Posted by Pat Cunningham on Sep 17, 2013 in Uncategorized | 19 comments
After you’ve read THIS PIECE, watch the video below.
The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007.
Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.
Specifically, the draft report says that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is “extremely likely” to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), “likely” to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and “very likely” to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was “likely” to be above 2 degrees Celsius and “very likely” to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit. Since “extremely” and “very” have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.
Still, the downward movement since 2007 is clear, especially at the bottom of the “likely” range. The most probable value (3 degrees Celsius last time) is for some reason not stated this time.
A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: “transient climate response” (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is “likely” to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and “extremely unlikely” to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 (“very likely” warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies).
Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.
doc: The comments following that WSJ piece to which you’ve linked includes this beauty:
So are conservatives conceding that global warming is occurring now? I can never tell where these people lie on the climate-science-denial scale. Here is the scale for reference:
1) Climate change is not occurring
2) Climate change is occurring, but it’s not man-made
3) Climate change is man-made, but there’s nothing we can do to address it
Maybe I should add:
4) Climate change is occurring and is man-made, but the earth gradually getting warmer is a good thing, and its not going to get hot enough to affect me in my life-time, so I don’t care.
By the way, I’m guessing that you didn’t read the piece to which I liked in the post above in its entirety. It categoricallly refutes these theories of global cooling advanced by the usual gang of suspects.
You should also read the following recent pieces:
By the way, doc, you should also read this piece about Matt Ridley, the notorious global-warming denier who wrote the WSJ article to which you’ve linked:
Oh, and another thing about Matt Ridley: He’s an adviser to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was founded by the chairman of a company that represents several major oil companies.
Yet another interesting factoid about Matt Ridley:
He was chairman of the British bank Northern Rock from 2004 to 2007, during which period Northern Rock experienced the first run on a British bank in 150 years. Ridley chose to resign, and the bank had to be bailed out by the UK government leading to the nationalization of Northern Rock.
That’s quite a record for a guy who once wrote an article entitled “Government is the problem not the solution.”
One last thing: Here’s a specific response to the Ridley piece in the WSJ:
One more thing:
“Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?.”
wilson: Your worthless little contribution from the wingnut website Powerline offers nothing to refute mainstream scientific theories regarding global warming. But it seems to have impressed you.
The Koch brothers paid millions for one of there own to do his own study and show them all the lies being told about the warming issue…and of course his conclusions we’re matching the funds provided by the Koch fondation…
About a year after that study the paid guy from Koch who did the study went back on his own words and told a complete differant story that he said he lied and wanted to set the record straight. The data he gathered did indeed show that we are warming up way faster than any model could predict….bad very bad.
I wish I could remember his name…sorry.
If it so bad you should keep your snowmobile in the garage.
Wingnut website? please enlighten me.
I believe the quote came from the ” European Climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard”
These guys seems like wacky wingnuts, well educated and published.
What magazines and newspapers have your articles appeared in?
“Their articles have appeared in National Review, The Weekly Standard, The American Enterprise, American Experiment Quarterly, and newspapers from Florida to California.”
They kind of make you look like a liberal loser wingnut with a chip on his shoulder.
I tell you what Doc ..you park your car I will park my sled…as your car burns way more carbon than my sled ever will.
But in the event we have a winter like 78/79 …folks will be calling for me to deliver food and rescue stranded motorist …again.
Also in places like say Houghton Mich….you can’t make it to work without one…Doc.
Wilson, how is your daughter doing…?
Prayer’s be with her.
I need a car to complete my activities of daily living.
You don’t live in Houghton,MI.Your snowmobile is a toy.
wilson: Allow me to repeat myself: Powerline’s use of that quote from Connie Hedegaard offers absolutely nothing in the way of refutation of mainstream scientific theories regarding global warming.
It may impress regular readers of Powerline, but most of those presumably are global-warming deniers anyway.
As for whether Powerline is a wingnut website, one need only check out the record of its boss man, John Hinderaker, whose idiocies have included his claim that “Darwin’s theory of macroevolution is plainly wrong, on strictly scientific grounds” and “is, in my view, a rather obvious fraud, which cannot withstand the mildest scrutiny.”
By the way, my favorite John Hinderaker quote is this one: “It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius….”
wilson: One other thing: What’s this about your daughter? Brian Opsahl says he’s praying for her. What’s the problem? I’m not a prayerful person, but I wish her well, whatever the situation is.
Pat, his Daughter has cancer….we have been discussing this as my Brother has stage 4 throat cancer and have been wishing (praying for each other)…Tnx.
No insurance so it’s the fundraiser route…thank God for the ACA.
Sorry to hear about your daughter wilson. I hope things work out. Same for you brian. Stay strong!
Thank’s joe…cancer suck’s..!!!!
wilson: I, too, am very sorry to hear about your daughter’s cancer. As a cancer survivor myself, I can relate — although mine has a fairly high survival rate.
I wish her and you all the best.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of followup comments via email. You can also subscribe without commenting.