Posted on 06/02/2002 7:46:20 PM PDT by JerseyHighlander
There is a link to the preliminary reports open comment period, Here which has some further info that should be aired.
But while the report says the United States will be substantially changed in the next few decades "very likely" seeing the disruption of snow-fed water supplies, more stifling heat waves and the permanent disappearance of Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal marshes, for example it does not propose any major shift in the administration's policy on greenhouse gases.It recommends adapting to inevitable changes. It does not recommend making rapid reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming, the approach favored by many environmental groups and countries that have accepted the Kyoto Protocol, a climate treaty written in the Clinton administration that was rejected by Mr. Bush.
I wonder how many times this will get over looked.
FACTS....FACTS.....WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING FACTS!
Now what does this report create in term of precedence, or what would this report mean this election cycle if the media didn't stir it up at this point? Or what will this report and follow up reports do to solidify scientifically shaky climate change projection techniques during the next Democratic administration, 6, 10, or 14 years from now?
If this report had slid under the radar, a few thousand scientists in the climate change community/industry would have known of its existence. With this wide open airing (curteous NYT), it becomes a great foil to sow doubt in Bush's base as the the president's commitments on politically charged issues.
What's the use of an election, if we can't force these agencies to reflect the policy changes made by our elected leadership? They always seem to have the ability to pull an end run around any elected officials or appointees by going to the press and/or a cabal of unelected NGO's and lawyers.
But while the report says the United States will be substantially changed in the next few decades "very likely" seeing the disruption of snow-fed water supplies, more stifling heat waves and the permanent disappearance of Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal marshes, for example it does not propose any major shift in the administration's policy on greenhouse gases.It recommends adapting to inevitable changes. It does not recommend making rapid reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming, the approach favored by many environmental groups and countries that have accepted the Kyoto Protocol, a climate treaty written in the Clinton administration that was rejected by Mr. Bush.
The new document, "U.S. Climate Action Report 2002," strongly concludes that no matter what is done to cut emissions in the future, nothing can be done about the environmental consequences of several decades' worth of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere.
Its emphasis on adapting to the inevitable fits in neatly with the climate plan Mr. Bush announced in February. He called for voluntary measures that would allow gas emissions to continue to rise, with the goal of slowing the rate of growth.
From the intro:
"While current analyses are unable to predict with confidence the timing, magnitude, or regional distribution of climate change, the best scientific information indicates that if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, changes are likely to occur.
The U.S. National Research Council has cautioned, however, that because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warmings should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).
Moreover, there is perhaps even greater uncertainty regarding the social, environmental, and economic consequences of changes in climate. "
Sure, but they'd have to increase an impossibly large amount in an impossibly short time.
Remember, a lie becomes truth only if you choose to believe it.
Chapter 6: Impacts and Adaptation The discussion of impacts of climate change in this chapter is based on the U.S. National Assessment in the 2000 NAST Report. This report remains highly controversial, and was, at that time, the subject of considerable debate with regard to it scientific and policy discussions. The most contentious aspects of the report were (1) the use of the most pessimistic projects of potential climate impacts, with little or no discussion of the uncertainties involved in such projections; and (2) the use of global climate models to predict impacts on regional climates within the U.S. Global climate models cannot be used to project changes in regional climate, primarily because of insufficient spatial resolution and their inability to represent regional phenomena such as clouds. As was pointed out when the National Assessment was in review, the regional projections from the two climate models used often provide diametrically opposed projects for regional climate, making it impossible to determine which (or either) is (are) correct. Further, attempts to average the results from the two models are also without scientific basis. Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please contact Peg Gutmann at 313-594-0400 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
W. M. Kreucher
Of course, knowing what is really coming, none of this causes me serious concern. When the water canopy is restored around the earth, and the curse is removed from the ground, this entire planet will be a paradise beyond description. And you thought Jesus died just for your sins. He died to completely restore EVERYTHING we lost in the fall. Yes!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.