Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

[forrestkc]

So the US emits more CO2 than other nations. Big deal. That's not what causes global warming. The liberals who are using this to get more of our money must think we are totally stupid to fall for this. I have to admit it has the potential to dupe a lot of people, tho. I think some of them actually do believe it.

Ok, Dr. kat8585 PhD in Palio-Climatology and Radiation Physics, what is causing it then?

[kat8585]

So the US emits more CO2 than other nations. Big deal. That's not what causes global warming. The liberals who are using this to get more of our money must think we are totally stupid to fall for this. I have to admit it has the potential to dupe a lot of people, tho. I think some of them actually do believe it.

Ok, Dr. kat8585 PhD in Palio-Climatology and Radiation Physics, what is causing it then?

Natural weather cycles, and activity on the sun.

[forrestkc]

So the US emits more CO2 than other nations. Big deal. That's not what causes global warming. The liberals who are using this to get more of our money must think we are totally stupid to fall for this. I have to admit it has the potential to dupe a lot of people, tho. I think some of them actually do believe it.

Ok, Dr. kat8585 PhD in Palio-Climatology and Radiation Physics, what is causing it then?

Natural weather cycles, and activity on the sun.

Ok, so if it is simply solar activity, then why is the stratosphere cooling? You see that is the problem for the few deniers that are left out there. They claim that the warming is attributed to solar forcing, but they fail to mention that the stratosphere is cooling, and that due to basic radiation physics, makes solar forcing as the primary warming agent to be a physical impossibility.

I addressed this very issue earlier in the thread. This is what I wrote:

If our current warming were primarily a result of increased Solar Activity (solar forcing), then all levels of the atmosphere would be warming. We would be seeing a warming stratosphere, a warming troposphere, and a warming surface. This is because solar forcing would act upon all atmospheric levels.

Now, in contrast, if our current warming is primarily a result og increased Greenhouse Gases, then we would see warming at the surface, a warming troposphere, and a cooling stratosphere. This is because Greenhouse Gases (CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor), prevent less heat from the sun escaping back into space, thus less heat is radiated back into the stratosphere, and thus while the lower atmosphere and surface of the earth warm, that stratosphere cools.

An very exhaustive study on atmospheric temperatures was completed by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. The study is titled, Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences.

This is what they found. The earth's surface is warming, the earth's troposphere is warming, and the stratosphere is cooling. This is completely consistent with Anthropogenic Global Warming. Moreover, a cooling stratosphere makes warming due to solar forcing as a near physical impossibility.

The study is here: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/...ort/default.htm

If you want, you can read more about the physics involved here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=58

[kat8585]

Forrest, looks like we will just have to agree to disagree.

[forrestkc]

Forrest, looks like we will just have to agree to disagree.

Now wait a second. It looks to me like you are just choosing to believe something simply because it fits your worldview. Rather than accepting conclusions based on the evidence presented. To be honest with you, in discussing Global Warming, I wish we could leave all the politics out and just look at the science. The reason why I say this is that just about anyone who actually looks at the scientific case for Anthropogenic Global Warming is going to be convinced.

As it is, you claim its just sun activity, I pointed out that science has addressed that possibility and ruled it out, and it looks to me that you are just basically saying "well I am going to believe it anyway". That is not a very logical position to take you know.

[MeCajunboy]

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that 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 was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.

Canada Free Press

Marnie, don't misunderstand! The public takes information from many scientists and professionals as well, but we should also use our relative common sense! There is nothing wrong with man experimenting with "electrical" vechiles if they are proven to be more efficient and use "cleaner" burning methods. There is very little advantage in forcing the automotive industry into persuing electric avenues since they will have to eventually , totally convert some of their plants to designing and building "electric transportation." Remember, every facet of transportation will be affected eventually. But is is proven to be entirely too expensive to continue our inevitible trek on disaster in utilizing "fossil" fuels. We know what country(ies) is/are holding us captives as we will continue to pay rediculous prices for what has become a necessity in our country. We would be fools not to begin as early as possible to test, experiment and find other avenues and resources. Most will prove to be much cheeper than the present ransom as we are held captives to our foe!

Blessings

Cajunboy

[kat8585]

I'm not adverse to alternative fuel sources, as long as they don't break me. But too, if we could drill in our own country, we wouldn't have to be held captive to our enemies, at least near as much. The only thing standing in our way is liberals.

[forrestkc]

I'm not adverse to alternative fuel sources, as long as they don't break me. But too, if we could drill in our own country, we wouldn't have to be held captive to our enemies, at least near as much. The only thing standing in our way is liberals.

I am sorry but you are mistaken. The United States has less than 5% of the world's oil reserves yet consumes over 30% of the world's oil production. We could tap every drop of oil under American soil and we would hardly make a dent in our oil importation. For example, even if we drilled in ANWR and in 10 years brought that oil to production, even with very high oil prices that would maximize oil production from ANWR, the best most optimistic estimates puts daily oil production peaking at 800,000 barrels a day. That is less than 1% of worldwide daily oil consumption.

The only way for us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to do exactly what the enviros want us to do, and that is to use less of it. Significant increases in CAFE standards would save far more oil than we could ever drill domestically and it is not the liberals who are standing in the way of doing that.

[georgesbluegirl]

I read an article last year about how increased efficiency in engines is being put toward more torque rather than fuel efficiency. Even SUVs can do much better with miles per gallon with minor adjustments, the cost of which would be a very small dent in the profits of the producer. Let's hold our auto companies accountable, shall we?