Split from Aug FT meeting: Yet another Global Warming thread

Locked
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Hogeye wrote: ...your appellation "GW deniers" is a strawman - virtually no one denies global warming is occurring.
DAR
How many times has Hogeye made this ridiculous charge? If he would come up with a nice short label for his group of silly bunnies I would gladly use that moniker. He must know his claim is false. Earlier he promoted a quack article that said:

"The planet may be getting hotter, it may be getting colder."

Rather ironic today to find that Tim Ball, the most prominent shining light leader of this "Friends of Science" front group that made the video Hogeye wants to promote, says this:

"And here's the problem I have with the global warming. The focus is on temperature. Okay, fine. And then the focus is only on warming. I think this is the stupidest thing we could be doing. Because the evidence is that we're cooling." Link

If it's true that "virtually no one denies global warming is occurring" why does Hogeye keep promoting prominent quacks that deny global warming is occurring?

Maybe Mr. Ball was holding this chart upside down....

Image
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

Darrel wrote:If he would come up with a nice short label for his group of silly bunnies I would gladly use that moniker. He must know his claim is false. Earlier he promoted a quack article that said: "The planet may be getting hotter, it may be getting colder."
That is hardly a denial. I would suggest the moniker "global warming skeptic," and even then with the understanding that "global warming" is shorthand for: the theory that the average temperature of earth's atmosphere is warming to catastrophic levels, caused by man-made greenhouse gasses.

Darrel, the rest of your post is ad hom. You fallaciously "refute" everything in the documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change" by villifying one guy, a Tim Ball. In fact, no one in the flick denies that climate change is occuring; on the contrary it emphasizes that climate is constantly changing. Tim Ball appears in it momentarily, but says nothing controversial. Probably every scientist in the flick would agree that global temperatures were rising in the late 20th century - even Tim Ball. (The quote you give is almost certainly taken out of context - i.e. the "we" probably refers to e.g. people in Winnipeg.) I've never read even one global warming skeptic who denies that warming occurred in the late 20th century - so get off that strawman! Even if there exists some skeptic somewhere who thinks so, that is not my position nor the position the scientists take in the "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled" documentary.

I have heard many question the accuracy of available temperature data, due to the urban island heat effect and other land use issues, but that's different of course. We skeptics deny that, historically speaking, the recent warming is out of the ordinary - that's all. I.e. It may have been warmer 400 years ago, it was quite possibly warmer at the peak of the MWP 1000 years ago, etc.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Darrel wrote: ...he promoted a quack article that said: "The planet may be getting hotter, it may be getting colder."
That is hardly a denial.
DAR
As covered before, it's a denial of the statement I was referring to, from you, as quoted:

"...virtually no one denies global warming is occurring."
Probably every scientist in the flick would agree that global temperatures were rising in the late 20th century - even Tim Ball.
DAR
Then he shouldn't say: "...the evidence is that we're cooling."
(The quote you give is almost certainly taken out of context - i.e. the "we" probably refers to e.g. people in Winnipeg.)
DAR
That's ridiculous of course. Here's the context:

"And here's the problem I have with the global warming."

Notice he didn't refer to "Winnipeg" warming. He said "global warming."

Quote continues:

"The focus is on temperature. Okay, fine. And then the focus is only on warming. I think this is the stupidest thing we could be doing. Because the evidence is that we're cooling."

...in Winnipeg... LOL.
I've never read even one global warming skeptic who denies that warming occurred in the late 20th century - so get off that strawman!
DAR
I have just given you two incontrovertable examples from people you have cited and promoted.

To say:
"The planet may be getting hotter, it may be getting colder" is to deny global warming is occuring.

To say: "And here's the problem I have with the global warming... the evidence is that we're cooling."

is to deny global warming is occuring. When you get stuck, you pretend like you don't understand plain english. It's ridiculous.
We skeptics deny that, historically speaking, the recent warming is out of the ordinary - that's all.
DAR
Here are some other things that are out of the ordinary:

"The core shows that carbon dioxide was always between 180 parts per million (ppm) and 300 ppm during the 800,000 years. However, now it is 380 ppm. Methane was never higher than 750 parts per billion (ppb) in this timescale, but now it stands at 1,780 ppb.

But the rate of change is even more dramatic, with increases in carbon dioxide never exceeding 30 ppm in 1,000 years -- and yet now carbon dioxide has risen by 30 ppm in the last 17 years." --ibid

D.
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

Come on, Darrel - certainly you know the difference between correllation and causation.
Article> However, existing levels of carbon dioxide and methane are far higher than anything seen during these earlier warm periods, said Eric Wolff of the BAS."

Darrel> Reasonable people read this and see reason for concern.
Such "reasonable" people apparently are taking a (true) correlation and erroneously assuming causation. It is particularly stupid to do so considering that rises in greenhouse gasses temporally follow rises in temperature, i.e. if there is causation, it almost certainly goes the other way! The article (at end of page three in these posts) even gives a possible mechanism for this: "As the Earth warms, greenhouse gases once stuck in the long-frozen soil are bubbling into the atmosphere in much larger amounts than previously anticipated..."

