The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[Kerostasis]

Well, it looks like we've all reached an agreement on the purpose of the IPCC then. The only thing we still disagree on is whether thats a good purpose or not.

Oh, and I definately think its working.

[AMosely]

Has the IPCC surpassed Karl Rove in terms of mass deception?

At least it's in the name of a good and noble purpose - at least in my opinion.

[Lucky Shot]

I don't think the UN will positively impact the earth through it's environmental policies and truly don't think thats it's goal through this 'ends justifies the means' lunacy. It's a way to create a new revenue stream for the UN by preying on fears. Just look at how seriously Europe took Kyoto and then the number that actually took the steps to meet it's goals, what 2 of 15? So while they created legislation, fake CO2 markets, and theoretical fantasy goals that they have no intention to meet, this is no more then feel goodery legislation designed to find a way to create more governmental control and more taxes.

But if the end justifies the means, lets take issue with the amount of CO2 that Iran gives off. It's a lot, I mean tons. With Regime Change in Iran, I am certain we could decrease the amount of CO2 that they give off and possibly stave off global warming.

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

Experts completing final climate report

By ARTHUR MAX, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 1 minute ago

VALENCIA, Spain - The U.N.'s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be "criminally irresponsible."

Yvo de Boer's comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating. It is the fourth and last report issued this year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-winner of this year's Nobel Peace prize.

Environmentalists and authors of the report expected tense discussions on what to include and leave out of the document, which is a synthesis of thousands of scientific papers. A summary of about 25 pages will be negotiated line-by-line this week, then adopted by consensus.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning panel, said scientists were determined to "adhere to standards of quality" in the report. It was indirect barb at the government representatives, who have been accused by environmentalists of watering down and excluding vital information from the summaries of earlier reports to fit their domestic agendas.

The document to be issued Saturday sums up the scientific consensus on how rapidly the Earth is warming and the effects already observed; the impact it could have for billions of people; and what steps can be taken to keep the planet's temperature from rising to disastrous levels.

The IPCC already has established that the climate has begun to change because of the greenhouse gases emitted by humans, said de Boer, director of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Everyone will feel its effects, but global warming will hit the poorest countries hardest and will "threaten the very survival" of some people, he said.

"Failing to recognize the urgency of this message and act on it would be nothing less that criminally irresponsible" and a direct attack on the world's poorest people, De Boer said.

The report will provide the factual underpinning for a crucial meeting next month in Bali, Indonesia.

That conference will begin exploring a new global strategy to curb greenhouse gas emissions after the 2012 expiration of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, the landmark agreement that assigned binding reduction targets to 36 countries.

According to an early draft obtained by The Associated Press, the report will be the first to include a brief chapter on "robust findings and key uncertainties," in which the authors pick out what they believe are the most relevant certainties and doubts about climate change.

There was no guarantee the chapter would be accepted, however. One of the report's 40 co-authors, Bert Metz, said in an interview last week that he expected the section on uncertainties to be an issue of contention.

Among the uncertainties cited in the early draft: the lack of data from key areas of the world, conflicting studies on the effects of cloud cover and carbon soaked up by oceans, and projections on how planners in developing countries will factor climate change into their decisions.

The IPCC has already been criticized for the selectivity and language of the policy summaries, which have been softened on several points because of objections by countries including the United States, China and some big oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia.

On Monday, WWF International, one of several environmental groups invited to observe the process, said "governments cut vital facts and important information" during the negotiations.

Without naming them, the WWF accused governments of "politically inspired trimming" of facts from the summaries, which it said diluted the urgency to make deep cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

De Boer said getting governments to sign off on the summaries is a critical element of the IPCC's value.

___

On the Net:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch

(This version CORRECTS the spelling of Pachauri's first name)

[xTYBALTx]

Thank you for further discrediting the IPCC, Global.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Thank you for further discrediting the IPCC, Global.

This article does discredit the IPCC somewhat, but certainly not in a way that suggests a more conservative reading of their report. I'm highlighting that the controversy about the IPCC is mostly not that their assessments are "liberalized" to scare people with inaccurate information for personal gain, but that their conclusions are being slightly watered down to be considered acceptable by the US; and that their will be a new report out soon.

[xTYBALTx]

The article states, at length, that political concessions are made in the report. Only people from the WWF were asked about this particular issue for this particular article, insofar as I can tell, so obviously they're going to complain about a slant in one direction. I'm sure that if we asked people from a different camp, we'd hear about slants in other directions.

