Incredible Book--The Weather Makers

[ThatsSomeBadHatHarry]

I just finished reading "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery and let me tell you, I think it may be the most important book I have ever read in my life. It's about climate change and how humans affect the global system, and before you start yawning, know that it is VERY accessible to the reader. Overall it can be a bit of a depressing read that can leave you with a feeling of hopelessness at times, but really should be a requirement to read. Not being totally ignorant to the subject before I read the book, i was shocked at how much I didn't know. It's a really good book. You should check it out and change things.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

More junk "science". I remember in the 1970s we were facing an ice age. I think I'd rather go out in a heat wave than freeze to death. As a matter of fact I will be contributing to the demise of mother earth, and devastation of sister forest, when I start burning wood in a few weeks. Think of all the skwurels that no longer have a house 'cuz it's in pieces in my garage and cellar.

I suggest also reading Michael Crichton's book about enviro-nazism.

It's just the next evolutionary step in mankind. We will destroy ourselves and much of the earth but something else will evolve to take our place and our position as a blight (or pimple) on (the ***** of) mother earth will be corrected.

 

[Bill51]

If you want a more balanced and less political book on climate change to ease some of the depression try Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear,” and especially Crichton’s bibliography. Be very suspicious of anyone telling you that CO2 is the major greenhouse gas that will heat the planet because it is a very, very distant greenhouse factor behind the water vapor that truly moderates the earths temperatures. Even his local Australian scientists don’t trust most of what he says.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,19085730-25717,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...d-up-over-gases/2005/09/27/1127804474167.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1578368.htm

 

[ThatsSomeBadHatHarry]

Be very suspicious of anyone telling you that CO2 is the major greenhouse gas that will heat the planet because it is a very, very distant greenhouse factor behind the water vapor that truly moderates the earths temperatures.

not THE major, but certainly a major greenhouse gas. There is notable mention to water vapor in the book. For water vapor to increase by means of more surface water evaporation, it does require an increase of temperature, which convincingly seems to have alot to do with increased levels of co2 in the atmosphere.

 

[tie]

Crichton's book certainly isn't balanced. And regardless of his bibliography, I don't think he has any scientific credentials. I don't know Tim Flannery's credentials, but since 99.9% of climate scientists agree that CO2 is causing global warming (with the last .1% supported by the oil companies), Crichton has a tougher credibility challenge.

 

[DeputyDan]

The cockroaches will be fine even with the climate change and they are all that will be alive in the end anyhow.

 

[Bill51]

Crichton's book certainly isn't balanced. And regardless of his bibliography, I don't think he has any scientific credentials. I don't know Tim Flannery's credentials, but since 99.9% of climate scientists agree that CO2 is causing global warming (with the last .1% supported by the oil companies), Crichton has a tougher credibility challenge.

99.9% of all scientists supporting manmade CO2 global warming theories are paid for by special interest groups and organizations needing to make spectacular statements to get more grant money. For instance all 48 scientists Gore used in his movie were part of a political advocacy group established to support John Kerry’s 2004 Presidential bid. Now where did you come up with the idea that 99.9% of all climate scientists believe in CO2 based global warming since last year an informal poll conducted of the climatologists and meteorologists at NASA, NWS, and FAA found that that Al Gore was at the bottom of the list of celebrities who viewed climate change the same as they did with Robert Kennedy next to last and Ted Nugent at the top of the list?

You might also find this of interest. http://www.junkscience.com/nov06/warm_gore.doc

Given the current environmental problems of algae and hydrilla blooms in our waters from excess nitrate runoff – and that elevated CO2 levels can reduce the need for fertilizers in many cases it sounds like higher CO2 concentrations could be a correcting factor to clean up our waterways. Given the forcing factors on CO2 by the current solar maxims we’re seeing it is likely that it is the sun creating more CO2 and rather than it being harmful it might be what is needed to help stabilize many coastal waters.

 

[Warthaug]

99.9% of all scientists supporting manmade CO2 global warming theories are paid for by special interest groups and organizations needing to make spectacular statements to get more grant money.

And there it is - the paranoid fantasy version. Don't like the answers the scientists are getting, so it must be a vast conspiracy to <fill in blank>. Quick everyone, grab you foil reflector beanie before they get you...

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

Now where did you come up with the idea that 99.9% of all climate scientists believe in CO2 based global warming since last year an informal poll conducted of the climatologists and meteorologists at NASA, NWS, and FAA found that that Al Gore was at the bottom of the list of celebrities who viewed climate change the same as they did with Robert Kennedy next to last and Ted Nugent at the top of the list?

