Archives

Not sure what the rules are for quoting an online page for news, but I'll just post a link. Intresting reading...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071123/ap_on_sc/greenhouse_gases_1;_ylt=AtYvTpXzrYY.nacFwNgSfjRv24cA

A good read. not looking great for near future?H

I'd say posting news links is fine IFF it's not a subscription/
signup site, if it doesn't rely on nonstandard browser features
to work, and it's likely to stay put for the indefinite future.
Otherwise it's best to cross-post the text, so everyone can
have it..
.
_H*

GENEVA - Two of the most important Greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere reached a record high in 2006, and measurements show that one — carbon dioxide — is playing an increasingly important role in global warming, the U.N. weather agency said Friday.

The global average concentrations of carbon dioxide, or CO2, and nitrous oxide, or N2O, in the atmosphere were higher than ever in measurements coordinated by the World Meteorological Organization, said Geir Braathen, a climate specialist at the Geneva-based agency.

Methane, the third of the three important greenhouse gases, remained stable between 2005 and 2006, he said.

Braathen said measurements show that CO2 is contributing more to global warming than previously.

CO2 contributed 87 percent to the warming effect over the last decade, but in the last five years alone, its contribution was 91 percent, Braathen said. "This shows that CO2 is gaining importance as a greenhouse gas," Braathen said.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose by about half a percent last year to reach 381.2 parts per million, according to the agency. Nitrous oxide totaled 320.1 parts per billion, which is a quarter percent higher than in 2005.

Braathen said it appears the upward trend will continue at least for a few years.

The World Meteorological Organization's annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin provides widely accepted worldwide data on the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Studies have shown that human-produced carbon dioxide emissions heat the Earth's surface and cause greater water evaporation. That leads to more water vapor in the air, which contributes to higher air temperatures. CO2, methane and N2O are the most common greenhouse gases after water vapor, according to the meteorological organization.

They are produced by natural sources, such as wetlands, and by human activities such as fertilizer use or fuel combustion.

There is 36.1 percent more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there was in the late 18th century, primarily because of combustion of fossil fuels, the World Meteorological Organization bulletin said.

A report presented by a U.N. expert panel said last week that average temperatures have risen 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years, and that 11 of the last 12 years have been among the warmest since 1850. Global Warming also led to a sea level increase by an average seven-hundredths of an inch per year since 1961, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The panel's report, which said human activity is largely responsible for global warming, noted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is far higher than the natural range over the last 650,000 years.

The World Meteorological Organization also concluded that "Greenhouse gases are major drivers of global warming and climate change."

The World Meteorological Organization said it based its findings on readings from 44 countries.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast that by 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, residents of Asia's large cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, Europeans can expect extensive species loss, and North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water.

The U.N. and its attendant hysteria mongers need to get in touch with the latest science - that is the peer reviewed studies that have recently shown that CO2 is NOT, I repeat NOT, the cause of global warming:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

Please note that it is a PDF file, but it is short (5 pages) and there are further links to the pertinent studies. The science the IPCC uses ended in 2006; new, more recent studies will no doubt have to fight the uphill battle through the politically converted scientists feeding at the trough of the billions dollar 'climate change' industry. Those grants are hard to give up. But in the end, REAL science always wins these battles. Let's just hope that it takes less time than it took for Galileo to be vindicated.

Thought you should know.

And for a real treat, look at what the Bali U.N. conference attendees have to suffer through:

http://www.instapunk.com/

Look for 'Crashing the Global Warming Jet Set."

It is estimated that the attendees produced the equivalent carbon footprint of 20,000 cars used for a year to arrive at their destination and return! The good news is that it won't matter.

The U.N. and its attendant hysteria mongers need to get in touch with the latest science - that is the peer reviewed studies that have recently shown that CO2 is NOT, I repeat NOT, the cause of global warming:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

Please note that it is a PDF file, but it is short (5 pages) and there are further links to the pertinent studies. The science the IPCC uses ended in 2006; new, more recent studies will no doubt have to fight the uphill battle through the politically converted scientists feeding at the trough of the billions dollar 'climate change' industry. Those grants are hard to give up. But in the end, REAL science always wins these battles. Let's just hope that it takes less time than it took for Galileo to be vindicated.

Thought you should know.

And for a real treat, look at what the Bali U.N. conference attendees have to suffer through:

http://www.instapunk.com/

Look for 'Crashing the Global Warming Jet Set."

It is estimated that the attendees produced the equivalent carbon footprint of 20,000 cars used for a year to arrive at their destination and return! The good news is that it won't matter.

.....


Another piece of trash reporting trying to discount the human cause of global warming. I'll be glad when the people who are pushing an agenda to discredit gobal warming scientist find something else to spew out lies and false reports about.

I hate to bring it to this, but 98% of every website that is anti human caused global warming is backed by religous funds. I'm not trying to say that religon has a reason to say humans are not to cause for it... I just find it very curious that most of them are a spinoff of a religous group.

Here's some "hysteria mongering" to think about from the BBC today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

No summer ice in the Arctic by 2013-ish.

-Gren

And what if they are correct? Personally it goes back to this... http://view.break.com/311805

An unargueable plan on global warming. I'm tired of debating wether its happening or not. Its happening people, wake up.

Also, this post is NOT intended to be directed at any one person, just in general to the skeptics, which frankly I'm amazed to find here.

Gren - The link you provided leads once again to projections based on MODELLING. There are skeptics among climate scientists who produce peer-reviewed papers that counter the politically driven agenda of the U.N. and Al Gore, in my opinion. Also, while ice is melting in the northern regions, it is increasing in the southern. Really, we can't reliably predict local weather much beyond a week, yet we are being asked to bet world-wide economic progress on some very tenuous projections a century into the future. I certainly hope some reason finds its way into the debate.

And, Blake, I hope your knee didn't injure you.

You obviously have your mind made up and are not open to any other viewpoint than the one you believe in. I don't think you followed the first link or read the material. That is not what science is all about. I hate to break it to you, but 'consensus' doesn't make it so. REAL science deals in provable, repeatable data, not wild conjecture based on complex models. Now that there is substantial evidence that CO2 doesn't cause global warming, you are going on about religion. I can understand that since that is what the climate change hysterics are - religious zealots. No HERETICS ALLOWED - BURN THE SKEPTICS! By the way, skeptics of Anthropogenic Global Warming are funded about 1000% less than the high priests of the true believers.

The U.N./IPCC/Gore adherents are politically entrenched, unfortunately, and are willing to sell the poor countries who will be damaged by their schemes to hell in a hand-basket.

I know you didn't direct your comment toward me individually, since you said so, but this skeptic comes here because he's interested in automobiles, alternate energy and saving money with hypermiling techniques. I'm also interested in the truth and will continue to be so.

No one really doubts that we are experiencing some global warming. The crux of the matter and what is definitely not settled science is the claim that humans are MOSTLY responsible for it. We may be, but it's not through producing CO2 and its greenhouse effect.

I realize this will have zero effect on you - just sayin'.

PS. I confess that I haven't viewed your linked-to video - I'm a poor guy still on a dial-up modem and it hasn't downloaded yet.

Agreed. Back a few years, I think it was somewhat acceptable for the average person to hear the information vs disinformation campaign and not come to the obvious conclusions about the risks. Even choosing to stay partially-misinformed blissfully ignorant because the "news" told us they were giving a "fair and balanced" report. First it was,
"there is no global warming",
then it was
"ok, there is 'climate change', but it's not as bad as they say it is",
then it was
"ok, it's bad, but it's because of the methane in cow and termite farts",
then it was the sun, then it wasn't,
now it's "but it's not caused by carbon dioxide".

Next it will be
"ok, it's caused by carbon dioxide, but not from oil".

But it is.

And now? No Arctic summer sea ice in 6 years? What else will be that much worse than the models predict? How much worse?

Just how much worse must it get before people wake up? It's WAY past time to do something.

Sure, it's fun to find a piece of propaganda and tell everyone that they're all wrong... Or to hang on desperately to some weakness in the models. But to ignore the risks? I don't care what side of the so-called "debate" anyone is on, anyone who is ignoring the risks at this point has their head up their butt. Sure, go on hoping for the best, but prepare for the worst a little bit, eh? What might we be leaving the kids?

We're supposed to believe that a report with comments like:
"(Gratuitous advice for those whose jobs depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming: Find another job to pay your mortgage and feed your kids!)"
is "peer reviewed"? Give me a break. Which peers? Sounds like salesmanship to me.

No Arctic summer sea ice in 6 years? This is a problem, yes. But it indicates a really really big problem. With enormous risks.

