Interesting Article on Global Warming

[DVCLiz]

Scientists Get Last Say in Climate Study
By SETH BORENSTEIN (AP Science Writer)
From Associated Press
April 07, 2007 3:25 PM EDT
BRUSSELS - Two distinctly different groups, data-driven scientists and nuanced offend-no-one diplomats, collided and then converged this past week. At stake: a report on the future of the planet and the changes it faces with global warming.

An inside look at the last few hours of tense negotiations at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reveals how the diplomats won at the end thanks to persistence and deadlines. But scientists quietly note that they have the last say.

Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, hunger, drought and diseases to the extinction of species.

The 23-page summary certainly didn't sound diplomatic. But it was too much so, scientists said.

In the past, scientists at these meetings felt that their warnings were conveyed, albeit slightly edited down. But several of them left Friday with the sense that they had lost control of their document. At one point, NASA's Cynthia Rosenzweig filed a formal protest and left the building, only to return, make peace and talk in positive tones. Others talked about abandoning the process altogether.

"There was no split in the science - they were all mad," said John Coequyt, who observed the closed-door negotiations for the environmental group Greenpeace.

But Yvo de Boer, a diplomat who is the top climate official for the United Nations, countered that it was a "difficult choice." If it stayed the way scientists originally wrote it, some countries would not accept nor be bound by the science in the document. By changing the wording, "in exchange the countries are bound to this," de Boer said.

The report doesn't commit countries to action, like the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, but those involved agree that the science is accurate and that global warming is changing the planet and projected to get much worse.

Here's how negotiations went, based on interviews and an unusual opportunity for The Associated Press to observe the last 3 1/2 hours of debate.

The four-day meeting was supposed to end Thursday afternoon but was extended to Friday morning. A news conference was scheduled for 10 a.m. Friday to release the report, but the document wasn't finished until after that time.

Interpreters had been sent home at 2 a.m. Friday due to financial issues. Some pages had not been discussed and some of the most critical issues were still not solved as small group negotiations stalled.

Panel co-chairman Martin Parry of the United Kingdom acknowledged that some parts of the document were eliminated "because there was not enough time to work it through as well."

With such deadline problems, some countries - especially China, Saudi Arabia and at times Russia and the United States - were able to play hard ball.

China and Saudi Arabia wanted to lower the level of scientific confidence (from more than 90 percent to 80 percent) that the report had in a statement about current global warming effects and it looked like they would win because they wouldn't accept the original wording. That's when Rosenzweig protested and walked.

A U.S.-based compromise saved the day, avoiding any mention of scientific confidence.

A comparison of the original document, written by scientists, and the finished paper showed major reductions in forecasts for hunger and flooding victims. Instead of "hundreds of millions" of potential flood victims, the report said "many millions." A key mention of up to 120 million people at risk of hunger because of global warming was eliminated.

Yet, scientists have their fallback: a second summary that consists of 79 densely written, heavily footnoted pages.

The "technical summary," which will eventually be released to the public but was obtained by The Associated Press, will not be edited by diplomats. The technical summary, Rosenzweig said, contains "the real facts."

Some of its highlights, not included in the 23-page already-released summary:

- "More than one sixth of the world population live in glacier- or snowmelt-fed river basins and will be affected by decrease of water volume." And depending on how much fossil fuels are burned in the future, "262-983 million people are likely to move into the water stressed-category" by 2050.

- Global warming could increase the number of hungry in the world in 2080 by anywhere between 140 million and 1 billion, depending on how much greenhouse gas is emitted into the air over the next few decades.

- "Overall a 2 to 3 fold increase of population to be flooded is expected by 2080."

- Malaria, diarrhea diseases, dengue fever, tick-borne diseases, heat-related deaths will all rise with global warming. But in the United Kingdom, the drop in cold-related deaths will be bigger than the increase in heatstroke related deaths.

- In eastern North America, depending on fossil fuel emissions, smog will increase and there would be a 4.5 percent increase in smog-related deaths.

- Because global warming will hurt the poor more, there will be more "social equity" concerns and pressure for governments to do more.

---

 

[rie'smom]

Then there is this from Dr William Gray,renowned meterologist:
A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

A spokeswoman said Gore was on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Nashville Friday; he did not immediately respond to Gray's comments.

Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.

Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.

Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.

Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," has helped fuel media attention on global warming.

 

[NELSON]

A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

A new Rassmussen poll shows 24 percent of respondents believe that Oscar-winning documentarist Al Gore is an expert on global climate change, while 49 percent believe he’s in his second term as president of the United States.

In other survey findings, 57 percent say Mr. Gore is “dreamy”, 74 percent think he could win Dancing with the Stars if paired with former Attorney General Janet Reno, and 52 percent believe he could “stomp Sanjaya” on American Idol by singing Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody.

 

[Pop Daddy]

Why am I so stinkin cold

 

[LakeAriel]

Climate report: World's poorest will suffer most
POSTED: 9:47 a.m. EDT, April 7, 2007
BBC

• Scientists: Climate change will affect billions of people

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- The world faces increased hunger and water shortages in the poorest countries, massive floods and avalanches in Asia, and species extinction unless nations adapt to climate change and halt its progress, according to a report approved Friday by an international conference on global warming.

Agreement came after an all-night session during which key sections were deleted from the draft and scientists angrily confronted government negotiators who they feared were watering down their findings.

"It has been a complex exercise," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Several scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but, in the end, agreed to compromises. However, some scientists vowed never to take part in the process again.

Five days of negotiations reached a climax when the delegates removed parts of a key chart highlighting devastating effects of climate change that kick in with every rise of 1.8 degrees, and in a tussle over the level of scientific reliability attached to key statements.

There was little doubt about the science, which was based on 29,000 sets of data, much of it collected in the last five years. "For the first time we are not just arm-waving with models," Martin Perry, who conducted the grueling negotiations, told reporters.

The United States, China and Saudi Arabia raised many of the objections to the phrasing, often seeking to tone down the certainty of some of the more dire projections.

The final IPCC report is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06/climate.report.ap/index.html

 

[Tiziminchac]

The final IPCC report is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution.

We must all learn to breath slower. Perhaps hold every third breath. It's not too late people to make a difference.

 

[LakeAriel]

So right! It is only too late if people refuse to listen to the scientific facts and make changes!

 

[NELSON]

We must all learn to breath slower. Perhaps hold every third breath. It's not too late people to make a difference.

The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must regulate carbon dioxide emissions and suggested using the court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade precedent to reduce the number of “renewable CO2 emission sources.”

“Since each human produces almost a ton of carbon dioxide per year,” the high court said, “reducing the number of exhalers provides the greatest opportunity to make immediate cuts in the gross CO2 content of the atmosphere.”

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the 5-4 majority, said greenhouse gas production could be cut even further if “a woman’s so-called right to choose were legally elevated to an enforceable patriotic obligation.”

 

[Tiziminchac]

I'm not a woman Nelson so that option isn't available to me. Perhaps I should start stealing the neighborhood pets and take them to the pound for euthanasia. I just wanna do my part.

 

[mefordis]

Is there any way to put a user on "ignore"? I would like to never read NELSON's useless posts again. I think many others feel as I do, so how can I put someon on "Ignore"?

 

[NELSON]

Is there any way to put a user on "ignore"? I would like to never read NELSON's useless posts again. I think many others feel as I do, so how can I put someon on "Ignore"?

Earth Has a Fever, Uranus Has Cysts.
When it comes to global warming, one of the most idiotic talking points in the right-wing's arsenal is if the ice caps are melting on Mars, Earth's warming trend couldn't possibly be caused by humans. As with anything cons say, the exact opposite is true. The facts is that the bizarre weather conditions seen on Mars and other planets are undeniable proof that the ecological destruction Bush has wrought on our own world is spreading like a virus to others in our solar system.

If Earth truly has a fever as the prophet Al Gore says, then Mars has a severe runny nose. Neptune has a persistent cough. Mercury has the clap - probably something it picked up from that tramp, Venus. Jupiter has herpes. Saturn has ringworm. Pluto isn't considered a planet any more and is probably just feeling a little depressed. Uranus, of course, has cysts.

Al Gore has been deeply troubled about Uranus for some time, but he's never been able to put his finger on it. Frankly, there are some in Congress who would prefer he keep his nose out of Uranus completely. But if Uranus has cysts, you don't bicker over ointments. You take it to the doctor, and the first name that comes up in any discussion about Uranus is Al Gore. In fact, Al Gore quite possibly knows more about Uranus than Uranus knows about Uranus or, for that matter, what Uranus knows about you. He's certainly more of an authority on Uranus than Rush Limbaugh, who weaseled out of the illegal and immoral war in Vietnam for reasons that I would rather not delve into.

So there's really no point in debating it.

 

[LakeAriel]

Well, yesterday the moderator had to lock a thread he became so offensive to the British on, so I wonder when his suspension will be forthcoming..then you won't have to bother.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Why exactly were the diplomats at this meeting and given any power regarding what was included in the report at all?

 

[dejr_8]

Mars is warming as well. A very interesting data point. Here is a system with no human interaction that is showing signs of warming.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

 

[dejr_8]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

Statistics needed
The Deniers -- Part I
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

In the global warming debate, there are essentially two broad camps. One believes that the science is settled, that global warming is serious and man-made, and that urgent action must be taken to mitigate or prevent a future calamity. The other believes that the science is far from settled, that precious little is known about global warming or its likely effects, and that prudence dictates more research and caution before intervening massively in the economy.

The "science is settled" camp, much the larger of the two, includes many eminent scientists with impressive credentials. But just who are the global warming skeptics who question the studies from the great majority of climate scientists and what are their motives?
Many in the "science is settled" camp claim that the skeptics are untrustworthy -- that they are either cranks or otherwise at the periphery of their profession, or that they are in the pockets of Exxon or other corporate interests. The skeptics are increasingly being called Deniers, a term used by analogy to the Holocaust, to convey the catastrophe that could befall mankind if action is not taken. Increasingly, too, the press is taking up the Denier theme, convincing the public that the global-warming debate is over.

In this, the first of a series, I examine The Deniers, starting with Edward Wegman. Dr. Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association. Few statisticians in the world have CVs to rival his (excerpts appear nearby).

Wegman became involved in the global-warming debate after the energy and commerce committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked him to assess one of the hottest debates in the global-warming controversy: the statistical validity of work by Michael Mann. You may not have heard of Mann or read Mann's study but you have often heard its famous conclusion: that the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are "likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year" of the millennium. You may have also heard of Mann's hockey-stick shaped graph, which showed relatively stable temperatures over most of the last millennium (the hockey stick's long handle), followed by a sharp increase (the hockey stick's blade) this century.

Mann's findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann's work also had its critics, particularly two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.

Wegman accepted the energy and commerce committee's assignment, and agreed to assess the Mann controversy pro bono. He conducted his third-party review by assembling an expert panel of statisticians, who also agreed to work pro bono. Wegman also consulted outside statisticians, including the Board of the American Statistical Association. At its conclusion, the Wegman review entirely vindicated the Canadian critics and repudiated Mann's work.

"Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported," Wegman stated, adding that "The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable." When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.

Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that "may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians." Instead, this small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.

Worse, the problem also applied more generally, to the broader climate-change and meteorological community, which also relied on statistical techniques in their studies. "f statistical methods are being used, then statisticians ought to be funded partners engaged in the research to insure as best we possibly can that the best quality science is being done," Wegman recommended, noting that "there are a host of fundamental statistical questions that beg answers in understanding climate dynamics."

In other words, Wegman believes that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt -- although the studies may have been peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics. Past studies, he believes, should be reassessed by competent statisticians and in future, the climate science world should do better at incorporating statistical know-how.

One place to start is with the American Meteorological Society, which has a committee on probability and statistics. "I believe it is amazing for a committee whose focus is on statistics and probability that of the nine members only two are also members of the American Statistical Association, the premier statistical association in the United States, and one of those is a recent PhD with an assistant-professor appointment in a medical school." As an example of the statistical barrenness of the climate-change world, Wegman cited the American Meteorological Association's 2006 Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences, where only eight presenters out of 62 were members of the American Statistical Association.

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.

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com.

- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute, a division of Energy Probe Research Foundation.

THE CV OF A DENIER

Edward Wegman received his Ph.D. degree in mathematical statistics from the University of Iowa. In 1978, he went to the Office of Naval Research, where he headed the Mathematical Sciences Division with responsibility Navy-wide for basic research programs. He coined the phrase computational statistics, and developed a high-profile research area around this concept, which focused on techniques and methodologies that could not be achieved without the capabilities of modern computing resources and led to a revolution in contemporary statistical graphics. Dr. Wegman was the original program director of the basic research program in Ultra High Speed Computing at the Strategic Defense Initiative's Innovative Science and Technology Office. He has served as editor or associate editor of numerous prestigious journals and has published more than 160 papers and eight books.

 

[ChrisFL]

Mars is warming as well. A very interesting data point. Here is a system with no human interaction that is showing signs of warming.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

This report I heard about from a co-worker a few weeks ago. Although Im a major proponent of cutting greenhouse emissions, this report tends to make a lot of sense to me so far. I wonder what other evidence could be used to show that these problems are caused mostly by the sun. And if they are, then what do we do? anything?

 

[dejr_8]

I wonder what other evidence could be used to show that these problems are caused mostly by the sun. And if they are, then what do we do? anything?

This is the problem I have with the rush to accept that global warming is being caused by greenhouse gases.

We could pour billions (trillions?) of dollars into cutting greenhouse gases and it may not solve the problem.

I still say the whole global warming campaign is a politically driven attack on the economic superiority of the United States.

 

[LakeAriel]

This is the problem I have with the rush to accept that global warming is being caused by greenhouse gases.

We could pour billions (trillions?) of dollars into cutting greenhouse gases and it may not solve the problem.

I still say the whole global warming campaign is a politically driven attack on the economic superiority of the United States.

So you don't believe all the scientific evidence that global warming both exists and is a major threat?