[meteorite-list] Global Warming - 'Facts'

From: Eric Twelker <twelker_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 08:53:30 -0800
Message-ID: <C2916C8A.30EC7%twelker_at_alaska.net>

    All of this warming stuff may seem unrelated to meteoritics?but there is
some connection. I find it more than a bit distressing that certain members
of the scientific community have insisted that other scientists and the
public throw away their skepticism on this issue of critical scientific
importance. Theirs is an assault on science itself.
    With due respect to Allan Trieman, the ?facts? that he cites don?t
support tossing aside science and scientific skepticism. For example, he
cites a global temperature graph from Phil Jones
(http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming). Jones has refused to reveal
the stations from which his data is derived. This has been an ongoing
controversy and his data is not reproducible. Jones should be cited as an
example of bad science, not as proof of anything.
    Allan cites a graph of temperature proxies.
rious-proxy-records There are huge problems with just about all of the
graphs of this sort. Many or most involve hiding or truncation of data to
prove a preconceived point. For example, tree ring proxies trend suddenly
downward in the last part of the twentieth century and the first part of
this century. What to these ?scientists? do about this? They simply delete
this ?inconvenient divergence.? And glaciers started receding at least as
early as the mind eighteenth century?long before man-made CO2 emissions had
an impact. And finally, the universal tactic of tacking on the supposed
instrumental record onto the proxies (disgustingly this is not even labeled
in the above graph) while deleting the real data is most unscientific.
    Our politicians are busy using this supposed science to distribute huge
amounts of money?and not surprisingly the rent-seekers abound. We are
clearing huge swaths of rainforest to produce subsidized biodiesel and
ethanol (not lawn furniture, Mike). Oil companies and utilities are lining
up to sell carbon credits. And, sadly, the ?scientists? are cashing in too.
    So to all of those who say the debate is over, I say cool it. We will
listen to your serious science, but don?t ask us to toss science away for
your politics or profit.
    Eric Twelker

> Hi, meteorite-lovers ?
> Too much heat and not enough fact on global warming!
> Your politics are your own, but I want to correct a
> few fact issues in Harlan Trammel?s email. Not to dump on
> Harlan ? at least he went beyond name-calling and based
> his letter on data as he understands them.
> Harlan has four ?facts? at the bottom of his email,
> and they are incorrect or incomplete.
> #1 ?There is no unequivocal evidence that the Earth is warming ??
> There is clear, unequivocal evidence from many sources that the
> Earth?s climate has warmed, overall, about 1.5 degrees C in the
> last two centuries. And the rate of change is faster since about
> 1930 or so. Here are links to three graphics, first with
> multiple lines of evidence (my favorite being borehole temperatures),
> second with average air temperatures, and the third (from my wife)
> showing that gardening planting zones have moved north because of
> higher temperatures.
> 1a.
> http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperatures-over-previous-centuries-from-vari
> ous-proxy-records
> 1b. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
> 1c. http://www.arborday.org/media/zones.cfm &
> http://www.arborday.org/media/map_change.cfm
> #2. ?There is NO evidence that carbon dioxide is a primary cause,
> or driver, of climate change. Period. Not now. Not ever.?
> In fact, human emissions of carbon dioxide track the atmosphere?s
> increase in carbon dioxide pretty well, and both track the change
> in global temperatures pretty well. See the graphs above and these
> two.
> 2a.
> http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/co2_emissions_in_the_world_and_in_latin_americ
> a_and_the_caribbean
> 2b. http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/07.htm
> These graphs show a correlation between carbon dioxide and
> temperature, and greenhouse warming is a known mechanism that
> relates the two. Primary cause - who can say? Some reasonable people
> would say the correlation showing cause.
> #3. ?There is even less evidence that man-made carbon dioxide,
> a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide total, is climatically
> significant in any way.?
> Graph 2b show that, before the industrial era, CO2 levels in
> the atmosphere were near 280 ppm. Now, they are 370 ppm. This is
> an increase of 25% - hardly a ?tiny fraction? ? and graph 2a shows
> that this increase is comparable in time and proprtion with human
> produced carbon dioxide.
> #4. ?Nevertheless, Climate does change.?
> Absolutely true, and ice cores give a record of temperature an
> carbon dioxide in the atmosphere going back at least 400,000 years.
> In that time, the earth has been much colder and somewhat hotter
> than it is now. Temperature and atmosphere CO2 change together, but
> does one cause the other? FWIW, the the CO2 level in the atmosphere
> now is far above what it ever was in the last 400,000 years.
> 4a. http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm
> Allan Treiman
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Sun 10 Jun 2007 12:53:30 PM PDT

Help support this free mailing list:

Yahoo MyWeb