The climate sceptics
Media reports repeatedly focus on sceptics.
Some of them do not believe in climate
change,others attribute it to natural causes,
and others consider it harmless or even
favourable.How seriously should we take
these theories?
Stefan Rahmstorf

Many aspects of the climate system are still insufficiently
understood and are the subject of ongoing research and
scientific discussion.One example is the mechanism of
abrupt climate changes that have occurred repeatedly in
earth ’s history,and the causes of which are still being
debated >Rahmstorf "Abrupt climate change ",p.70 .
On the other hand,some important core findings of
climate research have been so well confirmed in recent
decades that they are generally accepted as facts by
climate researchers.These core findings include the
following:

1 The atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen strongly
since about 1850,from 280 ppm (a value typical for
warm periods during at least the past 400,000 years)to
380 ppm.
2 This rise is caused by humans and is primarily due to
the burning of fossil fuels,with a smaller contribution
due to deforestation.
by the German,Austrian,and Swiss meteorological soci-
eties),the scientific Advisory Council on Global Change
(WBGU)set up by the German government,and others.
All of these bodies have again and again arrived at the
same key conclusions.

Anyone relying on the media for information,however,
could get a completely different impression:namely that
the above core conclusions of the scientific community
are still disputed or regularly called into question by new
studies.This is mainly due to the untiring PR activities
of a small,but vocal mixed bag of climate sceptics (or
"contrarians ")who vehemently deny the need for climate-
protection measures.

The various climate sceptics hold very different positions.
We can distinguish trend sceptics (who deny there is
global warming),the attribution sceptics (who accept the
global warming trend but see natural causes for this),and
the impact sceptics (who think global warming is harm-
less or even beneficial).

[[[[[[[snip]]]]]]]

I don't think these beliefs are unique to the USA in the 21st century, but they have been an underlying mantra during my lifetime.

Eric, it is a safe mantra to have and to hold on to. Its like a paradigm or separate realities existing all at once.

I use to think that all the pollution would just fall away from the earth as it orbited and spun around the sun...but at last my ignorance was proven incorrect...again. Its an eye opener what and where we have arrived. As an optimist, I still believe there is a good window of opportunity to change things so health and life can improve. I need to believe, I have kids and I hope there are many generations of family to follow.

I have heard and seen bumper stickers that say Alaska welcomes global warming, or that Maine could use more than 2 weeks of summer- bring global warming on. I smile at first and then feel my heart sink, wondering where all this will lead to. So, lets hope there is more enlightenment out there!

Resistance is futile. All WILL be assimilated!

LONDON (AP) -- The U.S. National Academy of Sciences joined similar groups from other nations Tuesday in a call for prompt action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, warning that delays will be costly.

The statement was released as British Prime Minister Tony Blair was meeting with President Bush in Washington.

Blair has made action on climate change a priority for the July G-8 summit. Bush opposes the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and his administration questions scientists' views that man-made pollutants are causing temperatures to rise.

Lord May, president of Britain's Royal Society, said in releasing the statement that Bush's policy on climate change was "misguided'' and ignored scientific evidence.

The statement called on G-8 countries to "identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reductions in net global greenhouse gas emissions.''

It urged the G-8 nations to "recognize that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.''

Besides the U.S. and British academies, the statement was published by those in France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada, along with ones in Brazil, China and India.

"It is clear that world leaders, including the G-8, can no longer use uncertainty about aspects of climate change as an excuse for not taking urgent action to cut greenhouse gas emissions,'' Lord May said.

He noted the statement was endorsed by scientists in Brazil, China and India -- nations "who are among the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world.''

"The Bush administration has consistently refused to accept the advice of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The NAS concluded in 1992 that, 'Despite the great uncertainties, greenhouse warming is a potential threat sufficient to justify action now,' by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases,'' May said.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit society of scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research.

"Getting the U.S. on board is critical because of the sheer amount of greenhouse gas emissions they are responsible for,'' May said.

He said the Royal Society had calculated that the 13 percent rise in greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. between 1990 and 2002 was bigger than the overall cut achieved if all the other parties to the Kyoto Protocol reach their targets.

The statement signed by the academies said evidence of global warming included "direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems.''

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which went into effect without United States support, targets carbon dioxide and five other gases that can trap heat in the atmosphere and are believed to be behind rising global temperatures that many scientists say are disrupting weather patterns.

The Bush administration opposes the treaty because officials believe it would raise energy prices and cost 5 million U.S. jobs.

The statement urged G-8 leaders and others to:

Acknowledge the threat of climate change is "clear and increasing.''
Launch an international study to help set emission targets to avoid unacceptable impacts.
Identify cost-effective steps to take now to contribute to "substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.''
Work with developing nations to build there scientific and technological capacity.
Take a lead in developing and deploying clean energy technologies.
Mobilize the science and technology community to enhance research and development

See Comment #6 for link to the editorial (otherwise requiring subscription.)

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

22 Jun 2005
The Wall Street Journal vs. The Scientific Consensus

We are disappointed that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has chosen to yet again distort the science behind human-caused climate change and global warming in their recent editorial "Kyoto By Degrees" (6/21/05) (subscription required).

Last week, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and 10 other leading world bodies expressed the consensus view that "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring" and that "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities". And just last week, USA Today editorialized that "not only is the science in, it is also overwhelming".

It is puzzling then that the WSJ editors could claim that "the scientific case....looks weaker all the time".

