I found the following piece of information, interesting:

20,000 scientists, of whom about 2,700 of them are physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers or environmental scientists, have signed the following statement:

 

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

 

 

Don't take mere petitions as fact. Please note counter to the fraud.

 

The Oregon petition, with nearly 20000 signatures is harder to assess. Anyone who claimed to have university-level qualifications in science was invited to sign - the criteria would include me, and most members of my family, although I have only one relative who would normally be called a ?scientist?. In fact, the list includes quite a few cases where whole families seem to have signed.

 

It seems reasonable to focus on the subgroup (about 2600) who claim to be "physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists". Of these, less than half the signatories claimed a PhD, which is a basic requirement for a serious scientific job in the US. I Googled a sample of about 30 PhD's of whom none were climate scientists (only about half met the much broader stated description). They included petroleum geologists, physicists working in weapons labs and others with research fields very distant from climate science. I also emailed the petition organisers, asking for a list of climate scientists who had signed, and got no reply.

 

Based on this sample analysis, I doubt that there are more than 50 independent climate scientists in the world who could be regarded as overt critics of the global warming hypothesis. This is a relatively easy claim to refute, if anyone cares to go through the Oregon list and the various ?skeptical? sites, and produce more than 50 names fitting criteria (i) and (ii) above. Thanks to Google, all that would be required is an Internet connection and few hours of boring work.

http://www.johnquiggin.com/archives/000212.html

 

Maybe when the above are addressed, that can be taken as fact. But this is an example of the misinformation that is spread in the debate.

I found the following piece of information, interesting:

20,000 scientists, of whom about 2,700 of them are physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers or environmental scientists, have signed the following statement:

What's your source? Exxon?

 

Here are a couple of quotes from NOAA:

Are greenhouse gases increasing?

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

 

Is the climate becoming more variable or extreme?

For the Northern Hemisphere summer temperature, recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000AD, and the warming since the late 19th century is unprecedented over the last 1000 years. Older data are insufficient to provide reliable hemispheric temperature estimates. Ice core data suggest that the 20th century has been warm in many parts of the globe, but also that the significance of the warming varies geographically, when viewed in the context of climate variations of the last millennium.

 

Large and rapid climatic changes affecting the atmospheric and oceanic circulation and temperature, and the hydrological cycle, occurred during the last ice age and during the transition towards the present Holocene period (which began about 10,000 years ago). Based on the incomplete evidence available, the projected change of 3 to 7?F (1.5 - 4?C) over the next century would be unprecedented in comparison with the best available records from the last several thousand years.

 

I will publish a link to Dr. Wei-Chyung Wang's paper as soon as it is available. The ASRC is one of our tenants and Dr. Wang has been compiling data regarding global warming since 1989. He has shown some interesting data in lectures at our facility. http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/research/modeling.htm

I found the following piece of information, interesting:

20,000 scientists, of whom about 2,700 of them are physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers or environmental scientists, have signed the following statement:

What's your source? Exxon?

 

Here are a couple of quotes from NOAA:

Are greenhouse gases increasing?

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

 

Is the climate becoming more variable or extreme?

For the Northern Hemisphere summer temperature, recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000AD, and the warming since the late 19th century is unprecedented over the last 1000 years. Older data are insufficient to provide reliable hemispheric temperature estimates. Ice core data suggest that the 20th century has been warm in many parts of the globe, but also that the significance of the warming varies geographically, when viewed in the context of climate variations of the last millennium.

 

Large and rapid climatic changes affecting the atmospheric and oceanic circulation and temperature, and the hydrological cycle, occurred during the last ice age and during the transition towards the present Holocene period (which began about 10,000 years ago). Based on the incomplete evidence available, the projected change of 3 to 7?F (1.5 - 4?C) over the next century would be unprecedented in comparison with the best available records from the last several thousand years.

 

hmm, go back and re-read my post. Where did I say there is no Global Warming or that Greenhouse gases aren't increasing?!

 

In addition you choose to quote the piece that you feel support your point of view. Why didn't you quote this from the same NOAA page?

 

"On a global scale there is little evidence of sustained trends in climate variability or extremes."

 

Like I said, I'm on the side of caution on this and feel it is a real problem. But unlike you, I'm willing to hear both sides and refuse to take a chicken-little or doomsayer attitude.

