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

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Thu Dec 14 2006 - 15:15:03 EST

On 12/13/06, Janice Matchett <> wrote:

> At 01:49 PM 12/11/2006, Rich Blinne wrote:
> 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
> @ 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."

Remember this started with comments like (I don't know whether it is
you or someone you approve as your quoting methods are inscrutable. It
would extraordinarily helpful if you don't quote the Free Republic but
quote what they quote and save all of us many, many clicks.):

"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."

This was from a leaked version of the report and has been shown by Pim
and myself the reporting by the Telegraph contains egregious errors.
It seems you don't get a very basic thing has happened since 1995,
time has passed. Let's look at the law of non-contradiction in more
detail: a and not a cannot both be true in the same respect and at
**the same time**. Both the 1995 and 2001 statements are true because
they were made at different times. The studies were made and the
uncertainties were reduced. I suspect the 2007 report will be even
stronger because the evidence after 2001 has gone from a preponderance
to compelling.

The following was from a Bush Administration report signed by two
cabinet secretaries and Bush's science advisor praising the authors
for how well it was done. From the cover letter:

We commend the report's authors for both the thorough nature of their
work and their adherence to an inclusive review process. This product
sets a high standard for quality for subsequent Synthesis and
Assessment Products.

This was commissioned by Congress because they were dissatisfied with
the amount of uncertainty at the time in climate science. The fact
that the climate skeptics have ignored this report by an
administration that is undeniably skeptical concerning climate change
shows the current so-called skeptics are not truly skeptics but will
only accept the results they want to see. From the report's executive
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

As for the confidence in the data itself here's a table values for the
possible cause of climate change, whether it is anthropogenic or
natural (A or N), local or global effect (L or G), the amount of
forcing with amount of error (positive is warming, negative cooling)
and finally confidence of the reliability of the evidence. Greenhouse
gases overwhelm all the rest in both magnitude and reliability of the

Well-mixed greenhouse gases A G 2.43 [10%] High
Tropospheric ozone A L 0.35 [43%] Medium
Stratospheric ozone A L -0.15 [67%] Medium
Sulfate aerosols (direct) A L -0.40 [2X] Low
Black carbon aerosols (direct) A L 0.20 [2X] Very low
Organic carbon aerosols (direct) A L -0.10 [3X] Very low
Biomass burning aerosols (direct) A L -0.20 [3X] Very low
Indirect aerosol effect A L 0 to -2.0 Very low
Land-use A L -0.20 [100%] Very low
Aircraft contrails A L 0 to 0.1 Very low
Sun N G 0.30 [67%] Very low
Volcanic aerosols N G transitory

Also from this report is the predictions of various mechanisms would
have at different altitudes. What we have observed is warming at the
surface and troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere (this is not
computer models, this is actual measurements). Look at the table and
see which mechanism explains this measurement. This table alludes to
the aerosol cooling mentioned erroneously in the article as aerosol
sprays. What this does do is explain the cooling in the middle of the
twentieth century when such aerosols were much more prevalent. The
successful reduction of such aerosols in the U.S. has unmasked the
effects of greenhouse gas effects. So, in the future we will have
accelerated warming ironically due to pollution reduction success in
the U.S. China in particular has an extremely poor record on BC
aerosol emissions and if there is any global effect it is probably
warming. For the record, I am anti-Kyoto. The failure of the treaty to
deal with China or India will ultimately doom it to failure. As it
stands it is only a "feel good" measure that doesn't solve the

Mechanism Surface Troposphere Stratosphere
Increased solar output Warming Warming Warming
Volcanic eruptions Cooling Cooling Warming
Increased concentrations
of well-mixed greenhouse
(CO2, CH4, N2O,
halocarbons) Warming Warming Cooling
Increased tropospheric
ozone (O3) Warming Warming Slight cooling
Decreased stratospheric
ozone Negligible Slight cooling Cooling
Increased loading of
tropospheric sulfate
aerosol sum of direct
plus indirect effects Cooling Cooling Negligible
Increased loading of
carbonaceous aerosol
(black carbon [BC]
and organic matter [OM])
in the troposphere sum
of direct plus indirect
         Regional cooling or warming
possible global-average cooling Warming Uncertain
Land use and land cover changes
         Regional cooling or warming
probably slight global-average cooling Uncertain

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 15 01:51:36 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 15 2006 - 01:51:36 EST