About as doomy as one would expect professional doomsayers to prognosticate
(UK Register) The summary for policymakers alone is 44 pages and the full report contains 1,552, so it’s necessary to be rather brief in this initial report on the newly-released documents. Later analysis is the place to go deeper. Let’s start with the summary’s assessment of the “observed impacts, vulnerability and adaptation†to climate change.
The summary then presents the following eight “key risks†that the IPCC feels “are identified with high confidence, span sectors and regions.â€
The risks are:
- Risk of death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states and other small islands, due to storm surges, coastal flooding, and sea-level rise
- Risk of severe ill-health and disrupted livelihoods for large urban populations due to inland flooding in some regions.
- Systemic risks due to extreme weather events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services such as electricity, water supply, and health and emergency services
- Risk of mortality and morbidity during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations and those working outdoors in urban or rural areas.
- Risk of food insecurity and the breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding, and precipitation variability and extremes, particularly for poorer populations in urban and rural settings.
- Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.
- Risk of loss of marine and coastal ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.
- Risk of loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for livelihoods.
The summary eventually considers “overlapping approaches†to “adaptation†that will help humanity to ameliorate climate change. Many types of adaptation are suggested, ranging from better land planning laws to the creation of “catastrophe bondsâ€.
So, doom everywhere. Funny thing is, they can’t prove that any changes are caused by global anthropogenic causes, and, their models continue to fail in a big way.
There is so much funky stuff in the report it’s hard to know where to begin. I am amused that they are now all sorts of worried about flooding in Australia, when they had recently been all sorts of worried about drought. Hey, different day, different complaint. Interestingly, none of the adaptation or other recommendations include Warmists practicing what they preach. Strange, eh?
They also are astounded that the world can actually change. Because that never happened during the previous 4.5 billion years. They also fail to note that 17+ year pause.
By “they” are you still trying to demonize the US Navy?
Teach why would you believe that YOU know more than the US Navy does?
Dunning Kreuger?
1998 WAS a hot year for land temps, but not the hottest we have had hotter since then the trend towards hotter temps is about the same as it has always beem. Cherry picking points like 1998 does not make nearly as strong evidence as do trends.
2013 was the 4th hottest year on record.
Just because it was cvery cold in SOME parts of the USA meanslittle when compared to the planet. Feb still ranked in the top 80% or so of hottest months on record.
Even for North America Feb was still above average in temps coming in at 60th coolest and 76th hottest.
john,
I know more than the US Navy and I agree with Teach. I feel that the worry about warming, which we can not stop no matter what is fairly stupid. I want a warmer climate rather than an ice age, the concerns will never materialize, if they do, we will find a solution. What is your answer to solve the problem of the earth being closer to the sun?
I also don’t suffer from abdominal bloating and back pain.
Also visit my web site: uterus fibroids
John- “cherry picking points like 1998 does not make nearly as strong evidence as trends.” John-Really? Speaking of “cherry-picking”, why do the alarmists usually begin their picking at a hundred to a few hundred years ago? Did the earth’s climate only begin with the burning of fossil fuels? “2013 the 4th hottest year on record.” What’s the definition in this case of “record”? You obviously don’t know so here (for the hundredth time)- The data to say “hottest, or coldest year on record” only go back to 1880 or so. So you’re looking at a few warm, and cold years out of 135 total years, when the whole story is 4.5 billion years. Now, who’s cherry-picking and what kind of “trend” does that show?
Yes, a handful reactionary ideologues know more about climate science than do climate scientists.