Apparently the one thing everyone can agree on is that political concessions are being made - which should be enough for anyone to ignore it.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Apparently the one thing everyone can agree on is that political concessions are being made - which should be enough for anyone to ignore it.

Oh my! I shudder at the thought of the pile of babies outside the window Tybalt discards his bathwater.

Tybalt, I think if you decide to ignore any information that could be tainted you will have a very dull life. Not only would the "Republican" Fox News and the "liberal media" be unacceptable but every person's opinion must be discarded because of a potential of deceit, political influence or unknown motives. Nothing is for certain. I think it's good to consider new information with a critical eye but might I encourage you to dig a bit more? My experience tells me that truth is seldom an easy thing to find.

I don't know how much politics plays a role in the IPCC, but global warming is a very hot-button issue at the moment and has the potential to make or lose people billions. It's no surprise to me to find political powers and businesses involving themselves in this tempest.

What I do know are my co-workers. I'm an IT guy at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and these scientists are professionals, although some have poor social skills. They've spent years cramming their brains in math classes that George Bush would certainly consider torture. They've spent entire summers on the freezing white wastelands of the Greenland Ice Sheet taking measurements. They are good, smart folk and I am certain that they didn't forget to consider the sun when they noticed the temperatures started to rise. They didn't pick their profession for money or fame. They're here because enjoy the work and think they can do some good.

On the IPCC, my co-workers agree it has problems and it might be influenced politically but the message is just about right.

Originally Posted by Amosely

Could it be that all these hundreds of scientists...

*cough* ...thousands of scientists... *cough*

Originally Posted by Amosely

...making up the IPCC's consensus are simply taking a limited perspective...to the bank...?

The National Center for Atmospheric Research is funded through grants, most through the National Sciences Foundation which gets it's money from the federal government so the pay isn't terrific. I'm not starving but I could make more money if I did my same job in the private sector. I can't speak for all weather scientists but if money was that important to my coworkers, they'd be working for AccuWeather.

But also consider that it's not these scientists who will profit from a prediction of global warming - they already had very stable jobs. The people who will profit are the people who trade carbon credits, the people who build a more efficient automobile and the people who efficiently sequester CO2. In fact, since humans never like to face long term problems, even if the scientists now raising the alarm are right, they will probably all be dead by the time there has been enough consequences for people to take real action.

And as an aside, some of the scientists are annoyed by global warming because it gets in the way of other work. Since it's such a big thing, they can't get funding for a project that just studies the vortex currents at the north pole unless they submit it as "The Effects of the North Pole's Vortex Currents on Global Warming". See Tybalt? Even people with the best intentions are forced to play politics at times.

Originally Posted by Acreo Aeneas

Global warming is starting to sound like business propaganda intended to attract large swarms of potential customers for products they may or may not use within their lifetimes...

I agree but that seems to be how America (and the rest of the world, which is quickly learning the game) works. Once the band wagon gets moving, people looking to make (or save) a buck jump on and start yelling. Unfortunately they often give people the wrong impression and the truth is easily lost. I believe this happened to Greenpeace.

Let me see if I can offer some counter-points to other things said in this thread.

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Interestingly enough, the Antartic just isn't behaving to global warming beliefs.

Your Antarctica article is a straw man argument- it assumes that global warming would predict a shrinking Antarctica and then proves that assumption wrong. The thing is that Antarctica is not expected to shrink for some time. Here's an actual prediction made by the IPCC in November of 2000:

Originally Posted by http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/046.htm

Even if Antarctica were to warm in the future, its mass balance is expected to become more positive: The rise in temperature would be insufficient to initiate melt but would increase snowfall (IPCC 1996, WG II, Section 7.4). Little change in Antarctic ice sheets is expected over the next 50 years, although longer-term behavior-including that of West Antarctic ice-remains uncertain, and some instability is possible.

So, if Antarctica is still growing in 50 years, you might be on to something.

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Artic though is smaller this year. Nasa points to a 2 year sustained winds that led to lower perenial ice at the north pole.

Interesting...

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

When the wind abates, you will have more ice at the arctic.

That's quite the conclusion to draw. The article says that the winds are responsible for the low reading but it certainly doesn't say it's the only cause! Did you see the part, "From the 1970s through the 1990s, perennial ice declined by about 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) each decade. Since 2000, that amount of decline has nearly tripled." If the article is suggesting that I'm going to have more ice when the two year wind abates, isn't it shooting it's own argument in the foot by pointing out I lost ice for the 30ish years since the 1970s when there was no wind?

