ottopilot

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’ ...Here we go again
I'm posting this in Tilted Paranoia because of all the PARANOIA that usually follows from these types of articles (on both sides of the debate).

Joking aside, It's an interesting new bit of fuel for the controversy and I thought it might be somewhat provocative. The article is from the website of ICECAP* (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project) http://icecap.us/index.php. They seem to be more biased toward the "non-man-made" reasons for GW.
...enjoy

* FYI: some info on ICECAP http://icecap.us/index.php

fastom

Unfortunate that stuff like this does get seen as "paranoia" nowadays.
It's as if somebody is trying to find out if you really can fool all the people all the time.

Ustwo

As someone who has never been on the human caused global warming bandwaggon, even before it became political rather than scientific, I'm always looking for new potential sources of information, so thanks for the link. Never heard of these guys before.

Edit:The server went down as I was looking at it

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

raveneye

This guy is hilarious. Perfect spokesman for the denialists. Captures just the right whiff of dramatic flourish and batty paranoia.

Thanks for the laugh, keep them coming.

filtherton

"Those dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives have manipulated long term scientific data to indirectly imply rapid climate change."

ottopilot

but are they evil-doers?

filtherton

I don't know. If only captain planet were here. He always knows what to do.

Bill O'Rights

It's a conspiracy!!

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Ustwo

I'm thinking the real 9/11 terrorists, you know, the Jews and their Zionist Christian supporters.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ScottKuma

I take all of this talk of Global Warming with a HUGE grain of salt. Simply put, I do not believe that we have a long enough and accurate enough scientific view to look at this with any sort of objectivity.

My wife and I heard a story the other day on the radio about 7000 year-old tree stumps that were being exposed by retreating glaciers in Alaska (I believe). My wife immediately turned to me and said, "Wait, 7000 years? and there were trees under there? That seems awfully cyclical, doesn't it?" And she's right. We can study ice cores, tree rings, etc. to get a glimpse at these conditions in the past, but we're performing extrapolations on this kind of data and declaring them to be verified and accurate scientific evidence. We certainly might be able to say that the Earth's temperature is trending upwards...but what leads us to believe that we are at the root cause of the problem?

I think that there is currently a LOT of money being made on the Global Warming bandwagon...and that much of that money is going to the very people screaming that we have to change our ways.

NOT THAT CHANGING OUR WAYS IS A BAD THING!!

I personally believe that better technologies out there for transportation, lighting, energy use, etc. have been overlooked because the tried and true existing tech is just that: tried and true. I am looking at a hybrid car - not because I necessarily wish to change the planet, but more for the dollar-and-cent fuel savings that it offers me at the pump. I am using CFL lighting in my home, especially for outdoor lighting & places where the lights are under heavy usage - and I've noticed a drop in my electric bill. I'm using an HE clothes washer in my laundry room, and I do see a water savings. Are these things more expensive in initial cost? Yes...so I do understand the allure of older, cheaper tech. But I am seeing a monthly change in my utility bills that, given time, will equalize the cost.

So I'm not against "reducing our footprint" - in fact I think it's our DUTY to do so now that technology has started to allow it. However, I do NOT want to be snookered or scared into lifestyle changes for an unprovable "the sky is falling" scenario.

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.

GoogleMap Me

DaveOrion

Debunking Urban Legends

Legend 1: Solar Variations
Climate change is happening but is caused by solar variations beyond human control.
Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007The most apparent variations in solar intensity are linked to the 11-year sunspot cycle. Satellite observations indicate that solar intensity only varies by around 0.1% or about 0.24 W/m² over one cycle. As a result, the timing and amount of change in solar radiation are unable to account for the large and steady increase in temperature since 1970.

It has also been hypothesized that the sun varies on longer timescales than the 11-year sunspot cycle. However, reconstructions of the long-term variations in solar activity over the last 400 years are only able to explain a small fraction of the warming observed in the industrial period.



Figure 1. This diagram shows how the modeled effects of natural phenomena such as variations in solar intensity or volcanic emissions (shown by the blue band — a mean of multiple model simulations) are unable to explain the steady rise in temperature over the last forty years (shown by the black curve). Adding in the effects of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols to the models (red band) provides a very good reproduction of the observed temperature changes over the 20th century. (Meehl et al., 2004).

The cooling of the stratosphere (the part of the atmosphere between 10 and 20 km from the surface) that has accompanied the recent warming of the surface is a 'fingerprint' of the effects of an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. If warming were caused by an increase in solar radiation, warming of both the stratosphere as well as the lower atmosphere and surface would be expected, which is not what has been observed.

Legend 2: Plants Emission
Plants emit more carbon dioxide than humans, so why aren't we blaming them?
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
It's true that the trees, plants, and animals (collectively called the biosphere) emit about ten times more CO2 every year than humans. This happens through respiration when biomass is converted into carbon dioxide and water, releasing the energy that powers life in the process. However, all that CO2 is taken up by plants when they create biomass during photosynthesis, leaving no net change in the atmosphere.

There tends to be a strong seasonal signal to this process because a lot of respiration happens during the fall when leaves fall off trees and decay, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. But again, all that CO2 is taken back up by forests when the leaves re-grow in the spring, again leaving no net change in the atmosphere.

What is really relevant to climate change is the net emissions of CO2 (sources minus sinks) over an extended period. In equilibrium, all natural sources of CO2 will be balanced by natural sinks that remove CO2, meaning they do not increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion are not completely balanced by a sink and so represent a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere that increases greenhouse gas concentration and warms the planet.

Legend 3: CO2 Cause-Effect
Ice-core records show that increases in temperature precede increases in atmospheric CO2 during inter-glacials (the time between ice ages), so changing CO2 concentration doesn't affect temperature, rather temperature affects CO2.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
Paleoclimatic records such as ice cores and ocean sediments indicate that the cycling of ice ages over the past several million years has been controlled by changes in the intensity of sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere summer due to variations over tens of thousands of years in the orbit of the Earth around the sun (the so-called Milankovitch cycles).

Positive feedback mechanisms related to the release of greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and methane amplify the effect of the orbital cycles and lead to large changes in Earth's climate. CO2 increased during interglacials because a warmer ocean doesn't hold as much carbon dioxide as a cold ocean and so oceans released some back into the atmosphere as the planet warmed. This increase in atmospheric CO2 then further warmed the planet leading to the release of even more carbon dioxide. Given this understanding of the ice ages, we would expect increases in greenhouse gasses to lag increases in temperature at the end of a glacial period, which is just what we see in the geologic record.

Just because carbon dioxide was not the factor driving climate change during the ice ages, does not mean that it is not today. Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are initiating the cycle of warming through a different mechanism then what happened previously during inter-glacials, but the warming effect of CO2 is the same in both cases.

There is also plenty of evidence in the longer geological record that greenhouse gases have had a major influence on planetary temperature in the past. Examples are the Palecoene-Eocene boundary (55 million years ago) and the late Cretaceous (around 80 million years ago).

Legend 4: Natural Variability
Global warming is all part of natural variability; the climate is always changing.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
The only way to assess whether the recently observed warming fits with a pattern of natural variability is to look at how temperature has varied in the past. This can be done using paleoclimatic evidence from tree rings, glaciers, corals, and other geologic records. Figure 2 shows several different reconstructions of temperature for the past two thousand years with the instrumental record shown in black. It is clear that the magnitude and rate of change over the past century far exceeds any natural variation that occurred in the past two millennia.

While there have been large variations in climate over the course of Earth history, paleoclimatic evidence can often tie these to specific changes in climate forcings, such as variations in Earth orbit or changes in atmospheric composition. Once variations resulting from known external forcings are removed, the magnitude of natural fluctuations from the chaotic variability inherent to the climate system appears to be significantly smaller than changes in global average temperature over the past century, suggesting that this change is a response to forcing from increased greenhouse gas concentrations caused by humans rather than a simple internal oscillation.



Figure 2. Several temperature reconstructions for the past two thousand years using various paleoclimatic proxies, with the instrumental record shown in black. Older reconstructions are shown in blue and those published more recently are shown in yellow or red. Image from the Global Warming Art Project.

Legend 5: Can't be CO2
CO2 makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere so how can it be important?
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
The climatic influence of a given atmospheric gas depends both on its concentration in the atmosphere and its effectiveness at absorbing outgoing radiation. For example, although nitrogen makes up about 80% of our atmosphere, it can not absorb visible or infrared radiation and so has no effect on climate. In contrast, the molecular structures of greenhouse gases make them effective absorbers of outgoing infrared radiation so even a small amount can have a large influence over the climate.

We know that even the relatively small concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere at the moment have a large effect on climate because without them, given our distance from the sun, our planet would be about 30#C cooler than it actually is - cold enough to freeze the oceans. The warming caused by greenhouse gases is what allows liquid water to exist, which in turn is essential for supporting life on our planet.

Legend 6: Blame Water Vapor
Water vapor accounts for more greenhouse warming than carbon dioxide, so that must be causing climate change.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007Water vapor is indeed the most abundant greenhouse gas, but its concentration is closely controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans with little influence from external forcing mechanisms. In other words, water vapor tends to act as an amplifier of an existing warming trend, rather than as a driver of changes in climate. The warming caused by increases in the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has allowed more water vapor to be held in the atmosphere (since warmer air can hold more water) which in turn causes further warming. In this way, water vapor acts as an important positive feedback mechanism, but is not the primary driver of climate change.

Legend 7: Data Inaccurate
Satellite temperature data of warming in the mid- to low-troposphere (0 to 10 km above the surface) does not support global warming.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
This claim is based on very early, and now outdated, versions of the satellite estimates of tropospheric temperature. Satellites can not directly measure atmospheric temperature but instead measure atmospheric radiance from which temperature can be derived using complicated models and calculations. This process ultimately gives estimates for the temperature change only of thick layers of the atmosphere. feedback mechanism, but is not the primary driver of climate change.


While early data sets showed little or no tropospheric warming, problems were later found in how the data had been processed, in the calibration of instruments from one satellite to the next, and in the observations from weather balloons that were used to calibrate the satellite estimates of temperature change. Correcting these problems yields results that greatly reduce the apparent inconsistency between warming in the troposphere and on the surface and shows that the troposphere has warmed significantly. Continuing study is underway on remaining difference between surface and tropospheric data sets. This report from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program has more information.



Figure 3. The colored marks show model predictions of temperature change at the surface and troposphere (the part of the atmosphere below 10km) over 1979-1999. The black square represents the most recent analysis of satellite data, which shows that the troposphere has warmed significantly in recent decades and now corresponds (within error limits) with model predictions. (Santer et al., 2005).

Legend 8: Warming is Good
Climate change is happening but it will be good for us.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
In general, societies around the world have adapted to the present climate - growers know when to plant their crops, houses are built to be cool where it is hot and warm where it is cold. Because of the effort and resources devoted over time to this adaptation, changes to the climate will require adjustments to behavior and infrastructure that are likely to be very costly. (As a small example, over 180 villages in coastal Alaska will have to be relocated because of increased coastal erosion since the retreat of the sea ice. Each move will cost approximately $180 million.) Any benefits from climate change (and some, such as a longer growing season in Russia and Canada, do exist) are likely to be localized and insignificant compared to the more numerous negative impacts.

An important prediction of almost all climate models is that global warming will result in increasing weather variability. Such a change would be very likely to have only negative consequences because large swings in weather are damaging to crop production and human health, and make adaptation much more difficult.

Another very significant aspect of climate change, sea level rise, will only have negative effects because of the inundation of coastal land. A recent World Bank study estimated that a minimum of 57 million people would be affected by a sea level rise of 1 meter.

Crucial to this question is how fast changes to the climate occur. If changes were happening very slowly and gradually, it could be that adaptation would be less expensive and that positive effects would partly offset negative ones. However, changes over the next century are likely to happen very rapidly, making it difficult and expensive to take advantage of changes in a positive way. The recently released report from Working Group 2 of the IPCC details the best scientific estimates of the expected impacts from climate change, which include disruptions to ecosystems and the hydrological cycle, damage from increasingly severe extreme weather events, changes to patterns of infectious disease, and lower crop yields.

Legend 9: Warming Not Fair
Worrying about climate change is unfair to the developing world.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
This statement ignores the fact that the primary emphasis of the current climate change movement is on the reduction of emissions in developed countries. Because they are wealthier, and because their per capita emissions are so large, the onus is on developed countries to find new, carbon-free technologies that can be transferred to developing countries once they are well established.

The crux of the climate problem lies in the huge per-capita carbon footprint of the Western lifestyle, not in the provision of energy to the poorest people in developing nations. Were enough electricity and cooking fuel for basic human needs provided to everyone on the planet, global CO2 emissions would only increase by 3%. See the calculations by Robert Socolow here.

In fact, not worrying about climate change would be unfair to the developing world. Developing countries, which are the most vulnerable, stand to suffer the worst impacts from climate change and yet are least responsible for the problem because their emissions are so low. Lowering carbon emissions is crucial for ensuring that the imbalance between first and third world nations is not made worse as a result of climate change.

Many people in the developing world do not have access to electricity because importing traditional fossil fuels is expensive. Environmental and development NGOs are working to build cheaper renewable energy systems which have the win-win effect of increasing the availability of electricity and putting countries on a clean energy development pathway. An example is the Climate Institute's own Global Sustainable Energy Islands Initiative and the work that the Government of Iceland has been doing in promoting geothermal energy production from the Rift Valley in East Africa.

http://climate.weather.com/science/u...nds/index.html

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

ASU2003

Last time I checked, plants and trees took in C02 and used the carbon and H20 to make cellulose and the solid parts of the tree/plant. They put out the extra 02 they didn't use. In the fall, the process might stop, but the tree/plant shouldn't put off more C02 (unless you burn it). The solid carbon in plant biomass would fall to the ground and eventually compost into the soil. I'm not sure what gasses are released during that phase.

But the reason it probably spikes in the fall would be the fact that trees/plants don't grow as much and don’t need as much C02 during that part of the year. If that is correct, you should see C02 levels continue to increase through the winter (factoring in how much C02 is produced during each time period).


I worry about what might happen if water levels go up 5 meters (1 meter is livable, though wouldn't be ideal). Once snow and ice start melting, it generally happens pretty fast. At least in Michigan and Ohio in the spring time, I'm not sure what happens in northern Canada, Greenland, the north pole(wouldn't necessary cause height increase, but would warm water everywhere else) and Antarctica.

But, I would not be affected by the raising sea at all. If anything, my home price would go up because of the millions of people who need to move.

I hope they don't try to save coastal cities Netherlands style and charge taxpayers the cost of it. It would be a mess and throw the economy for a loop for all of the people to lose their homes and businesses, but might cause my home price to go up.


The people in developing countries could move inland much easier than a Tampa, Honolulu, Sydney, Santa Monica, San Diego, Cancun or any other number of developed cities right at sea level currently.

Developing countries basically use our cheapest and easiest ways of doing things anyway. With computers they might be able to use recent technology (5 years old), but they aren't using solar panels or an other expensive and advanced ways of producing power. The could use more water turbines, wind turbines and ocean turbines to generate power without emissions.


And I don't care all that much about what is causing global warming. Or even if it is happening at all. But we need a energy policy that benefits renewable energy efficient technologies and makes the air cleaner.

Charlatan

It's one thing to suggest this... but can someone explain why a "dastardly scientist" would do this? And given that science is subjected to peer review, how the dastardly scientists, could collude with some many of their peers to reach the same conclusions?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Plan9

TWO, TWO dastardly scientists!

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Ustwo

This unfortunately is hard to describe unless you have been involved with the environmental side of the sciences. Its what made me make up my mind to get out of the lab and go onto dental school. Science was giving up to political goals since the late 80's. Dr. Patrick Moore, perhaps said it best,


Also I need to point out that 'peer' review is over hyped. Its more of an after affect, and many of these papers are questioned by peer review only the review is rather esoteric in nature and doesn't make a good sound byte.

We are talking public perception, politics, and science, with science being the least important of the three.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

DaveOrion

There tends to be a strong seasonal signal to this process because a lot of respiration happens during the fall when leaves fall off trees and decay, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. But again, all that CO2 is taken back up by forests when the leaves re-grow in the spring, again leaving no net change in the atmosphere.http://climate.weather.com/science/u...nds/index.html

Wow, you think that millions of people being displaced by rising sea levels will increase you're homes value???

Third world countries don't have the luxury of being as wasteful as Americans....

http://climate.weather.com/articles/cairo110807.html

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

raveneye

The usual talking point is that environmentalists are left-wing extremists who distort the science. Then at some point in the rant the term "environmentalist" gets replaced by "scientist".

Why that little switcheroo happens is a question for clinical psychologists.

Ustwo

No, the point is that left wing extremists have taken up the environmentalist mantel.

Most environmentalists are not scientists. I'm sure those idiots climbing on the coal ship thought of themselves as environmentalists, but I rather doubt any where scientists. The two are really mutually exclusive.

That being said, its not exactly difficult to get a degree in environmental sciences, and get the scientist label as well. I went to school for it myself, it actually had the lowest requirements to get in and pretty much anyone can get a masters or PhD and get the scientist label.

While some of the work was very good, I still got a laugh out of some of the masters thesises I read in the seminar room waiting for my night seminar to start. I think my favorite was on 'why birds hit plate glass windows'. Now this to me could have some value but his experimental design was, well comical.

I thought it might be about the avian eye, how to make windows more visible to birds etc, but no.

He put a piece of plate glass out in the middle of meadow and counted bird strikes. He then put various things behind it like a stuffed owl to see if they hit the window less.

That was pretty much it. That man, is a 'scientist' somewhere right now. In biology is sadly not that hard to be a 'scientist'.

But I mean, hey if the founder of Greenpeace thinks what I'm been saying all along is true, but Raveneye, internet guy thinks its for clinical psychologists, who am I to call you wrong?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

raveneye

Who are you? A conspiracy theorist, of course.

That's because your view commits you to the position that all the science academies of the world, the UN International Panel on Climate Change, the US National Science Foundation, several hundred scholarly journals, and the science funding agencies of 100 countries have all been corrupted in the exact same direction, in lockstep, for at least the last 30 years, as if they all succumbed together to a bloodless coup by Al Gore on the 10-year anniversary of Woodstock.

We could call it the “global goose-stepping for Gore” view of modern science.

It is rather hilarious, although the folks propounding it appear, as far as I can tell, to be dead serious.