![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 67. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 18:16:20
In reply to Global Warming or Cooling??????, posted by Phillipa on February 4, 2009, at 11:53:39
I'm old enough to remember the new ice age of the seventies.
Posted by SLS on February 4, 2009, at 18:19:26
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-), posted by 10derHeart on February 4, 2009, at 18:11:46
> Interesting, sometimes confusing issue to a layperson. Wonder if some of the scientists are confused, as well ;-)
The Greenland ice sheet pretty much seals the deal.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on February 4, 2009, at 18:22:54
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling?????? » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 18:16:20
> I'm old enough to remember the new ice age of the seventies.
Ice ages (glacial periods) generally last for 100,000 years. Interglacial periods, like the kind we are now enjoying, last for only 10,000 years. We are almost due for global cooling.
Maybe global warming will save us?
;-)
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 18:35:42
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling?????? » Dinah, posted by SLS on February 4, 2009, at 18:22:54
Mysterious ways, and all that. :)
I remember being grilled and grilling others on hairspray useage, while pictures of blizzards were shown on TV and in science films at school.
And how utterly annoyed I was when the new ice age fell totally off the radar screen and then global warming appeared several years later.
I vowed then to support what I had always supported, the prudent stewardship of our resources and respect for the earth. I'll let the scientists fight over the consequences of failing to do so. It's enough to me that it is, in my opinion, the right thing to do.
I really can't recall the science that was supposedly involved. Something about chlorofluorocarbons blocking out important elements of the suns rays? However, the entire theory has apparently been abandoned so I probably shouldn't pick up reading "The Cooling" even if I haven't tossed the book.
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 18:42:14
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling?????? » SLS, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 18:35:42
Not to mention...
Lay the baby on its stomach. No its back.
Don't eat eggs because they're high in cholesterol. No wait. Cholesterol in eggs doesn't go straight to the bloodstream. Go ahead and eat them. No wait. There are other bad things in eggs.
Eat this nice healthy margarine in place of butter. No wait. The margarine is full of trans fats.
I laughed at my father when he said one day they'd find something healthy in cigarettes. Yet what did I read the other day?
Hopefully the scientific method is being more rigorously applied in tests nowadays. Otherwise... Well wait. The one about the AFC, NFC, and the stock market finally failed to hold true right? Taking away the world's greatest example of statistical relationship lacking in causal relationship.
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 18:48:40
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling??????, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 18:42:14
Ah, I apologize for my fervor.
Apparently the old wounds of a young teenager championing a cause that withered away unnoticed still hold a charge.
Posted by seldomseen on February 4, 2009, at 18:51:43
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-), posted by 10derHeart on February 4, 2009, at 18:11:46
I would like to address the pondering "I wonder if the scientists are confused as well".
Well, in my experience, scientists, at least the good ones, are almost always confused.
However, I do think science can tend to be rather "bandwagoney", and as much as we would like to think otherwise, whomever shouts the loudest *can* carry the day.
I've seen it so often at consensus meetings. The dissenters literally get shouted down. I think it's human nature.
However, one does have to look at evidence and draw independent conclusions when forced to do so. In my opinion there is a preponderance of evidence that the climate *is* changing. I also think that the apparent speed with which it is occuring strongly suggests that humans, while perhaps not outright causing this change, are exacerbating the situation.
Ultimately though, I think one has to look at outcome. What is the end result of this change, how will it affect us and our planet? What can we *do* to either adapt, forestall, or potentially prevent it from occurring?I think changing our thinking and habits regarding the environment is just good advice. It's a pretty safe endorsement to make. Sort of like telling people to eat healthy, yeah we don't know the *exact* link between diet and illnesses like cardiovascular disease (we don't)and cancer, but it's certainly not going to hurt to eat a salad or two instead of deep-fried bacon.
Just my two cents.
Seldom.
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 18:56:19
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-), posted by seldomseen on February 4, 2009, at 18:51:43
And a sensible two cents they are. :)
Thank you.
Posted by SLS on February 4, 2009, at 20:20:55
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-) » seldomseen, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 18:56:19
> And a sensible two cents they are. :)
Valuable, too. I think they are 1909 VDB's.
(Stupid, but I amuse myself).
- Scott
Posted by SLS on February 4, 2009, at 20:23:43
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling?????? » SLS, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 18:35:42
> I vowed then to support what I had always supported, the prudent stewardship of our resources and respect for the earth.
You are so cool.
I'm not so hot myself.
- Scott
Posted by TexasChic on February 4, 2009, at 21:02:01
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling?????? » Dinah, posted by SLS on February 4, 2009, at 20:23:43
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased
* Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[5] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[6] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[7] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)[8]
* Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."[9]
* Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."[10]
Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is inadequate - individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.* Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[11]
* Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[12]
Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes - individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.* Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[13][14][15]
* Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[16]
* Reid Bryson, deceased, former emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "Its absurd. Of course its going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because were coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because were putting more carbon dioxide into the air."[17]
* George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earths climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earths climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[18]
* Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[19]
* David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[20]
* Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[21]
* William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[22] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[23] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thingall these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[24]
* William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[25]
* George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."[26]
* David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[27]
* Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."[28]
* Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasnt changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[29]
* Tim Patterson[30], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[31][32]
* Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[33]
* Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[34]
* Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[35][36] Its not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.[37]
* Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[38]
* Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankinds role is relatively minor"[39]
* Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[40]
* Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earths surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[41]
* Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[42]
Believe cause of global warming is unknown - scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.* Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."[43]
* Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."[44]
* Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."[45]
* John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."[46]
* Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory: "carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"[47]
* William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system."[48]
* Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[49]
* David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause human or natural is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."[50]
* Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But and I cannot stress this enough we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[51] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[52]
Believe global warming will benefit human society - scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures and/or increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will be of little impact or a net positive for human society.* Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; founder of The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."[53]
* Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."[54]
* Patrick Michaels, part-time research professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit."[55]
References:
# ^ Dr. Tim Ball, Historical Climatologist On the real danger for Canada, global cooling Frontier Centre for Public Policy
# ^ Climate of controversy Ottawa Citizen May 2006
# ^ Mr.Cool Nurturing doubt about climate change is big business August 2006
# ^ Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? Ball, Timothy Canada Free Press February 2007
# ^ "High price for load of hot air". http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html. Retrieved on 2007-12-18.
# ^ New Zealand Climate Science Coalition - CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC
# ^ A Skeptical View of Climate Models Tennekes, Hendrik from Science & Environmental Policy Project www.his.com/~sepp
# ^ Global Warming Natural, Says Expert Zenit April 2007
# ^ Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming Russian News & Information Agency, January 2007
# ^ Russian scientist issues global cooling warning Russian News & Information Agency August 2006
# ^ http://www.ogoniok.com/4933/24/ Page in Russian, Go here for a translation.
# ^ Global Warming Science vs. Computer Model Speculation: Just Ask the Experts Capitalism Magazine, August 2002
# ^ Wisconsin's Energy Cooperative May 2007
# ^ On global forces of nature driving the Earths climate. Are humans involved? L. F. Khilyuk1 and G. V. Chilingar Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006
# ^ Letter to the editor The Hill Times, March 2004
# ^ Newsmax.com - New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story
# ^ The Cause of Global Warming and Predictions for the Coming Century Easterbrook, Don
# ^ Viewpoint: Get off warming bandwagon Gray, William BBC November 2000
# ^ The Tempest Achenbach, Joel The Washington Post May 2006
# ^ Discover Dialogue: Meteorologist William Gray Discover September 2005
# ^ Climate Change: A Natural Hazard
# ^ An Unrepentant Prognosticator Krueger, Mari Gelf Magazine, April 2007
# ^ Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts National Center for Policy Analysis May 2006
# ^ M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120
# ^ Global warning? Controversy heats up in the scientific community Robinson, Cindy Carleton University Spring 2005
# ^ Dr. Patterson Page at Carleton University
# ^ Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe Harris, Tom Canada Free Press June 2006
# ^ Read the Sunspots Patterson, Timothy Financial Post June 2007
# ^ Wild weather ignites climate change debate
# ^ Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? ScienceBits
# ^ The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it Christian Science Monitor April 2005
# ^ The Physical Evidence of Earths Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle Singer, Fred et al NCPA Study No. 279, September 2005
# ^ The Denial Machine CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link
# ^ Global warming is not so hot: 1003 was worse, researchers find Harvard University Gazette April 2003
# ^ [1] Testimony of Roy W. Spencer before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 22 July 2008
# ^ Essay 1: 'Global Warming' as Myth A Parliament of Things
# ^ Influence of Cosmic Rays on the Earth's Climate Svensmark, Henry Danish National Space Center, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen
# ^ Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle and here In J. Veizer, , Geoscience Canada, March 2005
# ^ On the Fundamental Defect in the IPCCs Approach to Global Warming Research Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog, June 15 2007
# ^ Climat: la prévention, oui, la peur, non (Translation from the original French version in L'Express, May 2006
# ^ The Increase in Global Temperature: What it Does and Does Not Tell Us Balling, Robert George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook September 2003
# ^ Christy, John (2007-11-01). "My Nobel Moment". Wall Street Journal. http://mobile2.wsj.com/beta2/htmlsite/html_article.php?id=1&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries. Retrieved on 2007-11-02.
# ^ A Long Term Perspective on Climate Change - Heartland.org
# ^ Global Climate Change: A Global Climate Change: A Skeptics Perspective Presentation by William R. Cotton
# ^ http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/2006510223000.CSC_News_3.PDF[dead link] The New Zealand Herald, May 2006
# ^ Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works December 2006
# ^ The Press Gets It Wrong Our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty. Lindzen, Richard Opinion Journal (The Wall Street Journal) June 2001
# ^ There is no consensus on Global Warming appeared in The San Francisco Examiner July 2006 and in The Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14
# ^ A Science--Based Rebuttal to the Testimony of Al Gore before the United States Senate Environment & Public Works Committee[dead link]
# ^ Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO2-Enriched Warmer World co2science.org November 2003 p. 30
# ^ Posturing and Reality on Warming Michaels, Patric CATO Institute October 2006
Posted by SLS on February 4, 2009, at 21:07:24
In reply to Devil's advocate..., posted by TexasChic on February 4, 2009, at 21:02:01
What about the polar bears?
Poor polar bears.
:-(
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 21:15:24
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling?????? » Dinah, posted by SLS on February 4, 2009, at 20:23:43
> I'm not so hot myself.
Definitely. You are seriously cool.
Posted by Phillipa on February 4, 2009, at 21:31:30
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling?????? » SLS, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 21:15:24
Wow I'm incrediably amazed at the work that went into Jay's post and seldom's and T's. You and all the others in a word why's it so darn cold!!!!!! I like heat lots of it. I know need to move to Australia for six months a year and then back to here. If Sigi was here would ask if could stay with him or a friend. Love Phillipa. Seriously I'm awed at all of your knowledge.
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 21:45:54
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling??????, posted by Phillipa on February 4, 2009, at 21:31:30
If you like it hot, you'd love New Orleans.
We had snow one day. And I've worn long sleeves a few times. But for the most part, I've been sleeveless.
And while I've always complained of the heat in summer, it was no worse than Northwest Texas or Shreveport when we evacuated there.
Mind you, I still will go inside sometime in April and refuse to emerge until October while I strip down to the bare minimum, turn on all the ceiling fans and crank the a/c down as low as possible. And still whine about the heat. :)
Posted by Sigismund on February 5, 2009, at 0:45:53
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling?????? » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 21:45:54
I wonder if the people who deny global warming are the same as the ones who deny that humans caused it, and whether they will be the first to sign up for sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere and urea into the oceans?
Posted by jay_bravest_face on February 5, 2009, at 1:06:01
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-), posted by 10derHeart on February 4, 2009, at 18:11:46
Yes, it is settled...sorry. You are going to argue with NASA???(WTF?), IA of Nobel Scientists...100's other of the worlds biggest, most important names in science...you think they are all wrong? Did you look up EVERY ONE of my citations? I guess you voted Republican then. Well....STBY..
Jay
Posted by JadeKelly on February 5, 2009, at 2:19:15
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-) » 10derHeart, posted by jay_bravest_face on February 5, 2009, at 1:06:01
> Yes, it is settled...sorry. You are going to argue with NASA???(WTF?), IA of Nobel Scientists...100's other of the worlds biggest, most important names in science...you think they are all wrong? Did you look up EVERY ONE of my citations? I guess you voted Republican then. Well....STBY..
>
> JayIs this the same Jay from above who just wants to love people and his dog? Darn.lol
~Jade
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 5, 2009, at 8:37:24
In reply to Global Warming or Cooling??????, posted by Phillipa on February 4, 2009, at 11:53:39
> Now woke to snow in the Carolinas twice in a period of weeks so how could this be global warming. Temps in the teens I don't get it????? Phillipa
Climate is typical conditions considered over long periods of time. You're describing weather.
Global warming would lead to greater atmospheric turbulence, and thus more variable weather in the mid-latitudes. It's like the difference between having soup on the stove at a simmer, and getting a little too much heating in there and it boils up and over.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 5, 2009, at 8:45:29
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling?????? » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2009, at 18:16:20
> I'm old enough to remember the new ice age of the seventies.
Yes, that prediction has never changed, really. Funny that I'm not seeing evidence for it.
Based on detailed analysis of climate data found in Greenland's and Antarctica's layered ice sheets, it has been surmised that the Sun's radiation varies over time in predictable cyclic patterns. If I recall correctly, there are three main cycles, each with different lengths of time between their peaks. For most of the time, their oscillations largely cancel each other out, but ever now and again (in geological time, not human time) these cycles have their peaks or troughs overlap, enhancing each other. Again, if I recall correctly, those cycles should be combining to reduce solar emissions now, and over the next few hundred (or was it thousand?) years.
As I said, it's interesting that nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred after the ice age prediction was made.
Lar
Posted by seldomseen on February 5, 2009, at 9:09:25
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-) » 10derHeart, posted by jay_bravest_face on February 5, 2009, at 1:06:01
Jay,
Have you ever heard of Dr. Robert Warren?
He is the Australian Pathologist, and nobeller , who was the first to succesfully culture H. Pylori in his lab.
Why am I bringing this up? Well, H. Pylori is a bacteria that causes the vast majority (not all) of stomach ulcers. Up until Robert Warren, everyone thought these ulcers were solely the result of eating spicy foods, stress, and too much stomach acid. He provided the link between infection with this bacteria, and stomach ulcers and proposed the radical idea that this painful condition could be treated with antibiotics.
He was shouted out of meetings, called an idiot, ostracized and pretty much pronounced a fake and a quack by his peers. Soley because he voiced dissention against a widely held belief in the field of medicine.
As it turns out, he was absolutely, positively 100% correct. His work has spared millions of people the suffering, potentially fatal consequences of stomach ulcers and offered a simple cure.
Therefore, using his story as an example, I think there should always be room for dissention. A healthy dose of skeptism is what drives all of science and the most impressive forward leaps in any field have come when one overturns commonly and widely held beliefs, even those held by the experts.
I personally accept the notion, and have expressed as much, that humans are contributing to global climate change. However, I also think one must always be open to alternate theories. One of those theories may be more correct, and provide the understanding needed for true change to occur.
Seldom.
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 5, 2009, at 9:17:10
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-), posted by seldomseen on February 4, 2009, at 18:51:43
> However, one does have to look at evidence and draw independent conclusions when forced to do so. In my opinion there is a preponderance of evidence that the climate *is* changing. I also think that the apparent speed with which it is occuring strongly suggests that humans, while perhaps not outright causing this change, are exacerbating the situation.
