This article is about the analogy between dealing with Y2K and dealing with the global warming problem. This issue is far too serious to allow the Polyannas to dissuade you from spreading the message, and taking action on an individual basis not only to prepare, but more importantly, to prevent the disaster.

Welcome To The New Millennium

By Bill Moore

1 January 2000 -- Along with 6 billion other people, I breathed a huge sigh of relief yesterday morning when CNBC reported that computers, power grids and telephones in New Zealand were virtually unaffected by the rollover into the third millennium (leaving aside the argument as to when the new century actually begins). As the morning progressed, Australia, Japan, Korea, China and country after country in Asia and then Europe celebrated the transition from 1999 to 2000 with only minor computer glitches here and there. It began to appear that predictions of global doom and gloom were, as these things tend to be, somewhat overrated. The world didn't end at midnight and apart from some idiot in Oregon blowing up a power transmission line, there were no wanton acts of terrorism and airplanes didn't fall out of the sky.

Were all the prognostications of apocalypse just so much media hype and millennial paranoia then?

Probably... to a degree. We are a race that hopes for the best and prepares for the worst. For example, most of the better restaurants here in Omaha were booked solid months in advance with New Year's Eve celebrations, while the local WalMart and Target stores were nearly sold out of flash lights and batteries.

This relatively smooth technologically transition from yesterday to today -- after all the sun would continue to shine and the earth spin gracefully on its axis regardless of what day, month or year billions of tiny computer clocks thought -- got me to thinking about electric vehicles and transportation in this new millennium.

We averted technological disaster not because there was no problem, but because businesses and governments took proactive steps to remediate or at least manually monitor potential trouble spots, something to the tune of US$300 billion in the United States alone.

Warming Overrated?

What about predictions of global warming? Are they overrated, as well? First, let's agree that like Y2K, a problem exists. The planet is warming up. At contention is what part, if any, mankind's -- that's you and me -- profligate release of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon dioxide in the form of coal and petroleum in the last 150 years is playing in that warm up.

The most widely accepted view among scientists is that man-made releases are contributing to the warm-up, possibly accelerating what would otherwise be a longer period cycle of natural global climate fluctuation. Like the Y2K bug, no one knows for sure what the consequences of this acceleration might be. More frequent and powerful storms like the pair which recently smashed into France and Germany or the appearance of tropical diseases in northern latitudes are just some of the possible consequences.

1999 may end up being remembered not only as the year mankind collectively averted a computer-glitch triggered social meltdown. It may also be recalled as the year corporate America finally began to accept responsibility for its role in adding excessive greenhouse gases to the gossmer-thin atmosphere that envelops our planet. Ford Motor Company joined BPAmoco and Royal Dutch Shell in quietly withdrawing from the Global Climate Coalition, a fossil fuel industry lobbying group which questions the whole climate warming phenomenon. While Ford's withdrawal was pretty much a non-event to the US media, it nonetheless, may someday be viewed in the same light as the Brown & Williamson defection from the cigarette industry's united front on the issue of smoking and lung cancer.

It should be remembered that it took nearly 5 years from the time the Y2K problem was publicly identified in industry trade publications for the general media and many businesses to accept the proposition that the two-digit dating system did, indeed, pose a serious risk to our technologically-driven culture.

By contrast, global warming has no self-imposed deadline. There is no easily identifiable "drop-dead" date when we have either fixed the problem or we survive the consequences of our inaction. Some scientists have recently suggested we may have already crossed the climate change threshold and that it might be too late to alter course, regardless of how draconian future counter-measures might be.

I prefer to be more optimistic and believe there is yet time to veer from a climatic collision. We have in place the technology or the embryos of technology to make dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, especially in the production of energy and moving of goods and people. Central to this revolution is the fuel cell and electric drive, the first generation of which my family and I have been privileged to enjoy the past few months.

Recognizing Historic EV World Events

Now that we've successfully crossed that artificial event horizon of January 1, 2000, I feel it is appropriate to extend our thanks to the visionaries within the EV World who have persevered over the last 30 years to bring us better, cleaner, more efficient transportation and energy generation technologies.

First there's General Motors for its truly pioneering efforts on the EV1 electric car. Despite financial, technological and - sadly - consumer-acceptance set-backs, GM engineers demonstrated the possible.

Next, kudos should be extended to DaimlerChrysler (then DaimlerBenz) for its work on taking the fuel cell out of the space program and shoe-horning it into ever-smaller, more efficient packages that will someday virtually eliminate all automotive-generated pollution.

Toyota earns a place in the EV World hall of fame for introducing an affordable gasoline electric car and showing that consumers will invest in hybrid motor technology.

Ford should be recognized for its willingness to break ranks on the global warming issue. (I fully expect the other major manufacturers to eventually follow suit.)

Finally, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) must be recognized for its ZEV mandate which served as the catalyst for the development of the modern electric-drive vehicle.

Y2K's Lesson

If there is a lesson to be learned from Y2K, it's not that the prophets of doom where wrong. It's that we can alter the course of events. We can pro-actively, as governments, companies and individuals make a difference. But first, it takes recognition of the problem and then a commitment to find solutions that are both efficacious and cost-effective.

The car and energy companies' biggest jobs may, in fact, not be finding solutions - they are already hard at work doing that - but on convincing a skeptical and complacent public that there is a problem, in the first place. Let us hope that in this new millennium, car and energy company advertising will take a more responsible approach to the task of alerting consumers to the consequences of emitting millions of pounds of CO2, CO, NOx and SOx from their stylish, but brutish sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks.

It may tax the creative powers of copy writers, art directors and account executives at the car company advertising agencies, but I have every confidence they are up to the task. Let's all work to make global warming as much a non-event as Y2K proved to be, not by ignoring the issue and hoping it will simply go away but by facing it forthrightly and honestly.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 22, 2000

Answers

HAWK:

Your diagnosis appears to be right on. Unfortunately the therapy won't take. Not because it's wrong. But because most humans are not very not very high on the humanity scale. I got into sustainable living/energy exploits 20 years ago. Waren't nobody interested. Tried it again with Y2K in the last 3 years. Most 'doomers' manifested a mere pseudo-interest in the strategies you and I are concerned with --- the phenomenon appeared to me to be mostly acute panic resulting in heavy stocking of fossil-fuel technology along with 3 to 6 months of mostly canned goods & rice/beans food.

What will it take for the appropriate response? A drop-dead date. Will it occur soon? (Has it occurred already?)

Will John Q. recognize the date (assuming the technologists can)? You must be a young man if your answer is in the affirmative. I've seen nearly 73 years of 'missed dates' already, and don't see any change in that pattern on the horizon. Hoping I'm wrong and just an old fuddy duddy.

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), January 22, 2000.

Excellent article. Thank you for posting it. The "Get It" frame of mind is also important in dealing with such complex problems as handling the health, environmental, social and economic consequences of enormous amounts of toxic chemicals (in consumer and industrial products) that are increasingly found our soil, water, air, food and fatty tissues. As an activist for people with environmental illness, I know that some people just naturally "GI" and many think I'm a crazy alarmist. Sound familiar? Like Y2K, there's an awful lot of info on toxic chemicals on the internet. It's another 21st century challenge.

-- Amy (canaryclub@aol.com), January 22, 2000.

Hawk

I quite agree. One of the things that got folks into Y2K was the fear of the unknown. Unlike Y2K though the weather is something we are all intimate with, (well some folks). As a an individual that has worked outdoors all my life, weather commands respect and we don't give mother nature her due for giving us a reality check.

Unfortunately the effects of mankinds industrial age are making their presence known.
 
The subject was also brough up in a thread below.

 Native Americans and Climate

In which this article was posted

World out of Balance

 This is an amazing piece of work and I would highly recommend reading it. What does it mean? Well if the weather patterns are any indication it could mean more of the same severe storms in NC, Europe's storm, NE Ice Storm, Droughts and Floods. Weather disasters that have never been seen before.

Shit happens and I think humans brought this one onto ourselves.
 
 

-- Brian (imager@home.com), January 22, 2000.

Thank you for your intelligent responses. I'm afraid you're right though that most people need proof before they see that there is a problem. I'm just wondering how many people will have to die in disastrous storms before people change their ways. My guess is that the corrective cycle could last for decades before balance is achieved, and that what remains of mankind will end up living underground for quite some time.

There seem to be an awful lot of people concerned about oil right now, so I figure this might be an opportune time to ask everyone to start supporting the alternatives. I do not have any children of my own, but I still feel responsible for preserving this beautiful planet so that ALL of God's children and creatures will be able to enjoy His gifts as we did. I think we are still going to have to witness the consequences of our actions, even if we are no longer here in the physical sense. Maybe that is what Hell is really all about?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 22, 2000.

The global warming nonsense is the biggest pile of BS to hit us in a long time.......

There is absolutely no credible evidence that what we are experiencing is out of the realm of normal fluctuations.

Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that it is human activity that is causing any shift in temperature.

The fact is, one large volcanic erruption far surpasses in one eruption putting extra of these 'evil' gases in the air than human beings could do in 20 years.

This global warming nonsense is the same as saying that we should prohibit butterflies from flapping their wings lest they indadvertedly throw the earth out of orbit from their activity.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), January 22, 2000.

You're spouting Reagan BULLSHIT Craig - do 5 minutes of research.
10 years ago the arguement was 'is global warming real?' now its 'is global warming manmade ?'... morons like you will most likely NEVER spoon enough brains together to see whats real. Move to the coast - seeya.

-- Same Old BS (somethings@never.change), January 22, 2000.

This is an interesting article regarding global warming. Seems like this is not really new. Cycles have been happening for thousands of years.

It may just be time for warming as the cycles go; mans actions may not have all that much to do with it.

http://www.azgs.state.az.us/vol29no4.htm

obo

obo

-- Obo (susanwater@excite.com), January 22, 2000.

Craig

Well what would you expect from someone in the oil fields. You are right about the volcanoes but that would not explain the ice loss in the arctic or the antarctic. Both of those areas are expeiancing the effects of global warming at an alarming rate. As they can drill and test the ice packs for global changes in the past, this can be confirmed.

You are out of line here I think, the evidence for increased weather disruptions has been overwhelming and Alberta is the last place to be speaking from about hydrocarbons not being a risk. If I remember right the oil corps have now been found polluting and harming the environment.

Another thing Craig are you one of those folks that have sat inside in some little cubical puching the keyboard most of your life? Have you ever done 24/7 in the bush?

Does it ever make you wonder why the weather is so warm in the praries during the winters?

Would you have even noticed?

If you have a good arguement I would LOVE to hear about it but there is little likely hood that you can explain the incredible speed in which the weather systems are changing.

One thing is for sure, if the Arctic weather patterns are changing, they are effecting area's that will be hard pressed to change, it will be an ecological disaster.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), January 22, 2000.

Hawk,

Let me start by suggesting that the analogy between Y2K and climate variations fails. Y2K, whatever its effects, was unprecented. Climate variations have been occurring for millions of years, and large amounts of climatological data have been, and continue to be, accumulated. Some people have chosen to place credence in predictions based on climatological "models" that cannot even "predict" the past. Other people prefer less fanciful interpretations of the data.

It seems that disagreement about interpretations of the data is not a matter of "GIs" vs "Polyannas", but rather is a matter of differences in willingness set aside the faulty models, and to follow the data, vast amounts of which are available, whether or not those data lead to expected conclusions.

Many web sites may be helpful in such a task. Let me post just one link to just one summary of some data that you may not read in your local newpaper.

Link

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), January 22, 2000.

Ya know what? Not only is Craig right, but he sorta brings up another point on this issue: volcanoes spew out more than just CO2, they spew So2, particulates, and other stuff that actually *cools down* the atmosphere! Remember Mt. Pinatubo? The last significant break in warmer Northern Hemisphere temperatures happened when Pinatubo blew it's top (1991-1992, I think), and we had two cold years.

Right now, there are a dozen or more active volcanoes in Central and South America, some of which are spewing right now, that are capable of giving us a dinosaur-killer winter any time now. Reference link: http://www.ssd.noa a.gov/VAAC/washington.html.

Bottom line is, if global warming didn't exist, we wouldn't either, because the Earth is *still* climbing out of an inter-glacial period, and will continue to do so whether we give a damn or not.

-- Just (anotherbuckeye@columbus.org), January 22, 2000.

Using the volcano thing as an excuse to pollute the world is a moron strategy. Volcanoes are NATURAL occurrences that have been happening for billions of years. They take place over a SHORT time period, they dissipate, and Mother Earth adjusts accordingly. In fact, volcanoes are part of the reason that the atmosphere on Earth is the way it is, ideally suited for life as we know it. WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO CHANGE THIS. The Earth does not BELONG to man, man belongs to the Earth.

The problem with human activity is that we are DISRUPTING these NATURAL cycles, because we have been CONSTANTLY dumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere 24 HOURS a day, 365 DAYS a year, for almost 200 YEARS.

Sure, there have been times in the past when the Earth was warmer, and times when it was cooler, but these changes took place over millions of years. The decade of the 90's was the warmest in recorded history, and never has the Earth warmed as rapidly as it has since the beginning of the Industrial revolution.

In the end, we are not likely to destroy the planet, since she is strong enough to recover. What we ARE doing is destroying any chance of homo sapiens surviving as a species on this planet, because we are altering the biosphere in such a way that it will soon be uninhabitable by humans, and probably most other life forms as well.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 22, 2000.

Whatever you believe about the climate and whether it is changing or not, it is beneficial to everyone to try and conserve our resources, oil, gas, water, and find alternatives just because it is more efficient. Man needs to continually excel and develop and not stay in the same old rut of doing what they did 30 years ago. Finding new products which are not reliant on some non-renewable resource is a great idea and I would love to be able to take advantage of our sunny days in Alberta and use solar. But unfortunately, until it becomes less expensive and more adaptable to our lifestyle, we won't change. Natural gas is too cheap and clean here for most people to consider using anything else.

And this is the problem - the mindset will take a long time to change if the stakeholders in the large corps. see their potential profits slipping away due to some "new-fangled gimmicks" which could compete.

Nature has always gone in cycles as long as man has been on the earth - and always will - we really don't have much to do with the operation of the climates. Even the huge things that could be changed will make negligible differences in the world situation & it's true that the volcanoes have more to do with the temps. than my not using hair spray or not running my car, but husbanding our resources and the creations of the earth are our responsibility. It's a question of balance in each of our lives I guess.

-- Laurane (familyties@rttinc.com), January 22, 2000.

Jerry,

I think you misunderstood the analogy. It isn't meant to say that the global warming issue is just like Y2K, but rather that it should be handled in a similar fashion, but even more cautious. We need to believe that it is a real problem whether we want to or not, because we don't have any computer programmers that can fix our atmosphere.

You say that it isn't a matter of GI's vs. Pollyannas, but I disagree. Take a look at Craig. He is going to oppose it no matter what the data says, because he doesn't give a crap about anyone but himself. Unfortunately, on this issue the GI's cannot afford to be the minority as we were with Y2K. We can't wait until it breaks like some did with Y2K, because we won't get any second chances if we are wrong about this one.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 22, 2000.

I've been doing environmental impact for 22 years. This includes ag and weather models. Trust me, METHANE HYDRATES will be a household buzz word in 3 years. Global warming is real, it will come sooner than anyone thinks and it will be worse than you can imagine.

Does anyone know why the loss of perma-frost in the tundra regions matters? Is anyone aware that the Greenland current has stopped?

Y2K and oil shortages are going to be just a minor nuisance in comparison.

Interesting enough, the reason I came to the Y2K forum was because my old SAS programs that I helped write in the early 80's running on old IBM pig iron, were Y2K'd to death.

Global warming will not be our children's problem. It will be ours. NYC will be standing in 3 feet of water within 5 years. Any suggestions where 14 million people can go.

