In August of 2005 I opened a similar topic thusly:

See The Original Topic.

Since then the IPCC has issue its 4th assessment report (AR4) raising the confidence level that human civilization is responsible for most of the observed warming. Also, Arctic sea ice appears to be retreating far faster than the IPCC estimated. In addition, several studies show Greenland glaciers flowing into the sea at alarming rates, also something the IPCC failed to evaluate since the studies were so new. Anecdotally, we have also witnessed freakish weather around the world from droughts in Australia and the American Southwest and Southeast to historic flooding in England, India and elsewhere to extreme heat waves in Southern Europe and parts of the US.

Now we have seen 2 category 5 hurricanes make landfall in Central America and a massive typhoon hit China and the season is only 1/2 over. This is the first time since records have been kept that 2 such storms have made landfall in one year and it is only the 4th time multiple category 5 storms have formed in the entire Atlantic Basin! 2005 saw 5 such storms but none made landfall as category 5.

Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?

What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?

No. However, I don't deny the Earth is warming. I just don't belive it's my fault.
Well I believe the Earth is warming as it would during its normal cycle of warming and cooling.
DrudgeReport.com? WeatherUnderground.com? So what?

If you were watching the major media, you would know everything about Britney Spears and other meaningless celebrities but very little about the weather events that could be the forerunners of profound changes in our lives. And this says nothing about the US centered bias of corporate media. Both of these storms would have been major news items had they hit the US.

Well to be fair to the US MSM weather in other countries really isn't going "sell papers" so to speak to US Citizens. It's out of their realm. Keep in mind that to a lot of the world Global Warming isn't a problem, and if it is there's nothing they can do about it. Hence the low "ratings" number for such news.

You're in the realm of a "butterfly flaps its wings in Japan" and while Global Warming is clearly a topic that's important to you but Britney Spears latest custody battle trumps your concern for a lot of people. Maybe if you can get that very effeminate boy to post a crying video about Global Warming you can get some traction on this

Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?

Anecdotally? This summer was mild, at least where I live. The mornings are quite brisk these days, even though it is still summer. I wish it were warmer.

The hurricane this season was once again downgraded. The number of storms is down from that catastophic year of 2005. After having 28 storms and 15 hurricanes (seven major) in 2005 (both records) we had only 10 storms last year and only five hurricanes (two major). No hurricane even hit the US last year (despite the "sky is falling" rhetoric of 2005). This year there have been ten storms with three being hurricanes (two major).

What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming?

Considering that even anthropogenic global warming proponents do not directly attribute hurricanes to GW, I guess hurricanes wouldn't be the criteria...

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?

Aside from this being a statistical anomoly, what relevance does the fact that two Cat 5's actually made landfall? As far as whether or not the media is properly reporting the weather (there is an entire channel dedicated to it), how would we know?

Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?

Yup. It's happening faster than I anticipated. No change of view on the cause though - I reckon it's in large part anthropogenic, with maybe some non-anthropogenic change in tandem (and the main cause of anthropogenic change is natural amplification of a relatively small initial human contribution; it gets warmer, you get more water vapour, which is itself a potent greenhouse gas.). My view of the necessary response hasn't changed much either - while we probably ought to try to reduce our carbon dioxide and methane production, what's already underway is out of our hands, so the key action that needs to be taken is adaptation to a warmer wetter climate (most predictions for Northern Hemisphere temperate zones indicate this overall, but aren't much more specific. It might be colder and drier in some places and at some times of year.)

It won't be the end of the world, but it could (and probably will if we assume we don't have to change anything) have dramatic and deleterious consequences for our current civilisation and economy.

Generally though, I don't think ANYONE now denies that the Earth's climate is changing and is generally getting warmer. The only argument remaining is the cause. Forgive my cynicism, but until as recently as a year or two ago, the defendants of the status quo were denying any warming was happening, let alone that it was cause by human action, so I reckon it's only a matter of time before they climb down from that, too.

What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming

Looking out of the window and looking in my wardrobe. The sun is out, and my winter coats are dusty and unused.

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?

I sort of knew that, but only really from reading the BBC Weather News website from time to time. It hasn't been uppermost in any bulletins I've seen, but then I'd be surprised if the flooding in Oxford or Hull this summer led on the




Pfffffft! (= Titters behind hand like an eight year-old) "Anthropomorphic" means "shaped like a man". "Anthropogenic" means "caused by man". Ahh, the benefits of a classical education.... are mostly useless, except at times like this. Thanks for giving me a point, Amlord

Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?

I'm going to have to go with Julian on this one; the die have been cast. We're no longer searching for proof that global warming exists, simply who to blame for it. My guess is that sooner or later, we'll pin all the blame on mother earth for some obscure meteorological warming phenomenon. I mean, rocks and trees can't sue for libel, or slander, can they?

Now maybe if we stopped pointing fingers between the coal-burning industrialized world of the 1800s, and modern carbon-spewing society, and started on a solution for the problem...

...Nah, that would be too fantastic to even think about.

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?

Storm reporting has been pretty much exhausted in the aftermath of Katrina and the Tsunami of 2004. The American populace can only take so much of a single subject--let's not overtax their delicate minds with any more weather than they can bear.

Oh, and as for Amlord's little slip up, I think he might actually be on to something---anthropomorphic hurricanes.

Imagine, perky little cartoon characters on the telly, saying things like "Hello, I'm hurricane Alberta! I'm a class five hurricane, a direct effect of global warming, and I’ll be ravaging your nation in little over a month! Have a nice day!"

It strikes me as the best way to communicate the importance of climatology to the general public.

ah I fixed that. Thanks for the correction, Jules.

Now, akalae's piling on...that is just uncalled for.



You DO realize that it is still summer, n'est pas? I certainly hope you don't expect to use your winter coat during summer (even if there are only a few more days left) or the preceding months. Maybe the sun doesn't shine during the summers of Great Britain?

Weather reporting has become just as sensationalistic as every other facet of "news" reporting. Watch out for the storms, they are especially vicious this time around (as if storms haven't always been, well, stormy).

Really, we (Americans especially) are so focused on the here and now and how the current situation is so much worse than any other time it becomes ridiculous at times. Take drought for example.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20...n16drought.html If I see another yellow journalist reference to a "Critical Juncture" or some other rubbish I'm going to scream. Do we not remember the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930s? The drought of the 1950s? the 1980s? We compare every time frame to the boom times instead of the norm.

The funny thing I have found is that the drought in the US is attributed to La Nina, which is a lower than average sea surface temperature in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. It causes drought and increased hurricane activity in the Atlantic. Of course, like many weather phonomena, the La Nina-El Nino cycle is poorly understood and the impact of warmer global temperatures is not known.

IPCC's take on it? "We don't know" http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/361.htm


and "our models need to be improved (note that these same models are the ones they use to predict global climate shifts).

The hurricane story is exactly the kind of hyped nonsense that drives me nuts. We actually have fewer hurricanes this year so far than predicted and the only real difference is that 2 of them turned to Cat 5. Nearly all hurricane experts say this year is not caused by global warming – rather the warming of the ocean driven by the poorly understood La Nina-El Nino cycle , is to blame. The temperature of the water in the Gulf hit about 92 F recently.

I will believe this is global warming caused when the models are good enough to do this and when all hurricane experts agree.

The media do the standard job of hyping every story and trying to relate it to GW. Meanwhile we have not seen GW in the last few years despite the fact that China is ramping up their CO2 output at an alarming rate and have now passed the US.

Interestingly we hear little of the PITA claim that animals raised for food emit more greenhouse gasses than all the vehicles in the world. They say backed up by the UN. So the answer is clear – go vegetarian.


"You could exchange your “regular” car for a hybrid Toyota Prius and, by doing so, prevent about 1 ton of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year, but according to the University of Chicago, being vegan is more effective in the fight against global warming; a vegan prevents approximately 1.5 fewer tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year than a meat-eater does.4 The math is simple: You could spend more than $20,000 on a Prius and still emit 50 percent more carbon dioxide than you would if you just gave up eating meat and other animal products.
Methane: The billions of chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows who are crammed into factory farms each year in the U.S. produce enormous amounts of methane, both during digestion and from the acres of cesspools filled with feces that they excrete. Scientists report that every pound of methane is more than 20 times as effective as carbon dioxide is at trapping heat in our atmosphere.5 The Environmental Protection Agency shows that animal agriculture is the single largest source of methane emissions in the U.S.6
Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide. According to the U.N., the meat, egg, and dairy industries account for a staggering 65 percent of worldwide nitrous oxide emissions.7 "



http://www.goveg.com/environment-globalwarming.asp

This topic has been side tracked from my original intention. I was looking for reaction to the multitude of unusual and record extreme weather events around the world. The number of recent hurricanes that have reached category 5 are only one example of this. (For others see This Summary with Links andThis). I am well aware of the scientific debate that continues regarding the influence of global warming on hurricane frequency and intensity and even started an earlier topic on that very controversy (but can't seem to find it in the archive). If you want to look at the pattern of category 5 storms. (See this Wikipedia Article.)



After the IPCC's review of the scientific literature reported in the AR4 that the majority of recent warming was caused by human activity to a 90% confidence level (many participating scientists argued for a 95% level), I find statements like Julian's that warming is part of a natural phenomena surprising. Even Bush's scientific adviser has moved beyond this. (See this Article). I also found the reference to NOAAs downgrading the 2007 season surprising since the last thing I saw still called for an above normal year. (See NOAA.)

The la Nina/el Nino/ENSO argument is a non starter since everyone accepts the influence of the cycle on the frequency of hurricanes in the Atlantic. The cycle itself, however, is probably influenced by GW. Some even argue that in the long run, GW will increase the frequency and intensity of el Nino events reducing the number of Atlantic hurricanes while increasing all the negative effects of that part of the cycle.

As for Ted's animals argument, it is totally extraneous to this topic. But, yes, Methane and NO2 are important greenhouse gases and, yes, animal production does produce significant quantities of both and the reduction of these sources also need to be part of the solution. However, it is important to keep in mind that both gases remain in the atmosphere for a far more limited time than CO2. The last I checked, the amount of Methane appeared to have stabilized. The real fear hear is that rising temperatures might caused a run away feedback from methane release from hydrates and peat bogs. And, yes, Ted I drive a Prius and I also eat very little red meat. I do eat a lot of chicken but mostly from home grown free ranging chickens. This, however, is a health decision not a GW one but it may be one we need to explore as part of the solution.

Only extraneous because we find it inconvenient to deal with it – like the burning of wood and garbage in most of the world (not covered by IPCC) – it is of course mush easier to blame everything on CO2 and then let the largest producer of same off the hook – smart?


As for you links on “record” weather events they are classis hype and some of the worst crap I have seen to date – did you even read them.

Lets start by defining “record” – to me this means more than any time in history for an event – agreed?

So this from your story:

In July in southern China, the worst flooding in decades – NO “record” there.

