BS: Where's the Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 09:27 PM

"Ground-based observations reveal that the amount of light-scattering aerosols in the stratosphere has been increasing substantially in the past decade, probably due to a dramatic rise in coal-fired power plants worldwide.

Aerosols in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere between altitudes of about 10 kilometers and 50 kilometers, come from three main sources: major volcanic eruptions, upwelling of the lower atmosphere at tropical latitudes and the slow upward drift of aerosols created by industrial emissions worldwide. Now, a nearly two-decade-long lull in large volcanic eruptions has enabled scientists to discern that anthropogenic aerosol levels in the stratosphere are on the rise, says Michael E. Trudeau, an atmospheric scientist with NOAA's Earth Systems Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. He and his colleagues report their finding in the Aug. 16 Geophysical Research Letters.

The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which sent prodigious amounts of tiny sulfuric acid droplets high into the stratosphere where they reflected sunlight back into space, temporarily caused the global average temperature at Earth's surface to drop by around 0.5 degrees Celsius, says Trudeau. But ground-based observations show that natural processes had largely cleansed that eruption's aerosols from the stratosphere by 1996, he notes. Because there hasn't been a major volcanic eruption since Pinatubo, scientists have been able to get a clear look at trends in other sources of stratospheric aerosols.

To make those assessments, the researchers fired lasers into the sky from two observatories, one atop Hawaii's Mauna Loa volcano and the other near Boulder. Since 2000, the amount of the laser light scattered by aerosols between altitudes of 20 and 30 kilometers has been rising between 4 and 7 percent each year, says Trudeau. Other observations suggest that atmospheric upwelling in tropical latitudes hasn't increased substantially since 2000, so Trudeau and his colleagues pin the blame for rising aerosol concentrations on human-made sources.

The largest sources of human-made aerosols are coal-burning power plants, which spew sulfur dioxide, a byproduct of the combustion of sulfur-tainted coal. Between 2002 and 2007, coal consumption worldwide jumped more than 36 percent — mostly in China, Trudeau and his colleague note, where sulfur dioxide emissions rose an average of 5.4 percent per year from 2000 to 2005. In 2006, some scientists estimate, China passed the United States to become the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide."

Science News, http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/46462/title/Hazy_changes_on_high

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 09 - 06:13 PM

"n law-making, as in medicine, the first rule should be do no harm. And it is surely true that if the United States does not take the leadership in trying to counter climate change nothing will be done. But what if it is too late? What if everything the United States, or Europe, does in the way of clean energy and cutting earth-heating gasses is not enough to halt the onrushing warming to the world, with all its attending consequences?

The effects of humanity's industry, piggy-backing on a normal warming trend that has been going on since the 19th century, is causing temperatures to climb at an unprecedented rate. On that most of science agrees. But what if the centuries-long build–up of gasses and nature itself have conspired to make this trend irreversible?

This is not an argument against a strong effort on the part of mankind to at least slow down the warming. The United States and the world can and should make a big effort to stop making the problem worse.

But the world is not united. The developing countries feel it is unfair to demand caps just as they are industrializing, and we are moving into a post-industrial economy. It is simply not possible to shut down enough of the world's smoke stacks, and a lot of cap and trade begins to sound like a shell game.

So when the world meets in Copenhagen to discuss climate change come December, I hope there will be more thought on what has to be done if climate change cannot be prevented.

Where will we put the island peoples whose nations are inexorably disappearing? What can we invent that will keep crops growing in higher temperatures and less water? What can we plan now that will mitigate — and maybe even prevent — some of the worse horrors that we can now quite accurately predict?"

(Op ED contributor H. Green, NY Times)

---

Bruce:

Here's someone who is tracking with your commendable line of thought.

As for human induced, I think the correct term is human vectors piggybacking on other, natural, build-ups. Given that our carbon production parallels the trend of temperature climb since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, I think it is certainly fair to say our production of carbon, other greenhouse gasses, and our general attack on forests world-wide have contributed a distinct additive vector to the climate change.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 04:29 PM

"Human-induced"? Saying so does not make it so- please provide at least as much evidence as Bush did for Saddam's WMD Programs.


There is a difference between "climate change" and "human-induced climate change". Most here will agree these are effects of "climate change".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 04:24 PM

A summary of existing and near-term impacts of human-induced warming, planet Earth, circa 2009.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 04:10 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/5987229/Cloud-ship-scheme-to-deflect-the-suns-rays-is-favourite-to-cu


Sounds good- until one realizes they are putting water vapor into the atmosphere- A more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2. Are they reflecting enought to make up for the additional greenhouse effect? (Real question- the article does not address it)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 11:24 AM

Scientists claim planet is heading for 'irreversible' climate change by 2040


Published Date: 02 August 2009
By Tom Peterkin
Scottish Political Editor

CARBON dioxide levels are rising at a faster rate than the worst-case scenario envisaged by United Nations experts, with the planet heading for "catastrophic" and "irreversible" climate change by 2040, a new report claims.

The rise of greenhouse gases will trigger an unprecedented rate of global warming that will result in the loss of the ice-covered polar seas by 2020, much of our coral reefs by 2040 and see a 1.4-metre rise in the sea level by 2100.

The apocalyptic vision has been outlined in a paper by Andrew Brierley of St Andrews University, which is likely to influence the views of UN experts gathering in Copenhagen this December to establish a new protocol that will attempt to halt global warming.

Brierley and his co-author, Michael Kingsford of the James Cook University in Australia, examined the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on ocean habitats and marine organisms.

The scientists compared current carbon dioxide emissions with those forecast in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), the leading body for the assessment of global warming, which was established by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation.

In 2007, the IPCC predicted a "worst-case scenario" that would see rapid industrialisation cause carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to increase by two parts per million each year. Parts per million (ppm) is a unit of concentration used to measure pollutants.

Brierley said atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration had increased from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm to 385 ppm last year and was now rising at a rate of 2.5 ppm per year.

He described the outlook as "really quite nasty doom-and-gloom situation".

He added: "People have looked at how various economic situations, various developments in India and China might impact on carbon dioxide admissions and in 2007 they made a series of forecasts and if you take the worst-case scenario, carbon dioxide would be going up by two parts per million.

