Guest essay by Eric Worrall
How much worse can it get?
Worst-case climate change scenario is even worse than we thought
DAILY NEWS 14 May 2018
By Michael Le Page
The phrase “worse than we thought” is a cliché when it comes to climate change. There are lots of studies suggesting we’re in for more warming and worse consequences than thought, and few saying it won’t be as bad. But guess what: it’s worse than we thought.
…
The RCP8.5 scenario is the worst for the climate. It assumes rapid, unfettered economic growth and rampant burning of fossil fuels.
It now seems RCP8.5 may have underestimated the emissions that would result if we follow the economic path it describes.
…
Stay tuned for the next New Scientist article on climate change, when they shall reveal that climate change will be worse than the even worse than worst worse case scenario they predicted.
Correction (EW): New Scientist, not Scientific American…
lol.
Thanks for the early morning laugh.
“How much worse can it get?”
It’s worse than we thought, except it’s even worse than that.
We must be approaching “infinitely worse”.
Worse than we thought. That would require thinking. Eternal optimists.
Nope, I’m sorry to contradict but it’s even worse than your worserest prognostications.
MUCH worse.
At least we can both agree that it’s serious anyway.
Careful with those comments, WUWT denizens !
They might just be right !
It could get worse, much, much worse and much worse than we can ever imagine.
It might get COLD like the Little Ice Age.
Or even worse, much worse again, get COLD at the rate it got cold with the onset of the the Younger Dryas.
A quarter to a third of the Northern hemispheres crop production areas gone due to the growing seasons becoming too short for crops to groww and mature.
Coal mines and gas production and the oil industry shut down as wind turbines and solar [ covered for 5 months of the year with snow and ice ] will provide all the power we need .
No coal, no gas and no oil and there goes the artificial heating needed for millions to survive in a decades to centuries long COLD era northern hemisphere climate.
Yeh! It could be much, much, much worse than we think!
But just right for the greenies and assorted climate change whack jobs to break out the champagne.
Their campaign against global warming / climate change has succeeded.
I do hope they get a sip of that Champagne before it freezes solid.
Forests completely destroyed by desperate people seeking to stay warm over the long winter without fossil fuels or electricity. The lack of forests will make more room for turbines, however.
“The RCP8.5 scenario is the worst for the climate. It assumes rapid, unfettered economic growth and rampant burning of fossil fuels.”
This is simple “if” and “then” assumption. The real question is how likely is the RCP8.5 scenario likely to occur?
Their adjectives betray their Eco-Socialist hatred for economic advancement that benefits so many.
I suppose this is what may be called New Science. ie: pseudo babble. It is getting quite boring. Mind you with all those ads. amid the babble, someone is making a killing.
Yeah, I don’t go to advertising conferences but I bet the word “divisive” is big in such circles.
A carbon tax today will keep the doom spinner away. No checks or layaways accepted
It’s even worse than what New Scientist reports. As a climate scientist myself, I can report that Global Warming of Doom (GWOD) and Climate Change of Doom (CCOD) are not the only climate threats that we face. Results from my own consensus climate models prove that even if the climate stabilizes, Climate Stability of Doom (CSOD) caused by the CO2 from fossil fuels will result in widespread weather disasters and other environmental catastrophes within 50-100 years unless we act now. The only way to prevent CSOD is to send me lots of money, and to transfer ownership and control of all fossil fuels to me. Any one who disputes my claims is a climate denier.
I find this relentless propaganda deeply alarming, because ‘they’ have access to weather modification technology and have enviro-totalitarian world government as their goal. Crazy but true.
To date our CO2 emissions have been trending well below the RCP8.5 scenario.
But don’t worry, some time in the future we will not only accelerate back to the standard but we are going to zoom right on past it.
I’m not sure how many tipping points we will have to break for that to happen, but it will probably be a lot.
I gave up on the New Scientist some years ago
They ran an issue allocating about 8 to 10 pages to three contributors who argued variously for zero economic growth as a means to cap emissions of CO2 -which they took to be essential.
I wrote a letter asking how would they go about achieving zero economic growth?
I made the points that product and process innovation, which resulted in new products or services, would of themselves tend to the creation of new industries and therefore creation of new jobs in design, production, distribution, sales and after- sale services.
So to maintain zero economic growth it would seem necessary to either suppress innovation and/or close existing industries to balance the growth of new ones
I then asked who would be given the power to take such decisions to choose and close otherwise useful industries and what selection criteria would they use ?
My queries ,which I thought reasonable enough, brought forth a tirade of abusive illogical replies in letters from their readers -leading me to conclude that their readership lacked any semblance of ability or willingness to engage in mutually respectful scientific discourse.
You are known and recognized by the enemies you make. Congratulations! You have done well, my son!
Hmmm… I don’t recall ever reading this ragazine, but now that I’ve seen a sample of what it produces, I never will.
I can’t decide if the author of the NS article is simply using hyperbole to scare people and get attention, or if he really believes the crock he’s written.
However, if he DOES believe that climate change will be worse than ever, he should define the phrase ‘worse than ever’. As we all know, the word ‘change’ does not necessarily mean toward a warmer or maximum warmth level. It can mean the exact opposite.
As it is, I sincerely hope that he wakes some morning to find at least 4.5 feet of snow blocking all exits from his dwelling, and his cell phone won’t charge because the power is out and he forgot to charge it.
And CAGW freaks wonder why the US public ain’t buying what they are selling. If you continually over hype an issue with the public, especially when it is the government, many in the public become immune to the hyperbole. They begin to believe that something else, something more sinister is going on, that the government is driving some agenda, an agenda not in their, the public’s best interest. Contrary to what CAGW crowd keep preaching most have not seen any real climate change as manifested in weather events that is any different than they or their family have witnessed in their personal history. Can anyone name a single catastrophic weather event that is different than what has been documented in the past several hundred years?
Ive come to prefer the “Old Scientist”.The New Scientist is worse than I thought h.
With “research” budgets getting slashed, even in Australia where they cant seem to get enough of this stuff (multiples of clisci practitioners per capita compared to elsewhere), we will be flooded with reruns and information-free clutter like this silly article until the last whimper. This hysterical crescendo only turns the public off more but they dont no what to do in this period of marking-time period before the end. It reminds me of boiling up tea from bog water in the 50s and 60s on geological mapping work and watching the water bugs swimming frantically to the coolest parts of the billy pail water until finally their still bodies were dragged down to the bottom by a handful of tea.
35% chance the writer will be boiled in excrement by angry peasants
At least it isn’t oil…… A sort of righteous and virtuous boiling.
Luke Skywalker: Well, more wealth than you can imagine!
Han Solo: I don’t know, I can imagine quite a bit.
I’m waiting for this cli-sci-fi stuff to turn into gurus scattered here and there on street corners, wearing robes and sandals in all weather, using megaphones to hawk the message ‘Repent! The Change is Nigh! Prepare ye the Way of the Change!’
That’s about how silly this is becoming.
It is becoming harder and harder to describe the catastrophes some peoble foresee. You have lost the words, because they have all been used so many times for nothing but normal conditions.
When you call the melting of icecaps, that takes thousends of years for a collapse, what would you then call it when a house falls down in seconds by an earthquake?
“Dogs and cat living together- mass hysteria”
Worse than we thought? I’m getting on in age, and I thought we were all supposed to be scrabbling for food on a planet half on fire by now given what they were saying in the 90s.
How horrible it is to think that “rapid, unfettered economic growth” might result in future generations (far richer than ourselves) facing AGW resulting from their *own* economic choices. Surely it is beyond imagination for a far richer world to be able to adapt to a few degrees warming. Obviously it makes sense to impede our own economic growth in the attempt to prevent future generations from living in a world any different than our own. If only the people behind the industrial revolution had realized the terrible climate damage that would result from their “rapid, unfettered economic growth” and left coal in the ground. Instead of suffering from exposure to the internet, we could be living the happy, carefree life of subsistence farmers today. And without the harm caused to the plants we raised by CO2 pollution, we would also happily avoid today’s obesity epidemic.
Gee, how much worse could it get? Is it going to back up and kill us twenty years ago?
New Scientist is now a comic from children.
A comic FOR children