Is Global Warming a Swindle?

[Skyhunter]

No, I think you missed the preceeding paragraph -

But, like CFCs, they are considered potent greenhouse gases that harm the climate -- up to 10,000 times worse than carbon dioxide emissions.

Like CFC's.

I was pointing out that they are no worse than CFC's with regard to GHG emissions. The Montreal protocol only addressed part of the problem, ozone depletion. It had no effect on GHG emisions, positive or negative.

 

[drankin]

I have a protien appetite that only animal flesh can satisfy. From what I've read the diet of cattle is a large factor in emissions. If livestock are such a large factor then this may be a relatively easy thing to address. Relative to other emission contributors. I'm all for humans doing what is responsible to keep the environment clean. I'm just not convinced that we are going to make a dent in our planets heating and cooling cycles. And I seriously doubt the future doom and gloom that is preached in the media right now.

 

[Skyhunter]

I have a protien appetite that only animal flesh can satisfy. From what I've read the diet of cattle is a large factor in emissions. If livestock are such a large factor then this may be a relatively easy thing to address. Relative to other emission contributors. I'm all for humans doing what is responsible to keep the environment clean. I'm just not convinced that we are going to make a dent in our planets heating and cooling cycles. And I seriously doubt the future doom and gloom that is preached in the media right now.

At least you are honest and call it an appetite instead of a dietary requirement.

Human intestines are long and irregular, designed to digest high fiber foods. There are symbiotic bacteria that live in our intestines. These bacteria feed on non soluble fiber that should be a natural part of our diet. There is 0% fiber in animal protein.

I don't see doom and gloom in the media, but then, I rarely watch television, and even less rarely do I watch commercial media.

In simple terms the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report for Policy Makers says;

The world is warming, (95%) and humans are probably (90%) responsible.

 

[drankin]

Off topic but, yeah, it is an appetite not a requirement. I can stuff myself on vegies and pasta, what-have-you, and still feel a sense of hunger. I imagine if I went all vegies it would go away over time but the meanwhile would be torture for me.

I can't argue with folks that specialize in this stuff but I do believe our climate is always going to be changing regardless if we are roaming the planet or not and no matter how it changes there are those that are going to say it's changing for the worse and that it's our fault. Even if we are contributing to the changes to some degree, the planet will accommodate us and we will accommodate it without mass extinctions, famine, and whatever else.

The only way to take us out of the equation is to literally take us out of the equation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

..."Today the nation's highest court has set the White House straight. Carbon dioxide is an air pollutant, and the Clean Air Act gives EPA the power to start cutting the pollution from new vehicles that is wreaking havoc with our climate," said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council. [continued]

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-04-02T193852Z_01_WBT006757_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-USA-WARMING-COURT-COL.XML

QED

 

[Skyhunter]

Off topic but, yeah, it is an appetite not a requirement. I can stuff myself on vegies and pasta, what-have-you, and still feel a sense of hunger. I imagine if I went all vegies it would go away over time but the meanwhile would be torture for me.

I can't argue with folks that specialize in this stuff but I do believe our climate is always going to be changing regardless if we are roaming the planet or not and no matter how it changes there are those that are going to say it's changing for the worse and that it's our fault. Even if we are contributing to the changes to some degree, the planet will accommodate us and we will accommodate it without mass extinctions, famine, and whatever else.

The only way to take us out of the equation is to literally take us out of the equation.

I suggest you read part 2 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment due to be released friday.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/01/climate.report.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

We are always going to have an impact on the environment, because we are a part of the environment. Our impact does not always have to detrimental. We can choose to be good stewards and adopt a more sustainable lifestyle.

 

[Art]

Next installment -

Skyhunter Are you suggesting here that AGW is real and a good thing?

I'm saying the Earth is probably going through a warming phase as it has been doing ever since we exited the little ice age. Human influence on this warming is very uncertain and as to whether longterm it is a good thing or not is unknown though certainly the example I gave of the greening of the Sahara is a good thing. So who decided that 19xx was the optimal temperature for the planet and why? I seem to have missed the vote on that one.

Skyhunter - Source please.

According to the GRACE project, (considered the most accurate since it measures changes in mass, by measuring changes in gravity) both the Antarctic and Greenland are losing mass.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../314/5803/1286

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0302180504.htm

I fear what you are doing here is confusing rate of new growth by increased snowfall (predicted by the climate models) with actual mass.

I can't find the actual report I used for the original statement I made but here is one that says much the same thing.