If it makes any of you feel better, I really think it's too late to do anything about it now. But maybe best to lie to the kids.

-Gren

I'm tired of debating wether its happening or not. Its happening people, wake up.

you obviously have your mind made up and are not open to any other viewpoint than the one you believe in. I don't think you followed the first link or read the material. That is not what science is all about. I hate to break it to you, but 'consensus' doesn't make it so. REAL science deals in provable, repeatable data, not wild conjecture based on complex models. Now that there is substantial evidence that CO2 doesn't cause global warming, you are going on about religion. I can understand that since that is what the climate change hysterics are - religious zealots. No HERETICS ALLOWED - BURN THE SKEPTICS! By the way, skeptics of Anthropogenic Global Warming are funded about 1000% less than the high priests of the true believers.


No I havn't completely made my mind up. I'm a "scientist" at heart. I may just be a firefighter, but I spend my spare time reading about 4th dimensional geometry and physics. I can't spell worth a flip, but I love science ;)

I went to both your links and I'll admit I didn't read 100% of the material because its all the same stuff being linked to and cross referenced for the past 3-4 years by the nay-sayers. I haven't heard a single new arguement against global warming in over two years. So sorry about not reading it all, but I assure you I've read 4 others just like it.

As for the religon link, I find it more a curiosity than anythign else. If I remember correctly the ONLY job god gave to adam was to be a good steward of the earth. Guess what... we havn't been.

Anyway, back to the point. I conceed that global weather paterns and climatology is a science that we definitely have a lot to learn about and conscensus doesn't mean fact. (notable examples being the world is flat ;) ) But its quite common sense to me that every habitat has a sustainable population level. We humans are rapidly aproaching that, if not starting to exceed it, with our current ways of living. I don't see how anyone can say pumping pollutants into our water and air isn't affecting the climate.... but for everyones sake, I only hope its not too late.

Gren - The link you provided leads once again to projections based on MODELLING. There are skeptics among climate scientists who produce peer-reviewed papers that counter the politically driven agenda of the U.N. and Al Gore, in my opinion. Also, while ice is melting in the northern regions, it is increasing in the southern. Really, we can't reliably predict local weather much beyond a week, yet we are being asked to bet world-wide economic progress on some very tenuous projections a century into the future. I certainly hope some reason finds its way into the debate.

A century? No, 2013. That's 6 years from now. Maybe it's just me, but it seems things are speeding up.

The graphic on the page entitled "ARCTIC ICE IN RETREAT" where you can slide a button, and watch the ice over the recent past, doesn't show up on my work computer, only my home machine. Can you see it? It's quite impressive in showing how much ice has been lost recently, and how it seems to be speeding up. Very scary. What are your thoughts on that, if you can see it?

I am not aware that the ice is "increasing" in the south. I am aware that there is more precipitation in the interior of the Antarctic, and getting thicker, but that the edges are shrinking rapidly and substantially. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that if the polar ice caps act as a buffer that helps keep the planet at this temperature, by reflecting sunlight, then it is the surface area of the ice that is important, not the volume. So, my layman's conclusion is that the melting of ice in the Antarctic is, as in the Arctic, a sign of a big problem. Regardless of any increased precipitation or thickness in the deep interior.

Sorry, but it's hard for me to take any of those "skeptics among climate scientists who produce peer-reviewed papers that counter the politically driven agenda of the U.N. and Al Gore" seriously anymore, after some have been outed as shills for the oil industry. And they all seem to make the same points. Maybe I'm paranoid, or haven't read the right ones, but I'm very suspicious.

And I never did understand the accusations of "politically driven agenda" of the UN and/or Al Gore regarding global warming - that just sounds like another republican-talking-point to me. Please explain this to me, I'd really like to understand it, if even remotely valid.

Yes, my mind is pretty much made up (closed) at this point. Maybe I'm wrong. Let's hope so.

But if you can see that graphic with the slide button thingy, let me know what you think.

-Gren

Blake and Gren, the first link I provided leads to a small paper by someone who admits he is not a climate scientist. He gives a layman's summary of peer-reviewed information which is clearly at odds with the proponents of AGW. He is allowed a gratuitous swipe at the climate change industry, I think. It certainly has no qualms about attacking skeptics as heretics - as tools of the oil industry and, apparently, as I was informed today of religious people (although I have yet confirm the 98% preponderance claim.)

