Slashdot Mirror

'You can see "political science" at work when it comes to "global warming". Despite near unanimity in the science community there's now a movement - driven by ideology and short-term economics - to ignore the evidence and discredit the reality of climate change.' -BloomBerg

a friend and I our currently debating this topic part of it with good links follows: >>> Here's a very professional, non-sensational letter sent to Senators Frist and Daschle from more than 1,000 scientists across the country Many are from major research universities. Notice this particular point "computer simulations do not reproduce the late 20th century warmth if they include only natural climate forcings such as emissions from volcanoes and solar activity. The warmth is only captured when the simulations include forcings from human-emitted greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere."

http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_war ming/page.cfm?pageID=1264#Inst

This is actually one of the few things that I can find, that the IPCC overall releases reports supporting global warming, and this is why I am still pretty much undecided, they release good research and facts supporting their theory. The problem is even their reports never paint near as dire of situation as all the media tries to report about global warming. It still puts out many good points, but all their findings are less than a degree of change and we have records of other rapid temperature changes in the past such as the link jesse first sent out. Also, we dont have the good of temperature data for more than 100, years or so seeing heating in one half doesnt seem to be a large data set. Seeing some warming when on a large climate scale we are still coming out of an ice age and expecting to be warming (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html). In fact the IPCC report says we have shown most of the heating in the last 50 years (and some reports claim it is even more noticeable around the most industrialized countries, because we also are the most deforested, and our gauges are nearest to cities(see below)), but if you look we actually cooled from 1950 until 1975 according to public data.

During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperatures show no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well - publicized. (same link as above)

Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a common problem with ground- based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural areas, but over time have suffered background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt ( the "urban heat island effect"). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time(2). Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1 C. They are widely recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data. -A scientific Discussion of Climate Change, Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

(Ziegler, 1998). Again, we have a natural mechanism, correlated to periods of high sea level, for warming the poles that is independent of CO2 levels. -http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~polsen/nbcp/phyto.h tml (sorry for the bold and colors copy and past does weird stuff)

I did have a harder time finding alot about computer simulations that weren't directly tied to the IPCC. Computer simulations can't reproduce next fridays weather, couldnt predict Katrina until days away, can't predict historic weather based on known test data with in the ranges we have

you can drive any car you like,
but try to tell me what I can drive, and I'll spit on you

buy all the buzz you want from your neighbor's little windfarm, see if it makes a difference

Why can't you 'global warming' hoes just relax and enjoy yourselves?

Of course, one has to ask "what caused the 'Medieval Warming Period?'", and from what I gather this is not at all understood. Who says that what we see today is not caused, or at least exacerbated by the same effect? We also see weird things on Mars and other solar system bodies which indicate "warming" is occuring there, too. Is this caused by the CO2 greenhouse effect on Earth? Definitely not. But it does indicate we may be seeing some changes in the sun's output energy, or some related effect.

Second, in the distant past, when CO2 levels were much higher than today, the Earth experienced some global ice ages, so even though there can be a " CO2 greenhouse" effect, to attribute this as the dominant factor in what we see today is premature. We just don't know enough.

Third, having worked at the National Labs in the solar energy area (yes, I guess I'm a "tree hugger" in a sense), including projects looking at incident solar radiation and the impact of atmospheric aerosols on solar radiation transmission and absorption, there's still a lot of unknowns in the global climate models that I am not convinced that what the global models indicate is "scientific proof." There's a lot of arguments that any computer model can never constitute scientific "proof."

Finally, the whole cacophony of "global crisis caused by fossil fuel burning" is reaching such an irrational crescendo that it reminds me of Chicken Little, and is drowning out reasoned scientific debate from all perspectives. When scientists present alternative views of what's happening with global temperatures, they are viciously ostracised. What I see reminds me of McCarthyism of the worst sort, and Valdrex' comments fall into that category since he throws out "scientific proof" to stifle reasoned discourse.

C02 levels have never been higher

LOL. C02 levels have been way higher

CO2 in the atmosphere is mainly volcanic in origin, accounting for 97% of the CO2 found in the atmosphere, most of which travels to the oceans. Estimates at CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a "net" greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emmissions at less than 1%

The precise figure is around a 0.27% contribution from mankind.

It's usually considered good form to cite the quote, so we can see who said it and what evidence they had for the claim. As it is, the power of google comes to the rescue and I find the original source for your above quote is Wikipedia::Global_warming_controversy which in turn links to Monte Hieb's personal website.

Well, that's OK, a personal website isn't necessarily a bad source of information. We shouldn't be concerned that Mr Hieb has no education in climatology, isn't a scientist nor a doctor, doesn't have any peer reviewed papers, doesn't do research nor experiments, and isn't cited by anybody except the enthusiastic gunslingers of the "global warming is a myth" brigade. All of those details are irrelevant if Mr Hieb gets his facts right. Unfortunately he hasn't got his facts right either. If you google his name the first hit is somebody ripping apart Mr Hieb's claims. You immediately find out that Mr Hieb redefines existing scientific terminology. Tut tut, that's not a good sign.

Here the authors redefine "global warming". While the term usually refers to human caused warming, they use the term to include natural changes as well. A similar redefinition has been used with other environmental problems such as ozone depletion and acid rain. ("Global warming" has been increasingly replaced by the more accurate and inclusive "climate change"). -- http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm

That page goes on further to refute the "facts" asserted by Monte Hieb. Somebody once tried to get Mr Hieb's claims into other pages on Wikipedia but those attempts were ... uhhh... rejected. Here's a comment that accompanied one such rejection.

But to turn to the GHG page, which is what this is really about. C says: objects and deletes all sources and documentation that state anything he disagrees with. This in turn is a ref to him trying to insert a dubious value of 95% for the greenhouse effect of water vapour, based upon this source: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenho use_data.html. That page isn't a source: its just some bods pet page. The numbers on it are wrong. All this has been, is being, discussed on the talk page of greenhouse gas. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_fo r_comment/William_M._Connolley

That 95% figure (which is intrinsically linked to your 0.27% figure) isn't supported by the data. The best guess figures are between 60% and 70%. If you continue to google Mr Hieb's name you'll find that pattern repeated over and over; Mr Hieb uses incorrect values, redefines terminology and eventually arrives at incorrect conclusions. But who is Monte Hieb?

Assessment: This example is the crux of the matter, IMO, because it reveals the source of Cortonin's information. The website referenced is the personal website of Monte Hieb. A quick review of Hieb's credentials reveals that he has worked as chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner's Safety. He has done some geological survey work on fossils. There are extensive links from Free Republic's website to Hieb's. WMC refers to him as "just some bod," but cle

Those "several billion internal combustion vehicles and hundreds of thousands of gasoline-burning and jet fuel-burning aircaft" contribute only 0.27% of greenhouse gases. With water vapor taken out of the equation, we contribute 5.53%.

Water vapor is one of the so-called harmful greenhouse gases. It seems you haven't really looked at the numbers and just decided to react to my post. I posted this elsewhere, but here's a link with sources.

All I'm saying is there is no proven link that mankind is causing global warming, and there are plenty of possibilities that it is part of a natural cycle based on various opposing evidence. So I took issue with the emotive headline of this Slashdot article that declared humanity responsible for climate change.

Forgot to post the link where I got the 0.27% number from: Global warming--a closer look at the numbers

I was discussing the global warming issue just last Tuesday with someone who was very adamant that humans are responsible for everything. As I offered more and more opposing evidence suggesting that there is no definitive proof that mankind is responsible, he grew more and more emotional until he told me "attitudes like yours are why the planet is going to hell" and wouldn't discuss it further. Unfortunately, these kinds of responses are common when you're trying to rationally discuss climate change and point out that correlation does not equal causality, and that a proven link has not been made. Most of the time, you see lots of "consensus science" used as a debate point--as in, "Well, so-and-so organization says we're responsible and these guys say we're responsible."

I subscribe to what I call my "1/3 the hype" theory. When you see a lot of hype over something, reduce it to 1/3 of itself and believe that instead. E.g., "Linux on the desktop this year is going to take over!" becomes Linux will make a few gains here and there. And "mankind is responsible for everything according to correlation in some figures!" means there's some possibility we're responsible but no hard links yet.

Besides, when someone mentions that temperatures are higher, they always neglect to mention that temps actually dipped from the 40s to the 70s, giving the impression that it's just been a steady, consistent ramp upward with no variation, when it hasn't. And it is misleading to omit that fact.

Recorded climatic history goes back a very long way. Ice cores show a huge amount about climate and give information over thousands of years

Ice cores contain an abundance of climate information --more so than any other natural recorder of climate such as tree rings or sediment layers. Although their record is short (in geologic terms), it can be highly detailed. An ice core from the right site can contain an uninterrupted, detailed climate record extending back hundreds of thousands of years[my emphasis].

