IPCC Report Issues Summary Report

I am aware of the fact that a thread like this could generate some debate, but since the focus of this site is so much on a potential clean energy solution, I think it would be appropriate today to throw the floor open to people who want to discuss the just-released summary of research findings on climate change from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Some of the key items in the report which cites over 9,000 separate publications are:

  • It is ‘extremely likely’ (95 per cent certain) that human activity — primarily burning of fossil fuels — is responsible for global warming.
  • It is projected that global temperatures will rise between 0.3 to 4.8 degrees C by the end of this century.
  • Global temperatures rose 0.85 C between 1880 and 2012
  • There has been no significant rise in air temperatures measured for 15 years — but that is unlikely to last.
  • Sea levels are expected to rise a further 10-32 inches (26-82 centimeters) by the end of the century.

Despite the acknowledgement of a ‘pause’ in global warming, this report stresses the situation is urgent, and I am sure there will be no let up from most policymakers in the drive to cut carbon emissions. Perhaps this will eventually lead to a greater enthusiasm for LENR technology solutions.

Below is the link to the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ document that was released today. The full report will be published next week.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

This is an open thread for discussion of the report. Feel free to say what you think, but please be respectful in your comments.

  • pedro

    A while ago, in one of the other threads here, one of the commenters made a very valid comment: the benefits of LENR are so big that it is a “crime” not to investigate, even if you think it conflicts with current physics.
    With climate change, the situation is quite opposite: most climate scientists say we have a problem, economic interest (mainly in the US) want more proof before acting. Sounds very similar to the 1950’s claim that there is no scientific proof that smoking causes lung cancer.
    Shouldn’t we err on the save side, and take action now before it is to late? Worst case we have spent a few billion (trillion) on a non issue. Better than spending it on war in Syria or Afghanistan.
    Remember, in the end, any money spent as costs by one industry is money earned by another industry… so no money is lost. We just shift money from one industry (the polluters) to another industry (the cleaners). This will also stimulate innovation.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      Since the present trend in temperature is now heading down, and likely will go much lower, we need to do something about the cooling problem, not heating problem. Cold kills many more people than heat (why do you think people that retire go South?). Also crops do well in a high CO2 environment, and heat, but poorly in cold. If you use the principal that to err on the safe side we need to do something, it is NOT try to do the wrong thing, and actually make things worse?

      • Peter Shwartz

        Yes, why push for an Ice age? I wonder where the scientists are, who not so long ago (30 Y?)predicted an ice age was upon us? Where are their collective admissions of guilt in getting it wrong? But then, everyone is entitled to a teeny weeny mistake now and then, aren’t they?

        Am I taking this too lightly, ok, why the pause in the unrelenting ramp up in temp “but that is not expected to last” Hmm, did that mean up? or down? Pollution as a thing is not warranted nor conducive to a good environment for many reasons, pollution as a whole should be tackled as a global issue and not treated in an ‘ad hoc’ manner.

        Rossi’s (effect) E-Cat, Valy’s QMoGen, Stranieri’s E-Mag Magnetic Propulsion Machine and etc. may go a long way in affecting the planets well being. But are there, could there, be unforeseen global consequences for later generations to ponder; brought about by the overuse of one the above machines (fully developed and technologically determined), who knows?

        After all, we are only about 100 years into the Coal=Energy cycle in a place where once upon-a-time there were no ice poles, now there are, where there were no deserts now there are. All these events have taken millions of years to come about only two, we can look at in hindsight.

        I don’t believe we should go mining the barysphere for CO2 just because we can, or in the name of environmental benefice, then go store it in a geologically unsafe (the earth) place where through design or accident it may be voluminously released. That, in my opinion, is environmental tinkering and considerably worse than testing the environment in temperature sustainability.

    • jonathanpulliam

      Sorry, um, Pedro. Predictably, macro-economic distortions are what you reap when you resolutely dismantle critical industries which provide much-needed goods and services only to, at great cost, replace them with parasitic drag-inducing contrived hindrances noteworthy only insofar as they appear to be of demonstrably no possible use to anyone? Only a lunatic would propose such a thing, yo.

