Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Draft of IPCC 2013 Report Already Circulating

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the things-to-come dept.

Earth 306

First time accepted submitter iggymanz writes "More precise modeling has changed some long term climate predictions: sea levels to rise almost a meter more than present over the next century, but past dire warnings of stronger storms or more frequent droughts won't pan out. Instead there will be less strong storms, but peak winds in the tropics might be slightly higher. Temperature rise of global average will be about 3 degree C total, including the 1 degree C rise over the 20th century. In places where precipitation is frequent, it will become even more frequent; in arid areas, the tendency will be to become even drier. Some new arid areas are expected to appear in the south of N. America, South Africa and Mediterranean countries. Overall, hardly a doomsday scenario."

cancel ×

306 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The political construct is unraveling (-1, Troll)

hessian (467078) | about 2 years ago | (#42241207)

Global warming existed to justify wealth transfer from the first to third worlds.

It was always a political agenda, with scientists taken along for the ride because they could get funding that way.

Re:The political construct is unraveling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241245)

It was always a political agenda, with scientists taken along for the ride because they could get funding that way.

SOURCE ?

Re:The political construct is unraveling (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241261)

Common sense?

Re:The political construct is unraveling (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241297)

Republic Broadcasting Network.

Re:The political construct is unraveling (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241283)

No, it was partly to justify wealth transfer from first world to the richest individuals, through a third world proxy ruled by corrupt officials. It's obvious now that the Kioto Protocol has failed, the UN has created a new excuse to perform the same operation (now, instead of buying them "carbon credits", rich countries will have to give them "compensation money for climate change")

The rest was to justify the move to alternate (worse) forms of energy, because it's expected China and India will increase the cost of oil now that they are starting to abandon the socialist-based economies that put them into starving misery for decades. USA, Japan and Europe won't have it as easy now that they have to compete with these awakening giants for energy production.

Re:The political construct is unraveling (5, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | about 2 years ago | (#42241721)

Baloney. It's the political hacks who pounce on something like this and say "Look! The scientists revised their consensus predictions, *obviously* it's just politics because the truth never changes." They say this because politics is the only thing they (think) they understand. It's just as silly as when they get up on their high horses about "revisionist" historians -- revising history is what *actual* historians do. Revising climate predictions is what climatologists do, and in any case the rumors of what the new IPCC (you like them now?) forecasts will contain is well within the range that's been discussed all along, except for a somewhat more pessimistic sea level rise figure. If you'd actually been paying attention to science news instead of political pundits, you'd know that the recent buzz has been the remarkable accuracy of the original 1990 IPCC report (source: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1763.html [nature.com] ). This is a remarkable piece of support for the anthropogenic hypothesis, since the computer models used in the late 80s relied heavily on atmospheric CO2 accumulation.

The only reason people like you think climate change is politically driven myth is because you weren't paying attention *before* it became a political issue. It was vigorously debated in the scientific literature well before it became a political hot potato -- check the abstracts on Google Scholar if you don't believe me. Now you can pooh pooh a 2 degree rise in global average temperature and 1 m rise in sea level, but that's because you have no idea what the effects of those changes will be. A 1m mean sea level rise means substantially more frequent flooding events. A 2 degree temperature rise has a huge effect on the distribution of vector borne diseases.

It sounds benign to say that there will be "new arid zones in the Southern United States", but only if you don't think about what the appearance of a new arid zone would mean.

Re:The political construct is unraveling (2)

lordholm (649770) | about 2 years ago | (#42241743)

IPCC being a body with representation from different states (with a lot of political interest in the reports), that more or less work with consensus, their reports are often watered down when released. This means that the published science is often more pessimistic than the IPCC report.

Re:The political construct is unraveling (1)

r1348 (2567295) | about 2 years ago | (#42241815)

Since when Al Gore's bank accounts are in the third world?

That's right, ya punk (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42242059)

It was a scheme to transfer wealth from the weak and helpless First World to the almighty and influential Third World. Too bad it didn't actually work 'cause nobody gave a shit... If only those meddly kids and their dog hadn't intervened!!! Well, back to the Evil Plan drawing board...
Also, your mom says you forgot to take your meds, again. Remember the incident with the tinfoil? We don't want another "tinfoil incident", do we?

They need to include some sex scenes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241217)

If they want to flog this dead horse of a fad back to life.

I still don't get it... (1, Troll)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#42241221)

How did real estate in Florida ever get so overpriced in the run up to 2008, if anyone out there is taking rising sea levels seriously?

Re:I still don't get it... (1, Funny)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 years ago | (#42241247)

funny thing is sea levels are slightly higher around the equator. An average 1 meter rise means like a few centimeters at best around New York, and Florida underwater.

Re:I still don't get it... (2, Insightful)

yotto (590067) | about 2 years ago | (#42241253)

Because the scum of the Earth doesn't mind ignoring facts while siphoning money from the stupid?

Re:I still don't get it... (4, Interesting)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 2 years ago | (#42241827)

Talking of stupid, anybody who takes this IPCC "draft" trolling seriously are being duped. The IPCC are climate change deniers [blogspot.com.es] , hiding behind a thin veil that can hardly be called "science" [blogspot.com.es]

The end game of the massive well funded disinformation campaign [wikipedia.org] being to influence as many people as possible into taking strong climate change denial opinion [slashdot.org] . The problem is, the likes of Fox news and troll news like this one are succeeding very well in this aim, http://environment.yale.edu/climate/the-climate-note/ [slashdot.org] >as this graph shows. Science and evidence be damned.

IPCC Disinformation campaign:

The slide above comes from the presentation of Hans von Storch to the InterAcademy Review of the IPCC [interacademycouncil.net] , presented earlier this week in Montreal. The slide references the misrepresentation of the issue of disasters and climate change [blogspot.com] by the IPCC. von Storch is very clear in his views:

IPCC authors have decided to violate the mission of the IPCC, by presenting disinformation.

Not only did the IPCC misrepresent the science of disasters and climate change, but went so far as to issue a highly misleading press release [blogspot.com] to try to spin the issue and put an unprepared IPCC WG2 chair on the BBC to try to defend the undefensible [blogspot.com] . I was promised a response from the IPCC to my concerns, a response that has never been provided.

A former head of the IPCC, Robert Watson, says the following in the context of the 2035 glacier issue [nature.com] , but could be equally applied to the disaster issue:

To me the fundamental problem was that when the error was found it was handled in a totally and utterly atrocious manner.

The IAC Review of the IPCC is fully aware of this issue, and it will be interesting to see what their report says on the topic. Meantime, the IPCC is continuing its preparations for its next assessment in business-as-usual fashion.

Re:I still don't get it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241257)

No. 50% of Americans don't believe in global warming, the other half will sell to a bigger sucker.

Re:I still don't get it... (5, Funny)

tolkienfan (892463) | about 2 years ago | (#42241409)

Global warming doesn't care whether you believe in it.

Paren't point (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241505)

Global warming doesn't care whether you believe in it.

But the people who don't believe in it will not even consider that their Florida beachside home may be under water in a couple of decades. Therefore, the folks who see the seas rising will sell their beach side properties for a premium to the folks who are: sticking their heads in the sand; folks who think GW is a Liberal hoax; and folks who think the property is just high enough that they won't be effected.

1. Find people who don't believe in GW.

2. Sell (currently beach side; underwater later) property to them.

3. Profit!

Re:Paren't point (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241527)

But the people who don't believe in it will not even consider that their Florida beachside home may be under water in a couple of decades

Look at the people getting beachfront homes before the whole global warming thing. Nearly without exception they're all wealthier (though not necessarily 1%ers) paying top dollar for beachfront property, then crying to FEMA when the hurricane wiped them out. Then they'd build on the same spot again.

Rationality is not humans' strong point.

Re:Paren't point (4, Insightful)

runeghost (2509522) | about 2 years ago | (#42242061)

How is getting someone else to pay for building you a brand new house every decade or two irrational?

Re:I still don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241635)

Neither does Santa Claus - what's your point? :)

Re:I still don't get it... (5, Funny)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | about 2 years ago | (#42241839)

Global warming doesn't care whether you believe in it.

Stop anthropomorphizing Global Warming. It doesn't like that.

Re:I still don't get it... (4, Interesting)

blindseer (891256) | about 2 years ago | (#42241965)

I believe that whether or not AGW is true the response should be the same. More nuclear and natural gas. Less ethanol and foreign sourced oil. Drop the stupid subsidies on windmills, solar panels, and electric cars.

Electric cars are now a mature technology. We no longer need to subsidize them since people are buying top dollar electric cars anyway. Electric car subsidies are just the wealthy legislating more more to the wealthy so they can by their status symbols. Also, until we replace coal power with nuclear these cars produce more carbon than a gasoline, diesel, or especially natural gas counterpart.

Windmills rarely produce a net carbon savings because they are still backed up by inefficient natural gas turbines or, the largest culprit of carbon output, coal.

End this insanity with CFL bulbs. I don't like the idea of having fragile, mercury filled, glass tubes hanging over where I eat and sleep. If we had nuclear instead of coal it would not matter what kind of lighting I chose when it comes to carbon output.

If we cannot figure out whether or not ethanol actually saves on carbon or not then perhaps we should not be dumping so much money into it. If people want ethanol then let them have it, just don't make me buy it so you can feel better about yourself. Like the CFL bulb example above this would all be moot if we could get some natural gas and electric (from nuclear) vehicles on the road.

The nice thing about all of this is that it involves reducing government influence on our lives, increases the choices of the consumer, lower taxes, greater wealth for all, and no painful transitions in infrastructure. This is also precisely why it will not happen. AGW is about bigger government, not saving the world.

Re:I still don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241285)

Because people don't buy houses with their own money.

Re:I still don't get it... (4, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#42241321)

How did real estate in Florida ever get so overpriced in the run up to 2008, if anyone out there is taking rising sea levels seriously?

Simple: Only old people go to live there so they figure they'll be dead when it happens...

Re:I still don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241653)

I've always assumed that, if push comes to shove, Disney will build an 8m high dyke around Florida. That's why I wasn't too concerned about buying Florida property, though I did it in 2009 at the bottom of the market (so far)...

Re:I still don't get it... (1)

r1348 (2567295) | about 2 years ago | (#42241875)

Florida being invaded by giant lesbians would make it a way more interesting place to live in...

Re:I still don't get it... (2)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42241329)

Question doesn't make sense. Its all "greater fool theory". Doesn't matter if its a bad buy because the price is high or the sea is rising. As long as you think there's a greater fool out there to buy it from you at a higher price (because real estate only goes up!) then go for it. Like all bubbles, it works great until it doesn't.

