This series of exchanges needs to be read from the bottom up.There are always multiple sides in any scientific debate. The side with the most proponents is not always found to be correct - just ask Copernicus or Galileo. I pulled a couple sections from "Climate History and the Sun" a paper written by astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon available at http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=90. The first quote is interesting in light of John Wallace's argument that fast temperature changes (faster than thousands of years) prove anthropogenic causes of current warming." ... the Greenland ice core record is temporally resolved enough to show highly variable temperature swings within a decade or less (Figure 4b). Apparently, large and abrupt changes (of the order of a few degrees C in less than a decade) occurred naturally around these northern high-latitude regions." Supporting data is from Isotopic Analysis of Ice cores in Greenland (Stuiver et al. 1995)
The next several paragraphs are from the end of the article. The proxies they speak of are the many ways of calculating what the temperature was at a previous point in time before direct measurement was possible. I suggest you read the full article to really understand.
"Most of these climate proxies cannot yet be reliably calibrated to yield a quantitative, globally averaged temperature record over the last 1,000 years. However, on a region-by-region basis, the records can be judged, with the following results. Over many regions of the world:
- The Medieval Warm Period, persisting ca. 800-1200 A.D. (but with cold excursions possible on time scales shorter than a decade) showed warmth greater than that of the 20th century.
- The Little Ice Age, persisting from ca. 1300-1900 A.D. (with brief, decadal warmth possible) brought retreat into unusual cold in nearly all regions of the world sampled.
- In order to consider anthropogenic global climate effects, the 20th century temperature record should be broken in two pieces about mid-century. Prior to ca. 1950, the amount of human-produced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was small compared to the latter half of the century. The rapid, early 20th-century warming is largely unrelated to the air’s increased greenhouse gases from human activities. The warmth seems largely a recovery from the unusual cold of the Little Ice Age, and has not yet reached the natural extremes of the early second millennium over most of the world.
"Summary and Conclusions
"The climate record shows that the global warming of 1°F observed over the last 100 years is not unusual. Global temperature changes of this magnitude have occurred frequently in the past and are a result of natural factors in climate change.
"But is it possible that the particular temperature increase observed in the last 100 years is the result of carbon dioxide produced by human activities? The scientific evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case. All climate studies agree that if the one-degree global warming was produced by an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the additional CO2 first warms the atmosphere, and the warmed atmosphere, in turn, warms the earth’s surface. However, measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. This is just the period in which humanmade carbon dioxide has been pouring into the atmosphere and according to the climate studies, the resultant atmospheric warming should be clearly evident.
"The absence of atmospheric warming proves that the warming of the earth’s surface observed in the last 100 years cannot be due to an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by human activities. The recent global warming must be the result of natural factors in climate change."
There are other articles by Dr. Baliunas at http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38 which are worth reading.
Rodney McFarland, President
Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights
From: ron ewart [Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:33 PM
Subject: More on the Environmental/Global Warming FarceTo rural landowners, government types, interested parties and the News Media:
I had a couple of e-mail exchanges with Sandi Doughton, Seattle Times Reporter, over her front-page article in last Sunday's Seattle Times. Again, she tried to sway me towards her so-called "evidence" of global warming by providing answers to a question from UW Climate Scientist, John Wallace. If you even care about global warming, pro or con, I hope you will take the time to read the following e-mail exchanges and the resources I have provided. Hopefully, it will open your eyes.At the very bottom of this e-mail is my original response to Sandi's global warming article. The next message above that is from Sandi, in response to that e-mail. The final message, just below this one, is my second response to her and her article with more details.The American citizen is witnessing one of the greatest con games of all times, where political groups (wealthy environmentalists and the politicians that aid and abet them) are using some scientists, especially from liberal colleges, along with studies from the UN, to propagandize the global warming (the-sky-is-falling) issue. If we buy into this myth, the cost to each of us and our national economy will be immeasurably high. Before one red cent is spent on global warming, much more research is needed. I do hope that cooler heads will prevail but then, who's listening and who really cares.Environmentalists have given us the Endangered Species Act and now amended with the Invasive Species Act. For over 30 years they have lobbied for laws and ordinances that usurp our private property rights, take away our uses of that property and hence decrease its value. The cost to our economy in hard cash and lost jobs for failed environmental programs is in the trillions of dollars. The losses to our freedom and liberty cannot be measured.We either draw a line in the sand now, our suffer all of the unintended consequences for a policy that is promoted as motherhood, apple pie and Chevrolet, but is in fact a Trojan horse to relieve us of our Constitutional rights, that were paid for in the blood of our brave men and women in uniform.Ron EwartFall City, WA425 222-9482
To: Sandi DoughtonSeattle Times ReporterDear Sandi:In response to your e-mail (see below) my mind is open, but open to all of the facts, not just a selected few. You provide evidence from one person, John Wallace, UW Climate Scientist. There are literally thousands of scientists who do not agree with the assertions made by Mr. Wallace and other scientists, especially those coming out of liberal colleges who "feed" off of radical environmentalism and get government and environmental grants. There may be perfectly logical and "natural" reasons why CO2 levels are rising in the atmosphere at a rate that would not be construed as a natural event, perhaps human-caused, perhaps not. One of those reasons was just posited by a noted scientist that plankton levels in the Ocean or at much lower levels than ever before, because there is a depletion of normal levels of iron in the Ocean. (Plankton needs Iron and it takes in CO2 and makes Oxygen in the process. This is strong evidence that Plankton seeded the Earth with Oxygen in its early history.)And here are some other points. In the early 18 hundreds, the recorded temperatures in and around the New York area were higher than they are today. Much higher. Did global warming occur at this time or thereafter? No. And this was a high-period (even higher than today) of industrial pollution being added to the atmosphere. Remember the industrial revolution where there were no emission standards?Secondly, even if it were true that CO2 levels are high now, it is equally possible that we will run out of fossil fuels or find alternative energy sources in the next couple of decades to replace fossil fuels. When that happens, CO2 levels will begin to fall, not rise. Is this variable plotted into the environmental scientists' computer models? Probably not.Sunspot cycles and Sun activity have some predictability and Sunspots and Sun activity affect Earth's weather dramatically. The prevailing words here are "have some predictability". Nevertheless, there are equally unpredictable elements of Sunspots and Sun activity that could not be included in any computer model.As your Mr. Wallace stated, the Earth's orbit also affects weather patterns and he is right when he says that changes in the Earth's orbit occur over very long stretches of time. Still volcano activity (much more prevelant than shifting orbits) also affects the Earth's weather by belching massive amounts of green house gases and particulates into the Atmosphere. When Krakatoa (an Island in the Pacific) blew its top over a hundred years ago (1883), the green house gases and particulates it thrust into the atmosphere cooled down the planet for a time. Imagine greenhouse gases cooling down the Earth. How can that be.(See below, taken from http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Krakatau.html)ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS OF KRAKATOA:
Tephra from the eruption fell as far as 2,500 km downwind in the days following the eruption. However, the finest fragments were propelled high into the stratosphere, spreading outward as a broad cloud across the entire equatorial belt in only two weeks. These particles would remain suspended in the atmosphere for years, propogating farther to the north and south before finally dissipating.
The stratospheric cloud of dust also contained large volumes of sulfur dioxide gas emitted from Krakatau. These gas molecules rapidly combined with water vapor to generate sulfuric acid droplets in the high atmosphere. The resulting veil of acidic areosols and volcanic dust provided an atmospheric shield capable of reflecting enough sunlight to cause global temperatures to drop by several degrees. This aerosol-rich veil also generated spectacular optical effects over 70% of the earth's surface. For several years after the 1883 eruption, the earth experienced exotic colors in the sky, halos around the sun and moon, and a spectacular array of anomalous sunsets and sunrises. Artists were fascinated by these aerial displays and captured them on canvas. The painting shown here is one such sunset captured by the artitst William Ascroft on the banks of the River Thames in London, on November 26, 1883 (Courtesy of Peter Francis). (my emphasis added)Whether any of this is true or not, points out the fact that there are just too many variables to make long-range predictions from computer models. And that is where all this "the-sky-is-falling" global warming predictions come from. Just ask any weather man about computer models. He'll give you an earful about variables.Finally, any reputable scientists knows that as the variables increase in any dynamic closed system, (like weather, global warming, oceans, eco systems, etc.) the accuracy of any long-range predictions decreases. That is why so much of this so-called science about the environment is just so much "bunk". Read the book by James Gleick on CHAOS. It will open your "eyes" on the unpredictability of dynamic systems.So before I buy into the assertions of "your" scientists, a lot more research will have to be done. And even if more research is done, the almost infinite amount of variables in such predictions won't decrease, it could very likely increase with greater knowledge.I am just a layman but I have read over 100 science books on many different disciplines. I have a logical and reasoning mind. I know a "red herring" when I see it. Because this is such an important topic with so much mis-information floating around, I have taken this e-mail message, along with yours and sent it to a wide array of interested people, including landowners, city folks, government types and the News Media. Who knows, maybe one day, we can all be in agreement with "the facts" instead of agenda-driven propaganda and politically motivated hype.Respectfully,Ron Ewart, CEOTRIANGULUM CORP.Fall City, WA----- Original Message -----From: Sandi DoughtonTo: ron ewartSent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:16 PMSubject: RE: Environmental/Global Warming FarceMr. Ewart: Thanks for your note.I do disagree with your contention that what is going on now is simply another natural flucuation in the planet's temperature.During a web chat yesterday, UW climate scientist John Wallace gave the following answer to a question on this subject.I'm attaching it below for your information.If you're open-minded on the subject of global warming, I suggest you check out the RealClimate web site to see what climate scientists with no industry or ideological affiliations have to say about many of the subject you address in your essay.Here's the link: http://www.realclimate.org/And here's John's answer:
What is the evidence that the global climate changes that are in question are the result of human behavior rather than a natural cycle? Hasn't the earth seen fluctuations in climate temperatures during periods where humans weren't burning fossil fuels?
— Doug Kilishek, Seattle
Wallace: Yes, there have been dramatic climate swings in the past, but with very few exceptions, they have occurred gradually, on time scales of thousands of years.
Some of the most dramatic climate change in the past was the alternation between glacial epochs, or ice ages, like the one that ended 15,000-20,000 years ago, and non-glacial conditions, like we're experiencing now.
The cause of these swings was the subtle variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun due to the pull of the other planets. These orbital changes don't change the total incoming solar energy significantly, but they dramatically change the strength of the sunlight over high northern latitudes, like Northern Canada, during the summer season.
The conditions that favor weak summer radiation in these areas are:
1. A large tilt to the Earth's axis
2. A large departure of the Earth's orbit from a circular shape, so that the Earth is much closer to the sun in part of its orbit than in the other part.
3. The Earth is farthest from the sun during the Northern Hemisphere's summer.
When these three things occur, solar radiation is weak in the high northern latitudes in the summer. Under these conditions, snow and ice that accumulate during the winter don't melt during the summer, so the ice builds up and an ice age results.
The end of the ice age comes when the orbit arranges itself so that solar radiation during summer is very strong. These changes take place very slowly - over thousands of years. In contrast, greenhouse warming is taking place much more rapdily - on a time scale of a century.
Hence ecosystems have much less time to adjust to the changes.
Human civilizations have experienced climate change before, but nothing as dramatic worldwide as we're seeing now.
Why are we convinced the current warming is not due to natural processes, like these orbital changes? First: Because we know greenhouse gases are accumlating in the atmosphere in levels that haven't been experienced in the past few tens of millions of years.
Second: Because the pattern of the observed warming fits the pattern we would expect from warming caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases. (ie- almost all areas of the planet are warming; the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere are warming; the upper atmosphere is cooling; the temperature changes are greatest in the Arctic during winter.)
Third: The warming is much more rapid than most of the natural variations we've seen in the past.
With best regards,
cell: (206) 683-1227
fax: (206) 464-2261
PO Box 70
Seattle, WA 98111-----Original Message-----
From: ron ewart [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 12:51 PM
To: Sandi Doughton
Cc: Edmonds, Carolyn; Ferguson, Bob; Lambert, Kathy; Phillips, Larry; Pelz, Dwight; Dunn, Reagan; von Reichbauer, Pete; Constantine, Dow; Hammond, Steve; Gossett, Larry; Hague, Jane; Irons, David; Patterson, Julia; Sims, Ron; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Kirby Wilbur KVI; firstname.lastname@example.org; mike siegel; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Keith Ervin; Lance Dickie; Bruce Ramsey; Ashley Bach; Connelly, Joel; email@example.com; Ben Cape; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Environmental/Global Warming FarceDear Sandi:Seattle Times Reporter.Your article on global warming, Sunday Seattle Times:Here is another perspective (see WORD attachment) you have not seen, but the essay has been picked up in several national venues. Read it and then compare it to the high-pitched sound that is coming from environmentalists and environmental-scientists and some politicians that are propagandizing this "stuff".A thousand years ago, people were living on the soil of Greenland when the human population and its contribution to green house gases was almost non-existent. Why is it that computer models for weather changes are only good for about two hours? The reason is, there are just too many variables to model to make accurate, long-range predictions. The same goes for global warming. Any scientist with any integrity, knows this.Perhaps your next article should include this different perspective with the same front-page exposure.Respectfully,Ron Ewart, CEOTRIANGULUM CORP.Fall City, WA