Much warmer than the worst-case scenario?

Jul 13, 2011 By Peter Rüegg
Much warmer than the worst-case scenario?
Four new scenarios presented by climate scientists clearly show that it could get much warmer than the present worst-case scenario calculations by the IPCC, particularly around the North Pole. Credit: Sanderson et al., 2011

According to a new study, it could become much warmer towards the end of the century than originally anticipated. The study has found that the average temperatures calculated are much higher than the IPCC’s worst-case scenario to date.

You don’t have to be more pessimistic than average in order to develop a worst-case scenario. In the case of the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, the reality was even worse than imagined by the plant’s operators in their disaster scenarios. The same is true of the discussion surrounding climate change. You can’t project too many different scenarios, even if they paint a very uncomfortable picture of the future.

A recently published study conducted by climate researchers in the US and Switzerland including Reto Knutti, a professor at ETH Zurich, demonstrates that their new calculations of climate change scenarios exceed even those described as worst-case scenarios in the 2007 IPCC Report.

Rising global population included

The assumptions made by the researchers are not even abstruse or grossly overexaggerated. In their models, they took into account the global population growth forecast by the UNO, the per capita consumption and the possible mix of primary energy sources used, such as coal, electricity from nuclear power or renewable energy sources.

On the one hand, the researchers assumed that per capita energy consumption will continue to grow at a constant rate and will have increased to four times today’s consumption levels by the year 2100. The population is also expected to rise – possibly up to 15 billion people by the end of this century. In one of the computed scenarios, they also supposed that coal will become the main energy source, accounting for more than 90% of all primary energy at the end of the century. In another scenario, they rolled forward the percentage of energy sources as they are used today without any changes. The researchers assumed that there will be no decline in CO2, something which is realistic based on the current situation.

Coal heats up the climate

The results are enough to make us sit up and take notice. The model calculated scenarios in which global rise sharply – more sharply than in present IPCC worst-case scenarios. In the coal scenario, which sees coal replacing most of the other used at present and the rising to 15 billion by 2100, the temperature could increase by an average of 5.1 degrees on the 1990 level. The temperature rise could be highest around the North Pole, with increases of 11 to 12 degrees predicted. Even if the researchers assume an energy mix that remains unchanged on today’s mix, the global increase is still 3.7 degrees.

The new scenarios also highlight an even more precarious water situation in southern Europe. Annual precipitation could fall by between 20 and 60 percent. By contrast, rainfall amounts over parts of the Sahara could change dramatically, with more rain falling on what is now a desert. According to the new scenarios, the climate would change continuously rather than suddenly. The Arctic summer sea-ice would suffer significantly, and in a worst-case scenario could be lost completely after 2070.

Possibilities, not predictions

However, Professor Knutti warns against jumping to conclusions. “These scenarios show very pessimistic extreme cases, and there is no proof that these will eventuate”. He said that the results do not constitute predictions, and no probabilities were given either. Nevertheless, he explained, it is important to explore all possibilities. “It would be a mistake to look at a range that is too restricted”.

Ultimately they merely combined pessimistic assumptions that are neither particularly unrealistic nor abstruse, he said. For example, the assumptions surrounding population development stem from rather pessimistic demographic studies. He explained that the assumption that future energy supply will depend more or even exclusively on coal is not unrealistic either, as global coal supplies are large and it could potentially become relevant as a source of energy for a growing population.

Reto Knutti emphasized that everything depends heavily on the assumptions regarding social, economic and technological development that underlie the scenarios: “The assumptions in the scenarios are in reality our decisions and actions”. This means that humans will ultimately decide which scenario becomes reality.

Explore further: NOAA establishes 'tipping points' for sea level rise related flooding

More information: Sanderson BM, et al. The response of the climate system to very high greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Environ. Res. Lett. 6 (2011), published 5th July 2011, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034005

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

At least part of climate change is man-made

Apr 13, 2005

Bonn study shows: Since 1880 climate gases have caused just under half of global warming In the last 120 years the average global temperature has risen by 0.7 degrees. Over the same period the carbon dioxide concentration ...

Report underscores advantages of renewable energy future

May 10, 2011

A major new report by the United Nations-supported Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) launched today underscores the incredible environmental and social advantages of a future powered by renewable ...

Climate Change More Rapid than Ever

Sep 30, 2005

Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology presented on Thursday, September 29, their first model calculations for the future of the climate. According to the calculations, in the next 100 years, the climate will ...

