Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years (whine alert)

Guardian ^ | 09/01/03 | Ian Sample

[BigAndy]

Thanks - I'm new to this site, so I just spent 5 minutes Googling IIRC ("International Institute for Research Climatology" perhaps?) until I realised what you meant. "If I Recall Correctly". One thing that did turn up though on my Google Search was details of a report commissioned by President Bush from the National Academy of Sciences, which concluded "“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.”

If "most climatologists don't believe in human induced global warming" - it'd just help us all nail the argument if we could find which report or research supports that. Any ideas where I should look?

Thanks for your help

[swilhelm73]

Again, IIRC, a group of thousands of climatogists reponded recently to one of these bogus studies with a long letter in America's major papers - perhaps another freeper with a better memory could come up with a serach for their letter.

On a more basic level, just do some googling on climatological work if you are really interested in it. Historical records of how much hotter it once was, before human industry, are rife.

I'd also strongly suggest a little research into solar effects on the atmosphere. The sun, for example, has a well understood short term cycle that varies in energy output (the sunspot cycle). One can see more articles about global warming during the hotter part of the cycle and less during the cooler. What a coincidence!

Perhaps the easiest way to start is to search the FR archives for global warming and hoax, and go from there...

[A. Goodwin]

It appears to be Geophysical Research Letters - actually, not a journal to be scoffed at...

[A. Goodwin]

...most climatologists, by a fairly strong margin, do not believe in human induced global warming.

Speaking as a climatologist (Specifically, I am in the discipline of geography) I do not believe this to be true. The anthropogenic impact on climate is generally accepted. Of course, the debate on what (if any) beaurocratic/political responses to global climate variability are appropriate is as vigorous within atmospheric science circles as it is outside of them... (Not to say there aren't debates within climatology, but these are more related to the magnitude or relative importance of human impacts, rather than to their existence.)

[swilhelm73]

My own study of the topic (I'm an astrophysicist by training) shows the evidence for human induced global warming to be laughable, and the weight of evidence to be profoundly opposed to the notion that there is any significant and long term warming trend, again as at least to the former most climatologists will admit - especially those without a direct, funded interest from the green gravy train.

[swilhelm73]

As a bit of a follow up, the whole point of global warming theory, as global cooling, resource exhaustion, and all the other deceptive fronts put forward by Bug Green before is sheerly to advance socialism in a way the American public will accept.

One does wonder what the next Chicken Little catastrophe will be. My bet is on something Malthusian, but the causes chosen do seem to come almost at random.

[Mike Darancette]

Not just stupid: It's the dumbest ever!

"In AD980, Erik the Red and his crew headed from Iceland to Greenland, but it wasn't for the good weather. Erik had been kicked out of Iceland for murder so he took his crew westward where, they were told, they would find land."

I guess the Inuits that managed to reach Greenland at about the same time as Erik had been kicked out of Canada.

[BigAndy]

I've (as suggested) done a little research. I can't claim to be a practicing scientist but I managed to find one of the studies you were referring to: The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Petition, which collected 17,100 signatures of scientists of which 7,677 were those of scientists in fields related to climate change or its impact. (The qualification for being considered a scientist was a bachelor degree in science. Related fields to climate change were considered to be physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, environmental scientists, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences).

That's a lot of people saying there is no convincing evidence that global warming will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere. So why are the UN, the WMO, IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences (in the report that President Bush commissioned) so unequivocally supporting the idea of climate change? It's hard to understand. Are they really ALL funded by liberals?

[Bon mots]

This is GOOD NEWS!
Now, when the big comet/asteroid hits, and the earth's temperature drops drastically, we will have a better chance to survive.

Or... when Yellowstone volcano goes off, or any one of a number of other supervolcanoes goes off, the effect will be less severe.

We are overdue for such an event. Turn up the heat.

[rockfish59]

Yes! In the 70's they were predicting an ice age.
Then, 20 years later, some numbnuts got a bug up their @$$ by looking at the L.A. smog and noticed that in November it was 85* there still.

This numbnuts was most likely born and raised in the northeast.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

Seems quite a few folks agree.

Petition Project: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

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.

Specifically declaring:

"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."

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.

---

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	% of All Greenhouse Gases	% Natural	% Man-made
Water vapor	95.000%	94.999%	0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	3.618%	3.502%	0.117%
Methane (CH4)	0.360%	0.294%	0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)	0.950%	0.903%	0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)	0.072%	0.025%	0.047%
Total	100.00%	99.72	0.28%

 

Mankind's impact is only 0.28% of Total Greenhouse effect

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

Average Global Temperature vs. Atmospheric CO₂(PPM) over the last 600 Million Years

---

To stop them all you need to do is counter with the truth everytime you encounter their lies.

