It appears much depends on who is measuring what, and how, and where. A little warming on the surface of the Northern Hemisphere, but little anywhere else according to the missive below.
What many people seemed to have missed on other threads from my last post referencing Casey's people, is that although many scientists see a cause and effect with CO2, none of them can agree on what will happen next. The different models predict wildly different outcomes as shown by the graphs at the end of the document.
Two things are clear. None of these environmental scientists really knows what's going on,...and few people on SI that post read thoroughly enough to really know what they're reading. Most people, if not all, read to confirm their own beliefs spending lots of time on those passages, while skimming and ignoring passages that tend to disprove their pre conceived notions :-[)
Given the temp outside is -35 with windchill here and a lot colder further north, and I'm at 500 feet above sealevel, I welcome global warming and wish it would hurry up and come. Unfortunately I see little evidence it will do so in my lifetime, or that of my grandchildren, or their grandchildren and by that time they will likely run out of cheap oil and be using a bunch of alternatives that someone in the next century will be maligning because of some environmental bogeyman. A good story can usually get scientific grant money after all.
People who are really concerned and spend their time bitching about global warming, should divert the time they use to bitch at planting some fast growing plants to sop up the carbon they burn. Plants are not just the lungs of the earth, but the liver and kidneys as well (as far as CO2 is concerned). If everyone did that I would likely be forced to continue to endure these bloodly cold @#$%%#$^%#%@ days :-)
*********************************************************
newswire.ca
Independent summary shows new UN climate change report refutes alarmism and reveals major uncertainties in the science
TORONTO, Feb. 5 /CNW/ - An independent review of the latest United
Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific evidence about
global warming remains uncertain and provides no basis for alarmism.
In 2006, independent research organization The Fraser Institute convened
a panel of 10 internationally-recognized experts to read the UN International
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report and produce an Independent Summary
for Policymakers. The result, released today and available at
www.fraserinstitute.ca, is a detailed and thorough overview of the state of
the science. This independent summary has been reviewed by more than 50
scientists around the world and their views on its balance and reliability are
tabulated for readers.
"While a lot of effort goes into producing the large IPCC reports, its
complex message is often obscured by its accompanying Summary for
Policymakers. That summary report does not come from the scientific community.
Instead it is developed through political negotiations by unnamed bureaucrats
from various governments. Critics of past summaries point out they downplay
and gloss over areas of uncertainty and data limitations," said Dr. Ross
McKitrick, coordinator of the independent review and senior fellow with The
Fraser Institute.
"The debate around climate change has become highly politicized and
alarmist. So we asked a team of highly qualified scientists to look at the
IPCC report and produce a summary that they felt communicates the real state
of knowledge. Our intent with this document is to allow people to see for
themselves what is known and what remains highly uncertain within climate
change science."
The Fraser Institute's Independent Summary for Policymakers carefully
connects summary paragraphs to the chapters and sections of the IPCC report
from which they are drawn, allowing readers to refer directly to what is in
the IPCC Report.
<<
According to The Fraser Institute's independent summary of the IPCC
report:
- Data collected by weather satellites since 1979 continue to exhibit
little evidence of atmospheric warming, with estimated trends ranging
from nearly zero to the low end of past IPCC forecasts. There is no
significant warming in the tropical troposphere (the lowest portion
of the Earth's atmosphere), which accounts for half the world's
atmosphere, despite model predictions that warming should be
amplified there.
- Temperature data collected at the surface exhibits an upward trend
from 1900 to 1940, and again from 1979 to the present. Trends in the
Southern Hemisphere are small compared to those in the Northern
Hemisphere.
- There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented
changes are underway. Perceptions of increased extreme weather events
are potentially due to increased reporting. There is too little data
to reliably confirm these perceptions.
- There is no globally-consistent pattern in long-term precipitation
trends, snow-covered area, or snow depth. Arctic sea ice thickness
showed an abrupt loss prior to the 1990s, and the loss stopped
shortly thereafter. There is insufficient data to conclude that there
are any trends in Antarctic sea ice thickness.
- Current data suggest a global mean sea level rise of between two and
three millimeters per year. Models project an increase of roughly
20 centimeters over the next 100 years, if accompanied by a warming
of 2.0 to 4.5 degrees Celsius.
- Natural climatic variability is now believed to be substantially
larger than previously estimated, as is the uncertainty associated
with historical temperature reconstructions.
- Attributing an observed climate change to a specific cause like
greenhouse gas emissions is not formally possible, and therefore
relies on computer model simulations. These attribution studies do
not take into account the basic uncertainty about climate models, or
all potentially important influences like aerosols, solar activity,
and land use changes.
- Computer models project a range of future forecasts, which are
inherently uncertain for the coming century, especially at the
regional level. It is not possible to say which, if any, of today's
climate models are reliable for climate prediction and forecasting.
>>
"There is no evidence provided by the IPCC report that the uncertainty
around climate change can be formally resolved from first principles,
statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises," McKitrick said.
"What does this mean for the average person? It means that while
scientific evidence shows the climate is naturally variable, we still don't
know the extent to which humans are contributing to future climate change and
whether or not such change is a good or bad thing. People who are bewildered
by the intense global warming alarmism of the past few years should read the
Independent Summary for Policymakers to get a more accurate and balanced
understanding of the real state of knowledge on this important subject."
The Fraser Institute is an independent research and educational
organization based in Canada. Its mission is to measure, study, and
communicate the impact of competitive markets and government intervention
on the welfare of individuals. To protect the Institute's independence,
it does not accept grants from governments or contracts for research.
Visit www.fraserinstitute.ca
For further information: Nicholas Schneider, Policy Analyst, The Fraser
Institute, Centre for Risk, Regulation & the Environment, Tel: (416) 363-6575
ext: 222, Email: nicks@fraserinstitute.ca; Ross McKitrick, Department of
Economics, University of Guelph, Tel: (519) 824-4120 ext 52532, Cel: (519)
823-3376, Email: rmckitri@uoguelph.ca; Dean Pelkey, Associate Director of
Communications, The Fraser Institute, Tel: (604) 714-4582, Email
deanp@fraserinstitute.ca |