Highly Over-Hyped: Greenland's and Antarctica's Impacts on Sea Level

snip
It is also important to recognize the fact that coastal glacial discharge represents only half of the equation relating to sea level change, the other half being inland ice accumulation derived from precipitation; and when the mass balance of the entire Greenland ice sheet was most recently assessed via satellite radar altimetry, quite a different result was obtained than that suggested by the seven Science papers of 24 March. Zwally et al. (2005), for example, found that although "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins," it is "growing inland with a small overall mass gain." In fact, for the 11-year period 1992-2003, Johannessen et al. (2005) found that "below 1500 meters, the elevation-change rate is -2.0 ± 0.9 cm/year, in qualitative agreement with reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins," but that "an increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 cm/year is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters." Spatially averaged over the bulk of the ice sheet, the net result, according to the latter researchers, was a mean increase of 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year, "or ~60 cm over 11 years, or ~54 cm when corrected for isostatic uplift." Consequently, the Greenland ice sheet experienced no net loss of mass over the last decade for which data are available. Quite to the contrary, in fact, it was host to a net accumulation of ice, which Zwally et al. found to be producing a 0.03 ± 0.01 mm/year decline in sea-level.

In an attempt to downplay the significance of these inconvenient findings, Kerr quotes Zwally as saying he believes that "right now" the Greenland ice sheet is experiencing a net loss of mass. Why? Kerr says Zwally's belief is "based on his gut feeling about the most recent radar and laser observations." Fair enough. But gut feelings are a poor substitute for comprehensive real-world measurements; and even if the things that Zwally's intestines are telling him are ultimately proven to be correct, their confirmation would only demonstrate just how rapidly the Greenland environment can change. Also, we would have to wait and see how long the mass losses prevailed in order to assess their significance within the context of the CO2-induced global warming debate. For the present and immediate future, therefore, we have no choice but to stick with what the existent data and analyses suggest, i.e., that cumulatively since the early 1990s, and conservatively (since the balance is likely still positive), there has been no net loss of mass from the Greenland ice sheet.
snip
In a study of the entire continent, Comiso (2000) assembled and analyzed Antarctic temperature data from 21 surface stations and from infrared satellites operating from 1979 to 1998. The temperature trend derived from the satellite data was a cooling of 0.42°C per decade, while the trend derived from the station data was a cooling of 0.08°C per decade, which led Comiso to state that these negative temperature trends were "intriguing, since during the same time period a general warming is being observed globally," and to note that "the slight cooling detected in the entire Antarctic region is compatible with a slightly positive trend in the sea ice extent that has been observed from passive microwave data."

Doran et al. (2002) measured a number of meteorological parameters in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of Antarctica between 1986 and 2000, comparing what they learned with what happened concurrently over the rest of the continent, the climatic record of which stretches two additional decades back in time. Over the 14 years of their intensive measurements, the McMurdo Dry valleys cooled at the phenomenal rate of 0.7°C per decade. This dramatic cooling, in the researchers' words, "reflects longer term continental Antarctic cooling between 1966 and 2000." In addition to sharing the same cooling trend, most of the 14-year cooling in the dry valleys occurred in the summer and autumn, just as most of the 35-year cooling over the continent as a whole (which did not include any data from the dry valleys) also occurred in the summer and autumn; and Doran et al. note that this multi-faceted "compatibility with the dry valley data increases the validity of the analysis."

As for the significance of their findings, Doran et al. say that the continental Antarctic cooling documented in their paper "poses challenges to models of climate and ecosystem change." Climate models, as they note, not only predict that global warming should have been occurring over the period of their study, but that there should have been "amplified warming in polar regions." To instead find dramatic cooling (which is about as different from amplified warming as one can get) especially in one of the two places on Earth where the climate models are thought to be most correct, represents about as clear-cut a refutation of the predictions of the climate models as one can imagine.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N13/EDIT.jsp

Skyhunter can't find a source for this claim either, could you provide one please.

There is some debate, and rightly so about arctic temperature trends. There was some debate about the definition "Arctic", geographically, as well as which instrument stations were used.

From everything I saw, from 1880 on, shows a steady warming trend with a, warm spike, in the 30's and 40's, followed by a cooling trend but is now at approximately the same as the peak of the last spike.

Here is a better record that isn't subject to geographic station location arguments;

As you can see the facts appear to contradict the theory.

Recent Arctic Temperatures: Unusual or Nothing Special?
snip
As can be seen from this figure, the warmth of the last ten years (1994-2003) was indeed greater than that of the mid-20th century maximum everywhere from the equator to 70°N. In the Arctic, however, from 70°N to the pole, the earlier maximum was greater, and by a relatively large amount.

These instrumental temperature measurements create major problems for the world's climate alarmists. The real-world data either totally destroy their contention that "the place to watch for global warming - the sensitive point, the canary in the coal mine - is the Arctic," or, if this statement is true, they totally destroy their more basic premise, i.e., that CO2-induced global warming is occurring, for they reveal a significant cooling of the Arctic between 1940 and 1998 (the mean midpoints of the ten-year periods used to define the mid-century and end-century mean maximum temperatures of the Arctic), a stretch of time that witnessed the greatest increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of the entire industrial era: a rise of 60 ppm, which constitutes close to 70% of the entire increase in atmospheric CO2 experienced from the inception of the Industrial Revolution through 1998.

Consequently, in response to the question posed in the title of our Editorial - Recent Arctic Temperatures: Unusual or Nothing Special? - we are forced to conclude they have indeed been nothing special. In addition, it should be obvious to even the most casual of observers that this finding argues strongly against the existence of a CO2-induced greenhouse effect that is anywhere near the magnitude of what is claimed by the world's climate alarmists, as that hypothesized phenomenon appears to be totally overpowered by natural decadal variations of the type that produced the warmer temperatures of the late 1930s to early 1950s and the cooler temperatures of the 1960s and 70s, from which the Arctic has yet to fully recover.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N2/EDIT.jsp

Skyhunter To vague here I don't know what places or records you are referring to.

Check out the Medieval Warm Period Project here http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/mwpp.jsp

Skyhunter I fail to see how this is an argument for or against AGW.

The last interglacial is of great interest to climate scientists right now because it is the last time that the climate was known to be warmer than it is today. Learning more about the conditions then are important for understanding what to expect from the current warming.

The USGS has current project ongoing, right now. Here.

Take a look at this graph of CO<sub>2 from the last 175,000 years. You have to look closely on the far left border to see that 100ppm jump. there are 3 dots on the zero line.

The last interglacial was warmer than today without the 100ppm spike that we have just injected into the system over a very short time span.</sub>

_{More a curiosity than anything. If CO2 is such a potent GHG why aren't we warmer now than during the last interglacial period when CO2 was less?}

 

[Art]

A more balanced summary of the IPCC report from 50 scientists.

Independent Summary for Policymakers:
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
Publication Date: February 2007
Publication Format: Digital Publications

Author(s):
Executive Summary: The Independent Summary for Policymakers is a detailed and thorough overview of the state of climate change science as laid out in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report. This independent summary has been reviewed by more than 50 scientists around the world and their views on its balance and reliability are tabulated for readers. It carefully connects summary paragraphs to the chapters and sections of the IPCC report from which they are drawn, allowing readers to refer directly to what is in the IPCC Report, including:

• Data collected by weather satellites since 1979 continue to exhibit some evidence of lower atmospheric warming, with estimated trends ranging near the low end of past IPCC forecasts. There is no significant warming in the tropical troposphere (the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere), which accounts for half the world’s atmosphere, despite model predictions that warming should be amplified there.

• Temperature data collected at the surface exhibits an upward trend from 1900 to 1940, and again from 1979 to the present. Trends in the Southern Hemisphere are small compared to those in the Northern Hemisphere.

• There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway. Perceptions of increased extreme weather events are potentially due to increased reporting. There is too little data to reliably confirm these perceptions.

• There is no globally-consistent pattern in long-term precipitation trends, snow-covered area, or snow depth. Arctic sea ice thickness showed an abrupt loss prior to the 1990s, and the loss stopped shortly thereafter. There is insufficient data to conclude that there are any trends in Antarctic sea ice thickness.

• Current data suggest a global mean sea level rise of between two and three millimeters per year. Models project an increase of roughly 20 centimeters over the next 100 years, if accompanied by a warming of 2.0 to 4.5 degrees Celsius.

• Natural climatic variability is now believed to be substantially larger than previously estimated, as is the uncertainty associated with historical temperature reconstructions.

• Attributing an observed climate change to a specific cause like greenhouse gas emissions is not formally possible, and therefore relies on computer model simulations. These attribution studies do not take into account the basic uncertainty about climate models, or all potentially important influences like aerosols, solar activity, and land use changes.

• Computer models project a range of future forecasts, which are inherently uncertain for the coming century, especially at the regional level. It is not possible to say which, if any, of today’s climate models are reliable for climate prediction and forecasting.

For the full analysis http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=886

I reccomend this full report is read as it strongly suggests that a lot of the data amassed by the members of the IPCC does not lend itself to the published conclusions.

 

[Art]

Skyhunter Environmental issues were/are very much a part of my decision to live a vegan lifestyle. I was aware of this as an environmental issue long before the U.N. report.

And yet according to the latest IPCC report for some unknown reason and in direct contradiction of their models' forecasts methane levels have been flat or have even been declining since the late 90's. So looks like you can put beef back on your menu again

More seriously it highlights the dangers in kneejerk reactions to IPCC forecasts as invariably it seems the real world behaves nothing like their models predict and as their whole theory rests on these models don't you think it would be a little wasteful to spend a sizable chunk of the Earth's resources on such flaky science instead of spending it somewhere useful like addressing world hunger or adapting to natural climate change?

 

[drankin]

..."Today the nation's highest court has set the White House straight. Carbon dioxide is an air pollutant, and the Clean Air Act gives EPA the power to start cutting the pollution from new vehicles that is wreaking havoc with our climate," said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council. [continued]

I love it! If you exhale, you are polluting the environment!

Seriously though, I'm not very savy in chemistry, could someone please explain what part of the emissions produced by gasoline combustion results in carbon dioxide? How can it be minimized or is it such a part of the process that it cannot be lessened when gasoline is burned?

Not to be off topic (destined to another part of the forums), but I'm very curious and wikipedia didn't go into detail.

 

[drankin]

..."Today the nation's highest court has set the White House straight. Carbon dioxide is an air pollutant, and the Clean Air Act gives EPA the power to start cutting the pollution from new vehicles that is wreaking havoc with our climate," said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council. [continued]

I love it! If you exhale, you are polluting the environment!

Seriously though, I'm not very savy in chemistry, could someone please explain what part of the emissions produced by gasoline combustion results in carbon dioxide? How can it be minimized or is it such a part of the process that it cannot be lessened when gasoline is burned?

Not to be off topic (destined to another part of the forums), but I'm very curious and wikipedia didn't go into detail.

Scratch that request, I found a good article: http://www.llnl.gov/str/Westbrook.html

 

[Skyhunter]

Art the sources I provided you are reliable scientific organizations.

The sources you provided me are Market advocacy institutions and websites.

There is simply no comparison to what CO₂ Science publishes and what is published by the USGS.

I have already been through all those sites and find them to be far to biased to be objective.

You are correct that the climate is constantly changing. The Planet has been warming since the end of the last glacial some 10,000 years ago. If the last interglacial is any indicator of the glacial/interglacial cycle we are in at what during the last interglacial was approaching the crest of the warming trend before a gradual cooling for 50 odd thousand years, until we once again enter a glacial period. We need to adapt to a warming world, GHGs contribute to the warming.

Less GHGs = Less warming

Let the scientists argue about how much, feedbacks, etc. We can choose now to make decisions in our lives to help mitigate it.

The second part of the IPCC report is due to be released Friday. It is the part that covers the expected consequences of inaction.

I think it is called a roadmap to extinction.

 

[Art]

Art the sources I provided you are reliable scientific organizations.

The sources you provided me are Market advocacy institutions and websites.

There is simply no comparison to what CO₂ Science publishes and what is published by the USGS.

I have already been through all those sites and find them to be far to biased to be objective.

You are correct that the climate is constantly changing. The Planet has been warming since the end of the last glacial some 10,000 years ago. If the last interglacial is any indicator of the glacial/interglacial cycle we are in at what during the last interglacial was approaching the crest of the warming trend before a gradual cooling for 50 odd thousand years, until we once again enter a glacial period. We need to adapt to a warming world, GHGs contribute to the warming.

Less GHGs = Less warming

Let the scientists argue about how much, feedbacks, etc. We can choose now to make decisions in our lives to help mitigate it.

The second part of the IPCC report is due to be released Friday. It is the part that covers the expected consequences of inaction.

I think it is called a roadmap to extinction.

Actually the links you provided don't work!

The sources I provided reference published peer reviewed material in fact much of it is the same material the climate alarmists quote themselves so please tell me which statements of fact from the articles I quoted from you wish to challenge. I even bolded one piece where a global alarmist chose to ignore the data because his 'gut' told him the opposite.

It's ironic you questioning my sources when in the case of the Fraser institute their only source is the IPCC's own report!

Perhaps you should click on the links before dismissing my references out of hand

The impression I get is that you are perhaps one of those environmentalists I mentioned earlier that believe the end justifies the means which if true means you are approaching this with something less than an open mind.

 

[Art]

An astrophysicist's take on climate change

The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

Lawrence Solomon@nextcity.com

 

[Skyhunter]

And yet according to the latest IPCC report for some unknown reason and in direct contravention of their models' forecasts methane levels have been flat or have even been receding since the late 90's. So looks like you can put beef back on your menu again

Having meat out of my life is even better than having cigarettes out of my life. Not only would I not add it back to my menu, I forbid it in my house. It is the filthy rotting corpse of what was once another living being. One of the side effects of a vegan diet for me was a greater sense of compassion.

That is an excellent question regarding methane, since there is no consensus as to why atmospheric methane after rising sharply for most of the 20th century has suddenly appeared to have stabilized at 1.77ppbv. I have not even seen any speculation as to what might be the cause.

Are we seeing some mechanism in the atmosphere that is not yet been discovered? or is there an obvious explanation that has been overlooked? The answer should prove quite interesting.

More seriously it highlights the dangers in kneejerk reactions to IPCC forecasts as invariably it seems the real world behaves nothing like their models predict and as their whole theory rests on these models don't you think it would be a little wasteful to spend a sizable chunk of the Earth's resources on such flaky science instead of spending it somewhere useful like addressing world hunger or adapting to natural climate change?

I hear this economic argument often, and yet I see no credible evidence to suggest that this would bankrupt the economies of the world. It is however the motivation for organizations like the The Frazier Institute and CO₂Science to misrepresent science. I don't object to their advocating commerce and enterprise, I do object to them distorting the science.

For instance you cited them about the ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica

The problem with the study they are citing is:

when the mass balance of the entire Greenland ice sheet was most recently assessed via satellite radar altimetry

Old technology, satellite altimetry.

The state of the art is the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE.

If they were being objective they would not be promoting an outdated and irrelevant study.

There is no reason (except lack of will) that we cannot address both GW and world hunger. If everyone was vegetarian there would be more food for people, and far fewer belching bovines.

California is going green in a big way, the sustainability movement has been a boon to our economy, and I expect it to keep growing exponentially. Companies are discovering that going green can be quite profitable. This is why the momentum is only going to grow. Whether it will be enough to mitigate the coming climate crisis only time will tell.

I for one do not want to explain to my grandchildren why I didn't do something when there was still time.

 

[Skyhunter]

Actually the links you provided don't work!

The sources I provided reference published peer reviewed material in fact much of it is the same material the climate alarmists quote themselves so please tell me which statements of fact from the articles I quoted from you wish to challenge. I even bolded one piece where a global alarmist chose to ignore the data because his 'gut' told him the opposite.

It's ironic you questioning my sources when in the case of the Fraser institute their only source is the IPCC's own report!

Perhaps you should click on the links before dismissing my references out of hand

The impression I get is that you are perhaps one of those environmentalists I mentioned earlier that believe the end justifies the means which if true means you are approaching this with something less than an open mind.

I have been all over the CO₂Science website. It is not objective. Yes, they cite peer reviewed studies, but they misrepresent them. They blur the lines between the study and their own commentary. I have also seen the summary published by Frazier Institute. You are not presenting me with anything new.

As it turns out (see results of GRACE) the guys gut feeling was right and the methods being used to estimate ice mass were wrong.

[edit] I randomly checked a few of the links I posted and found no problem. Anyone else have any trouble? [/edit]

 

[Andre]

Observing the grand discussion about the mass loss of the ice sheets, a few loose remarks.

About the always used "your-sources-are-demonized" fallacy, I wonder how long it will take when these warmer practices will backfire. The reasoning about the sources: Global warming is terribly true, therefore people who are against global warming must have an agenda, probably due to greed. The oil companies, So their actions to obstruct the draconical measures against global warming is a fellony. So they are criminals and criminals are wrong. But the real character murderers are the warmers like Monbiot. This is no less than war talk. Goebels would have been proud of them.

Anyway, the logic of the receding ice sheets. ice sheets get thinner, it's global warming, so we have to cut CO2 emissions. How many thinking errors are in there?

The size of an ice sheet depends on accumulation rates, flow rates, evaporation and ablation rates. So let's have a look at those facors.

What happens if it gets warmer? Anybody who doesn't know the expression: "It's too cold to snow"? Antarctica with a temperature range of -10C -70C is a bone dry desert simply because the air cannot hold significant amounts of water vapor. Make it warmer and it will snow more as can be seen in just about any ice core. So if there was any significant global warming going on, the accumulation rate would increase.

How about the flow rates of the ice? The faster the rate the faster the ice sheet would thin. Flow rates depend on a lot of things but also on the temperature of the ice. However, borehole temperature probing reveals that the temperatures down there are from the past, when the ice was formed, not from now, simply because ice is a bad heat conductor. So, changing temperatures now, cannot change the flow rate for the first few hundreds to ten thousend years, that is, when that warming reaches the depths where the flows are generated.

