Final IPCC report: world going to hell in a handbasket

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued its fourth and final report, and it ain’t pretty.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

[…] It is very likely that over the past 50 years: cold days, cold nights and frosts have become less frequent over most land areas, and hot days and hot nights have become more frequent. It is likely that: heat waves have become more frequent over most land areas, the frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most areas, and since 1975 the incidence of extreme high sea level has increased worldwide. […] Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years.

The report warns that the impacts of anthropogenic warming could be “abrupt or irreversible”, including “metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas.”

Contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m if global average warming were sustained for millennia in excess of 1.9 to 4.6ºC relative to preindustrial values. The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago…

Of course, what do they know? They’re just a bunch of Nobel Prize winning scientists. Better we should listen to real experts, like Dori and Stefan.

Comments

  1. 1

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    As 50% of the world’s human population lives within 50 miles of a coastline, the rising sea levels caused by global warming will result in displacement of over a billion people, which will give you humans something to fight over as displaced people try to move to higher ground already occupied by other humans. This will keep the warmongers happy.

  2. 2

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    The conservative response to the dangers of global warming is aptly demonstrated by Georgia governor Sonny Perdue’s leading the rubes in a rain dance (Go to TomDispatch.com for more on this and the issue of world wide drought).

    This they call leadership.

  3. 4

    spews:

    Chris @3,

    It wasn’t 182 miles of new highways, but we’re going to get most of Prop 1’s roads anyway. All you’ve really achieved is killing light rail expansion.

    The perfect is the enemy of the good.

  4. 5

    john seebeth spews:

    Its either to much water, or in this instance, not enough to go around. Welcome to the future….shock!

    The wrath of 2007: America’s great drought
    By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
    The Independent
    Published: 11 June 2007

    America is facing its worst summer drought since the Dust Bowl years of the Great Depression. Or perhaps worse still.

    http://p220.ezboard.com/The-wr.....D=17.topic

  5. 6

    George Hanshaw spews:

    Ho hum.

    The Earth has heated up and cooled down many times within the geological history. That’s how we wound up with what we have now.

    If you want to get your panties in a bundle, at least worry about something like a near Earth orbit asteroid collision or something. That’s likely what took out the dinosaurs….not ExxonMobil…….

  6. 7

    john seebeth spews:

    George @ 6

    Another theory gaining prominence is…

    It Took More than an Asteroid to Kill the Dinosaurs
    Written by Fraser Cain
    Universe Today
    October 25th, 2006

    How did the dinosaurs die? It’s a question scientists have been trying to figure out since their fossils were first discovered. Most believe that it was a giant asteroid that stuck the Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago, and ended the dinosaurs’ reign on Earth. But evidence is mounting that the asteroid strike might have just been the final killing blow. The previous 500,000 years were unpleasant too, with multiple meteor strikes, severe volcanism, and rapid climate change.

    http://www.universetoday.com/2.....dinosaurs/

  7. 8

    YLB spews:

    Ho hum.

    We’re talking about the here and now, not what happened previously. The best evidence shows a human role in what’s happening NOW, therefore there’s a human solution.

    The human solution is too threatening to right wingers because they’re so invested in the status quo – fossil fuel extraction and the war machine to support that.

  8. 9

    bj spews:

    Are you sure? After all, your fellow KIRO-AM talk show host, Dori Monson says “There is zero evidence of global warming.” (But then, he’s an idiot.)

  9. 10

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @6 This is the kind of flippant, insouciant, and IRRESPONSIBLE rhetoric that makes WingNuts (TM) look like a bunch of ignorant jackasses, which they are.

  10. 11

    Chris spews:

    Not 182 miles? OK, how many is it Goldy?

    And how are they going to pay for highway expansion without Prop 1 taxes? Gas tax receipts have fallen short of forecast something like 14 months in a row, so we can’t even afford the projects that are already on the books. And even if there was existing revenue, there’s a huge maintenance backlog that will have to take priority over expansion. I don’t think they will shut down I-5 so that we can afford a bunch of suburban and rural highway widening.

    The fact is that highways aren’t going to happen no matter what — they need Seattle votes to pay for the taxes, and people who actually think we should do something about global warming are enough to tip the scale. What’s worse, people who deny the existence of global warming, or those that can see it happening, but choose not to do anything about it?

    Light rail would have passed by itself this election, and will some time in the next year or two. But perhaps you would rather dwell on Prop 1’s defeat?

  11. 12

    correctnot right spews:

    bj:
    Please – let’s not insult idiots by calling them Dori Monson.

    Remember:

    Dori doesn’t believe in global warming because someone told him Al Gore said it was true.

    Dori argued that we should trust the bush adminstration because they had the “intelligence” information about WNDs.

    Dori argued that there were still WMDs in Iraq and supported the Iraq war as “necessary”.

    Dori has opposed Sound transit from day 1 because they are too”expensive” and incompetent – but he never uses those words for the war in Iraq or the Bush administration (corruption in Iraq and Katrina are just not mentioned by Dori since he is a rabid bush supporter).

    dori sets up liberal straw-men (selective quotes of HS students against the war) and claims a grandmother who only can say she supports the troops because her son and grandsons were in the military is somehow making a better argument.

    Has Dory ever served? NO
    Do any of Dori’s kid’s serve? NO (one is almost old enough)
    Is Dori another chickenhawk? YES

    What does Dori think about Bush not going after Osama (when we had him trapped in Bora bora) because of Iraq? We’ll never know – Dori finds other more imortant topics (like the seahawks)

    Dori is a fake – he can’t argue his way out of a paper bag and he refuses to let on guests who can challenge him (or he cuts them off). Sign of a chicken (hawk).

  12. 13

    spews:

    Chris @11,

    Perhaps I would rather dwell on Prop 1’s defeat? You’re the one that brought it up. You’re the one that tried to stick it in my face.

    And you know how they’re going to pay to replace the 520 bridge, and to widen 405 and 167? Your beloved congestion pricing. They’re going to congestion price the hell out the region to pay for the roads projects they want, and they won’t spend a dime on rail, because it’s the one part of transportation picture that can’t be done piecemeal.

    Five years from now, I’ll be paying a buck or two each way to drive on Rainier Ave. to the Safeway, and rich folk like Frank Blethen will be enjoying their hot lanes. Yeah, sure, I look forward to that.

  13. 14

    correctnot right spews:

    goldy is right – the big outcome for all those environmentalists who voted against Prop. 1 is….drumroll please….toll roads and no transit. We are going to be sitting in traffic at toll booths to stop global warming with increased congestion and a step-child of rail that doesn’t cross the lake.
    Oh- by the way – all those self-styled experts on how busses would be more efficient crossing the lake – read yesterdays Seattle times letter – sorry, but once again you have your facts wrong. Trains work better across the lake and move more people faster even if the busses are moving full speed.

  14. 15

    michael spews:

    @4

    Light rail will be extended from Portland to Vancouver. Tacoma will be expanding light-rail within the city. Sounder’s heavy-rail link to Seattle is still expanding right on schedule. There’s plenty of support for light-rail in Oly and you can that lobbying by groups like The Sierra Club for that. The environmental community helped get environmental all stars like Debbie Regala, Dawn Morrell and Derek Kilmer elected in Olympia.

    Your position on road building is defeatist bulls shit. We’ve stopped the cross-base for dang near 20 years and we will continue to block it.

    Yes, some new road building will happen, some new road building NEEDS to happen. By fighting it only the critical roads will be built and it will help to insure they will be built in the most environmentally sensitive manner possible.

    Activist is a verb!

  15. 16

    OneMan spews:

    Jezus, Chris, haven’t you had enough threads to talk about Prop 1? Talk about a sore winner. And Goldy, you’re not helping by egging him on.

    Back on topic, my Republican friend keeps sending me random crap that he recieves from his wingnut friends, like a deal off of Craigslist “analyzing” the locations of weather stations in order to “prove” that “heat islands” are skewing the data.

    I send him links to places like realclimate.org to debunk the junk but he’d prefer to be an “open-minded skeptic.” What he’d really prefer to be is an ostrich.

    I quit listening to Dori Monson years ago because there isn’t enough blood pressure medication in the world to allow me to put up with his bull. I know people who went to high school with him (he’s local) and none of them can stand to listen to him either. They can’t figure out what happened to him but I believe that he has figured out that the rightwing schtick is paying off for him and he’s working it for all he can. He’s like the people who come here trolling, not believing 3/4 of what they say but loving the attention it gets them.

