News Is Climate Change Real? Polling Public Opinion on the Controversial Issue

[Art]

It's unfortunate that the first option uses the term "unimpeachable science" instead of "sound science". I chose it anyway, because #3 implies too much doubt. Art, did you phrase the questions that way for a reason?

Not specifically, it was more to convey a sense of total belief in the conviction that GW is a problem and that we are causing it as opposed to total disbelief with the other 2 options allowing for those undecided but leaning in one direction or the other.

 

[Art]

Are you arguing cities aren't hotter? Good luck.

If they are not then GW is far less than the warmers claim as they use these city temps towards their proof the Earth is warming which is why Peterson did his (IMO) rather dodgy study to try and show cities have no effect on temperature.

 

[BillJx]

I would appreciate sources or reports on that.

It was a surprise to me too, when I found it on the Woods Hole site several months ago. It made me realize immediately that the risks of climate change are orders of magnitude greater than I'd assumed. People worry about sea level rise. I'm more concerned about agriculture.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=9986

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/Sudden_Climate_Change2.html

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/abrupt.html

 

[Astronuc]

It was a surprise to me too, when I found it on the Woods Hole site several months ago. It made me realize immediately that the risks of climate change are orders of magnitude greater than I'd assumed. People worry about sea level rise. I'm more concerned about agriculture.

. . . .

Thanks for the links. Interesting that many years ago, the mean sea level was 10 m higher than today.

I'll add these.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html

 

[Andre]

It was a surprise to me too, when I found it on the Woods Hole site several months ago. It made me realize immediately that the risks of climate change are orders of magnitude greater than I'd assumed. People worry about sea level rise. I'm more concerned about agriculture.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=9986

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/Sudden_Climate_Change2.html

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/abrupt.html

Bill please, Jonathan Adams outdated and it is miles away from the truth. You can see that if you compare his Siberia with our Mammoth Siberia. Please tell me what is not clear in my PDF.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/refuting%20the%20Greenland%20paleo%20thermometer1.pdf

The alleged "ten-degrees-within-a-decade" was more about three feet of precipitation more per year.

 

[Ratzinger]

What is the purpose of this thread??

Are some poster implying here we all should carry on? That all the 12 billions living in 2050 could use energy like most US people do now and that would still be unnoticed by nature?


Does cutting more and more trees and using more and more energy lead to global warming? At one point it surely will. A majority says we already have reach that point. But even if we have not yet, we will get there, and that more sooner than later.

 

[Andre]

The purpose of this thread?

There is an IPCC report due tomorrow that is supposed to be going to tell us that there is 90% certainty that global temperatures are due to rise some 2-4 degrees by 2050 or something of that order of magnitude.

The question is, if this is baloney, it is.

But this requires exposure of those myths with facts and figures and exposing what has been ignored, where the shortcuts are, and what has been fantasized and which fallacies have been used.

Time for science to kick back in.

A completely different story is what mankind should do, to be best prepared for the foreseable future. And the most pertinent wrong thing to do is to base the required decisions and actions on a wrong perception of reality driven by unfounded fear.

 

[denverdoc]

Andre,

Please for my edification and perhaps of others, is what exactly are you so fearful of? After reading at least several dozen of your posts, I honestly still don't what your point is. That mankind is going to reckelessly endanger the species by making a conservative choice (by not going full tilt ahead with current course of action because the science is flawed)?

Maybe if I had better understanding of what consequences you envision by assuming AGW is real and basing some policy on this assumption, I might be more sympathetic and understanding of your POV.

 

[Andre]

Andre,

Please for my edification and perhaps of others, is what exactly are you so fearful of? After reading at least several dozen of your posts, I honestly still don't what your point is. That mankind is going to reckelessly endanger the species by making a conservative choice (by not going full tilt ahead with current course of action because the science is flawed)?

Maybe if I had better understanding of what consequences you envision by assuming AGW is real and basing some policy on this assumption, I might be more sympathetic and understanding of your POV.

My point? All I wanted 8 years ago is solving the riddle of the Mammoth mega fauna extinction. What followed was a complete personal overhaul of our interpretation of the geologic/biologic records of the Pleistocene, which ultimately lead to the understanding that the very base of the global warming (as in tipping points, flickering climates and catastrofic climate changes), the understanding of the ice cores, is seriously flawed. Posts and links to that are all over the place.

Now it would be nice if it was possible to really revise the material and build new hypothesis and test them, for instance:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=153634
http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Pulsating-ice-age.pdf

But if the assumptions that lead to AGW are not right and the physics are not right then we should accept that AGW is not right. That's all there is to it. Therefore all measures that have the purpose to reduce CO2 emissions for climate are meaningless, as the minor changes in reradiation will probably only be clutter in the strong natural variations that brought us the Holocene Thermal Optimum, The Roman warm period, The medieval warm period and the Little ice age, for the last 10,000 years.

Again, how ethical is it to misuse the climate scare to enforce carbon reductions? If your perception of reality is wrong, your actions are bound to be wrong. What for instance, if we launched all kind of deflecting material into space to dim the sun, only to find out that we're heading to a new Maunder minimum and another little ice age? What good would it be to be able to say: "I told you so", if we perish anyway. Therefore I tell you now.

Doing things to preserve the future. Sure by all means. Of course we must get rid of the oil dependency. For very good reasons, you will allways be too late to react when it's clear that oil consumption is exceeding production and such. You don't want to be dependent on oil production of unstable regions. But alternate energy sources should not be considered for CO2 and climate, because that it no issue. The slogan should be: no-regret measures. You would regret that solar dimming shield dearly during a new maunder minimum or that you let the economy and the environment collapse because of the enforcement of inadequate "renewable" energy sources.

Just a clearer vision on reality. That's what it takes.


.

 

[edward]

Gimme a break Andre. Much of the recent ice core scepticism and GW scepticism is prmoted by Lyndon LaRouche. The guy has little credibility as a politician let alone science. Below is about all I came up with when I googled "ice core data flawed."

http://www.larouchepub.com/

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdf

La Rouche's scientific information was provided by:

" Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Warsaw, Poland "

 

[Art]

Gimme a break Andre. Much of the recent ice core scepticism and GW scepticism is prmoted by Lyndon LaRouche. The guy has little credibility as a politician let alone science. Below is about all I came up with when I googled "ice core data flawed."

http://www.larouchepub.com/

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdf

I googled on ice core flawed and got 778,000 hits, many of which appear to be relevant to this discussion and for 'ice core data flawed' there were 555,000 hits. It seems you somehow inadvertently missed 554,998 of them.

 

[BillJx]

But if the assumptions that lead to AGW are not right and the physics are not right then we should accept that AGW is not right. That's all there is to it.

.

But Andre, what if it's you that's wrong?

 

[Evo]

But Andre, what if it's you that's wrong?

Since Andre is for cleaning up the environment and reducing pollution, as am I, I guess it wouldn't matter, would it? At least we'd see more factual claims and less wildly exagerrated "predictions of doom".

Unfortunately, we do live in a world of idiots that won't agree to reducing pollution unless we tell them the Earth is going to melt away eliminating all life. Then there are people that say "well, even if they (AGW's) are grossly exagerrating things, it can't hurt, right? Well, yes it can if they go down the wrong track. Being against the skewing of scientific data doesn't mean being against reducing pollution. Is that what you think?

I haven't seen anyone here saying that we shouldn't reduce pollution.

Do you oppose a better understanding of what is really being affected and how?

 

[edward]

I googled on ice core flawed and got 778,000 hits, many of which appear to be relevant to this discussion and for 'ice core data flawed' there were 555,000 hits. It seems you somehow inadvertently missed 554,998 of them.

How many of them did you read?? The first one I hit was a Lyndon LaRouche publication.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi...11_science.pdf

Others had the word flawed in them. Several in particular were related to a Greenland ice core which was thought to have volcanic ash from one volcano when the ash was actually from a different volcano. That doesn't apply to the topic of Flawed ice core data in the context of this thread.

Also bear in mind that as you proceed through the google links fewer and fewer of them have all of the search terms.

So post a few that actually state that the most recent 2006 ice core data is flawed.

Also post a few that say that the glaciers and ice sheets aren't really melting

Is it GW you have a problem with or AGW? I don't think that anyone will state that the billions of tons of CO2 man has dumped into the atmosphere has had a zero effect on GW.

But then as I have stated before, regardless of GW or AGW it is time to move on to newer and cleaner energy technology.

 

[denverdoc]

My point? All I wanted 8 years ago is solving the riddle of the Mammoth mega fauna extinction. What followed was a complete personal overhaul of our interpretation of the geologic/biologic records of the Pleistocene, which ultimately lead to the understanding that the very base of the global warming (as in tipping points, flickering climates and catastrofic climate changes), the understanding of the ice cores, is seriously flawed. Posts and links to that are all over the place.

Now it would be nice if it was possible to really revise the material and build new hypothesis and test them, for instance:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=153634
http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Pulsating-ice-age.pdf

But if the assumptions that lead to AGW are not right and the physics are not right then we should accept that AGW is not right. That's all there is to it. Therefore all measures that have the purpose to reduce CO2 emissions for climate are meaningless, as the minor changes in reradiation will probably only be clutter in the strong natural variations that brought us the Holocene Thermal Optimum, The Roman warm period, The medieval warm period and the Little ice age, for the last 10,000 years.

Again, how ethical is it to misuse the climate scare to enforce carbon reductions? If your perception of reality is wrong, your actions are bound to be wrong. What for instance, if we launched all kind of deflecting material into space to dim the sun, only to find out that we're heading to a new Maunder minimum and another little ice age? What good would it be to be able to say: "I told you so", if we perish anyway. Therefore I tell you now.

Doing things to preserve the future. Sure by all means. Of course we must get rid of the oil dependency. For very good reasons, you will allways be too late to react when it's clear that oil consumption is exceeding production and such. You don't want to be dependent on oil production of unstable regions. But alternate energy sources should not be considered for CO2 and climate, because that it no issue. The slogan should be: no-regret measures. You would regret that solar dimming shield dearly during a new maunder minimum or that you let the economy and the environment collapse because of the enforcement of inadequate "renewable" energy sources.

Just a clearer vision on reality. That's what it takes.
.

Ok at least I know we are in agreement about some of the issues. But I also see a cost into waiting for absolute certainty--which is what the rebublicans have been suggesting we do and in fact, we have been doing for quite a while now. And I am in fundamental agreement that science should never be distorted into a tool for propoganda. I guess that's the bottom line, if by waiting 10 years to clean up the science it risks crossing some line in the sand where it becomes run away process like a truck down a mountain road, we should start applying the breaks. You seem certain this is not the case. There OTOH are some very smart people saying it is, and with whom I can find no axe to grind, or Nobel to reap. Whats a conscientious person to do? I think that's the quandary many of us find ourselves in.

 

[Evo]

Ok at least I know we are in agreement about some of the issues. Whats a conscientious person to do? I think that's the quandary many of us find ourselves in.

Can't we agree to reduce pollution without polluting the science? Shouldn't we be agreeing on ways to clean up the environment? Should we care if some climatologist gets a tv segment and some notice in the news and more grant money and forget about focussing on the real problem at hand?

The most recent bit of two "scientists" trying to make a name for themselves was the recent "60 minutes" segment where two unknown researchers came forward with the devastating news that there was a 50% drop in the penguin population.

What they FAILED to mention was that this happened ONE TIME IN THE 1970's and HAS NEVER HAPPENED again, and that this was a fluke in a normal cycle and that the next cycle was normal and has been normal ever since and that the penguin population stabilized 30 years ago and has been increasing ever since.

Lies, lies and damned lies? When is this shameful behavior for recognition going to stop?

 

[denverdoc]

I think we are in agreement there. Personally I was under the impression that penguin flocks on at least a couple of the antarctic major "nesting" grounds were in trouble because of early thaws putting the eggs under water. This isn't true apparently? I heard this BTW on the radio months ago, don't watch much TV non news news.

 

[Evo]

I think we are in agreement there. Personally I was under the impression that penguin flocks on at least a couple of the antarctic major "nesting" grounds were in trouble because of early thaws putting the eggs under water. This isn't true apparently? I heard this BTW on the radio months ago, don't watch much TV non news news.

No, the majority of penguins are experiencing population increases, and specifically the ones these two people cited from 40 years ago as if it was happening today. There are a few species that are declining, but primarily because of the encroachment of krill fisheries in their natural feeding grounds. Also, there are some warming factors that could be involved, both natural and man made. But the fact is that these two people made a statement in order to gain fame that was so easily debunked, but how many people watching that tv show will ever know it was a lie? None?

 

[edward]

It is the thawing at top of the palnet that seems to be the most obvious.

March 27 (Bloomberg) -- A lack of ice floes in eastern Canada's Gulf of St. Lawrence, caused by higher temperatures, threatens to kill most of this year's harp seal pups, the International Fund for Animal Welfare said.

The gulf has had below-average amounts of ice in nine of the past 11 years, the environmental campaign group said in an e- mailed statement today. Mother seals give birth and rear their pups on the ice to prevent drowning. This year's shortage appears to be worse than in 2002, when 75 percent of harp seal pups died before the annual legal seal hunt, the IFAW said.

The pups need two weeks before they lean to swim.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aoue5anTk4Sk&refer=canada

There is video of the situation on youtube, but most of it deals with the hunt itself and is a bit bloody.

You can do a google video search using the term "seal pups drowning" if you want to see it.

 

[russ_watters]

Since Andre is for cleaning up the environment and reducing pollution, as am I, I guess it wouldn't matter, would it? At least we'd see more factual claims and less wildly exagerrated "predictions of doom".

Unfortunately, we do live in a world of idiots that won't agree to reducing pollution unless we tell them the Earth is going to melt away eliminating all life. Then there are people that say "well, even if they (AGW's) are grossly exagerrating things, it can't hurt, right? Well, yes it can if they go down the wrong track. Being against the skewing of scientific data doesn't mean being against reducing pollution. Is that what you think?

I haven't seen anyone here saying that we shouldn't reduce pollution.

Do you oppose a better understanding of what is really being affected and how?

It is important to note that without global warming in the picture, there are far, far more critical air pollution problems in the world today. Global warming/carbon dioxide isn't the reason why Chinese have to wear masks in public to breathe and doesn't cause the smog that coats and dissolves our cities. Air pollution is killing people right now, and it does hurt if people ignore that fact in favor of chasing a problem that even if the worst predictions come true 100 years from now will not be killing people like other forms of air pollution are today.

Seriously - how bad will global warming have to get to kill three quarters of a million people a year? http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/EH28Ad01.html

That is why global warming talk annoys me so much and why quite frankly even if the predictions are true, it is still a fantasy. Even if true, it is still a diversion from bigger and more immediate problems. The reason why it is so politically attractive, though, is because it is all in the future. It makes politicians feel/seem proactive and caring when the truth of the matter is that they aren't because they are ignoring real deaths right now.

edit: Some more food for thought: One of the major concerns people seem to have is about coastal areas becoming uninhabitable. But they are using flawed (no) math/logic when analyzing just what that means. We are rebuilding New Orleans when by all logic it should have been abandoned. But if that's the way we feel about it, then that's the way we feel about it: we're not going to abandon any of our major coastal areas, no matter what any environmentalist says. But what about the cost of building 1000 miles of levees around Florida? Well frankly, if we want to keep Florida, it needs 1000 miles of levees right now (we're going to spend $10 billion repairing and upgrading the levees in New Orleans while the Katrina cleanup itself cost about $300 billion), but if the choices are to spend a hundred billion dollars on a levee system or spend a trillion dollars on reworking our entire energy production system while simultaneously cutting our GDP growth because of the added weight of more expensive energy, why does it make sense to do that?

 

[drankin]

I'm with Evo on this completely. Encourage responsible environmental practices, absolutely, but take the hype for what it is... hype.

The human race is growing and expanding. That cannot and will not stop. The climate is most likely adjusting as a direct result. But I believe the effect is minimal and nothing the atmosphere cannot withstand. Now, as a complete layman, it seems to me that the atmosphere is dealing with a hell of a lot more from the sun, a perpetual thermal nuclear onslaught of radiation in all its forms, than it is from us and it has for a *insert a word meaning an unfathomable amount of time here*. This is why I'm a firm believer that any significant changes we are experiencing are in fact part of a cyclical or "natural" change that the Earth is always going to be in. If it just happened to be in a cooling process, the same fanatics would be proving that we are the reason it's happening and phrophesying extinctions, famine, doom, and destruction.

We are expending enormous amounts of energy with inefficient machines. That inefficiency is almost entirely dissapated as heat (not even talking about C02). That heat is absorbed by the atmosphere. Can the climate handle it? Well, it's going to have to . And it hardly approaches anything that the atmosphere has endured from outside it (the sun, meteors, etc) or within it (forest fires, valcanoes) for eons.

That's pretty much my take on the GW fiasco.

 

[Andre]

Much of the recent ice core scepticism and GW scepticism is prmoted by ...

I googled on ice core flawed and got 778,000 hits, many of which appear to be relevant to this discussion and for 'ice core data flawed' there were 555,000 hits. It seems you somehow inadvertently missed 554,998 of them.

Not the ice core data is at fault. It is our interpretation that is at fault. And that is not because somebody said so, but the inevitable conclusion from an own literature study. I link to that about every other post. So once more:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/refuting%20the%20Greenland%20paleo%20thermometer1.pdf

For those who never click on links let me try to explain.

There are three major players here. one: We have the Greenland Ice cores, precisely dated by anual snow layer counting, we infer temperature changes by changing isotope ratios in the ice and some atmospheric gasses. two: we have many geologic indicators (glacier feautures) and fossil biologic remains like pollen. Shifts in pollen ratios and migration of species indicate temperature change. But biologic remains and glacial features are routinely carbon dated. Three: There is a huge difference in carbon dates and calendar dates due to large variation in atmospheric radioactive carbon in the past.

Now, by pure coincidence the shift from cold to warm in the counted ice cores are about the same as the carbon dated items as was derived some decades ago. So that was good news. Something seemed to match.

But then it became increasingly clear that there was something fishy with carbon dates, a can of wurms actually when carbon dates during the last glacial termination demonstrated to be thousands of years older than the radiocarbon method would suggest. Nowadays carbon dates should routinely be converted to calendar dates using INTCAL04 data for instance. But many specialities routinely do not do so, with the argument that calibration tables change every other year. But if one does, one is in for http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_55882.htm

So what is wrong? The ice core interpretation or the plethora of other data? One can read http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/jouzeletal97.GIF (Jouzel et al 1997 in my PDF) on which flimsy reasoning (models right, reality wrong) a choice was made for temperatures rather than variation in seasonal precipitation rates. That wrong choice is one of the mainstays of global warming.

 

[Andre]

Ok at least I know we are in agreement about some of the issues. But I also see a cost into waiting for absolute certainty--which is what the rebublicans have been suggesting we do and in fact, we have been doing for quite a while now. And I am in fundamental agreement that science should never be distorted into a tool for propoganda. I guess that's the bottom line, if by waiting 10 years to clean up the science it risks crossing some line in the sand where it becomes run away process like a truck down a mountain road, we should start applying the breaks. You seem certain this is not the case. There OTOH are some very smart people saying it is, and with whom I can find no axe to grind, or Nobel to reap. Whats a conscientious person to do? I think that's the quandary many of us find ourselves in.

Now if you would evaluate that reasoning, you observe differences of interpretation of data, one that leads to run away processes (positive feedback) and others that say it's not so. So if you are aware of demagogery techniques and propaganda and getting into the limelight for preaching doom and gloom etc why go for the bandwagon fallacy and listen to the latter instead of examining the available evidence?

Now my previous post deals with debunking the interpretation of the huge greenland ice core spikes, NOT being extreme temperature changes within decades, purely by merging all the data together. Granted there are huge precipitation changes that are a direct, not an indirect cause of the isotope spikes, but those have nothing to do whatsoever with CO2 in the atmosphere. So with that temperature interpretation falsified, so should the myth of flickering climates and flipping points because those are the direct result of the wrong interpretation.

Now the Greenland isotopes show a large difference with the Antarctic isotopes, although the latter has the same problems with temperature versus precipitation, the much lower temperatures (too cold to snow) cause a higher correlation between precipitation and temperatures, so chances are better that those proxies are closer to reality and that is confirmed by matching the warming of other proxies. That's where we do see that the truck is not accelerating down a mountain. I urge to take note of this thread.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162192

 

[Andre]

But Andre, what if it's you that's wrong?

I don't think that my opinion is that relevant. I merely test hypotheses and demonstrate that many are wrong. But I guess that it boils down to the question: can we avoid climate disaster if we cut emissions?

I demonstrated that violent climate changes (precipitation not temp) of the past are not related. I demonstated that increased CO2 levels has not lead to positive feedback patterns. What is left is a weak logarithmic declining theoretical relationship between CO2 and temps that can be seen here (data from MODTRAN runs):

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/CO2ghg-effect.GIF

Now if all that is wrong and temps would soar (Not), would it make much difference if that happened in say 35 years or 40 years or 45 years? Which may be the difference in time when certain CO2 levels are reached depending on no action, a bit of action or a lot of action? That's Bjorn Lomborgs view I believe, arguing that it would be better to be prepared when happens than attempting to avoid it from happening and losing the capability to mitigate the consequences by voluntary going into crisis of energy deprivation. (The Skeptical environmentalist)

See also http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/GW-vdLingen.htm (halfway down)

 

[Ratzinger]

I hate to fear people and to sound alarmist and either do I want to grossly exagerrate the situation, but only remind you that 10 or 12 billion people each one with cars and wasching machines and flying around in planes is something our planet is not built for.

And at this point I don't need a climate expert (no matter what views he or she holds) , a six years old girl can tell me that we are in serious trouble.

So the whole discussion if humans already have caused the planet to warm up is completely superflous. Given that world population will double in the next 40 years and all these billions people want the living standards like we enjoy in the West today will change the climate.

 

[denverdoc]

Can't we agree to reduce pollution without polluting the science? Shouldn't we be agreeing on ways to clean up the environment? Should we care if some climatologist gets a tv segment and some notice in the news and more grant money and forget about focussing on the real problem at hand?

The most recent bit of two "scientists" trying to make a name for themselves was the recent "60 minutes" segment where two unknown researchers came forward with the devastating news that there was a 50% drop in the penguin population.

What they FAILED to mention was that this happened ONE TIME IN THE 1970's and HAS NEVER HAPPENED again, and that this was a fluke in a normal cycle and that the next cycle was normal and has been normal ever since and that the penguin population stabilized 30 years ago and has been increasing ever since.

Lies, lies and damned lies? When is this shameful behavior for recognition going to stop?

I believe this is the study I had heard referenced. Are these the same as on 60minutes?

http://polaris.nipr.ac.jp/~penguin/polarbiosci/issues/pdf/2004-Kato.pdf

 

[edward]

If one does want to form an opinion about ice and glaciers here is a good place to do it. I am not talking about the text of the article, but about the search feature in the upper right hand corner.

I found the best way for me to use it is to simply enter a geographical location as the search term. If you want to see scientific data on ice and glaciers you can find a lot here. You wil not find anything about AGW here.

http://www.igsoc.org/news/pressreleases/200603a.html

 

[Kirsten-B]

My name is Kristen Byrnes, I am the High School student that wrote Ponder the Maunder that was posted in another thread.

If I can offer an inside view on how this poll would look if scientists were responding, my guess is that it would look like this:

Yes 10%
No 10%
Leaning yes: 25%
Leaning no: 10%
The other 45% would not answer the poll due to fear of being bothered by one side or the other.
Government scientists such as those with NASA JPL or GISS gave me the okay to acknowledge them in my paper that would be turned into my teacher, but would not approve of the same in the on-line version.
Within the scientific community there is a fear of being harrassed by political activists, creationists, peers and etc. They also fear having their funding cut. As for the influence of the fossil fuel industry, it seems that there is no money directed to scientists who are not directly emploiyed by the fossil fuel industry. Sceptical scientists do not want to accept fossil fuel money because they would be plastered all over the press as "shills" for the fossil fuel industry and their careers ruined.

 

[Evo]

I believe this is the study I had heard referenced. Are these the same as on 60minutes?

http://polaris.nipr.ac.jp/~penguin/polarbiosci/issues/pdf/2004-Kato.pdf

This is the article about their study.

The decline in population was in the 1970's during a cyclical warming called the Antarctic circumpolar wave. In the early 1980s the winter air and sea surface temperatures dropped, and the emperor penguin population stabilized.

Using the longest series of data available, reseachers have shown that an abnormally long warm spell in the Southern Ocean during the late 1970s contributed to a decline in the population of emperor penguins at Terre Adelie, Antarctica.

The warm spell of the late 1970s is related to the Antarctic circumpolar wave—huge masses of warm and cold water that circle Antarctica about once every eight years. In response to this cycle, Terre Adelie experiences a warming period every four or five years that generally lasts about a year.

In the late 1970s, however, the warming continued for several years. Whether it was the result of natural climate variability in the Antarctic circumpolar wave cycle or an anomaly related to global warming is not possible to determine because air and sea surface temperature data from many years ago are not available.

In the early 1980s the winter air and sea surface temperatures dropped, and the emperor penguin population stabilized.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...indecline.html

They also failed to mention the 300% increase in the Antartic seal population in the last 20 years.

 

[Evo]

My name is Kristen Byrnes, I am the High School student that wrote Ponder the Maunder that was posted in another thread.

If I can offer an inside view on how this poll would look if scientists were responding, my guess is that it would look like this:

Yes 10%
No 10%
Leaning yes: 25%
Leaning no: 10%
The other 45% would not answer the poll due to fear of being bothered by one side or the other.
Government scientists such as those with NASA JPL or GISS gave me the okay to acknowledge them in my paper that would be turned into my teacher, but would not approve of the same in the on-line version.
Within the scientific community there is a fear of being harrassed by political activists, creationists, peers and etc. They also fear having their funding cut. As for the influence of the fossil fuel industry, it seems that there is no money directed to scientists who are not directly emploiyed by the fossil fuel industry. Sceptical scientists do not want to accept fossil fuel money because they would be plastered all over the press as "shills" for the fossil fuel industry and their careers ruined.

Welcome Kirsten_B!

Your article was amazing, I loved it. I hope you can spend some time with us.

 

[denverdoc]

This is the article about their study.

The decline in population was in the 1970's during a cyclical warming called the Antarctic circumpolar wave. In the early 1980s the winter air and sea surface temperatures dropped, and the emperor penguin population stabilized.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...indecline.html

They also failed to mention the 300% increase in the Antartic seal population in the last 20 years.

Well as you can see the article i cited was very recent, and may just show a boom/bust pop curve that happens all the time for various factors. Thats the thing, warmer waters favor one species which is a food source for another, they can go up in synchrony for a bit, even if the longer term effects are skewed against the higher member on the food chain. I think whaling had a lot to do with the seal explosion and possibly penguins as well. All points out what an impossily difficult task climatoligists, Earth scientists and biologists have at any concordance--sort of like the seven blind men and an elephant routine.

 

[Ki Man]

Its possible that its caused by carbon dioxide emissions, but think it is more likely that it is caused by levels of solar activity...

 

[Kirsten-B]

Thank you Evo, I'm all linked up now so I guess I get an email when some one posts. Pretty easy. :)

 

[Kirsten-B]

Ki Man, not just the sun, but the way the oceans hold and release the sun's energy over time.

 

[Anttech]

"Crank" (or kook, crackpot, or quack) is a pejorative term for a person who writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a particular subject, often in science, but is alleged to have false or even ludicrous beliefs. Usage of the label is often subjective, with proponents of competing theories labeling their opponents cranks, but typically is used to describe someone who is well out of mainstream opinion on a matter. In most cases the people labeled as crackpots turn out to be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crackpot

Billions of people face shortages of food and water and increased risk of flooding, experts at a major climate change conference have warned.
The bleak conclusion came ahead of the publication of a key report by hundreds of international environmental experts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6532323.stm?ls

Considering the fact they had been working intensively all through the night, the leaders of the UN panel on climate change were extraordinarily debonair and alert as they presented their conclusions to ranks of impatient journalists in the bright Brussels morning.

The chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II, Rajendra Pachauri, apologised for not having shaved - a light touch from the unflappable Indian, who sports a fine beard.

The general view, after five years of scientific work and four days of discussions here between senior scientists and government bureaucrats, was that something pretty significant had been achieved.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6524325.stm

I only hope THEY are the crackpots, but I doubt it.

 

[Kirsten-B]

Anttech,

With all the chicken little behavior, that is how they are making themselves look.

 

[Andre]

...
Within the scientific community there is a fear of being harrassed by political activists, creationists, peers and etc. They also fear having their funding cut. As for the influence of the fossil fuel industry, it seems that there is no money directed to scientists who are not directly emploiyed by the fossil fuel industry. Sceptical scientists do not want to accept fossil fuel money because they would be plastered all over the press as "shills" for the fossil fuel industry and their careers ruined.

Hi Kristen, good to see you here.

There is the exposure of one of the most agravating symtoms of the new dark ages that started with the scary scenarios quote of Stephen Schneider.

Some scientists with guts, who lost their job because they refused to be a part of the hype are:

George Taylor, state climatologist Oregon
Patrick Michaels, state climatologist Virginia
Henk Tennekes, scientific director of the Royal Netherlands Meteorologic Institute.
Hans Labohm, economic expert of the Institute of Foreign affairs in the Netherlands

Marcel Leroux, the French equivalent of Tennekes, could not get his very comprehensive book "Global Warming, Myth or Reality. The Erring Ways of Climatology." published in France.

Hans von Storch in Germany is not even a climate sceptic; he merely exposes the bad science, stressing that it will backfire, he is being treated as scum, just like Karin Labitzke.

A mutual acquintance in the UK, Kristen, whose name I will not mention here for privacy reasons, but who likes your webside very much, has had serious trouble defending his position as a preacher and being sceptic climate expert.

I'm helping a friend writing a paper about medieval witch hunt for causing the little ice age. We infer that nothing has changed in 500 years.

 

[arildno]

Just for the record, Andre:

Kristen is a male name, Kirsten a female name..

 

[Art]

Just for the record, Andre:

Kristen is a male name, Kirsten a female name..

Probably assumed it from this.

My name is Kristen Byrnes, I am the High School student that wrote Ponder the Maunder that was posted in another thread.

 

[arildno]

I was unaware that emigrants from Scandinavia chose to interchange those two letters when getting to America.
In Scandinavia, Kristen is unfailingly a male name, Kirsten a female name.

EDIT:
I checked at the central registry of names here in Norway just to be sure.

Amazingly, 13 women are said to have "Kristen" as a first Christian name, less than 3 (possibly 0), though, having it as her sole name.

The comparable numbers for males is 940 and 680, I think.

For "Kirsten", about 9500 women has that name, whereas less than 3 men have it.

I think the discrepancy of 13 from what I wrote is best explained by the presence of women of American/English descent living here in Norway as registered citizens.

 

[Bystander]

From edward's link:
http://www.igsoc.org/news/pressreleases/200603a.html ,

"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to sea-level rise during the decade studied was much smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year,"' Zwally said. "Current estimates of the other major sources of sea-level rise - expansion of the ocean by warming temperatures and runoff from low-latitude glaciers - do not make up the difference, so we have a mystery on our hands as to where the water is coming from.(emphasis added) Continuing research using NASA satellites and other data will narrow the uncertainties in this important issue and help solve the mystery."

