Global warming...yes again

[Hank49]

basically they're saying, yeah, we screwed the pooch, but let's not go bankrupt fixing things. this is not about science; it's about economics.

.

Or they're admitting that they don't know about the science end of it and they're not sure if the warming trend will actually reverse, stop or even slow if carbon emissions are stopped or reduced. I mean, can YOU actually lay out a plan to start Earth back to a cooling trend?

 

[H2Andy]

I mean, can YOU actually lay out a plan to start Earth back to a cooling trend?

well, that's not the goal is it? you basically misunderstand the problem. we should not be trying to do ANYTHING to change climate, one way or the other. we should be trying to do EVERYTHING in our power to reduce our effect on climate.

the goal is to reduce the effects of man-made elements on natural cycles, so they don't run away from us.

the problem is we have changed climate (literally) practically overnight. the solution is to limit our impact on climate and let it do its thing (whatever that might be)

btw, i think it's too late. we've pushed the rock over the hill already

but in case we haven't, it would be a good precaution to cut back on CO2 emissions to begin with, and try to limit our impact on climate in general

 

[Skull]

0.6 deg C to the plus side over the past century ...is hardly by any stretch of the imagination "changed climate (literally) overnight ...come on Andy that is at the core of some of these scientists protest ...at the very least read what they are protesting about ...the variations in carbon monitoring and temperature escallation is well within the boundries of natural events/cycles ...this is the core of their assessments of the data concerning the IPCC report ..also the fact that the mean temp is an elusive standard to reach and the simple fact that no significant warming has occured since 1998 ...

 

[Charlie99]

their issue is what to do about it:

"the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity."

basically they're saying, yeah, we screwed the pooch, but let's not go bankrupt fixing things. this is not about science; it's about economics.
.

Agreed. That is indeed the point. To use their language:

In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

A rather more elegant way of stating the same concern that I have, which is that the cure may be worse than the disease.

 

[Charlie99]

of note is that most, if not all the signatories of that letter are non-specialists in climatology and form the minority view regarding global warming:

Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate conference

I suggest that you look at that list again. There are many climatologists in the list, and indeed there are many that have headed major governmental groups.

Yes, there are also a few non-scientists, like the former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister or Secretary of Treasury sort of position). I do believe that he is someone worth listening to when considering our response to global warming and the potential side effects.



I'll help you a little, by extracting from the list a few names and highlighting their experience -----

* John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

* Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

* William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology

* Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

* Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

* Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

* David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

* Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

* Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

* A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

* Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

* David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

* The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
(Yes, Andy, this is a NON-SCIENTIST. It also happens to be what most people consider to be the #2 position in the UK government)

* David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

 

[H2Andy]

I suggest that you look at that list again. There are many climatologists in the list

yeah, that's 14 out of 100

as i said, most of them are people who have degrees in sociology physics, whatever

they still represent the minority view

 

[Skull]

Kapernicus, Galileo, Reimann, James Clark Maxwell, Darwin, ...just to name a few who were in the minority ...just a thought

 

[Lopaka]

Kapernicus, Galileo, Reimann, James Clark Maxwell, Darwin, ...just to name a few who were in the minority ...just a thought

And often politically incorrect. Amazing how things repeat in history.................

 

[Charlie99]

yeah, that's 14 out of 100

as i said, most of them are people who have degrees in sociology physics, whatever

That just tells me that you never got past the first name in the alphabetical list. Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate conference

Look again at the names I extracted to help you. To give you a little further assistance, I'll explain a bit more.

#1 on my list: * John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand ------

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is the United Nations organization that coordinates meteorological observations and studies. John Maunder was the President of the Commission for Climatology. John Maunder was president of this group and directed much of the UN's effort in this area. IMO, his comments are worth noting.

Similarly, I would consider that the people that have headed up national weather bureaus/meteoroglical/climate research organizations to worth listening to. Look at the list again ----

- the director research at the Dutch meteorogical institute
- head of Austrialias's national climate research center
-- head of Norways forecasting center
-- head NATO meteorologist
- multiple heads of university climate/weather/geological & isotope departments.
-- multiple climate researchers
-- multiple paleogeoligists

==============================

Now look again at what they are saying. Don't just go "they don't buy 100% into the IPCC summary, so let's ignore them".

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

....

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

It seems that in many peoples eyes, if someone doesn't buy 100% into the "consensus" that they are automatically considered to be crackpots and unreliable.

There are many well informed researchers that have serious doubts about the relationship of CO2 and global warming, and feel that the myoptic focus on CO2 to the exclusion of other forcing mechanisms is both bad science and bad public policy.

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » Main Conclusions is a good summary by another climatologist that is often incorrectly identified by the news media as a "global warming denier".

Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.

 

[dlndavid]

Thanks for posting Charlie, very rational and logical, great links!