[swilhelm73]

Speaking of global cooling, the Little Ice Age that led to the end of Viking settlements in the new world also was a contributing factor to the black plague that killed a third of Europe.

The lush conditions of the then warmer Europe allowed for a much larger population then it could support with the quickly cooler temperature. The hunger this cooling caused left a populace ripe for an epidemic...

The most likely cause, AFAIK, for the Little Ice Age was an unexplained diminishment in the Sun's output.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[swilhelm73]

Well, a few thoughts;

1) There is a whole Global Warming Industry. People will fight for their jobs/funding even if they aren't needed - the wonders of bureacracy.

2) Environmentalism has become a major part of the religion of the Left. Enviromentalists are major believers in gloom and doom - theirs is indeed an angry and vengeful god(dess). However, none of their prophecies have come true. We aren't running out of resources, we aren't about to face global overpopulation, etc etc.

Global warming is vague enough to be tough to disprove, while still it can still be used to frighten us heathens - and take away out money, cars, and ultimately our freedom.

3) The earth just recently came out of a poorly understood cooling spell (the Little Ice Age in the late medieval period). You can have alot of fun with numbers by taking those temperatures as the norm.

[Sam Cree]

"Why would they do that - and how do we stop them?"

My opinion is that they do that to further the cause of socialism. After all, Kyoto, etc. are direct attacks on capitalism, of which the USA is the strongest proponent.

As believers in free speech, I don't see how we can "stop them," other than to do what we can to make public the truth as we see it.

IMO, it is important to realize that the press and the media are not objective businesses that just report the facts. Most media organizations, especially the mainstream ones, are actually part of the Left. And individuals working in these organizations are surely subject to stromg peer pressure, at the very least.

As far as the UN is concerned, I would say that while its members follow countless agendas, I am always struck by the fact that every other country in the world is to the left of the USA, most of them at fundamental levels.

I saw that you were searching some of the climate stuff up on Google; there is also quite a lot of saved in the Free Republic archives.

[Erik Latranyi]

1) The historical temperature data does not exist. No current method exists that will result in accurate past temperatures.

2) Current temperature data is insufficient to extract any trends.

3) Natural states are not fixed. To assume that all things will stay the same is to impede progress.

4) These idiots cannot forecast the weather for tomorrow properly. We are going to trust them to tell us what is going to happen in the next 100 years?

[BigAndy]

So why did the President choose those "idiots" (the National Academy of Sciences) to prepare a report to him on the subject. Surely he could have found some clever people to do it.
I think I'm less convinced now than I was at the beginning. The arguments on this post seem to be along the lines of:
1 Assume the reports and clearly stated opinions of the major national and international scientific institutions are wrong because they are either lying to further their own liberal agenda or "idiots"
2 Selectively quote other scientific information which frankly, few (if any) of us are qualified to interpret correctly or assess as a presentation of the evidence available (although, by its selective nature, it must be incomplete)
3 Assume that individual scientists who have dissenting views from those held by the established, respected national and international scientific institutions are right

I'm paraphrasing, of course, but I think I'm going along with President Bush in my choice. I think, if I wanted a clear, unbiased scientific opinion on a difficult and controversial subject I'd expect the National Academy of Sciences to be good people to come up with that. They did, and I'm now not sure why we are all rejecting it. If it's good enough for President Bush, it's good enough for me.

[Erik Latranyi]

...but I think I'm going along with President Bush in my choice. I think, if I wanted a clear, unbiased scientific opinion on a difficult and controversial subject I'd expect the National Academy of Sciences to be good people to come up with that. They did, and I'm now not sure why we are all rejecting it. If it's good enough for President Bush, it's good enough for me.

We are rejecting it because the data presented is clearly incomplete. You cannot extract a trend from only 30 years of data. We are rejecting it because those most believing are trying to use the data to suggest capitalism is the problem and that only an income transfer from the United States to Third World Nations will solve the problem. We are rejecting it because only 30 years ago leading climatologists were talking about a new ice age and provided data to support that theory. We are rejecting the idea because blindly following those with an agenda is a dangerous path.

[aruanan]

Not so. The average global temperature during the Medieval Climate Optimum was a couple of degrees C higher than now. We haven't even gotten back to the 10,000 year average.

[mikegi]

Down here in north Georgia we had some very hot and dry years from 1997-2002. People were talking about global warming, etc. Since Sep2002, we've been very wet and cool. The GW nuts have been silent.

Weather patterns fluctuate. We're probably in for several wet and cooler years down here.