Human Activities Found To Affect Ocean Temperatures

[David Blacklock]

I am too, Gman. California is not the only state trying to accomplish what the fed won't. About 5-7 of the original 13 colonies are working on legislation. Unfortunately, the auto industry (I think) and other big business is suing California trying to slow down the process or get the Supremem court to decide that the fed has jurisdiction.

There are things I like about Bush, but his big business stance makes him anti-science, and he's an idiot for invading Iraq. Any moron would have known you can't re-culturalize another country by war - unless you live in the time of Alexander the Great.

[puritan lad]

Any moron would have known you can't re-culturalize another country by war - unless you live in the time of Alexander the Great.

Tell that to Germany or Japan.

Besides, we're not trying to "reculturalize". We are trying to get rid of the terrorists, keep them from getting nukes, and put teeth into the dozens of resolutions ignored by their former insane dictator.

Perhaps the war plan hasn't been all that great, but unless you can propose a better one...

[David Blacklock]

>>unless you can propose a better one...<<

Leave 'em alone. You didn't buy that Iraq/terrorist nonsense, did you?

[August]

heh, heh - you have really picked some bad boys to believe.

The only thing I would suggest it that you widen your reading patterns. These guys are really outliers. That rep from Oklahoma is not just anti-global warming...he seems anti science of any sort - but that's not really his beef. He buys into the whole free market thing so thoroughly that he is completely pro-business. For many issues, that means anti-science, so yes, this guy will hunt down a scientist who will agree with business agenda, no matter how far off the beaten track.

What, now that a scientist does not agree with the hypothesis he is a bad boy?

Also, a blanket dismissal based on some unproven conspiracy theory that somehow big bad buiness is out to kill the environment is not all that interesting.

[August]

>>unless you can propose a better one...<<

Leave 'em alone. You didn't buy that Iraq/terrorist nonsense, did you?

How many documents from Saddam's regime do you want that shows how he supported terrorism? Saddam documented everything, for example:

Page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654 is a Top Secret letter dated March/11/2001 six months prior to 9/11/2001.

Beginning of the translation of page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654

In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate

Top Secret

The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base

No 3/6/104

Date 11 March 2001

To all the Units

Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Air Brigadier General

Abdel Magid Hammod Ali

Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base

Air Colonel

Mohamad Majid Mahdi.

End of translation of page 6

We have millions of documents from Saddam's government, many of them have been translated and show that he supported terrorism against both Israel and the US. He trained and funded terrorists, by his own admission.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

[sandy_mcd]

Also, a blanket dismissal based on some unproven conspiracy theory that somehow big bad buiness is out to kill the environment is not all that interesting. ... http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568

Fortuitously a few days ago someone gave me a magazine:

Climate-Change Debate Shifts
Businesses and governments discuss top-down, bottom-up approaches to averting irreversible dangerous changes
Bette Hileman
The world's climate system may be veering dangerously close to irreversible and highly disruptive changes, according to researchers at a conference convened in Washington, D.C., Sept. 18-21. The tone of much of the climate-change debate is changing from what is going on to what can be done about it.
In addition to descriptions of the latest evidence that climate change may be accelerating, government and business leaders at the conference outlined measures they are already taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—the major cause of rapid climate change. Representatives of religious and campus groups described efforts to mobilize individuals to take concrete steps to reduce their own impact on the atmosphere.
...
Over the past year, a number of religious groups have become interested in grassroots action to try to avert irreversible climate change. Some are asking their members to take steps to reduce the CO2 emissions associated with their personal lives. They argue that climate change will cause great suffering for the poor and disadvantaged in the world and destroy much of God's creation.

At the meeting, speakers from several faiths described measures being taken to protect climate. The Presbyterian Church has asked its members to try to become "carbon neutral" by reducing the use of energy, especially fossil fuels, said Pamela P. McVety, moderator of the Presbyterian Resolution Energy Task Force. Members are urged to reduce their personal use of fossil fuels and to pay for offsets to compensate for uses that cannot be avoided, she said. A fairly typical family of four releases 32 tons of CO2 (measured as carbon) per year from fossil fuels used to support daily activities. The church asks them to cut that in half with energy-conserving steps and to offset the remainder by paying for emission-reducing projects, such as reforestation.

