 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 35/600) |
|
fierobear
|
DEC 15, 10:05 PM
|
|
As always, we have to go outside the United States to find out the truth about many of our politicians, especially the media's darling Democrats.
FYI, this was written by Bjorn Lomborg, a scientist who *believes* humans are causing warming, and we should do something about it.
Hot air from Obama
IN one of his first public policy statements as America's president-elect, Barack Obama focused on climate change, and clearly stated both his priorities and the facts on which these priorities rest. Unfortunately, both are weak, or even wrong.
Obama's policy outline was presented via video to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Governors' Global Warming Summit, and has again been shown in Poznan, Poland, to leaders assembled to flesh out a global warming road map. According to Obama, "few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change".
Such a statement is now commonplace for most political leaders across the world, even though it neglects to address the question of how much we can do to help America and the world through climate policies v other policies.
Consider, for example, hurricanes in America. Clearly, a policy of reducing CO2 emissions would have had zero consequence on Katrina's devastating effect on New Orleans, where such a disaster was long expected. Over the next half-century, even large reductions in CO2 emissions would have only a negligible effect.
Instead, direct policies to address New Orleans' vulnerabilities could have avoided the huge and unnecessary cost in human misery and economic loss. These should have included stricter building codes, smarter evacuation policies and better preservation of wetlands (which could have reduced the ferociousness of the hurricane). Most importantly, a greater focus on upkeep and restoration of the levees could have spared the city entirely. Perhaps these types of preventative actions should be Obama's priority.
Likewise, consider world hunger. Pleas for action on climate change reflect fears that global warming may undermine agricultural production, especially in the developing world. But global agricultural/economic models indicate that even under the most pessimistic assumptions, global warming would reduce agricultural production by just 1.4p er cent by the end of the century. Because agricultural output will more than double during this period, climate change would at worst cause global food production to double not in 2080 but in 2081.
Moreover, implementing the Kyoto Protocol at a cost of $180 billion annually would keep two million people from going hungry only by the end of the century. Yet by spending just $10 billion annually, the UN estimates that we could help 229 million hungry people today. Every time spending on climate policies saves one person from hunger in 100 years, the same amount could have saved 5000 people now. Arguably, this should be among Obama's top priorities.
Obama went on to say why he wants to prioritise global warming policies: "The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We've seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season."
Yes, global warming is happening, and mankind is partly responsible, but these statements are - however eloquent - seriously wrong or misleading.
Sea levels are rising, but they have been rising at least since the early 1800s. In the era of satellite measurements, the rise has not accelerated (actually we've seen a sea-level fall during the past two years). The UN expects about a 30cm sea-level rise during this century, about what we saw during the past 150 years.
In that period, many coastlines increased, most obviously The Netherlands, because rich countries can easily protect and even expand their territory. But even for oft-cited Bangladesh, scientists just this year showed that the country grows by 20sq km each year, because river sedimentation wins out over rising sea levels.
Obama's claim about record droughts similarly fails even on a cursory level: the US has in all academic estimates been getting wetter through the past the century (with the 1930s dust bowl setting the drought high point). This is even true globally during the past half-century, as one of the most recent scientific studies of actual soil moisture shows: "There is an overall small wetting trend in global soil moisture."
Furthermore, famine has declined rapidly in the past half century. The main deviation has been the past two years of record-high food prices, caused not by climate change but by the policies designed to combat it: the dash for ethanol, which put food into cars and thus upward pressure on food prices. The World Bank estimates that this policy has driven at least 30 million more people into hunger. To cite policy-driven famine as an argument for more of the same policy seems unreasonable, to say the least.
Finally, it is simply wrong to say that storms are growing stronger every hurricane season. Even for the Atlantic hurricane basin, which we tend to hear about most, the total hurricane energy (ACE) as measured by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has declined by two-thirds since the record was set in 2005. For the world, this trend has been more decisive: maximum ACE was reached in 1994 and has plummeted for the past three years, while hurricanes across the world for the past year have been about as inactive as at any time since records began to be kept.
Global warming should be tackled, but smartly through research and development of low-carbon alternatives. If we are to get our policies right, it is crucial that we get our facts right.
Bjorn Lomborg is the author of The Sceptical Environmentalist and Cool It, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, and adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School.
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
DEC 16, 10:27 AM
|
|
Correction...
I said Lomborg is a scientist. I misspoke. He's an economist, environmentalist, and author on global warming. A lot of the criticism about him is doubtless due to his being labeled a "denier", since he doesn't drink all the KoolAid. The point is, he BELIEVES man is warming the planet, and he has reservations about what Obama plans to do. I believe the points in his article are spot on.
Here is more detail about him:
From wikipedia
Bjørn Lomborg (born January 6, 1965) is a Danish author, academic, and environmentalist. He is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. He became internationally-known for his best-selling and controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist.
In 2002, Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus, which seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics.
Lomborg campaigns for an unconventional position on climate change: he opposes the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, and argues that we should instead adapt to short-term temperature rises as they are inevitable, and spend money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions, and on other important world problems such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition.
From his own web site
Q: Does Lomborg deny man-made global warming exists?
A: No. In Cool It he writes: "global warming is real and man-made. It will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century" (p8).
Q: But he used to deny it, didn't he?
A: No. In both his first Danish book in 1998 and the English version of The Skeptical Environmentalist in 2001, Bjorn Lomborg stressed that man-made global warming exists. The introduction to a section on climate change in The Skeptical Environmentalist clearly states, "This chapter accepts the reality of man-made global warming" (p259).
Q: Does he believe we should do anything about global warming?
A: Yes. As Bjorn Lomborg argues in 'Cool It', we should focus on the smartest solutions to the problems that the world faces, whether we're dealing with climate change, communicable diseases, malnutrition, agricultural subsidies, or anything else. Lomborg concludes that the smartest approach to global warming is a CO 2 tax comparable with the central or high estimates of CO2 damages. That means an estimate in the range of $2-14 per ton of CO 2, but not the unjustifiably high taxes of $20-40 implicit in Kyoto or the even higher ones ($85) suggested by the Stern report or Gore ($140). He also suggests a ten-fold increase in R&D in non-CO2 -emitting energy technologies like solar, wind, carbon capture, fusion, fission, energy conservation etc..
|
|
|
|
ryan.hess
|
DEC 16, 07:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
DEC 16, 08:28 PM
|
|
The "record" only goes back to 1979, at least as far as satellite data. That ain't much in geological terms. Also, I guess you missed the earlier posts I made which showed significant ice reductions at least twice earlier this century. I've also posted before some historical accounts of wooden ships being able to navigate the Arctic Ocean in the 1700s and possibly the 1400s.
In other words...insignificant.
|
|
|
|
Phranc
|
DEC 16, 08:30 PM
|
|
In a word. Yes.
If its record lows how can there be more then last year. You know last year when they said there would be even less this year on its way to none.[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 12-16-2008).]
|
|
|
|
ryan.hess
|
DEC 16, 08:47 PM
|
|
Sea ice concentration is not the same as volume.
Ice covering a cup of water could be 100% on the concentration scale, but that says nothing of the thickness of the ice (and it's long term viability).
|
|
|
|
Phranc
|
DEC 16, 08:55 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ryan.hess:
Sea ice concentration is not the same as volume.
