The US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works continues to hear testimonials on climate change and related issues.
Earlier this week Lord Nigel Lawson from Britian’s House of Lords told the Americans what he thought:
“I am grateful for your invitation to testify before you today. I am aware that you have been provided with the Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs on The Economics of Climate Change in advance of these proceedings, so I intend simply to summarise our key findings and to provide some commentary of my own.
By way of background, the Economic Affairs Committee is one of the four permanent investigative committees of the House of Lords, and fulfils one of the major roles of our second chamber as a forum of independent expertise and review of all UK government activity. It is composed of members of all three main political parties. Its climate change report, which was agreed unanimously, was published on 6 July 2005, just ahead of the G8 summit at Gleneagles in Scotland.
In summary, the Committee concluded that:
1. The Government should give the UK Treasury a more extensive role, both in examining the costs and benefits of climate change policy and presenting them to the public, and also in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);
2. There are concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, and the influence of political considerations in its findings;
3. There are significant doubts about the IPCC’s scenarios, in particular the high emissions scenarios, and the Government should press it to change its approach;
4. Positive aspects of global warming have been played down in the IPCC reports: the IPCC needs to reflect in a more balanced way the costs and benefits of climate change;
5. The Government should press the IPCC for better estimates of the monetary costs of global warming damage and for explicit monetary comparisons between the costs of measures to control warming and their benefits;
6. A more balanced approach to the relative merits of adaptation and mitigation is needed, with far more attention paid to adaptation measures;
7. UK energy and climate change policy appears to be based on dubious assumptions about the roles of renewable energy and energy efficiency, and the costs to the UK of achieving its objectives have been poorly documented, and the Government, with much stronger Treasury involvement, should review and substantiate the cost estimates involved and convey them in transparent form to the public;
8. Current UK nuclear power capacity should be retained;
9. International negotiations on climate change reduction will prove ineffective because of the preoccupation with setting emissions targets. The Kyoto Protocol makes little difference to rates of warming, and has a na
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well now isnt that interesting. I wonder how the “media tarts” Messrs Flannery and Lowe would respond to this if at all. One can bet that Lord Lawsons comments to the Senate Commitee wont get printed in any of the Oz Newspapers.
Sort of puts it all in a much better perspective.
Absolutely agree – lets go blindly into the night.
What a load of baloney. It’s just a big end of town political position. (and House of Lords – well that’s a distinguished democratic institution ?!)
The IPCC have entertained dissent and plenty of it. Just that not much has gotten any traction.
And you have to construct a grand conspiracy theory with 100s of scientists to make this rant stand up. And all the peer reviewed journals are in on it too… come on …
And as for consensus science and publishing in peer reviewed journals that is EXACTLY what it is all about … and exactly what the contrarians in the main have done very very little of. But of course we have disparaged the use of peer review in these threads as flawed have we not – so it’s back to mob rule then.
As for “headline” driven research …
In general the press on climate change is rubbish. It’s pro-AGW one day (often with wrong end of the stick) and publishing rabidly anti-AGW the next. More interested in controversy, sensationalism and selling papers than an informed debate.
Let the climate scientists proceed without political pressure. The rest of us including Treasury can evaluate the worth of the research and if we wish to use our political system to act upon the findings well that’s up to us.
The problem for humanity is that the global atmosphere doesn’t recognise the economy’s credentials. The atmosphere doesn’t really care one way of the other. Bretton Woods indeed – back to the past !
“Could it encourage a return to more traditional processes for publishing and reporting important findings including peer reviewed journals? ” …
errr.. what are the assessment reports based on ….
And if we disband the IPCC what might we replace it with …? I reckon we ask the IPA to review any climate publications before they get to a journal ?
Of course it’s good to see that the Lords have the full support of the goverment (about as good as one of our senate committee reports). It’s strange that while the yanks are talking to one Lord, we have had a visitor from the Old Country taking another view. Maybe a Lord is a more powerful chess piece than a Knight ? Although maybe one has to earn a knighthood.
ABC’s Lateline …
“The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, relies heavily on his chief scientific adviser and, as a result, Sir David King is not afraid to speak his mind. His warnings about global warming and the dangers of climate change have included public criticism of the US administration, which he claims is failing to play its part in “the most serious problem faced by the world”. At the end of next month, the countries who’ve signed the Kyoto Protocol will meet in a major UN climate change conference in Montreal to plan the next steps to tackle global warming. Because of their long-standing opposition to Kyoto, Australia and the United States won’t be there. Now Tony Blair has sent his scientific emissary on a diplomatic mission to Canberra to convince the Government to reconsider.”
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1481937.htm
Phil Blair has effectively buried Kyoto.
“Mr Blair, who has been seen up to now as a strong supporter of the Kyoto Treaty, effectively tore the document up and admitted that rows over its implementation will “never be resolved.”
Mr Blair told the New York conference: “I would say probably I’m changing my thinking about this in the past two or three years. I think if we are going to get action we have got to start from the brutal honesty about the politics of how we deal with it.
“The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem.
“Some people have signed Kyoto, some people haven’t signed Kyoto, right? That is a disagreement. It’s there. It’s not going to be resolved.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/25/nkyoto25.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/09/25/ixportal.html
Well perhaps Kyoto is kaput and perhaps even reasonably so … although carbon is trading quite well on the UK exchange so figure that out ?
but the CO2 problem still remains and therefore why is his Chief Science advisor here … i.e. the UK govt seems to be “divided”… hardly a “consensus” position ?
Phil,
What CO2 problem? Obviously you hate vegetarians and plants otherwise you not ban their food source.
Extending the debate, why not ban water? It causes drowning.
And CO2, we exhale it, because CO2 is a sign the of existence of a carbon based life form in vibrant health.
What is not in vibrant health is the thinking of the climate changers.
Good grief !
Oh yea – I forgot – it’s not a greenhouse gas is it. Better repeal many physics texts (suppose you wouldn’t have one reference that says it’s not a GHG – or is it just “trust me” pers. comm. on that one.
Of course it’s associated with biological life – that’s the whole point … you also get a lot of it from dead decaying life forms too.
But if you think it’s that good for you I suggest you wouldn’t survive in a room full of it would you?
Somehow I don’t think we’re getting past square one here…
A greenhouse operates by stopping energy. So called Greenhouse gases cannot.
While CO2 might be raised to a higher temperature than O2 in isolation, when mixed the resultant gas will have different thermal charactertistics. Ie the sum might actually produce less.
So illuminate your readers Phil, and link to a reputable source defining a Greenhouse gas.
Phil,
All lab experiments use closed systems, except that the earth and its relation to space is an open system.
Hence conclusions based on data from closed systems cannot be usefully extrapolated to open systems.
I’ll let it lie there until to start to understand the science behind this.
I won’t wait, because there is probably not enough life left in me to wait that long.
So why is Mars and the Moon colder than Earth …?
And why is Earth as warm as it is ?
Can someone tell me what specifically is wrong with what Lawson had to say to the USA Senate Committee. Taking it one at a time:
1. He calls for a greater role of Treasury in examining the cost of Climate change policy.Well not to do so would be thoroughly irresponsible by any Government, given the huge sums of money involved.
2.His Lords Committee had concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process. Well given what had been published of late, who wouldnt be concerned.
3.His Committee felt that there were signifcant doubts about the IPCC scenarios.Well so do a bevy of Nobel Prize winners in economics.
4. Postive aspects of GW are played down in the IPCC reports. Well,this seems to be a constant theme by all the AGW alarmists. After all how can there be any good elements when one is engaged in gilding the lily and doing a beat up.
etc etc
I dont see what was so bad about what Lawson and his Committee had to say.It is the political process at work ensuring that they get the right balance taking into account all the competing interests and demands on budgets.
The onus is now on the IPCC and its acolytes to produce rational arguments to explain their position, or modify the same.
Basically the House of Lords stuff is a shadowy exercise. But it is “PEER” reviewed !!! (hehe)
Did the senate committee ask the honourable gentleman to explain the gross errors in their report?
