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

[lfalen]

Dogma may not be the right term. You can substitute prevailing theory or some other term if that makes you happy.
Almost every thing is science is subject to reevaluation as new data becomes available. There have been changes to some aspects of evolution, but the main hypothesis remains valid. Coal and oil are finite and for that reason alone alternate sources should be developed. Ethanol causes more problems that it solves. Air pollution is a problem for health reasons and efforts should be made to reduce it. Looking for ways to reduce man made effects is fine as long as it does not disrupt the economy are make us uncompetitive with other countries.


Roger






-----Original Message-----
Subject: American Institute of Physics: Global Warming: "a planet grossly unlike the one to which the human species is adapted.
From: "Ted Moffett" <starbliss at gmail.com>
To: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
Date: 03/01/16 05:24:48


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> 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) 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)


* 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)  
 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) 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 in the 20th century. However, he has also stated that "it is possible that the consequences of 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> 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/20160302/205b8cfa/attachment-0001.html>