International representatives have agreed for the first time that
the world's climate is already warming and that human activities
are a likely contributor to the change. The consensus, affirmed at
a recent UN conference of 500 delegates from 120 countries, is
stated in the final report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Vhance (IPCC). Even the governments of oil-producing countries
such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, after initially obstructing the
IPCC process, joined the consensus.

The current prediction is that, unless emissions of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases are curtailed, temperatures will rise
between 1.8 and 6.3 degrees F over the next century, causing glaciers
to shrink, sea level to rise 6 to 38 inches, and widespread coastal
erosion to occur. Other probably future effects include expansion
of tropical insect-borne diseases such as malaria and yellow-fever
into temperate areas; large shifts in agriculture; and damage to
natural ecosystems, leading to species extinctions. 

13 responses total.

The following was downloaded from the web site of the Environmental
Defense Fund, at http://www.edf.org

                       Global Warming: Facts vs. Myths

MYTH: Temperatures at high altitudes in the atmosphere are measured by
satellites while temperatures at Earth's surface are measured by
ground-based and ship-board thermometers. Thermometers show a global
warming trend while satellite data measured since 1979 show no trend. This
discrepancy means there is no convincing evidence of global warming. 

FACT: The difference between the two records since 1979, about 0.2¡
Celsius, may be less important than it appears, given that changes in
greenhouse gases may affect the temperature at the surface and the
temperature in the troposphere, which the satellites measure, differently.
Furthermore, the satellite record is brief and contains some uncertanties.
Surface data are available for more than a century, permitting the
derivation of a long term trend despite uncertainties. They exhibit a
definitive warming of one-half degree Celsius on land and sea, in both
hemispheres. 

MYTH: Computer models which project future climate are worthless as
indicators of the effect of greenhouse gases on global temperature. In
particular, they fail to account for the past one-half degree warming.
Therefore, there is no basis for estimating future global warming. 

FACT: Models reproduce some key features of global climate, including the
magnitude of the temperature variation from winter to summer and aspects
of ancient climates inferred from ice cores, pollen and fossil data. When
changes in emissions which cause particulate haze as well as greenhouse
gases are taken into account, the models also simulate a global
temperature trend over the past century which is consistent with the
observed warming. Apart from computer models, ice core data show a strong
association between carbon dioxide and temperature for the past 200,000
years. 

MYTH: Changes in temperature and changes in greenhouse gas emissions over
the past century do not match very well. Therefore, measured warming
cannot be due to the greenhouse gases. 

FACT: Many factors influence climate in addition to the buildup of
greenhouse gases, so there is no reason to expect the two trends to match
exactly. However, computer models indicate that warming due to the
greenhouse gas buildup will dominate the other factors over the coming
decades. These factors include small changes in the output of the sun,
emissions of particulate haze from volcanic eruptions and from fossil fuel
burning which reflects sunlight, and natural variations of climate. For
much of the past century, these other factors may have had an influence on
global mean temperature at a given time comparable to the effect of the
human-made greenhouse gases. In addition, the slow heating of the oceans
leads to a lag between emissions and their effect on temperature.
Therefore, a simple overlay of greenhouse gas emissions and temperature
data is deceptive. A computer model of all the influences on climate is
needed to interpret historical temperature data. Attempts to do so show a
consistency between observed warming and model simulations with the
buildup of greenhouse gases being a dominant factor. 

MYTH: Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere fairly quickly, so if
global warming turns out to be a problem, society can wait until after
consequences occur to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

FACT: Carbon dioxide, which is emitted largely by combustion of fossil
fuels, is the most important human-made greenhouse gas. If emissions of
carbon dioxide were halted today, it would take more than a century for
the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide to approach its pre-industrial
value. Furthermore, about 15% of emitted carbon dioxide would remain
airborne for thousands of years, causing warming indefinitely. In
addition, the slow warming of the ocean creates a lag between emissions
and their full effect on temperature. By the time scientists measure the
full consequences of today's emissions decades from now, more carbon
dioxide will have been emitted, with yet more warming inevitable. So
action in advance of unfortunate consequences is necessary. 

MYTH: Rapid warming occurred at early times without catastrophic
consequences, so society and ecosystems can adapt readily to any
foreseeable warming. 

FACT: Rapid warming occurred in some places at the end of the last glacial
period, but global climate has been stable for ten thousand years. During
this time, agriculture and civilization arose, leading to fixed
settlements, costly infrastructure, and large populations in areas which
are highly vulnerable to climate shifts, such as low-lying coastal zones.
In the future, human settlements, highways, and farmland will inhibit
migration of species adjusting to a warming climate. Climate changes in
the distant past may not have occurred rapidly everywhere at once.
Furthermore, there were no human-made barriers to inhibit adaptation by
ecosystems. 

