Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

IPCC's "Darkest Yet" Climate Report Warns of Food, Water Shortages

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the c'mon-fellas-lighten-up dept.

Earth 703

The Australian reports that "UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change, pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed. A draft of their report, seen by the news organisation AFP, is part of a massive overview by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, likely to shape policies and climate talks for years to come. Scientists and government representatives will meet in Yokohama, Japan, from tomorrow to hammer out a 29-page summary. It will be unveiled with the full report on March 31. 'We have a lot clearer picture of impacts and their consequences ... including the implications for security,' said Chris Field of the US’s Carnegie Institution, who headed the probe.

The work comes six months after the first volume in the long-awaited Fifth Assessment Report declared scientists were more certain than ever that humans caused global warming. It predicted global temperatures would rise 0.3C-4.8C this century, adding to roughly 0.7C since the Industrial Revolution. Seas will creep up by 26cm-82cm by 2100. The draft warns costs will spiral with each additional degree, although it is hard to forecast by how much."

cancel ×

703 comments

We've gone beyond bad science (3, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about 3 months ago | (#46557937)

At this point, the IPCC is looking more like bad disaster fiction.

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (5, Insightful)

geek (5680) | about 3 months ago | (#46557949)

Someone is getting their pockets lined. This is politics Al Gore style. Its pathetic, "food shortages" yeah right, because we all know food doesn't grow when the climate is warmer........ Scare tactics by intellectually challenged pseudo scientists.

sugar (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558007)

Plants will require a lot of additional water in warmer climates. You can actually bake the plants in too warm of a climate. A warmer climate means more evaporation of standing water, especially bad in places that don't get heavy rain fall. Not so much scare tactics, but I would take it with a grain of salt; However much easier to believe if you've actually taken the time to record your weather, I live in a place that is normally very very wet and it's been just far too dry the past 2-3 years and this year is aiming to be more dry than last years.

Re:sugar (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 months ago | (#46558151)

Plants will require a lot of additional water in warmer climates

Yes, a warmer client will destroy crops in Greenland... You forget that for all of the places that become too warm for the current crops (or too dry for any crops) there will be a lot more that suddenly become warm enough. And all of that melting ice frees up fresh water...

Re:sugar (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558233)

Plants will require a lot of additional water in warmer climates

Yes, a warmer client will destroy crops in Greenland... You forget that for all of the places that become too warm for the current crops (or too dry for any crops) there will be a lot more that suddenly become warm enough. And all of that melting ice frees up fresh water...

Oh, good then! So you won't mind moving from your continent that turned into a desert wasteland for food production to a better continent in order to move where the food is, right? Yes, I'm sure that'll go over smoothly with people that haven't left their fucking county they were born in.

Re:sugar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558575)

I was moved about 2000 miles when I joined the military, than another 5000 to my duty station. I stayed in that area when I got out, until moving another 8000 miles to find a better job environment.

Do you plan to live with 30 miles/50 kilometers of where you are now, until you die?

Re:sugar (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 3 months ago | (#46558351)

You forget that for all of the places that become too warm for the current crops (or too dry for any crops) there will be a lot more that suddenly become warm enough.

Why will there be a lot more, and not less or about the same?

Re: sugar (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558257)

Actually, increases in CO2 in the atmosphere reduce evaporation of water from plants as they don't have to open their stomata as much to get enough carbon dioxide. This means that plants will grow better in dryer environments with higher co2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (4, Insightful)

stox (131684) | about 3 months ago | (#46558011)

I guess you have not been paying attention to the drought in the Central Valley of California. You will, when food prices shoot through the roof this summer.

Well you're partly right (5, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | about 3 months ago | (#46558069)

The droughts in California ARE man-made, but they have nothing to do with the Global Warming boogy-man and have everything to do with 2 important facts that people seem to forget:
1. That part of California is a freakin' desert and no, it didn't turn into a desert overnight because of Global Warming, it was a desert long before humans showed up.
2. California's intentional man-made mismanagement of its water supply to dump water for bait-fish and for Mexico and refusal to build new reservoirs to store water from years when it has been plentiful has caught up to it now that we see California's climate doing exactly what it should be doing.

