By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
Dec 2nd 2004, 3:39 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
I note that
"Myron Ebell, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's director of global
warming and international environmental policy, questioned the wisdom of
basing scientific conclusions on computer models."
Possibly true but the Competitive Enterprise Institute is a think
tank supported by industrial interests, not an academic institute.
Modeling, by the way, is a science. A constantly developing one.
Earl
****
Humans May Double the Risk of Heat Waves
Models Show That by 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in
2003
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A10
Human activity has at least doubled the risk of heat waves like the one in
2003 that killed thousands in Europe, researchers conclude in a study being
published today in the scientific journal Nature.
The three British authors -- Peter A. Stott of the University of Reading,
and D.A. Stone and M.R. Allen of Oxford University -- used two computer
models to assess the likelihood that a summer like that in 2003, which was
Europe's hottest in centuries and was blamed for at least 35,000 deaths,
would have occurred without human influences. They concluded, at a
confidence level of more than 90 percent, that human activity doubled, if
not quadrupled, the chances of "a heat wave exceeding this threshold
magnitude."
The report is the first attempt to calculate the extent to which human
activity has affected the chances of a specific weather event occurring.
The researchers did not point to a single cause of the heat wave, such as
specific emissions of greenhouse gases, but attributed it to a combination
of human emissions and natural temperature variations.
Based on current trends, the scientists calculated that by the 2040s, half
of Europe's summers are likely to be as warm as the one in 2003.
Many environmentalists argue that governments must curb greenhouse gases
linked to climate change to prevent warming-related disasters, but some
academics and Bush administration officials say there is not enough science
yet to justify such an economically disruptive move.
"This is significant because it is the first time scientists have
demonstrated the human fingerprint on a particular weather event with the
kind of certainty that would stand up in court," said Annie Petsonk,
Environmental Defense's international counsel. She added that, just as
investors reevaluated whether to put their money into tobacco companies
after evidence emerged linking cigarettes to cancer, "this will begin to
cause investors to look at the potential global-warming liability that
companies that refuse to limit their greenhouse gas emissions will face."
Myron Ebell, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's director of global
warming and international environmental policy, questioned the wisdom of
basing scientific conclusions on computer models.
"Modeling is not science," said Ebell, who noted that this past summer, both
Europe and the East Coast boasted unusually cool temperatures. "This is a
very small-potatoes paper based on modeling that can't be proved or
disproved" for the next 50 years, he said.
"Myron Ebell, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's director of global
warming and international environmental policy, questioned the wisdom of
basing scientific conclusions on computer models."
Possibly true but the Competitive Enterprise Institute is a think
tank supported by industrial interests, not an academic institute.
Modeling, by the way, is a science. A constantly developing one.
Earl
****
Humans May Double the Risk of Heat Waves
Models Show That by 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in
2003
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A10
Human activity has at least doubled the risk of heat waves like the one in
2003 that killed thousands in Europe, researchers conclude in a study being
published today in the scientific journal Nature.
The three British authors -- Peter A. Stott of the University of Reading,
and D.A. Stone and M.R. Allen of Oxford University -- used two computer
models to assess the likelihood that a summer like that in 2003, which was
Europe's hottest in centuries and was blamed for at least 35,000 deaths,
would have occurred without human influences. They concluded, at a
confidence level of more than 90 percent, that human activity doubled, if
not quadrupled, the chances of "a heat wave exceeding this threshold
magnitude."
The report is the first attempt to calculate the extent to which human
activity has affected the chances of a specific weather event occurring.
The researchers did not point to a single cause of the heat wave, such as
specific emissions of greenhouse gases, but attributed it to a combination
of human emissions and natural temperature variations.
Based on current trends, the scientists calculated that by the 2040s, half
of Europe's summers are likely to be as warm as the one in 2003.
Many environmentalists argue that governments must curb greenhouse gases
linked to climate change to prevent warming-related disasters, but some
academics and Bush administration officials say there is not enough science
yet to justify such an economically disruptive move.
