"Rather, there is an equibrium between young trees that are storing carbon and old dying trees that release the carbon as they are broken down."
assuming static growth yes this is true. However growth in North America is increasing at an amazing rate. By definition this means that it is sequestering more Carbon. Increased growth is not just in area, but also in the quality and rate of growth in existing plant life.
In fact one of the key suppositions in Mann's proxy data was that warm climate was indicated by larger (wider) tree rings. And that this was not only indicative of greater warmth, but also increased CO2, in other words Mann grants that a warmer climate with more CO2 increases plant growth, i.e. is good.
cloud effects "statement on feedbacks omits an important assumption about the largest positive feedback in the models considered in IPCC 1995--that water vapor in the upper troposphere is assumed to amplify the warming from the minor greenhouse gases.(17) Both theoretical (18) and observational (19) research suggest that this assumption is flawed. Indeed, the feedback may be negative."
You can find sideline references in many articles, but there are few direct articles because it is such a politically heated subject.
"what was it? 2 to 7 degrees C over the next 100 years?"
Yes it was, and a review of the high end models. Namely HadCM2, CGCM1, ECHAM4/OPCY3, GFDL and HadCM3. the spread of these for the next 100 Years was 2 to 7 degrees C. More importantly the same models show these same models showed warming of 1.5 degrees C in the 20th century. The 20 the century being over we have this data. These same models were off by 300% (actual warming in the 20th century North America), actual NA warming was approx 0.5 Degrees C. The majority of which occurred before 1940, and the majority of industrially produced CO2.
Agreed the debate is about how much, and how much of it is influenced by man (anthropogenic). More importantly the second debate is whether this is a bad thing or not. Fortunately we have real data for this. i.e. Life has flourished in all previous warm climates, and reduced during global cold climate. Cold climate increases fossil fuel usage, and is much more dangerous to animals, plants, and humans. While warm climates reduce fossil fuel usage, is beneficial to animals plants and humans. The only exception is Deserts. But of course that effect is due to the lack of moisture, not temperature.
Though an interesting effect is that we see the majority of day time temperature highs in desert while areas on equvalent latitudes, with large plant growth and water see much less warming. Showing that the thermal inertia of water has a dramatic effect.
Yes CO2 balance. North America is absorbing more CO2 than it emits. This is done by measuring atmospheric CO2 as it enters the NA landmass from the West, and the resultant Atmospheric CO2 as it leaves to the east. This a indirect measurement of Atmospheric CO2 so all factors are folded into the experiment.
The primary moving factor is that as you increase CO2 plants absorb more, and grow more, studies have shown that concentrations up to twice current amounts are wildly beneficial to plant life.
The problem (in other parts of the world) is not the CO2 emissions, but the lack of sequestering plant life.
The 100 year residence time is another model, and is almost impossible to measure directly (you can't tag individual CO2 molecules), regardless the effects of CO2 are a complete misnomer. Global warming theory for net warming relies on CO2 in only one area. That it will spur positive cycle reinforcement to increase water vapor, which is the primary mover in global warming (90%+), no one is saying that CO2 alone will increase warming, but rather that it will do a small increase which will induce more atmospheric water vapor, which will then create the serious warming. And all of these models use only positive reinforcement, and ignore any counterbalancing effects (Clouds shade and thus reduce warming, increases water vapor will also increase cloud cover). So residence of CO2 is pretty much irrelevant, as it is only a catalyst, and the further effects do not hold up for catastrophic warming.
Also it should be noted that all greenhouse gasses have a logarithmic effect (higher concentrations have less and less effect) this is true even more so for CO2.
However the bias falls apart when you look at the signatories. In fact SEPP grew from the Oregon petition.
If you want to claim bias you have to claim bias from all the signatories (many who worked in IPCC #2) And those that are climate scientists are explicilty listed as such.
No, Europe is only where we have the majority of information.
It is generally accepted that it was throughout the northern Hemisphere (Indians not leaving an extensive written record) to include Asia where there is written record to support the supposition.