“… they can’t prove that any changes are caused by global anthropogenic causes” – If a woman is found dead in her living room with 2 bullet holes in her head and no gun handy, you can assume she was murdered, but that doesn’t prove her husband did it. If he’s been arrested several times for abusing her, and had been heard threatening to kill her, it doesn’t prove he killed her. If the bullets were shown to have come from his pistol, it doesn’t prove he killed her. If gunpowder residue were found on his hands, it doesn’t prove he killed her. If her blood is found spattered on his clothing, it doesn’t prove he killed her. If he was seen running out of the house just after a neighbor heard two shots fired, it doesn’t prove he killed her. If he was seen throwing his pistol into a lake an hour after he ran out, it doesn’t prove he killed her. If there was a letter on a table from her to him, telling him she was leaving him for another man, it doesn’t prove he killed her. He claims he walked in just as a man shot her with the husband’s pistol and the man dropped the pistol and ran out. He tried to revive his wife getting her blood on his clothing. When it was clear she was dead, he panicked, ran out of the house in horror. Out of guilt for having the pistol in the house he tried to shoot himself but at the last instant shot into the air and threw the gun into the lake. Police found the revolver in the pond with 3 empties in the cylinder.
So, there is no proof that he killed her. He claims to have seen another man shoot her. Do you think it 10%, 50%, 95% or 100% likely that he murdered his wife? If it seems only 95% likely do you let him go free until you can “prove” he did it? Even though no single piece of evidence proves his guilt, does the totality of the evidence sway you?
“and, their models continue to fail in a big way.” – actually the models miss the mark in a small way.
“I am amused that they are now all sorts of worried about flooding in Australia, when they had recently been all sorts of worried about drought.” – That’s what is meant by “climate extremes”. Floods and droughts.
“Interestingly, none of the adaptation or other recommendations include W*****s practicing what they preach.” – You have no idea how climate realists and climate scientists behave.
“They also are astounded that the world can actually change. Because that never happened during the previous 4.5 billion years.” – Strawman. No one is astounded that climate or the world can change. It’s just that the climate has not changed this much in the past 10,000 years or so. The whole of human civilization evolved during this time, so we’re heading into unknown territory.
“They also fail to note that 17+ year pause.” – They fail to note the 17.5 year pause because it doesn’t exist. It’s a fantasy.
That that all climate scientists agree with AGW or even a majority of papers on climate cite AGW. They don’t. It isn’t even close.
Thank you for making the case of science realists. We look at the totality of the evidence and say “that doesn’t fit the theory of AGW.” You look at a group of people who want money to say that AGW exists and go “they must be right.” Evidence doesn’t sway you. Critical questions don’t sway you.
So while you spent a lot of time on a murder mystery case, the fact of the matter is that in the case you gave, reasonable people on a jury may have “reasonable doubt.” (After all, the blood on the man’s clothes was days old and the man the woman saw running from the home was his twin brother as the husband was on video tape in another city and the hotel has signed receipts to prove it.)
The point is that not only can a bologna sandwich be indicted, it can be convicted if the prosecution and the police lie.
Ummm….no. The models are way off when you are talking about small increments.
That is also what is meant as a “pot in any storm.” No matter what happens, it is the fault of AGW. There is no science to back up the claim, just hyperbole.
You don’t, but we do. But we do know that they fly all over the world to discuss “global warming” and those big ol’ jets put out a lot of CO2. So is it your contention that because scientists do not live a lifestyle that is indicative of their stated positions, that enhances their veracity on the alleged cause of “AGW?” Are you really saying that people should not act on what they say others should do?
And that is false. Just plain false. There is no direct data to support that claim. None.
All evidence to the contrary.
Face it Jeffery…. nothing will ever persuade you that the theory of AGW has huge gaping holes in it and as such cannot be considered true. There is so much evidence against it but you always try to shoot the messenger instead of looking at the data.
J-your “woman found dead” analogy is interesting because you have it all backwards. In the real world climate hysteria, it would go like this:a woman is found dead in her living room with 2 bullet holes in her head. The police Thought that he had prior abused her, but there was no evidence. The police thought they found her blood on him, but the evidence showed otherwise. The police thought they saw him running out of the house, but on examination found it wasn’t him. And on and on. That”s the correct apology, J- failed predictions with failed evidence.
gitar,
Your response was an April Fool’s prank, right?
I can easily be persuaded that CO2 is not causing the Earth to warm. All it takes is evidence. You saying there’s evidence refuting the theory of AGW is not the same as presenting evidence.
Please list your top 3 “huge gaping holes” in the theory please.
Please list your top 3 “evidence” against the theory.
Which messenger did I shoot this time?
[…] The Pirate’s Cove – How Doomy Is The “New†IPCC Hotcoldwetdry Report? […]
[…] The Pirate’s Cove – How Doomy Is The “New†IPCC Hotcoldwetdry Report? […]
[…] The Pirate’s Cove – How Doomy Is The “New†IPCC Hotcoldwetdry Report? […]
Jeff,
You are loosing it. But as I have said, the earth is closer to the sun. So there, I proved the cause of warming that you are so worried about. By the way, the court could never convict the husband of the woman’s death without a confession. So when you really go over the top, keep your mouth shut.
[…] The Pirate’s Cove – How Doomy Is The “New†IPCC Hotcoldwetdry Report? […]
[…] The Pirate’s Cove – How Doomy Is The “New†IPCC Hotcoldwetdry Report? […]
Jeffrey, I saw a video that can help you. It talks about the phobia of being buried in a box, but it can be easily transferred to other phobias. Like fear of CO2, or fear of seawater gradually rising in our living rooms until we drown instead of getting up and moving a few yards inland.
It’s a very positive message. I hope you will use it.
Jeffery,
We’ve discussed this before (well, I did and you ran away as you often do). I cannot prove a negative without the positive first being proved.
I am not sure that it is fair to demand that I provide three counterpoints when all you do is say “CO2 is causing the earth to warm.”
Anyway, there is a lack of data. There is a lack of context in the presentation of data (ie the IPCC and others looks at data points in 15 year segments and then says “warmest ever” when covering 150 years or 10 data points and then tries to extrapolate that out for billions of years. Temperature leads, not follows CO2. Mann lied. The IPCC 2007 report lied. Models don’t match.
I can keep going if you want, but you and I both know that none of this matters to you because you simply will never look objectively at the evidence.
Despite the fact that I said it was your typical MO to shoot the messenger when things are presented that you don’t like, I did not say that you had done it this time.
But yet you did:
Yes, a handful reactionary ideologues know more about climate science than do climate scientists.
I am constantly amazed at your inability to read and comprehend the written language and your seeming inability to remember what you yourself say.
Maybe that is why people like you and john are science deniers – you think that no one has heard and beaten back your lies before so if you keep repeating them, people will change.
Well, other people will change because you and I both know that when it comes to your beliefs on AGW meeting the road, you’re a hypocrite.
Carver do you think you know more about science than the US Navy? They believe in AGW
Has the rate of change ever been as great as occurring now ? dY/dX
You did admit that just a few days ago that CO2 is a problem are you still behind that ?
john,
We have covered this before but apparently the fact that the Navy is not a scientific body doesn’t matter to you. The fact that “the Navy” does not mean everyone in the Navy does not mean anything to you. The fact that “the Navy” is under the command of civilian authorities doesn’t mean anything to you. The fact that “the Navy” has plans to Canada doesn’t mean that the plans will come to pass and that doesn’t matter to you.
In short, you think that your Navy meme proves something. It doesn’t. You think that repeating the same discounted and disproven meme will somehow magically make it true. It won’t.
Finally john ol’ chap, I was hired to work for the Navy on a project. The project involved a lot of different areas but suffice it to say that as the Navy hired me because they couldn’t do the job on their own, it is safe to say that I know more than the Navy or that the Navy doesn’t care to invest itself in scientific matters.
You lose troll.
Yes.
You lose, troll.
Yes. If we’re just looking at the Holocene, therate of change was massive at the end of the ice age. There is plenty of real world data and reconstructions to show massive ups and downs during the Holocene.
Regardless, a jump up in tenths of a degree is neither massive nor proves anthropogenic causation
[…] The Pirate’s Cove – How Doomy Is The “New†IPCC Hotcoldwetdry Report? […]