Guest Opinion: Global Warming Twenty Years Later
Tipping Points Near
Today, I will testify to Congress about global warming, 20 years after my June 23, 1988 testimony, which alerted the public that global warming was under way. There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference.
Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.
The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next President and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation.
Otherwise, it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's control.
Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed, are clear. But the changes have been blocked by special interests, focused on short-term profits, who hold sway in Washington and other capitals.
I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year.
Then: Time to "Stop Waffling"
On June 23, 1988, I testified to a hearing chaired by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado that the Earth had entered a long-term warming trend, and that human-made greenhouse gases almost surely were responsible. I noted that global warming enhanced both extremes of the water cycle, meaning stronger droughts and forest fires, on the one hand, but also heavier rains and floods.
My testimony two decades ago was greeted with skepticism. But while skepticism is the lifeblood of science, it can confuse the public. As scientists examine a topic from all perspectives, it may appear that nothing is known with confidence. But from such broad open-minded study of all data, valid conclusions can be drawn.
My conclusions in 1988 were built on a wide range of inputs from basic physics, planetary studies, observations of ongoing changes, and climate models. The evidence was strong enough that I could say it was time to "stop waffling." I was sure that time would bring the scientific community to a similar consensus, as it has.
While international recognition of global warming was swift, actions have faltered. The United States refused to place limits on its emissions, and developing countries such as China and India rapidly increased their emissions.
The Coming Storm
What is at stake? Warming so far, about two degrees Fahrenheit over land areas, seems almost innocuous, being less than day-to-day weather fluctuations. But more warming is already "in-the-pipeline," delayed only by the great inertia of the world ocean. And climate is nearing dangerous tipping points. Elements of a "perfect storm," a global cataclysm, are assembled.
Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more sunlight, melting more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases, the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer.
More ominous tipping points loom. West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming. These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if disintegration gets well under way it will become unstoppable. Debate among scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely this century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees. No stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.
Animal and plant species are already stressed by climate change. Polar and alpine species will be pushed off the planet, if warming continues. Other species attempt to migrate, but as some are extinguished, their interdependencies can cause ecosystem collapse. Mass extinctions, of more than half the species on the planet, have occurred several times when the Earth warmed as much as expected if greenhouse gases continue to increase. Biodiversity recovered, but it required hundreds of thousands of years.
Getting to 350 ppm
The disturbing conclusion, documented in a paper[1] I have written with several of the world's leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million), and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising by about 2 ppm per year. Stunning corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.
These conclusions are based on paleoclimate data showing how the Earth responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing how the world is responding to today's carbon dioxide amount. The consequences of continued increase of greenhouse gases extend far beyond extermination of species and future sea level rise.
Arid subtropical climate zones are expanding poleward. Already an average expansion of about 250 miles has occurred, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, Australia, and southern Africa. Forest fires and drying-up of lakes will increase further unless carbon dioxide growth is halted and reversed.
Mountain glaciers are the source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people. These glaciers are receding worldwide, in the Himalayas, Andes, and Rocky Mountains. They will disappear, leaving their rivers as trickles in late summer and fall, unless the growth of carbon dioxide is reversed.
Coral reefs, the rainforests of the ocean, are home for one-third of the species in the sea. Coral reefs are under stress for several reasons, including warming of the ocean, but especially because of ocean acidification, a direct effect of added carbon dioxide. Ocean life dependent on carbonate shells and skeletons is threatened by dissolution as the ocean becomes more acid.
Such phenomena, including the instability of Arctic sea ice and the great ice sheets at today's carbon dioxide amount, show that we have already gone too far. We must draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide to preserve the planet we know. A level of no more than 350 ppm is still feasible, with the help of reforestation and improved agricultural practices, but just barely - time is running out.
Moving Away from Fossil Fuels
Requirements to halt carbon dioxide growth follow from the size of fossil carbon reservoirs. Coal towers over oil and gas. Phasing out the use of coal except where the carbon is captured and stored below ground is the primary requirement for solving global warming.
Oil is used in vehicles, where it is impractical to capture the carbon. But oil is running out. To preserve our planet we must ensure that the next mobile energy source is not obtained by squeezing oil from coal, tar shale, or other fossil fuels.
Fossil fuel reservoirs are finite, which is the main reason that prices are rising. We must move beyond fossil fuels eventually. Solution of the climate problem requires that we move to carbon-free energy promptly.
Special interests have blocked the transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
But the conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless species would leave a more desolate planet.
If politicians remain at loggerheads, citizens must lead. We must demand a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. We must block fossil fuel interests who aim to squeeze every last drop of oil from public lands, off-shore, and wilderness areas. Those last drops are no solution. They yield continued exorbitant profits for a short-sighted, self-serving industry, but no alleviation of our addiction or long-term energy source.
Pricing Carbon Emissions
Moving from fossil fuels to clean energy is challenging, yet it is also transformative in ways that will be welcomed. Cheap, subsidized fossil fuels engendered bad habits. We import food from halfway around the world, for example, even with healthier products available from nearby fields. Local produce would be competitive were it not for fossil fuel subsidies and the fact that climate change damages and costs, due to fossil fuels, are also borne by the public.
A price on emissions that cause harm is essential. Yes, a carbon tax. A carbon tax with a 100 percent dividend[2] is needed to wean us off of our fossil fuel addiction. A tax and dividend allows the marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions.
A carbon tax on coal, oil, and gas is simple, applied at the first point of sale or port of entry. The entire tax must be returned to the public-an equal amount to each adult, a half-share for children. This dividend can be deposited monthly in an individual's bank account.
A carbon tax with a 100 percent dividend is non-regressive. On the contrary, you can bet that low- and middle-income people will find ways to limit their carbon tax and come out ahead. Profligate energy users will have to pay for their excesses.
Demand for low-carbon, high-efficiency products will spur innovation, making U.S. products more competitive on international markets. Carbon emissions will plummet as energy efficiency and renewable energies grow rapidly. Black soot, mercury, and other fossil fuel emissions will decline. A brighter, cleaner future, with energy independence, is possible.
America's Role
Washington likes to spend our tax money line-by-line. Swarms of high-priced lobbyists in alligator shoes help Congress decide where to spend, and in turn the lobbyists' clients provide "campaign" money.
The public must send a message to Washington. Preserve our planet, and creation, for our children and grandchildren, but do not use that as an excuse for more tax-and-spend. Let this be our motto: "One hundred percent dividend or fight!"
The next President must make a national low-loss electric grid an imperative. It will allow dispersed renewable energies to supplant fossil fuels for power generation. Technology exists for direct-current high-voltage buried transmission lines. Trunk lines can be completed in less than a decade and expanded, in a way analogous to interstate highways.
Government must also change utility regulations so that profits do not depend on selling ever more energy, but instead increase with efficiency. Building-code and vehicle-efficiency requirements must be improved and put on a path toward carbon neutrality.
The fossil fuel industry maintains its stranglehold on Washington via demagoguery, using China and other developing nations as scapegoats to rationalize inaction. In fact, the United States produced most of the excess carbon in the air today, and it is to our advantage as a nation to move smartly in finding ways to reduce emissions. As with the ozone problem, developing countries can be allowed limited extra time to reduce emissions. They will cooperate: they have much to lose from climate change and much to gain from clean air and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.
The United States must establish fair agreements with other countries. However, our own tax and dividend should start immediately. We have much to gain from it as a nation, and other countries will copy our success. If necessary, import duties on products from uncooperative countries can level the playing field, with the import tax added to the dividend pool.
Democracy works, but sometimes it churns slowly. Time is short. The 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen, and if Washington adapts to address climate change, our children and grandchildren can still hold great expectations.
Dr. James E. Hansen, a physicist by training, directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a laboratory of the Goddard Space Flight Center and a unit of the Columbia University Earth Institute, but he testifies here as a private citizen.
[1] J. Hansen et al., "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?" submitted 18 June 2008. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1135.
[2] The proposed "tax and 100% dividend" is based largely on the cap-and-dividend approach described by Peter Barnes in Who Owns the Sky: Our Common Assets and the Future of Capitalism (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2001). See http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116&subsecID=149&contentID=3867.

RSS Feed
A body black on the side
Rajendra Pachauri was
I suggest everyone watch
Water vapor is more like a
That is correct, you are not
Great Paper here on how
You want anecdotal
Try this:
I got married January 1996 in Saskatoon Saskatchewan.
I was there for 3 weeks..... coldest winter anyone there could remember.
The day I arrived it was 10* F below 0. The day we left it was 45* F above.
Every day in between- at some point in the day- it hit 40 below.
EVERY Flippen DAY !!!
My sister-in-law and her family went back and forth from Sask to Pennsylvania twice.
They said there were reports of RECORD LOWS in North Dakota. That was 1996
Just north of Calgary they were still getting snow in May---THIS YEAR !
How's that for equal time?
I still remember back to the 1970s and early 80s how the alarmists were warning of Global Cooling and the coming Ice Age. I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy this now.
Only difference is, that I was a registered Democrat back then.
Then I moved to the Left Coast (California); and that cured me. Thank God!
Life's too short for all this scary stuff. Get on with yours.......
Sticky Topiks
Conservative Bumper Stickers
http://www.stickytopiks.com
You're right about one thing
Your right, but how about
Yes, everyone, please look
There was no scientific
James Hansen's 1988
Hansen got
George Carlin was not a scientist but he hit the nail on the head with this comedy bit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&feature=related
A little common sense can go a long way.
Hey honest duck....... you gotta lighten up......
Hate to see you get all worked up over nothing.
Sticky Topiks
Conservative Bumper Stickers
http://www.stickytopiks.com
Dear Sticky Boy, thank you
Dear Honest Wren, It just
It just seems to me that you live an angry life. Mostly concerning things over which you have, ultimately, no control.
You would like to be in control, wouldn't you?
Sorry, but it is not your job.
You can't create rain, cause thunder to roll, start or stop earthquakes, cause flowers to bloom or trees to grow, (aside from planting and watering, what roll do you really have?).
So... join the club of mere mortal; and get over it. Then spend your time on finding that One Truth which can deliver you from your misery.
Maybe, my being happy and Joy filled is part of your struggle, but I prefer it to doom, gloom and misery spread equally amongst the peoples.
Concerned and Sincere (as much as a mere mortal can be)
John Boy
In defense of Honest
I love the environment and
but your dream world of getting off the "tap" is just that.
Oil is not just for fuel you know.......
Your apparent extremism, exposed by the language you use, will not strengthen the economy any more than my apparent lax attitude will kill the planet.
You have no faith in the very planet you love so much. Where do you suppose that nasty oil came from in the first place?
Did you make it?
Can you produce anything that will last even 100 years? One thousand?
You are a pathetic mortal; and you put all your trust in other mortals.
Good luck with that......
What are you doing "not to
I have lived in Minnesota
You want anecdotal
Try this:
I got married January 1996 in Saskatoon Saskatchewan.
I was there for 3 weeks..... coldest winter anyone there could remember.
The day I arrived it was 10* F below 0. The day we left it was 45* F above.
Every day in between- at some point in the day- it hit 40 below.
EVERY Flippen DAY !!!
My sister-in-law and her family went back and forth from Sask to Pennsylvania twice.
They said there were reports of RECORD LOWS in North Dakota. That was 1996
Just north of Calgary they were still getting snow in May---THIS YEAR !
How's that for equal time?
I still remember back to the 1970s and early 80s how the alarmists were warning of Global Cooling and the coming Ice Age. I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy this now.
Only difference is, that I was a registered Democrat back then.
Then I moved to the Left Coast (California); and that cured me. Thank God!
Life's too short for all this scary stuff. Get on with yours.......
Not just Hansen, but the
The Global Warming
From http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/globalwarming.html:
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." [Telegraph]
Global warming and melting polar ice caps are not just problems here on Earth. Mars is facing similar global changes, researchers say, with temperatures across the red planet rising by around 0.65 degrees over the last few decades. [Register]
For about 300 years Jupiter's banded atmosphere has shown a remarkable feature to telescopic viewers, a large swirling storm system known as The Great Red Spot. In 2006, another red storm system appeared, actually seen to form as smaller whitish oval-shaped storms merged and then developed the curious reddish hue. Now, Jupiter has a third red spot, again produced from a smaller whitish storm. ... Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator. [NASA]Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004. As they say on Neptune, global warming has become an inconvenient truth. [World Climate Report]
Looking at annual global temperatures, it is apparent that the last decade shows no warming trend and recent successive annual global temperatures are well within each year's measurement errors. Statistically the world's temperature is flat. The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did. No scientist could honestly look at global temperatures over the past decade and see a rising curve. It is undisputed that the sun of the later part of the 20th century was behaving differently from that of the beginning. Its sunspot cycle is stronger and shorter and, technically speaking, its magnetic field leakage is weaker and its cosmic ray shielding effect stronger. So we see that when the sun's activity was rising, the world warmed. When it peaked in activity in the late 1980s, within a few years global warming stalled. [Telegraph]
Okay, take notes, there will be a quiz at the end of class.
First of all, greenhouse effect is not a bad thing. Without it, our planet would not support life as we know it, as the average temperature would be too cold to support liquid water.
Water vapor is the single most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, trapping more heat than carbon dioxide and methane put together. Estimates of the impact of water vapor on global warming vary widely from a minimum of 60% of all greenhouse effect to 98% of all greenhouse effect, but even at the minimum of 60%, that leaves 40% of greenhouse effect to be shared by all other chemicals combined, including carbon dioxide and methane (which has ten times the greenhouse capacity pound for pound as carbon dioxide).
-----
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded.
China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
So let's cut out the dishonesty folks. The idea of man-made global warming is nothing but a scam perpetuated by ignorant anti-Western liberals who, curiously enough, have no harsh words for the truly gross polluters like Communist China and their ilk. Nufsed.No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. [DailyTech 2/27/2008]
Skeptical of Your Intent.
There isn't enough
The primary greenhouse gas
You conveniently forget to
Jupiter
A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change, USA TODAY and dozens of other sources explained yesterday. The temperatures are expected to change by as much as 10 Fahrenheit degrees at different places of the globe. At least close to the new spot and to the equator, nothing less than global warming is expected.
Neptune
The climate of Neptune - more precisely its reflectivity - was recently changing. Lockwood and Hammel argue in Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34 (2007) that the trends on Neptune reveal suggestive correlations of brightness of Neptune with the temperature trends on Earth, indicating their common solar origin - although I am not quite sure whether the sign is as expected.
Triton
Triton is Neptune's largest Moon. Some people believe that it used to be an asteroid. Global warming was detected on Triton. Between 1989 and 1998, the temperature jumped by 5 percent on the absolute (Kelvin) scale. The same relative increase would raise the Earth's temperature by 22 degrees Fahrenheit in 9 years. See thousands of other pages about the global warming on Triton.
Saturn
Saturn itself has a rather warm southern pole, and the temperatures in that region suddenly jumped by 3-5 Kelvin degrees. Well, it's warm because it's been exposed to sunshine for quite some time but the magnitude of the temperature jumps is not trivial to calculate.
Pluto (no longer considered a planet, but what the heck?)
What's going on with Pluto? Well, yes, your guess is right. There is global warming on Pluto. Pluto's atmospheric pressure has tripled in 14 years, and the associated increase of temperature is estimated to be around 3.5 Fahrenheit degrees, despite the motion of Pluto away from the Sun.
Mars
Of course, the global warming on Mars is a well-known story. Between 1975 and 2000, Mars warmed up by 0.65 Celsius degrees, much faster than Earth: see Nature 2007. The warming has been used by this blog to discover the Martians. More seriously, we have explained that the dramatic and speedy melting of the Martian icecaps is caused by the greenhouse effect. 95% of "their" atmosphere is made of carbon dioxide; that's slightly more than 0.038% of our atmosphere. The warming trend on Mars is simply undeniable...sans SUVs and other technologies the Chicken Littles like to blame.
The primary greenhouse gas
Interesting you didn't
This boogey about Venus
It is in fact radiating far more energy , more than 16 times more , than it could be receiving from the sun .
Venus's heat must come from some other source , perhaps volcanic or tidal . It is totally bogus to make any inference that any concentration of CO2 , much less our few molecules per 10,000 , could have such an effect on our planet . -- www.CoSy.com --
Exactly. If it should be
I would like to comment on
CO2 is Warming the Planet.
If you'd read my post
Talk about disinformation...you spew it all the time, dishonestwren.
You claim that I am "spewing
Global Warming Movement
By EPW Blog Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Excerpt: Two years ago, it seemed like nothing could stop the global warming train. Most of the media, those in Hollywood, politicians (many on both sides of the cultural divide), and ?enlightened environmentalists? were all telling us that man was causing runaway warming of the earth?s atmosphere, meaning global catastrophe only decades ahead for all of us. Scary stuff. The problem is that a majority of those in this almost religious movement have little training in atmospheric science, and little understanding of the issue.
They jumped on the bandwagon because it matches their worldview, or pads their pocket. This issue has generated great wealth on both sides of the argument, and I need to say up front I have absolutely no financial interest in climate. I am paid the same regardless of whether man is involved in climate change or not, and I have never taken a dime for a speech on the subject. The simple truth is that the anthropogenic global warming train has slowed to a crawl, and the riders are jumping off as the facts are discovered. [?] I encourage all of you to read material on BOTH sides of the issue and make up your own mind. Mr Gore, the science is ?not settled?, and the invitation for a debate remains wide open. Heaven help us this fall when ABC television tells us that the world, as we know it, is about to end because of ?global warming?. Never let facts get in the way of a good story, especially one that scares you to death. I consider myself an environmentalist. There are some serious environmental issues out there. ?Global warming? is not one of them.
Global Warming Movement Turns Cool
James Spann
Let me warn you, this is a little longer than my usual posts here, but it was prompted by a big op-ed article in the Birmingham News this morning. Take the time to read it, if you dare. Seems like our local paper has settled on one side of the climate change debate, which is certainly their right. But, I have the right to publish this article as well?.
Two years ago, it seemed like nothing could stop the global warming train. Most of the media, those in Hollywood, politicians (many on both sides of the cultural divide), and ?enlightened environmentalists? were all telling us that man was causing runaway warming of the earth?s atmosphere, meaning global catastrophe only decades ahead for all of us.
Scary stuff.
The problem is that a majority of those in this almost religious movement have little training in atmospheric science, and little understanding of the issue. They jumped on the bandwagon because it matches their worldview, or pads their pocket. This issue has generated great wealth on both sides of the argument, and I need to say up front I have absolutely no financial interest in climate. I am paid the same regardless of whether man is involved in climate change or not, and I have never taken a dime for a speech on the subject.
The simple truth is that the anthropogenic global warming train has slowed to a crawl, and the riders are jumping off as the facts are discovered.
What is the truth? Lets begin with something we all can agree on. The climate IS changing. It has always changed, it is changing now, and it will always change.
Beyond that, here are some simple facts that make those left on the global warming train very uncomfortable:
I have been doing the weather on local television for 30 years, and EVERY YEAR I have had people come up to me and tell me that they can ?never remember the weather being this strange?.
Most of those that you see and hear speaking on the subject have little scientific knowledge. Here is a quote from Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, from an article he penned recently:
?Alarmists like Al Gore will use pseudo-scientific justifications and comparisons in their attempt to make a connection between carbon dioxide and global warming. Even though CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, the alarmists insist on calling it a pollutant, referring to our atmosphere as an ?open sewer.? For instance, Gore likes to point out that Venus has far more CO2 in its atmosphere than the Earth does, and its surface is hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, more CO2 causes warming. But we also know that the Martian atmosphere has 15 times as much CO2 as our own atmosphere, and its surface temperature averages about 70 deg. F below zero. So you see, in science a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.?
Dr. James McClintock (marine biologist at UAB) today, in an op-ed piece published by the Birmingham News, claims that Antarctica is ?warming quickly?. Dr. McClintock, I am sure, is an excellent marine biologist, and I would not even make an effort to challenge his knowledge of that science. But, what is his background in atmospheric science? And, where does that claim come from?
Here is what Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) Joe D?Aleo says about this:
?The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area, which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic ice cover, like an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof,? D?Aleo wrote on March 25. ?We are very likely going to exceed last year?s record [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica?s ice sheet is also starting to disappear,? D?Aleo added.
And, from climate scientist Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona: ?It is interesting that all of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) stories concerning Antarctica are always about what?s happening around the [western] peninsula, which seems to be the only place on Antarctica that has shown warming. How about the net ?no change? or ?cooling? over the rest of the continent, which is probably about 95% of the land mass, not to mention the record sea ice coverage recently.?
I also should note that the mythical UN IPCC ?consensus? continues to crumble? Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the University of Tokyo, and a top UN IPCC Scientist, calls global warming fears: the ?worst scientific scandal in history? in the weblog of former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke.
Here is what Canadian climatologist Tim Ball says about the IPCC: ?The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change. Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study ?Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability? and ?Mitigation of Climate Change? respectively. Of the 600 in WGI, 308 were independent reviewers, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics the work of the 1900 (less than one percent of the scientific population) is listed as ?proof? of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.?
I find it interesting that most of the predictions coming from the IPCC are based on computer model output. Those of us in the trench, who deal with the Earth?s atmosphere every day, know that computer model data is often horrible 24 hours in advance? how bad can it be out to 50 or 100 years?
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine this month announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists (9,021 with PhDs) signed a petition stating that ?? There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth?s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth?s climate??
John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel, calls the GW movement the greatest scam in history.
I encourage all of you to read material on BOTH sides of the issue and make up your own mind. Mr Gore, the science is ?not settled?, and the invitation for a debate remains wide open.
Heaven help us this fall when ABC television tells us that the world, as we know it, is about to end because of ?global warming?. Never let facts get in the way of a good story, especially one that scares you to death.
I consider myself an environmentalist. There are some serious environmental issues out there. ?Global warming? is not one of them. One of the best ways to become a truly environmentally concerned person is to walk the banks of an Alabama river or stream for a half day and pick up trash and garbage. Anyone want to join me?
You are not an
CO2 is Warming the Planet.
Having another
Dear ReasonedSkeptic. What
This is a very interesting
Understanding the
Perhaps if you could stop
I'm happy to break it to you that you and your kind are the laughingstock of the scientific community and the public at large. You just think that everyone's laughing with you is all.
Just so you didn't miss it,
Your Scientists and Their
I am always astounded and
No argument is so stale and irrelevant .
-- www.CoSy.com --
SUYTS---Above Average. You
Sigh, Multi-Wavelength
Double Bogus reference
SUYTS: an actual quote from
Sorry, dishonestwren, you're
Let's recap on the inconvenient things that you, in your blatant dishonesty by omission, choose to ignore: