• Reply 2581 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Independent review of IPCC and its global warming reports: an answer to critics

    The political fight over the science of global warming took another turn when the United Nations announced Wednesday that it was initiating an investigation into the practices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


    Top international scientists will take part in an independent review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its reports on global warming, which have been widely criticized recently for inaccuracies.

    The probe will be run by an international consortium of national academies of science, the InterAcademy Council. The yet-to-be-staffed panel is charged with developing recommendations on procedural improvements that the global climate-science advisory body should adopt as it prepares a new set of reports on climate science, due out in 2014.

    The actions are a response to more than three months of embarrassing revelations, beginning with the widespread publication of e-mails either leaked or hacked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in England.

    The e-mails opened a window on the personal attacks, short tempers, and internal politics that often come with research ? all the more so in fields on which the political process has placed so much emphasis.

    Through it all, most researchers agree that these basic conclusions contained in the IPCC reports remain solidly intact: Warming since the Industrial Revolution is "unequivocal"; most of the warming the climate has undergone during the past half century is "very likely" due to human influence; that warming's effects are appearing in virtually every region around the globe, and in many cases faster than models have projected; and that countries will need to adopt what Stanford University's Christopher Field refers to as "a portfolio of measures" for adaptation to change, as well as to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and land-use practices that have compounded the change.

    "None of these scientific conclusions have been fundamentally challenged by any of the recent issues associated with the IPCC," said Dr. Field, who co-chairs one of the IPCC's three working groups and heads the Carnegie Institution's department of global ecology.

    The constant tugging over climate science and the behaviors revealed in the hacked e-mails are traceable to politicians demanding of science something it was never designed to deliver, according to Daniel Sarewitz, co-director of Arizona State University's Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes.


    "Science has been called on to do something beyond its purview: not just improve people's understanding of the world, but compel people to act in a particular way," he writes in a recent issue of the journal Nature. "Rehabilitation of climate policy is a matter not of getting the science right, but of getting the politics right."

    Comments jg??

    jg Comments?

  • Reply 2582 of 3043
    brbr Posts: 8,321member
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

    Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. You'd like them to be, but they are not.

    The way you practice religion, yes, they are mutually exclusive. Some very, very limited forms of theism may minimize the conflict.
  • Reply 2583 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

    It'll take you a while to catch up, FineTunes.


  • Reply 2584 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Caging Carbon Dioxide

    Science 29 October 2010:
Vol. 330. no. 6004, pp. 595 ? 596

    DOI: 10.1126/science.1198066

    Christian Lastoskie


    A transition to a portfolio of renewable energy, nuclear power, and biofuels may yet mitigate the perceived calamities of global climate change. In the meantime, the global abundance of accessible, inexpensive coal, combined with incessant pressure for economic growth among developed and developing nations, will ensure that present-day investments in fossil energy are not casually abandoned. Many more gigatons of carbon dioxide are thus slated for discharge into the atmosphere in the coming decades. Given this reality, technology advancements that address global climate change through carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) are equally important as innovations that spur the adoption of wind power, photovoltaics, and other generation assets with small carbon footprints. On page 650 of this issue, Vaidhyanathan et al. (1) report theoretical and experimental studies that impart a better understanding of a chemical interaction that appears central to improving CCS technology?the interaction of carbon dioxide with amine functional groups.

    Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.


    Future CO2 Emissions and Climate Change from Existing Energy Infrastructure

    Science 10 September 2010:
Vol. 329. no. 5997, pp. 1330 ? 1333

    DOI: 10.1126/science.1188566

    Steven J. Davis,1,* Ken Caldeira,1 H. Damon Matthews2


    Slowing climate change requires overcoming inertia in political, technological, and geophysical systems. Of these, only geophysical warming commitment has been quantified. We estimated the commitment to future emissions and warming represented by existing carbon dioxide?emitting devices. We calculated cumulative future emissions of 496 (282 to 701 in lower- and upper-bounding scenarios) gigatonnes of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels by existing infrastructure between 2010 and 2060, forcing mean warming of 1.3°C (1.1° to 1.4°C) above the pre-industrial era and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 less than 430 parts per million. Because these conditions would likely avoid many key impacts of climate change, we conclude that sources of the most threatening emissions have yet to be built. However, CO2-emitting infrastructure will expand unless extraordinary efforts are undertaken to develop alternatives.

    1 Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.

    2 Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Boulevard West, H 1255-26 (Hall Building), Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada.

    * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:

    The Growing Human Footprint on Coastal and Open-Ocean Biogeochemistry

    Science 18 June 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5985, pp. 1512 ? 1516

    DOI: 10.1126/science.1185198

    Scott C. Doney


    Climate change, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide, excess nutrient inputs, and pollution in its many forms are fundamentally altering the chemistry of the ocean, often on a global scale and, in some cases, at rates greatly exceeding those in the historical and recent geological record. Major observed trends include a shift in the acid-base chemistry of seawater, reduced subsurface oxygen both in near-shore coastal water and in the open ocean, rising coastal nitrogen levels, and widespread increase in mercury and persistent organic pollutants. Most of these perturbations, tied either directly or indirectly to human fossil fuel combustion, fertilizer use, and industrial activity, are projected to grow in coming decades, resulting in increasing negative impacts on ocean biota and marine resources.

    Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA. E-mail:

    The Impact of Climate Change on the World?s Marine Ecosystems

    Science 18 June 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5985, pp. 1523 ? 1528

    DOI: 10.1126/science.1189930

    Ove Hoegh-Guldberg1,* and John F. Bruno1,2


    Marine ecosystems are centrally important to the biology of the planet, yet a comprehensive understanding of how anthropogenic climate change is affecting them has been poorly developed. Recent studies indicate that rapidly rising greenhouse gas concentrations are driving ocean systems toward conditions not seen for millions of years, with an associated risk of fundamental and irreversible ecological transformation. The impacts of anthropogenic climate change so far include decreased ocean productivity, altered food web dynamics, reduced abundance of habitat-forming species, shifting species distributions, and a greater incidence of disease. Although there is considerable uncertainty about the spatial and temporal details, climate change is clearly and fundamentally altering ocean ecosystems. Further change will continue to create enormous challenges and costs for societies worldwide, particularly those in developing countries.

    1 Ocean and Coasts Program, Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia.

    2 Department of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.

    * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:

  • Reply 2585 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Erosion of Lizard Diversity by Climate Change and Altered Thermal Niches

    Science 14 May 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5980, pp. 894 - 899
DOI: 10.1126/science.1184695


    Barry Sinervo,1,15,* Fausto Méndez-de-la-Cruz,2 Donald B. Miles,3,15 Benoit Heulin,4 Elizabeth Bastiaans,1 Maricela Villagrán-Santa Cruz,5 Rafael Lara-Resendiz,2 Norberto MartÃ*nez-Méndez,2 Martha LucÃ*a Calderón-Espinosa,6 Rubi Nelsi Meza-Lázaro,2 Héctor Gadsden,7 Luciano Javier Avila,8 Mariana Morando,8 Ignacio J. De la Riva,9 Pedro Victoriano Sepulveda,10 Carlos Frederico Duarte Rocha,11 Nora IbargüengoytÃ*a,12 César Aguilar Puntriano,13 Manuel Massot,14 Virginie Lepetz,15, Tuula A. Oksanen,16 David G. Chapple,17 Aaron M. Bauer,18 William R. Branch,19 Jean Clobert,15 Jack W. Sites, Jr.20


    It is predicted that climate change will cause species extinctions and distributional shifts in coming decades, but data to validate these predictions are relatively scarce. Here, we compare recent and historical surveys for 48 Mexican lizard species at 200 sites. Since 1975, 12% of local populations have gone extinct. We verified physiological models of extinction risk with observed local extinctions and extended projections worldwide. Since 1975, we estimate that 4% of local populations have gone extinct worldwide, but [B]by 2080 local extinctions are projected to reach 39% worldwide], and species extinctions may reach 20%.[/B Global extinction projections were validated with local extinctions observed from 1975 to 2009 for regional biotas on four other continents, suggesting that lizards have already crossed a threshold for extinctions caused by climate change.

    1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA.

    2 Laboratorio de HerpetologÃ*a, Instituto de BiologÃ*a, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, D.F., 04510, México.

    3 Department of Biology, Ohio University, 131 Life Sciences Building, Athens, OH 45701, USA.

    4 CNRS UMR 6553, Station Biologique, 35380 Paimpont, France.

    5 Laboratorio de BiologÃ*a de la Reproducción Animal, Departamento de BiologÃ*a Comparada, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, D.F., 04510, México.

    6 Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Bogotá, Colombia.

    7 Instituto de EcologÃ*a, A.C., Miguel de Cervantes No. 120 (CubÃ*culo 30C), Complejo Industrial, C.P. 31109, Chihuahua, México.

    8 Centro Nacional Patagónico, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones CientÃ*ficas y Técnicas, Blvd. Brown 2915, U9120ACD, Puerto Madryn, Chubut, Argentina.

    9 Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, C/ José Gutiérrez, Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain.

    10 Universidad de Concepción, Dpto. ZoologÃ*a, Casilla 160-C, Concepción, Chile.

    11 Department of Ecology, Institute of Biology, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rua São Francisco Xavier 524, Maracanã 20550-019, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

    12 Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medio Ambiente (INIBIOMA), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones CientÃ*ficas y Técnicas, Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche, Universidad*Nacional del Comahue, Quintral 1250, San Carlos de Bariloche, RÃ*o Negro 8400, Argentina.

    13 Departamento de HerpetologÃ*a, Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Av. Arenales 1256, Jesús MarÃ*a Apdo 14-0434, Lima 14, Perú.

    14 Laboratoire Ecologie-Evolution, Université UPMC, CNRS UMR 7625, 7 quai Saint Bernard, 75005 Paris, France.

    15 Station d'Ecologie Expérimentale du CNRS a Moulis USR 2936,*Moulis, 09200 Saint-Girons France.

    16 Centre of Excellence in Evolutionary Research, Department of Biological and Environmental Science, Post Office Box 35, FI-40014, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.

    17 School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia.

    18 Department of Biology, Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova, PA 19085, USA.

    19 Bayworld, Post Office Box i13147, Humewood 6013, South Africa.

    20 Department of Biology and Bean Life Science Museum, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA.

    Present address: Laboratoire d'Etude Environnementales des Systèmes Anthropisés (LEESA), UFR Sciences, 2 Bd Lavoisier, 49045 Angers cedex 01, France.

    * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:


    Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines

    Originally published in Science Express on 29 April 2010
Science 28 May 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5982, pp. 1164 - 1168
DOI: 10.1126/science.1187512


    Stuart H. M. Butchart,1,2,* Matt Walpole,1 Ben Collen,3 Arco van Strien,4 Jörn P. W. Scharlemann,1 Rosamunde E. A. Almond,1 Jonathan E. M. Baillie,3 Bastian Bomhard,1 Claire Brown,1 John Bruno,5 Kent E. Carpenter,6 Geneviève M. Carr,7, Janice Chanson,8 Anna M. Chenery,1 Jorge Csirke,9 Nick C. Davidson,10 Frank Dentener,11 Matt Foster,12 Alessandro Galli,13 James N. Galloway,14 Piero Genovesi,15 Richard D. Gregory,16 Marc Hockings,17 Valerie Kapos,1,18 Jean-Francois Lamarque,19 Fiona Leverington,17 Jonathan Loh,20 Melodie A. McGeoch,21 Louise McRae,3 Anahit Minasyan,22 Monica Hernández Morcillo,1 Thomasina E. E. Oldfield,23 Daniel Pauly,24 Suhel Quader,25 Carmen Revenga,26 John R. Sauer,27 Benjamin Skolnik,28 Dian Spear,29 Damon Stanwell-Smith,1 Simon N. Stuart,1,12,30,31 Andy Symes,2 Megan Tierney,1 Tristan D. Tyrrell,1 Jean-Christophe Vié,32 Reg Watson24


    In 2002, world leaders committed, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. We compiled 31 indicators to report on progress toward this target. Most indicators of the state of biodiversity (covering speciesÂ? population trends, extinction risk, habitat extent and condition, and community composition) showed declines, with no significant recent reductions in rate, whereas indicators of pressures on biodiversity (including resource consumption, invasive alien species, nitrogen pollution, overexploitation, and climate change impacts) showed increases. Despite some local successes and increasing responses (including extent and biodiversity coverage of protected areas, sustainable forest management, policy responses to invasive alien species, and biodiversity-related aid), the rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be slowing.

    1 United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK.

    2 BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Cambridge CB3 0NA, UK.

    3 Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, RegentÂ?s Park, London NW1 4RY, UK.

    4 Statistics Netherlands, Post Office Box 24500, The Hague, 2490 HA, Netherlands.

    5 Department of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 340 Chapman Hall, CB 3300, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.

    6 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Conservation International Global Marine Species Assessment, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA.

    7 United Nations Environment Programme, Global Environment Monitoring SystemÂ?Water, c/o National Water Research Institute, 867 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6, Canada.

    8 IUCN Species Survival Commission, Conservation International, Biodiversity Assessment Unit, c/o Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, USA.

    9 Fisheries and Aquaculture Management Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00153, Rome, Italy.

    10 Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, Switzerland.

    11 European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, TP290, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy.

    12 Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, USA.

    13 Global Footprint Network, 312 Clay Street, Suite 300, Oakland, CA 94607Â?3510, USA.

    14 Environmental Sciences Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA.

    15 Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale, Via Curtatone 3, I-00185 Rome, Italy.

    16 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy SG19 2DL, UK, and European Bird Census Council.

    17 School of Integrative Systems, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Qld 4067, Australia.

    18 Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.

    19 National Center for Atmospheric Research, 3450 Mitchell Lane, Boulder, CO 80301, USA.

    20 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) International, 1196 Gland, Switzerland.

