![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 25 to 49 of 67. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Sigismund on February 5, 2009, at 15:25:43
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-), posted by Sigismund on February 5, 2009, at 15:05:54
Gwyn Dwyer (Dyer?) is a Canadian security analyst who has interesting/frightening things to say about the geoplitical consequences of global warming.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on February 5, 2009, at 16:32:52
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..
>
> JayPlease respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong. Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt. Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on February 5, 2009, at 18:53:15
In reply to Please be civil » jay_bravest_face, posted by Deputy Dinah on February 5, 2009, at 16:32:52
Posted by Deputy Dinah on February 5, 2009, at 19:48:58
In reply to Re: Where was I uncivil?? (nm) » Deputy Dinah, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on February 5, 2009, at 18:53:15
> 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?
From the FAQ:
Please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong. Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt. Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.
> STBY..
Regarding this acronym, the civility guidelines state:
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by TexasChic on February 5, 2009, at 20:02:27
In reply to Re: Where was I uncivil?? (nm) » Deputy Dinah, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on February 5, 2009, at 18:53:15
I, for one, was hurt by your statement. I felt like you were ridiculing anyone who disagreed with your viewpoint.
-T
Posted by gabbette on February 5, 2009, at 20:42:37
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-) » 10derHeart, posted by jay_bravest_face on February 5, 2009, at 1:06:01
WTF is right..
Hello? we must bow down to the designated authority of NASA.. why?
Because exalted designated authorities have never made mistakes? Nope that can't be itBecause designated authorities have never fudged data in order to give their theories credibilty?
Nope
Because Science now knows everything there are no undiscovered variables, nothing to be looked at in a different way, therefore all questions of this complexity can be considered "settled"?
Scientists have egotistically dismissed arguments to their answers before, frequently with humiliating results.
Additionally a lesser "scientist" who makes a discovery that may prove an exalted scientist to be wrong is not going to have an easy time being heard- and that's an understatement.
I can understand a position of assuredness if
one has actually had a hand in the research process, but to believe it because its' NASA
or because a Psychiatrist, a church leader or
a famous ... exalted prize winning authority said it has historically been disastrous.That thinking has been responsible for
prejudice
"Blacks have smaller brains"
"Women are inferior to men"
It's caused the death of thousands in the name of "proven" nutrition advice, safe medication.. "harmless" chemicals..Research based on others research based on others scientific research imprisons itself within a reality that often makes perfect sense in a Scientific journal, or a thesis but is a speck when in contrast something as infinitely complex as the universe and those who exist within it.
Hell yes I'll doubt NASA, and any other Nobel prize winning person if I see a reason to do so Those awards aren't given in a vacuum, they're given by fallible people.
I didn't or would not vote republican (if I could)but was offended by your categorization. I have two extremely intelligent, critical thinking friends
who voted Republican and I don't think they're
alone. I found the comment ironic.
> 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 gabbette on February 5, 2009, at 20:52:03
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-) » jay_bravest_face, posted by gabbette on February 5, 2009, at 20:42:37
I see now you'd already mentioned much of what I said in my post.
Posted by TexasChic on February 5, 2009, at 20:58:44
In reply to Re: Where was I uncivil?? » Jay_Bravest_Face, posted by TexasChic on February 5, 2009, at 20:02:27
... I just wanted to express that your statement felt hurtful me. I hope it didn't come off as too harsh.
-T
Posted by seldomseen on February 6, 2009, at 7:30:27
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? Sorry Seldom Seen, posted by gabbette on February 5, 2009, at 20:52:03
Absolutely no worries at all. It's nice when someone agrees!
Posted by kid47 on February 6, 2009, at 12:02:21
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? Sorry Seldom Seen » gabbette, posted by seldomseen on February 6, 2009, at 7:30:27
I believe there is good science to prop up the notion that humans are at the very least accelerating what might be a cyclical climate change. Whatever side you take in this discussion, does anyone think it is a good idea to release mega tons of potentially (definitely) harmful waste into our atmosphere and water? "Global warming" has become the most recent buzz phrase to polarize us on the issue of responsible stewardship and protection of our "natural " environment. I think the bigger picture, and one less prone to contention: Don't sh*t where you eat. (not exactly how the phrase was first intended, but it makes the point). The rationale that this horrendous assault on our world is the price we pay in a "modern" society is, to say the least, incredibly short sighted.
kid
(Coming out of his cave briefly....looks around....scampers back in *immediately*)
Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on February 6, 2009, at 16:58:49
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-) » jay_bravest_face, posted by gabbette on February 5, 2009, at 20:42:37
Okay...look...I will publish this..and more because it is fact..it is based on GOOD science, and rational science is something that has been missing for a long time. Oh, ya, and NASA really has so much to gain from this. The smartest and the brightest in science (and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists are the only scientific body left on the planet who disagree...read that first statement below..and guess who funds them??? Errr..Exxon, Mobile etc..) agree...So...ya...WT@ remains..you said it..so I am returning the favour..is right...here you go: Read them all, bit by bit, word by word, and get back to me..
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]----
Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on February 6, 2009, at 17:17:29
In reply to Jay - I'm not mad at you..., posted by TexasChic on February 5, 2009, at 20:58:44
> ... I just wanted to express that your statement felt hurtful me. I hope it didn't come off as too harsh.
>
> -TT, I honestly never even directed a single statement at your post. I had been working overtime and couldn't post. What I was suspect about your list though was that these where individuals, some who where associated with former scientific bodies. You can look my list and all my references up on Wikipedia...and that is there is not one single scientific body, minus the Petroleum Society, that doesn't agree on Global Warming and Climate Change. And I am trying to be the good guy...do the right thing for our kids, grandchildren, a beautiful planet. Why am I made out to be so bad? Look, I'm sorry. I'll just shut up.
Jay
Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on February 6, 2009, at 17:21:15
In reply to Please be civil » jay_bravest_face, posted by Deputy Dinah on February 5, 2009, at 16:32:52
Posted by Sigismund on February 6, 2009, at 17:21:31
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-) » jay_bravest_face, posted by gabbette on February 5, 2009, at 20:42:37
In the paper the other day scientists said they now think that the temperature of the Indian Ocean has more effect on our climate then the el nino/la nina pattern of the Pacific Ocean, meaning we may be able to make much better long range weather predictions for Australian farmers.
All this is in its infancy.
But you know, there have been proposals to put urea into the oceans to precipitate algal blooms or some such to soak up CO2 (rejected it seems). Again, there have been serious scientific proposals to blast SO2 into the stratosphere to soak up radiation.
The question of who is responsible is not the main issue. What is important is to get alternative non-nuclear energy production up and running so that we do not end up facing much worse alternatives down the track than we do at the moment. Not to speak of the whole sorry oil business and the terrorist imperative to attack it wherever possible, which will only become more acute.
And this could happen. The US can do this sort of thing when it puts its mind to it.
Too much of Australia is a coal quarry to expect much of us, I'm afraid.
I think Germany has gone some way toward this.....they were importing the rubbish from Naples and turning it into power
Posted by Dinah on February 6, 2009, at 17:22:29
In reply to Dinah, I apologize (nm) » Deputy Dinah, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on February 6, 2009, at 17:21:15
Posted by Dinah on February 6, 2009, at 17:38:40
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling?, posted by kid47 on February 6, 2009, at 12:02:21
That's my point of view.
I certainly see the effects man can have on the earth. I know that the wetlands have been cut up by waterways cut for access for the oil companies, and by spreading development where development was not meant to be. I know that another huge factor in the destruction of the wetlands was the escape of captive nutria into an environment where the balance of nature did not account for their presence. It's amazing how much erosion those little critters can account for.
This doesn't mean that I oppose the oil companies activities or the provision of housing or anything. Just that we need to attend to our activities and do our best to minimize future damage and repair past damage.
For that matter, don't I recall that the landscape of many areas of the UK have been sculpted by the cutting down of forests by our far back ancestors?
The things we do for whatever reasons, including the ubiquitous unintended consequences, have a lasting impact for our children and our children's children. It's our responsibility to clean up after ourselves and leave the place no worse than we received it, to the extent we can.
My objections are only to the method of delivery. It wasn't necessary to terrify a young idealistic me by talk of a new ice age. I vowed then not to be easily terrified again. And that isn't limited to the environmental catastrophes either. So now I'm a bit less idealistic and am more likely to be swayed by balanced and thoughtful discussions about what we do and don't know and what may or may not help.
Mind you, I'm a bit of a hypocrite on the subject. Nothing on earth can get between me and my a/c. Especially in my fat old age.
Posted by TexasChic on February 6, 2009, at 17:54:21
In reply to Re: Jay - I'm not mad at you... » TexasChic, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on February 6, 2009, at 17:17:29
I shouldn't have said anything. I felt bad about what I said as soon as I posted it. I think I was feeling particularly sensitive at the time. I REALLY hope you're not upset with me. Please let me know you're not!
-T
Posted by 10derHeart on February 6, 2009, at 20:03:40
In reply to Re: Jay - I'm not mad at you... » TexasChic, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on February 6, 2009, at 17:17:29
Just to be fair, it seems (and I could be wrong but since you posted back to me, not TC) it was my links that may have upset you. I regret that happening.
I just thought it was interesting. That so many would be willing to sign their names to that petition and allow it publicized, rejecting specific assertions on 'global warming." I thought it would contribute other ideas and texture to the thread. I could have been wrong.
I didn't read it that they rejected all climate change in general, or even that our activities are causing things - just that they rejected that agreement in 1997, and similar agreements. I don't have any idea what each of the 31,000+ believe precisely on each aspect of the issue. Or why they do.
I don't think being skeptical about specific statements out there re "warming" and caring about doing things to protect and preserve the Earth are mutually exclusive. I think pretty much along the lines of what seldom wrote. What scientists say doesn't influence me in my efforts to recycle and save water, electricity and so on every day. I just do it because it seems right and makes so much sense. Waste is waste. Pollution pollutes - I can see it with my untrained, unscientific eyes. I've lived in Los Angeles and Seoul, ROK, where breathing is scary.
It was never about political parties, or anything. BTW, I am a registered Independent and try my hardest to vote my heart, soul and conscience on issues in elections. So difficult at times with many complex issues and competing priorities. I do the best I can.
I don't think you're "so bad." Having differing points of view doesn't make others "bad." Following or not following civility guidelines, site rules, whatever - sometimes, never, all the time - isn't my criteria for deciding any Babblers are "good" or "bad." (If I adopt that mindset, I will resign as a deputy immediately.) To me, that would be awfully simplistic, unsupportive and unproductive.
Posted by gabbette on February 6, 2009, at 23:16:56
In reply to Re: Global Warming or Cooling? You asked :-) » jay_bravest_face, posted by gabbette on February 5, 2009, at 20:42:37
first I don't do well with taking orders
"Read it and get back to me"
I read it long before you posted it.
My point was missed by you.
I did not say anywhere that NASA was wrong, nor in this particular case do I believe they are.
Your introduction was "You're gonna argue with Nasa, big names, awards... "
The inference that it's foolish or unthinking
to leave room for doubt, is based on nothing.
The opposite has been proven to be the case almost without exception.
My feelings about the term "good science" remain.
No one has ever been lauded for a theory based on
"Bad Science"It's based on the Scientific *knowledge of the time* As things evolve, and new technologies are developed, variables are discovered, these discoveries often prove "Facts" discovered by the "Top Names" to be incorrect
Even Scientists can't predict what they don't know yet-
Predjudiced remarks, and baseless generalizations, directed toward a person with a different, or questioning viewpoint only serve to lessen the credibility of any other conclusions made.
I will not post on this particular topic again.
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.