“Where regions become warmer or wetter this may allow for increased agricultural output – while others may be harmful,”
Eric Worrall reports:
A new government report is creating shock in the Australian climate fraternity, with its almost blasphemous suggestion, that in some respects, the current global temperatureĀ might not be the ultimate climatic optimum we all thought it was.
According to The Age, a major Aussie daily newspaper;
“Climate change could have economic spin-offs, a new government report says.
The Intergenerational Report released on Thursday includes a chapter on “managing the environment”, which has been a feature of previous versions of the five-yearly economic and budget update.
The report sets out the government’s plan to reduce carbon pollution through its $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund.
But it also says “some economic effects may be beneficial”.
“Where regions become warmer or wetter this may allow for increased agricultural output – while others may be harmful,” the report said.
“For example, lower rainfall may reduce crop yields, or transport infrastructure (such as roads, ports and rail networks) may become more susceptible to damage from extreme weather events.””
The full report is here, if you enjoy that kind of thing. http://treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2015/2015-Intergenerational-Report
I have noticed personally, that in the tropical climate where I live, staple vegetables such as tomatoes, zucchini (courgettes), egg plant, capsicum (peppers), even carrots and chives, seem to grow a lot more vigorously, and produce much higher yields, than when the same vegetables are grown in cooler climates. Obviously my simple empirical observations should be discarded, in favour of climate model predictions, which suggest that if global temperature rises by a few degrees, we’re all going to starve.
We have had a succession of cool summers here on the Northern California coast for almost ten years. When we had warmer summers, the wild blackberries ripened in great abundance. During the cooler summers, most of the blackberries don’t get past the reddish black stage, and a bite will demonstrate how bitter and inedible they are. A bit of warming would be welcome. Instead of moving south to Monterey and all the crowds and traffic, it would be nice to stay put and let the warmer weather come to us.
Eric Worrall
Momentum exists so it takes time for a juggernaut to reverse direction.
The start of the reversal consists of small reductions to its progress.
The ‘fuel’ for the AGW juggernaut was cut at Copenhagen in December 2009. It has been a matter of time before the AGW juggernaut began to slow its progress. Meanwhile, some who want the AGW juggernaut to progress (e.g. the BBC) are trying to push it forward.
Richard
the BBC invested its pension plan in AGW related industries. All news services are in the business of making money. controversy sells. honesty doesn’t.
Yes, and it’s ironic that the alarmist fraternity spin this as a threat. I can imagine news reports saying how concerned scientists are that wild blackberries are now ripening in great abundance!
They will want to tax the benefits.
Beware.
Below is the Brandon Blog.
Brilliant?
Boring?
Bilious?
Bewildering?
Barmy?
Bewitching?
Beneficial?
Bright?
Benighted?
Bellissima?
Blimey – I believe it best you be the judge.
Auto
Major Mike:
Nothing proves the existence of The Loving Divine Pastry Chef as thoroughly and ungainsayably as a blackberry and apple pie. Apples never had it so good.
So let’s pray for global warming.
Beneficial but still phony. A two-part climb-down.
Old news, and not even remotely blasphemous. Straight from the horse’s mouth, IPCC TAR:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=484
12.8. Adaptation Potential and Vulnerability 12.8.1. Adaptation and Possible Benefits of Climate Change
It has not been assumed that all the impacts of climate change will be detrimental. Indeed, several studies have looked at possible benefits. Moreover, adaptation is a means of maximizing such gains as well as minimizing potential losses.
However, it must be said that potential gains have not been well documented, in part because of lack of stakeholder concern in such cases and consequent lack of special funding. Examples that have not been fully documented include the possible spread of tropical and subtropical horticulture further poleward (but see some New Zealand studies, on kiwi fruit, for exampleāSalinger and Kenny, 1995; Hall and McPherson, 1997b). In southern parts of Australia and New Zealand, notably Tasmania, there could be gains for the wine industry, increased comfort indices and thus tourism, and in some scenarios increased water for hydroelectric power generation.
Guest et al. (1999) have documented possible decreases in winter human mortality alongside possible increased summer mortality (see Section 12.7.1), and Howden et al. (1999d) have shown that Australian wheat yields may increase for 1 or 2Ā°C warming, before showing declines at greater warmings (see Section 12.5.3 and Figure 12-3). A similar situation may apply to forestry (see Section 12.5.4). Such studies take account of gains from increased CO2 concentrations. Changes in overseas production and thus in markets in some cases also could lead to greater demand and higher prices for Australian and New Zealand primary products (see Section 12.5.9), but only if such changes do not disrupt world trade in other ways (e.g., lower capacity to pay).
Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change must be considered in the context of the entire ecological and socioeconomic environment in which they will take place. Indeed, adaptations will be viable only if they have net social and economic benefits and are taken up by stakeholders. Adaptations should take account of any negative side effects, which would not only detract from their purpose but might lead to opposition to their implementation (PMSEIC, 1999).
Adaptation is the primary means for maximizing gains and minimizing losses. This is why it is important to include adaptation in impact and vulnerability studies, as well as in policy options. As discussed in Chapter 18, adaptation is necessary to help cope with inevitable climate change, but it has limits; therefore, it would be unwise to rely solely on adaptation to solve the climate change problem.
In some cases adaptation may have co-benefits. For example, reforestation to lower water tables and dryland salinization or to reduce storm runoff may provide additional income and help with mitigation (reduction of GHG emissions). However, other potential adaptations may be unattractive for other reasons (e.g., increased setbacks of development in coastal and riverine environments). These considerations have particular application in Australia and New Zealand. Studies of adaptation to climate change in Australia and New Zealand are still relatively few and far between. They are summarized in the remainder of this section.
Nice try though.
It’s certainly true that scientists and us bloggers have known about the positives of climate change for a long time. In the past these have stayed in the scientific literature and a ‘net negative effect’ has been conveyed to the public through the news media. What’s new about this report is that the positive effects are finally being reported in the mainstream media. I think this helps the public make a more informed judgement regarding what the net effect actually is. I also think the use of the word ‘may’ before extreme weather events is an accurate use of language in light of the huge uncertainty surrounding extreme weather events. Hopefully this is the start of a less biased reporting on this issue
Cam,
1) I’m quoting IPCC ARs, which is about as publicly available as things get.
2) If you don’t like what the news media are portraying, write a letter to the editor. Complaining about it to me will get you nowhere.
3) You don’t need a special pass to read primary literature. It’s available in a free market for a price, just like any other useful media. Exercise your right as a market participant to choose what you’re interested in consuming. See again complaining to me about what you, me, anyone is already empowered to do will get you nowhere.
It would be a rather poor cost/benefit analysis which didn’t net things out.
Brandon,
Is there a section in TAR or any of the IPCC reports that actually weighs the pros and cons? Or is it left individual reporters or scientists to make that call for themselves? If not those making claims one way or the other may well be blowing smoke since it is a massive undertaking to quantify how every single thing affected by climate would react in the event of a given scenario then price it out.
Legitimate curiosity as well on my part. Not a passive aggressive snark.
Al, many of the pros are ignored, http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/ccr2biologicalimpacts.html
and the cons are, despite Brandon’s objections, based on the climate models.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/04/aussie-govt-report-climate-change-could-be-beneficial/#comment-1875642
Brandon,
Your comments are, I believe, deliberately simplistic.
The MSM, through sheer laziness, activism or a combination, has misinformed the public or at the very least omitted important facts that would aid the average person in becoming informed on the issue of climate change.
While it’s true that individuals should do their own research and not rely on others to spoon-feed it to them, it’s as likely to happen as individuals actually reading a 50 page EULA clause. They don’t, they rely on a handful others to do the work for them and if there’s anything important to know they’ll hear about it online, on tv etc…
I agree that writing your local rag to complain would be the sensible approach (on the surface) but in reality is it’s a bit like saying, “if you don’t like pollution, don’t complain to me, stop using your car”. Makes perfect sense in theory, but then in theory I could use a thimble to empty my pool in the fall although it might take the entire winter to accomplish.
In a better world, reporters, scientists, government representatives would be generally honest and objective and the public would inform themselves of events that impact their lives. Used to happen, doesn’t now and won’t in the future.
And by the way, this is a public forum where people come to offer opinion and read the opinion of others. Telling someone not to complain to you is a way of dismissing their argument as unimportant. It’s possible their complaint is a general comment for others’ consumption and is not part of a private conversation with you.
Brandon,
You have obviously never tried complaining to MSM about their dishonest portrayal of Climate change issues. You say ”Iām quoting IPCC ARs, which is about as publicly available as things get.” However the point being raised here is they never present anything positive, only the negative aspects,no matter how speculative or untrue it happens to be.
”It would be a rather poor cost/benefit analysis which didnāt net things out.” This is true, but if you leave out the benefits, you’re only left with Net cost.
Eamon.
Al,
Yes, that’s Working Group II’s primary function: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
The highest-level summary I know of is: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/docs/WGIIAR5-FAQs_FINAL.pdf
FAQ 7: Are the future impacts of climate change only negative?
Might there be positive impacts as well?
[Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
and 30]
Overall, the report identifies many more negative impacts than positive impacts projected for the future, especially for high magnitudes and rates of climate change. Climate change will, however, have different impacts on people around the world and those effects will vary not only by region but over time, depending on the rate and magnitude of climate change. For example, many countries will face increased challenges for economic development, increased risks from some diseases, or degraded ecosystems, but some countries will probably have increased opportunities for economic development, reduced instances of some diseases, or expanded areas of productive land. Crop yield changes will vary with geography and by latitude. Patterns of potential catch for fisheries are changing globally as well, with both positive and negative consequences. Availability of resources such as usable water will also depend on changing rates of precipitation, with decreased availability in many places but possible increases in runoff and groundwater recharge in some regions like the high latitudes and wet tropics.
Which lacks quantification. Annoying, but I’m mindful that [Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 30] is reflective of the sheer amount of information they’re attempting to cram into a scant several hundred pages of text and graphics.
I found this EPA document the other night which exclusively focuses on the cost-benefit analysis of mitigating vs. not mitigating: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602ria-clean-power-plan.pdf
The distinction you’re attempting to make here is completely lost on me. Somewhere in the chain someone is going to make a recommendation, and whatever person or body does that could very well be blowing smoke. Even the process of gathering and publishing data without any comment is subject to bias and susceptible to agenda-motivated selection.
Awareness of that is essential for properly skeptical decision making when consuming information. I don’t think that calling out supposed bias is a sufficiently complete argument so as to be able to stand on its own. On that note, I repeat your words for emphasis:
By necessity, any compilation of data will leave something out. Or to put it another way, everybody “cherry-picks”.
Basically, nobody is ever going to “win” the AGW “debate” on the basis of having exactly all the correct, most-representative data. There’s simply too much information. When discussing future potential benefits and detriments, the problem gets even worse — it’s impossible to observe that which has not yet happened. All we can do is estimate.
Or as some here are fond of saying, “guess”. Fine. I believe some guesses are better than others.
I believe that the ultimate point being made was that the MSM has, to date, only accentuated the cons of this Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Climate Disruption/Climate Wierding debacle into which political policies have placed us. Yes, the information is available on the web for anyone with the education to input a few keywords in a search engine. The public at large though tends to be lax in both knowledge of what to look for and the effort to locate it and so has become dependent upon MSM reporting to formulate opinions based on perceived facts. So when they see AGW/CAGW reporting on the news or in the newspaper, all that can be gleaned is the negatives. When they read about climate bills and Congress, it is that AGW is BAD and ALL that speak against it or try to present science that runs counter, anyone that doesn’t “Toe the party line” is either dismissed as a heretic, branded as being in the pay of big energy, or punished by censure or having their children dismissed from college and subjected to public ridicule. Perhaps, if they’re lucky, they could find themselves subjected to a congressional witch hunt.
I personally have read numerous MSM (Lamestream) articles that paint a dismal future with CO2 as the ultimate boogeyman and say nothing about the benefits of a CO2 enriched environment. So, what you say is true in that the information is available to find, but that public at large finds it easier to believe what the media presents as truth rather than expend the energy needed to verify it for themselves through other sources.
After all, if congress says it’s bad, it must be so correct?
I think the point Eric is trying to make is that it is being reported in MSM, not in the IPCC TAR docs (which NEVER reach MSM) – nice try, though š
xyzzy11,
Like I write to Cam above: if you don’t like what your local rag is reporting, you write them a letter and tell them about it. Your complaint is lost on me because
1) I’m not a news editor and
2) As an interested citizen I consider it my personal responsibility to do my own research, not rely on others to spoon-feed it to me.
TAR has been around for 14 years. It’s not some captialist-hating left-wingnut gossip rag that isn’t fit for bumwipe’s fault that Worrell hasn’t gotten around to reading it yet.
The thousand page scientific report of the ipcc is hardly considered mainstream media…
In terms of the net effect, the uncertainty levels are so huge no one can really say what it would be. Also the comparative weighting of each individual effect is very difficult so I would rather see mainstream media coverage of all the individual effects.
Cam,
See again that it is not the news media’s responsibility to educate you. That’s YOUR job. The media’s job is to make money for their shareholders. They do that by giving the public what they demand. This is basic free market stuff I’m talking about here. If you don’t like what the newspapers have to say, tell them about it. Not me.
I tend to agree. Not the first time I’ve said so. Standard risk analysis is to look at the best and worse cases, and time and resources permitting some in-between options. Ergo RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0, and RCP8.5, each of which are essentially bounded by their own best and worst case outcomes.
The fundamental rule of risk assessment is that YOU DON’T KNOW for sure what will happen, and if the best available evidence suggests that the worst case is catastrophic but avoidable, for damn sure you mitigate even though you don’t know the damages down to the half penny … because not knowing is a risk in and of itself.
Mmm, well some outlet somewhere has likely had a go at it, failing that there’s a ginormous report chock full of more stuff than even I’ve gotten around to reading in full — which ought to provide some clue that demanding “all” individual effects might exceed the average consumer’s attention span. Which would put a dent in advertizing revenues. Am I getting through yet?
Unless it’s the LA times which bans letters from people whose views it thinks shouldn’t be allowed.
Michael,
You can add the New Zealand Herald (NZ’s biggest daily) to the list of newspapers banning AGW skeptics.
I used to work with the son of the now, infamous (departed), New Zealand weatherman Augie Auer. He, Augie, opined the whole CAGW was bullcrap! I agree, and so does his son!
michael hart,
Wowwwww. Surely you’re not suggesting that newspapers are to be forced to publish every single letter to the editor.
Surely not. Likely the LA Times cranks out the alarmist hype and bans skeptical viewpoints for circulation considerations. A business decision. Money talks, does it not Gates?
At risk of repeating myself, yes.
This admission by the IPCC tells you all you need to know about wider Climate Science:
“However, it must be said that potential gains have not been well documented, in part because of lack of stakeholder concern in such cases and consequent lack of special funding.”
Get that? Let me translate:
“not well documented because of lack of stakeholder concern [no interest, or hostility, from governments or NGOs or so-called scientists] … and consequent lack of special funding [money only goes to catastrophe research]”
Gates, what are you going on about? The quote is still accurate, as the benefits are indeed known and numerous. From your own quote…” However, it must be said that potential gains have not been well documented, in part because of lack of stakeholder concern in such cases and consequent lack of special funding…”
——————————
You see Brandon the benefits are both understated, and almost never, except by skeptics of CAGW, talked about for public consumption. The benefits are massive. Currently every crop on the planet grows about 15% more food, on the SAME amount of land, on the SAME amount of water, simply due to the 120 PPM increase in CO2. The IPCC ignores so much from the peer reviewed world on the benefits of CO2. The NIPCC reports go into this in detail.
On the other hand the predicted harms are based on failed or failing climate models that over estimate both the climate sensitivity to CO2, and the harm from the warming they do predict.
David A,
Yup, we’re a fear-motivated species not unlike any known species thought to experience what we’d call emotion. Necessary survival tactic, and one which obviously has served us quite well.
Which does not make it pleasant.
Which then, “almost always” gets parlayed into, “everything will be just hunky dory”.
MY mantra is that nobody really knows what will happen, and discretion is the better part of valor. Otherwise known as “don’t push your luck”. Which I think is as classic an American political conservative attitude if there ever was one.
Well there you’re mixing two different kind of models together. Three actually, the third one being a long-term weather forecasting model which is NOT what AOGCMs were designed to do, NOT how they’re configured and executed, and NOT how the IPCC talks about their output.
See again, the models “failing” really ought to bring out the erring on the side of caution in you, but it isn’t. Yet you’re happy to point to an NIPCC analysis which paints a rosy picture of a vibrantly green future based on … what? Peer-reviewed literature? Those papers didn’t use models?
I really don’t understand this selective trust in expert opinion.
Brandon suggest we write to our local rags, forgetting that local and national rags now censor comments and will almost certainly not reproduce your letter. Many on WUWT complain all the time about not being published. Complainants are NOT the news editors either.
Brandon, give me a list of recent rags reporting on the benefits of global warming. I can then give you a Tsunami of negative reports. Most sceptics argue that the benefits of any global warming will be net beneficial. The IPCC says otherwise. Your revelation about the IPCC’s included benefits of global warming are not new to me either. Here is one I often post up.
Bad news sells I suppose. Rags don’t thrive on good news. Remember that.
CORRECTION:
Most sceptics argue that the effects of any global warming will be net beneficial.
Jimbo,
Governments censor. Free-market press outlets edit.
And just like that [poof] goes your “censorship” “argument”.
Maybe it’s late, or maybe you really are not making any sense whatsoever. I can’t tell.
I give you James Taylor of Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/09/18/global-warming-is-benefiting-trees-forests/
He’s a fixture.
The ever reliable Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/30/there-are-benefits-to-global-warming-says-uk-climate-official/
So obvious I doubt it requires mention: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/15/global-warming-might-benefit-canada-russia-rust-belt/
The aforementioned WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464
Why am I googling this stuff for you? You probably know it better than I do because I mostly don’t read any popular press on this topic these days.
Tell me something I don’t know.
Ditto. Add my perennial question, exactly how is it that you’re so much more confident in a rosy future when there’s near universal agreement that nobody knows what the future will look like because the friggen models suck?
Does logic ever enter into the picture at some point?
Which brings me back to my initial point: what the hell is the point?
Goes on to say: Basic research to estimate the aggregate impact of these changes has yet been limited largely to the United States and parts of Europe. Recent modeling of heat-wave impacts in 44 U.S. urban populations, allowing for acclimatization, suggests that large U.S. cities may experience, on average, several hundred extra deaths per summer. Although the impact of climate change on thermal stress-related mortality in developing country cities may be significant, there has been little research in such populations.
For each anticipated adverse health impact, there is a range of social, institutional, technological, and behavioral adaptation options that could lessen that impact. The extent to which health care systems will have the capacity to adopt them is unclear, however, particularly in developing countries. There is a basic and general need for public health infrastructure (programs, services, surveillance systems) to be strengthened and maintained. The ability of affected communities to adapt to risks to health also depends on social, political, and economic circumstances.
The box leads with: Global climate change will have diverse impacts on human healthāsome positive, most negative.
Some quantification would be nice, my read is that as of TAR they didn’t have it yet. Still, it’s all models and projections: why believe any of it? Right?
Learned that one long ago. Why you think I don’t know that is beyond me, and it’s even more bizarre that you think I should be in some sort of defensive posture about how newspapers run their business. I literally do not get what your angle is here.
……thus what’s the point of writing whether they edit or censor. If your complaint don’t get seen it has exactly the same effect. No?
In your own mind Mr. Pedantic. You say write, but if you don’t get published because they think you are a den!er what is the point or your point for that matter? The effect is the same.
You said you were not a news edictor so there is nothing you could do about what you stated. Neither are people who write and don’t get published. Maybe you’re taking too much caffeine today.
Thak you for the list. You don’t have to Google for me and I was absulutely sure there were news stories. Yet you fell for my trap. You gave up after a few and must have missed it when I asked for recent articles. It must have been hard work Brandon but you still fell for it………….fool
I note the articles you pointed to were written at Forbes, Fox News, Daily Caller and WSJ – 3 dated 2007, 2013. One is I note from Matt Ridley. If only you could have got RECENT articles (which I asked for when I said “Brandon, give me a list of recent rags”). Had you managed them from the Guardian, Independent, New York Times……………..THEN I WOULD REALLY BE IMPRESSED BY YOU, but I’m not.
Now my list of BAD things RECENTLY REPORTEDLY caused by global warming / climate change. Hold on to your tin foil hat!
No go take a nice lie down.
Brandon Gates see these things caused or to be caused by global warming. ALL referencing the scientific, peer reviewed literature or the IPCC. As you can see the IPCC can cherry pick whichever science it like and pretty it up for the Summary For Policy Makers. Conclusions are easy when you have so many choices.
Heh, the Human Carbon Volcano blows his top trying to cover the truth on the ground with his ash.
It’s like watching Jan Perlwitz @ Judy’s trying to say the models aren’t running hot.
====================
Brandon Gates, you’ve missed the point of the article. This is about the science being reported in the Age – a mainstream media paper.
We are well educated here and are well aware that AGW has been misreported in the media to make it sound far more problematic than it actually is.
We are also well aware that the IPCC knows that too.
But the news here is that mainstream media is catching up.
This is a change. Quoting and referencing the IPCC on the Guardian website will get you banned as the Guardian doesn’t care about the science. But here a paper is reporting facts!
That is worthy of mention.
M Courtney,
Could be, I don’t know all the dog-whistles on your side ‘o the fence. OTOH, you guys don’t exactly have a monopoly on trying to read between the lines. Nor often failing at said art.
Something else I’ve never figured out: is Rupert Murdoch’s media empire considered mainstream or not? Here across the pond we also have these things called the WSJ and Forbes, and they rip AGW a new one on a regular basis.
Let’s see, I was 9 when I learned about the difference between fact and opinion in English class. Mr. Walker’s class. The man knew how to make an impression.
Another thing I picked up somewhere along the way was the use of tense in language. As I understand it, it’s not appropriate to talk about potential future problems which ARE.
If I had a nickel for every “I’ve been banned from WUWT” story out there I really could become a gentleman of leisure. Have you not yet grasped that being a proper skeptic requires one to set aside tenth-hand anecdotes and deal all but exclusively in things which can be independently verified?
Well sure, the article pretty much delivered the IPCC party line. It’s non-news to me, and yes, I really don’t get the point of Eric bringing it to our attention. Slow news day down under I guess.
Brandon Gates, you are right that the IPCC reports are merely an opinion – not a fact.
But who’s opinion would you put above it?
If you actually want physical facts then the failure of the models destroys the whole “we’re doomed” narrative.
But then you would be agreeing with the IPCC (AR5 Box 9.2) that the models have systematically failed… where does it end when you reject the IPCC?
Back with the mainstream media, perhaps. But the point here is that they are catching up too.
About the Guardian. I gave my personal testimony – that is evidence. It is notable that you acknowledge you have heard many such testimonies before so there’s no reason to doubt me.
You question my writing skills but seem to have trouble with the word ” I “. That word refers to the the first-person (it’s me, hello).
I told you this happened; that is not “tenth-hand”.
The article point stands: AGW is not expected to be as bad as it is reported.
And as the Pause continues it becomes less and less scary.
It is of note that the mainstream media (not just blogs) is catching up with the IPCC and WUWT – the mainstream science.
Maybe Greenpeace will catch up too, one day?
Maybe even you.
M Courtney,
If we knew everything already, there’d be no need for science. We’re both hoisted by the same petard on that note.
That’s the rub, isn’t it. When both sides are rubbish in my view, my default position is agnosticism.
Well that’s a fine mishmash. The impacts studies are based on GCM output, but they are very much indeed separate things. Even if the physics models were dead nuts on, we’d still have the uncertainty in the impact projections. A fine mess, innit.
I’ve not got AR5 mesmerized, and I’m not presently disposed to look it up. Where I’d end up if I rejected the IPCC is no opinion, or some long train of very compelling evidence offers a better explanation for observation and I’d go with that. 10 to 1, the IPCC would be the clearing house for that evidence because the competition can’t stop being obsessed with tree ring studies from last century. What’s the issue?
Send Rupert Murdoch a donation or something, and then he can be mainstream too. I don’t care. You’re as much a participant in media market as I; buy what you want or go build it yourself. Failing that, direct your complaints to the editor, not me. Simple.
That’s very poor logic. Everyone could be lying.
And I again reiterate — why should I care about the Guardian’s editorial policies re: your contributions to their talk pages? Did The Times ban you too? If so, still, why is that MY “problem” to defend in your eyes?
I really hate it when I throw the English comprehension smackdown out there and find that I’m the one who muffed it.
And my original point stands: the IPCC scooped that story in 2001. They are self-reporting. Since this is getting repetitive, I’ll offer my bit of cynicism: the “liberal” media are trying a new strategy wherein they’re toning down the doom and gloom because some focus group study figured out that it’s not playing well for their ad revenue, and to the extent that they’re involved in any political machinations, they’re thinking a more optimistic tone will better further the agenda.
Wouldn’t surprise me a bit. Also wouldn’t bet my life on it.
Depends on what data one looks at. Those of us who put stock in the OHC measurements don’t share your rosy optimism. Down to 2,000 m there has been no break in stride whatsoever.
I’m sorry, did you just tell me that WUWT and the IPCC are in rough agreement with each other?
My fondest hope is that they’ll endorse nuclear power ….
End the nuclear age
Greenpeace has always fought – and will continue to fight – vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.
… but hell will probably freeze over first.
And pink unicorns might exist. You’re not likely to sway my opinion until you drop the bellyaching about popular media as if that should have anything to do with the veracity of the science, and until you demonstrate some notion of an inkling about the realistic limitations of modeling extremely complex systems. Here’s a hint: only simple phenomena are simply falsifiable.
You don’t agree? Well, geologists are full of crap then too. Couldn’t predict the exact timing of the next Big One if their own lives depended on it. QED.
I’m just enjoying watching you defend the proposition that climate change may be beneficial, Brandon
;-).
Eric,
Perhaps not as much as I’m enjoying watching your apologists try to explain to me the actual point of your article. I think part of the issue here is your mangling of the Queen’s English, something I thought we here in the Colonies did better than anyone. To wit: there’s a difference between “there may be some benefits” and “may be beneficial”. The latter phrase implying that benefits will outweigh detriments on balance, which no, the IPCC unarguably does NOT say.
It takes FUD to fight FUD though, hey?
You know… if we could harness Brandons’s increasing frantic spinning – we could do away with all the coal-fired power plants on Earth š
It doesn’t appear to have filtered through to the SPM, which is all the politicians and MSM read. Perhaps that is why? A small victory.
“in some scenarios increased water for hydroelectric power generation.”
Wash your mouth out with soap! Hydro??? That’s definitely haraam!
Nice try Brandon,
You point out the IPCC report from 2001 that indicates there could be some benefits from climate change (the implication is a warming trend) while at the same time the report points out adverse effects to counter the benefits. And now here we are in 2015 fourteen years later, and finally a balanced report about the potential effects of a warming climate, from a Government source no less. Maybe, just maybe, now there can be beneficial debates and discussion about the issue instead of name-calling and slander lawsuits. I agree with you that people should do their own research, but sadly too many in government who make policies only look at media and the IPCC summaries which tend to indicate carbon has to be cut now and human activity is definitely driving global temperatures up.
Mason,
Australian Treasury 2015 Intergenerational Report: http://treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2015/2015%20Intergenerational%20Report/Downloads/PDF/04_Chapter_1.ashx
Research
Governments must continue to plan for the potential economic and environmental effects of climate change. Some economic effects may be beneficial ā where regions become warmer or wetter this may allow for increased agricultural output ā while others may be harmful. For example, lower rainfall may reduce crop yields, or transport infrastructure (such as roads, ports and rail networks) may become more susceptible to damage from extreme weather events.
IPCC TAR WG2:
12.8. Adaptation Potential and Vulnerability 12.8.1. Adaptation and Possible Benefits of Climate Change
It has not been assumed that all the impacts of climate change will be detrimental. Indeed, several studies have looked at possible benefits. Moreover, adaptation is a means of maximizing such gains as well as minimizing potential losses.
Where’s the lack of “balance”?
Back to the Aussie Treasury document:
1.5.4
Climate change
Australia will meet its Kyoto target for 2020 and will join with the international community to establish post 2020 targets with the aim of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. The international community has agreed to aim to keep global warming to a less than 2 C increase above pre-industrial climate levels.
That’s IPCC “party line” right there. So is this:
A significant challenge over coming decades will be the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef supports nearly 70,000 jobs and is worth $5.6 billion a year to the economy. While it remains the best managed marine ecosystem in the world, it is facing threats, including from climate change. A growing population with rising per capita incomes, as well as expanding tourist numbers, will require careful policy management to support economic development in the region whilst minimising the environmental impact.
As is this:
Box 1.7: Summary of the state of the climate 2014
Data and analysis released by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) shows that:
ā¢ Australiaās climate has warmed by 0.9Ā°C since 1910, and the frequency of
extreme weather has changed.
ā¢ Rainfall averaged across Australia has slightly increased since 1900, with the
largest increases in the northwest since 1970.
ā¢ Rainfall has declined since 1970 in the southwest. Autumn and early winter
rainfall has mostly been below average in the southeast since 1990.
ā¢ Extreme fire weather has increased, and the fire season has lengthened,
across large parts of Australia since the 1970s.
ā¢ Global mean temperature has risen by 0.85Ā°C from 1880 to 2012.
Average rainfall in southern Australia is projected to decrease and heavy rainfall is
projected to increase over most parts of Australia.
Not that I want to at all diminish you getting behind this publication. I simply don’t get the feeling that you’ve actually read what it says because I find very little qualitative difference between these documents and any IPCC AR.
You reference the 3rd Assessment Report. Since the THIRD Assessment Report is “old news” do you have something similar from the FIFTH Assessment Report?
PS some of the ‘”Possible Benefits of Climate Change” can be seen NOW in our greening biosphere in recent decades. Another is the global record cereal output of 2014.
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/worldfood/images/home-graph_4.jpg
Wow, someone can cut ‘n’ paste crap, straight from the horse’s mouth.
But it’s still a load of crap, because that’s a dead horse, and flogging it won’t make it get up again.
So it’s my fault that Worrall doesn’t know what the hell he’s writing about. Cute.
No Brandon – it seems far more like common sense is starting to prevail at long last. In the face of which your cut and paste comes across as rather desperate damage limitation.
But nice that you now manage to accommodate a broader viewpoint – well done.
Doug UK,
The portion of the IPCC TAR I’m quoting dates from 2001. It’s 2015 according to my calendar. Where have you been?
More from FAR in 1990: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_10.pdf
Increased atmospheric CO2 has the potential to increase plant growth in a variety of ways; stimulation of photosynthesis, depression of respiration, relief of water and low light stresses, relief of nutreint stress by several mechanisms (greater nutreint use efficiency, increased nutrient uptake through root-microbial associations, increased symbiotic nitrogen fixation), and delay of senescence that prolongs the growing season. Some of the mechanisms that promote increased growth could be particularly important in arid/semi-arid and infertile areas. However there is great uncertainty about whether or not these mechanisms operate for prolonged periods in natural ecosystems. For example, there are no field data from whole ecosystem studies of forests that demonstrate a ‘CO2 fertilization’ effect. If elevated CO2 does stimulate the growth of woody vegetation, this could lead to long term net carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems.
HERESY!!!
(Not)
No Brandon, where have you been?
SandyInLimousin
You ask Brandon Gates
Brandon Gates has been everywhere he can promote the AGW-scare by use of obfuscation and red-herring to deflect considerations of pertinent facts. As he has often demonstrated on WUWT, he knows nothing and understands less than nothing of matters he comments on.
His stock-in-trade- is to copy&paste information he does not understand in hope that his activity will deflect a thread from its subject onto the subject of what he has copied.
In this thread Brandon Gates has conducted his usual activity and his behaviour has been rebutted so his ‘contributions’ – past and future – to the thread are now best ignored.
Richard
Brandon, you is sooooo smart….
Brandon – I am well aware of when the IPCC report was published – the point that you try so hard to ignore is that this point has been ignored by MSM since 2001.
Now in 2015 – this point is getting an airing.
You seem a very angry person Brandon.
Gates says:
So itās my fault that Worrall doesnāt know what the hell heās writing about. Cute.
Projection. Anyone can submit an article here, but Gates NEVER does. Why not? Because he will be ripped to shreds by folks who know a lot more than he does.
Prove me wrong…
Next, Doug says:
You seem a very angry person Brandon.
Gates is both extremely angry, and he clearly has mental issues. It doesn’t take a psychologist to see that. Who in his right mind would post so many comments so frantically, trying to convince rational folks that he’s right and everyone else is wrong?
Ted Kazynski comes to mind. Let’s hope that Gates doesn’t have access to any weapons, because he really is on the edge.
The scary thing is that what he posts here is mild compared with the stuff he writes on alarmist blogs.
dbstealey,
Genius. I’ve told the collective you that I get angry.
Somtimes you ask good questions.
Your desperation is showing again, Stealey. Play the ball, not the man, remember?
Maybe you’re alarmed because you scare easily. Howzabout you give us a sample of me at my least mild so we don’t have to take your word for it?
richardscourtney,
The title of this thread is: Aussie Govt Report: Climate Change could be Beneficial
My copypasta reads: 12.8.1. Adaptation and Possible Benefits of Climate Change … In southern parts of Australia and New Zealand, notably Tasmania, there could be gains for the wine industry, increased comfort indices and thus tourism, and in some scenarios increased water for hydroelectric power generation.
