Global Warming Science - www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming
Global Warming Vulnerability Contradiction
[last update: 2010/11/19]
|
The vulnerability contradiction: The countries that are “most vulnerable” are not the ones experiencing warming according to the data and models.
See also: Climate Cash – The Vulnerable Want More Money: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ClimateCash.htm
One of the “most vulnerable”, Bangladesh, traces its problems to overpopulation, not sea level rise: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Bangladesh.htm
|
|
Global Warming is “Dangerous”
Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC says that fear defines what’s dangerous. On Feb 16, 2009 he wrote the following on his blog: [http://blog.rkpachauri.org/blog/13/Why-Copenhagen-is-important-for-the-future-of-human-civilization.htm]
“The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has as its central objective actions to avoid a level of human interference with the earth's climate system that could be termed as dangerous. … the definition of dangerous is not a scientific issue. It is something that involves a value judgement involving considerations of equity and basic ethics. ... And if human considerations were to be regarded as a dominant factor in defining what is dangerous then clearly the fear that grips several regions of the world should be treated as a defining criterion for what is dangerous. … Several poor communities totally dependent on rainfed agriculture, as well as those deprived of water essential for their basic biological needs are truly vulnerable. So also are residents of small island states, some prominent mega-deltas and low lying coastal areas which are already in a state of fear and pessimism about their future. Surely, what is dangerous should be defined on the basis of these very real human apprehensions.”
So the IPCC and media alarmists create fear based on unrealistic climate projections (not based on actual data) and then Pachauri’s circular reasoning is that the fear defines what is dangerous!!!
The vulnerable countries are portrayed as the poor countries – but really it’s the rich countries who have become vulnerable to UN politics masquerading as science. Pachauri says “western society must undergo a radical value shift … iced water in restaurants should be curtailed” [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen]
|
|
The “Vulnerable” Countries
The following figure shows the countries that are most at risk from global warming, according to the Global Humanitarian Forum (composed of UN and ex-UN officials).
The following figure shows the countries that are most at risk from global warming, according to Maplecroft (“Maplecroft specialises in the calculation, analysis and visualisation of global risks.” – and they charge money for their advice!) [http://www.maplecroft.com/Climate_change_info.php]
The following figure shows the GDP per capita from the IMF for 2009 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_nominal_per_capita_world_map_IMF_2009.png]
Notice the correlation between poor countries and those most at risk. Apparently the climatological / geographical location doesn’t have much to do with it – unless the tropics are generally more at risk to global warming. It’s all about money (See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UN_AGWscam.htm)
|
|
The Climate Models And Climate Data
The following figure is from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) Figure 9.6 (2007) [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf]. It shows the change in temperature (C per decade) by latitude. The black line shows the observed temperature, the blue band shows the output of the computer models including only natural factors, whereas the pink band shows the output of computer models including anthropogenic CO2. Notice that the models without CO2 (blue shaded area) can explain all of the warming for most of the world up to 30 degrees north latitude. All of the warming in the tropical latitudes can be explained by the models without anthropogenic CO2!
The next figure shows a global temperature trend for 1979 – 2008 from satellite data [http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html]. In both figures the tropics are highlighted by the green rectangle. The warming in the tropical countries is in the range of 0.0 to 0.2 degrees.
So according to the data and the models the tropics are not most at risk – the far northern hemisphere is.
|
|
The Contradiction
The tropical areas highlighted by the alarmists as being most vulnerable, have experienced much less warming than the far northern hemisphere, and the models can explain tropical warming without anthropogenic CO2. Yet these are the areas considered most at risk. Why?
“Oxfam is calling for a deal in Copenhagen that guarantees action in two key areas: binding emissions reduction targets for rich countries and a substantial ongoing financial package – which is additional to existing overseas aid commitments – to help poor countries reduce their emissions and adapt to a changing climate. Isabel Sande Frandsen, Climate Advisor for Oxfam International said: “Vulnerable developing countries have called the bluff of Denmark and every other rich country that would prefer delay over decision. … rich countries need to focus on delivering the urgent actions required of them by Copenhagen – deep and binding emissions cuts and finance to help poor countries curb their emissions and adapt to climate change.”” [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0911/S00600.htm]
Oh yes – that’s why. Global warming (euphemistically referred to as “climate change”) has nothing to do with science – it’s all about politics.