While we resist commenting on policy matters (e.g. the relative merits of the Kyoto Protocol or the various bills before the US Senate), we will staunchly defend the science against distortions and misrepresentations, be they intentional or not. In this spirit, we respond here to the scientifically inaccurate or incorrect assertions made in the editorial

Build our own biospheres and hope the sun shines when it should (:), grow organicly and selfsustain as much as possible or Know your grower by his first name-

And yes, I see first hand with people I meet how food effects ones health. Its very concerning.

Next on NOVA: "NOVA scienceNOW"

http://www.pbs.org/nova/sciencenow/

Broadcast: July 26, 2005
(NOVA airs Tuesdays on PBS at 8 p.m. Check your local listings as dates and times may vary.)

On the next NOVA, join news correspondent Robert Krulwich for the third episode in NOVA's new magazine series, airing five times a year. Among the topics Krulwich will cover are the latest in fuel cell technology and a major breakthrough in gene therapy. Get ready for another original, unpredictable, and entertaining hour of science exploration. This episode's segments include:

Fuel cells
Hydrogen fuel cell cars promise pollution-free driving, but will
we see them anytime soon?

RNAi
A wayward petunia leads to the discovery of a modest little
molecule with enormous medical promise.

Fastest Glacier
A glacier moving way too fast reveals how unpredictable the
effects of global warming can be.

Profile: Brothers Chudnovsky
The story of two brilliant mathematicians, a unicorn, and a
homemade supercomputer

The journey continues on the new NOVA scienceNOW Web site 365 days a year. Watch the hour-long episode again, look under the hood of a fuel cell car and see what makes it go, e-mail scientists from the broadcast with your questions, find out what big science story Robert Krulwich is thinking a lot about, and much more.

http://www.pbs.org/nova/sciencenow/

Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates
By Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 11 August 2005
02:01 pm ET

For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.

While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data.
"But most people had to conclude, based on the fact that there were both satellite and balloon observations, that it really wasn't warming up," said Steven Sherwood, a geologists at Yale University and lead author of one of the studies.

Oops!

Sherwood examined weather balloons known as radiosondes, which are capable of making direct measurements of atmospheric temperatures.

For the past 40 years, radiosonde temperature data have been collected from around the world twice each day, once during the day and once at night.

But while nighttime radiosonde measurements were consistent with climate models and theories showing a general warming trend, daytime measurements actually showed the atmosphere to be cooling since the 1970's.

Sherwood explains these discrepancies by pointing out that the older radiosonde instruments used in the 1970's were not as well shielded from sunlight as more recent models. What this means as that older radiosondes showed warmer temperature readings during the day because they were warmed by sunlight.

"It's like being outside on a hot day—it feels hotter when you are standing in the direct sun than when you are standing in the shade," Sherwood said.

Nowadays, radiosondes are better insulated against the effects of sunlight, but if analyzed together with the old data—which showed temperatures that were actually warmer than they really were—the overall effect looked like the troposphere was cooling.

The discrepancy between surface and atmospheric measurements has been used by for years by skeptics who dispute claims of global warming.

"Now we're learning that the disconnect is more apparent than real," said Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and a lead author of another of the studies.

Argument evaporates

According to Santer, the only group to previously analyze satellite data on the troposphere -- the lowest layer in Earth's atmosphere -- was a research team headed by Roy Spencer from University of Alabama in 1992.

"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more accurate."

The Alabama researchers introduced a correction factor to account for drifting in the satellites used to sample Earth's daily temperature cycles.

But in another Science paper published today, Carl Mears and Rank Wentz, scientists at the California-based Remote Sensing Systems, examined the same data and identified an error in Spencer's analysis technique.

After correcting for the mistake, the researchers obtained fundamentally different results: whereas Spencer's analysis showed a cooling of the Earth's troposphere, the new analysis revealed a warming.

Using the analysis from Mears and Wentz, Santer showed that the new data was consistent with climate models and theories.

"When people come up with extraordinary claims -- like the troposphere is cooling -- then you demand extraordinary proof," Santer said. "What's happening now is that people around the world are subjecting these data sets to the scrutiny they need."

These new research and review papers are coming up at the same time as a flurry of editorials and "scientific reports" from the deniers are appearing in major newspapers, magazines, etc.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- Anyone doubting the effects of human activity on global climate change should talk to the people it affects in Alaska and the Yukon, U.S. Sen. John McCain said Wednesday.

Fresh from a trip to Barrow, America's northernmost city, McCain said anecdotes from Alaskans and residents of the Yukon Territory confirm scientific evidence of global warming.

"We are convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicated that climate change is taking place and human activities play a very large role,'' McCain said.

McCain, accompanied by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., spoke to villagers in Canada whose spruce trees are being attacked by the northward spread of spruce beetles. On Alaska's northern coast, they met Native Alaskans dealing with melting permafrost and coastal erosion.

"I don't think there is any doubt left for anyone who actually looks at the science,'' Clinton said. "There are still some holdouts, but they are fighting a losing battle. The science is overwhelming, but what is deeply concerning is that climate change is accelerating.''

Graham, who declared himself "on the fence'' about climate change legislation, said an academic debate about global warming is different in the North.

"If you can go to the Native people and listen to their stories and walk away with any doubt that something's going on, I just think you're not listening,'' he said.

McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., are sponsoring legislation that would limit greenhouse gas emissions from utilities and industry. The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would cap U.S. emission levels at levels recorded in 2000.

Opponents of the legislation, including Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, attribute warming to cyclical geophysical forces.

McCain said the trip has been valuable for the accumulation of evidence that can be used to push the bill. Ultimately, he said, Americans will demand laws to decrease emissions, just as they demanded campaign financing reform.

"It's coming up from the bottom,'' he said. "It's the special interests vs. the people's interests and I still have enough confidence in our system of government that the people's interest will ultimately prevail.''

