48 replies to this topic

[Rogerdodger]

Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation — referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument.

[grizzly]

Sorry boys, I’m a working man and can’t sit by the computer and respond immediately to all your propaganda.

It’s funny that you label me as dogmatic. I am just trying to help folks understand reality, and see the truth of global warming. I think you skeptics and disinformation spinners are the ones who are dogmatic. You refuse to open your mind to reality. I don’t see how any reasonable person who goes outside occasionally can fail to see the reality of global warming. Do you guys work for oil or coal companies?

Just tonight I got home from work and the evening news reported that a chunk of ice seven times the size of Manhattan separated from the Antarctic ice sheet. What reason would you give for this? Have those pesky environmental wackos been out there with blow torches, melting the ice? There was also a report tonight on the evening news about shoreline erosion in England causing homes to fall into the sea due to rising sea levels. Were those pesky environmental wackos out at night with shovels undermining the banks upon which these houses lie?

I live in Montana and we have a park here called Glacier National Park. In 25 years there won’t be any glaciers left in this park. Have those pesky environmental wackos and their blowtorches been sneaking into the Part at night and melting glaciers? They have great photographic history showing receding glaciers over more than a hundred years. Go to the Glacier Park website and look at this photographic history.

There is similar photographic history of glaciers receding in Alaska, Europe, South America, Asia, all over the world. Those pesky environmental wackos with their blow torches must really get around. What’s more these glaciers have been receding for well over a hundred years. Those pesky environmental wackos must have inherited the ice melting behavior from their forefathers who started melting ice in the 1800s. Their greatgrandfathers must have used torches instead of blowtorches, however, because I don’t think they had blowtorches a hundred years ago. Do you skeptics think the use of blowtorches by these pesky environmental wackos explains the rapidly accelerating rate of melting of ice around the world?

One of my hobbies is gardening and the growing season around here has expanded by more than a week in the last 50 years. I also do landscaping and we are in a Zone 3-4 area for plants, but now many plants in the Zone 5-6 area for more southern latitudes can be safely grown here. Average March temperatures have increased around here by 5 degrees F in the last 50 years. This means the winter snowpack melts much faster and we have much lower late summer river flows. That screws up the fishing mightily (fishing is another one of my hobbies).

Last summer my daughter and her boyfriend visited us. The boyfriend lives in New York City and is originally from Miami. He had never been out west before. During his visit we had day after day of 100 degree plus hot summer weather. We couldn’t fish the major rivers because they were closed to fishing to protect fish stressed due to high river temperatures caused by low flows and hot days. We breathed terribly smoky air during his visit due to forest fires everywhere around us. My daughter’s boyfriend made an interesting comment before he left that the effects of global warming are so much more evident in Montana than they are in New York City or Miami. That got me to understand maybe one reason why there are skeptics like you fellows around. Maybe you never get outdoors and travel around and observe effects of global warming on natural systems. Maybe you live at very southern latitudes that are already very hot. Effects of global warming are accentuated at higher latitudes.

It is these types of personal observations of climate change where I live that got me to studying climate change more. My science and engineering background perhaps helps me to separate the wheat from the chaff, when I read scientific research. I can’t overemphasize the need to look at peer reviewed research. Perhaps you guys have no science background and don’t understand this. You cannot really refute reality of climate change if have personal observations of climate over time, look at credible data, and have any objectivity. Don’t check Exxon-Mobil or partisan think tank websites for such data. Check NOAA and other credible websites.

Glaciers and arctic and Antarctic ice packs are receding worldwide. Twenty one of the 22 hottest years on record have occurred in the last 26 years. Scientists have studied natural records of climate in tree rings, ice cores from glaciers, and coral reefs, and while they have found some variability in temperature over the last 1,000 years, once the industrial age got under way in the late 19th century there was a dramatic rise in global temperatures not seen in the past 1,000 years! Animals are living at higher elevations than they used to, or higher latitudes. You find robins now all over Canada . I could go on and on about effects of global warming, but I don't think you guys have open minds and/or for whatever reason do not understand these things. So I will not waste my time, and just leave it with we will have to agree to disagree.

Luckily for our future more people recognize the reality of global warming in 2008 than 1998. There will be even more people acknowledging this reality in 2018 and 2028 and 2038. Why? Because it is happening. Frankly, I wish it wasn’t happening. I have nothing to gain from global warming. I just see no point in believing falsehoods. Lets accept reality and confront the problem.

I think the most serious consequence of global warming as it accelerates over this century will not be the environmental, ecological and agricultural impacts, but the social, economic, political and possible military strife that could result as tens of millions of human refugees flee flooded areas, tropical diseases (including malaria) spread, water and food supplies and economies are disrupted, and there is more competition for livable places and scarce resources as supplies are affected by climate change, etc.. It is hard to predict all that could result as ever increasing human populations emit more and more greenhouse gases accelerating rates of global warming.

As noted in earlier messages our military recognizes these threats. http://www.securityandclimate.cna.org/ Our military experts understand that
Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States. Accordingly, it is appropriate to start now to help mitigate the severity of some of these emergent challenges. The decision to act should be made soon in order to plan prudently for the nation’s security. The increasing risks from climate change should be addressed now because they will almost certainly get worse if we delay.

They believe the U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate change at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability. Managing the security impacts of climate change requires two approaches: mitigating the effects we can control and adapting to those we cannot. The U.S. should become a more constructive partner with the international community to help build and execute a plan to prevent destabilizing effects from climate change, including setting targets for long term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Military Conclusion: We will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or, we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.—General Zinni

P.S. I hope I am around in 2030 to visit No Longer Has Glaciers National Park.

[OEXCHAOS]

Grizzly, I see a couple of outright falsehoods in your post. I might also add that current data suggests current cooling, as one would expect given the sunspot activity. If I were you, I'd prepare for a nasty, cold, winter soon. I'm in the camp of skeptic because I know how to smell hooey, and I get a large wiff from the global warming crew. This is not to say that I think there has been no aggregate global warming, nor that there are no man made effects. I'm saying that the hysteria is unfounded and further natural causes dwarf man's input. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing many things to minimize our "carbon footprint", in fact we should for a lot of reasons. Most of them don't relate to any sort of impending global warming "disaster"-- as envisioned by some but which is unsupported by good science or ANY credible model. M

[grizzly]

It is funny that I see the falsehoods and hooey coming from the global warming disinformation crowd. I think you financial folks need to leave your computers, get outside, commmune with nature a little and make some personal observations of the natural world. You may all be good at trading stocks, but do you ever go outside, do you ever study science?

I base my climate change beliefs on personal observations of climate change during my lifetime. I live in a northern area where perhaps global warming is more evident, but I think those that are perceptive and go outside a lot, can't help but see the climatic changes that have occurred over the last 50 years. My personal observations of climate change got me to looking into it more, and the research and studies from government and scientific organizations supports my personal observations, and tells me these climate changes are happening all over the planet.

I don't believe the disinformation spun by oil and coal companies and the partisan think tanks they support. It is unfortunate that this financial site seems to full of the same disinfomation spin meisters. You guys must have given up on trying to convince people that smoking is healthy, and have now moved your disinformation program into trying to deny the reality of global warming. Well good luck with that. Science is against you. Time is against you. Frankly, I wish that wasn't the case, but we get nowhwere denying reality and saying up is down, down is up. Reality will always catch up to you.

I'll be dead in 50-100 years, but I have no doubt that in 50-100 years global warming will be on everyones minds, and you guys will be lumped with the Flat Earth Society. Hell of a legacy you are leaving for your grandchildren

It is hard for me to believe that perceptive people can be oblivious to the changes occurring on the planet on which they reside, especially in the northern latitudes. There is so much data and information supporting global warming. Here is just anoter smidgen from the EPA website.

http://www.epa.gov/c...ange/index.html

Temperatures are changing in the lower atmosphere - from the Earth’s surface all the way through the stratosphere (9-14 miles above the Earth’s surface). Scientists are working to document temperature trends and determine their causes.

Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by between 1.0 and 1.7°F since 1850 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that warming of the climate system is now “unequivocal,” based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (IPCC, 2007).

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 2006 State of the Climate Report and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) 2006 Surface Temperature Analysis:

Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.

The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.32ºF/decade or 3.2°F/century.

The five warmest years over last century have likely been: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006. The top 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1990.
Additionally (from IPCC, 2007):

The warming trend is seen in both daily maximum and minimum temperatures, with minimum temperatures increasing at a faster rate than maximum temperatures.

Land areas have tended to warm faster than ocean areas and the winter months have warmed faster than summer months.

Widespread reductions in the number of days below freezing occurred during the latter half of the 20th century in the United States as well as most land areas of the Northern Hemisphere and areas of the Southern Hemisphere.
Average temperatures in the Arctic have increased at almost twice the global rate in the past 100 years.

United States Surface Temperature Trends

Observations compiled by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center indicate that over the past century, temperatures rose across the contiguous United States at an average rate of 0.11°F per decade (1.1°F per century). Average temperatures rose at an increased rate of 0.56°F per decade from 1979 to 2005. The most recent eight-, nine-, and ten-year periods were the warmest on record.

Warming occurred throughout most of the U.S., with all but three of the eleven climate regions showing an increase of more than 1°F since 1901. The greatest temperature increase occurred in Alaska (3.3°F per century). The Southeast experienced a very slight cooling trend over the entire period (-0.04°F per century), but shows warming since 1979.

The IPCC has concluded that most of the observed warming in global average surface temperature that has occurred since the mid-20th century is very likely a result of human activities (IPCC, 2007). During the first half of the last century, there was likely less human impact on the observed warming, and natural variations, such as changes in the amount of radiation received from the sun, likely played a more significant role.

Tropospheric Temperature Change

Measurements of the Earth’s temperature taken by weather balloons (also known as radiosondes) and satellites from the surface to 5-8 miles into the atmosphere - the layer called the troposphere - also reveal warming trends. According to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center:

For the period 1958-2006, temperatures measured by weather balloons warmed at a rate of 0.22°F per decade near the surface and 0.27°F per decade in the mid-troposphere. The 2006 global mid-troposphere temperatures were 1.01°F above the 1971-2000 average, the third warmest on record.

For the period beginning in 1979, when satellite measurements of troposphere temperatures began, various satellite data sets for the mid-troposphere showed similar rates of warming — ranging from 0.09°F per decade to 0.34°F per decade, depending on the method of analysis.

Stratospheric Temperature Change

Weather balloons and satellites have also taken temperature readings in the stratosphere – the layer 9-14 miles above the Earth’s surface. This level of the atmosphere has cooled. The cooling is consistent with observed stratospheric ozone depletion since ozone is a greenhouse gas and has a warming effect when present. It’s also likely that increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the troposphere are contributing to cooling in the stratosphere as predicted by radiative theory (Karl et al., 2006).

Recent Scientific Developments

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) recently published the report “Product 1.1 Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences,” which addresses some of the long-standing difficulties in understanding changes in atmospheric temperatures and the basic causes of these changes. According to the report:

There is no discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere. This discrepancy had previously been used to challenge the validity of climate models used to detect and attribute the causes of observed climate change.

Errors identified in the satellite data and other temperature observations have been corrected. These and other analyses have increased confidence in the understanding of observed climate changes and their causes.

Research to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of observed temperature change shows clear evidence of human influences on the climate system due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and stratospheric ozone.

An unresolved issue is related to the rates of warming in the tropics. Here, models and theory predict greater warming higher in the atmosphere than at the surface. However, greater warming higher in the atmosphere is not evident in three of the five observational data sets used in the report. Whether this is a result of uncertainties in the observed data, flaws in climate models, or a combination of these is not yet known.

References
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning (eds.)].
National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. Thomas R. Karl, Susan J. Hassol, Christopher D. Miller, and William L. Murray, editors, 2006. A Report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington

[colion]

Grizzly, you just don't get it or are so enraged that you cannot see. Who is disputing that the earth has warmed? Hasn't this simple fact been agreed to by all over and over? Hasn't there been ample discussion in this forum and the scientific literature that sets this in concrete? Who doubts that the earth has warmed, for example, since the little ice age and can point to the simple fact that we are not still frozen over? There is no reason for you to rely on your belief that this has happened. Everybody is on your side but that is not the issue. The key question is how much of the warming is due to human forcings. That's were the rubber meets the road. So far, those who argue that CO2 is the main driving force have produced no evidence to support their position. At best they attempt to fall back on unverified models which are still being tweaked as we speak. You dismiss all results produced with support from anything related to fossil fuels or "partisan think tanks" (as if you don't spout a highly partisan view) but cannot produce a credible argument about the invalidity of the results. That is your privilege but we recognize that this is a typical dodge (conscious or not) used by those who do not have a valid argument. At the same time results produced by government agencies which arguably have a political agenda are blindly accepted. This is the standard illogical smokescreen used by those with political agendas but it does not fly in the scientific community where in the last analysis this subject will be decided. In that sphere, belief, consensus, constant repetition of the "word", etc. play no role.

[stocks]

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.



World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions. Once again, stated intent trumps actual results. Can even the global warming believers possibly believe this treaty has anything to do with it?

http://www.americant...o_schmyoto.html

One of the mysteries of the universe is why President Bush bothers to charge the fixed bayonets of the global warming theocracy. On the other hand, his Administration's supposed "cowboy diplomacy" is succeeding in changing the way the world addresses climate change. Which is to say, he has forced the world to pay at least some attention to reality.

That was the larger meaning of the Group of Eight summit in Japan this week, even if it didn't make the papers. The headline was that the nations pledged to cut global greenhouse emissions by half by 2050. Yet for the first time, the G-8 also agreed that any meaningful climate program would have to involve industrializing nations like China and India. For the first time, too, the G-8 agreed that real progress will depend on technological advancements. And it agreed that the putative benefits had to justify any brakes on economic growth.

In other words, the G-8 signed on to what has been the White House approach since 2002. The U.S. has relied on the arc of domestic energy programs now in place, like fuel-economy standards and efficiency regulations, along with billions in subsidies for low-carbon technology. Europe threw in with the central planning of the Kyoto Protocol -- and the contrast is instructive. Between 2000 and 2006, U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions fell 3%. Of the 17 largest world-wide emitters, only France reduced by more.

Much to the ire of Kyotophiles, Mr. Bush started this rethinking last year when he created a parallel track for talks on a post-2012 U.N. program, luring China and India to the table with more practical options. But developing countries, led by that duo, still refused to sign on to the G-8's 2050 goal. They aren't eager to endanger their growth -- and lifting people out of poverty -- by acquiring the West's climate neuroses.

The irony is that Kyoto has handed them every reason not to participate. Europe knew all along that it couldn't meet its quotas, so it created an out in "offsets." A British factory, say, buys a credit to pay for basic efficiency improvements in a Chinese coal plant, like installing smokestack scrubbers. This is a tax on the Brits to make Chinese industries more competitive. Sweet deal if you can get it.

It gets worse. The offsets are routed through a U.N. bureaucracy that makes them far more valuable in Europe than the cost of the actual efficiency improvements. So far, Kyoto-world has paid more than €4.7 billion to eliminate an obscure greenhouse gas called HFC-23; the necessary incinerators cost less than €100 million. Most of the difference in such schemes goes to the foreign government, such as China's communist regime.

Given these perverse incentives, the magical realism of Kyoto has backfired in a big way. The global warming elite will never admit this, because that would mean giving up their political whip against George Bush. But Kyoto II is already collapsing under its own contradictions. By sticking to a more realistic alternative, this reviled President has handed his green opponents a way to save face.

http://online.wsj.co...6257544347.html

[stocks]

Critics of the CO2 role in climate change point out that water vapours are a far more potent factor in creating the greenhouse effect as their concentration in the atmosphere is five to 10 times higher than that of CO2. “Even if all CO2 were removed from the earth atmosphere, global climate would not become any cooler,” says solar physicist Vladimir Bashkirtsev.

When four years ago, then President Vladimir Putin was weighing his options on the Kyoto Protocol the Russian Academy of Sciences strongly advised him to reject it as having “no scientific foundation.” He ignored the advice and sent the Kyoto pact to Parliament for purely political reasons: Moscow traded its approval of the Kyoto Protocol for the European Union’s support for Russia’s bid to join the World Trade Organisation. Russian endorsement was critical, as without it the Kyoto Protocol would have fallen through due to a shortage of signatories. It did not cost much for Russia to join the Kyoto Protocol since its emission target was set at the level of 1990, that is, before the Russian economy crashed following the break-up of the Soviet Union. According to some projections, Russia will not exceed its target before 2017. Notwithstanding this, the Russian scientific community is vocal in its opposition to the Kyoto process.

“The Kyoto Protocol is a huge waste of money,” says Dr. Sorokhtin. “The Earth’s atmosphere has built-in regulatory mechanisms that moderate climate changes. When temperatures rise, ocean water evaporation increases, denser clouds stop solar rays and surface temperatures decline.”

Academician Kapitsa denounced the Kyoto Protocol as “the biggest ever scientific fraud.” The pact was lobbied by European politicians and industrialists, critics say, in order to improve the competitiveness of European products and slow down economic growth in emerging economies. “The European Union pushed through the Kyoto Protocol in order to reduce the competitive edge of the U.S. and other countries where ecological standards are less stringent than in Europe,” says ecologist Sergei Golubchikov.

http://www.hindu.com...71055521000.htm

[stocks]

Academician Kapitsa denounced the Kyoto Protocol as “the biggest ever scientific fraud.” The pact was lobbied by European politicians and industrialists, critics say, in order to improve the competitiveness of European products and slow down economic growth in emerging economies.

http://www.hindu.com...71055521000.htm

"The developing world early realized that carbon control was a ploy to constrain their development into meaningful competitors. Now they are matching the cynicism of the developed world.

Rajendra Pachauri simultaneously helped prepare a climate report for the Government of India that argues that climate change will not be a problem for India, while, as head of the IPCC, he preaches that climate change will bring doom and disaster to the rest of the world, and urges the west to become vegetarian. Somehow, the cynicism seems remarkably clear to many - even if the Nobel Peace Prize Committee fails to notice it."

Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT


Rajendra Kumar Pachauri has served as the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002

[stocks]

Metamorphosis! Global Warmer Now Issues An Ice Age Warning

The UK Hadley Center was at the center of Climategate 2009.

Britain could be on the verge of a mini Ice Age as the Sun enters a cooler phase, the Met Office warned yesterday.

Met Office’s Hadley Centre, which looks at long term forecasts, said there was a 15-20 per cent chance that we could match the temperatures last seen in 1645-1715 – sometimes called the Little Ice Age - when the River Thames froze over.


http://www.dailymail...th-century.html