Climate Catastrophe

[SpontaneousOrder]

I don't get why these guys always cite overpopulation as a cause and a problem, and then get all concerned that rising sea levels will decimate the population

[AtW]

I don't get why these guys always cite overpopulation as a cause and a problem, and then get all concerned that rising sea levels will decimate the population

They are concerned about nice second houses with a sea view being destroyed, we can't have that!!!

[pjclarke]

For anyone who is interested, but cant be bothered delving

What Hansen is saying is that the scientific consensus and the IPCC is wrong. Limiting GW to 2c is not enough because even 2c will cause the worlds sea levels to rise catastrophically.

Hansen is the hero of the worlds climate-worriers. but so is the IPCC
hence there is a problem for the pure of heart

The IPCC is an Intergovernmental Panel, that is, it is a committee. Every few years it produces an Assessment Report, basically an extended literature review, designed to give an up to date picture of the science. Nothing gets included unless it has consensus support. So the reports are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be, however they arguably tend towards conservatism, even timidity.

Then once the scientists have done their work politicians go over the summaries line by line and take out or tone down anything they might find damaging, see for some examples, this before and after comparison by an accredited reviewer.

http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources...IPCC/index.htm

Ice sheet collapse is unlikely to be linear, but there are large uncertainties in the possible collapse rate, and the dynamic processes are hard to model. AR4 (2017) simply stated

Dynamical processes related to ice flow not included in current models but suggested by recent observations could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing future sea level rise. Understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude.

An example of the conservative nature of the report - we don't know enough to make an estimate and so we are simply leaving the contribution of dynamic changes out of our estimates. The most recent report AR5 gives a range of 26cm to 97cm rise by 2100, the high end of which would threaten the survival of many coastal cities and island nations, but add this caveat …

We have considered the evidence for higher projections and have concluded that there is currently insufficient evidence to evaluate the probability of specific levels above the likely range. Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century.

What the Hansen et al paper seems to be doing is trying to put some numbers on the uncertainties not addressed by the IPCC, concluding that a rise of several metres cannot be ruled out.

Hansen has always been on the more pessimistic end of the spectrum, the worrying thing is that he's been right more often than he's been wrong ….

[Flashman]

Does anyone actually believe in any of this rubbish anymore?

[DimPrawn]

Does anyone actually believe in any of this rubbish anymore?

The people that produce it believe, anyone at school/college/uni believes it because it is drummed into them by the leftist media and the tax raising authorities believe in it.

[v8gaz]

Phew, thanks for that.

I would not have wanted to drive V12 Ferrari with a guilty conscience...

I get round that by having several V8s instead.

[EternalOptimist]

The IPCC is an Intergovernmental Panel, that is, it is a committee. Every few years it produces an Assessment Report, basically an extended literature review, designed to give an up to date picture of the science. Nothing gets included unless it has consensus support. So the reports are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be, however they arguably tend towards conservatism, even timidity.

Then once the scientists have done their work politicians go over the summaries line by line and take out or tone down anything they might find damaging, see for some examples, this before and after comparison by an accredited reviewer.

http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources...IPCC/index.htm

Ice sheet collapse is unlikely to be linear, but there are large uncertainties in the possible collapse rate, and the dynamic processes are hard to model. AR4 (2017) simply stated



An example of the conservative nature of the report - we don't know enough to make an estimate and so we are simply leaving the contribution of dynamic changes out of our estimates. The most recent report AR5 gives a range of 26cm to 97cm rise by 2100, the high end of which would threaten the survival of many coastal cities and island nations, but add this caveat …



What the Hansen et al paper seems to be doing is trying to put some numbers on the uncertainties not addressed by the IPCC, concluding that a rise of several metres cannot be ruled out.

Hansen has always been on the more pessimistic end of the spectrum, the worrying thing is that he's been right more often than he's been wrong ….

I summarised your sides POV (fairly) in about 3 lines.
Do you get paid by the word ???

[pjclarke]

I summarised your sides POV (fairly) in about 3 lines.
Do you get paid by the word ???

Of course you did not. You attempted to create a dilemma, where, as I tried to illustrate, there is none.

Not comfortable with the idea of sides, but as you bring it up, could you give me an example of a professional scientific body on your 'side'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...nge#Concurring

[WordIsBond]

Don't have time to read the whole report, just need answer to simple question - would me getting a V12 Ferrari in any way bring the inevitable doom closer?

If you drive like the guy who went by me on the motorway last week, chances are it would bring your doom closer.

[EternalOptimist]

Of course you did not. You attempted to create a dilemma, where, as I tried to illustrate, there is none.

Not comfortable with the idea of sides, but as you bring it up, could you give me an example of a professional scientific body on your 'side'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...nge#Concurring

Which scientific bodies are on my 'side' ?

Obviously the same ones that fought the concensus of where stomache ulcers came from. continental drift, phlostigen, eugenics. The scientific bodies that recognise that science is based upon evidence and not concensus. The scientific bodies that do not rely statistical manipulation or rigging the data and the scientific bodies that do not drive any opposing voice out of the seats of learning.