Here's what the EPA has to say about global warming in the following areas:

 

Health: Throughout the world, the prevalence of some diseases and other threats to human health depend largely on local climate. Extreme temperatures can directly lead to loss of life, while climate-related disturbances in ecological systems, such as changes in the range of infective parasites, can indirectly impact the incidence of serious infectious diseases. In addition, warm temperatures can increase air and water pollution, which in turn harm human health.

Agriculture: Agriculture is highly sensitive to climate variability and weather extremes, such as droughts, floods and severe storms. The forces that shape our climate are also critical to farm productivity. Human activity has already changed atmospheric characteristics such as temperature, rainfall, levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and ground level ozone. The scientific community expects such trends to continue. While food production may benefit from a warmer climate, the increased potential for droughts, floods and heat waves will pose challenges for farmers. Additionally, the enduring changes in climate, water supply and soil moisture could make it less feasible to continue crop production in certain regions.

 

Storms and Flooding: Sea level rise also increases the vulnerability of coastal areas to flooding during storms for several reasons. First, a given storm surge from a hurricane or northeaster builds on top of a higher base of water. Considering only this effect, a Report to Congress by FEMA (1991) estimated that existing development in the US Coastal Zone would experience a 36-58 percent increase in annual damages for a 1-foot rise in sea level, and a 102-200 percent increase for a 3-foot rise. Shore erosion also increases vulnerability to storms, by removing the beaches and dunes that would otherwise protect coastal property from storm waves. (FEMA 2000.) Sea level rise also increases coastal flooding from rainstorms, because low areas drain more slowly as sea level rises.

 

And finally, some of the EPA's projected effects:

• Increase in heat-related deaths particularly among older adults and urban poor
  
• Increased heat stress in livestock and wildlife
  
• Increased risk of damage to some crops
  
• Increased cooling demand
  
• Decreased risk of damage to some crops and increased risk to others
  
• Increased range of some pests and diseases
  
• Increased flood, landslide, avalanche, and mudslide damage
  
• Increased soil erosion
  
• Increased flood runoff could recharge some floodplains
  
• Decreased water resource quantity and quality
  
• Increased risk of forest fire
  
• Increased risks to human life, risk of infectious disease epidemics and other risks
  
• Increased coastal erosion and damage to coastal buildings and infrastructure
  
• Increased damage to coastal ecosystems such as coral reefs and mangroves
  

On the flip side, penguino thinks it might cost too much money to invest in "greener" technology. Hmm... Do you think it will cost more to address the issue now or to pay the costs of all of these effects later? While I will grant you that Sheik Abdul al Sabah may have to reduce his limo fleet from 200 cars to 150 cars as a result, the millions of jobs created in sectors related to fuel cells, photovoltaics, and other "hippy" technologies would certainly be a boon to the lower and middle classes of America.

 

Then again, as a part-time scientific grant writer, what do I know about all that science hooey? I couldn?t possibly be expected to "entirely understand" a scientific journal and read it as critically as he clearly has. :mischief

 

In addition you choose to quote the piece that you feel support your point of view. Why didn't you quote this from the same NOAA page?

 

"On a global scale there is little evidence of sustained trends in climate variability or extremes."

Let me go ahead and complete the rest of that paragraph for ya:

This perhaps reflects inadequate data and a dearth of analyses. However, on regional scales, there is clear evidence of changes in variability or extremes.

There you go. All better.

In addition you choose to quote the piece that you feel support your point of view. Why didn't you quote this from the same NOAA page?

 

"On a global scale there is little evidence of sustained trends in climate variability or extremes."

Let me go ahead and complete the rest of that paragraph for ya:

This perhaps reflects inadequate data and a dearth of analyses. However, on regional scales, there is clear evidence of changes in variability or extremes.

There you go. All better.

 

as it relates to extremes and variability. --> REGIONAL. not Global! I'm begining to question your ability to interpret some of this data.

 

again, I'm someone who love the enviroment and is very concerned at how we are destroying our natural resources. But I will not support using erronous data or using data to mislead to push my agenda on others.

 

Here is the source website of the 20,000 signatures (if someone cares to read on what they are basing their statement) - Petition Project

Not saying they are correct. but it provides a different perspective.

 

In addition, here is an interesting chart of what computer models predicted on 1979 and what happen in reality

 

 

Global annual lower tropospheric temperatures as measured by satellite MSU between latitudes 83 N and 83 S (17, 18) plotted as deviations from the 1979 value. The trend line of these experimental measurements is compared with the corresponding trend line predicted by International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer climate models (14).

