I have no idea about this news outlet...I have no idea if the scientists quoted in this article are on the payroll of Big Oil...I have no idea if the data they're presenting is real or not. I'm curious to know if anyone else has read/heard more about this. As an aside, I'm all for cleaning up the environment whether the sky is falling or not. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html Climate facts to warm to Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008 CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return. Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril. Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?" She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years." Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?" Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant." Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary." Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?" Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide. "There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling." Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?" Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback." Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?" Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide." Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..." Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."
We should do all we can to reduce man-made pollution of all types, both here in the U.S. and around the world. Then we can quit wringing our hands and llet the chips fall where they may.
Max, I would say this: in general, you can put a grain of salt on top of a scientist who owns a site called www.insert_scientist_name.com The IPCC does not support her views, as I read their statements. You can download their November 2007 report (one for policy makers) at their site:http://www.ipcc.ch/ In short, they continue to look at 100 and 200 and 10,000 year trends, where the 3-year trends are meaningless. It would be like watching 1.5 seconds of an NCAA tournament game and trying to figure out who has the momentum. "Well, my team had the ball. That's good, right?"
Michio Kaku has a website. Does that mean he's not legit? So does Stephen Hawking. Or do you mean if they use the .com suffix?
You need to read his entire post to understand why her opinion is not legitimate. If you only read a few words you will be left an incomplete understanding of the meaning of the post -- much like Marohasy using only a few years of sampling to attempt to produce a climate trend.
Thanks, Cheetah, 111chase111, I'll quote the important part (if there is an important part) of my post for you. The other bit about websites is mainly a joke; I know there are some prominent and legit science folk with their own sites, but the majority are happy to get by without their own domain.
While urging governments of the world to reduce pollution -- a worthwhile project regardless of whether the Earth is heating or cooling or whether the cause is man-made or is a natural process -- we should do what we can to conserve. For example, how many of us have purchased a gasoline car rather than an electric or hybrid? Or at least a 40-mile per gallon car? My land barge gets 24 miles to the gallon, but I'm still going for much better when the 2009s come out. My retirement house will be a single story built on a waste water storage tank from which I will water the yard and trees. The sewage water from the bathrooms will go to a sewer or septic tank (depending where I build), but the bath and sink drains will empty into the storage tank. Grass and trees will not only get the benefit of the re-used water but also the phosphates. Of course, I also plan to make the house energy efficient controlled by computer. I also will plant large trees, screening bushes and a greenhouse to grow my own vegetables. My question to each of you is this: aside from bemoaning the obvious, what are you, as individuals, doing to help the environment?
Interesting to note that the source is "the australian". Australia is suffering from it's worst drought ever. So bad, that some areas in the interior are becoming ghost towns. The former prime minister was a Bush cohort, and downplayed global warming - going so far as to refuse to meet with Al Gore while he was in the country promoting his movie - but more importantly taking the stand as the only major country along with the US to not sign Kyoto. The populace responded by overwhelmingly voting him out of office this last election, and replacing him with a guy who plans to get Australia back in Kyoto, and has set numerous goals involving environmental activity. Google has the details, as usual.
1. I have reduced my use of toilet paper by 50% in the past 2 months. It's a bit late but it is a start. 2. I have been trying to limit my showers to 5 minutes per shower, and have been taking them only once every 2 days. Tried once a week but it was just not feasible. What I saved is not just water, but shampoo, conditioners, electricity (lights, water heating). It also helps prolonging the life of my peppermint soap bar.
Also, taking into account your 20 minutes in the shower per week, you're probably saving a lot on gas by not going on too many dates.
So true, so true, it's so hard to find dates who would appreciate my earnest earth-protecting approaches. That is why lately I resort to posting more on clutchfans; leaving my mark on GARM, feedback and now D&D. I actually use petrol (as in "in the car", not "sniffing")... so that really has been a big plus.
Just wish to apologise to MadMax... I did not mean to sidetrack your thread. Global warming is indeed a serious issue.
The funny thing is that there are two sides to what would happen in a global warming scenario. 1. is runaway warming of the entire planet 2. it triggers another ice age Hard to find the truth when so many opinions are floating around out there. DD
Not really two sides. Two effects. It is totally plausible (even expected) for both to occur on smaller and more localized scales.
As I suspected, most posters here give lip service to solutions and express righteous indignation over global warming/cooling (?) but will not seriously consider how they themselves can contribute to the solution(s).
Well, it's not much, but over the last few years, Mrs. B-Bob and I: * gave up one car, so we're a one-car family. * started taking public transpo whenever we could, so the car maybe logs 20-30 miles/week right now. * live near our jobs, at greatly increased cost. * bought an existing instead of new construction house. * installed drip irrigation for the (tiny) backyard. much more efficient plant watering with minimal evaporation. * installed energy efficient bulbs, blah blah, in the house. * started separating green waste into a compost pile. we now generate one modest sized trash bag per week, what with obsessive recycling and the composting. If we had kids, all of that would be much much harder, I admit. These "green" measures are easiest for DINKs like us. I dunno. It's a work in progress. We need to install more water efficient toilets and stuff. And our next car needs to be more fuel efficient (have a 98 Corolla, which is okay but not great). I think all of the above is probably undone by us taking a couple of long flights every year. We love to travel, and that majorly bumps the carbon output. We also get our food from Trader Joe's, and they fly in food from all over the world -- also very bad.
B-Bob, we all do stuff that is not friendly to the environment. My intent in this thread is not to be holier-than-thou, but to point out the inconsistencies "environmentalists" exhibit in our daily lives. I'm really not proposing that we go to extremes, but even a modest personal lean to conservation will make a serious impact. Like you, I've already gone to the most efficient toilets and light bulbs etc. Heck, that makes personal economic sense as well as global sense. Solar cell energy is something I am re-visiting but I have questions -- especially since I like greenery around a home. Potable water and pollution-free energy are high on the list of things we should be exploring, although there are many other areas of concern.
We have a hybrid car... Anyway, while I'm sure every organization could be tied to something "political", the IPA's funding and policy promotion does seem to indicate lobbying as opposed to actual scientific analysis. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs#Funding
