Climate Change to Hit Home
Long Drought Ahead From Global Warming, Study Says
Warmer temperatures will hurt forests and fuel wildfires, Nobel winner Steven Running finds.
By Amy Linn, 1-06-10
A University of Montana study led by acclaimed scientist Steven Running shows that climate change will significantly extend drought periods in the Northern Rockies, stressing forests and inviting more frequent and virulent wildfires.
Running, the author of the study, is a Regents professor of ecology in UM’s College of Forestry and Conservation and a co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his leading role with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The peer-reviewed study, conducted with the help of other UM forestry researchers, predicts that global warming will have a dramatic impact on regional forests. Rising temperatures could spark an epidemic of insect infestations and cause catastrophic fires in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, “potentially affecting more than 360,000 people who live in homes in the forest-urban interface that are valued at $21 billion,” according to a UM announcement about the study.
Here are highlights of the research, straight from the UM statement:
-- By about the 2080s, hotter temperatures could cause about two months of additional drought.
-- Regional forests will see fewer days with snow on the ground, an earlier peak snowmelt, a longer growing season, and increasing drought stress, which in turn will increase insect infestations and wildfires.
-- Carbon uptake could be reduced and so disrupted that “most forests in the region would switch from absorbing carbon to releasing it by late this century.”
-- Even if future climate change is less severe than projected, serious impacts are expected. Forests are already being transformed by global warming, Running said, particularly since northern Rocky Mountains forests “live in a perpetually water-limited state.”
-- Over this century, the region could see an annual average warming trend of 3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, with winter temperatures expected to increase more than temps in other seasons.
The study was funded by the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan nonprofit organization.
[End of article]
"Running, the author of the study, is a Regents professor of ecology in UM’s College of Forestry and Conservation and a co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his leading role with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change".
In the past these credentials would be beyond dispute.
Given Gore's Nobel and Michael Mann's emails on hiding the decline and his ignoring both the little ice age and medieval warming periods in his wacky "hockey stick, Running could be just one of those kooks making money off Global Warming. The author should have noted if Running was part of the group that had emails released in the climategate event.
Release the hounds!
I don't care if it is peer-reviewed science, I read something on the intertubes that says it's all hooey.
But seriously, is there a link to the study, or more about it? I'd like to actually see some of it before jumping to conclusions.
Blah, blah, blah - warmings have been coming from "man" since "man" has been in existence. Oh, I'm sorry - but this IS the real deal - we're all doomed. The only thing that seems really imminent is very cold weather all around.
http://www.iceagenow.com
Mankind should have ended by now using the changing of seasons to manipulate the ignorant to gain power.
The calendar cycle of the Great Year of the Constellations ends in December of 2012. It is not so different from the monthly calendar used daily now by all people that it should appear so impossible to understand for so many.
Yes there will be deserts where there are none now like the state of Florida in the USA, but there will also be lush forests where there are now deserts like the southwestern area of the USA.
Perhaps it is because of fear and denial that this cycle cannot be controlled or stopped that the average people are refusing to see what is right in front of their eyes as the clearly marked astronomical event used as the end and beginning point for the Great Year approaches.
This calendar was meant to be used so that people could prepare for the Great Winter, ice age, of the Great Year just as they use the monthly calendar to prepare in advance for the yearly season of winter.
It is a travesty that in this age of world wide technological communication the simple, silent calendar of the Great Year is either totally being ignored or totally being dismissed as something that was created out of no real importance.
Is the globe warming? Maybe so. Will it cool again? Maybe so. Will we be impacted? Maybe so. Will we adapt? Maybe so. Do I like it? Nope. I don't like change too much. But, there's nothing I can do about it. The remarkable thing is that the grant and funding money has followed the "global warming" track. It biases the research. Consequently I have little faith in these reports, one way or the other. What I do know is that none of these people will be alive to watch see if their theories are accurate. Not a bad gig. Get research money to come up with your study and be dead before you are accountable for your work.
Comment By Sneaux, 1-06-10I can't believe they're still trying to promote this global warming thing. You think all these idiots would be hiding out at home with their head in the freezer after the leaked emails that it's all a contrived hoax. Why aren't the contents of the emails and the truth newsworthy, or are we just supposed to continue to believe the propaganda?
Comment By Dave Skinner, 1-06-10This is complete garbage, but actually, this is an important story because it establishes a useful link in the tracing of money into the politics of climate change.
NCEP is being funded as part of a 600-million a year program, and a billion dollar foundation called Climateworks, which in turn is funded by a consortium of mega-foundations acting in concert.
The "strategy" is contained in a position paper from California Environmental Associates called "Design to Win, Philanthropy's Role in the Fight Against Global Warming."
The report was sponsored by Packard, DUke, Joyce, Oak, Hewlett, and Energy, which in turn is a funding passthrough for at least three of the above.
It's an amazing paper. The sponsor foundations have subsequently restructured their funding programs along its lines. You can then follow the money to groups popping up to fight coal plant constructions, why NCEP even HAS money to give Running money for "research," why China has an "environmental movement" with resources and money....
I'd sure like a "journalist" to ask Stephen Chu what he thinks of all this, after all he was on Hewlett's board when the plan was hatched. And how about Ritter's climate "advisor" Alice Madden, who is paid to "advise" Ritter by none other than Hewlett and Energy. No ethical quandaries there, no sirreeeeee.
Gonna be a cold day in heck before I believe anything Running posits...and right now it's a darn cold day in Montana.
The sceptics seem awfully insecure. Every serious discussion is instantly deluged with nonsense from dupees of massively industry funded "think tanks". Here we go again. Fortunately, most folks realize the futility of debating the flat earthers and are moving on to some productive, if insufficent, action to at least slow increasing atmospheric CO2. Even though it's too late to fend off warming, any action will have an array of benefits and give the US a chance to keep up with more advanced cultures.
Comment By Oldart, 1-06-10Amen to that sjnzb. Conspiracy theorists who should be investigating their own assumptions and delusions the lot of them. Keep on moving and pay them no heed.
Comment By ReduceGHGs, 1-06-10It is a fact that all of our historically reliable scientific institutions all concur on the core issue; HUMANS are warming the planet mainly by burning fossil fuels and clearing the land. Most of the naysayers either lack information or have vested interests. Among the experts that currently study climate change there is no credible debate. A few emails don't overturn over 30 years of global climate research and study. Read what AGU has to say about it. Google... "AGU Statement Regarding the Recent Release of E-mails Hacked from".
Read the position statements of other institutions such as NASA, AIP, NCAR, AMS, EPA, SOCC, AGU, NAS, NOAA, and many others. Ignore the hype and sensationalism. Join the fight for the sake of our future generations.
Usually if a specific part of the planet is in drought conditions it means than a specific part of the ocean surface is becoming warmer and total precipitation is increasing. Which is happening now. El Nino is increasing total precipitation , washing Central and parts of South America off the face of the Earth and changing weather patterns so that less precipitation is dropped on parts of the inter mountain west. It also worth noting that during ice ages, total precipitation increases and more ice free areas become arid and desert like. Why? The oceans evaporate their H20 away which becomes locked up in Ice (Glaciers). Sea level lowers by hundreds of feet and the Earth becomes covered with Glaciers and desert. Its happened 6 times during the last 1 million years according to the geologic record. Attempting to scare people in believing that they are causing drought in the Inter mountain West by driving cars and burning fossil fuels is Bullshit propaganda at it worst.
Comment By ReduceGHGs, 1-06-10Case in point. Some think they know better than what ALL our reliable scientific institutions have been saying. I suggest that these naysayers publish their research papers and keep us from "needlessly" investing in our future generations' habitat. I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 1-06-10Its been published. You just choose to ignore it.
Comment By the real mike, 1-06-10...in comic books and on websites where they also claim that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church. Threads like this one make my long for the good old days when "Hellpig" and "Smashicus" and other dignified teabaggers like that were spewing, er, I mean spreading their wisdom.
Comment By ReduceGHGs, 1-06-10I choose to ignore it? Yea, we only information that agrees with our predisposition; the facts be damned! No, not really.
I'll continue to rely on the unbiased experts, unless of course there's a global conspiracy that's been going for over 30 years. Not likely.
One of the first studies by the NAS came out in 1979. Since it was followed by many, many studies that basically concurred, I CHOOSE to believe it.
Google... The Charney Report 1979
Lol - talk about poor timing to panic over warming while shoveling out from under the snow.
Was Gore scheduled to show up for a book signing in the hemisphere or something?
If he does do any book signing, at least it won't be a comic book ...and he won't be writing on any of those websites that claim Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church either.
Comment By ReduceGHGs, 1-06-10Shoveling snow? Great! Stay warm!
But does it follow that anthropogenic warming is therefore debunked? No. It would be a nasty logic error: generalizing from the specific.
And then the snide comment about Gore. A lot of uninformed folks like to banter him around but he isn't the source of the science. He has been doing wonderful work informing hundreds of millions. So THANK YOU Al Gore for all the work you continue to do!
Gore is simply a sales person selling a product - that's about it. He uses tactics to scare and he exagerates greatly. His hockey stick graph is completely wrong (leaves out various warming periods that have occured). His work is self induced to follow his personal agenda - to make A LOT of money...
Comment By ReduceGHGs, 1-06-10Yes, Gore is distributes the scientific information and has been doing if for many years. He held the first Congressional hearing on global warming.
It wasn't his hockey stick but dispite the hype the graph is still very accurate.
The profits from his movie and books go to fighting the crisis.
Still some will never accept the overwhelming concensus. I suggest they do some reading or come up with more reliable sources.
Google... Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wikipedia
No hype, just the most reliable scientific institutions there are. If anyone has anything better I'd love to see it. Why don't naysayers have credible studies that say otherwise? That's easy.
No, it's not easy for naysayers to just come up with credible studies because there aren't any credible studies supporting the naysayers ...besides, most of the naysayers don't have time because they're too busy either out checking their traplines or studying genealogy to see if they can finally figure out which of Grampa's many wives was actually Gramma.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 1-06-10England and parts of Europe are getting slammed with some of the coldest, snowiest weather in recent memory. Ditto the Midwest, East, and Southern U.S. Must be Anthropogenic Global Warming! Additionally parts of the U.S. recorded the coldest wettest October in over 100 years. Must be Anthropogenic Global Warming!
Comment By ReduceGHGs, 1-06-10@ the real mike That was funny! Traplines & Granny!
But then Mickey goes and repeats the same old mistake. Sort of like... "Since the ground feels firm and not moving then the theories about Plate Tectonics must be a scam."
I'm sure that as we've seen record heat in many, many regions over the last 10 years the naysayers were quick to dismiss it with some sorry excuse like it's the Sun or the temp guages were misplaced, or, who knows.
The Sun isn't a "sorry excuse". It should be obvious to anyone, even a government funded "scientist".
Comment By ReduceGHGs, 1-06-10@ Mickey
Yes, using the Sun as an excuse betrays the fact that solar acivity has not increased. It would seem like the most likely cause because it is the main driver of climate, the earth's orbital variations and "wobbles" play a big roll too. But the studies show that the increases in temps can only be explained if you include the human influence.
There's always that other excuse that governments are to blame for scamming the public. Some may remember the w/cheney White House editing OUT warnings about climate change in a report from the EPA. Sorry but We The People (governments) don't want to have to deal with this crisis. I personally would welcome new studies that disprove anthropogenic warming and reassure us that our future generations are not at risk. I'll keep hoping but until then it is only rational to rely on the best evidence available. HUMANS are deteriorating our only habitat. Global warming is one of many symptoms.
"the studies show that the increase in temps can only be explained if you include the human influence." So how do you account for the fact that since the latest warming began about 18 thousand years ago at the end of the last ice age, sea level has risen about 300 feet and average atmospheric temp has increase about 16 degrees F and further that this has happened at least 6 times in the past 1 million years. There no credible evidence that this cycle is caused by man or CO2. And further no evidence that increases in CO2 caused catastrophic overheating of the Earth in the past or that there is a CO2 "tipping point" since Atmospheric C02 levels have been above 2000ppm for millions of years at a time in Earth's history that do not correlate with animal extinction events.
Comment By Don, 1-06-10If we do not know how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere following emission, how can we estimate future reactions to increased emissions? How would we accurately estimate the concentration of CO2 that traps heat and warms the planet?
In the past week I have seen several projected answers to the question posed above. From Icecap, there's this: "Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years."
The IPCC estimates the lifespan of CO2 somewhere above a century and below a millenium. Bart Verheggen, Dutch climate scientist, sends this: "Concerning CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere, see eg this figure: http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/fig_tab/climate.2008.122_F1.html and David Archer’s explanation: geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf The most important processes governing CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere are: (geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf) (1) Anthropogenic CO2 will equilibrate with seawater in the global ocean, on a timescale less than a millennium. (2) Acidifying the ocean by adding CO2 perturbs the CaCO3 cycle by decreasing the global burial rate of CaCO3. This perturbation acts to restore the pH of the ocean back toward its initial pre-anthropogenic value, on a timescale of _10 kyr. (3) A silicate weathering feedback acts to restore pCO2 to some equilibrium value on timescales of _100 kyr, setting the ultimate maximum duration of an anthropogenic carbon cycle perturbation. "
Point being, we are apparently still disputing a key metric for estimating the future effects of anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gases. Point being, we are debating this in the peer-reviewed literature and the science isn't settled.
We are apparently still debating other basic issues: Whether clouds are a net positive or negative forcing on temperatures, whether urban heat bias has affected our measurements of land temperatures by 0.5 degrees Celsius, as Phil Jones wrote in 1990, or much more, as is asserted by a number of sources, including some peer-reviewed scientists. There are other basic questions that don't have a firm answer.
So what should we do while waiting for these issues to be resolved? Nothing? No. And no again.
There are a number of actions we should take that are in our own best interests no matter what end is reached in scientific debates regarding global warming. We should raise mileage standards. We should weatherise our homes and offices. We should increase the intelligence of our distribution grid. We should invest in research and development of cleaner energy sources and consumption.
We should also invest in better science, and by this I don't mean fancy instruments. I think the sloppy data handling procedures and lack of responsibility shown by leadership at climate research institutes indicates a lack of adequate supervision and proper protocols. I honestly think that the scientist that went after global warming as a scientific issue felt they knew what the answer was and gundecked a lot of the work and felt they didn't have to answer to anyone.
I think a new structure for addressing the information needs regarding climate change is warranted, with divisions for research, public communications and data storage and analysis. And I definitely think new blood should be introduced to such a structure.
Until we have better confidence in some basic tenets of climate science and more confidence in the people that are doing the work, I think that more ambitious efforts should be put on hold. And, like a beauty pageant contestant who is required to pray for world peace, I cannot end without saying that our primary duty regarding this planet (which does include us, after all), is to better the lot of the poor. For those who wonder why this has anything to do with global warming, remember it is the poor that must tear down the forests for firewood and farmland, and that they are the ones forced to have six children. Help them, help the environment.
Re: sjnzb, Oldart, ReduceGHGs comments - You guys really are a show unto yourselves!
“massively funded industry “think tanks”? – right? From big oil and others about $20 million; $50 billion and counting from Shell, BP and your governments. Follow the money!
conspiracy theorists” – right? The more you keep information confined and defined by a small group, it’s easier to control the message. Basic political science stuff. Just look at your national elections – Obama can show you how!
“Among the experts that currently study climate change, there is no credible debate” “Still some will never accept the overwhelming concensus” – right? That’s laughable. Funny, I don’t remember there ever was a debate. We were told right away that the science is settled. Really? Hopefully, you guys might remember your science classes. Science has never been about consensus. Skepticism is encouraged. It makes for healthy debate and discovery (ask Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein and others)! Also, one of the foundational components of the scientific method is the idea of reproducibility (Popper 1959). In order for an experiment to be considered valid it must be replicated. Since the “experts” refused to release their data and methods for scrutiny by others (now they have lost the original raw data too), there was and is no way to prove or disprove their results! – not exactly the scientific method is it? So, by all rights, the results and the theories are questionable at best, fraudulent at worse! Try that stunt with any company and you’ll have a lawsuit!
“One of the first studies by the NAS came out in 1979” – right? Try a bit earlier - Roger Revelle (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Harvard University and University of California San Diego), Gore’s teacher at Harvard in the ‘60s, was the co-author of the seminal 1957 paper that demonstrated that fossil fuels had increased carbon-dioxide levels in the air. Under his leadership, the President's Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution in 1965 published the first authoritative U.S. government report in which carbon dioxide from fossil fuels was officially recognized as a potential global problem. You wonder where Gore’s ideas were born? Revelle (his words) was the “grandfather of the greenhouse effect”!
“I'll continue to rely on the unbiased experts” – right? Since these “experts” had their work peer-reviewed by the same “experts” (Wagman Report, CRU emails were confirmed as genuine, collaboration between “experts” and publications, etc...), I’d call that biased. The IPCC is not about science, it’s about politics! You see, the problem was the “experts” first pushed a theory, then tried to get the data to fit the results - they did that with the statements for policy makers. Those statements always came out several months before the assessment reports. That’s why many scientists who worked on the assessments disagreed with the final reports and quit because the science was being manipulated to fit the earlier statements.
“Google... Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wikipedia” – right? You’re serious about that? Connelly and crew (part of that “expert” group) are having a field day with any section that deals with global warming/climate change. That’s right! They keep reversing or altering any entry or change to those sections to maintain current AGW/climate change theory being pushed. That Mann-made "hockey stick"? Get real! MWP and LIA don’t exist? They’ve both been proven as fact and have been for years! You’re serious about Wikipedia as a source?
“just the most reliable scientific institutions there are” – right? You know those data sets often talked about that form the basis for the IPCC’s global warming/climate change reports? Let’s ask Phil Jones (from Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, published: Saturday, December 05, 2009):
- But what of Phil Jones's argument, that the Hadley and CRU datasets are nothing special. "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others," he says. "Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves."
The answer to Phil Jones comes from the Hadley Centre itself, through another fact that speaks for itself. "The datasets are largely based on the same raw data," the FAQ page at the Hadley Centre web-site states, in explaining that NASA, the National Climate Data Center and Hadley-CRU all use the same data. The different results these organizations sometimes obtain, it elaborates, stems not from the data but from its absence -- where the data is poor or non-existent, the different agencies employ different types of guesswork. –
I believe that covers those “most reliable scientific institutions” you mentioned. Every document or study that's backed by these "revised" data or numbers (that, I believe, is the "consensus" I keep hearing about) for the last dozen years is bogus and needs to be re-examined! Also, check the science again on CO2 and water vapor (the most influential greenhouse gas (95%) there is).
And yes guys, you can check all this on the Internet that Al Gore invented!
The only report I can find is this one
Source:http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/ClimateChangeandTheEconomy-ExpectedImpactsandTheirImplications.pdf , pages 26-29.
As I read it, nothing in the pages written by Steve Running makes any mention of anthropological carbon emissions, just on how carbon relates to the activities of the forest in Montana.
I jumped to the conclusion that it was another Global Warming Alarmist paper, but really it is just long-range weather/environment forecasting, and there's nothing wrong with that. Our weather forecasters were wrong with todays weather. Do I think they will be able to predict what will happen in 2080?
I guess the only thing I need to be careful of is the assumption of the words "climate change" meaning caused by human-based carbon emissions. Of course "climate change" by itself just means the weather is changing.
This story is utter tripe.
Comment By ReduceGHGs, 1-07-10I sure heard a lot of flack from naysayers over my comments but nothing of substance from a credible source that refutes the overwhelming consensus; humans are warming the planet and the consequences are not good. I even got flack for suggesting that readers go to a Wikipedia site that has the position statements of our scientific institutions. Google... Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wikipedia. The statements posted on the site are accurate as I verified many by researching articles and the institutions' web sites. But none of that matters. To the naysayers, many with symptoms of denial, if the information doesn't agree with their predisposition they will reject it. Some, as I noticed in this blog, opt for their own "scientific" analysis. At times it’s almost amusing. One poster said that "there's no credible evidence that the warming is caused by man." Sorry, ALL our historically reliable scientific institutions that considered climate change have come to generally the same conclusion. What more do the reasonable need? For the unreasonable, there will never be enough evidence so long as it’s contrary to their opinion. But that’s as expected. It takes all kinds and we certainly have all kinds.
Comment By Roger W, 1-07-10When is the biggest lie perpetrated on Man ever going to end? Not anytime soon I can assure you.
When people like Al Gore (Nobel Peace Prize winner....of course....he fits the bill) profit by the millions it would seem that somebody on the left might take notice. This doesn't seem to be the case as this huge lie serves its' true purpose which is the far left agenda; re-distribution of wealth, government controlling everything in our lives, etc. etc.
Does the planet go through periods of temperature fluxuations? Of course...ever hear of the ice age?
Notions such as carbon foot print off-sets' would on the surface be silly if it weren't so dangerous.
"Overwhelming Consensus"!!! You keep repeating this Bullshit phrase like an brainwashed automaton. What about these 31 thousand
Scientists?
http://www.petitionproject.org/
WHERE is the naysayer evidence. Calling is all a lie is NOT evidence. Beating up on Al Gore is not evidence. Denial runs amuck!
And yes, there is an overwhelming consensus. Try finding ONE credible scientific institution that says humans are NOT warming the planet. I don't think there is one.
Are there natural fluctions in climate? Yes, of course there have been, are, and will continue to be. Does anyone honestly think that the natural variations were not taken into consideration?
It mostly comes down to a lack of information. As I've noticed in my years of discussing climate change, very few naysayers, unless they are veste interests, have ever read a book about how humans are affecting the biosphere.
Here's an interesting topic that covers the foundation. There are many others.
Google... Grappling with the Anthropocene: Scientists Identify Safe Limits for Human Impacts on Planet
Or, as many will unfortunately do, choose to remain uninformed.
@ Mickey
As for the 30k "scientists", you refer to the Oregon Petition also known as The Petition Project. It was corporate propaganda and has been debunked as such. This is old news.
http://debunking.pbworks.com/Oregon-Petition
There are others sites as well where you can learn about this campaign of disinformation. Source credibility is important.
Here is a credible source that questions human induced GW: http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Comment By ReduceGHGs, 1-07-10@ Troy
No, Spencer is not credible and he has no studies to back up his opinions. He has ties to vested interests. Why gravitate to this guy where there are very reliable sources available?
Since February 2004 he has been a columnist for TCS Daily writing over forty columns, almost entirely on the the topic of global warming. Until 2006, TCS Daily was run by DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil. Spencer is a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank (corporate interests).
Ok then, we've got the full on bray going. Mickey's back with the 31 thousand scientists.
Two things to chew on: Wikipedia is a wonderful resource, but has a serious problem with contentious issues. That's an interesting story all by itself. (You could look it up.)
Secondly, the dismissal of the IPCC ("it’s about politics!") is easy enough to type from an armchair, but adds nothing to the discussion. Cheap shot accusations of scientific misconduct are meaningless. The best evidence there is for such an accusation (the so-called ClimateGate emails) don't rise to substance. Which leaves us your opinion, worth considerably less than the IPCC's cautious attempt at consensus.
The science isn't all settled and beyond debate, but the only thing that can move it forward is more, and better science. The people who complain the loudest don't seem to have the capacity to actually make a contribution in that realm.
Interesting, how first you claim there is an "overwhelming consensus", but when scientists are cited that disagree in mass, they're deemed a corporate plot that has been debunked. Your argument style reminds me of a shyster defense lawyer attempting to defend the indefensible, by attempting to discredit or marginalize anyone who disagrees. Slowly but surely, the public is beginning to see through the smokescreen of bullshit underlying AGW's so called science.
Comment By Jake, 1-07-10Surely someone as acclaimed as Dr. Running knows that warming and cooling are cyclic, Studies by NASA in 2008 reveal that the northern hemisphere is moving toward a 30 year cooling cycle. I wonder if anyone is paying attention to the cold snap in south?Last years long, cold winter? a cooler summer with lots of rain and snow up until June? Knowing what I know about forrest fires, you need heat, and lots of it...Surely the UM and its crack foresters have heard of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation? Or is PDO another inconvient truth?
Comment By ReduceGHGs, 1-07-10It is BECAUSE some are affiated with vested interests that they are dismissed as biased. It's just basic research; validate the credibility of your sources.
What is indefensible is the FACT that you (Mickey) haven't provided and can't provide ONE historically reliable scientific to support your opinion, not one. That would bother the reasonable person seeking the truth. As I said before, it won't matter to others.
If you think the truth of this lies in the public's opinion you are again mistaken. Is "the public" trained and do they conduct research? Is "the public" qualified as a whole to judge? No, of course not. I doubt you would want public opinion to engineer a Mars landing would you?
Reliance on credible insititutions like NASA, AAAS, SOCC, AGU, NAS, and many other is a far more reasonable option as opposed to the vested interests and underinformed public consensus.
The last 6 ice age-interglacial warming cycles aren't well established scientific fact? That Sea level has been both higher and lower than presently by hundreds of feet many times in Earths past isn't a well established scientific fact? Your ignorance of climate change history and its relevance to present climate change illustrates your general ignorance perfectly.
Comment By ReduceGHGs, 1-07-10@ Jake
When heat waves occur what do deniers think? They dismiss it as typical. When cold waves come, they clutch it as proof that humans aren't warming the planet.
Yes, we are in a natural cooling cycle but it has been overridden by human activity. There will be cooler and warmer periods but the trends are for warming temps and a higher accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere.
Another interesting topic that deniers choose to avoid is Ocean Acidification. The oceans are not only warming up they are getting more acidic as they absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Much of humanity depends on fish for sustinance so to have the ocean's food chain break down or be damaged would put many millions at risk.
@ Mickey
The last ice ages were the result of the earth's orbital variations and "wobbles". I'm well aware of these events and yes the locking up if ice in the polar regions lowered sea levels and on....
The fact that we have natural climate change doesn't dismiss the
FACT that we now have unnatural climate change.
Ocean acidification: More AGW bullshit to excite faithful believers. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from
Comment By ReduceGHGs, 1-07-10@ Mickey
Now that's typical. Ignore the facts. It doesn't matter that many studies have been conducted.
If I were to say that ocean temps were up I'm sure I'd hear that it's all BS.
Remember why we inacted the Clean Air and Water Acts? No, just deny that they were needed.
Remember that the earth is much older than 6,000 years? No, all those layers were created in a flood weren't they?
Good luck with your denials. I hope that other decisions you make in life have a rational foundation.
8.179 to 8.104. AT this rate of acidification it would take about 3500 years for the ocean to become slightly acidic (7.0). In any case Coral became plentiful about 500 million years ago when atmospheric C02 levels were 10X greater than today.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 1-07-10Apparently you can't tell the difference between toxic chemicals and CO2.
Comment By ReduceGHGs, 1-07-10Thanks for the "scientific" analysis. It will be given DUE consideration.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 1-07-10So then, given the magnitude of natural climate change during the last 18 thousand years in terms of sea level rise per century and atmospheric temp. change per century (do the math), what makes you think that alleged AGW is the source of present warming and sea level rise?
Comment By Horst, 1-07-10Mickey Garcia can't tell the difference between wishful thinking and established science.
Comment By Binky Griptight, 1-07-10Here's a summary of the Running study (requires Adobe acrobat):
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/RockyClimate-pages-Proof150.pdf
Oh for Christ's sake, there are any number of active volcanoes that are spewing all sorts of gasses into the environment - quite a few are under the sea and along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
Nobody ever considers what impact they have.
The emissions from human activities is 125 times as that from volcanoes. This info is on the net.
And again, ya think those emissions were just overlooked? Come on.
Some may think I'm making this stuff up but here it is. This is from the USGS. The myth about volcanoes emitting more GHGs than humans is dead wrong.
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006)"
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
C'mon skeptics, you're stuck on arguments #1 and #2. It's time to move on to how climate change is going to be beneficial, really.
http://fortboise.org/blog/200912.html#p12231
By Mickey Garcia, 1-06-10
England and parts of Europe are getting slammed with some of the coldest, snowiest weather in recent memory. Ditto the Midwest, East, and Southern U.S. Must be Anthropogenic Global Warming! Additionally parts of the U.S. recorded the coldest wettest October in over 100 years. Must be Anthropogenic Global Warming!
Mickey you dummy thats exactly the kind of weather changes predicted by climate change scientists. More extremes on both ends hot and cold, wet and dry.
Oh wait you dont believe in science or an earth that revolves around the sun.
The 4 major carbon reservoirs contain about 4000 gigatons of carbon altogether. The atmosphere contains about 750 gigatons of carbon, the surface ocean about 1020 gigatons, the soils about 1580 gigatons, and vegetation about 610 gigatons. Human activity introduces about 6.5 to 8.5 gigatons of carbon annually into the atmosphere which amounts to between .5 and 1.5 percent of total atmospheric carbon. The 4 carbon reservoirs exchange about 450 gigatons of carbon between them annually and naturally. Geothermal activity beneath the ocean surface may contribute a significant amount of heat to the oceans but no one knows because it can't be quantified for obvious reasons.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 1-07-10Increasing C02, increases plant growth more effectively that increasing heat or water. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the increased atmospheric C02 has increased crop production and forest growth about 20 percent, Which is generally considered a good thing.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 1-07-10Sorry T.P., you're the dummy. There is no evidence of an increase in the number of extreme weather events during the past century.
Comment By Tom von Alten, 1-07-10Thanks for getting us back on track, Mickey.
How do you suppose the benefit of increased CO2 will balance out with drought, heat stress and bark beetles?
Mickey is incorrect even in assuming it will be better for our economy in the short run if we ignore the entire issue.
There will be more than the four horsemen afoot very soon...
Don't believe for a minute that the volcanic emissions figures are in any way correct. They keep "discovering" volcanos under the sea - 2 years ago a huge one was discovered under the Arctic Ocean, just recently a new one popped forth in the Pacific. They have no accurate way of measuring volcanic emissions because they have no accurate measure of the volcanic activity on the planet.
Furthermore, this whole discussion fails to take into account the time factor involved with REAL climate change - it is the stuff of centuries, even millenia.
There was the Little Ice Age in the mid-2nd-millenium. People thought the world was freezing - later generations found out that the climate reversed - but the people who lived in the Little Ice Age were all dead and gone.
Furthermore, the really scary scenario is what happens where there is no more petroleum to burn.
Nothing will ever take the place of gasoline: it's portable, relatively cheap compared to other fuel technologies - and the potential energy contained within is the result of millions of microorganisms working tirelessly over millions of years.
There are alternatives but they are all prohibitively expensive.
Think of it: all the economics of consumerism will change. Shipping costs will soar, affecting the price of construction materials, food, clothing etc. Home heating costs will rise.
Yes cars may run on electricity - but ignoring the CO2 factor there - how many electric cars can go on cross-country trips at the drop of a hat - or how fast can an electric car go? You go on a 3-5 hour drive now and your car needs gas, you simply refill. With an electric car, you're going to have to wait for it to recharge.
In the early decades of the twentieth century, the most serious pollution problem in Western cities was horsesh*t. People were seriously concerned because there was so much of it the sanitation departments couldn't find places to dump it all.
The internal combustion engines took care of that problem and something did take the the place of old dobbins...
Increasing atmospheric CO2 isn't causing drought, heat stress or Bark Beetles. As I said previously on this thread when the ocean surface temperature changes in large sections of ocean, then precipitation patterns on land is affected. Currently El Nino is causing total precip to increase and at the same causing less precip in parts of the Inter Mountain West and Northern U.S. Rockies.
Comment By the real mike, 1-08-10...and as I said previously, Mickey, you have absolutely no understanding of or credibility on this topic. I suspect that, if you were truthful, you'd have to confess that you haven't even got a very good education at all. You're actually just the ranting street-corner village "character" of Ketchum. From what I've been told, there isn't a single town office they'll elect you to, despite your efforts. You just keep passing out misinformation and that's a morally reprehensible thing to do.
Comment By Tedham Porterhouse, 1-08-10Mickey is a failed political right wing crazy
village idiot of ketchum sit down...please sit down.
Ol' mick is familiar with the bible, though. He knows all the prophets were town loons; so he figures god will be picking up his ticket...
Comment By TomK, 1-08-10The liberals must sense that they're about to lose this argument.
I had no idea who was on top until I saw the personal attacks come out.
Is it at all possible for a liberal whacko to say "maybe you have a valid point" instead of resorting to personal attacks? I've never seen it fail. Back a liberal into a corner and he turns to personal attacks. Careful Mickey, they'll be trying to supeona your computer next.
Tom K
ummm tommy boy did you know your defending the king of personal attacks.
Mickey Garcia, 1-03-10
A lot of these environmental extremist wackos are actually CAVE BANANA NIMBY's (Citizens Against Virtually Everything, Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody, Never In My Back Yard) masquerading as protectors of the Earth. They nail themselves to the cross of "Wilderness" and fancy that they are martyrs for the Earth, but most normal folks see them as Bossy, Goofy, Hypocritical and sometimes dangerous nuisances, kinda of like Al Qaeda.
