maurizio morabito said…The AR4-WG2 report is interesting on several other fronts as well. It is the one place where (in its chapter 1) there is an analysis of hard data about the present-day world, instead of predictions about the future or discussions about models. I hope you will find the time to read it in detail, and comment it here.
For now I point out to an evident bias in what is reported: “Global Warming May Be Just European”
Maurizio Morabito ha scritto:
18 Gennaio, 2008 02:45 Non ho trovato dove l’IPCC predica un aumento dei ghiacci (marini?) antartici?
In compenso, dall’AR4-WG2, capitolo 15, che dovrebbe occuparsi di cosa potrebbe accadere in futuro:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter15.pdf
p655: preoccupazione se il ghiaccio marino (GM) antartico continua a diminuire
p656: nel TAR (il rapporto precedente) erano previste sostanziali diminuzioni del GM a entrambi i poli, e la diminuzione dell’albedo avrebbe portato a aumento del riscaldamento
p658: l’estensione del GM e’ detta variare molto, regionalmente, in Antartide
p662: riscaldamento previsto piu’ alto dove si sciolga il GM. Alcuni modelli prevedono un’amplificazione dell’effetto, in una banda ristretta degli oceani meridionali
p669: riporta diminuzione del GM intorno alla penisola antartica (nessuna menzione dell’aumento del GM altrove, come da figura 15.2, p658)
In generale di Antartide in quel capitolo si parla poco perche’ non ci sono molti dati, e ci si concentra sulla Penisola Antartica dove e’ stato rivelato un riscaldamento. Cosa questo suggerisca sul modo di pensare di chi compila i rapporti IPCC, lo lascio come esercizio per il lettore.
Da notare un’ultima cosa: nel capitolo 2 dell’AR4-WG2 l’Antartide e’ menzionato in maniera molto sparsa, e si dice che non c’e’ alcuna indicazione di riscaldamento globale di origine umana in quel continente, negli ultimi 50 anni.
If the IPCC has done such a great job on the Science of Climate Change, shouldn’t it have been awarded with the Nobel Prize in Physics, instead of getting the Peace Prize for its political activities?
Regardless of what you think of AGW, this is the first time in history that a Nobel prize has been given BEFORE the fact.
Usually science prizes are given to relatively older people as a lifetime achievement award. And usually, the Peace prize is the recognition of tangible results in the very recent past.
AGW has not happened yet, and there is no evidence yet that Al Gore or the IPCC have done something that will effectively stop/prevent it. There is no tangible result, not even a Kyoto-II agreement to speak of.
———
The other issue I would like to see discussed is how come a “scientific” group like the IPCC gets a political prize. Will the award settle the discussion of what the IPCC actually is, namely a campaigning lot and not the reliable repository of scientific information we had been told?
Recent posts – Messaggi piu’ recenti