Monday, June 19, 2006

More Evidence of Global Warming... on Mars and Jupiter!

More Evidence of Global Warming... on Mars and Jupiter!
Go to the original items for the full articles.

Mars is Melting

The south polar ice cap of Mars is receding, revealing frosty mountains, rifts and curious dark spots.

Animation of images showing polar ice cap changes.

(Well, we send two automobiles to Mars, driving around on the surface, and there it goes...)


The Sun of God
by Rusty Humphries

Who, besides Al Gore, would be surprised that Mars' ice caps are shrinking? And how about this: Jupiter is brewing up new, monster, hurricane-like storms because of measured increases in Jovian temperatures. Why is it I don't believe "greenhouse gases" are at fault?


"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006 Canada Free Press

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Read the full items at the given weblinks

I don't think it helps to sneer at "Global Warming" theorists even though they are missing the DOR/desertification factor.
They are allies to the ecological movement since they are pointing out the very obvious facts about the role of human industrial pollution and how it is killing our planet. Do you want to dismiss them because they are leftists and are against globalization and unbridled growth at the expense of a clean planet? So what if they are closet Marxists-on the point of our uncontrollable appetite for goods which causes our lakes to be ~70% polluted, our forests to dwindle by clear-cutting, by the drastic rate of animal and plant life disappearing-pollution is the culprit. Let them fight the industrialist polluters, this can only help the earth. To dismiss their ideology as a "crank" is dangerous and selfish. This will allow the controlling powers/industrialist to continue their destruction unabated: "Let's keep burning fuel like there's no tomorrow and buy as many cars as our hearts desire" is the credo of many in this country,like Bush conservatives.
So this is not about "politics" and bashing the other camp, but about doing what we can to save the earth. And the "greenhouse group" is doing its job.
Blake, one cannot start playing politics with scientific questions, without courting disaster. Greenhouse theory demands a particular set of actions and responses, as you have outlined them. But is it a scientifically-developed opinion? Partly, but at fundament, no. Kyoto Treaty was formulated with your viewpoint as its foundation. But if the critics of greenhouse theory are correct, then there is a largely different set of actions and responses necessary. While I would agree about many of your points, and have all my life fought for such things -- for forest health, solar energy and so forth -- it is fact that advocates of greenhouse theory do not mention the exploding populations in the Third World nations which are degrading their environments more rapidly than elsewhere, mostly via agricultural burning, bad soil-conservation practices and attack of marginal semi-arid landscapes. At fundament, these environmental problems are pushed along by foundational sex-economic issues, notably the low status of women and consequent absence of contraceptive usage. The net result is, expanding populations of humans and herd animals into marginal lands, forests being cut and converted into grasslands, and grasslands assaulted and converted into deserts. The deserts then expand and get larger. THIS is the problem which creates regional (but not global) warming episodes as linked with droughts and heat-waves along the desert periphery. Again, take a look at the weblink for the aerosols around the world:
The regions of great deserts stand out as the source for dusts which spread widely, across oceans in fact. Second to this are the agricultural smokes, mostly from burning forests in the non-industrial Tropics. By comparison to those above two sources, industrial sulfates -- which are a resonable tracer for the worst of air polluion in general -- are tiny and difficult to seen see on this satellite-imaging system.
Certainly, let us clean up factory pollution and make things better, but if the planetary scientists are correct, that temperatures are increasing on both Mars and Jupiter, is this observation merely to be discarded as inconvenient? Should we double the price of gasoline in order to fund declines in greenhouse gases, when this may not even be the fundamental problem? This business of accusing the democratic Western nations of causing a global environmental holocaust becomes highly suspect the more one examines it. At worst, it is merely a club by which advocates of international socialism hope to bludgeon the "evil capitalist west" into submission. That should trouble anyone who truly cares about the environment, or who puts a high value on social and personal freedoms.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref.]

If you find this material of value, please donate to OBRL:

Or, purchase books on related subjects from our on-line bookstore:

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?