A couple of days ago I put up a brief post with a link to the new UN report on climate change. Tom Faranda's Folly: Global Warming Update #6
Well I read the report. It's 21 pages long (pdf format), the last seven pages being charts and graphs illustrating what the text and tables say in the first 14 pages. It takes about 45 minutes to read, including the footnotes conveniently placed at the bottom of each page.
I would strongly urge anyone interested in the environment to read the report. Here's the link - http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
The Report is nuanced and sensible. The report has "very high confidence" (that's nine out of ten) that the "net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming..." (Pg. 3).
BUT the net effects have not been dramatic. They estimate that in the past 100 years the sea level has risen 0.17 meters (that's seven [7] inches) (Pg. 5).
They estimate that over "the next two decades a warming of about 0.2 C. per decade is projected." That comes to about 1 degree fahrenheit for the twenty years. And that is if nothing is done. They state that "even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1 C per decade would be expected." (Pg. 10).
By the way, aerosols have the opposite effect of raising temperature; they cool things down. (Whatever happened to aerosols poking a hole in the ozone layer?)
A table on page 11 has "Projected globally averaged surface warming and sea level rise at the end of the 21st century for different model cases."
The average scenario projects a sea rise of 0.38 meters by the year 2100. So we have 93 years to adjust to a 15 inch rise in sea level. The worst case scenario - which is highly unlikely when you read the modelling description - is for a 0.59 meter rise (about 23 inches) in sea level.
The mean rise in temperature is projected to be 2.8 C., or a little less than 6 degrees fahrenheit.
What about the Greenland ice sheet? "If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for a millenia, that would lead to virtual elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting sea level rise of about 7 meters." (Pg. 13). Now a millenia is 1,000 years. So in 1000 years we could have (if all of Greenland melts) a total rise of sea levels of about 22 feet. Humanity can probably adjust to that over 1,000 years.
So read the report!
Now I love the environment and nature. I love hiking, I loved scuba diving when I lived in the Cayman Islands, and I want to preserve nature for future generations. But we have to ask the question, where are our priorities? Disrupt world economies and prevent third world countries from gaining a substantial rise in their standards of living, all to prevent a 15 inch rise in sea levels spread over 100 years?
I don't think so. There are a lot more risks out there - we're more likely to suffer from "nuclear winter" then from global warming. It's a question of resource allocation.
Here's what the Wall Street Journal had to say this morning on the subject: Climate of Opinion OpinionJournal - Featured Article
Here's the Washington Post:Global Warning - washingtonpost.com
And a good editorial on National Review:The Editors on Global Warming & U.N. on National Review Online
However moveon.org (they probably didn't read the report) sent out an hysterical fear mongering email, designed to raise money. The first sentence says:
The science is in. The clock is ticking. On Friday, a major new report by the world's top 2,000 climate scientists ended all debate. Climate change is real—we caused it—and unless urgent action is taken, it will be catastrophic.
If you really want the full text of the Moveon email, let me know and I'll forward it to you.
Recent Comments