Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 5 Jul 2001 to 6 Jul 2001
To: Recipients of ECOLOG-L digests <ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU>
Status: R
There are 13 messages totalling 1345 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. ECOLOG-L Digest - 3 Jul 2001 to 4 Jul 2001 (2)
2. Idea toward solving global warming (6)
3. Job Posting
4. Fred Singer
5. Plant ID Guides for Puerto Rico - a summary
6. Environmental Job Openings from EnviroNetwork
7. POST-DOCTORAL SCIENTISTS, positions open
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 12:58:48 +1200
From: Dr Brendan Moyle <B.J.Moyle@MASSEY.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: ECOLOG-L Digest - 3 Jul 2001 to 4 Jul 2001
Ernie Rogers writes:
>Here is an idea toward solving global warming.
..
>I think that the atmospheric interactions of radiation, temperature, CO2
and
>water (and methane, etc.) are so complicated we might not find an easy w
y to
>explain it. Here is my idea on how to present this global warming thing
to a
>popular audience -- have a respected body endorse a simple computer mode
>that we could pass around on disk, and people could run what-if cases an
>then look at the consequences, presented in an easy to understand format
I guess one problem is that I'm not sure there is such a respected body.
The other- and perhaps major point- is that it seems to have a black-box
approach to public policy. We believe that if we put the right numbers in
and the right policies will come out. Not wishing to appear uncharitable,
but I don't think waiting for consensus is prudent nor is relying upon the
'numbers' to change policy. The problem with Kyoto was it postponed
practical action for leaders with weak political wills or mandates. It
wasn't a problem with the numbers.
Much progress could be made on reducing GHG emissions by liberalising world
agricultural trade and eliminating energy, forestry and agriculural
subsidies. This could also be negotiated within the context of bilateral
trade agreements and hence, not require multinational co-ordination- plus
provide incentives to reduce GHG to parties wishing to join such trading
blocs.
Kind regards
Brendan
Dr Brendan Moyle
Bioeconomist
Massey University (Albany), NEW ZEALAND
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~bjmoyle/
"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man
has tried to make it his heaven."- F. Hoelderlin
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 08:09:07 -0400
From: Brad Robbins <robbins@MOTE.ORG>
Subject: Re: ECOLOG-L Digest - 3 Jul 2001 to 4 Jul 2001
Dr Brendan Moyle wrote:
The problem with Kyoto was it postponed practical action for leaders with
weak political wills or mandates. It
wasn't a problem with the numbers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Not really. The problem with Kyoto was: (1) it was based on politics not
science, (2) not every country was held to the same standards, and (3) it
threatened national sovereignty. Another problem was the negative impact the
protocols would have had on some participating countries. The U.S., Japan,
and Russia have cited this as a reason not to ratify the treaty.
Brad Robbins, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:34:18 -0700
From: Mary Poteet <mpoteet@SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming
Hello,
If you are a scientist, then you are in the small minority of
scientists who do not accept the evidence that global warming is indeed
occurring. If you are interested in reading a synopsis of why the majority
of scientists agree that the evidence supports global warming, then I
invite you to read the recently published report by the National Academy of
Sciences. The report can be found at:
http://stills.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/
This report was written in reponse to a request by the Bush
administration for a review of global warming trends and causes, and was
asked to address a list of questions -- which can be found on page vii of
the report. The National Academies were given only one month to gather a
team of scientists and produce the report, but they did a good job of
outlining the current evidence.
As with all sciences, even advanced physics, global warming
science evolves with the latest knowledge. Science is not a static set of
facts, but a methodology for seeking out answers to complex problems. Thus
scientific methodology can never "prove", but provides us with a means for
testing hypotheses and advancing knowledge. How that knowledge is used is
then up to the person or organization who is interested in it. This body of
evidence upon which we have to base our decisions, points compellingly
toward global warming. What we do not have right now, is a strong body of
evidence to support that humans are driving climate change. However, as we
continue to gather evidence to assess the causes of global warming, and as
the theoretical models evolve with the evidence, we can build that body of
knowledge upon which to base policy.
So, granted, global warming should not be the only factor to
consider when making environmentally conservative decisions. In fact, it
is not for reasons of global warming that many local energy companies are
offering energy-efficient incentives to utility customers. And not just in
California but even in Texas where Austin Energy has initiated quite a few
incentives to purchase "green power" (they're setting up wind turbines,
solar panels and landfill methane projects), and to conserve energy. But
assessing the underlying mechanisms of global warming will help us to
develop smarter approaches to conservation that can help us to limit the
economic impact of cleaning up our environment.
On a last note, I think Ernie's ideas are in the right
direction. There does need to be public outreach and education concering
global warming issues. Whether theorectical models are the right approach
is debatable, and not one I want to get into. Unfortunately, most of what
the public knows about science, including global warming, is from short
media blurbs that try to create sensationalism, or set up false dichotomies
to sell their wares. From these little bits of information, and sometimes
mis-information, they can not hope to make an informed decision.
Mary
PhD Candidate
University of California, Berkeley
Research Associate
Texas Memorial Museum of Natural History
>At the risk of taking flak from all ...
>
>This notion that global warming is fact, not fiction is itself fiction.
GW
>is a viable and compelling theory, but it is only that. I think we unde
cut
>our arguments by over selling them. The data that supposedly "prove" gl
bal
>warming quite simply don't - however supportive they might be. (And to
>models have been tweaked to account for data that doesn't fit their
>predictions - that's more advocacy than science.)
>
>Whether a simple model or a complex model we're still basing projections
on
>models which are governed as much by the assumptions on which they are
>based, as they are by science. If I were to suggest an idea toward
>'solving global warming' (Am I?) I would stress the things we ought to
e
>doing because they make sense whether GW is real or not; whether humans
re
>or are not the root cause of it. Compelling and convincing arguments ca
be
>made for increased energy efficiencies, cleaner energy sources and the l
ke
>(reduce pollution, save $$, new industries, make our economy more
>competitive ...) GW need not be - perhaps, should not be - the linch p
n
>holding the arguments together so much as an additional and precautionar
>benefit.
>
>Rather than approach GW with a take no prisoners and win at all costs
>attitude, I think a lot more progress can be made with convincing econo
ic
>as well as environmental arguments. Believe it or not, the other side i
>not necessarily evil (not even Prez. Bush) simply because they haven't
>joined Romania (and who else?) in ratifying the Kyoto accord.
>
> --jbII
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ernest Rogers [mailto:Arcologic@AOL.COM]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 7:21 PM
>To: ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU
>Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming
>
>
>Here is an idea toward solving global warming.
>
>The processes of global warming are well understood, scientifically, but
>people persist in not being sure that it's real, that we can so somethin
>about, or not sure about what should be done. If everyone could gain a
>better understanding of how the processes work, then it would be easier
o
>build the concensus for action. I have observed that even "experts" hav
a
>hard time understanding or explaining the details of what is going on.
o,
>
>I think that the atmospheric interactions of radiation, temperature, CO2
>and
>water (and methane, etc.) are so complicated we might not find an easy w
y
>to
>explain it. Here is my idea on how to present this global warming thing
to
>a
>popular audience -- have a respected body endorse a simple computer mode
>that we could pass around on disk, and people could run what-if cases an
>then look at the consequences, presented in an easy to understand format
>The model would explain how CO2, etc., affect Earth's temperature, and h
w
>temperature changes affect atmospheric composition.
>
>Ernie Rogers
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:19:53 -0400
From: Brad Robbins <robbins@MOTE.ORG>
Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming
June 23, 2001
NAS Report on Climate Change Science Was Severely Flawed: Summary Even
Distorted Report's Own Findings
By: S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the
University of Virginia and a former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite
Service.
In anticipation of last week's summit meeting in Gothenburg, Sweden,
European politicians and much of the media had been trumpeting a recent
report on global warming from the National Academy of Sciences, using it to
badger President Bush into going along with the controversial Kyoto Treaty.
For the ideological Greens, the NAS report is proof positive that industrial
man is warming the atmosphere and must be stopped. But nothing could be
further from the truth. The story of the NAS report is a story of how
scientific inquiry was sacrificed to political purposes.
The hastily prepared executive summary of the report provided grist for the
media mill. It starts out unambiguously: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating
in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures õ to rise."
This was as far as most journalists, apparently, read. But near the end of
the report, other readers learned of the considerable uncertainties that
could offset the clear and unequivocal conclusion stated in the first
sentence of the NAS summary. "Because of the large and still uncertain level
of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties
in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly
aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th Century cannot
be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed
warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in
climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute
proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural
variability on the decadal to century time scale."
In other words, the models being used may be unreliable.
But there were other problems, too:
First, the supposed temperature rise over the past few decades is based on
data from poorly controlled stations and sea-surface measurements-something
scientists have known and ideologically biased journalists have suppressed.
In fact, the NAS summary ignored evidence of climate cooling.
Second, even if there was global warming there is no evidence it is
human-related. Past trends are best explained by solar variables.
Third, the summary also mentions a rise in sea levels-a convenient and
tempting visual for non-scientists. But, again, there is no connection to
human action. Geologic evidence confirms that sea levels have risen 400 feet
over the past 18,000 years. That is long before human civilizations even
began to spread across the earth. The current rise is mostly due to the slow
melting of Antarctic ice sheets, which will continue for several more
millennia.
There are other omissions in the summary that cast doubt on the conclusions
embraced by journalists and many scientists. There are also unanswered
questions: We still don't know who prepared the summary and whether the
panelists were afforded an adequate opportunity to suggest changes. Honest
science demands that the NAS write a more balanced summary stressing areas
of disagreement and complexity. Honest journalism demands that reporters
with agendas be even more careful with technical matters that deserve
patience to cover well.
Many of these problems could have been avoided if there had been more time
for deliberation and review. The panel was made up of 11 persons-some of
whom were being asked to produce a report that would confirm their own
earlier work for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Control (IPCC). While made up of well-qualified individuals, the panel
lacked balance. It did not include a geologist or glaciologist; nor did it
include more than one identified skeptic or anyone critical of the earlier
IPCC report. The panel also lacked someone with demonstrated expertise in
statistics to test if the evidence was adequate as a basis for drawing
conclusions.
Ultimately, the NAS report stands or falls on whether the climate warmed in
the past 50 years-especially since 1980. The overwhelming bulk of data from
different independent sources shows no such warming trend. We are not
talking just about science but the very facts. In such an overheated
political environment, it is critical that we settle this disparity among
different sets of data. It is a matter too important to be left just to a
selected group of scientists. We need an open evidentiary hearing before a
jury composed also of non-scientists.
---------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 12:17:07 -0400
From: Karen Claxon <kclaxon@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Robbins" <robbins@MOTE.ORG>
NAS Report on Climate Change Science Was
Severely Flawed: Summary Even
Distorted Report's Own Findings
By: S. Fred Singer,
Reply: S. Fred Singer is among a handful of well-known contrarians
with scientific credentials whose zealous activism and lobbying are
financed by the fossil fuel industry. On the very same day you can
first read a scientific paper about global warming in its respective
journal, you can read a Singer-or-Michaels-authored rebuttal in the Wall
Street Journal or some other conservative newspaper along with copies on
the web sites of rightwing, free-market "think tanks." Singer earned
an electrical engineering degree and then a Ph.D. in physics. I believe
his early work involved rocket fuel and that he soon focused his career
on administration in various government agencies. He now runs an
anti-global warming foundation.
I believe that the bulk of Singer's concerns were long ago addressed by
the IPCC and other climate scientists.
---------------
Karen Claxon
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:09:19 -0500
From: Ruth Wagner <rwag40@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Job Posting
Please put this job listing on your list server.
Fisheries/Aquatic Research Biologist (MS, state revenue funded
position)
Ridge Lake and Kaskaskia Biological Stations
Illinois Natural History Survey
Sullivan, Illinois
Responsibilities: Successful candidate will coordinate all aspects of
research design, data collection, analysis, and
publication in the areas of fisheries ecology and management. Emphasized
areas of research include predator-prey
relationships, community ecology, foraging behavior, bioenergetics, and
reproductive ecology. Responsible for new
research initiatives as well as continuing studies evaluating population
ecology and management of esocids,
walleye, bluegill, and largemouth bass. Individual will be part of an
interactive research group including faculty,
graduate and undergraduate students, other research biologists, and full-
and part-time research assistants.
Qualifications: MS in fisheries, aquatic ecology, or zoology/biology.
Salary: $34,000 - $40,000 with benefits, plus option to live in on-site
housing.
Closing Date: September 15, 2001
Starting Date: November 1, 2001 or until filled
Contact: Dr. David H. Wahl (217)728 4400 for technical information and send
resume, cover letter, copy of
transcripts, and three references to Susan Key, Human Resources Manager;
Fisheries/Aquatic Ecologist; PRF#
893; Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E. Peabody Dr., Champaign, IL
61820, (217) 244-7790 FAX
217/333-4949
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 17:38:35 +0100
From: "Kaduk, Dr J." <jk61@LEICESTER.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming
Prof. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the
University of Virginia and a former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite
Service.
is known to take a very opinionated (according to his own words)
anti greenhouse position.
Many of his claims about the facts are either wrong or have
significant omissions.
E.g.
1. there is evidence that the recent warming is man made:
a) based on out knowledge on NATURAL variability of the
mean global temperature (which is limited though), there is
a smaller than 5% chance that the current warming is
non anthropogenic.
b) Model predictions suggest that the currently observed
pattern of temperature results from anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions (warming in the high latitudes,
cooling in the stratosphere)
2. we have now many more records of temperature not just the one
from weather stations. Check:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
There are:
a) data from a "multi-proxy" approach (in this case using ice
cores, corals, tree rings, historical records, and long
instrumental records) (Mann et al., 1998)
Conclusion: "the 1990s were the warmest decade and 1998
the warmest year of the past "millennium.
b) tree ring data (Briffa et al., 1998)
Conclusion: "indicate that the 20th century is the warmest
of the last 400-600 years."
c) Another data set based on multiple "proxy" sources of temperature
information (tree-rings, ice-cores, corals and historical documents)
(Jones et al., 1998)
Conclusion: "the 20th century is the warmest of at least the
last 600 years."
d) A circum-Arctic temperature record based again on multiple
used proxy climate data from tree-rings, ice-cores, lake and
marine sediments. (Overpeck et al., 1997)
Conclusion: "Much of the recent Arctic warming took place
between 1850 and 1920, most likely due to natural processes,
whereas the warming after 1920 is increasingly difficult to
ascribe to natural forcing."
e) borehole temperatures (Pollack at al., 1998)
Conclusion: ..." the 20th century to be the warmest of the
past five centuries"
Overall conclusion from the NOAA web page given above:
"Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th
century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was
most dramatic after 1920."
NOTE:
- All of these studies confirm the instrumental record
- None of these studies is brand new. One would have to assume that
Prof. S. Fred Singer is well aware of them.
- there are multi proxy data sets which EXCLUDE instrumental data and
therefore do not suffer from the allegedly "poorly controlled stations
and sea-surface measurements" according to Prof. S. Fred. Singer.
- Multi proxy data sets are much less likely to be biased
3. Sea level rise is a response to a warming atmosphere - waters
happens to expand if it is warmed. This effect account for
about 50 cm sea level rise (mean sea level! we do not know
much about the extremes...) if the atmosphere warms by ~4 deg.C.
So, if the warming is anthropogenic - so is the sea level rise.
About models:
Models may be unreliable, as Prof. S. Fred Singer, says. However,
and this is very important: they are the best integration of our
knowledge of the climate system we have. Point. We can't do better.
As such they are the tool of choice which we have to use unless
there are serious and obvious mismatches to observations.
The models improved significantly over the last 10 years and the
model simulations now match well the observed warming
trend in the last 150 years (which does not exist according
Prof. S. Fred Singer, though). Therefore there is less reason
to doubt the predictions of the models than before.
Finally - now this is my opinion:
There is no more need for an "open evidentiary hearing"
the evidence which is in so far points to
anthropogenic global change (climate change, too)
Based on the evidence it is time for action.
I am sure everybody here heard about the precautionary
principle and I believe most of you would want to see it
applied to the global climate system (oceans, terrestrial
biosphere, atmosphere, global cycles) just as well as to
GMOs or new drugs.
There will be more evidence - for or against - global
warming coming along. However, we have to act on the
evidence we have now. We can wait a few more years with
significant emission cuts, but not many. And we have to
move in the right direction already during those few
years, i.e. green energy,... all the stuff Jack Baker
mentioned before. We need to start working on those
measures now and use the fossil energy to implement
them in the next 10-20 years.
Cheers,
Joerg
Brad Robbins wrote:
>
> June 23, 2001
> NAS Report on Climate Change Science Was Severely Flawed: Summary Even
> Distorted Report's Own Findings
> By: S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the
> University of Virginia and a former director of the U.S. Weather Satell
te
> Service.
>
> In anticipation of last week's summit meeting in Gothenburg, Sweden,
> European politicians and much of the media had been trumpeting a recent
> report on global warming from the National Academy of Sciences, using i
to
> badger President Bush into going along with the controversial Kyoto
Treaty.
> For the ideological Greens, the NAS report is proof positive that
industrial
> man is warming the atmosphere and must be stopped. But nothing could be
> further from the truth. The story of the NAS report is a story of how
> scientific inquiry was sacrificed to political purposes.
>
> The hastily prepared executive summary of the report provided grist for
the
> media mill. It starts out unambiguously: "Greenhouse gases are
accumulating
> in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface
ir
> temperatures ð to rise."
>
> This was as far as most journalists, apparently, read. But near the end
of
> the report, other readers learned of the considerable uncertainties tha
> could offset the clear and unequivocal conclusion stated in the first
> sentence of the NAS summary. "Because of the large and still uncertain
level
> of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the
uncertainties
> in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly
> aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in
he
> atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th Century can
ot
> be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observ
d
> warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in
> climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constit
te
> proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natura
> variability on the decadal to century time scale."
>
> In other words, the models being used may be unreliable.
>
> But there were other problems, too:
>
> First, the supposed temperature rise over the past few decades is based
on
> data from poorly controlled stations and sea-surface
measurements-something
> scientists have known and ideologically biased journalists have
suppressed.
> In fact, the NAS summary ignored evidence of climate cooling.
>
> Second, even if there was global warming there is no evidence it is
> human-related. Past trends are best explained by solar variables.
>
> Third, the summary also mentions a rise in sea levels-a convenient and
> tempting visual for non-scientists. But, again, there is no connection
o
> human action. Geologic evidence confirms that sea levels have risen 400
feet
> over the past 18,000 years. That is long before human civilizations eve
> began to spread across the earth. The current rise is mostly due to the
slow
> melting of Antarctic ice sheets, which will continue for several more
> millennia.
>
> There are other omissions in the summary that cast doubt on the
conclusions
> embraced by journalists and many scientists. There are also unanswered
> questions: We still don't know who prepared the summary and whether the
> panelists were afforded an adequate opportunity to suggest changes. Hon
st
> science demands that the NAS write a more balanced summary stressing ar
as
> of disagreement and complexity. Honest journalism demands that reporter
> with agendas be even more careful with technical matters that deserve
> patience to cover well.
>
> Many of these problems could have been avoided if there had been more t
me
> for deliberation and review. The panel was made up of 11 persons-some o
> whom were being asked to produce a report that would confirm their own
> earlier work for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Control (IPCC). While made up of well-qualified individuals, the panel
> lacked balance. It did not include a geologist or glaciologist; nor did
it
> include more than one identified skeptic or anyone critical of the earl
er
> IPCC report. The panel also lacked someone with demonstrated expertise
n
> statistics to test if the evidence was adequate as a basis for drawing
> conclusions.
>
> Ultimately, the NAS report stands or falls on whether the climate warme
in
> the past 50 years-especially since 1980. The overwhelming bulk of data
from
> different independent sources shows no such warming trend. We are not
> talking just about science but the very facts. In such an overheated
> political environment, it is critical that we settle this disparity amo
g
> different sets of data. It is a matter too important to be left just to
a
> selected group of scientists. We need an open evidentiary hearing befor
a
> jury composed also of non-scientists.
> ---------------------
--
J rg Kaduk
Lecturer
Department of Geography J.Kaduk@Leicester.ac.uk
University of Leicester joerg@jasper.stanford.edu
Leicester LE1 7RH http://Jasper.Stanford.EDU/joerg/
England, UK tel: + 44 (0)116 2523848
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 12:42:44 -0500
From: David McNeely <mcneely@UTB1.UTB.EDU>
Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming
This claim of "severe flaw" and misrepresentaton is itself suspect. =
It is
common practice for those who have a reason to distort scientific con=
clusion for
their own purposes to jump on the uncertainies inherent in science, a=
nd to try
to take advantage of general misunderstanding of scientific methods =
to make the
public and policy makers believe that results are less robust than th=
ey are.
It is always worthwhile to know what economic entities a writer has c=
onnections
to at the time (s)he is writing. At any rate, the degree of uncertai=
nty in
science matters. There is always some. What is most important is th=
e
preponderance of evidence, as accepted by the relevant experts. On t=
hat score,
science is in very nearly unanimous agreement, as reflected in the NA=
S report,
that global warming is a real phenomenon, that it is almost certainly=
due to
greenhouse gases, and that those gases are almost certainly of anthro=
pogenic
origin. There are remaining interesting questions, but the scientifi=
c community
seems to be almost totally in agreement on the big questions on this =
matter.
Brad Robbins wrote:
> June 23, 2001
> NAS Report on Climate Change Science Was Severely Flawed: Summary E=
ven
> Distorted Report's Own Findings
> By: S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at=
the
> University of Virginia and a former director of the U.S. Weather Sa=
tellite
> Service.
>
> In anticipation of last week's summit meeting in Gothenburg, Sweden=
,
> European politicians and much of the media had been trumpeting a re=
cent
> report on global warming from the National Academy of Sciences, usi=
ng it to
> badger President Bush into going along with the controversial Kyoto=
Treaty.
> For the ideological Greens, the NAS report is proof positive that i=
ndustrial
> man is warming the atmosphere and must be stopped. But nothing coul=
d be
> further from the truth. The story of the NAS report is a story of h=
ow
> scientific inquiry was sacrificed to political purposes.
>
> The hastily prepared executive summary of the report provided grist=
for the
> media mill. It starts out unambiguously: "Greenhouse gases are accu=
mulating
> in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surf=
ace air
> temperatures =F5 to rise."
>
> This was as far as most journalists, apparently, read. But near the=
end of
> the report, other readers learned of the considerable uncertainties=
that
> could offset the clear and unequivocal conclusion stated in the fir=
st
> sentence of the NAS summary. "Because of the large and still uncert=
ain level
> of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncer=
tainties
> in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particular=
ly
> aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases=
in the
> atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th Century=
cannot
> be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the ob=
served
> warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated =
in
> climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not con=
stitute
> proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in na=
tural
> variability on the decadal to century time scale."
>
> In other words, the models being used may be unreliable.
>
> But there were other problems, too:
>
> First, the supposed temperature rise over the past few decades is b=
ased on
> data from poorly controlled stations and sea-surface measurements-s=
omething
> scientists have known and ideologically biased journalists have sup=
pressed.
> In fact, the NAS summary ignored evidence of climate cooling.
>
> Second, even if there was global warming there is no evidence it is
> human-related. Past trends are best explained by solar variables.
>
> Third, the summary also mentions a rise in sea levels-a convenient =
and
> tempting visual for non-scientists. But, again, there is no connect=
ion to
> human action. Geologic evidence confirms that sea levels have risen=
400 feet
> over the past 18,000 years. That is long before human civilizations=
even
> began to spread across the earth. The current rise is mostly due to=
the slow
> melting of Antarctic ice sheets, which will continue for several mo=
re
> millennia.
>
> There are other omissions in the summary that cast doubt on the con=
clusions
> embraced by journalists and many scientists. There are also unanswe=
red
> questions: We still don't know who prepared the summary and whether=
the
> panelists were afforded an adequate opportunity to suggest changes.=
Honest
> science demands that the NAS write a more balanced summary stressin=
g areas
> of disagreement and complexity. Honest journalism demands that repo=
rters
> with agendas be even more careful with technical matters that deser=
ve
> patience to cover well.
>
> Many of these problems could have been avoided if there had been mo=
re time
> for deliberation and review. The panel was made up of 11 persons-so=
me of
> whom were being asked to produce a report that would confirm their =
own
> earlier work for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Clim=
ate
> Control (IPCC). While made up of well-qualified individuals, the pa=
nel
> lacked balance. It did not include a geologist or glaciologist; nor=
did it
> include more than one identified skeptic or anyone critical of the =
earlier
> IPCC report. The panel also lacked someone with demonstrated expert=
ise in
> statistics to test if the evidence was adequate as a basis for draw=
ing
> conclusions.
>
> Ultimately, the NAS report stands or falls on whether the climate w=
armed in
> the past 50 years-especially since 1980. The overwhelming bulk of d=
ata from
> different independent sources shows no such warming trend. We are n=
ot
> talking just about science but the very facts. In such an overheate=
d
> political environment, it is critical that we settle this disparity=
among
> different sets of data. It is a matter too important to be left jus=
t to a
> selected group of scientists. We need an open evidentiary hearing b=
efore a
> jury composed also of non-scientists.
> ---------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 15:06:35 -0400
From: "David M. Bryant" <dmbryant@CISUNIX.UNH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming
My contribution to this discussion will be uncharacteristically brief,
To offer a metaphore:
1) Car manufacturers resisted the installation of seatbelts for decades
because they believed that they would increase the cost of automobiles
(Volvo excluded). The public soon realized that seatbelts cost less than
hospital bills and funerals.
2) Today those of us who wear seatbelts do so, not because it can be proven
that we WILL be involved in an accident, but because the risk of injury or
death in the event of an accident greatly exceeds the cost of putting on a
seatbelt.
Therefore, does the cost to the economy of decreasing fossil fuel use
exceed the risk of global climate change, even if we're wrong? What if
we're right?
Respectfully,
David M. Bryant dmbryant@cisunix.unh.edu
Dept. of Natural Resources 603-862-4433
215 James Hall
University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824
"Not all that is counted counts
and not all that counts can be counted"
A. Einstein
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 16:06:52 -0400
From: Brad Robbins <robbins@MOTE.ORG>
Subject: Fred Singer
Karen Claxon, J rg Kaduk, Darren Loomis, & all others of the same opinion,
If I use your criteria that Singer is a zealous anti-greenhouse activist
whose funding source is suspect and who is not appropriately degreed to
exclude those with an opinion on this topic, I could remove many of those on
the other side, e.g. all politicians (Gore), all Hollywood kooks (Striesand,
Redford), self-defined environmentalists (Ms. Claxon and Mr. Loomis (you
didn't list your affiliation etc. so I'll pick on you)) and many scientist
(myself included) who are not climatologists but who do have an opinion and
those scientists who may be funded by a politically motivated organization
(IPCC). I find it interesting that the first thing each of you did was
attack him on a personal level and only one of you (Dr. Kaduk) took the time
(or was able) to address Singer's comments.
Brad Robbins, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 16:54:54 -0400
From: Thiesing.Mary@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
Subject: Plant ID Guides for Puerto Rico - a summary
Dear colleagues,
Many thanks to the large number of people who responded to my initial
query. I have compiled a summary of suggested publications and sources,
along with some comments that the respondants provided. This has been
enormously useful.
I have included some citations that are incomplete; I wanted to post this
summary quickly and wasn't sure how long it would take me to track some of
these sources down, so I have included them as is.
Thanks again to everyone who responded.
____________________________________________________________________________
___
_____________________
Some web sites to search:
http://www.bcpl.net/~cadavis/cmapig/initialpage.html
The University of Puerto Rico library
http://www.upr.clu.edu/webpac/
There is good coverage of the dicots in Liogier's Flora of Puerto Rico, but
I'm not sure if all the volumes are still in print:
Henri Alain Liogier: Descriptive Flora of Puerto Rico and Adjacent Islands.
Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico
ISBN 0-8477-2333-X (for the whole set)
Volume I: 1985 ISBN 0-8477-2333-8
Volume II: 1988 ISBN 0-8477-2333-6
Volume III: 1994 ISBN 0-8477-2333-4
Volume IV: 1995 ISBN 0-8477-2333-2
Volume V: 1997 ISBN 0-8477-2333-0
These five volumes cover the dicots only. Liogier has also published a
complete species-list for Puerto Rico. The original volume came out in
1982 - Henri Alain Liogier and Luis F. Martorell: Flora of Puerto Rico and
Adjacent Islands: A systematic synthesis. ISBN 0-8477-2329-1. He has
published a second edition in 2000 ISBN 0-8477-0369-X. While he has updated
the species list and the names, he doesn't include synonyms (but references
the volume and page numbers in the descriptive Flora). This book also
includes a contact for the publisher:
Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico
PO Box 23322
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00931-3322
Admistracion: Tel (787) 250-0550 Fax (787) 753-9116
Dpto. de Ventas: Tel. (787) 758-8345 Fax (787) 751-8785
E-mail: uprpress@upr1.upr.clu.edu
Ferns of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands - George R. Proctor (1989)
Memoirs of the New York Botanical Garden Volume 53
An Orchid Flora of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands - James D. Ackerman
Memoirs of the New York Botanical Gardens Volume 73.
Unfortunately neither of these deals with monocots other than orchids. The
classic flora is still Britton and Wilson's work from the 1920s -
N.L. Britton and P. Wilson. 1923-1926. Botany of Porto Rico and the Virgin
Islands. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. New York
Academy of Sciences, New York
but it's not exactly the most usable of floras.
Some other vegetation references include:
Pedro Acevedo-Rodriguez (date unknown) Flora of St. John. N.Y. Botanical
Gardens.
The advantage wth this flora is that they do include monocots ( a very good
treatmenton grasses by Paul Peterson of the Smithsonian) and illustrations.
An Annotated List of the Flora of the Bisley Area, Luquillo
Experimental Forest, PR, 1987-1992 available through the
U.S. Forest Service (Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-94, 8/93).
James A. Duke 1965. Keys for the identification of seedlings of some
prominent
woody species in eight forest types in Puerto Rico. Ann. Missouri Bot.
Gard. 52(3): 314-350.
For trees, the most recent is:
Mark Ashton. Common Trees and Shrubs of Puerto Rico. Available through Yale
University School of Forestry.
Trees of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Island, 2 volumes by Little, Woodbury,
and Wadworth. Agricultural handbook #449.
Common Trees of Puerto Rico and the USVI. Frank Wadsworth. USDA pub.,
currently out of print (may be the same as the following, I haven = t been
able to track them down yet).
Some other, incomplete references that I expect to track down:
Bejucos de Puerto Rico - vines of PR, to date only 1 volume, with the
promise of volume 2 somewhere down the road. The text is in Spanish.
Common Ferns in the Luquillo Mountains. I forget the author.
Mary Anne Thiesing
Regional Wetland Ecologist
Wetland Protection Section
USEPA Region II
290 Broadway 24th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
Voice: 212-637-3818 Fax: 212-637-3889
thiesing.mary@epamail.epa.gov
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 16:00:56 -0400
From: EnviroNetwork@NATURALIST.COM
Subject: Environmental Job Openings from EnviroNetwork
Title: Library Assistant
Company: Marsh Library, Clark University
Location: Worcester, Massachusetts
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4150
Title: Fellows
Company: Environmental Leadership Program
Location: Haydenville, Massachusetts
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4149
Title: Communications and Outreach Specialist
Company: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Location: Washington, DC
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4148
Title: Technical Writer/Editor
Company: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Location: Washington, DC
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4147
Title: Environmental Education and Awareness Specialist
Company: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Location: Washington, DC
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4146
Title: Energy Policy Specialist
Company: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Location: Washington, DC
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4145
Title: Energy Economist
Company: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Location: Washington, DC
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4144
Title: Regional/Urban Land Use Planning Specialist
Company: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Location: Washington, DC
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4143
Title: Environmental Scientist
Company: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Location: Washington, DC
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4142
Title: Coastal Resources Management Specialist
Company: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Location: Washington, DC
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4141
Title: Natural Resources Policy/Management Specialist
Company: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Location: Washington, DC
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4140
Title: MEA Specialist
Company: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Location: Washington, DC
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4139
Title: Global Climate Change Specialist
Company: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Location: Washington, DC
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4138
Title: Environmental Impact Assessment Specialist
Company: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Location: Washington, DC
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4137
Title: Social Scientist
Company: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Location: Washington, DC
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4136
Title: Environmental Economist/ Development Economist
Company: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Location: Washington, DC
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4135
Title: Environmental Engineer
Company: CrystalView Technology
Location: Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, Puerto Rico
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4134
Title: Program Curriculum Coordinator
Company: YMCA Storer Camps
Location: Jackson, Michigan
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4133
Title: Lead Program Instructor
Company: YMCA Storer Camps
Location: Jackson, Michigan
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4132
Title: Program Instructor
Company: YMCA Storer Camps
Location: Jackson, Michigan
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4131
Title: Genetic Engineering Campaigner
Company: Greenpeace Canada
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
For more information click below:
http://www.naturalist.com/eco-jobs/index.cfm?temp=job&job=4130
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 17:48:24 -0500
From: Dafeng Hui <dafeng@UNR.EDU>
Subject: POST-DOCTORAL SCIENTISTS, positions open
POST-DOCTORAL SCIENTISTS
We seek two post-doctoral scientists. One post-doctoral scientist will
develop modeling approaches to analysis and interpretation of eddy-flux
measurements of net ecosystem exchange (NEE) at the Niwot forest,
Colorado, and possibly at other eddy-flux sites. The duties of
incumbents include (1) analysis of large date sets of carbon, water, and
energy fluxes from the eddy-flux site to identify mechanisms underlying
observed fluxes; (2) parameterization and validation of exited models
(e.g., MAESTRA and TCS) or development of new models to estimate canopy
photosynthetic carbon fluxes, plant and soil respiration.
The other post-doctoral scientist can have expertise either in
simulation modeling of forest ecosystems or mathematical ecology. The
individual with the modeling expertise will conduct modeling studies in
association with the Duke University Forest Free Air CO2 Enrichment
(FACE) program. She or he will have responsibility for (1) integrating
experimental results into comprehensive models, (2) predicting dynamics
of carbon, nutrients, and water in forest ecosystems, and (3) linking
ecosystem modeling with regional and global studies. The individual
with mathematic and statistical skills in combination with ecology
training will develop innovative methods for deconvolution and/or
inverse analysis of experimental data from FACE experiments in order to
predict ecosystem responses to a gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 in
the real world.
The positions require (1) PhD in ecology, botany, forestry, atmospheric
science, environmental science, hydrology, or a closely related field;
(2) demonstrated record in pursuing original creative research in the
areas of ecological modeling, ecosystem ecology, and
biosphere-atmosphere exchange; (3) demonstrated experience working with
observational data sets from large field programs; (4) working knowledge
of computer programming languages; and (5) strong communication skills.
Those positions have multi year terms with a one-year renewable
appointment subject to satisfactory performance. Interested applicants
for the post-doc positions should submit: (a) a vitae with list of
publications, (b) names and addresses of three references, and (c) up to
three reprints to Dr.Yiqi Luo, Department of Botany and Microbiology,
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA, email: yluo@ou.edu. The
positions are immediately available. Applications will be received
until the positions are filled.
Salary is competitive and commensurate with experience and
qualifications. Benefits include health and dental insurance, sick and
annual leave, paid holidays, participation in a retirement fund, and
life insurance.
More information regarding the project and research group is available
at http://bomi.ou.edu/luo
------------------------------
End of ECOLOG-L Digest - 5 Jul 2001 to 6 Jul 2001
*************************************************
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
Thanks to discussion with TVR, I have decided to put a link to back files of the discussion group. This months back files.
The link to complete archives is available elsewhere.
This text was originally an e-mail. It was converted using a program
RUPANTAR- a simple e-mail-to-html converter.
(c)Kolatkar Milind. kmilind@ces.iisc.ernet.in