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today! Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.[my emphasis]

Hmm. I may have confused PPM for percentage in my memory. No matter, your graph far better demonstrates that PPM CO2 has no correlation to temperature than I ever could with words.

Where did you pull that figure out of?

Here is a graph showing CO2 levels and global temperatures over the past 600 million years. The peak is at 7000 ppm, at which time the earth's average temperate was 22 deg. C (71.6 degr. F)

Todays's CO2 concentration is 379 ppm, and todays average global temperature is about 15 deg. C (53 deg. F).

The way I see it, at times the Earth has been a lot hotter on average in the past than it is now. We look to be heading into a warming period. That may be great news for North Dakotans who want mild winters, but not so great for people who already live in hot and humid climates, especially if they are Caucasian. Right now, I live in Florida and there are days where the sun feels like it's burning through my skin when I'm outside for just a few minutes.

Oh, and then there's the small mater of Hurricanes. Who knows how strong they were 100 million years ago.

Where are you getting this from? The Vostok data shows a clear, amazingly unambiguous correlation between temperature and CO2 levels for the past several hundred thousand years.

I think he's misreading the Vostok data charts on that page. The temperature chart has an extra line "Relative to Present" which shoves the temperature about oh, about 10,000 years to the left. So he thinks the CO2 stayed stable, and the temperature dropped, but in truth, they both dropped.

This doesn't explain what he's talking about (which is here) but this page is kindof confusing timescales. Yah, CO2 used to be at obscenely higher levels in the atmosphere, but the Earth was a much, much different place then. Saying "hey, look, our models that are based on the modern geography/biosphere/atmosphere don't work half a billion years ago!" isn't exactly surprising. It also doesn't invalidate them for predicting climate in the current world.

Here's one chart of the Vostock data, here's another in a weird movie format that you have to scroll around in, but has some additional data. The commentary on the first page may be BS for all I know, but the charts are good. You've probably seen all this, but many slashotters haven't.

You can see the 100,000 year cycles clearly. Temperatures spike from -8 or -9 degrees (C) below present to 2 or 3 degrees above present in about 5000 years, then almost immediately reverse, dropping about 5 degrees over the next 10,000 years, then cool off slowly over the remainder of the 100,000 year (give or take) cycle.

About 15,000 years ago temps spiked as normal, reaching today's temps about 10,000 years ago but *didn't* dive as would be expected. Humans started messing with the climate significantly only in the past 200 years, but something unprecedented in the 400,000 years of good data we have happened 10,000 years ago - we should have been back to the norm for the Current Ice Age by now. What happened? During the previous cycle CO2 levels stayed at the ~275ppm level for 10,00 years but temperatures dropped nearly 10 degrees during that time anyway - why?

Yes, indeed, as I said repeatedly, the volcanic cycle is far slower than the timescale we care about. But CO2 level changes driven by the big geological cycle dominate the geological data. There have been geological periods when CO2 levels were 6-7 times as high as they are now (we think), but temperatures were about the same. Why? We really know very little about the factors that govern the climate.

What we *do* know is that it's a historical anomaly during the past 50,000,000 years for temperatures to be this warm for even 1,000 years at a stretch - the climate simply isn't naturally stable.

Ah I had a brain fart on the scale of 50 parts per million (too many numbers, I get confused). It is only off the scale because they decided to limit it by 10% or so.

Anyways, I notice you decided to comment on that minor gaf on my part. I notice no comment of accusing me of saying 450 years when I actually did say 450 thousand. Or any of the other points I made.

Oh and another point.
You said: "The real problem with permafrost melting is that the frozen ground in many of these places holds back massive amounts of greenhouse gasses,"

This in respons to me saying that the problem is the peat decomposing, THe PEAT is what is holding back the greenhouse gasses. And again, I already mentioned it, and it references the fact that if plant life grew there, it couldn't have always been frozen, hence not "perma" frost

But anyways to put Atmospheric CO2 levels in perspective.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_cl imate.html/

During the Cambrian periood it peaked at 7000 ppm, a tad bit higher than our current 375 or so, I notice you didn't acknowledge your incorrect comment that it's higher now that it every has been.

A clever criticism, but actually untrue for a number of reasons. The one you will understand most readily is the Vostok core records. here's a nice presentation of that part of the picture. Plenty of samples here.

The CO2 concentration was 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, 500 million years ago. Was this a time of mass extinction? Not at all. During the Cambrian Explosion, your relatives started having sex, and evolved into animals at a tremendous rate.

What is the carbon concentration now? A measly 350-380 ppm.

What does this low rate mean. MASS EXTINCTIONS!

Or does it?
Let's recap:
350 ppm CO2 = MASS EXTINCTIONS!
7000 ppm CO2 = A pretty good time for evolution.

From a green web site:

The sahara was once a luxurious Forest teeming with a wide array of Wildlife .. "the original forests that once stretched from Morocco to Afghanistan even as late as 2000 BC ..."; "The deserts, the bad fields of the maghreb countries of Northern Africa are still, 2,000 years later, to a large extent the sad outcome of anti-ecological practices, of the way the corn was ground in order to be shipped to Rome, to be the panem part of the panem et circenses formula. And there it was eaten, and it went down the sewers into the Mediterranean, and that was where the fertilizer went instead of being recycled back into the ground from which it was taken."

From the Xenophile: African history site:

5. The reason why the land between the Mediterranean and the Atlas Mts. is near-desert today is because it has been so misused over the past 2,000 years. Forests were cleared, because of the need for both farmland and wood, and bad farming practices ruined the fertility of the soil, while much of the wildlife was slaughtered, hunted for sport or taken to arenas like the Colosseum in Rome for entertainment. Fields lost their protective ground cover to overgrazing, especially from sheep and goats, which do a more thorough job on the roots of plants than cattle. In the fourth century B.C., Plato described the ecological damage done to Greece with these words: "What now remains, compared with what existed, is like the skeleton of a sick man, all the fat and soft earth wasted away and only the bare framework of the land being left." By the time the Romans were finished, the same could be said for the whole Mediterranean basin.

But gosh, you are right, the French didn't plunder the Saharan hardwoods, nope. They plundered the Sahelan hardwoods. And now the Sahel is one of the largest regions of ongoing desertification on the planet. So, gosh, I was wrong. Curse me for confusing the Sahara and the Sahel. They do bump up against each other, and their names sound really similar. And the last time I listened to my grandfather talk about the French ships loaded with tropical hardwoods was before he died, nearly twenty years ago. Unfortunately, first-hand evidence is no good to you and the people who think their climate models are right, screw the world outside the window...

But my point remains the same. Climate change has happened throughout history. In fact you're ignoring the Sahara itself, which was the victim of climate change from 6000BC (Lush, tropical rainforest) to 2000BC (Dry, sandy desert.) That occurred completely without human intervention. What was left was plundered by the Europeans (Yes, Rome is in Europe.)

You stated that no one should be better off than a Chinese sustinance farmer. You stated that living at any level beyond that is "unsustainable". I ask you then, are you part of the solution or part of the problem. Have you gone to live in a mud hut and eked out a living on the soil? Have you beaten your car's door panels into a plow to grow living things? Have you shut off your water and your electricity? Have you stopped eating anything you didn't harvest or kill yourself?

My point has been fixed like a stone through this whole argument. The current warming trend is due to increased solar activity. History shows (Site 1, Site 2) that solar input has far more to do with global temperatures than human produced greenhouse gasses ( Site 3).

You have failed to get this point all along. Collapsing economies, relegating 90% of the world population to starvation and medieval lifestyles is not the answer. The answer is to apply our *BRAINS* to find the solution. Not simply go off on knee-jerk reactions to today's "Prophet of Doom".

But I'm sure I'll get your knee-jerk reaction, backed with no facts, no research, not five minutes of reading or attempting to comprehend, presently.

From a green web site:

The sahara was once a luxurious Forest teeming with a wide array of Wildlife .. "the original forests that once stretched from Morocco to Afghanistan even as late as 2000 BC ..."; "The deserts, the bad fields of the maghreb countries of Northern Africa are still, 2,000 years later, to a large extent the sad outcome of anti-ecological practices, of the way the corn was ground in order to be shipped to Rome, to be the panem part of the panem et circenses formula. And there it was eaten, and it went down the sewers into the Mediterranean, and that was where the fertilizer went instead of being recycled back into the ground from which it was taken."

From the Xenophile: African history site:

5. The reason why the land between the Mediterranean and the Atlas Mts. is near-desert today is because it has been so misused over the past 2,000 years. Forests were cleared, because of the need for both farmland and wood, and bad farming practices ruined the fertility of the soil, while much of the wildlife was slaughtered, hunted for sport or taken to arenas like the Colosseum in Rome for entertainment. Fields lost their protective ground cover to overgrazing, especially from sheep and goats, which do a more thorough job on the roots of plants than cattle. In the fourth century B.C., Plato described the ecological damage done to Greece with these words: "What now remains, compared with what existed, is like the skeleton of a sick man, all the fat and soft earth wasted away and only the bare framework of the land being left." By the time the Romans were finished, the same could be said for the whole Mediterranean basin.

But gosh, you are right, the French didn't plunder the Saharan hardwoods, nope. They plundered the Sahelan hardwoods. And now the Sahel is one of the largest regions of ongoing desertification on the planet. So, gosh, I was wrong. Curse me for confusing the Sahara and the Sahel. They do bump up against each other, and their names sound really similar. And the last time I listened to my grandfather talk about the French ships loaded with tropical hardwoods was before he died, nearly twenty years ago. Unfortunately, first-hand evidence is no good to you and the people who think their climate models are right, screw the world outside the window...

But my point remains the same. Climate change has happened throughout history. In fact you're ignoring the Sahara itself, which was the victim of climate change from 6000BC (Lush, tropical rainforest) to 2000BC (Dry, sandy desert.) That occurred completely without human intervention. What was left was plundered by the Europeans (Yes, Rome is in Europe.)

You stated that no one should be better off than a Chinese sustinance farmer. You stated that living at any level beyond that is "unsustainable". I ask you then, are you part of the solution or part of the problem. Have you gone to live in a mud hut and eked out a living on the soil? Have you beaten your car's door panels into a plow to grow living things? Have you shut off your water and your electricity? Have you stopped eating anything you didn't harvest or kill yourself?

My point has been fixed like a stone through this whole argument. The current warming trend is due to increased solar activity. History shows (Site 1, Site 2) that solar input has far more to do with global temperatures than human produced greenhouse gasses ( Site 3).

You have failed to get this point all along. Collapsing economies, relegating 90% of the world population to starvation and medieval lifestyles is not the answer. The answer is to apply our *BRAINS* to find the solution. Not simply go off on knee-jerk reactions to today's "Prophet of Doom".

But I'm sure I'll get your knee-jerk reaction, backed with no facts, no research, not five minutes of reading or attempting to comprehend, presently.

The earth is warming substantially in time frames as short as 50 years, far faster than the thousands of years the cycles normally take.

Look at the chart at the bottom of this link. About 150 years ago a similar spike occurred.

Actually, that article looks informative since it lists many of the known causes of global warming and global cooling. This is why I believe the Earth is in a cycle.

I still have no problems with reducing pollution for other reasons: smell, taste, sight, life.

Er, the story appears (from here) a bit more complicated, but I am wrong. However, I should point out that global temperature changes before the Industrial Revolution are of the order of magnitude that we observe. Ie, one can't use man-made CO2 to explain these changes.

On the other hand, there's good physical reasons and paleoclimatological analogs that cause most scientists working in the climate field to believe that the warming over the next few decades will be unprecedented.

Frankly, I think this is likely, but my point has always been we should have clear evidence of harm from global warming commensurate with the harm that we'll inflict through restricting CO2 emissions. Considering the Kyoto treaty a "good start" is dubious because we don't know what damage we're preventing or what damage we cause.

Er, the story appears (from here) a bit more complicated, but I am wrong. However, I should point out that global temperature changes before the Industrial Revolution are of the order of magnitude that we observe. Ie, one can't use man-made CO2 to explain these changes.

On the other hand, there's good physical reasons and paleoclimatological analogs that cause most scientists working in the climate field to believe that the warming over the next few decades will be unprecedented.

Frankly, I think this is likely, but my point has always been we should have clear evidence of harm from global warming commensurate with the harm that we'll inflict through restricting CO2 emissions. Considering the Kyoto treaty a "good start" is dubious because we don't know what damage we're preventing or what damage we cause.

• The Greenhouse Hoax...Noel Mc Donald
• Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
• Greenhouse Syndrome: Just Hot Air?
• Global Warming: A Political, Economic and Scientific Backgrounder
• A BRIEFING ON GLOBAL WARMING, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY
• There are many questions regarding Global Warming
• Global warming has failed experimental test.
• GLOBAL WARMING: INVENTING AN APOCALYPSE
• Home Page of John Daly, author of The Greenhouse Trap.
• John L. Daly Profile of a Greenhouse `Dissenter'