Collins said the senators were approached by Alaska guides who thanked them for taking time to look at how climate change affects Alaska. They echoed what indigenous people in Canada told the senators.

"I don't think anyone who has talked to these individuals as well as the scientists would have any doubt that this is a real and growing problem,'' she said.

McCain said his bill continues to face opposition from industry, but that may change from businesses that operate overseas.

"They have to do business in Europe, and thereby comply with the requirements for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,'' he said. "You will see more and more international corporations going in that direction because they have to.''

Graham couched the argument for climate change, as well as another major Alaska issue, petroleum drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as a national security measure. Continued dependence on foreign fossil fuels makes America vulnerable, he said.

"The sooner we get started with alternative energy sources and recognize that fossil fuels makes us less secure as a nation, and more dangerous as a planet, the better off we'll be,'' Graham said.

Opponents who ignore evidence of humans contributing to climate change, Clinton said, are participating in a trend of turning Washington, D.C. into what she calls an "evidence-free zone.''

"You just keep saying something no matter how untrue and unfactual it might be, over and over and over again, and try to drive the politics to meet your ideological or commercial agenda,'' she said. "That is a grave disservice to our country.''

The senators planned to travel to Seward later Wednesday.

If the current warming trends continue in the Arctic, the region may have ice-free summers within 100 years, a new report concludes.

The Arctic hasn't been without ice for a million years. But documented melting is accelerating and scientists don't know of any natural way to slow it.

Scientists expect 2005 to be the warmest year on record, globally.

"What really makes the Arctic different from the rest of the non-polar world is the permanent ice in the ground, in the ocean, and on land," said Jonathan Overpeck, chair of the National Science Foundation's Arctic System Science Committee. "We see all of that ice melting already, and we envision that it will melt back much more dramatically in the future, as we move towards this more permanent ice-free state."

The melting of Arctic glaciers and ice sheets is bad news for the various animals – polar bears, seals, walruses, and orca whales to name a few – that call this region their home. As these animals are affected, so will be the native tribes that still live in the area and hunt these animals.

But the effects will reach much farther than that – the melted ice will cause sea levels to rise worldwide, flooding the coastal areas where many of the world's people live. Melting ice has already drastically impacted the indigenous people and animals of parts of Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Russia, and Scandinavia.

And melting ice isn't the only problem.

Overpeck echoed other scientists in warning that permafrost – the permanently frozen layer of soil under most of the Arctic landmass – could also melt and maybe disappear altogether in some areas. This thawing could release more greenhouse gases – trapped in the permafrost for thousands of years – which would add to the warming problem.

Other studies have shown the permafrost is already dwindling in many Northern Hemisphere locations.

The new report concludes that several environmental factors could coalesce to lead to this no-ice condition. Interactions between sea and land ice, North Atlantic Ocean circulation, and precipitation and evaporation in the region create a dangerous cycle of warming conditions.

For example, the white surface of the sea ice reflects radiation from the Sun, which melts the ice. With less ice to reflect radiation, the dark ocean absorbs more and warms up, which causes more ice to melt.

The report was the result of a weeklong meeting of climate experts and other scientists.

"I think probably the biggest surprise of the meeting was that no one could envision any interaction between the components that would act naturally to stop the trajectory to the new system," said Overpeck.

Scientists have identified a feedback loop that could slow the changes, but they do not know of any way to put a halt to the melting ice.

This report is is published today in in Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American
Geophysical Union.

Since we can't stop it, we might as well speculate.

Ryan

What we are likely to see is increased rainfall and humidity, but very dry hot droughts in the summer, which is going to take a toll on farming. While growing grapes in England sounds nice, more practical crops like potatoes, of which we consume in vast amounts right now, would become more difficult to grow. The higher average temperatures and humidity will also bring an increase of bacteria/pathogens with them. It's allready known that the climate does block a number of virus from spreading in to parts of the world. Raising the temperature and humidity will open up these areas. Various fungi which damage plants and crops will increase in activity as well. A number of pests, from flys to locust are allready becomming active earlier in the season, which raises further health concerns as well as increasing the potential damage to crops.

The other problem is that as environments change, the existing plants and animals must adapt or migrate. Many can and will, but a good number are likely to struggle with the changes. The environment is a highly inter-linked network, knocking out just a few species, particuarly simpler ones lower down the food chain, can have massive effects.

Also, climate change is likely to increase our energy needs. Hotter summers will mean more air conditioners and the existing ones will use more energy, just as colder winters will require more heating. As the areas where crops are grown start to move, markets are unlikely to move with them and this means more energy being used for transport.

Unfortunatly, global warming causes changes that cause more global warming. It's quite possible that we have started an effect which we cannot stop, not even if we stopped all human related greenhouse gas emissions right now. If this is true, we can only guess where the temperature will finally settle. It could be anything from a few degrees warmer than today, to turning much of the planet in a to a desert. While extreme, I see no reason why it's any more likely or unlikely than any other possibility.

The Snowball Effect of Global Warming
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor
posted: 06 September 2005
09:46 am ET

In a twist to the proverbial snowball effect, warmer Arctic temperatures are stimulating plant growth, which darkens the landscape and causes more sunlight to be absorbed rather than reflected.

The result: Winter heating could increase by 70 percent, according to a new study.

The study examined western Alaska during the winters of 2000 through 2002. Shrubs and other vegetation became more abundant, the researchers found. Because the plants are darker than the tundra that typically covers the region, the surface gets darker. The study "presents the first evidence that shrub growth could alter the winter energy balance of the Arctic and subarctic tundra in a substantial way," the scientists announced today.

