global warning update.

[Terror]

This guy wasn't too impressed with Gore's Movie.  Called it "junk science" and everything.  And he seems to have the credentials to back it up...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.


Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

[SirLoin]

i wonder why nobody has made a movie about the horrors of kyoto..?

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus

How much energy to create a tractor that lasts 10.000 hrs compared to the oil it will burn in 10.000 hrs. MORE? naaaa.
 

BS. One tractor. Gonna take a litle more than that to get to the point to even be worth mentioning. Mining, transporting, factories, more factories....shipping........ ..on and on and on. Try starting at the beginning of a process instead of the end. That dog won`t hunt.

picked Danish figures I have ib ny head, and Denmark is FAR from being the perfect scenario. Want something proper? Go to the field production of the Mid West for instance.

Danish, Midwest, ..................it makes no difference if it`s BF Eygypt . That is is a perfect scenario. Real life , real farming is a WHOLE lot different than on paper. It`s not a perfect science by any long shot. More like a roll of the dice. You can`t paperwork it, compute it or wish it. It`s got to be done in real life, real time. The reason you can`t predict or pattern it is the same reason you can`t say yea or nay on global warming. There are too many unpredictables and unknowns that you can`t possibly figure in.
If you are farming on paper, fine. Otherwise you have to live in reality.
I don`t know how much farming you have done,  how much acreage you are farming,nor how old you are, but it can`t be much if you think it is a perfect science.

Angus, I`m just curious if possibly the reason that you are freaking out so bad and willing to shout the sky is falling might be due to the fact that this is the first time in your life that you have actualy witnessed drastic weather changes that effect most everything around you. Like I say, I don`t recall you stating your age, so I don`t know.
I`ve seen plenty of pretty drastic events in the weather from one end of the spectrum to the other.
It is considered normal in this area to have fairly mild winters, a fair amount of spring and fall rain and fairly hot, humid summers.
In my lifetime I have seen extremes that certainly vary a great deal from this.
I can recall one winter in particular when I was younger that was a real doozey. Lots and lots of ice and snow, which is unusual.
I remember one March  7th (my birthday is how I remember the date) that we had snow knee deep snow and it was cooooollllllld. Very unusual. We had registered Black Angus (you should like that ) and a neighbor had a large polled hereford that like to come courting. On this date and a some before, some after it was calving season. Usualy pretty moderate weather. I had the fence stretchers tied to a main pole in the barn and was pulling calves most of the day. I was a popsicle by days end. Not considered normal by any stretch of the imagination for here at that time of the year.
I have seen periods of rain, rain and more rain for a stretch of a few years. I have seen droughts running consecutive years. I have seen just about every cycle there is to see I think for this area.
As it stands at the present, here on the lake, my wetdock where I moore my boat is high and dry. It`s about a hundred and fifty yards to even reach the water.
Am I freaking out over it? Nope! Why? Because I have seen this same cycle many times in my life.

Polar bears = Grizzly

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzttttttttttttttt!

Polar Bear=Ursus maritimus

Grizzly Bear= Ursus arctos

[Mini D]

Originally posted by lukster
Huh? You said that melting glaciers would reduce sea level.

No I didn't. You said a glacier melting would cause the sea level to rise. I said that if a glacier is melting due to global warming then so is the ice cap. If that's happening, the sea level is going to go down. "What if this glacier melted..." is a pointless scenario unless you consider that the same thing should affect other things globally. What you are saying is "if this happens and absolutely nothing else changes..." which is not science.

If all of the world's ice were converted to water sea levels would go up assuming the air didn't absorb it. You are the one applying a "scenario" here. I was simply trying to point out to you that most of the world's ice is on land, not water.

If all of the world's ice melted the icebergs would lower the sea level as much as the glaciers raised it. I would even venture to say the sea level would go down just a bit, but that's speculation. "If all the ice on land would melt, but none of the ice floating in the ocean would melt" then the sea level would go up. I'd even venture a guess it could go up as much as 6". Now... let's talk about the reality of one happening without the other: Well... there's nothing much to discuss there.

[Angus]

Jackal, I am not getting you. You're getting stuck in total nonsense. Or rather, debating in a field where you are lost?
Ok. Here is a question for you:
Does it cost more energy to create a vehicle than the vehicle will consume in it's lifespan? From scratch to the end of the assembly line?
But who am I to ask, if you do not even understand the essence of photosyntesis and what soil contains?
And here:
" Real life , real farming is a WHOLE lot different than on paper."
LOL, tell me about it

And Mini D: You need a physics update. See here and judge:
1. If Ice on solid ground melts and runs to the sea, it means a level rise.
2. If Ice floating in the sea melts, there is status quo.

Bottom line, melt all the ice in the world, and the sea level rises...a lot.

[Mace2004]

In 1970 it was a new global ice age in 30 years...now it's supposed to be a hot house...get a grip.  450 million years ago the C02 levels in the atmosphere were about 10 times higher than now.  Oh, that was in the middle of an ice age.  Can't we all just stipulate the obvious?  The Earth's climate is constantly changing, it is always either warming up or cooling down.  As far as all the "scientists" that support the hysteria?  They're not much different from the "Nobel Prize" winner in Chemistry being trotted out to protest a war.  Most know nothing more about it than we do.  Bottom line, no point in destroying civilization to "save the planet" when it isn't dying.

Mace

[lukster]

Originally posted by Angus
Jackal, I am not getting you. You're getting stuck in total nonsense. Or rather, debating in a field where you are lost?
Ok. Here is a question for you:
Does it cost more energy to create a vehicle than the vehicle will consume in it's lifespan? From scratch to the end of the assembly line?
But who am I to ask, if you do not even understand the essence of photosyntesis and what soil contains?
And here:
" Real life , real farming is a WHOLE lot different than on paper."
LOL, tell me about it

And Mini D: You need a physics update. See here and judge:
1. If Ice on solid ground melts and runs to the sea, it means a level rise.
2. If Ice floating in the sea melts, there is status quo.

Bottom line, melt all the ice in the world, and the sea level rises...a lot.

I have to agree with ya on the part about sea level going up, a lot, if all the ice melts. I don't think mini-d knows how much ice there is on land, a great deal more than is floating. All the rest in regards to whether or not the climate is changing and why is up for debate and a matter of pure speculation, even for all of the scientists studying it.

[Eagler]

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Angus

And Mini D: You need a physics update. See here and judge:
1. If Ice on solid ground melts and runs to the sea, it means a level rise.
2. If Ice floating in the sea melts, there is status quo.

Ice on solid ground melts all the time... that is also the status quo. Water temperature rising 1 degree is going to cause a hell of alot more ice melting than air temperature rising one degree. That's also physics.

I don't really think you understand it at all.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by lukster

Originally posted by beet1e
I might have posted this pic before. This was Greenland in 2001. I don't know what it looks like now.


Can only improve, unless yer a Penguin.

There are just as many penguins in Greenland as polar bears in Antartica.

[Scherf]

Originally posted by lazs2
If man did not exist then the forests would burn in huge forest fires and release all the fossilized carbon...  

lazs

There's fossilised carbon in trees?

Hmmm, mebbe that's what broke my chainsaw. Gotta stop livin next to a petrified forest, I guess.

[Angus]

MiniD what are you hanging on here?
"Ice on solid ground melts all the time... that is also the status quo. Water temperature rising 1 degree is going to cause a hell of alot more ice melting than air temperature rising one degree. That's also physics.

I don't really think you understand it at all."

It will have to be replaced with other Ice. Get it?

[Angus]

Yet another little goodie:

From here:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/chanton.html

Ooopsie:
"Global sea level rise is caused by two factors. One is the delivery of water to the ocean as land ice melts, such as mountain glaciers and polar icecaps. Current evidence of global warming includes the widespread retreat of glaciers on 5 continents. For example:

The ice cap on Mount Kilimanjaro may be gone in 20 years. About 1/3 of Kilimanjaro's ice field has disappeared in the last 12 years and 82% of it has vanished since it was first mapped in 1912.
Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is thinning.
Massive Antarctic ice sheets have collapsed into the sea with alarming rapidity. "

Does it measure?
"Global ocean levels are rising twice as fast today as they were 150 years ago, and human-induced warming appears to be the culprit, say scientists at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and collaborating institutions. "

Sure?

"Warming ocean = rising ocean?
After the last ice age, the rapid melting of glaciers rapidly raised sea level. That melting tapered off about 6,000 years ago, and sea level -- compared to land -- became fairly stable. However, over the past century, sea level over much of the United States has risen by 25 to 30 centimeters relative to land, according to Jim Titus, the Environmental Protection Agency's project manager on sea level rise. Even that figure is a guesstimate, Titus says. "We only know that sea level last century rose more than average over the last several thousand years." "
link: http://whyfiles.org/091beach/5.html

So, more is melting than freezing up again and more is melting than the driftice. The melting is already raising the sea level.
I don't see a quick doomsday here for Antarctica will hold quite long. But if I take a look into the CO2 camp, - Beetles camp, I grow pesstimistic.

"Prior to the advent of the industrial age, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm (parts per million).
Today it's over 360 ppm. That's an increase of about 30% in less than 300 years."
Double that again with human emission. No record yet, but we already hold the record in human times. And...the warming will accelerate this.
The Tundra gives me the jitters as well as a rapidly warming ocean...

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzttttttttttttttt!

Polar Bear=Ursus maritimus

Grizzly Bear= Ursus arctos

I rather think that Angus was comparing the polar bear with the grizzly bear in terms of its aggression. The grizzly bear is now extinct in the continental US, but is still in Alaska. In states like CA, there is still the "black" bear, although not all are black. Some are even blonde!

Hmmph, when I went into Yosemite Pk in 2001, I remember reading all the warnings not to leave food in your vehicle, or else the bears could smell it and would try to get it. They even showed pictures of cases where this had happened. Those bears could rip body panels open in their quest to get at the food. I could never have imagined their power without seeing those pics. Anyway, the grizzly bear is a much more fearsome beast. The way I've seen it described is that if you were to come up against one, you're dead. Not even an olympic sprinter could run fast enough to escape....

...and what Angus was trying to say is that the polar bear is equivalent to the grizzly in terms of aggression, and (I believe) size. Sorry this wasn't obvious to everyone.

Not really on topic, but a little of what Holden would call "levity" would not go adrift in this thread.

By the way Holden, fix your quote of me. I didn't say anything about penguins.

[Angus]

Polar Bear is a little smaller than the Grizzly, but packs a punch.
Can be very agressive. Therefore I call it grizzly, not "A" Grizzly.
I once stayed a night in Kulusuk, eastern Greenland. I stayed in a shack, and I was soaking and cold. I found matches and there was a gas cooker there. When I was looking for the matches, I noticed that there was a gun cleaning kit there, and various sorts of ammo. 30-06, 303 and 12 gauge.
When asking about it the day after, they told me they forgot to have a gun there. Polar bears frequently walk in for a meal. So, they get shot mighty quick. There had been some 8 that year so far (in Town), and the last one got shot right in front of the town church!