After 8 years, next IPCC report on climate change on its way

[essentialsaltes]

New Climate Report Will Detail Grim Future of Hotter, Extreme Weather and Rising Seas
The first assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change in eight years will sound the alarm on soaring temperatures and other effects of unchecked carbon pollution

It is the first in a trio of reports that will comprise the IPCC’s sixth major climate assessment since 1990: a second report, on climate impacts and adaptation, and a third, on mitigation efforts, will follow next year. In anticipation of the first report’s release next week, Nature previews what researchers say are some of the most significant advances in climate science conducted since the last IPCC assessment eight years ago.

Researchers have grown more confident in [their temperature] projections as climate science has advanced — a point that the IPCC report will emphasize.
-
The world got a sneak preview of how Earth’s sea levels might rise when the IPCC released a special report in 2019. The science that it presented, which will undoubtedly be included in next week’s release, experts say, pointed to average global sea levels rising by between 0.3 metres and 1.1 metres by 2100, depending on greenhouse-gas emissions. That is only slightly higher than previous projections, but the report also cited recent studies analysing the opinions of experts in the field, who declared that a 2-metre rise cannot be ruled out. Such an extreme change could displace tens of millions of people from their homes in low-lying regions.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_playing_the_same_game_of_civilization_ii/

 

[mama2one]

follow

 

[mindfulzen]

So, just counter it, and avoid it. Problem solved. They have btw been wrong on every projection ever, way off the map. And got caugh fiddling data in models. Their reports are useless, when the IPCC countries governments give the grants, to get the reports they seek. You do not use a goat to guard a bag of wheat. I need independent third party research. And I need the sourcematerial that they write the reports on. Reports are not enough.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So, just counter it, and avoid it. Problem solved. They have btw been wrong on every projection ever, way off the map. ... I need independent third party research.

Multiple independent research groups are in overall agreement about the measured rise of global temperatures.

These measurements are in broad agreement with predictive models created almost 20 years ago.

 

[mindfulzen]

Multiple independent research groups are in overall agreement about the measured rise of global temperatures.

These measurements are in broad agreement with predictive models created almost 20 years ago.

A few temperaturesheets is not enough. When I was occupied with this issue, I read the sourcematerial, the data and models, that they write their reports on. This is one of the issues that changed me politically. I tried to find the sourcematerial at the IPCC, and other advocacyplaces, and it was nowhere to be found. It drove me crazy. Eventually I found the Cook et al, and read it. And it was not being truthful. So, my view changed from this being dire, to this is bogus. So I went on to focus on solutions instead, if it gets hotter for whatever reason, so you avoid the sealevel raise. And how to mitigate emissions of methance and CO2, and there are so many simple and cheap measures we could implement, but it is not being done. Nobody is trying to solve it, apart from private industry who sees a new klondike. and federal grants to grab and taxcredits to cut investmentcosts.

 

[durangodawood]

Probaly doesnt want to be in Creation & Evolution.

Unless we're trying to make a point about mans's de-creation of the world, which seems reasonable.

 

[durangodawood]

Whoa. Did it just move? Or is it my covid addled brain - which I think Ive just come down with.

 

[Blade]

Yeah.. I watched in what 1975 leonard Nimoy talk about this. I watched the EXPERTS talk about how soon it coming. Yeah.. all of us have already lived through all that.. still here. That "deadline" has come and gone so many times.

We read in the word of God what was going to happen.. and your seeing it before you eyes. The heavens declare the glory of GOD! Getting harder and harder to keep denying He is real.

See now..now you go searching and ask those other experts on Climate Change. You know the ones that have been on this for over 50 years.

 

[Strathos]

Yeah.. I watched in what 1975 leonard Nimoy talk about this. I watched the EXPERTS talk about how soon it coming. Yeah.. all of us have already lived through all that.. still here. That "deadline" has come and gone so many times.

We read in the word of God what was going to happen.. and your seeing it before you eyes. The heavens declare the glory of GOD! Getting harder and harder to keep denying He is real.

See now..now you go searching and ask those other experts on Climate Change. You know the ones that have been on this for over 50 years.

So this being the hottest summer with the most wildfires on record doesn't mean anything, huh?

 

[essentialsaltes]

LINK

Each of five scenarios for the future, based on how much carbon emissions are cut, sees warming as having crossed the more stringent of two thresholds set in the 2015 Paris climate accord. World leaders agreed then to try to limit warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius), compared to temperatures in the late 19th century, because problems mount quickly after that. The limit is only a few tenths of a degree hotter than now because the world has already warmed nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) in the past century and a half.

Under each scenario, the report said, the world will cross the 2.7-degree increase mark in the 2030s, earlier than some past predictions. Warming has ramped up in recent years, data show.

In five previous reports, the world was on that final hottest path, often nicknamed “business as usual.” But this time, the world is somewhere between the moderate emissions path and the small pollution reductions scenario because of some progress to curb climate change, said report co-author Claudia Tebaldi, a scientist at the U.S. Pacific Northwest National Lab.

IPCC links

 

[Belk]

A few temperaturesheets is not enough. When I was occupied with this issue, I read the sourcematerial, the data and models, that they write their reports on. This is one of the issues that changed me politically. I tried to find the sourcematerial at the IPCC, and other advocacyplaces, and it was nowhere to be found. It drove me crazy. Eventually I found the Cook et al, and read it. And it was not being truthful. So, my view changed from this being dire, to this is bogus. So I went on to focus on solutions instead, if it gets hotter for whatever reason, so you avoid the sealevel raise. And how to mitigate emissions of methance and CO2, and there are so many simple and cheap measures we could implement, but it is not being done. Nobody is trying to solve it, apart from private industry who sees a new klondike. and federal grants to grab and taxcredits to cut investmentcosts.

Hmmm... Whom to trust. Random guy on the internet or actual climate scientists.

 

[mindfulzen]

Hmmm... Whom to trust. Random guy on the internet or actual climate scientists.

Up to you, but trust me if you want honesty, objectivity and truth. First of all, there is no such thing as climatescientist, a made up manipulative word. You have weatherpeople, , people who studies vulanos, people who study all sorts of things, none have complete CV. And then anybody can piece it together and make a "scientific" report on it. Take the cook et al for instance, that I bet you have referred and never read, I have read it. It was made by a psychologystudent, who later grauduated with a master in psychological manipulation. So Jordan Peterson might as well have written it. Who was also enlisted in Canada for some climatepanel. Ask yourself why they use psychologists, and why they pretend they are "climatescientists".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Up to you, but trust me if you want honesty, objectivity and truth. First of all, there is no such thing as climatescientist, a made up manipulative word. You have weatherpeople, , people who studies vulanos, people who study all sorts of things, none have complete CV. And then anybody can piece it together and make a "scientific" report on it. Take the cook et al for instance, that I bet you have referred and never read, I have read it. It was made by a psychologystudent, who later grauduated with a master in psychological manipulation. So Jordan Peterson might as well have written it. Who was also enlisted in Canada for some climatepanel. Ask yourself why they use psychologists, and why they pretend they are "climatescientists".

Climate science or climatology is a branch of science in its own right, and people who work in that field are climate scientists ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

People who study volcanos are volcanologists or volcano scientists.

Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

 

[mindfulzen]

Climate science or climatology is a branch of science in its own right, and people who work in that field are climate scientists ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

People who study volcanos are volcanologists or volcano scientists.

Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

Climate scientist is a politically engineered word, used for an agenda, to keep folks dumbed down and not questioning anything. Deceptive. A word of the devil if you will. Those who refer to it, are the most uninformed on the issue, I suggest you stop using it. If we have a panel of various fields of science people, then they can call it a climate science panel.

Otherwise it is just a manipulative tool. And you do not have to have a degree in that field to write a report on their work, any person with a degree can do that and peer review the work. A doctor casn do it, psychiatrist can do that, and it is done. Have a little faith in yourself and make your own report if you care about the issue. Look at models and methodology in a study, and statement of purpose, then make your own report. It is fun when you are interested in it.

 

[Job 33:6]

I was thinking about this and how people sometimes are skeptical of IPCC climate models. But honestly, you don't have to be an expert PhD to look at sea level data and to use an old school y=mx+b approach to observe where it's headed.

15-20 years ago society largely seemed to deny climate change, or a large portion rather. But as for today, it appears to be in our faces. The rate of sea level rise will be encroaching in your shore town soon (within 60--80 years) if it isn't already. If we don't respond, literally right now, it will be worse and worse and worse.

