Reactions to IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers

@ur momisugly RACookPE1978: “1. So what? What is the problem if the Arctic sea ice continues to decline from its present levels, or from the 2012 levels, or from the 2012 levels?”
Because all the ice will melt, the planet will heat, and become inhospitable to life. And all that carbon and methane trapped in the ice and ground will rise up and help the planet heat much faster. Finally, when you change the temperature of anything, you change it’s behavior. And it’s in the best interest of life on Earth to keep the behavior of Earth stable.
“2. At its present extents at the time of sea ice minimums in the Arctic, more energy is lost by increased evaporation, increased long wave radiation to space by radiation, increased heat loss to the air by convection, and increased heat loss by conduction from lower levels that is gained by solar radiation. Each km of extra ocean exposed cools the arctic even more.”
Not enough to stop warming. Also, loss of ice reflectivity warms the planet more.
“3. Summer, melt season temperatures up where the ice actually is (per DMI 80 north latitude measured temperatures sine 1959) have not only not increased, but have been decreasing since 1998, and are decreasing now faster than recorded earlier.”
According to NASA, the rapid warming trend in the Arctic over the last 25 years has dramatically reduced the region’s sea ice extent.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/927
“4. Now, at the time of minimum sea ice extents, the Arctic sea ice is concentrated between 79 and 83 north latitudes. At those latitudes, the sun is not high enough to be absorbed to either the ice or the sea surface. But, the Antarctic sea ice IS at low enough latitudes to receive massively more energy, and the received that energy through thinner air masses and for longer periods of each day. Result?”
Antarctica is warming:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/351507/description/Taking_Antarcticas_temperature

@ur momisugly milodonharlani: “The Stanford “study” you cite is an article in Anti-Scientific Un-American magazine, too glossy to be of any use as a bird cage liner.”
You can find the studies referred to in that article here:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/
“If wind & solar were as economical today as fossil fuels, why does China, the country that makes wind mills & solar panels & also has giant hydro projects, rely so heavily on coal & want to control South China Sea oil?”
Because technological advances have only recently brought cost down.
“Why does every other country heavily subsidize its everywhere failed wind & solar experiments?”
Why do we heavily subsidize the oil and gas industry? In the case of wind and solar, it’s to speed up transition to clean energy. Most major industries have developed with government aid, e.g., oil and gas, railroads, computers…
“The authors fail to include building electrical transmission lines in their alleged analysis. They blithely assume that hydro can back up wind & solar, without apparently ever having studied the place in the world where that hopeless system has been tried on the largest scale, ie the Pacific NW.”
What about the Hoover damn? Wind and solar can account for something around 95-98% of energy. According to this study, hydro and other clean energy technologies are only meant to help during slow times for wind.
“Backing up wind there leads to generation of less hydro, waste of huge quantities of water & damages migrating fish & birds.”
There will be much more available clean water if we move off fossil fuels. Offshore and high altitude wind farms will mitigate damage to wildlife. Also, we only need an area the size of Manhattan to power the world, so we’ll get around the wildlife problem.
“Maybe in their study they show their work, but the article is nothing but spew.”
Greensburg, Kansas is using 100% renewable energy, and they did this very inexpensively. We can do it too.
http://www.go100percent.org/cms/index.php?id=70&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=59
http://www.greensburgks.org/
Many towns are also going massively solar, like Lancaster, California.
“To mention just a few of your own many false assertions, Antarctica is not melting. Its ice mass is increasing, along with the sea ice extent around it, which reached a new “all-time” high this year. Many studies in recent years have found this to be the case, such as this one:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf”
Latest news form NASA is not so good, “But in a number of places around Antarctica, ice shelves are melting too fast, and a consequence of that is glaciers and the entire continent are changing as well.”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20130613.html#.UkZPxLw1Zcw
“By “all time” of course is meant since 1979, when satellite records of Arctic & Antarctic sea ice began, along with observations of the “temperature” of the atmosphere from space. So when you claim that the past ten years are the warmest decade ever, you’re talking about three decades. What you fail to understand is that 1) the surface temperature record is an “adjusted” fabrication, & 2) use of raw data show that the ~1920-40s were actually hotter than the recent warm spell of 1980-2000, roughly. The warming during that period also occurred at the same slope as the recently ended period, without benefit of increased CO2.”
No, last decade is the warmest since at least 1850, when we started keeping records. Anomalies have been adjusted for.
http://treealerts.org/topic/climate-science/2013/07/meteorologists-say-last-decade-was-hottest-ever-measured/
“The Arctic didn’t melt, as you fear, during the much longer & warmer previous interglacial, the Eemian, nor during the thousands of years in our current Holocene interglacial when it was warmer than now, as it was during Minoan Warm Period, the Roman WP & the Medieval WP, each hotter than its predecessor (as shown by proxy data from around the world), as the Medieval was than the Modern WP.”
So, it can’t possibly melt now?
“The earth has enjoyed CO2 levels of 7000 ppm, not just 400 ppm, in the past 550 million years without turning into Venus, as that liar spouts.”
Unfortunately, life cannot survive with 10-20 degree increase. The planet can.
“It is also untrue that 97% of “scientists” sign on to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism.”
People should be alarmed! It’s the greatest challenge civilization will likely face until the sun burns out. 97% of climate scientists do agree and virtually every major scientific institution around the world agrees to:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
http://theconsensusproject.com/
“In any case, CO2 is beneficial to life on earth. The planet has greened as a result of the gain since 1945.”
It’s the increasing heat that the Co2 traps that is damaging to life on Earth. Life can only survive in a very narrow temperature range and we’re going to bust that range if we continue to change the composition of our atmosphere.

