Another IPCC warning: More sci-fi

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://triblive.com/opinion/editorials/5944867-74/global-ipcc-warming#axzz2yxRh7XVA

Its “science” increasingly has come under fire. And the court of public opinion more and more is not on its side. So what's the foundering United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to do? Why, go for broke, of course. After all, the world should be very, very, very, VERY afraid.

On Sunday, the panel lamented that while not enough is being done to combat supposed “man-made” climate change ( n é, “global warming”), all is not lost — if only super-duper drastic measures are implemented now, now, NOW!

The “scientists” of global warming religion now insist that, even despite mitigating efforts, global greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated drastically since the turn of the century. And to limit the increase in the “global mean temperature” to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, they say greenhouse emissions would have to be reduced by up to 70 percent by 2050 and by up to 100 percent by the end of the century.

By golly, the U.N. panel even foresees the need to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Perhaps the IPCC soon will offer up maps of inhabitable caves by region for the coming apocalypse to be followed in short order by Armageddon — not from “global warming” but from sociopolitically motivated moves to “save the planet” while denuding the Earth of plant life, destroying economies and, with it, mankind itself.

Global warming “science” long ago lost all sense of proportion to reality. The latest IPCC entreaties should be treated for what they really are — science fiction.

___________________________________________________________

If the IPCC reports were any more sci-fi, they'd win a Hugo AND a Nebula.

 

[as seen on tv]

a bunch of (apparently renegade) scientists say that instead of crippling the global economy we could probably orbit some sort of "variable shading device" to control the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, if we actually detect a "resumption" of warming if the current 15 year "pause" ever stops.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

a bunch of (apparently renegade) scientists say that instead of crippling the global economy we could probably orbit some sort of "variable shading device" to control the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, if we actually detect a "resumption" of warming if the current 15 year "pause" ever stops.

the liberals should be falling all over themselves to throw other peoples money into that one.

 

[connieb]

a bunch of (apparently renegade) scientists say that instead of crippling the global economy we could probably orbit some sort of "variable shading device" to control the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, if we actually detect a "resumption" of warming if the current 15 year "pause" ever stops.

Lol.

 

[Arkady]

http://triblive.com/opinion/editorials/5944867-74/global-ipcc-warming#axzz2yxRh7XVA

Its “science” increasingly has come under fire. And the court of public opinion more and more is not on its side. So what's the foundering United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to do? Why, go for broke, of course. After all, the world should be very, very, very, VERY afraid.

On Sunday, the panel lamented that while not enough is being done to combat supposed “man-made” climate change ( n é, “global warming”), all is not lost — if only super-duper drastic measures are implemented now, now, NOW!

The “scientists” of global warming religion now insist that, even despite mitigating efforts, global greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated drastically since the turn of the century. And to limit the increase in the “global mean temperature” to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, they say greenhouse emissions would have to be reduced by up to 70 percent by 2050 and by up to 100 percent by the end of the century.

By golly, the U.N. panel even foresees the need to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Perhaps the IPCC soon will offer up maps of inhabitable caves by region for the coming apocalypse to be followed in short order by Armageddon — not from “global warming” but from sociopolitically motivated moves to “save the planet” while denuding the Earth of plant life, destroying economies and, with it, mankind itself.

Global warming “science” long ago lost all sense of proportion to reality. The latest IPCC entreaties should be treated for what they really are — science fiction.

___________________________________________________________

If the IPCC reports were any more sci-fi, they'd win a Hugo AND a Nebula.

As you know, very nearly every person who has made a serious effort to understand these issues more or less agrees with the IPCC position. Among well over 90% of scientists, there's some disagreement about whether the IPCC overstates or understates the problem a little bit, and about the exact dynamics and timing, but not about whether they've got the big picture right. However, among those who couldn't solve a calculus problem to save their lives, or tell you the chemical symbol for more than a handful of elements, there is very widespread skepticism. There's no accounting for the morons. We just need to learn to ignore them.

 

[Mytzlplk]

As you know, very nearly every person who has made a serious effort to understand these issues more or less agrees with the IPCC position. Among well over 90% of scientists, there's some disagreement about whether the IPCC overstates or understates the problem a little bit, and about the exact dynamics and timing, but not about whether they've got the big picture right. However, among those who couldn't solve a calculus problem to save their lives, or tell you the chemical symbol for more than a handful of elements, there is very widespread skepticism. There's no accounting for the morons. We just need to learn to ignore them.

so true. The ignorance in this thread would be a great place to start. The same debunked "pause" junk accompanied by exclamations regarding a "crippling" of the global economy. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/13/3426117/climate-panel-avoiding-catastrophe-cheap/

you can lead a rightwinger to knowledge, but you can't make them think

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

so true. The ignorance in this thread would be a great place to start. The same debunked "pause" junk accompanied by exclamations regarding a "crippling" of the global economy. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/13/3426117/climate-panel-avoiding-catastrophe-cheap/

you can lead a rightwinger to knowledge, but you can't make them think

your sources have been debunked so many times it's getting rather sad.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

so true. The ignorance in this thread would be a great place to start. The same debunked "pause" junk accompanied by exclamations regarding a "crippling" of the global economy. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/13/3426117/climate-panel-avoiding-catastrophe-cheap/

you can lead a rightwinger to knowledge, but you can't make them think

the IPCC themselves say there has been no global warming in 15 years.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/09/812...t-uns-ipcc-confesses-global-warming-15-years/

IPCC vice chair Francis Zwiers, director of the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium at the University of Victoria in Canada, co-wrote a paper published in this month’s Nature Climate Change that said climate models had “significantly” overestimated global warming over the last 20 years — and especially for the last 15 years, which coincides with the onset of the hiatus.

The models had predicted that the average global surface temperature would increase by 0.21 of a degree Celsius over this period, but they turned out to be off by a factor of four, Zwiers and his colleagues wrote. In reality, the average temperature has edged up only 0.05 of a degree Celsius over that time — which in a statistical sense is not significantly different from zero.

There have actually been multiple admissions about the temperature ‘hiatus’ on the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

• The Climate Science Capitulation Begins…Hans von Storch: “We Definitely Have Seen Less Warming Than Expected”
• IPCC Railroad engineer [and Chair of the "Science" Panel] Pachauri acknowledges ‘No warming for 17 years’
• Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up [IPCC's AR5 Report]
• See also: RSS global temperature data: No global warming at all for 202 months

 

[Arkady]

a bunch of (apparently renegade) scientists say that instead of crippling the global economy we could probably orbit some sort of "variable shading device" to control the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, if we actually detect a "resumption" of warming if the current 15 year "pause" ever stops.

Here's a sports analogy. Michael Jordan scored 49 points in the 50th game of his career, during his rookie season. He didn't break that total until his third year in the league. Did this mean there was a "pause" in his improvement as a player? No. He scored more points per game during the balance of his rookie season than he had in those first 50 games, with a higher shooting percentage. And he also had a significantly higher per-game assist and rebound total after that 50th game than before. He was very clearly getting better and better as a player, en route to winning his first MVP in his fourth season. It's just that if you looked very narrowly at a single indicator -- points -- only on a per-game basis, you could deceive yourself into thinking he hit a high point in his career, in that fiftieth game, that he wouldn't exceed for a long time.

Global warming is a bit like that. If you look at a single measure (atmospheric temperatures), and only on a per-year basis, you can deceive yourself into thinking global warming hit a high point in 1998 that we haven't exceeded since then. But climate temperatures are a small part of global heat content. Since air has a much smaller heat capacity than land, ice, or water, a small heat increase in something like upper ocean temperatures is actually far more consequential than a big one in air temperatures. So, the climate is a bit like a basketball player who has had soaring averages for shot blocks, rebounds, assists, steals, and shooting percentage, and whose long-term scoring averages are up, too, but that people are questioning because it's been a while since he set a new career single-game scoring mark. It's just not a rational way to think about it.

Here's a graph that shows the actual heat content by component, per year:

Just to unpack two other ideas from your post:

There's no reason to think limiting greenhouse gas emissions would "cripple" the global economy. There are already very prosperous nations with MUCH smaller per capita carbon footprints than us. Switzerland has a strong and prosperous economy, and less than a third our per capita CO2 emissions. It can be done. Plus, much of perceived prosperity is a matter of distribution, not total economic output. For example, in July 2013, real GDP per capita was $49,594.19. In July 1968, it was 22,730.76. In other words, we're well over twice as rich as a nation, even after discounting for population growth and inflation, than we were in the late 1960s. Yes, the late 1960s felt more prosperous (and had much lower unemployment and poverty). So, it's clearly possible to have a much lower GDP output than America has today (and correspondingly lower greenhouse gas emissions), without that having a "crippling effect" on social prosperity.

As for the idea of some sort of attempt to cut down on the sun reaching Earth, that's an option, but is akin to shooting some heroin to try to take the edge off a cocaine high. You may address the symptoms you're uncomfortable with, but who knows what other problems you may cause. Nearly all life on this planet is dependent on the sunlight that reaches us. If you cut down on how much is doing so, you cut down on how much photosynthesis takes place. That could make the whole food chain less productive from the bottom up. You'll also change atmospheric and oceanic chemistry, since that sunlight currently causes various chemical reactions, which will happen less if there's less sunlight. Lowering photosynthesis also lowers one of the primary mechanisms that clears excess CO2 from the atmosphere, so you could be accelerating the greenhouse gas effect even as you postpone its heat symptoms. It's a VERY risky experiment to be performing on our one and only environment. It would make more sense just to curb how much greenhouse gas we're putting into the atmosphere.

 

[Mytzlplk]

Here's a sports analogy. Michael Jordan scored 49 points in the 50th game of his career, during his rookie season. He didn't break that total until his third year in the league. Did this mean there was a "pause" in his improvement as a player? No. He scored more points per game during the balance of his rookie season than he had in those first 50 games, with a higher shooting percentage. And he also had a significantly higher per-game assist and rebound total after that 50th game than before. He was very clearly getting better and better as a player, en route to winning his first MVP in his fourth season. It's just that if you looked very narrowly at a single indicator -- points -- only on a per-game basis, you could deceive yourself into thinking he hit a high point in his career, in that fiftieth game, that he wouldn't exceed for a long time.

Global warming is a bit like that. If you look at a single measure (atmospheric temperatures), and only on a per-year basis, you can deceive yourself into thinking global warming hit a high point in 1998 that we haven't exceeded since then. But climate temperatures are a small part of global heat content. Since air has a much smaller heat capacity than land, ice, or water, a small heat increase in something like upper ocean temperatures is actually far more consequential than a big one in air temperatures. So, the climate is a bit like a basketball player who has had soaring averages for shot blocks, rebounds, assists, steals, and shooting percentage, and whose long-term scoring averages are up, too, but that people are questioning because it's been a while since he set a new career single-game scoring mark. It's just not a rational way to think about it.

Here's a graph that shows the actual heat content by component, per year:

Just to unpack two other ideas from your post:

There's no reason to think limiting greenhouse gas emissions would "cripple" the global economy. There are already very prosperous nations with MUCH smaller per capita carbon footprints than us. Switzerland has a strong and prosperous economy, and less than a third our per capita CO2 emissions. It can be done. Plus, much of perceived prosperity is a matter of distribution, not total economic output. For example, in July 2013, real GDP per capita was $49,594.19. In July 1968, it was 22,730.76. In other words, we're well over twice as rich as a nation, even after discounting for population growth and inflation, than we were in the late 1960s. Yes, the late 1960s felt more prosperous (and had much lower unemployment and poverty). So, it's clearly possible to have a much lower GDP output than America has today (and correspondingly lower greenhouse gas emissions), without that having a "crippling effect" on social prosperity.

As for the idea of some sort of attempt to cut down on the sun reaching Earth, that's an option, but is akin to shooting some heroin to try to take the edge off a cocaine high. You may address the symptoms you're uncomfortable with, but who knows what other problems you may cause. Nearly all life on this planet is dependent on the sunlight that reaches us. If you cut down on how much is doing so, you cut down on how much photosynthesis takes place. That could make the whole food chain less productive from the bottom up. You'll also change atmospheric and oceanic chemistry, since that sunlight currently causes various chemical reactions, which will happen less if there's less sunlight. Lowering photosynthesis also lowers one of the primary mechanisms that clears excess CO2 from the atmosphere, so you could be accelerating the greenhouse gas effect even as you postpone its heat symptoms. It's a VERY risky experiment to be performing on our one and only environment. It would make more sense just to curb how much greenhouse gas we're putting into the atmosphere.

well, that and the fact that the so-called "pause" applies only to atmospheric temps, which hasn't prevented the "hottest years" record accumulated since 1998, nor does it account for the biggest heat sink of all the oceans as your graph shows. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...l-warming-stopped-in-1998-20130927-2ui8j.html

I suspect this is where the "fudging/hiding the data" comes in...lol

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

well, that and the fact that the so-called "pause" applies only to atmospheric temps, which hasn't prevented the "hottest years" record accumulated since 1998, nor does it account for the biggest heat sink of all the oceans as your graph shows. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...l-warming-stopped-in-1998-20130927-2ui8j.html

I suspect this is where the "fudging/hiding the data" comes in...lol

oh, oh... it's another 'the ocean is acting like a giant heat sink... that's why there has been no warming in 15 years'... immediately followed by 'the lack of warming over the last 15 years has been debunked'. Can't have it both ways, 'enthusiasts'.

And IF the ocean has suddenly started acting like a gian heat sink to prevent warming... WHY won't it continue to do so in the future? What made it start doing that in just the last 15 years?

Dumb asses, the lot of you.

Hiding data? Like how NASA refuses to release their data?

You 'enthusiasts' are so brainwashed, it's actually quite sad.