[Vision2020] American Institute of Physics: Global Warming: "a planet grossly unlike the one to which the human species is adapted.

[Ted Moffett]

Did you read the article I referenced by NASA's Gavin Schmidt that touches
on your use of the word "settled" to describe climate science regarding
anthropogenic global warming?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/%5C

To follow Schmidt's points, you might consider that evolution theory is not
"settled" science.
Neither is Einstein's relativity theory, one of the fundamental theories
governing human understanding of the universe.

Evolution and relativity theory both suggest unanswered questions that
require further evidence or perhaps newer or updated theories.  This does
not indicate we should proceed as though evolution and relativity theory
are so uncertain we should not base scientific inquiry or
even public policy on these scientific theories.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I gathered you were asserting that
anthropogenic global warming as a major problem indicating humanity should
take significant action to lower fossil fuel sourced CO2 emissions, is so
uncertain, so not "settled,"  that humanity should not proceed with major
efforts to lower human sourced CO2 emissions.  As you wrote,:
"There is climate change all the time, but how much is due to anthropogenic
causes is debatable."  And also:
*"Some who formally embraced the anthropogenic aspect but now have doubts
are Roger Revelle, Claude Allegre, Reid Bryson and David Bellamy."     And
again: "**There is climate change but the cause is not settled."*

*If this is your position, then to use the word "settled" to address this,
the evidence that our fossil fuel CO2 emissions are dramatically changing
Earth's climate, to an increasing level as atmospheric CO2 levels continue
to increase, which will result with a high degree of probability in
catastrophic impacts on human life and the biosphere in general, is quite
"settled," in the sense that the evidence is substantial enough to merit
action to lower human sourced CO2 emissions to avoid or lessen dramatic
climate change.  *

*The evidence is so compelling that to not take action to address global
warming is, frankly, irresponsible.  To promote major doubt about human
impacts on climate is hindering efforts to address this problem.  *

*Once again, I take issue with your used of the word "dogma" regarding
climate science indicating human impacts on climate are significant.  **This
is a gross and unfair mischaracterization of the science involved in this
issue, an insult to the careful work of thousands of scientists who have
contributed to humanity's understanding of this problem.*

lfalen at turbonet.com
<http://index.html/?_n%5Bp%5D%5Bmain%5D=win.main.tree&_n%5Bp%5D%5Bcontent%5D=mail.compose&to=lfalen@turbonet.com>>
wrote:

*"*Read the book The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon. He lists the following as
questioning some aspects of the prevailing dogma."
-----------------------------------------
To explore all of the impacts of global warming is a complex task, but the
following information sourced from the American Institute of Physics
website is a worthwhile start.  Note that uncertainty about impacts and
even potential benefits from global warming are addressed.  Still, on the
whole, impacts are likely to be dire.  All of the text below to my sign-off
signature are from AIP website below:

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/impacts.htm

** Most places will continue to get warmer,* especially at night and in
winter. The temperature change will benefit some regions while harming
others — for example, patterns of tourism will shift. The warmer winters
will improve health and agriculture in some areas, but globally, mortality
will rise and food supplies will be endangered due to more frequent and
extreme summer heat waves and other effects. Regions not directly harmed
will suffer indirectly from higher food prices and a press of refugees from
afflicted regions.

** Sea levels** will continue to rise for many centuries.* The last time
the planet was 3°C warmer than now, the sea level was at least 6 meters (20
feet) higher.(23) <https://www.aip.org/history/climate/impacts.htm#N_23_>
That submerged coastlines where many millions of people now live, including
cities from New York to Shanghai. The rise will probably be so gradual that
later generations can simply abandon their parents' homes, but a ruinously
swift rise cannot be entirely ruled out. Meanwhile storm surges will cause
emergencies.

** Weather** patterns will keep changing * toward an intensified water
cycle with stronger floods and droughts. Most regions now subject to
droughts will probably get drier (because of warmth as well as less
precipitation), and most wet regions will get wetter. Extreme weather
events will become more frequent and worse. In particular, storms with more
intense rainfall are liable to bring worse floods. Some places will get
more snowstorms, but most mountain glaciers and winter snowpack will
shrink, jeopardizing important water supply systems. Each of these things
has already begun to happen in some regions.(24)
<https://www.aip.org/history/climate/impacts.htm#N_24_>

** Ecosystems will be stressed,* although some managed agricultural and
forestry systems might benefit in the first decades of warming. Uncounted
valuable species, especially in the Arctic, mountain areas, and tropical
seas, must shift their ranges. Many that cannot will face extinction. A
variety of pests and tropical diseases are expected to spread to warmed
regions. These problems have already been observed in numerous places.

** Increased carbon **dioxide levels will affect biological systems*
independent of climate change. Some crops will be fertilized, as will some
invasive weeds (the balance of benefit vs. harm is uncertain). The oceans
will continue to become markedly more acidic, gravely endangering coral
reefs, and probably harming fisheries and other marine life.

** There will be significant unforeseen impacts.* Most of these will
probably be harmful, since human and natural systems are well adapted to
the present climate.
The climate system and ecosystems are complex and only partly understood,
so there is a chance that the impacts will not be as bad as predicted.
There is a similar chance of impacts grievously worse than predicted.
If the CO2 level keeps rising to well beyond twice the pre-industrial level
along with a rise of other greenhouse gases, as must inevitably happen if
we do not take strong action soon, the results will certainly be worse.
Under a "business as usual" scenario, calculations give even odds that
global temperature will rise 5°C or more by the end of the century —
causing a radical reorganization and impoverishment of many of the
ecosystems that sustain our civilization.(25)
<https://www.aip.org/history/climate/impacts.htm#N_25_>
All this is projected to happen to people who are now alive. What of the
more distant future? As one group of scientists remarked, "the next few
decades offer a brief window of opportunity to minimize large-scale and
potentially catastrophic climate change that will extend longer than the
entire history of human civilization thus far."(26)
<https://www.aip.org/history/climate/impacts.htm#N_26_> If emissions
continue to rise for a century — whether because we fail to rein them in,
or because we set off an unstoppable feedback loop in which the warming
itself causes ever more greenhouse gases to be evaporated into the air —
then the gases will reach a level that the Earth has not seen since tens of
millions of years ago. The consequences will take several centuries to be
fully realized, as the Earth settles into its new state. It is probable
that, as in the distant geological eras with high CO2, sea levels will be
many tens of meters higher and the average global temperature will soar far
above the present value: a planet grossly unlike the one to which the human
species is adapted.
*---------------------------------------*
*Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett*

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:11 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

What you have pointed out is acknowledged in the  book. Solomon merely says
> that these folks take issue with some aspects of the argument. They do not
> disagree with everything. For example they have a high regard for Mann, but
> point out that his hockey stick graph is in error. He says that the common
> consensus may be right, but that it is not settled.
>
> Roger
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] PNAS 2-22-16: Study Reveals Stunning
> Acceleration of Sea Level Rise, Potential 4 ft., This Century
> From: "Ron Force" <ronforce at gmail.com>
> To: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>, "Moscow Vision 2020" <
> vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Date: 02/28/16 23:42:00
>
> When you list authorities who deny some aspect of climate science, you
> should really look into their backgrounds before posting the list. While i
> didn't go through the whole list, here's the first few:
>
> Edward Wegman-- a statistician who presented a critical report on behalf
> of a Republican House member. The report was withdrawn after it was found
> to be plagiarized.
>
> Richard Tol-- doesn't deny that climate change exists, just thinks that
> the economic consequences won't be severe.
>
> Christopher Landsea-- in agreement with climate change forecasts, but
> doesn't believe that the severity of current hurricanes can be traced to
> global warming.
>
> Duncan Wingham-- In the 1990s, Wingham was involved in a four-year
> satellite study of the Antarctic ice sheet . His conclusion then, and
> from later research, is that the Antarctic has contributed little to
> observed rising sea levels <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_levels> in
> the 20th century. However, he has also stated that "it is possible that the
> consequences of global warming
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming> on sea level rise have
> been underestimated... Other sources of rise must be underestimated. In
> particular it is possible that the effect of global warming on thermal
> expansion [on the oceans] is larger than we thought" (Wikipedia)
>
> Bob Carter (Robert i Carter) (deceased) Lost his position at Cook
> University for failure to publish in peer-reviewed publications. Was on the
> payroll of the Heartland Institute (Koch Brothers).
>
> Vincent Gray--- Chief chemist (retired) for the New Zealand Coal Research
> Organization...
> and on it goes.
>
>
> Ron Force
> Moscow Idaho USA
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:35 PM, lfalen < lfalen at turbonet.com
> <http://index.html?_n%5Bp%5D%5Bmain%5D=win.main.tree&_n%5Bp%5D%5Bcontent%5D=mail.compose&to=lfalen@turbonet.com>
> > wrote:
>
>> There is climate change all the time, but how much is due to
>> anthropogenic causes is debatable. Read the book The Deniers by Lawrence
>> Solomon. He lists the following as questioning some aspects of the
>> prevailing dogma - Dr. Edward Wegman, Dr. Richard Toll, Dr. Christopher
>> Landsea, Dr. Duncan Wingham, Dr. Robert lCarter, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr.
>> Vincent Gray, Dr. Syun-I chi Akasodu, Dr. Tom V. Segalstad,, Zbigniew
>> Jaworoski, David Bromwich, Hendrik Tennekes, Freeman Dyson, Antonino
>> Zichichi, Dr. Eigil Friis-Cristensen, Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Sami Solanki,
>> Japer Kirby, Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. George Hukla, Rhodes Fairbridge,
>> Dr. William Gray, Dr. Cliff Ollier, Paul Reiter. Some who formally embraced
>> the anthropogenic aspect but now have doubts are Roger Revelle, Claude
>> Allegre, Reid Bryson and David Bellamy. Ravelle is Al Gores mentor. There
>> is climate change but the cause is not settled. This dose not mean that we
>> should not be concerned about air pollution and should be trying to improve
>> that.
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20160229/3ab6270a/attachment-0001.html>