UN Report: Climate Changes Overwhelming 987
iONiUM (530420) writes "'The impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN has warned.' A document was released by the IPCC outlining the current affects on climate change, and they are not good. For specific effects on humans: 'Food security is highlighted as an area of significant concern. Crop yields for maize, rice and wheat are all hit in the period up to 2050, with around a tenth of projections showing losses over 25%.'"
Projections (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Citation...?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Projections (Score:5, Informative)
2010 and 2011 were La Niña years [wikipedia.org], i.e., years where the sea surface temperature is 3-5 degrees celcius below normal. What you're seeing is weather, not climate.
Now, if it continues like that for another ten-fifteen years, our models were wrong and you'll see me running in the street, celebrating.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You're that dick on Wikipedia who reverted my edits!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It looks like the observed temperatures are at the low end of the error bars of the most optimistic projection. But it's kind of hard to tell because of the thickness of the line.
Re:Projections (Score:5, Insightful)
Just say it like you mean it. "Let's hope they're wrong, they must be wrong, I don't wanna stop driving my SUV."
Re:Projections (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but the well-educated ones know enough to steer clear of any Slashdot discussion of climate change.
wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is simply and completely wrong. The data sets are OK and there is numerous adjustments & corrections applied.
Remember the Berkeley statistician who was a skeptic about the data quality & reduction procedures for various reasons? Well, he did what you said was impossible: he got the not-actually-hidden raw data, and with some colleagues re-did everything. The conclusion? The climatologists were right all along and didn't screw anything up.
And why would thousands of scientists all over the world suddenly and nearly uniformly "want" a specific outcome?
And if it's all just a giant magic trick for "moar funding!!!!" somehow maintained across generations and countries why hasn't this happened in any other area of science? And if it's all a scam, why choose one which would be opposed by many of the most powerful forces on the planet?
The ones who really "want a specific outcome" are actually the other side, for obvious reasons.
Re:Projections (Score:4, Insightful)
So Box 9.2 of AR5 in which they attempt to explain the 15 year (a year ago) "hiatus" is just describing just weather, not climate, because the general circulation models predicted 0.5 to 0.6 C warming over the same interval and they couldn't possibly be wrong, could they?
Also, if you are going to ignore the cooling/flattening associated with La Nina, perhaps we should ignore the one single solid burst of global warming in the latter 20th century in association with the 1997-1998 super El Nino as well. If you are going to assert that 15 years isn't statistically significant, perhaps we should ignore the single 15 year interval with significant warming in the latter half of the 20th century, especially since this 15 year stretch is surrounded by flat to descending stretches all the way back to 1944 on the left and flat to very weakly ascending stretches from 1998 to the present. All of which can easily be seen with your own eyes here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... [woodfortrees.org]
That's what, 0.5 C of total warming over 75 years, almost all occurring in one single burst? Sort of like the 0.7 C of warming visible here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... [woodfortrees.org]
except that warming occurred without the benefit of significant CO_2 forcing and was much more uniform.
rgb
Re:Projections (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact climatologists don't consider 1997-1998 to be normal - they treat it as an outlier. It's the deniers who pick up on it and say "we've been getting cooler since 1998!".
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Also, if you are going to ignore the cooling/flattening associated with La Nina, perhaps we should ignore the one single solid burst of global warming in the latter 20th century in association with the 1997-1998
bla bla bla
You are rolling out the standard "look how I can cherry-pick a few data points to show that people who are spending their entire careers doing statistics know nothing about it" strawman.
You will find all of your arguments are addressed in about a hundred reports. You're just dragging the dead horse through the street again and again and again, hoping this time you'll find a fool who buys it.
Re:Projections (Score:5, Informative)
The observed temperatures are currently below the error bars of the most optimistic projection. What does this mean?
It means you are reading BS that does not reflect *reality*.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/... [noaa.gov]
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2014 tied with 2001 as the 21st highest for February on record, at 0.41C (0.74F) above the 20th century average of 12.1C (53.9F).