Originally Posted by leejo

Go ahead and try to prove that the sun isn't causing global warming. I triple dog dare you.

I can't. I can show you the solar irradiance is almost exactly where we would expect it to be in its cycle for the 30+ we've been monitoring it. I can show you that ultraviolet and cosmic ray intensity are also spot on. I can point you to studies that indicate that the increases in solar radiation that we have seen in the last century are no where near able to account for the temperature changes we've already seen. I can show you that scientists have looked to Sol and not found a connection. You can find a summary article of much of this at http://environment.newscientist.com/...change/dn11650


There are a lot of reasons to dislike the idea of global warming- weathermen get things wrong all the time, the science is still evolving, environmentalists want to rob CingularDuality of his SUV and who really wants Disneyworld underwater? And then there are a whole lot of businesses who have an interest in knocking the idea of global warming. It's all very confusing!

If you want to know a side closer to the scientists making these predictions, I'm happy to offer what I can. If you don't, that's fine too because I doubt this issue will have much impact in your lifetime.

bkelly

P.S. - Sorry for the do-it-yourself URLs, I'm still not allowed to post them.

Edit: fixed typos

[Lucky Shot]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Your Antarctica article is a straw man argument- it assumes that global warming would predict a shrinking Antarctica and then proves that assumption wrong. The thing is that Antarctica is not expected to shrink for some time. Here's an actual prediction made by the IPCC in November of 2000:

The underpinning of their 2000 IPCC report was tied to Mann's Hockey Stick theory which has been discredited. If the basis for which the science rests is questionable, then the resulting predictions are nothing better then a fortune telling.

So, if Antarctica is still growing in 50 years, you might be on to something.

Guess we will check back in 50 years. Ironically, the time period in which Global Warming fanatics select to make predictions where no one recalls the actual prediction is about 10 years. Here is a listing of previous predictions by James Hansen along with the corresponding results. http://newsbusters.org/node/13114

That's quite the conclusion to draw. The article says that the winds are responsible for the low reading but it certainly doesn't say it's the only cause! Did you see the part, "From the 1970s through the 1990s, perennial ice declined by about 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) each decade. Since 2000, that amount of decline has nearly tripled." If the article is suggesting that I'm going to have more ice when the two year wind abates, isn't it shooting it's own argument in the foot by pointing out I lost ice for the 30ish years since the 1970s when there was no wind?

During the 1970's, the earth left a minor cooling phase. There were many scientists who thought that we were headed into an ice age. So using data that starts at the trough and moves towards a peak is not significant in my mind. The last 8 years have been at a temperature stasis in spite of poorly place MTS devices that read warmer then the area.

I can't. I can show you the solar irradiance is almost exactly where we would expect it to be in its cycle for the 30+ we've been monitoring it. I can show you that ultraviolet and cosmic ray intensity are also spot on. I can point you to studies that indicate that the increases in solar radiation that we have seen in the last century are no where near able to account for the temperature changes we've already seen. I can show you that scientists have looked to Sol and not found a connection. You can find a summary article of much of this at http <colon> //environment <dot> newscientist <dot> com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

Can they predict within +/- a day of when the next sun spot will appear? Or when the next solar cycle will begin within a day or two? We both know they can't. They don't know when the next extended solar minimum will happen either which would have a disasterous effect on the earth, far worse then what we predict with a couple degrees warming.

Lucky Shot

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

The underpinning of their 2000 IPCC report was tied to Mann's Hockey Stick theory which has been discredited.

Simply, no.

The IPCC's Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001 based it's conclusions on observations made over the 20th century including a .6 degree C mean surface temperature increase, a 1 to 2 mm sea level increase, a widespread retreat of non-polar glaciers, a 2 week decrease in duration of ice cover of rivers and lakes, a decrease of cold/frost days around the globe, more frequent, persistent and intense El Nino events, a lengthening growing season in the higher latitudes, a poleward shift of plants, insects, birds and fish... and I could go on. The report then includes several computer models forecasting future temperature changes based on projections of carbon dioxide concentrations, the most conservative of which towers over Mann's estimates for the past millennium. Go look at the temperature graph on the last page of the Synthesis Report at http <colon> //www <dot> ipcc <dot> ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf and see if you still think Mann's data was included for anything but effect.

