Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

The latest research results on climate change are presented at the European Policy Centre (EPC) in Brussels later today.
The 36-page document summarized more than 1,400 studies presented at a climate conference in March in Copenhagen.

Quote:

It said greenhouse gas emissions and other climate indicators are at or near the upper boundaries forecast by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose 2007 report has been the scientific benchmark for the troubled UN talks.
There is also new evidence that the planet itself has begun to contribute to global warming through fall out from human activity.
Huge stores of gases such as methane -- an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide -- trapped for millennia in the Arctic permafrost may be starting to leak into the atmosphere, speeding up the warming process.
The natural capacity of the oceans and forests to absorb CO2 created by the burning of fossil fuels has also been compromised, research has shown.
The new report, written and reviewed by many of the scientists who compiled the IPCC document, calls on policy makers to take urgent steps to keep average global temperatures from increasing more than two degrees Centigrade (3.6 degree Fahrenheit), compared to pre-industrial levels.
"Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation ... is required to avoid 'dangerous climate change' regardless of how it is defined," it said.
"Temperature rises above 2 Celsius will be difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and are likely to cause major societal and environmental disruptions through the rest of the century and beyond."
The IPCC has said that achieving this goal would require industrialised nations to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40 percent compared to 1990 levels.
The new report suggested that deep and early emissions cuts -- one of the most contentious issues on the table in the UN talks -- are essential.
"Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of serious impacts, including the crossing of tipping points" beyond which natural forces reinforce the warming process.

Source: AFP

Synthesis Report online [pdf]

0 Replies

Quote:

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/06/01/newsflash-sunspot-appears/
Newsflash: Sunspot Appears!
Written by Nancy Atkinson ShareThis

OK, I admit " the headline is a little over the top. But the sun has been so quiet of late, that even a small sunspot can be exciting. There's been some debate whether this period of extreme solar calm is truly unusual, or just part of the natural cycle. But solar cycle models never predicted this low amount of activity. "It turns out that none of our models were totally correct," admitted Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, a member of an international panel of experts that are now trying to predict what the next solar cycle will hold. "The sun is behaving in an unexpected and very interesting way."
...
According to the forecast, the sun should remain generally calm for at least another year. This calm has a greater affect on Earth’s atmosphere than you might imagine. With low solar activity, the Earth's atmosphere can cool and contract. Space junk accumulates in Earth orbit because there is less aerodynamic drag; hence the increase in the number of collision event "alarms" for the ISS and shuttles. The calm solar wind whips up fewer magnetic storms around Earth's poles. Cosmic rays that are normally pushed back by solar wind instead intrude on the near-Earth environment. There are other side-effects, too, that can be studied only so long as the sun remains quiet.
...

0 Replies

Herr Hinteler wrote:

It said greenhouse gas emissions and other climate indicators are at or near the upper boundaries forecast by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose 2007 report has been the scientific benchmark for the troubled UN talks.
There is also new evidence that the planet itself has begun to contribute to global warming through fall out from human activity.
Huge stores of gases such as methane -- an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide -- trapped for millennia in the Arctic permafrost may be starting to leak into the atmosphere, speeding up the warming process.
The natural capacity of the oceans and forests to absorb CO2 created by the burning of fossil fuels has also been compromised, research has shown.
The new report, written and reviewed by many of the scientists who compiled the IPCC document, calls on policy makers to take urgent steps to keep average global temperatures from increasing more than two degrees Centigrade (3.6 degree Fahrenheit), compared to pre-industrial levels.
"Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation ... is required to avoid 'dangerous climate change' regardless of how it is defined," it said.
"Temperature rises above 2 Celsius will be difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and are likely to cause major societal and environmental disruptions through the rest of the century and beyond."
The IPCC has said that achieving this goal would require industrialised nations to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40 percent compared to 1990 levels.
The new report suggested that deep and early emissions cuts -- one of the most contentious issues on the table in the UN talks -- are essential.
"Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of serious impacts, including the crossing of tipping points" beyond which natural forces reinforce the warming process.

****************************************************************

Herr Hinteler does not quote directly from the "new Report". Herr Hinteler does not know that when reporters quote from a scientific report they usually make mistakes.

Herr Hinteler does not that there will be a meerting of nations in Copenhagen this December to discuss the alleged "global warming".

Herr Hinteler does not know that China and India HAVE SAID that the only way they( developing countries) will participate is if the USA and other DEVELOPED countries give some of their GNP to them.

Herr Hinteler does not know that the Kyoto Protocol was an abysmal failure and that most of the countries who signed on to it in 2001 DID NOT MEET THE GOALS LISTED.

Now,for the edification of Herr Hinteler, I will post the FACTS which are not llisted by Herr Hinteler above. The facts being the findings of the IPCC.

I am certain that Herr Hinteler will be able to read the following:

Temperature and sea level rise for each SRES scenario family
There are six families of SRES Scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises (excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow[5])for each scenario family.

Scenario B1
Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
Scenario A1T
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
Scenario B2
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
Scenario A1B
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
Scenario A2
Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
Scenario A1FI
Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 )

Now, I want Herr Hinteler to be so good as to read the next post

0 Replies

Note:

According to the authoritative IPCC, under a reasonable set of assumptions for global economic and population growth, the world should expect to warm by about 2.8c over the next century. Also, according to the IPCC, a global increase in temperature should cause the world to lose about 3 percent of its economic output.

A government program to force emission reductions to avoid some of these potential future losses would impose a cost of its own.

If we can only avoid some of the alleged damage(3% of economic output more than 100 years from now,) THE NET BENEFIT OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION WILL LIKELY BE A V E R Y S M A L L FRACTION OF TOTAL ECONOMIC OUTPUT.

William Nordhaus, who heads the widely respected ENVIRONMENTAL-ECONOMICS MODELING GROUP AT YALE, estimates the total expected net benefit of an OPTIMALLY designed, implemented and enforced global system, and the side deals made to put in place even an imperfect system would likely have costs that would dwarf 0.2 percent of global economic consumption.

NOW, this assumes that all countries of the world would agree to some kind of a plan.
*********************************************************************

0 Replies

For those who do not wish to read the entire Manzi column, it says, in essence---

The costs of Waxman-Markey would be more than ten times the benefits, even under extremely unrealistic ASSUMPTIONS of low costs and high benefits.

There are such things as Cost-Benefit analyses.

0 Replies

"Crops under stress as temperatures fall
Our politicians haven't noticed that the problem may be that the world is not warming but cooling, observes Christopher Booker. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5525933/Crops-under-stress-as-temperatures-fall.html

It isn't just the story itself that is interesting, but it raises questions in my mind, as follows: The story names places with unusually cooler weather, such as Canada, America Midwest, Norway, Saudi Arabia, South America, Brazil, Argentina, China, Eastern Europe and Ukraine, Great Britain, etc. I have seen other articles talking about cooler temperatures in other places. I realize these stories are anecdotal, however, the anecedotal stories seem to pretty numerous from all around the world. And what I see around me certainly does not indicate warming, or any noticeable difference since I was a kid, I still plant gardens about the same time, and I expect the last freeze or the first frost in Spring and Fall to be the same as it was a long time ago.

So my question is how do we know the climate monitoring stations or people are not cooking the books? All you would need would be certain countries or regions to be skewed to do it. And all you need is a fraction of a degree. Whenever checked, I have noticed the following map seems to consistently show the hottest spots as Siberia. As a skeptic, and one that wants to always see something for myself, I would like to see the data, see the temp stations, etc. I am not making an accusation, I am merely being skeptical, as skewed data would not be a surprise at all. After all, this issue has turned into a very big political football, wherein it has become a pivotal point or a lever to be used economically against the United States by certain other countries. Skewing the data would not surprise me in the least, or skewing how the monitoring stations are situated or monitored, there would be a number of ways to skin a cat.:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_H6XW_a4TYus/SaNsGgTOq2I/AAAAAAAAAXY/2KlEoJXoDmY/s1600/temp%2Banomaly.bmp

Sure enough, take a look at this website, good evidence of bad monitoring all over the United States. Look at all the orange and red pins rated at possibly skewed .02 or .05 C or greater:
http://www.surfacestations.org/

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/files/2009/02/ge-ushcn_at70pct-520.jpg

Example of a monitoring station, a bad one, obviously:

http://www.surfacestations.org/images/MarysvilleCA_USHCN_Site_small.jpg

5 Replies

@okie,

Correction that margin of error for bad climate measurement stations was apparently 2 to 5 degrees C, not .02 to .05, much worse than I thought. Actually I was thinking 0.2 to 0.5 when I typed the post, but it could be much worse than that. I think the site merely points out what the error could potentially be, not what it actually is, but a look at the map shows that an error of a half degree C is not at all improbable.

At the foundation of any research is accurate and sound data. It looks to me like we don't even have that. How can we even debate the cause of warming if we cannot prove it is happening, at least not the accuracy claimed. That was my take on this when this whole issue gained notorieity, and sure enough, my suspicions are still just as possible, and apparently very valid.

1 Reply

@okie,

Well, Brooker is the opinion
- that ... the scientific evidence to support their belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist ...
- that ... asbestos is as dangerous as talcum powder
- that .. . there's no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans ....
- that ...
(sources: see 'Sunday Telegraph' via links at Wikipedia)

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Temperature Highlights

- The May 2009 combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.95 degrees F (0.53 degrees C) above the 20th century average of 58.6 degrees F (14.8 degrees C).

- Separately, the global land surface temperature was 1.19 degrees F (0.66 degrees C) above the 20th century average of 52.0 degrees F (11.1 degrees C), the eighth warmest for May on record. - The global ocean surface temperature was 0.86 degrees F (0.48 degrees C) above the 20th century average of 61.3 degrees F (16.3 degrees C), the third warmest for May on record.

- For the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 56.5 degrees F (13.6 degrees C) tied with 2003 for the sixth warmest January-May period on record. This value is 0.97 degrees F (0.54 degrees C) above the 20th century average.

Other Global Highlights

- Sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean during May continued to increase for the fifth month in a row, supporting the presence of ENSO neutral state.

- Arctic sea ice covered an average of 5.17 million square miles during May. This is 1.6 percent less than the 1979-2000 average extent. By contrast, Antarctic sea ice extent in May was 6.6 percent above the 1979-2000 average. Since 1979, May Arctic sea ice extent has decreased by 2.5 percent per decade, while May Antarctic sea ice extent has increased by 2.1 percent per decade during the same period.

- Based on NOAA satellite observations, Northern Hemisphere snow cover last month was the seventh lowest for May in the 1967-2009 period of record. The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent was 0.73 million square miles below the 1967-2009 average of 7.8 million square miles.

Source: NOAA via South California Weather and Photo Blog

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

So my question is how do we know the climate monitoring stations or people are not cooking the books? All you would need would be certain countries or regions to be skewed to do it. And all you need is a fraction of a degree. Whenever checked, I have noticed the following map seems to consistently show the hottest spots as Siberia. As a skeptic, and one that wants to always see something for myself, I would like to see the data, see the temp stations, etc. I am not making an accusation, I am merely being skeptical, as skewed data would not be a surprise at all. After all, this issue has turned into a very big political football, wherein it has become a pivotal point or a lever to be used economically against the United States by certain other countries. Skewing the data would not surprise me in the least, or skewing how the monitoring stations are situated or monitored, there would be a number of ways to skin a cat.

The most easiest way, okie, is to get the data as they momentarily are: just subscripe to one of the numerous - local, regional, country - weather services which run the stations.
And then you get all the data the very same second as they are documented at the station(s).

Of course, you can question the accuracy of the apparatuses, how "bureaus of standards" work in different counties, that the internet is manipulated ...

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

The local weather stations don't participate in or monitor the climate monitoring stations though Walter, which probably at least partially explains why many/most of our local meteorologists aren't disciples of the AGW theories and aren't seeing the 'evidence' claimed by the AGW proponents. The National Weather Service oversees the systems with the information is collected and dispensed by the NOAA (of which the National Weather Service is a part) and many/most meteorologists don't think the real data correlates what the NOAA is putting out.

Quote:

Some of us are dubious of the “science” behind global warming. There are numerous reasons to be skeptical, but to take one, the temperature readings collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for the United States depend on 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service. The Heartland Institute has just issued a disturbing report titled “Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable,” that includes more than 100 photographs of these climate-monitoring stations, showing our official temperature gauges placed in the middle of asphalt parking lots, next to air conditioning unit exhaust fans, and on concrete slabs next to roadways. Official U.S. temperature records have been"there is no other word for it"cooked. The examination of this scandal continues.

http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=834

(Note: As previously reported, one local meteorologists who checked out a lot of the local 'weather underground' monitoring stations discovered many were placed to ensure skewing of the data collected. You can't put one next to an air conditioner compressor and expect to get honest readings. This explains the wide discrepancy that sometimes exists among monitoring stations scattered across Albuquerque.

Quote:

Longtime WCCO-TV meteorologist Mike Fairbourne says that the environmental movement is practicing "squishy science" when it ties human activity to global warming.

Fairbourne's assessment Monday came on the same day that the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine appeared before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., and announced that it has the signatures of more than 31,000 scientists -- including Fairbourne's -- who agree that the human impact on global warming is overblown.

Fairbourne, who joined WCCO in 1977 and has been a meteorologist for 40 years, said that while there is no doubt that "there has been some warming" of global temperatures in recent years ... there is still a pretty big question mark" about how much of that warming is from human activity.

"Do we need to be wise stewards [of the Earth]? Absolutely," Fairbourne said. "Do we have to pin everything that happens on global warming? No, we need to have cooler heads."

Fairbourne said he signed the institute's petition about five years ago. The group said that hundreds of meteorologists are among the signees.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/19095579.html?location_refer=Commentary

1 Reply

@okie,

That's nice okie..
Now can you tell us which of the stations are used in factoring global temperature.

HINT - All those you listed are NOT.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The local weather stations don't participate in or monitor the climate monitoring stations though Walter, which probably at least partially explains why many/most of our local meteorologists aren't disciples of the AGW theories and aren't seeing the 'evidence' claimed by the AGW proponents. The National Weather Service oversees the systems with the information is collected and dispensed by the NOAA (of which the National Weather Service is a part) and many/most meteorologists don't think the real data correlates what the NOAA is putting out.

That's of course an important point.

Do you think, Foxfyre, one should neglect all official data like from airports, harbour stations, weather buoys, weather ships etc?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Correction that margin of error for bad climate measurement stations was apparently 2 to 5 degrees C, not .02 to .05, much worse than I thought. Actually I was thinking 0.2 to 0.5 when I typed the post, but it could be much worse than that. I think the site merely points out what the error could potentially be, not what it actually is, but a look at the map shows that an error of a half degree C is not at all improbable.

At the foundation of any research is accurate and sound data. It looks to me like we don't even have that. How can we even debate the cause of warming if we cannot prove it is happening, at least not the accuracy claimed. That was my take on this when this whole issue gained notorieity, and sure enough, my suspicions are still just as possible, and apparently very valid.

You ar correct in suggesting there are numerous small errors in the various sources for local temperature around the world. However that does not directly contradict concerns about global warming (or cooling). Moreover, in almost all cases the sources for these errors (including those indicated in the photo you pasted) are random in the direction of their effect. There is no reason to believe they are systematically either high or low. In large numbers these errors should mostly cancel out. Moreover, even thermomiter with a bias can accurately detect a change over time.

It is also true that the claimed and "observed" warming that has occurred in the past century is small - about o.5 deg C. That doesn't mean it is insignificant. We know beyond doubt from the geological record that the climate of the earth has never been stable -- there have been repeated hot and cold excursions; ice ages followed by periods of extreme warmth. The problem here is that the geological time scale is very long compared to human life, recorded human history, and the entire biological life of our species. The rate at which these large changes have occurred has been small and often only detectable after a long period.

Many of the concerns about global warming are motivated by rather good data about carbon releases into the atmosphere and the known effects this can have on limiting the reradiation of the earths heat to outer space through the atmosphere. The problem, of course, is that not all of the atmospheric, oceanic and biological elements of the earth's carbon cycle are fully understood. There is dispute and uncertainty about the duration and magnitude of the likely effects of the large-scale increase in human carbon emissions now ongoing in the world. There is also dispute about the likely physical and economic effects and the cost and benefit of reducing our carbon emissions. In addition some AGW zealots have misused existing numerical models that are known to be defective to wrongfully forecast imminent warming disaster. However, none of this means that the possibility of warming is an illusion, or that all concerns about the possible effects should be dismissed..

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

There's an interesting article in today's newspaper about the glaciers in Argentina growing while it's shrinking in antarctica. Facts and theories become meshed in these contradictions that makes it difficult to assign blame to man-made carbons.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You ar correct in suggesting there are numerous small errors in the various sources for local temperature around the world. However that does not directly contradict concerns about global warming (or cooling). Moreover, in almost all cases the sources for these errors (including those indicated in the photo you pasted) are random in the direction of their effect. There is no reason to believe they are systematically either high or low. In large numbers these errors should mostly cancel out. Moreover, even thermomiter with a bias can accurately detect a change over time.

I agree with most of what you said, but I do think the errors are quite possibly, or probably skewed to the plus side more often than the other way around. Most monitoring stations that are placed or situated poorly are probably going to suffer from heat island effects around asphalt, buildings, equipment, or other situations. I cannot envision a situation very often where something will cause cooling.

All you have to do to know this is take a bicycle ride through a community and you can noticeably detect temperature changes from area to area, based upon vegetation, people, buildings, presence of water, roads, etc. All we are talking about is a half degree worldwide, and it would not require much tampering or inaccuracy to bring about at least a goodly portion of that.

Another issue, snow and ice cover, we often see conflicting information, but I would like to inject an important point, seldom do we see written the fact that the amount of precipitation or snow is probably as important or more important than temperatures, in terms of glaciers growing or receding.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The local weather stations don't participate in or monitor the climate monitoring stations though Walter, which probably at least partially explains why many/most of our local meteorologists aren't disciples of the AGW theories and aren't seeing the 'evidence' claimed by the AGW proponents. The National Weather Service oversees the systems with the information is collected and dispensed by the NOAA (of which the National Weather Service is a part) and many/most meteorologists don't think the real data correlates what the NOAA is putting out.

That's of course an important point.

Do you think, Foxfyre, one should neglect all official data like from airports, harbour stations, weather buoys, weather ships etc?

I don't think we should 'neglect' any pertinent information from any source in this matter, Walter. I think it all should be out there for scrutiny, evaluation, critcism, commentary, and debate.

1 Reply

@okie,

Another interesting article about the guy that conducted the study of weather monitoring stations:
A photo of one of the weather stations is also shown below the quoted article.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/05/a-significant-editorial-on-weather-station-and-data-quality/

"The study, recently published by the free-market Heartland Institute, inspected 860 of the 1,221 U.S. ground stations that gauge temperature changes. The findings were alarming.

They found 89 percent of stations “fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements” that say stations must be located at least 100 feet from artificial heat sources.

We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering hot rooftops and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat,” Mr. Watts reported.

Many stations also had added more sensitive measuring devices, heat-generating radio transmission devices and even latex paint to replace original whitewash, resulting in greater heat retention and reflection.

At one location, Mr. Watts said when he “stood next to the temperature sensor, I could feel warm exhaust air from the nearby cell phone tower equipment sheds blowing past me! I realized this official thermometer was recording the temperature of a hot zone . . . and other biasing influences including buildings, air conditioner vents and masonry.”

These influences produce readings higher than actual ambient temperatures, Mr. Watts said. Moreover, the research revealed “major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors.”

These inflated, error-prone, tinkered-with temperature recordings are one of several measurements cited by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as evidence man-made global warming is a threat. But the Heartland study concluded, “The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be ‘the best in the world,’ it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.”

Before devastating the economy to fix a problem that may not exist, we ought to get the numbers right."

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=42242&g2_serialNumber=2

1 Reply

@okie,

That's an interesting photo there okie.. Can you point out what has changed to that weather station in the last 30 years?

I would guess it has always been on the roof. The vents next to it certainly don't look new. We can't really tell how far away those vents are either.

1 Reply

Note:

According to the authoritative IPCC, under a reasonable set of assumptions for global economic and population growth, the world should expect to warm by about 2.8c over the next century. Also, according to the IPCC, a global increase in temperature should cause the world to lose about 3 percent of its economic output.

A government program to force emission reductions to avoid some of these potential future losses would impose a cost of its own.

If we can only avoid some of the alleged damage(3% of economic output more than 100 years from now,) THE NET BENEFIT OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION WILL LIKELY BE A V E R Y S M A L L FRACTION OF TOTAL ECONOMIC OUTPUT.

William Nordhaus, who heads the widely respected ENVIRONMENTAL-ECONOMICS MODELING GROUP AT YALE, estimates the total expected net benefit of an OPTIMALLY designed, implemented and enforced global system, and the side deals made to put in place even an imperfect system would likely have costs that would dwarf 0.2 percent of global economic consumption.

NOW, this assumes that all countries of the world would agree to some kind of a plan.
*********************************************************************

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know