HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » Former UN official says n...

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:53 PM

Former UN official says next IPCC report will scare the wits out of everyone

Former UN official says climate report will shock nations into action

THE next United Nations climate report will ''scare the wits out of everyone'' and should provide the impetus needed for the world to finally sign an agreement to tackle global warming, the former head of the UN negotiations said.

Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief during the 2009 Copenhagen climate change talks, said his conversations with scientists working on the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested the findings would be shocking.

"That report is going to scare the wits out of everyone,'' Mr de Boer said in the only scheduled interview of his visit to Australia. "I'm confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.''

He said superstorm Sandy may spur more Americans, and people elsewhere, to consider the risks of climate change, but warned: "It's a bit like being shocked into stopping smoking when you've been told you've got terminal cancer."

The IPCC's fifth assessment report is due out in late 2013.

49 replies, 3286 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply Former UN official says next IPCC report will scare the wits out of everyone (Original post)
GliderGuider Nov 2012 OP
valerief Nov 2012 #1
Swede Atlanta Nov 2012 #2
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #3
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #24
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #25
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #28
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #36
OKIsItJustMe Nov 2012 #29
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #39
OKIsItJustMe Nov 2012 #40
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #31
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #38
joshcryer Nov 2012 #46
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #4
Systematic Chaos Nov 2012 #5
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #6
joshcryer Nov 2012 #9
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #11
joshcryer Nov 2012 #13
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #14
joshcryer Nov 2012 #16
joshcryer Nov 2012 #7
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #8
joshcryer Nov 2012 #10
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #12
joshcryer Nov 2012 #15
joshcryer Nov 2012 #17
Speck Tater Nov 2012 #18
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #20
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #23
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #26
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #27
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #34
hatrack Nov 2012 #22
Nihil Nov 2012 #19
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #21
cprise Nov 2012 #30
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #33
cprise Nov 2012 #37
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #41
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #43
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #44
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #47
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #32
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #35
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #45
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #48
Nihil Nov 2012 #49
wtmusic Nov 2012 #42

Response to GliderGuider (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:55 PM

1. Not if it means some rich people might lose money. They'd rather be drowned, be swallowed by

a sinkhole, have trees fall on them, before giving up one red cent they've earned. Well, not earned but acquired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:59 PM

2. Naw.....Inhoffe and his friends will say it isn't true and shove their heads back into the sand....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:30 PM

3. For all my bone-deep cynicism,

I still think people are capable of being frightened into action by the truth.

Americans largely didn't buy Mitt Romney's line of bullshit, and I think that Inhofe's may be passing it's "best before" date as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:07 PM

24. heh

I dunno, gg, we still have people even here in ee that think nukes are safe and are our best option.

Teh stupid burns. I say let them go stand at the gates of Fukushima for a few days and see if teh stupid gets burned out of them. I bet it would. What do you think? Do you need to test the truth personally, or can you dig the truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #24)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:55 PM

25. I don't do teh nucular any more...

...either for or against. It's an argument with no resolution, beset by stupid on both sides. I hate getting that goop all over me, so I steer clear of the mudhole. Thanks for the invitation, but I'll sit this one out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #25)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:23 PM

28. Ignore it and it will go away?

Whatever floats your boat, dude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:21 AM

36. I pay attention to it

I just don't discuss it on public internet forums any more. It's not worth the aggro.

I've got plenty of history on the issue, I don't need any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:25 PM

29. 42% of Americans believe in anthropogenic climate change

http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/15/more-say-there-is-solid-evidence-of-global-warming/
Released: October 15, 2012

More Say There Is Solid Evidence of Global Warming
Overview

The percentage of Americans saying there is solid evidence of global warming has steadily increased over the past few years. Currently, 67% say there is solid evidence that the earth’s average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades, up four points since last year and 10 points since 2009.