"This is significant because it is the first time scientists have
demonstrated the human fingerprint on a particular weather event with the
kind of certainty that would stand up in court," said Annie Petsonk,
Environmental Defense's international counsel. She added that, just as
investors reevaluated whether to put their money into tobacco companies
after evidence emerged linking cigarettes to cancer, "this will begin to
cause investors to look at the potential global-warming liability that
companies that refuse to limit their greenhouse gas emissions will face."
Myron Ebell, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's director of global
warming and international environmental policy, questioned the wisdom of
basing scientific conclusions on computer models.
"Modeling is not science," said Ebell, who noted that this past summer, both
Europe and the East Coast boasted unusually cool temperatures. "This is a
very small-potatoes paper based on modeling that can't be proved or
disproved" for the next 50 years, he said.
Dec 2nd 2004, 6:20 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BDD503D5.29C96%[email protected]...
>I note that
Excellent - That should save on having to holiday overseas to just get a tan
!!
I might go and leave the car running overnight to help speed things up !!
news:BDD503D5.29C96%[email protected]...
>I note that
Excellent - That should save on having to holiday overseas to just get a tan
!!
I might go and leave the car running overnight to help speed things up !!
Dec 2nd 2004, 10:38 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
Earl Evleth <[email protected]> wrote:
>Humans May Double the Risk of Heat Waves
>Models Show That by 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in
>2003
>By Juliet Eilperin
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A10
>Human activity has at least doubled the risk of heat waves like the one in
>2003 that killed thousands in Europe, researchers conclude in a study being
>published today in the scientific journal Nature.
>The three British authors -- Peter A. Stott of the University of Reading,
>and D.A. Stone and M.R. Allen of Oxford University -- used two computer
>models to assess the likelihood that a summer like that in 2003, which was
>Europe's hottest in centuries and was blamed for at least 35,000 deaths,
>would have occurred without human influences. They concluded, at a
>confidence level of more than 90 percent, that human activity doubled, if
>not quadrupled, the chances of "a heat wave exceeding this threshold
>magnitude."
Old news, actually. Martin Beniston and then Christoph Schaer already
have published papers saying basically the same thing.
--
Ich bin kein Mitglied dieser Konferenz, dennoch möchte ich einen Pinguin.
>Humans May Double the Risk of Heat Waves
>Models Show That by 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in
>2003
>By Juliet Eilperin
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A10
>Human activity has at least doubled the risk of heat waves like the one in
>2003 that killed thousands in Europe, researchers conclude in a study being
>published today in the scientific journal Nature.
>The three British authors -- Peter A. Stott of the University of Reading,
>and D.A. Stone and M.R. Allen of Oxford University -- used two computer
>models to assess the likelihood that a summer like that in 2003, which was
>Europe's hottest in centuries and was blamed for at least 35,000 deaths,
>would have occurred without human influences. They concluded, at a
>confidence level of more than 90 percent, that human activity doubled, if
>not quadrupled, the chances of "a heat wave exceeding this threshold
>magnitude."
Old news, actually. Martin Beniston and then Christoph Schaer already
have published papers saying basically the same thing.
--
Ich bin kein Mitglied dieser Konferenz, dennoch möchte ich einen Pinguin.
Dec 2nd 2004, 9:35 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
What nonsense! After all, the President of the United States of
America believes there's no such thing as Earth warming due to human
activity. On the other hand, he believes a god tells him what to do.
__________________________________________________ ______________
A San Franciscan whose reverence for each god is equal.
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net
Earl Evleth wrote:
> I note that
>
> "Myron Ebell, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's director of
> global warming and international environmental policy,
> questioned the wisdom of basing scientific conclusions on computer
> models."
>
> Possibly true but the Competitive Enterprise Institute is a think
> tank supported by industrial interests, not an academic institute.
