[Evidence] Global Warming a Fraud? [Archive]

View Full Version : [Evidence] Global Warming a Fraud?

BlackRain

09-28-2004, 02:49 PM

NOAA REPORTS COOL SUMMER, SEVENTH COLDEST AUGUST ON RECORD ACROSS THE LOWER 48 STATES

Sept. 16, 2004 — The contiguous United States experienced its 16th coolest summer (June-August) on record and seventh coolest August, according to scientists at NOAA Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. While much of the West, including Alaska, remained warmer than average, the majority of the nation had a cool summer, with Minnesota having its coldest August on record.

NOAA scientists report that the average temperature for the contiguous United States for June-August (based on preliminary data) was 71.1 degrees F (21.7 degrees C), which was 1.0 degree F (0.6 degrees C) below the 1895-2003 mean, and the 16th coolest summer on record. The mean temperature in 30 states was significantly below average, with only three states (Nevada, Washington and Oregon) averaging much warmer than the long-term mean. Alaska had a record warm May, June and July and though final numbers are not yet available, August and the summer was very warm across the state.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2004/s2319.htm

radon

09-28-2004, 03:10 PM

This makes me angry .Please use your brain. This is not a real argument against or for global warming.

What , a couple of months have been the cold in some states. wow , atleast this means these states have not changed into a Sahara.

This does not say anywhere if the average temperature is rising or not.

Second . Keep in mind 1895-2003 is a very short time. There are exceptions. There are cold and warm winters, sometimes even mentioned in old chronicles. Yes this is the time where human activity possibly has effects on the climate. But the climate has changed before without the humans having anything to do with it. The sahara was before much more fertile. Maybe there is global warming that has nothing to do with cars? This needs investigation of temperatures in thousands of years. For example this is indirectly possible by analyzing old trees .

radon

09-28-2004, 03:22 PM

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
I post this again.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/figspm-1.gif

California Joe

09-28-2004, 03:41 PM

Did you just figure out how to make type larger on your control panel and can't control the urge or something?

[SAB]Grey

09-28-2004, 03:48 PM

Yeah why worry about global warming today, I think it would be better to wait until the oceans have risen and we are 100% sure there's a problem. Maybe when New York is 100' under water, yeah thats the time to worry about it. :roll:

BlackRain

09-28-2004, 03:49 PM

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
I post this again.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/figspm-1.gif

This is junk science as there were no recorded tempature measurements prior to the mid 1800's. There is no way science can be certain what temps were before historically recorded data.

15,000 scientists dispute theory of global warming.

In addition to the Heidelburg Appeal described below, there is another group of scientists that has formed the Petition Project, headed by Frederick Seitz (Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., and currently President Emeritus, Rockefeller University) The petition (read the entire Report, Letter, and Signatories) states:

Global Warming Petition
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/

TheKiwi

09-28-2004, 04:52 PM

The second graph you use has been shown to be 'Junkscience'. It shows nothing of the 'Medieval Climate Optimum' during the 200 years surrounding the year 1000. This was the period of time that the Viking settled Iceland and Greenland. It was also warmer than today (which is why I laugh whenever a 'scientist' states that plants/animals/whatever will die off if the earths temperature rises another 2.5 degrees. Ah yes, that would have been what happened in the year 1000 when the Vikings refused to shut down their factories and abandon their cars).

There have been numerous other recorded era's during which the average temperature has been higher than today's (obviously with very little human input). For example, the Norfolk region of the UK was famous for its vineyards during the Roman era. How many vineyards are there today (clue-not many, if any).

Global warming was made up by Margaret Thatcher to justify closing down the UK coal mining industry (and breaking their unions). The only area's that record temperature increases that cannot be accounted for by 'natural' means are areas close to major cities. This is known as the 'urban heat island effect'. Simply put, the presence of large numbers of people, dwellings, vehicles and concrete create a local increase in temperature. For example, Tokyo is up to 5' (C) warmer than the surrounding countryside.

As a final note, German scientists recently provided evidence that the sun is currently at it's most active in the last 1000 years. Coincidence? I think not.

Ballistic

09-28-2004, 10:30 PM

Still I dont think blindly passing of the chance of global warming occuring is a smart idea. Measures must be taken to drastically reduce pollution levels, and, if global warming is indeed taking place, find a way to counter it. Earth is our home, we must look after it.

TheKiwi

09-28-2004, 10:46 PM

The problem is that any warming that is taking place is almost certainly naturally caused, not man made. The Earth's temperature is not a constant, but rather something that fluctuates constantly. (Hence colder than normal seasons this year).

Spending vast amounts of money (And we're talking Trillions of dollars here) on something that can't be controlled might well appeal to certain green types, but it takes money away from areas where change can be made.

The biggest reducer of pollution is wealth. The wealthier a country gets, the less it is prepared to tollerate pollution. If the poor nations of the earth are pouring money into 'Global Warming', that's money that's not going into other (effective) measures.

The best comparison I can come up with is offering to sell you a 'magic' rock for $10,000 that will protect you from Tiger Attacks.

Unless you live in India, or next the "Low Fence Tiger Park', my rock is fairly pointless but very expensive.

TheKiwi

09-28-2004, 10:47 PM

The problem is that any warming that is taking place is almost certainly naturally caused, not man made. The Earth's temperature is not a constant, but rather something that fluctuates constantly. (Hence colder than normal seasons this year).

Spending vast amounts of money (And we're talking Trillions of dollars here) on something that can't be controlled might well appeal to certain green types, but it takes money away from areas where change can be made.

The biggest reducer of pollution is wealth. The wealthier a country gets, the less it is prepared to tollerate pollution. If the poor nations of the earth are pouring money into 'Global Warming', that's money that's not going into other (effective) measures.

The best comparison I can come up with is offering to sell you a 'magic' rock for $10,000 that will protect you from Tiger Attacks.

Unless you live in India, or next to the "Low Fence Tiger Park', my rock is fairly pointless but very expensive.

budanski

09-28-2004, 10:59 PM

End Global Warming... Eliminate the Sun NOW!

TheKiwi

09-28-2004, 11:09 PM

Should that be Nuke the sun?

I wouldn't want to eliminate the sun. Then the poor brits on the board would have nothing to look at on page 3!

budanski

09-28-2004, 11:18 PM

Ballistic

09-28-2004, 11:32 PM

The best comparison I can come up with is offering to sell you a 'magic' rock for $10,000 that will protect you from Tiger Attacks.

DEAL !! :D

What you said is true, but I still believe we cant afford to become complacent. It would be fantastic if global warming was indeed a "hoax", but, I'd prefer to be "safer then sorry" in this situation.

TheKiwi

09-28-2004, 11:33 PM

In that case I also have the rights to a bridge over Sydney harbour that I'm selling off cheap. I take Pay Pal or Cash... :lol:

Ballistic

09-28-2004, 11:38 PM

In that case I also have the rights to a bridge over Sydney harbour that I'm selling off cheap. I take Pay Pal or Cash... :lol:

ROFL :D

Romulus

09-28-2004, 11:52 PM

Wasn't it just 25 odd years ago Scientists were screaming about another Ice Age?

All junk science if you ask me. I don't think we are capable of destroying the Earth. Junking it up alot yeah, but to utterly destroy it? NAHHHHHHHHH.

TheKiwi

09-28-2004, 11:55 PM

Yes, it was only 25-30 years ago. Many of the same names were involved too. And the amount of 'cooling' measured was in the fractions of a degree, much like the 'warming' of today.

MEGR

09-29-2004, 12:15 AM

Winter of 2004 in NY was horrible. We had below 0 temps (without the wind) for like 3 weeks straight. -30 degree winds make your face feel like it's on fire. Where is this Global Warming??!!!!