Ice covering a cup of water could be 100% on the concentration scale, but that says nothing of the thickness of the ice (and it's long term viability).
|
|
Volume is the total amount of space taken up. There is more this year then last. And as pointed out there has been less before. This is just more dishonest spin to make it all doom and gloom. Just another failed attempt to will a catastrophe into place. All it does is convince the gullible there is a problem. Like how they use a picture of the smallest amount of ice there was.
|
|
|
|
ryan.hess
|
DEC 16, 09:09 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Phranc:
Volume is the total amount of space taken up. |
|
Yes, and at 100% sea ice concentration, that means what? Correct, the ocean has a solid layer of ice on top of it. But _how thick is it_? Your graphics say nothing about it. That's volume.
|
|
|
|
Phranc
|
DEC 16, 09:59 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ryan.hess:
Yes, and at 100% sea ice concentration, that means what? Correct, the ocean has a solid layer of ice on top of it. But _how thick is it_? Your graphics say nothing about it. That's volume.
|
|
No it doesn't say how thick it is. But I'm sure all that extra ice means nothing. In fact I bet a few thousand square miles of ice has very little impact on the total volume of ice. That ice is only a few centimeters thick after all, right? Its not like we are talking feet tick over many many many more square miles. But I'm not basing my understanding of things on a report a few months old out of an organization that has an agenda and has put forth erroneous data sets to further that agenda.
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
DEC 16, 11:48 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Phranc:
Volume is the total amount of space taken up. There is more this year then last. And as pointed out there has been less before. This is just more dishonest spin to make it all doom and gloom. Just another failed attempt to will a catastrophe into place. All it does is convince the gullible there is a problem. Like how they use a picture of the smallest amount of ice there was. |
|
Like this similar bit of journalistic tripe from Seth Borenstein?
Scientists Denounce AP For Hysterical Global Warming Article
Scientists from around the world are denouncing an Associated Press article hysterically claiming that global warming is "a ticking time bomb" about to explode, and that we're "running out of time" to do anything about it.
As reported by NewsBusters, Seth Borenstein, the AP's "national science writer," published a piece Sunday entitled "Obama Left With Little Time to Curb Global Warming."
Scientists from all over the world have responded to share their view of this alarmist propaganda:
How can this guy call himself a "science reporter?"
He is perhaps the worst propagandist in all the media, and that's stating something.
In his latest screed, he screams: "global warming is accelerating"
How then does he explain the fact that the mean global temperature (as measured by satellite) is the same as it was in 1980?
How can global warming be "accelerating" when the last two years have seen dramatic cooling? Is this guy totally removed from all reality?????
He completely ignores any evidence contrary to his personal beliefs, and twists everything to meet his preconceived notions.
How can anyone so ignorant be a reporter for AP? Seriously? -- David Deming, University of Oklahoma
“Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating.”
Rubbish! Global warming is not “accelerating”: global warming has stopped. There has been no statistically significant rise in (mean global temperature: MGT) since 1995 and MGT has fallen since 1998.
The Earth has been warming from the Little Ice Age (LIA) for 300 years so, of course, the warmest years happened recently. But that warming from the LIA peaked in the El Nino year of 1998. MGT has been near but below that peak for the last 10 years.
Arctic ice advances and recedes over decades. 2007 saw a minimum in Arctic ice cover in the short period that it has been monitored using satellites. But 2008 saw the most rapid growth in Arctic ice cover in that same period and Arctic ice cover is now back to the average it has had in the period. Also, 95% of polar ice is in the Antarctic and Antarctic ice is increasing.
Nobody can know if the recent halt to global warming is temporary, permanent or the start of a new warming or cooling phase. But it is certain that anybody who proclaims that “Global warming is accelerating” is a liar, a fool, or both. -- Richard S. Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant.
The Great Global Warming Hoax appears to be a collaborative effort between the worlds [sic] incompetent scientists and the worlds [sic] scientifically illiterate journalists. Science Illiterates like Borenstein are the Chicken Littles of the 21st Century, spreading climate change poppycock like bread crumbs in the forest. The crumbs, hopefully, will lead them to a paycheck at the end of the week from their similarly science-illiterate employers. Well, the lower-I.Q. portion of the population has to eat, too....< sigh > -- James A. Peden, atmospheric physicist formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
Borenstein, time is definitely running out – for you to save any possible credibility unless you find a new drama to act out on the public because your current one is going down the drain faster than a so-so sitcom in September.
The world hasn’t “warmed” in a dozen years and over the past year not even Jim Hansen and His Magic Bag of Tricks can make it appear we’re all getting “warmer”.
Once the Public gets wind of the true data that shows their intuition has been right all along – not even the tabloids will pick you up for an occasional column to entertain them. -- Chemical Scientist Dr. Brian G. Valentine of the U.S. Department of Energy and Professor at University of Maryland, has studied computational fluid dynamics and modeling of complex systems
"Hottest on record" means little for a 5 billion yr old planet, when the 'record" is only 100 years or less. Please avoid parsing the data, to support you [sic] indefensible conclusions and to ignored [sic] the data which don't support your conclusions. Selecting data for a desired outcome is as old as drying labbing [sic] chemistry labs. This seems to be SOP for today as environmental journalists and just as silly (and detectable---you are outta my chem. class). Your hypothesis is easily falsified, and has been falsified. Lots of Temp stations show cooling for decades while CO2 rises, ergo falsified. Ergo there are more powerful unspecified climate forces involved. CO2 is likely uninvolved or if so a minor player. Next problem please. -- Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a retired nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor. He is the science and energy writer/reporter for the HawaiiReport.com
One of the biggest problems in all this is that the major media are so busy bashing President Bush for any and every thing that they have lost sight of what he realized 5+ years ago: none of the CO2-related strategies will work unless China and India join the community. Bush's initiative to form an "Asia-Pacific" consortium of nations was the very first realistic step in the direction of a coherent approach to climate-change mitigation.
What is going on currently is that A) India has dismissed the whole thing, saying "we will never be higher in "per capita" energy use than the western countries; B) the Europeans have figured out that it will cost them big bucks and are fleeing from their Kyoto promises; C) the bandwagon in the USA is still going forward in high gear, and in about a year they'll realize they're way out in front with no followers. -- Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, an MIT educated physicist, author of the book "An Introduction to High-Temperature Superconductivity," and writer of the popular newspaper column "Ask the Everyday Scientist"
One further critical aspect of global warming alarmists that is so fiercely debated by all is the "climate forcing" property of carbon dioxide. Allow me to state categorically that, despite any and all arguments to the contrary, including the most elaborately well-balanced mathematical formulae by the best mathematicians in the world, the climate forcing ability of carbon dioxide equals exactly zero. Not 4 degrees C, not 1 degree C, not even 0.0001 degree C. Just plain zero. Even the much heralded graphic indicating that the first 20ppmv of carbon dioxide makes a difference to the air temperature that is much greater than any subsequent increase in concentration is a useless bit of info based on laboratory tests that have absolutely no relation to the open atmosphere. There exists not one single laboratory test on climate that can be extrapolated to mimic the open atmosphere and that includes the most advanced computers that in any case treat the earth as a flat disc with a 24 hour haze of solar radiation - about as far removed from reality as is possible. -- Hans Schreuder, Ipswich, UK, www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html
In responce to what is happening to global temperatures. The key is using the right statistical technique to plot the "average" temperature. I do not have the qualifications to establish what the correct technique is. I just understand such things as non-linear least square regression analysis. There are five organizations which report global temperature anomalies on a monthly basis. If you use simple non-linear analysis, and include 2008 data, then all five data sets show that world temperatures seem to have passed through a shallow maximum. My guess is that when we can look back with 20/20 hindsight, we will be able to see that this maximum occurred around 2005. So it is understandable that recent years are amongst the warmest on record. This fact is no argument that temperatures are still rising. What counts is the slope of the average temperature/time graph at the present time. For a couple of years, this slope has been negative; global temperatures have been falling. We do not know, of course, if this will continue. But so far as I can see, none of the IPCC and other pro-AGW organizations predicted falling temperatures. However, before you attempt to use an argument like this, you need someone who really knows statistical analysis techniques. -- Physicist F. James Cripwell, a former scientist with UK’s Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge who worked under the leading expert in infra red spectroscopy -- Sir Gordon Sutherland – and worked with the Operations Research for the Canadian Defense Research Board
============================================
There are more comments at the link.
|
|
|
|