http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/8/28/worldupdates/2006-08-28T104002Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-265127-1&sec=Worldupdates

World Updates
August 28, 2006
Disaster-prone China takes heed of global warming

By Chris Buckley
BEIJING (Reuters) – Storms, floods, heat and drought that have killed more than 2,000 people in China this year are a prelude to weather patterns likely to become more extreme due to global warming, the head of the Beijing Climate Centre said.

China was braced for further hardship as rising temperatures worldwide trigger increasingly extreme weather, Dong Wenjie, director-general of the climate centre, said.

“The precise causes of these phenomena aren’t easy to determine on their own,” Dong told Reuters of meteorological disasters that have caused 160 billion yuan ($20 billion) worth of damage this year.

“But we know the broad background is global warming. That’s clear. It’s a reminder that global warming will bring about increasingly extreme weather events more often.”

A study issued by China’s chief climate scientists last year predicted that mean temperatures across China were likely to climb, forcing major changes in rainfall, desertification, river flows and crop production.

Yet even as China approaches the United States as the world’s largest producer of the manmade greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, Beijing is set against mandatory ceilings on its emissions, experts said.

“China’s preoccupation is economic development and growth,” said Paul Harris, of Lingnan University in Hong Kong, who studies climate change policy.

“It seems Chinese policy-makers are beginning to take warnings about global
warming on board. But they certainly don’t want to sign on to compulsory caps.”

Global warming may increase rainfall in China’s north, but increased temperatures and evaporation there are likely to offset much or all of that, Lin Erda, a climate expert at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, told Reuters.

Without corrective action, nationwide agricultural production was likely to fall between 5 and 10 percent, he said.

Locatie: Vrije Universiteit, Gebouw Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen, De Boelelaan 1085, Amsterdam
Tijd: 19:30 — 21:30 uur
Voertaal: Engels
Toegang: gratis

Location: Free University, Building: Mathematics and Natural Sciences, De Boelelaan 1085, Amsterdam
Time: 07:30 pm – 09:30 pm
Language: English
Admittance: free

If interested, one can announce oneself with Rick Bos, magazine manager of Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, Rbos@veenmagazines.nl, tel +31 20 5310980.

General comment by Arthur Rorsch: …The mainline researchers are all the time taking refuge in their consensus culture without proper respond to the fundamental scientific objections from neighboring disciplines.. And the strategic attack of the mainline researchers on the critics is their lack of expertise. This doubt on expertise may be right, but please, mainline researchers, (IPCC dogma supporters) explain than to the opponents of your views from other disciplines, why they are absolutely wrong? If you, mainline researchers, do not turn up at the Stockholm conference, it seems to me sufficient evidence that you can not prove that the critics are absolutely wrong. You just have not the courage to meet the critics from other disciplines. I challenge you, IPCC dogma supporters, come to Stockholm and kill the criticism produced by the critical speakers at the conference. If you do not, I think, you are cowards.

The report made by Bureau CE, KNMI and Wageningen University can be found here. The report is from 2004, one year earlier than I thought. On page 15, fig.3 you can find the Mann + Jones + Briffa reconstructions, taken from the 2001 IPCC Third Assesment Report. While Esper, with much higher variability, was known at the time when the KNMI report was made…

The caption of fig.3 is interesting:

Four reconstructions of the average temperature on the Northern Hemisphere in the past 1,000 years. The gray area gives the uncertainty of the most advanced series (black line of Mann ea.). The spread of the different lines gives an impression of the accuracy of the reconstructions.

The last sentence is interesting in light of the Esper, Moberg and Huang reconstructions…

The abstract translates (in my school English) as:

Scientific knowledge of climate change
1. The human influence on climate in the second part of the 20th century is demonstrated. In the next century, a huge increase of the concentration of greenhouse gases is expected. This will warm the earth further.
2.according to todays knowledge, without mitigation measures, this will lead to a world average increase in temperature of 1.4 to 5.8°C in 2100.
3. Meanwhile, the effects of climate change are observed on large scale. Weather patterns change, sea levels rise, glaciers and ice caps are reducing and habitats of plants and animals move.
These effects will frow in the future. In The Netherlands, precipitation patterns and temperature (will) change, leading to higher chances of as good inundation as periods of prolonged droughtperiods.
4. To keep these effects manageable, the worldwide temperature increase should not reach more that 2°C in the next century. This needs emission reductions of 60-80% in 2100. A less stringent goal will give unrepairable damage tot human habitat of many places on earth.
5. The measures taken to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (mitigation) don’t have an immediate effect. They can’t prevent that the current trends of climate change will go on in the next century.

As you can see, pretty scaring…

In the report itself, the science is mostly based on the IPCC Third Assesment Report…

As I live near the Dutch border, a few hours drive from Amsterdam, I like to be at the Free University of Amsterdam to hear your presentation and if you have the time, to offer you a (Belgian) beer (Dutch beer is not drinkable – as we say here!).

That’s true. Heineken, Hoegaarden, Oranjeboom, Grolsch, Amstel – all terrible. I much prefer Belgian beers although since there are 500 of them, I can’t say I’ve drank even a small percentage.

I checked. There it is, “Why this meeting is a bad idea,” with prominent link on the home page. Never seen anything like that before. And the responses are amusing, you’re spot on.

I’d be intrigued to know where these refutations had happened.

Right there, in the very statement you quoted. Apparently that is all that is necessary in “Team”-proof land.

Mark