Strange Weather

[cybercoma]

Dear cybercoma,

I'm looking for something from a scientific journal (preferably) that says increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere causes the earth's temperature to rise.

This is the textbook definition of 'the greenhouse effect'.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/kids/greenhouse.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for defining how it works. I seem to recall an article by someone showing that the wavelength of radiant heat from the earth wasn't able to be blocked by CO2.

[cybercoma]

Regardless, how can it be proven that this is the cause of the rise in temperature? Has methane, nitrous oxide and fluorocarbons all stayed the same?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear cybercoma,

I seem to recall an article by someone showing that the wavelength of radiant heat from the earth wasn't able to be blocked by CO2.

certain radiations aren't blocked, that is true. Of the three main types of 'radiation', Alpha, Beta and Gamma, gamma radiation can only be blocked by lead.

Has methane, nitrous oxide and fluorocarbons all stayed the same?

Not sure what you mean. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) have been pretty much banned since it was discovered that they 'ate' ozone.

[cybercoma]

(tl,dr post)

All I'm suggesting is that perhaps the increase in CO2 emissions is not the problem. Perhaps there isn't even a problem at all and the earth is only going through a natural warmth cycle after coming off the ice age. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas and it certainly isn't the most effective at trapping heat. They speculate it is the problem because it's found in the highest concentrations in the air, industrialization has created an increase in CO2 and temperatures have risen. I can't find anything credible to indicate that the rise in CO2 is directly related to the rise in temperatures. I can't find anything to suggest that industrialization is the problem either, what if the sharp increase in population is the problem? How do we know that the earth wouldn't have heated up anyway? How do we know that polar icecaps wouldn't have been receding anyway? How do we know that increased CO2 emissions and global warming is actually a catastrophic problem?

The temperature has risen perhaps 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century, what if there was no industrial revolution...would it have only risen a fraction of a degree? Perhaps it would have stayed the same or even gone down. If the average temperature drops is that not also a problem? Should it be our goal to maintain a specific temperature level?

Human's have this wonderful ability for creating "belief" without any regard for truth. Robert Park had a good description of this:

A belief begins when the brain makes an association between two event of the form: B follows A.  The next time A occurs, the brain is primed to expect B to again follow.  The survival advantage of such a strategy for our primitive ancestors is obvious.  They had scant means for seperating causal connections from mere coincidence -- better to take heed of every connection and be sae.  We avoid some food, for example, because we once got sick after eating it.  Our illness may have had nothing to do with the food, but unless we're facing starvation, there's not much to be lost by avoiding it.

(technical stuff, skip this paragraph if you want)

Information gathered by the senses is normally routed through the thalamus, a small subsection deep within the brain, to the sensory cortex, which analyzes it in detail to decide how much weight it should be given.  An exception is olfactory input, which apparently follows more evolutionary ancient pathways to reach the cortex.  Sensory information processed by the cortex finally reaches the amygdala, almond-shaped structres in the temporal-lobes.  The amygdala contribute the emotional portion of our response to sensory stimuli.  Parts of the amygdala, for example are invovled in fear.  Animals with damage to these parts are no longer perturbed by stimuli they previously learned to fear.

Whetehr a belief is retained depends on how significant B is -- how frightened we were, for example -- and whether the association with A gets reinforced.  Without reinforcement, the expectation that B will follow A will usually fade in time.  if B again follows A, however, it may still be a coincidence but it will now be far harder to persuade us of that.

The point is that good science involves both sides challenging one another. On one side of the global warming debate (that's very much alive contrary to what eureka believes) there are the pessimists who believe catastrophy is upon us and we must do everything we can to change human behaviour right now. On the other side we have the optimists who believe that making policy before we fully understand the problem, if one even exists, is to invite failure. If we would've followed such policies in the past we may have very well missed out on the leaps we have made in science and technology.

