Re: [asa] UN Downgrades Man's Impact On The Climate

From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu Dec 14 2006 - 13:02:02 EST

First -- A beautiful picture of the Sun:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1727404/posts?page=21#21

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:49:39 -0700 Rich Blinn wrote:

On 12/10/06, Janice Matchett wrote:

>I waited a while to see if anyone else was going
>to post this. I guess not. :) First, a couple of comments:
>
>"The fact that the UN would publish such a
>report is a sign that the counter evidence is
>too strong for them to lie about it. The truth
>is actually still far from what they allow
>themselves to admit." ~ # 20
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1751171/posts

The UN is publishing the report because it is
scheduled to do such things. ~ Rich B.

  @ Really? : ) "..Questions also remain
regarding Annan's appointment of German activist
Achim Steiner as Executive Director of the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) just months
after Steiner helped award Annan $500,000."
~ Matchett-PI - MORE: Kofi Annan's Legacy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1753287/posts?page=11#11

Another consideration.
#86:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1751171/posts?page=86#86
~ Matchett-PI

>"The reason for global warming (as well as
>global cooling) is the potential of
>multi-billion dollar grants from the US
>government to do nothing more than just wait for
>the sun cycle to come around. .." ~ #
>21 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1751171/posts

See my recent post about upper atmosphere
temperature trends. The sun cycle is not going to help. ~ Rich B.

@ I saw it, and I don't buy it.

Dialing in your own
climate
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-forcings/greenhouse-gases/

>UN Downgrades Man's Impact On The Climate The
>Telegraph (UK) ^ | 12-10-2006 | Richard Gray
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1751171/posts

The Telegraph has the worst science reporting on
the planet. I would take their leaks from the
upcoming IPCC report with a grain of salt. ~ Rich B.

@ Worse than Nature? "Nature authors make an
assumption that defies the laws of physics. But
that doesn’t stop them from concluding that the
satellite-based temperature record is
dramatically cooled by the atmospheric layer just
above it. .." ~ Assault From Above
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/05/04/assault-from-above/#more-66

>"Mankind has had less effect on global warming
>than previously supposed, a United Nations
>report on climate change will claim next year." ~ Richard Gray

Note the tense here and note the discrepancy
below. Mankind "has had less effect" on global
warming versus mankind "will have less effect"
which would be a case for a revised prediction.
Even if what follows is true -- and it is not --
the first sentence is a giant non sequiter. If
anything has happened since the 2001 IPCC report
the case for anthropogenic greenhouse gases
causing measurable CURRENT climate change has
been strengthened. To be sure, it is less than
some the alarmists have stated and the connection
between climate change and hurricane
frequency/intensity is still an open question
with a slight lean towards the connection. ~ Rich B.

@ According to "their predetermined agenda",
their "revised predictions" will always be
towards "man-made catastrophies", so I would take
all their "predictions" with a grain of salt. How about you? : ) :

No __firm__ link yet between human-caused global
warming and intensity of cyclones – UN 12 December 2006
Despite a recent increase in dangerous typhoons
and hurricanes, no firm link can yet be drawn
between human-induced climate change and
variations in intensity and frequency of tropical
cyclones, the United Nations World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) has reported, citing a
consensus of 125 leading researchers and
forecasters. ..." MORE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1753038/posts

>"The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>Change ...has reduced its overall estimate of
>this effect by 25 per cent. ... The panel...has
>lowered predictions of how much sea levels will
>rise in comparison with its last report in 2001." ~ Richard Gray

I don't trust ANYBODY's predictions on sea level.
There are two many free variables most
specifically how much anthropogenic CO2 there is
going to be. The climate sensitivity numbers from
the 2001 report have been confirmed by more
recent research. We don't know how successful or
unsuccessful we will be at controlling CO2
emissions or external factors such as possibly
running out oil might have. We are discovering
different negative (and positive!) feedback
mechanisms that also affect the CO2 levels. Since
2001 we have better models where given the right
inputs we can predict the effects but it is still
GIGO (garbage in garbage out) because we still do
not have accurate prediction of CO2 levels and probably never will. ~ Rich B.

@ That's right. You never will. : )

>"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... 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." ~ Richard Gray

In the last three years we have improved the
models contradicting both the alarmists and
skeptics. The prediction of 1.5-4 degrees C
climate sensitivity has held up quite well,
proving that the 2001 IPCC report was not beholden to the alarmists. ~ Rich B.

@ This is an improvement??: Cow 'emissions'
more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1753383/posts?page=7#7

>"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. ..." ~ Richard Gray

Here the ignorance of the writer is revealed --
typical Telegraph reporting. It is not aerosol
sprays it's aerosols. CFCs from aerosol sprays
have a modest warming effect. As a result of the
Montreal round, the direct forcing due to CFCs
has gone down. This could be the effect the
scientists are talking about and the Telegraph
reporter was hopelessly confused. Furthermore,
not all aerosols are created equal. The aerosols
that were predominate in the West did have a
slight cooling effect but are overwhelmed by the
warming effect of CO2. (2.5 W/m^2 versus -0.5
W/m^2). What's also not stated is that black
carbon aerosols more prevalent in the developing
world can have positive forcings. The amount of
such aerosols have been going down in the last
few decades, masking the effects of the CO2
emissions. This means that the effects will be
more pronounced in the future. This makes me
question the entire article because disappearing
aerosols would increase the sea level prediction,
not decrease it. But then again, it could be
taking into account banning CFCs has decreased
the predictions for sea levels. But that wouldn't
fit the Telegraph's pre-determined agenda. ~ Rich B.

@ Yes, the "developing world" is considered to be
"the problem". But China, and other big polluter
dictatorships that have deep pockets can't be
manipulated out of their money like "Uncle Sap"
usually can, so Kyoto isn't aimed at them. Only
the credulous and those who are able to manipulate them, think otherwise.

>"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." ~ Richard Gray

Which is why they are doing a revision to the
IPCC reports to get the best data. This parallels
work being done by the [B--- Adm.] and signed by
two cabinet secretaries to get better data and
models. Their report from last Spring noted that
the climate models and data collection were
good. The report cited the upper atmosphere data
I noted previously and concluded the recent
global warming was more likely caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gases than by sun cycles.

@ Computer models = Garbage in = garbage out = NOT "the best data".

Finally, can I get you on the record that you
will abide by the 2007 IPCC report in
advance? I'll do so right now. ~ Rich B.

@ I'll just repeat what I wrote in my previous post on that score:

Are you kidding me??? Never. This is how the "reports" are done:

"The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of
positive detection of significant climate change
are likely to remain controversial until
uncertainties in the total natural variability of
the climate system are reduced." It also said,
"No study to date has positively attributed all
or part of observed climate changes to
anthropogenic causes." Those statements were
removed, and in their place appeared: "The
balance of evidence suggests a discernable human
influence on climate." - Excerpted from item below:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1752276/posts?page=46#46

"....... And so, in this elastic anything-goes
world where science-or non-science-is the hand
maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive
at last at global warming. ..." More at link.

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 14 13:02:50 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 14 2006 - 13:02:50 EST