>
>
> Modeling, by the way, is a science. A constantly developing one.
>
> Earl
>
> ****
>
> Humans May Double the Risk of Heat Waves
>
> Models Show That by 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot
> as in 2003
>
> By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, December
> 2, 2004; Page A10
>
> Human activity has at least doubled the risk of heat waves like
> the one in 2003 that killed thousands in Europe, researchers
> conclude in a study being published today in the scientific
> journal Nature.
>
> The three British authors -- Peter A. Stott of the University of
> Reading, and D.A. Stone and M.R. Allen of Oxford University --
> used two computer models to assess the likelihood that a summer
> like that in 2003, which was Europe's hottest in centuries and was
> blamed for at least 35,000 deaths, would have occurred without
> human influences. They concluded, at a confidence level of more
> than 90 percent, that human activity doubled, if not quadrupled,
> the chances of "a heat wave exceeding this threshold magnitude."
>
> The report is the first attempt to calculate the extent to which
> human activity has affected the chances of a specific weather
> event occurring.
>
> The researchers did not point to a single cause of the heat wave,
> such as specific emissions of greenhouse gases, but attributed it
> to a combination of human emissions and natural temperature
> variations.
>
> Based on current trends, the scientists calculated that by the
> 2040s, half of Europe's summers are likely to be as warm as the
> one in 2003.
>
> Many environmentalists argue that governments must curb greenhouse
> gases linked to climate change to prevent warming-related
> disasters, but some academics and Bush administration officials
> say there is not enough science yet to justify such an
> economically disruptive move.
>
> "This is significant because it is the first time scientists have
> demonstrated the human fingerprint on a particular weather event
> with the kind of certainty that would stand up in court," said
> Annie Petsonk, Environmental Defense's international counsel. She
> added that, just as investors reevaluated whether to put their
> money into tobacco companies after evidence emerged linking
> cigarettes to cancer, "this will begin to cause investors to look
> at the potential global-warming liability that companies that
> refuse to limit their greenhouse gas emissions will face."
>
> Myron Ebell, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's director of
> global warming and international environmental policy,
> questioned the wisdom of basing scientific conclusions on computer
> models.
>
> "Modeling is not science," said Ebell, who noted that this past
> summer, both Europe and the East Coast boasted unusually cool
> temperatures. "This is a very small-potatoes paper based on
> modeling that can't be proved or disproved" for the next 50 years,
> he said.
America believes there's no such thing as Earth warming due to human
activity. On the other hand, he believes a god tells him what to do.
__________________________________________________ ______________
A San Franciscan whose reverence for each god is equal.
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net
Earl Evleth wrote:
> I note that
>
> "Myron Ebell, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's director of
> global warming and international environmental policy,
> questioned the wisdom of basing scientific conclusions on computer
> models."
>
> Possibly true but the Competitive Enterprise Institute is a think
> tank supported by industrial interests, not an academic institute.
>
>
> Modeling, by the way, is a science. A constantly developing one.
>
> Earl
>
> ****
>
> Humans May Double the Risk of Heat Waves
>
> Models Show That by 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot
> as in 2003
>
> By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, December
> 2, 2004; Page A10
>
> Human activity has at least doubled the risk of heat waves like
> the one in 2003 that killed thousands in Europe, researchers
> conclude in a study being published today in the scientific
> journal Nature.
>
> The three British authors -- Peter A. Stott of the University of
> Reading, and D.A. Stone and M.R. Allen of Oxford University --
> used two computer models to assess the likelihood that a summer
> like that in 2003, which was Europe's hottest in centuries and was
> blamed for at least 35,000 deaths, would have occurred without
> human influences. They concluded, at a confidence level of more
> than 90 percent, that human activity doubled, if not quadrupled,
> the chances of "a heat wave exceeding this threshold magnitude."
>
> The report is the first attempt to calculate the extent to which
> human activity has affected the chances of a specific weather
> event occurring.
>
> The researchers did not point to a single cause of the heat wave,
> such as specific emissions of greenhouse gases, but attributed it
> to a combination of human emissions and natural temperature
> variations.
>
> Based on current trends, the scientists calculated that by the
> 2040s, half of Europe's summers are likely to be as warm as the
> one in 2003.
>
> Many environmentalists argue that governments must curb greenhouse
> gases linked to climate change to prevent warming-related
> disasters, but some academics and Bush administration officials
> say there is not enough science yet to justify such an
> economically disruptive move.
>
> "This is significant because it is the first time scientists have
> demonstrated the human fingerprint on a particular weather event
> with the kind of certainty that would stand up in court," said
> Annie Petsonk, Environmental Defense's international counsel. She
> added that, just as investors reevaluated whether to put their
> money into tobacco companies after evidence emerged linking
> cigarettes to cancer, "this will begin to cause investors to look
> at the potential global-warming liability that companies that
> refuse to limit their greenhouse gas emissions will face."
>
> Myron Ebell, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's director of
> global warming and international environmental policy,
> questioned the wisdom of basing scientific conclusions on computer
> models.
>
> "Modeling is not science," said Ebell, who noted that this past
> summer, both Europe and the East Coast boasted unusually cool
> temperatures. "This is a very small-potatoes paper based on
> modeling that can't be proved or disproved" for the next 50 years,
> he said.
Dec 2nd 2004, 10:47 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
in article [email protected], Biffa Bacon at
[email protected] wrote on 2/12/04 20:20:
> I might go and leave the car running overnight to help speed things up !!
>
>
With gasoline prices, you better first stop by the bank to get a loan
in order to buy the gasoline.
Earl
[email protected] wrote on 2/12/04 20:20:
> I might go and leave the car running overnight to help speed things up !!
>
>
With gasoline prices, you better first stop by the bank to get a loan
in order to buy the gasoline.
Earl
Dec 2nd 2004, 10:51 pm
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
> in article [email protected], Biffa Bacon at
> [email protected] wrote on 2/12/04 20:20:
>
> > I might go and leave the car running overnight to help speed things up !!
> >
What about leaving windows and doors open at your home? And
heating on, full blast.
That would do it, too.
If you really want to spend your life in warm places,
you can move today, and save the environment. Please,
do so.
--
- matti
* http://www.iki.fi/mane/blog.html
* +358 50 486 0098
* [email protected]
> [email protected] wrote on 2/12/04 20:20:
>
> > I might go and leave the car running overnight to help speed things up !!
> >
What about leaving windows and doors open at your home? And
heating on, full blast.
That would do it, too.
If you really want to spend your life in warm places,
you can move today, and save the environment. Please,
do so.
--
- matti
* http://www.iki.fi/mane/blog.html
* +358 50 486 0098
* [email protected]
Dec 3rd 2004, 3:10 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
in article 1102074650.qMh5oPZ2ZxcLvGETgbDrmw@teranews, Icono Clast at
[email protected] wrote on 3/12/04 11:35:
> What nonsense! After all, the President of the United States of
> America believes there's no such thing as Earth warming due to human
> activity. On the other hand, he believes a god tells him what to do.
Not just a god but THE GOD.
But ironically, he does get hot on the collar when talking about global
warming.
Earl
[email protected] wrote on 3/12/04 11:35:
> What nonsense! After all, the President of the United States of
> America believes there's no such thing as Earth warming due to human
> activity. On the other hand, he believes a god tells him what to do.
Not just a god but THE GOD.
But ironically, he does get hot on the collar when talking about global
warming.
Earl
Dec 3rd 2004, 3:16 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:10:09 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>in article 1102074650.qMh5oPZ2ZxcLvGETgbDrmw@teranews, Icono Clast at
>[email protected] wrote on 3/12/04 11:35:
>> What nonsense! After all, the President of the United States of
>> America believes there's no such thing as Earth warming due to human
>> activity. On the other hand, he believes a god tells him what to do.
>Not just a god but THE GOD.
>But ironically, he does get hot on the collar when talking about global
>warming.
The subject line was based on extrapolating a small increase over 5
years into an exponential increase over 30 years. Another scientist
called it nonsense.
--
Martin
wrote:
>in article 1102074650.qMh5oPZ2ZxcLvGETgbDrmw@teranews, Icono Clast at
>[email protected] wrote on 3/12/04 11:35:
>> What nonsense! After all, the President of the United States of
>> America believes there's no such thing as Earth warming due to human
>> activity. On the other hand, he believes a god tells him what to do.
>Not just a god but THE GOD.
>But ironically, he does get hot on the collar when talking about global
>warming.
The subject line was based on extrapolating a small increase over 5
years into an exponential increase over 30 years. Another scientist
called it nonsense.
--
Martin
Dec 3rd 2004, 3:50 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:10:09 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >in article 1102074650.qMh5oPZ2ZxcLvGETgbDrmw@teranews, Icono Clast at
> >[email protected] wrote on 3/12/04 11:35:
> >
> >> What nonsense! After all, the President of the United States of
> >> America believes there's no such thing as Earth warming due to human
> >> activity. On the other hand, he believes a god tells him what to do.
> >
> >Not just a god but THE GOD.
> >
> >But ironically, he does get hot on the collar when talking about global
> >warming.
>
> The subject line was based on extrapolating a small increase over 5
> years into an exponential increase over 30 years. Another scientist
> called it nonsense.
This brand new book speaks to this and the hidden motivation:
> Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
> Politicians, and the Media
> by Patrick J. Michaels
jay
Fri Dec 03, 2004
mailto:[email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:10:09 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >in article 1102074650.qMh5oPZ2ZxcLvGETgbDrmw@teranews, Icono Clast at
> >[email protected] wrote on 3/12/04 11:35:
> >
> >> What nonsense! After all, the President of the United States of
> >> America believes there's no such thing as Earth warming due to human
> >> activity. On the other hand, he believes a god tells him what to do.
> >
> >Not just a god but THE GOD.
> >
> >But ironically, he does get hot on the collar when talking about global
> >warming.
>
> The subject line was based on extrapolating a small increase over 5
> years into an exponential increase over 30 years. Another scientist
> called it nonsense.
This brand new book speaks to this and the hidden motivation:
> Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
> Politicians, and the Media
> by Patrick J. Michaels
jay
Fri Dec 03, 2004
mailto:[email protected]
Dec 3rd 2004, 3:59 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 08:50:37 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> The subject line was based on extrapolating a small increase over 5
>> years into an exponential increase over 30 years. Another scientist
>> called it nonsense.
>This brand new book speaks to this and the hidden motivation:
>> Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
>> Politicians, and the Media
>> by Patrick J. Michaels
I haven't read it, but I am aware that part of the motivation is the
generation of research grant money :-((
--
Martin
>In article <[email protected]>,
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> The subject line was based on extrapolating a small increase over 5
>> years into an exponential increase over 30 years. Another scientist
>> called it nonsense.
>This brand new book speaks to this and the hidden motivation:
>> Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
>> Politicians, and the Media
>> by Patrick J. Michaels
I haven't read it, but I am aware that part of the motivation is the
generation of research grant money :-((
--
Martin
Dec 3rd 2004, 4:05 am
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
in article 031220040850378252%[email protected], Go Fig at [email protected] wrote
on 3/12/04 17:50:
>> Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
>> Politicians, and the Media
>> by Patrick J. Michaels
You know, Go fig, you should research the people you praise.
This guy has been a odd ball renegade in environmental
sciences for some time. He is also senior fellow in environmental
studies at the Cato Institute, a right wing libertarian
think tank. He has received research funding from the energy
industry.
From the web I FOUND THAT---
Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based
Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security ,
said "Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate
change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers
who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the
face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence."
Michaels responded by threatening to sue. (Michaels had gotten another
scientist to withdraw similar remarks.) [6] But Gleick stood by his
statement and others have joined him.
Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican
Policy Committee , "Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change
contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the
professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and
indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream
climate science."
Dr. Tom Wigley , lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's leading climate scientists,
was quoted in the book "The Heat is On" (Gelbspan, 1998, Perseus
Publishing): "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a
catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretationÅ Many of the supposedly
factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are
seriously misleading."
And an article in the journal Social Epistemology concluded "...the
observations upon which PM [Patrick Michaels] draws his case are not good
enough to bear the weight of the argument he wishes to make."
***
So there it is Go Fig, you have a weak reed indeed if you count on
Michaels?
Earl
on 3/12/04 17:50:
>> Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
>> Politicians, and the Media
>> by Patrick J. Michaels
You know, Go fig, you should research the people you praise.
This guy has been a odd ball renegade in environmental
sciences for some time. He is also senior fellow in environmental
studies at the Cato Institute, a right wing libertarian
think tank. He has received research funding from the energy
industry.
From the web I FOUND THAT---
Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based
Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security ,
said "Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate
change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers
who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the
face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence."
Michaels responded by threatening to sue. (Michaels had gotten another
scientist to withdraw similar remarks.) [6] But Gleick stood by his
statement and others have joined him.
Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican
Policy Committee , "Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change
contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the
professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and
indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream
climate science."
Dr. Tom Wigley , lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's leading climate scientists,
was quoted in the book "The Heat is On" (Gelbspan, 1998, Perseus
Publishing): "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a
catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretationÅ Many of the supposedly
factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are
seriously misleading."
And an article in the journal Social Epistemology concluded "...the
observations upon which PM [Patrick Michaels] draws his case are not good
enough to bear the weight of the argument he wishes to make."
***
So there it is Go Fig, you have a weak reed indeed if you count on
Michaels?
Earl
Dec 3rd 2004, 4:16 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
in article [email protected], [email protected] at
[email protected] wrote on 3/12/04 17:16:
> The subject line was based on extrapolating a small increase over 5
> years into an exponential increase over 30 years. Another scientist
> called it nonsense.
> --
Another scientist: Who Dat? I am one too and a modeler but
not in this area. I am retired now. But I have followed
this whole debate for years, acid rain and the ozone hole
too. All man made and serious enough to be worried about.
I personally don`t think things are THAT predictable, the only
part I go along with is that it is going to heat up. There
is too much CO2 in the air now and too much is projected
to be to do otherwise. We are current moving in uncharted
territory with the CO2 concentrations rising from around 380
ppm on up. In fact that territory was entered a while back
when man started this going with concentrations over 300 ppm.
It is not hard to look at the data of the past and predict
a temperature rise as much as 8-10°C by 2100. More likely
it will be more moderate, like 4-5°C but I see no way
around it. You simply don't need a computer model for a
back of the envelope estimate.
Next, the effects will not be the same world wide. The Arctic
is already heating more than a lot of people expected.
Some areas won't see much and some might get a little cooler.
Earl
[email protected] wrote on 3/12/04 17:16:
> The subject line was based on extrapolating a small increase over 5
> years into an exponential increase over 30 years. Another scientist
> called it nonsense.
> --
Another scientist: Who Dat? I am one too and a modeler but
not in this area. I am retired now. But I have followed
this whole debate for years, acid rain and the ozone hole
too. All man made and serious enough to be worried about.
I personally don`t think things are THAT predictable, the only
part I go along with is that it is going to heat up. There
is too much CO2 in the air now and too much is projected
to be to do otherwise. We are current moving in uncharted
territory with the CO2 concentrations rising from around 380
ppm on up. In fact that territory was entered a while back
when man started this going with concentrations over 300 ppm.
