Watch the web for climate change truths

[Angel Heart]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/04/do0405.xml

Watch the web for climate change truths
By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 04/05/2008

A notable story of recent months should have been the evidence pouring in from all sides to cast doubts on the idea that the world is inexorably heating up. The proponents of man-made global warming have become so rattled by how the forecasts of their computer models are being contradicted by the data that some are rushing to modify the thesis.

So a German study, published by Nature last week, claimed that, while the world is definitely warming, it may cool down until 2015 "while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions".

A little vignette of the media's one-sided view was given by recent events on Snowdon, the highest mountain in southern Britain. Each year between 2003 and 2007, the retreat of its winter snow cover inspired reports citing this as evidence of global warming.

More...

 

[Angel Heart]

On April 24 the World Wildife Fund (WWF), another body keen to keep the warmist flag flying, published a study warning that Arctic sea ice was melting so fast that it may soon reach a "tipping point" where "irreversible change" takes place. This was based on last September's data, showing ice cover having shrunk over six months from 13 million square kilometres to just 3 million.

What the WWF omitted to mention was that by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km (see the website Cryosphere Today), and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska that month was at its highest level ever recorded. (At the same time Antarctic sea ice-cover was also at its highest-ever level, 30 per cent above normal).

Why must they twist the facts? The ice is back and sounds like it's going to be sticking around more for the next few years. Better start stocking up on blankets.

 

[jillian]

You presume that the Telegraph hasn't politicized the issue???

it's a conservative paper and takes the conservative line on the issue which is... awwwwwwwww... it doesn't exist, and if it does, well, it's not bad...and if it's bad...well, its not our fault...

yadda yadda yadda yadda....(not you; the issue).

 

[cbi0090]

This whole issue isn't about whether we are warming or not. Glaciers have been receding since we started watching them, which is not been very long, maybe 100 years, tops. Tree trunks, that have been covered and preserved for thousands of years, are coming to the surface in Canada, ect. which does indicate that things are warming up but also that we've been here before. Geology has shown that the cooling and warming cyles are reoccurring and that we are presently in a warming cyle. The fact that we are warming is all based on pretty sound science.

What the issue is about is whether we, being the human race, are accelerating the process. Not whether it is happening, it is but are we unnecessarily pushing it along.

We can't say much of anything for certain because we just don't have much data and it's complicated by the fact that natures processes typically follow an accellerated path of their own once they begin. In other words, natural processes are typically exponential they don't follow straight line behavior. So chances are we're trying to measure the speed of an accellerating process. It makes common sense to think that all we do could be contributing but there is no proof of it and we may not get any unless some really bright person figures a way around the mess.

So, the issue is a serious concern but not one anyone should be going off the deep end about, yet, because we just don't know.

 

[jillian]

This whole issue isn't about whether we are warming or not. Glaciers have been receding since we started watching them, which is not been very long, maybe 100 years, tops. Tree trunks, that have been covered and preserved for thousands of years, are coming to the surface in Canada, ect. which does indicate that things are warming up but also that we've been here before. Geology has shown that the cooling and warming cyles are reoccurring and that we are presently in a warming cyle. The fact that we are warming is all based on pretty sound science.

What the issue is about is whether we, being the human race, are accelerating the process. Not whether it is happening, it is but are we unnecessarily pushing it along.

We can't say much of anything for certain because we just don't have much data and it's complicated by the fact that natures processes typically follow an accellerated path of their own once they begin. In other words, natural processes are typically exponential they don't follow straight line behavior. So chances are we're trying to measure the speed of an accellerating process. It makes common sense to think that all we do could be contributing but there is no proof of it and we may not get any unless some really bright person figures a way around the mess.

So, the issue is a serious concern but not one anyone should be going off the deep end about, yet, because we just don't know.

But we do know.... we know we're a contributing and accellerating factor. We know we have control over the means of curbing that accelleration.

Only the "junk science" says otherwise... and, unfortunately, it's muddied the water for some people (although for the life of me, I don't understand how).

 

[dread]

But we do know.... we know we're a contributing and accellerating factor. We know we have control over the means of curbing that accelleration.

Only the "junk science" says otherwise... and, unfortunately, it's muddied the water for some people (although for the life of me, I don't understand how).

Maybe it is YOU who better heed your own Springsteen quote.

 

[TopGunna]

But we do know.... we know we're a contributing and accellerating factor. We know we have control over the means of curbing that accelleration.

Only the "junk science" says otherwise... and, unfortunately, it's muddied the water for some people (although for the life of me, I don't understand how).

I don't for a minute doubt that the greenhouse effect is real. Increased CO2 does not accelerate warming though - in fact, there's a diminishing return relationship between increased atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature increase. CO2 can only absorb select frequencies of infrared radation.

The catastrophe theories are based on the assumption that positive feedback mechanisms in the climate system amplify the relatively small effect of CO2. But although CO2's slight warming effect is settled science, how that effect resonates in an extremely chaotic (but long-term stable) climate system is not.

Any other field of science will assume strong negative feedbacks when presented with a long term stable system, but not climate forecasting. The fact that the Earth has oscillated in and out of Ice Ages and Warm Periods before suggests that there are negative feedbacks at work, keeping the Earth in a natural range of temperature variability.

The need to "do something" seems a little whack to me. It's kinda like being stuck in a hot, dark room with no access to a thermostat, and someone yelling at you to blow out the candle you're burning. After all, candles produce heat and are surely adding to the room's temperature. But blowing out the candle won't really cool the room's temperature significantly, because unfortunately, we don't control the Earth's thermostat! And personally, I'd prefer not to be sitting in the dark.

 

[jillian]

Maybe it is YOU who better heed your own Springsteen quote.

or perhaps you should, or pick your sources better.

 

[jillian]

I don't for a minute doubt that the greenhouse effect is real. Increased CO2 does not accelerate warming though - in fact, there's a diminishing return relationship between increased atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature increase. CO2 can only absorb select frequencies of infrared radation.

The catastrophe theories are based on the assumption that positive feedback mechanisms in the climate system amplify the relatively small effect of CO2. But although CO2's slight warming effect is settled science, how that effect resonates in an extremely chaotic (but long-term stable) climate system is not.

Any other field of science will assume strong negative feedbacks when presented with a long term stable system, but not climate forecasting. The fact that the Earth has oscillated in and out of Ice Ages and Warm Periods before suggests that there are negative feedbacks at work, keeping the Earth in a natural range of temperature variability.

The need to "do something" seems a little whack to me. It's kinda like being stuck in a hot, dark room with no access to a thermostat, and someone yelling at you to blow out the candle you're burning. After all, candles produce heat and are surely adding to the room's temperature. But blowing out the candle won't really cool the room's temperature significantly, because unfortunately, we don't control the Earth's thermostat! And personally, I'd prefer not to be sitting in the dark.

I don't believe in catastrophe theories. I don't think my island of manhattan is going to be sucked up by a tidal wave emanating from the melting of the polar ice caps anytime soon. I do, however, think all of the reliable evidence points to a need for energy conservation; alternative energies and a need to wean from fossil fuels for both environmental and sociological reasons.

I am appalled by the fact that people have really politicized this in such a silly way. There are real, common sense ways of dealing with these issues. For one, we know that even if we wanted to, fossil fuels are not infinte. Second, we know that our reliance on fossil fuels has allowed us to keep bankrolling countries that fund terrorist organizations. I also believe that funding R&D in the area of alternative energy would do wonders for our economy and perhaps bring home some of the tech jobs we've lost to off-shoring, in addition to bringing us environmental benefits.

Just my feeling on the subject.

 

[TopGunna]

I don't believe in catastrophe theories. I don't think my island of manhattan is going to be sucked up by a tidal wave emanating from the melting of the polar ice caps anytime soon. I do, however, think all of the reliable evidence points to a need for energy conservation; alternative energies and a need to wean from fossil fuels for both environmental and sociological reasons.

I am appalled by the fact that people have really politicized this in such a silly way. There are real, common sense ways of dealing with these issues. For one, we know that even if we wanted to, fossil fuels are not infinte. Second, we know that our reliance on fossil fuels has allowed us to keep bankrolling countries that fund terrorist organizations. I also believe that funding R&D in the area of alternative energy would do wonders for our economy and perhaps bring home some of the tech jobs we've lost to off-shoring, in addition to bringing us environmental benefits.