The study will be detailed Sept. 7 in the first issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences, published by the American Geophysical Union.

In areas where shrubs were exposed in mid-winter, melting began several weeks earlier in the spring compared to snow-covered terrain. Yet the shrubs' branches produced shade that slowed the rate of melting, so that the snow melt finished at approximately the same time for all the sites examined.

Matthew Sturm, leader of the study, said warming in the region seems to have stimulated shrub growth, which further
warms the area and creates a feedback effect that can promote higher temperatures and even more growth. This feedback could, in turn, accelerate increases in the shrubs' range and size, he said.

The Alaskan tundra covers some 1.5 million square miles (4 million square kilometers).

"Basically, if tundra is converted to shrubland, more solar energy will be absorbed in the winter than before," Sturm said. And while previous research has shown that warmer temperatures during the Arctic summer enhance shrub growth, "our study is important because it suggests that the winter processes could also contribute to and amplify the rate of the [growth]."

Elsewhere I posted an abstract of research on the forest growth under elevated co2. The authors concluded that the much heralded flush of growth expected to accompany increased atmospheric co2 will not occur, at least in the northern forest of Europe. Higher respiration means greater co2 release from the trees.

However, as the varied predictions show, we don't fully understand the climate or what things control it. There's obviously a lot of factors and controls, we have no idea what will happen globally in response to all this extra carbon. Short term things will get hotter. Long term, who knows. Really, it's a big step out in to the unknown. Some people say hotter, others say cooler, or that the planet will become a desert or artic. I'm thinking it will be much like it currently is, we will have a bit of everything, just it will be rather altered and re-organized. It seems extremely unlikely that the climate will become one homogenous thing, as far as I know it's allways varied.

I don't think we have all that much time to figure it out. At any rate, we don't know how much time we have, so we should assume we don't have it in excess. Previous climate changes have been quite fast and radical, and we have not figured out what caused them yet. The climate is like a giant computer, it combines factors to create an outcome. Various things like more CO2, less plants, rising humidity, etc. cause more effects which in turn cause more. If we could identify the way it works we could predict exactly where it is going. Perhaps controls we're not aware of will halt the climate change, or perhaps it will start to speed itself up. Before now, unknown factors have pushed it to extremes. I'm guessing it has a certain level of tollerance for change, explaining why most the time global temperatures vary within a fairly narrow spectrum, and all that is happening is various controls are correcting and ajusting against each other. But, I'm guessing it has limits and if certain things happen it will go to extremes. No doubt, if we had a fully working climate model to play with (preferably not the one we live in!) we could calculate exactly what PPM of CO2 is needed to make the climate unstable.

Regards to all,

Shax

Are you still drought-inflicted?

Technically still in drought, but some decent rainfall over most of the country in the last couple of months...personally, I have about 6000 gallons in my tanks now and the local countryside is as lush as I've ever seen it. (And my vege patch/orchard is booming coming into Spring). But a hot Summer could undo all that....

Regards,

Shax

Regards,

Shax

I'll take hard data where I can find it. It'll be interesting to watch if the UK winter is really that bad. And the US, as well.

And I'll take any refutation of the measurements that are listed. Are the majority of glaciers thinning, thickening, or what? And is there a 150,000 year cycle to ice ages?

Fair and Balanced means listening to all sides of an issue. Pointing out that 'most agree, here's why' can be part of the argument. And should be. But to dismiss a viewpoint and CENSOR it because you don't agree with it, HMMMMMM, sounds close minded to me.

An example: most would agree anorexia is a bad thing. Some people beleive it's a good thing. Just listening to theose who think it's good shouldn't be discouraged, pointing out the medical and scientific reasons why they are wrong is much more honest. And we just could learn SOMETHING from the person with an opposing view, even if they are wrong. Say, how does one come to believe such a thing? Probably, because they are closed minded.

The only real argument to silence a position is to not waiste precious time on a settled issue, like the existence of what we call gravity. But something like global warming as being dangerous is NOT proven, by measurement or other hard data. Or that we can somehow affect it, if it is happening.

SHAX, I'll be reading the information you are providing. A QUICK glance at the information (Summary) makes me wonder already: a lot of 'suggests', an admission that the 1990s were 'likely' the warmest in a thousand years (oh, so long before man's industrial revolution it may have been WARMER a thousand years ago? Then, why the fuss over today?), the whole document meant to be a 'policy affecting' document. And, of course, what I like to call the 'political shuffle': lots of fancy names of organizations, lots of acronyms, lots of 'projections'.
I'll comb through it looking for real data. Is it so hard to say 'the temps in US were on average... years ago, as compared to today which is...', then start giving reasons, THEN projections?

Look, I'll state my CURRENT position flatly: the world is too complicated for man to have appreciably affected the global weather patterns. Seeing within the last thousand years or so an estimation that the world may have actually been hotter than now at some period, tends to support that idea. Like others who think a bug (like bird flu?) will mutate to cause man's destruction, or another 'Black Plague', I think natural processes will affect the atmosphere more than we can, and will be the dominate forces.

But I could be wrong. Certainly, localized pollution affects people and the environment directly. But I've already seen gloom and doom projections not materialize. Am the only one who remembers the environuts declaring Saddam's oil field fires would bring global havoc? I'm sure there were short term effects, but the world went on.

Yet all hail global warming, our destructress on the horizon... (destructress, just sounds good...)

Thicker glaciers... http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

We are discussing climate. Learn the difference.

Whether or not humans have any role in forcing climate change is beside the point.

just a few...I've got to go...

Fox News displays a green side
*With the help of Laura David, the top-rated news network will air a special report on global warming.
by Matea Gold, Times Staff Writer

NEW YORK—It's no surprise that environmental activists Laurie David and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are involved in a new documentary about global warming airing this Sunday. But the fact that the special was produced by Fox News is more unexpected.

The top-rated cable news channel has long rejected its reputation for having a conservative slant. Nevertheless, the network's involvement in the special has pleased environmentalists and piqued some conservatives, who have lobbed an unusual criticism of the network: that its program only offers a liberal viewpoint on the issue.

"The Heat Is On: The Case of Global Warming," which airs on Fox News Sunday at 5 and 8 p.m., is devoted to assessing the effect humans have had on the environment. Hosted by anchor Rick Folbaum, the one-hour show, which includes interviews with top scientists about evidence of climate change, offers practical tips on how to conserve energy and features a trip David and Kennedy took to Montana's Glacier National Park.

Bill Shine, the network's senior vice president for programming, said Fox decided to do the special because global warming is a significant news story.

[[[snip]]]

Randy, not to pile on, but those arguments have been debated and refuted so many times on this forum that we are all weary and ready to move on. Like so much on this forum it seems, we never seem to reach any sort of meeting of the minds. Its just having the same arguments. Sadly, that's probably why the forum is so quiet these days.

"Fair & Balanced" means precisely nothing, these days.....

further to your question about climate scenarios for Australia...attached article in today's Sydney Morning Herald.
(Apologies to Randy for use of words like "predicted" and "probable", but we won't really know until it's happened, will we?).

Regards,

Shax

Shaxhome, thanks for the link. You Aussies will be in for it, as we say here. In contrast in this coastal Mediterrean climate zone, we are having long stretches of cool overcast weather during a Fall season normally known for the clearest and hottest days. My "winter" tomato planting failed owing to the onslaught of diseases accompanying the lousy weather.

& I watched some of the 1st half & all of the 2nd half of it. Althea.It was exceptionally good for a FOX production, tho they DID make sure to add their disclaimers @ almost every opportunity (@ commercial breaks & @ the end)Profiles of Kennedy, & Laurie David's site were in that 2nd 1/2.it was repeated @ 11 p.m., according to the schedule.

Marshall, was it @ a different time in your zone? Like maybe 5 p.m.?It was @ 8 p.m. EST here.

I'm guessing it wil not be re-aired, but you never know.....

I watched a special on the mini Ice Age (1400s-1800s)on the History Channel last week. This phenomenon of a weaker gulf current was part of this period.

What's causing me to be disturbed in the 'pro global warming' argument is that no matter WHAT happens, it's because of global warming, CAUSED BY MAN. The natural cycles that hurricanes follow, that even ice ages and warming periods follow, are dismissed because of man's interaction with the globe. Maybe because of our LIVING, in a modern world that sustains over 6 billion people, as compared to around 1 billion a century ago, we are having effects. My question (for SHOCK VALUE!) is, what 5 billion do we get rid of to return to yesteryears balance?

The truth is, the slowing of the conveyor belt will start cooling in Europe. This is not theory: the historical record backs this up. This trend is indicative of the start of an ice age, mini or otherwise, although I read that "Global Warming" will more than offset any changes.

My question is, if Europe is overall cooler, and if the US becomes overall cooler, and if, as claimed at IceAgeNow glaciers are OVERALL growing, how do we determine if the globe is warming overall?

Are the world's glaciers growing overall or not? I haven't seen anything that was a direct answer to this.

The conveyor belt is slowing. According to the mini ice age show, this, accompanied by a loss of solar radiation, caused the mini ice age.

I'm not a climatologist. I just see a lot of changes happening, and the only thing I read as an answer to problems would cripple the US economy, as I understand it. Even at a time when China, India, Pakistan and other nations keep growing and growing, ignoring all talks of slowing growth.

It's the reason I think the global warming movement, requiring the west to cripple itself while other nations are left unfettered, is a political movement, not a scientific movement.

When people start protesting Red China, and India, etc., etc., I won't be as suspicious.

And while science and scientists are much more evolved than their 1850s counterparts, consensus by majority could still be wrong.

I will go back and read what has been posted more. Please post other information when you come across it.

And KT, you say everything that I have posted has been refuted here, that it is tiresome. I ask straightforwrdly again: are the world's glaciers growing overall or not?

And, does te gulf stream slowing cool Europe, particularly the UK, or not?

We're having a draught in Texas right now. Last year was one of the wettest on record, this year, it's one of the driest. Temps were warmer than normal, now, they are cooler than normal, although it flunctuates from day to day, week to week.

Anyway, we won't agree probably. But I would appreciate other information when you come across it.

The other information that has been posted on occasion is the effect this melting of glaciers and release of freshwater has on the conveyer belt. It disrupts the movement of water between heat zones which can diminish or effectively halt the transfer of warmth to the northern latitudes and UK.

I saw the special on the Mini Ice Age too. It was well done particularly in bringing up the effects on human settlement, shifting agriculture, disease, etc. The accounts of snow in New England in July during the seventeenth century was amazing. I thought it was interesting that the changes in British Isle climate were to eliminate the cultivation of wine in favor of cereals and hops - why the Brits made beer and whiskey instead of chardonay.

