Posted on 04/03/2002 9:57:45 AM PST by cogitator
How odd that the left' is wedded to the idea of an unchanging earth, while we conservatives don't have a problem with the idea that climate and ecosystems are constantly in flux.
Prove it. Don't just say it to be so.
The Nature article (not the summary article I posted) does have statistical analysis, and cites 97 references that were consulted to write the paper. Furthermore, the early occurrence of spring has been statistically confirmed by Magnuson et al. (spring thaw and autumn freeze data for Northern Hemisphere bodies of water), and by Robeson using temperature data in Illinois (cited in the World Climate Report, Volume 7, No. 14). John Daly's Still Waiting for Greenhouse site has a feature about the Nenana Ice Classic (also written up in this month's issue of Discover magazine) that cites a similar trend. So what the Nature report describes is supported by actual data.
Based on what I've read, ecosystems can adapt to a maximum rate of temperature change of about 2 C per century. That's about the midrange of good estimates for what will happen next century, even from noted skeptics. The Nature article indicates that ecosystem changes are observable due to the warming which has already occurred in the past 100-150 years, most notably the more rapid warming of the last 30 years. That doesn't mean ecosystems will collapse or that major extinctions will ensue (and there are other causes of extinctions that are probably more extensive and also more preventable, such as deforestation).
I don't think the intent of the report was to address human causation. It was to see if the observed warming is causing ecosystem changes. However, the first reference is to the third IPCC report, and the IPCC, of course, attributes some of the warming over the last century to human activities.
Since we know the earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles, and that we are currently in an interglacial period when one would expect natural warming, why does global warming carry a more ominous tone than a study confirming that the sun will rise, winter will arrive, and the tides will indeed come in?
It's all about the rate of change. See reply 31. I also wrote a longer discussion of this a few weeks back; if interested I can try to see if it still survives. Even some strong skeptics applauded my balanced response in that particular post.
The archaic models of that era both overestimated the cooling resulting from sulfur aerosols and the reductions of sulfur aerosols that occurred due to emissions regulations.
Ecosystems around the globe are showing the effects of climate warming. Earlier arrival of migrant birds, earlier appearance of butterflies, earlier spawning in amphibians, earlier flowering of plants - spring has been coming sooner every year since the 1960s, researchers reported Wednesday.Hmmmmmm....yet the Europeans Summers of 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998 were much cooler/colder than the norms.
Hmmmmm...yet November - December 2000 set many low temperature records for the nations's Northeast, the Midwest.
Hmmmmm...yet the 'scientists', the 'environmentalists', in the late 1960's to mid 1970's, were advising and warning this nation of the 'coming ice age'.
One of my favorite resouces for info on global warming is the Science & Environmental Policy Project
It is headed up by Dr. S. Fred Singer. A man that has repeatedly challenged Algore to debate global warming. Algore refuses. Algore also cancelled an apperance on Larry King Live to discuss global warming when he learned that Dr. Singer was going to be on the show with him. Algore later returned to do the show alone.
Human (read American) caused global warming is a scam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.