One of the links provided leads to another non-peer reviewed article by Christopher Monckton. He has challenged Al Gore to an international televised debate. Gore continues to refuse the challenge. This article is a point by point response to a Gore response to a couple of Monckton's articles claiming skepticism of AGW. It is as close as Gore has dared to come to Monckton and other debate challengers. It is a 20 page article including Gore's complete comments followed by Monckton's. There are 8 or 9 pages of footnotes. The notes reference peer-reviewed work and, indeed, the IPCC's own work. While it itself is not a scientific paper, it provides enough scientific information in response to Gore's vague assertions to show that the debate is not as settled as one might think. It dates to over a year ago and things have changed since then. More and more scientists are beginning to see the flaws in the IPCC's conclusions and are stepping forward.

The following list includes more than 500 qualified researchers, their home institutions, and the peer-reviewed studies they have published in professional journals providing historic and/or physical proxy evidence that:

1) Most of the recent global warming has been caused by a long, moderate, natural cycle rather than by the burning of fossil fuels;

2) The sun’s varying radiance impacts the Earth’s climate as more or fewer cosmic rays create more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that act as the Earth’s thermostats, deflecting more or less solar heat out into space.

3) Sea levels are not rising rapidly nor are they likely to;

4) Wild species are not being driven to extinction but rather are increasing the biodiversity of our wildlands;

5) Fewer human deaths are likely rather than more as the current warming continues, since cold is far more dangerous and the Earth is always warming or cooling;

6) Food production is likely to thrive during the decades ahead, rather than collapsing due to climate overheating;

7) Our storms are likely to be fewer and milder as the declining temperature differential between the equator and the poles reduces their power.

The list:

http://downloads.heartland.org/21977.pdf

And more recently:

"...Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

Full text:

http://downloads.heartland.org/21902.pdf

So, I think your statement that it's already too late to do anything should be tempered by the knowledge that it might be best to do nothing at all about a problem that probably doesn't even exist.

And as to misleading the children, I think Mr. Gore may have already spread his lies so fully with the aid of the media and other politicians, that it may be too late to reverse the damage. I mean someone should really tell them that the polar bear populations are actually increasing and that their houses won't be underwater and so on.

Well, yours in the quest for truth and the promotion of nuclear energy,

ufourya

All the arguments you list are the same ones that have continued to be said despite being proven wrong time and time again. Your link to the 500 "qualified" researchers is also the same link I've seen time and time again.

I'll point this out one more time just so you get my point... www.heartland.org CLAIMS to be unbiased but where do they get their funding from? In fact, where do the 500 "qualified" researchers get their funding from. Conservative christian organizations and the oil corporations. I'm frankly amazed that this keeps coming up as I literally have yet to see an anti-global warming site, source, document that wasn't backed (either publicly or secretly) by a christian firm or the oil corporations. Heartland has recieved $791,500 dollars in funding from Exxonmobil since 1998. They publish many other "peer articles" ranging from tobbaco use to public education. Heartland also recieves funding from PhillipMorris and the Libertarian party. :rolleyes:

Let me be clear about this. I have no problem with religion but I have yet to see an actual unbiased source yet. I say 98% of these "publications" because I will leave a little room for error in maybe someone might have put one out... but I have yet to see it. These publications are trash. Seriously. They are not unbiased and serve one purpose, to spread the image of uncertainty and to promote the agenda of their backers. The biggest issue I have is people being liars. Almost everyone has motives in their actions. The organizations that are coming out try to spread confusion would get a lot of respect from me if they would just come out and say what agenda they are on... at least that way I can read it with the understanding of their view point.


I want to make sure you understand I have no intention of this post to seem like I'm attacking anyone.

Find me a real unbiased source that is qualified and published and I'll read it intently. Until then its all garbage spreading propaganda to me.


As for your thoughts on nuclear power... I'm semi with you on that. While I'm not a nuclear fan, its certainly better than coal, diesel, and natural gas power plants.



EDIT: One last time just so everyone is clear on this.... I don't have issues with the before mentioned organizations.... I'm just pointing out that they are NOT unbiased like they claim to be.
EDIT #2: This thread is really going nowhere but a circular argument I really don't want to get into a flame war. I'll stepping out of it to avoid any hard feelings. Please step back a really look at the sources where your getting your information from and judge them for what they truly are. Take care!

