Prayer zone for a better, empowering, inspiring, promoting, prospering, progressing and more successful life through Christ Jesus

Posts tagged ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’

Anger as UN Claims 95 Certainty on Manmade Global Warming.


Reaction came thick and fast Friday to the United Nations’ latest report on climate change that claimed it is 95 percent certain that global warming is manmade.

Even that figure was slammed as meaningless. “Ninety-five percent doesn’t mean anything,” David Kreutzer, the Heritage Foundation‘s Research Fellow in Energy, Economics, and Climate Change told Newsmax. “It’s not a scientific term.

House Energy Committee member Michael Burgess said he viewed the report “very skeptically.” In an interview with Newsmax TV, the Texan said, “The current data from the very recent past does not support the previous prefaced proposition that it was getting worse and worse from 2009 onward.”

The report, released by the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change, claimed it is “extremely likely” that humans are responsible for at least “half of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since the 1950s.” It put the likelihood at 95 percent.

A similar report in 2007 said global warming was “very likely” manmade, putting the likelihood at 90 percent. The 2001 report just called such a theory “likely” at 66 percent.

It was these figures that concerned Kreutzer. “What’s interesting is how much people make out of a quasi-scientific study,” he told Newsmax.

“The critical thing is where we are headed,” he continued. “It’s not likely we will have catastrophes. We don’t see it accelerating. There’s a straw man and they are saying if you believe humans are contributing to global warming you must believe in a catastrophe.”

Furthermore, said Kreutzer, “If we had a cap on carbon or a carbon tax and took it to all the developed countries, it would have negligible impact on world temperatures. And you won’t get the developing countries to sign on to continued poverty. They need a huge increase in energy to have an improved standard of living.”

Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the UN Working Group, claimed, “Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Qin Dahe, the other co-chair, added, “Our assessment of the science finds that the atmosphere and oceans have warmed, the amount of new snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.”

But a separate assessment of thousands of scientific papers by the Nongovernment International Panel on Climate Change, a group of independent scientists and scholars from 15 countries, reached different conclusions.

The NIPCC’s report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, published and released by the Heartland Institute earlier this month, found the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural causes.

“NIPCC’s conclusion, drawn from its extensive review of the scientific evidence, is that the greenhouse gas-induced global climate signal is so small as to be embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system and is not dangerous,” said the report.

Following the release of the UN’s findings, Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, said, “We urge the public to compare and contrast these two reports on what is probably the most important public policy issue of our age. The NIPCC report was produced by a team of independent scientists with no agenda other than to find the truth.”

He continued, “The IPCC study, in contrast, is produced by a government agency, part of the United Nations. That agency’s mission is to find a human impact on climate. Over the history of the IPCC, each report has expressed a higher level of alarmism and a higher level of confidence in its certainty that man-made global warming will be harmful.”

“The authors of the NIPCC study do not believe man-made global warming is a crisis or that scientists know enough about how the climate works to make policy-relevant recommendations to the world’s government leaders.” added Bast.

The UN report also failed to explain why temperatures have stayed basically steady since 1998, the Global Policy Foundation said.

“Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends,” it read.
“Unless global temperature will begin to rise again in the next few years, the IPCC is very likely going to suffer an existential blow to its credibility,” said Benny Peiser, director of the foundation.

“In the face of such facts,” said the NIPCC’s reports, referring to the pause in global warming. “The most prudent climate policy is to prepare for and adapt to natural climate events and the threats they pose.”

“Adaptive planning for future hazardous climate events and change should be tailored to provide reasonable responses to their known rates, magnitudes and risks,” it added.
“Policymakers should resist pressure from lobby groups to silence those who question the authority of the IPCC as the sole gatekeeper and voice speaking in behalf of ‘climate science.'”

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

By Lisa Barron

Amid ‘Uncertainty’, Scientists Blame Mankind for Global Warming.


Top climate scientists will blame mankind more clearly than ever for global warming next week but may struggle to drive home the message in a report that uses the term “uncertainty” 42 times. The ‘language gap’ between scientists and the policy makers, public and media they seek to alert is proving hard to bridge.

Scientists say uncertainty is inevitable at the frontiers of knowledge – in, for instance, calculating how much of Greenland will thaw or how fast temperatures will rise by 2100 – but that policymakers and the public often mistake it for ignorance.

That gap in semantics may complicate the message of greater overall understanding of global warming in the report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due for release in Stockholm on Sept. 27 after a final round of editing.

A final draft summary raises the probability that most climate change since the 1950s has a human cause to at least 95 percent, from 90 in 2007 and 66 percent in 2001. Temperatures could rise by almost 5 degrees Celsius (9 F) by 2100, bringing enormous risks for society and nature.

Yet it also has the words “uncertainty” or “uncertainties” 42 times over 31 pages, according to a final draft obtained by Reuters, a comparable rate to 26 mentions in 18 pages in 2007.

Among the biggest uncertainties, it says, is how aerosols, such as air pollution, affect cloud formation. The white tops of low clouds can reflect sunlight and so cool the Earth’s surface.

“When scientists are explicit about the underlying uncertainties an immediate response from decision-makers and the public is: ‘Oh, scientists do not really know what they are talking about.’,” said Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

“This is actually an inappropriate response,” he said. Edenhofer, who is a co-chair of a separate IPCC report looking at costs of fixing the problem due in 2014, and all other experts gave personal opinions and not details of the reports.

JAILED

Society needs to understand uncertainty and risk, he said.

Unrelated to climate change, he noted that six scientists were sentenced to jail in Italy last year for manslaughter after wrongly reassuring people of low risks shortly before an earthquake killed more than 300 people in L’Aquila in 2009.

“We know more and more about the big picture” of climate change, said professor David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey and a lead author of the study to be issued in Stockholm.

“At exactly the same time we are getting more and more data about the little pictures which are much harder to explain.”

Governments were no longer satisfied with estimates of global sea level rise, for instance, but wanted to know regional estimates, in places such as south England, to plan flood risks.

“Most people’s view of science is that ‘scientists know things’. But it’s actually all about uncertainty,” said James Painter, head of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University.

A study he published on Wednesday found that media focused on disasters and uncertainty in covering climate change and that it might be better to stress risks and business opportunities.

Scientists reckon the focus on uncertainty, by governments and the media, may brake action to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

“There’s a general frustration among scientists that we get more and more certain: why doesn’t more happen?” said Cecilie Mauritzen, head of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo.

Scientists use a mixture of data and “expert judgment” to decide how likely it is that climate change is man-made and rule out other factors, such as changes in the sun’s output.

The IPCC draft halves the likelihood that natural factors are to blame to 5 percent from 10, the flip side of raising the probability that climate change is man-made to 95 percent.

“It’s based on a discussion among the authors…There must be multiple lines of evidence,” said Eystein Jansen, of the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Norway and one of the authors of the Stockholm draft.

A graph in the draft, reconstructing temperature rises in the 20th century, shows the trend cannot be explained without the warming effect of greenhouse gases spewed into the atmosphere from cars, factories and power plants.

Those sceptical over human contribution to warming often say more certainty is needed before acting, something proponents of action reject given risks of floods, heatwaves, and rising sea levels. Society may act on little certainty when risks are high.

AL QAEDA

Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, for instance, once said that if there was a 1 percent chance that Pakistan was helping al Qaeda to develop nuclear weapons, then Washington had to treat it as a certainty in terms of its response.

Dan Kahan, a professor of Law and Psychology at Yale University, doubted that any change of certainty by the IPCC would have much impact on the public. Governments have not cut rising emissions even though repeated surveys show that 97-98 percent of climate scientists reckon warming is man-made.

“People fit evidence of what scientists believe – like all other sorts of evidence – to the position that affirms their cultural identity,” he said. In the United States, Democrats are more likely to agree with climate science than Republicans.

And IPCC reports, stretching to about 3,000 pages, have had errors in the past, such as a mistake in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035, a big exaggeration of the thaw.

That has led to some criticisms that the IPCC stresses the negative effects of climate change. A review by outside experts in the InterAcademy Council in 2010 said that errors did not affect the IPCC’s overall conclusions but that authors should do more to nail down the probabilities of their predictions.

© 2013 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.
Source: NEWSmax.com

World’s Top Climate Change Scientists Admit Computers Got The Effects Of Greenhouse Gases Wrong.


So the question is, I suppose, will huckster con artists like Al Gore give back the millions he’s made on the “green revolution” or at the very least issue an apology and admission of error?

From Daily Mail UK: A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.

ipcc-intergovernmental-panel-climate-change-global-warming-hoax-al-gore-wmo-unepThe Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.

They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.

Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment,  published in 2007.

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures  – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.

They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.

They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.

The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.

A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.

This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.

One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’ Read the rest of the story on Daily Mail UK…
.

by NTEB News Desk.

Report: World Entering a Period of Global Cooling.


A report reveals that the global cooling that began in 1997 may continue until mid-century.

A cool Arctic summer has resulted in 60 percent more ocean area covered in ice than last year, the Mail Online reports. That has left several yachts and one cruise ship trying to sail the Northwest Passage either stranded or searching for a new route.

Many top scientists who had predicted a continuing rise in global temperatures after the two decades of increases in the 1980s and ’90s are backtracking, the Mail reports.

“The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change,” the Mail said.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had planned to begin issuing its latest report in October, but now will hold a pre-summit this month, the Mail reported.

The Mail said it obtained leaked documents that show that governments financing the IPCC are demanding 1,500 changes in a draft report’s “summary for policymakers” because the current draft doesn’t explain the current pause in warming.

The current draft report says that the organization is 95 percent confident that global warming has been caused by human activity. That is up 90 percent from 2007.

The last cycle of cooling took place from 1965 to 1975, causing some scientists to predict an imminent ice age that never came.

“We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least,” said Professor Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin. “There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”

The IPCC says 15-year pauses do not negate overall warming that began 150 years ago. But the Mail article says mounting evidence suggests that Arctic ice levels are cyclical.

Climate historians have reportedly found data showing massive ice melts in the 1920s and ’30s, followed by “intense re-freezes” that didn’t end until 1979. That was the same year the IPCC says shrinking began on the polar ice caps.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

By Greg Richter

Despite Data, Global Warming Backers Won’t Admit They’re Wrong.


Image: Despite Data, Global Warming Backers Won't Admit They're Wrong

Richard Rahn‘s Perspective: It’s hard for believers to admit they’re wrong.

Much of Northern Europe, including Britain, is suffering under the coldest winter and spring of the last 30 to 100 years. The Northeastern part of the United States has had a record cold March. The record cold in Europe has killed thousands and cost billions.
It was not supposed to be this way.

Back in 1998, scientist Michael Mann published a paper with the famous “hockey stick” showing a sharp rise in global temperatures. Mann and others argued that if global action was not taken immediately, then the temperature rise would be rapid and uncontrollable.

Much of Mann’s work was the basis for Al Gore’s famous film “An Inconvenient Truth.” What has turned out to be an inconvenient truth is that Mann and his allies were sloppy in their research and engaged in a campaign to disparage their critics.

Urgent:
 ObamaCare Is About to Strike — Are You Prepared?

The United Kingdom’s Met Office has been a major source of global temperature data in recent decades, and has been heavily relied upon by global-warming proponents. On March 12, a report written by David Whitehouse and published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation concluded that “there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997.”

In the accompanying chart, using the same official data from the Met Office that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uses, it can be easily seen that global temperatures have not been rising as predicted by the best-known climate models.

According to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, “The report shows that the temperature standstill has been a much discussed topic in peer-reviewed scientific literature for years, but that this scientific debate has neither been followed by most of the media, nor acknowledged by climate campaigners, scientific societies and prominent scientists.”

Lord Turnbull, former Cabinet secretary and head of the Home Civil Service, commented: “Dr. Whitehouse is a man who deserves to be listened to. He has consistently followed an approach of examining observations rather than projections of large-scale computer models, which are too often cited as ‘evidence.’ He looks dispassionately at the data, trying to establish what message it tells us, rather than using it to confirm a pre-held view.”

Those of us who have studied “public choice theory” are not particularly surprised that many scientists and their media followers are in denial about what is increasingly obvious — that is, most of the climate projections were just plain wrong. If a person has a strong vested interest in a particular point of view and obtains government grants to show what politicians want to hear, or if he has been very public in his beliefs based on faulty data or information, it is hard to say, “I was wrong.”

Politicians embrace any theory that justifies more taxing, spending and regulating because their power increases along with the accompanying financial opportunities.

Nobel laureate, economist and philosopher F.A. Hayek explained how there are limits to the knowledge that any one individual can possess, yet many have the “fatal conceit” that they know more than they do, and thus, they think they can plan and predict in ways they cannot.

It is no surprise that climate models were wrong. For them to have been right, the model builders would have had to know all of the significant variables that affect climate, and the magnitude and interaction of each of those variables.

There is virtually no single variable on which scientists are in total agreement about the magnitude of its effect. Carbon dioxide (CO2), for example, is considered to be very bad by most global-warming alarmists, including many officials in governments.

We know that some level of CO2 is necessary for life, but we do not know the optimum level. The higher the level, the more rapidly plants grow, and the cheaper food becomes. It is just as plausible to say that there is too little CO2 in the atmosphere as that there is too much to maximize human well-being.

One of the world’s foremost experts on climate change, professor Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado at Boulder, recently wrote: “Flooding has not increased over the past century, nor have landfalling hurricanes. Remarkably, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest-ever recorded period with no strikes of a Category 3 or stronger hurricane.”

These anecdotes, along with a cold March, prove nothing one way or the other except that human beings know very little about what drives the climate.

Germany has spent more than 100 billion euros ($130 billion) on subsidizing the solar industry; yet, as Der Spiegel reported, “the 1.1 million solar systems have generated almost no power” this winter, and Germany is forced to import power from elsewhere. They are paying three or four times the U.S. rate for electricity, making many of their industries noncompetitive.

The U.S. has been equally stupid. Even The New York Times has acknowledged that the U.S. ethanol experiment has been a disaster. It has actually increased carbon emissions and the price of fuel and world food, which really whacks the poor — all because of a “fatal conceit.”

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth. Read more reports from Richard Rahn — Click Here Now.

© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC

Source: NEWSmax.com

Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a ‘Total Turnaround’.


Related Content

  • Land and surface temperature from the Berkeley Earth average, compared to a linear combination of volcanic sulfate emissions and CO2 emissions. The large negative excursions in the early temperature records are likely to be explained by exceptiLand and surface temperature from …

A prominent scientist who was skeptical of the evidence that climate change was real, let alone that it was caused by humans, now says he has made a “total turnaround.” Richard Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, says he has become convinced that “the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct,” and that humans are “almost entirely the cause” of that warming.

Muller co-founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) team two years ago in order to independently assess what he viewed as questionable evidence of global warming. In a series of papers published last year, BEST presented their statistical analysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports spanning the last 200 years, controlling for possible biases in the data that are often cited by skeptics as reasons to doubt the reality of global warming.

Their analysis indicated that global warming is real — that the average global land temperature has risen by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) since 1750, including 1.5 degrees F (0.9 degrees Celsius) in the past 50 years. The numbers closely agree with the findings of past studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA and others; but finally, they were rigorous enough to satisfy Muller.

Now, in a brand new study that probed the causes of that warming, the BEST team says it has cleared from blame the natural variations in Earth’s climate that so often get implicated by skeptics. Muller and his colleagues implicate carbon dioxide emissions by humans as essentially the sole cause of global warming.

“The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried,” he wrote Saturday (July 28) in a New York Times editorial. “Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: To be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.”

That’s a high bar indeed. In graphs released with the new study, a red line representing the atmoaspheric concentration of CO2 crawls across the decades almost exactly tracing the black line representing the observed warming of the Earth. [What Are Climate Change Skeptics Still Skeptical About?]

By comparison, the study found that natural variability, including variations in the solar cycle, El Niño events and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (shifts in sea-surface temperatures that run in cycles), could have accounted for no more than 0.17 degrees Celsius of temperature variation — either warming or cooling — during the past 150 years. These natural forces are much subtler than the warming seen during the same time period.

In fact, the new results indicate that humans have been warming the Earth for longer than climate scientists previously thought certain. “In its 2007 report, the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans,” Muller wrote. “It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.”

Not so, according to the new findings; variations in solar activity have a negligible effect on Earth’s temperature. The handiwork is almost all our own.

“I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered,” Muller wrote. “I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.”

Source. YAHOO NEWS.

LiveScience.comBy Natalie Wolchover | LiveScience.com 

Drought Reaches Record 56% of Continental US.


Related Content

  • The Southwest may be stuck with more scenes like this dry lake bed.The Southwest may be stuck with …

The United States is parched, with more than half of the lower 48 states experiencing moderate to extreme drought, according to a report released today (July 5).

Just under 56 percent of the contiguous United States is in drought conditions, the most extensive area in the 12-year history of the U.S. Drought Monitor. The previous drought records occurred on Aug. 26, 2003, when 54.79 percent of the lower 48 were in drought and on Sept 10, 2002, when drought extended across 54.63 percent of this area.

When including the entire nation, the monitor found 46.84 percent of the land area meets criteria for various stages of drought, up from 42.8 percent last week. Previous records: 45.87 percent in drought on Aug. 26, 2003, and 45.64 percent on Sept. 10, 2002.

“The recent heat and dryness is catching up with us on a national scale,” Michael Hayes, director of the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said in a statement. “Now, we have a larger section of the country in these lesser categories of drought than we’ve previously experienced” in the past 12 years. [Extreme Weather Facts: Quiz Yourself]

The monitor uses a ranking system that goes from D0 (abnormal dryness) to D1 (moderate drought), D2 (severe drought), D3 (extreme drought) and D4 (exceptional drought).

At the lower end of the scale, moderate drought involves some damage to crops and pastures, and low water levels in streams, reservoirs or wells. Areas in exceptional drought would experience widespread crop and pasture losses and water shortages that lead to water emergencies. Currently, 8.64 percent of the country would meet criteria for either extreme or exceptional drought.

“During 2002 and 2003, there were several very significant droughts taking place that had a much greater areal coverage of the more severe and extreme drought categories,” Hayes said. “Right now we are seeing pockets of more severe drought, but it is spread out over different parts of the country.

“It’s early in the season, though. The potential development is something we will be watching,” he added.

Further into the past, the United States has experienced some really serious droughts, including one in the 1930s, the Dust Bowl drought, and another in the 1950s, each of which lasted five to seven years and covered large swaths of the continental United States. Droughts are one of the most costly weather-related events in terms of economics and loss of life, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Between 1980 and today, 16 drought events cost $210 billion, according to a recent report.

While no single event like this year’s extensive drought can be said to be the result of global warming, scientists say more extreme weather should be expected as the planet warms, according to a report compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2011. That year, there were 12 $1-billion disasters.

In particular, the report authors predicted that with climate change there would be an increase in certain types of extreme weather, including daily high temperatures, heat waves, heavy precipitation and droughts, in some places.

The U.S. Drought Monitor is a joint endeavor by the National Drought Mitigation Center, NOAA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and drought observers across the country.

Follow LiveScience on Twitter @livescience. We’re also on Facebook & Google+.

Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Source: YAHOO NEWS.
LiveScience.comBy Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Managing Editor | LiveScience.com

Tag Cloud