Steve
The effect of the changes in the sun's irradiance and the tolerance of
the estimation are given in the last bullet on p. 3 of the IPCC Summary
report. As you can see, it is small, compared with the figures for the
changes in CO2, CH4 and NOx levels. In any case, this is one of the many
variables that the IPCC have incorporated in all their models. The basic
mistake that many make is that they think the IPCC blame everything on
CO2. This is simply not true. They discuss changes of radiative forcing
from literally many tens of causes, even down to space weather, cosmic
rays, changes in albedo due to urban building, estimates in changes of
cloud coverage reflecting sunlight, the effect of soot and dust on
snowfields, glaciers etc. and many other things that you would never
dream of.
Brian
Steve Gregory wrote:
> Brian,
>
> I didn't want to argue with you by any means. All I was looking for was a little discussion about the different views of global warming since I have just recently discovered that there was one. What I wasn't prepared for, was your immeadiate dismissal of an opposing view, and insinuating that anybody who thought otherwise was POSSIBLY being funded by an oil company, or a crank, or fruitcake...
>
> Yes, I have read the IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. And I won't pretend that I completely understand everything that is in there. As I stated in an earlier email, I'm just trying to understand in layman's terms is man causing global warming or not. As I also said, all I've heard is one side saying that it's because of all the CO2 that we've been emitting, but then I just recently discovered another side that it may be the sun's variability that could be causing global warming.
>
> I agree that we must learn to be cleaner, who would be opposed to that? There's goning to be a point in time in the near future that we won't have fossil fuel to burn anyway. But I do think that the planet's climate changes no matter what man does, or doesn't do, and there's not a thing we can do about it. There's too many other things that are much bigger than a puny human being that affect conditions on this planet. I just try to keep an open mind to all points of view...
>
> -Steve Gregory-
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EnviroNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 7:14 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [EN] FW: FW: [EN] Global Warming, another point of view...
>
> Steve
>
> I haven't really got the time to enter into sterile argument. I apologise that I mistook the origin of the ISPM report to be based on a refutation of the latest IPCC report, where it was based on an earlier document. I think you will find that some of the points I addressed should be modified in the light of the 2007 Summary for Policymakers and, of course in the forthcoming Physical Science report.
>
> Please allow me to enlighten you about my thinking. As you are probably aware, I was heavily involved, before I retired, in the ozone depletion issues and, perforce, as a scientist and engineer, I learnt a terrific amount of atmospheric sciences, mostly chemistry, physics and synoptic meteorology. I had many discussions with some of the world's leading scientists in the named fields. It may not surprise you to learn that many of these men and women are very dedicated and, because there is a wide overlap between ozone depletion and climate change, it was no surprise for me to see that many of the scientists I knew and worked with also appear on the IPCC scientific panels. I know these persons as being dedicated to their science and without self-interest, for the most part. I therefore cannot believe that they, who have been so right regarding ozone depletion, could, in their large consensual numbers, be so wrong regarding climate change.
>
> I've carefully read many IPCC documents and they make very convincing arguments with the amount of data they have at their disposal. I agree that there is no solid scientific certainty but when they use carefully defined phrases such as "very likely" rather than "90 percentile confidence", this is in the interest of easier reading. (Incidentally, your correspondent is mistaken, as these phrases were used in the TAR, six years ago and were not first decided at the Paris meeting.)
>
> The ISPM is, by far, not the only group who try to discredit the IPCC and its work. There must be hundreds of groups and individuals who promote anti-climate change arguments. They are mostly funded by those with vested interests in maintaing the status quo, plus, of course, the usual number of cranks, fruitcakes and suchlike. Yes, some of them are very well-known scientists, such as Claude Allègre, who state things which are totally outside their field of activity (to be fair, Dr Allègre is not a naysayer, just recommending prudence, but he is a geophysicist, not an atmospheric scientist).
>
> I ask you one final question, Steve, have you read the IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers?
>
> Brian
>
> Steve Gregory wrote:
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Ross McKitrick [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 9:20 AM
>> To: Steve Gregory
>> Subject: Re: FW: [EN] Global Warming, another point of view...
>>
>>
>> Dear Steve
>>
>> Thank you for your note. The Fraser Institute did not receive any
>> money from any firms, certainly not Exxon or any others listed by Mr
>> Ellis, for the ISPM. (As for that, what people don't understand is
>> that all the climate policy proposals before the US government right
>> now will be a financial boon to major fossil energy producers if
>> passed. Cap and trade as configured in those proposals is simply a
>> legalized cartel with the scarcity rents (in this case emission
>> permits) handed to the incumbent firms. Energy firms are not out there
>> fighting against climate policy, they are lobbying for cap and trade).
>> In any case, the Fraser Institute did not seek or get any funding from
>> any firms--energy or otherwise--for this project.
>>
>> The ISPM is not, as he suggests, a summary of the IPCC Summary for
>> Policymakers. It is a summary of the Second Order Draft of the full
>> IPCC Working Group I report as it stood in June 2006, at the close of
>> scientific review. We used this as the best estimate of the final
>> wording of the full IPCC report, which is due out in early May. We
>> explain this in the ISPM.
