[FoxV]

51% a little or not at all [those that don't want to think about it]

Nice paraphrasing. Another subtitle can be used for that group.
"Those that researched the matter and decided the IPCC is full of crap"
or how about:
"Those that once believed in the IPCC but now realize they are full of crap"
or more broadly:
"Those that think the IPCC is full of crap"

The previous IPCC release was laughable in the fact that while they admitted the world was not warming to any degree within the scope of their predictions, they were more certain than ever that we were the cause of the problem. Now they launch an almost foaming at the mouth tirade at how we're all doomed and must follow them.

The irony is that solar scientists, with an over 400 year collection of actual data, are now wondering if we're heading into a new mini-iceage.
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

I love this part...

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide.

What an ultimate display of hubris. I love the rebuttal to it...

‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.

In any case I'd let the whole debate just die on its own accord if it wasn't for the fact that so much effort and resources are being wasted on saving us from an unprovable threat in the distant future while there are very serious and immediate threats occurring right in front of us. Most of these threats stemming from government waste and misguided public policies; carbon reduction being one of them.

Good luck all

[Lore]

51% a little or not at all [those that don't want to think about it]

Nice paraphrasing. Another subtitle can be used for that group.
"Those that researched the matter and decided the IPCC is full of crap"
or how about:
"Those that once believed in the IPCC but now realize they are full of crap"
or more broadly:
"Those that think the IPCC is full of crap"

The previous IPCC release was laughable in the fact that while they admitted the world was not warming to any degree within the scope of their predictions, they were more certain than ever that we were the cause of the problem. Now they launch an almost foaming at the mouth tirade at how we're all doomed and must follow them.

The irony is that solar scientists, with an over 400 year collection of actual data, are now wondering if we're heading into a new mini-iceage.
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

I love this part...

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide.

What an ultimate display of hubris. I love the rebuttal to it...

‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.

In any case I'd let the whole debate just die on its own accord if it wasn't for the fact that so much effort and resources are being wasted on saving us from an unprovable threat in the distant future while there are very serious and immediate threats occurring right in front of us. Most of these threats stemming from government waste and misguided public policies; carbon reduction being one of them.

Good luck all

Sure glad that the world's climate scientists don't get their facts from the Daily Mail!

There is no battle about the sun's role within the science community since we've been able to measure its output for many years. A disconcerting fact for the deniers as they still try to prop up that old myth through endless repetition without evidence. Just a belief.

It's ok though, you can go merrily about your way ignoring it all, but I doubt very much climate change will be ignoring you.

[GregT]

In any case I'd let the whole debate just die on its own accord if it wasn't for the fact that so much effort and resources are being wasted on saving us from an unprovable threat in the distant future while there are very serious and immediate threats occurring right in front of us.

You mean threats like overpopulation, food and water shortages, economic collapse, and dwindling resources?

All either directly, or indirectly caused by our exploitation of fossil fuels. The very same thing that is causing climate change, and has the potential to cause a catastrophic runaway greenhouse event, in YOUR lifetime.

[FoxV]

It's ok though, you can go merrily about your way ignoring it all, but I doubt very much climate change will be ignoring you.

Actually I will.

After going through years of following and believing in the global warming debate, I finally gave up with the second last IPCC report in which they showed themselves to not only do they not understand they're own information as much as they claim, but they are incapable of accepting the possibility they could be wrong. The latest report just confirms they're going off the deep end.

As for global warming "proving itself" to me. Quite frankly, as I sit at 45degrees latitude and see 3ft of snow on the ground in April, I say bring it one.

As for all the aforementioned disasters the IPCC mentions, Well funny enough, most of those are going to happen, Global warming, mini ice age, or otherwise. This is Peak Oil dot com, not happy wonderland dot com. We're here because we think we have bigger problems now than what the earth may or may not be like 100 years from now.

In any case, the good news, is it looks like the warming/cooling debate will prove itself in a decade or so. For someone that has been watching the debate for 3 decades, that seems like a short time away.

I will tell you one firm conclusion I have drawn from the last 30 years of this:
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE WILL BE DONE ABOUT IT UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
And even then, everything will just be reactions to immediate issues. The global warming debate in the end, is ultimately futile.

[dorlomin]

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/01/telegraph-and-mail-concede-on-climate-change

The Mail told the MPs that "there are very few serious scientists who deny the climate is changing." But it also said: "The climate is always changing and the vast majority of climate scientists believe there is a significant human impact on it although they disagree about the pace and effects. Climate scientists are unlikely to write papers saying climate change is not happening."

When the Mail is forced to go on record with its editorial policy, there is no room for solar cycles and mystical magical bus rides.

On the record they say climate change is real.

[Lore]

It's ok though, you can go merrily about your way ignoring it all, but I doubt very much climate change will be ignoring you.

Actually I will.

Obviously not, since you still think it's important enough to make a response.

After going through years of following and believing in the global warming debate, I finally gave up with the second last IPCC report in which they showed themselves to not only do they not understand they're own information as much as they claim, but they are incapable of accepting the possibility they could be wrong. The latest report just confirms they're going off the deep end.

Pretty nonspecific. Could it be you were just a straw advocate and couldn't overcome your bias? The possibility that they are wrong would require some factual basis for their error. So far, no one one has been able to refute the growing evidence. Certainly not serial misinformers like journalist David Rose from the Daily Mail.

As for global warming "proving itself" to me. Quite frankly, as I sit at 45degrees latitude and see 3ft of snow on the ground in April, I say bring it one.

Uh, once again, that's why it's called global warming.

NOAA: Earth had its 4th-warmest year on record in 2013
All of the top 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2 ... 3/4719911/

As for all the aforementioned disasters the IPCC mentions, Well funny enough, most of those are going to happen, Global warming, mini ice age, or otherwise. This is Peak Oil dot com, not happy wonderland dot com. We're here because we think we have bigger problems now than what the earth may or may not be like 100 years from now.

Two sides of the same coin. Peak Oil will exacerbate climate change as we scramble to use up all available fossil fuel resources. It's a contributing factor to melting ice, rising seas, drought, starvation, dislocation and war. It's not the lack of this resource that will cause climate related problems, but the abundance and use of what we have left.

In any case, the good news, is it looks like the warming/cooling debate will prove itself in a decade or so. For someone that has been watching the debate for 3 decades, that seems like a short time away.

I will tell you one firm conclusion I have drawn from the last 30 years of this:
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE WILL BE DONE ABOUT IT UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
And even then, everything will just be reactions to immediate issues. The global warming debate in the end, is ultimately futile.

Not a reason to stop trying.

[FoxV]

Pretty nonspecific.

yup, I don't have time, energy, or concern enough to go in to it.

One of the big reasons is because of this:

Could it be you were just a straw advocate and couldn't overcome your bias?

Global warming debates often devolve into personal attacking.

On the positive side, I see now that even the IPCC, as the official highest authority on the matter, is shifting in to hyperbole to get its point across. This is a classic sign of someone becoming desperate to win a losing debate.

If in their previous report they would have said "Things are not turning out how we expected, we need more data/analysis/divining, then I would have given them some credit. But instead they came out with a statement that they are "More sure than ever about anthropological global warming", in clear conflict of the their own data.

I realized the "deniers" were in fact correct, and reasonable debate was no longer possible.

As for me personally, I do care about the environment, save energy where I can, and prepare for a harsh future as much as possible. However I couldn't give a rats ass about carbon emissions and all the "green" initiatives that do more harm than good.

Trust me I'm witnessing the worst of it where I live in Ontario Canada. Here they have perfected Green Washing foolishness to an art. The only thing that keeps me from really getting angry about it is that I get my electricity from Quebec and pay much less expensive Quebec rates.

Adieu!

[clif]

Global warming debates often devolve into personal attacking.

Only when the science is ignored, mostly by those trying to deny what the science of the last century and a half clearly points to.

[Lore]

Global warming debates often devolve into personal attacking.

Only when the science is ignored, mostly by those trying to deny what the science of the last century and a half clearly points to.

I guess personal attacks against the IPCC members doesn't count either.

[Graeme]

Impacts of Climate Change – Part 2 of the new IPCC Report has been approved

On all continents and across the oceans

Impacts of anthropogenic climatic change are observed worldwide and have been linked to observed climate using rigorous methods. Such impacts have occurred in many ecosystems on land and in the ocean, in glaciers and rivers, and they concern food production and the livelihoods of people in developing countries. Many changes occur in combination with other environmental problems (such as urbanization, air pollution, biodiversity loss), but the role of climate change for them emerges more clearly than before.

A future of increasing risks

More than previous IPCC reports, the new report deals with future risks. Among other things, it seeks to identify those situations where adaptation could become unfeasible and damages therefore become inevitable. A general finding is that “high” scenarios of climate change (those where global mean temperature reaches four degrees C or more above preindustrial conditions – a situation that is not at all unlikely according to part one of the report) will likely result in catastrophic impacts on most aspects of human life on the planet.

These risks concern entire ecosystems, notably those of the Arctic and the corals of warm waters around the world (the latter being a crucial resource for fisheries in many developing countries), the global loss of biodiversity, but also the working conditions for many people in agriculture (the report offers many details from various regions). Limiting global warming to 1.5-2.0 degrees C through aggressive emission reductions would not avoid all of these damages, but the risks would be significantly lower (a similar chart has been shown in earlier reports, but the assessment of risks is now, based on the additional scientific knowledge available, more alarming than before, a point that is expressed most prominently by the deep red color in the first bar).



Food security increasingly at risk

In the short term, warming may improve agricultural yields in some cooler regions, but significant reductions are highly likely to dominate in later decades of the present century, particularly for wheat, rice and maize. The illustration is an example of the assessment of numerous studies in the scientific literature, showing that, from 2030 onwards, significant losses are to be expected. This should be seen in the context of already existing malnutrition in many regions, a growing problem also in the absence of climate change, due to growing populations, increasing economic disparities and the continuing shift of diet towards animal protein.

realclimate

American Geophysical Union Reacts to Latest IPCC Report

"The recent release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Assessment 5, Working Group II report has been viewed by many as a wakeup call. Not only is our climate changing, but the impacts of that change are already occurring and increasing faster than previously thought. This poses a real, direct and immediate threat to human health, the performance and sustainability of our agriculture systems, the availability and reliability of natural resources—including water supplies—the health of ecosystems on land and in the oceans, and the economic stability of nations around the world.
That doesn't mean that it's too late to address the impacts of climate change, but it does mean that the window for meaningful action is closing. Lessening the negative outcomes will require rapid societal responses that are informed by science and that reflect the perspectives and commitment of all stakeholders, including international, national, regional, and local governments, the business community, industry, scientific researchers, and many others.

The bottom line is this: Climate change is real – the science is clear and the scientific community is in agreement. Its impacts are being felt today in communities and countries around the world . . . and those effects touch Fortune 500 companies and families alike. There is much that can be done to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, but without immediate action, they will only continue to worsen. And, while some solutions will require us to make difficult decisions, many of them have the potential to open up innovative new avenues for economic growth and development.
The IPCC report clearly demonstrates that we cannot continue to hit the snooze button when it comes to addressing climate change. From taking steps to reduce the magnitude of climate change, such as substantially cutting emissions, to providing vulnerable communities with the resources they need to adapt and ensuring that policy decisions are informed by credible and up-to-date science, the time for action is now."

prnewswire

[Keith_McClary]

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

I love this part...

I liked this part:

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface –

That's a good trick - tell us they do that, since you're an expert.

[Graeme]

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change To Discuss Future Of Fossil Fuels

After concluding that global warming almost certainly is man-made and poses a grave threat to humanity, the U.N.-sponsored expert panel on climate change is moving on to the next phase: what to do about it.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, will meet next week in Berlin to chart ways in which the world can curb the greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are overheating the planet.

It is also trying to give estimates on what it would cost.

In the third report of a landmark climate assessment, the IPCC is expected to say that to keep warming in check, the world needs a major shift in investments from fossil fuels — the principal source of man-made carbon emissions — to renewable energy.

"Underlying this report is a lot of technical analysis of the different solutions, for example wind energy, solar, better energy efficiency and what is the cost of that," said Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director at the National Resources Defense Council, a Washington-based environmental group. "And there will also be some discussions of how deep global cuts are needed to put us onto these different climate trajectories."

A leaked draft of the report sent to governments in December suggests that in order to keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) by the end of the century — the stated goal of international climate talks — emissions need to fall by 40-70 percent by 2050.

Investments in fossil fuels such as oil and coal would have to drop by $30 billion a year, while spending on renewables would have to go up by $147 billion annually, according to the draft.

huffingtonpost

[dohboi]

Just a reminder. Even if we stop all further emissions of CO2 immediately (ain't gonna happen), warming at this point will continue:

http://web.a.ebscohost.com/abstract?dir ... d%3d&crl=c

"If Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Cease, Will Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Continue to Increase?"

Journal of Climate . Dec2013, Vol. 26 Issue 23, p9563-9576. 14p.
Author(s): MacDougall, Andrew H.; Eby, Michael; Weaver, Andrew J.

"if all CO2 and aerosols emissions were eliminated without also decreasing non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions CO2 levels would increase over time, resulting in a small increase in climate warming associated with this positive permafrost-carbon feedback."

(Note that this study does not consider any increase in other carbon sources, such as methane hydrate, so is likely quite 'conservative': probably the actual trajectory is a larger increase in warming that suggested in that last line, even with an immediate cessations of all further CO2 emissions starting now.)

[Graeme]

Solar energy saves the earth?

Berlin has seen many historical events, especially in the 20th century. It is unlikely to make history this week, tough, as the IPCC plan to unveil more advice on how to prevent climate change. They have finally managed to persuade us to accept the obvious global warming, although credit should really go to the enormous storms and other damage with the resultant loss of life from recent disasters.

Governments' problems in accepting responsibility seems the key. The more capitalist regimes demand the right to feed the greed of multinational and local business, so they are unlikely to give in to mild requests from organisations who don't pay them. Power politics is the only answer and real people themselves are responsible for this. Solar power is being advocated next as a major player in solving the renewable energy lobbies' perennial problem of getting into the marketplace.

With up to 25% increase in uses of solar PV panels before 2020 and wind energy currently increasing by only 5%, this IPCC move on recommending solar energies could be vindicated. They say quite correctly that time is running out for fossil fuel use and solar could eventually supply every energy need. Publication after their Berlin meetings will reveal a useful 29 page document.

According to this tome, up to 6% of the world economy will have to be dedicated to utilise low-carbon technology properly. In context, this would probably mean the equivalent of giving up war and the arms race! Impossible, but like war, the temperature rise has the most dramatic and irreversible consequences. With a 0.8 degree (Celsius) rise already, we will hit our determined limit of 2 degrees in around 20 years (say, 2034




The UN indications are that the PV cell in solar panels will be the only possible saviour, although it is hard to believe that wind power and the rapidly-developing tidal and wave systems won't change in impact as yet more technological advances help us out. New PV systems already use low light and employ east or west facing arrays, with amazing contrasts between their multi-crystal, though silicon-based cells The IPCC report next week will announce, "The technical potential for solar is the largest [of the renewable energy sources] by a large magnitude."

We can only hope both that they are right and that somebody somewhere listens and acts-immediately!

earthtimes

[Graeme]

Carbon cuts possible for manageable warming, experts say

The world, acting urgently, can curb carbon emissions enough to avert worst-case scenarios for climate change, UN experts said Monday as envoys met in Berlin to weigh the options for action.

"The literature here shows that deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to limit warming to 2 C... remain possible," said Ottmar Edenhofer, who helped oversee the latest volume in a report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But achieving this goal, Edenhofer warned, will require a break from today's relentlessly upward trend in emissions.

It will entail "challenging technological, economic, institutional and behaviour change," he said.



Most scenarios that meet the 2 C target entail a "tripling to nearly a quadrupling" in the share of energy from renewable and nuclear sources and the capture and storage of emissions from fossil fuel plants, according to the draft.

Government representatives and scientists will go through the summary line by line over the next few days.

"In the plenary, all countries can voice their concerns and all of them are heard," said co-chairman Youba Sokona.

"In the end, it is scientific accuracy that decides."

The summary will be publicly released in the German capital on Sunday, and the full 2,000-page report—authored by scientists and not subject to this week's scrutiny—will be released shortly afterwards.

phys.org

[Tanada]

Carbon cuts possible for manageable warming, experts say

The illusion of 'managing the climate' is nothing but pure hubris. China alone is burning 3.6 Billion tons of coal per year, the USA burns another 900 Million. At the very best possible speed those levels will be maintained and then slowly fall. By 2050 the climate will be wildly different than most of us currently imagine.

In extractive industries they talk about possible, probable and assured. Sure if everyone gets a change of perspective today it is possible to rapidly stop burning fossil fuels, but it is not probable that will happen because even if everyone wanted too stopping fossil fuels would be hugely expensive. Think of all the extraction investments in infrastructure alone. All the people currently working in extraction would have to be retrained and moved around to their new workplaces. All the existing vehicle fleet would have to be scrapped and replaced. Almost every ship at sea would have to have its engines ripped out and replaced with something else. A substitute for both Asphalt and Concrete road surfacing would have to be found and infrastructure to produce and deliver it built, workers trained and so on and so forth.

This huge social and economic cost assures me that nothing other than a few tiny cosmetic things will be done. Game over, you better adapt your life to a different future climate or you will suffer direct consequences.

[Timo]

I hate to say it, but mining and burning FFs are here to stay. Perhaps not in the same volume as today, but perpetually to some degree, they are a part of what elevated humans from Neandrathals. Tanada is completely right. There is absolutely no practical way to cease the economic madate that we burn something to generate the energy we need. Well, wee could do it, but billions of people would die, and therefore, that option is not practical. That option is, in effect, off the table. Given the lack of time that's projected, i'm afraid that we're faced with the challenge of literally pulling CO2 and Methane from the air in order to offset the rising temperatures in our future. We can reduce the amount we put into the atmosphere, and we can adapt to new technologies to compensate for the energies lost via that reduction, and we can (ASAP) develop technologies to scrub the atmosphere of greenhouse gasses. That's the only way i see to afford humanity enough time to functionally shift our dependence from fossil fuels to renewables. The only problem is that doing that doesn't fit within any of the industrial sectors of our economy. It doesn't fit within the Capitalistic model of our modern world.

[Graeme]

Shift to green energy will be tiny brake on growth-UN

A radical shift from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy would slow world economic growth by only a tiny fraction every year, a new draft U.N. report on tackling global warming said on Friday.

Many governments had complained that an earlier draft was not clear in its estimate of the costs of low-carbon energy, which include solar or wind, nuclear and fossil fuels whose greenhouse gas emissions are captured and buried underground.

The new draft, which is being edited by government officials and scientists in Berlin before publication on Sunday, indicates that world economic losses would be small compared to projected costs of heatwaves, floods, storms and rising sea levels.

The study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a main guide for governments working on a U.N. pact due to be agreed in Paris at the end of 2015 to slow global warming, which the IPCC says is extremely likely to be man-made.

The new text, obtained by Reuters, says that tough action to cut rising greenhouse gas emissions would slow rising world consumption of goods and services by 0.06 percentage point per year in this century, in a range of 0.04 to 0.14.

Economists say the changes in consumption measured by the IPCC are almost identical to changes in the more common yardstick of gross domestic product (GDP). Consumption excludes investments included in GDP.

trust

[americandream]

The numbers don't add up from where I am sitting.

[Graeme]

Governments approve text of UN climate report

Government representatives on Saturday approved a UN report listing options for rolling back emissions from greenhouse gases, NGOs following the proceedings said.

In a six-day wrangle, they hammered out the summary of a vast report on choices to tackle the source of climate change, the sources said.

Compiled by more than 200 scientists over four years, the report is the third piece in an overview by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

It is only the fifth such "assessment report" in the Nobel-winning panel's history.

The Summary for Policymakers, due to be unveiled in Berlin on Sunday, will provide a palette of options to mitigate heat-trapping emissions from fossil fuels and agriculture.

While making no recommendations, it is expected to say the UN target—to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)—is feasible if surging emissions are swiftly braked and then reversed.

Most scenarios for meeting the 2 C target entail a "tripling to nearly a quadrupling" in the share of energy from renewable energy, nuclear and also fossil sources whose emissions are captured and stored, according to a draft seen by AFP.

phys.org