global warming

[bb1]

I wonder what part of the globe they are talking of?
From what I hear, the past 5 yrs have been (progressively) colder, just about everywhere. And the EC & Japan are now openly criticizing Al Gore, who (with his believers) just ignore reality.

Sure seems the fishing is getting later & later....(#$119) Trout stocking is behind, and I wonder if (decent) striper's will be to the canal by June?

[Cheju]

It is there alright, but it is just taking longer than expected for the results to show up. You have to realize that over the past 10,000 years we have had periods of mini- ice ages and then mini- warm ups. Prior to that we had maxi-ice ages and the reverse.

I don't know whether Al Gore and his followers are predicting another mini or a maxi. I don't think they do either.

Cheju

[gseries69]

The case against global warming has been building over the past several months. For the first time in years I have seen news coverage of the other side of the debate. Unfortunately, for too long, global warming was viewed as a religion not science.

Recent theories covered on news programs are that 1. sun spots are responsible for global warming and the recent cool down. In August of 2008 for example there were fewer sun spots than there have been in the past which has resulted in much lower temps globally. 2. Another scientist believes the data we are collecting is garbage. He noted that for the first part of the data collection process, temperature gauges were in both rural and urban areas. As money began to dry up the rural areas were not maintained thus the data collection as time went on was all done in urban areas. The scientist then noted that urban areas are warmer than rural areas.

Guess we'll have to see what happens with the data over the next few years to see if there are any trends. I personally am not a big believer in global warming, mostly because I remember the science community and news media causing hyteria over global cooling in the 70's. Bottom line is we should reduce carbon footprint and all types of pollution because it's the right thing to do, not because of some armagedon type hysteria.

[ShaneY]

I agree with Gseries, even if global warming is a bunch of crap which I don't really care either way we need to reduce pollution and dependance on foreign oil. In the long run if we can do those two things we will all be better off and I don't think anyone can argue with that.

[aws]

I wonder what part of the globe they are talking of?
From what I hear, the past 5 yrs have been (progressively) colder, just about everywhere. And the EC & Japan are now openly criticizing Al Gore, who (with his believers) just ignore reality.

Sure seems the fishing is getting later & later....(#$119) Trout stocking is behind, and I wonder if (decent) striper's will be to the canal by June?

Where do you come up with this stuff-we have a seasonally cold few days in mid march and all of the sudden the science that suggests anthropogenic global warming is wrong. Please just go somewhere in the Artric Circle(where I do research for my career)-the changes associated with global warming are not at all subtle. If one goes to a major scientific conference, the major debate is not whether or not increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will change the earth's climate, but how it will change the earth's climate-obviously modeling the earth's climate is complicated enough that we struggle with it even on a daily basis. Al Gore's followers?-this is science, not religion, and Al Gore is not a scientist. Jan and Feb of this year are both top 10 in warmest global temps for these months ever recorded and Anchorage had the warmest minimum temperature ever recorded for the month of January. Look through NOAA's records yourself. 2008 as a whole was also top 10 warmest. Because there is not an incremental increase in temperature each year does not suggest that we are not changing the earth's climate by burning FF.

[bb1]

For sure the "debate" Al Gore talks of being over, never happened....(did anyone see it?). And Al himself runs and hides every where he mouths off, before ANYONE can ask a question! We have always been heading for another major ice age, so "warming" would be a good thing....so scientists came up with the "conveyor belt" thing, effectively hedging there bet. If it gets warmer or colder there right!

I guess Alaska is that place where it is getting warmer? Along with 3 times as many polar bears than 20yrs ago, put on the endangered species list, for effect!

And diesel engines are MUCH more efficient (and now cleaner) than gas, but founded upon by wacko 'green' politicians. Just to show the hypocrisy of it all.


But it's not a question of global warming....it will get colder, and may come close to wiping man kind out, no mater what man does.

[Gadabout Guinea]

Yeah, global warming is a hoax, Obama isn't a citizen, the world is flat, fishing is better than ever, man didn't actually walk on the moon, Elvis is alive, the CIA planned 9/11, and if we drill off Cape Cod we'll find enough oil for a million years!!

When I invented the internet, I never realized how quickly it would help spread and perpetuate such valuable, objective information...now excuse me while I run up to Kittery to buy some more ammo since my kid told me last weekend that he read online that the war at the end of the world is on for next year...:eek:

[bb1]

[QUOTE=Gadabout Guinea;260860]Yeah, global warming is a hoax, Obama isn't a citizen, the world is flat, fishing is better than ever, man didn't actually walk on the moon, Elvis is alive, the CIA planned 9/11, and if we drill off Cape Cod we'll find enough oil for a million years!!


Hey, you forgot those that still think the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy, after seeing Oliver Stones movie, that was full of lies & misconceptions. (come to think of it, that sounds a lot like Al Gore's movie)

But like I said, the people in Europe & Asia are now starting to make fun of Al.
(don't expect to see that from our news media though)

[Gadabout Guinea]

Hey, you forgot those that still think the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy, after seeing Oliver Stones movie, that was full of lies & misconceptions. (come to think of it, that sounds a lot like Al Gore's movie)

But like I said, the people in Europe & Asia are now starting to make fun of Al.
(don't expect to see that from our news media though)

I wasn't sure if the Kennedy conspiracy was a good thing to bring up in New England? We never did talk about it in Texas! :rolleyes:

I wouldn't be getting all my info from Big Fat Al if I was forming an opinion, there's plenty of scientists raising the red flags all over the globe. As a scientist I know that when you throw something questionable up in the air or publish it in a journal, the line to cut your knees off is quite long! So I would definitely listen to them. :cool:

[hosenfeffer]

I actually wrote a response that outlined what my kid explained to me. I actually understood some of what she explains but she's the one with the PHD in science not me. I deleted it because it boils down to this: she's pretty concerned about it and that all I really need to know.

Off my soapbox and back to making a bass boat out of parts scrounged and salvaged. Any place ever have a swap shop of parts and fishing gear around here or online?

[bb1]

[QUOTE=hosenfeffer;260885]I actually wrote a response that outlined what my kid explained to me. I actually understood some of what she explains but she's the one with the PHD in science not me. I deleted it because it boils down to this: she's pretty concerned about it and that all I really need to know.


That is a whole other problem. Any one about 25yo or under have been indoctrinated into 'man made' global warming by our public schools.
They in turn 'educate' there parents on all things PC.
(& intelligence has nothing to do with it, any one can be pressured into BELIEVING)

Yes, some scientists are brave enough to raise 'red flags' now....therfore people like the President of the European Union now get unbiased information to make decisions on.

[Cheju]

Do we really need to worry about global warming? According to the Politicos we are all going to starve to death due to the present economic crisis so there won't be anyone around to notice.

Cheju

[ShaneY]

I am one of those 25 year olds and no one ever convinced me one way or the other. I gotta say though that my parents generation are environmentally retarded. For example I set up some recycling bins in the house and my dad refuses to use them because he thinks it a load of crap. He told me it was a scam and just said who cares when I told him about how many things are made of recycled plastic for example rather than new plastic that is derived from mostly foriegn oil.

I have to ask anyone here once again because it was ignored before, global warming or not, how can it be bad to reduce pollution, reuse materials and use less fossil fuels?

[bb1]

I am one of those 25 year olds and no one ever convinced me one way or the other. I gotta say though that my parents generation are environmentally retarded. For example I set up some recycling bins in the house and my dad refuses to use them because he thinks it a load of crap. He told me it was a scam and just said who cares when I told him about how many things are made of recycled plastic for example rather than new plastic that is derived from mostly foriegn oil.

I have to ask anyone here once again because it was ignored before, global warming or not, how can it be bad to reduce pollution, reuse materials and use less fossil fuels?


Shayne, you were indoctrinated SO well that you wouldn't even realize it!

You should listen to your father....most recycling IS a scam, even the old fashioned 'paper drive'....in that it is still MUCH cheaper to make things out of raw material (and always has been). There is only one thing that comes close to breaking even recycled (I think it is aluminum cans, but I am not sure). ONE thing!

It can be "bad" to be forced into PC environmental thinking/dogma because it can/will wreck havoc with our fragile economy. I have been waiting for advancements in alternative energy for over 30yrs....the technology just is not there, no matter what you have been told.
And no, solar/hydro/wind energy is not being held back by the Republicans....lol.

[ShaneY]

And no, solar/hydro/wind energy is not being held back by the Republicans....lol.

That's funny--125-3 I wouldn't go placing me in the whiny democrat party just because I think of the environment as a concern. I'm an independant but I have voted republican in the last 3 elections more for a lack of a good and reasonable choice.

Also I'm not trying to be pc if I were doing that I wouldn't have used the word retarded. I don't want this to be political either and as I mentioned I don't pretend to know the truth. All I said was global warming or not it can't hurt to be environmentally conscious.

As for recycling I'd be interested in seeing your source of information on that. It may cost a bit more to reuse recycled material but the environmental benefit is still there.

[bb1]

That's funny--125-3 I wouldn't go placing me in the whiny democrat party just because I think of the environment as a concern. I'm an independant but I have voted republican in the last 3 elections more for a lack of a good and reasonable choice.

Also I'm not trying to be pc if I were doing that I wouldn't have used the word retarded. I don't want this to be political either and as I mentioned I don't pretend to know the truth. All I said was global warming or not it can't hurt to be environmentally conscious.

As for recycling I'd be interested in seeing your source of information on that. It may cost a bit more to reuse recycled material but the environmental benefit is still there.


Never placed you anywhere....other than the "environment concerns" you were taught in school (that you deny). We cleaned up the environment pretty good, before you were born.
New environmentalists are just out of control....w/ little concern for the economy. In other words, the big job is done....now we have extremists.

So you tell me....what is done with recycled plastic, and most importantly how much does it cost?
You will find that your father was right (and it's a lot more than a "bit"....it's a scam)

[ShaneY]

I will do some research seeing as you did not come up with a source for your info. As for my ignorance of the economy, I had no idea that spending a bit more to use recycled product to reduce the use of foreign oil was irresponsible. I should note those countries we get that oil from love us. I guess I should also stop spending a bit more on american made products and just go buy from asian companies to save a few bucks if thats your point.

[gseries69]

You both have good points. I find many environmentalists these days treat environmentalism as a religion. By that I mean that they believe in some thing with out having proof. It's a leap of faith. I put global warming in to that category. So many people blamed the Katrina disaster on global warming even though it was the levy breaking that caused the most distruction. Other than that, it was just a bad storm. These folks are extremists. They believe what they believe.

However, to Shane's point, there are some common sense things that should be done to protect our environment even if it costs money. I live in Vermont, up here, we sell Vermont. Our mountains, streams, trees, etc bring tourists up who then put millions of dollars into our economy. Our asset is the environment. So, even though it costs some money to protect it, it's an investment. I feel the environment and protecting it is an investment for everyone, whether it be some one making money off of it, or some one using it for pleasure.

Like anything else there needs to be a middle ground so that working class shleps like me can just choose to do the right thing. I don't have time to do all the home work. I rely on science, education, and the media to inform me of the truth and unfortunately all have failed miserably.

[bb1]

And while we are on the subject, you can ask your teachers & the media about the failed scientific theories of 'nuclear winter', or better yet 'acid rain' or the 'ozone layer'....which were all going to end the planet in 20 yrs. (never happened by the way).
Now it is 'man made' global warming....and we are suppose to make drastic changes, that could ruin the economy.
Every time we do something that is not economically feasible, we wreck the economy a little more (a strain), something you will NEVER hear from a teacher!
(that is what your father was trying to tell you Shane).

But my original point was that Al Gore is telling us that it's getting warmer & warmer....while we fishermen have to wait longer & longer for the striper's to show up!
Of all people, we should not be so "RETARDED".

[ShaneY]

More good points Gseries. As for bb1 I invite you to take a look at this (http://www.storyofstuff.org/) in the mean time, It's likely that you will dismiss this because it is a little more lefty than I prefer but the page is backed up by fact. I should have mentioned this earlier, but I have a Bachelors in Industrial Design and I know a little more from personal exposure to how our production and use of materials works than the average guy. Now I'm not throwing that out there to sound like an arrogant prick, the fact is that I spent a semester on a research project along with the rest of my class looking into materials usage and green design. The fact is that recycling isn't the answer for everything but it helps a good amount.

If you look at any number of products you could find most of them unrecyclable because of their mixed materials, mostly electronics that use toxic chemicals which when we're done with them get sent to china to have kids pick through our old crap to find scraps of usable material for pennies a day. The real solution lies in product design that allows longer product life and better materials usage.

I'm no extremist, I just think we can do better if people look at it as an investment in the future. If you will indulge me think of people who don't care about the environment as the same people who didn't care about the long term consequences of making bad loans in the economic sector. If you look at what my generation will have to do to pay off these loans right now (which I am not happy about). Not recycling now to save money is as shortsighted as wall st. and the banks responsible for the economic crisis.

I got sidetracked but I will look into the plastic thing later, I won't be one of those people who gets into a debate and skirts the serious rebuttal by his opponent.;)

[bb1]

No need to think of me as an "opponent" Shawn....I started watching your link but turned it off after hearing we were just "trashing" the planet, over & over again....as if we don't plant a tree after cutting one down, to that simpleton fool.
(trying to make out like she just happened to look that up, and is not being sponsored by alarmist)

We have been recycling from before I was born....there used to be the 'rag man' who went around picking up cotton & linens left outside your door (paper money used to be made or rags).
Not to mention the 'junk man' who saved & recycled everything he could!
Old tires used to be made into door mats that most people had, until uppity/educated people looked down there nose at them.

Ask some older "RETARDED" person if you don't believe me.
They will tell you scientists have been creating false 'crisis' over & over....not to mention punk professors. Just trying to open your eyes, but it is hard when you have been trained to say "people don't care about the planet" it they don't goose step to the brainwashing.

[BobG]

Global warming is clearly a deep seated plot floated by the far left to raise the price of gas, so bass fishermen have to spend more in order to go fishing.
I mean, what else could it possibly be?:confused:

[bb1]

Global warming is clearly a deep seated plot floated by the far left to raise the price of gas, so bass fishermen have to spend more in order to go fishing.
I mean, what else could it possibly be?:confused:

Actually there is something to what you say Bob. Environmental extremists DO want oil to get as costly as possible....the only way alternative energy becomes economically feasible, because there have been few (if any) major breakthrough's in those technologies for 30 yrs.

As you know we cleaned up the water pretty good YEARS ago, so to create a 'crisis', environmentalists simply made the standards 1000 times more stringent....and passed this off as normal to the next generation.


But I'll be waiting to hear from you Bob with your first 20+ lb. striper from mid canal....but I do not think it will come before June!
That is, if it doesn't snow again....then all bets are off, lol.

[bertberg]

I wonder what part of the globe they are talking of?
From what I hear, the past 5 yrs have been (progressively) colder, just about everywhere. And the EC & Japan are now openly criticizing Al Gore, who (with his believers) just ignore reality.

Sure seems the fishing is getting later & later....(#$119) Trout stocking is behind, and I wonder if (decent) striper's will be to the canal by June?

bb1, I don't know from who you've heard what you claim here, but I think you've been misinformed. Maybe you should extend your social circle...:rolleyes:
I'm not saying that we should take everything Al Gore and/or the popular media says as gospel, but to say that everything is fine regarding the climate is just not true. For a overview of the scientific consensus see:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5921/1546

In case you don't know, this is Science magazine, not some popular rag...

[bb1]

bb1, I don't know from who you've heard what you claim here, but I think you've been misinformed. Maybe you should extend your social circle...:rolleyes:
I'm not saying that we should take everything Al Gore and/or the popular media says as gospel, but to say that everything is fine regarding the climate is just not true. For a overview of the scientific consensus see:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5921/1546

In case you don't know, this is Science magazine, not some popular rag...


Yet ANOTHER problem. Just because someone is a 'scientist' does not mean there are right, or even honest. In fact, about 30yrs ago 'scientists' just came out and said....if we do not exaggerate, and "create a crisis", average people will blow us off. Basically stating that they will 'lie' to push there point. Climatologists worse nightmare (becoming reality today) are people getting a second opinion....and learning the tricks they are using to create hysteria.
(again, remember acid rain, ozone layer, nuclear winter etc....therories ALL proven wrong or greatly flawed)

Learning these truths IS "extending your social circle". Instead of just accepting what is popular at the moment.


Who ever said "everything is fine regarding the climate"? Typical exaggeration!
We only have 10 or 20 thousand years before the next predicted 100,000yr cycle ice age....when Boston will be under a mile of snow.
And man will have little do say/do about it.


p.s. Your link is for members only

[aws]

And while we are on the subject, you can ask your teachers & the media about the failed scientific theories of 'nuclear winter', or better yet 'acid rain' or the 'ozone layer'....which were all going to end the planet in 20 yrs. (never happened by the way).
Now it is 'man made' global warming....and we are suppose to make drastic changes, that could ruin the economy.
Every time we do something that is not economically feasible, we wreck the economy a little more (a strain), something you will NEVER hear from a teacher!
(that is what your father was trying to tell you Shane).

But my original point was that Al Gore is telling us that it's getting warmer & warmer....while we fishermen have to wait longer & longer for the striper's to show up!
Of all people, we should not be so "RETARDED".

Wow, this is amazing! Where are you coming up with this stuff? These are not failed scientific theories-you obviously have no scientific background. Any predictions regarding the end of the world may have been wrong, but the science behind these fundamental environmental issues was sound and in fact was responsible for helping to minimize the damage associated with these problems. Acid rain is not a theory? Ask anyone who lives in the Adirondacks, Maine, or eastern Canada. There has been much recovery due to the Clean Air Acts and related amendments much of which was due to the invention of scrubbers to precipitate S before it is released to the atmosphere(where it becomes sulfuric acid). However, recovery is far from complete due to continued high NOx emissions and S retention in the soil. Many watersheds and trout fisheries have still not recovered from the problem-it depends on a variety of geochemical characteristics of individual watersheds . Ozone hole? ask anyone who spends much time in the southern hemisphere- i.e. Chile, Antarctica, if that is not a problem-again, science helped to minimize and to some extent, repair some of this damage, but these are not at all failed theories as you suggest. Criticize extreme environmentalists, but you certainly have no idea what you are talking about when you bash science and the scientists. Obviously scientists can be proven wrong in some cases- that is an important part of the scientific research process and of course bad scientists exist, but I have no idea what facts your perception of the scientific community or these 'theories' come from.

[keithJ]

From a fishing perspective, I have seen almost no evidence that the bass are showing up later than usual. From third week in April to first week in May seems pretty consistent as far as I can tell, with slight variations from one year to the next. The only seasonal pattern I've noticed is that the bass seem to hang around later and later into the fall, which if anything seems to support the global warming theory.

I'm not sure where I stand on the global warming issue, I do believe there's a lot of evidence that supports the phenomena, but I think that the time frame of data aquisition, 100+ years, may be too small a period to truly appreciate trends on a macroscopic level. I must say though, I do think it's borderline embarassing for you to not to at least respect and consider the opinion of a researcher whose career involves arctic climate research. Clearly if you aren't going to listen to a scientist with intrisic knowledge of the topic, then you're irrational, and in being irritational, you're know different then the nutso environmentalists that act irrationally at the other end of the spectrum.

[bb1]

Wow, this is amazing! Where are you coming up with this stuff? These are not failed scientific theories-you obviously have no scientific background. Any predictions regarding the end of the world may have been wrong, but the science behind these fundamental environmental issues was sound and in fact was responsible for helping to minimize the damage associated with these problems. Acid rain is not a theory? Ask anyone who lives in the Adirondacks, Maine, or eastern Canada. There has been much recovery due to the Clean Air Acts and related amendments much of which was due to the invention of scrubbers to precipitate S before it is released to the atmosphere(where it becomes sulfuric acid). However, recovery is far from complete due to continued high NOx emissions and S retention in the soil. Many watersheds and trout fisheries have still not recovered from the problem-it depends on a variety of geochemical characteristics of individual watersheds . Ozone hole? ask anyone who spends much time in the southern hemisphere- i.e. Chile, Antarctica, if that is not a problem-again, science helped to minimize and to some extent, repair some of this damage, but these are not at all failed theories as you suggest. Criticize extreme environmentalists, but you certainly have no idea what you are talking about when you bash science and the scientists. Obviously scientists can be proven wrong in some cases- that is an important part of the scientific research process and of course bad scientists exist, but I have no idea what facts your perception of the scientific community or these 'theories' come from.


Again....the "failure' of these theories is that the "scientists" predicted horrific consequences to 'acid rain' & the 'ozone layer' 10-20 years from then (now) that NEVER developed!
NOT EVEN CLOSE to there hysterical predictions.

"scientists" will, and have lied, to promote there theories in the past....and they will continue to.
It's the fool who ignores the past, and allows themselves to be duped again....to 'feel good' about themselves.

I am not trying to say that there are no 'human' problems....I am saying that they are greatly overstated by these so called "scientists".
And history, throughout man kind, proves that.

[bb1]

From a fishing perspective, I have seen almost no evidence that the bass are showing up later than usual. From third week in April to first week in May seems pretty consistent as far as I can tell, with slight variations from one year to the next. The only seasonal pattern I've noticed is that the bass seem to hang around later and later into the fall, which if anything seems to support the global warming theory.

I'm not sure where I stand on the global warming issue, I do believe there's a lot of evidence that supports the phenomena, but I think that the time frame of data aquisition, 100+ years, may be too small a period to truly appreciate trends on a macroscopic level. I must say though, I do think it's borderline embarassing for you to not to at least respect and consider the opinion of a researcher whose career involves arctic climate research. Clearly if you aren't going to listen to a scientist with intrisic knowledge of the topic, then you're irrational, and in being irritational, you're know different then the nutso environmentalists that act irrationally at the other end of the spectrum.


It is NOT global warming that I question (if you read this thread you would know that)....it is the theory that a overwhelming portion of it is man made, that "scientists" themselves are now back tracking on.

And I am talking of larger migratory stripers reaching the Canal, not resident schoolies in May. In the past there were many times LARGE fish moved through in the first or second week in May.
Good luck with that this year :rolleyes:

[Cyprinidae]

I'm glad to see that I am not the only person to debate on here. As a biologist I personally would never lie to promote my theories. I am sure that some would and do, but you get people like that in every field, and I would bet that it is more prevalent in other fields than in the sciences. The bulk of scientists do not lie to the public, and there is always another scientist that will question what is being said.

Acid rain did and continues to have consequences, I believe it is one of the major threats to your brook trout in Massachusetts, which you seem to be so concerned about already. It facilitates release of aluminum from soils which seeps into streams killing fish, algae/plants and invertebrates. It has also largely stripped the soils of their nutrients. You don't want to know the nutrient replenishing rate of soils. But who listens to me anyway:rolleyes:

I have no opinion on global warming. It could clearly go either way as each of the two main theories are STRONGLY correlated (undeniable fact). Should we wait and see what happens? That's what we do as humans so lets sit back, :-%, and watch it unfold while we keep creeping toward an uncertain edge.

[bertberg]

Again....the "failure' of these theories is that the "scientists" predicted horrific consequences to 'acid rain' & the 'ozone layer' 10-20 years from then (now) that NEVER developed!
NOT EVEN CLOSE to there hysterical predictions.

"scientists" will, and have lied, to promote there theories in the past....and they will continue to.
It's the fool who ignores the past, and allows themselves to be duped again....to 'feel good' about themselves.



Ever considered that, maybe, the predicted "horrific consequences" of acid rain and the ozone layer never developed because of altered awareness and preventative measures that were put in place BECAUSE OF scientific research? And be the way, there are plenty of pretty bad consequences caused by acid rain and the ozone layer, they just don't happen to be in your backyard. This allows you to conveniently ignore or deny them.

In general I think you'll find that scientists are averse to creating hysteria, this is mostly the result of overinterpretation of misinterpretation of the science by the popular media. As for scientists lying, the basic premise of the scientific exercise is that results should be verifiable by others. Lying won't get you far in science. Thats a fact.

Below is the text of the link that is indeed (my bad) only accessible for members. The first paragraph is the most relevant and sums up the scientific consensus:

COPENHAGEN--Meeting 2 years after the most recent report of the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some 2000 scientists delivered a consistent if not unequivocal message here last week on the state of Earth's warming climate. "The worst-case IPCC projections, or even worse, are being realized," said the event's co-chair, University of Copenhagen biological oceanographer Katherine Richardson. Emissions are soaring, projections of sea level rise are higher than expected, and climate impacts around the world are appearing with increasing frequency, she told delegates in the opening session of the 3-day meeting.

Figure 2

The 11 universities that convened the Copenhagen Climate Congress hoped to provide a comprehensive picture of the status of world climate science before another set of delegates meets here in December to hammer out a follow- up to the 1997 Kyoto Accords, which expire in 2012. "This is our opportunity to get science back on the agenda," said climate modeler Vicky Pope of the U.K. Met Office. British Member of Parliament Colin Challen, who attended several sessions, said the update was crucial as nations are making plans "on data that's out of date."

Outside the conference center, a 75-m wind turbine reminded delegates of the promise, yet unfulfilled, of sustainable energy. And inside, the organizers definitely felt the wind at their backs. Unlike IPCC, which is affiliated with the United Nations and its member governments, last week's congress answered to no political bosses and, therefore, participants were free to make prescriptive statements at its conclusion. "Inaction is inexcusable" and "weaker [emissions] targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points" were two of the six "messages" that organizers disseminated in a press release. Some scientists, however, felt that those messages suggested a false consensus among participants.

The meeting's 58 sessions were grouped into three general themes: physical climate science, prospects for mitigation, and impacts and adaptation. On the prognosis for the climate system, Richardson warned that there's "no good news." Some scientists criticized how the 2007 IPCC report addressed the loss of the world's ice sheets, because it explicitly omitted calculations of the movement of glaciers, which at the time was poorly understood (Science, 9 February 2007, p. 754). Two years later, the picture is clearer. Konrad Steffen of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences in Boulder, Colorado, said that the loss of Greenland ice was accelerating, with the speedup of the glaciers contributing up to two-thirds of the loss.

Another question left unanswered by the last IPCC report was whether the Antarctic ice sheets were losing mass. University of California (UC), Irvine, glaciologist Eric Rignot said that more recent data from satellites and field studies "very clearly" show that the ice sheets are shrinking. Rignot said the accelerating movement of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica would, on the current trajectory, lead to sea level rise of 1 m or more by 2100--flooding coastal residents around the world.

New modeling work presented by Jonathan Bamber of the University of Bristol, U.K., showed that a complete disintegration of the Greenland sheet would require a 6°C rise in global temperatures, double the conventional wisdom. But before the audience could digest what sounded like a rare piece of good news, Bamber added that a 15% loss to the sheet would translate into a 1-m rise in sea level. "[That] is a horrendous prospect whichever way you cut it," Bamber told Science.

Elsewhere, the science was just as gloomy. Ecologist Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science, who is overseeing the next IPCC report's section on impacts, gave an update on his analysis of the behavior of carbon stocks in the soil, permafrost, and plants. It's a problem IPCC "underemphasized" 2 years ago, he said. The latest estimate of the amount of carbon in permafrost is 1.7 trillion tons, more than twice the 2007 estimate.

Scientists know that warming temperatures could unlock this carbon, making the yearly effort to cut the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide "that much tougher" in the coming decades, Field says. Modeling of carbon frozen in soils remains primitive, he said. But new findings from field studies suggest that a type of soil known as Yedoma sediments could be especially problematic because it decomposes easily and 30% of its emissions are methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Plus, he said, scientists have been unable to find evidence for the hypothesis that some natural carbon sinks like forests may be increasing their ability to take in CO2 as the planet warms.

A number of sessions examined the frightening possibility that warming temperatures could trigger catastrophic tipping points, such as the loss of the Amazon rainforest through drought, which would create a vicious feedback. For example, modelers from the U.K.'s Met Office presented new data showing that even a global cessation of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 could lead to a loss of up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest. "We thought we didn't need to worry till we got to 3°C of warming," says Pope (see graphic). Tim Lenton, an Earth systems scientist from the University of East Anglia, U.K., describes the change in looking at deforestation as going from "high-impact, low-probability events [to] high-impact, larger probability events." Atmospheric scientist Allan Gadian of the University of Leeds, U.K., says that the model "lacks credibility" because it fails to reproduce the current climate. But Chris Jones of the Met Office says the model closely replicates 20th century Amazon rain patterns.

Figure 3 Emptying out. New models forecast that Amazonian forests could be decimated by 2150 even if greenhouse gas emissions fall to zero by 2050.

CREDITS (TOP TO BOTTOM): PHOTOS.COM; (SOURCE) MET OFFICE

The challenge of change
Although transforming the world energy economy poses what Ian Chubb, vice-chancellor of Australian National University in Canberra, calls "a diabolical policy problem," sessions on mitigating carbon emissions offered a mixed bag. UC Berkeley energy scientist Daniel Kammen explained how a Berkeley city employee had come up with a novel financing technique to fund residential energy-efficiency upgrades and solar panels. It's too early to assess the success of the 6-month-old program, which offers homeowners loans through a city bond. But a handful of U.S. cities have adopted it, he says, and officials in Lisbon and New York City are monitoring it. "Green growth is the answer to our climate problems and our economic problems," Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told the delegates during an appearance in which he quizzed a panel of scientists on what emissions cuts are required.

Nations like Denmark have shown the reliability of wind power. But one challenge has been getting businesses to work together. Danish engineering professor Erik Petersen of Risoe National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy in Denmark said that "surprisingly" turbulent wind conditions at sea have made the turbines less efficient but that scientists are having trouble studying the problem because the companies are concerned about giving their competitors an advantage by disclosing their data.

Scientists also examined how carbon-friendly mitigation techniques might cause other problems. Dozens of companies are developing new strains of algae to make biodiesel fuel, said Anthony Marchese of Colorado State University in Fort Collins, but his studies show that the resulting fuel can emit higher organic carbon or NOx pollution levels than fossil fuels do when burned. "We have to consider issues like the emissions and health effects, not just how much oil bio algae fuel provides," he said.

Along similar lines, Australian geographer and ecologist Neville Crossman of the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation said that a carbon-trading system in Australia provided farmers with an incentive to plant certain native eucalyptus trees in dry areas. But the trees increase the demand on scarce water supplies. A better alternative would be to plant mixtures of species, he says, but that requirement is not included in the system.

The conference included dozens of sessions on how scientists are helping countries begin to adapt to climate impacts. "Adaptation is rapidly evolving as a new area of science," said Roger Street of the University of Oxford in the U.K. and an expert on impacts and adaptation. There's a lot to learn, however. Oxford plant ecologist Pam Berry showed how adaptation can hinder efforts to mitigate emissions and protect biodiversity. "We need triple wins," she said. A project to reroute streams to reduce the risk of flooding, for example, offered relatively cheap flood protection and increased aquatic biodiversity, she said. But the new ecosystem might feature additional sources of methane. Beach-restoration efforts to battle rising tides often involve the addition of sands, which have a chemical composition that can harm local species. Scientists are learning that climate change creates challenges more complicated than the "single stressor, single species" models that were used in the past, she said.

Attendees said that they appreciated the breadth of climate-related research presented at the meeting, which was much more political than the average scientific conference but far more scientific than a gathering of diplomats. Still, Field echoed the comments of several researchers in worrying about the stated message of the effort. Field said the scientists on stage in the final plenary session were overstating the level of support among climate scientists for the scientific validity of the 2°C target. Also troubling, he said, was that the organizers of the congress "were very unclear on the difference between [the messages] at the end of the meeting and the incredibly thorough, careful IPCC review and evaluation process."

Conference organizers plan to release a 30-page, peer-reviewed summary report of the conference findings in June. They hope the document will serve as a guide for this fall's negotiators of the evolving science.

[keithJ]

I think that's a forage issue associated with, among other things, the status of the bourndale herring run. On the southside of the cape the big bass showed up on time last year. We had the odd 25 pound fish mixed in with school bass during the second week in May, mostly schoolies during the first week of May. Plenty of large fish around during the last two weeks of the month.

But I guess I'm confused what you're arguing at this point. You said that you are not arguing that global warming isn't occurring, just that it isn't a man made phenomena. And then your using the arrival of the bass in the canal as evidence that global warming is in fact NOT occurring because the bass are showing up later? (#$119). Not sure what you're talking about right now....

In any case, I don't think there's enough evidence to use the timing of the arrival of bass in the canal to counter the existence of global warming.



And I am talking of larger migratory stripers reaching the Canal, not resident schoolies in May. In the past there were many times LARGE fish moved through in the first or second week in May.
Good luck with that this year :rolleyes:

[bb1]

In general I think you'll find that scientists are averse to creating hysteria, this is mostly the result of overinterpretation of misinterpretation of the science by the popular media.

"The worst-case IPCC projections, or even worse, are being realized," said the event's co-chair, University of Copenhagen biological oceanographer Katherine Richardson. Emissions are soaring, projections of sea level rise are higher than expected, and climate impacts around the world are appearing with increasing frequency,



Yet ANOTHER problem, "scientists" like to have it both ways!

Or as the 'ignorant masses' would say....talk out of both sides of there mouth.


"Emissions are soaring"....after the US put catalytic converters on all there vehicles (and forced the UK, Germany & Japan to do the same). Not to mention chimney stacks!

But lets blame the US for emissions....and ignore China & India (not really part of the Kyoto Accords).


Yes "scientists" are good at ignoring fact when it is "convenient".

[bb1]

I think that's a forage issue associated with, among other things, the status of the bourndale herring run. On the southside of the cape the big bass showed up on time last year. We had the odd 25 pound fish mixed in with school bass during the second week in May, mostly schoolies during the first week of May. Plenty of large fish around during the last two weeks of the month.

But I guess I'm confused what you're arguing at this point. You said that you are not arguing that global warming isn't occurring, just that it isn't a man made phenomena. And then your using the arrival of the bass in the canal as evidence that global warming is in fact NOT occurring because the bass are showing up later? (#$119). Not sure what you're talking about right now....

In any case, I don't think there's enough evidence to use the timing of the arrival of bass in the canal to counter the existence of global warming.


Funny, I did not hear many great reports from South Cape Beach the last few years? Mostly blues.

Your mixing climate change w/ "global warming"....:rolleyes: Do you see last winter as a "warm" one? And the last 5 yrs have been cold in most (populated) places on earth, some close to record levels!

[carrsallstars]

Not sure where you are coming from bb1...

Are you just tying to get a rise out of people by saying ridiculous things?

Or are you making a concerted effort to show the limits of your knowledge and arguing skills?

There have been some well substantiated points in this thread, unfortunately none of them belong to you.

Why don't you try some reading up about the status of the ozone layer over the past 40 years, the impacts of increased UV radiation on earth dwelling organism like ourselves, and global CFC regulations. If you can find a way to make it support or not directly refute such an uneducated opinion such as your statement:

"the "failure' of these theories is that the "scientists" predicted horrific consequences to 'acid rain' & the 'ozone layer' 10-20 years from then (now) that NEVER developed!"

Then I'd be interested to hear it.

If you can't do that then I suggest you just keep throwing your unsubstantiated opinions at other uneducated people like yourself, and who knows, maybe you'll make some new friends.

[bb1]

Not sure where you are coming from bb1...

Are you just tying to get a rise out of people by saying ridiculous things?

Or are you making a concerted effort to show the limits of your knowledge and arguing skills?

There have been some well substantiated points in this thread, unfortunately none of them belong to you.

Why don't you try some reading up about the status of the ozone layer over the past 40 years, the impacts of increased UV radiation on earth dwelling organism like ourselves, and global CFC regulations. If you can find a way to make it support or not directly refute such an uneducated opinion such as your statement:

"the "failure' of these theories is that the "scientists" predicted horrific consequences to 'acid rain' & the 'ozone layer' 10-20 years from then (now) that NEVER developed!"

Then I'd be interested to hear it.

If you can't do that then I suggest you just keep throwing your unsubstantiated opinions at other uneducated people like yourself, and who knows, maybe you'll make some new friends.


The only "ridiculous" thing here are those that can't remember, (or were never taught), that "scientists" were predicting global doom 20yrs ago over the ozone layer....that never happened.
The "scientists" took pictures over the Antarctic when the 'hole' was seasonally small, then later in the year when it was seasonally larger....then tried to convince/dupe the public into thinking that it was getting bigger & bigger each year. And any time that 'hole' was smaller that the year before, the "scientists" kept those pics to themselves.
The public was finally informed of the scam (by honest "scientists") and that is why you don't see the 'hole' pics on the news any more.

By the way, plastics have to be separated into at least 7 different categories to be recycled....with that, and all the fuel and man hours involved it becomes "ridiculous" to recycle. And even then it's made into things like lawn furniture, not new bottles.

[bb1]

I watched a Ch.2 (PBS) NOVA special over the weekend "The Melting Of Glaciers"....in it, a top climatologist "scientist" said that fossil fuels burnt my man were the "ONLY" reason for a CO2 rise. For some reason volcanic eruptions (and underwater eruptions) were never mentioned by this smirking "scientist". As you may know, many climatologists now believe that earth itself produce more CO2 that man ever could.

THAT, is what I mean by "scientists" (blatantly) lying to the masses, and promoted by the dominant media.

There was also NO mention of other green house gases such as Nitrous Oxide, methane (cow burps), HFC, CFC, N2O in this "scientific" program contributing to melting ice.

Like W.C. Fields once said...."there's a sucker born every minute".