A great example of how wrong eureka is would be the following excerpt from an article (whose subject so happened to be about junk science, although this portion illustrates good science):

In the spring of 1998, a research group (group A) analyzing data from weather satellites concluded that over a twenty-year period there has been a slight cooling of the upper atmosphere, rather than the slight warming inferred from surface measurements.  However, a second group (group reexamined the data and pointed out that the analysis failed to take atmospheric drag into account.  That would put the satellite trajectory fifteen kilometers closer to Earth, whih had the effect of turning slight cooling into slight warming.  Group A thanked Group B for pointing out the correction but were led thereby to reexamine the data themselves.  They found that two further corrections, for orbital precession of the satellites and calibration drift in the radiometer, largely offset the effect of atmospheric drag.  Group B appreciated this latest refinement but felt these effects were too small to change the conclusion that the troposphere is warming.

There is a very important need for this type of debate to exist in the scientific community. It's more or less a check and balance that forces both sides to improve their methods, so the results are as conclusive as possible.

As you can see, the science itself is not cut and dry and never will be, lest it risks cannibalizing itself. When people make scientific assertions and leave no room for debate, they are destroying science and trying to push their own beliefs (be those political or personal, etc). When people use this "junk science" to pass policy, they're trying to get the government to enforce their beliefs on other people.

The science on climate change is inconclusive other than to say, yes the climate is changing and yes we're putting more carbon dioxide in the air. Whether this is catastrophic or not, we do not know and cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt in any model.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear cybercoma,

How do we know that increased CO2 emissions and global warming is actually a catastrophic problem?

We don't have empirical knowledge of it, only observation and extrapolation. However, what gives most 'good science' credibility is that they can prove 'B follows A', (though experiments, or empirical knowledge) and furthermore, why (a priori knowledge).

I think that most of the debate is not whether 'global warming' can happen, it is rather about 'is it happening?'. The problem with skepticism is that while one can legitimately question 'Will the sun come up tomorrow?', (it is possible, though extremely unlikely, that it won't, at least from our perspective) it is also possible that one can waste valuable time bickering over the possible outcomes, when the outcome doesn't care what you think.

[cybercoma]

Dear cybercoma,

How do we know that increased CO2 emissions and global warming is actually a catastrophic problem?

We don't have empirical knowledge of it, only observation and extrapolation. However, what gives most 'good science' credibility is that they can prove 'B follows A', (though experiments, or empirical knowledge) and furthermore, why (a priori knowledge).

I think that most of the debate is not whether 'global warming' can happen, it is rather about 'is it happening?'. The problem with skepticism is that while one can legitimately question 'Will the sun come up tomorrow?', (it is possible, though extremely unlikely, that it won't, at least from our perspective) it is also possible that one can waste valuable time bickering over the possible outcomes, when the outcome doesn't care what you think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, the debate is not about the warming, but whether or not this is a severe problem.

Someone at another forum I post at said it best,

This issue, like all issues, is a question of trade offs. One group cannot be made better off without making another group worse off. Beorn made an excellent point earlier when he wrote about the effects of the Kyoto treaty on developing countries. If these countries were prohibited from burning fossil fuels (or limiting their use of them) what would happen to their economies? Are they better off or worse off? How many starving people equal a 1-degree decrease in the Earths’ temperature? That is a real issue! We are not just talking about Exxon Mobil’s quarterly profit. We are talking about people’s lives and what effect the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will have on them.

[ConservativeJoe]

Cybercoma, it is so good to have rational company.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear cybercoma,

We are talking about people’s lives and what effect the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will have on them.

That seems to be the crux of the matter. One argument is that the reduction of greenhouse gases will extend their lives.

If these countries were prohibited from burning fossil fuels (or limiting their use of them) what would happen to their economies?

Show me a study directly linking fossil fuel consumption, limited vs. free, to individual income in developing nation's economies or I won't believe you. I'll be generous, and say that you can round it off to the nearest dollar.

[cybercoma]

Dear cybercoma,

We are talking about people’s lives and what effect the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will have on them.

That seems to be the crux of the matter. One argument is that the reduction of greenhouse gases will extend their lives.

If these countries were prohibited from burning fossil fuels (or limiting their use of them) what would happen to their economies?

