Alarmists should cool off: Scientists have news on warming

From Washington Times: Little chance Earth will see even 11-degree rise

For all of the alamists out there, and all of the Chicken Littles like Al Bore, I mean Gore, and his friends that are screaming that President Bush has gagged NASA scientists, and is preventing news on the dangers of global warming from getting out to the public, it seems that perhaps some folks really should be taking some major chill pills.

Check the following snippet from the Washington Times, or better yet, check the original article by clicking on the headline which is linked.





Scientists cool outlook on global warming

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 21, 2006



Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted.
Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions."
Supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, the Duke researchers noted that some observational studies predicted that the Earth's temperature could rise as much as 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases.
The Duke estimates show the chances that the planet's temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago.
In recent years, much academic research has indicated otherwise, often in colorful terms and citing the United States as the biggest contributor to global warming. This month, a University of Toronto scientist predicted that a quarter of the planet's plants and animals would be extinct by 2050 because of rising temperatures.
On Wednesday, two geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases.


... more at linked article

EMPHASIS ADDED



3,174 views 35 replies
Reply #1 Top
Have to remind myself that I'm helping to raise the real estate values and create new beach front property as I enjoy my red meat later today
Reply #2 Top

I read the article, but did not get around to blogging it.  Thank you for doing it!  it is about time that these alarmist (or as an Aussie said - Panic Merchants) get put in their place.

I especially liked the fact they did a 1000 year study.  While still short in the life of the earth, at least it shows that what is going on is not unprecedented or unusual.

Reply #3 Top
There is no doubt in my mind that somehow President Bush is blackmailing the scientists into giving false information to the public so no one will ever find out that global warming is an evil deed hatched by none other than Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and the evilest most tricky genius to ever walk upon planet earth George W. Bush!!!!!!! Aided and abetted by Tom Delay, Bill Frisk and the entire Republican party!!!

Reply #4 Top
Could you please delete my first post with all the spelling errors? I am sure that my inability to edit posts is also an evil scheme hatched BY BUSH!!!!!!!!!
Reply #5 Top
MM ColGene er I mean Oh the room is getting small!
Reply #6 Top
Could you please delete my first post with all the spelling errors? I am sure that my inability to edit posts is also an evil scheme hatched BY BUSH!!!!!!!!!


Done as requested, happy to oblige any time you need MM.
Reply #7 Top
Funny it took a study that likely ran in the millions of dollars to come up with what the "common sense" folks have been saying for years.
Reply #8 Top
Funny it took a study that likely ran in the millions of dollars to come up with what the "common sense" folks have been saying for years.


I'm waiting for the scientists from DUKE -friggin- University to get discredited for this one.

That would be the same Duke University that (except for issues with Lacrosse Teams with Strippers) is very well respected in matters of science and academia. They have a very good reputation in the scientific community, though I'm sure they'll have totally pissed off some folks with this news.
Reply #9 Top
There's been a theory that global warming/cooling has had a lot to do with fluctuations in the amount of energy the sun gives off. I thought it was interesting that the moment the data started going against a constant rise in temperatures, global warming folks started saying that the unexpected lack of temperature increase is due to the sun not warming the earth as much in the last couple of years... LOL.

SO it isn't that they were wrong, it's that the sun is giving us a little leeway the last few years. That kind of leap generally brings derision from the scientific community when it is used to shore up old-guard theories. I guess when it is environmentalists, they get a pass. Advocates of global warning fears have been twisting a very small pool of data in order to make their point. Evidently they'll continue to do so.
Reply #10 Top
Personally, the theory that makes the most sense to me is quite simple.

In geologic terms, we just ended a major ice age. It only makes sense that it would be warming up.

Normal climate cycles.
Reply #11 Top
Just ended a minor one, as well.
Reply #12 Top
How to explain the spate of documentaries this past year on the Science Channel, National Geographic Channel, and the Discovery Channel on the coming of the next ice age? I've never understood the assumption the media has apparently had that the scientific community has been near-unanimous about global warming.

Well, maybe I understand a little: there is a common thread underpinning all the leftist/liberal causes, from the Sierra Club to PETA - mankind is fundamentally evil and too stupid to understand self-preservation. We therefore need the self-appointed elites to save us from ourselves. Never mind how we got this far.
Reply #13 Top
Scientist just made a discovery dubbed “global dimming”. They discovered the amount of sunlight the planet is receiving has decreased by as much as 30% in some areas over the last 100 years. The “pan evaporation rate” has decreased something like 25% over the same period. The sun is sending us the same level of energy just more sunlight is being blocked in the last 100 years by the atmosphere. The theory for the cause of this is that the abundance of smaller man made particles are changing the normal structure of clouds making them more dense than clouds formed around natures most common cloud forming particles sea salt and pollen. These denser clouds are simply reflecting more of the suns energy back into space.

We’re still warming up and obviously we would be warming much more if we were receiving the same amount of sunlight we were 100 years ago. If you factor in this new discovery it means the climate is warming at a much greater rate observed anywhere in our geological past. So we have one pollutant counteracting another. Talk about dumb luck.

Whatever the consequences may be it cannot be denied we are having a substantial effect on the global climate.
Reply #14 Top
Yep, that's what I was referring to in post #9, stubbyfinger.

Imagine, if you will, a global warming skeptic in the 90's claiming that it wasn't really global warming, the sun was just warming us up a bit more. It seems perfectly natural, though, when the numbers stop backing up the current view of global warming that they'd try to find some tertiary reason why both the numbers AND their theory is right. Oh, we're still warming up the planet, we're just also cooling it off with our awful behavior.

When Creationists do that it is shoddy science. So is it getting hot in here, or is it just me? Or is it getting hot in here and I'm just cooling it off so much it is hard to tell? How far do you think we'll stretch before the people in question stop flailing around and admit that the data we have is simply insufficient to make these kinds of insipid predictions.
Reply #15 Top
Have any of you all read the book "State of Fear" by Michael Chrichton? It's a great read, with a really compelling storyline, one of his better books in my mind. But what makes it creepy is that it's about the environmental organization that will go to any extremes to "prove" global warming (with intent to save their corpulent funding).
This same idea is brought up. If you analyze the data, it shows that yes, in some areas there is something consistent with global warming. But in many other parts of the world, there is either no change or temperatures have consistently fallen over the last hundred years.
Mother Earth has been around a really, really long time - it'll take a lot more than our messing around to screw her up too much.
Reply #16 Top
No this discovery is completely different than what you were talking about Baker. This discovery was made in 2001 and the two observations were made independently. The “pan evaporation rate” has been measure by farmers for over a century. The rate at which water evaporates from a standardized metal pan is 25% less than it was 100 years ago, that observation is conclusive. The amount of global sunlight has been accurately measured since the 50’s it’s also conclusive.
Link

I understand one day coffee is bad the next it cures cancer. Climatology is one of the most complex fields in science. It uses the most supercomputer time of them all but the evidence is getting stronger and nay Sayers in the field are fewer and fewer.

A little pain now could possible save us a world of hurt in the near future. Besides motivation even if it’s based on a false assumption still sparks advancement. We're running out of oil anyway soon ridicules gas prices will be the motivator. I applaud those whose motivations do not have to be so shallow.
Reply #17 Top
if we're somehow able to restrain ourselves from indulging in nuclear war, this is one intellectual dispute more likely than not to be determined by experience rather than debate as well as sooner rather than later.

in the meantime, i can't help but be somewhat amused by those of you who regularly express such deep distrust of the dreaded msm seemingly having no such problem with reports published in the rsmm (that would be the reverend sun moon media).

maybe i should open an online outlet for whatever it is the moonies are always tryin to sell?
Reply #18 Top

Personally, the theory that makes the most sense to me is quite simple.

In geologic terms, we just ended a major ice age. It only makes sense that it would be warming up.

Normal climate cycles.

I agree, and have been stating that for years.

Reply #19 Top
A little pain now could possible save us a world of hurt in the near future. Besides motivation even if it’s based on a false assumption still sparks advancement. We're running out of oil anyway soon ridicules gas prices will be the motivator. I applaud those whose motivations do not have to be so shallow.


Unless we bet on the wrong horse.

We can't predict when the next "wobble" in the earth's axis is going to occur, plunging us into the next ice age if the angle increases. We may someday wish we still had all those greenhouse gasses hanging around. Or the wobble may orient the axis more perpendicular to the sun & fry everthing from Chicago to Sydney. The whole notion that we can predict what we need to do now to mitigate effects 100 or 200 (even 50) years from now is stretching things very thin indeed. There is a reason there isn't enough supercomputer time available. Predicting climate trends is like predicting volcanic eruptions - you know they're going to happen but you don't when or how big they'll be. The only thing we know is that the climate will change.
Reply #20 Top

We’re still warming up and obviously we would be warming much more if we were receiving the same amount of sunlight we were 100 years ago. If you factor in this new discovery it means the climate is warming at a much greater rate observed anywhere in our geological past. So we have one pollutant counteracting another. Talk about dumb luck.

Dumb Luck?  Or mother nature taking care of itself?  I think the latter.  And eco system is not a fragile glass jar that wil lbreak when looking at it cross eyed.  It is a very hardy and durable system that has withstood and will withstand many changes for the very reason that it is in existance.  Survival of the fittest.

