All,
Regarding the 150 yrs of observations/data/evidence and evolution, global warming is nearly as old and has a significant amount of data/ evidence, actually. Consider that Gregor Mendel's work on genetics was not re-discovered until the early-1900s, one might consider the testing of the hypothesis of natural selection to be somewhat recent. Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physicist, actually developed the hypothesis that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere would cause a warming of the Earth. He published his idea in 1896. Very little in the last 114 yrs has run counter to his hypothesis. Knowing the types of egos in science, a huge quest would be to prove Darwin or Arrhenius wrong. Amazingly, with powerful computers and incredible developments in knowledge and technology, no one has accomplished that yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius Of course, they both could be wrong. neil On Apr 6, 4:14 pm, "Steven Springer" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
