Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 6 Jul 2001 to 7 Jul 2001
To: Recipients of ECOLOG-L digests <ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU>
Status: R
There are 14 messages totalling 985 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Wildlife variety is the spice of life, say scientists
2. gw: Researchers determine global warming during the 20th century may b
slightly larger than earlier estimates
3. gw: Rutgers-led researchers discover new photosynthetic bacteria that
appear to be
4. Idea toward solving global warming--and other issues: The "Law of Inve
se
Pomposity"
5. Idea toward solving global warming Re: Fred Singer (5)
6. Idea toward solving global warming (2)
7. Idea toward solving global warming - SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
8. Fred Singer
9. Passenger Pigeons and American Chestnuts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 21:09:53 -0400
From: Karen Claxon <kclaxon@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Wildlife variety is the spice of life, say scientists
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-07/aaft-wvi070201.php
4-Jul-2001
[ Print This Article | Close This Window ]
Contact: Tom Miller
t.miller@ic.ac.uk
44-20-7594-6704
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
Wildlife variety is the spice of life, say scientists
Biodiversity is more than just a pretty face - it has an important role
in the workings of the living world say results published in Nature
today by scientists in the UK and France.
They find that the specialisation of different plant species to
different roles fundamentally affects the way that ecosystems work,
suggesting a new reason to conserve a variety of species.
A new analysis of the results of a wide-ranging ecological experiment
across Europe, named the BIODEPTH project (2), shows that communities of
plants grow better when they consist of teams of species that are
complementary to one another.
Early results from the project showed that harvest yields were higher
when a range of plant species were grown together, but could not explain
why this occurred.
The new analysis reveals that complementary interactions between species
appear to play a stronger role than 'selection effects' (where dominance
by species with particular traits affects ecosystem processes).
In the real world this could mean that the amount of energy turned into
plant life - the 'productivity' of an ecosystem - also declines when
species are missing.
This new appraisal of the BIODEPTH data represents the latest
development in a scientific debate about how the loss of biodiversity
affects the way in which ecosystems work.
It may help recent efforts among ecologists to reach a consensus in that
debate, as it demonstrates that both numbers of different plants and
their types (3) play important roles in ecosystems through their
individual characteristics and the ways they interact with one another.
Dr Andy Hector of the NERC Centre for Population Biology at Imperial
College, London, and co-author of the report, said:
"Our research shows biodiversity is not just a pretty face - it can also
affect the way the environment works.
Previous justifications for conserving biodiversity have taken in
aesthetic and ethical reasoning: that we like some of it and that it is
'wrong' to let it go extinct. Here we suggest, along with the findings
of other ecologists, that there is another, complementary reason to
preserve diversity - it plays a role in determining the way the
environment works.
These results provide the type of general ecological principles that
need to be considered when setting conservation and habitat management
policy."
First author, Professor Michel Loreau of the Ecole Normale Superieure,
Paris, said:
"This paper makes a significant contribution to resolving the debate
about ecosystem functioning by providing a novel method and new data
that show how complementary interactions between species appear to play
the stronger role."
The EU-funded BIODEPTH project, which ran from 1996 to 1999, performed
an identical experiment in eight different countries which assembled
miniature experimental grasslands at field sites around Europe from
Greece to Sweden (4).
The "mini-meadows" varied in plant diversity to mimic the gradual loss
of species seen throughout Europe.
Authors Drs Loreau and Hector took a new approach to the analysis of the
BIODEPTH data, whose key findings were published in Science in November
1999, by adapting a classic method normally used to analyse evolutionary
changes.
A commentary accompanying publication of the earlier BIODEPTH results in
Science praised the project for its high degree of multinational
collaboration within European science.
