Global warming is just half what was projected: IPCC

[photon]

[REDVAN]

Mankind is definitely having an effect on climate change.

But make no mistake- the only result will be our demise- the earth will remain alive and well long after we've extincted ourselves.

[polak]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Mankind is definitely having an effect on climate change.

But make no mistake- the only result will be our demise- the earth will remain alive and well long after we've extincted ourselves.

If things start getting dire, you'll see every resource going into fixing it. Humanity might not be very good at long term thinking but we are excellent in the short term.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by polak

If things start getting dire, you'll see every resource going into fixing it. Humanity might not be very good at long term thinking but we are excellent in the short term.

Yeah, except by that point things will be irreversably ####ed and there won't be anything that can be done.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Yeah, except by that point things will be irreversably ####ed and there won't be anything that can be done.

This is based on what, exactly?

[Tinordi]

http://grist.org/politics/science-co...ty-to-do-math/

Everybody knows that our political views can sometimes get in the way of thinking clearly. But perhaps we don’t realize how bad the problem actually is. According to a new psychology paper, our political passions can even undermine our very basic reasoning skills. More specifically, the study finds that people who are otherwise very good at math may totally flunk a problem that they would otherwise probably be able to solve, simply because giving the right answer goes against their political beliefs.

The study, by Yale law professor Dan Kahan and his colleagues, has an ingenious design. At the outset, 1,111 study participants were asked about their political views and also asked a series of questions designed to gauge their “numeracy,” that is, their mathematical reasoning ability. Participants were then asked to solve a fairly difficult problem that involved interpreting the results of a (fake) scientific study. But here was the trick: While the fake study data that they were supposed to assess remained the same, sometimes the study was described as measuring the effectiveness of a “new cream for treating skin rashes.” But in other cases, the study was described as involving the effectiveness of “a law banning private citizens from carrying concealed handguns in public.”

The result? Survey respondents performed wildly differently on what was in essence the same basic problem, simply depending upon whether they had been told that it involved guns or whether they had been told that it involved a new skin cream. What’s more, it turns out that highly numerate liberals and conservatives were even more – not less — susceptible to letting politics skew their reasoning than were those with less mathematical ability.

http://grist.org/politics/science-co...ty-to-do-math/

[troutman]

That study (Motivated Numeracy) was discussed in this podcast:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/426

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Yeah, except by that point things will be irreversably ####ed and there won't be anything that can be done.

I am confused by this. What possible damage could be so bad that there will be nothing we can do to fix what we have done?

That seems like a really definitive statement.

I am totally on board with fixing things now, before it becomes more expensive to fix later, but to categorically state that by some random point that we decide to do something about it, it won't be possible to fix it, seems rather far fetched.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Mankind is definitely having an effect on climate change.

You've changed your tune ...... big time.

Last I remember was you tooting your horn on how educated you were on the subject and declaring that it was a load of hogwash designed by treehuggers to get us to live healthier.

What happened? I'm genuinely curious.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am confused by this. What possible damage could be so bad that there will be nothing we can do to fix what we have done?

That seems like a really definitive statement.

I am totally on board with fixing things now, before it becomes more expensive to fix later, but to categorically state that by some random point that we decide to do something about it, it won't be possible to fix it, seems rather far fetched.

Have you ever heard of extinction events? We are in the midst of one of the greatest mass extinction events in the history of the planet. And it is primarily driven by human beings.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/p...nction_crisis/

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.o...e-extinctions/

Humans rely heavily on the oceans and seas as a source of food. Those oceans are in peril because of climate change. They are warming and they are acidifying.

http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and...the_oceans.php

This is causing small animals, like plankton, to die off. These small organisms are the biggest link in the ocean's food chain. If the plankton die off, the larger animals will die off. When those larger animals die off we lose our food sources from the oceans. We are already seeing the results of the acidification of the oceans as reef formations continue to die off. The oceans are in an unhealthy state and we need to do something soon.

You may think this is a very small issue, but when a species goes extinct, it isn't coming back. When grandma dies, she ain't coming back. If we lose the plankton in our oceans, the oceans will die. You can imagine what is going to happen to humans and our societies as a result. Does this help you understand the urgency of this issue a little more?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Plett25

I've never met anyone on either side of this "debate" even remotely interested in changing their position.

I don't know about that. I'm very interested in changing my position.

We have it pretty good right now. If there are no long-term consequences to our heroic consumption of fossil fuels, if burning all that stuff all the time doesn't warm up the earth and it's all out of our control, then I say Party On Garth. Why not?

Unfortunately...

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Mankind is definitely having an effect on climate change.

But make no mistake- the only result will be our demise- the earth will remain alive and well long after we've extincted ourselves.

What does this even mean? We are going to extinct ourselves? How exactly?

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

What does this even mean? We are going to extinct ourselves? How exactly?

If global warming is caused by us, and then we die off as a result of global warming changing the earth's climate too much- to the point where we can't grow food, etc- then we've caused our own extinction.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

If global warming is caused by us, and then we die off as a result of global warming changing the earth's climate too much- to the point where we can't grow food, etc- then we've caused our own extinction.

Wouldn't an ice age be much worse for crop growth? Plants like CO2.

[icarus]

Climate change: IPCC cites global temperature rise over last century

...[S]cientists have tackled the apparent recent slowing of global warming observed by meteorologists around the globe. According to the new IPCC report, temperatures rose by about 0.15C a decade for the latter half of the last century. Since 1998, however, that rise has been reduced to only 0.05C. The observation has been seized upon by global warming deniers who say it is evidence that climate change is slowing down and may halt.

But experts reject this claim. In fact, satellite measurements of the solar radiation entering the atmosphere, compared with the radiation being reflected back into space, show there has been no change in the rate of Earth's warming. Most researchers believe that changes in sea currents may be taking heat deep into oceans.

"The heat is still coming in, but it appears to have gone into the deep ocean and, frustratingly, we do not have the instruments to measure there," said Professor Ted Shepherd of Reading University. "Global warming has certainly not gone away."

This point was backed by Professor Myles Allen at Oxford University. "We have examined the forecasts made by climate scientists over the past three decades and they have been absolutely spot on in terms of predicting subsequent levels of global warming," he said. "Our climate models are robust and working well."...

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by icarus

Climate change: IPCC cites global temperature rise over last century

Ugh, it's too bad some will use only the headline as further proof there is no global warming. Scariest part is we have no way of measuring the significant climate change the ocean depths are likely undergoing at the moment.

[Cheese]

How sure is sure? Scientists liken certainty of global warming to deadliness of smoking



Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.
They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.
They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 per cent. It's 95 per cent.
And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.
There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, experts say.

[troutman]

I'm not so sure the science is strong that "vitamins make you healthy".

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am confused by this. What possible damage could be so bad that there will be nothing we can do to fix what we have done?

That seems like a really definitive statement.

I am totally on board with fixing things now, before it becomes more expensive to fix later, but to categorically state that by some random point that we decide to do something about it, it won't be possible to fix it, seems rather far fetched.

There's very little we can do once it gets out of our hands.

This the effect of positive feedback mechanisms. The idea that once we reach a certain amount of warmer, other natural warming process are triggered like a runaway train.

The best example is permafrost in Siberia. It has gigatonnes of methane frozen in the ground. Once that ground starts to thaw from warming the methane will be released. Methane is a gas that warms the atmospher 25x more than a molecule of CO2. As more methane is released then the atmosphere warms more which leads to more thawing of the permafrost releasing more methane.

It's is the height of human hubris and stupidity to think that we can screw with a global system like the climate and then control it once we think it's gotten too out of hand. By that time there will be no controlling it. That's why we need to act now, to experience short-term pain for longer term stability.

There are numerous studies about this, but basically acting now is WAY cheaper than acting later.

http://ecowatch.com/2013/delaying-cl...-future-costs/

Published in the journal, Environmental Research Letters, the study looked at the economic impacts of possible international climate agreements.
If an agreement was reached to start taking action in 2015 to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius, then international economic growth would be cut back by two percent. Delaying those steps until 2030 would mean growth curtailed by around seven percent.
The report’s lead author Gunnar Luderer said:
For the first time, our study quantifies the short-term costs of tiptoeing when confronted with the climate challenge. Economists tend to look at how things balance out in the long-term, but decision-makers understandably worry about additional burdens for people and businesses they are responsible for right now.
So increased short-term costs due to delaying climate policy might deter decision-makers from starting the transformation. The initial costs of climate policies thus can be more relevant than the total costs.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'm not so sure the science is strong that "vitamins make you healthy".

I don't think EVERY scientist agrees on that.