  16. 18

    headless lucy spews:

    Yeah, but. George W. Bush says everything’s OK. And even if it’s not, it’s no one’s personal responsibility.

  17. 19

    justdrivingby spews:

    15. You said, “Yes, some new road building will happen, some new road building NEEDS to happen. By fighting it only the critical roads will be built and it will help to insure they will be built in the most environmentally sensitive manner possible.”
    Could you possibly be any more naive?
    I’ve worked on government building projects; and have had some held up by ignorant greenies who have their heads so far up their asses they are unable to read, much less comprehend, the GMA, as well as all the environmental legislation that tells us where we CAN build shit. These morons, and the NIMBYs who dress up like them, stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that the GMA doesn’t exist, and that the environmental laws PROHIBIT building. Asshats. Willfully ignorant asshats.
    Yeah, you can delay projects; and assholes like you do so all the time. The ultimate result? The projects get built anyway, and at enormous cost overruns. One multimillion dollar project that comes to mind cost 25% more due entirely to the cost of answering to people just like you. Was the built result any different? Nope. Was anything gained by that enormous waste of taxpayer money? Nope. Did the government find the money to do it anyway? Yep.
    I’ve tried again and again to sit down with these people; but they don’t even want to hear what the other side has to say. They don’t know the law; but they have no problem accusing the other side of breaking it. They don’t know science; but they’re convinced that every project is DESTROYING the earth. They’re just as bad as the fundies, because the stuff they believe is just as much unsupported bullshit.
    I have no problem with educated environmentalists; but there are way too many greenies who don’t bother to really understand either the science or the law behind the projects they fight.
    So, go ahead, and pretend that your efforts to burn up taxpayer money will result in only the best projects rising up to the surface. And, of course, these projects will all be bright and shiny, all because of you. Gawd.
    There are a lot of libs who understand how much damage the drown-govt-in-a-bathtub crowd has done. Well, you folks are just the other side of that same coin. If you haven’t caused as much damage as they have, it’s certainly not for lack of trying.

  18. 20

    michael spews:

    @19

    Have you considered retirement? We’re not going away, we’re not stopping and we’re gaining power.

  19. 21

    Marvin Stamn spews:

    Like I’ve said before…
    If all the people that know global warming is manmade and the end is near would stop polluting the problem would be over.
      
    Unfortunately, those that know it’s a problem won’t do anything until the government forces them to.

  20. 22

    michael spews:

    @19

    “I’ve worked on government building projects; and have had some held up by ignorant greenies who have their heads so far up their asses they are unable to read, much less comprehend, the GMA, as well as all the environmental legislation that tells us where we CAN build shit.”

    That’s an interesting take on things when you consider that Washington State has the GMA and environmental legislation because of the environmental community. We helped write those laws. Which explains why when the environmental community sues or goes to the Growth Management Hearings Board we tend to win.

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/.....91876.html

  21. 23

    mark spews:

    We could reduce traffic by 50 percent or more by putting a
    big tattoo of a donkey on every person who votes for any democrat and that person cannot buy gas, diesel, or electricity. Problem solved.

  22. 25

    Liberal_Crusher spews:

    Ah Goldy, more chicken little. First in 1970 it was Global Cooling, then in the 1980s we HAD to do unilateral nuclear disarmament, then in the 1990s it was acid rain, now Global Warming. I wonder what’s next from the Socialist playbook?

  23. 26

    Liberal_Crusher spews:

    #19

    That’s because the greenies only pay lip service to science when it suits them. They’re really flat-earther types that want to bring humanity back to the cave times.

  24. 27

    Aaron spews:

    @21: One of the largest supporters of GMA in the area has been Friends Of Washington/Futurewise. What position did they have on Prop. 1? Supported it.

    When you say “we”, who the hell do you think you’re representing? Oh yeah, the environmentalists who aligned with Kemper Freeman…

  25. 28

    George Hanshaw spews:

    A “blast from the past,” posted in accordance with copyright fair use policies:

    Newsweek Magazine, April 28th 1975:
    There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

    The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

    To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

    A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

    To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

    Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

    Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

    “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

    Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.