What????? There isn't really a consensus among scientists????
(science, btw, is NOT consensus. It's reproducable results. Religion is consensus. Politics is consensus.)
Here's some links, both pro and con, on some different facets of the global warming debate.
Hopefully, you can get through some of these before the polar bears, penguins, frogs, and millions of people all die from the planet warming a few degrees.....just like it was between 7000-4000 years ago.
Curiously, even Dr. Michael Mann (credited with the now famous Hockey Stick) discusses on his website the fact that temp goes up as many as 800 years BEFORE CO2 levels increase. No explanation as to how that happens, but he's quick to explain how the CO2 then drives temperature.
Stephen Schneider from Stanford warned us of an impending, and disastrous, ice age back in '74. He's now warning of the dangers of global warming.
Sorry, but I'm putting my money on guys like Lindzen, Michaels, and all the others that are trying to pull the reins in on this ridiculous global warming hysteria. The earth is warming. That's a good thing, especially when you're coming out of an ice age.
I'm just having a really hard time understanding how a gas's increase from .025% to .038% of the total atmosphere is going to cause a disastrous temperature rise, especially when the effect is logarithmic.
The atmospheric physicist I work with seems to agree.
Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m.
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
...The earth is warming. That's a good thing, especially when you're coming out of an ice age......
All very well for you to say living up there well away from the coast. Sea levels have risen something like 300 feet since the peak of the last ice age; another 1% more and I will need hip waders to do my gardening.
1% of 300ft is ..uh...3ft. At the current rate of sea level rise of (depending on which data set used....I'll use some actual 20th century physical observations) some 1.8mm/yr (that's ~.071" for us non-metric types).
At that rate, it'll take (12/.071*3=507) about 500 years for that to happen. Sorry, I probably won't be around to witness it and share your agony.
What I surmise from your post is typical global warming alarmism, with attendent exaggeration.
The real issue here, correct me if I'm wrong, is that of anthropogenic forcing. Is man causing global warming by "excessive" CO2 emmissions?
Maybe someone can explain why the ice caps on Mars have been in recession....all without the aid of SUVs.
The single largest greenhouse gas is .....drum roll.....H2O.
At any given time there is between .3% to 3% gasseous water in the atmosphere. We have NO idea how much the total is, where the concentrations lay, and the actual effect. It's a science in it's infancy. Clouds at one altitude reflect UV, clouds at a different altitude trap. It's complex, and it's massive. And it's not understood. (btw, recent work has revealed that cosmic rays affect cloud formation. Another little factor somewhat outside our control).
But noooooo......somehow we're all excited about a gas that comprises ..... .038% That's POINT Zero three eight percent!! On top of that a gas who's effect is logarithmic..Each increase in the gas level has less and less an effect on warming.
My personal take is that while we're puking pollutants into the air, which is a BAD thing no matter how you look at it, land use is every bit as bad, if not worse.
That said, my advice is to have your house moved back from the beach, buy some waders now while they're cheap, and stock up on some good seeds. Your growing season is getting better!
"...and wall impregnable of beaming ice. The race of man flies far in dread; his work and dwelling vanish…"
Last edited by fizzissist; 01-19-2007 at 08:30 AM.
Reason: math correction
>In an even broader study based on mean monthly temperatures of 37 Arctic and 7 sub-Arctic stations, as well as temperature anomalies of 30 grid-boxes from the updated data set of Jones, HYPERLINK "http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V3/N24/C1.jsp" Przybylak (2000) found that (1) "in the Arctic, the highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s," (2) "even in the 1950s the temperature was higher than in the last 10 years," (3) "since the mid-1970s, the annual temperature shows no clear trend," and (4) "the level of temperature in Greenland in the last 10-20 years is similar to that observed in the 19th century." These findings led him to conclude that the meteorological record "shows that the observed variations in air temperature in the real Arctic are in many aspects not consistent with the projected climatic changes computed by climatic models for the enhanced greenhouse effect," because, in his words, "the temperature predictions produced by numerical climate models significantly differ from those actually observed." http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/...060404_08.html
>"....Inspection of the global atmospheric temperature changes during the last 1,000 years (Fig. 11) shows that the global average temperature dropped about 2°C over the last millennium. This means that we live in the cooling geologic epoch (which comprises most of the Holocene), and the global warming observed during the latest 150 years is just a short episode in the geologic history. The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately 0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century) (Khilyuk and Chilingar 2003, 2004)....." http://www.springerlink.com/content/.../fulltext.html
>"To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective,
and being honest."
