Slashdot Mirror
Draft of IPCC 2013 Report Already Circulating
First time accepted submitter iggymanz writes "More precise modeling has changed some long term climate predictions: sea levels to rise almost a meter more than present over the next century, but past dire warnings of stronger storms or more frequent droughts won't pan out. Instead there will be less strong storms, but peak winds in the tropics might be slightly higher. Temperature rise of global average will be about 3 degree C total, including the 1 degree C rise over the 20th century. In places where precipitation is frequent, it will become even more frequent; in arid areas, the tendency will be to become even drier. Some new arid areas are expected to appear in the south of N. America, South Africa and Mediterranean countries. Overall, hardly a doomsday scenario."
How did real estate in Florida ever get so overpriced in the run up to 2008, if anyone out there is taking rising sea levels seriously?
It was always a political agenda, with scientists taken along for the ride because they could get funding that way.
SOURCE ?
Now that the number of planets around stars in this galaxy alone is in the ballpark of several billions, one starts to think that the reason for no apparent alien civilizations similar to this one is because they boil themselves out .. they simply raise the temperature of their own place before they are able to either counter the effect, or before they are tech savvy enough to colonize someplace else: they either boil, starve, or poison themselves.
If this projection is correct, and the effect grows at an exponential rate, it will be 1 degree for the last century, (order of) 3 for the next, 9 for the one after that, and then it is either super-tech or extinction.
Careful now, humans.
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
No, it was partly to justify wealth transfer from first world to the richest individuals, through a third world proxy ruled by corrupt officials. It's obvious now that the Kioto Protocol has failed, the UN has created a new excuse to perform the same operation (now, instead of buying them "carbon credits", rich countries will have to give them "compensation money for climate change")
The rest was to justify the move to alternate (worse) forms of energy, because it's expected China and India will increase the cost of oil now that they are starting to abandon the socialist-based economies that put them into starving misery for decades. USA, Japan and Europe won't have it as easy now that they have to compete with these awakening giants for energy production.
Republic Broadcasting Network.
It is more apocalyptic than ever before. And I betya that the IPCC 2014 is even more horrendous!
When will it become so silly that even the most hard-core greenies cant take it serious anymore? The earth has been much warmer and much cooler than these day's, the difference is that now we are here with a lot. That is correlation, not causation...
For those who have some difficulties telling them apart, go and do a statistics class. For you who already did that; here is an obligatory xkcd reference...
rm -rf --no-preserve-root /
I'd rather have more accurate models than more precise models.
Bad models don't get any better by adding decimal places.
I expect that accurate modelling of something as complex as climate is really, really hard.
We just cannot. We cannot even predict the weather more than a few days ahead. Yet somehow we pretend that wee can predict climate 100's of years ahead. Small flaws in the model could result in large errors. We cannot even be sure that we have considered all the relevant parameters.
This is just a case of GIGO.
You're neglecting to account for the onslaught of Captain Planet.
Just sit back and chill !! You can't do anything about it !! NO !! You CAN'T !!
Not as long as the disinformation campaign is running in the USA, no.
No sig today...
Just sit back and chill !! You can't do anything about it !! NO !! You CAN'T !!
Sure you can. Move. Its not that hard, depending where you live. I live near a great lake, the supposed increase in extremes of weather is roughly equivalent to moving about 5% further away from the lake. So I need to move "about" a mile east. Having to move a mile toward the lake sucks for the rich people already living on the lakeshore, but they're the people most able to afford it anyway.
My distant ancestors immigrated to farmland about 100 miles north roughly the same distance from the lake. Absolute worst case screaming eco-nut scenario however highly unlikely, means my GGG-grandkids would have to move 100 miles north to my ancestral homeland to have the same climate as when I was a kid. No big deal.
Wake me when they're growing bananas in Chicago out in the open air, or a hurricane strikes Milwaukee, then I'll get worried about it.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
sea levels to rise almost a meter more than present over the next century ... hardly a doomsday scenario
I believe you don't realise quite how many people live within a vertical metre of sea level.
Olaf Stampf.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Let's compute the total market value of all coastal real estate below 1m elevation before we declare this "hardly a doomsday scenario."
Let's also factor in the costs of re-aligning all land use to the new climate and the impact of that re-alignment on the global food supply.
I'm not qualified to do that analysis, myself -- but I would venture, neither is the Slashdot editor who commented so dismissively on the report.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Hopefully the new models are not just continuing a 20-year trend of underestimating the impacts of global warming. Like melting arctic ice.
sea levels to rise almost a meter more than present over the next century ... hardly a doomsday scenario
I believe you don't realise quite how many people live within a vertical metre of sea level.
Well, that's a valid point however hamanity's war with the sea is nothing new and the Dutch have become quite adept at it (with 20% of their country being reclaimed land). Now, that has a whole bunch of caveats about how much trouble they face is that system ever fails and we've all probably heard about that. I would bet that if people believed these reports, some relatively inexpensive measures could be taken to prevent a much more expensive catastrophe. I don't know how much these efforts could help Florida -- an occasional hurricane might make them a bigger problem. But engineers have been tackling this problem.
For the United States, I think a bigger doomsday scenario of this is for agriculture in Texas. Texas already lost $7.62 billion in agricultural this year and if you're telling me that that part of North America is going to get more arid? Well, droughts are something that humans have long had problems with. You can build all the irrigation you want but when that's dried up, there's not a lot you can do. If you like to eat beef and if you like Texas to be a productive state in the union, you should probably be concerned about this.
My work here is dung.
Global warming doesn't care whether you believe in it.
But the people who don't believe in it will not even consider that their Florida beachside home may be under water in a couple of decades. Therefore, the folks who see the seas rising will sell their beach side properties for a premium to the folks who are: sticking their heads in the sand; folks who think GW is a Liberal hoax; and folks who think the property is just high enough that they won't be effected.
1. Find people who don't believe in GW.
2. Sell (currently beach side; underwater later) property to them.
3. Profit!
We just cannot. We cannot even predict the weather more than a few days ahead. Yet somehow we pretend that wee can predict climate 100's of years ahead. Small flaws in the model could result in large errors. We cannot even be sure that we have considered all the relevant parameters.
This is just a case of GIGO.
Climate != Weather.
Bad Car Analogy: Say your car now has 150,000 miles on it. You know that repair bills are going to increase but as to what exactly will break and when, you don't know.
Actually, there's too much money at stake for good science to rule the day. I expect the green energy billionaires to pressure the IPCC to alter their predictions before this report is officially released.
The end goal is the same. They've just finally figured out what the socialists and Marxists have known for a century - that incrementalism is far more effective than "shock and awe" at achieving the end goal, even though it takes a lot longer.
The climate is going to change with or without our help. In the end, it doesn't matter if AGW is real. The climate is going to change, and we had better expend our energies adapting rather than resisting, since, you know, resistance is futile.
Despite all the (legitimate) complaints about disinformation and scientific illiteracy in the U.S., there's this.
The end conclusion of that story was obviously written by someone who doesn't know much about the situation. Yes, a 12 pack of hurricane Sandies won't level Nebraska but a tiny shift like that with droughts and floods and higher temps will kill off so many species of fish, amphibians, coral, birds, etc that it will disrupt the entire animal kingdom. That won't be so good for the world. You'll be sitting there enjoying your lovely new weather and suddenly you can't buy tuna and the prices in the seafood section of the deli triple.
Baloney. It's the political hacks who pounce on something like this and say "Look! The scientists revised their consensus predictions, *obviously* it's just politics because the truth never changes." They say this because politics is the only thing they (think) they understand. It's just as silly as when they get up on their high horses about "revisionist" historians -- revising history is what *actual* historians do. Revising climate predictions is what climatologists do, and in any case the rumors of what the new IPCC (you like them now?) forecasts will contain is well within the range that's been discussed all along, except for a somewhat more pessimistic sea level rise figure. If you'd actually been paying attention to science news instead of political pundits, you'd know that the recent buzz has been the remarkable accuracy of the original 1990 IPCC report (source: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1763.html). This is a remarkable piece of support for the anthropogenic hypothesis, since the computer models used in the late 80s relied heavily on atmospheric CO2 accumulation.
The only reason people like you think climate change is politically driven myth is because you weren't paying attention *before* it became a political issue. It was vigorously debated in the scientific literature well before it became a political hot potato -- check the abstracts on Google Scholar if you don't believe me. Now you can pooh pooh a 2 degree rise in global average temperature and 1 m rise in sea level, but that's because you have no idea what the effects of those changes will be. A 1m mean sea level rise means substantially more frequent flooding events. A 2 degree temperature rise has a huge effect on the distribution of vector borne diseases.
