Climate Code Red

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 16 Sep 2013, 16:20

Is climate change already dangerous? (Ans. = Yes.)

David Spratt continues the theme of his 2008 book with this paper:
http://www.climatecodered.org/p/is-clim ... erous.html

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 16 Sep 2013, 16:41

pook?

Edited to book - Ken

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 16 Sep 2013, 18:03

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 12464.html

The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 16 Sep 2013, 18:11

What a shame the WSJ got it wrong. Again.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 16 Sep 2013, 18:15

RenewableCandy wrote:pook?

Had to look that one up:

Pook, a heap, 1718; a roughly thrown up heap of hay; a tall stack of corn nine to ten feet high. See also cock, stack.
Examples: pook of barley; of corn; of hay, 1853; of oats, 1718; of turves, 1868; of wheat, 1722.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pook

Not sure it helped.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 16 Sep 2013, 18:16

Oh, I see, it was just my typo. Meant to write book, not pook.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 17 Sep 2013, 01:15

biffvernon wrote:What a shame the WSJ got it wrong. Again.

Are you asserting that the IPCC report will say something different THAN what the WSJ reported?

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 17 Sep 2013, 06:45

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

Warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops and the greening of the Earth—because plants grow faster and need less water when carbon dioxide concentrations are higher.

The temperature might be going to rise by xx, and it might not, but they can't have this apparent contradiction that the economy will not suffer nor will ecology. The economy is only ok if it grows, which implies more people, which implies more space needed, which implies less space for everything else. That coupled with a lower winter death rate.

This can be seen in the UK where wildlife, in areas of intensive agriculture, has declined dramatically in the last 50 years.

Why is it the mark of success is to fill the planet so there is standing room only? Nobody is addressing population growth, or so it seems.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 17 Sep 2013, 07:51

vtsnowedin wrote:
biffvernon wrote:What a shame the WSJ got it wrong. Again.
Are you asserting that the IPCC report will say something different then what the WSJ reported?

Of course. The WSJ says:

It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.

Lies, lies, lies and not even damn statistics.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 17 Sep 2013, 10:59

biffvernon wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
biffvernon wrote:What a shame the WSJ got it wrong. Again.
Are you asserting that the IPCC report will say something different then what the WSJ reported?
Of course. The WSJ says:
It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.
Lies, lies, lies and not even damn statistics.

OK Biff have it your way. The IPCC report will make interesting reading when it comes out and I'll be looking to see how much political rewriting goes on at that Sept. 23 conference.
What the WSJ concludes from the report or their preview of it is of little consequence. It is the science behind the report itself that is interesting.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 17 Sep 2013, 15:27

vtsnowedin wrote: What the WSJ concludes from the report or their preview of it is of little consequence.

Funny that, I always thought that a report's conclusion is what it should be judged upon. This one gets it 180 degrees wrong.

Of course trouble arises when people use computer models to jump to unwarranted conclusions, not understanding the nature of the If-Then relationship that lies at the heart of much modelling.

But for the WSJ s to say that "the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet." is worse than bonkers - it is an evil thing to write.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 17 Sep 2013, 16:30

biffvernon wrote: But for the WSJ s to say that "the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet." is worse than bonkers - it is an evil thing to write.

I am a bit wary of phrases such as this one from the article.

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

Who tabulated all the experts opinions and determined that "Most" had reached a consensus on it?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 16 Oct 2013, 11:20

Good article in TomDispatch from Michael Klare.

As is so often the case with mass delusions, those caught up in fossil fuel mania have not bothered to think through the grim realities involved. While industry bigwigs may continue to remain on an energy high, the rest of us will not be so lucky. The accelerated production and combustion of fossil fuels can have only one outcome: a severely imperiled planet.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 16 Oct 2013, 15:39

Have these journalists not noticed that at our current level of warming, about 0.6 degC, we are losing the ice from the Arctic, Greenland and the Antarctic? We are starting to see feedback loops that will increase the amount of warming exponentially such as methane release from the thawing Arctic Tundra.

This ice loss is leading to a sea level rise which will flood the major cities of the world causing untold financial losses without taking into account the loss of the world's major food growing regions as well. Our current level of warming is not sustainable let alone 2degrees!

Journalists shouldn't be allowed to pronounce on scientific matters without taking and passing a science degree. They are just too incompetent at the moment.

extractorfan · Post by **extractorfan** » 16 Oct 2013, 15:57

kenneal - lagger wrote:
Journalists shouldn't be allowed to pronounce on scientific matters without taking and passing a science degree. They are just too incompetent at the moment.

I often think they do it on purpose.

Perhaps I over estimate them.