Global Warming debate is over.

Global Warming debate is over.

scientists very recently compiled data from ice cores that provide atmospheric gas levels for the last million years, and the evidence shows what we’re seeing today has never been seen before. With this evidence the consensus on global warming and it’s causes is complete. The debate is over, and although the truth is inconvenient it must be dealt with, not denied.

November 16, 2004

The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator McCain:

As you know, climate varies in the Arctic more than globally-averaged measures reveal, prompting not inconsiderable ecosystem responses.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report by the Arctic Council documents significant ecosystem response to surface temperature warming trends that occurred in some areas since the mid-19th century and in the last thirty years.

Estimates of the amount of surface warming trends over those periods and their causes relies on scientific knowledge of natural and anthropogenic effects, the latter including landscape modification, urbanization, plus the air's concentration of aerosols and greenhouse gases. Moreover, Arctic climate varies dramatically from one region to another, and over time in ways that cannot be accurately reproduced by climate models. The quantitative impacts of natural and anthropogenic factors remain highly uncertain, especially for a region as complex as the Arctic.

For example, for Greenland's instrumental surface temperatures a team of experts headed at Los Alamos National Laboratory recently found:

Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet, the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2 degrees C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987. This suggests that the Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend.(1)

Analysis of ice corings of the Penny Ice Cap on Baffin Island show that the recent warming trend is unexceptional compared to natural variability in centuries past, when the enhanced greenhouse effect cannot have had much impact:

Our sea-salt record suggests that, while the turn of the [21st] century was characterized by generally milder sea-ice conditions in Baffin Bay, the last few decades of sea-ice extent lie within Little Ice Age variability and correspond to instrumental records of lower temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic over the past three decades.(2)

From a detailed study of sea core sediment from the last 10,000 years in the Chukchi Sea, researchers concluded that, "in the recent past, the western Arctic Ocean was much warmer than it is today." They also found that "during the middle Holocene [approximately 6,000 years ago] the August sea surface temperature fluctuated by 5 degrees C and was 3-7 degrees C warmer than it is today,"(3)

The relatively recent discovery of the PDO, or Pacific Decadal Oscillation,(4) points to a strong natural component of the recent warming trend. Researchers noted in 1997:

Our results add support to those of previous studies suggesting that the climatic regime shift of the late 1970's is not unique in the century- long instrumental climate record, nor in the record of North Pacific salmon production. In fact, we find that signatures of a recurring pattern of interdecadal climate variability are widespread and detectable in a variety of Pacific basin climate and ecological systems. This climate pattern -- hereafter referred to as the Pacific (inter)Decadal Oscillation, or PDO (following co-author S.R.H.'s suggestion) -- is a pan-Pacific phenomenon that also includes interdecadal climate variability in the tropical Pacific.

The Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976-1977 is typical in the documented pattern of natural climate fluctuations going back at least several centuries. In Alaska in particular, although the onset of the 1976-1977 shift ended the several-decades-long period of cold in the middle of the 20th century recorded by many of Alaska's good weather station records, it returned temperatures to warmth seen in the early decades of the 20th century. Thus, it is unsurprising that Alaskan ecosystems have responded to recent warmth, which has the characteristic step-upward shape of the PDO, but not the gradual but large warming trend implied by the enhanced greenhouse effect.

The PDO may have shifted back in 1998-99 to its mid-20th century state, which would tend to deliver sharply cooler temperatures in the next several decades to the western U.S., including western and southern Alaska. For example, scientists from British Columbia's Institute of Ocean Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans and Oregon State University's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences found recent cooling of the North Pacific:

Subsurface upper ocean waters off Oregon and Vancouver Island were about 1 degree C cooler in July 2002 than in July 2001. The anomalously cool layer coincides with the permanent halocline which has salinities 32.2 to 33.8, suggesting an invasion of nutrient-rich Subarctic waters. The anomalously cool layer lies at 30-150 m.(5)

Surface air temperatures (SAT) going back 125 years were studied from "newly available long-term Russian observations of SAT from coastal stations, and sea-ice extent and fast-ice thickness from the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chuckchi seas."(6) Those researchers found "strong intrinsic variability, dominated by multi-decadal fluctuations with a timescale of 60-80 years." Comparing those measures of Arctic regional variability to that of computer simulations, the researchers concluded that observations do "not support amplified warming in Polar Regions predicted by GCMs [General Circulation Models]."

A comprehensive study of Arctic temperature records(7) found that "in the Arctic in the period 1951-90, no tangible manifestations of the greenhouse effect can be identified." However, strong year-to-year variability is present, as the researcher notes that "a more recent analysis of mean seasonal and annual air-temperature trends in the Arctic (Przybylak, in press) shows that in the mid-1990s there occurred quite a large rise in air temperature," and as a consequence, "the areally averaged annual air temperature for the whole Arctic for the last 5 year period of the 20th century was the warmest since 1950 (1.0 degree C above the 1951-90 average)."

Those examples demonstrate that Arctic climate has and will continue to exhibit intricate patterns not reliably reproduced by global climate simulations, thus underscoring their scientific incompleteness and need for advances in Arctic climate science, in measurements, theory and models.

The history of the Arctic and its ecosystems remains complex, a fact too often perceived by reporters under deadline or extremists as irrelevant nuance. Ecosystems and humans survived the warming at the beginning of the 20th century, as they survived the warmth from A.D. 900 to 1200, when Thule people migrated from Alaska across the Arctic while Vikings farmed in Greenland soil now permafrost and sailed in Arctic waters now permanent pack ice. They survived the warming of the last 15,000 years as earth emerged from the last glacial period, whose termination produced much more radical temperature shocks than those observed in the last several decades.