Similarly, an increasing proportion say that the rise in the earth’s temperature has mostly been caused by human activity. Currently, 42% say the warming is mostly caused by human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, while 19% say it is mostly caused by natural patterns in the earth’s environment. Last year, 38% mostly attributed global warming to human activity and in 2010 34% did so.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:39 AM

39. How many Americans believe in +6 degrees Celcius?

How many Americans even understand what +6C really means for the world?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #39)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:13 AM

40. There's the old cynicism!

In my opinion, people were "scared" by An Inconvenient Truth. Unfortunately the effect was relatively short-lived.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:31 AM

31. Frightened into action may not produce the correct action

 

The most likely palatable action will be some patchwork system of carbon taxes and the occasional offset program, with business as usual subjected to it. Is that going to stem the tide if we face a worse-case scenario?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:37 AM

38. True, it may not. But staying asleep is producing no action at all.

Any action, even if it results in a patchwork of mistakes, is better than nothing. At least it opens the possibility for interesting, positive change here and there.

Nothing is going to stem the tide of a worst case scenario. And I don't think the word "if" belongs in your sentence. My hope for shaking people awake isn't to prompt some sort of effective institutional response. I don't think our global institutions are capable of it. My hope on a much smaller scale - that more individuals will be moved to action, in the realization that it's now a "sauve qui peut" situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:25 PM

46. Nah, it'll be BAU + geoengineering.

The cheapest solution will be what they go after.

There will never be a carbon tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:40 AM

4. Well, all I can say is, let's just hope they don't fuck this one up.....in either direction.

It used to be that they were too optimistic about their models back in the old days.....although at least now their models tend to better reflect reality. Let's just hope they don't go in the other direction, too, or we're in trouble all over again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:52 AM

5. Nah, let's fuck it up in BOTH directions.

It's no fun to get future predictions of all these models and feedbacks exactly right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Systematic Chaos (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:03 AM

6. "In this lecture I present a model that is extremely optimistic in its prediction...

...that there will be a total collapse of civilization before we can fuck up the planet for all other forms of life."

Thank you for attending, the research donation jar is on your left as you exit the lecture hall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:58 AM

9. The fucking 1981 model was accurate, it's the damn scientists downplaying shit.

Just read this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

1981

Atmospheric models aren't that damn difficult, they just need basic physics to understand. The problem is scientists must interpret the models and the error bars are massive (2-6C, wtf?!?) so they have err'd on the lower end of estimations, not having any sense of the feedbacks (or negative feedbacks) that the system has.

It's turning out that there aren't many negative feedbacks at all. Cloud cover? Less. Plant sequestration? Less. Oceanic absorption? Decreasing rapidly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:03 AM

11. I don't disagree with that, at least.

Let us hope that they've learned from past mistakes re: interpretation, and hope that they won't just go off in the other direction because that wouldn't really help, either. That's really all I'm saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:10 AM

13. They need to make it clear, abundantly clear, that they don't know.

That is the hallmark of science.

They need to stress, absolutely stress, that the interpretations have to this point been wrong, and that the effects have been higher than their interpretations have been. That is a fact, a scientific fact, so they will not be "hurting" by pointing that out.

This is not to say that they should simply magically pick the higher end projections.

Merely make it clear that the interpretations to this point (likely because the scientists were afraid to tell the truth) have been on the low end and inaccurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:11 AM

14. That at least, does make perfect sense. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #14)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:14 AM

16. That's science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:46 AM

7. And I bet it *still* won't take into consideration the state of the art.

IPCC AR4 where they left out the sea level rise from ice melt and only included glaciers and expansion.

They better do this shit right if the world has any hope of averting the catastrophe it has inflicted upon itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:53 AM

8. I think you're right.

And if de Boer still feels justified in using that kind of language when the projections are guaranteed to be ultra-conservative, what does that say about the real state of play?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:00 AM

10. A lot.

I look forward to the release, I'll devour the whole thing, if they don't have the state of the art in there (such as the fact that we've narrowed it down and recognized that cloud cover isn't a negative feedback) I will have to rant about that shit.

I reckon they'll play it conservative though, as you say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:07 AM

12. I'm not so sure they will, they've been doing a lot of less of that over the past few years......

At least as far as potential temperature rises are concerned. But as I said before, I only hope the IPCC will learn from their past misjudgements concerning intrepretation of said models and not just go in the opposite direction instead. Here's hoping for the best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:13 AM

15. The problem is the deadline period. Plus, AR5 isn't due until 2014.

I expect that the state of the art won't make it into that report at all. And what does make it will be as GG said, ultra-conservative even with the "scary" projections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:39 AM

17. $50 they say arctic sea ice melts by 2035.

Arctic sea ice melts 2 years later (max).

(Worse, it hits zero volume the Sept. before the report is published and they publish anyway, no bets on that though.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:17 AM

18. For politicans, hyperbole is their stock in trade.

 

Tell them the human race will certainly go extinct in ten years and they will assume it's just more hyperbole.

Tell them the polar ice caps will melt in 50 years and they yawn. What's the hurry? Let the next administration worry about it.

So, no matter what the report says, nothing will change. What the report says will either be dismissed as hysterical hyperbole, or be kicked down the road for some future generation to deal with. And that, my friends, is why the earth cannot be saved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Speck Tater (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:36 AM

20. It's not a sure thing.


So, no matter what the report says, nothing will change.


And this, ladies in gentlemen, is part of the reason why we still face an uphill battle: too much fatalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #20)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 06:16 PM

23. No, we face an uphill battle because of teh stupid.

A few fatalists only make a difference to you. What makes a difference to most people is being reassured of their non-negotiable lifestyle, the fact that teh scientisticists are all in cahoots for teh grantz, and how GW is a hoax perpetrated by teh gay libruls.

Compared to that onslaught of flaming stupidity, a few fatalists over in the corner mumbling about complex dynamical systems, melting ice caps, permanent global recession and the unfortunate tendency for herding behaviour that's enshrined in our limbic brains make absolutely no difference. None at all. No one even hears us except those few others like us - and you. To the people who are making the noise in society we are a complete non-issue. If we get noticed it's as just another part of the lunatic fringe like the IPCC.

You are hyperallergic to our viewpoint for some reason, but as far as I can tell you're virtually alone in this. To teh gay libruls of the general envirowhacko movement, we're similar to the crazy uncle who shows up somewhat drunk at Thanksgiving and Christmas, making slightly outrageous comments even when no one is listening. We're part of the scenery to be ignored, and nobody takes anything we say seriously. Maybe we should be flattered that you do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:06 PM

26. "we face an uphill battle because of teh stupid."..I don't doubt that either. But........

What makes a difference to most people is being reassured of their non-negotiable lifestyle, the fact that teh scientisticists are all in cahoots for teh grantz, and how GW is a hoax perpetrated by teh gay libruls.


Well,certainly.

"You are hyperallergic to our viewpoint for some reason, but as far as I can tell you're virtually alone in this."


Not so much "hyperallergic" per se as perhaps rather annoyed(and concerned) at times. I'm probably less, well, polite & quiet, I guess we could say, than some others on here, but I'm not alone in my concerns, Paul. Because there's others, too, who've seen liars & dumbasses like WUWT and Chris Monckton jump all over the McPherson type shit(Remember his claim of 16*C by 2100, btw? Not to mention he kinda parroted Malcolm Light's "Life will cease to exist by mid-century" crap) like hyenas on a dying lion, who then try to slander the other 95% of us by claiming that we're all a bunch of nuts, crazies, etc., so the people actually in the know, like the Skeptical Science fellows, end up having to spend more and more time trying to set the record straight. This is something I've tried to explain before but there are a few people who just don't want to listen, for whatever reason. (I do admit I probably could have done a better job explaining myself, though)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #26)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:36 PM

27. I don't see it making any difference

Last edited Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:09 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm sure not about to let up.

Maybe you can get McPherson and Light to stop talking about stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:08 AM

34. I wish that was so, but I've seen this happening.

Not fun. I've actually been tempted to really get into some of the deniers I've come across out there, like some of those trolling the Skeptical Science boards for example. And I'm certainly gonna give Light a piece of my mind one of these days, unless he finally 'fesses up to that big-ass screw up of his.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Speck Tater (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:18 AM

22. That's what I've found so fascinating about this election cycle

We've had four solid years of gibbering droolfest paranoia from the Tea-Tards and their allies of convenience. They're gonna take away our gunz, they're gonna make us pray to Mecca, they're gonna teach our kids Teh Gay Sechs, they're gonna DESTROY 'MURCA!!!

Straight-up, flat-out, apocalyptic rabies, spreading fast among those unaccustomed to travel outside the Fox Bubble.

But when the real deal appears on the horizon, and year after year after year, just gets bigger and just gets worse, and even as the projections darken at ever-higher speeds, and as climate breakdown manifests itself IN REAL TIME, it becomes just a liberal plot, and you scientists hate 'Murca, because FREEDUMB!

I thought this was what they wanted? Oh, sorry, it doesn't involve Pro Wrestling Jesus (R) smiting evil Arabs and splitting the Mount of Olives, so who cares, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:22 AM

19. Maybe, maybe not.

Given how "the usual suspects" have managed to water down the warning EVERY TIME
and consistently render any international conference totally impotent EVERY TIME,
I have no confidence that any of the people who *need* to be scared out of their wits
will give a single, solitary damn about it.

They are rich.

They are powerful.

They don't give a flying fuck about anyone (much less any thing) who isn't in their club.

They merely want to prolong profit as usual for as long as possible.

We've seen how little impact even a little bit of flooding in New York has changed
things - hell, one of the first "We can do it!" announcements was that the shitting
Stock Exchange had reopened! No, I think it will take much more than a bit of truth-telling
by scientists to penetrate that kind of wilful ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nihil (Reply #19)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:42 AM

21. I wouldn't say that Sandy had 'little' impact.

Look what happened right after Sandy passed thru. Even the M.S.M. couldn't pass up talking about climate change.

No, I think it will take much more than a bit of truth-telling
by scientists to penetrate that kind of wilful ignorance.


Somewhat true, and we do face an uphill battle. One major problem is that we have to combat the bullshit: on one end, you've got frauds and liars like Chris Monckton, Chris Booker, etc. who keep claiming that climate change is basically a hoax, a scam, what have you. But on one end, the other extreme could prove to be even more damaging in the long run: fearmongerers such as Malcolm P.R. Light and Guy McPherson who tell us that we cannot do anything about ACC(McPherson, same guy who claimed we'd hit 16*C by 2100 at one point), that life on Earth will be extinct by mid century(Light).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #21)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:45 PM

30. They're not fearmongers if they're right

It seems possible the new IPCC report may vindicate Light and McPherson.

What they have stated is falsifiable, so its a matter of whether they are corroborated or debunked (and to what degree).

I think you may be jumping the gun in that respect, calling them fearmongers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cprise (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:04 AM

33. I seriously doubt that.

It seems possible the new IPCC report may vindicate Light and McPherson.


I seriously doubt it, unless someone over there goes off the proverbial deep end(I mean, all life on Earth inevitably gone by mid-century and/or 16*C by 2100?). I would think (and hope!) that this wouldn't be the case, though.

What they have stated is falsifiable, so its a matter of whether they are corroborated or debunked (and to what degree).


Like I said, unless somebody's gone cuckoo, they're gonna be debunking as much hysteria as they are denier agitprop.

I think you may be jumping the gun in that respect, calling them fearmongers.


Have you actually read some of the stuff I've been referencing, btw?

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/global-extinction-within-one-human.html

Here's at least one instance where McPherson's made his 16*C claim:



Jumping the gun? IDFTS. These guys Light and McPherson are bad news, even though they may be sincere in believing what they say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:54 AM

37. That's just opinion and name-calling.

11C was already within the realm of possibility when established models did not take strong methane feedbacks into account.

