As science gets "better," global warming scenarios wither (emphasis mine):
THE world's top climate scientists have cut their worst-case forecast for global warming over the next 100 years. A draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained exclusively by The Weekend Australian, offers a more certain projection of climate change than the body's forecasts five years ago.
For the first time, scientists are confident enough to project a 3C rise on the average global daily temperature by the end of this century if no action is taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The Draft Fourth Assessment Report says the temperature increase could be contained to 2C by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are held at current levels.
In 2001, the scientists predicted temperature rises of between 1.4C and 5.8C on current levels by 2100, but better science has led them to adjust this to a narrower band of between 2C and 4.5C.
The new projections put paid to some of the more alarmist scenarios raised by previous modelling, which have suggested that sea levels could rise by almost 1m over the same period.
I'd like to point out that the "worst case" scenario went from 5.8 to 4.5 C degrees change (or10.5 to 8.1 F). That's a decrease on the order of 25%. Every indication in this article points to the fact that we don't really know whats going on. I thought there was some kind of consensus amongst scientists that said the earth was going to end? As I've said before, scientists (true scientists) revise their theories about as often as other people change their socks. Anyone who presents some sort of scientific ultimatum about any theory is setting themselves up for a fall.
I'd like to point out this nice little bit --
The new projections forecast damage by global warming, such as stronger cyclones, modest sea-level rises and further shrinking of the arctic sea ice.What it really should say, is the new projections forecast reduced damage by global warming, when compared with the deadly results hoped-for by previous studies. It should also point out that there is no correlation -- statistical or otherwise -- that supports any of these proposed "damages".
Also, as Dr. Patrick Michaels (author of the Association of American Geographers' 2003 Climate Paper of the Year) points out -- melting Arctic ice won't raise sea levels. "The Arctic ice cap is just floating ice...if it melted...it's not a land mass adding to water." Care to test his hypothesis? Pour yourself a glass of water and add ice. When the ice is melted, check the level of water in your cup. The ocean works the same way.
The article ends its usefulness thereabouts, and becomes a forum for global warming enviro-activists:
Australian Conservation Foundation energy program manager Erwin Jackson said the projections required an urgent and immediate response from the federal Government to drive accelerated investment in low-emissions technology in Australia.The Government keeps throwing up the costs of action but totally ignores the potential costs of inaction. There. Fixed.
"Every day we delay taking action, the problem gets worse," Mr Jackson said.
"The Government keeps throwing up the costs of action but totally ignores the costs of inaction.
"No one ever said that saving the planet would cost nothing - that's the bottom line.
A recent Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report on the cost of cutting greenhouse gas emissions estimated Australians would incur a fall in real wages of about 20 per cent if the nation was to unilaterally cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050.
Can you imagine? If we listened to these folks, if these folks were in charge, you'd see a 20 per cent reduction in wages across the board. That's scarier than any single tax on the books! And don't forget -- to make the message stick, be sure to scare the deuce out of your reader:
Just sign here, sir/ma'am.
"If these projections become a reality, our children face living in an Australia with no Barrier Reef, no Kakadu wetlands and a Murray River reduced to a trickle."