Slashdot Mirror


IPCC's "Darkest Yet" Climate Report Warns of Food, Water Shortages

The Australian reports that "UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change, pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed. A draft of their report, seen by the news organisation AFP, is part of a massive overview by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, likely to shape policies and climate talks for years to come. Scientists and government representatives will meet in Yokohama, Japan, from tomorrow to hammer out a 29-page summary. It will be unveiled with the full report on March 31. 'We have a lot clearer picture of impacts and their consequences ... including the implications for security,' said Chris Field of the US’s Carnegie Institution, who headed the probe.

The work comes six months after the first volume in the long-awaited Fifth Assessment Report declared scientists were more certain than ever that humans caused global warming. It predicted global temperatures would rise 0.3C-4.8C this century, adding to roughly 0.7C since the Industrial Revolution. Seas will creep up by 26cm-82cm by 2100. The draft warns costs will spiral with each additional degree, although it is hard to forecast by how much."

12 of 703 comments (clear)

  1. Re:We've gone beyond bad science by geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone is getting their pockets lined. This is politics Al Gore style. Its pathetic, "food shortages" yeah right, because we all know food doesn't grow when the climate is warmer........ Scare tactics by intellectually challenged pseudo scientists.

  2. Re:We've gone beyond bad science by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At this point, the IPCC is looking more like bad disaster fiction.

    What problem do you have with the data?

    The problem a lot of people have understanding AGW is separating the science that is settled from the unsettled predictions. There is widespread consensus that CO2 warms the atmosphere, and that anthropogenic CO2 has warmed it to some degree.

    At the same time, there is a lot of science that is mere hypothesis. Very few scientists think the runaway Venus effect is realistic, for example.

    The approach of the IPCC is to take the worst scenario that hasn't been conclusively rejected by the scientific community, and promoting that scenario most prominently, which is why we you see it being presented with judgement words, like "darkest yet." Their goal seems to be to make it look as dark, which is obviously not a good scientific approach.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. Well you're partly right by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The droughts in California ARE man-made, but they have nothing to do with the Global Warming boogy-man and have everything to do with 2 important facts that people seem to forget:
    1. That part of California is a freakin' desert and no, it didn't turn into a desert overnight because of Global Warming, it was a desert long before humans showed up.
    2. California's intentional man-made mismanagement of its water supply to dump water for bait-fish and for Mexico and refusal to build new reservoirs to store water from years when it has been plentiful has caught up to it now that we see California's climate doing exactly what it should be doing.

    But go ahead, blame Global Warming and burn a few witches at the stake since radical religious fanaticism with a thin veneer of "science" painted over it has now replaced rational thought.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  4. Re:We've gone beyond bad science by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem a lot of people have understanding AGW is separating the science that is settled from the unsettled predictions.

    Nope.

    The main problem is seeing through the fog created by the anti-AGW lobby.

    https://www.google.es/search?q...

    They think they're being free thinkers, that the AGW people are the ones drinking the establishment cool-aid. In reality it's the other way around.

    --
    No sig today...
  5. Re:It's the end of the world as we know it by bunratty · · Score: 5, Informative

    The trouble is that the rate that we are emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere far exceeds the rate at which plants can absorb it.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  6. Re:When do we reach ... by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

    Depends on where you live.

    Just as you should not confuse weather with climate, you should not confuse *regional* climate with *global* climate. The Medieval "Warm" Period refers to the temperatures in European climate. High temperatures around the North Atlantic were offset by anomalously cool temperatures elsewhere. In contrast average temperatures have been anomalously high in every region of the globe in the last decade or so.

    In other words, we are experiencing *global* warming now, but had *regional* warming in the MWP.

    Even withglobal warming your neck of the woods may experience instances of anomalously cool weather. Under more extreme global warming levels, where you live might even experience regional *cooling*, due to disruptions in the transfer of energy from low to high latitudes -- although that is still hypothetical at this point. At present nearly the entire planet has been experiencing higher average temperatures.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  7. Re:It's the end of the world as we know it by Cantankerous+Cur · · Score: 5, Informative

    Gees, where did you get your Bio degree from? No, that not true for the majority of plants (carbon is rarely the limiting growth factor). If anything, plants become lazier as a result of high CO2 by making fewer pores for air exchange. Moreover, it's not plants but microorganisms in the ocean that produce roughly 85% of our oxygen.

    Did you know that plants have mitochondria too? The way plants work is they store energy using chloroplasts during the day and expend it at night for growing. It'd be much safer for you to say that plants are carbon neutral instead of carbon negative.

  8. Re:It's the end of the world as we know it by quantaman · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's precisely the problem. The warming isn't going to cause much of a problem for most people old enough to post here. By the time the problems get too bad to ignore, we're already committed to even more problems, because the excess carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. That's why we keep getting these warnings, so we can avoid those problems before it's too late.

    You are aware, I trust, of these things called plants. It turns out that they absorb carbon dioxide right out of the air. What's even cooler is that the more CO2 that's in the air, the faster they grow and thus the faster they absorb it. This is why greenhouses will often run with drastically increased CO2 levels.

    Wow! This changes everything, you should tell someone about your amazing discovery!

    Send it into Nature

    Abstract:
    I don't think global warming will happen because the plants will eat all the CO2 out of the air

    Introduction:
    Because plants use C02, so if we make more CO2 we'll get more plants and we'll have less CO2!

    Conclusion:
    No CO2 means no global warming!

    Future Work:
    We've got lots of CO2 so figure out why still there's more CO2 instead of more plants.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  9. Re:sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    because large chunks of land are currently frozen. Canada and Russia(the two largest countries) have tons of land but only a small percentage of those lands are farmable.

    I keep reading people saying this, but it doesn't work that way. I can’t speak to Russia, but of the “tons of land” in northern Canada, the vast majority of it is either Laurentian Shield or frozen muskeg.

    If the climate over the Laurentian Shield warms enough to grow agriculture crops, we will be able to grow ... as close to nothing as makes no difference. The Shield was scraped bare during the last glacial maximum. The vast majority of the Laurentian Shield has soil only one or two inches deep, below which is the bedrock of the Shield.

    If the climate warms enough to thaw the muskeg, we will be able to grow ... as close to nothing as makes no difference. Muskeg is peat bog. It is next to useless for agriculture.

    Even worse, when the muskeg thaws it will give off CO2, potentially vast quantities of it, resulting in a potentially huge positive feedback loop, accelerating climate warming.

  10. Re:does IPCC include "optimistic scenerios"? by rrohbeck · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, they are called RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways), what used to be the "scenarios" in older reports, and except for the dip in 2008/2009 global emissions were always above the worst case scenario. 63% of all CO2 has been emitted since scientists began to warn about AGW so there is no indication that the world will deviate from the worst case BAU path.

  11. Re:It's the end of the world as we know it by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

    "... and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted. That seems to be the opposite of "totally wrong" to me."

    No, it's not "the opposite of wrong"... it's just wrong. We HAVEN'T observed the warming that was predicted.

    A paper in Nature last September (pdf) was a study of 117 of the most-cited CO2 climate warming models. 114 of them not only overestimated warming, the average (mean) amount they exaggerated warming (versus actual observed temperatures) was MORE THAN 100%.

    And if you think that is somehow an anomaly, I assure you it isn't. The climate hasn't "warmed" in at least 16 years. AGW-proponent climate scientists publicly admit that they have no idea why.The reason is simple: their theory is fundamentally flawed.

    The fact is, the theory of Catastrophic Greenhouse Gas Warming is just plain weak "science", and always has been. There is an awful lot of counter-evidence that you just haven't heard about because you have to actually look for it. It isn't spoon-fed to you by the government or the news.

    Not to mention the truckloads of evidence that have continued to build concerning the compromised integrity of data, and its irresponsible handling by said climate scientists.

    Add to that the publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim.

    And if you think "there has been no serious dispute" of these CO2-based warming claims, as many climate scientists and their supporters have tried to claim, you would be mistaken. That is a list of just some of the peer-reviewed papers that disagree.

    There are mountains of such information out there, if you just but look. Do yourself and everyone else a favor, and be more skeptical.

  12. Re:It's the end of the world as we know it by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here is the problem I have personally with AGW...it DOES NOT MATTER if you believe it or not, DOES NOT MATTER if AGW is 100% correct and happening because a a handful of ultra rich leeches has made damn sure that the ONLY "solution" you will get will be buying their magical carbon indulgences at a greatly elevated price of course.

    Read the article above or look up "Al Gore carbon billionaire" to see why AGW does not matter as long as fucktards like Gore and Goldman Sachs have their fat piggie hands out, I mean for fucks sake Al Gore lives in a McMansion, flies around with a handful of guys in his personal LEAR JET and has a fricking fleet of SUVs drive him around to tell YOU what a shit you are for not taking the bus yet he has the gold plated balls to say he is "carbon neutral" because HE PAYS HIMSELF indulgences from his own fucking company...which he gets a God damned tax writeoff for!

    I'm sorry folks but that is EXACTLY what you will get with Crap and Trade and carbon indulgences, a handful of uberrich douchebags that live like kings while telling YOU that you need to eat bugs and ride a fucking bus, all the while they get tax credits for moving YOUR money from their left pocket to their right!!! And you notice rev Al and Goldman NEVER EVER say a fucking word about limiting imports from China and India, the two biggest polluters which in the case of China we can actually detect it from the west coast? Wanna know why? Because that would hurt their profits LULZ.

    If you wanna actually support real change? DON'T BUY THE SNAKE OIL being pushed by scammers like Gore and GS! They are counting on all these reports making you foolish enough to go "OMFG we have GOT to do something!" which will be followed by them selling you some scam like carbon indulgences which will ONLY give more of what we've had for the past half a century, a handful of uberrich scum making insane bank and exporting misery.

    So until Rev Al and his pals aren't in the way with their hands out? You damned right I'm gonna fight against AGW, not because i don't think dumping crap in the air is bad, but because I don't think Gore's magic billion dollar carbon be-gone spray is gonna do a fucking thing except give Gore the ability to buy the nicest land and best food while YOU are supposed to live like a third world peasant...fuck that shit!

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.