The new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate change report is out and the news isn’t good.
According to the Guardian’s interactive guide to how hot it could get, a child born today could see temperature rises of up to 6.3°C in its lifetime – enough to bring catastrophic impacts to the planet if he or she lives to be in their mid 90’s.
They report that we have major changes to go through, as “humans cannot burn all of the coal, oil and gas reserves that countries and companies possess” without causing significant damage to the habitability of the planet.
The story highlights some of the findings:
• Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are now at levels “unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years.”
• Since the 1950’s it’s “extremely likely” that human activities have been the dominant cause of the temperature rise.
• Concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased to levels that are unprecedented in at least 800,000 years. The burning of fossil fuels is the main reason behind a 40% increase in C02 concentrations since the industrial revolution.
• Global temperatures are likely to rise by 0.3C to 4.8C (10.2F), by the end of the century depending on how much governments control carbon emissions.
• Sea levels are expected to rise a further 26-82cm (.8 – 2.6 feet) by the end of the century.
• The oceans have acidified as they have absorbed about a third of the carbon dioxide emitted.
You can read the full report at the IPCC site starting September 30.
One scientist quoted in the Guardian story admitted there are some uncertainties: “The most significant uncertainty, however, is how much carbon humanity will choose to put into the atmosphere in the future. It is the total sum of all our carbon emissions that will determine the impacts…”
oops
the temperature math is wrong… 4.8C rise would be about 10.2F rise… i think they took the actual temperatures when they wrote this, cuz 0.3C *IS* 32F when you read the thermometer…
but beyond that, i don’t see why all the hoopla about climate change… the climate has changed before, and we adapted… it will/is changing again and we will either adapt, or die… the earth existed for millions/billions of years before we came on the scene to muck things up, and it will exist for millions of years after we are gone…
one other note, in the geological record, the times of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the times that the planet had the lushest vegetation… nature will find a way if we don’t/won’t… i’m not saying i’m gonna go out and start living a horribly hedonistic, nature-killing life, but i’m not going to go out of my way to change my lifestyle, either… if it comes down to me and a tree, i’m sorry, but the tree has to go…
hoopla
Thanks for the corrections. The numbers above have been updated.
I think the hoopla is that people who live to the end of the century will likely be living a very crappy existence, with all sorts of problems that could have been prevented. They’ll look back at us and curse us if we don’t do better.
Yes, it will be temporary and maybe they’ll all perish and the planet will be green again. But an alternative is that we could learn to live within limits, and keep things going in better balance with the planet. Some people feel a need to have civilization continue.
Sure, you and I won’t be around so we can be selfish right now and take airplane trips, have wars, drive cars and trucks, and suck energy from the grid as much as we can afford. Maybe we should.
So in that case, the hoopla is we’re the last people in this round of civilization. What shall we carve into stones for people to discover when they emerge from the muck? : )
Now How About Some Truth.
And now you can read the real story that will show the real credibility of the UN’s IPCC.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16637-despite-lack-of-global-warming-un-sure-humanity-is-to-blame
Kidding or delusional?
I don’t think you’re kidding…
The New American
The site, whose article Mr. Mike linked to provide what he referred to as “the real story”, is ‘The New American’ an online magazine published by the John Birch Society. The John Birch Society has never been known for their “credibility”.
John Birch Society?
I didn’t know they were still around.
Truth Hurts
I think you’ll find The New American has much more credibility than the UN’s IPCC.
If you think for a minute that any organization tied to the UN has any credibility then just take a look at the wars that Chris was referring to in his reply.
Just what has the UN done in the current situation in Syria? But I digress.
I’m sure it’s hard to wrap your mind around a Constitutional news source since most don’t even abide by the document anymore.
Truth?
“If you think for a minute that any organization tied to the UN has any credibility then just take a look at the wars that Chris was referring to in his reply.”
The United Nations Security Council resolution on Syria’s chemical weapons that the United States and Russia have agreed on is a clear victory for the long global campaign to rid the world of chemical warfare. Before the resolution was adopted, the US was seeking to win international support for waging a war against Syria.
When you want support for the belief that climate change is a hoax, go to an energy man.
When you’re ready for the truth, go to an insurance man.
And, what might be an “Unconstitutional News Source” ?
throwing mud
>I’m sure it’s hard to wrap your mind around a Constitutional news source
In the 1960’s, while still in High School, I was given a pamphlet published and distributed by the John Birch Society called, “What’s Wrong With Civil Rights”. (It was given to me by someone who was also a member of the American Nazi Party, who also passed me literature extolling the tender virtues of George Lincoln Rockwell.) The content of that pamphlet made it clear that The John Birch Society actively opposed the extending of Civil Rights to African Americans. I do not believe that position to be “Constitutional”. I was also passed a copy of Phyllis Schlafly’s book, “A Choice Not an Echo”. This volume also did not reflect well upon the JBS organization which financed and distributed it. As a result, I have a difficult time thinking of the JBS as doing anything “Constitutional”.
These writings, as well as the people of the JBS, were so far to the ultra conservative right that even William F. Buckley, Jr referred to them as “removed from common sense”. It does not appear to me from their website that they have changed all that much from those days. I also note that one of the oil money Koch brothers, currently financing the Tea Party, was a JBS member.
When I pointed out the origins of your link, which makes it suspect to myself and (I would hope most) others, you responded with, “I’m sure it’s hard to wrap your mind around…”. I did not insult you, I did not insult your intelligence, I did not question your ability to form rational thought. You, however, saw fit to throw mud in my direction and belittle my person. Such tactics make it difficult for me (and I hope most) others to consider your posts with any seriousness.
The John Birch Society has quite a history!
“Always an education and action organization, the Society has never deviated from its opposition to communism.” (from JBS Website).
Fred Koch, founder of Koch Industries and father of the notorious Koch Bros. was an early member of The John Birch Society’s National Council, an advisory group to JBS founder Robert Welch. According to Wikipedia, he was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society.
From 1929 to 1932, Fred Koch built 15 cracking units in the (Communist) Soviet Union
He claimed that the Democratic and Republican Parties were infiltrated by the Communist Party, and he supported Mussolini’s suppression of communists. He wrote that “The colored man looms large in the Communist plan to take over America,” and that public welfare was a secret plot to attract rural blacks and Puerto Ricans to Eastern cities to vote for Communist causes and “getting a vicious race war started.”
Re: Wikipedia…
Koch Industries Employs PR Firm To Airbrush Wikipedia, Gets Banned For Unethical ‘Sock Puppets’ Lee Fang, Think Progress, 03/09/11
Last year, Koch Industries began employing New Media Strategies (NMS), an Internet PR firm that specializes in “word-of-mouth marketing” for major corporations.
It appears that, ever since the NMS contract was inked with Koch, an NMS employee began editing the Wikipedia page for “Charles Koch,” “David Koch,” “Political activities of the Koch family,” and “The Science of Success” (a book written by Charles).
Under the moniker of “MBMAdmirer,” NMS employees edited Wikipedia articles to distance the Koch family from the Tea Party movement, to provide baseless comparisons between Koch and conspiracy theories surrounding George Soros, and to generally delete citations to liberal news outlets.
In 1950, The JBS published the following:
“In the Senate, there are men like Stephen Young of Ohio, and Wayne Morse of Oregon, McNamara of Michigan, and Clifford Case of New Jersey and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, whom it is utter folly to think of as just liberals. Every one of those men is either an actual Communist or so completely a Communist sympathizer or agent that it makes no practical difference…”
The Birch Society, has also stated that the following individuals are a representative sample of individuals who were, or are, either Communists, Communist sympathizers, or Communist “agents” who planned to destroy our country and bring us into a one-world socialist dictatorship?
a. President Harry Truman
b. President Dwight D. Eisenhower
c. General George C. Marshall
d. Allen Dulles (CIA Director)
e. John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State)
f. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren
g. Henry Kissinger (Secretary of State)
h. Governor Nelson Rockefeller (NY)
i. Governor Edmund G. Brown (CA)
j. Senator Hubert Humphrey (MN — and later Vice President)
k. Senator Estes Kefauver (TN)
l. Governor Orval Faubus (AR)
m. Senator John Kerry (now Secretary of State)
n. President Charles DeGaulle (France)
And a whole lot more nonsense.
I wonder what they have to say about Bernie?
“If Mommy is a Commie, then you’ve gotta turn her in”. Tom Lehrer
The IPCC rpt has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence
Seems to be an inconvientant truth that warming has taken a pause over the last 15 or so years. Opps.. “I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” MIT Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.” http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/
Scratch a Denier Site and What Do You Find?
I think I’ll pass on this link.
I’ve looked at a bunch of denier sites & org.s in the past and always find the same thing behind them: oil money.
If you harnessed all the energy put into denying global warming, you could power a small state like ours.
Enviro-mentalism
The problem I see here is not so much whether or not climate change is happening. I believe that we are all somewhat in agreement that many of the systems of the Earth as well as the sensory experiences we have of our world are in decline – the oceans, biodiversity, animal habitat, bee populations, nighttime skies, our soundscapes, fresh water supplies, coral reefs, and wilderness areas and so on. What is less understood is how this is impacting our perception of the world and of our own selves.
When we say things like we are unconcerned about how future generations will be impacted by the decisions we are making or when we take the geological time approach (change happens) to what we are doing to our planet, there is a certain thing that I think is happening here that needs to be explored. For me, I focus on industrial-economic system (or whatever you want to call it) we currently inhabit that places a premium on viewing ourselves as individuals that are largely decontextualized from the more-than-human world (even though it is that world which envelopes us). I believe that in many untold ways we have all become colonized by this industrial mindset, without which it would be difficult for us to attempt to control and consume the world in the way we currently do. The worldview of a tame, needy consumer is very different from people who have an indigenous sense of the world and are in deep context and relationship with the greater-then-human Earth. There are many different configurations of awareness and sense of self – ours appears to be a fairly restricted one.
David Kidner, my favorite ecopsychologist, says that “a constricted form of selfhood inevitably complements a reduced landscape. “ And that seems to agree with many like R. D. Laing (The Politics of Experience) who argues that if our experience is destroyed, then our behavior will inevitably be destructive and profound thinkers like Carl Jung who stated that:
“As scientific understanding has grown, so our world has become dehumanized. Man feels himself isolated in the cosmos, because he is no longer involved with nature and has lost his emotional unconscious identity with natural phenomena…no river contains spirit, no tree is the life principle of a man.”
I don’t know if you agree, but that’s a sampling of my thoughts for the day.
The Century of the Self
I thought I’d add what I believe is a great resource in this discussion – at least where I took it. See the BBC series by Adam Curtis called The Century of the Self. If you haven’t seen this yet, I highly recommend it to get some further ideas and the feel for the great industrial mind collapse we are engaged in. I think we are literally falling into ourselves and our reduced definition of self. See it at http://vimeo.com/61857758
If you need to feel better after watching this I recommend watching I Am from Tom Shadyac. Any one else seen these?