Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

Climate of Fear

Posted by: Dr. Jeff Masters, 4:15 PM GMT on April 18, 2006

An opinion piece titled, "Climate of Fear: Global-Warming Alarmists Intimidate Scientists Into Silence" appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, criticizing the "iron triangle" of of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers responsible for raising the alarm over the threat posed by global warming. The article's two main points:

1) Climate scientists who are raising alarms over global warming are exaggerating the danger in order to get funding.

2) "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

I'm not familiar with the scientists Dr. Lindzen discusses who have lost their funding because they are greenhouse skeptics, and he does not provide any quotes or references to support this point. So, to keep this discussion shorter, I will only focus on his first argument--that climate scientists are exaggerating the threat of global warming in order to get funding.

Who is Richard Lindzen?
First, a little background on the author. Dr. Richard Lindzen is Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel of experts that advises the President on climate change science, and was a lead author of the most recent UN-sponsored Climate Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is used as the "official" benchmark of the expected amount of climate change this century. He has written many excellent and highly regarded peer-reviewed scientific papers during a career spanning over 40 years.

Much of his recent work has focused on climate change. Dr. Lindzen hypothesizes that global warming will not increase Earth's temperature significantly because increases in upper-level cloud cover will result from increased thunderstorm activity, and this increased cloud cover will act to reflect away more incoming sunlight, cooling the planet. This "Iris Effect" is named after the ability of the human eye to control the amount of light entering the eye by changing the diameter of its iris. His theory is difficult to prove or disprove, as the water vapor-cloud feedback is one of the hardest things to get right in climate models, and is a key source of uncertainty in them. To my knowledge, his Iris theory has not been disproven, but is thought to be incorrect by most climate scientists.

Dr. Lindzen continues to champion his Iris Effect theory, and has been one of about ten famous outspoken "greenhouse skeptics" who are skeptical of the dangers posed by climate change. He opposes the Kyoto Protocol and efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. He has testified in front of Congress multiple times, authored many opinion pieces on the matter, and been a paid consultant for major oil and coal companies. In Ross Gelbspan's 1998 book, The Heat is On, the author discusses a 2-hour interview he did with Lindzen. In the interview, Lindzen estimated that he made $10,000 per year doing consulting work, and typically charged $2500 per day to fossil fuel interests. For example, a trip to Washington D.C. in 1991 to testify in front of a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, a $400 million coal consortium. Gelbspan describes Dr. Lindzen as "exceedingly gracious and hospitable" in person, but relates several instances of unwarranted attacks he has made on scientific opponents.

Some good points
Dr. Lindzen's essay is a typical example of greenhouse skeptic writing, which unfortunately for me, I've read a lot of. Intermingled are scientific truths, scientific distortions, difficult to verify accusations, and some legitimate nuggets of complaint, all wrapped in a fiercely emotional tirade intended to sway the emotions of the reader. Several of Dr. Lindzen's concerns in his article are valid ones. For instance, he complains of "repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change", which is a concern of mine, as well. A single extreme weather event, or an even a series of extreme hurricanes in one ocean basin during a single year, are not valid indicators of climate change. Lindzen also criticizes the world's most prestigious scientific journals, Science and Nature, for bias against papers by global warming skeptics. This bias is difficult to prove or disprove, but I believe there is probably some substance to this claim. I've seen a number of complaints that ring true about this from the greenhouse skeptic scientists.

Some bad points
While Dr. Lindzen is an excellent scientist, the piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal is written in emotional, not scientific language. The article contains oversimplifications, distortions, and errors, and would fail the scientific peer review process needed to be published in a scientific journal. Let's look at three of these problems:

1) Dr. Lindzen refers to the "barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century." I would hardly characterize our recent warming as "barely discernible." By measures such as the significant warming of the Arctic in recent decades, the several-week increase in the growing season and early arrival of Spring over most of the globe in recent years, the widespread retreat of glaciers worldwide, and the significant die-off of coral reefs worldwide due in part to record warm sea surface temperatures, a one-degree increase in global temperature is very discernible.