Fair enough if it was objective but if it’s a thinly veiled exercise brought to you by the big end of town ….you’re being informed with commentary not analysis …. and I’m sure Treasury economists would be experts in atmospheric physics …
Basically it was their Economics Committee (zilch expertise in science) not a Science Committee … perhaps a den of Thatcherites …
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/07/house-of-lords-subverted-by-skeptics.html sums up some of the downright fibs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4655373.stm Did they say “Enron !!!”
Have you taken the time to read the IPCC reports Malcolm ??
And meanwhile the atmosphere doesn’t particularly care what we all think. You can’t simply call it out of order or give it a ruddy good thrashing !
You still dont seem to understand, Phil, that there are other layers of decision making, which any responsible govt,and business, has in place, and which invariably, and thankfully,sit above the scientific advice.The scientific advice is one of a number of inputs. According to your pronouncements on these blogs the whole world should be run by scientists.
I am infinitely more impressed by the CV’s of the various Lords ( they are in the appendices of the their report) than I am by those of any number of scientists,and certainly many of those currently manipulating the media their own ends
and yes, I have read some of the IPCC documents, but not all.
I repeat, when taken one point at a time, I dont find very much wrong with what the Lawson had to say to the Senate. It is miles away from being a rant as you call it.
But then I am not at all surprised that the science community would be up in arms about it, as you appear to be.
(1) did I say rant?
(2) I’m not saying scientists rule the world – where have I said that
(3) scientists’ jobs are to provide unbiased objective advice free from political, religious or economic pressures – even if its unpopular
(4) I do object to the dreadful spin put time and time again using spurious agruments which have been long well answered. The Lords report has some very basic errors. Has to make you wonder about their credibility. Check Stoat’s analysis in the above supplied URL.
(5) which IPCC scientists are manipulating the media ? Which Australian institutional scientists (leave out Lowe and Flannery) are courting the media ?
Phil,
The earth is as warm as it is because of life, of which CO2 is totally necessary for its well being.
But we really do not know why climate changes and you still have not answered my initial question on how Greenland froze up.
The earth is as warm as it is because of life – how’s that exactly – why so …?
And I give up on Greenland – tell me …
If you can explain with your open theory why the Earth isn’t as cold as Mars or the Moon I’d be interested to know why …
(1) “did I say rant?.”..3rd line in a previous post above
(2) “I’m not saying scientists rule the world – where have I said that”….Clear implication of your apparant inabilty to see any merit in any of the 10 points raised by Lawson.
(3) “scientists’ jobs are to provide unbiased objective advice free from political, religious or economic pressures – even if its unpopular”…It is a pity they didnt stick to this principal.
(4) “I do object to the dreadful spin put time. and time again using spurious agruments which have been long well answered. The Lords report has some very basic errors. Has to make you wonder about their credibility. Check Stoat’s analysis in the above supplied URL.” …That is just one point what about the rest?
(5) “which IPCC scientists are manipulating the media ? Which Australian institutional scientists (leave out Lowe and Flannery) are courting the media ?.”…Try the CSIRO/DAR for starters, and the two media tarts mentioned by you. Then add in those “working” for the ACF. Oh we might also mention the recent alarmist nonsense issued by the AMA, in concert with the WWF.etc etc.
Again I repeat, what is fundamentally wrong with what Lawson said on behalf of his committee. They are perfectly valid points for a Govt to raise and seek input/resolution. Are they not?
Loius – So the Earth is as warm as it is because of life – it has nothing to do with long wave radiation being trapped by greenhouse gases?
No I count four majors errors and two total lies on serious points. They’re totally discredited as an uninformed biased attack as a result. They’ve simply having us on. You would not get stuff like this wrong if you were seriously making an attack on this points.
ENRON !!
So who in CSIRO/DAR are “courting” the media? What newspapers? When? You’d have to be good to “court” the media on climate change – they change their mind every day.
And I did say rant way back in the beginning – I couldn’t see it in the post section I thought you were discussing. And given the political unobjective and incorrect nature of the report it is just a rant.
Ender – you won’t get an answer from Louis – the tactic by now if you haven’t seen it, is to swoop in with an outrageous metaphysical incantation and then swoop out – leaving a surge of posts from us – all of which go unanswered. See trail of previous unanswereds on the same topics. He won’t engage. He’s just playing with us.
Ender,
Please study some basic physics, a gas, like CO2, in an open system, cannot trap energy.
Where on earth did you get the notion that a gas in thermal inequilibrium can trap energy?
PHil Done,
I guess your knowledge of physics is, what, more than zero?
Ender,
The greenhouse effect which you refer is caused by Water Vapour, Liquid water held in suspension in a turbulent atomosphere.
Your understanding of simple physics is not helping your argument I am afraid.
Gee Louis – come in spinner. So CO2 doesn’t get excited by infrared wavelengths… I really really cannot believe you are going to run the old water vapour dominant gas argument … and we now seem to have cracked a little by announcing there is such a thing as a greenhouse gas. If you NOW believe this your’re about to tie yourself in knots.. ..
And your quote – water “vapour” is liquid water – mate you’re all over the place … what the ??
Louis why isn’t the Earth as cold as the Moon or Mars if it’s an open system ?
Why water vapour is not the answer
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html
And on Louis’s open system theory
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
Phil,
I omitted to mention that the atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2, and as you said Mars is a cold dead planet.
I wonder if this is relevant? Is the amount of CO2 important ?
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/2005/press_85_05.cfm
Well Phil here is your big moment, your 15 mins of fame. Put your blind adherence to AGW in all its forms to a proper test and make a submission to this call by the UK Treasury.
Louis
The Martian atmosphere is about 100th of the Earth. Mars’ thin atmosphere produces a greenhouse effect but it is only enough to raise the surface temperature by 5 degrees (K).
In comparison Venus has a runaway greenhouse. The pressure of Venus’ atmosphere at the surface is 90 atmospheres. It is composed mostly of carbon dioxide. There are several layers of clouds many kilometers thick composed of sulfuric acid. This dense atmosphere produces a run-away greenhouse effect that raises Venus’ surface temperature by about 400 degrees to over 740 K (hot enough to melt lead).
Venus’ surface is actually hotter than Mercury’s despite being nearly twice as far from the Sun. We are talking over 200,000 times the amount of CO2 per unit area. (and gee lots of CO2 and not much “vibrant” life about eh ?)
Louis – you have been saying that the Earth is an open system. It can’t store heat – it will all be radiated out to space.
OK – so therefore the temperature of Earth should be as cold as the Moon. Why not?
And if your answer is water vapour. Well presto you have subscribed to the theory of infra-red reactive gas. Oxygen and nitrogen are not. Of course you might not want to say that – but have to decide….
Assuming you say it’s to do with water vapour.
So you will then say BUT water vapour is a bigger number. Well read the always helpful realclimate and Stoat URLs above as to why that’s incorrect in the final interpretation.
Water vapour is both a forcing and a feedback. And not all molecules are created equal – depends on absoption spectra and of course some of these overlap between H20 and CO2 . When you do that math – water vapour is only 60-70% of the story. So therefore CO2 makes a major contribution.
I notice Louis that your responses are typically terse with little argument – just a lobbed rhetorical grenade. You should take this opportunity to educate the readers of this hallowed blog with your new physics. Don’t just taunt us wuth one-liners – follow through with the coup de gras.
Next ?
Golly we’re up early this morning having a good old blog aren’t we …
Malcolm – blind adherence to AGW ? – not blind – just enough concern on the facts – do you have an alternative explanation to the growing body of global evidence??
And what a fascinating SBS program last night on diminishing Greenland ice sheets, speeding up glaciers and sea shells. Considerable worry that the trend in bottom water salinity of the Atlantic conveyor is dropping rapidly – the Treasury might be doing some chilly calculations (what a naughty taunt that was … I retract).
No wonder Blair is trying to shore up his uranium supplies – noted that behind the scenes of the discussions …?
