An Inconvenient Truth (Original)

[Brandon]

Brandon

Member
Member # 2234

Member Rated:
   posted 07-20-2006 10:40 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Silliman:
Brandon started out this thread/topic with a partial review of Al Gore’s movie. I have not seen the movie but I was impressed with the string of a dozen of so potential results of our actions that Brandon offered from the movie and other sources.

The list includes: could be, imagine, assuming, will increase, in climate extremes, are anticipated, would increase risk, are likely, is predicted and mostly.

He did include one non subjective observation, the ocean level has risen 4 to 8 inches over the last hundred years.

Perspective offered:

Bjorn Lomborg wrote his book “The Skeptical Environmentalist” in 2001. A one-time Greenpeace enthusiast, he’d originally planned to disprove those who said the environment was getting better. He failed, and to his credit, his book said so, supplying a damning critique of today’s environmental pessimism. Carefully researched, it offered endless statistics showing that from bio-diversity to global warming, there simply were no apocalypses in the offing.

In 2004, he invited eight of the world’s top economist to Copenhagen, where they were asked to evaluate the world’s problem, think of costs and efficiencies attached to solving each and then produce a prioritized list of the most deserving of money. While the economists were from varying political stripes, they largely agreed. The numbers were just so compelling: $1 spent preventing HIV/AIDS would result in about $40 of social benefits, so the economist put it at the top of the list (followed by malnutrition, free trade and malaria.) In contrast, #1 spent to abate global warming would result in only about 2 cents to 25 cents worth of good, so that project was dropped to the bottom (#38,39,40).


The above is from an article in The Sacramento Bee, Sunday, July 16, 2006. The title of the article is “Dane ‘lefty’ is no fan of global dreaming” by Kimberly A. Strassel, a member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board. BUT this article was NOT included in their online web-site.

Norm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, Norm, you made seem to doubt the reality of global warming, and made some pretty sketpical statements. First off, I would like to say that the "controversy" surrounding global warming isn't so much between scientists and other scientists, it's between scientists and politicians. Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003, not one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IPCC

The IPCC said in its Second Assessment Report (SAR) in 1995 that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate".

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations [1]."

US National Research Council, 2001

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [3]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community:

The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [4]


American Meteorological Society

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... The report by the IPCC stated that the global mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 °C–5.8 °C in the next 100 years... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders. [5]

Bray and von Storch, 1996

In 1996 a survey of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters was undertaken by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch. The results were subsequently published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 80, No. 3, March 1999 439-455. [14] The paper addressed the views of climate science, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Almost all scientists agreed that the skill of models was limited.

The abstract says:

The international consensus was, however, apparent regarding the utility of the knowledge to date: climate science has provided enough knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted. However, consensus also existed regarding the current inability to explicitly specify detrimental effects that might result from climate change. This incompatibility between the state of knowledge and the calls for action suggests that, to some degree at least, scientific advice is a product of both scientific knowledge and normative judgment, suggesting a socioscientific construction of the climate change issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 85 | Registered: Nov 2004   

[Brandon]

Brandon
 
Member
Member # 2234

Member Rated:
 
 posted 07-20-2006 10:46 PM07-20-2006 10:46 PM                       
________________________________________
Reasons given by supporters of the global warming theory

Supporters of the global warming theory assert that:
   gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than four hundred thousand years, with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record tells us that carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall tightly together. [4]
   the recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years[5] and this is human-caused, shown by isotopic signature of CO2 from fossil fuels
   we know carbon dioxide captures IR radiation and converts it to heat because we use these physics to measure carbon dioxide concentration
the historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.4–0.8 °C over the last 100 years.
   the urban heat island effect makes no significant contribution.
   the current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years (see Temperature record of the past 1000 years).
   [the warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity (see attribution of recent climate change), using analysis based on climate modeling; and that natural variability or solar variation cannot explain the recent change.
   Carbon dioxide is a first order forcing on climate change—other effects such as water vapour greenhouse effects are either roughly constant over time, act as amplifiers, or do not have a large effect
   humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment and if it turns out badly—however that is defined—we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries into the future [6].
climate models can reproduce this trend, but only when using greenhouse gas forcing. [7]
   climate models predict more warming, and other climate effects (sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves, etc) in the future. For instance, Atlantic hurricane trends have been recently linked to climate change, June 2006. [8]
action should be taken now to prevent or mitigate warming (see Precautionary principle).
the IPCC reports correctly summarise the state of climate science.
   there is a scientific consensus behind all of the above.
   Our existence is poised within a fluid-dynamic, ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system, where non-linear feedbacks are common and where climate states are only relatively stable (i.e., "metastable"). Unknown unknowns are likely to surprise us, particularly if they trigger a non-linear, positive feedback that flips climate to a new meta-stable state.

