Dear Tweeters and Jack,


First of all, some of you surely noticed that the message that
went out about 7:30 this morning was incomplete and did not even have
my name and E-mail address. Sorry about that, and please delete that
message-- here is the REAL message.

I am disappointed that my friend Jack Bowling has accused me of
misrepresenting one of his postings. This is a serious accusation.
Misunderstanding is one thing, and I am sorry if I was guilty of that.
However, "misrepresentation" is deliberately twisting something said
by another, to make it sound like the person said something quite
different.
Let me state in no uncertain terms that I consider
misrepresentation to be a reprehensible practice, and that I have
never deliberately misrepresented a posting by another correspondent
on TWEETERS or any other newsgroup.
E-mail has serious shortcomings as a medium of communication when
it is used as a substitute for face-to-face conversation. One of these
shortcomings is that misunderstandings can take days to clear up,
rather than minutes, because of the inevitable delay in reading and
responding to earlier postings. Also, as has been demonstrated many
times on TWEETERS, when you are sending a message on a contentious
subject to more than 700 people, it is easy for someone to take
offence when no offence was intended.
When Jack states that I have "once again" misrepresented a posting
of his, perhaps he was referring to my comments on a posting of his
on August 3 concerning Ducks Unlimited projects. I described Jack's
posting as a "condemnation" of DU, when a milder term such as
"criticism" would probably have been more appropriate. This may have
been an unfortunate choice of words on my part, but it was NOT an
intentional misrepresentation of Jack's position.

When I stated in my posting that Jack may have misled some readers
by stating that "global warming" was an established fact, I was not
accusing him of doing so deliberately, but rather of possibly doing so
unintentionally by not defining "global warming" in clear and simple
terms. (How many of our readers don't know what "anthropogenically"
means? Probably plenty.) Once again, no offence intended, Jack; maybe
I should try to word my criticisms much more carefully in future.

Returning to the topic of interest, "Birds and Global Warming": my
main point was that I object to the uncritical use of the term "global
warming" by many people (including some scientists) to mean
"man-caused global warming". There is no question that there has been
a widespead and almost worldwide warming trend in the last 100 years,
but it is not yet possible to prove that this is mainly (or even
partly) caused by the increased emission of CO2 and other "greenhouse
gases".

Although it seems almost certain that the continuation of present
trends in greenhouse gas emission will produce significant warming in
the 21st century, the warming that occurred in the 20th century may or
may not be due to this factor. The most detailed and authoritative
statements on global climate change have come from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), formed under UN
sponsorship in 1988. To quote an IPCC report issued in 1995: "The
unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from
observation is not likely for a decade or more". (Translation: it will
take at least another decade of data collection to be SURE whether or
not the increase in greenhouse gas emissions is the major cause of the
warming seen so far.)

A careful reading of the latter part of the attached message from
Jack Bowling makes it clear that his position and my position on the
role of man in global warming are almost identical, so any differences
between us are mainly or entirely semantic (i.e., over terminology).

I'd like to quote a few facts from IPCC reports or from Canadian
and U.S. websites that support, or expand on, the points I made in my
last posting:

-- CO2 (carbon dioxide) makes up only 0.03% of the atmosphere, but is
responsible for about 60% of the "greenhouse effect". Other important
"greenhouse gases" include methane, ozone, nitrous oxide (NO2), and
water vapour itself.

-- The present level of about 335 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 in
the atmosphere is an increase of only about 20% over the estimated
"pre-industrial" level of 280 ppm. However, projections suggest a
frightening level of about 700 ppm by the year 2100, more than double
the original level.

-- since 1900, the mean surface temperature of the earth has increased
by 0.3 to 0.6 degrees C. (Note the uncertainty in this estimate: the
warming trend has been far from uniform in time and space, and some
areas, e.g. Canada's Atlantic Provinces, have actually become a little
cooler in the last 50 years).

-- The best estimate of temperature increase by the year 2100 is about
2 degrees C above present temperatures-- a much faster rate of
increase than in the 20th century. However, this increase could be as
low as 1 degree or as high as 4 degrees C.

-- The Hypsithermal period that I referred to in my last message
occurred from about 6500 to 4000 years ago, based on several lines of
indirect evidence. Temperatures in this time period were an estimated
1 to 2 degrees above present temperatures worldwide, but in some
areas, such as Canada's Arctic, may have been as much as 3 degrees
above.

-- Even at the height of the last Ice Age, worldwide temperatures
averaged only aboyt 4 to 5 degrees below the present mean temperature
of 15 degrees C (59 degrees F).