Calling people you disagree with terrorists is a lot worse than exposing the village idiot for what he is.
Apparently the definition of "personal" eludes you, retards.
Comment By the real mike, 1-08-10I guess we're just "bossy, goofy, retards" who can't understand how your comments are elevated and gentile rather that "personal" in any way.
Comment By lance olsen, 1-09-10Steve Running's recent study nudges New West just that much closer to including a panel presentation on climate impact(s) in its next big conference on the future of Rocky Mountain real estate.
Comment By Tedhamp Porterhouse, 1-09-10mickey
we all know who you are adressing.
Your not gonna weasel your way out of being an utter as*hole by claimimng you did'nt say any names.
Village idiot of Ketchum.....Village idiot hahahahhaa
mickey-
anyone who uses the word "retard" is exactly that.
How cruel and hateful can you really be.
Your a overweight, wrinkled, angry right wing crazy
just fuc* off will ya.
Whats truly funny is that mickey reckons himself fit for public office
LMFAO!
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/01/top-15-climate-myths.html
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 1-09-10No matter how loudly the vituperative, insane rantings, of a few retarded monkeys, still doesn't replace actual facts.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 1-09-10"personal" and "gentile" aren't antonyms.
Comment By the real mike, 1-09-10Gosh, Mickey, just when I was starting to think that Porterhouse had gone too far, just when I was starting to worry that he was perhaps going to make you look a bit better by comparison, you come back with a reference to the insane rantings of a few retarded monkeys. Pull yourself together.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 1-09-10In the insult department, I give as good or better than I receive. More importantly, the same holds true for the facts department.
Comment By sznzb, 1-09-10If one could redact the rantings of this Mickey person and any references or responses to him/her/it, this might be a relatively productive discussion. Alors, that's not to be.
Comment By jtom, 1-09-10TO: ReduceGHGs
The list of scientists below directly refute the concept of AGW.
I have more if these aren't enough. If you go down the list you will see plenty of names directly linked to climate studies.
Please quit trying to get people to drink you Kool-Aid.
Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Canberra, Australia
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, U.S.
William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Canada
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, UK; Editor, Energy & Environment journal
Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.
Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr., UNEP Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, U.S.
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada
Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, U.S.
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J., U.S.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, U.S.
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, U.S.
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak', Australia
William Evans, PhD, Editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, U.S.
Stewart Franks, PhD, Associate Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, U.S.
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, U.S.
Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona, U.S.
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, U.S.; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Russia
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, U.S.
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former Research Scientist Environment Canada; Editor "Climate Research" (03-05); Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology
Jan J.H. Kop, M.Sc. Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Professor of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
Professor R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, U.S.
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant - power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
William Lindqvist, PhD, consulting geologist and company director, Tiburon, California, U.S.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.
A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S.
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada
John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, computer scientist, Melbourne, Australia
Owen McShane, B. Arch., Master of City and Regional Planning (UC Berkeley), economist and policy analyst, joint founder of the International Climate Science Coalition, Director - Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Canada
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University, Canada
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Lubos Motl, PhD, physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
John Nicol, PhD, physicist, James Cook University, Australia
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Canada
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, U.S.
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Canada
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota, U.S.
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University
Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherlands Air Force
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, U.S.
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C., Canada
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA, U.S.
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S.
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC, U.S.
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Len Walker, PhD, power engineering, Pict Energy, Melbourne, Australia
Edward J. Wegman, Bernard J. Dunn Professor, Department of Statistics and Department Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia, U.S.
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technology and Economics Berlin, Germany
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, energy consultant, Virginia, U.S.
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy.
Binky, thanks for the link...although this document is pretty darn shallow. One thing striking right off the bat is the heat-stress day graphic....the stress areas are already pretty much desert -- dh Snake valley, SE Oregon, central Washington. Not a lot of trees there.
I was also really struck by the Siskiyous red area. That's already a given, because the area is a transition between the Med zone of California and the Gulf systems. Doesn't get the Calfornia fog, but gets the California blast oven. Gets the Oregon winter wets, but not the summer moisture inflows. So it's already a strange forest ecotype and that won't change.
Never mind that Tom Power is a contributor here. He's got NO cred for balance given his past authorship for the general readership for Island Press, which in turn is a press house for subsidy publishing of advocacy "nonfiction."
jtom writes, "The list of scientists below directly refute the concept of AGW," And adds, "I have more if these aren't enough."
I'm sure that jtom's list extends to 32,000 scientists who refute human-caused global warming. But there was a time when that number was much higher, including every scientist in the world.
Fourier broke the ice, so to speak, in the 1820s, when he realized that Earth should be too cold to support life. Solar energy streaming down through the atmosphere, he reasoned, should just strike Earth's surface and be reflected right back through the atmosphere into the deep cold of space. Fourier couldn't be sure, but he was willing to speculate that some of the gases known to exist in the atmosphere might inhibit the escape back to space. Few noticed Fourier's hunch.
It wasn't until 1859 that Tyndall ran experiments whose results confirmed that at least two atmospheric gases -- water vapor and carbon dioxide -- did have capacity to slow the escape of heat. Again, hardly anyone paid attention.
And it wasn't until 1896 that Arhennius realized that combustion of fossil fuels could add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Using the crude model of his day, he estimated that continued combustion of fossil fuel could one day raise global temperatures enough to reduce the world's snow and ice. He thought that might not be such a bad thing.
It wasn't until the 1930s that an American engineer, Guy Callendar, started warning that rising temperatures could become too much of a good thing. His own simple model, generally adapted from Arhennius, convinced Callendar that the heating could even reach dangerous levels.
All through the century from the 1820s to the 1930s, the vast majority of scientists ignored, doubted, pooh-poohed and rejected the thinking of what was then a tiny minority in the scientific ranks. Even by the 1950s, very few scientists gave a moment's thought to human combustion of fossil fuels as a driving force behind rising temperatures.
As recently as the 1970s, meteorologists were all but unanimous in ignoring the issue, if not openly scoffing at it. But the numbers of doubtful scientists have been whittled down since then. Many scientists, reviewing the lines of evidence from a broad base of specialties, have whittled themselves from the list of doubters in the past couple decades.
How far has this whittling gone? All the way down to a relative handful of only 32,000 today.
"Using the crude model of his day" That's the problem. Crude models are still being used. Water vapor and water droplets (clouds) account for about 95% of the Greenhouse effect. Additionally the cooling feedback effect of the evaporation-condensation-precipitation cycle increases to counteract increased warming of different parts of the Earth. The amount of water vapor and clouds in the atmosphere changes on an hourly basis. Additionally, the size of water droplets in clouds change the energy being reflected and absorbed by the clouds. In any case the hourly change in energy balance caused by clouds + water vapor overwhelms any theoretical "forcing" effect of CO2. The underlying assumption of models is that more C02=more heat retained by "greenhouse" Earth. If the assumption is incorrect then the output is going to be incorrect. Garbage in=Garbage out. Weather systems do not behave like a "greenhouse". They behave like a heat pump driven by the second law of thermodynamics removing heat upward and poleward from hotter to colder places. The more heat applied to the system the more rapid the movement becomes.