But go ahead, blame Global Warming and burn a few witches at the stake since radical religious fanaticism with a thin veneer of "science" painted over it has now replaced rational thought.

Re:Well you're partly right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558177)

And how many years has it been since water has been plentiful in the Sierra watershed, and how many years worth of water do you think that California should have kept in storage?

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (3, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 months ago | (#46558141)

You mean the artificially created drought in the central valley? Between the politicians and the EPA, we're going to reap the stupidity of those who would rather dump fresh water into the ocean(among other things).

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 3 months ago | (#46558213)

Central valley was always a desert. This is Nature defeats Man, not the other way 'round.

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 months ago | (#46558331)

The Central Valley was definitely NOT a desert, it was a dense grassland biome with up to 24 inches of rain a year. Additionally it had annual flooding bringing nutrients and water from the mountains. The only reason it is not a forest is because most of the rain happens during the winter.

The southern half of the Central Valley was home to the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi, but it's dried up over the last century and a half because the water was diverted.

Re: We've gone beyond bad science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558437)

Nothing pauses trolling like verifiable declarative statements.

But they'll be back!

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (1)

citizenr (871508) | about 3 months ago | (#46558441)

Yes, its not like there is a precedent cough Mesa Verde cough

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 3 months ago | (#46558127)

Warming may have an effect on precipitation patterns, however. As others have said, plants can also have trouble tolerating higher temperatures.

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (0)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 3 months ago | (#46558457)

Apparently you don't know much, because there are several foods that do not grow when the climate gets warmer. Why some fruits REQUIRE cold.

Sigh, armchair philosophy by intellectually challenged troglodytes..

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46557961)

At this point, the IPCC is looking more like bad disaster fiction.

What problem do you have with the data?

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (5, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 months ago | (#46558039)

At this point, the IPCC is looking more like bad disaster fiction.

What problem do you have with the data?

The problem a lot of people have understanding AGW is separating the science that is settled from the unsettled predictions. There is widespread consensus that CO2 warms the atmosphere, and that anthropogenic CO2 has warmed it to some degree.

At the same time, there is a lot of science that is mere hypothesis. Very few scientists think the runaway Venus effect is realistic, for example.

The approach of the IPCC is to take the worst scenario that hasn't been conclusively rejected by the scientific community, and promoting that scenario most prominently, which is why we you see it being presented with judgement words, like "darkest yet." Their goal seems to be to make it look as dark, which is obviously not a good scientific approach.

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (2)

drolli (522659) | about 3 months ago | (#46558073)

When setting your speed on the road, do you orient yourself on "the worst case scenario" (e.g. you car not handling your steering to avoid a suddenly appearing cow and hitting a tree in the middle of nowhere), or do you usually consider the "average scenario" (going on a dry, empty road)?

Considering the first scenario and reducing the impact enough can save your life.

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558113)

That's not the worst case scenario.

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 months ago | (#46558179)

When setting your speed on the road, do you orient yourself on "the worst case scenario" (e.g. you car not handling your steering to avoid a suddenly appearing cow and hitting a tree in the middle of nowhere), or do you usually consider the "average scenario" (going on a dry, empty road)?

When you are driving your car;
After four hours of your mother shrieking at you to slow down when you are going 45 in a highway, do you eventually tune her out?

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (2, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 months ago | (#46558197)

I'm not sure you've understood. Science is about accurately presenting the data. In making judgements, they've left science.

If the IPCC said, "here is our worst case scenario, but we have low confidence in our predictions," that would be accurate. That's not what they said though, is it? Are you unable to see the propaganda in their announcement?

I'm not sure what to say to you, if you think their approach is good science. Go read some Feyman or something, hopefully he can describe good science better than I can.

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (2)

drolli (522659) | about 3 months ago | (#46558275)

It is in the nature of a 95% confidence band to include a scenario which only hits you with a small probability. Ignoring these without good reason is not a valid procedure.

If i dont know a road and my experience is that the speed limitations are too conservative in 99% of the instances (e.g. curves), it is still not a valid procedure to assume that these are always too conservative.

The IPCC report is *not* a scientific publication, since it is self-edited, has no anonymous reviewers, and no otherwise independent mechanism for the control of the content. As a scientist, i dont consider publications under this circumstances at all for making up my mind about the world. However, it is an acceptable pupose to report on the body of (scientifically valid) non-falsified hypotheses (please refer to Poppers theory on science) for advising politics how to spend money for research.

Whether the IPCC reports succeeds in this or not, is not mine to say, but i think the debate is not going well (from all sides), considerign important topics like cloud formation are not understood wnough

  (My personal opinion is that we need *more* research on the extend and possible mechanisms AGW to direct our efforts to the places where we have the bese cost/performance ratio)

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 months ago | (#46558371)

The IPCC report is *not* a scientific publication

Well said.

However, it is an acceptable pupose to report on the body of (scientifically valid) non-falsified hypotheses

That is an excellent goal. If that is their goal, why are they using standard propaganda techniques?

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558093)

Compare temperatures on Venus from the magellan probe to the 1976 US standard atmosphere. They are exactly 1.176x higher at 1 atmosphere pressure. What is 1.176? It is the square root of the Sun-Venus distance divided by Sun-Earth distance. So temperature is completely explained by distance from the sun?

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (5, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 months ago | (#46558277)

The problem a lot of people have understanding AGW is separating the science that is settled from the unsettled predictions.

Nope.

The main problem is seeing through the fog created by the anti-AGW lobby.

https://www.google.es/search?q... [google.es]

They think they're being free thinkers, that the AGW people are the ones drinking the establishment cool-aid. In reality it's the other way around.

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 months ago | (#46558353)

The problem a lot of people have understanding AGW is separating the science that is settled from the unsettled predictions.

Nope.

So, you are not one of the people who has trouble recognizing which parts of AGW are settled science and which parts aren't? Is that what you are saying?

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 3 months ago | (#46558149)

Well, as a start, the fact that they are faking a fair bit of it and cherry-picking the rest. And that the models suggest something to 3-sigma and it has fallen far out of it to about 6 sigma and shows no sign of taking the expected trajectory.

    Aside from that, not too much, but that seems like a pretty big problem.

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558205)

What problem do you have with the data?

It's myopic. The real problem is running out of cheap energy sources. Too many calories of food that's produced today for world consumption, are sourced from a fossil fuel. Carbon emissions will be the least of our problems when we strand billions from the cheap food sources they need to survive.

Gigacide. Say the word to yourself until you understand what's coming.

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#46558339)

Gigacide. Say the word to yourself until you understand what's coming.

Wow. [tufts.edu] That's scary. It's a good thing I'm only of average height!

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (2)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 3 months ago | (#46558097)

While I disagree with the poster that climate change is a fiction, I disagree that this is flamebait. He has a right to express his opinion and we ought to respect that. "Flame" is just an excuse by some to suppress any opinion they disagree with. Come on people, grow up, we ought to be more mature about this here.

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (2)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 3 months ago | (#46558189)

It happens incessantly. Slashdot has the most restrictive and narrow monoculture of "acceptable opinions" of any group I know of, and that includes fundamentalist Christians.

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#46558363)

Slashdot has the most restrictive and narrow monoculture of "acceptable opinions" of any group I know of

I'd violently disagree. In fact, I've noticed that expressions of opinions that would get me banned dozens of times over anywhere else are perfectly fine here for all those who express them.

