Republicans seek to 'neuter' new global warming committee

[GaryC 7]

So it's a conspiracy? Seriously? Clearly no one is going to convince those who despise Al Gore that this is more than a liberal attempt to get more taxes. I just know that I'll do what I can. What's the harm in using a light bulb that will last for 7 years? Because it just MIGHT be a sign that you're 'buying into' the global warming conspiracy??

It has nothing to do with Algore. There is also nothing wrong with trying to conserve our energy. But to do it in the name of "saving us from Global Warming" and then imposing taxes and control over us is most defiantly wrong. By all means get your 7 year light bulb. By all means use less energy. But don't ram taxes down my throat and impose restrictions on how I live my life over this nonsense. Global Warming is politics. It's just the latest PC bullsh!t.

Fine but as 80% of the population beleive and it is a political issue then the GOP stand no chance at the next election.

Then we are truly doomed!

[mawilson 2,133]

Why does everyone want to *stop* global warming? Even if we caused it, it's already too late.

We should just accept it as a fact and be ready to deal with the consequences.

[GaryC 7]

Why does everyone want to *stop* global warming? Even if we caused it, it's already too late.

We should just accept it as a fact and be ready to deal with the consequences.

[GaryC 7]

Why does everyone want to *stop* global warming? Even if we caused it, it's already too late.

We should just accept it as a fact and be ready to deal with the consequences.

The libs should WANT GW. If it is true then the oceans will rise and then the poor folks that live inland will then have beach front property! I say lets have GW to help the poor!!!!

[Peikko 1,575]

3• "So what's a few degrees of warming?"

Contrarians often take advantage of the public's weather-oriented perspective when highlighting lower-end warming projections of "only" a few degrees. The 2001 IPCC and NCAR models projected a rise, based on various emission scenarios, of 2.5-10.5°F by 2100, with 4-7° being most likely. In terms of variable weather, it might not seem like much, but for global climate an average temperature rise of several degrees is quite large, and capable of impacting our interglacial biosphere. To help put things into perspective, global average emperature during the last glacial period was about 9°F lower than today's.

Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert notes that "So far we haven't quite gotten to 400ppm CO2, but we'll eventually go to 700 or more without controls. We haven't even seen the full warming effects of that 400ppm yet, because it takes time for the ocean to warm up. So, the striking thing is that it has already gotten to the point that the recent warming stands out from the natural variability of the past thousand years or more, despite the fact that so far we've only experienced the barest beginnings of the warming. That's not just striking. It ought to be alarming."

It has been argued that warming will be a steady, linear process, but this was based on model experiments starting with a 1% increase in CO2 as the only forcing, and assuming a pure exponential rise into the future. This disregards the potential of feedbacks to fuel a faster than simple exponential rise in GHG levels. What's actually happened is also interesting. As NASA's Gavin Schmidt notes, when Patrick Michaels first made this argument in the early 1990's, "he said the linear rate of change was 0.10 deg/decade, that changed to 0.12 deg/decade a couple of years later, then 0.15 deg/decade, and now 0.18 deg/decade. If linear extrapolation is so great now, how come it underestimated the actual trend by almost a factor of 2 fifteen years ago?"

Dr. Tim Flannery: "Our deep psychological resistance to thinking that "warm" might be bad allows us to be deceived about the nature of climate change. Those who have exploited this human blind spot have left many people - even the well-educated - confused. This is the result of an unhealthy, in some instances corrupt, relationship between government and industry".

28• "Extra CO2 will be beneficial/Enhanced plant growth will correct the imbalance."

It has been thought that higher CO² levels will enhance plant growth and benefit agriculture, especially in the near-term, but there's a little more to the story. Growing conditions are likely to change (insect populations, water availability, extreme weather events...), and a Stanford University study showed that elevated CO² only stimulated growth when nitrogen, water and temperature were at normal levels. It was also suggested that initially accelerated growth may cause an ecosystem to become more sensitive to limitation by nutrients other than nitrogen. Some "weedy" plants may benefit disproportionately from extra CO2, but regardless of present-day geologic limitations they would need to more than triple the terrestrial carbon sink to counter most of our current emissions. For more detail on other considerations in agriculture, see the consequences page referenced above.

Regarding the theory that enhanced plant growth (if it were to pan out overall, under real-world conditions) could bring CO² levels closer to equilibrium: Any enhancement of a carbon sink helps, but the accumulation already in progress is exceeding sequestration by plants, and oceanic dissolution.

http://globalwarmingtruth.org/

[fozzie 41]

nothing like a gw post to boost ones post count

[GaryC 7]

3• "So what's a few degrees of warming?"

Contrarians often take advantage of the public's weather-oriented perspective when highlighting lower-end warming projections of "only" a few degrees. The 2001 IPCC and NCAR models projected a rise, based on various emission scenarios, of 2.5-10.5°F by 2100, with 4-7° being most likely. In terms of variable weather, it might not seem like much, but for global climate an average temperature rise of several degrees is quite large, and capable of impacting our interglacial biosphere. To help put things into perspective, global average emperature during the last glacial period was about 9°F lower than today's.

Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert notes that "So far we haven't quite gotten to 400ppm CO2, but we'll eventually go to 700 or more without controls. We haven't even seen the full warming effects of that 400ppm yet, because it takes time for the ocean to warm up. So, the striking thing is that it has already gotten to the point that the recent warming stands out from the natural variability of the past thousand years or more, despite the fact that so far we've only experienced the barest beginnings of the warming. That's not just striking. It ought to be alarming."

It has been argued that warming will be a steady, linear process, but this was based on model experiments starting with a 1% increase in CO2 as the only forcing, and assuming a pure exponential rise into the future. This disregards the potential of feedbacks to fuel a faster than simple exponential rise in GHG levels. What's actually happened is also interesting. As NASA's Gavin Schmidt notes, when Patrick Michaels first made this argument in the early 1990's, "he said the linear rate of change was 0.10 deg/decade, that changed to 0.12 deg/decade a couple of years later, then 0.15 deg/decade, and now 0.18 deg/decade. If linear extrapolation is so great now, how come it underestimated the actual trend by almost a factor of 2 fifteen years ago?"

Dr. Tim Flannery: "Our deep psychological resistance to thinking that "warm" might be bad allows us to be deceived about the nature of climate change. Those who have exploited this human blind spot have left many people - even the well-educated - confused. This is the result of an unhealthy, in some instances corrupt, relationship between government and industry".

28• "Extra CO2 will be beneficial/Enhanced plant growth will correct the imbalance."

It has been thought that higher CO² levels will enhance plant growth and benefit agriculture, especially in the near-term, but there's a little more to the story. Growing conditions are likely to change (insect populations, water availability, extreme weather events...), and a Stanford University study showed that elevated CO² only stimulated growth when nitrogen, water and temperature were at normal levels. It was also suggested that initially accelerated growth may cause an ecosystem to become more sensitive to limitation by nutrients other than nitrogen. Some "weedy" plants may benefit disproportionately from extra CO2, but regardless of present-day geologic limitations they would need to more than triple the terrestrial carbon sink to counter most of our current emissions. For more detail on other considerations in agriculture, see the consequences page referenced above.

Regarding the theory that enhanced plant growth (if it were to pan out overall, under real-world conditions) could bring CO² levels closer to equilibrium: Any enhancement of a carbon sink helps, but the accumulation already in progress is exceeding sequestration by plants, and oceanic dissolution.

http://globalwarmingtruth.org/

That is all still conjecture. No one knows what will happen. I find the name of that site amusing. globalwarmingtruth? Who's truth? A few years ago scientists looked at the data and said we were in for a ice age because of pollution. Now they say we are going to get warmer? Which is it? The real truth about GW is that no one knows what will happen. It's all theory and conjecture with PC politics thrown in.

[Peikko 1,575]

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

[Peikko 1,575]

Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Edited March 10, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Fandango 1,439]

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

So if that's the case, solar power aint doin shiznit to help any of us.

[dalegg 143]

But he's sadly not alone -- apparently only 13 percent of Republicans believe global warming is caused by human activity (compared to 95 percent of Democrats). It seems the GOP is more than a little out of touch with where nearly 80 percent of Americans stand on the issue.

Global Warming is politics.

CO2 is plant food. 4% of CO2 is produced by humans and 96% by the earth (volcanoes etc..)

Why isn't Al Gore's house off the grid yet? What a hypocrite.

Soooooo that makes 100%.

Err....last time i checked nobody, not even rogue scientists or republicans, claimed thawe only produce 4%.

Yes CO2 is plant food but when you, and i mean the human race, cut down sooo many trees where does that extra co2 go? There is not enough plantlife left to absorb all thee extra co2 we produce.

Then you haven't ever checked. Even scientist and climatologists that warn against global warming put the number at 4%. Find me one who doesn't.

[GaryC 7]

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Thats one opinion. Here is another:

Global Warming and Hurricanes - Still No Connection

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091605F.html

A scientific team led by Peter Webster of the Georgia Institute of Technology today

published findings in Science magazine. The team claimed to have found evidence in

the historical record of both more tropical cyclones, such as Hurricane Katrina, but

also a higher percentage of more intense ones.

This follows on the heels of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Kerry Emanual

proclaiming in the Aug. 4 on-line edition of Nature magazine that he had found

evidence that global warming in the last 30 years was producing more intense

cyclones.

The conclusion many draw from papers such as these is that anthropogenic global

warming from the burning of fossil fuels by humans is causing more lethal storms. A

closer look, though, reveals not human actions but rather natural cycles are the

primary cause.

Much has already been written concerning the findings of Emanuel, and their

potential shortcomings, both by myself and others. So, in this article, let's focus on

the results this week in Science.

Webster and colleagues analyzed the occurrence of tropical systems of all strengths

across the principal regions of the world's oceans where they form -- the North

Atlantic, the Eastern Pacific, the Western Pacific, the Southwestern Pacific, and the

North and South Indian Ocean basins. They limited their analysis to the period since

1970 -- the time since satellites were first used to monitor tropical cyclone

development. During this same period, the sea surface temperature (SST) in these

basins increased by about 0.5ºC (or just under 1ºF). The researchers sought to

determine whether there were any changes in the patterns of hurricanes that could

be related to the warmer SSTs.

How Frequent?

They found that the total number of tropical storms (tropical cyclones with maximum

winds less than 75 mph) and hurricanes (tropical cyclones with winds equal to or

exceeding 75mph) varies a bit from year to year, but over the last 30 years, there

has been no trend towards either more or fewer storms. This is interesting because

in the North Atlantic Ocean (the primary basin where hurricanes form that effect the

United States), storms have become much more frequent since 1995. In other parts

of the world, however, such as in the Western and Eastern Pacific, and in the

Southern Hemisphere oceans, tropical cyclone frequency has declined since the early

1990s. Such variable behavior in the trends of storm frequency from around the

world led the researchers to conclude that:

In summary, careful analysis of global hurricane data shows that, against a

background of increasing SST, no global trend has yet emerged in the number

of tropical storms and hurricanes. Only one region, the North Atlantic, shows

a statistically significant increase, which commenced in 1995. However, a

simple attribution of the increase in numbers of storms to a warming SST

environment is not supported, because of the lack of a comparable correlation

in other ocean basins where SST is also increasing.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20050919.pdf

The point is that there is NO AGREEMENT when it comes to GW. We just don't know. For every study that claims we are having GW or that humans are causing it I can show you one that disputes it. It is reckless to go off half cocked and assume the worst.

Sorry, I just don't buy the whole man-made GW thing. If you want to play dueling studies I am game but it still will not change my mind.

[Peikko 1,575]

Huge difference between claiming there is no such thing as global warming and that global warming is not resposible for specific issues like the incidence of hurricanes.

Main point is, yes, there is GW skeptism and that's healthy but if there is (and there is) a majority of science that suggests that not only is GW taking place, but that it is also man made and that we are only just beginning to feel the true effects of it then it's a little blind/niave to insist that's it's all some left wing strategy to increase taxes.

Going off half cocked? You mean reducing emissions that are also proven to be harmful as polutants as well? Seems a prudent step to me.

[GaryC 7]

Huge difference between claiming there is no such thing as global warming and that global warming is not resposible for specific issues like the incidence of hurricanes.

Main point is, yes, there is GW skeptism and that's healthy but if there is (and there is) a majority of science that suggests that not only is GW taking place, but that it is also man made and that we are only just beginning to feel the true effects of it then it's a little blind/niave to insist that's it's all some left wing strategy to increase taxes.

Going off half cocked? You mean reducing emissions that are also proven to be harmful as polutants as well? Seems a prudent step to me.

Reducing pollutants? Yes if you mean SO2, CO and heavy metals. I am all for reducing things like that. I am also in favor of reducing our energy dependance on oil. But CO2 and GW? Nope, it just doesn't fly. It is an attempt to control and tax us. There is no credible evidence that man-made CO2 and GW have any correlation. It's not blind to see that it is an attempt to control us. It's the way it is.

[Alex102 0]

There does seem to be a strong scientific consensus reflected in the peer-reviewed literature and statements by the world's scientific academies. Unless one is going purely by ideology, paranoia, or fossil-funded pseudoscience, you can't help but conclude this is a real issue. Those who think (or want to believe) it's all a hoax have quite a case to prove - that thousands of researchers worldwide have conspired over almost three decades to corrupt an open scientific process.

As for cyclones, it's true that there's no clear trend in global frequency, but there does seem to be an intensity trend, and at least some of the data arguments were addressed here). When other conditions are favorable for storm development, warmer air carrying more water vapor is bound to have an effect. Whether it's very strong at this point seems to be a matter of some controversy and continuing research, but we are in the early stages of the warming trend. Thermal lag along with such a large CO2 accumulation means more in the "pipeline". This doesn't mean, though, that we can't limit it's severity, or that we have an excuse to continue pumping out billions of tons of CO2 a year. One reason climate projections are expressed as a range is because they're based on different emission scenarios. In any case, I'm not inclined to take scientific analysis from Pat Michaels, considering his past material and affiliations (here, here, and here. On that last one, these NASA anomaly maps are a bit inconvenient too):

Edited March 11, 2007 by Alex102