It is evident from the talks at the meeting that discussions about global climate change have shifted recently. What is happening in nature as a result of rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases is more threatening and more visible than it was a few years ago. As a result, more businesses and governments and some religious groups are taking concrete action, and the opposition to such action is less strident than it once was.

The point here is not that there was a conference on global warming. The point is that this conference was extensively and positively covered (4 full pages out of less than 50 pages of content) in Chemical & Engineering News. There were no comments about anthropogenic global warming not being real and no mention of skeptics. C&EN is the weekly trade publication of the 158,000 member American Chemical Society (the cover story is a review of the paints and coatings industry). Presumably for most people the words "chemists" and "chemical industry" do not conjure up images of liberal environmental extremists. So it is reasonable to conclude from this that there is little doubt in the chemical community that there is global warming due in large part to greenhouse gas emissions. The dismissal of global warming skepticism is not based on claims of a "big bad business" conspiracy against the environment; the dismissal of global warming skepticism is based on a "big bad business" (at least in the chemical community) acceptance of human contribution to global warming.

On the other hand, the first reference is a press release from the 10 Republican members of the 18 person U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. [The website for this "committee" has submenus for "Members" and then "Majority Page" and "Minority Page" suggesting that its pronouncements are more based on political ideology than science.] The title states "Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming ..." whereas the scientist in fact believes in global warming [The beginning of his editorial is 'The cause of climate change remains unknown.'].[Other comments on this press release would be in a different thread.]

Summary. From reading popular scientific literature and speaking to people, I am fairly confident that the vast majority of scientists in fields related to climate study believe in global warming and that a large (but smaller) majority believe that a large component is anthropogenic. [This of course refers to their beliefs and not what the actual truth is.]


[1] This was not a representative selection of papers. Not all skeptical literature consists of political press releases. By the same token, skeptical opinion does not constitute half of the total.
[2] The opinion of a scientist who changes his mind (open to new ideas) will often carry more weight with me than an older scientist who doesn't (history is littered with stories of famous scientists who lost the ability to accept change).
[3] The reference to church groups at the conference can be contrasted to an email I received.

[August]

Sandy, we have been through this before, and we both referred to scientific studies related to climate change, both on the actual occurence thereof and, if it is actually happening, possible causes.

Both sides may be guilty of question-begging at this point, as the the article you posted demonstrates, and also some of the references in the article I posted.

The point is that there is no consensus right now, with both sides of the argument quoting respected scientists. I do find that some of the reaction, which we also saw here, is primarily trying to use the global warming argument to promote a socialist liberal agenda of more government control.

[David Blacklock]

August says: The point is that there is no consensus right now.

DB: There are bound to be several ways to resolve whether there is or is not a concensus. Line up to advocates, line up the rejectors, check out who pays them. If it's a politician, who supports their campaigns? If it's a scientist, does he publish in peer-reviewed journals? Do any widely influential advocates of either side have any other vested interests, like, for example, books to sell?

It's so easy for either side in a debate to cherry-pick data, is there a study that does a synopsis of studies (there's a word for this but I've forgotten it - meta-analysis?).

Try to minimize pre-conceived bias in this survey. It's impossible to get rid of, but at least in making assessment, it's helpful to realize that pre-conceived bias is always present.

[August]

August says: The point is that there is no consensus right now.

DB: There are bound to be several ways to resolve whether there is or is not a concensus. Line up to advocates, line up the rejectors, check out who pays them. If it's a politician, who supports their campaigns? If it's a scientist, does he publish in peer-reviewed journals? Do any widely influential advocates of either side have any other vested interests, like, for example, books to sell?

It's so easy for either side in a debate to cherry-pick data, is there a study that does a synopsis of studies (there's a word for this but I've forgotten it - meta-analysis?).

Try to minimize pre-conceived bias in this survey. It's impossible to get rid of, but at least in making assessment, it's helpful to realize that pre-conceived bias is always present.

There is also some straight scientific discussion going on, in which there is not consensus. Claims of consensus is an attempt by advocates to relieve themselves of addressing the scientifc arguments and to intimidate opponents.

