A Few Things Ill Considered

A layman's take on the science of Global Warming featuring a guide on How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

Monday, January 01, 2007

send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl

Another week of GW news - December 31, 2006

(Courtesy of H.E.Taylor, here is this week's GW news roundup
skip to bottom

Two stories from the Arctic captured the headlines this week -- polar bears & the Ayles ice shelf:

The US Dept of Interior is considering declaring polar bears endangered:

And year end wrapup stories proliferated:

The DailyAstorian has published a climate change series:

China has issued its first climate change report:

The Stern Review is still getting kicked around:

They're still talking about ANDRILL:

The ozone layer was supposed to be healing, but...:

Glaciers are melting:

Meanwhile in near earth orbit:

Tim questions that flooded island story:

The impacts of GW are becoming clearer:

And then there are the tropical rainforests:

Yes we have no wacky weather, except:

The Australian drought is setting records:

Notice how the nuanced statements get turned into a denial headline:

  • 2006/12/29: TheAge: Rain won't end our problems: climate expert
    Australians should not stop being concerned about climate change when the drought eventually breaks, a retired climate scientist has warned. Barrie Hunt, the former head of the CSIRO's climate modelling program, said there seemed to be widespread confusion about the causes of the drought sapping south-eastern Australia, with some people convinced it was entirely due to global warming. Using climate models to try to replicate how weather might change over 10,000 years, Mr Hunt has concluded that the drought is part of a naturally occurring cycle of dry and wet periods in Australia. But he said there were also clear signs that climate change was making the drought worse, with a run of record hot weather in recent years contributing to drier ground and record low run-off of rain. "The temperature signals we're getting are very clear, distinct greenhouse signals," he said. "The warming over the past 10 years, you can't explain that. There isn't any great variability from year to year; it's going up and up and up. If it was natural variability you would be having years of below-average temperature." But he said that judging the effects of climate change on rainfall patterns was much more complex. It could take another 20 to 30 years for a clear trend to emerge.
  • 2006/12/29: Australian: Greenhouse gases 'not to blame' [Barrie Hunt]
  • 2006/12/28: TerraDaily: Nature Not Humans To Blame For Long Lasting Australian Drought
  • 2006/12/29: PlanetArk: Australia's Drought Natural, Researcher [Barrie Hunt] Says

And speaking of floods & droughts:

Elsewhere on the mitigation front:

Meanwhile in the journals:

Before we get into politics, there was some science done:

On the American political front:

Richard Clarke mourns the opportunity cost of Iraq as regards GW:

And in the UK:

While in Europe:

Meanwhile in Australia:

The difficult question of aviation & GHGs is in the air:

Here is something for your library:

And for your film & video enjoyment:

Wrestling over a new energy infrastructure continues unabated:

Insurance and re-insurance companies are feeling the heat:
  • 2006/12/29: GCC: Munich Re: Weather-Related Catastrophes Will Increase with Rising Loss Potentials
  • 2006/12/29: PlanetArk: Munich Re Sees Natural Catastrophes on the Rise
  • The carbon lobby are up to the usual:

    Kevin Vranes ponders marketing AGW & raises some comment:

    Coby Beck is continuing to post his excellent "How to Talk to a Global Warming Sceptic" series on GristMill:

    Then there was the usual news and commentary:

    And here are a couple of sites you may find interesting and/or useful:

    --regards--

    -het

    PS. You can access the previous postings of this series here

    --

    "We're running the planet like a company in liquidation." -Al Gore

    Global Warming: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/enviro/globalwarming.html

    GW News: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/enviro/gwnews.html

    GW News Archive: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/enviro/gwna.html

    H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/


    Labels:

    49 Comments:

    • At January 02, 2007 1:25 PM, Blogger Ice Queen said…

      I'm so glad that someone is finally getting the truth out there. I've posted a warning about global warming on my page,a long with a link to your blog. I hope that we can save the earth from this terrible truth.

       
    • At January 03, 2007 9:40 AM, Blogger Speak Up said…

      The Ice breaks away every summer and then builds back up when the eight months of winter returns. Check all your facts before you make such a broad ststement

       
    • At January 03, 2007 11:31 AM, Blogger coby said…

      assuming you are referring to the ice shelf in the Arctic that broke off, no, it does not do that every year. These are permanent ice shelves and the breakup is a significant event.

       
    • At January 04, 2007 2:13 AM, Anonymous Audrey said…

      (Sorry if this comment is repeated there's a glitch in my matrix)

      Hi Coby

      Do you know if there is a comprehensive list (or bunches of bits of lists)anywhere on the internet, of things that average people can do in mitigation of climate crisis? Beyond the basics of lightbulbs, that is. Also, more radically, is there anyone who suggests practical ways to restructure communities? IANACS, but I try to talk about my understanding of this stuff as much as I can in my day to day dealings with people, and am often frustrated at only being able to describe the disaster and not being able to offer suggestions that people can actually put into practise from on the ground, as it were. People just get all nihilistic and it isn't helping.

      If there isn't such a list, then maybe one needs to be compiled. I can help because I'm ordinary and can speak to ordinary.

      In South Africa (and Africa in general, actually) we face the same climate stuff as everyone else does, but we have completely different challenges and a good many peculiar mountains to move. We could be a sort of tabula rasa, if we weren't so hell bent on keeping up with the northern hemisphere joneses with regards to what millions of people on this continent now see as "civilisation". Most of the stuff I read has either a UK or a US slant, and it doesn't migrate very well verbatim.

      Forgive this garble, but this is the beginning of my year of finding a way to contribute meaningfully, as opposed to just being a depressed armchair ranter. I have to start somewhere :-)

      Thank you for the excellent bridge that you have built. If you need extra hands (typists?) then I am available at zephyr at yebo dot co dot za.

      Best,
      Audrey

       
    • At January 04, 2007 9:41 AM, Blogger Renegade said…

      Great blog!

      Check out Renegade's BS

       
    • At January 05, 2007 9:23 AM, Blogger coby said…

      Hi Audrey,

      Sorry to reply late, I am sure there are lists of things people can do and it is a bit of an oversight that I don't have a good one of my own or at least a page of links to other lists (maybe better, why yet another?). I think the An Inconvenient Truth's website has those resources. You can also check some of the links here, there are many others but this section seems most likely to have the kind of things you are looking for.

      I am not dismissing individual efforts, they are going to be necessary and they will get us a good start BUT this problem absolutely will require gov't effort and international cooperation before we can say it is solved. So by all means let's all do what we can individually but we can't let the gov't off the hook!

      Thanks for the visit and comment and if you are able to put together a good list of resources for individual actions why not email it to me as a guest post? (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ g mail dot com")

       
    • At January 06, 2007 10:34 PM, Blogger t3rrence said…

      I prefer the broader view.
      The Earth is ~ 4.5 billion years old.
      The oldest human fossil found is 160,000 years young.
      The oldest dinosaur fossil found is ~ 240 million years young.
      The "oldest fossil" ever to be found is pond scum which is ~ 3.5 billion years old.

      Words like government effort and international cooperation bother me. I prefer to accept we are simply in another 'age' of our existence with our fossil fuels and the like. Relatively speaking of course, we've been monitoring weather affects and "patterns" (lol) for a very short time to conclusively conclude what?
      I know!...
      We don't have enough of a sample to conclusively conclude anything.

      As long as the mind is free
      and the capital attainable,
      we will push forward.
      and uh, what else...
      Go Giants!

       
    • At January 16, 2007 6:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

       
    • At January 16, 2007 6:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      The polar bears are going to adapt to this change, just like every species adapts to climate change in the earths history.

       
    • At January 17, 2007 10:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/05/15/polar-bears.html

      This expert says the polar bears are fine.

       
    • At January 17, 2007 7:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/g/summaries/asiagreen.jsp

      This link explains how BS your predictions are Coby, surley you can't completley throw this information away unless your that blind.

       
    • At January 18, 2007 2:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      Coby is this true?

       
    • At January 18, 2007 3:17 PM, Blogger coby said…

      The "greening earth" theory does not have very much support in the data or the scientific community.

      In short, elevated CO2 levels are only beneficial to a portion of plant life and even for this type of plant there are other factors that limit its ability to utilise addition CO2 in the air, most notably water and nitrogen in the soil. Labaratory test under ideal conditions (ie all other nutrients/needs optimized) do indeed show that elevated CO2 can improve some plant growth, but field tests have been unable to show the same improvements. There is also no conclusive evidence of this effect in today's 35% CO2 enhanced atmosphere.

       
    • At January 18, 2007 7:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      Sure there is look at all the green ski hills, plants are blossoming early. The planet is greening how can you deny that, so far your doomsday predictions have not come to be. Its all speculation right now you can't say the planet isn't benifiting from this right now. How can you explain all the studies that show the benificial results, those are real studies coby not just predictions. The planet is benifiting from the Co2, Co2 will make all plants grow faster its what they breath. Namem some plants that Co2 is bad for?

       
    • At January 19, 2007 10:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      Coby I feel like your ignoring my point here...

       
    • At January 19, 2007 10:36 PM, Blogger coby said…

      Sorry,...what's your name?.., I just feel that it has been answered already. Plants blooming early is the result of well documented earlier springs all over the globe. Greening ski hills? What can you conclude from that?

      It is certainly possible that elevated CO2 may have some benefits for some plants but there is no reason whatsoever to think it will be a globally detectable effect, or more importantly that it will compensate for the other alterations ecosystems around the planet will, and are already, experiencing.

       
    • At January 20, 2007 11:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      Coby you havn't answered this at all. Co2 is benifiting our planet did you not take a look at that information i sent you there was about 10 studies proving the increased Co2 levels and warming are benifiting the planet. Your all about the doomsday predictions that have been predicted since Co2 was suggested to cause climate change. Now this is what it really comes down to is Co2 is good. Co2 plus warming makes extra good conditions for planet growth, I don't think anyone who makes a living growing plants would disagree.

      Now there is an ice age predicted for 2012 by your "creditable science" basicly to scare us. More doomsday predictions, i'm used to it remember the ice age predicted 25 years ago?

      I would really like to hear what you think all about this.

       
    • At January 20, 2007 11:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/g/summaries/asiagreen.

      this shows the studies, you can brush it off, but you said in another statment there is no proof about what i'm trying to say here.

       
    • At January 20, 2007 2:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      "Co2 plus warming makes extra good conditions for planet growth"

      plant growth*

       
    • At January 20, 2007 10:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      So i take it your brushing it off, I think these guys have a valid point. I'd expect someone as devoted to spreading the doomsday Co2 predictions to avoid these facts.

       
    • At January 21, 2007 12:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

      you don't happen to make money off this do you? Do you get your information from people who recieve these types of grants?

       
    • At January 21, 2007 12:48 PM, Blogger coby said…

      "Co2 plus warming makes extra good conditions for plant growth"

      This is undoubtably true, all else being equal. But any such signal is vastly overwhelmed by changes in percipitation and instability of ecosystems. Do you think all the forest in BC dying from pine beetle infestations are enjoying elevated CO2 and warm winters?

      Who do I listen to? The institutions listed here. I would not recommend listening to politicians and journalists either, but given that every scientist who is studying the issue is "generating revenue" from it in some way I do recommend listening to them. Do you think scientists go into their fields to become rich? Lee Raymond is laughing at you, even while he is grateful for your misconceptions.

      I do not make any money from this blog or this issue in general, though through my efforts here my future position of power and wealth is assured when the new socialist order will control the entire globe.

       
    • At January 21, 2007 7:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      "it was concluded that based on the balance of all available evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate research, the earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside the likely bounds of natural variations and this climate change is likely to have been due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning."

      You guys don't even know whats causing this warming trend says in your own statement. What about the rapid warming in 1930, medi evil warming period. For all you guys know this could be something totaly different.

       
    • At January 21, 2007 7:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      And Coby why did you quote me on saying that co2 and warmer conditions make better planet growht i sent you a site with the facts check it out tell me what you think please.

       
    • At January 22, 2007 12:04 PM, Blogger coby said…

      I quoted you because I am talking to you and that sentenced summed up your beliefs quite well. I have been to the CO2 Science page you provided. I do not have access to the studies they are referring to, but it has been my experience that CO2 Science cherry picks and misrepresents scientific studies to make their case.

      Have you read the actual research they are citing? I also note that these studies that alledgedly project benefits to agriculture rely on GCM's. So am I to understand that you accept the results of GCM's? Or only when it suits your argument?

       
    • At January 22, 2007 12:06 PM, Blogger coby said…

      Re: "You guys don't even know whats causing this warming trend says in your own statement"

      please see this article.

       
    • At January 22, 2007 12:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      "So am I to understand that you accept the results of GCM's? Or only when it suits your argument? "

      Actualy I used this because it does suit my arguement of there is another side with scientific facts to back it up. Are you going to pretend like your scientists dont' cherry pick. They seem to completley ignore the fact that climate change happens very rapidly naturaly all through out history.

       
    • At January 22, 2007 12:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      and on another thought... i don't believe or disbelieve that site I sent you, but on the same hand how can you really believe anything you read with the politics being so heavily involved. I simply believe that you guys make too much hipe over this global warming thing and I have very good reason to think so. It seems like you are the one cherry picking here, choosing not to believe that page that could be just as creditable as any of your science, after all scroll to the bottom of the site and check out the references.

       
    • At January 22, 2007 2:14 PM, Blogger coby said…

      "Are you going to pretend like your scientists dont' cherry pick. They seem to completley ignore the fact that climate change happens very rapidly naturaly all through out history."

      We are not all cherry pickers, no. On the contrary, there is a whole chapter in the IPCC report on comparing observations of today with past climate changes, including a section specifically addressing the question "How rapidly did the climate change in the past".

      It turns out you are simply incorrect that climate changes as rapid as today's "happen all the time". They are in fact extremely rare, and all evidence indicates that when they do happen, they are bad. (PETM, Permian Extinction, Decaan Traps - these are all good google terms for evidence).

      About my distrust of CO2 Science, it is based on past experience, not on their positions. For an easy to understand illustration of their disingenuous tactics, look at their homepage and note one of their main features is a "temperature record of the week" series they have been running forever. They pick a single station that has shown a cooling trend (out of tens of thousands) and highlight it as an attempt to show that global warming is not in fact happening. This is absurd pseudo-science illogic used to "disprove" a fact that is completely non-controversial in the scientific world. There is no possible reason to do this other than to deceive.

       
    • At January 22, 2007 6:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      "It turns out you are simply incorrect that climate changes as rapid as today's "happen all the time". They are in fact extremely rare, and all evidence indicates that when they do happen, they are bad. (PETM, Permian Extinction, Decaan Traps - these are all good google terms for evidence)."

      I am wrong about rapid climate change happening all the time i'm man enough to admit that. But the key is it does happen for whatever reasons. As many links as you can send you cannot give me any concrete evidence that shows me this is not a natural cycle.

      "About my distrust of CO2 Science, it is based on past experience, not on their positions. For an easy to understand illustration of their disingenuous tactics, look at their homepage and note one of their main features is a "temperature record of the week" series they have been running forever."

      If you want to play this game Coby I can, I can't simply discredit everything the science that you guys have proven because you use tactics simular to these. You cannot simply throw away the studies that show the planet benifiting from the Co2 excess and warming, so far things are going great its common sense with evidence to back it up.

      So basicly your saying I shouldn't believe what you say because World Wildlife Fund gave me the link to this site. If you go to their home page its increadibly bias compared to your example, and in my opinion over the line. They say that global warming is the greatest danger the planet has ever faced, thats a load of B.S. But my point is if you want to discredit everyone for these tactics than you should do the scientific testing yourself. The particular article I gave you has alot of reference from many scientific groups, not just one and their in abundance If that doesn't prove their creditable what does it take to convince you to at least take an opposing idea into perpsective.

       
    • At January 24, 2007 8:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      Wow its like i have to poke you with a stick to reply, is this too hard for you? Your explanations are quite weak and full of excuses in this arguement, are you just not trying or simply avoiding this debate? I've laid down my position, and basicly you have nothing to show. Do you discredit every single site that disagree's with your opinion? So far it seems that way.

