From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Date: 23 Jul 92 03:13:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington

kjun@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu (Pat Fitzpatrick) writes:

>As an atmospheric scientist, I feel compelled to comment on this. 
>Personally, I feel the Greenhouse Effect is a hoax. However, many
>other colleagues will do everything and anything to prove it is
>happening. Why? Lots of research money and grants, which is how
>scientists survive. 

You may be an atmospheric scientist, I don't know, but you sure don't
sound like you are. The Greenhouse Effect is science which is pretty
hard to refute. It has been proven in numerous laboratory experiments.
All you say is you "feel" that it is a "hoax" and offer no evidence to
back up such a claim other than the typical anti-research claim that
all research opinions are driven by desires to continue funding. Try
refuting the claim with some REAL science and not some OPINIONS.

Check out Climatic Change, Vol 16, pp 1-4. While it is true that Global
Warming is in dispute, the Greenhouse Effect is NOT. And what is in
dispute on Global Warming is not whether or not the Earth is warming,
it is. The dispute is how much hotter it will probably get and what
the possible consequences are.

>In fact, this has caused my profession a credibility problem. There is a
>fellow a few years ago who did research "proving" that an Ice Age was
>coming (anyone remember this?) Suddenly, he's done an about face and
>now says that global warming will occur. He swings with the current
>doomsayer's!!! He also makes quite a bit of money on the lecture
>circuit.

You seem to be putting words in people's mouths. I know of no one who
claimed ever to "PROVE" that an Ice Age was coming. If you are truely
an atmospheric scientist then you'd be aware of two things: 1) that
there have been several Ice Ages in the past at intervals of several
tens of thousands of years, and 2) wild changes in climate which can
be caused by other gradual climate changes can cause almost anything
to happen, including BOTH an ice age and radical global warming.

>The main problem with Global Warming is that most of the conclusions
>are based on computer simulations, or "models." A model APPROXIMATES
>the equations of motion (in Calculus form) that describes the main
>features of the atmosphere. There are numerous problems with models:

Sorry, but you seem to be misinformed. While a large part of the Global
Warming theory does rely on various models, the models are but one part
of the equation. Other parts are 1) the Greenhouse Effect IS an obserseved
phenomena, 2) man's production of known Greenhouse Gases has been increasing
for the past 100 years, 3) observed levels of CO2 have been increasing
ever since they have been measured, and 4) the average global temperature
has been rising since it has been observed, over 100 years.

>1) They are approximates, not true solutions. However, the approximations
>are fairly good for up to a week, which is why weather forecasts are
>generally good (though not totally accurate). After a week to 10 days, the
>solutions are contaminated by chaos since the equations are nondeterministic.
>This makes the atmosphere essentially unpredicatable after a week. Yet global
>warming models are run for decades!!! What utter nonsense......

You seem to be saying that climatologists are not capable of predicting
future climates based on the failure of meteorologist's failure to accuratly
predict the weather. Consider this analogy. Owners of a casino cannot
predict which player will win the jackpot in a single game. However, they
can accurately predict the percentage of the gamers waging will go to the
house. Predicting weather is analogous to predicting the outcome of a single
wager. Predicting climate changes is more like predicting the percentage
of the house's long-term take. The ability (or lack of) to accurately
predict short term weather is not a indicator to the ability to predict
climate changes. There are different factors involved.

>I may also add that global warming should already be occuring according to
>these models. It has not.

According to SOME models. As you have already alluded, all of the models
do not agree.

Chad R. Berthelson also followed up with:
>I agree, last semester I took 'Climatology', a graduate-only level class
>at MSU which is taught by THE State Climatologist of Mississippi...and
>during the portion of the class in which we looked at pattern, etc. from
>historical data we used over 1 hundred years of data from Mississippi 
>and we found that the last 6 years straight the AVERAGE temperature
>has been less than the AVERAGE for the last 100 years...hmmmm...

Sorry, but the temperature measurements of a single area like Mississippi
are not enough to make valid conclusions of global warming. FWIW, the
temperature where I live in NC has been increasing. Our temps are more
in line with the observed average global temperatures. The first two
years of the 1990s were the hottest years on record EVER recorded not
only in NC, but in the world average also.

>BTW..the 70's (the time that the new ice-age was the rumor) was some of
>the hottest years for this state in recorded history...hmmmmm...

Again, the recorded temps in one area alone are not significant.

>and the above statement that 'all scientists agree that the greenhouse
>effect exists' is false, I don't believe it (not by what you are calling
>the 'greenhouse effect').

See the article referenced above in Climate Change. btw, the Greenhouse
Effect and Global Warming are not the same "thing".
-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2395 alt.rush-limbaugh:2902 talk.politics.misc:34859