Climate Change is a big issue in the political, scientific, and economic realms.

 

But the above average temperatures for the Northeastern United States, along with the wet and cold winter for the South and West was warned to as part of the Southern Oscillation in the Pacific Ocean, more commonly known as the El Nino.

 

My biggest issue with the global warming alarmists is they alarm by attacking humans as the only cause without informing of other reasons and they ignore the mathematical pattern emerging between sunspots and the temperature changes on Earth. The idea is that something larger than the Milky Way could be affecting the sun and earth like the moon affects the tides in the oceans.

 

All is up for debate, but currently the Earth is warming and Carbon Dioxide (along with other Greenhouse Gases) are increasing. However remember that cows produce methane and that is as bad a Carbon Dioxide, but no one has suggested a mass killing of cattle.

 

As for the rising seas, that has yet to be seen. We fixed the hole in the Ozone Layer with the banning of CFC's in less than 30 years, this problem could as easily be fixed once we discover the true smoking gun.

 

Until then, I will resume my meteorological studies.

At one point scientists considered solar output as constant. Since then, it has been widely regarded that concept was untrue.

It is not solar output. It is the relationship between the number of sunspots and the climate changes on earth.

 

 

 

Kind of like using a barometer, measuring atmospheric pressure, to tell what the weather is/will be shortly.

 

Imagine if sunspots could be used to forecast climate changes? I see all the climatologists salivating at patterns like this. Makes their lives much easier.

 

Plus, remember all of these projections are based on computer models, which are not always the most accurate.

 

Remember, it is likely no one thing that is causing such a big change.

 

Here is NOAA's official Q&A: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Meteorologists, almost uniformily, have taken this (paraphrased) stance:

 

The Earth is warming. There may be a multitude of factors, we must explore them all, and attempt to mitigate damage. Then it is drawn from Biology that we can expect more green on the planet if it does indeed warm. We also know that plate tectonics shows an eventual change in our Earth's currents, both wind and ocean, which will change weather patterns as we know them.

 

Frankly, we should kick the fossil fuels off more for economics and national security than for environmental reasons.

 

I'd love the day we could instead of using tobacco to smoke and get lung cancer, we could use it as a new fuel for our vehicles. I'm sure it can be developed into an ethanol. The President has announced he wants 20% cut in 10 years....grasses and other plants will have to join corn in becoming ethanol.

 

This should be exciting if anything else.

 

BTW, a quick look over the alternative gas-ethanol mixes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasohol

 

I know my car runs E10. I know....only 10% ethanol vs. 90% gasoline....but at least that is something. Most of your cars do as well...if not more than 10%.

A factual satire on Global Warming in Politics from the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...07/04/ixop.html

I have yet to see a single inch of snow in the middle of what is typically considered a harsh climate in the Balkans. Colorado on the other hand is getting an obscene amount of snow though which is unusual.

I have yet to see a single inch of snow in the middle of what is typically considered a harsh climate in the Balkans. Colorado on the other hand is getting an obscene amount of snow though which is unusual.

I know everyone is tired of hearing it, but an El Nino, like we have currently...although it may be waning, changes climate globally.

 

That is why the 2006 Hurricane Season did not show up for the Atlantic whilst the Pacific got a beating.

I have yet to see a single inch of snow in the middle of what is typically considered a harsh climate in the Balkans. Colorado on the other hand is getting an obscene amount of snow though which is unusual.

I know everyone is tired of hearing it, but an El Nino, like we have currently...although it may be waning, changes climate globally.

 

That is why the 2006 Hurricane Season did not show up for the Atlantic whilst the Pacific got a beating.

 

Last year, they said that this year's hurricane season was going to be the worst ever for the Atlantic. Now that it didn't come, its because of El Nino. It would have been nice for metereologists to say: because of the El Nino phenomenom, we will have very few storms in the Atlantic and the Pacific will get pounded.

 

Its easy to say what already happened. Tell us what will happen. Its what you're paid for.

Well, I've just heard that solar output can fluctuate the Earth's temperature by a magnitude of one degree Celsius in either direction. Whether, that is all sunspots, I don't know.

 

Another issue is energy being relected by the Earth's surface. Snow has a lot to do with this. If there is a decrease of the amount of snow due to El Nino, then there would likely be an increase in absorption.

