Bring on Global warming!!!

[x-y-no]

I'll be charitable and assume that he didn't understand (even though it's explained in the lead-in) that Kirk-Davidoff's comments were part of a long thread of replys to the previous posting on the realclimate site, and that the "others" referenced here were earlier replies in that same thread.

Non-sequitur, the point he was making was that in a "point-by-point" rebuttal, one does not gloss over a "point" by simply referencing previous posts--they rebut the point!

I can't agree. Kirk-Davidoff was participating in an extended discussion, his being one of over a hundred comments in the thread. In that context, I don't see the sense in requiring that he reiterate rebuttals already made - it's perfectly sufficient to reference them. To me that's not "glossing over" - it's simple courtesy not to wast anyone's time being repetetive.

But that's the thing, you see. Lindzen is very careful to not claim that man isn't responsible for the increase, because he knows that claim is indefensible.

But, logically, that's NOT the thing.
IF we have a sharp increase in CO2 AND
IF CO2 is the primary mover of a global warming threat, AND
IF we state that the claims "neither constitue support for alarm NOR Establish Man's responsibility... THEN the ONLY Logical conclusion is that
It is NOT an "established" fact that man is the responsible culprit for EITHER the global warming phenomena OR the increased CO2 levels...

The logic of what he has stated is patently obvious.

I have to admit your argument makes sense. I've tried mightily to avoid accusing Lindzen of a deliberate lie, but you're backing me into a corner. He does indeed seem to be neccesarily implying something which he knows to be false.

As to the isotopic analysis, I addressed this in an earlier statement (no not another default...simply laziness at this point; but I DID address it.. I still say the jury has NOT established with certifiable finality that human causality is THE and ONLY the culprit.)

A2K

I'm sorry, but the attribution of the entire observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide to human activity is as well established at this point as can be. Rather than re-inventing the wheel, I'll quote this explanation:

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?


Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase -- around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges -- whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry -- show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere -- which took many thousand years -- was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 1731–1748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79

[x-y-no]

You see, it's exactly THIS kind of attitude that immediately turns me off regarding there being tolerance for any objectivity on a website:

In this very thread from Realclimate.com

...

Well I have no idea who "John L. McCormick" (the author of that comment) is, but I hardly think it fair of you to accuse the authors of realclimate of bias because this guy attacks them for not censoring what he terms "bozos".

Can you explain to me how the site authors are responsible for Mr. McCormick's intemperance?

[Audrey2Katrina]

I can't agree. Kirk-Davidoff was participating in an extended discussion, his being one of over a hundred comments in the thread. In that context, I don't see the sense in requiring that he reiterate rebuttals already made - it's perfectly sufficient to reference them. To me that's not "glossing over" - it's simple courtesy not to wast anyone's time being repetetive.

Well, we'll disagree on this one because when you openly claim in bold print that yours is a "point-by-point" and then gloss over an important tenet of your argument by stating it was "already referenced"... you fail in the point-by-point analysis. Perhaps he would have been better off simply calling it "a refutation of points made by Lindzer" instead of claiming point-by-point... it is quite possible that in the course of the entire thread MANY of these points were equally referenced.

I have to admit you're argument makes sense. I've tried mightily to avoid accusing Lindzen of a deliberate lie, but you're backing me into a corner. He does indeed seem to be neccesarily implying something which he knows to be false.

..or perhaps he simply does agree with the majority consensus and simply feels it is not false.

This statement was made before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in March of 2004.

Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Warsaw, Poland

I am a Professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection (CLOR) in Warsaw, Poland, a governmental institution, involved in environmental studies. CLOR has a “Special Liaison” relationship with the US National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements (NCRP). In the past, for about ten years, CLOR closely cooperated with the US Environmental Protection Agency, in research on the influence of industry and nuclear explosions on pollution of the global environment and population. I published about 280 scientific papers, among them about 20 on climatic problems. I am the representative of Poland in the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and in 1980 – 1982 I was the chairman of this Committee.

For the past 40 years I was involved in glacier studies, using snow and ice as a matrix for reconstruction of history of man-made pollution of the global atmosphere. A part of these studies was related to the climatic issues. Ice core records of CO2 have been widely used as a proof that, due to man’s activity the current atmospheric level of CO2 is about 25% higher than in the pre-industrial period. These records became the basic input parameters in the models of the global carbon cycle and a cornerstone of the man-made climatic warming hypothesis. These records do not represent the atmospheric reality, as I will try to demonstrate in my statement.

Relevant Background

In order to study the history of industrial pollution of the global atmosphere, between 1972 and 1980, I organized 11 glacier expeditions, which measured natural and man-made pollutants in contemporary and ancient precipitation, preserved in 17 glaciers in Arctic, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, the Peruvian Andes and in Tatra Mountains in Poland. I also measured long-term changes of dust in the troposphere and stratosphere, and the lead content in humans living in Europe and elsewhere during the past 5000 years. In 1968 I published the first paper on lead content in glacier ice[1]. Later I demonstrated that in pre-industrial period the total flux of lead into the global atmosphere was higher than in the 20th century, that the atmospheric content of lead is dominated by natural sources, and that the lead level in humans in Medieval Ages was 10 to 100 times higher than in the 20th century. In the 1990s I was working in the Norwegian Polar Research Institute in Oslo, and in the Japanese National Institute of Polar Research in Tokyo. In this period I studied the effects of climatic change on polar regions, and the reliability of glacier studies for estimation of CO2 concentration in the ancient atmosphere.

FALSE LOW PRE-INDUSTRIAL CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE

Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to –73oC) contains liquid water[2]. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice[3].

One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates. In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules. Drilling decompresses cores excavated from deep ice, and contaminates them with the drilling fluid filling the borehole. Decompression leads to dense horizontal cracking of cores, by a well known sheeting process. After decompression of the ice cores, the solid clathrates decompose into a gas form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades. In the bubble-free ice the explosions form a new gas cavities and new cracks[4]. Through these cracks, and cracks formed by sheeting, a part of gas escapes first into the drilling liquid which fills the borehole, and then at the surface to the atmospheric air. Particular gases, CO2, O2 and N2 trapped in the deep cold ice start to form clathrates, and leave the air bubbles, at different pressures and depth. At the ice temperature of –15oC dissociation pressure for N2 is about 100 bars, for O2 75 bars, and for CO2 5 bars. Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 meter depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 meters. This leads to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice sheets. This is why the records of CO2 concentration in the gas inclusions from deep polar ice show the values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for the epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now.
Figures 1A and 1B
The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica[5, 6], are widely used as a proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC[7]. These data show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth (Figure 1 A). The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was “too high”. This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple.

An ad hoc assumption, not supported by any factual evidence[3, 9], solved the problem: the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The “corrected” ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record (Figure 1 B), and reproduced in countless publications as a famous “Siple curve”. Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the “age assumption”[10], but they failed[9].





Figure 2

The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].

Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a falsified “Siple curve”, but also in its 2001 report[14] used as a flagship the “hockey curve” of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine[15]. In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology [16, 17] (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion “climatic” dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials [18, 19]. The disease, seems to be persistent.

Conclusion

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning. The climatically inefficient and economically disastrous Kyoto Protocol, based on IPCC projections, was correctly defined by President George W. Bush as “fatally flawed”. This criticism was recently followed by the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin. I hope that their rational views might save the world from enormous damage that could be induced by implementing recommendations based on distorted science.