The last mini ice age, was caused primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, it last for approximate from the 14th century until around 1850. Grapes were grown in UK, but most grapes were then only grown in greenhouses. But the human populations in Northern Europe perished, not only from the black death either. The original wine presses were adapted for the first printing presses. That is fact. Ice fairs were held on the Thames in London in the 19th Century. Even in 1963 a cold winter caused the Thames to freeze near Windsor. There seems no logic to explain why this happened at the time other than the cold weather was not just in UK, it was everywhere in the Northern Hemisphere. We have to assume from palaeoclimatology that our planet did not favor the increase of agriculture or human expansion until 10,000 years ago, when the climate was entering into a warmer phase. But the majority of the last 100,000 years at least we have experienced very cold weather, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, so we are more an ice planet than a warm tropical one.
If we are going to retreat into a cold phase again, it will affect our ability to grow crops and the worlds population will be greatly affected. What Australia should be concentrating on is maintaining soil fertility and providing food just not for us alone. Now don’t you think UNIPCC would be taking more care in predicting what could happen if the planet cools greatly. Because I know what cold can do at least we can cool down if it gets too hot. Anyway, good luck with your arguments, and the UN should be ashamed of themselves. 2 CC by 2100 is nickles and dimes, particularly after 90 years of fluctuating temperatures that favor colder temps.

There’s nothing like sleep deprived group think under deadline pressure to instill confidence, right?

I LOLd.

So in effect they are 95% certain that their wording is agreed to ensure policy makers keep paying their nice salaries until their retirement. In effect never has anyone created a job for themselves and kept it until their retirement by fearmongering, except “climate scientist” at the IPCC

“Burning fossil fuels creates C02. Increasing C02 in an atmosphere traps in heat. No scientists dispute this. It is the increasing heat, i.e., temperature that will make the environment inhospitable to life on Earth.”
And that’s why planet Earth burned to a crisp during the Late Ordovician Period when CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher than today.
We are now living in Oz’ alternate universe.

Despite the end of world catastrophe pronouncements, the main stream media realise climate change has become very toxic to their readership base. As one commentator said the latest IPCC report a bit of a dead man bounce, the MSM are starting to be really over the climate change astrology.
In the end crying wolf for decades falls on deaf ears.

Here are the facts:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/steffen-ipcc-report/4984656
The Earth has warmed significantly over the last century, and particularly strongly since 1970 up to the present. The global average air temperature has risen by 0.89 degrees Celsius over the 1901-2012 period, and the decade 2001-2010 was the warmest on record.
But global average air temperature is only a very small part of the warming story, as the atmosphere absorbs only 3 per cent of the additional heat trapped by the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases. By far the biggest player in the climate system is the ocean.
Over 90 per cent of the warming since the mid-20th century has occurred in the ocean, and the heat content of the ocean has risen steadily since about 1970 with no pause or slowing of the rate over the past 15 years. That is really the “smoking gun” of warming. But there is even more evidence of a strongly warming Earth.
The ice cover over the Arctic Ocean is decreasing rapidly, at a rate of about 4 per cent per decade since 1979. Such rapid ice loss is unprecedented in the last 2,000 years.
Sea level has risen by 19 cm over the 1900-2010 period. This observed rate of rise over the past century is unusually high in the context of the last 2,000 years.
Glaciers and ice sheets around the world are shrinking and losing mass. The combined rate of mass loss from the large polar ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica was about 350 billion tonnes per year for the period 2002-2011, and is accelerating.
It is even more telling that the rate of sea-level rise, the rate of decrease of Arctic sea ice extent, and the rate of mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica have all increased in the period from the 1990s to the present, compared to earlier periods. This is exactly the opposite of what one would expect if warming of the Earth is slowing or has stopped.
All of this evidence points to the continued strong warming of the Earth since the mid-20th century up to the present, in stark contrast to the erroneous reports purported to be based on leaked drafts of the IPCC assessment.

“Sweden’s Environment Minister Lena Ek and Thomas Stocker, a member of an United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), attend an IPCC meeting in Stockholm September 23, 2013. REUTERS-Bertil Enevag ”
So the full report and the summary for policy makers has been made by Environment Ministers and their representatives indirectly or directly. In other words its been “made” by policy makers them self?
Ideology triumphs reality?

The CorbettReport – Episode 282 – The IPCC Exposed

More International Frauds and Bogus Enterprises,
Many of them about “Climate Change”, at the
website linked to my name. Hundreds of full
feature length videos like the one above.
Do research what Corbett Says, and look
out for his “new series on the IPCC” !
We will post a link at our site as soon as
Corbett’s new videos are available, and
we have posted a Corbett Report Player
on our Alternative News Page.
Please do pay us a visit, and I thank
you for your time in reading thus far