Go to the EPA web site about methane. I am now working on developing fuel cells. My part.

-- Surrounded (hiding@thefirststate.com), January 23, 2000.

"it's true that the volcanoes have more to do with the temps. than my not using hair spray or not running my car"

Laurane, nothing personal against you because this is a fairly typical attitude, but it IS PRECISELY the problem. Sure, it may seem to each individual person using hair spray every day, or driving their car to a store that is one block away, that it doesn't make any difference, but what about when 2 or 3 BILLION people all take the same attitude? That's the whole problem! We have to agree to work together on this, but each one of us also has to do our individual part. If everyone leaves it up to the other guy to change, it ain't never gonna happen.

Surrounded,

Thanks for your knowledgeable comments based on your experiences, and I hope that you will have tremendous success for doing your part with your work on fuel cells. The solutions to our problems already exist, but are just waiting to be discovered! :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 23, 2000.

Surrounded mentioned

"""Does anyone know why the loss of perma-frost in the tundra regions
matters?"""

And here is something that I wrote a few days ago;

thread
Native Americans and Climate

article
"""Native communities half a world away. If it
affects the ice and alters animal behavior, then it is
certainly going to affect the Inuit, the Yupik, the
Cree, the Dogrib and all the other peoples that have
established a close cultural connection to the ice."""

My thoughts ;

Well this is interesting, Dogrib tribe getting some
notice. Suprising as they only have a few thousand
members or so. I used to live in their land by the
Great Slave Lake. As a group, the northern natives
are called the Dene Nation. Real nice laid back
folk. Of course there are effects from the society to
the south, not the least is the effects of the church
led schools up there in the past.

"""Native communities half a world away""" What
a pile of CRAP, where do these folk think Canada
is? The distance to the Dene is shorter than from
L.A. to New York. The real distance is from
reality.

The Great Slave Lake is one of the largest lakes in
the world draining into the Mackenzie River to its
end, the Arctic Ocean. The Mackenzie River Basin
is also one of the largest watersheds in the world.
A vast quantity of the worlds fresh water soaks
into the muskeg that covers thousands of square
miles. Every year this drains and is evaporated so
the water level drops by 4 to 5 feet by the end of
the summer to be replenished with the snow melt in
the spring.

It is an incredible and fragile ecosystem yet
practically unknown. In all of the NWT Canada
there are only 50,000 people. Trust me you
couldn't imagine the lack of civilization up there.
And hardly no one goes to the Barrens as it is only
accessible by boat or float plane during the
summer, although there are winter roads that can
take trucks in for supplies.

The ignorance is profound. The arctic is changing
and it doesn't have the ability to adapt to changes.
The environment is ageless, dwarf trees, muskeg,
shrubs, herbs and wildlife that has only known the
cold. But it is not the effect of the heat that will kill
them it is the lack of water.

The area is a desert, with 10 or less inches of
water a year, that means if the summer is longer
and more water flows or is evaporated then the
environment will change dramatically. They recieve
virutally no rain during the summer so you only
have the snow and springwater to supply the land.

This is a huge risk that no one seems to be aware
of."""""""

Well I am wrong, there seems to be a few people anyways.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), January 23, 2000.

Excellent links Brian, especially the "World out of Balance."

Thank you very much!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 23, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that what most people learned from was that basically, they personally can do nothing in the face of a dire threat, and still come away from the experience unscathed.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 23, 2000.

should be: "learned from Y2K"

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 23, 2000.

The issue of climate change is a very important one for the human species. It is a very complex problem, with vast uncertainties, and serious implications for the future of humans.

Much of the recent, higher resolution data clearly show that dramatic changes occur rapidly, in a step-wise fashion, IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. That is, warmer to colder and colder to warmer. But, full glacial conditions have clearly dominated the earth for at least the last 900,000 years. The interglacial periods (such as the present) have occured about every 100,000 years, lasting for about 10,000 years. the present (Holocene) interglacial began about 11,500 years ago. The mechanisms and causes of these rapid transitions are still poorly understood, but are the subject of intensive investigation. The role of atmospheric carbon is still unclear.

For the most part, warmer climate (such as the present) corelates with wetter climate; colder climate corelates with dryer climate. For humans, dramatic change in either direction equals catastrophy.

I urge everyone to study this important subject. Beware people who pretend to have all the answers; we don't even know all the questions, yet. Most of them have a political agenda, which is misplaced in a scientific inquirey.

Study the literature, familiarize yourself with the facts. Here's a good place to start:

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.htm

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), January 23, 2000.

Pinrock,

The link needs an l (as in html) on the end. Here's a hot link:

Sudde n Climate Transistions

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), January 23, 2000.

Hawk,

Regarding your statement: "We need to believe that it is a real problem whether we want to or not, because we don't have any computer programmers that can fix our atmosphere.", let me say: very faulty logic, to put it mildly. And, since the "it" at issue is not simply whether the global climate is in a long term warming trend of catastrophic proportions, (itself a very doubtful supposition), but also whether such alleged trend is a result of atmospheric CO2 increases resulting from such human activities as fossil fuel burning, the consequences of policies to which such faulty logic can lead may be truly disastrous, cheerful assumptions to the contrary notwithstanding.

In another post you wrote: "The decade of the 90's was the warmest in recorded history, and never has the Earth warmed as rapidly as it has since the beginning of the Industrial revolution." There may be several problems with that one sentence, but let me simply bring in a bit of recorded history with which you may not be acquainted.

Some climate history

Jerry

From the above link (which refers, in turn, to other links):

Earth's Climatic History: The Last 1,000 Years

Between the 10th and 14th centuries A.D., Earth's average global temperature may have been warmer than it is today (Lamb, 1977a; Lamb, 1984; Grove, 1988; Lamb, 1988). The existence of this Medieval Warm Period was initially deduced from historical weather records and proxy climate data from England and Northern Europe. Interestingly, the warmer conditions associated with this interval of time are known to have had a largely beneficial impact on Earth's plant and animal life. In fact, the environmental conditions of this time period have been determined to have been so favorable that it is often referred to as the Little Climatic Optimum (Imbrie and Imbrie, 1979; Dean, 1994; Petersen, 1994; Serre-Bachet, 1994; Villalba, 1994).

The degree of warming associated with the Medieval Warm Period varied from region to region; and, hence, its consequences were manifested in a number of different ways (Dean, 1994). In Europe, temperatures reached some of the warmest levels of the last 4,000 years, allowing enough grapes to be successfully grown in England to sustain an indigenous wine industry (Le Roy Ladurie, 1971). Contemporaneously, horticulturists in China extended their cultivation of citrus trees and perennial herbs further and further northward, resulting in an expansion of their ranges that reached its maximum extent in the 13th century (De'er, 1994). Considering the climatic conditions required to successfully grow these species, it has been estimated that annual mean temperatures in the region must have been about 1.0 C higher than at present, with extreme January minimum temperatures fully 3.5 C warmer than they are today (De'er, 1994).

In North America, tree-ring chronologies from the southern Canadian Rockies have provided evidence for higher treelines and wider ring-widths between 950 and 1100 A.D., suggesting warmer temperatures and more favorable growing conditions (Luckman, 1994). Similar results have been derived from tree-ring analyses of bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of California, where much greater growth was recorded in the 11th and 12th centuries (Leavitt, 1994). By analyzing 13C/12C ratios in the rings of these trees, it was also found that soil moisture conditions were more favorable in this region during the Medieval Warm Period (Leavitt, 1994). Simultaneous increases in precipitation were additionally found to have occurred in monsoonal locations of the United States desert southwest, where there are indications of increased lake levels from A.D. 700-1350 (Davis, 1994). Other data document vast glacial retreats during the Medieval Warm Period in parts of South America, Scandinavia, New Zealand and Alaska (Grove and Switsur, 1994; Villalba, 1994); and ocean-bed cores suggest global sea surface temperatures were warmer then as well (Keigwin, 1996a, 1996b).

In the area of human enterprise, the climatic conditions of the Medieval Warm Period proved providential. The Arctic ice pack, for example, substantially retreated, allowing the settlement of both Iceland and Greenland; while alpine passes normally blocked with snow and ice became traversable, opening trade routes between Italy and Germany (Crowley and North, 1991). Contemporaneously, on the northern Colorado Plateau in America, the Anasazi Indian civilization reached its climax, as warmer temperatures and better soil moisture conditions allowed them to farm a region twice as large as is presently possible (MacCracken et al., 1990).

Between the 16th and 19th centuries global temperatures were about 1.0C cooler than present (Allison and Kruss, 1977; Lamb, 1977b; Smith and Budd, 1981; Druffel, 1982; Beget, 1983; Grove, 1988; Zhang and Crowley, 1989; Mann et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999), gripping the Earth in the jaws of a climatic regime that has universally been acknowledged to have been a Little Ice Age.

As a result of the lower temperatures of this cool climatic excursion, snowfall occurred at lower latitudes and elevations throughout most of the world (Manley, 1969; Manley, 1971; Hastenrath, 1981; Grove, 1988). In some places, such as the Ben Nevis area of Scotland, snowlines were 300-400 meters lower in the 17th and 18th centuries then they are presently (Grove, 1988). The combination of lower snowlines and cooler temperatures provided excellent conditions for glacial growth; and a vast array of studies indicate that alpine glaciers advanced in virtually all mountainous regions of the globe during this period (Luckman, 1994; Villalba, 1994; Smith et al., 1995; Naftz et al., 1996).

Glacial advances during the Little Ice Age typically eroded large areas of land and produced masses of debris. Like an army of tractors and bulldozers, streams of ice flowed down mountain slopes, carving paths through the landscape, moving rocks, and destroying all vegetation in their paths (Smith and Laroque, 1995). These advances often were relatively swift, with one Norwegian account recording a glacial advance of 200 meters in just 10 years (Grove, 1988).

Continental glaciers and sea ice expanded their ranges as well (Grove, 1988; Crowley and North, 1991). Near Iceland and Greenland, in fact, the expansion of sea ice during the Little Ice Age was so great that it essentially isolated the Viking colony established in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period, leading to its ultimate demise (Bergthorsson, 1969; Dansgaard et al., 1975; Pringle, 1997).

Two closely associated phenomena that often occurred during the Little Ice Age were glacial landslides and avalanches (Porter and Orombelli, 1981; Innes, 1985). In Norway, an unprecedented number of petitions for tax and land rent relief were granted in the 17th and 18th centuries on account of the considerable damage that was caused by landslides, rockfalls, avalanches, floods and ice movement (Grove, 1988). In one example of catastrophic force and destruction, the Italian settlements of Ameiron and Triolet were destroyed by a rockfall of boulders, water, and ice in 1717. The evidence suggests that the rockfall had a volume of 16-20 million cubic meters and descended 1860 meters over a distance of 7 kilometers in but a few minutes, destroying homes, livestock, and vegetation (Porter and Orombelli, 1980). Other data suggest rockslides and avalanches were also frequent hazards in mountainous regions during this period (Porter and Orombelli, 1981; Innes, 1985).

Flooding was another catastrophic hazard of the Little Ice Age, with meltwater streams from glaciers eroding farmland throughout Norway (Blyth, 1982; Grove, 1988). In Iceland, flooding also wreaked havoc on the landscape when, on occasion, subglacial volcanic activity melted large portions of continental glaciers (Thoroddsen, 1905-06; Thorarinsson, 1959). Peak discharge rates during these episodes have been estimated to have been as high as 100,000 cubic meters per second - a value comparable in magnitude to the mean discharge rate of the Amazon River (Thorarinsson, 1957). During one such eruption-flood in 1660, glacial meltwater streams carried enough rock and debris from the land to the sea to create a dry beach where fishing boats had previously operated in 120 feet (36.6 m) of water (Grove, 1988); while flooding from a later eruption carried enough sediment seaward to fill waters 240 feet (73.2 m) deep (Henderson, 1819).

There is also evidence to suggest that some regions of the globe experienced severe drought during the Little Ice Age as a result of large-scale changes in atmospheric circulation patterns (Crowley and North, 1991; Stahle and Cleaveland, 1994). In Chile, for example, dendrochronology studies have revealed that the most intense droughts of the past 1,000 years occurred during this period of time (Villalba, 1994). Similar findings have been obtained from tree-ring analyses in the southeastern United States, where the most prolonged dry episode of spring drought in the last 1,000 years occurred during the mid-18th century (Stahle and Cleaveland, 1994). Elsewhere in the southwestern United States, dendrochronology data indicate that the warm and moist conditions experienced during the Medieval Warm Period gave way to progressively cooler and drier conditions during the Little Ice Age; and it is suspected that this transformation of the climate led to the demise of the Anasazi Indian civilization by reducing the area of land on the Colorado Plateau that was suitable for agriculture (Petersen, 1994). Indeed, cold temperatures and glacial advances resulted in problematic farming in many areas of the world during the Little Ice Age; and failed crops and disrupted ecosystems produced much human misery (Bernabo, 1981; Grimm, 1983; Payette et al., 1985; Campbell and McAndrews, 1991; Cambpell and McAndrews, 1993).

On the basis of many of the reports cited above, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Houghton et al., 1990) has determined that the mean air temperature of the globe over the last thousand years most likely varied as shown in the figure to the left.

Recently, Mann et al. (1999) have provided an alternative view of how global temperatures might have varied over the past millennium. Using a variety of tree ring and ice core proxy records, along with the 20th Century instrumentation record, they reconstructed temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the last one thousand years. Results of their analysis indicate that Northern Hemisphere temperatures were "relatively warm ... earlier in the millennium," but gave way to a prolonged cooling trend following the 14th century that "could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age." Temperatures of the 20th century rose to values similar to those experienced during the 11th and 12th centuries, while temperatures of both the last decade and year (1998) were reportedly "the warmest for the Northern Hemisphere this millennium." However, Mann et al. note that the number of proxy indicators available for use in the study decline prior to AD 1400, suggesting that "a more widespread network of quality millennial proxy climate indicators will be required for more confident inferences."

A graphical representation of their temperature record is given in the figure to the right, and the data from which it was created may be obtained by clicking here.

References

Allison, I. and Kruss, P. 1977. Estimation of recent change in Irian Jaya by numerical modeling of its tropical glaciers. Arctic and Alpine Research 9: 49-60.

Begt, J.E. 1983. Radiocarbon-dated evidence of worldwide early Holocene climate change. Geology 11: 389-393.

Bergthorsson, P. 1969. An estimate of drift ice and temperature in 1000 years. Jwkull 19: 94-101.

Bernabo, J.C. 1981. Quantitative estimates of temperature changes over the last 2700 years in Michigan based on pollen data. Quaternary Research 15: 143-159.

Blyth, J.R. 1982. Storofsen i Ottadalen. Unpublished Dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Campbell, I.D. and McAndrews, J.H. 1991. Cluster analysis of late Holocene pollen trends in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Botany 69: 1719-1730.

Campbell, I.D. and McAndrews, J.H. 1993. Forest disequilibrium caused by rapid Little Ice Age cooling. Nature 366: 336-338.

Crowley, T. J. and North, G.R. 1991. Paleoclimatology, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Dansgaard, W., Johnsen, S.J., Reeh, N., Gundestrup, N., Clausen, H.B. and Hammer, C.U. 1975. Climate changes, Norsemen, and modern man. Nature 255: 24-28.

Davis, O.K. 1994. The correlation of summer precipitation in the southwestern U.S.A. with isotopic records of solar activity during the medieval warm period. Climatic Change 26: 271-287.

De'er, Z. 1994. Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China. Climatic Change 26: 289-297.

Dean, J.S. 1994. The medieval warm period on the southern Colorado Plateau. Climatic Change 26: 225-241.

Druffel, E.M. 1982. Banded corals: changes in ocean Carbon-14 during the Little Ice Age. Science 218: 13-19.

Grimm, E.C. 1983. Chronology and dynamics of vegetation change in the prairie-woodland region of southern Minnesota, USA. New Phytologist 93: 311-350.

Grove, J.M. 1988. The Little Ice Age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Grove, J.M. and Switsur, R. 1994. Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period. Climatic Change 26: 143-169.

Hastenrath, S. 1981. The Glaciation of the Ecuadorian Andes, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Henderson, E. 1819. Iceland: or the Journal of a Residence in that Island, During the Years 1814 and 1815, Wayward Innes, Edinburgh, UK.

Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.J. and Ephraums, J.J. (Eds.). 1990. Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Imbrie, J. and Imbrie, K.P. 1979. Ice Ages. Enslow Publishers, Short Hills, NJ

Innes, J.L. 1985. Lichenometric dating of debris flow deposits on alpine colluvial fans in southwest Norway. Earth, Surface Processes and Landforms 10: 519-524.

Keigwin, L.D. 1996a. Sedimentary record yields several centuries of data. Oceanus 39 (2): 16-18.

Keigwin, L.D. 1996b. The little ice age and the medieval warm period in the Sargasso Sea. Science 274: 1504-1508.

Lamb, H.H. 1977a. Climate History and the Future. Methuen, London, UK.

Lamb, H.H. 1977b. Climate: Present, Past and Future, v.2. Barnes and Noble, New York, NY.

Lamb, H.H. 1984. Climate in the Last Thousand Years: Natural Climatic Fluctuations and Change. In: The Climate of Europe: Past, Present and Future. H. Flohn and R. Fantechi (Eds.). D. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 25-64.

Lamb, H.H. 1988. Weather, Climate and Human Affairs. Routledge, London, UK.

Le Roy Ladurie, E. 1971. Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate Since the Year 1000. Doubleday, New York, NY.

Leavitt, S.W. 1994. Major wet interval in White Mountains medieval warm period evidenced in d13C of bristlecone pine tree rings. Climatic Change 26: 299-307.

Luckman, B.H. 1994. Evidence for climatic conditions between ca. 900-1300 A.D. in the southern Canadian Rockies. Climatic Change 26: 171-182.

MacCracken, M.C., Budyko, M.I., Hecht, A.D. and Izrael, Y.A. (Eds.). 1990. Prospects for Future Climate: A Special US/USSR Report on Climate and Climate Change. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.

Manley, G. 1969. Snowfall in Britain over the past 300 years. Weather 24: 428-437.

Manley, G. 1971. The mountain snows of Britain. Weather 26: 192-200.

Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1998. Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392: 779-787.

Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1999. Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. Geophysical Research Letters 26: 759-762.

Naftz, D.L., Klusman, R.W., Michel, R.L., Schuster, P.F., Reddy, M.M., Taylor, H.E., Yanosky, E.A. and McConnaughey, E.A. 1996. Little Ice Age evidence from a south-central North American ice core, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research 28 (1): 35-41.

Petersen, K.L. 1994. A warm and wet little climatic optimum and a cold and dry little ice age in the southern Rocky Mountains, U.S.A. Climatic Change 26: 243-269.

Serre-Bachet, F. 1994. Middle Ages temperature reconstructions in Europe, a focus on Northeastern Italy. Climatic Change 26: 213-224.

Smith, D.J. and Laroque, C.P. 1995. Dendroglaciological dating of a Little Ice Age glacier advance at Moving Glacier, Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Gographie physique et Quaternaire 50 (1): 47-55.

Smith, D.J., McCarthy, D.P. and Colenutt, M.E. 1995. Little Ice Age glacial activity in Peter Lougheed and Elk Lakes provincial parks, Canadian Rocky Mountains. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 32: 579-589.

Payette, S., Filion, L., Gautier, L. and Boutin, Y. 1985. Secular climate change in old-growth treeline vegetation of northern Quebec. Nature 315: 135-138.

Porter, S.C. and Orombelli, G. 1980. Catastrophic rockfall of September 12, 1717 on the Italian flank of the Mont Blanc massif. Zeitschrift fr Geomorphologie N.F. 24: 200-218.

Porter, S.C. and Orombelli, G. 1981. Alpine rockfall hazards. American Scientist 67: 69-75.

Pringle, H. 1997. Death in Norse Greenland. Science 275: 924-926.

Smith, I.N. and Budd, W.F. 1981. The derivation of past climatic changes from observed changes of glaciers. In: Sea Level, Ice and Climatic Change. I. Allison (Ed.). Int. Assoc. Hydrol. Sci., Pub. 131: 31-52.

Stahle, D.W. and Cleaveland, M. K. 1994. Tree-ring reconstructed rainfall over the southeastern U.S.A. during the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Climatic Change 26: 199-212.

Thoroddsen, T. 1905-1906. Island. Grundriss der Geographie und Geologie, Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen, Ergnzungsband 32, Heft 152/3.

Thrarinsson, S. 1959. Um mwguleika _ thv ad segja fyrir n5sta Kwtlugos. Jwkull 9: 6-18.

Thrarinsson, S. 1957. The jwkulhlaup from the Katla area in 1955 compared with other jwkulhlaups in Iceland. Jwkull 7: 21-25.

Villalba, R. 1994. Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval warm epoch and the little ice age in southern South America. Climatic Change 26: 183-197.

Zhang, J. and Crowley, T.J. 1989. Historical climate records in China and reconstruction of past climates. Journal of Climate 2: 833-849.

Last updated 1 January 2000

Copyright  2000. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), January 23, 2000.

Thankyou, Jerry! Some facts get posted and the B.S. artists go away. One poster suggested doing research. Why is it that so often the person making the suggestion HAS NOT done any research except to read what the media is writting? I did the research months ago. I did a search on global warming and found that several thousand scientists, not pols, not media people and not scientist from unrelated fields; but scientists in weather related fields, had signed accords ( I forget the city and I am not going to redo the search to save anyone else the time). And they all agree that there is no global warming.

One other point, which is pointed out in the research, is that if the temperature continues to increase there will be less temperature extremes and therefore fewer storms. That sounds like a plus to me.

There will be more moisture in the air and an increase in land suitable for growing crops. Another plus. Higher temps mean higher humidity. That means some areas have more rain which means more fresh water to drink. Another plus. And it is all natural. The current temp, as indicated by what Jerry posted, is lower than in past times.

The EPA ( good old gov.com people) has several times been found the use "bad" science as a basis for stupid laws. These "people" are very selective in how thet look at scientif results. But there is no end to the number of humans who will believe they as long as they lie about how horrible the effects will be.

Before telling people to do the research DO IT YOURSELF.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), January 23, 2000.

Jerry: Thanks for fixing up my lame link. I followed your other links; a couple of very good articles. Climate change is a very serious problem, and most people are woefully undereducated about it, and so the issue is easily demogoged (sp?).

The carbon 'cycle' really is an incredibly complex process of liberation and storage, of which, atmosphereic CO2 is a very small part. Virtually all of the carbon that has ever been liberated into the atmosphere is now stored in sedimentary rocks in the form of calcium and magnesium carbonates. The CO2 disolves into the seawater, and precipitates out under warm-water conditions. And of course plants are one of the premier agents in removing and storing atmosphereic carbon.

Here's another link discussing some of the technical difficulties of measuring and assessing carbon storage in the vegetative world:

www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/carbon1.html

Rats, gotta go now.

Go

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), January 23, 2000.

Jerry the skeptic,

Do you ever use any common sense, or do you like to be a skeptic about everything just for the sake of being skeptical, so that you can live up to your e-mail address?

Is this what Mr. Pinochle refers to as "facts"?...

"Between the 10th and 14th centuries A.D., Earth's average global temperature may have been warmer than it is today"

MAY have been warmer??? Well, that sounds conclusive!

How about this... Earth's average global temperature MAY NOT have been warmer than it is today! Still not buying it? Well, how about if I throw in the names of some authors that wrote books...

