More Global Warming Alarmism

CBS News and the Associated Press report on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

The warning from a top panel of international scientists was blunt and dire: "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," the cause is "very likely" man-made, and the menace will "continue for centuries."

We've heard all this before. But now I suppose we're expected to actually believe it and be alarmed because it comes from the IPCC -- whatever that is. 'Unequivocal' is a big word that means 'clear'. But 'unequivocal' grabs you a little better than 'clear' doesn't it? That's what they hoped anyway. They say it is "very likely" man-made because they aren't sure that it is man-made. But that doesn't stop them from pushing for drastic measures from governments around the world to restrict the activity of humans -- without regard for the negative efffects of the restrictions. They seem to be certain that warming will "continue for centuries" despite the fact that just 30 years ago they were certain that the earth was cooling.

A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."

OK Susan, so what if they are? Since we can't cease all human activity what do you propose? Would you restrict the manufacture of goods in large factories and possibly cause those goods to be produced less effeciently and at greater harm to the climate? Oh, you say that we would still let the efficient factories produce all the goods we need but the greenhouse-gas trapping equipment would just increase the cost of the goods? And you say that the consumers would just have to absorb the additional costs? Well, what are the consumers going to give up in order to pay the higher cost of essential goods? Might it be heating oil, gas or electricity? Might they resort to heating their homes by burning wood or coal? Be careful, Susan, of unintended consequences. The global climate and "human activity" are much too complex to be managed by a few humans with simplistic ideas.

"The public should not sit back and say 'There's nothing we can do'," (U.N. Environment Program Executive Director Achim) Steiner said. "Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible."

I think there is a greater chance that Steiner and his cohorts "will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible."

The panel predicted temperature rises of 2-11.5 F by the year 2100.

They're predicting as little as a 2 degree increase in temperatures in 93 years. For this they want to stop the world so we can get off? Further, the range of their prediction indicates a lot of uncertainty, which suggests to me that the interval could actually be wider, say -1 to 14.5 degrees. If so, then overall cooling might be the actual result. The weather service often misses tomorrow's highs and lows by ten degrees or more. The IPCC has no better tools available to them than the weather service. And 93 years is about 34,000 times longer than 24 hours.

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9-7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

Combining their range estimates results in a range of about 7 to 31 inches in the predicted rise in sea levels. Again, this wide range tells me that they really have no idea how much sea levels will rise in almost a hundred years. But, if sea levels do rise 31 inches, a hundred years is plenty of time to adjust for the effects without chaos. A lot of people would be affected but it won't be like the flooding of New Oleans by Hurricane Katrina. It won't happen overnight. People will have plenty of time to move away from the encroaching seas.

Gerry Meehl (U.S National Center for Atmospheric Research), warned that continued global warming could eventually lead to an "ice-free Arctic." And when that happened 125,000 years ago, seas rose between 13 and 20 feet.

Do you suppose that the "ice-free Arctic" that existed 125,000 years ago was caused by greenhouse-gas emmisions from human activity? I think not. So, if it occurred then without the greenhouse-gases, why is the IPCC and other global warming alarmists so convinced that present day warming is caused by the greenhouse-gases? The answer, I suspect, is that it's too hard for alarmists to make money from a naturally occurring phenomenom.

The report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea-level rise will continue for centuries. "This is just not something you can stop. We're just going to have to live with it," (Kevin) Trenberth (director of climate analysis at the U.S National Center for Atmospheric Research) said in an interview. "We're creating a different planet. If you were to come back in 100 years' time, we'll have a different climate."

Apparently there is not much consensus among the IPCC contributors, much less among the 'scientific community' as a whole. Most of them are pushing for strong measures from governments around the world while the report says there is nothing we can do about global warming. I agree with Trenberth, we'll just learn to live with it.

---

Comments

Make a comment:

Name (required) Email (required, but not published) Website (optional) Comment (required)