From The End is Near department comes this video documentary from lefty talk radio guy Thom Hartmann that claims we are on the verge of a “mass extinction” due to climate change. Only one problem; the IPCC says “no” to his scenario. Ooops.
From the YouTube description, bold mine:
“Last Hours” is the first in a series of short films that explore the perils of climate change and the solutions to avert climate disaster. Each subsequent film will highlight fact-based challenges facing the human race, and offer solutions to ameliorate these crises. The initial short film series will culminate in a feature film to be presented prior to COP21, the 2015 UN Conference on Climate Change in Paris.
An asset for the climate change movement, “Last Hours” will be disseminated globally to awaken modern culture worldwide about the various dangers associated with climate change.
“Last Hours” describes a science-based climate scenario where a tipping point to runaway climate change is triggered by massive releases of frozen methane. Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, has already started to percolate into the open seas and atmosphere from methane hydrate deposits beneath melting arctic ice, from the warming northern-hemisphere tundra, and from worldwide continental-shelf undersea methane clathrate pools.
Burning fossil fuels release carbon that, principally through greenhouse effect, heat the atmosphere and the seas. This is happening most rapidly at the polar extremes, and this heating has already begun the process of releasing methane. If we do not begin to significantly curtail the use of carbon-based fossil fuels, this freed methane threatens to radically accelerate the speed of global warming, potentially producing a disaster beyond the ability of the human species to adapt.
This first video is designed to awaken people to the fact that the earth has experienced five major extinctions in the deep geologic past — times when more than half of all life on earth vanished — and that we are now entering a sixth extinction. Industrial civilization with its production of greenhouse gases has the ability to trigger a mass extinction; in the extreme, it could threaten not just human civilization, but the very existence of human life on this planet.
The world community and global citizens urgently need to chart a path forward that greatly reduces green house gas emissions. To take action and follow the pathway to solutions to the climate crisis, you can explore this website and you can also sign-up for future updates. Thank you.
It’s the old “methane emergency” meme again.
But here’s the problem.
Apparently Thom never got the memo from the IPCC AR5. Note the third and fourth items in Table 12.4 from the IPCC:
Definitions for this table can be found in the section “TFE.5: Irreversibility and Abrupt Change” in the draft report. They say:
“Abrupt climate change is defined in AR5 as a large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems.”
But alas, IPCC says Clathrate methane release is very unlikely, and they have high confidence in that assessment. Permafrost doesn’t seem to be much of a problem either, as it doesn’t seem to have the potential for abrupt climate change.
Looks like Thom Hartmann will have to rework his video.
I guess it could be read either way however, in context it relates to the Venus analogy in the IPCC document Jimbo linked to. Alarmists who I’ve talked with mention Venus and how CO2 in Venus’ atmosphere is “causing” a greenhouse warming runaway effect while ignoring IPCC’s own statement that that is not likely due to says…a “runaway greenhouse effect” —analogous to Venus–appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities…..”.
Ah, you were speaking of Venus’s atmopshere. Couldn’t gather that from the context, but that sentence did stand out and thought it may need attension. 😉
wayne:
This thread is about a video which presents alarmist nonsense as though the AGW-scare were still at its height although natural events have forced even the IPCC to admit the worst AGW fears are “unlikely”.
I write in hope of helping you in your future endeavours.
When attempting concern trolling it is necessary to be credible in what you write.
But your post at October 14, 2013 at 1:37 am says in total
Sorry, but “that sentence” was very clear from its context.
And your misrepresentation of “that sentence” is also clear from its context: i.e. you were trying to deflect the thread onto discussion of semantic trivia and away from the reality that ‘scary videos’ about AGW are now laughable.
Richard
“wayne says:
October 14, 2013 at 1:37 am”
Ok, my spelling and syntax may have been off, I was not wearing my glasses (That’s my excuse and I am sticking to it) however, it’s clear, to me at least, that I am making reference to Venus (As the IPPC are too in the linked article) and runaway warming “induced by anthropogenic activities” (On Earth).
Every alarmist, and I mean *every* alarmist focuses on the CO2 component and the amount in tonnes humans are adding and then, mention Venus (Ignoring Mars), tipping points and “runaway warming”. They always ignore physical realities such as volume and pressure in relation to temperature. Earth, ~1bar with 0.039% CO2 (Nice). Venus, ~95bar with ~95% CO2 (Hot). Mars, 0.005bar, ~95% CO2 (Cold). CO2 on Earth is clearly NOT a problem!
And the ad below the article features Mr Peanut. Appropriate I guess. Thom Hartmann is a peanut head.
The disconnect doesn’t matter to the principal warmists. People like David Suzuki have already decried the current IPCC as flawed, better in its earliest days, not true to the data that says we shall all burn in hell before we die.
The important point in the eco-green argument, one that hasn’t changed since the 1800s, is that the Earth cannot sustain our lifestyle at our numbers. Whether CO2 finishes us is not relevant: if it isn’t CO2, it will be ocean acidification, or lack of fresh water, or manmade or man-concentrated diseases or global wars resulting from the stresses of too many people going after not enough resources. Erhlich, Strong, Suzuki, the Sierra Club/Greenpeace etc (I don’t include the opportunistic Gore-Hanse-Mann triplets) all come from the same position: our lifestyle as a consuming, industrialized, secular (vs naturalistic-pagan) society is a deadend for our species. We will not outlive what we do to the world.
The rejection of the IPCC as too conservative by the self-appointed moral leaders of the dayis a wonderful sign that meaningful social and economic adjustments to the globe will not happen. When your prophets rail against the ones they first set up to lead the people to salvation, you know they have become too extreme (or always had an agenda they didn’t share with you). It is reminiscient of the axiom about the first act of the revolution: to kill the revolutionaries.
You’ve got it backwards. Now that the IPCC has been rebuked by the grey literature, it will have to fall into line.
Doug Proctor says:
October 14, 2013 at 10:41 am
“The rejection of the IPCC as too conservative by the self-appointed moral leaders of the dayis a wonderful sign that meaningful social and economic adjustments to the globe will not happen. When your prophets rail against the ones they first set up to lead the people to salvation, you know they have become too extreme (or always had an agenda they didn’t share with you). It is reminiscient of the axiom about the first act of the revolution: to kill the revolutionaries.”
Doug, the separation between the flat-out lunatics like Suzuki or Mann vs. the IPCC is not real. It is a dialectic. The role of the lunatics is to make the IPCC appear sane.
You set up the thesis (IPCC) and the antithesis (lunatics) and arrive at your preconceived synthesis (something somewhat more insane than the IPCC).
Repeat this over and over again and you shift the perception of the mindless populace straight into insanity. (These days, homosexuality is taught to Kindergarten kids, for instance, and the seculars think that that is sane.)
I find it interesting 97% of climate scientists agree climate change is real and caused by man yet 99% of you dopes disagree with them.
LouieV,
Do you actually believe that 97% nonsense? Only tools believe that.
Ditto to you Louie V. If we were in any other country, all these goofy comments wouldn’t be appearing. But we’re in America where Fox News and the Heartland Institute can create fake information to counter anything in the science world. The Heartland Institute has supposed true scientists, like Fred Singer or Seitz. These same scientists often quoted on Fox and Limbaugh are the same guys who denied cancer could be caused by cigarrettes and said second hand smoke wasn’t harmful. Back then, they worked for another “think tank” funded by other super rich people who wanted to sell harmful products….and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was debunked? That’s a new one on me. How about National Geographic’s “Six Degrees Could Change the World” created in 2012? Was that also debunked by the Heartland Institute?
It’s too bad none of these naysayers actually listen to Hartmann on a regular basis. Calling him a “Bozo” and other names is not an argument. You’ve probably never listened to him debate conservatives on his show on a huge range of issues. He is well respected in the political punditry community and well versed debater. Enough said, I think he is the smartest talk show host out there and that’s not because I share his politics which I do. I also have respect for a few right wing talk show hosts. So again, calling him a dummy or any other names shows you have no real argument and that the sources you listen to have dumbed down our discourse. Truly sad. 🙁
Adam,
Wake up and read the article. It is Hartmann who was debunked.
You write:
If we were in any other country, all these goofy comments wouldn’t be appearing.
So you crave the censorship of opinions other than your own, little dictator wannabe that you are. But it is alarmist blogs that do the censoring. That is because they do not have a leg to stand on scientifically. Lame head-nodding mouth breathers like you are the only ones who populate alarmist blogs, because they censor the uncomfortable scientific truth posted by skeptics.
It’s clear you crave national censorship. Sad, and un-American. But that would be the only way you could prevail in your pseudo-science. And your stupid “second hand smoke” nonsense has been deconstructed here too many times to mention. Search the archives, read, and see how wrong you are.
Run along now to whatever echo chamber you get your talking points from. The adults will handle things here.
Does this mean Mr. Watts and his colleagues have given up trying to misrepresent, and otherwise punch little fact-holes in the IPCC AR5?
Sue and Fukishima is not melting down either. Thomm Hartmannn is the smartest guy talking on the radio and quite successful. Hartmann has had many very successful business ventures and has written may very smart, thoughtful and fact based books. He has no need to peddle video’s for money besides that is not what drives this man of integrity. When you can buy scientists you can buy the science those in the dirty energy busines have a vested interest in the people of the world not understanding the destuction their greed has brought upon us and all of our future generations.
Let me get this straight,
when the IPCC says that global warming is real (as in Gore’s movie), they’re wrong
but when the IPCC (seems to) says that methane can’t bubble up out of the ocean, they’re right.
You guys are hilarious.
Oh, so now you deniers BELIEVE the IPCC?!
Can you keep it straight — or is it that you only support/believe that which backs-up your own belief system? Unfuckingbelievable.
REPLY: No, that’s’ your anonymous, angry, take on it. We simply think this is one thing they got right int he report. There are a couple of other things, but much of the reports is deeply flawed, such as their radiation imbalance. – Anthony
@gettingonmysoapbox
How about this.
#1 – There are no deniers here
#2 – The scientists here seek the truth wherever it can be found
#3 – Only ignorant superstitious people fear the truth because of the source
Just for the record, you fit #3 to a Tee
Table 12.4 is being widely cited in the blogosphere because it downplays the probability of all near-term catastrophes. However, all this proves is that, thanks to government-appointed reviewers, the IPCC remains overly-optimistic. However, if so, this falsifies the notion that environmental alarmism is a scientific conspiracy; and renders the Heartland Institute’s NIPCC completely redundant.
William Nordhaus does not seem so optimistic: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/nov/07/climate-change-gambling-civilization/
Given that conservatives should be into conservation, why is that anyone who says that the Earth has a finite capacity to recycle our waste products (such as all the geospehric carbon we are adding to the biosphere as CO2) must be labelled “lefty”? James Delingpole’s Watermelon fallacy is childish and anti-scientific fairy tale: All sparrows are birds but not all birds are sparrows.
Apologies for my typing error: “geospheric” = fossilised = carbon that has not been in the biosphere for millions of years and takes millions of years to be taken out of circulation too (which is why burning it is such a problem). Asserting the efficacy of the Law of Conservation of Mass is not a left-wing thing to do either!
Having downloaded both the SPM and Chapter 12 as PDFs, I have at last found Table 12.4 lurking in the middle of the chapter. Table SPM.1 (p. SPM-23) examines the probability of extreme weather events increasing in frequency (and is generally very pessimistic). Table 12.4 (p. 12-78) examines the potential of rapid, non-linear, catastrophic and irreversible changes (and is generally very optimistic). Having read the text, I still find the juxtaposition of these two Tables makes very little sense. This is because:
1. The conclusions presented in Table SPM.1 appear entirely reasonable given the analysis of historical data such as that presented in the ‘Climate Dice’ paper by Hansen et al. last year.
2. The conclusions presented in Table 12.4 appear totally counter-factual given that the Greenland Icecap is now melting at least six times faster than it was only a decade ago (i.e. 1990s average compared to 2000s average) – a pattern repeated with the vast majority of the Earth’s glaciers (i.e. some having retreated as far in the last decade as they did in the entire 20th Century).
The latter indicates that rapid, non-linear changes are already happening; and it is very hard to justify disputing that they will be anything other than irreversible and catastrophic (although buying shares in reverse osmosis/desalination companies could be a smart move for all you technological optimists out there).
Martin Lack says:
October 27, 2013 at 10:38 am
Why would you assume changes to be irreversible & catastrophic which have occurred so many times in the past? Retreating glaciers around the world have revealed remnants of plants that grew there during & human artifacts from the Medieval, Roman & Minoan Warm Periods & the Holocene Climatic Optimum, which were subsequently covered up by advancing ice.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jq06XaBVeoFDw8ema5tW2JrEl1mg
The above is marred by the obligatory quoting of UN’s CACA spewers suggesting without basis that glacial retreat will continue until at least 2100. That may or may not happen, but there is no compelling reason to assume that it will. Climate always changes, so why assume that the trend of the moment will continue, especially as temperature & CO2 trends have so dramatically diverged since c. 1996?