Comment By Lesley Chow, 1-18-10http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal#cite_note-0
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
sure mickey you just know soo much better than everyone.
"you know so much better than everyone" They are a lot of people including climate Scientists, that know this stuff.
Comment By Lesley Chow, 1-18-10sure mickey
it's all just a hoax now you get rest your head.
Exactly. You have a brain after all.
Comment By jtom, 1-18-10lance olsen, 1-18-10:
First, my response was to some yo-yo who was claiming that not one legitimate climatologist didn't believe in AGW.
Second, you are behind the times. The number of scientists who do not believe in AGW has been increasing. Every passing year has made the AGW ground shakier. The best the believers can do is say it has been warm; they can not explain the failure of the climate to get warmER despite increasing CO2 levels.
The two small groups which have supplied the world's climatologists with global temperature data have been caught in numerous....errors....all in favor of warming temperatures. There is now some suspicion that analysis done by many climatologists may suffer from GIGO.
Regardless, science is not determined by a popularity contest.
It is not unusual for a theory to slowly gain a following, become the generally accepted model, then fall out of favor for a better theory. That is the way it is and always will be for science.
Newtonian physics did not have a lot of followers at the beginning. It then became accepted by virtually all physicists for over two hundred years before Einstein showed that it was incomplete and could not be used to accurately predict the motions of fast particles. Unlike Newton's equations, Einstein's equations can be used to explain the motion of objects regardless of speed.
There was no generally accepted value for a Mercury 'day' prior to the mid 20th century. Then theorists showed that, because of the gravitational effect of the sun, Mercury's day must equal the same as its year, presenting the same side to the sun all the time as the moon does with Earth. This became the accepted theory of a 'consensus' of scientists - that is until improved radar technology proved beyond question that the planet rotated every 88 days.
This proves a point: theories must be changed to conform to real, observed data. Unfortunately, the situation with AGW is that real data has been 'massaged' to conform to the theory - but the foundation of the theory has begun to crumble.
Climate change deniers......right wing crazies....the same.
Comment By Troy, 1-19-10I voted for Obama and am more towards the left but believe we're not doomed because of crazy predictions...this is not a left or right thing...it's more of a science thing - science is never settled - it's on going and always changing as does the climate. People aren't denying the climate is changing - it's been changing since day 1! What people DON'T want to hear is that we're doomed unless we starting paying more taxes. We don't want to hear that most of Florida will be under water in 50 years or that we can expect this or that...unless we do such and such.
Comment By lance olsen, 1-19-10Troy writes "What people DON'T want to hear is that..." and also writes that "We don't want to hear that ..."
Very true. And there are many other things that people don't want to hear. Examples are legion. Here's just one: Back in 2001, The Economist cited concerns that the US was inflating a housing bubble, and that Americans could end up bailing out their big mortgage lending institutions. That wasn't very popular, either. After all, the boom of lending, building and logging was touted as economic growth, and it propped up jobs all the way from Wall Street to the woods. Nobody wanted that party to end.
It wasn't until 2007 that we had to face what we hadn't wanted to even hear.
Anthropogenic global warming is anthropogenic nonsense. Thank goodness for increasing CO2.
Comment By bearbait, 1-19-10I wonder what kind of drought is going to produce the predicted 20" of rainfall this week in SoCal. I am predicting some watershed realignments for the area. I also wonder how many fires and how many weather events it takes to fill the multitude of smaller reservoirs down there to brim full of headwall failures and washed out roads following stand removal fires. That stuff used to flow all the way to the sea, and there it nurtured a whole ecosystem. Now the same events wash a whole lot of cat shit into the sea, containing a parasite that cats can live with and sea otters cannot, and leaves the gravel behind a dam. Cat crap in runoff has stalled sea otter re-establishment, and as a side benefit, the cats are part of the US population that kills a billion or more birds a year, and take up enough space and divert enough food in the supermarket to feed half of Africa. Gotta love them cats!!!
Will global warming be cat friendly? That is the important question. How will cats fare? We see the reptiles of Florida are doing well, and now there are pure strains and cross bred strains of boas now constricting their way through the Everglades. The new one is the rock boa from Africa, which is a goat, crocodile, and human eater in Africa. Boy, is that fodder for CSI Miami or what!!!! So will global warming bring them north? Will they eat the last polar bear? Or at the least, some of the feral cats?
This is an el Nino year on the Left Coast. A known weather event. We know we get more rain, less snow, because the ocean low pressures are stronger due to heating, and the Arctic highs are higher due to the Siberian Express extreme cold air (as opposed to the Pineapple Express from el Nino), and the pressure differences due to more extreme cold north and heating south, give the Left Coast some hurricane winds on headlands almost weekly. Trees down and lights out. The freezing levels are higher and so are snow levels. I looked at Mary's Peak in the Oregon Coast Ranger yesterday (I could see it!!! no low clouds!!), and here it is the 18th of January and no snow on the Peak. None. Two years ago, there was snow until June there and on lower north slopes along the Coast Range. Our weather varies from year to year, but it will rain in winter a lot. Nevertheless, the el Nino shoves the Arctic high pressure east where it flows to equilibrium towards the Gulf and that has been fun to watch.
The MidWest, New England and the East Coast have had some doozy snow and freeze events. And they are all inter-related with the warmer Left Coast el Nino event. Next year will be different. There is now sun spot activity once again. Hang on to your hat in hurricane country. Buy the flood insurance. Your time will come. Meanwhile, academia is awash in loot to produce positive results that can blame weather on anthropomorphic activity, and that is just a hoot to watch. So who is pissing in the Pacific and warming it up along the Equator? China? India? All of SE Asia in concert with making heavy metal laden children's toys? Is it a by product of Nike sneakers? Or is it just the way it works, in some sort of cosmic game of chance, sun spots, rogue radiation from somewhere a billion light years away?
