Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe
Empath,
Then there is the front that say we have greatly extended the current warming period, and we are cruising for an extra hard brush with global cooling. One of the main points was that our emissions have created an unnatural extended warm period, and the earth will swing even harder into a cold period.
Scientific American had a great article on the evidence.
However, several of their regular authors have now published their own books, and frequently attack the Dane on a regular basis in Scientific American.
In reality, the whole Global Warming fiasco is shot through like holes in Swiss Cheese.
I'll give you a couple of examples:
First CO2 debate and current levels as viewed through ice core samples:
The latest results from the EPICA core in Antarctica have just been published this week in Science (Siegenthaler et al. and Spahni et al.). This ice core extended the record of Antarctic climate back to maybe 800,000 years, and the first 650,000 years of ice have now been analysed for greenhouse gas concentrations saved in tiny bubbles. The records for CO2, CH4 and N2O both confirm the Vostok records that have been available for a few years now
First of all, the results demonstrate clearly that the relationship between climate and CO2 that had been deduced from the Vostok core appears remarkably robust.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221#more-221
--
Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm
If one were to take that litterally(based on current popular press agenda), and the fact that the amount of CO2, and even a worse global warming gas, methane, directly link to global temperatures, we probably should be in one serious world wide heatwave...we aren't
---
Patrick J. Michaels
Professor of Environmental Science
University of Virginia
Senior fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute.
The national media have given tremendous play to the claims of Vice President Al Gore, some federal scientists, and environmental activists that the unseasonably warm temperatures of this past summer were proof positive of the arrival of dramatic and devastating global warming. In fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a strong El Niño superimposed on a decade in which temperatures continue to reflect a warming that largely took place in the first half of this century.
Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by computer models that served as the basis for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa329.pdf
-
Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Most of the literate world today regards "global warming'' as both real and dangerous. Indeed, the diplomatic activity concerning warming might lead one to believe that it is the major crisis confronting mankind.
To show why I assert that there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons, I shall briefly review the science associated with those predictions.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
-
"Global warming'' is the mother of all environmental scares.
"Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist's dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.''
-Aaron Wildavsky
Professor of Political Science at Berkeley
Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg is now under attack from the scientific community, since he had the gumption to write a highly referenced book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," which statistically/mathmatically shows that global warming and many other environmental "threats" are overblown.
He brings out the fact in an analysis that airborne CO2 concentrations over the last quarter-century which reveals that the standard assumptions of strong exponential growth is wrong. Lomborg states that "temperatures will increase much less than the maximum estimates from the IPCC" with the likely change less than 2ºC (3.6ºF) by 2100.
The real truth is that Lomborg is behaving like a scientist here, examing the actual data and statistics, and drawing sound scientific conclusions on the topic.
-
Robert Essenhigh, the E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation
Ohio State
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Science Daily recently reported on a "viewpoint" published in the American Chemical Society's Chemical Innovation, that illustrates just how much debate there is about the global warming hypothesis.
Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a radiation-absorbing gas. If you ignore the water, you're going to get the wrong answer.
Essenhigh hypothesizes that the world is simply at the peak of a natural warming point which has resulted in more water vapor and hence more CO2.
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Global warming is a natural geological process that could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State University researcher.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm
-
Australia's National Tidal Facility at Flinders University in South Australia, which is charged by the government of Australia to monitor sea levels in the Pacific, reports that there has been no significant rise in the Pacific Ocean.
Going back and comparing current sea levels to those of 1978, the sea level has increased a mere 0.07 millimeters or 0.002 inches.
-
David H. Rind, climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and adjunct professor of geological sciences at Columbia, naturally occurring greenhouse gases--mainly water and carbon dioxide (CO2)--help keep the planet warm and life-sustaining.
"But there's no smoking gun," adds Rind. Whether the rise in temperature can be attributed to the increased CO2 or some sort of natural climatic cycle is unknown. Computer models notwithstanding, there's no clear answer whether the rise will continue or at what rate. "Although some type of warming may be happening," says Rind, "we don't really know its magnitude; there are just too many variables."
-
Harry Hillaker, State Climatologist
Iowa Dept. of Agriculture & Land Stewardship
The theory of global warming is based on skewed data, state Climatologist Harry Hillaker told Legislative members in charge of environmental policy.
Both matched up until 1977 when temperatures taken on land-based stations worldwide began rising faster than temperatures in Iowa. Taking into account year-to-year fluctuations, Iowa's temperature has been stable for the last 50 years, Hillaker said.
"I think we're measuring urbanization, not global warming," Hillaker said, conceding that the upward global trend is subject to much debate.
http://www.junkscience.com/jan99/skewed.htm
(many like to compare now to 1977 as their evidence...)
-
Atlanta An "Urban Heat Island," With Higher Temperatures Than Surrounding Area, New NASA Study Shows
ATHENS, Ga. -- Atlanta, Georgia, is an island unto itself - an "urban heat island" - that can have temperatures up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than surrounding areas, creating its own weather and causing thunderstorms.
(why is this important? Because most of the data pointing to global warming comes from measurement sites that are now in the middle of big cities)
http://www.junkscience.com/mar99/urbanhi.htm
-
Then there's the problem of the satellite measured temperatures. These measurements, accurate to .01 degrees Celsius, find a statistically significant cooling trend in the lower atmosphere since they started taking measurements in 1979. The old models, which the U.N. said in 1990 were "generally realistic," predicted a warming of about .6 degrees Celsius since the satellite measuring started, and even newer models predict warming of .35 degrees of Celsius. This warming simply isn't happening according to the satellite data.
(new models are more accurate now, once they are properly corrected)
Do this, and put in the most likely changes in the greenhouse effect for the next century, and you get 1.2 degrees Celsius of warming in a new climate model from the
U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. From the new model of the
United Kingdom Meteorological Organization, the same exercise will give you 1.3 degrees Celsius of warming. Or look at Tom Wigley's completely independent calculation in Nature last year. Same number: 1.3 degrees.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html
-
According to Renowned Climatologist Dr. Fred Singer:
Most of this warming (up to 0.5 degrees Celsius) occurred between 1910 and 1940. And it has been during the last 50 years that about 80 percent of greenhouse gases have been added to the atmosphere.
The IPCC's own data shows essentially no warming over the last 25 years.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/tree-rings.html
-
Fred Singer
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia
President of the Science & Environmental Policy Project in Fairfax, Va.
And how do we know this? Well, a team of 26 respected economists, led by Yale Professor Robert Mendelsohn, has taken a closer look at the evidence. They have re-evaluated the United Nations report that has been used to justify the drastic policies of energy rationing and taxes, demanded by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (to the 1992 Global Climate Treaty). Where the U.N. report found only economic losses from warming, the new study, just published by the prestigious Cambridge University Press, finds mostly gains. (Ironically, the CUP also published the 1996 U.N. report.)
What a refreshing thought -after listening to the "Chicken-Littles" in academia and the media telling us about the horrors of greenhouse warming.
http://www.junkscience.com/apr99/singer.htm
-
...
Of course that can't be tolerated, so in the final version of the report, those maps were taken out and replaced with maps that relied on a different color scale whose effect is to minimize to the naked eye the differences between the two projections (again, see the maps in Schulz's article).
As Schulz writes,
Now, this is the sort of trick that would make a college sophomore blush.
...
This stunt throws into question the whole assessment process. Roger Pielke, a respected Atmospheric Scientist at Colorado State who was involved with the drafting process at the time, said, "I'm disappointed in the whole process. This has been the most closed, unhealthy scientific process I've ever been involved in."
http://techcentralstation.com/062802B.html
---
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What you're not being told about the science of climate change
At a news conference held in Ottawa, some of North America's foremost climate experts provided evidence demonstrating that the science underlying the Kyoto Protocol is seriously flawed; a problem that continues to be ignored by the Canadian government. Scientists called on the Canadian government to delay implementation of the Kyoto Protocol until a thorough, public review of the current state of climate science has been conducted by climate experts. Such an analysis has never been organized in Canada despite repeated requests from independent, non-governmental climate scientists.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3
---
Theodor Landscheidt at Nova Scotia's Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, has shown quite conclusively that the sun waxes and wanes on quite predictable 11-year cycles, which can be moderated or intensified by longer-range, but more irregular cycles. Landscheidt, as a result, is unpopular with the UN scientists in charge of pushing the manmade global warming theory. In 1995, they wrote that the sun's effect on climate in the 20th century "has been considerably smaller than the anthropogenic (manmade effect)." But Landscheidt has demonstrated that "a change of 0.1 per cent (in solar energy) effective during a very long interval can release a real ice age."
http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming13.htm