Informasi tahun ini

CLIMATE IMMATURE

noreply@blogger.com (Informasi Terbaru) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:46:00 -0700

CLIMATE SCIENCE IMMATURE
The implied bad science that forms the opinions of some engineers onthe subject of human-caused climate change. He then proceedswith some “we know” items, where a person withmore humility about human scientific endeavours wouldsay, “some think.”The ice core record of paleolithic atmospheric CO2 concentrationsmay be somewhat suspect due to the includedbubbles of trapped air not being closed systems(Jaworowski, Segalstad & Hisdal, 1992). In addition, the correlationof atmospheric CO2 to temperature does meancausation, especially where the CO2 concentration changesseem to lag temperature in the records.While I understand that the radiative energy received bythe Earth from the sun is fairly constant, Mr. Norton neglectsto mention that there are other solar activity indicators, suchas the solar wind strength and the solar geomagnetic APindex, which have large variances. The study of the sun’seffect on climate is in its infancy and nobody is making anyhubristic claims as to the sun’s activity being a major driverof climate. On the other hand, would anybody be surprisedif it is another suspect in climate variability?As to the global dimming by aerosols in the atmosphere,the claim seems to be that it masks the true extent of CO2-induced human-caused global warming. Maybe so, but itmight just be masking global warming due to a naturalcause, so I don’t see this as proof of anything.The final “we know” alleges that “climate scientists haveconsistently underestimated the effects of global warming.”If climate scientists are deemed to be the highest authorityon climate change, who are the fabulous “we know” superexperts who have this special knowledge that normal climateexperts do not have? And is Mr. Norton under thebanner of “we” included amongst this elite group?In my opinion (humble, I hope), the Earth’s climate ismuch too complex and the science too immature to makeclaims of understanding at this time. Mr. Norton hasboarded the anthropomorphic climate change bus barrelingalong to who knows where, but some of us more wary folkschoose to stay on the sidelines in case the wheels fall off. and than, Two years ago, informative reporter Michael Mastromatteoinvites debate: Does a 100-year-old disaster still have relevancefor the engineering profession? What is symbolized bythe engineer iron ring? (“After the fall–What the QuebecBridge means today,” Engineering Dimensions,September/October 2007, p. 50).The Quebec Bridge had two distinct collapses during construction:first, the south anchor and cantilever arms and fourpanels of the suspended span collapsed, with 75 workerdeaths; and second, the replacement contractor dropped thecentre span, with 13 worker deaths.To the dismay of engineers and the public, these tragedieswere repeated 50 years later in Vancouver for the BurrardInlet crossing on collapse of the north anchor span, with thedeath of 17 workers plus one classmate.No single element caused these failures, but they resultedfrom a collective failure of the engineer/owner/contractorteam during construction. One unreported common elementat each structure was:1. the Quebec main pier was founded on 35 feet of unconsolidatedsand, later constructed to bedrock; and2. the Vancouver unstable erection grill was on pilingssupported on unconsolidated river gravel, and laterstrengthened.Regardless of statute regulation, prominent Canadianengineers set out to imbue members of our profession withtheir broader responsibility to society through the RudyardKipling oath, correlating engineers as individual links in asteel chain, forever reminded by an iron ring. Now, with theProfessional Engineers Act, elected engineers with staff helpmust regulate licensed practices.The profession, even with regulation, is losing sight of ouroath. Many graduates are content to work only as learnedtechnicians, and engineers have fallen behind in environmentalprotection, sustainability planning and socio-economicevolution of public and private works, despite efforts to redirectus by concerned ministries, including Environment,Labour and Municipal Affairs.In overdue response, council’s ongoing regulation revolvesaround an additional academic year, with ongoing education;a licence in one or more fields or branches of practice; andregulating the academic syllabus for 30 fields of specialty engineering,sequestered from nine present academic disciplines.The iron ring oath remains symbolic of our commitmentto the profession and to our council for retaining andenhancing an evolving society.

Greenhouse

noreply@blogger.com (Informasi Terbaru) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:19:00 -0700

Greenhouse
To predict climate change, one must model the climate. One test of the validity of predictions is the ability of the climate models to reproduce the climate as we see
it today. Elements of the models such as the physics and chemistry of the processes that we know—or think we know—are essential to represent in the models.
Therefore, the models have to embody the characteristics of the land and the oceans that serve as boundaries of the atmosphere represented in the models. Models
also have to take into account the radiative characteristics of the gases that make up the atmosphere, including the key radiative gas, water vapor, that is so variable
throughout the atmosphere. Global records of surface temperature over the last 100
years show a rise in global temperatures (about 0.5° C overall), but the rise is marked by periods when the temperature has dropped as well. If the models cannot
explain these marked variations from the trend, then we cannot be completely certain that we can believe in their predictions of changes to come. For example, in
the early 1970’s, because temperatures had been decreasing for about 25 to 30 years, people began predicting the approach of an ice age! For the last 15 to 20 years, we have been seeing a fairly steady rise in temperatures, giving some assurance that we are now
in a global warming phase. The major gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen and
oxygen, are transparent to both the radiation incoming from the sun and the radiation outgoing from the Earth, so they have little or no effect on the greenhouse
warming. The gases that are not transparent are water vapor, ozone, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These are the
greenhouse gases. There has been about a 25% increase in carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere from 270 or 280 parts per million 250 years ago, to approximately 360 parts per million today (see Figure 1 in NASA Facts, NF-223, titled Biosphere).
The record of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere shows a variation as seasons change. This variation is more pronounced in the northern hemisphere, with its
greater land area, than in the southern hemisphere because of interactions in the atmosphere caused by vegetation. In the growing season, during daylight,
vegetation takes in carbon dioxide; at night and in the senescent season, vegetation releases carbon dioxide (see Figures 2a & 2b in NASA Facts, NF-223, titled
Biosphere). The effect is more pronounced in the northern hemisphere because most of the land on Earth is located there. The modeling, To understand and predict climate change, the following types of models are needed:
• Socio-economic models that predict future fossil fuel consumption and utilization of alternative fuels. These models depend upon technology, e.g., industrial production methods, energy efficiency, new materials, etc.; public policy and social attitudes,
e.g., concern for the environment; and economic development, standard of living and
reliance on energy and chemical-based products.
• Chemical-physical-biophysical models of the Earth System that tell us what happens to gases released into the atmosphere, e.g., how much carbon dioxide is taken up by the oceans and the biosphere, and how industrial and agricultural uses of chemicals and natural processes on Earth’s surface affect the release of methane, nitrogen oxides, and
other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
• Coupled ocean-atmosphere models that tell us how the climate system, e.g., temperatures, humidity, clouds, and rainfall, responds to changes in the
chemical composition of the atmosphere. Getting reliable predictions from models is difficult because many of the secondary processes are not understood. For example, when temperatures start to warm because of the direct radiative effect of increasing carbon dioxide, will clouds increase or decrease? Will they let in less radiation from the sun, or more? These secondary processes are important. The direct radiative effect of doubling carbon dioxide is relatively small, and there is not much disagreement on
this point among models. Where models conflict is in regard to the secondary, or feedback effects. Models that predict a very large warming from carbon dioxide
show cloud cover changes that greatly amplify the warming effects, while models that predict moremodest warming show that clouds have a small or even damping effect on the warming. Can we match the observation of temperature trends with the model predictions? The temperature record of the past hundred years does show a warming trend, by approximately 0.5°C. However, the observed warming trend is not entirely consistent with the carbon dioxide change. Most of the temperature increase occurred
before 1940, after which Earth started to cool until the early seventies, when warming resumed. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, has been increasing steadily
throughout the past century. Other factors that could have affected climate during this period include the possible change in the solar energy reaching Earth, the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols, and the possibility that sulfur dioxide and other pollutants might be
affecting the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back to space. Some of these effects can cause a cooling that could counteract the warming due to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. All of these effects would have to be taken into account and
appropriately modeled in order to predict the changes that one might expect in the next century.

Climate Change Reflects Natural Planetary Events

noreply@blogger.com (Informasi Terbaru) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:19:00 -0700

Climate Change Reflects Natural Planetary Events

In fact, the recent climate developments are not something unusual; they reflect a

natural course of planetary events. From time immemorial, alternate warm and cold cycles have followed each other, with a periodicity ranging from tens of millions to several years. The cycles were

most probably dependent on the extraterrestrial changes occurring in the Sun and in the Sun’s neighborhood. Short term changes—those occurring in a few years—are caused by terrestrial factors such as large volcanic explosions, which inject dust into the stratosphere, and the phenomenon of El Niño, which depends on the variations in oceanic currents. Thermal energy produced by natural radionuclides that

are present in the 1-kilometer-thick layer of the Earth’s crust, contributed about 117 kilojoules per year per square meter of the primitive Earth. As a result of the decay of these long-lived radionuclides, their annual contribution is now only 33.4 kilojoules per square meter.This nuclear heat, however, plays a minor role among the terrestrial factors, in comparison with the "greenhouse effects"

caused by absorption by some atmospheric gases of the solar radiation reflected from the surface of the Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the average near-surface air temperature would be –18°C, and not +15°C, as it is now. The most impor-tant among these "greenhouse gases" is water vapor, which is

responsible for about 96 to 99 percent of the greenhouse effect. Among the other greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, CFCs, N2O, and O3), the most important is CO2, which contributes only 3 percent to the total greenhouse effect. The manmade CO2 contribution to this effect may be about 0.05 to 0.25 percent. Now we are near the middle of the Sun’s lifetime, about 5

billion years since its formation, and about 7 billion years before its final contraction into a hot white dwarf,14 the heat of which will smother the Earth, killing all life. At the start of Sun’s career, its irradiance was about 30 percent lower than it is now. This probably was one of the reasons for the

Precambrian cold periods. In 1989, Joseph Kirschvink found 700 million-year-old rocks, near Adelaide, Australia, holding traces of the past glaciers. However, the magnetic signal of

these rocks indicates that at that time, the glaciers were located at the Equator. This means that the whole of the Earth was then covered with ice. In 1992, Kirschvink called this stage of

the planet the "Snowball Earth," and found that this phenomenon occurred many times in the Precambrian period. One such Snowball Earth appeared 2.4 billion years ago.

Although large glaciations drastically decreased biological productivity, the successive melting of vast amounts of oceanic ice caused an enormous blooming of cyanobacteria, which produced vast amounts of oxygen. This was highly toxic for most of the organisms living in that time. Consequently, 2.4 billion years ago, living organisms were forced to develop defense mechanisms against the deadly effects of oxygen radicals.These same mechanisms protect us against the effects of ionizing radiation. Without these mechanisms, life could not have developed in the past, and we could not live with the current flux of spontaneous DNA damages produced by the oxygen radicals which are formed in metabolism of this gas. In each mammalian cell, about 70 million spontaneous DNA damages occur during one year, but only 5 of those DNA damages are the result of the average natural radiation dose. Both the oxygen atmosphere and the incredibly efficient mechanism of DNA protection and repair, developed in this ancient epoch, were probably induced by dramatic changes of climate. During the Phanerozoic (the past 545 million years), the Earth passed through eight great climate cycles, each lasting 50 to 90 million years. Four of them ("Icehouses") were about 4°C colder than the four warmer ones ("Greenhouses"). These long cycles were likely caused by passages of our Solar System through the spiral arms of the Milky Way. On its way, the Solar System passed through areas of intensive star creation, with frequent explosions of novas and supernovas. In these regions, the intensity of galactic cosmic radiation reaching the Earth is up to 100 times higher than average. The higher level of cosmic radiation in the Earth’s troposphere causes greater formation of clouds, which reflect the incoming solar radiation back into space. This results in a cooler climate (see below). Then the Solar System travels to quieter areas where cosmic radiation is fainter, fewer clouds are formed in our troposphere, and the climate warms.18 Upon these enormously long climate cycles, counting tens of millions years each (Figure 1), are superimposed shorter cycles, which strengthen or weaken the long ones. During the past million years,there were 8 to 10 Ice Ages, each only about 100,000 years long, interspersed with short, warm interglacial

periods each of about 10,000 years’ duration. Over the past thousand years, multiple 50-year periods have been much warmer that any analogous period in the 20^{th Century, and the changes have been much more violent than those observed today. Such are the findings of an analysis of more than 240 publications, performed by a team of CalTech and Harvard University scientists.19, 20 In this study, thousands of assay results for the so-called proxy temperature indic tors}

have been examined. They included historical records; annual growth ring thickness measurements; isotope changes in ice cores, lake sediments, wood, corals, stalagmites, biological fossils, and in cellulose preserved in peat; changes in ocean sediments; glacier ranges; geological bore-hole temperatures; microfauna variations in sediments; forest line movement, and so on. Similar evidence comes also from more direct measurements of the temperature preserved in the Greenland ice cap. These studies stand in stark contradiction to the much smaller study,21b which shows a "hockey stick" curve, with the outstanding high temperature in the 20th Century, and a rather flat and slightly decreasing trend during the rest of the past millennium. The study, by Mann et al., is in opposition

to the multitude of publications supporting the evidence that during the past 1,000 years, the phenomena of Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age had a global range, and that

the contemporary period does not differ from the previous natural climatic changes. However, the Mann et al. study was incorporated into the IPCC’s 2001 (TAR) report, as a main proof that the 20th Century warming was unprecedented, and it was enthusiastically used by aficionados of the Kyoto Protocol to promote their case. In their meticulous study, Soon and Baliunas criticized, in passing, the Mann et al. publications for improper calibration of the proxy data, and for statistical and other methodical errors.

More in-depth and crushing criticisms of the work of Mann et al. were presented recently by McIntyre and McKitrick22 who demonstrated that the conclusions of Mann et al. are based on flawed calculations, incorrect data, and biased selection of the climatic record. Using the original data sets supplied to them by author Michael Mann, McIntyre and McKitrick discovered many mistakes in the Mann et al. papers—for example, allocating

measurements to wrong years, filling tables with identical numbers for different proxies in different years, using obsolete data that have been revised by the original researchers, and so on. Typical of these "errors" was, for example, their stopping the central

England temperature series, without explanation, at 1730, even though data are available

back to 1659, thus hiding a major 17th Century cold period. McIntyre and McKitrick not only criticized the work done by Mann et al., but also, after correcting all errors, analyzed their data set using Mann’s own methodology. The result of this superseding study demonstrates that the 20th Century temperature has not been exceptional during the past 600 years. Further, it demonstrates the falsity of the IPCC’s statement in its 2001 report, based on Mann et al., that the 1990s was "likely the warmest decade,"

Research global warming

noreply@blogger.com (Informasi Terbaru) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:18:00 -0700

Research global warming
Researchers in some fields often try to scare us with doomsday forecasts and prophesies in order to secure funding for research by using statistics and hypotheses that lack concrete proof or exact mathematical solutions to back up their claims. It is easy to bend the truth with statistics. Remember the Nuclear winter threat where greenhouse gases would make us freeze to death, or the y2k scare with its catastrophic consequences. Some politicians
borrow doomsday science for their agenda and political gain.
However, there is a silent group of scientists that we usually don’t hear from, who are not convinced one way or the other because of the absence of irrefutable scientific proof and I believe I speak for them, so here is my challenge to global warming caused by the greenhouse effect: The best way to establish the Earth’s temperature is from outer space using satellites and by measuring the amount of radiation emanating from the Earth. The reason for this is that the surface temperature of a body is directly related to the amount of radiation it gives off and there is a well established physical law and formula for this, namely "Stephan-Boltzmann’s law of radiation".
Therefore, if we measure the average amount of radiation given off by the Earth we can very accurately determine the global temperature and here is what basic science tells us: The amount of radiant heat given off by the Earth has to equal the amount of radiation received from the Sun. This is called the global radiation energy budget and I am sure most scientists are aware of this (see the diagram below). By the way, the amount of heat or radiant energy per second received from the Sun and radiated away by
Earth is 178,000 million, million watts. This averages 349 watts
per square meter when spread out over the entire Earth’s surface
(1 square meter is about 3 by 3 feet). Using Stephan-Boltzmann’s
law we can now convert the radiation of watts per square meter to
temperature and determine that the 349 watts per square meter
equals an average global temperature of 7 degrees Celsius or
about 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Here now is the problem: How can the Earth, according to
global warming buffs, radiate more heat than it receives. It is like
putting a potato in the oven and claim it can reach a higher
temperature than the oven itself. This is just as impossible as to lift
yourself by the hair. Why can’t the potato get hotter than the oven,
or why can’t the Earth deliver more heat than it receives from the
Sun? It has to do with the fact that heat, or radiation, flows like
water. One can compare the heating of a body, such as the Earth
or a potato, to a certain temperature by filling a glass with water.
Once the glass is full just as much water will run off as it receives.
In science we would say that it has reached an equilibrium where
the incoming flow equals the outgoing flow (see the diagram) and
temperature equals flow, flow of energy. Once the flow of radiant
energy stops there is no temperature to be measured. The fact that
temperature is a measure of flow of energy (watts) and not some
kind of bulk material that can be stacked up like a pile of bricks
and increased in strength is, perhaps, the hardest part to
understand and why so many of us are fooled. Think about a
water wheel, as long as there is a flow of water the wheel is
energized and will turn, but stop the flow and the wheel will stop,
even though it is still immersed in a pool of water. In other words, it
is not the water that contains the energy, it is the flow of water that
creates the energy.
What about the greenhouse effect? There are millions of
greenhouses being heated around the world and we know that
when a greenhouse is subject to direct heat from the Sun it can
become quite hot, much hotter than its surroundings. So how does
a greenhouse work? The greenhouse prevents the Sun’s heat from
being removed by convection and air circulation and distributed in
the atmosphere throughout the world so heat collected in a
greenhouse means heat robbed from somewhere else, but on the
average the global temperature or global energy budget will stay
the same.
How hot can a greenhouse get? When the Sun shines on the
Earth it sees the Earth as a disk, but the heat collected has to be
distributed over the whole globe including the night side. Since the
surface area of a globe is four times larger than that of a disk with
the same diameter, then the solar heat which is concentrated on
the day side, has to be distributed over a four times larger area.
This is accomplished by convection and circulation of the air in the
atmosphere and by the fact that the Earth rotates like a chicken in
a rotisserie. Therefore, the Sun has to deliver 1396 watts per
square meter, or four times more energy per square meter, in order
to maintain the average of 349 watts per square meter of radiation
leaving the entire global surface. A solar radiation of 1396 watts
per square meter corresponds to a temperature of 123 degrees
Celsius or 253 degrees Fahrenheit. Theoretically, (disregarding
reflection and absorption of radiation by clouds in the atmosphere)
one should under the Sun, at the equator, be able to reach such a
high temperature in a greenhouse where no convection or air
circulation will remove the heat but at the cost of heat elsewhere. In
practice, however, a normal greenhouse might reach only half the
above temperature.
The principal argument by the proponent of greenhouse
warming is that greenhouse gases reflect the heat back to the
Earth’s surface again and by some strange mechanism, makes the
surface hotter. This implies that the reflected radiation has to be
stronger or hotter than the source of radiation, namely the Earth’s
surface, which I cannot accept. Moreover, I cannot see how
greenhouse gases would stop convection and mixing in the
atmosphere which is the principal mechanism distributing the heat
from the Sun around the globe.
I do not doubt that there are long term global climate changes
that arise from natural cyclic variations and it is a known fact that
the Sun changes its intensity periodically. Do human activities
affect the global climate? How much does the burning of fossil fuels
in cars and power plants contribute to global warming? If we
assume that one billion cars around the world delivering 300
horsepower each (one horsepower=750 watts), were running 24
hours a day around the clock, they would together generate over
200 million, million watts of heat, which would increase the global
temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius or 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit.
Power plants probably generate only one tenth of that. If 6 billion
cars were running, which equals the world population (every man,
woman and child), the global temperature would increase by 0.5
degrees Celsius or one degree Fahrenheit. Not much to worry about.
One more thing. I have always wondered how much heat
might be leaking out to the Earth’s surface from its red hot interior
and how this might contribute to climate changes. So far I have not
been able to find any references on that subject. Thermodynamics
is a complicated subject and it touches on quantum mechanics
and I do not think that anybody really understands it fully. But
simple arithmetic tells us from the diagram below that the Earth
cannot produce more heat from solar radiation than it receives from
the Sun.

Climate Change

noreply@blogger.com (Informasi Terbaru) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:17:00 -0700

Climate Change
The prediction of climate change due to human activities began with a prediction
made by the Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, in 1896. Arrhenius took note of
the industrial revolution then getting underway and realized that the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere was increasing.
Moreover, he believed carbon dioxide concentrations would continue to increase as
the world’s consumption of fossil fuels, particularly coal, increased ever more rapidly.
His understanding of the role of carbon dioxide in heating Earth, even at that early
date, led him to predict that if atmospheric carbon dioxide doubled, Earth would become
several degrees warmer. However, little attention was paid to what must have been
seen to be a rather far-out prediction that had no apparent consequence for people living at that time.
Arrhenius was referring to a potential modification of what we now call the greenhouse
effect. A simplified explanation of this is as follows (see the diagram). Shortwave solar
radiation can pass through the clear atmosphere relatively unimpeded, but longwave
infrared radiation emitted by the warm surface of the Earth is absorbed partially and then reemitted by a number of trace gases—particularly water vapor and carbon dioxide—in the cooler atmosphere above. Because, on average, the outgoing infrared radiation balances the incoming solar radiation, both the atmosphere and the surface will be
warmer than they would be without the greenhouse gases. One should distinguish between the "natural" and a possible "enhanced" greenhouse effect. The natural greenhouse effect causes the mean temperature of the Earth’s surface to be about 33°C warmer than it would be if natural greenhouse gases were not present.
This is fortunate, for the natural greenhouse effect creates a climate in which life can thrive and humankind can live under relatively benign conditions.
Otherwise, the Earth would be a very frigid and inhospitable place. On the other hand, an enhanced greenhouse effect refers to the possible raising of the mean
temperature of the Earth’s surface above that occurring due to the natural greenhouse effect because of an increase in the concentrations of greenhouse gases due to human activities. Such a global warming would probably bring other, sometimes deleterious, changes in climate; for example, changes in precipitation, storm patterns, and the level of the oceans. The word "enhanced" is usually omitted, but it should not be forgotten
in discussions of the greenhouse effect. Nearly 100 years after the Arrhenius prediction, we are now aware that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, with the possibility that it will double by the middle of the next century from the levels at the time
of Arrhenius. Post-World War II industrialization has caused a dramatic jump in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As the prospect of considerable
change in the atmosphere becomes more real and threatening, new computer models are being applied to the problem. These models take into account the natural processes that must be part of the whole picture to understand what could happen to Earth’s climate as
carbon dioxide increases. An important aspect of the newer models is their treatment of the "amplifier" or feedback effect, in which further changes in the atmosphere
occur in response to the warming initiated by the change in carbon dioxide.
In addition to moisture and cloud processes, the newer models are beginning to take into account the role of vegetation, forests, grasslands, and crops in controlling
the amount of carbon dioxide that actually will be in the atmosphere. Along with their role as "sinks" for carbon dioxide, the various types of vegetation in the biosphere have further effects on climate. Plants heat or cool the air around them (through the reflection and absorption of solar radiation and the evaporation process), remove momentum from surface winds, and take up and release moisture into the air (thus contributing
to alterations in the hydrologic cycle). In turn, changes in climate will affect the patterns of vegetation growth. For instance, forest stands that require relatively cool conditions may not be able to adjust to the relatively rapid warming that is being predicted for the
interiors of continents. With slow warming, scientists expect that the northern edges of North American forests would creep slowly forward to more-favorable
conditions, while the southern edges would give way to grasslands that are better suited to the warmer conditions. With overly rapid warming rates, however, the
loss at the southern edge would be more extreme, and the migration at the northern edges would not be able to make up for the loss at the southern edge.
Other feedback effects at work also must be considered. In normal conditions, plant leaves take in carbon dioxide from the air and release moisture to the air as
part of the photosynthesis process. The release of moisture through evapotranspiration causes the air to cool. With increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, one can expect to see a change in plant carbon exchange rates and water relations. This may result in reduced evaporation rates, thus amplifying the summer continental warming. Without plants, the ground and air would become warmer, exacerbating the problem. And, Since the 1980s, many climatologists have claimed that human activity has caused the near-surface air
temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history. Industrial carbon dioxide emissions, they say, will soon result in a runaway global warming, with disastrous
consequences for the biosphere. By 2100, they claim, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration will double, causing the average temperature on Earth to increase by
1.9°C to 5.2°C, and in the polar region by more than 12°C. Just a f ew years earlier, these very same climatologists had professed that industrial pollution would bring about a new Ice Age. In 1971, the spiritual leader of the global warming prophets, Dr. Stephen H. Schneider from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that this pollution would soon reduce the global temperature by 3.5°C.1 His remarks were followed by more official statements from the National Science
Board of the U.S. National Science Foundation, ". . The the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age." In 1974, the board observed, "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade."2 No matter what happens, catastrophic warming or catastrophic cooling, somehow the blame always falls upon "sinful" human beings and their civilization— which is allegedly hostile and alien to the
planet. In 1989, Stephen Schneider advised: "To capture the public imagination . . . we have to . . . make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have. . . . Each of us has to decide the right balance between being
effective and being honest."3 This turned out to be an "effective" policy: Since 1997, each of approximately 2,000 American climate scientists (only 60 of them with Ph.D.
degrees) received an average of $1 million annually for research;4, 5 on a world scale, the annual budget for climate research runs to $5 billion.6 It is interesting that in the United States, most of this money goes toward discovering the change
of global climate and its causes, while Europeans apparently believe that man-made warming is already on, and spend money mostly on studying the effects of warming.
Governments of many countries (but not the United States, Australia, or Russia) signed the infamous Kyoto Protocol, which is aimed at the mandatory reduction of oil, coal, and
gas combustion. Should this convention be universally implemented,
the drop in world temperature would be hardly perceptible, but there would be a drastic and very noticeable regression in the economy. In 2100, under the mandatory
emission restrictions of the Kyoto Protocol, the temperature would be diminished by 0.2°C, or, to use the figures of the global warmers, with Kyoto, the temperature increase that we would experience in the year 2094, would be postponed until
the year 2100. Thus, the Kyoto Protocol buys the world six years.7
But the losses resulting from the compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would reach $400 billion in the United States alone. The reduction of the world domestic product,
when added up across the whole century, would reach $1.8 trillion, while the
so-called benefits of the emissions reduction $0.12 trillion.8 By 2050, in Western
Europe and in Japan, the Gross National Product would be reduced by 0.5 percent
in comparison with 1994; in Eastern Europe, this reduction would reach 3 percent,
and in Russia 3.4 percent.8 Experts working for the Canadian government
concluded that the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would necessitate energy
rationing, which would resemble the gasoline rationing during World War II.

The Alarmed

noreply@blogger.com (Informasi Terbaru) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:16:00 -0700

The Alarmed
In overview, members of this segment feel personally threatened by global warming, and hold behavioral intentions and policy preferences consistent with their belief that aggressive actions are needed immediately to deal with the threat.
Beliefs:
The Alarmed are more worried about global warming than m mbers of any other segment. They are completely convinced that global warming is real (see Figure 1), that
most scientists agree it is happening, that humans are the primary cause, that it’s a very bad thing, and worry about global warming "a fair amount" to "a great deal." Most
members of this segment believe that people around the world are already being harmed by global warming, or will be within the next 10 years (Figure 5). Perhaps more
importantly, they believe that global warming is a "very serious" threat to themselves and their own families (Figure 2) and to members of their local community. It is
therefore not surprising that most members of this segment believe that "immediate and drastic actions to reduce global warming" must be taken to avoid major disruptions in life on earth. Moreover, they strongly believe that they personally (Figure 8) and the United States as a whole can take actions to reduce global warming. (See Table 1 for the
complete data on the Alarmed segment’s beliefs.) Behavioral Intentions:
Members of this segment say they are willing to act in concert with their beliefs. Most say they are "very likely" to purchase energy efficient consumer products (including
CFLs, appliances, and cars .Most also say they are "very" or "somewhat" likely to use a bike, public transit, or car pool more frequently. Despite the strength of their concerns about global warming, however, the average member of this segment says they are only
"somewhat likely" to contact politicians to express their views. Nonetheless, they express the strongest intention to contact politicians of any of the segments. Policy Preferences:
Overall, members of this segment are the strongest supporters of public policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most "strongly favor" policies that require
higher energy efficiency from new buildings and cars, require electric utilities to produce more renewable energy and support the US signing international treaties to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Most also favor – albeit not as strongly – increasing taxes
on gasoline and electricity so that people use less. Demographics:
Members of this audience are somewhat more likely to be women (57%), late middle aged (50-64 years of age; 30%), and non-Hispanic blacks (19%). They are less religious than national averages, with 20% having no religion (including at eist or agnostic) and 60% rarely or never attending religious services.
Political Affiliation:
Politically, members of this segment skew strongly left. They are considerably more likely than national averages to be Democrats (57%), Independents (34%), and liberal
(43%). Values:
Alarmed Americans hold strongly egalitarian values, favoring a more equitable distribution of wealth internationally (70%), and disagreeing with the assertion
that we have pushed equal rights too far (76%). Less than half agree that government regulation of business does more harm than good (40%), and very few believe that people
are poor because they are lazy or lack will power (16%). Media Use:
Members of this segment have a distinctive pattern of news media use. Although they are the segment most likely to "enjoy keeping up with the news" (63% strongly agree),
including "international news" (45% strongly agree), they are also the segment most likely to find the news to be "mostly bad these days" (47% strong agree). They are also heavy news consumers. They get news from the following sources at approximately double the rate of the average American: websites of national and international newspapers such as NYTimes.com, WallStreetJournal.com and USAToday.com
(59%); radio websites such as NPR.com (43%); comedy TV news shows such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (41%); serious TV news shows including C-SPAN (27%) and NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (24%); the New York Times (25%); and magazines (29%) including The New Yorker (17%). They also have high rates of NPR listenership (47%). Civic Engagement:
Alarmed Americans are much more likely than the average to participate in a variety of groups and organizations, including charity or social welfare organizations (33%),
hobby, investment or garden clubs or societies (26%), public interest groups, political clubs, or party committees (23%), neighborhood associations or crime watch groups
(19%), and support groups or self-help programs (13%).

Nature Likes Warmth

noreply@blogger.com (Informasi Terbaru) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:14:00 -0700

Cold periods have always meant human calamities and ecosystem disasters. For example, the last cold period, the socalled Little Ice Age, brought famine and epidemics to Europe
and in Finland that contributed to the extinction of two thirds of the population. On the other hand, during the warm periods, plants, animals, and human communities thrived and prospered. For many years we have been taught that climate warming will
cause a series of disasters: ocean level rise, Arctic ecological disaster, droughts and floods, agriculture catastrophes, rising numbers and violence of hurricanes, epidemics of infectious and parasitic diseases, and so on. The impacts of warming, so it seems,
must be always negative, never positive. But is it really so? Let’s take a look at the Arctic. At the request of the Norwegian government’s Interdepartmental Climatic Group, together with three colleagues from the Norsk Polar Institute, I have studied the
impact of a possible climate warming on the Arctic flora and fauna in the region of Svalbard. Special concerns involved possible polar bear extinction. Our report 23 states that in the period from 1920 to 1988, the temperature on Spitsbergen and on adjacent
Jan Mayen isle dropped by nearly 2°C, contrary to the predictions by Dr. Schneider and his followers. For the study’s sake, however, we made an assumption that , by
some miracle, the Arctic climate would be warmed up by a few degrees C elsius, with
a higher carbon dioxide concentration in the air. Under this assumption, e investigated
the fate of plants, sea plankton, fish, bears, reindeer, seals, and millions of birds
inhabiting this region. It turned out that at higher CO2 concentration
and higher temperatures, the productivity of the Arctic ecological system
always rises. Historic records and modern statistics show that in warmer
periods, more fish have been caught in the Barents Sea, and the populations of
reindeer, birds, seals, and bears also expanded. Over land, the mass of vegetation
for reindeer increased, and in the sea, plankton became more plentiful.
This allowed the fish population to increase, expanding food resources for
birds and seals, which, in turn, are eaten by polar bears. In conclusion: Climate
warming would be beneficial for the whole system of life in the Arctic, and
polar bears would be more numerous than today.
Our interdepartmental sponsors then gave us a piece of their minds: "That’s not the way to get the funds for research!" They were right. And than, The strongest fears of the population concern the melting of mountain glaciers and parts of the Greenland and Antarctic continental glaciers, which supposedly would lead to a rise in the
oceanic level by 29 centimeters in 2030, and by 71 cm in 2070. Some forecasts predict that this increase of ocean levels could reach even 367 cm.24 In this view, islands, coastal regions, and large metropolitan cities would be flooded, and whole nations
would be forced to migrate. On October 10, 1991, The New York Times announced that as soon as 2000, the rising ocean level would compel the emigration of a few million people. Doomsayers preaching the horrors of warming are not troubled
by the fact that in the Middle Ages, when for a few hundred years it was warmer than it is now, neither the Maldive atolls nor the Pacific archipelagos were flooded. Global
oceanic levels have been rising for some hundreds or thousands of years (the causes of this phenomenon are not clear).
In the last 100 years, this increase amounted to 10 cm to 20 cm,24 but it does not seem to be accelerated by the 20th Century warming. It turns out that in warmer climates, there is
more water that evaporates from the ocean (and subsequently falls as snow on the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps) than there is water that flows to the seas from melting glaciers.17 Since the 1970s, the glaciers of the Arctic, Greenland, and
the Antarctic have ceased to retreat, and have started to grow. On January 18, 2002, the journal Science published the results of satellite-borne radar and ice core studies performed by scientists from CalTech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California at Santa Cruz. These results indicate that the Antarctic ice flow has been slowed, and sometimes even stopped, and that this has resulted in the thickening of
the continental glacier at a rate of 26.8 billion tons a year.25 In 1999, a Polish Academy of Sciences paper was prepared as a source material for a report titled "Forecast of the Defense Conditions for the Republic of Poland in 2001-2020." The paper implied that the increase of atmospheric precipitation by 23 percent in Poland, which was presumed to be caused by global warming, would be detrimental. (Imagine stating this in a country where 38 percent of the area suffers from permanent surface water deficit!) The same paper also deemed an extension of the vegetation period by 60 to 120 days as a disaster.
Truly, a possibility of doubling the crop rotation, or even prolonging by four months the harvest of radishes, makes for a horrific vision in the minds of the authors of this paper.
Newspapers continuously write about the increasing frequency and power of the
storms. The facts, however, speak otherwise. I cite here only some few data from
Poland, but there are plenty of data from all over the world. In Cracow, in 1896-1995,
the number of storms with hail and precipitation exceeding 20 millimeters has
decreased continuously, and after 1930, the number of all storms decr eased.26 In 1813
to 1994, the frequency and magnitude of floods of Vistula River in Cracow not only
did not increase but, since 1940, have significantly decreased.27 Also, measurements
in the Kolobrzeg Baltic Sea harbor indicate that the number of gales has not increased
between 1901 and 1990.28 Similar observations apply to the 20th Century hurricanes
over the Atlantic Ocean and worldwide.