Reply #21 Top
That's great if "a little pain now" doesn't translate to economic hardship and political infighting. The fact is, Kyoto isn't just about climate. It is also about leveraging large industrial nations punitively.
Reply #22 Top
If the article is correct, then the good news is we have time to put in place measures to minimise the impact, however whether it is correct or not the real issue is we do have global warming, and the sooner we change our current emmission levels we will be leavving a bleak future for generations to come. Just because the levels may not be as bad as we thought this does not mean we can ignor the fact that global is a reality and with India and China moving forward at an accelerated rate means the levels of emmission will rise even further. Although the are far further down the road to using green fuels than countries like the US and Australia.
Reply #23 Top
Unless we bet on the wrong horse.We can't predict when the next "wobble" in the earth's axis is going to occur, plunging us into the next ice age if the angle increases. We may someday wish we still had all those greenhouse gasses hanging around. Or the wobble may orient the axis more perpendicular to the sun & fry everthing from Chicago to Sydney.


Don’t so anything because we might be wrong? Since when do we know for sure the consequences of any of the actions we take? All we can do is act on the best facts we can get. When trying to predict climate change you can’t start factoring in what ifs, you have to assume conditions will remain stable and not try to factor in remote possibilities like meteorites, massive solar flares, the magnetic poles flipping and the second coming of Christ. What an absurd argument. That’s like saying we shouldn’t fight terrorism because we don’t know for sure that fighting it wont make it worse.

Dumb Luck? Or mother nature taking care of itself? I think the latter. And eco system is not a fragile glass jar that wil lbreak when looking at it cross eyed. It is a very hardy and durable system that has withstood and will withstand many changes for the very reason that it is in existance. Survival of the fittest.


Mother nature is not tough; nature’s balance is easily disrupted. Sure it survives but unfortunately for us restoring that balance is very violent in terms of being hospitable to life and it’s got a whole lot more time to recover than we do. Will be gone a few millennia by then. Maybe getting rid of us is exactly what it will do to survive.

This we know; greenhouse gasses are causing the temperature to rise and we know humans produce some of these gasses. What we don’t know for sure is whether or not what we produce is causing the temperature to rise at a faster rate. We also know a significant global temperature rise would be very bad and kill millions and cost billions.

If your boat got a leak you don’t bail the water in even if you’re in no real danger of sinking. And some economic pain now to make sure our children have deal with a pissed off mother nature is no problem. Stop screwing around we got nowhere else to go.

Reply #24 Top

Mother nature is not tough; nature’s balance is easily disrupted. Sure it survives but unfortunately for us restoring that balance is very violent in terms of being hospitable to life and it’s got a whole lot more time to recover than we do. Will be gone a few millennia by then. Maybe getting rid of us is exactly what it will do to survive.

See that is where I disagree.  Mother nature is tenacious!  Have you seen those stupid weeds growing in the cracks of a sidewalk - downtown?  Have you seen a plowed field go back to forrest after only laying fallow for a few years?

have you seen how Squirrells and birds have not only adapted to cities, but thrive?  I saw a red tailed hawk nexting on a 30 story building and eating pigeons (Good bird!).

Nature is not fragile.  Man is fragile.  Nature is tenacious, and so far, no species, including man, has been able to kill it or even stop its checks and balances.

Reply #25 Top
Nature is tenacious, and so far, no species, including man, has been able to kill it or even stop its checks and balances


on a global scale? perhaps only because we've only very recently (beginning about the middle of the 19th century, but making up for all lost time at an incredibly accellerated pace in the 160 or so years afterwards) acquired the means to do so.

before that, we were pretty much limited to deforesting and introducing non-native species (pigs, cows, etc.), both of which did a pretty decent job of turning the coastal forest of north africa into the desert it is today. on a much smaller scale, it only took a couple hundred years for a relatively small populations of humans to make easter island barely habitable.

you needn't look very far to see how much more efficient we've become in the past 70 years. won't nobody likely to be livin near love canal in this century. nor 1000s of other places like it scattered all over the world. then there's chernobyl.

one of the things that really struck me when i hadda go to tennessee in 2002 and 2004 was a sense of something being missing. it took me about a week to realize what it was: there were hardly any butterflies, large night moths (lunae & cecropiae primarily), other large insects like mantises, salamanders or frogs (especially frogs) compared to what i'd been used to seeing no longer ago than 10 years previously.

right offshore from where i live, literally tons of ddt and its constituents were dumped over about a 40 year period. about a month or so back, i read there would be no further attempts to repopulate catalina island with bald eagles because even those birds that managed to survive could not produce viable eggs.

i could go on for hours if i had time. your perception of nature's tenaciousness is as wildly overoptimistic as it is horribly short-sighted.