 

There are just so many damn variables that I refuse to buy into these scare tactics. Nothing I've read since this became a major issue has convinced me otherwise.

I agree 100%. The entire thing has become political theater; unsurprisingly, the most prominent proponent of GW hysteria is a former politician. The warm winter on the East Coast has just added fuel to the fire. Not to say this winter is, anecdotally, unprecedented:

 

"The official Washington temperature climbed to 76 degrees yesterday to tie the all-time January maximum temperature," the Washington Post reported on January 15, 1932. "Flowers have never ceased to bloom in the capital this year, coaxed out by the succeeding days of warm weather...frogs are croaking in the reservoir...just like they do in the summer."

full article

 

And on the subject of petitions, this petition to the Canadian prime minister and other officials is the view I'd say I subscribe to with regard to global warming. The credentials of the petition signers are pretty impressive, for what it's worth. Here's the "money quote":

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system.

full text

 

There are many issues in climate science to be addressed before making decisions on policy. Irresponsible reporting by people who are probably not well-informed on the science has led to a perception that we could wake up any day and find the oceans are 20 feet higher or that Cat 5 hurricanes will be dime-a-dozen events. Understand that Kyoto is an absolute non-starter. It's expensive, ineffective (even if fully implemented and followed, it would slow warming by about 0.14C in the next 50 years), and many European countries are going to miss their targets anyway. If CO2 emission is truly a serious problem, it won't be the government who ultimately fixes said problem. Inventors left and right will be lining up to try to come up with new energy sources--as they are starting to do anyway because of uncertainty about future oil prices. Why try to use government policy as a global thermostat, when (with or without the presence of catastrophic global warming) there is plenty of incentive to come up with new ways to produce electricity and power vehicles already?

Uh, did you forget about the warm winter from LAST year?

Anyone in the north east, go outside right now and tell me that there's global warming. :cool

Anyone in the north east, go outside right now and tell me that there's global warming. :cool

you know better then that swifty

Last year, they said that this year's hurricane season was going to be the worst ever for the Atlantic. Now that it didn't come, its because of El Nino. It would have been nice for metereologists to say: because of the El Nino phenomenom, we will have very few storms in the Atlantic and the Pacific will get pounded.

 

Its easy to say what already happened. Tell us what will happen. Its what you're paid for.

 

The ENSO developed quickly and derailed Atlantic development by creating largely shear-friendly conditions.

 

Unlike other weather phenomena, ENSO is a relatively new thing that has been forecasted and tracked. It started back in the 80's after a crazy winter for California.

 

As for the last comment, I think that is rude. Just because meteorologists en mass don't agree with Human-Caused Global Warming like you want them to doesn't mean you get to demean their work.

Last year, they said that this year's hurricane season was going to be the worst ever for the Atlantic. Now that it didn't come, its because of El Nino. It would have been nice for metereologists to say: because of the El Nino phenomenom, we will have very few storms in the Atlantic and the Pacific will get pounded.

 

Its easy to say what already happened. Tell us what will happen. Its what you're paid for.

 

The ENSO developed quickly and derailed Atlantic development by creating largely shear-friendly conditions.

 

Unlike other weather phenomena, ENSO is a relatively new thing that has been forecasted and tracked. It started back in the 80's after a crazy winter for California.

 

As for the last comment, I think that is rude. Just because meteorologists en mass don't agree with Human-Caused Global Warming like you want them to doesn't mean you get to demean their work.

 

I wasn't commenting on global warming, just on the fact that the predictions are usually very broad and inaccurate. I agree though, its a tough science and I shouldn't demean it. Sorry. Thanks for the explanation.

I absolutely love when people laugh at global warming because its cold.

 

 

Being warm in and of itself is not global warming. What I find funny is that now all of a sudden, with the shroud of secrecy removed, people in Washington are admitting again that there might just be something to this idea of Global Warming. The same thing the Bush regime has denied even existed for years.

Here is what is funny as well.

 

 

This whole 'official' stance being taken reeks many similarities to the same issue with toxic wastes in this nation. It wasnt until after it became a great health issue largely that we even gave a damn. As a result it has cost us billions upon billions of dollars to attempt to rectify.

 

But let's go ahead and make the same mistake again.

 

Let's not err on the side of caution and take steps now to correct any potential problem and just wait it out until it might become a problem in the future.