As to other comment, I'll answer his question. He's a crackpot.
But along the same lines if Mann's work is so good, why does it not show the warmer tempratures pre medevial little Ice age, or show the Little ice age itself?
Theres are known climatic events that are very well documented, yet Mann's data shows a statistical flatline for anything pre industry.
Excepting for the fact that there are two sides to this debate, and the environmentalists groups also have large amounts of money.
More importantly government grants make up a huge amount of funding in this area, while funding from energy companies is miniscule, enough to be considered non-existent. There is no reason for them to fund opposing research. If we were to institute CO2 caps, the energy companies would shrug, and raise prices. It's no big deal to them either way they make the same amount of money, more actually as they are expected to increase revenue every year. By artificially curbing supply, but not changing demand, you put money in Exxon's pocket.
Your being disingenuous to yourself if you believe that only oil companies have an agenda. In fact they have a job to do, while the other side has only an agenda, and money to spend on it.
Regardless, science is science, it has no business dabbling in politics, politics can only corrupt science.
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the
scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the
doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we
are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people
we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context
translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially
disastrous climatic change. To do that we need [Scientists should
consider stretching the truth] to get some broadbased support, to
capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting
loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts
we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves
in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the
right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that
means being both."
Stephen Schnieder
Stanford University
Interview in Discover magazine.
"The amount of crops that can be grown worldwide will shrink for every degree the planet goes up, until evolution kicks in."
Really warm weather kills off crops? Damnit then why then are equatorial areas so green? Must have screwed something up down there.
But why are the yields of crops increasing every year, as it gets warmer?
In fact your famine scenario was predicted in the 80's to have been here already. While crop yields worldwide have increased every year.
Hint plants love warm weather (Hence why the growing season centers around the summer, and not winter) and love exctra CO2. High levels of CO2 even help plants to whithstand drought.
I could argue all those points, for instance stress (From holier than though people telling everyone hpow to lead their life) can cause as much damae as any carcinogen. And second hand smoke has been shown to not have any serious impact, Executive summary aside the EPA report showed an statistically insignifigant impact from second hand smoke.
But it's not important, the fact of the matter live and let live. I have no problem with people making certain areas non-smoking, but at the same time they cannot ban it across the board. Here in NH it's left up to the resteraunt owner, for example, which allows for a decent distribution of smoking and non.
The majority of public places are non-smoking now, but apparently that isn't enough. If the non-smoking nazis (Hitler enacted the first anti-smoking polices http://www.davehitt.com/nov02/nicotine.html) would let up and consider it a battle won, while still allowing smoking in some reas, that would be fine, but not until smoking is band worldwde will they stop.
Why are the University of California, Berkley students doing working on a device that with a quick search I see references dating back to 1968.
Man those students are on the cutting edge.
Maybe if all the hippie Berkley students would kick of the Birkenstocks, give up the weekly protesting group and actually study something, they could get up to date, and maybe even see about contributing something new to society.
" Think how amazing it will be to be able to turn the lights on at your house from your PC at work before you leave to drive home "
Amazing yes, usefull no. And contrary to what this is supposed to do, which is reduce energy costs, burning a bulb/bulbs you don't need is wstefull.
More usefull is the motion sensor I have for the bulb in my carport. When I pull in it lights up so I can get in the house, and flip that highly complicated analog switch to light the inside house.
Turning the light on when I need it with a lag of approx 1 second.
YEah, have a friend who has a fancy new gas stove that has an electronic interlock that shuts it off when there is no power.
Fine if the power goes out for a couple of hours, but what if it happens to be in the middle of frigid weather, and the power is out for 3 days. That safety device has just nixed the single source of cooking and a semblance of heat in the whole house.
I spent two hours trying to find a way to bypass it, in the end the only thing I could figure was to hook up an inverter to a car battery and trip the relay (110V) that way. They had designed it so there was no real way to bypass it.
Your lucky, had a friend who's brand new Audi A6 burnt up it's transmision after 3,500 miles.