Re: We've gone beyond bad science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558313)

But here's the problem with the science:

Forecasts come hand in hand with policy recommendations. And what the science does not in any way shed light on, is causality. If there is no causality demonstrated (ie: anthropogenicity) then many of the policy responses are by definition not based on science, because they will seek to address causality when none has been scientifically established.

This ultimately, is the entire problem with the climate change crowd. It's message has gone from anthropogenic "global warming", to anthropogenic "climate change", to "climate change" with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink "yeah, it's anthropogenic but we refuse to go there". Needless to say, any geologist or climate scientist can tell you that Earth's climate is and has been in a constant state of flux since Earth congealed in the hot soup of the early solar system.

So why is policy required "now" to address something that has been in constant flux since before there was life on this rock?

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558111)

www.climatedepot.com

Most 'scientists' nowadays are just in it for the money, fat pensions, etc. They manufacture problems so that we will pay them to 'solve' them.

Re:We've gone beyond bad science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558459)

www.climatedepot.com

Most 'scientists' nowadays are just in it for the money, fat pensions, etc. They manufacture problems so that we will pay them to 'solve' them.

As a scientist, I wanna know where all that money is... I'm not getting it....

Credibility (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46557941)

"Boy who cried wolf" ring any bells?

Re:Credibility (2)

paiute (550198) | about 3 months ago | (#46558047)

"Boy who cried wolf" ring any bells?

Yes it does. You will recall that in the end, there was a real wolf who did appear. He ate all the sheep. So if the townspeople had reacted to the warnings not with scorn but by realizing that they were unprepared for actual wolves, their sheep would have been safe.

Re:Credibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558239)

Well, you're comparing apples and orange. (And by your own admission.)

First, the boy yelled, "Wolf!", to get attention or watch the action it caused. (The last may be a symptom of boredom.)
Last, a real wolf appeared and the boy yelled, "Wolf!", again and was reasonably ignored.
So there was an imaginary wolf and a real wolf--quite different "animals".

The point is, as I understand the comments, that this constant barrage of "worst cause scenarios" that the Main Stream Media and Politicians bring to us has the effect of filtering their extremist messages into the mental waste bin. (There was a Federal Government study on this so we know this reaction/response is true. Of course, those of us who are married, a minority of slashdotters, know this from spousal communications.)

The use of "Chicken Little" would not carry the "wolf" baggage but does express the same point. Since everything is an emergency, I will sit back and see how things sort out. The emergencies will identify themselves whether silly people yell or not.

Re:Credibility (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 3 months ago | (#46558439)

Yes it does. You will recall that in the end, there was a real wolf who did appear. He ate all the sheep. So if the townspeople had reacted to the warnings not with scorn but by realizing that they were unprepared for actual wolves, their sheep would have been safe.

Time to read your childhood stories again, they were prepared for actual wolves but only as long as they responded and due to the many false alarms they ignored the actual emergency. If there's any relevant analogy to the current situation it's to not run around like Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling unless it's true because nobody will take your warnings seriously afterwards. At least some scientists and politicians like to promote their worst doomsday predictions and every time they fail to come true it hurts their credibility, leaving many people to think it's all bogus and a sham. The media doesn't exactly help either, they like extreme headlines because they sell so they often take highly speculative bullshit and print it up huge as accepted scientific facts.

Even if you take some of the worst case predictions they're talking about something like 5C over 100 years, which might sound a lot but we're talking 0.05C/year on average. Local variations are far, far greater than that, what you personally has experienced is pretty much irrelevant. One warm summer and people say it's global warming, one cold winter and people say it's bullshit. Even when you look at 10+ year averages chances are many places have gone against the global trend, either because of natural variation or because of shifting weather patterns. What matter is if you sample thousands and thousands of places and the total keeps going up, not one particular place. But most people will look out the window and base their opinion on that.

Oh God. (0, Troll)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 3 months ago | (#46557955)

Many scientists concurred, he said, that recent heatwaves and floods were evidence of climate change already on the march

What a load of utter shite.

