Ryan

No pun with current phenomena, but what you see on the IPCC web site is
just the tip of the iceberg of the work they have done. Surely you don't
want a web site that is hundreds of megabytes long with the full
scientific data, modelling algorithms, methodology and all the rest of
documents, which, in hard copy, weigh over 30 kg??? What is on the web
site is only a summary of the essential data, destined for
non-atmospheric-scientists. I personally know a number of these guys,
because they have worked with me on ozone-depleting issues and I can
assure you they are top-flight scientists with integrity. Furthermore,
all their scientific publications are seriously peer-reviewed. I would
rather believe this crowd than an ex-merchant navy bloke with no
scientific qualifications whatsoever. Now, I'm not saying that lay
observers cannot make any scientific contribution. What I am saying is
that this guy leaves me with a feeling of zero credibility. Anyone can
become famous if they shout loud enough, even if they haven't a clue
what they are talking about: look at ANY politician to see how true that
is.

I have been working too long (decades), as a non-atmospheric-scientist,
with atmospheric scientists, so I have perhaps become too biased with
their thinking. However, I have picked up enough knowledge from them to
understand what they are talking about. I am therefore able to judge
what rings true and what doesn't. In fact, I probably have at least as
good a knowledge of the subject as most lay persons, from my close
involvement with ozone depletion.

Best regards

Brian

Ryan and Mindi Grant wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> I hate to be disagreeable because I know how sensible and intelligent you
> are, but the IPCC report for policy makers did more to convince me the
> "global warming" theory is a fallacy than to convince me it is based on
> sound science.  Largely because I saw little objectivity in the report.
>  The points in the report I could rant about are too numerous for an
> e-mail, but I did find that John Daly maintains an extensive website where
> he covers every one of those points.  http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm
>  (Thanks Chuck for tipping me off to that web site.)  Naturally, one should
> be skeptical of anything anyone says about anything.  I know I am.
>  Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on you point of view, John has
> solid references for ALL of his arguments.
>
> The burning issue that STILL has not been addressed with the "global
> warming" theory is that satellite data (which is many orders of magnitude
> more accurate than surface temperature data) and balloon data have shown a
>  negative warming trend while surface temperature measurements have shown
> a positive warming trend.  There exist NO theory as to why satellite data
> would show a cooling trend, but there is a rock solid theory that
> demonstrates how surface temperature measurements will increase due to
> urbanization around a weather box.  In fact, the "global warming" theory
> recognizes this 'heat island' effect and tries to compensate for it using a
> simple model.  However, skeptics quickly point out that the simple
> compensation is far too inadequate, producing a noise that is seen as
> warming.  This is seen by comparing surface measurements with the satellite
> data.
>
> On another point, the computer models that supposedly show a good fit
> between the accumulation of CO2 and the supposed increase in global
> temperatures ASSUME complete mixing of the atmosphere between the surface,
> and the points where satellites would measure the air temperature.  In
> other word, computer models ASSUME satellite data and surface data directly
> correlate.  However, the computer models do NOT show a good fit between
> model temperatures and satellite data because the satellite data shows a
> cooling trend.  Therefore, the model is wrong if it doesn't match satellite
> data.  Alternatively, if the original assumption is wrong, then so is the
> model and it can't be used.
>
> As a final point, ALL of the circumstantial evidence has error bars on the
> data points.  Very large error bars.  Big enough that it leaves that door
> open as to showing a human induced warming trend or not showing a trend.
>  However, the evidence against "global warming" does not have large error
> bars on the data points (such as satellite data, growth of ice fields in
> antartica, non-warming trends in the artics where computer show it will
> occur first, etc.).  Until solid evidence against "global warming" can be
> discredited, it is difficult to become excited about jumping on the "global
> warming" bandwagon.
>
> Ryan Grant
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Brian Ellis [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:   Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:18 PM
> To:     [log in to unmask]
> Subject:        Re: [EN] EARTH'S ICE MELTING FASTER THAN PROJECTED
>
> Chuck
>
> I'm currently travelling and am using DUN from my hotel room, so I'll
> answer only your question 1. Yes! I'm 100% sure that atmospheric CO2
> levels are increasing. I have a number of independent sources at home
> (hence I can't quote chapter and verse from here) that they have been
> steadily increasing since the mid-1800s and they more or less concur,
> give or take an ounce or two, in different countries. They were
> reasonably steady for some centuries before the rise started. These are
> mostly direct analyses, even 150 years ago, but much earlier data was
> derived from ice cores. Furthermore, these increases concur with
> increased use of fossil fuel. I'm therefore confident that there is a
> correlation. However, I agree that there is no DIRECT scientific proof
> that these changes are causal to climate change, but there is sufficient
> circumstantial evidence to raise doubt in the most confirmed sceptic, if
> he impartially looks at the evidence with an open mind. Furthermore,
> there is a damn good fit between natural and human-origin radiative
> forcing, together, and measured global average temperatures over the
> past 150 years. You can check it out on the IPCC web site. To denigrate
> the members of this panel for the man-years of work they are
> collectively volunteering, at their own expense, is, IMHO, very facile
> because none of them have anything to gain from their findings.
>
> If you wish to find out more, meet me at the Earth Technologies Forum in
> Washington DC next week (leave a message for me in the Press Room). You
> will be presented with some very convincing arguments regarding both
> climate change and ozone depletion. This is a MUST for anyone with an
> interest in the air around us.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Brian
>
> Charles Dolci wrote:
> >
> > Paul Chalmer posted some interesting questions, but I do not think they
> are the
> > right questions to ask.
> >
> > 1.  Is the evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are steadily
> > increasing reliable?
> > Maybe, maybe not. But whatever the answer is, it says nothing of either
> the
> > source or the effect. It is not certain that man is the sole source of
> increases
> > in CO2 in the atmosphere. A study by Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
> > reported in the March 12 issue of the journal Science, addressed the
> question
> > "when the Earth shifts from glacial to warm periods which comes first: an
> > increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, or an increase in global
> > temperature". Contrary to what many believed the team concluded that the
> > temperature rise comes first, followed by a carbon dioxide boost 400 to
> 1,000
> > years later.
> > This theory was bolstered by recent observations of what is happening on
> Mars.
> > In a November/December 2001 article in the journal Science it was
> reported that
> > vast fields of carbon dioxide ice were eroding from the poles of Mars,
> > suggesting that the climate of that planet is warming and CO2 was being
> released
> > to the atmosphere.  Michael A. Caplinger, a scientist with Malin Space
> Science
> > Systems, and co-author of the study, had analyzed photos of Mars taken by
> an
> > orbiting spacecraft. There, a "global warming" clearly preceded and
> caused, an
> > increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
> > As I had indicated in an earlier posting, at a DECHEMA colloquium, held
> in
> > Frankfurt on 11th Oct, 2001, Dr. Heinz Hug (lecturer, Wiesbaden, Germany)
> and
> > Dr. Jack Barrett (Imperial College, London, UK) gave papers that
> expressed
> > doubts about the science (or lack thereof) that had been applied by
> members of
> > the IPCC in coming to their conclusions about CO2 and future climate
> change.
> > Their laboratory research strongly suggested that the radiative forcing
> affect
> > of CO2 was actually substantially less than the IPCC models had assumed.
> The
> > greenhouse gas that has the major contributive affect on warming is water
> vapor.
> >
> > 2.  Will a continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
> concentration,
> > AT SOME POINT, be sufficient to overwhelm all other possibly confounding
> > variables (such as increased cloud cover), and lead to unequivocal
> warming?
> >
> > Of course, given how the question is stated, the answer has to be YES, it
> is
> > theoretically possible. But the relevant question is "What is the
> likelihood
> > that man will be able to create enough CO2 to have an irrecoverable
> impact on
> > the earth's climate?" I think the answer to that is "It is very
> unlikely".
> > Burning fossil fuels, other than coal, is a phenomenon of the 20th
> century, and
> > it is unlikely that it will extend much beyond that, even though
> resources of
> > petroleum and natural gas will still be plentiful. Even the use of coal
> to any
> > significant extent is only a couple of centuries old. If mankind follows
> its
> > history by the end of the 21st century burning fossil fuels will probably
> be a
> > thing of the past. And if the rest of the world follows the lead of
> Europe and
> > the US and Canada the world population will actually start to decline.
> >
> > 3.  Will the deleterious effects of this warming on the habitability of
> the
> > planet, AT SOME POINT, outweigh any local benefits such as increased
> > rainfall, or global benefits such as enhanced photosynthesis?
> >
> > First, I am not prepared to admit the premise that "this warming" (if it
> is
> > happening at all) is having a deleterious effect on the globe. For one
> thing the
> > earth used to be a lot warmer (most recently during the Medieval Warm
> Period)
> > and it didn't seem to suffer too much. If there is warming it will extend
> > growing seasons thereby increasing crop yields which will lower food
> costs.
> > Fewer people die from really hot summer days than die from really cold
> winter
> > days.  Secondly, we are talking about CHANGE, and people may not like
> change,
> > but NOTHING has been constant since man has been on this planet so why
> should we
> > think that things should suddenly stop changing now, merely because we
> have
> > developed the ability to measure the world around us. Of course, if the
> > temperature of the earth should return to what it was 1 billion years ago
> that
> > might be rough, but would that happen as a result of "this warming".
> >
> > 4.  Given the difficulty in reversing the trend to increasing carbon
> dioxide
> > levels, once established, and given that the locations of the "points" in
> > items 2 and 3 are unknown, is there any basis for assuming there is a
> > comfort zone where we can afford to wait and see if it matters?
> >
> > It has not been established that "reversing the trend" is difficult. A
> good
> > world wide recession lasting a few years will handle that nicely, or just
> make
> > more seltzer water. And I do not believe that the "trend" is caused by
> human
> > activity so there is nothing we can or need do to reverse it. Since the
> earth
> > has gone through climate cycles in the past why should we assume that
> this one
> > will be any different?  One thing is not subject to debate, and that is
> that
> > wealth means energy. If you cut energy you reduce wealth and millions of
> people
> > around the globe will suffer and the poorer peoples suffer the most.
> >
> > So given that there are an awful lot of "unknowns" and it has never been
> > established (or even any credible evidence provided) that any of this is
> > irreversible, I propose that we do wait and see before we force the world
> into a
> > recession.
> >
> > Chuck Dolci
> >
> > ------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------
> >
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > From: "Chalmer, Paul" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: [EN] EARTH'S ICE MELTING FASTER THAN PROJECTED
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > An interesting interchange, with many valuable references.  The question
> of
> > melting glaciers and other evidence of global warming is certainly worth
> > debating, though the signal-to-noise ratio will probably be slim enough
> for
> > the next several years to preclude any definitive resolution.
> >
> > I would be curious, though, to know the degree of consensus in the sample
> of
> > opinion represented by this list serve on the answers to the following
> > sequence of questions:
> >
> > 1.  Is the evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are steadily
> > increasing reliable?
> > 2.  Will a continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
> concentration,
> > AT SOME POINT, be sufficient to overwhelm all other possibly confounding
> > variables (such as increased cloud cover), and lead to unequivocal
> warming?
> > 3.  Will the deleterious effects of this warming on the habitability of
> the
> > planet, AT SOME POINT, outweigh any local benefits such as increased
> > rainfall, or global benefits such as enhanced photosynthesis?
> > 4.  Given the difficulty in reversing the trend to increasing carbon
> dioxide
> > levels, once established, and given that the locations of the "points" in
> > items 2 and 3 are unknown, is there any basis for assuming there is a
> > comfort zone where we can afford to wait and see if it matters?