Just my feeling on the subject.

I agree with everything you wrote above. But I do feel that predicting catastrophe tends to undermine the more legitmate reasons for concern. There are plenty of good reasons to preserve our natural resources as you've pointed out.

Similarly, I also feel that the religion is right to encourage us to love and help others. We should be doing those things, but we shouldn't be doing them simply to avoid the fires and brimstone of hell.

 

[jillian]

I agree with everything you wrote above. But I do feel that predicting catastrophe tends to undermine the more legitmate reasons for concern. There are plenty of good reasons to preserve our natural resources as you've pointed out.

Similarly, I also feel that the religion is right to encourage us to love and help others. We should be doing those things, but we shouldn't be doing them simply to avoid the fires and brimstone of hell.

I don't believe in hell.

But I do believe in doing the right thing. And being good stewards of the planet is one of them... regardless of catastrophic predictions. And I DO think that people who say there's no such thing as global warming and that we have "no" responsibility or means of alleviating at least part of the problem are a bigger part of the problem.

I think if we could all agree on preservation of resources as a positive, we'd be way ahead of the game.

 

[Uknow_me72]

Global Warming, not real. It is to make you fear natural disaster. It's called a fear tactic. There's alot of them out there. Like Terrorism. It is the same thing and the same people doing it.

What they are not telling you is that our by products that we are producing have more effect on our bodies then the climate 100x more then the enviroment, GW is covering up the real issue.

Sheep, Wake Up here. Not just GW but all the issue's you hear about are the bad ones. They only let you know what they want you to know and tell you what they want you to know. The general public has little to no knowledge in some of these area's or let alone know how to set up an experiment or gather and interpret the data. This is how they take advantage of you and give you false information that is regarded as True because so many people think it's right because a Dick Cheney got a Nobel for it.

Seriously, who gets a Nobel for saying we are in eminent danger of Gas ourselves?

 

[BrianH]

Global Warming, not real. It is to make you fear natural disaster. It's called a fear tactic. There's alot of them out there. Like Terrorism. It is the same thing and the same people doing it.

What they are not telling you is that our by products that we are producing have more effect on our bodies then the climate 100x more then the enviroment, GW is covering up the real issue.

Sheep, Wake Up here. Not just GW but all the issue's you hear about are the bad ones. They only let you know what they want you to know and tell you what they want you to know. The general public has little to no knowledge in some of these area's or let alone know how to set up an experiment or gather and interpret the data. This is how they take advantage of you and give you false information that is regarded as True because so many people think it's right because a Dick Cheney got a Nobel for it.

Seriously, who gets a Nobel for saying we are in eminent danger of Gas ourselves?

I know one thing, I was in eminent danger of being Gassed by the lady in front of me at the store yesterday. yuck!

lol

It's also to make money. I like how Gore won the Nobel P. and then flew there in his private jet, burning hundreds of gallons of jet-fuel. Hmm...

 

[jillian]

Global Warming, not real. It is to make you fear natural disaster. It's called a fear tactic. There's alot of them out there. Like Terrorism. It is the same thing and the same people doing it.

What they are not telling you is that our by products that we are producing have more effect on our bodies then the climate 100x more then the enviroment, GW is covering up the real issue.

Sheep, Wake Up here. Not just GW but all the issue's you hear about are the bad ones. They only let you know what they want you to know and tell you what they want you to know. The general public has little to no knowledge in some of these area's or let alone know how to set up an experiment or gather and interpret the data. This is how they take advantage of you and give you false information that is regarded as True because so many people think it's right because a Dick Cheney got a Nobel for it.

Seriously, who gets a Nobel for saying we are in eminent danger of Gas ourselves?

Okie dokie.... is there a full moon out or something?

 

[dread]

or perhaps you should, or pick your sources better.

I, at least , have sources....I have yet tyo see any from you. And just because YOU dont want to listen to them because you are sooo caught up in the "lets hate humans" theory doesnt mean they are incorrect.

 

[dread]

http://i.abcnews.com/2020/Story?id=3061015&page=1


MYTH No. 2: The Earth is warming because of us!