2) Dr. Lindzen says that global warming will lead to a decrease in extratropical cyclones. However, this is not a consensus view among climate scientists. Some model results have shown a decrease, but other models show that global warming will increase the intensity and frequency of El Nino events, which would lead to an increase in extratropical storms over the North Pacific and western U.S. Global warming may also increase the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) pattern, creating increased extratropical storms in the North Atlantic and Western Europe.

3) Lindzen criticizes arguments by other researchers that global warming will increase hurricane intensities thusly:

"The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more
storminess with global warming."

I asked Dr. Andrew Dessler, a professor at Texas A&M University whose research focuses on climate change and water vapor, to comment on this. He responded:

The rate of evaporation from the surface, which is one determinant of the strength of a hurricane, is determined by (q*-q), the difference between saturation specific humidity and the specific humidity. You can convince yourself that this makes sense by thinking of the two limits: if the air is saturated, then q*=q and evaporation is zero, which makes sense since saturated air cannot hold any more molecules. If the air is extremely dry, then q is about 0 and evaporation
is at a maximum, again as you'd expect.

The climate, on the other hand, is sensitive to q in the mid-troposphere. There's not really a simple explanation for this. I can give you a few good references if you want to check this out further (e.g., Held, I. M., and B. J. Soden, 2000: Water vapor feedback and global warming. Ann. Rev. Energy Environ., 25, 441-475).

Lindzen's argument ignores the differences and suggests that if q*-q decreases at the surface, then q must decrease in the mid-troposphere. That argument is so far outside the realm of scientific reasonability or common sense, that it's my opinion that Lindzen is acting as a policy advocate rather than a scientist. Like most advocates, he takes advantage of the lenient rules of policy debates (e.g., no peer review or other vetting mechanism to test for scientific accuracy of arguments), to make patently false scientific arguments as a way to advance his preferred policy position (he opposes any policy to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions).

Alarmism
Dr. Lindzen claims that "Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes." The words "alarm" or "alarmist" or "anti-alarmist" appear 16 times in the editorial, and Dr. Lindzen is clearly trying to provoke an emotional reaction against those Chicken Littles guilty of raising the alarm.

Speaking as an atmospheric scientist, I can tell you from long experience that we are not the wild-eyed, alarmist lot that Dr. Lindzen makes us out to be. This makes for some very dull parties (if you're not excited about discussing quasi-geostrophic theory), when we get together for a big bash. Very little alarming behavior takes place. (In fact, after I dragged my wife to three straight devastatingly dull departmental Christmas parties while I was in graduate school, she forbade me from ever requiring her to go to another.) Atmospheric scientists are not an alarmist lot--put us in quiet room with a window and give us a computer and pile of data to analyze, and we'll be as happy as a clam at high tide. Atmospheric scientists are generally not motivated by money--they selected science as a career out of a genuine curiosity about how the world works, plus a desire to help understand the significant dangers posed by pollution and climate change. If more money to do research really was a primary concern, wouldn't these scientists stop calling for action against global warming, and instead emphasize the uncertainties and claim that more research is needed?

Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, posted this response to Dr. Lindzen's accusations that scientists feed alarmism to get funding: "Lindzen has frequently claimed that within the scientific community "alarm is felt to be essential to the maintenance of funding". I have yet to see any empirical evidence of this, and a brief perusal of active NSF grants related to climate change reveals a lot of interesting projects but none that jump out as being 'alarmist'. Having sat on panels that decide on funding allocations and as a reviewer of proposals for both US and international agencies, my experience has been that these panels actually do a very good job at deciding which proposals are interesting, tractable and achievable. I have not seen even one example of where the degree of 'alarmism' was ever a criteria in whether funding was given. (NB. I don't regard my own grants (viewable here) as remotely 'alarmist' and I don't have too much trouble getting funding (fingers crossed!))"