While in Texas, more than a foot of rain fell in less than a day – Houston has had as much as 30” in a day – NO record.

The more stories about floods and heat not even claiming to be “record” anything.

At the end of July, Britain's weather office announced that the summer of 2007 was the wettest in that country's recorded history – 1 “record” here.

the UN reported the first half of 2007 was marked by a significant increase in weather extremes around the world – ya ok but compared to what? Not a “record”.

By Aug. 16, the heatwave had visited triple-digit temperatures for 10 consecutive days on the southern US, killing at least 33 people – No record – it gets hot in the South every year. By the way nice and cool here in the North East.

Meanwhile a new round of severe winds and intense rainstorms cut power to hundreds of thousands of people in the midwestern US – wow.


So what we have here is some dope gathering every “weather” stories from around the world and we are to believe this is caused by “Global Warming”. Ya right.

Even if we were certain there is GW that will continue to try to blame every extreme weather event on it is so stupid it is not worth discussing.

More than anything else this kind of crap imo turns off the average citizen.




Me too for the red meat (I eat none). I don’t drive a Prius but my house has 3 times the insulation of the typicall house.

Ted, you missed the point. The articles I referenced were designed to show the juxtaposition in time of extreme weather events, not just records. However, several records were included. The one and only tropical cyclone to strike in Arabian Sea and record land temperatures in January and April.










To pretend that the IPCC and climate scientists ignore Methane and N2O is simply false. A few years ago, Jim Hansen, one of the most alarmed scientists, even proposed concentrating on Methane and carbon black reduction as a way to buy time to address CO2. Take a look at the table on page 142 of Chpt. 1 of the AR4. (See Table).

....................................................................Radiative Forcing
...............................Change Since.......................................Change Since
Species.........2005....................1998..............2005 (W m–2).....1998 (%)

CO2...........379 ± 0.65 ppm......+13 ppm........ 1.66...................+13
CH4..........1,774 ± 1.8 ppb.......+11 ppb...........0.48......................-
N2O.............319 ± 0.12 ppb......+5 ppb...........0.16...................+11

Portions of tables are hard to copy but I think you can see that CO2 is the major forcing agent and the one whose concentration has increased most in recent years. However, that said, the accompanying discussion makes clear that paleoclimate records indicate a CH4(Methane) atmospheric concentration of from 400 to 700 ppb so that the 1,774 ppb level is from 2 to 4 times normal and up 30% over the last 25 years. Consequently, CH4 forcing over historical norms may be as high as 0.36 W/m2 sincne the beginning of major agriculture endeavors. On the other hand, historical levels of CO2 were already at 280 ppm and have only increased by about 1/4 of the current level so a straight line attribution of forcing would indicate a forcing of about 0.415 W/m2 over pre-industrial forcing. So Methane concentrations are a major contributor of GW thus far but apparently not a growing contributor.

While most of the sources of Methane are biological based, meat production is only one such source. The AR4 discussion surrounding the referenced table says,

No you missed my point – which is that there are ALWAYS extreme “weather events” and always have been. And the nature of “records” is that they occationally get broken. So if you can show (you cannot) that there are far more “weather events” in the past 10 years than the previous 50 I will listen more.

So we will always have "record-breaking weather extremes in almost every continent".

Just the fact that any idiot tries to blame the recent hurricanes on GW turns me off immediately as I have heard every real expert say 50 times they are NOT related.




Thus it would seem that even though methane is not now increasing it well may be the primary “gas” if there is one to blame since its concentration is “2 to 4 times normal and up 30% over the last 25 years”

So we need to identify the real drives and the real mechanism of GW before we decide to deal with it by wasting 400 billion a year.

And I will say it again – if China & India are not going to reduce in line with the rest of the world (they won’t) we are wasting our time. And any US president who signs up for an idiotic “treaty” that leaves the major “offenders” out of the equation should be impeached. Even Clinton was not stupid enough to do this.

No, Ted, Methane has always been the subject of climate scientists researching forcing factors in global warming and remains so. The figures I cited that you endorsed were extrapolation of IPCC figures. You can't dismiss the major long term threat represented by increasing levels of long lived CO2 in the atmosphere by pointing at the significant role that historically high but stable levels of the shorter lived Methane is playing. Each one makes the other one worse as do Carbon Blacks and other minor greenhouse gases.

Perhaps I am too pesimistic about peoples willingness to change. Look at the results of this this Yale Opinion Survey.

And why is that? Since methane has risen so much faster than CO2 why dismiss it as not being capable of being THE driving force?




Ya right – Yale

Try this one
"Americans generally agree that the earth is getting warmer, but there is less consensus about the cause of global warming or what should be done about it. Roughly four-in-ten (41%) believe human activity such as burning fossil fuels is causing global warming, but just as many say either that warming has been caused by natural patterns in the earth's environment (21%), or that there is no solid evidence of global warming (20%

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=280


Certainly the Gore scare move has had an effect. The fact that it was a gross overstatement in most statistics was missed by most.

“Public agrees global warming exists, but divided over seriousness of problem
A majority of Americans agree with most scientists that the Earth is getting warmer, but they are divided over the seriousness of the problem, according to surveys conducted by Jon Krosnick, professor of communication and of political science. Their uncertainty is based on a belief—shared by two-thirds of the population—that scientists themselves disagree about global warming.
"Americans are very much on the same wavelength with the scientific community about the basics of the issue," Krosnick said. "But they lack certainty" about how bad the problem really is http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...u-pag021307.php


Only the latest Bush proposal has a chance to salvage anything from the disaster of Kyoto. The idea that the US should lead the way and reduce CO2 at a cost of 400 billion a year and tens of thousands of jobs a year while China and India go right on expanding their output without limit is so stupid that it not worth talking about.

