View Full Version : NASA Claims 2005 Was Warmest Year On Record
Story is here:
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?id=2006012416040002223641&dt=20060124160400&w=RTR&coview=
that it was hot flashes !!
I rode my m/c across "Americas Loneliest Highway" the summer of '98.
I thought it felt real warm :sun
thanks for the post ...
rgarling
01-26-2006, 10:14
I'm not sure why a climate scientist would disregard the best data available (satellite data) in developing his theory.... Go figure.
"That very anomalously warm year (1998) has become the norm," Shindell said in a telephone interview. HA, HA! good one.
Tha Wookie
01-26-2006, 20:17
Gotta love this global warming in Jan!:sun
But those of us who hiked last spring remember it as cold well into May and June... Remember, it was always winter, but never Christmas!
hopefulhiker
01-27-2006, 00:13
Hey Red Hat, There were the most Hurricanes ever last year too.. Some of the houses at the beach in NC washed away too. This was overshadowed by Katrina of course..The weather is changing... In New York and NJ I rememember hiking in 106 Heat Index with dried up springs and parched frogs... I Still loved it though...:sun
-There is a reason it is called "Global" warming. It may be colder'n a well-digger's posterior where you are, but hotter'n Hades elsewhere. Right now, for example, it is about 60 degrees where I am, but the folks in Georgia (the old USSR) are enduring extremely cold weather. Somewhere between what it is here and what it is there, is the average.
-The reason that satellite data is ignored: No one lives there. Satellites, for the most part, are well above the earth's atmosphere and the temp in space has nothing whatsoever to do with the temp on this planet.
RockyTrail
01-27-2006, 17:22
In the 70's scientists told us the next ice age was coming and we'd all be frozen into solid ice cubes by now...i guess they were wrong?:-? I bought a -50 bag just for that.
But them scintists are all smarterer now, yes sireee!:)
hee hee
In the 70's scientists told us the next ice age was coming and we'd all be frozen into solid ice cubes by now...i guess they were wrong?:-? I bought a -50 bag just for that.
But them scintists are all smarterer now, yes sireee!:)
hee hee
This is like telling us all liberals think the same, or all conservatives. Or all doctors, architechs, whatever, think the same. Some scientists may have said this. Others said something different, almost certainly.
My suspicion is that Rocky Trail recalls a newspaper or magazine article with such a claim being quoted. If not, he needs to let us know the source of his ignorance.
I've been following the global warming debate for at least 50 years, ever since I read the discussion first broached in the 1800's warning about CO2's role in warming the earth.
I didn't keep a catalog of who said what, and when, but I'm positive there were a variety of opinions in the 1970s, just as there are now, though I've never heard of a responsible scientist that today doubts global warming. The only debate, Rocky, is what is causing the change.
All I'm suggesting, Rocky T. is that without details, such comments are meaningless, and, coupled with a "hee hee," probably dumb.
Weary
RockyTrail
01-27-2006, 20:16
This is like telling us all liberals think the same, or all conservatives. Or all doctors, architechs, whatever, think the same. Some scientists may have said this. Others said something different, almost certainly.
My suspicion is that Rocky Trail recalls a newspaper or magazine article with such a claim being quoted. If not, he needs to let us know the source of his ignorance.
I've been following the global warming debate for at least 50 years, ever since I read the discussion first broached in the 1800's warning about CO2's role in warming the earth.
I didn't keep a catalog of who said what, and when, but I'm positive there were a variety of opinions in the 1970s, just as there are now, though I've never heard of a responsible scientist that today doubts global warming. The only debate, Rocky, is what is causing the change.
All I'm suggesting, Rocky T. is that without details, such comments are meaningless, and, coupled with a "hee hee," probably dumb.
Weary
Gee, touched a nerve, huh?
Thank you for informing me of my "ignorance." I didn't realize you were the ultimate standard of knowledge:) And thanks for calling my comments "meaningless and dumb", I'll be kind enough not to return the favor. I respect everyone's freedom of speech.
Like you, I don't keep catalogs of who said what. The future "ice age" theory was in the popular press at the time, I didn't keep logs. A lot of things have been hyped over the years. Remember the comet Kohutek hype in '73-'74? It was supposed to be the "cosmic event of the century" and dwarf Halley's Comet, but it came and went with hardly a peep. Heck, you had to use 10x binoculars to see it.
Many theories have come and gone - the flat earth theory, the earth-centered solar system, stress causes stomach ulcers, etc.
My point is that nobody can really predict anything until it's over and done with. If you've ever worked the announcer booth calling plays at a baseball game you learn that right away! ..."It ain't over till it's over." I like to keep an open mind about these things, and sticking resolutely to a single pre-determined theory is narrow-minded in my opinion. Temp goes up, temp goes down, and like you said the debate goes on about why it happens. Learned people have "jumped the gun" in the past and they're likely to do it again.
I didn't really expect my post to be taken so seriously, but you're welcome to do with it whatever you like. I do hope you have a nice weekend...happy hiking!:sun
Sincerely, RockyTrail
I love the enviroment and believe that major steps need to be taken to protect it. But the fact of the matter is many qualified scientists disagree with the theory of global warming. They all seem to agree that the earth is warmer now......but many believe that is due to a cyclical weather pattern. And there is plenty to support their theory.
The debate will not conclude during our lifetime nor our children's. We just have to do the best we can.
smokymtnsteve
01-27-2006, 21:13
In the 70's scientists told us the next ice age was coming and we'd all be frozen into solid ice cubes by now...i guess they were wrong?:-? I bought a -50 bag just for that.
But them scintists are all smarterer now, yes sireee!:)
hee hee
U coulda used that -50 bag here in Two Rivers last night..:banana
but it would not have been a warm enough bag for FBKS..hehe:D
january was milder than december here in tenn.:cool: neo
....the fact of the matter is many qualified scientists disagree with the theory of global warming. They all seem to agree that the earth is warmer now......but many believe that is due to a cyclical weather pattern. And there is plenty to support their theory.....
I keep hearing this message. I have yet to see anyone quote any of those "many qualified scientists" that you argue "disagree with the theory of global warming."
A handful in the employ of a few oil companies make that claim, but even leading players in the oil industry concede that human activities are impacting the temperatures of the earth.
Honest debate requires at least some relationship to facts. I comment with a bit of humor about many things on White Blaze, but such things as the future of the four seasons that keep me in Maine, or the future of poor countries impacted by our fossil fuel wasting habits are not among them.
Weary
As I am not an activist on this matter so I have not recorded the names of these scientists. I know that during the Hurricane season scientists on the major news channels and on the weather channel fell on both sides of this issue. And again both sides presented sound arguements.
What good debate also requires is the ability to make your case without a subjective exaggeration.
One FACT that is certain is that you don't have to worry about the end of the four seasons during your lifetime. That I can assure you all scientists will agree with.
Or my lifetime or our children's lifetime, or our grandchildren's lifetime
halibut15
01-27-2006, 22:51
Anybody ever hear about the warming period just before the Little Ice Age centuries and centuries ago? It's said that temps. then were as high or higher than even now. Of course, records weren't kept then, so no one can "officially" say so. :-?
Or my lifetime or our children's lifetime, or our grandchildren's lifetime
Ha! That's not true. Why I read this in the Globe. Surely the Globe tells the truth.
Katrina's real name
By Ross Gelbspan | August 30, 2005
"THE HURRICANE that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming.
When 124-mile-an-hour winds shut down nuclear plants in Scandinavia and cut power to hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland and the United Kingdom, the driver was global warming.
When a severe drought in the Midwest dropped water levels in the Missouri River to their lowest on record earlier this summer, the reason was global warming.
In July, when the worst drought on record triggered wildfires in Spain and Portugal and left water levels in France at their lowest in 30 years, the explanation was global warming.
When a lethal heat wave in Arizona kept temperatures above 110 degrees and killed more than 20 people in one week, the culprit was global warming.
And when the Indian city of Bombay (Mumbai) received 37 inches of rain in one day -- killing 1,000 people and disrupting the lives of 20 million others -- the villain was global warming.
As the atmosphere warms, it generates longer droughts, more-intense downpours, more-frequent heat waves, and more-severe storms.
Although Katrina began as a relatively small hurricane that glanced off south Florida, it was supercharged with extraordinary intensity by the relatively blistering sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico.
The consequences are as heartbreaking as they are terrifying.
Unfortunately, very few people in America know the real name of Hurricane Katrina because the coal and oil industries have spent millions of dollars to keep the public in doubt about the issue.
The reason is simple: To allow the climate to stabilize requires humanity to cut its use of coal and oil by 70 percent. That, of course, threatens the survival of one of the largest commercial enterprises in history.
In 1995, public utility hearings in Minnesota found that the coal industry had paid more than $1 million to four scientists who were public dissenters on global warming. And ExxonMobil has spent more than $13 million since 1998 on an anti-global warming public relations and lobbying campaign.
In 2000, big oil and big coal scored their biggest electoral victory yet when President George W. Bush was elected president -- and subsequently took suggestions from the industry for his climate and energy policies.
As the pace of climate change accelerates, many researchers fear we have already entered a period of irreversible runaway climate change.
Against this background, the ignorance of the American public about global warming stands out as an indictment of the US media.
When the US press has bothered to cover the subject of global warming, it has focused almost exclusively on its political and diplomatic aspects and not on what the warming is doing to our agriculture, water supplies, plant and animal life, public health, and weather.
For years, the fossil fuel industry has lobbied the media to accord the same weight to a handful of global warming skeptics that it accords the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the United Nations.
Today, with the science having become even more robust -- and the impacts as visible as the megastorm that covered much of the Gulf of Mexico -- the press bears a share of the guilt for our self-induced destruction with the oil and coal industries.
As a Bostonian, I am afraid that the coming winter will -- like last winter -- be unusually short and devastatingly severe. At the beginning of 2005, a deadly ice storm knocked out power to thousands of people in New England and dropped a record-setting 42.2 inches of snow on Boston.
The conventional name of the month was January. Its real name is global warming."
Ross Gelbspan is author of ''The Heat Is On" and ''Boiling Point."
An article about Katrina, written in Oct 2005: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/?fs=www3.nationalgeographic.com
One of the reasons that Katrina was so devastating is that marshlands the size of Delaware that once acted as a buffer to storms entering New Orleans was destroyed by natural gas mining.
