New Climate Change Report

[iceclone]

The UN panel on climate change issued it's final report. I found the following quote particularly interesting:

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,â€￾ said Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist and economist who heads the IPCC. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.â€￾

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/science/earth/17cnd-climate.html?hp

This is an incredibly bold statement from Dr. Pachauri.

 

[herbicide]

Wasn't there a recent report that stated the data collected in these studies is faulty? Wouldn't that also make their conclusions faulty? If so, this is purely a political issue. (read: attempts to throttle US production/economy)

I think the report I speak of was done by NASA.

 

[iceclone]

Wasn't there a recent report that stated the data collected in these studies is faulty? Wouldn't that also make their conclusions faulty? If so, this is purely a political issue. (read: attempts to throttle US production/economy)

I think the report I speak of was done by NASA.

I’m not familiar with such a report. You may be thinking of the personal opinions of Dr. Michael Griffin, who is the NASA Administrator (head honcho):

"I have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

NASA Administrator Not Sure Global Warming A Problem​

As far as I understand his views, they are very similar to mine.

 

[herbicide]

The report I am thinking about has to do with how the temperature data was recorded.

It mentioned that the methods were faulty, because the recordings were made in large growing cities, which affects the readings because the larger a city gets, the temperature naturally goes up with the increased concrete, buildings, activity, etc.

This report was posted here, I did a quick search but couldn't find it.

Edit:

I have the same views. I cannot see how this short of time can be enough data to support any long term trends, and the other variable is we do not have any way of knowing how much is to blame by human activity and how much is just a natural cycle.

 

[Cyclonepride]

The report I am thinking about has to do with how the temperature data was recorded.

It mentioned that the methods were faulty, because the recordings were made in large growing cities, which affects the readings because the larger a city gets, the temperature naturally goes up with the increased concrete, buildings, activity, etc.

This report was posted here, I did a quick search but couldn't find it.

Edit:

I have the same views. I cannot see how this short of time can be enough data to support any long term trends, and the other variable is we do not have any way of knowing how much is to blame by human activity and how much is just a natural cycle.

There are studies out there that do not really balance the effects of urbanization. Anyone who has gone from the middle of a city, out into the country will notice a difference in temperature. The other factor is that temperatures really started to spike as the Soviet Union desolved. Weather reporting stations there went off line due to lack of funding, and obviously, without that data, an artificial spike ensued.

Any cure that has a real effect on global warming is not cheap. Not even close. We're talking about .1 degree per trillion dollars spent.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Numerous opinions have been written that while an increase in global temperatures may lead to increases in drought and heat related deaths, those numbers would be more than offset by the people who would be saved by it.

 

[iceclone]

The report I am thinking about has to do with how the temperature data was recorded.

It mentioned that the methods were faulty, because the recordings were made in large growing cities, which affects the readings because the larger a city gets, the temperature naturally goes up with the increased concrete, buildings, activity, etc.

This report was posted here, I did a quick search but couldn't find it.

Edit:

I have the same views. I cannot see how this short of time can be enough data to support any long term trends, and the other variable is we do not have any way of knowing how much is to blame by human activity and how much is just a natural cycle.

OK, I’m continuing to guess, but rather than a NASA report, I think you might be talking about the mistakes that Steve McIntyre recently found in some of the temperature data collected by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies from individual weather stations. This data has been used to support the existence of a warming trend, and McIntyre found definite errors, so kudos to Mr. McIntyre. Much was made out of the fact that the data corrections implied that 1998 was no longer the warmest year on record in the US (I guess 1934 is now considered warmest, and 1998 second warmest). On the other hand, my impression is that these errors are within the range that should have been expected before Mr. McIntyre’s discovery.

 

[alaskaguy]

The report projects that a lot of scary stuff will happen if the rapid growth in green house gases is not reversed.

If the conclusions are accepted we are doomed since the largest carbon emitters, the United States and China, have yet to get on board the global warming bandwagon.

 

[Cyclonepride]

The report projects that a lot of scary stuff will happen if the rapid growth in green house gases is not reversed.

If the conclusions are accepted we are doomed since the largest carbon emitters, the United States and China, have yet to get on board the global warming bandwagon.

Yep, doomed. By 2050, some islands will be under water. Of course, they are 8" out of the water right now, but still:dull:

 

[herbiedoobie]

I read the preliminary summary report, and the UN spokesman's statement appears to contradict what I've read.

The preliminary summary appears to say that Human Caused Global Warming is real, and not reversible/cannot be affected positively by anything we do. Now how does soaking the US and China for Trillions fit in, there???

But if someone from the UN says it's true....

 

[herbicide]

OK, I’m continuing to guess, but rather than a NASA report, I think you might be talking about the mistakes that Steve McIntyre recently found in some of the temperature data collected by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies from individual weather stations. This data has been used to support the existence of a warming trend, and McIntyre found definite errors, so kudos to Mr. McIntyre. Much was made out of the fact that the data corrections implied that 1998 was no longer the warmest year on record in the US (I guess 1934 is now considered warmest, and 1998 second warmest). On the other hand, my impression is that these errors are within the range that should have been expected before Mr. McIntyre’s discovery.

