32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

[tangentlama]

My qualifications for entering this debate?

I can read, and have a brain.

I hope so. Post 1 mentions the Arthur Robinson, PhD.

Here's more on Arthur Robinson: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph..._and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition

 

[Spion]

My qualifications for entering this debate?

I can read, and have a brain.

Thanks for helping get my day started with a big smile

 

[tangentlama]

i wouldn't place that much confidence in Wikipedia. it's pretty much a laughing stock nowadays. In any case, Freeman Dyson has definitely signed the petition, the wording of which is clear and unequivocal.

Image inserted from: http://www. nationalpost.com/520843.bin

Sure, that's what gives the game away - it's out of date and no longer reflects his opinion. Dyson's made a number of public statements highly critical of so called "manmade" global warming subsequent to the 2003 publication date of that article given as the information source by Wikipedia. Plus, Dyson has now signed this new petition, the wording of which is crystal clear.

There is regional variation in climate! Amazing!

Well slap my thigh and call me Younger Dryas!

 

[editor]

Here's more on Arthur Robinson: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph..._and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition

Nutjobs and liars galore!

In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.'

What's your brain telling you now JC2?

 

[tangentlama]

Nutjobs and liars galore!

It gets worse!
DeSmogBlog on Arthur Robinson (do use the drop down menu of others involved whose interests are not immediately transparent)

What's your brain telling you now JC2?

*best change tack, they're not buying it*

 

[editor]

Robinson "acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming." (source). Robinson is the founder of a group called the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM ), which markets, among other things, a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and books on how to survive nuclear war.
In April 1998, Robinson’s Oregon Institute, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute , released a petition on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol that was so misleading it prompted the National Academy of Science to issue a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol.”

((((JC2 & bigfish's brains))))

 

[ViolentPanda]

LOL! So tell us laptop, what parts of the climate system do epidemiologists specialize in, then?

You appear to have totally missed the point of what epidemiology is about, what it is for.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Nutjobs and liars galore!
What's your brain telling you now JC2?

My brain is telling me that everyone likes to focus on one wingnut, but that doesn't provide any sort of reply to this earlier post of mine, which has so far passed without comment:

02-07-2008, 17:00
Johnny Canuck2 Johnny Canuck2 is online now
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 68,811
Quote:
Glaciers in western Norway are growing at record speeds, contrary to the current global trend, following heavy rain and snowfall in the 1980s and 1990s, Norwegian daily Bergens Tidende said on Sunday.
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/...rsies/afp.html

Growing glaciers:

CANADA Helm Glacier Place Glacier
FRANCE Mt. Blanc
ECUADOR Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier
SWITZERLAND Silvretta Glacier
KIRGHIZTAN Abramov
RUSSIA Maali Glacier
Quote:
The ice between Canada and southwestern Greenland has reached its highest level in 15 years.
http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN
Quote:
the Peritio Moreno formation [Argentina] actually swells with each passing day. Deemed an "advancing glacier," the ice is continually growing and expanding outward, gradually occupying more and more territory. While the glacier is said to move outward at a pace of up to seven feet each day, large chunks of ice falling from the walls make this growth a bit more subtle
http://www.allaboutar.com/ard_cala_perito_moreno.htm


Quote:
While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...tal_ice_extent


Quote:
a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/glo.../19/73798.html


Quote:
The association of the International Glaciospeleology Survey has studied the glaciokarstic phenomenon in many glaciers of the world, from Washington State, Canada, Alaska etc. A new forming glacier in the Crater of Mount St. Helens has obtained the most exciting results, on both the exploration and scientific research fronts.
http://www.glaciercaves.com/html/anewgl_1.HTM


Quote:
the best-measured glacier in North America, the Nisqually on Mount Rainier, has been growing since 1931.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...s/Ice_Age.html


Quote:
There is evidence that the McGinnis Glacier, a little-known tongue of ice in the central Alaska Range, has surged
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-cda031506.php

 

[Crispy]

Glaciers in western Norway are growing at record speeds, contrary to the current global trend

the current global trend
the current global trend

 

[bigfish]

Dyson: Quantum and nuclear physicist. Experience and expertise about as relevant to the subject as a landsape gardener's.

laptop: Epidemiologist. Experience and expertise about as relevant to the subject as a estate agent's.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I"m not sure how it answers this post either, which also seems to have gone unnoticed.

03-07-2008, 14:05
Johnny Canuck2 Johnny Canuck2 is online now
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 68,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by free spirit View Post

There's nearly 30 pages detailing the latest understanding of aerosol impacts mostly based on studies completed since the 2001 report, so I'm fucked if I'm going to try and explain it here - read the report.
Quote:
Anthropogenic aerosol emissions are believed to have counteracted the global-warming effect of greenhouse gases over the past century. However, the magnitude of this cooling effect is highly uncertain. In their Perspective, Anderson et al. argue that the magnitude and uncertainty of aerosol forcing may be larger than is usually considered in models. This would have important implications for the total climate forcing by anthropogenic emissions, and hence for predicting future global warming.
Climate Forcing by Aerosols--a Hazy Picture
Theodore L. Anderson, Robert J. Charlson, Stephen E. Schwartz, Reto Knutti, Olivier Boucher, Henning Rodhe, Jost Heintzenberg Science 16 May 2003:
Vol. 300. no. 5622, pp. 1103 - 1104

Quote:
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assesses the skill of climate models by their ability to reproduce warming over the twentieth century, but in doing so may give a false sense of their predictive capability.

...

The estimated forcing for the several components combined — 1.6 W m-2 over the industrial period — is nearly the same as that from CO2 emissions alone, because some of the warming effects of greenhouse gases are being cancelled out by the cooling effects of anthropogenic aerosols. Cooling, or negative forcing, occurs primarily through direct effects such as scattering of light in cloud-free air and indirect effects such as enhanced reflection of light by clouds. These aerosol forcings are much less certain than the greenhouse-gas forcings, and hence the total forcing is likewise quite uncertain. The new report estimates total anthropogenic forcing to be 0.6 to 2.4 W m-2 (5–95% confidence range). This factor of four range greatly limits the ability to evaluate the skill of climate models in reproducing past temperature changes and to infer climate sensitivity from observed change because a given temperature increase might result from a large forcing and low climate sensitivity or alternatively from a small forcing and high climate sensitivity.
Quantifying climate change — too rosy a picture?

Stephen E. Schwartz1, Robert J. Charlson2 & Henning Rodhe3: Nature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 27 June 2007

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Post 1 mentions 'Arthur Robinson, PhD'?

Who gives a shit? Do some digging yourselves into the background science, and then come talk to me.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

JC2, I dealt directly with this point. Aerosol emissions have gone down in the last 30 years, one of the factors in the observed warming over this period.

 

[editor]

My brain is telling me that everyone likes to focus on one wingnut, but that doesn't provide any sort of reply to this earlier post of mine, which has so far passed without comment:

Link one: not found

Link two. Oh dear.

Shifting weather

If it's up to meteorologists from Denmark's Meteorological Institute, there is not anything inherently contradictory that extreme cold is replaced by higher temperatures than average. Or that melting sea ice occasionally is replaced by expanding ice sheets.

'Weather is a phenomenon which changes from year to year and right now the atmosphere has changed so we have cold weather. That will certainly mean that melting ice in the North Pole will be less this year, but next year the situation can look completely different,' according to Henriksen.

To sum things up, global warming hasn't been called off.

Link three: From some undated travel guide with no author, so hardly a credible source.
Link four: Written by International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project - not even remotely an unbiased source.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ICECAP
Link five: not found
Link six: EIGHT years old
Link seven: not found
Link eight: not found

Great work Johnny.

 

[Signal 11]

My brain is telling me that everyone likes to focus on one wingnut, but that doesn't provide any sort of reply to this earlier post of mine [news reports of cold weather]

Global mean surface tempeature is not calculated from news reports, cherry-picked or otherwise. It is calculated from measurements of the temperature. Short term and/or regional variations in the climate do not tell us anything about climate change, which is about long term trends in the aforementioned average. How many more times do we need to explain this to you?

laptop: Epidemiologist. Experience and expertise about as relevant to the subject as a estate agent's.

People who agree with the experts do not themselves need to demonstrate expertise. How many more times do we need to explain this to you?

Do some digging yourselves into the background science, and then come talk to me.

If you wish to dispute mainstream science, you have the burden of proof. How many more times do we need to explain this to you?

 

[free spirit]

I"m not sure how it answers this post either, which also seems to have gone unnoticed.

It hadn't gone unnoticed, I'd read it and couldn't work out what point you were trying to make other than that you couldn't be arsed to actually read the 28 pages of the IPCC report that actually deal with this directly.

what's wrong Johnny, is 28 pages too long for you?

anyway, I'll not be too harsh on you because I think you're actually picking up on a valid concern / criticism of the IPCC models, albeit in a slightly fumbling about in the dark kind of way.

The bottom line is that as I pointed out in my previous post the impact of aerosols is extremely complex to understand, and even more complex to model accurately as the same particle can have (for example)

• a warming effect on the air around it, and at the same time a cooling effect on the ground
• a cooling effect most of the year, but a warming effect in winter when it's above snow so it's actually darker than the ground it's over.
• a cooling effect over the sea, and a warming effect over the land
• a slight warming effect when at low altitudes, or a big cooling effect at higher altitudes as moisture condenses around the particle to form high level white reflective cloud
• A warming effect at lower levels by causing low level cloud to be thicker and darker, and more persistent.

Then you've got the fact that black carbon particulates are a strong positive driver, whereas the whiter sulphur particulates are usually a strong negative driver due to their differing albedo levels (obviously the exact effect depends on the albedo level of the earths surface underneath) ... and then black carbon in the air can cause the air to heat up more and actually burn light reflective clouds off.


So from the above examples (not an exhaustive list) you should be able to see the complexity of the problem, and why they haven't yet nailed it in the models, and why it's listed by the IPCC as being at a low-medium level of scientific understanding - because they, unlike bigfish and his ilk, are actually very open and transparent about what their level of understanding of any aspect of the problem is.

None of this does anything to discredit the fact that antrhopogenic caused increases in CO2, Methane and various other greenhouse gasses are (in combination with a range of other factors described in the IPCC reports) causing the earth to warm up, and will continue to do so.

more to follow...

 

[free spirit]

JC2, I dealt directly with this point. Aerosol emissions have gone down in the last 30 years, one of the factors in the observed warming over this period.

That was definately true through the 80's and 90's, but I'm almost certain it's not actually been true of this decade as sulphur emmissions from china and india have gone through the roof, with China estimated to have been the biggest global emitter of SO2 since the early 1990's.

As the 1990s began, the United States and Canada were emitting a combined estimated 15 million metric tons of sulfur, compared with approximately 22 million metric tons by China. "The data clearly show that while North American and in some cases, European, emissions have been leveling off, rapid increases are occurring in China," Husar says.

[sciencedaily]

 

[free spirit]

Your right it can't.

But climatologists claim that the increase in global temp is due to atmospheric CO2.

But also how would CO2 in the oceans etc affect global air temperatures?

you do understand that the Carbon in the ocean & land biospheres isn't all kept in some big vault from which it can never excape, it's actually a continuous process of carbon being released back into the atmopshere as co2, at the same time as it's being captured from the air.

Both the oceans and the land biospheres are entirely capable of acting as total overall emitters of CO2 as well as their current overall role as CO2 sinks.

Whether they are sinks or emitters, and to what level is to a large extent governed by temperature, so warmer oceans and warmer soil both become emitters of co2, creating a huge cluster fuck of a positive feedback loop if we're ever stupid enough to cross that particular temperature threshold / tipping point. Unfortunately it's not entirely known what that point is, as it differs from one soil type to the next, one vegetation type to the next, one wind regime to the next etc.

 

[WouldBe]

you do understand that the Carbon in the ocean & land biospheres isn't all kept in some big vault from which it can never excape, it's actually a continuous process of carbon being released back into the atmopshere as co2, at the same time as it's being captured from the air.

Yes I do. The point is there is a well documented theory for warming from atmospheric greenhouse gasses. There is (AFAIK) no theory for warming from sea or land locked CO2 apart from when it is released to the atmosphere.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

JC2, I dealt directly with this point. Aerosol emissions have gone down in the last 30 years, one of the factors in the observed warming over this period.

And I responded, way back at post 311.

02-07-2008, 16:33
Johnny Canuck2 Johnny Canuck2 is online now
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 68,814

Originally Posted by littlebabyjesus View Post
As I understand it, the lull between '45 and '75 can be explained by aerosol emissions. Since the 1970s, industry has become cleaner, manmade aerosols have been reduced, and this has lessened the global cooling effect of aerosols in the atmosphere.

However, over the same period SO2 emissions have been increasing significantly from Asia which is estimated to currently emit 17TgSyr-1 (Streets et al., 2003) and from developing countries (e.g., Boucher and Pham, 2002). The net result of these combined regional reductions and increases leads to uncertainty in whether the global SO2 has increased or decreased since the 1980s (Lefohn et al., 1999; Van Aardenne et al., 2001; Boucher and Pham, 2002)

,
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Second Draft chapter 2, page 30

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

the current global trend
the current global trend

So says that particular article, but as you might have noticed, the many other examples provided in my post, come from around the world, in both hemispheres.

In other words, the author of the article, stating 'global trend', is as misinformed as you are, although he is aware of the glacier growth in his own backyard.

The point is that no doubt some glaciers are receding. But others are growing, so there appear to be two trends at work.

 

[Signal 11]

And I responded, way back at post 311.

Answered in #314

So says that particular article, but as you might have noticed, the many other examples provided in my post, come from around the world, in both hemispheres.

Answered in #405

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Link one: not found

Link two. Oh dear.
Link three: From some undated travel guide with no author, so hardly a credible source.
Link four: Written by International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project - not even remotely an unbiased source.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ICECAP
Link five: not found
Link six: EIGHT years old
Link seven: not found
Link eight: not found

Great work Johnny.

Link one, works fine for me. http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/afp.html

Link 2. http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN "Oh dear", what?


Link 3, re the Perito Moreno glacier. It's either a fact that the glacier is growing, or not. Did you check any other sources or not; ie are you actually interested in determining if these things are true, or are you only interested in propping up your beliefs on the subject at whatever cost to accuracy or self respect?

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/environment/245875

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18624950.100-glaciers-are-cool.html

If you think I'm in error concerning this glacier, prove it.

Link 4. I've provided a link to back up an assertion. If I'm wrong, prove it. If I'm wrong, there will be other articles saying so, given the current interest in the topic.

You've given your opinion that the source is biased, but you've done nothing to prove that the alleged bias has operated in this instance to provide incorrect information.

Link 5: once again, works for me. http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/global_warming_or_cooling/2008/02/19/73798.html

 

[Crispy]

JC, a trend is always an average. Some stocks rise, some stocks fall, but the market as a whole trends upwards or downwards. Likewise glaciers. In some regions, increased precipitation will cause a glacier to advance, even despite an increase in temperature. But most are retreating.

There is a finite number of glaciers in the world, and we have adequate data for most of them. The majority are in retreat and you cannot deny this. It is the fact of the matter. There are loads of references on wikipedia - in fact the most I've seen for any article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Link one: not found

Link two. Oh dear.
Link three: From some undated travel guide with no author, so hardly a credible source.
Link four: Written by International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project - not even remotely an unbiased source.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ICECAP
Link five: not found
Link six: EIGHT years old
Link seven: not found
Link eight: not found

Great work Johnny.

Link 6 - deals with a glacier forming in Mt. St. Helens. It's eight years old, you say. Did you do any background digging to determine if this new glacier has receded or disappeared in the intervening 8 years?

Had you done so, you'd have found this article from May 2008.

http://www.katu.com/news/outdoors/18948279.html

Simply pointing out that the article is eight years old, does nothing to verify or disprove the information included therein.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Link one: not found

Link two. Oh dear.
Link three: From some undated travel guide with no author, so hardly a credible source.
Link four: Written by International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project - not even remotely an unbiased source.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ICECAP
Link five: not found
Link six: EIGHT years old
Link seven: not found
Link eight: not found

Great work Johnny.

Link 7: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html also works for me.

As does http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uoaf-cda031506.php Link 8.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

JC, a trend is always an average. Some stocks rise, some stocks fall, but the market as a whole trends upwards or downwards. Likewise glaciers. In some regions, increased precipitation will cause a glacier to advance, even despite an increase in temperature. But most are retreating.

There is a finite number of glaciers in the world, and we have adequate data for most of them. The majority are in retreat and you cannot deny this. It is the fact of the matter. There are loads of references on wikipedia - in fact the most I've seen for any article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

My post re glaciers was made in response to this comment by lbj:

Originally Posted by littlebabyjesus View Post
You are right that increased evaporation could lead to more water being held in the atmosphere at any one time. However, the single biggest factor affecting sea levels is that water expands as it is warmed. Plus, of course, the melting of the continental ice sheets is an important factor.

It struck me that the reality might be a bit more complex than this bald statement would indicate.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Global mean surface tempeature is not calculated from news reports, cherry-picked or otherwise.:

Whoever said that it was? However, even news reports might sometimes contain information worth investigating.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If you wish to dispute mainstream science, you have the burden of proof. How many more times do we need to explain this to you?

I'm providing sources for anything and everything I say.

The way these things work, is that if someone wants to discount what I've said, it's their turn to provide counter-sources.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

anyway, I'll not be too harsh on you because I think you're actually picking up on a valid concern / criticism of the IPCC models, albeit in a slightly fumbling about in the dark kind of way...

I make no pretension of being a climate scientist.