Today's temperature in Appleton, WI: 49 degrees F. New record
Joel Rash
01-28-2006, 03:39
Actually Rocky, there is a great deal of discussion about how global warming could lead to the next Ice Age:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1083419,00.html.
If you search around on-line a bit you'll find plenty of other citations with primary resources.
As for 'scientists being smarter' now, yeah, they certainly are learning more all the time. Overwhelmingly they are learning that man's effect on the environment is substantial, wide-ranging and increasingly permanent. Paid energy company stooges notwithstanding.
Actually Rocky, there is a great deal of discussion about how global warming could lead to the next Ice Age:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1083419,00.html.
If you search around on-line a bit you'll find plenty of other citations with primary resources.
As for 'scientists being smarter' now, yeah, they certainly are learning more all the time. Overwhelmingly they are learning that man's effect on the environment is substantial, wide-ranging and increasingly permanent. Paid energy company stooges notwithstanding.
Very interesting article. I remember seeing a documentary in the '80's that suggested exactly this same thing. With the warming temps, the glaciers melt, cooling the ocean and slowing the currents, which in turn cool the ocean temps even more and slowing the currents even more. Ocean currents also drive the wind patterns and therefore, the jet stream. If the jet stream slows down, our weather systems slow down. One theory was that the jet stream, which stays mostly right through the center of this country, will move south as the ocean cools. What I remeber the most from this documentary was the scientist saying, that from start to finish, an ice age could engulf the upper half of this country in only ten years. With all the talk of global warming, I have often been called a fool when I suggest that the warming will trigger another ice age. Fasten your seat belts, we're in for a bumpy night.
Snowed here in the Dallas area before Christmas this year. Last year too. First time in over 100 years we had snow before Christmas in back to back year. If you want the four seaseon maybe you should move south.
Snowed here in the Dallas area before Christmas this year. Last year too. First time in over 100 years we had snow before Christmas in back to back year. If you want the four seaseon maybe you should move south.
When society chooses to deliberately mess with the thin layer of atmosphere that has been the source of life on this planet for several billions of years, no one knows what might happen for sure.
But the options for Maine seems to be either a new ice age, or the climate of Georgia moved a thousand miles north.
What are we messing with? If the world were a blueberry the thin layer of atmosphere would be somewhat less than the bloom, that when rubbed off by a granddaughter's fingers reveals the dark under skin.
Weary
Then again....maybe it is just a cycle......you know......you clean the granddaughters hands and then the next time she eat a blueberry you have to wash them again.
Besides earth is still here after the last Ice Age and I hear Georgia has some pretty fall foliage.
Of course Georgia weather would be good for me. As I have posted elsewhere I am planning on staying in Maine for a while after my thru. I have a job offer teaching at Maine-Orono.......May take that if the golf season lasts more than three months
smokymtnsteve
01-28-2006, 21:52
Then again....maybe it is just a cycle......you know......you clean the granddaughters hands and then the next time she eat a blueberry you have to wash them again.
Besides earth is still here after the last Ice Age and I hear Georgia has some pretty fall foliage.
oh but what if it ain't..what if this here global warming is REAL.
U know the fundamentalist Xians say that g-d is going to dystroy the world by FIRE this time....
yea weary can rewash the hands of his granddaughter...but like they say
once U loose ur habitat..your GONE.
maybe BURNING IN HELL was a prophecy of GLOBAL WARMING!
Not even close to happening. As I have posted I think we should make changes and do all that we can. But alot of the talk on this subject is a little overdramatic.
Then again....maybe it is just a cycle......you know......you clean the granddaughters hands and then the next time she eat a blueberry you have to wash them again.
Besides earth is still here after the last Ice Age and I hear Georgia has some pretty fall foliage.
Of course there are cycles of climate.
But the world is habitable because CO2 traps the heat of the sun. We have increased the CO2 by a third already and are heading towards doubling and tripling CO2 in the earth's atmosphere.
If you can suggest to me why some CO2 keeps the world at comfortable temperatures, but more won't increase those temperatures I may take you seriously. Otherwise I suspect you have nothing to seriously add to this debate.
Weary
Sounds to me like we need to put a hole in the ozone layer so the CO2 can get out. Either that or tell people to stop exhaling so much.
That was a joke...but as I said before the debate is unwinnable because we won't have deffinetive results in our lifetime.
BTW saying that we have increased CO2 by a third and are heading toward doubling or tripling it is like saying "I have hiked 200 miles so I am headed toward being a 2,000 miler". Just because you are headed there doesn't mean you are gonna make it.
You know some scientists believe cow and elephant gas is more hazzardous than oil production
Sounds to me like we need to put a hole in the ozone layer so the CO2 can get out. Either that or tell people to stop exhaling so much. That was a joke...but as I said before the debate is unwinnable because we won't have deffinetive results in our lifetime.
True. We will not know in any detail how much damage we have done in the oldest of our lifetimes. However, we still have the option of reducing our impact on the earth's climate. The question is whether we are willing to give up marginal comforts to do so.
Or are we truly the "me" generation -- a generation dedicated to our own comforts and to hell with our children, grandchildren and future generations.