Heartland has recieved $791,500 dollars in funding from Exxonmobil since 1998. They publish many other "peer articles" ranging from tobbaco use to public education. Heartland also recieves funding from PhillipMorris and the Libertarian party. :rolleyes:

ExxonMobil, if you're listening, I'd write ANYTHING for $791k.

-Gren

I think Mr. Gore may have already spread his lies... I know we all need to be open to multiple points of view, but you do need to understand where you are. It is not unreasonable to expect that at this moment in history, a large majority of people on a fuel economy forum will subscribe to the majority view of the scientific community that global warming is happening and is largely driven by human activity.

When you come on here calling Gore a liar and posting links to non-scientific armchair analyses that may or may not represent the consensus of available date alongside links to angry axe-grinders like InstaPunk, you shouldn't be surprised if you are greeted with skepticism.

You obviously have your mind made up and are not open to any other viewpoint than the one you believe in. I don't think you followed the first link or read the material. That is not what science is all about.
When you accuse other members of being closed minded just for not being convinced by your posted link, IMO you have crossed the line into trolling.

I did follow the link (along with several subsequent links) and I sure wasn't convinced. I blew an hour of my valuable time doing so, both so that I could say that I did so in responding to you and just in case I might learn something new. I'm open to the possibility that CO2 might not be causative of global climate change, but I'm going to see a h*** of a lot more credible evidence to that effect than I found in those links.

There are mountains of available climate data out there, much of which contradicts the "human-caused" theory and more of which does not, according to the majority of climate scientists. I understand that climate scientists might have an incentive to come to certain conclusions, but this accusation is starting to get really tired. Anyone who's actually been educated on critical thinking knows that bias or incentive is cause for caution but does not automatically discredit a source. Everyone has a bias. I have yet to encounter widespread evidence that scientists are actually faking evidence to protect their jobs and keep the funding coming in. They have a lot more credibility in my mind than most of their strident detractors in the media.

Okay, my fellow human beings interested only in the truth, here is an article by that famous religious nut/oil industry stooge, RICHARD LINZEN, who also happens to be Professor of Atmospheric Science at M.I.T. One of the reasons he can speak out is because he is a tenured professor and can't be fired or hounded out of his position for commenting honestly.

Now, I know for some of you, this man is automatically discredited simply because he presents a point of view contrary to your accepted enviro-religion (or you have read that his science is discredited.) If you cannot read this with an open mind and consider, just consider, that he has no axe to grind and might, just might, be telling the truth, and might, just might be right, then you are contributing in your own way to a return to the dark-ages of science. (As Al Gore is.) I do not intend to offend. This is my studied opinion. I've got bo axe to grind either; I just hate to see hysteria where none is warranted, and I especially hate to see its dissemination.

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.

Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

And in response to the insinuation of being a troll, I'll simply say good-bye to the comment section. And, I'd appreciate it if the site-monitor could in some way remove the reminder that I haven't commented for a while which greets me every time I visit.

Cheers!

Edit - WriCon, I found your post thoughtful and appreciated most of it. I do wonder, however, what axe do you think Insta-Punk is grinding? He runs an independent site where he makes comment on what he wishes. He is a brilliant man. While I do not always agree with him, he cuts through a lot of B.S. on many subjects and wields his opinions in a take-no-prisoner fashion. I visit every day. Is being conservative a no no here?

Hi Ufourya:

___If you come back with your login checked, you will not be greeted in such a manner.

___As for being conservative, the co-owner (Tbaleno) is about as conservative as they come. Do the sites you visit allow liberal’s? Apparently not?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hi Ufourya:

___If you come back with your login checked, you will not be greeted in such a manner.

___As for being conservative, the co-owner (Tbaleno) is about as conservative as they come. Do the sites you visit allow liberal’s? Apparently not?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Wow, now that's quick! Thank you!

All the sites I visit allow liberals. Some of them love liberal visitors because it allows the clear-thinkers and purveyors of common sense to tear them to shreds, some to engage them in polite debate, some - with great restraint - ignore them entirely and others, such as this one, apparently cater mostly to liberals and ask why I am here. Then, of course, there are rabid liberal sites where a heretical comment gets you banned. Sorry, you're not toeing the line there, buddy. See ya. Last but not least are the sites concerned simply with discussing what is - without ideological warfare. The only drawback is that they can get awfully boring without an occasional maverick dropping in to say 'yo.'

So, I'll just stick to reading your informative and enjoyable site, but refrain from expressing myself further. Really, this time I really mean it :)

Gren - The link you provided leads once again to projections based on MODELLING. There are skeptics among climate scientists who produce peer-reviewed papers that counter the politically driven agenda of the U.N. and Al Gore, in my opinion. Also, while ice is melting in the northern regions, it is increasing in the southern. Really, we can't reliably predict local weather much beyond a week, yet we are being asked to bet world-wide economic progress on some very tenuous projections a century into the future. I certainly hope some reason finds its way into the debate.


No one really doubts that we are experiencing some global warming. The crux of the matter and what is definitely not settled science is the claim that humans are MOSTLY responsible for it. We may be, but it's not through producing CO2 and its greenhouse effect.


Just curious about something...It just seems to me that everytime someone opposes the idea of human caused global warming, they bring up an argument against global warming even happening...such as disputing the amount of ice melting. They will then say that yes, the earth is warming, but it has nothing to do with human activities. If we are experiencing global warming, as you say, why the dispute over ice melting? Im just curious what your opinion is on the validity of global warming without regards to the causes. I also admire someone who has the courage to go against accepted thinking.

Shane

Just curious about something...It just seems to me that everytime someone opposes the idea of human caused global warming, they bring up an argument against global warming even happening...such as disputing the amount of ice melting. They will then say that yes, the earth is warming, but it has nothing to do with human activities. If we are experiencing global warming, as you say, why the dispute over ice melting? Im just curious what your opinion is on the validity of global warming without regards to the causes. I also admire someone who has the courage to go against accepted thinking.

Shane

Shane ~ I've always liked that name since seeing the movie as a youngster.

I do not dispute Global warming. The earth has warmed almost one degree in the last 100 years. (Oh, my God, we're all going to die. The day before yesterday where I live, we had a 30 degree shift in temperature within an hour.) Some glaciers are receding, some are advancing as well. Frozen water is melting in some northern areas (satellite photos show it graphically) and water is freezing in some southern areas (satellite photos show it graphically.)

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html


I do not think anyone has shown convincing evidence of anthropogenic or man-caused warming - AGW. Most people who believe in AGW are convinced it is because of rising CO2 levels and man is responsible for that through using fossil fuels.

The most recent measurements of ice cores reveal convincing evidence that global warming most likely occurs BEFORE a rise in CO2:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5613/1728

(You will have to register – it is free – if you want to read the entire paper) If not, here is the pertinent quote:

“The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.”

If this is the case, how can CO2 CAUSE a rise in temperature? It defies common sense. That doesn't mean that it that common sense is always right, of course. There may be a way mankind is contributing to global warming, but it is NOT proven science. And yet the U.N. wants us to thwart our economy to meet its standards via the Kyoto recommendations. Incidentally, the U.S. has done a better job of controlling CO2 levels, as a percentage, than the countries that signed the accord. It should also be noted that China and India are not signatories and their levels have increased exponentially.

There are dissenting scientists - serious people who do not agree that we can assign the majority of global warming to mankind's burning of fossil fuel. Some people insist that it is a done deal, there should be no more debate, and will shout down anyone who disagrees. Al Gore is one of these people, yet he will not debate the issue and will not appear on any program which does not agree with his view. HE is not a scientist. Why do so many put so much credence in him? He's scared little kids into believing that the polar bears are dying and that their (the kids) homes, if they live in certain areas, are going to be under water.

Even IF (and in my mind it is a big if) CO2 levels rise to the levels PROJECTED by computer models, there is no convincing evidence that all the catastrophes PROJECTED by alarmists will occur or be the result of global warming. The earth's climate is ALWAYS changing and has never been static. We have had periods in the earth's history that have been warmer than today and warmer than the PROJECTED warming which may come.

I believe that we should explore alternative energy sources and do all we can to keep from spoiling the environment, but I will not buy into the hysteria that 'fuels' talk of an environmental apocalypse unless we do something drastic now, like put our lives into the hands of the politicians of the U.N.

If something comes up down the line that proves to be serious and evidence is convincing, I trust the ingenuity of mankind to meet the challenge. Meanwhile, there are REALLY serious challenges that too many people are unwilling to face. There is a word-wide threat to freedom and liberty posed by fanatical Islamo-fascism. The people who deny THAT are the ones I'm worried about.

Well, take care, Shane. Have a great day.