Show me a study directly linking fossil fuel consumption, limited vs. free, to individual income in developing nation's economies or I won't believe you. I'll be generous, and say that you can round it off to the nearest dollar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It has already been claimed that industrialization is responsible for CO2 emissions. And the industrialized nations are the richest and most powerful. So it only stands to reason that nations without industry or much less industry (and therefore a lower GDP) would burn less fossil fuels.

Do I really need to list every nation's GDP for you versus CO2 emissions?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear cybercoma,

Do I really need to list every nation's GDP for you versus CO2 emissions?

No, I was being facetious. What I asked for was , "show me a 'scientific study' showing what the effects of burning fossil fuels (coal fired energy plants and cars, etc) or, not having them, has on the mean income of the average resident of Burkina-Faso'.

[cybercoma]

Dear cybercoma,

Do I really need to list every nation's GDP for you versus CO2 emissions?

No, I was being facetious. What I asked for was , "show me a 'scientific study' showing what the effects of burning fossil fuels (coal fired energy plants and cars, etc) or, not having them, has on the mean income of the average resident of Burkina-Faso'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Show me a scientific study showing cybercoma has a sense of humour.

[Guest eureka]

I don't think that I have ever read such tripe in my life. There are a thousand stusies available to you on the Web showing climate change is real and that CO2 is the chief culprit.

There is not one peer reviewed study that denies it. And, yes there is empirical evidence. Study after study has shown the connection. The only disagreement among scientists is the rate at which it is happening and the time span for the collapses of different earth systems.

For one example, it is shown that the Oceans' coral reefs are dying and will be gone witha further rise of about 1 degree C in ocean temperature - something like the increase that has happeend in the last couple of generations. That will lead to starvation for millions as the fish stocks disappear, Tell those people that you are afraid the GDP of the West may be hurt. The wetlands of the world have degraded in 70% of the area in the last thirty years. Tell the peoples who depend on those areas for life that the GDP of the West might be damaged.

There is a sphere above the atmosphere that is cooling. It is cooling because of CO2 concentrations below that do not allow heat escape. The scientist who designed that small space program for NASA (the one that tested it) is a very distant relative of mine who I do not know but my closer American relatives do.

The Pentagon itself did a study a couple of years ago aonfirming the dangers and the role of CO2 in spite of Bush's wish that it disprove Climate Change.

There was a gatering of International scientists in Britain a year or so ago where there was not one scientist who disputed the change or the cause. It was that conference that motivate Blair into trying to push Bush into actually doing something.

Look it up and stop playing silly b.......s. You will find no opposition in the scientific community and plenty to explain how CO2 is destroying this planet.

I repeat that there has not been in the researchable geologic history of the world a time when CO2 concentrations were as high as they are now. Never in the probable time of life in any form other than the very primitive has ther been these levels.

Ostriches eventually choke on the sand when they bury their heads.. That is where you and your GDP will perish

[cybercoma]

The elevated CO2 levels are destroying the planet with lusher forests. You're a beautiful tapdancer eureka, but the dispute isn't whether or not the climate is changing, it's whether or not the changes will be catastrophic and whether or not they would've occurred without human activities. No one has shown an immediate need for concern today anymore than they showed an immediate need for concern 35 years ago when the world would be desolate by the turn of the millennium.

Your doomsaying is counterproductive to good science and discouraging scientific debate by suggesting those who disagree with the claims of catastrophy are ignorant is the stuff that turns science into "junk".

Studies are constantly being conducted on both sides of the argument and your knee-jerk reactions to conclusions before thorough peer-evaluation has occurred is what makes people lose their faith in science. People think it's a big hoopla of political agendas being fabricated because a few people with "beliefs", as oppose to proof, want to force others to act and think a certain way.

Making any sort of policy on things we don't yet know the answer to will only serve to stifle advancement.

As for your points, coral reefs are not just dying because of the oceans warming (which no one can prove is happening solely because of our activities or if it's a natural cycle of the earth), human activity (boats dropping anchors, divers, etc.), over fishing, soil erosion, dredging, toxic chemicals, bacteria and diseases are all contributing to the death of coral reefs. Which came first the chicken or the egg? Were the reefs being over fished, which caused their death or did the death of the reefs cause the fish to disappear? Probably a little of both. Although warming contributes to the death of coral, we're arguing over 1F here, something which took 100 years to occur at a time when industrialization and population grew exponentially.

With the advancements in technology (something that will be limited if we restrict industrialization) the cooling of the upper atmosphere has only recently been measured. They're currently concerned because their "projections" were incorrect. Unfortunately, once again, no one knows whether this cooling is normal or not and they're "assuming" it is caused by global warming. Global warming is occurring, but is it catastrophic? Do we influence it as much as we think? We can't possibly affect change in the upper atmosphere cooling if we don't even know if we can stop or slow down global warming.

The dangers of plants breathing, a scientific evaluation by Donald Rumsfeld. I'm not familiar with the article, nor am I going to go hunting for it at this hour.

There was a gatering of International scientists in Britain a year or so ago where there was not one scientist who disputed the change or the cause. It was that conference that motivate Blair into trying to push Bush into actually doing something.

A group of scientists, without dissention, peer-evaluation or debate, pushing a political agenda. Is this supposed to be an example of good science? Or are you simply illustrating my point about scientists falling into the trap of making the facts support a belief? Kinda like the whole upper atmosphere thing. I'll have to do some further investigation to see if there has been any follow-up to these studies.

No opposition is a scary thing. When you start relying on the science of those that try to silence opposing viewpoints, you're getting away from science and into politics.

Never before have the concentrations of CO2 been as high as they are today, but you can't possibly claim the history of the world. No one has found a time when CO2 concentrations have been higher; however, the world has been around for much longer than the amount of ice we've cored samples from. How do we know the ice cores have been around since the beginning of the earth's creation? We don't and to claim otherwise is foolish.

Besides all that, when core samples were taken from the Arctic they've shown a stagnant period in CO2 levels between 1935 and 1945, not a continual exponential increase throughout the industrial age. And as far as industrial emissions causing global warming, etc the levels of CO2 are inconsistent from 1000 through 1850, according to records. Industry didn't affect those changes, other natural occurances must have.

To demand we stall growth, hamper industry and put an economic stranglehold on our countries based on conclusions that are not yet confirmed and science that is still debated, is foolish. You use science as a thin veil over forcing your beliefs on others through policy change and I'm glad there are people smart enough in the United State government to see through such fraud. Kyoto and other such policies are knee-jerk reactions to scientific conclusions that are not yet finalized or agreed upon, or can even be replicated with any sort of consistency.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear cybercoma,

In the thread "Blair pulls plug on Kyoto,

you said...

Very well, cybercoma, I shall direct the question to you...what will for you constitute 'empirical proof' rather than theory of global warming?

scientific consensus.

Now you say...

No opposition is a scary thing.

The dangers of plants breathing, a scientific evaluation by Donald Rumsfeld.  I'm not familiar with the article, nor am I going to go hunting for it at this hour.

I do not believe there is such an article. However, you can dispense with the 'CO2 is a good thing' bunk. Of course it is. Plants convert it (and sunlight) into oxygen. However, plants need water too. What isn't good for them is to be under 40 feet of it. However, that could, and probably will be, debated. (please bear in mind that I am not saying that plants will die from excess CO2)

I don't think that there is any doubt that plants did just fine without humans. Global environment fluctuations and cyclical change occured, certainly, there is evidence of that. However, it is also safe to say that all emissions from mankind's activities (industrial, etc, I am not talking about 'shitting in a bush') are 'extra', and not part of the 'normal cycle'.

[Guest eureka]

I don't know whether you are arguing for argument's sake. I hope so for, otherwise, your posts do no credit to you.

There are not studies going on on both sides. There are none on the side of the deathheads: only the kind of ridiculous assertions you are making. There are no more studies to be done other than to assess the time frames and mitigating possibilities.

1 degree Fahreheit is not the extent of the rise in Ocean temperatures. It is several times that and coral reefs have a critical point where temperature kills. It is not thise other things: not at all.

Take a look at the charts for CO2 levels. Todays levels are higher than they have ever been; substantially so. And the breakout has been only in the era of industrialization.

Your comments on the thousands of scientists at a conference having a political agenda are simply absurd. That conference frustrated political authorities because it would not give definite conclusions as to when things would happen. The conference was held at the instigation of the British government to achieve something definite to go on: for an action plan to stave off the coming calamity. It did give tentative time frames for different consequences. One of those was for coral reefs. They do not have long to go.

[cybercoma]

I don't know whether you are arguing for argument's sake. I hope so for, otherwise, your posts do no credit to you.

You're a poopy head...neeener neener.

There are not studies going on on both sides. There are none on the side of the deathheads: only the kind of ridiculous assertions you are making. There are no more studies to be done other than to assess the time frames and mitigating possibilities.

Let's go back to the article I posted on junk science (this particular excerpt was outlining what good science is):

In the spring of 1998, a research group (group A) analyzing data from weather satellites concluded that over a twenty-year period there has been a slight cooling of the upper atmosphere, rather than the slight warming inferred from surface measurements.  However, a second group (group B.) reexamined the data and pointed out that the analysis failed to take atmospheric drag into account.  That would put the satellite trajectory fifteen kilometers closer to Earth, whih had the effect of turning slight cooling into slight warming.  Group A thanked Group B for pointing out the correction but were led thereby to reexamine the data themselves.  They found that two further corrections, for orbital precession of the satellites and calibration drift in the radiometer, largely offset the effect of atmospheric drag.  Group B appreciated this latest refinement but felt these effects were too small to change the conclusion that the troposphere is warming.

This back and forth analysis of the experiments and the resulting data is what makes good science. Coincidentally, this is the exact same study you're using to refer to the upper-atmosphere cooling. Doesn't seem very definitive to me. Looks like there was a lot of ball kicking going on here.

1 degree Fahreheit is not the extent of the rise in Ocean temperatures. It is several times that and coral reefs have a critical point where temperature kills. It is not thise other things: not at all.

Overfishing, erosion, human activity, chemicals and disease are not killing off the oral reef? This isn't even a debatable point, those things most certainly do and are killing coral. To suggest that those things aren't "at all" killing coral is simply idiotic.

You're right the temperature change of the oceans is not 1F it's not even 1C...

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

And judging from those charts, it would appear as though the temperature of the oceans actually dropped since industry was developed (1940-1970 roughly).

You're so quick to blame industry, that you won't even acknowledge the fact that the temperature increases are NOT consistent with industrial expansion.

Take a look at the charts for CO2 levels. Todays levels are higher than they have ever been; substantially so. And the breakout has been only in the era of industrialization.

It would seem as though CO2 levels are higher than they've ever been, but that still doesn't mean we're in immediate catastrophic danger.

And you can go on about how there is no debate about the temperature being higher now than EVER in history, but you're wrong.

In a 1999 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled, "Detection and attribution of recent climate change: a status report", they came to the conclusion, "at present, it is debatable whether there is enough temperature proxy data to be representative of hemispheric, let alone global, climate changes given the lack of large spatial scale coherence in the data."

There is no argument that the temperature is higher now than it has been over the last several centuries, but we're coming out of an Ice Age, so this isn't necessarily an indicator of overall global warming. The claim that it is higher now than ever through the last 1000 years is less substantiated since the data excludes, ocean temperatures (oceans cover most of the earth), night temperatures, and winter temperatures, not to mention it's based almost exclusively on North American samples. It is also thought that the climactic cycle occurs through a 1500 year period, 1000 years of data simply isn't enough to draw firm conclusions on whether we've severely damaged the cycle.

Your comments on the thousands of scientists at a conference having a political agenda are simply absurd. That conference frustrated political authorities because it would not give definite conclusions as to when things would happen. The conference was held at the instigation of the British government to achieve something definite to go on: for an action plan to stave off the coming calamity. It did give tentative time frames for different consequences. One of those was for coral reefs. They do not have long to go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"That conference...would not give definite conclusions as to when things would happen."

"One of [the time frames] was for coral reefs. They do not have long to go."

Did they come to conclusions or did they not come to conclusions. Make up your mind.