    21 South African National Parks, Centre for Invasion Biology and Global Invasive Species Programme, Post Office Box 216, Steenberg 7947, South Africa.

    22 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 7 place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris, France.

    23 TRAFFIC International, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK.

    24 Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T1Z4, Canada.

    25 National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, GKVK Campus, Bellary Road, Bangalore 560 065, India.

    26 The Nature Conservancy, 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203, USA.

    27 U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 12100 Beech Forest Road, Laurel, MD 20708Â?4039, USA.

    28 American Bird Conservancy, 1731 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20009, USA.

    29 Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, South Africa.

    30 IUCN Species Survival Commission, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK.

    31 Al Ain Wildlife Park and Resort, Post Office Box 45553, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

    32 IUCN, Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, Switzerland.

    Present address: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 15 Eddy, Gatineau QC K1A 0H4, Canada.

    * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:

  • Reply 2586 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member

    Regarding the resignation of Dr. Hal Lewis:

    Be Critical of*Critics


    Of all the inane arguments made against the phenomenon of anthropogenic global climate change, the strangest ? in my opinion ? are the conspiracy theories.

    Yes, scientific fraud does happen, but on the scale of one author, not an entire multi-disciplinary field stretching back for over a century. Imagine the scale of fabrication that would be necessary for this to be true, and the amount of journal editors, expert reviewers, and students who would have to be in on the conspiracy. Scientists are just not that organized.


    Incredibly, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ? a highly credible organization that painstakingly summarizes the scientific literature on climate change ? is comprised of volunteer scientists. Even the chair, Rajendra Pachauri, doesn?t receive a cent for his work with the IPCC.


    Of course, the prospect of a global warming fraud isn?t impossible. Nothing is. But remember, fraud is a criminal charge, and should not be thrown around lightly. Climate scientists, just like anyone else, have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. They shouldn?t have to endure this endless harassment of being publicly labelled as frauds without evidence.

    Here?s an example, from a retired American physics prof named Harold Lewis. He recently resigned from the American Physical Society because he didn?t think his views on climate change were being taken into account in the society?s statement. His resignation letter reads almost like satire:


    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare?I don?t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

    The scientists involved in ClimateGate, the scandal that wasn?t, have been cleared by five independent investigations to date. While some reasonable issues about data archival and sharing have been raised, absolutely no science was compromised by the contents of the stolen private correspondence. For Lewis to say otherwise and fail to provide evidence for this potentially libelous accusation is unduly irresponsible.


    Let?s see what else Harry Lewis has to say:


    In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all.

    And rightly so. Even if, for the sake of argument, the CRU emails had discredited all of the research group?s data and publications, their conclusions about the current planetary warming have been independently replicated by multiple land- and satellite- based databases. In the United States alone, there is NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, RSS, and UAH. All show the same global warming that CRU detected. Some, due to complexities in the measurement of Arctic temperatures, show even more.

    The scientific literature fully supports the general premise of the APS statement on climate change: the world is warming, humans are causing it, and unless we reduce carbon emissions quickly and dramatically, it?s going to be bad. No alternative explanation for the situation has been able to withstand the scrutiny of peer-review.

    Science is about looking at all sides of an issue, but it?s not a free-for-all. If someone can?t back up a claim, they don?t have an inherent right to get it published regardless. Unfortunately, in the Internet age, that doesn?t matter ? if what they?re looking for is media attention, not scientific accountability.....

    The Christian Science Monitor jumps the shark with pre-debunked, anti-science op-ed by Anthony Watts on Harold Lewis?s resignation from APS


    One of the many differences between science and religion is that science is almost completely unconcerned with what any individual scientist believes, no matter how famous.* Religions, of course, are typically built around famous individuals, like, say, Mary Baker Eddy, and what they believe.* Sadly, these days, journalism ? even at once-great newspapers* ? also appear to care more what one individual believes than what scientific observation and analysis actually tells us.

    Last week I wrote about how a physicist named Hal Lewis who doesn?t know the first thing about climate science resigned from the American Physical Society because he doesn?t know the first thing about climate science.* I debunked the laughable ? and unintentionally ironic ? post by ?former television meteorologist? Anthony Watts comparing Lewis?s words of resignation to ?a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door.?

    Only anti-science disinformers believe scientific views are no different from religious ones, that a letter from a non-climate-scientist (particularly one who hasn?t bothered to learn the first thing about climate science or talk to actual climate scientists) would carry any weight at all, let alone lead to a major new science religion of Lewisism (Wattsism?), since, of course, that?s not how science works.

    I never would have imagined in a hundred years, though, that the once respected Christian Science Monitor would publish a piece by Wattsthat opens with this pure anti-science headline and subhead (and picture of Martin Luther)........