       
    • At January 30, 2007 6:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      http://newsbusters.org/node/10495

      More scientific evidence against man made GW

       
    • At January 30, 2007 7:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

      oh here's some more

       
    • At January 30, 2007 8:12 PM, Blogger coby said…

      Thanks for the links. Why do you believe them?

       
    • At January 31, 2007 9:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      I can't say I can totaly believe anything I read on this particular topic, but it makes a hell of alot more sense than what you guys are saying. The planets history also backs up, rapid climate change has happend plenty enough times naturaly without having a doomsday senario.

      Why do you believe your sources?

       
    • At January 31, 2007 9:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      Take into concept coby these guys could be right and if they are you have reason to change your thinking. I've already provided one link with a document thats totaly credible with about a page worth of scientific organizations that put it together.

      I don't have anything to lose by admitting i was wrong about man made global warming, i found out the truth.

       
    • At January 31, 2007 12:14 PM, Blogger coby said…

      I believe my sources for two reasons. They are the most highly respected scientists and scientific institutions in the field and they are unanimous in their general conclusions. And because where ever I have been able to verify the thinking and the methods they have checked out. The sceptics have nothing but handwaves, cherry picks and FUD.

       
    • At January 31, 2007 1:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      "The sceptics have nothing but handwaves, cherry picks and FUD."

      Are you familiar with World Wild Life Fund? Cherry pickers using pretty much your exact information.

       
    • At January 31, 2007 1:24 PM, Blogger coby said…

      My advice to you is don't go to the WWF or to oil industry funded think tanks for your scientific information, go to reputable scientific institutions such as GISS, NOAA, NAS, BAS, WMO, EPA etc etc. They all agree, why should anyone believe you? Why do you believe you?

      This is not a political question, it is about scientific reality. This means it is non-parisan, empirical reality. Stop try to make it into a left wing vs right wing talking head debate.

       
    • At January 31, 2007 4:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      w.e i don't have to convince anyone of anything, i'll continue being skeptical cause man made global warming is a retarded idea expecialy with alot of evidence against it.

       
    • At February 03, 2007 7:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.

      "It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

      Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

      The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.

      http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

      There Is evidence Coby And its not in your favour.

       
    • At February 03, 2007 10:33 PM, Blogger coby said…

      Anyone who tries to deny that the CO2 rise is anything but anthropogenic is either very uniformed or a crackpot. This guy you are alledgedly quoting sounds like a crackpot. Please see this article about how silly a position it is to claim the CO2 rise is natural.

      The greenhouse effect of atmospheres is extremely well established science and applies to all plaetary bodies with atmospheres containing radiatively active gases. Given these two very serious fallacies, why would you put such blind faith in this guts predictions?

       
    • At February 05, 2007 8:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      "It is true that CO2 has gone up on its own in the past, most notably during the glacial interglacial cycles. During this time CO2 rose and fell by over 100 ppm, ranging between ~180 and ~300ppm"

      Fossil evidence shows the prehistoric times atmosphere dwarfed our co2/methane and that was natural. You pick one incident and then compare it with today, that was particular glacial cycle.

      And this isn't as concrete in the scientific community, even with the people who support man made global warming.


      "Report on Climate Change
      Today, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their highly anticipated report which represents the most authoritative science on global warming. The panel is made up of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments.

      The Summary for Policymakers has the full details but the two of the major conclusions were that
      1) Evidence for warming of the climate system "is unequivocal".
      2) Humans are “very likely” the main cause of global warming
      "

      Very likley? I need more than very likley before we all shut down our Co2 output and make massive sudden changes to our economy.

       
    • At February 05, 2007 1:57 PM, Blogger coby said…

      Re prehistory: "you pick one incident..." - No, there have been many glacial cycles and everyone in the ice core records CO2 never rose above around 300ppm. Other proxies such as ocean sediment do not have as fine a temporal resolution but they also indicate the we are outside of the natural range of the last several million years.

      It is hardly relevant that in the deep geological past CO2 was much higher, it has in fact been so high as to be toxic to human life. But I guess it is all in the "natural range" and therefore 20,000ppm is fine according to you.

      Re "90% certainty" - Only a fool requires absolute certainty of danger before taking evasive actions. Would you eat a chicken because you're only 90% certain it is full of salmonella? Board a plane because the mechanic says, well, there is a 10% chance it will make it. Take a drug because you are only 90%, not 100%!, sure it will induce a non-reversible vegatative state?

      Regardless of your personal answers, societal norms are quite the reverse. We require a great degree of certainty about a technolgy's *safety* before allowing its use. This is as it should be.

       
    • At February 05, 2007 8:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      "It is hardly relevant that in the deep geological past CO2 was much higher, it has in fact been so high as to be toxic to human life. But I guess it is all in the "natural range" and therefore 20,000ppm is fine according to you"

      the tropical planet and prehistoric creatures managed to thrive just fine with the extreamly high Co2 and Methane compared to today. 8 degree's hotter at the equater back then.

      Re "90% certainty" - Only a fool requires absolute certainty of danger before taking evasive actions.

      Yes but when you have 100 years to react we should take our time. Let technology Progress. And you guys think your 90% sure, other scientific communities think its 100% bullshit and their right, you have to be an idiot to see all the information and still disbelieve global warming being man made.

      The united states pollutes 30% of human output Co2
      and its the economic giant of the world, statistics show their very efficient compared to the rest of the world if you compare income VS output. Even your own statistics show it. So for completley throwing koyoto out they sure are efficient.

       
    • At February 06, 2007 6:29 PM, Blogger coby said…

      You should read the what's wrong with warm weather article. The danger is in the extremely rapid change, not the final equilibrium temperature.

      As for 100 years to act, you're just making a fool of yourself.

       
    • At February 07, 2007 6:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      Why don't you look into the things that are GOOD about warmer weather I already know whats "bad' about the warming but the good far outwieghs the bad. Medi evil warming period was rapid climate change so was the mini ice age why do i have to keep reminding you that rapid climate change happens naturaly throughout history. 100 years to act some say, others say 200, algore says 50, the global cooling scare had simular predictions. the no iccp report was apperently so twisted in the summary available to the public, its getting debunked by scientists all over the place.

       
    • At February 08, 2007 11:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

      Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.
      http://newsbusters.org/node/10495

       
    • At March 15, 2007 7:49 AM, Blogger william said…

      CO2 are amazingly good for plants. You can but machines that pump out co2 for greenhouses as it increases the growth and yield. Push the levels to 550ppm and you get at least 50% increase in yield and growth, this is from Colarado University.


      In a report by Warren T. Brookes "Global warming question deserves an answer" are these:

      "An Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change workshop of world-class Agronomists, Geologists and Environmental Scientists meeting at Coolfont (Berkley Springs, W.V.) and another IPCC panel meeting in Finland, concluded the benefits of any warming would by far outweigh it's cost."

      "The US Panel assumed the carbon dioxide level in the athmosphere would double by 2050 and raise temeratures by 2 degrees Celsius. Even so, using sophisticated models from the National Oceangraphic and Atmospheric Administration and the US Department Of Agriculture, the panel found this climate change would (US only):
      -increase total US food output 15 %, worth about $12 billion per year.
      -increase total US water resources by about 9%, worth $30 billion to $50 billion per year.
      -increase total US forest volume about 10%,or 80 billion cubic feet with theoretical stumpage value over $500 billion.
      Against such benefits, the scientists assigned a total cost of $25 billion per year of losing or protecting our shoreline against a 20 inch rise in sea level.
      In his exhaustively documented book, "Carbon Dioxide and Global Change",USDA research physisist Sherwood Idso writes, "As a result of well over a thousand laboratory and field experiments, scientists have known that increasing the carbon dioxide contend of the air around a plant's leaves nearly always leads to a significant increase in vegetative growth and development. In the mean, (these experiments) suggest that a 300 to 600 parts per million doubling of the airs carbon dioxide content will increase plant productivety by about one-third, while reducing plant (water use) by approximatly the same amount."

       

    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home