Letter to the Editor
Global warming
Published Monday, May 5, 2008
April 30, 2008
To the editor:
Again and again, environmentalists like Mr. van den Berg argue that burning of fossil fuel is the cause for global warming (see his Community Perspective from April 30). Even though there is no scientific evidence for the hypothesis that the increase of the global near-surface temperature during the last 150 years by less than 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit is forced by an increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, they repeat this unproven statement like a prayer mill and demand irresponsible measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission.
There is no scientific consensus in the case of the GHG-temperature hypothesis as usually stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and many environmentalists. This GHG-temperature hypothesis is mainly based on two indications: The Mauna Loa observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), gathered in the so-called Keeling curve, and CO2 results from ice core analysis.
These indications suggest that the CO2 concentration was never higher than today. Meanwhile, there are also indications that this suggestion is completely wrong. As recently published by German scientist Beck (Energy & Environment 18, 2007, see www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm), during the 180 years there were CO2 concentrations much higher than the current value of 385 parts per million. His inventory is based on more than 90,000 observations using chemical methods. These chemical methods might not be so accurate like the technique introduced by Keeling in 1958 (to my surprise, I did not find any result from intercomparison series), but the maximum values observed in the 19th and 20th centuries are so high that even a procedural error in the chemical methods by 20 ppmV is too less to support that the Mauna Loa data represent the highest CO2 concentrations ever observed.
On the other hand, the ice core CO2 results of Neftel et al. published in 1982 and 1985 in Nature and referenced by the IPCC report from 2007 reflect, indeed, a poor scientific standard. The only reason for this prominent reference is that these CO2 results serve to extrapolate the Keeling curve back to the 18th century.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Blasphemy! You should be burned at the stake!
I jest.
I wonder how many scientists are employed because of this "global warming?"
hmmmmmmm.
Mr Kramm -
I feel for you ... you will probably be forced to move out of town now due to the hail of Birkenstock's and Granola that will be thrown your way after this letter.....
If you smell the faint aroma of B.O. and hear some clapping and John Lennon in the playing in the distance - run for your life! The greenies are comming - and boy are you a heretic....haven't you even seen 'An Inconvenient Truth' :)
'All truths are erroneous. This is the very essence of the dialectical process: today's truths become errors tomorrow; there is no final number. This truth (the only one) is for the strong alone. Weak-nerved minds insist on a finite universe, a last number; they need, in Nietzsche's words, "the crutches of certainty". The weak-nerved lack the strength to include themselves in the dialectic syllogism.' (On Literature, Revolution, Entropy, and Other Matters, 1923)
Yes, there is soooooo much money to make being a Pro-Global Warming scientist. The money trail leads right back to them!! Yup, follow the money; it always leads you back to them, the Weather Channel and those smelly hippies!!
Thanks Reader for being such a stalwart for the poor Oil Companies, BushCo, and the rest of CorpWORLD who are only trying to do the right thing for an honest dollar????
Those darn hippy BILLIONAIERES!!
Thanks boys, keep drinking the KROOLAIDE. YouMustBConfused
I would like to point to amber sap that has been dated back thousands of years that has CO2 and oxygen levels being twice what they are now, leading to the assumption that the earth has been hotter and has had a green house effect that caused these gases to be trapped inside of our atmosphere. Yawn...
I know it is soooo boring JB...its not your fault. Yup, it was someone or something else that warmed the planet back then. We will have no part of this fake warming, lets just consider ourselves observers this time around...it is so much easier! Yawn...YouMustBConfused
YouMustBeConfused, I believe you are missing the point. The point is that humans haven't been releasing Co2 into the atmosphere for very long, and many, many generations ago there was an abundance of Co2. Therefore, it is logical to assume that there are other factors than emissions.
What is so difficult to understand about this? There isn't anything we can do. It is cyclical. That means the Co2 concentrations go up and down as the years progress, regardless of mans involvement.
Regardless of their accuracy, wouldn't higher CO2 levels at points in the past be an even stronger reason no to push it higher with the indisputably massive amount of CO2 being released by humans?
One volcano eruption will produce more carbon output than all the carbon produced by man in the last 100 years.
check out the real reason for Global warming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA7hAFBRl...
Denial is a terrible thing,
When all evidence points to the obvious such as increased wild fires, melting of glaciers seen by the satellites, droughts, tornadoes all last week which is "Freak", 90% of all American Forests already decimated in last several hundred years, and of course.....etc., etc.
the obvious warmer Fairbanks winters, but then again most of you newcomers couldn't tell the difference.
*yawn*
But, of course let's practice denial and put a bandaid on it....just like addicts and practicing alcoholics.
*yawn*
>One volcano eruption will produce more carbon output than all the carbon produced by man in the last 100 years.
Yup, and if one Volcano went off every year. We would be screwed. Not to mention, when one went off in the past, we actually had rain forests to such the co2 back up.
And yes, co2 was higher in the very distant past - when Dinosaurs ruled the Earth. It was also a VERY inhospitable place for creatures as frail as we humans.
Do people just look at the MASSIVE dead zones that are developing in the oceans and say, gee that's strange. You should be VERY concerned. That one we KNOW is directly related to how much of OUR Co2 is absorbed by the ocean. Just one of them in the Gulf is the equivalent of suddenly there being no birds in the entire FNSB. Now, some people would just scratch their head and say, must be God's will, or that seems strange but it couldn't possibly be humans fault.
But by the comments above, clearly people are starting to move from simple Denial to anger. Yes, Climate Changes, and so does our way of life. Get used to it.
Fear is a terrible thing.
The earth has undergone change from the very beginning.
Humankind, like any other species, will adapt or go away.
Previous warming periods that have occurred while humans were present resulted in escape from famine and caused humankind to flourish.
So what is the ideal temperature for the earth?
Where is it written that humankind will be here forever?
When Mother Earth tires of us, we will go away. And she will continue to undergo change, for all time to come.
Even with the recent climatic events that so freak the "warmers" out, we are experiencing a relatively quiet time in the history of the earth. Even though you wouldn't suspect that from watching the news soaps.
It's time to calm down and try to think about what's really happening....
OK ecray, I agree that the earth has been here a little longer than man has and wont bring up what many believe....that the earth is only 6000 years old? Then we have to look at all the reasons that co2 was present. As I will continue to point out, humans are contributing to co2 and because of that we are dirrectly linked to our planet. Follow the money and I dont think it leads to scientist, hippies or average joe for that matter. But again this seems to some, to be a YAWN issue...I wonder why? Last I checked you cant survive with your head stuck in the sand?
Or stuck somewhere else. There is actually an amazing amount of consensus among scientists that humans are the direct cause of the current global warming. Yes, there has been global warming in the past as well as other major catastrophic events which led to massive rates of extinction, even as high as 90-95%! I guess you're ok with your children, grandchildren, and mine going through such a massive extinction in today's world but let me tell you, it isn't going to be pleasant. If you and others will pull your heads out in the near term, we may be able to soften the blow and make our children and grandchildren's lives a little better. Whats wrong with aspiring for that? Oh right, it's called sacrifice and you want to continue to live your selfish, self-centered life. And, no, scientists don't make much money - look toward your beloved president and his oily cronies to find out who IS getting rich off of the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of this awesome biosphere.
Follow the money and it leads to conventions for head-scratching and endless discussion on theory followed by cocktail hours later on, and perhaps a round of golf on Saturday...
This, often, in beautiful, tropical or semi-tropical, exotic locations many of us can only dream of going to...
With the desirable destinations reached, of course, by jet airplanes...
YouMustBeConfused, while it is true we do contribute to Co2, the belief is that it is a tear in the salty sea. Our Co2 contribution is dwarfed by the amount generated by the earth itself. The earth will deal with it eventually as it is part of the cycle.
And yes, there is a lot of money being thrown around because of global warming. According to smh.com, about $50 BILLION dollars has been spent on research since the 90s. According to townhall.com, that number is $80 billion. That is a lot of cash, and someone is profiting from it. California was spending $600 million on a research center. Scientists, contractors, and investors all profit.
Better to have our heads stuck in the sand than stuck up our...
akjak, please cite a source proving there is "consensus among scientists."
What kind of sacrifices have YOU made for global warming? Do you use LED lights in your home, have solar power, take cold showers, walk to work, keep your house at 65 degrees, mow the lawn with a mechanical push mower, planted a few trees, boycotted products made in large co2 emitting factories, or anything else? Can you tell me what YOU have done to reduce your carbon footprint? And not driving an SUV or truck doesn't count. Driving a smaller car than normal is not a sacrifice.
I should say "endless conventions for endless head-scratching..."
However much any given scientist makes, this is a good scheme for world travel...(for them anyway).
ecray! corinne! HRUMPH, HRUMPH, HRUMPH!!!
Augh the old what have you done aurgument!!
According to smh.com...this is a hospital website???
According to townhall.com...this is a NEOCON website???
"this is a good scheme for world travel...(for them anyway)."
Yes, those high-flying scientists and their Jet planes!!!
HRUMPH, HRUMPH, HRUMPH!!!
Bluster, bluster and more bluster!!
Now you have told us how much the EVIL scientists are making, please go to your NEOCON sites and find out how much the OIL Cos. and BUSHCO are making...a little hint...it is a little more than the scientists!!
YouMustBConfused
Confused-
OMG, quit freaking out.
I have provided no web site, advocated nothing about Bush & Co., nor said anything about any scientist's salary.
The fact remains that many are travelling around the world to attend well-funded conferences on the theory of global warming.
You're over-the-top behavior certainly adds fuel to those who view global warming as the new religion for too many.
Confused, you don't make any logical argument nor do you provide anything of substance. It is little more benefit than arguing with a child.
In the future, why not try to actually add something to the discussion? Find a site that says "no, actually, this much has been spent on global warming." I grabbed those websites from a quick Google search.
I don't care how much the oil companies are making. I am all for alternative sources (nuclear, anyone?) but at the same time I do realize that the earth cycles and this too will pass.
My guess is that you think you win every argument you ever get in, when in reality people realize you don't have a logical thought in your brain and simply give up trying to convince you of anything. You subscribe to this dogma of global warming and cannot accept outside evidence to the contrary.
corinne = these are just words...not behavior.
You got lumped in with ecray...the two of you kind of sound the same in your line of words...or religion?
Global warming is no longer a debate. It is a fact. Decreasing hydro carbons from our atmosphere will result in cleaner air. Who doesn't want cleaner air?
Global warming is not in debate. Yes you are correct.
However what is in debate is that CO2 is the primary cause of or the result of Global warming.
So far most of the evidence at had indicates that something other than CO2 is causing the warming.
Since that has been proven the case. Now scientist suggest that CO2 is part of the feedback loop and that excess CO2 will cause the warming to be longer and more pronounced in it's effects on the planet than usual.
I say great!! It is well documented that societies have also done far better in warmer periods than in cold ones.
Another point is that all those who are certain that CO2 is causing damage to the earth and will result in x number of people dying as a result didn't tell us that alot of the deaths will also be caused by there own hands via government policy that promotes the use of ethanol which has already increased/ causing food shortages....of course maybe that was the plan anyways since many in the same group feel the planet is over populated....
Gerhardd is a beloved and respected member of the atmospheric science department here, at UAF, but he, by no means, speaks for the vast majority of us in the dept. Gerhard and I got into a debate when I told him, that, CO2 alone, is not what troubles scientists, but the water vapor feedback that it could initiate. Doubling CO2 from current levels (which will definitely 100% occur before this century is out) increases the amount of energy reaching the surface by 4 Watts per square meter. Which admittedlly is less than 1% of the current amounts. But if you integrate that across space and time, its an enormous amount of energy added to the system which will undoubedly add vasts amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere. Water vapor is much better at trapping outgoing infrared radiation than CO2, so, the temperature will respond much quicker to this change. Further warming increases evaporation leading to greater water vapor and even more warming...Gerhard thinks that such a response is inconceivable.
Gerhard lost all credibility with me on this issue when he said that the current CO2 levels are not 385 parts per million, but are, in fact, no greater than 250 parts per million, and that the higher amounts are related to the instrument being next to an active volcano...Both statements, are to put bluntly, preposterous. CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and has about a 100 year lifetime...measurements throughtout the world are very consistent. True, a single big volcanic event can inject more CO2 into the atm than all anthroprogenic sources combined, such events are short lived and the system falls back to equilibrium rather quickly...and as for the theory that mona loa's emissions contaminate the CO2 sensor at the observatory...hogwash! the seasonal ups and downs of CO2 due to leaf senesence and the steadily rising trends could not be explained by random "burps" of the volcano...sorry Gerhard, but your arguments are ridiculous, although i can't compete when it comes to differential equations.
the earth's climate is controlled by a plethora of factors, both internal and external, which are all coupled together in complex ways. and indeed, our climate does go thru cycles that are controlled primarily by our orbital geometery with the sun. but these cycles repeat every 10,000 22,000 and 100,000 years. But CO2 does influence climate...it absorbs outgoing radiation and slows the earth's ability to cool itself...its very simple physics.
if you increase CO2, then you increase its ability to hinder the earth's radiational cooling mechanisms...over the last million years, CO2 went thru very systematic periodic cylcles between 180 and 280 parts per million, which matches perfectly with warm periods and ice ages. it is currently over 380 parts per million and is predicted to be well over 800 parts per million by the end of this century. We can argue about how the system will respond, the accuracy of the climate models, and which feedbacks will reinforce or counteract the CO2 warming, but there's no doubt that this added CO2, which was stored for millions of years underground, is changing our climate. A five fold increase in CO2 in less than a 100 years is not something to take lightly.
Speaking of scientists...Gerhard Kramm (born 9 July 1946 in Cologne, Germany) is a naturalized American atmospheric scientist with interests in theoretical meteorology. His work is mainly focused on physics of the planetary boundary layer, atmospheric turbulence and its impact upon atmospheric chemistry, atmospheric dynamics, atmospheric radiation, cloud physics, micro- and mesoscale numerical modeling, and climate and climate change. He is one of the 400 scientists listed in a report issued by the Republican minority of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works entitled Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 who were said to dispute the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
I wonder if he will be getting any funding for this allegiance to Inhofe and gang?
i don't know, but his wife is the head of the department and i can assure you she does not agree with him.
Well, if he does get funding, it will have come about because of the initial ruckus over global warming.
patcaribou, in 1973-74 I did a school report on the impending ice age. I remember it well; it was on all the covers of the the major magazines laying (lying?! there it is again!) on our library table in my home as a kid.
Whatever happened to that?
what melted all the glaciers that covered most of the continent during the last ice age?
Could it have been global warming?
Is it possible that we have ice ages and then tropical times as well?
Can it be stopped, and should we try?
you must be confused- my yawn was not meant the way you took it, it was meant to show how tired I am of people getting on there soap box in this forum to continously argue there side on this issue. For every thing you can find that says it is a fact I can find someone that says the exact opposite. The world has taken this issue beyond arguing and they are moving forward with a concerted effort to make a change, AND THAT IS FINE. Do I agree? No, and I dont have to. I do find it better to err on the side of prudence instead of finding my self in the position of playing catch up but that does not mean that I agree or that I enjoy the constant bickering on this subject. My yawn was because I knew that this article would find someone like you to pontificate on it again (and again and again).
Ahhhh yes, pontification...Yes! Yes, it is redundant but here you are...again. YouMustBConfused
Corinne,
yes, the mainstream media does a very poor job of science reporting. its always highly sensationalized, watered down, and overly simplistic, and in many cases blatanly inaccurate..i don't know how mnay times i come across articles which correlate ozone loss and global warming when the two are entirely separate issues. i was born in 79 so i didn't live thru the "global cooling" alarmists, but there were many scientists who were concerned about the consequences of steadily rising CO2 even as far back as the 50's. The 70's happened to be a decade of very cold winters in the lower 48, and if you follow the milenovich cycles (the 3 earth orbital parameters that affect the amount solar radiation) back 900,000 years, we should have reached our warm "peak" in the late 1800 early 1900's, so some expected us to be on th 10,000 year slide back to an ice age. On top of that, sulfate air pollution from factories and coal fired power plants (which has since been cleaned up in the US and Europe) significantly reduces the amount of solar energy reaching the earth's surface because it reflects radiation and it also makes clouds brighter and increases their longevity.
yes, the climate undoubtedly goes thru natural changes and it will change in the future, but at the geologic timescale, these changes are very gradual and take thousands of years allowing for life and ecosystems to adapt. the type of warming that 99.9% of the world is now concerned with is extremly rapid 5-8 degree F warming over just 1 century, which has the potential to be extremely catastrophic to our existence, food production, economy, etc...these changes are being brought about by our dumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere faster than the earth/ ecosystem can take it back up. The rest of the world is taking this seriously and are investing mightily in alternative energy..europe taxes the hell out of gasoline and the money raised provides incentives to wind and solar..germany, a country not known for its sunny warm climate, will derive 30% of its energy from solar by 2020. if we are going to help China and India modernize, then the US should be at the forefront of this issue. we have technology that could remove CO2 from coal fired powerplants which we could install and sell to the chinese but where's the leadership? we are falling behind so badly and it worries me.
the only alarmists i see now, are those funded by the petroleum and auto industry who say that if we change our ways, we're in danger of destroying our economy...the fact is, if we don't change our ways, we are on the path to certain catastrophe, both from an ecological standpoint, and from an economic one.
God spoke to me last night. He said to switch to coal heat right away because the sun is going into a weak phase and it's going to get real cold real soon. He said we weren't doing enough yet to overcome this dimming of the sun and if we don't get more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere right now he's gonna be upset. Honest.
Taters must work in Healy, but I will switch to coal anyways.
I wonder if I can get a coal fired harley.
Hello ecray,
Yes, I use fluorescent bulbs, have a timer on my water heater, turn my heater down to 60 at night and in the day when we aren't home, have excellent insulation in my walls and ceiling, hang my laundry to dry even in winter, and drive my kids to school in a relatively small car (yes, that does count). I'd love to afford solar panels and would put them up in an instant if I could. Do you think any of your oily friends would sponsor that cos