Re: [asa] Creation Care

Powerful -- but misleading. Look, for example, at the graphics of water
rapidly covering Florida and S.E. Asia, intercut with scenes of millions of
refugees fleeing some contemporary war or disaster. How does that kind of
imagery synch with the sort of restrained and sober analysis Rich pointed
out from the peer reviewed journals?

On 1/22/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2005 the hottest year, hottest 10 in last 14 years
>
> The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last
> eight years," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up
> as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
>
> Scientific consensus is that we are causing global warming
>
> Mount Kilemanjaro
>
> researchers say global warming is a plausible, if not fully verified,
> reason for its accelerating disappearance. The film also points to a
> range of other large alpine ice fields worldwide that have declined
> dramatically over the past several decades. If Kilimanjaro ultimately
> proves to be the wrong global-warming poster child, there are plenty
> of others to choose from.
>
> Not a political issue but a moral issues
> Temperature rises are causing stronger storms
>
> <quote>
> Interesting controversy with recent NOAA report denying impact or at
> least our ability to detect such an impact
>
> The commentary rebuts a string of papers published in the last 12
> months that link global warming with a surge in the number of extreme
> tropical cyclones over the past 30 to 40 years. (Related story:
> "Warming Oceans Are Fueling Stronger Hurricanes, Study Finds" [March
> 16, 2006].)
>
>
> Study:
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0316_060316_hurricanes.html
>
>
> </quote>
>
> Artic experiences faster melting
>
> <quote>
> Study: Most Arctic sea ice could disappear by 2040
>
> http://news.com.com/Study+Most+Arctic+sea+ice++could+disappear+as+early+as+2040/2100-11395_3-6142705.html
> </quote>
>
> We have to act together to solve this global crisis
> Our ability to live is what is at stake.
>
> Powerful movie and as I stated the weakest link is between global
> warming and storms.
>
> Pim
>
>
> On 1/22/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Take a look at this trailer for Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth,"
> and
> > tell me if you think it properly represents the science. In particular,
> > focus on the images he employs, and on the centrality of hurricane
> Katrina
> > to the narrative:
> >
> http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount_classics/aninconvenienttruth/trailer/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/22/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am not fully familiar with the arguments Gore makes and thus cannot
> > > address if he misrepresents science. Could you give an example of
> > > Gore's arguments and I can see if they misrepresent science or not.
> > >
> > > <quote>But those who have seen it had the same general impression:
> > > Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and
> > > it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of
> > > fossil fuels.</quote>
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > > "I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell
> > > said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away.
> > > There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no
> > > error."
> > >
> > > Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I
> > > took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."
> > >
> > > The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer
> > > and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical
> > > politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to
> > > be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now
> > > chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.
> > > </quote>
> > >
> > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201208,00.html
> > >
> > > Compare this to the cherry picking of data we have witnessed recently
> > > amongst global warming deniers and Gore seems to be quite accurate.
> > >
> > > Perhaps his biggest 'error'?
> > >
> > > <quote>"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was
> > > inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of
> > > disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is
> > > much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of
> > > Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.</quote>
> > >
> > > The link between increased hurricane activities and global warming is
> > > far more complex than the link between human CO2 contributions, the
> > > increase in CO2 concentrations and the global temperature.
> > >
> > > On 1/22/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > This is the kind of articles that are always in the premier
> journals.
> > > > When you review the literature as Randy and I have you do not find
> the
> > > > apocolyptic predictions which could not survive peer review but the
> > > > more moderate defensible positions like above. BTW, the modest
> > > > increases such as above IS the consensus.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you Rich, Pim and Randy for helping clarify these things for
> me.
> > Now,
> > > > if modest increase scenarios are the consensus, would we agree that
> > alarmist
> > > > popularizers such as Al Gore are misrepresenting the science and
> > disserving
> > > > the public? Does the climate science community welcome Gore et al.
> or
> > run
> > > > the other way?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 1/21/07, Rich Blinne < rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 1/21/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > But -- what is more likely to get publicized, to draw funding,
> > > > resources,
> > > > > > notoriety, a cover in Science or Nature or Time, etc: a study
> that
> > says
> > > > > > human produced greenhouse gasses will cause 20 degrees of
> warming by
> > > > 2110,
> > > > > > putting New York and LA entirely underwater, or a study that
> says
> > the
> > > > more
> > > > > > likely range is 2-5 degrees, causing relatively modest
> disruption?
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's look at last's week Science to see what gets published:
> > > > >
> > > > > "A semi-empirical relation is presented that connects global
> sea-level
> > > > > rise to global mean surface temperature. It is proposed that, for
> time
> > > > > scales relevant to anthropogenic warming, the rate of sea-level
> rise
> > > > > is roughly proportional to the magnitude of warming above the
> > > > > temperatures of the pre–Industrial Age. This holds to good
> > > > > approximation for temperature and sea-level changes during the
> 20th
> > > > > century, with a proportionality constant of 3.4 millimeters/year
> per
> > > > > °C. When applied to future warming scenarios of the
> Intergovernmental
> > > > > Panel on Climate Change, this relationship results in a projected
> > > > > sea-level rise in 2100 of 0.5 to 1.4 meters above the 1990 level."
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the kind of articles that are always in the premier
> journals.
> > > > > When you review the literature as Randy and I have you do not find
> the
> > > > > apocolyptic predictions which could not survive peer review but
> the
> > > > > more moderate defensible positions like above. BTW, the modest
> > > > > increases such as above IS the consensus. More below.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think
> > > > > > the NY Times article I linked in the discussion thread is
> telling
> > here:
> > > > why
> > > > > > are the climate scientists who accept human induced warming but
> > project
> > > > more
> > > > > > modest effects called "heretics?" Why do even mainstream
> climate
> > > > scientists
> > > > > > feel threatened if they don't speak in catastrophic terms?
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with the NY Times article is the so-called heretics
> have
> > > > > the same views as mainstream climate scientists. Those who project
> > > > > more modest effects are not called heretics they are called
> > > > > mainstream. Far from feeling threatened they still give the more
> > > > > moderate predictions because those are the ones that are
> > > > > scientifically defensible. See here:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/01/consensus-as-the-new-heresy
> > > > >
> > > > > "In reading about the new 'heretics' then, one might have expected
> > > > > that associated with them would be statements that would
> contradict
> > > > > IPCC or that we (as mainstream scientists who do not claim to be
> > > > > heretics) would otherwise find objectionable. So let's consider
> the
> > > > > specific tenets of the 'new heresy' mentioned in the article:
> > > > >
> > > > > From Carl Wunsch: 'It seems worth a very large premium to insure
> > > > > ourselves against the most catastrophic scenarios. Denying the
> risk
> > > > > seems utterly stupid. Claiming we can calculate the probabilities
> with
> > > > > any degree of skill seems equally stupid'. Agreed.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Many in this camp seek a policy of reducing vulnerability to all
> > > > > climate extremes while building public support for a sustained
> shift
> > > > > to nonpolluting energy sources". Sensible.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is "no *firm* evidence of a heat-triggered strengthening in
> > > > > storms in recent years" (our emphasis). Well, what the WMO
> statement
> > > > > to which this assertion is attributed actually said was (first
> bullet
> > > > > point): "Though there is evidence both for and against the
> existence
> > > > > of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone
> climate
> > > > > record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point." We
> > > > > agree with that statement - this particular subject is definitely
> in a
> > > > > state of flux.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Recent increase[s] in the impact of storms was because of more
> people
> > > > > getting in harm's way, not stronger storms". Again, the WMO report
> did
> > > > > not state this. What it stated was (third bullet point of
> statement;
> > > > > emphasis added): "The recent increase in societal impact from
> tropical
> > > > > cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of
> > > > > population and infrastructure in coastal regions". These are not
> quite
> > > > > the same. Once again, we agree with what the WMO actually said.
> > > > > Interestingly, the second bullet point of the WMO statement, not
> > > > > mentioned in the article, "No individual tropical cyclone can be
> > > > > directly attributed to climate change" was voiced by us more than
> a
> > > > > year ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Global warming is real, it's serious, but it's just one of many
> > > > > global challenges that we're facing,". Of course.
> > > > >
> > > > > From Mike Hulme: "I have found myself increasingly chastised by
> > > > > climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures
> on
> > > > > climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental
> > > > > drama," he wrote. "I believe climate change is real, must be faced
> and
> > > > > action taken. But the discourse of catastrophe is in danger of
> tipping
> > > > > society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory."
> > > > > Agreed. And we said much the same thing when commenting on the
> > > > > 'Climate Porn' report.
> > > > >
> > > > > "It is best not to gloss over uncertainties". Duh!
> > > > >
> > > > > "efforts to attribute recent weather extremes to the climate
> trend,
> > > > > though they may generate headlines in the short run, distract from
> the
> > > > > real reasons to act". We couldn't agree more, and have stated as
> much
> > > > > before.
> > > > >
> > > > > "'An Inconvenient Truth' may push too hard". Perhaps at last,
> there is
> > > > > a (moderate) difference of opinion. We agree with Eric's review of
> the
> > > > > movie earlier this year, i.e. while there were a few things to
> quibble
> > > > > with, Gore got the science basically right.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only substantial disagreement, then, is over a movie review.
> On
> > > > > all other points of substance the 'heresy' and the old orthodoxy
> are
> > > > > the same."
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > > "Much of the sensationalist talk in the public discourse (and to
> which
> > > > > the scientists in the piece, and we, rightly take exception) are
> not
> > > > > the pronoucements of serious scientists in the field, but
> distorted
> > > > > and often out-of-context quotes that can be further mangled upon
> > > > > frequent repetition. We have often criticised such pieces (here,
> or
> > > > > here for instance) and it is important to note that the 'shrill
> voices
> > > > > of doom' referred to by Mike Hulme were not scientists, but
> > > > > campaigners."
> > > > > ...
> > > > > The plain fact is that the vast majority of scientific judgement
> on
> > > > > this issue - as outlined in the IPCC documents including the AR4
> > > > > coming up in February- does indeed cover the 'middle stance',
> which we
> > > > > would state as being in agreement with the statement of the
> National
> > > > > Academies of the G8 last year that 'the scientific understanding
> of
> > > > > climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking
> > > > > prompt action'. As Jim Hansen states in his quote - it's still
> > > > > surprising that there are some people who don't know this yet.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David W. Opderbeck
> > > > Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
> > > > Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
> > > > MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > David W. Opderbeck
> > Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
> > Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
> > MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.