Experts: Latest climate report too rosy

[Robor007 0]

Link to story on Yahoo

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer 46 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures. But that may be the sugarcoated version.

Early and changeable drafts of their upcoming authoritative report on climate change foresee smaller sea level rises than were projected in 2001 in the last report. Many top U.S. scientists reject these rosier numbers. Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations:

They "don't take into account the gorillas — Greenland and Antarctica," said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. "I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century."

Michael MacCracken, who until 2001 coordinated the official U.S. government reviews of the international climate report on global warming, has fired off a letter of protest over the omission.

The melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are a fairly recent development that has taken scientists by surprise. They don't know how to predict its effects in their computer models. But many fear it will mean the world's coastlines are swamped much earlier than most predict.

Others believe the ice melt is temporary and won't play such a dramatic role.

That debate may be the central one as scientists and bureaucrats from around the world gather in Paris to finish the first of four major global warming reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel was created by the

United Nations in 1988.

After four days of secret word-by-word editing, the final report will be issued Friday.

The early versions of the report predict that by 2100 the sea level will rise anywhere between 5 and 23 inches. That's far lower than the 20 to 55 inches forecast by 2100 in a study published in the peer-review journal Science this month. Other climate experts, including

NASA's James Hansen, predict sea level rise that can be measured by feet more than inches.

The report is also expected to include some kind of proviso that says things could be much worse if ice sheets continue to melt.

The prediction being considered this week by the IPCC is "obviously not the full story because ice sheet decay is something we cannot model right now, but we know it's happening," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate panel lead author from Germany who made the larger prediction of up to 55 inches of sea level rise. "A document like that tends to underestimate the risk," he said.

"This will dominate their discussion because there's so much contentiousness about it," said Bob Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a multinational research effort. "If the IPCC comes out with significantly less than one meter (about 39 inches of sea level rise), there will be people in the science community saying we don't think that's a fair reflection of what we know."

In the past, the climate change panel didn't figure there would be large melt of ice in west Antarctica and Greenland this century and didn't factor it into the predictions. Those forecasts were based only on the sea level rise from melting glaciers (which are different from ice sheets) and the physical expansion of water as it warms.

But in 2002, Antarctica's 1,255-square-mile Larsen B ice shelf broke off and disappeared in just 35 days. And recent NASA data shows that Greenland is losing 53 cubic miles of ice each year — twice the rate it was losing in 1996.

Even so, there are questions about how permanent the melting in Greenland and especially Antarctica are, said panel lead author Kevin Trenberth, chief of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

While he said the melting ice sheets "raise a warning flag," Trenberth said he wonders if "some of this might just be temporary."

University of Alabama at Huntsville professor John Christy said Greenland didn't melt much within the past thousand years when it was warmer than now. Christy, a reviewer of the panel work, is a prominent so-called skeptic. He acknowledges that global warming is real and man-made, but he believes it is not as worrisome as advertised.

Those scientists who say sea level will rise even more are battling a consensus-building structure that routinely issues scientifically cautious global warming reports, scientists say. The IPCC reports have to be unanimous, approved by 154 governments — including the United States and oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia — and already published peer-reviewed research done before mid-2006.

Rahmstorf, a physics and oceanography professor at Potsdam University in Germany, says, "In a way, it is one of the strengths of the IPCC to be very conservative and cautious and not overstate any climate change risk."

___

On the Net:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch/

[dalegg 143]

Charles, stop farting. Right now. I mean it.

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

Charles, stop farting. Right now. I mean it.

sowwie

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hopefully, the newly elected congress won't be spineless putzes to the power of the energy lobbyists and will push forward agressive legislation that realistically address our energy consumption, particularly our dependency on foreign oil, and find real alternatives.

[dalegg 143]

Hopefully, the newly elected congress won't be spineless putzes to the power of the energy lobbyists and will push forward agressive legislation that realistically address our energy consumption, particularly our dependency on foreign oil, and find real alternatives.

I doubt it. They all want to be reelected.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hopefully, the newly elected congress won't be spineless putzes to the power of the energy lobbyists and will push forward agressive legislation that realistically address our energy consumption, particularly our dependency on foreign oil, and find real alternatives.

I doubt it. They all want to be reelected.

They got elected to change the course in the first place...hopefully that includes our current policies regarding energy consumption.

....

WASHINGTON — As the House's new Democratic majority celebrated the completion of their populist 100-hour agenda Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) unveiled the party's next legislative target: an ambitious plan to wean the U.S. from foreign oil and slow global warming.

Pelosi announced that she intended to create a select panel to help craft the party's environmental agenda and had asked committee chairs with jurisdiction over the issue to pass legislation "to truly declare our energy independence" by July 4.

The announcement came as Democrats completed the agenda of their first 100 legislative hours with passage of a bill that would repeal oil industry tax breaks and put the estimated $14 billion in revenue over 10 years toward research on energy conservation and alternative fuels.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,5893956.story

[dalegg 143]

Hopefully, the newly elected congress won't be spineless putzes to the power of the energy lobbyists and will push forward agressive legislation that realistically address our energy consumption, particularly our dependency on foreign oil, and find real alternatives.

I doubt it. They all want to be reelected.

They got elected to change the course in the first place...hopefully that includes our current policies regarding energy consumption.

....

WASHINGTON — As the House's new Democratic majority celebrated the completion of their populist 100-hour agenda Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) unveiled the party's next legislative target: an ambitious plan to wean the U.S. from foreign oil and slow global warming.

Pelosi announced that she intended to create a select panel to help craft the party's environmental agenda and had asked committee chairs with jurisdiction over the issue to pass legislation "to truly declare our energy independence" by July 4.

The announcement came as Democrats completed the agenda of their first 100 legislative hours with passage of a bill that would repeal oil industry tax breaks and put the estimated $14 billion in revenue over 10 years toward research on energy conservation and alternative fuels.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,5893956.story

The Democrats got elected because people were pissed off about the war in Iraq. All Americans would love to get away from the dependacy of foreign oil, but very few of them know what that will mean. Considering the Democrats are in office, I have to say I am clueless as to what that will mean too.

Americans want every problem solved- so long as it doesn't affect them. If their lifestyle is negatively affected at all, they will turn against their elected officials. Just try raising taxes on Gas- see where that gets you in the next election. Democrats aren't going to approve of constructing more nuclear power plants or drilling in Alaska either, so what are they going to do?

[peejay 327]

Hopefully, the newly elected congress won't be spineless putzes to the power of the energy lobbyists and will push forward agressive legislation that realistically address our energy consumption, particularly our dependency on foreign oil, and find real alternatives.

I doubt it. They all want to be reelected.

They got elected to change the course in the first place...hopefully that includes our current policies regarding energy consumption.

As long as the costs are passed along to somebody else.

I saw it with air pollution in my city. Laws were passed to get cars off the roads that needed repairs to meet pollution standards. The taxpayer built mandated inspection facilities to identify cars through mandatory annual vehicle inspections. But it disproportionately impacted the poor, the elderly, Hispanics, Blacks, midgets, single mothers, etc., etc., yadda, yadda, yadda, frigging yadda.........and eventually the legislation was rescinded and watered down to where it made everybody happy...but did absolutely nothing.

Welcome to democracy. NIMBY!

[dalegg 143]

As long as the costs are passed along to somebody else.

I saw it with air pollution in my city. Laws were passed to get cars off the roads that needed repairs to meet pollution standards. The taxpayer built mandated inspection facilities to identify cars through mandatory annual vehicle inspections. But it disproportionately impacted the poor, the elderly, Hispanics, Blacks, midgets, single mothers, etc., etc., yadda, yadda, yadda, frigging yadda.........and eventually the legislation was rescinded and watered down to where it made everybody happy...but did absolutely nothing.

Welcome to democracy. NIMBY!

Yup. Maybe they could charge the expensive cars more for gas to offset the costs.

[Thingee 0]

NIMBY thinking sucks yes, but we're all guilty of it. I certainly don't want a detention center for pedophiles in my neighborhood.

As far as pollution standards for cars: some areas have made them stick.

[Lurker 0]

You hit the nail on the head with what you said dalegg. My thoughts exactly.

Hopefully, the newly elected congress won't be spineless putzes to the power of the energy lobbyists and will push forward agressive legislation that realistically address our energy consumption, particularly our dependency on foreign oil, and find real alternatives.

I doubt it. They all want to be reelected.

They got elected to change the course in the first place...hopefully that includes our current policies regarding energy consumption.

....

WASHINGTON — As the House's new Democratic majority celebrated the completion of their populist 100-hour agenda Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) unveiled the party's next legislative target: an ambitious plan to wean the U.S. from foreign oil and slow global warming.

Pelosi announced that she intended to create a select panel to help craft the party's environmental agenda and had asked committee chairs with jurisdiction over the issue to pass legislation "to truly declare our energy independence" by July 4.

The announcement came as Democrats completed the agenda of their first 100 legislative hours with passage of a bill that would repeal oil industry tax breaks and put the estimated $14 billion in revenue over 10 years toward research on energy conservation and alternative fuels.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,5893956.story

The Democrats got elected because people were pissed off about the war in Iraq. All Americans would love to get away from the dependacy of foreign oil, but very few of them know what that will mean. Considering the Democrats are in office, I have to say I am clueless as to what that will mean too.

Americans want every problem solved- so long as it doesn't affect them. If their lifestyle is negatively affected at all, they will turn against their elected officials. Just try raising taxes on Gas- see where that gets you in the next election. Democrats aren't going to approve of constructing more nuclear power plants or drilling in Alaska either, so what are they going to do?

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

NIMBY thinking sucks yes, but we're all guilty of it. I certainly don't want a detention center for pedophiles in my neighborhood.

if your neighborhood has a rifle and pistol range, that could work out

[almaty 19]

damn, it is cold here in st louis and for the next 10 days..colder than a well digger's azz in the klondike was the forcast....or was it something about a witch???

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

damn, it is cold here in st louis and for the next 10 days..colder than a well digger's azz in the klondike was the forcast....or was it something about a witch???

witch's teat in a brass bra in a blizzard at the north pole

[Robor007 0]

NIMBY thinking sucks yes, but we're all guilty of it. I certainly don't want a detention center for pedophiles in my neighborhood.

if your neighborhood has a rifle and pistol range, that could work out

I was thinking something along those lines as well. Other uses for pedos...

1. Fertilizer

2. Fuel for power plants (more clean than coal?)

3. Drug/product testing

4. Crash test dummies

5. Organ doners

I'm sure there's plenty more!