How much studying have you done on oceanography? Do you understand that the oceans currents is what affects our weather patterns? Also the location of cool and warm zones is what causes the currents. So reducing the northern ice mass and relocating it to the south WILL change currents... thereby changing weather patterns.

The real issue isn't gobal warming.. its climate change. Most people that have done any research on this topic are not concerned with the warming... its the rapid cooling that comes afterwards. This is why Global warming is not an accurate discription of what will happen. It should be called Global Climate Change, in fact it is called that by most scientists.

The increase of 1 degree of temperature doesnt sound like much... but remember thats an average over the whole earth. The increase in temp around the north pole is more like 7 degrees... Thats HUGE!

Good Morning ~ Blake, now we’re moving the goal posts. The discussion for years has been about man-made global warming. Since all the skeptics couldn’t be silenced and since the evidence keeps shifting away from AGW, now those who would control our lives and our economy have started to call it ‘climate change.’ OF COURSE the climate changes; it is NEVER static. So now, if it starts to inexplicably cool down, we’ll find a way to blame man (especially those bad people who use more than their fair share of resources.) Hey YOU! Yes YOU, you’re soaking up too much of the sunlight. Don’t you know there’s a cooling crisis?

Please download the ‘Global Warming Primer’ and learn, from a very simply presented, yet well-documented tool some truths about ‘climate change’ which you may not know:

http://www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/ PDF warning for those with dial-up - may take a bit to download.

Meanwhile, read this piece from a member of the IPCC published in the Wall Street Journal:

My Nobel Moment

By JOHN R. CHRISTY

November 1, 2007; Page A19

I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.

The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But that's another story. Large icebergs in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica. Winter sea ice around the continent set a record maximum last month.

Both halves of the award honor promoting the message that Earth's temperature is rising due to human-based emissions of greenhouse gases. The Nobel committee praises Mr. Gore and the IPCC for alerting us to a potential catastrophe and for spurring us to a carbonless economy.

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)

It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.

Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"

I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.

Others of us scratch our heads and try to understand the real causes behind what we see. We discount the possibility that everything is caused by human actions, because everything we've seen the climate do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall continually. The Arctic ice cap has shrunk before. One millennium there are hippos swimming in the Thames, and a geological blink later there is an ice bridge linking Asia and North America.

One of the challenges in studying global climate is keeping a global perspective, especially when much of the research focuses on data gathered from spots around the globe. Often observations from one region get more attention than equally valid data from another.

The recent CNN report "Planet in Peril," for instance, spent considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record maximum (yes, maximum) for coverage since aerial measurements started.

Then there is the challenge of translating global trends to local climate. For instance, hasn't global warming led to the five-year drought and fires in the U.S. Southwest?

Not necessarily.

There has been a drought, but it would be a stretch to link this drought to carbon dioxide. If you look at the 1,000-year climate record for the western U.S. you will see not five-year but 50-year-long droughts. The 12th and 13th centuries were particularly dry. The inconvenient truth is that the last century has been fairly benign in the American West. A return to the region's long-term "normal" climate would present huge challenges for urban planners.

Without a doubt, atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing due primarily to carbon-based energy production (with its undisputed benefits to humanity) and many people ardently believe we must "do something" about its alleged consequence, global warming. This might seem like a legitimate concern given the potential disasters that are announced almost daily, so I've looked at a couple of ways in which humans might reduce CO2 emissions and their impact on temperatures.

California and some Northeastern states have decided to force their residents to buy cars that average 43 miles-per-gallon within the next decade. Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable. Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day.

Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10% of the world's energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 -- roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 ?176 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It's a dent.

But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?

My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming."

Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.

Mr. Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a participant in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

Now, I have to go prepare myself for the REAL world - NFL Football. I've discovered if I turn off all the lights, set the furnace to 58 and go out to a bar to watch the games, my Miami Dolphins always do really well.

The science of atmospheric modelling of global warming seems difficult. My understanding of the situation is that all the models are to some degree wrong and that serious works acknowledge their models' limitations. There wasn't much of that in the first sources that uforya provided and they didn't provide good links back to primary sources that did. Accordingly, I evaluated the sources as an attempt to persuade without informing. Uforya's piece taken from the WSJ seemed more on target (thanks for providing it).

As I understand it, one of the main difficulties with climate modelling is one of "mathematical indeterminacy," that is, there are too many unknowns and not enough equations to derive a solution with any certainty. In order to derive results researchers are forced to make assumptions about some of the unknowns. IMO, honestly presented work puts these assumptions on the table and discusses the effect of wiggling them around a bit. One of the ways that people who advocate a particular position build their case is by hiring experts who know how to jiggle around the assumptions to get the results they want. The popular discussion isn't helped by the press's tendency to latch on to results from models that have been jiggled around to derive the most sensational results.

In this case I think it is good to remember the following quote:

"I remember my friend Johnny von Neumann used to say, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."
-- Enrico Fermi (also attributed to Richard Feynman who probably also borrowed it from JVN)

My first impulse is that a large UN panel is likely to have less blatant political bias than a blogged working paper possibly sponsored by a political think tank. Although I expect that a UN panel would be slower to incorporate new data, I expect their motivations to be diverse enough to damp out most of the biases you would expect from an individual researcher.

My perspective about limiting greenhouse gas emissions is that in the long view we will have to learn to live without fossil fuels, so even if the global warming modelling is way wrong limits are mostly just a matter of converting to a different form of power production about a generation earlier. The downside may not be as big as some say. I see nothing immoral about leaving additional fossil fuels around for later generations to use if our modelling is wrong.

[QUOTE=ILAveo;59591]My first impulse is that a large UN panel is likely to have less blatant political bias than a blogged working paper possibly sponsored by a political think tank. Although I expect that a UN panel would be slower to incorporate new data, I expect their motivations to be diverse enough to damp out most of the biases you would expect from an individual researcher.[QUOTE]

Howdy ~ An interesting piece of testimony before a U.S. senate committee which may confirm part of your comment and take issue with another aspect:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/senate/page3.html

contains these quotes from Dr. Hansen of the Goddard Institute:

...Dr. Hansen: That is a very difficult question. The IPCC is carrying out a very necessary process, and the technical work is superb. It involves a large number of outstanding scientists, and I am in no way critical of those scientists, but I must say I have a significant degree of discomfort with the extrapolation of the science into policy directions, the close interconnecton of the IPCC and the Kyoto discussions.

I also think that a large committee is seldom the best approach for determining actions. I do not feel that I have a prescription or that I know the best procedure to do this, but I felt much more comfortable with the assessment 20 years ago when it was done by the National Academy of Sciences, a stellar committee chaired by Jule Charney of MIT, who stayed away from policy but gave an outstanding scientific assessment...

...IPCC's size and review procedures make it inherently lethargic, so responding to a mid-2000 paper is difficult. However, the real problem is probably the close binding between IPCC and the Kyoto Protocol discussions. Kyoto excludes consideration of air pollution (such as tropospheric ozone and black carbon), for example, so IPCC basically ignores these topics and downgrades them. The only IPCC "review" of our paper was by the IPCC leaders (as reported in the New York Times, for example), who saw our paper as potentially harmful to Kyoto discussions. They received the backing of organizations (such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, who commissioned a criticism of our paper that I respond to in reference 22) and publications (particularly Nature), who had previous editorial positions favoring the Kyoto Protocol. When I had difficulty publishing a response in Nature, I wrote an open letter that is available at:

http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let25.html

Update: Sometimes an individual blogger makes a significant contribution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Audit

The blogger, Stephen McIntyre, at ClimateAudit.org reviewed temperature data used by the Goddard Institute and IPCC finding it to be faulty. The corrected figures show that the decade of the 1990s was not the warmest this century, rather the 1930s! Of course, those interested in keeping the interest in AGW high, discount the significance. Incidentally, some petty malcontents who dislike scientists such as McIntyre's publicizing the IPCC's mistakes have taken to vindictively attacking his site. He has suffered DNS attacks, and indeed, when I attempted to visit today, the site was unavailable.

In addition from Wiki's entry under Stephen McIntyre _

"McIntyre's blog has as a recurrent topic the struggle to obtain underlying data from peer reviewed papers. McIntyre has stated[9] that he started Climate Audit so that he could defend himself against attacks being made at RealClimate, a blog on climatology. McIntrye's previous website www.climate2003.com predated both Climate Audit and RealClimate by at least a year. It contained "background and summary information" and "source data", and linked to discussion of M&M's papers, which presently includes links to RealClimate commentary. Climate Audit was a co-winner of best science blog in the 2007 weblog awards. "

So some people actively discourage skepticism even by denying the underlying data from the all important 'peer reviewed' papers. Why?