Global warming, global cooling

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Julie Steenhuysen article cited above.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKTRE51D29E20090214

Global warming seen worse than predicted
Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:46pm GMT

By Julie Steenhuysen

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The climate is heating up far faster than scientists had predicted, spurred by sharp increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries like China and India, a top climate scientist said on Saturday.

"The consequence of that is we are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously," Chris Field, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago.

Field said "the actual trajectory of climate change is more serious" than any of the climate predictions in the IPCC's fourth assessment report called "Climate Change 2007."

He said recent climate studies suggested the continued warming of the planet from greenhouse gas emissions could touch off large, destructive wildfires in tropical rain forests and melt permafrost in the Arctic tundra, releasing billions of tons of greenhouse gasses that could raise global temperatures even more.

"There is a real risk that human-caused climate change will accelerate the release of carbon dioxide from forest and tundra ecosystems, which have been storing a lot of carbon for thousands of years," Field, of Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science, said in a statement.

He pointed to recent studies showing the fourth assessment report underestimated the potential severity of global warming over the next 100 years.

"We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected, primarily because developing countries, like China and India, saw a huge surge in electric power generation, almost all of it based on coal," Field said.

He said that trend was likely to continue if more countries turned to coal and other carbon-intensive fuels to meet their energy needs. If so, he said the impact of climate change would be "more serious and diverse" than the IPCC's most recent predictions.

(Editing by Peter Cooney)
Click to expand...
 
sounds like they are taking a page from the fast eddie that the current
gov. has going.

Get it get it, get it fast, before they find out....
 
Nothing eh? I guess you can't really prove much posting an opinion piece from a biased source claiming some other piece is biased. :laugh:
 
Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made


Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report

By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author

Posted in Environment, 25th February 2009 12:23 GMT


Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.

One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document - the first to appear in the West in any form. Below you'll find some of the key findings - but first, a summary.

More...
Click to expand...

A source a bit more scientifically reliable even if it can't claim '100 years of journalistic excellence'
 
George Will gives dates and cites on "global cooling"; but it is "just opinion" regardless of the facts .... right?

He does pick apart other peoples "future predictions"; or are they just "future opinions"? The 1970s global cooling really happened, the predicted 1990 food shortage really happened, the sea ice really isn't there today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021302514.html

Dark Green Doomsayers

By George F. Will
Sunday, February 15, 2009; Page B07

A corollary of Murphy's Law ("If something can go wrong, it will") is: "Things are worse than they can possibly be." Energy Secretary Steven Chu, an atomic physicist, seems to embrace that corollary but ignores Gregg Easterbrook's "Law of Doomsaying": Predict catastrophe no sooner than five years hence but no later than 10 years away, soon enough to terrify but distant enough that people will forget if you are wrong.

Chu recently told the Los Angeles Times that global warming might melt 90 percent of California's snowpack, which stores much of the water needed for agriculture. This, Chu said, would mean "no more agriculture in California," the nation's leading food producer. Chu added: "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going."

No more lettuce or Los Angeles? Chu likes predictions, so here is another: Nine decades hence, our great-great-grandchildren will add the disappearance of California artichokes to the list of predicted planetary calamities that did not happen. Global cooling recently joined that lengthening list.

In the 1970s, "a major cooling of the planet" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950" (New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the "cooling trend" could result in "a return to another ice age" (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" involving "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The "continued rapid cooling of the Earth" (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that "a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery" (International Wildlife, July 1975). "The world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age" (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of "ominous signs" that "the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down," meteorologists were "almost unanimous" that "the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century," perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, "The Cooling World," April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from Central European forests, the North Atlantic was "cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool," glaciers had "begun to advance" and "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).

Speaking of experts, in 1980 Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford scientist and environmental Cassandra who predicted calamitous food shortages by 1990, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon. When Ehrlich predicted the imminent exhaustion of many nonrenewable natural resources, Simon challenged him: Pick a "basket" of any five such commodities, and I will wager that in a decade the price of the basket will decline, indicating decreased scarcity. Ehrlich picked five metals -- chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten -- that he predicted would become more expensive. Not only did the price of the basket decline, the price of all five declined.

An expert Ehrlich consulted in picking the five was John Holdren, who today is President Obama's science adviser. Credentialed intellectuals, too -- actually, especially -- illustrate Montaigne's axiom: "Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know."

As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

An unstated premise of eco-pessimism is that environmental conditions are, or recently were, optimal. The proclaimed faith of eco-pessimists is weirdly optimistic: These optimal conditions must and can be preserved or restored if government will make us minimize our carbon footprints and if government will "remake" the economy.

Because of today's economy, another law -- call it the Law of Clarifying Calamities -- is being (redundantly) confirmed. On graphs tracking public opinion, two lines are moving in tandem and inversely: The sharply rising line charts public concern about the economy, the plunging line follows concern about the environment. A recent Pew Research Center poll asked which of 20 issues should be the government's top priorities. Climate change ranked 20th.

Real calamities take our minds off hypothetical ones. Besides, according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade, or one-third of the span since the global cooling scare.

[email protected]
Click to expand...
 
You couldn't respond to his question & start a new thread about your opinion piece could you?
 
No, because that would totally obscure the point that this same guy wrote another article that I'm sure he's going to disagree with and that him cherry picking opinion pieces doesn't prove anything.

Maybe you couled pass on the same info on opinion pieces to Jim that you gave Frank the other day?
 
It seems that a bunch of "green" groups didn't like his column either.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022702334.html

The Heat From a Global Warming Column

By Ombudsman
Sunday, March 1, 2009; Page A13

Opinion columnists are free to choose whatever facts bolster their arguments. But they aren't free to distort them.

The question of whether that happened is at the core of an uproar over a recent George F. Will column and The Post's fact-checking process.

Will's Feb. 15 column, headlined "Dark Green Doomsayers," ridiculed "eco-pessimists" and cited a string of "predicted planetary calamities" that Will said have never come to pass.

A key paragraph, aimed at those who believe in man-made global warming, asserted: "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."

The column triggered e-mails to The Post from hundreds of angry environmental activists and a few scientists, many asserting that the center had said exactly the opposite.
ad_icon

The ruckus grew when I e-mailed readers who had inquired about the editing process for Will's column. My comments accurately conveyed what I had been told by editorial page editor Fred Hiatt -- that multiple editors had checked Will's sources, including the reference to the Arctic Climate Research Center. Although I didn't render a judgment, my response was understandably seen as an institutional defense and prompted an orchestrated e-mail campaign in which thousands demanded that The Post correct Will's "falsehoods." Like they say when the pro football rookie gets clobbered: "Welcome to the NFL."

The messages, often identical in wording, were soon countered by waves of e-mails defending Will and attacking what many labeled "global warming alarmists" trying to muzzle him.

By mid-week, it was a bit like watching chairs being thrown in a bar fight.

Responding to the controversy, Will wrote again on Friday and insisted that his first column "accurately reported what the center had reported."

As the debate continues, questions linger about The Post's editing process. And there are separate questions about how The Post reacted once readers began questioning the accuracy of Will's column.

First, the editing process. My inquiry shows that there was fact-checking at multiple levels.

It began with Will's own research assistant, Greg Reed. When the column was submitted on Feb. 12 to The Washington Post Writers Group, which edits and syndicates it, Reed sent an accompanying e-mail that provided roughly 20 Internet reference links in support of key assertions in the column. Richard Aldacushion, editorial production manager at the Writers Group, said he reviewed every link. The column was then edited by editorial director Alan Shearer and managing editor James Hill.

The editors who checked the Arctic Research Climate Center Web site believe it did not, on balance, run counter to Will's assertion that global sea ice levels "now equal those of 1979." I reviewed the same Web citation and reached a different conclusion.

It said that while global sea ice areas are "near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979," sea ice area in the Northern Hemisphere is "almost one million sq. km below" the levels of late 1979. That's roughly the size of Texas and California combined. In my mind, it should have triggered a call for clarification to the center.

But according to Bill Chapman, a climate scientist with the center, there was no call from Will or Post editors before the column appeared. He added that it wasn't until last Tuesday -- nine days after The Post began receiving demands for a correction -- that he heard from an editor at the newspaper. It was Brewington who finally e-mailed, offering Chapman the opportunity to write something that might help clear the air.
ad_icon

Readers would have been better served if Post editors, and the new ombudsman, had more quickly addressed the claims of falsehoods.

Editors also missed opportunities to move the debate to washingtonpost.com. Will's column attracted hundreds of comments online, and the three-day cutoff period for comments could have been extended to allow more. Experts could have been quickly engaged to debate Will's assertions. Clarifications from the Arctic Climate Research Center could have been posted.

There is a disturbing if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-an-idiot tone to much of the global warming debate. Thoughtful discourse is noticeably absent in the current dispute. But that's where The Post could have helped, and can in the future.

On its news pages, it can recommit to reporting on climate change that is authoritative and deep. On the editorial pages, it can present a mix of respected and informed viewpoints. And online, it can encourage dialogue that is robust, even if it becomes bellicose.

Andrew Alexander can be reached at 202-334-7582 or at [email protected].
Click to expand...
 
In other news ...

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

SOURCE

Out With A Shiver: Global Warming Protest Frozen Out by Massive Snowfall
It was snowing irony in Washington on Monday when global warming activists descended on the District like a storm -- but got beaten to the punch by a blast of wintry weather that incapacitated the city.

By Joseph Abrams

FOXNews.com

Monday, March 02, 2009

Global warming activists stormed Washington Monday for what was billed as the nation's largest act of civil disobedience to fight climate change -- only to see the nation's capital virtually shut down by a major winter storm.

Schools and businesses were shuttered, lawmakers cancelled [sic] numerous appearances and the city came to a virtual standstill as Washington was blasted with its heaviest snowfall of the winter.

It spelled about six inches of trouble for global warming activists who had hoped to swarm the Capitol by the thousands in an effort to force the government to close the Capitol Power Plant, which heats and cools a number of government buildings, including the Supreme Court and the Capitol.

The snowy scene, with temperatures in the mid-20s, was reminiscent of a day in January 2004, when Al Gore made a major address on global warming in New York -- on one of the coldest days in the city's history.

Protest organizers said about 2,500 people braved the blizzard to oppose greenhouse gas emissions, but the shroud of snow wasn't the only wet blanket in the nation's capital Monday.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called on the architect of the Capitol to stop burning coal at the power plant last week, cancelled [sic] her appearance at the rally because her flight to Washington was cancelled [sic]. (They ought to simply turn off the heat to all of those buildings for a day to see how long it would take for simpletons like Pelosi to start demanding they "Start shoveling coal immediately!" - j)

Michelle Obama canned a public "Read Across America" event and HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan canceled a meeting with the Democratic Caucus because the members of Congress couldn't get to D.C. An honor cordon at the Pentagon for Afghanistan's defense minister also had to be called off.

Some protesters couldn't make it as dozens of flights in the area were delayed or called off, and some couldn't face the dangerous roads or blustery weather, leaving hundreds safe, if sorry, back at home.

One protester named Kat had planned to get arrested and be bailed out Monday but decided to stay put and donate her money to a good cause instead.

"I don't want to travel in the snow today. However, I am donating my bail money to fight mountaintop removal," ????????? she wrote to the Climate Action Web site.

Even marchers in gloves and parkas were wringing their hands to stay warm, and some protest leaders were having trouble providing updates on blog sites like Twitter.

"I admit, it's hard to tweet with cold hands!" wrote the author of the Capitol Climate Action Web site, who said the activists were "staying warm with a chant: 'Clean coal is a dirty lie.'"

The plant has been seized as a symbol of the government's energy excess, and the 99-year-old facility accounts for a third of the legislative branch's greenhouse gas emissions.

Protesters gathered earlier Monday in the Spirit of Justice Park near the Capitol and marched a few blocks to the power plant, where D.C. police set up a careful cordon.

In a press release supporting the protest, Greenpeace wrote that "coal is the country's biggest source of global warming pollution" and that "burning coal cuts short at least 24,000 lives in the U.S. annually."

On a blustery, frigid day, it might be worth noting the government's own stark numbers: pneumonia kills twice as many each year.
 
Good work.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Global warming concerns took center stage Monday as two organizations held rallies to draw attention to an issue that President Barack Obama has promised to place near the top of his agenda.


Demonstrators stand outside the Capitol Power Plant in Washington on Monday to protest the plant's use of coal.

A group of young protesters gathered in front of the Capitol to rally on behalf of legislation to reduce carbon emissions, decrease dependence on coal and oil, and speed a national drive toward "clean" energy.

Later Monday, hundreds of representatives of a coalition of environmental, public health, social justice and other advocacy organizations marched around Capitol Hill and encircled a Washington coal-fired power plant to highlight the issue of climate change.

The group, protesting the Capitol Power Plant's use of coal, stood in front of the plant's gated entrances. The plant powers the heating and cooling systems in the Capitol, as well as roughly a dozen other federal office buildings on Capitol Hill.

"The Capitol Power Plant, sitting just blocks from Capitol Hill, symbolizes the stranglehold coal has over our government and future," the group said on its Web site.

"It's not the largest or the dirtiest power plant in the country, but as the plant that is actually run by and for Congress it serves as an incredibly iconic symbol of what is wrong with our country's energy and climate policy."

No arrests were made as a result of the protest, which "didn't affect the operations of the power plant," Capitol police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said.

"Taking this major step toward cleaning up the Capitol Power Plant's emissions would be an important demonstration of Congress' willingness to deal with the enormous challenges of global warming, energy independence and our inefficient use of finite fossil fuels," they wrote.

Several members of Congress and environmental leaders addressed the earlier rally, which was held at the conclusion to Power Shift '09, a four-day environmental summit organized by the Energy Action Coalition.

The coalition describes itself as an umbrella organization of 700 groups fighting for "clean energy solutions and the creation of a new green economy."

It's time to "turn up the political heat in Washington so we can turn down the heat on Mother Earth," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, told the crowd. "The science tells us that the time for talking about this problem is over. The time for action is now."

The concept of "clean coal" is a "dirty lie," added environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy. "The most important thing you can do is not to change your light bulb but to change [members of Congress who have been] corrupted by ... dirty, filthy industry."

America needs to be freed from the "carbon cronies," who are part of the "biggest threat to civilization," Kennedy said.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/global.warming.protest/
 
aside from the whole environment thing...
we really do need to phase out coal, until we figure out a better use, and
better disposal of waste.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this precisely why they stopped using 'global warming' and began using 'climate change' instead?
 
eh, I still think the extreme climate thing is just the universe/solar system lining back up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top