Also if you think modern McMansions are built to last the century or so required to be flooded, you have a rough discovery process ahead. I don't think flooding in a century is a serious concern if a hurricane will destroy it every decade and/or black mold and/or mutant alligator infestations and/or fresh groundwater will all be gone in a couple decades and/or its unlivable for most people without stable electrical grid AC etc. Its kind of like me being worried that within perhaps 5 thousand years its nearly guaranteed that my house will be underneath a two mile sheet of glacial ice, because its happened a zillion times before and will happen again.... yeah but I don't think my 1950s ranch will be around in 6950 AD for other reasons, so I'm not concerned with the inevitable return of the glaciers.

Exploding bullshit detector here... (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#42241405)

Olaf Stampf [realclimate.org] .

Re:I still don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241349)

How did real estate in Florida ever get so overpriced in the run up to 2008, if anyone out there is taking rising sea levels seriously?

Because people are stupid. Why else would they build where there are tornados regularly. Hey, this place gets plenty of earth quakes, what a great place to put a city...

One day San Francisco is going to bobbing about in the Pacific and everyone will be surprised it happened

Re:I still don't get it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241513)

I bought in the center of the state. I expect to have waterfront property in a few years... perhaps even my own small island nation.

ENOUGH ALREADY !! CAN'T DO SHIT ABOUT IT ANYWAY !! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241267)

Just sit back and chill !! You can't do anything about it !! NO !! You CAN'T !!

Re:ENOUGH ALREADY !! CAN'T DO SHIT ABOUT IT ANYWAY (3, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#42241341)

Just sit back and chill !! You can't do anything about it !! NO !! You CAN'T !!

Not as long as the disinformation campaign [wikipedia.org] is running in the USA, no.

Re:ENOUGH ALREADY !! CAN'T DO SHIT ABOUT IT ANYWAY (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241727)

Just sit back and chill !! You can't do anything about it !! NO !! You CAN'T !!

Not as long as the disinformation campaign [wikipedia.org] is running in the USA, no.

That disinformation campaign wouldn't work if not for the alarmist Chicken Littles all going over-the-top batshit crazy with their alarmism and ruining the credibility of anyone trying to speak calmly about climate change.

Re:ENOUGH ALREADY !! CAN'T DO SHIT ABOUT IT ANYWAY (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42241397)

Just sit back and chill !! You can't do anything about it !! NO !! You CAN'T !!

Sure you can. Move. Its not that hard, depending where you live. I live near a great lake, the supposed increase in extremes of weather is roughly equivalent to moving about 5% further away from the lake. So I need to move "about" a mile east. Having to move a mile toward the lake sucks for the rich people already living on the lakeshore, but they're the people most able to afford it anyway.

My distant ancestors immigrated to farmland about 100 miles north roughly the same distance from the lake. Absolute worst case screaming eco-nut scenario however highly unlikely, means my GGG-grandkids would have to move 100 miles north to my ancestral homeland to have the same climate as when I was a kid. No big deal.

Wake me when they're growing bananas in Chicago out in the open air, or a hurricane strikes Milwaukee, then I'll get worried about it.

Alien Civilizations (3, Interesting)

arisvega (1414195) | about 2 years ago | (#42241281)

Now that the number of planets around stars in this galaxy alone is in the ballpark of several billions, one starts to think that the reason for no apparent alien civilizations similar to this one is because they boil themselves out .. they simply raise the temperature of their own place before they are able to either counter the effect, or before they are tech savvy enough to colonize someplace else: they either boil, starve, or poison themselves.

If this projection is correct, and the effect grows at an exponential rate, it will be 1 degree for the last century, (order of) 3 for the next, 9 for the one after that, and then it is either super-tech or extinction.

Careful now, humans.

Re:Alien Civilizations (3, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | about 2 years ago | (#42241373)

Now that the number of planets around stars in this galaxy alone is in the ballpark of several billions, one starts to think that the reason for no apparent alien civilizations similar to this one is because they boil themselves out .. they simply raise the temperature of their own place before they are able to either counter the effect, or before they are tech savvy enough to colonize someplace else.

This idea has been around for a few decades now. In Larry Niven's Ringworld [amazon.com] , the alien race the Puppeteers had moved their homeworld further away from their sun some centuries before the start of the novel, in order to avoid the death by heat that Niven felt would accompany technological development.

Re:Alien Civilizations (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#42241781)

Those books were garbage and I'm ashamed to have read them. Someone told me they were hard scifi... but instead it was a furry anime style series of bad science. All of his books, in fact, are pretty much garbage.

Re:Alien Civilizations (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42241431)

they either boil, starve, or poison themselves.

I'd put money on primary energy. Base your whole culture and economy on petrochemicals, use them up, then ? There could be a trillion "successful" civilizations out there right now living a vaguely ancient/medieval lifestyle, with legends of having billions of people burning hundreds of millions of barrels of oil in their distant past, but today its a couple million peasants with wax candles and ox power.

Its a depressing anti-fission anti-fusion anecdote... if any other culture in the universe could have harnessed fission or fusion effectively, we'd currently be a province of their galactic star empire, or at least we'd have detected them by now. Since that seems not to be the case, I'm not overly optimistic about our odds with those energy sources. So when the oil and coal is burned up, that's it. Back to 1700 at best.

Re:Alien Civilizations (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 2 years ago | (#42241503)

You're saying it like it's a BAD thing :)

Re:Alien Civilizations (2)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42241787)

Yeah it would be pretty bad. Fictionally, exploring the 1700s has been pretty popular to the point of tiresome. Nobody has explored taking modern culture back to 1700s tech. Even the "1632" series assumes the world's resources are ready for taking (again). "Survivalist" lit doesn't talk about much but the gun battles on the way down. A 1700s tech planet with 2000s culture would be pretty interesting to explore, after all the annoying population reduction is long taken care of. Scientists, doctors, engineers who have all the knowledge but none of the tech would be interesting.