But that aside, how has Mann's data been discredited? Yes, a couple of people questioned the validity of the calculations and this lead to the National Research Council forming a panel to investigate. Their conclusion was that there were statistical anomalies but they wouldn't have much effect on the results and that there was still a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were the warmest in the past 400 years. Margins of error increase beyond four centuries which Mann understood when he titled his research "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations". For an in-depth discussion of this see http <colon> //en <dot> wikipedia <dot> org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy.

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

If the basis for which the science rests is questionable, then the resulting predictions are nothing better then a fortune telling.

Alas, there goes another baby.

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Ironically, the time period in which Global Warming fanatics select to make predictions where no one recalls the actual prediction is about 10 years. Here is a listing of previous predictions by James Hansen along with the corresponding results.

Other than this article has quite the ax to grind, I'm not seeing any big problem. In 2004 he said James Hansen found that it may only be ten years before the world passes a tipping point after which serious change is unavoidable. Then in 2007 he said that after ten more years of "business as usual" it would be too late. If the second scenario is three years too late, both are perfectly true. But honestly, we're never going to know for sure where we would have passed a tipping point even in hindsight. With that in mind, would it be a surprise that his prediction is ten years off?

Or were you referring to the part where the author compares James' long-term predictions to short-term data? Or the part where the author calls James' correct prediction that the temperature will rise an "astounding failure" because his estimate was high?

And as an aside, I wouldn't call James Hansen a "Global Warming fanatic" but he, like Al Gore, are acting as salesmen and dressing up their product as all salespeople do. Normally these kinds of people won't lie to you, but they also won't stop you from developing a few misconceptions.

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

During the 1970's, the earth left a minor cooling phase. There were many scientists who thought that we were headed into an ice age.

And we may have been. The issue back then was sulfur dioxide which reflected sunlight and created acid rain. It has been suggested that without the sulfur pollution, the planet would have been constantly warming since 1900. Recently, someone had the bright idea to release large quantities of SO(2) to counteract global warming. It would succeed... and change the pH of the oceans.

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

So using data that starts at the trough and moves towards a peak is not significant in my mind.

Understandable, but about when the data reaches the level of the previous peak? What about when it's twice as high? How about four times as high? Look at the data yourself at http <colon> //data <dot> giss <dot> nasa <dot> gov/gistemp/graphs/. I recommend the Sept 10 PDF.

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

The last 8 years have been at a temperature stasis in spite of poorly place MTS devices that read warmer then the area.

I call bull-patties. The graphs at the URL in the previous answer show this isn't true. Let's see your sources.

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

They don't know when the next extended solar minimum will happen either which would have a disasterous effect on the earth, far worse then what we predict with a couple degrees warming.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "solar minimum". Are you referring to something like the Maunder Minimum (http <colon> //en <dot> wikipedia <dot> org/wiki/Maunder_minimum), the period from 1645-1715 when there was little sunspot activity as well as the Little Ice Age (http <colon> //en <dot> wikipedia <dot> org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age)? If so, no causality between the two has been established.

Regardless, what are you suggesting? That we not consider global warming because the sun may freeze us tomorrow?

bkelly

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Alas, there goes another baby.

You've said this a couple of times now, but we're talking about science here. If a grand theory is based on a simple assumption, you can NOT take it seriously.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

If a grand theory is based on a simple assumption, you can NOT take it seriously.

You're right Cingular, and if Lucky Shot truly believes the IPCC's conclusions are based on the hocky stick graph, my comment to him is unfair.

I see a great deal of time, effort and evidence in a document like the IPCC report and it amazes me when someone dismisses the whole thing on a triviality of one small part.

bkelly

[Lucky Shot]

I'll make some basic responses to back up my thoughts and then because I have seen other global warming discussions get out of hand, bow out of the conversation.

I believe that Mann's Hockey Stick theory was a leading component of the IPCC's 2000 report . http://www.climatechangeissues.com/f...5mckitrick.pdf It certainly was until it was pointed out that it smoothed out the Little Ice Age in effect misrepresenting previous temperatures.

Secondly, you missed my point around James Hansen's predictions. He will make a 10 year doom and gloom prediction. Before the 10 year period is over, he will predict doom and gloom again in 10 years (not 7). It's always 10 years, and no one holds him accountable for his missed predictions. Yes, the article has an axe to grind, but that doesn't negate the point that he is off on his predictions and is not being held accountable for his dramatic misses.

