In WSJ op-ed, Lomborg issues faulty claim about global warming's impact on rainfall
In arguing against the pursuit of global warming policies, Bjorn Lomborg wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that "[c]utting carbon emissions will likely increase water scarcity, because global warming is expected to increase average rainfall levels around the world." In fact, Lomborg's argument ignores that while scientists predict that climate change may increase precipitation globally, they believe some areas will experience more flooding because of the rainfall, whereas others will be disproportionately affected by drought.
Lomborg: Cutting emissions will "increase water scarcity" since climate change will "increase average rainfall levels" globally
From Lomborg's November 9 Wall Street Journal op-ed:
Getting basic sanitation and safe drinking water to the three billion people around the world who do not have it now would cost nearly $4 billion a year. By contrast, cuts in global carbon emissions that aim to limit global temperature increases to less than two degrees Celsius over the next century would cost $40 trillion a year by 2100. These cuts will do nothing to increase the number of people with access to clean drinking water and sanitation. Cutting carbon emissions will likely increase water scarcity, because global warming is expected to increase average rainfall levels around the world.
IPCC: Changes in precipitation are "projected to increase the risks of flooding and drought in many areas"
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's June 2008 report "Climate Change and Water" precipitation will very likely, which the IPCC defines as more than a 90 percent probability, increase in tropical and high-latitude regions and will likely (more than 66 percent probability) decrease in subtropical and low- to mid-latitude regions. The report said that many areas, including the Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa, and northeastern Brazil, are "projected to suffer a decrease of water resources due to climate change (high confidence)."
From the report's Executive Summary:
Climate model simulations for the 21st century are consistent in projecting precipitation increases in high latitudes (very likely) and parts of the tropics, and decreases in some subtropical and lower mid-latitude regions (likely). Outside these areas, the sign and magnitude of projected changes varies between models, leading to substantial uncertainty in precipitation projections. Thus projections of future precipitation changes are more robust for some regions than for others. Projections become less consistent between models as spatial scales decrease.
By the middle of the 21st century, annual average river runoff and water availability are projected to increase as a result of climate change at high latitudes and in some wet tropical areas, and decrease over some dry regions at mid-latitudes and in the dry tropics. Many semi-arid and arid areas (e.g., the Mediterranean Basin, western USA, southern Africa and northeastern Brazil) are particularly exposed to the impacts of climate change and are projected to suffer a decrease of water resources due to climate change (high confidence).
Increased precipitation intensity and variability are projected to increase the risks of flooding and drought in many areas. The frequency of heavy precipitation events (or proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) will be very likely to increase over most areas during the 21st century, with consequences for the risk of rain-generated floods. At the same time, the proportion of land surface in extreme drought at any one time is projected to increase (likely), in addition to a tendency for drying in continental interiors during summer, especially in the sub-tropics, low and mid-latitudes.
IPCC: Drought, floods will affect water quality, food security
IPCC: Drought, flooding will "affect water quality and exacerbate many forms of water pollution." The June 2008 report also concluded that, alongside changes in water temperature, extreme flooding and drought will have a negative impact on water quality and food security. From the report:
Higher water temperatures and changes in extremes, including floods and droughts, are projected to affect water quality and exacerbate many forms of water pollution -- from sediments, nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, pathogens, pesticides and salt, as well as thermal pollution, with possible negative impacts on ecosystems, human health, and water system reliability and operating costs (high confidence). In addition, sea-level rise is projected to extend areas of salinisation of groundwater and estuaries, resulting in a decrease of freshwater availability for humans and ecosystems in coastal areas.
Globally, the negative impacts of future climate change on freshwater systems are expected to outweigh the benefits (high confidence). By the 2050s, the area of land subject to increasing water stress due to climate change is projected to be more than double that with decreasing water stress. Areas in which runoff is projected to decline face a clear reduction in the value of the services provided by water resources. Increased annual runoff in some areas is projected to lead to increased total water supply. However, in many regions, this benefit is likely to be counterbalanced by the negative effects of increased precipitation variability and seasonal runoff shifts in water supply, water quality and flood risks (high confidence).
Changes in water quantity and quality due to climate change are expected to affect food availability, stability, access and utilisation. This is expected to lead to decreased food security and increased vulnerability of poor rural farmers, especially in the arid and semi-arid tropics and Asian and African megadeltas.
GCC better describes what will happen. The climate will significantly change across much of the globe. Some areas will be cooler, and many will be hotter. Storms will be more intense, droughts will be more frequent and more debilitating, floods will affect larger areas when they happen, etc.
Water resources are local, as is weather.
They have not predicted the cooling of the past few years, and they do not work backwards.
The models simply can not work since they do not fully take into account natural forces that impact the climate. How could they, since they are not fully understood.
And some will say it is not cooling.
US 2008 temperatures were below the 115 year average
US 2009 Summer temperatures were the 34th coolest in 115 years
US October temperatures were the third coolest in 115 years (4 degrees below the average)
Yes, I know, US isnt the world.
But Germany also recorded it lowest ever October temperatures in history and so did New Zealand.
Yes, I know, this is weather and not climate, but not really. The oceans are also somewhat cooler since 2003. Antarctica had the most ice ever recorded in 2008.
Global atmospheric temperatures have also on average been cooling since 2002.
So the trend is toward a cooler earth, not a warming one, even though CO2 levels continue to rise.
So what is the big change, it is solar activity. The Sun is today the least active in over a century and in the past when the Sun was inactive it has always led to cooler temperatures. A less active Sun causes more clouds to form and this has a strong cooling effect by blocking sunlight from reaching the earths surface.
In the mean time I'm going with the majority of climatologist thought. At least untill your article blows them all out the water.
Should be fun reading that paper when it's published. I think it may be published as a comic book. ;-)
Even Hannity's guest said "everyone knows it's warming."
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911060055#635676
They're not. Climate models cannot accurately predict the next 10 years. That has been proven by the most recent 10 years' actual data. If the climate models don't work, why are we trying to legislate huge taxes based on the results of climate models? That seems dumb to me.
He who anticipates disaster suffers it twice.
Climate models do work. They do what they are supposed to do, and if we look at the last 10 years, the average temp has gone up.
And if you don't know this, you are totally incapable of participating in any discussion about Global Climate Change.
But that doesn't surprise us - we see uneducated people come here and try to educate us all the time.
Have you tested them? Maybe you could use your superior intellect to explain to all of us how they are supposed to work. How much have the Global temperatures risen over the last 10 years? What did the models predict?
First you say that climate models aren't meant to predict trends over 10 years, and then, in the very next paragraph, you say;
They do what they are supposed to do, and if we look at the last 10 years, the average temp has gone up.
So which is it?
And even if temperatures are still rising, where is the proof it's man-made? co2 levels??
I'm sure you don't drive, then, because experts in automoble manufacturing were involved. And you don't eat anything but stuff you grow in your backyard from 100 year old seeds, because experts helped us develop all the food crops we eat nowadays.
Why would we listen to experts?
I guess we just need to listen to people like you, who are experts in why we shouldn't listen to experts.
They changed the term to "climate change" because they know that the earth's weather patterns have always shifted and will continue to do so.
Do you remember the "global cooling" claims by these same type of "experts" in the '70s?
Have you ever noticed how these "experts" always need more funding for further research?
Have you ever noticed that these "experts" like Algore use more energy and spew more carbon in a day than most us do in a year?
Have you ever noticed all the pathetic Chicken Littles that continue to fall for these scams?
It's truly a lost cause for anybody with any level of education.
Would a Ph. D be educated enough for you?
"Climate Confusion"
How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Because short term trends are, wait for it, that's WEATHER, nor climate.
And yes, it's still all weather. Whether you want to admit it or not doesn't matter!!!
The trend is not towards a cooler Earth.
Well, we certainly will never cool down, as long as those deniers keep blowing all that hot air! ;-)
Ipse dixit.
You're turn.
And you can't even spell "your" correctly.
If there's ownership involved, it's "your". If you can say "you are" instead, it's "you're".
It's really not that difficult to figure out and remember. I was exposed to it 3 or 4 times by the time I was in 10th grade, and I learned it the first time.
And yeah, when someone can't get simple facts right, then spelling errors made by that same someone who should have learned that lesson by the end of middle school are further evidence of the intelligence level of that person.
And it's not so much that I have a superior intellect, although I do, it's that you guys have inferior ones and you don't even use what you do have very well!
Yikes! By your standard, dolly, 99% of the leftist loons that blog here don't demonstrate a very high intelligence level.