Please note the paragraph:
All leading computer models of the global climate system indicate that
natural variability isn't enough to explain the changes being observed,
causing most observers to conclude that human activities, notably the
emission of carbon and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, are the
culprit.




Global warming study forecasts more water shortages
Climate change already affecting Sierra snowpack
Carl T. Hall, Chronicle Science Writer

Thursday, November 17, 2005






A warmer world is virtually certain to be much thirstier, too,
according to a new study by West Coast researchers of the impact of
global warming on water supplies.

Climate change experts led by Tim Barnett at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in La Jolla (San Diego County) found that at least
one-sixth of the world's population, including much of the industrial
world and a quarter of global economic output, appeared vulnerable to
water shortages brought about by climate change.

Details appear today in the journal Nature, along with a separate study
suggesting climate models are proving to be an effective way of
analyzing and forecasting disruptions in water supplies brought on by
global warming.

Most experts see a clear warming trend over much of the world, although
regional impacts may vary. All leading computer models of the global
climate system indicate that natural variability isn't enough to
explain the changes being observed, causing most observers to conclude
that human activities, notably the emission of carbon and other
heat-trapping greenhouse gases, are the culprit.

Earlier work by Barnett and others has documented the regional impact
of climate change on California, much of which depends on seasonal
snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada to keep water taps flowing and farmlands
irrigated.

The latest study was an attempt to expand this sort of regional study
to encompass the entire globe, by identifying areas most likely to feel
the pinch of declining water supplies because of their reliance on
glacial mel****er and snowmelt.

Barnett and his colleagues -- Jennifer Adam and Dennis Lettenmaier of
the University of Washington -- excluded some areas, including
watersheds of the Colorado River in the western United States and the
Angara River in Asia, where reservoir storage capacity was judged large
enough to "buffer large seasonal stream flow shifts."

Some heavily populated areas downstream of clearly runoff-dependent
regions also were excluded -- even though they, too, would most likely
suffer -- simply because the scientists lacked a reliable data source.

Despite this conservative approach, Barnett said in an interview, he
was a bit taken aback by the extent of the world map falling within the
climatic red zone of impending water difficulties.

"This shows a rather dramatic region, a surprisingly large part of the
Earth, where you would expect to have serious water-supply problems in
the next several decades," Barnett said.

The warming trend already is showing effects in California's Sierra
Nevada snowpack, this region's main water source.

Climate models suggest average temperatures in the West will be about 1
to 3 degrees warmer by 2050 than at present. Even though total
precipitation isn't expected to change by much, because of the higher
temperatures more of it will come as rain rather than snow. At the same
time, the spring runoff will come about one month earlier in the year.

Expanding populations, agricultural and industrial interests, and the
need to keep streams flowing to protect vulnerable fish and other
species all promise to make the water situation even worse as the
climate shifts.

"I think this will be one of the first greenhouse gas-related problems
that will fall on the civilized world," Barnett said.

Some parts of the world, including a broad swath of Asia and India,
rely heavily on glacial runoff during summer months. That flow is
expected to increase as the glaciers recede because of warming, but
that just means the "water shortage, when it comes, will likely arrive
much more abruptly, in time, with water systems going from plenty to
want in perhaps a few decades or less," Barnett said.

All long-term climate projections are subject to attack from skeptics
who either doubt the reliability of the computer models or caution
against overreacting. The Bush administration and allied climate
advisers have adopted a generally cautious approach, calling for more
study of the problem.

Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow at the conservative National Center for
Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., said it would be only
prudent for water planners in the zone Barnett identified to expand
their storage capacity -- just in case.

"The one word of skepticism I have on these studies is that ultimately
we are talking about modeling, and modeling just doesn't have a good
track record for predicting the future," he said. "Basing public policy
just on climate models can be a very, very risky business. I would be
very dubious selecting one study, no matter how well peer-reviewed,
predicting the climate 25, 50 or 100 years into the future, when there
are so many factors involved in the climate that at this point are so
poorly understood."

A separate study in Nature, by P.C.D. "Chris" Miller of the U.S.
Geological Survey and colleagues, added some reassurances on that
score, suggesting that "an ensemble" of 12 computer climate models all
pointed in essentially the same troubling direction: less available
water for a warming planet.

wrote:
Please note the paragraph:
All leading computer models of the global climate system indicate that
natural variability isn't enough to explain the changes being observed,
causing most observers to conclude that human activities, notably the
emission of carbon and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, are the
culprit.


