If you’ve been following the news on global warming, you know that last month, the Intergovernmental Palen on Climate Change (IPCC) released a summary for policy makers. Scientific American published the key findings in an article Climate Change Verdict: Science Debate Ends, Solution Debate Begins. Now, a new article in New Scientist quotes independent analyst, David Wasdell, who claims that the policy recommendations have been “watered down” to appease various political powers.

Here are some of his criticisms.

Wasdell’s central charge is that “reference to possible acceleration of climate change [was] consistently removed” from the final report. This happened both in its treatment of potential positive feedbacks from global warming in the future and in its discussion of recent observations of collapsing ice sheets and an accelerating rise in sea levels.

For instance, the scientists’ draft report warned that natural systems such as rainforests, soils and the oceans would in future be less able to absorb greenhouse gas emissions. It said: “This positive feedback could lead to as much as 1.2 °C of added warming by 2100.” The final version does not include this figure. It acknowledges that the feedback could exist but says: “The magnitude of this feedback is uncertain.”

Similarly, the draft warned that warming will increase atmospheric levels of water vapour, which acts as a greenhouse gas. “Water vapour increases lead to a strong positive feedback,” it said. “New evidence estimates a 40 to 50 per cent amplification of global mean warming.” This was absent from the published version, replaced elsewhere with the much milder observation “Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback.”

The final edit also removed references to growing fears that global warming is accelerating the discharge of ice from major ice sheets such as the Greenland sheet. This would dramatically speed up rises in sea levels and may already be doing so. The 2006 draft said: “Recent observations show rapid changes in ice sheet flows,” and referred to an “accelerating trend” in sea-level rise. Neither detail made the final version, which observed that “ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica… could increase or decrease in future”. Wasdell points out recent findings which show that the rate of loss from ice sheets is doubling every six years, making the suggestion of a future decrease “highly unlikely”.

Download Wasdell’s report, Political Corruption of the IPCC Report?.

When will climate change stop being a political issue and start being an issue all humans take seriously and start actively trying to change?

Laurie David, wife of Curb Your Enthusiasm creator, Larry David, saw an abridged version of Al Gore's slide presentation on Global Warming back in May 2004. At that time, she was convinced it should be a movie. She says:

Right away I knew this should be a movie - I just knew it in my gut. So I asked Gore to come to Los Angeles and do the show for some of my friends. I booked a hall at the Beverly Hilton, hired caterers, and called everyone I knew.'

The timing was right, and there was enough talk about global warming that many people contributed services for free. The final production cost just over $1 million to make.

If you haven't seen the documentary, the vast majority of it is Al Gore giving his slide presentation with plenty of pictures and statistics. Interspliced between the scientific points are blurbs about Al Gore's life, motivations, and failed political campaign. The presentation is extremely convincing - even for those not following global warming in the scientific community, it's difficult not to walk away from the film with food-for-thought if not enthusiasm to curb global warming.

Even my dad, who is strongly anti-Gore, is coming around. After I saw the movie, I convinced him to buy the book (the movie still isn't playing there) and read it. Today, he mentioned that it was actually pretty good - aside from the random blurbs about Al Gore's life, which seem strangely placed for a scientific book. He also took the time to look up some of the scientists mentioned and found them to be credible and highly respected.

It seems that Hollywood may just be a good match for Gore now that he claims he's out of politics.

"Hollywood isn't very different from Washington, D.C., at least on the surface," Gore says. "Human nature is the same in every line of work and in every geographic location. But Hollywood and Washington, they do seem to have a lot of outsized personalities. Maybe that's why I'm attracted to both."

recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

In addition, a study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) studied rising sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and found that global warming fueled the 2005 hurricane season.

Using worldwide SST data since the early 20th century, Trenberth and Shea calculated the individual contributions of global warming and the AMO to Atlantic SSTs. They subtracted the irregular Atlantic temperatures from the temperature patterns in the rest of Earth's tropical and mid-latitude waters.

Their calculations show that about half, or 0.81 degrees Fahrenheit, of the Atlantic SST increase was due to global warming, while only 0.2 degrees owed to the AMO. The remainder of the increase could be explained by the aftereffects of the 2004-2005 El Nino and normal year-to-year variations in temperatures.

"We found the much hyped Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is important [to hurricane activity] but did not really contribute much to 2005," Trenberth told LiveScience.

Stephen Hawking also revealed he was concerned about global warming, saying that the Earth

might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid.'

And finally, the Supreme Court has agreed to take a case between environmentalists and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over whether the EPA should regulate carbon dioxide levels. The case, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 05-1120, will be argued later this year, with a ruling expected by next June.

The states involved, which together account for more than a third of the car market, say the Clean Air Act makes clear carbon dioxide is a pollutant that should be regulated if it poses a danger to public health and welfare. They argue it does so by causing a warming of the earth.

The administration maintains that unlike other chemicals that must be controlled to ensure healthy air, carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is not a dangerous pollutant under the federal law. And, officials argue, even if it is, the EPA has discretion over whether to regulate it, considering the economic costs involved.

The agency should not be required to "embark on the extraordinarily complex and scientifically uncertain task of addressing the global issue of greenhouse gas emissions'' when voluntary ways to address climate change are available, the administration argued in its filing with the high court.

]]> http://www.sciencereport.net/2006/06/26/more-evidence-for-global-warming-and-a-supreme-court-hearing/feed/ http://www.sciencereport.net/2006/06/18/scientists-receive-1-million-federal-grant-to-study-arctic-sea-ice/ http://www.sciencereport.net/2006/06/18/scientists-receive-1-million-federal-grant-to-study-arctic-sea-ice/#comments Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:45:26 +0000 Krista http://72.249.45.163/~science/2006/06/18/scientists-receive-1-million-federal-grant-to-study-arctic-sea-ice/ There may be a huge backlash to Al Gore's new movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and its message of global warming, but that's not stopping the government from funding a new study on how sea ice affects the movement of water in the Arctic Ocean.

Scientists at the University of Alaska Fairbanks have just received a sizable federal grant - upwards of $1 million - to study how storm systems affect water currents.

The middle sections of water in the Arctic Ocean are warmer than the surface, an unusual characteristic when compared to other oceans, said Harper Simmons an assistant research professor at the UAF International Arctic Research Center, who is collaborating with other scientists at the university.

That heat, if released, is enough to melt all of the sea ice in the Arctic, he said.

Sea ice is important because it acts as a big mirror, reflecting the sun's rays back into space. As that ice melts, heat is absorbed by the water surrounding the ice, raising water temperatures.

Source: Alaska Wire

Many are looking to hydrogen as the next great energy source to fuel the world's increasing demand. Theoretically, hydrogen is a great fuel source. Fuel cells strip electrons off hydrogen atoms to generate electricity (since electricity is just a stream of electrons). Heat and water are produced as byproducts.

In his book, A Thousand Barrels A Second, Peter Tertzakian discusses the main problem with hydrogen - where do we get it? Sure, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but virtually all of the hydrogen in the universe is contained in stars. On Earth, most of the hydrogen is combined with oxygen as water.

So what's the problem? Getting into chemistry, a water molecule is comprised of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. The bond between them is extremely stable and requires a decent amount of energy to break. As Tertzakian says

In order to liberate it, energy that we're trying to avoid using must be expended before hydrogen can generate electricity. In other words, hydrogen is not a new energy source at all, but actually an intermediary energy carrier that slots nicely into our existing supply chains.

In 2005, President Bush pushed for new nuclear power plants to be built. Producing hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles was one of the reasons why. Still, with over 230 million gasoline powered cars in the US, it would take about 350 new nuclear power plants to produce that much hydrogen. And how many people really feel safe with a nuclear power plant sitting in their backyard?

Perception and cost are also factors. As we're seeing with hybrid cars, people have to be sold on the idea that the costs justify the means. Talking on a national level is one thing, but when it starts to affect your lifestyle, it's a bit different.

People will want assurances that a fuel cell vehicle is just as safe, just as easy to start up, just as reliable, just as easy and convenient to fill up, and has the same range and convenience as the gasoline powered car or SUV. But having the same utility as a regular vehicle today still won't be good enough. If a DVD player was only as good as a VCR, what would be the incentive to switch? As it turns out a DVD player has compelling utility over a VCR - no need to rewind, direct access to segments, far superior clarity, and so on

With the passing of the bill to authorize prizes for fuel cell research, Congress likely thinks they will attract more researchers - like the $10 million Ansari X prize did for space travel. There will be 4 prizes of $1 million awarded every 2 years up to 2016 and additional prizes of $4 million for complete prototype vehicles.

When they first published their results, the study was attacked for ignoring other variables like humidity, atmospheric circulation and the strength of horizontal winds.

So they got some in-house statisticians to comb through the numbers again. The results support their original findings.

(Source: New Scientist)

PS - If you’re a global warming sceptic, you may want to check out George Musser’s blog over at Scientific American. He’s got a great free for all comment discussion going (at 170 comments as of last count) or you can skip to his summary.