« Degussa to Showcase Lithium-Ion Work at SAE World Congress | Main | Hyundai Considering Diesel for the US »
IPCC WG2 Details Grim Present and Future Impacts of Climate Change, Globally and Regionally
6 April 2007
 |
| Observed changes in physical and biological systems and surface temperature 1970-2004. Click to enlarge. |
Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Fourth Assessment report today, detailing current observed impacts from climate change and projecting future impacts based on the amount of additional warming experienced. The report from Working Group III, to be released in May, will tackle mitigation of climate change.
Present. The WG II report, approved by officials from more than 100 countries, including the US, concluded that of 29,000 observational data series currently showing significant change in many existing physical and biological systems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of change expected as a response to warming.
...the consistency between observed and modelled changes in several studies and the spatial agreement between significant regional warming and consistent impacts at the global scale is sufficient to conclude with high confidence that anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems.
High confidence reflects an 80% chance of being correct.
 |
| Illustrative examples of global impacts projected for climate changes (and sea-level and atmospheric carbon dioxide where relevant) associated with different amounts of increase in global average surface temperature in the 21st century. Click to enlarge. |
Future. The working group produced a summary report of the larger scientific tome in which they grouped the projections of future impact into six primary areas:
Water. By mid-century, annual average river runoff and water availability are projected to decrease by 10-30% over some dry regions at mid-latitudes and in the dry tropics. Some of these are already are presently water stressed areas. Runoff and availability could increase by 10-40% at high latitudes and in some wet tropical areas.
Drought-affected areas will likely increase in extent. The US Southwest, for example, is projected to begin encountering Dust Bowl-like conditions. Heavy precipitation events, which are very likely to increase in frequency, will augment flood risk.
In the course of the century, water supplies stored in glaciers and snow cover are projected to decline, reducing water availability in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges, where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.
Ecosystems. The stress of climate change combined with related natural effects (e.g., flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other anthropogenic inputs (e.g., land use change, pollution, over-exploitation of resources) is likely to push many ecosystems over the edge.
Although terrestrial ecosystems currently function as carbon sinks, their carbon uptake is likely to peak before midcentury and then weaken or even reverse, thus amplifying climate change.
Approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5° C.
For increases in global average temperature exceeding 1.5-2.5° C the report projects major changes in ecosystem structure and function, species’ ecological interactions, and species’ geographic ranges, with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity, and ecosystem goods and services—e.g., water and food supply.
The progressive acidification of oceans due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is expected to have negative impacts on marine shell forming organisms (e.g., corals) and their dependent species.
Food, fiber and forest. Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid to high latitudes for local mean temperature increases of up to 1-3° C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that in some regions. At lower latitudes, especially seasonally dry and tropical regions, crop productivity is projected to decrease for even small local temperature increases (1-2° C), which would increase risk of hunger. Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1-3° C, but above this it is projected to decrease.
Adaptations such as altered cultivars and planting times would allow low- and mid- to high-latitude cereal yields to be maintained at or above baseline yields for modest warming.
Increases in the frequency of droughts and floods are projected to affect local production negatively, especially in subsistence sectors at low latitudes.
Globally, commercial timber productivity rises modestly with climate change in the short- to medium-term, with large regional variability around the global trend. Regional changes in the distribution and production of particular fish species are expected due to continued warming, with adverse effects projected for aquaculture and fisheries.
Coastal systems and low-lying areas. The report projects that coasts will be exposed to increasing risks, including coastal erosion, due to climate change and sea-level rise and the effect will be exacerbated by increasing human-induced pressures on coastal areas.
Corals are vulnerable to thermal stress and have low adaptive capacity. Increases in sea surface temperature of about 1 to 3° C are projected to result in more frequent coral bleaching events and widespread mortality, unless there is thermal adaptation or acclimatization by corals.
Coastal wetlands, including salt marshes and mangroves, will be negatively affected by sea-level rise especially where they are constrained on their landward side, or starved of sediment.
Many millions more people are projected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s. Those densely-populated and low-lying areas where adaptive capacity is relatively low, and which already face other challenges such as tropical storms or local coastal subsidence, are especially at risk. The numbers affected will be largest in the mega-deltas of Asia and Africa while small islands are especially vulnerable. Adaptation for coastal regions will be more challenging in developing countries than developed countries due to constraints on adaptive capacity.
Industry, Settlement and Society. The authors note that the costs and benefits of climate change for industry, settlement, and society will vary widely by location and scale. The larger the change in climate, the more negative the net effects.
The most vulnerable industries, settlements and societies are generally those in coastal and river flood plains, those whose economies are closely linked with climate-sensitive resources, and those in areas prone to extreme weather events, especially where rapid urbanization is occurring.
Poor communities can be especially vulnerable, in particular those concentrated in high-risk areas. They tend to have more limited adaptive capacities, and are more dependent on climate-sensitive resources such as local water and food supplies.
Where extreme weather events become more intense and/or more frequent, the economic and social costs of those events will increase, and these increases will be substantial in the areas most directly affected. Climate change impacts spread from directly impacted areas and sectors to other areas and sectors through extensive and complex linkages.
Health. Projected climate change-related exposures are likely to affect the health status of millions of people, particularly those with low adaptive capacity, through a variety of impacts, including increases in malnutrition and consequent disorders; increased deaths, disease and injury due to heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts; the increased burden of diarrhoeal disease; the increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground level ozone related to climate change; and, the altered spatial distribution of some infectious disease vectors.
Although climate change in temperate areas is projected to bring some benefits, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure, overall these benefits will be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures world-wide, especially in developing countries.
The WG II reports also broke out the effects of climate change on a regional basis. Africa and Asia are likely to suffer some of the worst effects.
Africa will be one of the most vulnerable continents because of multiple stresses and low adaptive capability. By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to an increase of water stress due to climate change. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries and regions is projected to be severely compromised by climate variability and change.
The area suitable for agriculture, the length of growing seasons and yield potential are expected to decrease. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% by 2020.
Towards the end of the 21st century, projected sea-level rise will affect low-lying coastal areas with large populations. The cost of adaptation could amount to at least 5-10% of GDP.
Asia will be hard hit by decreases in freshwater availability which, which, along with population growth and increasing demand arising from higher standards of living, could adversely affect more than a billion people by the 2050s.
Glacier melt in the Himalayas is projected to increase flooding, rock avalanches from destabilized slopes, and affect water resources within the next two to three decades. This will be followed by decreased river flows as the glaciers recede.
Coastal areas, especially heavily-populated mega-delta regions in South, East and Southeast Asia, will be at greatest risk due to increased flooding from the sea and in some mega-deltas flooding from the rivers.
Although crop yields could increase up to 20% in East and Southeast Asia, they could decrease up to 30% in Central and South Asia by the mid-21st century. Taken together and considering the influence of rapid population growth and urbanization, the risk of hunger is projected to remain very high in several developing countries.
The report expects endemic morbidity and mortality due to diarrhoeal disease primarily associated with floods and droughts to rise in East, South and Southeast Asia due to projected changes in hydrological cycle associated with global warming. Increases in coastal water temperature would exacerbate the abundance and/or toxicity of cholera in South Asia.
No region is unaffected however. Europe will suffer increased risk of inland flash floods, and more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion (due to storminess and sea level rise). The great majority of organisms and ecosystems will have difficulties adapting to climate change. Mountainous areas will face glacier retreat, reduced snow cover and winter tourism, and extensive species losses (in some areas up to 60% under high emission scenarios by 2080).
Warming in the western mountains of North America is projected to cause decreased snowpack, more winter flooding, and reduced summer flows, exacerbating competition for over-allocated water resources.
Disturbances from pests, diseases, and fire are projected to have increasing impacts on forests, with an extended period of high fire risk and large increases in area burned.