The hypothesized "vicious cycle" in the article seems rather alarmist. I ask the usual question: Why didn't such a vicious cycle occur during the MWP? Any time I hear apocalyptic claims, like Gore's rant that sea levels will rise 20-30 feet in a few years, I ask the same question - why didn't it happen during the WMP? Could it be that we don't understand the climate enough to see all the heat sinks and other equilibriating factors?


Back to Tim Ball: The reason I wrote "virtually no one" is that there are rare exceptions. I repeat: I don't deny the earth has warmed (on the average) in the late 20th century, and no one denies it in the "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled" flick.

Whether Tim Ball ever denied it is an open question, and irrelevant to the points made in "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled." Until I see the context of the quote you gave I don't know if Ball denies it. The quote may have been preceeded by something like: "There are local variations and deviations from average earth temperature. There are stations in Iceland, Greenland, Antarctica, and Canada which report colder temperatures in the late 20th century. As for you folks listening to my lecture here in Winnipeg..." An out of context quote from a known biased web site doesn't convince me. If you want to convince me, get the film where he allegedly said it and quote it in context.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Whether Tim Ball ever denied it is an open question,...
DAR
Again with the pretend inability to understand plain english.
Until I see the context of the quote you gave I don't know if Ball denies it.
DAR
Context was provided.

"And here's the problem I have with the global warming... blah blah blah... the evidence is that we're cooling."
The quote may have been preceeded by something like:
DAR
Even your make believe context wouldn't save the comment. You can't see that?
If you want to convince me,....
DAR
Why would I try to do that? You are not a reasonable person open to changing your mind. My time would be better spent arguing with one of my goats. You are extremely dogmatic and I only post on these topics to learn about these subjects for myself and others.

D.
------------------------
Another example of Ball saying the earth is cooling. From a softball interview with Tim Ball published by a Canadian right-wing front group:

***
Frontier Centre: We are all familiar with the modern theory that the world’s climate is getting warmer. Is it?

Tim Ball: Yes, it warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling.

FC: Could you summarize the evidence that suggests the world is cooling slightly, not warming up?

TB: Yes, since 1940 and from 1940 until 1980, even the surface record shows cooling. The argument is that there has been warming since then but, in fact, almost all of that is due to what is called the “urban heat island” effect – that is, that the weather stations are around the edge of cities and the cities expanded out and distorted the record. When you look at rural stations – if you look at the Antarctic, for example – the South Pole shows cooling since 1957 and the satellite data which has been up since 1978 shows a slight cooling trend as well.

(snip)

DAR
His claims are junk that aren't taken seriously by climate scientists and have been debunked. Ball goes on to say he thinks we should be preparing for this cooling instead of global warming:

"FC: If, as you fear, we are in a cycle of cooling, how catastrophic might the economic consequences be for us?

TB: I don’t like to look at things in terms of catastrophes, that is the thing the global warming people are playing. What we need to do is prepare for that and, unfortunately, we are preparing for warming. It becomes a problem if you haven’t prepared for it. You get sideswiped, and the fact that the federal government has forced all of the government departments into preparing for warming is foolish to me...."

link

DAR
If this Tim Ball, the "Friends of Science" highest flyer, wanted to be taken seriously, he should publish is profound findings in a scientific paper. He doesn't even try. And with good reason. Anybody with a library card can refute his material.

D.

Satellite measurements are red and green:

Image

Maybe Ball is holding his chart upside down again.
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

Okay, your quote from the Frontier Centre interview convinces me that Tim Ball believes/d that the climate is getting cooler.

That doesn't effect the claims in "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled" one bit, nor the claims of most GW skeptics. He is not the main guy in the documentary by any means, and the most controversial comment he makes there is that the Winnipeg airport was 10 degrees warmer than the coldest part of Winnipeg when he last measured it.

Trying to "disprove" all GW skeptics by citing one mistaken person, of course, would be the fallacy of ad hominem, as would be citing sources of funding.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Hogeye wrote: Trying to "disprove" all GW skeptics by citing one mistaken person, of course, would be...
DAR
Wrong. That's why I would never do that, and didn't, of course.

But it is certainly fair game to point out (as has been shown in this thread) that Tim Ball, the leading scientific advisor and biggest mouth piece of your "Friend's of Science," (the folks who made the mild documentary you like), doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground on some very basic issues he pretends to be an expert on.

Funding is fair game as well. As long as they have their facts straight, funding won't matter. But when they are so profoundly and consistently wrong, it makes people wonder. Then they investigate and find out that oil money is secretly paying for the misinformation (as it has for tobacco etc. in the past). It doesn't make the information wrong, but it does provide a little more to the picture.

Another little important bit on Tim Ball:

***
But the most concerning references in the Ottawa Citizen tapes were those that Ball made in the guise of "expert" - of "educated scientist." (He is, in fact, a social scientist whose geography degrees, in Canada at least, were granted by faculties of Arts, not science. He was never granted the distinction of a full professorship; he hasn't published a peer-reviewed paper since 1994; and even when he did publish, none of his four [4] papers specifically addressed the effect of CO2 on climate.) For example, Dr. Ball told the Citizen that climate models do not account for water vapour (the most common greenhouse gas).

Dr. Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, responded in the above-mentioned Globe and Mail article, "That's absurd. They all do." And several scientists from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis confirmed Weaver's statement this week.

So, we have a situation in which the self-described "first climatology PhD in Canada" makes a definitive comment about a scientific issue (that climate models "assume that water vapour is a constant and ingore it") - a comment that is, objectively, at odds with the truth.

There is a word for those who traffic in untruths. It's a rude word with a specific legal meaning, and to use the word, you must be able to prove both that what the speaker said was incorrect and that he knew it was incorrect when he said it. We have no such evidence. And Dr. Ball's determination to remain uninformed on key issues is already well established.

But this is a man who was travelling the country, briefing media, politicians and anyone else who would listen. This is a man who was advertising himself, at every turn, as an expert whose views are, if anything, more reliable than the vast majority of climate scientists in the world. To be out of step on an issue so fundamental, his could only be a wilfull disregard for the truth - a disregard that must reflect on his credibility across the board.

Link
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

Darrel wrote:But it is certainly fair game to point out (as has been shown in this thread) that Tim Ball, the leading scientific advisor and biggest mouth piece of your "Friend's of Science," (the folks who made the mild documentary you like), doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground ...
Tim Ball is one of six scientific advisors to Friends of Science. He is an climatology expert with a minority opinion, not someone who "doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground." Experts often disagree. He (correctly IMO) thinks that the mainstream surface temperature data is inaccurate, and apparently after adjusting it (somehow) for the urban heat island effect concludes (mistakenly IMO) that climate is cooling. His colleagues apparently disagree with him, as this claim is not made in the "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled" documentary; on the contrary they claim a slight warming based on satellite data.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Tim Ball is one of six scientific advisors to Friends of Science.
DAR
He is by far their biggest mouthpiece. His positions and assertions are so consistently ridiculous they are easy to roast. I could provide a long list but even in this thread several have been shown. You went on and on about how the idea that GW skeptics deny warming was a ridiculous strawman, yet now you have had to admit that the main guy with your FOS not only denies global warming, he asserts global cooling.
He is an climatology expert with a minority opinion,...
DAR
Even though his training may be the most specifically in line with climatology of the few "scientific advisors" the FOS has, even his expertise is questionable. And like we see so often with creationists and others who want to be considered legitimate scientists, he lies about his credentials. Consider:

***
Whatever one may feel about Tim Ball's denial of climate change science, newspapers ought to report factual summaries of authors' credentials. Your article by Tim Ball (April 19) notes, apparently as evidence in support of his position, that he "was the first Climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years". Incorrect, on both counts. Dr. Ball received a PhD in Geography in the UK in 1982, on a topic in historical climatology. Canada already had PhDs in climatology, and it is important to recognize them and their research. Examples include Kenneth Hare, a well-respected Professor at McGill, who received his PhD in 1950, also in the UK. Climatologist Andre Robert (PhD from McGill, 1965) conducted research that laid the groundwork in atmospheric models and climate. Timothy Oke, a leader in the study of urban climate, received his PhD from McMaster in 1967. You can find others listed on the website of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, or through Canadian Universities. Next, did Dr. Ball work as a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years? No, according to his own website. And how could he have? He did not even have an entry-level PhD until 1983, that would allow even Assistant Professor status. During much of the 28 years cited, he was a junior Lecturer or Instructor who rarely published, and then spent 8 years as Professor (of Geography, not of Climatology). Ignoring the adjustments to his CV for the moment, does his work show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere? No, and the few papers he has published concern other matters. There are great gains to be made in science from conjectures and refutations, but sometimes denial is nothing more than denial.

Dan Johnson, PhD
Professor of Environmental Science
Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Grassland Ecosystems
Department of Geography
University of Lethbridge

It's easy to check that Ball was not the first Climatology PhD and that he wasn't a Climatology Professor for 28 years. I thought that maybe the paper had edited down his biography and mangled it, but in this later article he puts it in his own words and further embellishes his qualifications:

"I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg."

Gee, now he's saying he was a Professor for 32 years and he's claiming to be a Doctor of Science, a much more prestigious qualification that the one he holds.

Link

not someone who "doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground."
DAR
I would add that people that don't know that Tim Ball doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, also don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. Another example. I have already shared this important link showing his wilful disregard for truth.

He... concludes (mistakenly IMO) that climate is cooling.
DAR
Actually he has changed his mind now.

***
Tim Ball's Personal Climate Campaign Continues
Submitted by Richard Littlemore on Thu, 06/15/2006 - 14:29.

The "Friends of Science" climate campaigner Dr. Tim Ball embarrasses himself today in the National Post with an article praising the prospect of global warming. Ball has been on a privately funded, cross-country tour arguing that climate change is either not occurring or occurring regardless of the activities of humankind. Now, apparently because he used to live in a town with a chilly winter (Winnipeg), he acknowledges that warming is happening and suggests its a good thing.

Ball talks about warmer summers, without mentioning longer droughts. He talks about longer growing season without mentioning the increasing frequency of devastating floods. (It's one of the unpleasant perversities of climate change that you increase the risks of getting both floods AND droughts, often in the same year.) Dr. Ball talks about "reduced fuel bills for travel" without mentioning that dangerous weather events might be making the old Caribbean holiday destinations too dangerous to visit.

It is clear, once again, that Ball doesn't really care what he has to say. He doesn't care whether it's true (see his quotes on CO2 corelations with temperature in this post). He doesn't care if it's sensible. He doesn't appear to care that climate change poses serious threats to billions of people, as long as his friends in Winnipeg can sow more plant varieties in their gardens.

All he appears to care about is undermining any social or political support for action on climate change. It makes us wonder, once again: Who's paying your bills, doc?

link
***

The question is rhetorical, we know who is paying his bills even though he pretends he doesn't.

More:

***
Ball's Warmer Canada Will Be Part of "A Different Planet"

Submitted by Ross Gelbspan on Thu, 06/15/2006 - 13:28.

A recent piece by Skeptic Tim Ball in the Financial Post argues a warming climate will bring all kinds of advantanges to Canada in the form of lower heating costs, increased Arctic Ocean shipping and reduced construction costs. What Ball doesn't tell us is that Canada will also be unrecognizeable. As NASA scientist James Hansen emphasized recently: "Further warming of more than one degree Celsius will make the Earth warmer than it has been in a million years...That implies practically a different planet." Or as the chair of the IPCC noted, humanity has about a decade to make very deep cuts in its carbon fuel use "if humanity is to survive." Or as famed British Ecologist James Lovelock declared recently, we may have already passed "a point of no return" in terms of staving off climate chaos.
Ball's thinking mimics that of the Hudson Institute which recently declared that the shrinkage and disappearance of glaciers around the world is due to changes in the intensity of the sun.

What these characters don't bother to tell you is that more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries, long ago determined that greenhouse warming had overwhelmed the warming from solar variations. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2001: mankind is responsible for global warming through its burning of coal and oil rather than changes brought by the sun or other natural factors. Said then IPCC chairman Robert Watson: "We see changes in climate, we believe we humans are involved, and we're projecting future climate changes much more significant over the next 100 years than the last 100 years."

That includes practically a different Canada as well.

link
***

DAR
I am starting to agree with this persons comments:

"In time, I think that climate change deniers like Ball will be recognized as worse than Holocaust deniers. Holocaust deniers don't actually make a difference to the unfolding of historical events; the Holocaust already happened

But climate change is happening now; and our actions today have a future impact on the climate. By subverting action Ball is worse than a Holocaust denier. He is a climate change denier and enabler."

And a little more Ball roast:

"Man, this is why reporters that don't have a science background should be very careful how they report on scientific stuff. A lot of reporters simply aren't equipped to handle even the most obvious frauds. And this guy (Tim Ball) was just that, an OBVIOUS fraud. I *scanned* not listened *scanned* this interview and found 32 factual errors. That's 32 things that are completely wrong and can be proved wrong." --Ibid

D.
------------------------
The 20 hottest years on record:

Image
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

DAR
GW skeptics often appeal to sun spots and variance in output as a cause of global warming.

I found this link on this fellows website:

http://people.uleth.ca/~dan.johnson/

He is Dan Johnson, the fellow I quoted in the letter above. He sent the freethinkers an email yesterday. Perhaps he googled something in the letter? Isn't the internet amazing....

D.

***
Study acquits sun of climate change

POSTED: 1539 GMT (2339 HKT), September 15, 2006

OSLO, Norway (Reuters) -- The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study showed on Wednesday.

Researchers from Germany, Switzerland and the United States found that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 percent over 11-year sunspot cycles, far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

"Our results imply that over the past century climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the sun's brightness," said Tom Wigley of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Most experts say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the main cause of a 0.6 Celsius (1.1 Fahrenheit) rise in temperatures over the past century.

A dwindling group of scientists says that the dominant cause of warming is a natural variation in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.

"The solar contribution to warming over the past 30 years is negligible," the researchers wrote in the journal Nature of evidence about the sun from satellite observations since 1978.

They also found little sign of solar warming or cooling when they checked telescope observations of sunspots against temperature records going back to the 17th century.

They then checked more ancient evidence of rare isotopes and temperatures trapped in sea sediments and Greenland and Antarctic ice and also found no dramatic shifts in solar energy output for at least the past millennium.

"This basically rules out the sun as the cause of global warming," Henk Spruit, a co-author of the report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, told Reuters.

Many scientists say greenhouse gases might push up world temperatures by perhaps another 3 Celsius by 2100, causing more droughts, floods, disease and rising global sea levels.

Spruit said a "Little Ice Age" around the 17th century, when London's Thames River froze, seemed limited mainly to western Europe and so was not a planet-wide cooling that might have implied a dimmer sun.

And global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.

"Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial or even million-year timescales," the report said.

Solar activity is now around a low on the 11-year cycle after a 2000 peak, when bright spots called faculae emit more heat and outweigh the heat-plugging effect of dark sunspots. Both faculae and dark sunspots are most common at the peaks.

Still, the report also said there could be other, more subtle solar effects on the climate, such as from cosmic rays or ultraviolet radiation. It said they would be hard to detect.
***

CNN
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

DAR
Watch for Bush to do a U-turn on global warming in the next days and months. You can read about it here Bush 'prepares emissions U-turn.

This is good too. A lot more high level global warming skeptics jumping ship:

***
Inconvenient truths (for Al Gore and the rest of the planet)

Suddenly global warming has come in from the cold. A potent combination of startling natural events, growing public pressure, and pioneering political commitments has brought it storming up the agenda.

Even many of the previously sceptical are now convinced. For example, who would have thought the leader of the Conservative Party would become Britain's most potent champion of radical action to combat climate change, or that he would share platforms with the leader of Friends of the Earth?

And who would have imagined Arnold Schwarzenegger - famous as for his devotion to the Humvee, the greatest of the gas guzzlers - would defy his party, as Governor of California, to drive through the world's most ambitious programme for cutting the pollution that causes global warming?

And as we report (right), even the "Toxic Texan" himself - President George W Bush, who set out to kill the Kyoto Protocol and all international attempts to tackle the problem - is laying the ground for a U-turn.

These dramatic changes of heart are not happening among scientists. There has long been more unanimity in the scientific community about the reality of global warming than over any other environmental issue I have known; a recent survey of 928 scientific papers found not a single one that dissented.

Nor are they occurring in public opinion, which is becoming steadily more convinced, and alarmed - even in the United States. A recent CBS/New York Times poll shows that four in every five Americans (including three out of every five Republicans) believe it is a serious, or very serious, threat - and that three-quarters of Americans (and more than half of Republicans) insist that action must be taken to counter it "right away."

No, it has been the political and media establishments that have lagged behind, both here and in the United States. A survey of US media articles, in contrast with the one on scientific papers, found a majority cast doubt on the reality of global warming. Even here, climate change sceptics are two a penny in Islington, if almost impossible to find in the laboratory.

Though Tony Blair has made much of his praiseworthy achievement in putting the issue at the top of the agenda of last year's G8 summit, emissions of carbon dioxide have actually risen since Labour came to power. But now the born-again conversions are coming faster than at a revivalist rally.

Last week The Economist - bible of businessmen and right-of-centre politicians on both sides of the Atlantic - abandoned years of lordly scepticism to call on President Bush to lead the way in taking action.

And on Friday, Gerard Baker - a columnist on The Times much admired by Rupert Murdoch - confessing his own scepticism, concluded, "the only prudent course is to act now to reduce emissions...". The old man's youngest son, James, chief executive of BSkyB, is already on board, pressing for change like an old green campaigner.

And talking of conversions, how about this? An alliance of US Envangelical Christians - God gave humanity dominion to exploit nature as it wished - is calling for action in climate change as "a moral and spiritual issue". The catalyst for much of this is an unlikely box-office success, with an even less likely star. An Inconvenient Truth, fronted by former vice-president Al Gore, which was released in Britain on Friday, has already become the third most-seen documentary in US film history; it has even overtaken Truth or Dare (aka In Bed With Madonna).

So far, some 2.3 million Americans have gone to see a two-hour illustrated lecture by a man with a reputation as one of the most wooden politicians ever to run for public office.

Most have been blown away. Partly by Gore, who is warm, human, witty, at times moving, and who gives the best explanation of the issue I have seen. Partly by some spectacular photography and some stunning graphics. But mostly by the compelling evidence he presents.

Gore worries why politicians and governments have been so slow. Such was his "faith in the democratic system", he says, that he thought the mere emergence of the facts would be enough to spark a "sea-change in Congress.

He comes to a somewhat charitable conclusion: "If an issue is not on the tip of their constituents' tongues it is easy for them to ignore it". But there is a hole at heart of the argument, a huge opportunity missed, for Gore tells us nothing of his failure when he himself was in power.

He tells us how he was one of the first people to become concerned about global warming, as a university student taught by one of the scientists who first identified what was happening. And he recounts how he held Congressional hearings on the issue and ran for President partly to highlight it.

But he glosses over his own time in office, when he was put in charge of environmental policy by President Clinton. Even then, the US dragged its feet in the climate negotiations. Worse, its carbon dioxide emissions shot up far faster than at any time in modern history - by 15 per cent, compared to just 1.65 per cent during the Toxic Texan's first term.

If Gore had stuck to his principles, however, he would almost certainly now have been President; Ralph Nader would not - and could not - have run against him on a green ticket, so denying him Florida.

His friends say that he has figured this out, and he has certainly worked his penance - trudging round the country to give the lecture now featured in the film at least a thousand times.

But it is important that he comes clean. Not just for the cause of truth he espouses, but because a new generation of politicians - including David Cameron - are making the issue their own. Who better to teach them about the difficulties they may face in office, and about the costs - both to themselves and the world - of failing to implement their beliefs?

More...
Barbara Fitzpatrick
Posts: 2232
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0

Post by Barbara Fitzpatrick »

Actually, Gore does talk about what happened while he was "in power" (in the book, anyway) and it was mostly a Republican congress - he and Clinton both used what political capital they had on things they could actually get done. Kyoto for example - when they "polled" the Senate, they had one (1) vote. Did he help negotiate that treaty - yes. Did he waste time and energy trying to get it through that Senate - no. Nadar got away with saying what he did because he knew the MSM (inventors of the "wooden" Al Gore image) wouldn't contradict him. Gore actually didn't need Florida - he was short 1 electoral vote. If the thousands of "spoiled" votes thrown out in TN or AR had actually been counted, or if either state used the more democratic "proportional" rule rather than the "winner take all" system, the Supreme Court ruling would have been moot (and, in fact, they probably wouldn't have bothered to rule that way). Most of the stuff they did accomplish was either reversed by W as soon as he got in office or so hidden from public view that nobody knew Clinton-Gore were responsible for it (like the hybrid engines - R&D was done by DOE under a Clinton-Gore agreement with the auto manufacturers to sell the products or the "golden carrot" award for energy efficent refrigerators). You didn't and don't hear much about the "million solar roofs" program, nor the "green" building program for federal buildings, nor the 10% by 2010 wind generation program. The only way I know about them is they showed up in places I periodically check on, like the American Wind Association website.
Barbara Fitzpatrick
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

The Royal Society steps forward to out these dishonest dirtbags. Good for them. Bold mine:

Image

***
Royal Society Tells Exxon: Stop Funding Climate Change Denial
By David Adam
The Guardian UK

Wednesday 20 September 2006

Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.

In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence."

The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading."

In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.

These include the International Policy Network, a thinktank with its HQ in London, and the George C Marshall Institute, which is based in Washington DC. In 2004, the institute jointly published a report with the UK group the Scientific Alliance which claimed that global temperature rises were not related to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

"There is not a robust scientific basis for drawing definitive and objective conclusions about the effect of human influence on future climate," it said.

In the letter, Bob Ward of the Royal Society writes: "At our meeting in July ... you indicated that ExxonMobil would not be providing any further funding to these organisations. I would be grateful if you could let me know when ExxonMobil plans to carry out this pledge."

The letter, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, adds: "I would be grateful if you could let me know which organisations in the UK and other European countries have been receiving funding so that I can work out which of these have been similarly providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public."

This is the first time the society has written to a company to challenge its activities. The move reflects mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that emissions are linked to climate change.

The groups, such as the US Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), whose senior figures have described global warming as a myth, are expected to launch a renewed campaign ahead of a major new climate change report. The CEI responded to the recent release of Al Gore's climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, with adverts that welcomed increased carbon dioxide pollution.

The latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due to be published in February, is expected to say that climate change could drive the Earth's temperatures higher than previously predicted.

Mr Ward said: "It is now more crucial than ever that we have a debate which is properly informed by the science. For people to be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't have people trying to undermine it."

The Royal Society letter also takes issue with ExxonMobil's own presentation of climate science. It strongly criticises the company's "corporate citizenship reports", which claim that "gaps in the scientific basis" make it very difficult to blame climate change on human activity. The letter says: "These statements are not consistent with the scientific literature. It is very difficult to reconcile the misrepresentations of climate change science in these documents with ExxonMobil's claim to be an industry leader."

Environmentalists regard ExxonMobil as one of the least progressive oil companies because, unlike competitors such as BP and Shell, it has not invested heavily in alternative energy sources.

ExxonMobil said: "We can confirm that recently we received a letter from the Royal Society on the topic of climate change. Amongst other topics our Tomorrow's Energy and Corporate Citizenship reports explain our views openly and honestly on climate change. We would refute any suggestion that our reports are inaccurate or misleading." A spokesman added that ExxonMobil stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute this year.

Recent research has made scientists more confident that recent warming is man-made, a finding endorsed by scientific academies across the world, including in the US, China and Brazil.

The Royal Society's move emerged as Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, warned that the polar ice caps were breaking up at a faster rate than glaciologists thought possible, with profound consequences for global sea levels. Professor Rapley said the change was almost certainly down to global warming. "It's like opening a window and seeing what's going on and the message is that it's worse than we thought," he said.
***

link
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Gore training 1,000 volunteers to spread global warming message

The Associated Press

Published: September 21, 2006
NASHVILLE, Tennessee Former Vice President Al Gore, the star of a documentary derived from his slide show on global warming, is about to begin training 1,000 "Climate Project" volunteers to help spread his environmental message around the globe.

Gore has been promoting his documentary and book "An Inconvenient Truth" and encouraging volunteers to apply for his training sessions to learn how to give a shorter version of his PowerPoint-style presentations.

Several thousand have already applied to be among the 1,000 volunteers Gore expects to train within the next six months, said spokeswoman Kalee Kreider. The first session with about 50 volunteers begins this weekend in Nashville, Gore's hometown.

...

Gore plans to participate in the instruction at the sessions but will also have scientists and other experts help train the activists, Kreider said. There are no plans to hold any sessions outside Nashville.

Activists will have to pay their own airfare and accommodations, but the training sessions — which are expected to run Sundays through Tuesdays — are free. Scholarships will be available for some participants, Kreider said.

Annapolis, Maryland Mayor Ellen O. Moyer is among the initial group of activists heading to Nashville.

"I'm honored to be a part of this first training program," she told The (Baltimore) Sun. "There comes a point in time when we have to say, 'Enough is enough.'"

link
___

Nifty charts at:

The Climate Project: http://www.theclimateproject.org
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

DAR
Remember all of the noise made about the hockeystick graph and it's (well supported and since vindicated) claim that our temperature is now likely higher than anytime in the last 1,000 years? Now we are quickly approach the next big milestone, a one million year high temp.

***

Global Warming Nears "Dangerous" Level
By Sara Goudarzi
LiveScience.com

Monday 25 September 2006

Researchers say average temperatures are close to a million-year high.

Global temperatures are dangerously close to the highest ever estimated to have occurred in the past million years, scientists reported Monday.

In a study that analyzed temperatures around the globe, researchers found that Earth has been warming rapidly, nearly 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) in the last 30 years.

"The average surface temperature is 15, maybe 16 degrees Celsius (60 degrees Fahrenheit)," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist and climate researcher from Rutgers University who was not involved with the study.

If global temperatures go up another 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C), it would be equal to the maximum temperature of the past million years.

"This evidence implies that we are getting close to dangerous levels of human-made (anthropogenic) pollution," said study leader James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

"A Different Planet ..."

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, human-caused greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the warming of the last 50 years. The gases, released by burning of fossil fuels and land clearing, among other factors, trap heat in the atmosphere and warm Earth's surface.

Further global warming of 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C) defines a critical level, Hanson said. Robock agrees that temperatures are getting up there.

"It's certainly the warmest it's been in the last couple of thousand years," Robock said. "I don't have access to the data about the last million years but it's probably right. I just haven't looked at it in detail."

"During the warmest interglacial periods the Earth was reasonably similar to today. But if further global warming reaches 2 or 3 degrees Celsius, we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know," he said. "The last time it was that warm was in the middle Pliocene, about 3 million years ago, when sea level was estimated to have been about 25 meters [80 feet] higher than today."

The study also notes that global warming is greatest at higher latitudes near the poles. This is because when Earth warms, snow and ice melt, uncovering darker land and ocean surfaces. Instead of the once-white surface that reflected solar rays back into space, the darker surfaces now absorb more energy from the sun.

...

Image

"Data on global land-ocean temperature anomalies indicate that Earth has been warming approximately 0.36 Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) per decade for the past 30 years. This rapid warming has brought global temperature to within about 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C) of the maximum estimated temperature during the past million years."

msnbc

MORE:

Earth Headed for Warmest Temperatures in a Million Years
By Clayton Sandell and Bill Blakemore
ABC News

Monday 25 September 2006

Scientists also rebuke popular author Michael Crichton.

In about 45 years, temperatures on Earth will be hotter than at anytime during the past one million years, says the US government's top climatologist in a new report released today.

According to the report, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the planet is just two degrees shy of an average temperature of 59 degrees Fahrenheit, which is what they believe the temperature was about a million years ago.

NASA's James Hansen, along with colleagues from the University of California and Columbia University, are for the first time, marking a calendar signaling the approach of temperatures that humans have never experienced.

"Humans are now in control of the Earth's climate, for better or worse," Hansen tells ABC News.

Based on a "business as usual" scenario in which greenhouse gasses continue to rise unabated, Hansen says we'll break the million-year-old record in about 45 years. But he stresses we can't wait that long to cut greenhouse gas pollution, because of the decades it takes for the climate system to respond to changes.

"We need to get started now," he says. "We can't wait another decade or two to take this seriously."

Those 2 degrees the scientists are talking about may not sound like much, but what that change means is that by mid-century, the world will experience even more record heat waves, wildfires, more intense storms and flooding.

In other parts of the world, the increase may worsen drought conditions as more mountain glaciers and snow packs vanish, no longer sending water to the valleys below.

And in a highly unusual move for a scientific paper, the authors devote eight paragraphs to systematically deconstructing the assertions of a prominent science fiction novelist. In the non-fiction sections of his 2004 book "State of Fear," best-selling author Michael Crichton wrote that Hansen's climate change calculations were "wrong by 300 percent."

Hansen says Crichton misrepresented his scientific work and, adds the scientist, has done so in testimony before Congress and in a meeting with President Bush - even though he is not a climate expert.

"He is propagating false information to the public," Hansen says.

Crichton, through a publicist, declined ABC News' request for an interview.

Image

ABCnews

Truthout link.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Image
Barbara Fitzpatrick
Posts: 2232
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0

Post by Barbara Fitzpatrick »

The above illustrates why I keep saying breaking up the corporate ownership of the media is "Job One" - when others say campaign finance, or get rid of the neocons, or whatever. As long as our information is restricted to whatever is good for corporate CEOs' income, we are in trouble.
Barbara Fitzpatrick
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

UK has hottest summer in 350 years

Image

***

Exceptionally warm extended summer 2006

16 October 2006

Climate variability scientists at the Met Office have revealed that this year's extended summer period has been the warmest on the long standing Central England Temperature (CET) record.

The record that dates back to 1659 is the longest instrumental temperature record in the world and May to September 2006 has been warmer than any equivalent period since then.

The mean temperature of 16.2 °C for the period was 2 °C warmer than the average for 1961-1990. The previous record of 15.9 °C was set in 1947. The 2006 period included the warmest month ever, July, and a record temperature for September.

In addition to the CET, more detailed statistics for the last 93 years (1914-2006) show that May to September was the warmest for all areas of the country.

The observed Central England temperatures are consistent with recent findings by Prof. David Karoly of the University of Oklahoma and Dr Peter Stott of the Met Office Hadley Centre. Their research showed the recent rapid warming of the CET is almost certainly due to human influence - the first time this has been rigorously identified on such a small geographic scale.

LINK
Barbara Fitzpatrick
Posts: 2232
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0

Post by Barbara Fitzpatrick »

But as long the current government can use Hogeye's hired guns and pseudo-scientists making noise (and the corporate media reporting it as a valid scientific stance), we will do so little as to amount to nothing about it.
Barbara Fitzpatrick
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Image


Cracking up: Ice turning to water, glaciers on the move - and a planet in peril

A new study proves it was global warming that sent an Antarctic ice shelf larger than Luxembourg crashing into the ocean. Geoffrey Lean reports
Published: 22 October 2006

Nothing else quite like it has happened at any time in the past 10,000 years. In just over a month an entire Antarctic ice shelf, bigger than a small country, disintegrated and disappeared, altering world atlases for ever.

A new study shows that the catastrophic collapse of the Larsen B shelf, four and a half years ago, was man-made, not an "act of God". It is thought to have been the first time that a major disaster has been proved to have been caused by global warming.

Research at the blue-chip British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, published last week, has identified the causes of "dramatic warming" of the eastern side of the Antarctic peninsula, where the vast, 3,250 sq km expanse of ice used to be. Gareth Marshall, the lead author of the study, says it marks "the first time that anyone has been able to demonstrate a physical process directly linking the break-up of the Larsen ice shelf to human activity".

The research has also linked the collapse to the hole in the Earth's protective ozone layer that opens up over the Antarctic every southern spring. Nasa scientists reported last week that this year's hole, at a massive 10.6m square miles, is bigger than ever.

It was in March 2002 that the ice shelf - thought to have been stable for thousands of years - suddenly gave way. In just over 30 days an unimaginable 500bn tonnes of ice shattered into tens of thousands of icebergs, drifting in the Weddell Sea. This one event dumped more ice into the Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarctica than all the icebergs of the past 50 years combined.

"This is staggering", said the British Antarctic Survey's Dr David Vaughan at the time. "It fell over like a wall and has broken as if into hundreds of thousands of bricks."

But he added that though man-made climate change was "one of the best candidates" for causing the abrupt break-up of the shelf - some 200 metres thick, and larger than Luxembourg - "I can't, with my hand on my heart, link it to global warming."

And a leading sceptic, Professor Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London, insisted that the collapse was "only to be expected", adding that "simplistic, apocalyptic statements about 'global warming' have more to do with myth than reality."

Last year, however, American research showed that no other collapse of this size has taken place in the past 10,000 years, and it is becoming ever clearer that the Antarctic peninsula, which juts some 800km from the frozen continent towards the tip of Latin America, is heating up faster than anywhere on Earth.

The new study reports that it has warmed by a relatively large 2.94C since 1951, six times higher than the global average.

The scientists say that the main cause of the exceptional rise in temperature has been a strengthening in warm westerly winds blowing on to the peninsula.

This warmth melted ice on the surface, forming pools. This water then trickled down through the ice, widening crevasses as it went, thus fracturing the shelf and setting it up to shatter.

The collapse of Larsen B, and less dramatic disintegration of smaller shelves on the peninsula over the past decade, has led to some ominous knock-on effects. Glaciers which had been held back by them have begun moving up to eight times more rapidly towards the sea.

Scientists report that this is happening to some 200 glaciers on the peninsula, 87 per cent of the total.

Melting glaciers have much greater consequences than disintegrating shelves. Since the shelves float on the sea, they do not raise its level when they disappear, any more than a melting ice-cube increases the level of water in a glass. But the ice from glaciers does, because it comes off the land.

Worse, the British Antarctic Survey has found that the same thing is beginning to happen to the vast west Antarctic ice sheet, which scientists had thought would not be affected for 1,000 years. Some 250 cubic kilometres of it is disappearing every year; Professor Chris Rapley, the survey's director, calls it "an awakened giant".

Already the frozen continent's melting ice is helping to raise sea levels around the world by some 2 millimetres a year, but this is expected to get far, far worse. If the entire west Antarctic sheet were to disintegrate, the waters would rise by six metres around the globe, submerging the world's coastal cities, including much of London.

It is much the same story in the north. The Arctic ice sheet (there are few ice shelves there since these protrude from land, and the North Pole is covered by sea) is shrinking alarmingly.

By last month, it dwindled by an area the size of Turkey over usual September levels, the fifth successive year that it has melted far more than normal. It reached its second- lowest extent ever, after 2005, and scientists believe that it would easily have set a new record if it had not been for an abnormally cool August.

Even so, a giant patch of open water the size of Indiana opened up in the supposedly permanent ice cover north of Alaska. And at one stage the ice north of Spitzebergen fragmented so much that, for the first time, a ship could have sailed unhindered all the way from there to the North Pole.

In all, the United Nations Environment Programme says, the extent of Arctic summer ice has shrunk by a quarter in the past half-century, and has lost almost half its thickness.

The rate of loss is accelerating rapidly. Since 1979 the ice has been diminishing by about 0.15 per cent a year. But in the past two summers this has jumped to 6 per cent.

Some scientists believe we are approaching the point of no return, where the process feeds upon itself. For as the white ice - which reflects heat - melts, it will be replaced by dark water, and this absorbs heat. So the ocean will get even warmer, causing even greater melting, until all the ice is gone.

At the same time, as The Independent on Sunday exclusively reported last year, glaciers in Greenland are melting even faster than in Antarctica.

In the past two years alone, the rate of loss has grown by 250 per cent.

Scientists fear that this too may soon become irreversible, causing the whole Greenland ice cap to disappear, raising sea levels by another seven metres.

The melting ice also sends more fresh water into the North Atlantic, disrupting the huge but delicate system of currents that brings the Gulf Stream to warm Britain and Northern Europe, in winter. Research last year showed that the current, which prevents these places from having the same cold climate as Labrador, has already slowed by 30 per cent.

LINK
Locked