Firstly, who gives a damn what celebs say about it - ask the scientists what they think. And what they think is pretty clear. In fact the 99.9% quote is being generous to the anti-warming side - the scientific literature is 100% unanimous that CO2 causes global warming. Just an example:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

928 scientific studies on climate change checked, 75% were about the role of CO2 and other gases (including water) in mediating global temps, and 100% of those agreed with the CO2-warming hypothesis. The remaining 25% were about paleoclimate, and therefore didn't deal directly with the issue, and even among those papers NONE questioned the CO2-warming link.

You might also find this of interest. http://www.junkscience.com/nov06/warm_gore.doc

Typical anti-warming propaganda. Same crap that's been published over the last ~20 years on the topic, and all (of the scientific criticisms anyways) disproven. Given that it comes from an organization dedicated to disproving the CO2-warming link (rather than representing the actual science, regardless of what that science says), I wouldn't trust it - no more than I'd trust Gore.

Maybe try reading what the scientists themselves are saying, rather then the interpretations of politicians and special interest groups...

Bryan

 

[Bill51]

Firstly, who gives a damn what celebs say about it - ask the scientists what they think. And what they think is pretty clear. In fact the 99.9% quote is being generous to the anti-warming side - the scientific literature is 100% unanimous that CO2 causes global warming. Just an example:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

928 scientific studies on climate change checked, 75% were about the role of CO2 and other gases (including water) in mediating global temps, and 100% of those agreed with the CO2-warming hypothesis. The remaining 25% were about paleoclimate, and therefore didn't deal directly with the issue, and even among those papers NONE questioned the CO2-warming link.

Typical anti-warming propaganda. Same crap that's been published over the last ~20 years on the topic, and all (of the scientific criticisms anyways) disproven. Given that it comes from an organization dedicated to disproving the CO2-warming link (rather than representing the actual science, regardless of what that science says), I wouldn't trust it - no more than I'd trust Gore.

Maybe try reading what the scientists themselves are saying, rather then the interpretations of politicians and special interest groups...

Bryan

Rather interesting that you would provide a link to an article by Naomi Oreskes defending the IPCC findings and indirectly her findings about the 75% of the papers supporting manmade CO2 global warming influences since reviews of that study by Peiser and Lindzen reexamined her methodology and concluded that the figure is closer to 30% agreement in the 1993-2003 papers, and only 2% of the articles actually support her position. But, since you want to believe the IPCC conclusions and use them as proof of “scientific consensus” maybe we should look at the less than 2000 scientists who are part of the IPCC study group in detail. Keep in mind that first of all, an overwhelming majority of those scientists are paid to be there by their governments and 3rd world nations make up a large (<2/3) percentage of the study members – and the IPCC won’t release specific information but it’s estimated that only slightly more than half are in climate or meteorological fields. Now if we look back at the opposition statements to IPCC findings as early as 1992 there was the Heidelberg Appeal signed by over 4000 scientists worldwide warning of inadequate scientific base for many of the presentations made at the Rio Convention. As the IPCC became even more political during 1998 we then had the Oregon Petition signed by over 17000 scientists contesting the content, methodologies, and conclusions of the IPCC studies. Many of those 17000 may have been duplicates or scientists not directly involved in climatologically related studies, but there are over 2500 confirmed signatures with advanced degrees in climate related fields on the petition. Now if 2000 scientists with potential political motives constitutes consensus over 17000 American scientists than maybe you’re right – but I think not.

I also find it interesting that the same Dr. Oreskes you quote is actually a geologist by training and a scientific history teacher (or social scientist depending on what article she’s writing) and author by trade yet she is considered by the IPCC to be a climatologist since she’s studied the history of the science of climatology rather than the actual science itself. You can find further debunking of her statistics in the Congressional Record as recently as September 25, 2006 where it is pointed out that Dr. Oreskes was continuing to publish her so-called findings in places such as the LA Times rather than peer reviewed scientific journals.

It’s also rather interesting that she has refused to acknowledge to this date the survey conducted in 1997 of the official state climatologists of the 48 states that have such a position. Of the 36 that responded, 44% believed global warming was a natural phenomenon and only 17% considered it manmade. Despite political pressures 58% of those climatologists disagreed with then President Clinton’s assertion that global warming is no longer theory and is fact and 89% said current science is unable to state man’s influence on climate change with any degree of certainty. That doesn’t sound like official climatologists employed by individual states are in agreement that there is any scientific consensus. Even more astounding was that 39% believed we were more likely to be headed to another ice age while only 33% believed our current global warming (since the end of the last mini-ice age in 1850) would continue.