I even got the country correct. Unless I’ve gone completely ’round the bend, it sure looks to me like I’m dead-nuts on topic.
Brandon Gates you have pointed to TAR 2001 and FAR in 1990. Can you provide me something similar from the 5th Assessment Report? I want to see what we can expect as per benefits.
Jimbo,
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap7_FINAL.pdf
7.2.1.1. Crop Production
Many studies of cropping systems have estimated impacts of observed climate changes on crop yields over the past half century, although they typically do not attempt to compare observed yields to a counterfactual baseline, and thus are not formal detection and attribution studies. These studies employ both mechanistic and statistical approaches (Section 7.3.1), and estimate impacts by running the models with observed historical climate and then computing trends in modeled outcomes. Based on these studies, there is medium confidence that climate trends have negatively affected wheat and maize production for many regions (Figure 7-2) (medium evidence, high agreement). Because many of these regional studies are for major producers, and a global study (Lobell et al., 2011a) estimated negative impacts on these crops, there is also medium confidence for negative impacts on global aggregate production of wheat and maize. Effects on rice and soybean yields have been small in major production regions and globally (Figure 7-2) (medium evidence, high agreement). There is also high confidence that warming has benefitted crop production in some high-latitude regions, such as northeast China or the UK (Jaggard et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2010; Supit et al., 2010; Gregory and Marshall, 2012). More difficult to quantify with models is the impact of very extreme events on cropping systems, as by definition these occur very rarely and models cannot be adequately calibrated and tested. Table 18-3 lists some notable extremes over the past decade, and the impacts on cropping systems. Despite the difficulty of modeling the impacts of these events, they clearly have sizable impacts (Sanchez et al. 2014) that are apparent immediately or soon after the event, and therefore not easily confused with effects of more slowly moving factors. For a subset of these events, climate research has evaluated whether anthropogenic activity has increased or decreased their likelihood (Table 18-3).
[…]
Figure 7-2 | Summary of estimates of the impact of recent climate trends on yields for four major crops. Studies were taken from the peer-reviewed literature and used different methods (i.e., physiological process-based crop models or statistical models), spatial scales (stations, provinces, countries, or global), and time periods (median length of 29 years). Some included effects of positive carbon dioxide (CO2) trends (Section 7.3.2.1.2) but most did not.
[…]
The overall relationship between weather and yields is often crop and region specific, depending on differences in baseline climate, management and soil, and the duration and timing of crop exposure to various conditions. For example, rice yields in China have been found to be positively correlated with temperature in some regions and negatively correlated in others (Zhang et al., 2008, 2010). The trade-offs that occur in determining yield are therefore region-specific. This difference may be due to positive correlation between temperature and solar radiation in the former case, and negative correlation between temperature and water stress in the latter case. Similarly, although studies consistently show spikelet sterility in rice for daytime temperatures exceeding 33Ā°C (Jadadish et al., 2007; Wassmann et al., 2009), some statistical studies find a positive effect of daytime warming on yields because these extremes are not reached frequently enough to affect yields (Welch et al., 2010). Responses to temperature may vary according whether yields are limited by low or high temperatures. However, there is evidence that high temperatures will limit future yields even in cool environments (Semenov et al., 2012; Teixeira et al., 2013).
[…]
Food Security and Food Production Systems
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ 7.1 | What factors determine food security and does low food production necessarily lead to food insecurity? Observed data and many studies indicate that a warming climate has a negative effect on crop production and generally reduces yields of staple cereals such as wheat, rice, and maize, which, however, differ between regions and latitudes. Elevated CO2 could benefit crops yields in the short term by increasing photosynthesis rates; however, there is big uncertainty in the magnitude of the CO2 effect and the significance of interactions with other factors. Climate change will affect fisheries and aquaculture through gradual warming, ocean acidification, and changes in the frequency, intensity, and location of extreme events. Other aspects of the food chain are also sensitive to climate but such impacts are much less well known. Climate-related disasters are among the main drivers of food insecurity, both in the aftermath of a disaster and in the long run. Drought is a major driver of food insecurity, and contributes to a negative impact on nutrition. Floods and tropical storms also affect food security by destroying livelihood assets. The relationship between climate change and food production depends to a large degree on when and which adaptation actions are taken. Other links in the food chain from production to consumption are sensitive to climate but such impacts are much less well known.
Mixed bag, with a lot of “this is what we don’t know and need to learn more about”. However:
Executive Summary
The effects of climate change on crop and terrestrial food production are evident in several regions of the world (high confidence). Negative impacts of climate trends have been more common than positive ones. {Figures 7-2, 7-7} Positive trends are evident in some high latitude regions (high confidence).
So they’re not bullish on CO2 being plant food as the answer to rest on. Neither am I, if only for the fact that it’s a gross oversimplification of a complex system.
Nothing Greener than CO2 Gates, or do you deny it still? The whole planet has greened, from the Sahel to the tundra because of increased atmospheric CO2.
This is well documented but it is ignored by those who love to wring their hands. Wring away.
Thanks for your references Brandon. As for the IPCC not being bullish about co2 is neither here nor there. Their models will eventually be compared to observations – that is what matters. The reality is that global cereal production was at a record high in 2014 [FAO]. As we move forward we shall see about the effect of 410ppm / 420ppm / 430ppm on crops and the already greening biosphere
—
Abstract – May 2013
“…..Our results suggest that degradation of pasture lands is not a globally widespread phenomenon and, consistent with much of the terrestrial biosphere, there have been widespread increases in pasture productivity over the last 30 years.”
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/5/5/2492
FAO
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/worldfood/images/home-graph_4.jpg
richardscourtney
So Brandon Gates has known about the positives for all that time and never let on? What a strange person
SandyInLimousin
We agree: Brandon Gates is a “strange person”. dbstealey outlines the strangeness in his post here, but my point is that this thread is not about Brandon Gates who has already disrupted the thread more than enough.
Richard
Thank you Sandy – that was very much my point.
Perhaps I was a tad too subtle?
Brandon seems hardly that……………………
C’mon. Gates just holds a differeing opinion. There is NOTHING strange about that!
The key to Gates is that he is basically a narcissistic type. All of his comments are aimed to gratify his narcissistic egoism. Good science means nothing to him. Consistency, honesty, judgement, none of these things count for him. You will get nothing but an egoistic flippancy from Gates. It is his mirror for his self-admiration.
”
dbstealey
March 4, 2015 at 11:32 pm
Wow, someone can cut ānā paste crap, straight from the horseās mouth
“
Sorry to disagree dbstealey, but Brandon Gates’ crap comes from the other end of the horse..
Modelled carp?
Published in The Age, a Melbourne (Home of many latte sipping greens) based, “news” paper. I am shocked, shocked I tell ya! In addition;
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-no-longer-a-budget-problem-for-future-generations-20150305-13vxxu.html
Interesting that in todays nz Dominion Post there appeared a piece by Bob Carter calling for scepticism in the climate debate. This is gobsmacking for the Dominion post, also a Fairfax media paper, like The Age. A change in the wind?
You need to read the comments. The SMH put the report in there to drive their clickbait ads. The clowns who read the paper are all left wing warmists from the top of their heads to the tips of their toes. The SMH is known to do this on a regular basis in order to try and drive profits up
The predictions made for Victoria, Australia for this summer just past were for unbearable heatwaves, catastrophic bushfires, all the usual alarmist pap.
As it turned out, one of the mildest summers I can remember.
But I’m a bit shirty that my tomatoes, planted as seedlings in late October, have still not produced ripe fruit.
Global warming – YES PLEASE!!!!
Get yourself a greenhouse. We used to grow field tomatoes back in the 1980s, but gave up when they were failing to ripen before April. Summer’s already over here in Southern Tasmania. Snow down to 800m. So no pumpkins to harvest this year š
That’s why I’ve quit trying to grow tomatoes, too–in exactly the same plot my parents used to grow copious amounts back when I was a kid. (Northern Hemisphere, by the way.)
I’d say Global Warming has morphed into Global Cooling and they (the CAGW-pushing acolytes) don’t dare admit they have nothing to complain about anymore.
The seasonal and day/night variations of “climate change” seldom get a mention in these reports, we are all left to conclude that a 1C warming of the globe will mean 1C warmer springs and summers, which probably ain’t so. I may be wrong but a 1C warmer ocean (the world is mainly ocean) will warm winters and nights for coastal regions, but have little effect on inland (where the crops grow) spring/summer daytime temperatures, which are determined mainly by the sunlight and the ground.
Brandon, are you daft? The befits of CO2 are not published in the MSM, or emphasized by the IPCC to the MSM. From your own IPCC quote…
——–
ā However, it must be said that potential gains have not been well documented, in part because of lack of stakeholder concern in such cases and consequent lack of special fundingā¦ā
——–
The IPCC was commissioned to find the catastrophic” harms of CO2 for the stakeholders” IE, the greedy power hungry statist government bureaucrats that fund the IPCC. If you want to really understand the peer reviewed science showing the benefits of CO2, go study the NIPCC.
There has been a strong rebuttal of Brandon’s arguments, I hope he is able to take them in however there were a couple insults as well. Let’s try and keep insults out of the discussion guys. Let’s leave the personal attacks to blogs like hotwhopper who openly promotes ‘socially isolating’ skeptics
+1
Well, as reported on Channel 10 news the other day, Victoria and Tasmania had their coolest summer in 10 years. Bush fire outbreaks have been very low, maybe thats due to clearing fuel load, detaining known arsonists or it simply isn’t hot and dry enough.
One thing I can comment on is the lack of bugs (Cockroaches) and flies this summer, but it is still very humid (I don’t like that).
Brandon, here is the March 2014 NIPCC report on biological impacts. http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/ccr2biologicalimpacts.html
Much of this is not in the IPCC reports because of “of lack of stakeholder concern in such cases and consequent lack of special funding”
Australia’s abc had a bunch of alarmists on radio this morning, warning there’d be outrage if the Intergenerational Report wasn’t scary enough. no doubt they’ll be back on tomorrow having a breakdown after such a sober assessment of the situation!
AUDIO: 5 March: ABC Australia: Climate change and environmental degradation
The last report in 2010 described climate change as ‘the largest threat to Australia’s environment and one of the most significant challenges to our economic sustainability’.
It predicted that the economic and social consequences of not acting on climate change would be ‘severe’.
Five years later, many Australian scientists say the credibility of today’s report rests on how it deals with long term climate change and environmental degradation.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/climate-change-and-environmental-degradation/6281722
In other words – “it’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good”
Brandon from the NIPCC peer reviewed science…
At the International Conference
on Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant
Productivity, it was concluded a doubling of the airās
CO2 concentration likely would lead to a 50%
increase in photosynthesis in C3 plants, a doubling of
water use efficiency in both C3 and C4 plants,
significant increases in biological nitrogen fixation in
almost all biological systems, and an increase in the
ability of plants to adapt to a variety of environmental
stresses (Lemon, 1983). In the years since, many
other studies have been conducted on hundreds of
different plant species, repeatedly confirming the
growth-enhancing, water-saving, and stressalleviating
advantages that elevated atmospheric CO2
concentrations bestow upon Earthās plants and soils
(Idso and Singer, 2009; Idso and Idso, 2011).
You see Brandon, there is a vast body of real research ignored by the IPCC due to the ” lack of stakeholder concern in such cases and consequent lack of special fundingā
So Brandon, if you wish to know why the IPCC ignores the massive agricultural benefits of CO2, and spreads the failed to manifest catastrophic harms, then study what the IPCC proponents say…
āMy three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.ā
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
āA total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.ā
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
āThe prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.ā
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
āGiving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.ā
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: āPopulation Bombā, āEcoscienceā
āThe data doesnāt matter. Weāre not basing our recommendations
on the data. Weāre basing them on the climate models.ā
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
āThe models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.ā
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
=================================
Many more quotes available if you wish. In short, they hate humanity, but love money and power.
David A says:
they… love money and power.
And not a one of them will ever volunteer to show everyone how it’s done. They always want the other guy to be exterminated, so they can stick around enjoying their Brave New World.
David A,
I hadn’t caught this citation when I responded to you previously.
And more. My freshman biology prof was a botanist. This is old hat for me.
You obviously have creative reading skills. Wonderful. Read the quote again. How can the IPCC be ignoring something they specifically call out as unknown to them because of lack of stakeholder concern? Sweet Peter Paul and Mary, could you possibly more blatantly misrepresent plain stinking English?
Stupid statement, he needs to get his priorities straight.
I don’t know the back story on that one, but it’s wishful thinking. Not something that I would want to have happen, and definitely not something I’d ever advocate.
I sort of remember that one and I recall asking myself what he’d been smoking. It’s a mind-bogglingly pig-igorant thing to have said.
What kind of energy? That’s the problem with soundbites, any nuance is lost. If he’s talking about coal, that’s a problem we already have and I agree. Estimates are that coal power causes the premature deaths of 30-60,000 people in the US per year according to the NIH and WHO respectively, or about as many people who die in the US in vehicular accidents. Nuclear fission as a direct replacement for coal would represent a risk of 100 deaths per year based on the worst case estimates for Fukushima and Chernobyl.
I’m very much NOT a fan of the environmental left’s long standing, staunch stance against nuclear power.
That one I know. Richard Betts thinks otherwise. Dueling experts, whee. I subscribe to Betts’ view.
A reworking of the famous Box quote, and people who understand how science really works get it.
And you despise climate scientists. I doubt very much you hate money. As for power (and greed), go read more Ayn Rand. Then tell me why I should trust the freshwater school of economics over the saltwater school. If your answer is that I shouldn’t trust either of them, my opinion of your arguments will improve a great deal.
Brandon, your pitiful arguments continue. I despise the actions of the CAGW proponents, I see money as a symbol of service rendered. Those that see money as a means of gaining, not just power over their own lives, but power over others, this action I object to as immoral. As I have made no comment about m view of economics, then your perspective on my other arguments should be based on those subjects which my arguments pertain to. (logic is a struggle to you) You could learn from Ayn Rand some basics about humane nature regarding why is is illogical to expect greed from human conducting business, but not expect the same from humans conducting government business.
I get the Oxford climate modelers quote very well, you ignore it. I have always said the models are useful. The fact that they are consistently wrong in one direction is informative of a basic and fundamental flaw in their structure. (Climate sensitivity to CO2) However he was not referring to that kid of usefulness.
Regarding the top of your post you acknowledge an agreement with a tiny fragment of the NIPCC summary. In this you avoid the point of my linking that extensive study to you. The point was that much of what is in the NIPCC, all supported by peer reviewed research, is not in the IPCC report. Therefore your comment about you agreeing with the summary, are not relevant to what I articulated, just as your initial criticism of this blog was not relevant to what the author was sharing.
And this mindless gem of yours…
Quoting me, ā
You see Brandon, there is a vast body of real research ignored by the IPCC due to the ā lack of stakeholder concern in such cases and consequent lack of special fundingā
Brandon says, “You obviously have creative reading skills. Wonderful. Read the quote again. How can the IPCC be ignoring something they specifically call out as unknown to them because of lack of stakeholder concern? Sweet Peter Paul and Mary, could you possibly more blatantly misrepresent plain stinking English
=====================
Good God man, you are inane. You were asserting that the IPCC adequately addresses the benefits of CO2. You quoted the IPCC, specifically this, ” However, it must be said that potential gains have not been well documented, in part because of lack of stakeholder concern in such cases and consequent lack of special funding.” I quoted it back to you to show you that they ignore the potential gains, not because of the science the NIPCC chooses not to ignore, but because “of lack of stakeholder concern in such cases and consequent lack of special funding.” The potential gains are well documented, the IPCC ignores many of them because their is no “special funding” to find those benefits which do exist.
You then go on giving your irrelevant personal opinion on the quotes I listed. Your view of these is not relevant because they were meant to show you the UNSCIENTIFIC motives of those who actually are either directly involved in the IPCC process, or support it. I have many similar statements, directly from members of the IPCC. Remember that the IPCC quotes Greenpeace in their work as a reference for their assertions.
The attitudes of the financial supporters of the IPCC and their backers and participants, clearly affects why they do not want to understand the true benefits of CO2; why “potential gains have not been well documented, in part because of lack of stakeholder concern in such cases and consequent lack of special funding.” Well the got what they paid for, an unbalanced report ignoring the lessons of the crappy models, and ignoring vast peer reviewed work in the benefits of CO2, the wrongness of the IPCC climate sensitivity numbers, the potential solar affects on climate outside of simple TOA insolation variance, the lack of manifest climate related harms, etc. Yes, they got what their shareholders paid for.
David A,
Annnnd …. you’re a terrible mind-reader too. Shocking.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.atheism/1fseGKRREC0/V5HR-kXsweIJ
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:06:34 -0500
From: Brandon Gates
Subject: Re: a perfect definition
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
[…]
My default assumption is that politicians, and therefore government, and therefore the State is primarily interested in self-preservation. Which is about as purely libertarian a motive as you can get. The trick as a voting and/or taxpaying citizen is to decide which money-grubbing corrupt lying asshole politicians have the best chance of incidentally doing the most common good. Pols know this, so that’s their best fitness metric — somewhere along the way, actually do something for everyone’s benefit. Especially in democratic republics with capitalistic economies such as ours.
Thank you Eric. Slow and steady the tide will turn.
Although I do write “letters to the editor,” not all newspapers will print letters that don’t support the orthodoxy. And it is not just large circulations newspapers (e.g. LA Times) that won’t publish letters that “deny climate change.” I have had letters to small town newspapers rejected because they don’t think “my sources are reliable.”
Brandon Gates says …
David A, quotes the IPCC
ā
However, it must be said that potential gains have not been well documented, in part because of lack of stakeholder concern in such cases and consequent lack of special fundingā¦ā
Brandon says…
Yup, weāre a fear-motivated species not unlike any known species thought to experience what weād call emotion. Necessary survival tactic, and one which obviously has served us quite well.
=======================================================
Response… So Brandon, you go from the particular to the general whenever you lose the point. People fear running out of food, they use their brains to get more food. They do not ignore the science that shows them this. Ignoring the benefits, and running around saying the sky is falling is not science, nor is it reason based fear. In gong to the general you ignore the fact that I was demonstrating to you why they ignore much of the peer reviewed science supporting the KNOWN benefits of CO2, completely refuting your claim that they do not ignore the benefits.
Brandon quotes me again…
ā
The IPCC ignores so much from the peer reviewed world on the benefits of CO2. The NIPCC reports go into this in detail.
=============================================================
Brandon says… Which then, āalmost alwaysā gets parlayed into, āeverything will be just hunky doryā.
MY mantra is that nobody really knows what will happen, and discretion is the better part of valor. Otherwise known as ādonāt push your luckā. Which I think is as classic an American political conservative attitude if there ever was one.
=================================================================================
My response… The NIPCC specifically addresses every single IPCC claim regarding the biological affects of CO2, harmful and beneficial. Your Mantra is not what you claim. You claim the false 97 percent regularly. When shown extensive peer reviewed science on the benefits of CO2, NOT in the IPCC report, you dismiss it with wrong arguments (The NIPCC only talks about the benefits) and generalities like pretending that the much abused precautionary principle is a valid reason to ignore the known benefits of CO2 in the peer reviewed literature.
Brandon quotes me…
On the other hand the predicted harms are based on failed or failing climate models that over estimate both the climate sensitivity to CO2, and the harm from the warming they do predict.
——————————————————————————————————
and says…
Well there youāre mixing two different kind of models together. Three actually, the third one being a long-term weather forecasting model which is NOT what AOGCMs were designed to do, NOT how theyāre configured and executed, and NOT how the IPCC talks about their output.
See again, the models āfailingā really ought to bring out the erring on the side of caution in you, but it isnāt. Yet youāre happy to point to an NIPCC analysis which paints a rosy picture of a vibrantly green future based on ā¦ what? Peer-reviewed literature? Those papers didnāt use models?
I really donāt understand this selective trust in expert opinion.
==================================================
Brandon I do not have selective trust. I read both sides. You clearly have not. The vast majority of the KNOWN biological benefits of CO2 are from thousands of real world studies and observations, not models.
You consistently argue through generalities. There is nothing wrong with discussing the different models the IPCC uses. Models that accurately reflect the real world observations are fine Models that fail to do this, are not fine. The IPCC models are not fine.
The predicted rates of warming, both at the surface and in the troposphere, are failing to manifest. The projected future harms are based on these models. All around the world environmental sciences run to a drought here or there, a hurricane here or there, and study the harm that occurs. They then use the IPCC models to project how bad these future harms will be. I do not give a rats ass if you say they are projections not predictions. They are used to dictate public policy, and the IPCC ignores much of the KNOWN benefits within the peer reviewed world just as you do, and the IPCC in their summaries preaches CAGW.
You came to this site and falsely claimed how the IPCC gives a fair shake to the benefits. The posters here showed you how you are double wrong.
1. The IPCC does not give anywhere near a fair shake to the KNOWN benefits of CO2, and ignore much of the peer reviewed science on the KNOWN (not modeled) benefits of CO2.
2 The article was pointing out the both the IPCC and the alarmist MSM do not promote the benefits, but emphasize the potential harms based on the failed models.
You dismiss this away with generalities, (Precautionary principle) and false assertions; “the NIPCC only paints a rosy picture”, and semantics over the difference between a projection and a prediction, when clearly the IPCC summaries and statist bureaucrats everywhere use the models as predictive of future catastrophe.
āThe data doesnāt matter. Weāre not basing our recommendations
on the data. Weāre basing them on the climate models.ā
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
āThe models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.ā
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
and….
National Post ā 2009?
ā¦ In the summer, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon insisted āwe have four months to save the planet.āā¦
=======================
Guardian ā 3 November 2009
We only have months, not years, to save civilization from climate change
ā¦ā¦.Lester R Brown is president of Earth Policy Institute and author of Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization.
=======================
Guardian ā 8 July 2008
100 months to save the Earth
There isnāt much time to turn things around. And todayās G8 announcements on climate change set the bar too low
ā¦ā¦The worldās climate experts say that that the worldās CO2 output must peak within the next decade and then drop, very fast, if we are to reach this sort of long term reduction. In short, we have about 100 months to turn the global energy system around. The action taken must be immediate and far reachingā¦ā¦
[John Sauven – Greenpeace]
=======================
WWF ā 7 December 2009
12 days to save the planet!
ā¦āThe world has given a green light for a climate deal. But the commitments made so far wonāt keep the world under 2Ā° of warming, This has to change over the next 12 days. ā¦
[WWF-UKās head of climate change, Keith Allott]
=======================
Guardian ā 18 January 2009
āWe have only four years left to act on climate change ā America has to leadā
Jim Hansen is the āgrandfather of climate changeā and one of the worldās leading climatologistsā¦..
āWe cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.
David A,
Where did I lose the point?
No. You’re making sweeping assertions that people ignore the KNOWN benefits of CO2 and trying to pin their alleged ignorance on me. Homey don’t play that. It would please me if you argue what I write, not what others do.
Which means … nothing. It’s a testimonial. You are advertizing, not arguing.
Red herring and loaded. Please stay on topic.
You did not show me anything, you mentioned the NIPCC report. That’s NOT presenting evidence. It’s big. The effective and courteous move is for you to post a relevant part of it, and ignore richardscourtney’s silly critiques about copy ‘n’ pasting.
The hell you don’t. Are you human?
I rest my case.
I read both sides. You clearly have not.
What blog is this again? WUWT. Just checking.
Don’t conflate not agreeing with the other side with not having read the other side. It’s really basic tribal psychology at work behind that fallacy.
Just like AGW itself. The problem is, as always, making reliable predictions from those empirical studies. The biological components of the system are tremendously complex compared to the physics. Zillions of species of flora and fauna, every individual, 10 or so species of atmospheric molecules which count. The HITRAN database does get into isotopes, so there are some 300 odd different species of gasses listed.
I’ll put it to you this way: I put as much stock in everything will be hunky dory as I do we’re all going to die if we don’t act now. There is such a fallacy as splitting the difference, I forget what it’s called at the moment, but it’s one I know myself susceptible. Still, it’s one that I can’t shake and my default position on very complex issues is: both sides make good arguments, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Law of averages tends to work for me in such cases, but on this issue I consciously choose to err on the side of caution. The stakes are too large for me to be comfortable taking the comfy middle position I’m prone to doing on other issues.
Read that again and try to appreciate the sense of irony I’m experiencing at the moment.
Of course not.
You’ve made your decision. What else am I to do here? The rest of your post is boilerplate rant I’ve read a billion times and at the moment I’m beyond out of patience or creativity enough to challenge it elegantly.
Oh wait one more …
No I did not say anything of the sort and now my patience really is wearing thin. It is not my duty to agree with your opinion, and if I do not, that does not make me a liar. Are we understood?
Brandon Gates
In response to David A having said to you
you have replied
Yes, you are “understood”. Your reply I have here quoted shows that dbstealey was right when he said of you
because as I said of you
In this case you not merely failed to understand what you copied, but have also forgotten you copied it!
Your first post in this thread is here and begins
Brandon, please now constrain your comments to the subject of the thread (i.e. the newspaper article published in the Age) because there has been more than enough of this thread about you.
Richard
I think we all understand you very well Brandon. I am not sure you would recognise honesty and integrity if it leapt up and bit you in the arse.
Your first post was saying that the article was “old news” and that the IPCC had covered it.
I pointed out that whilst indeed they did – they had kept pretty damn quiet about it for 14 years if what you say is true.
Which of course – it isn’t.
Have you read the lyrics of Billy Joel’s “Angry Young Man”?
You are not a unique phenomenon Brandon.
History repeats itself.
Brandon , please . Your contribution to this post is appreciated because it reminds us that the science is not completely settled , that there are still gaps in our complete understanding of the effects and consequences of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and that this deficiency is actually recognised by what we might call the “ruling council” on climate change.
You chide some of us for not reading these reports ourselves and relying on the MSM to give us the information , but in the UK that information is so completely biased towards the warmist side that one does not realise, until coming to a site like this , that there are doubts about the science. Perhaps you can accept that many here have jobs or other interests or grandchildren, all of which consume time and energy ( especially the latter) and we do not do as much background research as we should ; but you are right, some of us are just lazy and rely on people like you and Eric to educate us .
One final point : is it your impression that the reports for the next big meeting in Paris 2015 will contain any such qualifications as you have revealed above? This meeting will have proposals for massive financial penalisation of the US and European taxpayers. In the US the control of public opinion by Obama is so complete that there should be no public opposition, but in Europe there are signs that the natives are getting restless ( Le Pen , Syriza , UKIP , even in Germany) and it may be difficult to exact a deal if the science is seen to be anything but completely settled.
Brandon, Brandon, Brandon, what a sad illogical rebuttal attempt, top to bottom a failure. Let us start at the bottom. You indignantly proclaim that you said nothing of the sort, regarding my contention that you were claiming this article pointless, as the IPCC does a reasonable job in presenting the science behind the benefits of CO2. As this was the main point of your initial comment, where you quoted the IPCC talking about the benefits of CO2 here… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/04/aussie-govt-report-climate-change-could-be-beneficial/#comment-1875595 and you continued to reiterate the same pointless message, I find your indignant denial comical and foolish.
Despite all attempts to illustrate to your dim mind the bright truth that the post was not saying ANYTHING about if the IPCC had material relating to the benefits of CO2, but was simply pointing out where a media outlet, which never formerly discussed the benefits of CO2, was now doing so.
You then inform me that you had no “duty” to agree with me. (So, who said you did) and if you do not you are not a liar. (I never called you a liar). You are simply illogical and wrong. I initially thought you were an honest CAGW proponent now I agree with those who find your comments troll like.
Next, working up, you make a pitiful attempt to equate the IPCC models with the real world studies of the affects of CO2. If you actually read the IPCC link I gave you regarding why the benefits of CO2 are KNOWN, you would not be defending the indefensible.
Let us discuss my cogent generalities, vs your claim that I do the same. I simply pointed out to you that the IPCC does a terrible job discussing the benefits of CO2, missing large bodies of peer reviewed work, and I quoted a relevant paragraph from that work as an example, and gave you a link to much further study. This you claimed was my generality, making it, in your view humors that I would accuse you of retreating to the general to avoid a point.
However that is exactly what you did. You did not dispute my message about the NIPCC report in any way.
I showed you that the IPCC itself said the stakeholders were not interested n the benefit of a detailed understanding of the positive affects of CO2 on bio life.
You brought out the boilerplate” generality of the precautionary principle” as an excuse to why the IPCC ignores much of the literature. As if not knowing the best way to grow food was an excuse for not reading and including the relevant peer reviewed science articulating the immense benefit of CO2 to life on earth.
Sheesh Brandon, my generality was cogent and included a quote you claimed I did not make, and a link to relevant peer reviewed material. Yours was a distraction foolishly arguing the precautionary principle as a reasonable basis for willful ignorance.
Further up your naclov post (naclov is Volcan backwards, the opposite or logical) you make another weak generality, (proving my prior point) informing me that of course all humans have a selective bias, how could I not. Now Bandon my poor deluded boy, You accused me of a selective bias, saying “I do not understand this selective bias” Apparently I was to know that you actually understood it perfectly, and meant to say we all have a naturally understandable human selective bias. However you did not say that, so I assumed your worded ACCUSATION alluded to a bias accusation of not reading the CAGW proponents side of the issue.
I informed you that you were wrong, and that I read both sides of the issue.
You then compounded your error and claimed to prove to me that I was misinformed and did not read the issue of CAGW from multiple perspectives because I posted on WUWT. Wow!! really a palm-face comment.
making you guilty of selective bias, which you do not understand, because you read and post at WUWT.
What astounding illogic. Reason has forsaken you, but you can still type, and you do go on.
As I already said, I gave a quote from the NIPCC, as well as a link to that specific portion of the NIPCC dealing with the KNOWN benefits of CO2. My assertion was both cogent and detailed for a blog post. It is up to you to educate yourself, or not.
I then pointed out to you that your claim that your “antra is that nobody knows what will happen” was disingenuous, as you often claim the overwhelming science knows that CAGW is a fact, and you have quoted
the 97 percent figure. You call this a red herring, when clearly it was not.
Finally you wish to know what point you lost?
All of them Brandon.
mikewaite,
I think being open about uncertainty is essential in everything, not just science.
I also think being specific about what the doubts are is equally important. There’s very little doubt in my mind that the greenhouse effect is real, and that our CO2 and methane emissions ever more contribute to it. My main uncertainties mirror the ones expressed in literature — the forward-looking future effects. I’m quite confident that warming is in our future, by how much and when not so confident. What the effects of that will be on balance, not at all certain.
I accept the bit about being busy, other interests, etc. [1] The rest, no. The tipoff is your mention of “bias”. I don’t think this whole discussion is really about not being able to find “balanced” information AT ALL. I believe the complaint really is that newspapers don’t publish what you already believe to be true. The general theme being that CO2 is a net benefit, warmer temperatures are a net benefit, period, full stop, end of story.
Nothing less than that being the main message in popular media will satisfy anyone who has already decided what the truth is. Emphasis on anyone — I don’t exclude my “side” in this particular observation. This is the political part of the issue, NOT the scientific part, and those are distinctly different animals in my mind.
The point of Paris 2015 is … here … I’ll quote from the source: http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/cop21-cmp11/climate-change-and-decisions
The will to act together and to keep within the +2Ā°C limit led to the creation of the Durban Platform (ADP) , with the role of bringing together all developed and developing countries to work on a “protocol, legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal forceā, applicable to all parties to the UN Framework Agreement on Climate Change. The ānew instrumentā will have to be adopted in 2015 and implemented from 2020, and that is the goal of the 2015 Paris Conference.
I imagine there will be a strong presence of the CO2 is beneficial (period, full stop) contingent there lobbying their case. I predict that this space will be full of stories in December of how those views were “swept aside”. I also give it less than even odds that a binding agreement will happen. As such I’ve already got my “crocodile tears” remarks queued up and ready to go.
And here I was thinking that I was the cynical pessimist.
Mmm, US public opinion is not complete:
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dxjlow1acumxvmrsnkj7nq.png
Which is a healthy gap, but — as dbstealey is fond of pointing out — we here in the Colonies still have a healthy “shucks, wot’s the big deal” attitude on the risks:
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/o1uiyvwyjequnaqzegz7jq.png
Which, unsurprisingly, is quite partisan:
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/j92oaoytueuvufdzxstkag.png
Between now and then, with both houses of Congress controlled by Republicans and Jim Inhofe chairing the Senate Environment Committee it’s likely going to be an interesting year. Bowling snowballs on the Senate floor was just his warmup act.
——————
[1] To a point: https://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf
Worth a read in full — required IMO — but the relevent bit I’m thinking of here is:
Inquiry into the evidence of a doctrine is not to be made once for all, and then taken as finally settled. It is never lawful to stifle a doubt; for either it can be honestly answered by means of the inquiry already made, or else it proves that the inquiry was not complete. āBut,ā says one, āI am a busy man; I have no time for the long course of study which would be necessary to make me in any degree a competent judge of certain questions, or even able to understand the nature of the arguments.ā Then he should have no time to believe.
One main reason why I’m NOT a fan of “the science is settled” meme, even though I know of the qualifiers and caveats. And very much why I so dislike politics.
David A,
Missing the point that I do not exclude myself from the biased human bucket. The rest of your post is 10,000 strawmen of my position, very much evidence — not proof — that you are, in fact, quite as human as I. Good evening.
Brandon Gates, I thankfully don’t rely on the media for all my information. Here is co2 as an aerial fertilizer.
Brandon Gates thankfully I don’t rely on the media for all my information.
