Al gore is going with A.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Scientists agree: Humans causing global warming
- Thread starter DrVolkl
- Start date
Al gore is going with A.
Climate change is a given. It has been going on for millions of years. What is not known is whether humans have any significant impact on it. The data just aren't there. You can't conduct a controlled experiment on two Earths, one with human activity and one without.
well that was the plan with Venus back when the sun was much smaller and not as bright people lived on Venus but the sun is getting hotter and bigger which ruined Venus so we all had to move to earth, just think Mars is next.... :biggrin:
I eat Mars every day!
MSNBC.. what an excellent source for unbiased reporting on the scientific nature of "global warming".
I am quite concerned with the environment and am very aware of human impact on it. There are things we are doing that are extremely hazardous. The biggest concern we have isn't as prominent in the U.S., but water pollution is a big issue we humans are to blame for.
That being said, carbon dioxide emissions from human industry/motors is not and will never be a major contributor to global temperatures.
Why don't these reports ever talk about significant things?
How about http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm ?
Over 3 times the scientists, and mostly MUCH more educated on the matter than IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control responsible for 99% of worldwide global warming legislation including Kyoto Protocol], saying "global warming" is a complete hoax.
Eh, who cares, they aren't on TV so Al Gore the "genius" must be right on such complex and experimental science.
Not to mention a single moderately sized volcano puts more CO2 in to the atmosphere than all humans in the last 2,000 years. Better start capping them! Save the planet!
Not to mention carbon dioxide is a very minor player in the make-up of our atmosphere, barely 3 per 10,000 units. Doubling this figure, which would be a monumental task if we tried would produce a .6-1.2 degree C increase in global temperatures. This information isn't from global warming 'non believers', this is from the IPCC's themselves Kyoto Protocol report.
Here's the kicker, the planet isn't as helpless as we think. Let's say we pumped all the oil the world and lit it on fire, burned all the trees, and gave all the cows in the world a diet of pure beans. Temperatures would increase and the ocean's level of evaporation would increase. The increase in water vapor [uh oh, make note of that mysterious concept] would reflect sunlight back in to space until the temperature stabilized therefore causing less water vapor and it all balances out. This is how our planet has survived for thousands of years. The sun is what regulates the earth's temperature. The sun varies in output and the smallest change changes the earth's temperatures noticeably. All things such as the 'tiny ice age' of the middle ages and 'little global warming' of the 1600's reflect this without error.
And lastly, please stop saying global warming causes the ocean levels to rise. Even if the earth heated up ocean levels would DROP. The amount of ice melted UNDER the surface level of the water compared to the minute amount that is above it is 1000:1. [water expands when frozen].
If you are curious, I did a 17 page report a year or two back that analyzed the "best" 25 sources from both sides I could find. The data, and somehow my "opinion" as well, is derived from this. Most of them were fairly lengthy documents done by scientists that were not, unfortunately for me, meant to be read by anyone outside the scientific community.
I am quite concerned with the environment and am very aware of human impact on it. There are things we are doing that are extremely hazardous. The biggest concern we have isn't as prominent in the U.S., but water pollution is a big issue we humans are to blame for.
That being said, carbon dioxide emissions from human industry/motors is not and will never be a major contributor to global temperatures.
Why don't these reports ever talk about significant things?
How about http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm ?
Over 3 times the scientists, and mostly MUCH more educated on the matter than IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control responsible for 99% of worldwide global warming legislation including Kyoto Protocol], saying "global warming" is a complete hoax.
Eh, who cares, they aren't on TV so Al Gore the "genius" must be right on such complex and experimental science.
Not to mention a single moderately sized volcano puts more CO2 in to the atmosphere than all humans in the last 2,000 years. Better start capping them! Save the planet!
Not to mention carbon dioxide is a very minor player in the make-up of our atmosphere, barely 3 per 10,000 units. Doubling this figure, which would be a monumental task if we tried would produce a .6-1.2 degree C increase in global temperatures. This information isn't from global warming 'non believers', this is from the IPCC's themselves Kyoto Protocol report.
Here's the kicker, the planet isn't as helpless as we think. Let's say we pumped all the oil the world and lit it on fire, burned all the trees, and gave all the cows in the world a diet of pure beans. Temperatures would increase and the ocean's level of evaporation would increase. The increase in water vapor [uh oh, make note of that mysterious concept] would reflect sunlight back in to space until the temperature stabilized therefore causing less water vapor and it all balances out. This is how our planet has survived for thousands of years. The sun is what regulates the earth's temperature. The sun varies in output and the smallest change changes the earth's temperatures noticeably. All things such as the 'tiny ice age' of the middle ages and 'little global warming' of the 1600's reflect this without error.
And lastly, please stop saying global warming causes the ocean levels to rise. Even if the earth heated up ocean levels would DROP. The amount of ice melted UNDER the surface level of the water compared to the minute amount that is above it is 1000:1. [water expands when frozen].
If you are curious, I did a 17 page report a year or two back that analyzed the "best" 25 sources from both sides I could find. The data, and somehow my "opinion" as well, is derived from this. Most of them were fairly lengthy documents done by scientists that were not, unfortunately for me, meant to be read by anyone outside the scientific community.
MSNBC.. what an excellent source for unbiased reporting on the scientific nature of "global warming".
What planet are you from?
What planet are you from?
Ski_Banker
Suspended
Earth. That statement was a joke, very few main-stream news programs are valuable for anything besides entertainment and maybe an ivy league school rape case. If you bothered to read the rest of my post, you probably would have realized that quite quickly. There are a few programs on main-stream news I do enjoy though. There are a couple british webnews sites that have pretty good information.
Oh give me a break!! Why don't you do some research on your own? Not just you ,but all you sheeple!!
I'll do you one better. The vast majority of ice is below the water's surface. Ocean levels would actually drop. Critical thinking like this is exactly what is needed to keep us from throwing away a lot of money.
Not only that, they pollute more than we do NOW. In a few years, they'll pollute much more. That's in regards to china ONLY, muchless India and over a dozen other countries with 0 regard for the environment.
THANK YOU. Keep thinking critically and second guessing everything EVERYONE tells you including me. Everyone has an agenda of their own. Mine is not wasting money on pointless stuff when I could be much better off and there are entire continents of semi-starving people who sleep in huts with newborns with AIDS. "global warming" isn't just the least of our problems, it isn't even a problem, yet people are considering spending TRILLIONS when there are infinitely better projects to support.
- Joined
- 29 April 2004
- Messages
- 1,567
How would they drop?
If all of that ice is merely floating... the level would stay the same.
If the chunk of ice is attached to the seabed and has then piled up and is supporting it's own weight, it's an island of ice and would cause the levels to rise. This is the scenario I was taught, maybe I'm wrong... but I've never heard otherwise.
The only way ocean levels could fall from the melting ice is if the ice was being held in place, underwater, by the oceanfloor. That seems the most unlikely of the three.
The only two major countries who are intending NOT to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is the USA and Australia. You'll notice I didn't mention India and China. They must care a little as they signed and ratified it.
Why shouldn't China be allowed to produce more CO2 than us? If you say what we are doing is correct - they have 3-4 times as many people as we do... therefore there should be no worries with you, if you don't care enough to do something about this stuff, that they produce more than we do. China produces much less CO2 per person than the USA. The USA is very careless. I dunno what makes us so special???
Out of curiosity, are you against the war? That sure is a waste of unneccesary money. Saddam wasn't at the top of our list either, but they sure knocked him out swiftly. The AIDS babies were there in 2001.
Displacement. Water expands when frozen.
- Joined
- 29 April 2004
- Messages
- 1,567
I know that
It could only lower the water level though if somehow more ice than normal were being held underwater.
Are you naive enough to believe that China and India are going to comply? and not just going with the flow and then doing whatever they want at home?
I know that
It could only lower the water level though if somehow more ice than normal were being held underwater.
Hmmm hadn't thought about that. I have heard that 90% of the iceberg is under water.
Now you have. The way you are thinking is logical. But let's think big. If you got a 200lbs chunk of ice and dropped it in a bathtub, how much do you think would be above the surface and how much below? Now let's think small, when you drop an ice cube in water does 50% of it 'float' on top of the water? No, the vast majority of it "sinks" or is below the surface level. Remember on those science tv shows how they get ice samples miles below the surface of the anarctica? Bottom line, the vast majority of ice is below the oceanic water surface level.
Let me try to get this information across without writing [another] book. Signing and enforcing the are totally different things. The U.S. has done more to enforce environmental legislation than any other country. We have spent more than every other country in the world-combined. When the U.S. signs something, a large number of countries world wide just wait to bash us for the slightest slipup, whereas if we even mentioned of even maybe commenting on other countries' dismal attempts to coordinate with the legislation they signed, we get nailed to the wall. There is a lot of international relations involved here at every level. It takes a lot of reading to begin to understand it. I myself have a lot to learn and I spend 6 months researching it. What have you done?
Really? China produces little? You are basing that on... 300 million being a lot less than 1.1 billion? I'd say that's a fairly simplistic way to look at it.
It isn't as simple as producing 'more' pollution. Some pollution is thousands of times more detrimental than others. We in the U.S. spend BILLIONS and have extremely strict regulation of our industry to limit their output of pollutants. We ARE special because very few other countries even remotely compare to our standards. China has polluted more since it's economic revolution in the early 80's than the U.S. has in it's history. Sit back and absorb that statement. Have you ever been to China? I speak mandarin and have visited shanghai, nanjing, and beijing. There pollution problems would blow the average U.S. citizen out of the water. AND THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE CARS YET, which is 40% of our entire pollution output.
We are special because worldwide the U.S. foots the bill while facing the most expensive regulations.
China's economic machine just had the brakes and the e-brake applied last year. Their pollution problem is so bad many major city residents cover their mouth when outside and the water pollution is so bad many small communities are all dying 'downstream' from large industrial areas. There are several lead exposure situations where entire communities' children are dead or have severe brain damage. This is China. This is reality. You ought to check it out sometime. Ever seen the water situation in India? It isn't pretty either. These countires can't even regulate themselves and their immense amount of pollution has just began.
There is a lot more to the War in Iraq than meets the eye. Most college level international relations specialists wouldn't say they fully understand the situation. Let's put it this way, if possible would have I chosen the $ to go towards trying to restructure the gov'ts in liberia and the sudan to help those people than for guns and soldiers in Iraq? Yes. But the international balance of power isn't just important, it's nothing less than invaluable.
I don't see how that has any relavence, but I'm about 50% supportive of the war. There are far too many elements to simply say I'm 100% for or against it. The idea has some worthy elements but enforcing it is another story, and it's not going well right now, mostly because of limitations we placed on ourselves. Right now it's such a complex situation it's extremely hard to say whether we need to do certain things indefintely, i.e. whether to stay or leave.
You've done six months of research into this, and I've only done some cursory reading, so perhaps you can explain this in more detail because my understanding is that sea levels WILL go up. Displacement is fine, but floating ice in the arctic make up just a fraction of the worlds ice.
The more significant volume of ice are the vast amounts that are tied to land masses. This include some in the arctic, the huge ice sheet over greenland, and of course 90% of the worlds ice over the antarctic land mass, none of which are floating. All of this will contribute to a significant rise in ocean levels as the melting periods of these regions continue to increase. It's highly unlikely that all of Antarctica's ice would melt, but if it were to melt (thousands of feet of ice above the landmass), researchers predict a 200 foot rise in sea level. Even a fraction of that rise would cause havoc on coastal regions and weather patterns.
The other issue is that the polar caps play a critical role in reflecting back radiation from the sun. As these melt, the land and oceans will start absorbing this heat, resulting in higher temperatures leading to further melting etc. It's a vicious feedback loop. To make it worse, the thawing permafrost will release significant amounts of CO2 and methane currently trapped in the soil, further adding to the greenhouse effect. As global temperatures rise, and as the oceans are further heated by the sun, the density of the water further decreases. As you know, water is most dense at 4C, so as temperatures rise, it starts taking up more space, resulting in a measurable rise.
Thoughts?
Good questions. I wrote up a response but decided I'll give you a very well qualified scientist's answer instead. I looked up an old source for you. I would provide a link but it's on a private server that requires a high-assurance EID. It seems very long but is only about 3-4 pages on word if I'm correct. I provided the source as well as tons of 'further reading' for those truly concerned/interested. I also highlighted some more 'important' parts for those who want to learn more but not that much more =]
----------------------------------------------------
Global Warming Will Not Cause Sea Levels to Rise
Reprinted, with permission, from "There's No Truth to the Rising Sea Level Scare," by Richard D. Terry, 21st Century, Summer 1998, pp. 66–72. Website: www.21stcenturysciencetech.com.
According to Richard D. Terry, a marine geologist and former consultant to the U.S. Defense Department, environmental alarmists are wrong in their assertion that global warming will cause the flooding of low-lying areas through rising sea levels. In Terry's opinion, predicting changes in sea level involves the consideration of complex changes in tides, earth movements, and other oceanic and climatic processes, none of which can be accurately modeled by the computer simulations of global warming advocates. Terry claims that rising temperatures will increase evaporation and lead to more ice becoming "locked up" on the Antarctic Ice Sheet, a process that may lower sea levels by about one foot. Scientists are scaring people with the threat of flooding in order to promote a political agenda of population reduction, in the author's opinion.
As you read, consider the following questions:
What is the biggest problem with the accuracy of tide-gauges, in Terry's opinion?
According to the author, what do global warming advocates generally assume is the largest potential source of water to raise sea levels?
Is the Arctic melting or cooling, in Terry's opinion?
Global warming proponents are sounding the alarm about potential flooding of low-lying coastal areas and low islands, but the likelihood of any global warming causing a catastrophic rise of sea level is nonexistent. As I shall show, there is no credible evidence, contemporary or historical, that a global warming will cause such flooding. Further, claims by global-warming modellers that they can predict sea level are a myth.
Many Processes Affect Sea Level
The processes that control or affect sea level and the origin and nature of sea level changes are complex. The ocean's surface is in constant motion and undulates. Water moves in some general direction, but the flow is turbulent and superimposed on the general movement. It is generally thought that there is a correlation between glacial lowering of sea levels and the ice tied up on the Earth's surface. Variations of atmospheric CO2 levels and ocean temperatures are related to changes in ice volumes, and probably contribute to glacial-interglacial cycles. But, as I show, warming at the poles means more ice, not a rise in sea level. (And note that, contrary to the propaganda, we are now at the end of an interglacial.)
Tides, which are one of the indicators of ocean levels, are difficult phenomena to measure and compare. In some parts of the world there are no tides or tidal currents; in other places, tides exceed 50 ft. Tide-gauges record sea levels throughout the world, although records are limited prior to 1900. These tide-gauges are not well distributed around the world, and the records are usually irregular, requiring statistical analyses to compare any two stations. The biggest problem is that most tide-gauges are on unstable foundations; no known place on Earth is free from Earth movement. Therefore, no completely satisfactory data exist to measure or compare relative sea levels.
Solid-Earth processes that affect sea level come in many varieties: Earth movements, geological faulting, vertical movements caused by earthquakes, sea-floor uplift and subsidence, sea-floor topography, volcanism and thermal effects (super plumes, sea-floor emanations, Earth degassing), changes of land and ocean areas, sedimentation and compaction, isostasy, geoidal effects, Earth pulsations and cycles, and astronomical forces. Movements of the Earth's surface can be exceedingly large.
Other processes are oceanic and climatic: glacial surges and ice melting; climate effects (drastic weather changes that occur randomly); ocean effects (steric ocean response, temperature and salinity), long-period tides, shelf-waves and seiches, gravity waves, and others. Most of these processes are poorly understood and difficult to model, because they are not linear.
Dubious Assumptions
Global warming "predictions" are actually based on dubious assumptions, unsupported by measurement or testing. For example, global-warming advocates assume that they can accurately model climate and forecast sea level. But, can they? ...
Climate modellers assume that the atmosphere behaves in a linear, non-turbulent, fashion. They must do so, because otherwise they cannot possibly model in detail the atmosphere or the oceans, both of which are chaotic and nonlinear. Nonlinear forces operate throughout the universe and have long haunted physicists, oceanographers, and astronomers....
The major problem in simulations is that they hardly ever mimic the "real world," which is bewilderingly complex and still has many unknowns. For example, models have difficulties with: the effects of rainfall on vegetation and soils, the growth and shrinkage of sea ice, combining climate and ocean circulation, and variations of energy from the Sun, especially cloud cover. One climate model shows Death Valley filled with water! In another, oceans are modelled as a "swamp." ...
Sea-Level Predictions Elude Modellers
Now, on to predicting sea level.
Global warming modellers assume that they can predict sea level—and that they can do so with breathtaking precision. Of course, this implies that modellers are able to take into account all the aspects of the Earth and ocean processes noted above. Earth scientists agree that predicting ocean volume changes and sea levels are difficult and, as will be discussed later, sea levels are barely measurable, and the predicted changes are well within sea-level "noise" range. In the final analysis, when it comes to the Earth sciences, including oceanography and geophysics, global warming modellers are out of their milieu.
Nonetheless, global-warming proponents assume that the United Nations climate models are accurate, thus permitting them to make accurate sea-level predictions. The difficulty in assessing sea-level modelling values is that the modellers present us with a moving target; that is, their sea level predictions keep changing.
One study states that there will be a rise in sea level of 10 feet by the year 2024. Elsewhere, we are told that a 4°C rise in temperature would cause sea level to rise 2 meters (m) in 500 years. In 1980, global-warming prognosticators estimated a 25-ft rise of sea level over the next 150 years. The 1985 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report projected a "best estimate" rise of sea level of 3 ft. In the same year, a report by the U.S. National Research Council, chaired by M.F. Meier, also reduced the projected sea level rise to 3 ft. Then, in 1989, Meier, allowing more water vapor and other factors, calculated that sea level in 2050 would rise about 1 ft.
As for the IPCC, in 1989, its estimate of rise of sea level dropped to 1 foot. Then, in 1990, the IPCC report projected a "best estimate" of 66 centimeters (cm) for sea level rise in the twenty-first century.
Continuing Confusion
By 1992, however, other scientists were predicting that sea levels would fall by -1 ft., also as a result of global warming. A Canadian-American team of scientists reported that ice sheets will grow in size as a result of more water being tied up as snow, causing sea level to drop in the twenty-first century. At the same time, others predicted that on the basis of a forecast of a 6° to 8°F rise in temperature, sea level would rise 1 to 3 ft, as a result of the thermal expansion of the oceans....
Great caution (if not skepticism) should be given to any predicted sea level.
Tide-gauges records are extremely variable, owing to Earth movements....
Claims by global-warming modellers that they can predict sea level are not real. In a word, predicting sea level is well nigh impossible.
There is no credible evidence that global warming will cause flooding of low-lying areas. Ten years ago, when global warming alarms first sounded, had policy-makers built sea walls at great expense to protect coastal areas, it would have been a totally wasted effort....
Where Does the Water Come From?
Now, we must understand that 97 percent of the water on Earth is in the ocean. If one wishes to raise the ocean's level (sea level, that is), a tremendous amount of water must be found and put into the ocean. It is generally assumed that the largest potential source of water to raise sea level is glacial ice. Most climate models today, however, foresee increased precipitation. If that were to happen, as we shall see, there is a good chance that sea level will drop as much as 2 ft in the twenty-first century.
Why? Because increased evaporation locks up more water and puts more ice on the Antarctic ice sheet.
The Arctic Ocean has a deep ocean basin that is covered entirely by floating sea ice (frozen sea water). The density of sea ice is 0.92 grams per cubic centimeter. The temperature at which sea ice freezes is -1.9°C; salt lowers the freezing point of water. The colder the solid form gets, the less dense it becomes. Sea ice floats because it is less dense than when it is liquid form and, once frozen, ice occupies 10 percent more space. This means that melting of sea ice does not cause sea level to rise; it actually lowers (local) sea level.
A Melting Arctic?
It has been claimed that ice in the Arctic is melting; however, after analyzing 27,000 temperature readings, Professor Jonathan Kahl found a statistically significant trend in the opposite direction—today the Arctic is cooling. Both the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps have been growing in recent years.
More than 90 percent of all ice is stored on the Antarctic continent; Greenland accounts for only 5 percent, and glaciers the remainder. The quantity of water stored in glaciers is debatable, but certainly is insignificant in any asserted impact on the oceans.
Global warming will have no effect on the Antarctica ice cap. There are several reasons. Melting of ice on any continental ice sheet takes place only at the bottom, where it is warmed by geothermal heat. The top of an ice sheet is cold -50°C) and dry. Even with substantial heating, ice would not melt, because of its large thermal response time. The ice cap is thick, and ice itself acts as an excellent insulator, protecting it from melting.
Even if the air temperature rose, say 6° to 7°C, the ice cap would still have a temperature of ∼ -46°C, and the Ice Sheet would remain solid. The air temperature above the ice sheet must reach 1°C before ice would begin to melt, and it would take +5,000 years to melt the ice cap—if global warming could cause the temperature to rise this much.
It is generally accepted that the rise of sea level in post-glacial time required melting of ice at a rate of 5,000 km3 for 7,000 yrs.
More Ice from Rising Temperatures
As the air temperature heats up, it holds more water vapor. This is the opposite of the theory of global warming's basic assumptions. If the mean air temperature around Antarctica were to rise, more clouds would develop; more clouds would cause the air temperature to fall. Water evaporated from the oceans would accumulate as snow and become "locked up" on the ice sheet. Therefore, the ice sheet would thicken. This process would lower sea level by about 1 foot.
From all this, we can confidently say that global warming's basic argument—warming will cause sea level to rise—is completely at odds with the dynamics of the hydrologic cycle. This self-regulating process, which restores equilibrium, is a well-known principle that every freshman college chemistry student learns.
It often has been stated that, if melting of the Antarctic ice cap took place, sea level would rise ∼ 150 ft, a figure widely reported by the media. This is a lie, as already mentioned. The Antarctic Ice Sheet will grow, rather than diminish, if temperatures increase in the twenty-first century, accumulating snow faster than it loses ice. Antarctica has little meltwater, owing to the extreme cold, but a small amount reportedly reaches the ocean from the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.
If the Antarctic Ice Sheet were to completely melt, the air temperature of Antarctica would have to be 1°C or higher, over thousands of years. Not only that, but in order to get the temperature of Antarctica to rise to 1°C, the entire atmosphere would have to have a temperature increase of ∼51°C-210°F. (Imagine Washington, D.C., summer temperatures of 210°F....)
For these reasons, the Antarctic Ice Sheet can obviously be ignored in global warming scenarios. No one expects the melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, even with a 7-fold increase in CO2.
Ruling Out Glaciers and Thermal Expansion
This leaves the global warming flood propagandists with only Greenland, mountain glaciers, and icebergs, all of which are trivial sources of water. As Tom Wigley summed up the problem of modelling sea level rises from glacier melting, "Wide uncertainties still remain." And, as glaciologist F.B. Wood has pointed out, "if there were a magic way to melt all the land glaciers of the Northern Hemisphere, sea level would rise only 10 cm."
Ah, but if we can't raise sea level by melting the ice, global-warming advocates then pull out of their hat the fallacy of thermal expansion of the ocean. In theory, this could raise sea level 1 to 2 ft, but, as we have seen, such a small rise would not be apparent. And then, too, it would take about 13,000 years for the action to take place.
Why Global Warming?
Given the absurdity of the claims of global warming propagandists about ice melt, why do they persist in scaring people about rising ocean levels? My conclusion is that it's purely political, and has to do with population reduction.
Global-warming gurus have built careers and fortunes warning people that sea level is rising. These fear-mongers feed on the public's lack of knowledge about the true facts. They counsel people living in low-lying coastal areas—usually with the help of a pliant and ignorant media—that they are in danger of being inundated by a rising sea. These gurus have argued that a rising sea level is already demonstrated by the wide oscillations of lake levels in the Caspian Sea. (A Russian geologist, however, has shown that the fluctuations are caused by tension and compression in the Earth's crust.)
People living in the coastal zone are being frightened into thinking that they are about to lose everything. They are told that they can expect higher-than-normal tides and storm surges, El Niño events, hurricanes, tidal waves, and the like. The media—TV, newspapers, even pseudoscientific publications—use archival films and photographs showing calamitous ocean and climatic events, passing them off as if they happened a few days ago.
Australian scientist Peter Sawyer characterized the situation this way: "It's a bit hard to reduce people to a state of fear and panic with the 'threat' of more food and better climatic conditions [from warmer temperatures], so something else had to be found. It's a measure of just how flimsy the whole greenhouse argument is, that the worst 'threat' that could be presented was that oceans-levels will somehow rise, and flood out some coastal areas."
It's time for people to wake up, realize the serious consequences stemming from the policies of global warming hacks and bureaucrats, and fight back with the truth. The real global warming catastrophe is how easy it is for some scientists to scare people with scenarios that have no scientific validity.
FURTHER READINGS
Books
Nigel Arnell. Global Warming, River Flows and Water Resources. Chichester, England: Wiley, 1996.
Ronald Bailey, ed. Earth Report 2000: Revisiting the True State of the Planet. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000.
Roger Bate and Julian Morris. Global Warming: Apocalypse or Hot Air? London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1994.
Melvin A. Benarde. Global Warning ... Global Warming. New York: Wiley, 1992.
John J. Berger. Beating the Heat: Why and How We Must Combat Global Warming. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Hills Books, 2000.
W. Bradnee Chambers. Inter-Linkages: The Kyoto Protocol and the International Trade and Investment Regimes. New York: University Press, 2001.
Alston Chase. In a Dark Wood: The Fight over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Ecology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1995.
Gale E. Christianson. Greenhouse: The 200-Year Story of Global Warming. New York: Walker and Company, 1999.
Jack Doyle. Taken for a Ride: Detroit's Big Three and the Politics of Pollution. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2000.
Francis Drake. Global Warming: The Science of Climate Change. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Christine A. Ennis and Nancy H. Marcus. Biological Consequences of Global Climate Change. Sausalito, CA: University Science Books, 1996.
Ross Gelbspan. The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, the Cover-up, the Prescription. Reading, MA: Perseus Books, 1998.
Ross Gelbspan. The Heat Is On: The High Stakes Battle over Earth's Threatened Climate. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1997.
Al Gore. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992.
Michael Grubb, Christiaan Vrolijk and Duncan Brack. The Kyoto Protocol: A Guide and Assesment. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1999.
Martin M. Halmann and Meyer Steinberg. Greenhouse Gas Carbon Dioxide Mitigation: Science and Technology. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, 1999.
John Horel and Jack Geisler. Global Environmental Change: An Atmospheric Perspective. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997.
John Houghton. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Catrinus J. Jepma and Mohan Munasinghe. Climate Change Policy: Facts, Issues, and Analyses. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Jeremy Leggett. The Carbon War: Global Warming at the End of the Oil Era. London: Penguin, 2000.
Nick Mabey et al. Argument in the Greenhouse: The International Economics of Controlling Global Warming. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Robert Mendelsohn and James E. Neumann, eds. The Impact of Climate Change on the United States Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling Jr. The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air About Global Warming. Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2000.
Thomas Gale Moore. Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry About Global Warming. Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 1998.
Michael L. Parsons. Global Warming: The Truth Behind the Myth. New York: Insight Books, 1995.
S. George Philander. Is the Temperature Rising?: The Uncertain Science of Global Warming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998.
S. Fred Singer. Global Climate Change: Human and Natural Influences. New York: Paragon House, 1989.
S. Fred Singer. Hot Talk Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate. Oakland, CA: Independent Institute, 1997.
P.C. Sinha, ed. Global Warming. New Delhi, India: Anmol Publications, 1998.
P.C. Sinha, ed. Sea-Level Rise. New Delhi, India: Anmol Publications, 1998.
Mark C. Trexler and Christine Haugen. Keeping It Green: Tropical Forestry Opportunities for Mitigating Climate Change. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1995.
Karl K. Turekian. Global Environmental Change: Past, Present, and Future. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996.
Sylvan H. Wittwer. Food, Climate, and Carbon Dioxide: The Global Environment and World Food Production. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis, 1995.
Last edited:
I've got tons of other material on just about any argument related to global warming if anyone is curious. Just shoot me a PM etc.
Interesting read, but there seem to be some major holes. First, the author goes to great lengths to insinuate that modelling the effects on sea levels is nigh impossible, but then makes his own assertions on the impact on sea level! If it's too complex to model accurately and we shouldn't accept climate simulations, then why should we give any credence to his calculations either?
It's easy to criticize the differing opinions on impact by comparing research across 25 years and claiming that different groups had different opinions. That's hardly surprising. The more we learn on the topic, the more people that are actively researching this, the better a model and the more accurate an answer we can get.
Let's look at some of the obvious problems in this thesis:
1) "Because increased evaporation locks up more water and puts more ice on the Antarctic ice sheet. "
I buy that increased global temperatures will result in increased evaporation, but I don't buy that it will result in increased ice on Antarctica. Right now antarctica gets less than 2inches of precipitation ANNUALLY! That's less than most deserts! Common sense dictates that most evaporation and subsequent rainfall would end up back in the ocean (just as it does today). I haven't read any studies that indicate that increased atmospheric evaporation would result in any significant increase in antarctic precipitation.
2) "The density of sea ice is 0.92 grams per cubic centimeter. The temperature at which sea ice freezes is -1.9°C; salt lowers the freezing point of water. The colder the solid form gets, the less dense it becomes. Sea ice floats because it is less dense than when it is liquid form and, once frozen, ice occupies 10 percent more space. This means that melting of sea ice does not cause sea level to rise; it actually lowers (local) sea level. "
It's disingenuous not to point out that if the water temperature were to raise above 4C, density would also decrease. It's true that initial melting of sea ice will cause its volume to decrease, but as temperatures continue to rise, thermal expansion will then cause the volume to increase. This is scientific fact and easily proven in the lab.
3) "It has been claimed that ice in the Arctic is melting; however, after analyzing 27,000 temperature readings, Professor Jonathan Kahl found a statistically significant trend in the opposite direction—today the Arctic is cooling. Both the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps have been growing in recent years. "
I get worried about the integrity and accuracy of the rest of the article when I read statements like this. This is an outright lie and is easily discredited by satellite imagery and the research of hundreds of other scientists in the field. It's also convenient to cite evidence like the norwegian teams research results in 2005 indicating that the interior regions of greenland were actually accumulating ice at 6cm annually (using satellite altimetry) but ignore other data. What should also be mentioned in the same breath is that measurements that overlapped this same period showed that although the interior was gaining 54 gigatons annually, the coastal regions lost 155 gigatons annually!
Another thing not mentioned is that the rate of loss has increased sharply in the past few years. For example, the rate from 2004-2006 is 250% greater than that from 2002-2004! To put it in perspective, during this period Greenland lost more ice than the entire volume of lake erie! This is NOT ice that's floating.. this is ice that is coming off a land mass and being deposited directly into the ocean.
To claim that the arctic is not losing ice at an alarming rate is simply ludicrous. Even skeptics can't ignore evidence like the Ayles Ice shelf which broke off Ellesmere island a couple of months ago. That's an ice shelf larger than manhattan that's been a part of the arctic for thousands of years! What we're seeing is unlike earlier research which indicated that the impact would come solely from melting, the results can come at an accelerated pace because of events like this.
4) "Melting of ice on any continental ice sheet takes place only at the bottom, where it is warmed by geothermal heat. The top of an ice sheet is cold -50°C) and dry. Even with substantial heating, ice would not melt, because of its large thermal response time. The ice cap is thick, and ice itself acts as an excellent insulator, protecting it from melting. Even if the air temperature rose, say 6° to 7°C, the ice cap would still have a temperature of ∼ -46°C, and the Ice Sheet would remain solid."
More dubious claims that are easily dismissed by ample scientific evidence. In the southern region of greenland alone, temperatures have risen by > 4C since 1990. Continental ice melting IS happening today. Forget theory, look at the satellite imagery! Even antarctica has been losing > 36 cubic miles of ice annually and this pace is accelerating. What he again fails to consider is that geothermal heating creates melt-water which acts as a lubricant and accelerates movement of large ice masses towards the shores. The ice doesn't have to melt from the top to the bottom -- that's old school thinking. A prime example is the ayles ice shelf, as well as whats happening on the southern end of greenland today.
5) "Not only that, but in order to get the temperature of Antarctica to rise to 1°C, the entire atmosphere would have to have a temperature increase of ∼51°C-210°F."
First of all temperatures on the antarctic peninsula have been rising 2-3x faster than the rest of the world. Although interior temperatures have remained relatively static, the issue is that glacial flow rate increases rapidly as ice shelves break off on the peninsula. I don't forsee temperatures rising to 1C in antarctica anytime soon, but the ice doesn't have to physically melt in antarctica for this to be a problem. The ice breaks off or flows off into the ocean and is carried into warmer waters where it melts -- THAT is the problem.
There are plenty of other problems with this article. For example, citing ONLY glacial melting in the northern hemisphere and ignoring melting and breaking off of the ice cap on greenland. Or to say that in theory thermal expansion could cause sea levels to increase by 2 feet, but then claim that it's negligible. How is that negligible? And where does he come up with the 13,000 years business.
Forgive me for being highly skeptical of this piece of research. When I see claims that are easily discredited by available evidence, I begin to question the rest of the claims too. There are way too many holes in this article, and the whole basis of the argument with respect to antarctica and melting is fundamentally flawed. None of this really addresses my original questions in a concrete manner. I'm open to having my mind changed on the topic, but so far I haven't seen anything that proves to me this isn't an issue.
It's easy to criticize the differing opinions on impact by comparing research across 25 years and claiming that different groups had different opinions. That's hardly surprising. The more we learn on the topic, the more people that are actively researching this, the better a model and the more accurate an answer we can get.
Let's look at some of the obvious problems in this thesis:
1) "Because increased evaporation locks up more water and puts more ice on the Antarctic ice sheet. "
I buy that increased global temperatures will result in increased evaporation, but I don't buy that it will result in increased ice on Antarctica. Right now antarctica gets less than 2inches of precipitation ANNUALLY! That's less than most deserts! Common sense dictates that most evaporation and subsequent rainfall would end up back in the ocean (just as it does today). I haven't read any studies that indicate that increased atmospheric evaporation would result in any significant increase in antarctic precipitation.
2) "The density of sea ice is 0.92 grams per cubic centimeter. The temperature at which sea ice freezes is -1.9°C; salt lowers the freezing point of water. The colder the solid form gets, the less dense it becomes. Sea ice floats because it is less dense than when it is liquid form and, once frozen, ice occupies 10 percent more space. This means that melting of sea ice does not cause sea level to rise; it actually lowers (local) sea level. "
It's disingenuous not to point out that if the water temperature were to raise above 4C, density would also decrease. It's true that initial melting of sea ice will cause its volume to decrease, but as temperatures continue to rise, thermal expansion will then cause the volume to increase. This is scientific fact and easily proven in the lab.
3) "It has been claimed that ice in the Arctic is melting; however, after analyzing 27,000 temperature readings, Professor Jonathan Kahl found a statistically significant trend in the opposite direction—today the Arctic is cooling. Both the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps have been growing in recent years. "
I get worried about the integrity and accuracy of the rest of the article when I read statements like this. This is an outright lie and is easily discredited by satellite imagery and the research of hundreds of other scientists in the field. It's also convenient to cite evidence like the norwegian teams research results in 2005 indicating that the interior regions of greenland were actually accumulating ice at 6cm annually (using satellite altimetry) but ignore other data. What should also be mentioned in the same breath is that measurements that overlapped this same period showed that although the interior was gaining 54 gigatons annually, the coastal regions lost 155 gigatons annually!
Another thing not mentioned is that the rate of loss has increased sharply in the past few years. For example, the rate from 2004-2006 is 250% greater than that from 2002-2004! To put it in perspective, during this period Greenland lost more ice than the entire volume of lake erie! This is NOT ice that's floating.. this is ice that is coming off a land mass and being deposited directly into the ocean.
To claim that the arctic is not losing ice at an alarming rate is simply ludicrous. Even skeptics can't ignore evidence like the Ayles Ice shelf which broke off Ellesmere island a couple of months ago. That's an ice shelf larger than manhattan that's been a part of the arctic for thousands of years! What we're seeing is unlike earlier research which indicated that the impact would come solely from melting, the results can come at an accelerated pace because of events like this.
4) "Melting of ice on any continental ice sheet takes place only at the bottom, where it is warmed by geothermal heat. The top of an ice sheet is cold -50°C) and dry. Even with substantial heating, ice would not melt, because of its large thermal response time. The ice cap is thick, and ice itself acts as an excellent insulator, protecting it from melting. Even if the air temperature rose, say 6° to 7°C, the ice cap would still have a temperature of ∼ -46°C, and the Ice Sheet would remain solid."
More dubious claims that are easily dismissed by ample scientific evidence. In the southern region of greenland alone, temperatures have risen by > 4C since 1990. Continental ice melting IS happening today. Forget theory, look at the satellite imagery! Even antarctica has been losing > 36 cubic miles of ice annually and this pace is accelerating. What he again fails to consider is that geothermal heating creates melt-water which acts as a lubricant and accelerates movement of large ice masses towards the shores. The ice doesn't have to melt from the top to the bottom -- that's old school thinking. A prime example is the ayles ice shelf, as well as whats happening on the southern end of greenland today.
5) "Not only that, but in order to get the temperature of Antarctica to rise to 1°C, the entire atmosphere would have to have a temperature increase of ∼51°C-210°F."
First of all temperatures on the antarctic peninsula have been rising 2-3x faster than the rest of the world. Although interior temperatures have remained relatively static, the issue is that glacial flow rate increases rapidly as ice shelves break off on the peninsula. I don't forsee temperatures rising to 1C in antarctica anytime soon, but the ice doesn't have to physically melt in antarctica for this to be a problem. The ice breaks off or flows off into the ocean and is carried into warmer waters where it melts -- THAT is the problem.
There are plenty of other problems with this article. For example, citing ONLY glacial melting in the northern hemisphere and ignoring melting and breaking off of the ice cap on greenland. Or to say that in theory thermal expansion could cause sea levels to increase by 2 feet, but then claim that it's negligible. How is that negligible? And where does he come up with the 13,000 years business.
Forgive me for being highly skeptical of this piece of research. When I see claims that are easily discredited by available evidence, I begin to question the rest of the claims too. There are way too many holes in this article, and the whole basis of the argument with respect to antarctica and melting is fundamentally flawed. None of this really addresses my original questions in a concrete manner. I'm open to having my mind changed on the topic, but so far I haven't seen anything that proves to me this isn't an issue.
Like I said, this is just one opinion. You have some great questions but this is just the opinion of one man who had a definite amount of information at a certain time. I believe it was written in 1998, so you have to take that into consideration. It isn't going to have information about the last 2-3 years, but many of the science has been the same for decades.
He was a prominent scientist in the U.S. department of defense among other fairly reputable organizations. I can promise you, as of 1998, he had the same availablity to information as we would.
Much of what you consider is 'undisputed' IS disputed, and often. I don't have the time/energy to decisively respond to all your points, but I also don't need to. I have done plenty of my own research and have nothing to prove, thanks for the involvement though that's the most important element.
He was a prominent scientist in the U.S. department of defense among other fairly reputable organizations. I can promise you, as of 1998, he had the same availablity to information as we would.
Much of what you consider is 'undisputed' IS disputed, and often. I don't have the time/energy to decisively respond to all your points, but I also don't need to. I have done plenty of my own research and have nothing to prove, thanks for the involvement though that's the most important element.
Fair enough. I'm not looking for pointless debate, but if there is clear evidence that my points are incorrect, then I'm all ears. As far as certain things being disputed like decrease in the greenland and arctic ice shelves, I'd be VERY interested in seeing scientific evidence of the opposing viewpoint. Other interesting data points would be projections showing significantly increased antarctic preciptation with rising global temperatures etc.
I've looked at a number of studies, and they all come to the same conclusion. When we do see opposing data (eg. the norwegian teams data on greenlands interior ice buildup), it's critical to also look at the whole picture. It's building up at some rate in the interior, but breaking off and melting at a much higher rate on the shorelines. You don't need a PhD to view the satellite imagery over the past 10 years and recognize the incredible decrease in ice in this region.
I've looked at a number of studies, and they all come to the same conclusion. When we do see opposing data (eg. the norwegian teams data on greenlands interior ice buildup), it's critical to also look at the whole picture. It's building up at some rate in the interior, but breaking off and melting at a much higher rate on the shorelines. You don't need a PhD to view the satellite imagery over the past 10 years and recognize the incredible decrease in ice in this region.
I actually know answers to your questions off hand, but I think it's sort of futile without getting documented evidence to support my exact claims which takes time to find. I did look for a more recent, general article I thought might appeal to people looking for a less focused view of global warming. I had an excellent source published around 2004 on the exact glacial activity you are mentioning, but I can't locate it right now.
--------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming Is Not a Serious Problem
Table of Contents: Further Readings
About the author: Thomas Sieger Derr is a professor of religion and ethics at Smith College and the author of Environmental Ethics and Christian Humanism.
Global warming has achieved the status of a major threat. It inspires nightmares of a troubled future and propels apocalyptic dramas such as the summer 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow. Even were the Kyoto treaty [to reduce greenhouse gas emissions] to be fully implemented, it wouldn't make a dent in the warming trend, which seems to be inexorable. Doom is upon us.
Scientists familiar with the issues involved have written critically about the theory of global warming. Except that maybe it isn't. You might not know it from ordinary media accounts, which report the judgments of alarmists as "settled science," but there is a skeptical side to the argument. Scientists familiar with the issues involved have written critically about the theory of global warming. The puzzle is why these commentators, well-credentialed and experienced, have been swept aside to produce a false "consensus." What is it that produces widespread agreement among both "experts" and the general public on a hypothesis which is quite likely wrong?
The consensus holds that we are experiencing unprecedented global warming and that human activity is the main culprit. The past century, we are told, has been the hottest on record, with temperatures steadily rising during the last decades. Since human population and industrial activity have risen at the same time, it stands to reason that human activity is, one way or another, the cause of this observed warming. Anything wrong with this reasoning?
Faulty Assumptions
Quite a lot, as it turns out. The phrase "on record" doesn't mean very much, since most records date from the latter part of the nineteenth century. Without accurate records there are still ways of discovering the temperatures of past centuries, and these methods do not confirm the theory of a steady rise. Reading tree rings helps (the rings are further apart when the temperature is warmer and the trees grow faster). Core samples from drilling in ice fields can field even older data. Some historical reconstruction can help, too—for example, we know that the Norsemen settled Greenland (and named it "green") a millennium ago and grew crops there, in land which is today quite inhospitable to settlement, let alone to agriculture. Other evidence comes from coral growth, isotope data from sea floor sediment, and insects, all of which point to a very warm climate in medieval times. Abundant testimony tells us that the European climate then cooled dramatically from the thirteenth century until the eighteenth, when it began its slow rewarming.
In sum, what we learn from multiple sources is that the earth (and not just Europe) was warmer in the tenth century than it is now, that it cooled dramatically in the middle of our second millennium (this has been called the "little ice age"), and then began warming again. Temperatures were higher in medieval times (from about 800 to 1300) than they are now, and the twentieth century represented a recovery from the little ice age to something like normal. The false perception that the recent warming trend is out of the ordinary is heightened by its being measured from an extraordinarily cold starting point, without taking into account the earlier balmy medieval period, sometimes called the Medieval Climate Optimum. Data such as fossilized sea shells indicate that similar natural climate swings occurred in prehistoric times, well before the appearance of the human race.
Even the period for which we have records can be misread. While the average global surface temperature increased by about 0.5 degrees Celsius during the twentieth century, the major part of that warming occurred in the early part of the century, before the rapid rise in human population and before the consequent rise in emissions of polluting substances into the atmosphere. There was actually a noticeable cooling period after World War II, and this climate trend produced a rather different sort of alarmism—some predicted the return of an ice age. In 1974 the National Science Board, observing a thirty-year-long decline in world temperature, predicted the end of temperate times and the dawning of the next glacial age. Meteorologists, Newsweek reported, were "almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." But they were wrong, as we now know (another caution about supposedly "unanimous" scientific opinion), and after 1975 we began to experience our current warming trend. Notice that these fluctuations, over the centuries and within them, do not correlate with human numbers or activity. They are evidently caused by something else.
Sketchy Evidence
The evidence that greenhouse gasses produced by human beings are causing any significant warming is sketchy. What, then, is the cause of the current warming trend? As everyone has heard, the emission of so-called "greenhouse gasses," mostly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, is supposed to be the major culprit in global warming. This is the anthropogenic hypothesis, according to which humans have caused the trouble. But such emissions correlate with human numbers and industrial development, so they could not have been the cause of warming centuries ago, nor of the nineteenth-century rewarming trend which began with a much smaller human population and before the industrial revolution. Nor is there a very good correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and past climate changes. Thus, to many scientists, the evidence that greenhouse gasses produced by humans are causing any significant warming is sketchy.
The likeliest cause of current climate trends seems to be solar activity, perhaps in combination with galactic cosmic rays caused by supernovas, especially because there is some good observable correlation between solar magnetism output and terrestrial climate change. But that kind of change is not predictable within any usable time frame, not yet anyway, and, of course, it is entirely beyond any human influence. The conclusion, then, is that the climate will change naturally; aside from altering obviously foolish behavior, such as releasing dangerous pollutants into our air and water, we can and should do little more than adapt to these natural changes, as all life has always done.
Benefits of Global Warming
That is not a counsel of despair, however, for global warming is not necessarily a bad thing; and higher levels of carbon dioxide help plants to grow (carbon dioxide is not a pollutant), and, indeed, mapping by satellite shows that the earth has become about six percent greener overall in the past two decades, with forests expanding into arid regions (though the effect is uneven). The Amazon rain forest was the biggest gainer, despite the much-advertised deforestation caused by human cutting along its edges. Certainly climate change does not help every region equally and will probably harm some. That has always been true. But there are careful studies that predict overall benefit to the earth with increasing warmth: fewer storms (not more), more rain, better crop yields over larger areas, and longer growing seasons, milder winters, and decreasing heating costs in colder latitudes. The predictable change, though measurable, will not be catastrophic at all—maybe one degree Celsius during the twenty-first century. The news is certainly not all bad, and may on balance be rather good.
There is much more, in more detail, to the argument of those scientists who are skeptical about the threat of global warming. On the whole, their case is, I think, quite persuasive. The question, then, is why so few people believe it.
The media report arresting and frightening items, for that is what draws listeners, viewers, and readers. Part of the answer is that bad news is good news—for the news media. The purveyors of climate disaster theories have exploited this journalistic habit quite brilliantly, releasing steadily more frightening scenarios without much significant data to back them up. Consider the unguarded admission of Steven Schneider of Stanford, a leading proponent of the global warming theory. In a now notorious comment, printed in Discover in 1989 and, surely to his discomfort, often cited by his opponents, Schneider admitted: To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
This sort of willingness to place the cause above the truth has exasperated Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], who is one of the authors of the science sections of the report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body responsible for an increasing crescendo of dire warnings. In testimony before the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, he called the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers, which loudly sounds the warming alarm, "very much a child's exercise of what might possibly happen ... [which] conjures up some scary scenarios, for which, there is no evidence."
This brings us to the second part of the answer, which concerns the political and economic consequences of the policy argument. The IPCC is a UN [United Nations] body and reflects UN politics, which are consistently favorable to developing countries, the majority of its members. Those politics are very supportive of the Kyoto treaty, which not only exempts the developing countries from emissions standards but also requires compensatory treatment from the wealthier nations for any economic restraints that new climate management policies may impose on these developing countries. Were Kyoto to be implemented as written, the developing countries would gain lots of money and free technology. One need not be a cynic to grasp that a UN body will do obeisance to these political realities wherever possible.
The Kyoto Failure
The Kyoto treaty would not make a measurable difference in the climate—by 2050, a temperature reduction of maybe two-hundredths of a degree Celsius, or at most six-hundredths of a degree—but the sacrifices it would impose on the United States would be quite large. It would require us to reduce our projected 2012 energy use by 25 percent, a catastrophic economic hit. Small wonder that the Senate in 1997 passed a bipartisan resolution, the Byrd-Hagel anti-Kyoto resolution, by 95-0 (a fact rarely recalled by those who claim that America's refusal to sign on to the treaty was the result of the Bush administration's thralldom to corporate interests).
Most of the European countries that have ratified Kyoto are falling behind already on targets, despite having stagnant economies and falling populations. It is highly unlikely they will meet the goals they have signed on for, and they know it. Neither will Japan, for that matter. The European Union has committed itself to an eight percent reduction in energy use (from 1990 levels) by 2012, but the European Environment Agency admits that current trends project only a 4.7 percent reduction. When Kyoto signers lecture non-signers for not doing enough for the environment, they invite the charge of hypocrisy. There is also the obvious fact that adherence to the treaty will hurt the U.S. economy much more than the European, which suggests that old-fashioned economic competitiveness is in the mix of motives at play here. The absurdity of the treaty becomes obvious when we recognize that it does not impose emissions requirements on developing countries, including economic giants such as China, India, and Brazil. (China will become the world's biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions in just a few years.)
A third reason why global warming fears seem to be carrying the day goes beyond these political interests; it involves intellectual pride. Academics are a touchy tribe (I'm one of them); they do not take it kindly when their theories, often the result of hard work, are contradicted. And sure enough, the struggle for the truth in this matter is anything but polite. It is intellectual warfare, entangled with politics, reputations, and ideology; and most of the anger comes from the side of the alarmists. People lose their tempers and hurl insults—"junk science," "willful ignorance," "diatribe," "arrogant," "stupid," "incompetent," "bias," "bad faith," "deplorable misinformation," and more. Consider the fiercely hateful reaction to Bjorn Lomborg's 2001 book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. He challenged the entrenched and politically powerful orthodoxy and did so with maddeningly thorough data. His critics, unable to refute his statistics, seem to have been enraged by their own weakness—a familiar phenomenon, after all. Or perhaps, with their reputations and their fund-raising ability tied to the disaster scenarios, they felt their livelihoods threatened. In any case, the shrillness of their voices has helped to drown out the skeptics.
The Evils of Modern Civilization
The global warming campaign is the leading edge of an environmentalism which goes far beyond mere pollution control and indicts the global economy. Finally, there is a fourth cause: a somewhat murky antipathy to modern technological civilization as the destroyer of a purer, cleaner, more "natural" life, a life where virtue dwelt before the great degeneration set in. The global warming campaign is the leading edge of an environmentalism which goes far beyond mere pollution control and indicts the global economy for its machines, its agribusiness, its massive movements of goods, and above all its growing population. Picking apart this argument to show the weakness of its pieces does not go to the heart of the fear and loathing that motivate it. The revulsion shows in the prescriptions advanced by the global warming alarmists: roll back emissions to earlier levels; reduce production and consumption of goods; lower birth rates. Our material ease and the freedoms it has spawned are dangerous illusions, bargains with the devil, and now comes the reckoning. A major apocalypse looms, either to destroy or, paradoxically, to save us—if we come to our senses in the nick of time.
It is clear, then, given the deep roots of the scare, that it is likely to be pretty durable. It has the added advantage of not being readily falsifiable in our lifetimes; only future humans, who will have the perspective of centuries, will know for certain whether the current warming trend is abnormal. In the meantime, the sanest course for us would be to gain what limited perspective we can (remembering the global cooling alarm of a generation ago) and to proceed cautiously. We are going through a scare with many causes, and we need to step back from it, take a long second look at the scientific evidence, and not do anything rash. Though the alarmists claim otherwise, the science concerning global warming is certainly not settled. It is probable that the case for anthropogenic warming will not hold up, and that the earth is behaving as it has for millennia, with natural climate swings that have little to do with human activity.
Incase by some act of God you are still interested..
This is a fairly recent article published in 2006 regarding the atmospheric/weather scientist point of view.
--------------------------------------------------
Global Warming Is Not Caused by Human Activities
Table of Contents: Further Readings
About the author: William M. Gray is a professor at Colorado State University in the Department of Atmospheric Science.
By the end of the 21st century the concentration of greenhouse gases from human activity in Earth's atmosphere is expected to double from preindustrial values. Many believe this increase will cause a 2 to 5 degree Celsius (3.6 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in Earth's temperature. These projections are based largely on government-sponsored U.S. and foreign Global Computer Model simulations.
These computer models use a number of complicated mathematical formulas to simulate the physical processes of the atmosphere and ocean circulation. They forecast future changes in the atmosphere and ocean by simultaneously solving an array of equations that are envisaged to represent the real physical processes of the Earth's climate system. There is some imprecision in the accuracy of these equations with regard to their ability to represent the real atmosphere. Time steps vary from about 15 minutes to an hour or so. They integrate this set of simultaneous equations for hundreds of thousands of time steps into the future. Separate calculations are made, which include and exclude the human-induced greenhouse gas inputs of carbon dioxide and methane. Though these models have become more sophisticated over the past few decades, the methodology appears to be compromised by two basic flaws.
Flawed Models
First, the models assume that more rainfall, resulting from the buildup of greenhouse gases, will lead to significant increases in atmospheric water vapor, especially in the upper atmosphere, and in cirrus cloudiness. These increases are presumed to significantly reduce the radiation energy sent back to space. To compensate for this assumed reduction in outgoing radiation to space, the globe must warm so that it can compensate for this reduced energy flux. Energy to space increases with global temperature. Observations and theoretical analysis by myself and others, however, suggest that reductions in outgoing radiation, due to increases in global rainfall, will be very small, and will not cause significant global warming.
A second flaw in the Global Computer Model simulations is their inability to make realistic simulations of ocean circulation processes many decades into the future. Since about 70 percent of the atmosphere is in contact with the ocean surface, ocean circulation patterns are fundamental to climate variability.
Water Vapor
The primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, by far, is water vapor. It is the influence of the human-caused greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, on water vapor that is most in question. If the addition of human-induced greenhouse gases leads to an enhancement of water vapor's dominant influence (a positive feedback), then humans will, indeed, be responsible for significant warming. But it is more likely that the human-induced gases will act as a modulator (negative feedback) of water vapor's influence. If the human-induced greenhouse gases will act to slightly reduce water vapor's influence as a greenhouse gas, then little global warming will result.
Most researchers agree that the Earth will rid itself of most of the positive energy gains from human-induced greenhouse gas by developing extra surface evaporation and compensating extra global rainfall, which has a cooling effect on the Earth's surface. The key question is how the atmosphere will respond to this expected increase in global evaporation rainfall. Will the expected increase in human-induced greenhouse gases cause a positive, a neutral, or a negative trend in net global outgoing radiation? The Global Computer Models are programmed to give large—and apparently unrealistic—reductions in outgoing radiation to space as global rainfall increases.
The runaway global warming scenarios predicted by current Global Computer Model technology grossly overestimate the actual threat. As more-realistic computer simulations become available in the future, I believe we will learn that the runaway global warming scenarios predicted by current Global Computer Model technology grossly overestimate the actual threat, and that the small surface warming trends observed in global surface temperature during the last 25 to 100 years, which have been so highly touted in the press, are primarily of natural origin and not due to human influences. And, of course, we can do little or nothing about natural climate change.
Give Me Feedback
Most geophysical systems react to forced imbalances by developing reactions that oppose and weaken the initial imbalance; hence, there is a negative feedback response. Recent global scenarios spawned by Global Computer Model climate simulations, however, hypothesize a large positive feedback effect. Thus, projected human-induced greenhouse gas increases have been programmed into these models as a strong enhancing mechanism for global warming beyond what would be accomplished by anthropogenic gases themselves. Specifically, these models have built-in assumptions that, as human-induced greenhouse gases increase, water vapor and cloud concentrations in the upper atmosphere will increase, causing a significant amount of extra outgoing radiation, which would normally be emitted to space, to be trapped within the atmosphere, thus, resulting in additional warming.
The Global Computer Model simulations have been programmed to give a reduction in global outgoing long-wave radiation energy to space that is five to 10 times greater than the reductions that would occur from the human-induced greenhouse gas increases alone. That is why most of these Global Computer Models develop a 2-to-5-degree Celsius global warming, for a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases. Such large, assumed positive, human-induced greenhouse gas feedbacks are unrealistic and atypical of how most geophysical systems function.
A doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases will bring about only minor amounts of global warming. Instead, if atmospheric upper-level water vapor and cirrus cloudiness were constant, or were slightly reduced—for a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases—only a small global warming of less than 0.2 to 0.3 degrees Celsius would occur. A doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases will bring about only minor amounts of global warming, and global agreements, such as the Kyoto Treaty, to reduce such gases would have little effect and would not be economically justified.
Global Rainfall
A doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases will likely cause only a small ... temperature increase of less than 0.3 [degrees] Celsius. Most researchers agree that increased amounts of greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in global rainfall. It is unlikely, however, that this expected increase in global rainfall will bring about a large positive increase in the reduction of radiation energy to space, despite what the Global Computer Models suggest. Rather, increases in human-induced greenhouse gases will more likely bring about a weak negative, or at best neutral, response with regard to changes in upper level water vapor and cirrus cloudiness. This would lead to a weak negative, not a positive response, of upper level water vapor and cirrus to global rainfall increase. This negative feedback influence would lead to a small increase, not a decrease, of net radiation energy to space. Such a negative response would cancel most of the greenhouse gas warming anticipated by the much touted Global Computer Model simulations. A doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases will likely cause only a small positive global surface temperature increase of less than 0.3 [degrees] Celsius.
I do not believe that the Global Computer Model computer warming scenarios are a realistic response to a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases (most give roughly similar warming values). It is more likely that this gas doubling, and a consequent 3-to-4 percent increase in global rainfall, will lead to only a small increase—not a decrease—in net radiation loss to space. Such a response should bring about only negligible increases in global surface temperature.
Evidence
Various observational and theoretical speculations suggest that the enhancement of global precipitation, in response to human-induced greenhouse gas increases, will not cause a significant decrease in the net outgoing radiation to space. This evidence includes:
Diurnal variations. Any changes in the global hydrological cycle, including diurnal rainfall, temperature, and vertical motion changes, affect the amount of atmospheric water vapor and cirrus clouds and, ultimately, the amount of outgoing radiation to space. By studying the diurnal variation of cumulus convection over the tropical oceans, we find twice as much deep convection and heavy rainfall in the morning as in the late afternoon and evening. Rainfall is heaviest during the early-morning hours. It is at this time that outgoing long-wave radiation to space is the greatest. There is, thus, not a direct (but an inverse) relationship between heavy rainfall and radiation loss to space.
Hurricanes and typhoons. Hurricanes and typhoons, and their environments from their centers out to 1,000 km, typically have more net rainfall per unit area than the nonstorm regions, but also have more radiation loss to space than do nonstorm areas. This is also indicative of an inverse rainfall-radiation loss response.
Upper level water vapor. Tropical west Pacific Ocean surface temperatures have increased between 1975 and 2000 as overall sea surface temperature values in this region increased. But upper level water vapor content did not increase. This trend indicates that surface warming over the tropical oceans is linked more to upper level drying than to upper level moistening. Such upper drying leads to larger outgoing radiation to space.
Sea surface temperature. Were oceanic surface temperature to rise, the areas of cloudiness and areas of increased rainfall from tropical convection would decrease. This should be expected to also lead to an increase in outgoing radiation and a slight cooling of the Earth-atmosphere system.
Satellite and balloon observations. During the past 20 to 40 years, satellite and balloon observations of temperatures in the troposphere do not show a significant increase, as was predicted by the Global Computer Model scenarios. Analyses of global tropospheric temperature trends, from satellites since 1979 and from weather balloons since 1958, show no significant warming trends. These measurements do not agree with most of the general climate model results, which predict that a global warming of 0.3 to 0.5 degree Celsius should have resulted from the increased greenhouse gas concentrations since the late 1950s. Modelers have speculated that these recent differences between observation and Global Computer Model temperature predictions have been caused by industrial aerosols, such as sulfates, emitted in the Northern Hemisphere. These aerosols were not incorporated into the earlier simulations. The aerosols, however, cannot explain all such predicted and observed temperature differences. It is likely that the failure to deal properly with water vapor feedback—not the lack of incorporation of sulfates—is the primary cause of these observed-versus-model forecast discrepancies.
Devil in the Details
General-circulation models contain other flaws. For example, they aren't very good at modeling details of the distribution of water vapor in space and time. They also do not adequately simulate the diurnal variation of air masses that rise and fall with daily temperature fluctuations.
About half of the global rainfall at any time occurs in concentrated areas of but a few kilometers wide and over time periods of less than an hour. These heavy rainfall areas in aggregate cover only about 0.25 to 1 percent of the Earth's surface but can have significant effects on the hydrologic cycle. The grid scales of Global Computer Model simulations are much larger than the size of the individual heavy rainfall events. There is no hope of directly modeling such heavy rainfall concentrations. Yet, to properly model the influence of the hydrologic cycle, the effects of these small, horizontal scale, heavy rainfall features with their strong downdraft drying influences must be realistically accommodated.
This need for including accurate small-grid-scale convection parameters appears to be a fundamental modeling deficiency. This has led to the need to parameterize these small and intense cumulus events in terms of the larger scales of motion. Many modelers are unfamiliar with the complicated and detailed functioning of the hydrologic cycle, and they consequently have not been able to realistically incorporate these processes into their global model simulations. Modelers have tended to avoid facing up to this difficult task of coming to grips with the problems of realistic simulation of the hydrologic cycle. This has been a big factor in their generation of unrealistic warming scenarios. Faulty understanding and poor resolution of these sub-grid scale convective events, which are then integrated hundreds of thousands of time steps into the future guarantee unrealistic simulations and a lack of confidence in the results.
Though we should continue research into global warming, we should not implement global fossil-fuel restrictions on the basis of what we know now. General-circulation model simulations by large government laboratories, on which most of the global warming scenarios are based, thus have basic flaws. If the models can't skillfully predict next fall's or next winter's temperature trends, or even make accurate hindcasts of last fall's or last winter's temperature, why should we trust them to make accurate predictions 50 to 100 years down the road?
Hydrologic Thermostat
The long-term stability of global temperature—despite variations of ice ages, vegetation, and ocean currents, to name a few—requires that the Earth's system has built-in regulating mechanisms. The hydrologic cycle appears to be one of these regulatory mechanisms. When the Earth's surface experiences an anomalous gain of energy, it responds by balancing much of this excess energy through enhanced evaporation and a stronger hydrologic cycle of more concentrated rainfall. Increased rainfall leads to a small decrease in atmospheric water vapor and cirrus cloudiness. This causes an enhancement of net outgoing long-wave radiation. Such changes act to balance out most of such anomalous energy gain.
By contrast, when the Earth's surface cools, as it did during the ice ages, the hydrologic cycle weakens. Decreased rainfall and increased upper-level water-vapor changes act to balance the energy deficit by suppressing some of the radiation energy lost to space. These balancing hydrologic cycle changes allow the Earth to oppose and help accommodate externally and internally forced energy differences. Such negative feedbacks are an important process that keeps the global surface energy budget in a general balance despite positive or negative forces that would drive it out of balance. The hydrologic cycle itself acts as one of these ameliorating feedback mechanisms.
We conclude ... that global warming from a doubling of greenhouse gases will actually be quite modest. It is not possible at present to make a precise quantitative assessment of just how much atmospheric water vapor and cirrus cloudiness will change if human-induced greenhouse gases double. But we can say that they will be different than the changes occurring in the current simulations. We conclude, therefore, that global warming from a doubling of greenhouse gases will actually be quite modest....
Exaggerations
Unfortunately, there has not yet been an open and objective scientific dialogue on this topic. The human-induced global warming scenarios that have been so much in the headlines since the hot summer of 1988 have been grossly exaggerated by a broad spectrum of scientists who, although competent in their own specialties, know little about the processes of the hydrologic cycle and how the global atmosphere and oceans really function.
Many of my more experienced colleagues and I have invested decades of our lives in the study of how the atmosphere functions. We have been appalled by the many alarmist statements issued by high-ranking government officials, particularly during the Clinton administration, and by prominent scientists who have so little real understanding of climate change. Their views have been shaped by selective sources, in particular the environmental and large Global Computer Model groups who have a vested interest in promoting the warming threat.
Global temperatures have always fluctuated back and forth and will continue to do so regardless of the amount of human-induced greenhouse gases that are released into the atmosphere. Although initially generated by honest questions of how human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has now taken on a life of its own that has been grossly exaggerated by those hoping to exploit the ignorance of the general public on climate matters. These include groups in our federal government, the media, and scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government research grants for global warming studies.
Humans Cannot Prevent Climate Change
Those who stress the importance of human-induced global warming are irresponsible to interpret nearly every instance of unusual weather as likely evidence of a human impact. It is surprising that more atmospheric scientists have not spoken out about the reliability of the Global Computer Model simulations and their overly simplified arguments. Our government, the media, and many nonclimate-trained scientists have been irresponsible to suggest that so many of the extreme weather events in recent years likely have a human-induced greenhouse gas component. Extreme weather events occurred even before humans began emitting tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.With all the human problems facing the world—such as poverty, famine, disease, overpopulation, terrorism, crime, drugs, and AIDS—it is irresponsible to imply that human-induced global warming is one of the major threats facing mankind.
There is little or nothing humans can do to prevent natural climate change; we must adapt to any future climate changes. Restricting human-induced greenhouse gas emissions now, on the basis of their assumed influence on global warming, is not a viable economic option, even if it were politically possible. I am convinced that in 15 to 20 years, we will look back on this period of global warming hysteria as we now look back on so many other popular, and trendy, scientific ideas—such as the generally accepted eugenics theories of the 1920s and 1930s that have now been discredited. I agree with a statement made in June 2001 by Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that "Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. ... It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions."
This is a fairly recent article published in 2006 regarding the atmospheric/weather scientist point of view.
--------------------------------------------------
Global Warming Is Not Caused by Human Activities
Table of Contents: Further Readings
About the author: William M. Gray is a professor at Colorado State University in the Department of Atmospheric Science.
By the end of the 21st century the concentration of greenhouse gases from human activity in Earth's atmosphere is expected to double from preindustrial values. Many believe this increase will cause a 2 to 5 degree Celsius (3.6 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in Earth's temperature. These projections are based largely on government-sponsored U.S. and foreign Global Computer Model simulations.
These computer models use a number of complicated mathematical formulas to simulate the physical processes of the atmosphere and ocean circulation. They forecast future changes in the atmosphere and ocean by simultaneously solving an array of equations that are envisaged to represent the real physical processes of the Earth's climate system. There is some imprecision in the accuracy of these equations with regard to their ability to represent the real atmosphere. Time steps vary from about 15 minutes to an hour or so. They integrate this set of simultaneous equations for hundreds of thousands of time steps into the future. Separate calculations are made, which include and exclude the human-induced greenhouse gas inputs of carbon dioxide and methane. Though these models have become more sophisticated over the past few decades, the methodology appears to be compromised by two basic flaws.
Flawed Models
First, the models assume that more rainfall, resulting from the buildup of greenhouse gases, will lead to significant increases in atmospheric water vapor, especially in the upper atmosphere, and in cirrus cloudiness. These increases are presumed to significantly reduce the radiation energy sent back to space. To compensate for this assumed reduction in outgoing radiation to space, the globe must warm so that it can compensate for this reduced energy flux. Energy to space increases with global temperature. Observations and theoretical analysis by myself and others, however, suggest that reductions in outgoing radiation, due to increases in global rainfall, will be very small, and will not cause significant global warming.
A second flaw in the Global Computer Model simulations is their inability to make realistic simulations of ocean circulation processes many decades into the future. Since about 70 percent of the atmosphere is in contact with the ocean surface, ocean circulation patterns are fundamental to climate variability.
Water Vapor
The primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, by far, is water vapor. It is the influence of the human-caused greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, on water vapor that is most in question. If the addition of human-induced greenhouse gases leads to an enhancement of water vapor's dominant influence (a positive feedback), then humans will, indeed, be responsible for significant warming. But it is more likely that the human-induced gases will act as a modulator (negative feedback) of water vapor's influence. If the human-induced greenhouse gases will act to slightly reduce water vapor's influence as a greenhouse gas, then little global warming will result.
Most researchers agree that the Earth will rid itself of most of the positive energy gains from human-induced greenhouse gas by developing extra surface evaporation and compensating extra global rainfall, which has a cooling effect on the Earth's surface. The key question is how the atmosphere will respond to this expected increase in global evaporation rainfall. Will the expected increase in human-induced greenhouse gases cause a positive, a neutral, or a negative trend in net global outgoing radiation? The Global Computer Models are programmed to give large—and apparently unrealistic—reductions in outgoing radiation to space as global rainfall increases.
The runaway global warming scenarios predicted by current Global Computer Model technology grossly overestimate the actual threat. As more-realistic computer simulations become available in the future, I believe we will learn that the runaway global warming scenarios predicted by current Global Computer Model technology grossly overestimate the actual threat, and that the small surface warming trends observed in global surface temperature during the last 25 to 100 years, which have been so highly touted in the press, are primarily of natural origin and not due to human influences. And, of course, we can do little or nothing about natural climate change.
Give Me Feedback
Most geophysical systems react to forced imbalances by developing reactions that oppose and weaken the initial imbalance; hence, there is a negative feedback response. Recent global scenarios spawned by Global Computer Model climate simulations, however, hypothesize a large positive feedback effect. Thus, projected human-induced greenhouse gas increases have been programmed into these models as a strong enhancing mechanism for global warming beyond what would be accomplished by anthropogenic gases themselves. Specifically, these models have built-in assumptions that, as human-induced greenhouse gases increase, water vapor and cloud concentrations in the upper atmosphere will increase, causing a significant amount of extra outgoing radiation, which would normally be emitted to space, to be trapped within the atmosphere, thus, resulting in additional warming.
The Global Computer Model simulations have been programmed to give a reduction in global outgoing long-wave radiation energy to space that is five to 10 times greater than the reductions that would occur from the human-induced greenhouse gas increases alone. That is why most of these Global Computer Models develop a 2-to-5-degree Celsius global warming, for a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases. Such large, assumed positive, human-induced greenhouse gas feedbacks are unrealistic and atypical of how most geophysical systems function.
A doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases will bring about only minor amounts of global warming. Instead, if atmospheric upper-level water vapor and cirrus cloudiness were constant, or were slightly reduced—for a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases—only a small global warming of less than 0.2 to 0.3 degrees Celsius would occur. A doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases will bring about only minor amounts of global warming, and global agreements, such as the Kyoto Treaty, to reduce such gases would have little effect and would not be economically justified.
Global Rainfall
A doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases will likely cause only a small ... temperature increase of less than 0.3 [degrees] Celsius. Most researchers agree that increased amounts of greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in global rainfall. It is unlikely, however, that this expected increase in global rainfall will bring about a large positive increase in the reduction of radiation energy to space, despite what the Global Computer Models suggest. Rather, increases in human-induced greenhouse gases will more likely bring about a weak negative, or at best neutral, response with regard to changes in upper level water vapor and cirrus cloudiness. This would lead to a weak negative, not a positive response, of upper level water vapor and cirrus to global rainfall increase. This negative feedback influence would lead to a small increase, not a decrease, of net radiation energy to space. Such a negative response would cancel most of the greenhouse gas warming anticipated by the much touted Global Computer Model simulations. A doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases will likely cause only a small positive global surface temperature increase of less than 0.3 [degrees] Celsius.
I do not believe that the Global Computer Model computer warming scenarios are a realistic response to a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases (most give roughly similar warming values). It is more likely that this gas doubling, and a consequent 3-to-4 percent increase in global rainfall, will lead to only a small increase—not a decrease—in net radiation loss to space. Such a response should bring about only negligible increases in global surface temperature.
Evidence
Various observational and theoretical speculations suggest that the enhancement of global precipitation, in response to human-induced greenhouse gas increases, will not cause a significant decrease in the net outgoing radiation to space. This evidence includes:
Diurnal variations. Any changes in the global hydrological cycle, including diurnal rainfall, temperature, and vertical motion changes, affect the amount of atmospheric water vapor and cirrus clouds and, ultimately, the amount of outgoing radiation to space. By studying the diurnal variation of cumulus convection over the tropical oceans, we find twice as much deep convection and heavy rainfall in the morning as in the late afternoon and evening. Rainfall is heaviest during the early-morning hours. It is at this time that outgoing long-wave radiation to space is the greatest. There is, thus, not a direct (but an inverse) relationship between heavy rainfall and radiation loss to space.
Hurricanes and typhoons. Hurricanes and typhoons, and their environments from their centers out to 1,000 km, typically have more net rainfall per unit area than the nonstorm regions, but also have more radiation loss to space than do nonstorm areas. This is also indicative of an inverse rainfall-radiation loss response.
Upper level water vapor. Tropical west Pacific Ocean surface temperatures have increased between 1975 and 2000 as overall sea surface temperature values in this region increased. But upper level water vapor content did not increase. This trend indicates that surface warming over the tropical oceans is linked more to upper level drying than to upper level moistening. Such upper drying leads to larger outgoing radiation to space.
Sea surface temperature. Were oceanic surface temperature to rise, the areas of cloudiness and areas of increased rainfall from tropical convection would decrease. This should be expected to also lead to an increase in outgoing radiation and a slight cooling of the Earth-atmosphere system.
Satellite and balloon observations. During the past 20 to 40 years, satellite and balloon observations of temperatures in the troposphere do not show a significant increase, as was predicted by the Global Computer Model scenarios. Analyses of global tropospheric temperature trends, from satellites since 1979 and from weather balloons since 1958, show no significant warming trends. These measurements do not agree with most of the general climate model results, which predict that a global warming of 0.3 to 0.5 degree Celsius should have resulted from the increased greenhouse gas concentrations since the late 1950s. Modelers have speculated that these recent differences between observation and Global Computer Model temperature predictions have been caused by industrial aerosols, such as sulfates, emitted in the Northern Hemisphere. These aerosols were not incorporated into the earlier simulations. The aerosols, however, cannot explain all such predicted and observed temperature differences. It is likely that the failure to deal properly with water vapor feedback—not the lack of incorporation of sulfates—is the primary cause of these observed-versus-model forecast discrepancies.
Devil in the Details
General-circulation models contain other flaws. For example, they aren't very good at modeling details of the distribution of water vapor in space and time. They also do not adequately simulate the diurnal variation of air masses that rise and fall with daily temperature fluctuations.
About half of the global rainfall at any time occurs in concentrated areas of but a few kilometers wide and over time periods of less than an hour. These heavy rainfall areas in aggregate cover only about 0.25 to 1 percent of the Earth's surface but can have significant effects on the hydrologic cycle. The grid scales of Global Computer Model simulations are much larger than the size of the individual heavy rainfall events. There is no hope of directly modeling such heavy rainfall concentrations. Yet, to properly model the influence of the hydrologic cycle, the effects of these small, horizontal scale, heavy rainfall features with their strong downdraft drying influences must be realistically accommodated.
This need for including accurate small-grid-scale convection parameters appears to be a fundamental modeling deficiency. This has led to the need to parameterize these small and intense cumulus events in terms of the larger scales of motion. Many modelers are unfamiliar with the complicated and detailed functioning of the hydrologic cycle, and they consequently have not been able to realistically incorporate these processes into their global model simulations. Modelers have tended to avoid facing up to this difficult task of coming to grips with the problems of realistic simulation of the hydrologic cycle. This has been a big factor in their generation of unrealistic warming scenarios. Faulty understanding and poor resolution of these sub-grid scale convective events, which are then integrated hundreds of thousands of time steps into the future guarantee unrealistic simulations and a lack of confidence in the results.
Though we should continue research into global warming, we should not implement global fossil-fuel restrictions on the basis of what we know now. General-circulation model simulations by large government laboratories, on which most of the global warming scenarios are based, thus have basic flaws. If the models can't skillfully predict next fall's or next winter's temperature trends, or even make accurate hindcasts of last fall's or last winter's temperature, why should we trust them to make accurate predictions 50 to 100 years down the road?
Hydrologic Thermostat
The long-term stability of global temperature—despite variations of ice ages, vegetation, and ocean currents, to name a few—requires that the Earth's system has built-in regulating mechanisms. The hydrologic cycle appears to be one of these regulatory mechanisms. When the Earth's surface experiences an anomalous gain of energy, it responds by balancing much of this excess energy through enhanced evaporation and a stronger hydrologic cycle of more concentrated rainfall. Increased rainfall leads to a small decrease in atmospheric water vapor and cirrus cloudiness. This causes an enhancement of net outgoing long-wave radiation. Such changes act to balance out most of such anomalous energy gain.
By contrast, when the Earth's surface cools, as it did during the ice ages, the hydrologic cycle weakens. Decreased rainfall and increased upper-level water-vapor changes act to balance the energy deficit by suppressing some of the radiation energy lost to space. These balancing hydrologic cycle changes allow the Earth to oppose and help accommodate externally and internally forced energy differences. Such negative feedbacks are an important process that keeps the global surface energy budget in a general balance despite positive or negative forces that would drive it out of balance. The hydrologic cycle itself acts as one of these ameliorating feedback mechanisms.
We conclude ... that global warming from a doubling of greenhouse gases will actually be quite modest. It is not possible at present to make a precise quantitative assessment of just how much atmospheric water vapor and cirrus cloudiness will change if human-induced greenhouse gases double. But we can say that they will be different than the changes occurring in the current simulations. We conclude, therefore, that global warming from a doubling of greenhouse gases will actually be quite modest....
Exaggerations
Unfortunately, there has not yet been an open and objective scientific dialogue on this topic. The human-induced global warming scenarios that have been so much in the headlines since the hot summer of 1988 have been grossly exaggerated by a broad spectrum of scientists who, although competent in their own specialties, know little about the processes of the hydrologic cycle and how the global atmosphere and oceans really function.
Many of my more experienced colleagues and I have invested decades of our lives in the study of how the atmosphere functions. We have been appalled by the many alarmist statements issued by high-ranking government officials, particularly during the Clinton administration, and by prominent scientists who have so little real understanding of climate change. Their views have been shaped by selective sources, in particular the environmental and large Global Computer Model groups who have a vested interest in promoting the warming threat.
Global temperatures have always fluctuated back and forth and will continue to do so regardless of the amount of human-induced greenhouse gases that are released into the atmosphere. Although initially generated by honest questions of how human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has now taken on a life of its own that has been grossly exaggerated by those hoping to exploit the ignorance of the general public on climate matters. These include groups in our federal government, the media, and scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government research grants for global warming studies.
Humans Cannot Prevent Climate Change
Those who stress the importance of human-induced global warming are irresponsible to interpret nearly every instance of unusual weather as likely evidence of a human impact. It is surprising that more atmospheric scientists have not spoken out about the reliability of the Global Computer Model simulations and their overly simplified arguments. Our government, the media, and many nonclimate-trained scientists have been irresponsible to suggest that so many of the extreme weather events in recent years likely have a human-induced greenhouse gas component. Extreme weather events occurred even before humans began emitting tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.With all the human problems facing the world—such as poverty, famine, disease, overpopulation, terrorism, crime, drugs, and AIDS—it is irresponsible to imply that human-induced global warming is one of the major threats facing mankind.
There is little or nothing humans can do to prevent natural climate change; we must adapt to any future climate changes. Restricting human-induced greenhouse gas emissions now, on the basis of their assumed influence on global warming, is not a viable economic option, even if it were politically possible. I am convinced that in 15 to 20 years, we will look back on this period of global warming hysteria as we now look back on so many other popular, and trendy, scientific ideas—such as the generally accepted eugenics theories of the 1920s and 1930s that have now been discredited. I agree with a statement made in June 2001 by Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that "Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. ... It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions."
