nitram

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:21:34 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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.

and then there is all the money being poured into alternative energy
research.

A friend who went to a climate conference said that there were as many
different theories and forecasts as there were attendees.
--
Martin

Earl Evleth

in article [email protected], [email protected] at
[email protected] wrote on 3/12/04 17:59:

    >>> 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 :-((

He was funded by the energy industry.

It works in various directions. The main issue is whether he does
research published in peer reviewed journals?

Anybody can write a book. Books are not peer reviewed although
a good editor will contract for a review. So if you get published
in a high level University Press (Harvard, Cambridge etc that book
has been reviewed. And gone over by a committee.

So you ask "who published this book???°

The publisher is the "Cato Institute" which is the think tank
he works with.

Meaning: he found it easier to publish there than with a normal
and respected academic press or a regular editor.

And external review of the book is given below

From Publishers Weekly

This spirited critique challenges the conventional doom saying about global
warming. Climatologist Michaels acknowledges that the earth is warming
because of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases, but he insists that the warming will probably be modest and that
nature and humanity will easily adjust to it. Writing in a lucid, engaging
style supported by a mountain of data, he debunks such recent scare stories
as melting ice caps and glaciers, intensifying storms and droughts, species
die-offs and a Day After Tomorrow*style ice age. He argues that researchers
and reporters mistakenly ascribe normal fluctuations in local weather to
global warming and commonly ignore the facts (reports that the Pacific
island nation of Tuvalu is being submerged by rising sea levels, for
example, ignored research demonstrating that sea levels in that region have
actually been falling). Michaels, who is a fellow at the libertarian Cato
Institute, sometimes allows his own agenda to intrude. Advocates of the
precautionary principle will note that he fails to demonstrate his claim
that "there is no known, feasible policy that can stop or even slow these
climate changes." And while he chalks up global warming alarmism to an
unholy alliance of climatologists hungry for grants and media
sensationalism, his remedy for biased science is not better science but a
"wider source of bias" in the form of more funding of climatology by the
fossil fuel industry. He also calls for the abolition of academic tenure‹a
crushing blow against an independent professorate that libertarians and
their allies in the world of academia view as the intellectual wellspring of
the regulatory state. Nonetheless, Michaels¹s challenge to global warming
orthodoxy should invigorate the debate over climate change.

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All
rights reserved.

*****

Basically I take the point of view that scientifically this book has nothing
to contribute to the debate because the author is already biased.

The scientific method approach is to acculate evidence and come to a
conclusion. The evidence controls the the conclusion, not the inverse.

Earl

Deep Frayed Morgues

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:33:57 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

    >On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:21:34 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>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.
    >and then there is all the money being poured into alternative energy
    >research.
    >
    >A friend who went to a climate conference said that there were as many
    >different theories and forecasts as there were attendees.

That's the problem with the far left. They cannot come to term with
the concept of compromising with someone to achieve a mutually
acceptable goal. And then they feel bitter that no-one listens to
them.

Pack of idiot hipocrites, the lot of them. No wonder the right is
doing so well.
---
DFM

Deep Frayed Morgues

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 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

I agree, which makes me ever more sceptical of anyone that give the
impression they know what is going to happen.
---
DFM

Earl Evleth

in article [email protected], [email protected] at
[email protected] wrote on 3/12/04 18:33:

    >> Last year it was close to $20Bil... thats a lot of research assistants
    >> and travel to nice places for seminars.
    >
    > and then there is all the money being poured into alternative energy
    > research.


Attention, there is not $20 billion going into atmospheric research world
wide. That figure is closer to being all the money that goes into all
the basic research in the USA. Most of it is medical research.

Earl

Poldy

In article <BDD503D5.29C96%[email protected]>,
Earl Evleth <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Models Show That by 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in
    > 2003
    >

There are two problems with this story.

1) It's based on science and the head of the nation which is most
responsible for this human activity doesn't believe in science.

2) The warning that this problem could hit Europe again will just
encourage, not discourage, Bush and the Yahoos to continue the current
course. If not accelerate it.