The ablation of ice, the well known picture of masses of ice dropping in the ocean, is primary a function of the flow rate. Increasing temperatures may cause more melt but it would also increase the precipitation rate as argued before. Moreover, the main melting factor in those area is the midsummer sun, bringing many more watts per square meters than warmer air does. Increasing melt may just be due to less clouds.

So, the size of an ice sheet is depending on a lot of factors but warming would just as likely result in growing ice sheets in the Arctic regions and it's possible thinning doesn't say anything about global temperatures. Just as likely it is due to some http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=700896650018&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1 of the last decade or not.

Furthermore, the ice sheets did fine during the early Holocene Thermal Optimum between some 9000 and 6000 years ago, with temperatures some 3-5 degrees higher than they are now.

But suppose that the size of the ice sheet was indeed an indicator of global warming? What would that say about the cause of the warming. It just could be more sunshine, less low clouds due to natural cycles or even man induced (cutting of the rain forests). There is nothing that ties it to the impossible greenhouse-with-positive-feedback myth.

So between "possible declining ice sheets, therefore we must cut emissions" are two major thinking errors which reveals the quality of the global warming ..erm..science.

And from this rant you may get the impression that I would be against cutting emisions. No so, it just should not be for the wrong reasons.

The new dark ages are nigh

 

[Art]

More on solar activity and climate from Skyhunter's Grace site

ACRIMSAT
snip
It is theorized that as much as 25 percent of the Earth's total global warming may be solar in origin due to small increases in the Sun's total energy output since the last century. By measuring incoming solar radiation and adding measurements of ocean and atmosphere currents and temperatures, as well as surface temperatures, climatologists will be able to improve their predictions of climate and global warming over the next century. Energy forecasting, carbon management, public health.

http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/overview.html

 

[Art]

Having meat out of my life is even better than having cigarettes out of my life. Not only would I not add it back to my menu, I forbid it in my house. It is the filthy rotting corpse of what was once another living being. One of the side effects of a vegan diet for me was a greater sense of compassion.

I guess this answers my question re your motivation
As they say 'There is none so pure as a reformed whore'

btw a " filthy rotting corpse " ?. Maybe all you needed to do was change your meat supplier

Originally Posted by Skyhunter I for one do not want to explain to my grandchildren why I didn't do something when there was still time.

Why not take a tip from Huckleberry Finn and bury a dead cat in a churchyard at midnight? It would be just as useful and a lot cheaper.

Originally Posted by Skyhunter The state of the art is the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE.

If they were being objective they would not be promoting an outdated and irrelevant study

Really?? Your own link says the Grace findings need to be used in conjunction with the studies I referenced so how is it outdated and irrelevant?

While Grace provides a new and independent way to study Earth's ice sheets, it will take a combination of different tools, including laser altimeters, radar, and field studies, to sort out more clearly what's happening. "All technologies have different strengths and weaknesses," says Watkins. "Grace is the new piece. It shows us the big picture, while other measurements look at a smaller scale. We need to use them all together."

 

[Art]

Here is an interesting article which attacks the very foundation stone AGW is built on.

Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.

University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.

It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.

The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070315-13590700-bc-denmark-globalwarming.xml

and explained in a little more detail here

The journal deals with energy systems that are too complex to come to equilibrium, unlike a cup of hot tea, which behaves in a highly predictable way. A lot of important physical systems, like the climate, appear to be non-equilibrium systems. They are not well understood, which is why they are a hot frontier topic in physics.


Mathematically, there are several different "measures of central tendency," which is what an "average" really is. When we think about "average global temperature" we are usually thinking about the arithmetic mean. But there is also a geometric mean, a mode, a median, and more complicated expressions that can be used as numerical indices for the heat content of a physical system. But as Andresen points out, which of those "averages" you use depends upon your model of the atmosphere.


The current evidence cited for "global warming" could even mean a decrease in the physical heat density of the atmosphere, if a different mathematical average is used. And because the climate is driven by differences in heat between different regions --- leading to the daily weather, as well as hurricanes and snow storms --- the right predictor for global climate may not be an average heat density at all, but rather the regional differences in heat content. Weather systems flow from high to low pressure regions, which are in turn dependent upon complex heat exchange mechanisms.


All the standard arguments for global warming rely upon conventional "equilibrium" models of the atmosphere, all of which may be false.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/is_there_an_average_global_tem_1.html

 

[Skyhunter]

I thought you were going to offer honest debate Art, but I guess I was mistaken.

Instead of addressing my points you are simply trying to refute what I say by any means.

GRACE is not a replacement for other research, but it is the most accurate tool we have to measure mass. The point under discussion was ice mass loss/gain in the Antarctic and Greenland.

You lost that point and refuse to acknowledge it. Therefore I must consider this to be a dishonest debate.

I can tell by your response that you have no interest in learning more, you are simply defending a position.

BTW. Why do you think that you need to be so careful when handling meat to avoid contamination?

A dead animal is a corpse, and dead animals begin to rot very quickly after death.

 

[Skyhunter]

Here is an interesting article which attacks the very foundation stone AGW is built on.

Excellent illustration, and even your statement exposes your motive. Attack.

The very foundation of AGW

You are kidding right?

This is nothing more than a Red-Herring nothing new and totally irrelevant.

A physicist's response;

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/does-a-global-temperature-exist/

The common arithmetic mean is just an estimate that provides a measure of the centre value of a batch of measurements (centre of a cloud of data points, and can be written more formally as the integral of x f(x) dx. The whole paper is irrelevant in the context of a climate change because it missed a very central point. CO2 affects all surface temperatures on Earth, and in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, an ordinary arithmetic mean will enhance the common signal in all the measurements and suppress the internal variations which are spatially incoherent (e.g. not caused by CO2 or other external forcings). Thus the choice may not need a physical justification, but is part of a scientific test which enables us to get a clearer 'yes' or 'no'. One could choose to look at the global mean sea level instead, which does have a physical meaning because it represents an estimate for the volume of the water in the oceans, but the choice is not crucial as long as the indicator used really responds to the conditions under investigation. And the global mean temperature is indeed a function of the temperature over the whole planetary surface.


Is this paper a joke then? It is old and traditional knowledge that the temperature measurements made in meteorological and climatological studies are supposed to be representative of a certain volume of air, i.e. the arithmetic mean. Essex et al. argue that it is not really physical, but surely the temperature measurements do have clear practical implications? Temperature itself can be inferred directly from several physical laws, such as the ideal gas law, first law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, so it's not the temperature itself which is 'unphysical'. Even though the final temperature of two bodies in contact may not be the arithmetic mean, it will still be a weighted arithmetic mean of the temperatures of the two initial temperatures if no heat is lost to the surroundings. Besides, grid-box sizes for numerical weather models often have a minimum spatial scale of 10-20km, and the temperature may be regarded as a mean for this scale. Numerical weather models usually provide useful forecasts.

And what distinguishes the mean temperature representing a small volume to a larger one? Or do Essex et al. think the limit is at greater scales. For instance at the synoptic spatial scale (~1000 km)? The funny thing then is that the concept of regional mean temperature would also not be meaningful according to Essex et al. And one may also wonder if the problem of computing a mean temperature is meaningful in time, such as the summer-mean temperature or winter-mean temperature?

Essex et al. suggest that there are many different ways of computing the mean, and it is difficult to know which make more sense. But when they compute the geometric mean, they should not forget that the temperature should be in degrees Kelvin (the absolute temperature) as opposed to Celsius. One argument used by Essex et al. is that the temperatures are not in equilibrium. Strictly speaking, this applies to most cases. But in general, these laws still give a reasonable results because the temperatures are close to being in equilibrium in meteorology and climatology. The paper doesn't bring any new revelations - I thought that these aspects were already well-known.

Here is a humorous yet meaningful disassembly of the paper by professor Eli Rabett.

Bio:

Eli Rabett is a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny, a couple of chair elections from retirement, at a want to be research university that has a lot to be proud of but has swallowed the Kool-Aid. The students are naive but great and the administrators vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional. His colleagues are smart, but they have a curious inability to see the holes that they for dig themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they occasionally heed his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/03/once-more-dear-prof.html

 

[J77]

Has anyone posted this from the Royal Society: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229

 

[Andre]

Has anyone posted this from the Royal Society: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229

Yes, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=166113

See under the blackest page in the history of science.

About time that science is conducted correctly again:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=169202

Discussing white swans is useless.

 

[BillJx]

The Black Sciences

Yes, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=166113

See under the blackest page in the history of science.

About time that science is conducted correctly again:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=169202

Discussing white swans is useless.

I see. You think the Royal Society of London is part of an international conspiracy, along with many other organizations such as:

The British Meterological Office http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

The US Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1

NASA (despite Bush's attempts to control NASA's message, he can't shut them up completely) http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/culprits.htm

Harvard Medical School (concerned with world health implications of AGW) http://chge.med.harvard.edu/research/ccf/documents/ccf_report_oct_06.pdf

M.I.T. http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/wheel.degC.html

Government of Australia http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

So who do you trust? Junkscience publisher Steven Milloy, who was kicked out of the politically conservative Cato Institute for posing as a journalist while working as a tobacco lobbyist? Who created junkscience articles claiming that second hand smoke is harmless? How many people did he kill for that paycheck? Now he's on your side. Enjoy the company. I find the Royal Society more credible, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Andre]

So what are you doing on a science forum?

 

[BillJx]

So what are you doing on a science forum?

I agree with your implication Andre, that there is no scientific argument in my last post. There is, of course, a point at which a scientific consensus is strong enough that a lay person's doubts become irrational. The creationist "debate" would be an example. However, my post was intended as more than an "appeal to authority". The point of my post was contained in the first sentence. You seem to believe that institutions like the Royal Society are involved in some sort of nefarious political scheme. If they are, then the others I linked to are involved as well. That seems rather unlikely.

 

[Andre]

Point is that I know for myself, and a lot of others do, that global warming, defined as enhanced greenhouse effect due to positive feedbacks, is technically falsified as in the Popperian philosophy

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=169202
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162192

But there is a large gap between the technical falsification and moving on to face the next world problem

You seem to believe that institutions like the Royal Society are involved in some sort of nefarious political scheme. If they are, then the others I linked to are involved as well. That seems rather unlikely.

No I don't believe that. i do believe that 99,%+ of the scientists and politicians are honestly convinced that global warming is proven beyond doubt, consensus etc, ...strong action is required to etc...etc..

So with the falsification in mind it can no longer be considered ad hominem to question the reasons and motives why they do think so. The conclusion will probably be that under the right conditions, the search for a new enemy to fight against if you don't have one anymore, the natural fear, the inevitably approaching depletion of fossil fuels, etc together have caused a runaway positive feedback loop fueled by the increasing demand of fear, sensationalism of the media and the urge to save humanity and rule it.

It's hard to fight irrationality.

 

[Skyhunter]

I agree with your implication Andre, that there is no scientific argument in my last post.

This is the P&WA forum so your argument is fine. And since there is no scientific argument in the film linked in the OP, your in the right thread for non science.

Seems more than one of the scientists cited in the film are protesting. The film maker keeps apologizing for errors, while the broadcaster is being investigated for violating Britain's rules about airing false and misleading information.

The film has also been referred to the regulatory watchdog Ofcom which is considering a complaint from 37 senior scientists that the programme breached the broadcasting code on the misrepresentation of views and facts.

http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2521677.ece

 

[Carid]

"Don't forget that Greenland was once "green". The Vikings settled there when the land was lush, but had to eventually abandon their settlements when the temperature continued to decrease and land became covered with ice & snow."

Evo, I thought that the name "Greenland" was given to encourage migrants to a place where even in those days life was hard. "Iceland" was already taken so any further step down the temperature scale would have been poor marketing.

 

[Evo]

"Don't forget that Greenland was once "green". The Vikings settled there when the land was lush, but had to eventually abandon their settlements when the temperature continued to decrease and land became covered with ice & snow."

Evo, I thought that the name "Greenland" was given to encourage migrants to a place where even in those days life was hard. "Iceland" was already taken so any further step down the temperature scale would have been poor marketing.

Go look it up.

 

[LowlyPion]

Go look it up.

That is correct. I think there was a warmer period before the Little Ice Age called the Medieval Warm Period, and settlements in Greenland were semi-prosperous. But as climate entered the Little Ice Age in the 1200's to 1300's the settlements grew tenuous. Records at the churches there during this period as I recall showed a decline in marriages and more deaths and bone studies suggested deterioration in diet that I guess would be consistent with a more extreme environment.

Some of what I am recalling is apparently recounted here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

 

[Andre]

There has been a "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period" campaign in the last decade, in which it was suggested that the name Greenland was to attract settlers.

For instance: http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/medieval.html

But it is back now:

See this thread.

 

[Evo]

That is correct. I think there was a warmer period before the Little Ice Age called the Medieval Warm Period, and settlements in Greenland were semi-prosperous. But as climate entered the Little Ice Age in the 1200's to 1300's the settlements grew tenuous. Records at the churches there during this period as I recall showed a decline in marriages and more deaths and bone studies suggested deterioration in diet that I guess would be consistent with a more extreme environment.

Some of what I am recalling is apparently recounted here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

A better history during Viking occupation is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

And for a more detailed account of Greenland's warmer history, see here. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm

 

[LowlyPion]

Deming mentioned in the link:

Skeptic Professor Deming has Teaching Certification Revoked by University of Oklahoma

Tuesday, 28 October 2008
For ten years or more, professor David Deming has taught a course in environmental geology at the University of Oklahoma. In October 2008, he was informed that the “general education” certification for his course was being revoked. ...
David Boren, President
University of Oklahoma

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/2601/218/