How Bad Is Global Warming?

[The Consul]

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of our time will prove to be the politicization of this issue. In a world where profit trumps morality and reality, not much else can be expected.

[Iamwhomiam]

Well Iam, at last we discover the reason for your misunderstanding of my posts.....it is not I who is the only one claiming AGW scientists believe humans are the predominant factor in climate change....it is everyone who has ever followed the global warming science debate .....and it is you who are the only one I know of who is unaware of this fact!

IPCC climate report: humans 'dominant cause' of warming

Ben, you've failed again to answer the questions I've asked you.

Bold type the second time didn't work, perhaps this third try I should enlarge it:

What's the downside of preparing for a calamity that never happens compared to never having prepared for a calamity that does happen?

Live up to your promise to be concise and provide substantiating evidence for your claims:

...to post only scientifically credible information relating to the actual state of global climate.

A BBC article is not what the IPCC had to say, but rather what the reporter's interpreted from the report, including some one or two word quotes they excerpted for effect.

But looking at the article, I see it's dated to the last release working group one. From the article:

The report by the UN's climate panel details the physical evidence behind climate change.

On the ground, in the air, in the oceans, global warming is "unequivocal", it explained.

It adds that a pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long-term trends.

The panel warns that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all aspects of the climate system.

To contain these changes will require "substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions".

This is all true.

The first part of an IPCC trilogy, due over the next 12 months, this dense, 36-page document is considered the most comprehensive statement on our understanding of the mechanics of a warming planet.

It states baldly that, since the 1950s, many of the observed changes in the climate system are "unprecedented over decades to millennia".

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface, and warmer than any period since 1850, and probably warmer than any time in the past 1,400 years.

"Our assessment of the science finds that the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and that concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased," said Qin Dahe, co-chair of IPCC working group one, who produced the report.

Speaking at a news conference in the Swedish capital, Prof Thomas Stocker, another co-chair, said that climate change "challenges the two primary resources of humans and ecosystems, land and water. In short, it threatens our planet, our only home".

All true.

But a so-called pause in the increase in temperatures in the period since 1998 is downplayed in the report. The scientists point out that this period began with a very hot El Nino year.

"Trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends," the report says.

Prof Stocker, added: "I'm afraid there is not a lot of public literature that allows us to delve deeper at the required depth of this emerging scientific question.

"For example, there are not sufficient observations of the uptake of heat, particularly into the deep ocean, that would be one of the possible mechanisms to explain this warming hiatus."

"Likewise we have insufficient data to adequately assess the forcing over the last 10-15 years to establish a relationship between the causes of the warming."

However, the report does alter a key figure from the 2007 study. The temperature range given for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, called equilibrium climate sensitivity, was 2.0C to 4.5C in that report.

In the latest document, the range has been changed to 1.5C to 4.5C. The scientists say this reflects improved understanding, better temperature records and new estimates for the factors driving up temperatures.

All true.

In the summary for policymakers, the scientists say the rise in ocean waters will proceed at a faster rate than we have experienced over the past 40 years. Global mean sea level rise for 2081−2100, the document says, is projected to be between 26cm (at the low end) and 82cm (at the high end), depending on the greenhouse emissions path this century.

The scientists say ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for 90% of energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010.

For the future, the report states that warming is projected to continue under all scenarios. Model simulations indicate that global surface temperature change by the end of the 21st Century is likely to exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius, relative to 1850.

Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, from Imperial College London, told BBC News: "We are performing a very dangerous experiment with our planet, and I don't want my grandchildren to suffer the consequences of that experiment."

I believe the outcome of our inaction will be disastrous.

Answer the BIG question Ben, please.

And if you want to question me about the IPCC report, please take your quotes from it, noting chapter and page.

The BBC's take on the report's key findings:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24282150

The IPCC's report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UkU7GYZeY6k

With all due respect, I very much doubt you have read the contents of the report, though it's been out now for nearly a year.

[Iamwhomiam]

Projections of climate change
Climate sensitivity, cumulative carbon

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/2_knutti13sbsta.pdf

Please read this.

Perhaps so, Consul.

There's no harm if my position is incorrect.

[Ben D]

Well Iam, at last we discover the reason for your misunderstanding of my posts.....it is not I who is the only one claiming AGW scientists believe humans are the predominant factor in climate change....it is everyone who has ever followed the global warming science debate .....and it is you who are the only one I know of who is unaware of this fact!

IPCC climate report: humans 'dominant cause' of warming

Ben, you've failed again to answer the questions I've asked you.

Bold type the second time didn't work, perhaps this third try I should enlarge it:

What's the downside of preparing for a calamity that never happens compared to never having prepared for a calamity that does happen?

Live up to your promise to be concise and provide substantiating evidence for your claims:

...to post only scientifically credible information relating to the actual state of global climate.

A BBC article is not what the IPCC had to say, but rather what the reporter's interpreted from the report, including some one or two word quotes they excerpted for effect.
-snip-
With all due respect, I very much doubt you have read the contents of the report, though it's been out now for nearly a year.

Ok Iam, so let me be sure I'm not mistaken on this before taking steps to explain further if necessary.....you are still of the opinion that the IPCC report and AGW science in general is NOT based on the belief than human activity is the predominant cause of global warming?

Now when we get this cleared up....I will be happy to address your question of pros and cons of mitigation....but please, let's clear this up first.

[Iamwhomiam]

Ben, read the report before raising questions about its content.

Thank you.

on edit:
My opinion is irrelevant to the science. Stick to your word, please.

[Ben D]

Ben, read the report before raising questions about its content.

Thank you.

You underestimate me Iam, if you had read my posts, I have quoted from IPCC documents before, that refer to the human factor as being the predominant cause of global warming.

Now are you ready to concede or do you want me to rub your nose in it?

[Iamwhomiam]

Ben, read the report before raising questions about its content.

Thank you.

You underestimate me Iam, if you had read my posts, I have quoted from IPCC documents before, that refer to the human factor as being the predominant cause of global warming.

Now are you ready to concede or do you want me to rub your nose in it?

I've carefully read every posting contained in the god-awful thread.

I was sure you meant what you wrote. About keeping to the science and leaving opinion aside. My bad it seems for having trusted you. I simply would like you to answer my questions before proceeding further with you on this topic.

Also, please provide me a link to a statement asserting your claim.

Yeah, please do rub my Alzheimer's in it; It feels so good!

[Ben D]

Ben, read the report before raising questions about its content.

Thank you.

You underestimate me Iam, if you had read my posts, I have quoted from IPCC documents before, that refer to the human factor as being the predominant cause of global warming.

Now are you ready to concede or do you want me to rub your nose in it?

I've carefully read every posting contained in the god-awful thread.

I was sure you meant what you wrote. About keeping to the science and leaving opinion aside. My bad it seems for having trusted you. I simply would like you to answer my questions before proceeding further with you on this topic.

Also, please provide me a link to a statement asserting your claim.

Yeah, please do rub my Alzheimer's in it; It feels so good!

Sorry Iam, I didn't mean to imply the Alzheimer factor.....here are some links to support what I'm saying...

http://www.c2es.org/science-impacts/ipcc-summaries/fifth-assessment-report-working-group-1

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) brings policymakers and the public up to date on the state of climate science. The IPCC report, released in stages, is the most comprehensive assessment of existing climate change research and provides a baseline for understanding and action. The Working Group I Summary for Policymakers released Sept. 27, 2013, states with greater certainty than ever that climate change is happening and that human activity is the principal cause.

Human Activity

Each IPCC report has been progressively stronger in attributing climate change to human activities. The AR5 contains the strongest statement yet, saying it is “extremely likely” (a greater than 95 percent chance) that human activities are “the dominant cause of the observed warming” since the 1950s. The Third Assessment (2001) made a similar statement with approximately 66 percent certainty, while the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (2007) found that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90 percent chance) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

http://www.theclimategroup.org/what-we-do/news-and-blogs/humans-are-dominant-cause-of-changes-in-the-climate-system-ipcc-climate-scientists-in-climate-week-nyc-livestream/

NEW YORK: Today IPCC climate scientists spoke live to an audience at Climate Week NYC, hours after releasing the IPCC AR5 report, which says humans are to blame for climate change.

-snip-
Nathan Bindoff, Professor of Physical Oceanography and Climate Change and Ocean Processes program leader, University of Tasmania spoke next on attributes to the warming. He said: “There are a few aspects that don’t allow us to say 100%, but what we can say is that the signal is more than 95% that man is the cause of global warming. There is very strong evidence that man is to blame for warming.” Explaining the AR5’s ‘clearer picture’ on the contributions of GHG gases on warming, he stated: “Humans are the predominant cause of changes in the climate system.”

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

Conclusions of AR5 are summarized below:

Working Group I

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia".

Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.

[Ben D]

And Iam..as to your question....."What's the downside of preparing for a calamity that never happens compared to never having prepared for a calamity that does happen?"....well cost of course!

Mitigation costs will be borne by the masses in the way of carbon taxes, etc.,....has AGW science put a figure on how much mitigation will cost? And most importantly, when this cost has been ascertained, to compare this cost with the cost of adaptation? If adaptation to climate change works out to cost less, that's the ticket! And that seems to be the way it's heading after Copenhagen, etc.,....

[Iamwhomiam]

Yeah, it seems I'm unable to retain newer memories. In fact, earlier I composed a reply for something I had forgotten I already responded to just last night. No biggie; just makes me a bit more vulnerable to error and usually more careful.

So, there is a consensus of scientists in working group one that feel there is a 95% probability that our current warming since 1951 was due primarily to anthropogenic causes.

Thank you Ben, for answering my question. We pay for things we never or rarely need, like car insurance and homeowner's insurance, even life assurance. Just in case. And our fees are based upon risk as figured by actuarials.

Many of the coastal properties now believed will be lost are insured. Those losses have been projected to be astronomical and the consumer will be paying for those losses if society continues to function. As with a tsunami, when the waters rise people will seek the safety of another's property. It will be very sci fi ugly.

If life is to end, the cost is immaterial. Doing nothing would be beyond shameful.

One of the main functions of government is to provide security for its populace. Governments are asking researchers to determine the impact of our activities and their waste products upon our environment and that I feel is responsible action. We still do not have a complete inventory of all mans activities or heat values of all of our chemicals and pesticides in common use.

We understand little about the combined reactions or effects from the chemical cocktail our air and waters now are. As time goes on we will see whether we have entered a maunder minimum or a time of runaway irreversible global warming.

We still lack a full understanding of the deep sea warming cycles now suspected of absorbing the heat our models projected, but we're learning more each day.

Never one to go along with the crowd, this time it's different for me; the risk of doing nothing is too great and I'm swayed by the science to take immediate action. Long ago I said we need to find the Off switch quickly; now I believe it is too late. We are boiling frogs, calmly witness to our own demise.

I'd appreciate some commentary on the short pdf Carbon presentation I linked to.

[Ben D]

Yeah, it seems I'm unable to retain newer memories. In fact, earlier I composed a reply for something I had forgotten I already responded to just last night. No biggie; just makes me a bit more vulnerable to error and usually more careful.

So, there is a consensus of scientists in working group one that feel there is a 95% probability that our current warming since 1951 was due primarily to anthropogenic causes.

Thank you Ben, for answering my question. We pay for things we never or rarely need, like car insurance and homeowner's insurance, even life assurance. Just in case. And our fees are based upon risk as figured by actuarials.

Many of the coastal properties now believed will be lost are insured. Those losses have been projected to be astronomical and the consumer will be paying for those losses if society continues to function. As with a tsunami, when the waters rise people will seek the safety of another's property. It will be very sci fi ugly.

If life is to end, the cost is immaterial. Doing nothing would be beyond shameful.

One of the main functions of government is to provide security for its populace. Governments are asking researchers to determine the impact of our activities and their waste products upon our environment and that I feel is responsible action. We still do not have a complete inventory of all mans activities or heat values of all of our chemicals and pesticides in common use.

We understand little about the combined reactions or effects from the chemical cocktail our air and waters now are. As time goes on we will see whether we have entered a maunder minimum or a time of runaway irreversible global warming.

We still lack a full understanding of the deep sea warming cycles now suspected of absorbing the heat our models projected, but we're learning more each day.

Never one to go along with the crowd, this time it's different for me; the risk of doing nothing is too great and I'm swayed by the science to take immediate action. Long ago I said we need to find the Off switch quickly; now I believe it is too late. We are boiling frogs, calmly witness to our own demise.

I'd appreciate some commentary on the short pdf Carbon presentation I linked to.

I have read the IPCC climate change, climate sensitivity, and cumulative carbon projections Iam, and while I accept that CO2 emissions are increasing, the observed global temperature anomaly has been quite steady since the beginning of this century, which brings into question the degree CO2 plays in climate change, particularly the human contribution.

Now I know the AGW science team have come up with theoretical reasons why this is, and that in time they predict the increase in warming will resume....but for now I will only say that I will believe that when I see it...and I don't want to get into a claim and counter-claim debate about the yet unknown.

I note you didn't comment on my point about the cost of mitigation and or adaptation scenarios. I think it's telling that the IPCC hasn't done a cost analysis of these...they want world governments to carbon tax their citizens, but sfaik, they have not provided details as to how much the tax payers are up for and for how long, so it could be compared with the costs involved if the world went down the adaptation route.

[brainpanhandler]

How come I never see you complain about people being taxed up the wazoo to murder people all over the planet Ben?



