News-Record.com

Please direct me to that "research"

Dan and those that don't think the globe is warming,
I'm sorry that you feel like forecasts of continued global warming are fear mongering. It, in fact, is a natural phenomenon - that certain gases (Carbon Dioxide, Methane, etc.) act as a blanket to trap heat from the sun. Greenhouse gases are important for our Earth and have helped us have a habitat suitable for life, but since the industrial revolution we have upset the balance. For instance, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen 32% from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 370 ppm since the beginning of major industrial output. As a result, global average temperature rose about 1 degree F during the 1900s (and 9 of the 10 hottest years on record are since 1995) and sea level has already risen more than half a foot. With a status quo approach, greenhouse gas levels could cause a loss of much of our beautiful Outer Banks, hurt our important farmland, and intensify hurricane seasons like last summer.
That's not what NC needs -- we can marry a strong economy to more development in renewable energy, efficiency via energy star appliances and greener homes and officebuildings, and increases in fuel economy in our vehicles (which will also help lower our costs at the pump). Together, we can put enough tax dollars and private dollars to a healthy climate and environment for our generation and the many yet to come.
Onwards,
Dennis Markatos-Soriano of the SURGE network

To assume a climatic change over 10 years is indicative of a dramatic change is somewhat ridiculous considering the total amount of time that has elapsed since the earth came into being. Give it a day or two before jumping on the panic button...there's enough panic already.

Well kudo's to DAN for sending his references, and also to N-R for having asked him for backup before printing his letter.

Here they are:

�African Ice Under Wraps� Nature 11/24/2003 by Betsy Mason

�Glacier mass balance, the first 50 years of international monitoring�, Progress in Physical Geography 26, no. 1 (2002): 76 � 95. by Roger J. Braithwaite

�New eyes in the sky measure glaciers and ice sheets�, EOS, Translations, American Geophysical Union, 81: 265, 270 � 71.

�Relationships between inter-annual variability of glacier mass balance and climate�, Journal of Glaciology 45 (2000): 456 � 62, by RJ Braithwaite and Y. Zhang

United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) Please check almost any location over the past 200 years � some are up some are down. The ones that are up are the most populous � Urban heat bias phenomena. Interesting charts are Greenville, SC which has shown a cooling even though the city has grown. Several more like this one.

�Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response� Nature 415: 517 � 20. by PT Doran, JC Priscu, WB Lyons, JE Walsh, AG Fountain, DM McKnight, DL Moorhead, RA Virginia, DH Wall, GD Clow, CH Fritsen, CP McKay, AN Parsons.
Climatic Change, by R. Bohm � Urban bias in temperature time series � a case study for the city of Vienna, Austria

The little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300 � 1850 by Brian Fagan
�Climate Change, Observations and predictions, Recent Research on Climate Change Science from the Hadley Center�, December 2003 (www.metoffice.com)

Give Me a Break, by John Stossel Pages 190 -191 .

---- WELL -----

I looked several up, until I ran out of gas.

ULTIMATELY .. We'll have to agree to disagree. I could not get to all the references you sent, but a check of a few of your leads turned up these:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=global+warming&title_type=title&year_from=1997&year_to=2005&database=1&pageSize=20&index=6

"Because of its negative impacts on human communities (including for instance substantial sea-level rise) and on ecosystems, global warming is the most important environmental problem the world faces. Adaptation to the inevitable impacts and mitigation to reduce their magnitude are both necessary."

and

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=global+warming&title_type=title&year_from=1997&year_to=2005&database=1&pageSize=20&index=23

"The observed oceanic warming trend is the ultimate cause of the increase in the frequency and severity of bleaching events."

Here're some other comments

I would blow off: "The little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300 � 1850" by Brian Fagan, because no one disputed there are large and smaller climate cycles; some claim that we are actually in the down-temperature side of the historical ice age cycles, so that is partially offsetting any mankind global warming phenom'.
I was locked out of this one...

"African Ice Under Wraps" Nature 11/24/2003 by Betsy Mason

but found it here (I think)

http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/talk.environment/msg05757.html

... where it talks about saving the ice "by covering it with a giant tarpaulin". It does say global warming may not be the cause, but imho, de-forestation is still a man-made phenom' that is often denied by the same interestes that poo-poo warming (OK, I'm reaching a bit - but probalby not reaching beyond the plausable. According to the book "Collapse", de-forestation has beenthe predominate cause of the failure of many societies.

I was locked out of this one...

"New eyes in the sky measure glaciers and ice sheets", EOS, Translations, American Geophysical Union, 81: 265, 270 � 71.

But it took me to Frank:

http://spaces.msn.com/members/frank249/

... who states "The fact is that there are one hundred sixty thousand glaciers in the world. About sixty-seven thousand have been inventoried, but only a few have been studied with any care. There is mass balance data extending five years or more for only seventy-nine glaciers in the entire world. So, how can you say they're all melting?"

OK - so we've studied a few with care, the results are presumably consistant, (consistantly bad), but that's no basis to say 100% of the small sampling represnets an anomoly (spelling!)

... and "frankly", using this argument .."Think of the composition of the atmosphere in relation to the size of a football field. Nitrogen ... to the seventy-eight-yard line ... Oxygen ... to the ninety-nine-yard line .. carbon dioxide .. One inch .... Yet you are asked to believe that this tiny change has driven the entire planet into a dangerous warming pattern?"

Well Frank, that's pretty stupid, and it shows an obvious non-understanding of science. Look at the spray you put on your roses.... a big difference between one teaspoon and three spoons, and each tee spoon of pesticide is typically 99% inert stuff ... I hope you have a better understandin of it than Frank.

ULTIMATELY .. We'll have to agree to disagree. I could not get to all the references you sent, but a check of a few of your leads turned up these:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=global+warming&title_type=title&year_from=1997&year_to=2005&database=1&pageSize=20&index=6

"Because of its negative impacts on human communities (including for instance substantial sea-level rise) and on ecosystems, global warming is the most important environmental problem the world faces. Adaptation to the inevitable impacts and mitigation to reduce their magnitude are both necessary."

and

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=global+warming&title_type=title&year_from=1997&year_to=2005&database=1&pageSize=20&index=23

"The observed oceanic warming trend is the ultimate cause of the increase in the frequency and severity of bleaching events."

I think it's sad that scientists on both sides seem to have arrived at their conclusions before selecting and testing the evidence. The truth is out there, and no one seems to be objectively seeking it. If one side is correct, we are heading for some irreversible and very serious damage to our planet.
Let's give the original letter all his facts without reservation. He hasn't made his point, because science doesn't count up the number of reports on one side versus those on the other to determine the speed of light. It doesn't take a poll of scientists to determine that, on earth, objects fall at about 16 ft per second per second.
I tend to believe that global warming is a threat because of the evidence that I've read about, and what I know about dynamic systems. The "tragedy of the commons" is the most apt description of what mankind is doing to the environment.
But I'm keeping an open mind and continuing to (try) to read what I can. If one side is right, we can't wait for long. If the other side is right, we don't need a quick answer. I'd like both of these groups to come clean and stop spinning the evidence their way.

Mr Holsenbeck alludes to information suggesting Global cooling. I have yet to read about this. Maybe he could direct us to some studies supporting this threat. Also, I have yet to read that pollution has any desirable effects. Whether we are contributing to Global Warming or not, I would hope everyone could agree that stopping Global Pollution needs to be a high priority.

James Rockefeller & others confused on whether the globe is warming-
The science is overwhelming. You might as well go to the EPA page to see the basic info, or the kids page to get the info even more basic:

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/kids

Companies like Exxon Mobil that are dependent on consumption of greenhouse gas emitting products such as oil or coal for their revenues have funded scientific studies and naysayers to try to confuse the issue, but clearly the globe is warming (some oil companies such as BP and others recognize the problem and are increasingly investing in wind, solar, and renewable technology) and it is something that can affect our lives in coming decades in a negative way -- especially if we don't act to try to bring climate balance soon. I'm not saying we are all doomed, but that there is a problem that needs our help to solve it. I hope you all will join SURGE, World Wildlife Fund, Dupont, UK, hundreds of thousands of scientists, and myriad other organizations, companies, countries, and citizens to build a strong society that has an economy based on sustainable practices that we can continue for many generations without ruining our planet for our children and grandchildren.
Onwards,
Dennis

no glaciers are growing. they are all retreating. there is not one juried paper written and published anywhere that suggests that the earth is cooling. NOT ONE. The only question up in the air is whether burning hydrocarbons by human beings is speeding the process. The level of carbon dioxide, stable until the dawn of the industrial revolution, has increased four times since burning fossil fuels has begun. It's possible that global warming could actually result in an ice age. The levels of fresh water in the northern latitudes actually prevents the Gulf Stream from completing its cycle. This has already been documented. The plunge of cold saline water in the northern latitudes has actually stopped in some areas. This is the engine that drives the Gulf Stream, providing milder temperatures in the north. When this engine stops, the glaciers will advance. During the last ice age, the human population actually dropped to around 4000. Four thousand people. Think about it. The entire globe could feed, clothe, and shelter 4000 people. During that time, human beings, in order to feed themselves, drove the mammoth and mastodon into extinction. They are gone now. There will be nothing to feed the lucky 4000 who survive the next advance of the glaciers. Our idiotic quest for oil in the north slope of Alaska will lead to severe depletion of the few mammals who can survive in the far north--the caribou, the musk ox, the polar bear, and the arctic fox.

It's silly to argue that we are doing anything but committing global suicide by continuing to drain the earth of resources and destroying the animals who cling to survival in the world we share.