[quote=“Truant”]
The UN report discredits your ‘facts’. The US can’t even get reliable intelligence prior to an invasion (or was it just ignored) and now you expect a highly US political opinion, which you call fact, to discredit the UN report?[/quote]
It’s all Bush and the CIA’s fault.
Question: Does being a member of the UN really make small former colonial powers feel more manly in the 21st Century?
Fred, you really can’t resist personal attacks and name calling can you? Shame really, as you might have a chance to educate with your ‘facts’ otherwise.
Stock replies only. The floor doesn’t wash itself you know? Jeesh…
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]Global Warming: Why Can’t the Mainstream Press Get Even Basic Facts Right?
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Associated Press, “CO2 Buildup Accelerating in Atmosphere,” as run by USA Today on March 21, 2004 at usatoday.com/weather/news/20 … ldup_x.htm
“Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” Oregon Institute of Science and Health, 2001, at oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
“There Has Been No Global Warming for the Past 70 Years,” The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change at co2science.org/edit/v3_edit/v3n13edit.htm
John Carlisle, “Kyoto Cover-up: TV News Gives One-Sided View on Global Warming,” National Center for Public Policy Research National Policy Analysis #337, May 2001, nationalcenter.org/NPA337.html
John Carlisle, “Cooling Off on Global Warming,” National Center for Public Policy Research National Policy Analysis #284, April 2000, nationalcenter.org/NPA284.html
John Carlisle, “Sun to Blame for Global Warming,” National Center for Public Policy Research National Policy Analysis #203, June 1998, available at nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html[/quote]
nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html[/quote]
Thanks for outlining your reasoning of why that global warming is essentially caused by factors other than anthropogenic, I'll come back to Mars and Jupiter in a bit.
John Carlisle is quoted in three of your references, so thinking he must be an eminent climatologist I checked him out, unfortunately he is not.[quote]John Carlisle, is the Editor of the newsletters Organization Trends and Foundation Watch published by the conservative think tank, the Capital Research Center. Prior to joining CRC he worked for the National Center for Public Policy Research.
He earned a bachelors degree in political science at North Carolina State University and a masters in political science at Boston College."
[/quote]
I don’t think you could be basing your reasoning that Global warming is caused by the sun on these papers.
“How unusual is today’s solar activity” cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/pub … re2005.pdf
“Unusual activity of the sun during recent decades compared to the previous 100,000 years”
cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
Why does he have to be an eminent climatologist to report on the findings of eminent climatologists?
Why does he have to be an eminent climatologist to report on the findings of eminent climatologists?[/quote]
Suit yourself. I’m not convinced that the sun is the cause for global warming as you assert, the two papers above would contradict that theory.
Heres another one. Dr Sami Solanki. Heres a link to his home page, mps.mpg.de/homes/solanki/ , a good source for information on solar irradiance variations (physical causes and long-term reconstructions). Because unlike John Carlisle , Dr Solanki actually studies the sun and the earth’s climate . Others involved in his studies include.
Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research Germany
Institute of Astronomy ETH Zuerich Switzerland
Blackett Laboratory
Imperial College London UK
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos / World Radiation Center Switzerland
[quote] It is highly likely, however, that after 1980 the Sun has not contributed in any significant way to global warming.
[/quote]
you’ll have to ask an American that question. i’m still part of a colonial power.
and Fred, WHEN the complete scientific report comes out, you will, of course, read it carefully with an open mind, and provide us with a point-by-point well-supported rebutal of the points that jar with your sensitivities, quoting ALL available data including that which does not accord with same sensitivities, and showing us what does and doesn’t fit? and perhaps a detailed list of those findings that you may agree with (you don’t need to support those with all available data). won’t you?
thanks.
[quote=“fred smith”]Oh dear. And another one…
[quote]Global Warming: Why Can’t the Mainstream Press Get Even Basic Facts Right?
DATE: March 22, 2004
BACKGROUND: The Associated Press ran a global warming story1 this past weekend that makes the following statements:
nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html[/quote][/quote]
Well, let’s take a look at what this report says.
[quote]Quote 1: The AP said: “Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year…”
Facts: Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas (water vapor is).2
Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide’s ability to absorb heat is quite limited.3
Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).4
The sun, not a gas, is primarily to “blame” for global warming – and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well.
[/quote]
Yes, it’s true that water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, but water vapour operates on a closed feedback loop. Human actions don’t affect the amount of water vapour present.
CO2, is the major anthropogenic greenhouse gas. That is, it’s the major gas that can increase through human actions. And that’s why it’s blamed for the enhanced greenhouse effect - which is what the IPCC report is about.
In fact 2, they say that CO2 accounts for less than 10%. But it’s impossible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. For CO2, when we look at the gas alone, it’s closer to 25% - the 10% figure given is the gas with various overlaps caused by other gases.
Fact 3 mentions atmospheric gases (N2, O2 etc). These have nothing to do with greenhouse gases, because they neither absorb nor emit IR radiation.
Fact 4 talks about the sun, and yes, the sun does play a role in natural cycles. But to say it’s primarily to “blame” is very wrong. The average temperature of the Earth’s surface (globally) is about 15C. That’s due to a number of factors, the sun being an important one, and the natural greenhouse effect also being important. The sun alone (without the natural GHE) could not support life as we know it. It’s the presence of the natural GHE that allows us to live as we do. Without those gases (water vapour being the most important), the average surface temperature of the Earth (globally) would be about -18C.
[quote]Quote 2: The AP said: “Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space.”
Fact: Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does.5
[/quote]
Prior to the industrial revolution, and for at least the previous 10000 years, CO2 was present in the atm at about 260-280ppm. I’ll call this the natural amount, as it’s what most of human civilisation has lived under. Since the industrial revolution, CO2 has seen an increase of about 33% of that figure, to somewhere around 360-380ppm today.
That increase has come mostly from fossil fuels and deforestation. The figures are roughly (rounded to the nearest whole %) -
Power stations - 30%
Industrial processes - 20%
Transportation fuel - 19%
Residential/commercial - 13%
Land use and biomass burning - 9%
Fuel retrieval, processing, distribution - 8%
I think it’s pretty obvious that a lot more than 14% comes from fossil fuels.
[quote]Quote 3: The AP said: “Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases.”
Facts: Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century,6 before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century7).
The Earth does not have “world governments.” It doesn’t even have even one, as the United Nations is not a government, but an association of nations.
[/quote]
The IPCC report actually said that warming over the past 50 years (most of which occurred in the latter part) was likely human induced. The IPCC didn’t say that warming in the first few decades of the 20th century was human induced.
And the part about The Earth does not have “world governments.” - is it really that hard to understand that it means governments of different countries in the world?
And, finally, if you note the date of the article you posted, it’s from 2004. The most recent IPCC report prior to when this article was published by in 2001.
This article is not about the latest IPCC report, that has only been partially released.
From an acquaintance:
[quote]There’s no a priori reason not to listen, but without digging deep into the argument (remember, it’s the writers, and the poster, responsibility to provide support, not the reader’s), one thing strikes me.
The chain: man burns fossil fuels->CO2 is generated and accumulated->the increase in CO2 warms the planet, may not be enough the explain the data, but it makes physical sense. We know that burning fossil fuels create CO2. We know that CO2 is a radiation-trapping gas (it takes only a basic college spectrophotometer to prove it). We know that trapping outgoing radiation will tend to warm the planet (conservation of energy principle). The only debatable item in the chain is the magnitude of the effect, whether it is enough or not to explain the rise in temperature.
In the argument presented in your post the chain is: there’s warming->warming releases CO2 from the ocean->that explain the rise in CO2. In that chain, there are a few things missing. First, where is the warming that starts it all come from? They will have to say and don’t. Do they know? Second, if correct, the CO2 and acidity level of the ocean will be decreasing: I believe the opposite is true. There have been ships at sea recording CO2 levels; we’ll know soon from experiments. Third, if warming releases CO2 from the ocean, warming will accelerate (remember, we know CO2 traps radiation) and man’s burning fuels and releasing CO2 will only add to the problem of ocean release, whether the initial cause is human or not.
Their argument is a a positive feedback loop, which humans did not start, but they are are accelerating it and making it worse. So we’re still going to toast but we didn’t start it. Now I feel better.
Oh, by the way, the fact that cloud cover tends to cool the earth is recognized in the IPCC report. I pointed it out to you not long ago that, for example, the increase in aerosol emissions tend to cool the planet. The effect is just not big enough to counteract CO2 and other sources.
In my opinion they are just throwing a bunch of pseudo-factoids to people who lack the background to sort the wheat from the chaff. They hope to create confusion, which given the complexity of the issue and the skills of the audience, it’s not that hard to do. I concede that Gore and Co. may be guilty of same and there’s too much of a call on fear in that movie.[/quote]
Let’s…
Your response…
Sounds acceptable.
[quote]That increase has come mostly from fossil fuels and deforestation. The figures are roughly (rounded to the nearest whole %) -
Power stations - 30%
Industrial processes - 20%
Transportation fuel - 19%
Residential/commercial - 13%
Land use and biomass burning - 9%
Fuel retrieval, processing, distribution - 8%
I think it’s pretty obvious that a lot more than 14% comes from fossil fuels. [/quote]
YOu are not reading this correctly. You are dividing up the 100 percent increase by cause. That is not what the writer is saying, he is stating that the percentage of carbon dioxide from manmade causes is 14 percent of the total in the atmosphere. Your 100 percent here would equal that 14 percent. You see the difference?
[quote]Quote:
Quote 3: The AP said: “Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases.”
Facts: Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century,6 before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century7).
The Earth does not have “world governments.” It doesn’t even have even one, as the United Nations is not a government, but an association of nations. [/quote]
Your response…
Yes, but this is key since most of the 0.7 degree warming in the past century occurred in the beginning of NOT the end of the century. Surely even you see how that is very important as it goes directly against the claim that MANMADE greenhouse gas emissions are DIRECTLY to blame.
Oh sure. I get that and so do you, but that is not how it is written is it?
And that is probably why the new summary has quite a few examples of backtracking. This information is not chronologically sensitive to the point that it cannot be used to refute the arguments that some posters are making on this board. We are not only addressing the summary of the UN report here. In fact, most of the challenges have been to claims that are not substantiated by said report. The UN issue was mostly to do with how the summary was written. It was written by mostly political appointees and that is where I and other have problems with it.
This article is not about the latest IPCC report, that has only been partially released.
In the interest of a fair and balanced playing field, I offer this link to “a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.” which contains highly pretentious opinions and posting. But hey…they got the papers.
Actually the stuff is relevant and they disagree with each other a lot also. So thats a good thing.
My apologies if a link to this site has been previously posted.
Meanwhile, looks like someone’s enthusiasm for hiking in the Arctic has cooled slightly…maybe I should have loaned them some styrofoam to burn. 
[quote]
Minnesota / Bancroft abandons Arctic quest
Explorer Tom Sjogren has climbed Mount Everest and led expeditions to the North and South poles. When asked which is toughest, he doesn’t hesitate. “The North Pole is by far the hardest one,” he said.
On Monday, the Arctic thwarted another expedition. Minnesota explorer Ann Bancroft and her Norwegian colleague, Liv Arnesen, announced they were suspending their 2007 trek to the North Pole after just seven days.
They blamed damaged equipment, frostbite on three of Arnesen’s toes and temperatures that hit 103 below zero at night.[/quote]
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]In the interest of a fair and balanced playing field, I offer this link to “a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.” which contains highly pretentious opinions and posting. But hey…they got the papers.
Actually the stuff is relevant and they disagree with each other a lot also. So thats a good thing.
My apologies if a link to this site has been previously posted.[/quote]
On the face of it, I think you are right in presenting this site as an objective commentary. Thanks.
[quote]Now, to you…
Quote:
Yes, it’s true that water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, but water vapour operates on a closed feedback loop. Human actions don’t affect the amount of water vapour present.
But water vapor increases when temperatures increase, yes?
[/quote]
But only over a localized area, on a short time scale - about 10 days.
Robust Responses of the Hydrological Cycle to Global Warming - Isaac M. Helda and Brian J. Sodenb, 2005 or
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
[quote]Quote:
CO2, is the major anthropogenic greenhouse gas. That is, it’s the major gas that can increase through human actions. And that’s why it’s blamed for the enhanced greenhouse effect - which is what the IPCC report is about.
So you are not disputing that CO2 makes up 0.03 percent of the atmosphere and less than 10 percent of the greenhouse gas effect? You are just stating that it is the ONLY one here that is anthropogenic?
Quote:
In fact 2, they say that CO2 accounts for less than 10%. But it’s impossible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. For CO2, when we look at the gas alone, it’s closer to 25% - the 10% figure given is the gas with various overlaps caused by other gases.
I’d need to see a link on that.
[/quote]
See the 2nd link above. Or Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget - J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth
[quote]Quote:
Fact 3 mentions atmospheric gases (N2, O2 etc). These have nothing to do with greenhouse gases, because they neither absorb nor emit IR radiation.
Did they say that these two had anything to do with greenhouse gas? No. They were pointed to as being components of our atmosphere.
[/quote]
Then why mention them in a rebuttal if they have nothing to do with greenhouse gases?
[quote]Quote:
Fact 4 talks about the sun, and yes, the sun does play a role in natural cycles. But to say it’s primarily to “blame” is very wrong. The average temperature of the Earth’s surface (globally) is about 15C. That’s due to a number of factors, the sun being an important one, and the natural greenhouse effect also being important. The sun alone (without the natural GHE) could not support life as we know it. It’s the presence of the natural GHE that allows us to live as we do. Without those gases (water vapour being the most important), the average surface temperature of the Earth (globally) would be about -18C.
Without the sun, there would be no heat period. You cannot have a greenhouse gas effect without the sun. Now, are you arguing mainly on the side of INCREASES in said effect? Okay, then cough up the needed link to the needed evidence to support your claim.
[/quote]
True, there would be no heat without the sun. And of course I’m arguing about the INCREASES in the greenhouse effect. That’s what the whole point of global warming and the IPCC is - the enhanced greenhouse effect.
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Climate_Change/Older/Greenhouse_Effect.html
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~owen/CHPI/IMAGES/greeneff.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578504/Greenhouse_Effect.html
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/02_1.shtml
http://www.maui.net/~jstark/nasa.html
[quote]Quote:
That increase has come mostly from fossil fuels and deforestation. The figures are roughly (rounded to the nearest whole %) -
Power stations - 30%
Industrial processes - 20%
Transportation fuel - 19%
Residential/commercial - 13%
Land use and biomass burning - 9%
Fuel retrieval, processing, distribution - 8%
I think it’s pretty obvious that a lot more than 14% comes from fossil fuels.
YOu are not reading this correctly. You are dividing up the 100 percent increase by cause. That is not what the writer is saying, he is stating that the percentage of carbon dioxide from manmade causes is 14 percent of the total in the atmosphere. Your 100 percent here would equal that 14 percent. You see the difference? [/quote]
Perhaps I read it wrong, I understood the writer to mean what I’ve said above. In that case, take a look at the ppm figures that I gave (and you found acceptable) that show a 33% increase, and apply my figures to that 33%. It’s the increase that scientists worry about, not the natural levels, so any article that tries to rebut the science needs to look at anthropogenic sources in the increase, which you’re saying this writer didn’t do.
[quote]Your response…
Quote:
The IPCC report actually said that warming over the past 50 years (most of which occurred in the latter part) was likely human induced. The IPCC didn’t say that warming in the first few decades of the 20th century was human induced.
Yes, but this is key since most of the 0.7 degree warming in the past century occurred in the beginning of NOT the end of the century. Surely even you see how that is very important as it goes directly against the claim that MANMADE greenhouse gas emissions are DIRECTLY to blame. [/quote]
It doesn’t go against the claim that the warming is man made, because the claim that warming is man made was never asserted for the warming at the beginning of the century. How can it go against a claim that was never made in the first place?
So, the majority of the warming in the last century was not man made? What caused that warming?
So er what accounted for the warming in the beginning of the century? Why is THAT warming more than what we have seen in the second half of the century despite the massive increase in CO2 levels? that is if the primary source of global warming is manmade? And the mention of the other two gases was just to detail what components make up Earth’s atmosphere. I hardly see that as confusing.
Anyway, we are back to square one again. The advocates of Kyoto want us to believe that their evidence is rock solid and that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming and that huge economic sacrifices are needed to stave it off. Yet, neither you nor they can account for the warming that occurred early in this century when most of the 0.7 degree Centigrade increase occurred. AND I do not think that you or anyone else has told us why Kyoto is worth the economic cost when it has had a minimal to non-existent effect on temperature increases. Yeah?
So er what accounted for the warming in the beginning of the century? Why is THAT warming more than what we have seen in the second half of the century despite the massive increase in CO2 levels? that is if the primary source of global warming is manmade? And the mention of the other two gases was just to detail what components make up Earth’s atmosphere. I hardly see that as confusing.
[/quote]
Natural climatic variations in temperature of the magnitude that occurred in the early 20th century are entirely that - natural. They are not a problem. Enhanced warming, of the type that climate scientists are concerned with, is modelled on a doubling of CO2, which we’re not expected to see for a couple more decades.
You have to remember that the scenarios we’re talking about are still a while off. We are seeing the very beginnings of the effects, but that’s all they are - beginnings.
What the scientists are saying, and what the media and people like Al Gore are reporting are usually 2 different things. But the rebuttals are generally taking the media reports as fact and arguing against them, rather than using the raw data that the scientists produce.
One further point - the 2001 IPCC report only claimed that warming was now being seen based on a statistical viewpoint. They mentioned this, and said that the hard data wasn’t complete enough to make the claim by data alone. Only by a statistical model.
Okay, natural warming vs. enhanced… But still no accounting of the temperature increase which was “natural” but the global warming (smaller in scale) now is caused by humans? How do you know? How does anyone?
Also, why is the present climate the only one that is suitable for the earth or the best climate? IF the average temperatures went up by 3 degrees C, this would be highly favorable to the US, Canada, Argentina, Russia, Greenland, etc. These areas used to be much warmer in the Medieval Warm Period and warming up again would be good for them. Why should we stop something that would be highly favorable to us because Africa might suffer? as if this was anything out of the ordinary? or as if it would not be suffering without global warming? AND I find it highly amusing that the enviros are so “worried about” malaria. Guess what? It was enviros like Rachel Carson that got DDT banned despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary. NOW, even the UN and other organizations are once again recommending its use. Hundreds of millions have died because of the misplaced “concerns” of “activists” like Carson. Would it not have been far better to actually have spent the hundreds of millions that have been spent to reduce global warming by an infinitesimal amount on malaria prevention which continues to kill and debilitate millions?
For those of you who have 45 minutes to spare I recommend you watch the following episode of “The Fifth Estate” on climate change sceptics. “The Fifth Estate” is the Canadian equivalent to the American “60 Minutes” television program.
cbc.ca/fifth/video_player.html?denial
For those of you who prefer to watch it directly in Media Player instead of a webpage use the following link:
mms://a1730.v212186.c21218.g.vm.akam…dia/denial.wmv