In one of those earthly deals that involves physics that people like me have no idea of how and why it works, we have ocean currents, and water has density according to temperature, and the moon creates tides, and there is all this flow and mixing and it appears that hot water wants to run to cold or vice versa, not unlike atmospheric gases. High to low, hot to cold, all the time these huge elemental physical entities, so huge and so complicated, are engaged in some sort of elegantly choreographed dance of physics yet to be fully understood, and now we want a piece of the action? Man wants to be included? Pick me!! Pick me!!! I did it!!! I did it!!! Sure, just like an aboriginal rain dance. The shaman as weatherman. Live long enough, observe long enough, and you sort of know what the weather will be in a few hours or even a day. I have to imagine there were a lot of successful "fires for beneficial use" set by Native Americans based on the instincts and observations of some old men and women. And they were not very concerned if they were "green" enough, or if they were going to cause global warming. After all, their most feared time of the year was winter. Around here, the Calapooyia name for February was "burnt chest hairs month." Getting REAL close to the fire. Real close. Worried to death about global warming. Worrying that the fire they set in October that ended up consuming a couple of hundred thousand acres of vegetation might bring about a vast change in the weather. Or were they just tickled pink about all the easy to gather firewood that fire would produce over the years as limbs fell off and trees blew over? All the easy firewood for cold winters.
As a race of thinking individuals, we think too much about stuff that we can't change or don't need to worry about. We will die. How about with a lot of people working, and with a modicum of security about their future? And ten cords of firewood curing for next winter.
yo bearbait,
Nice rambling swim in the ocean, did you catch anything while you were out there?
6 or 7 billion humans pack a punch. You want to check out some watershed realignment, go visit the Appalachians where they do that wholesale.
The earth (and extra-terrestrials) can indeed cook up some catastrophic excitement. (Just wait until the sun expands to the orbit of Venus.) It's not hubris to imagine that yes, humans can influence climate. It's a modicum of caution, which suggests a certain species maturity that's rather a new thing.
I would be amazed at the number of willfully ignorant people if I hadn't noticed that it is actually a small number of people posting over and over again.
Comment By bearbait, 1-19-10von A: I have never seen the Appalachian strip mining. I am sure it is just wrong. But, the Chair of the committee in the House that rules on all things environmental is chaired by a strip mining West Virginian name Rahal, who is hard wired to protect the West from ourselves. I guess his state is in a sacrificial zone of congressional protection and Byrd rule of appropriate stances for appropriate occasions. A ruin of a man crying in a wheelchair, and voting in the Senate, when they need him and can get him out of the hospital to the Senate chambers...I am a cynic when it comes to the Eastern Elite "do as I say, not as I do" types.
Yep. But just remember, 2,500,000 acre feet of Klamath Watershed water is taken from the cold, clear North Fork of the Trinity, and moved through powerhouses, penstocks, more powerhouses, and into the Sacramento River to run down that river to giant pumphouses that are the single greatest users of electrical power in California, to be run and pumped uphill a couple of hundred miles south to water federally subsidized crops in the desert, and for it to work, they need 5 acres feet of water a year. Two just to suppress salts from prior irrigation. That, friend, is wiping your ass on a small hoop.
Just think of taking 2,500,000 acre feet out of the Bitterroot and using Thompson Falls electricity and Columbia Falls electricity to move it by canals and tunnels to put into the Madison to irrigate for a sugar beet co-op in Glendive.
I cannot fathom how we can read and read about taking out 4 hydro dams (I have a dog in the fight---the power supplier for my town is PPL, now owned by Buffett, who says they will charge ratepayers to remove the dams and to construct new power sources-that power never ran one light bulb at my house which is 300 miles from the dams) all the while 2,500,000 acre feet of water is TAKEN OUT OF THE KLAMATH RIVER WATERSHED AND USED TO WATER DESERT AND LEACH SELENIUM INTO PONDS TO KILL MIGRATORY BIRDS, ALL THE WHILE USING VAST HYDROPOWER RESOURCES AS THEY ASK ME TO CONSERVE!!!! How taking out those dams will do any good to a river that is losing that much water to diversion to another watershed is beyond me. Every 435,600 cubic feet of every acre of water removed does not raise a fingerling salmon, does not keep the stream level high enough to allow spawning, the list is long, is a travesty and is patently wrong. Especially if "saving" salmon is the issue. You cannot get there from here if you are without a significant amount of the total stream flow. You can't raise as many fish. Impossible. Therefore, "recovery" is impossible. The dam removal deal is a victory dance for NGOs, and a source of money for them. But the fish will still suffer. The Trinity water is COLD. Klamath water is warm. And, to add insult to injury, two of the three major tribs below the dams are still not going to have biologically significant water in them all during irrigation season as both the Shasta and Scott Rivers are way, way over subscribed. Cannot get there from here. And the remaining water in the Klamath, if only due to whatever inertia there is to water temps by volume, cannot be mitigated on the last 40 odd miles of the Klamath by the missing Trinity water. In one of those odd deals, the Klamath begins in desert, and wends its way on the lower third through forest land, and the Trinity starts above timberline in snowfields, and is in forestland its whole route to it junction with the Klamath River. The Trinity is the cool tributary, and the summer and late summer refuge for returning adults, who need to wait for cooling water as the days fade, get shorter, and frosts come to the highlands and desert.
Until that and the issue of NO water getting into SF Bay from the Sac/SJ rivers, and the wholesale disruption of that ecosystem and fish nursery, there will never be salmon fishing for chinook on the ocean. No herring in SF Bay. The sea lions left, starving. They are now on the Oregon coast, looking for returning Columbia River salmon and sturgeon. When you don't have a huge fresh water plume out of SF Bay, you kill the whole attendant ecosystem. The Columbia River is putting 210 Million acre feet of water in the ocean annually. That plume is working. All the albacore caught last summer on the US Coast were at the margins of that plume. That plume raises the fall chinook for the Northwest coast. The SF Bay plume, and the Colorado River plume in the Sea of Cortez are a thing of the past, and of far greater impact than Appalachian strip mining. The farther south you travel on the East coast, the more wet and semi tropical the countryside gets. On the West coast, it just gets drier the farther south you go. It is a lee shore deal, and a mountains deal. Works the same way in South America on the West Coast. California exists due to water theft institutionalized by State and Federal government. Without water theft, SoCal is Dubai now that the oil is gone. No water, no rain, but nice weather, and the sea close by, albeit now getting pretty sterile. Global warming has nothing to do with changing the salmon runs of the West Coast. Running all the water out onto the desert does. And over fishing has. And now we have this insanity with having excess fish show up at hatcheries, and the State giving them to food banks. The best, absolute best, use for a spawned out, ragged old salmon is to be put in the creek to feed it and the riparian zone and the uplands, and all the critters thereof. If you don't fertilize the creek with dead salmon, you can't have a robust environment for fingerling salmon to grow. But still the State sends excess fish to a processing plant in Washington state, which takes the eggs, and keeps the heads and tails for cat food, and fillets and flash freezes the rest for distribution to the not working, won't work, and institutionally state dependent. All at a cost, borne entirely by the damned fishing license I and thousands of others bought. Charity in our name, but without recognition. Just another subsidy for the poor, while the salmon streams suffer from nutrient deficiencies. Go figure.