Did the report mention that “carbon pollution” makes trees and plants grow better and makes them more resistant to drought?
on ABC TV tonite in Australia – the Greens get their moment, but it’s almost a footnote to the piece:
5 March: ABC 7.30 Report: Intergenerational Report predicts booming and ageing Australian population
Australian faces the challenge of a growing and ageing population thatās expected to reach nearly 40 million by 2055 with nearly a quarter of that over the age of 65, according to the latest Intergenerational Report.
SABRA LANE: The latest report says it will be a significant challenge in coming decades to protect the Great Barrier Reef, one of the threats being climate change. The Greens argue the threatās been downplayed.
CHRISTINE MILNE, GREENS LEADER: The Government has insulted the intelligence of all Australians. Scientists around the country are just going to be in despair when they read this. It is an appalling documentā¦
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4192193.htm
Brandon Gates says …
David A, quoting the IPCC
ā
However, it must be said that potential gains have not been well documented, in part because of lack of stakeholder concern in such cases and consequent lack of special fundingā¦ā
Brandon says…
Yup, weāre a fear-motivated species not unlike any known species thought to experience what weād call emotion. Necessary survival tactic, and one which obviously has served us quite well.
=======================================================
Response… So Brandon, you go from the particular to the general whenever you lose the point. People fear running out of food, they use their brains to get more food. They do not ignore the science that shows them this. Ignoring the benefits, and running around saying the sky is falling is not science, nor is it reason based fear.
In gong to the general you ignore the fact that I was demonstrating to you why they ignore much of the peer reviewed science supporting the KNOWN benefits of CO2, completely refuting your claim that they do not ignore the benefits. You also ignore that the IPCC FALSELY claims “the potential gains have not been well documented”, when they are extremely well documented by the peer reviewed science which they ignore.
Brandon quotes me again…
ā
The IPCC ignores so much from the peer reviewed world on the benefits of CO2. The NIPCC reports go into this in detail.
=============================================================
Brandon says… Which then, āalmost alwaysā gets parlayed into, āeverything will be just hunky doryā.
MY mantra is that nobody really knows what will happen, and discretion is the better part of valor. Otherwise known as ādonāt push your luckā. Which I think is as classic an American political conservative attitude if there ever was one.
=================================================================================
My response… The NIPCC specifically addresses every single IPCC claim regarding the harmful affects of CO2. (So your “hunky dory claim is refuted) Your Mantra is not what you claim. You claim the false 97 percent regularly. When shown extensive peer reviewed science on the benefits of CO2, NOT in the IPCC report, you dismiss it with wrong arguments (“The NIPCC only talks about the hunky dory benefits) and generalities like pretending that the much abused precautionary principle is a valid reason to ignore the known benefits of CO2 in the peer reviewed literature. All the while you completely ignore that your prior assertions (the IPCC promotes the known benefits of CO2) are simply proven wrong.
Brandon quotes me…
On the other hand the predicted harms are based on failed or failing climate models that over estimate both the climate sensitivity to CO2, and the harm from the warming they do predict.
——————————————————————————————————
and says…
Well there youāre mixing two different kind of models together. Three actually, the third one being a long-term weather forecasting model which is NOT what AOGCMs were designed to do, NOT how theyāre configured and executed, and NOT how the IPCC talks about their output.
See again, the models āfailingā really ought to bring out the erring on the side of caution in you, but it isnāt. Yet youāre happy to point to an NIPCC analysis which paints a rosy picture of a vibrantly green future based on ā¦ what? Peer-reviewed literature? Those papers didnāt use models?
I really donāt understand this selective trust in expert opinion.
==================================================
Brandon I do not have selective trust. I read both sides. You clearly have not. The vast majority of the KNOWN biological benefits of CO2 are from thousands of real world studies and observations, not models.
You consistently argue through generalities. There is nothing wrong with discussing the different models the IPCC uses. Models that accurately reflect the real world observations are fine Models that fail to do this, are not fine. The IPCC models are not fine.
The predicted rates of warming, both at the surface and in the troposphere, are failing to manifest. The projected future harms are based on these models. All around the world government funded environmental scientist run to a drought here or there, a hurricane here or there, and study the harm that occurs. They then use the IPCC models to project how bad these future harms will be.
I do not give a rats ass if you say they are projections not predictions. They are used to dictate public policy, and the IPCC ignores much of the KNOWN benefits within the peer reviewed world just as you do, and the IPCC, in their summaries, preaches CAGW.
You came to this site and falsely claimed how the IPCC gives a fair shake to the benefits. The posters here showed you how you are double wrong.
1. The IPCC does not give anywhere near a fair shake to the KNOWN benefits of CO2, and ignore much of the peer reviewed science on the KNOWN (not modeled) benefits of CO2.
2 The article was pointing out the BOTH the IPCC and the alarmist MSM do not PROMOTE the benefits, but emphasize the potential harms based on the failed models. (The post is accurate, your criticisms are not)
You dismiss this away with generalities, (Precautionary principle) and false assertions; “the NIPCC only paints a rosy picture”, and semantics over the difference between a projection and a prediction, when clearly the IPCC summaries and statist bureaucrats everywhere, use the models as predictive of future catastrophe.
āThe data doesnāt matter. Weāre not basing our recommendations
on the data. Weāre basing them on the climate models.ā
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
āThe models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.ā
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
and….
National Post ā 2009?
ā¦ In the summer, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon insisted āwe have four months to save the planet.āā¦
=======================
Guardian ā 3 November 2009
We only have months, not years, to save civilization from climate change
ā¦ā¦.Lester R Brown is president of Earth Policy Institute and author of Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization.
=======================
Guardian ā 8 July 2008
100 months to save the Earth
There isnāt much time to turn things around. And todayās G8 announcements on climate change set the bar too low
ā¦ā¦The worldās climate experts say that that the worldās CO2 output must peak within the next decade and then drop, very fast, if we are to reach this sort of long term reduction. In short, we have about 100 months to turn the global energy system around. The action taken must be immediate and far reachingā¦ā¦
[John Sauven – Greenpeace]
=======================
WWF ā 7 December 2009
12 days to save the planet!
ā¦āThe world has given a green light for a climate deal. But the commitments made so far wonāt keep the world under 2Ā° of warming, This has to change over the next 12 days. ā¦
[WWF-UKās head of climate change, Keith Allott]
=======================
Guardian ā 18 January 2009
āWe have only four years left to act on climate change ā America has to leadā
Jim Hansen is the āgrandfather of climate changeā and one of the worldās leading climatologistsā¦..
āWe cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.
———————————————————-
Brandon, your argument style only serves to keep yourself in an ignorance, layered in your smug arrogance;
Example… (“Perhaps not as much as Iām enjoying watching your apologists try to explain to me the actual point of your article. I think part of the issue here is your mangling of the Queenās English, something I thought we here in the Colonies did better than anyone”) as one of many examples in this thread alone.
We explained the point of the article to you several times, using much different prose, only to once again find clear and simple logic falling on the infertile grounds of unreflective ignorance.
Dear Moderator, thanks for deleting the one double post. Please keep this one if it double posts again. For some reason my posts are suddenly disappearing, and then coming up later. If this one double posts I will wait longer to repost. Thanks in advance.
Well who knew, what a remarkable discovery.
Changing climate may have benefits in some regions and may not in others. I think we need to invest a few more billions into stating the obvious.
Well the discovery, not so obvious to alarmists, the IPCC, the MSM, and to Brandon Gates, is that the benefits of CO2 far outweigh the harms.
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/ccr2biologicalimpacts.html
For those not familiar with the Australian print media, The Melbourne Age was once an excellent quality broadsheet with good investigative journalists who researched their topics.
During the past couple of decades it has evolved to be a “well left of centre” combination of claptrap” from journalists who you would not allow to help a 7 year old student with their homework.
The Age has had a bad year in that it has unsuccessfully strived to bring about the downfall of Prime Minister Abbot.
large portions of the world are too cold to grow crops. in contrast nowhere on earth is it too hot. crops don’t grow in deserts because it is too dry, not too hot. add water to a desert, as has been done in California, and you get some of the best growing conditions on earth.
deserts are found around the earth. not on the equator, but just outside the tropics. this is due to wind patterns, not warming. we get deserts in the latitudes where the tropical trades and westerlies originate.
tropical jungles have the highest growth rates and greatest diversity on earth. while at the same time the polar regions have the lowest growth rates and lowest diversity.
all the paleo evidence suggests that a warming world is a wetter world, with more life and greater diversity, while a cooling world is a drier, dustier world with reduced diversity.
All this practical evidence is ignored to push a catastrophic theme that a warming, wetter world will be bad for life. If that was the case, tropical jungles would not be jungles. change creates opportunity.
humans are the best suited animal on the planet to take advantage of opportunity. our civilization was born from climate change, as the ice age gave way to a warmer, wetter inter-glacial. without climate change we would never have progressed beyond the stone age.
Reading this discussion of all the posts from top to bottom is very painful, until I get to your post.
Finally, somebody is making sense. The idea that “global annual average temperature” or “global annual average temperature anomalies” makes sense is absurd. There is absolutely no scientific basis to use such to predict any kind of beneficial or detrimental effects. None.
The FARMERS know what the IPCC does not know. Here is what they consult:
http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/phzmweb/maps.aspx
https://www.anbg.gov.au/gardens/research/hort.research/zones.html
http://thebritishgeographer.weebly.com/the-climate-of-the-british-isles.html
http://www.planthardiness.gc.ca/
and more.
Indeed, every country has temperature zones as you mentioned. This is what is important, I agree with you and it is the temperature, precipitation, etc. in each zone that is important. Not the “global average number”.
For CO2, the situation is just the opposite. The increase has been “global” with not much difference between countries or zones within countries (more data to come from the OCO-2 satellite). Here we can scientifically discuss the benefits on agriculture worldwide. The benefits of the increase in CO2 on plant growth have been scientifically demonstrated again, again and again for food as well as reforestation.
Thanks for your post.
RD5O says , “The benefits of the increase in CO2 on plant growth have been scientifically demonstrated again, again and again for food as well as reforestation.
========================================================
Yes indeed! Something by the way I reiterated to Mr. Gates several times. He insisted that the IPCC models and conclusions about CO2 are just as basic and solid of a science as the real world CO2 studies.
ferdberple, there is evidence that neo-tropical rainforests and animals thrived in a much warmer world than now. We can’t see into the future but we can ‘look’ into the past. The following bears no resemblance to the dire warnings about our oven baked future.
Abstract
Carlos Jaramillo et. al – Science – 12 November 2010
Effects of Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary on Neotropical Vegetation
Temperatures in tropical regions are estimated to have increased by 3Ā° to 5Ā°C, compared with Late Paleocene values, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 56.3 million years ago) event. We investigated the tropical forest response to this rapid warming by evaluating the palynological record of three stratigraphic sections in eastern Colombia and western Venezuela. We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora. There is no evidence for enhanced aridity in the northern Neotropics. The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast to speculations that tropical ecosystems were severely compromised by heat stress.
doi: 10.1126/science.1193833
—————-
Abstract
Carlos Jaramillo & AndrĆ©s CĆ”rdenas – Annual Reviews – May 2013
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Global Warming and Neotropical Rainforests: A Historical Perspective
There is concern over the future of the tropical rainforest (TRF) in the face of global warming. Will TRFs collapse? The fossil record can inform us about that. Our compilation of 5,998 empirical estimates of temperature over the past 120 Ma indicates that tropics have warmed as much as 7Ā°C during both the mid-Cretaceous and the Paleogene. We analyzed the paleobotanical record of South America during the Paleogene and found that the TRF did not expand toward temperate latitudes during global warm events, even though temperatures were appropriate for doing so, suggesting that solar insolation can be a constraint on the distribution of the tropical biome. Rather, a novel biome, adapted to temperate latitudes with warm winters, developed south of the tropical zone. The TRF did not collapse during past warmings; on the contrary, its diversity increased. The increase in temperature seems to be a major driver in promoting diversity.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105403
—————-
Abstract
PNAS – David R. Vieites – 2007
Rapid diversification and dispersal during periods of global warming by plethodontid salamanders
…Salamanders underwent rapid episodes of diversification and dispersal that coincided with major global warming events during the late Cretaceous and again during the PaleoceneāEocene thermal optimum. The major clades of plethodontids were established during these episodes, contemporaneously with similar phenomena in angiosperms, arthropods, birds, and mammals. Periods of global warming may have promoted diversification and both inter- and transcontinental dispersal in northern hemisphere salamanders…
—————-
Abstract
ZHAO Yu-long et al – Advances in Earth Science – 2007
The impacts of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM)event on earth surface cycles and its trigger mechanism
The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event is an abrupt climate change event that occurred at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary. The event led to a sudden reversal in ocean overturning along with an abrupt rise in sea surface salinity (SSSs) and atmospheric humidity. An unusual proliferation of biodiversity and productivity during the PETM is indicative of massive fertility increasing in both oceanic and terrestrial ecosystems. Global warming enabled the dispersal of low-latitude populations into mid-and high-latitude. Biological evolution also exhibited a dramatic pulse of change, including the first appearance of many important groups of ” modern” mammals (such as primates, artiodactyls, and perissodactyls) and the mass extinction of benlhic foraminifera…..
22(4) 341-349 DOI: ISSN: 1001-8166 CN: 62-1091/P
—————-
Abstract
Systematics and Biodiversity – Volume 8, Issue 1, 2010
Kathy J. Willis et al
4 Ā°C and beyond: what did this mean for biodiversity in the past?
How do the predicted climatic changes (IPCC, 2007) for the next century compare in magnitude and rate to those that Earth has previously encountered? Are there comparable intervals of rapid rates of temperature change, sea-level rise and levels of atmospheric CO2 that can be used as analogues to assess possible biotic responses to future change? Or are we stepping into the great unknown? This perspective article focuses on intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased up to 1200 ppmv, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4 Ā°C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present. For these intervals in time, case studies of past biotic responses are presented to demonstrate the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity. We argue that although the underlying mechanisms responsible for these past changes in climate were very different (i.e. natural processes rather than anthropogenic), the rates and magnitude of climate change are similar to those predicted for the future and therefore potentially relevant to understanding future biotic response. What emerges from these past records is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another, but there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world. Based on this evidence from the fossil record, we make four recommendations for future climate-change integrated conservation strategies.
DOI: 10.1080/14772000903495833
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14772000903495833
Brandon invokes the precautionary principle to avoid worst case scenarios based on two poor assumptions: that the avoidance measures have a chance of working, and that the worst case scenario was believable and possible in the first place.
For all the admonition to ‘educate ourselves’ it seems the failure to accept the uncomfortable reality that the worst case scenarios are kak is the larger failing. Doing something that can’t work to avoid a problem that isn’t there is a sure sign of madness.
Crispin do not forget his stated reason. He invoked that principle as an excuse for the IPCC stating that not much was really known about the benefits of CO2.
More leprechauns could also be beneficial.
The Aussie govt must have acquired some adults.
Brandon, you are master of argumentation. One of the best I have witnessed, for a long time. WUWT can become over the top, at times, with over enthusiastic contrariness. It is when you shine best, by reminding us, that our claims must be validated and reasoned with logic, also.
I suspect you are not really all that convinced that AGW WILL result in irreparable harm, OR that immediate global restructuring and mitigating action is a proper response. I think you are just having a great time rubbing our noses in our less robust statements. I think you enjoy the attention and it’s narcissistic flush.
I look forward to the time when you realize the logic (and science) is not on the alarmist perspective and find more “fun” baiting the rabid “end of the world” crowd. I hope I’m not being overly optimistic in my reading and the depth of your self pleasuring.
At some point in time, this climate vinyl record, will have to be flipped to the other song, on the reverse side. After all, cooling is the bigger threat. Can you see the writing on the wall. Cheers GK
Brandon would flop in any debate. His arguments are pitiful.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/04/aussie-govt-report-climate-change-could-be-beneficial/#comment-1875674
and here… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/04/aussie-govt-report-climate-change-could-be-beneficial/#comment-1875864
and a portion broken in to detail by Richard Cortney here…http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/04/aussie-govt-report-climate-change-could-be-beneficial/#comment-1875714
AGW is a monumental flop, wrong on every count:
Atmospheric CO2 is entirely beneficial for all forms of life; the very basis of life and the more the better.
A warmer world is a wetter, better world and a cooler world is the scythe of death for all life forms.
Too bad that increasing atmospheric CO2 does not give us a warmer world, it would be nice.
G. Karst,
Wrong question. The future of the climate does not hinge on the size of my ego no matter how much hot air you think it produces.
In a word, no.
See: ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/engels/Stanley/Textbook_update/Science_297/Berger-02.pdf
Not open-access, but more recent: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-1012-0
The next 20 kyr will have an abnormally high greenhouse effect which, according to the CO 2 values, will lengthen the present interglacial by some 25 to 33 kyr. This is because the perturbation of the current interglacial will lead to a delay in the future advance of the ice sheet on the Antarctic shelf, causing that the relative maximum of boreal insolation found 65 kyr after present (AP) will not affect the developing glaciation.
Open-access from 2014: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000326/full
5 Conclusion
These calculations suggest the existence of a threshold for anthropogenic forcing, beyond which the climatic response to Milankovitch orbital forcing will be damped and the 100,000 year glacial-interglacial cycle will cease. Identifying this threshold will require the use of sophisticated atmospheric-oceanic general circulation models coupled to ice sheet models in order to approach deterministic, rather than stochastic, predictions about future changes to ice age cycles. Nevertheless, the simpler calculations presented here provide a robust and computationally efficient method for demonstrating anthropogenic effects on climate variability.
If long-term anthropogenic forcing is relatively weak or if climate sensitivity is low, then the onset of the next glacial cycle may be delayed by ā¼50 kyr [Mitchell, 1972; Loutre and Berger, 2000]. But with stronger anthropogenic forcing or high climate sensitivity, the cessation of glacial-interglacial cycles will indicate a permanent transition to the geologic epoch of the Anthropocene.
From those ^silly papers^:
The next 20 kyr will have an abnormally high greenhouse effect…
They keep saying it will, as if they know. But they don’t.
In fact, they cannot even quantify AGW. No one can. Thus, it is all rank speculation.
Take away the grant money, and the carbon scare will fold like a cheap card table. Is there any doubt about that?
The man-made global warming hoax is money-driven. I can understand that, even if I don’t agree with it.
What I can’t understand are the mindless lemmings constantly arguing as if MMGW is a verified fact. It isn’t. It is only a conjecture ā a conjecture without a single measurement to validate it.
The lemmings who insist on arguing for the MMGW scare are so deluded that I don’t even want to think about what motivates them. For sure, it is no different than what motivates a Jehovah’s Witness, or a Scientologist. It certainly is not science. All it amounts to is True Belief.
For years many warmists hoped to see a sure sign of the devastating effects of
global warmingclimate change in the Sahel. Their hopes have been dashed by climate change itself. I urge Brandon Gates to understand one thing: observations are the key.Oy Vey… we need to stop feeding the troll…
The shlemiel is plotzing my mind with his shtik.
The troll helps to educate newbie readers as to why WUWT is the leading science site. WUWT welcomes debate. WUWT does not delete adverse discussion like RealClimate, Desmogblog(Suzuki) etc.
WUWT has won hearts and minds as a result. Congratulations AW!
Another beneficial effect of climate change (and noting the fact that the BBC used the phrase in the context of real climate change versus phony climate change), was that humans don’t live in trees anymore (well not so much !!):
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31718336?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
All plants grow faster in Summer than Winter where these seasons occur. In the tropics, plants grow fast all year round. In greenhouses, level of 5,000 ppm. of CO2 are used, as the plants lap it up and grow faster. Combine higher CO2 and higher temperature and agriculture really goes ahead.
These facts are what terrify the Warmistas, as their disaster-meme is contradicted by both of these widely acknowledged facts.
Yo, DUUUUDES !!! Do me a favor, P U L E E Z E !!!
Stop feeding the Gates troll … really bored silly with his cut and paste.
************
(Agreed. Threadjacking violates site Policy. -mod)
Perhaps it is the new government responsible for the “new government report”? Hopefully we’ll now see a trend away from the left wing lunacy.
Not just the new government. The previous Treasury Secretary was a devout warmist and environmentalist, and his green bias was allowed to flourish under the previous Labor government. He was far more balanced when he first commenced in the role under the Howard government.
He is no longer there. The IGR is quite a reasonable document despite the howls of protest, and the course suggested by the government a very sensible one (you do need to get over the shock of a govt that doesnt believe more debt and more govt spending is the answer to all problems, quite refreshing!).
I’m with Streetcred – stop feeding the troll who obviously is a “soccer” fan as he said “play the ball not the man”. But here in Canada, we say: “Take the man, not the puck.” With no one standing to shoot the puck, it is hard to score. But then, I am just a silly Canucklehead,
Many parallels here but unfortunately, as we have seen with Dr. Soon recently, some folks on the CAGW side are already taking the men out and ignoring the “puck”/science.
;_; or ;_(
āplay the ball not the manā — dbstealey
A troll is not a man.
What brought on your unsolicited comment, anyway, Mr. T?
You’ve all said it repeatedly, but I’ll say it again. A warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life. Paleontology shows both that the upper limit for that has never been exceeded, and that any cooling is devastating for total life and for diversity of life.
You should have seen the trouble I got in once when I substituted ‘supports’ for ‘sustains’ in my mantra above. Why, they threatened to cut off the fat supporting checks. I mean the fat ‘sustaining’ checks.
===================
Gates used to be both amusing and informative. I think he’s been to climate re-education camp.
=============
Oops, no wonder I’m confused; I’ve entered the wrong Gates.
====================
Brandon has enormous educational value. It was the contrariness of other Doom and Gloom proponents that made me start the journey from being a very concerned AGW believer to sceptic.
My particular “Road to Damascus” was attending a Climate Change talk by Dr Caroline Lucas of the UK Green Party. As someone who has a reasonable first degree in a science subject I was appalled at what Lucas said. It was truly dire! – but what I now call the “faithful” lapped up her every word.
It was so bad I checked what the Green Party’s “Climate Change Expert” qualifications were – as I felt sure it was nothing scientific.
And I was correct – “Dr” (as she was introduced) Caroline Lucas has a PhD in “Romantic Elizabethan Literature” from Exeter University.
So the enormous effort Brandon puts into this site, his hiding behind snide and innuendo, huge chunks of cut n paste and his wonderful ability to dig a hole for himself an never realise when to stop digging is something we can show to people.
So please be polite to Brandon and let his own words and actions produce more questioning minds.
In other words: adaptation is the name of the game.