Speaking to a VW repair shop apparently they sent techs to every VW ad Audi dealership in the US and uploaded the "fixed" code.
How many programmers are car guys and realize all the intricate needs of a car under adverse conditions. I'd like to know what it was about the code that burnt out transmisions.
I trust programers less than I do used car salesman. Having used enough code that I assumed made sense to the programmer, but in the real word made us much sense as a clown themed strip joint.
I work within an industry that would supply some of the stuff to be used in so called "Smart structures" I've been to the conferences, I've talked to the people.
It all falls apart because of cost. I can control anyone of the different systems in your house/building, I can monitor any variable you want. But the cost point is much much higher than you would expect. Even for a small 2000 sq foot house to monitor each room, control lighting and so forth would cost tens of thousands of dollars installed.
Then it still wouldn't work well, because I can only monitor so many different variables, and there are too many exceptions.
For instance. I worked in a semi smart building. Part of it was that motion sensors turned the lights on and off. If it didn't sense movement for 5 minutes or so it shut off the lights.
All well and good until someone is in the bathroom alone for a legngthy constitutional. Then your trapped on the can in a dark room.
Yes a minor example, but just one of many thousands of issues that come up. Say heating. You want to lower heating in rooms that aren't used, so you lower the temprature. Then someone comes in to work for an hour or two. Well rooms don't heat up immediately, so while the system is trying to heat the room up, the person says, "It's to damn cold in here" and goes somewhere else.
Or the opposite, you turn off the air conditioning, then people avoid that room because it's hot and muggy, next thing you know you've got mold in the walls.
All for a system that costs tens of thousands of dollars for a small building, hundreds, or millions for a large building.
As to networked appliances. Who want's to update the software in their toilet so they can use their microwave.
Who wants to find out out their boiler has a bug that shuts it's down under certain conditions, only to be told.
"It's a known problem, it will be fixed in the next release."
Who wants to have to re-boot their stove.
For some things simple analog controls work fine, things like on/off switches, potentiometer based volume knobs, and tuning knobs.
I can't stand the current generation of car stereos because the volume goes in steps, either just a little bit too loud, or a little bit to quiet. In the old days I could fiddle with the tuning knob to get in a hard to reach signal. Now I can only go up or down.1 Hz, if that doesn't work, give it up. I don't want everything else to be a similar way.
Even worse case estimates (which are about 3 times higher than reality) show it going up by like 7 degrees, most of that in the Arctic (Alaska and Siberia).
Hardly "Cooking"
regardless life does better in a warmer enviornment. Plenty of life near the equator, and crop yields have been on a constant increase for years.
Whisch is all besides the point, as we've reached the cusp and will see approx 30 - 35 years of cooling before we warm up again.
Slashdot Mirror
No your mistaken Anonymous cowards who don't want to have credto answer for the things they post do that.
People willing to say "I said this, based upon infoprmation I've learned" agree. Science has said that the Little Ice age was a global event.
Uni of Southern California/A>
Uni of Korea
Sindh Agriculture University
Over 100 peer reviewed articles on the little ice age in North America.
How European centric to thing that the LIttle Ice age only effected one small area of the US.
"Rather, there is an equibrium between young trees that are storing carbon and old dying trees that release the carbon as they are broken down."
."We show that GHG signal uncertainties are associated with errors in simulating the current climate in uncoupled and coupled climate models, the possible omission of relevant feedbacks..."
assuming static growth yes this is true. However growth in North America is increasing at an amazing rate. By definition this means that it is sequestering more Carbon. Increased growth is not just in area, but also in the quality and rate of growth in existing plant life.
In fact one of the key suppositions in Mann's proxy data was that warm climate was indicated by larger (wider) tree rings. And that this was not only indicative of greater warmth, but also increased CO2, in other words Mann grants that a warmer climate with more CO2 increases plant growth, i.e. is good.
"Do you have a reference for that?" shallow search: Possible aerosol cloud effects now range from no effect to a near total masking of the alleged manmade greenhouse effect Consumer Alert, a 501 (c)(3) organization
DOE:
cloud effects "statement on feedbacks omits an important assumption about the largest positive feedback in the models considered in IPCC 1995--that water vapor in the upper troposphere is assumed to amplify the warming from the minor greenhouse gases.(17) Both theoretical (18) and observational (19) research suggest that this assumption is flawed. Indeed, the feedback may be negative."
Another consequence is that one cannot even calculate the temperature of the Earth without models that accurately reproduce the motions of the atmosphere."Indeed, present models have large errors here--on the order of 50 percent. Not surprisingly, those models are unable to calculate correctly either the present average temperature of the Earth or the temperature ranges from the equator to the poles. Rather, the models are adjusted or "tuned'' to get those quantities approximately right. "
You can find sideline references in many articles, but there are few direct articles because it is such a politically heated subject.
"what was it? 2 to 7 degrees C over the next 100 years?"
Yes it was, and a review of the high end models. Namely HadCM2, CGCM1, ECHAM4/OPCY3, GFDL and HadCM3. the spread of these for the next 100 Years was 2 to 7 degrees C. More importantly the same models show these same models showed warming of 1.5 degrees C in the 20th century. The 20 the century being over we have this data. These same models were off by 300% (actual warming in the 20th century North America), actual NA warming was approx 0.5 Degrees C. The majority of which occurred before 1940, and the majority of industrially produced CO2.
Agreed the debate is about how much, and how much of it is influenced by man (anthropogenic). More importantly the second debate is whether this is a bad thing or not. Fortunately we have real data for this. i.e. Life has flourished in all previous warm climates, and reduced during global cold climate. Cold climate increases fossil fuel usage, and is much more dangerous to animals, plants, and humans. While warm climates reduce fossil fuel usage, is beneficial to animals plants and humans. The only exception is Deserts. But of course that effect is due to the lack of moisture, not temperature.
Though an interesting effect is that we see the majority of day time temperature highs in desert while areas on equvalent latitudes, with large plant growth and water see much less warming. Showing that the thermal inertia of water has a dramatic effect.
Yes CO2 balance. North America is absorbing more CO2 than it emits. This is done by measuring atmospheric CO2 as it enters the NA landmass from the West, and the resultant Atmospheric CO2 as it leaves to the east. This a indirect measurement of Atmospheric CO2 so all factors are folded into the experiment.
The primary moving factor is that as you increase CO2 plants absorb more, and grow more, studies have shown that concentrations up to twice current amounts are wildly beneficial to plant life.
The problem (in other parts of the world) is not the CO2 emissions, but the lack of sequestering plant life.
The 100 year residence time is another model, and is almost impossible to measure directly (you can't tag individual CO2 molecules), regardless the effects of CO2 are a complete misnomer. Global warming theory for net warming relies on CO2 in only one area. That it will spur positive cycle reinforcement to increase water vapor, which is the primary mover in global warming (90%+), no one is saying that CO2 alone will increase warming, but rather that it will do a small increase which will induce more atmospheric water vapor, which will then create the serious warming. And all of these models use only positive reinforcement, and ignore any counterbalancing effects (Clouds shade and thus reduce warming, increases water vapor will also increase cloud cover). So residence of CO2 is pretty much irrelevant, as it is only a catalyst, and the further effects do not hold up for catastrophic warming.
Also it should be noted that all greenhouse gasses have a logarithmic effect (higher concentrations have less and less effect) this is true even more so for CO2.
Oh yes.
SEPP is completely funded by private donations, they take no money from industry or the government.
Those biased bastards.
Yes because they keep track of such things.
However the bias falls apart when you look at the signatories. In fact SEPP grew from the Oregon petition.
If you want to claim bias you have to claim bias from all the signatories (many who worked in IPCC #2) And those that are climate scientists are explicilty listed as such.
No, Europe is only where we have the majority of information.
It is generally accepted that it was throughout the northern Hemisphere (Indians not leaving an extensive written record) to include Asia where there is written record to support the supposition.
As to other comment, I'll answer his question. He's a crackpot.
But along the same lines if Mann's work is so good, why does it not show the warmer tempratures pre medevial little Ice age, or show the Little ice age itself?
Theres are known climatic events that are very well documented, yet Mann's data shows a statistical flatline for anything pre industry.
Really? Well goody, since the US is a net carbon sink we don't have anything to worry about here.
Carbon Sink
But what about Methane which is a much more potent greenhouse gas?
Methane
Excepting for the fact that there are two sides to this debate, and the environmentalists groups also have large amounts of money.
More importantly government grants make up a huge amount of funding in this area, while funding from energy companies is miniscule, enough to be considered non-existent. There is no reason for them to fund opposing research. If we were to institute CO2 caps, the energy companies would shrug, and raise prices. It's no big deal to them either way they make the same amount of money, more actually as they are expected to increase revenue every year. By artificially curbing supply, but not changing demand, you put money in Exxon's pocket.
Your being disingenuous to yourself if you believe that only oil companies have an agenda. In fact they have a job to do, while the other side has only an agenda, and money to spend on it.
Regardless, science is science, it has no business dabbling in politics, politics can only corrupt science.
During the Mesozoic era CO2 levels were between 1,000 and 2,000 ppm, with peaks higher than 2,000 ppm. Or about 4 times greater than today.
Or maybe they would think the Nevada was another area of natural reacotrs that burn for millions of years.
O /index.shtml
http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKL
Oh yes one of your 99.9%
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need [Scientists should consider stretching the truth] to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
Stephen Schnieder
Stanford University
Interview in Discover magazine.
"The amount of crops that can be grown worldwide will shrink for every degree the planet goes up, until evolution kicks in."
Really warm weather kills off crops? Damnit then why then are equatorial areas so green? Must have screwed something up down there.
But why are the yields of crops increasing every year, as it gets warmer?
In fact your famine scenario was predicted in the 80's to have been here already. While crop yields worldwide have increased every year.
Hint plants love warm weather (Hence why the growing season centers around the summer, and not winter) and love exctra CO2. High levels of CO2 even help plants to whithstand drought.
Does that include these guys, most scientists in the field.
.1% of the field just how many people are examining the climate?
If this is just
The Oregon Petition and it's signatories http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm
The Heidelberg Appeal http://www.sepp.org//heidelberg_appeal.html
Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming and signatories http://www.sepp.org//statment.html
Signatories to the Leipzig Decleration http://www.sepp.org//LDsigs.html
Damn I think I just wore out my ctrl-C-V keys
I could argue all those points, for instance stress (From holier than though people telling everyone hpow to lead their life) can cause as much damae as any carcinogen. And second hand smoke has been shown to not have any serious impact, Executive summary aside the EPA report showed an statistically insignifigant impact from second hand smoke.
But it's not important, the fact of the matter live and let live. I have no problem with people making certain areas non-smoking, but at the same time they cannot ban it across the board. Here in NH it's left up to the resteraunt owner, for example, which allows for a decent distribution of smoking and non.
The majority of public places are non-smoking now, but apparently that isn't enough. If the non-smoking nazis (Hitler enacted the first anti-smoking polices http://www.davehitt.com/nov02/nicotine.html) would let up and consider it a battle won, while still allowing smoking in some reas, that would be fine, but not until smoking is band worldwde will they stop.
Jawohl Mein Fuehrer
Yeah, how about not rinning my life.
You lead your life, I'll lead my life.
How would you feel iff I forced you to smoke.
Why are the University of California, Berkley students doing working on a device that with a quick search I see references dating back to 1968.
Man those students are on the cutting edge.
Maybe if all the hippie Berkley students would kick of the Birkenstocks, give up the weekly protesting group and actually study something, they could get up to date, and maybe even see about contributing something new to society.
Hey man that's coooool, got any Twinkies?
" Think how amazing it will be to be able to turn the lights on at your house from your PC at work before you leave to drive home "
Amazing yes, usefull no. And contrary to what this is supposed to do, which is reduce energy costs, burning a bulb/bulbs you don't need is wstefull.
More usefull is the motion sensor I have for the bulb in my carport. When I pull in it lights up so I can get in the house, and flip that highly complicated analog switch to light the inside house.
Turning the light on when I need it with a lag of approx 1 second.
YEah, have a friend who has a fancy new gas stove that has an electronic interlock that shuts it off when there is no power.
Fine if the power goes out for a couple of hours, but what if it happens to be in the middle of frigid weather, and the power is out for 3 days. That safety device has just nixed the single source of cooking and a semblance of heat in the whole house.
I spent two hours trying to find a way to bypass it, in the end the only thing I could figure was to hook up an inverter to a car battery and trip the relay (110V) that way. They had designed it so there was no real way to bypass it.
That's okay, to be fair I don't trust anyone.
;)
Your lucky, had a friend who's brand new Audi A6 burnt up it's transmision after 3,500 miles.
Speaking to a VW repair shop apparently they sent techs to every VW ad Audi dealership in the US and uploaded the "fixed" code.
How many programmers are car guys and realize all the intricate needs of a car under adverse conditions. I'd like to know what it was about the code that burnt out transmisions.
I trust programers less than I do used car salesman. Having used enough code that I assumed made sense to the programmer, but in the real word made us much sense as a clown themed strip joint.
I work within an industry that would supply some of the stuff to be used in so called "Smart structures" I've been to the conferences, I've talked to the people.
.1 Hz, if that doesn't work, give it up. I don't want everything else to be a similar way.
It all falls apart because of cost. I can control anyone of the different systems in your house/building, I can monitor any variable you want. But the cost point is much much higher than you would expect. Even for a small 2000 sq foot house to monitor each room, control lighting and so forth would cost tens of thousands of dollars installed.
Then it still wouldn't work well, because I can only monitor so many different variables, and there are too many exceptions.
For instance. I worked in a semi smart building. Part of it was that motion sensors turned the lights on and off. If it didn't sense movement for 5 minutes or so it shut off the lights.
All well and good until someone is in the bathroom alone for a legngthy constitutional. Then your trapped on the can in a dark room.
Yes a minor example, but just one of many thousands of issues that come up. Say heating. You want to lower heating in rooms that aren't used, so you lower the temprature. Then someone comes in to work for an hour or two. Well rooms don't heat up immediately, so while the system is trying to heat the room up, the person says, "It's to damn cold in here" and goes somewhere else.
Or the opposite, you turn off the air conditioning, then people avoid that room because it's hot and muggy, next thing you know you've got mold in the walls.
All for a system that costs tens of thousands of dollars for a small building, hundreds, or millions for a large building.
As to networked appliances. Who want's to update the software in their toilet so they can use their microwave.
Who wants to find out out their boiler has a bug that shuts it's down under certain conditions, only to be told.
"It's a known problem, it will be fixed in the next release."
Who wants to have to re-boot their stove.
For some things simple analog controls work fine, things like on/off switches, potentiometer based volume knobs, and tuning knobs.
I can't stand the current generation of car stereos because the volume goes in steps, either just a little bit too loud, or a little bit to quiet. In the old days I could fiddle with the tuning knob to get in a hard to reach signal. Now I can only go up or down
Cooked ourselves?
Even worse case estimates (which are about 3 times higher than reality) show it going up by like 7 degrees, most of that in the Arctic (Alaska and Siberia).
Hardly "Cooking"
regardless life does better in a warmer enviornment. Plenty of life near the equator, and crop yields have been on a constant increase for years.
Whisch is all besides the point, as we've reached the cusp and will see approx 30 - 35 years of cooling before we warm up again.
Yeah that happens so often.
I'm a stupid user and even I've never done that.
Have had macs refuse to give me my floppy back and ask me to "Please insert the disk labeled "Hard Drive""