IPCC Report Discussion

I just re-read the IPCC Summary Report for Policy Makers.

Here is a link if you haven't read it yet:

ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu...

I'd like to begin a discussion regarding what we need to do if we take this report at "it's word".

I'll start. I think it's useless in terms of recommendations.

It states:

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased
markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values
determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM-1). The global
increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change,
while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. [2.3, 6.4, 7.3]

OK, so human agricultural and indiustrial activities have been increasing GHGs for 257 years. Exactly when during that period did we reach the point that the activites resulted in GHG concentrations that cause undesired climate change. I guess they don't know because they don't tell us.

Now, the leaders of the movement have 2 or 3 strategies:

1. Freeze GHG emissions at current levels : Al Gore before the US Senate 3/21/07

2. Sign the Kyoto proptocol : a carbon emission freezing proposal (for some), linked with carbon taxation and a carbon off set trading system.

or

3. Enact different carbon trading and carbon offset purchasing programs.

Lets look at # 1: Freeze current emissions. That's from Al Gore, the undisputed leader of the movement. That will do the trick, right?

Wrong.

From the IPCC report:

Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. [10.3, 10.7]

So if current Levels of GHG emissions are obviously too high, what's the "safe" level? Since the IPCC report authors can't or won't say I'm going to make an estimate. I'll say....hmmm....maybe..... total GHG emission from 1950? How does that sound? Maybe if we could reduce our CO2, and CH4 emissions to 1950 levels we'll all be OK?

I don't know, IPCC people don't seem to know. Who know's? We know the current level is too high. The avergae global temperature has been rising for at least 100 years. Again from the report:

The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.

So 1950 levels of GHG emissions won't do the trick either, but hey, let's set a realistic goal, I mean we can't seriously consider going back to 1907 CO2 emission rates could we?

So this is where we're at:

IPCC says the world is warming, it has been for 100 years or more, we're the cause, and even if we freeze GHG emission rates at 2000 levels we will continue to see a 0.1 deg C temp. rise per decade, ocean level rises of .3 meters in 100 years, dought, flood, famine, more and worse (you name the natural disaster) pestilence, etc.

And the answer to this predicament, offered by Al Gore and his merry band, is to feeze our overall CO2 emissions at current levels. But wait.....if you can't freeze your personal or business carbon consumption, thats OK, you can just pay extra tax for using too much, or "buy" some carbon off-sets from somebody who needs the money more than they need a warm or cool house, or a gas guzzling car, or to take too many airplane trips, or use too many plastic bags.

Now then, lets pretend that 1950's GHG emissions would be OK. How in heck, are we going to get back to those levels? And even if we could, is China or India going to? I doubt it. They have already been given passes as developing countries so they can keep increasing their "carbon footprints" for a few more years as dictated by the Kyoto Protocols. I wonder how they decided exactly how much GHG was OK for those guys since they don't really know how much is OK for all of us together?

Thoughts?

I was hoping this thread would see some more, or should I say "some" activity. The "human caused/non-human caused" debate is interesting and informational, however I don't think any opinions are being changed. Everyone seems firmly entrenched.

I thought an open discussion of what can really be done about global warming, would be helpful in understanding the problem we face. My question is: If we don't know what goal we need to achieve, how can we formulate a plan to safely and equitably acheive that goal?

There have been several threads along the lines of "What would you do to stop global warming?" Most responders share their good hearted efforts like using mass transit, using compact flourescent light bulbs, recycling, the occaissional hybrid or electric car, etc. While inspired by the best of intentions, these measures won't cut it.

If you believe human added GHGs are causing the warming we are seeing, there is only one feasible option to replace all the coal, gas and oil power plants......Nuclear.

If you think getting rid of the internal combustion engine is an alternative consider this. If we go to electric cars or electric hybrids we will still need to generate all the electricity needed to replace the fossil fuel generated energy that propels our mopeds, sedans, pick-ups, and tractor-trailers. And believe me...that's gojng to be alot of KW's.

I'm open to suggestions for readily available, or even theoretically achievable technologies that will be able to replace all of the worlds current fossil fuel generated electricity, AND the additional quantity required to drive all the new electric cars.

Right now, nuclear energy is our only feasible alternative.






[edit on 3/26/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky

OK, so human agricultural and indiustrial activities have been increasing GHGs for 257 years. Exactly when during that period did we reach the point that the activites resulted in GHG concentrations that cause undesired climate change. I guess they don't know because they don't tell us.

And because there's no sharp line of demarcation. The growth has been exponential because farming and health practices have increased the number of humans who survive. But, no, we can't point to a single point and say "that's it" because of the variability of climate. Even during the ice ages, they had periods of time with very warm winters.

Lets look at # 1: Freeze current emissions. That's from Al Gore, the undisputed leader of the movement. That will do the trick, right?

Wrong.

From the IPCC report:

Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. [10.3, 10.7]

So you disagree with keeping the temperature rise to a minimum amount while we work on other solutions and technical retrofitting to address the problem? This would imply that you know of a way to reduce the emissions instantly, with 100% compliance from every person and every nation in the world.

If so, please don't keep it a secret from us.

So 1950 levels of GHG emissions won't do the trick either, but hey, let's set a realistic goal, I mean we can't seriously consider going back to 1907 CO2 emission rates could we?

Actually, niether level. The population levels weren't 6 billion humans back in those years. If we had 1950 level pollution with 6 billion humans, you'd find your cities black and smoky with smog.

In 1952, a deadly smog descended on London and killed thousands of people:
www.npr.org...

Now figure what that smog looks like in cities when the world's population is not 2.5 billion but rather our current 6.5 billion.

Now then, lets pretend that 1950's GHG emissions would be OK. How in heck, are we going to get back to those levels? And even if we could, is China or India going to?

Ah, but you're in luck, there. Their pollution levels and standards are about what ours were in the 1950's and thereabouts.
www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk...

I believe that Al Gore's suggestion reduces pollution more quickly and effectively than yours does.

Originally posted by Byrd
So you disagree with keeping the temperature rise to a minimum amount while we work on other solutions and technical retrofitting to address the problem? This would imply that you know of a way to reduce the emissions instantly, with 100% compliance from every person and every nation in the world.

If so, please don't keep it a secret from us.

I don't disagree with keeping the rate of warming as low as possible while alternatives are developed. I simply contend that:

a) it's not possible without a drastic change in the standard of living of many millions.


b) it's unfair in that some countries must reduce their emissions while other will be allowed to increase thiers.


c) the only way to enact a such a freeze would be by statute enforceable by fine or imprisonment.

and

d) this makes freezing GHG emissions at current levels without developing an alternate source of energy to accomodate continued growth impossible.

The only logical alternative other than nuclear energy, is a drastic decrease in consumption, which can only be brought about by a drastic decrease in population (and/or standard of living).

I think my alternative (nuclear energy) makes perfect sense. France has been generating somewhere around 60% of its electricity from fission for 40 years with no ill consequences. Properly deisgned and operated with appropriate safety measures nuclear power is much less damaging than what many say will be the result of continued fossil fuel consumption.


spelling

[edit on 3/27/2007 by darkbluesky]

Radiative Forcing: The nuts and bolts of global warming (Watts of energy adsorbed per square meter).

Refer to page 4 of the report.

Consider the 7 primary components of radiative forcing evaluated for this study:
GHGs
O3
stratospheric water vapor
albedo
aeresols
contrails
solar irradiance


The summation of all the components (positive and negative) comes to 1.66 W/M sq.

What I find troublesome is the LOSU coeficient. Each component is assigned a level of scientific understanding (LOSU) rating: high, med, or low.

Half of the total summation value of 1.66 W/M sq. are contributed by components that have an LOSU rating of medium or low. This tells me average to poor confidence levels apply to half of the data in the study. Good science requires that these low confidence parameters be wieghted appropriately. IPCC assigned equal wieght to all factors regardless of level of confidence.

They even admit they do not include volcanic data due to it's episodic characteristics.

What other factors could be included, regardless of LOSU, to manipulate the final RF value?

Any thoughts?

More than two-thirds of the world's large cities are in areas vulnerable to global warming and rising sea levels, and millions of people are at risk of being swamped by flooding and intense storms, according to a new study released Wednesday.

I firmly believe that the world is changing because of our infection's to our very natural and 'sucumable' resources (Aws I would like to call it.) it is a variance of acceptance and denial at the same time. Some of the Mod's had there say here and I have to intergrate thier acknowledgements into the whole scheme of thing's.
As far as being "Rectofied" in our life-time? "More than not likely. "As for people of the future generations? (80 to 100 years from now) Maybe."

The post that I am making hold's the IPCC and other 'Probable' affects that the world will be facing. We , as humans, watch out for each other. that is why it so important to drop off the violence and start thinking of your neighbor, or even possibly a loved one that would be put into a scenario of "Justifiable Homocide." if you know what I mean?"
IMHO>>>>

Source of the recovery think tank of thing's that may possibly come:

In all, 634 million people live in the threatened coastal areas worldwide — defined as those lying at less than 33 feet above sea level — and the number is growing, said the study published in the journal Environment and Urbanization

Be sure too check out all the sites that are illustrated. Not saying they are accurate to the fullest, but if it is half right, there will be a mass influx of immigration movement from the coastal areas to higher ground, which would disrupt us "RedNecks" around here...lol

www.cbsnews.com...

In the spirit of questioning authority, let's look at another aspect of the IPCC report that glosses over poorly understood phenomena....Cloud albedo.

As previously mentioned, each RF component is assigned a level of scientific understanding (LOSU) rating. So the unwashed can understand the rating system, they IPCC have used descriptive rating values such as high, medium. low, rather than numerical values. Cloud effect albedo is poorly understood as indicated by its LOSU rating of low.

Please refer to the diagram:



Note the very wide range on uncertainty in the RF value for Cloud albedo, it's the largest of all RF compenents evaluated (2.1 W/M*M). If the largest RF value for this poorly understood component were used, the cummulative RF value for the RF components evaluatued would have been 0.6 W/M2 vs. 1.6 W/M2. That's a big difference and would have resulted in much lower projected temperature rises, and all the associated "catacylsims" being prophecized by the alarmists.

Please take note of what effect aerosols and albedo are having on Mars:

"Our results suggests that documented albedo changes affect recent climate change and large-scale weather patterns on Mars," Fenton's team wrote.

They believe changes in albedo should be an important part of future studies on atmosphere and climate change.

Here is the article:

www.cnn.com...


The intent of this thread is to get people to look at the quality of the so called "science" being flaunted before us, to scare us into whatever tax trap the powers that be, have planned for us.

Again..thoughts? Anyone.....Bueller?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
In the spirit of questioning authority, let's look at another aspect of the IPCC report that glosses over poorly understood phenomena....Cloud albedo.
.....

Again..thoughts? Anyone.....Bueller?

I don't know how you can say that when the uncertainties are clearly presented, both for forcings and projected changes.