We’re really stuffing up, aren’t we?

Written By: - Date published: 7:58 am, September 29th, 2013 - 54 comments
Categories: climate change - Tags:

The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report makes, well, pretty damn depressing reading. Over a century after the basic mechanism of global warming by greenhouse gases was understood, and quarter of a century since the world’s nations signed the framework convention on climate change, emissions are still rising and the outlook is getting worse.

I won’t go through the technical details. I’ll just put up these two infographics, one from the Guardian using the IPCC, and the other from the Greens.

ipcc temperature increases climate change act now

54 comments on “We’re really stuffing up, aren’t we? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. karol 1
    29 September 2013 at 8:41 am

    Yep. The science is strong. Now the message needs to be continually put out there in everyday language, and with clear and striking graphics –

    – for an inclusive and sustainable economy.

    • Ugly Truth 1.1
      29 September 2013 at 10:25 pm

      The supposedly scientific foundation for the IPCC argument is based on the temperature projections of 73 global climate models developed by various scientists favored by the IPCC. These climate models are not science. They are literally speculative stories about the climate, especially since exactly zero of the models have been validated by past temperature experience. The scientific method involves testing a falsifiable hypothesis with experiments and evidence. Speculative model projections do not involve any such falsifiable hypothesis, and are not an exercise of the scientific method.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/09/22/your-move-global-warming-alarmists-science-has-exposed-your-unwarranted-hysteria/

      • McFlock 1.1.1
        29 September 2013 at 10:40 pm

        lol

        bzzt wrong

        • Ugly Truth 1.1.1.1
          29 September 2013 at 10:45 pm

          Stop pretending that you know what you are talking about, McFlock.

          • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1
            29 September 2013 at 10:48 pm

            as opposed to someone who quotes an economist talking about science? Better take it to the court of the hundred.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.2
            30 September 2013 at 1:18 am

            Everything you said about the climate models is wrong. They have been validated by checking to see how accurate they can model the past climate, i.e, if they model the past within a reasonable error range then we can assume that they can model the future within the same error range. They’ve been getting more and more accurate.

            • Ugly Truth 1.1.1.1.2.1
              30 September 2013 at 11:11 am

              Everything you said about the climate models is wrong.

              What do you think is wrong with the first sentence?

              “The supposedly scientific foundation for the IPCC argument is based on the temperature projections of 73 global climate models developed by various scientists favored by the IPCC.”

              They’ve been getting more and more accurate.

              But not accurate enough to actually predict what _future_ temperatures will be. Anyone can hindcast if they tweak the model enough.

              The point of scientific testing is to falsify hypotheses that do not conform to reality. The IPCC hypotheses about temperature failed, therefore the IPCC has no credibility when it talks about what the future global temperature will be.

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                30 September 2013 at 11:26 am

                You don’t know what you’re talking about. The evidence for AGW is empirical and comes from multiple lines of evidence. Oh, and climate models have made many successful predictions. What do you think Svante Arrhenius’ work was?

                • Ugly Truth …
                  30 September 2013 at 11:50 am

                  You don’t know what you’re talking about.

                  I know what the scientific method is, fuckwit.

                  Oh, and climate models have made many successful predictions.

                  IPCC temperature models? Do tell.

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    30 September 2013 at 12:09 pm

                    “The IPCC hypothesis about temperature failed”. IPCC doesn’t generate hypotheses. It collates information and summarises extant research. So much for your understanding of the scientific method, and who looks like a fuckwit now?

                    The predictions you are referring to are a range of temperature forecasts. Global average temperatures are still well within that range. Yes, they are. So much for your assertions of failure, and who looks like an ignorant fuckwit now?

                    George Box ring a bell? “All models are wrong; some are _______”? Fill in the blank.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      30 September 2013 at 12:47 pm

                      who looks like a fuckwit now?

                      You do, OAK, because you had use a strawman instead of backing up your accusation against me. I never said that the IPCC _generated_ hypotheses.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      30 September 2013 at 1:44 pm

                      “The IPCC hypotheses about temperature failed…”

                      30 September 2013 at 11:11 am

                      A fuckwit who can’t even read what he wrote 2.5 hours ago. Now run along, I’m busy.

  2. andyS 2
    29 September 2013 at 9:06 am

    I was chastised on another thread for referencing information from Ar5 working group 1 that hasn’t been officially released yet. There are various prereleases in circulation, of course.

    Are the conclusions of this post based on the Summary for Policymakers or the prereleases?

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1
      29 September 2013 at 9:11 am

      Emissions are still rising, and this being so, that the outlook is getting worse is axiomatic.

      • Richard McGrath 2.1.1
        2 October 2013 at 1:59 am

        What a bugger there hasn’t been significant global warming since 1997 despite growing levels of atmospheric CO2.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1.1.1
          2 October 2013 at 6:45 am

          Really? How do you know? Obviously you’re quoting some sort of science body. Which one?

          What else are your sources saying?

          Perhaps they have expressed an opinion on decadal averages or ocean heat content.

          Have they ever, for example, used a model to predict future temperature rise based on various hypothetical emissions scenarios, then, after gathering empirical data of actual emissions, been able to plug the real-world data into the model to check for accuracy?

          Well? Have they?

          Now get back under your bridge.

        • lprent 2.1.1.2
          2 October 2013 at 12:22 pm

          There has been an enormous amount of heat buildup, most of it in the oceans.

          However idiots like yourself tend to merely cherry pick data – in this case I’d bet that it is the usual air temperatures in britain which fools like yourself seem to think is the whole world. Of course as usual scientific morons like yourself don’t leave a link so no-one else can point out how stupid you are..

          Instead you wank out another assertion… Pretty typical dickhead..

    • andyS 2.2
      30 September 2013 at 12:20 pm

      [lprent: deleted – permanent ban for trolling. ]

  3. Colonial Viper 3
    29 September 2013 at 9:47 am

    Oil will become highly unaffordable over the next 20 years. Its already 3x the price it was just 9 or 10 years ago. In other words: economic decline is going to slow down emissions nicely.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.1
      29 September 2013 at 9:58 am

      Depends what happens to the coal.

      • Colonial Viper 3.1.1
        29 September 2013 at 11:06 am

        Yes, there might be 50 relatively available years of coal to burn yet. But the global economy will slow down to the speed of the 1850’s using coal instead of oil. CO2 levels in the air will still rise – but more slowly. And imagine trying to clear a rain forest without bulldozers and heavy trucks.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.1.1.1
          29 September 2013 at 11:14 am

          Coal reserves estimated at 5,000Gt of carbon. If we burn all that lot in 50 years we’re fucked.

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1
            29 September 2013 at 10:28 pm

            Most of that coal will never be economic to recover.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.1.1.1.1.1
              30 September 2013 at 12:16 am

              “Ultimately recoverable coal occurrences amount to 6200 Gtoe.” Rogner 1997.

              • Colonial Viper …
                30 September 2013 at 12:30 am

                That figure was pre-financial crisis, and pre-China economic slow down.

                Although that coal may be “ultimately recoverable” if there is no profit in it, it will stay in the ground.

                And if there is little oil available that is what will happen. Not much of that coal stated is accessible with pick axes.

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  30 September 2013 at 12:22 pm

                  So, assuming “most” of it won’t be recoverable (citation?), say 2,000 Gt will be. As opposed to the problems we’ve already got from the 500Gt of oil…

    • Bill 3.2
      29 September 2013 at 10:56 am

      If effects of CO2 were immediate, then the rising price of petrol might be connected to the warming it causes – and we’d maybe skite out of this mess. But since none of those things are true, then any notion that rising oil prices will bring necessary emission reductions can only be an article of faith. Now, I know it’s Sunday and all CV, but…

      • Colonial Viper 3.2.1
        29 September 2013 at 11:10 am

        But since none of those things are true, then any notion that rising oil prices will bring necessary emission reductions can only be an article of faith.

        Emissions per $ of GDP is a standard calculation Bill. Economic decline definitely slows down emissions rates. There is no ‘article of faith’ required. You can see it in the US where sales of new cars per year and passenger miles travelled per capita have been falling and falling and falling.

        You can see it in the complaints by WalMart senior managers that people are buying less goods in the USA (and hence necessitating less manufacturing in China, shipping across the Pacific, and transport across the continental USA).

        In NZ some people are choosing to park up their cars and choosing other ways to work as a $100 pw fuel bill is intolerable for someone on the minimum wage. (And more would do so if better public transport options were available).

        The real question is – the impact of economic growth of China and India.

        • Bill 3.2.1.1
          29 September 2013 at 11:34 am

          There is increasing scarcity and a plethora of market distortions. These are delivering rising oil prices.

          But those ‘drivers’ are divorced from real world impacts of CO2.

          If scarcity plus various market distortions were somehow going to deliver a fast enough reduction in CO2, then it would be a coincidence. And that is why I’m saying your assertion is an article of faith.

          • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1.1
            29 September 2013 at 10:31 pm

            I didn’t say that it’s going to deliver a “fast enough reduction in CO2”. My position is however that it will deliver faster than any political process can.

  4. muzza 4
    29 September 2013 at 11:26 am

    Serves only to illustrate the control TPTB have over this planet, and everything in/on it.

    As geo-engineering and atmospheric manipulation/experimentation, continues, unabated, unchecked and effectively unregulated, then human/animal kind is going to be lead, exactly where those same powers, dictate!

    Just keep looking in one direction, that’s exactly the intent!

    People have been lied to, the IPCC are part of the lies!

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.1
      29 September 2013 at 11:30 am

      ! ! !

      A void punctuated only by exclamation points.

      • muzza 4.1.1
        29 September 2013 at 11:53 am

        The irony, it’s gotten away on you there, Bloke!

        If you have so much faith in what you believe you know, then you should have no problems in taking on some reading on the so called scientific experimentation, and the damage that it’s done/is doing to a key life support system of planet earth.

        I’ve said it before, in many ways, science is the problem !

        You know it is, but your fear (ego) are preventing you!

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.1.1.1
          29 September 2013 at 11:57 am

          Speaking of scientific experimentation, you tiresome cretin, how’s Project Onan going?

          • muzza 4.1.1.1.1
            29 September 2013 at 12:05 pm

            Don’t live in fear bro, it leads to ignorance, denial, hypocrisy, all such traits which no-one really wants to be known to have, but do!

            Some just wear them more publicly than others!

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.1.1.1.1.1
              29 September 2013 at 12:14 pm

              Live in fear? Au contraire, mon petit imbécile, I just signed a deal with the HAARP cabal and received my Illuminatii secret ring. Those chemtrails you’ve been monitoring are my little clouds of nanobots.

    • Zorr 4.2
      29 September 2013 at 1:02 pm

      I can’t tell… is this honest opinion or trolling for effect? 😛

      What is a TPTB btw anyway?

      • William 4.2.1
        29 September 2013 at 6:43 pm

        Not absolutely sure, but by consulting
        http://www.acronymfinder.com/
        it could be “The Powers That Be”, said of course with a deep menacing tone!

      • Murray Olsen 4.2.2
        29 September 2013 at 7:45 pm

        Sadly, I believe it’s honest opinion.
        I also believe that a successful conclusion of Project Onan will help us learn why right wing conspiracy rubbish is so rampant on otherwise reasonable and progressive blogs. Or if, not it, will teach, us about commas and their, proper usage.

  5. johnm 5
    29 September 2013 at 12:46 pm

    “‘No children, happy to go extinct’, tweets weatherman after grim climate-change report made him cry (now he’s considering a vasectomy)

    Eric Holthaus, who used to do weather for Wall Street Journal, was reacting to Friday’s findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    Scientists found in the report that it was ‘extremely likely’ that humans are causing warming trends
    Holthaus said he has decided not to have children in order to leave a lighter carbon footprint, and has considered having a vasectomy
    He tweeted on Friday ‘no children, happy to go extinct’
    The weatherman also said he is committed to stop flying as ‘it’s not worth the climate’
    US Secretary of State, John Kerry, calls the report ‘an alarm bell’
    It means scientists have moved from being 90 per cent sure to 95 per cent sure regarding global warming”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436551/A-weatherman-breaks-tears-vows-NEVER-fly-grim-climate-change-report.html

    We are in the decline phase of Industrial Civilisation + The age of consequences for the great growth party of the 20c. Not having children in my humble opinion is a good idea, the good times are going going and will be gone.

    • andyS 5.1
      29 September 2013 at 12:53 pm

      I think this is a great move, and I would encourage all to follow suit in getting themselves sterilised Perhaps I could also suggest that if you fall sick, or any members of your family fall sick, you should let nature take its course rather than burdening the health system? It will be a win-win all round

      • johnm 5.1.1
        29 September 2013 at 1:04 pm

        Hi andyS
        I do support assisted euthanasia as they have in Holland and with Dignitas.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2
        29 September 2013 at 3:07 pm

        The voluntary eugenics won’t work as you desire as either a) the conservatives that will be left over will ensure that life on Earth will be destroyed or b) the young will wake up to the fact that the conservatives are completely insane and ignore them.

    • Intrinsicvalue 5.2
      30 September 2013 at 10:03 pm

      It is an excellent idea that people who share this hysterical and irrational paranaoia about climate change do not breed.

  6. xtasy 6
    30 September 2013 at 12:28 am

    Maybe all this explains the sudden great interest in sending people to further explore planet Mars???

    Billions are spent by the NASA in the US and space agencies in a few other countries, to consider establishing “colonies” on that planet, to do research and so forth. Minerals are one motivator, but hey, there could be more to the agenda, as some rich and selected few up in the upper echelons of social hierarchy may be getting real worried, about not just the environment, but also peace, their security and survival.

    Think the unthinkable, I suggest.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1
      30 September 2013 at 1:13 am

      It’d take centuries, more probably millennia, to terra-form Mars. Until that’s done then Mars is no more suitable for colonisation than the Moon.

      • xtasy 6.1.1
        30 September 2013 at 1:18 am

        Well then we must pull out “plan B” and exterminate all the undesired on this over-populated place. And they are already preparing to do it, not only in the “developing world”, as they call it, but also by kicking sick and disabled off welfare, to force them under bridges, or better have them jump off them, and perhaps, as a new idea, offer them free tickets to the top of the Sky Tower and Harbour Bridge, to rid society of them.

        If that does not work, we pull out “plan C”, which was tried somewhere between 1933 and 1945 in another place, now well known for “history”. Afterwards much space will be left for the “deserved” and “fit” to “enjoy” on planet earth.

  7. aerobubble 7
    30 September 2013 at 2:06 pm

    The problem of the commons, so what happens when the rabid rapacious exploitation of the commons means disaster? whether fishing, carbon emissions, fracking effects on underground water, or even the Japan nuclear disaster… …all about seeing who can piss higher into the wind.

  8. JonL 8
    30 September 2013 at 3:21 pm

    I’m just sorry I won’t be around long enough to see what transpires over the next 50 yrs – it’s going to be “interesting” times…….

  9. Intrinsicvalue 9
    30 September 2013 at 4:57 pm

    “Over a century after the basic mechanism of global warming by greenhouse gases was understood, and quarter of a century since the world’s nations signed the framework convention on climate change, emissions are still rising and the outlook is getting worse.” …and the inconvenient truth is…the world isn’t warming, and the change in atmospheric temperatures that has occurred shows the IPCC projections to be hysterical nonsense. Get rid of them, they’re all corrupt.