• Pages

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Subscribe Via Email

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Meta

  • « | Home | »

    More Disturbing Evidence of Global Warming

    By Mark Schauss | January 22, 2009

    This weeks issue of the highly respected journal Science, will have a disturbing report on the effect of global warming on the world’s forests. A preview is found here from CNN. Scientists have been looking at the forests for a 50 year period and as Phillip van Mantgem the lead author of the study says, “It’s not a happy story, but, an important one,” said “These are beautiful places. They do change and respond to their environment, sometimes quickly.”

    Maybe the new administration can help to reverse the environmental disasters that the preceding President put into place rapidly. As with the economy, things are likely to get worse before they get better. We should all hope that it isn’t too late.

    Topics: Environment, Global Warming, Life, Opinion, Our World, Politics | 8 Comments »

    8 Responses to “More Disturbing Evidence of Global Warming”

    1. Tom Says:
      January 22nd, 2009 at 1:51 pm

      This study is a bunch of alarmist cow manure. An average increase of 1 or 2 degrees is not going to suddenly start killing a bunch of trees when the temperature range of that ecosystem is 50+ degrees.

      How did they rule out things like curbs on long-term deforestation when they’ve only been looking at the ecosystem for 50 years? That’s as asinine as my neighbor saying that global warming is getting worse because it’s 15 degrees warmer today than it was yesterday.

    2. Mark Schauss Says:
      January 22nd, 2009 at 1:59 pm


      Have you read the study? Are you a research scientist or ecologist? How much time have you spent with the scientific literature? Do you subscribe to Science or Nature?
      When you can answer in the affirmative, please come back and comment in a more professional manner.

    3. retired Univ of California staff member Says:
      January 22nd, 2009 at 5:06 pm

      stopping Nature’s own Global Warming — Recently there have been articles and reviews on the melting Arctic ice and the warming temperatures. While we may blame humans for “global warming,” Nature itself has provide a much greater source of greenhouse gases in the form of “Burning Ice” (Methane Hydrates) that in the geological past have outgassed in massive amounts periodically into the atmosphere. I will review the megatons of burning ice later on, but first there is a technical scientific issue to resolve.

      The issue of “global warming” brings up the need for good mathematics in analyzing the various data sources to determine the true causes-and-effects (“inputs” and “outputs”) and to filter out those causes that either do not affect the output, or in minor ways, or in combined effects that do not show up until certain conditions are correct. As I have spent time in R&D and also getting my series of degrees, I have found that very few scientists and researchers know how to use statistics properly to be able to filter and view data for the actual, true cause-and-effects. Too many times statistical regression methods are used that assume a direct relationship between the causes and effect, which may not be real. Although there are several books on the market, one of the best books I know of that can help researchers, analysts, and scientists is a book entitled, “Statistics for Experimenters,” by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.

      When it comes to global warming, there are more causes than most scientists have considered. For example, the increase in the number and intensity of solar eruptions has a much higher statistical correlation than the other causes/inputs.

      Although these graphs are from the late 1990s, the use of this type of statistical tool, SPC charting, has hardly ever been used by scientific researchers and investigators. Most of them have used other mathematical methods that assume a direct correlation between greenhouse gases and Global warming, as directed and determined by the process modeler. This traditional “assumption” may not be correct, and in some cases may potentially mislead scientists and modelers. These other tools can allow a scientist to purposely minimize the effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources.

      Some researchers say that they know all the effects that the increased solar flux has on the atmosphere and have included this in their models, and stated that there are no real effects from the solar flux. But then there are other scientists with different theories on the effects of increased flux that present different scenarios for atmospheric reactions, such as the geomagnetic fields and changes, volcanics and their outgassings, etc. You do not hear much in the news about these other scientists and their results.

      People should be very cautious about assuming that the global warming “effect” is due solely to “greenhouse” gases. Also, it should be noted that recent satellite data has shown that upper atmosphere is actually

      Some researchers say that their theory and modeling shows that this cooling should occur, while others show differing effects. We see that there are still not complete agreements on the causes and especially the effects of global warming. Then there are some researchers who have purposely manipulated their models, formulas, and analyses to purposely disregard all other inputs and only tie the temperatures to greenhouse gases.

      There is the other issue of how some scientists and researchers can purposely change the structure of the formulas used in their models, the mathematical terms used in the formulas, the parameters and scaling factors in the formulas, and the values of any exponentials so as to obtain predetermined results that the scientists wanted to get anyway.

      This allows the scientist to minimize effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources. This is “tampering” with the formulas so as to get the predetermined results that someone might want to get, no matter what the real processes are.

      In my experiences in the scientific / R&D cultures, I have seen this happen several times, even with Peer Reviews. Peer Reviews are “supposed” to catch incorrect things, inconsistencies, and errors. But this does not always occur. In some cases, the scientific peers involved in those Peer Reviews also wanted “certain” results to come out of the modeling and designs that they were reviewing. In other cases, the peers were not paying attention to critical items and issues.

      Also the issue of temperature collection has not been properly resolved. Temperatures are taken in cities that have the heat island effect. I have seen several different approached to handling and correcting these heat effects, but these approaches vary and also give various results. Then there is the issue of thermometer calibration. I have observed where some thermometers for city temperatures were not calibrated properly at the required intervals, and some times not calibrated at all. How can we trust the temperature data if there are these variations in the instruments?

      When it comes to Nature’s greenhouse generators through the Burning Ice (Methane Hydrates), we soon realize that our gases are very small when compared to the megatons of methane hydrates that are held within our oceans in a manner similar to a bathtub ring. Also the Earth has had major accumulations and releases in its geological past over the eons, some of which scientists now believe may have lead to some great temperature increases in the Earth’s past, long before humans were ever around.

      In the geological records and how dramatically and even violently the climate has changed, long before modern man came around. There is very strong geological and scientific evidence that the massive Extinction in the Permian Era many millions of years ago in the Earth’s geological past was caused both by massive volcanism and by Methane Hydrates.

      None of the environmentalists or businesses involved in reducing carbon emissions can go and blame massive climate changes in the past on power plants and vehicles!

      It is not wise to make international policies on theories that are not agreed upon by the scientists who have been studying these causes and effects. Other scientists have published their works dealing with other causes, but have not been given the publicity such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has received.

      But if the Solar Sun is the major, primary cause and we are just a minor contributor, then our Governments are imposing on us a major compliance issue that will NOT solve the problem. Control of carbon emissions does NOT equal Control of the Solar Sun and its flux intensities on us.
      Several environmental groups have told us and openly admitted at other times that they want to use the idea of human sources in order to shut down industrial activities — their words, not ours.

      Retired Univ. of California technical staff member Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA.

    4. Austin Says:
      January 23rd, 2009 at 1:20 pm

      It is strange to me that they don’t list the actual data from the study that tells us exactly how many trees per 100 or per 1000 or whatever are dying. That the conclusion is immediatly attributed to global warming doesn’t seem very scientific. It seems that that is their preconceived reason for why that is. Doesn’t mean that couldn’t be the reason, but without proof one could blame anything they wanted to.

      Would be helpful if they showed how many trees \died\ this way compared to fires and logging. Also the \birth\ rate of new trees. If someone doesn’t include data when analyzing a study they force people to trust his/her interpretation of the data. If it is a good interpretation then the data would support it so there is no reason to leave it out.

    5. Mark Schauss Says:
      January 23rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm

      A lot of this has been brought up by Harold Ambler and most of science disputes this. I will take 10s of thousands of scientists points of view over a few here. The evidence is there, the data is clear. You can deny it and argue all you want.
      The real problem lies in following your theory and doing nothing. What happens if you are wrong? We all lose. If we stop polluting our planet we can all win. Using the precautionary principle is just plain common sense. To do nothing despite the data is nonsensical.
      And here is a link to an article debunking the solar cause of global warming. There are many more where this comes from – http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

    6. albert miller Says:
      January 24th, 2009 at 12:38 am

      Whether nature or man assisted, what is so terrible about stopping air, sea, and soil pollution?

    7. david Shlemmer Says:
      April 10th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

      I suggest you go to http://www.icecap.us and read what the honest professionals say about this farce that has been up until now known as AGW.

    8. Mark Schauss Says:
      April 10th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

      Why are they honest and the 10’s of thousands of others not? Did you know that some of the scientists on the list from icecap.us are supported by the people who are the worst climate offenders? Yeah, that is a group I’ll listen to as honest and not prejuidiced.