![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 67. This is the beginning of the thread.
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
Posted by fleeting flutterby on February 4, 2009, at 16:00:10
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
-----Not that I totally believe this "warming theory" but from what I understand--- because of the warmer currents-- it creates more radical weather the first few years..... like more snow where there shouldn't be any or just a little and more traumatic weather--like an increase in tornadoes, hurricanes, floods etc....I don't worry about it though, as there isn't anything I can do to control the snow, tornadoes and such. I just do what I can to keep the earth clean-- like recycle, ride my bike where I can and take cloth bags with me to put my purchases in..... that's about all I can do about things.... so I try not to concern myself with the rest.
good day to you! :o)
flutterby-mandy
Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on February 4, 2009, at 16:13:02
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
..Phillipa...It's Global Warming..or in alternate, but still same meaning, words "Global Climate Change". Now..hold tight...here are the list of organizations who acknowledge (and THE one who doesn't) the disastrous results of global warming: (but first..the ONE organization that DOES NOT believe in global warming..guess WHO???)
---American Association of Petroleum Geologists
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change states that "the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."[64]Statements by dissenting organizations
With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[65]
-------------------------------------------
Now...the LOOOONNGGGG list of the "believers"
(taken from wikipedia)Academies of Science
[edit] European Academy of Sciences and Arts
In 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal declaration on climate change entitled Let's Be Honest:Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankinds future. [10]
[edit] InterAcademy Council
As the representative of the worlds scientific and engineering academies,[11][12] the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 entitled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[13]
Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[14][edit] International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
In 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth[15]As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control.
CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.[edit] Joint science academies' statements
Since 2001, various national academies of science have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses. The 32 signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.2001-Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[16]
2005-The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action[17], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
2007-In preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."[18] The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China,France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
2008-In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies statement, and reaffirming that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems. Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to (t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.[19] The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.[edit] Network of African Science Academies
In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany:A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.
The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.[20]
The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences.
[edit] Royal Society of New Zealand
Having signed onto the first joint science academies' statement in 2001, the Royal Society of New Zealand released a separate statement in 2008 in order to clear up "the controversy over climate change and its causes, and possible confusion among the public":The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.[21]
[edit] General Science
[edit] American Association for the Advancement of Science
In 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in which they stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."[22]
[edit] European Science Foundation
In 2007, the European Science Foundation issued a Position Paper on climate change:There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns.
While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.[23][edit] National Research Council (US)
In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[24] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[24]
[edit] Biology
[edit] American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
The American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians (AAWV) has issued a position statement regarding "climate change, wildlife diseases, and wildlife health":There is widespread scientific agreement that the worlds climate is changing and that the weight of evidence demonstrates that anthropogenic factors have and will continue to contribute significantly to global warming and climate change. It is anticipated that continuing changes to the climate will have serious negative impacts on public, animal and ecosystem health due to extreme weather events, changing disease transmission dynamics, emerging and re-emerging diseases, and alterations to habitat and ecological systems that are essential to wildlife conservation. Furthermore, there is increasing recognition of the inter-relationships of human, domestic animal, wildlife, and ecosystem health as illustrated by the fact the majority of recent emerging diseases have a wildlife origin.[25]
[edit] American Society for Microbiology
In 2003, the American Society for Microbiology issued a public policy report in which they recommend reducing net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere and minimizing anthropogenic disturbances of atmospheric gasses:[26]Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past 10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years agoas a result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change.[27]
Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component of global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global change has been a natural process throughout Earths history, humans are responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes. These changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere on which we depend.[28]
Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease, hantavirus infections, dengue fever, bubonic plague, and cholera, have been linked to climate change.[29][edit] Australian Coral Reef Society
In 2006, the Australian Coral Reef Society issued an official communique regarding the Great Barrier Reef and the "world-wide decline in coral reefs through processes such as overfishing, runoff of nutrients from the land, coral bleaching, global climate change, ocean acidification, pollution", etc.:There is almost total consensus among experts that the earths climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases. The IPCC (involving over 3 thousand of the worlds experts) has come out with clear conclusions as to the reality of this phenomenon. One does not have to look further than the collective academy of scientists worldwide to see the string (of) statements on this worrying change to the earths atmosphere.
There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming....It is highly likely that coral bleaching has been exacerbated by global warming.[30][edit] Institute of Biology (UK)
The UK's Institute of Biology states there is scientific agreement that the rapid global warming that has occurred in recent years is mostly anthropogenic, ie due to human activity. As a consequence of global warming, they warn that a rise in sea levels due to melting of ice caps is expected to occur. Rises in temperature will have complex and frequently localised effects on weather, but an overall increase in extreme weather conditions and changes in precipitation patterns are probable, resulting in flooding and drought. The spread of tropical diseases is also expected. Subsequently, the Institute of Biology advocates policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as we feel that the consequences of climate change are likely to be severe.[31]
[edit] Society of American Foresters
In 2008, the Society of American Foresters (SAF) issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC and the UNFCCC:Forests are shaped by climate....Changes in temperature and precipitation regimes therefore have the potential to dramatically affect forests nationwide. There is growing evidence that our climate is changing. The changes in temperature have been associated with increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs in the atmosphere.[32]
Forests play a significant role in offsetting CO2 emissions, the primary anthropogenic GHG.[33][edit] The Wildlife Society (international)
The Wildlife Society has issued a position statement entitled Global Climate Change and Wildlife:[34]Scientists throughout the world have concluded that climate research conducted in the past two decades definitively shows that rapid worldwide climate change occurred in the 20th century, and will likely continue to occur for decades to come. Although climates have varied dramatically since the earth was formed, few scientists question the role of humans in exacerbating recent climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases. The critical issue is no longer if climate change is occurring, but rather how to address its effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats.
The statement goes on to assert that evidence is accumulating that wildlife and wildlife habitats have been and will continue to be significantly affected by ongoing large-scale rapid climate change.The statement concludes with an call for reduction in anthropogenic (human-caused) sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change and the conservation of CO2- consuming photosynthesizers (i.e., plants).
[edit] Geology[edit] American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, [35] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate systemincluding the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasonsare now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 19562006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
[edit] Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
The Canadian Federation Of Earth Sciences has issued a position paper on global climate change in which they state, Canada's Earth scientists also recognize that humans are adding greenhouse gases (GHGs) to our atmosphere at an ever increasing rate. The level of CO2 in our atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years; there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as a result.These could include: increased frequency and severity of drought, coastal erosion, sea level change, permafrost degradation, impact of reduced glacier cover on water resources, groundwater quality and quantity, and occurrence of climate-related natural hazards such as flooding, dust storms and landslides.[36]
[edit] European Federation of Geologists
In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists (EFG) issued the position paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage :The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization.
It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.
CCS (Carbon Capture and geological Storage) should also be regarded as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free economy.[37][edit] European Geosciences Union
In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies statement on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community", and asserts that the IPCC represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.[38]Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere."[39]
[edit] Geological Society of America
In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change:The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earths climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning.[40]
[edit] International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution entitled The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change. In it, the IUGG concurs with the comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the International Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change. They state further that the continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the worlds primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society. [41]
[edit] Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
In its position paper on global warming, the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London declares, "Global climate change is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development and even survival - of humanity." They refer to the IPCC as providing the "most authoritative assessment of climate change", and further state, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling."[42]
[edit] Human Health[edit] American College of Preventive Medicine
In 2006, the American College of Preventive Medicine issued a policy statement on Abrupt Climate Change and Public Health Implications:The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) accept the position that global warming and climate change is occurring, that there is potential for abrupt climate change, and that human practices that increase greenhouse gases exacerbate the problem, and that the public health consequences may be severe.[43]
[edit] American Medical Association
In 2008, the American Medical Association issued a policy statement on global climate change declaring that they:Support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that these changes will negatively effect public health.
Support educating the medical community on the potential adverse public health effects of global climate change, including topics such as population displacement, flooding, infectious and vector-borne diseases, and healthy water supplies.[44][edit] American Public Health Association
In 2007, the American Public Health Association issued a policy statement entitled Addressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate Change to Public Health and the Environment:The long-term threat of global climate change to global health is extremely serious and the fourth IPCC report and other scientific literature demonstrate convincingly that anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily responsible for this threat.US policy makers should immediately take necessary steps to reduce US emissions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, to avert dangerous climate change.[45]
[edit] Australian Medical Association
In 2004, the Australian Medical Association issued the position statement Climate Change and Human Health in which they recommend policies "to mitigate the possible consequential health effects of climate change through improved energy efficiency, clean energy production and other emission reduction steps."[46]This statement was revised again in 2008:
The worlds climate our life-support system is being altered in ways that are likely to pose significant direct and indirect challenges to health. While climate change can be due to natural forces or human activity, there is now substantial evidence to indicate that human activity and specifically increased greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions is a key factor in the pace and extent of global temperature increases.
Health impacts of climate change include the direct impacts of extreme events such as storms, floods, heatwaves and fires and the indirect effects of longer-term changes, such as drought, changes to the food and water supply, resource conflicts and population shifts.
Increases in average temperatures mean that alterations in the geographic range and seasonality of certain infections and diseases (including vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, Ross River virus and food-borne infections such as Salmonellosis) may be among the first detectable impacts of climate change on human health.
Human health is ultimately dependent on the health of the planet and its ecosystem. The AMA believes that measures which mitigate climate change will also benefit public health. Reducing GHGs should therefore be seen as a public health priority.[47][edit] World Federation of Public Health Associations
In 2001, the World Federation of Public Health Associations issued a policy resolution on global climate change:Noting the conclusions of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climatologists that anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change, have substantially increased in atmospheric concentration beyond natural processes and have increased by 28 percent since the industrial revolution.Realizing that subsequent health effects from such perturbations in the climate system would likely include an increase in: heat-related mortality and morbidity; vector-borne infectious diseases, water-borne diseases(and) malnutrition from threatened agriculture.the World Federation of Public Health Associationsrecommends precautionary primary preventive measures to avert climate change, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and preservation of greenhouse gas sinks through appropriate energy and land use policies, in view of the scale of potential health impacts....[48]
[edit] Meteorology/Oceanography
[edit] American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[49]
[edit] Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude, Global climate change and global warming are real and observableIt is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.[50]
[edit] Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating that "We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canadas natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes."[51]
[edit] Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
"CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."[52]
[edit] Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
In February 2007, after the release of the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as worlds best climate scientists, they stated that climate change is happening as the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get. [53]
[edit] World Meteorological Organization
In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The WMO concurs that scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation. The WMO concurs that the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years; and that the IPCC assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice. [54]
[edit] Paleoclimatology[edit] American Quaternary Association
The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated, Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution, citing the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity. [55]
[edit] International Union for Quaternary Research
The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles.Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses - including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide - to rise well above pre-industrial levels.Increases in greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to riseThe scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority. [56]
[edit] Miscellaneous[edit] American Astronomical Society
The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[57]In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement [issued by the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.
[edit] American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society stated:Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earths climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005).[58][edit] American Institute of Physics
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[59]The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.
[edit] American Physical Society
In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes."The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earths physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."[60]
[edit] American Statistical Association
On November 30, 2007, the American Statistical Association Board of Directors adopted a statement on climate change:The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions. ... Over the course of four assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical community.[61]
[edit] Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."[62]----
Jay :)
Posted by SLS on February 4, 2009, at 17:48:44
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-) » Phillipa, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on February 4, 2009, at 16:13:02
Holy crap, Jay.
Thanks for taking the time to post this.
- Scott
Posted by 10derHeart on February 4, 2009, at 18:11:46
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-) » Phillipa, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on February 4, 2009, at 16:13:02
Then there have been and still are, other views, as well:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
And the source for that:
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
It doesn't seem really settled, which leads me to kind of think at the moment, "we're not sure - there's interesting evidence both ways..." might be accurate. I don't know. This isn't any sort of scientific statement, just my own way of expressing how it seems to me from reading assertions from different "camps."
Interesting, sometimes confusing issue to a layperson. Wonder if some of the scientists are confused, as well ;-)
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
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.