I find it hard to believe that some scientists are simply saying what
the oil companies tell them to and I find it hard to believe that other
scientists are simply radical environmentalists.
From what I've read and studied, global warming is real. The earth has
been warming up signficantly the last few decades. Eskimos apparently
are seeing weather and phenomena for which they have no words. Most
glaciers around the world are melting. Carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases are clearly increasing. I have concluded that man's
production of these greenhouse gases is responsible for a large part of
the warming and will produce greater warming in the future. The warming
is something to be greatly concerned about and to investigate
carefully. The verse "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set
you free" is an important principle for scientists and indeed everyone
and needs to be applied here.
Some of the papers I've seen suggest that natural patterns of variability may be responsible
for some of the warming. It is quite possible however that global
warming could force responses in the atmosphere resembling natural
patterns. We don't have very many years of careful atmospheric
observations. (We do have many years of near-surface temperature
observations. They do indicate a significant warming is going on
now.)There is a very strong debate going on about whether global
hurricanes have produced stronger hurricanes. Two different scientific
groups, both with good scientists, have produced studies indicating
signficant trends in the strength of hurricanes that reflect increases
in sea surface temperature that may reflect global warming. The results
were surprising, in view of earlier model results that indicated a
smaller effect. The result has been questioned by good scientists who
say the earlier data in the trend is suspect and may have
underestimated thestrengths of the hurricanes. Who's right is not at
all clear.
There are some scientists who do push their conclusions too far on
all sides of the debate. I find it hard to believe that some
scientists are simply saying what the oil companies
tell them to and I find it hard to believe that other scientists are
simply radical environmentalists. Based on my knowledge and
study, I believe that global warming is real and that it is caused in
large part by man's burning of fossil fuels. It is a potentially
serious problem that we need to investigate further and that we should
start taking measures to counteract. There are serious questions about
how strong the warming will be, what its effects will be and of course
what to do about it. I believe there are plenty of reasons to conserve
fossil fuels. The Bush administration's suggestions of helping other
countries develop more efficient power plants is a very good idea if
they are serious about it.36 years ago my college Worcester Polytechnic
Institute participated in a clean air car race across the US. The
college built 6 cars–solar, electric, hybrid, natural gas. We've
wasted 36 years in addressing the problems.
There are two facts:
a) the temperature of the earth is warming up and is warmer than it has been for 400 and quite possibly 1000 years
b) greenhouse gases are increasing and have been increasing for a long period.
One can try to understand why the temperature is warming by using
computer models of the atmosphere. They are becoming more and more
sophisticated and more realistic. Experiments with the computer models
indicate that the temperature increase can be reproduced only by
increasing greenhouse gases. Simple internal variability in the models
(which resembles natural variability in the atmosphere) does not
explain the rise in temperatures. Volcanoes and changes in solar
output do not explain the rise. Increasing greehhouse gases in the
computer simulations produces temperature rises much like observed.
The American Meteorological Society and the leading scientific
academies of many countries, including the US National Academy of
Sciences, have endorsed the idea that global warming is real, that it
is caused in large part by man's production of greenhouse gases, and
that it should be taken seriously.
Yes global warming should concern us. But we have to be careful about the facts.
The warmth on this planet for the most part comes from the sun. If the sun would stop producing all of its light we would soon be a frozen ice cube. So one must look at the sun’s output and see if it has maintained a steady output or does it change in time. All indications show that the output is not constant. We only have a short history of direct measurement but indirect measurements tell us that the sun has cycles and our planet warms or cools as a result. The best guess at this time is that about 1/3 of the current increase is due to the sun.
The biggest source of greenhouse gases comes from the oceans. While they are cool they aborb gas and hold on to it. If however the oceans warm then they will release the gas and that will cause a slight change in the greenhouse effect. But more important is the temperature of the ocean itself. As the temperature of the oceans goes up more rain will fall all over the earth. This comes down as snow in places that normally don’t get snow. This builds up massive ice sheets. We do know that our ice ages were preceded by a rise in CO2. Since we were not around and neither were cars in the last ice age it would be a good guess that it was caused by a hot ocean or low output by the sun. Volcanic activity on the ocean floor is not constant and a good guess is that 1/3 of the current increase in temperature is due to the oceans.
Since we cannot control the output from the sun or limit seafloor volcanic activity I find it silly for anyone to think we can control the climate.
One more thing, temperature readings over time in out cities change due to urban growth around the temperature stations. Not sure if the temperatures you talk about were adjusted or not for this article.
I do agree that this issue is way too political.
What is now a vast area of permafrost in Iceland was farmland in the 16th century.
There were several ice ages and of course warmer periods in between before combustion engines.
We had an unusually lighter series of huricane years since the 1960s.
Apparently we’re measuring greater temperatures on the moon and Mars now.
Interesting.
Not all local areas agree with the global signal. There was a medieval warm period–how extensive it was and how strong it was is a matter of debate. Some have pointed to vineyards then in cold areas now; however, even Vermont has vineyards now. Some good scientists do believe there is a natural cycle in hurricanes in the Atlantic.
There is natural warming and cooling, just like forest fires occur naturally. That doesn’t mean man doesn’t cause forest fires.
Thanks
If it’s happenning, it’s cyclical , and man does not affect it either way. The greens-with-envy just want any reason to install socialism. (Socialism=Communism with a smile). If liberals think there are too many people on earth, I think Larry King, Ted Turner, and Howard Dean should off Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich, and Tom Brokaw before making the greatest sacrifice for the ozone they love so much. We, then, can give their wealth to the poor buying them all Electric Cars, with killer sound systems. I say, Liberals, be the leaders for The Culture of Death you have always been!
From what I’ve read and studied, global warming is real. The earth has
been warming up signficantly the last few decades. Eskimos apparently
are seeing weather and phenomena for which they have no words.
You have got to be kidding me? This kind of culturally-relativisitic romantic pap on the ostensibly Intellectual Conservative blog? (Editors anyone?)
Most glaciers around the world are melting.
1) ‘Most’ are?
2) I wonder how many glaciers, of this ‘most’, have been melting since the end of the Little Ice Age? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age)
I have concluded that man’s production of these greenhouse gases is responsible for a large part of the warming and will produce greater warming in the future.
I have ‘concluded’ your post to be less than persuasive, and your will produce even more less persuasive posts in the future.
You have listed two facts; the first one is conditioned by “quite possibily”; the second one is isolated from either specific or comparative data. The rest of article is based on belief, conjecture, anecdotes, and “endorsements.” That the title of your article containes the word, “maybe,” which is even weaker than “quite possibly,” shows that your own conclusions are tentative at best. In short, you don’t give us anything we can take to the bank – and that is a good thing, because what you present has no predictive value. So while your article is honest, the case for global has barely begun, and as for conclusions that have any modicum of certainty, well, so far, there is no there, there.
Dr. White says, “From what I’ve read and studied, global warming is real. The earth has been warming up significantly the last few decades. Eskimos apparently are seeing weather and phenomena for which they have no words. Most glaciers around the world are melting. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are clearly increasing. I have concluded that man’s production of these greenhouse gases is responsible for a large part of the warming and will produce greater warming in the future.”
How do you infer from Eskimos reporting higher temperatures, glaciers melting, and increased atmospheric CO2 automatically proves man is the culprit? The Earth has been growing steadily warmer since the Little Ice Age (1600 CE), and is far from being over. The rate of increase has not ramped up sufficiently in the past 100 years that it proves the increase is man-made or normal variation, and not long enough to say with any accuracy man has done more than add little to it. The worst case scenario has a 3.9 deg-C rise over the next 100 years, with a more probable 1.93 deg-C, of which half is the predicted natural rise that would have occurred without us. Even this number is subject to revision, as scientists are trying to rid their data of flaws. This numbers can be off by as much as 400%! In other words, it is down in the noise-level at this stage of things, we don’t really know (other than theoretically) whether man-made greenhouse gases are having a measurable effect, and may not know for another 200 years.
Even this is predicated in large part on how well we’ve measured and interpreted geological data and qualitative descriptions from the past, rather than hard data gathered only after the late 1970’s. Although we do have a good idea of variations recently, we don’t know how representative that is over longer periods. Suppose weather is being driven by a higher than average temperature rise over the normal ramp up? That, too, would explain the difference from expected temperature.
Global Warming (25 years ago) predicted “rapidly melting” glaciers and ice packs should have produced a measurable sea level rise by now. To date, there has been no such measurable rise in sea levels. Instead, Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves appear to have grown thicker, indicating a trade-off of sea ice for land ice. Predicted greenhouse gases, likewise, appear to be triggering greater plant growth that is converting surface level gases. Plankton is likewise on the rise. Moreover, at least one scientist has reported a geologic link between higher temperatures and higher greenhouse gases; implying a significant part of the measured increase in atmospheric gases is also natural. Ozone depletion predicted by the CFC hysteria failed to materialize and has instead morphed into a supporting theory for GW (seems we’re recycling scare tactics). What this shows is we know very little about how the environment reacts to climate change, and appears to be considerably more robust than most GW proponents give it credit.
