The Science behind "The Great Global Warming Swindle" broadcast on BBC's channel four has long been discredited and it's so called visionaries proven wrong. But I doubt that the truth was ever more than an after throught. Generating controversy, and sales, were most likely all it's producers were interested in.
That controversy centers around Danish atmospheric physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen who claimed in 1991 that temperature variations on Earth are in "strikingly good agreement" with the length of the cycle of sunspots. Nice theory, unfortunately it turns out to be wrong. Data published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the "agreement" was the result of "incorrect handling of the physical data". Exactlt the opposite turns out to be happening. The length of sunspot cycles have actually declined and temperatures have risen.
When shown the his errors Dr. Friis-Christensen published a new paper attempting to produce simular results. Again his error, a very basic one this time, was exposed, his arithmetic was wrong. Yet again Dr. Friis and his co-author tried another approach in their approach to make the sun responsible for global warming. In his new theory he claims to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the sun and global cloud cover. But no, his new meathod has again been proven to be faulty. Dr. Friis had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that, when the right data are used, a correlation is not found.
On possible drivers of Sun-induced climate changes
We tested the validity of two current hypotheses on the dependence of climate change on solar activity. One of them states that variations in the tropospheric temperature are caused directly by changes of the solar radiance (total or spectral). The other suggests that cosmic ray (CR) fluctuations, caused by the solar/heliospheric modulation, affect the climate via cloud formation. Confronting these hypotheses with seven different sets of the global/hemispheric temperature reconstructions for the last 400 years, we found that the former mechanism is in general more prominent than the latter. Therefore, we can conclude that in so far as the Sun–climate connection is concerned tropospheric temperatures are more likely affected by variations in the UV radiation flux rather than by those in the CR flux.
When you cherry pick your results in order to advance a particular agenda and on top of that pick sources that have already been proven wrong, it should come as no surprize you will reach your predefined goal. This is in fact how all conspiracy theories are born. Because you can always find evidence to support just about any idea you want and even find a professor who will speak up it. Isolated facts can seem very convincing and the human imagination is forever active. Our ability to spin stories is perhaps one of our greatest skills.
But it doesn't lead to real, scientifically verifiable facts. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question. This is what Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen has never done.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 96
The faux global warming hype is realistically nothing more than another pipe dream of a 2x failure. Al Bore will be known not for his vacation as VP, but for claiming to be master of areas outside his expertise (inventor of the internet, now global warming.) Gore is scheduled to be grilled by the senate, and every day more of the scientific hyped 'data' behind this farce is released to the public. Thankfully, real scientists (aka people unlike Gore who have doctorates in this field) have listed in laymans terms how the data shown by Gore is either completely made up or was twisted to fit an agenda. give it a couple more months, and Gore will once again be the laughingstock of capitol hill.
You might want to try reading what I wrote.
Isn't your article conveying that Dr. Friis-Christensen was using false/error filled data to disprove the Global Warming Threat?
Namaste, Wayne
It is interesting reading all the "cattle, suckers forming a line, and sheep comments". You folks do understand that your own herding mentality is mighty strong, don't you?
Namaste, Wayne
Get a grip, Aaron. "Cooking the books" to "prove" your point is LYING. And pointless. You'll soon be found out, and you'll never be seen as a credible source. The point of Brenda's article is that it's the soi-disant debunkers of the "myth" of global warming who are using false numbers and bonehead theories to advance their cause.
I refer you to my previous comment.
Namaste, Wayne
(It's particularly helpful when people read an article before making a comment on it.)
My point exactly. I just see quite a bit of the "pot calling the kettle black". The same descriptives you (and others) use for the folks whose opinions don't match yours apply just as equally to those spouting them (oh, and vice versa).
Namaste, Wayne
The only people still debating global warming are those with a political or economic agenda. Some, like President Bush, like to say that all of the evidence isn't in yet. Perhaps they haven't heard about this evidence: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the United Nations -- have weighed in. Humans are the primary reason for global warming and the subsequent climate change.
Need more proof? Science magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus that the earth's temperature is rising due to human activity.
Despite the best attempts by "Big Energy" interests and some of their Republican supporters, there is no longer a reasonable ideological debate on the subject of global warming. In fact, there isn't even a valid scientific debate anymore. Those who argue otherwise are just plain wrong. As Upton Sinclair put it, "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Global warming isn't a political issue - it's a human issue. It's not about a struggle between Democrats and Republicans - it's about a potential struggle for survival by many of the earth's life forms -- including humans.
History will never forgive those who've long tried to spread doubt as part of a political or economic agenda. Doing so simply makes them guilty of complicity in allowing this "fire" to spread. You can choose not to believe in fire, but whether you believe in it or not, it can still burn you.
isn't the whole point of global warming the WARMING factor...it's not very evident if you ask me.
Name calling and juvenile back-biting gets us nowhere. There are plenty of scientific sources with very good evidence on global warming. It really won't matter what you think of Al Gore when we all end up in the stew. Yes, some climate change is probably normal, but the issue here is, are we speeding it up?
Vineyards are going up in places that they haven't been able to be planted before now. Polar bears are going extinct due to the melting of the Arctic ice. We need to take a good hard look at the issue. WITHOUT personally attacking the people raising the issue. When I was a kid, I thought the worst insult was to be called a poodle. Sheep, cattle and other farm animals are very inappropriate ways to engage in thoughtful debate, assuming it is thoughtful, that is.
Last time anybody with legitimate scientific credentials checked, sunspots cause solar flares on the Sun that we orbit, not changes in global climate. This is the set of evidence at hand observed and documented for the last 40 years but rather then work with the science of the matter, these people have to resort of Al Gore. It as if readers will think they're so clever for dragging someone who has nothing to do with the science. The exchange ends up looking like this...
"The following scientific evidence shows that there has been in increase in CO2 levels in the last 60 years which is destabilizing the ice sheets. See the following set of journals by respected climatologists..."
"Oh yeah! You stupid liberal commie sheep! If Al Gore told you jump off a cliff would you?! I got a nasty picture of Hillary Clinton as my avatar! I know better then all of you and all those scientists that are a part of a liberal America hating anti-capitalist plot!"
Yeah... not exactly impressive or clever. Neither are references to livestock and all kinds of flowery nonsense speeches that have nothing to do with the facts of the matter at hand. But what can I say. Some people are so obsessed with their political agenda that this is all they care about, spending their entire days and weeks and months looking to rub their politics in your face with maniacal fervor.
Swindled: Carl Wunsch responds
The following letter from Carl Wunsch is intended to clarify his views on global warming in general, and the The Great Global Warming Swindle which misrepresented them.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/
swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/#more-417
Global warming is a 'weapon of mass destruction'
Climate experts hit back after being accused of overstating the problem
Global warming is a "weapon of mass destruction", one of Britain and the world's top climatologists said yesterday.
Sir John Houghton, former director-general of the Meteorological Office and chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, entered the debate over the seriousness of climate change after two meteorologists were reported as saying that "some scientists have been guilty of overplaying the available evidence". He said he agreed with the Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, that it posed a greater threat than terrorism.
The comments of the two meteorologists, Professor Paul Hardaker and Professor Chris Collier, both of the Royal Meteorological Society - billed on Radio 4 as "leading experts on climate change" - threatened to revive the row over the scientific view of global warming after the broadcasting of Channel 4's polemic The Great Global Warming Swindle 10 days ago, which took issue with the view set out in Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth.
One of the most distinguished scientists featured in it, the oceanographer Professor Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says he has registered a formal complaint with Ofcom.
http://news.independent.co.uk/
environment/climate_change/article2368999.ece
This is a good article. To my mind climate change deniers fall into the same category as Holocaust deniers: morons.
People are dying every day because of cimate change, in Africa, Asia, Europe and America too. And it isn't just hot weather, the recent cold spells in America's midwest are a result of climate change brought about by pollution in the upper atmosphere.
I know fighting the idiots us a bigger job over there than it is for us Brits but keep on doing it. Because when they are choking to death in searing heat you can be sure they will point the finger at us and say "you greens didn't do enough to warn us"
Have to admit you threw me with BBC - the beeb has a reputation for integrity, then I remembered the commercial network Channel 4 broadcasts to cable on BBC America. BTW the program was ridiculed in the UK.
You can piss and moan about the hype and fearmongering, or simply refuse to accept the scientific evidence and choose to embrace Exxon-produced "information," if it makes you feel better, but that won't change some very basic facts about this discussion.
1. To even SUSPECT that global warming is occuring, and then refusing to do NOTHING about it is immoral and a crime against humanity.
2. NOTHING will be lost by shifting to alternative energy sources except massive oil company profits and endless wars fought on behalf of oil companies.
3. This country and the world will experience a massive economic boom from developing and implimenting robust, alternative energy sources.
4. The burning of fossil fuels, even if you refuse to believe that it contributes to global warming, DOES pollute the environment. Renewable sources of alternative energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, etc. do not.
5. Global warming MIGHT cause 40% of the earth's population to die of dehydration and/or starvation. Shifting to alternative energy sources may or may not prevent or diminish that tragedy, but it will certainly not make it worse.
6. We are now entering the time of peak oil, if we haven't already reached that point. Some believe we have. At any rate, we're producing at or near the absolute peak that we can reach. From this point on, production will fall, at the same time that developing nations begin to put tremendous strains on current production needs.
The result of this pressure is obvious. We will pay more for oil and we will fight more wars for control of it. How long is this a sustainable plan for the future? At SOME point, maybe in a few years, maybe in a hundred years, we will finally reach a point where oil will simply not be available in strong enough supply to carry the world's needs. Then what?
Should we wait until that point to start looking at alternative sources? Or, does it make more sense to develop those sources of energy NOW, so that we can reduce our dependence on oil BEFORE it runs out?
What is to be gained by waiting? We know what can be gained by aggressively developing and implimenting alternative sources, but what can be gained by the whole of society (we know what the oil companies have to gain) by putting off the inevitable? What is to be gained by continuing to support an industry with no future?
Not a single person has been able to provide a logical, intelligent, well-thought reason as to why we should delay the inevitable. We see a lot of name calling, a lot of mocking ridicule, a lot of faith being placed in articles written by those who're paid by the oil industry to write what they write, we see a lot of irrational, baseless conjecturing on the side of those who choose to disbelieve the theory of global warming, but we never see a truly thoughtful justification for their position.
Just once, I'd like to see this. I'd like for ONE of these people to offer what they believe will be gained by refusing to move forward with alternative energy developing, and how we can possibly hurt ourselves by doing so, now rather than later.
If it's determined in 100 years that it took fearmongering and hype in order to move this country away from fossil fuels, so be it, imo. If we learn that global warming was nothing but a crock of shit from day one, but the fearmongering moved us away from fossil fuels, what's wrong with that?
On the other hand, if we learn that global warming is indeed upon us, as the world's climatologists seem to believe, and that we had an opportunity to do something that would've staved it off and prevented it from happening, but chose to do nothing instead, and that our decision directly led to the horrific deaths of 40% of the world's population, quite possibly even our own children, what then?
Will one of you who stands against progress be able to tell your child or grandchild, as she's starving to death or dying of dehydration, that you stood proudly against the developing of alternative energy sources because your political ideology said that you had to? Wouldn't it be easier to tell them, regardless of what happens with global warming, that you proudly supported shifting the world away from oil dependence?
That was the point of the article. The science they were using to discredit the science of global warming was outdated and had already been discredited. Who would know though.
Most people feel that if a scientic program puts forth the information there must be some validity to it. Turns out, not so much. I would like to know who is signing Friis-Christensen'd and Durkin's (the director) paychecks.
I am not really sure why people feel the irrational need to attack Al Gore. Dont heed the message, Kill the messanger?
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 13th March 2007.
You Rock!!!! and Brenda, you ain't so bad yourself.
The rich are tired of listening to the whining complaints, and are tired of having to find ways of economically supporting the non-rich (tax cuts, welfare, paying for non-essentials).
Since the rich and their minions cannot just put us (extras) against the wall and shoot us, without fear of catastrophic repercusions upon themselves, they're hoping mother nature will lop a bunch of us off.
With more manageable sizes of populations, in a more hostile global climate, the rich can divide the world into kingdoms and feifdoms where they can live in wretcheder excess, off the backs of their dependent wage slaves.
I still say that Gather is my favorite place on the net for over complicating issues. I think that more members should have spent more time in business, law and medicine than poli sci and philosophy when in college.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976933816
Ex-Oil Lobbyist Admits Changing Gov't Climate Studies
On Monday a House committee released documents that showed hundreds of instances in which a former oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role. The official -- Philip Cooney -- served as President Bush"s chief of staff of the White House Council On Environmental Quality. Prior to working in the White House, Cooney served as a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil lobby based in Washington, D.C. Cooney acknowledged that some of the changes he made were to align the study's with the administration's stated policy" on climate change. Cooney is now working for Exxon Mobile.
Also...
NASA Official Accuses Bush Administration of Gagging Scientists
At the same Congressional hearing NASA climate scientist James Hansen accused the Bush administration of preventing scientists from freely speaking to the media about global warming.
James Hansen: "Scientists were being asked not to speak to reporters, to tell reports that I can't speak to you, I have to get permission and I have to get someone on the phone with me to listen in on our conversation."
Hansen said political appointees of President Bush had also blocked reports that link rising temperatures or melting sea ice with global warming.
If I understood your entire post, I agree with you 100%.
What ever is causing Global Warming, it definitely is here.
Our life style pollutes the air, earth and waters and so that is one reason for changing to alternative energy sources.
Another reason is, I believe you also mentioned, running out of fossil fuels and the wars etc. that will result if we continue to neglect alternative energy sources.
Thank you for high lighting the problem and suggested remedies.
If that is the only way you know how to debate - go for it.
Namaste, Wayne
Sounds like the USSR.
Please give credit where credit is due though
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 13th March 2007.
I took the facts of the article but used my own words.
Kathleen R.
Also, if you have ever read any of Aaron's pieces on the subject, you will find that his work is so intelligently written and on the mark that I have to only assume that his mistake in what you tried to say in your article was because he became lost in the fog.
I am not the best writer in the world and I could have tried to be clearer. But any "fog" was mostly due to Aron's own preconceptions. This makes sense because hos posts here show little real understanding of science.
Would you prefer that I attack their intelligence as they do us?
This is a legitimate beef but it certainly works both ways Kathleen. One thing is true, the atmosphere here in gather is very hot. I have never been so insulted and verbally abused since coming to gather. The level of hate and bigotry, combined with appalling ignorance emanating from the right-wing here is sickening.
BONGO
I''m honored, thanks.
It totally floors me to see there are still people out there who don't "get" Global Warming... it's happening right now, polar ice cap is shrinking, sea level is rising what more do they want? Will they only believe when their family starts to suffer from dehydration due to loss of drinkable water supply and excessive heat... or when the coastal regions are completely under water from the rising sea levels.
I am not a fan of Al Gore but it seems to me the height of foolishness to dismiss the message because of who the messenger is!
What harm would it do to look for alternative fuel sources? No matter what side of global warming you believe or disbelieve, just remember the world's oil reserves are finite climate changes or no climate changes.
Why get caught with your figurative pants down?
Will they only believe when their family starts to suffer from dehydration due to loss of drinkable water supply and excessive heat...
They will blame us.
I have zero respect for people comment on a post without bothering to read it. I have zero respect for those who follow them. What Gather needs are proper tools to kick or ban like those in IRC and Usenet. Or else they need real moderators who are willing to enforce some base level of behavior.
Because frankly, Gather.com is our of control and left unchecked it will collapse. Whenever you host a social networking site you are at risk of it devolving into a fist fight. Without proper oversight, it's virtually guaranteed. In Gather's case, I see none. All I see are corporate control freaks looking out for their interests, it's CYA all the way to the top.
Why would you expect anything else from MPR?
Nicely done.
The early comments were indeed quite uncalled for... I believe it speaks to character...
The very first one by the Aaron fellow was wonderfully silly...
Steve, it seems the Barbara Boxer online campaign to thank Gore did well...
I wonder who is funding Dr. F.C.'s research?
Myron Ebel has received $1,380,000 in funding from ExxonMobil. That was in the original post, I think, don't know how I overlooked that.
The political issue is money. Who has it, and who needs it. The oil lobby is against alternatives because they want to keep money, and the politicians need their money. Laws will have to be passed forcing society to change. I don't believe it will happen on it's own.
The one that was found more likely to affect climate involves changes in direct Ultra Violet light intensity from the sun that reacts with low altitude ozone (emissions), thereby producing smog (and a possibly a small amount of cooling with increased smog levels). It also has implications for the effect of the depleted high altitude ozone layer which allows increased amounts of ultra violet radition through.
Both of these hypotheses depend on changes in solar activity, the first being that of changes in solar winds (space particles) caused by sun spots and the second being a change in the level of solar irradiance (magnetic spectrum energy including visible light, uv-light, and infrared light).
You rock, girl. It was hysterical when Aaron called you the bomb before he read your article!
I think it useful as a non-climatologist to apply Occam's razor to the claims of the so called global warming sceptics. That habit of thought - The simplest explanation is likley to be the righ one- dpoes apply pretty well to global warming. We annually send over twenty billion tons of CO2 into the sky. CO2 has been shown to operate as a heat trapping device in the atmosphere. What more do you need to know?
Or better yet, just accept mainstream science because we are not well equipped to "know better than" them.
One would think, but you have to realize that some of these people are "dominionists" who believe that "we" (the US) was created by God to rule over all of the planet, and that we have no moral or religious obligation to be stewards of the planet. In fact, many of them believe it is their duty to destroy as much of the environment as possible, because, in their minds, when everything collapses is when the sweet, smiling face of Jayzus is going to appear in the puffy clouds above.
Remember that nutcase interior secretary that Redink Ronnie had? The one who was terrified of the Beach Boys? When asked his position on environmentalism (which he despised), he replied that he didn't see much need for emphasis on it, since it was not going to be long before "the Lord" returned anyway. These people are truly insane. Btw, he was later indicted on 18 federal charges. "Christian moral values"...
"The political issue is money. Who has it, and who needs it. The oil lobby is against alternatives because they want to keep money, and the politicians need their money. Laws will have to be passed forcing society to change. I don't believe it will happen on it's own."
Sadly, you're correct. I do understand the political connections from the oil industry to our politicians. What I don't understand is why Joe Blow republican is so vehemently opposed to common sense, and so fervently obsessed with defending an industry with no future.
I saw the republican ranking member on the house energy committee on C-Span this morning, and he looked absolutely ridiculous. While openly admitting that global temps were increasing, and that we need to move towards alternative energy and away from relying entirely on fossil fuels, he claimed that his opposition was to the "draconian proposals" being offered.
I'd like to know what the hell is "draconian" about mandating an increase in US fleet mileage, mandating that all newly purchased government non-military vehicles run on some sort of alternate fuel that is currently available, encouraging implementation of more wind and solar electricity generating "farms," etc., as well as more aggressive research and development.
His entire "plan" seems to be to sit and wait. He made the absurd claim that we don't have technologies available now, and therefore we should wait to do anything until new technologies are made commercially feasible.
Solar and wind energy are entirely feasible right now, as is tidal energy, geothermal, depolymerization, bio-diesel, ethanol, etc. It would take nothing more than government mandate, coupled with some sort of tax incentives, to implement all of these things, virtually overnight.
The same can be said of merely increasing the fuel efficiency of the US fleet of vehicles. That hasn't been done for what, 15 years or so? Surely, Detroit could muster a 2 mpg average increase by now rather effortlessly, wouldn't you think?
He claimed that shifting to these already-available alternative energy sources (which he claimed did not exist) would somehow cripple the economy and force us into dark caves (ok, he didn't say this specifically, but he did infer that the shift would set us back as a society, another claim that is utter BS).
As is usually the case with these republicans, he offered nothing but his own opinion to back up his, err...own opinion. No facts whatsoever. No documented study discussion. Nothing to back up his ridiculously absurd claims whatsoever, except that "he said so."
It seems rather obvious that there are those on the "right" who're doing nothing but serving their ideological master, with regard to the discussion of global warming. They merely grab their daily rightwing talking points and run with them, without ever questioning whether or not they even make any sense (they don't), or who is paying for the phony "scientist" opinions that they rely upon so heavily.
Upon a mere casual amount of scrutiny, the entire argument against progress that the "right" is so obsessed with, crumbles to dust. You would THINK that this alone would cause them to re-think their stance on this issue, but it only seems to further cement them against logic, reality, and common sense. Once again, the "right" is firmly, aggressively on the wrong side, and hellbent on staying there as long as they can possibly hold out.
In the meantime, they continue to lose voters in droves, as the American public awakens to the fact that republicans simply do not represent them. Perhaps, after they've been thoroughly reduced to enduring minority status, they'll finally wake up and start to represent the people.
.
How is that not one and the same? They are absolutely standing against progress, and they're doing it out of pure ideological stubborness at this point. Why else would they claim that they recognize that we have to move to alternative sources of energy, but just "not quite yet?"
"Thirty years ago, it was accepted by the scientific community that we would be soon entering a period if cooling on the earth. Years later they retracted with a collective "oops"."
The scientists aren't relying upon 30 year old information. Why are you?
"There are still many very credible scientists that disagree with Gore's argument. It is a very real reasonable debate whether human's contribute to the warming.
Its no secret that for billions of years, the climate has had warmer and cooler periods.
Its also no secret that information can be twisted and turned many different ways to prove a point.
Its also no secret that many companies and people on BOTH sides of the argument have something to gain (thats includes Al Gore)
So, to say ... hold on, lets not get "
That doesn't offer a rational justification for doing nothing. Whether we're causing global warming or not is not valid justification for ignoring the fact that oil is a finite resource.
"
Of course we can get off of oil, and I have no doubt we will. As soon as teh free market creates products that are cost efficient it will happen."
So, waiting until it becomes critically urgent to make the shift is what you consider "rational?" That makes absolutely no sense. It can be done today, with tax incentives. What is the argument for waiting until oil is so costly and scarce that it crushes our economy?
"And as far as fighting wars for oil. You know as well as anyone how evil the US is. If we turned to solar or wind energy, we would simply invade the countries that live on the equator, or those with high wind - right?"
There is enough of both in the US to supply our electrical needs quite well
We are contributing warmth to the globe, as well as removing some of nature's cooling mechanisms.
The good news is that people like Don H. will be underwater, and therefore not able to breed!
Good article Brenda.....
Those key elements are indeed already factored into the equation/consideration when questioning the effects of human produced CO2 & other green house gasses.
There is a perception problem... Volcanoes and brush/forest fires can be accute and massive ... but they are not happening all the time (in the current age at least)... the releases by humans are occuring every day, every minute, every year, every second... and almost every where ... take a look at the earth at night from space or at a human "foot print" map of Africa (in the Nat'l Geographic) or any other continent.... Consider, sitting with your feet over the edge of the Grand Canyon, looking at what's going on: you see a row of glass jars filled with beans sitting precariously over the edge....every now and then the wind gusts and knocks one of the jars over ... and down it goes plumeting into gorge... filling that hole in the ground with those beans...each jar is labeled differently: "volcano - Monseratt" "volcano - Etna" "volcano - St. Helens" "Yellowstone fires" " Indonesian fires" etc ... and each time you see one go you think "Hey, that was a lot of beans in that jar that just went over" ... then you hear voices and look around and see people lined up and going over to the edge of the canyon, each with a spoon in their hands with beans, some with tea spoons, some with table spoons, some with a single bean, some two three or five beans.... they are walking up to the edge of the canyon in an endless line, carrying their beans to deposit... you look at one of the people and see one bean drop and think "well, that wasn't that much going into the gorge" ... but you look back again at the masses of people and see how many there are... you notice it's not just one line going up to the edge, but many lines... dropping, dropping, dropping, ... and you think "whhoww! That"s a lot of beans!!!" So you call to some of the people in the line and say "hey!!! you guys a dropping a ton!! of beans into the canyon!!!" and one of the people you called to says... no I'm not... I'm just dropping two!!!" and you say ... "no! You Guys are dropping a load of beans into the gorge!!!" and the fellow looks around at the others in line around him and says... "No, no We are not! these guys only have one or two beans... that's not alot... look over there at the edge where that jar of 5000 beans just went over into the hole!!! get real!!!" ... but you look at them, at all of them, at all of the lines, dropping and dropping and dropping and you shake your head and wonder ... "how long until a spoon full of beans dropped at a time fills this gorge?"
(and what will all those people do if they can't drop beans into the canyon???)
Also... much of the other sources of CO2 you consider are part of the contemporary carbon cycle... that which goes up, goes, down, and gets recycled (It's not an absolute ZERO net loss or gain in that carbon cycle, but it is small) ... human emitted CO2 draws from sequestered reserves (fossil fuels) ...
The earth does "heal" itself ... but it's tools to do so are being taken away (loss of forest land, dead zones in the oceans in which the cool deep water no longer brings up vital nutrients to surface algae (each a single celled organism that removes a minute amount of CO2 from the atmosphere, but when combined with it's zillions of bretheren (if plants have bretheren) are the single greatest mode of atmospheric CO2 removal (Imagine that!!! a life form significantly affecting the make up of the atmosphere and making life possible for us!!!).
Taking the human being out of this current climate change equation leaves the mystery of a global changing climate without a culprit...(there are suspects, but none pan out enough to explain the whole story) ... whereas previous climate change events both warming and freezing have plausable culprits ... (and no, the do not involve humans).
I think Ogham's Razor does relatively well here... and so does the scientific process...
And I dooo love a good cookie too ("C" is for cookie and it's good enough for me!!)
do you think they might like the fellow sitting on the edge of the canyon to ... some how fall over into the gorge??? Really, the discussion should be about how to best transition from the bean dropping culture ...
(read comment above regarding beans and the grand canyon)
Yes, it did.
Gore also collected (within a matter of a couple of days) over half a million signatures petitioning congress to get serious on this issue.
You sure do paint with a large brush! I am a Republican and am concerned about polluting our world.
By the way, I understand Ted Kennedy is against the proposed wind farm on the cape. He is a democrat, right?
I agree that "painting with a large brush" is not wise, but I don't think Republicans in office share your concern about polluting our world. I'm independent, having become disenchanted with Democrats a number of years ago. I don't understand how anyone can belong to either party.
That said, I think Al Gore, no longer running for office, is telling the truth about global warming. Even most Republicans in these hearings agreed with him about it, and were ready to engage in debate about solutions.
Being Republican, you might be interested to know that there are other Republicans out there, who share your concern about environmental issues (like you don't know that already), and this website might be useful to you:
http://www.repamerica.org/
You're right about Ted Kennedy, and I don't get his opposition to the Cape Wind project. Someone from that area writes about that issue on Gather. Perhaps he can explain it.
Cape Wind Project, have not been following the fight down there, but Wind farms have divided the environmentalists in Vermont. Unlike the right-wing (who seem to always knee-jerk opposition), environmentalists do not automatically agree on every issue. The problem with the wind farms are that they pit the environmentalists particularly concerned about our energy sources against those who are concerned about aesthetics and sometimes wildlife. Each side is putting forth its scientific concerns -- the Bushies just call science phony when it does not agree with what they want or believe.
I am disapointed with Kennedy's position on the surface, but I really am not absolutely familiar with what he's said about it. I haven't heard what his nephew Robert Jr. has to say about it but I'm sure he has a thought or two...
It seems that many conservatives (extremist especially) are absolutists, for what ever reason...
Science itself, is about finding the best description or explanation of the world as we are able to experience and test it... (understanding that we are limited to the senses and tools that are available to us at the time...
I don't know if many people realize that the scientific process, whether it is in the medical, physical, biological/ecological, pharmacudical (sp?), social, etc. fields has built in expectation and levels of acceptable error in the statistical analysis of studies. These levels of acceptable probability of possible error are very low in Medical, Physical, and Life sciences and are less rigid in some of the social sciences (and it seems lately in the pharmacudical field where drugs are rushed through the system so they can get to market ...)
I think absolutitsts have a hard time dealing with that approach to the world...
The scientific process aside, there is the human aspect of deciding cost benefits based on our values of importance... That is where constructive debate comes in, and it is part of what has made this Nation unique (but not entirely so) at its birth and has kept it strong, I believe (and I feel the founders did too).
The critical and most constructive debate that can be and is (in places) going on is what is the best way to deal with the situation in which we now find ourselves...
with an ability to discuss what it is that is important to us and why and how to best handle it...
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65 (2003) 801–812
Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some
purported correlations
Peter Laut
Department of Physics, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
Abstract:
The last decade has seen a revival of various hypotheses claiming a strong correlation between solar activity and a number of terrestrial climate parameters: Links between cosmic rays and cloud cover, first total cloud cover and then only low clouds, and between solar cycle lengths and Northern Hemisphere land temperatures. These hypotheses play an important role in the scientific as well as in the public debate about the possibility or reality of a man-made global climate change. I have analyzed a number of published graphs which have played a major role in these debates and which have been claimed to support solar hypotheses. My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by an incorrect handling of the physical data. Since the graphs are still widely referred to in the literature and their misleading character has not yet been generally recognized, I have found it appropriate to deliver the present overview. Especially, I want to caution against drawing any conclusions based upon these [erroneous] graphs concerning the possible wisdom or futility of reducing the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases.
My findings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors. The sole objective of [this] analysis is to draw attention to the fact that some of the widely publicized, apparent correlations do not properly reflect the underlying physical data.
© 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Best,
Regards
"What is to be gained by waiting? We know what can be gained by aggressively developing and implimenting alternative sources, but what can be gained by the whole of society (we know what the oil companies have to gain) by putting off the inevitable? What is to be gained by continuing to support an industry with no future? "
------------------------------
Short sighted greed, based on exploitation of denial at large--and the politics to go with--are "good to the last drop?" Iran is waiting in the wings of George's demented mind as a booster shot for DENIAL!
Methinks the cows and the sheep, and the other four legged critters [and their waste] will leave many of the two legged critters [and their waste] in the dust and they will surely choke on it, and cry like babies.
George Mc. They will cry like rampant, giant, baby trolls.
The one thing this thread does not lack is emotionalism! I'm still looking for facts on this matter, such as what are the various sources of greenhouse gasses, and which of these are the direct action of man? I've seen a lot of hot emotions but the actual figures from a reputable scientific source leaves a lot to be desired.
That said, we have many reasons to look for alternatives to fossil fuels besides global warming. Dependence on Mideast oil has been a mistake we failed to learn from back in 1972! While I'm not at all sure about man being the cause of global warming I don't question global warming is occurring and believe we should take whatever steps necessary to mitigate and survive the ultimate results.
I do not mean to respond for Brenda and she is of course free to respond for herself if she likes, but, I suggest that there are many sources with the information that you seek. The ultimate determination of what is "reputable" will have to be made by you for your own purposes of feeling comfortable with the understanding that you might come to. For instance, while you may not (or may) agree with Mr. Gore's movie, slide shows, and books, and may have various reasons for feeling the way you do, the science on which his movie, etc. are based is "reputable" science as produced by our society at this point in time. Another example are the IPPC reports (which is also a good source for answering the questions you have asked). Should you not find these sources to be "reputable" then maybe, may I propose, your question is rather about what is "reputable" ... You might ask yourself what is the standard you are looking for to meet that quality. Ultimately, it must be you that has to decide what you feel comfortable with for accepting as "reputable" and the reasons for coming to that conclusion ... as it is for everyone else. Currently the folks in our society (the US and the world) that have spent their lives in becoming educated in their fields and have been studying the climate issue from many angles have been at concensus on what they feel is occuring (in terms of net global rising temperatures and consequent changes to global climate regimes) and on what they understand the primary and significant causes to be (that being widespread and constant release of green house gases, primarily CO2) and also the basic means by which to aleviate the ultimate trajectory, effects, and impacts of global warming and climate change (that being reducing the human generated emissions of those green house gases).
And to help clarify and avoid confusion, I remind you that Consensus does NOT mean 100% (for instance, the phrase 'by general consesus' is redundant because by definition a 'consesus' includes a general sampling of the given population involved - Legislation moving forward by consensus in the house or senate does NOT mean 100% of the members of either body has agreed...they would never get anywhere in that case).
That said, we must understand that this is an interdependent world and always has been. We as a nation are dependent on much more than just oil in this world. There are any number of foreign goods and services that we rely on for our population and our economy as well as domestic goods we'd like to sell. We are interdependent on how the world treats the atmosphere and oceans (its waters and its fisheries), as they are common to the world and know no boundaries. We also must realize that the cost (economic and environmental) of harvesting fossil fuels does and will continue to outweigh the benefits (both economic and societal). While energy independence can be good for a variety of reasons, I must question the sudden urgency and call for it now since the OPEC crisis of the early 70's occured over 30 years ago... with great increases in energy efficiency taking place here during and shortly after that time, which had since been abandoned. Energy efficiency and alternate source development are excellent goals (that have begun already) for many reasons, but do any of them call for the use of a government agency and military assests under the label of "DEFENSE" ? Certainly, and an Offense may be argued to be an appropriate defense in the face of impending and unavoidable danger, but were any of the oil producing nations threatening us with their oil reserves (ala OPEC '72) in 2000-2003 ? In fact, it seems that our actions, policy, and lack of diplomatic ability have placed us in greater foreign energy danger than anything else... Our current wars in the middle east have were initiated by acts of terrorism (by those with no control over energy reserves or trade) and apparantely (but not in reality as it turns out) by weapons of mass destruction. Our foreign oil trade infrastructure and inter-relations were in relatively good shape at the time and still are, as evidenced by the record profits of any number of oil companies (are fields in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea responible for those profits?)
Lastly, having come to the understanding the Global Warming itself is occuring, why do you have difficulty understanding the cause of that warming process when the folks who have studied and reported on the first (I assume you did not yourself collect and analyze data to determine that warming is occuring) have also reported on the second (their conclusions are that the best explained source of the warming is human activity) and they (most of those same folks that helped discover and explained the first point) suggest that the best way to avoid further major growth of global climate related problems is to reduce CO2 emissions? ... What exactly is it that they can do or say to show you that they are "reputable" on the second and third points as well as the first ... ?
It is left for us to decide what to do now, using the best information available and our estimations of what is most important to us now and for the future...
Clycles of Life: Civilization and the Biosphere
by Vaclav Smil
one among many good sources...
Happy Researching!!!
As Sean Kennedy wrote, the verdict is in. There is no other explanation for the unprecedented rise in global temperatures than the agency of mankind.
If someone as dim and prone to denial as the AWOL in Chief can acknowledge this problem, then it is time for all the other "cattle" in your early comments to find their way back to the barn, too.
Thanks for your detailed reply! Much of what you said is singing to the choir as I totally agree with you. And that includes taking steps to reduce our dependency on fossil fuel and Mideast oil in particular.
Global warming is not new. I was taught about it 60 years ago! And that man contributes to this phenomenon is not in question. What is in question is that man can actually have a significant impact on the rate at which global warming occurs. I have read many things about global warming and every time I read something convincing one direction, I find another set of "facts" with apparent scientific credentials refuting the first report! Rather than jump back and forth on what I think, I'm still looking for more conclusive information.
How much of the total greenhouse gases are CO2? What percentage of CO2 is produced by human activity? What percentage of other greenhouse gasses are produced by human activity? Is anyone saying there would be no global warming at all were it not for man? Does anyone seriously think that if there were no people on earth there would be no change in temperature of the earth in spite of the fact that this has occurred before?
I've personally seen how and idea can snowball completely out of proportion and how opinions can replace scientific fact in the matter of the freon consideration. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how many years it takes freon to become lighter than air and get out into the area of the Ozone layer! That one was built on fear, false science, concern for keeping one major chemical company in control of the situation and political expediency rather than legitimate scientific conclusions, to the detriment of humans the world over!
Global warming is an area where I am willing to work with and for those who want to effect a change, but I cannot become an apostle for change and try and convert others as there are too many questions in my mind about this. I know the characteristic of 21st century man to believe he is greater than nature and know that ego can jump to conclusions on that basis alone!
I know Peter says "the verdict is in" but I know that verdicts get reversed many years after they are "in." It's almost laughable now but when I was in high school I wondered many times about the environment and when we were going to stop our massive defilement of the environment. Then, as the years went by, nothing was done for a very long time until one day it became a suddenly urgent matter and all kinds of efforts were being made! Of course, certain of these have since died, depending on the current administration. We went to computer controlled cars as soon as the technology was available about 1980 but the required increases in fuel economy have since died although Bush is talking about resuscitation!
The package is confused by the fact that water vapor, which makes up over 36% of greenhouse gasses is not significantly affected by man. And I don't know if they can even measure the effect of sun spot activity. Whereas CO2, methane and certain others are highly man influenced. If you can read the same material I've read and come to a definitive conclusion without reservation then my hat is off to you as I cannot! And while a vote of scientists might swing more one way than the other, there are scientists expounding all sides, and a plurality of opinion does not make that opinion right by definition. There have been many changes in the temperature and climate of the earth but this is the first time there has been any agency of man involved and that for such a short time!
I'm certainly not trying to change anyone's mind on this because, as you surely realize, my mind is anything but made up! So I'll cooperate with the cause but never, until more conclusive facts are in, be an evangelist for the cause!
Thanks again for your detailed and interesting answer!
Given the fact that science at times reverses itself on some things (I'm not sure it's as often as you seem to imply), what would you suggest as a possible alternative basis for such decisions? Current science, in the main, may ultimately be proven wrong. But presently, most of the science points to man's effect on the climate system. So, in your opinion, is there - or should there be a better foundation for making policy decisions? Do we wait for ultimate certainty?
I thought I'd already made it clear that we do not wait for ultimate results. I don't know which way the preponderance of scientific opinion lies, but we still know global warming is occurring and can take action preemptively. I can't see what action would be effective but that's up to people with more smarts than me! All I've said different is that I'm still not sure man was significant in the global warming thing and even less convinced that man can change it. That does not preclude trying. People seem to want everyone to be an evangelist for one side or the other and that is what I cannot be! Too many variable and unpredictable factors which are out of our control.
Hope this clarifies! Thanks for the info and comments!
Do you think there is any relationship between how committed one might be to change lifestyle and how convinced one might be that global warming is an emergency? When you say, regardless of whether we can actually have an impact, we should try, how hard should we try? Should we try as hard to stabilize global warming as we are trying to stabilize the political situation in the mideast (so we can have access to oil)?
I take exception to your characterization of people wanting to be an evangelist for one side or the other. If you have not read the IPCC Report, please do so. If you doubt that the IPCC is representative of the "...preponderance of scientific opinion...," then please read the report of the National Academies of Science, which supported the 2001 IPCC Report, when the Bush administration asked NAS to weigh in on that report. If you still are in doubt about the science, then please read the positions of every National Academy of every developed country that has a National Academy. Why do you think that the Royal Society of the UK wrote Exxon, strongly suggesting that Exxon stop funding "think tanks," whose job it has been (and this is well documented) to confuse the issue of scientific understanding on global warming in the public mind?
If you are going to make an effort personally, here are some suggestions:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/ten-personal-solutions.html
If you support legislation to address global warming, you can become a "citizen sponsor" of the Sanders/Boxer bill, S.309.
ttp://ga6.org/campaign/citizen_cosponsor?rk=j7NeAWp1FXnrE
S. 309 is at this link:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-309
Thanks for the links. The first one confirmed for me that I am personally doing virtually all the things they recommend and I have been for a long time.
The other two links don't work, with the first locking up my computer and the second telling me the page cannot be displayed. Probably has changed since you last accessed it!
I understand what you are saying and that a person such as myself who isn't totally convinced of it all, may not work at the problem as hard as one who does. I'm sure that is true! Sorry I'm not an evangelist for the cause, but I've seen environmental matters politicized, warped, misused, bloated and exaggerated so I know it can happen. Politics trumps science every time! When it comes to most policy and position papers, these are political from the word go and science may be utilized for other than honorable purposes!
To compare this to the Mideast situation is rather comparing apples to lizards! However, I would much rather see the effort go to ridding ourselves of dependence on Mideast oil immediately and fossil fuel in the long term, as opposed to fighting a war that can't be won in a country that doesn't want us and for a purpose of questionable value!
In comments on another article today I read that the ocean had produced huge amounts of a greenhouse gas as the result of a 10 degree increase in temperature of the ocean's depths. This increase in temperature was attributed to human activity. Do you have any information on this?
Thanks!
Thank you. You and I are in the same boat on that one.
James: "The other two links don't work...."
They are working on my computer, so I don't know what the problem might be.
James: "I've seen environmental matters politicized, warped, misused, bloated and exaggerated so I know it can happen."
Sure, it can happen. But you're assuming it is happening on the global warming issue. Politics is not the core of this issue. It certainly is not for me. Politics is only a tool for addressing it.
James: "When it comes to most policy and position papers, these are political from the word go and science may be utilized for other than honorable purposes!"
The reports I referred to are by scientific organizations. I doubt they represent anything other than science. I find it amusing when politicians (not you, unless you're a politician) accuse scientists of playing politics with science.
James: "To compare this to the Mideast situation is rather comparing apples to lizards! However, I would much rather see the effort go to ridding ourselves of dependence on Mideast oil immediately and fossil fuel in the long term, as opposed to fighting a war that can't be won in a country that doesn't want us and for a purpose of questionable value!"
Actually, my point is that $400+Billion would have done a hell of alot more good if it had been invested in deploying existing renewable technologies. This is not dissimilar to your statement, and it is not irrelevant to the global warming issue. I wish we were as committed to building a sustainable future for future generations as we seem to be in securing oil reserves for the oil companies - we should be paying for this war with gas taxes instead of dumping the expense on future generations.
James: "In comments on another article today I read that the ocean had produced huge amounts of a greenhouse gas as the result of a 10 degree increase in temperature of the ocean's depths. This increase in temperature was attributed to human activity."
I have not heard that. What it may point to (if true) is positive feedback loops that scientists, like NASA's James Hansen, are concerned with. As some point, warming affects release of greenhouse gases, such as methane from thawing permafrost, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. That is not attributed to human activity. The concern is that if that process begins, then global warming will be beyond human influence. That is why Hansen says we have a short time to act. But I have not heard about the comment you cite.
Thanks for the response! If you learn anything about that 10 degrees in the ocean floor please post it!
Thanks!
I'm sorry for my delay in responding, I wanted to earlier but taking care of two small children can be demanding and time consuming...
James, I'm glad you appreciate the information.
However, Seeing your initial response and those following, I must again suggest that you determine for yourself what your consider to be CREDIBLE and REPUTABLE science. Until you do that, I feel that your time in debating the points and issues that you read about here or there is being wasted and any answers you may recieve here or elsewhere will do you no good in answering the questions you have raised...
Secondly, No body is asking you to become an "evangelist" or "apolstle" of anything. What you do with any conclusion you come to is wholely up to you. You appear to be taking that on yourself and you seem to continually raise that idea. I would say that there is a very basic and easily understood difference between being asked to consider the facts of the situation we are in and understand its implications ... from ... being asked to "spread the Word" or go out and convince others inturn (personally, I just don't think the phrase ... "Have you heard the Good News!!!" fits in this situation...). Words like Evangelist or Apostle are entirely inappropriate... The word "prophet" itself is inappropriate. Your personal intrest and search for understanding need involve just you alone if you wish it that way. I imagine that your understanding of the implications of the situation would affect the and inform what you choose to do and how you live and how you might view the Political, Social, and Economic aspects of the debate. Should you be feeling that there is and evangelical air to public postings and discussion on the issue that sounds like it is more closely related to an aspect of your personal perspective on the debate. You surely do realize that there are many in the public arena who do understand the situation, do accept the perponderance and credibility of the science, and following that understand, they understand its implications. How would you expect them to behave?
I certainly understand skepticism and cynicism of the politcal process. I even do expect a healthy skepticism within the scientific process. But are you cynical of the over-riding scientific process as a whole? If you are, then I again return to my first point and I say that is where you need to do your work.
If you are still deciding, as you say, why are you expecting to go into any reading or come out of any single reading with out reservations? You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Dealing with your reservations is itself a process of assimilating a bigger picture, isn't it?. Ulitmately, are you comfortable with the credibility of the author or authors?
I sense a lack of sincerity in your questions and statements ... I appologize if I am wrong about that. If that sense comes from a cynicism of the scientific process that you are expressing, then that again may point to the source of your difficulties. Science-humanity is not infalable by any means and no one is claiming that it is. But We must use the best tools available to us with wisdom, good sense, and intelligence to the best of our abilities.
No body is claiming that humanity is larger-more powerful than nature. Humanity is part of nature. That is not to say that humanity or any life for that matter, is not able to affect the mechanics within the whole machine, as it were. Our ability to extract massive deposits of long sequestered carbon and emitt it into the atmosphere can alter the make up of the whole. That is without question. It is nature itself, which responds and adjusts to that alteration we have tweaked. There is no ego trip involved in a sense of "Look at ME!!! I AM STRONG!!! I have changed the course of GLOBAL climate!!!" there certainly is a sense of realization in understanding our place in the whole picture, but we are part of nature, not a rival to nature, and there is humility in that understanding...
Suppose you were told by a doctor, that you had a 90% chance of having a heart attack unless you changed... What would you do? Suppose that doctor was infact a heart specialist... Suppose you got a second opinion? .... Suppose you got 2000 second opinions for the top heart specialsts of the world and they more or less agreed that you, James C., were going to have a heart attack unless you changed something... What is at stake? Well, Certainly your life is... but some people like to gamble, don't they? ... There is after all an apparent 10% chance, as determined by the 2000 specialists, that you will not have a heart attack... But what esle is at stake? ... Well, suppose that you have a family that is depending on you... Suppose that you know if you were not there, they would suffer... Suppose that for some reason (not explained here or now) that another family you know of but do not know personally would suffer as well because of your death (Yes would be a massive four chamber cardiac arrest and you would die at the worst or be incompacitated at the best)... ??? Well, there may be good reason then to choose to do that something that will reduce your chances of that heart attack.... What is that something? Well, Yes it will require a commitment ... a change of lifestyle ... You might need to change your job to reduce your stress, but you are a resourceful and determined individual as you have demonstrated through out your life... there are actually promising options for you ahead, and some of them infact will actually present an improvement in your quality of life (cutting out all those fast food greeses that make you feel sluggish and slow you down with un-needed body fat...
Now you ask yourself... is it worth making that change? Not just the greesy food, but the whole package... your lifestyle ... as suggested by those 2000 specialists...
What do you do? What would you suggest someone else to do? What would you think of someone who declined 2000 medical opinions from specialists who have indeed proven themselves knowledable in the past? Would you wonder why they declined?
These might be good questions for you to ponder...
But, regarding some of your other questions you asked (or didn't ask) ...
Yes, the sun is a great source of heat and warmth on our planet. Most all life as we know it is infact solar powered as are the climate regimes we find around the globe. The sun is massive, the earth is tiny in comparisson.... a smiple mote upon its surface... The sun is considered to have increased in output by 30% since the earth formed some 4 billion years ago and it will continue to increase. The scale, however, of 30% over 4 billion years is rather small, in terms of our perception and the scale upon which we live and understand our world. The sun does not "surge" in its power output on scales that we understand. 8000 years (first human civilizations and the begining of argriculture in Mesopotamia) does not even register as a blip. Imagine the force invovled in a moving super tanker on the open ocean... it does not accelerate or slow down on the scale of that litte sea-doo zipping around on the bay... Sun spot activity does occur in cycles, affecting weather on earth most directly through the solar winds (particle streams in space). When lare sun spot activity occurs, weather is affect more locally (because it occurs on a given spot of the sun and is experienced on earth during that corresponding season) and the effects do not last beyond the given sun spot fluctuation.
Earth's climate has changed in the past for a variety of reasons. The present measured change in temperature, is unprecedented for its rate of change within human history and geological records. Its occurance lacks any other "natural" triggering mechanism that from geological processes, and it does not match current astronomical events in our solar-planetery "neighborhood."
Water vapor is an interesting greenhouse gas, in that it is actually dependent on the temperature and air pressure, as to how much the atmosphere will hold. So at a given global temperature, the water vapor able to be held in the air will be maintained on the broad scale. Warmer temperatures are able to hold more water vapor (they are also, paradoxically, able to hold it longer so that it seems that the air is wetter and there are clouds longer, but it (the air) will refuse to drop it as actual rain for longer periods of time, jelously holding on to that water until a good cold front comes in and convinces it otherwise, in which case it may tend to drop it in buckets and truck loads...). Water vapor is among the best green house gasses. Far more powerful than CO2. But as I said, Its global content in the atmosphere will remain stable until the atmosphere gets warmer or colder as a whole. Water is the only green house gas that we commonly see in all three phases of matter and passes easily between those phases. CO2 exists as a solid (carbon as in trees and coal and oil etc. ) and a gas, but we rarely see it change into a liquid and it requires a catalyst such as fire or electricity for it to change into gas and high pressure to change into a liquid or solid.
While solar out put is important to the climate and weather of the earth, as I mentioned above and as can be seen by the change in climate between the poles and the equator and between seasons, the content of the atmosphere plays a large role in determining the climate of any given place on earth and the earth as a whole. Have you wondered how a desert, a forest, and a grassland can all exist on the same latitude of the earth (essentially recieving the same solar input per year)? A desert is very dry, holds very low water content in the air, and heats up quickly and cools down quickly. If you increased the solar input to that desert but maintained the water vapor content (and other green house gasses) the days would be hotter, but you still cool off quickly at night. The atmosphere is not retaining that extra heat generated by the increased sunlight...
Climate change does not cause any single weather event, including hurricanes... those are caused by the many mechanisms that govern weather at a given place on the earth. Climate change, increases or decreases the ingredients needed to create weather, including severe weather. It therefore increases the chances for some weather events to happen or not happen at a given place on the earth. It so happens that hurricanes, are for the most part positively affected to some extent by increased temperatures (especially in the ocean waters).
I'm not sure about the 10 degree increase in ocean water, especially at great depth. That does not sound like an accurate amount of warming if you are talking about average temperatures for a body of water. It is difficult to say with out refference to the actual article. Changes in average temperature of low single digit degrees is problematic for biology, ecology, and humans. Should you be refering to a rise in temperature at a submarine volcanic site or fissure, it would not be directly relevant to the rise in global atmospheric temperature and sea surface temperature. If you are implying that the ocean is warming from sources within the globe, under its crust and mantle, you'd be mistaken in drawing that conclusion, as there is no indication of that occuring and I would be interested in seeing your source on that... Fumerols, fissures and sub-marine volcanoes have been with us for quite some time and have not presented significant change in activity.
In regards to the problems you have had with enironmental issues in the past that you have not been satifisfied with their outcomes, are you refering to the way it was handled by the media and public press and political process, or by the science itself?
I applaude you on your ability to have heard of global warming 60 years ago (1947??) but are you sure you were not talking about the fact that the earth goes through periodic geological climate shifts? I am curious under what circumstance you heard about it. It was indeed certainly theorized and written about at that time and before, but in relatively small circles and limited press so I am truly curious where and how you did hear or read about it. I am dismayed however that given that amount of time, you have not come to a conclusion about the current climate situation ...
Best regards...
To answer the last first, I was taught in early grade School that the Earth was getting warmer each year, causing the melting of the Glaciers, etc. Yes, glaciers were melting 60 years ago. We even had dirt around then! I watched it made! That sounds like global warming to me. And it was published in textbooks all
across the nation at the time! However, we were taught that it is a natural process, not subject to the control of man. And that is where the question remains today. By the way, science was my favorite subject through school!
You've presented a volume of information and seemed to be making a lions portion of it about me rather than about global warming, and that's OK. I understand you get mixed signals from me. The reason for that is clearly, I'm mixed on the issue. I don't adopt issues by whether they are republican or democrat so if I cannot find definitive information I my remain mixed.
You tell me the "2000 specialists all agree" and I reckon that is true. However I've been on other Gather links were the specialists all agree the other way. I'm not adopting there stance at all. I've no doubt that scientists (most of them at least) work for scientific results. But I know that scientific results get warped right out the window when a politician gets hold of them!
My reference to apostles and evangelists is simply that I've stated, that for practical purposes and support, I favor acting as if man did in fact play a role and responding with appropriate action. This is not good enough for many who have criticized my stance as I should be a staunch believer, after all I've been given by them, irrefutable evidence. If that is not wanting me to be an evangelist for the movement I don't know what would be! I still remember closely a bunch of false arguments made on the R12 issue and how that was spread, not by scientific means, but by political means. This leaves me skeptical of both sides!
I truly appreciate the information you've presented. No, it's not conclusive to me but every bit of additional infomation I get adds to my total and hopefully an ultimate belief one way or another. I see good evidence but not conclusive evidence when the apologists for one side don't address the arguments of the other side directly in a similar forum.
What are the various greenhouse gasses other than water vapor? How much of each is emitted each year by the activities of nature and by man. How much change is coming from the sunspot activity and can it be measured? How much greenhouse gas is coming from the tundra? Why? How much of each greenhouse gas is produced from our oceans? How much of the various greenhouse gasses are produced from volcanoes and what is the path and distribution of these gasses?
There should be a chart or scientific document somewhere that would provide all the above answeres but I've not seen it.
And I don't necessarily expect to read any one thing that would sway my thinking farther. Most of the reason for my willingness to accept any part of the global warming thing is I have a great deal of respect for Al Gore and believe he is convinced. And I don't believe he is using it to run for president as has been claimed!
Thanks for your extensive answer! And best regards to you
I would say that those are excllent questions and your desire to see some sort of rekoning of all the facts laid out is absolutly reasonable. But do you see my point about deciding who you feel comfortable in providing the information? If you do not feel comfortable with the process and the reporting (whether scientific journal or general public books/media) then how can you feel comfortable with the conclusion you come to? I have listed one excellent book for you, if you were truly interested it would answer many questions you have, and it does discuss taking a sensible approach with any action that may be taken. But you have to invest the time. I can list a few other books, but you still have to feel comfortable with who has written them, otherwise, its a wash... I certainly didn't go into it (reading) setting my personal right to skepticism aside...
Your best bet, for finding the answers you are looking for, is the IPCC website and look at the sources they site, and follow up on questions you have by looking up more information... that is the process.... Could they have made a more General-Public Friendly site? Yes... Are scientists the best at conveying their information to the public clearly and without putting them to sleep ??? No, self admittedly, they are not... But for the excellent questions you are asking, you really must put in the time and effort to feel comfortable to the level you are seeking (which is absolutely alright).
The reason some (including myself) may seem to be "jumping" on you for your lack of "going all the way" on accepting human resposnibility for the situation might be that there has been a continual "dragging of the feet" and jumping from one level of acceptance up to the next lowest level... thereby still avoiding self accountability. .. You are asking ... "Is there any possible way that we are NOT as culpable in this as it seems we are???" You still need not be an evagelist or aposlte of anything in order to search and find your answers that might bring you to the understanding of human responsibility.
That you understand the global warming is a natural occurance that has happened many times in the past is very good, but you seem not to realize that the existance of human induced global warming does not preclude natural warming and vice versa. The issue on the table now is a precipitous occurance of rising global temperatures. Your study of global warming in grade school was not a study of the current issue. The current issue concerns how humans are affecting the climate.
There are excellent books that explain this, but you have to put the effort in to read them if indeed you are looking for that level of understanding (which I do support). If you are interested in the details on emission, natural and human released... the papers are there (as I suggested look through the papers cited in the IPCC reports and others), they really are there.
When you read a statment that says, human are contibuting to a significant degree to global climate change, key in on the word "significant" ... because that means ... "yes, studies have shown that we are indeed affecting the climate" ... The details on how much and from what sources and how it fits together to the best of current scientific understanding ... is there... but you have to want to look... Those details and conclusions on the significant importance of the human contribution to climate change are brought to you and endorsed by the same folks that convinced you of the other elements up to the point to which you seem to now be standing...
There is no guilt involved in accepting responsibility (you did not personally set system up the way it is now) You are not complicit in the sence of knowingly willingly perpetuating a harmful situation for personal perposes to cause harm or damage to others. Accepting responsibilty allows for appropriate action to occur.
The "conclusive" evidence you are looking for is in the IPCC report and its supporting materials. It's up to you (in your personal quest) to decide whether the conclusion of over 2000 specialists from around the world that there is a 10% chance that it will be ok to not act decisively is a chance worth taking, considering the stakes...
Minor point - I think I would use the word, "compelling," rather than "conclusive." Knowing you, and appreciating your understanding of science, I'm sure you'll see the logic in this.
I like your metaphors. Your article, "Our Carbon Comfy Blanket" is particularly apt. The heart disease metaphor above is also right on. I would add - if a doctor told you, you have a 90% chance of developing lung cancer if you don't stop smoking, what would you do? The tobacco metaphor also fits with regard to industry's efforts to discret scientific findings over decades, denying that smoking caused cancer, heart disease, birth defects, etc., etc., etc.
James. David has pointed to the IPCC report. If you refer to this report
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
please note Table 2, page 4. This is a good summary of how the report attributes warming.
I will see if I can find something on a 10 degree ocean warming. Do you remember where you saw this reference?
Thanks for the link. I've downloaded it to my computer and will review it more thoroughly as time permits but as a quick read through I see a lot of good research has been done. At the same time I don't see where the authors of the report are claiming it as the final word. There are a lot of "It is estimated" and similar language which will I'm sure, be more closely identified as time and the ability to measure goes on. There are 90% error rates mentioned for some of this!
I did not see where there was any comprehensive analysis of how this can be changed by man. We've got to have the modern agriculture if we are to feed the people on this planet! Organic farms are not going to do the job. We've already lost vast amounts of rain forest in South America, Africa and other places. They are still destroying these resources. How do we prevent that? Maybe what we need is that nuclear war which puts enough dirt into the atmosphere to block the heat of the sun and kills of most or all of the population to get population control! Not serious on that!
The horse was out of the barn when antibiotics and modern medicine came into being in the middle of the last century, allowing ever increasing populations. This is the driving cause behind most, if not all, of the environmental problems we face today IMHO. In playing catch-up there is needed a complete cooperation of the entire world and we're not going to get it!
This whole process is to me, not a matter of what source I'm going to believe, but more like jury duty, where you listen at length to both sides and hopefully, one side seems to contain more likelihood of truth than the other. This is not to imply the other side is lying as there are many reasons for being wrongly convinced!
If that sounds pessimistic I'd hasten to add that I've always had a great belief in the ability of man to discover new ways and new solutions, usually at the last minute, in order to perpetuate life, closely approximating that which we already have, on into perpetuity!
As long as were here, have either of you seen the BBC documentary on this subject? I have not but would be interested in at least getting someone's perspective who has seen it.
If you're ever in a mood to get some more mixed signals, just let me know as I'm always ready to oblige! Seriously, I do appreciate the effort and time you've both put into providing me information and particularly the link to the report.
Thanks!
Glad the information continues to be of help.
Just a few things...
The error rate is not 90%...
90% is the likely hood that humans are significantly contributing to the current precipitous increase in global temperatures ...
Scientific analysis uses a 0.05% margin of error in most statistical tests...
That can of course be compounded by errors in methods or other factors, but that is why studies are scrutinized and reviewed by peers in the whole process...
Even then, things can slip through the cracks, and when things smell fishy, it's usually worth going back to the data and study and scrutinizing it some more...(which does happen, and anyone is free to perform such a review)...
Regarding the reading of the report, I would suggest that you continue to dig further in the report's supporting material to find more of the answers you are looking for.
You must understand the the 13 page (I believe) report is a summary of the last round of work done by the members of the council. There is a more technical report(s) that goes into further detail and within those reports or the summary report you can follow the trail of the sources that are cited.
The whole process as a difference between who to trust as a source vs. sitting on a jury and listening to testimony sounds like '6 one way half a dozen the other' to me.
I'm sure there are plenty of interesting discussions that can be had about human populations and how we got here.... but this is where we are now and what we have to deal with...
Considering that the time scales of cause and effect on changing global climate systems and heat retention are spread out beyond the frame that we humans generaly think about in our lives (even in this precipitous global warming event) ... It seems that we are now at the brink of the "last minute" senario you mentioned... the time is now for us to act ... for when you compress the time scales of action reaction on the global climate scale ... that "last minute" corresponds to this first decade of the 21st century...
I will post in a next comment some responses from coral reef and marine scientists on their take on the BBC program. This comes from a NOAA group that discusses issue important to the marine scientific community (concentrating on coral reefs mostly) called coral-list...
It should be helpful as well...
"…I wish to make my intention clear and to indicate why we should be paying attention to the documentary and other communications like it.
…
The intention of my initial posting was to bring the documentary to the
attention of the list because from where I sit, it seems to be influencing public opinion. I have since managed to download and view the documentary. It is clearly a polemic, often employs the same emotional bag of tricks the alleged climate-change conspiracy is accused of using, and the charge that scientists and activists discerning climate change are motivated by vested interest cuts both ways, to say the least.
In the documentary this issue is convincingly presented with supporting
evidence as a coherent sun-based explanation for global warming that
appears to relegate CO2 to a minor role at best. Regardless of whether it is valid or not, it is easily grasped by, and therefore is in principle appealing to, a general audience. It is effective communication, even if perhaps it is not good science; I'll leave that to the experts to decide, and doubtless it is covered somewhere in the IPCC report. Even so, it does not seem to have been widely or effectively disseminated at this point in time, rather [it] is the
perspective of the documentary that is being effectively communicated
to the public. If the perspective presented in the documentary is being more effectively marketed (a deliberate choice of words) than is the IPCC perspective, then it should be a matter of concern to those seeking rational, fact-based public discussion.
Sincerely,
*******"
There truly are constructive debates and important discussions to be had regarding the current climate change situation, but you do know that there are those more interested in muddying the waters (which is really not difficult with any issue for anyone trying to if they really wanted - you add dirt, and you stir) in order to avoid constructive discourse and delay constructive action. You are aware of that... aren't you James?
The data is there... for those with a true desire to look and absorb with a critical discerning eye...