TRUTH: Maybe. The frantic media suggest it's all about us. But the IPCC only said it is likely that we have increased the warming.

Our climate has always undergone changes. Greenland was named Greenland because its coasts used to be very green. It's presumptuous to think humans' impact matters so much in comparison to the frightening geologic history of the earth. And who is to say that last year's temperature is the perfect optimum? Warmer may be better! More people die in cold waves than heat waves.

 

[dread]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086

Recently, a documentary aired on the UK’s Channel 4, entitled “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which challenged the prevailing political understanding that global warming is caused by man-made activity. The movie argues that it is in fact the sun that is responsible for the current changes in the Earth’s temperature and the film is riddled with the testimony of many scientists and climate experts, furthering a growing dissent to the man-made theory. After all, that’s all it is, a theory. As soon as people start to state that “the debate is over”, beware, because the fundamental basis of all sciences is that debate is never over, that questions must be asked and answered and issues raised in order for the science to be accurate. So what exactly are the arguments behind the Sun being the main cause of global warming?

First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming, and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth’s seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve. In May of 2006, a report came forward revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News reported that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made. The report further explains how NASA has reported that Mars’ carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, “the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun”. They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune’s largest moon, Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun’s temperature, meaning that the sun itself is warming up. Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate change.






Funny...If man is the cause of Earths ills, why are other planets having the same problems?I guess Jillian must be referring to aliens that inhabit the other planets because this GW shit WOULD NEVER just be a natural phenom.

 

[BrianH]

http://i.abcnews.com/2020/Story?id=3061015&page=1


MYTH No. 2: The Earth is warming because of us!

TRUTH: Maybe. The frantic media suggest it's all about us. But the IPCC only said it is likely that we have increased the warming.

Our climate has always undergone changes. Greenland was named Greenland because its coasts used to be very green. It's presumptuous to think humans' impact matters so much in comparison to the frightening geologic history of the earth. And who is to say that last year's temperature is the perfect optimum? Warmer may be better! More people die in cold waves than heat waves.

While I agree with you...Greenland was not named because it was once Green. Indeed it most certainly was Green back in the day,but the name was derived by Eric the Red---father of Leif Erikson--- named it Greenland to attract settlers...The naming of Greenland was nothing more than good old-fashioned tourism fraud.

 

[TopGunna]

AGW theory is really a series of 5 hypotheses:

1) Mankind is increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere
2) Increased atmospheric CO2 causes the world to warm
3) The increases in CO2 from man will trigger substantial warming, large enough to be detectable above natural climate variations
4) The increases in world temperatures due to man's CO2 will have catastrophic impacts on civilization
5) These catastrophic impacts and their costs are larger than the enormous costs, in terms of poverty and lost wealth, from reducing CO2 with current technologies.

I tend to believe 1 and 2, because there's pretty solid empirical evidence... but it's a big leap of faith to go from #2 to #3. #4 is even harder to swallow.

As for #5, the economic impact of reduced CO2 production is pretty well understood (the economic impact of warming the world is more difficult to quantify). By installing a cap-and-trade approach, the world economic growth would be expected to drop 2 percentage points, say from 4% down to 2%. That doesn't seem like much, but compounding over 100 years, the effect is HUGE.

Growth at 4%: 5000% increase in wealth over 100 yrs.
Growth at 2%: 700% increase in wealth over 100 yrs.

Do you "care" about future generations? The world may or may not be warmer in the next 100 years, with or without intervention. But by curbing growth today, you're guaranteeing that those future generations will only have 1/7th the wealth to deal with any future changes.

There's definitely some truths in AGW theory, but the strength of the first 2 hypotheses don't make up for the vast shortcomings of the other 3.

 

[bobn]

#3 seems highly likely given that even the low end estimates of warming from doubling co2 are greater than the warming seen over the past 100 years.

#4 is about risk and it's the plausibility of it rather than it being definite which is the problem. It's plausible that resultant temperature change over the next 100 years could drive temperatures higher than the last interglacial (ie highest for 100,000s of years), and our civilisation is quite "stuck" around certain areas (noone is going to move a city for example).