Re:Alien Civilizations (3, Insightful)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 2 years ago | (#42241525)

For all we know we are a province of their empire. Being conquered doesn't mean you are entitled to knowing about it if your technological advancement is so low that you can't participate in the greater galaxy...

Re:Alien Civilizations (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42241735)

Participate does not equal see. The natives saw the guys with muskets and cannons and giant wooden ships, even if they couldn't get involved in court politics or academic research back home.

Another interesting sci fi book plot or whatever is more than one group of savages (aka us, interpret us as pronoun or united states as you wish) might exist. Sure the neo-roman empire ignores and laughs at us savages as a group, but there should be other just slightly more civilized planets, yet still savages compared to the overlords, doing all kinds of stuff we'd notice, like tossing radioactive waste into their sun screwing up the stellar spectrum, or broadcasting RF all over the place, or doing strange things with neutrinos and graviton sources, or extensive civil engineering with H-bombs, or terraforming other planets in their solar system, or attempting to build a dyson sphere, or fill their upper atmosphere with fluorocarbons, all stuff we'd see other savages doing even if the overlords ignored all of us savages as a group, which is interesting.

I've read Kraus et al about interstellar radio detection, I wonder if anyone out there has run similar numbers for pulsed neutrino generation and detection. I don't care quite enough to shovel thru arxiv for hours, but if some /.er has a useful lead to speed the search? That would make an interesting SETI technique with a built in "you must be this tall" sign to keep the rabble out, apparently EM radiation isn't nearly sufficient. "You must build a cryogenic 100 KM gravitation wave detector to participate in the intergalactic interspecies internet" or "You must be able to generate, control, and detect a neutrino flux equivalent to a major particle accelerator with a 10 amp beam current to participate in the interstellar interspecies internet"

Re:Alien Civilizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42242051)

If they are advanced enough they simply replace astronomers with replicas or block any transmission they don't like at the boundary of the solar system. They could also just hack the telescopes to give consistent information that they like. Or maybe they implant chips into everyone's brains that make us unaware of anything they want us to be unaware of. Maybe half of what we think is people actually have 5 tentacles coming out of their eyes and we just don't know it because that is removed from our awareness. Just messing with telescopes is probably the easiest intervention since it requires only that they detect all telescopes powerful enough to catch them out. Even if they fail to detect some stealth telescope, they can intervene more forcefully in those isolated cases. If someone is really advanced and determined, there's few limits on what you could imagine them doing.

Re:Alien Civilizations (3, Insightful)

semi-extrinsic (1997002) | about 2 years ago | (#42241773)

An interesting counter-argument is that we could, by chance, be one of the first civilizations to achieve the technological level we are currently at. Given what we know (or think we know) about the history of star formation in the universe, e.g. that the early stars going nova are the primary source of heavier elements (required for fission, hell, even for semiconductors), this is not unreasonable.

Re:Alien Civilizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42242027)

But if there's some sort of bell curve it would be less likely that we're on one of the extreme ends.

We probably just need to be patient until James Webb, ATLAST and other space telescopes pan out.

Re:Alien Civilizations (3, Insightful)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 2 years ago | (#42241551)

We have been polluting heavily for a hundred years or so, but we are already able to counter the effect of global warming (look at all the schemes for changing climate, from space mirrors to simulated volcanic eruptions, to painting a small part of the earth white). The biggest obstacles are willpower for funding and lack of need/urgency.

Re:Alien Civilizations (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#42241677)

We're turning Earth into the Planet of Love [wikipedia.org] !

Re:Alien Civilizations (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#42241843)

We can't "Boil ourselves out" it's one thing to claim we have the tech to change the global climate by releasing gasses that were locked away during a previously hot era, but the idea that we could KILL the earth is completely preposterous. At worst, we'll make it uncomfortable for ourselves, cause a mini extinction event and the world will move on with our without us. If without us, another intelligent race will come along eventually.

How surprising... (0, Flamebait)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about 2 years ago | (#42241303)

It is more apocalyptic than ever before. And I betya that the IPCC 2014 is even more horrendous!
When will it become so silly that even the most hard-core greenies cant take it serious anymore? The earth has been much warmer and much cooler than these day's, the difference is that now we are here with a lot. That is correlation, not causation...
For those who have some difficulties telling them apart, go and do a statistics class. For you who already did that; here is an obligatory xkcd reference...

Re:How surprising... (1)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about 2 years ago | (#42241315)

http://xkcd.com/552/
Now with link...
Sorry...

Re:How surprising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241361)

I wonder if Randall Munroe cries when he sees posts like this?

Re:How surprising... (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241377)

Sorry, but what do you expect a scientist to do?

"Oh well, we did the prediction as scientifically accurate as possible, but it's still a pretty gloomy outcome predicted.
Better tone down the ecological and economical consequences so they can continue with business as usual"?

Re:How surprising... (-1, Flamebait)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about 2 years ago | (#42241547)

What I expect a scientist NOT to do is scaremongering like:

1950's Peak oil; no more oil in 1970... never happened
1960's Big freeze; a new ice age was about to start (because of constantly FALLING global temperatures)... nothing happened
1970`s Acid rain will wipe us all out by 1985... never happened
1970's Overpopulation will lead to famines and mass extinction of humans... nothing happened
1976 Swine flu will wipe us all out... nothing happened
1970's Peak oil; no more oil in 1990's... never happened
1970's The ozone layer will disappear. CFC's were banned; the ozone layer is still growing... nothing spectacular happened
1980's AIDS will wipe all the gay's out... later replaced by 'will wipe us all out'... nothing happened
2000's Peak Oil; no more oil in 2020... bit early to tell... but I have a hunch
2003: SARS will wipe us all out... nothing happened
2005: Avian flu will wipe us all out... nothing happened
2012: IPCC 2013 tells us that the sea level will rise six feet by next January

What I do expect a scientist to do is keep calm and give an accurate prediction with all the if's and but's included, not an alarmist prediction that gets your face on the news. If there is a scientist in a 'prime time talk-show' I immediately stop believing them. The story has to be dumbed down to such an extend that it becomes about as scientifically rigorous as this IPCC prank that is going on for far to long.
Get a 'shopping bag for life' and a 'special light bulb' if you really believe that it will make a difference, but leave me in peace please.

Re:How surprising... (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42241631)

Acid rain we avoided with a cap and trade system on sulfer dioxides. Much like what they want to do with CO2 since it is already proven to work.

This is a real problem these days, if we solve any issue before the break down of society we get a bunch of ill informed mouth breathers beating their chests claiming there never was an issue.

Re:How surprising... (2)

apcullen (2504324) | about 2 years ago | (#42241889)

Acid Rain was moderated with a cap and trade, not avoided. Anyone with a swimming pool in the northeast will tell you they have to correct the ph of their pool every time it rains.

Re:How surprising... (3, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 2 years ago | (#42241879)

Maybe you didn't get your science information from the news which as you state likes alarmist predictions you'd have a better understanding of what scientists have actually been saying about all those things for all those years?

Re:How surprising... (5, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#42242067)

Actually peak oil has happened. Why do you think you are paying $4 for gas, and we are drilling EVERYWHERE for the last dregs, not to mention trying to process tar sands. And why do you think economic growth worldwide sucks? Why do you think global oil production is in a downtrend?

1960's big freeze - I call bullshit. There was never a scientific consensus that this would happen.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm [skepticalscience.com]

1970's - Ozone layer was preserved because of a concerted global response to remove the cause of it's shrinkage. Duh.

1980's - Aids has killed 15 million people. Go talk to people living in countries where it is pandemic and then come back and tell me nothing has happened.

http://www.avert.org/aids-impact-africa.htm [avert.org]

2003 - SARS. Please cite a claim that it was going to wipe us all out.

2005 - Avian Flu - ditto

2012 - Oh BS.

Alarmist predictions are made alarmist by news reporters. The actual predictions have been pretty much accurate.

http://phys.org/news/2012-12-pair-global.html [phys.org]

Re:How surprising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241417)

It is more apocalyptic than ever before. And I betya that the IPCC 2014 is even more horrendous!

I bet IPCC 2214 will be even more apocalyptic. Even if you just read the history section and skip over the predictions.

Re:How surprising... (2)

tolkienfan (892463) | about 2 years ago | (#42241471)

Correlation is an important tool. It might be the most important tool.

But, climate scientists use more than correlation. They build ever more accurate models, and test them for their ability to make predictions. Like a lot of science actually.

Re:How surprising... (1, Interesting)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#42241951)

They build ever more accurate models, and test them for their ability to make predictions.

There are now dozens of supercomputers that have been built for the purpose of climate modeling, and on those, hundreds of different climate models have been run.

Now please tell us which one of those hundreds of models shows the best skill at prediction.

Surely we know which model that is.. and surely we know which supercomputers were involved in the simulations.. and surely future funding for bigger and better supercomputers is going towards the refinement of only the best models..

A citation indicating which model shows the best skill at prediction should be pretty easy given these facts. You don't have one because their prediction skill isnt what is being tested.. its their fitting skill that is tested as a proxy for prediction. They dont wait to see which models show skill at prediction.. they put in for new funding for larger supercomputers immediately after they can show that they can fit the data.

On the whole (5, Interesting)

Trisha-Beth (9231) | about 2 years ago | (#42241305)

I'd rather have more accurate models than more precise models.

Bad models don't get any better by adding decimal places.

I expect that accurate modelling of something as complex as climate is really, really hard.

Re:On the whole (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241433)

They're completely ignoring the biosphere's side of the equation. A lot of plants and animals won't survive the "slight" change in temperature and weather. A lot more, won't/can't breed if the conditions don't permit them. When so many links in the chain get broken, we'll get the apocalypse anyway.

Re:On the whole (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 2 years ago | (#42241491)

Plants and animals with such narrow ranges are far more susceptible to deforestation and encroachment than to GW...

Re:On the whole (1)

Chatterton (228704) | about 2 years ago | (#42241681)

Some animals are far more susceptible to such narrow change in GW than to deforestation and encroachment:
http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/climate_change/effects_on_ocean_animals.php [neaq.org]

"Climate change directly affects the reproduction of sea turtles in three ways. First, sea level rise will affect significant nesting beach areas on low-level sand beaches such as Bonaire, the Maldives and the Great Barrier Reef. Second, rising temperatures increase the chance that sand temperature will exceed the upper limit for egg incubation, which is 34 degrees C. Third, rising temperatures bias the sex ratio toward females because temperature during incubation determines the sex of the egg. Loggerhead turtle nests in Florida are already producing 90 percent females owing to high temperatures, and if warming raises temperatures by an additional 1 degree C or more, no males will be produced there. "

Re:On the whole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241435)

Or as I say it, really really subjective. The modelling, that is.

Which is why you can't have frothing, raging climate scientists who want to meet people in dark alleys with baseball bats.

Re:On the whole (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241453)

It's not that hard, but it's useless as climate is a well known chaotic system, so it doesn't matter how precise the model is, it's guaranteed to completely deviate from reality within a few simulation steps. In other words, its predictive power is zero, same with economic models.

Re:On the whole (5, Insightful)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | about 2 years ago | (#42241967)

This is a deep misunderstanding of complex non-linear dynamic systems. You may not be able to say what the PRECISE state of the system will be, as in exactly when it will rain for the weather, or which region will have exactly what rainfall for climate, but you CAN quite confidently map the basins of the various attractors and understand the ensemble state of the system. In other words you don't have to know the precise climate in every little region to know the overall climate. This is ESPECIALLY true of the climate because there is a phase space that represents the possible states. In other words the laws of physics basically govern the overall climate, if one area turns out a bit drier than you predicted then another one has to be a bit wetter because the rain has to fall SOMEWHERE. Excess heat in the system has to go somewhere, and eventually it has to drive increased evaporation, increased temperatures, etc. This stuff is just constrained by basic physical laws. The only real arguments at this point are about ACTUAL regional conditions and details like whether or not the extra rainfall in an area will fall in big storms or more small storms for instance. It is very true that models will not precisely predict these things. It may be impossible to do so, but that doesn't make the models useless at all.

Re:On the whole (1)

mapkinase (958129) | about 2 years ago | (#42241483)

>I expect that accurate modelling of something as complex as climate is really, really hard.

especially, 100 years forward.

I am not sure there is a big difference between my trust in this report's prediction of the future and the one in Time Machine.

Re:On the whole (3, Insightful)

tolkienfan (892463) | about 2 years ago | (#42241555)

I'm pretty sure they mean more accurate. Many people incorrectly use "precise" and "accurate" interchangeably.
The article mentions using faster computers. Anyone who's done modelling knows that you can do more steps in the same amount of time, resulting in increased accuracy. They also mention better modelling.

How do you model such a complicated system? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241331)

We just cannot. We cannot even predict the weather more than a few days ahead. Yet somehow we pretend that wee can predict climate 100's of years ahead. Small flaws in the model could result in large errors. We cannot even be sure that we have considered all the relevant parameters.

This is just a case of GIGO.

Re:How do you model such a complicated system? (2, Interesting)

tolkienfan (892463) | about 2 years ago | (#42241511)

Just because YOU are ignorant of the methods and the available accuracy doesn't mean everyone is.
What's your preference, ignore the possibility that we could be destroying our world because predicting the future is difficult?
Yeah, good plan.

Re:How do you model such a complicated system? (2)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | about 2 years ago | (#42241661)

Just because YOU are ignorant of the methods and the available accuracy doesn't mean everyone is.
What's your preference, ignore the possibility that we could be destroying our world because predicting the future is difficult?
Yeah, good plan.

I don't think humans will be destroying the world. The world will remove humans from the equation and it will be fine moving forward. It's done it many times before, so there is little to doubt that it will do it again. Now don't jump on this as though I'm not saying to do anything, or that humans have an affect on the environment, because we do. Just like any other living thing, we have an impact on our surroundings. Resources are limited, every living thing takes resources. Some take from other living things.

Finding the magical balance with the Earth and humans will be a tough one to solve. Throw in the 'natural' ebb and flow of the weather and it's even more complicated. The question will be is how good humans really are at adapting to changes in the environment. We will always have an affect on it.

Climate != Weather. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241529)

We just cannot. We cannot even predict the weather more than a few days ahead. Yet somehow we pretend that wee can predict climate 100's of years ahead. Small flaws in the model could result in large errors. We cannot even be sure that we have considered all the relevant parameters.

This is just a case of GIGO.

Climate != Weather.

Bad Car Analogy: Say your car now has 150,000 miles on it. You know that repair bills are going to increase but as to what exactly will break and when, you don't know.

Re:How do you model such a complicated system? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241641)

How do you model such a complicated system?

In principle it can be modelled analytically, if we knew enough to do so. We don't yet though. Our GCMs don't come even close to modelling the historical record with statistical significance. At best they roughly mirror some short-term variations like 100ky cycles and a general increase or decrease in some metrics with the help of fudge factors, but never across multiple geological periods.

The only people expressing confidence about our predictive ability in climatology based on physical modeling are those who hold the scientific method in less esteem than their own reading of tea leaves. We can graph trends of course and extrapolate along them, but that is unrelated to scientific understanding.

We'll get there one day. For now though, beware of shamen wearing the clothes of scientists. If the scientific method isn't being respected, you can guarantee that science is taking a back seat to something less objective.

But don't lose hope. And in the interim, look after our one and only habitable planet. Just because science isn't able to model it accurately yet doesn't mean that it's OK to pollute it. Commonsense applies.

Hardly a Doomsday Scenario?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241333)

You're neglecting to account for the onslaught of Captain Planet [funnyordie.com] .

Pretty doomsday to me (5, Insightful)

david.given (6740) | about 2 years ago | (#42241403)

sea levels to rise almost a meter more than present over the next century ... hardly a doomsday scenario

I believe you don't realise quite how many people live within a vertical metre of sea level.

Re:Pretty doomsday to me (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241477)

sea levels to rise almost a meter more than present over the next century ... hardly a doomsday scenario

I believe you don't realise quite how many people live within a vertical metre of sea level.

A lot live BELOW sea level and they are doing fine. One meter levees? Piece of cake. One century to build that? One meter levees don't even need to be reinforced with concrete. A small strip of land will be more than enough. And we can have beaches on coast side of the levee.

Re:Pretty doomsday to me (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241771)

You're glossing over the fact that that's a one meter rise in _mean_ sea level. Oscillating tides can change that to be +/- 5 meters in some places (e.g. Cook Inlet of Alaska, or the Bay of Fundy). Depending on the weather, storm surges can potentially have another additive affect. Most readers should be familiar with a normal distribution, where a subtle change in the mean can have a disproportionate affect on the extremes. So if you're expecting a one meter rise, to protect your coastal infrastructure from an extreme event such as a storm surge would generally require you to built levies well above that mean change.

Texas Drought Should Also Be a Concern (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#42241499)

sea levels to rise almost a meter more than present over the next century ... hardly a doomsday scenario

I believe you don't realise quite how many people live within a vertical metre of sea level.

Well, that's a valid point however hamanity's war with the sea is nothing new [wikipedia.org] and the Dutch have become quite adept at it (with 20% of their country being reclaimed land). Now, that has a whole bunch of caveats about how much trouble they face is that system ever fails and we've all probably heard about that. I would bet that if people believed these reports, some relatively inexpensive measures could be taken to prevent a much more expensive catastrophe. I don't know how much these efforts could help Florida -- an occasional hurricane might make them a bigger problem. But engineers have been tackling this problem.

For the United States, I think a bigger doomsday scenario of this is for agriculture in Texas. Texas already lost $7.62 billion in agricultural this year [star-telegram.com] and if you're telling me that that part of North America is going to get more arid? Well, droughts are something that humans have long had problems with. You can build all the irrigation you want but when that's dried up, there's not a lot you can do. If you like to eat beef and if you like Texas to be a productive state in the union, you should probably be concerned about this.

Re:Texas Drought Should Also Be a Concern (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42241557)

So then beef production moves slightly north?

Or maybe I can finally get grass fed beef from the USA?

Over all a small increase in the price of beef is not the end of the world. The decreased red meat consumption would probably be a good thing on average for us.

Texas still has lots of oil and natural gas. Its agriculture was living on borrowed time anyway. Once the aquifer went dry that was coming to an end.

Re:Texas Drought Should Also Be a Concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241825)

Texas beef will now be reclassified as seafood.

Re:Pretty doomsday to me (2)

war4peace (1628283) | about 2 years ago | (#42241517)

Also I would like to point out that TFA pretty much ignores anything else than next century. If this trend accelerates, how would the world look like 500 years from now? If you think that's a LONG time, consider that mankind was traversing oceans 500 years ago.

Re:Pretty doomsday to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241985)

Don't worry, most of those people are the mantapeople, they'll get along just fine under 9 feet of water.

Hardly doomsday? (5, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 2 years ago | (#42241459)

Let's compute the total market value of all coastal real estate below 1m elevation before we declare this "hardly a doomsday scenario."

Let's also factor in the costs of re-aligning all land use to the new climate and the impact of that re-alignment on the global food supply.

I'm not qualified to do that analysis, myself -- but I would venture, neither is the Slashdot editor who commented so dismissively on the report.

Re:Hardly doomsday? (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42241593)

Rather than let the sea have that land, can't we build a 1m tall levee? Heck a 5 meter levee could be dirt and we would be covered for a while.

The costs of re-aligning the land use will be high, but drawn out over a long period.

I am not happy about any of this, but it does seem like something humans have dealt with before.

Re:Hardly doomsday? (2)

dkf (304284) | about 2 years ago | (#42241669)

Rather than let the sea have that land, can't we build a 1m tall levee?

You can, but you've got a lot of those levees to build. Better get on with it. Oh, and you've got to also figure out what to do about awkward cases like salt marshes (which aren't exactly sea or land, but rather somewhere in between) and you need to build bigger levees behind the first ones to deal with the fact that the sea doesn't stay at one level, but rather moves up and down with tides and storms; a 1m levee is unlikely to be enough given the consequences of catastrophic failure.

Levees can protect some of the coast, but definitely not everywhere. It's too hard to do and not cost effective when you expand to protecting thousands of miles...

Re:Hardly doomsday? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241931)

What is it about Americans that think they can just build a wall to keep everything out? The US alone has thousands to tens of thousands of miles of coastline. Building and maintaining a 5 meter tall (which would then be necessarily be 15-20 meters wide) would be incredibly expensive and disruptive. Are you considering the infrastructure required to all ship, fishing and tanker traffic in and out of the ports? What about the large scale disruption to the fisheries and the marine ecosystems that would be caused by increased turbidity in the water and by disconnecting the greater ocean with the highly productive estuary habitats? Are you insane?

Re:Hardly doomsday? (2)

iggymanz (596061) | about 2 years ago | (#42241723)

what nonsense. what is the value of all property in Detroit 50 years ago compared to now? over a timespan of even half a century people can move, things can radically change. new things can be built, old things abandoned, foundations and streets can be raised.

Re:Hardly doomsday? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241883)

Let's compute the total market value of all coastal real estate below 1m elevation before we declare this "hardly a doomsday scenario."

Economic loss is hardly a doomsday scenario. Large scale starvation is also not a doomsday scenario.
A doomsday is a day when pretty much everything dies off.

Cue the end of global warming hysteria (0)

BillCable (1464383) | about 2 years ago | (#42241531)

Actually, there's too much money at stake for good science to rule the day. I expect the green energy billionaires to pressure the IPCC to alter their predictions before this report is officially released.

Re:Cue the end of global warming hysteria (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42242007)

The IPCC is funded by extremely modest contributions from the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme. It really has approximately zero connections to the "energy business" in any way. It's run by career scientists who, quite frankly, don't care much about business at all and have little stake in any political outcomes.

Only a Change in Strategy (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 2 years ago | (#42241571)

The end goal is the same. They've just finally figured out what the socialists and Marxists have known for a century - that incrementalism is far more effective than "shock and awe" at achieving the end goal, even though it takes a lot longer.

The climate is going to change with or without our help. In the end, it doesn't matter if AGW is real. The climate is going to change, and we had better expend our energies adapting rather than resisting, since, you know, resistance is futile.

Re:Only a Change in Strategy (1)

ledow (319597) | about 2 years ago | (#42241777)

I kinda agree with your reasoning too.

But I'll say the thing that I've said a million times:

As a scientist, it's interesting to find the causes, build a model, predict the future, record data, test your hypotheses, rinse and repeat.

But as a person, and a scientist of any forward thinking, repeatedly saying that the sky is falling is pointless. Even assuming that you can prove it beyond doubt.

Just assume that the worst-case scenario is true, what do you intend to do about it? If there's nothing you can do to fix it, or nothing *practical* you can do at all, then all the scaremongering in the world (backed by facts or not) isn't going to help.

Seriously, we need to sit all the climate scientists, sceptics and believers alike, and ask them what the fix is. Because that's something that I've NOT heard from anyone yet. And if the fix has a worse impact than the problem itself, we probably ARE better off just leaving it alone.

What is the fix? Let's assume we stop all carbon emissions tomorrow. How much does that cost? What do we lose? How many people lose their jobs? How high do energy prices and transportation costs rise? What does that mean for the economy and the guy at home just wanting to get to work to earn enough to live? What other ecological changes might be triggered by that change? How long will it buy us? Will the world still flood? What about ecological impact of the alternatives if they are scaled up *OVERNIGHT* to meet the lost production? How long can we sustain them for?

What if we're wrong and do all this and NOTHING changes? What if we do all this, change the world over to other productions, half the world go hungry or lose their home and STILL nothing changes (the world goes on getting hotter)? What if we spend billions, bankrupt ourselves, destroy the economy, and implement all the fixes we're told will "fix" the problem, and STILL nothing changes?

Sometimes, biting your tongue and hanging on to double-check your answers is the actions of a wise man. We don't see answers to these, and those we do aren't any better than the doomsayers predictions of how AGW will impact us (or are just as dubious as other evidence anyway).

I just have this nightmare scenario in our head where we bankrupt our countries for generations (hell, a few mortgage scams were enough to bring most of the developed world to its knees, imagine what this could do), rip up and abandon perfectly working resources and technology, and it makes NO DIFFERENCE and we still end up dying, flooding, choking, whatever dire consequences are picked.

And meanwhile, some third-world country that didn't have the money to do anything and said "bugger it", and did nothing ends up being a major global power because it had the same ecological impact on us all but they didn't spend a penny trying to fix it.

We *SHOULD* be looking.
We *SHOULD* be predicting.
We *SHOULD* be worrying.
We *SHOULD* be shouting our results from the highest hill.

But not necessarily about just the problem itself. The form, and consequences, of the proposed fixes are sketchy and dangerously under-researched.

this seems relevant (1)

buddyglass (925859) | about 2 years ago | (#42241627)

Despite all the (legitimate) complaints about disinformation and scientific illiteracy in the U.S., there's this [businessinsider.com] .

uninformed summary (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#42241663)

The end conclusion of that story was obviously written by someone who doesn't know much about the situation. Yes, a 12 pack of hurricane Sandies won't level Nebraska but a tiny shift like that with droughts and floods and higher temps will kill off so many species of fish, amphibians, coral, birds, etc that it will disrupt the entire animal kingdom. That won't be so good for the world. You'll be sitting there enjoying your lovely new weather and suddenly you can't buy tuna and the prices in the seafood section of the deli triple.

herd culling postponed (1)

noshellswill (598066) | about 2 years ago | (#42241783)

Less than a yard you say? Damme, and I was counting on AGW to cull the improvident, over.populating herd. I guess sometimes the Bangladesh and Charleston riff-raff need to be tolerated.

OH LOOKIE!! GOOD NEWS EVERYONE!!1one! (1)

fyi101 (2715891) | about 2 years ago | (#42241901)

Overall, hardly a doomsday scenario.

Look Ma! "Only" 3 degrees rise! Less strong storms, some more rain over here, some less rain over there... I'm sure farmers can just move, and populations will freely follow, with our current situation of open borders worldwide and such... I guess now the IPCC is no longer the CENTER OF THE ILUMINAT--er... CLIMATE CHANGE CONSPIRACY, now it's a reputable scientific report, yeah I think we can *cough* spin *cough*, I mean clearly demonstrate the "change" in "climate change" to be nothing but a small nuisance, why, less strong storms? Maybe it's an improvement! Except, you know, the part about coastal regions... But it's not like some of the most economically important cities are located near the coast, no siree... I mean, what's a meter more in rise than previously expected? Like 3 feet, right? No biggie.

Less bad? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#42242005)

After so many stories came out this year of revised data showing effects worse than previously predicted? I really hope they're not holding back for fear of being labelled "alarmist" by the denialists.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>