FACT-MAN-2 wrote:What a load of hooey this is!

I wish it was. By talking instead of acting we are now committed to the catastrophic effects of two degree warming - quite possibly more.

It's no great surprise. It's been obvious for some time that nobody is going to do anything.

FactMan wrote:You've made note of this before and I questioned it then and I question it here. Can you point us to MIT's reporting on this?

I must have missed the post.

Climate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The most recent global climate report fails to capture the reality of the changing Arctic seascape, according to MIT researchers. (Aug 2011)

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/arct ... -0810.html

According to new research from MIT, the most recent global climate report fails to capture trends in Arctic sea-ice thinning and drift, and in some cases substantially underestimates these trends. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, forecasts an ice-free Arctic summer by the year 2100, among other predictions. But Pierre Rampal, a postdoc in the Department of Earth, Atmosphere, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS), and colleagues say it may happen several decades earlier.

It’s all in the mechanics

Established in 1988 by the United Nations, the IPCC issues reports that represent an average of many findings, and is sometimes criticized for forecasting according to the “lowest common denominator” of climate research. Still, many policymakers put large stock in its predictions, so Rampal says it is important to continuously evaluate and improve their accuracy.

After comparing IPCC models with actual data, Rampal and his collaborators concluded that the forecasts were significantly off: Arctic sea ice is thinning, on average, four times faster than the models say, and it’s drifting twice as quickly.

The findings are forthcoming in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Oceans. Co-authors are Jérôme Weiss and Clotilde Dubois of France’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/Université Joseph Fourier and Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques, respectively, and Jean-Michel Campin, a research scientist in EAPS.

Part of the problem, Rampal says, may be inadequate modeling of mechanical forces acting on and within the ice in the Arctic basin. Thus far, the IPCC models have largely focused on temperature fluctuations, which are one way to lose or gain ice. But according to Rampal, mechanics can be just as important: Forces such as wind and ocean currents batter the ice, causing it to break up. Ice that’s in small pieces behaves differently than ice in one large mass, which affects its overall volume and surface area.

“If you make a mistake at this level of the model, you can expect that you are missing something very important,” Rampal says. (continue)

We are cramming very, very tight, and any discrepancies in the data, meaning that the worse effects of global warming will occur much earlier than commonly thought, will make it very hard for us to adapt and develop the required technology.

Can we really afford to take the chance? How much longer will we procrastinate?

There is also research which argues against the higher sensitivities (Schmittner et al 2011) although it is not conclusive.

However, even the narrower sensitivity extremes are pretty bad so that's not an excuse for inaction.

Globe wrote:

Brunitski wrote:
Well globe, look at it from my point of view; you decry pollution, but you say the IPCC has it all wrong. You say you are extremely knowledgeable on the subject of climate, but then make basic errors in parsing information. You reject the results of mainstream, widely accepted and well supported studies but then get in behind totally debunked crackpottery and asserted fringe science. What the fuck do you expect people to think?
Woosh my arse.

Show me just ONE place where I say that IPCC has it all wrong.
Show me where I said I was "extremely knowledgeable on the subject of climate". What I DID say was that I studied it at UNI (and at that not even as my major) and is probably better equipped to sort wheat from chaff than most.
Where did I reject widely accepted studies? Actually I think I linked to at least results or graphics regarding the results in practically every post.
Where do I get in behind "crackpottery"? By pointing to the latest discoveries at CERN?

If you want to paint me with that brush you should be certain that you can back it up with anything but assumptions.

OK.
I don't really care how you would like to appear; you are not widening the debate, you are not stimulating thought, you are not a courageous lone wolf standing bravely against a tide of wrongheadedness. You are confusing the lurkers. The reason that people like myself spend time on your arguments is because there is so much confusion in the mind of the public, caused by arguments like yours - arguments characterized by "lets not be hasty, this is all normal, don't panic, etc, etc" - which are flying in the face of solid dependable, repeatable science. Thousands upon thousands of papers make up each round of assessment reports, each of them building an undeniable picture, but the average person will never trawl though them; they are told to trust the IPCC. Now you come along, and while you may not have ever said (the exact words) "The IPCC have it all wrong" your constant harping and unjustified, unsupported criticisms give the clear message that the IPCC are NOT to be trusted. Your voice along with many, many dishonest, disingenuous, ill informed and paid industry shills, are actively stopping governments from doing what should have been done 20 years ago, namely switching to a sustainable energy economy.
Now I'll find those examples you asked for.

Globe wrote:
Show me just ONE place where I say that IPCC has it all wrong.

As I said earlier,the effect of your scorn is cumulative - much like greenhouse gasses! I stand by my statement that you decry pollution and bash the mainstream science (as represented by the IPCC) thus creating confusion in the minds of the lurkers.

Globe wrote:(the) IPCC has replaced the Vatican. There are NO other sources BUT IPCC. Anything that comes from outside IPCC is either in-cooperated into IPCC because it agrees, or dismissed because it does not agree.
Those who agree with IPCC points to IPCC statements as a fundie points to the bible, with little or no regard for the critique or contradictory findings.
Those who do not agree with IPCC are hunted like witches during the Spanish Inquisition, and stooping to even the lowest forms of ad homs, personal insults and ridicule is not beneath the true followers of IPCC. On forums or in the real world.

Bunch of rabid asserted rubbish, setting the IPCC up as a plundering evil, blackhatted and conspiracy strewn.

Globe wrote:Sorry but that is BS.
No one here is denying Global Warming. What IS being put into question is AGW. Something that even the IPCC have been wise enough not to say is a 100% certain.

spreading confusion - IPCC has repeatedly stated that there is NO doubt on AGW.

Globe wrote:If you don't agree, prove me wrong. And not by pointing to IPCC. Use the sources that IPCC does, but where IPCC leaves out most of what is NOT CO2 related.

(my bold)
same as above

Globe wrote:As a matter of fact I think IPCC et al shot themselves in the foot focusing so much on CO2.

again characterising the IPCC as a governing body.

Globe wrote:Had it been an economist that had been that far off target in a prediction we would all have been
But it's climate... so we ignore (pretty much) the actual results, and focus on the faulty prediction as gospel truth.

Yeah... the actual results. Which you present here? No, just sowing doubt.

Globe wrote:That "dubious graph" is figures used by IPCC.
As was the first example with predictions.

ditto

Globe wrote:something that is taken into account in the material handed in to IPCC, but which is toned down to almost nothing or completely missing in the reports they release to the governments who pay the bill.

implying that IPCC does the "toning down"

OK? Stop with your fucking protestations of persecution. If you have a real supported and evidenced position, bring it. If you have a real, supported beef with the IPCC, bring it. Otherwise, retract your unsupported irrational nonsense about the IPCC and debate on the issue.

Globe wrote:Show me where I said I was "extremely knowledgeable on the subject of climate"

Not that I think this should be an issue, but again, your cumulative comments juxtaposed with your stance and your arguments, make for confusing reading. I mean; right there in your question you say: "What I DID say was that I studied it at UNI (and at that not even as my major) and is (sic) probably better equipped to sort wheat from chaff than most." Look at the bolded bit. Really? passive aggressive much?
And these...

Globe wrote:Cloud formation in the lower atmosphere, and effect was what I wrote my specialty on in climatology, and I got top grades for it.
This is MY back-yard.
All the other stuff... I can be shaky in it, but at least equipped to sort BS from facts.

If you can't see the claims (albeit passive-aggressive) of expertise here, then I can't help you.

Globe wrote:People without any real qualifications to understand the material.

Globe wrote:What I see here is primarily people who discuss matters they know next to nothing about, and doing it with an air of "authority" they in no way have the qualifications for.

Onwards!

Globe wrote:Where did I reject widely accepted studies? Actually I think I linked to at least results or graphics regarding the results in practically every post.

The widely accepted studies that inform the IPCC's reports, are the widely accepted studies that I was referring to. You dance around the issue for pages and pages with weasel words, never coming out and saying "I think AGW is a crock of shite" or "Climate change is a big business lie!" or whatever it is that you actually believe. When you say "Oh FFS!" and post two graphs with a smiley, you are refuting widely accepted studies. If you are not, why post it?
When you say;

But if you go back and look at ice core records, what we are seeing now is not really all that exceptional.

you are refuting widely accepted studies. If you are not, why post it?
When you say;

A rise in temps over a few decades is, as long as it is not a 1000-year trend, just business as usual.

you are refuting widely accepted studies. If you are not, why post it?
Get it?

and I was referring to you getting behind the tinhatters claim that Henrik Svensmark had finally been vindicated.

CERN was mentioned earlier in the thread. CERN confirmed a theory put forward in 1996 by a Danish professor about the cosmic ray flux on global cloud cover. Solar influence is important in that respect because, just as the magnetic field around earth, the solar magnetic field fluctuates. In the sun that is cause by the solar activity.
Henrik Svensmark was his name.... it got lost in the corners of my mind.

He was laughed out of the room by IPCC and the vast majority of climate scientists.
I suppose they will have to change their opinion about the effect of clouds, or lack of same, on global warming.

That whole interpretation by fucktards in the UN/AGW/IPCC conspiracy camp is crackpottery of the highest order.

And finally:

Globe wrote:Because that is all your point of view is. A lot of assumptions coloured by the fact that I don't fall into goose-step with everybody else, but claim that:
1) When there is a 90% chance of AGW then there is a 10% chance of non-human driven GW. Which is high enough not the throw the possibility of NON-AGW out the window without asking questions.
2) That IPCC (not their science, but their role) and the AGW-"believers" are too intertwined in politics to let science be the primary.
3) That predictions based on models that do not include all factors, and where some of the factors used are poorly understood, should be taken for what they are.... assumptions.

As johnbrandt wrote. It has been changed from GLOBAL WARMING to CLIMATE CHANGE.
Which is something that isn't done lightly neither in science or politics, and smell a little of ass-covering.

Goose step? Nazi comparisons now? I am assuming nothing. You are in all likelihood NOT prepared to shift from your point of view based on your posts thus far. Your point 1) is not a position - it is mush designed to sow doubt. How dare you pontificate about asking questions? Which of the THOUSANDS of PEER REVIEWED papers that form the basis of each of the 5 assesment reports is NOT asking fucking questions?
2) The science has to inform the policy makers - that IS politics. The IPCC is a bunch of people who put the science into a nice package so that POLICY makers can use it to , you know, make fucking policy. That is where shit gets done. It is also the point at which deniers can fuck up the whole process that science has worked for decades to achieve.
3)Bullshit. Which predictions made by which scientists? Which studies should be taken as poorly understood (i know I'm misquoting you, but the inference is there again...) and which of the THOUSANDS of PEER REVIEWED papers are you going to declare are worthless?

Aaaaand finally, to my best knowledge (trying to find a source for this) is that the change in nomenclature from Global warming to Climate Change occurred when the Bush administration discovered that the words "Climate Change" polled better than "Global Warming". Chaney directed staff to instruct the various agencies concerned that any publication - including peer reviewed papers - were not to include the words "Global Warming". Have we forgotten already how far that administration put the clock back?

was needed.

Brunitski wrote:Aaaaand finally, to my best knowledge (trying to find a source for this) is that the change in nomenclature from Global warming to Climate Change occurred when the Bush administration discovered that the words "Climate Change" polled better than "Global Warming".

Here is the republican memo (page 142): http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

Found that link from here, which i posted a few pages back: http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... untz-memo/

The "global warming changed to climate change" canard has been done to death...

Globe wrote:

As johnbrandt wrote. It has been changed from GLOBAL WARMING to CLIMATE CHANGE.
Which is something that isn't done lightly neither in science or politics, and smell a little of ass-covering.

Well, it's just more an accurate description imo. After all, it is the change that poses the danger and needs attention, not a warming trend. I don't see any ass-covering.

I dunno....
When you see a large portion of meteorologists and politicians switching from one to the other practically over night because Scandinavia is experiencing severe winter after severe winter, it comes off as blatant ass-covering.

You need to acquaint yourself with a certain Republican public opinion researcher Frank Luntz: http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... untz-memo/

It wasn't the AGW crowd that 'changed' the terms

EDIT: pipped to the post again

Brunitski wrote:
OK.

I don't really care how you would like to appear; you are not widening the debate, you are not stimulating thought, you are not a courageous lone wolf standing bravely against a tide of wrongheadedness. You are confusing the lurkers. The reason that people like myself spend time on your arguments is because there is so much confusion in the mind of the public, caused by arguments like yours - arguments characterized by "lets not be hasty, this is all normal, don't panic, etc, etc" - which are flying in the face of solid dependable, repeatable science.

All I can say is I wish I had your stamina, Brunitski!

Good job!

ginckgo wrote:

Why do you insist on only relying on the version of 'science' you get through the mass media? The scientific literature on AGW always states uncertainties, and is usually very conservative in their conclusions.

I know that, but it sure as hell is not communicated sufficiently to the mass media.
If you read the danish mass media they present it as if every single human being is facing certain and agonizing death and the planet will end up a smoldering cinder.

There is orders of magnitude more agenda, bias and belief in any single denier of AGW than there is in the whole pro-AGW community.

One word:
DURBAN.

This is all I think about when people say Durban!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgFDWDc6ZkQ[/youtube]



(this is their local team, just as famous for their cheerleaders )

Globe wrote:

ginckgo wrote:

Why do you insist on only relying on the version of 'science' you get through the mass media? The scientific literature on AGW always states uncertainties, and is usually very conservative in their conclusions.

I know that, but it sure as hell is not communicated sufficiently to the mass media.
If you read the danish mass media they present it as if every single human being is facing certain and agonizing death and the planet will end up a smoldering cinder.

Could we see an example or some examples of this?

Maybe your press is just anxious for more customers?

There are lots of websites where you can get good reporting on the climate and on climate science.

Globe wrote:

There is orders of magnitude more agenda, bias and belief in any single denier of AGW than there is in the whole pro-AGW community.

One word:
DURBAN.

I don't see any relevance to Gincko's comment in this response.

The conference in Durban was an annual event, the UNFCC's COP conferences occur every year. They are intended to bring member states together (of which there are some 190) to draft and agree upon a variety of efforts to create a coherent international treaty on curbing emissions and helping third world countries cope with and adapt to climate change.

Such agreements are made difficult to achieve by the fact that developed countries see curbing of emissions as posing difficulties for their economies and the fact that China and India aren't included in the "developed countries" category and as such have not to date been subjected to the the degree of cuts in their emissions that developed countries have been.

The science itself is not necessarily a topic of discussion at these conferences, which involve policymakers wrangling with policy issues. Hardly any of them don't agree with the AGW hypothesis, what they have trouble agreeing on are all the why's and wherefore's of climate change effects and their timing, and even on that score there's not a lot of disagreement.

The principle issue pertains to the economics of cutting emissions and transitioning from a fossil fuel-based energy system to a non-emitting energy system and again on this front there is wide agreement regarding the necessity of doing this, just not a lot of agreement on when it needs to be done.

So COP conferences don't involve a venue in which the veracity of AGW is argued or debated, and hence it's difficult to relate your response to Gincko's comment, which pertains to the science not the myriad policiy debates it may drive.

andyx1205 wrote:

FactMan wrote:You've made note of this before and I questioned it then and I question it here. Can you point us to MIT's reporting on this?

I must have missed the post.

Climate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The most recent global climate report fails to capture the reality of the changing Arctic seascape, according to MIT researchers. (Aug 2011)

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/arct ... -0810.html

According to new research from MIT, the most recent global climate report fails to capture trends in Arctic sea-ice thinning and drift, and in some cases substantially underestimates these trends. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, forecasts an ice-free Arctic summer by the year 2100, among other predictions. But Pierre Rampal, a postdoc in the Department of Earth, Atmosphere, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS), and colleagues say it may happen several decades earlier.

It’s all in the mechanics

Established in 1988 by the United Nations, the IPCC issues reports that represent an average of many findings, and is sometimes criticized for forecasting according to the “lowest common denominator” of climate research. Still, many policymakers put large stock in its predictions, so Rampal says it is important to continuously evaluate and improve their accuracy.

After comparing IPCC models with actual data, Rampal and his collaborators concluded that the forecasts were significantly off: Arctic sea ice is thinning, on average, four times faster than the models say, and it’s drifting twice as quickly.

The findings are forthcoming in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Oceans. Co-authors are Jérôme Weiss and Clotilde Dubois of France’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/Université Joseph Fourier and Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques, respectively, and Jean-Michel Campin, a research scientist in EAPS.

Part of the problem, Rampal says, may be inadequate modeling of mechanical forces acting on and within the ice in the Arctic basin. Thus far, the IPCC models have largely focused on temperature fluctuations, which are one way to lose or gain ice. But according to Rampal, mechanics can be just as important: Forces such as wind and ocean currents batter the ice, causing it to break up. Ice that’s in small pieces behaves differently than ice in one large mass, which affects its overall volume and surface area.

“If you make a mistake at this level of the model, you can expect that you are missing something very important,” Rampal says. (continue)

We are cramming very, very tight, and any discrepancies in the data, meaning that the worse effects of global warming will occur much earlier than commonly thought, will make it very hard for us to adapt and develop the required technology.

Can we really afford to take the chance? How much longer will we procrastinate?

Thanks for posting this andyx1205, much appreciated!

Now I'm gonna go through it all and see if I can find the sense of it. One point of concern I noticed at MITs website is they used the IPCC's AR3 projections to compare their own, not AR4, which is the latest from the international organization, But I'll have to spend more time digging through this before I can reach any definitive conclusions about it.

As for how long we'll procrastinate, they agreed in Durban to procastinate until 2020, almost a decade away. Talk about kicking the can down the road!

And I for one don't think any sort of meaningful agreement will be reached even at that late date. It appears we're going to procrastinate until the world is suffering very significant climate change and the facts of the matter have become truly undeniable, and by then we'll have waited so long that we'll be unable to avoid even worse consequences, assuming the global economy doesn't collapse between now and then.

In effect, the world is sleepwalking its way into some very troubling times to come.

The currency of political capital is borrowed from the future: more prosperity now, let the people inhabiting the future sort our their own problems.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:

Brunitski wrote:Aaaaand finally, to my best knowledge (trying to find a source for this) is that the change in nomenclature from Global warming to Climate Change occurred when the Bush administration discovered that the words "Climate Change" polled better than "Global Warming".

Here is the republican memo (page 142): http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

Found that link from here, which i posted a few pages back: http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... untz-memo/

The "global warming changed to climate change" canard has been done to death...

Wow, and thank you so much IHNFP, I've never actually read the memo before... point 2 page 8 "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but is not yet closed; there is still an opportunity to challenge the science." And this was in 2001, note to those who argue the science today. The debate is now closed. Thank you for playing.

Brunitski wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:

Brunitski wrote:Aaaaand finally, to my best knowledge (trying to find a source for this) is that the change in nomenclature from Global warming to Climate Change occurred when the Bush administration discovered that the words "Climate Change" polled better than "Global Warming".

Here is the republican memo (page 142): http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

Found that link from here, which i posted a few pages back: http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... untz-memo/

The "global warming changed to climate change" canard has been done to death...

Wow, and thank you so much IHNFP, I've never actually read the memo before... point 2 page 8 "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but is not yet closed; there is still an opportunity to challenge the science." And this was in 2001, note to those who argue the science today. The debate is now closed. Thank you for playing.

Yes, Mr. Luntz, a noted Republican advisor and all round clunkhead.

That's what happened on the policy side, we all know that the words "climate change" have been part of the intergovernmental panel's name since its inception 20 years ago.

Are you listening, JB? you need to get all this.

Globe wrote:

ginckgo wrote:

Why do you insist on only relying on the version of 'science' you get through the mass media? The scientific literature on AGW always states uncertainties, and is usually very conservative in their conclusions.

I know that, but it sure as hell is not communicated sufficiently to the mass media.
If you read the danish mass media they present it as if every single human being is facing certain and agonizing death and the planet will end up a smoldering cinder.

There is orders of magnitude more agenda, bias and belief in any single denier of AGW than there is in the whole pro-AGW community.

One word:
DURBAN.

I'd love to know why you require such certainty from all parties Globe. When have the media ever done anything but inflame issues? Do you always rail when the media claims one thing and reality shows another? Added to which, lets assume the media is panic mongering and the result of which is that pollies get off their arses and start taking an inevitable problem seriously (use of fossil fuels) leading to cleaner everything, what's the harm? Seriously; I would like you to declare your main objections to the current stance of the IPCC in point form. Please?

It would be good having a thread devoid of AGW deniers/skeptics so we can have some good decent discussion but anyways ... anyone want to share their thoughts on this?

http://www.alternet.org/environment/153 ... ge/?page=1

Deal Reached in Durban But Scientists Say it Won't Avert Catastrophic Climate Change
Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said: "This empty shell of a plan leaves the planet hurtling towards catastrophic climate change."

"What is positive in Durban is that governments have reopened the door to a legally binding global agreement involving the world's major emitters, a door which many thought had been shut at the Copenhagen conference in 2009," said Bill Hare, director at Climate Action Tracker.

"What remains to be done is to take more ambitious actions to reduce emissions, and until this is done we are still headed to over 3C warming. There are still no new pledges on the table and the process agreed in Durban towards raising the ambition and increasing emission reductions is uncertain in its outcome."

Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics said the current pledges from countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions were not enough to hold global temperatures to 2C above pre-industrial levels, beyond which scientists say climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible. .....

te that global annual emissions would need to fall to about 44bn tonnes in 2020, to less than 35bn tonnes in 2030 and less than 20bn tonnes in 2050.

Ward said: "[That means the current] pledges for emissions reductions are not consistent with the two degrees target, although they would, if delivered, move us halfway between 'business as usual' and the path on which we would need to be in 2020."

(read full article)

Another article btw believes that we are headed not simply "over 3C" but a "catastrophic 4C of warming [that] remains our final destination, without a heroic change of course."

What is it then, are we heading towards the right direction though not enough and most likely will over 3C, possibly over 4C? Reading about climate change and what we're doing to address the problem (or rather the extent to which we are addressing this problem) makes me quite pessimistic.

andyx1205 wrote:It would be good having a thread devoid of AGW deniers/skeptics so we can have some good decent discussion but anyways ... anyone want to share their thoughts on this?

http://www.alternet.org/environment/153 ... ge/?page=1

Deal Reached in Durban But Scientists Say it Won't Avert Catastrophic Climate Change
Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said: "This empty shell of a plan leaves the planet hurtling towards catastrophic climate change."

"What is positive in Durban is that governments have reopened the door to a legally binding global agreement involving the world's major emitters, a door which many thought had been shut at the Copenhagen conference in 2009," said Bill Hare, director at Climate Action Tracker.

"What remains to be done is to take more ambitious actions to reduce emissions, and until this is done we are still headed to over 3C warming. There are still no new pledges on the table and the process agreed in Durban towards raising the ambition and increasing emission reductions is uncertain in its outcome."

Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics said the current pledges from countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions were not enough to hold global temperatures to 2C above pre-industrial levels, beyond which scientists say climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible. .....

te that global annual emissions would need to fall to about 44bn tonnes in 2020, to less than 35bn tonnes in 2030 and less than 20bn tonnes in 2050.

Ward said: "[That means the current] pledges for emissions reductions are not consistent with the two degrees target, although they would, if delivered, move us halfway between 'business as usual' and the path on which we would need to be in 2020."

(read full article)

Another article btw believes that we are headed not simply "over 3C" but a "catastrophic 4C of warming [that] remains our final destination, without a heroic change of course."

What is it then, are we heading towards the right direction though not enough and most likely will over 3C, possibly over 4C? Reading about climate change and what we're doing to address the people (or rather the extent to which we are addressing this problem) makes me quite pessimistic.

I grind my teeth to nubs in frustration. 5 years ago (I'll see if I can dig up the source) I read that a 2.2 degree rise in temp would result in 80% of all species going extinct, malaria extending a further 30 deg out of it's current belt, death of all coral in tropical seas and a whole bunch of stuff that galvanized me to get into the debate. I know that perhaps the forecasts are better now, but I cannot find much hope in any considered opinions for prospects based on a 3 plus degree rise in temps. I really do understand the desperation of some "ecoterrorists". I feel like putting a gun to the head of every negotiator and forcing them to take action. I just cannot believe we have had another Copenhagen moment.

If we were serious about climate change, agreements would have been reached and action taken back in the nineties. Nothing is going to happen except more talk because oil is blood and no amount of talk can ever challenge blood. No developed nation will agree to cut their own throat, and no developing nation will give up on their quest to catch up with the west.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Brunitski wrote:
OK.

I don't really care how you would like to appear; you are not widening the debate, you are not stimulating thought, you are not a courageous lone wolf standing bravely against a tide of wrongheadedness. You are confusing the lurkers. The reason that people like myself spend time on your arguments is because there is so much confusion in the mind of the public, caused by arguments like yours - arguments characterized by "lets not be hasty, this is all normal, don't panic, etc, etc" - which are flying in the face of solid dependable, repeatable science.

All I can say is I wish I had your stamina, Brunitski!

Good job!

Hai thank yew!

*bows*