Bali, UNFCCC, after Kyoto

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 22:46 GMT le 10 décembre 2007

Share this Blog
1
+

Bali, UNFCCC, after Kyoto


In the many comments of the last blog were mentions of the meeting in Bali. First a little background. The meeting in Bali is called the Conference of Parties (conference link) and includes the nations that are part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC site. The UNFCCC was negotiated in the early part of the 1990s, and the US did sign the Framework Convention. It is, in fact, part of our environmental law. It preceded the Kyoto Protocol. The UNFCCC called for, amongst other things, voluntary control of carbon dioxide emissions. The Kyoto Protocol had specific emission targets; it was signed by the United States, but it was not sent to the Senate for ratification. The decision to not send it for ratification was during the Clinton-Gore administration; it was certain that it would not be ratified.





Figure 1: Chart of commitments made in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (thanks to Rosina Bierbaum, SuperDean)

The meeting in Bali was not, first and foremost, a meeting of scientists. It is a meeting to talk about how to respond to the assessments presented by the IPCC. Some people talk about it as what comes after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. (For fun here are links to UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and a nice introduction to the Kyoto Protocol.) This is a big meeting, with a lot of people, and a lot of spectacle. There is not a real expectation that new policy will be formed at the meeting, but the people, the countries are stating and re-stating their positions.

There are two big notions that seem to rise out of the meeting. The first is the statement, or really restatement, that if we want to limit the atmospheric carbon dioxide to, approximately, double the amount in 1850, then we need to do something in the next decade. This amount is 550 parts per million and the model predictions show that even at this amount there will be consequential climate change. There is a May 2007 WU blog entry about this need to take action soon if we want to limit the carbon dioxide to 550 parts per million. The reported discussions from Bali show the diversity of opinions and accusations – and the United States once again maintains the position of requiring economic growth – hence, the need for cheap energy.

The second big notion is trees. There is a lot of talk about trees and how if we stop cutting down trees we will slow the release of carbon dioxide, and if we plant more trees then they will consume carbon dioxide. The issue of trees is complex. There is no doubt that having more trees is good for reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide, but trees are not a magic solution to the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. First, trees have a finite lifetime, and they have a finite ability to take up carbon dioxide. Second, trees take a lot of water, and planting a lot of trees in a place like Phoenix, Arizona is trading one environmental stress for another.

Nevertheless, the role of trees in climate change is an important one. In anticipation of a growing environmental market that places a value on carbon dioxide emissions, countries, such as Indonesia, are starting to think of their standing stock of forest in terms of carbon dioxide valuation. This starts to give the rain forests value that can be weighed against value as, for instance, lumber, food cropland, or bio-fuels cropland. This becomes a mechanism for conservation and management of forestry resources that includes some valuation of the climate.

My student Gabriel Thoumi is in Bali. He has spent much of the year in Indonesia setting up and negotiating policies and businesses to give valuation of the carbon dioxide stored in trees and how to use that valuation in the mitigation of climate change. Gabriel contributed to an effort with a group of Green Governors whose states hold a large portion of the Earth’s rain forests. Here is a paragraph from the press release announcing the efforts of this group of governors.

“The destruction of tropical forests accounts for about 20% of global carbon emissions – more than the entire global transport sector. The UK government’s 2005 Stern Review identified forest protection and limitation of deforestation as being quick and cost-effective avenues for reducing global carbon emissions – yet until now they have barely featured in governments’ plans to tackle climate change. By acting to protect forests and reduce emissions from deforestation now, on their own lands, the Governors have sent a strong message to their national governments and have opened the door to millions of dollars of potential investments from carbon markets. Already investments are beginning to flow, both from voluntary carbon markets and from private investments to protect the ecosystem services forests provide to humanity.”

Here is the whole press release, with information on how to get more information.

Forests Now Press Release
Green Governors’ Press Release

r

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 843 - 793

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

843. Trouper415
01:51 GMT le 20 décembre 2007
Hello.

I believe the c02 level at which we cannot exceed is 450 ppm now to avoid dangerous Climate Change.

In 1997, when the first Kyoto Treaty was ratified, the believed amount to which we could let World emissions rise to was 550.

This change of 1/5 concerning the global level of carbon over just a 10 year period shows the haste at which Climate Change is moving, how how we as a people need to take this issue into our hands and work with one another.

We as a people must make up the difference of anyone else not reducing emissions fast enough. Since there is an adherent need, if we are to set the example, other will naturally be inspired to reduce their emissions and we will see a significant increase in progress.

We need to put more focus into actually reducing our ecological footprint and coming up with solutions. The time we have to achieve the goals alloted by the IPCC is short. So there is no better time for us to make progress towards creating a World that is sustainable for ourselves and our children.

Thanks all
Patrick
Member Since: 22 septembre 2005 Posts: 5 Comments: 637
842. vortfix
02:39 GMT le 19 décembre 2007
December 14, 2007
Tropical Trends Stir Warming Debate

Over and over, we hear that the global warming debate is over, the science is settled, and it is time to move past the science and turn the focus onto the policy side of the issue. Anyone who suggests that the science is not settled and the debate is still alive is immediately accused of being heavily funded by industry and discredited by the mainstream scientific community. Who could forget the August 13, 2007 Newsweek issue with its cover suggesting “naysayers” are well-funded by industry and apparently unaware that the Earth is becoming the red planet.

Anyone who reads World Climate Report regularly is aware that the debate is very much alive and well in the major scientific journals related to global warming. We find numerous articles each year presenting results that are clearly at odds with the popular predictions and claims of the global warming advocates. A recent article has appeared in the prestigious International Journal of Climatology, and the last two sentences of the piece state “Yet the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution.” To say the least, we wanted to examine this one in far more detail.

841. vortfix
02:27 GMT le 19 décembre 2007
Is that a consensus?
840. latitude25
02:09 GMT le 19 décembre 2007
Christmas

Christmas

Christmas

Christmas

I'm in the ~90% majority on that one.
Member Since: 24 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
839. vortfix
02:00 GMT le 19 décembre 2007
Cause saying CHRISTMAS is not politically correct anymore!
838. vortfix
01:43 GMT le 19 décembre 2007
Now, Now.....those would be "Holiday" lights!
837. moonlightcowboy
01:41 GMT le 19 décembre 2007
835. latitude25 1:21 AM GMT on December 19, 2007
Believe it or not, I just heard on the news that some town has
banned Christmas lights because of Global Warming


Saw it, too! And, O'Reilly called GW a ruse! LMAO
Member Since: 9 juillet 2006 Posts: 184 Comments: 29594
835. latitude25
01:21 GMT le 19 décembre 2007
The public is alarmed and thus concerned about climate change largely because they are confused by the above and other misinformation and misunderstanding,

Believe it or not, I just heard on the news that some town has
banned Christmas lights because of Global Warming
Member Since: 24 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
834. vortfix
01:15 GMT le 19 décembre 2007
Time for the mid-term exam y'all!

GLOBAL WARMING TEST


Caution: This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness.

833. vortfix
00:54 GMT le 19 décembre 2007
Dec 18, 2007

REQUEST TO THE IPCC

Syun Akasofu [sakasofu@iarc.uaf.edu]
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks

We encounter scientific terms, such as climate change, global warming, the greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide a few times every day in newspapers, radio broadcasts, TV news, as well as in conversations among people. It must be the first time in the history of science that a specific scientific field has gotten so much attention from the public. As a scientist, I am pleased about the public's interest in science. Unfortunately, however, I am afraid that this great interest by the public in climatology is largely the result of a proliferating number of confusing stories in the media that are based on misinterpreted information about the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide.
If the IPCC wants to represent this particular scientific field to the world, they are responsible for rectifying the great confusion and misinterpretation of scientific facts in the mind of the public. Some of the items that need clarification and action are:
1. Define climate change, global warming, manmade greenhouse effect, and ask the public to stop the synonymous use of these terms. (Those who use these terms synonymously do not know what they are talking about.)
2. Ask the mass media to stop using scenes of large blocks of ice falling off the terminus of a glacier and of the spring break-up in the Arctic as supposedly due to the manmade greenhouse effect. (Glaciers are 'rivers of ice', so that calving is natural, and spring break-up is a normal, annual event; both have been going on from the geological time.)
3. Ask the mass medial to stop using collapsing houses built on permafrost (frozen ground) as a result of the manmade greenhouse effect. (Their collapse is due to improper construction that allows the house heat to melt the permafrost underneath the structure.)
4. Tell that sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is not a single plate of ice. (The area covered by sea ice changes considerably because of winds and ocean currents, not just by melting.)
5. Call attention to the fact that anomalous, extreme, and unusual weather phenomena are not directly related to the manmade greenhouse effect. (The manmade greenhouse effect is represented by a slow increase of temperature at the rate of 0.6°C/per 100 years.)
6. Acknowledge that the use of the so-called "hockey stick" figure in the 2001 Summary Report for Policy Makers was not appropriate. (It shows a sudden increase of temperature around 1900 after a slow decrease for 900 years, giving the impression of 'abrupt climate change'.)
7. Acknowledge that the present warming trend is not unusual or abnormal in the light of past temperature changes. (There were many warmer periods than the present one, which
lasted hundreds of years during the present interglacial period that began 10,000 years ago.)
8. Distinguish between the manmade greenhouse effect and a great variety of manmade environmental destructions, which are often mentioned by greenhouse advocates in the same breath. (The latter includes results from the over-harvesting of forests and fish, pollution, extinction of some species.)
9. Stop media reports telling that the sea level has already increased several meters during the last 50 years. (According to the 2007 IPCC Report, the rising rate is 1.8mm/yer, so that the sea level increased 9 cm during the last 50 years.)
10. Scientists who study satellite data should not use the term "unprecedented changes". (They do not have satellite data before the 1970s and cannot tell if any of the changes are "unprecedented", even those that occurred in the 1930s or 1940s, not having comparable data.)
11. Encourage the mass media not to report only on sensational scientific findings that may represent the opinion of only one scientist or a few. (Reporters who are not familiar with arctic phenomena tend to report normal features as anomalous.)
12. Remind scientists to be careful about hinting at possible disaster scenarios resulting from the greenhouse effect of CO2 without solid scientific bases.
I believe these are reasonable requests, over which no debate is needed. The public is alarmed and thus concerned about climate change largely because they are confused by the above and other misinformation and misunderstanding, not because they are particularly interested in climatology. People bring up these and many other misunderstood issues when I discuss the present warming trend with the public. I am concerned about the inevitable backlash against science and scientists, when the public learns the correct information about climate change. Even if the IPCC is not directly responsible for the present confusion, they should take the necessary responsible action to help rectify the situation.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Founding Director
International Arctic Research Center
P.O. Box 757340
Fairbanks, AK 99775-7340, USA
e-mail: sakasofu@iarc.uaf.edu
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/
832. vortfix
00:21 GMT le 19 décembre 2007
Not again!
831. moonlightcowboy
23:52 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
What happened to the ice, ice baby blog, baby?
Member Since: 9 juillet 2006 Posts: 184 Comments: 29594
830. Tazmanian
22:40 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
bump
Member Since: 21 mai 2006 Posts: 5089 Comments: 114049
829. latitude25
21:22 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Why in this world would anyone think the IPCC is un-biased?
They tell you exactly that they are biased, right on their website.

Link

"The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change
with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor
does it monitor climate related data or parameters.
Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis
the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide
relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change,
its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific,
technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards,
and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."

To report only on the risk of human-induced climate change.
and only the risks
of only human-induced climate change

That eliminates any thing that is not a risk,
and anything that might not be caused by humans.
Member Since: 24 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
828. moonlightcowboy
20:26 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
822. salvadore 7:36 PM GMT on December 18, 2007
Truth be told, the main reason I've been hanging around is because I enjoy calling people on their crap and seeing how they react. Lots of opportunity for that here and it has been amusing.


