the brake comes off, it makes a hell

of a difference".

The authors have added another previously unrecognised element to the temperature forecast

- the effect of all this on nature and the natural carbon cycle.

Natural ecosystems are currently absorbing

up to half of the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere. Most climate models assume this will continue. But there

is growing evidence that from about 2050, soils and forests will stop absorbing CO2 and start releasing it

instead.

The authors calculate that this switch in the natural carbon cycle could accelerate the build-up of

CO2 in the air by more than 50%, producing a total warming that “may be as high as 10°C” by

2100.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7607

Netghost56
02-12-2006, 11:07 PM
rant/

One thing I can say

is: Whether the IPCC is right or wrong- at least they're doing their best to figure it out! Which is more than what

I can say about the other side!


Watson's right about the US being lax in its emissions target. It's going to

cost money, ALOT of money, to meet those standards, but by God it's worth it!

"Hydroelectric dams and nuclear

power plants are even less eco-friendly than the fossil-fuel-fired power plants we rely upon." Really? Show

me.

"We can only pray that the time ahead for spreaders of climate hysteria become more desperate

indeed."

Talk about bloviating. Patrick J. Michaels, a Ph.D, has no call to belittle himself by belitting another

person. In fact, that article is rife with goading statements, of which I have fallen prey.

/rant

Apologies.

a.k.a.
02-12-2006, 11:12 PM
And here's a more scientific

article that seems to get to the heart of the controversies:

8 Feb 2006
An Aerosol Tour de

Forcing
Filed under:

* Climate Science
* Aerosols

— group @ 4:15 pm

Guest

commentary from Ron Miller and Dorothy Koch (NASA GISS)

Scientists have confidence in a result to the extent

that it can be derived by different investigators. Their confidence is increased if different techniques lead to the

same conclusion. Concurrence provides evidence that the conclusion does not depend upon assumptions that

occasionally are insufficiently supported. In contrast, two articles published last December on the same day arrive

at very different and incompatible estimates of the effect of human-made aerosols on the radiative budget of the

planet (Bellouin et al., 2005; Chung et al., 2005). They follow an earlier estimate published last year, (which

included Dorothy as a co-author) that was in the middle (Yu et al., 2005). Aerosols are important to climate partly

because their concentration is increased by the same industrial processes that increase the atmospheric

concentration of greenhouse gases; yet aerosols generally oppose greenhouse warming. Because aerosols cause

respiratory and other health problems and acid rain, they have been regulated more aggressively than greenhouse

gases. Concentrations of some aerosols have decreased over the United States and Europe in recent decades as a

result of environmental laws, although an increase has been observed in many thrid world regions, where economic

development is a priority. In the twenty-first century, aerosol levels are anticipated to drop faster than

greenhouse gases in response to future emission reductions, which will leave greenhouse warming unopposed and

unmoderated.

Each published calculation of aerosol radiative forcing was a tour de force for integrating a

wide variety of measurements ranging from absorption of radiation by individual particles to satellite estimates of

aerosol amount. The disparate results emphasize the complexity and difficulty of the calculation. But let's start

at the beginning....
Aerosols are solid particles or liquid droplets that are temporarily suspended within the

atmosphere. Naturally occurring examples are sea spray or sulfate droplets, along with soil particles (dust) eroded

by the wind. During the twentieth century, natural sources of sulfate aerosols were overwhelmed by the contribution

from pollution, in particular from the burning of fossil fuels. The number of soot particles in the atmosphere was

increased by industry and the burning of forests to clear land for agriculture. Sulfate aerosols are reflective and

act to cool the planet. Soot particles are also reflective, but can absorb sunlight and cause warming. Soot

production is greater if combustion occurs at low temperatures, as with cooking fires or inefficient power

generation. Aerosols also scatter longwave radiation, although this is significant only for larger aerosols like

soil dust, and is neglected by all three of the studies discussed here.

In addition to their ability to

scatter radiation and change the net energy gain at the top of the atmosphere (the 'direct' effect), aerosols

modify the reflectance and lifetime of clouds (the 'indirect' radiative effects). Aerosols act as nuclei for the

condensation of water vapor, resulting in the distribution of water over a larger number of cloud droplets compared

to condensation in clean air. This increases the cloud's ability to reflect sunlight, while increasing the number

of droplet collisions required to form a raindrop large enough to fall out of the cloud, effectively increasing the

cloud lifetime. Observations and models provide a weaker constraint upon the size of the indirect effects, so the

studies discussed here confine themselves to calculating only the direct radiative effect of anthropogenic

aerosols.

aerosol haze According to the latest (2001) IPCC report, direct radiative forcing by anthropogenic

aerosols cools the planet, but the forcing magnitude is highly uncertain, with a global, annual average between

-0.35 and -1.35 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). The uncertainty of the total indirect effect is even

larger. Aerosols eventually fall out of the atmosphere or are washed out by rainfall. The smaller particles having

the largest radiative effect typically reside in the atmosphere for only a few days to a few weeks. This time is too

short for them to be mixed uniformly throughout the globe (unlike CO2), so there are large regional variations in

aerosol radiative forcing, with the largest effects predictably downwind of industrial centers like the east coast

of North America, Europe, and East Asia. Consequently, aerosol effects upon climate are larger in particular

regions, where they are key to understanding twentieth century climate change.

Aerosol concentrations have

been measured downwind of sources over the past few decades, but the number of observing sites is limited and the

analysis is laborious. Since the late 1970's, satellite instruments have detected aerosols routinely with nearly

global coverage. However, only the combined effect of all aerosols upon radiation impinging upon the satellite was

originally measured. The original instruments couldn't distinguish between dust and sulfate aerosols where both

were present, over the Mediterranean or East Asia, for example. Recent instruments, like the Moderate Resolution

Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) measure radiation at multiple wavelengths. This allows particle size to be

distinguished with greater confidence, which can be used with some assumptions to infer the aerosol

species.

Range of forcing estimatesThe new generation of satellite instruments is at the heart of recent

attempts to reduce the large uncertainty of direct radiative forcing by aerosols. Each of these studies provides an

estimate of the most likely value, along with a range of uncertainty. Bellouin et al. (2005) in Nature arrive at TOA

forcing of -0.8 ± 0.1 W/m2. While near the center of the range published by the IPCC, this estimate is noteworthy

for its comparatively small uncertainty. Yet on the same day, Chung et al. (2005) published an article in the JGR,

estimating based upon similarly extensive calculations that the forcing by aerosols at TOA is -0.35 ± 0.25 W/m2. A

few months earlier, Yu et al. (2005) had estimated a more conciliatory value of -0.5 ± 0.33 W/m2. The wide range of

estimates give some indication the difficulty of the problem.

Forcing estimates differ not only at TOA but

also at the surface: Bellouin et al. predict that aerosols reduce the net radiation incident upon the surface by 1.9

± 0.2 W/m2 compared to 3.4 ± 0.1 W/m2 for Chung et al. (2005). That is, Chung et al. estimate much greater

atmospheric absorption. Because radiation into the surface is mainly balanced by evaporation, except within

extremely arid regions, the discrepancy has implications for the supply of moisture to the atmosphere. Chung et al.

estimate a much larger reduction in global rainfall by aerosols.

What are the sources of disagreement and

uncertainty? Ideally, one would know the three-dimensional distribution of each aerosol species and its evolution

throughout the year. One would also be able to distinguish natural and human fractions of each species. For sulfate

aerosols, this means distinguishing droplets created by industrial sources, compared to biogenic sources. In

addition, the ability of each particle to scatter radiation would be known as a function of its age and aggregation

with other species (in the way that dust can be coated with sulfates when passing over industrial areas, for

example). Many of these processes are included in aerosol models, but some of the key parameters are uncertain given

limited observations.

Bellouin et al. attempt an empirical end-run around this uncertainty by dividing the

planet into six regions where aerosol concentration is high, and using a 'typical' value of particle absorption

based on surface measurements. The measured absorption is a single value that reflects the combined effect of both

anthropogenic and natural aerosols, although the six representative sites were chosen where contribution by the

former dominates. Regions with a preponderance of sulfates, such as the eastern coast of North America and downwind,

were assigned greater reflectance and lesser absorption than particles over the Indian Ocean where dark soot

particles are more common. This is based upon contrasting surface measurements at Washington DC and the Maldive

Islands in the Indian Ocean. The total aerosol mass was inferred from MODIS estimates of the aerosol optical

thickness (AOT), which measures attenuation of a light beam passing through an aerosol layer. To estimate the

anthropogenic fraction of aerosols, Bellouin et al. made use of the fact that anthropogenic aerosols such as sulfate

and soot are generally smaller than natural aerosols such as soil dust and sea salt. MODIS provides not only the

total AOT but also the fractional contribution corresponding to smaller particles whose diameter is less than one

micron (a thousandth of a millimeter). Bellouin et al. attributed the total AOT to human influence in regions where

the fine fraction AOT exceeds 85% of the total. Conversely, regions where larger particles make the predominant

contribution to AOT were excluded from the anthropogenic total. While MODIS is able to make this distinction between

small and large particles over ocean, the distinction is more uncertain over land, and here Bellouin et al. resorted

to the anthropogenic fraction computed by five aerosol models, a number chosen to reduce the uncertainty associated

with any single model.

Despite their different result compared to Bellouin et al., the calculations by Chung

et al. and Yu et al. are similar. Chung et al. assign the total AOT using MODIS, and adjust this value using local

measurements by the AERONET array of sun photometers. (These instruments point toward the sun and record incident

radiation at various wavelengths.) The main difference is that Chung et al. compute the anthropogenic fraction over

both land and ocean using a single aerosol model, and they use this model along with AERONET measurements to specify

the radiative properties of the combined aerosol population within each column. Consequently, these properties vary

within each region as opposed to the regionally averaged values used by Bellouin et al. based upon a single

putatively representative site. Yu et al. use an even broader array of measurements and models.

Why do

similar methods result in forcing estimates whose uncertainty ranges don't overlap? This is difficult to know,

although here we speculate upon the effect of some of the differing assumptions. Chung et al. specify greater

particle absorption compared to all but one of the six regional values used by Bellouin et al. Because the TOA

forcing becomes less negative as absorption increases, this accounts for some of the difference. Similarly, Chung et

al.'s replacement of their model estimate of anthropogenic particle fraction over the ocean with the MODIS estimate

(following Bellouin et al.) narrows the difference.

Treatment of aerosol forcing over cloudy regions also

contributes to the difference. Both studies estimate nearly identical forcing at the surface in the absence of

clouds. While aerosol absorption and reflection have opposing effects at TOA, they both reduce sunlight beneath the

aerosol layer, contributing to negative forcing at the surface. Thus, forcing at the surface is less sensitive to

the relative strength of absorption versus reflection. When cloudy regions are included, Chung et al. calculate a

much larger reduction of surface radiation than Bellouin et al., who assume that aerosol forcing in these regions is

zero. At TOA, Chung et al. calculate positive aerosol forcing within cloudy regions, accounting for some of the

global disagreement with Bellouin et al. TOA forcing depends strongly upon the relative position of the cloud and

aerosol layer. An absorbing soot layer above a bright cloud absorbs more radiation than if the layer were beneath

the cloud. Unlike AOT, the vertical distribution of aerosols is not measured routinely, and is comparatively

uncertain.

The disagreement among forcing estimates raises the more general point of whether any study really

captures the full range of uncertainty. The number of calculations needed to sample the uncertainty can increase

exponentially with the number of uncertain parameters. While parametric uncertainty is straightforward to estimate,

the dearth of observations makes it difficult to estimate the effect of assuming a bulk absorption that represents

an 'average' aerosol rather than computing absorption by each species separately. The latter is an example of a

structural uncertainty that is typically difficult to characterize. Given the difficulty of measuring the aerosol

mass over the entire planet, along with myriad aspects of the aerosol life cycle that are poorly measured and

impossible to model precisely, the most reliable estimate of forcing uncertainty may be derived by combining the

central forcing estimate from a number of studies, as opposed to taking the uncertainty range of any single study.

Yu et al. seem to acknowledge the large outstanding uncertainty by relegating their estimate of anthropogenic

aerosol forcing to a table, rather than highlighting it in the abstract or conclusions.

Progress will come by

more systematic comparisons among studies to identify key uncertainties. The unambiguous distinction between

individual aerosol species within models will eventually become possible by direct observation as a result of more

discerning instruments. Nonetheless, models will remain valuable for their ability to distinguish natural and

anthropogenic sources of the same aerosol species. While Bellouin et al. assume that all soot particles over the

ocean are anthropogenic, naturally occurring forest fires contribute as well. As consensus emerges regarding the

global aerosol forcing, attention will turn to regional values that cause local changes to climate and heat

redistribution by the atmosphere. Because of the added complexity of cloud physics, the aerosol indirect effect may

be even more resistant to consensus. Aerosol forcing remains a crucial problem because its offset of greenhouse

warming is expected to decrease with time as governments address the health problems associated with aerosols.

Because of their comparatively short lifetimes, the concentration of aerosols decreases much faster than that of CO2

given a reduction in fossil fuel use. Regardless of the absolute amount of the forcing, future reductions in aerosol

emissions will be a positive forcing, amplyfying the warming effects of increasing greenhouse

gases.

References:

Bellouin, N., O. Boucher, J.Haywood and M. S. Reddy. Global estimate of aerosol

direct radiative forcing from satellite measurements, Nature, 438, 1138-1141 (22 December 2005) |

doi:10.1038/nature04348 (pdf)

Chung, C. E., V. Ramanathan, D. Kim and I. Podgorny, 2005: Global anthropogenic

aerosol direct forcing derived from satellite and ground-based observations. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D24207,

doi:10.1029/2005JD006356. (pdf)

Yu, H., Y.J. Kaufman, M. Chin, G. Feingold, L.A. Remer, T.L. Anderson, Y.

Balkanski, N. Bellouin, O. Boucher, S. Christopher, P. DeCola, R. Kahn, D. Koch, N. Loeb, M.S. Reddy, M. Schulz, T.

Takemura, and M. Zhou 2006. A review of measurement-based assessment of aerosol direct radiative effect and forcing.

Atmos. Chem. Phys., in press. (pdf)

a.k.a.
02-12-2006, 11:29 PM
And here's the promised commentary

on the Keppler et al study:

Emerging science on methane emissions from forests: Do forestation projects

designed to slow global warming still make sense?
James Wang and Bill Chameides

January 20, 2006



Bottom Line: The slowing of global warming achieved by growing and preserving forests that sequester

carbon dioxide from the atmosphere far outweighs the warming from the methane that may be emitted by these forests.

Reforestation and slowing deforestation still appear to be among the most promising actions that can be taken to

slow the build-up of greenhouse gas pollutants in the near-term.

A paper published in the journal

Nature on January 12, 2006 by Frank Keppler and colleagues describes new measurements that suggest living plants

are a major source of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. This finding, if confirmed by future

studies, will represent a significant scientific advance and will require climate scientists to make some

adjustments in their thinking. However, claims in the media (but not by Keppler et al.) that this new finding

threatens to undermine global-warming science and will negate global-warming mitigation strategies based on

reforestation and forest conservation are unfounded. It is easily shown that the warming caused by methane

emissions from a temperate forest in the United States amounts to only 1% – 10% of the cooling gained from carbon

dioxide sequestration.
The measurements made by Keppler et al. appear to be based on sound scientific

methodologies. However, they are the first of their kind and the estimates of the global impacts of these

emissions are based on large extrapolations from a limited set of data. Further study is needed to better

understand the processes that control the methane emissions and how they vary. Still, it is instructive to take the

results of Keppler et al. at face value and examine their implications.

Are the basic underpinnings of

global warming science still valid?

Yes. Keppler et al. have discovered a new and potentially

significant source of methane releases to the atmosphere—direct emissions from vegetation. This finding, if

confirmed, will require some modifications to our understanding of the global methane budget. And since methane is

a powerful greenhouse gas (23 times more effective as a global warmer than carbon dioxide), these modifications

will affect how we think about the interactions between the climate and biosphere. However, the findings do not

alter the essential landscape of global warming: (1) The globe is warming; (2) This warming is largely due to the

human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, but also methane; and (3) Major cuts in

the emissions of these gases will be needed to avert potentially dangerous and irreversible climate change. Indeed,

as pointed out by Keppler et al., their finding may have an unanticipated consequence. In addition to causing

global warming, increasing carbon dioxide concentrations from the burning of fossil fuels may increase the rate at

which trees and other vegetation grow, and if Keppler et al. are correct, this would lead to more methane

emissions, and even more warming.

Is the preservation and growing of forests still a viable way to slow

global warming?

Yes. When trees grow in a forest, they remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and

sequester the carbon in the living tissues and the dead litter of the forest. When forests are destroyed, the

carbon they store is returned to atmosphere as carbon dioxide. For this reason, forests are thought to act as a

brake on global warming. We can reduce the build-up of greenhouse gases by fostering projects that grow new trees

(reforestation) or by slowing the rate at which existing forests are destroyed (deforestation); in the lexicon of

global-warming mitigation, such projects are said to provide “offsets” that can be credited against carbon dioxide

emissions, for example by burning fossil fuel. Environmental Defense, along with many other organizations, has long

been a proponent of such offsets. Indeed, the Kyoto Protocol officially recognizes reforestation as a valid

offset project to meet carbon emission caps and the treaty’s member nations are now considering allowing developing

nations to win carbon offsets for reducing deforestation.

Methane emissions from trees would reduce the

global warming benefits of growing and preserving forests. However, calculations 4 using the emission rates

estimated by Keppler et al. indicate that the reduction is quite small and easily managed. For example, the warming

caused by methane emissions from a temperate forest grown in the United States are only 1 – 10% of the cooling

effect gained from carbon dioxide sequestration. Thus, while it might be argued that the offset awarded to a

reforestation project would have to be reduced as a result of the methane emissions, the reduction would be only

10% or less. The offset reductions that might be charged against a project that slows the rate of deforestation

would also be small. Reductions of this magnitude are easily managed and incorporated into existing protocols for

determining a sequestration project’s offset.

Conclusion

Science is a never-ending process

of discovery and re-evaluation. However, virtually all of the new scientific findings related to climate in the

recent past have significantly strengthened the science underpinning the global warming phenomenon and the need for

prompt action on global warming. The new finding of Keppler et al, if anything, reinforces this notion.



APPENDIX. Calculations

We document here the calculations we carried out to estimate the impact of

the proposed methane emissions on the offsets that might be awarded to a project based on afforestation or slowing

deforestation.

Afforestation

As an illustration, we consider the offset of a project that

replaces existing cropland with a temperate forest.
1. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) removed by afforestation


According to Schlesinger 5 the plant and litter biomass of a mature temperate forest is about 160 x 10 6 g

C/ha (ha = hectare = 0.01 square km)
The plant and litter biomass of cropland is 5 x 10 6 g C/ha
So

replacing cropland with a forest will eventually sequester 155 x 10 6 g C/ha
If we assume conservatively that

the forest takes 100 years to mature, the average C sequestration rate would be about 1.6 x 10 6 g C/ha/year


This is equivalent to removing about 5.7 x 10 6 g of CO 2/ha/year

2. Equivalent amount of CO2 emitted to

atmosphere in the form of methane (CH4) emissions
According to Keppler et al. 6 the methane emissions from

temperate forests worldwide range from (7 – 29) x 10 12 g CH 4/yr
Worldwide there are about 1.2 x 10 9 ha

of temperate forests according to Schlesinger
The global warming potential (GWP) for CH4 is estimated at 23

according to the IPCC
Taking the worldwide CH4 emission rate, multiplying by 23 (the GWP 23) and dividing by

1.2 x 10 9 ha, yields an equivalent emission rate for CH 4 from temperate forests of (0.1 – 0.6) x 10 6 g of (CO

2)eq/ha/year

3. Offset Reduction From Methane Emissions
The offset reduction is given by


[Equivalent CO2 emissions from CH4]/[CO2 sequestered by forest] = [(0.1 – 0.6) x 10 6 g of (CO

2)eq/ha/year]/[ 5.7 x 10 6 g of CO 2/ha/year] ~ 0.018 – 0.1 = 1.8 – 10%

Deforestation

As

an illustration we consider the offset awarded for a project that avoids the destruction of a tropical forest and

replacement with cropland.
1. The CO2 released from destroying a tropical forest and replacing it with

cropland
According to Prentice et al. 8, the total C sequestered in a tropical forest is typically about

240 x 10 6g C/ha
The total C sequestered in cropland is typically about 80 x 10 6 g C/ha
So, the

destruction of tropical forest and its replacement with cropland would release about 160 x 10 6 g C/ha
This

is equivalent to the release to 590 x 10 6 g CO 2/ha
Thus preventing the destruction of the tropical forest

effectively prevents the release of 590 x 10 6 g CO 2/ha
If we conservatively estimate that the tropical

forest is maintained by the project for 100 years, then the project prevents the release of about 5.9 x 10 6 g CO

2/ha/yr
2. The release of CH4 from the tropical forest
According to Keppler et al. tropical forests

worldwide emit (33 – 126) x 10 12 g CH 4/yr
Worldwide there are about 2.5 x 10 9 ha of tropical forests

according to Schlesinger
The global warming potential (GWP) for CH4 is estimated at 23 according to the IPCC


Taking the worldwide CH4 emission rate, multiplying by 23 (the GWP) and dividing by 2.5 x 10 9 ha, yields an

equivalent emission rate for CH 4 from tropical forests of (0.3 – 1.2) x 10 6 g of (CO 2)eq/ha/year
3. The

release of CH4 from cropland
According to Keppler et al. croplands worldwide emit (3 – 12) x 10 12 g CH 4/yr


Worldwide there are about 1.4 x 10 9 ha of cropland according to Schlesinger
The global warming

potential (GWP) for CH4 is estimated at 23 according to the IPCC
Taking the worldwide CH4 emission rate,

multiplying by 23 (the GWP) and dividing by 1.4 x 10 9 ha, yields an equivalent emission rate for CH 4 from

cropland of (0.05 – 0.2) x 10 6 g of (CO 2)eq/ha/yr
4. Total Extra CH4 Emitted
The extra CH4

emissions from preserving the forest is the difference between the forest emission and the cropland emission: (0.1

– 1.2) x 10 6 g of (CO 2)eq/ha/yr
5. Offset Reduction From Methane Emissions
The offset reduction is

given by [Equivalent CO2 emissions from CH4]/[CO2 emission prevented ] = [(0.1 – 1.2) x 10 6

g of (CO 2)eq/ha/year]/[ 5.9 x 10 6 g of CO 2/ha/year] ~ 0.016 – 0.2 ~ 1.5 – 20%



http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/4982_EDAnalysisMethaneEmissions_Forests.pdf

belgareth
02-13-2006, 03:52 AM
Thanks AKA. You couldn't have

made the point better if you had tried. Please, stand up and take a bow. :thumbsup:

Did anybody else catch it?

Misrepresentation of what I have been saying right along. Trying to force others to act right now regardless of

anything. If we aren't with him we are against him? Would somebody, other than AKA who already has expressed his

opinion, mind telling me how an open minded demand for information translates to "Do nothing"?

AKA mentioned

elsewhere that he is extremely liberal which says whole volumes about how he'll respond to anything and also

explains his view that we are making political statements. To be fair, from his perspective they probably are

political but not from ours. Wood Elf is about as apolitical as a person can get. She has no interest whatsoever in

anything other than her science and our personal lives. I have been called a conservative and a liberal time and

again depending on the other's personal point of view. It always makes me laugh because it demonstrates the other

person's mentality but says nothing about me. The fact is that my position on any subject has nothing to do with

party affiliation or political leaning. I may side with Bush on one topic then utterly oppose him on another, the

same with John Kerry to name a couple examples. It all depends on the issue itself and how I feel it impacts the

world. It wouldn't be fair to say I couldn't care less about party politics because I have a very strong belief

that party politics are a horrible waste of time and an obstruction to accomplishing important things. To carry it a

step further, when politics and politicians and political thinking interfere with necessarry functions those

involved should be charged with treason.

Climate change is not a political issue, nor is global warming a

confirmed scientific fact. However, our response to the allegation of global warming has huge significance to the

entire planet and our own nation. Each active party has tried to vilefy the others and push their agenda to the

forefront. Each's agenda has massive implications for the human race. How any rational person could possibly act

without having a clear image of the facts and having looked at all the opposing points in as unbiased a fashion as

they can is beyond my comprehension. I don't see this being done and I am appalled at it.

To all the rest who

are reading this. I'd like to point out a couple things to you before leaving this discussion permenently and

letting AKA have his fun.

1. As mentioned in a thread above, this has become a religious debate more than

anything else. And as with any religions, the other side is always demonized. Misrepresentation of the others point

is always the main tactic. AKA has done a fine job of demonstrating that in his misrepresentation of what we and

many are saying. We have not once said that nothing should be done. We have repeatedly expressed concern for our

environment and a desire to find out exactly what is going on. He was told us that all the leaders in all the oil

companies are happily destroying the environment for their own personal gain. A little research and study into those

individuals might lead you to a different conclusion. Like the christians, the Bush team and so many others, if we

are not with you, we are against you. I also note that we are seeking knowledge and have few answers, the

environmental terrorists have all the answers.

2. Professor Lindzen IS a top of his field scientist who once

held a top job with the IPCC then quit to join the other side. I'm sure the zealots are going to tell us he did it

all for personal gain and an utter lack of concern for the environment. I can tell you from vast experience with

that type that the rarely are for sale and hold their views as sacred. Check into it yourselves and see what you

think instead of taking my opinion for it. I'm also sure that the 19,000 total signers of his petition were all

doing it for personal gain. Keep in mind that by time his petition reached congress 19,000 environmenal scientists,

60% of whom hold Ph.Ds signed a petition to squelch signing of the Kyoto protocols. Of course, they could all be

employed by the enemy and none of them are concerned about the environment. Once again, instead of paying attention

to the personal attacks and the us against them mentality, please take the time to study the positions and learn

about the people with those positions.

3. I encourage everybody, to the extent of their education and available

time to do the research for themselves. Take the time to review sources and how the studies were reviewed by the

researcher and his peers. A world of information can be gleaned from the actual peer review process itself and how

it is accomplished. Also, take the time to look at the actual credentials of those supporting the work. The local

meteorologist in Budapest or an historian is rather a poor source next to a Professor Emeritus of Environmental

Science.

4. Please, each and every person, don't take anybody's word for it! Read the Kyoto protocols and ask

yourself if it would really do any good when they only impact 1/3 of the globe. And ask yourself if there wouldn't

be a better way of addressing the issue than to ignore all the other sources. You might also ask yourself why other

countries have decided not to join Kyoto but have initiated their own programs in which to control environmental

issues. Do you really believe that all those countries have no interest in their environment or they have been

hoodwinked into developing their own program? Proponents of Kyoto tell us the other process won't work but I would

rather wait and see because I have more faith in human best interests than others.

For some reason, the

environmentalist's stand strongly reminds me of a car salesman I walked away from a while back. "You have to decide

right now. Never mind doing any further research or study. This is your one and only opportunity to buy. Everybody

else's product is junk and I'm the only one on your side, the only one who is interested in you. I know what's

good for you, sign here"

As a close I'll offer a repeat of something I've said quite a few times in a variety

of ways. Don't let anybody stamped you into making decisions. Learn everything you can about this critically

important issue from every possible perspective. Go into it with an open mind and a willingness to learn. Don't

become a zealot.

InternationalPlayboy
02-13-2006, 06:50 AM
Let

me begin by stating the obvious: Belgareth and Wood Elf are promoting a political position. The probability that

they may genuinely hate politics and political intrusions into scientific research doesn’t change this

fact.

And the environmental movement is completely devoid of political agendas?

First let me

state that I was a high school hippie/Yippie. I used to think of Abbie Hoffman as a role model. But I grew up. Two

things that opened my eyes about him was his statement that he was a Communist and his suicide. Sure going

underground messed with his head, but he decided he couldn't live in this world anymore and took his life. In

contrast, Jerry Rubin, his equal in the Yippie movement became a capatalist in his later years.

I don't

argue that we haven't done damage to our environment and that we need to be careful with our impact to the Earth.

But I am wary of the whole environmental movement, mainly due to the extremists like Earth First and PETA, to name

two. From what I understand, when the socialist movement of the 1960s failed, they inflitrated the environmental

movement in attempt to get their agenda across that way. Abbie Hoffman is a perfect example of this. Even before he

surfaced from his stint in the underground, he was working as an environmental activist under the name of Barry

Freed.

Now I'm not trying to say that all environmentalists are socialists or communists. But both sides can

have hidden political agendas.

belgareth
02-13-2006, 07:04 PM
And

the environmental movement is completely devoid of political agendas?

First let me state that I was a high

school hippie/Yippie. I used to think of Abbie Hoffman as a role model. But I grew up. Two things that opened my

eyes about him was his statement that he was a Communist and his suicide. Sure going underground messed with his

head, but he decided he couldn't live in this world anymore and took his life. In contrast, Jerry Rubin, his equal

in the Yippie movement became a capatalist in his later years.

I don't argue that we haven't done damage to

our environment and that we need to be careful with our impact to the Earth. But I am wary of the whole

environmental movement, mainly due to the extremists like Earth First and PETA, to name two. From what I understand,

when the socialist movement of the 1960s failed, they inflitrated the environmental movement in attempt to get their

agenda across that way. Abbie Hoffman is a perfect example of this. Even before he surfaced from his stint in the

underground, he was working as an environmental activist under the name of Barry Freed.

Now I'm not trying to

say that all environmentalists are socialists or communists. But both sides can have hidden political

agendas.

Yeah, I was one of those too. Marched in protest of the Vietnam war before I was in high

school. It could have had something to do with growing up just north of Berkely. Half my teachers in high school

were activists. Time and experience taught me to see things differently.

Netghost56
02-13-2006, 08:16 PM
If it's not too much to ask,

how does that make you feel? Do you feel that you've made the right choices?

belgareth
02-13-2006, 09:04 PM
If it's not

too much to ask, how does that make you feel? Do you feel that you've made the right choices?
How do I

explain how it makes me feel in under 100,000 words? Choices are a funny thing, you do what you can live with. I

have to deal with myself and my sense of honor. Let me try this, see if I can make it comprehensible. I've tried

before but seem to fail every time.

I support caring for the environment by doing every thing in my power to

never destroy that around me and always try to do something for the world. They range from little things like buying

living Christmas trees and planting them after the holiday to promoting and supporting hydrogen fueling systems for

cars. I never take anything at face value and always hold every organization suspect until they prove they aren't.

I do not forgive a wrong action done in a good cause, ever! For instance, I do not agree that environmentalists have

the right to destroy other's property. That is no more and no less than terrorism and makes them no different from

bin Laden. The same applies to PETA or any other group who will use violence for any reason other than self defense.

Lying to convince the public to follow a certain path is another unforgivable action.

I support people and help

whenever I can. I am a member of a service group that actively helps others. I donate thousands of dollars and

hundreds of hours every year to helping others. I am generally opposed to war but would be on the front lines were

we attacked. That is said both on the large and small scale. I can fight but rarely do. When I do it is only to

defend, never to attack.

I believe in our responisibility for everything we are and everything we do. I am not

responsible for you or your actions and have no authority to force or coerce in any way shape or form. Yet, when you

make an effort to help yourself I am there to assist because I feel it is my duty to do so.

I believe that no

person should bear children unless they are willing to dedicate the years needed to raise them as proper citizens

but would not support mandatory birth control. Instead, I would hold parents responsible for the actions and well

being of the children the decided to bring into this world. In my own case, neither of my biological children were

planned. I do not support abortion thus took responsibility for my actions and raised them the best I could. Yet, I

do not have the right to tell others how to feel about abortion or to stop them from using it if they deem it right.

Funny thing is, most who know me don't realize my step daughter is not my own blood kin. She's my daughter, I took

responsibility for a child and raised her as my own and lavished as much love and discipline on her as my own. As

far as either of us is concerned, I'm dad.

I do not care if you are a liberal, a libertarian, a republican, a

christian, a budist, a nudist, a black, hispanic or have purple stripes or are a practicing wiccan. I take you based

only on your actions, nothing more or less. Your words only mean something when they help me learn how you think and

believe. If you are a christian and are faithful to that, I honor it. If you are a environmentalist and live that, I

honor you for it. If your words and actions don't match, as is so often the case, I reagard you as dishonest and

contemptable.

In a nutshell, I believe that all creatures in this universe are equal and the sole inalienable

right is the right of free will. I do not cage an animal and have only killed with cause. I do not ever force my

will on another or allow another to force their will on me. The one exception is my obligation to defend those less

capable than me. Before I take any action I have an obligation to determine to the best of my ability the right or

wrong of my action and if I will be doing harm to another. Political goals, party politics or ambitions mean nothing

to me, only living my life in the best way possible. If that means I am going to object to the actions of some

group, then I will object.

I may be guilty of black and white thinking and don't especially care. My word is

my given word, my honor is my honor. My purposes in life are the same as everybody else's, to learn, to grow, to

help others and to be the best possible version of me I can be. I am human and often fail at that but the point is

in the effort, not always the success.

In my eyes, based on my study and best belief, the IPCC and Kyoto are not

good for humanity as a whole and are not true to their purpose so I have an obligation to oppose them. However, I

want each and every person to make that determination for themselves.

Can you apply that to all the above or

have I goofed again?

Netghost56
02-13-2006, 10:21 PM
I understand your views. I

don't particularily subscribe to all of them, but I do respect them.

Groups like PETA and ELF act with anguish.

I don't neccessarily support their tactics, but I understand their feelings. When you're taunted for being

alarmist, then outplayed by bureaucrats with their vast stores of money and lobbyists- you feel like you're

drowning. The only way to keep your dignity, as you(ELF) would see it, would be to make the other side feel the

sting that they've inflicted on you. It's like when someone taunts you, but you can't come up with the words to

get back at them, and in your anguish you strike out physically. I've been in that position countless times. You

either act out or let the anger simmer inside you. Guess which choice I made everytime.

If you're guilty of

black and white thinking, I'm guilty of always trying to find the grey area, no matter what. Compromise. To me

that's the best possible choice in most, if not all matters. Because if one side doesn't feel satisfied with the

outcome, there will never be an amicable solution, to anything.

One thing I pride myself on is that I try to see

things from the other person's POV. I truly do. I make myself completely and totally unbiased, and try to get a

sense of why the other person feels the way they do.

It's unfortunate that we're so oppositely polarized on

global warming. There has never been another issue where I have been so passionate. But it goes back to something

that happened to me a few years ago that greatly altered my conscience (and perception) about the environment. I'm

the last person who would believe such an alteration possible, but it happened. And because of it I can no longer be

nonchalant about any environmental issue. If I come across as fanatical...well, I don't mean to be, but I can't

help what I feel.

I've become a very angry person over the past few years- angry at humanity, angry at life,

and angry with myself. On one hand, it's alot better than the decade of depression I struggled with. It's made me

more active and outgoing. On the other, it's still negative and non-productive. I'm pessimistic about whether I

can work out the issues and be happy. Presently I feel that improving my surroundings will improve me, which in part

leads to my strong convictions.


Honor? I doubt I have any. It's not encouraged where I live. We're all

trained to be followers from the first day where we see someone bullied. When the moment came, I went to someone's

aid, and forever after I reaped the consequences. But there is one sentence that I believe in: "All men are created

equal." I take that to the very core. That's why I can never be a capitalist. I believe everyone deserves a fair

shake, regardless of motivation, ambition, or need. If a person was able to live in comfort, they would be able to

pursue their dreams, and in so doing achieve greater goals. Goals that would further humanity as a whole. I don't

believe that people desire to be greater than other, but that deep down they just want to be as great as they can

be.

I also believe that all creatures are created equal. I don't elevate humans over the animal kingdom, and I

think its wrong to do so. To me it leads to elevating certain people over others, certain classes over others, etc.

Equality, to me, is our most important issue that needs to be resolved. I don't think we'll ever have global peace

or global harmony without it.

a.k.a.
02-14-2006, 01:13 AM
In case nobody guessed, I’ve been an

activist most of my life. And I can somewhat relate to the notion of something that I never grew out of.
Most

kids start rebelling in their teens. My rebellion took a new twist when I read Ghandi’s autobiography and started

practicing “passive non-cooperation” on my parents. It worked so well that I went on to practice it on my teachers.

I took part in some demonstrations in college, but things didn’t really click until I participated in an Oxfam

project for feeding poor families in the Dominican Republic.
At the time I thought it would be a cheap

way to visit the Caribbean. But I wasn’t prepared for what I saw. The most devastating thing was that look in every

sick child’s eyes. All that trust and hope and thirst for life begging not to be sucked into some cold oblivion.


In one way or another, I’ve been involved with healthcare issues ever since. And in the process I’ve learned a lot

about corporate lobbying, Third-World issues, North-South relations, and war. I’m a firm believer in universal

healthcare, so that makes me a socialist in many people’s eyes.
I usually always participate in peace

rallies. But I never got too involved in the strategy sessions because I’ve yet to find a group of people that

really wants to win. Most peace activists seem content to have somebody to blame for everything. They wouldn’t know

what to do if the responsibility for world peace was in their hands.
I’ve done some research, on and off,

for a clean water advocacy group in my state. And I do try to keep on top of environmental issues. But I don’t have

the constitution to be a dedicated environmentalist. It takes a very special person to sustain a positive outlook in

the face of so many problems (Jane Goodal and David Suzuki come to mind). Groups like Earth First embrace militant

postures to compensate for the fact that they’ve given up inside.
I’ve worked on a number of Senatorial

campaigns. And I guess my high point was participating in both of Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaigns. After he

lost the ‘88 primaries, I worked on the Dukakis campaign. By the time Dukakis lost, my ex-wife and I had made enough

connections to land cushy little jobs in the Democratic party. It took me about 4 months to figure out that career

politicians are part of the problem (not the solution), but my ex is probably still into it (and I wouldn’t be

surprised to see her face pop up when Hilary makes a go of it).
I didn’t take part in Nader’s campaign

because he didn’t really want to win. But if Cindy Sheehan makes a run for office in 2008 I’ll be there for

sure.
I’d like to say that I’m motivated by high minded goals and a passion for justice. But it’s also, if

not more, true that I’m a real political animal. I like the engagement, the challenge, the thrills and spills, the

intellectual stimulation, the social contacts... and , of course, the celebrities.
My high point was in the

‘80’s when I got to spend the day with Elizabeth Montgomery (star of TV’s “Bewitched”). She was my dream wife as a

little kid, and, even though she was quite old when I met her, I could barely contain my desire while being in her

presence.
Abbie Hoffman, on the other hand, was pushy and full of himself. He was a drug dealer and a woman

hater. He was pretty funny, a decent motivator, and could have been a good organizer if his idea of women’s role

wasn’t baking brownies and giving bj’s.
There were some yippies that were real good at digging up

information — mostly through their cocaine connections. But, for the most part, they were just a bunch of spoiled

white kids. (I think I can say that. Being white myself.)
Speaking of which... I think the image most people

today have of the sixties is based on the inordinate amount of attention that the media placed on spoiled white kids

acting out.

Anyway... I think the biggest lesson of “passive non-cooperation” is that there are

countless ways to break the human body. But the only person that can break your spirit is yourself.

belgareth
02-14-2006, 07:08 AM
Netghost:

From my

perspective, there is no point of disagreement until you attempt to force your will on me. All I want you to do is

decide what in your own mind is best for the world around you then act on it. Nothing more or less. Making laws to

force others to comply with your belief is simply using force or the threat of it, it is still a form of violence.

How can you do that when you would object to others forcing their will on you? They believe in what they do,

probably as much as you believe in what you do. How is your belief or theirs the greater that justifies any form of

force? If we are all equal we all have the same rights to live by our beliefs regardless of the next person's

beliefs unless we are doing them harm. Therefore, the only logical way to address any issue is to offer information

and education, then ask each to make their own decision and act upon what they believe is right.

Do we differ on

global warming? Consider carefully what I have said. Global warming as defined by the IPCC or by science? They are

not the same thing necessarily. Isn't fact the determining factor on what our actions should be? Use what I said in

the previous paragraph and add to that the knowledge that many top scientists disagree with what the IPCC is

pushing. Would you, in good concience be able to support the IPCC?