Ironically, their is a misconception that the IPCC predicts the future. The head (Kevin Trenberth) of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and an advisory to the UN IPCC says in fact that the IPCC does not and can not predict the future. Most of the possibilities in their computer models are static and they produce basic "What if's" based on a couple variables. They don't account for the El Nino, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Recovery of the Ozone Layer, Observed trends in Forcing Agents, State of the Ocean, Sea Ice, or soil moisture as well as many other hundreds of possibilities.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...-27197,00.html

Jim Renwick, a lead author of the IPCC Working Group 1 Science report admits "climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well." This is based on an audit issued by New Zealand's NIWA which stated that climate forecasts were accurate about 48% of the time (Coin Flip territory).
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...-27197,00.html

Sulpher Dioxide generally makes it's way into the atmosphere via Volcano's who's eruptions can have a cooling effect. El Nino is known to have a warming effect. It's next to impossible to predict years in advance either, but it's clear that climate scientists can't. See Youtube video linked below that discusses recent Volcano's and El Ninos. A lack of volcano eruptions could lead to higher temperatures, just like a lack of hurricanes could lead to a drought in Georgia.

Recently, the GISS was forced to 1) Release it's source code to how it determines global temperature in a year after someone discovered a sizable discrepancy in the data. 2) Admit that their data near the turn of the century was wrong, and it was much lower then previously reported. In response, GISS changed the way their methodology, suspiciously, in order to get higher recent temperatures. Steve Mcyntire, the person who discovered the Y2K issue, reports on it here. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2077

You say Bull Patties around temperature being in a stasis, and I just discussed how the GISS attempted to move the numbers higher. See Youtube Video for link on temperature stasis over the past 6 years. The second part was around weather stations that may be reading warmer then it should be. Currently, there is a weather station site survey being completed where they are looking at the equipment being used to measure temperature in the US. This can be viewed at . They take photos of the weather stations and what became apparent was that the majority of weather stations were in poor position to measure temperature accurately. You can see the slide show here which shows many sites that fail to make a class 1 or 2 position which equates to a <1 degree error. 85% of the sites surveyed as of the powerpoint ranged from a class 3-5 and a corresponding error 1-5 degree. http://gallery.surfacestations.org/U...ml#thumb92.jpg The newer stations are being placed at a 4 due to a requirement that they bury cable along with it. Instead of placing it well away from buildings, instead they place it near buildings to save on expense (at the expense of reliability).

Current hypothesis ignore other planets in the solar system warming at the same time as our own which would suggest the sun has a major impact on temperature on our planet. Secondly, many suggest that CO2 increases follow temperature increases, not the other way around. Third, some climatologists downplay the Ocean's ability to absorb CO2 and don't factor it into their programs. While Wikipedia does not admin causality between solar minimums and global cooling, it does show that in the Maunder Minimum, the Dalton Minimum, and the Sporer minimum all coincided with lower solar activity and lower global temperature. There are studies on both sides that suggest Sunspot activity could impact Earth's temperature.
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=544

If you work with Ice Core's, then it's worth knowing about this particular study regarding ice cores and specifically how scientists disregarded the data that didn't fit the hypothesis in this particular case. http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Specifically, they threw out CO2 numbers that were high in older ice and disregarded low numbers in more recent ice.

Lastly, I question the UN's motivations as I don't feel that they will cure Global Warming. It's a naturally cyclical event and one that is better then the potential of Global Cooling which will happen again. On top of it, here are a couple of key UN quotes that say it all in my opinion.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

Originally Posted by Timothy Wirth, Former US Undersecretary of State for Global Issues

We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

Originally Posted by Bichard Benedick, former deputy assistant secretary of state

A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the (enhanced) greenhouse effect.

There are fair questions about how global temperature is measured and if it is accurate (or policy driven). There are questions of the impact of CO2 from ice cores. There are questions around the impact that the sun has on cloud formation, winds and global temperature especially in the wake of a warming solar system. There are certainly questions about the motivations of the UN (who some here trust far more then they do our own elected government). According to the video below, there are questions about whether the current rate of temperature change is historically unusual, or whether the Earth is even warming (It depends), or whether the earth is better off warmer or colder. Understand, that in the wake of mass corrections of Al Gore and James Hanson, I feel that I am being sold a lemon.





Lucky Shot