Renewables major part of 2050 world energy mix: UN

May 07, 2011

Renewable power from the Sun, wind, water and biomass can and should generate a major portion of the planet's energy supply by 2050, according to a draft United Nations report obtained by AFP.

Recommended for you

UN sends team to clean up Bangladesh oil spill

15 hours ago

The United Nations said Thursday it has sent a team of international experts to Bangladesh to help clean up the world's largest mangrove forest, more than a week after it was hit by a huge oil spill.

How will climate change transform agriculture?

16 hours ago

Climate change impacts will require major but very uncertain transformations of global agriculture systems by mid-century, according to new research from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Report: Radiation leak at nuclear dump was small

16 hours ago

A final report by independent researchers shows the radiation leak from the federal government's underground nuclear waste repository in southern New Mexico was small and localized.

Confucian thought and China's environmental dilemmas

20 hours ago

Conventional wisdom holds that China - the world's most populous country - is an inveterate polluter, that it puts economic goals above conservation in every instance. So China's recent moves toward an apparent ...

User comments : 53

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Pkunk_
2.3 / 5 (33) Jul 13, 2011
The study is complete garbage. Not even worth the MB's of disk space it wastes.
There is NO WAY the world population will reach 15 bn. Already the population of India and China , the 2 biggest countries are stabilizing thanks to increasing education and technological levels. Also the fact that both countries presently have bad to abysmal female to male ratios means the next generation will cannot expand anywhere near past levels due to fewer "wombs" available.

If anything the coming 100 years will mark a serious depopulation of Europe due to women there having fewer and fewer children with every generation. That will balance the population increases anywhere else.

As for the coal scenario we will have only ourselves to blame for voting the "Green" idiots to power with their uncompromising nuclear stance.
3432682
2.2 / 5 (25) Jul 13, 2011
If population increases to 15 b, and if the CO2-Water vapor theory is correct, there could be a big problem. However, I have never seen a prediction of 15 b by 2100. And atmospheric humidity is falling, since 1948, as measured by weather ballons. Humidity at altitude has significantly decreased. None of the global warming predictions are coming true. There ought to be other, major additional energy sources in 90 years, besides coal.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (29) Jul 13, 2011
There is NO WAY the world population will reach 15 bn.
You are discounting maybe the religionist cultures who are feverishly trying to outreproduce each other and exporting seed pops to all parts of the globe?
If anything the coming 100 years will mark a serious depopulation of Europe
Indigene pops are indeed shrinking in many regions, only to be supplanted by Religionists who intend to grow geometrically as a means of CONQUEST. Their cultures are designed for this.
I have never seen a prediction of 15 b by 2100.
Try GOOGLE.

"The world's current (overall as well as natural) growth rate is about 1.14%, representing a doubling time of 61 years. We can expect the world's population of 6.5 billion to become 13 billion by 2067 if current growth continues. The world's growth rate peaked in the 1960s at 2% and a doubling time of 35 years."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 13, 2011
If much of the world is going to become desert, then who better to inherit it than desert-dwellers? Sounds like a Plan to me.
Shootist
2 / 5 (23) Jul 13, 2011
According to a new study, it could become much warmer towards the end of the century than originally anticipated.


But it won't.

Otto, ghost of, "The Polar Bears will be fine." -Freeman Dyson
If Dyson is a 'Religionist' (why the disparaging term, are you so enlightened?), I missed the memo.
LKD
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 13, 2011
"He said that the results do not constitute predictions,"

Then why write a report?! Seriously.... It's like watching the news then being told that it happened in a fictionalized town, not yours.
EWH
2.8 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2011
All the models depend on an large (hundreds of %) arbitrary fudge factor that multiplies the laboratory effects of CO2 to account for alleged positive feedback factors. There is excellent reason to believe that the net feedback is actually negative and that Earth's climate is a homeostatic system. If so, all of the alarming simulations are wrong.

(In fact the simulations contain many, many fudge factors without which they would fall apart even worse than they do when asked to "predict" the historical climate starting from the data of an earlier date. The fulldetails of the code, the assumptions and the data of these simulations are never made public, so should be seen as assertions rather than science.)
omatumr
1.9 / 5 (27) Jul 13, 2011
Science? or

Government Propaganda?

Is there a connection between:

a.) Hiding and manipulating data on the Sun - Earth's heat source,
b.) The world-wide fable of CO2-induced global warming,
c.) Disintegration of the USA space program,
d.) Disintegrating of the world's economy,
e.) Loss of national sovereignty, and
f.) Budget negotiations!