Cities that currently experience heat waves are expected to be further challenged by an increased number, intensity and duration of heat waves during the course of the century, with potential for adverse health impacts.
Coastal communities and habitats will be increasingly stressed by climate change impacts interacting with development and pollution. Population growth and the rising value of infrastructure in coastal areas increase vulnerability to climate variability and future climate change, with losses projected to increase if the intensity of tropical storms increases.
In Latin America by mid-century, increases in temperature and associated decreases in soil water are projected to lead to gradual replacement of tropical forest by savanna in eastern Amazonia. Semi-arid vegetation will tend to be replaced by arid-land vegetation.
In drier areas, climate change is expected to lead to salinisation and desertification of agricultural land. Productivity of some important crops are projected to decrease and livestock productivity to decline, with adverse consequences for food security.
Changes in precipitation patterns and the disappearance of glaciers are projected to significantly affect water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.
Australia and New Zealand will likely see water security problems intensify by 2030. The report projects significant loss of biodiversity to occur by 2020 in some ecologically-rich sites including the Great Barrier Reef and Queensland Wet Tropics.
Production from agriculture and forestry by 2030 is projected to decline over much of southern and eastern Australia, and over parts of eastern New Zealand, due to increased drought and fire. However, in New Zealand, initial benefits to agriculture and forestry are projected in western and southern areas and close to major rivers due to a longer growing season, less frost and increased rainfall.
Small Islands, whether located in the Tropics or higher latitudes, have characteristics which make them especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change, sea level rise and extreme events. Coastal deterioration is projected to impact local resources as well as tourism. Sea-level rise will exacerbate inundation, storm surge, erosion and other coastal hazards.
Climate change is projected by the mid-century to reduce water resources in many small islands, e.g., in the Caribbean and Pacific, to the point where they become insufficient to meet demand during low rainfall periods.
In an editorial published in this week’s issue of Science, the two co-chairs of the Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change and Sustainable Development (SEG) convened by Sigma Xi at the invitation of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), argue for a two-pronged approach to minimizing some of the dangers and damages now more clearly outlined in the WG II report.
A sensible strategy to minimize the damages from anthropogenic climate change has two objectives: mitigate the pace and ultimate magnitude of the changes that occur and adapt to the changes that cannot be avoided.
The SEG recently submitted a report—Confronting Climate Change— to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon with a call for new levels of commitment and coordination by the UN and its member states to avoid the worst climate-change dangers while there is still time.
The SEG argues for immediate action by policy makers that will limit temperature increases to 2-2.5°C above the 1750 pre-industrial level:
Improving efficiency in the transportation sector through measures such as vehicle efficiency standards, fuel taxes, and registration fees/rebates that favor purchase of efficient and alternative fuel vehicles.
Improving design and efficiency of commercial and residential buildings through building codes, standards for equipment and appliances, incentives for property developers and landlords to build and manage properties efficiently, and financing for energy-efficiency investments.
Expanding the use of biofuels through energy portfolio standards and incentives to growers and consumers.
Beginning immediately, designing and deploying only coal-fired power plants that will be capable of cost-effective and environmentally-sound retrofits for capture and sequestration of their carbon emissions.
The SEG report also argues for accelerated activity on adapting to ongoing and unavoidable changes in the climate system, and improving preparedness and response strategies.
Resources:
Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (Summary for Policymakers)
“A Two-Pronged Climate Strategy”; Rosina M. Bierbaum and Peter H. Raven; Science 6 April 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5821, p. 17 DOI: 10.1126/science.1143220
Confronting Climate Change: Avoiding the Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable (SEG report)
April 6, 2007 in Climate Change | Permalink | Comments (35) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/17522038
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference IPCC WG2 Details Grim Present and Future Impacts of Climate Change, Globally and Regionally:
Comments
And as bad as all that sounds this report was actually 'watered down.'
In a news report I've just read they said "Several scientists had objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but eventually agreed.
However, many say they will never contribute to the process again.
"The authors lost," said one scientist. "A lot of authors are not going to engage in the IPCC process anymore. I have had it with them,'' he said on condition of anonymity.
Many were angered after delegates removed parts of a key chart that highlighted the detrimental effects that climate change will have with every single degree Celsius increase.
The U.S., China and Saudi Arabia raised the most objections to the phrasing, attempting to tone down some of the more extreme projections, confirmed a reporter with The Associated Press."
Gee, I wonder what the unfiltered report said?
Posted by: ai_vin | Apr 6, 2007 11:45:28 AM
oh gee, why hasn't the world already seen the types of things claims by the tin hat crowd of red-greens from the CO2 gas increases over the last 100 years or so. It's just all freaking lies for funding and the call for gov't action when no action is needed. Feel free to spend your money as you see fit, but don't ask me to any because I spending it helping poor people around the world.
Posted by: OttoV | Apr 6, 2007 12:29:58 PM
I'm confident we'll be hearing from some of the disgruntled scientists shortly.
If you were a journalist at any major media outlet, wouldn't you be calling every one of them you could and begging for an interview?
These scientists are dedicated, highly trained professionals working on one of the two biggest challenges ever to face humanity (the other being the peaking of oil and natural gas production), and I doubt they'll let anyone muzzle them for long.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Apr 6, 2007 12:43:45 PM
It's just all freaking lies for funding
And your evidence for that is... what? The voices in your head?
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Apr 6, 2007 1:22:14 PM
Once again we haver verdict first and trial second,, just like Alice in
wonderland.
Only is the weird UN-scientific world of the environmental pseudo science does the Summary get published before the detailed papers on which it is based.
In any real scientific research, the scientific papers are published and then the summary conclusions are drawn so they details are available to evaluate. But when you don't want the details evaluated, the politicians give the summary first.
In that other great pseudo-scientific work of the 20th century the threat of "Pollution" was judged a sufficient reason to ignore the details until later, due to the "threat".
Summary conclusions were drawn and the ubermenchen und untermenchen identified along with a perspective cure long before any corroborating science could be created. Of course the Margaret Sangers of the world jumped in, and her progenitors still make their $ billions in the annual harvest in preventing that genetic "pollution".
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Apr 6, 2007 1:53:33 PM
Stan:
I have some reservations about the science, given the Wegman Report, but it's extremely unlikely that the whole thing is politically tainted. We're talking about thousands of scientists, here.
This is a very complex issue. From one conservative to another, allowing liberals to monopolize what solutions to seek is a Bad Idea.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 6, 2007 2:02:03 PM
Yes the climate is changing, but to whose detriment? People
will adapt to this shift, however great. Unfortunately, the
current growing biped carrying capacity of this planet may eliminate those of us who refuse to mimick the natural dynamics of change. Living within the sustainable boundries of our current renuable recources, should be a goal for enviornmental preservation. If it doesnt happen soon, get ready. If this thermal runaway in any way follows most computer modeling, its sure to be one toasty little ride to the hot house. If you can't take the heat, then get out of the Kitchen. Leave us carbon burning monkeys alone. Were smart enough to know
when to quit our addiction to burning fossil fuels, before we accidently get fryed and have to jump into the flames to cool off.
Posted by: William | Apr 6, 2007 2:25:59 PM
In any real scientific research, the scientific papers are published and then the summary conclusions are drawn so they details are available to evaluate. -- Stan
Umm, the report summarizes and integrates hundreds of papers which have been published in the last 6 years (since the last Assessment Report). The full report is already written -- it's released after the summaries because it's hardbound and runs to ~1000-1500 pp (depends on working group).
I have some reservations about the science, given the Wegman Report -- Cervus
Did you read the Wegman report? Especially what it said about global warming?
Posted by: cidi | Apr 6, 2007 2:33:59 PM
Can someone explain why the Global Warming deniers post at this site?
Posted by: DS | Apr 6, 2007 2:43:23 PM
cidi:
My concern was more on the social network analysis and its results on the peer review process. Dean Esmay has a good summary of that portion here.
That said, I don't think it's enough to invalidate the whole thing, like many of my fellow conservatives would like to do. Shifting away from fossil fuels will pay huge dividends in terms of energy security and peak oil mitigation.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 6, 2007 2:44:11 PM
Re: Wegman report. I don't see the climate change issue as a liberal vs conservative thing -- Al Gore and Roscoe Bartlett are on the same side. The now retired Sherry Boehlert (R - NY) was a first rate House Science chair. I found the Wegman report interesting for its tone: the economists seemed a bit puzzled that they were asked to do it and at the very strict scope of the report. They also agreed that global warming was real ...
Posted by: cidi | Apr 6, 2007 3:08:56 PM
I have to say as a scientist Cervus that the type of commentary on scientific peer review at "Dean's World" is completely over the top. Although many fields are small enough such that scientists can sometimes be co-authors and reviewers for each other's papers (never being both at the same time of course), it certainly doesn't necessarily mean its easier to get crappy papers published. In fact you can argue just as much that for competitive reasons scientists in such fields may be biased against one another's papers. However since there are multiple reviewers for each paper and the editors aren't stupid (being scientists in the field themselves) by and large its not a bad system (from my experience). Bringing in reviewers outside the field may not be a bad idea but I suspect most scientists would want to get paid for that type of reviewing since it would eat up a lot of time for them to catch up on the necessary background. As it is now, scientists put in hours of review work for free!
Posted by: marcus | Apr 6, 2007 3:26:33 PM
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Posted by: Robert | Apr 6, 2007 5:21:17 PM
cidi,
I stand by my statement. The scientific papers are not available for analysis. Period.
Gee, You are saying its "too tough" to go through the trouble of peer review and scientific publishing.
That my friend, is the exact point; and the reason we scientists do it. It weeds out the nonsense, at least most of the time.
I don't doubt that the tome to be published "someday" will contain innumerable supporting papers to confirm, sort of, or maybe not, every conclusion. By the way, they didn't support the generalization summaries the last two times this IPCC exercise was tried. Waht the bureaucrats wrote did not summarize what the scientists produced.
But by that time the media paid no attention to the complaints of un-supported generalizations.
Sentence first, Trial later. It is not now and never has been the scientific method, except in pseudo-science like eugenics, and genetic "pollution" research.
This is propaganda technique not Science as I was taught. This technique is not anything but the perversion of the Scientific method. Period.
For an example of why peer reviewed Scientific publishing, as tardy and aggravating as it is, is still necessary, we need look at a couple examples of the failure and success.
Occasionally a real liar like Dr. Suk sneaks through and his papers of great scientific advances for embryonic stem cell research was manufactured out of whole cloth, and a total hoax.
Nonetheless Self-stem cell research has created implantable Heart valves, and embryonic non-Self stem cell research has generated nothing.
Politically its attractive and politicians have wasted bundles of taxpayer money in pursuit of this hoax-fantasy, while hardheaded scientists pursue Self-stem cell research which is producing real progress.
But it was the 'published papers' of De Suki that did him in. When other researchers tried to duplicate his purported research, it was demonstrated and revealed that it was a hoax. So embryonic stem cell progress was banished like like Dr Pons non-duplicable Cold Fusion. But not quite. Why is a good question.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Apr 6, 2007 5:25:38 PM
DS - A lot of us are interested in cleaner and better transportation technologies for reasons other than global warming. As the religious fervor around global warming increases, it becomes difficult to refrain from tweaking the noses of the true believers on occasion.
Posted by: Matthew | Apr 6, 2007 5:29:43 PM
Isn't it interesting how you never hear the natural global warming deniers address the simultaneous warming on mars. Could it be that acknowledging that the sun has caused most, if not all, global warming just doesn't fit the political agenda.
"Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause"
Maybe we can replace the Mars Rovers with a Toyota Prius and reverse the warming trend on the red planet.
Posted by: E Sabre | Apr 6, 2007 6:28:16 PM
E Sabre:
Apparently the climate change on Mars is due to large amounts of dust moving around, changing the planet's albedo.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 6, 2007 7:16:21 PM
Cervus,
Funny, on earth dust and particulate matter in the air changing the planet's albedo has always had a cooling effect.
I would bet dollars to doughnuts, that if we could get temperature measurements on Mars going back 1,000,000 years, we would see the warming and cooling trends matching those experienced on earth.
Posted by: E Sabre | Apr 6, 2007 7:29:21 PM
E Sabre:
Mars is not Earth. There are no oceans and very few clouds. The brightness or darkness of Martian sands changes the planet's albedo. And a single huge dust storm can redistribute the dust. Here's a short article on SciAm.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 6, 2007 7:35:57 PM
"Can someone explain why the Global Warming deniers post at this site?"
Sure. Why do little kids tease their brothers and sisters? It's fun to get a rise out of you.
"Mars is not Earth."
Good thinking. Furthermore, Earth is not Mars. But they both go around the same Sun, which is their common source of heat. The razor tells us that one explanation is to be preferred to two. Since the one thing Earth and Mars have in common is the Sun, the razor cuts away any explanation that does involve the Sun.
Posted by: Robert | Apr 6, 2007 8:11:50 PM
Robert:
Please read the article I linked to.
You know what? If you've just come to "get a rise" out of us, there's no way we can have a fruitful discussion.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 6, 2007 8:18:44 PM
Since the one thing Earth and Mars have in common is the Sun
Wow! I didn't know you were an Astrophysist!
Do you know what ducks and witches have in common?
Posted by: DS | Apr 6, 2007 9:04:13 PM
And why is there more dust blowing around on Mars these days, anyway?
The Martian environment is a lot simpler than Earth's - no volcanic activity, no ocean, and no lifeforms that we know of. The sun is really the only thing that can be driving matters.
Posted by: Matthew | Apr 6, 2007 10:04:53 PM
Matthew,
I agree completely. The true believers that see grand liberal conspiracies everywhere they look are indeed quite funny.
Of course it gets a little bit tiring after a while as they just keep repeating the same old long ago debunked arguments, but hey, perhaps one can't expect too much from people with such a distorted worldview?
Posted by: jb | Apr 7, 2007 12:47:20 AM
Such a historical and profound assessment by the IPCC and still this supposed "Green" website continues to attract a disproportionate number of sceptics.
Hundreds of scientists go to enormous lengths to spell out their very troubling climate change findings in a coherent and unified way so that the policy makers have something to work with and yet the majority of comments here are still debating the fundamentals.
Posted by: Shaun Williams | Apr 7, 2007 2:49:07 AM
Frankly, I wish the deniers would take this argument elsewhere; start with realclimate.org. I am not aware that we have any climate change experts on this site; therefore, all we get is this simplistic nonsense like freaking weather on Mars. Don't you think that the climate scientists have fully considered the impact of whatever changes have occurred in the sun's intensity over the years and the variations caused by such things as the change in sunspots? Yes, the sun makes a difference, but its affect can be accounted for. The climate scientests who have concluded that man's contribution is paramount in global warming have and can address the solar variability issue. They have concluded that the solar effect is insignificant. Suggest you find a real scientist and then debate him or her about the validity of those findings.
Oh, and the argument I love is that this is all a conspiracy. There is not one shred of evidence that this is a conspiracy. I wish it were.
This site is mostly devoted to the exploration of technologies and methods to improve the efficiency and decrease the environmental impact of automobiles. Let's focus on that, regardless of the alleged validity or non validity of global warming theory.
Posted by: tom | Apr 7, 2007 8:01:54 AM
I have some serious doubts about this report and the motives behind it.
1st, I question anything that comes from the UN. Keep in mind that this is an organization that was OK with the idea of keeping Saddam Husein in power.
2nd, I remember hearing from them just a few years back that the world was headed for another Ice Age. Come on, make up your minds...
3rd, I agree with the the other posters who say this is all about funding. Is it any wonder that the people who want some kind of government hand out are the same people who are paying for these so-called "studies"? The conclusions for these "studies" were already decided long before the "study" began.
Bottom line - Don't trust this report OR the UN.
Posted by: Patrick | Apr 7, 2007 9:55:00 AM
Stan, can you please give a reference for indicating how the construction of this report is different to the "Phyisical basis" report (which was a review of published literature)?
Patrick, trying to say the UN is silly for not agreeing to this absolutely silly war does not discredit it. But this is not the place for Iraq politics and has nothing to do with the IPCC.
Secondly the ice age thing was blown out of all proportion by "The day after" and had little to do with IPCC assessments.
Thirdly your funding argument is pathetic. How do you think funding should be allocated? So you don't want to find out our best estimate for what's going to happen due to climate change? I don't think you have any idea about how science is conducted or funded.
Bottom line - don't form such strong opinions on things you know little about.
Posted by: marcus | Apr 7, 2007 10:37:08 AM
The way I read the breakdown is that total energy absorbtion increase is 1.6 watts per sq meter of which 0.2 watts is due to the sun. Something like a 7:1 ratio in favor of man made causes.
Posted by: tom deplume | Apr 7, 2007 11:16:16 AM
Patrick
Don't delude yourself that that the Iraq invasion was about anything other than securing US oil supply. Saddam Hussein was a despicable tyrant but there are plenty of others like him, for example Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. They continue to govern without much interference and, what a coincidence, they don't have much in the way of oil reserves. The UN may come across as spineless but at least they are consistent.
Posted by: critta | Apr 7, 2007 5:04:10 PM
I think you would serve your cause by eliminating phrases such as ,deniers, from your retorts.That phrase gives me the willies.Shoul deniers be burned at the stake for questioning state approved fact? It does make some feel a religious component in the movement.A woman from the weather channel spoke of pulling the credentials of any weatherman who was a denier.
Following that model of censorship we would still accept the church state model of the Earth as the center of the universe.Do you remember the Korean scientist who solved the human cloning issue years ahead of others.People were lamenting how the U.S. had fallen so far behind because of the influence of the religious right on our government and science.He was celebrated for a while before we caught up to the fact he fabricated his results.
I have the answer:The world has a fever therefore all we have to do is manufacture two massive tylenol and deposit them into the earth{volcanic crater} and the fever will be reduced.
P.S. that was a joke dont report me to gwief.[global warming inquisition enforcement force}
Posted by: Earl | Apr 8, 2007 6:22:09 AM
Earl. I will stop using the term "deniers" when the deniers quit using the term "alarmists" in referring to all those fine scientists who have spent years studying the effects of greenhouse gases on global warming. No one is censoring anyone. I just think that the quality of the debate on this site doesn't do much to advance real clmiate science one way or another.
That is why I suggested that the deniers go to a site like realclimate.org and engage the experts. Engaging the amateurs mainly just results in a trading of insults back and forth.
Posted by: tom | Apr 8, 2007 7:32:37 AM
My thoughts exactly Tom.
Posted by: marcus | Apr 8, 2007 10:22:57 AM
"Please read the article I linked to."
My razor cut it to ribbons.
"Do you know what ducks and witches have in common?"
Orange Sauce
"there's no way we can have a fruitful discussion."
Of course not. GW is a religious belief. Mere argument has never induced anyone to change their religion. I would like to join the Church of GW, all the cute chicks with loose morals belong, but it is the second week in April and the Indians just got snowed out for the third day in a row, the azaleas in the front yard have had their flowers frozen off and the golfers at the Masters can't grip their clubs properly because it is so cold in Georgia.
Posted by: Robert | Apr 8, 2007 12:37:42 PM
Like I say, using less fossil fuels is its own reward for the environment, economy, world peace, you name it. A more secure future is good for everyone. the idea that we can head off major destructive climate change makes it all the better.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 9, 2007 12:39:40 PM
