Second, it is hard for me to feel any sort of panic when surface temperatures are flat while CO2 concentrations keep going up. It was scary back in the 90's when temperature was going up with CO2. It is obvious to me that there are many drivers of temperature in addition to CO2. I look at the models which have temperature rising at up to 0.5 C per decade. It's scary. When the actual rise is 0.0 C per decade, the models and the conclusions drawn from then no longer keep me awake at night.
We are not giving up our lifestyle. I don't know what that means, though. If it means global catastrophe, the best we can do is enjoy the ride.
As the IPCC points out every continent has already been effected. In many ways the damage has been done and the best we can do is adapt for what is coming. However those who are educated and farsighted know that humanity is going to have to reduce its dependency on fossil fuels in a meaningful way.
Old fools that use sites like this one to vent their frustrations by denying the science that has left them behind, no longer deserve the sympathy of those young people that are picking up the pieces.
So it doesn't matter whether it's natural or man made. Our only path is to adapt as best we can. No one is going to give up anything that would inconvenience them in the first world, and developing countries will not give up development. The UN report is wasting time.
DK
Just a couple of comments, Everyone, yes Everyone was screaming a few years back about the hole in the ozone !, anyone know what's happened to it ?
Can anyone show me a website or just a photo ! of an area in the world where the normal tide has risen consistently ?
My understanding of the melting ice, is that as the majority of it is below water, and as ice takes up more space than water, the sea levels should stay about the same ?
I'm old enough to remember when All the "Experts" were telling us that we were absolutely going to have another Ice Age ?
But then, I'm not an expert, so what do I know about it !
this is just the rebuttal report to the one they put out a while back that stated that global warming wasn't happening and that we were actually on a cooling trend. one that would last until about the middle of the century at least. that one didn't get a lot of press for some reason. hmm.
When the UN alarmism can prove their catastrophic assertions are based on any form of historical evidence they might have some credibility. History is a great predictor of the future and it is well known that the climate forecasts concocted by AGW cultists have occurred in even greater conditions in the past but there is no evidence that those past conditions ever caused an environmental catastrophe. In fact the exact opposite was true.
What will they do when their doom saying does not come to pass. They have got away with murder so far but how far will the good people put up with all this cr@p. We have had dodgey e mails ,hockey sticks, Ice free poles, and even archbshops admonishments. The only thing that keeps all this cr@p coming is money. Derail the gravy train and let us sort out the worlds problems, starting at home.
LOL, that crap is so stupid. Over the past 100 years the temps have risen by only 0.8 degrees and every model that predicts exponential warming has shown to be overestimating. If you want the best model take the PDO cycle and add in a linear warming. LINEAR. Not exponential, not death to all, not panic-inducing, LINEAR.
In the mean time, the oceans wil rise slightly as plants benefit from CO2 fertilization and warmer temps. Overall effect will be neutral for mankind.
Miles,
You warmers would be happy leaving the future generations trillions of dollars of debt, just so you can pretend you care as you are so easily fooled into believe that CO2, the very compound needed by plants to live is some devil gas. Try your pathetic attempt at shaming us on your other gullible AGW religious fanatics.
Humans have a lousy track record when trying to predict the future. I have seen nothing that gives me any confidence this time is any different.
It's kind of a weird paradox. There is both extreme pessimism (world is falling apart) and extreme optimism (this prediction of the future will finally be true) sitting within the same message.
If by spells disaster, you mean gives a break to disaster, then yes it does. The damage from global warming is 2% of GDP. About the same as a moderate recession.
Are we heading down an inevitable road to destruction? Even though individual people are smart on a mass we are stupid, do you think the world can change before it's too late? I believe we are doomed because anymore people can not live without their gas guzzling cars, their electronics, etc. If we were to take a step back to older times before industrialization and grow our own food and use natural means of transportation I think we could make it but I just don't see it happening. We have got out of control with technology and modernization and lost sight of what's really important.
thats not quite the answer
read some accounts of the air pollution and other of elizabethan london
inefficient people enmass still make a mess
no
the answer is simple
when people stop thinking scientists are simply mouthpieces of a political agenda we can start moving forward in a healthy constructive fashion
until then its a march to doom
You embrace going back to a de-industrialized era before the technology occurred that doomed us. Pol Pot would agree with you and he forced a de-industrialization of his country. Those that didn't want to work the fields were killed. I guess you would call those who didn't want to work the fields as not smart enough based on your question. Frankly people with your delusions and ignorance are dangerous. IMO, you should bother to educate yourself on history before lecturing the rest of us on our gas guzzling cars and electronics.
I know that isn't the answer you wanted to hear. You were just looking for a pat on the back because it should be obvious you care more about the future than the rest of us.
We are already feeling the effects and it is only going to get worse. The problem is, severe weather does not wear a neon sign saying "this flood is kindly brought to you as a result of climate change" so people who choose not to educate themselves are able to dismiss it as an anomoly.
Why deniers choose to disbelieve the majority of climate scientists, yet believe the 3% of scientists who remain unsure is a very strange phenomenon to me.
The UN/IPCC is afraid of losing their taxpayer-supported gravy train.
Unfortunately, they are the laughing stock of everything they stick their noses in.....especially in the area of "Global Warming/Cooling/Inbetweening"
The UN needs to be disbanded and their headquarters turned into low-income housing.
The UN report has not been correct yet, why should anyone believe this one.
Instead of believing that biased crap read something from some real scientists:
http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/...
IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”
NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”
IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”
NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.
IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”
NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”
IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”
NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”
IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”
NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity.”
IPCC: “Risk of loss of marine ecosystems and the services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.”
NIPCC: “Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life. Many aquatic species have shown considerable tolerance to temperatures and CO2 values predicted for the next few centuries, and many have demonstrated a likelihood of positive responses in empirical studies. Any projected adverse impacts of rising temperatures or declining seawater and freshwater pH levels (“acidification”) will be largely mitigated through phenotypic adaptation or evolution during the many decades to centuries it is expected to take for pH levels to fall.”
IPCC: “Risk of loss of terrestrial ecosystems and the services they provide for terrestrial livelihoods.”
NIPCC: “Terrestrial ecosystems have thrived throughout the world as a result of warming temperatures and rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Empirical data pertaining to numerous animal species, including amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, reptiles, and mammals, indicate global warming and its myriad ecological effects tend to foster the expansion and proliferation of animal habitats, ranges, and populations, or otherwise have no observable impacts one way or the other. Multiple lines of evidence indicate animal species are adapting, and in some cases evolving, to cope with climate change of the modern era.”
IPCC: “Risk of mortality, morbidity, and other harms during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations.”
NIPCC: “A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events. More lives are saved by global warming via the amelioration of cold-related deaths than those lost under excessive heat. Global warming will have a negligible influence on human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases, a phenomenon observed in virtually all parts of the world.”