Charles Hawtrey

Deep Frayed Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

    >On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:16:38 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    >wrote:

    >>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
    >I agree, which makes me ever more sceptical of anyone that give the
    >impression they know what is going to happen.

That's the whole problem -- by the time we know for certain, it will
be too late to do anything about it, given the long residence time of
CO2 in the atmosphere.

The best science we have available says there's a strong likelihood
that we're causing ourselves a serious problem. But again, no one can
offer an ironclad guarantee one way or another.

So the question is, "Are you feeling lucky?"


--
Ich bin kein Mitglied dieser Konferenz, dennoch möchte ich einen Pinguin.

Frank F. Matthews

Charles Hawtrey wrote:
    > Deep Frayed Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:16:38 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    >>wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>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
    >>I agree, which makes me ever more sceptical of anyone that give the
    >>impression they know what is going to happen.
    >
    >
    > That's the whole problem -- by the time we know for certain, it will
    > be too late to do anything about it, given the long residence time of
    > CO2 in the atmosphere.
    >
    > The best science we have available says there's a strong likelihood
    > that we're causing ourselves a serious problem. But again, no one can
    > offer an ironclad guarantee one way or another.
    >
    > So the question is, "Are you feeling lucky?"
    >
    >



Perhaps opinions should be limited to those under 35. Personally a
problem in 2040 isn't a problem.

Calif Bill

"poldy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article <BDD503D5.29C96%[email protected]>,
    > Earl Evleth <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Models Show That by 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in
    > > 2003
    > >
    > There are two problems with this story.
    > 1) It's based on science and the head of the nation which is most
    > responsible for this human activity doesn't believe in science.
    > 2) The warning that this problem could hit Europe again will just
    > encourage, not discourage, Bush and the Yahoos to continue the current
    > course. If not accelerate it.

There are couple of problems with your story.
The fact that physical scientists disagree over Global warming. And since
the last mini ice age only ended about 20,000 years ago, we do not really
know what causes these fluctuations in temperature. And as to the US
causing all this, we at least have pollution controls. China never sees the
sun for all the smog, and Kyoto Agreement would benefit the French a lot, as
they have all that extra NUCLEAR power to sell.

Earl Evleth

in article [email protected], [email protected] at
[email protected] wrote on 3/12/04 18:31:

    > On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:16:38 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >

    >
    > Did you see the plot of temperatures with the extrapolation that the
    > researcher presented on TV. A school kid would laugh at it.

Kids will laugh at anything! Since I did not see it I don't know what
you are talking about. I will give you web sites to check out
what I am talking about.

The problem with temperature changes is that they fluctuate, up and
down over the short time range. It is the longer trend that people
are now concerned about. Even though the 90s are the hottest on recent
record we could run into an equal period of slight cooling or static
temperature changes

The first graph at http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html

gives you a glance at the movement of global temperatures since 1860.
The graph is not up to date since it does not go beyond 2000. But
base on what we know up until the end of the 1990s, one would
anticipate a continued rise, or at best a pause before a continued
rise. However, we had a static period in the 1960s in which global
temperatures did not change. The net movement from the early 1800s is
still up. Locally some increases are greater, France is and example


    > I remember the British climatologist H H Lamb forecasting an impending
    > ice age in 1963.

Never heard of an "impending" prediction. Declarations of individual
scientists are to be taken less seriously than a consensus declaration.

Again if you look at chart 3 at

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html

you will find the Volstok ice core data, from which the
temperatures were estimated.

****

Starting on the left-hand side of the graph at about 140,000
years ago, the climate was about 6 C colder than it is today -
an ice age period. Then at about 130,000 years ago, there was a
quite rapid warming period until about 125,000 years ago, when
the climate was, perhaps, 1 C or 2 C warmer than today - an inter-glacial
period. From 120,000 to about 20,000 years ago, there was a long
period of cooling temperatures, known as the last Great Ice Age.
From about 18,000 or 19,000 years ago to about 15,000 years ago,
the climate went through another warming period to the next inter-glacial,
- the one we are now in.

*****

So we are no due for another ice age for a while.

