[Cabrone]

I'm not surprised, it is Fux News after all.

[emersonbiggins]

Pstarr is right, as usual. Any conversation about AGW that doesn't contain shades of fatalism isn't one worth having. That train has left the station.

[edpeak]

I will not change the way I live." — K.L. (Manchester, MD)

Atmospheric carbon levels are higher now than in the last 650,000 years.

It was upped from 400,000 to 650,000 years, yes, but
it's since been upped to 800,000 years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms.

The in-depth analysis of air bubbles trapped in a 3.2km-long core of frozen snow shows current greenhouse gas concentrations are unprecedented.

The East Antarctic core is the longest, deepest ice column yet extracted.

Project scientists say its contents indicate humans could be bringing about dangerous climate changes.

"My point would be that there's nothing in the ice core that gives us any cause for comfort," said Dr Eric Wolff from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS).

Other than that, there is one point I'd like
to make, the same one I try to make any time
someone says (I forget who, earlier in this post)
that since global warming is unstoppable, we
might as well do nothing. That's a non sequitor..
fortunately for us all, that is!

Now, some level of global warming
(human-caused kind) is indeed unavoidable.
It's a completely different claim to say
that we can't make a difference. We can't
completely prevent (a true statement)
versus we can't make a difference (a false one,
thank goodness). We can make the difference
between things getting significantly worse, on
the one hand, and things getting much, much
worse than the former case, on the other hand,
if we don't curb the massive release of GHG. Please,
let's not lose sight of this important distinction.

Yes, some (and even significant) level fo humanmade global
warming IS unavoidable, but our actions are not
futile and we can make a difference (ie to choose
the least damage rather than the most damage...
the fact that the least damage is pretty damned bad
doesn't change the fact that the worst is something
we can and should definitely try hard to avoid)

Edpeak

[Zardoz]

As bad as the report says it's going to be, the reality will be worse. This was the lead story on the front page of the L.A. Times this morning. http://www.latimes.com/includes/sectionfronts/A1.pdf

Slowly, progressively, the Main Stream Media is really starting to get it: BuschCo and the Chinese have their way with the IPCC

The Bush administration quickly made it clear that it would not be stampeded by the report into taking part in the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to limit emissions of carbon dioxide. The U.S. withdrew from the protocol in 2001, saying it was too expensive and did not impose enough controls on developing nations. "Each nation sort of defines their regulatory objectives in different ways to achieve the greenhouse reduction outcome that they seek," said Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, during a teleconference Friday from Brussels.

Sharon Hays, associate director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, noted in the same teleconference that "not all projected impacts are negative." Other governments, such as China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, had already expressed their displeasure with parts of the report by demanding changes — some of them seemingly minor in the grand scheme of climate change.

Panel member Yohe said that China and Saudi Arabia, for example, objected to a sentence that stated "very high confidence" that many natural systems were already being affected by regional climate changes, arguing that "very" should be removed.

[TommyJefferson]

With 2 billion dollars in taxpayer funding, one would certainly think the IPCC could to better than that.

Try harder.

[Tuike]

This has been noticed at Climate Ark Blog

Bleak IPCC Report Highlights Deadly Climate Impacts

[TreebeardsUncle]

Yes, that is a correct assessment. The scientists had determined that the impacts were severe, certain, and imminent, but the politicians excised these in order to falsify the executive summary of the report in order to make it look like the impacts would be mild, and distant and uncertain. Thus the politicians would have an excuse to condition to do nothing and later claim that they couldn't have known about the effects.
In particular, a chart showing the severe effects likely to occur with ever 1.5 degree (I am not sure whether is is degrees in Fahrenheit or Celsius.) rise in temperature was excised as well as a timeline showing when various effects were likely to occur. However, one can see even in the newspaper articles that estimates of impacts have moved up from the 2050 to the 2020 time frame. Thus, this is not something that one can just dump on the children and grandchilren as the impacts will be in evicence in 15 to 20 years.
g

[dohboi]

Oh my God, peolpe! Look at what we are talking about.This report VASTLY understates the true situation for at least three major reasons:

1) It is a CONSESUS document. Think about what that means. The very most timid, GW denying member gets to set the standard. This is a HUGELY cautious doc.

2) As if this wasn't enough, governments stepped to water down further what is supposed to be a SCIENTIFIC, not a political, document. They just came in at the last minute and said, "I don't care what the science says--you have to report what we think you should say for political reasons--that it's not so bad."

3) The IPCC's own rules restrict them from considering recent findings in their determinations. All the recent findings that I have heard about show conclusively that effects that weren't supposed to happen for fifty or seventy or more years are starting to happen NOW.

Add to these the inherent cautiousness of scientists, ESPECIALLY in such politically charged areas.

There can simply be no question in anyone's mind (outside certain brainless Senators and other Exxon lackeys) that the reality is much, much, much.......worse than this extremely gloomy report protrays.

They basically say that it is already too late to avoid lots of really bad climate change, given the amount of CO2 already in the air, and given its persistence (centuries), and given various feedback loops (i.e. uncontrolable vicious cycles already visily and measurably set in motion).

I doubt there is a doomer on this forum that is anywhere close to the actual doom in the hard, solid scientific data in this and other reports.

[savethehumans]

They basically say that it is already too late to avoid lots of really bad climate change, given the amount of CO2 already in the air, and given its persistence (centuries), and given various feedback loops (i.e. uncontrolable vicious cycles already visily and measurably set in motion).

Exactly. It's too late. The rich and/or powerful are just holding off the hordes while they finish setting up their "safety nets" and well-protected hideaways. Pity they can't see that this will ultimately not help them an iota. What is coming (in PO, CC, and societal collapse) will swallow them up, too.

At this point, I just wish there'd be a government, corporation, or some mover-and-shaker who'd just be honest with us. Respect, SELF-respect, honesty, compassion and dignity are the qualities worth going down with. What good is wealth and high standing gonna do anyone when TSHTF, anyway?

But I'm screaming into the wind of the cataclysm. Why bother?

Everyone should do what we should do even if times were not so threatening: value every day you've got, love those who you love (or even those you hate!), appreciate what is taken for granted and is of TRUE worth. You never know how long you'll have 'em!

Heck, ten years from now, what'll be left? Twenty years on, WHO will be left? Cherish today! Even the worse todays will be better than the best tomorrows!

[CrudeAwakening]

Everyone should do what we should do even if times were not so threatening: value every day you've got, love those who you love (or even those you hate!), appreciate what is taken for granted and is of TRUE worth. You never know how long you'll have 'em!

Heck, ten years from now, what'll be left? Twenty years on, WHO will be left? Cherish today! Even the worse todays will be better than the best tomorrows!

Well said, STH. Who said doomers can't be optimistic? It's easy to forget the value in the present when you're so focussed on the future.

[savethehumans]

From an article about the watering down of the report:

At US insistence, summary drafters dumped a paragraph that said North America was "expected to experience severe local economic damage and substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption," delegates in Brussels said.

Now I wonder why the US wouldn't want that generally known?

[SevenTen]

At this point, I just wish there'd be a government, corporation, or some mover-and-shaker who'd just be honest with us. Respect, SELF-respect, honesty, compassion and dignity are the qualities worth going down with. What good is wealth and high standing gonna do anyone when TSHTF, anyway?

Who is the "us" of whom you speak? The general public?

Clearly, someone of some relative authority to your life has informed you. You now have the capacity to ensure the respect, dignity, and compassion that you deserve.

Those luxuries will not be available to everyone.

A person is smart, but people are dumb, panicky animals. Already there isn't enough of the pie to go around, that condition will only worsen, and many will suffer on the way down. One of the few things preventing a total shitstorm from breaking out is ignorance of how badly we have screwed the pooch.

710

[TreebeardsUncle]

Well, we have already seen severe local damage with NO going down in the summer of 05. It turns out that many of the climate refugees will be Americans. (That is the social and cultural disruption.) Ecological collapse is not considered a problem. Notice how the papers are talking about how gw will mostly impact the poor, particularly in Africa. It is clear that the demise of many poor third-worlders is acceptable, but that nothing must get in the way of Americans to drive huge suvs as quickly as possible from Walmarts to garbage dumps. That is progress!

Geoff

[Cabrone]

It's sobering to read the extinction predictions from the IPCC and then factor in the watering down that the report would have been subjected to by politicians.

If you are left cold by abstract arguments about CO2 levels and thermal forcing and just want to know in plain speak what science is predicting then read '6 Degrees' by Mark Lynas .

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/0007209045/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/026-4050194-0608461?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176114133&sr=8-1

You will be left in no doubt whatsoever what we face.

Lynas goes through hundreds of scientific papers to describe the effects that we can expect with each degree of warming, right up to 6 degrees and it is not pretty.

[Plantagenet]

The Chinese and the Saudis apparently were the main countries that worked to soften the IPCC language.

The IPCC works on the principle of concensus, so they could only pass out a document that every national delegation could accept.

[Lore]

Have fun with Global Warming in your part of the country!

The United Nations Security Council prepared to hold its first discussion of global warming Tuesday in New York.

A 23-page summary of the full 1,000-plus-page report on the worldwide impact of global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was released in Brussels, Belgium, on April 6. Detailed chapters devoted to specific regions of the world are being published separately.

The North American section, Chapter 14, describes what's happening now and what the authors think will occur as the world heats up. Here are some of the developments it forecasts as "likely" or "very likely":

-By 2039, average temperatures across North America will rise by 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit. By 2100, the warming will be 3.6 to 5.4 degrees in the west, south and east, but more than 9 degrees in the far north.

-Less rain will fall in the Southwest, but more will fall in the rest of the continent. The chances of extreme precipitation and flooding will increase.

-Trends in hurricane frequency and intensity are uncertain, but there will be more intense mid-latitude storms and extreme wave heights.

-Shrinking western mountain snowpacks will melt earlier, causing spring floods and drier summers. The Columbia and Colorado rivers will be especially vulnerable. Southwestern states will battle for water.

-Water levels in the Great Lakes will drop, affecting ship navigation and fishing, and exposing buried pollutants.

-Warmer lake and river water will threaten fish and spread pollution. Surface temperatures in Midwestern lakes could reach 86 degrees.

-Growing seasons will lengthen for most of the 21st century. Forests will increase by 10 percent to 20 percent. As much as one-third of plant and animal species may be doomed to extinction.

-Sea levels will rise 9 to 18 inches by 2100 along U.S. coasts, higher in Canada and Alaska. Up to 21 percent of coastal wetlands in the mid-Atlantic region will be lost. Higher seas and accompanying storm surges will harm transportation along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.

-Severe heat waves and more pollution will threaten human health. Chicago can expect 25 percent more heat waves annually. Los Angeles will experience four to eight times as many heat-wave days. Severe hay fever, asthma and other lung diseases will mount.

LINK

[Tanada]

Some of those prediction contradict each other, for instance greater percipitation east of the Mississippi is going to lead to a decline in Great Lakes water levels? If anything more rain will increase water levels, not decrease them!

Also given that water seeks its level how can ocean sea level changes be greater in Canada and Alaska than in New York or California?

I suspect these prediction's come from different models or different modelers, not from a cohesive group.

[nocar]

If evaporation increases a lot, I believe it is possible for the Great Lakes to have declining water levels even while precipitation increases. (This prompted me to look at a map - a very small one that I have handy. It seems like the Great Lakes have a surprisingly small catchment area. Ohio river seems to start close to Lake Erie, yet run into the Mississippi. In Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, most big rivers go into Hudson Bay. No great rivers running into hte Great Lakes - strange.)

But this thing about ocean water levels increasing differently in different places, I too have difficulty to understand. Would be nice with some sort of explanation.

nocar