Weary
That's what I have been saying. But in order to be taken seriously it is best to avoid extremes. Like worrying about the end of the four seasons in the near future.
Actually I saw the Four Seasons in Vegas a few years ago. I think they've lost it but then again I am deaf so who knows
BTW saying that we have increased CO2 by a third and are heading toward doubling or tripling it is like saying "I have hiked 200 miles so I am headed toward being a 2,000 miler". Just because you are headed there doesn't mean you are gonna make it.
CO2 is carbon dioxide, what we exhale. Don't you mean CO, carbon monoxide, which is what is created from burning fossil fuels? And, btw, that's a lousy analogy. With increasing population and the continuation of creating CO, we will double or triple it. Comparing that to a hiker's ability to finish a thru hike is truly silly, to put it mildly. :rolleyes:
Tha Wookie
01-29-2006, 10:32
Sounds to me like we need to put a hole in the ozone layer so the CO2 can get out. Either that or tell people to stop exhaling so much.
That was a joke...but as I said before the debate is unwinnable because we won't have deffinetive results in our lifetime.
I disagree. We can already see it. step outside. read the NASA report.
I was in the caribbean for December, revisiting many coral sites where I dive, and there was -in one year- extreme coral bleaching brought on by higher water temps.
Entire colonies of coral had been wiped out, in 9 months.
I did some investigation and learned that the water temps had risen higher than ever in 2005.
If you don't think you will see the results in your lifetime, then you need to step out and look around.
Sounds to me....
Dizzy, isn't that a bit like a blind person saying "I see, I see"? :rolleyes:
CO2 is carbon dioxide, what we exhale. Don't you mean CO, carbon monoxide, which is what is created from burning fossil fuels? ....
CO2 is a major pollutant causing global warming, and the global warming pollutant over which humans have the most control. It is the major pollutant created from burning fossil fuels. Carbon monoxide is produced from the inefficient burning of fossil fuels.
There's an interesting story in today's Washington Post, claiming that scientists, including Bush's chief science advisor, are generally agreed that global warming is largely caused by the human addiction to fossil fuels.
The new scientific debate, the Post reports, is how soon the world will pass a point of no return, making severe climate change inevitable, regardless of what society does.
If so, some worry, the result will be a climate unlike any before experienced by humans. Two thirds of Florida, for instance, is likely to disappear, along with much of New York City inland to Grenwich(sp) Village, all inundated by sea levels 20-feet higher than now.
Whole countries are likely to end up under water, the Post writes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801021.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
The current effects of global warming are concentrated in a few areas including cloud forests, the artic and antartic circles, and coral reefs.
Tha Wookie
01-29-2006, 14:29
The current effects of global warming are concentrated in a few areas including cloud forests, the artic and antartic circles, and coral reefs.
Actually, it's a global phenomenon. You would be accurate in saying the most observable effects are concentrated in those areas.
-a small change in wordage, but the distinction is important for awareness of the issue.
One FACT that is certain is that you don't have to worry about the end of the four seasons during your lifetime. That I can assure you all scientists will agree with.
That statement would be a supposition without certainty, not a fact.
hmmm....
Global warming? maybe....I'll go so far as to say that I believe we have had constant climate change and will continue to do so. Are "we" causing it?
I don't know.
Sun is currently warmer than it's been in 1,000 years:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1076/is_8_46/ai_n6260801
or
http://tinyurl.com/daxu6
or is that in the last 8,000 years?
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/991118FO.html
"Solar activity is presently at high levels relative to the historical record of the past 8,000 years."
study on global climate change and solar variability:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/varsun.html
another paper:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/causecc/
and then there's this one:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html
"Charlson says scientists understand to within 10 percent the impact of human activity on the production of greenhouse gases, things like carbon dioxide and methane that act like blanket to trap heat and, in theory, contribute to global warming. Yet their grasp of the human impact on albedo could be off by as much as 100 percent, he fears." Albedo is the percentage of sunlight reflected back into space. Understanding albedo is critical to understanding the sun's affect on climate change. Theoretically, the albedo measure should be declining due to greenhouse gasses, but these studies indicate it's going up!
A 15 minute google search uncovers enough conflicting scientific opinion that makes me believe that hastening to judgement, or accepting anything heard in the media (if it can't be said in a 5 second soundbite, it won't be said) without seriously questioning it is not a very wise course.....
Cheers!
Steve
Tim Seaver
01-29-2006, 18:08
Not even close to happening. As I have posted I think we should make changes and do all that we can. But alot of the talk on this subject is a little overdramatic.
Yes, it's all about packaging, isn't it?
....A longtime public-opinion specialist who helped frame the GOP's "Contract with America" in 1994, (Frank) Luntz doesn't make policy, but he's a master at packaging it. The 43-year-old founder of the Virginia-based Luntz Research Companies was the author of "Straight Talk," a confidential memo—leaked to the media in 2003—that coached Bush administration officials and GOP supporters on marketing a wide range of policies. "The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general—and President Bush in particular—are most vulnerable," Luntz warned. "Any discussion . . . has to be grounded in an effort to reassure a skeptical public that you care about the environment for its own sake—that your intentions are strictly honorable."
<!-- www/global/outside ad_in_article include --> <!-- end ad in article include -->
To that end, Luntz suggested new White House phrasing on subjects like global warming (though "the scientific debate is closing against us," he wrote, minds could be eased by making "the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue"). He also laid out specific language designed to soothe voters. Some of it, such as the phrase "Safer, cleaner, and healthier," soon showed up verbatim in speeches by GOP policymakers.
SOUND BITE: "Climate change is less frightening than 'global warming,'" Luntz wrote in "Straight Talk." "Global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."
If you are waiting for Republicans to do diddly squat about global warming....I mean, climate change...don't hold your breath.
hmmm....
Global warming? maybe....I'll go so far as to say that I believe we have had constant climate change and will continue to do so. Are "we" causing it?
I don't know.
.....http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/991118FO.html
"Solar activity is presently at high levels relative to the historical record of the past 8,000 years."
.....A 15 minute google search uncovers enough conflicting scientific opinion that makes me believe that hastening to judgement, or accepting anything heard in the media (if it can't be said in a 5 second soundbite, it won't be said) without seriously questioning it is not a very wise course.....Cheers!
Steve
Steve: Google searches need to be read. For instance one of your search results reports:
"Based on .... calculations, and the observational records of climate change for the 20th century, the following conclusions are drawn:
"Global climate of the 20th century has warmed by 0.7-0.8°C.
Natural (unforced) climate variability cannot explain the magnitude of the observed warming over the 20th century.
Solar irradiance variations are large enough to shape, but not dominate, the observed warming.
"The extended warming period between 1910-1940 can be explained by natural variability plus added greenhouse gases. It can also be explained by added greenhouse gases plus increased solar irradiance.
"Added greenhouse gases provide, by far, the most plausible hypothesis for explaining the warming of the 20th century. "
Another of your citiations, reports:
"The greenhouse effect
"Greenhouse gases do not interfere to any great extent with the incoming solar energy. But once that energy reaches the Earth's surface, it is absorbed, warms the land and ocean surface of the planet, and then is re-emitted. The amount of heat re-emitted and eventually lost to space must equal the amount gained from the Sun if the temperature of the planet is to remain constant.
"But the so-called terrestrial energy stream is different in character – it is longer in wavelength than the incoming solar energy as the Earth is cooler than the Sun – and the greenhouse gases interfere with it strongly before it can escape to space.
"The greenhouse gases absorb the outgoing terrestrial energy, trapping it near the Earth's surface, and causing even more warming. This is the ‘greenhouse effect.’ Without it the planet would be too cold to support life as we know it.
"Unfortunately, humanity, through energy generation, changing land use and other processes, has produced a substantial increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, and it is feared that this continuing change will lead to a major shift in global climate."
Thanks for an interesting series references, even though at least this one doesn't support your skepticism.
Weary
I justed finished Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". I know the story in just a story but hos facts are correct and sited in the book. I have not checked every one but I have checked a few and all stand up to what he states and all apear to be peer reviewed (which is most important). Below are a few of the points sited in the book.
-most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor (p. 84);
-temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased (p. 86)
-temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend (pp. 88-89)
-“full professors from MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Virginia, Colorado, UC Berkeley, and other prestigious schools ... the former president of the National Academy of Sciences ... will argue that global warming is at best unproven, and at worst pure fantasy" (p. 90)
-temperature sensors on satellites report much less warming in the upper atmosphere (which the theory of global warming predicts should warm first) than is reported by temperature sensors on the ground (p. 99)
-data from weather balloons agree with the satellites (p. 100)
-Antarctica “as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker” (p. 193, sources listed on p. 194)
-The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica has been melting for the past 6,000 years (p. 195, p. 200-201); “Greenland might lose its ice pack in the next thousand years” (p. 363)
-there has been no increase in extreme weather events (.e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years
- computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weather (p. 362, 425-426)
-temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the “urban heat island” effect (p. 368-369)
-changes in land use and urbanization may contribute more to changes in the average ground temperature than “global warming” caused by human emissions (p. 383, 388)
-temperature data are suspect because they have been adjusted and manipulated by scientists who guess to compensate for “urban heat island” (p. 385-386)
-increased levels of CO2 act a fertilizer, promoting plant growth and contributing to the shrinking of the Sahara desert (p. 421)
sufficient data exist to measure changes in mass for only 79 of the 160,000 glaciers in the world (p. 423)
-the icecap on Kilimanjaro has been melting since the 1800s, long before human emissions could have influenced the global climate, and satellites do not detect a warming trend in the region (p. 423)
-El Niños are global weather patterns unrelated to global warming and on balance tend to be beneficial by extending growing seasons and reducing the use of heating fuels (p. 426)
-the Kyoto Protocol would reduce temperatures by only 0.04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100 (p. 478)
-change, not stability, is the defining characteristic of the global climate, with naturally occurring events (e.g., volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis) much more likely to affect climate than anything humans do (p. 563)
Just a few things to think about. Search some of these items and see what you find. I could be full of crap. But I would like to see a peere reviewed paper that show global warming to be real and have the data to back it up, I like long term data. Not just a single year or two.
Story is here:
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?id=2006012416040002223641&dt=20060124160400&w=RTR&coview=
I went ot the link for NASA at the end of the articel and this wa the closing line of the NASA report.
".. ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas."
This can be open for interptation but thought it was intresting.
Tim Seaver
01-29-2006, 23:54
Here's a pretty good smackdown of Crichton's double-fiction at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
and another:
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/crichton/
The new book, State of Fear (Harper Collins, 2004, $27.95), is the story of a philanthropist, a scientist, a lawyer, and two remarkable women who discover a plot hatched by environmental extremists to trigger environmental catastrophes that they will blame on global warming.
With global warming finally tied to a series of real, undeniable, and cataclysmic catastrophes, the plotters believe, world leaders will finally see what sound science has so far failed to reveal: The need for a radical green agenda that cripples free-market forces and, not coincidentally, pours billions of dollars into the coffers of environmental advocacy groups.
Good grief. Could he at least attempt to hide his agenda? It's sad to see the author of "The Andromeda Strain" become just another tool for the right wing.
Joel Rash
01-30-2006, 01:06
I was prepared to offer a refutation of Crichton's basic premise and 'facts', but a quick on-line search will find many more qualified responses than mine. I will however make a point about the above post and the assertation that the author has proved his points. These two are right next to each other:
-Antarctica “as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker” (p. 193, sources listed on p. 194)
-The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica has been melting for the past 6,000 years (p. 195, p. 200-201); “Greenland might lose its ice pack in the next thousand years” (p. 363)
So, Antarctica is getting colder and the ice getting thicker, while the Ross Ice Shelf there has been melting for 6,000 years. Hmmm, I would have thought that it would be tough for the ice to both melt and get thicker at the same time. Crichton has pieced together an incoherent rant from many different sources, most of them, like the above examples, taken out of context and/or contradictory. I'll get my science from a scientist, thanks, not from a novelist (or a televangelist).
Joel / Hitch
Tha Wookie
01-30-2006, 09:24
I went ot the link for NASA at the end of the articel and this wa the closing line of the NASA report.
".. ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas."
This can be open for interptation but thought it was intresting.
Yes, but doesn't 60% of the US live on the coast?
I justed finished Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". I know the story in just a story but hos facts are correct and sited in the book. I have not checked every one but I have checked a few and all stand up to what he states and all apear to be peer reviewed (which is most important). Below are a few of the points sited in the book................
Having followed the climate change issue for many years, the long list cited by Profile strikes me as mostly untruths, half truths, faulty reasoning and misconceptions.
But the point about predictions of cooling three decades ago have always worried me. As I pointed out in a post on this or another thread many days ago, the evidence of warming comes despite a natural cycle of cooling, suggesting that the warming would have been even more severe had it not overlayed a natural cooling cycle.
Weary
rgarling
01-30-2006, 12:04
Scribe:
-The reason that satellite data is ignored: No one lives there. Satellites, for the most part, are well above the earth's atmosphere and the temp in space has nothing whatsoever to do with the temp on this planet.
The satellites do not measure the temp where they are orbiting, but rather, they measure the temp of the column of air from the sensor to the ground. The satellite data corresponds well with weather balloon data.
-the icecap on Kilimanjaro has been melting since the 1800s, long before human emissions could have influenced the global climate, and satellites do not detect a warming trend in the region (p. 423)
Hiked Kilimanjaro in June and barely set foot on any snow or ice, even at the top. The glacial features are nowhere near what even fairly recent pictures would suggest.
Whether mankind is causing it is up for debate, but the evidence that it is happening is prevalent.
I thought this graph showing ca. 45 yrs of data on atmospheric levels of CO2 in Hawaii might be of interest (I'm sure many of you have seen it before):
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo145e_thrudc04.pdf
To me, these data are so readable as to be astonishing.
The very regular annual cycle is due to the activity of green plants: removing CO2 through phtosynthesis in the summer and adding CO2 in the winter, when respiration far outweighs photosynthesis.
The increase of C02 from ca 315 ppm to ca 378 ppm (ca 20% increase) is very visible, of course. Less visible, perhaps -- but evident upon statistical analysis -- is that the curve is accelerated.
50% of all scientists graduated in the bottom half of their class.
My grandparents were farmers. The one thing I learned from them was that the weather this year will be different from the weather last year.
My grandparents were farmers. The one thing I learned from them was that the weather this year will be different from the weather last year.
I don't pretend to be a farmer, but I've planted a large garden on the coast of Maine for nearly 50 years. I used to expect the first killing frost by the middle of September or earlier.
I now plant my sweet corn expecting a final crop to escape frost through mid October. I'm rarely disappointed.
Weary
RockyTrail
01-30-2006, 18:01
"The extended warming period between 1910-1940 can be explained by natural variability plus added greenhouse gases."
Weary
I'm sorry, but this explanation does not fit the published data..I invite you to look at the data yourself and see for yourself.
There was a huge leap in the earth's surface temperature in the period between 1910 and 1940, well before the advent of significant CO2 emissions from automobiles and heavy industry. That effect didn't kick into high gear until the 50s and 60s.
The UN-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) http://www.ipcc.ch/ has published the earth's surface temp curve over time as shown:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/05.16.jpg
Notice the steep rise between 1910 and 1940.
I don't think you can attribute this to natural variability, just look at the lower half of the graph. Nothing in the past 1000 years rivals the 1910-40 jump and yet the CO2 increase was minimal during this time, see the related IPCC graph for proof of this fact:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/02.21.jpg
So, how do we know what is being observed today is caused by human CO2 emissions? Maybe it is, maybe it's not; but we have certainly had a verifiable, steep rise away from the long-term norm at least once in history without the influence of significant human CO2 emissions. That fact alone casts serious doubt to the popular global warming theory of recent temperature rise.
All true science is based on the ability to apply the scientific principle; that is, formulating a hypothesis (theory), devising an experiment to test the theory, taking data, and finally drawing conclusions. It also helps greatly to have a control (i.e. an untouched sample to compare/contrast with). Afterwards, others can repeat the experiment independently and form a common consensus (peer review).
Unfortunately the global warming theory never gets past the hypothesis stage. Yes, you can theorize, but you can't really do experiments because the earth is too large to manipulate and see the effect (and probably too slow for our short lifetimes), so you can't really take data and can't really draw conclusions. There is no "second earth" to monitor as a control. All we have are some one-time, historical measurements that are not repeatable upon which we have no direct control of the measurement conditions. And those measurements exist for only a relative "instant" of the earth's history.
I've made my living in the applied sciences for some three decades now. I cannot tell you how many times I've been tempted to accept a tantalizing theory before following through with a thorough analysis. It's so, sooo tempting....but you just can't accept it until it's proven. Despite the marching bands and all the glitz, I don't see the facts behind this theory. Please understand, I'm not out to pop anyone's balloon here, just calling it the way I see it, your interpretation may vary.
Thank you for entertaining such a civil discussion on an interesting subject. Heavy stuff for a hiking website:)
....I've made my living in the applied sciences for some three decades now. I cannot tell you how many times I've been tempted to accept a tantalizing theory before following through with a thorough analysis. It's so, sooo tempting....but you just can't accept it until it's proven. Despite the marching bands and all the glitz, I don't see the facts behind this theory. Please understand, I'm not out to pop anyone's balloon here, just calling it the way I see it, your interpretation may vary.
Thank you for entertaining such a civil discussion on an interesting subject. Heavy stuff for a hiking website:)
I don't claim any special expertise, other than some ability to interpret truth or falsehood of technical claims after 40 years of practice.
I did major in engineering for three plus years before switching to journalism. I found the engineering background very valuable whike covering technical matters. I quickly decided that one could easily hire a lawyer, an engineer and a scientist to tell one whatever one wanted to hear.
But I don't claim any special global warming knowledge other than that gained from following an issue for a quarter century and more. The scientists that strike me as most knowledgeable and least influenced by money matters seem to me to mostly believe that global warming is both real and significantly influenced by human activities.
Those in the employ by the fossil fuel energy companies strike me as less credible.
But I do think wise people are best advised to follow the advice of scientists who strike them as credible as opposed to trying to evaluate complicated data by themselves.
Weary
tiamalle
01-30-2006, 21:33
I remember some 10 to 15 years ago the summers in the south were hot and dry.It was necessary to water lawns and irrigate crops,one or two tropical cyclones a year in the ocean Water falls dripped in the summer
and lots of snow in the winter in Tn,Va,NC, NSC and NGa.Now: hot and humid summers,floods,hurrianes,lightning storms,muggy and mild winters
with a minium of snow,Who knows what's next.
Tha Wookie
01-31-2006, 00:09
From Yahoo news: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060130/wl_uk_afp/britainenvironmentclimatewarming;_ylt=Agz8xraNwsSS MXAuaHrRGUEDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRP UCUl
"British Prime Minister<FORM class=yqin action=http://yq.search.yahoo.com/search method=post> </FORM>Tony Blair (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Tony+Blair) added his voice to the warning on Monday.
"It is clear from the work presented that the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought," Blair said in the study's foreword.
"It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialization and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."
If he can figure it out finally, then surely Bush will get it soon. I mean, Bush isn't really THAT stupid is he?
Was looking over the data from the NASA study. This is why I think there are problems with many of these reports. This is from NASA's site about the study.
www.data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
1) "Error sources include incomplete station coverage, quantified by sampling a model-generated data set with realistic variability at actual station locations, and partly subjective estimates of data quality problems."
To me it is bad enough to replace poor station coverage with computer modeling, but to use SUBJECTIVE (not objective which is bad enough) guesses as data does not pass for science.
2)"Our analysis differs from others by including estimated temperatures..."
We are talking about a rise of .6c over the last how many decades and they again estimate
3)"the inclusion of estimated arctic temperatures is the primary reason for our rank of 2005 as the warmest year"
4)"Our ranking of 2005... is a result mainly of the large positive Arctic anomaly. Excluding the region north of 75N, 1998 is warmer than 2005. If the entire Arctic Ocean were excluded, the ranking of 2005 may be even lower [on the list].
I have written papers about experimenter bias. And everyone is right. If you do studies for "Big Oil", know who funds you and know what they want to hear, no matter how honest you are you will be biased to what they want to hear. The same is true if you are working for enviromental groups doing research.