 

Sometimes we are so damn smart and wise. Then again, with all the money Bush has spent on Iraq, he really doesnt have anymore he can create for any really worthwhile programs.

And I'm sure yankee fan was present at one of those rallies. :mischief

Hee hee ha ha ha.

 

Global Warming Man-Made, Will Continue

 

Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.

 

A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."

Read the rest at the Source.

 

But I'm sure Penn and Teller [shock showmen] know better than hundreds of scientists and have less of an agenda...

 

[hugz]

My background in science is not that well rounded, but the problem I see is that scientific discoveries and scientific truths such as the world being round are not to be proven simply by consensus or large group of scientists believing it. When it was found that the world revolves around the sun and not the other way around, it was a minority that had that scientific belief. I dont know if global warming exists or not, or whether its caused by humans. (example: the extreme heat of the early middle ages comes to mind as a good argument for the climatic pattern theory) So the point is, it isnt about if more scientists think its happening then it has to be true, or if less think its happenign it isnt true. There may be one scientist somewhere with a different theory than everyone else, and his might end up being correct.

I dont know if global warming exists or not, or whether its caused by humans. (example: the extreme heat of the early middle ages comes to mind as a good argument for the climatic pattern theory) So the point is, it isnt about if more scientists think its happening then it has to be true, or if less think its happenign it isnt true.

 

Like your geocentrism vs. heliocentrism example, advancements in measuring techniques and a preponderance of evidence is what ultimately wins out. This article has nothing to do with the sheer number of scientists who believe global warming exists and that it is man made. This article is referencing the most comprehensive and global research endeavor ever undertaken on the question as to whether global warming exists and whether or not it is man-made. New research tools were used, new measuring techniques were used, new theories were challenged, and the largest collection of data on the subject ever was collected. When all was said and done, 100% of the scientists involved had to agree on each point.

 

Think about that. Even scientists who thought that maybe global warming didn?t exist or that maybe man didn?t have much influence on global warming agreed in the end that it does exist and that it is “very likely� [a term used to express 90% to 99% certainty] to be man-made. We can?t get 100% of the members of this board to agree that Jessica Alba is hot, but they were able to get 100% of the scientists to agree that global warming is a problem being caused by man. That is a major statement when there is not one dissenting opinion.

 

And in other news:

A right-wing American think tank is offering 10,000 dollars (7,700 euros) to scientists and economists[?] to dispute a climate change report set to be released by the UN's top scientific panel, media reported.

 

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which receives funding from oil giant ExxonMobil according to the Guardian, sent letters to scientists in the United States, Britain and elsewhere offering the payments in exchange for articles emphasising the shortcoming of the UN's report.

 

AEI also reportedly offered additional payments, and to reimburse travel expenses.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070202/pl_af...ny_070202142458

 

So, here's your chance to support big oil and get a fat check to the tune of $10,000 plus expenses... Gee - I wonder where all the misinformation and "confusion" surrounding global warming comes from.

So Al Gore doesn't have an agenda? People seem to have no issues listening to him. I've also been saying all along here is that you can't expect some of those scientists in academia to be politically neutral.

 

And that article is no less alarmist fodder than anything else that has been making headlines as of late. The wording of the article was also mildly amusing (as was the manner the author stretched key points).

 

 

I would love to read that whopping 21 page (gasp) report. I don't find second hand articles to be the least bit convincing.

 

So what if Al Gore has an agenda? Are you going to deny the existence of a problem, ignore years of hard data, just because you do not agree with Al Gore's political stance?

So Al Gore doesn't have an agenda? People seem to have no issues listening to him. I've also been saying all along here is that you can't expect some of those scientists in academia to be politically neutral.

 

And that article is no less alarmist fodder than anything else that has been making headlines as of late. The wording of the article was also mildly amusing (as was the manner the author stretched key points).

 

 

I would love to read that whopping 21 page (gasp) report. I don't find second hand articles to be the least bit convincing.

 

So what if Al Gore has an agenda? Are you going to deny the existence of a problem, ignore years of hard data, just because you do not agree with Al Gore's political stance?

 

 

Penguino was responding to the 10,000 dollar offer by oil companies alleged in Guardian. So your argument goes both ways. I also wanted to add that science is not a civil trial, it is not about preponderance of the evidence, its about whats right or wrong, whats happening and what isnt happening. Now, governmental policy can be influenced by a mere preponderance of the evidence, but that alone is not enough to determine if it actually is or isnt happening.