[Canuckster1127]

I'm pretty much at the point where based on my observation of the Data and interaction on things, I believe we are in the midst of a major climate change.

The shipping industry is already doing projections in term of a clear passage over North America in the Arctic ocean based upon the ice cap retreating.

There is no doubt in my mind that human gas emissions are contributing toward this. The extent of which is of course an inexact science and debatable.

The contibution towad this is of course heavier in western industrialized nations, but then also there is higher productivity there as well.

I think the issue is past a band-aid stage. China and India are just getting into their economic stride and formation of a middle class which is going to only compound the problem, regardless of what the west does (and we should be environmentally responsible I believe and do what we can.)

The need for electric power, cars etc in China and India will eclipse anything we've seen to this point.

The retreat of the ice cap as well is opening bogs and other elements which in turn are releasing methane into the atmosphere and accelerating some of the process.

There has been climate change on the scale we might see on the earth in the past as well without human input. I think what we are doing in the case is accelerating what may have been coming anyway.

Regardless, I believe the condition is real and to some extent, inevitable. Emerging countries are looking at the west and asking why they should be restricted in their growth and progress while the west maintains their consumption, standard of living etc. and they have a point.

It is inevitable that politics and economics will be deeply involved in this.

I'm kinda losing my sense that the entire problem is being generated to fit any one particular ideology. The problem exists and I think people would have to be blind not to see the preponderance of information and scientific opinion leaning in that direction.

[David Blacklock]

Good summary Canuckster

DB

[sandy_mcd]

The point is that there is no consensus right now, with both sides of the argument quoting respected scientists.

The point is that the vast majority of the scientific community (in more or less related fields) accept global warming and an anthropogenic component. (There certainly is a handful of prominent exceptions.) I base this on skimming journals such as Nature and Science and talking to research scientists. Where do you get the idea that there is major disagreement (among scientists)?

[August is undeniably correct if by "consensus" he means "unanimous agreement".]

[Similarly, whether the earth is old or young, you should not deny that the majority of geological scientists accept an old earth. And just as many here believe the small number of scientists who believe in a young earth are correct, it may be that anthropogenic warming skeptics are correct. Nonetheless, they are in the minority in the scientific community.]

[And on that topic, Claude J. Allegre, the prominent French scientist mentioned in the press release, received the Crafoord Prize (the most prestigious prize available to earth scientists) in 1986 (shared with Gerald J. Wasserburg) “for their pioneering studies of isotope geochemical relations and the geological interpretations that these results permit”

Isotope geology is a branch of Earth and planetary science crucial in modern geological research. It allows the dating of geological processes and the tracing of the development of Earth and the planetary system back to the time when they consolidated from the solar nebulosa.

Claude Allí¨gre's work has mainly emphasized terrestrial geochemical problems amenable to isotope and trace element studies. His exceptionally imaginative contributions have paved the way for a better understanding of the Earth's crust and mangle, and the complex interaction between these two major components of our planet. Allí¨gre's work has also produced sophisticated models of a large number of geological processes including volcanism, the evolution of the Earth's atmosphere and the formation of the planet proper.

He is still just one scientist who has yet to publish on global warming. [His latest paper seems to be Title: Weathering and transport of sediments in the Bolivian Andes: Time constraints from uranium-series isotopes
Author(s): Dosseto A, Bourdon B, Gaillardet J, Maurice-Bourgoin L, Allegre CJ
Source: EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS 248 (3-4): 759-771 AUG 30 2006.]]

[edited to add emphasis only]
[and the edit comment above too, as well as this one]

[Gman]

Good summary Canuckster

DB

David,

I just wanted to let you know that the owner if this website believes that our current warming trends are anthropogenically induced as well..

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... rming.html

For me, just the sheer fact that these huge glaciers that took thousands of years to create are now melting before our very eyes within a decade is a cause for alarm..

[David Blacklock]

Good post and excellent summary article, Gman.

[sandy_mcd]

Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. ...

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

There are a few followups. One disagrees http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi ... l/90/3/409 and another disagrees with that one http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi ... l/90/3/405.