Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Report Actually Understates Threats (thebulletin.org)
"Dire as it is, the latest IPCC report is actually too optimistic," writes Slashdot reader Dan Drollette. "It ignores the risk of self-reinforcing climate feedbacks pushing the planet into chaos beyond human control. So says a team of climate experts, including the winner of the 1995 Nobel for his work on depletion of the ozone layer." From their article:
These cascading feedbacks include the loss of the Arctic's sea ice, which could disappear entirely in summer in the next 15 years. The ice serves as a shield, reflecting heat back into the atmosphere, but is increasingly being melted into water that absorbs heat instead. Losing the ice would tremendously increase the Arctic's warming, which is already at least twice the global average rate. This, in turn, would accelerate the collapse of permafrost, releasing its ancient stores of methane, a super climate pollutant 30 times more potent in causing warming than carbon dioxide.
By largely ignoring such feedbacks, the IPCC report fails to adequately warn leaders about the cluster of six similar climate tipping points that could be crossed between today's temperature and an increase to 1.5 degrees -- let alone nearly another dozen tipping points between 1.5 and 2 degrees. These wildcards could very likely push the climate system beyond human ability to control. As the UN Secretary General reminded world leaders last month, "We face an existential threat. Climate change is moving faster than we are.⦠If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences."
In related news, a court in The Hague "has upheld a historic legal order on the Dutch government to accelerate carbon emissions cuts, a day after the world's climate scientists warned that time was running out to avoid dangerous warming. Appeal court judges ruled that the severity and scope of the climate crisis demanded greenhouse gas reductions of at least 25% by 2020 -- measured against 1990 levels -- higher than the 17% drop planned by Mark Rutte's liberal administration. The ruling -- which was greeted with whoops and cheers in the courtroom -- will put wind in the sails of a raft of similar cases being planned around the world, from Norway to New Zealand and from the UK to Uganda."
Meanwhile, a new article in GQ cites estimates that more than 70 percent of global emissions come from just 100 companies, complaining that "there is no 'free market' incentive to prevent disaster."
By largely ignoring such feedbacks, the IPCC report fails to adequately warn leaders about the cluster of six similar climate tipping points that could be crossed between today's temperature and an increase to 1.5 degrees -- let alone nearly another dozen tipping points between 1.5 and 2 degrees. These wildcards could very likely push the climate system beyond human ability to control. As the UN Secretary General reminded world leaders last month, "We face an existential threat. Climate change is moving faster than we are.⦠If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences."
In related news, a court in The Hague "has upheld a historic legal order on the Dutch government to accelerate carbon emissions cuts, a day after the world's climate scientists warned that time was running out to avoid dangerous warming. Appeal court judges ruled that the severity and scope of the climate crisis demanded greenhouse gas reductions of at least 25% by 2020 -- measured against 1990 levels -- higher than the 17% drop planned by Mark Rutte's liberal administration. The ruling -- which was greeted with whoops and cheers in the courtroom -- will put wind in the sails of a raft of similar cases being planned around the world, from Norway to New Zealand and from the UK to Uganda."
Meanwhile, a new article in GQ cites estimates that more than 70 percent of global emissions come from just 100 companies, complaining that "there is no 'free market' incentive to prevent disaster."
Idiot. Every single IPCC report has understated the danger because they didn't want to be accused of being scare mongers. They did this by suppressing the more extreme projections in favor of the less extreme ones. And this information is publicly available in the articles about how they put together the reports.
It is true that they also suppressed the extremely understated projections, but their influence on mean values would have been considerably less. That's the way calculations of mean deviation work.
The IPCC has intentionally tried to be only somewhat alarmist rather than accurately reporting what the projections indicate. They hoped in this way to gain political acceptance that there was a real problem. I feel this strategy has backfired, with many claiming that they're alarmist anyway, and most just ignoring them. But they were trying to be cautious.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
and his hyperbole doesn't exactly help. But you're strawmaning. The article isn't predicting no ice in the Arctic, it's saying the same thing every scientific report does: global temps are rising by a few degrees and that will have far reaching impacts on weather, droughts and our ability to grow food.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Grab a bag and pass the soda, this is gonna be great. What excuses will we hear today? How are we going to justify ignoring science and instead trust the spin of the industry this time?
I really hope for something new, just sticking fingers into ears and going "lalala, I can't hear you" is getting old.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In 1968, Erich von Daniken published "Chariots of the Gods" and a lot of people read that too.
The interesting question is what experts think in total, the consensus as well.as the spread. You don't just get to pick the sensationalist outliers at either end.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I can't speak to Gore's claims, but the IPCC AR5 report from the same year predicted the first ice-free summer to be around 2050. The IPCC reports tend to be middle of the road and conservative.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Um, hard to know where to start, basically your entire post is disconnected from actual facts. The UN report was dire, but didn't include the effects of methane locked in permafrost.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/art...
Let's assume this is true, that if we don't reduce CO2 output to 50% of current levels by 2050 then we face severe and detrimental environmental effects from global warming. We know of four "zero carbon" energy sources today, wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear. Maybe people will toss in few more like geothermal and bio-fuels but I don't hear too much about those, likely because they come with other environmental impacts that we'd like to avoid. If the effects of CO2 are so dire then maybe we should be building more nuclear power plants to replace coal? If we cannot have nuclear power to stop this global threat to human survival then I have to wonder just how real of a threat this is. Even after decades of subsidies for wind and solar they still have not matched the "zero carbon" output from nuclear power. Nuclear power did have a head start, I'll grant that much, but nuclear power also had a near stop in any new construction for 40 years.
We've been waiting for 40 years for wind and solar to save us, how much longer can we wait?
There will come a point in which we must choose, nuclear power or global warming, because it is going to become abundantly clear that wind and solar will not save us.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Really? 95% of climate scientists, ones that actually have degrees that pertain to climate science instead of idiots like Sen. Inholfe, have all agreed on an agenda? And precisely what is this agenda? Don't hold back, lay it on us. Be sure to reference real scientific journals...unless, of course, you believe they too are in on some con.
Stop watching TV, it is bad for you.
The thing with you climate sceptics is that if there's even one false prediction or one badly done study then for the next n+1 years that is ALL you can talk about. And it doesn't even matter if your argument is debunked, you guys will still keep repeating it.
And that's how your kind has lost any and all credibility in my eyes.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.