[Coral-List] RE geologists, La Nina, and global warming

[Curt Storlazzi]

Dear Colleagues,

Climate change is the study of how weather has varied over time,  
versus meteorology, which is the study of today's or recent weather.  
Due to the lack of significant numbers of long-term instrumentation- 
based records from around the globe upon which one could determine  
climatic trends, many, if not most, of the data upon which the  
arguments for anthropogenic global climate change are build are based  
on climate proxies derived from the geologic record (ice cores, pollen  
records in lakes, coral cores, etc).

Most geologic organizations, including the American Geophysical Union  
(>58,000 members) and the Geological Society of America (>22,000  
members), have released position statements stating that climate; see  
the following websites:

http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/pos10_climate.pdf

Thus I am not sure about the validity of the suggestion that geology  
might not be an appropriate discipline to discuss climate (not  
weather) change. Furthermore, if interested, I would check out the two  
websites above to get examples of what "we" geologists have come to a  
consensus on regarding global climate change.

Curt

ciao.....
_______________________
Curt Storlazzi, Ph.D.
U.S. Geological Survey
Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center
400 Natural Bridges Drive
Santa Cruz, CA  95060
(831) 427-4721 phone
(831) 427-4748 fax

Staff web page:
http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/staff/cstorlazzi/

Begin forwarded message:

> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:04:44 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
> From: Steve Mussman <sealab at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [Coral-List] La Nina and global warming
> To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID:
> 	<21962272.1289851484550.JavaMail.root at wamui-haziran.atl.sa.earthlink.net 
> >
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
>
> Didn?t mean for my comments to be threatening, but please
> allow me to put them in the proper context.
>
> I enjoy Gene?s comments as well as anyone and have for some time.
> I am certainly not trying to be either dismissive or demeaning.
> I respect his opinion and in actuality was not making reference
> to him in the quote that Greg referenced. I think that Gene?s views
> are understandable in that they very well may reflect consensus from
> a geological perspective. That would not be unexpected and it is
> certainly science based, although I would assert that it might not be
> the most appropriate discipline.
>
> What is disturbing to me is fact that many of those with whom I  
> associate
> are well educated as well as opinionated, but they choose to base  
> their views
> on climate change on information that is not science based. They  
> have been
> very effectively taken in by information carefully crafted to  
> convince them
> that there is no real science to support an anthropogenic basis for  
> climate change.
> I am constantly confronted with the often repeated mantra of some  
> conspiracy
> involving scientists attempting to usher in a new world order.
> This is coming from educated individuals who have chosen not to  
> seriously
> consider scientific evidence, but instead to rely on other, perhaps  
> politicized
> and less reliable sources to provide perspective.
>
> Hence my previous comment suggesting that on this and other critical  
> issues,
> science should not surrender.
>
> Regards,
>  Steve
>
>
> "one of the most disturbing aspects of this discussion is the fact  
> that many
> contrarians are scientifically literate and most certainly capable  
> of complex
> intellectual analysis."   Steve Mussman
>
> ?First let me point out I am not a contrarian.  I think there is a  
> lot of compelling evidence. Nonetheless, I find this statement  
> disturbing.  Isnt it a good thing that those who question the  
> certainty of any scientific conclusion be scientifically literate?   
> I understand folks feel their data and conclusions are absolutely  
> correct, but has anyone ever been absolutely correct about any data  
> or conclusions??
>
> ?I thoroughly enjoy Gene's comments and am not so sure that those  
> who question can be dismissed so easily.? Greg Challenger
>
>