And you do realize that the Permian extinction included severe ocean anoxia once the atmosphere hit about 900ppm of carbon? It caused the biochemistry of the oceans to change drastically resulting in toxic levels of hydrogen-sulfide gas both in the sea and on land. About 95% of all living things died in that event.

Current emission rates place us at 900ppm of carbon by 2100.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:34 AM

41. I hope you're planning on telling Dr. Jeffrey Kiehl of NCAR to fuck off too.

Last edited Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)

That's where the 16 degree number comes from. McPherson didn't just pull it out of his ass.

You can read the piece in Science in which Kiehl lays it out, but here are a couple of excerpts:

The atmospheric CO2 concentration currently is 390 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and continuing on a business-as-usual path of energy use based on fossil fuels will raise it to ∼900 to 1100 ppmv by the end of this century (see the first figure) (1). When was the last time the atmosphere contained ∼1000 ppmv of CO2? Recent reconstructions (2–4) of atmospheric CO2 concentrations through history indicate that it has been ∼30 to 100 million years since this concentration existed in the atmosphere (the range in time is due to uncertainty in proxy values of CO2). The data also reveal that the reduction of CO2 from this high level to the lower levels of the recent past took tens of millions of years. Through the burning of fossil fuels, the atmosphere will return to this concentration in a matter of a century. Thus, the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is unprecedented in Earth's history.

What was Earth's climate like at the time of past elevated CO2? Consider one example when CO2 was ∼1000 ppmv at ∼35 million years ago (Ma) (2). Temperature data (5, 6) for this time period indicate that tropical to subtropical sea surface temperatures were in the range of 35° to 40°C (versus present-day temperatures of ∼30°C) and that sea surface temperatures at polar latitudes in the South Pacific were 20° to 25°C (versus modern temperatures of ∼5°C). The paleogeography of this time was not radically different from present-day geography, so it is difficult to argue that this difference could explain these large differences in temperature. Also, solar physics findings show that the Sun was less luminous by ∼0.4% at that time (7). Thus, an increase of CO2 from ∼300 ppmv to 1000 ppmv warmed the tropics by 5° to 10°C and the polar regions by even more (i.e., 15° to 20°C).

What can we learn from Earth's past concerning the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gas increases? Accounting for the increase in CO2 and the reduction in solar irradiance, the net radiative forcing—the change in the difference between the incoming and outgoing radiation energy–of the climate system at 30 to 40 Ma was 6.5 to 10 W m−2 with an average of ∼8 W m−2 (see the second figure). A similar magnitude of forcing existed for other past warm climate periods, such as the warm mid-Cretaceous of 100 Ma (8). Using the proxy temperature data and assuming, to first order, that latitudinal temperature can be fit with a cosine function in latitude (9), the global annual mean temperature at this time can be estimated to be ∼31°C, versus 15°C during pre-industrial times (around 1750) (10). Thus, Earth was ∼16°C warmer at 30 to 40 Ma. The ratio of change in surface temperature to radiative forcing is called the climate feedback factor (11). The data for 30 to 40 Ma indicate that Earth's climate feedback factor was ∼2°C W−1 m−2. Estimates (1, 11) of the climate feedback factor from climate model simulations for a doubling of CO2 from the present-day climate state are ∼0.5 to 1°C W−1 m−2. The conclusion from this analysis—resting on data for CO2 levels, paleotemperatures, and radiative transfer knowledge—is that Earth's sensitivity to CO2 radiative forcing may be much greater than that obtained from climate models.


Kiehl himself quotes paleoclimate research to say that +16C was in fact an average global increase. However, even if it was just just +16 at the poles, that would imply at least +6C at the tropics, with something between those values as a global average. Apparently that's not so far-fetched after all, when one considers the uncertainties around the climate feedback factor and the potential for methane feedbacks.

Both the higher climate feedback due to forcing and the 1000+ ppmv CO2 level by 2100 are supported by IPCC models (specifically A2 and A1FI). Granted, those are among their worst-case scenarios - an average temperature rise of almost +7C is part of the A1FI scenario - but given how circumspect the IPCC boffins have to be, I'm inclined to include them in the range of legitimate discussion. Which is exactly what McPherson is doing.

I'm not sure why you don't like the IPCC, the National Center for Atmospheric Research or Science magazine, but I'm satisfied that McPherson isn't actually going out on much of a scientific limb at all. I think Guy is a model of probity compared to your rather hysterical rejection of what he says and your inability to report it honestly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:23 PM

43. Okay, then. And?

I don't know so much about the far future, but if Kiehl's trying to tell us that 16*C is likely, or even possible, by 2100, then he'd be dead wrong as well.

I'm not sure why you don't like the IPCC, the National Center for Atmospheric Research or Science magazine


I never said or even implied that I didn't like the IPCC, Paul, and I never said anything about the latter two organizations. What were you thinking when you wrote this, exactly?

Apparently that's not so far-fetched after all,


Actually, it very much IS farfetched, especially if he was insinuating that this was the average temperature worldwide and not just at the poles; and even if it was at the poles, it might be a bit of a stretch.

This graph, here, lays out all of the world's average high temperatures over the past half a billion years or so:



While it may not take very short lived temperature spikes into account, it does appear that at no time in the recorded history of life on this planet after the Cambrian, did temperatures ever go above around 8*C above the 20th century average.

I think Guy is a model of probity compared to your rather hysterical rejection of what he says


Hysterical? Hmm....well, compared to some of the stuff I've seen over time, both here and in other places, I'd say that even my most dispassionate tangents so far would be more akin to Peter Jennings reading the headlines on an average ABC World News newsday.

and your inability to report it honestly.


And, why exactly, do you think this?

Also, here's what the IPCC says re: feedbacks:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-3.html

So, yeah, it basically spells it out; feedbacks ARE included in the models.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:47 PM

44. Add Joe Romm to your list as well.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/01/13/207334/science-kiehl-ncar-paleoclimate-lessons-from-earths-hot-past/

Ice cores give temperature at a single location. It's therefore incorrect to say that Vostok represents "The Temperature of Planet Earth" - more mathematical calculations (and thus more assumptions) are necessary to arrive at an estimate of the global mean temperature temperature. Romm reprints one of the references above (#10):

The cosine temperature expression can be integrated analytically to obtain the global annual mean temperature. Paleotemperatures from (5) for a subtropical location and a high southern latitude location were used to determine the two coefficients in the analytical expression for global mean temperature.

And notice the red caption that says "Polar Ocean Equivalent", that goes to +12C?

Wikipedia has this to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene
An issue arises, however, when trying to model the Eocene and reproduce the results that are found with the proxy data. Using all different ranges of greenhouse gasses that occurred during the early Eocene, models were unable to produce the warming that was found at the poles and the reduced seasonality that occurs with winters at the poles being substantially warmer. The models, while accurately predicting the tropics, tend to produce significantly cooler temperatures of up to 20 °C (36 °F) underneath the actual determined temperature at the poles. This error has been classified as the “equable climate problem”. To solve this problem, the solution would involve finding a process to warm the poles without warming the tropics. Some hypotheses and tests in attempt to find the process are below.

My takeaway is that the models are missing some significant data, since I tend to trust the proxy records, at least within limits.

The AR4 page you point to does not include methane feedbacks. Two of the scenarios the IPCC use project feedbacks in line with what Hansen has estimated (+6C for doubled CO2) as opposed to the +3 that the IPCC has chosen as "most likely", as well as projections for CO2 beyond 1000 ppmv.

Why do you not dig into the science any deeper than it takes to confirm your biases? It's all well and good to have opinions, but when that extends extend to rubbishing the conclusions of scientists doing real research for top national institutions like NCAR and NASA, who publish their results in reputable journals, you'd better have more than opinion to go on.

+16C by 2100 seems like a stretch, but if men like Kiehl and Hansen say something like it is possible, and the science doesn't preclude it, we'd damn well better talk about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:45 PM

47. Even if Romm may be correct about the Eocene temp rise, it doesn't vindicate McPherson by any means.

Last edited Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:45 AM - Edit history (1)


Why do you not dig into the science any deeper than it takes to confirm your biases? It's all well and good to have opinions, but when that extends extend to rubbishing the conclusions of scientists doing real research for top national institutions like NCAR and NASA, who publish their results in reputable journals, you'd better have more than opinion to go on.


I have done plenty of digging, Paul, and like it or not, what I've found over the years doesn't really jive with your assertions. Granted, not every calculation takes, or has taken, feedbacks into account. But the ones that do, do suggest that somewhere up to a 6-7*C rise is possible by 2100 if all feedbacks, including methane, btw, play out to their worst possible effect(and possibly quite a bit more after 2100, though I think we may need more advanced modelling for more than a century or so.), but nothing really more than that. That indeed would be disastrous, and again, nobody can, at this moment, really predict how far AGW effects could go beyond 2100 if they aren't stopped. But 16*C by 2100 just isn't plausible by any stretch.

As for Romm's claims that the Earth was 15*C warmer during some point in the Eocene, the jury's still out on that, though it seems he may have been close if this graph is anything to go on: . Regardless of where the truth lies, however, that does not, by any means, validate McPherson's claim of 16*C warming possible as soon as 2100. To say otherwise, is unfortunately, rather fallacious.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #21)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:42 AM

32. If I google "AverageJoe90 McPherson":

 

I get 3640 hits. Mostly DU

If I google "AverageJoe90 Malcolm Light":
I get 518 hits. Mostly DU

I don't get it. Did these guys date your mom or something?

I am not entirely familiar with Malcom P.R. Light....does he have a cool web blog like Guy McPherson and George Mobus?

All kidding aside, if there is even the remotest chance of devastating effects from climate change, is our best course of action a crusade against extreme climate alarmists? It just seems like you are putting a lot of effort in there, but maybe I am wrong. No offense intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:12 AM

35. I haven't even made that many posts total in here these past 3 months. Odd.

All kidding aside, if there is even the remotest chance of devastating effects from climate change, is our best course of action a crusade against extreme climate alarmists? It just seems like you are putting a lot of effort in there, but maybe I am wrong. No offense intended.


Well, no. All I'm saying is that we need to counter the nuttery on both sides(well, especially that of Chris 'Lord' Monckton and company, but also Light, etc. too). Let's stick to the facts, not hysteria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nihil (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:05 PM

45. I agree about the motives and actions of the plutocrats, but

It's still too early to tell what kind of impact Sandy has had/will have on the American psyche. There are still places without power, and the longer that drags on the greater the awakening will be. It also depends whether Sandy is seen as a "one-off" or whether people frame it in terms of the wider perturbations of the weather. The process of recognition will really accelerate when (not if) the next oddball superstorm hits. At some point the weirdness becomes unspinnable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #45)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:46 PM

48. That much is true, at least. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #45)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:06 AM

49. Strangely enough, I think you are being optimistic!

I know that doesn't sit well with most of your posts

> There are still places without power, and the longer that drags on the greater the awakening will be.

The Stock Exchange is back to normal.

Most of the rich & prosperous part of NYC is back to normal.

That means that there is no need to worry about anything else as it's all (*) back to normal.

(*) = "all of the bits that matter"


I give you the example of New Orleans et al a year or more after Katrina: devastation abounded
but "nothing that mattered". The same is happening with New York (but faster - exactly as expected!)

> The process of recognition will really accelerate when (not if) the next oddball superstorm hits.
> At some point the weirdness becomes unspinnable.

That's exactly why I want more of them - and all as soon as possible - in order to wake up the
wilfully ignorant, the deniers and the ostriches. Shit, enough of them and it might even wake up
the greedy fuckwits in the administration so that they'll get off their obscenely-paid arses and
stop blocking every attempt that is made to help the state of the planet.

(I know, I know, ... now *I'm* being optimistic ...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:22 AM

42. If only it were true

A smashing triumph would be to scare the wits out of those who really matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread