Re: [asa] Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling--Reasons for doubt

From: Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue Mar 04 2008 - 09:41:27 EST

See below for a couple of quick comments, as I don't
have enough time at the moment to be more
comprehensive...

In Christ,
Christine

--- Fivefree@aol.com wrote:

> Thank you for the information kindly distributed to
> all. I for one, am still
> a skeptic. And their are many like me. Here some
> reasons.
>
> 1). Intellectual dishonesty. I read and hear about
> the Arctic ice pack
> melting, Polar bears dying and global warming as
> the cause.

On polar bears---the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is
proposing that polar bears be listed as "threatened"
under the Endangered Species Act. Most (though not
all) polar bear populations are becoming unstable
and/or declining; unstable meaning that they are not
in decline yet, but that factors relating to food
sources, habitat, cub mortality, etc. are increasing
the likelihood that polar bear populations could
significantly decline in the future. See here for more
information:
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm
and here for the actual USFWS report:
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/Polar_Bear_%20Status_Assessment.pdf

This has been
> brought to the forefront as a direct consequence of
> the increase in CO2. The same
> gas listed as a trace gas by the U.N. A trace
> gas??!!??

That CO2 is a trace gas is nothing new...the issue
here is the residence time of CO2, which can be up to
~100 years in the atmosphere--thus, exerting a great
deal of influence on the climate.

The U.N. has moved on
> and cow flatulence now has been determined to be a
> far higher contributor
> than CO2, I believe.

Last I checked, CO2 is still understood to be the
largest contributor to climate change. However,
methane, CFCs, N2O, etc. are also known GHGs and are
in fact, more potent than CO2. It's only because CO2
swamps these other gases in the atmosphere in terms of
abundance that CO2 predominates the problem.

At 350 ppm, 35 molecules of
> CO2 per 100,000 molecules of
> atmosphere is an equivalent ratio. A website I
> found with a videocam at the
> North Pole had a statement of a researcher who said
> that a temperature
> increase is not the cause of ice melt but a change
> in the prevailing winds,
> bringing warm southerly winds across the ice cap.

As noted in another's response, the key here is
"climate change"--climate does not only encompass
temperature, it encompasses wind patterns and
precipitation. The question is, what caused the change
in prevailing winds?

> This is not mentioned by the GW
> crowd.
>
> Now JPT
>
_http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131_
>
>
(http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131)
> says that indeed wind/ current
> oscillations are the reason for sea ice melting. Not
> GW. This phenomenon has
> not been brought forward to my knowledge in this
> forum or to the public at
> large. Why? The Lord help those that release data
> not complimentary to the
> template.

See my response above...

...have you actually read any of the IPCC reports?
See: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm for
the report on the physical basis of climate change.
The IPCC reports (and the research its based on) do
include complexities of this type, and have on
occasion been discussed on the ASA listserv...perhaps
you'd like to specifically critique one of the IPCC's
claims?

...surely you are not suggesting that just because
something doesn't make it to the "public at large",
that somehow this shows a lack of credibility in the
science? Surely "popular" science isn't the only
information source you look at when examining a
scientific theory? Why is it necessary for the details
of climate change to be brought to the public forum in
order for a scientist (or interested non-scientist) to
become better educated about climate change or any
other scientific theory?

>
> 2). Emotionalism.

Please point out to me, where in my post I have shown
"emotionalism"? How about in the IPCC reports? In the
scientific literature supporting it? What is your
basis for this statement?

In Christ,
Christine (ASA member)
>
> It is late and I deleted several paragraphs by
> mistake. More later.
>
> Jack Jackson
>
>
>
> **************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and
> advice on AOL Money &
> Finance.
> (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 4 09:42:39 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 04 2008 - 09:42:39 EST