W.L. Chapman and J.E. Walsh, 1993. "Recent Variations of Sea Ice and Air Temperatures in High Latitudes," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 74:33-47

O.M. Johannessen, et al., July 13, 1995, "The Arctic's Shrinking Sea Ice," Nature 326:126-7

How's that?

Look, the chances that anyone is going to be able to prove anything within an open system as dynamic as the Earth's biosphere are slim to none OK, can we at least agree on that?

Okay, so now is where the analogy to Y2K needs to be considered, with regard to the way this thing needs to be handled.

The problem is global.

No one can possibly predict what will happen.

If things go bad, the results will be devastating, and far more deadly than anything Y2K could have done.

As the above article states, the deadline for Y2K was known. People could be on standby, prepared to deal with any problem immediately on the instant of rollover. But when is the deadline for global warming? Perhaps we can continue to pump chemicals into the air and never have any problems, but what if there is a deadline, or a point of no return? Could it be 50 years from now, tomorrow, or maybe we already passed the deadline 20 years ago? NO ONE KNOWS.

So, what is the advantage in refusing to acknowledge that it could be a real problem? The difference between this and Y2K is that we cannot afford the luxury of waiting to see if there is a deadline or what will occur if we wait for the "disruptions."

Those who took the Polyanna attitude with Y2K were taking unnecessary risks, but in hindsight perhaps the risks were small, or they got lucky. The Pollyannas were correct in assuming that even if Y2K had caused massive disruptions, it would not be the end of the World. After all, we were dealing with computer systems... machines, and even if they did break they could probably eventually be fixed. Maybe some people saved some money by taking those risks, and they got lucky.

But how can you possibly allow yourself to take the same attitude when we are talking about a possible ELE (Extinction Level Event)?

If things do go seriously wrong within our life-supporting biosphere, do you think we have technicians who can simply fix this as quickly as they can fix a computer program? If this is actually happening, we won't get any second chances to "fix on failure"!

So maybe like Y2K, it will cost society some initial investment to alleviate the potential for disruption, but wouldn't it be worth it? Who knows, maybe corporations will be able to make even more profit by using renewable resources, because they will not cost as much as limited ones. It is time for a new paradigm, but this does not have to be a difficult change, and more than likely it will turn out to be infinitely better than our current one. So why the resistance to change? What would we really lose by changing course to avoid this possible disaster, even if perhaps it might never happen?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 23, 2000.

Two excellent articles that support the arguments of both camps and underscore why there is a lack of consensus. Global warming may be benign to some as shown in past history, but keep in mind, this is not the world of the Anasazi. A few million people in Bangladesh may not appreciate elevated sea levels.

Volcanic activity causes the greatest variability in any weather modeling. Unfortunately it tends to throw off any long term plotting. Recent ice cores from the Antarctic (not available at the time of above papers) show that we should be approaching a cooling period and also show that present greenhouse gasses are 3X what would be present during a warming phase. An obviuous disconnect.

CO2 levels are a trigger for a series of events that have been set in motion. We can do whatever we want at this point and it will not change the outcome. The present greenhouse gasses cannot be reduced in time to prevent increased biological activity in the tundras(CO2 producer vs CO2 sink due to degradation of peat) nor stop the methane hydrates in the ocean from melting. The Atlantic Drift has already shown signs of disruption. The shut down of the Greenland Current (important carbon sink) has occured and ice thinning will continue.

Until global atmospheric moisture and water temps equilibrate, more frequent and severe storms will occur. To those living east of the Mississippi and west of the Appalachias, you are in the "new" tornado alley.

The scientists that so eloquently present the facts with an air of superiority are suffering from something that seems to be common amongst so many of them. Disconnect. Global warming is not just a foot note in the history books. It will effect PEOPLE. Pointing at the past and saying how good it was for this group, fails to point out an equal number of other societies were destroyed or displaced. There are no vast areas of uninhabited lands for migration now.

My credentials and efforts are no less than other scientist. It is just that I had some "extra" education. I had the opportunity to help flood victims. The flood was mostly caused by de-forestation and run-off. Just the same, I was able to extrapolate what this could be like on a larger scale. This was a humbling wake-up call. The work I do now is to help my great, great grandchildren fix the problem.

-- Surrounded (hiding@thefirststate.com), January 24, 2000.

Interesting thread. Thanks, Hawk. It would be nice if the increased consciousness that the 5% of those of us who prepared for Y2K spreads to the environment. I live on the central coast of California, and this has been a bizarre few months from a climate perspective. One would think we are closer to the south pole. Last summer was cold and foggy. Yesterday it was over 60 degrees and I even found some late raspberries when I was cutting back the canes. Go figure.

From a personal perspective, I am taking pleasure and comfort in the knowledge that my garden can cover a lot of my needs, and that I have learned to keep appropriate levels of stocks in other areas.

Treading lightly on this earth is evermore important. Thanks for starting the thread

-- Nancy (wellsnl@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.

Thanks for your contributions as well Nancy, and Surrounded. I am pleasantly suprised to see more willingness to discuss this dilemma than I had expected. Perhaps this is because most on this forum do possess higher than average perceptive ability, as demonstrated by our concerns about Y2K. I would love to hear more on this subject, especially from those with actual experience like Surrounded, please keep it coming, and don't be deterred by the skeptics.

I like to think of Y2K as a sort of wakeup call or practice drill, that made us more aware of the fragility and connectedness of our existence on the global scale. Regardless of whether or not we can survive the environmental conditions in our future, I think it is always a good idea to try to make improvements. Even though the Polyanna types may say we are not in danger, I still look forward to a time when we will get most of our energy from the wind and sun, instead of poisioning our air with chemicals. Thanks for having an open mind. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 24, 2000.

Hawk,

"What would we really lose by changing course to avoid this possible disaster, even if perhaps it might never happen?"

You seem to prefer conclusions to the tedium of checking the data, so here are some conclusions, and a partial list of some who subscribe to them:

Jerry

THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE REVISITED

As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we -- along with many of our fellow citizens - are apprehensive about emission targets and timetables adopted at the Climate Conference held in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. This gathering of politicians from some 160 signatory nations aims to impose on citizens of the industrialized nations, -- but not on others -- a system of global environmental regulations that include quotas and punitive taxes on energy fuels to force substantial cuts in energy use within 10 years, with further cuts to follow. Stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide -- the announced goal of the Climate Treaty -- would require that fuel use be cut by as much as 60 to 80 percent -- worldwide!

Energy is essential for economic growth. In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. We understand the motivation to eliminate what are perceived to be the driving forces behind a potential climate change; but we believe the Kyoto Protocol -- to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from only part of the world community -- is dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living.

More to the point, we consider the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty to be flawed and its goal to be unrealistic. The policies to implement the Treaty are, as of now, based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models -- and the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from an increase in greenhouse gases, requiring immediate action. We do not agree. We believe that the dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the historic climate record, which appears to be dominated by natural fluctuations, showing both warming and cooling. These predictions are based on nothing more than theoretical models and cannot be relied on to construct far-reaching policies.

As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that - contrary to the conventional wisdom -- there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever--in direct contradiction to computer model results.

Historically, climate has always been a factor in human affairs - with warmer periods, such as the medieval "climate optimum," playing an important role in economic expansion and in the welfare of nations that depend primarily on agriculture. Colder periods have caused crop failures, and led to famines, disease, and other documented human misery. We must, therefore, remain sensitive to any and all human activities that could affect future climate.

However, based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference -- lacking credible support from the underlying science -- to be ill-advised and premature.

************************************************************** ******************

This statement is based on the International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany on Nov. 9-10, 1995, and in Bonn, Germany on Nov. 10-11, 1997. For further information, contact the Europaeische Akademie fuer Umweltfragen (fax +49-7071-72939) or The Science and Environmental Policy Project in Fairfax, Virginia.

Leipzig Declaration: List of Signers

SIGNATORIES TO THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION

The following is a partial list only. Following the Kyoto Conference on global warming, the original Declaration was slightly amended. The posting of 33 additional signatories is pending verification that the scientists still agree with the statement. The list will be updated as these verifications come in.

Dr. John Apel, oceanographer, Global Oceans Associates, formerly with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.

Dr. David Aubrey, Senior Scientist, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts

Dr. Duwayne M. Anderson,Professor, Texas A&M University

Dr. Robert Balling, Professor and Director of the Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; more than 80 research articles published in scientific journals; author of The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions vs. Climate Reality (1992); coauthor, Interactions of Desertifications and Climate, a report for the UN Environmental Program and the World Meteorological Organization; contributor/reviewer, IPCC.

Dr. Jack Barrett, Imperial College, London, UK

Dr. Warren Berning, atmospheric physicist, New Mexico State University

Dr. Jiri Blumel, Institute Sozialokon. Forschg. Usti nad Labem, Czech Republic

Bruce Boe, atmospheric scientist and Director of the North Dakota Atmospheric Resources Board; member, American Meteorological Society; former chairman, AMS Committee on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification.

Dr. C.J.F. Bottcher, Chairman of the Board, The Global Institute for the Study of Natural Resources, The Hague, The Netherlands; Professor Emeritus of physical chemistry, Leiden University; past President of the Science Policy Council of The Netherlands; former member, Scientific Council for Government Policy; former head of the Netherlands Delegation to the OECD Committee for Science and Technology; author, The Science and Fiction of the Greenhouse Effect and Carbon Dioxide; founding member of The Club of Rome.

Dr. Arthur Bourne, Professor, University of London, UK

Larry H. Brace, physicist, former director of the Planetary Atmospheres Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; recipient NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

Dr. Norman M.D. Brown, FRSC, Professor, University of Ulster.

Dr. R.A.D. Byron-Scott, meteorologist, formerly senior lecturer in meteorology, Flinders Institute for Atmospheric and Marine Science, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

Dr. Joseph Cain, Professor of planetary physics and geophysics, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Institute, Florida State University; elected Fellow, American Geophysical Union; formerly with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (scientific satellites) and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Dr. Gabriel T. Csanady, meteorologist, Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.

Robert Cunningham, consulting meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society

Dr. Fred W. Decker, Professor of meteorology, Oregon State University, Corvalis, Oregon; elected Fellow, AAAS; member, RMS, NWA, AWA, AMS.

Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser, atmospheric scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1963-1986); Participating Guest Scientist, Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab. (1986-1996), more than 40 refereed research papers and major reports in the scientific literature.

Dr. John Emsley, Imperial College, London, UK

Dr. Otto Franzle, Professor, University of Kiel, Germany

Dr. C.R. de Freitas, climate scientist, University of Auckland, New Zealand, Editor of the international journal Climate Research

Dr. John E. Gaynor, Senior Meteorologist, Environmental Technology Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado

Dr. Tor Ragnar Gerholm, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Stockholm, member of Nobel Prize selection committee for physics; member, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, author of several books on science and technology.

Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor, Technical University of Braunschweig.

Dr. Thomas Gold, Professor of astrophysics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

Dr. H.G. Goodell, Professor, University of Virginia, Charlottesville

Dr. Adrian Gordon, meteorologist, University of South Australia.

Prof. Dr. Eckhard Grimmel, Professor, University Hamburg, Germany.

Dr. Nathaniel B. Guttman, Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina; former Professor of atmospheric sciences/climatology; former Chairman, AMS Committee on Applied Climatology.

Dr. Paul Handler, Professor of chemistry, University of Illinois.

Dr. Vern Harnapp, Professor, University of Akron, Ohio

Dr. Howard C. Hayden, Professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr. Michael J. Higatsberger, Professor and former Director, Institute for Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria; former Director, Seibersdorf Research Center of the Austrian Atomic Energy Agency; former President, Austrian Physical Society.

Dr. Austin W. Hogan, meteorologist, co-editor of the journal Atmospheric Research.

Dr. William Hubbard, Professor, University of Arizona, Dept. of Planetary Sciences; elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.

Dr. Heinz Hug, lecturer, Wiesbaden, Germany

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworski, University of Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Kelvin Kemm, nuclear physicist, Director, Technology Strategy Consultants, Pretoria, South Africa; columnist, Engineering News; author, Techtrack: A Winding Path of South African Development.

Dr. Robert L. Kovach, Professor of geophysics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

Dr. David R. Legates, Professor of meteorology, University of Oklahoma

Dr. Heinz H. Lettau, geophysicist, Increase A. Lapham Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin

Dr. Henry R. Linden, Max McGraw Professor of Energy and Power Engineering and Management, Director, Energy and Power Center, Illinois Institute of Technology; elected Fellow, American Institute of Chemical Engineers; former member, Energy Engineering Board of the National Research Council; member, Green Technology Committee, National Academy of Engineering.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Sloane Professor of Meteorology, Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Dr. J. P. Lodge, atmospheric chemist, Boulder, Colorado

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, atmospheric scientist, Professor, University of Missouri at Columbia, reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.

Dr. George E. McVehil, meteorologist, Englewood, Colorado

Dr. Helmut Metzner, Professor, Tubingen, Germany

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor and Director of the State Office of Climatology, University of Virginia; more than 50 research articles published in scientific journals; past President, American Association of State Climatologists; author, Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (1992); reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.

Dr. Asmunn Moene, former chief of Meteorology, Oslo, Norway.

Dr. William A. Nierenberg, Director Emeritus, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California; Professor Emeritus of oceanography, University of California at San Diego; former member, Council of the U.S. National Academy of Science; former Chairman, National Research Council's Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee; former member, U.S. EPA Global Climate Change Committee; former Assistant Secretary General of NATO for scientific affairs; former Chairman, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres.

Dr. William Porch, atmospheric physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico.

Dr. Harry Priem, Professor of geology, University of Utrecht

Dr. William E. Reifsnyder, Professor Emeritus of biometeorology, Yale University; elected Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; former Chairman, National Academy of Science/National Research Council Committee on Climatology; AMS Award for Outstanding Achievement in Biometeorology.

Dr. Alexander Robertson, meteorologist, Adjunct Professor, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada; author of more than 200 scientific and technical publications in biometeorology and climatology, forestry, forest ecology, urban environmental forestry, and engineering technology.

Dr. Thomas Schmidlin, CCM, Professor of meteorology/climatology, Kent State University, Ohio; editor, Ohio Journal of Science, elected Fellow, Ohio Academy of Science; member, AMS.

Dr. Frederick Seitz, physicist, former President, Rockefeller University, former President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences; former member, President's Science Advisory Committee; recipient, U.S. National Medal of Science.

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Executive Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study and the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Integrated Ocean Sciences; contributed to the initial development of the Climate Change Program of the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration; investigated climate-related resource variabilities, sustainable development, and basic environmental climatology for the UN, World Bank, and USAID.

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist; President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project; former Director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service; Professor Emeritus of environmental science, University of Virginia; former Chairman, federal panel investigating effects of the SST on stratospheric ozone; author or editor of 16 books, including Global Climate Change (1989) and Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate (1997).

Dr. A. F. Smith, chemical engineer (ret.), Jacksonville, Florida

Dr. Fred J. Starheim, Professor, Kent State University

Dr. Chauncey Starr, President Emeritus, Electric Power Research Institute, winner 1992 National Medal of Engineering

Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, Secretary General Emeritus, International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans, and a leading world authority on space oceanography; more than 100 research articles published in scientific journals; author of seven books; advisor to NASA, NATO, U.S. National Academy of Science, and the European Geophysical Society.

Dr. George Stroke, Professor, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Munich, Germany

Dr. Heinz Sundermann, University of Vienna, Austria

Dr. George H. Sutton, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii

Dr. Arlen Super, meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lakewood, Colorado

Dr. Vladimir Svidersky, Professor, Sechenoc Institute, Moscow, Russia

Dr. M. Talwani, geophysicist, Rice University, Houston, Texas.

Dr. W. F. Tanner, Professor, Florida State University

Dr. Christiaan Van Sumere, Professor, University of Gent, Belgium

Dr. Robin Vaugh, physicist, University of Dundee, UK

Dr. Robert C. Wentworth, geophysicist, Oakland, California, formerly with Lochheed Reseach Laboratory.

Dr. Robert C. Whitten, physicist, formerly with NASA.

Dr. Klaus Wyrtki, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii Sea Level Center

-- Jerry b (skeptic76@erols.com), January 24, 2000.

Jerry

You must be playing the Devils Advacate. There is no shortage of info discribing the effects of Arctic warming. As you note there is no easy answer but that doesn't mean the risks aren't there. Unfortunately the best info I have seen was on CBC and they had a news special on Arctic warming last year, but of course is not WWW friendly. Very sobering stuff. But the assumptions were the same as the article below.

  Arctic Climate Changing Rapidly

Arctic Climate Changing Rapidly

From Environment News Service (ENS)
14 November 1997

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 14, 1997 (ENS) - Two scientists who have measured glaciers, examined ice samples and sampled sediments at lake bottoms in the Arctic over the past 10 years say they have proof that Earth's temperature is rising and that "scares" them.

"I'm worried. I fear what the consequences of that (global warming) will be," Raymond Bradley, chair of the geosciences department at the University of Massachusetts, said at a news conference Thursday announcing publication of an article in the journal Science. Science is a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a U.S. journal that publishes research only after it is reviewed for soundness and clarity by other scientists.

Jonathan Overpeck, another of the paper's authors, said, "What we're talking about is...climate changing rapidly. That can't help but scare everyone."

Overpeck, head of the paleoclimatology program at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Bradley were part of a team of 18 scientists from Canada, Russia and the United States who have been examining the environment in the Arctic. The most striking change revealed by looking at the land, sea and ice in the Arctic is the warming by 1 to 3 degrees Celsius in various parts of the polar region since the mid- 1800s.

About half of this increase is due to natural causes such as greater energy bursts from the sun. But the other half of the temperature rise is due to factories, homes, offices and power plants burning coal and oil, which produces carbon dioxide, Overpeck said. That gas, and some others produced in agriculture and mining, act like the glass in greenhouses, trapping much of the heat rising from Earth.

Swedish scientist Svante Ahrrenius warned back in 1898 that carbon dioxide emissions could lead to global warming. It was not until the 1970s that a growing understanding of Earth's atmosphere system brought his concern to wider attention.

In 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) confirmed the scientific basis for climate change. More than 2,000 scientists warned in an IPPC study published in 1995 that these emissions, if unchecked, could raise the planet's average temperature 1.5 to 3 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

This rise in global temperature could raise sea levels 15 to 95 centimeters, change rainfall patterns, increase the severity of storms and spread tropical diseases to what were the cooler parts of the globe, the IPPC study said.

More than 150 countries have been trying for the past two years to negotiate a binding target and timetables to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as part of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, an international treaty. The concluding round of the talks is scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, December 1-10, but the United States, the 15 nations in the European Union (EU) and developing countries are still far apart on what should be done.

The Arctic research team was able to put together a 400-year climate record from studying tree rings, ice cores and lake sediments. Average temperatures are now the warmest in this period, which has dramatically shortened glaciers, reduced the amount of ice covering the seas around the pole and thawed much of the frozen layer of soil in the region.

The models created in supercomputers to mimic the climate of Earth and to predict the effects of increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere show that most of the projected warming of Earth would take place in the northern parts of Europe, Asia and North America. A small group of scientists has been arguing that these computer models do not accurately portray what is happening in real life, and that there is no possibility of disruptive global warming.

Overpeck and Bradley believe that their study not only indicates an "unprecedented" warming of the North Pole region, but also that the glacier retreats and melting of frozen land show the first clear signs that man-made greenhouse gases have begun to affect the planet's climate.

"Our study is the best one to date that...says it probably already is happening," Overpeck said.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), January 24, 2000.

Pardon as I contribute my 2 cents worth. The following is excerpted from a letter I wrote my Senators a few years back:

It is a recognized fact within the scientific community that the theory of "Global Warming" is controversial and challengeable under respected and credible science. In 1992, more than 500 respected scientists made the Heidelberg Appeal to urge diplomats to reconsider international agreements made on the basis of this questionable theory. Today that number has grown to more than 4,000 mainstream scientist signatories, including 70 Nobel Prize Winners, from throughout the international community. Even a recent Gallop poll of eminent North American climatologists showed that 83% of them were in disagreement with the global warming theory.

Much of the theory of Global Warming is predicated upon the use of computer modeling. Such models are crude management tools subject to the variability of such fundamental inputs as data collection protocols, calibration of instruments, representative sampling and appropriateness of measurement. Environmental modeling, or modeling of dynamic systems over a period of time sufficient to reflect trend in climatic change, is only in an infantile stage. The model, itself, is dependent upon the identification of all variables, scientific knowledge of their interaction and cumulative effect. Our technological capacity can accommodate consideration of only two of the 14 components that are currently speculated to make up the climatic system. Even a good model fails to draw any credible relationship between man-made activities and trend.

A peer review panel critique by Dr. Vincent Gray of Climate Change 1995; The Science of Climate Change, released by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identifies several glaring flaws in the science upon which the report is based:

(1) Exaggeration of the rate of CO2 change assumed in the models caused by selecting only two measurement sites rather than global mean figures supplied by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory; (2) Blatant misrepresentation of the growth rate of atmospheric methane, ignoring the actual decline in average growth rate from 1983-1994, and assuming a steady increase projected into the future; (3) Failure to validate the model against actual current and past temperatures - a basic step that must be made before any model can be accepted as a credible tool; and (4) Unrealistically emissions scenarios - IS92a, b, c, d, e and f, revealing exaggerated assumptions regarding greenhouse gases, energy usage, economic and population growth between 1990 and 2001. As technology and research in the area of climatic change becomes more refined, our understanding of the issue and it's potential impact has changed. For instance, in 1990, the IPCC predicted that without CO2 emission controls, the average global temperature would increase 3.3 degrees C between 1990-2100. In 1992, this figure was revised to 2.8 degrees C; and in 1995, was revised down to 2 degrees C - 1 degree with consideration of the cooling effect of aerosols.

In contrast, data from United States satellite and weather balloon measurements from 1979 to date indicate that the Earth is cooling by .037 C per decade.

The scientific community is still in an exploratory phase regarding our understanding of climatic changes and cycles. Recently, a prominent member of the climatic research community, V. Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, stated about current efforts to reliably predict trends in climatic change over the next century; "I used to think of clouds as the Gordian knot of the problem. Now I think it is aerosols. We are arguing about everything."

-- marsh (siskfarm@snowcrest.net), January 24, 2000.

Brian,

Devil's advocate? You've been spending too much time out in the snow. :-)

Meanwhile, the study period goes back to the "little ice age" and discovers that the Arctic has warmed up since then. Well, I hope so!

Not surprisingly, data to support the assertion of the purported causal role of CO2 seems to be missing from the report. There seems to be a lot of that going around. :-)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), January 24, 2000.

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change."

Charles Darwin

-- PHO (owennos@bigfoot.com), January 24, 2000.

CRAIG,

I agree with you all the way.

Please take time to read my post regarding this on the thread about how much home heating oil it takes to heat a home.

And after you do that say, "SAME OLE, SAME OLE!" Global warming attests to this generation's OWN GULLIBILITY!

Regards,

-- (He Who) Rolls with Punches (JoeZi@aol.com), January 24, 2000.

Jerry

Of course this topic is relatively new in the global arena so the jury is still out. But there seems to be indications of a rapid warming at the poles even though the global picture is still in doubt.

One idea that would not consern the CO2 build up but would help explain some of the polar warming is what I would call the Dog Shit Phenomena.

This is when the snow (ice fields) melts and exposes the dirt over time which attracts heat from the sun. Much like the front lawn of a dog owners house after the snows melt. :o) Of course this is IMHO.

Weather systems is a topic though that deserves more attention.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), January 24, 2000.