The tropical countries are the ones producing actual air pollution – not CO2, but black carbon. The following figure shows the atmospheric solar heating due to black carbon, indicating the regional areas of major black carbon emissions [http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n4/full/ngeo156.html].
“In their frantic search for a solution to the global warming crisis, climatologists and policy makers have managed to overlook one of the leading causes of rising world temperatures - soot, the familiar black residue that coats fireplaces and darkens truck exhaust. ``Soot - or black carbon - may be responsible for 15 to 30 percent of global warming, yet it`s not even considered in any of the discussions about controlling climate change,`` says Stanford Professor Mark Z. Jacobson” [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010208075206.htm]
Oh look – it’s the same “vulnerable” countries that are producing all the actual pollution - black carbon.
“The battle against global warming could be helped if the world slowed population growth by making free condoms and family planning advice more widely available, the U.N. Population Fund said Wednesday. … The world's population will likely rise from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050, with most of the growth in less developed regions, according to a 2006 report by the United Nations. … global warming could be catastrophic for people in poor countries, particularly women.” [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_sc/climate_population_growth]
The “developed” countries must pay because the “less developed regions” have rampant population growth, combined with primitive energy infrastructures requiring the burning of high-carbon fuels.
|
|
|
|
Dateline: 19 Nov 2009: The UN provides a highlight of the Vulnerability Contradiction: [http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=602&ArticleID=6374&l=en]
From the above article:
The vulnerability: “World powers expect humanitarian actors to face continuing or increasing humanitarian needs driven by climate change-related natural disasters … Here in a country like Kenya one can already see the signature of climate change in terms of droughts and most recently floods - challenges which your organization has to respond to with ever more frequency and urgency.”
The contradiction – admission that the problems are actually deforestation and land degradation, not “climate-change”: “Most recently in its assessment of Sudan, it linked environmental problems such as land degradation, deforestation and the impacts of climate change as threatening the Sudanese people … There are many other examples where, with environmental planning, the situation might have been sustained or improved, rather than having declined.”
The reason: “The meeting is taking place as countries begin to prepare for the historic climate talks next month [Copenhagen] that will also define the future role of humanitarian work.”
That sums up what the Copenhagen COP15 meeting in December is all about – providing money for “humanitarian work”.
|
|
|
|
Further Information:
The United Nations is promoting the largest scam at Copenhagen. See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UNCopenhagenPrep.htm
The United States’ CO2 emissions have declined in recent years. See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/US_CO2.htm
Black carbon and particulate emissions are part of the problem produced by “developing” countries. See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/BiomassBurning.htm
Deforestation is the leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions. See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Deforestation.htm
Africa is scamming for the money they want since the foreign aid all disappears. See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GWForAfrica.htm
Oxfam is scamming the global warming issue for funding their missions. See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Oxfam.htm
The Global Humanitarian Foundation is trying to sucker Obama and his US cohorts. See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HumanImpact.htm
Women’s groups blame winter exposure deaths of Indians in South Dakota on “climate change”, even though winter temperatures have been warming: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SouthDakota.htm
|
|
|
|
“Over the past 60 years at least $1 trillion of development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. Yet real per-capita income today is lower than it was in the 1970s, and more than 50% of the population -- over 350 million people -- live on less than a dollar a day, a figure that has nearly doubled in two decades. … roughly $50 billion of international assistance already goes to Africa each year … Aid flows destined to help the average African end up supporting bloated bureaucracies in the form of the poor-country governments and donor-funded non-governmental organizations.” (from “Why Foreign Aid is Hurting Africa” [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123758895999200083.html]).
|
|
|