I'm definitely going to have to agree with you.
IMHO, most critics of global warming depend upon criticisms of the land temperature records collected over the last hundred years or so, and statistics derived therefrom. But there's a lot more evidence than that.
1. The Greenland ice sheet is melting at rates that, in some places, now are more than 100 times the rates recorded just 40 years ago.
2. Ice shelfs that have been attached to Antarctica for 100's of thousands of years are breaking away and melting. If I recall correctly, there is one that is half the size of France just holding on by a thread. It's possible it will break away this year.
3. Ethnohistorians trying to collect as much traditional knowledge and language from elderly Inuit in Arctic Canada before they die have discovered that these elders are seeing birds for which they have no names. The northern range of what we know as sparrows are now encroaching on territories where the oral history does not have a record of their existence.
4. The spring blooming times of native plants have been recorded by natural historians over centuries. Over the course of the 20th century, some spring bloom times advanced by as much as 19 days, with the average at about 10 days. None, so far as I know, have receded.
5. Breeding success of some migrant birds has declined dramatically. Those that migrate based on food availability tend to be doing all right (excluding concerns over habitat destruction), whereas those which migrate based on signals based on day length are not. Arrival times on breeding grounds had evolved such that nesting and subsequent hatching would exactly correspond with peak food supply, especially of insects. Peak insect activity has often passed before the birds are ready to feed their newly hatched young, and breeding success has declined dramatically.
6. Summer ice pack in the Arctic is receding so quickly that it is possible that the entire Arctic will be ice free in summer, within years. Multi-year ice (ice that doesn't melt entirely away in summer, which accumulates greater depth in subsequent winters) is in the most dramatic decline.
7. Permafrost, which by its very name suggests that it is enduring, is melting at an alarming rate. Buildings with foundations in what was thought to be permanently frozen soil are now sinking into mud. The same goes for some stretches of pipelines. They are actually building huge refrigerators to refreeze the melting permafrost under critical installations.
8. Glaciers are receding all around the world at rates that even the most excessive estimates of only a decade ago did not predict. It is possible that rivers in India (the Ganges is included, I think) will dry up seasonally because their sources high in the Himalayas will have melted away. There is no record of that ever happening in the thousands of years of historical records covering that region.
There is more, but I don't need to go on and on. I'm an empiricist, in that observations are the only true science that we have. These observations, we know. How we interpret them is not science, although it is what scientists are wont to do. I believe the preponderance of the evidence is that global warming is well underway. What it will mean to us will be revealed when we are able to observe the effects over time.
Lar
Posted by Phillipa on February 5, 2009, at 12:33:28
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling?????? » Phillipa, posted by Larry Hoover on February 5, 2009, at 8:37:24
Lar yup that's exactly correct what I am describing is weather. Now I have skipped some posts above and do understand about the soup boiling over analogy. Yes we have polluted the enviornment with aresol sprays, all kinds of destructive enviornmental toxins and being an enviormental toxicoligist I know you know your stuff. Thanks for explaining and answering a thread never dreamed so many consciousious people would respond to. Heated topic kind of joking now as a bit of heat would be appreciated. Hey what about the ice glaciers and the melting. Maybe this was addressed above. Thanks again Lar as know how busy you are. Phillipa
Posted by Sigismund on February 5, 2009, at 15:05:54
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-) » seldomseen, posted by Larry Hoover on February 5, 2009, at 9:17:10
The US military takes it seriously
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
I accept that we can not know for sure what is causing it.
It is easier for countries in Europe and North America.
Climate change may affect them positively for all I know.
But it will be different for such places as South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, and low lying islands.
Posted by Sigismund on February 5, 2009, at 15:11:36
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-), posted by JadeKelly on February 5, 2009, at 2:19:15
Have you heard Hansen on it?
It is said that he is one of the prominent climate scientist in the world.
The things he says are really scary.
Among others he said that the heads of oil companies should be put on trial for crimes against humanity.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.