Jack does appear to be incorrect on one point, when he states in
the attached message that ..."the rate of temperature increase in the
20th century is greater than at any time in the past 8-10,000 years".
All the references I can find state that the PROJECTED rate of
increase in the 21st century (0.2 degrees per decade), not the
MEASURED rate in the 20th century (0.045 degrees per decade), would be
the fastest in the last 10.000 years.

When discussing a complex and controversial subject like global
climate change, there is a real danger of being inaccurate and
possibly misleading people by keeping the discussion too short, and
thereby oversimplifying an explanation. I apologize for the length of
this and some other postings I have sent. However, part of the reason
for my verbosity is a fear of misleading people by keeping it too
short and omitting important facts.

I don't think an extended debate on global warming, even as it
relates to birds, is appropriate on TWEETERS. However, for those who
want to know more about the subject, I will cite several websites that
I found useful, as follows:

1. Global Climate Change (Environment Canada):
http://www.ec.gc.ca/climate/

2. U.N. Environmental Program Climate Change Information Kit:
http://www.unep.ch/iuc/submenu/infokit/factcont.htm

3. White House Initiative on Climate Change: State of Knowledge
http://www.whitehouse.gov./Initiatives/Climate/content.html

4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) website:
http://www.ipcc/ch/

5. U.S. Global Change Research Program
http://www.usgcrp.gov/

6. Global Warming: Myth vs. Fact (Environmental Defense Fund)
http://www.edf.org/pubs/FactSheets/e_GWFact2.html


Sincerely,

Wayne C. Weber
114-525 Dalgleish Drive
Kamloops, B.C. V2C 6E4
Phone: (250) 377-8865
wayne_weber at bc.sympatico.ca


>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jack Bowling <jbowling at direct.ca>
>To: WAYNE WEBER <WAYNE_WEBER at bc.sympatico.ca>
>Cc: tweeters at u.washington.edu <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
>Date: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 8:34 AM
>Subject: Re: Birds and global warming
>
>
>>On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, you wrote:
>>> Dear Tweeters,
>>>
>>> In the attached posting, sent at 08:13 on Aug 15, Jack Bowling
>>> stated, in part: ..."there is lots of debate about global
warming.
>>> Not whether it is occurring or not- that is IRREFUTABLE [emphasis
>>> mine]-- but whether it is anthropogenically forced or
otherwise"...
>>> I hesitate to begin a debate on global warming with a
>professional
>>> meteorologist like Jack. However, I consider myself an amateur
>>> climatologist, and I have considerable knowledge of the subject. I
>>> have a serious problem with the statement above, especially the
>>> "irrefutable" part.`
>>(big snip)
>>
>>In the interests of keeping a non-bird posting short, I would only
>say
>>that Wayne has (once again) misrepresented a posting. "Global
>warming"
>>has indeed occurred in the past. I offer this short summary on the
>>case for anthropogenic forcing of the earth's tropospheric
>temperature
>>regime:
>>
>>- ice cores from around the world confirm that the rate of
>temperature
>>increase in the 20th century is greater than anytime in the past
>>6-10,000 years.
>>- CO2 levels are currently at around 335 ppm by volume and
increasing
>by
>>1.5-2 ppm per year with most of the increase since the turn of the
>>century; CO2 is a greenhouse gas that we humans produce in
prodigious
>>quantities.
>>
>>Many have added these two together to state that humans must be
>forcing
>>the ongoing global warming since the current rate of warming is
>greater
>>than past records of warming during periods when humans were not
>>a factor would support. However, as Wayne states, an equal number of
>>people believe that it is just part of a natural cycle.
>>
>>Either way, the main case for not just kicking back and enjoying our
>>upcoming tropical warmth but instead trying to mitigate any human
>>contribution to the warming trend is such:
>>
>>- we do not know if there is a critical point of CO2 concentration
>>beyond which the whole process would accelerate even more than
>current
>>rates, i.e., there could be a CO2 flashpoint which would trigger
>>even more massive rapid warming (and which would lead to rapid
>>desertification, swamping of coastal cities, death of vegetation by
>>drought and/or insect damage, etc.).
>>- given the above, we humans should endeavour to mitigate our
>>greenhouse gas production.
>>
>>Nowhere in my original post did I state where I stand on the
argument
>of
>>anthropogenic forcing of the current global warming, although I did
>in
>>a private post to Don B. So for the record, I will state that I
>>believe that human contribution to overall global warming is likely
>>only giving a small boost to an otherwise quite natural cycle. It is
>>mostly our limited geographical time sense that colours our
>perception
>>of the event. However, I do believe that consequences of runaway
>>warming would be catastrophic for our and other species so that
>>mitigation strategies are the wisest course regardless of whether we
>>are fouling our own nest.
>>
>>--
>>Jack Bowling
>>jbowling at direct.ca
>>
>