>"....These animations illustrate the physical process which the theory about the cosmic connection to Earth's climate proposes: 1) A giant star explodes in a supernova explosion and emits cosmic rays, 2) cosmic rays enter Earth's atmosphere, 3) rays release free electrons which act a catalysts for the building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei, 4) on which water vapour condenses into clouds. .." http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(...lts,1:102023,1
It is funny that the temperature on Mars is also rising like ours, linked to slight increases in sun output........
But that is science, and we cant believe science.
I am sure that all those SUV's in California has also raised the temperature on Mars. So, some how a hyperspacial warp was created with the landing of the Mars lander, that linked that Darned "Global Warming" to poor old Mars......
Some of you may remember not even 15 years ago, the big "Threat" was global cooling!!! Championed by the same "Nut jobs" as today's group of Tree Huggers.
A great number of the people pushing the agenda are not real scientists with adequate credentials to be opining on the theory. The media are so ignorant, they are not qualified to "report" on the idea. They spew opinions, scare tactics and faux science without facts to support them (just like everything else they report on ). More importantly, rather than present useful unbiased information, the media presents stories to the public in such a way that the reader/viewer is supposed to form an emotional reaction and choose sides.
Despite the opinions of the chicken littles, that does not mean global warming is not a reality. It may be true.
My understanding is the Great Lakes of North America were formed by receding glaciers from the last ice age approx 10,000 years ago. Thus, the world has obviously been warming for the at least the last hundred centuries. All that we take for granted in modern civilization is thanks to global warming.
The heart of the issue is, does mankind's industry over the past century so destabilize the natural environmental cycles that catastrophic irreversible changes can ocur? It will take me a while to go through all the links listed above. Thanks for providing those.
The government here in the UK is going to introduce a Green Tax, higher parking charges for larger cars (when cars are parked do they produce any greenhouse gases?) and have already introduced the bigger the engine in your car the more road tax you pay. Happy days…Not.
You have opened my eyes, Thank You. I always knew that we weren’t being told the full truth about Global Warming.
Evil Big Oil (EBO) is behind the contrarian's efforts to discredit the "majority" of scientists who claim anthropogenic global warming. They fund guys like Lindzen, Michaels, Idso, etc, etc.....It's EBO that's trying to convince us that global warming isn't real.
At least that's what guys like Mann, Hansen, and AlGore would like you to believe.
There certainly could be some truth to that claim, but stop for a moment and think about the yin and yang idea....who's behind the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) side???? And why.
Here's a little taste....
January 18, 2007 -
"Indianapolis - In the latest move by the insurance industry to participate in reducing the effects of global warming, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) unveiled a new Web site this week: www.climateandinsurance.org. The site is designed to help address the increasing concerns about climate change and its impact on the property/casualty insurance industry...." http://www.insurancenetworking.com/p...Id=4503&pb=ros
Ok, this is a no-brainer. The larger the risk from something, the higher the insurance premiums. So if the potential risk from something like, say, hurricane damage is high, you'll pay more money to the insurance company to cover their risk. How real is this claim? Watch this.
"Global warming is likely to affect cyclones and hurricanes, concludes a new statement from 125 experts, but they say the evidence for this to date is inconclusive.
"There could be an effect but it's impossible to say for sure," says Julian Heming of the UK Met Office. The statement was issued at the end of a workshop organised by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). http://environment.newscientist.com/....ns?id=dn10796
Emphasis added is mine, to point out the way the reporter has conveniently converted the word 'could' into 'likely'. Hmmmm........ I didn't know 'could' and 'likely' meant the same thing! A prime example of how the media slants things to their own benefit, which of course makes for better sales. People don't buy newspapers when the headline says "Nothing Unusual Happened Today".
Back on topic......some of the studies showing that hurricanes will likely be more severe due to AGW have been funded, at least in part, by none other than......the insurance industry. One company in particular, AIG, the world's largest insurance company.
More scare, more money. And that's one serious problem with science when it comes to grant funding. No problem, no money.
The same is true for politics. AlGore has brilliantly worked everyone into a frenzy with his ManBearPig. How convenient, it's all the republican's and EBO's fault. (never mind that AlGore has stock in Occidental Petroleum...)