[Guest eureka]

Posting little snippets from true junk science sites does not help your cause. Your two groups are bot examples of studies opposing the issue of climate change. They are two groups studying something and arriving at a conclusion. The actual conclusion supports the effects of CO2 on the troposphere.

Coral reefs are in danger because of ocean temperature increase and are near death - a large proportion has already died. Those other things may damage coral but they are not the danger. Temperature is and that is not arguable.

If you continue to post crap such as Ocean temperatures have not increased, then there is absolutely no point to this. They have; and that is unarguable and recorded. Why do you think ALL oceanographers are speculating on the possibility of the North Atlantic Conveyor Belt collapsing?

For your last little gem about the conference, read what I wrote without trying to select a few words.

[cybercoma]

Posting little snippets from true junk science sites does not help your cause. Your two groups are bot examples of studies opposing the issue of climate change. They are two groups studying something and arriving at a conclusion. The actual conclusion supports the effects of CO2 on the troposphere.

Coral reefs are in danger because of ocean temperature increase and are near death - a large proportion has already died. Those other things may damage coral but they are not the danger. Temperature is and that is not arguable.

If you continue to post crap such as Ocean temperatures have not increased, then there is absolutely no point to this. They have; and that is unarguable and recorded. Why do you think ALL oceanographers are speculating on the possibility of the North Atlantic Conveyor Belt collapsing?

For your last little gem about the conference, read what I wrote without trying to select a few words.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It wasn't a snippet from a true junk science site, it was from a physics professor and nobel laureate at the University of Maryland.

Once again, like a broken freakin' record. I'm not arguing the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere or troposphere, it's not up for debate. CO2 emissions cause global warming. What I'm arguing is that they don't yet know the extent of which it is responsible for the overall temperature increases. The data is localized to North America and doesn't take into consideration several other factors like solar activity which also plays an important role in global warming.

I'm not arguing that temperature DOES NOT affect coral, I'm saying there are many other factors that are also killing off the coral reefs. The true extent of oceanic warming may not be as excessive as you're making it out because you have to take all the other factors I listed into consideration as well.

I'm not arguing that the oceans have not had a rise in temperature. There is no debate about that, we're coming out of a Little Ice Age and as such everything is heating up. I said that there has been a period in time (roughly 3 decades from 1940-1970) where ocean temperatures actually dropped.

Please try and stick with me here. The argument is that we don't yet know the extent to which human activity is affecting global warming, nor do we know the impact it will have on the environment. I'm suggesting that the catastrophic doomsaying is way overboard and only serves to obfuscate the facts. I don't agree with knee-jerk policy change before we know the full details of why we're changing the policies.

[Yodeler]

If you continue to post crap such as Ocean temperatures have not increased, then there is absolutely no point to this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not measurably. Whenever I put my foot in either of the Canadian oceans it's still too damn cold.

I can't wait for the time when tourists will be coming to Canada as they do to Hawaii, to have fun in the sun and the ocean that is barely a few degrees cooler than the outside air and where dunking in it is pure pleasure.

If Hawaiian's aren't worried, why are you?

[Yodeler]

I'm not arguing that temperature DOES NOT affect coral ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the Hawaiian ocean's close to human body temperature, I stub my toes and scrape my belly on those pesky corals everywhere. Yet in the freezing waters of Vancouver Island they are nowhere to be seen. So don't tell ME they don't have a preference.

[cybercoma]

I'm not arguing that temperature DOES NOT affect coral ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the Hawaiian ocean's close to human body temperature, I stub my toes and scrape my belly on those pesky corals everywhere. Yet in the freezing waters of Vancouver Island they are nowhere to be seen. So don't tell ME they don't have a preference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

haha, you're funny. The temperature of the water has to be just right for coral, but does the salinity etc. The oceans becoming warmer does affect coral, but so do the other things I've mentioned. Which factor of all those affects them the most, I supposed depends on where the reef is and what human activity is like around it. I just really don't think anyone can make the assumption that ALL coral will die off shortly because the oceans temperatures have risen less than 1C.

But you're right, you'll never see a frozen coral popsicle near vancouver.

[Guest eureka]

The ocean surface off St. John's averaged one degree Celsius above normal, the highest in the 59 years the department has been compiling records.

And bottom temperatures were also one degree higher than normal, according the report.

"A one-degree temperature anomaly on the Grand Banks is pretty significant in the bottom areas, where temperatures only range a couple of degrees throughout the year," said Eugene Colbourne, an oceanographer with the Fisheries Department.

Water temperatures were above normal right across the North Atlantic last year, from Newfoundland to Greenland, Iceland and Norway.

The Newfoundland data is another wake-up call on climate change, say environmentalists.

Anchorage, Alaska, has seen annual snowfall shrink in the past decade, high river temperatures are killing off millions of spawning salmon in British Columbia and northern climates around the world have noticed warming.

Meanwhile, ocean temperatures have risen around the globe, and species are already dying, said Bill Wareham, acting director of marine conservation for the Vancouver-based David Suzuki Foundation.

"I don't think there's a question about whether these changes are happening," Wareham said.

But "everyone's quite shocked at the speed at which these things are changing."

The above is one excerpt. Following is another

Satellites measuring the surface temperature of Earth's oceans have tracked a steady rise since 1982. Warmer seas have led many corals to "bleach," turn white as the algae that feed and color them are driven out, and die.

Abnormally high 1998 sea temperatures, the warmest on record, are thought to have bleached and killed most of the corals in the Indian Ocean, and in many areas of the Western and Eastern Pacific, the scientists said.

Coral mortality has been especially high in the ecologically prized Maldives, where up to 90 percent of reefs have been laid bare, they said.

Around 170 nations have gathered at the United Nations global warming conference in Buenos Aires to discuss ways of cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases.

"Unless this conference takes immediate effective action to stop global climate change, coral reefs and the benefits they provide will be condemned to death. Other ecosystems will follow," the World Conservation Union said[/quote

[ConservativeJoe]

Abnormally high 1998 sea temperatures, the warmest on record

Whoa! Back the truck up! How could 1998 temperatures be the warmest on record? If that is true, and it must be, Eureka posted it, then, follow me.......

.........It has been cooler since then. (I'll wait for a peer review. Fire away guys.)

[ConservativeJoe]

A quote in Washington on global warming by Dr. Michael Crichton, yes the same one who wrote Jurassic Park. He does have a private life as a doctor.

But Michael Crichton says the issue is not evidence, but the lack of it. Crichton, a physician, is the author of many science fiction novels, including the best-seller "Jurassic Park," which was made into a widely distributed film.

Crichton also is the author of the 2004 novel "State of Fear," in which he argues that alarmist environmentalists, using questionable science, could impose a form of what he calls ecological "totalitarianism" on the world.

Yeserday, Crichton made his case before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which was seeking guidance in helping set environmental policy in the wake of Katrina and Rita.

Crichton told the committee about the rigors of medical research. He said findings cannot be legitimately published without strict "peer review," in which medical researchers must submit their findings to other medical researchers. This new group of researchers then conducts the same tests and compares its results with the original.

The protocols of climate science, Crichton said, "appear considerably more relaxed:"

"In climate science, it's permitted for raw data to be touched or modified by many hands. Gaps in temperature and proxy records are filled in. Suspect values are deleted because a scientist deems them erroneous. A researcher may elect to use parts of existing records, ignoring other parts. But the fact that the data has been modified in so many ways inevitably raises the question of whether the results of a given study are wholly or partially caused by the modifications themselves," Crichton said.

Crichton said he was not trying to disparage climate scientists' motives or fair-mindedness. Instead, he said, these researchers should take some steps to lend credibility to their findings.

"What is at issue is whether the methodology of climate science is sufficiently rigorous to yield a reliable result. At the very least, we should want the reassurance of an independent verification by another lab in which they would make their own decisions about how to handle the data and yet arrive at a similar result," Crichton said.

[ConservativeJoe]

How about this guy? Must be a nutcase, huh? Einstein was crazy too, he thought of hypotheses that no one considered. Way off mainstream.

He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

This was taken from

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/...10615071248.htm

Now all you have to do is discredit science daily.