MYTH: Warming has been occurring largely at night, which is less of a
problem than daytime warming. 

FACT: Warming over the past century has occurred both during the day and
at night, but night-time warming has been the greater of the two. The
buildup of particulate haze from combustion discussed above has probably
caused this asymmetric warming. But as warming continues, the preference
for night-time warming is expected to diminish, in part because the slow
heating of the oceans causes a uniform warming over time. In any event,
night-time warming would be experienced by society and ecosystems
differently than daytime warming, but may be no less problematic. For
example, elevated night-time temperature places particular stress on some
plants and may directly affect the health of vulnerable individuals. 

Environmental Defense Fund (www.edf.org)
257 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10010

So now Science magazine is supposedly publishing the results of a
study that claims increased radiation from the sun is the cause of
temperature  increases on earth.  Looks like congressional action
to reverse that trend is definitely indicated!

(Washington, DC)-- A majority of state climatologists say reducing man-made
carbon dioxide emissions to1990 levels or lower would not prevent warmer
temperatures on earth, according to a new survey commissioned by Citizens for
a Sound Economy (CSE) Foundation. That's because, according to those surveyed,
most climatologists believe global warming "is a largely natural phenomenon."

"In the debate over global warming, we've recently heard from a lot of
so-called experts that global warming is for real and that we humans are to
blame," says Paul Beckner, president of CSE Foundation. "While President
Clinton and others might think so, those who deal with climate issues day in
and day out disagree, and we think it's important that the American people
know that there are in fact climate experts in this country who do disagree
with the conventional wisdom on global warming."

Fifty-eight percent of the state climatologists surveyed said they disagreed
with President Clinton's claim that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and
scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global
warming is for real" and with the statement that "there is ample evidence that
human activities are already disrupting the global climate*" Only 36 percent
of the climatologists agreed with Clinton's assertion.

By a 44 to 17 percent margin, climatologists say that "recent global warming
is a largely natural phenomenon," while nine out of 10 of the climatologists
surveyed agreed that "scientific evidence indicates variations in global
temperature are likely to be naturally-occurring and cyclical over very long
periods of time."

re #3 Source please.  Climatoligists is that atmospheric scientists we are
talking about? The language is vague in the article and gives no
institutional affiliation or credentials of these "climatologists." 

It's really just another tax hike, right?

I imagine "state climatologists" are weathermen in the employ of the
department of commerce, or equivalent, and would be *very* unlikely to
voice an economically disturbing thought.

I did do some research on the net and as I suspected much of the critique
of global warming models comes from conservative think tanks like the CATO
institutes Richard S. Lindzen.  Lindzen appears to be a credentialed
atmospheric scientist from MIT ,however, he seems to be the only vocal
opponent to the consensus reached by the IPCC among atmospheric scientists
that global warming has occured and is most likely caused by human
activity. Even Lindzen will under preassure admit that the averge global
tempature has risen ~1.2 C in the last century though he tries to
downplay the idea that this increase has human causes. There is an
interesting web site that hosted a debate between IPCC members,
environmentalists and industry representatives at a law school (I don't
have the URL handy) that shows how complex and contentious the global
warming issue has become. 

The crux of the issue to my mind is that acting to prevent global warming
will at most mean scrificing a few luxuries from the overconsumptive
lifestyles of western industrial nations, not acting on the other hand
could lead to agricultural collapse, rising ocean levels, unstable weather
patterns, and massive ecological disruption.
 

Science 1997;276:1040-1042

As Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of State Madeline Albright, and State
department hacks Tim Wirth and Eileen Clausen make final preparations for
railroading the U.S. into an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, scientists who in the past supported the global warming theory are
having second thoughts.

Climate modeler Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
who is the lead author of the chapter in the 1996 U.N. report that linked
temperature rise with human activity, now says

It's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the
[U.N. report's] chapter [on the attribution of greenhouse warming]. I think
the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the
attribution issue was a done deal.

Thanks Ben. And what have you been doing about this as the Gore-Albright
LOCO-motive steams toward the treaty signing in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997?

A senior climate modeler who wants to remain anonymous said, "The more you
learn [about climate change] the more you understand that you don't understand
very much."

And once the climate change bubble bursts for good, this guy's gonna need more
than anonymity - he's gonna need a good witness protection program.