Thats the one I remember, about the 1934 thing.

 

[Wesley]

I think those Polynesian islands better get worried or start building some levees. 10,000 years ago we ghad an ice age. Now we have an AntiIce Age. Better hot than cold.

 

[Wesley]

The UN again:

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Numerous opinions have been written that while an increase in global temperatures may lead to increases in drought and heat related deaths, those numbers would be more than offset by the people who would be saved by it.

I am not sure I believe that but Bjorn Lomborg sure makes a pursuasive argument for that proposition.

Link: Chill out. - washingtonpost.com

 

[alaskaguy]

Is Bjorn Lomborg a lackey for GWB?

I quote Mr. Lomborg....

"The way to achieve this is to dramatically increase spending on research and development of low-carbon energy. Ideally, every nation should commit to spending 0.05 percent of its gross domestic product exploring non-carbon-emitting energy technologies, be they wind, wave or solar power, or capturing CO2emissions from power plants. This spending could add up to about $25 billion per year but would still be seven times cheaper than the Kyoto Protocol and would increase global R&D tenfold. All nations would be involved, yet the richer ones would pay the larger share."

Now compare the above with the policy of GWB...

When it comes to limiting greenhouse gas emissions, GWB has always seemed to worry less about polluting the skies and more about polluting the economy through overly restrictive regulation. In particular, GWB has adamantly resisted economy-wide limits on greenhouse gases like the ones imposed in recent years in Europe under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The administration also questions how effective the Kyoto limits are, and notes that it’s hard to get developing countries to join in the effort to reduce emissions if it means reducing economic growth too. The Bush White House prefers to focus on investments in new technologies to cut down on greenhouse-gas emissions.

Source: November 16, 2007 Wall Street Journal.

Now I just need to determine how much GWB plans on investing in the new technologies that cut down on greenhouse-gas emissions. I know that the administration is spending that amount on ethanol but I don't think that ethanol should be considered a technology twhich cuts down on greenhouse-gas emissions.

 

[iceclone]

I am not sure I believe that but Bjorn Lomborg sure makes a pursuasive argument for that proposition.

Link: Chill out. - washingtonpost.com

I hadn't seen this article, but we discussed Dr. Lomborg's views a little bit the last time we had a climate change "debate" (more like a one-sided discussion) around here. I think he makes a very good argument.

I'll copy the opening, since many people don't like to click:

All eyes are on Greenland's melting glaciers as alarm about global warming spreads. This year, delegations of U.S. and European politicians have made pilgrimages to the fastest-moving glacier at Ilulissat, where they declare that they see climate change unfolding before their eyes.

Curiously, something that's rarely mentioned is that temperatures in Greenland were higher in 1941 than they are today. Or that melt rates around Ilulissat were faster in the early part of the past century, according to a new study. And while the delegations first fly into Kangerlussuaq, about 100 miles to the south, they all change planes to go straight to Ilulissat -- perhaps because the Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing.

I point this out not to challenge the reality of global warming or the fact that it's caused in large part by humans, but because the discussion about climate change has turned into a nasty dustup, with one side arguing that we're headed for catastrophe and the other maintaining that it's all a hoax. I say that neither is right. It's wrong to deny the obvious: The Earth is warming, and we're causing it. But that's not the whole story, and predictions of impending disaster just don't stack up.

We have to rediscover the middle ground, where we can have a sensible conversation. We shouldn't ignore climate change or the policies that could attack it. But we should be honest about the shortcomings and costs of those policies, as well as the benefits.​

Both sides are equally guilty in taking positions that don't allow us to have an intelligent dialogue. As Dr. Lomborg points out, this has to change before any progress can be made.

 

[iceclone]

Is Bjorn Lomborg a lackey for GWB?

Those that think climate change is an imminent danger that must be addressed using very drastic measures do indeed consider Dr. Lomborg to be a hack and a right-wing stooge. He's held those titles ever since he published The Skeptical Environmentalist.

 

[Cyclonepride]

In my opinion, the statement "we're causing it" has yet to be determined. I can buy "contributing to it".

 

[cmoneyr]

I don't really see the distinction there. Either we caused it and we're making it worse, or something else caused it and we're making it worse.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I don't really see the distinction there. Either we caused it and we're making it worse, or something else caused it and we're making it worse.

The climate history of the Earth shows that there are regular, cyclical periods of heating and cooling. To say we caused it implies that the climate was fairly stable before we industrialized, when nothing could be further from the truth. The total contribution of carbon dioxide from human activity is a small, small percentage of the total in the atmosphere.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

TABLE 4a.

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) [SIZE=-1]Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics[/SIZE] % of All Greenhouse Gases

% Man-made
Water vapor 95.000%

94.999%​

0.001% Carbon Dioxide (CO2)3.618%

3.502%​

0.117% Methane (CH4)0.360%

0.294%​

0.066% Nitrous Oxide (N2O)0.950%

0.903%​

0.047% Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)0.072%

0.025%​

0.047% Total100.00%

99.72​

0.28%