On the bright side, they are supposedly doing this virtually, saving their huge fossil fueled travel for the meeting in Glasgow, Scotland, in November. Because floods and droughts and fire and heat waves never happened before
Climate Scientists Meet As Floods, Fires, Droughts And Heat Waves Batter Countries
More than 200 of the world’s leading climate scientists will begin meeting today to finalize a landmark report summarizing how Earth’s climate has already changed, and what humans can expect for the rest of the century.
Ever notice these things are always landmark? Silly.
The report is the sixth edition of an assessment of the latest climate science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations body that coordinates research about global warming. The last edition of this report came out in 2013 — an eternity in the world of climate science, where the pace of both warming and research are steadily accelerating.
The urgency of addressing global warming has never been more clear. The two-week virtual meeting of IPCC scientists coincides with a raft of deadly climate-driven disasters unfolding around the world, from flash floods in Europe, North America and Asia, to intense wildfires in Siberia, to widespread persistent heat waves and droughts that threaten to upend food supplies in the U.S., Middle East and much of Africa.
How is this in straight news at NPR? Has NPR given up their use of fossil fuels and air conditioning?
The new report will be a crucial document for world leaders. It represents the international scientific consensus about human-caused climate change. Governments rely on its predictions as they develop policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, manage forests and fisheries and decide how to protect their citizens from extreme weather. In November, world leaders will meet for the first time since 2019 to discuss promises to cut greenhouse gas emissions — promises that are still insufficient to prevent catastrophic warming this century.
It’s crucial for government to implement draconian rules to control their citizens.
A critical goal of the forthcoming report is to help governments make decisions about how to address climate change. The report won’t tell governments what to do, but it is meant to help leaders understand the effects of different policies.
For example, if humans stop burning coal immediately, it will dramatically reduce the rate of global warming. But what if humans stop burning coal in the next five years? Or ten years? Or what if solar panels get really cheap and population growth slows down? How does that affect climate change? The new IPCC report is meant to help answer such questions using a set of 5 hypothetical policy scenarios.
In other words, looking into a crystal ball. Prognosticating. And, of course, nowhere within the report will it consider that this is all mostly caused by nature. It includes this fun graphic
How much of our economy will be destroyed with those numbers? What kinds of restrictions will be required in your own life? Are climate cultists willing to do this in their own lives?
William Teach: Ever notice these things are always landmark?
That’s the proper term: an event or development that marks a turning point or a stage, a general sense of a conspicuous object which, by its known position, serves as a guide to a traveler.
William Teach: How is this in straight news at NPR?
Because it’s valid reporting.
William Teach: It’s crucial for government to implement draconian rules to control their citizens.
The most effective methods will actually not be mandates, but incentives, which will allow the markets to find solutions.
William Teach: In other words, looking into a crystal ball.Prognosticating.
The Great Prognosticator looks into the crystal ball and sees a blood moon eclipse on May 15-16, 2022. What will those crazy prognosticators come up with next?!
William Teach: And, of course, nowhere within the report will it consider that this is all mostly caused by nature.
The scientific evidence strongly indicates otherwise. Without anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth would likely have slightly cooled over the last few decades rather than warming rapidly as it has.
William Teach: How is this in straight news at NPR?
NPR is trying to de-platform Ben Shapiro because he gets more views than NPR. A publicly funded hit squad for the left. Hardly valid reporting.
The most effective methods will actually not be mandates, but incentives, which will allow the markets to find solutions.
Perhaps you could tell that to NPR, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and others. Perhaps you could tell that to those on the left who want to fund windmills and solar panels and electric cars but to show no love for nuclear and other forms of power. Hardly incentives to let the market find solutions. It is a directed approach, not dissimilar to incentives for the oil and gas industry to keep the oil flowing because it is of national strategic necessity. AKA it takes jet fuel to launch aircraft to defend our shores. No one but the left wants to be rid of the military by their fake desire to have INCENTIVES for the Capitalist market which are directed away from the military. We need to end those Railroads too.
The Great Prognosticator looks into the crystal ball and sees a blood moon eclipse on May 15-16, 2022. What will those crazy prognosticators come up with next?!
Who knows Zach. You tell us what your Chinese handlers want to prognosticate using faulty data, cooked books with just enough science to scare people out of their wits. That is HARDLY INCENTIVES. THAT IS SCAREMONGERING.
The scientific evidence strongly indicates otherwise. Without anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth would likely have slightly cooled over the last few decades rather than warming rapidly as it has.
WOULD HAVE LIKELY is not scientific nomenclature. Without greenhouse gases the forests would be unhealthy in a rapidly expanding world in which more and more humans need to eat. You reference Scientific evidence but what scientific evidence are you pointing too?
The hockey stick which we all know is faked with false and cherry picked tree ring data in which the Russians told Mann not to use Brifa’s tree ring data because it was flawed?
No wonder your side tries so hard to crucify the Russians. You really should simply mount a substantive argument for you position rather than cherry pick other posters writing and use your limited information to make broad and generalized statements.
est1950: NPR is trying to de-platform Ben Shapiro because he gets more views than NPR.
That’s irrelevant to whether this particular report is newsworthy.
est1950: Perhaps you could tell that to NPR, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and others.
You’ll hear a lot of talk about incentives, such as carbon taxes and subsidies, on each of those networks.
est1950: Perhaps you could tell that to those on the left who want to fund windmills and solar panels and electric cars …
Tax breaks and subsidies are called incentives. Industrial policy can go awry, of course, but countries without industrial policies tend to fall behind, because capitalism tends to myopia.
est1950: but to show no love for nuclear and other forms of power.
The nuclear power industry has had hundred billion dollar losses over the last few decades. They are probably not insurable.
est1950: You tell us what your Chinese handlers want …
Our opinions are our own and freely given. You’re welcome.
est1950: WOULD HAVE LIKELY is not scientific nomenclature.
Uh, yes it is. Everything in science is subject to uncertainty, including direct observations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
est1950: Without greenhouse gases the forests would be unhealthy in a rapidly expanding world in which more and more humans need to eat.
Good point. Without any greenhouse gases, the Earth would be a frozen wasteland. (You can determine this by calculating the Earth’s gray body temperature.) We know the greenhouse effect is real and accounts for about +33°C different in Earth’s surface temperature. If we were to increase the greenhouse effect by 10%, that would result in an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature of 3°C.
est1950: You reference Scientific evidence but what scientific evidence are you pointing too?
You could start with the basic physics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, which has been known for more than a century. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896. The problem then was trying to explain the Earth’s climate oscillation, which was thought to be due to orbital variations, but by themselves the orbital variations were insufficient to explain the effect. The greenhouse effect acts as a positive reinforcement, which is why the Earth over the last few millions of years appears to have two stable states: ice ages and ice-free ages.
est1950: The hockey stick which we all know is faked …
Multiple scientific investigations have upheld the basic findings of the current rapid warming.
“Basic physics of greenhouse effect. See Arrhenius..” Yes, and even Arrhenius knew an experiment would be required, which still hasn’t been done. https://twitter.com/dawntj90/status/1419515865498796033?s=21
Jl: But if it is I that asks ‘well, it’s been over 100 years, where’s the experiment?’
It’s sort of like knowing there’s gravity on the back side of the Moon. There was a lot of supporting evidence long before a direct observation was made. In any case, see Feldman, Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2, Nature 2015.
Jl: But if it is I that asks ‘well, it’s been over 100 years, where’s the experiment?’
Looks at your link, Arrhenius’s concern was measurement of the absorption spectrum. Precise measurements of absorption spectra have been available since the 1930s. Feldman actually measured radiative forcing directly in the atmosphere.
Z: Without anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth would likely have slightly cooled over the last few decades rather than warming rapidly as it has.
est1950: WOULD HAVE LIKELY is not scientific nomenclature.
Here’s the relevant example: Take a look at this diagram from Huber & Knutti, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance, Nature Geoscience 2012. The diagram shows the 2σ certainty ranges. Not all outcomes are equally likely. The mean for nature is a slight cooling, but no change is also plausible, while natural warming is very unlikely.
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/models-observed-human-natural.png
Another example: You would think the theory of gravity is about as precise as any possible theory, but observations are always subject to uncertainty, and there is an element of chaos involved (meaning that small changes in initial conditions can result in large changes in outcomes). Take the asteroid Apophis. The original observations indicated a 2.7% chance of an impact on Earth. More precise observations refined its orbit reducing the calculated chance of an impact.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-analysis-earth-is-safe-from-asteroid-apophis-for-100-plus-years
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/18/overheated-claims-on-global-temperature-records/
#TheScienceIsSettled
#TheDebateIsOver
Bwaha! Lolgf
“Multiple scientific investigations have upheld the basic findings of the current rapid warming.†And multiple studies have upheld much more rapid warming, and cooling earlier in the Holocene, with of course much less CO2 . And as said before, “rapid†in and of itself would be irrelevant. It would be the alleged effects of such rapid warming.
Jl: And multiple studies have upheld much more rapid warming, and cooling earlier in the Holocene, with of course much less CO2.
See Neukom et al., No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era, Nature 2019: “This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.”
Jl: And as said before, “rapid†in and of itself would be irrelevant. It would be the alleged effects of such rapid warming.
Rapidity is important, impacting human and ecosystem adaptation.
Actually, there is evidence for widespread warming, hence the word “globally”.
And no evidence that the rate has anything to do with effects, as one would have to know what would have happened with a lower rate. And as shown, this rate isn’t out of the ordinary, anyway. https://twitter.com/dawntj90/status/1420084968743636993?s=21
Jl: And no evidence that the rate has anything to do with effects
Rapidity is important, impacting human and ecosystem adaptation.
As for the Holocene climate optimum (probably due to Milankovitch forcing) there is some uncertainty about how warm it was globally, though higher northern latitudes did warm considerably. In any case, the period gives some indications of how weather patterns may change in the warmer climate state.
“Rapidity is important..†May be, but so far that’s an assumption, and anyway not as rapid as earlier https://twitter.com/jimfish56837379/status/1404566115078995971?s=21
https://twitter.com/dawntj90/status/1414521004785913864?s=21