Proponents of global warming tend to support the IPCC position and thus represent a broadly unified viewpoint, though with considerable differences over what action should be taken. Optionally, supporters may go on to point out that there is a good chance that the future changes may be undesirable, and that planning to avoid or mitigate them would be a good idea. Only 2 of the 120 contributing authors to the IPCC TAR are known to have voiced any complaint.

[ 07-20-2006, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: Brandon ]
________________________________________
Posts: 85 | Registered: Nov 2004

[Brandon]

Brandon

Member
Member # 2234

Member Rated:
   posted 07-20-2006 10:56 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think also important to point out that there haven't been any scientists since 2001 that have said that the earth isn't getting warmer. Those scientists who aren't yet sold on global warming (of which there is a very small percentage) are simply saying that they aren't sold yet on the exact cause of the warming.

Oh, and the reason why I opened with the information about the movie is because Al Gore's movie ("An Incovenient Truth") highlights global warming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 85 | Registered: Nov 2004 

[Brandon]

Brandon

Member
Member # 2234

Member Rated:
   posted 07-20-2006 11:00 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BigFatFurryTexan:
Could you imagine what a fly, with a 24 hour lifespan, would say after a few generations and summer came to pass? They would think the world was ending, that it was turning into "frost world".

Such is our short term perspective. We have direct measurements going only a couple hundred years back, and those are not too exact. The rest of the data is extrapolated using "scientific measurements" (ie, semieducated guesses). The proof of the scientific facts is not likely to ever materialize, as the worldly environment even 2000 years ago was likely drastically different than today. Via incremental change (through which we have adapted) the environment changes, thus leaving a trail of mystery for whack jobs (which Gore seems to quote endlessly) to make up the presumptions you referred to, Silliman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which "whack jobs" does Gore quote, BigFatFurryTexan? Be specific.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 85 | Registered: Nov 2004

[Brandon]

Briwnys

Member
Member # 2736

Member Rated:
   posted 07-20-2006 11:38 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Paul La Violette hypothesizes that immense explosions near the center of the galaxy occur cyclically during which intense winds of cosmic ray particles are released equivalent to the energy of five to ten million supernovas.

He concluded that these outbursts recur every ten thousand years or more and last anywhere from several hundred to several thousand years. Cosmic rays of this sort travel outward from the Galactic Center. These rays are propelled outward virtually unimpeded and form a spherical shell called a ‘galactic superwave’ that advances symmetrically throughout the galaxy at a velocity approaching the speed of light.

One such cosmic ray volley passed through the solar system toward the end of the last Ice Age (about 14,650 years ago), injecting large amounts of cosmic dust over a period of thousands of years. This dust dramatically changed the earth's climate in a period of less than one hundred years through its effect on the sun and sunlight transmissions through space.

La Violette theorizes that these superwaves regularly pass the earth at approximately the same point in the sun’s orbit, triggering the onsets and endings of the Ice Ages. He analyzed Ice Age polar ice for traces of cosmic dust, finding high levels of cosmic dust that supported his theory.

In 1983 he presented data indicating that debris from the nearby North Polar Spur supernova remnant is presently engulfing the solar system.

Global warming of the earth is a fact, as is the global warming of Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The impact of humanity on global warming of the earth is a theory, just as is Paul La Violette's theory about the warming of the entire solar system. La Violette's theory encompasses the apparent warming trend throughout the solar system. The theory supported by Al Gore does not.