A mere coincidence?

No. They all follow from a 1972 decision to use "Global Climate Change" as the common enemy to unite nations, end nationalism, and avoid the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Many climate skeptics endorse these noble goals, but not the use of science as a propaganda tool that would lead to a tyrannical world government [George Orwell's book, "1984"].

www.online-litera...ll/1984/

Do you see a connection to [Dark Fireworks on the Sun, Dr. Tony Phiilips, 12 July 2011]?

www.physorg.com/n...sun.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (22) Jul 13, 2011
Otto, ghost of, "The Polar Bears will be fine." -Freeman Dyson
If Dyson is a 'Religionist' (why the disparaging term, are you so enlightened?), I missed the memo.
Sorry but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

"Religionist - a person adhering to a religion; especially : a religious zealot."

Zealots will invariably seek to supplant other beliefs with their own. The best way to do this is for zealot minorities to become majorities. "Be fruitful and multiply - fill up the earth (with believers)." This is the First Mitzvah. It is not a suggestion.

If the world reaches 15B by the end of this century it will be due to cultures such as this. But they will probably be the cause of global war long before then.
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2011
I should've taken the blue pill.....
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (19) Jul 13, 2011
For all Religionists seeking a way out of their darkness and despair, THERE IS A WAY:
http://recovering...sts.com/

Come into the light of day. Accept the world for what it is. Free yourself from make-believe. Grow Up.
snowman95
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2011
Read The Coming Population Crash by Fred Pearce, a guy with credentials who makes a believable argument why it won't grow exponentially. Birth rates are already falling everywhere, but unfortunately won't be enough to stop a swelling to about 9 billion, after which it will decline substantially. I fear the tipping point may have already come environmentally, but he is positive. The authors of the climate study made a glaring error by ignoring the latest demographic trends.
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2011
Read The Coming Population Crash by Fred Pearce, a guy with credentials who makes a believable argument why it won't grow exponentially. Birth rates are already falling everywhere, but unfortunately won't be enough to stop a swelling to about 9 billion, after which it will decline substantially. I fear the tipping point may have already come environmentally, but he is positive. The authors of the climate study made a glaring error by ignoring the latest demographic trends.


Do you believe Al Gore and the UN will save us?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (51) Jul 13, 2011
Global problems require Global governance.

If not the U.N. then it will be China.

Your choice has been noted.

"Do you believe Al Gore and the UN will save us?" - Omatard
SemiNerd
3.5 / 5 (16) Jul 13, 2011
It is depressing to see how many quacks that show up posting the same duck dodo over and over again whenever an article like this is posted.

I see no evidence that the ideologically blind (the deniers) even bother to actually read the article before posting their bashing of the scientists, their motives, their incompetence et all. Nothing really about the science. Who cares about that? Nothing about the purpose of the study, the inputs to the models, etc.

I for one appreciate that given the inputs specified, the results given are probably middle of the road cases. I also do not think that global pop will hit 15b at 2100, or that coal will makeup 90% of the global energy mix at that time. But its nice to know if those ARE the numbers, what the results will probably be (in round numbers).
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (53) Jul 13, 2011

"The study is complete garbage." - Pkunk

Poor Pkunk... If only he had average to even moderately substandard reading skills, he would have been able to understand the article.

The state of American Edgimication is bom baahd.

On the other hand, perhaps he decided not to read it in deference to his denialist religion.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (49) Jul 13, 2011
"I see no evidence that the ideologically blind (the deniers) even bother to actually read the article before posting their bashing of the scientists, their motives, their incompetence et all." - SemiNerd

The aide (Karl Rove) said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that realityjudiciously, as you willwe'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actorsand you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

Ron Suskind
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (50) Jul 13, 2011
Yes there is a connection OmaTard. It's the same conspiracy that you see in astronomy where astronomers actually think they can see stars, in contradiction of your brilliant Neutron/Neutron repulsion theories.

You are mentally ill OmaTard. You need to see a psychologist before you hurt yourself or someone else.

"Is there a connection between:

a.) Hiding and manipulating data on the Sun - Earth's heat source,
b.) The world-wide fable of CO2-induced global warming,
c.) Disintegration of the USA space program,
d.) Disintegrating of the world's economy,
e.) Loss of national sovereignty, and
f.) Budget negotiations!"
- OmaTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (51) Jul 13, 2011
If so then you will have no problem listing 100 of these fudge factors for us.

I await your with anticipation your failure to produce such a list and thereby illustrating the obvious depth of your lie.

"All the models depend on an large (hundreds of %) arbitrary fudge factor that multiplies the laboratory effects of CO2 to account for alleged positive feedback factors." - EWH
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (50) Jul 13, 2011
Oh, because it outlines the worst case scenario.

That was clearly stated in the article.

Tard Boy.. Did you not comprehend it? Or did you not read it?

"Then why write a report?!" - LKD
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (46) Jul 13, 2011
Increase in lower-stratospheric water vapour at a mid-latitude Northern Hemisphere site from 1981 to 1994 - Nature 374, 146 - 149

"atmospheric humidity is falling" - 3432682Tard
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (17) Jul 13, 2011
Global problems require Global governance.
How true. Overpopulation has been a problem throughout the known world for the last 4-5000 years. Gilgameshes gods created the flood myth to silence the 'din' of humanity. Nebucchadnezzar tried to desaltify irrigated lands in the euphrates valley by removing the top 3 ft. He gave up.

A VISIBLE world govt would be powerless to affect those things which pose the greatest threat to humanity, as it would ultimately be vulnerable to public opinion.

And yet these things must be dealt with, and this often requires Measures which the vast majority would resist. And so the only obvious Solution is to assume a world govt which is NOT visible.

As ancient Leaders were well aware of the plague of overpop, we can assume concerted Efforts to mitigate it began then.
http://www.bibleg...sion=NIV

"1 There is a [Proper] Time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the sun."

-The Formula for Empire.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 13, 2011
Read The Coming Population Crash by Fred Pearce, a guy with credentials who makes a believable argument why it won't grow exponentially. Birth rates are already falling everywhere, but unfortunately won't be enough to stop a swelling to about 9 billion, after which it will decline substantially. I fear the tipping point may have already come environmentally, but he is positive. The authors of the climate study made a glaring error by ignoring the latest demographic trends.
This is funny but true:
http://barenakedi...its-way/

-Never underestimate the willingness and the capacity of people to suffer for their god.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 13, 2011
Actually... Thats a pretty inflammatory website (though much of it is true). Here is a video with some pretty shocking numbers.
http://www.youtub...2iS3G9dE

It is also inflammatory but it is xian-produced. This makes it interesting and informative. I think the numbers are about right.

"historically, no culture has ever survived a 1.9 fertility rate."

-Well sure. They have always tended to get overrun.

But the non-religious world is controlling its pop growth artificially which is unprecedented. This rate can be sustained for a time if it is GLOBAL. But aggressive religious cultures threaten this healthy reduction.
omatumr
2.1 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2011
Global problems require Global governance.

If not the U.N. then it will be China.


Global governance is the plan behind the fable of CO2-induced global warming.

But budget negotiations in Washington DC may restore sanity to federal science.

Eisenhower warned of this potential misuse of science on 17 Jan 1961:

www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Jonseer
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2011


One thing is certain doing absolutely nothing like you seem to prefer WILL result in the worst possible outcome, but why should you care, only your grandchildren will suffer for the gross excess of your life.
ted208
1.9 / 5 (17) Jul 14, 2011
Vendicar_Decarian
You are the most stupid retard.
You relish every AGW doom and gloom scary story, the warmist crap mongers regurgitate. Why don't you get out of your lonely little room and breath some fresh air!
euconsultants
2.9 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2011
This whole discussion is built on nothing. Every day both sides, deniers and believers, find new facts which change the story. Only in the long term we will know who was right. But let us try to make sure that the worst case scenario doesn't get true by doing individually what we think has to be done.
Cave_Man
2.4 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2011
Vendicar_Decarian
You are the most stupid retard.
You relish every AGW doom and gloom scary story, the warmist crap mongers regurgitate. Why don't you get out of your lonely little room and breath some fresh air!

Heh, I don't like V_D personally because he's somewhat of an inflamist, as are you and everyone else here it seems.

But I like your idea of fresh air, if there were any.