These are the same computer models that can't predict the weather for
next week - but never mind that - chaos theory and all.

Let me first say that I am NOT right-wing or conservative or employed by
an oil company (I turned downed Esso in my 4th year university). I once
belonged to Greenpeace (their anti-fur campain which caused a lot of
problems for people living in arctic changed my mind about them). I do
have an M.Sc. in Geology and Geochemistry which makes me more a
scientist than any of the science reporters and many of the "climate
scientists".

I KNOW the so-called climate scientists claim that only 3% of the
warming can be accounted for by natural variation. But in the past,
natural variation caused 100% of the ice-ages and greenhouse ages the
Earth and all her inhabitants have lived through. Why not now? Because
we discovered Venus and her atmosphere and her greenhouse effect and
think it can happen here. Because we have raised the most spoiled
generation of humans ever - so spoiled we think we can control
EVERYTHING including the weather. And if it's bad it must be our fault.
Because we control everything, don't we?

There is a stunning correlation in the little bit of climate data we
have more than 100 years old (tree ring data, ice cores) and the known
maximums and minimums of sunspot activity (kept by Chinese astronomers
for centuries). What is more intersting to me is the very recent
occurances - 1999 was Solar Max, and one of the hottest years ever.
Before that 1988 - remember the year Yellowstone burned? Now in 2005 we
should be at a solar minimum and be observing a general cooling but
guess what - last time I checked there had been 17 major solar storms
this year - 5 more than in the 1999, the year they were supposed to max
out. So the sun has been extra busy this year - but I have yet to hear
a "climate scientist" mention it.

I find it kind of tragic that a science in it's infancy, namely
climatology, has been taken over by emotional and political forces. It
makes a reasoned debate/discussion impossible. I can't get a job in the
"Earth Sciences" field unless I toe the climate change line, I can't do
that because it is just bad science - I'd rather be a fortune teller or
TV preacher if I was going to make my living that dishonestly.

"Black Dog" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:
Please note the paragraph:
All leading computer models of the global climate system indicate that
natural variability isn't enough to explain the changes being observed,
causing most observers to conclude that human activities, notably the
emission of carbon and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, are the
culprit.


These are the same computer models that can't predict the weather for
next week - but never mind that - chaos theory and all.

Exactly.....all the leading comupter models are expecting to find global
warminng caused by humans because that is what the base assumption is.

************************************************** **************************
*******88
Computerized models of the Earth's climate are at the heart of the debate
over how policymakers should respond to climate change. Global climate
models (GCMs)--also called general circulation models--attempt to predict
future climate conditions by starting with a set of assumptions about how
the climate works and making guesses about what a future world might look
like in terms of such factors as population, energy use, and technological
development.

Numerous analysts have pointed out, however, that many of the assumptions
used in modeling the climate are of dubious merit, with biases that tend to
project catastrophic warming. As a consequence, these analysts argue,
climate models have many limitations that make them unsuitable as the basis
for developing public policy.


Study Documents Computer Limitations

Computerized climate models have very little usefulness in the formation of
public policy toward climate change, particularly for policy decisions as
critical as ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, according to a July 7 study,
"The Science Isn't Settled: The Limitations of Global Climate Models,"
released by The Fraser Institute.

The study notes current global climate models have two significant
limitations. They rely on observed data, including surface station readings,
weather balloons, and satellites, which are of uncertain value and accuracy
due to the short length of the record and the need for adjustments to
correct for artificial discontinuities such as instrument and satellite
changes. Moreover, the models project future climate trends not only by
extrapolating from observed data, but by including "fudge factors" and other
complex adjustments that make the projections very unreliable.

"Climate models oversimplify many poorly understood climate processes, and
results from the models can be contradictory," said Dr. Kenneth Green,
author of the paper and director of risk, regulation, and environment
studies at The Fraser Institute. "Clearly, the data generated do not provide
a meaningful foundation on which to base sound public policy decisions,
especially something as significant as the decision to ratify Kyoto."

"Land surface temperature records are biased by the 'urban heat island
effect,'" the study notes. "Failure to account for local warming in cities
led to some claims of dramatic warming in the 1980s and 1990s and, while
adjustments are made today and the predictions of warming significantly
reduced, some researchers believe the adjustments to be inadequate."


Bizarre Assumptions about Economic Growth

"Scenarios of future concentrations of greenhouse gases are based on dubious
assumptions about the future," the study observes. "These scenarios depend
on other models of projected growth of population, economies, and energy
use. Some projections are so dubious that MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen, a lead
author of one of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]
science reports, has referred to them as 'children's exercises.'"

The study continues, "As researchers Ian Castles, formerly the head of
Australia's national office of statistics, and David Henderson of the
Westminster Business School and formerly the chief economist of the OECD,
point out, when estimating potential future climate changes, IPCC's modelers
inappropriately compared future estimates of GDP in terms of exchange rates
rather than purchasing-power parity. This produces GDP estimates that are
significantly inflated, leading to estimates of greenhouse-gas producing
activity that are similarly inflated. Castles observes that if such
assumptions are correct, then the average income of South Africans will have
overtaken that of Americans by a very wide margin by the end of the century.
Because of this economic error, the IPCC scenarios of the future also
suggest that relatively poor developing countries such as Algeria,
Argentina, Libya, Turkey, and North Korea will all surpass the United
States."

Green notes, "Canada's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, which many
Canadian legislators vow to reverse, relied largely on frightening scenarios
generated by computer climate models that are simply not sophisticated
enough to serve as meaningful guides to instituting public policy. Though
politicians ... claim that 'the science is solid,' even a cursory inspection
of the many problems with computer climate models suggests it is anything
but."


Reality Check

Green makes several recommendations that he says would provide a "reality
check" on the science of climate modeling:


a.. Reexamine the science of climate change and stop grounding policy in
the output of computer models of limited utility.


a.. Redirect some resources from greenhouse gas reduction efforts toward
research efforts to improve the state of weather and climate forecasting.


a.. Acknowledge that published scenarios of future greenhouse gas
concentrations are skewed toward improbably high growth in emissions and,
therefore, climate models using those scenarios will tend to project
unrealistically intense warming.


a.. Acknowledge that models cannot accurately predict the absolute amount
of warming (or other climate change) resulting from a particular scenario of
greenhouse gas concentrations.


a.. Recognize that some climate changes (both natural and human-caused)
are climate surprises, events that are not anticipated in advance (and, by
definition, are not properly incorporated into models).


a.. Perform full and transparent economic and risk analyses of the costs
and effectiveness of proposed greenhouse gas control actions, including
alternatives.


a.. Redirect some resources away from greenhouse gas controls and toward
researching probabilities of different climate change outcomes.


a.. Redirect some of the resources currently focused on greenhouse gas
mitigation toward research programs that will help people adapt to climate
change regardless of origin.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15721


Let me first say that I am NOT right-wing or conservative or employed by
an oil company (I turned downed Esso in my 4th year university). I once
belonged to Greenpeace (their anti-fur campain which caused a lot of
problems for people living in arctic changed my mind about them). I do
have an M.Sc. in Geology and Geochemistry which makes me more a
scientist than any of the science reporters and many of the "climate
scientists".

I KNOW the so-called climate scientists claim that only 3% of the
warming can be accounted for by natural variation. But in the past,
natural variation caused 100% of the ice-ages and greenhouse ages the
Earth and all her inhabitants have lived through. Why not now? Because
we discovered Venus and her atmosphere and her greenhouse effect and
think it can happen here. Because we have raised the most spoiled
generation of humans ever - so spoiled we think we can control
EVERYTHING including the weather. And if it's bad it must be our fault.
Because we control everything, don't we?

There is a stunning correlation in the little bit of climate data we
have more than 100 years old (tree ring data, ice cores) and the known
maximums and minimums of sunspot activity (kept by Chinese astronomers
for centuries). What is more intersting to me is the very recent
occurances - 1999 was Solar Max, and one of the hottest years ever.
Before that 1988 - remember the year Yellowstone burned? Now in 2005 we
should be at a solar minimum and be observing a general cooling but
guess what - last time I checked there had been 17 major solar storms
this year - 5 more than in the 1999, the year they were supposed to max
out. So the sun has been extra busy this year - but I have yet to hear
a "climate scientist" mention it.

I find it kind of tragic that a science in it's infancy, namely
climatology, has been taken over by emotional and political forces. It
makes a reasoned debate/discussion impossible. I can't get a job in the
"Earth Sciences" field unless I toe the climate change line, I can't do
that because it is just bad science - I'd rather be a fortune teller or
TV preacher if I was going to make my living that dishonestly.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Please note the paragraph:
All leading computer models of the global climate system indicate that
natural variability isn't enough to explain the changes being observed,
causing most observers to conclude that human activities, notably the
emission of carbon and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, are the
culprit.


How come the news doesn't tell us that the Martian polar caps are melting
faster than our own? Would it be because it might de-bunk the global warming
cause being mankind?

We need to stop Martian SUV drivers, because undoubtedly their CO emissions
are causing Martian warming.

But I'm sure that soon the leftists will be telling us that our CO emissions
are drifting into outer space and warming planets throughout the galaxy

Dan J.S. wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Please note the paragraph:
All leading computer models of the global climate system indicate that
natural variability isn't enough to explain the changes being observed,
causing most observers to conclude that human activities, notably the
emission of carbon and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, are the
culprit.


How come the news doesn't tell us that the Martian polar caps are melting
faster than our own? Would it be because it might de-bunk the global warming
cause being mankind?

Perhaps because melting polar caps on Mars has absolutely nothing to do
with our global warming? Ya think???

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan J.S. wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Please note the paragraph:
All leading computer models of the global climate system indicate that
natural variability isn't enough to explain the changes being observed,
causing most observers to conclude that human activities, notably the
emission of carbon and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, are the
culprit.


How come the news doesn't tell us that the Martian polar caps are melting
faster than our own? Would it be because it might de-bunk the global
warming
cause being mankind?

Perhaps because melting polar caps on Mars has absolutely nothing to do
with our global warming? Ya think???


proves its cyclical

wrote in message
oups.com...
Please note the paragraph:
All leading computer models of the global climate system indicate that
natural variability isn't enough to explain the changes being observed,
causing most observers to conclude that human activities, notably the
emission of carbon and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, are the
culprit.




Global warming study forecasts more water shortages
Climate change already affecting Sierra snowpack
Carl T. Hall, Chronicle Science Writer

Thursday, November 17, 2005






A warmer world is virtually certain to be much thirstier, too,
according to a new study by West Coast researchers of the impact of
global warming on water supplies.

Climate change experts led by Tim Barnett at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in La Jolla (San Diego County) found that at least
one-sixth of the world's population, including much of the industrial
world and a quarter of global economic output, appeared vulnerable to
water shortages brought about by climate change.

Details appear today in the journal Nature, along with a separate study
suggesting climate models are proving to be an effective way of
analyzing and forecasting disruptions in water supplies brought on by
global warming.

Most experts see a clear warming trend over much of the world, although
regional impacts may vary. All leading computer models of the global
climate system indicate that natural variability isn't enough to
explain the changes being observed, causing most observers to conclude
that human activities, notably the emission of carbon and other
heat-trapping greenhouse gases, are the culprit.

Earlier work by Barnett and others has documented the regional impact
of climate change on California, much of which depends on seasonal
snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada to keep water taps flowing and farmlands
irrigated.

The latest study was an attempt to expand this sort of regional study
to encompass the entire globe, by identifying areas most likely to feel
the pinch of declining water supplies because of their reliance on
glacial mel****er and snowmelt.

Barnett and his colleagues -- Jennifer Adam and Dennis Lettenmaier of
the University of Washington -- excluded some areas, including
watersheds of the Colorado River in the western United States and the
Angara River in Asia, where reservoir storage capacity was judged large
enough to "buffer large seasonal stream flow shifts."

Some heavily populated areas downstream of clearly runoff-dependent
regions also were excluded -- even though they, too, would most likely
suffer -- simply because the scientists lacked a reliable data source.

Despite this conservative approach, Barnett said in an interview, he
was a bit taken aback by the extent of the world map falling within the
climatic red zone of impending water difficulties.

"This shows a rather dramatic region, a surprisingly large part of the
Earth, where you would expect to have serious water-supply problems in
the next several decades," Barnett said.

The warming trend already is showing effects in California's Sierra
Nevada snowpack, this region's main water source.

Climate models suggest average temperatures in the West will be about 1
to 3 degrees warmer by 2050 than at present. Even though total
precipitation isn't expected to change by much, because of the higher
temperatures more of it will come as rain rather than snow. At the same
time, the spring runoff will come about one month earlier in the year.

Expanding populations, agricultural and industrial interests, and the
need to keep streams flowing to protect vulnerable fish and other
species all promise to make the water situation even worse as the
climate shifts.

"I think this will be one of the first greenhouse gas-related problems
that will fall on the civilized world," Barnett said.

Some parts of the world, including a broad swath of Asia and India,
rely heavily on glacial runoff during summer months. That flow is
expected to increase as the glaciers recede because of warming, but
that just means the "water shortage, when it comes, will likely arrive
much more abruptly, in time, with water systems going from plenty to
want in perhaps a few decades or less," Barnett said.

All long-term climate projections are subject to attack from skeptics
who either doubt the reliability of the computer models or caution
against overreacting. The Bush administration and allied climate
advisers have adopted a generally cautious approach, calling for more
study of the problem.

Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow at the conservative National Center for
Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., said it would be only
prudent for water planners in the zone Barnett identified to expand
their storage capacity -- just in case.

"The one word of skepticism I have on these studies is that ultimately
we are talking about modeling, and modeling just doesn't have a good
track record for predicting the future," he said. "Basing public policy
just on climate models can be a very, very risky business. I would be
very dubious selecting one study, no matter how well peer-reviewed,
predicting the climate 25, 50 or 100 years into the future, when there
are so many factors involved in the climate that at this point are so
poorly understood."

A separate study in Nature, by P.C.D. "Chris" Miller of the U.S.
Geological Survey and colleagues, added some reassurances on that
score, suggesting that "an ensemble" of 12 computer climate models all
pointed in essentially the same troubling direction: less available
water for a warming planet.


So what they are saying is that these areas will get more water but it won't
be stored for runoff in the summer dry months because it won't be trapped as
snow. So the answer is to build Dams in these areas, areas that don't have
enough water flow to justify the dams now (hydroelectric or water need) will
have enough in 20 or so years. Considering a dam project is a 5 or more
year project, planning shouldn't be a problem.

If we get a 2 degree increase our Midwest should get more water in the
summer months ( too much sometimes) from tropical storms in the gulf pushing
up through Mexico and Texas into that region. Florida which has been
suffering from dry seasonal weather (10 inches a year less than we need for
20 years) will get the hurricanes that bring the traditional water we
expect, or that those of us older than 50 remember. With that we get the
bugs, swamps and flooded land that we used to sell to the northerners.

A thought here, could it possibly happen that as we get more precipitation
from more water in the air (warmer temps cause more moisture in the air)
that this will cause a further increase in temp then more moisture in the
air until this excess moisture starts building up glaciers above the melt
line until they cause a drop in moisture then temp and we start the cycle
over again. Maybe it's not CO2 driven but a slight increase in CO2 from Man
or volcanoes can trigger an ice age in this way.

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan J.S. wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Please note the paragraph:
All leading computer models of the global climate system indicate that
natural variability isn't enough to explain the changes being
observed,
causing most observers to conclude that human activities, notably the
emission of carbon and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, are the
culprit.


How come the news doesn't tell us that the Martian polar caps are
melting
faster than our own? Would it be because it might de-bunk the global
warming
cause being mankind?

Perhaps because melting polar caps on Mars has absolutely nothing to do
with our global warming? Ya think???


proves its cyclical


Nah, it is the emissions from the Rovers.

P Fritz wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message
.. .

wrote:

Please note the paragraph:
All leading computer models of the global climate system indicate that
natural variability isn't enough to explain the changes being observed,
causing most observers to conclude that human activities, notably the
emission of carbon and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, are the
culprit.


These are the same computer models that can't predict the weather for
next week - but never mind that - chaos theory and all.


Exactly.....all the leading comupter models are expecting to find global
warminng caused by humans because that is what the base assumption is.

************************************************** **************************
*******88
Computerized models of the Earth's climate are at the heart of the debate
over how policymakers should respond to climate change. Global climate
models (GCMs)--also called general circulation models--attempt to predict
future climate conditions by starting with a set of assumptions about how
the climate works and making guesses about what a future world might look
like in terms of such factors as population, energy use, and technological
development.

Numerous analysts have pointed out, however, that many of the assumptions
used in modeling the climate are of dubious merit, with biases that tend to
project catastrophic warming. As a consequence, these analysts argue,
climate models have many limitations that make them unsuitable as the basis
for developing public policy.


Study Documents Computer Limitations

Computerized climate models have very little usefulness in the formation of
public policy toward climate change, particularly for policy decisions as
critical as ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, according to a July 7 study,
"The Science Isn't Settled: The Limitations of Global Climate Models,"
released by The Fraser Institute.

The study notes current global climate models have two significant
limitations. They rely on observed data, including surface station readings,
weather balloons, and satellites, which are of uncertain value and accuracy
due to the short length of the record and the need for adjustments to
correct for artificial discontinuities such as instrument and satellite
changes. Moreover, the models project future climate trends not only by
extrapolating from observed data, but by including "fudge factors" and other
complex adjustments that make the projections very unreliable.

"Climate models oversimplify many poorly understood climate processes, and
results from the models can be contradictory," said Dr. Kenneth Green,
author of the paper and director of risk, regulation, and environment
studies at The Fraser Institute. "Clearly, the data generated do not provide
a meaningful foundation on which to base sound public policy decisions,
especially something as significant as the decision to ratify Kyoto."

"Land surface temperature records are biased by the 'urban heat island
effect,'" the study notes. "Failure to account for local warming in cities
led to some claims of dramatic warming in the 1980s and 1990s and, while
adjustments are made today and the predictions of warming significantly
reduced, some researchers believe the adjustments to be inadequate."


Bizarre Assumptions about Economic Growth

"Scenarios of future concentrations of greenhouse gases are based on dubious
assumptions about the future," the study observes. "These scenarios depend
on other models of projected growth of population, economies, and energy
use. Some projections are so dubious that MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen, a lead
author of one of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]
science reports, has referred to them as 'children's exercises.'"

The study continues, "As researchers Ian Castles, formerly the head of
Australia's national office of statistics, and David Henderson of the
Westminster Business School and formerly the chief economist of the OECD,
point out, when estimating potential future climate changes, IPCC's modelers
inappropriately compared future estimates of GDP in terms of exchange rates
rather than purchasing-power parity. This produces GDP estimates that are
significantly inflated, leading to estimates of greenhouse-gas producing
activity that are similarly inflated. Castles observes that if such
assumptions are correct, then the average income of South Africans will have
overtaken that of Americans by a very wide margin by the end of the century.
Because of this economic error, the IPCC scenarios of the future also
suggest that relatively poor developing countries such as Algeria,
Argentina, Libya, Turkey, and North Korea will all surpass the United
States."

Green notes, "Canada's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, which many
Canadian legislators vow to reverse, relied largely on frightening scenarios
generated by computer climate models that are simply not sophisticated
enough to serve as meaningful guides to instituting public policy. Though
politicians ... claim that 'the science is solid,' even a cursory inspection
of the many problems with computer climate models suggests it is anything
but."


Reality Check

Green makes several recommendations that he says would provide a "reality
check" on the science of climate modeling:


a.. Reexamine the science of climate change and stop grounding policy in
the output of computer models of limited utility.


a.. Redirect some resources from greenhouse gas reduction efforts toward
research efforts to improve the state of weather and climate forecasting.


a.. Acknowledge that published scenarios of future greenhouse gas
concentrations are skewed toward improbably high growth in emissions and,
therefore, climate models using those scenarios will tend to project
unrealistically intense warming.


a.. Acknowledge that models cannot accurately predict the absolute amount
of warming (or other climate change) resulting from a particular scenario of
greenhouse gas concentrations.


a.. Recognize that some climate changes (both natural and human-caused)
are climate surprises, events that are not anticipated in advance (and, by
definition, are not properly incorporated into models).


a.. Perform full and transparent economic and risk analyses of the costs
and effectiveness of proposed greenhouse gas control actions, including
alternatives.


a.. Redirect some resources away from greenhouse gas controls and toward
researching probabilities of different climate change outcomes.


a.. Redirect some of the resources currently focused on greenhouse gas
mitigation toward research programs that will help people adapt to climate
change regardless of origin.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15721


Let me first say that I am NOT right-wing or conservative or employed by
an oil company (I turned downed Esso in my 4th year university). I once
belonged to Greenpeace (their anti-fur campain which caused a lot of
problems for people living in arctic changed my mind about them). I do
have an M.Sc. in Geology and Geochemistry which makes me more a
scientist than any of the science reporters and many of the "climate
scientists".

I KNOW the so-called climate scientists claim that only 3% of the
warming can be accounted for by natural variation. But in the past,
natural variation caused 100% of the ice-ages and greenhouse ages the
Earth and all her inhabitants have lived through. Why not now? Because
we discovered Venus and her atmosphere and her greenhouse effect and
think it can happen here. Because we have raised the most spoiled
generation of humans ever - so spoiled we think we can control
EVERYTHING including the weather. And if it's bad it must be our fault.
Because we control everything, don't we?

There is a stunning correlation in the little bit of climate data we
have more than 100 years old (tree ring data, ice cores) and the known
maximums and minimums of sunspot activity (kept by Chinese astronomers
for centuries). What is more intersting to me is the very recent
occurances - 1999 was Solar Max, and one of the hottest years ever.
Before that 1988 - remember the year Yellowstone burned? Now in 2005 we
should be at a solar minimum and be observing a general cooling but
guess what - last time I checked there had been 17 major solar storms
this year - 5 more than in the 1999, the year they were supposed to max
out. So the sun has been extra busy this year - but I have yet to hear
a "climate scientist" mention it.

I find it kind of tragic that a science in it's infancy, namely
climatology, has been taken over by emotional and political forces. It
makes a reasoned debate/discussion impossible. I can't get a job in the
"Earth Sciences" field unless I toe the climate change line, I can't do
that because it is just bad science - I'd rather be a fortune teller or
TV preacher if I was going to make my living that dishonestly.


Bravo, for a clear think.

When the Y2K debacle was unfolding, I told city council that is was
gonna be a fizzle. I didn't get the job. Perhaps I should have
jumped on the bandwagon?

Nature and sunspot cycles are as clear as mud. It is hubris to think
we are able to do much to cause or prevent climate changes.

We should concentrate our energies on finding alternatives. Mind,
those who presently sell buggy whips are not gonna watch their
industry fade into obsolescence without trying to regulate the
competition out of the race. The oil guys don't want to see any
viable alternatives, at all, nor will they ever.

They manipulate the market to ensure their financial supremacy.

Some enterpreneur will devise an alternative that isn't burdened
with the poison of oil money funding and steering comitte oversight.
At the rate it's coming here at home, we expect it will be a Chinese
or Indian enterpreneur.

Decreasing electrical demands of well insulated houses and low power
consumption lighting and electronics will increase the pressure on
energy producers to encourage continued waste to prop up demand and
prices. The psycological advertising war to sell larger, heavier,
more energy intensive manufacure of thirstier vehicles is proof
positive of their intentions.

I hope I am not alone in wanting a cheap, home solar cell charged
electrical vehicle for personal transport and grocery shopping.Two
seats, 100 kph, 100 km range, overnight mains recharge and canvas
for bad weather will be fine for most needs, thanks. I can see
welding a tricyle up from a couple of old bicycles and a few lawn
chairs, if only it were easier to get hold of electrical componenets
like a single rear mounted 20 HP regenerating wheel brake / motor
assembly and controller, etc.

Would GM or Ford want to sell you such a vehicle? Fat chance, we
must look elsewhere.

Water shortage or excessive waste? Farming, especially beef, wastes
most of our water while poisoning fertile land. It's the sprinkler
salesmen again, dammit!

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On 18 Nov 2005 06:11:08 -0800, wrote:

Please note the paragraph:
All leading computer models of the global climate system indicate that
natural variability isn't enough to explain the changes being observed,
causing most observers to conclude that human activities, notably the
emission of carbon and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, are the
culprit.


I don't know about global, but locally, we are about 13 inches short
of annual rainfall. Lake boaters are becoming eagle-eyed stump
spotters or frequent customers at the prop shop.

Where is the water? It is in the rising level of the oceans.

Well, we're about 15 inches above normal for the year...so I'd say that
that missing rain you were talking about, is not really missing. It's been
"found" by your neighbors to the south.

http://www.fl-dof.com/fire_weather/f..._rainfall.html