Settled fact?
This is was inspired by Skipper (in the comments section). Some more folks who do NOT think that human induced global warming is a "settled scientific fact".
First we have Bjorn Lomborg. A self described "slight lefty", he set out to write a book to debunk claims that the envionment is getting better.
"Bjorn Lomborg busted--and that is the only word for it--onto the world scene in 2001 with the publication of his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." A one-time Greenpeace enthusiast, he'd originally planned to disprove those who said the environment was getting better. He failed. And to his credit, his book said so, supplying a damning critique of today's environmental pessimism. Carefully researched, it offered endless statistics--from official sources such as the U.N.--showing that from biodiversity to global warming, there simply were no apocalypses in the offing. "Our history shows that we solve more problems than we create," he tells me. For his efforts, Mr. Lomborg was labeled a heretic by environmental groups--whose fundraising depends on scaring the jeepers out of the public--and became more hated by these alarmists than even (if possible) President Bush."
Second we have the Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory (as reported in the LA Times).
"An international team of scientists Thursday reported that rising temperatures were steadily transforming the Arctic — warming millions of square miles of permafrost, promoting lush greenery on previously arid tundras and steadily shrinking the annual sea ice.
Yet the researchers also found new patterns of cooling ocean currents and prevailing winds that suggested the Arctic, long considered a bellwether of global warming, may be reverting in some ways to more normal conditions not seen since the 1970s. " (emphasis mine)
Then we have a Nobel lauret who is saying that air pollution just might be able to COMBAT global warming.
"NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Air pollution may be just the thing to fight global warming, some scientists say.
Prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate, said a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere could act as a "shade" from the sun's rays and help cool the planet."
Regarding "greenhouse gasses", I found this little tidbit.
"The "greenhouse effect" actually is a bit player in global climate (although without it's benefits the average temperature of the Earth would be minus 18° C). Human's did not cause the greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise too much.
Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor. Of the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from human sources. If we are in fact in a global warming crisis, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have an undetectable effect on global climate. However, significant efforts to limit the emission of greenhouse gases in the United States are currently underway." (emphasis again mine)
Lastly Skipper - if cars and emissions are the "cause" of global warming, how do you explain the fact that there was a 400 year time period, PRIOR TO AUTOMOBILES and the internal combustion engine where global warming was a worse problem than it is today?
All I'm saying Skipper is that established science currently says that global warming and cooling is a cyclical phenomonal. All of the scientific record to date says that. IF greenhouse gases are indeed contributing to global warming, there is not enough scientific data YET to support that theory. More research is needed...that's all I'm saying.
First we have Bjorn Lomborg. A self described "slight lefty", he set out to write a book to debunk claims that the envionment is getting better.
"Bjorn Lomborg busted--and that is the only word for it--onto the world scene in 2001 with the publication of his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." A one-time Greenpeace enthusiast, he'd originally planned to disprove those who said the environment was getting better. He failed. And to his credit, his book said so, supplying a damning critique of today's environmental pessimism. Carefully researched, it offered endless statistics--from official sources such as the U.N.--showing that from biodiversity to global warming, there simply were no apocalypses in the offing. "Our history shows that we solve more problems than we create," he tells me. For his efforts, Mr. Lomborg was labeled a heretic by environmental groups--whose fundraising depends on scaring the jeepers out of the public--and became more hated by these alarmists than even (if possible) President Bush."
Second we have the Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory (as reported in the LA Times).
"An international team of scientists Thursday reported that rising temperatures were steadily transforming the Arctic — warming millions of square miles of permafrost, promoting lush greenery on previously arid tundras and steadily shrinking the annual sea ice.
Yet the researchers also found new patterns of cooling ocean currents and prevailing winds that suggested the Arctic, long considered a bellwether of global warming, may be reverting in some ways to more normal conditions not seen since the 1970s. " (emphasis mine)
Then we have a Nobel lauret who is saying that air pollution just might be able to COMBAT global warming.
"NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Air pollution may be just the thing to fight global warming, some scientists say.
Prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate, said a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere could act as a "shade" from the sun's rays and help cool the planet."
Regarding "greenhouse gasses", I found this little tidbit.
"The "greenhouse effect" actually is a bit player in global climate (although without it's benefits the average temperature of the Earth would be minus 18° C). Human's did not cause the greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise too much.
Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor. Of the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from human sources. If we are in fact in a global warming crisis, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have an undetectable effect on global climate. However, significant efforts to limit the emission of greenhouse gases in the United States are currently underway." (emphasis again mine)
Lastly Skipper - if cars and emissions are the "cause" of global warming, how do you explain the fact that there was a 400 year time period, PRIOR TO AUTOMOBILES and the internal combustion engine where global warming was a worse problem than it is today?
All I'm saying Skipper is that established science currently says that global warming and cooling is a cyclical phenomonal. All of the scientific record to date says that. IF greenhouse gases are indeed contributing to global warming, there is not enough scientific data YET to support that theory. More research is needed...that's all I'm saying.
posted by The Lady Logician at
7:02 PM
3 Comments:
Bjorm Lomborg is a political scientist not a climate scientist. Most climate scientists are critical of Lomborg's work.
The LA Times article supports the existence of global warming as it indicates that tehmperatures in the Arctic are up by an average of over one degree. But it says that the region is fighting back in an affort to establish a balance.
The fact that a layer of air pollution may be blocking the effects of global warming somewhat by shielding the sun is rather sad. It is hardly desirable to pollute the air, which makes it more difficult for people to breathe. A better answer forglobal warming is to reduce man's emission of greenhouse gases. And many sources would dispute your source claiming this would be cost prohibitive.
Established science says that global warming is a serious problem caused in significant part by man. It's time to address it not ignore it the way Bush has done. In my view global warming is as serious a problem as terrorism.
By
Anonymous, at 9:39 AM
I don't think the Lady will be able to change skipper60601's mind. He seems quite faithful to his religion.
By
Anonymous, at 3:42 PM
I'm faithful to the findings of the vast majority of climate scientists. Those who do not believe in global warming are the ones who are relying on politics, religion or something other than science.
By
Anonymous, at 3:50 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home