References

1. Jaworowski, Z., Stable lead in fossil ice and bones. Nature, 1968. 217: p. 152-153.
2. Mulvaney, R., E.W. Wolff, and K. Oates, Sulpfuric acid at grain goundaries in Antarctic ice. Nature, 1988. 331(247-249).
3. Jaworowski, Z., T.V. Segalstad, and N. Ono, Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? The Science of the Total Environment, 1992. 114: p. 227-284.
4. Shoji, H. and C.C. Langway Jr., Volume relaxation of air inclusions in a fresh ice core. Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1983. 87: p. 4111-4114.
5. Neftel, A., et al., Evidence from polar ice cores for the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries. Nature, 1985. 315: p. 45-47.
6. Friedli, H., et al., Ice core record of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries. Nature, 1986. 324: p. 237-238.
7. IPCC, Climate Change - The IPCC Scientific Assessment. ed. J.T. Houghton et al. 1990, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 364.
8. Boden, T.A., P. Kanciruk, and M.P. Farrel, TRENDS '90 - A Compendium of Data on Global Change. 1990, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, Tennssee, pp. 257.
9. Jaworowski, Z., Ancient atmosphere - validity of ice records. Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res., 1994. 1(3): p. 161-171.
10. Schwander, J., et al., The age of the air in the firn and the ice at Summit, Greenland. J. Geophys. Res., 1993. 98(D2): p. 2831-2838.
11. Slocum, G., Has the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere changed significantly since the beginning of the twentieth century? Month. Weather Rev., 1955(October): p. 225-231.
12. Callendar, G.S., On the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Tellus, 1958. 10: p. 243-248.
13. Wagner, F., et al., Century-scale shifts in Early Holocene atmospheric CO2 concentration. Science, 1999. 284: p. 1971-1973.
14. IPCC, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis., ed. J.T. Houton et al. 2001, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 892.
15. Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes, Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature, 1998. 392: p. 779-787.
16. Soon, W., et al., Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the past 1000 years: A Reappraisal. Energy & Environment, 2003. 14: p. 233-296.
17. McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick, Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and Northern hemispheric average temperature series. Energy & Environment, 2003. 14(6): p. 751-771.
18. Editorial, A., IPCC's ritual on global warming. Nature, 1994. 371: p. 269.
19. Maddox, J., Making global warming public property. Nature, 1991. 349: p. 189.

As for the tree ring data--I doubt they found any trees 10,000 years old, but perhaps I'm wrong--but I doubt it. Additionally, as can be seen, there IS conflicting data if one is desirous to find it.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Well I have no idea who "John L. McCormick" (the author of that comment) is, but I hardly think it fair of you to accuse the authors of realclimate of bias because this guy attacks them for not censoring what he terms "bozos".

Can you explain to me how the site authors are responsible for Mr. McCormick's intemperance?

I'm not holding them responsible for his intemperance, (although similar attitudes have been reflected by others on the same website)... I'm holding them responsible for not monitoring their site well enough to see that "flaming" is strictly not tolerated. This kind of insult level would not be tolerated here for very long, and I applaud that. Censorship? perhaps... but demanding civility in expressing differing viewpoints is hardy tantamount to blatant censorship. They apparently do nothing to discourage this kind of intemperance... which makes it an immediate turnoff to those who are looking for objectivity when searching for information.

A2K

[x-y-no]

I can't agree. Kirk-Davidoff was participating in an extended discussion, his being one of over a hundred comments in the thread. In that context, I don't see the sense in requiring that he reiterate rebuttals already made - it's perfectly sufficient to reference them. To me that's not "glossing over" - it's simple courtesy not to wast anyone's time being repetetive.

Well, we'll disagree on this one because when you openly claim in bold print that yours is a "point-by-point" and then gloss over an important tenet of your argument by stating it was "already referenced"... you fail in the point-by-point analysis. Perhaps he would have been better off simply calling it "a refutation of points made by Lindzer" instead of claiming point-by-point... it is quite possible that in the course of the entire thread MANY of these points were equally referenced.

Aren't we getting a little petty here? He did mention the point and reference where to find responses ... but whatever - as you say we'll have to agree to disagree.

In my opinion, it's a pretty tiny trangression compared to Lindzen's.

I have to admit you're argument makes sense. I've tried mightily to avoid accusing Lindzen of a deliberate lie, but you're backing me into a corner. He does indeed seem to be neccesarily implying something which he knows to be false.

..or perhaps he simply does agree with the majority consensus and simply feels it is not false.

I don't know how to make any progress on this front. I'm absolutely certain that Lindzen does not believe that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 has some other origin than human activity. There's simply no way he's ignorant of the very solid evidence.

But short of finding a direct quote from him on the topic, I don't know how to demonstrate that to you.

...

I don't know why you posted the testimony of Prof. Jaworowski. As far as I can see, it doesn't address the issue of isotopic evidence for the human origin of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1850.

[Audrey2Katrina]

In my opinion, it's a pretty tiny trangression compared to Lindzen's.

I don't know that Lindzen's guilty of any transgression, and yeah, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

I don't know why you posted the testimony of Prof. Jaworowski. As far as I can see, it doesn't address the issue of isotopic evidence for the human origin of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1850.

I referenced it because there is a reference to the 13C/12C study in the notes on Figures 1A and 1B, and despite all the isotopic discussion, it's the levels of CO2 and whether or not it's man induced that is at the core (no pun intended) of the debate:

The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica[5, 6], are widely used as a proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC[7]. These data show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth (Figure 1 A). The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was “too high”. This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple

Clearly by this information the CO2 levels of 1890 and 1978 are virtually unchanged.... one would think with all the further industrialization and other "man-made" factors, this count would be significantly different. In essence, his claim is that the figures for the pre-industrial CO2 have been underestimated.

A2K

[x-y-no]

Regarding Prof. Joworowski's statement:

You might be interested in this comprehensive (dare I say "point-by-point" ) analysis.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Regarding Prof. Joworowski's statement:

You might be interested in this comprehensive (dare I say "point-by-point" ) analysis.

Touche, I guess turnabout is indeed, fair play. While I cannot at this time find proof positive that Jaworowski did, in fact, address the US Senate, I do have some connections therein whereby I hope to resolve the first accusation made in that rather lengthy diatribe. While I admit it did present a very convincing article, I still say that 1.) it is only too typical of the attitude of derision that the advocates of AGW have for anyone daring to disagree with them. and 2.) A lot of the ad-hominems aside (neatly ensconced within the article) the interpretation of a lot of that data is subject to getting the reader utterly swamped in enough technical jargon that they can easily come away being overwhelmed into feeling --well, intimidated, that they do NOT realize there is a growing body of people who legitimately have become skeptical of the AGW models.

One example is found in looking closer at Ian Lowe's book "Radical Solutions for Australia's Environmental Crisis" in which he seems to suggest, as do you, that the consensus is so overwhelming, that perhaps the credible "skeptics" worldwide number, perhaps less than FIVE (I KNOW you don't put it that low, but LOWE does--a lot of lowe's there!). So distortion of fact and playing around with the truth also cuts both ways. Now I haven't "Snoped" it to be certain; but I have done enough looking around to believe this a credible statement and regarding the "consensus" I found this interesting as well. Perhaps you'll debunk this too, in which I will stand corrected; but from everything I've read it, too, is from a credible source:

This is ALSO dated April of 2006:

An open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Dear Prime Minister

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system.

Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K."

Looks like the "consensus" isn't quite as universal as we are led to believe, and the fact that there are bona-fide scientists who simply will not be led by the nose to the alarmist viewpoint is just as undeniable as... well,... global warming..albeit not necessarily anthropogenic

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Must be something to it as Tim Lambert went on a tirade about it with a blog note dated today (LOL how recent is that)
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/04/the_climate_scientists_strike.php#more Gasp!

With the exception of ONE of the scientists who claims he was duped into signing the document (speaks volumes of his capacity to read what he signs), all Lambert manages is an attack against those who DID with intent sign it... again... when confronted with opposition--deride, insult, and triviaize. Attack the messenger because you don't like the message seems to be their MO of choice.

A2K

[Aslkahuna]

Well, 380 ppm is 35.7% above 280 ppm which represents (as I said some time ago) our contribution to the cause. Now, the problem is that the atmospheric response is not going to reflect that number very well due to the way the atmosphere works. Also as I said earlier, Scientists in the Solar field who realize that we are in a period of heightened Solar activity which tends to result in more energy from the Sun feel that this can account for about 30% of the observed warming. That means that we somehow have to account for the remaining 70%. If we do a one on one with our CO2 contribution then we would be responsible for a bit over half of that remainder though I suspect that it's perhaps actually more as I don't think that we have found any strictly natural processes (with no interference from us) that could result in 35% of the observed warming. So for S's and G's, let's presume (and I'm only speculating here) that we have 30% Solar and 10-15% other natural causes which would result in our contribution being 55-60%. This would fit well with the idea that the observed warming is a combination of natural and anthropogenic but would also mean most of it was AGW but not all. We CAN'T overlook that Solar factor because there's too much evidence to it's effect upon the climate system in both directions in the past. The fact that Solar activity has been at a level to support GW since the mid 1940's means that there has to be a natural contribution to the warming since then.

Steve

[Audrey2Katrina]

I concur with much of what you've stated, Steve; but after doing some of the reading I've been doing, I'm not really all that certain that it's risen from 280 to 380 ppm as is being bandied about. There ARE scientists who feel the science behind arriving at these conclusions is flawed. I don't know that I agree with them completely (before someone jumps on that like a duck on a june-bug) but they have given me pause to ponder.

All in all, you've both given me a lot to think and read about. I'm still by no stretch going to jump onto the alarmist bandwagon that AGW is correct and it's almost all our fault--but I concede some excellent points in its behalf have been presented and are certainly worth looking into further--but I DO intend to peruse as much of the opposing viewpoints as those of the adherents--just keeping it fair and balanced.

Thanks!

A2K

[x-y-no]

Well, that letter appears to be almost entirely a political document, so I don't know what response I could appropriately make in this forum to the bulk of it.

I'll only say that the statement that "[o]bservational evidence does not support today's computer climate models" is false. The observed amount and geographical pattern of climate change is squarely in the middle of where the model predictions have been for well over a decade.

EDIT: I just noticed they repeated this canard:

It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe.

As we've already been over several times in this forum, this claim is false (assuming that by the pejorative "global-warming alarmists" they mean climate scientists of any sort).

---


Regarding this:

I'm not really all that certain that it's risen from 280 to 380 ppm as is being bandied about.

You've really allowed yourself to be led astray. There is no reasonable doubt about this fact.

[Audrey2Katrina]

As we've already been over several times in this forum, this claim is false (assuming that by the pejorative "global-warming alarmists" they mean climate scientists of any sort).

well since a large number of these who've signed the document ARE climate scientists of a sort, that unanimity just isn't there.

You've really allowed yourself to be led astray. There is no reasonable doubt about this fact.

I haven't been "led" anywhere, x-y, but I have been stimulated to want to know more about it. You may well be correct, and perhaps one day I'll be in complete accord with you on that conclusion--it's just that I can't say I have reached that point yet--too many variables and other opinions I have to query.

But as said earlier, your civil input and the discourse is greatly appreciated, and I assure you has not fallen on deaf ears. I shall look further.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Okay, x-y, (hope you don't mind that appellation, if you do, just let me know) here is a very academic look at isotopic variations and the paleoclimatology as well as the CO2 and greenhouse gasses/effect.

http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-12/p16.html

Can't deny there's a LOT of science in there while I fully know it doesn't dispell any claims either way, it provides some interesting food for thought.

A2K

[x-y-no]

Okay, x-y, (hope you don't mind that appellation, if you do, just let me know) here is a very academic look at isotopic variations and the paleoclimatology as well as the CO2 and greenhouse gasses/effect.

http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-12/p16.html

Can't deny there's a LOT of science in there while I fully know it doesn't dispell any claims either way, it provides some interesting food for thought.

A2K

That's an interesting report, but it has to do with difficulties in interpreting evidence in the sedimentary record of the temperature of the tropical ocean 50 million years ago. Nothing to do with the issue at hand, as far as I can see.


(BTW, my name is Jan, please feel free to call me that, or x-y-no, as you wish)

[Audrey2Katrina]

Nothing to do with the issue at hand, as far as I can see.

probably not; but as you said, I thought it was an interesting read as paleoclimatology is another of my sundry interests.

A2K

[sponger]

By far, the most heated GW debate we have had. And that is saying somthing.

[Aslkahuna]

I would prefer the term spirited since there was no major flaming and we managed to keep the Science in and the Politics out for the most part. What you saw in this discussion is the level of intensity of the debate in the Academic arena when politics are left out.

Steve

[Sanibel]

I found the answers to my question about 3 times any previous uprise in CO2 sorely lacking.


The quote by Lindzen telling us not to worry about a 30% increase in total CO2 is a false rendering of the actual data. He avoids telling us that 30% represents a spike 3 times sharper than any previous uprises recorded in ice-core samples. You can't just blow-off such an indicator and not relate its relevance to natural CO2 rises. What this is telling us is this present uprise is unprecedented and happening on an earth that has never been so compromised by land clearing and other impacts. It doesn't have the same feedback abilities because it isn't like any previous earth. When I read these expert overviews I'm struck by the fact they ignore these changes and things like jets seeding exhaust high in the sky etc.

Whether or not Lindzen is an experienced scientist has nothing to do with this. I consider this specific point important and don't feel it is being answered.





Somebody else asked why there were less cyclones in other basins if global warming was causing worse storms? Well the earth isn't necessarily that simple and it doesn't necessarily operate on a direct relationship basis. Those other basins could experience atmospheric changes or even changing currents that alter the previous cyclone troughs. In any case we just saw what could be Australia's strongest cyclone blow by the north coast of Australia.

And how many times have we seen a headline like, "Hurricane 95% due to
normal weather fluctuations, 5% due to alleged anthropogenic global
warming"? The point goes to Prof. Lindzen.

This is a good example right here. Where does Lindzen disprove the possibility (or even address it at all) of a parabolic relationship between the two? If Global Warming's influence on cyclones is parabolic that means the extra 5% could make the difference between a record low pressure category 5 and a category 4. Indeed if the relationship is parabolic it would increase exponentially - making much more difference than Lindzen suggests. To me, that's numbers fiddling to produce an implied result.

What if that 5% is the difference between an intact house and a flat slab? Would the headlines tell you that?


Edit - After thinking about the Warsaw claim it doesn't make sense. If CO2 readings were skewed by chemical changes in the deep ice they wouldn't have been able to chart the rises and falls seen from those same samples. I don't mean to be skeptical, but maybe this science isn't accurate either. I don't think that all claims from the other side should be taken without scrutiny either. If I understand Warsaw correctly they say the lowest CO2 in the ice samples was too low because it was altered by chemical changes in the deep ice. However, those same samples show rises and falls over 500 thousand years. So that alone is telling you the samples are charting the changes in CO2 levels. Since those changes are directly associated to ice-ages and other significant world climate events you can say the cores ARE valid readers of CO2 level changes.

We can go further and say the tree ring carbon 12/13 isotopes unequivocally show the man-made CO2. What gets to me is Lindzen and others know man has injected billions of tons of CO2 over the last century. They sort of shuffle the deck around and don't really explain what happened to it. The feedback cycle absorbs some, but, to me, it isn't hiding the elephant in the room. Even Lindzen himself admits to the 30% he then downplays. So we know he acknowledges at least 30% - 30% not absorbed by any feedback mechanism.