Yes, the truth is a good thing! Thanks, sal and glad to know the reason you're here is purely for psychological perspective and comical review. Evidently though, "truth" as you see it has little merit as evidenced in your belief that the IPCC is an unbiased, above reproach body of "true" science.

Now, that truly is comical!
Member Since: 9 juillet 2006 Posts: 184 Comments: 29594
827. vortfix
19:54 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Try and keep up will ya Lat? lol
826. latitude25
19:53 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Then that settles it

When people retire, they literally stop

I am amazed I can still drive a car.
Member Since: 24 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
825. moonlightcowboy
19:53 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
LMAO, Pat...yep, sounds like where we're headed alright! Too funny!
Member Since: 9 juillet 2006 Posts: 184 Comments: 29594
824. Patrap
19:41 GMT le 18 décembre 2007


820. GulfScotsman 1:28 PM CST on December 18, 2007
what is the current number for atmoshpheric carbon dioxide? 370 or something?








Current Co2 readings are 378.658 Captain.
Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125530
823. latitude25
19:40 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
822. salvadore 2:36 PM EST on December 18, 2007
Truth be told, the main reason I've been hanging around is because
I enjoy calling people on their crap and seeing how they react.

816. salvadore 1:57 PM EST on December 18, 2007
I guess that's a difference between you and me. I consider myself to be a critical thinker
and take care to examine the things that I post (before posting)

765. sebastianjer 6:42 PM EST on December 17, 2007
Hendrik (Henk) Tennekes (born December 13, 1936, Kampen) was the former director of research
at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut, or KNMI),
and is a professor of aeronautical engineering at Pennsylvania State University.

766. salvadore 6:59 PM EST on December 17, 2007
Tennekes has not published any original research in a peer-reviewed journal since 1990.
In 1990, a state-of-the-art computer would have had an Intel486 processor and a 40MB hard drive.
The world wide web barely existed. I'm guessing that computer modelling has come a long way since then.

""and is a professor of aeronautical engineering at Pennsylvania State University. ""
Member Since: 24 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
821. vortfix
19:34 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Banks See Green in Carbon Projects

Investing Directly Adds
To Potential for Profits
In Emissions Trading
By LEILA ABBOUD
December 18, 2007; Page C1

LONDON -- After piling into the burgeoning market for trading in carbon-emissions credits, some financial firms on Wall Street and elsewhere are going a step further, getting into the nitty-gritty of fixing leaking oil pipes in Russia and building hydroelectric dams in Latin America to create new credits themselves.

Those projects stand to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, one of the chief causes of climate change. The banks see a different kind of green, though. The projects can be converted into carbon credits, which can be sold at a profit on the European carbon market.

For financial firms such as Barclays PLC; Allianz SE's Dresdner Kleinwort and its carbon expert, Ingo Ramming; and Morgan Stanley, the decision to get their hands dirty with carbon-reduction projects is adding a new dimension to the emerging carbon-trading business. By getting directly involved, the firms are no longer simply acting as middlemen executing trades but are sometimes flexing their own financing muscle as well.

"It's a sign that the banks genuinely believe that the multibillion-dollar carbon market is only going to grow and grow," said Andreas Arvanitakis, an analyst at Point Carbon, a carbon-market research firm based in Oslo.



special thanks to EmmyRose
820. GulfScotsman
19:28 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
what is the current number for atmoshpheric carbon dioxide? 370 or something?
Member Since: 15 juin 2006 Posts: 455 Comments: 13538
819. latitude25
19:22 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
816. salvadore 1:57 PM EST on December 18, 2007
I guess that's a difference between you and me. I consider myself to be a critical thinker
and take care to examine the things that I post (before posting)

765. sebastianjer 6:42 PM EST on December 17, 2007
Hendrik (Henk) Tennekes (born December 13, 1936, Kampen) was the former director of research
at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut, or KNMI),
and is a professor of aeronautical engineering at Pennsylvania State University.

766. salvadore 6:59 PM EST on December 17, 2007
Tennekes has not published any original research in a peer-reviewed journal since 1990.
In 1990, a state-of-the-art computer would have had an Intel486 processor and a 40MB hard drive.
The world wide web barely existed. I'm guessing that computer modelling has come a long way since then.

""and is a professor of aeronautical engineering at Pennsylvania State University. ""

Member Since: 24 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
818. sebastianjer
19:08 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Sorry Sal
but that is funny, don't worry I will no longer respond to you at all.
Member Since: 26 août 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
817. latitude25
19:07 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Hut Point Peninsula, near Scott Base, Antarctica , is in an unusual
heatwave of 3 degrees Celsius (37.4 degrees Fahrenheit).


I don't know if it would be called unusual.
They are in summer, and summer temps average 20F. That's an average of the highs and lows.

Link

"The lowest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was -129F.
The warmest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 59F.
The average summer temperature is 20F. The average winter temperature is -30F."

I didn't know this:

"The Antarctic is colder than the North Pole because it warms up faster and it cools down faster.
Antarctica gets warmer faster than the Arctic because the Ocean water carries heat from the equator to the poles.
The land of Antarctica heats up faster than the waters of the Arctic."
Member Since: 24 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
815. Patrap
18:36 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Palmer Station, Antartica..wu-page Link
Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125530
814. Patrap
18:34 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
December 17, 2007 - Heat Wave in Antarctica.

Hut Point Peninsula, near Scott Base, Antarctica , is in an unusual
heatwave of 3 degrees Celsius (37.4 degrees Fahrenheit).
Image courtesy Scott Base.

Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125530
813. vortfix
18:34 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Jer.....Sal is a climate alarmist and a Shill!
He is bound by some blood oath to never, ever accept any research published after March, 2005!
I think Hansen requires that of all his Shills.

812. sebastianjer
18:29 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Sal
If a publication does not agree with the IPCC consensus(?), it is not worth siting? How narrow minded is that. The chart provided was a review of scientific papers and what the current consensus was, based upon those papers regarding the Mideval Warming Period. So what's the problem, is the chart inaccurate? Did I try to hide the source of the material, I sited it with a link. I did not say the chart was peer reviewed only that the chart represented peer reviewed articles.

Guess what there are a lot of publications, web sites and scientist who do not agree with the IPCC consensus, do you have a problem with that? Are they evil or something? Please tell us how you really feel. Your opinion is just as valid as mine or anyone else, so please let her rip, I simply post articles and scientific info that I believe support my basic beliefs, why not post yours instead of attacking mine. Go ahead, I promise not to attack any scientific articles, credentials or opinions you may put on here, if you'll do the same. Feel free to post any scientific information that counters any info I put on here, I certainly post info that counters IPCC consensus material. I think that is called reasonable debate.
Member Since: 26 août 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
811. vortfix
18:23 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Well Lat......at this rate (lol) That ice boat may be a permanent observation deck in the Arctic with temps being what they have been recently.
810. latitude25
18:07 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Ice Boat Details Ozone Collapse

or drift, or shift, or not
In spite of the sensational headline, they don't know

Link

"But a lot of this is speculation at the moment because so much of this information is new and we are not sure what to make of it."
"It's a possibility, but as I say this is still speculative," stressed Dr Bottenheim
" It tells us the layers in the ocean don't work in quite the way we thought they did."

But we can design very accurate climate models
and tell you exactly what imminent disasters are in the immediate future.

"With just over half of International Polar Year (IPY) still left to run"

Which means, they have not hit the really cold weather yet.

Member Since: 24 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
809. vortfix
18:06 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Now serving as Chairman of the Board, CRAIG D. IDSO is the founder and former President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Dr. Idso received his B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, his M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, and his Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University, where he studied as one of a small group of University Graduate Scholars.
Dr. Idso's current research focus is on carbon sequestration, but he remains actively involved in several other aspects of global and environmental change, including climatology and meteorology, along with their impacts on agriculture. Dr. Idso has published scientific articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations, the latter of which he investigated via a National Science Foundation grant as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. In addition, he has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University, and in Physical Geography at Mesa and Chandler-Gilbert Community Colleges.

Dr. Idso is the former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, Missouri and is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, Association of American Geographers, Ecological Society of America, and The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi.


