# Is global warming an Environmental Concern?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by PhiloNysh, Oct 5, 2003.

?

## If global warming an environmental concern?

38 vote(s)
46.9%

26 vote(s)
32.1%

17 vote(s)
21.0%
1. ### David MayesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
232
Edufer.

Our conversations are nearly over, but just a few quick questions...do you know that September was the hottest month on record?
Did you know the 1998 was the hottest yr on record, with 2002 as 2nd and 2003 as 3rd?

Also which other scientic disciplines are bogus?
...is medicine ok in your view?

3. ### EduferTired warriorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
791
The big picture is like your computer monitor screen, composed of millions of pixels, in our analogy, each one representing temperature record. When you see a region of gray color in the screen, you have an average readings of three basic color (RGB), of say: R 125, G 125, and B 125. If you had some pixels in the R and G channels at 250, then you will get a Yellowish color in your screen.

In our analogy we could say there was "warming".

On the other hand, If the RG values, goes down significantly (say, down to 0) then we would have "cooling", and we'll see blue in our screens.

But the surface of Earth would have to be covered by zillions of thermometers for having a "perfect" reading of the whole surface. So meteorologistas and climatologists takes readings from all the stations they can get records and make the big picture out of few some thousands stations around the world.

When the stations show a steady flat trend or a cooling one, then climatologists assume the Earth is cooling. But for getting a "warming" trend, they must resort ot artifacts as choosing urban stations, or dismissing the ones with cooling trends on any excuse.

<b><font color=#ff0000>The GISS 'Surface Record'</font></b>

It's not really a record at all, but a <b><font color=#ff0000>statistical composite</font></b> from station records from all over the world, most of them from towns and cities, and most from countries which do not maintain their stations or records properly.

<center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-2/giss2000.gif"></center>

The record (and the chart above) is compiled by the Goddard Institute (GISS) in the US. It indicates a global warming of +0.8°C. <b><font color=#ff0000>Is it real?</font></b> Or is it just a statistical product of <b><font color=#ff0000>urban warming skewing the data</font></b>, and bad site management in non-OECD countries?

The pre-1940 warming is widely regarded to have been caused by the warming sun during the earlier part of the 20th century.

<center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-2/usa-1999.gif"></center>

<b>The U.S. Record</b>

This is the combined record from hundreds of weather stations in the 48 states of the contiguous USA., the early 1930s being the hottest years of the 20th century. This is completely at variance with the global record shown above. (Both graphs were produced by NASA-GISS)

Urbanisation has been more successfully corrected for in the US than in the rest of the world and the US also has the <b><font color=#804040>best maintained network of weather stations in the world.</font></b> This must therefore be <b><font color=#ff0000>a better representation of the global picture too</font></b>. The US record <font color=#ff0000><b>also agrees with the satellites</b></font> and radiosonde baloons.

So the charts I provided before, are part of the big picture. Are part of the cooling in many regions, and the steady (non warming) in big areas of the world that proves your GHG theory needs a trip back to the drawing board. Or a better management by your advertising agencies.

5. ### David MayesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
232
LOL, whatever.

Which other scientific fields are corrupt in your view?

7. ### EduferTired warriorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
791
On your record, or perhaps on the IPCC’s, of course. You are so naïve that really I cannot get into my head that you are over 30!

It was the hottest, you say. <b>Since when, and by whose standards, and whose records?</b> And not in the Southern Hemisphere, for sure!. The hot year of 1998 was <b>caused by El Niño</b>, you fool! Ever heard about ENSO? Where have you been living? Inside a “thermos”?

And man’s activity has nothing to do with El Niño. When you want to make an asshole out of yourself you really make a good job.

If it were not for the AIDS scam, medicine would be OK, although lots of money can be made making people believe you will save them from horrible diseases. The self appointed World Saviours are making fortunes out of gullible and frigthened people - like you.

8. ### David MayesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
232
Edufer shows his true abusive colours, his hateful mentality enables him to block truth and get emotionally involved with conspiracy theories.