The global land surface temperature was 0.31C (0.56F) above the 20th century average of 3.2C (37.8F), tying with 1943 as the 44th highest for February on record. For the ocean, the February global sea surface temperature was 0.45C (0.81F) above the 20th century average of 15.9C (60.6F), making it the seventh highest for February on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the Decemberâ"February period was 0.57C (1.03F) above the 20th century average of 12.1C (53.8F), making it the eighth warmest such period on record.
Re:Projections (Score:5, Funny)
Re:warmest X int the most recent Y BS... (Score:4, Informative)
Funny you should mention a 30 year old man. The last time the global average temperature for any month was below the 20th Century (1901-2000) average was 30 years ago in February of 1984. So that 30 year old man has never experienced a world where the monthly average temperature was below the 20th Century average.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, a brand new system of GPS has a higher resolution than one that has been in use for a couple decades. That surely proves the earth is heating up.
Re: (Score:3)
That the verbose description is hyped up when the data of the report is cooled down.
GDP losses was downgraded from 2-5%, to 0.2-2%. Meaning that predicted changes in GDP now too can disappear in the error bars and otherwise disappear entirely due to "unexpected growth."
Re: (Score:3)
The key word in your assertion is "currently". There is little evidence to suggest that global T is in a long-term levelling-off trend, and plenty of evidence that it will rise significantly in the near term, just like it has repeatedly in previous periods.
To simply look at a very small window of data and infer long-term trends (or the lack thereof) from it is the epitome of cherry-picking, hence:
The Escalator [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:3)
And this is abnormal for a planet still coming out of an ice age?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because the composition of the atmosphere has changed in a way which hasn't ever occurred before.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? And where is your research indicating that there has been a statistically significant climate deviation from the projections? Last I checked the last 30 years have shown a very prominent warming trend.
When you can show 30 years of flat or cooling temperatures, and you can actually back that up by some reviewed science, then you'll have a something. Comparing a single year, five years, or ten years for a climatic trend is nothing but garbage. There is way too much short term variance to make any sign
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How often do they put out a "We're all going do die" report like this?
As often as it takes until people like you listen?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When they say "we're all going to die and it's already too late to do anything about it" it sort of lessens the impact.
Re:Projections (Score:4, Informative)
That's not what they said. I know reading TFA is unfashionable, but if you had you would have seen that they are saying we can still do a lot to make it less bad and to cope with the changes that are coming. They present two models, one based on high emissions and one based on low emissions, and urge everyone to aim for the latter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"As often as it takes until people like you listen?"
And yet here you sit using the same electricity that is supposed to be killing the planet to whine about it. Get rid of your car, get rid of your computer.
Nothing significant can happen unless everyone does. And here's the thing - most countries (especially poorer countries) don't give the tiniest bit of a fuck.
If everyone in America did what I'm saying it would make an impact, but A) That will never happen and B) It would just delay the inevitable, becaus
Re: (Score:2)
not true
back in the day people used to cut entire forests down to burn the wood in the winter time and make land for farming
Re:Projections (Score:5, Funny)
So scenario A It's true and we're all fucked and can't do anything about it. Thus we're arguing over..nothing.
Science: If we can't change it, well, fuck it.
Re:Projections (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing significant can happen unless everyone does.
Not true. If 20% do something, it will be significant.
Everyone blame everyone else, and don't do anything? No thank you. Try at least.
And here's the thing - most countries (especially poorer countries) don't give the tiniest bit of a fuck.
Not true. Countries are affected differently, and some poor countries are highly concerned.
If everyone in America did what I'm saying it would make an impact, but A) That will never happen and B) It would just delay the inevitable, because of china etc.
So scenario A It's true and we're all fucked and can't do anything about it. Thus we're arguing over..nothing.
Scenario B It's not true and we're arguing over..nothing.
It doesn't paint the greatest picture of humanity but I'm fairly certain it's an accurate one.
You are falsely blaming others. Even if not everyone contributes, change can be achieved, and it should be tried. Non-contributing countries could even be fined for not contributing to the common rescue attempt.
China has about the same emissions as the US. And guess why China has so much emissions? Because of the outsourced productions (electronics, clothing, toys). The US could easily implement requirements that their outsourced products have to adhere to emission limits!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, that can't be the point of it... no one (nation, not person) would actually listen (or more importantly, act by passing and enforcing meaningful regulations) based on reports or projections.
It's pretty much a given that people are going to have to die on a fairly large scale for anyone to come to their senses.
These reports are pretty much just a CYA so the agencies don't get sued for not predicting this stuff later.
The people that matter, like insurance brokers, have already acted to stop covering low-
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anywhere in North America that you can even buy flood insurance any more?
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anywhere in North America that you can even buy flood insurance any more?
Anywhere that doesn't get flooded? Ever? Even by 1000 year floods?
Re:Projections (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I was recently required to buy flood insurance for my house, despite the fact that it was entirely unaffected by the 500-year flood [wikipedia.org] from 5 years ago. (I'm across the street from a creek, but the headwaters of said creek are only a half mile away. I'm also only about a mile from -- and only a few feet in elevation below -- the subcontinental divide. To classify my house as in a flood zone is pretty damn unreasonable.)
I'm sure there are many cases where the flood map update is a good thing, but it's still far
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They will have sprouted friggin' gills and still be struggling with the concept.
Re:Projections (Score:4, Informative)
I've met and seen many scientists argue against GWA. In fact, many meterologists and geologists....which mind you, until the recent creation of "climatology" were the DE FACTO experts on climate.
I've seen numerous staticians cite incorrect methods.
I've watched laymen document poor evidence collection methods en masse.
I've seen and heard blatant fear mongering, and antagonism, and professional censoring of anyone who disagrees.
Heck, per the old school definitions, the earth is STILL in an ice age.
Re: (Score:3)
Heck, per the old school definitions, the earth is STILL in an ice age.
Sure, compared to periods in earth history where humans didn't exist.
You probably missed the point where this whole thing is not about the earth, but about us surviving. Earth as a whole will carry on, +1 or +10 degrees. Life will change, mass extinction, nobody cares if homo sapiens is among it this time - except us.
Re:Projections (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you saying that the conclusion that most people agree upon is correct or that having more people understand an issue is helpful to the overall dialog on the issue?
If you are saying former then I would say that is a classic logical fallacy.
If the latter then I would agree with you.
To do that we must have access to the process and a seat at the table.
There has been a concerted effort lately to shut out "deniers" from all such discussions. They are being blacklisted from media. Blacklisted from science conferences. Blacklisted in science journals.
We can't possibly tell the difference between a crooked and an honest system if we're shut out. And worse, the very people that are shutting people out won't be able to tell either since their ability to detect problems is largely based upon a healthy internal dialog which they've terminated.
Science cannot operate without debate. By all means, let the debate be amongst experts. But "expert" can not be defined as "agreeing with everything we say about everything."
That isn't expertise... it is orthodoxy.
I'm sure you don't want that anymore then I do... however, it is the current state of affairs. It is a consequence of polluting science with politics.
Until the political elements are purged the debate is likely to remain a political debate... and not a scientific one.
The pro global warming people might well have the stronger scientific argument. But in perverting the issue with politics they've made the science irrelevant. And they are losing the political battle.
The best course is to purge the politics. But so far as I've seen... they're addicted to it already. They can't stop. And that means nothing short of collapse will end the relationship.
Again... even if they're right... they'll exaggerate their position. Its what politicians do. Think of them like investment bankers suddenly being given access to a no limit credit account. That is what the scientists have... or had. They had a no limit credibility account. Our trust in science is deep. Do we trust our politicians in the same way? Not even close. By by mixing science with politics... suddenly the politicians could BORROW the credibility of the scientists and use it for their own ends.
This sort of thing eventually trends towards collapse. Eventually the politicians will tell a lie so big that credibility check will bounce.
That will be a sad day and not one I am looking forward to... but really... its inevitable if the politicians are not cut off. They will suck the scientists dry and leave them with nothing but... piles of money. So there's there. But their integrity and position in society will be merely on paper at that point. The trust will be gone.
Is it worth it? Anyone that really values science would sever the connection. Its toxic.
Re:Projections (Score:4, Interesting)
In my view the answer is yes, but much in the same way that anti-tobacco lobbyists had propaganda machines supporting that tobacco was harmful against an onslaught of well funded research and arguments trying to questioning it.
Except that they're the ones outspending the evil oil companies propaganda machine. For example, there are major government agencies such as US's NASA and the UK's MET supporting climate change propaganda. Vast sums of public funds are burned on climate change issues such as roughly 30 billion euros per year by the EU.
And a number of private NGOs are on the gravy train such as the World Wildlife Fund which gets over $30 million per year just in public funds for its copious propaganda exercises. That's alone is well over any amounts alleged to be put into skepticism groups and propaganda.
Sure, the funding battle is uneven, but it's uneven in favor of climate change advocacy. It doesn't mean that climate change is wrong or even exaggerated, but I think it's healthy to consider all conflicts of interest, not merely assume they exist only for opponents.
Re: (Score:3)
You're still just talking generalities. Give me a specific example. For instance has the budget for NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Sciences, one of the primary centers for climate research in the United States, gone up by a factor of 100 (after accounting for inflation of course)?
Of course new institutions have been created and spending has increased. Understanding our climate and the world we live in is important science. But if you really think that nearly every climate scientist around the world
Re:Projections (Score:4, Insightful)
Because scary reports must logically be false.
This is the basic position a pseudo-skeptic like yourself takes, right? That if a large group of scientists say "X is harmful, potentially very harmful", you're response is that they're just trying to scare you, and you can safely ignore what they have to say and keep on doing X.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly hope that the inhabitants of Florida and the Los Angeles basin will have time to safely evacuate, before their welcome and long overdue submersion beneath the lapping waves...
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"
Re: (Score:3)
What will happen is that the sea level will slowly rise at a rate that's easy to avoid, But then along comes a big hurricane with the accompanying storm surge or a big Pacific tsunami and everyone panics and the roads get so jammed that some won't be able to escape the high water that because of the higher sea level is reaching places it never reached before.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, the pseudo-scientific types are on both sides of this issue. And they all have mod points.
Re:Projections (Score:4, Informative)
1. Proof is for liquor and mathematics.
2. There is a large body of data and evidence contained in a vast number of published papers and reports. If you are incapable of reading them, that's your problem.
Re: (Score:3)
You shouldn't put those two together. Remember, don't drink and derive!
Re:Projections (Score:5, Interesting)
Sarcasm aside, I do sorta agree with you. They know it's going to be a problem. They don't really seem to be pointing fingers which would be the next step. I realize the top carbon emitting nations run the show at the UN, so even a toothless resolution telling the US and China to fucking stop tinkering with the atmosphere is never going to get anywhere, but it doesn't seem like anyone is trying. Furthermore, the UN is against the next logical step of cleaning it up [nature.com]. They seem resistant to finding out if iron fertilization in the oceans could solve it.
So they won't make moves to prevent it and they won't make moves to allow it to be reduced. They come up with suggestions, but they're all basically "deal with the problems." For instance it encourages economic diversification in response to problems with the economy. Oh, great. Cause that's not something anyone thought to do before hand. MUCH easier than causing algal blooms in the ocean to soak up the carbon.
Re:Projections (Score:4, Insightful)
They seem resistant to finding out if iron fertilization in the oceans could solve it.
That's because you only get to try this (or anything like it) once. And if it doesn't work, and has side-effects you didn't anticipate, you're seriously fucked. We don't get have the technology to do terraforming, our global effects so far have all been unintentional.
Re: (Score:3)
Ted Danson said in 1998 that we had 10 years to save the oceans or else.
Al Gore said in 2006 that we had 10 years to stop global warming.
a preposterous comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
The US can always pay the interest on its loans denominated in US dollars by making dollars.
In any case, in 2013, the current interest on the US debt is about 400 billion USD. The US GDP is 16,803 billion USD, so the interest payment is about 2.3% of GDP. The US GDP could go down a bunch further.
