Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: m1911
You said:

"That global climate science is nowhere near advanced enough to form a basis of sound policy decisions, but agenda-driven studies are being used anyway."

How advanced must it be? Unfortunatly, science will never be able to tell us exactly what will happen and when, but it can help gauge the risks. To me, the risks are great and the data sound. Policy needs to change. I'm with Arnold on this on, one of the only left-wing issues I do applaud him for.

I'm sorry, but the "global cooling" business is a typical strawman, often held up as a counter to pro-environment policy. The fact is, scientists disagree. And just because they disagree doesn't mean they are all wrong. Global cooling as a theory was wrong, and that is one of the reasons there was no enormous outcry in the scientific community when it was published.
29 posted on 10/02/2003 3:01:11 PM PDT by Kleon (You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: Kleon

Unfortunatly, science will never be able to tell us exactly what will happen and when, but it can help gauge the risks. To me, the risks are great and the data sound.

What data??

The only thing the global warming alarmism is riding on are cluged up computer models that don't agree with real world measurement and predict neither future not past Climates, nor do those models even agree when compared to each other.

refer: Global Warming Score Card

 

What risks are there of global warming within the capacity of man to effect a difference?

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

 

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% 

 

CO2-Temperature Correlations

  • "(1) correlation does not prove causation, (2) cause must precede effect, and (3) when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters, it is important to have as much data as possible in order to weed out spurious correlations.

    ***

    Consider, for example, the study of Fischer et al. (1999), who examined trends of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice core data that extended back in time a quarter of a million years.  Over this extended period, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each of these climatic transitions, earth's air temperature rose well in advance of any increase in atmospheric CO2.  In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm.  Such findings have been corroborated by Mudelsee (2001), who examined the leads/lags of atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature over an even longer time period, finding that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years over the past 420,000 years."

[ see also: Indermuhle et al. (2000), Monnin et al. (2001), Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000) ]

  • "Other studies periodically demonstrate a complete uncoupling of CO2 and temperature "

[see: Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998), Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]

  • "Considered in their entirety, these several results present a truly chaotic picture with respect to any possible effect that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have on global temperature.  Clearly, atmospheric CO2 is not the all-important driver of global climate change the climate alarmists make it out to be."

 

Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis

http://isi-eh.usc.es/trabajos/122_41_fullpaper.pdf

  •  "We find, in opposition to previous studies, that there is no evidence of Granger causality from global carbon dioxide emission to global surface temperature. Further, we could not find robust empirical evidence for the causal nexus from global carbon dioxide concentration to global surface temperature."

Here Comes the Sun

"Carbon dioxide, the main culprit in the alleged greenhouse-gas warming, is not a "driver" of climate change at all. Indeed, in earlier research Jan Veizer, of the University of Ottawa and one of the co-authors of the GSA Today article, established that rather than forcing climate change, CO2 levels actually lag behind climatic temperatures, suggesting that global warming may cause carbon dioxide rather than the other way around."

***

"Veizer and Shaviv's greatest contribution is their time scale. They have examined the relationship of cosmic rays, solar activity and CO2, and climate change going back through thousands of major and minor coolings and warmings. They found a strong -- very strong -- correlation between cosmic rays, solar activity and climate change, but almost none between carbon dioxide and global temperature increases."

 


 

Indeed just what precise risks at all?

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.


31 posted on 10/02/2003 4:11:02 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: Kleon
I'm sorry, but the "global cooling" business is a typical strawman

Do you even know what a strawman is?

32 posted on 10/03/2003 6:42:32 AM PDT by presidio9 (Countdown to 27 World Championships...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: Kleon
"...To me, the risks are great and the data sound. Policy needs to change...."

What do you think about the temperature date for the last 400,000 years from the Vostok ice core samples ?

BP = BEFORE PRESENT


40 posted on 10/03/2003 8:20:06 AM PDT by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson