.

Sunday, November 2, 2014

Latest IPCC summary and synthesis reports

Sou | 11:21 PM Go to the first of 7 comments. Add a comment

This is by way of a heads up only. The IPCC has now released the Synthesis Report for all working groups, as well as the Summary for Policymakers (combined).

You can download them from the home page for now.

The reports probably won't please everyone and may not please anyone. It seems there may continue to be compromises in the summary report, though the detailed reports contain the information AFAIK. The report is fairly blunt in many respects. The way I read it (what I did read of it), the overall message is quite clear: cut emissions or suffer the consequences.

From the Sydney Morning Herald - not a very clear article by Nick Miller. It looks as if it was rushed, as if he cut and pasted bits and pieces. He mentioned some of the "compromises" made in other Summary for Policymakers. It wasn't clear if he was only talking the mitigation report or this one as well. Here is an excerpt that I know relates to the latest reports:
...However, this time, most of the changes in the report agreed to in the final week were to make its warnings clearer and more urgent.
The changes emphasise that climate change has already occurred, that greenhouse gas emissions are higher than ever, that human influence on climate has resulted in more heatwaves, higher sea levels, acidified oceans and more storms.
The language has been beefed up that mitigation efforts "beyond those in place already" are needed, but that there are multiple solutions, depending on how much extra heat we decide we can handle.

The Carbon Brief is a bit more positive about the report itself, calling it "a summary for everyone". From the article:
With the right policies we can prevent dangerous climate change, allow ecosystems to adapt, and ensure countries can develop sustainably, all at the same time, the IPCC concludes.
On the other hand, the slower we take action, the harder it will be and the more expensive it will get. Not acting now puts a very heavy burden on future generations, the report says.
The report makes it clear that climate change is a collective problem. Because climate change affects everyone, nations must cooperate to limit it. It will only be possible to limit the extent of climate change if nations work together.

Graham Lloyd in the Australian wrote an article with the headline: "UN panel on climate change wants end to burning coal for electricity by 2100".  It was a straight report, for a change, describing how by 2050, non-fossil fuel will need to be providing 80% of the energy by 2050 and 90% by 2100 if the global temperature increase is to be kept below 2C.

The BBC did some live reporting of the IPCC launch. At one stage Matt McGrath of the BBC wrote:
The IPCC says that the cost of taking action to keep the rise in temperature under 2 degrees C over the next 76 years will cost about 0.06% of GDP every year.
Over the same period, world GDP is expected to grow at least 300%.

I've only skimmed the Summary for Policymakers, looking at the highlighted points. While I was reading it I was imagining seven years from now, and what a Summary for Policymakers in 2021 would have to say.  I was thinking that if people think this report is hard-hitting, what will they think when the next one comes around. Will the world have made progress in cutting carbon emissions or not? Will it be enough to make a difference or not?

Here's the link again.

7 comments:

Blair said...

Did the IPCC again just provide policy advice for liberals? Or did it also tell us what the optimal global warming is to kill as much blacks and as little white people as possible?

Bert from Eltham said...

Blair I think that you will find that when the shit hits the fan it will be colour blind. The failure of crops in the rich nations will be far worse than what is occurring now in the third world. It will not be good for anyone.

Personally I think it will be far worse than this report predicts. We do not know what tipping points are lurking completely unknown to science. The known tipping points are bad enough.

All of us are on this one tiny spaceship called Earth. There is no us and them. We all are responsible for the destruction of our life support systems.

There will be no winners.

Just a small number of survivors completely lacking in the scientific knowledge that we have now reverting to primitive superstitions and legends.
Bert

Sou said...

I have no idea what Blair is talking about because he doesn't say. He gives no examples or explanation of what he means. I expect he is referring to Africa when he says "blacks". I don't know what "white" he is referring to. Maybe Europe is the most "white", though not so much these days. Iceland perhaps? Some countries in Asia would be at least as vulnerable as African nations.

The IPCC report points out that the most vulnerable nations are the least developed nations - the nations that have contributed least to global warming.

There's a map in Grist that shows the most vulnerable nations in which conflict and civil unrest may be worsened by climate change:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/32-countries-where-global-warming-could-make-violence-worse/?

There is no "optimal" global warming threshold identified that I'm aware of, that has not already been passed. There is a threshold at which it has been agreed the world does not want to cross.

Bert from Eltham said...

Sou Blair's statement was drivel from someone who thinks he is safe.

I was for once trying to be very polite.

Look at the posts on the ABC news site to this report to see that the twits with almost zero scientific knowledge are out in force posting drivel and unrepentant as ever.

Bert

Tim said...

Sou, that is a great graph to convince us liberals to fight global warming.

But is there a better way to convince right-wing extremists that global warming is cool, than showing that graph? And if they do not want to say that in public, they will state that the science is not settled and repeat one of the last WUWT posts.

What we should say to Blair, if he is real and not a juvenile troll, is that maybe more people die in Africa, that that is mainly because of bad governments and much less due to climate change. That those bad governments may well improve, like what happened in the tiger states, which the IPCC does not take into account.

And that maybe more people will die in Africa, but that that will only increase the birth rates, to take the additional uncertainty into account. You need to have some surviving children for when you are old. That in the end Blair thus get more Africans to deal with.

We should tell people like Blair, that in the West maybe relatively little people will die, but that a lot of infrastructure will be damaged. That we will suffer the largest economic losses, simply because we have so much to loose. We can come down to the level of Africa.

We should tell the Blairs that the disasters in Africa and the higher birth rates will lead to more refugees coming to the West. One reason so many refugees are able to make the long (and still expensive to them) trip to the West is that energy prices are so low nowadays and long distance travel consequently so ubiquitous.

Bert, no winners? I agree, but they do not care, they think in terms of ranking. As long as they are on top and the others suffer more it is okay for them. The Germans also suffered enormously in the second World War. The others suffered more.

Bert from Eltham said...

Tim I am glad you understand. There is only one way to control third world birth rates. Educate all the girls to the same level as the boys! The boys and men could do with a bit of further 'education' as well if our society is any guide to the idiocy and ignorance of what passes for a male these days.

There is one state in India which has a static population. This is due to all girls being educated to the same level as boys. They just will not stand for being breeding factories.

Bert

Tim said...

Here is an interesting video with Matt Ridley, a UK climate sceptic. To be question what are the main things he worries about, he answers superstition. As he explains, this means that he worries that fundamentalist religious people will reproduce more than others. Sounds like a climate sceptic that is worried about the purity of the gene pool, someone who feels that only noble people like himself should reproduce. If you think like this, it is naturally a big help if climate change helps to get rid of inferior life.