"This really august body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has said these are the worst-case scenarios for carbon dioxide increase and we are above that already. That's the thing that really frightens me."

In their paper, Brierley and Kingsford said that a carbon dioxide level of 450 ppm was the critical threshold beyond which catastrophic and irreversible change might occur.

Reaching that level would mean a global mean temperature rise of 2C above pre-industrial values. At present rates this threshold will be passed by 2040.

The authors added: "By 2040, some particularly sensitive marine ecosystems such as coral reefs and ice-covered polar seas could already have been lost and other unexpected consequences may arise."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 09 - 03:01 PM

"In a recent interview with Yale Environment 360, Jane Lubchenco, the head of NOAA, called oceanic acidification global warming's "equally evil twin." Ocean acidification occurs because carbon dioxide, when dissolved in water, forms a weak acid. Put more CO2 into the atmosphere, and more will inevitably dissolve into the oceans, lowering their pH. A landmark report published in 2005 by the British Royal Society urged the global community to invest more time and effort into studying this critical issue, warning that "Marine ecosystems are likely to become less robust as a result of the changes to the ocean chemistry and these will be more vulnerable to other environmental impacts."

While research efforts have since taken off, what has been sorely lacking are datasets that could help scientists document the long-term rate of acidification and understand the underlying physical and chemical processes. That is, until now. In the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, John E. Dore of Montana State University and colleagues from the University of Hawaii, Honolulu, present the results of the first set of longitudinal time-series measurements of seawater pH, spanning an almost twenty-year period (from 1988 to 2007). The data were recorded at ALOHA, a research station off Hawaii.

When CO2 enters the ocean, a fraction of it reacts with water to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), a weak acid, and the rest remains in dissolved form. Some of the carbonic acid dissociates, releasing hydrogen ions that further react to produce either bicarbonate (HCO3-) or carbonate ions (CO3-2). These three forms of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) make up the carbonic acid system, a natural buffer that handles slight variations in CO2 and maintains seawater pH around 8.1-8.2. The loss of this buffer—even its weakening—could have a significant impact on corals and other organisms that build their shells out of calcium carbonate (CaCO3).

The Hawaiian record shows a long-term decline in surface pH of 0.0019 ± 0.0002 per year—which may not seem like much until you recall that pH units are expressed on a logarithmic scale. This means that a one-unit drop in pH corresponds to a ten-fold increase in the hydrogen ion concentration. To put that into context, the 0.1 decrease in globally averaged pH—from 8.2 to 8.1—over the last 250 years is roughly equivalent to a 30 percent increase in hydrogen ions.

This trend, they emphasize, is "indistinguishable from the rate of acidification expected from equilibration from the atmosphere"—confirming the basic theory that as atmospheric CO2 increases, more and more of it will be absorbed by the oceans, where it will alter the chemistry. Scientists are worried that this sudden influx of CO2—they estimate that the oceans have taken up nearly half of all carbon emitted since the beginning of the industrial era—risks overwhelming the delicate buffering system that has kept the ocean's pH in check for millennia.

Dore and his colleagues also found that the pH cycle displays a strong seasonality, typically reaching a maximum during the winter and a minimum during the summer. There is also interannual variability. The authors attribute these to a combination of photosynthetic activity, air-sea exchange, and the mixing of different layers of water. The surface pH varied by as much as 0.01, largely as a result of diurnal heating and cooling. " (Ars Technica post)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 09 - 01:12 PM

Modellers predict doubly bad global warming

New findings predict that global temperature increases will be twice as high by the end of the century as previously forecast, unless international policy action is taken. That is the prediction of scientists using the Integrated Global Systems Model (IGSM), a project funded in part by the US Department of Energy.

IGSM is unique amongst climate predictors because it is underpinned by a flexible economic model that projects future changes in human activities such as trade between nations. Climate scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have used the model taking into account physical factors like the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions for the first time.

The researchers predict a 90 % probability that surface temperatures will be 3.5° to 7.4° higher by 2100, under a scenario involving no policies to specifically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These temperature increases are more than twice those predicted under the previous version of IGSM, which was run back in 2003. The model was also run for different scenarios involving "strong" policies to curb emissions, and the temperature never rose above 2.5°, which is relatively unchanged from the 2003 prediction.

The findings are published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate.
Living with uncertainty

"4° is a very, very dangerous amount of warming - that's 8° Celsius of polar warming," said Ronald Prinn, one of the MIT modellers speaking earlier this year at the European Geosciences Union Conference in Copenhagen.

The standard international reference for climate predictions is the SRES scenarios of the Intercontinental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - a body which shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. However, whilst the IPCC make detailed predictions for the end of the 21st century, there is still a wide range of uncertainty within each prediction. What's more, the IPCC scenarios are deliberately independent of policy and projected human responses.

Frustrated by the continued lack of clarity in climate change predictions, Prinn and his colleagues set out to quantify the likelihoods for specific climate outcomes. For each climate scenario, they carried out 400 runs, where each run involved slight variations in the input parameters with each set of parameters equally likely. In this way they reduced the uncertainty of both input parameters and climate responses.
The new standard?

The MIT scientists find that a business-as-usual approach to greenhouse gas emissions will result in 1400 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2091-2100 leading to an 85 % chance of temperatures rising by more than 4°. However, in the case where carbon dioxide equivalent levels were stabilized at 552 parts per million, all 400 forecasts led to an increase of 4°. To further enhance the clarity of the results, Prinn and his colleagues conceptualize the scenarios as a game of roulette, in what they call the "climate gamble".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 09 - 12:58 PM

"WARD HUNT ISLAND, Nunavut (April 09)— New cracks in the largest remaining Arctic ice shelf suggest another polar landmark seems destined to break up and disappear.

Scientists discovered the extensive new cracks in the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf earlier this year and a patrol of Canadian Rangers got an up-close look at them last week.

"The map of Canada has changed," said Derek Mueller of Trent University, who was amazed to find how quickly the shelf has deteriorated since he discovered the first crack in 2002.

"These changes are happening in concert with other indicators of climate change."