I agree with you (as do several here on this forum) that it is not clear exactly how all these human and natural factors are interacting to effect climate. I don't think we know for certain what is causing global warming and the role of humans. But Randy the economic effects of Kyoto Treaty have nothing to do with whether the argument for global warming has merit. I too am unsure about whether Kyoto would be fair or effective but think we have to do something to decrease our production of greenhouse gases. And Randy, we are the biggest consumers of the worlds resources and account for a large amount of pollution so we can't sit on the sidelines. We can't keep our heads in the sand and whine that its too hard on our economy and keep spending and burning resources like there's no tomorrow. That's stupid and immoral, in my opinion. We should be leading the world in addressing greenhouse gases and fossil fuel dependence instead of dragging our feet. It just makes sense to attack that problem whether it accounts for most or only some of the problem. We address that problem and we also address fossil fuel dependence, air quality health problems, and the political destablizing effects of big oil. We start moving into the next century with some hope of leaving our grandchildren a livable world and not a wasteland.

Finally, I apologize for saying that arguments against global warming are tiresome. I was having a particularly bad day and feeling pushed against the wall by the criminals who control this country who see science as just another slogan to market and control the gullible public. They don't tolerate any discussion that puts their profits above all else or of sacrifice for the common good. Your question has merit and you deserve a considerate answer. Sorry if you took offense.

A recent publication in the journal Science by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica Team (EPICA) reports that modern levels of carbon dioxide gas are 27% higher than any other time in the last 650,000 years. Analysis of CO2 trapped in bubbles in a 3270 meter long ice core record showed that at no point over the past two ice ages did levels get anywhere close to today's 380 ppm. In addition, the greenhouse gas levels revealed by the core matches the predictions from climate models used to forecast future global warming. The authors report that "The evidence shows that time scales on which humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere are extremely short compared to the natural cycles of climate systems".

Evidence of Global Warming :

As an artist, the first thing I did was enlarge the image on KT's link :~)

Great post on Saturday KT.

This new material is very interesting and I'll wade through it as time allows.

Clip:

~~~~~
I hear people talking about the carbon cuts they would like to see. I am not interested in what people would like to see. I am interesed in what the science says. And the science is clear. We need not a 20% cut by 2020; not a 60% cut by 2050, but a 90% cut by 2030. Only then do we stand a good chance of keeping carbon concentrations in the atmosphere below 430 parts per million, which means that only then do we stand a good chance of preventing some of the threatened positive feedbacks. If we let it get beyond that point there is nothing we can do. The biosphere takes over as the primary source of carbon. It is out of our hands.

The notion that we can achieve this by replacing fossil fuels with ambient energy is a fantasy. It is true that we have untapped sources of energy in wind, waves, tides and sunlight, but it is neither so concentrated nor so consistent that we can plug it in and carry on as before.

A cut like this requires massive reductions in our energy use. There are some technofixes available, but they are unlikely to take us more than halfway there. If carbon emissions are to be capped at 10%, energy use will have to be capped at under 50%. The only fair means of doing this is national rationing accompanied by global contraction and convergence.

And we find ourselves in an extraordinary position. This is the first mass political movement to demand less, not more. The first to take to the streets in pursuit of austerity. The first to demand that our luxuries, even our comforts, are curtailed.

These are the greatest political challenges any movement has faced. But we are rising to it. We are rising. But let no one tell you it will be easy. If it were just a matter of slagging off George Bush, we would have won by now. But we must struggle not only against him, not only against our own government, not only against each other, but also against ourselves. The struggle against climate change is a struggle against much of what we have become. It is a struggle against some of our most fundamental urges.

We cannot call on others to stop flying if we still fly. We cannot ask the government to force us to change if we are not ready to change. The greatest fight of our lives will be fought not just out there, but also in here.
~~~~~

Monibot is a strange case of a smart man coming to terms with his promotion of globalization and genetic engineering with the revolutionary needs addressed above. He has a ways to go, including to stop attacking organic agriculture and specifically Prince Charles.

Best regards.

Welcome back! We sure missed you here!

How cold is near record cold in Utah?

I've been out at Amazon under the handle "Western Liberal Warrior" battling neocons for the hearts and minds of America. I got tired of the hate mail so I thought I'd come hang over here for a while.

Marshall and VGKG, you guys haven't changed a bit (thank goodness). I've always loved your posts.

Just so you know we are suffering too...our nights have been consistently below 40F for about a week now. Cold enough to require some spot heaters and a bit or stove-top heating of the morning kitchen. Brrrrr....

As for neocons, I mostly try a strategy of shock and awe and then once I get their attention try to reason with them. I've been able to reason with several, though there are alot out there in bloggerland that are filled with the vile the propaganda ministry spews forth from Rove on down.

BTW, since the price of gasoline skyrocketed and I started riding the bus, I calculate that I've saved over $350 in gas alone and I started riding in October.

Good on you for doing the bus commute. We really have nice buses and somewhat convenient system although a few years ago service was badly limited because of poor ridership numbers.

I've been working two jobs for the past two years and quit the second job just a month ago. I've also been reading and critiquing right-wing rags on Amazon.

I haven't posted much on the Gardenweb for a while and my gardening year was a wash because I came back from the Bahamas with a bad case of cellulitis that landed me in the hospital in late June. My legs were ravaged by MRSA (Mellicin Resistent Staffolococcus Aureus) and it nearly took my life. The water park at the Atlantis Resort in the Bahamas was very nice, but a tremendous breeding ground for bacteria to creep under your skin.

That's the Reader's Digest version of what I've been doing. What have you been up to?

You probably noticed that GW has changed, both in ownership and in volume of activities. The convo pit that was attached to the Soil/compost forum was closed and many members banned or leaving in support of the banned. Another site started up to accomodate the emigres but that recently went kaput. Now there is a new one at Invision and a backup at Yahoo Group.

None of the newer sites focussed much on gardening and soil and compost matters. Newbies have stayed away in droves. :)

Can you explain what you mean by "reading and critiquing right-wing rags on Amazon"? Are these blog sites?

The landmark event during this past year for me was meeting Monte_ND. He was here in Saint Paul celebrating the birth of a new grandson. Yours is the only GWebbers name that came up during our visit.

Better safe than sorry, I think most people would be wise to reduce their energy consumption and to increase the density of their plantings when it is practical.

Best regards.

By Brian Berger
Space News Staff Writer

NASA is revising its public affairs policies following allegations that political appointees tried to muzzle the agency's top climatologist, who is known for speaking his mind about global warming.

NASA Administrator Mike Griffin told a luncheon audience here Feb. 9 that scrutiny of the agency's communications policies and procedures would continue despite the abrupt resignation of NASA press aide George Deutsch, the 24-year-old political appointee thrust into the spotlight in late January when The New York Times reported allegations that he took part in an effort to stifle climatologist James E. Hansen, the outspoken director of the New York-based Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Hansen's claims prompted House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) to send Griffin a sternly worded letter criticizing NASA's conduct. "It ought to go without saying that government scientists must be free to describe their scientific conclusions and the implications of those conclusions to their fellow scientists, policymakers and the general public," Boehlert wrote.

David Goldston, a long-time Boehlert aide and the Science Committee's staff director, told Space News that Boehlert's concerns did not end with Deutsch's resignation. "It's not over as far as we are concerned and we are glad to see it's not over as far as NASA is concerned either," Goldston said. "George Deutsch was part of the problem but he wasn't the whole problem, and NASA is quite properly pursuing other elements of the problem including the need to develop clearer policies."

Goldston, who has been working with NASA to investigate Hansen's claims that public affairs personnel tried to silence and intimidate him, said he was pleased that NASA appears to share Boehlert's commitment to see the problem resolved.

"There are people other than George Deutsch, both political and career, who have mishandled matters concerning Hansen and perhaps other scientists," Goldston said. "But again NASA is not taking a case-closed attitude toward this and they are doing exactly what we would hope and expect. The chairman has spoken directly to the administrator and deputy administrator about this and both of them have the same exact attitude as we do about openness and they're doing exactly what they should be doing."

In Griffin's first public comments about the controversy since authoring a "Statement on Scientific Openness" sent to agency personnel and later posted to the NASA Web site, he reaffirmed his commitment to free discourse but also talked about the importance of maintaining clear distinctions between factual observations and policy recommendations.

"Nothing is more important to this agency or to me than a free and open discourse on technical subjects," Griffin said during a question-and-answer session following his National Space Club speech. "Now there is a line where technical subjects cross over into policy recommendations. ... Some folks don't wish to observe that line. And if they don't, as long as people speak as private citizens, my attitude is let me hold your coat for you. You can get into that fray and get beat up. You just can't label it as an agency position."

Griffin went on to say that NASA's policies governing what its scientists and engineers can or cannot say "have admittedly not been clear."

"So before we can expect people to adhere to standards we wish to have as a federal agency, we've got to re-look at those standards," Griffin said. "We've got to say what it is we want to say in a clear and consistent fashion and then we can have a close to it."

Deutsch, in his first interview since he resigned Feb. 7 after it was revealed that he misrepresented his academic credentials to NASA, said that he had done nothing improper and that he was the victim of a partisan smear campaign.

"There has yet to be any proof of any scientific watering down or any scientific censorship coming out of NASA in regards to Hansen or anybody else. What you do have is hearsay coming from a handful of people who have clear partisan ties and they are really coming after me and the rest of the Bush appointees because this is a partisan issue," Deutsch said in a Feb. 9 interview with Bryan, Tex.-based WTAW News Talk radio. "It's a culture war issue. They do not like Republicans. They do not like people who support the president. They do not like Christians. And if you are perceived as disagreeing with them, or being one of those people, they will stop at nothing to discredit you."

An increase in surface air temperatures appears to be causing the glaciers to flow faster, albeit at the still-glacial pace of eight miles to nine miles a year at their fastest clip, and dump increased volumes of ice into the Atlantic.

That stepped-up flow accounted for about two-thirds of the net 54 cubic miles of ice Greenland lost in 2005. That compares with 22 cubic miles in 1996, Rignot said.

Rignot and his study co-author, Pannir Kanagaratnam of the University of Kansas, said their report is the first to include measurements of recent changes in glacier velocity in the estimates of how much ice most of Greenland is losing.

"The behavior of the glaciers that dump ice into the sea is the most important aspect of understanding how an ice sheet will evolve in a changing climate,'' Rignot said. "It takes a long time to build and melt an ice sheet, but glaciers can react quickly to temperature changes.''

Details of the study were being presented Thursday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The study appears Friday in the journal Science.

The researchers believe warmer temperatures boost the amount of melt water that reaches where the glaciers flow over rock. That extra water lubricates the rivers of ice and eases their downhill movement toward the Atlantic. They tracked the speeds of the glaciers from space, using satellite data collected between 1996 and 2005.

If warmer temperatures spread to northern Greenland, the glaciers there too should pick up their pace, Rignot and Kanagaratnam wrote.

The only way to stem the loss of ice would be for Greenland to receive increased amounts of snowfall, according to Julian Dowdeswell of the University of Cambridge, who wrote an accompanying article.

BTW, I just read Cadillac Desert which talked about water development in the west and it's impact on California development and agriculture. Just curious, do you use Colorado River water on the organic produce you grow?

Best regards.

I read and still have a copy of Cadillac Desert. No we do not use any Colorado River water, most of which has been taken back by neighboring states and the southern tier of Counties in negociations to keep as much of the remainder away from their farmers as possible. You might say the book is pretty dated.

