[Plantagenet]

Good job, scientists.

Now its up to the politicians to act! Time to save the planet!!!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
still waiting.......

[rollin]

IPCC report, watered down yesterday's science.

[AndyA]

And the report is, on the face of it, more optimistic than the famous review of the economics of climate change by Britain’s Nicholas Stern in 2006.

Stern put the likely cost to the global economy of warming this century at 5-20 percent of GDP. The new IPCC draft says that a global average temperature increase of 2.5 degrees from pre-industrial levels may lead to a global loss of income of between 0.2 and 2 percent.

First, even if human-caused CO2 emissions are ("probably") a negative externality, they remain an externality. Therefore, the effects of those emissions on the natural world do not factor into human economic accounting.

But what sorts of things might indeed factor into that accounting?

Well, when 9.08 inches of rain fell on Boulder County, Colorado in a single day, which happened last year, or when "superstorm" Sandy pounds and floods the New Jersey/New York coastline, which occurred in late 2012, then you would expect there to be a lot of damage. And there was.

And you might think that damage would be a blow to human economic accounting as measured by GDP. But you would be wrong because of two considerations we don't normally think about.


1. First, and this is the beauty part, no single extreme event can be attributed directly to climate change.

Sure, it makes sense that a wamer Earth will create more destructive heat waves and fuel droughts. Sure, it makes sense that more moisture in the atmosphere will lead to stronger (though not more frequent) hurricanes and severe flooding events. Sure ... blah, blah, blah ... but sorry! —your undoubtedly correct intuitions about all this do not count. When you enter the world of attributing extreme weather events to climate change, you enter a murky statistical world where everything becomes fuzzy and you start worrying about signal-to-noise ratios. And to clear that up, you need data, and lots of it over a long period of time.

But by the time you have enough long run data to see the signal in the noise, you are, as John Maynard Keynes once said, dead.

And you know that if there is the least bit of uncertainty, no extreme weather event will be attributed to climate change.

2. Now, suppose you make it through insurmountable obstacle #1 and you can directly attribute some extreme weather event to climate change.

Well, in that case the damage caused by that event doesn't matter because GDP measures national or global income. GDP (GNP, GDI, whatever) does not measure wealth, and extreme weather events destroy accumulated wealth. Sure, extreme weather events may impair regional incomes temporarily, but when when you rebuild after such events, income soars and GDP shows a net increase after the damage has been repaired, perhaps a large net increase.

Therefore, when extreme weather events cause large losses of wealth, as in Boulder, Colorado or northern New Jersey, GDP grows and grows!

Is this absurd? Sure it is! But that's how humans measure their own economic progress.

And now you know why economist Richard Tol can say the impact of a century of climate change is roughly equivalent to a year's growth in the global economy (by the year 2100).

And now you know why the IPCC will say a global average temperature increase of 2.5 degrees from pre-industrial levels may lead to a global loss of income of between 0.2 and 2 percent (by the year 2100).

So, when you talk about climate change denial, you need to understand just how deep that denial goes.

[Keith_McClary]

And the report is, on the face of it, more optimistic than the famous review of the economics of climate change by Britain’s Nicholas Stern in 2006.

Stern put the likely cost to the global economy of warming this century at 5-20 percent of GDP. The new IPCC draft says that a global average temperature increase of 2.5 degrees from pre-industrial levels may lead to a global loss of income of between 0.2 and 2 percent.

According to:
http://mashable.com/2014/03/30/climate- ... nel-warns/

additional temperature increases of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (compared to late 20th century temperatures)"would cause global annual economic losses of between 0.2 to 2% of income"

The 5-20 percent of GDP is per century. Is the "0.2 and 2 percent" per year? If so multiply by 100 (much more if compounded exponentially).

[AndyA]

The 5-20 percent of GDP is per century. Is the "0.2 and 2 percent" per year? If so multiply by 100 (much more if compounded exponentially).

No that figure is the total for the rest of the century, or 1 years income.

