New IPCC report is out

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: New IPCC report is out

Post by _canpakes »

Water Dog wrote:
Richard Lindzen wrote:There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants.



Sorry, Propaganda Dog. That talking point is gone, too.

https://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... t-plants1/
_Water Dog
_Emeritus
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:10 am

Re: New IPCC report is out

Post by _Water Dog »

Are climate models that the IPCC relies on based on an erratic dataset?

https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/

https://www.breitbart.com/big-governmen ... able-data/
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: New IPCC report is out

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Water Dog wrote:Are climate models that the IPCC relies on based on an erratic dataset?

https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/

https://www.breitbart.com/big-governmen ... able-data/


Oh lookie, another moron on the internet posting anonymously while citing Brietbart while pretending to care about science. :lol:
_Water Dog
_Emeritus
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:10 am

Re: New IPCC report is out

Post by _Water Dog »

canpakes wrote:Link and run

I'm not sure how you are expecting me to respond? Lindzen is a credible guy that offers a compelling argument. Doesn't appear you read his lecture at all. Your comment offers absolutely nothing for me to engage with. One of the points he makes, playing into his overall argument, that CO2 is plant food, is not in dispute. Your links don't dispute this simple truth, either. They attempt to argue excessive CO2 levels can be bad, but it's hardly a settled matter and merely a theory on their part. CO2 will give rise to weeds and such that will affect other plant growth in a negative way. So the theory goes. There isn't any kind of settled answer on how this would play out or when CO2 levels would become problematic. This is a back and forth debate.

the basic beliefs of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is organizing the talks, are questionable, and any binding agreement would likely do more harm than good
...
But I am horrified to see the environmental movement hijacked by a bunch of climate fanatics, who have captured the attention of the public with scare stories. As a result, the public and the politicians believe that climate change is our most important environmental problem. More urgent and more real problems, such as the over-fishing of the oceans and the destruction of wild-life habitat on land, are neglected, while the environmental activists waste their time and energy ranting about climate change.


https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

This is summarized by geologist and New York Times best-selling author H. Leighton Steward, on his blog PlantsNeedCO2.org. Steward explains that “at low concentrations, CO2 does exert a significant warming of the lower atmosphere. But as the absorption bands in which CO2 captures this rising heat begin to get saturated, CO2 can capture less and less heat with each additional unit of CO2.” In fact, historic data reveals much higher-than-current levels of atmospheric CO2 during both ice ages and warm periods, leading Steward to point out, “These real world observations lead us to believe that Earth is not very sensitive to CO2 and that many other factors have a stronger influence on the climate.”


https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/env ... gainst-co2
_DoubtingThomas
_Emeritus
Posts: 4551
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am

Re: New IPCC report is out

Post by _DoubtingThomas »

Water Dog wrote: Lindzen is a credible guy that offers a compelling argument.


Lindzen is a credible guy, but his arguments are not compelling according to his MIT colleagues.

http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/fea ... dent-trump
_DoubtingThomas
_Emeritus
Posts: 4551
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am

Re: New IPCC report is out

Post by _DoubtingThomas »

Even the drug smugglers care about the environment!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... california
_Gunnar
_Emeritus
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 am

Re: New IPCC report is out

Post by _Gunnar »

Kevin Graham wrote:
Water Dog wrote:Are climate models that the IPCC relies on based on an erratic dataset?

https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/

https://www.breitbart.com/big-governmen ... able-data/


Oh lookie, another moron on the internet posting anonymously while citing Brietbart while pretending to care about science. :lol:


I can think of few things more damaging to one's credibility than citing Breitbart as a source, except maybe citing Infowars or a flat earther site.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
_Water Dog
_Emeritus
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:10 am

Re: New IPCC report is out

Post by _Water Dog »

Kevin Graham wrote:Oh lookie, another moron on the internet posting anonymously while citing Brietbart while pretending to care about science. :lol:

Very subtle how you skipped the PhD thesis from James Cook University and instead want to talk about who linked to it. It's cute watching the real estate agent triumphantly offer his ad hominem arguments.

DoubtingThomas wrote:
Water Dog wrote: Lindzen is a credible guy that offers a compelling argument.


Lindzen is a credible guy, but his arguments are not compelling according to his MIT colleagues.

http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/fea ... dent-trump

Yes, DT, I am aware. Might those people have an agenda of their own? Perhaps. Perhaps not. These authority battles get us nowhere. It would be a fools errand to blindly accept what any of these people are saying. All I can do is look at their arguments and make a determination for myself. Lindzen's arguments appear highly credible. I cannot see that he has been refuted in any way, as far as the underlying science is concerned. He isn't a hack that lacks an understanding of the science. He brings up limitations of the science that I don't see good answers to. He then further draws attention to how the science has been misrepresented and politicized, all of which seems to be a fair description. The heart of the disagreement is over policy implications, and in that respect the left undermines itself. I remember the doomsday predictions from a decade ago, none of which have panned out. Now the clock has been reset, it will be doom again in another decade. Yeah, sure. Okay. And then those predicting doom admit, yeah, and there's not anything we can do about it anyway. LOL, okay then. Thanks.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: New IPCC report is out

Post by _Chap »

Water Dog wrote: those predicting doom admit, yeah, and there's not anything we can do about it anyway. LOL, okay then.


Hm. Stage 5 denial I see. by the way, the IPCC report does NOT say that nothing can be done about it. Don't know where you got that idea from. It gives clear proposals for what needs to be done, and done now.

by the way - I already asked this once, but did you read any of the report? The headlines? The summary for policymakers?

You don't feel any sense of vague disquiet that the overwhelming majority of professional climate scientists go along with the science on which the IPCC and its recommendations are based? I mean, you can find a few vociferous opponents, but is that enough of a basis for you to bet your children' future on it?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: New IPCC report is out

Post by _Chap »

I repeat my earlier post in the hope that Water Dog will read the headlines, then follow the link and look at the summary for policy makers.

...

So now let's talk about the IPCC report - OK?

Let's go:

Here are the Headline Statements. If you want more detail, you can go up a level to the Summary for Policymakers.




Global Warming of 1.5 °C an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty

Headline Statements

A. Understanding Global Warming of 1.5°C4

A1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate (high confidence).

A.2. Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long- term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence), but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C (medium confidence).

A3. Climate-related risks for natural and human systems are higher for global warming of 1.5°C than at present, but lower than at 2°C (high confidence). These risks depend on the magnitude and rate of warming, geographic location, levels of development and vulnerability, and on the choices and implementation of adaptation and mitigation options (high confidence).

B. Projected Climate Change, Potential Impacts and Associated Risks

B1. Climate models project robust7 differences in regional climate characteristics between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C, and between 1.5°C and 2°C. These differences include increases in: mean temperature in most land and ocean regions (high confidence), hot extremes in most inhabited regions (high confidence), heavy precipitation in several regions (medium confidence), and the probability of drought and precipitation deficits in some regions (medium confidence).

B2. By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be around 0.1 metre lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence). Sea level will continue to rise well beyond 2100 (high confidence), and the magnitude and rate of this rise depends on future emission pathways. A slower rate of sea level rise enables greater opportunities for adaptation in the human and ecological systems of small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas (medium confidence).

B3. On land, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including species loss and extinction, are projected to be lower at 1.5°C of global warming compared to 2°C. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C is projected to lower the impacts on terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal ecosystems and to retain more of their services to humans (high confidence).

B4. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2oC is projected to reduce increases in ocean temperature as well as associated increases in ocean acidity and decreases in ocean oxygen levels (high confidence). Consequently, limiting global warming to 1.5°C is projected to reduce risks to marine biodiversity, fisheries, and ecosystems, and their functions and services to humans, as illustrated by recent changes to Arctic sea ice and warm water coral reef ecosystems (high confidence).

B5. Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C.

B6. Most adaptation needs will be lower for global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (high confidence). There are a wide range of adaptation options that can reduce the risks of climate change (high confidence). There are limits to adaptation and adaptive capacity for some human and natural systems at global warming of 1.5°C, with associated losses (medium confidence). The number and availability of adaptation options vary by sector (medium confidence).

C. Emission Pathways and System Transitions Consistent with 1.5°C Global Warming

C1. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40– 60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). For limiting global warming to below 2°C, CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 20% by 2030 in most pathways (10–30% interquartile range) and reach net zero around 2075 (2065–2080 interquartile range). Non-CO2 emissions in pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C show deep reductions that are similar to those in pathways limiting warming to 2°C (high confidence).

C2. Pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems (high confidence). These systems transitions are unprecedented in terms of scale, but not necessarily in terms of speed, and imply deep emissions reductions in all sectors, a wide portfolio of mitigation options and a significant upscaling of investments in those options (medium confidence).

C3. All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot project the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the order of 100–1000 GtCO2 over the 21st century. CDR would be used to compensate for residual emissions and, in most cases, achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence). CDR deployment of several hundreds of GtCO2 is subject to multiple feasibility and sustainability constraints (high confidence). Significant near-term emissions reductions and measures to lower energy and land demand can limit CDR deployment to a few hundred GtCO2 without reliance on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) (high confidence).

D. Strengthening the Global Response in the Context of Sustainable Development and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty

D1. Estimates of the global emissions outcome of current nationally stated mitigation ambitions as submitted under the Paris Agreement would lead to global greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 of 52–58 GtCO2eq yr-1 (medium confidence). Pathways reflecting these ambitions would not limit global warming to 1.5°C, even if supplemented by very challenging increases in the scale and ambition of emissions reductions after 2030 (high confidence). Avoiding overshoot and reliance on future largescale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can only be achieved if global CO2 emissions start to decline well before 2030 (high confidence).

D2. The avoided climate change impacts on sustainable development, eradication of poverty and reducing inequalities would be greater if global warming were limited to 1.5°C rather than 2°C, if mitigation and adaptation synergies are maximized while trade-offs are minimized (high confidence).

D3. Adaptation options specific to national contexts, if carefully selected together with enabling conditions, will have benefits for sustainable development and poverty reduction with global warming of 1.5°C, although trade-offs are possible (high confidence).

D4. Mitigation options consistent with 1.5°C pathways are associated with multiple synergies and trade-offs across the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While the total number of possible synergies exceeds the number of trade-offs, their net effect will depend on the pace and magnitude of changes, the composition of the mitigation portfolio and the management of the transition (high confidence).

D5. Limiting the risks from global warming of 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication implies system transitions that can be enabled by an increase of adaptation and mitigation investments, policy instruments, the acceleration of technological innovation and behaviour changes (high confidence).

D6. Sustainable development supports, and often enables, the fundamental societal and systems transitions and transformations that help limit global warming to 1.5°C. Such changes facilitate the pursuit of climate-resilient development pathways that achieve ambitious mitigation and adaptation in conjunction with poverty eradication and efforts to reduce inequalities (high confidence).

D7. Strengthening the capacities for climate action of national and sub-national authorities, civil society, the private sector, indigenous peoples and local communities can support the implementation of ambitious actions implied by limiting global warming to 1.5°C (high confidence). International cooperation can provide an enabling environment for this to be achieved in all countries and for all people, in the context of sustainable development. International cooperation is a critical enabler for developing countries and vulnerable regions (high confidence).
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Post Reply