Mr Hand

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of

5,175 posts in this topic

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at [email protected]

Web

Canadafreepress.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEO - create one way text link ads to your website for top search engine listings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

web page

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying then that we should continue burning as much fossil fuels, or perhaps more, or are you simply saying that you don't think natural disasters are caused by global warming and that they won't get worse? Should we cut back on fossil fuels usage, or not?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Are you saying then that we should continue burning as much fossil fuels, or perhaps more, or Should we cut back on fossil fuels usage, or not?


I hope we do get off oil needle because it's dirty and gives money to terrorist countries that want to kill us.

Quote:

are you simply saying that you don't think natural disasters are caused by global warming and that they won't get worse?


Not by man made global warming.

30 years ago the Ice age alarmists said we have brought on the end of the Earth and we will surly all freeze to death.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but doesnt the global warming lead to global cooling by stopping the currents in the oceans and thereby killing the ecosystem down there then up here?

also what is his reasoning for global warming?

what about the poles flipping? could that be the cause?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Human influences on climate

Anthropogenic factors are acts by humans that change the environment and influence climate. The biggest factor of present concern is the increase in CO2 levels due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion, followed by aerosols (particulate matter in the atmosphere) which exerts a cooling effect. Other factors, including land use, ozone depletion, animal agriculture [1] and deforestation also impact climate.

[edit] Fossil fuels

Carbon dioxide variations over the last 400,000 years, showing a rise since the industrial revolution.

Carbon dioxide variations over the last 400,000 years, showing a rise since the industrial revolution.

Beginning with the industrial revolution in the 1850s and accelerating ever since, the human consumption of fossil fuels has elevated CO2 levels from a concentration of ~280 ppm to more than 370 ppm today. These increases are projected to reach more than 560 ppm before the end of the 21st century. Along with rising methane levels, these changes are anticipated to cause an increase of 1.4–5.6 °C between 1990 and 2100 (see global warming).

[edit] Aerosols

Anthropogenic aerosols, particularly sulphate aerosols from fossil fuel combustion, are believed to exert a cooling influence; see graph.[2] This, together with natural variability, is believed to account for the relative "plateau" in the graph of 20th century temperatures in the middle of the century.

[edit] Land use

Prior to widespread fossil fuel use, humanity's largest impact on local climate is likely to have resulted from land use. Irrigation, deforestation, and agriculture fundamentally change the environment. For example, they change the amount of water going into and out of a given locale. They also may change the local albedo by influencing the ground cover and altering the amount of sunlight that is absorbed. For example, there is evidence to suggest that the climate of Greece and other Mediterranean countries was permanently changed by widespread deforestation between 700 BC and 0 BC (the wood being used for ship-building, construction and fuel), with the result that the modern climate in the region is significantly hotter and drier, and the species of trees that were used for ship-building in the ancient world can no longer be found in the area.

A controversial hypothesis by William Ruddiman called the early anthropocene hypothesis [2] suggests that the rise of agriculture and the accompanying deforestation led to the increases in carbon dioxide and methane during the period 5000–8000 years ago. These increases, which reversed previous declines, may have been responsible for delaying the onset of the next glacial period, according to Ruddimann's overdue-glaciation hypothesis.

[edit] Animal agriculture

According to a 2006 United Nations report, animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all transportation emits 13.5% of the CO2. In addition to increased CO2 emissions, animal agriculture produces 65% percent of human-related nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO2) and 37% of all human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2)[3].

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

Statements by organizations

Various prominent bodies have commented on global warming, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). National and international scientific groups have issued statements both detailing and summarizing the current state of scientific knowledge on the earth's climate.

[edit] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In 2007, as part of its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.[1]

"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."[1]

"The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced."[2]

"On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues."[3]

[edit] Joint science academies’ statement

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [4], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

[edit] US National Research Council, 2001

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [5]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [6]

[edit] American Meteorological Society

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. [7]

[edit] Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006

On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [8]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic in nature.

[edit] Other organizations

Other scientific organizations have made position statements on climate change.

* American Geophysical Union position statement on greenhouse gases and climate change (also endorsed by the American Institute of Physics[9])

* Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001).

* Joint statement on the Science of Climate Change, issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

* A position paper of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London.

* Position Statement on Global Climate Change adopted by the Geological Society of America

* Policy Statement on Climate Variability and Change by the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)

* Australian Medical Association statement on climate change

* American Chemical Society statement on Global Climate Change

The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.[10]

[edit] Recent Surveys of scientists

Various surveys have been conducted to determine a scientific consensus on global warming. Only one has been conducted within the last ten years.

[edit] Oreskes, 2004

In December 2004, an article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[2] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

[edit] Older surveys

[edit] Survey of US state climatologists 1997

The neutrality of this section is disputed.

Please see the discussion on the talk page.

In 1997, the conservative advocacy group Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 official state climatologists on questions related to climate change [11]. Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade. The survey further found that 58% of the climatologists disagreed or somewhat disagreed with then-President Clinton's assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real". Eighty-nine percent of the climatologists agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors," and 61% said that historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels."

60% of the respondents said that reducing man-made CO2 emissions by 15% below 1990 levels would not prevent global temperatures from rising, and 86% said that reducing emissions to 1990 levels would not prevent rising temperatures. By a 39% to 33% margin, more climatologists agreed that "evidence exists to suggest that the earth is headed for another glacial period" [12] though the time scale for the next glacial period was not specified.

[edit] Bray and von Storch, 1996

In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survery of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters. The results were subsequently published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 80, No. 3, March 1999 439-455. [13] The paper addressed the views of climate scientists, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Most of the scientists believed that global warming was occurring and appropriate policy action should be taken, but there was wide disagreement about the likely effects on society and almost all agreed that the predictive ability of currently existing models was limited.

The abstract says:

The international consensus was, however, apparent regarding the utility of the knowledge to date: climate science has provided enough knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted. However, consensus also existed regarding the current inability to explicitly specify detrimental effects that might result from climate change. This incompatibility between the state of knowledge and the calls for action suggests that, to some degree at least, scientific advice is a product of both scientific knowledge and normative judgment, suggesting a socioscientific construction of the climate change issue.

The survey was extensive, and asked numerous questions on many aspects of climate science, model formulation, and utility, and science/public/policy interactions. To pick out some of the more vital topics, from the body of the paper:

The resulting questionnaire, consisting of 74 questions, was pre-tested in a German institution and after revisions, distributed to a total of 1,000 scientists in North America and Germany... The number of completed returns was as follows: USA 149, Canada 35, and Germany 228, a response rate of approximately 40%...

...With a value of 1 indicating the highest level of belief that predictions are possible and a value of 7 expressing the least faith in the predictive capabilities of the current state of climate science knowledge, the mean of the entire sample of 4.6 for the ability to make reasonable predictions of inter-annual variability tends to indicate that scientists feel that reasonable prediction is not yet a possibility... mean of 4.8 for reasonable predictions of 10 years... mean of 5.2 for periods of 100 years...

...a response of a value of 1 indicates a strong level of agreement with the statement of certainty that global warming is already underway or will occur without modification to human behavior... the mean response for the entire sample was 3.3 indicating a slight tendency towards the position that global warming has indeed been detected and is underway.... Regarding global warming as being a possible future event, there is a higher expression of confidence as indicated by the mean of 2.6.

[edit] Other older surveys of scientists

It should be noted that these surveys are over 15 years old and the state of climate science has changed radically since their time; current beliefs of the scientific community are different as shown in the reviews cited above.

* Global Environmental Change Report, 1990: GECR climate survey shows strong agreement on action, less so on warming. Global Environmental Change Report 2, No. 9, pp. 1-3

* Stewart, T.R., Mumpower, J.L., and Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1992). Scientists' opinions about global climate change: Summary of the results of a survey. NAEP (National Association of Environmental Professionals) Newsletter, 17(2), 6-7.

* A 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society[citation needed]

o Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report said that 66 % of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with 10 % disagreeing and the rest undecided. In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring now."

o George Will reported "53 percent do not believe warming has occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain." (Washington Post, September 3, 1992)

o A 1993 publication by the politically conservative[14] Heartland Institute states: "A Gallup poll conducted on February 13, 1992 of members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society - the two professional societies whose members are most likely to be involved in climate research - found that 18 percent thought some global warming had occurred, 33 percent said insufficient information existed to tell, and 49 percent believed no warming had taken place."[15]

[edit] Scientists opposing consensus opinions

Main article: List of scientists opposing global warming consensus

[edit] Alleged US governmental interference in reporting

According to an Associated Press release of 30 January 2007 [16]:

"Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

"The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete references to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report."

[edit] See also

* Attribution of recent climate change

* Global warming controversy

[edit] Citations

1. ^ "Warming 'very likely' human-made", BBC News, BBC, 2007-02-01. Retrieved on 2007-02-01.

2. ^ Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Science 306 (5702): 1686. DOI:10.1126/science.1103618. (see also for an exchange of letters to Science)

[edit] External links

* Sherwood Rowland (Nobel Laureate for work on ozone depletion) gives his opinion on climate change 2006 Freeview video provided by the Vega Science Trust.

* Newer reports on EPA website

* Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, National Academy of Sciences

* Joint Science Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change, National Academy of Sciences

* Climate change special: State of denial New Scientist 4 November 2006

* The Denial Machine CBC Television 15 November 2006

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

but doesnt the global warming lead to global cooling by stopping the currents in the oceans and thereby killing the ecosystem down there then up here?

also what is his reasoning for global warming?

what about the poles flipping? could that be the cause?


This chart is from David's own link.Look at how the temperature fluctuation changes over millions of years not just the 1000 the alarmist only want you to see. Magnetic and climate fluctuations are part of the soup that causes life to evolve into something better.

Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

web page

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than post the exact same thing in two places, let's have this debate back in the terror forum.

That's where I'm currently kicking your "it's-ok-everyone-just-keep-driving-around in-your-petrolium-guzzling-SUV's, keep-giving-exxon-50-billion-per-year, the-scientists-are-lying-to-you-for-a-lark" ass at the moment.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Rather than post the exact same thing in two places, let's have this debate back in the terror forum.

That's where I'm currently kicking your "it's-ok-everyone-just-keep-driving-around in-your-petrolium-guzzling-SUV's, keep-giving-exxon-50-billion-per-year, the-scientists-are-lying-to-you-for-a-lark" ass at the moment.


Yeah and when you plug your computer into the wall the electricity comes from squirrels on a wheel. smirk.gif

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yeah and when you plug your computer into the wall the electricity comes from squirrels on a wheel."

One day it will come from wind, wave and sun. You can either be a part of that change, or you can continue to be a shill for the oil barons, posting temperature charts with the last few years missing to hide the obvious problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists Offered Cash by ExxonMobil to Dispute Climate Study

By Ian

Sample

The Guardian UK - Friday 02 February 2007

original:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html (Copy and paste entire link into browser.)

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby

group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a

major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an

ExxonMobil-funded think tank with close links to the Bush

administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the

shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also

offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely

regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science.

It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to

succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012.

World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20

of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee

Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's

board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere,

attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent

and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the

analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the

limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast

doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming.

"It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort

science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic

Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review

undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the

public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to

take on sound scientific advice," he said.

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who

confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists

and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that

would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says

that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group

is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't

think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."

One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the

report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if

some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we

should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a

professor at Texas A&M university.

The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the

Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It

says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet,

and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C

this century, depending on emissions.

Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's

most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's

leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a

comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the

issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before,

that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that

'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the

urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst

impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal

minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a

thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa

Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their

campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost

on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of

cash."

On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will

launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among

its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human

activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs

attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is

no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

"Yeah and when you plug your computer into the wall the electricity comes from squirrels on a wheel."

One day it will come from wind, wave and sun. You can either be a part of that change, or you can continue to be a shill for the oil barons, posting temperature charts with the last few years missing to hide the obvious problem.


I don't believe in man mad global warming junk science and I am against burning things for energy especially oil.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:Why do we need Squirrels with cages? Why not vast warehouses with human sized squirrel wheels (tv monitor included) and maybe we can get rid of some of this excess obesity in the USA. Say everyone has to go to the neighborhood power GYM 2 hours a day to get reduced electricity rates. Yes. I am High... Anyway.. Lol Mikey Evans, Chairman, Oakland County NORML

business_woman_walking_hamster_wheel_hg_

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive thought that before, that they could hook up a generator to every machine in those gyms and people could be powering up the places that grow their chicken eggs.

there was this guy in minbin, i think they called him peter pedals and he invented these things that hooked up to a stationary bike. things like blenders and that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Tim Ball is so big on the 'scientific method' why is it that he has failed to produce a published article on climate change in any peer reviewed scientific literature in over 15 years? Peer review is one of the corner stones of science.

Mr. Ball is a paid lobbyist for the oil industry, nothing more. He is no more of a scientist than any one of us here and nothing more than a punchline within the scientific community.

This is simply anti-science. Here is an article that explains what Mr. Ball is all about...money.

http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my...an 8 foot snowfall in one county in ny state. Well I guess we'd better just throw away the scientific research and consensus from the past 25 years then. What a laugh.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IPCC Third Annual Report says: "...global average water vapour concentration and precipitation are projected to increase during the 21st century. By the second half of the 21st century, it is likely that precipitation will have increased over northern mid- to high latitudes and Antarctica in winter. At low latitudes there are both regional increases and decreases over land areas. Larger year to year variations in precipitation are very likely over most areas where an increase in mean precipitation is projected" [18] [19].

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Oh my...an 8 foot snowfall in one county in ny state. Well I guess we'd better just throw away the scientific research and consensus from the past 25 years then. What a laugh.


If your ok with throwing away the scientific research from millions of years past than what's 25 years between friends?

This chart is from David's own link.Look at how the temperature fluctuation changes over millions of years not just the 1000 the alarmist only want you to see. Magnetic and climate fluctuations are part of the soup that causes life to evolve into something better.

Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

web page

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This chart is from David's own link.Look at how the temperature fluctuation changes over millions of years not just the 1000 the alarmist only want you to see. Magnetic and climate fluctuations are part of the soup that causes life to evolve into something better."

You pay attention to the links I provide that don't put the last few years on the chart ... and repeatedly ignore the links I provide that put the last few years on the chart. Here they are again ... why not comment on these charts and links?:

1355822-1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

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

See also:

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

You pay attention to the links I provide that don't put the last few years on the chart ... and repeatedly ignore the links I provide that put the last few years on the chart. Here they are again ... why not comment on these charts and links?:


Tree Ring Circus

Sunday, July 31, 2005

By Steven Milloy

Is it really possible to determine the change in global temperatures over the last 1,000 years by examining tree rings?

We may finally learn the answer, thanks to the efforts of Congressman Joe Barton, R-Texas -- who has had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at him by the global warming lobby in its fierce opposition to his recent inquiry.

On June 23, Rep. Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, sent letters to the climate researchers responsible for developing the notorious “hockey stick” graph, which purports to show a dramatic rise in global temperatures during the 20th century after a millennium of supposedly little change in global temperature.

The hockey stick graph has been key weapon in the arsenal of the global warming alarmists in their efforts to scare the U.S. into signing the Kyoto Protocol and clamping down on greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.

The graph has been criticized for many reasons, including its reliance on dubious estimates of historic temperatures based on the size of tree rings. Not only is temperature merely one factor that contributes to tree growth (as evidenced by the ring size), but a 15th century portion of the hockey stick graph is based on tree ring measurements from a single tree.

Noting that “sharing data and research results is a basic tenet of open scientific inquiry” and that the hockey stick research was paid for with public funds, Chairman Barton asked Dr. Michael Mann of the University of Virginia for the computer code used to generate the hockey stick graph. Dr. Mann had previously refused to provide his computer code to other climate researchers who had requested it.

Dr. Mann apparently decided that he cannot withhold his data and computer code any longer from the public and agreed in a letter to post his data and computer code on the Internet -- but not without squealing about it first. Before Dr. Mann turned over his data, virtually the entire spectrum of global warming alarmists attacked Chairman Barton for requesting access to the data and code.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, long a proponent of global warming alarmism, chided Chairman Barton in a July 13 letter that Dr. Mann’s hockey stick had already been accepted by the United Nations’ global warming organization and that Congress ought not interfere with that process.

Although the AAAS apparently believes that the UN should be the final arbiter on scientific matters, it’s not at all clear that political organizations have any special insight into what constitutes scientific fact.

Dr. Ralph Ciccerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote in a July 15 letter to Chairman Barton that “a focus on individual scientists can be intimidating.”

But congressional committees send out requests for information from private parties routinely. Moreover, I doubt that Dr. Mann felt “intimidated.” He has previously testified in person before Congress about global warming without complaining of any intimidation. It’s more likely that Dr. Mann doesn’t want to run the risk of more criticism directed at his hockey stick graph.

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, the Chairman of the House Science Committee, melodramatically wrote Chairman Barton claiming that, “The only conceivable explanation for the investigation is to attempt to intimidate a prominent scientist and to have Congress put its thumbs on the scales of a scientific debate… The precedent your investigation sets is truly chilling.”

But Chairman Barton merely asked Dr. Mann to provide some information to Congress, including his computer code – something that Dr. Mann had previously refused to do when asked by private parties. Chairman Barton isn’t trying to influence scientific debate. He’s trying to make scientific debate possible -- a good thing in a free society. What’s chilling is Dr. Mann’s past stonewalling and utter refusal to permit the public to see how he concocted the hockey stick -- research that was paid for by the public and that is being used by global warming advocates to restrict the public’s access to affordable energy.

In his request for information, Barton had also asked Dr. Mann to provide records of the grants and other sources of funding that had financed his research, no doubt fueling suspicion about the intentions of Barton's investigation. But these records would have established that the research and methodology that Dr. Mann was refusing to share had been publicly funded.

The Washington Post seized upon this point when it chimed in on the debate with an editorial likening Chairman Barton’s request for information to a “witch hunt.” The Post added that “… to pretend that [Chairman Barton] is going to learn something useful by requesting data on 15th century tree rings is ludicrous; to demand decades worth of financial information from scientists who are not suspected of fraud is outrageous.”

Well, a scientist’s refusal to provide colleagues with his data and methodology is suspicious. Chairman Barton’s request for publicly funded scientific data concerning a major public policy issue isn’t ludicrous; but estimating global temperature data based on a single tree certainly is.

The global warmers are trying to demonize Chairman Barton to make him the bad guy out to harass and intimidate Dr. Mann, now a martyr for global warming hysteria. But it appears that just the opposite is the case.

For the sake of national energy policy and the global economy, let’s all thank Chairman Barton for his reasonable inquiry into the questionable hockey stick.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com, is adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and is the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).

web page

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

You ignored my last post. Here it is again:


In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch). The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team, which, in 2001, produced the Third Assessment Report, a Bible-length document presenting apocalyptic conclusions well beyond previous reports.

This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.

Next week, I'll demonstrate the atrocious economic, political and environmental cost of the high-tax, zero-freedom, bureaucratic centralism implicit in Stern's report; I'll compare the global-warming scare with previous sci-fi alarums; and I'll show how the environmentalists' "precautionary principle" (get the state to interfere now, just in case) is killing people.

So to the scare. First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:

• They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so).

• The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.

• They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data". crazy.gifcrazy.gifcrazy.gif

• They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise".

nwarm05.gif

The large, full-colour "hockey-stick" was the key graph in the UN's 2001 report, and the only one to appear six times. The Canadian Government copied it to every household. Four years passed before a leading scientific journal would publish the truth about the graph. Did the UN or the Canadian government apologise? Of course not. The UN still uses the graph in its publications.

Even after the "hockey stick" graph was exposed, scientific papers apparently confirming its abolition of the medieval warm period appeared. The US Senate asked independent statisticians to investigate. They found that the graph was meretricious, and that known associates of the scientists who had compiled it had written many of the papers supporting its conclusion.

The UN, echoed by Stern, says the graph isn't important. It is. Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.

The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000-year melting trend. Data from 6,000 boreholes worldwide show global temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than now. And the snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing not because summit temperature is rising (it isn't) but because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air. Al Gore please note.

In some places it was also warmer than now in the Bronze Age and in Roman times. It wasn't CO2 that caused those warm periods. It was the sun. So the UN adjusted the maths and all but extinguished the sun's role in today's warming. Here's how:

• The UN dated its list of "forcings" (influences on temperature) from 1750, when the sun, and consequently air temperature, was almost as warm as now. But its start-date for the increase in world temperature was 1900, when the sun, and temperature, were much cooler.

• Every "forcing" produces "climate feedbacks" making temperature rise faster. For instance, as temperature rises in response to a forcing, the air carries more water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas; and polar ice melts, increasing heat absorption. Up goes the temperature again. The UN more than doubled the base forcings from greenhouse gases to allow for climate feedbacks. It didn't do the same for the base solar forcing.

Two centuries ago, the astronomer William Herschel was reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations when he noticed that quoted grain prices fell when the number of sunspots rose. Gales of laughter ensued, but he was right. At solar maxima, when the sun was at its hottest and sunspots showed, temperature was warmer, grain grew faster and prices fell. Such observations show that even small solar changes affect climate detectably. But recent solar changes have been big.

Sami Solanki, a solar physicist, says that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years, contributing a base forcing equivalent to a quarter of the past century's warming. That's before adding climate feedbacks.

The UN expresses its heat-energy forcings in watts per square metre per second. It estimates that the sun caused just 0.3 watts of forcing since 1750. Begin in 1900 to match the temperature start-date, and the base solar forcing more than doubles to 0.7 watts. Multiply by 2.7, which the Royal Society suggests is the UN's current factor for climate feedbacks, and you get 1.9 watts – more than six times the UN's figure.

The entire 20th-century warming from all sources was below 2 watts. The sun could have caused just about all of it.

Next, the UN slashed the natural greenhouse effect by 40 per cent from 33C in the climate-physics textbooks to 20C, making the man-made additions appear bigger.

Then the UN chose the biggest 20th-century temperature increase it could find. Stern says: "As anticipated by scientists, global mean surface temperatures have risen over the past century." As anticipated? Only 30 years ago, scientists were anticipating a new Ice Age and writing books called The Cooling.

In the US, where weather records have been more reliable than elsewhere, 20th-century temperature went up by only 0.3C. AccuWeather, a worldwide meteorological service, reckons world temperature rose by 0.45C. The US National Climate Data Centre says 0.5C. Any advance on 0.5? The UN went for 0.6C, probably distorted by urban growth near many of the world's fast-disappearing temperature stations.

The number of temperature stations round the world peaked at 6,000 in 1970. It's fallen by two-thirds to 2,000 now: a real "hockey-stick" curve, and an instance of the UN's growing reliance on computer guesswork rather than facts.

