I wonder how much $$$ these fear mongers are getting from the Gore camp to spew this junk! It really is getting old!

"Here we analyze multimodel ensembles for the A2 and B1 emission scenarios produced for the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with the goal of identifying regions projected to experience (i) high magnitudes of local climate change, (ii) development of novel 21st-century climates, and/or (iii) the disappearance of extant climates"

And we all believed that the full IPCC report wasn't due out until next month. Yet, somehow the Univ of Wisconsin had enough of thier data to do a full blown ecosystem prediction. Thier "study" appears to based entirely on scenerios established by data that isn't yet available to auditors or the public.

I don't have access to the full report, but from what you've headlined Laura, the main assumption of the study is that the IPCC's predictions will come to pass. If I remember correctly, the IPCC scaled down thier 100 year temp forecast by 50% over the last IPCC release. Instead of the 4 deg C rise in global temps forecasted in 2001, it is now down to 2. I wonder if the folks at the Univ fo Wisconsin took this kind of "precision" into account?

I'd like to see the assumptions behind these models. You can make a model that predicts Armaggedon in a dozen years with assumptions and multipliers and high-impact feedback loops.

Somehow I doubt these researchers would put their own money on the table as far as the predictive power of models like these. It's academia--where tenure and endowments create fantasy land.

Oiz, it's probably less money than Exxon gives to psuedo scientists to spew the nonsense that they do.

Oiz, it's probably less money than Exxon gives to psuedo scientists to spew the nonsense that they do.

REPLY: I am going to play devils advocate here, Mark, and agree with you...You are probably correct...Because our side of the fence has more $$$$$$ than yours!......:-D....I'll dare that evil Exxon!.....And their cronies.....They only make my SUV go vrooom!......ROFL!!!!....

Climate zones change every time the earth has a polar tilt (theory), or polar wobble (reality), which may have been changed slightly due to the huge earthquake in 2004.

http://science.enotes.com/earth-science/polar-axis-tilt

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050330_earth_tilt.html

A Layman�s Review of the latest IPCC report (2007)

Is global climate changing?

Yes, undoubtedly. The only constant in climate is change. Average surface temperatures rose by around 0.6�C over the period from 1900 to 2000, possibly a few tenths of a degree less if we correct for the �urban heat island effect�. This warming trend already started around 1800, with 0.5-0.6�C warming over the period from 1800 to 1900, as well. Prior to 1800 the earth was in a global Little Ice Age, which started around 1300, with temperatures cooler than today.

Have atmospheric CO2 levels risen?

Yes. From around 290 to 375 ppm over the period from 1900 to 2000.

Is this increase in atmospheric CO2 levels man-made?

While man-made CO2 emissions are only a small percentage of the total carbon cycle, there is no doubt that man-made CO2 has contributed to at least a part of this increase.

Is there a scientifically proven link between increased CO2 and higher temperatures?

No. Just model scenarios that have been programmed in by the IPCC to demonstrate this link. Certainly the warming actually experienced from 1800 to 1900 and from 1900 to 1940 had little to do with man-made CO2 emissions.

If it isn�t from higher CO2 levels, from where is the warming coming?

We all know that the primary source of energy for Earth is the sun (not the exhaust gas from your automobile). Warming and cooling trends on Earth have always come from swings in solar activity, long before there were any automobiles or humans, for that matter. There are many scientific studies that show this link.

Is the �warmth of the last half century unusual in at least the previous 1300 years�, as the IPCC report states?

No. This is not true. It ignores the existence of the scientifically proven and historically well-documented global Medieval Warm Period, with temperatures higher than today.

But the latest IPCC report (2007) states that it is very likely that man-made CO2 is causing the recent and projected future temperature rise and that this will lead to all sorts of problems: melting ice caps; rising sea levels and flooding; reduction of snow cover and thawing of permafrost; higher ocean salinity; increase in severe weather events including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones; loss of habitat and possibly even extinction for many species; increase of tropical diseases; increased deaths from heat waves; etc.

This all sounds pretty scary (as it is obviously intended to do by the writers).

But is there any sound scientific basis for these dire predictions?

Fortunately not.

To put it in plain words, the IPCC 2007 report is largely based on �junk science� backed up by �garbage in / garbage out� computer models and leading to unfounded �disaster scenario projections�. Some examples:

� uncorrected surface temperature records show more rapid warming than is actually occurring
� claim (unsubstantiated) that urban heat island effect has a �negligible effect� of �less than 0.006�C per decade� has been proven by two separate studies to be untrue
� more accurate, more comprehensive and more pertinent satellite temperature record of the troposphere (available since 1980) is ignored (this shows 0.3�C lower temperatures during last 10 years than the uncorrected surface record)
� claim (unsubstantiated) that discrepancy between surface and satellite record has been reconciled is not true
� models created to show that greenhouse effect from �anthropogenic CO2� is the primary driving force for climate change when there is no scientific evidence or proof for this supposition and a significant amount of paleoclimate evidence to show that CO2 does not drive climate change
� greenhouse effect of naturally occurring water vapor is ignored � instead water vapor has been programmed into the models as a �positive feedback� to man-made CO2, more than doubling the calculated impact of CO2 alone on warming
� impact of clouds is ignored
� effect of variations in solar activity are relegated to a very minor role in driving climate despite fact that past records for millions of years show this is the major driver of climate on Earth
� claims made that Greenland ice cap has melted from 1993 to 2003, causing an increase in sea levels of 0.21 mm per year while latest ESA study of essentially same period shows an increase in Greenland ice, equivalent to a lowering of sea levels by 0.27 mm per year
� claims that reductions in the Antarctic ice sheet have contributed to a further 0.21 mm per year rise in sea levels over the period 1993 to 2003, when latest ESA studies show a net increase in Antarctic ice, corresponding to a lowering of sea levels by 0.08 mm per year
� forecasts sea levels rising by up to 59 cm (23 inches) over next 100 years, when the international organization responsible for monitoring sea levels worldwide states that any prediction for the next 100 years exceeding a maximum of 20 cm (7.9 inches) is nonsense and 10 cm (4 inches) is more likely
� claims that world-wide tropical cyclone activity has increased both in frequency and intensity due to global warming, when the record outside USA shows a net reduction in both frequency and intensity and the US record shows a reduction from 1940 to 1995 followed by an increase from 1996 to 2005 (including 2005 with Katrina and Rita), followed by a drop in 2006, with overall 1940-2006 record showing essentially no statistical increase in either intensity or frequency; also, theory says these are driven by the temperature gradient between tropics and poles, which will decrease with warming
� claims that other extreme weather events, such as heat spells, extreme precipitation events, thunderstorms and tornados are increasing due to global warming when there are no comprehensive reports to show this and many local reports show there is no statistical change in extreme weather events
� claims that tropical diseases have increased and will continue to do so as a result of anthropogenic warming have been refuted by world experts on these diseases
� population checks on polar bears, for example, show these are stable or increasing slightly on average and have increased from around 5,000 in 1970 to 22,000 to 25,000 today despite the warming

All in all, we should ignore most of what is in the IPCC 2007 summary report, just as we should ignore the sensationalist press reports on global warming and its dire consequences and the calls by politicians for immediate action to stop this �impending disaster�.

It�s all hot air.

But why do so many scientists and political leaders plus many in the media support the man-made global warming theory?

�Cherchez l�argent.�

It�s driven by an estimated 2.5 to 4 billion dollars per year in climate research grants, with the grants going selectively to those scientists who make the most disastrous predictions.

The media also love disaster stories, since they sell better to the public than �it�s OK� reports, thus generating more profits for the media.

The politicians and bureaucrats love the idea of �carbon taxes�, higher taxes on fossil fuels, �carbon footprint offset� schemes, etc., because it gives them more money to spread around (and more power).

Not only that, but it�s also become �sexy� and �trendy�, with pop stars, Hollywood figures and many other �media darlings� jumping on the bandwagon.

It�s truly a �win-win� situation for everyone, except for the people that will end up paying for this circus: you and I.

We�d be much better off diverting our time and resources from this non-problem of �CO2 pollution� to address the true problems of today, such as poverty, hunger, genocide, slavery, disease, terrorism driven by religious fanaticism, illiteracy, lack of clean drinking water and electrical power for millions of people, world dependence on a dwindling supply of imported fossil fuels, killing off of the rain forests, real pollution of the environment, etc.

Just think what we could do in these real problem areas with 2.5 to 4 billion additional dollars per year, not to mention the hundreds of billions it would take to truly implement the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol�

Max Anacker 30 March 2007

Max

My questions,

Recently co2 levels have been reported as being 380ppm, 360, 400 and by Nick Stern as 430ppm. Which one is it?
The level that scientists want co2 was reported as being 450ppm but has recently been increased to 550ppm.
At what PPM would CO2 be a danger?
Does CO2 have an insulating effect in the atmosphere?
Is there really a greenhouse effect?
Is there really global warming?
Has there been any unusual natural emissions of co2 since industrialization?

Will dust in the atmosphere become the nucleus of water vapour droplets?
How does industry affect water vapour emissions?
Does the steam from steel manufacturing, power stations increase water vapour. Does the evaporation from dams, irrigation changed river systems, canals and swimming pools increase water vapour?
Has AWV caused AGW?
Current temperatures are at record highs even if AGW is a myth, but has this also caused evaporation to exceed natural levels of water vapour?
Isnt water vapour a global warming gas?
Does this account for record high temperatures and severe weather recorded over the last decade?
If natural levels of water vapour have been exceeded will the reflective properties of cloud cover shield the planet from photon energy?

Is it possible that increased warming will increase cloudcover and cancel global warming because of global dimming.

Or is it all a plot by Al Gore.