EvanL

09-29-2004, 12:19 AM

MEGR

09-29-2004, 12:20 AM

EvanL

09-29-2004, 12:28 AM

Winter of 2004 in NY was horrible. We had below 0 temps (without the wind) for like 3 weeks straight. -30 degree winds make your face feel like it's on fire. Where is this Global Warming??!!!!
ohhh no -30!
dude it wasnt that bad
New Yorkers freak out when it comes to cold weather.
COme on man. I grew up in -30*C!!!
I didnt find it that bad. COnsider yourself lucky

It was Karl Rove's fault.
I blame Al Roker

Ratamacue

09-29-2004, 12:30 AM

OB Kenobi

09-29-2004, 06:03 AM

Climate change happens, it's a fact that no one in their right mind would argue about. You only need to take one look at the Grand Canyon to see how radically the Earth has changed, and if that's not enough, maybe you ought to look back to when the middle-east was jungle and not the desert it is today.

Our climate is steadily changing, and it will continue to do so, what scientists are unable to determine is what causes it, and if pollution is aggravating it. If it's natural, well then get ready for the apocalypse, if it's unnatural, then we need to stop doing whatever is causing it because we'll have what's going on in Florida happening all over the planet.

Only a religious fool, or oil company shill would say "Don't investigate it, global warming is terrorist propaganda! Everyone stick your heads back up your asses, ignorance is bliss! Knowledge is evil!"

mr.x

09-29-2004, 09:29 AM

I personally think the global warming theory is a crock but at the same time I also believe we should be responsible stewards of the planet and do everything reasonably possible to limit our pollution output.
Much easier said than done, but we have made some remarkable strides in autos and industrial pollution in the last 30 years.

achilles

09-29-2004, 11:41 AM

BlackRain

09-29-2004, 01:02 PM

This is junk science as there were no recorded tempature measurements prior to the mid 1800's. There is no way science can be certain what temps were before historically recorded data.

15,000 scientists dispute theory of global warming.

Allow me to inform you that junk science is what you posted.
There are no recorded temperatures prior to the mid1800s but statistics are advanced enough to provide decent projections, backwards and forwards. Subject to stochastic processes by definition...but descent.

15,000...got a list? Cause i know more who claim the opposite. Perhaps those 'scientists' that try to obscure a real and severe problem pool funds for their research from heavily emitting CO2 emissions countries.
Every journal on atmpospheric chemistry. environmenal/ecological economics/ ecology or you name it , includes real-time scientific evidence that anthropogenic emissions are way beyond the assimilative capacity of the atmosphere and exceed the ability of oceans and forests to sequastrate carbon. Simple we are emitting more than nature can absorb...this creates slowly (maybe fast?) but steadily a huge CO2 pool that may jeopardize the stability of the planet as a whole.
Sure, temperature has its own random trajectories but human activities are only aggravating the problem.
Now if people think that one cold summer or one mild winter can refute the problem of global warming i m afraid they are missing the big picture.
Cold summers, hot winters and in general extreme meteorological phenomena simply corroborate that something is going wrong...they do not refute it...

All in all, my view is that global warming is a much greater threat than terrorism for example ;)

That is my argument with the sky-is-falling crowd. You can not realistically exprapolate a trend for the past 1000 years of climate change without data points to begin with.

The very existence of global warming is disputed by satellite data, which shows no clear trend since satellites were launched in the late 1970s.1

My article about this being one of the coolest summers is more accurate because it is based on cold hard facts -- actually recorded temperature not hypothesis.

You want 15,000 scientist's names?

Listed below are 19,200 of the initial signers During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified.

Here you go: http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/pproject.htm

Now please provide the names of your 15,000 scientists who refute global warming like I provided you.

We both know you can't!

1. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3569282&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

TheKiwi

09-29-2004, 04:37 PM

There are no recorded temperatures prior to the mid1800s but statistics are advanced enough to provide decent projections, backwards and forwards. Subject to stochastic processes by definition...but descent.

Yes you are correct. There are indeed methods of extrapolating temperature and climatic data back several thousands of years (although the further back you go, the less accurate they are). These show that the earth has within recorded history (that's back to 3000BC or so) had many climate changes as large or bigger than any we are experiencing right now, without any human input.

There have been cold periods such as the 'little ice age' that lasted from the 1300's to the late 1800's. This was the period of time where the Thames River in London regularly froze over. There have also been periods of higher temperatures such as the Roman and Medieval periods which had significantly higher temperatures than we are experiencing today. The 1930's (and this is during a period with generally excellent recording methods) had a higher average than we experience currently. (Which is why most 'Global Warming Scare' scientists quote things like 'highest in the last 50 years'. Why only 50 years?)

Significantly, each of these periods of higher or lower average temperatures has been associated with an increase or decrease in solar activity. This includes the current upswing, where the sun is in a
very active period.

It cannot be ruled out of course that this time it's different, and it's all man made. But the evidence of the past points strongly towards solar generated climate change.

Does this mean that we need not do anything? No. But it does mean that rubbish like Kyoto should be thrown away. Instead of basing changes to environmental policies on the dubious idea that CO2 is a pollutant (plants need it to live), a better approach may be to look at other pollutants instead. Increasing the wealth of the poorer nations would be the biggest contributor to reducing overall pollution. Remember, as a nation gets richer, it's tollerance to pollution drops.

Wealthy people are prepared and able to pay a bit extra to ensure that the products they consume are made in an environmentally friendly manner. The poor just want whatever they can get-NOW!

Olybrius

09-29-2004, 06:55 PM

junk science ? rofl

the World Scientists' Call for Action (1997) against global warming was signed by more than 1,500 scientists (real eminents scientists ... ;)) from 63 countries, including 110 Nobel laureates and 60 US National Medal of Science winners...

http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/page.cfm?pageID=1007
http://dieoff.org/page123.htm

can't compare with a right wing petition ... ;)

and please , it's useless to oppose it the Heidelberg appeal...

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Heidelberg%20Appeal

TheKiwi

09-29-2004, 07:01 PM

Of these 110 Nobel laureates, how many were climate scientists? How many of the Academy of Science gold medal winners were climate scientists? The Oregon Petition was signed by 19,000 (not 15,000) climate scientists.

From todays Independent (hardly an enemy of global warming)

When the Sun lost its heat
Locked away in fossils is evidence of a sudden solar cooling. Kate Ravilious meets the experts who say it could explain a 3,000-year-old mass migration - and today's global warming
29 September 2004

Just under 3,000 years ago, a group of horse-riding nomads, known as the Scythians, started to venture east and west across the Russian steppes. At about the same time, African farmers began to explore their continent, and Dutch farmers abandoned their land and moved east. All over the world people became restless and started to move - but why? Archaeologists have never found a clear answer, but now one scientist thinks the explanation may lie on the surface of the Sun.

Bas van Geel, a biologist from the University of Amsterdam, believes that the Earth's climate took a dramatic turn about 2,800 years ago, due to a quiet period in the Sun's activity, making the tropics drier and the mid-latitudes colder and wetter. Previously damp areas, like parts of the Netherlands, became flooded and uninhabitable, while very dry, desert-like areas, such as southern Siberia, became viable places to live. Meanwhile, in the tropics, land dried out and created savannahs where lush forests had grown before. "People living where the changes were most dramatic were forced to move," he explains.

Until now, climate scientists haven't taken too much notice of the changes in the activity of the Sun, believing them to be small fry compared with the effects of greenhouse gases and wobbles in the Earth's orbit. But now a growing number of scientists are convinced that fluctuations in the activity on the Sun's surface (such as flares, sunspots and gas boiling off) may be amplified, causing significant changes to the Earth's climate. Van Geel has gathered evidence that supports the idea that such solar activity is an important influence on our climate, and he has also shown how people are affected when the Sun decides to have a snooze.

Over the past 10 years, van Geel and his colleagues have been studying fossil plants in peats and muds from all over the world. They have been measuring carbon 14, the heaviest isotope of carbon, which is used to date things. Carbon 14 is created in the atmosphere when high-energy cosmic rays smash into nitrogen atoms. Carbon 14 atoms then team up with oxygen and become radioactive carbon dioxide, which is then absorbed by all living things. Once the plant or animal dies it stops interchanging its carbon with the atmosphere and, over time, the carbon 14 decays. Because scientists know approximately how quickly carbon 14 decays they can work out how old an object is. But this isn't the whole story.

The level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere varies according to how many cosmic rays are bombarding the Earth. When the Sun is very active, cosmic rays are deflected by the strong solar wind. This means that as well as indicating how old something is, carbon 14 can give scientists an idea of how intense the cosmic ray flux was. And this is just what van Geel has been using carbon 14 for. By measuring the detailed variations of the isotope of carbon at different levels in peat deposits, he can estimate the ups and downs in the intensity of the cosmic rays hitting the Earth at the particular time that the peat was formed from dead plant matter in wetlands.

"I use the carbon 14 as an indicator of solar activity because an increase in it means an increase in the cosmic ray flux and, therefore, a decrease in solar activity," he explains.

He has shown that, about 2,800 years ago, there was an abrupt, worldwide, increase in carbon 14 levels, which occurred at the same time as climate change. He believes the increase in carbon 14 means that solar activity suddenly declined. But how can little blips on the Sun's surface have such a drastic effect on the Earth's climate?

Proponents of the solar activity theory have come up with two possible mechanisms that might be transmitting the effects of fluctuations in activity on the Sun's surface.

The first is that changes in solar activity alter the level of cosmic rays hitting the Earth, which influences cloud formation. Clouds affect climate by altering the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, and by varying the level of rainfall.

Alternatively, changes in solar activity affect the amount of ultra-violet radiation leaving the Sun, which may have an impact on the amount of ozone created in the higher levels of the atmosphere. Ozone influences how much solar energy is absorbed by the atmosphere, and, indirectly, affects atmospheric circulation and associated weather.

Teaming up with archaeologists has enabled van Geel to back up his theory by showing that many people were migrating at this time. Along with Dutch specialists, he has found that farming communities in west Friesland suffered increasing rainfall about 2,800 years ago. They resorted to building homes on artificial mounds, but eventually they were washed out of their farms and had to move to drier places. Meanwhile, work in Cameroon has shown that there was an arid crisis that started at about the same time. This dry patch caused some of the forest to die and savannahs to open up. These openings in the forest made it easier for people to move. Archaeological remains show that farming communities began to migrate inland.

Most recently he has worked with Russian archaeologists to show that, also about 2,800 years ago, the Scythian people took advantage of a wetter climate to explore east and west across the steppe landscapes that lie north of Mongolia. Prior to this, the land had been hostile semi-desert, but the extra moisture turned it into green, grassy steppes, enabling these nomadic tribes to travel towards both China and south-east Europe.

Without a doubt there was a change in climate about 2,800 years ago, and it seems that this encouraged, or even forced, many groups of people to move. But was this a one-off change, or has solar activity played havoc with the climate at other times, too?

"Carbon 14 records show a major decrease in solar activity roughly every 2,300 years," says van Geel. "The most recent time this happened was during the 'little ice age', which peaked around 1650." At this time frost fairs were held on the Thames, harvests were poor all over Europe and glaciers marched down mountains.

Taking a look at the Sun right now reveals that we are in a period of high activity, with many sunspots, solar flares and an increasing magnetic field of the corona (the Sun's outer atmosphere). Van Geel and other proponents of the solar activity theory believe this high solar activity could be behind the global warming we have experienced over the last 50 years. "My impression is that there is an over-estimation of the greenhouse effect," says van Geel. It is controversial, but if he is right, then there is little we can do to control the Earth's climate. Instead, we can make the most of the sunshine and, perhaps, start preparing for the next chill in western Europe - due to peak about AD3950.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=566685

Olybrius

09-29-2004, 07:28 PM

Of these 110 Nobel laureates, how many were climate scientists? How many of the Academy of Science gold medal winners were climate scientists? The Oregon Petition was signed by 19,000 (not 15,000) climate scientists.

ok let's see ...
- Petition Project, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
- letter A
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p333.htm
google say
1st signer :Earl Aagaard : Institute for Christian Teaching rofl
2st signer : Roger L Aamodt : is a doctor ;)
3st signer : M Robert Aaron : is an electrical engineer ;)
4st signer : Ralph F Abate : american council of engineering companies rofl

ok no more time to lost ...
climate scientist ? what a joke ! rofl rofl rofl

only a right wing petition ;)

TheKiwi

09-29-2004, 07:33 PM

What are you comments on the solar radiation generated climate change theory then?

You still have not answered how many of the Nobel laureates were climate scientists. I acknowledge that to become a Nobel laureate, you have to be right up there in your field. Just like I wouldn't trust an expert level plumber to do heart suregery, nor would I listen to a Nobel laureate in Chemistry on climatology.

BlackRain

09-29-2004, 07:57 PM

This article by a real scientist not a political hack demonstrates how false the premise of Global Warming really is.

Greenhouse wars

PAT MICHAELS, a belligerent sceptic about global warming, is in ebullient mood. "The truth is that what we sceptics say is always pilloried by the climate modellers, and then adopted as their own five years later. That would make a good theme for your article."

Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia, is convinced that the tide is about to turn in his favour, and that the efforts of the mainstream climate modellers, stalwarts of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are about to collapse under the weight of their own inconsistencies. "They can't go on forever tinkering with their models, trying to make them fit reality. Ever heard of Ockham's razor? It says the simple explanation is usually the best. Apply that in this case and you conclude that the climate just is not as sensitive to the greenhouse effect as they predicted."

So what exactly is the problem for the climate modellers? Well, something strange has happened to global warming. For almost twenty years, while temperatures at ground level round the world have continued to rise inexorably, the warming has failed to penetrate the atmosphere. In wide areas some three kilometres above Earth, the atmosphere has actually been cooling. This is not what is predicted by the computerised climate models on which all estimates of global warming depend. They all say the warming should spread right through the troposphere, the bottom ten kilometres or so of the atmosphere.

Global warming sceptics have spent almost a decade challenging some of the basic tenets of the climate models. Ever since global warming became headline news in the late 1980s, they have been complaining that the prevailing view is skewed and overstates the problem. Their prime motivation seems to be indignation, coupled with a maverick instinct to buck the latest fashion. But they have also managed to secure some lucrative lecturing fees and consultancy deals with commercial concerns-such as the coal industry-who are anxious to undermine international efforts to control emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2.

It is a year this month since the US's under-secretary of state Timothy Wirth castigated the sceptics at a UN climate conference. They were "bent on belittling, attacking and obfuscating climate change science". But the stubborn failure of most of the troposphere to warm continues to hearten the greenhouse outlaws. Are they right? Has the climatic apocalypse been postponed? Are the modellers on the run from reality?

On a tour of some of the main players, you dodge a constant crossfire of personal and professional abuse. In his home near Boston, the sceptics' guru **** Lindzen, a meteorologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, accused the IPCC of being dominated by "guys from the bottom of the heap, such as geographers".

Back in Virginia, Michaels slams the IPCC scientists for manipulating data, then settles into an explanation of how the key to Vice-President Al Gore's challenge for the presidency next time round will be corrupt environmental journalists who he will use to peddle a fraudulent version of climate change.

In the greenhouse wars, the battle is bloody and many a good scientist has been conscripted by both sides. Take John Christy. For ten years he was a Baptist minister in Kenya before he took up science. Now, as professor of atmospheric science at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center, part of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, he catalogues data from satellite instruments operated by the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Since 1979, long before global warming was an issue, NOAA's instruments have been measuring microwave radiation released by the atmosphere. The radiation comes largely from oxygen molecules, which release more as they warm, giving an overall picture of temperatures in the troposphere. So far, and in stark contrast with the ground-based meteorological stations, the satellites have apparently picked up little evidence of warming.