Mr. Mueller and his fellow researchers were expected to release their findings on Saturday. But a patrol of Canadian Rangers travelling west last week from CFB Alert at the northern tip of Ellesmere Island saw the cracks first-hand.

"We're looking at the possible demise of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf," said Doug Stern, a Ranger and Parks Canada employee, who was on the patrol and has been helping Mueller with his research.

Formed by accumulating snow and freezing meltwater, ice shelves are large platforms of thick, ancient sea ice that float on the ocean's surface. Ellesmere Island was once ringed by one, but that enormous shelf broke up in the early 1900s.

At 443 square kilometres in size, the Ward Hunt shelf is the largest of those remnants — even bigger than the Antarctic shelf that collapsed late last month, and seven times the size of the Ayles Ice Shelf chunk that broke off in 2005 from Ellesmere's western coast. "

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 09 - 12:55 PM

"MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.

FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.

People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)

Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.

We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening."

Both from here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 09 - 12:54 PM

"MYTH: Global warming can't be happening because some glaciers and ice sheets are growing, not shrinking.

FACT: In most parts of the world, the retreat of glaciers has been dramatic. The best available scientific data indicate that Greenland's massive ice sheet is shrinking.

Between 1961 and 1997, the world's glaciers lost 890 cubic miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures are the most important factor behind the retreat of glaciers on a global scale over long time periods. Some glaciers in western Norway, Iceland and New Zealand have been expanding during the past few decades. That expansion is a result of regional increases in storm frequency and snowfall rather than colder temperatures — not at all incompatible with a global warming trend.

In Greenland, a NASA satellite that can measure the ice mass over the whole continent has found that although there is variation from month to month, over the longer term, the ice is disappearing. In fact, there are worrisome signs that melting is accelerating: glaciers are moving into the ocean twice as fast as a decade ago, and, over time, more and more glaciers have started to accelerate. What is most alarming is the prediction, based on model calculations and historical evidence, that an approximately 5.4 degree Fahrenheit increase in local Greenland temperatures will lead to irreversible meltdown and a sea-level rise of over 20 feet. Since the Arctic is warming 2-3 times faster than the global average, this tipping point is not far away.

The only study that has shown increasing ice mass in Greenland only looked at the interior of the ice sheet, not at the edges where melting occurs. This is actually in line with climate model predictions that global warming would lead to a short-term accumulation of ice in the cold interior due to heavier snowfall. (Similarly, scientists have predicted that Antarctica overall will gain ice in the near future due to heavier snowfall.) The scientists who published the study were careful to point out that their results should not be used to conclude that Greenland's ice mass as a whole is growing. In addition, their data suggested that the accumulation of snow in the middle of the continent is likely to decrease over time as global warming continues."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 30 Jul 09 - 08:52 AM

From LH on the human influence on climate:

"It will eventually either be confirmed with no remaining doubt..."

No, sorry. It won't. That's the point. There is *always* doubt is science. If there is no doubt, it is by definition, no longer science. We have reached the point where the scientific consensus is overwhelming. As overwhelming as the consensus that cigarettes are bad for you. Yet, as with cigarettes, the moneyed corporate interests are buying air time, and funding...and publicizing the hell out of, the lone (and sometimes loopy) "scientists" that may cast doubt on the consensus. And the people who are addicted buy in. And people without an understanding of science can't discern the hogwash and believe the popular media hype (generated intentionally by the big money), and see it as an actual scientific "debate" instead of a battle between science and the corporate propaganda (happily parroted by politicans and media commentators that they own) intended to preserve their profits - even at the expense of the future of humanity.

Remember, we are still not 100% certain that there is a link between smoking and lung cancer. So, why don't you keep smoking for another 10 years or so, and only quit when we are 100% sure?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 05:58 PM

Hell, doing what we can to clean up 'the human act' on Earth IS good sense, even if we're doomed to go the way of the dinos. I recall a line from "Enter the Dragon". One of the martial arts people was asked how he figured he'd do fighting overwhelming odds. He replied with words much like "I will be too busy lookin' good to worry about that."

AMEN

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSilentOne
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 05:47 PM

"Well, I might be onto something with my unconventional views on the current global warming craze too. Maybe. You're going to have to wait and see if I am, and that will take some time."

The thing is LH, if we do wait to see and it turns out that you're WRONG, then it's too late. If we act now to alleviate it and subsequently find we were wrong to do so, the consequences are potentially less catastrophic.

I don't see any point in contributing to the "is it man" argument, we most of us have entrenched positions either way by now. The fact is the vast majority of scientists in relevant specialisms think a considerable element of the warming is down to human intervention. Yeah they MAY be wrong. However even if informed opinion was split 50:50 I believe the above argument applies.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 04:04 PM

Little Hawk, I'm not attacking you or trying to pick a fight with you. My observations have to do with the observations you keep making about what you consider to be the attitudes of those involved in the discussion. Why do you feel you need to keep editorializing? That's what distracts from the topic of the thread.

I'm sorry, but whether you intend it or not, you do project an attitude of smug superiority. You might take what I (and others) have said to heart, and read a few of your own posts. It's as Robert Burns says, you might try to see yourself as others see you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 03:53 PM

"I've found that, with the exception of children raised in fundamentalist families (and quite disturbing to the families, I'm sure, only a percentage of them), the scales fall off the eyes of most kids and much of religious mythology goes the way of belief in Santa Claus, and at about the same age."

Yeah, so have I. No kidding.

And???

"By the way, Little Hawk, I'd like to know what's wrong with being emotionally involved in believing in and attempting to convey to others the truth?"

Absolutely nothing at all is wrong with it. It's quite natural for people to do that. (But they do it even when they're completely in error...and therein lies the problem.)

If you would stop trying to make this into another personal fight with me, Don, we could have an altogether more reasonable discussion here, and I would not be obliged to spend part of it defending my own character and proving (to whom?) that I'm not a person who is in favour of all kinds of reprehensible and stupid things you dream up for me to supposedly be in favour of. ;-) Let go of the personal chewbone you have against me, and stick to discussing the general subject itself, not trying to prove that I'm the bad guy you seem to imagine I am.

I have made no personal observations about you here, and I don't wish to, I'm simply asking that you stop making them about me.

I am passionately involved in a great many issues, just as you are. As you say, though, the question is not the degree of emotional involvement, but the validity of the information itself and the ethical nature of the cause.

Agreed again.

You have nothing really to argue with me about here, Don, except one thing: whether human-based CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming. That's it, period.

We believe in the same ethical and rational approach to dealing with various issues, but you're trying once again to steer the discussion into some kind of personal catfight or battle for dominance between you and me that will prove finally (to someone?) that I'm "dispassionate", "colorless", that I "sit on the fence" or whatever other personally critical assertions like that which you can come up with.

You're wasting your time and mine when you do that. Please stop personally attacking me, Don. Discuss society. Discuss human behaviour and belief systems. Discuss scientific viewpoints. Discuss the nature of the mass media and the government. Don't discuss the picayune character flaws of Little Hawk. If you leave off personally attacking me then I won't have to spend a bunch of my time replying to those attacks, will I?

And we'll have more time then to talk about something which actually matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 03:17 PM

I've found that, with the exception of children raised in fundamentalist families (and quite disturbing to the families, I'm sure, only a percentage of them), the scales fall off the eyes of most kids and much of religious mythology goes the way of belief in Santa Claus, and at about the same age.

By the way, Little Hawk, I'd like to know what's wrong with being emotionally involved in believing in and attempting to convey to others the truth? Verifiable, scientific facts? You say "emotionally involved" as if that negates anything the person you are accusing of being emotionally involved says. I know, I know, that's not what you mean. So if not, why even bring it up? Of course a person is emotionally involved in what they are attempting to convey. I am very dubious of people who are not passionately involved in matters of importance, such as not destroying life on earth--or for that matter, the civil rights of oppressed minorities. The question is not their emotional involvement, but the validity of the information itself and the ethical nature of their cause.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 02:07 PM

Agreed, Don. There's nothing unique about my skepticism regarding Bible stories nor does it necessarily show any great insight.

But I was still the only kid in that Sunday school class who openly objected to the miraculous tales we were being told and who refused to accept them even though the teacher said they were true. The teacher was quite taken aback by my skeptical attitude, and certainly somewhat annoyed about it. Remember...this was at a very young age. I think it was before I was even in First Grade if I remember correctly. Most kids that age don't even worry about whether or not to question or reject such stories when they hear them from a teacher, but I got started on stuff like evolution and natural history books very early, so I had a different viewpoint.

Of course there are a great many Christians who are not literalists or fundamentalists and who realize that much of the Bible is allegories, metaphors, mythology, and folk tales! I am not in any way implying that all Christians are fundamentalist morons or something, and I am not denigrating the great value in Jesus' actual teachings. Anything but.   But these were kindergarten age kids I'm talking about, not adults, and they tended to accept what they were told. I was unusually skeptical for my age group, and it was probably because, like you, I had done a lot of reading. Science was also a hobby of mine from the time I was old enough to read, and I had learned to read at home before I ever went to school. I had been reading some books that showed (in pictorial form and text) the scientific viewpoint of the origins of life on this planet.

I'm well aware that we humans are ruining the oceans and fouling our planetary nest, Don. We have no argument there at all, you and I.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 01:45 PM

There's nothing unique about your skepticism regarding Bible stories, Little Hawk. Nor does it necessarily show any great insight.

There are, indeed, Christians of the more fundamentalist nature who insist that the Bible is literal history, but it's not difficult at all to show that that position goes against all other evidence and simply defies common sense. This, of course, doesn't deter the "believers."

For every Christian I know who takes this literalist position, I know hundreds (yes, hundreds—some good friends, many just acquaintances) who hold that stories such as the Garden of Eden et al, Noah's Ark, Moses parting the Red Sea, and the whole repertoire, including such things as the virgin birth of Jesus and the physical ascent of Jesus to heaven are ALL allegories, metaphors, mythology, and folk tales. And this includes all the ministers, pastors, and a couple of bishops, whom I know personally. They base their Christianity on "What did Jesus say?"

Preachers on television? I give them about as much credence as people like Bill O'Reilly and others who have their heads up very dark places.

As to the subject of this thread (global warming), I read a lot of very bad astronomy on this thread. I'm appalled at the level of ignorance of things such as axial tilt, procession of the equinoxes, orbital mechanics, not to mention oceanography and meteorology and the other earth sciences, and the way people are blowing right past known facts to justify their skepticism, or simple refusal to consider global warming.

For example, variations in solar radiation and the increase in sunspot activity. The sun has an eleven year sunspot cycle. The cycle is approaching its maximum (2012), after which, it will ebb. The last maximum was in 2001. The next maximum will be in 2022. The sun has been doing this for billions of years. Nothing strange or unusual. And not related to global warming, which has a different cause.

I'm not a scientist, but science has been a hobby of mine since I was old enough to read, and I have taken a lot of science courses as electives in college. And I read a lot and stay current.

Years ago, the late Jacques Cousteau said that the plankton in the oceans is dying—being killed by pesticides washing into the oceans. Man made. And it may be of some interest that about 70% of the oxygen we breathe is made by the plankton in our oceans. That's only one of the detrimental effects that un-toilet-trained humans are having on the planet. We are fouling our nest.

The earth will survive. But will we?

That depends on what WE do. And within the next few decades.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 01:40 PM

The UV index today in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada is 8... which means I got my sunburn shortly after I started to sand and paint a garage door.

An index of 8, for me, being a blue eyed, red headed, half Irish, balding lad means, if yer gonna be in the sun for over 8 minutes... SPF 50 at least... and that is WITH a wide brimmed hat.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 12:39 PM

Rigs,

That's weather, not climate.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 12:25 PM

"Where's the Global Warming...?"

                      In Southern Oregon!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 12:20 PM

Interesting stuff, pdq.

By the way, I should clarify what I said about not believing the Bible stories in Sunday school, and be more specific. What I mean is, I didn't literally believe the more bizarre or miraculous tales, such as...

- the story about the Tower of Babel
- the story about Noah and his Ark and all the animals in pairs on it, etc.
- the story about the blowing of trumpets knocking down the walls of Jericho
- the story about Jesus walking on water
- the story about Moses parting the Red Sea (at God's command)

I didn't believe those sort of stories. We were told a number of them in my brief exposure to Sunday school, and I didn't believe for a moment that they could possibly be true, because my normal reasoning powers based on observation of present reality told me that they couldn't be true.

I did, however, believe that Moses had been an actual person who led a bunch of Israelites into Sinai, that Jesus had been an actual person who went around and preached in Judea, that Joshua's army had actually captured Jericho, and stuff life that. Why not? I just didn't believe the more dramatic miraculous events as told in the stories, because they didn't make sense in terms of what I already knew about what's possible and what isn't here in physical existence.

I suspected that the miraculous stories had either been made up by someone to give more drama to the overall story...or that they were maybe symbolic in nature. In any case, I could not accept them literally.

And the same went for Santa Claus. (grin) After giving it some thought, I concluded that it simply wasn't possible for a fat guy to travel around the world in an airborne sleigh pulled by reindeer and that he couldn't possibly come down our chimney even if he reached it! So I gave it some more thought and realized my parents were just telling me a story for some reason. What was the reason??? I was quite perplexed about it. I asked my Mother about it and she said, "Well, yes, it's just a nice story that people tell children so Christmas will be more fun for everybody...but don't tell your friends. You'll spoil it for them." So I kept mum about it. ;-) This was, needless to say, at a pretty young age. All kids eventually figure out the same thing I did at some point...or one of the other kids tells them.

Now, as to the global warming thing....sure, I might be wrong about it. And I know that. I have no way of being sure that I am right about it. As I say, we'll all have to wait 5 or 10 years and see what happens. It will eventually either be confirmed with no remaining doubt that the present global warming theories about the proportionate effects of CO2 on the situation and the ever-increasing warming of this planet are correct...or it will be discredited, dropped, fade away and be largely forgotten as so many past popular ideas of a similar sort have been, and then we'll be hearing about something else instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 12:12 PM

"I was, for instance, the only kid in my Sunday school class who did not believe the Bible stories from day 1. I went on not believing them. The others all just accepted what they were told. I complained about it to my Mother and she said I didn't have to go to Sunday school anymore, and that was the end of that.

"I was one of the very few kids in my classes in a small New York country town who totally opposed the US presence in Vietnam from Day 1. Most people there supported it wholeheartedly.

"I was the first kid I knew who stopped believing in Santa Claus." Little Hawk

Sheesh, Little Hawk. That is a rash of statements that is much less than insightful. Methinks you take on more credit than is due.

1. As the child of militantly atheistic parents, what were you doing in Sunday School?
2. As the child of atheists, do you consider it strange or precociously bright of you that you should question the Bible stories?
3. As the child of atheists, I am not at all surprised that your parents opposed the Viet Nam war. Even if sometimes atheists don't 'get it right',imo, they, generally speaking, are not blindly following the herd.
4."Santa Claus"? See #3

SUMMATION: Chalk it up to your parents.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 11:47 AM

...from website run by US Dept. of Commerce:


Astronomical Theory of Climate Change
   
The tilt of the earth relative to its plane of travel about the sun is what causes seasons. The hemisphere "pointing toward" the sun is in summer, while the opposite hemisphere is in winter. The earth makes one full orbit around the sun each year. The northern hemisphere is in summer in the left image, while 6 months later, the southern hemisphere has summer, as in the center image. If the earth's axis were "straight up and down" relative to the orbital plane, as in the right-hand image, there would be no seasons, since any given point at the top of the atmosphere would receive the same amount of sun each day of the year.

Changes in the "tilt" of the earth can change the severity of the seasons - more "tilt" means more severe seasons - warmer summers and colder winters; less "tilt" means less severe seasons - cooler summers and milder winters. The earth wobbles in space so that its tilt changes between about 22 and 25 degrees on a cycle of about 41,000 years. It is the cool summers which are thought to allow snow and ice to last from year to year in high latitudes, eventually building up into massive ice sheets. There are positive feedbacks in the climate system as well, because an earth covered with more snow reflects more of the sun's energy into space, causing additional cooling. In addition, it appears that the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere falls as ice sheets grow, also adding to the cooling of the climate.

The earth's orbit around the sun is not quite circular, which means that the earth is slightly closer to the sun at some times of the year than others. The closest approach of the earth to the sun is called perihelion, and it now occurs in January, making northern hemisphere winters slightly milder. This change in timing of perihelion is known as the precession of the equinoxes, and occurs on a period of 22,000 years. 11,000 years ago, perihelion occurred in July, making the seasons more severe than today. The "roundness", or eccentricity, of the earth's orbit varies on cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years, and this affects how important the timing of perihelion is to the strength of the seasons. The combination of the 41,000 year tilt cycle and the 22,000 year precession cycles, plus the smaller eccentricity signal, affect the relative severity of summer and winter, and are thought to control the growth and retreat of ice sheets. Cool summers in the northern hemisphere, where most of the earth's land mass is located, appear to allow snow and ice to persist to the next winter, allowing the development of large ice sheets over hundreds to thousands of years. Conversely, warmer summers shrink ice sheets by melting more ice than the amount accumulating during the winter.

What is The Milankovitch Theory?

The Milankovitch or astronomical theory of climate change is an explanation for changes in the seasons which result from changes in the earth's orbit around the sun. The theory is named for Serbian astronomer Milutin Milankovitch, who calculated the slow changes in the earth's orbit by careful measurements of the position of the stars, and through equations using the gravitational pull of other planets and stars. He determined that the earth "wobbles" in its orbit. The earth's "tilt" is what causes seasons, and changes in the tilt of the earth change the strength of the seasons. The seasons can also be accentuated or modified by the eccentricity (degree of roundness) of the orbital path around the sun, and the precession effect, the position of the solstices in the annual orbit.

What does The Milankovitch Theory say about future climate change?

Orbital changes occur over thousands of years, and the climate system may also take thousands of years to respond to orbital forcing. Theory suggests that the primary driver of ice ages is the total summer radiation received in northern latitude zones where major ice sheets have formed in the past, near 65 degrees north. Past ice ages correlate well to 65N summer insolation (Imbrie 1982). Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the next 50,000 - 100,000 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 03:02 AM

I do usually resist grand popular bandwagons that are pushed by the mass media and accepted by almost everyone around me, Amos. ;-D No doubt about it. The reason I resist them is because they are usually based not so much on independent thinking in most cases, but upon many sheep willingly following the latest popular trend, the latest officially dispensed orthodoxy, just because it IS the latest trend and the apparently ruling orthodoxy. They feel certain it must be right, because all their peers seem to think so too, and the media has told them so.

I have my doubts. I have a natural born resistance toward following common popular trends of all kinds. I question them, and I have always done so.

I was, for instance, the only kid in my Sunday school class who did not believe the Bible stories from day 1. I went on not believing them. The others all just accepted what they were told. I complained about it to my Mother and she said I didn't have to go to Sunday school anymore, and that was the end of that.

I was one of the very few kids in my classes in a small New York country town who totally opposed the US presence in Vietnam from Day 1. Most people there supported it wholeheartedly.

I was the first kid I knew who stopped believing in Santa Claus.

You will have to admit that my judgement was pretty good in those 3 cases.... ;-)

Well, I might be onto something with my unconventional views on the current global warming craze too. Maybe. You're going to have to wait and see if I am, and that will take some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 10:38 PM

Ach, LH, you love taking up arms against ay agreement, in the certainty it must be unreasoning, because there is agreement. But what agreement there is on the carbon emissions problem is hard one, one voice at a time, and supported by a lot of hard numbers, all of which you cheerfully ignore in your free-wheeling meta-process. I would add you did much the same thing in another contest on the subject of gay rights--roundly condemning those who had a consensus merely because ti was a consensus while voicing no position on the facts or the issues or the positions based thereon.

Good luck with a' that, mon.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 07:12 PM

TIA - Neither do I deny that there is some level of human influence on climate change. I simply think that the role of atmospheric CO2 in contributing to global warming has been grossly exaggerated in recent years. I do think it is a factor (although it might be more an aftereffect OF significant levels of global warming than a direct cause of them). I also do think that humanity is to some extent contributing to global warming and climate change of different kinds in different areas...that is clearly so...but I think that the CO2 factor and the human factor are relatively minor ones and that the major ones are the natural cycles of the Sun and the Earth's ecosphere.

And, I say again: I AM in favour of reducing our level of carbon emissions.

It is an all-embracing recent popular orthodoxy I'm challenging here because I think it's become unrealistic...but I am NOT saying that we should not be reducing our carbon emissions.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 07:02 PM

"This is as true of you or me as it is of Amos, BB, TIA, or anyone else here."



No..it is not. I read all the sides...up to a point. Your very answer, LH, is a generalization which may...or may not..be accurate. Sometimes one can see the bad logic, bad research and bias involved. But *I* do NOT just parrot the views of those whom I 'like', or have $$$ interest in, or whose politics I agree with. I do not even claim that I am absolutely sure that the current science is infallible. But I DO take note of analyses like I posted from this page:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/more-on-the-polar-bears-fate/

reposting short excerpt:

"Regardless, population recoveries, where they have occurred, are irrelevant in light of the recent changes in the availability of sea ice for polar bears."

You see? This is about claims and indicates an awareness OF the other sides... and it gives details on who the authorities are in the matter instead of just tossing out 'data' which may be simply out-of-context numbers.
It is one thing to sift thru data, it is quite another to work out what data is relevant and and its age and source.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 06:44 PM

"he area of forest burnt by wildfires in the United States is set to increase by over 50% by 2050, according to research by climate scientists.

The study predicts that the worst affected areas will be the forests in the Pacific Northwest and the Rocky Mountains, where the area of forest destroyed by wildfire is predicted to increase by 78% and 175% respectively.
The research is based on a conservative temperature increase of 1.6 degrees Celsius over the next 40 years.

Published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, scientists also say that the increase in wildfires will lead to significant deterioration of the air quality in the western United States due to greater presence of smoke.

This graph shows the percentage increase in area burned by wildfires, from the present-day to the 2050s, as calculated by the model of Spracklen et al. [2009] for the May-October fire season. The model follows a scenario of moderately increasing emissions of greenhouse gas emissions and leads to average global warming of 1.6 oCelsius (3oFahrenheit ) by 2050. Warmer temperatures can dry out underbrush, leading to more serious conflagrations in the future climate. Credit: Loretta Mickley, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

"Wildfires, such as those in California earlier this year, are a serious problem in the United States and this research shows that climate change is going to make things significantly worse," says Dr Dominick Spracklen, from the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds who is the lead author of the research.
"Our research shows that wildfires are strongly influenced by temperature. Hotter temperatures lead to dryer forests resulting in larger and more serious fires," explains Spracklen.

"In the Rocky Mountains we are predicting that the area burnt by wildfires will almost triple by 2050."

Scientists used data documenting the area of forest burned on federal land since 1980 along with weather data from the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, to construct a computer model that takes into account the factors that can best predict the area burned in each ecosystem in the western US."

(Phys.Org)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 05:42 PM

Ah heck, I will answer my own question.

The following societies acknowledge the phenomenon of global climate change, and the fact that human activities play some role, but are equivocal on the importance of that role.

American Association of State Climatologists
National Science Foundation
National Snow and Ice Data Center
American Geological Institute
American Institute of Professional Geologists
Polish Academy of Science Geological Committee
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
American Association Of Petroleum Geologists (1)

(1) AAPG was the lone "denier" organization until they formally revised their position in July 2007 to be neutral. Now there is not a single scientific organization or society that denies global climate change with some level of human influence.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 05:24 PM

It's normal for people to be emotionally wedded to any opinion they have, Bill. Their emotional bent is what drives them to look up stuff that agrees with their own viewpoint, and what causes them to spend very little time if any looking up things that don't agree with their viewpoint. ;-)

This is as true of you or me as it is of Amos, BB, TIA, or anyone else here. We all normally look up those sources which agree with our viewpoint, and then we enthusiastically point them out to our opponents here who aren't really interested at all, because their own enthusiasm leads them to look up those who agree with them, not those who don't!