Briwnys

--------------------
To those who understand, no explanation is necessary; to those who do not, no explanation is possible

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 661 | From: East Texas | Registered: Sep 2005

[Brandon]

Brandon

Member
Member # 2234

Member Rated:
   posted 07-21-2006 12:44 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said earlier:

Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003, not one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity.

If you believe the warming of the earth is NOT due to human activity, your viewpoint is in the minority. And it is also dangerous in that it apparently absolves human beings of feeling any responsibility to clean up their act, so therefore, the problem will just continue to get worse.

But hey, spread as much disinformation as you want, it's a free forum. And, most likely, it will be your children that suffer from it anyway, not you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 85 | Registered: Nov 2004 

[Brandon]

Briwnys

Member
Member # 2736

Member Rated:
   posted 07-21-2006 07:46 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 928 papers were divided into six categories:
explicit endorsement of the consensus position,
evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods,
paleoclimate analysis, and
rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

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

25% - 232 papers fell into two of the catagories - methods and paleoclimate analysis and took no position on current anthropogenic climate change, although they didn't argue against the current consensus position. Thomas J. Crowley, in an abstract entitled Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years (Published July 14, 2000 in Science), states that "as much as 41-64% of pre-anthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations were due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ~1000 year time series results in a residual with a very large late 20th century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the last 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial."

There are approximately six billion people living on earth at this time, increasing from 900 million in the 1800s. Certainly, a population that large must have an effect on the environment. No one is denying that. Logically, the GHG factor could most effectively be reduced by decreasing the population to pre-1850 levels, but no one is suggesting that, either. When 25% of the peer reviewed papers take no position on current anthropogenic climate change, it means that at least 232 out of 928 scientists admit they see no solution to the problem or don't agree with the solutions offered. It doesn't mean they are part of the problem - and neither are those of us who agree with them.

Majority opinion, like Might, doesn't make Right: if the majority opinion was always right, there would never be any progress.

Briwnys

[ 07-21-2006, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Briwnys ]

--------------------
To those who understand, no explanation is necessary; to those who do not, no explanation is possible

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 661 | From: East Texas | Registered: Sep 2005   

[Brandon]

Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

Rate Member   posted 07-21-2006 03:07 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides Global warming is a fertile field for research grants.     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 9856 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002   

[Brandon]

Brandon

Member
Member # 2234

Member Rated:
   posted 07-21-2006 09:30 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should have printed the whole article, Briwyns, not take things out of contex to make a point the article doesn't imply:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate ChangeNaomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1).
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities:
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (.
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. 
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies.Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
References and Notes
1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
1. 10.1126/science.1103618
The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: noreskes@ucsd.edu
The editors suggest the following related resources on Science sites:
In Science Magazine
Letters:
Consensus About Climate Change?
Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; and Naomi Oreskes
Science 13 May 2005: 952-954 | Full Text » | PDF »
This article has been cited by other articles:
(Search Google Scholar for Other Citing Articles)
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply.
L. C. Gerhard (2006).
AAPG Bulletin 90: 409-412 | Full Text » | PDF »
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Discussion.
B. Lovell (2006).
AAPG Bulletin 90: 405-407 | Full Text » | PDF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
It's important to revisit these two lines:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
And:
Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Politicians and corporations are the ones that are the ones creating the big myth that there is a "controvery" over the causes of global warming. As we can see, there is no such widespread disagreement in the scientific community. Corporations don't want their revenue affected and the politicians that serve them invent excuses to further the agenda of the lobbyists who contribute to their campaigns.
You also said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority opinion, like Might, doesn't make Right: if the majority opinion was always right, there would never be any progress.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this case, the majority has each been published and are specialists in their field, we are not talking an uneducated mob here. And we aren't so much talking about a "vote" on global warming, but rather how many have come up with a credible alternate hypothesis. The point being, if there were substantial differences in the essential idea behind global warming, some of these specialists would have seen it. The fact that they are, for the most part, in agreement that human activity is the cause of global warming, speaks volumes.

Your use of the word, "progress" is also a bit ironic in that true progress would be looking for ways to reverse global warming, not trying to prolong an argument that science itself stopped having years ago.