###
For more information please contact:
Dr Andy Hector
NERC Centre for Population Biology
Imperial College at Silwood Park
Telephone: 44-020-7594-2494
Fax: 44-01344-873173
Email: a.hector01@ic.ac.uk
Professor Michel Loreau
Lab d'Ecologie, UMR 7625
Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris
Tel: 33-1-44-32-37-09
Email: loreau@ens.fr
Dr Glen Dawkins, Manager
NERC Centre for Population Biology
Imperial College at Silwood Park
Tel: 44-020-7594-2223
Email: g.dawkins@ic.ac.uk
BIODEPTH web site: www.cpb.bio.ic.ac.uk/biodepth/contents.html
BIODEPTH Results and Relevance web site:
www.cpb.bio.ic.ac.uk/biodepth/results_and_relevance.html
Results and Relevance is a web resource aimed at non-specialists looking
for information explaining biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and
the undertaking of BIODEPTH - now that the project is completed and the
results and policy implications are becoming evident.
Notes to Editors
1. The research is reported in the article "Partitioning selection and
complementarity in biodiversity experiments" by M. Loreau and A. Hector
published in the peer-reviewed journal, Nature Vol. 411 Issue 6842 on
Thursday 5 July 2001. Embargoed copies of the final edited version of
the article should be requested from Jo Webber, Press Administrator at
Nature. Telephone: 44-20-7843-4571 Email: j.webber@nature.com Web site:
press.nature.com/
2. BIODEPTH (Biodiversity and Ecological Processes in Terrestrial
Herbaceous Ecosystems) was funded by the EC Framework IV Environment and
Climate Programme (contract ENV-CT95-0008).
3. 'Types' of plants refers to the 'functional group' classification
used by ecologists. In this research, three different functional groups
were represented: grasses, nitrogen-fixing legumes, and non
nitrogen-fixing herbs.
4. BIODEPTH field sites are in Bayreuth, Germany; Lisbon, Portugal;
Lupsingen, Switzerland, Lesbos, Greece; Cork, Ireland; Umea, Sweden; and
Sheffield and Ascot in the UK. The project consortium includes a
mathematical modeling group lead by Michel Loreau in Paris, France.
5. The Centre for Population Biology, established in 1989, is funded by
the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), and is hosted by
Imperial College where it is part of the Department of Biological
Sciences on its Silwood Park campus. It publishes about 90 papers per
year and its core mission is to conduct basic research in population
biology and related disciplines to understand and predict the
functioning of ecosystems. The CPB receives UKP1.1 million core funding
per year. Web site at: www.cpb.bio.ic.ac.uk/
6. The UK's Natural Environment Research Council funds and carries out
impartial scientific research in the sciences of the environment. NERC
trains the next generation of independent environmental scientists. For
more information visit their website at www.nerc.ac.uk
7. The Ecole Normale Superieure is an institution of higher education
created during the French Revolution. The ENS educates students in both
humanities and sciences and prepares students for the award of
university diplomas. The ENS houses a number of significant laboratories
which accommodate up to 1000 researchers, and which are considered the
best in their fields in France. These laboratories are intended for
fundamental research, but are biased towards the applied sciences. Web
site : www.ens.fr
8. Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine is the largest
applied science, technology and medicine university institution in the
UK. It is consistently rated in the top three UK university institutions
for research quality, with one of the largest annual turnovers (UKP339
million in 1999-2000) and research incomes (UKP176 million in
1999-2000). Web site: www.ic.ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 21:17:46 -0400
From: Karen Claxon <kclaxon@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: gw: Researchers determine global warming during the 20th century m
y
be slightly larger than earlier estimates
In an article titled "Effect of Missing Data on Estimates of
Near-Surface Temperature Change Since 1900," in the July 1 edition of
the Journal of Climate, LLNL researchers Philip B. Duffy, Charles
Doutriaux, Imola Fodor and Benjamin Santer studied effects of the
incompleteness of surface thermometer records on the estimated 20th
century warming by examining 16 climate model simulations of the surface
temperature changes from 1899 to 1998.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-07/aaft-rd070301.php
3-Jul-2001
Contact: Anne Stark
stark8@llnl.gov
925-422-9799
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Researchers determine global warming during the 20th century may be
slightly larger than earlier estimates
LIVERMORE, Calif.-Researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory who examined effects of gaps in temperature measurements
during the 20th century have concluded that global warming during that
time period may have been slightly larger than the previously estimated
value of roughly 0.6 degrees Celsius. These findings contrast with
claims by greenhouse skeptics who contend that the warming seen in the
observational record is an error introduced by incomplete and changing
geographical coverage of temperature measurements.