I think you misunderstand capitalism. Why do

you have the opportunity to go to a grocery store and select from a wide range of products? What motivated so many

talented people to create such wonderous devices as the computer you are sitting at right now? Capitalism is

probably the only relatively harmles and actually benificial form of greed there is. It is also one of the great

civilizing influences responsible for mankind's growth and development. That it has been miused is not the fault of

capitalism or the majority of capitalists.

Anger and honor are two interesting things. Anger solves nothing and

acting in anger is almost sure to create more trouble than it solves. Don't waste your energy on anger, it isn't

going to help you. Get rid of it. Honor is different. It is something only you can decide to have or not have. But

once you decide that you will act with honor it changes everything about your life. Sure, there are consequences for

acting with honor but there are consequences for acting without it. I don't remember who said it but there is an

old saying about courage. That a couragous man dies but once, a coward dies a thousand times. Honor would be a

better term than courage, in my opinion.

AKA:

You'd be surprised how close we are in philosophy and

outlook. Different approaches but little in the way of different core beliefs or perspective when you get right down

to it. Some issues I haven't decided what I believe is workable, such as universal healthcare. That's mostly

because I haven't spent the time looking into it. I rarely take a stand on anything based on want, instead use

feasability and need as the core reasons for my actions. It sounds as if we agree completely on the subject of

career politicians.

I do wish you well in your endeavors but do not agree that the fight is the reason for the

action. The end result is the only goal I have.

PS: To add one last point, or rather to amplify on one. An

activist who attempts to force change on others while not living by the rules they espouse is no more than a

hypocrite and would be dictator. Here in the south I see it all the time with the religious right wingers. They want

to force other to follow their rules in a religion guided by peace and love. They'll use fore if they have too to

get you to follow their religious beliefs. Whether it is religion, environmental, politics or animal rights, unless

they live by the rules they espouse and expect others to live by they are beneath contempt.

DrSmellThis
02-16-2006, 05:10 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/02/16/greenland.glaciers.ap/index.html

Netghost56
02-19-2006, 01:16 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060217/sc_space/oceanwasahottubindinoera

belgareth
02-19-2006, 06:07 AM
Yup,

Scientists

don't know what might have caused ocean temperatures to get so high. Climate models that consider increases in

carbon dioxide can't account for it, Bice said.



did you read the follow up

articles?
http://www.livescience.com/forc

esofnature/060124_earth_albedo.html (http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/060124_earth_albedo.html)
http

://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html)
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505

_earth_bright.html)
http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_050829.html (http://www.livescie

nce.com/imageoftheday/siod_050829.html)
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/041202_

extinction_cause.html (http:

//www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/041202_extinction_cause.html)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/extinction_sidebar_000907.html ("http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/extinction_sidebar_000907.html"

)

Netghost56
02-19-2006, 11:25 AM
I just posted a relevant

article for others to read.


I just can't fight this anymore, I'm not smart or strong enough.

belgareth
02-19-2006, 01:02 PM
It was a question. Generally

speaking, you should try to be as informed as possible. I'm not fighting or even debating. I do want you and

everybody else to learn as much as you can though.

DrSmellThis
02-19-2006, 02:48 PM
I just

posted a relevant article for others to read. I just can't fight this anymore, I'm not smart or strong

enough.Don't be intimidated, but stay within yourself and trust your ability to think through it one

point or step at a time. Slow down if you have to.

So just read the articles, for example. There's nothing in

any of them that contradicts anything you've been saying, that I can see. If anything they're supportive, such as

identifying historical precedents for CO2 based warming. Do they bring up things you didn't bring up? Sure. Who

cares? Just be thankful for the extra information and move on.

Obviously, you could possibly have to "factor

out" (account for and subtract the effect of) changes in sun activity to get an accurate GG effect number, for

example; but only to the extent you have relatively compelling evidence that sun activity is correlated with

recent changes in GG (greenhouse gas) levels. That would, in that case, make it a confounding

variable, or a third cause of the GG/T relationship; as I've been saying (These are basic terms that scientists

who understand statistical research methods use). The same goes for albedo. Absent confounds, you go with the GG

effect number you have, other relevant things being equal.

BTW, the albedo findings reminded me of the

"conspiracy theories" about "chem-trails" (reputed to be for increasing albedo), since at first blush those

reported anomalous findings appear to support those conspiracy theories exactly as predicted, based on reported chem

trail activity, (which should be lower during a war and given Bush's beliefs about global warming, i.e., from

2000-2005.) This is apparently not much less crazy than any of the other inadequate explanations, so far. (Remember

during the Clinton administration when Letterman asked Hillary if the govt. controlled the weather, and she

replied, "Yes."?)

Regardless, it is true that predicting the actual effect of GG on future T is less precise than

it would otherwise be; the less we know about effects such as albedo. We have a bigger range of uncertainty, or less

confidence, in actual future temperatures than we would like. So albedo is currently a source of random error

variance in our models, obviously; since we can't predict what albedo will be five years from now. To the extent

we learn more we'll be more confident in our predictions of actual future T's.

However, that is just normal,

random error; and is already accounted for as such in typical models. It does not affect the validity

or reliability of the current GG/T correlation as a predictor, again; unless you can demonstrate a systematic

confound (instead of random error, or even non-random, non-confounding error). It is what it is, as I

said.

In fact, since albedo is functioning like "unbiased", random error for now (the only possible assumption

until we know more, if you believe the articles), the extra uncertainty of albedo actually represents extra risk to

ourselves from our own actions in GG emission, and therefore extra urgency (That in no way implies less urgency

would result should we pinpoint albedo, obviously). The same goes for the uncertainty of future sun activity. As a

result, basic scientific reasoning dictates that these factors strengthen arguments for doing something now

about our climate, based on what we already know about GG having a meaningful effect now, in the past, and in the

lab.

belgareth
02-19-2006, 08:37 PM
Netghost,

All I ask is that

you take the time to read and learn. I have my viewpoint and others have theirs. The good Doc chooses to believe one

way and I another. I am not trying to convince you, only asking you to learn as much as possible so you can make

your decisions based on knowledge from both sides of the debate, or shaould I say all sides? There seems to be more

than two.

For myself, I find much of the reasoning about global warming, including that above, to be flawed. I

was glad to see I wasn't alone in apposing the Kyoto protocol. If you'll go back and read some of my posts you'll

find links and reference to the fact that more than 17,000 environmental scientists, 2/3 holding Ph.Ds in

environmental science fields, signed a petition asking the president to reject Kyoto. Rather than listen to me or

DST or any other find out for yourself why. I'm not arguing any course other that learning so you and everybody

else can make their own decisions.

Netghost56
02-19-2006, 10:19 PM
My frustration is that I

don't feel that we can afford to waste time talking about certain issues. Just talk and talk until its too late,

and then what do you have? Only dissapointment for some, but others have to live with the consequences.

I'm not

sure if I'm making much sense. I think I'm heading for another dark period. I have trouble expressing myself

sometimes. Either way, I know that the smart move would be to look before you leap, but sometimes, if you wait to

long, the floor falls out from under you. Do you understand that? I think in global warming you have most, if not

all the data you can possibly get by current technological standards. I think in order to make the right observation

or choice one needs to put aside the cost, manpower, and other obstacles. You can't afford to be looking at

something like Kyoto and worry about the cost. Something like Kyoto is supposed to benefit everybody. It's a far

better plan to sink money into than some silly war effort. Don't you think? Would you rather spend $100 billion on

some overpriced, cheaply-built jet planes, or on an air filtration, water purifiying machine? How about development

of solar power? Making it more efficient? Geothermal? I'd gladly put money in those things. Even spaceflight! Maybe

I'm being silly, but I bought all the NASA propaganda that spaceflight benefits everybody. Or maybe I just want to

go into space someday. But I won't as long as the military controls space, right?

Anyway, rambling aside, I

feel that in an issue like this you've got to focus on the foundation of the issue and not get tied up or bogged

down in the parts and pieces.

DrSmellThis
02-20-2006, 04:25 AM
For myself,

I find much of the reasoning about global warming, including that above, to be flawed.What specifically is

"flawed" about the reasoning in my last post and how so? I see nothing remotely controversial about it, and

nothing particularly opinionated. It is just basic principles of statistics/research methods applied to the

findings in question, in a straightforward manner.

a.k.a.
02-20-2006, 06:16 AM
My frustration is

that I don't feel that we can afford to waste time talking about certain issues. Just talk and talk until its too

late, and then what do you have? Only dissapointment for some, but others have to live with the consequences.



I think I know how you feel. I’ve been hearing this talk much longer than you.
Back

in the 70’s global warming was just a theory and a lot of people were saying it could never happen. Some scientists

even believed we were going to enter a new ice age. Now global warming is real and people are saying CO2 is not the

cause.
I say give some credit to the scientists that saw it coming.

tim929
02-20-2006, 08:20 AM
My frustration is that I

don't feel that we can afford to waste time talking about certain issues. Just talk and talk until its too late,

and then what do you have? Only dissapointment for some, but others have to live with the consequences.




The unfortunate problem that we are rappidly running up against is that talk and prayer are about the only

practical things that humanity can do about any of it at this point.Wether you belive global climate change is the

result of mans hand or,as the evidence more firmly supports,a natural cycle in the earths life span,the catastrophy

is already uppon us.Global climate change I do not dispute.Cause and effect I do because there is no credible

evidence to point to man and tons of geologic evidence pointing to mother earth herself,the sun and a half dozen

other things.Birds,for example are having a hell of a time navagating because magnetic north is shifting.It has

moved measurably toward Moscow in just the last twelve months and seems to be accelerating.

But the relivent

topic for discussion at this point isnt "how do we stop it?" We cant...AMEN! The relevent question is "how do we go

about mitigating the catostrophic results that have been set in motion and cant be stopped.Coast lines are going to

change...get used to it.Cold areas will get colder...get used to it.Warm areas will be intermitently colder and

hotter...get used to it.Wet areas will be alot wetter...get used to it.

All the various changes will result in

things like the redirection of aquifers that feed water to your community.No water,what are YOU going to do about

that?Your house is built in a shallow basin...well...get your swim trunks out.You live on a costal lowland...Hope

your house doubles as a boat.At this point the change is comming and there isnt one little thing that man can do to

stop it...or even slow it down.So how are we gonna use our brains to survive it?

DrSmellThis
02-28-2006, 01:39 PM
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/articl

e348177.ece (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article348177.ece)

InternationalPlayboy
02-28-2006, 02:06 PM
The water wars

won't be just between nations, but also between the states in this country too. I live along the Colorado River in

Arizona. Much of that water is taken by Los Angeles and other non-Arizonan areas. It's been years since I've seen

the movie, but if I recall, the movie "Chinatown" was based on a scandal associated with Los Angeles' Colorado

River water use.

Being that Arizona is now in one of the longest droughts on record, I wonder what the future

holds for us in that aspect. (We did have light sprinkles this morning, first time in months!) And to make matters

worse, these little towns between here and Phoenix are building golf courses to attract the RV users' money. Just

what the desert needs, more golf courses.

As a sidebar, there was a desalinization plant built in my area

with out tax dollars, due to the fact that the river water we were sending into Mexico was too polluted. (The water

dries up before it even hits the Sea of Cortez anymore.) It has never become fully operational as by the time it was

built, the water flow improved, and is now mothballed and used mainly for educational purposes. I wonder why cities

along the coasts, such as Los Angeles, don't look into this technology so their swimming pools and golf courses

won't put a burden on the Colorado, leaving more for others who don't have such a vast source of water, such as

Las Vegas and Phoenix.

Mtnjim
02-28-2006, 02:26 PM
...I

wonder why cities along the coasts, such as Los Angeles, don't look into this technology so their swimming pools

and golf courses won't put a burden on the Colorado,

Actually, San Diego did have a plant in the early

'60's (below the Point Loma light house). It was decided that Colorado River water was cheaper, so it was closed

down.:hammer:

belgareth
02-28-2006, 03:22 PM
The most effective means of

desalination is through distilliation. Other means have been tried but are problematic, at best. To deslinate

through distilliation you need a lot of heat. In arizona solar is a decent option but in few other places in the US.

Even there it's limited because of the amount of available versus the amount needed. Huge collectors would be

needed that would cover many acres of the fragile desert and destroy much of the ecosystem. So what other energy

sources do you suggest?

Netghost56
02-28-2006, 03:44 PM
It's not just water wars between states, it's cities too. And big cities get first dibs while smaller cities pay

the price:

Dallas, Texas wants water pipeline from Texarkana, Texas

lake.
http://www.texarkan

agazette.com/articles/2005/06/23/local_news/news/news17.txt (http://www.texarkanagazette.com/articles/2005/06/23/local_news/news/news17.txt)

Dallas also wants a reservoir on the Sulphur

River, which will destroy 70,000 acres of

farmland.
http://www.stopmarvinnichols.com/actionalert.

htm (http://www.stopmarvinnichols.com/actionalert.htm)

Dallas has been at this since

2000:
http://www.texasobserver.org/showarticl

e.asp?articleid=488 (http://www.texasobserver.org/showarticle.asp?articleid=488)
http://www.texaswatermatters.org

/pdfs/news_15.pdf (http://www.texaswatermatters.org/pdfs/news_15.pdf)

InternationalPlayboy
02-28-2006, 04:02 PM
The

most effective means of desalination is through distilliation. Other means have been tried but are problematic, at

best. To deslinate through distilliation you need a lot of heat. In arizona solar is a decent option but in few

other places in the US. Even there it's limited because of the amount of available versus the amount needed. Huge

collectors would be needed that would cover many acres of the fragile desert and destroy much of the ecosystem. So

what other energy sources do you suggest?


Unfortunately, I have no suggestions for energy

sources. I was thinking more of places that had ocean water at their disposal to use. Of course, this would take

even more processing.

Our plant is a reverse osmosis plant, and that was what I was thinking of when I

formulated my statement. "Problematic" is a good description for it. I had a friend who worked there as a telemetry

technician and I unsuccesfully applied for a similar job there. They had problems with their membranes used to

filter the water drying out before they were even put to use.

I don't know on how grand a scale these types

of plants are used now, but they are used in places. A friend trained at ours through the local community college

and was about to go to Iraq to work in the field. Unfortunately (or fortunately as this was when they had just

cutting hostages' heads off), he failed some kind of physical exam and didn't go.

Golf courses cover many

acres and change the desert's ecosystem too. I see them as a waste of water (and mainly, a magnet for snowbirds,

whom I would prefer stay in their home state during the winter :D). Of course, my opinion would probably be

different there if I played the game.

belgareth
02-28-2006, 04:58 PM
The reverse osmosis stystems

have so many flaws and kinks that its almost funny. The idea is a good one, the practical applications have proven

to be a bear. Even when you can make them work right, energy use is phenomenal. Then, no matter the system you use

you have a problem with waste products, which are impressive.

It's a matter of economics, really. No matter how

inefficient a process is you can make a case for it under some conditions, the question is whether you should do it.



Indeed, golf courses suck a lot of water and add humidity to the air which is not only poison to the very

fragile desert flora and fauna but retains heat adding to the question of global warming. How much it alters the

local weather patterns, or further, on a global scale is anybody's guess.

The water wars have been going on for

years in Cailfornia and they might get worse. It depends on what climate change really does and nobody really knows

that despite what some may claim. It's equally possible that the earth will become far more humid and overall

rainfall may increase by several factors, or desertification may increase.

Mtnjim
02-28-2006, 05:09 PM
... So what other

energy sources do you suggest?
In my mention of the desalination plant in the posting above, they used

"our friend the atom"; it was the early '60's.

InternationalPlayboy
02-28-2006, 06:41 PM
In my

mention of the desalination plant in the posting above, they used "our friend the atom"; it was the early

'60's.

Really? At Point Loma? That's bizarre considering that it is now a nature preserve area.

When you say "below the lighthouse," I picture where the modern lighthouse stands now.


The

reverse osmosis stystems have so many flaws and kinks that its almost funny. The idea is a good one, the practical

applications have proven to be a bear. Even when you can make them work right, energy use is phenomenal. Then, no

matter the system you use you have a problem with waste products, which are impressive.

Interesting.

So our plant is even more of a white elephant than I thought. Like I said above, it was built due to some treaty

with Mexico. Agricuture runoff had polluted the water so much that we had to clean it up before sending it to

Mexico. When I first started learning electronics, it was just in experimental stage along a tributary to the

Colorado, the Gila River. I pass tanks on the side of the highway every work day, that are still for sale these odd

25+ years later. When I applied for a job there, it was right before the Gulf War. I did get an offer later as an

employee got called up for service. I declined though as he would have been legally entitled to return to his job

after the war. The plant was closed a few years later without having ever going online in any more than a test

capacity. Your tax dollars at work.

If memory serves me right, the waste product was pumped to drying fields

nearby. What they did after that, I don't know. I hope they didn't just leave the residue laying there to soak

into the ground and eventually return to the water table.

What is your opinion on home RO systems? Are they

just as bad? Interestingly, my friend who worked at the plant later got into the Amway "cult" and was going to push

their home purification units. Nothing ever really came of that.

belgareth
02-28-2006, 08:45 PM
MtnJim:
The atom is the most

logical source but you can imagine the screaming from the environmentalists. From one perspective it would serve two

purposes because the water could be used as coolant for a reactor producing electricity. I've seen design studies

and it looks pretty good but waste is an issue. There's also the consideration that IF global warming is more than

hyperbole that nuclear power plants genterate a lot of heat. A big if, I know but let's not discount any

possibility. Of course, if we'd stop using potable water to wash cars, water crops and flush toilets it wouldn't

be such a big issue.

IP:
The power drain is impressive, they are full of problems and the waste products are

terrible for the environment. Although, to be fair, there are a lot of useful minerals in seawater if somebody could

figure out a way to seperate them from everything else economically. There's gold, irradium, potassium, mercury,

silver and so on.

I don't know what they are doing with desalination waste these days. If left to sit rain

would eventually re-dissolve it and it would end up returning to the water table after poisoning the soil it

percolated through.

The home units have had mixed reviews, as I recall. It's been a lot of years since I've

read much about them. Where I used to live in California, near the Sacramento Delta, due to the massive amounts of

water taken to irrigate farmland and water golf courses in Southern California the local tap water was brakish.

Would you believe the newspaper publishes salinity figures for those with salt intake restrictions? RO units were

good for about a year before you had to replace most of the parts. And those were units used only for drinking

water. They did have the advantage of using such fine materials that things like Giardia couldn't get through to

the tap.

Current units for home use? I don't know enough about the state of the technology to really have an

opinion but its probably better than drinking straight tap water. Pay attention though because most of those units

use a bypass when clogged and you end up getting unfiltered water without warning.

The water here is sweet so

for our drinking water use I jiggered up a filter using an industrial grade, wrapped fiber, one micron filter like

they use to filter water in asbestos removal projects. Far better than anything you can buy for residential use and

relatively cheap. Then you filter it through charcoal to eliminate volitols like clorine and any distillate type

pollutants. Pretty cheap to do, actually. Most the products are available through places like Grangers.

An old

friend and fellow techie was trying to work out a cleanable system using diatamacious earth a few years ago but was

having trouble with grit pass through on the filter panels. He was talking about using the paper filter panels like

resturants use for cooking oil filtering but I don't know how it went.

InternationalPlayboy
03-01-2006, 08:23 AM
MtnJim got my

curiosity up about San Diego's treatment plant and I tried to find some quich information at work this morning. No

success there, but I did find a couple of recent news articles about desalizination proposals in San Diego County.

One of them in fact, is to used an old nuclear power plant.





San Onofre

desalination plant study authorized (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051028/news_7m28desal.html)
Water Authority to

study nuke plant for desal concepts (http://www.calcoast.org/news/water0051101.html)
Desal plant hearing

delayed (http://www.calcoast.org/news/water0060128.html)

I guess I shouldn't have been shocked at a nuclear plant at Point Loma as the navy

has a nuclear sub base there. In fact, one of the articles I found said that they want to set up a waste dump in

that area!

Mtnjim
03-01-2006, 10:45 AM
I found this in a Google

search. Seems there is a plant north of San Diego in Encinetas that is slated to be completed in 2007, I didn't

know about that one. I forgot about the one at Scripps.
:cheers:

[PDF]

Clathrate Desalination

Plant (http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/water/media/pdfs/report005.pdf)File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -

View as HTML (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:ba9mOH6erzgJ:www.usbr.gov/pmts/water/media/pdfs/report005.pdf+1960%27s+des

alination+plant+in+San+Diego&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2)
coast of San Diego and one at

Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, ... in the 1960 and 1970 decades. It comes from

matching desalination ...
www.usbr.gov/pmts/water/media/pdfs/report005.pdf -

belgareth
03-01-2006, 02:02 PM
Anything current on it? I read

about the energy storage idea. Another guy in Southern Cal was trying to do the same thing under dry ground. In the

latter case the heat pumps required ended up eating the majority of the gains from low temperature energy storage.

Again, that was a long time ago and I haven't looked at it recently.

Mtnjim
03-01-2006, 02:24 PM
The PDF (posted above) mentions the

2007 project, I didn't read the whole thing. The ones from the '60's are long gone. At the time the Colorado

River water was cheaper, and plentiful.

belgareth
03-01-2006, 02:28 PM
Yeah, I saw that but was hoping

for something fresher. That one is 11 years old. A lot has happened since then.

Mtnjim
03-01-2006, 03:07 PM
True, unfortunately, I hadn't

given the issue much attention until this thread. At the moment, I don't have time for much research on the issue.

:trout:

belgareth
03-01-2006, 04:28 PM
I did a brief search and the

most recent I could find on the subject was a general article from 2003. There were a number of inter-related topics

I thought I wanted to explore.

DrSmellThis
03-06-2006, 04:35 PM
Published on Monday, March 6, 2006 by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/)



Global Warming

Evidence Grows - UN Expert

by Alister Doyle
OSLO - Evidence that humans are to blame for global warming is rising but governments are doing

too little to counter the threat, the head of the United Nations climate panel said on Monday.
Rajendra Pachauri,

chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), also said that costs of braking climate change in

coming decades might be less than forecast in the IPCC's last report in 2001.
"If one looks at just the

scientific evidence that's been collected it's certainly becoming far more compelling. There is no question about

it," he told Reuters of research since 2001 into a link between human emissions of greenhouse gases and rising

temperatures.
Pachauri was more forthright than at the last U.N. climate meeting in Montreal, Canada, in December,

when he declined to say whether there was clearer scientific evidence that human activities were to blame.
The

last IPCC report in 2001 said there was "new and stronger evidence" that gases released by burning fossil fuels in

power plants, factories and cars were warming the planet.
Warming may herald catastrophic climate changes such as

more heatwaves, droughts, floods and rising sea levels.
The IPCC, grouping research by about 2,000 scientists,

will present its next report to the United Nations in 2007. The report is the mainstay for environmental

policy-making.
Still, Pachauri said it was too early to draw exact conclusions.
A BBC report last week said the

IPCC would say in 2007 that "only" greenhouse gas emissions can explain freak weather patterns. "That's premature

because the report is still nowhere near completion," he said.
MORE ACTION
Pachauri said the world needed to do

more.
"Given the gravity of the situation and the importance of taking action I hope that the global community

will move a little more rapidly with some future agreements," he said.
The U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, which obliges

industrial nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, entered into force last year after years of wrangling and

weakened by a U.S. pullout.
Pachauri said people living in island states such as the Maldives in the Indian Ocean,

Tuvalu in the Pacific or low-lying countries such as Bangladesh were among those most at risk.
"They are living in

a state of fear," he said. "We must understand the reasons behind their fears. We're really talking about their

very existence, the complete devastation of the land on which they're living."
And cities from New York to

Shanghai, from Buenos Aires to London, could also be swamped by rising seas.
The IPCC report says that costs of

curbing greenhouse gases in the toughest case could delay world growth from reaching projected 2050 levels until

2051 or 2052.
"That's not a heavy price to pay," he said in a speech at Oslo university. "Personally I think

these (IPCC) projections are pessimistic."
He said more U.S. companies, cities and states were acting to cap

greenhouse gas emissions even though President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of Kyoto in 2001, saying

it was too costly and wrongly excluded developing nations.
"I think (U.S. action) is going to gather momentum," he

said. He noted that even Bush had said in January that the United States was "addicted to oil".

© Copyright

2006 Reuters Ltd

DrSmellThis
03-09-2006, 05:17 PM
Polar ice sheets show net loss


By Paul Rincon
BBC News science reporter




There is a net loss of ice to the ocean from the Greenland and Antarctic ice

sheets, a study has found.

In one of the most

comprehensive studies of its type, satellite data was used to plot changes in the height of the ice sheets between

1992 and 2002.
Writing in the Journal of Glaciology, a US team says that 20 billion

tonnes of water are added to oceans each year.
Mass

changes in the ice sheets match predictions from computer models of global climate change, they say.


Dr H Jay Zwally, of the US space agency (Nasa)

Goddard Flight Center in Maryland, and colleagues analysed radar altimeter data from two European remote-sensing

satellites, ERS-1 and ERS-2, as well as Nasa's plane-based Airborne Topographic Mapper instrument.



This

seems to suggest that East Antarctica might not save our bacon after all


Liz

Morris, Scott Polar Research Institute


The survey

documents extensive thinning of the West Antarctic ice shelves, but a thickening in the East of the continent,

though not by as much as some other studies have shown. It shows the interior of

Greenland is gaining mass due to increased snowfall, but the edges are getting thinner.


Competing forces


This mass gain is something which computer models of climate have predicted.


Warmer air is able to carry more water; so as the atmosphere heats up, Greenland and Antarctica should

experience greater snowfall.

But

rising temperatures could have the opposite effect at the edges of both landmasses, causing rates of melting to

increase. A recent study led by Eric Rignot of Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

showed the amount of ice dumped into the Atlantic Ocean by Greenland's glaciers has doubled in the last five years.


"A race is going on in Greenland between these competing forces of snow build-up in the interior and ice loss on

the edges," explained Dr Zwally.
"But we don't know how long they will be approximately in balance with each

other, or if that balance has already tipped in favour of the recently accelerating outflow from glaciers."


The Rignot study included data up to 2005, whereas Jay Zwally's analysis ran only until

2002.
In the Antarctic, the new findings confirm the trend of other recent studies

- that the West is losing mass to the oceans whereas the ice sheet in the East is either getting thicker or

remaining stable.
"This seems to suggest that East Antarctica might not save our bacon after all," commented Dr

Liz Morris of the Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge, UK.

"We knew that West Antarctica was losing ice rapidly,"

she told the BBC News website. "The surprise is that the East Antarctic isn't showing more of a gain. "Maybe the

story there is that the moisture is never being carried on to the continent. You have got to get that packet of

warmer air to the ice sheet in the first place."
If ice is on balance being lost to the oceans, it could be

contributing to global sea-level rise; and according to Jay Zwally's research, it is, but by less than expected.


"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to sea-level rise during the decade studied was much

smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year," he said.


"Current estimates of the other major sources of sea-level rise - expansion of the ocean by warming temperatures and

runoff from low-latitude glaciers - do not make up the difference, so we have a mystery on our hands as to where the

water is coming from."

Story from BBC

NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi

/science/nature/4790238.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4790238.stm)

DrSmellThis
03-09-2006, 05:19 PM
CO2 'highest for 650,000

years'




By Richard Black


Environment Correspondent, BBC News website


Current

levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the

past 650,000 years.
That is the conclusion of new

European studies looking at ice taken from 3km below the surface of Antarctica.


The scientists say their research shows present day warming to be exceptional.


Other research, also published in the journal Science, suggests that sea levels may be rising

twice as fast now as in previous centuries.


Treasure dome


The evidence on atmospheric concentrations comes from an Antarctic region called Dome Concordia (Dome C).





Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in

Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in

time. Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the mixture of gases present in the

atmosphere at that time, and of temperature.
"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of

carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of

Bern, Switzerland.
"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any

time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last

650,000 years."
Stable relationship


Last year, the Epica team released its first data. The latest two

papers analyse gas composition and temperature dating back 650,000 years.
This

extends the picture drawn by another Antarctic ice core taken near Lake Vostok which looked 440,000 years into the

past.
The extra data is crucial because around 420,000 years there appears to have

been a significant shift in the Earth's long-term climate patterns.
Before and after this date, the planet went

through 100,000 year cycles of alternating cold glacial and warm interglacial periods.



But around the 420,000 year mark, the precise pattern changed, with the

contrast between warm and cold conditions becoming much more marked. The Dome C core

gives data from six cycles of glaciation and warming; two from before this change, four from after.


"We found a very tight relationship between CO2 and temperature even

before 420,000 years," said Professor Stocker.
"The fact that the relationship

holds across the transition between climatic regimes is a very strong indication of the important role of CO2 in

climate regulation."
Epica scientists will now try to extend their analysis further

back in time.
Water

rise
Another study reported in the same journal

claims that for the last 150 years, sea levels have been rising twice as fast as in previous centuries.
Using

data from tidal gauges and reviewing findings from many previous studies, US researchers have constructed a new sea

level record covering the last 100 million years.
They calculate the present rate

of rise at 2mm per year.
"The main thing that's changed since the 19th Century and

the beginning of modern observation has been the widespread increase in fossil fuel use and more greenhouse gases,"

said Kenneth Miller from Rutgers University.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body which

collates scientific evidence for policymakers, concludes that sea level rose by 1-2mm per year over the last

century, and will rise by a total of anything up to 88cm during the course of this century.

Story

from BBC

NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/t

ech/4467420.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm)

DrSmellThis
03-12-2006, 05:13 PM
Pollution soaring to crisis levels in

Arctic
Scientists plead for action to save poles

from 'tipping point' disaster
Robin McKie, science

editor
Sunday March 12,

2006
Observer
Researchers have uncovered compelling evidence that indicates Earth's most vulnerable regions - the

North and South Poles - are poised on the brink of a climatic

disaster.The scientists, at an atmospheric monitoring station in

the Norwegian territory of Svalbard, have found that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere near the North Pole

are now rising at an unprecedented pace.
In 1990 this key cause

of global warming was rising at a rate of 1 part per million (ppm). Recently, that rate reached 2 ppm per year. Now,

scientists at the Mount Zeppelin monitoring station have discovered it is rising at between 2.5 and 3

ppm.
'The fact that our data now show acceleration in the rise

of carbon dioxide level is really a source for concern,' said Professor Johan Strom, of Stockholm University's

department of applied environmental science, which runs the Mount Zeppelin station. 'The increase is also seen at

other stations, but our Zeppelin data show the strongest

increase.'
The news of the latest carbon dioxide figures comes

as scientists prepare to announce details of the forthcoming International Polar Year programme, which will involve

teams of scientists from around the world making a concerted attempt to understand the impact of global warming in

the world's high latitudes. In particular, they will concentrate on the social impact of climate change there and

also the threats to the regions' wildlife, such as polar bears and

walruses.
In the last two decades, carbon dioxide levels in the

atmosphere have risen from 350 to 380 ppm and scientists warn that once levels reach 500, there could be

irreversible consequences that would tip the planet toward disaster: glacier melts triggering devastating sea-level

rises and spreading deserts across Africa and Asia.
Scientists

and campaigners are desperate for politicians to reach agreements that will prevent the 500 ppm 'tipping point'

being breached in the next half-century. These new data suggest they may have a far shorter period of time in which

to act.
'Fortunately, this rate of rise of carbon dioxide is

not yet seen round the world,' added Strom. 'However, it may be that we have been the first to detect it, and that

we are seeing some kind of special effect that could have widespread consequences in a few

years.'
One theory proposed by Strom is that heating of the

oceans could be leading to the release of carbon dioxide. Other scientists suggest that as the world warms, the

Arctic tundra - previously gripped by permafrost - may be giving off carbon dioxide as it melts, releasing gas from

vegetation trapped within it that has now started to rot. Thus levels of the gas would increase with particular

rapidity near the North Pole.
The latest data from Mount

Zeppelin comes in the wake of a series of other alarming reports about the effects of global warming in the Arctic

and Antarctic. It was recently discovered that ice sheets are now covering less of the Arctic Ocean than ever

before; that Greenland is shedding sheets of ice far faster than previously realised; that the West Antarctic ice

cap is dwindling at an unexpectedly high rate; and that the Gulf Stream is showing worrying signs of being disrupted

by Arctic meltwaters.
The last effect is particularly worrying,

because the waters of the Gulf Stream play a key role in keeping Britain and Europe from freezing in winter. Should

it disappear, the consequences for the country would be

profound.
'The crucial point is that you can't look at the

Arctic and Antarctic in isolation,' said Professor Chris Rapley, head of the British Antarctic Survey. 'What

happens there has profound consequences for the rest of the

planet.'
It was thought until recently that it would take up

to 1,000 years for heat to penetrate the Greenland ice shield and melt it. But the latest data show that large parts

of it are actually sliding in lumps into the sea. 'That means it is likely to take far less time to raise sea

levels,' added Rapley. 'And if Greenland's ice melts, we will be in trouble. There will be a seven-metre rise in

the oceans. The Thames Barrier would be swamped.'


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

Netghost56
03-13-2006, 08:33 PM
Winter Warmest

Ever on Record in Canada

TORONTO - The winter of 2005-2006 has been Canada's warmest on

record and the federal agency Environment Canada said Monday it was investigating whether it's a sign of global

warming.
[URL="http://s0b.bluestreak.com/ix.e?ir&s=1324828"]http://s0b.bluestreak.com/ix.e?ir&s=1324828[/URL

]

Between December and February, the country was 3.9 degrees above normal — the

warmest winter season since temperatures were first recorded in 1948. Environment Canada climatologist Bob Whitewood

said it smashed the previous record set in 1987 by 0.9 degrees.

"We saw it coming from

mid-January on that we were seeing something quite remarkable," Whitewood said.
The experience has

been similar south of the border where the U.S. National Climatic Data Center said the winter has been the fifth

warmest on record. December through February are considered meteorological winter.

It was

especially balmy in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories, where temperatures were 6 to 8 degrees

above normal.
Whitewood said the last 10 winters have been warmer than normal and along with this

winter reflect a trend that could be explained as global warming. He said Environment Canada would spend the next

year examining the data to see if it's an aberration or evidence of a trend.

While some

Canadians have been delighted by the milder winter, many are disappointed about thinner ice for ice skating and

hockey and less snow in the ski resorts. Several islands off Nova Scota were inundated by thousands of pregnant

seals forced to give birth on shore by unusually mild weather that has prevented the Gulf of St. Lawrence from

freezing.

oscar
03-20-2006, 08:23 AM
There was a piece on "60 Minutes"

last night (3/19/2006) that went into the issue of U.S. Government censoring of "scientific information", in this

case global warming specifically.

I didn't catch the entire piece, but here's the

text:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2

006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml)

There's also a 3 minute condensed version of the video on that page

of "Rewriting the Science".

It's nice to know that we're spending a lot of money for government sponsored

scientific studies which are subsequently edited prior to their publication by lawyer/politicians who are in the

pocket of the oil industry .

Anyone surprised?

Oscar ;)

Mtnjim
03-20-2006, 10:40 AM
Anyone surprised?



Oscar ;)

Nope!

I saw that also. Just what we need, "political science", and I don't mean the study

of politics. 1984, Just a little late.

belgareth
03-20-2006, 10:59 AM
Beyond a doubt there has been a

number of cases of this. However, it is not only done in this country, its being done all over and by all parties.

Rakesh
03-21-2006, 12:15 AM
I wouldn't call it *global*

warming. As a popular local songmaker put it in a recent song about this winter, "It's been four months and it's

still december". Central europe is having one of the toughest and longest winters I can remember.

2mm per year

is good. End of last ice age, it is 150 meters within hours:D

belgareth
03-23-2006, 06:08 AM
IBM think-tank calls on businesses to save the world while making money Thu Mar 23, 2006




SAN

FRANCISCO (AFP) - While Hollywood celebrities and Silicon Valley executives have the cash to pay for trendy

earth-friendly lifestyles, ordinary people don't, a US think-tank warned.
The onus was on businesses worldwide to

lead a "green" revolution by sharing technology and costs before authoritarian governments slapped them and citizens

with life-altering regulations, according to panel members.
"Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't think the green

consumer will be the answer," Patrick Atkins, director of energy innovation at Alcoa aluminum company, said during a

Global Innovation Outlook forum led by IBM Corporation.
"People need to reach a tipping point at which it clearly

effects their lives, and then they will address the problem and galvanize the innovation of the world."
Executives

from major firms such as Halliburton and Intuit packed an auditorium in the San Francisco Museum of Art, where

academics and technology veterans brainstormed solutions to pollution and transportation woes.
"Business has a key

role to play," said Bjorn Stigson, president of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
"Here we

are. It is up to us to create a sustainable path in the world. If we don't, I don't like where we are

going."
When Stigson asked how many people in the room believed in the "green consumer," a person willing to pay

more for eco-sensitive products such as electric cars or organic produce, only one hand was raised.
"You can't

tell poor, struggling people to just pay more," Hugh Aldridge of the Cambridge-MIT Institute warned. "If you price

things out of reach for people you don't have stability, you have rebellion."
If business doesn't step in to fix

the quality-of-life ills in major urban areas, heavy-handed governments will, predicted Aldridge.
Technology being

"seriously discussed" in England would remotely redirect cars and stop them to lessen traffic congestion, Aldridge

said.
"Governments are thinking in authoritarian ways to deal with these problems because they don't think market

forces will do it," Aldridge said. "That, to me, is a huge danger and we need to come up with innovation to stop

it."
It would be misguided to expect business alone to solve environmental problems, but shifting costs to the

wallets of consumers was a doomed strategy and waiting for government regulation foolish, pundits said.
IBM will

create a databank of "eco-patents" that will be free to legitimate users of the technology, said Nicholas Donofrio,

vice president of Innovation and Technology at the company.
'The oil clock is ticking," panelist Lee Schipper of

the World Resources Institute said, gesturing as if holding up a watch. "The greenhouse clock is ticking. And, we

can't even clarify the problems."
People should not expect technology to be a panacea, Lee said.
"There is always

a fool smart enough to violate a foolproof system," he quipped.

PHP 87
04-07-2006, 06:28 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

Friday, February 13, 1998 Published at 19:25

GMT

Scientists blame sun for global warming

The Sun is more active than it has ever been in the last

300 years.

Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release

of greenhouse gases on Earth.

Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the

Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could

soon follow.

The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it

might seem.

Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output

increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle.

And individual cycles can be

more or less active.

The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.

That, say scientists in

Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are

most often blamed.

The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over

the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

Using

ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar

activity.

They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they spend significant periods without

sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells should be feared more than global warming.

The scientists do not

pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be

abandoned. But they do feel that understanding of our nearest star must be increased if the climate is to be

understood.

belgareth
04-08-2006, 05:35 PM
Thanks for bringing that up

PHP. It's an important article but has been completely overlooked by the global warming hysterics.

PHP 87
04-08-2006, 08:40 PM
30 years ago, we were being warned

about the impending Ice Age that was on it's way.

These guys can't predict the weather a week in advance,

let alone Global Warming or Cooling.

belgareth
04-08-2006, 09:33 PM
So I've said myself.

Netghost56
04-12-2006, 12:47 PM
More Frogs Dying as Planet

Warms
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld

/060112_frog_warming.html (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060112_frog_warming.html)

Global Warming Likely Cause of Worst Mass Extinction

Ever
http://www.livescience.com/environment/0

50120_great_dying.html (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050120_great_dying.html)

Biohazard
04-12-2006, 09:00 PM
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220


"To

understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp

some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press

and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature

has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30%

over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public

fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the

small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually

demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are

trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't

happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the

models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you

have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model

runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a

casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer

world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is

that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and

calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity,

not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming."

belgareth
04-13-2006, 12:04 AM
Oh, my! Do you mean to tell me

the IPCC and its adherents aren't the knights in shiny white armor that we've been lead to believe they are? They

couldn't possibly be lying to us, could they? Nah! And they'd never resort to intimidation and other such

terrorist tactics to suppress dissent. Couldn't possibly be happening. Nope, their purpose is far to noble for

that. No, what does professor Landzen know about the environment? He's only a proffessor of atmosheric sciences at

one of the most respected science colleges in the world. I'm sure he knows little about the science or scientific

methods.

Thanks Biohazard

Oh, mustn't forget that there are others who also see through the pack of lies

surrounding global warming, as you can see from the respones to this article.



http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra

/responses.html?article_id=110008220 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/responses.html?article_id=110008220)

a.k.a.
04-21-2006, 03:29 PM
Published on Thursday, April 20,

2006 by Vanity Fair
While Washington Slept
The Queen of England is afraid. International C.E.O.'s are

nervous. And the scientific establishment is loud and clear. If global warming isn't halted, rising sea levels

could submerge coastal cities by 2100. So how did this virtual certainty get labeled a "liberal hoax"?
by Mark

Hertsgaard


Ten months before Hurricane Katrina left much of New Orleans underwater, Queen Elizabeth II

had a private conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair about George W. Bush. The Queen's tradition of meeting

once a week with Britain's elected head of government to discuss matters of state—usually on Tuesday evenings in

Buckingham Palace and always alone, to ensure maximum confidentiality—goes back to 1952, the year she ascended the

throne. In all that time, the contents of those chats rarely if ever leaked.

So it was extraordinary when

London's Observer reported, on October 31, 2004, that the Queen had "made a rare intervention in world politics" by

telling Blair of "her grave concerns over the White House's stance on global warming." The Observer did not name

its sources, but one of them subsequently spoke to Vanity Fair.

"The Queen first of all made it clear that

Buckingham Palace would be happy to help raise awareness about the climate problem," says the source, a high-level

environmental expert who was briefed about the conversation. "[She was] definitely concerned about the American

position and hoped the prime minister could help change [it]."

Press aides for both the Queen and the prime

minister declined to comment on the meeting, as is their habit. But days after the Observer story appeared, the

Queen indeed raised awareness by presiding over the opening of a British-German conference on climate change, in

Berlin. "I might just point out, that's a pretty unusual thing for her to do," says Sir David King, Britain's

chief scientific adviser. "She doesn't take part in anything that would be overtly political." King, who has

briefed the Queen on climate change, would not comment on the Observer report except to say, "If it were true, it

wouldn't surprise me."

With spring arriving in England three weeks earlier than it did 50 years ago, the

Queen could now see signs of climate change with her own eyes. Sandringham, her country estate north of London,

overlooks Britain's premier bird-watching spot: the vast North Sea wetlands known as the Wash. A lifelong

outdoorswoman, the Queen had doubtless observed the V-shaped flocks of pink-footed geese that descend on the Wash

every winter. But in recent years, says Mark Avery, conservation director of the Royal Society for the Protection of

Birds, she also would have seen a species new to the area: little egrets. These shiny white birds are native to

Southern Europe, Avery says, "but in the last 5 to 10 years they have spread very rapidly to Northern Europe. We

can't prove this is because of rising temperatures, but it sure looks like it."

Temperatures are rising, the

Queen learned from King and other scientists, because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the atmosphere. Carbon

dioxide, the most prevalent of such gases, is released whenever fossil fuels are burned or forests catch fire.

Global warming, the scientists explained, threatens to raise sea levels as much as three feet by the end of the 21st

century, thanks to melting glaciers and swollen oceans. (Water expands when heated.)

This would leave much of

eastern England, including areas near Sandringham, underwater. Global warming would also bring more heat waves like

the one in the summer of 2003 that killed 31,000 people across Europe. It might even shut down the Gulf Stream, the

flow of warm water from the Gulf of Mexico that gives Europe its mild climate. If the Gulf Stream were to halt—and

it has already slowed 30 percent since 1992—Europe's temperatures would plunge, agriculture would collapse, London

would no longer feel like New York but like Anchorage.

The Queen, says King, "got it" on climate change, and

she wasn't alone. "Everyone in this country, from the political parties to the scientific establishment, to the

Archbishop of Canterbury, to our oil companies and the larger business community, has come to a popular consensus

about climate change—a sense of alarm and a conviction that action is needed now, not in the future," says Tony

Juniper, executive director of the British arm of the environmental group Friends of the Earth.

At the time

of his meeting with the Queen, Blair was being attacked on climate change from all ideological sides, with even the

Conservatives charging that he was not doing enough. Yet Blair's statements on the issue went far beyond those of

most world leaders. He had called the Kyoto Protocol, which has been ratified by 162 countries and requires

industrial nations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions 5 percent below 1990 levels, "not radical enough." The

world's climate scientists, Blair pointed out, had estimated that 60 percent cuts in emissions were needed, and he

committed Britain to reaching that goal by 2050.

But it wouldn't matter how much Britain cut its

greenhouse-gas emissions if other nations didn't do the same. The U.S. was key, not only because it was the

world's largest emitter but because its refusal to reduce emissions led China, India, Brazil, and other large

developing countries to ask why they should do so. All this Blair had also said publicly. In 2001 he criticized the

Bush administration for withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol. In 2004 he said it was essential to bring the U.S. into

the global effort against climate change, despite its opposition to Kyoto.

It was no secret that Bush opposed

mandatory emissions limits, but Blair, who had risked his political future to back the deeply unpopular war in Iraq,

was uniquely positioned to lobby the president. Bush owed him one. At the same time, Blair needed to show his

domestic audience that he could stand up to Bush, that he wasn't the presidential "poodle" his critics

claimed.

To compel Bush to engage the issue, Blair made climate change a lead agenda item at the July 2005

meeting of the Group of 8, the alliance of the world's eight richest nations. A month before the meeting, which was

held at Gleneagles, in Scotland, Blair flew to Washington to see Bush face-to-face. That same day, the national

academies of science of all the G-8 nations, as well as those of China, India, and Brazil, released a joint

statement declaring that climate change was a grave problem that required immediate action.

On the morning of

July 7, the summit was interrupted by the shocking news that four suicide bombers had set off explosions in London,

killing 56 people. Blair rushed to the scene, but he returned that night, still determined to secure an

agreement.

In the end, however, Bush held firm. Washington vetoed all references to mandatory emissions cuts

or timelines, and the climate-change issue was overshadowed by African debt relief, which had been publicized by Bob

Geldof's Live 8 concerts.

"There were no tough targets at Gleneagles because we would not have got all

signatures on the document," says King, who adds, "We might well have" gotten seven—that is, every nation but the

U.S. The farthest the G-8 leaders went—and even this required a battle, says King—was to include a sentence that

read, in part, "While uncertainties remain in our understanding of climate science, we know enough to act

now."

But seven weeks later, nature acted first, and it was the United States she hit.

No one can say

for sure whether global warming caused Hurricane Katrina, which slammed into the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005. But

it certainly fit the pattern. The scientific rule of thumb is that one can never blame any one weather event on any

single cause. The earth's weather system is too complex for that. Most scientists agree, however, that global

warming makes extra-strong hurricanes such as Katrina more likely because it encourages hot oceans, a precondition

of hurricane formation.

"It's a bit like saying, 'My grandmother died of lung cancer, and she smoked for

the last 20 years of her life—smoking killed her,'" explains Kerry Emanuel, a professor at the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology who has studied hurricanes for 20 years. "Well, the problem is, there are an awful lot of

people who die of lung cancer who never smoked. There are a lot of people who smoked all their lives and die of

something else. So all you can say, even [though] the evidence statistically is clear connecting lung cancer to

smoking, is that [the grandmother] upped her probability."

Just weeks before Katrina struck, Emanuel

published a paper in the scientific journal Nature demonstrating that hurricanes had grown more powerful as global

temperatures rose in the 20th century. Now, he says, by adding more greenhouse gases to the earth's atmosphere,

humans are "loading the climatic dice in favor of more powerful hurricanes in the future."

But most Americans

heard nothing about Hurricane Katrina's association with global warming. Media coverage instead reflected the views

of the Bush administration—specifically, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which declared that

the hurricane was the result of natural factors. An outcry from N.O.A.A.'s scientists led the agency to backtrack

from that statement in February 2006, but by then conventional wisdom was set in place. Post-Katrina New Orleans may

eventually be remembered as the first major U.S. casualty of global warming, yet most Americans still don't know

what hit us.

Sad to say, Katrina was the perfect preview of what global warming might look like in the 21st

century. First, Katrina struck a city that was already below sea level—which is where rising waters could put many

coastal dwellers in the years ahead. In 2001, the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(I.P.C.C.), a peer-reviewed, international collaboration among thousands of scientists that is the world's leading

authority on climate change, predicted that sea levels could rise as much as three feet by 2100. By coincidence,

three feet is about how much New Orleans sank during the 20th century. That was because levees built to keep the

Mississippi River from flooding also kept the river from depositing silt that would have replenished the underlying

land mass, explains Mike Tidwell, the author of Bayou Farewell: The Rich Life and Tragic Death of Louisiana's Cajun

Coast. "You could say that in New Orleans we brought the ocean to the people," Tidwell adds, "which is pretty much

what global warming will do to other cities in the future."

What's more, Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane,

the strongest there is. Such extreme weather events will likely become more frequent as global warming intensifies,

says the I.P.C.C. Yes, Katrina's winds had slowed to high–Category 3 levels by the time it made landfall, but it

was the hurricane's storm surge that killed people—a surge that formed in the Gulf of Mexico when the storm was

still Category 5. Thus, Katrina unleashed 10 to 15 feet of water on a city that was already significantly below sea

level.

To envision global warming's future impacts, the illustrations accompanying this article reflect this

and other scenarios. [For illustrations, see the May 2006 issue of Vanity Fair. The three large-scale illustrations

are an artist's interpretations of projections generated for Vanity Fair by Applied Science Associates Inc.

(appsci.com), a marine-science consulting firm based in Rhode Island. The projections do not account for small-scale

features such as coastal-protection structures.

The effects of a three-foot sea-level rise compounded by a

storm surge from a Category 3 hurricane are shown in the image of the Hamptons, which would suffer severe flooding.

The image of Washington, D.C., shows the effects of a 20-foot sea-level rise, which is what scientists expect if the

entire Greenland ice sheet melts. The ice sheet has shrunk 50 cubic miles in the past year alone, and is now melting

twice as fast as previously believed.

Finally, the image of New York City shows the effects of an 80-foot

rise in sea levels. That's what would happen if not only the Greenland ice sheet but its counterpart in the

Antarctic were to melt, says James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Hansen, who

put climate change on the media map in 1988 by saying that man-made global warming had already begun, made headlines

again earlier this year when he complained that White House political appointees were trying to block him from

speaking freely about the need for rapid reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. Hansen warns that, if global

emissions continue on their current trajectory, the ice sheets will not survive, because global temperatures will

increase by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. "The last time the earth was that warm, sea levels

were 80 feet higher than today," he says. It will likely take hundreds of years for sea levels to rise the full 80

feet, but the process would be irreversible, and the rises would not be gradual. "You're going to be continually

faced with a changing coastline, which will force coastal dwellers to constantly relocate," he says.

This

article's smaller, aerial-view illustrations are based on simulations by the National Environmental Trust, a

nonprofit group in Washington, D.C. N.E.T. relied on data from the I.P.C.C., the U.S. Geological Survey, and the

N.O.A.A. Additional N.E.T. simulations are available at net.org. Philip Clapp, N.E.T.'s president, says, "The U.S.

government has never released its own simulations. The Bush administration doesn't want these pictures in front of

the American people because they show that a three-foot sea-level rise plus storm flooding would have catastrophic

consequences."

In New York, it would leave much of Lower Manhattan, including the Ground Zero memorial and

the entire financial district, underwater. La Guardia and John F. Kennedy airports would meet the same fate. In

Washington, D.C., the Potomac River would swell dramatically, stretching all the way to the Capitol lawn and to

within two blocks of the White House.

Since roughly half the world's 6.5 billion people live near

coastlines, a three-foot sea-level rise would be even more punishing overseas. Amsterdam, Venice, Cairo, Shanghai,

Manila, and Calcutta are some of the cities most threatened. In many places the people and governments are too poor

to erect adequate barriers—think of low-lying Bangladesh, where an estimated 18 million people are at risk—so

experts fear that they will migrate to neighboring lands, raising the prospect of armed conflict. A

Pentagon-commissioned study warned in 2003 that climate change could bring mega-droughts, mass starvation, and even

nuclear war as countries such as China, India, and Pakistan battle over scarce food and water.

These are just

some of the reasons why David King wrote in Science in 2004, "Climate change is the most severe problem that we are

facing today—more serious even than the threat of terrorism." King's comment raised hackles in Washington and led a

top press aide to Tony Blair to try to muzzle him. But the science adviser tells me he "absolutely" stands by his

statement. By no means does King underestimate terrorism; advising the British government on that threat, he says,

"is a very important part of my job." But the hazards presented by climate change are so severe and far-reaching

that, in his view, they overshadow not only every other environmental threat but every other threat,

period.

"Take India," King says. "Their monsoon is a fact of life that they have developed their agricultural

economy around. If the monsoon is down by 10 percent one year, they have massive losses of crops. If it's 10

percent over, they have massive flood problems. [If climate change ends up] switching off the monsoon in India, or

even changing it outside those limits, it would lead to massive global economic de-stabilization. The kind of

situation we need to avoid creating is one where populations are so de-stabilized—Bangladesh being flooded, India no

food—that they're all seeking alternative habitats. These, in our globalized economy, would be very difficult for

all of us to manage."

The worst scenarios of global warming might still be avoided, scientists say, if

humanity reduces its greenhouse-gas emissions dramatically, and very soon. The I.P.C.C. has estimated that emissions

must fall to 60 percent below 1990 levels before 2050, over a period when global population is expected to increase

by 37 percent and per-capita energy consumption will surely rise as billions of people in Asia, Africa, and South

America strive to ascend from poverty.

Yet even if such a reduction were achieved, a significant rise in sea

levels may be unavoidable. "It's getting harder and harder to say we'll avoid a three-foot sea-level rise, though

it won't necessarily happen in this century," says Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and

international affairs at Princeton. Oppenheimer's pessimism is rooted in the lag effects of the climate system:

oceans store heat for a century or longer before releasing it; carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for decades

or longer before dissipating.

According to King, even if humanity were to stop emitting carbon dioxide today,

"temperatures will keep rising and all the impacts will keep changing for about 25 years."

The upshot is that

it has become too late to prevent climate change; we can only adapt to it. This unhappy fact is not well understood

by the general public; advocates downplay it, perhaps for fear of fostering a paralyzing despair. But there is no

getting around it: because humanity waited so long to take decisive action, we are now stuck with a certain amount

of global warming and the climate changes it will bring—rising seas, fiercer heat, deeper droughts, stronger storms.

The World Health Organization estimates that climate change is already helping to kill 150,000 people a year, mainly

in Africa and Asia. That number is bound to rise as global warming intensifies in the years ahead.

The

inevitability of global warming does not mean we should not act, King emphasizes: "The first message to our

political leaders is, action is required. Whether or not we get global agreement to reduce emissions, we all need to

adapt to the impacts that are in the pipeline." That means doing all the things that were not done in New Orleans:

building sound levees and seawalls, restoring coastal wetlands (which act like speed bumps to weaken hurricanes'

storm surges), strengthening emergency-preparedness networks and health-care systems, and much more.

Beyond

this crucial first step—which most governments worldwide have yet to consider—humanity can cushion the severity of

future global warming by limiting greenhouse-gas emissions. Hansen says we must stabilize emissions—which currently

are rising 2 percent a year—by 2015, and then reduce them. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, a book based on a

scientific conference convened by Tony Blair before the G-8 summit, estimates that we may have until 2025 to peak

and reduce.

The goal is to stop global warming before it crosses tipping points and attains unstoppable

momentum from "positive feedbacks." For example, should the Greenland ice sheet melt, white ice—which reflects

sunlight back into space—would be replaced by dark water, which absorbs sunlight and drives further

warming.

Positive feedbacks can trigger the kind of abrupt, irreversible climate changes that scientists call

"nonlinear." Once again, Hurricane Katrina provides a sobering preview of what that means. "Hurricanes are the

mother of all nonlinear events, because small changes in initial conditions can lead to enormous changes in

outcomes," says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the

former chief environmental adviser to the German government. "A few percent increase in a hurricane's wind speed

can double its destructiveness under certain circumstances."

Although scientists apply the neutral term

"climate change" to all of these phenomena, "climate chaos" better conveys the abrupt, interconnected, wide-ranging

consequences that lie in store. "It's a very appropriate term for the layperson," says Schellnhuber, a physicist

who specializes in chaos theory. "I keep telling politicians that I'm not so concerned about a gradual climate

change that may force farmers in Great Britain to plant different crops. I'm worried about triggering positive

feedbacks that, in the worst case, could kick off some type of runaway greenhouse dynamics."

Among the

reasons climate change is a bigger problem than terrorism, David King tells me, is that the problem is rooted in

humanity's burning of oil, coal, and natural gas, "and people don't want to let that go." Which is understandable.

These carbon-based fuels have powered civilization since the dawn of the industrial era, delivering enormous wealth,

convenience, and well-being even as they overheated the atmosphere. Luckily, the idea that reducing greenhouse-gas

emissions will wreck our economy, as President Bush said in 2005 when defending his opposition to the Kyoto

Protocol, is disproved by experience. "In Britain," King told the environmental Web site Grist, "our economy since

1990 has grown by about 40 percent, and our emissions have decreased by 14 percent."

Ultimately, society must

shift onto a new energy foundation based on alternative fuels, not only because of global warming but also because

oil "will get harder and costlier to find" in the years ahead, says Ronald Oxburgh, the former chairman of the

British arm of Royal Dutch Shell oil. "The group around President Bush have been saying that, even if climate change

is real, it would be terribly costly to shift away from carbon-based fuels," Oxburgh continues. "Of course it would,

if you try to make the change overnight. But that's not how you do it. If governments make the decision to shift

our society to a new energy foundation, and they make it clear to everyone this is what we're doing by laying out

clear requirements and incentives, corporations will respond and get the job done."

The opening move in this

transition is to invest massively in energy efficiency. Amory Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a

think tank that consults for corporations and governments around the world, has demonstrated that measures such as

insulating buildings and driving more fuel-efficient vehicles could reduce humanity's consumption of energy and

natural resources by a factor of four. And efficiency investments have a demonstrated record of creating jobs and

boosting profits, suggesting that emissions can be reduced without crippling economies.

One of the first

moves Angela Merkel announced as the new chancellor of Germany last fall was the extension of a Green Party

initiative to upgrade energy efficiency in the nation's pre-1978 housing stock. Most of that housing is in the

former East Germany, where unemployment approaches 20 percent. Replacing old furnaces and installing efficient

windows and lights will produce thousands of well-paying laborers' jobs that by their nature cannot be

outsourced.

Corporations, too, have discovered that energy efficiency can be profitable. Over a three-year

period beginning in 1999, BP invested $20 million to reduce the emissions from its internal operations and saved

$650 million—32 times the original investment.

Individuals can cash in as well. Although buying a

super-efficient car or refrigerator may cost more up front, over time it saves the consumer money through lower

energy bills.

Efficiency is no silver bullet, nor can it forever neutralize the effects of billions of people

consuming more and more all the time. It can, however, buy humanity time to further develop and deploy

alternative-energy technologies. Solar and wind power have made enormous strides in recent years, but the technology

to watch is carbon sequestration, a method of capturing and then safely storing the carbon dioxide produced by the

combustion of fossil fuels. In theory, sequestration would allow nations to continue burning coal—the most abundant

fuel in the world, and the foundation of the Chinese and Indian economies—without worsening the climate problem. "If

carbon capture is not feasible, our choices are much less good, and the cost of climate change is going to be much

higher," says Jeffrey D. Sachs, the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and a special adviser to

the United Nations.

No one pretends that phasing out carbon-based fuels will be easy. The momentum of the

climate system means that "a certain amount of pain is inevitable," says Michael Oppenheimer. "But we still have a

choice between pain and disaster."

Unfortunately, we are getting a late start, which is something of a

puzzle. The threat of global warming has been recognized at the highest levels of government for more than 25 years.

Former president Jimmy Carter highlighted it in 1980, and Al Gore championed it in Congress throughout the 1980s.

Margaret Thatcher, the arch-conservative prime minister of Britain from 1979 to 1990, delivered some of the

hardest-hitting speeches ever given on climate change. But progress stalled in the 1990s, even as Gore was elected

vice president and the scientific case grew definitive. It turned out there were powerful pockets of resistance to

tackling this problem, and they put up a hell of a fight.