    ?.What makes the publication of this op-ed so absurd is that the American Physical Society had already officially responded to and debunked Lewis:

    There is no truth to Dr. Lewis? assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council ? the Society?s democratically elected governing body ? to do so.

    Dr. Lewis? specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society?s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.

    On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:


    Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;

    Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and

    The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

    On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis? claim that global warming is a ?scam? and a ?pseudoscientific fraud.?

    Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society?s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation?.

    You can read the 2007 APS statement on climate change here (plus a 2010 explication of it).* It is rather mild, as such statements go:


    Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth?s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.


    The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth?s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.


    Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth?s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

    I had written that Lewis?s Inhofe-esque statement ?this is the greatest and most successful pseudo-scientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist,? accuses the scientific community broadly defined of conspiring in deliberate fraud ? and not just the community of climate scientists, but the leading National Academies of Science around the world (including ours) and the American Geophysical Union, an organization of geophysicists that consists of more than 45,000 members and the American Meteorological Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (see ?Yet more scientists call for deep GHG cuts?).* Such a statement accuses all of the member governments of the IPCC, including ours, of participating in that conspiracy, since they all sign off on the Assessment Reports word for word. And it accuses all of the leading scientific journals of being in on this fraud, since the IPCC reports are primarily a review and synthesis of the published scientific literature.

    A. Siegel of GetEnergySmartNow, who has a great post on this embarrassing episode, asks:


    Does the CSM editorial board really stand with those accusing so many scientists, from so many fields, from so many nations of engaging in systematic fraud?

    He also quotes a commenter, Eric Grimsrud, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, Montana State University, who writes:


    We have here an example of a ?perfect storm? of conditions on the waves of which the deniers of CO2?s warming effects will ride as hard as they can. The three elements that created this storm are the ?reporter? Mr. Watt, who is in the denier?s camp, Dr. Lewis, who was a respected elderly physicist but not in the field of climate science and the Christian Science Monitor, whose poor judgement in running this ?story? surprises me.


    While I?ll not waste time trying to understand the motives of the first two elements, I suspect that the CSM indulged in the time-honored newspaper inclination to give equal attention of ?both sides? of all issues. Unlike politics or economics, however, in science there comes a point when there are no longer equally valid different views of a given topic. Mother Nature tends to do things either one way or the other. Just as we now know that the Earth is not flat, we also know that it is being overheated by the excess CO2 we are putting into its atmo[s]phere.

    At DotEarth, blogger Andy Revkin notes that Lewis himself embraced this ?pseudo-scientific fraud? two decades ago in his book, Technological Risk:

    There?s no law against changing one?s views, of course, but it is doubly bizarre to accuse the American Physical Society ? and indeed the entire scientific community ? of pseudo-scientific fraud for holding a view he himself once held (on far, far weaker scientific evidence at the time, it must be added).

    Lewis?s letter was devoid of any actual critique of climate science, but he offers some of his amazingly uninformed statements on the subject here.* Eli Rabett debunked the whole thing here.* Lewis asserted ?nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century, but the disobedient temperature seems not to care very much,? whereas Rabett notes among other things, ?The temperatures are tracking the CO2 forcing just fine.?* Lewis bizarrely asserts, ?people and plants die from cold, not warmth.?* Tell that to the folks in Moscow this summer ? or Europe in the summer of 2003.

    Lewis states:


    I know of nobody who denies that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years without our help?

    This line tells you the author not only doesn?t follow the scientific literature, but that he doesn?t actually associate with or talk to anybody who does.

    As Rabett explained, ?Well, actually most people who have a clue think that without our contributions the surface would be cooling a bit right now due to the Milankovitch cycles which have reached and passed the warm peak.?* Indeed, he points us to the 1980 Science article, ?Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations,? which concludes ?Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.?

    More recent money-grubbing conspirators include those folks at the National Center for Atmospheric Research:


    Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates. The study, which incorporates geologic records and computer simulations, provides new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions that are overpowering natural climate patterns.

    But Lewis knows not a single person who denies the earth has been warming for thousands of years.

    Let me end where I began.* Watts says of Lewis, ?he?s no lightweight, and he?s well respected in the field of physics.?* So what?* ?Einstein himself is well known for rejecting some of the claims of quantum mechanics? even though Einstein actually helped establish some of the foundations of quantum mechanics.** So what?* It turned out Einstein?s intuition was wrong.** That?s why science isn?t built around what individual scientists believe, no matter how famous.* In this case, Lewis isn?t even a climate scientist.

    Since I haven't heard from jg, I thought that I'd go back and tidy up a few things.

  • Reply 2588 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

    Link wars!