It sounds benign to say that there will be "new arid zones in the Southern United States", but only if you don't think about what the appearance of a new arid zone would mean.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Just sit back and chill !! You can't do anything about it !! NO !! You CAN'T !!
Not as long as the disinformation campaign is running in the USA, no.
That disinformation campaign wouldn't work if not for the alarmist Chicken Littles all going over-the-top batshit crazy with their alarmism and ruining the credibility of anyone trying to speak calmly about climate change.
IPCC being a body with representation from different states (with a lot of political interest in the reports), that more or less work with consensus, their reports are often watered down when released. This means that the published science is often more pessimistic than the IPCC report.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Since when Al Gore's bank accounts are in the third world?
Overall, hardly a doomsday scenario.
Look Ma! "Only" 3 degrees rise! Less strong storms, some more rain over here, some less rain over there... I'm sure farmers can just move, and populations will freely follow, with our current situation of open borders worldwide and such... I guess now the IPCC is no longer the CENTER OF THE ILUMINAT--er... CLIMATE CHANGE CONSPIRACY, now it's a reputable scientific report, yeah I think we can *cough* spin *cough*, I mean clearly demonstrate the "change" in "climate change" to be nothing but a small nuisance, why, less strong storms? Maybe it's an improvement! Except, you know, the part about coastal regions... But it's not like some of the most economically important cities are located near the coast, no siree... I mean, what's a meter more in rise than previously expected? Like 3 feet, right? No biggie.
If anyone doubts that science and plain common sense can be ignored by our fearless leaders, consider that our congress critters are willing to call pizza a vegetable.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45306416/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/pizza-vegetable-congress-says-yes/
After so many stories came out this year of revised data showing effects worse than previously predicted? I really hope they're not holding back for fear of being labelled "alarmist" by the denialists.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It was a scheme to transfer wealth from the weak and helpless First World to the almighty and influential Third World. Too bad it didn't actually work 'cause nobody gave a shit... If only those meddly kids and their dog hadn't intervened!!! Well, back to the Evil Plan drawing board...
Also, your mom says you forgot to take your meds, again. Remember the incident with the tinfoil? We don't want another "tinfoil incident", do we?
Without taking into account all factors, you can't decide if this change in sea level or climate will be good or bad. Will be change. That kind of change could mean that some animals or plants will have better odds of survival, other could have worse. Mankind could adapt to the temperature/sea level change (maybe at a bigger cost that it would cost to prevent it, or maybe not), but some other parts of the environment won't. And we could depend directly or indirectly on them, and it could hit us far harder because dealing with the other changes.
Somewhat worries me that that considered cost on all of this is always economic. If i.e. rice or wheat gets globally affected (because a disease carried by a bug that had a bloom because the change, to put a very simple chain in) millons could starve to death. Mankind could adapt, but the cost should take lives into account.
This article doesn't seem to address what I have been told was the actual greatest danger of global warming, a Northern Hemisphere Ice age.
Popularized by The Day After Tomorrow, the science behind the northern hemisphere entering a mini ice age as a response to large amounts of fresh water melting into the North Atlantic, from ice sheets such as Greenland, is quite sound. I believe it is the leading theory as to what caused The Younger Dryas.
The basic principle rests on the fact that the North Atlantic Deep Water Current, which brings warmth to the Northern Hemisphere, relies heavily on the salinity of the ocean water. Making the water too fresh, as in from melting all the ice, would stop the current and cause a mini ice age. My understanding is that from the time this current is shut down to when the higher latitudes are uninhabitable is thought to be less than half a century.
The very notion of a secret draft plays into peoples biases, it also depends on people's ignorance of basic facts. Some easily verifiable facts:
The IPCC conducts it's business in the open and are more than happy to respond to a layman who spots a trivial typo in a draft (as I did circa 2001).
They're expecting ~100K review comments this time around.
The thousands of scientists and others involved do not get a dime from the IPCC, all work is donated (aside from 3-4 permanent office staff).
The IPCC's accounts can also be found via that link.
Their $5-6M annual budget comes from donations by the governments of over 100 countries of all political stripes. Somewhat ironically the bulk of it is spent on airline tickets..
The political construct is unraveling
The headline hit the nail on the head, but I'm pretty sure it's not the nail the GP was aiming at.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Nope. The political angle has been apparent for quite some time - I figured it was an attempt to stop the developing world from advancing. Say to prevent China and India from becoming the dominant players on the world stage. But prior to the politicization there were the ever conflicting reports just like we see today:
Remember the record hurricane season that was going to be the new norm due to climate change? How about the collapse of the ice shelves in Antarctica that later later started growing - oh, melting will be at the north pole and MORE ice will form at the south. I recall in the 1970's when we were all headed to the next ice age - the computer models all kept falling into something called "white earth" and never warmed up again. At least that is more consistent with the ice cores (looks like we're due for glaciation to start within 1000 years). One of the reasons people are skeptical or even deniers is all this bullshit that they can't get the models and prediction straight. If you keep changing your story, people won't believe you. It's that simple.
I recall in the 1970's when we were all headed to the next ice age - the computer models all kept falling into something called "white earth" and never warmed up again.
An article in Newsweek written by a scientifically-illiterate journalist is not the same as a peer-reviewed article written by an actual scientist working in the field. As to the rest of your nonsense, you do realize that science works by "changing the story" all the time? I guess by your "reasoning" gravity doesn't exist either since we have more refined models than Newtonian gravitational theory.
Try the 1970s consensus that warming was occurring:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html
This has always been a political issue which exists as a proxy for denial of the actual underlying problem, which is overpopulation.
Futurist Traditionalism
Places like Florida are in danger, because it's flat, and built over with cement.
But I am curious about soil accumulation and natural biosystems. The 1 meter rise, does it account for a century of soil growth?
My old hometown of New Haven was built in the late 1600's. The town "green" is now almost 1-2 meters higher than it was in the 1700's. Thanks to bio accumulation. Most can see this happen. We had an area that we put dirt and gravel on. Over two years, weeds grew and were chopped down. We probably added a 1/2"-1" or more of top soil over those couple of years. This is a natural biological system.
Problem is, we cement over everything and prevent that natural process.
Perhaps you recall the media making a big deal of global cooling, but the scientific community was not. The story isn't changing nearly so much as people say it is. Popular media is doing a hell of a job of making it sound like this is a controversy. It isn't. There is a great graphic here. Source
.02% of papers speculating that global warming doesn't exist and call it a "controversy".
Climate skeptics have played the media and the general populace like a fiddle. They point to the relatively small number of scientists who speculated on global cooling, and then say, "they can't make up their minds". They pick the
...by the time we get to IPCC 2020, it'll either be a projection of roses and paradise, or maybe they'll move into catastrophic global cooling :)
Seriously, all you highly intelligent motivated reasoning alarmists out there, the biggest damage that was ever done to your position was the wild exaggeration and apocalyptic doom mongering. Yes, it has been fairly pointed out that there is a contingent of skeptics who scare monger about the "New World Order", and the UN controlling everyone, but that trope hasn't benefitted the CAGW crowd nearly as much as they've been harmed by their own end of the world rhetoric.
Yes, it is both technically and feasibly possible for humans to do stupid things to the environment and effect local climates. Urban Heat Island effect is an obvious one. But screaming, "if you don't listen to me about your SUV the oceans are going to rise 6 meters next week!", well, that just undermines your credibility. Not all warmists do this, but instead of being marginalized, these activists are lionized, and that is actually hurting any possible case to be made about further climate research and the pursuit of falsifiable science.
Nope. The political angle has been apparent for quite some time - I figured it was an attempt to stop the developing world from advancing. Say to prevent China and India from becoming the dominant players on the world stage.
So, to be clear: you believe that Manabe and Wetherald's landmark 1967 paper (which built on Manabe and Strickler 1964) that calculated the amount of warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, was work that was actually done "to prevent China and India from becoming the dominant players on the world stage"? Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever? Can you find some 1964 references saying that politicians were seriously worried about "China and India becoming the dominant players on the world stage," much less were instructing scientists to make up data to prevent it?
... I recall in the 1970's when we were all headed to the next ice age - the computer models all kept falling into something called "white earth" and never warmed up again.
That's been debunked ages ago. The "next ice age" played well in the media-- it made Time and Newsweek--but it was never a scientific consensus. Check out "The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus" in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 , or the discussion and links here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/09/18/now-out-in-bams-the-myth-of-th/
...One of the reasons people are skeptical or even deniers is all this bullshit that they can't get the models and prediction straight. If you keep changing your story, people won't believe you. It's that simple.
Sorry, but this is the way science happens: the overall physics is understood, and then the details are slowly filled and the error bars are refined and the calculations get better.
Let me remind you that the overall physics of the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had been remarkably constant. Today's best estimate of the warming effect is still within the error bars of Manabe and Wetherald's original 1967 calculation, and if you plot their predictions against the actual measured temperatures, using the measured values of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the data fits perfectly.
We have pretty good confidence that we know the physics of the greenhouse effect. Scientists has not been "keeping changing your story"-- it's been physics that's been well understood for over a hundred years, and the same overall calculation with the same net result, to within the error bars, for close to fifty years.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
If they want to flog this dead horse of a fad back to life.
How about "we're all fucked"?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If it weren't for the Montreal protocol, we could have global cooling.
This space intentionally left blank
Do their predictions have me release my Space-Based Solar Power And Desert Irrigation gizmo around the year 2015? Or 2025? 2085 maybe? Wouldn't want my silly meddling to interfere with their crystal ball...
--libman
Here's a good and insighful read of the author of the study that became media's "next ice age" in the 1970s has to say about it: http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_7.html#schneider
He ends with:
There is only one method known to science available today which will reliably remove carbon dioxide from the atmostphere for long-term sequestration, but it is entirely feasible in both centralized and distributed models, which is reforestation. I won't get into a ton of details about the value of individual effort vs. collective effort vs. policy activism. Long story short, you're wrong.
Interestingly Brad Werner presented a talk titled "Is Earth F**ked?" at the recently concluded AGU meeting. You can find the abstract and view the presentation here. His answer is probably unless we start seeing the kind of activism around the world like that that accompanied the civil rights movement and anti Vietnam war movement of the 1960's.
Your assessment seems based on several questionable assumptions, including but not limited to the following.
a) just because planets are numerous, there have been many capable of providing the necessary environment for the development of life.
---> (keep in mind that ours allowed us to develop of the last 1/3 of the entire existence of the universe)
b) life actually did develop on many of these abundant incubators
c) that the existence of life necessarily implies a level intelligence along with a physical structures necessary for the manipulation of its environment
d) that the development of these attributes by other lifeforms would result in a similar disregard for their environment of origin
---> (even other cultures here on earth have displayed more sense previously)
e) that it's actually possible to successfully develop and implement all the knowledge and technologies necessary to colonize another planet, move and subsequently sustain life elsewhere
---> (contrary to popular belief, man isn't anywhere close to this level of sophistication)
You must have swallowed the Blue Pill.
Thanks for the informative post. I googled, and can confirm the author of TFA is infamous for absurd attacks on climate science and climate scientists. However, according to IPCC's schedule, a 2013 "second order draft" is circulating now to governments, who could be leaking them. While TFA downplays a 1 meter rise in ocean levels by 2100, that number is double it's previous estimate. Given a recent study claims oceans are rising over 3mm per year, even 1 meter may be low. How bad will it be if we see a 3 meter rise?
While the author is a wing nut, I'm encouraged to see these guys shifting away from "the Earth is not warming" to a discussion of how bad the impact will be. If I were Canadian, I could see plenty of upside to global warming. It's not 100% bad, just mostly bad... Shifting to a discussion of the impact would be a huge step forward.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
Great point. I would add that confidence in models comes from a track record of verified predictions.
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
No one that appeals to "consensus" has any scientific credibility. "On the word of no one", Nullius in verba, used to be the motto of the Royal Society. It is well hidden these days. It is not featured on the home page. In the 19th century, the Royal Society received money from the British government. This created such a scandal that any further government funding was refused. It was judged scandalous that scientist could depend on government funding. This was during laissez-faire. The British government then bankrupted the universities during the First World War (they had their savings in government bonds). These days, the Royal Society is a stooge of British politicians. Since they are the ones paying. Darwin was a hobby scientist. He was not peer reviewed. He did not work at a university. He did not publish papers. He wrote books. Followingen the IPCC logic, I should have answered that "oh, but the whole physics department agrees with my statement" during the defence of my thesis...
... I don't see any improvement. Andrew, Katrina and Sandy were just ordinary weather? Desertification of the American south isn't a problem? What happens when Atlanta runs out of water completely?
Even though you've already been thoroughly debunked, I feel the need to chime in about this global cooling malarky.
See, there are two types of gasses that make a difference to these discussions. Carbon oxides and sulphur oxides. Sulphur oxides reflect heat, so warmth from the sun bounces back out into space and the earth cools down a little bit. Fortunately for us, scrubbing our exhaust gasses and purifying our fuels meant that we could stop pumping suplhur oxides into the atmosphere. Yay us!
Carbon oxides behave a little differently, they absorb heat, so any heat that would be radiating out gets caught by the carbon oxides and makes them wiggle a little faster, which warms up all the air around it. Unfortunately, no one has come up with an "easy" way to stop pumping carbon oxides into the atmosphere, everything we have would require us to change what we are doing. We don't want to change, so the science telling us about it must be wrong.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
3mm/yr * 100 yrs = 0.3m
The math you have performed for the numbers that you have presented is off by a factor of 10.
Did you actually read the summary we're commenting under?
Yes. Did you read the actual article being summarized? Here is a direct quote:
"The field of climate research has advanced since the IPCC's last assessment report, released in 2007, as computers have grown faster and models more complex. In fact, these developments make what insiders say the IPCC's message will be all the more astonishing: The new forecasts, they say, will be more or less the same as the old ones, just more precise."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Makes me feel so much better knowing that you don't give a fuck, and that it won't affect you much. :)
You will pay for everyone else anyway. Whether you like it or not. In taxes, higher prices, unavailable commodities, more robberies (due to more poverty), overpriced rents as the bankers try to make up for the old property they can no longer sell, resource wars...What if you have to move a second time due to feedback loops getting tighter and tighter? How are you going to pay for that? Remember - not allowed to sell the old house, it's now unsellable.
To be honest, you types ought to be lined up against a wall. I'm serious; people like you are a danger to civilization and should be removed. This is not an ad hominem, it's reality. You even profess not to give a crap about your GGG granchildren. Horrible people, are the deniers and lazies. You haven't thought anything through.
The parent post is anything but insightful.
Andrew, Katrina and Sandy were just ordinary weather
Yes.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/cei/step6.ytd.gif
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/fig33.jpg
it's in my head
One of the reasons people are skeptical or even deniers is all this bullshit that they can't get the models and prediction straight. If you keep changing your story, people won't believe you. It's that simple.
If you don't change your story when data challenges it, you're not doing science. It's that simple.
I understand that "people" (by which *I* mean "some people") are easier to convince if you never change what you say no matter what new evidence comes up. That's because they don't understand the difference between changing your story purely for the effect it has on the listener, and changing your story because you've learned something new. In other words, the "people" you are citing can't tell the difference between dishonesty and honesty. Let's take Antarctic sea ice as an example. "People" may take scientists honest admission that seasonal sea ice is increasing as a sign of dishonesty, but it's a peculiar conspiracy that raises and publishes doubts about itself.
In any even the Antarctic ice kerfuffle turned out not to be related to lowered temperatures at all, but more energetic winds driving the sea ice beyond regions in which it formed.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
3mm/yr * 100 yrs = 0.3m
The math you have performed for the numbers that you have presented is off by a factor of 10.
Well, this proofs he's an engineer! .... Or he took the accelleration into account without mentioning it. That would make him a physicist. As those are rare on /., it must be the first.
Then you have no friggin clue what "Doomsday" means.
> How about the collapse of the ice shelves in Antarctica that later later started growing - oh, melting will be at the north pole and MORE ice will form at the south.
It's very convenient: Whenever arctic ice hits new record lows, denialists can point to Antarctica and say "oh, but THERE it's growing!". It does rely on the audience not remembering the fact that it's winter in the south when it's summer in the north, but that doesn't seem to be a problem!
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Bob Ward, is that you?
You can't seriously reference RealClimate.org as a source of unvarnished truth in this debate.
A modicum of search will reveal the IPCC's review policy is anything but transparent and responsive; it's not even in the same ballpark as ordinary scientific review (e.g., in other branches of science you don't get to blithely dismiss criticism from reviewers). There are dozens of examples where FOI requests have been required to (eventually) see even the review comments. Examples: http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/07/foi-request-to-noaa/ and http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm and http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/an-ipcc-backchannel-%E2%80%98-to-hide-ipcc-deliberations-from-foia/ from ten seconds of googling.
(Correction: Incandescent, not "incidence".)
Table-ized A.I.
...ruining the credibility of anyone trying to speak calmly about climate change.
Oh come on now, be realistic. Some of the people "speaking calmly" have been some of the greatest screamers of DOOM HAS COME!!!eleventyone111!!!!! Especially over the last 25 years, I personally like the ones that went on about the end of all life by 2005, that was back in the early '90's.
Well, it's not as simple as you suggest. The data shows that the maximum extent of the Antarctic's seasonal sea ice has grown recently, which is the opposite of what you'd expect if the temperatures were increasing. But temperature isn't the only thing that determines the extent of seasonal ice. There's wind too, and that's what researchers think caused the increase in extent.
Still, it's quite possible for certain regions in a global warming scenario to become dramatically cooler, due to changes in the transport of energy from warmer regions to cooler in ocean and air currents.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
World-wide rises in temperature more dramatic than expected. Also, swaths of currently arable land expected to become too dry to support agriculture.
But it's no big deal really!
I'll be dead by then.
I hope.
If you want more accurate models, well you need more data against which to test that model. That requires time traveling into the future at the usual rate in order to collect that data.
Now this might just be a translation error (the original article was in German apparently), but I think the actual details of the story back me up. We read of more computing power, "better" models (probably meaning finer mesh sizes). We don't read of more data.
The last part of the article is interesting.
The IPCC's predictions concerning precipitation, on the other hand, may be more conservative than in the previous assessment. Computer models certainly show a clear trend: In places where it already rains a great deal, it will rain even more; and where it is currently dry, it will grow even drier. That's the theory, at least. The only problem is that, so far, these forecasts have not matched reality.
According to the models, subtropical regions, in particular, are expected to grow drier, with new arid zones appearing in the southern United States, South Africa and Mediterranean countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain. Real measurement data from the last 60 years, though, show no such trend toward aridity. Those regions do experience frequent dry periods, but not more often than they have in the past. One possible explanation is that the slight global warming that has occurred so far is not yet enough to cause observable changes in precipitation.
Model not matching reality to the degree needed is traditionally a sign of an inaccurate model. It may be that the models get better as time goes on. But why should one expect divergence in the short term and accuracy in the long term?
Yep, all the "for policy maker" reports are passed around the donating nations where they get to have a say. They don't have a say in the scientific report they are based on. There's nothing to leak because it's not a secret.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Did you get your $0.50 for that post? If so, did you save it or spend it all at once?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I searched and found the draft is "in confidence and not available to the general public".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
In short, everything will be same as humanity has had it for the majority of our existence. The GP is right, the world won't change a whole lot.
Call me when you get someone to figure out how the NIMBYs will get over thorium breeder reactors...
In case you hadn't noticed,
(a) land is finite, and
(b) in many places, it's getting pretty crowded already.
Reducing the amount of land that's available for humans to live on is not a trivial inconvenience.
You know as well as we all do that there's no "big oil" conspiracy. It's a fun meme, and the general population probably believes it, but even after having defrauded their way to internal budget documents from Heartland the warmistas couldn't point to any big oil climate change denial funding.
You see, we're mostly like me. People with a good scientific background and inquisitive minds who've just realized that the emperor is, indeed, naked. You'll see it too, eventually, since the climate is currently proving us right. Observation beats models.
But those tides exists today relative to the current mean sea level... so the previous poster's point is still valid and your post is just FUD.
Amazing .... on slashdot, where techies rule, there is a fear that we cannot build 1 meter high ridges of dirt and rocks over the next century ... but we can go right on posting about a future of electric cars run on "free" solar and wind power, commercial space flight, warp drives, quantum computing, etc .... which is it? Are we capable of great technological leaps or are we dumber than stone-age men?
The only reason people like you think climate change is politically driven myth is because you weren't paying attention *before* it became a political issue.
You may not realize just how old some of us are and how much attention we have been paying.
Many of us were paying attention LONG ago when left-leaning planet-hugging movement started. We watched as the left screeched that the planet was becoming overcrowded and we would be out of food and energy by the mid 1980's ... all of that nonsense was wrong and failed to occur. And yes, we watched as these lunatics predicted to imminent onset of a new ice age and proposed that we cover the antarctic ice with carbon to heat things up ... good thing we ignored them. And we watched while these watermellons (green on the outside, but red on the inside) rose to positions of power in academia and government (Obama's science advisor John Holdren was one of these whack jobs; HE even proposed putting sterilizing drugs into the drinking water to sneakily reduce the American population). We've been watching while men like Al Gore scream that we are "killing the planet" and causing the sea levels to rise ... and watching while they buy expensive seaside mansions that each consume more energy than the homes of several middle class families.
The young fall for this stuff PRECISELY because they have not been around long enough to see the ENTIRE play and become familiar with the cast members.
Climate change fanatics play that phony fiddle even better than their critics
First, the number of "climate scientists" was always extremely small... so when a handful predicted cooling, that small group was actually a significant portion of the pool. Was there a global cooling consensus? ... maybe not (scientists never used to use the insane idea of "consensus" as evidence for anything in science), but if they'd been as politically active as they are now and had the press backing them up, probably so. Now that there are billions of dollars on the line, and billions being spent annually on "global warming"/"climate change" the number of "climate scientists" have ballooned and it's easy to compare the numbers now to the numbers in the 1970's and pretend this is proof that cooling was always a fringe idea held by a few.
Second, please find a new talking point. Counting the number of published scientific papers is dishonest in relation to climate matters; the e-mail leaks proved that the global warming fanatics took over the whole "peer review" and paper publishing process, blocking anything they disagreed with. The entire field is now invalid ... it's like steroids in baseball ... any stats from the field are now warped and need an asterisk. The distortion is permanent; there's no way to go back and correct for all the papers that were never proposed and the work not done because it was becoming obvious that all the money and careers were to be made promoting the idea of warming
Third, the best science falls into two camps: [a] serious people who do the mind-blowingly tedious day-to-day "small" science work that fills in little holes in between the giant leaps made by those who became famous, and [b] those who ignore consensus and make the big discoveries. Those who become the enforcers of "consensus" opinions tend to populate the dusty halls of agencies, academies, and societies; they never do anything of true value, often end-up looking stupid when the consensus they spent careers defending was proven wrong, and their names are remembered, if at all, in association with foolishness and fossilized thought.
Consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one (truly literate people notice that the very word itself gives this away)
Sorry, but this is the way science happens: the overall physics is understood, and then the details are slowly filled and the error bars are refined and the calculations get better.
Sorry, but no. This is not how science works. Science does not make hyperventillating overwrought screams of imminent disaster unless societies repent of their sins and change their ways while persecuting "skeptics" (heretics) and then, every time errors are found in the stone tablets, chiseling-in new revelations or commandments and saying "move-along, nothing to see here". Science follows a method... and that method has no steps that include [a] public relations [b] politics [c] proclamations of "truth" before all the work is done and the results are in [d] elimination of any dissenters. Science is an open and rigorous process that does indeed produce ever-changing results but those results should always be increasingly accurate and a hallmark is that the bad ideas are as openly and honestly discussed and exposed as the valid updates. If modern "climate scientists" were legit, they'd have driven the guys exposed in the e-mail dumps from the field and shunned them, just as scientists in other fields have discredited and shunned their former colleagues after they were exposed as having rigged processes.
Today's best estimate of the warming effect is still within the error bars of Manabe and Wetherald's original 1967 calculation, and if you plot their predictions against the actual measured temperatures, using the measured values of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the data fits perfectly. We have pretty good confidence that we know the physics of the greenhouse effect. Scientists has not been "keeping changing your story"-- it's been physics that's been well understood for over a hundred years, and the same overall calculation with the same net result, to within the error bars, for close to fifty years.
50 or 100 years is but the blink of an eye relative to a planet that is billions of years old. Oh, and people have been predicting that space aliens would attack us, possibly within several centuries, for about that same time-frame ... while the aliens have not yet invaded, they ARE withing the "error bars" of the people who predicted the event ... so I guess you're making your plans for the invasion, right?
Real science, please, or keep the "global warming" in the socialist political halls where it belongs and where it got much of its original support
I predict a meter/day of trolling posts (let's say 12 pt font) to CC updates within the next year (or are we there already?). I don't even know where to start with my mod points...
The past predictions of the IPCC "models" are not happening so what makes this any more likely to occur?
Their models are seriously flawed and are not reliable at all.