Even a 0.6C temperature rise wasn't enough. So the UN repealed a fundamental physical law. Buried in a sub-chapter in its 2001 report is a short but revealing section discussing "lambda": the crucial factor converting forcings to temperature. The UN said its climate models had found lambda near-invariant at 0.5C per watt of forcing.

You don't need computer models to "find" lambda. Its value is given by a century-old law, derived experimentally by a Slovenian professor and proved by his Austrian student (who later committed suicide when his scientific compatriots refused to believe in atoms). The Stefan-Boltzmann law, not mentioned once in the UN's 2001 report, is as central to the thermodynamics of climate as Einstein's later equation is to astrophysics. Like Einstein's, it relates energy to the square of the speed of light, but by reference to temperature rather than mass.

The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase the UN could predict. Using poor Ludwig Boltzmann's law, lambda's true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt. In 2001, the UN effectively repealed the law, doubling lambda to 0.5C per watt. A recent paper by James Hansen says lambda should be 0.67, 0.75 or 1C: take your pick. Sir John Houghton, who chaired the UN's scientific assessment working group until recently, tells me it now puts lambda at 0.8C: that's 3C for a 3.7-watt doubling of airborne CO2. Most of the UN's computer models have used 1C. Stern implies 1.9C.

On the UN's figures, the entire greenhouse-gas forcing in the 20th century was 2 watts. Multiplying by the correct value of lambda gives a temperature increase of 0.44 to 0.6C, in line with observation. But using Stern's 1.9C per watt gives 3.8C. Where did 85 per cent of his imagined 20th-century warming go? As Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT pointed out in The Sunday Telegraph last week, the UK's Hadley Centre had the same problem, and solved it by dividing its modelled output by three to "predict" 20th-century temperature correctly.

A spate of recent scientific papers, gearing up for the UN's fourth report next year, gives a different reason for the failure of reality to keep up with prediction. The oceans, we're now told, are acting as a giant heat-sink. In these papers the well-known, central flaw (not mentioned by Stern) is that the computer models' "predictions" of past ocean temperature changes only approach reality if they are averaged over a depth of at least a mile and a quarter.

Deep-ocean temperature hasn't changed at all, it's barely above freezing. The models tend to over-predict the warming of the climate-relevant surface layer up to threefold. A recent paper by John Lyman, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, reports that the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years. The computers didn't predict this. Sea level is scarcely rising faster today than a century ago: an inch every 15 years. Hansen now says that the oceanic "flywheel effect" gives us extra time to act, so Stern's alarmism is misplaced.

Quote:

Finally, the UN's predictions are founded not only on an exaggerated forcing-to-temperature conversion factor justified neither by observation nor by physical law, but also on an excessive rate of increase in airborne carbon dioxide. The true rate is 0.38 per cent year on year since records began in 1958. The models assume 1 per cent per annum, more than two and a half times too high. In 2001, the UN used these and other adjustments to predict a 21st-century temperature increase of 1.5 to 6C. Stern suggests up to 10C.


laugh.gif

Dick Lindzen emailed me last week to say that constant repetition of wrong numbers doesn't make them right. Removing the UN's solecisms, and using reasonable data and assumptions, a simple global model shows that temperature will rise by just 0.1 to 1.4C in the coming century, with a best estimate of 0.6C, well within the medieval temperature range and only a fifth of the UN's new, central projection.

Why haven't air or sea temperatures turned out as the UN's models predicted? Because the science is bad, the "consensus" is wrong, and Herr Professor Ludwig Boltzmann, FRS, was as right about energy-to-temperature as he was about atoms

web page

NYDD60102101807_Cold_Weather.sff-512x311

Upstate New York Snow Continues to Pile Up

web page

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understanding the Climate Change and the IPCC Report

Hasan Selim Ozertem

Sunday , 11 February 2007

This commentary is from USAK's Energy Review Newsletter

http://www.turkishweekly.net/energyreview/TurkishWeekly-EnergyReview6.pdf

To subscribe email to [email protected]

Killing slowly the earth; this is what we are doing for centuries. Unfortunately, the latest report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) approves this; climate change is man made and his share in this is 90% in the last 50 years.

