|
|
Add to My Group
Misunderstanding Global Warming: Alexander Cockburn versus Reality. The Hertzberg-Cockburn Critique of Global Warming Simply put: the Earth’s orbit around the sun varies somewhat with respect to how circular its orbit is, the degree that is poles are tilted with respect to the plane of its orbit, and the position of its poles with respect to the far stars, which “wobbles” (precesses). These several variations occur regularly in cycles of about 22,000, 26,000, 41,000 and 100,000 years. Their composite effect is to vary the amount of sunlight striking the Earth’s surface. Hertzberg-Cockburn Critique of Global Warming Rebutted. Michael P Byron is the author of the just released book The Path Through Infinity's Rainbow: Your Guide to Personal Survival and Spiritual Transformation in a World Gone Mad. This book is a manual for taking effective action to deal with the crises of our age including global climate change, peak oil, and political failure to deal with these and other problems.
His previous book is Infinity's Rainbow: The Politics of Energy, Climate and Globalization.
Byron has a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California, Irvine. He teaches all aspects of Political Science and Political Economy in local colleges in the San Diego area. He was the Democratic Party's candidate for United States Congress in California's 49th Congressional District in 2004. In 2002, he ran as a write-in candidate upon discovering that the Republican incumbent, Darrell Issa, had no major-party challenger. Mike lives in Oceanside, CA with his wife, Ramona Byron. Both are Navy veterans.
CO2 and Global Warming Current alarmist, incompetent stories regarding CO2 Causing Climate Change is a fraud. Junk science is infesting the media, the Internet and public schools, affecting public health, squandering your tax dollars, poisoning sick people and miseducating our children. Pseudoscientific claptrap abounds. Quackery is now found everywhere. Educate, inform yourself, take a science class. See CO2 and Climate Change http://www.InteliOrg.com/co2_climate_change.html by
DrColes (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 10:50:19 AM
venus Food for thought - less than 5% of the sunlight that reaches Venus actually makes it through the dense cloud cover and atmosphere, yet it is twice as hot as Mercury. This fact doesn't seem to fit into the idea that Venus is an example of global warming gone awry. How the hell would the scientists the author cites have any clue whether venus has ever been temperate? Also, Mars is undergoing a warming period of it's own, and it barely has an atmosphere. There is an example than can be twisted to any theory. by
Ben (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 46 comments)
on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 11:22:12 AM
Student of history, religion, exoteric and esoteric, the Humanities in general and advocate for peace, justice and the unity of humankind, not through force, but through self-realization and mutual respect.
Cockburn Half-Cocked As Usual Cockburn's problem is that he has, at least to me, a split personality. He is a brilliant analyst of the evils of capitalism and imperialism, but at the same time he has often been a naive fellow traveler for their crimes and agendas. For example, he has always lambasted any criticism of the Warren Commission whitewash that Oswald acted alone as paranoid delusion. Now E. Howard Hunt's just released "Deathbed Confession" tape by his son is accentuating what many of us have long realized, that Cockburn is the delusional one. Hunt's tape is naming names, including LBJ's and his own, as being in on the assassination. If anybody was an insider as to the hidden machinations of the CIA and government in the 60's, it was Hunt. Cockburn also is in denial about Peak Oil, putting himself in the same company as Exxon-Mobil and the "infinite resources of Nature" myth-makers, and is extremely antagonistic toward the 9/11 Truth Movement, dedicating some of CounterPunch to "debunking" it with theories that are as strained and convoluted as any, if not more so, than those he attempts to debunk. So again he serves the Empire that he hates so much by helping to maintain the cover-up over the very linchpin of the entire War on Terror. Finally, he thinks he is being the hard-nosed realist here on global warming, as if the scientific method is the equivalent of the rantings of Medieval Millenarians. So again he ends up supporting the self-destructive agendas of Capitalism and Empire, of Bush/Cheney and Exxon in particular, as they continue their policies of unsustainability and alienation from Nature. Every week now global warming researchers are discovering, to their dismay, that the evidence and consequences of global warming are exceeding their worst predictions, yet Cockburn smuggly ignores this as mere paranoid delusion. Cockburn, however, is himself not grounded in reality; he is floating about in his all too clever world of distrust and unresolved internal conflicts. Maybe it has to do with his father being harassed by the British authorities for decades as a Communist, as a member of the "International Communist Conspiracy", that sets him off when he hears people talking about conspiracies. I don't know. But he is to be read with huge grains of salt on all these matters of such great importance. by
Mac McKinney (42 articles, 69 quicklinks, 164 diaries, 1071 comments)
on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 12:42:17 PM
Nice try, not proof. Problemo numero uno with the Global Warming(TM) hysteria crowd: They never establish the baseline. You're a PHD. You should be able to tell us how much NATURAL WARMING would have occured since the little ice age 1450-1850. To fail to account for nature's own contribution to warming, you put the entire effect on "man." Until you acknowledge the very real and very natural temperature variability (instead of insuling our intelligence that the temperature should somehow be static at "pre industrial" level), you don't have a legitimate argument. Problemo dos: They overstate the amount of alleged warming. Temperature records vary. It's difficult to get an accurate historical reading, and proxy measurements must be relied on (imperfect). We also have the "heat island effect" altering the temperature in the positive direction locally around cities and whatever monitoring stations are located near them. Dr. Fred Singer has stated that if you correct for the heat island bias, then 1940 was the hottest period of the last century, not now. 3. You mock the contribution of water vapor in the equaiton? That was quite unscientific and failing to account for the most heat trapping greenhouse gas on planet earth. While computer models do some attempted calculations, they are not accurate enough to predict the el nino cycle. They are primitive and not to be relied upon for predictions 50 years in the future. Valid criticism of computer modelling is ignored by the hysterical. 4. This is actually one of the coldest periods in the last 540 million years! The amount of natural warming and cooling is staggering, and obviously not dependent upon mankind. This is never acknowledged. Is it too much to ask that you prove your case in the name of "science" if you want to take over the entire earth's energy sector and put us all on a Stalinistic rationing regime? George Monbiot would have us cut our petroleum usage by 91% immediately! And he acknowledges that the science is so inaccurate they can't get meaningful measurements of CO2 contribution to temperature. Based on that case, it seems he should be fitted for a straightjacket. I don't appreciate the condescending attitude that skeptics to your power play are to be treated like children. The CO2 DOES lag the temperature changes by centuries, meaning that some OTHER force has the power to initiate climate changes on planet earth without using CO2 to do it. Until you account for that OTHER force, your theory is horseshit. John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog by
johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 166 comments)
on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 5:05:28 PM
Student of history, religion, exoteric and esoteric, the Humanities in general and advocate for peace, justice and the unity of humankind, not through force, but through self-realization and mutual respect.
Query In reading your comment, I was struck by your statement in one paragraph that "Temperature records vary. It's difficult to get an accurate historical reading, and proxy measurements must be relied on (imperfect)" versus this statement in a later paragraph: "This is actually one of the coldest periods in the last 540 million years! The amount of natural warming and cooling is staggering, and obviously not dependent upon mankind." If historical accuracy is so difficult, how can you be so confident about that later statement? Actually, one of the main tools scientists have for attempting to gauge the past in terms of environmental conditions is through ice core samples drilled in frozen regions such as the Arctic, which they are relatively confident about in analyzing. Scientists have not yet been able to extend their samplings to even a million years ago if memory serves me correctly, so whatever you are saying about 540,000 million years ago on up to today is rather conjectural. Certainly we are cooler than when the earth was a ball of molten lava, but that's not very relevant to the very small temperature range in which life forms can exist. Within these limitations, the vast majority of scientists are duly alarmed that we are headed for our upper limit as I write. So are we to sit and fiddle while the planet approaches meltdown or take their advice and cut carbon emissions? Would you rather have us shrug our shoulders and quip that this is just a cyclic thing. Don't worry about it? by
Mac McKinney (42 articles, 69 quicklinks, 164 diaries, 1071 comments)
on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 6:04:22 PM
Venus and Mars You might try learning something about physics, in particular about Venus' atmospheric physics. for a starter, try the article on the Venusian atmosphere in wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus . In reading it pay careful attention to this paragraph: "The enormous amount of CO2 in the atmosphere creates a strong greenhouse effect, trapping solar energy and raising the surface temperature to around 500 °C, hotter than any other planet in the solar system, even that of Mercury despite being located further out from the Sun and receiving only 25% of the solar energy that Mercury does. The average temperature on the surface is above the melting points of the metals lead (327 °C), tin (232 °C), and zinc (420 °C)." Now *think* about that for a while. What makes Venus hotter than Mercury??? As to the Martian warming story, I've addressed it already. Remember that the off the wall statements about financial interests producing junk science by one of the posters here conflates that one one side of this issue you have, essentially, every single scientist on Earth, and on the other you have a handfull of corporate paid shills and the odd genuine dissenter who is used as a 'useful idiot' by these corporate interests. This type of argument tactic was perfected by the tobacco companies in confusing the public about the dangers of smoking. It is garbage. Generally, the anti-global warming comments here reflect a lack of scientific knowledge, coupled with an evident ideological bent, pechant for straw man arguments, etc. So, in the end all that can be done is to just let the readers decide for themselves. Further deponet sayeth not. by
Dr. Michael P Byron (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 1:00:20 AM
wikipedia? yeah, wikipedia is the place to get information on physics. Only a fraction of the sunlight reaches the planet, the rest is reflected off into space - hence the brightness. Now, if our planet was covered in dense cloud cover for millenia, earth would be an ice world - no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. Court's not out on the history of Venus - you obviously subscribe to the idea that all the planets formed the same time from a cloud of dust surrounding the sun. However, there is more and more evidence year after year that theory is obsolete (such as moons in the solar system orbiting the opposite direction, even nasa scientists have begun to warm up to the idea of capture). If Venus is a far younger planet, or a planet like body captured long after the earth was formed - the extreme heat and volcanic activity present could be the source of the heat (as well as the electrical interactions with the sun - of which there is more and more research every day!) I know that humans pollute the earth, we affect the earth - but until we fully understand the science of what's going on here, I'll refer to the conditions we're experiencing as CLIMATE CHANGE - because that is a fact. However, if the idea of global warming gets people to quit burning oil - good. It should be reason enough to stop simply because it's finite, and millions of people have died because of it. I just hope when we have a country full of nuclear plants, our water is expensive and privatized, and we're paying incredible prices for GAS and ethanol 10 years from now, we don't find out Global Warming is bullshit, and we've done nothing to prepare for what's really going on. by
Ben (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 46 comments)
on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 11:31:26 AM
http://sugarcitycane.com Professor see http://www.sugarcitycane.com by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments)
on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 7:28:25 AM
Student of history, religion, exoteric and esoteric, the Humanities in general and advocate for peace, justice and the unity of humankind, not through force, but through self-realization and mutual respect.
Computer Models Definitely Not Perfect It was commented upon above that computer models are not not highly accurate, with the inference that we may be overestimating the threat from global warming. Well, this cuts both ways, for computer models can also underestimate a threat. Read the following MSNBC to see what I mean. By the way, the article doesn't point out that an Arctic devoid of ice will dramatically increase sea temperatures over time, for the dark waters of the deep ocean will absorb much more sunlight, instead of what we have now, sunlight relected back into space by the white layers of ice. Arctic Sea Ice Melting Much Faster, Experts Find http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/050107EA.shtml Monday 30 April 2007 Arctic summer sea ice is melting at a significantly faster rate than projected by even the most advanced computer models, according to a new study that concludes recent U.N. reports on warming underestimate the changes in the Arctic. The shrinking of summertime ice is about 30 years ahead of the climate model projections, researchers with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center report in the online edition of the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters. The U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had used data from the computer models to earlier this year release two reports on the state of Earth's climate. Citing earlier studies, the IPCC estimated that the Arctic could be free of summer sea ice somewhere between 2050 and 2100. The new study, NSIDC researcher and lead author Julienne Stroeve said in a statement, "suggests that current model projections may in fact provide a conservative estimate of future Arctic change, and that the summer Arctic sea ice may disappear considerably earlier than IPCC projections." NCAR scientist and co-author Marika Holland added that "while the ice is disappearing faster than the computer models indicate, both observations and the models point in the same direction: the Arctic is losing ice at an increasingly rapid pace and the impact of greenhouse gases is growing." While computer models are built to look forward, the authors ran them from a 1953 starting point and simulated, on average, a loss in September ice cover of 2.5 percent per decade through 2006. The researchers then compared that to data taken from recent satellite measurements, as well as aircraft and ship reports, and found that the September ice actually declined at about 7.8 percent per decade. Several possible factors were cited for the disparity: A world without summer sea ice won't raise sea levels because that ice is already on water, not land. But it would have a huge impact on polar bears and other wildlife, as well as subsistence hunters. On the other hand, it would also open shorter sea routes, facilitating commerce. by
Mac McKinney (42 articles, 69 quicklinks, 164 diaries, 1071 comments)
on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 11:50:51 AM
response "If historical accuracy is so difficult, how can you be so confident about that later statement?" Because giant cold-blooded lizards roamed the earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png "Actually, one of the main tools scientists have for attempting to gauge the past in terms of environmental conditions is through ice core samples drilled in frozen regions such as the Arctic, which they are relatively confident about in analyzing." No shit Sherlock. That's where they determined 800+ years of lag between temperature rise and CO2 rise. In other words, CO2 changes have never initiated a temperature change in history (past 640,000 years anyway), and have always followed the temperature change. The ice core data does not help your case. "So are we to sit and fiddle while the planet approaches meltdown or take their advice and cut carbon emissions?" Well, there's a pretty good chance that cutting emissions will do nothing to impact global temperature. One camp of scientists predicts catastrophe. Another group predicts gradual flucutations. The prudent thing to do would be to find out what's really going on, because... These inconclusive arguments have been used for political and economic gain. The solutions they propose have the potential for massively more harm than good. Keep that in mind. Byron keeps citing an article that says, "Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said." This confirms sun output having a direct relationship on global temperature. They then use some shaky science indeed. The CO2 hysteria is over FRACTIONS OF A PERCENT OF OUR ATMOSPHERE! CO2 is 0.54% of atmosphere. Most of that is naturally occurring. They discount fractions of a percent of sun power (24/7 heating half the planet), yet claim that fractions of a percent of one gas = Armageddon. This is science with blinders on. CO2 is also PLANT FOOD making all life on earth possible. These proposed numbers for the level of CO2 that are allegedly optimal are completely arbitrary and pulled out of people's asses. They have no idea what an optimal level of CO2 would be in earth's atmosphere, none, nada, zilch. CO2 plays a complex part in the life cycle, and that could account for it not having a linear or directly attributed correlation to temperature. If more plant life grows, how does that effect the temperature? Does anyone know? These are complex questions. Byron ignores the substance of the many valid points I have made, and he resorts to ad hominem, rather than rebuttal. I thought the whole point of this exercise was a scientific rebuttal? If you can't acknowlege the other side has a valid point, you are not debating, and you are not honest. Hey Byron -- The atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% Carbon Dioxide! The atmosphere of earth is 0.54% Carbon Dioxide. Can you pick a less apt comparison!? You'd have to admit that current global science does not have all the answers. You've opted for maximum caution (but have you stopped driving a petroleum powered vehicle?), and that's fine. But you are basing that on incomplete information. And that's a fact. by
johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 166 comments)
on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 2:16:27 PM
Student of history, religion, exoteric and esoteric, the Humanities in general and advocate for peace, justice and the unity of humankind, not through force, but through self-realization and mutual respect.
Dynamite Comes in Small Packages Hey John, Making suppositions about the distant past is always tricky. For example, you are, I take it, assuming that dinosaurs were cold-blooded creatures and hence needed a rather warm environment to survive in. However, note this excerpt from Wikipedia, which indicates many dinosuars may not have even been cold-blooded: "After dinosaurs were discovered, paleontologists first posited that they were ectothermic creatures: "terrible lizards" as their name suggests. This supposed cold-bloodedness implied that dinosaurs were relatively slow, sluggish organisms, comparable to modern reptiles, which need external sources of heat in order to regulate their body temperature. Dinosaur ectothermy remained a prevalent view until Robert T. "Bob" Bakker, an early proponent of dinosaur endothermy, published an influential paper on the topic in 1968. Modern evidence indicates that dinosaurs thrived in cooler temperate climates, and that at least some dinosaur species must have regulated their body temperature by internal biological means (perhaps aided by the animals' bulk). Evidence of endothermism in dinosaurs includes the discovery of polar dinosaurs in Australia and Antarctica (where they would have experienced a cold, dark six-month winter), the discovery of dinosaurs whose feathers may have provided regulatory insulation, and analysis of blood-vessel structures that are typical of endotherms within dinosaur bone. Skeletal structures suggest that theropods and other dinosaurs had active lifestyles better suited to an endothermic cardiovascular system, while sauropods exhibit fewer endothermic characteristics. It is certainly possible that some dinosaurs were endothermic while others were not. Scientific debate over the specifics continues." So, the blanket assumption that the millions of years of the dinosaur era were exceedingly warm and tropical ipso facto is just that, an assumption. It is also my understanding that the archaelogical evidence is not supporting traditional theories terribly well. So there may have been more seasonal and temperature variation than we think. Certainly there were hot periods, just as certainly there were cold periods. And the last 500,000 thousand years has fluctuated between shorter warm periods (interglacials) and longer ice ages on a pretty cyclic basis. What there is no doubt about is that there is a direct correlation between the level of greenhouse gases in the atmopshere and the mean temperature of the planet. In the ice core records, ice ages have recorded less greenhouse gases, warm eras more. Scientists say that without the rather small percentage of greenhouses gases in our atmosphere, miniscule compared to oxygen and nitrogen, the temperature of the planet would be some 60 degrees F. cooler! So, a little bit of water vapor, methane or CO2 goes a long, long way. So I wouldn't belittle the small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. If the ratio of CO2 to temperature warming is that dynamic, then it will not take a large increase in the former to strongly effect the latter. On Venus, where we have an example of a runaway CO2/water vapor effect, the surface temperature is some 500 degrees Celsius, which will melt lead! Professor Wolfson of Middlebury College states that without an atmosphere, Venus's temperature would be about 55 degrees Celsius. Until the Industrial Era beginning in the 19th Century, the fluctuations in temperatures as well as CO2 content in the atmosphere were indeed Nature and cosmic driven, and certainly those processes still have their effects today, but the huge daily output of industrially created CO2 is a real wild card threatening to throw everything out of balance, especially as positive feedback loops kick in. It will only take temperature rises of a few degrees Celsius to dramatically effect climate and weather globally. by
Mac McKinney (42 articles, 69 quicklinks, 164 diaries, 1071 comments)
on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 6:26:59 PM
Devlin Buckley is a freelance journalist.
Speaking of rebuttals, I'm still waiting for mine Originally posted here. John, Your first response was as follows: Can you prove that the film used fraudulent data to promote a lie? (attached), with sun data up to 2003, which states: |