As for my reading, prior to 1976 I was firmly in the popular camp believing we were headed for another ice age, and during the late 70s as global warming became the new thing I studied it in depth and believed there might be some truth to it despite several meetings I attended with Tom Hayden and my distrust of him. In both 79 and 80 I attended national symposiums on climate change in DC as a legislative correspondent for a conservationist organization and I began to see some serious contradictions in the early manmade global warming arguments and saw more politics than science being spewed out. I got actively involved again in 1992 when I had the dubious honor of having to read and review both Al Gore’s “Earth in the Balance” and the papers from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit in Rio) and that was when I learned how much real science was being suppressed at the altar of political correctness (and agenda). I think this quote from Rio probably sums it up.

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

If one doubts the efforts to silence scientists who publicly show skepticism toward the dogma of manmade global warming look at Dr. William Grey, a leading meteorologist and recognized pioneer in forecasting hurricanes, who was recently pummeled by Senator Boxer for his public statements about the science of global warming. As he pointed out, if he wasn’t a retired professor emeritus at Colorado State University he would have kept his mouth shut so he could keep working at a school dependent upon government funding.

All of this is not to say that I don’t think there is a possibility that CO2 might contribute to some climate change – but from my reviews of climate models more sophisticated (or less slanted) than those used by the IPCC the effects are very minimal compared to natural fluctuations. Having reviewed data from the medieval warming (which the IPCC tries to claim via Dr. Mann never happened) I have learned that the earth is much more self regulating than IPCC models are willing to acknowledge. For instance, if the planet were to warm sufficiently to raise sea level even 6” it would cover enough ground to increase the overall planet reflectivity yet IPCC models intentionally removed that variable from their models when it contradicted the results they were trying to prove. Since the ocean is a much more efficient CO2 scrubber (even NOAA uses sea water as a CO2 scrubber around the Aquarius) than most plant life I was concerned with the potential for raising the acidity of the ocean if CO2 concentrations exceeded 450PPM, but the studies I’ve reviewed showed any PH change to be immeasurable.

Probably the best and least biased scientists I’ve worked with on this over the past 35 years were the ones working for military intelligence and Department of Commerce. They were tasked with understanding the real potential for climate change that could effect either the long term military or economic security of the country and both groups decided that it presented no real problems – only political posturing. They too could be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[Warthaug]

I had to chop a little, so I snipped a lot of your quotes. Apparently my replay was too long

Rather interesting that you would provide a link to an article by Naomi Oreskes <. . . > since reviews of that study by Peiser and Lindzen reexamined her methodology and concluded that the figure is closer to 30% agreement in the 1993-2003 papers, and only 2% of the articles actually support her position.

Actually, they didn't. Whole story here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes

You can also see his original letter, and the rest of his side of the story, here:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

Long story short:
Using completely different methodology, and completely different scoring criteria he came up with different numbers. Big surprise there. But even with his radically different criteria, when you take his numbers you still get NOT ONE SCIENTIFIC PAPER which outright denies the consensus view. That's right, even this guy tried to "disprove" the results he couldn't find one scientific paper which explicitly stated that CO2 does not cause warming.

Now he does claim that there are 34 papers which implicitly (not explicitly) disagree with the consensus view. However, after several challenges (and refusals on his part) he was finally forced to release a list of 33 of these supposid abstracts. Gotta wonder what happened to #34, but regardless, many of the ones he categorized as "opposed" we're far from "opposed". Here's the list (the link isn't the best, be patient):

http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/

Pretty questionable list to be claiming opposition from, we've got:

1) Critiques of the statistical methods used

2) Concerns that some factors (i.e. cloud formation, solar cycle, tides) have not been accounted for adequately.

3) Critiques of political responses to warming, and/or the interplay between scientists and politicians.

4) Questions of whether some of the predicted outcomes of warming will actually occur (i.e. increased storms)

5) Concerns that some conclusions (in terms of effects, not causes) may be premature, and that more data is needed.

6) Critiques of plans to manage warming.

7) Critiques that some proxy measures of warming are not being tracked (look at abstract 11 - they actually say in the abstract that CO2 is involved in warming - not sure how that's denial).

8) Studies of local areas, which show no, or less-than-average, warming in those locals (i.e. alpine forests in Sweden).

9) Introduction of new techniques for monitoring paleoclimate (i.e. climate before we had thermometers and weather stations).

10) Concerns about the interpretation and presentation of climate science to the public.

11) Potential effects of climate change on the spread of disease

12) Only one paper made any explicit statements about the CO2-warming hypothesis (see #27). And even their resounding denial is limited to "variability is too high to make any conclusions". "They" are also an oil industry lobby group, publishing in an oil industry engineering journal...

So there you have it - 33 of the 34 supposid "conflicting" abstracts, out there for everyone to see. And just look at them - most don't even address the issue, and those which do are largely concerns about methodology or politics, and not rejection of the actual hypothesis.

Probably the biggest give-away is where those papers were found. Whereas Oreskes limited her search to scientific research papers only, Peiser included review articles, opinion pieces, abstracts from the political and social "sciences", and even an opinion piece produced by the oil industry.

But, since you want to believe the IPCC conclusions and use them as proof of &#8220;scientific consensus&#8221; maybe we should look at the less than 2000 scientists who are part of the IPCC study group in detail.

But the IPCC statement was then supported by climatic scientists from all over the world, with far more then the original 2000 supporting it. Not all of those scientists have to be directly involved in the IPCC to agree with the IPCC's statements. Any more then you have to be a politician to agree with their policies.

Keep in mind that first of all, an overwhelming majority of those scientists are paid to be there by their governments

So? Many governments (US, Russia, China, India, etc) have long opposed the theory, or the consequences of it. So why didn't their scientists, whom they paid to be there, not push their political agenda.

and 3rd world nations make up a large (<2/3) percentage of the study members

So your saying that the largest proportion of the human population shouldn't have a say is a global issue? The "I" in "IPCC" does stand for "international". . .

&#8211; and the IPCC won&#8217;t release specific information but it&#8217;s estimated that only slightly more than half are in climate or meteorological fields.

As compared to the opposition to the consensus view - none of whom are climatic scientists. The best known ones are a statistician, meteorologist, and social scientist.

If one doubts the efforts to silence scientists <...> look at Dr. William Grey

He's pretty vocal. As are McIntyre, Storch, McKitrick, etc. No one is silencing them; hell, they're far more vocal than any climatic scientist I can think of. And the more and more they get proven wrong, the louder and louder they get...

All of this is not to say that I don&#8217;t think there is a possibility that CO2 might contribute to some climate change &#8211; but from my reviews of climate models more sophisticated <...> the effects are very minimal compared to natural fluctuations.

And I suppose you could provide a link to said study. I have a collection of about 15 papers which show the exact opposite - that the IPCC's model is correct, or even understated. And none of them were a part of, or funded by, the IPCC.

Having reviewed data from the medieval warming (which the IPCC tries to claim via Dr. Mann never happened)

Gotta love it when people fall for propaganda; reality is actually the exact opposite of what you just claimed.

Mann's original climatic reconstruction was the first scientific evidence that both the medieval warm period, and mini ice age, actually occurred. Prior to his work the only evidence for this period was historical facts - changes in crop types and yields, the rise and fall of some viking societies, etc. Not only that, but the historical evidence that these periods occurred were important supportive facts when Mann's results were questioned.

In fact, if you look at Mann's (and other) reconstructions both the MWP and LIA are clearly visible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

And as you can see in that graph, both Mann, as well as 7 other groups, found very similar trends, and identified both the MWA and LIA.

if the planet were to warm sufficiently to raise sea level even 6&#8221; it would cover enough ground to increase the overall planet reflectivity

Wrong. I'm actually curious where you picked that up, seeing as the albedo (i.e. reflectivity) of water to sunlight is highly variable, and dependent on the angle of incidence. At low angles of incidence (i.e. what you'd see near the north pole), albedo is low (i.e. most light is reflected). At lower latitudes, where the sun is more overhead, the albedo is high - higher then any other naturally existing surface on the earth.

Hell, anyone who's ever been serious about underwater photography knows how all that works.

A brief summary:
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/3rv.html

Since the ocean is a much more efficient CO2 scrubber <. . .> I was concerned with the potential for raising the acidity < . . .> but the studies I&#8217;ve reviewed showed any PH change to be immeasurable.

Then you need to look a little closer. pH changes in the ocean are becoming a major problem in some areas. As a diver this should be a concern to you as it may result in the depletion of some reefs.

Just two of the more than 100 articles that come up when you search for "ocean acidification" + "carbon dioxide"

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=3249
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2005/928/5

The commonly quoted value today is 0.1pH units. Medically, a prolonged change of that magnitude is termed "acidosis", and can be fatal. Last time I checked, fatality was not "negligible"

Probably the best and least biased scientists

You mean the ones which agree with you the most.

They were tasked with understanding the real potential for climate change that could effect either the long term military or economic security of the country

And I suppose you can provide evidence of this, cause without a link its nothing but your unsubstantiated claims.

Or, for that matter, can you provide even one single article, published in a scientific journal, which explicitly states that global warming is either not occurring, or is not a product of CO2.



Bryan