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%.'"
Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (Score:0, Informative)
Meanwhile, after you read past the end-of-the-world predictions that were likely lifted directly from one of those churches that makes a living predicting the End Times, here's a more realistic assessment from a real economist who told the IPCC to remove his name from their "summary":
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/... [joannenova.com.au]
Re:Projections (Score:2, Informative)
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: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:Projections (Score:5, Informative)
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: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: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: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: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:The climate is changing, it's colder than norma (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Projections (Score:2, Informative)
"I think this "you should listen to us and take us seriously, not reject us" is bullshit. I don't give anti-vaccination and homeopathy people that leeway, because science says you are wrong. You are arguing from a position supported by almost no science, but a lot of politics."
This is the claim that deserves no respect, because it is simply wrong.
Look at the link I provided elsewhere in this thread. Read some of the papers. Or -- heaven forbid you should have to lift a finger -- go out and find some of it yourself, because there is lots of that science and it is all around you. It just isn't being spoon-fed to you by the evening news, which seems to be the reason you seem to think it doesn't exist.
You are doing exactly the kind of denying that you accuse others of. Do your own homework. Then get back to me, and maybe I'll listen.
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.