And interestly the 2007 IPCC report may likely mention that atmospheric CO2 is the highest in 650,000 years … mmmm
sorry got a tad off-track …
If Treasury took the time to have an actual serious read of the IPCC reports and the literature – then they might know how to focus their efforts. But they’ll have to update themselves and stop parroting climate nonsense first.
They have the elite economists and great resources – so they should stop buggaing about and just do it. The climate case is formally laid down in the literature and well available. So hook it up the economic models (and yes dear readers those horrid economists use models too – so you can’t believe them either – and they’re not even based on physics !).
Have you noticed that there are few climate jokes – we have plenty of lawyer, engineer and economist jokes – but no climatologist jokes. Jen – we need some jokes or it can’t be well-regarded profession. Actually I do remember one about El Nino but Jen would probably ban me.
Terrific SBS program last night. Heaps of rivetting disaster footage. But if we are now heading for a big freeze, then Kyoto needs to be put in the freezer too until we know what the blazes does cause climate change, and where it is all going. Seems to be changing direction on a pretty regualar basis.
Anyway all this panic climate speculation is just too much for this little chicken. I think I will sit on my nest (egg) until it all blows over. Hope the Australian government does too.
Phil,
perhaps Greenland froze up because there was in that region a significant lack of CO2?
Let’s see what is the mass of the earth’s atmosphere – 5.1 x10^18 kg, of which -.037% is CO2. So CO2 has a mass of 0.0113 x 10^16 Kg.
Mars has a mass 100 times less, so that makes it 5.1 x 10^16 Kg. CO2 is 95% so it is 4.85 x 10^16 kg CO2.
The amount of CO2 on Mars is 4.85/0.0113 greater in mass than the earth’s, or 430 times more CO2 on Mars than on Earth.
My case rests.
As for the earth’s internal heat, I’ll dwell on that another time at another place. Your first problem is explaining to Jen’s readers how so little CO2 on earth is supposed to create so much heat while 430 times more on Mars can’t achieve anything.
Loius – We have had this discussion before and you learned nothing. I am glad that you are secure enough in your ignorance to keep displaying the total of science that you are here.
Helen – I didn’t see anything contradictory in last nights story – nor panic – it’s progressive reveal and the fundamentals remain the same.
Things actually seem to being going a lot faster than any of us imagined. Now this is a worry.
The fact that we may be having some impact on the conveyor already is extraordinary …
The warming benefit to Great Britian from the conveyor mechanism has been long known.
With all the climate issues we can wait and see or take action. It’s up to us. If we don’t act and we are locked in another climate – well at least the scientists had published their findings.
Louis Louis Louis …
There are a few salient differences – half the distance from the sun, a different black body radiator but mostly NO atmosphere as such to convect the heat through and to warm. No feedback effects on water vapour.
Mars does have a small greenhouse effect – enough to make dust devils and winds. It could be colder.
And if CO2 does nothing with infra-red – how you explain Venus.
Why isn’t the Earth the temperature of the Moon ?
Next ?
Phil.
Oh really, CO2 convects its heat to the rest of the atmosphere? What the Nitrogen or Oxygen? Or water?
As CO2 has nothing to convect to on Mars, I suggest you have a slight problem – your understanding of basic physics is, somewhat incomplete.
While CO2 might have its temperature raised quicker than N2 or O2 for a given input of radiation, it is in intimate physical interaction with these two gases and instead of a system N2, O2 and CO2 as discrete physical phases, we are actually dealing with a composite gas atmosphere which may not necessarily have the combined thermal properties of its constituents.
Yep correct nothing much to convect on Mars – you’re learning. Well done.
And now you have CO2 reacting to infra-red in your comments – gee – do we feel a little agenda creep here Louis …. go on say it – its a GHG – you can do it …
Now why isn’t the Earth as cold as the Moon ??
Phil
as for Venus, its heat is derived entirely from internally – not its atmosphere.
As for Dust Devils on Mars, its atmosphere is too small to form these phenomena.
On earth we are discovering they are produced by electricity but experimenting is somewhat difficult – a Dust Devil is not stationary for a start, so the experimenter has to follow the Dust Devil in its apparent random course. And so on.
So why has the Mars Rover snapped a piccie of a dust devil ?
And so why is the Earth not as cold as the Moon
Dust devils on Mars
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/20050325.html
The atmosphere of Venus is mostly carbon dioxide, 96.5% by volume. Most of the remaining 3.5% is nitrogen. Early evidence pointed to the sulfuric acid content in the atmosphere, but we now know that that is a rather minor constituent of the atmosphere. 90 atmospheres pressure, 480 degrees C. No water vapour.
Dust Devils
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050916dustdevil.htm
From space, and how Phil, do you explain the bright spot?
As for your quoting of planetary statsistics, even C3Threepio could add usefull comment.
Moon?
I have no idea Phil, same for the freezing up of Greenland since 1400 Ad, or so.
Since you also have stated so here, then how can you then, with a straight face, assert that burning coal or petroleum will increase the earth’s temperature?
So now there are Dust Devils – make up your mind ….
So why is the Earth not as cold as the Moon ?
Louis – you are just a game player and a sophist.
You provide no body of evidence, no alternate hypotheses, no explantations, just glib sophistic comments …
Loius – because burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. This extra CO2 not accounted for in the carbon balance, traps more of the suns heat. CO2 has been experimentally confirmed as a strong selective absorber of long wave radiation. When radiation strikes the earths surface it heats it up. This heat is re-radiated at wavelengths that the CO2 absorbs. As the Earth’s average temperature is about the triple point of water it can exist as a gas, liquid and solid. The water vapour, CO2 and methane absorb a lot of this radiation preventing it from escaping to space therby heating the atmosphere – explaining why the Earth is not as cold as the Moon.
More CO2 = more heating as water vapour can condense into water again and fall as rain whereas other than active systems such as plants or the oceans scrubbing CO2 from the air, the CO2 will remain in the for a hundred years or more building to higher and higher concentrations. This has also been experimintally confirmed with direct measurement that the CO2 has increased from historical lows of 270ppm to 330ppm presently.
As you seem to have no grasp of physics despite having a geology degree you should read this. Thank goodness that you did not have to pass this exam as you would never have got your degree.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/1999Q1/101/midterm1notes.html
“5. a) Define “selective absorber”.
A gas that absorbs electromagnetic radiation efficiently at certain wavelengths but transmits (does not absorb) radiation at other wavelengths. Watch out for the following mistakes:
– Gases absorb radiation, and not vice versa.
– Selective absorbers absorb radiation at certain wavelengths, but do not “reflect” radiation at other wavelengths! They transmit the other; if radiation at the other wavelengths were reflected, then nothing would ever reach the surface of the Earth!
– A selective absorber is a gas. Aerosols and objects may absorb radiation, but they do not fall into the “selective absorber” category.
– Water vapor is a selective absorber (it is actually the most important one for the greenhouse effect on Earth), but clouds are made of water droplets (not water vapor), and thus they are not referred to as “selective absorbers.”
In the Earth’s atmosphere, we usually deal with two types of selective absorbers: gases that absorb UV (ultraviolet) radiation, such as ozone, and gases that absorb IR (infrared) radiation, such as water vapor and CO2. Ozone absorbs UV radiation from the Sun and prevents it from reaching the surface of the Earth, whereas water vapor and CO2 absorb IR radiation from the Earth and contribute to the Greenhouse effect. (Ozone also absorbs some IR radiation emitted by the earth, but its main impact on the Earth’s climate is due to the absorption of solar UV radiation.)
b) Name three important selective absorbers present in our atmosphere and circle the most important one.
Water vapor (most important), ozone, carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),…
c) The following figure shows the absorption spectrum of the Earth’s atmosphere with all gases normally present in the atmosphere taken into account. Indicate the “atmospheric window” on the figure (Hint: it is located in the infrared portion of the spectrum).
The (infrared) atmospheric window is located between the wavelengths of 8 to 12 microns. Watch out! The visible atmospheric window is in the visible part of the spectrum between 0.3-0.7 microns. When we just say “atmospheric window,” we are talking about the infrared atmospheric window. Make sure that you can locate the visible and infrared wavelengths on a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Also, a “window” is a part of the spectrum where the absorption is close to 0% (the radiation can go through), not close to 100%.
d) If a large amount of gas X was added to the stratosphere (and it remained there indefinitely), how would you expect the temperature of the stratosphere to change? Why?
The temperature of the stratosphere would increase because gas X would absorb some of the visible radiation coming down from the Sun. We do not know exactly how much the stratosphere would heat up without knowing exactly how much gas X was put into the stratosphere, but since we added a large amount we would expect the temperature increase to be significant. The radiant energy absorbed by gas X would be transformed into internal kinetic energy of the gas X molecules, which is heat. This heat would quickly spread to all the other molecules in the stratosphere as the molecules bump into each other.”
Loius – the freesing of Greenland is no real mystery:
“Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world also experienced heightened volcanic activity. When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. This ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to world-wide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur in the form of SO2 gas. When this gas reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun’s rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching the earth’s surface. The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without A Summer, when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe.”
Just because this was cause by natural events does not mean that THIS EVENT happening now is not being caused by man.
Ender,
which volcanic eruption caused the LIA ?
Phil,
why is the earth not as cold as the moon?
I have no idea
Ender
By breathing you release CO2
Well perhaps it might be that the Earth has an atmosphere and the Moon does not not …. and without an atmosphere the Earth would be just as cold…
And I suppose for your beloved Greenland you’d like a long term solay cycle/Atlantic conveyor mechanism.
Louis – I notice that the only thing you seemed to question is what volcano cause the LIA. How should I know? There is evidence of increased volcanic activity – pinpointing the exact one would almost be impossible without written records.
Yes Louiss by breathing I release CO2 and by farting I release methane – what’s your point?
By finally reducing your, and Phil Done’s, comments to mindless babbling.
So Ender given Louis has now been reduced to personal abuse I guess that means his pseudo-scientific quackery has run out of puff. Note the use of cryptic one-liners, lack of supporting evidence, and always answering a question with a question. One does have to admire a skilled artful dodger.
Just having another read of this fascinating Swiss paper which measures the increase in longwave radiation with radiometers over 8 years, partitioning the budget and then comparing the greenhouse fraction to model results – we find a remarkable agreement with the modelled value.
Sorry Louis – actual physical measurements – doesn’t get much better than that !! Boom boom…
[1] The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
(IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric
greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a
result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in
radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations could not be experimentally detected at
Earth’s surface so far. Here we show that atmospheric
longwave downward radiation significantly increased
(+5.2(2.2) Wm2) partly due to increased cloud amount
(+1.0(2.8) Wm2) over eight years of measurements at eight
radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model
calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase
(+4.2(1.9) Wm2) to be in due proportion with temperature
(+0.82(0.41) C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m3)
increases, but three times larger than expected from
anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after
subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity
rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward
radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm2) remains statistically
significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an
enhanced greenhouse effect. INDEX TERMS: 0325
Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Evolution of the
atmosphere; 1610 Global Change: Atmosphere (0315, 0325);
1620 Global Change: Climate dynamics (3309); 1640 Global
Change: Remote sensing; 3359 Meteorology and Atmospheric
Dynamics: Radiative processes. Citation: Philipona, R., B. Du¨rr,
C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild (2004), Radiative forcing –
measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing
greenhouse effect, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/
2003GL018765.
Malcom,
I’m not sure whether your serious or not in concluding that there ain’t very much wrong with what Lawson has to say, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I will work through his devastating points one by one.
1. Fair enough. The IPCC and climate scientist would dearly welcome the greater participation of economists. BTW, if you will take the time to read the IPCC TAR 2nd and 3rd volumes(at http://www.ipcc.ch) you will see lots of economic analysis.
2. A value judgement. No evidence offered.
3. The IPCC scenarios capture a massive range of possible future emissions. They are a range of possible future, not a prediction for which path we will follow. Some of Jenn’s friends will be hoping that we follow the browner options, and indeed they may well come true. This criticisms is silly. In fact, recent evidence emerging suggest we have probably underestimated the potential for natural sinks to become natural sources of CO2 and methane… in other words the worse possible case could be worse then previously thought.
4. The IPCC reports review science, not undertake it. If there is an unrepresentation of good new stories it is because they have not been done. It is actually quite nieve to believe that good and bad benefits might flow in equal measure as suggested. Clearly, Lawson fails to realise that it is not a matter of whether a warm climate is better than a cold climate… what matters is what is the cost of transitioning from a colder to a warmer climate, with rising sea levels, increasing rainfall intensities, increasing heatwaves etc.
5. Fair enough. We would all like better estimates of these. Comment is nieve, however, as the IPCC reviews science, it does not undertake it.
6. This is a policy issue for the UK government. It is irrelvant to the IPCC.
7. Again irrelevant to the IPCC.
8. So what?
9. A value judgment. To tell the truth, I am yet to meet a scientist who seriously thinks we have a hope of turning our emissions around soon, as society tends to be reactive rather than proactive – we are already seeing global average temperatures on an annual basis approaching (a massive) 1.5C warmer than in the 19th century, and yet many are still arguing about whether climate change even exists…. I am also suprised that their is no advocation of market based solutions..
10. Without substance. Prehaps someone might provide an example of a peer reviewed and reproducible paper which was rejected from the TAR on the basis of it not supporting the IPCC position.
11. Clearly, Lawson forgot to read the recent review in science which showed numerous studies which have broadly confirmed Mann’s initial reconstruction. Clearly, a non-peer reviewed paper in an industry mag, which incredibly found the start of the little ice age to be the warmest period in the last nearly 1000 years is more believable than… peer reviewed science.
12. Obviously, Lawson forgot to read the literature. This issue is insignificant and in fact cancels out due to the opposing effects of shifting between MER and PPP methodolies, in the convergence in energy efficiency and convergence in economic output.
As for the four principal costs…. one can only presume Lawson hasn’t heard of heatwaves, desertification, loss of alpine snowpacks and glaciers which are the primary summer water source for 100’s millions of people around the world, the need to retrofit infrastructure to cope with increased rainfall intensities, etc etc. I can only guess that tropical ecosystems, coral reefs, alpine areas, the Arctic etc. have no value, and hence their devastation has no cost…
BTW, just hang around for the ride as the 4th report hits the air in about a year. The climate sceptics have lost all their scientific fig leaves in the past 4 years, and are looking butt naked! You can see that they are now shifting to shoot the climate change mesenger (IPCC), as the climate change science debate has left them far far far behind…
Regards,
David
PS
Phil, I don’t know why you bother with Louis… its all about faith with him – take a read of last week’s New Scientist.
David – glad to see you’re back keeping these guys honest ! Yes noted the NS article.
Phil,
Personal abuse?
Trust you list this instance. I’ve just looked at my posts and no personal abuse was made.
If you think that exhaling CO2 is personal abuse, then that is a physical fact.
Not an employee of the BOM are you?
David,
New Scientist? Strange that a specific reference to a particular article was not made.
You are therefore dissembling, assuming of course you understand complex English, grammatical and otherwise.
Phil,
Actual physical measurements?
I cut and pasted this from your post:
“Nevertheless, changes in radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could not be experimentally detected at Earth’s surface so far.”
You seem to have difficulty distinguishing fact from fantasty.
Louis – have you a problem with the Queen’s English ?
That was in the introduction…. the so-called the background to the story. They have subsequently measured the radiative flux with radiometers. Sorry it’s definitive…. This is what we call scientific research Louis ??
I think you will find the article is
New Scientist: 8 Oct 2005
Special report: Fundamentalism
Enemy at the Gates
pp 39-51
Most applicable I think ….
Phil,
which you seem inable to link
David
“I’m not sure whether your serious or not “…. I am serious, and I can do without your condescending comments.
If there is one thing I have noticed about authors of blog posts herein, and that is they don’t have the faintest idea about how public policy is put together, and funds committed from Treasury, their expenditure and acquittal is audited, and made publicly accountable.
In fact the rapidity with which some of these posters respond suggest that they have nothing better to do. This also supports my view about most bloggers herein and elsewhere, seem to have limited life experiences, and that they have never really been accountable for anything more than a desk. I wonder how many have actually paid someone else’s salary out of their own funds. Or, how many have actually had to manage a large budget project, with a large number of people involved.
I am sure if they had, their comments would have a more realistic tone, and people would more readily see that Lawsons comments were quite valid points to raise as part of the public policy development process.
1. “Fair enough. The IPCC and climate scientist would dearly welcome the greater participation of economists. BTW, if you will take the time to read the IPCC TAR 2nd and 3rd volumes (at http://www.ipcc.ch) you will see lots of economic analysis.”……and that is just the point, clearly Treasury people don’t believe that what the IPCC had done is kosher by a long way. The economic work of the IPCC has not passed peer review. In marketing terms they have not been able to sell their product. It is a dud.and needs recasting.
2. “A value judgement. No evidence offered. “ Again that is just the point. The various antics of the IPCC and its Chairman, does not impress the decision-makers with its credibility. The issue may be valid but the selling has failed dismally. When this happens in real life there is invariably something wrong with the product
3. “The IPCC scenarios capture a massive range of possible future emissions.”…Again and again they just don’t believe the result and that is the IPCC’s problem as well as anybody’s. Castles and Henderson have a lot to say about this aspect as do a bevy of Nobel prize winners in economics So whose peer review does one believe.
4. “The IPCC reports review science, not undertake it. If there is an unrepresentation of good new stories it is because they have not been done. It is actually quite nieve to believe that good and bad benefits might flow in equal measure as suggested.”…..or as is more likely, those administering the IPCC including its Chairman did not ask for the work to be done. David you are one being naïve when you jump to the point that some how Lawson is intimating that the good and bad may flow in equal measures, he isn’t saying that at all . But in any project evaluation standard one must look at all sides of the question. The reason is that it affects definition of the problem and the actual cost of fixing the problem. I would have thought that was blindingly obvious.
5. Fair enough. We would all like better estimates of these. Comment is nieve, however, as the IPCC reviews science, it does not undertake it”….But the IPCC has undertaken economic/cost analysis with its scenarios etc, so why can it be done for one aspect , but not another equally important aspect. Again you are the one showing your naiveté by disputing the obvious.
6. “This is a policy issue for the UK government. It is irrelvant to the IPCC” ..Don’t be such a wanker. It is obvious that in the context of what Lawson is reporting namely the view of his Committee, not his own view that it has nothing to do with the IPCC.
7.” Again irrelevant to the IPCC.” See Point 6 above
8. “So what?”..See Point 6
9. “A value judgment… “
You obviously have failed to notice that Lawson was very careful to separate what he was reporting as being the Lords Committee unanimous cross party views, and the next few points which are his own personal views
Despite what you might think it is a serious matter when an argument has been so badly represented that when the final decision makers have to sit in judgement of it is found to be wanting, and fails on many of the normal evaluation criteria as applied to other expenditures of government.
The case for AGW may eventually be shown to be valid but taxpayers have a right to insist that it pass the normal tests. So far it looks like the IPCC and its acolytes have been so intent on cooking the books they may come unstuck.
So Malcolm – happy to hand it out but not face any serious rebuttal ? What a bully boy !
A few of us may have managed a few more things than you think. Including large budgets and staff. And a few may even have some idea on public policy – just not the redneck sort.
What a really biased swipe you have made. Goes down with all persons interested in the environment are intent on destroying society as we know it. What a vast generalisation.
What has the IPCC cooked ??
Who are the IPCC’s acolytes?
And who has misrepresented what arguments? The IPCC ?? or the sceptics …
The Lords report has made some serious errors on key points – it is they who are cooking the books. These errors make one wonder that the Lords report is merely a veiled attack by the business sector.
Anyway – enough of who’s in charge of the debating society – Treasury have the elite economic modellers – don’t rave on – get together with the climate modellers and make the calculations based on the probabilities and emission scenarios !! Then inform the rest of us…
So if they reject the IPCC’s scenarios and modelled outcomes as incorrect at the outset – what would you like to replace the process with – the Malcolm Hill lynch mob or what ??
And furthermore the global atmosphere doesn’t give a fig about the economy. If you find a way of drawing its attention to the economy pls tell us …
IPCC might do better if they use carrots instead of sticks; if they could present a credible cost/benefit scenario that was not skewed by spurious intrinsic “cultural” and “societal” values they might be taken seriously.
“spurious intrinsic “cultural” and “societal” values “??
What does that mean Rog – too cryptic ??
But if they add an economic analysis – won’t you say the scenarios are wrong anyway ?
rog – here is an example of a cost/benefit analysis. A few years ago there was a car called the Ford Pinto
“Furthermore, it was alleged that Ford was aware of this design flaw, but they refused to pay the minimal expense of a redesign. Instead, it was argued, Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths. This discovery of Ford’s apparent gross disregard for human lives in favor of profits led to major lawsuits, inconclusive criminal charges, and a costly recall of all affected Pintos.”
Here is a classic case. Scientists and a scientific process, that we usually trust with medicines and safety electronics and other critical items in our technology, are warning us of possible dangers to the climate of CO2 build-up in the atmosphere.
So how do you do a C/B here. Clearly it us cheaper to do nothing. Quite possibly all the current decision makers will be comfortably dead by the time the effects, if there are any, manifest themselves so they can ignore it quite safely.
Just doing a C/B could lead to the same consequences that the Ford people got when they quite reasonably, to them, concluded that human lives could be included on a balance sheet.
Phil.
So now I am a bully boy, thats not bad coming from you, what with your endless blustering posts on any matter, and to anyone who dares to post a point,irrespective of whether you know anything about it or not.
Serious rebuttal ..what a joke, he cant even read the material accurately, and dives off on a ready made tangent of no relevance.
Tell me Phil is it your sole role in life to spend endless hours monitoring blogs such as these so that you can spray your drivel come what may.
Is the real agenda to render these blogs ineffective by just filling the air waves with whatever springs to hand as a comment.
I would like to hear from someone with Treasury and public policy experience to say whether or not Lawsons comments on behalf of his Committee are indeed quite valid points to raise, and as such are a legitamate part of govt public policy determination, which may involve vast sums of money. That was and remains my original question.
Ender you prove my point, the IPCC is not qualified to speak on economic matters as it lies well outside their scope.
Similarly by your obvious ignorance and disregard of economic matters you also preclude yourself from further credible comment.
IPCC are representative of a body far more corrupt than Enron, the despicable UN.
Phil, you puzzle me, you spend so much time under the bed – how do you get the cork out?
I reckon that the degree of abuse indicates the degree of moral bankruptcy of your philosophical position.
I noticed you have no answers to the venomous spray of your last rant.
If you want to talk to Treasury – it’s called the phone book – ring them and ask !
Rog – so evidence of corruption of the IPCC is what …
Goodness, someone got out of the wrong side of the bed…or wrong under side
…”In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the latest United Nations report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented the draft of its most recent report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations.
When the printed report appeared in May 1996, however, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it “conform to the Policymakers Summary.”
The clandestine changes put a spin on the report’s conclusions that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
Lead authors of the crucial–and doctored–Chapter 8, dealing with the detection and attribution of climate change, have since backed off from this conclusion and now admit that it may take 10 years or more before any human influence on climate can be detected.
_________________________________
Letter to Undersecretary Timothy Wirth
August 26, 1996
The Honorable Timothy Wirth
Under Secretary for Global Affairs
U.S. Department of State
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Mr. Wirth:
When we met at Rockefeller University on March 3, 1995, you assured those present that the U.S. Government would not adopt a policy of legally-binding targets and timetables for the control of greenhouse gas emissions in place of the voluntary Climate Action Plan instituted by the White House in October 1994. We were surprised to learn from a direct quote by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Rafe Pomerance cited in Nature (July 25) that “the administration has been working on this policy for more than a year.”
We are naturally dismayed to find that you have changed your position in spite of your previous assurances–and without giving a considered hearing to opposing views from scientists or from consumer and industry groups likely to be affected by such policies. We hope that the Congress will provide such a forum before far-reaching and economically disastrous policies, like energy taxes or rationing, are imposed on the American public.
We are frankly puzzled that you would cite climate science as the reason for this policy shift. In July 1996, at the COP-2 meeting in Geneva, you declared: “The science calls on us to take urgent action.” If anything, scientific support for mandatory targets is weaker now than it was four years ago when the Climate Treaty was signed. Yet the State Department briefing paper asserts: “The first and foremost reason for launching this new direction is the science.” DOE assistant secretary, Dirk Forrister, refers to the science as “convincing and compelling.” It is neither; the scientific evidence certainly does not support such statements.
We wish to remind you that at least two-thirds of the warming in this century occurred before 1940, i.e., before most of the increase in greenhouse gases. The period, 1940-1975, showed a cooling. More important perhaps, the highly accurate global temperature data from weather satellites show no warming whatsoever in the last 18 years, while the climate models predict a warming of 0.4 to 0.6 C. Clearly, the theoretical models have not been validated by actual observations. Why then should we trust them to predict a future warming?
The shift in your position comes at a time when it was discovered that substantial, possibly unauthorized changes were made in the IPCC report that forms the scientific basis for decisions regarding the UN Climate Convention. The revisions were made quietly after the acceptance of the report and before its printing. As confirmed in the scientific journal Nature (June 13), the changes altered the sense of the (scientific) report and were done in order to “conform” it to the IPCC’s (political) Summary for Policymakers. The same Nature article reveals that “…some phrases that might have been (mis)interpreted as undermining these [IPCC] conclusions … have disappeared.”
We have now learned of the existence of a State Department letter, dated November 15, 1995, and addressed to Sir John Houghton, co-chairman of IPCC (Working Group I). It states, inter alia, that “it is essential that chapters not be finalized prior to the completion of discussions at the IPCC WG-I plenary in Madrid, and that chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner following discussion in Madrid.”
The “modification” of the IPCC report has resulted in the deletion of the following three clauses (among others):
* “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
* “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”
* “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
We call attention to the fact that these three clauses were in the final draft of Chapter 8 and had been agreed to by all four lead authors, 31 contributors, and an unspecified number of reviewers. In other words, the deleted clauses represented their considered scientific opinion. We believe that the removal of these clauses is unwarranted, seriously impairs the credibility of the IPCC, and raises the additional question: By what authority did the State Department prevail upon an internationally constituted scientific body to make such changes?
In our opinion, the three deleted clauses not only belong in the IPCC report, but should have been placed into the Summary as indicating our best current scientific judgment about enhanced greenhouse warming. There is nothing in the Summary to support or validate the climate models that predict a substantial future warming. On the contrary, the estimates of IPCC 1995 are substantially less than they were in 1992 or in 1990. The Summary for Policymakers makes no mention of even the existence of the weather satellite data (that show absolutely no warming over the last 18 years). Instead, reliance is placed on an ambiguous phrase: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
As an attorney, you will surely recognize that this contrived phrase conveys different meanings to different audiences; scientists read in quite another way than policymakers:
Scientists will accept this phrase and just shrug their shoulders. We have known for years now that human activities can affect not only local, but also regional and even global climate. For example, during the past five decades, there has been a downward trend in the frequency of intense hurricanes, -0.32 intense hurricanes/year per decade, significant at the 2% level. (reference: Landsea et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 23, pp. 1697-1700, 15 June 1996).
We could mention other well-known examples, but please note: The existence of such presumed human influences does not by itself validate the climate models. In particular, it cannot be used to claim a substantial temperature rise in the next century–nor does the IPCC Summary make such a claim. The likely reason: IPCC scientists would never have agreed to this. What the Summary does is to report the outcome of climate model calculations (that have never been validated). It then implies that the “human influences” somehow validate these models. They do not!
Thus while the IPCC phrase does not in any way confirm a future warming, it does convey such an impression to policymakers; and indeed, since we do not find any specific disclaimer in the Summary, this may have been the purpose. Judging from your statements in Geneva and those of other government officials, this purpose has been accomplished. The Ministerial Declaration of 18 July 1996, under paragraph 2, specifically–and improperly–links the IPCC phrase about “human influence” to a temperature increase of 2 C by 2100. Obviously, acting in good faith, you must yourself believe that all of the climate disasters linked to a major global warming are likely to come true. Please be assured that this is not the case.
Article 2 of the Climate Convention ties any action to “dangerous” levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. No one has as yet defined this term, nor does the IPCC report shed any light on where it might be. As a consequence, we do not know whether the present level of carbon dioxide is dangerous or not. Yet the policy statements assume that the present level, or even twice the present level, is a desirable goal. There is no scientific support for such a policy goal.
As a matter of fact, it may turn out that only by restoring atmospheric CO2 levels to those of a century ago can its effects on climate be avoided. This would require negative emissions, which is obviously a daunting task. But even stabilizing emissions at the 1990 level would be a difficult task, especially considering economic growth taking place throughout the world. As the IPCC report demonstrates, even cutting emission levels globally by as much as 50 percent would do no more than to stretch out the time for reaching a doubling of the atmospheric level of CO2.
We believe, therefore, that the action of the U.S. Government in pressing for mandatory emissions targets is precipitous and not based on adequate science. Our views are in accord with those of a number of Republican as well as Democratic senators. A July 10 letter to the President from Senator Frank Murkowski and seven other senators expresses doubt that “human-induced climate change was a significant problem that required immediate action” and quotes language from the IPCC report that confirms these doubts. A July 17 letter to President Clinton, signed by Senator J. Bennett Johnston and five fellow senators, complains about the lack of an “adequate basis of analysis and assessment.” They believe that it is “premature for the United States to agree to any particular numerical target or date for carbon dioxide emission reductions.” The senators “urge the suspension of substantive negotiations [on amending the Climate Treaty] until this controversy over the representation of scientific views can be resolved.”
All of the undersigned support a public statement to that effect, based on a conference held in the city of Leipzig, Germany, in November 1995. Some 100 meteorologists and climate scientists have joined us in signing the Leipzig Declaration, including even some who are listed as IPCC contributors.
In view of this vote of no-confidence in the IPCC Summary, we urge you not to claim the existence of a “scientific consensus” on global warming, nor to claim that the IPCC report, or climate science, justifies the mandatory policy actions you now champion.
—————————————————————
Henry R. Linden, Ph.D.
(Max McGraw Professor, Illinois Institute of Technology; founding president and now exec. advisor, Gas Research Institute)
William A. Nierenberg, Ph.D.
(director emeritus, Scripps Institute of Oceanography; member, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering)
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D.
(president emeritus, Rockefeller University; former president: U.S. National Academy of Sciences; holder of the National Medal of Science)
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
(professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; first director, US weather satellite service; former chief scientist, DOT)
Chauncey Starr, Ph.D.
(founding president, Electrical Power Research Institute; National Medal of Technology; member, National Academy of Engineering)
CC: Senators Frank H. Murkowski, Larry E. Craig, Lauch Faircloth, Spencer Abraham, Larry Pressler, Conrad Burns, Jesse Helms, Don Nickles. Senators J. Bennett Johnston, Wendell H. Ford, John B. Breaux, Robert C. Byrd, Howell Heflin, Byron L. Dorgan.
Goodness, someone got out of the wrong side of the bed…or wrong under side
ROG – LEFT SIDE THIS MORNING – DEFINITELY NOT RIGHT … YOU”LL HAVE TO BETTER THAN THIS – THIS IS A WHINGE BY KNOWN SCEPTICS ON THEIR “OPINION”
COMMENTS BELOW !
…”In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the latest United Nations report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented the draft of its most recent report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations.
When the printed report appeared in May 1996, however, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it “conform to the Policymakers Summary.”
The clandestine changes put a spin on the report’s conclusions that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
Lead authors of the crucial–and doctored–Chapter 8, dealing with the detection and attribution of climate change, have since backed off from this conclusion and now admit that it may take 10 years or more before any human influence on climate can be detected.
THEY HAVE ?
_________________________________
Letter to Undersecretary Timothy Wirth
August 26, 1996
The Honorable Timothy Wirth
Under Secretary for Global Affairs
U.S. Department of State
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Mr. Wirth:
When we met at Rockefeller University on March 3, 1995, you assured those present that the U.S. Government would not adopt a policy of legally-binding targets and timetables for the control of greenhouse gas emissions in place of the voluntary Climate Action Plan instituted by the White House in October 1994. We were surprised to learn from a direct quote by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Rafe Pomerance cited in Nature (July 25) that “the administration has been working on this policy for more than a year.”
We are naturally dismayed to find that you have changed your position in spite of your previous assurances–and without giving a considered hearing to opposing views from scientists or from consumer and industry groups likely to be affected by such policies. We hope that the Congress will provide such a forum before far-reaching and economically disastrous policies, like energy taxes or rationing, are imposed on the American public.
OPINION
We are frankly puzzled that you would cite climate science as the reason for this policy shift. In July 1996, at the COP-2 meeting in Geneva, you declared: “The science calls on us to take urgent action.” If anything, scientific support for mandatory targets is weaker now than it was four years ago when the Climate Treaty was signed. Yet the State Department briefing paper asserts: “The first and foremost reason for launching this new direction is the science.” DOE assistant secretary, Dirk Forrister, refers to the science as “convincing and compelling.” It is neither; the scientific evidence certainly does not support such statements.
OPINION
We wish to remind you that at least two-thirds of the warming in this century occurred before 1940, i.e., before most of the increase in greenhouse gases. The period, 1940-1975, showed a cooling. OH FOR PETE’S SAKE _ ALL THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND EXPLAINED AD NAUSEUM More important perhaps, the highly accurate global temperature data from weather satellites show no warming whatsoever in the last 18 years, WRONG WRONG WRONG – AND THE WORRIES WITH CALIBRATION WERE KNOWN AT THE TIME while the climate models predict a warming of 0.4 to 0.6 C. Clearly, the theoretical models have not been validated by actual observations. Why then should we trust them to predict a future warming?
TOTAL RUBBISH – THEY KNOW MUCH BETTER THAN THAT
The shift in your position comes at a time when it was discovered that substantial, possibly unauthorized changes were made in the IPCC report that forms the scientific basis for decisions regarding the UN Climate Convention. The revisions were made quietly after the acceptance of the report and before its printing. As confirmed in the scientific journal Nature (June 13), the changes altered the sense of the (scientific) report and were done in order to “conform” it to the IPCC’s (political) Summary for Policymakers. The same Nature article reveals that “…some phrases that might have been (mis)interpreted as undermining these [IPCC] conclusions … have disappeared.”
OPINION
We have now learned of the existence of a State Department letter, dated November 15, 1995, and addressed to Sir John Houghton, co-chairman of IPCC (Working Group I). It states, inter alia, that “it is essential that chapters not be finalized prior to the completion of discussions at the IPCC WG-I plenary in Madrid, and that chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner following discussion in Madrid.”
The “modification” of the IPCC report has resulted in the deletion of the following three clauses (among others):
* “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
* “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”
* “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
We call attention to the fact that these three clauses were in the final draft of Chapter 8 and had been agreed to by all four lead authors, 31 contributors, and an unspecified number of reviewers. In other words, the deleted clauses represented their considered scientific opinion. We believe that the removal of these clauses is unwarranted, seriously impairs the credibility of the IPCC, and raises the additional question: By what authority did the State Department prevail upon an internationally constituted scientific body to make such changes?
In our opinion, the three deleted clauses not only belong in the IPCC report, but should have been placed into the Summary as indicating our best current scientific judgment about enhanced greenhouse warming. There is nothing in the Summary to support or validate the climate models that predict a substantial future warming. On the contrary, the estimates of IPCC 1995 are substantially less than they were in 1992 or in 1990. The Summary for Policymakers makes no mention of even the existence of the weather satellite data (that show absolutely no warming over the last 18 years). Instead, reliance is placed on an ambiguous phrase: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
AND RIGHTLY SO !
As an attorney, you will surely recognize that this contrived phrase conveys different meanings to different audiences; scientists read in quite another way than policymakers:
Scientists will accept this phrase and just shrug their shoulders. We have known for years now that human activities can affect not only local, but also regional and even global climate. NOW THIS IS SOPHISTRY AT ITS BEST !!For example, during the past five decades, there has been a downward trend in the frequency of intense hurricanes, -0.32 intense hurricanes/year per decade, significant at the 2% level. (reference: Landsea et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 23, pp. 1697-1700, 15 June 1996). WRONG ON TWO OTHER PAPERS
We could mention other well-known examples, but please note: The existence of such presumed human influences does not by itself validate the climate models. In particular, it cannot be used to claim a substantial temperature rise in the next century–nor does the IPCC Summary make such a claim. The likely reason: IPCC scientists would never have agreed to this. What the Summary does is to report the outcome of climate model calculations (that have never been validated). It then implies that the “human influences” somehow validate these models. They do not!
SOPHISTIC RHETORIC
Thus while the IPCC phrase does not in any way confirm a future warming, YEP DEPENDS HEAPS ON WHAT HUMANITY DOES it does convey such an impression to policymakers; and indeed, since we do not find any specific disclaimer in the Summary, this may have been the purpose. Judging from your statements in Geneva and those of other government officials, this purpose has been accomplished. The Ministerial Declaration of 18 July 1996, under paragraph 2, specifically–and improperly–links the IPCC phrase about “human influence” to a temperature increase of 2 C by 2100. Obviously, acting in good faith, you must yourself believe that all of the climate disasters linked to a major global warming are likely to come true. Please be assured that this is not the case.
Article 2 of the Climate Convention ties any action to “dangerous” levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. No one has as yet defined this term, nor does the IPCC report shed any light on where it might be. As a consequence, we do not know whether the present level of carbon dioxide is dangerous or not. WELL SORRY WE’RE STILL WORING ON IT Yet the policy statements assume that the present level, or even twice the present level, is a desirable goal. There is no scientific support for such a policy goal.
As a matter of fact, it may turn out that only by restoring atmospheric CO2 levels to those of a century ago can its effects on climate be avoided. This would require negative emissions, which is obviously a daunting task. But even stabilizing emissions at the 1990 level would be a difficult task, especially considering economic growth taking place throughout the world. As the IPCC report demonstrates, even cutting emission levels globally by as much as 50 percent would do no more than to stretch out the time for reaching a doubling of the atmospheric level of CO2.
We believe, therefore, that the action of the U.S. Government in pressing for mandatory emissions targets is precipitous and not based on adequate science. Our views are in accord with those of a number of Republican as well as Democratic senators. A July 10 letter to the President from Senator Frank Murkowski and seven other senators expresses doubt that “human-induced climate change was a significant problem that required immediate action” and quotes language from the IPCC report that confirms these doubts. A July 17 letter to President Clinton, signed by Senator J. Bennett Johnston and five fellow senators, complains about the lack of an “adequate basis of analysis and assessment.” They believe that it is “premature for the United States to agree to any particular numerical target or date for carbon dioxide emission reductions.” The senators “urge the suspension of substantive negotiations [on amending the Climate Treaty] until this controversy over the representation of scientific views can be resolved.”
YEA _ WELL COOL _ THAT”S THEIR PEROGATIVE
All of the undersigned support a public statement to that effect, based on a conference held in the city of Leipzig, Germany, in November 1995. Some 100 meteorologists and climate scientists have joined us in signing the Leipzig Declaration, including even some who are listed as IPCC contributors.
FIND OUT WHO SIGNED !!
In view of this vote of no-confidence in the IPCC Summary, we urge you not to claim the existence of a “scientific consensus” on global warming, nor to claim that the IPCC report, or climate science, justifies the mandatory policy actions you now champion.
THE ABOVE IS LITTERED WITH THE USUAL SCEPTICS DIRTY TRICKS>
SO FORGETTING ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD REDUCE EMISSIONS OR NOT, WHETHER IT IS ECONOMIC TO DO SO (Malcolm’s argument), WHETEHR WE WANT TO, WHETHER WE CAN TECH OUT WAY OUT – SURELY WHAT I AM ARGUING FOR IS THAT THEIR IS A SIGNIFICANT AND WIDE BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT SOMETHING IS OCCURRING ON A NUMBER OF DATA SETS, SURELY WE WANT TO FIND OUT MUCH MORE, WE SHOULD ALSO BRIEF OURSELVES ON THE ECONOMIC, ECOLOGICAL and SOCIETAL COSTS OF ANY MITIGATION MEASURES, WHILE ALSO INVESTIGATING ADAPTATION MEASURES. IF THE DROP IN SALINITY IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC DOESN”T DISTURB YOU – YOU”RE ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL.
FAR FROM CAUSING ANYTHING TO HAPPEN – THE WHOLE IPCC SAGA SEEMS LOCKED IN GRIDLOCK – A BEST EFFORT HOWLED DOWN BY SCEPTICS RESORTING TO SOPHISTRY AND DIRTY TRICKS. KNOWING SOME IPCC REVIEWERS PERSONALLY I SUGGEST IT IS A BIG INSULT TO THEIR INTEGRITY AND MOTIVATIONS TO SUGGEST THERE IS A MASSIVE CONSPIRACY.
THE NEXT ASSESSMENT REPORT WILL BE BACK WITH ANSWERS TO ALL THIS AND MUCH MORE. NEXT TIME THE CASE WILL BE MUCH STRONGER NOT WEAKER AND THIS LAST EFFORT SEEN TO BE VERY CONSERVATIVE.
MEANWHILE _ WE AWAIT THE LORDS TO GET US SORTED ON THE ECONOMIC COSTS COMBINED WITH UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS _ BRING IT ON !!!!!!!!!!!! (BUT DO A STRAIGHT JOB !)
Phil,
You misrepresent my argument in saying “whether it is economic to do”. The Lords Committee view is that we do not know the cost, because we have both a distorted, ie extreme view, and a one sided view, ie the IPCC only looks at the down side, not the upside as well.I have said that I dont see anything wrong with raising that point.It is basic Grade 1 analysis stuff.
Who are these mysterious IPCC reviewers that you know personally.? Perhaps they could reveal themselves and enter the fray.
Last first- Unfortunately many institutional players are not allowed to participate in such forums as this. So they just have to sit there and cop it. (well the operational scientists who seriously know stuff do (leaving out unis) – management is a different issue).
I apologise – I am not trying to misrepresent your argument. We do not know the exact economic consequences – and one would have to balance out problems such as climate diasters/droughts with perhaps a warmer wetter US/Canadian wheat belt with more CO2 to soup up the photosynthesis. So perhaps some losers and some winners. As Rog has implied that the IPCC has loaded the bases before the game – I feel comments made by the Lords were prejudicial.
But anyway – bring on the analyis !! Perhaps in that we agree…
Hey Phil, why did the IPCC alter the considered scientific opinion of the document?
(in 25 words or less, and no more shouting OK?)
rog – “More important perhaps, the highly accurate global temperature data from weather satellites show no warming whatsoever in the last 18 years, while the climate models predict a warming of 0.4 to 0.6 C. Clearly, the theoretical models have not been validated by actual observations. Why then should we trust them to predict a future warming?”
Sorry wrong – the instruments when calibrated properly show warming as predicted.
Also the objections that these scientists cite are from the 1995 IPCC report that has been superceded by the 2001 report. Also as the IPCC is a representitive body the lines were deleted becuase they did not reflect the consensus view. Most scientists in the climate world believe almost the direct opposite.
Sorry about the multiple posts however I presses the post button before I was finished. Here is why the lines were deleted
“Dr. Benjamin D. Santer, Convening Lead Author of Chapter 8 of 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, replied [41]:
1. All revisions were made with the sole purpose of producing the best-possible and most clearly-explained assessment of the science, and were under the full scientific control of the Convening Lead Author of Chapter 8.
* Changes were made in direct response to:
o Written comments made by governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) during October and November 1995.
o Comments made by governments and NGOs during the plenary sessions of the IPCC meeting that was held in Madrid from November 27-29th, 1995.
* Post-Madrid changes to Chapter 8 were made solely in response to review comments and/or in order to clarify scientific points.
2. After receiving much criticism of the redundancy of a concluding summary (Section 8.7) in October and November 1995, the Convening Lead Author of Chapter 8 decided to remove it. About half of the information in the concluding summary was integrated with material in Section 8.6.
3. The bottom-line assessment of the science in the October 9th draft of Chapter 8 was “Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on climate”.
* The final assessment in the now-published Summary for Policymakers is that “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate”.
o The latter sentence, which is entirely consistent with the earlier Oct. 9th sentence, was unanimously approved at the Madrid meeting by delegates from nearly 100 countries.
4. None of the changes were politically motivated.
”
Sorry wasn’t shouting – differentiating my text from yours. Will use >>> next time…. Excuse my lack of blog etiquette.
I don’t have a good answer for you – you can see this as a big conspiracy if you wish indulge away – any editing on a project this size will cause some dissent. Do we have hordes leaving the IPCC process in howls of dismay? The IPCC reports IMHO are much more conservative than they need be. A nuber of reviewers think the IPCC backed off more than they should !! Whatever they say will cause a large number to take pot-shots !
Anyway moving on …
So your proposal to replace the IPCC (title of this thread) is what ? ….given we presume it’s totally flawed – consensus of yourself and and Malcolm and failure of myself and Ender to sway your judgement.
Hey is 80 comments a record ?
And is Jen ill – the thread list is shrinking …
Maybe she’s sick of us ??
And lastly do we have any climate jokes (and an answer of the IPCC would be regarded as cheeky). I mean GW cannot be a serious subject without jokes …
It is a point worth considering and evaluating, why the IPCC chose to change the considered scientific opinion of the authors of the document, it could not have been for scientific reasons could it?
So moving on – will they do better next time – or do you want to replace the IPCC ? and with what ?
To some extent the IPCC are the authors …
Yes, well, we have moved on; IPCC R.I.P.
ditto Kyoto.
Even himself Kofi Annan has consistently shown that it doesnt pay to stand on principle, the UN now praises “”the courage of the Iraqi people and congratulates the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, as well as the thousands of Iraqi election workers and monitors, on having organized and carried out the referendum in such challenging circumstances,”
“The world organization had an electoral assistance team in Iraq to help with preparations leading up to the voting and continuing through the tally..”
Anyone would think that the UN had played a pivotal role in ensuring that free elections were made possible in Iraq.
If only..
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20051015-072550-6064r
Well no – IPCC will deliver an even better assessment report in 2007 – but what’s your alternative ??
What about this for an alternative model: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000974.html
ionolsen23 Hello Jane, great site!
.
Very good site! I like it! Thanks!
keyword
[URL=url]keyword[/URL]freidmans jewelry store
toshiba satellite a15 s129 a15 s129 satellite tosh
snare drum rudiments
bus prevost sale used prevost bus for sale
6qt aid kitchen mixer
2004 calendar free template free calander template
aaron baby basha shoes baby basha shoes
trek bicycle for sale
broilmaster natural gas grill
pregnancy calendar
.
ca8bed1344e2 Keep writing so good posts