Lately we’ve been having threads talking about how we should respond to the imminent extinction of the human race as a result of climate change. Unfortunately it seems that the human race may be around a bit longer than was initially reported. The title of this thread is the conclusion of a recent article in The Economist which is well worth reading in its entirety. For those too busy to do so, here’s a summary:
[ul]
[li]Worldwide greenhouse gas emissions have soared in the past decade.[/li][li]Meanwhile, according to Dr. James Hansen “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”[/li][li]Some have speculated that the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gasses may be going into the ocean, but the ocean isn’t cooperating. Its temperature trends is flat as well. Since most ocean temperature measurements are near the surface, it’s possible that the deep ocean is heating somewhat.[/li][li]Mainstream climate science, as embodied by the IPCC, has predicted a rise of between 2 and 4.5 degrees (celsius) by midcentury, with an average prediction of 3 degrees. A compilation of twenty climate models has given a range of predicted global temperatures for every year.[/li][li]The actual temperatures for 2012 are at the very lower level of the range of predictions. If temperatures do not increase soon, then they’ll be entirely beneath the predicted range.[/li][li]“Other recent studies, though, paint a different picture. An unpublished report by the Research Council of Norway, a government-funded body, which was compiled by a team led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, uses a different method from the IPCC’s. It concludes there is a 90% probability that doubling CO₂ emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2-2.9°C, with the most likely figure being 1.9°C.”[/li][li]“Its projections are not unique. Work by Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, which was published in 2012, suggests a 90% chance of the actual change being in the range of 0.5-4.0°C, with a mean of 2.3°C.”[/li][li]“Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, got an even lower range in a study accepted for publication: 1.0-3.0°C, with a mean of 1.6°C. His calculations reanalysed work cited by the IPCC and took account of more recent temperature data.”[/li][li]There are two main types of climate models: general circulation models (GCMs) and energy-balance models. The later have the advantage that they can easily be adjusted based on recent climate data; the former cannot. The IPCC predictions are based on GCMs.[/li][li]“In contrast, the Norwegian study was based on an energy-balance model. So were earlier influential ones by Reto Knutti of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich; by Piers Forster of the University of Leeds and Jonathan Gregory of the University of Reading; by Natalia Andronova and Michael Schlesinger, both of the University of Illinois; and by Magne Aldrin of the Norwegian Computing Centre (who is also a co-author of the new Norwegian study). All these found lower climate sensitivities. The paper by Drs Forster and Gregory found a central estimate of 1.6°C for equilibrium sensitivity, with a 95% likelihood of a 1.0-4.1°C range. That by Dr Aldrin and others found a 90% likelihood of a 1.2-3.5°C range.”[/li][li]“Lastly, there is some evidence that the natural (ie, non-man-made) variability of temperatures may be somewhat greater than the IPCC has thought. A recent paper by Ka-Kit Tung and Jiansong Zhou in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences links temperature changes from 1750 to natural changes (such as sea temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean) and suggests that ‘the anthropogenic global-warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century’.”[/ul][/li]
The Economist says “that does not mean the problem is going away” and that policy solutions to global warming are still needed. I agree. However, good policy requires all the facts. I think it’s best if everyone knows about the recent research predicting a smaller temperature rise than what mainstream science predicted, and if we definitely don’t run around like chickens with our heads cut off, making predictions of impending extinction.
Who predicted the extinction of the human race do to global warming? I mean within the next few hundred years. Obviously at some point, regardless of what we do, our sun will go red giant and we’re toast, but that’s a bit a ways.
Otherwise it looks like the predictions nee to be adjusted to accommodate recent data. Yeah. Science! Imagine that.
If true, that’s great news because all those that claimed there just wasn’t time to fix things so why bother might be wrong. Now it looks like we have the time to put in much needed corrective measures, right ITR champion?
Something else I noticed that makes me trust the Economist even less,
The reporter claims that the IPCC:
That is not true, because the IPCC reports on likely scenarios, scenario B1 where we do a concerted effort to control population and emissions does report a likely increase in temperature of 1.8 °C, when the reporter claims that that is well below, he is only telling us part of the history, and misleading at that.
The Economist do cover their butts in the end by reporting that:
As a few climate scientists report, uncertainty is not your friend, assuming that all the bets will work to get us lower sensibility in the future is really reckless, specially when the ocean cycle then comes around and a good deal of that heat accumulated then comes out.
How so? I never said that mainstream scientists predicted extinction; I said that some people on this board did.
The Economist article specifically addresses the issue of ocean heat content, as I said. It features a graph from the Pacific Marine Environmental Lab, showing a nearly flat trend for the past decade. The article you linked to has a graph of ocean heat content as well, looking quite different. I suppose before going further, we need to either reconcile the graphs or figure out which one is incorrect.
As for the claim that “research has remained consistent with the IPCC range of 2–4.5°C equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2”, the Economist paper cites seven studies which predict a lower range of temperature increases. The predicted range from those studies seems to average around 1-3°C, which overlaps the IPCC’s predicted range, but if many studies are coming up with lower ranges, then policy thinking needs to take that into account.
And as I pointed out already what you did in the OP was an example of “nut picking” not even I agreed with the OP there.
As I noticed, his reliance on ***unpublished ***papers should be a very good clue who is more correct.
Once again, even the report acknowledges they are reaching for unpublished reports and even the ones they mention:
Funny thing, that is also within what the IPCC mentions, I’m beginning to conclude that this non peer reviewed report is just attempting to claim that IPCC is alarmist when in reality they are just dealing (or cherry picking) with the reports that go for the low estimates.
Nope, as I have read a lot of this I can report that there are many problems coming with a rise of 2°C and the IPCC has also reported on how it is not a good idea to count on humans to continue with a “business as usual” when all that increase in heat arrives.
I have never believed in man made global warming/cooling… Not once, even for a moment. Why? Well, because…
Earth was once covered in molten lava and a significant portion of it was once completely covered in ice. In between the two extremes there has been every incremental variation possible - all before mankind even arrived on the scene. Variation, extremes, and cataclysmic landscape changing extinction level weather events are the norm for planet Earth and it has had nothing to do with mankind.
However, I do believe in overpopulation. I also believe that we are filling the land up with trash and the water/air up with contaminants that can and do have an adverse affect on biological organisms.
You should know that for several years scientists explained why the current temperature change is different, so many times that even conservative scientists for years have recommend resources like Skeptical Science:
Only that the ones that claim that it is a distraction from pollution are ignoring that it is very related.
And if overpopulation was a show stopper then you need to explain why is it that we are not dying of cholera.
And the answer is that several pollution items can be decoupled from overpopulation, otherwise it would had been impossible to control issues like cholera brought by human waste pollution.
Once again, read the linked “enviro fundie” link in the OP, they are not respected at all. Now that that is out of the way, recalibrate your alarm system and realize that groups like the IPCC are the moderate conservative ones on this, and yes, they report that we have to control our emissions as the problems that we will get if we don’t are not going to be a walk in the park.