It is not hard to look at the data of the past and predict
a temperature rise as much as 8-10°C by 2100. More likely
it will be more moderate, like 4-5°C but I see no way
around it. You simply don't need a computer model for a
back of the envelope estimate.
Next, the effects will not be the same world wide. The Arctic
is already heating more than a lot of people expected.
Some areas won't see much and some might get a little cooler.
Earl
Dec 3rd 2004, 4:19 am
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
In article <BDD65B77.29ED5%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
<[email protected]> wrote:
> in article 031220040850378252%[email protected], Go Fig at [email protected] wrote
> on 3/12/04 17:50:
>
> >> Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
> >> Politicians, and the Media
> >> by Patrick J. Michaels
>
> You know, Go fig, you should research the people you praise.
>
> This guy has been a odd ball renegade in environmental
> sciences for some time.
(Commentary)
> He is also senior fellow in environmental
> studies at the Cato Institute, a right wing libertarian
> think tank. He has received research funding from the energy
> industry.
That you JUST referenced, when it was convenient
>
> From the web I FOUND THAT---
more "Commentary"
jay
Fri Dec 03, 2004
mailto:[email protected]
>
> Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based
> Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security ,
> said "Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate
> change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers
> who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the
> face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence."
>
> Michaels responded by threatening to sue. (Michaels had gotten another
> scientist to withdraw similar remarks.) [6] But Gleick stood by his
> statement and others have joined him.
>
> Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican
> Policy Committee , "Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change
> contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the
> professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and
> indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream
> climate science."
>
> Dr. Tom Wigley , lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental
> Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's leading climate scientists,
> was quoted in the book "The Heat is On" (Gelbspan, 1998, Perseus
> Publishing): "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a
> catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretationÅ Many of the supposedly
> factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are
> seriously misleading."
>
> And an article in the journal Social Epistemology concluded "...the
> observations upon which PM [Patrick Michaels] draws his case are not good
> enough to bear the weight of the argument he wishes to make."
>
> ***
>
> So there it is Go Fig, you have a weak reed indeed if you count on
> Michaels?
>
> Earl
<[email protected]> wrote:
> in article 031220040850378252%[email protected], Go Fig at [email protected] wrote
> on 3/12/04 17:50:
>
> >> Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
> >> Politicians, and the Media
> >> by Patrick J. Michaels
>
> You know, Go fig, you should research the people you praise.
>
> This guy has been a odd ball renegade in environmental
> sciences for some time.
(Commentary)
> He is also senior fellow in environmental
> studies at the Cato Institute, a right wing libertarian
> think tank. He has received research funding from the energy
> industry.
That you JUST referenced, when it was convenient
>
> From the web I FOUND THAT---
more "Commentary"
jay
Fri Dec 03, 2004
mailto:[email protected]
>
> Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based
> Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security ,
> said "Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate
> change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers
> who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the
> face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence."
>
> Michaels responded by threatening to sue. (Michaels had gotten another
> scientist to withdraw similar remarks.) [6] But Gleick stood by his
> statement and others have joined him.
>
> Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican
> Policy Committee , "Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change
> contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the
> professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and
> indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream
> climate science."
>
> Dr. Tom Wigley , lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental
> Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's leading climate scientists,
> was quoted in the book "The Heat is On" (Gelbspan, 1998, Perseus
> Publishing): "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a
> catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretationÅ Many of the supposedly
> factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are
> seriously misleading."
>
> And an article in the journal Social Epistemology concluded "...the
> observations upon which PM [Patrick Michaels] draws his case are not good
> enough to bear the weight of the argument he wishes to make."
>
> ***
>
> So there it is Go Fig, you have a weak reed indeed if you count on
> Michaels?
>
> Earl
Dec 3rd 2004, 4:21 am
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 08:50:37 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> The subject line was based on extrapolating a small increase over 5
> >> years into an exponential increase over 30 years. Another scientist
> >> called it nonsense.
