New global warming evidence presented -- prove industry is to blame

Vance

New Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,265
Reaction score
1
That title is long. The full title is: New global warming evidence presented; Scientists say their observations prove industry is to blame. Here's the article:


Washington -- Scientists reported Friday they have detected the clearest evidence yet that global warming is real -- and that human industrial activity is largely responsible for it.

Researchers at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science cited a range of evidence that the Earth's temperatures are rising:

-- The Arctic regions are losing ice cover.

-- The populations of whales and walrus that Alaskan Eskimo communities depend on for food are crashing.

-- Fresh water draining from ice and snow on land is decreasing the salinity of far northern oceans.

-- Many species of plankton -- the microscopic plants that form the crucial base of the entire marine food web -- are moving north to escape the warming water on the ocean surface off Greenland and Alaska.

Ice ages come and go over millennia, and for the past 8,000 years, the gradual end of the last ice age has seen a natural increase in worldwide temperatures, all scientists agree. Skeptics have expressed doubt that industrial activity is to blame for world's rapidly rising temperatures.

But records show that for the past 50 years or so, the warming trend has sped up -- due, researchers said, to the atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases produced by everything industrial, from power plants burning fossil fuels to gas-guzzling cars -- and the effects are clear.

"We were stunned by the similarities between the observations that have been recorded at sea worldwide and the models that climatologists made," said Tim Barnett of the University of California's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. "The debate is over, at least for rational people. And for those who insist that the uncertainties remain too great, their argument is no longer tenable. We've nailed it."

Barnett and other experts marshaled their evidence and presented it to their colleagues for the first time at a symposium here.

For the past 40 years, Barnett said, observations by seaborne instruments have shown that the increased warming has penetrated the oceans of the world - - observations, he said, that have proved identical to computer predictions whose accuracy has been challenged by global-warming skeptics.

The most recent temperature observations, he said, fit those models with extraordinary accuracy.

But a spokesman for the Bush administration -- which has been criticized for not taking global warming seriously -- was unfazed by the latest news.

"Our position has been the same for a long time," said Bill Holbrook, spokesman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "The science of global climate change is uncertain."

"Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet, and especially in the Arctic, " said Ruth Curry, a physical oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, "and there is large-scale drying throughout the Northern Hemisphere."

Ice cores drilled deep into the Greenland ice cap show that salinity of the ice at the upper layers of the cores has decreased sharply due to the incursion of fresh water draining from melting snows on the surface, she reported, and land ice and permafrost are in decline all around the Arctic. In the meantime, she said, measurements show that salinity of the ocean waters nearer the equator has increased as the rate of evaporation of warmer tropical and subtropical oceans quickens.

It may take several centuries for all the ice that covers Greenland to melt, Curry said, "but its release of fresh water will make sea-level rise a very significant issue in this century." In fact, she said, changes in the freshwater balance of the oceans has already caused severe drought conditions in America's Western states and many parts of China and other Asian countries.

Already, the physics of increased warming and the changes in ocean circulation that result are strongly affecting the entire ecology of the Arctic regions, according to Sharon L. Smith, an oceanographer and marine biologist at the University of Miami.

Last summer, on an expedition ranging from Alaska's Aleutian islands to the Arctic Ocean above the state's oil-rich North Slope, Smith said she encountered the leading elder of an Eskimo community on Little Diomede island who told her that ice conditions offshore were changing rapidly year by year; that the ice was breaking up and retreating earlier and earlier; and that in the previous year the men of his community were able to kill only 10 walrus for their crucial food supplies, compared to past harvests of 200 or more.

Populations of bowhead whales, which the Eskimo people of Barrow on the North Slope are permitted to hunt, are declining too, Smith said. The organisms essential to the diet of Eider ducks living on St. Lawrence Island have been in rapid decline, while both the plants and ducks have moved 100 miles north to colder climates -- a migration, she said, that obviously was induced by the warming of the waters off the island.

Another piece of evidence Smith cited for the ecological impact of warming in the Arctic emerged in the Bering Sea, where there was a huge die- off in 1997 of a single species of seabirds called short-tailed shearwaters.

Hundreds of thousands of birds died, she said, and the common plankton plants on which they depend totally for food was replaced by inedible plants covered with calcite mineral plates. Those plants thrive in warmer waters and require higher-than-normal levels of carbon dioxide -- the major greenhouse gas -- to reproduce, Smith said.

"What more convincing evidence do we need that warming is real?" Smith asked.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/19/MNGE1BECPI1.DTL
 
VIEWPOINT: GLOBAL WARMING NATURAL, MAY END WITHIN 20 YEARS
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Global warming is a natural geological process that could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State University researcher.




Robert Essenhigh
The researcher suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide -- often thought of as a key "greenhouse gas" -- is not the cause of global warming. The opposite is most likely to be true, according to Robert Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of Mechanical Engineering. It is the rising global temperatures that are naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around, he says.

Essenhigh explains his position in a "viewpoint" article in the current issue of the journal Chemical Innovation, published by the American Chemical Society.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"According to Essenhigh's estimations, Earth may reach a peak in the current temperature profile within the next 10 to 20 years, and then it could begin to cool into a new ice age."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many people blame global warming on carbon dioxide sent into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels in man-made devices such as automobiles and power plants. Essenhigh believes these people fail to account for the much greater amount of carbon dioxide that enters -- and leaves -- the atmosphere as part of the natural cycle of water exchange from, and back into, the sea and vegetation.

"Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a radiation-absorbing gas," Essenhigh argues. "If you ignore the water, you're going to get the wrong answer."

How could so many scientists miss out on this critical bit of information, as Essenhigh believes? He said a National Academy of Sciences report on carbon dioxide levels that was published in 1977 omitted information about water as a gas and identified it only as vapor, which means condensed water or cloud, which is at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere; and most subsequent investigations into this area evidently have built upon the pattern of that report.

For his hypothesis, Essenhigh examined data from various other sources, including measurements of ocean evaporation rates, man-made sources of carbon dioxide, and global temperature data for the last one million years.

He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

Some scientists believe that the human contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, however small, is of a critical amount that could nonetheless upset Earth's environmental balance. But Essenhigh feels that, mathematically, that hypothesis hasn't been adequately substantiated.

Here's how Essenhigh sees the global temperature system working: As temperatures rise, the carbon dioxide equilibrium in the water changes, and this releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to this scenario, atmospheric carbon dioxide is then an indicator of rising temperatures -- not the driving force behind it.

Essenhigh attributes the current reported rise in global temperatures to a natural cycle of warming and cooling.

He examined data that Cambridge University geologists Nicholas Shackleton and Neil Opdyke reported in the journal Quaternary Research in 1973, which found that global temperatures have been oscillating steadily, with an average rising gradually, over the last one million years -- long before human industry began to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Opdyke is now at the University of Florida.

According to Shackleton and Opdyke's data, average global temperatures have risen less than one degree in the last million years, though the amplitude of the periodic oscillation has now risen in that time from about 5 degrees to about 10 degrees, with a period of about 100,000 years.

"Today, we are simply near a peak in the current cycle that started about 25,000 years ago," Essenhigh explained.

As to why highs and lows follow a 100,000 year cycle, the explanation Essenhigh uses is that the Arctic Ocean acts as a giant temperature regulator, an idea known as the "Arctic Ocean Model." This model first appeared over 30 years ago and is well presented in the 1974 book Weather Machine: How our weather works and why it is changing, by Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist magazine.

According to this model, when the Arctic Ocean is frozen over, as it is today, Essenhigh said, it prevents evaporation of water that would otherwise escape to the atmosphere and then return as snow. When there is less snow to replenish the Arctic ice cap, the cap may start to shrink. That could be the cause behind the retreat of the Arctic ice cap that scientists are documenting today, Essenhigh said.

As the ice cap melts, the earth warms, until the Arctic Ocean opens again. Once enough water is available by evaporation from the ocean into the atmosphere, snows can begin to replenish the ice cap. At that point, the Arctic ice begins to expand, the global temperature can then start to reverse, and the earth can start re-entry to a new ice age.

According to Essenhigh's estimations, Earth may reach a peak in the current temperature profile within the next 10 to 20 years, and then it could begin to cool into a new ice age.

Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as he knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon dioxide in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent an improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they are logically rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant factor than in other studies.

"If there are flaws in these propositions, I'm listening," he wrote in his Chemical Innovation paper. "But if there are objections, let's have them with the numbers."
 
Paleoclimatic Research

How do we measure paleoclimate?
Annual records of climate are preserved in tree-rings, locked in the skeletons of tropical coral reefs, frozen in glaciers and ice caps, and buried in the sediments of lakes and oceans. These natural recorders of climate are called proxy climate data - that is they substitute for thermometers, rain gauges, and other modern instruments used to record climate. By analyzing records taken from trees, reefs, glaciers, sediments, and other proxy sources, scientists can extend our understanding far beyond the 140-year instrumental record provided by thermometers and rain gauges.

Recent changes in the natural record from environmental proxy data can be calibrated using the 140-year instrumental record of climate change.

What can Paleoclimatology tell us about climate change relevant to society in the future?

To understand and predict changes in the climate system, we need a more complete understanding of seasonal to century scale climate variability than can be obtained from the instrumental climate record. The instrumental temperature record indicates that the Earth has warmed by 0.5°C (0.9°F) from 1860 to the present. However, this record is not long enough to determine if this warming should be expected under a naturally varying climate, or if it is unusual and perhaps due to human activities. Paleoclimatic proxy data can be used to extend climate records and provide a longer time frame (hundreds to tens of thousands of years) for evaluating the warming of the last 140 years.

The cause of global warming over the last century remains a heated debate with significant economic and societal implications. Many scientists attribute the current global warming to greenhouse effect enhanced by human activities. Other scientists have suggested that other factors are responsible, such as natural changes in the number and size of volcanic eruptions or an increase in the sun's output (such phenomena are referred to as climate forcings). A paleoclimate perspective provides information about long term changes in different climate forcings that may be the underlying cause of the observed climate change.

An analogy of how paleoclimatic data improves our understanding of climate can be explained in terms of the stock market. Stock market analysts use longer term trends (one, two, three, or six months) in the stock market indexes (DOW, NASDAQ, etc.) rather than depending on changes from one day to the next or over a week to predict what the market will do next (i.e., Bull or Bear Market). In much the same way, the paleoclimate perspective allows us to evaluate climate change many decades and centuries into the past, in order to develop a more reliable estimate of how climate may change the future.

The paleoclimate perspective can help us answer many questions, including...

Is the last century of climate change unprecedented relative to the last 500, 2000, and 20,000 years?

Do recent global temperatures represent new highs, or just part of a longer cycle of natural variability?

Is the recent rate of climate change unique or commonplace in the past?

Can we find evidence in the paleoclimate record for mechanisms or climate forcings that could be causing recent climate change?




Paleoclimatic Data of the Last 1000 Years

Beginning in the 1970's, paleoclimatologists began constructing a blueprint of how the Earth's temperature changed over the centuries before 1850 and the widespread use of thermometers. Out of this emerged a sketchy view of the last 1000 years of climate, based on limited data from tree rings, historical documents, sediments and other proxy data sources. Today, many more paleoclimate records are available from around the world, providing a much improved view of past changes in the Earth's temperature.
In the last few years, there has been a major breakthrough in our understanding of global temperature change over the last 400 to 1000 years. Several different but important studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, have revolutionized what we know about the 20th century in the context of the last six centuries.


Briffa et al., 1998 Northern Hemisphere Summer Temperatures of the Last Six Centuries

Crowley 2000 Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years

Jones et al., 1998 Global Temperatures of the Last Six Centuries

Mann et al., 1998 Northern Hemisphere Temperatures of the Last Six Centuries

Mann et al., 1999 Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations

Overpeck et al., 1997 Arctic Temperatures of the Last Four Centuries

Pollack et al, 1998. Global Temperatures of the Last Five Centuries



Summary of Studies
Complete Scientific References of Studies

Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
The similar characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides greater confidence in the following important conclusions:

Dramatic global warming has occurred since the 19th century.

The recent record warm temperatures in the 1990's are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years.





Paleoclimatic Data Before 1000 Years Ago

To put the 20th century in the perspective of the last 1000 years, it is critical to look further back into Earth's history to see if previous periods of global warmth can provide clues about 20th century warming.


[Ice Core samples (pictured right) are taken from ice sheets or ice caps (pictured left). These ice core samples are a measuring method that paleoclimatologists use to record and review past climate.]
Several periods of warmth (listed below) have been hypothesized to have occurred in the past. However, upon close examination of these warm periods, it becomes apparent that these periods of warmth are not similar to 20th century warming for two specific reasons:

The periods of hypothesized past warming do not appear to be global in extent, or

The periods of warmth can be explained by known natural climatic forcing conditions that are uniquely different than those of the last 100 years.
Several commonly cited periods of warmth are as follows:

The so-called "Medieval Warm Period" (ca., 9th to 14th centuries)

The so-called mid-Holocene "Warm Period" (ca. 6,000 years ago)

The penultimate interglacial period (ca. 125,000 years ago)

The mid-Cretaceous Period (era?) (ca. 120-90 million years ago)

The latest peer-reviewed paleoclimatic studies appear to confirm that the global warmth of the 20th century may not necessarily be the warmest time in Earth's history, what is unique is that the warmth is global and cannot be explained by natural forcing mechanisms.
 
Codger.. these comments you posted is common spin by pro-industries/anti-environmental people. That's all I want to say.
 
Jesus!!! All Mighty!!!!! Theres no proof global warming exsist! We just had a blizzard for crying out loud and the south had record cold tempertures. Liberals made up global warming theory so they can rob our wallets,k pocketbooks by making us pay for this crap of evoinmental fees on things plus car emissions testing.
 
Beowulf said:
The Bush junta is doing all it can to keep the truth out of the mainstream media concerning this subject.
I agree that global warming is FAR worse than they are letting on.

http://www.news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=612488

Of course, there will always be that fringe of stubborn naysayers and it seems that they are getting all the attention.
Great article. "The Toxic Texan" heheh... I like that title for Bush. Europeans know how to say right words about Bush.

Edit: btw, Beowulf, about naysayers and attention, as you already know this famous quote by Hitler, "The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."

That's why these naysayers are getting all the attention. Nothing more or less than that.
 
Magatsu said:
Codger.. these comments you posted is common spin by pro-industries/anti-environmental people. That's all I want to say.

Lol! NOAA was the source of the paleoclimatology info. That is science. Not "anti environment". Yours came from David Perlman the science editor at the S.F. Cronicle. The one who saw a "bright object" near the space shuttle before the disaster. Is Mr. Perlman a scientist or a journalist?
 
Yup, Steve, the blizzard just furthers the evidence.
Global warming means that the plantet eventually cools down.
You have no clue what you are talking about, so just give up.
 
Last edited:
Codger said:
Lol! NOAA was the source of the paleoclimatology info. That is science. Not "anti environment". Yours came from David Perlman the science editor at the S.F. Cronicle. The one who saw a "bright object" near the space shuttle before the disaster. Is Mr. Perlman a scientist or a journalist?
Umm, maybe you need to reread my post again? Where did I say that I support his comments?

All I said these comments that you posted is common spin by pro-industries/anti-environmental people. I just don't see how you can spin my words out of that comment... :/
 
Codger, beside that, there were several good articles in Popular Science and Scientific American magazines mentioned that many, many studies which conducted by hundreds and thousands of scientists support the evidence about the link between man-made industries and global warming.

I personally would recommend you to pick these issues up and read.
 
Magatsu said:
Umm, maybe you need to reread my post again? Where did I say that I support his comments?

All I said these comments that you posted is common spin by pro-industries/anti-environmental people. I just don't see how you can spin my words out of that comment... :/
As opposed to the comments you posted, right? I.E. what I was posting was tainted by the source or "percieved source", and the opposing viewpoint was different? People backing that viewpoint are not also perceived to have their own agenda? That is all I have to say. :cheers:
 
Magatsu said:
Codger, beside that, there were several good articles in Popular Science and Scientific American magazines mentioned that many, many studies which conducted by hundreds and thousands of scientists support the evidence about the link between man-made industries and global warming.

I personally would recommend you to pick these issues up and read.
I have those magazines and I have read them. Since National Geographic had black and white covers, I have read them and many others. Global Warming as Perlman presents as fact is, in truth still a theory. A very popular one, true, but still a theory. It has, actually, less scientific proof than the Paeloclimatology reports which are, in the best tradition of science, documented fact.
 
Codger said:
I have those magazines and I have read them. Since National Geographic had black and white covers, I have read them and many others. Global Warming as Perlman presents as fact is, in truth still a theory. A very popular one, true, but still a theory. It has, actually, less scientific proof that the Paeloclimatology reports which are, in the best tradition of science, documented fact.
In your own view, probably.

In many scientists' views, no.
 
Codger said:
As opposed to the comments you posted, right? I.E. what I was posting was tainted by the source or "percieved source", and the opposing viewpoint was different? People backing that viewpoint are not also perceived to have their own agenda? That is all I have to say. :cheers:
Again, that's your words.

The fact remains: that comment is common spin by pro-industries people.
 
Codger said:
Lol! NOAA was the source of the paleoclimatology info. That is science. Not "anti environment". Yours came from David Perlman the science editor at the S.F. Cronicle. The one who saw a "bright object" near the space shuttle before the disaster. Is Mr. Perlman a scientist or a journalist?

Are you saying that the "bright flash" is fictional?
It was caught on tape.
http://rgj.com/news/stories/html/2004/01/31/62998.php
 

Attachments

  • columbia_reentry_vidcap.jpg
    columbia_reentry_vidcap.jpg
    15.8 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
Magatsu said:
Again, that's your words.

The fact remains: that comment is common spin by pro-industries people.
Hmmm. The view I take is a pro-industries spin and your view is opposite so your view in an anti-industry spin. O.K., I can accept that.
 
Codger said:
Hmmm. The view I take is a pro-industries spin and your view is opposite so your view in an anti-industry spin. O.K., I can accept that.
Excellent.
 
then i'm wondering why mars is experiencing global warming too.. since they don't have any factories, pollution there?
 
Back
Top