Naturally, the sceptics have adopted Christy's data to suggest that global warming is a myth. In response, collectors of ground-based data have hit back. Jim Hansen, the NASA climate modeller who first put global warming onto the front pages back in 1988, claims that if the satellites can't see evidence of warming "there's something wrong with their data".

Both are wrong, says an exasperated Christy. First, his short time-series-just 18 years-is skewed by warming at the start, caused by a short-term natural warming in the Pacific, and by cooling towards the end, from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. Filter out those effects and he reports "a very slight warming trend". But most importantly, says Christy, "the satellites don't measure surface temperatures, but average temperatures through the troposphere". Thus the surface and satellite data complement rather than contradict. Put them together, he says, and they show that the surface of the planet is warming, but the bulk of the troposphere, the so-called free troposphere, is not.

Ups and downs

Add archive data from weather balloons recently assembled at the British Meteorological Office by David Parker, another assiduous and independent-minded data-cruncher, and something even more surprising emerges. From the early 1960s to the late 1970s, there was strong warming in the free troposphere, at a time when the surface was cooling slightly. Then everything switched: the surface warmed strongly while at 1.5 kilometres and upward, temperatures were at least stable, if not falling.

Nobody can explain this reversal. Certainly, the temperature record of the past three decades does not match the predictions of the models, agrees Parker. In the models, the surface and the free troposphere are very closely coupled, so their temperatures should move together. But if this is right, why are the temperatures in these two regions moving in different directions? "The surface and mid-troposphere appear to be much less coupled than the models assume," says Parker. "If the models don't get tropospheric heating right, we are in trouble."

After years of trying, the greenhouse sceptics finally feel that here they have found the Achilles heel in the climate models. If the models are wrong about how surface warming influences temperatures in the troposphere, they are also likely to be wrong about another fundamental feature: the movement of water vapour between the surface and the free troposphere. And that, argue the sceptics, means the models may have misrepresented, or even have invented, one of the vital mechanisms behind global warming itself: the positive water-vapour feedback.

Feedbacks are what turn the greenhouse effect from a benign curiosity into a potential apocalypse. Even sceptics agree that putting more greenhouse gases, such as CO2 from burning fossil fuels, into the atmosphere will tend to warm the planet. But even the doubling of CO2predicted for the late 21st century would only add about 1 °C to global temperatures. According to the models, however, this initial warming will be magnified by a series of positive feedbacks. In the most important of these, they predict that surface warming will increase evaporation from the oceans and push more water vapour into the atmosphere. Because water vapour is itself a strong greenhouse gas, this would amplify the effect of the CO2-a positive feedback that might roughly double global warming.

But will it? Christy's collaborator on the satellite data, Roy Spencer of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, is doubtful. "I don't think warming will be as big as people think," he says. "The positive feedback theory assumes that, in practice, a warmer troposphere will actually hold more water vapour." But he points out that if, as the satellite data suggest, the free troposphere is largely cut off from the surface, water that evaporates from the oceans will not necessarily mean more water vapour in the free troposphere.

This matters, according to Spencer, because water molecules in the troposphere could have a much bigger warming effect than ones that stay close to the surface. Higher up, the air is extremely dry, and Spencer argues that because of this, adding or subtracting relatively small amounts of water there could greatly alter the amount of heat trapped.

Not everybody agrees about the importance of the upper troposphere in driving water vapour feedbacks. One of Britain's leading meteorologists Keith Shine, from the University of Reading, says: "The surface is at least as important here. Sure, a single molecule is more important aloft, but there are so many more molecules at the surface."

But if Spencer is right, this would seem to pose a serious problem for the conventional view that water vapour would amplify the effect of CO2. The extra water vapour generated by warming at the surface would never make it to the regions where it could significantly increase the greenhouse effect.

Clouding the issues

And there is more. Some sceptics also argue that the complex physics of clouds could actually reduce the amount of water vapour that reaches the free troposphere-and so damp down global warming. The modellers are on weak ground in this discussion because individual clouds are too small to be modelled in any detail inside global climate models, which assume that their dynamics will be unchanged by warming.

The sceptical position here is that warming might make clouds more efficient at producing rain, leaving less water vapour behind to moisten the free troposphere. It works like this: most of the water vapour that evaporates from the oceans does not stay in the air for long. It forms clouds and quickly returns to the surface as rain. But some re-evaporates from clouds and heads off into the clear air of the free troposphere. Change the amount of water that leaves the clouds as rain, says Spencer, and you change the amount of water vapour left to re-evaporate from the clouds, and hence the amount of water in the free troposphere. ( See Diagram.)

Two opposing views on the effect of water vapour on global warming.
This is where Lindzen comes in. Though he is highly regarded for his innate ability, Lindzen's ideas are notoriously difficult to pin down. Colleagues complain that too few of them turn into peer-reviewed papers and too many emerge as invective in newspaper articles. Shine says: "Lindzen is painfully clever. But he keeps changing his arguments." Even so, John Houghton, co-chair of the IPCC's science panel, once described him as the "most serious" of his sceptic foes.

Lindzen argues vehemently that water vapour operates a negative rather than a positive feedback. He says "all the data show" that if clouds are warmer, they will turn a greater proportion of their moisture into rain. Result: less water re-evaporating from clouds, a drier free troposphere and a negative water-vapour feedback. In other words, changes in the tropospheric water vapour would compete with, not reinforce global warming caused by CO2.

Here, even some fellow sceptics back off. "It's intriguing, but it's a theory, that's all," says Spencer. "There is no actual evidence for a negative feedback." Shine agrees. "The idea that precipitation efficiency is better in warm clouds is at best contentious. I think what is alarming us more about Lindzen's comments is his assertion that the answer is known."

But Lindzen's opponents know that he is attacking them at a weak point. Evidence of a positive feedback is not overwhelming, either. The IPCC's most recent review, its Second Assessment published in 1996, admits to serious gaps in knowledge about water vapour and concedes that feedback "remains a substantial uncertainty in climate models".

Simon Tett, one of the Met Office's top modellers and a leading IPCC author, agrees that recent studies suggest the positive feedback may have been overestimated. "I believe the upper troposphere is probably drier than the models suggest," he says. Though the evidence for a negative feedback is, if anything, even weaker, the sceptics still believe things are moving their way.

Lindzen for one argues that if the models get the detail wrong, they will get the big picture wrong, too. But modellers say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. "We think there is good evidence that our models reproduce past climate change reasonably well," says Tett. "That is good evidence that they are basically correct."

But here too the modellers are being challenged. "The simply fact," says Michaels, "is that even at the surface the world is not warming up as much as the modellers say it should." Hansen agrees: "Models driven by greenhouse gases alone give warming about twice as large as observed over the past 150 years-about 1 °C rather than the observed 0.5 °C to 0.6 °C." For recent years, says Christy, "the models suggest a warming three times what we see".

Michaels was one of the first scientists to propose an explanation for this. In an article he wrote for New Scientistin the early 1990s, he suggested that sulphate smogs emanating from industrial areas were casting a thin pall over sufficiently large areas to mask much of the warming ("Global pollution's silver lining", 23 November 1991, p 40). By late 1994, modellers at the Met Office had adopted the idea and claimed that combining predictions of warming from CO2 and cooling from sulphate produced a good fit of actual climate change-a fit that persuaded John Gummer, Britain's environment secretary of the day, to ****ounce himself convinced that global warming was for real.

Yet today Michaels is a vociferous opponent of this theory. The problem is geography. Sulphate only survives a few days in the air. Since most sulphate is emitted in the northern hemisphere, its cooling influence should be largely limited to that hemisphere. So if sulphate cooling is important, Michaels says, the southern hemisphere should be warming faster than the north. Until the late 1980s, that was what was happening. But since 1987, warming has virtually ceased in the southern hemisphere-notably in the mid-latitude region between 1 and 1.5 kilometres above the surface, where warming was previously most intense-while it has surged ahead in the north.

For Michaels, that condemns the sulphate theory to the dustbin. And he scorns modellers who don't follow his lead. One of Michaels' most violent verbal attacks on fellow scientists is against Ben Santer of the US government's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. In a paper in Naturelast summer, Michaels implied that Santer bolstered a claim that sulphates were cooling the planet by arbitrarily ending his analysis of temperature trends in 1987, the year the southern warming ceased. Santer's data finished in 1987, but Michaels argues that there are other datasets that Santer could have used to extend his findings. In a subsequent letter to Nature, Michaels argued that the models and reality were diverging. "Such a result... cannot be considered a `fingerprint' of greenhouse-induced climate change," he claimed.

And that charge drew blood. For Santer was the main author of a key chapter in the IPCC's Second Assessment which concluded, largely on the basis of this work, that there was "an emerging pattern of climate response to... greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the climate record". In other words, the human fingerprint could now be seen in climate change.

But is it that simple? Santer, who admits to being "troubled" by Michaels' assault on his integrity, responds vigorously. He denies selective use of the data and says that the datasets available when he wrote his paper for the years after 1987 were not compatible with his own data. He says that the relative cooling of the southern hemisphere since 1987 does not contradict the models. In fact, the models explicitly predict it. His case is that what we are seeing is the interaction between two different effects happening on two different timescales.

Blowing hot and cold

Basically, the first effect, global warming, is bound to happen more slowly in the southern hemisphere than the north. This is because most of the southern hemisphere consists of oceans, which heat up more slowly than the landmasses which dominate the north. But the picture has been confused by the second effect, sulphate cooling, which peaked in the north in the mid-20th century. It slowed warming in the northern hemisphere so much that the southern hemisphere, oceans and all, raced ahead. But since 1987, the growing force of the greenhouse effect has reasserted itself, and the north has again taken the lead. "The contention by Michaels that model predictions and observed data differ fundamentally is simply incorrect," says Santer.

Michaels dismisses this. He says the data actually show that the southern hemisphere is not simply warming more slowly, as Santer maintains. It has actually been cooling since 1987, which no models predict. This, he says, makes a nonsense of both the theory of sulphate cooling and the models of global warming-a double-whammy that he relishes.

And, if anything, the more recent raw data quoted by both sides tends to bear Michaels out: the past five years was more than 0.2 °C cooler on average than the previous five. But, says Tett, "that's probably just natural variability. You can't dismiss a 30-year warming trend on the basis of a blip at the end." Again, the jury is out.

Meanwhile, the argument is moving on. In a paper published in Sciencein November last year, Tett added ozone depletion in the stratosphere to the equation. It has been clear for some years that ozone depletion in the stratosphere is causing cooling there. More recently, modellers have suggested that this cooling is being transmitted to the upper levels of the troposphere as well. "Between 1960 and 1995, adding ozone depletion dramatically improves the fit between reality and the model," Tett said. This is compelling, in particular because it helps explain why the upper troposphere has failed to warm as the models first predicted.

Michaels thinks there might be something in this. But he scoffs that constant tinkering with the climate models to make them fit reality is deeply unscientific. "It's like a doctor who prescribes an aspirin for a headache and then claims the body's problem was a lack of aspirin. They don't have a proper diagnosis." There is a clash of scientific cultures here.

Stripped of the polemic, Michaels analyses the two possible explanations for the slowness of global warming to date. Either, as the modellers say, the warming is being masked by something else, such as sulphate or ozone depletion. In which case, the mask must eventually slip as the greenhouse effect intensifies. Or, as the sceptics say, the climate is simply less sensitive to the warming effect of greenhouse gases than the models predict. And the positive feedbacks are largely illusory.

The modellers' belief that they can create the future in climate simulations are undoubtedly shaken by the constant revisions to the models. The problem for the sceptics, however, is that they still lack a coherent story about how the atmosphere is working. And whenever they can find any uncertainty in the way that the atmosphere works, they tend to use this to claim that there will be no problem with greenhouse warming.

As Shine says of Lindzen: "He always falls back on uncertainty. Sure there is uncertainty, but he then claims that all the uncertainty will work in his direction. Why should it?"

Parker admits that "there are a lot of things we don't know". But, he adds, that doesn't disprove global warming, or the models. "Sceptics tend to elevate one element in a complex system above all the others. You cannot do that, however clever you are. You have to integrate every influence to find out what they might mean when all acting together. And the models are the only way of doing that."

Is there any common ground? Of all people, Michaels insists there could be. "When it comes to it, the modellers and the sceptics are not so far apart," he says. Indeed, if pressed, Michaels, Lindzen, Spencer and other sceptics suggest a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would raise average temperatures by between 1 and 1.5 °C. And 1.5 °C is the bottom end of the modellers' range of predictions.

But Michaels has, as ever, a twist. "You can't make a case for a global apocalypse out of a 1.5 °C warming. It destroys the issue. If politics weren't driving this we could all meet on common ground."

But, of course, he thinks the politics is all on the other side.

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climate.jsp?id=20915100

Olybrius

09-29-2004, 08:32 PM

hehe it's a more interesting and reliable link than the Petition Project ;)
but sorry it's not more convincing .

as it is often the case in science, all the top scientists do not agree to the same theory. but the very significiant thing is that there is an overwhelming majority of scientist who thinks that humans activities are causing global warming. period.

Myth: Humans are not causing global warming.

Fact: The scientific consensus on global warming is overwhelming.

Summary

There is no dispute about the basic facts of this issue: carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; the world's automobiles and power plants pour nearly 6 billion tons of it into the air every year; and there are countless indications that the planet is warming. Perhaps the most revealing is the fact that average temperatures have been gradually rising, and the ten hottest years on record since the 1860s have occurred since 1973.

Argument

In his book, See, I Told You So, Rush Limbaugh misquoted a Gallup poll, claiming that 53% of scientists do not believe that global warming is taking place, 30 percent say they don't know, and only 17 percent are "devotees of this dubious theory." (1) Unfortunately, this is a gross misrepresentation the original poll, which actually found that 66 percent of all scientists agree that global warming has occurred, 10 percent disagree, and the rest are undecided. Rush apparently got his incorrect numbers from a second hand source (either George Will or the National Review) without bothering to confirm them. He has continued to use these false figures despite the fact that Gallup has issued a rare written correction: "Most scientists involved in research in this area do believe human-induced global warming is occurring now." (2)

The scientific consensus that human greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming is quickly growing unanimous. Even the top critics in science have been won over. Thomas Karl -- who has been described as "the darling of global warming skeptics," and whose doubts about global warming have been quoted by conservatives the world over -- has even been swayed by the evidence. One could hardly imagine a clearer warning than the one he gave recently:

The warming now has pretty much returned [after a brief cooling off period caused by Mount Pinatubo, whose volcanic soot temporarily dimmed the sun around the world]. If you were to come back in, say, the year 2000, and if we have taken another jump in temperature [like since 1980], then you are going to see some very strong statements from me and my colleagues. (3)
The strong statements of scientists on this issue derive from the catastrophic potential of even a small amount of global warming. The reason why the planet Venus bakes under 900-degree heat is not because it is so close to the sun, but it is trapped under greenhouse gases. Global warming is a serious threat here on earth because it would cause more severe weather, increase the range of deserts, melt the polar ice caps, cause a rise in sea level (which, according to the fossil record, is a major cause of mass extinctions), as well as expand the habitat of deadly tropical diseases.

The only scientific opposition to the global warming theory comes from the expected places: scientific commissions funded largely by the fossil fuel industry, which is responsible for creating the greenhouse gases in the first place. This is highly reminiscent of the all the "scientific" studies produced by the tobacco companies proving that cigarettes do not cause cancer. In a like manner, the industry-backed Global Climate Coalition has mounted a huge public relations campaign to prevent policies that limit fossil fuel use. It issued a report called "Changing Weather? Facts and Fallacies about Climate Change." It completely distorted an important survey issued by Harvard climatologist David Keith, who demanded an immediate retraction of the report. After receiving a blistering response from the world's top climatologists, the Global Climate Coalition issued a watered-down edition of the report, which made no mention of Keith's study. Obviously, even industry-backed scientists are admitting to the evidence.

Although the evidence is not yet 100% certain, it is moving in that direction. Top climatologist Stephen Schneider says, "Is there global warming? I'm not 99% sure, but I am 90% sure." Klaus Hasselmann, of the influential Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, says he is 95% certain that the recent increases in global temperature are tied to human-caused carbon dioxide. Much of the evidence is circumstantial, but it is growing, and becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss. For example:
The ten hottest years in recorded history (since the 1860's, when reliable measurements began) have all occurred after 1973.
Average annual temperatures have gradually been climbing.
The polar caps are melting, and giant cracks are appearing in their enormous ice shelves. An 800-square-mile ice shelf called the Wordie has disappeared from Antarctica. A gigantic iceberg the size of Rhode Island also broke off the Antarctic in January, 1995. If even a tenth of the ice in Antarctica melts, it would raise sea levels 12 to 30 feet around the world. (4)
Forests are climbing farther north into the polar region, thanks to warmer weather and receding glaciers. There has also been a proliferation of plant life in Antarctica.
Disease outbreaks have been increasing all over the world, due to the fact that diseases thrive better in hotter weather.
El Nino seems to be staying longer. (El Nino normally arrives every three years; it is an upwelling of warm water from the deep Pacific Ocean that rises up all along the Western American coast. It usually has a profound effect on weather.) For the last ten years, El Nino has been causing conditions from extreme drought to extreme rain on the West Coast.
Marine animals have been migrating to newer habitats. Creatures who normally live in warm water have been expanding their habitat, whereas creatures who live in cold water have been retreating farther north and south.
The chain of cause and effect here is so brutally simple that it is difficult to see how the Global Climate Coalition can deny it. The fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is not in dispute. And the fact that carbon dioxide is being poured into the atmosphere by hundreds of millions of cars and hundreds of thousands of city power plants is also not in dispute. In 1950, these sources poured 1.6 billion tons of carbon into the air worldwide; by 1991, they were pumping about 6 billion tons into the air. (5) And this has been accompanied by all the above signs of a growing heat wave. It is a testimony to the greed of corporate special interests that they would even try to rationalize these facts away.

The United States is by far the largest producer of carbon dioxide in the world. It contributes 21 percent of all the greenhouse gases poured into the atmosphere, ahead of the former Soviet Union, which comes in at second place with 14 percent. To be sure, this is not a proud statistic for capitalism -- at least in its more unregulated form.

Return to Overview

Endnotes:

1. Rush Limbaugh, See, I Told You So, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), p. 180.

2. Steven Rendall, Jim Naureckas and Jeff Cohen, The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error (New York: The New Press, 1995), p. 17.

3. Except where otherwise noted, all facts and quotes in this essay are from Charles Petit's article, "New Hints of Global Warming," San Francisco Chronicle, Monday, April 17, 1995, pp. A1, A6.

4. "Ice Cubes for Penguins," Newsweek, April 3, 1995, p. 56.

5. Thomas A. Boden, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, cited by Lester Brown et al. (eds.), Vital Signs 1994 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1994), p. 69.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-globalwarming.htm

TheKiwi

09-29-2004, 08:47 PM

achilles

09-29-2004, 08:58 PM

That is my argument with the sky-is-falling crowd. You can not realistically exprapolate a trend for the past 1000 years of climate change without data points to begin with.

I have extrapolated very large time series data myself and thousands of excel rows and columns for cross-sectional data, pretending that there are missing values. Comparing the predicted values with the actual values suggested, surprisingly, that some of those techniques are accurate. Not 100% but accurate enough to base inference upon. I am not saying that statistics are omnipotent but i would avoid condemning them just like that. at least in the case of the greenhouse effectglobal temperature studies.

My article about this being one of the coolest summers is more accurate because it is based on cold hard facts -- actually recorded temperature not hypothesis.

Ok it has been one the coolest summers no doubt about that. What does that say about global warming NOT being a problem? I dont think we can talk about doomsday yet but we should be concerned about it big time, given the great uncertainty that surrounds the whole issue.

Now please provide the names of your 15,000 scientists who refute global warming like I provided you.

As you said we both know i cant, but even if i could i wouldnt engage in a moronic game of numbers. Besides, all you did is to post a list of a bunch of people who signed a specific petition. My point was that with a bit of google search you can find equivalent petitions with a large number of signatories...shall we make that a basketball game? I score 65 you score 68? i think i ll pass...

From the US environmental protection agency...
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html

One of the most reliable websites if you ask me. And here is a good overview of the issue taken from the same site with a good deal of links for anyone interested:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

Read it blackrain and then, answering your initial question, tell me that global warming is a fraud.

Another interesting website that, at least, makes clear that global warming is not a fraud :roll:
http://www.globalwarming.org/

Some indications about its effects:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q3

The thing with CO2 is that it has no direct impact on human health (actually current concentrations must increase 40 times if CO2 is to be harmful or perhaps leathal) and that impact is in the long run plus the fact that CO2 emissions and concentrations are very mobile, i.e. sensitive to abiotic factors like wind velocity and temperature, motivate governments to ingore the whole issue under a rather myopic perpsective. The long run effects are largely unknown and there is significant scientific evidence that things will get worse, either in the medium or short-run.
Global warming? A fraud? With all this uncertainty?

EDIT: sorry posted twice the same site...repaired...

QRO?

09-29-2004, 09:07 PM

What everybody discussing this should know, is that there is major scientific disagreement about this whole issue. That much is obvious. If there was any significant degree of agreement in the science community (there is never total agreement about anything in any politically significant science), there would be no problem. Politicians would be able to decide what to do with good guidance.

The key points of the controversy are:
- How much warming has happened recently and which measurements are more relevant (surface measurements from stations close to city centers and airports with massive amounts of black asphalt around or those taken from weather balloons or satellites)?
- How the climate has behaved historically and how large and fast changes has there been before human influence?
- How much warming effect CO2 emissions have, taking account possible feedback effects, both positive and negative (there could even be some of both)?
- How much effect other causes such as sun activity or yet unknown natural cycles have?
- How the two possible sources of warming influence each other?
- How accurate computerized climate models are simulating past and present weather and how accurate their predictions are about the future?

Unfortunately there is no entirely satisfactory answer to any of those questions. It's really a shame that people are being intentionally intimidated with a threat, for which there is no solid science to back it up.

Remember that near the end of the middle ages, when climate suddenly shifted and became much colder, witches were burnt because they were thought of being responsible for lost crops.

Today we have advanced science which will be able to give us answers with significant confidence for any specialized field once it has matured enough. For climatology, it will probably take a few more decades.

When they can accurately predict the weather for more than a few days, then they can tell us whether we need to do something about "global warming".

Those of you who have seen the scifi disaster movie "The Day After Tomorrow", you need to remember that it's based on pure fantacy. It takes many years for a major climate change to occur, whether it's a new ice age or drought there and deluge here.

TheKiwi

09-29-2004, 09:13 PM

achilles

09-29-2004, 09:31 PM

The problem with the EPA is that they are very quick to take which ever position supports their current 'goals'. They have a very long history of distorting science to support their agenda. Whenever somebody says "Everyone agrees" what they usually mean is that I agree, now shut up and stop disagreeing with me".

As i very carefully said, EPA is one of the most reliable web sources, in the sense that they base a great deal of their results on statistical analysis rather than 'political lines' or 'interests'. Sure they are not 100% solid. But i tend to adopt their views when they are backed by empirical evidence.
What does the evidence say? That all in all, anthropogenic CO2 emissions is an issue and it is very likely to become worse if asian/african countries 'develop' and adopt western life-style patterns. Can you imagine china with the same percentage of SUV' as the US? The debatable issue pertains to the extent that anthropogenic emissions change our climate, as it has been already pointed out. Lets not forget that our atmospheric system is dynamic and pretty much chaotic which makes it very sensitive to initial conditions and to small changes in specific parameters, like temperature. A great deal of scientists have claimed that a 1 degree celcius increase in global temperature is not a big deal....maybe not for the next few years but it may make a great deal after 1, 2 centuries maybe more. So how shall we go about it? Have our own party and let future generations resolve problems that we have created or start dealing with the matter a bit more seriously.
Besides, i think that there are big economic interests behind 'mounting scientific evidence' the global warming is not an issue...abating CO2 emission is very costly and that makes IEA like the Kyoto protocol a no-no, not to mention that there is a great deal of signatories involved something which makes it even more difficult for individual states to comply. (lots of states involved, the easier it is for someone to cheat...others follow similar actions and eventually noone complies since IEAs are not binding".

A similar situation was back in the 70s when the majority of scientists were pretty chillled out with the ozone-depletion problem and were suggesting that noone should worry about it.
Thank god scientigic evidence became more solid and the Montreal protocal saved our asses ;) ...i hope we wont take action about CO2 when its too late

fokket

09-29-2004, 09:38 PM

Do not fall into this lie made by PR companies like Ketchum.

TheKiwi

09-29-2004, 10:50 PM

Sadly, the EPA recently fought tooth and nail to try to prevent congress passing a law forcing them to make available for public scrutiny the basic research they used whenever they created a public policy. (They failed to stop this). This is not the act of an organisation devoted to using a scientific method of making policy.

Note that this is not a partisan attack on the EPA being under Democrat or Republican thumbs. This kind of stuff has happened under both governments. It's more the sign of a bureaucracy that has become accountable to no-one, making its own rules.

The long sad saga of the DDT ban has shown the EPA to be untrustworthy. (Once again this is a charge leveled at them by both the left and the right).

TheKiwi

09-29-2004, 10:53 PM

...The debatable issue pertains to the extent that anthropogenic emissions change our climate, as it has been already pointed out. Lets not forget that our atmospheric system is dynamic and pretty much chaotic which makes it very sensitive to initial conditions and to small changes in specific parameters, like temperature.

Yes, that is very true. The manner in which the atmosphere behaves is so complex that none of the current computer models used to forcast global warming can currently explain a large number of anomolies. (Example, the upper atmosphere which should show the 1st signs of warming shows no such signs, it shows a slight cooling instead).

Olybrius

09-30-2004, 09:24 AM

[SAB]Grey

09-30-2004, 11:44 AM

Heaven forbid that we take preventive action now to offset something that isn't proven to 100% certainty. Again waiting until New York is underwater is not going to be a good time to say "oops, you were right". It certainly won't be cheaper to wait until "you're" sure there's a problem. The time is now, there are many more benifits to having better polution control than just global warming, let's just throw out reduced asthma rates as an example.

BlackRain

09-30-2004, 12:21 PM

Grey]Heaven forbid that we take preventive action now to offset something that isn't proven to 100% certainty.

Based on that faulty logic, we better take preventive action now to offset the possibility of getting coal from Santa Claus this Christmas. I mean Santa isn't disproven to 100% uncertainty right?

[SAB]Grey

09-30-2004, 12:25 PM

Based on that faulty logic, we better take preventive action now to offset the possibility of getting coal from Santa Claus this Christmas. I mean Santa isn't disproven to 100% uncertainty right?

Yeah, there are alot of scientists out there supporting the existence of Santa Claus, good argument.

Olybrius

09-30-2004, 02:08 PM

great news today :D

Russia backs Kyoto climate treaty

The Russian government has approved the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and sent it to parliament to be ratified

Until now, Moscow has wavered over the treaty, which cannot come into force without Russian ratification.

The Kyoto Protocol sets targets for greenhouse gas emissions, which many scientists believe cause global warming and climate change

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3702640.stm

TheKiwi

09-30-2004, 04:42 PM

as it is often the case in science, all the top scientists do not agree to the same theory. but the very significiant thing is that there is an overwhelming majority of scientist who thinks that humans activities are causing global warming. period.

Only problem is that science is not a democracy where the biggest number of supporters win.

wrong, the only problem is that , even facing scientific évidence, you will always find a minority of stupid "We'll all be dead" politicians who don't care about future and prefer political and financial profits in the short run.

I will restate. Science is not a democracy. Remember that in the 19th century the vast majority of doctors saw nothing wrong with not cleaning surgical tools. This did not make then correct. There were even 'sceptics' who proclaimed the 'germ' theory. They were told that 'everyone agrees that this is nonsense' or similar. Science is not ruled by how many agree with you, but by whether you have the evidence to back things up.

You still haven't commented on Solar Global Warming. There are more and more pieces of evidence coming that this is the cause. I'd like to hear your refutations of this

More and more pieces of evidence ? really ? :lol: we already saw in this thread how straight and rigorous you are ;)

Have you heard of David Bellamy, famous botanist? I'm assuming that you have and that he has proclaimed 'Human Induced Global Warming' to be 'Poppycock'. I'm assuming that you do not think that he is one of these "We'all all be dead" types.

I have shown you articles from a number of sources, many of which refute the 'cut and paste' piece you have quoted. THe following graph may be enlightening.

http://www.millenniumsend.net/downloads/other/correlationgraph3.gif

This graph shows the level of solar activity over the past 1200 years. The material Beryllium10 is used, suplimented by Carbon 14. These are taken from both Greenlandic and Antarctic ice so as to provide a worldwide coverage. As can be seen the last 100 years have shown a significant icrease in solar radiation, just in time to take the planet out of 'The Little Ice Age'. The correlation between the Solar Activity and the Northern Hemisphere temperature readings over the long term have a significance of 98-99%. Over shorter term periods, the correlation is in the 85-95% significance range.

Finally, I hope that I have not insulted or attacked you personally. If I have done so, then I apologise. I'd like to keep things on an adult level, and I'd appreciate the same in return.

hedgehog

09-30-2004, 06:17 PM

All I can say is go Russia! If you still don't believe global warming is taking place, then you are a dumbass. Anyone over 20 has enough experience to realize that. In the early 80s you could still count with enough snow to build cool snowforts. Now you are lucky in seeing enough to cover the grass. In Ontario in the early 90s you got piles of snow and cold like you were going to loose your nuts. It has been getting weaker and weaker every year. The US is just afraid of taking on a challenge because they see they % of world GDP go down if they need to spend more money on producing the same goods. Ooops.. too much beer makes me rant.

I can't believe that Russia is ahead of the States in this...how pathetic.... so much for a world leader when you need one....

kinghk

09-30-2004, 08:33 PM

radon

09-30-2004, 10:42 PM

]

This graph shows the level of solar activity over the past 1200 years. The material Beryllium10 is used, suplimented by Carbon 14. These are taken from both Greenlandic and Antarctic ice so as to provide a worldwide coverage. As can be seen the last 100 years have shown a significant icrease in solar radiation, just in time to take the planet out of 'The Little Ice Age'. The correlation between the Solar Activity and the Northern Hemisphere temperature readings over the long term have a significance of 98-99%. Over shorter term periods, the correlation is in the 85-95% significance range.

Finally, I hope that I have not insulted or attacked you personally. If I have done so, then I apologise. I'd like to keep things on an adult level, and I'd appreciate the same in return.

umm what about the ozone layer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer

"The concentration of atmospheric ozone in the ozone layer varies by a large factor worldwide, being thicker near the equator and thinner at the poles. Ozone levels, over the northern hemisphere, are dropping by ~4% per year. Approximately ~4.6% of the Earth's surface is not covered by the ozone layer; these are the ozone holes."

The ozone layer is weaking because of humans . Maybe not the sun has changed but the amount of radiation reaching those areas.

TheKiwi

09-30-2004, 11:21 PM

Hmmm, well maybe. THe Ozone layer has indeed thinned and regrown and thinned again. However, going along with the assumption that it was ozone thinning that allowed a greater concentration of BE10 to fall to earth (as it were), the graph still shows very high correlation between global climate and solar activity.

However, it is unlikely that the Ozone layers variations could affaect the amount of BE10 conentrations, as these are a net effect of solar product (ie they come from the sun). Thus the earth receives an amount based upon it's area, not on whether the atmosphere is thinner or thicker. (The moon would contain similar BE10 deposits, but without the layers of ice etc at the poles, it would be impossible to measure it accross a timeline).

BlackRain

10-01-2004, 10:32 AM

Hole in ozone layer shrinks
Scotsman.com (http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1147332004)

A GAPING hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica appears to have shrunk by about 20 per cent from last year’s record-breaking size, scientists said today.

Experts in New Zealand said their measurements backed up satellite data showing the hole peaked at about nine million square miles compared with 11 million square miles in 2003.

Scientist Stephen Wood said: "We need to see smaller ozone holes over a number of years before we can say for certain that ozone is recovering."

-----------------

How could this possibly be? Doesn't the Ozone Layer know that the sky is falling since the USA did not sign the Kyoto Protocol?

Based on the hysteria from the Global Warming crowd the Ozone layer should be getting worse not spontaneously improving.

radon

10-01-2004, 04:34 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

Thanks to the Montreal protocol

von_Moo142

10-01-2004, 06:02 PM

Be 10 issues

I can't be arsed to read this whole thread, but I think there is a little confusion over the formation of radionucleides such as beryllium 10 and carbon 14.

Beryllium 10 is produced by cosmic rays, and not UV radiation. Its concentration is proportional to solar activity because the sun is where a lot of the cosmic rays come from (from our perspective at least...).

But ozone doesn't interact with cosmic rays to a greater or lesser extent than other gasses. So we cannot say that the state of the ozone layer has any effect on Beryllium 10 concentrations.

Hope that helps :-)

How could this possibly be? Doesn't the Ozone Layer know that the sky is falling since the USA did not sign the Kyoto Protocol?

Based on the hysteria from the Global Warming crowd the Ozone layer should be getting worse not spontaneously improving.

You are confusing science and politics, I think.

There is massive amounts of data which show that emmisions linked global warming will occur. Science agrees on this. What we cannot work out is how much things will change. That doesn't mean that there isn't a problem though.

It gets ugly when politically motivated people get involved. They use extreme cases to try and get one point across. It's stupid, like most other things political.

But, we should be reducing emmisions. It doesn't make sense not too. And there is no good reason why the US shouldn't be a part of it. Yes, some profit margins will be effected, but buisness is adaptable. Just look at Brazil, where it's economicaly viable to make petroleum products from biomass.

IMO, you should elect someone with the spine to deal with this kind of thing, Bush and Clinton clearly were too weak. Don't know where Kerry stands on this, but I don't expect much from him either.

BlackRain

10-01-2004, 07:37 PM

But, we should be reducing emmisions. It doesn't make sense not too. And there is no good reason why the US shouldn't be a part of it. Yes, some profit margins will be effected, but buisness is adaptable. Just look at Brazil, where it's economicaly viable to make petroleum products from biomass.

But how are we going to exploit the world with our imperialism and occupations if we have to watch how much ozone we produce?

This could seriously put a crimp in our world domination goals.

Next, you are going to tell McDonalds is bad for the health!

von_Moo142

10-01-2004, 07:48 PM

But how are we going to exploit the world with our imperialism and occupations if we have to watch how much ozone we produce?

You could get Monsanto to patent air or Microsoft to patent binary numbers ;-)

This could seriously put a crimp in our world domination goals.

Display some adaptability, and fit catalytic converters onto the black helicopters, Aurora spy planes, UFOs, and other pieces of sinister world domination kit and you'll be fine ;-)

Raistlin

10-04-2004, 07:38 PM

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/figspm-1.gif

This is junk science as there were no recorded tempature measurements prior to the mid 1800's. There is no way science can be certain what temps were before historically recorded data.
Yes there is. Here's a transcript of a conversation with a friend of mine:

In figure 1, where it says: "Northern Hemisphere temperature changes in the past millennium" People here are wondering how exactly they found out the temperature without anyone measuring it back then.
This is done by oxygen molecules. There are two stable isotopes in the atmosphere; O16 and O18. The ratio of these two depends on the temperature of the atmosphere. We are lucky to have ice cores that date back to thousands of years ago in glaciers. Oxygen atoms are trapped in air bubbles in the ice, and can then be examined.
So here you go - the graph clearly shows that the temperature was stable before 20th century. Of course, you might say coincidence but there's still proof of increase of green gases inside our atmosphere.
http://carto.eu.org/IMG/arton2503.jpg
Still coincidence?

TheKiwi

10-04-2004, 07:55 PM

...This is done by oxygen molecules. There are two stable isotopes in the atmosphere; O16 and O18. The ratio of these two depends on the temperature of the atmosphere. We are lucky to have ice cores that date back to thousands of years ago in glaciers. Oxygen atoms are trapped in air bubbles in the ice, and can then be examined.

So here you go - the graph clearly shows that the temperature was stable before 20th century. Of course, you might say coincidence but there's still proof of increase of green gases inside our atmosphere.

Still coincidence?

When you have a graph that states one thing (temp stable before 20th century), and vast volumes of written human history that says another (Roman wines from Norfolk, Viking settlements on Greenland, little ice age freezing river Thames in London etc etc), then you have to ask 'What went wrong with the measurements on the graph', not 'how did all these people throughout history get it so wrong'.

Greenhouse gases compose about 4% of the atmospheric total. The vast majority of that is Water Vapour (H2O). Of the remaining amount, 0.033% is Carbon Dioxide and 0.0002% is Methane. Of the CO2, human emissions make up less than 10%. So we are talking about infantesimal amounts of CO2.

If we take a look at the Solar Output Index, and compare it to global temperatures over the past 25 years, we can see that except where the major volcanic erruptions of Pinatubo and El Chichon took place, the sun has a significant effect on temperature.

http://www.millenniumsend.net/downloads/other/soi-msu2.gif

Raistlin

10-04-2004, 08:58 PM

and vast volumes of written human history that says another (Roman wines from Norfolk, Viking settlements on Greenland, little ice age freezing river Thames in London etc etc)[/img]
Some of it happened before 1000. For the others - look at the graph, those recorded changes are there. Some of them were because of North Atlantic Deep Water and some due to changing oceanic conditions.

TheKiwi

10-04-2004, 09:08 PM

And what do you think changed the Atlantic Deep Water currents and other oceanographic events? My problem with the 'hockey stick' graph is that it shows periods that we know were warmer than today as being cooler.

My money (all $0.02 of it) is still on the sun. Much the same reason as the last ice age eneded 10,000 years ago.

Raistlin

10-04-2004, 09:34 PM

My problem with the 'hockey stick' graph is that it shows periods that we know were warmer than today as being cooler.
Can you provide me specific examples so I can look into them? Thanks.

TheKiwi

10-04-2004, 09:44 PM

Are you up for some reading? It's a lot to wade through, but very interesting.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

I'm going to close out of this thread on a positive note. It's not going to matter how much blah blah blah-ing you or I or anyone else does. I doubt that I'm going to convince those that believe in global warming that they're wrong, just like I doubt I could convince a jihadi that suicide bombings are wrong.

The time span over which we shall know one way or the other is in the 20-30 years mark. My guess is that by that stage we'll all be wondering what the fuss was about.

Raistlin

10-04-2004, 10:54 PM

I doubt that I'm going to convince those that believe in global warming that they're wrong
I'd like to believe that the question of global warming is the question of science and not belief.