The main reasons for the climate change are;

i. Greenhouse gases

ii. Changes in the solar activity

iii. Movement of tectonic plates

iv. Change in the earth’s orbit

v. Volcanism

vi. Meteor Strikes

There is a high correlation between temperature changes and solar activities but in the recent years greenhouse gases have become dominant in global heating. Tectonic movements and change in the earth’s orbit are effective, but these in the very long term. On the other hand particles that emerge from volcanic explosions or from a meteor strike (for example like in the prehistoric period) prevent sunlight to reach to the earth. As humans among these we can only control greenhouse gas emissions; the most effective one.

Human made factors like urbanization, aerosols, CFC (Chlorofluorocarbons), fossil fuels, agricultural activities, deforestation and transportation can be stated as the factors, which are effective on climate change.

With the “industrial revolution” human activities have increased and accordingly the greenhouse emissions in the atmosphere. The main greenhouse gases are Carbon Dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). In addition, according to scientific researches CH4 is 21 times and N2O is 310 times effective than CO2. These are also called anthropogenic gases and since 1750 these have markedly increased as a result of human activities. In global scale increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agricultural activities. (IPCC Report) These gases absorb sun lights and causes increase in the earth’s temperature. Moreover, CFCs deplete ozone (O3)layer in the atmosphere. However, in 1990 it was agreed to stop CFC usage until the 2000 in London Protocol, so today the usage of these gases have been taken under control.

Today, one of the most serious threats is global heating and effects of this can already be observed easily. According to IPCC report “Eleven of the last twelve years (1995 -2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature since 1850 … Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise… Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise” (pp. 5, 7) Moreover, another crucial impact of decreases in glaciers is that this causes the salt density in the oceans to change and it is afraid that this would negatively affect Gulf Stream and accordingly west coast of Europe. It is not necessary to mention about the changes in annual precipitation and catastrophes that have occurred frequently in the last decade; like Katrina, El Niño, and La Niña etc.

Today, countries are discussing Kyoto Protocol(1997); this is a kind of agreement that aims to decrease greenhouse gas emissions to a certain level in the atmosphere. The main principles are;

* Equality but differentiated responsibilities

* Taking precautions in the beginning

* The balance between development and the climate change

Kyoto Protocol is being implemented since 2005. However some countries like USA and Australia have hesitations to implement this. Since their industries mainly dependent to fossil fuels they claim that if they give promises to decrease their emissions and implement this protocol, it would negatively affect their industries and the welfare level of their people. On the other hand, in USA in the federal level some states allocate important amount resources for efficiency in energy usage and research and development studies for the renewable energy technologies.

In addition, recycling policies, renewable energy technologies, waste to energy implementations and energy efficiency have begun to gain importance in most of the countries. For example; by 2010 the EU aims to produce 21% of its electricity from renewable resources and plan to substitute highway transportation with railways to decrease CO2 and N2O emissions.

To conclude, especially in the last decade effects of global heating have become more obvious; the frequency of catastrophes has increased, annual precipitation rates have changed, glaciers and snow cover have declined and sea level has increased. What we are pursuing is the road to hell. However, yet it is not too late. Being more sensitive and creating policies for solution of these problems can save the earth.

References:

* Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; Summary for Policy Makers Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf on 11 February 2007

* Promoting Climate Change Policies in Turkey Symposium (7-8-9 February 2007) Notes

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2473

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your proof is from the same people who faked Man made global warming reports!

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the U.N.! smirk.gif

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans , based mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.[1] The Panel is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP.

web page

The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:

• They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so).

• The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.

• They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data" web page

Cold_Weather.sff_NYDD604_20070210130105.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now