All-
Steve is obviously an intelligent individual (if a bit contrary...;>), and has learned that it's much easier to deny an assertion and put the burden of proving that assertion on us. If he were to come up with a high confidence level theory to what is causing the current changes being noted globally, I'd be the first one to salute! Thank you for your stimulating conversation regarding this issue. As in many other potential unresolved environmental issues, there is room for those who would be satisfied only through conclusive evidence without doubt. This enables the "checks-balance" system to be effective in our conclusions. When we rely on inconclusive or speculative data (in which I am confidant we have to this point concerning this subject), to make our concluding arguments, the public has a right to be suspect. As is the case with all new revelations, the burden of proof always falls on those who would make the assertion. My argument is that the proof presented has not backed the assertion. We should seek to answer the "simple" questions that are presented regarding this issue straight on rather than trying to answer using complexity which is easy to manipulate and abuse for agenda furtherance. With the recent spate of books on Darwin in celebration of 150 years of evolutionary theory, it would be consistent that Steve would deny evolution with only 150 years of observation, research and study... although there are certainly many who object for other reasons. Ah, a discussion for another day!! (if a bit contrary...;>), Touché!! Steve ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of DON BERTOLETTE Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ENTS] Re: Fw: Dr. Hansen and associates, please fully disavow industrial biochar Josh- Steve is obviously an intelligent individual (if a bit contrary...;>), and has learned that it's much easier to deny an assertion and put the burden of proving that assertion on us. If he were to come up with a high confidence level theory to what is causing the current changes being noted globally, I'd be the first one to salute! With the recent spate of books on Darwin in celebration of 150 years of evolutionary theory, it would be consistent that Steve would deny evolution with only 150 years of observation, research and study... although there are certainly many who object for other reasons. We are such landlubbers! Your comments remind me how often I am surprised that our environmental community hasn't been more active in resolving the ocean resource extraction industry's unsustainable harvests. Too bad we didn't have good records of whaling numbers, before we started harvesting them to near extinction. The earth can only abide so much! -Don > Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:17:20 -0700 > Subject: [ENTS] Re: Fw: Dr. Hansen and associates, please fully disavow > industrial biochar > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > > Here you go, Steve, > > Below is the post Lee wrote in this chain on Friday. Very > informative, as usual. > > One of the core tenants of your belief that anthropogenic climate > change is a farce seems to be that our records cover but 100 years. > I'm curious if that skepticism extends to the many other trends we see > today. > > How about the extinction event we are currently witnessing? We know > far more about the biodiversity of the planet now than we did 100 > years ago. Is the current wave of extinctions an artifact or our > increased knowledge? (this and the following questions are > rhetorical) > > What about the decline in the productivity of the World's fisheries? > We didn't have a census of fisheries 100 years ago and we still don't > sample the entire ocean. > > There are countless examples of types of information for which there > are data sets of 100 years or less. If none of the trends we see in > those data sets is reliable - oh brother.... If some are and some > aren't, I'm curious to know what sort of mathematical rubric could be > applied to know the reliable ones from the unreliable ones. > > Again, Lee's post is below, if you care to read it. > > Josh > > > > Josh: > > We have good direct records of atmospheric CO2 that go back 800,000 > years. During that time, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has had a > major cycle with peaks around 2x the lowest levels 8 times, and in > each > case the temperature change has been about 3 degrees C (5.4 degrees > F). > At this time we are well beyond the highest CO2 concentrations in the > 800,000 year record. When we balance the various forcings on the > climate > we have: CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases, positive forcing > (as > established by Arrhenius in 1896, and confirmed repeatedly since then > each time better equipment that can make more accurate measurements > has > been developed), black soot (positive forcing), human aerosols > (negative > forcing), albedo changes (net positive forcing in a warming climate > due > to shrinking ice sheets and snow cover), and change in energy output > from the sun which goes up and down a tiny amount, but had a tiny net > positive effect in the last 100 years, the overall net effect is > positive, i.e. towards higher temperatures, and CO2 has a growing > proportion of that positive forcing, easily dwarfing changes in the > sun. > > > We know that the current rise in CO2 is not one of the natural cycles > observed in the 800,000 year record because CO2 derived from fossil > fuel > burning has a unique isotopic signature compared to carbon derived > from > other sources, which is showing up in the atmosphere. The volume of > CO2 > derived from fossil fuel burning (minus that that goes into the ocean > and the vegetation) is equivalent to the annual increase in CO2 > content > of the atmosphere, and the annual upward step in CO2 content > corresponds > to known measures of economic activity (i.e. the increase in the > Keeling > curve is smaller in years with recessions, and smaller in earlier > years > of the record when the economy was smaller--the annual increase > throughout the record is proportional to the amount of fossil fuels > burned in a given year). Also, the long-term natural temperature > trend > over the last few thousand years has been downwards, and would be > expected to continue downwards in the absence of human influence. As > was > pointed out in 1977, cycles in the earth's orbital parameters are > changing the distribution of solar energy across the earth's surface > in > such as way as to start a long term downward trend in temperature > towards the next glacial period. However, the human/CO2 influence at > this point is pushing in the opposite direction with much greater > magnitude. > > > With regard to climate models--they are really doing quite well. In > 1988, James Hansen published predictions for CO2 content of the > atmosphere and the resulting temperature increase through the year > 2020, > based on the GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) global > circulation model. A comparison was made of the predictions and > actual > observed temperatures for the year 2005, and the predictions first > published in 1988 matched 2005 almost perfectly (the observed > temperature increase was slightly larger than predicted). Todays > models > are much better than the ones available in 1988. The models run > without > the CO2 and other human effects (with only natural forcings included) > cannot duplicate the observed temperature changes during the last > century, while they can come close with CO2 included. These results > have > been duplicated with 16 different global circulation models from > various > research labs around the world. In addition, as Hansen has recently > pointed out, the same predictions for worldwide mean temperature can > and > have been made via direct physics with a simple formula on a hand > calculator, or as Arrhenius did with amazingly accurate results in > 1905, > with paper and pencil. The problems arise in trying to predict what > might happen in a given location and time (i.e. weather rather than > climate--weather is less predictable). > > > Regarding university research funding, there is an emphasis on > climate > change, but the majority of funding is still given out for other > topics. > Its hard to see how anyone would have to do climate change research > just > to get funding. I managed to be ranked among the top 1% of all > scientists in the world as of 2006 without publishing a single paper > on > global warming. I am doing some global warming research now, but so > far > have not been able to get any funding for it. > > > Lee > > > > > > </html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
