Could Global Warming Be Worse Than You Think?

From the comments to the Krugman post on Exxon and global warming, this appears to be a topic that could use more discussion. Here's a place to start. This was posted at Scientific American's blog two days ago. It's somewhat long, so here's a very condensed version followed by a longer version in the continuation page. The principle being invoked here is the same as for monetary policy in the face of model uncertainty, choose the policy that is robust across models and avoids the chance of a catastrophic outcome. As the San Francisco Fed states, "A policy can be made "robust" to model uncertainty by designing it to perform well on average across all of the available fully specified models ... (McCallum 1988)":

SciAm Observations: One of the questions that came up in the earlier global warming thread was whether climate models have been tested against historical data. ... Climatologists who think global warming is serious and human-driven actually agree with skeptics who say that models have not been adequately tested. But whereas the skeptics think that the models overstate the threat, the mainstream researchers think they could understate it...

Now, what should we make of all this? ... To me, the main lesson of worst-case scenarios is that uncertainty cuts both ways. Skeptics often invoke uncertainty as a reason to defer action because global warming may not be as bad as the headline predictions. But uncertainty equally well means that the outcome could be even worse. Our response should be neither complacency nor panic, but risk-management -- exactly what we do when we buy insurance or strap on seat belts. As David Wasdell of the Meridian Programme said at a workshop I went to last weekend, the scenarios are alarming but not alarmist.

Here's the longer version:

SciAm Observations: One of the questions that came up in the earlier global warming thread was whether climate models have been tested against historical data. As I collect my thoughts on this issue, I wanted to share with you one observation. Climatologists who think global warming is serious and human-driven actually agree with skeptics who say that models have not been adequately tested. But whereas the skeptics think that the models overstate the threat, the mainstream researchers think they could understate it.

Their concern stems from one simple fact: the projected increase in temperature over the coming decades takes us out of the range encountered in the natural ice-age cycle of recent geologic history. It could "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet," climate scientist Jim Hansen told the Washington Post in January, and neither climate models nor humanity is up to it.

Consider Antarctic temperature data from the Vostok ice core for the past 420,000 years:

On this graph, time runs from right to left and 0 represents the current Antarctic temperature. The maximum of 3.2 degrees Celsius was achieved about 130,000 years ago. A rule of thumb is that the temperature variation at high latitudes is about twice the global average, so the maximum corresponds to about 1.6 degrees of global warming. That is, if anything, at the low end of predictions for this century. It is not far off what even most skeptics think we're experiencing.

When the world reaches that point, it will presumably start to look something like it did 130,000 years ago. Back then, Greenland was truly green and sea level was six meters higher than it is today. The case for a recurrence has been articulated by Hansen (among others) in a variety of articles, including one in our March 2004 issue. Last month, a batch of Science papers reiterated earlier suggestions that we already be seeing the early stages of this melting; see my colleague Dave Biello's news story and the discussion at RealClimate. Such melting is not usually included in models, which predict only a gradual sea-level rise due to thermal expansion.

If the warming continues past 1.6 degrees, we have to look even further back in Earth's history to find an analogous situation. Last year Hansen and his colleagues pointed to the middle of the Pliocene epoch, 3 million years ago, when the temperature was 3 degrees warmer and sea level 25 meters higher than today. And we may be plumbing even deeper into history. The 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that it has been at least 20 million years since CO2 levels were so high.

One of the largest, fastest episodes of climate change in the geologic record is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, 55 million years ago. Within about 30,000 years, the globe warmed by 5 to 10 degrees Celsius, causing a huge disruption of plant and animal life. The warming coincided with a sharp change in the isotopic composition of carbon in the ocean and atmosphere, suggesting that it was driven by a sudden release of greenhouse gases. A leading candidate is methane stored in marine sediments, which may have been destabilized by an existing warming trend or by a more abrupt event such as a volcanic eruption. The total release of carbon was comparable to what humanity would achieve if it burned all the world's fossil fuels. The gaseous pulse flipped Earth's climate into a new state that lasted for 70,000 or so years before long-term negative feedback mechanisms reasserted themselves.

Scott Wing of the Smithsonian Institution and his colleagues wrote in Science last November: "The PETM provides an important analog to present-day anthropogenic global warming, because the two episodes are inferred to have similar rates and magnitudes of carbon release and climate change." Jim Zachos of the University of California at Santa Cruz has described the event as an example of the tipping points that may await humanity if it continues to push the climate beyond its present range of relative stability.

One recent paper attempts to test climate models by looking back 84 million to 100 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period. The lead author, Karen Bice of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, presented the results at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in February (as discussed in The Economist and Science). The team published its paper last week, and it is worth looking at for an appreciation of the uncertainties involved in paleoclimate data and how scientists wrestle with them.

The researchers took core samples of sediments off the coast of Suriname and analyzed the composition of fossilized plankton, whose oxygen isotope and magnitude-to-calcium ratios reflect the temperature at the time of their formation, and whose carbon isotope ratios reflect the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air. Interpreting these ratios involves a number of assumptions about, for example, the composition of the ancient seawater and the effects of pH on the isotope enrichment process. So the team considered a range of assumptions and was able to put a floor of 33 degrees on the temperature during the Cretaceous (5 degrees warmer than the same region is today) and about 600 parts per million on the CO2 level (roughly one and a half today's concentration). The warming could have been as much as 14 degrees, but even a conservative interpretation of the data is worrisome enough.

According to most current models, doubling the present concentration of CO2 raises the temperature by only 3 degrees. In the specific model that Bice's team applied, the 5-degree rise would require 2500 ppm of CO2, which is above the likely range of values for the Cretaceous. In short, CO2 seems to pack a bigger punch than expected, perhaps because the warming becomes self-reinforcing. The authors conclude that either the data are wrong, the models are wrong, or some other input to the models (such as the assumed methane level) is wrong...

Some scientists are even seeing parallels between present trends and the granddaddy of geologic catastrophes, the Permian-Triassic mass extinction 251 million years ago -- the worst extinction in Earth history, when 70 percent of land species and 90 percent of marine ones died out. Researchers debate the causes, but opinion now leans in favor of massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia, which vented CO2 and other gases. The resulting greenhouse warming unleashed other noxious consequences, including the release from the deep oceans not only of methane but also, as Lee Kump of Pennsylvania State University and his colleagues argued last year, of hydrogen sulfide. These gases amplified the greenhouse, pushing up temperatures by 10 to 30 degrees.

Such apocalypses are thankfully rare, so researchers think they involve multiple insults acting in concert. But paleontologist Peter Ward of the University of Washington worries that humanity might be able recreate some of the conditions if it pushed CO2 levels above 1000 ppm. He wrote in Discover magazine in August 1998:

The Permian extinction is now shaping up as an entirely new type of mass extinction. It had nothing to do with extraterrestrial causes, yet it happened far faster than typical extinctions triggered by internal changes to Earth's climate and chemistry. And if our hypothesis is correct, it raises some very disturbing implications about our current situation. We humans are producing carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate, and many climatologists believe that we are already raising temperatures and altering weather patterns. Are we walking down the same path that killed off so much life 250 million years ago--not from carbon dioxide liberated from the oceans but from carbon dioxide liberated by our cars and industry?

Now, what should we make of all this? You don't have to go so far as to predict another Permian-Triassic extinction to realize that humanity is playing trapeze without a safety net. To me, the main lesson of worst-case scenarios is that uncertainty cuts both ways. Skeptics often invoke uncertainty as a reason to defer action because global warming may not be as bad as the headline predictions. But uncertainty equally well means that the outcome could be even worse. Our response should be neither complacency nor panic, but risk-management -- exactly what we do when we buy insurance or strap on seat belts. As David Wasdell of the Meridian Programme said at a workshop I went to last weekend, the scenarios are alarming but not alarmist.

Comments

[calmo]

I can just see W and the evangelicals pouring over this document and its theoretical claims like "the Permian-Triassic mass extinction 251 million years ago".

I am amazed that some can argue the point that the planet is warming. [They don't ski, they don't visit glaciers, and they don't live where it used to snow. I wonder if the hurricane season continues to advance whether they might concede this point.]
I am only slightly less amazed at those who think that whether or not it is man-made, we should continue pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere because there is nothing for it. [ie, it won't make a difference even if we ceased all CO2 production overnight.]
Sorta like getting a leak in the boat and ignoring any possible methods/procedures to locate/assess/repair as a waste of time. [Maybe it's not a big enough leak yet.]
Is it just a selfish refusal to adopt the longer time frame?

[Stormy]

First: Congratulations. I put 2007 as to the year that economists would start chewing on global warming and the environment.

Second: While global warming seems to be an eye-catcher, environmental degradation is creeping up on us faster. I suggest looking at the UN's Millenium Ecosystem Report:

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx

Of course, aspects of global warming are accelerating the destruction of the environment.

Third: None of the other extinctions involved one species befouling the planet at such a pace as ours. Early on, cynobacteria eventually poisoned the atmosphere for itself. (It liked methane and “exhaled” oxygen.) But even it took a long time in doing destroying “its environment.” All other mass extinctions involved exogenous factors: volcanoes, meteors. None were the result of the activities of a single species. Some think we are already in the beginning throes of a mass extinction.

Fourth: Have you notice that every year the news gets worse, that the situation is deteriorating faster than we previously thought?

Fifth: Every successful species, if unopposed, will propagate until it exhausts its environment. Unfortunately, we are omnivores.

Fifth: The “science” of economics posits that market activity will regulate us through the coming dilemmas. We will be regulated, whether we like it or not. And the market place may well not be the regulator.

Consider some of the other issues on the horizon: Water. (Remember Hans Blix’s warning.) Energy. Is Peak oil a fantasy? The truth about that deck of cards will dealt within the next five years, I would hazard. Population growth. In truth, it is not slowing down. And have we considered the effects of warming on the great frozen peat bogs of Russia? Or the vast frozen methane deposits offshore? And what about the oceans? Only a few decades ago we thought they were an infinite source of food. Now?

And then, of course, we have the economic imbalances that threaten us on a more immediate horizon.

I seriously suggest that economists start talking with top experts in other fields: climatology, energy, environmentalists, population experts, ecobiologists…. We need people from every area coming together to address some very nasty challenges.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Mark, Thanks for the heads-up about this SciAm series. I followed the links back to

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?p=154&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more154

where the author collated all the skeptics' objections from an earlier link. This is interesting and useful, especially all the comments there from people who are misled by the use of the word "uncertainty" to suppose that the science is faulty.

I studied an enormous amount of ecosystems data and ecological theory starting the late 1970's. There is a regular finding in both the observations and the theory, that ecosystems are not precisely predictable, but that one can expect to see an increase in the occurrence of unpredictable catastrophes when systematic changes are made.

This was easily extrapolated in theory and observation to other complex systems, defined generally as "reticulated (i.e. web-like) models, having multiple events and influences, with circular (and more complex) chains of determination."

I think that led a lot of people, in the ecological sciences, to sign-on very early to the possibility -- the steadily increasing probability! -- of big problems to come in another complex system, when global warming was first discussed widely in the 1980's.

What surprises me most is that now, even after fifteen years of solid data since the first IPCC report, so many people still do not recognize that complex systems are not precisely predictable, but that we can infer some general trends in them. This is a very curious failure, because, of course, even the anti-science climate contrarians use the precautionary principle in their own lives -- watching their diet, for example, or looking both ways before they cross the street. These are trivial but true examples of how you regularly deal with complex systems.

It is also very curious that the skeptics are so willing to give weight to the tales of certain economic damage from any climate mitigation policies: If they suspect the climate science, why don't they suspect the economics? The economy is just another complex system.

In fact it seems likely that the reverses are true: If ANY complex system ends up being predictable, it will be the climate, not the economy. The climate science looks far MORE solid than the economics. At the same time, the climate system appears to be far LESS resilient to disturbance than the economy! --After all, the former is composed of physics and chemistry; the latter is composed of creative human beings.

It may help to be explicitly be clear about the different kinds of "catastrophe," because the misunderstandings derail many discussions. In the replies to the recent op-ed by Richard Lindzen discussed at RealClimate.org, I wrote:

People use "catastrophe" to mean everything from "temporally accelerated" (e.g., the hockey stick) to "unexpected, or not quite predictable" (e.g. ocean current redirection) to "tragic and immoral" (e.g. wild species extinction.) It looks to me like there are at least three different meanings of "catastrophe" in this debate, when categorized by predictability: (1) extreme events, such as violent storms, ice-sheet collapse or flooding, which might be given probabilities by models, (2) events which seem possible and even likely, but which may be impossible to meaningfully quantify, such as the acceleration by climate change of wild species extinctions in fragmented natural landscapes, and (3) possible sudden breakpoints that we don't know about or can't know about, i.e., a precautionary tale, inferred from the general behavior of other complex systems.

The first two are bad enough, but it is particularly important to understand the third kind: we have seen bad things happen which were not in the models.

[Winslow R.]

Calmo wrote:

"I can just see W and the evangelicals pouring over this document and its theoretical claims like "the Permian-Triassic mass extinction 251 million years ago"."

Good point, how can you expect acceptance of scientific 'proof' when a large portion of the population thinks the earth is less than 10,000 years old? This becomes a religious debate that can have profound consequences as the election outcomes in 2000, 2002 and 2004 have shown.

"In the United States, creationism remains popular among the general population, and unpopular in the academic and scientific communities. According to a 2001 Gallup evolution poll on the origins of humans, 72% of Americans believe in some form of creationism (as defined above). About 45% of Americans ascribe to the more Biblically literal creationism, believing that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.". "

http://experts.about.com/e/c/cr/Creationism.htm

http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/earthAge.htm

[Stormy]

Slowing of the thermohaline current:

As many here may know, Harry Bryden reported that the return flow of the current (North Atlantic Deep Water) had slowed by 30% in some areas. The present models do not predict anything like this until at least a100 years or more. There are some questions about the way he measured the flow. But the long and short of it is: No one knows how these currents will react to the increasing influx of fresh water in the Arctic regions. Some measurements show that salinity has decreased—but to what extent and in what regions?

Nor do we yet fully understand the dynamics of the accelerating glacier flow in the North. The acceleration has taken us by surprise.

It is easy to be alarmist—and yet that may well be the right course. For a reasonable synopsis of this dimension of the problem, see

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19025471.300

Unfortunately it is behind a subscriber wall. Subscribers can email you the entire article.

As I said above, in the past five years, the news never seems to get better.

[Stormy]

I should have said: Subscribers are allowed to email someone the entire article.

[im1dc]

Alarmist disgusting claptrap fear mongering by weak minded '70's educated professors seeking funding for their wack job research.

[Bill Badeaux]

In all this speculation concerning global warming, I have not seen a single comment concerning solar radiation. The models all claim to show that the activities of humans, principally with regard to gaseous emissions are solely to blame. Do they posit a sun whose energy output is a dead-on constant? Previous ice ages and warm periods could have been caused by more or less solar radiation. The other heat source received by the surface comes from geothermal action, either through physical or chemical changes in the earth's mantle and core. Have these models considered that? The gist of my understanding of these global warming models is that they are couched into arriving at a conclusion that the actions of man are to blame, to the exclusion of anything else.

[anne]

"The gist of my understanding of these global warming models is that they are couched into arriving at a conclusion that the actions of man are to blame, to the exclusion of anything else."

Ah, I must consider taking up smoking :) What a superb sentence, for there you evidently have all that must be held for science after all these centuries.

[T.R. Elliott]

Bill Badeaux: We should differentiate between (a) historical variations of the earth's temperature and (b) the impact of greenhouse gasses that have been added by humans.

Historical variations can have resulted from a plethora of causes, solar radiation included.

A climate model can take into account variations in solar radiation. But it is still entirely valid to ask the question: Given our understanding of macroclimate physics, what climate response do we expect given an increase in C02.

The increase in C02 is a fact. Uncontested. Then, it's a question of where it goes: (a) atmosphere (b) ocean (c) plant matter. And how the earth responds, particularly in terms of temperature.

In other words, the focus should be to determine the response of the climate to additional greenhouse gases. The fact that additional drivers, such as the those you mention, might also stimulate the climate does not have any bearing upon the importance of modeling greenhouse gases.

If those additional drivers are found to have existed in the past, then they should be factored into the past models. But I'm not aware of any argument that solar radiation variations have been modelled in a way that would add anything useful to current modeling efforts.

In summary, are you contesting that adding cO2 to the atmosphere doesn't increase temperature?

[Lee A. Arnold]

Bill Badeaux, RealClimate.org has a page of entries about the science of the sun-earth connections:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/sun-earth-connections/

[TCL]

What astonishes me is the claim that global warming is simply a result of human activity; that by changing our activity we can reverse global warming. This viewpoint ignores climatological evidence.

In the last 2 million years we have had 20 periods of global cooling and global warming. Within those periods the graph has oscillated from mini-ice ages to mini-global warmings.

Unfortunately the problem for people like me is to separate fact from fiction. Purportedly objective scientists and media types often compare the temperature of 1700 with today's. They conveniently forget to mention that in 1700 we were in a mini-ice age. This "oversight" is tantamount to lying. The question that must be asked is -- if your claim is correct; if the evidence is there; why must you lie? Why must you overstate your claim?

The reality is that many environmentalists, including many with PhDs in the sciences have deep socialist leanings which affect their world-view. Just as my glass-is-half-full; science and technology and free-markets will find a solution, affects my world-view.

The earth has gone through numerous cycles, not just temperature but magnetic shifts as well. I can see the day when we start experiencing magnetic shifts that we will see people blaming it on industrial activity and saying the only solution is to place all commercial activity under the control of governmental powers.

The Kyoto Protocol, for example, is a completely useless endeavor for controlling global warming. But, if implemented, would be an excellent means for limiting US growth and providing income transfers from US citizens to the 3rd World. Why do I say this? Because India, China, Brazil and other developing countries would be exempt from all regulations even though they would be polluting at a far greater amount (per capita and per GDP) than the US.

Global warming is, in my unprofessional opinion, largely a natural event which is to a small extent exacerbated by human activity. Volcanic activity, such as Krakatoa have contributed decades worth of human activity (CO2, methane and particulates) in hours. We conveniently forget that.

I'm not saying not to study the climatic change, nor am I saying that we should not do reasonable things to mitigate the effects.

[calmo]

We are alarmed!! What is anne considering smoking and what can we do to dissuade her that this vile activity is not in her best interests?
I know: think of those poor birds. They will think you are a small forest fire in the making and fly away --your life as a birder will be over.

Bad Bill Badeaux may or may not take corrective actions on that forest fire, just as soon as he determines whether it is man-made or not so man-made.
But anne's smoking is more urgent and we (of course I include the birds, you?) have no such luxury.
If anne was going to light up something on any account, why bother trying to dissuade her that it is pointless to start smoking something now?
Well, according to those who think the receding glaciers are misleading, it might save her from freezing to death.

Stormy illustrates the real meaning of economics, the dismal science and I can fix this.
I must.

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=6382&u=99|2|...

Pine Warbler Singing
New York City--Central Park, Nutters Battery.

Calmo, what a dear you are for wishing to save me :) We easily accept political rumor as fact, while challenging science at each turn, but I wonder why.

[groucho]

Could Global Warming Be Worse Than You Think?

Short term(next half century or so), global warming from CO2 or other natural or man induced change will cause some difficulties for Earth/Gaia inhabitants.

From a Gaian perspective, man is no match for a system that has evolved for ~4,000,000,000 yrs.
Earth's biosphere has had to adapt to extraordinary amounts of change over this time period. Asteroids, glacial periods, atmospheric gas changes, plate tectonics, various life forms, etc, etc..

From a human perspective, if mankind wishes to survive, they will have to adapt to and eventually control earth and it's biosphere. That is a very big challenge. So far, Earth/Gaia has not been defeated.
Gaia's revenge may be just what the doctor ordered to get mankind to act as one species and do battle against mother earth instead of each other.

[Lee A. Arnold]

TCL: If it is a largely natural event, we have to come up with the alternative theory of the global warming. The climatologists are looking at them all. Volcanoes don't begin to explain this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Then, after having the alternative theory proven, we have to explain where the CO2 increase came from, if we believe the Industrial Revolution (i.e. humans) didn't cause it.

Or, if we admit the humans caused it, then we have explain how a 30% increase in CO2 since the 19th century would not cause the warming -- even though this is the second-most important greenhouse gas.

These are just the sorts of questions the scientists have been working on, with lots more complicated ones besides, so it may be best to stick with them on this one.

I'm not sure who "proves" global warming by comparing today's temperature to 1700, but of course that really proves nothing, and it not the way they really do it.

Stop reading the media types! A good place for up-to-date climate science reportage with explanations, and lots of chances to ask questions, is at RealClimate.org. They also have a list of reputable websites down the right-hand side of the page.

I am curious though about your "reality" that this is all affected by "deep socialist leanings." Does this mean that people's refusal to learn what the scientists have found, and insisting that Kyoto is the one-and-only possible international agreement, is effected by "deep capitalist leanings?" I doubt it.

[calmo]

Jimminey groucho, I don't know when I've seen more zeros: ~4,000,000,000 years. [Good thing that's not in days (See, the world was created in so many days, not hours or seconds, because readers were only so literate and even less so numerate.) or nanoseconds (Let's roll out another 15 zeros and really smoke em!]

Gaia's revenge may be just what the doctor ordered to get mankind to act as one species and do battle against mother earth instead of each other.

I can see you take this debate seriously (maybe only the battling). Fuggedabout working with Mother Nature who is about to put our bottoms to the fire or freezer.
I know who I'm betting on in that fight.

[groucho]

"Fuggedabout working with Mother Nature who is about to put our bottoms to the fire or freezer.
I know who I'm betting on in that fight."

Calmo, I'll take that bet.... While I believe mother nature will throw us humans some severe disturbances; unless she can summon some "friendly"(to her) rather large asteroids in the very near future, I think mankind will soon defeat her. No more "offerings to the gods" to appease her. We shall become her master.

Even with the neo-cons in the WH, I still believe our future, as master of this planet will not be denied.

I'm currently reading "The singularity is near", by Ray Kurzweil. Nanotech is coming very soon. This will dwarf all other technology man has ever devised. Get ready for an extremely interesting ride!

[calmo]

With groucho I feel like I'm dealing with the drummer in the band who (wait for it) has a bias against all the other instruments. With groucho will will Bash our way to Victory and score a BigHit.
Of course I don't have a drumset, just my didgeridoo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didgeridoo

And as you can see, I can strike back.
Like this:

Nanotech is coming very soon. This will dwarf all other technology man has ever devised. Get ready for an extremely interesting ride!

Undoubtably you have even perused the NASA funding of nanotubes and drawn your conclusions.
Me too. Before they get to those elevators though [Sorry people, I cannot bear 1 more specific link to this singular spectacle.] they need to correct for the slowing of the Earth's rotation.
We need, not only to combat the cooling at night, but the frying during the day.
The solution: nanotube cable attached to the Equator (see, they have thought about this) and wound a few times around and then pulled by the Saturn Booster travelling east (there was some discussion about this fine point).
You laugh now when things are getting crispy, but you'll be on your knees praying to nanotubes for the global air-conditioned-like environment we will experience later. You will.

[Simon Donner]

There are two key points in the Scientific American post:

i) Climate models are thoroughly tested against historical data. The latest models for the next IPCC assessment do a very good job of recreating the spatial and temporal pattern in global temperature change since 1860. The common suggestion by those termed as skeptics that the models are untested is totally unfounded

ii) Uncertainty cuts both ways. It could be much more severe than the mean predictions. That is why climate scientists tend to speak of the precautionary principle, the idea that if there is a chance of rain, you bring an umbrella.

[DJM]

One of the things that I don't understand in this argument is why some people want to fight it tooth and nail (although I understand the people who profit greatly from certain things will stubbornly remain in denial) .....even if they refuse to believe that human activities are responsible for, or contribute to, global warming, why don't they want cleaner air and water which would be part of the benefits of some of the changes that are suggested.

[John Urbanik]

Global warming has been ongoing for about 15,000 years now! Doesn't anyone remember this little event called an ice age? If not go see the movies.

To get more serious it has not been provwen that CO2 represents a cause-effect relationship. Since CO2 has varied over the couse of Earth's history (not just the few years of man's recorded history that most alarmists love to use) it could be the RESULT of global warming. Everyone acknowledges the feedback loop and the releasing of CO2 as the tundra melts. Just continue using this logic to its natural conclusion.

The bottom line to the argument is IF man can change CO2 levels (tell India and China to stop development) will it actually have ANY impact on global temperatures.

If the environmentalists were serious they would be supporting nuclear power and not just trying to get the US (and only the United States) to stop using fuel. Al Gore sure hasn't stopped flying all over the world to conserve fuel now has he?

[Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.]

Many thanks to David Wasdell. His data are some of the most remarkable I have ever seen. Unfortunately, his news to us is not good. Please examine rigorously and comment upon the excellent work in which he is engaged. Thank you.

says...

We are waiting for gravity probe B of the NASA to falsify the linear vector gravity, next summer. www.gravitomagnetism.com

[nduriri]

By using relativity, gravity waves have quantitatively been determined during the solar eclipse. The gravity waves are induce at a supersonic speed (1000m/s), they induce gravitomotive force g.m.f. in gases and liquids, thereby creating masse currents which is converted into sound waves; they also induce electromotive force e.m.f. in electric conductors, plasma, ionosphere and metals thereby creating electric currents.
Since the quasi stationary orthodox gravity shield theories do not offer a global and coherent explanation concerning gravity perturbations, can there be a physical science work of more importance than obtaining an understanding of these perturbations and seeking interaction with the remote forces of gravity?
The facts are there, the facts remain the keystone in which the stability of a theory must be tested.
See www.gravitomagnetism.com
Joseph Nduriri, Paris, FRANCE

[Steven Earl Salmony]

The leaders in my not-so-great generation wish to live without having to accept limits to growth of seemingly endless economic globalization, increasing per capita consumption and skyrocketing human population numbers; their desires are evidently insatiable; they choose to believe anything that is politically convenient and economically expedient; and they act accordingly; but, despite all their shared fantasies and soon to be unsustainable activities, Earth exists in space-time, is relatively small and bounded, and has limited resources upon which the survival of life as we know it depends. Whatsoever is is, is it not?