P.S. I think the highway fumes my have confoobled you, why don't you google the amount of carbon monoxide it takes to cause brain damage and have cathartic revelation.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (45) Jul 14, 2011
Ted... Your words are mindless.
StandingBear
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2011
That report did not say the world would become a desert! It DID say, however, that the Sahara would start to get wet! Think I will become a Muslim, put on one of their funny hats, and buy some land in sunny southwest Egypt. Then I will wait for my grandkids to cash in on our the new farmland. Grow lots of olives in the newly reclaimed ancient lands of Nubia and watch the sand dunes fade away to trees and rolling fields of grasses as the old dry lakes refill and the ancient wadis come back to rivers. The reverse of the last 10,000 years. And I will campaign for my adopted nation to make LOTS of nuclear plants and sell power at really HIGH rates to the foolish cowardly europeans that abandoned their nuclear plants for the glories of energy dependancy. Awww, we could all use a few obedient european house servants....well trained already from two thousand years of monarchist governments. Hey if God made sheep, why not them fleece?
brianweymes
5 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2011
Read The Coming Population Crash by Fred Pearce, a guy with credentials who makes a believable argument why it won't grow exponentially. Birth rates are already falling everywhere, but unfortunately won't be enough to stop a swelling to about 9 billion, after which it will decline substantially. I fear the tipping point may have already come environmentally, but he is positive. The authors of the climate study made a glaring error by ignoring the latest demographic trends.


But demographic trends are hard to predict and change every few years. A decade ago the UN projected the population stabilizing at 9 billion by 2100, but this year it revised its estimate to 10.1 billion, and I quote, "But a small increase in fertility could mean a global population of as much as 15.8 billion by 2100, while a small decrease could result in an eventual overall decline in population to 6.2 billion by the end of the century." http://www.un.org...ID=38253
LKD
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2011
Oh, because it outlines the worst case scenario. That was clearly stated in the article.
Vendicar_Decarian

So that's what science is now? We write reports that can not predict future results? Did you learn nothing in school? That's not science, it is fiction. Orwell also did a worst case scenario article called a novel. This is opinion gift wrapped in the degrees of the author.
lengould100
2.2 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2011
Did you deniers realize that the "final draft" of the IPCC reports is written by the diplomats, not the scientists?

One thing for certain. Once the US politicially appointed diplomats from the GWBush years get done "vetting" the IPCC reports, a LOT of the worst predicted consequences made by the science contributers have been scrubbed out and covered up. Anything that was merely "highly likely but not absolutely certain" was removed, leaving only the much more palatable IPCC scientist-developed scenaria which actually got into the report.

We all know that's how things have always worked. The toady diplomat servants of the upper class do whatever they're told so that their oil-invested coal-mining bosses can keep getting richer, and to heck with truth or "high liklihood". But the dumb deniers continue to demand that they get their papp and pat on the head for voting "correctly". Such nice clean brains they've got, washed regularly.
rubberman
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2011
Sweet jesus I'm glad I didn't take that blue pill. I missed ya Len! I have no use for VD.....of any kind.....appropriate initials though.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2011
We all know that's how things have always worked. The toady diplomat servants of the upper class do whatever they're told so that their oil-invested coal-mining bosses can keep getting richer, and to heck with truth or "high liklihood".
You only think this because it is what your particular target group is supposed to think. In the meantime, Things get done, Progress and the overall Stability which enables it ensues.

This would not be the case if your toady diplomats were serving only one cause. When it Matters, they serve the only One Cause that matters, whether they know it or not. Empire.
GSwift7
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2011
Here's a quote from the United Nations DESA report on global population:

In these projections, world population peaks at
9.22 billion in 2075. Population therefore grows
slightly beyond the level of 8.92 billion projected
for 2050 in the 2002 Revision, on which these projections
are based. However, after reaching its
maximum, world population declines slightly and
then resumes increasing, slowly, to reach a level
of 8.97 billion by 2300, not much different from
the projected 2050 figure


Global population reaching 15 billion is a silly assumption. Should I even both with talking about some of the other silly things they said in the above article? If I were an environmental activist I would not want to use the above paper to support my cause. Radical exagerations tend to turn people off.
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2011
Oh sorry, I almost forgot to post a link to my source:

http://www.un.org...inal.pdf

The executive summary, page one of the report, begins on page 15 of the PDF file. My quote is paragraph 2.

lengould100
1 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2011
Agreed, 15 billion population is a fairly low probability, but other considerations not so much, such as very high coal consumption if peak oil hits and coal-to-liquids is chosen to replace it (do any "Approved" scenarios even consider this)?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2011
Global population reaching 15 billion is a silly assumption.
Areas of asia and africa experiencing the greatest growth rates also have the lowest standard of living per capita and the lowest quality of life seen anywhere on the globe.