In fact if you look at an expanded scale

http://chemistry.beloit.edu/Warming/...ges/vostok.htm

you will find that the last 10,000 years have been relatively stable
in temperatures. The sliding back down the hill to the next ice age
would have taken time. The main drive of the long term ice-age
warm-age cycling is, however, the orbital changes

http://www.glacier.rice.edu/land/5_biggerpicture.html

not CO2 release and absorption from the ocean. That is a secondary
event which does, however influence the degree of the temperature
changes which occur. So mainly two events are superimposed.
But when the temperature starts to rise, the CO2 comes pouring
out of the ocean to accelerate the heating. The cooling periods
take longer.

Earl

Earl Evleth

in article [email protected], Deep Frayed Morgues
at deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu wrote on 3/12/04 20:28:

    >> 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
    >
    > I agree, which makes me ever more sceptical of anyone that give the
    > impression they know what is going to happen.


Predictions of the future have always had a big problem, the further
the projection into the future the more likely one is to be wrong.

Short term predictions, however are easier to be right on.

The big problem is that policy makers (politicians) only hold
office for a short time, they care only about what happens
on "their watch". So Bush does not care about Kyoto, or
Global Warming since nothing will happen during his watch he
will be held responsible for. Energy industry people know from
their own extrapolations that energy demands will increase in
time and they are going to prepare for that and supply that
market.

How? Coal is it, the US has extremely large western coal resources
and these will be used increasingly by the electric power industry.
The future of petroleum is cloudy, but coal is there waiting to be
used.

As of right now, about one third of the CO2 put into the atmosphere
is not processed by nature and removed. Contrary to popular belief
it is not photosynthesis which has removed most of the CO2 from the
earth's atmosphere historically. Before life appeared on earth,
and today, weathering of rocks releases calcium and magnesium into
the ocean which precipitates out the carbonate ions from by the hydrolysis
of CO2 in water. So any continued or expanded release of CO2 into the
atmosphere will result in increased global warming unless other factors
intercede to cut the solar radiance reaching the surface of the earth.
We might consider pie in the sky solutions like constructing gigantic
reflectors on earth or in orbit. In fact "we" are currently in the process
of destroying one reflector, the northern ice sheet and making things
worse!


Earl

nitram

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 03:42:34 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Perhaps opinions should be limited to those under 35. Personally a
    >problem in 2040 isn't a problem.

What an utterly selfish attitude.
It's just like mine :-)

The question is - has this study made them a UK university class 5
research faculty or is it the kiss of death?
--
Martin

Earl Evleth

in article [email protected] , Calif Bill at
[email protected] wrote on 4/12/04 8:08:


    > The fact that physical scientists disagree over Global warming.

I find to the contrary a consensus opinion among those working in
atmospheric science area.

Outside that area it might be a different story in certain cases.
You can find non-consensus opinion. For instance, in the "ozone hole"
story, one good friend of mine, an academic chemist said he did not
believe in it but when I discussed with him the known facts, he was
not aware of the facts! So being a scientist does not give you
knowledge in all areas of science. He was not working in any aspect
of atmospheric chemistry, I was so I could inform him of the
facts. But it is always difficult disagreeing with a friend.

    > And since
    > the last mini ice age only ended about 20,000 years ago, we do not really
    > know what causes these fluctuations in temperature.

I am unsure as to whether you are talking about the fluctuations up to
the time of the industrial revolution or after? "After" the fluctuations
occurred with a net move upwards in average temperatures.

For instance, if you look at the annual global temperature (the last
figure) on the multiscan

http://chemistry.beloit.edu/Warming/...ges/global.htm

you would have difficulty perceiving a change from 1860 to 1930,
from then on the upward trend is easier to perceive. As a
scientist I was more concerned about urban pollution (ozone)
and acid rain than global warming until 20 years ago. If
one looked at the data in 1950 there was not much to worry
about. But I was educated in the LA area and so urban ozone
first came to my attention as a student in the early 1950s,
one of my Caltech profs formulated the cause of LA pollution.
Acid rain first attracted my attention at the end of the 1960s.
Atmospheric sciences developed during these periods. I spent
a lot of time at atmospheric chemistry meetings in the 1980s,
it was taking off. We were more worried about pollution than
global warming.

    > And as to the US causing all this, we at least have pollution controls.

Nobody used the term "all" with regard to the US.
The US is the largest single CO2 producer and accounts for maybe
20% of the total.

The past release and future projected releases are given below

The CO2 emissions are the following (million tones)

Year 1990 1998 2010 (projected)

USA 1351 1495 1787

China 610 740 1457

India 154 228 257

France 101 107 114

World 5832 6124 8146


Russia is not included it gives an idea.

I would not agree that US pollution controls are effective
with regard to release of CO2. Other controls are a bit better
although far from achieving their goals. NOx emissions are really
poorly controlled and SO2 is not nearly good enough to reduce
acid rain deposition to an acceptable level. The resistance
of the energy industry interests has been more effective!

    >China never sees the sun for all the smog, and Kyoto Agreement would benefit
    >the French a lot, as they have all that extra NUCLEAR power to sell.

France's was not a major CO2 producer. As you indicate China is a big
problem, along with the US. I personally think both countries will dodge
trying to reduce CO2 releases. Russia signed Kyoto but I think they will
cheat with push comes to shove.

Whatever, the US is playing a "leadership role". In releasing CO2.

Earl

nitram

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 11:27:26 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >in article [email protected], [email protected] at
    >[email protected] wrote on 3/12/04 18:31:
    >> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:16:38 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >
    >>
    >> Did you see the plot of temperatures with the extrapolation that the
    >> researcher presented on TV. A school kid would laugh at it.
    >Kids will laugh at anything! Since I did not see it I don't know what
    >you are talking about. I will give you web sites to check out
    >what I am talking about.
    >
    >The problem with temperature changes is that they fluctuate, up and
    >down over the short time range. It is the longer trend that people
    >are now concerned about. Even though the 90s are the hottest on recent
    >record we could run into an equal period of slight cooling or static
    >temperature changes
    >The first graph at http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html
    >gives you a glance at the movement of global temperatures since 1860.

In 1860 the accuracy of a thermometer was what exactly?

"However, this finding is under dispute because some claim that the
amount of error in the data is too large to justify the conclusion."


--
Martin

Earl Evleth

in article [email protected], [email protected] at
[email protected] wrote on 4/12/04 14:34:

    > In 1860 the accuracy of a thermometer was what exactly?

I am not certain, but here is a little history. But you are correct
it is a problem. Another the problem was getting global temperatures
averages
requiring enough worldwide measurements to get an average.


This was checked using "proxies". The ice cores provide water samples in
which the isotopic compositions can be measured. These variations depend on
the
temperature the water came from. There should be more O(16) in water
distilling from a warmer sources that O(18) the same for the
hydrogen-deuterium ratio. By mass spec these can be accurately measured
now.

So there has been a comparison of directly measured temperatures and
proxy estimate temperatures for the period after 1800 to now, and they
agree.

The other big worry in paleoclimatology was the possible change in the
radiance of the sun. The sun might not have to remain constant in
energy output. In fact, even today the accuracy of the measurement is
not good. The sun does change in energy output slightly (less than
1%) during the sun spot cycles which are short term periodic (less than
10 years). Here the paleo proxy of C(14), radioactive, is looked at. The
stuff decays anyway at a known rate but also its concentration depends
on cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere, some of which come from ions
emitted by the sun.

So there are a number of tricks used to get temperature estimates before
man directly measured them. This data confirms the accuracy of the
industrial period measurements. As I already said, the variations during
the 1800s were not so important and it is the warmiing since 1930
which is important.

Finally, although I remarked that the consensus of atmospheric
scientists is that the current warming is caused by man, there
have been times in history when the majority of the "people" have
been wrong, even those that should now. I personally see no
other reasonable explanation for the warming we see than
due to the gradual accumulation of more CO2 in the atmosphere
(methane, also a greenhouse gas contributes). Indeed, for me
it is a near certainty. The only fly in the soup is the radiance
problem. The accuracy of current measurements and the proxies are
not good enough.

Earl