And saying, "I've got more of the scientific authorities on my side than you do on yours" doesn't necessarily prove anything. You know why? There have been many, many junctures in past scientific history when the majority of authoritative scientific opinions at any given time turned out later to be: Dead wrong.

And a few radical voices in disagreement turned out to be absolutely right. It has happened again and again throughout history.

So either side could be right or wrong in this argument.

And we won't know until later.

Therefore I again suggest...contact me in 5 or 10 years from now, and the "loser" of this debate can buy the "winner" a beer or something... ;-)

In the meantime it's just a lot of hot air on Mudcat on the part of a whole bunch of us opinionated armchair intellectuals and psuedo-scientists who are emotionally wedded to our present opinion whatever the heck that may be. It won't change anything.

But I'm the only one here who seems to have gone from originally fully believing in Al Gore's theory to presently strongly doubting it. And I STILL like Al Gore. How about that, eh? Does that tell you anything?

I now provide a handy space for Amos's next clever and devastating wisecrack at my expense. ;-)

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

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 05:21 PM

Bruce--

My apologies, you rat fink. I meant to say "the effect of..." and wrote "the cause of..." instead.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:53 PM

" The efforts to STOP the climate change proposed will also delay or prevent the adoptation of efforts to accomadate climate change."

This is what *I* object to. It does not need to be 'either or'.

"You can't reduce the transportation infrastructure and increase the movement of people."

People can WALK fast enough to avoid climate change....and who said we WILL "..." reduce the transportation infrastructure "?...we just need to alter the types.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:42 PM

" IF they are wrong, it will do less damage following their advice than it will ignoring it if they are right. "


THIS is what I object to- the statment has no support, and I have given reasons why it is NOT true. The efforts to STOP the climate change proposed will also delay or prevent the adoptation of efforts to accomadate climate change.

You can't reduce the transportation infrastructure and increase the movement of people.

You can't get people to take the steps needed to survive climate change while telling them you are going to stop it from happening.

But then, some here have already decided that whatever happens King Al can command the sun to cool off.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:37 PM

""Aahhh...never mind. You have decided."

Haven't you? ;-D"

Nope...I just agree with TIA's last post. Quite a list, huh? I have 'decided' to take seriously the studies of all those respected experts. IF they are wrong, it will do less damage following their advice than it will ignoring it if they are right.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:36 PM

Calm down, Amos. The nice young men in the white coats will be along shortly to help you into a nice new canvas jacket...



"Well, it is nice to know that the inordinate calving of state-size chunks of arctic ice shelves, the unprecedented softening of the permafrost in northern tundra, the accelerating retreat of icebergs, and other such macro-scale symptoms, are not, after all, the cause of climate change,"

When you learn the difference between cause and effect, please let us know what this statement was supposed to mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:34 PM

NOTE When somebody writes "global warming" are you not in actuality addressing human causes and contributions? Because if you are not, you are talking nonsense.

I don't think we have established how much humans are contributing to global warming but NO ONE can dispute that global warming is happening.

I don't care if you, personally, are having an extra cool summer, the indisputable fact is that ice is melting, land is reappearing that has not been visible for eons and permafrost in many places is becoming mush.

In the north it is especially striking. Villages in Alaska are facing the reality that they will have to relocate; take Shishmaref, for an extreme example.

In a documentary I watched recently, Inuit elders said that they used to hunt seals "right out there", less than five miles off shore - and the closest ice is now 50 miles away.

Scientiests are now projecting that we may have summertime ice-free waters above the Arctic Circle by the year 2030. As they say, the only thing they've gotten wrong is that it's happening much faster than they had previously projected.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:26 PM

Well, it is nice to know that the inordinate calving of state-size chunks of arctic ice shelves, the unprecedented softening of the permafrost in northern tundra, the accelerating retreat of icebergs, and other such macro-scale symptoms, are not, after all, the cause of climate change, nor anytning we can or even should do anything about; and it is comforting to know that the correlation in accelerated global temperatures and accelerated human-driven carbon emissions is just a minor coincidence in the Great Shake and Bake of existence.

But I think there is more to the climate change argument that you guys are taking into account, and I don't by the Sunspots THeory or the Aliens are Doing It theory, either.

(That was uncalled for, Amos!! I know. But I couldn't help it!! Shame on you!! Oh, shut up!)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 03:59 PM

Bill, you said, "if someone has a pet idea that is ultimately wrong and has an emotional interest in it, they will often defend it to the last"

Yes! Exactly. ;-) And that IS precisely what worries me about most of the more enthusiastic adherents to the recent popular theories of "Global Warming". They have rushed like lemmings to join in the popular and trendy theme of their day, and they have a very big emotional interest in maintaining their present state of belief. They defend it with the zealousness of priests defending Holy Scripture.

Now in my case, Bill....I initially was extremely impressed by Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth", and I became a strong believer in the Global Warming theories just as they were presented in that film. I also like Al Gore personally, I like him politically, I'm not against him in any way, and I have no axe to grind against Al Gore at all (unlike many conservative opponents of the Global Warming theory).

However....I have since gradually come to the conclusion that his global warming theories are far from correct, and that human-produced C02 concentrations are not a major cause of global warming.

So, Bill. Who has been unable to alter a past opinion due to their emotional attachment to it? Not me. I HAVE altered my past opinions on this subject. I've altered them radically.

And I still like Al Gore, but I think he's simply mistaken in his global warming theory. That doesn't make him a bad guy in my books, it just means he's probably in error about something, that's all.

And now if I may quote you again....

"Aahhh...never mind. You have decided."

Haven't you? ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 03:28 PM

"All this flap is about a 1 degree F rise in average ambient air temperature as measured over land from 1845-2009."


Good grief, PDQ! No...that is NOT 'all' what it is about! There is MUCH more. If all we had was a 1° rise in 150 years and no other symptoms or issues, even Gore would not be wasting his time on it. A degree or 2 fluctuation in many years 'can' be quite
normal'....


ahhh...never mind. You have decided.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 03:22 PM

All this flap is about a 1 degree F rise in average ambient air temperature as measured over land from 1845-2009.

A scientist will be wary about the test methods as well as the results.

Seems that many weather stations that were in rural areas a century ago are now surrounded by urban sprawl.

The concrete and surrounding buildings has thermal mass and therefore heat retention, and keep minimum measured temperatures higher than they actually are.

This is supported by the fact that the 1 degree F of "average ambient air temperature" is derived from a two degree increase in measured minimum temperature and a zero degree change in daily maximum measured temperature.

Furthermore, even if the 1 degree F rise reflects reality, there is no reason to be alarmed. It is trivial. Hardly merits a special name like is has been given. So much for Global Warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 03:06 PM

In science, truth is not judged by popular vote. In fact, the prevailing "truth" in any field of science regularly gets tossed out on its ear after a few decades (sometimes more). However, at any stage, humans would be fools to not base their behavior on the state-of-the-art in science (such as it is…see above). So, it is important to be clear about what the current consensus is, and the fact that there is one. It is always possible to find a curmudgeon to debate on TV the current state of any science. But how many are there really? The following scientific organizations have all either explicitly endorsed, or signed joint statements in support of the latest IPCC report.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

I would be curious to see a listing of the organizations that have opposed the findings…and political ThinkTanks and PACs don't count.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 02:25 PM

"I think I know which one I will pick."

Then you need to find out if anyone agrees with you, and work out some plan to ...ummmm.....expedite this great 'move' you advocate and convince places like Canada they they need to prepare to accept 23-30 million more folks.

What *I* said is, that if climate conditions change enough, moving WILL occur...gradually, and negotiations (both friendly & not) will happen....(and IF climate changes enough, some will die...whether King Al was ignored or not)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:57 PM

"We need to get it right as best we can. "

I agree with this- so why do you keep advocating action without getting it right?


If you are right, having "preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change" will be usefull, and attempting to stop it will be usefull.

If I am right ( and global warming occurs regardless) it is essential that we "prepare to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change", and all attempts to stop it are wasted effort.




So, which one is the side of caustion? If I am wrong, we have prepared for something that is not (immediately) occurring, and we live.

If King Al is wrong ( and we cannot stop Global warming) we have wasted the resources we need to survive.- And we die.


I think I know which one I will pick.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:31 PM

What the Global Warming barkers have on their side are the news outlets. They do not have have the facts on their side.


"The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.

Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with '2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC'. In addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is 'settled'.

A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a 'growing accumulation' of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the "science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation. 'More evidence that the global warming fear machine is breaking down. Russian scientists 'rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming' An American Physical Society editor conceded that a "considerable presence" of scientific skeptics exists.

An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: 'Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate'. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC "be called to account and cease its deceptive practices.' "

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:25 PM

Iss da fookin seals eh wha?

All da seal huggin yuppies what gets da ban on da seal hunt is causin a spoike in da seal population. More seals eatin cod an salmon an shellfish ana loike an fartin, what den causes da roise in yer temperature a yer bay, see? Not ta mention yer green gas what fooks wit yer ozone. Now, dem cod and yer loike is after livin in cold water fer a long many years and dey don't spawn so good when da bay is warm. Less fer yer whole food chain ta eat, what stunts yer growth of yer under da water plant type life and den iss loike a dog chasin ees tail I tell ya.

True sure! Iss da fookin seals, buddy.

Well, iss da yuppies what gets sucked in ta donatin coin by yer global Mega-Beggers loike yer Green Pieces who use yer stunned as me arse neo-ecological old hippies loike yer McCartneys fer frontmen. Imagine da loikes a dat pair globe trottin in jets and cruise punts and couldn't even find Newfoundland on a fookin map!! Jaysus! Wonner Danny b'y didn't go out fer a wee chat wit his nibs in person and give n a smack.

At least get a fookin GPS so's ya knows where yer to eh, Pauly. I mean, it's nare loike ya can't afford one... and maybe a yuppie to read it for ya. Good ting dey weren't walkin, eh? Prob'ly woulda got lost sure... had ta club a baby seal fer sustinence eh wha? Nothin out on ta ice fer ta make a club with though. Wonder what dey coulda used?

Some folks is stunner n fookin seals. I mean, ya don't even have no never mind the roise in da level a da bay from yer global swarming… put a seal in yer washtub an see if yer floor gets wet.

Iss da fookin seals!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:19 PM

(some little heads only have room for facts that suit their preconceived opinions)

It saddens me to say that, but I see it everyday in various ways. *IF* some scientific idea is incorrect, science will eventually figure it out....if someone has a pet idea that it ultimately wrong and has an emotional interest in it, they will often defend it to the last.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:13 PM

Did you guys actually look at the three charts up-thread?

1880 to 2008 Hemispheric Temperature Change in both hemispheres, moreso in the northern hemisphere: continuous, accelerating increase approaching exponential rampup in the last 80 years.

1880 to 2008 Global Temperature annual Mean and five-year Mean values showing temo anomalies from -.6 to +.8 deg. C: constant increase accelerating to nearly exponential in the last 60-80 years.

1880-2008 Global Land/Ocean Temperature Index anomalies -- same pattern.

The exponential increase of anthropogenic carbon, methane and water emissions is highly likely to follow the same pattern.

The other factor you seem to be ignoring is that CO2 emissions actually lower the ratio of oxygen in the atmospheric mix on land, making for unpleasant breathing.   I have no data on the quantities involved on this last point however.

Do you think these trends are fiction?????


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:13 PM

I realize that Carl Sagan is dead and therefore needs no defense from me but W A Y   U P   T H E R E   I N   T H I S   T H R E A D, "Guest/Al" several times made the remark that Sagan had predicted that nuclear winter would follow the Gulf War oil well fires, and that therefore one could not trust "experts" opinions on global warming.

No one on this thread challenged the charge. The fact is that, wittingly or not, Guest/Al was wrong. I have found no such evidence that Sagan ever made such a prediction. Typical:

From Wiki

"Sagan erroneously predicted in January 1991 that so much smoke from the Kuwaiti oil fires "might get so high as to disrupt agriculture in much of South Asia…" He acknowledged the error in The Demon-Haunted World: "as events transpired, it was pitch black at noon and temperatures dropped 4–6 °C over the Persian Gulf, but not much smoke reached stratospheric altitudes and Asia was spared."