Climate Change Report

has been released

On reading the actual Report , while it's only the first read, suffered till my eyes crossed, I am struck by several issues:

* Use of the term radiative forcing to signify the effect of the various factors in climate change. To the layman this would, at first, appear to reference solar influence. Not so.

* Use of the term Likely in its various permutations in forecasting based on the models presented. 'Likely' is a term often used in economics and marketing forecasting/modeling.

* Note that if CO2 emissions were stopped at the 2000 level, the per decade increase in global temps per the model would be .1 instead of .2
- There are several other references which refer to the flywheel ecffect and state that even if gasses were reduced by 30 percent the die is cast for the next 100 years.

* Note that Arctic Ice is used as a metric; other than noting that Antarctic Ice change is negligible, there is little reference to it, other than readings of ice cores for embedded gasses.

* over-reference, in my opinion, of reference to satellite data {since 1978}; while land borne observation of metrics in regions that are NOT 'first world' related are considered suspect due to long-term standards.

* statement that as the land and ocean masses warm, their absorption of CO2 actually decreases.
- But we learn in 6th grade science that carbon absorbing vegetation loves warmer environment

* mimimal reference to increased solar radiation, found no reference to claimed Mars polar ice melts.
- likewise, urban heat sink/radiator effect claimed negligible
.... smells of serving a 'higher agenda'

* Charts show that projection for Western Europe precipitation estimate to remain static ranging to much less.
- In my estimate, Greenland ice melt would suggest a slowing of the Gulf Current as claimed in other works, resulting in colder dryer winters, and warmer dryer summers, for Western Europe..but resulting in increased arctic ice above the North Sea from the precip that does fall.

-- - - - - - -

Now, my mind is not really changed by this.

Nowhere is the positive aspect of 'feedback' addressed; only in a negative sense {to us engineers that's an oddity... they are using 'positive -reinforcing' feedback as a negative, and dont reference 'negative feedback' which would be 'positive' from our view.}

If you have a large terrarium or greenhouse and introduce CO2 gas to it, vegetation growth increases significantly. And is absorbed while Oxygen and water vapor is a product of that. If you introduce daily temperature change {night/day} condensation results... on earth we call it rain or at least 'dew'.
-Note that the diurnal temperature variation has remained constant.

Claim in the report: Upper level winds are increasing. No other reference to them... yet what do we know about those winds, they bring 'weather' as they shift, weather brings precipitation and the stronger the winds....

With the minimalization of the effect of methane which is per weight 14 times as affecting as CO2, I'm wondering about the agenda again. Natural release of methane has an effect on lots of things{see Bermuda Triangle}, yet we see more reference to 'Nitrous Oxides' which are generally tracable to man. Both as Automotive emissions {solved} and result of agricultural fertilization. Note that methane in air has plateaued after apparent steep increase over the last century.

Summary: Cynic that I am, I came to the conclusion that these scientists have delivered a scholarly and more indisputable {compared to Al Gore} treatise that the earth simply has too many people.

But reading between the lines of it, they wouldnt like MY conclusion which is to scrap fossil fuels in favor of Nuclear plants.... and lots of 'em.

Otherwise nothing we can do short of reducing our global economy to lower than severe depression levels and starving millions in the process, would really help.

Of course, there is always a market forces private sector faction which might have a solution.

 

A huge issue with the deducing on what is wrong here come from special interest...

The Al Gore situation, although inspiring... is awkward at best... cite:

http://www.texasrainmaker.com/

No, I don't subscribe to the leaning of the article here, but he has a point. If you an advocate, you should practice what you are preaching.

But the compounding of the lack of a thorough understanding of the way the world works and how we potentially affect it through opposite situations like this:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2007_pg4_3

With that logic of appointing Phil Cooney to tend to this issue is like having Pablo Escobar be the general of the war on drugs...

Until we all acknowledge there is an issue can actually move on to find out if we can do anything about it.

 

My understanding is that most environmentalists agree with this idea. The problem is that there is very little popularity or suport of it. The idea of hundred if not thousands of people being wiped out in a small window of time if there were an accident is far less appealing than the idea of hundreds or thousands of people being killed slowly over a much longer period.

Of course you couldn't avoid your last little twist in your last sentence, could you Petit? Some problems are way bigger and involve the well-being of too many people than to count on the private sector to figure out, like this and health care. Too bad you ruined what was a somewhat insightful review with your political/economic agenda. But many of us would not expect much different.

 

RE: Re: Climate Change Report

Too bad it didnt fit YOUR agenda.. which is something you should think about.

I am not disputing the 'climate change'... I dispute

1. That man has made that much difference so far

2. That, if man caused it, that anything we can do will reverse it in less than several centuries

3. that all the feedback is positive. or flywheel effect.. thus the reference to the greenhouse. Note they no longer use that term because of the connotation?

You make nice sounds about 'the people affected', yet I note you TOTALLY ignored this:

Which of course is the base platform of not all, but most, liberals.... lower expectations, make do with less - Jimmy Carter's 'malaise' speech redux... and why libs hated Reagan.

So there.

 

RE: Re: Climate Change Report

Ha-ha!! Quoting yourself now are you? You are a wiley wabbit, Monsieur Petit.

 

RE: Re: Climate Change Report

Petit's agenda discovered. Kidding. I think. Maybe?

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/co ... tm?cnn=yes