Climate impacts 'overwhelming' - UN

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Co'tor Shas**

Just putting this out there. This is the report itself. A little more than 1500 pages, but I started reading it (it's going to take a while).
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

**Seaward**

Da Boss wrote:
There is a tremendous arrogance, not to mention worrying trend of paranoia, in assuming you know better than the vast number of experts in a field.

That's what this forum exists for, though. Christ, I had some IT tech trying to lecture me about carrier landings here. Talking out your ass in contradiction to the experts might as well be the forum's new name.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Just putting this out there. This is the report itself. A little more than 1500 pages, but I started reading it (it's going to take a while).
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

And here it's counterpart the NIPCC's report:
http://nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Full-Report.pdf

**Frazzled**

Yes, and I'm proposing that, as a society, we need to value direct enjoyment more than things like status symbols.

As long as you get to define it, evidently. Behold the tryannic hypocrisy of the entire movement.

And it's not a moral connotation, it's a utilitarian analysis

Horse gak. The fact you can defend his cost per unit toy soldiers invalidates your argument on its face.

We need to start asking ourselves whether we really want that thing we're about to buy, or if we're just buying it because the marketing experts have convinced us that we "need" it.

Well this is true. Except for chocolate. I NEED chcolate.

And I'm not proposing a ban on ridiculous toys like the Hummer. I'm proposing voluntary change, that we stop seeing things like the Hummer as an appealing purchase. It's the difference between saying "you should be a good person and donate to charity" and imposing a 90% income tax and directing all of that money to the official government charity programs.

Voluntary now, but we've seen this movie before.

Obviously it's not binary, but the point is that "who cares" isn't a sensible opinion here.

Its the most sensible. actually, considering when you try to (pin down the stereotypcial tree hugger the answer comes down to returning to some hippy commune lifestyle for everyone (but themselves usually-Gore is an example therein) and exist on unicorn power.

**Da Boss**

Seaward wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
There is a tremendous arrogance, not to mention worrying trend of paranoia, in assuming you know better than the vast number of experts in a field.

That's what this forum exists for, though. Christ, I had some IT tech trying to lecture me about carrier landings here. Talking out your ass in contradiction to the experts might as well be the forum's new name.

You're pretty damn right. You ever catch me lecturing you on your area of speciality, just smack me down with that, perhaps.

Heh. A Seaward post that made me smile. And they said it wasn't possible

**whembly**

Here's the "Advice for Policy Makers" found in the Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 by NIPCC:

In 2013, any engaged policymaker or commentator has a responsibility to be fully familiar with
the arguments and conclusions adduced by both of these teams of climate advisors. Towards this
end, we present the primary conclusions of NIPCC’s latest report as they are stated in its
Summary for Policymakers:

1. We conclude neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface
warming (1979-2000) lay outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual
compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history. Furthermore, solar forcings of
temperature change are likely more important than is currently recognized, and evidence is
lacking that a 2/ C increase in temperature (of whatever cause) would be globally harmful.

2. We conclude no unambiguous evidence exists for adverse changes to the global environment
caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an
enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; no systematic changes have been
documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme
meteorological events; and an increased release of methane into the atmosphere from
permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is unlikely.

3. We conclude the current generation of global climate models are unable to make accurate
projections of climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100 year period that has been
adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide
public policy formulation until they have been validated and shown to have predictive value

**Da Boss**

They're funded by a political think tank with a heavy bias. I don't find them to be a credible source, whatsoever.

Whembly- I used to be involved in agricultural research. In my research, part of what I was investigating was the increase in number of a particular parasite that likes warm, wet summers.

Now, do you think that I was misinterpreting the data I had access to on purpose to acquire more funding, or do you think I was merely mislead by my political bias to the wrong conclusions? I mean, if I am part of any conspiracy, it's really well hidden and I've never received a cent of hush money, is all I'm saying. In fact while I was a researcher I was massively underpaid and my research was really underfunded, often requiring me to take costs on the chin or to work insane hours to solve problems that could easily have been solved with just a little more money.

So, are all the other scientists working in the field just in on it and I was an unlucky schmuck, or what?