This begs the question, who is estimating the numbers?
This is why studies should be double blind or in this case just show raw data. What is wrong with raw data? If the #'s do not give you the info or coverage you need do not make it up or take your best guess/estimate (no matter how educated in the subject). My wife does R&D for pharma's. What if she tested a drug and needed 100 sample at level "X" at one hour and level "Y" at 12 hours. She gets her levels for hour one and they are of varing #'s as expected. Halfway thru hour 12 testing the machine breaks. Data for 50 is collected the other 50 are lost. If she looked at the trend of the first 50 and and estimated the results of the last 50 would you take the drug? She would go to jail if found out. Yet we go crazy when "scientist" estimate/guess about tempature and the guess has to be as accurate as a tenth of one degree celius.
I do love the enviroment and believe humans can be much better stewards of the land. I just want to know the true facts before getting my panties in a wad.
Tha Wookie
01-31-2006, 08:57
I do love the enviroment and believe humans can be much better stewards of the land. I just want to know the true facts before getting my panties in a wad.
Alright, Josh, next time I go snorkling in St. Croix, you're coming with me!:D
I do love the enviroment and believe humans can be much better stewards of the land. I just want to know the true facts before getting my panties in a wad.
Geez, you hike with someone, and you stay at their home, and then you have to logon to the internet to find out the really juicy details. How long you been wearing panties Josh? :D
From Yahoo news: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060130/wl_uk_afp/britainenvironmentclimatewarming;_ylt=Agz8xraNwsSS MXAuaHrRGUEDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRP UCUl
"British Prime Minister<FORM class=yqin action=http://yq.search.yahoo.com/search method=post> </FORM>Tony Blair (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Tony+Blair) added his voice to the warning on Monday.
"It is clear from the work presented that the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought," Blair said in the study's foreword.
"It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialization and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."
If he can figure it out finally, then surely Bush will get it soon. I mean, Bush isn't really THAT stupid is he?
Perhaps Bush, like Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watts, is a fundamentalist Christian, and thus believes, as did Watts, that the world was created a bit over 6,000 years ago and will end soon with the "second coming." If so, in Bush's mind debates over global warming are meaningless, as are charts allegedly showing earth temperatures over the past hundreds of thousands of years.
Bush strikes me as a believer, not a thinker. The Iraq war, for instance, strikes me as totally insane and illogical by most measures, except perhaps in the minds of fundamentalists who see it as a way of carrying out one of the alleged predictions of Revelations and thus speeding up the "second coming."
Weary
RockyTrail
01-31-2006, 11:58
I don't claim any special expertise, other than some ability to interpret truth or falsehood of technical claims after 40 years of practice.
I did major in engineering for three plus years before switching to journalism. I found the engineering background very valuable whike covering technical matters. I quickly decided that one could easily hire a lawyer, an engineer and a scientist to tell one whatever one wanted to hear.
But I don't claim any special global warming knowledge other than that gained from following an issue for a quarter century and more. The scientists that strike me as most knowledgeable and least influenced by money matters seem to me to mostly believe that global warming is both real and significantly influenced by human activities.
Those in the employ by the fossil fuel energy companies strike me as less credible.
But I do think wise people are best advised to follow the advice of scientists who strike them as credible as opposed to trying to evaluate complicated data by themselves.
Weary
Don't sell yourself short, Weary.
You're smarter than you give yourself credit for; science is just human interpretation of physical facts. Anyone can reason if they can just find the facts among the noise (the hard part).
It all boils down to people, anyway; the physical world goes on its merry way as it will, while we humans struggle our whole lives with what it "means."
Which brings up hiking (is that off-topic?)....Heavens no!, that's why I hike, to get away from all this mind-wrenching stuff! :sun
Pack's on and walkin'....
Don't sell yourself short, Weary.
You're smarter than you give yourself credit for; science is just human interpretation of physical facts. Anyone can reason if they can just find the facts among the noise (the hard part).
It all boils down to people, anyway; the physical world goes on its merry way as it will, while we humans struggle our whole lives with what it "means."
Which brings up hiking (is that off-topic?)....Heavens no!, that's why I hike, to get away from all this mind-wrenching stuff! :sun
Pack's on and walkin'....
As I see it, the fundamental facts are:
1. Greenhouse gases trap the heat of the sun, making the earth the warm place that it is.
2. Humans are increasing the amount of several of those greenhouse gases found in the atmosphere.
Therefore it seems very likely to me that if we continue to add greenhouse gases, the earth will continue to get warmer -- perhaps disastrously so.
I know there are confounding facts -- a warm climaTE produces more clouds that sometimes reflect away the heat of the sun, volcanos send enormous clouds of stuff that block the sun, natural cycles of the sun's energy may disguise or add to the greenhouse effect.
But the latter are part of the basic science that rules the earth. and over which we have no control.
What has changed over the last 200 years is the mining of fossil fuels produced billions of years ago, burning them, and dumping the resulting CO2 into the atmosphere.
Weary
rgarling
01-31-2006, 13:50
the fundamental facts are:
you are missing a few thousand parameters. I suppose this is fun to think about, but let the scientists figure it out. It will take a while.