The problem with the global climate change theory is that it depends upon what
is currently a house of cards -i.e., computer modeling. As stated in the
Science article,

The effort to simulate climate in a computer faces two kinds of obstacles:
lack of computer power and a still very incomplete picture of how real-world
climate works. The climate forecasters' basic strategy is to build a
mathematical model that recreates global climate processes as closely as
possible, let the model run, and then test it by comparing the results to the
historical climate record. But even with today's powerful supercomputers, that
is a daunting challenge, says modeler Michael Schlesinger of the University
of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: "In the climate system, there are 14 orders
of magnitude of scale, from the planetary scale - which is 40 million meters
-down to the scale of one of the little aerosol particles on which water vapor
can change phase to a liquid [cloud particle] - which is a fraction of a
millionth of a millimeter."

Of these 14 orders of magnitude, note Schlesinger, researchers are able to
include in their models only the two largest, the planetary scale and the
scale of weather disturbances: "To go to the third scale - which is [that of
thunderstorms] down around 50 kilometers resolution - we need a computer a
thousand times faster, a teraflops machine that maybe we'll have in 5 years."
And including the smallest scales, he says, would require 10 (to the 36th
power) to 10 (to the 37th power) more computer power. "So we're kind of
stuck."

A lot of the above is NOT quoted from SCIENCE, but is klg's take on it. How
about some quotation marks? The subject article ends:

"That's no excuse for complacency, many scientists say. Basic theory, this
century's warming, and geologic climate records all suggest that increasing
carbon dioxide will warm the planet. 'I'd be surprised if that went away,'
says Suarez, as would most climate researchers. North suggests that while
researchers are firming up the science, policy-makers could inaugurate 'some
cautious things' to moderate any warming. The last thing he and his colleagues
want is a rash of headlines saying the threat is over."

bal Warning Alert . . Global Warning Alert . . Global Warning Alert . .
Gl

It has been reported that the new issue of Nature Magazine contains an
article that contends the particulate pollution in the air is keeping
the atmosphere cool by reflecting solar energy.  Environmental activists
are asked to kiss the next smokestack they see.

ning Alert . . Global Warning Alert . . Global Warning Alert . . Global
Wa

The carbon dioxide generate by these same smokestacks is retaining heat.

The earth cools only by radiation to space. Particular pollution would seem
to reduce that also. 

Fluorescent Bulb Break Creates Costly Hassle
Written by Nick Gosling
Thursday, April 12, 2007

PROSPECT   It was just like any other Tuesday.

On March 13, Brandy Bridges was installing some of the two dozen CFL 
(compact fluorescent lamp) bulbs she had purchased in an attempt to 
save money on her energy bill.
One month later, though, Bridges is paying much more than she had ever 
expected to.
On that Tuesday, Bridges was installing one of the spiral-shaped light 
bulbs in her 7-year-old daughter s bedroom. Suddenly, the bulb 
plummeted to the floor, breaking on the shag carpet. 
Bridges, who was wary of the dangers of cleaning up a fluorescent bulb, 
called The Home Depot where she purchased them. She was told that the 
bulbs had mercury in them and that she should not vacuum the area where 
the bulb had broken. Bridges was directed to call the Poison Control 
hotline.
Poison Control directed her to the Maine Center for Disease Control and 
Prevention and the Department of Environmental Protection.
Upon reaching the DEP the next day, the agency offered to send a 
specialist out to Bridges  house to test the air levels. The specialist 
arrived soon after the phone conversation and began testing the 
downstairs, where he found safe levels of mercury   below the state s 
limit of 300 ng/m3 (nanograms per cubic meter).
In the daughter s bedroom, the levels remained well below the 300 mark, 
except for near the carpet where the bulb broke. There the mercury 
levels spiked to 1,939 ng/m3. On a bag of toys that bulb fragments had 
landed on, the levels of mercury were 556 ng/m3.
Bridges was told by the specialist not to clean up the bulb and mercury 
powder by herself. He recommended the Clean Harbors Environmental 
Services branch in Hampden.
Clean Harbors gave Bridges a low-ball estimate of $2,000, based on what 
she described, to clean up the room properly. The work entailed 
removing anything with levels greater than 300 ng/m3, including the 
carpeting. 
One month later, Bridges  daughter s bedroom remains sealed off with 
plastic  to avoid any dust blowing around  and to keep the family s 
pets from going in and out of the room. 
Her daughter, Shayley, has to sleep downstairs in a full house that 
already consists of Bridges  fianc , her 71-year-old mother and her 
handicapped brother.
Today, Bridges is  gathering finances  to pay the $2,000 for the 
cleaning herself. That won t cover the cost for new carpeting and other 
items that will have to be replaced. Her insurance company said it 
wouldn t cover the costs because mercury is considered a pollutant, 
like oil.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss