“The subsequent analysis of the pertinent literature made no remark on the veracity or legitimacy of the papers it counted.”
The abstracts that Peiser reviewed were drawn from the exact same database that Oreskes used to create her “study”. And the phrase was “global climate change”, not “global climate”.
Peiser came up with wildly different results than what Oreskes claims. Three to one AGAINST the notion of anthropogenic climate change. Using the same abstracts that Oreskes used. One or the other is lying, or has misinterpreted the abstracts. Why is there no willingness on the side of the left to ask these questions?
"Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.
322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change, while only 34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years."
"Quite a number of papers emphasise that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change (4). My analysis also shows that there are almost three times as many abstracts that are sceptical of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it (5, 6, 7)
Reference 4. C. M. Ammann et al., for instance, claim to have detected evidence for "close ties between solar variations and surface climate", Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191-201. While G.C. Reid stresses: "The importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies." Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-17th century. Climate Change. 37 (2): 391-405
In 2000, researchers based at Imperial College London examined satellite data covering almost three decades to plot changes in the amount of infrared radiation escaping from the atmosphere into space - an indirect measure of how much heat is being trapped. In the part of the infrared spectrum trapped by CO2 - wavelengths between 13 and 19 micrometres - they found that between 1970 and 1997 less and less radiation was escaping. They concluded that the increasing quantity of atmospheric CO2 was trapping energy that used to escape, and storing it in the atmosphere as heat. The results for the other greenhouse gases were similar.
These uncontested facts are enough to establish that "anthropogenic" greenhouse gas emissions are tending to make the atmosphere warmer. What's more, there is little doubt that the climate is changing right now. Temperature records from around the world going back 150 years suggest that 19 of the 20 warmest years - measured in terms of average global temperature, which takes account of all available thermometer data - have occurred since 1980, and that four of these occurred in the past seven years (see Graph).
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2486/24861402.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/#more-277
"There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming. Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earth's climate. Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earth's cloud cover. Svensmark and others have also argued that recent global warming has been a result of solar activity and reduced cloud cover. Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws. For one thing, it is clear that the GCR does not contain any clear and significant long-term trend (e.g. Fig. 1, but also in papers by Svensmark).
Svensmark's failure to comment on the lack of a clear and significant long-term downward GCR trend, and how changes in GCR can explain a global warming without containing such a trend, is one major weakness of his argument that GCR is responsible for recent global warming. This issue is discussed in detail in Benestad (2002). Moreover, the lack of trend in GCR is also consistent with little long-term change in other solar proxies, such as sunspot number and the solar cycle length, since the 1960s, when the most recent warming started."
Reference 5) H.R. Linden (1996) The evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 21:31-67.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/
Reference 6) Russian scientists K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos criticise "the undoubtfully overemphasised contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change". K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos (1996). Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 21: 31-67
There is no doubt that human activity is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and that this has caused a sustained year-on-year rise in CO2 concentrations. For almost 60 years, measurements at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii have charted this rise, and it is largely uncontested that today's concentrations are about 35 per cent above pre-industrial levels (see Graph).
Here is an inconvenient fact:
There have been times when CO2 levels have been much much higher than today and we were in an ice age.
here is another inconvenient fact:
There have been times when temperatures were much much higher than today and CO2 levels were very low.
There is NO absolute correlation between CO2 and temperatures.
Comment by factman " June 22, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C.
The global average surface temperature (the average of near surface air temperature over land, and sea surface temperature) has increased since 1861. Over the 20th century the increase has been 0.6 ± 0.2°C. This value is about 0.15°C larger than that estimated by the SAR for the period up to 1994, owing to the relatively high temperatures of the additional years (1995 to 2000) and improved methods of processing the data. These numbers take into account various adjustments, including urban heat island effects. The record shows a great deal of variability; for example, most of the warming occurred during the 20th century, during two periods, 1910 to 1945 and 1976 to 2000.
Globally, it is very likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record, since 1861.
New analyses of proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years. It is also likely that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year . Because less data are available, less is known about annual averages prior to 1,000 years before present and for conditions prevailing in most of the Southern Hemisphere prior to 1861.
On average, between 1950 and 1993, night-time daily minimum air temperatures over land increased by about 0.2°C per decade. This is about twice the rate of increase in daytime daily maximum air temperatures (0.1°C per decade). This has lengthened the freeze-free season in many mid- and high latitude regions. The increase in sea surface temperature over this period is about half that of the mean land surface air temperature.
"Anybody who has followed press reporting on global warming, and particularly on its effects on hurricanes, has surely encountered various contrarian pronouncements by William Gray, of Colorado State University.
A meeting paper
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/107533.pdf
that Gray provided in advance of the 2006 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology provides an illuminating window into Gray's thinking on the subject. Only highlights of a few key points will illustrate the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray's pronouncements on climate change and its causes.
Gray's paper begins with a quote from Senator Inhofe calling global warming a hoax perpetrated on the American people, and ends with a quote by a representative of the Society of Petroleum Geologists stating that Crichton's State of Fear has "the absolute ring of truth." It is the gaping flaws in the scientific argument sandwiched between these two statements that are our major concern."
Claim: The Thermohaline Circulation causes Global Warming, Hurricane Cycles, etc
For years, perhaps decades, Gray has been ascribing all sorts of climate changes and hurricane cycles to fluctuations in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC), an overturning circulation in the Atlantic ocean associated with formation of deep water in the North Atlantic. None of the assertions are based on rigorous statistical associations, oceanographic observations or physically based simulations; it is all seat-of -the-pants stuff of a sort that was common in the early days of climate studies, but which is difficult to evaluate when viewed as a scientific hypothesis. The THC is undoubtedly important to climate, because it transports heat from one place to another. However it cannot do magical things. It cannot created energy out of thin air (or thick water), nor can it make energy mysteriously disappear. Thus, Gray's statement that "The average THC circulation cools the ocean by about 3 W/m2" is a scientific absurdity. In the paper Gray makes many extravagant claims about how supposed changes in the THC accounted for various 20th century climate changes ("I judge our present global ocean circulation conditions to be similar to that of the period of the early 1940s when the globe had shown great warming since 1910, and there was concern as to whether this 1910-1940 global warming would continue. But beginning about 15 years following the onset of a strong THC circulation in 1926, in the early 1940s, the warming began to abate. A weak global cooling began from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s.") but the reader would never guess that he in fact has no direct oceanographic evidence that the THC was doing anything of the sort. These are all subjective estimates based on Gray's conception of the relation of Atlantic temperatures to the THC state. In fact, it is exceedingly difficult to directly monitor the THC, and reliable results have only recently been obtained.
We have reported recently on the "Decrease in Atlantic Circulation". For years prior to the publication of evidence that the THC was slowing down, Gray was testifying in Congress and writing widely that hurricane increases were due to Atlantic warming arising from a speed-up of the THC (see our article for some typical quotes). Confronted with evidence that the THC was in fact behaving in the opposite way to what he had been assuming, Gray did a flip-flop and came up with a new story that yields the same conclusions. There's no shame in a scientist changing his or her mind, or in seeking new theories in the face of new observations. However, if Gray's old theory was really testable, where were the tests to show that it was wrong in the years he was touting it? How is one to put any confidence in the new theory? The fact is that neither of Gray's story lines about the THC is sufficiently well formulated to allow any clear-cut test. Nonetheless, insofar as it can be understood at all, some aspects of Gray's new story line about the THC are demonstrably wrong.
The heart of the problem with Gray's new version of the THC story is that he labors under the misconception that the THC primarily upwells in the tropics, so that any reduction in the THC cools the North Atlantic but warms the tropics. This conception is at least 50 years out of date. The tropical upwelling is a shallow wind-driven cell that does not connect to the THC. It is almost impossible for cold deep water to upwell in the tropics, because it takes too much energy to bring it up; the main THC connection is with the Southern Ocean, as described by Marotzke and references therein (for more general background, see also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation). There are only a few very limited regions where moderately deep water can upwell in the Tropics. Simulations by Vellinga and Wood (Climatic Change, 2002) in fact show that a THC shutdown causes a cooling right into the Northern Subtropical Atlantic (the birthplace of hurricanes), and in fact only very weak warming in a few spots elsewhere in the tropics. On a longer time scale, the classic study of Manabe and Stouffer (Paleoceanography 1997) shows virtually no impact of THC shutdown in the tropics, but a considerable remote impact in the Southern Ocean. No doubt, Gray would object that these are only models, but why should we believe that Gray's drawing of circles and arrows on a map yields a better prediction than a simulation embodying the best of what we know about the underlying physics?
Note that Gray does not merely claim that THC changes are responsible for the observed hurricane cycles. He in fact claims that the entire 20th century warming signal is due to a slowdown of the THC, and that CO2 has nothing to do with it. He claims flatly and without supporting evidence that models cannot simulate the THC properly, neglecting the fact that the models employed in the IPCC reports yield a rather wide variety of different possible THC behaviors, and none of them, including ones known to have a sensitive THC, spontaneously generate a warming of the sort Gray claims. Insofar as we can follow Gray's reasoning, he appears to think of the THC as burying heat in the deep ocean, as if the heat were some kind of solid nuclear waste. Thus, weak THC = less heat removal = warming, in Gray's world view. In reality, everything known about the physics of the THC's effect on climate suggests the opposite. For example, Vellinga and Wood find that, owing to certain nonlinearities like sea ice formation, a shutdown of the THC leads to a reduction in the Northern Hemisphere mean temperature, and very little multidecadal scale effect on the Southern Hemisphere mean temperature.
The other reasons Gray thinks that the THC could cause global warming are tied up with a number of additional misconceptions he has about the physics of climate.
Gray's grand answer to the riddle of global warming is evaporation, presumably modulated by changes in the THC. Again, Gray simply doesn't seem to understand energy conservation. Evaporation does not create heat; it does not add any heat to the climate system or take it away. It is an energy transfer that moves heat from a moist surface (like the ocean's) into the atmosphere. That severely constrains what evaporation changes can do to climate. In contrast, changes in CO2 concentration affect the top of atmosphere radiation budget directly, and change the rate at which the whole climate system loses energy.
Let's start with an atmosphere that is in equilibrium, both at the surface and top-of-atmosphere. Now reduce the evaporation (you could do it by reducing the surface wind). The surface is now receiving more energy than it loses, so it will begin to warm. However, the atmosphere is no longer receiving all the energy it used to obtain from the surface as evaporative heat transfer; hence the atmosphere will begin to cool. This adjustment will continue until balance is restored. The precise way the adjustment is divvied up between atmospheric cooling and surface warming depends on details like the net atmospheric infrared opacity, boundary layer relative humidity,and so forth. However that all shakes out, the net result is nothing at all like the observed pattern of warming, in which both troposphere and surface warm up. This reasoning can be confirmed in the simplest radiative-convective model, of the sort introduced by Manabe and Strickler in the 1960's.
A more serious problem is that Gray doesn't even understand that the greenhouse effect works primarily through the effect of greenhouse gases on the top of atmosphere radiation budget, and only very indirectly through the surface budget (as explained in A busy week for water vapor). This compromises almost all of his analysis. For example, many of the supposed changes in surface budget he describes could in fact be due indirectly to changes in greenhouse gases, via their affect on low level atmospheric temperature. By balancing a 4 W/m2 (top of atmosphere) CO2 radiative forcing against changes in evaporation, Gray concludes that the warming from doubling CO2 would be a mere two tenths of a degree C.. He ascribes the weak warming to the lack of water vapor feedback in his calculation, but in fact it is simply due to an incorrect calculation of the energy balance. Standard radiative physics based on a correct treatment of the top-of-atmosphere balance-- physics going back at least to Arrhenius-- yields a surface warming of about 1C in response to a doubling of CO2, when water vapor feedback is neglected. Gray has committed the major blunder of applying that 4 W/m2 top of atmosphere forcing at the surface. In reality, when that radiative forcing is properly applied at the top of the atmosphere, it leads to a warming of the entire atmospheric column which, at the surface, yields a far larger perturbation in the surface energy budget, as we have explained in the above-referenced article.
By the way, Gray discounts water vapor feedback, based on what seems to be a gut feeling on weather systems, plus some unspecified analysis of the NCEP reanalysis dataset (which is completely unsuitable for studying trends in mid tropospheric water vapor); more reliable satellite based studies (e.g. Soden's study described in A busy week for water vapor ) support a positive water vapor feedback, and even Lindzen seems to be no longer arguing against this feedback.
Gray also made a mess of an attempt to analyze the mid-twentieth century ocean heat storage. "... the globe underwent a weak cooling between 1950 and 1975 during which CO2 amounts were rising and causing a continuous mean energy gain over this 25 year period of about 0.4 W/m2. If all of this energy went into an accumulation of temperature in the upper 100 m of the global oceans, we would see an upper mean 100 m global ocean temperature increase of 1.1oC. " We are not sure where Gray gets the 0.4 W/m2 radiative forcing figure; the total radiative forcing increase from pre-industrial times to 1975 would be more like .95 W/m2 and it is not a trivial matter to figure out how much to subtract from that to account for the part compensated by ocean warming before 1950; the CO2 radiative forcing increase between 1950 to 1975, on the other hand, would be only .45 W/m2 and the mean new forcing over the period would be about half that. Be that as it may, Gray has not even done the arithmetic right, since .4 W/m2 going into a 100m mixed layer having specific heat of 4200 J/kg and density of about 1000 kg/m3 would only yield a warming of .75C . That's far from the worst flaw in his calculation, since his two biggest blunders are the neglect of the radiative cooling due to sulfate aerosols (known to be a critical factor in the period in question) and his neglect of the many links in the chain of physical effects needed to translate a top of atmosphere radiative imbalance to a change in net surface energy flux imbalance. In fact, the calculation has been done very carefully by Hansen and co-workers, taking all factors into consideration, and when compared with observations of ocean heat storage over a period long enough for the observed changes to be reliably assessed, models and observations agree extremely well.
Okie- Here is what Mr. Kuvasz cannot rebut since most of it comes from a source he uses- THE IPCC.
On the other thread I did not do as Mr. Kuvasz has done( namely, throw some indicipherable crap against the wall hoping that it will scare people off, rather, I quoted from the IPCC and Peer reviewed scientific articles and I INVITED anyone to give evidence that either radically changed or completely rebutted the scientific findings.
.1 The IPCC indicated that water vapor feedback was the MAIN REASON why emissions of CO2 would cause a significant warming.
2. Scientific peer reviewed articles in sources such as "Journal of Climate" indicated that a strong water vapor feedback is NOT primarily dependent on the Surface Temperature but ESPECIALLY on the temperature in the troposphere.
3, Despite the fact that the AOCGM models(which, apparently are fed dozens of ASSUMPTIONS) PREDICT that temperatures in the troposphere increase as fast or faster than surface temperatures, the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS MADE BY NOAA SATELLITES SHOWS THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
For the first time, new climate observations and computer models provide a consistent picture of recent warming of Earth’s tropical atmosphere.
Over the past decade, scientific evidence from a variety of sources has implicated human-caused increases in greenhouse gases as a major driver of recent climate change. A key argument used to rebut such findings relates to satellite records of temperature change in the troposphere " the lowest layer of Earth’s atmosphere.
Until recently, climate modelers compared their simulations with temperatures from a single satellite dataset, which showed slight cooling of the tropical troposphere since 1979. This region of the atmosphere is predicted to warm in climate model simulations that include observed increases in greenhouse gases. The discrepancy in tropical temperature trends has been used to cast doubt on the reliability of computer models, and on their usefulness for predicting future climate changes.[/i]
Three papers published in today’s edition of Science Express shed light on this debate. The first two studies revisit temperature data obtained from satellites and weather balloons, and provide compelling evidence that the tropical troposphere has warmed since 1979. The third study, led by scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, finds that these new observational estimates of temperature change are consistent with results from state-of-the-art climate models.
The computer models analyzed in the Livermore study show that in the deep tropics, temperature changes in the troposphere are larger than at the surface. This “amplification” effect is caused by the release of heat when moist tropical air rises and condenses into clouds. The size of the amplification effect is very similar in nearly 50 simulations performed with 19 different models.
The new satellite and weather balloon data described in the first two Science Express papers have amplification behavior that is in agreement with the model results and with basic physical theory.
“This strongly suggests that there is no longer any fundamental discrepancy between modeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical atmosphere,” said Benjamin Santer, lead author of the Livermore-led Science Express paper and a scientist in LLNL’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison. “The new observational data helps to remove a major stumbling block in our understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. Our work illustrates that progress toward an improved understanding of the climate system requires a combination of observations, theory and models.”
For years the debate about climate change has had a contentious sticking point " satellite measurements of temperatures in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere where most weather occurs, were inconsistent with fast-warming surface temperatures.
But a team led by a UW atmospheric scientist has used satellite data in a new and more accurate way to show that, for more than two decades, the troposphere has actually been warming faster than the surface. The new approach relies on information that better separates readings of the troposphere from those of another atmospheric layer above, which have disguised the true troposphere temperature trend.
“This tells us very clearly what the lower atmosphere temperature trend is, and the trend is very similar to what is happening at the surface,” said Qiang Fu, a UW associate professor of atmospheric sciences.
He is lead author of a paper documenting the work published in today’s edition of the journal Nature. Co-authors are Celeste Johanson, a UW research assistant and graduate student in atmospheric sciences; Stephen Warren, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences and Earth and space sciences; and Dian Seidel, a research meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Air Resources Laboratory in Silver Spring, Md.
The team examined measurements from devices called microwave-sounding units on NOAA satellites from January 1979 through December 2001. The satellites all used similar equipment and techniques to measure microwave radiation emitted by oxygen in the atmosphere and determine its temperature.
Different channels of the microwave-sounding units measured radiation emitted at different frequencies, thus providing data for different layers of the atmosphere. In the case of the troposphere " which extends from the surface to an altitude of about 7.5 miles " it was believed there was less warming than what had been recorded at the surface.
The troposphere temperature was measured by channel 2 on the microwave sounding units, but those readings were imprecise because about one-fifth of the signal actually came from a higher atmospheric layer called the stratosphere.
“Because of ozone depletion and the increase of greenhouse gases, the stratosphere is cooling about five times faster than the troposphere is warming, so the channel 2 measurement by itself provided us with little information on the temperature trend in the lower atmosphere,” Fu said.
Stratosphere temperatures are measured by channel 4 on the microwave units. Fu’s team used data from weather balloons at various altitudes to develop a method in which the two satellite channels could be employed to deduce the average temperature in the troposphere. The scientists correlated the troposphere temperature data from balloons with the simulated radiation in the two satellite channels to determine which part of the channel 2 measurement had come from the cooling stratosphere and should be removed.
What remained indicated that the troposphere has been warming at about two-tenths of a degree Celsius per decade, or nearly one-third of a degree Fahrenheit per decade. That closely resembles measurements of warming at the surface, something climate models have suggested would result if the warmer surface temperatures are the result of greenhouse gases. The previous lack of demonstrable warming in the troposphere has prompted some to argue that climate models are missing unrecognized but important physical processes, or even that human-caused climate change is not happening.[/i]
One reason previous data have not shown enough warming in the troposphere, Fu said, is because the stratosphere influence on the channel 2 temperature trend has never been properly quantified, even though there have been attempts to account for its influence. Those attempts had large uncertainties, so many researchers had simply used the unadjusted channel 2 temperature trends to represent the temperature trends in the middle of the troposphere.
4. Therefore, the MAIN REASON( water vapor feedback) which would cause a significant warming, would not do so since the feedback only works effectively IF THE ENTIRE TROPOSPHERE WARMS UP.
THE NOAA SATELLITES SHOW THAT IT DOES NOT WARM UP TO ANY GREAT DEGREE.
The model done by the IPCC shows a warming of about 0.224C perdecade while the NOAA data shows a warming of only 0.034C per decade -All of which is attributable to the 1997 El Nino.
We have found that the temperature of the middle troposphere is warming by approximately 0.133 K/decade . We calculate that MSU channel TMT data published by Christy and Spencer (vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2/) contains a smaller warming trend of approximately 0.054 K/decade .
Christy and Spencer also developed the first version of the TLT dataset. For a global average extending from 70S to 82.5N, we find a warming trend of 0.192 K/decade, while Christy and Spencer (version 5.2) find a warming trend of 0.123 K/decade.
A global map of 27-year MSU/AMSU channel TMT trends shows large regions of significant warming over eastern and central Asia, and northern Canada, cooling over the southern oceans, with moderate warming over most other regions. A map of channel TLT trends shows a very similar pattern, but with more pronounced mid-latitude warming.
"There is no longer a discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere. This discrepancy had previously been used to challenge the validity of climate models used to detect and attribute the causes of observed climate change. This is an important revision to and update of the conclusions of earlier reports from the U.S. National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
The global warming panic mongers won't tell us this!!!
I notice that the learned Mr. Kuvasz does not give the recalibration, Okie. Could that be the same "recalibration" given by Mr. Parados on another thread? If it is, the numbers given by Mr. Parados were .22C per decade to .26C per decade.
Okie- Here is what Mr. Kuvasz cannot rebut since most of it comes from a source he uses- THE IPCC.
Despite the fact that the AOCGM models(which, apparently are fed dozens of ASSUMPTIONS) PREDICT that temperatures in the troposphere increase as fast or faster than surface temperatures, the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS MADE BY NOAA SATELLITES SHOWS THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Therefore, the MAIN REASON( water vapor feedback) which would cause a significant warming, would not do so since the feedback only works effectively IF THE ENTIRE TROPOSPHERE WARMS UP.
THE NOAA SATELLITES SHOW THAT IT DOES NOT WARM UP TO ANY GREAT DEGREE.
The model done by the IPCC shows a warming of about 0.224C per-decade while the NOAA data shows a warming of only 0.034C per decade -All of which is attributable to the 1997 El Nino.
If this is correct, and I am sure that Mr. Parados would say it is, then the rise in temperature by 2050 would be somewhere within the range of 1.16C to 1.30C by 2050.
Now, Okie, that would be true if absolutely nothing were to be done. We know that the Chinese and India are NOT covered by the Kyoto Protocol and we know that most of the EU countries HAVE NOT met their targets established in 1990, yet the left wing, who wishes to destroy this country's economy, appears to put the entire burden on the USA.
I am sure, Okie,( and I will be on these threads to comment) that President Hillary Rodham Clinton will immediately order the COMPLETE AND TOTAL SHUT DOWN OF ALL INDUSTRIES IN THE USA WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO CO2 POLLUTION.
On the other hand, Okie, I think that someone like President McCain would take a different approach. He would view the figures of 1.16 to 1.30C as figures that can be partially reduced and rendered innocuous by taking a LONG VIEW. The development of solar power, fusion and other likely sources will go a long way in the next fifty years to meet whatever problem is at hand.
So where has George Bush been over the past five and half years in supporting solar, fusion, and other "likely sources?" Would you care to show us what his administration's energy plan has been over the past five years? Why are you saying to wait for McCain in 2009? Why can't the GOP start now? They hold both houses of Congress and the White House, so where is their plan? Or are they so beholden to oil interests that they can't do anything? Which would beg the question "How would the GOP energy policies change simply because John McCain would be president?" You must be on drugs to think that the GOP gives a flying fukk about making the US energy independent.
BernardR wrote:Indeed, Okie, Dr> Bjorn Lomberg, in his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" holds that we should not
"spend vast amounts of money to cut a tiny slice of the global temperature increase when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these resources far more effectively in the developing world."
Well, that is why the Clinton administration provided funds, cut by the Bush administration to develop conservation and alternative sources of energy for use in this country as wel as in Developing world.
BernardR wrote:You see, Okie, the bottom line in all of this is that despite the failure of the EU countries generally to meet their 1990 Kyoto targets and despite the fact that the two HUGE developing countries of China and India continue to pollute, the emphasis of the left wing, which hates the global dominance of the USA, would like to drastically harm our economy.
Are you seriously stupid? The Europeans stopped trying to meet their Kyoto goals when the US refused to sign the accords. You know absolutely nothing about this topic.
What evidence can you show that substantiates and can withstand objective analysis that the "US Left Wing" hates US global dominance and wants to drastically harm the US economy?
You are just making $hit up.
BernardR wrote:That is why, Okie, so many have made such catastrophic predictions. They hope to frighten us all with a problem that, within the USA and on a long term basis, according to the figures above is easily handleable.
So according to you, thousands of US climatologists have engaged in a secret, or not so secret cabal to destroy the US economy and the way they are going about this is to scare people into using less energy that cause greenhouse gases?
BernardR wrote:It won't happen, Okie..Not even the left wing Hillary will shut down our economy because of the panic mongers. Even she will go along with a balanced approach.
The most recent thrust in that direction, Okie, as you may know, is a bid to build a huge Coal Plant in the Midwest which will handle its emissions by burying them in the ground. This will take a few years and I am sure the left wing will scream bloody murder because it isn't happening fast enough.
Actually, the Norwegians are pumping CO2 back under the North Sea. The US can do the same, and in calmer waters.
In a long series of insane posts yours here rivals the most ill-informed and most insane you have ever posted. You don't actually know anything about this issue and have embarked upon a willfully blatant campaign of scape-goating and disinformation that would give Joseph Goebbels a hard-on.
Your problem. Mr. Kuvasz, which, of course, you will not admit, is that you wish to destroy the Economy of the United States with your Gore like cries that the sky is falling. You are aware, of course, that many of the scientists who present the "new data" are left leaning phonies who would love to see the US collapse.
If you have any integrity, I dare you to address the quote below, line by line. Of course, you will not because it ruins the Gore "sky is falling"scenario and the left cannot tolerate that!
Now, what should be done.? People who subscribe to the left wing notion, as I am sure that you do, Mr. Kuvasz, that the USA should immediately shut down all of its economy( even though China and India continue their CO2 emissions full blast BECAUSE they are "developing" countries, are people whose ideas will never be accepted by the US Congress even if that body were to change materially in the next election.
What is to be done?
Here( and I am sure that because of your premise, Mr. Kuvasz, that the evil US economy must be destroyed) is a solution.
Taken from the book'The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.
(And before you even try to shoot the messenger, Mr. Kuvasz, please remember that Mr. Thomas showed us how and why any left wing attacks on this author and books FAILED UTTERLY)
quote
P.322
First,Do we want to handle global warming in the most efficient way, or do we want to use global warming as a STEPPING STONE TO OTHER POLITICAL PROJECTS...( like the left wing extremists do)?
Second, we should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a TINY SLICE OF THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these funds far more effectively in the developing world.....
The Kyoto Protocol will likely cost at least $150 billion a year, and possibly much more. UNICEF estimates that just $70-80 billion a year could give all Third World inhabitants access to basics like health, education, water and sanitation. More important still is the fact that if we could muster such a a missive investment in the present day developing countries, this would also give them a muchj better future position in terms of resources and infrastructure from which to MANAGE A FUTURE GLOBAL WARMING.
Third, we should realize that the cost of global warming will be substantial--about 5 Trillion, Since cutting back CO2 emissions QUICKLY BECOMES VERY COSTLY, AND EASILY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, WE SAHOULD FOCUS MORE OF OUR EFFORTS AT FINDINGS WAYS OF EASING THE EMISSION OF GREENHOUSE GASES OVER THE LONG RUN. PARTLY, THIS MEANS THAT WE NEED TO INVEST MUCH MORE IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOLAR POWER,FUSION AND OTHER LIKELY POWER SOURCES OF THE FUTURE."
You can't rebut the sensible approach in the paragraphs above since it would ruin the thesis that the USA is so evil in its pollution of the pristine world.
But, You and others never make any comments about the reason why the Kyoto Protocol was voted down in 1997 by the US Congress by the large margin of 95-0. I do hope that you know that the main reason was that some developing nations such as India and China were EXEMPT from the Treaty.
I do hope that you know that even if we shut down our economy, the CO2 spewed into the atmosphere by China and India by 2020 will ruin any type of Kyoto plans UNLESS THEY ADHERE TO SOME KIND OF LIMIT.
When they do that, Mr.Kuvasz, be sure to let us all know.
You and the others on the left show your disdain for the US position on "Global Warming" but you( to the best of my knowledge) have never excoriated the hypocrites in the EU, most of which have failed to meet thier Kyoto Targets.
Since you are so brilliant on Environmental subjects, Mr. Kuvasz, I am sure that you can respond to all the points I made above.
If you do not, there is no great matter since I am sure that no great changes in the US position on the ALLEGED "HUGE" GLOBAL WARMING problem will be made until at least 2009 and if Hillary Rodham CLinton is defeated by McCain, there will be no great changes done during his tenure. The changes that will be made are those outlined by Dr. Lomborg above---No frenetic hairpulling that throws the baby out with the bathwater but a slow and careful transition to the technological changes outlined by Dr. Lomborg for the first half of this century.
Chew on that, Mr. Kuvasz.
PS. I hope you feel better but you are so intemperate that I fear your reason may have been affected!
DOE's FY 2004 budget requests would cut spending on energy efficiency research and development, which is the core of the efficiency program's mission, by 8%. Compared to the 2002 budget, which is the level at which the agency is operating today because of delays in the FY 2003 appropriations legislation, the Administration's request is effectively a 12% cut in efficiency R&D. This is presented as a reduction of "only" 4% energy efficiency compared to the FY 2003 request, because of increases in grants for weatherization and other state and community programs.. It is also worth noting that when inflation is taken into account, the overall efficiency funding cut is 6%.
Of the individual efficiency R&D program budgets, the only significant increase is in fuel cell technologies, consistent with the President's announced hydrogen initiative. The largest cuts come in the industrial (30%) and federal energy management (15%) programs. Larger cuts were requested in the biomass and climate control budgets, but these are not primarily aimed at energy efficiency.
The total DOE budget would drop 2.0 percent under President Bush's FY 2006 budget request, from $23.9 billion in FY 2005 to $23.4 billion. For DOE's civilian research, the Office of Science (SC) would see its budget reduced by 3.8 percent from FY 2005 funding of $3,599.6 million to $3,462.7 million. The FY 2006 requested amount is, in fact, also 2.0 percent lower than the office's FY 2004 funding. According to DOE documents, much of the reduction comes from the elimination of $79.6 million in congressionally directed earmarks to Biological and Environmental Research,
The FY06 budget request for the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) energy efficiency and renewable energy (EE/RE) programs envisions reductions totaling nearly $50 million - an overall cut of roughly 4 percent. This includes a 6 percent cut in Distributed Energy programs ($60,416 to $56,629); an 8 percent cut in the Geothermal Energy program ($25,270 to $23,299); an 18 percent cut in the Biomass/Biofuels program ($88,099 to $72,164); and a 90 percent cut in the Hydropower program ($4,862 to $500).
February 20, 2006
Volume 84, Number 8
pp. 27"32
2007 R&D Budget Lacks Balance
Sizable funding increases in a number of research areas are negated by cuts in other programs.
Research and development funding proposed in President George W. Bush's federal budget for fiscal 2007 is somewhat of a change from his previous submissions. Instead of simply focusing on defense and homeland security spending, there is a conscious effort to improve R&D at several research agencies and to hold back spending at a number of others. The outcome is an uneven patchwork of funding changes in civilian R&D that results in a very small overall increase.
As previewed in his State of the Union address, Bush has proposed increases in physical sciences funding at several agencies, notably the National Science Foundation, National Institute for Standards & Technology, and Department of Energy. These increases, however, are offset by reductions in science and technology spending at the Departments of Defense, Agriculture, and Commerce and by proposing no increase at the National Institutes of Health.
The Administration claims that much of the budget trimming comes from eliminating approximately $2.4 billion worth of R&D earmarks added to last year's budget by members of Congress. For example, the proposed budget for medical research at Defense is cut for 2007, because the Administration says that $900 million in projects was inappropriately added in 2006. USDA's R&D budget would also be cut by 16%, primarily because of the elimination of earmarks.
Congress faces this budget with some trepidation. Bush has asked for budget cuts in a number of politically sensitive areas, such as veterans' benefits, Medicare spending, and education programs. Because R&D funding is a purely discretionary item in the budget, it is always in danger of further reductions. Science Committee Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.), whose committee held the first hearings on the R&D proposal last week, said he is generally pleased with the effort to boost physical science, but he has concerns about cuts in research at the National Aeronautics & Space Administration and about insufficient spending on science education.
Funding increases proposed for the Department of Energy for fiscal 2007 could be a bonanza for scientists. Chief among programs benefiting from the Administration's largesse is DOE's Office of Science, proposed for a jump of $506 million, or 14%, over last year's appropriation.
The increase would take the science office's funding to $4.1 billion. And the Administration's plan is to increase funding to some $7.2 billion in 10 years, which Office of Science Director Raymond L. Orbach called an "historic opportunity" for a "renaissance" in U.S. science and global competitiveness.
This was the first budget prepared by Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, a former chemical engineering professor and chemical company chief executive officer. Bodman echoed the energy emphasis in the President's State of the Union address in which the President proposed a 22% increase in "clean energy research." The President's clean energy definition was broad, however, and included nuclear and coal as well as wind, solar, and renewable energy sources.
The DOE proposal would increase research in solar energy and biofuels by about $60 million each, bringing each to about $150 million, 70% more than current funding. In contrast, the department's R&D efforts to support coal-generated energy would be cut by $46 million. At $330 million, however, coal research funding would still exceed solar and biofuels combined. Nuclear spending would increase by 18% to $632 million, more than half for R&D, which increased by 50%.
At $23.6 billion, the DOE proposed budget is flat compared with last year's congressional appropriation, so to fund new energy programs the Administration proposes several deep cuts. Largest are $750 million in reductions to the environmental cleanup budget, $200 million in mostly R&D cuts to the fossil energy program, and nearly $100 million removed from programs to encourage installation of conservation and energy efficiency technologies in homes and businesses. These programs are popular with many members of Congress, states, communities, and industries, however, and are unlikely to be reduced without a fight.
Concerning Office of Science programs of particular interest to the chemical sciences, Basic Energy Sciences (BES) is proposed to receive 25% in new funding, bringing its total to $1.4 billion.
Proposed increases include $51 million in new nanoscale science research funds, for a $253 million total. The BES budget also includes funds to complete the last of five nanoscale research centers in 2007. Brookhaven would join operating nanoscale research centers at Argonne, Lawrence Berkeley, Oak Ridge, and Sandia/Los Alamos National Laboratories, DOE said.
BES proposed funding also includes $100 million in operational funds for the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and $105 million for engineering and construction at Stanford University's Linac Coherent Light Source.
Wording in BES's budget proposal also urges its "communities of scientists" to propose research to overcome short-term "showstoppers" in nuclear, solar, and hydrogen energy technologies. The budget proposes $34 million in new funding for solar projects, $12 million in new nuclear R&D funds, and an increase in hydrogen-related R&D dollars of $18 million.
Another Office of Science program of particular interest to chemists is the Biological & Environmental Research program. The budget appears to shrink, but that is because the Administration's proposal has deleted $129 million in congressionally specified projects or earmarks that are in the 2006 appropriation. Funding for the BER base program, without the earmarks, would increase by $59 million to $510 million in 2007.
New funds would be directed to the imaging and characterization of microbial communities in energy and environmental applications, including hydrogen and ethanol applications. BER also continues a history of human genome research ($75 million) and climate- change science ($135 million). Other BER R&D areas are smaller, and their proposed budgets are similar to previous years'.
Most of this year's DOE budget presentation was devoted to a far-reaching program that would overhaul the U.S.'s and world's nuclear energy regime. Called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the $250 million proposal would encourage nuclear power use in the U.S. and throughout the world. The focus is largely on R&D to develop the technology to establish an international system to reprocess nuclear fuel-research to improve fuel-recycling technologies as well as to develop advanced burner reactors to better use reprocessed fuel.
Clean Air and Climate
Renewable Energy
The proposed budget includes $354 million for the Department of Energy's (DOE) renewable energy programs"a 5.6 percent reduction from the proposed 2005 budget. Under the administration’s proposal, hydrogen and wind would receive a boost, with five and seven percent funding increases, respectively. The overall decrease in DOE renewable energy funding, however, reflects a reduction in spending on other renewable technologies such as solar, geothermal, and bioenergy. Unfortunately, the mature, polluting fossil fuel industry continues to receive more than 30 percent additional DOE funding than the struggling renewables industry, despite the fact that investing more in renewable energy would improve our energy security, save consumers money, boost rural economies, and cut global warming pollution. UCS calls for a doubling of the DOE renewable energy budget to help our country shift to a smarter, cleaner energy future.
The budget also proposes cutting more than half of the $23 million in renewable energy and energy efficiency funding that Congress included in the 2002 Farm Bill (HR 2646, sec. 9006). The proposed cut would hurt farmers, ranchers, and small rural businesses by minimizing a grant and loan program that supports energy efficiency improvements and the purchase of renewable energy systems such as wind turbines, solar electric panels, and biomass production equipment. At a time when many people in rural communities face economic challenges, funding these projects would help establish an additional income source for landowners, create jobs, and lower energy costs for rural consumers. When the Bush administration made similar attempts to slash this program last year and in 2003, UCS worked with coalition partners to successfully restore the full $23 million during the congressional appropriations process. We will push for full funding of the program again this year.
Energy Efficiency
The proposed funding for all energy efficiency programs is $847 million, 2.3 percent lower than the administration’s 2005 proposed funding. The budget proposes funding cuts for important energy efficiency programs such as low-income weatherization, building and industrial technologies, and federal energy management. As our nation faces soaring natural gas prices and over-reliance on unstable and polluting energy sources, UCS believes that now is the time for across-the-board increases in efficiency funding that will save consumers money, create jobs, and cut pollution.
Climate Change
Several programs supporting climate change research are slated for cuts in the administration's budget. Among the cuts is the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which coordinates federal research on climate change across 13 federal agencies. The CCSP funding is set at to $1.9 billion, down from the $2 billion it has received for the last several years. For NASA's Earth Systematic Missions to study climate change, the administration proposes a 40 percent ($118 million) reduction in funding. UCS will work hard to restore this funding.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS: Down 3.1%, or $22.5 million, from $736.4 million to $713.9 million. Run times would be increased over FY 2005 levels at the Fermilab Tevatron (6% more operating hours) and SLAC (54% more hours). Construction funding is continued for the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Europe, which Orbach expects to begin operations in 2008. The BTeV project at Fermilab would be cancelled. An amount of $30 million would be transferred to BES for operation of the SLAC linac.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS: Down 8.4%, or $34.0 million, from $404.8 million to $370.7 million. Run times would be drastically reduced from FY 2005 levels at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (29% fewer hours) and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (61% fewer hours). R&D funding would be reduced for the proposed Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA).
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES: Up 3.7%, or $41.4 million, from $1,104.6 million to $1,146.0 million. Construction of the Spallation Neutron Source would be completed, and operations started, in FY 2006. Construction would also be completed and operations started on four of the five Nanoscale Science Research Centers, while construction would continue on the fifth. Funding would be increased for the President's Hydrogen Initiative, and there would also be an increase for engineering, design and construction of the next-generation Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES: Up 6.1%, or $16.7 million, from $273.9 million to $290.6 million. Funding would increase for U.S. participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER); FY2006 would be the first year of equipment fabrication for the U.S.'s contribution. Two of the three primary U.S. facilities (DIII-D and Alcator C-Mod) would operate at below FY 2005 levels, while the third facility, the National Spherical Tokamak Experiment would not operate in FY 2006. Fabrication of the National Compact Stellarator Experiment would continue.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH: Down 21.7%, or $126.2 million, from $581.9 million to $455.7 million. Funding would increase for the Genomics: GTL program, while funding for the Human Genome and Climate Change programs would be maintained at near FY 2005 levels. Funding of $79.6 million for congressionally-directed projects would be eliminated.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH: Down 10.9%, or $25.4 million, from $232.5 million to $207.1 million. Funding would be reduced for the Next Generation Computer Architecture initiative, while new activities would allow evaluation of new computer architectures as tools for science, and two SciDAC institutes at universities.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS: Down 5.4%, or $0.4 million, from $7.6 million to $7.2 million. The number of teachers supported by the Laboratory Science Teacher Professional Development program would increase over FY 2005, while the number of faculty participating in the Faculty Sabbatical Fellowships and students participating in the Pre-Service Teacher program would be reduced. Support for Science Bowl Teams would also be reduced.
The cost of the war in Iraq, is estimated to be over $400,000,000,000 ($400 Billion) by now, three years and 4 months into it, averaging 10,000,000,000 ($10 billion per month) while R&D for the DOE in 2006 was only $8.563 Billion for the entire year.
Mr. Kuvasz wrote:
Good God, man. What are you talking about? you just posted Samuelson's essay on the hypocrisy of the EU nations for not reducing their greenhouse gases and it was due to their own economic pressures. Yet your talk about the free market solution to this issue? What type of logic resides in your head. The alleged "free" market will not move quickly enough to solve this problem. Collective, international actions will be necessary both for money and innovations to solve the problem.
end of quote:
I read the book Utopia but dismissed it as fanciful. Would you please describe the "Collective, international actions" that you think can be put into place.
Do you think Kofi Annan could take a strong hand?( if we could persuade him and his son to keep their hands off the graft, of course).
You do not appear to have any idea concerning the effect that China and India( developing countries that were left out of the Kyoto Agreement) would have on the dreaded rise in CO2.
www.net.org/warming.docs/technology_and_emissions.pdf
The chart from the NEt clearly shows that by 2025, the CO2 emissions from China and India added together will be approximately 90% of US emissions.
Now, my question, Mr. Kuvasz is, If China and India continue to increase their emissions( You do know, of course that their emissions are growing rapidly) even if we put the best anti Co2 technology into play( which we should do) our efforts will be for naught>
Perhaps we could Nuke them into submission? I don't think the Chinese will sit still for anything which will slow down their development.
Do you have a solution?
PERHAPS, AS YOU MENTION--COLLECTIVE INTERNATIONAL ACTIONS( snicker)
I am taking things one at a time so that you can answer them one at a time. I am sorry but I find your writing style so convoluted and disorganized that I cannot follow your argument. Please answer one question at a time. Thank You.
Mr. Kuvasz wrote:
“However, there is less uncertainty that if nothing is done now to reduce greenhouse gases, bad things will come upon us shortly. One can declare that little will be helped by grenhouse gas reductions over the next few decades, but no legitimate climatologist is uncertain that doing nothing helps the solve the problem for the next several generations. You are, of course, one who appears willing to gamble with the species and help murder tens of millions so you can drive your SUV. I am not.”
end of quote:
You may have convinced me, Mr. Kuvasz. I would not under any circumstances want to gamble with the species. That is why I favor sharp reduction of Nuclear Arms, However, I do not (and perhaps you can give specific evidence and focused proof) that I would be gambling with the species and murder TENS OF MILLIONS.
PS- I drive a BMW to help Germany get out of its horrible Unemployment mess.
Mr. Kuvasz wrote:
Quote:“Then you agree to push for and advocate a "Manhattan Project-like" effort for new, renewable, non-greenhouse energy sources, conservation, tax credits for wind, solar and fusion, tuition tax credits for the education of American scientists and engineers, loans to citizens to remodel their homes and businesses their facilities to reduce the usage of greenhouse energies. Doing this kick-starts entire industries that can produce new jobs, and increase domestic exports as the new technologies spread world-wide.
For Christ's sake, the United States of America sent men to the moon 37 years ago. We are the strongest, wealthiest nation ever to arise on Earth. We have the collective might and strength to do this. All we require is the will to do it. It is time for this nation to be great once more.”
You say you are pro-nuclear power. SO AM I. And there are articles that describe safer Nuclear plants which will produce a great deal of electricity.
But, Mr. Kuvasz, can you reference Right Wing Groups who have adamantly opposed Nuclear Power? I am quite sure that you can't. Do you dare me to find many references which show that left wing environmentalist greenie organizations have fought Nuclear Power over and over?
Much of what climate model studies show could happen to weather and climate extremes in a future climate with increased greenhouse gases is what we would intuitively expect from our understanding of how the climate system works. For example, a warming of the surface supplies more water vapour to the atmosphere, which is a greater source of moisture in storms and thus we would expect an increase in intense precipitation and more rainfall from a given rainfall event, both results seen in climate model simulations. There are competing effects of decreased baroclinicity in some regions due to greater surface warming at high latitudes, and increasing mid-tropospheric baroclinicity due to greater mid-tropospheric low latitude warming (Kushner et al., 2001). Additionally, a number of changes in weather and climate extremes from climate models have been seen in observations in various parts of the world (decreased diurnal temperature range, warmer mean temperatures associated with increased extreme warm days and decreased extreme cold days, increased rainfall intensity, etc.). Though the climate models can simulate many aspects of climate variability and extremes, they are still characterised by systematic simulation errors and limitations in accurately simulating regional climate such that appropriate caveats must accompany any discussion of future changes in weather and climate extremes.
Recent studies have reproduced previous results in the SAR and this gives us increased confidence in their credibility (although agreement between models does not guarantee that those changes will occur in the real climate system):
An increase in mean temperatures leads to more frequent extreme high temperatures and less frequent extreme low temperatures.
Night-time low temperatures in many regions increase more than daytime highs, thus reducing the diurnal temperature range.
Decreased daily variability of temperature in winter and increased variability in summer in Northern Hemisphere mid-latitude areas.
There is a general drying of the mid-continental areas during summer in terms of decreases in soil moisture, and this is ascribed to a combination of increased temperature and potential evaporation not being balanced by precipitation.
Intensity of precipitation events increases.
Additional results since 1995 include:
Changes in temperature extremes noted above have been related to an increase in a heat index (leading to increased discomfort and stress on the human body), an increase in cooling degree days and a decrease in heating degree days.
Additional statistics relating to extremes are now being produced. For example, in one model the greatest increase in the 20-year return values of daily maximum temperature is found in central and Southeast North America, central and Southeast Asia and tropical Africa where there is a decrease in soil moisture content, and also over the dry surface of North Africa. The west coast of North America is affected by increased precipitation, resulting in moister soil and more moderate increases in extreme temperature. The increases in the return values of daily minimum temperature are larger than those of daily maximum temperature mainly over land areas and where snow and sea ice retreat.
Precipitation extremes increase more than the mean and that means a decrease in return period for the extreme precipitation events almost everywhere (e.g., 20 to 10 years over North America).
Aspects which have been addressed but remain unresolved at this time include:
There is no general agreement yet among models concerning future changes in mid-latitude storms (intensity, frequency and variability), though there are now a number of studies that have looked at such possible changes and some show fewer weak but greater numbers of deeper mid-latitude lows, meaning a reduced total number of cyclones.
Due to the limitations of spatial resolution in current AOGCMs, climate models do not provide any direct information at present regarding lightning, hail, and tornadoes. Results derived from earlier models used empirical relationships to infer a possible future increase in lightning and hail, though there have been no recent studies to corroborate those results.
There is some evidence that shows only small changes in the frequency of tropical cyclones derived from large-scale parameters related to tropical cyclone genesis, though some measures of intensities show increases, and some theoretical and modelling studies suggest that upper limit intensities could increase.
Mr. Kuvasz wrote:
Most certainly the polar ice and the Greenland Ice Sheet are melting faster than predicted even five years ago, so is that a sign making the models so erroneous that we should abandon them when they say the temperature will go up 0.33C per decade, or should we be more highly concerned? You method would be not to care at all and let your grandchildren worry about it.
end of quote
Wow! 0.33 C per decade!! That must be some real good scenario.
But since Mr. Kuvasz is the master Enviromentalist, perhaps he can tell us why temperature went UP .10C per decade from 1910 to 1950 when the Co2 emissions only increased by One billion tons per year as compared to an increase in emissions of FIVE billion tons per year from 1950 to 2000.
A simple answer will do, Mr. Kuvasz. No need to obfuscate!!
Since Mr. Kuvasz has taken the high ground as Master Environmentalist, I ask him the following question.
If, the horrendous scenario of .33C per decade is possible, as you said, Mr. Kuvasz, DOES ALL OF THE INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE GIVEN BY THE MODELS COME FROM ANTHROPOGENIC CAUSES?
Is any of the increase, even one tenth of a percent, caused by NATURAL causes, such as Solar Activity?
If not, how is it PROVEN that other causes are not complicit and if they are complicit HOW ARE THE EFFECTS OF SOLAR ENERGY AS OPPOSED TO CO2 DISENTANGLED? Please answer in 200 words or less..No obfuscation, if you please.
Mr. Kuvasz wrote:
“You are not so dense as to consider this a problem that is like fixing a flat tire; you do it once it’s flat then drive on. In this case we have no spare tire. We have one planet, once its fucked up we are done.”
end of quote
I agree and that is why it is necessary to spend more money to assure that a more immediate and deadly threat will not "fukk" up the world-The possession of Nuclear Weapons by the insane North Koreans and the religiously fanatic Iranians among others!
Mr. Kuvasz wrote:
“Good God, man. What are you talking about? you just posted Samuelson's essay on the hypocrisy of the EU nations for not reducing their greenhouse gases and it was due to their own economic pressures. Yet your talk about the free market solution to this issue? What type of logic resides in your head? The alleged "free" market will not move quickly enough to solve this problem. Collective, international actions will be necessary both for money and innovations to solve the problem.”
end of quote.
I am suprised, I always heard that the Countries in the EU were very green and willing to sacrifice for the good of the world.
Are you telling me that they are as greedy and as materialistic as the USA? I don't believe it. I know if I asked Mr. Walter Hinteler whether he would agree to let the German Unemployment Rate go up from 11% to 13" when the heavy pollution of the coal fired power plants in Germany are closed down, HE WOULD AGREE--BECAUSE ALTHOUGH HE IS A GERMAN, HE IS ALSO A CITIZEN OF THE WORLD!!!
Mr. Kuvasz wrote:
“Please, don't be stupid around me. Any scientific prediction of the future is based upon a model. What other method do you have in mind, reading sheep entrails?”
end of quote
And because you are the environmental genius, Mr. Kuvasz, you can clearly show us all what the problem is in the following paragraph about computer models. You can educate all of us who have read material you may consider to be nonsense..But if you think so, tell us why-Specifically please.
Quote:"An ideal computer model, however, would have to track five million parameters over the surface of the earth and through the atmosphere,and incorporate all relevant interactions among land, sea, air, ice and vegitation. According to one researcher, such a model would demand ten million million degrees of freedom to solve, a computational impossibility on even the most advanced supercomputer>
Yes, but what is your point, that the computational difficulties preclude any value that derives from the simulation; that therefore the analyses have no value?
Are you attacking the good because it is not the best and simultaneously stating that the best can never occur? What kind of argument are you making here?
The modeling is more refined each day. There have been no paradigm shifts away from the belief that temperatures will rise 0.2-0.3C/decade. In fact, increasingly uncertainty is reduced. There has been no discovery that important parameters are missing, nor anything that would distort the results of the analyses. If you think there are, what are they?
Can you describe them? I have admonished you before for attempting to cram a square peg into a round hole when applying unscientific meaning to terms used in scientific debates. There is no certainty in science like there is in religious thought or even in balancing your check book.
If A + B = C and if C is constant and A decreased, than B increased. In the case of the time period from 1950 to present, there has been no marked contribution to global warming from natural forces "B" either by sun spot or cosmic radiation. What remains is that as A (CO2) increased, it caused temperatures to increase since 1950.
Parados, obviously you have never advocated destroying the economy. Let us say "4" is equivalent to destroying the economy. I think Bernard's argument is that kuvasz has not advocated "4," but he has advocated 2 + 2, which Bernard adds up to get "4." Kuvasz argues that it does not add up to 4. Perhaps we could rephrase the equation to "x + y," whereas Bernard interprets the x and the y to be the draconian economic and technical policies that add up to 4, while kuvasz do not see x and y as affecting the economy at all.
In most of the developed countries of the world today, firms are paying the cost of pollution to the global environment, in the form of taxes imposed on coal, oil, and gas. but American firms are being subsidized--and massively so. There is a simple remedy: other countries should prohibit the important of American goods produce using energy intensive technologies, or, at the very least, impose a high tax on them, to offset the subsidy that those goods are currently receiving.
Of course, the Bush Administration and the oil companies to which it is beholden will be upset. They may even suggest that this is the beginning of a global trade war. It is not. It is simply pointing out the obvious: American firms have long had an unfair trade advantage because of their cheap energy, but while they get the benefit, the world is paying the price through global warming. This situation is, or at least should be, totally unacceptable. Energy tariffs would simply restore balance--and at the same time provide strong incentives for the United States to do what it should have been doing all along.
The world seems at an impasse: the United States refuses to go along unless developing countries are brought into the fold; and the developing countries see no reason why they should not be allowed to pollute as much per capita as the United States or Europe. Indeed, given their poverty and the costs associated with reducing emissions, one might give them even more leeway. But, given their low levels of income, that would imply that no restraints would be imposed on them for decades.
There is a way out, and that is through a common (global) environmental tax on emissions. There is a social cost to emissions, and the common environmental tax would simply make everyone pay the social cost. This is in accord with the most basic of economic principles, that individuals and firms should pay their full (marginal) costs. The world would, of course, have to agree on assessing the magnitude of the social cost of emissions; the tax could, for instance, be set so that the level of (global) reductions is the same as that set by the Kyoto targets.
As technologies evolve, and the nature of the threat of global warming becomes clearer, the tax rate could adjust, perhaps up, perhaps down. ... each country could keep its own revenues and use them to replace taxes on capital and labor: it makes much more sense to tax "bads" (pollution,like greenhouse gas emissions) than to tax "goods," like work and saving. (Economists refer to these taxes as corrective taxes.) Hence, overall economic efficiency would be increased by this proposal.
The big advantage of taxation over the Kyoto approach is that it avoids most of the distributional debate. Under Kyoto, getting the right to pollute more is, in effect, receiving an enormous gift. (Now that pollution rights are tradeable, we can even put a market value on them.) The United States might claim that because it is a larger country, it “needs” more pollution rights. Norway might claim that because it uses hydroelectric power, the scope for reducing emissions is lower. France might claim that because it has already made the effort to go into nuclear energy, it should not be forced to reduce more. Under the common tax approach, these debates are sidestepped. All that is asked is that everyone pay the social cost of their emissions, and that the tax be set high enough that the reductions in emissions is large enough to meet the required targets. The economic cost to each country is small"in some cases, actually negative.
If the United States could go its own merry way-keeping the carbon dioxide it emits over its own territory, warming up its own atmosphere, bearing itself whatever costs (including hurricanes) that result, would be one thing. But that is not so. The energy profligate lifestyle of the United States inflicts global damage immensely greater than any war it might wage. The Maldives will within 50 years be our own 21st century Atlantis, disappearing beneath the ocean; a third of Bangladesh will be submerged, and with that country's poor people crowded closer altogether, incomes already close to subsistence level will be further submerged.
Stiglitz’s approach is to provide an enforcement mechanism. Non-signatories to Kyoto, such as the US, who continue to spoil the earth’s atmosphere, should have a WTO case of unfair subsidisation brought against them by countries who have signed such as Japan and Europe. Even the US recognises the role of such actions - it prohibited the import of Thai shrimp that had been caught in 'turtle unfriendly' nets. With respect to global warming the subsidies are the costs to the global environment caused by US firms not paying the full global costs of production. Complainant countries should accordingly prohibit the import of goods that benefit from such subsidies or at least levy hefty taxes on them. This is a bit like earlier proposals for counterveiling tariffs to help enforce international agreements.
Problems of bringing about change in the developing world could be resolved by scrapping the Kyoto agreement but introducing a global environmental tax on emissions that achieves global reductions in emissions equivalent to the Kyoto targets. This tax might change as information about global warming improves and technologies evolve. Each country could collect and utilise its tax revenues as it saw fit and could cut pre-existing taxes on capital and labour in response to the new revenue source. Such taxes would improve efficiencies because they are directed at a ‘bad’ (pollution) not a ‘good’ (like work and saving). Such taxes would have low costs " in some cases there might be net benefits.
These are worthwhile suggestions that apply the notion of unpaid social costs at the global level and which recognise the superiority of green taxes with their ‘double dividend’ advantages at the national level.
The Cost of Doing Nothing
(Australian Financial Review)
11 April 2002
Experienced debaters rarely commit themselves to an unambiguously false statement. So I was surprised to read Bjorn Lomborg's claim that 'the results of all major cost-benefit analyses show that doing Kyoto or something even grander is simply a bad investment for the world'. There are plenty of examples to prove him wrong.
Among the many economists whose work supports Kyoto is Jeffrey Frankel, a member of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Clinton. Frankel is cited by Lomborg for his work on economic growth, but his work on climate change is ignored. According to the modelling reported by Frankel, the costs of Kyoto would be about 0.1 per cent of GDP for developed countries. This is far below the range of $150 billion to $350 billion (0.6 to 1.5 per cent of GDP) cited by Lomborg.
Frankel is not alone. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites a range of model estimates of the costs of implementing Kyoto using market mechanisms. They show that, with a global system of emission rights trading, the cost of implementing Kyoto would range from 0.1 per cent to 0.2 per cent of GDP.
Lomborg dismisses global emissions trading as politically infeasible because it would involve the redistribution of billions of dollars to developing countries (page 305). But then he turns around (page 318) and attacks alternative ways of implementing Kyoto by suggesting that the billions required could be better spent - by redistributing them to developing countries.
To put the cost estimates in context, 0.1 per cent of Australian GDP is about $600 million per year. The economic benefits generated by the Great Barrier Reef alone are more than this, but, like reefs around the world, it is already being affected by bleaching arising from rising water temperatures.
Interestingly, Lomborg (page 4) promises to refute the claim that 'coral reefs are dying', but this issue is not mentioned in the chapter on global warming or, as far as I can see, anywhere else in the book.
Other economists argue that the benefits of doing 'something even grander' will exceed the costs. A recent paper entitled Climate Change:An Agenda for Global Collective Action, proposes a modified version of Kyoto which could achieve greater reductions in emissions while overcoming some political objections. One of the authors is Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the 2001 Nobel prize. Other notable supporters of action to mitigate global warming include Kenneth Arrow, William Cline and Paul Krugman. Lomborg gives 16 references to his preferred expert, William Nordhaus, but omits all these eminent economists.
Lomborg's estimates of the costs of mitigation are too high. However, the real problems in his book relate to the costs of doing little or nothing, as he proposes.
Because the costs of doing nothing arise in the future, the weight that is placed on those costs depends critically on the rate of discount that is adopted. The real after-tax rate of interest on government bonds over the last 100 years has generally been between 1 and 3 per cent, but Lomborg assumes the rate is 5 per cent. The effect is to reduce the value of costs incurred in 50 years time by a factor of around 10, effectively disregarding the interests of future generations.
The most important problem with Lomborg's work is easier to understand. Lomborg claims to be an environmentalist. But in 70 pages on global warming, he says nothing about its effects on natural ecosystems. The IPCC report lists a wide range of ecological impacts on species extinction, coral reefs, wetlands and so on, which, taken together, show that climate change is the biggest single ecological problem faced by the world. For developed countries, the ecological costs of climate change will far outweigh direct economic impacts.
Most economists who have looked at the ecological costs of climate change conclude that, while they are almost impossible to evaluate in monetary terms, they are sufficient to justify substantial action. Lomborg ignores them completely.
Nordhaus, on whom Lomborg relies for all his modeling results, makes an admittedly 'speculative' estimate of the costs of ecological damage. This estimate is absurdly low - $5 billion a year for the entire US, including the economic costs of rising sea levels.
Of course, if you define a problem out of existence, as Lomborg and Nordhaus do, the optimal response is to do nothing. Lomborg is free to believe the most optimistic estimates on every environmental issue, and the most pessimistic estimates of the cost of doing anything. But he shouldn't call himself 'skeptical' or an 'environmentalist.
I could post a picture of a drooling vacant eyed person but would you accept it as being indicative of all tea baggers without evidence?
