Image of the day

From the
ATWB Customer Gallery

NEOWISE With Airplane 7/17/20

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

My last post on this topic-for now

Started by Mark229, 01/06/2008 11:24PM
Posted 01/06/2008 11:24PM Opening Post
Here's what I know: There has been a warming trend in global temps over the last 150yrs or so. This rise seems to be a rebound from the "Little Ice Age". It's been demonstrated that since 1940 or so, industry started to produce considerably more CO2, released into the atmosphere.However, most of the increase in temps came before 1940. Here's my last link, for now. It pretty well demonstrates how and why I believe as I do. The summary is also provided on this page, should you not care to read the entire paper: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Posted 01/07/2008 05:16PM #1
What may be more appropriate is for someone to show where and how the data in this paper is incorrect. In my opinion the authors do go beyond an appropriate presentation of the data to make assumtions about resultant changes in the future which would have been better left out.

I Yam What I Yam!
Posted 01/07/2008 09:15PM #2
Mark Norby said:

Here's what I know: There has been a warming trend in global temps over the last 150yrs or so. This rise seems to be a rebound from the "Little Ice Age". It's been demonstrated that since 1940 or so, industry started to produce considerably more CO2, released into the atmosphere.However, most of the increase in temps came before 1940. Here's my last link, for now. It pretty well demonstrates how and why I believe as I do. The summary is also provided on this page, should you not care to read the entire paper: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Once again a politically oriented website that has an axe to grind. The reality is

Neftel, A., E. Moor, H. Oeschger, and B. Stauffer. 1985. Evidence from polar ice cores for the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries. Nature 315:45-47.

Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Benders, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. P├ępin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.

To summarize the large increases in CO2 began in the late 40's and early 50's. The temperature increases were the largest over the same period. A summary figure is attached

Attached Image:

rpasken's attachment for post 119481
Posted 01/08/2008 08:05AM | Edited 01/08/2008 08:10AM #3
That paper you have a link to at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm comes from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which seem to be somewhat of a fairly "cranky" bunch. It is

"... is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war."

The Oregon Petition,"...sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers..."

"Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet..."

"..In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)"

"None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon..."

Details at


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/

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


Mark Norby said:

Here's what I know: There has been a warming trend in global temps over the last 150yrs or so. This rise seems to be a rebound from the "Little Ice Age". It's been demonstrated that since 1940 or so, industry started to produce considerably more CO2, released into the atmosphere.However, most of the increase in temps came before 1940. Here's my last link, for now. It pretty well demonstrates how and why I believe as I do. The summary is also provided on this page, should you not care to read the entire paper: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm