Cynical Nation

The UN's IPCC seems to agree!

"When it is released in February 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will report that man's impact on global climate is less than previously believed according to a story published in the Sunday edition of the UK-based Telegraph.

"The Telegraph says that the report will reduce its estimate of man's role in global warming by 25 percent. However, the IPCC will still project global temperatures to climb by 4.5 C during the next century and rising sea levels, albeit by half the amount -- 17 inches instead of 34 inches by 2100 -- forecast by the IPCC's 2001 report. It will also note that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have continued to climb over the past five years but that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution has been dampened by cooling caused by particulate matter and aerosol sprays, which accumulate in the upper atmosphere and reflect heat from the sun.

"The UN will say the findings are the result of more refined estimates based on new data rather than "a reduction in the risk posed by global warming."x"

Friday 12/11/2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml

Global Warming is bullshit. It started in the 60s, only at that time the Ponzi scheme was that we (evil humans, particularly white males) were bringing about an Ice Age with our selfishness.

This is why I wouldn't vote for Gore, and instead made the humiliating mistake of voting for Chimp.

Ha! That cracked me up. I just had to link to it: http://www.drumwaster.com/index.php/weblog/globally_warmed/

I think one of the problems with issues like Global Warming (and other issues for that matter) is that you have a lot of people like the one in Barry’s example above that really don’t know what they’re talking about, so they can’t discuss the issue intelligently.

Before even reading the article that JMK linked to I found this part of the quoted passage worth discussing:

“It will also note that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have continued to climb over the past five years but that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution has been dampened by cooling caused by particulate matter and aerosol sprays, which accumulate in the upper atmosphere and reflect heat from the sun.”

This is a phenomenon called Global Dimming. From what I’ve read and seen in previous reports Global Dimming masks the overall effect of Global Warming and there was a concern that some of the measures being suggested to reduce Global Warming, such as a reduction in burning the types of fuels that add particulates to the atmosphere would at the same time reduce Global Dimming to a greater extent. The idea was that Global Warming has been rising gradually and that once we reduce the number of particulates and eliminate much of the Global Dimming we could get hit with a dramatic surge all at once, rather than a gradual increase.

So once I went to the article itself I noticed right away that the text you quoted isn’t from the telegraph at all, it’s from a secondary source commenting upon the telegraph piece.

Here is the actual text of the article taken directly from the Telegraph, I think you’ll agree that it seems to contradict that secondary sources summation, and even predict how the report will be misinterpreted by climate sceptics:

UN downgrades man's impact on the climate

Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:37am GMT 11/12/2006

Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.
In a final draft of its fourth assessment report, to be published in February, the panel reports that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accelerated in the past five years. It also predicts that temperatures will rise by up to 4.5 C during the next 100 years, bringing more frequent heat waves and storms.
The panel, however, has lowered predictions of how much sea levels will rise in comparison with its last report in 2001.
Climate change sceptics are expected to seize on the revised figures as evidence that action to combat global warming is less urgent.
Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.
One leading UK climate scientist, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity surrounding the report before it is published, said: "The bottom line is that the climate is still warming while our greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated, so we are storing up problems for ourselves in the future."
The IPCC report, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, has been handed to the Government for review before publication.
It warns that carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the past five years by three per cent, well above the 0.4 per cent a year average of the previous two decades. The authors also state that the climate is almost certain to warm by at least 1.5 C during the next 100 years.
Such a rise would be enough to take average summer temperatures in Britain to those seen during the 2003 heatwave, when August temperatures reached a record-breaking 38 C. Unseasonable warmth this year has left many Alpine resorts without snow by the time the ski season started.
Britain can expect more storms of similar ferocity to those that wreaked havoc across the country last week, even bringing a tornado to north-west London.
The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.
It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.
Large amounts of heat have been absorbed by the oceans, masking the warming effect.
Prof Rick Battarbee, the director of the Environmental Change Research Centre at University College London, warned these masking effects had helped to delay global warming but would lead to larger changes in the future.
He said: "The oceans have been acting like giant storage heaters by trapping heat and carbon dioxide. They might be bit of a time-bomb as they have been masking the real effects of the carbon dioxide we have been releasing into the atmosphere.
"People are very worried about what will happen in 2030 to 2050, as we think that at that point the oceans will no longer be able to absorb the carbon dioxide being emitted. It will be a tipping point and that is why it is now critical to act to counter any acceleration that will occur when this happens."
The report paints a bleak picture for future generations unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. It predicts that the climate will warm by 0.2 C a decade for the next two decades if emissions continue at current levels.
The report states that snow cover in mountainous regions will contract and permafrost in polar regions will decline.
However, Julian Morris, executive director of the International Policy Network, urged governments to be cautious. "There needs to be better data before billions of pounds are spent on policy measures that may have little impact," he said.

It seems pretty clear that the scientists are just refining their data and getting a better idea of what the impact has been and will be in the future, they aren’t suggesting that it’s no longer a problem.

Bottom-line, the Telegraph reported that the IPCC will downgrade their estimates on what they believe to be manmade global warming by 25%. That’s a major re-consideration.

I don’t believe scientists are divided on global warming, but there’s a huge division over the idea of anthropomorphic (manmade) global warming.

Due to ice core samples and historical records, virtually all climatologists acknowledge that the earth was certainly far warmer than it is now around 650 years ago, when grapes grew in England, and the region around the Mediterranean was warmer still 2,000 years ago.

In between those periods much of the northern hemisphere got considerably colder. The question is what role has man’s activities had, if any, on global warming?

Given that the period 650 years ago was pre-industrial revolution, it would seem that it is apparent that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles of its own.

Not long ago PBS interviewed Dr. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a think tank on climate and environmental issues.

On the idea of any consensus on anthropomorphic global warming he said this, “Let me say something about this idea of scientific consensus...I think it's significant to straighten out misconceptions. One misconception is that 2,500 IPCC scientists agree that global warming is coming, and it's going to be two degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. That's just not so.

"In the first place, if you count the names in the IPCC report, it's less than 2,000. If you count the number of climate scientists, it's about 100. If you then ask how many of them agree, the answer is: You can't tell because there was never a poll taken. These scientists actually worked on the report. They agree with the report, obviously, in particular with the chapter that they wrote. They do not necessarily agree with the summary, because the summary was written by a different group, a handful of government scientists who had a particular point of view, and they extracted from the report those facts that tended to support their point of view."

And on the view by the more radical “greens” that we can’t wait for more data, we’ve got to do something now, he responds, “Well, the question is what you mean by "doing" something. I'm not a great believer in buying insurance if the risks are small and the premiums are high. Nobody in his right mind would do that. But this is the case here. We're being asked to buy an insurance policy against a risk that is very small, if at all, and pay a very heavy premium. We're being asked to reduce energy use, not just by a few percent but, according to the Kyoto Protocol, by about 35 percent within ten years. That means giving up one-third of all energy use, using one-third less electricity, throwing out one-third of all cars perhaps. It would be a huge dislocation of our economy, and it would hit people very hard, particularly people who can least afford it.

"For what? All the Kyoto Protocol would do is to slightly reduce the current rate of increase of carbon dioxide. And in fact, the UN Science Advisory Group has published their results. And they clearly show that the Kyoto Protocol would reduce, if it went into effect and were punctiliously observed by all of the countries that have to observe it - by the year 2050, - about 50 years from now - it would reduce the calculated temperature increase by .05 degrees Centigrade. That amount is not even measurable. So this is what you are being asked to buy."

I think Singer’s viewpoint is a far more sound, rational and open-minded one than that of those who consider the outcome firmly “established” and consider any scientific skepticism to be heretical.

JMK - I don’t believe scientists are divided on global warming, but there’s a huge division over the idea of anthropomorphic (manmade) global warming.

There’s not really any division regarding Global Dimming either. That’s a direct result of man made particulates in the atmosphere. Right now Global Dimming is keeping the temperatures down by blocking sunlight. We have to clean that up at some point because it’s not healthy either. Once we do the temperature will rise.

We can argue all day about this. The truth is that the earth does go through cycles, it’s undisputed that mankind has had an effect on those cycles, however it’s unclear to what extent the effect has been.

I think treaties like the Kyoto Accord are well intended, but poorly thought out. What good is an accord that is unworkable and impractical? In order for something to work it has to be doable.

"I think treaties like the Kyoto Accord are well intended, but poorly thought out. What good is an accord that is unworkable and impractical? In order for something to work it has to be doable." (GZ)


That's one of Singer's main points. Kyoto is an incredibly short-sighted Treaty and very possibly, given its impetus, malicious, as well.

It is designed to impact major economies like America's, while giving a pass to extreme "developing" polluters like India & China.

It's also a round-about way for the UN to get into the global tax business, a move which would make them at least a flimsy outline of a World Government.

On that I agree with the radical Paleo-Libertarians - "Any move toward World Government must be smothered in its crib."

Singer's point on Kyoto is, " All the Kyoto Protocol would do is to slightly reduce the current rate of increase of carbon dioxide. And in fact, the UN Science Advisory Group has published their results. And they clearly show that the Kyoto Protocol would reduce, if it went into effect and were punctiliously observed...about 50 years from now - it would reduce the calculated temperature increase by .05 degrees Centigrade. That amount is not even measurable.

And I agree with his primary premise, "I'm not a great believer in buying insurance if the risks are small and the premiums are high. Nobody in his right mind would do that. But this is the case here. We're being asked to buy an insurance policy against a risk that is very small, if at all, and pay a very heavy premium. We're being asked to reduce energy use, not just by a few percent but, according to the Kyoto Protocol, by about 35 percent within ten years. That means giving up one-third of all energy use, using one-third less electricity, throwing out one-third of all cars perhaps. It would be a huge dislocation of our economy, and it would hit people very hard, particularly people who can least afford it."

The problem for me is that given that we can't quantify how much of the climate change is due to natural earth cycles and how much is due to man's activities, it's difficult to outline a workable strategy.

Kyoto proposes a mammoth dislocation (a 35% reduction in energy use) for an admittedly negligible result. If radical dislocation would only deliver such meager results and the climate may still warm even further due to natural earth cycles, perhaps our energies are best spent another way, like preparing to deal with the problems being forecast - maybe higher seawalls and the like.

For me the problem with Kyoto-like solutions is that they immediately seek to restrict usage, and impose "carbon taxes" (government solutions) while generally ignoring alternative solutions like "natural balancing."

CO2 is taken in by plants that produce oxygen as a result - planting more trees, reducing deforestation and "farming" huge amounts of algae in the oceans, has been suggested to balance out the CO2 output, rather than focus on radically restricting energy use and emmissions.

Global warming is also happening on Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Is that man-made as well?

Ponzi would be proud of this movement. A bunch of losers and nobodies have annointed themselves as the protectors of the earth here to save mankind.

Now just move over and let them run the world.