News1 min ago
Global Warming
As the global temperature has remained steady for the past 10 consecutive years can we assume the panic is over? Or is it that Britains efforts (only 2% of the world's emitters) have succeeded in creating equilibrium?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
venator //Perhaps global warming will coincide with the coming Ice Age, and we'll all sit there wondering what all the fuss was about//
Sure and you might ride you bicycle across a plank a thousand feet above the ground without touching the handlebars.
Do we plan for the ridiculous or what the science tells us is the most probable outcome?
Sure and you might ride you bicycle across a plank a thousand feet above the ground without touching the handlebars.
Do we plan for the ridiculous or what the science tells us is the most probable outcome?
It is incredulous that you still stick to the sea level claim. Yes the six millimeters in 2010 happend as part of the normal flctuations. It is not a trend. A ten year old could see that.
Moreover the sixty day average lea level is a quite close match to the Oscillation index. We even understand the detailed mechanism that put more water onto the land during parts of the cycle. This cycles is the strongest seen seen since 1974 when Australia was seriously inundated too.
But no you want to simply draw a line through two points and say that is a trend. Why not choose 1997 where the sea level rose 15 mm in seven months?
And you tell me you want us to rely on your judgement above that of hundreds of scientist who eat, sleep and breathe the subject. Now that really is arrogance.
Moreover the sixty day average lea level is a quite close match to the Oscillation index. We even understand the detailed mechanism that put more water onto the land during parts of the cycle. This cycles is the strongest seen seen since 1974 when Australia was seriously inundated too.
But no you want to simply draw a line through two points and say that is a trend. Why not choose 1997 where the sea level rose 15 mm in seven months?
And you tell me you want us to rely on your judgement above that of hundreds of scientist who eat, sleep and breathe the subject. Now that really is arrogance.
Here is one of the quotes from the celebrities.
Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."
Aside from the fact that this statement shows he knows about as much as David H, the guy is a nobody. I found an economist by the name but the site was not communicating.
I did ask you to pick out a couple of names you thought were particularly impressive but in return I am told that I would look silly undoing every item. No you would look silly when, as I have had with the sea level myth, shown your argument ot be utterly baseless.
BTW I do ask that everyone checks out that graph and you will see how stupendously ridiculous it is for someone to introduce seal level as a argument against global warming.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."
Aside from the fact that this statement shows he knows about as much as David H, the guy is a nobody. I found an economist by the name but the site was not communicating.
I did ask you to pick out a couple of names you thought were particularly impressive but in return I am told that I would look silly undoing every item. No you would look silly when, as I have had with the sea level myth, shown your argument ot be utterly baseless.
BTW I do ask that everyone checks out that graph and you will see how stupendously ridiculous it is for someone to introduce seal level as a argument against global warming.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Of course I am concerned about the cost, beso. I don’t like to be conned especially when I don’t even have a choice.
But I’m more concerned that the UK public is being fooled by politicians into believing that mankind can halt this alleged “warming” process by fart-arsing about with their light bulbs and building thousands of useless wind turbines, despoiling the coast and countryside for no particularly good reason. I’d feel a little easier if the government did not allow shops to leave their doors wide open all winter whilst heating the street with their 23Kw “curtain” heaters. But no. I must change to unsuitable, dangerous, expensive light bulbs and pay through the nose for my electricity “for the sake of the environment”! What a joke.
You may or may not have heard of the tale of King Cnut. He was a King of England in the eleventh century. The story goes that the king’s courtiers believed he was omnipotent – a view with which he profoundly disagreed. To prove he was right he had his throne set on the beach somewhere in southern England and ordered the tide to turn back and not to wet his feet or his trailing robes. You may be surprised to learn that he was not successful.
So what’s this to do with the price of fish, I hear you ask? Well now we have politicians who believe they have the power to reverse something which has always occurred and will almost certainly always occur. And the fall guys for their arrogance are the hapless taxpayers.
You can see from my very first post that I really try not to get bogged down in what is an absolutely irresolvable argument. Much like venator, I am of the opinion that this, like so many previous “scares” is a lot of fuss about next to nothing and even it is not there’s scarcely little can be done about it.
But what I detest most of all is to be told how breathtakingly arrogant I am because I do not share a particular opinion.
I think I’ll go and wash my hair now (in cold water, of course).
But I’m more concerned that the UK public is being fooled by politicians into believing that mankind can halt this alleged “warming” process by fart-arsing about with their light bulbs and building thousands of useless wind turbines, despoiling the coast and countryside for no particularly good reason. I’d feel a little easier if the government did not allow shops to leave their doors wide open all winter whilst heating the street with their 23Kw “curtain” heaters. But no. I must change to unsuitable, dangerous, expensive light bulbs and pay through the nose for my electricity “for the sake of the environment”! What a joke.
You may or may not have heard of the tale of King Cnut. He was a King of England in the eleventh century. The story goes that the king’s courtiers believed he was omnipotent – a view with which he profoundly disagreed. To prove he was right he had his throne set on the beach somewhere in southern England and ordered the tide to turn back and not to wet his feet or his trailing robes. You may be surprised to learn that he was not successful.
So what’s this to do with the price of fish, I hear you ask? Well now we have politicians who believe they have the power to reverse something which has always occurred and will almost certainly always occur. And the fall guys for their arrogance are the hapless taxpayers.
You can see from my very first post that I really try not to get bogged down in what is an absolutely irresolvable argument. Much like venator, I am of the opinion that this, like so many previous “scares” is a lot of fuss about next to nothing and even it is not there’s scarcely little can be done about it.
But what I detest most of all is to be told how breathtakingly arrogant I am because I do not share a particular opinion.
I think I’ll go and wash my hair now (in cold water, of course).
Picked another couple at random:
Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."
Maybe Axel should check the graph. Also, take it as you will he is known for his support of the science of dowsing. Clearly not afraid to be out there.
Patrick Michaels has been shown to be in the pockets of oil companies even though he initially denied it. This is very common among professional deniers.
Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."
Maybe Axel should check the graph. Also, take it as you will he is known for his support of the science of dowsing. Clearly not afraid to be out there.
Patrick Michaels has been shown to be in the pockets of oil companies even though he initially denied it. This is very common among professional deniers.
Fred Singer is an electrical engineer and career denialist.
He rejected the link between smoke and cancer (Paid by big tobacco but later has turned his back on his past assertions since his father died of emphysema). More recently he denied the link between ultraviolet light and skin cancer, fluorocarbons and ozone depletion.
He denies that the rise in carbon dioxide is due to human activity. Remember two cubic miles of coal every year and even more oil and gas. But it doesn't make carbon dioxide increase. The fact that it started when we lit the biggest fire in history is a mere coincidence.
These "professional" quotes are worthless. Besides, it wouldn't matter who said it, science is about the facts. "Wise men" mentalities are the way of religion not science.
He rejected the link between smoke and cancer (Paid by big tobacco but later has turned his back on his past assertions since his father died of emphysema). More recently he denied the link between ultraviolet light and skin cancer, fluorocarbons and ozone depletion.
He denies that the rise in carbon dioxide is due to human activity. Remember two cubic miles of coal every year and even more oil and gas. But it doesn't make carbon dioxide increase. The fact that it started when we lit the biggest fire in history is a mere coincidence.
These "professional" quotes are worthless. Besides, it wouldn't matter who said it, science is about the facts. "Wise men" mentalities are the way of religion not science.
In other words, NewJudge, you have given up and are content to indulge yourself on the future of those who are not yet born. Nice.
I just wish the denialists would be honest and admit this is their motive instead of trying to pretend they can make a rational judgement about the science when they clearly have no comprehension of the simplest factors involved.
I just wish the denialists would be honest and admit this is their motive instead of trying to pretend they can make a rational judgement about the science when they clearly have no comprehension of the simplest factors involved.
This is truly my last word because I’m still drying my hair (outside in the wind in case you’re concerned).
Humans have always very much lived for the present and those currently alive are no different. One of the main reasons this is particularly so at the moment is that, as I explained earlier, most people are fed up with being told by “experts” that they are about to be wiped out only to find a little later that they are still here. Those who have fought wars are probably an exception to this, as they fight for a cause to which they can usually understand and for which they have clear, achievable (at least to them) aims.
