Close

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 6 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 313

Thread: Global Warming?

  1. #151
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    8564

    Default

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    "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.
    Give truth a chance.

  2. #152
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    8564

    Default

    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
    Give truth a chance.

  3. #153
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    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/050505_earth_bright.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

    /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
    .



    Debate:
    http://www.livescience.

    com/environment/060201_temperature_differences.html

    http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html
    http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=

    /20060205/NEWS08/602050317/-1/RSS
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  4. #154
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    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.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  5. #155
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    8564

    Default

    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.
    Give truth a chance.

  6. #156
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default A note on the general science as regards earth-systems modeling, and a prominent myth

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    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.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 02-09-2006 at 10:56 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  7. #157
    Full Member wood elf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    158
    Rep Power
    7041

    Default

    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.

  8. #158
    Full Member wood elf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    158
    Rep Power
    7041

    Default

    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.

  9. #159
    Phero Enthusiast Netghost56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    359
    Rep Power
    6977

    Default

    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.

    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.

    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.
    "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

  10. #160
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/articl

    e344690.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.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  11. #161
    Full Member wood elf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    158
    Rep Power
    7041

    Default Interview with Dr Lindzen, Richard S.

    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.

  12. #162
    Full Member wood elf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    158
    Rep Power
    7041

    Default IPCC report criticized by one of its lead authors

    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.

  13. #163
    Full Member wood elf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    158
    Rep Power
    7041

    Default Letter from Frederick Seitz

    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

  14. #164
    Full Member wood elf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    158
    Rep Power
    7041

    Default

    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. 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

  15. #165
    Full Member wood elf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    158
    Rep Power
    7041

    Default

    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.

  16. #166

  17. #167
    Full Member wood elf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    158
    Rep Power
    7041

    Default Global Warming: Watson Indulges in Scare Tactics... Again







    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.







  18. #168
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    8564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wood elf
    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).
    [url]http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=21084385&CFTOKEN=2 9888831[/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.
    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...nizations.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/...TOKEN=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/s...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...4&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...Climate_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...e_and_Medicine



    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/(mc4bgg5...lts,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/pag...geindex=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/conten...t/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.
    Give truth a chance.

  19. #169
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    8564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wood elf
    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
    Give truth a chance.

  20. #170
    Phero Enthusiast Netghost56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    359
    Rep Power
    6977

    Default

    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.
    "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

  21. #171
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    8564

    Default

    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)
    Give truth a chance.

  22. #172
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    8564

    Default

    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/...ns_Forests.pdf
    Give truth a chance.

  23. #173
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Thanks AKA. You couldn't have

    made the point better if you had tried. Please, stand up and take a bow.

    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.
    Last edited by belgareth; 02-13-2006 at 05:43 AM.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  24. #174
    & Double Naught Spy InternationalPlayboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sonoran Desert/Colorado River
    Posts
    864
    Rep Power
    7517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a.k.a.
    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.

  25. #175
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InternationalPlayboy
    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  26. #176
    Phero Enthusiast Netghost56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    359
    Rep Power
    6977

    Default

    If it's not too much to ask,

    how does that make you feel? Do you feel that you've made the right choices?
    "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

  27. #177
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Netghost56
    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?
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  28. #178
    Phero Enthusiast Netghost56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    359
    Rep Power
    6977

    Default

    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.
    "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

  29. #179
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    8564

    Default

    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.
    Give truth a chance.

  30. #180
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by belgareth; 02-14-2006 at 08:24 PM.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 6 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming?
    By belgareth in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-31-2005, 12:51 PM
  2. GLobal Warming...interesting!
    By belgareth in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-13-2005, 03:44 PM
  3. Global warming news
    By DrSmellThis in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-04-2004, 07:58 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •