Ed,
Thanks for your thoughts. I respectfully disagree with the conclusion of a worldwide warming trend (Global Warming theory) created by human activity within developed nations, in particular, the United States. We may "agree to disagree" regarding this current issue. Steve Springer p.s. I do enjoy reading your posts though. ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Edward Frank Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to climate change and other factors Steve, This is my last post on the topic. You may have the last word if you wish to reply. I am writing because you addressed me personally. I was among the more skeptical when this topic first came to the forefront. Much of my cave research in the Caribbean is strongly related to the topic of climate change and the processes I was investigation are reflected in different sea levels that have taken place in the Pleistocene a a result of climate change and episode of glaciations and warm spells. I have looked at all the data from ice cores, from O18/O16 isotope ratios,from fossil sea levels indicators, from deep sea sediment cores, data from various CO2 proxies. I don't believe things because a particular scientist or group of scientists tell me something about a subject I am investigating. I look at the data that was collected. I look at how it was collected. I look at the assumptions made in the basic premise and conclusions. Many of the earlier reports had flaws. Temperature data was being compared fro data sets that were being collected using different methodologies. Data was being compared, in my opinion incorrectly in man cases. Early models of global warming basically used the model to calculate temperature data to fill in the gaps on older data sets, and Voila! the numbers matched the model. For the last twenty years at least we have been collecting good data. We have reworked the older information using proper rigor. We have figured out how to understand the proxy data collected from tree ring, ice cores, and deep ocean sediment cores. looking at the data that has been collected, the data collected with a proper rigor, the only conclusion I can make is that global warming is taking place and that it is being enhanced if not driven by excess CO2 produced by human activities. This is my own conclusion based upon looking at the information, not because of wanting to be part of some trend, or because am looking for grant money. Ask anyone, I will argue with anybody until I see convincing data and am presented with a convincing argument. I am reasonably bright. I have college and graduate level courses in chemistry, meteorology, geology, biology, physics, math, and statistics - so I have a good broad background in science. I have done field research and published papers. If someone can't explain to me what they are espousing, then perhaps they don't really have a firm grasp of what they are talking about. The core points to me are the changes in CO2 levels over time. Looking at what is being done and how, I believe this information is correct. It is a simple math exercise to show that effect on heat absorption by the excess CO2. I can look at the overall retreat of glaciers around the world. Yes some are actually growing, but most are retreating. Glaciers growing in parts of South America for example are not a result of temperatures cooling, but because of changes in rainfall patterns. It is warmer, but with more snow during the colder months the glaciers are growing. faster than melting. Elsewhere the melt is clearly because of warming. I can look at ice coverage on the Arctic Ocean. If you look at the minimum ice field every year for which we have records the minimum is getting smaller. If you read historical accounts going back a few hundred years, we had more summer ice then than now. This is one area where data is being misrepresented. Opponents to global warming theory look at ice maximums and say it hasn't changed or it fluctuates. That is true, but not relevant. The ocean pretty much freezes completely every year. Its boundaries are constrained by land, so as long as it freezes over that will not change. It is not a valid comparison, because it does not account for the length of time the ice cover is present and it does not account for the thickness of ice. Those parameters are important. Ice minimums measure the thickness of ice and the area at the point where the thickness reaches zero. It is a measurement than can be made year after year with the same basic parameters. It is a meaningful comparison, while the other is not. There are many other examples I can cite. Whenever I see "scientific" reports presenting bad information, data collected using bad methodologies, and conclusions being drawn upon premises not supported by the data, or conclusions being made based upon erroneous, data, or misrepresented data that demonstrates the dishonesty of the research ad researcher. People can make mistakes, can draw wrong conclusions, and have different interpretations. all in good faith. I can not think of a single instance I have read where a published paper disputing global warming has not been deliberately misrepresenting the information in order prove their point The point I a making is that I am hard to convince without the supporting data, and it must be data collected using a methodology I think is valid. The evidence in favor of global warming is overwhelming, and comes from thousands of independent sources. I am not taking the idea on faith. How do I feel about Al Gore representing the idea? I am of mixed feelings.. He has nice graphs and stuff, but not all of them represent the entirety of the truth. I am sure he is a bright guy, but from his talks I don't think he actually understands the science of the ideas he is presenting. If however he manages to present the concepts in a manner the public will understand and accept, that is good because our actions are typically more based upon political will than science. I believe that global warming is real and so I believe the public should be made aware of the concept and its implications. The downside is that this may drive actions to be taken that are simply for political show that cost money and accomplish nothing. The Kyoto Accord is an example of this farce, politics and not much else. Gore is a big supporter of this and I am not. In science you can not be 100% sure of anything. That is not how science works. We do not know all there is to know about everything and never will. So the choice of doing nothing or accepting nothing without 100% proof, just means that nothing will ever be done and nothing will ever be believed. There always will be unreasonable doubt. That is the point that has been reached on this topic. I do not need a poll or petition to on the subject to tell me what to think. I have drawn my own conclusions. As I said before I believe that the fact of global warming has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. From: Steven Springer <mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:27 AM Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to climate change and other factors Ed Are you telling me that internet petitions are not always representative of truth (:-))? "Most of the opposition to Global warming is a political consideration rather than a scientific one." Perhaps, this is because of the recognition that this hysteria is a political issue! Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth has been propped up as the poster child for public education and policy promotion for this cause. The information promoted by the film has been refuted so much that it is incredible! However, when such fantasy is on exhibit, you who are convinced of this doctrine fail to oppose. Why? Actually, I am convinced, as are many others (including on this board), that most of the proponents of this theory are interested in political agendas rather than science. Some people would not believe a lion was dangerous if they had been eaten and swallowed already if it did not suit their politics. This is a true statement among many (I am not included in this bunch, I assure you!). Better be sure that an actual lion, with teeth, is coming and not simply a man behind the curtain trying to scare others. Steve Springer ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Edward Frank Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 5:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to climate change and other factors Steve, It is am impressive list, but I can't check out how many of the petitioners actually know anything about the subject. Lots of PhD's, but in what? Lots of MD's. I didn't know atmospheric composition variations were part of a medical degree... Most of the opposition to Global warming is a political consideration rather than a scientific one. As I said before, this isn't a matter that voting for what you want to believe is true. Some people would not believe a lion was dangerous if they had been eaten and swallowed already if it did not suit their politics. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Springer <mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 6:07 PM Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to climate change and other factors Mike, Ed, All: Here is a link to ~31,000 American Scientists (http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm ) who would disagree with the statement "that any legitimate debate on the subject of global warming is over"; there is also the infamous list of 600 World Scientists (UN affiliation) that also disagree with the Global Warming theory. Sorry, as has been noted in previous posts, the Global Warming theory is not unanimous among "creditable" scientists, nor is the proof submitted for support able to substantiate the conclusion of this theory. Steve Springer ________________________________ From: [email protected] on behalf of Edward Frank Sent: Sun 6/7/2009 4:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to climate change and other factors Mike, I believe that any legitimate debate on the subject of global warming is over, but you can disagree. I also agree with you and feel that many of the "solutions" being pushed in Washington are more for political show than anything. Some may even make things worse. We should be striving for better emission standards, more efficient burning, and whatever else can reasonably be done to lower our environmental footprint, but sending money to third world countries in order to pollute more is a useless transfer of wealth that does not accomplish anything but hurting our own economy. Ed <BR <BR --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