(Feel free to disregard as unsubstantiated bs from a guy you've never met on the internet, of course. But I hope you'll think about what I'm saying)

**Frazzled**

So are you going to immediately recommend full conversion to nuclear reactors, global fracking to release larger natural gas deposits, and mandated GMO crops which can produce greater yields?

If not then your ignoring "climate change."

**Da Boss**

I'm pro nuclear and pro GMO. I think GMO could actually be the solution to a lot of problems, though it has to be considered extremely carefully, of course. The ecosystem is damn complicated.

Nuclear power is the best stop gap we have while we develop better alternatives to oil, and should lower the cost of energy in the meantime. It's non-renewable too, however, so it wouldn't do to be complacent.

I don't see how fracking reduces global warming, so I'm not particularly pro fracking.

Also, recently switched to being (mostly) vegetarian because meat based agriculture is pretty damn devastating to the environment (see my posting history to note that I have no particular qualms about killing individual animals- I am concerned for species.)

Edit: But that's a sideline and you know it- play the ball, not the man, Fraz.

**Frazzled**

I did boxing, not basketball.

**Da Boss**

My sport in university was archery, I'm not sure what that says about our encounter here

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:
My sport in university was archery, I'm not sure what that says about our encounter here

Watch out for drunken Irishmen with bows?

If you were a Southernor, the next and potentially last words you'd say "here hold my beer and watch this."

**whembly**

Da Boss wrote:
They're funded by a political think tank with a heavy bias. I don't find them to be a credible source, whatsoever.

Uh... if you believe that, then I can't help you. The links I provided contains massive amount of data... backed up by real referenced studies if you decide to investigate deeper. I find it hard to believe that you'd discount this information since I posted it.

I think your bias is slipping through a bit.

Whembly- I used to be involved in agricultural research. In my research, part of what I was investigating was the increase in number of a particular parasite that likes warm, wet summers.

Cool! Environmental Studies is a fascinating subject for me.

Now, do you think that I was misinterpreting the data I had access to on purpose to acquire more funding, or do you think I was merely mislead by my political bias to the wrong conclusions?

No. Why would I think that? However, I haven't seen your study so I cannot definitively give you an answer.

I mean, if I am part of any conspiracy, it's really well hidden and I've never received a cent of hush money, is all I'm saying. In fact while I was a researcher I was massively underpaid and my research was really underfunded, often requiring me to take costs on the chin or to work insane hours to solve problems that could easily have been solved with just a little more money.

Huh? Projecting much?

So, are all the other scientists working in the field just in on it and I was an unlucky schmuck, or what?

Of course not.

(Feel free to disregard as unsubstantiated bs from a guy you've never met on the internet, of course. But I hope you'll think about what I'm saying)

Nah... you cool with me.

Fun fact for the day. Whembly (that's moi) was a big believer of Global Warming™ and firmly believed that we'd reached critical mass in our lifetime. Then.... I got older and wised up. The world is a very complex place....

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:
I'm pro nuclear and pro GMO. I think GMO could actually be the solution to a lot of problems, though it has to be considered extremely carefully, of course. The ecosystem is damn complicated.

Me too! /nukefanhighfive

Nuclear power is the best stop gap we have while we develop better alternatives to oil, and should lower the cost of energy in the meantime. It's non-renewable too, however, so it wouldn't do to be complacent.

Absolutely... I know the Germans, (pretty much Europe too) uses many Nuke plants. It's a shame that the US is lagging behind.

I don't see how fracking reduces global warming, so I'm not particularly pro fracking.

Fracking's potential issue is more on the residual waste byproduct than contributing to greenhouse gases. If done wrong, it can feth up environment (like any extraction technologies).

Also, recently switched to being (mostly) vegetarian because meat based agriculture is pretty damn devastating to the environment (see my posting history to note that I have no particular qualms about killing individual animals- I am concerned for species.)

That's interesting. I fall into the camp of minimizing my wheat intake lately.

Edit: But that's a sideline and you know it- play the ball, not the man, Fraz.

My St. Louis Cardinals won yesterday!

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
They're funded by a political think tank with a heavy bias. I don't find them to be a credible source, whatsoever.

Uh... if you believe that, then I can't help you. The links I provided contains massive amount of data... backed up by real referenced studies if you decide to investigate deeper. I find it hard to believe that you'd discount this information since I posted it.

I think your bias is slipping through a bit.

Well, TBF whembly, it is funded by the heartland institute, who have a definite bias. If they didn't display that on their front page it would be easier to take what they say at face value. But then again, when is that last time there has been an entirely unbiased report on a political issue by anybody.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can't stop looking at this from the NIPCC.

The reality is that the world is getting greener over time as plants, animals, and humans benefit from higher temperatures and CO2-enriched air.

At this point they are just talking out of their

's. I just hope this wasn't written by the scientists themselves.

Edit: it wasn't (whew) it was written by the 'executive editor' of the heartland institute so the forward is not based on fact.

**Da Boss**

Cheers for the cordial reply. Takes a lot of the heat out of it for me.

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:
Cheers for the cordial reply. Takes a lot of the heat out of it for me.

Here, hold my beer. Now watch thi...

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
Many of the conclusions of these studies aren't robust... hence why it's intensely debated.

Sigh. No, it's "intensely debated" like evolution vs. young-earth creationism is "intensely debated". The experts all agree on what the conclusion is, but a lot of people don't like those conclusions (because of ideology/money/etc) and refuse to accept them.

**Frazzled**

No the cause is debated. Temperature change over tim e is not debated.
1. Whats causing it is debated.
2. What to do about it is debated.
3. The costs of doing that is debated.
The fact I don't give a flip about it is not debated.

**easysauce**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Many of the conclusions of these studies aren't robust... hence why it's intensely debated.

Sigh. No, it's "intensely debated" like evolution vs. young-earth creationism is "intensely debated". The experts all agree on what the conclusion is, but a lot of people don't like those conclusions (because of ideology/money/etc) and refuse to accept them.

no its really not... thats a totally false parallel between evolution/creationism and climate change.

the "experts" in the climate field, do NOT agree, its about a 52%-48% divide, so stop acting like its a slam duck hypothesis like gravity or evolution.

yes, the earth has gotten a bit warmer, far far LESS then the global warming zealots predicted. The earth has also naturally been warming up, without our help. It naturally cools and warms, and humans are more then capable of adapting to this normal change in climate.

WHY the temperature is rising, is still very much up for debate, the role of humans in this temperature increase could very well be insignificant compared to the forces of nature (solar cycles, natural warming cylces, ect)

If we look at the #'s humans have far less of an effect then natural events/processes, even green house gas emission wise, then the planet does emit far far more itself then we add to it. again, human emissions are nothing compared to things like volcanoes, and the world doesnt end every time a volcano erupts now does it?

Shutting everything down or crippling economies, when it could have no appreciable affect on the climate (as it could just keep warming up due to other factors) is a huge risk, with real guaranteed detriments without a guaranteed payoff.

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Many of the conclusions of these studies aren't robust... hence why it's intensely debated.

Sigh. No, it's "intensely debated" like evolution vs. young-earth creationism is "intensely debated". The experts all agree on what the conclusion is, but a lot of people don't like those conclusions (because of ideology/money/etc) and refuse to accept them.

That... right there my friend is incorrect.

No one is debating what's happening... the debate has always been if it's man-made, natural or both.

**Co'tor Shas**

Not always. The scientific debate maybe, but not the normal one. It started out with one side saying it exists and the other saying it doesn't. I know one guy who even now believes that climate change (man-made or natural) is a hoax.

**easysauce**

Climate change alarmists have claimed we "crossed the rubicon" over and over and over.

each time they were wrong, and each time the observed reality vs the fear tainted projections just does not add up.

notice all the projections are at least off by 100%... not a close prediction at all, hence the science behind it is flawed and not 100% understood as the alarmists claim it to be.

[img]

yeah.. real 100% consensus there... everyone agrees, 50% is close enough to 100% right?

**Kilkrazy**

easysauce wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Many of the conclusions of these studies aren't robust... hence why it's intensely debated.

Sigh. No, it's "intensely debated" like evolution vs. young-earth creationism is "intensely debated". The experts all agree on what the conclusion is, but a lot of people don't like those conclusions (because of ideology/money/etc) and refuse to accept them.

no its really not... thats a totally false parallel between evolution/creationism and climate change.

the "experts" in the climate field, do NOT agree, its about a 52%-48% divide, so stop acting like its a slam duck hypothesis like gravity or evolution.

yes, the earth has gotten a bit warmer, far far LESS then the global warming zealots predicted. The earth has also naturally been warming up, without our help. It naturally cools and warms, and humans are more then capable of adapting to this normal change in climate.

WHY the temperature is rising, is still very much up for debate, the role of humans in this temperature increase could very well be insignificant compared to the forces of nature (solar cycles, natural warming cylces, ect)

If we look at the #'s humans have far less of an effect then natural events/processes, even green house gas emission wise, then the planet does emit far far more itself then we add to it. again, human emissions are nothing compared to things like volcanoes, and the world doesnt end every time a volcano erupts now does it?

...

Not according to the US Geological Survery, reported in Scientific American...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

**whembly**

Kilkrazy wrote:
easysauce wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Many of the conclusions of these studies aren't robust... hence why it's intensely debated.

Sigh. No, it's "intensely debated" like evolution vs. young-earth creationism is "intensely debated". The experts all agree on what the conclusion is, but a lot of people don't like those conclusions (because of ideology/money/etc) and refuse to accept them.

no its really not... thats a totally false parallel between evolution/creationism and climate change.

the "experts" in the climate field, do NOT agree, its about a 52%-48% divide, so stop acting like its a slam duck hypothesis like gravity or evolution.

yes, the earth has gotten a bit warmer, far far LESS then the global warming zealots predicted. The earth has also naturally been warming up, without our help. It naturally cools and warms, and humans are more then capable of adapting to this normal change in climate.

WHY the temperature is rising, is still very much up for debate, the role of humans in this temperature increase could very well be insignificant compared to the forces of nature (solar cycles, natural warming cylces, ect)

If we look at the #'s humans have far less of an effect then natural events/processes, even green house gas emission wise, then the planet does emit far far more itself then we add to it. again, human emissions are nothing compared to things like volcanoes, and the world doesnt end every time a volcano erupts now does it?

...

Not according to the US Geological Survery, reported in Scientific American...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

Did you read the comments on the site.

**Frazzled**

And what? No country is going to volutnarily knock itself back into the pre-industrial age on a hunch, especially when other countries are churning and burning. That one unassailable fact makes pro arguments moot.

**Minx**

whembly wrote:
No one is debating what's happening... the debate has always been if it's man-made, natural or both.

The CO_2 levels have risen rather sharply over the last hundred years. Did it come from some invisible volcanoes, the Nazis living inside the hollow earth, or rather from us living on the surface?
If you then look at the transmission spectra of various gases and especially CO_2 it's quite clear that the increasing CO_2 concentration leads to more energy from the sun being kept on the planet. There have been countless measurements of those spectra both in laboratories and outside of labs using satellites.
A part of that increasing energy content will lead to higher temperatures on the surface of our planet. What's there to debate?

**easysauce**

yes, and if you actually read what I said, I say things LIKE volcanos,

not just them on their own.

its still a fact that humans produce far less emission then natural sources (volcanoes being just ONE of those sources).

places like the manhattan institute have pretty good non biased science on this kind of thing

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth10.htm

**whembly**

Minx wrote:
whembly wrote:
No one is debating what's happening... the debate has always been if it's man-made, natural or both.

The CO_2 levels have risen rather sharply over the last hundred years. Did it come from some invisible volcanoes, the Nazis living inside the hollow earth, or rather from us living on the surface?
If you then look at the transmission spectra of various gases and especially CO_2 it's quite clear that the increasing CO_2 concentration leads to more energy from the sun being kept on the planet. There have been countless measurements of those spectra both in laboratories and outside of labs using satellites.
A part of that increasing energy content will lead to higher temperatures on the surface of our planet. What's there to debate?

Correlation is not causation.

Let me ask you this... what are you advocating?

**Frazzled**

Clearly we need to outlaw volcanoes.

**Minx**

easysauce wrote:
places like the manhattan institute have pretty good non biased science on this kind of thing

Why would i rather read a non-scientist's view than the relevant scientific publications?