Brandon

[ 07-21-2006, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Brandon ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 85 | Registered: Nov 2004

[Brandon]

Brandon

Member
Member # 2234

Member Rated:
   posted 07-21-2006 09:58 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is more evidence for you, Briwyns, I've highlighted the pertinent parts:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New global warming evidence presented
Scientists say their observations prove industry is to blame
David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor

Saturday, February 19, 2005



(02-19) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Scientists reported Friday they have detected the clearest evidence yet that global warming is real -- and that human industrial activity is largely responsible for it.

Researchers at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science cited a range of evidence that the Earth's temperatures are rising:

-- The Arctic regions are losing ice cover.

-- The populations of whales and walrus that Alaskan Eskimo communities depend on for food are crashing.

-- Fresh water draining from ice and snow on land is decreasing the salinity of far northern oceans.

-- Many species of plankton -- the microscopic plants that form the crucial base of the entire marine food web -- are moving north to escape the warming water on the ocean surface off Greenland and Alaska.

Ice ages come and go over millennia, and for the past 8,000 years, the gradual end of the last ice age has seen a natural increase in worldwide temperatures, all scientists agree. Skeptics have expressed doubt that industrial activity is to blame for world's rapidly rising temperatures.

But records show that for the past 50 years or so, the warming trend has sped up -- due, researchers said, to the atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases produced by everything industrial, from power plants burning fossil fuels to gas-guzzling cars -- and the effects are clear.

"We were stunned by the similarities between the observations that have been recorded at sea worldwide and the models that climatologists made," said Tim Barnett of the University of California's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. "The debate is over, at least for rational people. And for those who insist that the uncertainties remain too great, their argument is no longer tenable. We've nailed it."

Barnett and other experts marshaled their evidence and presented it to their colleagues for the first time at a symposium here.

For the past 40 years, Barnett said, observations by seaborne instruments have shown that the increased warming has penetrated the oceans of the world - - observations, he said, that have proved identical to computer predictions whose accuracy has been challenged by global-warming skeptics.

The most recent temperature observations, he said, fit those models with extraordinary accuracy.

But a spokesman for the Bush administration -- which has been criticized for not taking global warming seriously -- was unfazed by the latest news.

"Our position has been the same for a long time," said Bill Holbrook, spokesman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "The science of global climate change is uncertain."

"Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet, and especially in the Arctic, " said Ruth Curry, a physical oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, "and there is large-scale drying throughout the Northern Hemisphere."

Ice cores drilled deep into the Greenland ice cap show that salinity of the ice at the upper layers of the cores has decreased sharply due to the incursion of fresh water draining from melting snows on the surface, she reported, and land ice and permafrost are in decline all around the Arctic. In the meantime, she said, measurements show that salinity of the ocean waters nearer the equator has increased as the rate of evaporation of warmer tropical and subtropical oceans quickens.

It may take several centuries for all the ice that covers Greenland to melt, Curry said, "but its release of fresh water will make sea-level rise a very significant issue in this century." In fact, she said, changes in the freshwater balance of the oceans has already caused severe drought conditions in America's Western states and many parts of China and other Asian countries.

Already, the physics of increased warming and the changes in ocean circulation that result are strongly affecting the entire ecology of the Arctic regions, according to Sharon L. Smith, an oceanographer and marine biologist at the University of Miami.

Last summer, on an expedition ranging from Alaska's Aleutian islands to the Arctic Ocean above the state's oil-rich North Slope, Smith said she encountered the leading elder of an Eskimo community on Little Diomede island who told her that ice conditions offshore were changing rapidly year by year; that the ice was breaking up and retreating earlier and earlier; and that in the previous year the men of his community were able to kill only 10 walrus for their crucial food supplies, compared to past harvests of 200 or more.

Populations of bowhead whales, which the Eskimo people of Barrow on the North Slope are permitted to hunt, are declining too, Smith said. The organisms essential to the diet of Eider ducks living on St. Lawrence Island have been in rapid decline, while both the plants and ducks have moved 100 miles north to colder climates -- a migration, she said, that obviously was induced by the warming of the waters off the island.

Another piece of evidence Smith cited for the ecological impact of warming in the Arctic emerged in the Bering Sea, where there was a huge die- off in 1997 of a single species of seabirds called short-tailed shearwaters.

Hundreds of thousands of birds died, she said, and the common plankton plants on which they depend totally for food was replaced by inedible plants covered with calcite mineral plates. Those plants thrive in warmer waters and require higher-than-normal levels of carbon dioxide -- the major greenhouse gas -- to reproduce, Smith said.

"What more convincing evidence do we need that warming is real?" Smith asked.

Chronicle news services contributed to this report.E-mail David Perlman at dperlman@sfchronicle.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/19/MNGE1BECPI1.DTL

So, to stress, once again, on the one hand we have scientists nearly unanimous in their agreement that human activity is the cause. On the other hand, we have the same old Bush Administration bs, which didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty because it wants to protect it's big business constituents from more envirnomental regulations. Just another thing that would have turned out differently had Gore been President.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 85 | Registered: Nov 2004 

[Brandon]

BigFatFurryTexan

Member
Member # 1520

Rate Member   posted 07-21-2006 10:29 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psycho, thank you for interjecting your hate speech and character smear. Not sure why that was relevent but ok.

We need to fix our way of managing our energy and waste. that is for sure. but the earth goes through flux in temperature, we know that.

Brandon, i would like to add that the data that is cited is only assumed to be true. It doesn't apply direct measurement, it applies extrapolation from indirect measurements.

Science claims to have a series of rules and such that it follows to keep it information above reproach. We know that this isn't true, however. We have seen it time and again. Science is hardly a science. Why were dinosaurs so big? How did they move? If gravity was similar to today, how did they manage to not be crushed under their own weight? A whale is a good comparison for size, and look at the water induced buoyancy required to support them. How did dinosaurs do it? Even more, how did such large animals gain flight? I have seen shows describing why bugs can only get so large, and they show these crabs as examples of the largest insects alive. How the hell did 3 foot dragonflies ever exist, let alone fly?

You don't even have to go that far back, honestly. You gave a date of 400k years ago above. That puts you in a time where Dire wolves, sabre tooths, 12 foot birds....why were creatues so much larger?

The celocanth was extinct until they started catching them on fishing boats. I have seen a picture of a pleisesaur (sp?) on a japanese fish (the same animal suspected of being "nessie").

Science means little to me after all the let downs. You can say geology is different, and i will point out that multiple dating anomolies in the Grand Canyon and Giza Plateau, not to mention sites such as Oklo.

we don't know what we don't know. we suffer compounded ignorance. i can say that this hurricane season was supposed to be extreme, and it has yet to pan out as such (knock on wood). i am a forecaster as a career (i forecast calls in the call center industry). i know what kind of "science" that is.

[ 07-21-2006, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: BigFatFurryTexan ]

--------------------
Think outside the flock

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3648 | From: West Texas | Registered: May 2003   

[Brandon]

Briwnys

Member
Member # 2736

Member Rated:
   posted 07-21-2006 10:34 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain to me, please, how this was 'taken out of context' and how it 'implied' anything other than what was said: 1 out of every 4 peer reviewed papers did not address the issue of anthropogenic climate change.

If I had intended that it imply something other than what it did, I would not have included the link to the article, a link I had to hunt for when you quoted the same source. As for 'trying to prolong an argument that science itself stopped having years ago', science is not an entity. It is a method of conducting research used by individuals who may very well feel pressure to publish and who are as fallible as the next human, just as the author admitted: 'The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known.'

Note that 'what is not known' covers a multitude of possibilities not likely to be stated in a situation where 'it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members.' and 'Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.'

What I question is not the anthropogenic impact. What I question is the validity of focusing solely on this factor in assessing the methodology to mitigate global warming. 'The question of what to do about climate change is also still open.'


Briwnys

--------------------
To those who understand, no explanation is necessary; to those who do not, no explanation is possible

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 661 | From: East Texas | Registered: Sep 2005   

[Brandon]

Brandon

Member
Member # 2234

Member Rated:
   posted 07-21-2006 10:41 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on, BigFatFurryTexan, I've been reading some of your other posts, and give you more credit for that. Yes, science has gotten things wrong in the past, but they also tend to correct themselves and change theories when new evidence presents itself. If it was simply one or two scientist with a theory, then your critique might be a valid one.

As I said earlier:

Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003, not one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity.

