Filled up for $1.78/gallon

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Ah yes Bruce, the Global Warming (caused by American capitalisim of course) story. A computor model shows that greenhouse gasses caused by US mainly, have made the planet warm up and will soon kill us all. I will bet I could make a computer model that would prove a pig is a steam engine but that wouldn't make it so. G.W. is a THEORY. A cursory course in geology will reveal that the plant has cooled and warmed over the centuries, plates have shifted, mountains have risen and fallen, well you get the picture. The ice was one mile thick over here in the Hudson Valley and the debris it deposited created Long Island. All this without evil characters like Wallmart, Exxon, Wall Street and Enron. How could this be? Maybe the activety of the sun had something to do with it? Nah, doesn't fit the political agenda of the Progressive marxists who hunger for control. This anti american trash is pushed in our high schools and colleges but not everybody is buying it.

Enough of my soapbox, just might be able to get my gas guzzleing taxed 986 out for a spin as the sun is shining and I may need to pick up a few cigars (OH NO not Cigars!!). I may even start installing my nice new center caps. We will see.

986geezer

[Brucelee]

As usual, the science of "global warming" is more complex and less dramatic than the popular press or politicials can handle.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[Brucelee]

An except:



What are the take-home messages:


The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.

The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.

The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).

The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)

Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.

Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).

Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

Remember: Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases. Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%. Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation. Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides. Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas -- they are mostly water droplets -- but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth. Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13µm) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide). Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6µm. Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect. Adding them in near-saturated bands has little additional effect

[z12358]

Z: You can bring a thirsty donkey to the water but you cannot make it drink.

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

"The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities"[1]—has been investigated: In the journal Science in December 2004, Dr Naomi Oreskes published a study of the abstracts of the 928 refereed scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keywords "global climate change" and published from 1993–2003. This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view—the remainder of the articles covered methods or paleoclimate and did not take any stance on recent climate change. The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis[1]."


Z: You can learn about a person from the company he keeps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories


Z.

[Brucelee]

"This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view—"

The "consensus view" was that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that the Earth was flat.

This agreement did not make it so.

Nor does consensus trumph bad science.

I heard printer ink was the most expensive liquid per gallon. Im sure a gallon of molten gold would be more but you get the idea. Thats why I just buy a new printer everytime I run out of ink. Get the newest printer and ink cartridges for about 20 bucks more.

[blinkwatt]

Originally Posted by boggtown

I heard printer ink was the most expensive liquid per gallon.

Wait I thought White-out was the most expensive per gallon?

[jeffsquire]

QUOTE=z12358]Z: You can bring a thirsty donkey to the water but you cannot make it drink.

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

[I]"The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years.......you can learn a lot about a person from the company he keeps.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories[/urlZ.[/QUOTE]
__________________________________
Sure can.

-" One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic.. . . . .Allegre's conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a “consensus” about manmade global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to “Holocaust deniers.” See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568 & http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml In addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers."

Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists. “Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
For more on this, see the following link.
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

100 years of media reports on global warming and cooling. They can't decide what it is. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_timeswarns.asp

[jeffsquire]

[QUOTE=z12358]Z: You can bring a thirsty donkey to the water but you cannot make it drink.

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

"The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities"[1]—has been investigated: In the journal Science in December 2004, Dr Naomi Oreskes published a study of the abstracts of the 928 refereed scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keywords "global climate change" and published from 1993–2003. This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view—the remainder of the articles covered methods or paleoclimate and did not take any stance on recent climate change. The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis[1]."
QUOTE]
_--------------------------------------------
SO we don't know who is the author of those 928 articles? Gee, I wonder how many authors wrote those articles. Were there 928 seperate authors? DOes one author who is a true believer write multiple articles about global climate change? ALmost certainly.

What does explicitly or implicitly support mean?. Suppose the following is written: "While manmade activity likely affects the 'global climate change' and the enviroment, we just dont know how much, significant or insignificant it is. " Does this mean that I implicity or explicity believe in global warming? It sounds like it but what am I really saying. To attribute this statement to a consensus belief of global warming is atrocious, yet almost certainly common if one were to peruse your 928 articles.

Even if everything you printed here is true, and just suppose there really is a "consensus" about manmade global climate change, then fully 25% of the remainder of articles don't agree.

[z12358]

JS:
SO we don't know who is the author of those 928 articles? Gee, I wonder how many authors wrote those articles. Were there 928 seperate authors? DOes one author who is a true believer write multiple articles about global climate change? ALmost certainly.

The study covered ALL 928 articles in the ISI database (covering ALL peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world) having "global climate change" in their keyword list.

What does explicitly or implicitly support mean?. Suppose the following is written: "While manmade activity likely affects the 'global climate change' and the enviroment, we just dont know how much, significant or insignificant it is. " Does this mean that I implicity or explicity believe in global warming? It sounds like it but what am I really saying. To attribute this statement to a consensus belief of global warming is atrocious, yet almost certainly common if one were to peruse your 928 articles.

The above example would not have entered the 75% consensus universe as it would have directly contradicted with the consensus hypothesis: "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities".

Even if everything you printed here is true, and just suppose there really is a "consensus" about manmade global climate change, then fully 25% of the remainder of articles don't agree.

Not true. Read carefully. Quote:
"The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis."

Z.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

An except:



What are the take-home messages:


The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.

The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.

The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).

The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)

Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.

Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).

Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

Remember: Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases. Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%. Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation. Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides. Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas -- they are mostly water droplets -- but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth. Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13µm) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide). Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6µm. Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect. Adding them in near-saturated bands has little additional effect

Hi,

I agree mostly (about 99%) with what you say/cite here. Global Warming is a theory, as yet unproved. Lack of historical records and the relative infancy of climate modelling are poor foundations from which to make predictions.

The Historical Record dates mainly back only 150 years or so. Speculation beyond that is based on such diverse sources as Chromatic study of gas bubbles trapped in ice (which is really only a snapshot from which much speculation is derived) to old paintings of Winter Scenes which showed rivers being frozen, which are now usually not frozen over. There can be many other explanations of such events than Climate Change, such as occasional aberrations, which we have also experienced in our lifetimes, but which in and of themselves, do not support a theory of man-made climate change.

Computer modelling is currently such that the earth is broken into 15 mi.² grids. In each of these, the grid is either reflective (cities, desert, rock) or absorbant (vegetation, Lakes, etc.), precipitating or dry, etc. Now, we all have experienced where it can be cloudy or raining just a couple blocks away, while in our position, it is sunny and dry. So, these models are not yet developed to a point where they provide useful and undeniable replication of real-world events.

So, in all, I remain unconvinced of some of the more dire predictions. That said, there are literally billions of tons of Carbon released into the atmosphere which were, prior to the industrialization of the world, locked up in the oceans and rock. A gallon of gasoline weighs about 6.25 lb. and is composed of about 80% Carbon. This means that everytime we burn a gallon, we're releasing 5 lbs. of Carbon into the atmosphere (or about 80 lbs./tankful). I cannot state, nor do I believe, that this is having no effect whatever.

Global Warming may well be happening, and a Tipping Point may be reached in my, or my nephews' lifetimes. I'm just saying that so far, the Science has not proved such a thing. And if unproved, there is no guarantee that they will ever be correct with these predictions, or if so, as severely as a prevailing view seems to think. But, the Science is not as pure or as empirical as the Scientific Method dictates. Politics and Funding have much to do with how the argument is presented and pursued. How much funding do you think is currently available to those Scientists and Institutions who are proferring the opposing view that all this is incorrect?. If you are a scientist with a family to support, and a career to advance, or a University with need to fund R&D and gain Grant money, which position are you most likely to pursue from a practical standpoint?...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[z12358]

MNBoxster:
Global Warming may well be happening, and a Tipping Point may be reached in my, or my nephews' lifetimes. I'm just saying that so far, the Science has not proved such a thing. And if unproved, there is no guarantee that they will ever be correct with these predictions, or if so, as severely as a prevailing view seems to think.