> >
> >This brand new book speaks to this and the hidden motivation:
> >
> >> Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
> >> Politicians, and the Media
> >> by Patrick J. Michaels
>
> I haven't read it, but I am aware that part of the motivation is the
> generation of research grant money :-((
Last year it was close to $20Bil... thats a lot of research assistants
and travel to nice places for seminars.
jay
Fri Dec 03, 2004
mailto:[email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 08:50:37 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> The subject line was based on extrapolating a small increase over 5
> >> years into an exponential increase over 30 years. Another scientist
> >> called it nonsense.
> >
> >This brand new book speaks to this and the hidden motivation:
> >
> >> Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
> >> Politicians, and the Media
> >> by Patrick J. Michaels
>
> I haven't read it, but I am aware that part of the motivation is the
> generation of research grant money :-((
Last year it was close to $20Bil... thats a lot of research assistants
and travel to nice places for seminars.
jay
Fri Dec 03, 2004
mailto:[email protected]
Dec 3rd 2004, 4:31 am
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:16:38 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>in article [email protected], [email protected] at
>[email protected] wrote on 3/12/04 17:16:
>> The subject line was based on extrapolating a small increase over 5
>> years into an exponential increase over 30 years. Another scientist
>> called it nonsense.
>> --
>Another scientist: Who Dat?
I don't remember other than an American.
> I am one too and a modeler but
>not in this area. I am retired now. But I have followed
>this whole debate for years, acid rain and the ozone hole
>too. All man made and serious enough to be worried about.
Did you see the plot of temperatures with the extrapolation that the
researcher presented on TV. A school kid would laugh at it.
>I personally don`t think things are THAT predictable, the only
>part I go along with is that it is going to heat up. There
>is too much CO2 in the air now and too much is projected
>to be to do otherwise. We are current moving in uncharted
>territory with the CO2 concentrations rising from around 380
>ppm on up. In fact that territory was entered a while back
>when man started this going with concentrations over 300 ppm.
I remember the British climatologist H H Lamb forecasting an impending
ice age in 1963.
>It is not hard to look at the data of the past and predict
>a temperature rise as much as 8-10°C by 2100.
how far back in the past?
>More likely
>it will be more moderate, like 4-5°C but I see no way
>around it. You simply don't need a computer model for a
>back of the envelope estimate.
>Next, the effects will not be the same world wide. The Arctic
>is already heating more than a lot of people expected.
>Some areas won't see much and some might get a little cooler.
>Earl
--
Martin
wrote:
>in article [email protected], [email protected] at
>[email protected] wrote on 3/12/04 17:16:
>> The subject line was based on extrapolating a small increase over 5
>> years into an exponential increase over 30 years. Another scientist
>> called it nonsense.
>> --
>Another scientist: Who Dat?
I don't remember other than an American.
> I am one too and a modeler but
>not in this area. I am retired now. But I have followed
>this whole debate for years, acid rain and the ozone hole
>too. All man made and serious enough to be worried about.
Did you see the plot of temperatures with the extrapolation that the
researcher presented on TV. A school kid would laugh at it.
>I personally don`t think things are THAT predictable, the only
>part I go along with is that it is going to heat up. There
>is too much CO2 in the air now and too much is projected
>to be to do otherwise. We are current moving in uncharted
>territory with the CO2 concentrations rising from around 380
>ppm on up. In fact that territory was entered a while back
>when man started this going with concentrations over 300 ppm.
I remember the British climatologist H H Lamb forecasting an impending
ice age in 1963.
>It is not hard to look at the data of the past and predict
>a temperature rise as much as 8-10°C by 2100.
how far back in the past?
>More likely
>it will be more moderate, like 4-5°C but I see no way
>around it. You simply don't need a computer model for a
>back of the envelope estimate.
>Next, the effects will not be the same world wide. The Arctic
>is already heating more than a lot of people expected.
>Some areas won't see much and some might get a little cooler.
>Earl
--
Martin