The measured increase in the Earth's surface temperature during the 20th
century is based upon thermometer measurements, which become
increasingly incomplete further back in time. For example, at the
beginning of the 20th century, thermometer measurements covered only 20
percent of the Earth's surface, compared to more than 87 percent in
1987. Some greenhouse-warming dissenters have claimed that the gradual
increase in coverage during the 20th century introduced an artificial
warming trend into the temperature record, which accounts for most or
all of the 20th century's measured warming.
In an article titled "Effect of Missing Data on Estimates of
Near-Surface Temperature Change Since 1900," in the July 1 edition of
the Journal of Climate, LLNL researchers Philip B. Duffy, Charles
Doutriaux, Imola Fodor and Benjamin Santer studied effects of the
incompleteness of surface thermometer records on the estimated 20th
century warming by examining 16 climate model simulations of the surface
temperature changes from 1899 to 1998.
The scientists compared temperature trends obtained from globally
complete model output with temperature trends derived by sampling the
model output at only those locations where temperature observations are
actually available. The comparison enabled the researchers to assess the
effect of missing observational data on the apparent temperature trend
during the 20th century.
"We found no evidence to support the hypothesis that incomplete
observational data has caused us to overestimate the true warming
trend," said Duffy, lead author of the paper. "On the contrary, our
results suggest that the actual warming during the 20th century may have
been slightly larger than the warming estimated from the incomplete
observational data of -about 0.7 degrees Celsius instead of 0.6 degrees
Celsius."
Livermore scientists examined climate models that incorporated estimated
historical changes in both greenhouse gases and anthropogenic sulfate
aerosols. Scientists concluded that in 10 of the 16 climate change
simulations, missing data led to significant underestimates of the true
global warming trend. In the remaining six simulations, missing data had
no significant impact on the 20th century's warming trend.
If the climate simulations are credible estimates of human effects on
historical climate and of natural climate variations, it is extremely
unlikely that missing observational data caused the 20th century's
warming to be overestimated.
"I hope that we've laid to rest the theory that warming that occurred
during the 20th century is an artifact of missing data," Duffy said.
"Knowing the accurate amount of the 20th century's warming is important
because if it were much less than we've thought all along, we would have
to fundamentally rethink our ideas about global warming."
###
Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a national
security laboratory, with a mission to ensure national security and
apply science and technology to the important issues of our time.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is managed by the University of
California for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security
Administration.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 21:27:27 -0400
From: Karen Claxon <kclaxon@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: gw: Rutgers-led researchers discover new photosynthetic bacteria t
at
appear to be
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-07/rtsu-rrd070301.php
3-Jul-2001
[ Print This Article | Close This Window ]
Contact: Kevin P. Hyland
khyland@ur.rutgers.edu
732-932-7084
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
Rutgers-led researchers discover new photosynthetic bacteria that appear
to be significant component of ocean's carbon cycle
NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY - In a discovery that adds a new component to
the ocean's carbon cycle -- a major contributor to the earth's carbon
cycle on which all life depends -- a team of scientists led by Rutgers
Professor Zbigniew S. Kolber has discovered that strange, plant-like
bacteria capable of a certain type of photosynthesis are far more
numerous in the ocean than previously thought.
Kolber is a researcher at the university's Institute of Marine and
Coastal Sciences (IMCS) at the Cook College campus in New Brunswick In a
study published in this week's Science magazine, Kolber and his
colleagues from Rutgers and five other universities found that so-called
aerobic photoheterotrophic bacteria, or bacteria that sometimes act like
plants and use photosynthesis to satisfy their metabolic energy needs,
may constitute 11 percent or more of all microbes near the surface.
Science magazine is published by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C.
Previously, it was generally believed that the ocean's carbon cycle was
founded almost exclusively on phytoplankton, the tiny plants that serve
as the basic food or oceanic "prairie grass" on which ocean life relies.
Kolber said that the bacteria, which unlike phytoplankton use a
photosynthetic process that doesn't produce oxygen, appeared in
virtually every sample of ocean water taken by the researchers during
their three-week scientific expedition off the coasts of Oregon and
Washington last July.
"These bacteria appear to be a significant component and have to be
considered when scientists look at what's happening with the carbon
cycle and how much is 'fixed' or combined with other elements in organic
matter and how much is 'respired' or returned to the environment by
organisms in the open ocean," says Kolber.
The Rutgers researcher cautioned that at present the impact of the
photosynthetic bacteria on the carbon cycle is unknown: "We don't know
how they affect the amount of carbon actually sequestered (captured in
the form of organic matter) by the ocean, and whether the discovery of
their widespread presence will increase that amount or not."
The carbon cycle begins when plants use sunlight and carbon dioxide in
the air or dissolved in water to make carbohydrates, fats and proteins.
Most of these are consumed by humans and animals or respired by
microbes, and ultimately converted back to carbon dioxide and other
elements which plants use to start the process all over again.
Scientists first discovered the photosynthetic bacteria more than 20
years ago, mostly in organically-rich environments such as seaweed
masses, beach sands, and cyanobacterial mats, small, purplish-red mats
of bacteria that are often found in nutrient-rich environments.
More recently Kolber found the photosynthetic bacteria in ocean surface
waters, a discovery which was detailed last year in the science journal,
Nature, published in London, England. "However," notes the scientist,
"this is the first time that they've been found in such abundance in the
upper ocean and that their distribution has been measured vertically at
various depths."
During their expedition last year, Kolber and his team originally sought
to verify the presence of the strange bacteria at hydrothermal vents on
the ocean floor in the northeast Pacific. "It was postulated that the
light generated by the superheated water in thermal vents and chemical
processes taking place around them would provide a good environment for
the photosynthetic bacteria," says the researcher. "But to our dismay,
we found none."
However, sampling water at different levels from the surface on down to
the bottom, they were astonished to find an abundance of the creatures
just a few dozen meters below the surface; "The maximum number were
observed at 30 to 40 meters deep," says the scientist. "Below 150
meters, their concentration decreased below our detection limits, but we
found them in virtually every surface water sample. They appeared to be
everywhere."
Kolber said that the photosynthetic bacteria the researchers found may
even be a new species, different from similar bacteria previously
discovered since they are so widespread and readily adaptable to
changing environments.
The bacteria are able to switch from a metabolism based on organic
carbon to one based on photosynthesis, depending on the concentration of
organic matter in ocean water, says the researcher.
When there's not enough organic matter, they make a bacterial form of
photosynthetic pigment and use photosynthesis to provide them with
energy while "fixing" or converting carbon dioxide into organic matter,
although with lower efficiency than phytoplankton.
When the environment changes, and more organic matter is available,
these bacteria cease to make photosynthetic pigment and start to consume
organic matter the way normal bacteria do.
The scientist estimates that the unusual bacteria are able to supply
between 20 percent to 40 percent of their energy requirements from
sunlight. "They are not very efficient photosynthesizers, and
photosynthesis alone probably wouldn't keep them alive," says Kolber.
"But combined with their ability to obtain nutrients the way other
bacteria do, they are able to thrive.
###
Researchers included Paul C. Falkowski, Constantino Vetriani and Michal
Koblizek of Rutgers IMCS; F. Gerald Plumley of the Institute of Marine
Science at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska; and Andrew S.
Lang and J. Thomas Beatty of the Department of Microbiology and
Immunology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Other research team members were Robert E. Blankenship of the Department
of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz.;
Cindy L. VanDover of the Biology Department, College of William and
Mary, Williamsburg, Va.; and Christopher Rathgeber of the Department of
Microbiology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:12:48 -0700
From: Wayne Tyson <landrest@UTM.NET>
Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming--and other issues: The "Law
of
Inverse Pomposity"
Honorable Forum:
There is no factual foundation for such a law, no study validates the
principle, and some will cry that it is not a valid Law at all, that it is
ludicrous on its face. Maybe or maybe not, but sensible folks will just
decide whether or not it has merit, whether or not it has the ring of
truth, whether or not the preponderance of the evidence indicates that it
is more true than untrue, data or no data. I admit it needs work. I
invite others to perfect it. Even test it.
Pomposity is inversely related to validity--and correlated positively with
BS.
Are those who insist that 100 percent ("scientific") certainty is possible
fools or sages? Are those who refuse to debate a subject on its merits but
resort to name-calling and breast-beating counted among the world's great
scientists and intellects? If not, what are their "credentials" worth,
save fuel for the great BS machine? (Talk about your ozone-depleting
gasses, eh? Thank God for methanotropic bacteria!) Are credential the
issue or is performance, merit, the issue? Do credential and cronyism
cheapen the value of those who have similar credentials and have retained
intellectual integrity? Are great scientists among the lickey-lackeys who
"kiss" their way up the various bureaucracies and power structures?
I'm not trying to be "cute." These are serious questions, questions that
are customarily avoided, disparaged because of their
directness--politically incorrect questions--because those who feel the
sting of them would prefer to ignore them. Partly for that reason, they
carry a certain tone of humor, but necessarily so, both because we are
conditioned to laugh when a child is honest about, say, the Emperor's new
clothes, and because a bit of lightness is an antidote for pomposity. I
will let the Forum be the judge. If there is sufficient courage out there
to challenge them on their merit, truthfulness, and logic or lack of same,
the principle that lurks between the lines will be tested. If not, it
still will be tested.
WT
"Show me a man [sic] who knows what's funny, and I will show you a man
[sic] who knows what's not funny. --Mark Twain
"The singular of data is anecdote." --Author unknown
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:46:10 -0700
From: Wayne Tyson <landrest@UTM.NET>
Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming Re: Fred Singer
Honorable Forum:
"If you can't explain it to your neighbor, you don't understand
it." --Author unknown
This aphorism may be worth considering by both sides. I reserve final
judgment, but the preponderance of the evidence appears to be on the side
that anthropogenic sources add ozone-depleting substances (ODS) to the
atmosphere. The data seem to suggest that actual warming already has
occurred. Computer models seem to suggest that the effects will continue
long after a reduction in ODS is achieved. History suggests that marginal
increased increments in profit justify disproportionate increases in
pollutants, largely because profit maximizers don't give a damn about
deferred costs, especially if someone else foots the bill. The
overproduction of ODS is a function of luxury consumption (in a strictly
ecological sense, but to a large extent in a societal one as
well). Reduction in ODS would appear to result in increased efficiency and
increased profitability--except, perhaps for societal "dinosaurs" (ironic,
eh?) who not only can't ("We don't need no stinkin' comets!) adapt, they
wanna make their own cometless climatological cover, thank you very
much. Yeah, climates have changed historically, but for REASONS, not by
magic.
It's not likely that our fellow "dinosaurs" are going to succeed in
producing one to equal the 65 mbp event, but hey, your great-grandkids
won't know the difference. Frankly, Nature don't give a damn. She or he
will off the human race pretty much as she or he has countless other
species in the history of the earth. So, maybe the big chickens are right
and the others chickens are, well, little. It appears that climate change
(colder, warmer, what's the difference?) is inevitable, but ain't it kinda
funny that the brightest among us seem to want us to just roll over for the
inevitable? Seems to me, even if "nature" was "at fault," the smart thing
to do would be to control the controllable and roll over for the
uncontrollable, not the other way 'round.
Funny how those who scream the loudest about how "you can't stop progress"
obstruct it the most. ODS are related to the "buggy whip" industries of
the 21st century.
I really would like to have this global warming stuff explained to me sans
the puffery and convolutions--on both sides. Links and references,
preferably the former, help a lot. If there is no debate that ODS deplete
ozone, and no debate that ozone depletion leads to climate change, what's
the debate--that because it's Nature's fault too that continuing to add ODS
from anthropogenic sources makes good sense? Us enquiring minds really
wanna know.
Yore neighbor,
WT
PS: Not sticking with the original thread's subject line screws up my
filing and retrieval system. Any chance y'all could stick with it and add
a sub-title as exemplified above? I've added some [[responses]] to the
original text:
At 04:06 PM 7/6/2001 -0400, Brad Robbins wrote:
>Karen Claxon, J rg Kaduk, Darren Loomis
>[[did not get a message from this person]],
>& all others of the same opinion,
>
>If I use your criteria
>[[how many were there?]]
>that Singer is a zealous anti-greenhouse activist whose funding source i
>suspect
>[[Please explain why it is not "suspect."]]
>and who is not appropriately degreed
>[[I did not detect this bias in the referenced messages. But
>certification, and affiliation, while sometimes useful (and sometimes
>misleading), are not as important as qualifications. As Margaret Mead
>said when a projector malfunctioned during her talk to the AAAS in 1972
>and the usual cadre of geeks descended upon it, "Fifteen-thousand
>scientists and not one electrician!" I don't care whether Fred has a
>Ph.D. in physics or astrology or none at all; I care whether or not he,
r
>anyone else, can make honest plain sense out of solid data. If the data
>are no good, anyone who knows should be able to explain why.]]
>to exclude
>[[I did not detect any suggestion that anyone be excluded; please clarif
.]]
>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
>[[No attacks?]]
>(Striesand, Redford)
>[[no E-mails from these "kooks" received either]],
>self-defined environmentalists (Ms. Claxon and Mr. Loomis (you didn't li
t
>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 thos
>scientists who may be funded by a politically motivated organization
>(IPCC)
>[[Please educate me on this.]].
>I find it interesting that the first thing each of you did was attack hi
>on a personal level and only one of you (Dr. Kaduk) took the time (or wa
>able) to address Singer's comments.
>
>Brad Robbins, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 00:02:07 -0700
From: Wayne Tyson <landrest@UTM.NET>
Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming
At 10:19 AM 7/6/2001 -0400, Brad Robbins wrote:
[clip]
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
>selected group of scientists. We need an open evidentiary hearing before
a
>jury composed also of non-scientists.
[clip]
Honorable Forum:
Does this mean that this "jury" would be deadlocked forever? (Is this,
like the concept of "a scientific certainty--whatever that is, the
objective?) Just how would objectivity and sound judgment be ensured? At
the level suggested, is this "jury" to be scientific and objective, or
based upon the opinion of the majority? Is not the final decision going to
be a political one anyway? In the legal system, verdicts must be
unanimous. Who will decide the composition of the jury? Will this be a
kangaroo court?
It's really unclear to me how this suggestion would work. Why did Dr.
Robbins not supply such details in the first place?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 09:34:32 -0400
From: "Karl E. Miller" <karlos@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming - SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PRO
F
At the risk of being forward, I must say that there are some pretty
foolish statements going back and forth in this list serve.
Then finally, the level-headed wisdom of David Bryant points the way.
His seatbelt analogy is right on target and can be extended to consideration
of type I and II errors, power, and the cost of being wrong. The
potentially horrific outcomes of anthropogenic global warming, combined with
the large body of evidence that suggests that it might be/probably is
occurring, should shift the burden of proof to those who want to burn fossil
fuels. Reasonable scientists would look at this "experiment" and
acknowledge that a type II error is more dangerous than a type I error. In
this case, the possibility of not finding an effect/change/perturbation when
an effect/change/perturbation DOES exist is more troubling than finding an
effect when one doesn't exist. I do not believe that progress should come
to a standstill while we wait for biologists to make ever more convincing
arguments that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. I think that
industry should be forced to make convincing arguments that there is no
risk.
In my opinion, we shouldn't be attacking each other's mentors, heroes,
colleagues, or political parties. There is sufficient evidence to conclude
that precautionary measures (i.e., the "seatbelts" that Bryant so aptly
discussed) should be taken now, rather than fiddling while Rome burns. This
is especially smart because precautionary reductions in emissions have MANY
other beneficial outcomes (e.g., reduced pollution) for people and other
living things.
Respectfully,
Karl E. Miller, Ph.D.
Center for Avian Conservation
Gainesville, FL 32605
-----Original Message-----
From: David M. Bryant <dmbryant@CISUNIX.UNH.EDU>
To: ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU <ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU>
Date: Friday, July 06, 2001 8:06 PM
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 tha
>hospital bills and funerals.
>
>2) Today those of us who wear seatbelts do so, not because it can be pro
en
>that we WILL be involved in an accident, but because the risk of injury
r
>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: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 13:24:43 -0400
From: Judith Weis <jweis@ANDROMEDA.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming Re: Fred Singer
You've got some confusion here - ozone depletion leads to increased UV
light penetration and increased risk of skin cancer etc. It doesn't lead
to global warming. The ban on CFCs as a result of the Montreal
protocol will in time reverse this problem - one that the
international community was able to deal with well. In contrast, global
warming is due to greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and
methane. These do not deplete ozone, but keep more of the sun's heat in
the atmosphere causing all the climate change phenomena. It is this that
the internatinal community has not yet come to terms with successfully.
1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution. \ \
\ \ \
- - _ - \ \ \ \ ----\
- _ - \
- - ( O \
_ - -_ __ /
- - /
-/// _ ______ ___/
/// /
Judith S. Weis Department of Biological Sciences
Rutgers Univ. Newark NJ 07102 jweis@andromeda.rutgers.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 13:58:04 -0500
From: David McNeely <mcneely@UTB1.UTB.EDU>
Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming Re: Fred Singer
I cut out a lot of what WT wrote. But have I always been confused on this
matter? I thought the main anthropogenic contributors to global warming wer
greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane, and that the main
anthropogenic
contributors to ozone depletion were various chlorine containing organics.
s
WT
confusing two different phenomena, or am I failing to link two phenomena tha
I
should be. WT said that he wants to have all this explained to him by someo
e
who understands it. Well, so do I.
Wayne Tyson wrote:
> .... anthropogenic sources add ozone-depleting substances (ODS) to the
> atmosphere. The data seem to suggest that actual warming already has
> occurred. Computer models seem to suggest that the effects will contin
e
> long after a reduction in ODS is achieved.
> If there is no debate that ODS deplete
> ozone, and no debate that ozone depletion leads to climate change, what
s
> the debate--that because it's Nature's fault too that continuing to add
ODS
> from anthropogenic sources makes good sense? Us enquiring minds really
> wanna know.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 12:11:54 -0700
From: Wayne Tyson <landrest@UTM.NET>
Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming Re: Fred Singer
Dang, I reckon I'll never get this straight.
The Neighbor,
WT
Thanks for keeping the fog factor low.
At 01:24 PM 7/7/2001 -0400, Judith Weis wrote:
>You've got some confusion here - ozone depletion leads to increased UV
>light penetration and increased risk of skin cancer etc. It doesn't lead
>to global warming. The ban on CFCs as a result of the Montreal
>protocol will in time reverse this problem - one that the
>international community was able to deal with well. In contrast, global
>warming is due to greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and
>methane. These do not deplete ozone, but keep more of the sun's heat in
>the atmosphere causing all the climate change phenomena. It is this that
>the internatinal community has not yet come to terms with successfully.
>
>1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
>1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
> and pollution. \ \
> \ \ \
> - - _ - \ \ \ \ ----\
> - _
> - \
> - - ( O \
> _ - -_ __ /
> - - /
> -/// _ ______ ___/
> /// /
>Judith S. Weis Department of Biological Sciences
> Rutgers Univ. Newark NJ 07102 jweis@andromeda.rutgers.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 12:33:55 -0700
From: Wayne Tyson <landrest@UTM.NET>
Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming Re: Fred Singer
Lessee, ozone depletion = cancer, etc., not climate change; greenhouse
gasses = climate change not cancer etc.? Or is that what Judith said?
Is ozone-containing smog a good thing? (Just kidding--don't apply for any
grants, please.)
It seems like a summary of the facts, linked to the two sides'
interpretation would help out all us neighbors. Eschewing obfuscatory
exposition like Judith did, as well as practicing organization,
sufficiency, brevity, will help a lot. I tend to figger that the more
complicated the "explanation," the more likely it is that I'm getting a
snow-job.
My problem is that the scientists expect me to assemble their fragmentary
answers and come to the same conclusion they have in a fraction of the
time, even though we're kinda busy keeping the wolf from the door and not
getting any grant money to figger all this out. Is there another "inverse"
law lurking here, is this a generic and epidemic reversal of common sense?
The Neighbor,
WT
"The most important thing is to know what you don't know." --Margaret Mead
At 01:58 PM 7/7/2001 -0500, David McNeely wrote:
>I cut out a lot of what WT wrote. But have I always been confused on th
s
>matter? I thought the main anthropogenic contributors to global warming
were
>greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane, and that the main
>anthropogenic
>contributors to ozone depletion were various chlorine containing
>organics. Is WT
>confusing two different phenomena, or am I failing to link two phenomena
>that I
>should be. WT said that he wants to have all this explained to him by s
meone
>who understands it. Well, so do I.
>
>Wayne Tyson wrote:
>
> > .... anthropogenic sources add ozone-depleting substances (ODS) t
the
> > atmosphere. The data seem to suggest that actual warming already
as
> > occurred. Computer models seem to suggest that the effects will c
ntinue
> > long after a reduction in ODS is achieved.
>
> > If there is no debate that ODS deplete
> > ozone, and no debate that ozone depletion leads to climate change,
what's
> > the debate--that because it's Nature's fault too that continuing t
add ODS
> > from anthropogenic sources makes good sense? Us enquiring minds r
ally
> > wanna know.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 16:25:00 -0400
From: Karen Claxon <kclaxon@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Re: Fred Singer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Robbins" <robbins@MOTE.ORG>
<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)>
By all means, do remove Redford, etc.. Giving Streisand or Redford the
same weight as one should give the IPCC or the National Academy of
Sciences would be even more inappropriate than giving that weight to S.
Fred Singer. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but not all opinions
are equal. One should remember that when resorting to authoritative
sources - as you did with S. Fred Singer - you should ensure that your
source is appropriate and doesn't have a conflict of interest.
<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 >
Again, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but it would be
inappropriate to quote you as an authoritative source on the subject of
climate change. However, the IPCC - as is the National Academy of
Scientists) is comprised of specialists in the various aspects of
climate science, including Richard Lindzen,. John Christy, and others
with contrary views. Even S. Fred Singer is included.. Conclusions
published by the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences are
thoroughly peer-reviewed, and criticisms are incorporated into those
conclusions.
<politically motivated organization (IPCC)>
The conflict of interest involved in taking hundreds of thousands of
dollars from Western Fuels is fairly obvious. But what political
motivation has usurped the minds and integrity of the 1,500 scientists
in the IPCC?? Or the scientists in the National Academy of Sciences?
Does association with the fossil fuel industry confer immunity against
this overwhelming political force?
Regards,
Karen Claxon
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 12:00:26 -0700
From: John Gerlach <gerlach1@PACBELL.NET>
Subject: Passenger Pigeons and American Chestnuts
OK, for all those who were interested in the paper describing the rapid
population growth of the American passenger pigeon due to European
colonization and the implications for the ranges and population sizes of
other species the citation is:
Neumann, Thomas W. (1985). Human-wildlife competition and the passenger
pigeon: population growth from system destabilization. Human Ecology
13:389-410.
John Gerlach
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Ecology Graduate Group
Dept. of Agronomy and Range Science
University of California
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 752-1701
FAX (530) 752-4361
jdgerlach@ucdavis.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:38:19 -0500
From: Jonathan Haskett <jhaskett@MINDSPRING.COM>
Subject: Re: Idea toward solving global warming
Has he published anything on this subject that has been subject to peer revi
w?
Jonathan Haskett
University of Maryland
>----- 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
------------------------------
End of ECOLOG-L Digest - 6 Jul 2001 to 7 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