  • Ben

    There is not a “pause” in global warming. The “pause” is in the air temperature, which is about 3% of the heat capacity. Another part of the heat capacity is the ocean, which accounts for about 90%. Usually, the heat in the upper ocean transfers to the air, warming the air. But lately, due to variability, the upper ocean heat has been transfering more to the deeper ocean. So, looking at global warming as a whole, there may be a “pause” in the 3% that the surface air accounts for, but global warming has been continuing on when you actually look at the whole planet, including the upper ocean and deep ocean.

    At some point, the heat transfering from the upper ocean will switch back to transfering to the air, and we’ll be having new record high air temperatures again.

    • redford

      Can you source that affirmation ?

    • Leonard Weinstein

      The small temperature increase in the deeper ocean cannot heat the air significantly. Heat transfer is driven by temperature difference, not energy content, so even an infinite source cannot heat the air any more that it’s temperature increase. The thermal capacity of the deep ocean is huge, so the amount of increased energy they are talking about for the last 45 years is less than 0.07 degrees C, and that is the maximum TEMPERATURE RISE that could come back later.

  • redford

    When I was a teenager, I was terrorized, and i do mean terrorized, because all the presse was explaining that by 2010, there would be no amazonian forrest anymore, and that it was accounting for 33% of the oxygen renewal on earth. I thought that by that time we would all be suffocating.

    Turns out all is good to that record. Sure, Amazonian forest took a hit, but there is still some. Moreover a lot of place have compensated, especially europe, where I live. All that worry for nothing.

    Just a few years later, it was acid rain. You really should read back what was written by that time. Pollution was going to cause imminent disappearance of the forest of europe. Worrying for nothing for the same reason than last year.

    The list goes on. If you go on the nature museum in Paris, you realised we were extinguishing whole species as early as in the prehistoric days. If not us, some other specie would.

    Now, climate. I did bite it at first, like I always did (maybe less now, ok :P). I ve read some very fine arguing both side of the fence. My take is that no side can be entirely wrong. This doesn’t mean the truth is in between.

    Raw data is : 1/3 of the total emission of CO2 of the industrial era has taken place in the last 15 year. And over the last 15 year, ocean and ground temperature have stopped rising. It seems to me the point of sustainability of the whole model is beaten. If CO2 is a significant forcing factor, you can go with 5 years flat at most, but 15 year flat seem just to big as a latency (or we have to consider forcing factor of year 2K will actually really impact things in 2025 and we’re all doomed because massive emission already is on its way) (of course, it doesn’t make that much sense physically, so I don’t worry too much). Apparently newest explanation (which was proposed by first IPCC critics a while ago thus) is that CO2 forcing has reached its max and no matter how much we had, effect on temperature will now be negligible.

    That being said, even before that you could spot massive hole in the theory: actual temperature decrease between 1940’s and end of 70’s. Completely inconsistent with the idea of massive human forcing during industrial era already.

  • MikeP

    The problem is the economic interests which are pushing “action” against climate change. Even when it is clear that the actions will not affect global conditions to any significant degree (viz the Australian Carbon Tax, renewable energy in Britain, biofuels). The transfers are not from “polluters” to “cleaners”, but from the poor to wealthy advocates. The results are increased deaths due to fuel poverty and lack of food. A poor society cannot afford to protect the environment.

    The rich, well funded groups backing action against climate change are the ones acting like the Tobacco industry.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      99% of funding and support is not to skeptics, but to those pushing the warning about the danger of global warming. There is no danger, and we are presently on a flat to cooling trend.

  • M Neville

    Redford,

    Acid rain was a huge problem in the eastern US and Canada too where much of the damage from U.S. emissions was falling. What happened? Well, the US and Canadian governments got together and made an agreement to strictly regulate emissions, particularly SO2 and NOX. They also set up a successful cap and trade system. They succeeded in doing this despite a well organized effort to dis-inform the public about the dangers of Acid Rain and to exaggerate the economic costs of fixing it. The regulations worked, and the economy was fine.

    Now the governments want to deal with global warming by regulating emissions and setting up a carbon cap and trade system. There is a well organized effort to dis-inform the public about the dangers of Global Warming and to exaggerate the economic costs of fixing it. A favorite tactic is hiring people to post misleading information on internet websites.

    Global warming hasn’t gone away because there is still a huge energy imbalance in the global system which is confirmed by satellite measurements of outgoing radiation. This imbalance due to rising CO2 was predicted by Arrhenius over 100 years ago, and is not in doubt. There is a question about where the heat is going: either ocean or atmosphere, which is one reason why such a large range 0.3 to 4.8 degrees C of potential temperature rise. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be to deal with the consequences.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      M Neville wrote, “This imbalance due to rising CO2 was predicted by Arrhenius over 100 years ago, and is not in doubt.”

      There is no imbalance that nature cannot deal with. Your theory is very much in doubt, otherwise why were alarmists of your ilk predicting an imminent ice age, 40 years ago? Your predictions of gloom were more accurate then, than now.

    • Daniel Maris

      I think a lot of the heat probably goes into water vapour clouds created by huge irrigation schemes that now cover the globe and didn’t exist 50 years ago. Those clouds also reflect radiation – thus screwing up measurements and predictions.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      It turns out the acid rain issue was mostly in error (there was a small effect, but far less that earlier thought). The global warming issue is also in error, and anyone who is the least bit scientific, impartial, and keeping up with actual information knows that. Quit drinking the cool-aid. The more money wasted on trying to combat a non-problem, and doing major damage to economies, the worse it will be.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    +1

  • Jim

    The comparison to cigarettes and lung disease is most apt.

    Plus there are other reasons for wanting better air quality in general (like, tens of thousands of deaths per year in northern China, stunted health of inner city American children), and many of the solutions (like, #1, more efficient energy use) would address lower CO2 output.

  • Jim

    @redford

    Can you define “source” and “affirmation”?

    How about a lottery, where we guess what percentage of posts today consists of “can you prove that”?

    Or we could just go down to the morgue and look at the number of people who died from lung cancer while the tobacco industry was asking, “can you prove that?”

  • MikeP

    M Neville,

    You’re right with one exception. “There is a well organized effort to dis-inform the public about the dangers of Global Warming and to exaggerate the economic costs of fixing it. A favorite tactic is hiring people to post misleading information on internet websites.”

    The exception is that the effort is to exaggerate the consequences of global warming, ignore benefits, and minimize the costs of taking actions (which will not actually fix it).

    • Leonard Weinstein

      I have never seen such ignorance as shown here. Almost all of the serious skeptics are independent non-funded concerned scientists, including several real nobel prize winners rather than fake ones like Al Gore. There is no well organized effort to dis-inform the public. Skeptics (at least the serious and scientific ones) all are willing to give serious debates on the subject, and in fact it is the supporters of the scare that give dis-information. You really should do a literature search on the facts, and if you did so with an open mind, you would be shocked that so many people are wrong. Just a few people who are skeptics are: Buzz Aldrin, Harrison Schmidt, Burt Rutan, Freeman Dyson, Edward Teller, and many 10’s of thousands more, including me: Dr. Leonard Weinstein, of NASA.

      • jonathanpulliam

        Good comment. The AGW alarmist invariably cries “settled science”, as though one might vote down empiricism by sheer force of will. Their math skills, while rudimentary at best, allow them to count votes, you see. We win, you lose — that’s how they view the “place” of rigor based scientific inquiry. You pesky scientists didn’t know your place, so they did a vote count, and it turns out you’re outvoted. Doh! Fondest regards, Jonathan

  • @ben
    for an educated answer, contact judith curry on her blog. I think she already answered to that, with numbers, and with experience as climatologist working for IPCC.

    I start to see on mainstream media in france that the skeptical position start to be discussed as an option… if we start to doubt on a dogma, it is that evidence start to be really inconvenient.

    We don’t yet admit LENR…

  • unfortunately I am not paid by oil… since they prefer to pay environmentalist, renewable energies companies, CO2 sequestrations innovators… and since my employer is funding solution so to solve global warming…

    I should follow the trend, but my micro-ethic is too strong to let lies spread so far.

    I’m not even intelligent enough to let those lies dies alone when LENr will decarbonize the economy and it will change nothing…

    I am really stupid.

    Please, if there is someone who want to pay me to say the truth, I am volunteer… but like Anthony watts or Jed rothwell, I do it for the truth… hoping this helps.

  • @M Neville
    the disinformation I see more often is people exploiting the current change in regulation, the cap markets, to take more money from the clients (money is take from the clients not from the companies… never forget it)…

    old business try to avoid changes, but modern business exploit those legal changes to shave more clients.

  • Db

    The attempt at the greatest theft of all time, aka the carbon tax is over as soon as the gullible low information citizen opens his eyes.