This is a completely different situation from actually changing the global composition of physical molecules in the atmosphere, which cannot be redefined by any human action. The risk of long-term nearly irreversible changes in the physical environment vs human-to-human financial contracts?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And whats-his-name Watts, Steven Milloy and Fox "News" are in it for their own health.
Re: (Score:2)
"And whats-his-name Watts, Steven Milloy and Fox "News" are in it for their own health."
No, they're in it for ours.
Thanks guys.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Projections (Score:5, Informative)
"The observed temperatures are currently below the error bars of the most optimistic projection. What does this mean?"
What it means is that as evidence of any actual greenhouse warming effect from CO2 grows thinner, and contrary science continues to build momentum, and evidence of -- shall we say -- "irresponsible" handling of data by climate alarmists is mounting... the cries of gloom and doom become ever more strident and shrill. That in itself is evidence that it is a scheme for more government control, rather than good science.
Worst thing is that it is a world wide scheme. All scientists and all the world's governments are in collusion on this. It is even worse than how they all try to brainwash our kids into thinking we are related to apes.
Re:Projections (Score:5, Insightful)
"Worst thing is that it is a world wide scheme. All scientists and all the world's governments are in collusion on this. It is even worse than how they all try to brainwash our kids into thinking we are related to apes."
It's not a "worldwide" scheme, it's a UN scheme. Hardly the same things. Rather than implying I am a "creationist", why don't you try refuting what I actually wrote? You know, facts and all that.
Evolution has about the same level of scientific consensus supporting it as climate change. And very similar arguments against (it is to complex, data keep changing, this doesn't make sense to me, there is a conspiracy by the government).
And it is a world wide scheme and not a UN scheme, since all scientists across the world are saying the same, independently of UN and US actors in the debate. Close to all of the scientists in this field are repeatedly refuting what you claim. Do you want me to refute intelligent design, homeopathy, vaccine skeptics, fake moon landing? Same answer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, there is no argument against Creationism, because there doesn't need to be any argument against Creationism. There is simply no evidence, as in none whatsoever, to support it. Therefore it is nothing more than a supposition, not worth anyone's time.
Which is entirely different from global warming/climate change, whatever the f*ck they are calling it today. The arguments against which are that 1. the evidence in support of it is flawed; 2. the scientists who argue for it may have or likely have been i
Re:Projections (Score:5, Insightful)
The arguments against which are that 1. the evidence in support of it is flawed; 2. the scientists who argue for it may have or likely have been influenced by the incentive inherent in their own need to collect a paycheck; 3. That political persons and entities most definitely have been corrupted by said incentives.
There have been several meta-studies on these questions, and they all say that it's total bullshit, just in nicer words and with graphs and statistics. Google is your friend, I'm not doing the legwork for a denialist.
As soon as this name calling "denialist" bullshit started, you signed the check for your own demise.
There's a time for being nice and understanding and there's a time to call the sky blue and the liar a liar.
Unfortunately, most arguments are lost by the reasonable and rational persons, because they say "probably" and "I think" and "the data indicates, that", while the fanatic says "certainly", "I know" and "(whatever) proves". Thus the fanatic sounds more convincing, irrespective of facts.
Where are the farmers? (Score:2, Interesting)
One would think that agricultural lobbies worldwide, which are often quite politically powerful, would be screaming their heads off about climate change affecting crop yields. Have I simply failed to notice or have they been silent on the issue?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
agricultural lobbies
Higher temperatures in the historical record have been associated with a higher total biomass on the planet. Melt some of the Antarctic, get some more clouds in the atmosphere, grow wheat in the Sahara and grapes in Greenland - I'm guessing the Ag lobbies aren't too worried (though they should be angling for some subsidies to "help them survive" by now).
Re: (Score:2)
They are all optimized for colder temperatures. We will may end up with greater biomass, but with less food.
As for why the agri-business isn't complaining is that it hasn't started affecting them yet. They have never been very good at long-term thinking.
Re: (Score:3)
Our food crops are all massively bio-engineered. [...] They are all optimized for colder temperatures. We will may end up with greater biomass, but with less food.
So you're saying that food crops, when grown in conditions a few degrees warmer and with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, will be less productive? I think operators of greenhouses would disagree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Warmer temperatures mean more desertification and changes in rain belts. Try to imagine large parts of the American grain belt suddenly becoming a lot more difficult to irrigate. The US midwest agricultural system is built on borrowed water and borrowed time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
we're all effed (Score:5, Interesting)
we're all effed. even if we do an aggressive CO2 reduction in emissions, we won't get emissions down to sustainable levels by 2050. Then, it will take decades for the CO2 air concentration to reach sustainable levels. and this assumes we don't get an explosion in emissions from developing countries.
So we have 80 years of unmitigated climate change ahead of us. pretty much everybody reading this will die before there's a possibility of things improving. sorry to be a debbie downer, but these are no longer dire warnings of what might happen unless we take action, they're explanations of what will happen due to past inaction. hide yo wife, hide yo kids, hide yo husbands, cuz things are gonna start changing.
Re:we're all effed (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it's a lot more extreme that you are considering. The heat that has been stored in the oceans will take a long time to be lost.
OTOH, it's quite plausible that it's only our current civilization that is doomed, and that may well take 50 years or so. This may be long enough for a realtively reasonable transition to whatever will follow. The real problem is that there is as yet not even a acceptance that we're going to need radical change, much less an agreement of "change into what?" So we do lots of play-acting pretense that we say will let us keep things the same, or at least not much different.
Actions we have already taken have committed us to a drastic change. They haven't determined what form that change will take. Every year that we let pass without acknowledging that some change will be necessary removes some options. Every technological advance offers options, some of which may open new possibilities. I don't know where the best balance is. If we wait too long, the only option will be collapse into a new stone age civilization, with over a 90% die-off of the population in the process...and likely over 99%. We could also get into a war with a mix of advanced technologies and kill off considerably more, perhaps 99.99% or 99.999%. Then the survivors need to stabilize the remaining population, this will probably lead to a further decline over the succeeding 50 years. Then any surviving population may being to grow.
But this coulld be avoided by proper action, if we only knew what proper action was. We don't. We do know that what we're doing is only satisfying short term goals, and that in the long term it's disasterous. But the short term is where we live, so we tend to overly discount both long term gains and losses.
Climate Denial (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Climate Denial (Score:4, Insightful)
Think of it like the evolution debate; some 'deniers' think there's still a debate, while the rest of us are interested in the details of how it works.
Report Believable, but what to do? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have always found it interesting that a lot of folks would prefer that such problems didn't exist when even simple logic seems to point to the fact that it is human caused. Common sense tells you that if a billion of us start to burn things it might have some negative effects. Heck, I remember as a kid we use to dig holes in a riverbank for fun and over time with a few sticks we managed to amazingly reshape the entire riverbank. Granted maybe I shouldn't be so hard on folks who refuse to believe in it. After all if it doesn't directly affect me and I can't do anything about it, it doesn't exist right?
The real problem is what to do about it. It probably isn't all gloom and doom. The UN is making a huge deal of it because let's face it there's a LOT of third world and poor countries out there where even a small shift in climate would kill millions. The UN represents ALL countries. For us richer nations it will probably be uncomfortable, maybe an inconvenience at worst so long as serious world war doesn't break out. Still I wonder how morally bad we would feel if we knew that say saving a little now could save millions in another country. Sadly I suspect in the end greed will win out and we'll likely take the difficult road in life. It seems to sadly be what we do best. Wait until things get bad or someone dies, then try to fix it if we can.
There's Money to Be Made (Score:2)
I wonder how many corporations are already looking to make a ton of money if the environment does collapse. Look for billionaires investing in water reservoirs, fishing farms, algae growing technology. They are counting on the deaths of hundreds of millions. Where there's death, there's profit!
Declining crop yields (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to say, the discussion here is amusing (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, I didn't read the summary or anything. I don't care what evidence points to what or whether A or B claim, demand or deny something. I can't help to look at it from a risk manager's point of view and, frankly, I wonder what the goal of the discussion is. Currently it feels like a political debate between two positions claiming that they're right, but no longer because they think they have the better position but only because they don't wanna relent and WANNA be right, no matter whether that has anything to do with reality or not.
At the same time, I can't help but not care who is right in the end. Because from the risk management point of view, it simply does not matter. As a risk manager, I would HAVE TO assume that global warming happens and that I have to prepare for it and formulate a plan to mitigate its effects. Why? Because of risk * cost / reward. In this case (and I get to that in a minute), cost and reward even take a back seat because risk itself outshines both.
Risk is determined by effect (what happens when the incident strikes) and chance (how likely is it that it happens). The risk is in this case paramount due to the insanely high effect and a nonzero chance of incidence. In risk management terms, an incident would threaten the continuation of operation (in this case, our life), costing at the very least millions if not billions of lives, followed by famine and very likely war for the remaining resources for the rest of the planet. Now, this would not matter yet if there is a zero chance of incidence. That is nothing I could assume for certain.
The mere fact that there is a nonzero chance of it to happen, coupled with the insanely severe effects in case of incidence, would make me recommend to prepare for the incident and at least conduct studies how it could be avoided.
The key issue here is that the incident cannot be mitigated sensibly once it happened. We can't react to it appropriately, we can only prepare for it. To pull a drastic example, once you have lung cancer, stopping smoking won't change much anymore. And I'm pretty sure you don't give a shit then whether smoking gave you cancer or whether you got it any other way.
Re:Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the first thought when confronted with a troubling scientific report is to consult an economist...
Re: (Score:3)
I once saw an economist get up in a symposium and claim that the carrying capacity of the Earth -- the number of humans it could support -- was infinite.
Re:Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (Score:4, Insightful)
I call it a report written by climatologists. You know, SCIENTISTS...
I get it. It tells you things you don't want to hear, so you have this need to cast aspersions on it.
Re:Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (Score:4, Insightful)
I call it a report written by climatologists. You know, SCIENTISTS...
I get it. It tells you things you don't want to hear, so you have this need to cast aspersions on it.
I hate those scientists, they have an agenda. They even question God's intelligent design.
Re: (Score:3)
It is a report written by climatologists, but in prior reports from the same body reasonable projections have been excluded from consideration for being too extreme, so it's also a political report. Which way they are bending the studies this time I don't know. I may find out, but probably not for a month or so.
N.B.: There are a LOT of studies. You can't include all of them, not even all the ones that don't have obvious errors, and deciding which to exclude is a political decision when done under govern
Re: (Score:3)
The BEST form of sequestration is to put solid, compressed, carbon in permanent long-term geologic storage.
Thing is, it already comes this way, it's called "coal". We just have to STOP unearthing it, but that's not profitable.
Re: (Score:3)
I call it a report written by climatologists. You know, SCIENTISTS...
This is the WG2 "summary for policy-makers" report. It is based on the WG1 scientific report, unlike the scientific report the summary is also reviewed, edited, and signed off, by the 195 governments who participate in the IPCC. When taken as a whole I can not think of any other formal review process that comes close to the scale and accuracy of the IPCC.
This is the same kind of report that made the infamous 2035 error about glaciers, however in 20+yrs nobody has spotted an error in the WG1 scientific re
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the SPM has be accused of not being alarmist enough.
Re: (Score:2)
ALGORE
*chug*
Re: (Score:2)
here's a more realistic assessment from a real economist
As opposed to what other sort of economists?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2589424/UK-professor-refuses-apocalyptic-UN-climate-change-survey.html#ixzz2x3avUrY3 [dailymail.co.uk]
Prof Tol disagrees with the comparative
Professor Tol told the BBC: You have a very silly statement in the draft summary that says that people who live in war-torn countries are more vulnerable to climate change, which is undoubtedly true.
But if you ask people in Syria whether they are more concerned with chemical weapons or climate change, I think they would pick chemical weapons - that is just silliness.
Not with the fundamentals:
Prof Tol does not dispute the view that climate change is caused by man - but he says its impact has been exaggerated.
Re: (Score:3)
When you link to dailymail, you automatically make everyone assume you're wrong and an idiot. Just for reference. You may not be, but everyone stopped reading your post when they see the dailymail link.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what GP linked to aswell, just by a proxy blog.
Re: (Score:3)
The Arab Summer. (Score:4)
Sure it's silly to blame an historic drought and subsequent civil unrest on AGW alone, the point is not that "AGW caused the civil war or toppled Mubarak", the point is that such "dustbowl" scenarios are much more likely to occur with AGW than without it. The issue of "climate refugees" is why for almost a decade now the pentagon has put AGW at the top of it's medium term future threat list. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
A non climatologist says the climatologists are wrong. You are paying attention to what an economist 'feels' is right, why?
Of, right, becasue you don't understand the science so you need to glom onto anything that supports your ignorance. Even when that person isn't an expert in the fields
Re: (Score:3)
The UoEA lost their input raw data, because they didn't have enough storage. Once the raw data was gone, they had no way to start again from scratch.
That's just bullshit. The data they deleted was based on temperature records from around the world which is still available from the original sources. Nothing was lost.
Regarding code, the complete code for one of the worlds major climate models, the NASA/GISS Model E [nasa.gov] is freely available. It's written in Fortran 90 which is a fine language for this type of application. Why don't you apply your code analysis talent to that and see what you come up with.
Re: (Score:3)
People here tend to forget that the UN is filled to the brim with corruption.
Nobody forgets that, it's just that the scientists involved don't actually work for the UN. I don't think they even get paid for their (volunteer) work on the IPCC report. There are some UN-paid staffers, but I only see about a dozen [www.ipcc.ch] listed on the IPCC site. They're all part of the World Meteorological Organization. If you want to call the WMO a hotbed of corruption, you can try, but I'm pretty sure you don't have any reason to do so.
That their human rights body is chaired by countries with the worst human rights records -- and worse, that this is allowed to continue -- demonstrates why everything that comes out of the UN should be looked at with the greatest scepticism.
Well, a worldwide council with maybe five nations in it wouldn't be much u
Re:Climate change conferences in 2014 (Score:5, Insightful)
I will give you a hint, pro-climate change scientists tend to be funded by universities and in some cases governments.
Deniers tend to be funded by Exxon, and their like.
So tell, me who gets tot see the world on expenses - the deniers or the scientists?
If you can't see the answer than that tells me who is funding your internet connection. After all the deniers have expressly admitted paying people to spread lies.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah! Mongol invasions over the ice bridge to Siberia! Like the GOOD OLD days!
nuclear winter in north Korea may also happen (Score:2)
nuclear winter in north Korea may also happen
Re: (Score:3)
it's a 11 year cycle. Important to know, but in no way is it an argument against global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You could, you know, if you felt like, stop watching television read the report, and other associated materials.
I know, it's a lot of work, and it's just a lot easier to repeat what you've heard.
Re: (Score:3)
"If you continuously prophesy spoon, you will eventually be correct".
"If you continuously prophesy loom, you will eventually be correct".
Get over it. Lean to tell the difference between a prediction based on evidence and a prophesy based on wishful thinking.
Re: (Score:3)
What studies have falsified it? JEsus fucking christ, pal, some fucking blogger you frequent doesn't constitute a "study".
Re:Irreversible? (Score:5, Informative)
You can go to the bottom of the report page 38 for a chart and review the differences in the between a "low emission mitigation scenario" RCP 2.6 (one that we try to help the problem) and a high emission scenario (where we keep on keepin on.) RCP 8.5.
While temps go up for both, the mitigation scenario leads to a much more livable planet, closer to the one we live in today. the difference between scenarios is stark, an average of 3C difference by 2100. Children born today could easily live to see 2100, they would be 86 years old. So for me in Houston TX that means a hot summer day that was 100F will be 105.5F. The mitigation scenario could reverse the warming trend as early as 2050. You are correct that even the best case scenario doesn't allow for a return to current temperatures by 2100. In my mind the question is how long until we realize we our saving our own skins and make some hard decisions. Everybody want's a livable planet, but nobody want's to be the first to make the sacrifice.
Re:The climate is changing, it's colder than norma (Score:5, Informative)