Going on Nikolai's Blog!

[califas]

Global warming to devastate Europe first


15:56 19 August 04

NewScientist.com news service

European winters will disappear by 2080 and extreme weather will become more common unless global warming across the continent is slowed, warns a major new report.

Europe is warming more quickly than the rest of the world with potentially devastating consequences, including more frequent heatwaves, flooding, rising sea levels and melting glaciers, says the European Environment Agency (EEA) document, launched on Wednesday.

The changes are happening at such a pace that Europeans must put in place strategies to adapt to an unfamiliar climate, the researchers write, although they stress the importance of the Kyoto Protocol in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

“Europe has to continue to lead worldwide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but this report also underlines that strategies are needed at European, regional, national and local level to adapt to climate change,” says Jacqueline McGlade, executive director of the EEA, based in Denmark. “This is a phenomenon that will considerably affect our societies and environments for decades and centuries to come,”

“What the report shows is that, if we go on as we are, we have less than 50 years before we encounter conditions which will be uncharted and potentially hazardous,” she told the BBC.


Alpine glaciers


The report paints a dismal picture of Europe’s future, based on climatic changes since the Industrial Revolution, which have accelerated over the last 50 years. The concentration of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, in the lower atmosphere is at its highest for possibly 20 million years, and stands 34 per cent higher than its pre-Industrial Revolution level.

The global warming rate is now almost 0.2°C per decade, and temperatures in Europe are projected to climb by a further 2 to 6.3 degrees this century, due to the build-up of greenhouse gases.

Picture postcard European snowscapes are destined to become consigned to history books before the end of the century, and 75 per cent of Alpine glaciers will have melted by 2050 – melting reduced the glaciers by one-tenth in 2003 alone, the study found.

Sea levels are predicted to rise for centuries to come, at a rate of up to four times faster than during the last century – a particular concern in low-lying countries such as the Netherlands, where half the population lives below sea-level.


Biggest emitter


Freak weather conditions, such as the floods of 2001 that killed about 80 people, and the heatwave of 2003 that led to more than 20,000 deaths, are set to become more frequent and severe, the report states.

So far 123 countries, including all the EU member states, have ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases by 5 per cent by 2012.

Severe floods in Europe not rising
10 September 2003

Europe's weird weather warms debate
05 August 2003

Climatologists give waterworld warning for Earth
26 April 2003

Impacts of Europe’s Changing Climate, EEA

European Environment Agency

Friends of the Earth


But the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases - the US - has refused to sign. In order to meet the EU’s target of capping global warming to a rise of 2°C in temperature by 2100, the EEA report says greenhouse gases need to be reduced substantially.

However, the report says, due to the longevity of these gases in the atmosphere and the ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases, “the observed rise is likely to continue and increase into the 21st century.”

“The consequences of climate change are a very real and dangerous threat, yet international leaders seem to pay little heed to the warning bells,” warns Mike Childs, campaigns director at Friends of the Earth.

“Climate change is as big a threat to people and the planet as international terrorism.”


How is it possible that the US can ignore signing kyoto. REMEMBER THINGS GO IN ORDER. I BELIEVE THE WEATHER CHANGES WILL BE THE FIRST AND WE ARE GETTING THE FIRST GLIMPSE OF THIS. IT WILL BE ROUGHER IN THE FUTURE. I AM NOT AN APOCALYPTIC PERSON OR DOOMSAYER, BUT YOU GOTTA ADMIT, THINGS HAVE BEEN KINDA WEIRD LATELY.

OPINIONS ONLY NO BLISTERING ATTACKS. THIS IS ONLY FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES..

[Guest]

yea, i saw that article. If the global warming proceeds as planned though in my opinion, that will lead to slowdown of gulf stream, thus cooler temperatures. But as of now we are ing global warming.

[NorthGaWeather]

I'll believe this when I see it. By the way when temperatures start dropping in Europe what are y'all gonna say then? Its a pattern, the Earth is far too complicated for me, you or anyone to understand.

[Lindaloo]

**YAWNS**

[califas]

**YAWNS**

[NorthGaWeather]

Climatologists give waterworld warning for Earth
26 April 2003




How is it possible that the US can ignore signing kyoto. REMEMBER THINGS GO IN ORDER. I BELIEVE THE WEATHER CHANGES WILL BE THE FIRST AND WE ARE GETTING THE FIRST GLIMPSE OF THIS. IT WILL BE ROUGHER IN THE FUTURE. I AM NOT AN APOCALYPTIC PERSON OR DOOMSAYER, BUT YOU GOTTA ADMIT, THINGS HAVE BEEN KINDA WEIRD LATELY.

OPINIONS ONLY NO BLISTERING ATTACKS. THIS IS ONLY FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES..

I find the waterworld thing hilarious.

I bet it seemed weird in the late 60s/early 70s when the strongest hurricane and largest tornado outbreak occured.

Weather is always changing what happened recently is weather. Nothing new nothing different, it always is changing and is ALWAYS extreme and kinda weird.

[Anonymous]

I find the waterworld thing hilarious.

Isn't just so, so funny? Those super-intelligent, dedicated scientists that study the global warming trend sure say the darndest things!

[vbhoutex]

**YAWNS**

Climatologists give waterworld warning for Earth
26 April 2003

NaGa said it best. Weather is and always will be weird!!

MOTHER NATURE, whether we like it or not, or care to believe it or not, WILL ALWAYS ALWAYS WIN AND MAKE THIS EARTH EXACTLY LIKE SHE WANTS IT TO BE NO MATTER WHAT US MEASLY LITTLE HUMANS DO!!!

[Anonymous]

MOTHER NATURE, whether we like it or not, or care to believe it or not, WILL ALWAYS ALWAYS WIN AND MAKE THIS EARTH EXACTLY LIKE SHE WANTS IT TO BE NO MATTER WHAT US MEASLY LITTLE HUMANS DO!!!

Ah yes. Well said. Mother Nature will always win. That is why if humans tip the scale too far in one direct she will tip it back -- and it won't be pretty.

[x-y-no]

I find the waterworld thing hilarious.

Yeah ... it's real convenient when some headline writer uses some silly overblown word, because it means you don't really have to think about the issue seriously, right?

[x-y-no]

MOTHER NATURE, whether we like it or not, or care to believe it or not, WILL ALWAYS ALWAYS WIN AND MAKE THIS EARTH EXACTLY LIKE SHE WANTS IT TO BE NO MATTER WHAT US MEASLY LITTLE HUMANS DO!!!

Ah yes. Well said. Mother Nature will always win. That is why if humans tip the scale too far in one direct she will tip it back -- and it won't be pretty.

Well, yeah ... that's exactly the point. Is it really such a bright idea to keep tipping the scale in light of that probability?

[Anonymous]

Well, yeah ... that's exactly the point. Is it really such a bright idea to keep tipping the scale in light of that probability?

I agree with you x-y-no. I was being sarcastic above when I said "well said". I believe there is a risk here that should be considered and studied instead of mocked.

[USAwx1]

**YAWNS**

yep, better than Ambien. LOL!!! or at least it worked for me

[Guest]

why are some people so ignorant of climate change? It just shocks me that some people can have all the evidence shoved in their face and ignore it. All the people in Florida and Louisiana that are ignorant, if it doesnt turn to global cooling and the earth keeps warming, even a slight sea rise can submerge significant areas of those states. I'd watch it if I lived in those states.

[USAwx1]

why are some people so ignorant of climate change? It just shocks me that some people can have all the evidence shoved in their face and ignore it. All the people in Florida and Louisiana that are ignorant, if it doesnt turn to global cooling and the earth keeps warming, even a slight sea rise can submerge significant areas of those states. I'd watch it if I lived in those states.

thankyou for the very kind words for those of us in FL and LA.

Back in the 70s, there was ramped rumor mill about global cooling, (ice age development etc...) Dr. gray professed to everyone that we would see a reversal in the near future back to a warmer regime, and that these oscillations in climate patters were directly related to the cyclical changes in Oceanic Patterns (the ATC and PDO phase more specifically---the ATC weak/PDO warm phases are correlated with warmer than normal temps, and the ATC strong/PDO negative with cooler than normal conditons in the means over NA on a decadal scale), in 1995, the pattern reversed again (when everyone was concerned about global warming), back to a cold regime.

hey I leve in Florida, right along the Atlantic Coast and Im not in the least bit concerned, but then again I guess Myself, and those who agree with me are ignorant--know-nothing fools, Right?

[Guest]

no, im not saying yor ignorant for not believing in one theory, im saying some people are ignorant because they believe the climate isnt changing at all.

[USAwx1]

no, im not saying yor ignorant for not believing in one theory, im saying some people are ignorant because they believe the climate isnt changing at all.

Climate is not changing; it is oscillating back and forth over the course of many years.

If you’re trying to say that the earth is exponentially warming, then i would have to disagree.

[USAwx1]

Besides the ocean cycles, which we have come to better understand, especially in the past 10 years, more research desperately needs to be done on the longer-term solar cycles (beyond the 11 year periods) as it is likely those may have an equally important role in climactic ups and downs over the course of a century or more.

[NorthGaWeather]

why are some people so ignorant of climate change? It just shocks me that some people can have all the evidence shoved in their face and ignore it. All the people in Florida and Louisiana that are ignorant, if it doesnt turn to global cooling and the earth keeps warming, even a slight sea rise can submerge significant areas of those states. I'd watch it if I lived in those states.

This is a decent article on global warming
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n1/21-1f6.pdf

Also computer models in 90' showed the Earth warming 6 degrees in 100 years, now that is down to 3 degrees and is continuing to fall so it makes one wonder if the models will continue to decrease these numbers.

[NorthGaWeather]

Another great article disproving all the UN records.

Global-Warming Science Meltdown
by Patrick J. Michaels

Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, is author of the forthcoming book, "Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media." S. Fred Singer is emeritus professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. David H. Douglass is professor of physics at the University of Rochester.

How many times have we heard from Al Gore and assorted European politicians that "the science is settled" on global warming? In other words, it's "time for action." Climate change is, as recently stated by Hans Blix, former U.N. Chief for weapons detection in Iraq, the most important issue of our time, far more dangerous than people flying fuel-laden aircraft into skyscrapers or possibly detonating backpack nukes in Baltimore Harbor.

Well, the science may now be settled, but not in the way Mr. Gore and Mr. Blix would have us believe. Three bombshell papers have just hit the refereed literature that knock the stuffing of Mr. Blix's position and that of his company, the United Nations, and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC states repeatedly: (1) We have reliable temperature records showing how much the planet has warmed in the last century. (2) And computer projections of future climate, while not perfect, simulate the observed behavior of the past so well they are a reliable guide for the future.

Therefore, they say, we need to limit carbon dioxide emissions (i.e., energy use) right now, despite the expense and even though the cost will fall almost entirely on the United States, gravely harming the world's economic engine while exerting no detectable change on climate in the foreseeable future.

The IPCC claims to have carefully corrected the temperature records for the well-known problem of local ("urban," as opposed to global) warming. But this has always troubled serious scientists, because the way the U.N. checks for artificial warming makes it virtually impossible to detect in recent decades — the same period in which our cities have undergone the greatest growth and sprawl.

The surface temperature record shows a warming rate of about 0.17 degrees Celsius (0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 1979. However, there are two other records — one from satellites, the other from weather balloons — that tell a different story. Neither annual satellite nor balloon trends differ significantly from zero since the satellite record started in 1979. These records reflect temperatures in what is called the lower atmosphere, or roughly between 5,000 and 30,000 feet.

Four years ago, a distinguished panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded there is a real disparity between the reported surface warming and the temperature trends measured in the atmosphere above. Since then, many investigators have tried to explain the cause of the disparity while others have denied its existence.

So, which record is right, the U.N. surface record showing the larger warming or the other two? There's another record, from 7 feet above the ground, derived from balloon data recently been released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In two research papers in the July 9 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, two of us (Mr. Douglass and Mr. Singer) compared it for correspondence with the surface record and the lower atmosphere histories. The odd-record-out turns out to be the U.N.'s hot-surface history.

<b>This is a double kill, both on the U.N.'s temperature records and its vaunted climate models. That's because the models generally predict an increased warming rate with height (outside of local polar regions). Neither the satellite nor the balloon records can find it. When this was noted in the first satellite paper published in 1990, some scientists objected that the record, which began in 1979, was too short. Now we have a quarter-century of concurrent balloon and satellite data, both screaming that the U.N.'s climate models have failed, as well as indicating its surface record is simply too hot.</b>

If the models are wrong as one goes up in the atmosphere, then any correspondence between them and surface temperatures is either pretty lucky or the product of some unspecified "adjustment." Getting the vertical distribution of temperature wrong means everything dependent upon that — precipitation and cloudiness, as examples — must be wrong. Obviously, the amount of cloud in the air determines the day's high temperature as well as whether it rains.

As bad as things have gone for the IPCC and its ideologues, it gets worse — much, much worse.

After four years of one of the most rigorous peer reviews ever, Canadian Ross McKitrick and another of us (Mr. Michaels) published a paper searching for "economic" signals in the temperature record. Mr. McKitrick, an economist, was initially piqued by what several climatologists had noted as a curiosity in both the U.N. and satellite records: Statistically speaking, the greater a nation's gross domestic product, the more it warms. The research showed that somewhere about half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can be changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, or upkeep of records. This worldwide study added fuel to a fire started a year earlier by the University of Maryland's Eugenia Kalnay, who calculated a similar 50 percent bias due to economic factors in the U.S. records.

So, to all who worry about global warming, to all who think people threatening to blow up millions to get their political way is no big deal by comparison, chill out. The science is settled. The "skeptics," the strange name applied to those whose work shows the planet isn't coming to an end, have won.

This article originally appeared in the Washington Times on August 16, 2004.