>>
>> We also explain that the statement of Overall Conclusions represents
>> the views of the writing team. Judgments about whether climate changes
>> are good or bad are not mere emotion. The IPCC report devotes many
>> pages to discussions of things like storms, extreme weather,
>> precipitation, heat waves, sea levels, etc, because these are the
>> things people worry about in connection with climate change. Ambiguity
>> about trends in these things implies ambiguity about whether potential
>> problems or benefits will arise.
>>
>> The "90%" probability statement was arrived at by a vote among
>> bureaucrats at a meeting in Paris. I would not put much emphasis on
>> the specific number: different studies, different methods and
>> different assumptions imply very different numbers. The IPCC relies
>> heavily on a single model-based methodology. The discussion of this is
>> in the detection and attribution chapter in the IPCC report, which we
>> summarize in detail in the ISPM.
>>
>> The kinds of policies put forward to address CO2 emissions are
>> different from those that address air pollution, and to some extent are rivals.
>> This is especially true in 3rd World settings, where the main health
>> threat is indoor air pollution from burning wood and dung in open
>> indoor fires. The first step to improving air pollution for most of
>> the poor people in the world is creating an electricity grid with
>> fossil-generated power. I have a short magazine article about this at:
>> http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/particles.pdf. So the
>> decision about climate policy can't be subsumed under general air
>> pollution policy. Choices do have to be made. One of the main
>> motivations behind the ISPM is to get interested people to read the
>> full IPCC report itself, not merely the SPM published in Paris in
>> February. The more people grapple with the details, in all their
>> complexity, the more likely we will be in a position to make sound policy choices.
>>
>> Yours truly,
>>
>>
>> Dr. Ross McKitrick
>> - Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
>> - Department of Economics
>> - University of Guelph
>> - 519-824-4120 x52532
>> - http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ross.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve Gregory wrote:
>>
>> Dear Doctor McKitrick,
>>
>> First I would like to introduce myself, my name is Steve Gregory and
>> I
>> am a Production Engineer for an electronics comapany in Tulsa,
>> Oklahoma
>> called OAI Electronics.
>>
>> I belong to a email forum that is hosted by the IPC (Institute for
>> Printed Circuits) called Environet, which discusses environmental
>> issues
>> as they relate to our industry. We occasionally get into other
>> environmental topics as well, as you can read in the exchange below.
>>
>> I was wondering if you could comment on Brian Ellis's reply.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Steve Gregory
>> Production Engineer
>> OAI Electronics
>> 6960 East 12th Street
>> Tulsa, Oklahoma 74112
>>
>> (918) 836-9077
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:10 AM
>> To: Environmental Issues; Steve Gregory
>> Subject: Re: [EN] Global Warming, another point of view...
>>
>> Firstly, let me quote the last sentence of the ES:
>> "Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of
>> uncertainty
>> as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate
>> change,
>> and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing."
>>
>> The IPCC report allows "an unavoidable element of uncertainty"
>> by
>> equating "very likely" to a 90 percentile probability.
>> Furthermore, it
>> quotes the ranges of different scenarios. It is therefore "very
>> likely"
>> than a part of the climate change, but not all of it, is
>> anthropogenic.
>> This is therefore not contradictory.
>>
>> Whether or not it is a good or bad thing depends on where you are. It
>> is
>> very personal and such a statement has NO place in what is purported
>> to
>> be a purely scientific assessment. When I see emotional
>> interpretations,
>> then credibility flies out the window.
>>
>> Then, when I see "Our work is financed by tax-deductible
>> contributions
>> from thousands of individuals, organizations, and foundations."
>> without
>> names, I think of Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP, Total and their offshoots
>> etc.
>>
>> as being possible major contributors. Who bites the hand that feeds
>> them? Compare this with
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
>>
>> Yes, there are still many naysayers. I await, with impatience, the
>> full
>> IPCC scientific report which, hopefully, will be published next
>> month.
>> Until that comes out, we have no yardstick by which to measure the
>> veracity of the modelling (and neither have the writers of this
>> report,
>> which is based essentially on a 20 page summary, not the ~500 pages
>> of
>> the full report).
>>
>> Finally, whether climate change is partially anthropogenic or not -
>> and
>> I believe it is from all the evidence I have seen - there is an even
>> more compelling reason to cut down on using fossil fuels: public
>> health.
>>
>> I'm sure I've touched on this before, but see here
>>
>> http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv/files/climate_change.htm#Public%20health
>> if you wish to know more.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> Steve Gregory wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was given the link below to read, and it credibly dicusses another
>> point of view about "global warming". I cannot just dismiss this
>>
>>
>> paper.
>>
>>
>> It seems well supported by some prominent researchers and is
>> backed-up
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> by data. I just wonder what some of you think?
>>
>> -Steve Gregory-
>>
>> http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
|
