World's vegetation is cleaning more carbon from skies

Global Warming from manmade sources

Do you realize there's a difference between CO2 from manmade sources and global warming from natural sources? That's there's no causation? Why do you keep implying that they are the same thing?

My number one fix is quite simple: DO NOTHING

I agree. And lets not do SOMETHING simply because it makes us all FEEL GOOD about ourselves (Kyoto). In another post today, one scientist calculated that even if all of Kyoto was put into place, it would result in a miniscule temperature decrease over what is predicted by GW. What the heck good is that? A conservative solution should give real results. I trust in the future, like you do, I think there will be solutions available that do not require an arm and a leg from every person in the developed world to implement.

A couple of quick examples in regards the century-long warming trends:

"Studies that combine land and sea measurements have generally estimated that global temperatures have warmed 0.5-1.0°F (0.3-0.6°C) in the last century. About two-thirds of this warming took place between 1900 and 1940. Global temperatures declined slightly from the 1940s through the 1970s; but have risen more rapidly during the last 25 years than in the period before 1940." - EPA

The 1975 NAS panel claimed to have good reason for their fears: Global temperatures had been in steady decline since the 1940s. They considered the preceding period of warming, between 1860 and 1940, as "unusual," following as it did the "Little Ice Age," which had lasted from 1430 to 1850. -- S. Fred Singer, emeritus professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

As you can see from the latter, quotation, not only was the trend there, but the National Academy of Sciences was in a panic over the cooling trend from the 1940s to 1970s.

Obviously you did not follow the link to THE OREGON PROJECT (not associated with SEPP or anyone else) that totaly discredits your statement that "The entire scientific community has reached consensus on this point.

There is no such consensus in the scientific community and in fact any consensus that is evident is that man-made global warming is not occuring.

If you had gone to the site, you would have seen this;

---------------------------------------------------------

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
PO Box 1279
Cave Junction OR 97523
Fax: 541-592-2597
Phone: 541-592-4142

Explanation

Listed below are 19,200 of the initial signers

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.
The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.
This project is titled "Petition Project" and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.
The remainder of the initial signers and all new signers will be added to these lists as data entry is completed.
Our e-mail address, for the purposes of this project, is: info@oism.org
If you would like to mirror this site or download it to your hard drive, click here.
You may also view and print this entire web site in one easy step.

Copyright 2001 © OISM

------------------------------------------------------

Here is the text of the petition these scientists signed.

-------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

-------------------------------------------------------

Go to the site, read the peer-reviewed papers that discredit the entire theory of man-made global warming based on computer models. Actual measurments do not show warming and in fact show minor cooling over the last 60 years.

As I said, these are things that Dan Rather will never tell you and he will never mention the opinions of 17,000 + real scientists as opposed to the virtual handfull of UN Clepto-crats, international socialists and government research grant hustlers who are pushing this hoax down our throats.

"Look, if you haven't even heard of Vostok, out of my way please..."

So, you say "don't ignore the science," but you won't post "the science."

Poat 85 had heard of Vostok, --but you didn't respond to that post.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

I AGREE WITH THIS! But note that it does NOT say that manmade global warming is not occuring. I am not playing chicken little and saying the heating will be catastrophic. I am encouraging conservatives to think about taking JUST THIS Position -- rather than ignoring the science that we are contributing to global warming.

Thanks for the ping. I thought about participating in the thread initiated by FreeTheHostages today, but there is just TOO much worship of the skeptical line being promoted by Singer, the Idso (CO2 Science), et al. However, apparently the Soon, Baliunas et al. paper that received a lot of hullaballoo a couple of months ago is getting soundly spanked by actual climate scientists (which the skeptics will just find confirms the fact that the "true" view of the issue is being prevented from being publicized by the global warming scientific conspiracy).

It's getting hard for me to waste my typing time on people that don't want to listen to reason. The last few times I've created or participated in threads addressing global warming, a Freeper named "ancient_geezer" has dumped megabytes of unsorted data on me in rebuttal, most of which was only marginally relevant.

But when I get a chance, I may be more active again.

Thanks! TOTALLY USEFUL. I'm going to read that stuff now. Getting a little tired of people who are showing billion-scale CO2 and heat graphs!!

I sincerely ask: Is the accelerated warming in the last 25 years also correlated to solar activity, in your opinion?

Mount Pinatubo greatly increased the levels of atmospheric CO2 world-wide (though most strongly in the norther hemisphere).

SO2, not CO2. Volcanic CO2 emissions are negligible compared to human sources.

Oh, and as far as the EPA comments go, note that they speak of the trend from 1970s to present, and ignore the (actual) sharp cooling in the early to mid 1990s (Mount Pinatubo for the latter part of that). They point to the spike from the last years of the 90s to 2000 as the point to draw their line to, yet the variation within years would suggest that the sample size is too small - note the nearly 50% retreat from the ground-based high point over the last two years, and the entire elimination of the increase according to satellite data.

Also note that the "warming" is generally in urban areas, and that neither balloon, nor satellite data suggest the same warming is over the whole surface. Global warming people claim the ground-based measurements show that the satelite data has some unknown errors. Anti-global warming people point to the satellite data to show that the ground based measurements are a poor sample (being taken nearly entirely where local effects such as asphalt and buildings have an inordinate effect).

In short, not only is the statement that mans activities have contributed to global warming severely questioned, whether there is "global warming" at all is dependent on what definitions are used, and which data points from which sources are selected.

As for solutions, in an earlier post, I made a link to an article by Teller (Father of the Hydrogen Bomb), who refered to some ideas, the most intrusive of which was an estimated cost in the high millions per year. There have been some reports by global-warming enthusiasts that suggest that what little was done in regards Kyoto had the opposite of the intended effect: The reduction of atmospheric sulfur compounds appears to have made the atmosphere less reflective, allowing more sunlight to strike the earth's surface...though in truth, the data sample size has the same weaknesses as I referred to in the 1990s warming trend above.

Hmm, I may have answered my own question: that first source notes that although there has been an acceleration in the last 20 years, that may not be a long enough period of time with regards to warming trends to avoid errors. Makes sense -- decadal weather patterns could disturb those results. (I do note that the sources note it is "incontrovertible" that there is warming: not you, but some in the thread insist that's not even the case!)

So, apart from solar activity, you could respond that the acceleration in the last 25 years might just as easily be explained away by the fact that weather, a complex dynamical system, had a statistical blip (or was subject to some decadal-scale oscillation, or any number of other things)?

point to draw their line to, yet the variation within years would suggest that the sample size is too small - note the nearly 50% retreat from the ground-based high point over the last two years, and the entire elimination of the increase according to satellite data

Thanks -- I think we were both posting at the same time -- that was my last question.

In short, not only is the statement that mans activities have contributed to global warming severely questioned, whether there is "global warming" at all is dependent on what definitions are used, and which data points from which sources are selected.

Is that a fair statement? All the sources seem to concede warming in this century.

re the sulfur in the atmosphere: that's a good example of how *unreliable* the models for future climate change are. there's so many variables. I note New England -- in the path of those Ohio coal plants -- gets a cold/blue circle on one of the articles you point me to, consistent with sulfur reflecting sun's heat.

But note that it does NOT say that manmade global warming is not occuring.

PLEASE.... Go read the literature that Dr. Sitz has posted on the Oregon Project web site. NASA, NOAA, Harvard, MIT and other reputable peer-reviewed data, shows just that! All the data points agree, --- not some points, ALL POINTS! Again, there is not only no "consensus" among the scientific community that global warming is a fact. All of the "non-political data" would lead a reasonable, un-biased individual to conclude that it is not happening. 17,000 scientists did not sign this petition on a hunch.

Just read the other side before you make blanket statements that are not supported by the facts.

"I am encouraging conservatives to think about taking JUST THIS Position --"

Theyahs a little toooo much diversion goin' on out dayah.

Conservatives need to start diverting attention to Al Sharpton as a viable democrat presidential candidate, too.

yitbos

SO2, not CO2. Volcanic CO2 emissions are negligible compared to human sources.

Mount Pinatubo increased both, but yes, the SO2 release effects overshadowed the CO2 effects.

You are also correct to point out that I should have said "significantly", rather than "greatly" in regards CO2.

BTW, I found this in a quick search of Volcano info. It's an interesting article about a high CO2 producing volcano in Antarctica. This volcano releases three times the CO2 as it does SO2, and it releases 150 metric tons of CO2 per day, though a value of 1,850 metric tons per day is referred to as its total release from all sources. This places it as 9th in the world for known CO2 production.

(I do note that the sources note it is "incontrovertible" that there is warming: not you, but some in the thread insist that's not even the case!)

I DO take the position that such warming is not incontrovertible. I believe there to be some warming within the last half-decade after a cooling in the early 1990s, and a warming in the decade preceeding that, but based on the evidence, even this is not certain to the point of being "incontrovertible". Again, the statement is subject to quite a number of definitional qualifications, such as picking the start and end dates to compare, which datasets are used, and severe questions as to which data sets actually are meaningful.

Understood. Thanks.

Is that a fair statement? All the sources seem to concede warming in this century.

It is generally accepted that ground-based measurements show a warming trend within themselves, however, the methodology used to collect the data is subject to question, as the collection points are neither randomly placed, nor systematically placed from an atmospheric perspective. The overwhelming majority are placed in areas which are subject to urban "hot spots", for which it is generally agreed (to a greater or lesser extent) there is a distortion in results due to localized heating. So, though it is generally accepted that there is some warming over the last century, there's an asterisk.

Further, when one says "global warming" one needs be certain of what is actually being asserted. Is a one-year change "global warming"? Is "global warming" a continuous string in which each year is warmer than the year before? For how long? Is "global warming" a long-term effect to be assessed in units of decades, quarter-centuries, centuries, or epochs? Does "global warming" refer to full atmospheric effects, or ground-effects only? Using one or more of these can change whether one can say there is "global warming".

So, when you say "global warming", do you mean the more-or-less continual warming of the earth's atmosphere over the next 50 to 100 years compared to a long-term mean, or do you mean the warming of cities during night-time from one year to a point five years later without regard either to the mean or to temperature change trends before or after?