No mystery. Global losses of wetlands in the 20th century are estimated to be millions of square kilometers (How many millions? One to ten if uncertainties in definitions are counted honestly; three to five if "best guesses" count.); one to two million square kilometers of agricultural land have been waterlogged as a result of poor irrigation practices; the U.S. has pumped groundwater at a rate of 1000 km³/a for the past 20 years (Dept. of Interior); the global groundwater extraction rate is currently estimated to be 2000 - 3000 km³/a.

Aquifer recharge rates? Hydrologists estimate the average recharge time to be around 3000 years; the IPCC assumes recharge rates in excess of 90% of withdrawal rates; a S. African study suggests 5 - 15% of rainfall over recharge areas reached the studied aquifer; a study in northern China observed a mass balance between rainfall plus withdrawal and transpired water losses from cropped areas above an area with no overlying aquaclude; San Diego's municipal water supply is drawn from a managed aquifer that is recharged with treated sewage and storm runoff pumped to an artificial reservoir constructed over the recharge zone, achieving a 90% recharge rate; Modern Marvels on water quotes one extremely alarmist viewpoint that existing aquifers are going to be dry or at unpumpable (economically) levels in 20 years.

Water volumes from lost wetlands (minus waterlogged agricultural areas) plus those lost to pumping from aquifers? 4-40 thousand km³ plus 30 - 60 thousand (75 and 50% recharge rates).

And, where did all that water go? Total annihilation of matter when flushed (a la Al Gore's "toilet law" for water conservation), or into the ocean and ice caps?

 

[Kirsten-B]

LOLOL! This cracks me up...
I let someone from another country sign me up into this forum because I was having problems doing it and they spelled my name wrong... Where I am from Kristen is female, so is Kirsten, so is Christian which is sometimes male but usually Christopher is male.
My name is Kristen and I am from Portland, Maine, USA and I am female.

 

[arildno]

Christian/Kristian/Christoffer/Kristoffer/Krister are exclusively male over here, whereas Christiane/Kristiane/Kristine/Kristin/Kristel are exclusively female..

 

[Kirsten-B]

A family member that I was joking about this with remembers the next door neighbor's daughter named Christian in California. I guess that is what you get when you live in the "melting pot."

 

[Kirsten-B]

Andre,

I wanted to add Dr. Schneider to Ponder the Maunder but could not find him quoted in a study or congressional record as warning about cooling ourselves into an ice age.

 

[Andre]

Andre,

I wanted to add Dr. Schneider to Ponder the Maunder but could not find him quoted in a study or congressional record as warning about cooling ourselves into an ice age.

This is what you're looking for, Kristen

Rasool, S. Ichtiaque, and Stephen H. Schneider (1971). "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate." Science 173: 138-141.

However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.

 

[Kirsten-B]

That's it! Can you send me the study or link please?

 

[siddharth]

My name is Kristen Byrnes, I am the High School student that wrote Ponder the Maunder that was posted in another thread.

Hi Kristen. Your report was interesting to read. I've got some questions on the content in that report. Since you're a member here, is it fine with you if I post the questions in this forum, or do you wish it to be mailed through your webpage?

 

[Andre]

That's it! Can you send me the study or link please?

The abstract is here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138

I have no key to that place currently. Perhaps somebody else?

 

[Astronuc]

Some data on air here and some discussion of GW.

http://www.uigi.com/air.html

The component of air which has the greatest variation in its percentage of the gases in air is water vapor, or humidity. The maximum amount of water vapor that can be present in air varies with air temperature; but the the amount of water vapor actually present in air will depend on a number of other factors. To illustrate, warm air over a lake in the summer may contain close to the maximum amount of water vapor for the air temperature. But air at that temperature in a desert will contain very little.

I believe we typically experience rel. hum. levels of 30-50%. At the moment it's 30%.


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/

For decades human factories and cars have spewed billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and the climate has begun to show some signs of warming. Many see this as a harbinger of what is to come. If we don’t curb our greenhouse gas emissions, then low-lying nations could be awash in seawater, rain and drought patterns across the world could change, hurricanes could become more frequent, and El Niños could become more intense.

On the other hand, there are those, some of whom are scientists, who believe that global warming will result in little more than warmer winters and increased plant growth. They point to the flaws in scientists’ measurements, the complexity of the climate, and the uncertainty in the climate models used to predict climate change. They claim that attempting to lower greenhouse emissions may do more damage to the world economy and human society than any amount of global warming.

In truth, the future probably fits somewhere between these two scenarios. But to gain an understanding of global warming, it is necessary to get to know the science behind the issue.