As Professor Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and IPCC author concluded in testimony before your May 1, 2001 Commerce Committee hearing:

The question of where do we go from here is an obvious and important one. From my provincial perspective, an important priority should be given to figuring out how to support and encourage science (and basic science underlying climate in particular) while removing incentives to promote alarmism. The benefits of leaving future generations a better understanding of nature would far outweigh the benefits (if any) of ill thought out attempts to regulate nature in the absence of such understanding.

We appreciate your efforts to support scientific fact-finding concerning responses of Arctic ecosystems to climate variability.

Sincerely,

November 16, 2004

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also...

Quote has been trimmed

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

Here's a clue for ya: when people are funded and paid for by companies like Exxon to say things about global warming, just turn the page. Ignore.

Because the Liberals support Kyoto. It's a wealth transfer scheme.

You might believe there is a consensus about why the world is getting warmer, but I don't.

You want to blame it on "Multinational corporate interests" and I want to blame Liberals and their ilk.

Those countries that have not signed, for the most part, are those countries so embroiled in conflict , and violence, that ecology is their least concern

Those countries that have not signed, for the most part, are those countries so embroiled in conflict , and violence, that ecology is their least concern

Letter to the editor of the Welland Tribune
Date: October 25, 2005
Subject: Suzuki needs to accept differing opinions
Speaking as one of the "rogue scientists" who disagree with David Suzuki's views on climate change ("Speaking out in the name of science", October 1, Suzuki must accept that if scientists should be advocates, they will not all advocate what he believes. He cannot chastise us for keeping quiet, and then dismiss us when we speak out in a manner contrary to his beliefs. That is irrational.
As far as speaking for insiders on climate change, I would simply ask what scientific circles Suzuki travels in these days - certainly not climate science as far as I know. In real science, and climate science is no exception, there is plenty of controversy. Being a "rogue" in science is the norm and is largely accepted.
While consensus may exist for earlier theories (e.g. a heliocentric solar system or continental drift) it is seldom observed in areas of active research (e.g. nuclear waste disposal or climate science). Until there is proof with empirical data and independent verification, controversy and debate will reign in science. A "consensus" is abnormal and should be viewed with suspicion as political meddling.

Quote has been trimmed

Got any 3 page quotes from scientists who believe smoking doesn't cause cancer?

Where as that might be true, China, India and the US have about 3 ish billion people in them and none of them fall into that category. Many nations will benefit greatly from this wealth transfer scheme. There are better ways to go about doing this.

As one of the articles on the link I posted asks...why can't we have a scientific debate on this issue (in Canada) before we jump onto something like Kyoto? We simply do not have the information we need to make a sound judgment, and how people can believe this all to be "fact" is beyond me.

I encourage you to read the link and refute these points.....it needs to be done.

[
when we make the rules we'll sent them thier orders of compliance.

Quote: Originally Posted by proudpegger

Got any 3 page quotes from scientists who believe smoking doesn't cause cancer?

It's not the disease or the cause I'm concerned with, it's the proposed cure/solution.

At least they test cancer drugs before launching them on the public. A bullet to the head would stop all cancers but no one proposes that as a cure. Make sure the cure is not worse than the disease.

I have no confidence that the proposed solution will have any impact on climate change at all.

Is there any proof that reducing CO2 emmissions below 1990 targets will do anything to address climate change? I know we are all supposed to be good little lemmings and not ask any questions, but I'm uncomfortable adhering to Kyoto when there is not proof that it's the right solution.

As well, when reading research from scientists I try to keep in mind that this is a person (or prganization) that relies on research grants from government and industry. It rarely taints the research but these scientists are open to the same criticism as industry scientists.

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

[
when we make the rules we'll sent them thier orders of compliance.

Who exactly is "we"? Surely not the NDP, or is this some radical communist coup you are planning?

Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

[
when we make the rules we'll sent them thier orders of compliance.

Who exactly is "we"? Surely not the NDP, or is this some radical communist coup you are planning?

We, that would be me and the other sane intelligent handsome charming people on the planet. You know the club you can't get into yet.

Alot of things seem to be beyond you Jay,

Quote:

Alot of things seem to be beyond you Jay,

Ya like how you made it this far.

In the early years, when the science was still somewhat in doubt, many companies from the oil industry, the auto industry and other sectors were members of a group called the Global Climate Coalition, whose de facto purpose was to oppose curbs on greenhouse gases. But as the scientific evidence became clearer, many members - including oil companies like BP and Shell - left the organization and conceded the need to do something about global warming.
Exxon, headed by Mr. Raymond, chose a different course of action: it decided to fight the science.
A leaked memo from a 1998 meeting at the American Petroleum Institute, in which Exxon (which hadn't yet merged with Mobil) was a participant, describes a strategy of providing "logistical and moral support" to climate change dissenters, "thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.' " And that's just what Exxon Mobil has done: lavish grants have supported a sort of alternative intellectual universe of global warming skeptics.
The people and institutions Exxon Mobil supports aren't actually engaged in climate research. They're the real-world equivalents of the Academy of Tobacco Studies in the movie "Thank You for Smoking," whose purpose is to fail to find evidence of harmful effects.
But the fake research works for its sponsors, partly because it gets picked up by right-wing pundits, but mainly because it plays perfectly into the...

Quote has been trimmed

Nobody actually believes that global warming isn't human caused and a serious threat,

Got any 3 page quotes from scientists who believe smoking doesn't cause cancer?