The Times March 31, 2006

Antarctic air is warming faster than rest of world
By Mark Henderson

New finding could have implications for sea level rises
AIR temperatures above the entire frozen continent of Antarctica have risen three times faster than the rest of the world during the past 30 years.

While it is well established that temperatures are increasing rapidly in the Antarctic Peninsula, the land tongue that protrudes towards South America, the trend has been harder to confirm over the continent as a whole.

Now analysis of weather balloon data by scientists at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) has shown that not only are the lower reaches of the Antarctic atmosphere warming, but that they are doing so at the fastest rate observed anywhere on Earth.

]]]snip]]]

Global Warming's Next Casualty: Igloos
By The Associated Press

posted: 12 April 2006
12:10 am ET

WASHINGTON (AP)—It's becoming harder to find the right snow to build an igloo, and melting permafrost is turning land into mud. With climate change the nature of the Arctic is changing, too, in ways that worry the people who live there.
The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History opens a pair of exhibits on Saturday: "Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely,'' and "Atmosphere: Change is in the Air,'' discussing what is happening to the climate and how it affects people living in the planet's northernmost areas.
"They are truly concerned,'' anthropologist Igor Krupnik said Tuesday of the Arctic natives.

Indeed, the Arctic exhibit title comes from an Inuit word natives have used to describe the changing climate—uggianaqtuq—suggesting unexpected behavior or "a friend acting strangely.''

The ocean is eating their land as sea ice melts and storms erode shorelines and wash away fishing communities, changing climate means new plants in some areas and changes in migratory routes of animals people depend on for food, weather is stormier and food sources for polar bears and caribou change.

Since the 1950s, air temperatures have warmed over much of the Arctic, rain and snowfall have increased and sea ice is in decline.

While some government scientists have reported political pressure to limit their comments on climate change, Robert Sullivan, the museum's associate director for public programs, said that did not happen in the development of this exhibit.

"Here's the data,'' Sullivan said. "This is not a political position, it's just scientific data.''

"There have been some suggestions that the data is unclear; well, the data is not unclear,'' Sullivan added, standing near a map of Greenland illustrating the melting of that island's giant ice cap.

In addition to Smithsonian staff, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA and the National Science Foundation took part in developing the exhibit. It will remain at the museum until November and there are plans for it to travel to other museums.

While change is unsettling for many, it isn't necessarily all bad, the exhibit notes. For example, a reduction in sea ice could improve navigation and industrial development, the growing season lengthens and rich northern fisheries may expand.

Adjacent to the Arctic exhibit is Atmospheres, looking at changes in the air around us, notably the rising level of carbon dioxide which scientists say is a major factor in trapping heat from the sun and raising temperatures.

The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Md., has been studying the effect of increasing carbon dioxide levels on plants for years, said center director Anson H. Hines.

Plants like carbon dioxide, using it in their growth, and higher levels of the gas spurred them to grow larger, he said. The plants also became more efficient at water use. However, Hines added, even though the plants grew larger they were less nutritious.

"Global climate change is one of the most significant challenges humankind has ever faced,'' said museum director Cristian Samper. "These landmark exhibitions bring us closer to the science that provides the foundation for understanding how the Earth has changed through time. The exhibitions also convey the human dimension that must be considered in addressing how to respond to the environmental changes that are taking place not just in the Arctic, but all over the globe.''

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

What's agreed upon:
One degree increase worldwide, 30% increase in CO2, should cause warming.

ONE DEGREE.

Is this corrrect?

And while we are at it, what is the overall change in ice in ANTARTICA? Not just the pennisula, but the whole continent? What about glaciers world-wide? What is the sum loss (or gain) in ice worldwide? Does anybody have ANY idea?

It seems to me there is a lot of microclimate analysis, but not global.

Anyway, a dissenting opinion and almost libelous charges, if true.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

Hey, I just link'em, I don't do the science. But such articles make me go "hmmmmmm....".

Are we supposed to post the articles here?

And read: Tim Flannery's "The Eternal Frontier"
He chronicles the North American continent from the meteor crash that made the Caribbean and wiped out the dinosaurs, up to the present, and argues that North America seems to have a disproportionately high tendency to extinctions and severe climate disruptions...or said differently, when sh*t happens to the world climate, North America gets hit hardest. He says that of any nation, the USA needs to take climate change most seriously because it is likely to suffer the most in the end.

Then read Jared Diamond's "Collapse", and use your newly fanned sense of urgency to get politically active.

Warmer marine environments are generally accompanied by higher quantities of atm. moisture and often higher precipitation. Large icecaps/sheets are basically deserts with low precipitation. Advancing continental ice sheets would have been "fed" by increased snow fall closer to their fronts.

Alpine situations are different. Greenland is very mountainous although glaciation has carved deep channels in underlying bedrock.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Ice core samples have been studied going back about 600 000 years, these are like a time capsule which clearly show the evidence of rising co2 levels and temperature. the last ice age was about 11 000 years ago and did not show anything near what has been seen in the ice samples of the recent 100 or so years.

For people who still doubt this is going on, look around you at what is happening in the world. Ice caps are receding at an astounding rate, ice shelfs are cracking, ocean temperatures are rising, there are shifting weather patterns such as droughts in one area, and flooding nearby (this is all related to temperature and ocean temperature)

When will enough people wake up and start putting pressure on governments to do something and stop lying and fearmongering that action will cause some economic catastrophe?

We need change at a massive global government level NOW and while people continue to buy into the misinformation being put out in the media, there is going to continue to be a lack of pressure on governments to act.