It's important to realize that science has developed a consensus on global warming, and also that the only people who take issue with these conclusions are not scientists, but are people hired by corporations, and politicians.

The Bush Administration has also, in the past, tried underplay the role of global warming which may be part of the reason you find yourself doubting:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Scientist: Bush Stifles Global Warming Evidence
By Chuck Schoffner
Associated Press
posted: 27 October 2004
12:53 pm ET


IOWA CITY, Iowa - The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said Tuesday night.

"In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.

Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming.

Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that "fit predetermined, inflexible positions." Evidence that would raise concerns about the dangers of climate change is often dismissed as not being of sufficient interest to the public.

"This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster."

Hansen said the scientific community generally agrees that temperatures on Earth are rising because of the greenhouse effect — emissions of carbon dioxide and other materials into the atmosphere that trap heat.

These rising temperatures, scientists believe, could cause sea levels to rise and trigger severe environmental consequences, he said.

Hansen said such warnings are consistently suppressed, while studies that cast doubt on such interpretations receive favorable treatment from the administration.

He also said reports that outline potential dangers of global warming are edited to make the problem appear less serious. "This process is in direct opposition to the most fundamental precepts of science," he said.

White House science adviser John H. Marburger III has denied charges that the administration refuses to accept the reality of climate change, noting that President Bush pointed out in a 2001 speech that greenhouse gases have increased substantially in the past 200 years.

Last December, the administration said it was planning a five-year program to research global warming and climate change.

Hansen said he was speaking as a private citizen, not as a government employee, and paid his own way for the Iowa appearance. He described himself as moderately conservative, but said he will vote for John Kerry in the presidential election.

"He certainly is not in denial of the existence of climate change problems," Hansen said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.space.com/news/bush_warming_041027.html

I think it's important to point out again that, while the debate among politicians goes on about it, the debate among scientists is long over.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 85 | Registered: Nov 2004 

[Brandon]

Brandon

Member
Member # 2234

Member Rated:
   posted 07-21-2006 11:11 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain to me, please, how this was 'taken out of context' and how it 'implied' anything other than what was said: 1 out of every 4 peer reviewed papers did not address the issue of anthropogenic climate change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the main point of the article was:

The Scientific Consensus on Climate

You picked out one line out of it:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And wrote two paragraphs on it, while leaving out this one:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there or is there not a 75% percent consensus among scientists about global warming? And if there is, why disregard the main part of the article while playing up simply one line? That's taking things out of context, and it's not an honest way to present the current scientific opinion on global warming. Isn't 75% enough support for you?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I had intended that it imply something other than what it did, I would not have included the link to the article, a link I had to hunt for when you quoted the same source. As for 'trying to prolong an argument that science itself stopped having years ago', science is not an entity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I may as well be, and in this case, prolonging the argument that global warming is or isn't happening, only delays the governments of the world enacting policies to do something about it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a method of conducting research used by individuals who may very well feel pressure to publish and who are as fallible as the next human,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, all 948 peer-reviewd papers between 1993 and 2003 were done by individuals who were done by individuals who didn't care what kind of crap they put out so long as it was published.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
just as the author admitted: 'The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, it could be wrong, nothing is 100% fallible. Science changes it's opinion whenever new evidence presents itself. The fact that the new evidence coming to light is only proving that global warming is a reality should tell you something: it's far more likely it is right as opposed to possibly being wrong.

So stop trying to poke holes into it, be part of the solution, and not the problem.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that 'what is not known' covers a multitude of possibilities not likely to be stated in a situation where 'it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members.' and 'Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that none of the papers argue for a natural origin should also tell you one thing: most likely, there isn't one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 85 | Registered: Nov 2004 

[Brandon]

Briwnys

Member
Member # 2736

Member Rated:
   posted 07-22-2006 12:11 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I refuse to engage in a "did not!", "did too!" type of discussion. The posts from both of us are here for anyone to read who wishes to make up their own mind about what I said and what you said. You have obviously already made up your mind.

Briwnys

[ 07-22-2006, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Briwnys ]

--------------------
To those who understand, no explanation is necessary; to those who do not, no explanation is possible

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 661 | From: East Texas | Registered: Sep 2005