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

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Mon Dec 11 2006 - 13:49:39 EST

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:
> 20 "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."

The UN is publishing the report because it is scheduled to do such

> 21 "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. .."

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

> ~ Janice
> UN Downgrades Man's Impact On The Climate
> The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 12-10-2006 | Richard Gray
> Posted on 12/09/2006 10:19:15 PM EST by blam
> [refresh browser]

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.

> UN downgrades man's impact on the climate
> Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
> Last Updated: 1:32am GMT 10/12/2006 [excerpts]
> Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously
> supposed, a
> United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.
> ...

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.

> 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.

Which is why they are doing a revision to the IPCC reports to get the
best data. This parallels work being done by the Bush administration
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.

> ~ Janice :)

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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 15 02:06:36 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 15 2006 - 02:06:36 EST