  • Judith curry have worked un decision making under uncertainty.
    the good answer to improbable risk, is increasing your capacity to manage it by “no-regret” solution.
    Removing pollution… ok. making research … ok…

    but you should not start to throw luggages from the boat before you are sure you are drowning. Too many time, like today, like when we were afraid of ice-age, or lebensraum shortage, of Malthusians famine, the prediction are simply wrong…

    Do research on how to control climate, to understand it… ok (but honestly not like today with fraudsters caught defrauding like climategate show… strangely very like they did on LENR)…
    Try to develope many technology, like geoengineering… but don’t use it.
    Try to develop mitigation technology… ok . will be good even for ice age.
    Try to improve wealth of poor people so they can afford protection from bad weather… ok, will be good even for ice age.

    The experience is that things on longterme never happen like anticipated.

    Maybe climater will disrupt, but not like we imagines, maybe no why we imagined, and not when we imagined…

    we shoul be ready… ready to ANYTHING … not only ready to AGW.

    LENR is more important to develop than CO2 cap market.

    • fortyniner

      “Try to develope many technology, like geoengineering… but don’t use it.”

      If only. The sky above me looks like a white on pale blue tartan this evening – as it does at least twice a week.

  • Redford

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

    You’re reading to much into this, really. I am interested in both POV and I see those discussions as a way to really get into the details. Ben’s say on the upper and lower ocean temperature may be true but I never read about it and if there’s some real research on this, I’d like to see it. Unfortunately we’ve also seen alot in those heated debates peoples presenting their analysis like it was a well established fact. Just wanted to check where we stay on this…

  • Felix Fervens

    > It is projected that global temperatures will rise between 0.3 to 4.8 degrees C by the end of this century.

    Well, that is only about 1,500% uncertainty in your projections! Nice. And even that projection assumes no major volcanic activity, technological breakthroughs (who will burn fossils after the singularity, in as little as 35 years?), disruptive wars or famines, or solar anomalies in an entire century. Fortunately for you, none of us will be alive to see your conveniently distantly unfalsifiable prediction proven wrong.

    > Global temperatures rose 0.85 C between 1880 and 2012

    Based upon value-added, cherry picked, interpolated, incomplete, partially lost, multiply post-hoc-adjusted, heat islanded, 2-dimensional, rigged data. Evan at that, it is statistical torture to get the data to confess to the big lies. As Phil Jones famously said “Why should I show you my data when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?”

    > There has been no significant rise in air temperatures measured for 15 years — but that is unlikely to last.

    The vast majority of your ridiculously broad models did not forecast this hiatus, nor did you previously posit some mechanism for heat to transfer to the deep ocean without heating the levels above. Rather than admit that forecasting a system more chaotic, more poorly understood, poorly measured, poorly modeled than the economy is a fool’s errand, you simply double down on your false confidence.

    > Sea levels are expected to rise a further 10-32 inches (26-82 centimeters) by the end of the century. Again, 220% uncertainty in a prediction distantly unfalsifiable by any adult alive. And the low end of you forecast actually seems to project a *decline* in current rates. The high end is going to call for some kind of seriously exponential heating of the oceans, which are orders of magnitude harder to warm than the atmosphere. Good luck with that.

    • fortyniner

      Thank you FF – that just about covers everything I wanted to say.

      Admin said “I am sure there will be no let up from most policymakers in the drive to cut carbon emissions.” Too damn right – that is exactly the purpose of the IPCC and their specious ‘reports’ – to provide the ‘justification’ for fuel taxes, new nuclear, ‘carbon credits’ and all the other idi*cy that rides on the back of this politically driven h*gwash.

      Predictably the BBC is repeating the ‘highlights’ of this non-event three or four times an hour just to make sure we all get the message that we are doomed unless we pay through the nose in order to continue our evil ways.

      The antidote to the IPCC – the ‘NIPCC’! http://nipccreport.com

      • fortyniner

        Oh no – where has the edit function gone! I can live without everything else, but not that.

        • Hi 49er — doing some testing at the moment. Editing should be back soon.

      • GreenWin

        In the meanwhile, if you haven’t read the novelized version of NIPCC:

        http://amzn.to/19MmrdI

  • For those wanting educated opinion, beside Judith Curry who is making very technical article, I’ve just read a french article from a climatologis, who was until recently a classic warmist, but who started slowly to understand they were playing a strange game…

    See his article
    http://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climat-evolution.com%2Farticle-le-5eme-rapport-du-giec-120282993.html

    “Well, we can say from the outset is that it’s “persists and signs” as might be expected.

    But look more closely, we find confirmation of what we had already read in the draft.

    Namely the mismatch between temperature observed in 2011 (compared to 1880) and the values ​​of forcing and climate sensitivity.
    Although the latter range widens enough to significantly lower values ​​ie between 1.5 ° C and 4.5 ° C compared to 2.0 ° C and 4.5 ° C for the AR4.

    The temperature rise observed since 1880 is, strangely enough, found at 0.85 ° C without any mention of how we reached this value.
    If you look at their graph decadal averaged more representative because it is less subject to natural variability, there are instead 0.70 ° C to 0.75 ° C, closer to what was announced to the AR4 (0.74 ° C) value although periods Reference were different.

    http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/gallery/16/AR5_temp_obs.png

    For forcing you reach 2.34W/m2 since 1750 (as it is convenient to use a reference date different from the temperature!)

    But we can assume that here was not too varied between 1750 and 1880.

    It is said in the text that the highest value for the AR4 comes mainly from aerosol forcing, which was overestimated (a negative value) for the AR4.

    In short, if we take into account these values, using a very simplified calculation linking heat absorbed by the system, forcing, and temperature sensitivity, we should find a sensitivity of 1.9 ° C if using 0.7W/m2 for the flow absorbed by the system (last Levitus values ​​for the deep ocean increased by 10%)) and 0.85 ° C increase in temperature.
    I therefore reiterate my problem without strong belief that climate sensitivity is rather relatively low in the order of 1.6 to 1.7 ° C (see my previous calculations on this blog).

    Concerning the explanation of the break between 1998 and 2012, the IPCC is unable to explain the causes.

    Neither the heat absorbed in the ocean, or the supposed decrease in radiative forcing, are indeed able to explain.

    A further note that the cloud feedback is still poorly understood.

    The mainstream press has seized this report to emphasize the character even more catastrophic in terms of the consequences.

    If rising sea levels suspected to be higher (0.26 to 0.82m) as determined in the AR4 (0.18 to 0.59m) at the end of the century apart, I have not found, on the contrary, more catastrophic.

    This “on the contrary” from the confirmation of a lower climate sensitivity, according to the report, but also, and especially, by roping in the past a simplified model which I have spoken extensively on this blog comments.”

  • M Neville

    Reford,

    Here is the answer. It has been mentioned before on this page, but is generally ignored by many. There has been no
    slowdown to the amount of heat absorbed by the climate system.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Three Hundred of the best and brightest climate scientists say it is 95% certain that man is causing global warming. Because we are talking about, no less than, preserving the planet we depend on to be alive, would it not be prudent to be on the safe side and take whatever action we can to remediate the causes of global warming? Or, we can listen to critics who nitpick the evidence (reminds me of guy who thinks the ground wire is providing power to the e-cat) do nothing and hope the 300 scientists are wrong. People, it is a no brainer, unless you are super stubborn.

  • Buck

    +1

    I find the entire discussion analogous to volunteer fire fighters arguing over whether they organized the now charged fire hoses correctly, as defined in their vague recollection from their training. The argument throws some of the volunteers into different camps and, before you know it, they have regressed and lost sight of the common challenge: the fire.

    For GW, the basic science is irrefutable: C02 is a greenhouse gas. The fossil record over the evolutionary epochs show a straightforward correlation between CO2 and Temperature.

    Now the volunteers are arguing over the process and meaning of how a complex global ecosystem shows a complex series of responses and changes in real time to the rising C02. Different camps are forming.

    The professional firemen (the 97% of global climate scientists) are saying: the basic observed facts haven’t changed and we are now even more certain, 95% certain, than 50 or 100 years ago.

    Some times I wonder how far we have really evolved beyond our caveman ancestors. Letting individual economic concerns about Oil/Gas/Coal assets, revenue, and jobs rise above the authority and power of Mother Nature, the house in which we live, is hubris. And we know how that path ends, assuming we want to honor the lessons of history.

  • Ben

    I made a comment early in this thread that the “pause” is not really a pause. Here I back that comment up with information from the report linked above.

    If you look at figure SPM.1 (a) on page SPM-27, the surface temperature has indeed leveled off the last 15 years. But scroll down two pages to figure SPM.3 (c), the “Change in global average upper ocean heat content” and it’s plain to see that the ocean temperature has been rising during the “pause”.

    Some quotes from the report:

    (page SPM-4) “Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971.”

    (page SPM-5) “More than 60% of the net energy increase in the climate system is stored in the upper ocean (0–700 m) during the relatively well-sampled 40-year period from 1971 to 2010, and about 30% is stored in the ocean below 700 m.”

    and

    “It is about as likely as not that ocean heat content from 0–700 m increased more slowly during 2003–2010 than during 1993–2002. Ocean heat uptake from 700–2000 m, where interannual variability is smaller, likely continued unabated from 1993 to 2009.”

    (page SPM-10) “The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence).”

  • Ben

    I posted another comment at the top, using quotes and graphs from the IPCC report cited in this blog post as the source of the information.

    • Ben

      Sorry, that should have been a short reply to Redford that didn’t go to the desired spot.

  • Anonymole

    It doesn’t really matter what the IPCC report says or whether ACC (anthropogenic climate change) is real or not. 2nd and 3rd world nations don’t care and will be industrializing with whatever cheapest energy source they can acquire. Not to mention that 1st world nations will continue their energy consumption business as usual.

    China WILL ignore all of the evidence and continue to build coal burning plants as well as the controversial syn gas plants. Said countries will be consuming all of the LNG they possibly can buy (and suppliers like the US, Venezuela/Ecuador, Iran and Russia can supply) as well as expanding their citizen’s “right” to drive autos and expand their consumption of petrol.

    Oil will continue to grow as a resource and reserves the likes of the Bakkan, SoCal, Adelaide, Vaca Muerta and the Arctic will all be exploited to supply humanity’s ever growing thirst for fossil fuels.

    These things will happen. So whether global warming exists or not, it doesn’t matter. The experiment of continued injection of CO2 into the atmosphere will progress unabated.

  • MikeP

    Buck, I also wonder about how far we’ve come, especially with what passes for education nowdays. Science shows that a small amount of warming is beneficial … up to 2 deg C from where we are now due to such things as longer growing seasons, less heating in winter and fewer excess winter deaths, etc.

    So why are you throwing out that old chestnut about “CO2 is a greenhouse gas”. It’s about like your volunteer firemen arguing about the existence of fire. CO2 is well known to provide about a 1 deg rise in temperature for a doubling of CO2. Everything else is from postulated feedback. Recent research and peer review literature show that with feedback the warming is likely to be under 2 deg C for a doubling of CO2. Global models include CO2, but have severe problems with the transfer of heat in the atmosphere due to vertical convection, the formation of clouds, aerosols, and etc. Not one of the models has been validated.

    Your process argument is about like volunteer firemen arguing over the importance of somebody’s backyard fire pit. Now it is possible that the fire in the fire pit will spread and burn down neighboring buildings and shrubbery. But without any evidence, should the firemen put out the fire with their fire hoses and charge the homeowner for the cost of responding?

    Isn’t it better to use those resources to protect the environment rather than letting the economic concerns of a few elites dictate what we do? Isn’t that the height of hubris?

  • MikeP

    Bernie Koppenhofer,

    Sounds profound … Do you have a reference to 300 climate scientists? The most recent survey I’ve seen published (Cook et al) showed that 97% of 77 papers having an opinion on man’s impact on climate change felt that there was some impact (anywhere from a little to over half). The 77 papers were selected from 14,000 papers about climate change and evaluated by 10 volunteer activists. None of their numbers are particularly reproducible by others.

  • Buck

    MikeP,

    Interesting response for voicing your disagreement. Nothing you have said changes the fact of the IPCC report and its conclusion. Nor to the basic point of my analogy.

    Certainly, the nature and direction of your argument helps to make my point, IMHO.

    Thank you.

  • AstralProjectee

    BBC Global Dimming Documentary About Geoengineering & Global Warming
    http://youtu.be/p8RyNSzQDaU

    If Global dimming is also true, then as soon as we try to stop global warming thus dimming will let up and it will get much hotter for a while. But then over time it should fix itself.

    This helps to show the complexity of global warming, it will probably get.

  • on skyfal.fr a guy explain that a friend is trying to publish a non totally orthodox paper on climate, challenging some point… hex explain that all scientist he asked advices, said nothing about the content of the paper but advise him not to publish, because it will be bad for him, or for climatology interest…

    one old skeptic I’ve met explained that he could not ask student to make a thesis on his questions, because it would ruin their career…

    this is like LENR an example of science community having decided what IS true before checking the facts, and punishing, terrorizing the dissenters, justifying the ostracization of dissenters by the fact that they are a minority… and they are a minority because few people accept to ruin their life just for truth, and some choose their interest not even feeling they lie.

    that is the science horror we observe on LENR.
    Climategate make me understand what happened in LENR… or was it the opposite ?

  • You are right except on one point… in 10 years consumption of oil and cola will drop suddenly when LENR will generalize, and in 20 years oil and coal will be as funny as horsecart and barbecue.

  • Christina

    Global warming may just be a normal phenomenon for this part of Sol 3’s life.

    Did you all know that a report came out in the 90’s that said this planet can support 90 billion–no typo, it’s a “b”– people. It was scientifically researched and written by a Catholic organization. Please note that it was Catholics who first brought you science in the middle ages and also later. The Catholic Church doesn’t believe in any sort of “magic.” It believes that science tells us the way God made the world. Some individual Catholics, well….

    I believe that if certain people didn’t have the global warming cudgel to use, they couldn’t propagate the abortion/birth control industries because they would not have their purported reason for the need to killing child.

    Of course, the press never told you about that Catholic report that that many people can live on Earth.

    As we can now farm in buildings, and are presently using only 6% of the Earth’s surface to live on, why not?

    Ah, but don’t discount the oceans, who knows what we can live in with lenr?

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    MikeP…. You asked for “reference to 300 climate scientists”, these are just the IPCC scientists, if you want to nitpick some more I can get many more references.

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/

  • Jim

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/09/130926-climate-change-action-could-save-lives/

    But it’s only 500,000 per year, and there’s no “real proof”, so, burn, baby, burn…

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Anonymole…..So your argument is even though climate change caused by man is real, there is nothing we can do about it? I disagree. Some studies show livestock creates 20% or more of global warming. Proper ranching techniques are available to drastically reduce the percentage, are these techniques being taught, no, because the will to do something is absent. We should increase the price of coal drastically, to encourage the closing or conversion of coal power plants that are not critically important to keep open. I am sure many others here have other solutions.

  • Buck

    Christina:

    so you conceive that the ultimate expression of the essence of the Eternal’s gifts is to virtually destroy the entire global ecosystem. save for edible foodstuffs, for the purpose of 90 Billion people. The highest expression is to go into some sort of permanent mating rut, oblivious to the consequences to the web of creation and life.

  • Christina

    Yes!!!

  • Omega Z

    AlainCo

    “1850 after little ice age…”
    A Trend of gradual warming would follow. A normal outcome of exiting a cold phase. As to literature I read in the 70’s/early 80’s, this would amount to a 2`C to 3`C gain in average temps.

    As to some other literature I’ve read the last few years, The Average world temps are still within a normal historical range & would need to increase by another 2+`C to go outside that range. This would still fall in the mid-range of their numbers.

    Previous CO2 levels in the low to mid 200’s was also considered to be on the unusually Low end of the historical scale & had it dropped lower would have put Plant life at risk of being unsustainable. Or in fact, most life at risk of dying out.

    I don’t believe CO2 has the drastic effect they propose, BUT, If it does & they want to reduce levels to pre-industrial levels, Then this would obviously lead us to another little Ice Age.
    Apparently, they have Not studied their history. During the Little Ice Age, there were massive crop failures leading to famines & all the diseases that follow.

    I have grown wise to the political ways in my old age.
    In Poles, the best way to get the response you want is how you word it.
    You can con people into saying they want something tho they really don’t.
    We will give this to you FREE. Means we’re going to raise your taxes. Exemptions for the author of said plan.
    When the Public complains about something, Hijack it, put your own twist to it & make things worse.

  • Christina

    No, Buck, I don’t conclude that at all. (My “yes” was for the reply to it’s being hubris to say global warming requires we all get a global warming tax because the 1% elite think we should, etc.)

    I am saying that if we leave everyone to have children, when the poor people acquire enough food, shelter, clothing, and the “toys” we have, they’ll automatically have less children and we can fill the world and then worry about overpopulation, but that by that time we’ll have the tech to feed, house, and clothe that many people.

    Please note that we are already in a “mating ruck,” but that we are not having children because of it. God has always required that those having sex give him the option of making children. If you don’t want children, abstain when the woman is fertile. If people can’t do that, check the women’s thyroid. Oh, not by the normal doctors, they’ll say the women are all right; that’s what they’ve been taught. Sometimes, the T-4 won’t become T-3 in the cells because of the thyroid not doing its job right. That’s why many women complain they can’t tell where their cycle is. Well, this thyroid problem causes a host of other problems that your doctor is treating one by one because unbeknownst to most doctors, it benefits the drug companies. T-3 is cheap; somewhat dangerous, but cheap. Drug companies can make no money off it, so they’d rather sell you the drugs–by the way, they’re dangerous too, but that is downplayed.

    I admittedly am a little bitter about this because for most of my life I was so exhausted I may as well have been carrying 2 – 3 gravities because of my thyroid. We need a new way to educate doctors. Drugs are not the end-all and be-all and hormonal treatments are not the boogeyman doctors think they are. Doctors should be educated in hormonal, drug, and the use of plant and mineral derivatives to treat disease or irregular hormones.

  • Buck

    OZ,

    I think a little reminder of C02 concentrations over the last 650,000 years graphed with concurrent temperatures tells more of a story than small jumps of a few hundred to a few thousand years. It is presented in the link below.

    It shows that you can actually work the chart to create a downtrend if you pick the right end points over short time periods. The graph below also establishes a clear picture of the consequence of Humanity’s use of Fossil Fuels over the last several hundred years.

    I happen to agree with the presenter’s sentiment: the information raises an ethical and moral decision regarding our collective responsibility towards our children and our children’s children.

    LINK>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkDK2mZlOo

  • ANNOUNCEMENT:

    Because of the problems we have been having with comments recently, I am going to move the comments over to the Disqus system for the time being so we can have the functionality in comments that we need.

    Any comments in the WordPress system following this post are likely to be lost when the transfer is complete. We should be moved over within a few hours. All the comments previous to this one should transfer over.

    I am sorry for any inconvenience this may cause — but its the best decision I can think of for the time being.

    Frank Acland

  • Buck

    Christina,

    I regret the challenges you have faced. It is no easy thing to sit across from someone you should be able to trust and then have to come to live with the understanding that your trust was misplaced.

    I wish you well.

  • ecatworld

    ANNOUNCEMENT:

    Because of problems we have been having with comments, I have decided to move the comments over the the Disqus system for the time being. It is a stable system with the features and functionality that we need. I am not sure what happened with the old system — I suspect a conflict with the new theme I imported.

    I am sorry for any inconvenience this has caused. I notice that we have lost the most recent comments under this article. I thought we would get them all transferred over.

    I hope this system will meet our need for now without the frustration we have been experiencing.

    Frank Acland

    • Redford

      New system is fine except a good deal of my reply to replies have been lost :-/

    • Buck

      Kudos

  • Frank Acland

    ANNOUNCEMENT:

    Because of problems we have been having with comments, I have decided to move the comments over the the Disqus system for the time being. It is a stable system with the features and functionality that we need. I am not sure what happened with the old system — I suspect a conflict with the new theme I imported.

    I am sorry for any inconvenience this has caused. I notice that we have lost the most recent comments under this article. I thought we would get them all transferred over.

    I hope this system will meet our need for now without the frustration we have been experiencing.

    Frank Acland

    • Redford

      New system is fine except a good deal of my reply to replies have been lost :-/

    • Buck

      Kudos

  • Daniel Maris

    My view is the precautionary one. We should try and avoid doing anything that will take us outside the established parameters under which we evolved. That absolves you of having to declare on the causality.

    • Buck

      My view is also precautionary. There is nothing which absolves us from the responsibility for the conduct of our individual or collective lives. And accountability is part of responsibility.

      If our choices and actions take us outside of the inspired evolutionary framework within which we evolved, then we are accountable for our choices and responsible for correcting our errors.

      This freedom of choice and the responsive correction honors our desire to bring positive meaning into this evolutionary framework before we inevitably pass.

  • Torbjörn
  • Facepalm