And it's not so much a doomsday argument because not everyone lives near the shoreline. Much like the California wildfires aren't so bad for people who don't live there. But rather, it's just an observation of economic costs that are to come. And it will only get worse and worse and worse if we don't respond.

They always say "it's never too late to act" and that's true because there is a large expanse between costing you 1 dollar out of your pocket and costing you your life. So the question is, where will that final cost land? And it depends on when the damage begins hitting enough pockets for people to respond.

 

[Belk]

Up to you, but trust me if you want honesty, objectivity and truth. First of all, there is no such thing as climatescientist, a made up manipulative word. You have weatherpeople, , people who studies vulanos, people who study all sorts of things, none have complete CV. And then anybody can piece it together and make a "scientific" report on it. Take the cook et al for instance, that I bet you have referred and never read, I have read it. It was made by a psychologystudent, who later grauduated with a master in psychological manipulation. So Jordan Peterson might as well have written it. Who was also enlisted in Canada for some climatepanel. Ask yourself why they use psychologists, and why they pretend they are "climatescientists".

It must be a giant conspiracy! Sorry, but I know people who actually studied to work in LASP at NASA. Going to go with their years of schooling over claims of "manipulation" at a commonly used phrase.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Climate scientist is a politically engineered word, used for an agenda, to keep folks dumbed down and not questioning anything. Deceptive. A word of the devil if you will. Those who refer to it, are the most uninformed on the issue, I suggest you stop using it. If we have a panel of various fields of science people, then they can call it a climate science panel.

Otherwise it is just a manipulative tool. And you do not have to have a degree in that field to write a report on their work, any person with a degree can do that and peer review the work. A doctor casn do it, psychiatrist can do that, and it is done. Have a little faith in yourself and make your own report if you care about the issue. Look at models and methodology in a study, and statement of purpose, then make your own report. It is fun when you are interested in it.

Meh. This belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

I've taken an interest in climate science for years, and it's been increasingly clear that their simplified models have often underestimated the effects of increasing greenhouse gases.

There are always political and corporate agendas that affect how science is done (e.g. funding) and media coverage, in all fields that have financial and political implications, but if you understand the basic physics and track the published data against the model studies, you don't need a degree to see what's happening.

 

[mindfulzen]

It must be a giant conspiracy! Sorry, but I know people who actually studied to work in LASP at NASA. Going to go with their years of schooling over claims of "manipulation" at a commonly used phrase.

To each their own, everybody got some rocketscientishs and neurosurgeons as friends, in online anecdotal evidence. I do not need it. I resaerched for myself. Up to you if you want to free your mind, and find out for yourself. You can start with John Cook, and cook et al "report". Not terribly long and hard to read, and do not have to read far to understand that you have been lied a bit to. Just 10 pages, and I would focus mostly on the graphic nr 4-7 if I remember correctly. He is violating the scientific rules there. Since I assume you are awere of the 97% thing, which become the 99,7% later on. Your choice, I am not emotionally involved in that issue anymore. What will be, will be, so no point in it occupying my mind.

 

[mindfulzen]

Meh. This belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

I've taken an interest in climate science for years, and it's been increasingly clear that their simplified models have often underestimated the effects of increasing greenhouse gases.

There are always political and corporate agendas that affect how science is done (e.g. funding) and media coverage, in all fields that have financial and political implications, but if you understand the basic physics and track the published data against the model studies, you don't need a degree to see what's happening.

First you have to state you disagree with me, before you state you agree with my points. Why must there be two sides for you? I am not on either side. I just tell it like it is, what I know. And am not for or against anything as if it was a religion. I am for sensible emissioncuts, that have an effect. I am not for symbolcuts that cuts next to nothing, and costs a bunch. If so, I would rather use it as aidmoney and make big cuts in the third world, or protect more rainforest.

It makes no sense at all, to cut emissions at oil platforms for instance, since sea take up 20 times more CO2 than vegetasion does. And nature absorbs it anyway. So each platform hooked on to the landgrid is like hooking on a new city that has the energyneed of city with 300 K people in it. That costs tens of billions too, that would have been better spent elsewhere. And increase the demand for energy in europe, that makes coalplants in eastern europe still viable. Stuff like that. That virtuesignalling has negative effect. And that is just national posture, so our left feel virtuous and brag. Get me? Make a sensible suggestion for the envirnoment and I will agree.