More often than not science deals with probabilities. Predictions produced by a hypothesis don't have to be spot on (in both level and timing) to raise credible concerns. Consider also the risk management aspect. Even if there was only a 20% chance that we're causing global warming and that we're close to (or beyond) the tipping point with signifficant and unforseeable consequences if true, can we -- the mankind -- afford to disregard that risk? If a doctor tells you: "I can't yet prove it for sure, but there is 20% chance that you have lung cancer right now." -- would you continue smoking until the proof showed up? Would you refuse to invest in further tests and research, so that you can have the $$ to buy a new suspension for your car, as you planned?

But, the Science is not as pure or as empirical as the Scientific Method dictates. Politics and Funding have much to do with how the argument is presented and pursued. How much funding do you think is currently available to those Scientists and Institutions who are proferring the opposing view that all this is incorrect?. If you are a scientist with a family to support, and a career to advance, or a University with need to fund R&D and gain Grant money, which position are you most likely to pursue from a practical standpoint?...

Arguments like this are very presumptious and USA-centric. Presumptious because they perpetuate the myth of a liberal media and liberal science, and USA-centric because they assume the whole world (scientists, media, and politics) is engulfed in it. Are you claiming that the GWB administration is actually arm-twisting USA scientists into raising the global warming issue? Sorry to say it, but it borders on the delusional. Why would a country like Norway that is extracting so much of its revenue from oil production and sales be interested in perpetuating a "myth" or signing a treaty (Kyoto) that would negatively affect its revenue stream? Could they be onto something that's far more important than the $$ they are about to forgo?

Z.

[Brucelee]

First off, as the article that I cited states fairly clearly, there is some evidence that the planet is "warming" to some degree and in some places. The amount/degree of warming and its impacts is FAR from a settled issue. It some sense, it depends WHERE and HOW your measure.

The leap from there to where most alarmists go is HUGE and simply not as "accepted" by the scientific community as the media would have you believe.

To me, the real issue is, IF warming is ocurring, how extensive/intense is it and what is a logical extension of the current trend lines (this is where those fuzzy climate models come in.)

More importantly, there is no hard evidence that I can see that suggests that this warming is induced by carbon emissions and/or if so, that we know to what degree. If our carbon emissions were the cause of warming, how did the planet start to warm long before we were generating these emissions?

To wit, based on what I have read, we began coming out of the "little ice age" in the 1800s, long before we were driving cars. If that is true, I find it funny indeed that we now look at the Porsche in your driveway and want to ban it.

Thoughts?

[Rail26]

I just traded in the Box. 1.78 clams a gallon, I can now afford my dream ride! I was thinking about putting a new exhaust, lowering it and do you think 10 ft wheels will fit or will I need spacers?

[z12358]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

First off, as the article that I cited states fairly clearly, there is some evidence that the planet is "warming" to some degree and in some places. The amount/degree of warming and its impacts is FAR from a settled issue. It some sense, it depends WHERE and HOW your measure.

The leap from there to where most alarmists go is HUGE and simply not as "accepted" by the scientific community as the media would have you believe.

To me, the real issue is, IF warming is ocurring, how extensive/intense is it and what is a logical extension of the current trend lines (this is where those fuzzy climate models come in.)

More importantly, there is no hard evidence that I can see that suggests that this warming is induced by carbon emissions and/or if so, that we know to what degree. If our carbon emissions were the cause of warming, how did the planet start to warm long before we were generating these emissions?

To wit, based on what I have read, we began coming out of the "little ice age" in the 1800s, long before we were driving cars. If that is true, I find it funny indeed that we now look at the Porsche in your driveway and want to ban it.

Thoughts?

Rich, I'd defer to the experts, especially if there's no reason to question their motives. I do understand that junkscience.com "take home" bullet points may be more digestible than actually reading the 928 articles (+ whatever more have been published since 2003) or spending 6 years on a PhD, but the easiest route is rarely the best.

Z.

[Paul]

Miscellaneous Incoherent Ramblings:

Wonder how much heat all of our highways have added? (Assuming they absorb more of the sun's energy than undisturbed Mother Earth.)

How about all the heat released by burning fossil fuel?

How about all the heat released by cooking our food?

How about all the hot air released by the increasing number of human beings (some more than others!!)?

I think Mother Nature ignores us and continues her cycles of Ice Ages, etc....

