[url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/more-proof-of-global-warming/22320/1 1 - 20 pages[/url]
[url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/more-proof-of-global-warming-part-ii/22638/1 2 - 20 pages[/url]
[url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/global-warming-the-third-degree/27216/1 3 - 46 pages[/url]
86 pages, approx 860 posts so far.
for those who are interested in the report summary, here is a link:
media.newscientist.com/data/imag … 1088D1.pdf
also here:
ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Here is a new scientist article of the global reaction to it:
[quote]Key climate report sparks global call to action
18:02 02 February 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Governments and environmental groups the world over have greeted the new UN report on the science of climate change with words of praise – and determination. The report, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was released on Friday in Paris, France.
"It is another nail in the coffin of the climate change deniers and represents the most authoritative picture to date, showing that the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over,” said David Miliband, UK environment minister.
The report considered all the research since the last IPCC assessment in 2001 and the 21-page summary (pdf) of its findings – approved by officials from 113 countries – says that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal”.
“The IPCC report embodies an extraordinary scientific consensus that climate change is already upon us, and that human activities are the cause,” says James Leape, director general of WWF International.
Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations’ Environment Programme (one of the governing bodies of the IPCC), said the new report “gives us a stark warning that the potential impact will be more dramatic, faster and more drastic in terms of consequences” than previously thought. The impacts will change the way some people live in fundamental ways, he added.
Calls for action
Despite past scepticism by the US administration, the White House backed the report. "It is a comprehensive and accurate reflection of the current state of climate change science,” said Sharon Hays, associate director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Hays led the US delegation to the IPCC, which was praised by many for their constructive contribution to the final vetting of the report summary.
With the report being acknowledged as having clearly demonstrated the link between human activities and climate change, it has prompted strong calls for action.
The Democrat chair of the House Committee on Science and Technology, Bart Gordon said: “Expert scientists have provided us with a diagnosis of the problem and a prognosis for our planet’s health. Now, it’s time for us - the policymakers - to do our jobs.”
"The clock is ticking and time is running out for us to avoid major climate change, with the real and serious threats to our economies and peoples’ livelihoods it carries,” said Marthinus van Schalwyk, South African minister for environment and tourism.
“Faced with this emergency, now is not the time for half measures. It is the time for a revolution, in the true sense of the term,” said French president Jacques Chirac. “We are in truth on the doorstep of the irreversible.”
Post Kyoto
There was a hopeful feeling in Paris that the new report would pave the way for an agreement that would go beyond the Kyoto Protocol targets for 2012.
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the European Commission’s calls for industrialised nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 60% to 80% by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels) were “exactly in line with what scientists say we need". The question now, he said, "is how do we convince other industrialised countries to sign up to the European rallying call?”
Others echoed the idea that developed nations must take the lead. Kenneth Denman, a Canadian climatologist who led the work on one of the report’s chapters, told New Scientist that developed countries would be “moral hypocrites if we ask developing countries to reduce their emissions when they’re trying to catch up with the standard of living we’ve had for the past 50 years”.
“North America has 5% of the global population,” Denman pointed out, “yet we produce 25% of the fossil fuel emissions.” Developed nations must “clean up their act” first, he said.[/quote]
and right back at you regarding the “summary” of the IPCC Global Warming report and how it is mostly influenced by political appointees. We do not have the ACTUAL or SCIENTIFIC report yet. In the past, these summaries have been highly politicized. I am assuming that this one will be as well. But read on…
[quote]Don’t Rush To Judgment on U.N.'s IPCC Global Warming Summary
by Ben Lieberman
WebMemo #1351
A summary of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC Report) was released on February 2, and many in the media and Congress are citing it as further evidence that global warming is a dire threat. The full report, with accompanying scientific assessment and detailed assumptions, will not be released for several months. However, caution is warranted in drawing policy conclusions based on this summary, as the full scientific debate over the IPCC report has not begun. And while the summary strongly emphasizes mankind’s role in global warming, it has retreated on a number of important assertions from past reports.
Just a Summary
It should be emphasized that only a short “Summary for Policymakers” has been released, not the actual report which contains the underlying scientific assessment. The final version of the full report is scheduled to come out later this year. [color=red]IPCC summaries are written at the direction of political appointees representing member nations[/color]. The limitations and potential biases of such summaries give reason to withhold judgment until the scientists actually weigh in–both the IPCC scientists and especially the independent scientists who will comment on the final report. That the summary is being so aggressively marketed ahead of the science is itself reason for caution.
The Findings
That said, the summary is the only thing most journalists and politicians read, and the finding that has received the most attention is that the IPCC is now more certain than in its 2001 report that mankind has contributed to global warming since 1750. In truth, few so-called skeptics dispute that there has been some human contribution, so the fact that the summary says the likelihood is 90 percent or more is not as newsworthy as it first appears. This upward revision in the certainty that mankind has impacted the climate should not be confused with an upward revision in the predictions of consequent harm.
The more important questions have always been the extent of warming, the seriousness of the consequences, and what responsive policies make sense.
The summary includes a wide range of assumptions and outcomes, and thus it is hard to generalize about its predictions. However, it does appear that estimates of future sea level rise–likely the greatest concern from warming–are being revised downward. Estimates range from 0.18 to 0.59 meters (about 7 to 23 inches) over the course of a century, about a third lower than in the previous report and well below popular fears of 20 feet or more.
Again it is still too early to speculate what the final [color=red]scientific[/color] assessment will say (and how well it will hold up to scrutiny), but the summary does appear to have backtracked on other points as well. For example, the last IPCC report emphasized the so-called “hockey stick” notion that earth’s temperature was relatively stable for a thousand years (the shaft of the hockey stick) and then shot up in an unprecedented manner in the 20th century (the blade). Thus, the previous IPCC report discounted the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age, implying that current temperature increases are not due to natural variability. The hockey stick (and its conclusion that current temperatures are unprecedented throughout most of recorded history) has come under scientific attack in recent years, and based on the new summary, it appears that the IPCC has deemphasized it. How the deletion of the hockey stick from the upcoming report squares with IPCC’s claims of increased certainty over mankind’s impact on climate will be a significant source of contention.
On the question of whether global warming contributes to powerful hurricanes like Katrina, the summary hedges quite a bit, calling the hurricane-warming link “more likely than not” rather than “very likely” or “likely,” as used elsewhere in the summary. The summary concedes in a footnote that the magnitude of mankind’s contribution was not assessed and that the attribution was based “on expert judgment” and not formal studies. Again, depending on what the final report says, activists and politicians who unequivocally blamed Katrina’s devastation on global warming may have to back off.
Is a Kyoto-Like Solution Wise?
Whatever the risks of global warming identified in the IPCC Report, global warming policies also carry risks–especially those policies that emphasize energy rationing as a solution. Separate from the scientific discussion sparked by the IPCC Report is the discussion about the appropriate response and, in particular, the actual merits of a costly program to cap carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use. This was the approach taken in the Kyoto Protocol, the multilateral treaty to address global warming. Kyoto is proving so prohibitively expensive that most of the developed nations that have signed onto it (Western Europe, Canada, Japan, but not the United States) have little hope of meeting its looming targets. The economic burdens of Kyoto, especially on already-stagnant economies, have proven unacceptable.
Estimates of the cost for U.S. compliance ranged from $100 to $400 billion dollars annually–enough to have a serious impact on employment and economic growth. America wisely rejected this approach. And even assuming the IPCC is right,
[color=red]the Kyoto Protocol would only avert 0.07 degrees Celsius of warming by 2050, an amount too small too measure[/color]
.
The economic damage of energy rationing to developing nations would be severe, strangling growth and imposing hardships on billions who are already barely subsisting. It would also slow the spread of electrification to the nearly 2 billion who do not yet have it. On the other hand, exempting developing nations from any Kyoto-style requirements means that carbon emissions will continue to increase regardless of what the developed world does.
Science should play a big role in global warming policy, and the full IPCC Report should be a part of that. But economics must also play a role, lest the U.S. embark on a course that does more harm than good.
Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.[/quote]
Here’s another…
[quote]The UN Climate Change panel is asserting—again—that humans are overheating the planet. Again, they have no evidence to support their claim—but they want the U.S. to cut its energy use by perhaps 80 percent just in case. Stabilizing greenhouse gases means no personal cars, no air-conditioning, no vacation travel. Nancy Pelosi says one-third of the Senate want this too. It’s a remarkably sweeping demand, given that the earth has warmed less than 1 degree C, over 150 years. This on a planet where the ice cores and seabed sediments tell us the climate has been either warming abruptly or cooling suddenly for the past million years.
The first long ice cores from Greenland and Antarctic were brought up in the 1980s. The ice layers showed the earth warming 1–2 degrees roughly every 1,500 years—usually suddenly. The natural warmings often gained half their total strength in a few decades, then waffled erratically for centuries—rather like our planet’s temperature pattern since 1850.
History tells us the coolings, not the warmings, have been the bad part. After the Medieval Warming ended about 1300, Europe was hit by huge storms, gigantic sea floods, crop failures, and plagues of disease. My big gripe with the IPCC is that they’re still keeping this climate cycle a virtual secret from the public.
What does the IPCC say about hundreds of long-dead trees on California’s Whitewing Mountain that tell us the earth was 3.2 degrees C warmer in the year 1350 than today? In that year, seven different tree species were killed—while growing above today’s tree line—by a volcanic explosion. The trees’ growth rings, species and location confirm that the climate was much warmer that of today, says C. I. Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, reporting in Quaternary Research, Nov. 27, 2006.
The new IPCC report warns us it can’t explain the recent surge of warming from 1976–1998. Therefore, it claims the surge must have been caused by human-emitted CO2. But the IPCC also can’t explain why more than half of the current warming occurred before 1940, before the Industrial Revolution improved global living standards and increased CO2 emissions.
Look at this interesting coincidence: The “inexplicable” l976–1998 surge in global temperature looks very much like the warming surge from 1916–1940. After 1940, we had a 35-year cooling—which the IPCC also can’t explain. But in 1996, researchers discovered a 50–60 year Pacific-wide climate cycle they call the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This cycle caused the salmon decline in the Columbia River after 1977. It also causes shifts in sardine and anchovy catches all around the Pacific.
The PDO shifted into a cool phase in 1940, with lots of salmon in the Columbia, until 1977. That’s almost exactly the period of the 1940–76 global cooling. Then the PDO turned warmer and the Columbia salmon declined—until about 1999. That closely matches the 1976–98 surge in global temperatures.
Does the Pacific climate cycle explain the last two short-term blips on the world’s temperature chart better than humanity’s small contribution to the CO2 that makes up only 0.03 percent of the atmosphere? It is certainly worth exploring more carefully before we make huge changes in our standards of living world-wide.
Past climate warmings haven’t correlated with CO2 changes. The Antarctic ice cores show that after the last four Ice Ages, the temperatures warmed 800 years before the CO2 levels increased in the atmosphere. The Warming produced more CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around.
It’s worth noting that the environmental movement and the politicians also blamed human activity for the salmon decline. Farming, fishing, and logging were reined in, sending the Pacific Northwest’s rural economies into despair. Now we’ve found the PDO. Is a natural cycle also the answer for the UN climate change panel[/quote]
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780417/posts
how about some more objective, less political sources Fred?
Economical considerations(fear) and the ‘American Dream’ are driving these opinions.
I wonder how many people will support the introduction of sumptuary laws. That’s where all this is leading.
[quote]how about some more objective, less political sources Fred?
Economical considerations(fear) and the ‘American Dream’ are driving these opinions.[/quote]
haha. YOU want less POLITICAL sources? haha Oh, you mean you want less of MY political sources right?
Okay. Why don’t you go through then and get one of YOUR political sources to show where MY political sources are factually inaccurate. How’d that be? There’s a good boy.
Oh dear. And another one…
[quote]Global Warming: Why Can’t the Mainstream Press Get Even Basic Facts Right?
DATE: March 22, 2004
BACKGROUND: The Associated Press ran a global warming story1 this past weekend that makes the following statements:
“Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year…”
“Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space.”
“Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases.”
Faulty “news” stories like this one, which mislead people all over the world, are one of many alarmist global warming reports by the news media that do not reflect a consensus of scientists. What is more alarming than what scientists genuinely know about global warming is that a media outlet as influential as the AP would run a wire story this faulty, and that so many news editors would be gullible enough to run it.
Quote 1: The AP said: “Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year…”
Facts: Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas (water vapor is).2
Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide’s ability to absorb heat is quite limited.3
Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).4
The sun, not a gas, is primarily to “blame” for global warming – and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well.
Quote 2: The AP said: “Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space.”
Fact: Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does.5
Quote 3: The AP said: “Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases.”
Facts: Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century,6 before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century7).
The Earth does not have “world governments.” It doesn’t even have even one, as the United Nations is not a government, but an association of nations.
If the AP is referring to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the AP should become aware that the IPCC report itself (the part written by scientists) reached no consensus on climate change. What did reach a conclusion was an IPCC “summary for policymakers” prepared by political appointees.8 Most reporters quote only the summary, being either too lazy or too undereducated to understand the actual report. This does not explain, however, why reporters don’t more frequently interview scientists who helped prepare it – scientists such as IPCC participant Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who says the IPCC report is typically “presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists… and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on.” Lindzen also draws a sharp distinction between the scientists’ document and its politicized summary: "the document itself is informative; the summary is not."9
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Associated Press, “CO2 Buildup Accelerating in Atmosphere,” as run by USA Today on March 21, 2004 at usatoday.com/weather/news/20 … ldup_x.htm
“Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” Oregon Institute of Science and Health, 2001, at oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
“There Has Been No Global Warming for the Past 70 Years,” The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change at co2science.org/edit/v3_edit/v3n13edit.htm
John Carlisle, “Kyoto Cover-up: TV News Gives One-Sided View on Global Warming,” National Center for Public Policy Research National Policy Analysis #337, May 2001, nationalcenter.org/NPA337.html
John Carlisle, “Cooling Off on Global Warming,” National Center for Public Policy Research National Policy Analysis #284, April 2000, nationalcenter.org/NPA284.html
John Carlisle, “Sun to Blame for Global Warming,” National Center for Public Policy Research National Policy Analysis #203, June 1998, available at nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html[/quote]
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]how about some more objective, less political sources Fred?
Economical considerations(fear) and the ‘American Dream’ are driving these opinions.[/quote]
haha. YOU want less POLITICAL sources? haha Oh, you mean you want less of MY political sources right?
Okay. Why don’t you go through then and get one of YOUR political sources to show where MY political sources are factually inaccurate. How’d that be? There’s a good boy.[/quote]
Well, anyone who cares to look at the root web page of your sources will see the whole purpose of their existance in political.
Again, why does this have to be a political issue?
BTW, it may surprise you how far right I vote. But, I find it incredible how anything against the climate change/global warming can more or less be traced back to a political spin doctor.
Indeed. So how are you doing on refuting their factual claims?
Oh, but it is. Certainly, you are not pretending that this is not a political issue for the left?
I couldn’t care less. Given your lazy inability to even scroll back to find posted info, I take comfort in the fact that getting to a voting booth is probably “too much trouble” for you as well.
Yeah, and so you aren’t going to refute any of the factual assertions made above? That is your reason for not doing so? Funny how many claims of global warming and man’s involvement are also spun. Right?
Political opinion is not proof of anything.
It’s nice to see Fred is still here holding up the sky. The thing is getting so dirty these days one would hate to have it fall on your head. Too bad Don isn’t here, he could charge windmills and our drama would be complete…
The FACTS presented in the argument are not political. You can refute them if you like or rather IF you are able. There is nothing political about countering the view presented that the sun is the chief factor in global warming. There is nothing political about the ability to counter the assertion that most of the global warming occurred in the earlier part of this century. There is nothing political about the ability to counter whether the IPCC summary was written mostly by scientists or mostly by political appointees. There is nothing political about your ability to examine what the Kyoto treaty entails in terms of cost and what it can deliver. So nice try, but I fully understand already that you are lazy but do not expect me to swallow an argument like this. Political opinion is not proof of anything? Who supplied any such thing here? These are FACTS and you have to refute them with FACTS of your own not lazy nonsensical bullshit like your response… or lack of one…
Like I said, show me these facts from a non-political source and you might have some credibility.
As it stands the biggest losers if climate change proves to be correct are those who are funding the so called ‘FACTS’ to which you refer. Confict of interest. Next.
[quote=“Truant”]Like I said, show me these facts from a non-political source and you might have some credibility.
As it stands the biggest losers if climate change proves to be correct are those who are funding the so called ‘FACTS’ to which you refer. Confict of interest. Next.[/quote]
Who is funding the other side? Or are they doing their research for free?
[quote=“Doctor Evil”][quote=“Truant”]Like I said, show me these facts from a non-political source and you might have some credibility.
As it stands the biggest losers if climate change proves to be correct are those who are funding the so called ‘FACTS’ to which you refer. Confict of interest. Next.[/quote]
Who is funding the other side? Or are they doing their research for free?[/quote]
Lets go with the UN shall we?
Then, let’s go back to my question. How many climate experts are there from Guyana, Macedonia, Nigeria, Gabon, Nepal, Yemen, Paraguay, Haiti, Kiribati… Also, I notice that you have made no attempt whatsoever to discredit any of the facts given above.
[quote=“Truant”][quote=“Doctor Evil”]
Who is funding the other side? Or are they doing their research for free?[/quote]
Lets go with the UN shall we?[/quote]
Let’s see you get out of that one, Dr. E.
I certainly hope you’re not going to try to argue that corruption or political agendas can be found at the UN? 
Then, let’s go back to my question. How many climate experts are there from Guyana, Macedonia, Nigeria, Gabon, Nepal, Yemen, Paraguay, Haiti, Kiribati… Also, I notice that you have made no attempt whatsoever to discredit any of the facts given above.[/quote]
Tell me about the climate experts. You know the answer to that question, so why are you asking me?
The UN report discredits your ‘facts’. The US can’t even get reliable intelligence prior to an invasion (or was it just ignored) and now you expect a US highly political opinion, which you call fact, to discredit the UN report?
How do you know? The SUMMARY was written by political appointees. The REPORT is not out yet.
Oh dear. You really are a dimwit. Again, there are lots of factual assertions made by these three organizations. See which ones you can discredit. They all managed to do just fine in discrediting or challenging a lot of the assertions made by news agencies and others based on the summary. Why cannot you do the same to attack them if they are on such weak ground.
Anyway, you are wasting my time, and you are not amusing like MFGR and Bob so good bye to you.