From Pooh’s first Assessment Report on Climate Change

In summary, Earth and environmental scientists play a crucial role in informing policymakers about the best course of action for preserving the habitability of our planet. However, with the ever-changing and complex nature of Earth's mysteries, it is important to continuously reflect and evaluate our actions. The current issue at hand is global warming, which is causing changes such as melting glaciers and changing biotopes. While there is broad consensus that the warming is caused by greenhouse gases, there is still debate over the extent of human influence and the accuracy of various evidence and models. It is important to consider all perspectives and evidence when making decisions about how to address climate change.
  • #1
Andre
4,311
74
Summary for Intellectuals

It’s a dedicated duty for mankind to preserve the habitability of the Earth for future generations. Earth- and environmental scienctists are the observers and analysts for policymakers to decide the best course of action. But the mysteries of Earth are exceptional and the more discoveries are done, the less we seem to understand. Nevertheless, once a certain idea has been established that responds to the urge to act and to do something useful, it seems counter intuitive to challenge the established policy. Yet it is paramount that we do the right things and prioritize using basic economic principles about assets, effectiveness and efficiency. So we need to reflect and evaluate our course of action continuously. Unfortunately this process has been misinterpreted as a battle between environmental activists and skeptics with an agenda.

So the current issue at hand is global warming or understated as “climate change”. The ideas about this phenomenon accumulated in the 1980ies. Using the scientific method, the global warming idea is based on the principles of greenhouse gas forcing, increased CO2 levels and empiric observations. Apparently sound enough. However science progresses and ideas need to be readjusted whenever the “facts” change. Nevertheless, the global warming theory seems to be unchangeable and thus casting doubt on the integrity of the science. What follows is a summary of the discussions in general.

The world is warming

So it seems indeed. We accept that fact, which includes melting glaciers, changing biotopes and receding arctic ice. This actually makes a jay – nay discussion in this area less relevant. The discussion should be about the possible causes of those changes.

There is also the secret Urban Heat Island correction for the temperature record of Jones et al that many like to see transparent. There are some alternative ideas that would result in a more moderate rate of warming. Moreover, the stream of all too enthusiastic “slippery slope” claims of activists and scaremongers needs to be moderated constantly. The ice caps are not melting completely. The glaciers will not disappear, Sea levels will not surge. Palaeo climatic evidence reveals that the Earth has warmed many times before to values well above the current and it has always cooled after that.

There is broad consensus that the warming is caused by greenhouse gasses

Obviously the bandwagon fallacy. It’s ever so easy to proclaim this as a scientist. It ensures that one is appreciated as standing for a good cause. Although there is probably no deliberate cheating going on, it’s more about generating a selective set of acceptance standards. Either raising the standards for evidence against AGW (or ignore it) whilst lowering standards for anything that supports global warming (this is how the flawed hockey stick could make it to poster child of the IPCC and to “figure one” of the Summary for Policy makers). And no doubt one can convince oneself this way that AGW is very very true and must be countered immediately.

Moreover, consensus is not a part of the scientific method and no guarantee whatsoever that this makes it true. How many Afreds Wegeners were needed for instance to
point out the plate tectonics? and how many Galileo’s..etc.

Finally there are several dozens of climatologists in a secret hide out who keep wondering bewilderedly how consensus could have been proclaimed without them.

There is a body of evidence to support the cause of the warming to be anthropogenic;

Note that such a claim is not backed up lately with reference to publications that unambiguously proof it indeed.

In the older papers you’d get ice core temperature reconstructions here but since it was obvious that the “temperature rise” preceded the increase of CO2, it’s evidence value had been reduced. Moreover, some 80 ppm change in CO2 seemed to be related to 10-15 degrees Celsius temperature changes whilst nowadays we are already on 100 ppm chance since 1850 with only about 0,6 degrees Celsius temperature change, which makes the ice age evidence rather awkward. You could point to strong positive feedback factors, but why are those feedback factors not doing the same today? So the hockey stick was quite welcome to replace the ice age evidence in 1998 and could be regarded as the key evidence, if it had not been refuted by Hans Von Storch et al and McIntyre & McIttrick explicitly and the several other climatologic constructions like Moberg (2005) implicitly, suggesting that the main driver for climate is not CO2.

So what is the current evidence? Are the ice age ideas being revisited and renewed as evidence for instance?


All climate models invariably show a continuous warming trend

Yes of course they do. What is a model? A mathematical simulation of a physical reality? It relies not only on the mathematics but also on the data. The sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing is one of them; feedback factors are as well. So check the TAR IPCC and you’ll find something like say 2-3 degrees for doubling CO2. It’s well known and fully reproducable that the basic mathematics (Arrhenius, Stefan Boltzman laws) produces only a value of about 0,7 degrees for a black body as I have shown somewhere. So why 2-3 degrees instead? Because we think that we have empirical evidence for that from the ice cores of the poles, the hockeystick, the Pinatubo eruption etc that there is a strong positive feedback factor mostly generated by water vapor. However, no matter how sophisticated, garbage in is garbage out.

However there is also statistical evidence (Kärner 2002, 2005) that a single dimensional random walk of the Lower Troposphere temperatures show a stable pattern (Hearst exponent < 0.5). We will go into detail about the ice ages later, showing a much stronger stability of temperatures than assumed. Consequently, the essential thing here the model input of the greenhouse warming factor for doubling CO2 and it’s feedback. Nobody feeds the models with in 0,7 degrees per doubling and a negative feedback. This would give completely different results, probably multiple warming and cooling cycles with a slight overall warming trend of less than 0,5 degrees per century.

So with little sensitivity of climate to CO2 it is also clear that mankind’s ability correcting climate changes are meager if not non-existent.

Moreover, the role of simulation models in the scientific methods is verifying hypotheses to see if these can be substantiated. They simply cannot be used for predicting the future. and giving the result of the models a true predicting status, climate science departs the established “modus operandi”.

In the near future we may encounter a tipping point after which climate will not recover and positive feedback factors may even induce a thermal runaway condition.

These speculations are both based on the thermal conditions on planet Venus, attributed to extreme greenhouse gas effect and on the unexplained isotope spikes in the ice cores that are thought to be rapid temperature changes. However a certain bear of little brain has demonstrated that other mechanisms could explain the conditions of Venus better. He is now finalizing a comprehensive assessment of the true nature of the isotope spikes in the ice cores. This would further vindicate the futility of controlling emission for the sake of climate preservation.

There is a shrinking number of skeptics –enemies of the environment- who are bribed by the oil companies.

Poisoning the well fallacy and no doubt the worlds most common and effective ad hominem ever, even used by Tony Blair in his environment speech albeit without the oil companies.

Actually it’s true. The number of evil climate hoodlums is likely to approach zero quite rapidly if not already. The oil companies have recognized some decade ago that a countering AGW policy would put them out of business very quickly. But the myth lingers on, fueled unchallenged by activists because it’s all so obvious.

Instead of those villains there is a growing body of sincere objective independent intellectuals who recognize the flawed science of global warming and who have sincere reservations for the consequences of the draconic drivel deeds in the battle against a imaginary enemy. Unfortunately, they have to choose between either keeping low profile, preserving position, budgets and careers or speak up, risking tar & feathers.

Conclusion

As it appears that the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gas forcing is highly exaggerated and pending the further refinements of pooh’s palaeo-climate research it is advisable to divert assets to alternative problem areas. Preserving biotopes biomass and biodiversity but also the gradual conversion of fossil fuel use to true and reliable renewables for the sake of sustainability and preserve the habitability of the Earth for future generations

Discussion?
 
Last edited:
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #2
Now, in order to assess if the writing bear knows what he is talking about I include the summary of chapter 4 of the FAR, The message of the ice cores, in which it will be shown how the isotopes can fool the glaciologists.

Remember when the ice cores were interpreted it was well known that changes in (oxygen) isotope ratios (d18O) said something about temperature changes.

So what happened when these results became available?: http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/gisp-compare.GIF Sorry the host has still not enabled the feature here and I’m not uploading this to maintain control of the graphs.

Indeed, we see the red isotope ratios in the top graph jump up and down like crazy and so does the precipitation and so does the methane (CH4) concentration. So, isn’t obvious? Methane (greenhouse gas) goes up, so the temperature (isotopes) goes up, when it’s warmer there is more moisture, and hence also more water vapour so more greenhouse effect and.. Bingo it’s all there. The start of the greenhouse hype, complete with water vapour feedback. This scared the h... out of the first observers and red alert sounded.