Call him the $45 million man. That's how much

money Dr. Frederick Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, helped R. J. Reynolds Industries,

Inc., give away to fund medical research in the 1970s and 1980s. The research avoided the central health issue

facing Reynolds—"They didn't want us looking at the health effects of cigarette smoking," says Seitz, who is now

94—but it nevertheless served the tobacco industry's purposes. Throughout those years, the industry frequently ran

ads in newspapers and magazines citing its multi-million-dollar research program as proof of its commitment to

science—and arguing that the evidence on the health effects of smoking was mixed.

In the 1990s, Seitz began

arguing that the science behind global warming was likewise inconclusive and certainly didn't warrant imposing

mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions. He made his case vocally, trashing the integrity of a 1995 I.P.C.C.

report on the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal, signing a letter to the Clinton administration accusing it of

misrepresenting the science, and authoring a paper which said that global warming and ozone depletion were

exaggerated threats devised by environmentalists and unscrupulous scientists pushing a political agenda. In that

same paper, Seitz asserted that secondhand smoke posed no real health risks, an opinion he repeats in our interview.

"I just can't believe it's that bad," he says.

Al Gore and others have said, but generally without offering

evidence, that the people who deny the dangers of climate change are like the tobacco executives who denied the

dangers of smoking. The example of Frederick Seitz, described here in full for the first time, shows that the two

camps overlap in ways that are quite literal—and lucrative. Seitz earned approximately $585,000 for his consulting

work for R. J. Reynolds, according to company documents unearthed by researchers for the Greenpeace Web site

ExxonSecrets.org and confirmed by Seitz. Meanwhile, during the years he consulted for Reynolds, Seitz continued to

draw a salary as president emeritus at Rockefeller University, an institution founded in 1901 and subsidized with

profits from Standard Oil, the predecessor corporation of ExxonMobil.

Seitz was the highest-ranking scientist

among a band of doubters who, beginning in the early 1990s, resolutely disputed suggestions that climate change was

a real and present danger. As a former president of the National Academy of Sciences (from 1962 to 1969) and a

winner of the National Medal of Science, Seitz gave such objections instant credibility. Richard Lindzen, a

professor of meteorology at M.I.T., was another high-profile scientist who consistently denigrated the case for

global warming. But most of the public argument was carried by lesser scientists and, above all, by lobbyists and

paid spokesmen for the Global Climate Coalition. Created and funded by the energy and auto industries, the Coalition

spent millions of dollars spreading the message that global warming was an uncertain threat. Journalist Ross

Gelbspan exposed the corporate campaign in his 1997 book, The Heat Is On, which quoted a 1991 strategy memo: the

goal was to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."

"Not trivial" is how Seitz reckons the

influence he and fellow skeptics have had, and their critics agree. The effect on media coverage was striking,

according to Bill McKibben, who in 1989 published the first major popular book on global warming, The End of Nature.

Introducing the 10th-anniversary edition, in 1999, McKibben noted that virtually every week over the past decade

studies had appeared in scientific publications painting an ever more alarming picture of the global-warming threat.

Most news reports, on the other hand, "seem to be coming from some other planet."

The deniers' arguments

were frequently cited in Washington policy debates. Their most important legislative victory was the Senate's

95-to-0 vote in 1997 to oppose U.S. participation in any international agreement—i.e., the Kyoto Protocol—that

imposed mandatory greenhouse-gas reductions on the U.S.

The ferocity of this resistance helps explain why the

Clinton administration achieved so little on climate change, says Tim Wirth, the first under-secretary of state for

global affairs, who served as President Clinton's chief climate negotiator. "The opponents were so strongly

organized that the administration got spooked and backed off of things it should have done," says Wirth. "The Kyoto

negotiations got watered down and watered down, and after we signed it the administration didn't try to get it

ratified. They didn't even send people up to the Hill to talk to senators about ratifying it."

"I wanted to

push for ratification," responds Gore. "A decision was made not to. If our congressional people had said there was

even a remote chance of ratifying, I could have convinced Clinton to do it—his heart was in the right place.… But I

remember a meeting in the White House with some environmental groups where I asked them for the names of 10 senators

who would vote to ratify. They came up with one, Paul Wellstone. If your most optimistic supporters can't identify

10 likely gettables, then people in the administration start to ask, 'Are you a fanatic, Al? Is this a suicide

mission?'" (Clinton did not respond to e-mailed questions.)

James Hansen, without singling out any

individual, accuses global-warming deniers of "acting like lawyers, not scientists, because no matter what new

evidence comes in, their conclusion is already decided." Richard Lindzen responds that Hansen has been wrong time

and time again and operates "one of the worst climate models around." Lindzen agrees that both global temperature

and atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide have increased over the last century. But temperatures won't rise

much further, he says, because humans aren't the main driving force in the climate system. The reason most

scientists disagree with him, Lindzen explains, is simple careerism. "Once President Bush the elder began spending

$2 billion a year on climate science, scientists developed a self-interest in maintaining this is an urgent

problem," he says, adding that the scientific community's fixation on climate change will be remembered as an

episode of "mass insanity."

Among many rebuttals to the deniers' arguments, perhaps the most authoritative

collection is found on the Web site of Britain's national academy of science, the Royal Society. But such rebuttals

have little impact on true believers, says Robert May, the Society's former president. "[Nobel Prize–winning

physicist] Max Planck used to say that people don't change their minds [because of evidence]," he adds. "The

science simply moves on and those people eventually die off."

But if the deniers appear to have lost the

scientific argument, they prolonged the policy battle, delaying actions to reduce emissions when such cuts mattered

most. "For 25 years, people have been warning that we had a window of opportunity to take action, and if we waited

until the effects were obvious it would be too late to avoid major consequences," says Oppenheimer. "Had some

individual countries, especially the United States, begun to act in the early to mid-1990s, we might have made it.

But we didn't, and now the impacts are here."

"The goal of the disinformation campaign wasn't to win the

debate," says Gelbspan. "The goal was simply to keep the debate going. When the public hears the media report that

some scientists believe warming is real but others don't, its reaction is 'Come back and tell us when you're

really sure.' So no political action is taken."

Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who

chaired the 1994 hearings where tobacco executives unanimously declared under oath that cigarettes were not

addictive, watches today's global-warming deniers with a sense of déj vu. It all reminds him of the confidential

slogan a top tobacco flack coined when arguing that the science on smoking remained unsettled: "Doubt is our

product." Now, Waxman says, "not only are we seeing the same tactics the tobacco industry used, we're seeing some

of the same groups. For example, the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition was created [in 1993] to debunk the

dangers of secondhand smoking before it moved on to global warming."

The scientific work Frederick Seitz

oversaw for R. J. Reynolds from 1978 to 1987 was "perfectly fine research, but off the point," says Stanton A.

Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and a lead author of The Cigarette

Papers (1996), which exposed the inner workings of the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation. "Looking at stress,

at genetics, at lifestyle issues let Reynolds claim it was funding real research. But then it could cloud the issue

by saying, 'Well, what about this other possible causal factor?' It's like coming up with 57 other reasons for

Hurricane Katrina rather than global warming."

For his part, Seitz says he was comfortable taking tobacco

money, "as long as it was green. I'm not quite clear about this moralistic issue. We had absolutely free rein to

decide how the money was spent." Did the research give the tobacco industry political cover? "I'll leave that to

the philosophers and priests," he replies.

Seitz is equally nonplussed by the extraordinary disavowal the

National Academy of Sciences issued following his most visible intervention in the global-warming debate. In 1998 he

urged fellow scientists to sign an Oregon group's petition saying that global warming was much ado about little.

The petition attracted more than 17,000 signatories and received widespread media attention. But posted along with

the petition was a paper by four global-warming deniers that was presented in virtually the same layout and typeface

used by the National Academy of Sciences in its scholarly journal. The formatting, combined with Seitz's signature,

gave the clear impression that the academy endorsed the petition. The academy quickly released a statement

disclaiming any connection with the petition or its suggestion that global warming was not real. Scientific American

later determined that only 1,400 of the petition's signatories claimed to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related

science, and of these, some either were not even aware of the petition or later changed their minds.

Today,

Seitz admits that "it was stupid" for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't

understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is

"not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming.

The accumulation of scientific evidence

eventually led British Petroleum to resign from the Global Climate Coalition in 1996. Shell, Ford, and other

corporations soon left as well, and in 2002 the coalition closed down. But Gelbspan, whose Web site tracks the

deniers' activities, notes that key coalition personnel have since taken up positions in the Bush administration,

including Harlan Watson, the State Department's chief climate negotiator. (Watson declined to be

interviewed.)

ExxonMobil—long the most recalcitrant corporation on global warming—is still spending millions

of dollars a year funding an array of organizations that downplay the problem, including the George C. Marshall

Institute, where Seitz is chairman emeritus. John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA, calls the

denial campaign "one of the great crimes of our era." Passacantando is "quite confident" that class-action lawsuits

will eventually be filed against corporations who denied global warming's dangers. Five years ago, he told

executives from one company, "You're going to wish you were the tobacco companies once this stuff hits and people

realize you were the ones who blocked [action]."

The public discussion about climate change in the U.S. is

years behind that in Britain and the rest of Europe, and the deniers are a big reason why. "In the United States,

the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers are deeply skeptical of climate-change science and

the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions," says Fiona Harvey, the environment correspondent for the Financial

Times. "In Britain, the equivalent body, the Confederation of British Industry, is absolutely behind the science and

agrees on the need to cut emissions. The only differences are over how to do that."

America's media coverage

is also well behind the curve, says Harvey. "In the United States you have lots of news stories that, in the name of

balance, give equal credence to the skeptics. We don't do that here—not because we're not balanced but because we

think it's unbalanced to give equal validity to a fringe few with no science behind them."

Prominent

right-wing media outlets in the U.S., especially the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, continue to parrot

the claims of climate-change deniers. (Paul A. Gigot, the page's editor, declined to be interviewed.) Few beat

reporters are still taken in, but their bosses—the editors and producers who decide which stories run, and how

prominently—are another matter. Charles Alexander, the former environmental editor at Time, complains that, while

coverage has improved recently, media executives continue to regard climate change as just another environmental

issue, rather than as the overriding challenge of the 21st century.

"Americans are hearing more about

reducing greenhouse emissions from BP ads than from news stories in Time, The New York Times, or any other U.S.

media outlet," Alexander says. "This will go down as the greatest act of mass denial in history."

In 2002,

Alexander went to see Andrew Heyward, then the president of CBS News, after running into him at a Harvard reunion.

"I talked to him about climate change and other global environmental threats, and made the case that they were more

dangerous than terrorism and CBS should be doing much more coverage of them," Alexander recalls. "He didn't dispute

any of my factual points, but he did say the reason CBS didn't do more of that coverage was that 'people don't

want to hear all that gloom and doom'—in other words, the environment wasn't a ratings winner. He seemed to think

CBS News's job was to tell people what they wanted to hear, not what they need to know, and I think that attitude

is increasingly true for the news business in general."

"That's bullshit," responds Heyward, who left CBS in

2005. "I've never been one of those guys who thinks news has to be light and bright. And in talking to Charles, I

wasn't stating the policy of CBS News. I was just trying to explain to an old college classmate why there isn't

more coverage of the environment on TV. Charles is an advocate, and advocates are never happy with the amount of

coverage their cause gets."

American television did, however, give prime-time coverage to the latest, and

most famous, global-warming denier: novelist Michael Crichton. ABC's 20/20 broadcast a very friendly interview with

Crichton when he published State of Fear, a novel arguing that anyone who bought into the phony scientific consensus

on global warming was a modern equivalent of the early-20th-century eugenicists who cited scientific "proof" for the

superiority of the white race.

When Crichton was invited to testify before the Environment and Public Works

Committee, observers in Britain were floored. "This is fairyland," exclaims Michael Meacher, the member of

Parliament who served as Tony Blair's environment minister from 1997 to 2003. "You have a science-fiction writer

testifying before the United States Senate on global-warming policy? I mean, you can almost see the little boy off

to the side, like in the story of the emperor's clothes, saying, 'But he's a science-fiction writer, isn't he?'

It's just ludicrous."

The man who invited Crichton, committee chairman James M. Inhofe, a Republican from

oil-rich Oklahoma, had already said on the floor of the Senate that global warming was "the greatest hoax ever

perpetrated on the American people." In an e-mail interview, Inhofe defended Crichton's appearance, noting that the

writer holds a medical degree from Harvard. (Crichton is also a post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for

Biological Studies.) The senator added that he stood by his hoax statement as well.

David King responded that

Britain's climate-science research is headquartered within the Ministry of Defense, "and you wouldn't find a group

of people less likely to perpetrate a hoax than the people in the Ministry of Defense."

King has "extremist

views," Inhofe replied. If the I.P.C.C. and the world's leading academies of science echo King's views, he argued,

it is because they actively silence dissidents: "Scientists who believe warming trends are naturally occurring, or

benign, are almost always excluded from climate-change conferences and meetings because their conclusions do not

support the political agendas of the others who host the conferences." (The I.P.C.C. denies this accusation.) The

truth, Inhofe continued, is that "there is no consensus on the science of global warming." As proof, he cited—what

else?—Frederick Seitz's Oregon petition.

Paul H. O'Neill, who served nearly two years as George W. Bush's

secretary of the Treasury, does not buy the common notion that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney resist taking

action on global warming because they are oilmen. "I don't think either one of them is an oilman," insists

O'Neill. "You have to have success to be an oilman. It's like saying you're a ballplayer, but you never got on

the field."

In 1998, while running the aluminum giant Alcoa, O'Neill was among the first U.S. business

leaders to recognize the enormity of climate change. He says Bush asked him, early in the first term, to put

together a plan of action, but it was ignored. Like Bush, O'Neill opposed Kyoto, so he proposed other ways to move

forward. But instead, he says, the administration "cherry-picked" the science on climate change to justify taking no

action, "just like it cherry-picked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction" to justify the invasion of

Iraq.

"The United States is the only entity on this planet turning its back on this problem," says

Massachusetts senator John Kerry. "Even as he talks about protecting the security of the nation, the president is

willfully choosing not to tackle this problem. History will record it as one of the greatest derelictions of duty

ever."

Bush-administration officials counter that they are doing more to fight global warming than anyone

else—just with different tools than those favored by supporters of the Kyoto Protocol. James L. Connaughton, the

head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, starts by pointing out that Bush has raised federal

mileage standards for S.U.V.'s and light trucks. When I point out that the increase is tiny (a mere 0.3 miles per

gallon, says Dan Becker of the Sierra Club), Connaughton maintains that over time further increases will result in

substantial energy savings, especially when paired with the administration's new tax credits for efficient

vehicles. It's also important, he says, to "keep personal income taxes in check" to encourage people to buy these

new cars. What's more, the administration recently provided $10 billion in incentives for alternative-energy

development and $40 billion over 10 years to encourage farmers to plant trees and preserve grassland that can soak

up carbon dioxide.

The administration opposes the Kyoto Protocol, Connaughton claims, because its mandatory

emissions cuts would punish the American economy, costing as many as five million jobs. It would also dry up the

capital needed to fund the technological research that will ultimately solve global warming.

"It's important

not to get distracted by chasing short-term reductions in greenhouse emissions. The real payoff is in long-term

technological breakthroughs," says John H. Marburger III, the president's science adviser. Besides, "there is no

question that mitigating the impact of climate change as it takes place will be much less [expensive] than the costs

of reducing oil and coal use in the short term."

"The world is now on a trajectory to slow the growth in

greenhouse-gas emissions," concludes Connaughton, who as a lawyer represented mining and chemical interests before

joining the administration. "I'm highly confident we will stabilize [those emissions]." He says that's exactly

what happened over the last 80 years with air pollution. He seems to take pleasure in observing that, under Bush,

the U.S. has actually reduced its annual emissions, which, he says, is more than some of its harshest critics

overseas have done.

It's a cheerful story, but virtually no one else believes it. Waiting 80 years to

eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions would guarantee runaway global warming, says James Hansen. In January, six former

chiefs of the Environmental Protection Agency, including five who served Republican presidents, said Bush needed to

do much more to fight climate change. In Britain, Peter Ainsworth, the Conservative Party's shadow secretary of

state for the environment, says his party is "saddened" by the Bush administration's approach. "We would have

preferred the Bush administration to take a leadership position on this problem … instead of allowing itself to be

seen as foot-dragging."

Outsiders doubt President Bush's desire to confront the issue, pointing out that his

right-wing political base agrees with Inhofe that global warming is a liberal hoax. Critics also question the

administration's faith in volunteerism. They argue that imposing mandatory timelines and emissions limits would put

a price tag on carbon and push corporations and individuals to use less of it. "Long-term research is fine, but to

offer that as a substitute for the stark necessity of near-term cuts in emissions is a kind of magical

thinking—trusting that something will happen to make everything all right," says Donald Kennedy, the editor in chief

of Science. In fact, despite Bush's call to end our "addiction" to oil, his 2007 budget actually reduced funding

for alternative energy and efficiency.

Nor has the Bush administration cut short-term emissions, says a

European diplomat who requested anonymity because he has to work with Bush officials. Citing data from the Energy

Information Administration, the diplomat says Connaughton is correct to say that U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions

declined, but only in the single year following the 2001 terrorist attacks, owing to the ensuing economic recession.

U.S. emissions increased in every other year of Bush's presidency, making it "complete hokum" to claim that Bush's

policies are cutting emissions, the diplomat says, adding of Connaughton, "I'm afraid Jim has drunk the

Kool-Aid."

As for John Marburger's assertion that it will be cheaper to adapt to climate change than to try

to head it off, Michael Oppenheimer says, "It's a sad day when the president is being told by his science adviser

that climate change isn't worth avoiding. It may be possible for rich nations and people to adapt, but 90 percent

of humanity doesn't have the resources to deal with climate change. It's unethical to condemn them just because

the people in power don't want to act."

"I think it is a slam dunk that we are on a path of dangerous

anthropogenic interference with the climate, and it is also absolutely clear that what this administration has

proposed so far will not get us off that path," says Jeffrey Sachs. "The administration says several things I agree

with: technology is extremely important, global warming is a long-term issue, and we can't do it without China and

India [because their greenhouse-gas emissions will soon outstrip our own]. But none of this adds up to taking no

action. The fact that China and other developing economies have to be involved doesn't mean the United States

refuses to commit to specific actions; it means the U.S. should commit itself, in part to help bring the others

in.

"I've had discussions with leaders in China and India," adds Sachs. '‘They are very concerned about

climate change because they see the effects it could have on them. We should help to set up prototype

carbon-capture-and-sequestration power plants in China and India, and the rich countries should help to finance

them. It's hard to ask poor countries to bear the full financial burden of these technologies, especially when it

is the rich countries' past burning of carbon fuels that has created most of the problem. But the U.S. takes every

opportunity to do virtually nothing to engage in practical steps with the developing countries."

Ask Al Gore

how to avoid dangerous climate change and, despite his wonkish reputation, he doesn't begin by talking about hybrid

cars or carbon sequestration. No, says Gore, the first imperative is to "punch through the massive denial and

resistance" that still exist in the United States.

But the rest of the world is no longer waiting for the

Bush administration. At the international climate conference held in Montreal last year, European nations called the

administration's bluff when it refused to commit even to the breathtakingly modest step of someday discussing what

framework might follow the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. At past summits, the administration's

stubbornness led other nations to back down in hopes of keeping America involved in the process. At Montreal, the

world quit waiting for Godot and recognized, as Elliot Morley, Tony Blair's minister of the environment, says,

"there are a lot of voices in the United States in addition to the Bush administration, and we will work with all of

them to address this problem."

The same thing is happening inside the U.S. "It is very clear that Congress

will put mandatory greenhouse-gas-emission reductions in place, immediately after George W. Bush leaves office,"

says Philip Clapp of N.E.T. "Even the Fortune 500 is positioning itself for the inevitable. There isn't one

credible 2008 Republican presidential candidate who hasn't abandoned the president's do-nothing approach. They

have all adopted the approach the rest of the world took at the Montreal talks—we're moving forward, you're a lame

duck, and we have to deal with it."

Regardless of what happens in Washington, D.C., state and local

governments across America are aggressively confronting the problem. Two hundred and eight mayors have committed

their cities to meet or exceed the emissions reductions mandated by the Kyoto Protocol, and some have gone further.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has committed California to 30 percent cuts by 2020.

California officials have

also held talks with their counterparts in Oregon and Washington about launching a so-called carbon-trading system

like the one currently in force in Europe. Such a system allows efficient users to profit while wasteful users must

pay for burning more fuel. A similar mechanism worked in the 1990s to dramatically reduce emissions of sulfur

dioxide—the cause of acid rain—at far less cost than industrialists or environmentalists anticipated.

New

York and seven other northeastern states, which together with California amount to the third-biggest economy in the

world, are also considering a carbon-trading system. Their collective actions—investing in energy efficiency,

installing wind turbines, sequestering carbon—could boost production runs and lower costs to the point where the

green technologies needed to fight global warming become affordable for everyone.

At the same time, investors

and others worried about global warming are pressuring corporations and Wall Street to take the problem seriously.

The Investor Network on Climate Risk, a coalition of pension-fund managers and institutional investors representing

$3 trillion in assets, has put corporations on notice that its members will reconsider investing in companies that

don't pay enough attention to climate change. In 2005, investment-banking giant Goldman Sachs pledged to embrace

carbon trading and invest $1 billion in renewable energy.

"To use a term coined by George W. Bush in the

context of the Iraq war, I think this coalition of the willing might be much more successful than the Kyoto

process," says Hans Schellnhuber. "I've been to a lot of these international conferences, and it's a pretty

frustrating experience that usually produces little more than cheap talk. Whereas a true coalition of the willing

can bring together regional governments, enterprises, and individuals and show that it is technologically and

economically possible to take meaningful action."

No matter what happens, the global warming that past human

activity has already unleashed will make this a different planet in the years ahead. But it could still be a

livable, even hospitable, planet, if enough of us get smart in time. If we don't, three feet of water could be just

the beginning.

Mark Hertsgaard is the environmental correspondent for The Nation. His article on American

nuclear-weapons sites, "Nuclear Insecurity," appeared in V.F.'s November 2003 issue.

© Condenet

2006

PS Ooops. Didn't mean to post this four times.

Netghost56
05-03-2006, 06:53 AM
Global Warming

Differences Resolved

WASHINGTON - A nagging difference in temperature readings that had raised

questions about global warming has been resolved, a panel of scientists reported Tuesday.

"This significant

discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and

corrected," researchers said in the first of 21 assessment reports planned by the U.S. Climate Change Science

Program.
The findings show clear evidence of human influences on climate due to changes in greenhouse gases,

aerosols and stratospheric ozone.

There has been increasing concern about global climate change being caused by

human activity, in particular the release of gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by automobiles and

industrial activity.
But while temperature readings at the surface showed this increase, readings in the atmosphere

taken by satellites and radiosondes — instruments carried by weather balloons — had shown little or no warming.



There are still some questions about the rate of atmospheric warming in the tropics, but overall the issue has been

settled, said Thomas R. Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center.

The White House Council on

Environmental Quality issued a statement saying that the climate change program was established to reduce scientific

uncertainties and "we welcome today's report because it represents success in doing so with respect to temperature

trends."
Findings of the report include:

• Since the 1950s all data show the Earth's surface and the low and

middle atmosphere have warmed, while the upper stratosphere has cooled. Those changes were expected from computer

models of the effects of greenhouse warming.

• Radiosonde readings for the midtroposphere — the nearest portion

of the atmosphere — show it warming slightly faster than the surface, also an expected finding.

• The most

recent satellite data also show tropospheric warming, though there is some disagreement among data sets. This may be

caused by uncertainties in the observations, flaws in climate models or a combination. The researchers think it is a

problem with the data collection.

• The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained

by natural processes alone.
The report came a day after the government reported that the greenhouse gases widely

blamed for raising the planet's temperature are still building up in the atmosphere.

The National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration said Monday there was a continuing increase in carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide in the

air last year, though methane leveled off. Overall, NOAA said, its annual greenhouse gas index "shows a continuing,

steady rise in the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere."




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060502/ap_

on_sc/warming_temperatures_3 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060502/ap_on_sc/warming_temperatures_3)

Netghost56
05-03-2006, 02:09 PM
Global Warming

Weakens Trade Winds

The trade winds in the Pacific Ocean are

weakening as a result of global warming, according to a new study that indicates changes to the region's biology

are possible.

Using a combination of real-world observations and computer modeling, researchers conclude that a

vast loop of circulating wind over the Pacific Ocean, known as theWalker circulation , has weakened by about 3.5

percent since the mid-1800s. The trade winds are the portion of the Walker circulation that blow across the ocean

surface.

The researchers predict another 10 percent decrease by the end of

the 21st century.
The effect, attributed at least in part to human-induced

climate change, could disrupt food chains and reduce the biological productivity of the Pacific Ocean, scientists

said.

The study was led by Gabriel Vecchi of the University Corporation for

Atmospheric Research and is detailed in the May 4 issue of the journal Nature.



Humans to blame
The researchers used records of

sea-level atmospheric pressure readings from as far back as the mid-1800s to reconstruct the wind intensity of the

Walker circulation over the past 150 years. A computer climate model replicated the effect seen in the historical

record.

Some of the computer simulations included the effects of human

greenhouse gas emissions; others included only natural factors known to affect climate such as volcanic eruptions

and solar variations.
"We were able to ask 'What if humans hadn't done

anything? Or what if volcanoes erupted? Or if the sun hadn't varied?'" Vecchi said. "Our only way to account for

the observed changes is through the impact of human activity, and principally from greenhouse gases from fossil fuel

burning."

Earth's average temperature has risen by about 1 degree

Fahrenheit over the past century and many scientists believe greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions from

human activities are to blame.

"This is evidence supporting global warming

and also evidence of our ability to make reasonable predictions of at least the large scale changes that we should

expect from global warming," Vecchi told LiveScience.

By extrapolating

their data and combining it with results from other models, the researchers predict the Walker circulation could

slow by an additional 10 percent by 2100.

Driving

force
The trade winds blow from the east at an angle towards the equator

and have been used by sailors for centuries seeking to sail west. Christopher Columbus relied on the Atlantic's

trade winds to carry him to North America. The winds get their name from their reliability: To say that a "wind

blows trade" is to say that it blows on track.
The overall Walker circulation

is powered by warm, rising air in the west Pacific Ocean and sinking cool air in the eastern Pacific.



This looping conveyer belt of winds has far-reaching effects on climate

around the globe. It steers ocean currents and nourishes marine life across the equatorial Pacific and off the coast

of South America by driving the upwelling of nutrient-rich cold water from ocean depths to the surface.



The Walker circulation is also primarily responsible for transporting

water vapor that evaporates from the ocean surface west, towards Indonesia; there, the moisture rises up into the

atmosphere, condenses, and falls back to Earth as rain.

The effects of

global warming
Several theories on the effects of global warming predict

a weakening of the Walker circulation. Scientists think it works like this:


To remain energetically balanced, the rate at which the atmosphere absorbs water vapor must be balanced by the rate

of rainfall. But as temperatures rise and more water evaporates from the ocean, water vapor in the lower atmosphere

increases rapidly. Because of various physical processes, however, the rate of rainfall does not increase as

fast.

Since the atmosphere is absorbing moisture faster than it can dump

it, and because wind is the major transporter of moisture into the atmosphere, air circulation must slow down if the

energy balance is to be maintained.

A drop in winds could reduce the

strength of both surface and subsurface ocean currents and dampen cold water upwelling at the

equator.

"This could have important effects on ocean ecosystems," Vecchi

said. "The ocean currents driven by the trade winds supply vital nutrients to near-surface ocean ecosystems across

the equatorial Pacific, which is a major fishing

region."

Image:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060503/ids_photos_ts/r1372794304.jpg;_yl

t=Agkc4JiHQACpB8UbVXVF2vFrAlMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW 9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl (http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060503/ids_photos_ts/r1372794304.jpg;_ylt=Agkc4JiHQACpB8UbVXVF

2vFrAlMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
Link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060503/sc_space/globalwarmingweakenstradewinds;_ylt=ArWr9.07GnmK6. 8RK824mXd

rAlMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl (http://news.yahoo.com/s/spa

ce/20060503/sc_space/globalwarmingweakenstradewinds;_ylt=ArWr9.07GnmK6. 8RK824mXdrAlMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJ

VRPUCUl)

Biohazard
06-04-2006, 07:54 PM
About Al Gore's

movie:

http://www.nypost.com/movies/66485.htm


...
He and his friends were in

charge for eight years. His charts say global warming got worse in that time. The environment doesn't seem to care

whether the president is a Texas oilman or the Man from Hope.
...
Global warming hasn't noticed that we got

the lead out of our gasoline or that Stage One smog days in Los Angeles fell from 121 in 1977 to zero in 2004. All

regulations and taxes to date have done nothing. Does this hint that pollution isn't the cause?
...
Gore

says that America, alone, is the problem. Taking us to China, he ignores the filth spewed into the air by its

coal-fired cities. He does not meet with bronchitic citizens who wear surgical masks outdoors and pause to hawk up

brown gunk every few minutes. Instead, he tells us America is lagging behind. "China," he says, "is on the cutting

edge" of environmentalism. Nonsense.
...

Netghost56
06-04-2006, 07:55 PM
I'd like to see it but I'd

have to go to Little Rock or Dallas. That's 3 hours and 4 hours respectively. :(

slickracer
06-04-2006, 08:04 PM
i don't know if anyone has

brough this up but, there is also a factor that is masking the actual true power of global warming and its call,

global diming. and its caused by the gases that are in the air and blocking the sun at the same time. while we are

warming the earth by traping heat in, we are also cooling the earth by dimming it. but yes the temps are still going

up, if we were to take the effect of global dimming out of the picture we would be burning up alot more right now.

belgareth
06-04-2006, 08:31 PM
i don't know

if anyone has brough this up but, there is also a factor that is masking the actual true power of global warming and

its call, global diming. and its caused by the gases that are in the air and blocking the sun at the same time.

while we are warming the earth by traping heat in, we are also cooling the earth by dimming it. but yes the temps

are still going up, if we were to take the effect of global dimming out of the picture we would be burning up alot

more right now.

As may be. The argument for man caused global warming hasn't convinced a lot of

respectable scientists yet as demonstrated by the fact that more than 17,000 american environmental scientists

signed a petition asking Bush to not sign Kyoto. Repeating the claims and dire warnings doesn't make it any more

convincing either. Nor does claiming phenomena that other experts clearly have already refuted. The more you learn

the less believable the whole thing is.

I'm not going to convince anybody but I do strongly urge every person

to study as much nuetral material as possible. Make your own dcisions but make it based on facts not claims and

panic mongering.

austin77
04-03-2007, 05:08 PM
With

recent acceptance of global warming as fact by most media and politicians, I thought I would revive this thread just

to show that there is quite a bit of science that shows that this theory is still very controversial.

All I

ask is that all of you keep an open mind and view this documentary produced in the UK. I will let the science

discussed in the program speak for itself. If it doesn't change your mind regarding the "fact" that global warming

is man-made, it will at least challenge you. At a minimum, seeing the science on the opposite side will help you

shore up your argument in supporting the recent media view of global warming.

Please keep in mind that I have

nothing against Al Gore, but his "Inconvenient Truth" is not necessarily the last word on this. As I said, please

view with an open mind....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

Bruce
04-03-2007, 05:47 PM
I'm doing my part. I bought an

all-electric car.
http://perupuppets.com/images/zap.jpg

belgareth
04-03-2007, 07:39 PM
With

recent acceptance of global warming as fact by most media and politicians, I thought I would revive this thread just

to show that there is quite a bit of science that shows that this theory is still very controversial.

All I ask

is that all of you keep an open mind and view this documentary produced in the UK. I will let the science discussed

in the program speak for itself. If it doesn't change your mind regarding the "fact" that global warming is

man-made, it will at least challenge you. At a minimum, seeing the science on the opposite side will help you shore

up your argument in supporting the recent media view of global warming.

Please keep in mind that I have nothing

against Al Gore, but his "Inconvenient Truth" is not necessarily the last word on this. As I said, please view with

an open mind....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
As you may have figured out,

I've been very sceptical about it and as I learn more I become more sceptical that man is the cause. As I've said

before, there is no excuse for polluting our planet but investing billions of dollars into a boondogle like the

current global warming fad is a bad decision, in my opinion.

Thanks for posting this link.

belgareth
04-03-2007, 07:41 PM
I'm doing

my part. I bought an all-electric car.
http://perupuppets.com/images/zap.jpg
Cool! How do you

like it?

abductor
05-13-2007, 12:13 PM
2 words:

Respect

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBro4dANNGU

see all

Biohazard
06-30-2007, 04:04 PM
[b]Alarmist global warming

claims melt under scientific

scrutiny[b]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article


Ju

ne 30, 2007

BY JAMES M. TAYLOR

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop

tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies

known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore

repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public

discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example

on the issue of global warming.

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and

honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be

deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.

Many of the

assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and

after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where

science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global

warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate

reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently

claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop

Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003,

issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that

deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously

moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial

sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming

and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane

expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades

past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major

hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists

reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a

significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of

African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in

'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of

Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet.

But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and

growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute

reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic

ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica

as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue

of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and

Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992

and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice

mass during the remainder of the century.

Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by

example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will

tell.


James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.

idesign
06-30-2007, 06:37 PM
Please keep in mind that I have nothing against Al Gore, but his "Inconvenient

Truth" is not necessarily the last word on this. As I said, please view with an open

mind....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

youtube states that this video

is no longer available due to a copyright claim by "Wag TV". A search yielded no hits for Wag TV, anyone know where

to find this video? I'd really like to see it.

BTW, did anyone catch the brilliant statement by NASA's

chief? I think it poetic justice that he said it in an NPR interview. :whip:


I have no doubt that …

a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To

assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best

climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as

millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when

— are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now

is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to

take.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499

belgareth
06-30-2007, 08:17 PM
The people who own

the video are in GB, here is their web site:

www.wagtv.com (http://www.wagtv.com/). If

you want to know more or get on the list to recieve a copy of the video when they begin selling it contact them at

gw@wagtv.com


[SIZE=2]WagTV[/SI

ZE]
2d Leroy

House
436 Essex

Road
London[

/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]N1

3QP
tel: 0207 688

1711
fax: 0207 688

1702

It is a great video! Instead of sensationalism and wild

claims there are a lot of facts and explanations. you'll enjoy it.

idesign
06-30-2007, 09:06 PM
Thanks belgareth, I for one am

weary of the Michael Moore style of "documentary".

belgareth
06-30-2007, 09:21 PM
Same here, or the Al Gore

ones!

I'm so sick of all the lies and hype surrounding climate change that I could puke. The worst part is the

number of intelligent people that are jumpling on the bandwagon without ever thinking it through. Perhaps it's a

reflection of the sad state of scientific education these days?

idesign
06-30-2007, 09:41 PM
Probably, but I think too its so

rampantly political, and politics has a way of suspending reason.

BTW, I was going to PM you, but could not find

a way.

belgareth
07-01-2007, 04:31 AM
PMs got shut off due to some

quasi-political BS from a group of rather disgusting creatures, Sorry. You can email me: bobgarner(at)abln(dot)com.



//RANT=ON//
In the video they cover the political beginings of the IPCC and it explains a lot. It seems the

IPCC was originally created by Margaret Thatcher in an attempt to discredit coal miners and remove their political

pull. If their product was considered evil by the public their union would have less power and less sympathy in the

event of a strike, something the coal miners did with some regularity. It worked but what she unleashed could be

compared to Pandora's Box. The IPCC's mandate from the start was to convince the public that burning fossil fuels

was harmful to the environment.

You really can't fault them for doing what they were told to do. The point of

it though is that people believe the IPCC with almost a religious fervor when they really are no more than a bunch

of paid mouthpieces. Like any other political organ, they are going to do anything, by hook or by crook, to assure

their jobs are safe and their empires grow. They've achieved their goals admirably.

People complain about the

oil companies' arguments and call them the enemy. They slam any of us who do not believe the IPCC and accuse us of

being in the pay or under the spell of the oil companies. At least the oil companies are honest about it. The IPCC

is pure fraud. And the oil companies DO have interests in non-petrolium ventures such as wind and solar power or

tapping the huge methane and natural gas reserves under the oceans but the IPCC has only it's single function and

empire to protect. :frustrate

//RANT=OFF//

belgareth
03-02-2008, 08:05 AM
ScienceDaily (Mar. 10, 2007)

— Severe climate changes during the last ice-age could have been caused by random chaotic variations on Earth

and not governed by external periodic influences from the Sun. This has been shown in new calculations by a

researcher at the Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen University.

Several large international projects have

succeeded in drilling ice-cores from the top of the Greenland inland ice through the more than 3 km thick ice sheet.

The ice is a frozen archive of the climate of the past, which has been dated back all the way to the previous

interglacial Eem-period more than 120.000 years ago.
The ice archive shows that the climate has experienced very

severe changes during the glacial period. During the glacial period there were 26 abrupt temperature increases of

about 7-10 degrees. These glacial warm periods are named Dansgaard-Oeschger events after the two scientists first

observing them.
The global warming we experience presently will cause a temperature increase of perhaps 2-5 degrees

in the next century if greenhouse gas emissions continue, researchers claim. This will lead to increased sea levels

and more severe weather with terrible consequences. The temperature rise during the glacial period were much larger

and happened much faster.
Temperature increased by 10 degrees in less than 50 years with changes to the ocean

currents and the whole ecosystem. These changes have caused sea level rises up to perhaps as much as 8 meters and

large changes to the vegetation.
Climate shifts looks periodic
The 26 climate shifts are apparently

periodic. They seem to occur with a period of 1470 years. Every now and then a period is skipped and the shifts

occur 3-4000 years apart. Professor Peter Ditlevsen at the Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen University wanted to

investigate the periodicity of the climate shifts. He asked: "Could it be that the shifts are chaotic and random,

they just look periodic by pure coincidence. How probable is that?"
Using mathematical models of the climate shifts

he calculated the probability of the periodicity. He focused on the time intervals between the climate shifts. How

regular are they really? As a baton, periodically beating, how far from the beating are the climate shifts? If the

distances are perfectly periodic 100&#37; is obtained. It turned out that the climate shifts hit the beats of the

baton by 70%.
Computer simulation
He then had the computer spreading the shifts over the ice age randomly.

He did this 1000 times with different random time intervals. In this he got between 40% and 90% right hits. The

major part of the calculations was between 55% and 75%.
Then he calculated the opposite assumption, that the

climate shifts has a period. Again he made 1000 calculations, but this time the numbers came out between 80% and

100%. The major part came out above 90%. But 90% is not the regularity for the real climate changes, they occur with

70%.
The conclusion drawn by Peter Ditlevsen is that the probability of hitting 70% is less if the climate shifts

are periodic than if they are random. This is very important for understanding the cause of the climate changes and

especially for predicting climate shifts. If they are random and chaotic they are fundamentally unpredictable.



University of Copenhagen (2007, March 10). Climate Change: Could It Be Random?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved

March 2, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2007/03/070309103123.htm

belgareth
03-02-2008, 08:07 AM
ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2007)

— Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as

well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University

of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of

Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.

It is generally assumed that the

atmosphere and the oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is an

upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called 'global temperature'. This is the temperature obtained

by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the Globe, weighing

them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of

adding all values and dividing by the number of points.
Average without meaning
"It is impossible to talk

about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert

of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not

governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea

currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature

statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a

huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average

phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the

currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange

rate'.
If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as

before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example,

it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25

degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different

types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the

latter there would be no wind.
Many averages
A further problem with the extensive use of 'the global

temperature' is that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.
Example 1: Take two equally large

glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and

dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.
Example 2: Take

the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take

the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average.

(The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)
The difference of 4

degrees is the energy which drives all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents,

etc.
Claims of disaster?
These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally

correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used,

the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature.

Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point

out.
What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one

averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of

Earth.
Reference: C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen: Does a Global Temperature Exist?; J. Non-Equil. Thermod.

vol. 32, p. 1-27 (2007).


University of Copenhagen (2007, March 18). Researchers Question Validity Of A

'Global Temperature'. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 2, 2008, from

http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

belgareth
03-02-2008, 08:19 AM
A

Brief History of Ice Ages and Warming

Global

warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global

warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time

when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.
Earth's climate and

the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million

years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze.
Approximately every 100,000 years

Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last

approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting

our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer its end than its beginning.
Global warming during

Earth's current interglacial warm period has greatly altered our environment and the distribution and

diversity of all life. For

example:


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif Approximately 15,000

years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to

rise.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif By 8,000 years ago the land

bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North

America.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif Since the end of the Ice Age,

Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and

sea levels have risen a total of

300 feet! (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor24446) Forests have returned where once there was only ice.





http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image157.gif

Over the past 750,000

years of Earth's history, Ice Ages have occurred at regular intervals, of approximately 100,000 years

each.
Courtesy of Illinois State

Museum (http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/)



During ice ages our planet is cold, dry, and inhospitable--

supporting few forests but plenty of glaciers and deserts. Like a spread of collosal bulldozers,

glaciers have scraped and pulverized vast stretches of Earth's surface and completely destroyed entire regional

ecosystems not once, but several times. During Ice Ages winters were longer and more severe and ice sheets grew to

tremendous size, accumulating to thicknesses of up to 8,000 feet!. They moved slowly from higher elevations to

lower-- driven by gravity and their tremendous weight. They left in their wake altered river courses, flattened

landscapes, and along the margins of their farthest advance, great piles of glacial debris.
During the last 3

million years glaciers have at one time or another covered about 29&#37; of Earth's land surface or about 17.14

million square miles

(44.38 million sq.

km. (http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/geomorphology/GEO_9/GEO_CHAPTER_9.HTML)) . What did not lay beneath ice was a largely cold and desolate desert landscape, due in large

part to the colder, less-humid atmospheric conditions that prevailed.
During the Ice Age summers were short and

winters were brutal. Animal life and especially plant life had a very tough time of it. Thanks to global warming,

that has all now changed, at least temporarily.





http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_I

mages/lastgla_mod_sm.gif
( view full size

map) (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_glacial_max.html)
The World 18,000 Years Ago
Before "global

warming" started 18,000 years ago most of the earth was a frozen and arid wasteland. Over half of earth 's surface

was covered by glaciers or extreme

desert. Forests were rare.
Not a very fun place to

live.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pag

eMill_Images/present_mod_sm.gif
(view full size

map) (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/present_interglacial.html)
Our Present World
"Global warming" over the last

15,000 years has changed our world from an ice box to a garden. Today extreme

deserts and glaciers have largely given way to grasslands, woodlands, and

forests.
Wish it could last forever, but . . . .





In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of

the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to

manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.
Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear

to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and

ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface

temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to

"global warming,"-- the cited cause:

manmade atmospheric pollution causing a

runaway greenhouse effect.



What does geologic history have to

offer in sorting through the confusion?

Quite a bit, actually.





http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif"If 'ice age' is used

to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today.

Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances."

Illinois State

Museum (http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/)


P[/SI

ZE]eriods of Earth warming and cooling occur in cycles. This is well understood, as is the fact that small-scale

cycles of about 40 years exist within larger-scale cycles of 400 years, which in turn exist inside still larger

scale cycles of 20,000 years, and so

on.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image158.gif



Example

of regional variations in surface air temperature for the last 1000 years, estimated from a variety of sources,

including temperature-sensitive tree growth indices and written records of various kinds, largely from western

Europe and eastern North America. Shown are changes in regional temperature in &#176; C, from the baseline value for

1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment,

Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas

Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past:

Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic

Record (http://gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig1.html)




Earth's climate was in a cool period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860, dubbed

the "Little Ice Age." This period was characterized by harsh winters, shorter growing

seasons, and a drier climate. The decline in global temperatures was a modest 1/2&#176; C, but the effects of this

global cooling cycle were more pronounced in the higher latitudes. The Little Ice Age has been blamed for a host of

human suffering including crop failures like the "Irish Potato Famine" and the demise of the

medieval Viking colonies in

Greenland. (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor29241)
Today we enjoy global temperatures which have warmed back to levels of the so called

"Medieval Warm Period," which existed from approximately A.D. 1000 to A.D.

1350.


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif "...the Earth was

evidently coming out of a relatively cold period in the 1800s so that warming in the past century may be part of

this natural

recovery."



Dr.

John R. Christy (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/jchristy.html)
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- U. of Alabama

in Huntsville)

(5)


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/smokestacks.gif[

COLOR=#470d05]G[/COLOR]lobal warming alarmists maintain that global temperatures have increased since

about A.D. 1860 to the present as the result of the so-called "Industrial

Revolution,"-- caused by releases of large amounts of greenhouse gases (principally carbon

dioxide) from manmade sources into the atmosphere causing a runaway "Greenhouse

Effect."
Was man really responsible for pulling the Earth out of the Little Ice Age with his industrial

pollution? If so, this may be one of the greatest unheralded achievements of the Industrial Age!
Unfortunately, we

tend to overestimate our actual impact on the planet. In this case the magnitude of the gas emissions involved, even

by the most aggressive estimates of atmospheric warming by greenhouse gases, is inadequate to account for the

magnitude of temperature increases. So what causes the up and down cycles of global climate change?



Causes of Global Climate

Change

Climate change is controlled primarily by

cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as

variations in the sun's energy output.
"Greenhouse

gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human

additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about

0.2% - 0.3% (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) to Earth's

greenhouse effect.

Major Causes of Global Temperature

Shifts
(1) Astronomical Causes

11 year and

206 (http://unisci.com/stories/20012/0517011.htm)

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Maya_Civilization_Done_In_By_Brightening_Of_The_S

un.pdf)year

cycles: Cycles of solar variability

( sunspot

activity (http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html)

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss

ils/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/sunspots_and_climate.pdf))
21,000 year cycle: Earth's

combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun (

precession of

the equinoxes (http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/why_glaciations1.html#precession) )
41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the

+/- 1.5&#176; wobble in Earth's orbit (

tilt (http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/why_glaciations1.html#tilt)

)
100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's

elliptical orbit (

cycle of

eccentricity (http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm)

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossi

ls/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Milankovitch_Cycles.pdf))
(2) Atmospheric

Causes

Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water

vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases-- the

"greenhouse effect"
Solar reflectivity: Due to

white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps
(3) Tectonic

Causes

Landmass distribution: Shifting continents

(continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It

seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole,

there are ice ages.
Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor

spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.


For more details

see:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankov

itch.html (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html)


http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_233658.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_233658.htm)

http:/

/www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Remote_corals_reveal_100k_year_climate_cycle.pdf)





Playing with

Numbers

Global climate and temperature cycles are the result of

a complex interplay between a variety of causes. Because these cycles and events overlap, sometimes compounding one

another, sometimes canceling one another out, it is inaccurate to imply a statistically significant trend in climate

or temperature patterns from just a few years or a few decades of data.
Unfortunately, a lot of disinformation

about where Earth's climate is heading is being propagated by "scientists" who use improper statistical methods,

short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer models to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the

significance of man-made influences to Earth's climate.
During the last 100 years there have been

two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the

second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperaturesshow no significant warming trend over the last

100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well -

publicized.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image318.gif

Each year

Government press releases declare the previous year to be the "hottest year on record."

The UN's executive summary on climate

change, issued in January 2001 (http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/sayonara_kyoto.htm), insists that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium.

The news media distribute these stories and people generally believed them to be true. However, as most

climatologists know, these reports generally are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading.

The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the

press) have year after year showed little or no warming.
Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a

common problem with ground- based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural

areas, but over time have suffered background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt

( the "urban heat island

effect" (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/satanic5.pdf)). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time(2).

Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1&#176; C. They are widely

recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Significantly, global temperature

readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording

and returning data (1).

A Matter of

Opinion

Has manmade pollution in the form of carbon

dioxide (CO2) and other gases caused a runaway Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming?
Before joining the mantra,

consider the

following:


(http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFos

sils/PageMill_Images/image160.gif

Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et

al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest,

vo. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley,

Remembrance of Things Past:

Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record (http://gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig2.html)1. The

idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known

as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The

interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before

humans invented industrial pollution.



http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/i

mage167_sm.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html)
(view

full-size image) (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html)
Figure 1
2. CO2 in our

atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks (

Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the

pre-industrial increases.
As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the

Soviet Station Vostok in

Antarctica (http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/ees/climate/labs/vostok/), CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and

CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists"

contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human

pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached

levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle

lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a

full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.




http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_I

mages/image192_sm.gif
view full-size image (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_contrib.html)
Figure

2
3. Total human contributions to greenhouse

gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2).

Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide

(CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX),

other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) .
Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is

due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about.

Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.




http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Ima

ges/image191_sm.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/tempCO2_vs_solwind.html)
vie

w full-size image (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/tempCO2_vs_solwind.html)
Figure

3
4. If global

warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too?
This

chart adapted after Nigel Calder (6) illustrates that variations in sun

activity are generally proportional to both variations in atmospheric

CO2 and atmospheric

temperature (Figure 3).
Put another way, rising Earth

temperatures and increasing CO2 may be "effects" and our own sun the

"cause".







[SIZE=+3]FUN

FAC[/CO

LOR][COLOR=#008000]TS about CARBON

DIOXIDE
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif Of the 186 billion

tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity.

Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such

sources as volcanoes and decaying land

plants.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif At 368 parts per million CO2 is

a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere--

less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases

present (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html). Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is

CO2-

impoverished (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264).
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif CO2 is

odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe

oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and

animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When

plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon

dioxide.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif CO2 that goes into the

atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great

retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.



http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif If we are in a

global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide

emissions would have a negligible effect on global

climate!


The case for a "greenhouse

problem" is made by environmentalists, news anchormen , and special interests who make inaccurate and misleading

statements about global warming and climate change. Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially,

after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so

often.



http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif"We have to offer

up 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."

Stephen Schneider

(leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)







http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif"In the United

States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is

real."

former President

Bill Clinton (http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/1997/08/global_warming.html)in a 1997 address to the United Nations






http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gifNobody is interested in

solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an

over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the

audience to listen to what the solutions are...

former Vice President Al Gore
(now, chairman and

co-founder of Generation Investment Management--
a London-based business that sells carbon credits)
(in

interview with Grist

Magazine (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/)

http://www.geocraft.com/W

VFossils/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/An_inconvenient_truth.pdf)May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth)






http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif"In the long run, the

replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy

may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global

warming."

Dr. Richard S.

Lindzen (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/LIND0710.html)
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT) (3)







http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif "Researchers pound the

global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of

global warming and am persona non

grata."

Dr. William

Gray (http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/)
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and

leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28,

1999)




http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif"Scientists

who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way

to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really

are."

Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax,

Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax

Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)






http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif"Even if the theory of global

warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental

policy."

Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.
After a short stint as United Nations

Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4)
he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by

Ted Turner (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/turner.htm) and his $1 billion "gift"






http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif "No matter if the

science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance

to bring about justice and equality in the world."



Christine Stewart, Minister of the

Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald







Unraveling the Earth's Temperature

Record

[IMG]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image194.gif[/IM

G]
photo by: Vin

Morgan
Palaeo Environment (Ice Cores) Field

Work (http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/antcrc/research/palaeo/icecoring/ic_fieldwk.html)Because accumulating layers of glacial ice

display annual bands which can be dated, similar to annual rings of a tree, the age of ice core samples can be

determined. Continuous ice cores from borings as much as two miles long have been extracted from permanent glaciers

in Greenland, Antarctica, and Siberia. Bubbles of entrapped air in the ice cores can be analyzed to determine not

only carbon dioxide and methane concentrations, but also atmospheric temperatures can be determined from analysis of

entrapped hydrogen and oxygen.
Based on historical air temperatures inferred from ice core analyses from the

Antarctic Vostok station in 1987, relative to the average global temperature in 1900 it has been determined that

from 160,000 years ago until about 18,000 years ago Earth temperatures were on average about 3&#176; C cooler than

today.
Except for two relatively brief interglacial episodes, one peaking about 125,000 years ago (Eemian

Interglacial), and the other beginning about 18,000 years ago (Present Interglacial), the Earth has been under siege

of ice for the last 160,000 years.




http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image161.gif



C

ompiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J. Jouzel et al., Nature vol. 329. pp. 403-408, 1987 and published in

EarthQuest, vol. 5, no. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley,

Remembrance of Things Past:

Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic

Record (http://gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig3.html)

As illustrated in this final

graph, over the past 800,000 years the Earth has undergone major swings in warming and cooling at approximately

100,000 year intervals, interrupted by minor warming cycles at shorter intervals. This represents periods of glacial

expansion, separated by distinct but relatively short-lived periods of glacial retreat.




http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image162.gif



T

emperature data inferred from measurements of the ratio of oxygen isotope ratios in fossil plankton that settled to

the sea floor, and assumes that changes in global temperature approximately tracks changes in the global ice

volume. Based on data from J. Imbrie, J.D. Hays, D.G. Martinson, A. McIntyre, A.C. Mix, J.J. Morley,

N.G. Pisias, W.L. Prell, and N.J. Shackleton, in A. Berger, J. Imbrie, J. Hats, G. Kukla, and B. Saltzman, eds.,

Milankovitch and Climate, Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 269-305, 1984.Courtesy of Thomas Crowley,

Remembrance of Things Past:

Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic

Record (http://gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig5.html)




The Polar Ice Cap

Effect

[IMG]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image195.gif[/IM

G]As long as the continent of Antarctica exists at the southern pole of our planet we probably

will be repeatedly pulled back into

glacial ice ages (http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html). This occurs because ice caps, which cannot attain great thickness over open ocean,

can and do achieve great thickness over a polar continent-- like Antarctica. Antarctica used to be located near the

equator, but over geologic time has moved by

continental drift (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/continents.html) to its

present location at the south pole. Once established, continental polar ice caps act like huge cold sinks, taking

over the climate and growing bigger during periods of reduced solar output. Part of the problem with shaking off the

effects of an ice age is once ice caps are established, they cause solar radiation to be reflected back into space,

which acts to perpetuate global cooling. This increases the size of ice caps which results in reflection of even

more radiation, resulting in more cooling, and so on.
Continental polar ice caps seem to play a particularly

important role in ice ages when the arrangement of continental land masses restrict the free global circulation of

equatorial ocean currents. This is the case with the continents today, as it was during the

Carboniferous Ice

Age (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html) when the supercontinent Pangea stretched from pole to pole 300 million years ago.




Stopping Climate

Change

Putting things in perspective, geologists

tell us our present warm climate is a mere blip in the history of an otherwise cold Earth. Frigid Ice Age

temperatures have been the rule, not the exception, for the last couple of million years. This kind of world is not

totally inhospitable, but not a very fun place to live, unless you are a polar bear.
Some say we are

"nearing the end of our minor interglacial

period" (http://www.zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/ph123/l13i.html) , and may in fact be on the brink of another Ice Age. If this is true, the last thing we

should be doing is limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, just in case they may have a positive

effect in sustaining present temperatures. The smart money, however, is betting that there is some momentum left in

our present warming cycle. Environmental advocates agree: resulting in a shift of tactics from the "global

cooling" scare of the 1970s to the "global warming" threat of the 1980s and 1990s.
Now, as we begin the

21st century the terminology is morphing toward"climate change," whereby no matter the direction of

temperature trends-- up or down-- the headlines can universally blame humans while avoiding the necessity of

switching buzz-words with the periodicity of solar cycles. Such tactics may, however, backfire as peoples' common

sensibilities are at last pushed over the brink.
Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural

phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will

stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most

likely... no.
Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of its own accord to change in

the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due

to manmade additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt

to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and

precipitation that accompany climatic change.
Supporting this view is British scientist

Jane Francis (http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/research/igs/seddies/francis/), who

maintains:

" What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse

climate." Dismissing political calls for a global effort to reverse climate change, she said, " It's really

farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it

is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the

change."




http://www.geocraft

.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image89.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html)http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image90.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/TableOfCont.html)
THIS PAGE

BY:

Monte Hieb

This site last updated October 5,

2007
PreviousTable

of

Contents
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pag

eMill_Images/image38.gif (mhieb79@geocraft.com)...EMAIL COMMENTS TO:

mhieb@geocraft.com (mhieb79@geocraft.com)

[/B

]

[B]References
(1)

A scientific Discussion of Climate

Change (http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=78), Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D.,

Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
(2)

The Effects of Proposals for Greenhouse Gas

Emission Reduction (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm110697.html); Testimony of Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences,

University of Virginia, before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, United States

House of Representatives
(3) Statement

Concerning Global Warming (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/LIND0710.html)-- Presented to the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, June

10, 1997, by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(4) Excerpts

from,"Our

Global Future: Climate Change (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Wirth_10-97_Our_global_future.html)", Remarks by Under Secretary for Global affairs, T. Wirth, 15 September

1997. Site maintained by The Globe - Climate

Change Campaign (http://globeint.org/html/climate%20change/cc.html)
(5) Testimony

of John R. Christy (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/jchristy.html) to the Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Department of Atmospheric

Science and Earth System Science Laboratory, University of Alabama in Huntsville, July 10, 1997.
(6) The Carbon

Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global Warming; Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a seminar SPRU (Science and

Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, Brighton, England, October 6, 1998.
(7) Variation in cosmic ray

flux and global cloud coverage: a missing link in solar-climate relationships; H. Svensmark and E.

Friis-Christiansen, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar- Terrestrial Physics, vol. 59, pp. 1225 - 1232 (1997).
(8)

First International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice Age; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova

Scotia, sponsored by the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society,

August 21-24, 2001.



Additional

Reading


Understanding Common Climate Claims (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf): Dr. Richard S. Lindzen; Draft paper to appear in

the Proceedings of the 2005 Erice Meeting of the World Federation of Scientists on Global

Emergencies.
Geol

ogical Constraints on Global Climate Variability: (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf) Dr. Lee C. Gerhard-- A variety of natural climate

drivers constantly change our climate. A slide format presentation. 8.5

MB.
Thoughts of Global Warming: (http://www.junkscience.com/news/jonker.htm) "The

bottom line is that climatic change is a given. It is inescapable, it happens. There is no reason to be very

concerned about it or spend bazillions of dollars to try and even things

out.
NOAA Paleoclimatology: (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/) An

educational trip through earths distant and recent past. Also contains useful information and illustrations relating

to the causes of climate change.
Cracking the Ice

Age: (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/) From the PBS website-- NOVA online presents a brief tour of the causes of global

warming.
Little Ice

Age (Solar Influence - Temperature): (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/s/solariceage.jsp) From the online magazine, "CO2

Science."
Solar Variability and Climate

Change: (http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=91) by Willie Soon, January 10,

2000
Earth's Fidgeting

Climate: (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm) NASA Science News "It may surprise many people that science cannot deliver an unqualified,

unanimous answer about something as important as climate change"

idesign
03-04-2008, 05:59 PM
You've been doing your homework

Bel. A+ and a gold star.

I wonder at what point the media and certain politicians will get a clue? There's a

lot on the record with some of these folks and it'll be interesting to see how they get the egg off their

collective faces. How do you back out of blindly following a politically correct hoax?

Mtnjim
03-04-2008, 06:56 PM
I saw a recent article (if I can

find it again I'll post it) about how the current global waring will melt a lot of the polar ice (which is

happening now). This melting will send fresh water into the oceans reducing their salinity. This in turn would

destroy the "Arctic conveyor" (which circulates warm water, tempering the climate) leading to a new ice age.\o/

(the article is a lot more detailed than my post!)

belgareth
03-04-2008, 07:50 PM
Oh, thank you, thank you, thank

you. I always wanted a gold star and never got one before. Yipeee!

I saw that article too, Jim. A lot of it

seemed predicated on the 'fact' that global warming is real and, as you may have guessed by now, I don't believe

it is.

The above articles were found while I was searching for something a friend told me about. It seems the

same measures that were used to determine that several previous years set warming records showed that last year was

the coldest on record, completely reversing more than 50 years of temperature increases. I personally did not see

the article so cannot vouche for it's accuracy or anything else. After reading the above articles I find myself

discounting both claims.