More to the point, how bad is bad? Can we live with some man-made heat up, or must we shutdown our industries and go back to hewing the earth with a stone plow? Assuming the worst case scenario, how much of a catastrophe are we talking about and how fast will it be on us? 3.9 deg-C (7 deg-F) means that by 2106 the average Atlanta summer temperature may be around 104 deg-F (up from 97). The more probable 1.93 deg-C rise would result in a summer temperature of 100 deg-F. Without any man-made contribution, we’d still be faced with 1.8 deg-F higher temperatures by 2106; so even if we were to shutdown all emissions today we’d still be faced with dealing with higher temperatures and whatever secondary effects that may cause. Is this enough to cause major species extinction, global meltdown of the biosphere, end of mankind as a socio-technological community, or devastating wars fought over the more habitable regions remaining to us? I hardly think so.
(continued)
(cont.)
Dr. White points out that there is a consensus of scientists who now support GW theory. Yet this is not a solid consensus, and the fact there are so many scientist who are equally capable of looking at the data and coming to an entirely different conclusion tells me this is not a slam dunk. I will add there is a consensus of government, media, self-proclaimed experts and intellectuals, and much of the business world. This reminds me of the 1960’s claim that a billion Chinese communists can’t all be wrong (except they are now turning into capitalists). Why would all these scientists and experts say GW is a fact if it weren’t or can’t be proved? Could it be they have a stake now in defending GW they didn’t have 25 years ago? Could it be that many scientists have spent years gathering data and building careers on proving its existence they can no longer afford not to? Could it be a great many business ventures have been started to capitalize on the hype, and that there is now so much invested even governments fear to say anything that would spoil it? Could it be crises like GW fuel growth in government? Could it be the media feeds on fear, tragedy, hyperbole, and urgent causes; and announcing there is no emergency is like … not newsworthy? Having a vested interest undermines the creditability of those promoting it, whereas, it strengthens the creditability of those scientists denouncing it who have little to gain either way (other than crowing rights). This makes consensus less important than it seems, and “official” status a bit suspect.
To give you but one example, prior to 1987 DuPont and all the other major refrigerant companies were hostile to the CFC – ozone depletion theory, and spent a great deal proving it was bogus science. Then, with the passage and acceptance of the Montreal Protocols, these companies began a scramble to find replacements for R-12 and R-22. In 1990, DuPont was the first to develop R-134A and began a campaign to market it. Over-night DuPont switched from declaring ozone depletion a fraud to declaring it a fact. What changed? DuPont realized there was far more to be made selling a replacement for existing refrigerant in than in supplying refrigerant for new equipment and lost refrigerant alone. Millions of tons of R-12 could now be replaced and DuPont held the patent. Moreover, the replacement refrigerant would need to be replaced again in a later phase-out and DuPont would be in position to capitalize on that also. This was the watershed year, not only in ozone-depletion acceptance, but in a broad spectrum of unproven theories that were merely “potentially disastrous”. Prior to this, no one was interested in mitigating disaster in some distant future; thereafter, it was good business to be socially and economically conscious and many companies were looking to capitalize as DuPont had.
In the beginning of GW, it was clear to anyone with half a brain global warming was hysterical nonsense. Gradually, the fear spread and enough intelligent people bought into it that it seemed prudent to check it out. Nor was it the only hysteria we had to contend with: the ozone scare, oil crises(s), lost-species crises, health crises, &c cross-pollinated to produce a culture of hysteria that was self-reinforcing. Since then, scientists charged with finding the answers have, instead, found rich & secure endowments, entrepreneurs lucrative opportunities (that grow fatter with each new legislation), governments built new empires of regulation, and the media have found a rich vein of hysteria they can mine until GW is finally laid to rest (i.e., never). Moreover, each can work this goldmine regardless the weather grows hot or cold, stormy or sultry, cloudy or blindingly bright. Whatever happens, it will be ‘proof’ global warming is alive and we “have to fight it”. If we ‘succeed’ in thwarting a global crisis, we will never know but will, nonetheless, breathe a collective sigh we made the right decision. If the planet does heat up and the gases coincidentally increase, we will point to them saying “There’s the proof!”; even though it will have happened in some degree anyway. If it does nothing or grows but very little, we will say it’s too soon and keep feeding GW’s voracious appetite. Whether GW is real or imagined seems no longer the point. We have created so much need for the all engrossing “fact” of GW, we are married to it and a divorce has become too costly.
See: We’re All Global Warmers Now: http://www.reason.com/links/links081105.shtml and State of Fear: http://www.reason.com/0505/cr.rb.the.shtml
I can only say that I am shocked that The Intellectual Conservative published this essay.
As an antidote please down load and read the following PDF file from the Competitive Enterprise Institute: go to http://www.cei.org/ and on the home page is the featured article which one can down load. The article is:
Global Warming FAQ
What Every Citizen Needs to Know About Global Warming
by Iain Murray
July 11, 2006
Alarm over the prospect of the Earth warming is not warranted by the agreed science or economics of the issue. Global warming is happening and man is responsible for at least some of it. Yet this does not mean that global warming will cause enough damage to the Earth and humanity to require drastic cuts in energy use, a policy that would have damaging consequences of its own. Moreover, science cannot answer questions that are at heart economic or political, such as whether the Kyoto Protocol is worthwhile.
Dan
What a joke. What exactly are you a Doctor of sir? Liberalisn? This is so ridiculous that it almost isnt worth proving you wrong? But since your ignorance is posted on a (supposedly) Conservative site, I will refute if for no other reason than to stop any young impressionable Conservatives for being indoctrinated by this nonsense. Here are some REAL FACTS: Since the industrial revolution, (and man-made cardbon dioxide exhaust) the mean temperature of Earth has gone up .6 degrees F. This is four times smaller than the margin of error. Wow! What a big increase.
Another fact, the biggest greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR. Which accounts for about 85-95% of the greenhouse effect. So before we get rid of all our SUV’s, lets figure out how to get rid of water first please. Fact: The greenhouse effect is logarythmic(sp), not exponential. In laymans terms, the more you increase greenhouse gases(any of them) the less effect they produce. Conclusion, the first hundred years of man-made carbon dioxide will have a greater impact on the greenhouse effect than the second.
I could go on…but why bother? This “Convenient Lie” called global warming is just liberals being liberals. (Oh look how bad we are, we’re so bad we’re killing the Earth, evil Americans!!) I bet you didnt know that when Mt. Vesuvius blew, it released 10 times more carbon dioxide than all the cars on Earth combined. I bet no one remembers about 30 years ago when nutjob libs tried to scare everyone with “global cooling.” We have 25 years left before the earth turns to ice!.. HAHAHAH!!! Oh yeah I said I would stop.
Heres a link with more Fact than I could ever relay…
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
heres a little preview…
The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth’s greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect — perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth’s total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other “minor greenhouse gases.” As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.
Mr. White overwhelms us with his scientific evidence to back up his statement: “I have concluded that man’s production of these greenhouse gases is responsible for a large part of the warming…”
Fact: The atmosphere has been warming and cooling forever. As Mr. White points out, it is now the warmest it has been in 400 to 1,000 years. That means that since that time, it also has been cooler than it’s been in 400 to 1,000 years.
Fact: It warmed up in the past without the help of man
Fact, and perhaps the most important one Mr. White seems to overlook: If scientists can convince governments and other funding sources that cyclical warming, for the first time in the billion-years history of the planet, is caused by man, they can be assured the research money they need to keep them in BMWs and freshly pressed lab coats for a very long time. Of course if this warming is like the uncountable number of warmings since the earth came into existence, then they are tough out of luck.
Follow the money, Mr. White.
It would seem that having years and years of “higher” education leaves want of common sense.
Here is a short discourse, from a high school graduate, on how to protect ourselves from the impending disaster………….by a broad brimmed hat. That is of course only if the global warming outlasts the new ice age scare of the seventies.
Dr. White loses credibility when he becomes the latest in a long line to misquote/misuse the verse which ends in “you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” There is a condition to that verse, Dr. White. The verse comes from John 8, in which Jesus says “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Applying the last part of theverse without its condition to junk science doesn’t work.
Here’s another reason U.N. and foreign-government sponsored scientists (and there are many of that breed) might back claims of Global Warming.
U.N.-natural disasters? In a bid to blame alleged global warming for hurricanes and tsunamis and, ultimately, to force the deep-pocket U.S. government, businesses and taxpayers to pick up the tab for damages from such climatic phenomena, the United Nations conspicuously dropped the word “natural” from the title of its annual conference on natural disasters. (www.junkscience.com).
This is fleecing on a monumental scale!
every single thing or phenomena will have two groups and millions of opinions, all different, and always narcisistic: we cause too much trouble, we should go back to prehistoric times. when are we going to understand that we need to move forward and there is a price to pay? are those “enviromentalists” the ones that have their limos to go to gatherings where they show their alarm, and then quietly return to their gas guzzle cars? hypocrites.
Rudy,
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Could you try again, and be a little more specific what you mean.
GW may be subject to opinion, yet opinion does not make it real.
How is it narcissistic (vain, conceited, self-absorbed?) to hold an opinion if the outcome of remaining silent is either physically or economically disastrous. In this case, if physically, then the economics is moot. Otherwise , the economics of environmental mania is ruinously unconscionable.
Which direction do you consider “forward” and what price is it you are disparaging?
Are you defending or castigating limosine-liberals?
hi am a student and we are doing a debait over global warming. I just wanted to thank you because your site has giving me alot of sources! He chose which side to fight for and i got stuck with trying to prove that global warming isnt worth worying about. So thank you once again for your help.
kayla