I know you like to take pot shots at Gore but you will have to demonstrate his inaccuracy not just proclaim it. Please cite at least one established climate scientists that is not part of the usual stable of "deniers" who seriously disputes his movie. You probably had pieces like this William J. Broad piece in the NYT in mind. However, his own article is full of a lot more distortions than Gore's documentary. Real Climate reviewed this distortion of the science here and included the following statement.



A link to the Real Climate review of Gore's presentation is included in their review of Broad's article (for those who desire an accurate assessment of Gore's conformity to the science). As for the difference in the opinion polls, the one your cite conforms to my take on the confusion of the public, an effect that the deliberate misinformation campaign is designed to produce. I cited the Yale poll because it was different than my expectation and, therefore, encouraging. I would point out, however, that it was conducted more than a year after the one you cited.

Ya right – one scientist BUT NOT “not part of the usual stable of "deniers" who seriously disputes his movie”

Give me a break sir. The way to dismiss people is drop them in your convenient category and dismiss what they say? Pure crap.

Now you show me one statistic predicted by Gore we are even close to or will be. He used the very worst case scenarios cherry picked from every climate model he could locate and then some. And as his stupid predictions start not happening he will fade away – and good riddance.


http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archi...Case-Study.html

“There is a rising chorus of concern, extending even to "moderate" scientists with no political axe to grind, over the former US vice-president's tactics and advocacy.
The nub of their concern is a belief that he has over-egged his case. That, in trying to sell to the public the dangers of complacency in combating global warming, he is guilty of a number of convenient untruths or distortions.
Even a top adviser to Mr Gore, the environmental scientist James Hansen, admits the former vice-president's work may hold "imperfections" and "technical flaws".
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/sci...3722471286.html


And you continue to elude the real question – and that is even if Gore is right why would the US spend 400 billion a year for Kyoto when it is CLEAR that without China and Inda it will mean nothing????

Got an answer TedN5??? Didn’t think so.

Although this appears to be a battle of the Teds , I thought I'd chime in here.

I just watched a global warming debate, which can be seen on youtube and Michael Crichton's website(which also has a transcript).

Although good points were made on both sides, one of them hit home for me.

Global temperatures have been changing since the beginning of the Earth's birth. Humans have adapted by migrating and using such technologies as irrigation and dams. So, why is it a "crisis" now? Poor planning. We've built cities all over the world on coastlines, not knowing there was a chance that someday the ocean levels would rise. We've created country borders, not knowing that someday we might need to migrate people out of those regions. Our own infrastructure is the real cause of the "crisis". Temperatures are going to rise and fall whether we pump CO2 into the atmosphere or not, the only difference is how fast, and even that seems to be up for debate still. Some scientists say we are in our "optimal" temperature right now, but for every one of them, there's another that says a few degrees hotter could open up millions of acres of land for farming...gosh, it's a good thing we don't have any world hunger going on.....

So, in my opinion, are humans the cause of this crisis? Yes, but not for the reasons most people think.

It is revealing that you referenced a rehash of the same William Brod piece I posted with an accompanying climate scientist critique without any reasonable explanation. It is also noteworthy that the main scientist cited in this article is Don Easterbrook, a retired professor not an active researcher. While not part of the "stable of deniers," Easterbrook is a definite outlier among climate scientists and does not accept anthropogenic global warming even though the IPCC endorsed it, after a careful review of all scientific research, to be the cause of recent GW to a confidence level greater than 90%. Perhaps a lay critique of the William Broad piece will be more comprehensible. (See The Daily Howler)

Robert Carter, a professor at James Cook University, on the other hand, is part of "the stable." See(Wikipedia).





And, no Ted, I won't discuss China, India, Kyoto, nor self proclaimed $400 billion dollars expenses. We have gone back and forth on these issues numerous times in other global warming topics. If you want to discuss them again, start a new topic. The CH4/N2O/CO2 diversion was quite enough. This topic was set up to discuss the recent rash of unusual weather events and whether they changed or influenced anyone's opinion about the seriousness of global warming's influence on extreme weather.

In keeping with that purpose, here is the latest on summer melting of aortic sea ice. (See Melville Island).



(See also Nature).

Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?

How do you take two years, or even one hundred years of information about a rock that is billions of years old and even begin to try to make a prediction of what is going to happen over the next 100 years? That would be like me taking your temperature right now and it being 98.9 degrees F, and telling you that in 139 days, you will die of a car accident. The time frame that is being used is ridiculous to predict the future climate of this planet. In addition, how accurate was the climate being recorded on all seven continents in 1800? What technology was being used? Moreover, how accurate were the satellites being used 50 years ago to measure the climate temperatures? Keep in mind the computers in your car are more advanced than the computers used in the first space craft used by NASA.

What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming

None, the Earth is warming, and since the entire earth is warming, that would also be described as Global Warming. The debate isn't about the existence of GW, but the cause and furthermore, is there anything we should or even could do to change it? I don't think there is on either account.

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?

How many questions do we need to answer here, or can we just make one answer for them all? With all of the hype of Clooney crashing his bike, Brittany losing her kids and Pitt nominating Clooney for president, do you think the general public has the attention span to listen about another storm? Do you think storms are new to the climate? I have noticed that many of the 'record highs' were previously set in the early 1900's. Does this mean the climate cooled for a period of time and has begun warming again? Also, with all the reporting that the recent highs are higher than average doesn't really mean anything. Averages are just that-averages. An average is a number that represents many numbers combined. Some of those numbers are higher than the average, some are lower than the average. More likely than not, this year the number will fall either above average or below. I know in my area, we have had many days below average as well as many days above.

Tick, tick, tick - human civilization doesn't have much time left to take serious action. The rash of serious weather events around the world continues toghther with exceptional artic warming. No one event can be identified as being caused by human generated global warming but together these unusual events are exactly what climate change scientist have predicted. Meanwhile, greenhouse gases are building up in the atmosphere faster than the IPCC predicted.

(See this Reuters Article.

And as you must know this description fits a large part of the IPCC “stable” which you and they dismiss.



Yes let’s not discuss the uselessness of the Kyoto Treaty because that would make it obvious that the 400 Billion would be totally wasted regardless of the outcome of the scientific debate. Lets just trust that somehow by magic if the US just joins in and India and China do what they are clearly going to do threat CO2 emissions will just drop.

This is so ludicrous that even you won’t discuss it.

Ya lets now blame all “weather events” to GW.

The latest scientist to speak out about the liars at "Real Climate"

GLOBAL WARMING DELUSIONS
Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life -- ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary, says Daniel B. Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Case in point:
• This year's United Nations report on climate change and other documents say that 20 percent to 30 percent of plant and animal species will be threatened with extinction in this century due to global warming -- a truly terrifying thought.
• Yet, during the past 2.5 million years, a period that scientists now know experienced climatic changes as rapid and as warm as modern climatological models suggest will happen to us, almost none of the millions of species on Earth went extinct.
• The exceptions were about 20 species of large mammals (the famous megafauna of the last ice age -- saber-tooth tigers, hairy mammoths and the like), which went extinct about 10,000 to 5,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age, and many dominant trees and shrubs of northwestern Europe.
• But elsewhere, including North America, few plant species went extinct, and few mammals.
We're also warned that tropical diseases are going to spread, and that we can expect malaria and encephalitis epidemics, says Botkin. But scientific papers by Prof. Sarah Randolph of Oxford University show that temperature changes do not correlate well with changes in the distribution or frequency of these diseases; warming has not broadened their distribution and is highly unlikely to do so in the future, global warming or not.
Source: Daniel B. Botkin, "Global Warming Delusions," Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2007.
For text:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119258265537661384.html






http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/10/daniel-b...-delusions.html

The effects of global warming are everywhere about us; and yet we literally cannot see the forest for the trees. Still, sometimes it is not the big picture, but rather the little things that tell us the truth. In this, a little mentioned aspect of global warming is the decline of Antarctic krill (estimated at 80% since 1970); which is significant both for its role in regulating carbon emissions into the atmosphere and because it is at the base of the ocean food chain - not to mention a substantial commercial harvest. Krill feed on phytoplankton beneath the sea ice, and it is the melting sea ice due to rising temperature that has caused the dramatic decrease in krill populations. This, in turn, will increase of amount of carbon emissions, exacerbating global warming and its effects. It is a vicious cycle; and one that will have profound consequences.

See "Antarctic Krill Provide Carbon Sink in Southern Ocean," Science Daily (Feb. 6, 2006) at: Visit My Website

Changes in the environment (including temperature) are constant and have been for millions of years. The world changes and goes on. The subject of this debate is not that there is change but what is the cause of the change and what can we do, if anything, to minimize the “warming”.

I contend that the “warming” is not significantly affected by the increase in CO2 but is part of the natural change inherent in the system.

In any case even if we were certain that CO2 was the primary driving force and even if we knew what the results would be (we have only models with far differing outcomes) - the current Kyoto Protocol does absolutely nothing that will change that as currently structured.

I further contend that given this fact spending 400 billion a year for “feel good” CO2 reductions is an utter waste of money and resources.

Ted, not that this will convince you of anything but this Realclimate Article in response to Emeritus Professor Botkns piece in the WSJ should reduce any confusion it may have caused others.

It wont for me, I will be dead by around 2070. I think that’s when the real reality of such will start to hit home. Its already impacting areas of the world but it has not hit home yet so to speak. Its like that skit about getting nature to cooperate with us rather then us working with nature, blatant ignorance so appalling it could make you sick of anything having to do with such from the reality at hand. I think the one positive thing that has a chance of coming from it is a change of the mindset after enough horror and misery, but I am doubtful of that even. I don’t think most anyone has a clue of what destroying ecology really means. I would like to live long enough to say told you so, but what’s the point. Maybe the will have amphibious SUV’s or something, with frog crushing traction and a plant mower attachment to accommodate the DVD player and four miles to the gallon. Should just make a bumper sticker, “global warming?, who needs the earth?”

It is doubtful that anything can be done at this late date - we are past the tipping point. What now will stop the ice from melting? - and the effects of just a few degree’s change in the ocean currents that regulate the earth’s climate? The consequences will be catastrophic; and it will be late to counsel then, or pray, when it has come upon us. Even now, there are those that still refuse to recognize what is plain for all to see. As I write this, Georgia as declared a state of emergency over its worst drought in decades; and Southern California is ablaze with the worst wild fires on record. Indeed, one would think that man had but small brains for being the cause of his own destruction!

“When will man know what birds know?”
- Carl Sandburg.

Could you give us some examples of where it is already impacting "areas of the world"?



What do you base this on? Past the tipping point? The earth's climate has been more extreme in the past. The CO2 content has been more in the past (as well as less). What evidence is there that there is a tipping point, let alone whether or not we've passed it?

Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?

Nope.


What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming

None. I've long since accepted global warming as a fact of life. Where I beg to differ is the automatic and near baseless assumption that makind is directly responsible. There is NO direct evidence that humanity is causing global warming. By itself this wouldn't bother me at all. Its always better to err on the side of caution so I'd support any green party...

...except when that green party is used as a means to a socialist end. My conclusion having been a green for near two decades is that most all political greens are really crypto socialists/communists and the environment is being used as a tool to combat such perceived right wing interests as industry, commerce and profit. Its been my direct experience that political greens do not work towards environmental issues at all except when these coincide with a preconceived left wing bias. When it comes to actually working towards environmental issues I have noted a decided lack of commitment on the part of green parties, so much so that there is no difference between a coalition government that has a green party member and one that does not.

A closer look at who makes up most green party's has also lead me to a wide variety of people, a great many of whom were communist party members/activists in the 1970's or are the children of such people. When pressed on almost any political issue, these people always revert to socialist rhetoric.


Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?

No, the media is not properly reporting unusual weather events. The media consistently reports such meteorological events as the direct product of human industry on no better foundation than conjecture.

This is a struggle mankind can not afford to lose! Defeatism is just as destructive to overcoming climate change as is denial. The world average temperature rose about .74 degrees C over the last 100 years or 1.33 degrees F. (See this Wiki Article). There is about another degree F of increase built into the atmosphere from greenhouse gases already released. We have adapted reasonable well to the climate change so far evident. With some real effort, we can probably adapt to the changes produced by the next 1 degree F increase. The IPCC targeted a total 2 degree C (3.6 F) increase as the level that could produce catastrophic climate change. The rapid decline in summer Arctic sea ice (with a likely increase in albedo) and recent studies of the Greenland ice sheet showing instability have raised concerns that a target of less than 2 degrees C needs to be achieved. In any case we need to recognize climate change as the global emergency it is and take committed action to reduce the release of GH gases. At the same time we need to take comprehensive steps to adapt to the climate change that is already built in. If things get desperate and if we can identify and avoid the likely side effect, we may have to try some of the proposed ocean and atmospheric engineering like seeding parts of the ocean with iron or releasing aerosols into the stratosphere.



Examples would include the Arctic Ocean and the Arctic generally. The drying of Mediterranean type climates like Southern California, Greece, Turkey, and the Horn of Africa coupled with record deluges in other areas like India and Louisiana also fit the predicted pattern of regional impacts. There are many other weather events that are probably related but with less certainty.

Duplicat Post Erased

Whats the point. Anything that I will link to like the IPCC will just be hailed as a communist propaganda doctrine or something really.

Look, the fires down in California for instance, lots of CO2, currently that amount of CO2 is around 1% of the normal yearly release of CO2 by just the state of California from human behavior. If I have to explain it again CO2 is a certified greenhouse gas. So increasing levels of CO2 is going to do that overtime, which means more energy in the earth. It may not sound like much, but to even increase the temperature of the globe by one degree is an incredible amount of energy, not to mention in some places the temp has already increased in a short period of time close to ten. Unprecedented in recorded history ice melts happen to be going on at places around our fair globe and people who spend a lifetime studying such happen to be somewhat shocked over it all.

Now I don’t know your stance on things like physics, chemistry or biology. But basically the earth is a collective system of all of that operating. Now some people will evoke chaos theory and just state we cant know because the earth is complex as evidenced in snow flake appearance, the reality though is such "chaotic" systems are inner products of larger systems. So if we change how carbon sinks happen to be operating on the globe it will have a kick back so to speak which should be common sense really, like the gulf stream.

Various scientific institutions and organizations contrary to common knowledge along with the pentagon are already in the planning stages of how to combat global warming and or deal with such. In which you find war plans from the pentagon for drinking water... That’s a world I want to live in. Now some guess that various bioremediation steps along with energy portfolios and a gradual stopping of CO2 production will help, but most all agree the point of no return of large scale change has already been breached.

I guess all these people just happen to be doing this for no reason, then again I am sure you understand how much bulk lead ions happen to be floating around in local ecologies from gun ranges. If I can try to make any lasting point it would to be allow your paradigm a second to relax and go and read why science supports global warming being real. Now I know there is some pet troll statistical guy out there claiming its all bunk but the reality is that man has been discredited to the point of almost being barred for conduction corrupt activities basically to cut things short. Also, don’t listen to anything coming from oil companies, they are already on the record as to lying and distorting figures. If you want to just read why the most prestigious and honored scientific institutions in the world regardless of local point the reality of GW and what it means. I don’t care to put up links again to be called a communist or what not, its truly appalling. If you have questions, they have all the answers and more such as the thinking behind it to the why. If by chance you happen to basically be illiterate in anything scientific, well then I doubt it will help you much.

Would you care to explain TedN5 just how is it that the world already experienced a period of global warming in the Middle Ages?

How is it possible that planet Earth underwent global warming ina time when carbon emissions and other green house gases were none existant? And how is it possible that the previous period of global warming lead ultimately to a period of global cooling?


Yes, and on what basis exactly did they determine that?


And what exactly makes you think that a reduction in 'greenhouse gases' is going to prevent global warming?


This is so far out its beyond funny. It reminds me of the Soviets and their plan to solve food supply problems by draining the Aral Sea.

There is only one way to solve the problem of mankinds impact on planet Earth and that is an immediate reduction in the amount of human beings. 'Seeding parts of the ocean with iron or releasing aerosols into the stratosphere' isn't going to make a blind bit of difference for so long as the world is populated by the billions of human beings who are currently eating the eco system into oblivion.

