Posts by FreeWilly

109

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&ssheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

there is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 .

by bob carter .

FreeWilly

Where is the scientific record of the CO2 amount during the last Ice Age? How was that monitored?

I posted this graph earlier, but for reference you may want to look at it again. Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)

109

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&ssheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

there is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 .

by bob carter .

FreeWilly

Sixofnine:

"I'm curious, w/o consulting any other sources, would you and Megadude give a synopsis of what you find so repellant about the treaty?"

Great question. Hopefully in my answer you will see that it NOT because I'm an "Industrialist" (I'm not), a neo-con (hardly) or any other ignorant assessments typically leveled at any non-conforming voices. In my own words...

Kyoto (in my opinion) would be perhaps the worst expenditure in human history. It's cost is difficult to truly comprehend. Some have used GDP as a reference. Others have measured it in Dollars or in cost per capita. Whatever the measure it's a very large amount. I know you said no references, so I won't quote any. However, one of the most comprehensive treatments of cost can be found in an a paper written by William D. Nordaus who is the Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University. He presented his paper at a GW conference. He is a very highly respected environmental economist quoted in both sides of the debate. An exhaustive (and dry) coverage of costs can be found here. FLAWS China, Mexico, Brazil and other developing nations who are also, btw, large polluters, are not bound by this agreement. Kyoto would be a big boon for them, creating a massive economic and trade advantage.

ASSUMPTIONS
The scientific basis on which Kyoto is based is in considerable doubt. Computer models used to postulate the effects of global temperatures have yet to yield results anywhere close to accurate. Yet these are one of the main tools used to establish the effects of CO2 on temperature. Only recently has Water Vapor been added to a few of these models. Yet Water vapor, by far, remains the most influential greenhouse gas(95% ! ). Water vapor is unaffected by human influence.

THE SUN Many climatologists believe, as I suspect, that the Sun is responsible for rising temperatures. I'm not aware of any that doubt the relation. Please look at the graph (earlier post) that shows the Sun's activity with Global Temperatures. Does this look like a coincidence? Incidentally, CO2 does NOT follow this same temperature pattern. In fact, during the 1930's thru 1940's Earths average Temps went down while CO2 level went up. What changed? - the Sun's radiance. Now ask yourself how people will feel if it turns out that CO2 has little affect on the climate at all? How will they look at all the money wasted? Do you think they were bamboozled? Remember we are currently at some of the lowest CO2 levels in Earths history (yes that's true). Ice ages have happened with atmospheric CO2 levels far higher (4000ppm+) than our current ~375 ppm.

COST The cost of Kyoto is crippling. For just the US it is estimated to cost 2.2 Trillion Dollars between now and 2050. Or, put another way, like US fighting 5 more Iraq wars. Canada, New Zealand and European signatories have recently released alarming cost estimations for their countries that they will struggle to meet. I suspect abiding countries will not be able to keep the commitment - time will tell.

Summary: IT COSTS A WHOLE LOT! BENEFIT

So, if the entire world was diligent about implementing Kyoto, what exactly will all of this cost buy? Will it stabilize atmospheric CO2? Will it stop GW? What are we getting for human history's largest expenditure? The answer: 6 years Yep, implementing Kyoto will, (if IPCC assumptions are correct -unlikely) delay Earths current warming trend by 6 years. It doesn't reverse anything. It's not a solution, it's a delay of the inevitable.... by 6 years. And as Auldsoul pointed out, this assumed delay is highly speculative. WHY? Perhaps the question should be what would happen if we did nothing? Would you believe that despite all of the doomsday scenarios forwarded, GW is expected (by some studies) to yield a net-benefit?
I know you didn't ask for them, by accepted data for everything I mentioned can be referenced. Just ask.

-FW

109

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&ssheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

there is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 .

by bob carter .

FreeWilly

The gist of the scientific feedback against Lomborg is that he displays wilful ignorance, quotes selectively from the works of others, and, perhaps above all else, courts the attention of media that accept his work at face value,

Could you provide us with a sampling of this "Scientific feedback". Surely there is a discussion of the facts somewhere in all of this....

Adopting opposing views merely because they conform one's own predetermined outlook will keep a person ignorant for a long time.

It seems by you comments you've found allies. I can't help but notice that amist all the blabbery, data is not discussed. It's obvious you haven't read even a few pages of Lomborgs book. If you had you would probably have stumbled across the enormous appendix referencing the 2500 largely peer reviewed scientific studies used in his work.

You assert (as does the critical piece) that a statistician unqualified to analyze data unless they are also specialists in the area of study that underlies the data?? Maybe you can explain what data they are qualified to analyze?

I also found noticibly absent any discussion of the facts themselves. Diversion is a sure sign of a weak position.

109

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&ssheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

there is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 .

by bob carter .

FreeWilly

Sixofnine: Wow, I'm glad someone is at least looking into the matter. It is a little dissappointing though that the media remains a source "reliable" information. Did you find any logical fallacies in the journalist's debunking article? Any exagerrations or misrepresentations, or do you believe the sensational aspects of the story represent the whole of this and other similar petitions? Just curious.

Similar debunking attempts are made regarding the IPCC's list of 2000 scientists represented in their "Scientific Assesment" in favor of sweeping GW policies. Of the list of 2000: "only about 100 climate scientists in the IPCC's listing, which includes economists, political scientists, government functionaries, and public relations specialists." It begins to look like a pissing match after awhile.

Since the back & forth criticisms, both camps have came out with bigger or better petitions citing this person or that...and on it goes.

What I wonder though, do you believe then that there exists a near consensus or clear majority regarding the assertion that CO2 (specifically the ~75ppm humans have added) is driving climate change? Care to take a position?

Maybe you can answer a few questions.

If Kyoto is dutifly implemented, what outcome is anticipated regarding Global Temperatures?

How much will it cost?

Care to take a stab at why dramatically elevated CO2 levels in Earths past did not result in a Global Warning problem?

-FW

109

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&ssheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

there is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 .

by bob carter .

FreeWilly

I'd have to agree with Both Ballistic and Dan.

Ballistic - those are good, honest reasons. Human impact on Earth is very damaging and a larger portion of our resources should be devoted to lessening or reversing the damage. I for one am not challenging your expertise, nor your intent. I am merely curious how others respond to accepted data.

Dan - I also have little tolerance for GW naysayers. It's clear from numerous studies that our climate is in an overall warming trend. Sure there are brief cooling variations, but it's been trending warmer for many thousands of years. It's behaving precisely as it has in all the previous interglacial periods. To deny GW is to deny science.

However, before committing a Trillions of Dollars on what could turn out to he a farse, maybe we should figure out if CO2 has much of an effect at all on Atmospheric temperature.

Here's another interesting graph of CO2 concentrations and their relationship to Global temperatures. Notice the Ice Ages when CO2 levels were over 1000% higher than they are now! (Ordovician period) Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)

If your still reading here's a great article you may want to browse:

"More than 15,000 scientists, two-thirds with advanced academic degrees, have now signed a Petition against the climate accord concluded in Kyoto (Japan) in December 1997. The Petition....

http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html

109

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&ssheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

there is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 .

by bob carter .

FreeWilly

"I worry about global warming "

Why exactly? I'm genuinely curious. Do you realize it's been happening since the last ice age?

109

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&ssheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

there is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 .

by bob carter .

FreeWilly

Just one more graph...

Assuming the graphs I produced turn out to be accurate, does anyone here believe that the correlation between solar activity and Earth's temperature response is a mere coincidence?

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are." - Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)

109

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&ssheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

there is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 .

by bob carter .

FreeWilly

We've been much hotter than we are today. We will get hotter still. The next decade will likely feature many more news articles saying "The Hottest Tuesday on Record".

Humans or no Humans, Earth will warm.

Earth Temps Over Last 18,000 Years

Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vo. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record

1. The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution.

109

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&ssheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

there is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 .

by bob carter .

FreeWilly

I'm curious as to why lots of Americans on this site do not believe in global warming.

I can't speak for everyone, but I think most people here do agree Global Warming is happening. We have been in an overall warming trend for the past 18,000 years (since the Pleistocene age). Earth has done this in every interglacial period. If climate history is any guide, Earth should continue to warm melting all the glaciers and raising sea levels, until entering yet another ice age cycle.

What's at issue is the notion that Carbon Dioxide is responsible for the warming trend noted since accurate temperature recordings began (1880). CO2 levels are the same as they were ~

Water vapor is by far the most influential greenhouse gas accounting for 95% of the greenhouse effect that keeps our planet habitable. Carbon Dioxide contributes ~3%, Other gases (Methane, N2O, etc) make up the remaining ~2%. So just how much have human generated greenhouse gases changed this mixture? Answer: 0.25% That means that 99.75% of the greenhouse effect that's so necessary to sustain our climate is due to natural causes completely out of our realm of influence.

So when we talk about manmade CO2 are only talking about the 0.25% impact we are having on the greenhouse effect. Now I have to ask, would Earth's resources be best utilized by implementing policies (like Kyoto) that would cost Trillions of Dollars/Euro's/yen when it's impact will be imperceptable? (only slowing the warming trend by ~1/20th of a degree). Or would those same Trillions be better spent on species protection, Drinking water/sanitation, global education, or free ice cream on weekends?

References: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

109

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&ssheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

there is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 .

by bob carter .

FreeWilly

Could it be..... the sun?

Long-term: A previous study showed that changes in the Sun's output appear to be related to temperatures on Earth, based on studies of tree rings, sunspots and other data. Learn More