UN report on climate change concludes we're in serious trouble

[Genx87]

The global warming crowd would do themselves a favor by stop trying to pin all of our warming on human activity. It makes no logical sense and history proves it otherwise. Instead note we contribute to any climate change. Most people, even conservatives will accept that. Then work an argument on how we can minimize our impact on global climate change.

 

[trenchfoot]

Make up our mind, record cold cant be cited as evidence, but record heat and drought can?

Google "climate extremes caused by global warming". Like extreme hot and extreme cold.

 

[michal1980]

Make up our mind, record cold cant be cited as evidence, but record heat and drought can?

yes.

 

[michal1980]

Not very obvious. Look, the US was a primary force creating the Kyoto agreement, then they refuse to ratify. Is the USA not importing a high percentage of its manufactured goods from a country (China) that's contributing a major proportion of carbon emissions? Where is your thinking?

see your doing it too.

Its our fault because we buy good's from china, and china uses the dirtiest (cheapeast) energy sources it can.

Its can't be china's fault it doesn't care at all about pollution.

Always blame america.

 

[glenn1]

see your doing it too.

Its our fault because we buy good's from china, and china uses the dirtiest (cheapeast) energy sources it can.

Its can't be china's fault it doesn't care at all about pollution.

Always blame america.

It's "our fault" because we have the deepest pockets, nothing more. Pollution is just the proxy for getting access to wallets. High carbon emissions authoritarian regimes like China and Russia would tell them to go fuck themselves as well, so they concentrate on the softer targets in Western Europe and the Anglosphere.

 

[Muse]

Well then, you and those who are on the side who believes in manmade global climate change had better switch gears and start focusing on remediation instead of prevention, otherwise you're just as worthless in solving the problem. Having a bunch of whining hand-wringers around saying "I told you so" ain't going to help out shit unless your entire objective is to prioritize the hope you're correct over the reality of being ineffective. Right now, the "cures" you are presenting are worse than the disease you predict and are thus being correctly rejected by the public.

I have no idea what you're talking about and I surmise that you don't either.

 

[Muse]

I thought weather != climate? At least that's what we hear whenever we get a huge cold snap.

And "on record" for California (or anywhere) is less than infinitesimal when looking at climate for the entire Quaternary Period.

You insist ignoring the prevailing scientific opinion. If this is how you lead your life, all I can say is good luck.

 

[Muse]

see your doing it too.

Its our fault because we buy good's from china, and china uses the dirtiest (cheapeast) energy sources it can.

Its can't be china's fault it doesn't care at all about pollution.

Always blame america.

I'm not blaming anybody. Read the damn article.

 

[Muse]

Just another thread where no one reads the OP's source..

Yup, that's the problem. The moron Forum Charlies pollute our environment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/science/earth/un-says-lag-in-confronting-climate-woes-will-be-costly.html


Read the damn thing... then come back and post. I read it twice before I posted.

 

[umbrella39]

Did you read the article? Obviously not. They blame China far more than the USA. Read it!

He doesn't read. His "arguments" are constructed on a Boggle game cube.

 

[WackyDan]

Climate change is about control. Nothing else.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You can live in your little bubble world and deny it, but the water is rising and some day it will drown you (and your kids) if you keep playing the ostrich.

You do understand that this statement is beyond absurd...right? Sea level has been rising the last 20,000 years since the last glacial maximum.

 

[Orignal Earl]

The UN is very anti-American and panders too much to countries like China and doesn't call them out enough. China and India are huge emitters of carbon yet they attack the US.

How exactly does the UN work?
Would you please give me a brief summary?

 

[Dman8777]

The planet is getting warmer, whether it's man-made or not doesn't really matter. We're not going to stop burning fossil fuels because that would mean massive change in our personal lives and socio-economic system. The UN should be making plans to deal with a warmer planet, not trying to convince people that warming is man-made and stoppable.

 

[theeedude]

I don't see any downside in acting as if global warming is real and trying to reduce my carbon footprint. Going to save me some money on my energy bills. Even if there is no global warming, that's a good thing.

 

[michal1980]

I'm not blaming anybody. Read the damn article.

I did, it blames america.

 

[Jaskalas]

Oh, looks like you missed your boat.

Here I am in CA, where we've currently got the worst drought/over-warm winter conditions on record. You can live in your little bubble world and deny it, but the water is rising and some day it will drown you (and your kids) if you keep playing the ostrich.

Smart people would say move off the beach front property. You have plenty of time to sell it.

 

[zinfamous]

The UN is very anti-American and panders too much to countries like China and doesn't call them out enough. China and India are huge emitters of carbon yet they attack the US.

Why is China and India producing all that carbon?

use your brain.

 

[mect]

I don't see any downside in acting as if global warming is real and trying to reduce my carbon footprint. Going to save me some money on my energy bills. Even if there is no global warming, that's a good thing.