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by z12358

MNBoxster:
Global Warming may well be happening, and a Tipping Point may be reached in my, or my nephews' lifetimes. I'm just saying that so far, the Science has not proved such a thing. And if unproved, there is no guarantee that they will ever be correct with these predictions, or if so, as severely as a prevailing view seems to think.

More often than not science deals with probabilities. Predictions produced by a hypothesis don't have to be spot on (in both level and timing) to raise credible concerns. Consider also the risk management aspect. Even if there was only a 20% chance that we're causing global warming and that we're close to (or beyond) the tipping point with signifficant and unforseeable consequences if true, can we -- the mankind -- afford to disregard that risk? If a doctor tells you: "I can't yet prove it for sure, but there is 20% chance that you have lung cancer right now." -- would you continue smoking until the proof showed up? Would you refuse to invest in further tests and research, so that you can have the $$ to buy a new suspension for your car, as you planned?

But, the Science is not as pure or as empirical as the Scientific Method dictates. Politics and Funding have much to do with how the argument is presented and pursued. How much funding do you think is currently available to those Scientists and Institutions who are proferring the opposing view that all this is incorrect?. If you are a scientist with a family to support, and a career to advance, or a University with need to fund R&D and gain Grant money, which position are you most likely to pursue from a practical standpoint?...

Arguments like this are very presumptious and USA-centric. Presumptious because they perpetuate the myth of a liberal media and liberal science, and USA-centric because they assume the whole world (scientists, media, and politics) is engulfed in it. Are you claiming that the GWB administration is actually arm-twisting USA scientists into raising the global warming issue? Sorry to say it, but it borders on the delusional. Why would a country like Norway that is extracting so much of its revenue from oil production and sales be interested in perpetuating a "myth" or signing a treaty (Kyoto) that would negatively affect its revenue stream? Could they be onto something that's far more important than the $$ they are about to forgo?

Z.

Hi,

I totally agree with you that Science works with probabilities, but in an effort to prove them. So far, this has not been done with respect to Global Warming and so for the Society (Public, Industry, Media, Govt's., etc. ) to make such changes, spend the billions etc. on unproven theory just makes no sense, even if the theory is later proved to be correct.

Personally, I believe that we will find that we have altered the Planet, perhaps even with longstanding or permanent consequences. All I'm saying, is that it is only a belief, it has not, and may not, ever be proven to be the case.

Make no mistake about it, current Energy Saving and Hybrid technologies have nothing to do with warding off Global Warming nor are they some sort of Corporate Benevolence, enlightenment or responsibility, they're all about making money. Truth is, every Hybrid Car currently produced has a more negative impact on the overall environment (over it's total lifetime) than the worst offending Internal Combustion Car. So they ain't doing it to save Mother Earth, but rather to make $$ and gain Market Share.

So far as your USA-Centric points, I'm not following this logic at all. I don't see where discussing the validity of the Science involved has any cultural or geographical perspective, at least not one which is germane to the topic...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Brucelee]

Now lets take a closer look at the CONSENSUS study refered to above and Mr. Gore's book:

With An Inconvenient Truth, the companion book to former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank, this is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely pictorial representation of the movie’s graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them.






Al Gore Is Captain Planet 11/21




Editors: Window on the Week -- 1/19/07







1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.

2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”

3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.

4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”

5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn't the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.73). Here’s the satellite graph:


6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme wheather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”

7. Record Temperatures. Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that’s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)

8. Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”

9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).

10. European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.

11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.

12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”

13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”

14. Invasive Species. Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That’s how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”

15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).

16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today.

17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.

18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.

19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)

20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century...It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore’s suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist.

21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”

22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.

23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

[z12358]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

So far as your USA-Centric points, I'm not following this logic at all. I don't see where discussing the validity of the Science involved has any cultural or geographical perspective, at least not one which is germane to the topic...

Jim, I was merely responding -- though admittedly while making some assumptions -- to your comment about Politics and Funding affecting the results of scientific research. I assumed you were referring to the politics (and funding environment) in a specific country (USA) and I wanted to point out the difficulty in synchronizing a singular agenda campaign that would affect the funding sources and research results of every scientist on the planet.

Z.