There is no reason to believe that this sort of misery could not spread as the cultures which perpetuate it are exported elsewhere.

I repeat - never underestimate the willingness and capacity of people to suffer for their god. Vast areas of the middle east have been denuded, desertified, by people willing and able to live in barren desolation.

How much food, water, and shelter do you REALLY need to survive? Could 10 times the number survive on the resources that westerners now consume, if they were willing to? The world could indeed support 15B starving wretches, easily.
omatumr
3 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2011
Did you deniers realize that the "final draft" of the IPCC reports is written by the diplomats, not the scientists?


Yes, Len, that is the problem: Diplomats wrote the IPCC reports.

Now the public is starting to see the historical (1972-2011), political reasons for the fable of "Industrial CO2-Induced Global Warming":

http://anhonestcl...s-julia/

www.youtube.com/w...syg0lkkM

http://wattsupwit...a-medal/

As we approach the last play in game, the world economy looks as fragile as the political futures of US President Barack Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard,

Their intentions may have been noble, but not their means.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
omatumr
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2011
The global climate scandal seems to be unravelling fast this evening:

http://climateaud...ias-cru/
lengould100
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2011
[Pat pat]. Since you seem to like them so much, here's another free pat on the head, Oliver.
Pkunk_
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 15, 2011

"The study is complete garbage." - Pkunk

Poor Pkunk... If only he had average to even moderately substandard reading skills, he would have been able to understand the article.

The state of American Edgimication is bom baahd.

On the other hand, perhaps he decided not to read it in deference to his denialist religion.


Firstly i'm not an American , and I haven't had an "Edgimication" . It's a standard ploy deployed by Vendicar_Decarian and his ilk. Throw insults at the "denialists" , i.e anyone who talks against their crap.

In fact I had just pointed out the glaring errors in the above report. It is just a pack of cards waiting to fall down based on the sub-standard science behind it. Sort of like the drug-induced ramblings of a student high on something.

These kinds of alarmist articles have a tendency to keep appearing like a recurring rash.
omatumr
2.4 / 5 (11) Jul 15, 2011
FYI: Consensus Science behind Economic and Social Unrest

Today I set aside work on the book, "A Journey to the Core of the Sun," to post a comment (#10) on the link between consensus and current social and economic unrest:

http://noconsensu...ls-zeke/

I also prepared a 2.5 page pdf file of a very brief, concise easier-to-read history of consensus science from 1945 to 2011 and its role in the current economic collapse and social unrest.

My interpretation may be wrong, but it seems to fit a surprising array of observations and events over the past 66 years. E-mail me at omatumr@yahoo.com if you want a copy.

There are advantages to being old as dirt.

Please feel free to share it with others.

Comments would be appreciated.

Oliver
iiibogdan
1 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2011
Must be comfortable to convince yourself that everything will be fine... but look at the f**king "eternal" ice that is melting...the god damn north-west passage opened; there are to many people... some of you chaff will have to take one for the team
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (41) Jul 16, 2011
Even people with IQ's as low as 40 should be capable of seeing the utility in having upper and lower bounds that define a predictive range.

Apparently LKD doesn't have the intellectual capacity.

"So that's what science is now? We write reports that can not predict future results?" - LKD
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (41) Jul 16, 2011
"Firstly i'm not an American , and I haven't had an "Edgimication" .' - Pkunk

No edgimication ay? That explains a lot.

"Throw insults at the "denialists" " - Pkunk

No thinking person respects liars or fools. Hence no thinking person respects denialists like you Pkunk.

"In fact I had just pointed out the glaring errors in the above report." = Phunk

All you have illustrated is your own ignorance.

"These kinds of alarmist articles have a tendency to keep appearing like a recurring rash." - Phunk

Triggered by a warmer climate no doubt.

Global warming will continue to define your life, for the rest of your life.

Jimee
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2011
Why do those who espouse religion constantly care so little for humanity?
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 17, 2011
Why do 'progressives' care so little for individual humans?
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2011
I'm just here for the stars.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (37) Jul 19, 2011
"Why do 'progressives' care so little for individual humans?" - RiggTard

Because The needs of the many, outweigh the whining of the Libertarian/Randite Tards.
Howhot
1 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2011
climate change scenarios exceed even those described as worst-case scenarios in the 2007 IPCC Report.

Vendi, it hard to argue with the POS that just don't understand how horribly bad we have F-uped the atmosphere. Deny all they like, they are idiots. Just look at heat wave right now. Nuffsaid.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.