[Timo]

It appears the deniars, aka The Kochs and their bought and paid-for political minions, have won.

Congratulations! You've succedded in convincing us that everything's fine...........until it's too late to do anything about our impending extinction. I hope, for your sake, it was all worth it.

[Lore]

In the Koch brothers eyes any action that empowers them to enforce their will on others and further their self interests is a good thing. The personal consequences of which are irrelevant since they will long be in the grave before anything, or anyone affects them. Greed is if anything, always short sighted.

[dohboi]

“Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change”...

It cited the risk of death or injury on a widespread scale, probable damage to public health, displacement of people and potential mass migrations.

“Throughout the 21st century, climate-change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger...

“Now we are at the point where there is so much information, so much evidence, that we can no longer plead ignorance”...

For the world’s poorer countries, food is not the only issue, but it may be the most acute. Several times in recent years, climatic disruptions in major growing regions have helped to throw supply and demand out of balance, contributing to price increases that have reversed decades of gains against global hunger, at least temporarily.

The warning about the food supply in the new report is much sharper in tone than any previously issued by the panel. That reflects a growing body of research about how sensitive many crops are to heat waves and water stress...

[Graeme]

Reactions to the IPCC climate change report from business leaders and experts

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, meant to represent the global consensus on the state of climate-change science, came out Monday. Read the Guardian’s extensive coverage of the report, including:
• Climate change report: 'The worst is yet to come' – as it happened
• Climate change report: five key points
• Climate change: the poor will suffer most
• Climate change ‘already affecting food supply’ - UN

We've collected reactions from business leaders, thought leaders and experts here and will update this article with more comments throughout the day.

Christine Bader, author of Girl Meets Oil: The Evolution of a Corporate Idealist


Most companies have people deep inside their ranks who have known for a long time what the IPCC report confirms: that the threat of climate change is serious and imminent, and presents risks not just to ecosystems but to business. The IPCC report should create more space for those people in companies to push forward the policies and programs that will mitigate risks to both their bottom line and to individuals and communities around the world.

theguardian

[Lore]

What I see in the headlines is that most people are nonplussed by the latest IPCC report. It should be pretty evident by those of us awake that the climate change daemon is going to roll over all of us before anyone really reacts. The more real it becomes the deeper the psychosis of denial embeds itself into the human psyche.

It's not that the majority don't concern themselves with the conclusions. It's just that they feel helpless to do anything about it and therefore put it away into the back of their minds.

[AndyA]

“Now we are at the point where there is so much information, so much evidence, that we can no longer plead ignorance”...

Fully informed, totally incapable screenagers.

[Tanada]

Time to make your best guess what climate change will do to where you choose to live for the rest of your lifetime and take steps to adapt. It is now clear to anyone actually willing to face the facts that Humans will not react to science, only to consequences. If where you live now will becomes uninhabitable before you expect to pass from this life you might want to move now and beat the rush later on. That doesn't mean join a commune or build a doom stead, some northern cities like Edmonton or Anchorage might be downright pleasant places to live for the remainder of your natural life span. Or not. Do your own research and make your own decisions.

[KaiserJeep]

What I see in the headlines is that most people are nonplussed by the latest IPCC report. It should be pretty evident by those of us awake that the climate change daemon is going to roll over all of us before anyone really reacts. The more real it becomes the deeper the psychosis of denial embeds itself into the human psyche.

It's not that the majority don't concern themselves with the conclusions. It's just that they feel helpless to do anything about it and therefore put it away into the back of their minds.

Completely and utterly untrue. Most people do not care one iota for the IPCC, climate change, or whether or not we have an emergency. Most people are focused on their own lives, and are ready to boot out any politician that dares to suggest that they change anything they are doing, or worse yet make actual fundamental lifestyle changes.

That's the basic problem. The political cost of even acknowledging that a problem exists will get many politicians booted from office.

Nothing will change to avoid the crisis. It's going to happen.

If you want to understand the problem, read about the Cape Wind fiasco. It was a "shovel ready" project that Obama discussed in his first campaign. It still has not been built yet because a positive cabal of liberal Massachusetts Democrats oppose it. They believe in climate change, they swear - but not enough to have to look at wind turbines on the skyline of Cape Cod. Anything but that, and never mind how many coal power plants could have been retired by now.

What will happen in my hoped-for MidWestern retirement home is more extremes of climate both hot and cold, more storms,and more weather extremes. But the Great Plains are a few hundred feet above sea level and even the Great lakes are expected to shrink as we tap them for fresh water.

[Pops]

This was on NBC and PBS and is at the top of Google News. Every weather event contains a reference, either oblique or direct, to climate.

Nowadays opinion changes fast.

[dissident]

What I see in the headlines is that most people are nonplussed by the latest IPCC report. It should be pretty evident by those of us awake that the climate change daemon is going to roll over all of us before anyone really reacts. The more real it becomes the deeper the psychosis of denial embeds itself into the human psyche.

It's not that the majority don't concern themselves with the conclusions. It's just that they feel helpless to do anything about it and therefore put it away into the back of their minds.

The problem is that the media is not agitating the masses. These findings are presented like ho-hum curiosities and not threats to national security. Compare this to coverage of Syria or Crimea.

[Lore]

What I see in the headlines is that most people are nonplussed by the latest IPCC report. It should be pretty evident by those of us awake that the climate change daemon is going to roll over all of us before anyone really reacts. The more real it becomes the deeper the psychosis of denial embeds itself into the human psyche.

It's not that the majority don't concern themselves with the conclusions. It's just that they feel helpless to do anything about it and therefore put it away into the back of their minds.

The problem is that the media is not agitating the masses. These findings are presented like ho-hum curiosities and not threats to national security. Compare this to coverage of Syria or Crimea.

The national media put a three minute segment on the report just before they moved onto the last story of the news half hour to discuss the final four.

You only have to look at the commercials to know where their interests lay. Advertisers, like the fossil fuel companies are sure not welcoming stories about how they're screwing up the climate while at the same time promoting an energy independent future using their products.

[ROCKMAN]

Jeep – But you need to keep an eye out over your shoulder: there are reports from the rangers of an unprecedented movement of all kinds of critters out of the Yellowstone Park. Almost as if they know something bad is coming. I’m sure you’re familiar with the horror stories about another major eruption from the YS caldera. Man has the ability to screw up the environment but his efforts can pale in comparison to what Mother Earth can do when she sets her mind to it. Just ask the folks in Iceland.

[Lore]

Completely and utterly untrue. Most people do not care one iota for the IPCC, climate change, or whether or not we have an emergency. Most people are focused on their own lives, and are ready to boot out any politician that dares to suggest that they change anything they are doing, or worse yet make actual fundamental lifestyle changes.

According to the most recent Gallup Poll in March.

24% of US citizens worry about climate change a great deal
25% a fair amount
51% a little or not at all [those that don't want to think about it]

Which confirms my statement and adds up to more than an iota.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/clima ... worry.aspx

[Lore]

Jeep – But you need to keep an eye out over your shoulder: there are reports from the rangers of an unprecedented movement of all kinds of critters out of the Yellowstone Park. Almost as if they know something bad is coming. I’m sure you’re familiar with the horror stories about another major eruption from the YS caldera. Man has the ability to screw up the environment but his efforts can pale in comparison to what Mother Earth can do when she sets her mind to it. Just ask the folks in Iceland.

Then again, it could be just spring, but if it is the big one, there is really nothing that can be done about it. Better to concentrate your concerns on things you have some control over.

[ROCKMAN]

Lore - True: Despite the MSM hyping every new gurgle coming out of Yellowstone it's been seismically active for many tens of millions of years. If the critters are moving because they sense something it’s just one more of many thousands of such moments that have occurred in the past when there was no great cataclysmic event involved.