Look at all that money we're spending on science. blech.

How about we impose price controls on the fossil fuel giants and then tax their profits at 90%? That ought to raise several tens of billions of dollars to be invested in renewables so we can all feel better about ourselves as the world still goes to hell in a 50 gallon drum a little slower than we would have otherwise?

[Ben D]

I prefer to look at the total budget spending which shows defence spending at 22% of the total in 2015....but regardless I am in full agreement with you about the excessive tax burden of US defence spending, and the immorality of the killing all over the planet that goes with it.

The problem about taxing carbon at the source bph, is that it will be passed onto the consumer in the form of higher fuel and electricity bills...and that hurts the poor most of all. How about taxing the mic at 90%, and invest that in renewables....if that could displace fossil fuel sourced energy, you would have your wish.

[Iamwhomiam]

Unnecessary wasting of energy at the cost to other people's resources irks me, Ben.

Instead of quoting my entire comment, which appears immediately above yours, I suggest in future you conserve energy by conserving bandwidth. ^^^^ works well as a reference in such cases and is conservative.

First, we don't own this world, no matter what your deed might tell you. We share it with many other species. Might does not equate to right, but rather instills in one a false sense of superiority.

We need to bear in mind we are caretakers of the garden for future generations of humans and that also means it is our responsibility to assure the health of our ecosystem.

Whether AGW exists, as you've been assured it does by its 'promoters' and its skeptics alike, or does not, it is our responsibility to preserve our species by protecting our environment for future generations to come.

And we've been treating it most poorly for far too long and we simply must change the methods by which this society functions, whether global warming is being exacerbated by human activity or not.

Those of us working around the world promoting Zero Waste, adopting its principles and practices in conjunction with the adoption of The Precautionary Principle, understand this to be an effective way to bring about the change I speak of. Please read The Wingspread Statement.

This does not mean better, more comprehensive recycling programs, which is indeed necessary now, but better design using safer chemical alternatives. We term waste incineration as "Landfills In the Sky", because that's where most of the waste products burned wind up, with some toxic ash being landfilled and a tiny bit of energy produced. Recycling saves 4 to 5 times the energy burning these products creates.

Our waters are still being treated as open sewers. Just look at any satellite coastal map where there is civilization and you see where the effluence build-up in shallow waters appears.

We need to better understand where there is an action, there is always a reaction. Negative actions bring negative results. The precautionary principle assures only positive reactions from positive actions.

I note you didn't comment on my point about the cost of mitigation and or adaptation scenarios.

I most certainly did, Ben. Right here:

We pay for things we never or rarely need, like car insurance and homeowner's insurance, even life assurance. Just in case. And our fees are based upon risk as figured by actuarials.

Many of the coastal properties now believed will be lost are insured. Those losses have been projected to be astronomical and the consumer will be paying for those losses if society continues to function.

Ben wrote,

I think it's telling that the IPCC hasn't done a cost analysis of these...they want world governments to carbon tax their citizens, but sfaik, they have not provided details as to how much the tax payers are up for and for how long, so it could be compared with the costs involved if the world went down the adaptation route.

Curious that you do not ask why the IPCC has not done this analysis. It's voluntary, not mandatory, to participate in the IPCC studies. Corporations need to be forced into compliance with regulations they continually skirt or avoid completely, awaiting a small fine should their fraud be found out.

We are still trying to inventory all sources of pollutants that warm the climate. It is much more than CO2 warming our air, though all emissions overall have been increasing. Failing to recognize the thousands of other chemicals in our air warming our climate more severe in their heat potential than the gas, Carbon Dioxide is a huge mistake.

Regarding the bold emphasis above: This is non-factual and only your imagining.
Please provide a citation to your source material.

Regarding expense. Were all taxes eliminated by left leaning politicians, do you suppose those from the right, given the opportunity, would not institute new taxes?

Why have no new nukes been built in the US? Because the risk is so great no insurance company will underwrite them. Without taxpayer provided subsidies and risk guarantees, none would be built.

The people assume the risk. This is guaranteed the private developer by the government. Who pays when Fukushima's damage? The people.

I don't want to get into a claim and counter-claim debate about the yet unknown.

Wha... after 6 years of doing just that?

[slimmouse]

OK Ben, I'll answer the unanswered.

The PTB through proxies such as the taxpayer funded IPPC and all the rest of these clearly corrupted organisations. are blaming humans for climate change.

Its the only fucking way to pay their corrupt ass bills.

Whcih is not to say that the climate isnt changing or that we shouldnt stop raping the planet- the sooner the better.