Environmental scientists have in the past issued false alarms over environmental problems that did not materialize as expected. However, we should expect and tolerate some degree of false alarms, given the uncertainty in forecasting these events. If our scientists never issue a false alarm, then the tolerance for issuing alarms is not correct. Would you expect the National Weather Service to stop issuing tornado warnings when a possible tornado signature is spotted on Doppler radar, since less than half of these signatures result in in an actual tornado touchdown? No, some degree of false alarms must be tolerated. The NWS forecasters are dedicated public servants, doing their job of warning the public when their best scientific judgment indicates that there might be a significant threat. It is no different with our climate scientists who issue warnings on the dangers of climate change.

Skeptics commonly like to claim that atmospheric scientist "Chicken Littles" in the 1970s warned that the next ice age was coming. While there were some articles in the popular press about this, the scientific literature never made such a claim. This is one of the myths perpetuated by the greenhouse skeptics that crumbles under analysis.

A Public Relations Campaign?
Dr. Lindzen's article appeared at about the same time as similar op-ed pieces by syndicated columnists Robert Novak (April 3) and George Will (April 2). A large number of additional anti-global global warming editorials have appeared in the opinion pages of many newspapers in the past week, including the Washington Times, Detroit News, and Arizona Star. Given Dr. Lindzen's history of accepting consulting money from the fossil fuel industry, it would be no surprise if his article was paid for by the fossil fuel industry as part of an orchestrated public relations campaign that included the appearance of all these op-ed articles. I am sure the industry is very concerned about the recent media attention on global warming that has hurt their position. Scientific studies published this year showed unexpectedly large amounts of melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. A cover story last month in Time magazine headlined, "Be Worried. Be Very Worried", warned that we may be at the "tipping point" for uncorrectable climate change. A episode of 60 Minutes reported that scientific reports on climate change written for Congress were being modified by a White House chief of staff, who changed key phrases of the reports to make climate change appear less threatening (the staffer in question has since resigned to go work for Exxon Mobil). James Hansen of NASA and many scientists working for NOAA and NASA have complained of being gagged by the Bush Administration on climate change issues in recent months. It would be an obvious move for the fossil fuel industry to mount a PR campaign this month to try to push back.

The fossil fuel industry has spent tens of millions of dollars on many such campaigns in the past. The most notorious of these campaigns was launched in 1991, when the Information Council on the Environment (ICE), a creation of a group of utility and coal companies, launched a PR campaign whose goal was to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact". The campaign targeted "older, less-educated men" and "young, low-income women" in electoral districts who had a congressperson on the House Energy Committee. The PR campaign hired four "greenhouse skeptic" scientists--Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, Robert Balling, and Sherwood Idso--to generate op-ed pieces, broadcast appearances, and newspaper interviews. Gelbspan writes: "The plan was clever if not accurate. One newspaper advertisement prepared by the ICE, for example, was headlined: 'If the earth is getting warmer, why is Minneapolis getting colder?' (Data indicate that Minneapolis has actually warmed between 1 and 1.5 degrees Celsius in the last century.)" Another print ad featured a cowering chicken under the headline "Who Told You the Earth Was Warming...Chicken Little?"

Environmental groups do their share of public relations campaigns, as well. One recent estimate I saw put the spending of the five major environmental groups on climate issues at about $2.1 million per year (Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the World Wildlife Federation). Exxon Mobil alone spends over $1 milion per year to fund think tanks like the Competive Enterprise Institute and the George C. Marshal Foundation that generate frequent anti-global warming reports (Gelbspan, 2004).

Flashback to 1974
On June 28, 1974, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the University of California, Irvine, published the first scientific paper warning that human-generated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer. They calculated that if CFC production continued to increase at the going rate of 10%/year until 1990, then remain steady, CFCs would cause a global 5 to 7 percent ozone loss by 1995 and 30-50% loss by 2050.

They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface, greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. At the time, the CFC industry was worth about $8 billion in the U.S., employed over 600,000 people directly, and 1.4 million people indirectly (Roan, 1989).

Critics and skeptics--primarily industry spokespeople and scientists paid by conservative think tanks--immediately attacked the theory. Despite the fact that Molina and Rowland's theory had wide support in the scientific community, these handful of skeptics, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them, succeeded in delaying imposition of controls on CFCs for over a decade. Scientists who advocated CFC controls were accused of being alarmists out to get research funding. One CFC industry magazine stated in 1975, "The whole area of research grants and the competition among scientists to get them must be considered a factor in the politics of ozone" (Roan, 1989).

DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. The chairman of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975). The aerosol industry also launched a PR blitz, issuing a press release stating that the ozone destruction by CFCs was a theory, and not fact. This press release, and many other 'news stories' favorable to industry, were generated by the aerosol industry and printed by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, Business Week, and the London Observer (Blysky and Blysky, 1985). The symbol of Chicken Little claiming that "The sky is falling!" was used with great effect by the PR campaign, and appeared in various newspaper headlines.

The CFC industry companies hired the world's largest public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton, who organized a month-long U.S. speaking tour in 1975 for noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. Scorer blasted Molina and Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories."

Sound familiar?

In a 1984 interview in The New Yorker, Rowland concluded, "Nothing will be done about this problem until there is further evidence that a significant loss of ozone has occurred. Unfortunately, this means that if there is a disaster in the making in the stratosphere we are probably not going to avoid it." The very next year, all the "Chicken Little" scientists were proved right, when the Antarctic ozone hole was discovered. Human-generated CFCs were indeed destroying Earth's protective ozone layer. In fact, the ozone depletion was far worse than Molina and Roland had predicted. No one had imagined that ozone depletions like the 50% losses being observed by 1987 over Antarctica were possible so soon. Despite the continued opposition of many of the skeptics, the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase out ozone-destroying chemicals, was hurriedly approved in 1987 to address the threat. By 2003, it appeared that the ozone hole had stopped growing, thanks to the quick action. Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential environmental disaster.

Conclusion
According to Wikipedia's biography of Richard Lindzen:

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now." Climatologist James Annan, who has offered multiple bets that global temperatures will increase, contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet. Annan offered to pay 2:1 odds in Lindzen's favor if temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen would only accept a bet if the payout was 50:1 or better in his favor. No bet occurred.

I would agree with Dr. Lindzen, there is about a 50:1 chance that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now. This would most likely occur as a result of a major volcanic eruption that would put up enough stratospheric aerosol dust to cool the climate for a few years. The effect would be temporary, and the Earth would go on warming as before once the dust dissipates.

Climate scientists are not alarmists out to get research funding. They are raising the alarm because they see a genuine major threat to the planet. Dr. Lindzen's voice needs to be considered, because he is a good scientist looking at the same data as the "alarmist" scientists, and is coming up with a different conclusion. But consider that his voice, and voices of the 10 or so famous "greenhouse skeptics", are in the extreme minority. Their voices are greatly amplified by the public relations machinery of the fossil fuel industry, and the politicians sympathetic to them. Thus, it seems like there is more of a scientific controversy than there really is. As a society, we need to decide--do we do the same thing we did for the ozone depletion crisis? Do we take the 50:1 odds, betting on the dark horse because some very loud voices are urging us to do so? Or is it smarter to bet on the favorite?

We got very lucky with the ozone hole. The lifetime of CFCs in the atmosphere is a few tens of years, and the quick action to eliminate emissions has kept ozone destruction from reaching severe levels. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere hundreds of years, and 25% of what we add stays there essentially forever. By the time it is obvious we are severely damaging the planet, it will be too late to avoid much of the damage.

Jeff Masters

My next blog will be Thursday or Friday, to give people time to comment on this one.

For further reading
The climate scientists who run realclimate.org have an interesting discussion on the op-ed piece by Dr. Lindzen, as well the one by George Will and Robert Novak. I also wrote an opinion piece titled, The Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole, which presents a more complete comparison of how the skeptics attacked the science of ozone depletion and succeeded in delaying CFC emission controls for many years.

References

Blyskal, J., and M. Blyskal, "PR: How the public relations industry writes the news", William Morrow and Co., New York, 1985.

Gelbspan, Ross, The Heat is On, Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA, 1998.

Gelbspan, Ross, Boiling Point, Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA, 2004.

Roan, Sharon L., Ozone Crisis: The 15-year Evolution of a Sudden Global Emergency, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1989.

Categories: Climate Change

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 201 - 251

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index

201. ForecasterColby 6:44 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Why is it that if you think GW is happening others immediately label you alarmist. Is it ok to label people you don't believe it as "indenial" all through a blog? Simple - the majority of scientists are liberals, the majority of liberals hate GWB. HurricaneMyles...Opec my butt!! Don't mean to support a bunch of greedy, tanned rats in sheets and towels around their heads, but they are nowhere near the monopolists the Anglo/British oil giants are. If Exxon and BP had their way, you'd be buying gas by the quart from a store shelf, with their 40% credit card!!! Perhaps. But at that point the money stays around here, rather than into the middle east, which contains a rather large number of people who'd be perfectly happy to kill us.

202. ForecasterColby 6:45 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Gamma, if Masters doesn't post soon, the comments will start increasing exponentially.

204. DAVIDKRZW 6:50 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
i think this blog may make it up to 500 post

207. DAVIDKRZW 6:53 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
complained about it. why

208. jeffB 6:54 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
ForecasterColby wrote: Enviornmentalists will say that the earth has been steadily warming since the industrial revolution. True. Guess what? There weren't reliable records much before the industrial revolution. No control=invalid experiment. Are you discounting all indirect techniques for inferring temperatures from tree growth, ice core sampling, and the like? It's also a bit silly to talk about "invalid experiments" when we're examining the history of the global climate. If you have a way to manipulate the past, let's talk. :-) Member Since: July 8, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 40

209. Cregnebaa 6:54 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Disease worsen? expanding the area habitable by malaria carrying mosquitoes for example? Fuel tax would help not only to reduce oil demand and improve efficiencies in the future but also allow the tax to stay and be used in the US. The increase in OPEC prices is being paid out to other countries outside the US and is contributing to the US trade deficit. If the US managed to increase efficiency and reduce it's oil imports it's a win win situation, no? Member Since: October 19, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 322

210. ForecasterColby 6:54 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Heh. I think it's more about the type of people who will become scientists. People who tend to work with theories and clearly defined black and white rules. On the disease thing - okay, so we move north.

211. DAVIDKRZW 6:55 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
well it was hurricane year 2005 what did you think

212. rwdobson 6:55 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
franck: "Opec my butt!! Don't mean to support a bunch of greedy, tanned rats in sheets and towels around their heads, but they are nowhere near the monopolists the Anglo/British oil giants are." greedy tanned rats in sheets and towels around their heads? you are really helping your cause here buddy. keep it up. maybe you can blame the jews too while you're at it. Member Since: June 12, 2002 Posts: 0 Comments: 1574

213. louastu 6:55 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
What issues did he comment on to get over 1,000 posts?

215. louastu 7:07 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Well, I found the posts that got over 1,000 comments. I am more surprised to see the posts that recieved fewer than 10 comments, than I am to see posts with over 1,000 comments.

216. Scotth 7:11 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Ya'll went political! What happened? I think you should all take a step back and realize that this is axactly what the government that you're complaining about does all the time....and its why they don't get very much done. Now, back to the subject. Someone last night said the sun's output is increasing...which it is...but noone ever commented on that possibly being a factor in GW. Any comments? Member Since: August 4, 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 11

217. rwdobson 7:12 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
splitting hairs perhaps, but the west coast cities are not in nearly the same danger as the east/gulf coast cities are...there's no large, flat coastal plain. Member Since: June 12, 2002 Posts: 0 Comments: 1574

218. ForecasterColby 7:12 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
No, I wouldn't. And why should we? The sea level rise is, and will remain, relatively slow. Even NYC has an average elevation of what, 15-20 ft? That gives them decades to leave. And while we're on NOLA...Do I believe we should help them? Yes. Do I believe the government should force us to? No.

219. rwdobson 7:13 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
we discussed solar output in a previous blog...most don't agree that the sun's output is actually increasing. and even if it is, it's adding less radiative forcing than GHGs are. Member Since: June 12, 2002 Posts: 0 Comments: 1574

220. ForecasterColby 7:14 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Allow me to rephrase - invalid DATA. How do we know the data for previous temps IS accurate? Again, we have no ruler to measure our yardstick by.

221. HurricaneMyles 7:14 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
HurricaneMyles...Opec my butt!! Don't mean to support a bunch of greedy, tanned rats in sheets and towels around their heads, but they are nowhere near the monopolists the Anglo/British oil giants are. If Exxon and BP had their way, you'd be buying gas by the quart from a store shelf, with their 40% credit card!!! That's the beauty of capatalism; you dont have to make any purchase you dont want and companies cannot openly consipire to artifically raise prices. Unfortunetly, not all nations enjoy this beautiful free market as many of us do, and many countries couldn't care less. Also, are you saying that OPEC doesn't cause a significant rise in price be limiting the amount of oil the participating countries produce? Do you know that ALL the United States firms make up less then 5% of the world oil reserves? OPEC makes up nearly 80%. So you tell me who controls oil. Member Since: January 12, 2006 Posts: 5 Comments: 827

222. ForecasterColby 7:16 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Scott, how do you know the sun's output is increasing? Post your sources, people.

224. ForecasterColby 7:17 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Myles - we do. OPEC dies without our (that's the world's) funding.

226. Inyo 7:18 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Global warming WILL most certainly affect Agriculture. take California for an example. Most models predict increased precip but some predict decreaced precip. all predict that if current trends continue, the average snow level will rise by around 2000 feet. What does this mean? It means much of the heaviest snow in the Sierra will now fall as rain instead. This means that heavy runoff in the winter (like this year) will tax the levees throughout the Central Valley and probably break them. It may be impossible to prevent this, but if it is preventable it will cost billions of dollars in levee repairs that wont happen. if the 'decreaced precip' models are correct, this also means drastic summer drought as less snow falls, and it all melts off earlier. You can't tell me massive drought is good for agriculture Member Since: September 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 765

227. Inyo 7:20 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
also for those betting against cooling, don't forget that in addition to volcanos, you have nuclear war and total thermohaline breakdown to worry about too Member Since: September 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 765

228. DAVIDKRZW 7:21 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Heavy spring runoff predicted Published: April 18, 2006 Click this picture to view a larger image. Preparing for the rafting season, outdoor education coordinator Brandon Brake, of Sonora, inflates a raft yesterday and checks it for leaks at Outdoor Adventure River Specialists in Angels Camp. Benjamin Hicks/Copyright 2006, The Union Democrat By AMY LINDBLOM White-water kayakers and rafters see a banner year ahead on Mother Lode rivers, thanks to a near-record snowpack. Public safety officials, however, are already urging those venturing into the swollen and chilly waterways to be careful. State hydrologists say the Sierra snowpack � which feeds such popular white-water rivers as the Clavey, Mokelumne, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne � stands at about 150 percent of average for this time of year. "The flows could be higher than they have been in quite a while," said Robert Hartman, a hydrologist for the California-Nevada River Forecast Center in Sacramento. Starting tomorrow, hydrologists like Hartman will provide weekly spring runoff forecasts for all of California's major watersheds. "If it gets warm too fast, then we will be in a pickle," Hartman said of potential flooding from quickly melting snow. Rafting companies and river guides are monitoring river flows on an almost daily basis in anticipation of the expected surge of runoff. Zephyr Whitewater Expeditions of Columbia has already moved its planned June trips on the Tuolumne River south to the milder Merced River, said company owner Bob Ferguson. Plenty of water is good for rafting business, but companies are aware of the responsibility to keep customers safe. Steve Markel, of Angels Camp-based Outdoor Adventure River Specialists, said the company is anticipating a high-water year and checking water flows almost daily. Because of the swift rapids and high river depths expected, warnings are also being issued to less-experienced river runners, casual boaters and swimmers. California Department of Parks and Recreation this week urged people doing activities near rivers to be extra cautious. Calaveras and Tuolumne counties' search and rescue teams are also gearing up for a potentially busy spring for swift-water rescues. "It has the potential to be a 1997-type flood season," said Jim Segerstrom, a veteran Tuolumne County search and rescue team member. Segerstrom teaches swift-water rescue techniques to private companies and government agencies all over the world. Segerstrom noted small creeks can be as deadly as raging rivers. "People try to drive across creeks up in the mountains all the time. And at least one to two times a year, someone in a four-wheel drive gets washed away," Segerstrom said. "If the occupants are high and dry on top of their car, then we can get to them. Otherwise, if they are inside the vehicle, chances are we simply can't get there fast enough." Fueled by a larger-than-normal snowpack, fast-moving rivers last year claimed one life in Tuolumne County. In June, a Washington kayaker drowned after being pinned under a rock at the confluence of the Clavey and Tuolumne rivers. Brent Bradley, 20, had been kayaking the river for several days with his brother and two friends. He was an experienced kayaker who taught university students kayaking skills in Bellingham, Wash. Rescue teams were unable to recover his body until August, when the river's level had dropped.

229. franck 7:22 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
rwdobson...your comment didn't come across. Are you encouraging or discouraging.., or sort of don't know yourself? Member Since: August 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1150

230. snowboy 7:22 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Phogbound, there is no arguing with your logic. In fact, it is a point that several prominent doubters (including F5, Chaser and Califonia) and many on the other side including myself have all agreed on even though we continue to differ sharply on the global warming issue. And thanks for biting, StSimonsIslandGAGuy. You'll note that not one of the doubters has indicated any openness to being convinced that global warming could be human-induced, regardless of how great a temperature rise occurs over the next 50 years (even to the point of the planet becoming uninhabitable). This is a common theme in the doubters' camp, and one which causes me to question whether their positions are based on science or faith.. Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2546

231. HurricaneMyles 7:23 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
ForecastorColby, We dont control the oil, we control whether oil is useful for them, and us, or not. If we want oil in the future, which hopefully we will not for a variety of reasons, then inevitably we will have to go to them. Member Since: January 12, 2006 Posts: 5 Comments: 827

234. Phogbound 7:34 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
So far I don't see much argument with my logic that there's no significant down side to assuming that we should reduce CO2 emissions, and huge potential downsides with little upside to assuming we should continue unrestrained emissions -except soem people just don't like being told what to do. Maybe, just maybe, this is one of those situations civilization and society have to address because the "free" market can't. Anyone who thinks the American, western, or world markets are free is trulydeluded, IMHO. Even if they were, they are not equipped to address this kind of issue.

235. snowboy 7:39 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Colby, you're obviously strong on meteorology (in particular wrt hurricanes), but less so when it comes to climatology (the study of long term patterns and variations in the earth's climate). There is sure as heck basic atmospheric science in the field of climatology, and the greenhouse theory is one of the basics. Why is Venus so hot (hotter than Mercury, which is much closer to the sun)? The greenhouse effect. Why is earth so much warmer and hospitable than Mars, which is not that much further out? The presence of our atmosphere, and the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is predicted by theory, and observable in our solar system. We have an existing greenhouse effect which serves to warm and temper earth's climate. The main greenhouse gases are water vapour, CO2, and methane. Human induced activities are throwing up vast amounts of methane and CO2 - the theory (and it is basic) predicts further warming will occur, and we are seeing it now. Come on you ostriches, get your heads out of the sand and start working with the rest of us on ways of dealing with this issue! Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2546

237. DAVIDKRZW 7:43 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
It has the potential to be a 1997-type flood season," said Jim Segerstrom, a veteran Tuolumne County search and rescue team member.

238. DAVIDKRZW 7:48 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
MichaelSTL i got it and i e mail him as well about it

239. rwdobson 7:49 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
frankc, i was wondering why you had to make negative comments about OPEC members' skin color and culture to support your point. "BP by the way is the culprit behind the first Iraq war. They were horizontally drilling across Kuwaiti territory into Iraq. That is why we gave Iraq permission to invade Kuwait. Know all this? Sure you do." and your source for this statement is...? Member Since: June 12, 2002 Posts: 0 Comments: 1574

240. gcain 7:55 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Even OPEC can't increase its production by much more...only Saudia Arabia really has any capacity to increase production while most of the other OPEC countries are at just about 100% of production capacity now. Also, even though OPEC tries to set limits, most of the members go out the back door with extra production. And, of course, now many of the biggest producers are not the traditional OPEC members and therefore are not tied politically or socially to the Middle East. Demand in India and China are also driving the oil engine right now and this will not slow down--only go faster as both nations become more industrialized and consumerized. This all leads the same problems of supply and demand--and global economics--and of course will only increase the pressure on "mother earth" as emissions, etc. increase. Our (all nations) need for oil is just an all consuming need (addictive drug) that will not go away anytime soon. A boycott of a day or two is like spitting into the ocean.

242. DAVIDKRZW 8:03 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
MichaelSTL dos it have a eye and is that from today and what is the mb like in there

243. rwdobson 8:05 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
good point gcain. in the first 2 months of 2006, the #1 source of imported petroleum for the US was Canada, with Mexico being the #2 source. Link Member Since: June 12, 2002 Posts: 0 Comments: 1574

244. tigerbait 8:05 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
I see that a second coyote has been spotted in New York City's Central Park. We now have two data points. It's obvious to everyone but Dr. Lindzen that their presence is due to man-made global warming.

246. DAVIDKRZW 8:07 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
now it look like a hurricane like storm is now trying to pop up on land

247. snowboy 8:21 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
tigerbait, even if Central Park and its coyotes were under water due to melting of the polar glaciers and ice caps, there would still be doubters claiming "the models are not accurate enough" or "we need more data" or "it is all part of the natural cycle"... Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2546

248. rwdobson 8:27 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
which will happen first...widespread rain in the KC area, or the Royals win a game? Member Since: June 12, 2002 Posts: 0 Comments: 1574

249. louastu 8:29 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Posted By: tigerbait at 8:01 PM GMT on April 19, 2006. I see that a second coyote has been spotted in New York City's Central Park. We now have two data points. It's obvious to everyone but Dr. Lindzen that their presence is due to man-made global warming. It seems more likely to me that the reason for coyotes entering Central Park is encroachment onto their natural habitat, not global warming.

250. SickOfDumbQuestions 8:36 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
snowboy, I live 10 miles inland in Florida. Right now its in Largo. Guess what happens when I dig down into in my yard. I hit sand, with sea shells. Florida or at least my part was underwater at one point in time, and will be again. Its just the way that the Earth works, and we are just starting to think to that we maybe have a chance at hopefully understanding how it all works.. maybe. I already have proof my part of the state was once the Gulf of Mexico, so shouldn't I assume that at sometime in the recent past that the sea was at an all time low?? Wouldn't that have been about 10,000 years ago when man crossed was was thought to be a land "bridge" between Alaska and Russia? So your saying there is no natural cycle? From what I can tell, there seems to be a huge swing in the cycle, from the Ice Age lowering the oceans to their minimum and then the warming begins and the level rises. Its been documented that the earth has gone through many Ice Ages, so yes, I believe that most of this is a natural cycle with MAN making giving the warming part a small shot in the arm.. maybe.. -Ryan aka SickOfDumbQuestions

251. FUMBLE 8:37 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
I read in the time article that the ppm of CO2 during the ice age was around 180. Now its somewhere in thehigh 200 or maybe higher- not sure. However, in the last 100 years the CO2 PPM has risen significantly. questions 1) is this rise from man-made sources 2) is there a connection between CO2 PPm and the ice age 3) i'm also ignorant, what exactly is the cause of an ice age thanks

Viewing: 201 - 251

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

About JeffMasters