However,

Lets zoom in on monthly behaviour of d18O isotope ratios, in relation to monthly precipitation and temperatures of a high arctic station measured over several years.
[PLAIN]http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/precip-v-isotopes.GIF
It's clear that temperature and isotopes are related whilst the correlation with precipitation is less. There are clear seasonal variations with generally more precipitation in the summer.

As the average d18O in the ice cores is a function of both the average monthly precipitation and its 18O content, it's very easy to model this and calculate the average yearly isotope ratio.

Introduce a big summer drought in that model, reducing the contribution of the heavier isotopes and the average isotope ratio drops several mils without changing the temperature. Increase the summer precipitation and hence the contribution of the heavy isotopes and the average increases with several mils, again without changing the temperature.

And we do see that in the first graph, that the snowfall is there indeed and the immediate reaction of the isotopes on the precipitation, not on the temperature.

So it’s just what you do want to see. And as the isotopes and greenhouse gas seemed to confirm what you wanted to confirm, what else do you need? Would you reconsider if you had that second graph of monthly values available? Isn't it all about selective standards and a little wishful thinking?

Now what does the CH4 tell us? The reason of the sudden precipitation changes? Read the mammoth massacring thread. Twas the Clathrate gun.

Non Calor Sed Umor

And bye to the ice age greenhouse gas with water vapour feedback idea.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
What do the three lines mean? Which color to what?
 
  • #4
Well, I guess my rambling was too quick with the steps too big. I assume your question pertains the http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/precip-v-isotopes.GIF . it represents monthly averages of a certain location (Mould Bay), 1 = Jan, 12 = Dec). The values are averaged over several years.

The top light blue represents monthly precipitation measured in mm on the Y=axis, hence it's zero or more. The middle red one the temperature in Celsius -40C = -40F and 0C = 32F. it's a cold place. And the bottom black one is the relative heavy 18O isotope variation compared to a certain standard, the VSMOW (Vienna standard mean ocean water) which shows some correlation with the temperature. This is one of the best. However if you look at the complete isotope database, there is a lot of variation with latitude. The unit is dimensionless of course in thousands or mils. It's just a coincidence that the order of magnitude of all fit on the same scale.

But again, if you assume for a high arctic station a high correlation between both isotopes, precipitation with the seasonal temperatures you can build a little model to see what happens with a dramatic increase of precipitation as we see in the ice cores.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/YD-simulator.GIF where we simulate the seasonal fluctuations of d18O with the accumulation due to precipitation.

Left: every blue spike, represents a single year of seasonal isotope variation due to the temperature. Low in the winter high in the summer, We keep the amplitude constant which suggest constant seasonal temperature throughout the whole exercise.

The X-axis represents the accumulated precipitation in mm. This is how the ideal physical isotope distribution would look like in an ice core. At the far left the first years have about the same very low winter and summer precipitation rate. It’s very arid as supposed to be in the ice age, accumulating only about 60mm yearly. Next, we increase the summer precipitation (for the winter it’s too cold to snow) in four steps to a quadruple value, some 240mm per years. See in red, the yearly average d18O value go up, due to the increased contribution of heavy isotopes in the summer time. Black is the running average and this could represent the most likely distribution when taking random samples for measuring the d18O. The right side shows how this could have been displayed in the ice core graphs and we see quite a familiar step with about the same values as http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/gisp-compare.GIF . Fluctuations around -35 to -40 mil with precipitation changes of about a factor four. But I did not change the temperature at all, just the precipitation.

Non calor sed umor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Interesting devellopments on consensus, that I would have used in the summary for interlectuals, if I had had it:

The Wall Street Journal, 4 October 2005:

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS AND THE NOBEL PRIZE

...when our best medical minds thought peptic ulcers were a
lifestyle disease, the result of too much stress, ...

...when Australian physician Barry Marshall suggested, at a Brussels conference in 1983, that peptic ulcers might have a bacterial cause, his findings were dismissed by colleagues as "the most preposterous thing ever heard",...

...For their findings, Marshall and Warren shared this year's Nobel Prize in Medicine. It's an inspired choice and a useful reminder that just because there's a scientific consensus, that doesn't mean it's true.
 
  • #6
Another assessment report on climate change:

http://www.usefulinfo.co.uk/climate_change_global_warming.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Moderators, please, if feasible, do not remove Jimmies excellent summary for Non-interlectuals. I could not have hoped for a better demonstration of the standard ad hominem practice of the alarmists and a better support for my:

There is a shrinking number of skeptics –enemies of the environment- who are bribed by the oil companies.

Poisoning the well fallacy and no doubt the worlds most common and effective ad hominem ever, even used by Tony Blair in his environment speech albeit without the oil companies.

Actually it’s true. The number of evil climate hoodlums is likely to approach zero quite rapidly if not already. The oil companies have recognized some decade ago that a countering AGW policy would put them out of business very quickly. But the myth lingers on, fueled unchallenged by activists because it’s all so obvious.


Perhaps also take not of the
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=246944: who is a bit more balanced:

While it seems clear to me, as a layman, that – other things being equal – increasing carbon dioxide emissions will, in time, warm the planet, I note that the science of climate change is uncertain and that reputable scientists hold greatly differing views about the rate at which such warming is likely to occur

I may quote him again sometimes on the methods of the IPCC.
 
  • #8
What causes the d180 to rise with the temperture?

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/YD-simulator.GIF
The y-axis is temperture?
Why does the d180 levels take longer to go up and down the more precipitation there is? Is this denoting how far down the ice core you're going thus how far back in time?

I'm a bit confused about all this.

:bugeye:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Mk said:
What causes the d180 to rise with the temperture?
http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/YD-simulator.GIF
The y-axis is temperture?
The Y -axis is the momentary d18O the difference in ratio between heavy 18O and 16O compared to a certain standard (Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water - VSMOW) simulating it's monthly variation. But the X-axis is not time but accumulation (ice buildup). You are not looking at a time scale thing but how the d18O would actually be in length measurements in a simulated ice core.

Why does the d180 levels take longer to go up and down the more precipitation there is?
It's not time but accumulation rate. Every spike down is the next december month.

Is this denoting how far down the ice core you're going thus how far back in time?
Sort of. I intend to simulate how a few meters of ice in the ice core would look like in terms of local d18O values, at the onset of the Younger Dryas some 1782 meters down the GISP-2 ice core. But this time it's not by changing temperatures (and hence different yearly maximum and minimum d18O values) but only by changing the precipitation rate and hence the same max an mins but shorter and longer yearly accumulation rates.
So can be proven that the observed changes can be obtained at a completely different way than the ice core investigators interpret themselfs.

The statement the temperature changed hence the isotope ratio changed
is correct but:
The isotope ration changed hence the temperature changed,
is not correct. It's the same as:
If it rains, the streets are wet. The streets are wet. hence it rains.

This is the so called affirming the consequent fallacy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
myself said:
Moderators, please, if feasible, do not remove Jimmies excellent summary for Non-interlectual

I see that it has happened, which is OK. After all, PF has to guarantee a certain standard.
 
  • #11
So how does the isotope ratio follow the temperature?
 
  • #13
I think that this is an excellent example of the perception of climate sceptism, consensus and "group-think"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/17/EDGODFP0BQ1.DTL

Thin green line is bad science
Debra J. Saunders

THERE IS A MYTH in the American media. It goes like this: The good scientists agree that global warming is human induced and would be addressed if America ratified the Kyoto global warming pact, while bad heretical scientists question climate models that predict Armageddon because they are venal and corrupted by oil money. ... cont'd
 
  • #14
For those who still think that climatology is merely science, following the scientific method and adhering to Poppers falsifiability principles, etc.

Let's see what the practical course of action is.

- We have all read the http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf of the Third assessment report of the IPCC.

- We have all seen fig 1 (The hockeystick) and fig 2 the CO2 and from the perfect match we are now sure of catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

- We need to save the world now.

- Anybody who opposes saving the world cannot be but the lowest life form on Earth.

Although, now five years later both the MBH temperature hockeystick and the CO2 hockeystick are falsified, Popper does not prevail but the witch hunt does:

It's the blackest day of my life to discover that worlds leading (real) scientific publishers (and their peer reviewers) have actually taken the lead in the witch hunt.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFV-4HJC4JY-2&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=83ab840e666e84bdbdb650d784b95ce4.


Global Environmental Change Part A
Volume 15, Issue 4 , December 2005, Pages 338-352

(an Elsevier Reed publication)

Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change
Liisa Antilla,

Abstract
This two-part study integrates a quantitative review of one year of US newspaper coverage of climate science with a qualitative, comparative analysis of media-created themes and frames using a social constructivist approach. In addition to an examination of newspaper articles, this paper includes a reflexive comparison with attendant wire stories and scientific texts. Special attention is given to articles constructed with and framed by rhetoric emphasising uncertainty, controversy, and climate scepticism.

The beginning of the introduction:

One problematic trend of the US media has been the suggestion that substantive disagreement exists within the international scientific community as to the reality of anthropogenic climate change; however, this concept is false (Oreskes, 2004). The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) concluded (2001) that there is strong evidence that most of the observed warming of the Earth over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities, and other scientific bodies agree.1 Notwithstanding the tendency by some in the media and elsewhere to
portray the science of climate change as uncertain or controversial, a recent poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) (2005) found that 73% of the US public believe that their country should participate in the Kyoto Protocol and 86% think that President Bush
should act to limit greenhouse gas emissions if such action is taken by the leaders of other G8 countries. The US is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases,2 but despite all of these facts, the US federal government is repudiating the challenge of anthropogenic climate change.

(Note: Oreskes googled for scientific papers supporting global warming versus opposing global warming. This was refuted by Benny Peiser showing that you need to know how to google but there is also the (proved) suggestion of selctive acceptance)

But the message is clear, no longer is sceptism part of the scientific method, it's a nuisance that resists saving the world.

The more interesting subject would be to compare this witch hunt with others in the past.

Another witch hunter:

http://risingtide.org.uk/pages/voices/hall_shame.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
By the way, the article has not gone unobserved in the sceptic environment. I think this commentary is very worth while:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/11/elsevier-science-and-crackpots.html

Elsevier Science and crackpots

W.S. has pointed out an article written by someone called Ms. Liisa Antilla that has been accepted into a peer-reviewed journal "Global environmental Change Part A" published by Elsevier Science - the publisher that has done a lot of good things for high-energy physics in the past but whose journal "Nuclear Physics B" is widely considered to be a dinosaur that should die soon, especially because the journal seems much more expensive than what is appropriate in the era of the internet (and the arXiv).

Incidentally, if your university does not provide you with access to the article, you can buy the text for $30.

W.S. is amazed by the article, I am also amazed, virtually everyone else is amazed. Why are we so shocked? The title of the article is

Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change and it is arguably the first published peer-reviewed article in the world whose main point is to accuse dozens of particular scientists from scientific misconduct and corruption just because the result of their research does not agree with the author's silly ideological fantasies, without having the tiniest glimpse of evidence. ...cont'd
 
  • #16
Climate Change

Goldman Sachs acknowledges the scientific consensus, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that climate change is a reality and that human activities are largely responsible for increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere. :biggrin:

We believe that climate change is one of the most significant environmental challenges of the 21st century and is linked to other important issues such as economic growth and development, poverty alleviation, access to clean water, and adequate energy supplies. How governments and societies choose to address climate change will fundamentally affect the way present and future generations live their lives. Goldman Sachs is very concerned by the threat to our natural environment, to humans and to the economy presented by climate change and believes that it requires the urgent attention of and action by governments, business, consumers and civil society to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.gs.com/our_firm/our_cult...ironmental_policy_framework_051116102805.html

Goldman Sachs is so concerned that they are investing $billions in alternative energy sources (e.g. wind, and possibly solar) and implementing corporate 'green' policies design to conserve energy and resources - which incidentally save the company $$$ (makes economic sense).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
:-p Yes Global warming is business about as big as religion.

There is a rewarding market for things that most people believe in.
 
  • #18
Astronuc said:
http://www.gs.com/our_firm/our_cult...ironmental_policy_framework_051116102805.html
Goldman Sachs is so concerned that they are investing $billions in alternative energy sources (e.g. wind, and possibly solar) and implementing corporate 'green' policies design to conserve energy and resources - which incidentally save the company $$$ (makes economic sense).
I'm curious as to where in the article GS mentions where and how much they are investing.
Seems to me, they wanted to talk about environmental issues, without taking an actual position.

I've found that usually when at the beginning of a paragraph I find a phrase like "we acknowledge" or "we recognise", they're not going to take an actual position on anything of consequence.

The only position I actually saw them take was that the gov. should subsidize alternative energy sources. The gov. already does that.
The article itself seems intended to leave the reader with a good feeling about GS, without saying anything of much substance. Kinda like a commercial.

It's interesting how different people can read the same article and draw varying conclusions about it.

Frankly, I don't mind the gov. subsidizing new tech. for a few years. But at what point do they stop the subsidies and let them fend for themselves. Support shouldn't go on forever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Horizon Wind Energy, formerly Zilkha Renewable Energy, is a Houston-based developer of wind projects. Currently Horizon is operating and developing projects in more than a dozen states. In the past two years, Horizon has built or announced construction of more than 800 megawatts of wind power. Horizon Wind Energy has recently been acquired by Goldman Sachs, an investment banking firm. More information is available at www.gs.com[/url].[/QUOTE] [PLAIN]http://www.horizonwind.com/ourowners.asp

Horizon Projects - http://www.horizonwind.com/whatweredoing.asp

Environmental policy at Goldman-Sachs.
http://www.gs.com/our_firm/our_cult...ity/environmental_policy_framework/index.html

http://www.gs.com/our_firm/our_cult...ironmental_policy_framework_051116102823.html

Support shouldn't go on forever.
I agree.

GS could be benefitting from tax credits and perhaps subsidies, but that would take some digging to find out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
The alternative sources such as wind and solar have a couple severe drawbacks such as excessive land use and intermitent availability. Thus they will always be only a supplemental source of power.

My personal opinion is that nuclear is the only viable option to oil, gas or coal fired plants even if CO2 eventually turns out to be an actual problem.

I'm not convinced there is a CO2 problem at this point.
 
  • #21
Then Edward, I strongly recomment this forum here

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=25682&start=1

with as conclusion (posted elsewhere):

The ice age graphs of spiking isotopes and CO2 have been the previous IPCC's poster child, showing that CO2 and only CO2 was causing the yo- yo between ice ages and interglacials. It may occur that my ice core tale thread has significant more substantiation for a completely different mechanism. Now the scholar (IPCC) view of these spikes and why the CO2 lags is clear: positive feedback. However, and this is essential, the real evidence of the ice age clearly shows that the greenhouse gas spikes did NOT lead to significant temperature changes, as I used up all the evidence explaining the effects of the clathrate gun. Despite the strong greenhouse gas variation there was no significant warming (remember warm dry summers in the YD). This is why it’s safe to say that the current increase of GHG is not causing the warming and will not do so in the future either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FAQ: From Pooh’s first Assessment Report on Climate Change

1. What is "From Pooh’s first Assessment Report on Climate Change"?

"From Pooh’s first Assessment Report on Climate Change" is a fictional report created by the popular children's book character, Winnie the Pooh, to help educate readers about the issue of climate change.

2. Why was this report created by Winnie the Pooh?

This report was created by Winnie the Pooh to make the topic of climate change more accessible and understandable to a younger audience. By using a beloved character like Pooh, the hope is that children will be more interested in learning about and taking action to address climate change.

3. Is this report scientifically accurate?

No, this report is not scientifically accurate as it is a work of fiction. However, it does touch on important concepts and themes related to climate change and can serve as a starting point for further discussions and learning.

4. What messages does this report convey about climate change?

This report conveys the message that climate change is a serious issue that affects all living beings, including animals like Winnie the Pooh and his friends. It also highlights the importance of taking action to protect the environment and preserve our planet for future generations.

5. How can this report be used in educational settings?

This report can be used in educational settings as a fun and engaging way to introduce the topic of climate change to children. It can also be used as a tool for discussing the impact of human activities on the environment and ways to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.

Similar threads

Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
15K
Back
Top