It's the end of the world as we know it (0)

symbolset (646467) | about 3 months ago | (#46557973)

And I feel fine.

Re:It's the end of the world as we know it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558041)

Yes.. it is

Re:It's the end of the world as we know it (4, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 3 months ago | (#46558099)

That's precisely the problem. The warming isn't going to cause much of a problem for most people old enough to post here. By the time the problems get too bad to ignore, we're already committed to even more problems, because the excess carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. That's why we keep getting these warnings, so we can avoid those problems before it's too late.

Re:It's the end of the world as we know it (0)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 months ago | (#46558229)

The other problem is a long history of dire warnings about climate change that have all proven to be totally wrong. By long history, I mean like 50 years worth... (anybody remember global cooling?) Most rational people eventually realize that stories like this are sensationalist tripe, and you can bet that whatever eventually comes to pass, this will not be it.

Re:It's the end of the world as we know it (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 3 months ago | (#46558259)

Climatologists have been warning about warming for many decades and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted. That seems to be the opposite of "totally wrong" to me.

Re:It's the end of the world as we know it (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#46558379)

The other problem is a long history of dire warnings about climate change that have all proven to be totally wrong. By long history, I mean like 50 years worth... (anybody remember global cooling?)

If all you can recall from that period is "global cooling", which was met with skepticism when presented and quickly obliterated in peer circles, you seem to have a peculiarly biased memory.

Re:It's the end of the world as we know it (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 3 months ago | (#46558467)

anybody remember global cooling?

I remember that it's largely a myth [wikipedia.org] , if that's what you mean.

Re:It's the end of the world as we know it (0)

Illserve (56215) | about 3 months ago | (#46558411)

That's precisely the problem. The warming isn't going to cause much of a problem for most people old enough to post here. By the time the problems get too bad to ignore, we're already committed to even more problems, because the excess carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. That's why we keep getting these warnings, so we can avoid those problems before it's too late.

You are aware, I trust, of these things called plants. It turns out that they absorb carbon dioxide right out of the air. What's even cooler is that the more CO2 that's in the air, the faster they grow and thus the faster they absorb it. This is why greenhouses will often run with drastically increased CO2 levels.

Re:It's the end of the world as we know it (5, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | about 3 months ago | (#46558431)

The trouble is that the rate that we are emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere far exceeds the rate at which plants can absorb it [skepticalscience.com] .

Re:It's the end of the world as we know it (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 3 months ago | (#46558489)

But are you aware that most plants can only take in that extra CO2 at certain times, that they get fatigued by high levels, that some can't grow in elevated levels?

No, obviously you only know enough to make yourself feel smart.

Re:It's the end of the world as we know it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558443)

It's not going to cause problems for anyone with computer to post here because we have supply chains, ability to irrigate, fertilize, and worst-case scenario: move to more fertile locations.

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46557979)

THE SKY is falling~!!!! The sky is falling!!!!

Re:THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558253)

Please don't mix metaphors.
First, we hear of "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf!'" and, now, you're bringing up "Chicken Little".
This is becoming confusing to the masses of /.-ers.
Where is a car analogy when we so desperately need one?

Darwin event incoming! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558005)

The will be the genitic chlorine that the pool is so in need of.... The non-scientist types that are incapable of competing in future generations will be pruned back some...

Re:Darwin event incoming! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558077)

The will be the genitic chlorine that the pool is so in need of.... The non-scientist types that are incapable of competing in future generations will be pruned back some...

My inclination is that non-scientists are more likely to have vast food stores, hunting skills, and access to productive farm or grazing land.

The Mormons are commanded to have 3-months of food storage:

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_foodstorage.html

How much is commanded of the scientists?

Of course there is always money to be made in predictions that come true. Play some commodities and buy up all the stupid hicks' land.

Re:Darwin event incoming! (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 months ago | (#46558263)

The will be the genitic chlorine that the pool is so in need of.... The non-scientist types that are incapable of competing in future generations will be pruned back some...

Sure... Because over the long course of history, it has always been the intellectual elite that have faired well in the collapse of a civilization. Those Mongol hordes, farmers and hunters never have a chance...

Of course the "entitlement" crowd will be totally decimated...

When do we reach ... (1)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 3 months ago | (#46558031)

... the temps of the Medieval Warm Period?

Re:When do we reach ... (4, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | about 3 months ago | (#46558085)

About a decade ago [wikipedia.org] .

Re:When do we reach ... (1)

rgbatduke (1231380) | about 3 months ago | (#46558109)

You mean several years after the average temperature flattened out completely?

rgb

Re:When do we reach ... (2)

bunratty (545641) | about 3 months ago | (#46558129)

You're referring to the temperature escalator [skepticalscience.com] . According to the escalator, it's always cooling!

Re:When do we reach ... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#46558435)

That's a strange question. You mean in Europe, or globally? The MWP was not *that* warm on average if you look at other regions of the world. What purpose does it serve to compare global temperatures today with local temperatures a long time ago?

wouldn't it be sorry if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558037)

We actually tried to clean up our mess, not because it's not our problem, but because it's better for everyone? There're plenty of studies that smog and other pollutants are correlated with rises in various illnesses. So, who the fark cares, if a disaster movie is what it takes to get people to get their heads out of their ass, then so be it.

Re:wouldn't it be sorry if... (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 months ago | (#46558061)

We actually tried to clean up our mess, not because it's not our problem, but because it's better for everyone? There're plenty of studies that smog and other pollutants are correlated with rises in various illnesses.

CO2 is not smog. If it weren't for AGW, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with adding CO2 to the atmosphere. In that case it would likely be a good thing, and help plants grow.

Focusing on CO2 actually distracts from other pollutants, so if that your goal is to stop pollutants that cause illnesses, fixing AGW (for example, with carbon sequestration) could actually delay your goal.

Temperature (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558051)

"0.3C-4.8C this century,".

They forgot to add some negative temperatures, then they are well covered.
Where is the science in this?

Guess they didn't get the memo... (0)

Aeonym (1115135) | about 3 months ago | (#46558053)

...that global cooling [washingtontimes.com] is the hot topic for all the cool scientists now.

When all you've got is a global warming hammer, everything looks like a carbon emissions nail.

Re:Guess they didn't get the memo... (2)

bunratty (545641) | about 3 months ago | (#46558227)

See the temperature escalator [skepticalscience.com] I mention above.

floods, drought, conflict and economic damage (0)

troll -1 (956834) | about 3 months ago | (#46558089)

This sounds more like biblical rhetoric than science.

inches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558101)

26 cm = 10.2 inches
82 cm = 32 inches

Re:inches (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 months ago | (#46558529)

To put that into perspective, continents move an ~inch per year because of continental drift.

Probably just more FAKED data.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558143)

Gee haven't heard of the IPCC faking data before??? Gee I seem to remember "Climategate"....

http://www.infowars.com/?p=6009

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/01/fakegate-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/breaking-news-scientist-admits-ipcc-used-fake-data-to-pressure-policy-makers/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/24/ipcc-scientist-admits-fake-data-used-pressure-world-leaders

Re: Probably just more FAKED data.... (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 3 months ago | (#46558345)

Infowars and Prison Planet? Seriously?

0.3 - 4.8C (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 3 months ago | (#46558147)

Why that wide range? It is taking into account if we take active measures to diminish it or try to not make it worse, or keep running as if nothing is happening? Or just the uncertain of predicting a so complex system with so much unknowns as is the global climate system?

In any case, with so uncertain final impact, maybe food and water shortages will be just the tip of the iceberg. Rising the average world temperature so much (at least, for close to the worst case) should have a lot of very visible effects in all the ecosystems.

Re:0.3 - 4.8C (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 3 months ago | (#46558247)

Why that wide range?

"We don't know" doesn't make for a great paper. This is science.

FUD for money (0)

Damian Kaczmarek (2998195) | about 3 months ago | (#46558181)

FUD is the best way to beg for money ... I would certainly welcome warmer climate in Central Europe but I doubt it will happen. Heck, tell me how to warm the climate and I will do that.

Re:FUD for money (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558385)

Move South, dipshit.

how long... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558195)

How long do we have to put up with all these stupid reports? "We not quite sure how exactly it happens, but we have a consensus that it is happening, but this is for sure what will happen in 90 years!" "oh, its a 50% chance of rain tomorrow" Can't predict tomorrow's weather, but can predict what will happen in 90 years.

How about you scientists make a solar powered machine that filters Co2 out of the air.

Re:how long... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 months ago | (#46558221)

How about you scientists make a solar powered machine that filters Co2 out of the air.

We have that, all we need now is for you as a taxpayer to vote to fund the machine.

That machine exists today (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 months ago | (#46558401)

How about you scientists make a solar powered machine that filters Co2 out of the air.

Not sure if you were trying to lure someone into a trap there, but just in case you were being serious that "solar powered machine" is called "a plant". :-)

If you worry about CO2, plant a tree and drive a bit less. It will probably do more overall than anything else you could reasonably do.

Re:That machine exists today (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558503)

If you worry about CO2, plant a tree and drive a bit less. It will probably do more overall than anything else you could reasonably do.

The absolutely most fabulous climate bilance is achieved by hobos. No car, and heating by internal oxidation of grain alcohol. You can get better than that only by dying. And even that they tend to achieve earlier than the rest.

Their people are the future for humanity.

Ice Ages (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558199)

The Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age. Breaking news: there was more than one Ice Age. Why do people think the Earth has some stable temperature that it was always at before the industrial revolution? Why are people so arrogant that they think they can actually control mother nature?

Recency bias and global warming pause (4, Interesting)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 3 months ago | (#46558209)

Much of the global warming skepticism has been fueled lately by the decade long pause in the global warming average. It seems what I can gather from this is while many areas are hotter than they were previously, other places are somewhat cooler, so it balances out.

Some of the skepticism does exhibit a recency bias, by simply ignoring everything prior to year 2000 or so. In a chart of temperatures during the past 100 years, the current pause does look rather insignificant and could be simply a temporary pause rather than a change in the trajectory. They have problems explaining away the previous 50 years of temperature increase.

 

Short term memory: Turned on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558215)

What? We were all to be dead by now!!?!?! Remember?? Skin Cancer from the Ozone Layer and we
were all to be dying of cancer by 2014.

Anyone who is foolish enough to play this game will either be making $$$ or losing it all. Which are you?

How do food shortages make sense for warmer clime? (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 months ago | (#46558241)

In the past medieval warming period, there were a lot more fertile areas around Europe than we have today. So how can you reasonably claim that a warmer climate leads to food shortages when we have direct evidence showing we can grow more overall in a warmer climate? Warming should lead to more, and cheaper, food for all nations (well all nations that treat farmers well anyway).

It also makes more sense if you think about it logically, food grows slower and not as plentifully in colder climates. Food, like anything, requires energy to grow and warmer means more available energy for the system as a whole to make use of.

Also for droughts, why would a warmer climate not also mean fewer droughts for most areas as a warmer sea surface led to more evaporation...

Re:How do food shortages make sense for warmer cli (0)

bunratty (545641) | about 3 months ago | (#46558465)

https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com] https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com] https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]

None of those links make your case (3, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 months ago | (#46558505)

The first link points out how there is a limit to CO2 helping plant growth - but does nothing to argue against some areas being warmer producing more food, nor does it argue at all against plants doing mildly better with more CO2. It argues against levels of CO2 that are not possible harming plants.

The second link ins something about animals having issues adapting which is irrelevant to talking about plant life and mild warming.

The last link is just more stuff about extreme weather already debunked by actual weather events we are having.

The problem you have when you parrot other people's ideas is that you can't effectively argue when those arguments fall out of date or or otherwise debunked (summary: we have to have more extreme weather events before you can claim warming causes them, instead of just asserting they will happen).

Re:None of those links make your case (0)

bunratty (545641) | about 3 months ago | (#46558533)

I'm not "making a case". You asked some valid questions and I tried to point you to a site that addresses those questions. Sorry!

Re:How do food shortages make sense for warmer cli (2, Interesting)

wytcld (179112) | about 3 months ago | (#46558523)

First, we need some references for your claim that in the period when Europe was unusually warm there was increased overall agricultural output there. Maybe, maybe not. Second, Europe is on the whole on the cool side of temperate. It's way north on the globe. The larger proportion of the world's human population and agricultural lands are in warmer climes, many of which are already borderline in terms of water and relief from heat. If more wheat grows in Canada 20 years from now, but the central US is a permanent dust bowl, that's a problem if you're not Canadian. It can also be a problem if you are Canadian, since the US is likely to one way or another annex your land, or else insist you provide us wheat on very favorable terms.

We should listen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558243)

Because the IPPC's models always hold up so well...

It's always in the future. (2, Informative)

rs79 (71822) | about 3 months ago | (#46558295)

"pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed."

This has been asserted since 1985.

Meanwhile:
Freeman Dyson speaks out about climate science, and fudge
Climatologists Are No Einsteins, Says His Successor

"in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn."

"That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”

Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.

http://www.economist.com/news/... [economist.com]

"Atmospheric CO2 may actually be improving the environment.

“It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation,” Dyson said. “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil.”

In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.

“They’re absolutely lousy,” he said of American journalists. “That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed.”

I know why: They're lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.

The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future. But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters."

Lovelock: who predicted disaster -
http://www.independent.co.uk/o... [independent.co.uk]

Now says:

The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,"

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com... [msn.com]

NASA:
"New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64C warming
'Important to get these things right', says scientist"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... [theregister.co.uk]

If we don't have hihger CO2 we will be unable to grow enough crops to feed a larger world population:
http://www.liebertpub.com/MCon... [liebertpub.com]

JUst like Y2K (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558357)

Generally "experts" under estimate the ability of others to cope with unexpected or adverse events. Their education and training unfortunately gives them a feeling of superiority to those outside their knowledge base. Doubtless if the climate were getting colder they would also predict calamitous consequences. Of course there will be winners and losers both for individuals and societies but it has always been thus. Buy land in Canada!

IPCCFUD (1, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about 3 months ago | (#46558399)

"...pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed...."

At least their analysis is objective, measured, and not trying to panic anyone.

does IPCC include "optimistic scenerios"? (2)

peter303 (12292) | about 3 months ago | (#46558449)

I sort of like the way the Social Security Trustees do their 75 year projections: they do it for three scenerios- likely, optimistic and pessimistic. Any organization that veers to one side is not very competent.

Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46558481)

It's just Monsanto PR working to drive up prices knowing everyone is still going to pay.

The Chicken Little alaramists (0)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 3 months ago | (#46558495)

Are once again squaking even louder and more enthusiastically, because none wants to believe them about the sky falling.
Yeah sure they are going to convert many people that way.

I've got their title (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 3 months ago | (#46558555)

They can call it "Limits to Growth"!

Not science (1)

Alomex (148003) | about 3 months ago | (#46558569)

This is where the debate leaves the realm of science and enters the terrain of speculation. How fast can we replace crops to the new climate is not a scientific question in the same level as "do we have AGW or not?". This last one has been settled, the former is a lot more complicated, and frankly the UN doesn't have a very good record on predictions.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...