I think the issue is that it is all a matter of scale. How much do we need to cut back to to have a significant impact? Can we cut back by simply being more energy efficient and less wasteful? Do we need to start adopting alternative energy sources at an accelerated rate? Do we need to severely change our lifestyles (ie cut driving to an average of 20 miles per week)? I agree, its easy so long as it is just a matter of making more informed decisions that don't significantly impact our lifestyle.

I follow global warming pretty closely compared to an average citizen. I agree that the scientific consensus is that mankind is contributing to global warming. What I'm uncertain of is what is a reasonable course of action. Everyone always wants someone else to change something. I ride my bike to work everyday. Not really because of global warming, but its way cheaper, gives me exercise, and most of all, I enjoy it. I personally think the majority of Americans should ride a bike to work instead of driving or even taking a bus. It is way more environmentally friendly than public transportation. A great way for us to fight global warming. But guess what, I also really like to go up to the mountains on the weekends. Love going up skiing in the winter, hiking, biking, climbing in the summer, and backpacking in the fall. I would hate to have to cut back on these trips. So, am I really any better than someone that doesn't drive anywhere on the weekends, but drives to work all week? How do we affect change in people when I get the impression that we really don't know how much change is needed to have an effect. How do we determine who is responsible for making these changes?

 

[theeedude]

I don't see a problem adopting alternative energy at an accelerated rate. That will spur innovation and drive down cost, and we'll be better off in the long run, even if there is no global warming. I bike my to work every day too too. Even if there is no global warming, it's good for my fitness. Gives me an hour of cardio every day even if I don't do anything else. I usually take the ski bus for skiing because of the convenience. I also bought a 4 cylinder Outback AWD with CVT, so it burns less gas than a big SUV. I get 25mpg instead of 15-20mpg, and performance is fine for my needs. All these things add up.
The choice is not between driving to work or driving to outdoor activities, those are separate decisions, each on has its own impact.

 

[Incorruptible]

How exactly does the UN work?
Would you please give me a brief summary?

NO.

 

[Orignal Earl]

NO.

I didn't think you could

 

[GaiaHunter]

Meanwhile

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

"Stark contrast
On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability. Much like the swings between warm and cold in day-to-day weather, chaotic climate fluctuations can knock global temperatures up or down from year to year and decade to decade. Records of past climate show some long-lasting global heatwaves and cold snaps, and climate models suggest that either of these can occur as the world warms under the influence of greenhouse gases."

So chaotic climate fluctuations can knock global temperatures up or down from year to year and decade to decade.

"But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared. Others say that this conclusion goes against the long-term temperature trends, as well as palaeoclimate data that are used to extend the temperature record far into the past. And many researchers caution against evaluating models on the basis of a relatively short-term blip in the climate. “If you are interested in global climate change, your main focus ought to be on timescales of 50 to 100 years,” says Susan Solomon, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge."

10-20 years is a short trend when there is no warming or there is cooling, but when there is warming is a clear signal.

 

[werepossum]

A report from the UN is meaningless. It's a propaganda machine at best.

Agreed.

I think that the big corporations and lobbied/paid politicians have done a very good job of planting "doubt' in peoples minds with regard to the whole climate global warnings. They have even paid other scientists off to make false scientific claims to muddy the waters in their favor.

I don't see much changing on this until we have some really cataclysmic events that involve much more of the country and not just small portions here and there. It is a damn shame that we have allowed big corps to pollute the hell out of our earth and destroy it, and they continue to do so.

If we are destined to die this way, due to our own ignorance then we just are. Sad thing is none of us here will probably be alive when that day comes, and it will affect our kids, and their kids.

LOL Yes, clearly that is what happened. Stupid evil corporations, keeping the world from warming!

On the other hand, borrowing buttloads of money and leaving that to be paid off by our kids and grandkids is a splendid thing to do. Because darn it, we're good enough and nice enough and we deserve it.

War on poverty.

War on drugs.

War on Global Warming.

What could possibly go wrong?

Uno

 

[theeedude]

Meanwhile

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

"Stark contrast
On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability. Much like the swings between warm and cold in day-to-day weather, chaotic climate fluctuations can knock global temperatures up or down from year to year and decade to decade. Records of past climate show some long-lasting global heatwaves and cold snaps, and climate models suggest that either of these can occur as the world warms under the influence of greenhouse gases."

So chaotic climate fluctuations can knock global temperatures up or down from year to year and decade to decade.

"But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared. Others say that this conclusion goes against the long-term temperature trends, as well as palaeoclimate data that are used to extend the temperature record far into the past. And many researchers caution against evaluating models on the basis of a relatively short-term blip in the climate. “If you are interested in global climate change, your main focus ought to be on timescales of 50 to 100 years,” says Susan Solomon, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge."

10-20 years is a short trend when there is no warming or there is cooling, but when there is warming is a clear signal.

Not going to pretend to be a climate expert, but just looking at the chart, it looks like during the warm phase, the temperature is rising, but during cold phase it's flat. So overall, it looks like it's rising, just not as fast, because it's only rising during the warm phase.