This is a tired argument that has been refuted repeatedly. Just because the North Atlantic region may have experienced temperatures comparable to the 20th Century in the so called Medieval Warm period doesn't mean that the average temperature of the world was elevated. Since you trust Wikipedia, take this Entry for example:



Even if we conceded that an MWP occurred and that it was global and not regional, it would be meaningless to current situation. (See this Realclimate Discussion of the British Wine Industry).





On the basis that a doubling of CO2 levels would likely produce at least a 2 degree C average increase and that this was the lowest level they thought achievable. They may well have underestimated what kind of impacts a 2 degree change would produce. (See this Article).





Basic physics and the great body of research since Svante Augustus Arrhenius' work in 1896. (See The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Wert).



I certainly wasn't recommended geoengineering as a near term solution. However, the more skeptics and deniers hold us back in reducing the release of more and more GHGs the more likely that we will reach for desperate solutions. (For a discussion of releasing aerosols in the stratosphere see this Article).

TedN5



Its interesting that your own link should refute your arguments but it does.
I may not be the brightest cherry on the tree but I do know that the Antarctic, the Sahara, Japan and Australia are not in Europe.

Yes, there were variations in temperature during the Medieval Warm Period, that is not under any form of dispute. There are also major variations in current temperature readings also. The problem I have with your answer is that I do not consider the MWP to be a 'tired argument' in that it has never been properly addressed by the humans=global warming crowd. When confronted with the FACT that planet Earth undergoes major temperature fluctuations from hot to cold periods and that following the pattern we are currently in such a warm period, I get told this uncomfortable FACT is a 'tired argument' by a person who is more than willing to accept on FAITH that humanity is causing global warming.


What exactly is that meant to prove? Wine was made in England during the middle ages, yes. Wine is also made in England today. This article, though interesting enough by itself, proves nothing either way. In point of fact the current average temperature is thought warmer than the MWP by some 0.8 degrees celsius (or so I've read) and the mean population of England and Wales is now ten times greater than it was during the MWP so its hardly a surprise that more wine is grown today than during the MWP. Its also worth noting that the author of your linked article mentions the fact that wine making in England and Wales 'clearly declined after the 13th Century', which to my mind corresponds to cooling average temperatures as the Little Ice Age replaced the Medieval Warm Period.

0.8C is still an ambiguous number by the way as our accuracy for temperatures prior to the invention of the thermometer are always going to be open to interpretation (your linked author admits as much in one of his links). Coral growths, tree rings and ice core samples are often the best we have so its not easy to know with any certainty as to what the actual local temperatures in Europe or any where else were.

But this is all besides the point. These concluding paragraphs get to the core of the argument:
Simply put, since we can't know what caused the average temperature of history to fluctuate then we can't ever hope to isolate human causes now from natural causes then. Thus 'greenhouse gases, volcano's and the concomittant rise in particulate pollution' cannot be considered 'quite clearly the cause for global warming'. They are merely the most likely candidates if the hypothesis of human induced global warming is accepted without question.

Since I am a rational human being, I cannot simply accept on faith any argument that defies all the evidence and thus far I have not seen any evidence from the human induced global warming theory which explains the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age. Its as if by a wave of the hand these previous example of climate change are designated by the human=GW crowd as irrelevent in a debate on global warming. Well I'm sorry but hand waving isn't good enough. The data doesn't support the contention that global warming is caused by human beings. At best (worst) humanity is merely exasperating a cyclic natural event.


I mean on what basis do they suppose a rise in temperature will produce a catastrophic climate change? What is meant by catastrophic?

Even if the worst case scenario comes to pass, then how can the IPCC foretell the future? Are they soothsayers? I keep hearing that 'the ice' will melt and yet I read that the ice caps themselves have actually 'put on weight', that the melting process is a part of the natural, fluctuating cycle of climate change. Again and again I find that when ever I look deeper into the issus raised by bodies such as the IPCC, what we're actually being told is conjecture and assumptions based on biased data. In other words, I am not able to simply ignore the data which doesn't fit into the 'end of the world' rhetoric bandied about by people like Al Gore and the IPCC. There just seems to be so much more going on than simple human industry destroying the climate.

Enough of this back and forth. What do you think of the last paragraph I wrote? Do you agree or disagree? Why is global warming so popular a subject when over population and water shortage are far more dangerous to the long term survival of human civilisation?

We live in a time where engineering has been replaced by faith. This is the problem that is destroying us and there is no UN council to combat religion and superstition. Whilst water is not considered a human right, religion is. Why?

edited to change a wrong number

Adding some fuel to the man-made global warming non-fire.

2006 and 2007 lowest October activity on record since 1976 and 1977

I generally considered man-made global warming essentially correct ever since reading Beyond The Ivory Tower while simultaneously having a similar article database at college to lurk through. Now, I didn't go through 928 peer-reviewed articles, but my various searches pretty much confirmed the thesis. Are there any scientific, peer-reviewed articles explicitly disagreeing with human caused global warming? I've casually tried to find one, but always wind up empty handed.

If anything, the events in the last two years just keep packing on the consensus. In fact, the Environmental Protection agency, an official branch of the United States government, has amassed the information and come out with a similar result:

Emphasis mine.

I doubt that would have wound up on a government web page if the evidence was shaky!

The most bizarre refutation of I've heard is that there some type of "global warming society" (those pesky liberal universities) that pressure scientists to either accept Global warming or become brutally silenced.

Anyone familiar with the tenure system knows thats a bunch of hodge-podge. If only it were so simple!

But perhaps, skeptic's argue, they are threatened with funding or disallowed certain privileges. Given the aggregation of this claim (all climate scientists everywhere are threatened through lack of funding), its considerably speculative and, ironically, takes a greater leap of faith than Global warming ever did.

I've also heard that accepting this consensus is an appeal to authority. True, but because I believe a (more or less) scientific consensus generally reflects the truth more often than not, I will take my chances.

You're right the Antarctic isn't in Europe but it wasn't warmer in the MWP, it was colder. The South Pacific evidence also indicates a colder and not a warmer condition. The Australian citation only implies that condition were wetter, not warmer. Overall the evidence argues for a regional shift in climates, not an overall warming.

The point of the quotation from the discussion of British vineyards was to indicate that even if you could show a past period of general warming, it would not be relevant to discussion of the current situation. A past warming could have been due to increased solar irradiance (the MWP coincided with the Medieval Maxima) or even more cosmic radiation (if you want to indulge that unproven theory). All likely causes of the current warming have been examined and included in attribution studies. The conclusion has been reached that the majority of current warming is due to the build up of GH gases. What's more, basic physics and sophisticated modeling indicate that the warming will go on and on at an increasing rate as the build up continues.



One that human civilization and the natural world can't adapt to without major calamities and species loss.



I have been concerned about over population all of my adult life. Similarly, I have worked on water issues for at least 20 years. However, unchecked global warming will make the consequences of over population infinitely worse and part of the reason for the deteriorating condition of humanity will result from decreased water resources resulting from climate change. 1/3rd of humanity relies on the rivers fed in the summer by glaciers from the mountain ranges surrounding Tibet. 10s of millions rely on summer water sources from glaciers in the Andes. All of these glaciers are retreating. And that doesn't even address the drying out of Mediterrainian and desert climates around the world.

No if anything it’s inconclusive because of lack of data. There was no one reporting and recording in North America. And your clinging to “increased solar irradiance” now is very amusing.

And the EU will not meet the targets:

Emission limits proposed by the European Commission for new cars sold by 2012 are too high to help the union meet its bold set of targets to fight global warming, according to a study said.

The study, commissioned by the European Greens, said carbon dioxide emissions from new passenger cars must fall to no more than 120 grams per kilometre by 2012 and 80 grams per kilometre by 2020 if the EU is to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% from 1990 levels in the next 13 years.

That target was set by EU governments in March, after the EU executive proposed emission limits of 130 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre for new cars in the 27-nation bloc by 2012.

http://gayandright.blogspot.com/2007/10/eu...to-targets.html

And even if they did the “world” will not even come close to reducing anything under Kyoto. The colossal stupidity of having a “treaty” and trying to “meet it” while leaving out the two of the worlds biggest producers of CO2 – one of which IS the biggest offender and getting worse daily, is just to staggering to discuss.

Ya lets just toss 400 billion a year into the hopper so we can “feel good” while doing nothing.

So tell me Ted, how come you as an american do not protest outside the White House and demand that the United States follow the Kyoto Protocol? Why do you not demand, that your nation, being the biggest polluter in the world, Take responsobility for it? It makes no sense.

China has better environmental laws then the United States. They are planning for the future and are making sure that their rapid growth will do as little damage as possible to the world we live in. You do know about China, right? A nation thats more then 10 000 years old.

You have no clue sir. The Kyoto Treaty is a failure and will remain so because the participants are not meeting their targets and even if they WERE it would not matter since the idiots left China and India out of the agreement. China is building and starting a big coal fired CO2 belching power plant on average every WEEK India is right behind. China has or will pass the US in CO2 emissions this year and so even if the US was into this and wasting 400 billion a year it would be for naught.

And everyone knows it.

Bush has said he would agree to reductions that include all countries including China and India. Don’t hold you breath for China.

So James why don’t you and the other “believers” head for China and get them to reduce CO2 – LOL


China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter
• John Vidal and David Adam
• Guardian Unlimited
• Tuesday June 19 2007

Cyclists pass a factory in Yutian in China's north-west Hebei province. Photograph: Peter Parks/AFP

China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, figures released today show.
The surprising announcement will increase anxiety about China's growing role in driving man-made global warming and will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes the booming Chinese economy. China's emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the world's biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen as early as next year.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews

Ted, I have concluded that there is little use in exchanging comments with you; however, I do wish you would avoid distorting things that I post for others. I mentioned "increased solar irradiance" as one possible explanation for the Medieval Warm Period if it could be established that there was a world wide warming at the time and for changes in regional weather even if no general warming took place. This is not "clinging" and is entirely consistent with the positions of most climate scientists who recognize fluctuations in solar irradiance as a driver of climate. Most even conclude that much of the warming that took place in the early 20th century was solar induced. On the other hand, solar and all other possible drivers of the rapid warming in the late 20th and early 21st centuries have been carefully studied along with the rapid increase of greenhouse gases and only the later provides an explanation for the majority of recent warming. Furthermore, the pattern of the warming matches closely with what GH modeling predicts - more warming at night than in the day, more warming at higher latitudes than near the equator, and a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere. Changes in solar irradiance would produce a different pattern - more warming of the stratosphere rather than the troposphere and higher daytime rather than nighttime temperatures, for example.

We have gone over and over the limitations of the Kyoto Treaty and the role that the industrialization of India and China play. You invariably try to reduce the discussion of this complex and serious topic to a series of "gotchas" rather than having a rational discussion.

Here is One study, peer reviewed, that casts serious doubts on