Does Climate Catastrophe Pass the Giggle Test? por David Friedman:
I find unconvincing the claim that climate change on the scale suggested by the results of the IPCC models would have catastrophic consequences for humans.
Human beings, after all, currently live, work, grow food in a much wider range of climates than that. If people can currently live, work, grow crops over a temperature range of much more than two degrees, it is hard to imagine any reason why most of them couldn’t continue to do so, about as easily, if average temperature shifted up by that amount—especially if they had a century to adjust to the change.
In the course of a century, most existing houses will be replaced. If temperatures are rising, they will be replaced with houses designed for a (slightly) warmer climate. If sea levels are rising, they will be replaced, in low lying coastal areas, with houses a little farther inland. Over a century, farmers will change at least the varieties they are growing, very possibly the kind of crop, multiple times, in response to the development of new crop varieties, shifting demand, and similar changes. If temperatures are rising, they will gradually shift to crops adapted to a (slightly) warmer climate.
…. the claim that we now have good reason to expect climate change on a scale that will produce …. catastrophe for many is one that no reasonable person should take seriously.
Pedro Sette-Câmara
André Azevedo Alves
Carlos Guimarães Pinto
Helder Ferreira
Bruno Garschagen
João Luís Pinto
LA
Bruno Alves
Miguel Botelho Moniz
ruicarmo
Miguel Noronha
Elizabete Dias
António Costa Amaral (AA)
LT
Rui Oliveira
BZ
dos ∫antos
André Abrantes Amaral
planca12
rui a.
Rodrigo Adão da Fonseca
Adolfo Mesquita Nunes
Michael Seufert
Luciano
Carlos M. Fernandes
Maria João Marques
jtcb
Nuno Branco
elisabetejoaquim
filipeabrantes
Tomás Belchior
Bruno Gonçalves
Ricardo G. Francisco
Tiago Loureiro
Ricardo Campelo de Magalhães
Filipe Faria
Ricardo Arroja
Nunca ouvi falar no senhor e ainda bem, pois sobre os assuntos que me interessam só deverá dizer asneiras; mas, pelo tipo de conversa, as probabilidades de ser economista aproximam-se dos 100%.
Sobre a influência dos tais 2 graus na pluviosidade, desertificação, áreas de aluvião e terra arável, nada diz nem possivelmente terá nada a dizer.
Já não bastava ter do outro lado da balança um Al Gore a debitar asneiras!
Comentário por oscar vaz — Agosto 8, 2009 @ 17:06
Glaciers a canary in the coal mine of global warming. Só para equilibrar as coisas. Estes ao menos são cientistas que estão no terreno, a fazer ciência. E não a mandar palpites de bancada.
Comentário por Rxc — Agosto 9, 2009 @ 18:34
Climate Data: Top Secret!
Bizarrely, Britain’s main climate monitoring unit is purging its temperature records from public view.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climate-data-top-secret/
Comentário por inthelimbo — Agosto 10, 2009 @ 09:56
‘Weather variations, not global warming cause glacier melt’
New Delhi (PTI): Himalayan glaciers, including the world’s highest battlefield Siachen, are melting due to variations in weather and not because of global warming, Jammu University scientists have claimed.
“The field studies from other glaciers in India also corroborate the fact that inter and intra-annual variations in weather parameters have more impact on the glaciers of northwest Himalayas, rather than any impact due to global warming,” they said.
Geologists R K Ganjoo and M N Koul of Jammu University’s Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research of Himalayan Glaciology visited the Siachen glacier to record changes in its snout last summer.
“To our surprise, the Siachen glacier valley does not preserve evidences of glaciation older than mid-Holocene, suggesting that the glacier must have advanced and retreated simultaneously several times in the geological past, resulting in complete obliteration and modification of older evidences,” they said reporting their findings in ‘Current Science’.
Ganjoo and Koul dubbed as “hype” some earlier studies which suggested that the Himalayan glaciers were melting fast and caused serious damage to the Himalayan ecosystem.
There is sufficient field and meteorological evidence from the other side of Karakoram mountains that corroborate the fact that glaciers in this part of the world are not affected by global warming, they said.
“Overwhelming field geomorphological evidences suggest poor response of the Siachen glacier to global warming. The snout of the Siachen glacier of 2008 has retreated by about 8-10 metres since 1995, making an average retreat of 0.6 metre per year,” the scientists said.
Ganjoo said that the east part of the Siachen glacier showed faster withdrawal of the snout that is essentially due to ice-calving, a phenomenon that holds true for almost all major glaciers in the Himalayas and occurs irrespective of global warming.
The west part of the Siachen has reduced due to the action of melting water released from the retreated tributary glacier, he said.
Ganjoo contended the Siachen glacier shows hardly any retreat in its middle part and thus defies the “hype” of rapid melting.
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200908090931.htm
Comentário por lucklucky — Agosto 11, 2009 @ 00:09
San Jose Mercury News (CA) – June 30, 1989 – 3F General News
GRIM FORECAST
A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect…
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SJ&s_site=mercurynews&p_multi=SJ&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB7304FF9A84273&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
Comentário por lucklucky — Agosto 13, 2009 @ 21:31