The prestigious NAS has no validity in Edufers mind, it supports a bogus scientific principle...yeah, ok whatever.

And by the standards of the WMO.

Your ad hominen's prove your here to troll, you've decided to become anti-Global warming as you know it has tremendous support, and you know you'll get endless opportunities to troll by using distortions and outright lies by paid off fossil fools.

See a therapist, I'm done psychologically supporting you and your pathological disposition.

9. ### kmguruStaff Member

Messages:
11,757
More resources because there are more people in the past 100 years. But drained? There is no drain connected from planet Earth to Jupiter to move matter to space. All the matter is still here and will be here after humans are gone.

By the way, it is very difficult for people to understand that human contribution to global warming is +/- 0.000000000000000001 percent. The only time humans can substantially effect the change is to blow up all the nuclear bombs to cause an ice age. Even then, the planet would recover in say 100,000 years easy.

Now, if we are going to fight on that percent...well, jump in.

10. ### EduferTired warriorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
791
Prestigious institutions remain prestigious as long as the people governing it are honest and add prestige to the institution. We can see how a once prestigious institution, the NOBEL foundation, slowly began to slide into corrupted practices - mixing science ans politics - and the result was Henry Kisssinger got a Peace Nobel Prize, García Márquez a Nobel in Literature, while Borges was promised never to get one because he was noy a "leftist" writer. Then Rigoberta Menchú got another Nobel, and F. Sherwood Rowland and his crew got another Nobel Prize from the "prestigious" Nobel Foundation.

The NAS will regain its prestige when politics stop mingling with science. The distorted report to the president in 2001, regarding the <b>"discernible human influence"</b> on climatic change, revealed <b>politics drives the NAS today</b>, and "sciences" are just the ending word of its name.

The standards of the WMO were used to compile the records used to plot both of the charts you just saw above. Both charts were made by GISS, using WMO's standards. Why there is no warming in an enormous region as the USA? Because in the USA they <b>do not apply WMO standards</b>, but much better ones. And the result stands clear under your nose: <b><font color=red>"Good standards = no warming, WMO standards = global warming."</font></b>
David has presumed here of having broad knowledge of climatology, and other sciences. However, all the valuable information he has ever provided this board for supporting his claims, were the repeated statements:

<b>"The IPCC is good science!" - "We have GHG, an UNDISPUTED theory"</b>. And, of course, his insistence on sticking to his <b>"Invincible Ignorant Fallacy"</b>. But we have waited for an explanation of his <b>UNDISPUTED</b> theory for too long, and now David says he's quiting the discussion, claiming now that he had supported me psychologically. Climatologist, international finance analyzer, and now Psychiatrist. What's next, Dave?

Don't say you are not going to reply to <b>Kmguru</b>. He does not need your psychiatric support. I promise I will stay out of your discussion, so you won't get nervous. Yes?

11. ### David MayesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
232
Nutjob...I've mentioned repeatedly that I'm an eco-philosopher, this philosophy is superior to typical hardcore analytical empirical philosophies, it's includes knowledge of science, philosophy of science and so on and so on.

I'm not a climatologist, but have read enough on the subject to know that you still don't understand that GW is the globally averaged temps, and those temps are up....it doesn't matter what the US's record might be or any other reigion, only the TOTAL, as in the globe, leading to global averaging.

And GHG theory is UNDISPUTED, it can only be disputed by a superior competing one which both explains and predicts better...where is that theory??
Disputation by a crank who has consistently used Junk science websites by exposed junk scientists{regardless of their past performances} invalidates the totality of his commentary.

Edufer expects us to believe that the IPCC, the WMO, the NAS, the CSIRO, NOAA, the 1700 scientists of the Warning to Humanity Statement are all cranks....LOL, it's become more than apparent that Edufer is the crank.

12. ### EduferTired warriorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
791
Crank is a term brought by you in the discussion, so if it suits your taste, let it be. Those 1700 scientists may be quite "crank", if they cannot prove what they say is backed by hard unquestionable science.

Listed in <a href=http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm>this link</a> are <b>17,200 of the initial signers</b> of the Oregon Petition Project, a project initiated by <b>Dr. Frederick Seitz</b>, Past President, <b>National Academy of Sciences</b>, U.S.A., President Emeritus, Rockefeller University. I encourage interested readers to read the scientific paper by A. B. Robinson, S. L. Baliunas, W. Soon, and Z. W. Robinson, on the subject <b><a href=http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm>Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide</a></b>, that gave birth to the Oregon Petition.

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the <a href=http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm>A Global Warming Petition</a>, stating the following:

Global Warming Petition
<dir>We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. </dir>
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (<a href=http://www.oism.org/pproject/b_sci.htm>select this link for a listing of these individuals</a>) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Last edited: Jan 9, 2004
13. ### EduferTired warriorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
791
The Leipzig Declaration, signed by the most famous and respected scientists (see list of signatories <a href=http://www.sepp.org/LDsigs.html>here</a>) states the following:
<dir>As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we -- along with many of our fellow citizens -– are apprehensive about emission targets and timetables adopted at the Climate Conference held in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. <b>This gathering of politicians</b> from some 160 signatory nations aims to impose on citizens of the industrialized nations, -- but not on others -- a system of global environmental regulations that include quotas and punitive taxes on energy fuels to force substantial cuts in energy use within 10 years, with further cuts to follow. Stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide -- the announced goal of the Climate Treaty -- would require that fuel use be cut by <b>as much as 60 to 80 percent -- worldwide!</b></dir>
The rest of the Leipzig Declaration <a href=http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html><b>can be read here</b></a>.

14. ### David MayesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
232
Fact: In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not.

The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.

Crank, you've been exposed AGAIN

15. ### EduferTired warriorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
791
The only thing exposed here <b><font color=red>is your obnoxiousness</font></b> – Had you bothered to take a look at the list of scientists provided, you would have refrained from posting a “copy & paste” from the <b>UCS</b> (Union of Concerned Scientists), an organization that precisely <b>has not many “scientists” among them</b>. As an investigation initiated back in 1981 by Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter, (that was published in <b>Nature</b>, Sep. 8, 1981), the UCS refused to reveal how many of their <b>“concerned members”</b> were actually scientists.

The study showed that among the 9 members in the Directive Council, only 5 were scientists, but these directors had little to do with the daily activity, UCS pronouncements and public relations. These matters are left into the hands of 5 members in the <b>Energy Staff</b> composed by two lawyers, two scientists, and one nuclear engineer trained in the Navy – <b>Robert Pollard</b>, former project manager in the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), who is <b>the singing voice</b> in the UCS. The 100.000 members then claimed by the UCS, were people who had received a mail brochure asking for a annual donation of $17. People included in any mail listing that are sold at$50,000 per million addresses. So it is you who have been exposed – along with the UCS, a bunch of crooks...

<a hre=http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm>Anti Global Warming Petition
2660 Physicists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists, Oceanographers, and Evironmental Scientists Signers

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, Y, Z,

Category: A

Philip H Abelson, PhD, Gene Ackerman, Robert K Adair, PhD, John A Adam, PhD, Daniel B Adams Jr, Gail D Adams, PhD, Leonard C A Adams, PhD, Louis W Adams, PhD, Neil Adams, PhD, William M Adams, PhD, George Adcock, Lionel P Adda, PhD, Harry Adrounie, PhD, Stephen Affleck, PhD, Phillip Ahlberg, Mark Ahlert, Rafique Ahmed, PhD, S Aisenberg, PhD, Edward Albert, James C Albright, PhD, Allwyn Albuquerque, Ernest C Alcaraz, PhD, Ronald G Alderfer, PhD, Perry B Alers, PhD, John C Alexander, Moorad Alexanian, PhD, Roger C Alig, PhD, Clayton H Allen, PhD, David Allen, PhD, James Allen, PhD, Mike R Allen, PhD, Thomas H Allen, PhD, ---- etc, etc.

I see mostly Ph.D. among the signatories, not bachelors in science in my knowledge. The UCS, and most of other ONGs, the IPCC included, have been lying to you, David. But you are free to believe in whoever you like.

But the signatories in the Petition Project have been independently checked for accuracy, and purging those names sent by "green hackers" trying to ridicule the petition with false names and fake titles and degrees. The list contains now more that 19,000 scientists directly related to climatology, or research linked to the climate.

Now give us a press release by Greenpeace, would you?

But you forgot to make fun from the Leipzig Declaration. See the signatories, names, degrees, titles, position, place of work, universities, institutions, etc. Go ahead, make fun of them - it will be easy for you, although you ultimately will show yourself as a fool.

16. ### David MayesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
232
Edufer expects us to believe that the IPCC, the WMO, the NAS, the CSIRO, NOAA, the 1700 scientists of the Warning to Humanity Statement are all cranks....LOL, it's become more than apparent that Edufer is the crank.

17. ### EduferTired warriorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
791
Now see a very brief list of scientists that have signed the <b>Leipzig Declaration</b> that says in its second paragraph:
<dir>More to the point, we consider the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty <b>to be flawed</b> and its goal to be unrealistic. The policies to implement the Treaty are, as of now, <b><font color=red>based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models -- and the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from an increase in greenhouse gases</font></b>, requiring immediate action. We do not agree. We believe that the dire predictions of a future warming <b>have not been validated by the historic climate record</b>, which appears to be dominated by <b>natural fluctuations</b>, showing both warming and cooling. These predictions are based on <b>nothing more than theoretical models and cannot be relied on to construct far-reaching policies. </b></dir>
Listen: <b><font color=red>these are very serious statements</font></b>, made by people that cannot be dismissed as easily as David does with its UCS press release. Please, analyze carefully the names and places these scientists work, and their credentials. The only other argument left is that <b>ALL</b> these people are <b>CRANKS paid by the OIL companies.</b> C’mon, Dave, Get lost, will you?

<b>Dr. David Aubrey</b>, Senior Scientist, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts.
<b>Dr. Robert Balling</b>, Professor and Director of the Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; more than 80 research articles published in scientific journals; coauthor, Interactions of Desertifications and Climate, a report for the UN Environmental Program and the World Meteorological Organization; <b>contributor/reviewer, IPCC</b>.
<b>Dr. C.J.F. Böttcher</b>, Chairman of the Board, The Global Institute for the Study of Natural Resources, The Hague, The Netherlands; Professor Emeritus of physical chemistry, Leiden University; past President of the Science Policy Council of The Netherlands; former member, Scientific Council for Government Policy; former head of the Netherlands Delegation to the OECD Committee for Science and Technology; author, The Science and Fiction of the Greenhouse Effect and Carbon Dioxide; <b><font color=red>founding member of The Club of Rome</font></b>.
<b>Larry H. Brace</b>, physicist, former director of the Planetary Atmospheres Branch, <font color=red>NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; recipient NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.</font>
<b>Dr. R.A.D. Byron-Scott</b>, meteorologist, formerly senior lecturer in meteorology, Flinders Institute for Atmospheric and Marine Science, Flinders University, <b>Adelaide, Australia</b>
<b>Dr. Joseph Cain,</b> Professor of planetary physics and geophysics, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Institute, Florida State University; elected Fellow, American Geophysical Union; formerly with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (scientific satellites) and the U.S. Geological Survey.
<b>Dr. Gabriel T. Csanady</b>, meteorologist, Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.
<b>Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser</b>, atmospheric scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1963-1986); Participating Guest Scientist, Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab. (1986-1996), more than 40 refereed research papers and major reports in the scientific literature.
<b>Dr. C.R. de Freitas</b>, climate scientist, University of Auckland, New Zealand, Editor of the international journal Climate Research
<b>Dr. John E. Gaynor</b>, Senior Meteorologist, Environmental Technology Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Boulder, Colorado.
<b>Dr. Tor Ragnar Gerholm</b>, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Stockholm, member of Nobel Prize selection committee for physics; member, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, author of several books on science and technology.
<b>Dr. Michael J. Higatsberger</b>, Professor and former Director, Institute for Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria; former Director, Seibersdorf Research Center of the Austrian Atomic Energy Agency; former President, Austrian Physical Society.
<b>Dr. Zbigniew Jaworski</b>, University of Warsaw, Poland. Former president of UNSCEAR, (UN Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation).
<b>Dr. Richard S. Lindzen</b>, Sloane Professor of Meteorology, Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
<b>Dr. Anthony R. Lupo</b>, atmospheric scientist, Professor, University of Missouri at Columbia, reviewer/<b>contributing author, IPCC</b>.
<b>Dr. Patrick J. Michaels</b>, Professor and Director of the State Office of Climatology, University of Virginia; more than 50 research articles published in scientific journals; past President, American Association of State Climatologists; <b>reviewer/contributing author, IPCC</b>.
<b>Sir William Mitchell</b>, physicist, University of Oxford, U.K.
<b>Dr. William A. Nierenberg</b>, Director Emeritus, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California; Professor Emeritus of oceanography, University of California at San Diego; former member, Council of the U.S. National Academy of Science; former Chairman, National Research Council's Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee; former member, U.S. EPA Global Climate Change Committee; former Assistant Secretary General of NATO for scientific affairs; former Chairman, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres.
<b>Dr. William E. Reifsnyder</b>, Professor Emeritus of biometeorology, Yale University; elected Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; former Chairman, National Academy of Science/National Research Council Committee on Climatology; AMS Award for Outstanding Achievement in Biometeorology.
<b>Dr. Frederick Seitz</b>, physicist, former President, Rockefeller University, former President, <b>U.S. National Academy of Sciences</b>; former member, President's Science Advisory Committee; recipient, U.S. National Medal of Science.
<b>Dr. Gary D. Sharp</b>, Executive Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study and the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Integrated Ocean Sciences; contributed to the initial development of the Climate Change Program of the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration; investigated climate-related resource variabilities, sustainable development, and basic environmental climatology for the UN, World Bank, and USAID.
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist; former Director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service; Professor Emeritus of environmental science, University of Virginia; former Chairman, federal panel investigating effects of the SST on stratospheric ozone;
Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, Secretary General Emeritus, International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans, and a leading world authority on space oceanography; more than 100 research articles published in scientific journals; author of seven books; <b>advisor to NASA, NATO, U.S. National Academy of Science, and the European Geophysical Society</b>.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And yes, based on the opinion of the aforementioned scientists, I would like you to belive that the IPCC and all his 1700 "scientists" on that crummy document are CRANKS. As David.

Messages:
232

Messages:
791

20. ### David MayesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
232
How many SUV's do you own?

Yes -humans caused it 10 37.04%
No- it is a natural cause 9 33.33%
Not sure ----------------8

LOL, the next 10yrs will be mine Edufer, your cranking has had little effect on this thread.

21. ### EduferTired warriorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
791
According to you crank poll (27 opinions, I guess from respected scientists) the global warming is caused by man's activities.

<font color=red size=5><b>CRANK!</b></font>

Wait a little and you'll see how your poll goes to hell. Just wait. But it will still mean <B>NOTHING</B>.

I don't see the connection to the Global Warming hoax, but I do not own any vehicle. Our family uses my wife's Japanese <b>Daihatsu Applause</b>, model 1994 (10 years-old now) converted to use natural gas (GNC, for Gas Natural Comprimido). In my opinion, SUV are good for outdoor and wild terrain activities, and for work. Having one for just city life, I consider it a foolish expense. But, alas, it is everyone's choice - at least in free countries.

When I was running my adventure travel business in the Bolivian Amazon, I had a <b>Toyota Hilux</b>, 2.8 Diesel, 4x4, model of 1992, needed for the hard work in those wild territories. You can see it (in the background). My then 20 year-old son is standing on the wooden bridge.

<center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/Aven1.gif"></center>

By the way, we saw today a report in the TV News on the record low temperatures in Montreal on Jan. 10 (-24º C) and in Logan Airport, Boston, with -20ºC, an <b><font color=#c8896f>all time record low for the last 129 years.</font></b> My Canadian friend Jack Maluga, (a companion in my first trip down the Amazon river in 1971) from Saskatchewan, Canada, tells me that they are having a welcomed relief these last two days: <b>they have only -18ºC,</b> quite warmer than the -30ºC they had some days before.

In our loved southern hemisphere, in which both of us are living (Argentina and Australia), and about the same latitude, we are having a balmy and pleasant summer, with temperatures that have reached the "normal" level only 4 times during December, 5 times during November, none in October, and none yet in January. Do you think this <b>cold weather is caused by global warming?</b> If warming can cause cold, then I will tell my wife to boil water in our kettel for getting ice cubes for the orange juice.
<p>I would like you to explain, later, what is your line of thought in your <b>eco-philosophy.</b> My primary guess is that is a mixture of Rousseau, Malthus, Rachel Carson, James Lovelock, and Paul Ehrlich, with a pinch of Lester Brown, Alexander King, and Maurice Strong. Anyway, it would be interesting hearing your opinions - we might get to know something new, never heard before.

We might hear really good <B>CRANKING!</B>

22. ### David MayesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
232
Eco-Cosmology just so Edufer can have a giggle

NAS and GW as a Scientific Principle

A landmark study has moved the existence of global warming from a subject of debate to a commonly accepted scientific principle. The report from the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council (NAS/NRC) entitled CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE, AN ANALYSIS OF SOME KEY QUESTIONS marks the first time a study commissioned by the federal government has publicly concluded that global warming exists.

The study says that global warming "is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years." A total of 14 specific questions were addressed by the study, ranging from "Is climate change occurring? If so, how?" to "What are the specific areas of science that need to be studied further, in order of priority, to advance our understanding of climate change?"

The report states "greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising." The report notes that "changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities," but the NAS/NRC could not rule out the possibility that a significant part of the climate changes could be the result of natural variability. Regardless of the reason for the climate change, global warming is expected to continue through the 21st century. While in some areas, the rising temperatures will cause a rise in sea level, computer model simulations also project "an increased tendency towards drought over semi-arid regions, such as the U.S. Great Plains."

The NAS/NRC also looked for substantive differences between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report and its published summary. According to the NAS/NRC, the IPCC summary "largely represents the consensus scientific views and judgments of the committee members, based on the accumulated knowledge that these individuals have gained – both through their own scholarly efforts and through formal and informal interactions with the world's climate change science community." One of the specific questions asked of the NAS/NRC was "By how much will temperatures change over the next 100 years and where?" The highest estimate of the atmospheric temperature increase is 10.4oF. While this may not seem to be a particularly large change when looking on the short term, the long-term impact of such a change is significant.

According to their report, "Higher evaporation rates would accelerate the drying of soils following rain events, resulting in lower relative humidities and higher daytime temperatures, especially during the warm season." There is evidence to suggest that droughts as severe as the "dust bowl" of the 1930's were much more common during the 10th and 14th centuries than they have been in recent record. Another major question the study addressed was, "What will be the consequences (e.g., extreme weather, health effects) of increases [in temperature] of various magnitude?" The study concludes "Hydrologic impacts could be significant over the western United States, where much of the water supply is dependent on the amount of snow pack and the timing of the spring runoff."

To purchase a copy of the publication CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE, AN ANALYSIS OF SOME KEY QUESTIONS from the National Academy Press, or read it online for free, use the following hyperlink www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html?srchtop.

23. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
30,353
Edufer:

You seem to have very good access to information on this issue.

Are you affiliated with any particular organisation which deals with this issue, in a research, review or lobbying capacity?