next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
------=_Part_42165_23593104.1164303323605 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline All: As a student of climate change, paleoclimate and climate modelling, I feel I should chime in after reading posts from Dave, Steve and Chris. I would like to present the following points: 1) The term "global warming" is too specific a term to use when discussing anthropogenic (man-made) influence on the global climate system. "Climate change" is a more appropriate title as it encompasses the entire array of issues which includes global warming, sea-level increase, polar ice melt, and an increase in the severity and frequency of atmospheric events to name a few. 2) Peer-reviewed journals are currently the best way to contribute to any field of science. When an article is submitted to a journal, the editor generally makes a summary decision about whether or not the article is of appropriate scope and merit for their readers, then passes it to 2 or more reviewers or rejects it outright. These reviewers are generally anonymous, and have enormous impact on the success of the article. If an article survives to be published, it has undoubtedly gone through several revisions. 3) Top tier peer-reviewed journals are generally not available for free access. This makes it difficult for the public to assimilate first-hand knowledge from these journals. Instead, popular media outlets such as television, books and magazines present distilled versions of these findings. Very often these come with spin. 4) The pereceived battle between the media and the scientific community has happened on countless occasions. If there is consensus among scientists (never unanimity!) over a certain issue that goes against some political status quo, it is sufficient to create the illusion of debate to cast doubt on the facts. A perfect example of this is the acid rain "debate". John Smol is a Canadian paleolymnologist (a scientist who uses sediment deposits from lake bottoms to infer past climatic events). His repeated findings showed that pH levels in lakes were increasing in acidity, and this acidity was due to precipitation that contained sulfur compounds produced by industry. In one study, Smol showed that of all the lakes surveyed (in Vermont of New Hampshire I believe) only one lake did not show elevated and increasing concentrations of acidity. A media story was created illustrating that there was no acid rain problem, because John Smol and his team found no increase in pH in that one lake. The Reagan administration employed media tactics that very much resemble the pattern of denial seen in climate change. 5) The "hockey stick" that brought Michael Mann to the forefront of climate change is a multiproxy reconstruction of past temperature [1]. Since there are hardly any direct, instrumental meterological data before 1900, indirect means of inferring past climate, or proxy data, must be used. There are many types of proxy record, including ice cores, boreholes, tree-rings and lake sediments to name a few. The hockey stick gets its name from its gradual cooling from year 1000 to 1700 (the "shaft"), and abrupt warming from 1700 to 2000 (the "blade"). This multiproxy reconstruction has been all but completely discredited, but not by those who deny climate change. There were fundamental problems with their reconstruction method that rendered their results unreliable. [1] Mann, M. E., R. S. Bradley and M. K. Hughes (1999), Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the last millennium: inferrences, uncertainties, and limitations, *Geophysical Research Letters, **26*, 759-762. 6) I urge caution at taking anything said at www.realclimate.org at face value. This is a completely unmoderated forum of climate change discussion in which anybody can state their opinions as gospel. Many of the top scientists worldwide (as well as non-scientists!) involved in various aspects of climate change frequent this forum and express opinions that may be unsubstantiated and unproven. 7) There IS debate within the scientific community about climate change. However, this debate is almost entirely restricted to how climate change is manifesting itself, what causes climate change, to what degree climate will change, where change will occur first, etc. The problem with viewing climate change as a "future" problem that "may" cause problems down the road, is that we may already have started down the road. One of the most important tasks is to establish a precedent for historical levels of temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations so we have a baseline for what is normal. This understanding is far from complete. 8) If anyone is interested in reading about bridging the gap between scientific investigation of climate change and actually implementing policy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created to address this issue. Their information is available online at http://www.ipcc.ch/. I hope this didn't sound too much like a rant. It is important that we all form our own ideas about climate change from legitimate sources. Bruce Stevens ------=_Part_42165_23593104.1164303323605 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline <div>All:</div> <div> </div> <div>As a student of climate change, paleoclimate and climate modelling, I = feel I should chime in after reading posts from Dave, Steve and Chris. I wo= uld like to present the following points:</div> <div> </div> <div>1) The term "global warming" is too specific a term to use w= hen discussing anthropogenic (man-made) influence on the global climate sys= tem. "Climate change" is a more appropriate title as it encompass= es the entire array of issues which includes global warming, sea-level incr= ease, polar ice melt, and an increase in the severity and frequency of atmo= spheric events to name a few. </div> <div> </div> <div>2) Peer-reviewed journals are currently the best way to contribute to = any field of science. When an article is submitted to a journal, the editor= generally makes a summary decision about whether or not the article is of = appropriate scope and merit for their readers, then passes it to 2 or more = reviewers or rejects it outright. These reviewers are generally anonymous, = and have enormous impact on the success of the article. If an article survi= ves to be published, it has undoubtedly gone through several revisions. </div> <div> </div> <div>3) Top tier peer-reviewed journals are generally not available for fre= e access. This makes it difficult for the public to assimilate first-hand k= nowledge from these journals. Instead, popular media outlets such as televi= sion, books and magazines present distilled versions of these findings. Ver= y often these come with spin. </div> <div> </div> <div>4) The pereceived battle between the media and the scientific communit= y has happened on countless occasions. If there is consensus among scientis= ts (never una