Future generations will survive (although, of course, humans will eventually become extinct as do most species). They will deal with whatever they encounter as best they can and our piddling attempts to alter the course of natural events will help them not one jot. But these efforts do seriously impact those around today.
My point about “look at the data” and the other comments I made is that simply looking at data is not the answer. You may well be able to show that banana exports from the Caribbean vary directly with the number of goals scored in Premiership football matches in England. But does one cause the other? The causal effect between Global Warming or Climate Change and variations in emissions has still not been adequately explained to many people. Please don’t trouble trying. Even if you are successful, I’ll simply revert to my simplistic, selfish view that little if anything that we can do – and certainly not the pathetic but hugely expensive plans of European governments - will alter matters. And I think that’s the important point now that politicians have been bamboozled by the boy who cried wolf.
Humans have always very much lived for the present and those currently alive are no different. One of the main reasons this is particularly so at the moment is that, as I explained earlier, most people are fed up with being told by “experts” that they are about to be wiped out only to find a little later that they are still here. Those who have fought wars are probably an exception to this, as they fight for a cause to which they can usually understand and for which they have clear, achievable (at least to them) aims.
Future generations will survive (although, of course, humans will eventually become extinct as do most species). They will deal with whatever they encounter as best they can and our piddling attempts to alter the course of natural events will help them not one jot. But these efforts do seriously impact those around today.
My point about “look at the data” and the other comments I made is that simply looking at data is not the answer. You may well be able to show that banana exports from the Caribbean vary directly with the number of goals scored in Premiership football matches in England. But does one cause the other? The causal effect between Global Warming or Climate Change and variations in emissions has still not been adequately explained to many people. Please don’t trouble trying. Even if you are successful, I’ll simply revert to my simplistic, selfish view that little if anything that we can do – and certainly not the pathetic but hugely expensive plans of European governments - will alter matters. And I think that’s the important point now that politicians have been bamboozled by the boy who cried wolf.
beso, this is not an insult but as new judge said, crying wolf is a dangerous failing, it never happens and if you've ever looked at history you will indeed see we are not capable of forecasting the future except with a closed system like planetary movements.
Your total faith in a future result too far away and adherence in the face of reality, ie nothing's really happened and eveything you are certain will happen is outside the time it takes to reasonably find out. This is obsessive and as a result way beyond the reach of anyone here. It seems most people here are reasonable, like an average jury, and can clearly see the wide holes in the argument, you represent the establishment who have a personal interest in this field, but have managed to convince enough who do and will not gain from it to do their work for them based on pure primal fear which trumps all reason as you demonstrate perfectly.
Your total faith in a future result too far away and adherence in the face of reality, ie nothing's really happened and eveything you are certain will happen is outside the time it takes to reasonably find out. This is obsessive and as a result way beyond the reach of anyone here. It seems most people here are reasonable, like an average jury, and can clearly see the wide holes in the argument, you represent the establishment who have a personal interest in this field, but have managed to convince enough who do and will not gain from it to do their work for them based on pure primal fear which trumps all reason as you demonstrate perfectly.
The CO2 questions are spurious for two reasons, one is they are not guaranteed to go up as you say and two, science does not know the point in the atmosphere CO2 becomes saturated. It may well be near that point right now, but they don't know and never will until it's happened as no computer model can do that for them.
The two gaps in your model (it is a model, you've projected your entire world into a future beyond your own lifetime) are the unknown level of CO2 saturation when it can no longer trap heat, plus the totally unknown future feedback from sea evaporation, cloud increase and dwell time. Without both of those you have no case to answer, zero, nada. Your certainty in the face of known uncertainties is a sign of obsession and as such has taken you out of the realms of reason from raw terror. Plus the fact you say I only care about myself despite saying I care about people (everyone, even you who I am quite worried about for your health) now when we can actually spend all those billions on clean water for the third world, draining the swamps to stop malaria etc, and instead people with you attitude are spending it for people who haven't been born yet for no known benefit. I couldn't care less about your insults as you've made it very clear you're terrified so not speaking from a rational place. But that's not going to help you and me right now by pissing all our limited and valuable money away on technology that isn't fit for purpose for something that hasn't happened. That really is madness.
The two gaps in your model (it is a model, you've projected your entire world into a future beyond your own lifetime) are the unknown level of CO2 saturation when it can no longer trap heat, plus the totally unknown future feedback from sea evaporation, cloud increase and dwell time. Without both of those you have no case to answer, zero, nada. Your certainty in the face of known uncertainties is a sign of obsession and as such has taken you out of the realms of reason from raw terror. Plus the fact you say I only care about myself despite saying I care about people (everyone, even you who I am quite worried about for your health) now when we can actually spend all those billions on clean water for the third world, draining the swamps to stop malaria etc, and instead people with you attitude are spending it for people who haven't been born yet for no known benefit. I couldn't care less about your insults as you've made it very clear you're terrified so not speaking from a rational place. But that's not going to help you and me right now by pissing all our limited and valuable money away on technology that isn't fit for purpose for something that hasn't happened. That really is madness.
Here's a good article on the history and future of CO2, and appears to be a downward trend until the plants can't survive millions of years from now whatever we do or don't do. Also comparing measurements from millions of years ago with now is not more than a rough estimation as we used proxy records till the 1800s and satellites from 1979. Oddly enough the hockey stick line coincides exactly with the arrival of satellite measurements and associated mass reduction in land stations. So it could be argued if you really tried to that satellite measurement causes global warming. But either way you're not comparing like with like as however rough even today's best measurements are (eg Michael Mann's latest world map temperature view contained 75% of red which was filled in from the blank spaces not covered by actual measurements, and still passed peer review, go figure) but trying to claim proxy measurements from millions of years ago can tell us what will happen ahead are not accurate enough to really know any of the parameters besides possibly sea level. http://www.theresilie...le-co2-end-life-earth
However, what we do have and know for certain through written and other records are the results of earlier warm periods. Red wine for instance was grown hundreds of miles north in Roman times, which requires a minimum temperature above current. Agriculture boomed during the warm periods and the south sea islanders moved away mainly as the islands were full and a certain proportion were periodically expelled with force. Besides those desert people traditionally have to travel thousands of miles to survive, and always will. People living on flood plains however are an accident waiting to happen, and a feature of human lack of preparation and more recently overpopulation forcing people to occupy unsuitable areas due to economic conditions.
But the overall picture is life was always better in warmer periods altogether, fewer people died (all in the 2007 IPCC report) and the advantages always outweighed the disadvantages. Climate refugees (a figment of the IPCC's imagination as the latest figures this year reported a sum total of zero), take place over decades or more and always have, as the temperature does not and cannot ever remain stable over geological time, so Greenland has had populations come and go as have the few islands which did become inundated. It's damned inconvenient to have to move abroad but hardly dangerous as these changes give decades of notice and opens up vast areas of previously frozen areas to agriculture in exchange.
I'm not making this up, it's all from the IPCC 2007 report as far as past and projected consequences of warming go, but the bit people don't read.
However, what we do have and know for certain through written and other records are the results of earlier warm periods. Red wine for instance was grown hundreds of miles north in Roman times, which requires a minimum temperature above current. Agriculture boomed during the warm periods and the south sea islanders moved away mainly as the islands were full and a certain proportion were periodically expelled with force. Besides those desert people traditionally have to travel thousands of miles to survive, and always will. People living on flood plains however are an accident waiting to happen, and a feature of human lack of preparation and more recently overpopulation forcing people to occupy unsuitable areas due to economic conditions.
But the overall picture is life was always better in warmer periods altogether, fewer people died (all in the 2007 IPCC report) and the advantages always outweighed the disadvantages. Climate refugees (a figment of the IPCC's imagination as the latest figures this year reported a sum total of zero), take place over decades or more and always have, as the temperature does not and cannot ever remain stable over geological time, so Greenland has had populations come and go as have the few islands which did become inundated. It's damned inconvenient to have to move abroad but hardly dangerous as these changes give decades of notice and opens up vast areas of previously frozen areas to agriculture in exchange.
I'm not making this up, it's all from the IPCC 2007 report as far as past and projected consequences of warming go, but the bit people don't read.
Here's the standard 22,000 year sea level diagram produced by many universities etc. There was a sharp rise at the end of the little ice age which has been tailing off since 8000 years ago, and totally unaffected by any of the temperature variations of the last 150 regardless of up, down or sideways. As a lay person I'd suggest it's because the temperature variations were too small to be significant, but as a scientist if there's any reason why this trend (I've seen the last few hundred years blown up and it's absolutely rock steady, 3.2 mm for years, 3mm and suddenly dropped in 2010 or so) hasn't been affected despite beso's terrified screams it's going up 25 metres. As I said, only the Greenpeace camp believes this and I've heard IPCC related climatologists complaining these ridiculous claims make ordinary people skeptical as they're so far from what's really likely to happen. We do here sadly have predictions which do not represent the IPCC/UN, the (cough) 'consensus' or anyone else besides James Lovelock, George Monbiot and Greenpeace's associates. If you look at the actual history anyone rational would be totally unable to see how such a stable sea system could possibly ever be thrown wildly off course especially after a 50% rise in CO2 has stubbornly refused to do so as yet. Forget the one, ten or hundred year stretches, look at this one.
http://www.answersinc...Glacial_Sea_Level.png
http://www.answersinc...Glacial_Sea_Level.png
David - “...I'm not making this up, it's all from the IPCC 2007 report as far as past and projected consequences of warming go, but the bit people don't read.”
How right you are. And what a pleasure it has been to read your posts on this issue.
Very few people and seemingly even fewer journalists read any further than the summaries which purport to condense the findings in each chapter into an easily digestible, easily understandable couple of paragraphs. What these summaries sometimes do however, is distort the finding so that they fit the overall narrative.
For instance, when asked during a 2007 interview, why the summary of the first section of the 2007 report had been released before the full text was available, Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC Chairman) said there was a perfectly logical explanation. He explained that the draft version of the summary, written by IPCC scientists, had undergone some changes during the 'plenary' (a meeting between scientists, politicians, environmental lobbyists and diplomats in which scientists are grossly outnumbered by the other participants). In his opinion, these changes were not significant. Nevertheless, he stated, “... we necessarily have to ensure that the underlying report conforms to the refinements.”
A simple translation of that statement would be, “Once the scientists have written their reports, we edit those reports so that the underlying scientific sections accord with the version of reality that was agreed by the politicians during the plenary.”
Nice! Scientific reports edited by politicians and bureaucrats. What could possibly go wrong?
How right you are. And what a pleasure it has been to read your posts on this issue.
Very few people and seemingly even fewer journalists read any further than the summaries which purport to condense the findings in each chapter into an easily digestible, easily understandable couple of paragraphs. What these summaries sometimes do however, is distort the finding so that they fit the overall narrative.
For instance, when asked during a 2007 interview, why the summary of the first section of the 2007 report had been released before the full text was available, Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC Chairman) said there was a perfectly logical explanation. He explained that the draft version of the summary, written by IPCC scientists, had undergone some changes during the 'plenary' (a meeting between scientists, politicians, environmental lobbyists and diplomats in which scientists are grossly outnumbered by the other participants). In his opinion, these changes were not significant. Nevertheless, he stated, “... we necessarily have to ensure that the underlying report conforms to the refinements.”
A simple translation of that statement would be, “Once the scientists have written their reports, we edit those reports so that the underlying scientific sections accord with the version of reality that was agreed by the politicians during the plenary.”
Nice! Scientific reports edited by politicians and bureaucrats. What could possibly go wrong?
Congratulations Birdie, you've got it in one. We scientist can tell you anything you want but unless that science is state or industry sponsored you can't do the research to answer the questions.
IPCC is fundamentally a political body set up to "ACT" on the perceived threats of Climat Change, its all small, round, spherical things. You can't net millions of pounds, dollars, euros whatever in green taxes by hyping up water vapour and the threats it creates for mankind. Carbon Dioxide has been made scary by the politicians and journalists who have absolutley no clue what they are talking about.
Lets be honest the total %ge of Anthrpogenic Greenhouse Gas (Anthropogenic - man made) contributions adds up to around 0.28% of the TOTAL greenhouse effect.
IPCC is fundamentally a political body set up to "ACT" on the perceived threats of Climat Change, its all small, round, spherical things. You can't net millions of pounds, dollars, euros whatever in green taxes by hyping up water vapour and the threats it creates for mankind. Carbon Dioxide has been made scary by the politicians and journalists who have absolutley no clue what they are talking about.
Lets be honest the total %ge of Anthrpogenic Greenhouse Gas (Anthropogenic - man made) contributions adds up to around 0.28% of the TOTAL greenhouse effect.
beso
We've debated on this subject at length before. I find it interesting that you use the exact same techniques on David as you did with me. You repeatedly insulted my intelligence because my views didn't accord with your own; you regularly accused me of some kind of 'climate-crime' (my word) for not believing that we're putting future generations at risk; and you slavishly rely on the projections of computer models that have been specifically programmed to be ultra-sensitive to any atmospheric CO2 increase but which largely fail to address substantial negative feedback.
Anyway, I hope this thread rumbles on and on as I'm finding it absolutely fascinating.
We've debated on this subject at length before. I find it interesting that you use the exact same techniques on David as you did with me. You repeatedly insulted my intelligence because my views didn't accord with your own; you regularly accused me of some kind of 'climate-crime' (my word) for not believing that we're putting future generations at risk; and you slavishly rely on the projections of computer models that have been specifically programmed to be ultra-sensitive to any atmospheric CO2 increase but which largely fail to address substantial negative feedback.
Anyway, I hope this thread rumbles on and on as I'm finding it absolutely fascinating.
Thanks all, I do my best ;)
Rather than try and be controversial I'll quash the projections beso has provided stone dead straight from the horse's mouth. There's nothing more radical than the IPCC's reports, except their built in care in highlighting the uncertainties. The media and even more so greedy politicians and carbon investors ignore them, but trawling through it again will mention a few quotes which every single other item must be put into context with, especially the sea level projections:
"Projections of climate change and its impacts beyond about 2050
are strongly scenario- and model-dependent, and improved projections
would require improved understanding of sources of uncertainty and
enhancements in systematic observation networks. {WGII TS.6}"
"Understanding of low-probability/high-impact events and the
cumulative impacts of sequences of smaller events, which is required
for risk-based approaches to decision-making, is generally
limited."
"Uncertainty in the equilibrium climate sensitivity creates uncertainty
in the expected warming for a given CO2-eq stabilisation
scenario. Uncertainty in the carbon cycle feedback creates uncertainty
in the emissions trajectory required to achieve a particular
stabilisation level."
"Analysing and monitoring changes in extreme events, including
drought, tropical cyclones, extreme temperatures and the frequency
and intensity of precipitation, is more difficult than for climatic
averages as longer data time-series of higher spatial and temporal
resolutions are required. {WGI 3.8, SPM}"
"For increases in global average temperature of less than 1 to 3°C
above 1980-1999 levels, some impacts are projected to produce
market benefits in some places and sectors while, at the same time,
imposing costs in other places and sectors."
---------------------------------------------
-----------------
These caveats alone are vital in interpreting all future projections, as the whole 2007 report is basically no more than a future scenario which as we all know is already quite different from their first efforts 20 years ago, and any others made in open systems since biblical times onwards. As a lawyer rather than a scientist if you have a statue containing interpretive guidance, just like the IPCC report, where people's life and liberty depends on applying correctly, any person convicted under improper application of a statute where defences or qualifications apply would all be quashed on appeal.
Treating IPCC reports as scripts for the next 100 years, even when they themselves say anything beyond 2050 is pretty well out of their hands, is not irresponsible but extremely dangerous as it scares the sh1t out of some people, especially schoolchildren who have this on the national curriculum and then harangue their parents about their carbon footprints (divide and rule), but apply policies which are killing thousands of old and poor people every winter in the UK alone, and many more in the third world dying of starvation as their crops have been replaced by biofuels.
Telling me I don't care is probably the most ridiculous insult I've ever had in my 51 years on this planet, it's because I care about real things happening to real people right now which are all 100% avoidable I spend hours a day at times doing this.
Rather than try and be controversial I'll quash the projections beso has provided stone dead straight from the horse's mouth. There's nothing more radical than the IPCC's reports, except their built in care in highlighting the uncertainties. The media and even more so greedy politicians and carbon investors ignore them, but trawling through it again will mention a few quotes which every single other item must be put into context with, especially the sea level projections:
"Projections of climate change and its impacts beyond about 2050
are strongly scenario- and model-dependent, and improved projections
would require improved understanding of sources of uncertainty and
enhancements in systematic observation networks. {WGII TS.6}"
"Understanding of low-probability/high-impact events and the
cumulative impacts of sequences of smaller events, which is required
for risk-based approaches to decision-making, is generally
limited."
"Uncertainty in the equilibrium climate sensitivity creates uncertainty
in the expected warming for a given CO2-eq stabilisation
scenario. Uncertainty in the carbon cycle feedback creates uncertainty
in the emissions trajectory required to achieve a particular
stabilisation level."
"Analysing and monitoring changes in extreme events, including
drought, tropical cyclones, extreme temperatures and the frequency
and intensity of precipitation, is more difficult than for climatic
averages as longer data time-series of higher spatial and temporal
resolutions are required. {WGI 3.8, SPM}"
"For increases in global average temperature of less than 1 to 3°C
above 1980-1999 levels, some impacts are projected to produce
market benefits in some places and sectors while, at the same time,
imposing costs in other places and sectors."
---------------------------------------------
-----------------
These caveats alone are vital in interpreting all future projections, as the whole 2007 report is basically no more than a future scenario which as we all know is already quite different from their first efforts 20 years ago, and any others made in open systems since biblical times onwards. As a lawyer rather than a scientist if you have a statue containing interpretive guidance, just like the IPCC report, where people's life and liberty depends on applying correctly, any person convicted under improper application of a statute where defences or qualifications apply would all be quashed on appeal.
Treating IPCC reports as scripts for the next 100 years, even when they themselves say anything beyond 2050 is pretty well out of their hands, is not irresponsible but extremely dangerous as it scares the sh1t out of some people, especially schoolchildren who have this on the national curriculum and then harangue their parents about their carbon footprints (divide and rule), but apply policies which are killing thousands of old and poor people every winter in the UK alone, and many more in the third world dying of starvation as their crops have been replaced by biofuels.
Telling me I don't care is probably the most ridiculous insult I've ever had in my 51 years on this planet, it's because I care about real things happening to real people right now which are all 100% avoidable I spend hours a day at times doing this.
-- answer removed --
And as far as sea level rises are concerned, these are the figures based on maximum (no GHG reductions at all) to minimum (stable GHGs since 2000).
The maximum worst case scenario is not 50 metres, or 5 metres, but 59cm (just under two feet). To put this in perspective the last century had a rise of around 33 cm (10 inches) so not exactly a catastrophe. I didn't (I am actually qualified to say this) worry about beso's health for nothing. The imagination required to diverge from the IPCC's own worst scenario by a factor of ten is not a sign of someone we really ought to rely on in this area.
Scenario B1
Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
Scenario A1T
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
Scenario B2
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
Scenario A1B
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
Scenario A2
Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
Scenario A1FI
Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)
The maximum worst case scenario is not 50 metres, or 5 metres, but 59cm (just under two feet). To put this in perspective the last century had a rise of around 33 cm (10 inches) so not exactly a catastrophe. I didn't (I am actually qualified to say this) worry about beso's health for nothing. The imagination required to diverge from the IPCC's own worst scenario by a factor of ten is not a sign of someone we really ought to rely on in this area.
Scenario B1
Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
Scenario A1T
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
Scenario B2
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
Scenario A1B
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
Scenario A2
Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
Scenario A1FI
Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Phrases & Sayings12 mins ago
Labour Extends Lead Over Tories.
News14 mins ago
Labour's Lead Evaporating.....
News49 mins ago
