YEARENDER: UN blitz year on climate change is linked to poverty goals
Nature Features
Dec 18, 2007, 9:29 GMT
Other features coming soon.
Talkback
page: 1 2
There are some fallacies in this article that are inspired by political correctness and it is misuse of the language like this that makes me think that there is a great deal of dishonesty at the United Nations in general and the IPCC in particular. I'll criticize them in the order of their occurrence.
RE:'Three IPCC reports, compiled by more than 2,000 scientists, said global warming was 'unequivocal' and largely the result of human activity.'
Global warming is indeed unequivocal. The entire solar system is heating up. If the outer planets are warming to a sufficient degree that it is detectable by us, then the Earth must warming up very quickly. Mars, for instance, receives only 1/8 as much energy from the sun in total as the earth does, but the signs of atmospheric warming are very obvious on Mars. Looked at another way, Earth receives eight times as much energy as Mars. Of course we are warming up! Additionally, there is no proof that CO2 is a good enough insulator to over-drive the climate. Water vapor is the dominant 'greenhouse' gas, not carbon dioxide.
RE:'The World Meteorological Organization said the concentration of carbon dioxide - the chief pollutant - in the atmosphere reached the highest level ever recorded in 2006.'
This is a gross misuse of language. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is and always has been a normal constituent of the atmosphere.
RE:'Water vapour, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide - the three major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere blamed for global warming - can remain there for 100 years, the UN Development Programme and UN Environment Programme said in a November report.'
The IPCC has never, not once, addressed the affects of water vapor concentration on the climate. The IPCC did, in fact, go out of its way to address water vapor at all. All, I repeat, all of the other 'greenhouse' gases pale in comparison to water as an absorber and re-emitter of radiant energy. Fortunately for us, the atmosphere dries out by dropping rain or snow on us.
RE:''What we do today about climate change has consequences that will last a century or more,' according to the study, titled Human Development Report. 'The part of that change that is due to greenhouse gas emissions is not reversible in the foreseeable future.'
I suggest that everyone read this one twice. If there is nothing we can do that will slow or mitigate climate change, why is the United Nations so keen on forcing everyone to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions? Or are they trying to say that the only thing we can possibly do is to make matters worse and that everyone living in an industrialized nation should immediately commit seppuku?
Here is the truth. We CAN do something in relatively short order that would NOT require mucking up every economy, advance or developing. Apparently, no one at the United Nations has thought of it because they are too intently focused on ceasing control of every economy on Earth.
RE:'Flooding and tropical storms could displace up to 332 million people in coastal and low-lying areas, among them more than 70 million Bangladeshis, 32 million Vietnamese and 6 million Egyptians.'
And radical cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, especially when it will choke both advanced and developing economies, will do NOTHING to change any of this. Mostly because carbon dioxide concentrations are not the real root of the problem, but even if it were, it would take hundreds of years for the current concentrations to drop, even if we ceased all such emissions tomorrow morning.
RE:''For millions of people, these are events that offer a one-way ticket to poverty and long-run cycles of disadvantage,' the report said.'
So, the United Nations is bravely proposing to issue everyone on Earth a one way ticket into poverty. Ergo, what they are after is a massive die-off of human beings, preferably in the 'developed nations'.
There is a simple alternative to this 'looming catastrophe', but before we implement it, the IPCC had better be able to demonstrate that it has a very sound grasp of how the oceans and atmosphere deal with energy inputs. Personally, I don't think that they do or they would have spent a wee bit more time and effort understanding how water vapor and the oceans affect climatological conditions.
Holy Boreas, windbags! Did we have SUV's back in 7000BC?
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212201437.htm
...the stupidest premise for an article you've ever seen? Honestly, the UN's members ecxploit the poor for the last 100 years and now wnat to blame poverty on the weather????
More Than 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks 'Consensus'
20 Dec 07 - More than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics 'appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.' Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears 'bite the dust.' In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has 'co-opted' the green movement.
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new 'consensus busters' report is poised to redefine the debate.
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
'Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,' Paldor wrote.
Scientists from Around the World Dissent
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were 'futile.'
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a 'consensus' of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. 'I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.'
The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped 'consensus' that the debate is 'settled.'
The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.
Please do not mention the heating up of the solar system without conveniently omitting to mention the planet Venus.
Venus in the solar system is practically Earth's twin. It has no known source of heat apart from the Sun and the surface temperature is that of molten lead. It's atmosphere comprises mainly of Co2.
The heat in the atmosphere is caused by Co2 trapping the heat from the Sun and the planet is incapable of losing the heat.
PLEASE EXPLAIN why you conveniently forgot to mention Venus.
'Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double, man would not perceive the temperature impact.'
Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian
Academy of Sciences
• 'I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] number — entirely without merit. ... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached.'
Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director
at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute
• 'The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The [greenhouse-gas] hypothesis does not do this. ... The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.'
David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change
• 'The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming.'
Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia
Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo-Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
• 'There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried.'
Anton Uriarte, a professor of physical geography at the University
of the Basque Country in Spain
Venus has almost nothing in common with earth:
No oceans
Total C02 atmosphere as oposed to a small content of C02
Plantary forces supposedly turn Venus inside out about every 40,000 years i.e. rampant Vulcanism.
One other thing: It's CLOSER to the sun.....now study all of this and be sure to report back...we're dying to hear the response.
Here is what a truly deep thinker had to say about today back in 1957:
www.theoildrum.com/node/2724
He was right on nearly every point. While I am not nearly so pessimistic as the KOG, I will also readily warn you that if you want to argue with him, you had better be able to work just as smart as he did and just as hard.
Venus receives 174% as much energy in total as the Earth does. Throw in the complete absence of water and an atmosphere that is far more dense, the Venusian atmosphere is made up of C02 and H2SO4, and you are guaranteed high temperatures at the surface without ever taking greenhouse trapping into account. The greenhouse effect on Venus is minimal, if it plays any role at all.
Yes indead Venus is closer to the Sun than earth but it is not as close as Mercury and Mercury has a cooler surface temparature than Venus.
The atmosphere on Venus is comprised of 96% Co2 about 4%nitrogen and has clouds and liquid droplets of H2so4.
Venus has a much weaker magnetic field and no moon therefore making volcanic activity very minimal.
Co2 and water vapour are transparent to visiable light but they have the property of being able to absorb infrared radiation [somtimes called radiant heat]. The only explanation for the high surface temperature on Venus is because the Sun's radiation is trapped by the atmosphere in the form of infrared heat.
On earth there are 2 major areas where the heat from the Sun is trapped by the atmosphere. Without this ability the Earth would be a very cold place to live.
One source is water vapour, fortunately the vast majority of water vapour on Earth is condensed and formes the Oceans.
Methane is a greenhouse gas more potent than Co2 but because it is around only in small ammounts it's affect is minimal.
The other major source is Co2, and again we are very fortunate that the vast majority of Co2 on Earth is trapped in a fossilised form.
If large ammounts of this fossilised carbon are burnt and released into the atmosphere as a gas the result is more infrared absortion and GLOBAL WARMING.
Fool on the Hill
Better to be a Fool searching for the truth than someone who thinks he is not a Fool.
Nuts! The atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 92 atmospheres, that's 1, 352 lbs / square inch--not much different from being on the piston of a diesel engine at top dead center. On top of that, Venus is receiving nearly twice as much heat as Earth receives. When you do this to a gas, any gas, it gets hot-hot-hot!
Oh, and the atmosphere of Venus is such a good CONDUCTOR of heat that it is just as hot on the night-side as it is on the day-side.
As an ex-diver I am very well aware that when you compress a gas it becomes hotter but once it is compressed it cools to it's normal temperature.
Try somthing else.
Fool on the hill
It's under enormous pressure, and it has a CONSTANT source of heat, about 174% as much heat as the Earth receives. Under those conditions, any planet would be hot at the surface, with any gas in its atmosphere. It has nothing to do with the so-called greenhouse effect. CO2 CONDUCTS heat. It is NOT an insulator, that is why it was used as the primary coolant in the early nuclear reactors and is still used as a coolant in some lab reactors.
The claims that Venus would be no different from Earth if it had an atmospheric mix like that of the Earth are simply WRONG. Think about it. Venus constantly receives 174% as much energy the Earth does. Another thing, the day length on Venus is 243 Earth-days long, which means that a Venusian day is 18 Earth-days longer than its year. Earth-like? Don't make me laugh! Even with a thin atmosphere and water, Venus would STILL be an uncomfortably hot place to live.
Silicates, compared to any of the gases, are not very good conductors of heat. Mercury is 700 degrees K on its sunny side and down around 90 degrees K on its dark side for that very reason. If it had enough atmosphere, the temperature would even out because the gases would CONDUCT the heat around the entire planet. If Mercury's crust were made of metal, it would be only slightly cooler on its dark side.
I can almost agree with this guy:
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aQKNporGZ2Nw&refer=austral ia
Trouble is, wind and solar will not do the job. The only way we can save our civilization is to start building nukes.
But this is earth and not Venus. If you want to study extraterrestial climates, go there. Blaming something as complex as climate on one factor is just as wrong on Venus as it is on Earth.
Earths climate is the most non-linear phenomena known, possibly in the universe. The idea that we can model it successfully, is an urban legend. Every time we've had scientists make on factor only responsible for any condition, in almost any field of study, it never fails that further study reveals other factors.
All we're asking for is some plain old dispassionate science, not the stuff we're currently getting.
Useful reading:
www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6 &k=0
Snippet from the linked article:
'While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics -- may seem too obvious to need stating, the 'science is settled' camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.
To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: 'I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.' With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.'
More USEFUL READING!
www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1d78fc67-3784-4542-a07c-e7eeec46d1fc &k=0
Snippet: ''There is no risk of damage [from global warming] that would force us to act injudiciously,' he explains. 'We've got enough time to look for the economically most effective options, rather than dash into 'actionism,' which then becomes very expensive.'
In other words, we want be certain that we are working on the RIGHT problem and are not going off half-cocked! Why is that so hard to understand?
Oh, my look what we have here!
www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a &k=0
Snippets:'You're a respected scientist, one of the best in your field. So respected, in fact, that when the United Nations decided to study the relationship between hurricanes and global warming for the largest scientific endeavour in its history -- its International Panel on Climate Change -- it called upon you and your expertise....Then something went horribly wrong. Within days of this last invitation, in October, 2004, you discovered that the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited you -- was participating in a press conference. The title of the press conference perplexed you: 'Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity.' This was some kind of mistake, you were certain. You had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had.'
Good God, Gerty, what a gap in the reporting! Wouldja get a gander at this!
www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353 &k=0
Snippet:'His detractors can't dismiss him as a crank from the fringe, however, much as they might wish. Dr. Lindzen is a critic from within, one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world: a past professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and a lead author in a landmark report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the very organization that established global warming as an issue of paramount importance.'
Another Snippet:'When the IPCC was stung by criticism that the summaries were being written with little or no input by the scientists themselves, the IPCC had a subset of the scientists review a subsequent draft summary -- an improvement in the process. Except that the final version, when later released at a Shanghai press conference, had surprising changes to the draft that scientists had seen.'
And yet another snippet:'Dr. Lindzen's description of the conditions under which the climate scientists worked conjures up a scene worthy of a totalitarian state: 'throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that 'motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of their statements.''
For a fact, boys and girls, the science has been very badly polluted by politics.
If you think I was sandbagging all this time, you're right. I was. Here's a surprise trump for you, Kiddies.
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/07/15/do1508.x ml
About 30 years ago Global Warming was only mentioned by a few crackpot scientists but when it became clear that something was happening and they were right it then started to become a political issue.
The trouble with Global Warming becoming a political issue is that it is then that the lies start. Politicians are professional liers and always lie to promote their own agenda.
Sceptics beware.
page: 1 2
Latest Headlines in Nature
- 1. Mystery disease leaves California pelicans bruised, disoriented
- 2. Wildlife Conservation Society discovers Planet of the Apes
- 3. US environmental agency delays climate action, seeks public input
- 4. Seven chicks boost population of rare parrot to 92
- 5. Japan falls short of whaling targets
USA
Your Talkback on this Story