(from CO2 Science.org)
808. vortfix
17:53 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
The big dig: Monster storm a record-breaker

Ottawa's 'snowiest December day' brings on a flurry of headaches

Published: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Ottawa will continue to crawl out from a record-breaking snowfall today as crews tackle one of the biggest snow removal operations in the city's history.

"It's no Academy Award, but it was the snowiest December day ever in the capital," said Environment Canada meteorologist David Phillips.

In total, 37 centimetres fell in Sunday's storm, setting a record for the most snow in a single December day since Environment Canada started keeping records in 1938. The previous record was 30.4 centimetres, which fell Dec. 21, 1977.

However, the record for most snowfall in a 24-hour period remains 40.4 centimetres, which fell March 2, 1947. In that monster storm, considered the biggest in Ottawa's history, around 80 centimetres of snow fell over a 48-hour period, paralysing the city. Eight people died in accidents, a woman delivered a baby while en route to the hospital in a toboggan, and children skied to school.

This most recent storm has caused some headaches as well. While Ottawa-area schools were open yesterday, all school bus service was cancelled.

There is now a 75-centimetre blanket of snow on the ground in Ottawa. That's the most snow that has been on the ground at one time since Environment Canada started keeping track in 1955, said Mr. Phillips. The previous record was 68 centimetres in 1977.

This should come as no shock to the thousands of Ottawa residents who were forced to dig their cars out from massive snow piles on Sunday and yesterday.

Ben Willis, 24, relocated to Ottawa from New Jersey only a month ago, and said he was shocked when he looked outside Sunday.

"I knew it was going to be a little bit colder, but I didn't expect the snow to be like it was. It's unbelievable."

Mr. Willis managed to dig his car out and get to work on Sunday, only to have his car snowed in again by the plow that came to clear the lot. He said it took him and his co-workers an hour an a half just to go to a nearby grocery store and grab some dinner.

Mr. Willis said he doesn't know how long he plans to stick around Ottawa -- it depends on whether the weather gets any worse.

The total cumulative snowfall so far this year is 148 centimetres, including almost 90 centimetres in December. At this time last year, only 18 centimetres had fallen.
"Unless there's a monsoon, you're now guaranteed to have a white Christmas," Mr. Phillips said. "Even the biggest grinch should like that."

806. latitude25
16:51 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
The latest data shows that Arctic Sea Ice is recovering rapidly from last
years over hyped melting.
Ice cover is almost back to normal,
it has not had time to build up the thickness of the ice yet.

The graph only goes to Nov 8, and does not take into account the massive
cold weather after Nov 8
Here's the graph Link

And these animations are great, they illustrate the rapid rate of recovery
Link
Member Since: 24 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
805. cyclonebuster
15:50 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
And what does the "High Court" in London know about weather?
Member Since: 2 janvier 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
804. vortfix
15:36 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Yet another installment from Lord Monckton!

This one has been around since Late October.....but has been updated a bit:


35 Inconvenient Truths

THE ERRORS IN AL GORE'S MOVIE


In October 2007 the High Court in London identified nine "errors" in the movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note, he would have made a finding that the Government's distribution of the film to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.

803. cyclonebuster
15:23 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Without Its Insulating Ice Cap, Arctic Surface Waters Warm To As Much As 5 C Above Average
ScienceDaily (Dec. 17, 2007) — Record-breaking amounts of ice-free water have deprived the Arctic of more of its natural "sunscreen" than ever in recent summers. The effect is so pronounced that sea surface temperatures rose to 5 C above average in one place this year, a high never before observed, says the oceanographer who has compiled the first-ever look at average sea surface temperatures for the region.
Link
Member Since: 2 janvier 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
802. latitude25
14:50 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
But it seems what this is saying is that a bunch of science has been done since the "hockey stick" came out

Of course it has.

The UN and the IPCC, first blind sided most of the people by releasing
reports that the IPCC had jiggled

Then immediately shut down their acceptance of all new science after that.

The IPCC has not taken any new science in over 2 and a 1/2 years.

So anyone that wanted to even contest their own work, or how their work was quoted,
was shut out.

Don't forget, the IPCC is not a neutral body of scientists

The IPCC is only a group of publishers,
that scan the material
and only present material that promotes the agenda of the IPCC, UN.
Member Since: 24 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
801. latitude25
14:41 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Peer-reviewed papers are true and accurate?

Short version

If they do not agree with you,
it does not get published

Or they send it back with notes in the margin
like a school paper
telling you, if you change something
they will re-consider it.

Most of the time, if something strongly disagrees with
the conventional wisdom, it will not get a
favorable review, called a hostile review
The people doing the review, also want to get their work published

and they can not disagree with themselves
That would be saying their own work is flawed.
Member Since: 24 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
800. vortfix
13:43 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
The IPCC implies that its reports are thoroughly reviewed by thousands of experts. Any impression that thousands of scientists review every word of the reports can be shown to be untrue by an examination of the review comments for the report by IPCC Working Group I. (This report is crucial, because it discusses historical observations, attributes a likely cause of change and attempts to predict global and regional changes. The reports by working groups 2 and 3 draw heavily on the findings of this WG I report.)

The analysis of the WG I report for the 4AR revealed that:

(a) A total of just 308 reviewers (including reviewers acting on behalf of governments) examined the 11 chapters of the WGI I report

(b) An average of 67 reviewers examined each chapter of this report with no chapter being examined by more than 100 reviewers and one by as few as 34.

(c) 69% of reviewers commented on less than 3 chapters of the 11-chapter report. (46% of reviewers commented on just one chapter and 23% on two chapters, thus accounting for more than two-thirds of all reviewers.)

(d) Just 5 reviewers examined all 11 chapters and two of these were recorded as "Govt of (country)", which may represent a team of reviewers rather than individuals

(e) Every chapter had review comments from a subset of the designated authors for the chapter, which suggests that the authoring process may not have been diligent and inclusive

Chapter 9 was the key chapter because it attributed a change in climate to human activity but:

(a) Just 62 individuals or government appointed reviewers commented on this chapter

(b) A large number of reviewers had a vested interest in the content of this chapter

- 7 reviewers were "contributing editors" of the same chapter

- 3 were overall editors of the Working Group I report
- 26 were authors or co-authors of papers cited in the final draft
- 8 reviewers were noted as "Govt of ..." indicating one or more reviewers who were appointed by those governments (and sometimes the same comments appear under individual names as well as for the government in question)

- Only 25 individual reviewers appeared to have no vested interest in this chapter

(c) The number of comments from each reviewer varied greatly

- 27 reviewers made just 1 or 2 comments but those making more than 2 comments often drew attention to typographical errors, grammatical errors, mistakes in citing certain papers or inconsistencies with other chapters, so how thorough were these reviews with very few comments?

- only 18 reviewers made more than 10 comments on the entire 122-page second order draft report (98 pages of text, 24 of figures) and 9 of those 18 had a vested interest

(d) Just four reviewers, including one government appointed team or individual, explicitly endorsed the entire chapter in its draft form - not thousands of scientists, but FOUR!
The claim that the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report carries the imprimatur of having been reviewed by thousands, or even hundreds, of expert and independent scientists is incorrect, and even risible. In actuality, the report represents the view of small and self-selected science coteries that formed the lead authoring teams.

799. vortfix
13:39 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
6 - Peer-reviewed papers are true and accurate?

The peer-review process was established for the benefit of editors who did not have good knowledge across all the fields that their journals addressed. It provided a "sanity check" to avoid the risk of publishing papers which were so outlandish that the journal would be ridiculed and lose its reputation.

In principle this notion seems entirely reasonable, but it neglects certain aspects of human nature, especially the tendency for reviewers to defend their own (earlier) papers, and indirectly their reputations, against challengers. Peer review also ignores the strong tendency for papers that disagree with a popular hypothesis, one the reviewer understands and perhaps supports, to receive a closer and often hostile scrutiny.

Reviewers are selected from practitioners in the field, but many scientific fields are so small that the reviewers will know the authors. The reviewers may even have worked with the authors in the past or wish to work with them in future, so the objectivity of any review is likely to be tainted by this association.

Some journals now request that authors suggest appropriate reviewers but this is a sure way to identify reviewers who will be favourable to certain propositions.

It also follows that if the editor of a journal wishes to reject a paper, then it will be sent to a reviewer who is likely to reject it, whereas a paper that the editor favours to be published will be sent to a reviewer who is expected to be sympathetic. In 2002 the editor-in-chief of the journal "Science" announced that there was no longer any doubt that human activity was changing climate, so what are the realistic chances of this journal publishing a paper that suggests otherwise?

The popular notion is that reviewers should be skilled in the relevant field, but a scientific field like climate change is so broad, and encompasses so many sub disciplines, that it really requires the use of expert reviewers from many different fields. That this is seldom undertaken explains why so many initially influential climate papers have later been found to be fundamentally flawed.

In theory, reviewers should be able to understand and replicate the processing used by the author(s). In practice, climate science has numerous examples where authors of highly influential papers have refused to reveal their complete set of data or the processing methods that they used. Even worse, the journals in question not only allowed this to happen, but have subsequently defended the lack of disclosure when other researchers attempted to replicate the work.

798. sebastianjer
13:24 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Speaking of peer reviewed papers, lol


Figure Description: The distribution, in 0.5°C increments, of Level 1 Studies that allow one to identify the degree by which peak Medieval Warm Period temperatures either exceeded (positive values, red) or fell short of (negative values, blue) peak Current Warm Period temperatures.

What does this mean?

Level 1 Studies
Studies that allow a quantitative comparison to be made between the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Current Warm Period (CWP). These reports are very important, especially those that reveal the MWP to have been warmer than the CWP and that were published after the papers of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) appeared, because the authors of such Level 1 reports likely knew that their findings were not in harmony with the contemporary position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which strongly endorsed the Mann et al. papers that claimed the warmth of the latter part of the 20th century was unprecedented over the entire past millennium. Authors of more recent Level 1 papers have additionally had to contend with the contrary force of the paper of Mann and Jones (2003), which claimed that the warmth of the latter part of the 20th century was unprecedented over the past two millennia. Hence, it can be appreciated that the authors of many Level 1 papers were really "sticking their necks out" when reporting something considered by much of the scientific community to be incorrect, which would tend to give special credence to the sincerity of their belief in the validity of their data.

Source


I'm no rocket scientist, or even climatologist, lol. But it seems what this is saying is that a bunch of science has been done since the "hockey stick" came out that disproves its findings. Uh where are all the press releases on this?
Member Since: 26 août 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
797. vortfix
11:39 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Polar Bear Population Forecasts:
A Public-Policy
Forecasting Audit


The extinction of polar bears by the end of the 21st century has been predicted and calls have
been made to list them as a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The
decision on whether or not to list rests upon forecasts of what will
happen to the bears over the 21st Century.
Scientific research on forecasting, conducted since the 1930s,
has led to an extensive set of principles—evidence-based
procedures—that describe which methods are appropriate under
given conditions. The principles of forecasting have been published
and are easily available. We assessed polar bear population
forecasts in light of these scientific principles.

We take no issue with the scientific work of the researchers
whose work we have reviewed as it relates to the past. Our concern
is that there are currently no scientific forecasts of the polar bear
population; nor of direction or magnitude of changes. Without
scientific forecasts of a substantial decline of the polar bear
population and of net benefits from feasible policies arising from
listing polar bears, a decision to list polar bears as threatened or endangered would be
irresponsible.

796. EmmyRose
04:37 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Ha Ha Vort - I can sell you some carbon credits if you want LOL....
Member Since: 15 juillet 2005 Posts: 347 Comments: 76405
795. moonlightcowboy
04:34 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
Simon, kewl(figuratively - I'm sure it will be cool!) Ya'll enjoy...watch out for the bergs!
Member Since: 9 juillet 2006 Posts: 184 Comments: 29594
793. sebastianjer
03:11 GMT le 18 décembre 2007
What MLC said-

I think?
Member Since: 26 août 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197

Viewing: 843 - 793

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.