  • Reply 2589 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Carbon emissions increasing acidity in Alaskan seas

    By Yereth Rosen


    For years, scientists have presented mounting evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to a change in global climate ? raising temperatures, melting polar ice, and perhaps fueling extreme weather. For Dr. Mathis, it is clear that these emissions are also having an effect beneath the waves.

    In short, they are turning seawater more acidic. Ocean acidification is often called the twin of climate change. Just as increased carbon in the atmosphere triggers effects that change the climate, increased carbon in the atmosphere ? when absorbed by the oceans ? triggers acidification in the water.

    At this point, the effects are subtle ? a small dip in the waters' pH balance, and a gradual depletion of the minerals that make Alaskan waters so productive for sea life. Indeed, the very characteristics that help make Alaskan waters so rich ? the cold temperatures that hold more carbon and shallow waters saturated with nutrients ? also make them more susceptible to acidification, experts say.

    As with climate change ? which has already thawed permafrost, melted sea ice, and shrunk glaciers in Alaska ? carbon-caused ocean acidification will likely hit home here first.

    "Waters off Alaska are sort of preconditioned to become more acidified," says Mathis, a University of Alaska, Fairbanks, oceanographer.


    During the past two centuries, the oceans have absorbed one-quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, according to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While that has helped to lessen the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on the climate, it has been at a cost. This carbon dioxide - the same gas that makes fizzy beverages corrosive ? is altering the oceans' alkaline-acid balance, known as pH.

    The average pH levels in the world's oceans have dropped from 8.21 at the start of the Industrial Age (in the late 18th century) to an average 8.1 on the 1-to-14 scale, according to the IPCC. Changes will be more dramatic in coming years, the IPCC warns. Average pH levels are expected to decrease by as much as 0.4 by the end of the century, continuing the move in the acidic direction, the committee says.


    But his research has found that king crabs raised in incrementally more acidic water grow shells more slowly and have higher mortality rates. What will happen, he suggests, is that animals dependent on calcium carbonate will be more stressed and have greater difficulty with development and reproduction, and might even migrate away. Pteropods are particularly vulnerable, he says. [Editor's note: Pteropods was misspelled in the original version.]

    "That's going to impact whole food chains. Maybe it already is. We just don't know," he says.

    For commercial fishermen in Alaska, who harvest more than half the nation's seafood catch, the specter of acidification is worrying.

    "If you really care about fish ? not only to make money but also to eat and feed people ? it's of grave concern," says Alan Parks of nearby Homer, who has been fishing commercially for three decades and also works for the environmentally minded Alaska Marine Conservation Council.

  • Reply 2590 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Drought strikes the Amazon rainforest again

    Jeff Tollefson


    Five years ago, vast areas of the Amazon were hammered by a historic drought, which destroyed trees, impacted the livelihoods of fishermen and others who are dependent on the river and presented scientists with what was seen as a rare opportunity to investigate the world's largest rainforest in extreme distress. Drought has now struck again, reinforcing fears that the invisible hand of climate change may be involved. Nature takes a closer look.

    How does the current drought compare with the one in 2005?

    So far it seems the drought is similar in size, although some features vary.... [T]he drought appears to be broader in scope but slightly less intense than 2005. The current drought has affected a large area covering the northwest, central and southwest Amazon, including parts of Columbia, Peru and northern Bolivia. Fewer clouds and less rain also translate into higher temperatures, and Aragao says that the maximum temperatures in September are 1 °C higher than 2005, and 2?3 °C higher than average. Water levels in the primary tributary Rio Negro ? or Black River ? are at historic lows.

    Although deforestation in Brazil has decreased, there have been reports of increased fire activity. Is that related to the drought?

    Yes. Forest fires are generally associated with deforestation, but drought amplifies the impact of fires that are set in order to clear land.

    Preliminary data for 2010 indicate that deforestation has fallen by some 85% compared with its recent peak in 2004. ?.

    Despite that remarkable news, Aragao says that fire activity has increased to about 80% of the 2005 levels. Natural fires are a rare occurrence in the Amazon, but during a drought, fires that are set to clear smaller plots are more likely to escape into the forest.

    Is climate change to blame for the drought?

    It is hard to pinpoint a culprit, but both the 2005 and the 2010 droughts align well with longer-term projections by some climate modellers for a drying out of the Amazon due to climate change. Much of the Amazon normally experiences a dry season that begins in around July or August and continues to September or October. Periodic droughts are also associated with El Niño ? a periodic warming of surface waters in the eastern Pacific Ocean ? but there are some indications that the 2005 and 2010 droughts could be associated with warmer surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean north of the equator, which effectively pull the trade winds ? and all of the moisture they carry ? to the north. Scientists described the 2005 drought as a once-in-a-century phenomenon. But clearly it wasn't.

    What kind of impact did the 2005 drought have?

    Five years on, remote-sensing scientists are still debating that question with surprising intensity.A controversial 2007 study in Science found that the Amazon 'greened up' in 2005, suggesting that the rainforest was more resilient than previously believed. But other researchers have looked at the same data and failed to detect any such greening see 'Amazon drought raises research doubts'. Some go as far as to say that the satellite data aren't good enough to answer the question at all.....

    Could the 2010 drought help to answer those questions?

    It will certainly give scientists another opportunity to pore over the various ground and satellite data, and this time they will have an even better idea what to look for. It's not clear how the debate over satellite data will play out. As the recent PNAS paper indicates, much work remains to be done to explain why satellites see green ? if in fact they do ? and assess the broader impacts of drought on carbon storage. Having a second set of data to analyse certainly won't hurt.*


    Saleska, S. R., Didan, K., Huete, A. R. & da Rocha, H. R. Science 318, 612 (2007).

    Samanta, A. et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L05401 (2010).

    Phillips, O. L. et al. Science 323, 1344- 1347 (2009).

    Brando, P. M. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA advance online publication doi:10.1073/pnas.0908741107 (2010).

  • Reply 2591 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Earth's green carbon sink on the wane

    Rhiannon Smith


    The capacity of plants to act as a carbon sink could be on the decline.

    As global temperatures have risen in recent decades, the amount of atmospheric carbon being converted into plant biomass has increased in step. However, in a paper published today in Science, ecologists Maosheng Zhao and Steve Running at the University of Montana in Missoula report a surprising reversal of this trend over the last decade, despite its having been the warmest on record1.

    In 2003, a study on which Running was a co-author, led by Ramakrishna Nemani, who is also at the University of Montana, reported an increase in plant productivity between 1982 and 1999. The researchers attributed that trend to a warmer climate and increased solar radiation2. Zhao and Running expected to find a similar increase for 2000-2009 ? an expectation that was not met.

    Along with the oceans, plants are doing us a great service by taking up about half of all fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere, says Running. "This is the first indication that it might be slipping."


    The researchers say that this fall in global carbon uptake can be attributed to regional droughts, such as the severe drought in the Amazon in 2005, and a general drying trend in the Southern Hemisphere that has worsened with global warming.

    Why the Northern and Southern Hemispheres have responded differently to warmer climates and increased drought is unclear. Running suggests that the variations could be attributable to the different constraints faced by plants on opposite sides of the Equator. In the Northern Hemisphere, the limiting factor for plant growth tends to be temperature and the length of the growing season ? both of which have increased with global warming. The main limitation on plant growth in the Southern Hemisphere, meanwhile, is water availability ? which is why droughts have had a greater impact there.


    Bill Munger, an ecologist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is critical of the methods used in the paper. "The type of modelling they used is good at highlighting spatial patterns in vegetation processes, but very dependent on assumed influence of moisture and temperature," he says.

    Running agrees that they had to make some assumptions. "I fully acknowledge that when you're making global-level calculations you're seeing only a very small part of the activity of the ecosystem and inferring the rest," he says.

    "Until we see another 10?20 years of data, it would be premature to guarantee that this is a permanent trend, but it certainly means that we'd better be watching this really carefully," he adds


    1. Zhao, M. & Running, S. W. Science 329, 940-943 (2010)

    2. Nemani, R. R. et al. Science 300, 1560-1563 (2003)

  • Reply 2592 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Big Partisan Gap on Climate Change Is Widened by Tea Partiers


    The partisan divide over alternative energy grew the past two years, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

    Little Change in Opinions about Global Warming


    Increasing Partisan Divide on Energy Policies

    Views about the existence and causes of global warming have changed little over the past year. A new Pew Research Center poll finds that 59% of adults say there is solid evidence that the earth?s average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In October 2009, 57% said this.

    Roughly a third (34%) say that global warming is occurring mostly because of human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which also is little changed from last year (36%).

    Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming


    Modest Support for "Cap and Trade" Policy

    There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem ? 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

  • Reply 2593 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Ten Consecutive Post Since 10/28/2010----No Responses---Guess It's Time To Give It A Rest

  • Reply 2594 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Declaring victory before the battle is over, eh? Go right ahead. I'm not going away. And neither are those who continue to question the status quo...unless our rights to do so are forcibly removed from us.

    James Cameron and Google CEO: Questioning Warming Science is “Criminal”
  • Reply 2595 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

    Declaring victory before the battle is over, eh? Go right ahead. I'm not going away. And neither are those who continue to question the status quo...unless our rights to do so are forcibly removed from us.

    Welcome back jg. The battle is not over, never believed that for a moment, however was worrying that this thread was about to go to page 2, then page 3..........

  • Reply 2596 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    I was in Orlando on business for the past 7 days. I had access to the Internet, but was extremely busy and had no time or energy to put into posting. I'll soon be sharing some experiences and insights from my trip that are related to this very topic. But I'm spending some time with my family today.
  • Reply 2597 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    California voters rejected Proposition 23 that, if passed would have undone California's Climate Change Law.

    California Proposition 23 (2010)


    Proposition 23, which would have suspended AB 32, the "Global Warming Act of 2006", was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated.[1]

    AB 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006", was passed by the California State Legislature and signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger.[2] [3] Proposition 23, if enacted by voters, would have frozen the provisions of AB 32 until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters. California's unemployment rate, which currently hovers around 12%, has been at 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters just three times since 1980.[4]

    AB 32 requires that greenhouse gas emission levels in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020. The process of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the state is slated under AB 32 to begin in 2012.[5]

    Greentech Vote Victories!: Prop 23 Defeated, Brown in as Governor

    By Katie Fehrenbacher at Earth2Tech

    Wed Nov 3, 2010 11:36am EDT


    California voters on election day on Tuesday handed victories to a crucial greentech-related measure, and also voted in a handful of candidates with strong backgrounds of support for the greentech industry. As expected, voters rejected Proposition 23, which would have basically suspended AB 32 ? California?s climate change law

    Prop 23's Regional Repercussions

    Submitted by Eileen Claussen on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 10:32


    As others have pointed out in the discussion of California?s Proposition 23, which would suspend the landmark climate law (AB32), passage would have wide-ranging implications for both the state itself and the national debate on comprehensive climate and energy policy in the U.S. These concerns for both California- and national-level climate action are valid ? by creating a policy environment of extreme uncertainty, Prop 23 threatens to freeze the currently expanding investment in clean technology in the state. It is also arguably the new ?battleground? on comprehensive climate legislation in the U.S., given the current state of affairs in the U.S. Congress.

  • Reply 2598 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

    I was in Orlando on business for the past 7 days. I had access to the Internet, but was extremely busy and had no time or energy to put into posting. I'll soon be sharing some experiences and insights from my trip that are related to this very topic. But I'm spending some time with my family today.

    One thing that we agree on that time spent with the family is important. Have a good day with them, FT.
  • Reply 2599 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Global warming, let's take this decade to prepare


    A key challenge facing climate change policy-makers is to balance the extensive uncertainty about the dangers of climate change--which suggests postponing costly action until more is known--against the risk that delay may constrain future options. The current policy debate asks whether or not developed nations should commit to specific targets and timetables to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. The authors argue that instead the most important near-term policy responses to the potential threat of climate change are research and development for emission-reducing technologies, institutional reforms, and technical aid to developing countries, all designed to facilitate large future worldwide reductions of greenhouse gas emissions if such reductions prove necessary.

  • Reply 2600 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Climate change is main barrier to development - United Nations

    By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent

    Published: 6:31PM GMT 04 Nov 2010


    ...But this rapid development is in danger of reversing because of the rise of global temperatures, that could cause an increase in natural disasters, especially in the poor world where countries are ill-equipped to cope.

    Highlighting the failure of last year's UN climate summit in Copenhagen, the report called for renewed efforts to make sure that talks in Cancun, Mexico next month can tackle global warming and protect the environment.

    The Real Wealth of Nations report said that unsustainable patterns of consumption and production are the biggest challenge to ending poverty....

    And the problem will get worse with the world population expected to hit nine billion by 2050 and increasing demand from the developing world for meat, cars and other ?carbon intensive? goods.

    Ultimately the growth in consumption and destruction of carbon sinks like rainforests fuel global temperature rise that could cause floods and droughts.

    The UN said that on one estimate, the adverse effects of climate change on grain yields would push prices up, more than doubling the price of wheat. In a worst case scenario, the report added, by 2050 per capita consumption of cereals would fall by a fifth, leaving 25 million additional children malnourished, with South Asia the worst affected.

    Unless more is done to reduce carbon emissions, the environment will become uninhabitable in many parts of the world, the report warned.


    ?The continuing reliance on fossil fuels is threatening irreparable damage to our environment and to the human development of future generations," said the report.


    "These developments pose serious questions about the long run feasibility of the world's current production and consumption patterns."

    Overall, the UN said poor countries had been closing the human development gap with rich countries over the past two decades, particularly in health and education. The countries reporting the slowest progress were those in sub-Saharan Africa struck by the HIV epidemic and parts of the former Soviet Union suffering increased adult mortality.

    I would have included pictures, but someone in a different thread told me that I included too many in my post.
Sign In or Register to comment.