Jump to content

IPCC 6th report


mikegarrison

Recommended Posts

I haven't read it yet. Good luck getting to their website right now! But given the previous discussions of climate change, I thought I would start this thread.

https://www.ipcc.ch

In case you don't know, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change. They have released 5 previous "Assessment Reports". Each report takes about three years to research and write. They have released them every 6-7 years.

 

First report: 1990

Second: 1995

Third: 2001

Fourth: 2007

Fifth: 2014

Sixth: today

=========

When people talk about "the scientific consensus about climate change", the IPCC assessment reports are basically the "gold standard" for what that consensus is.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2021 at 10:32 AM, mikegarrison said:

I haven't read it yet. Good luck getting to their website right now! But given the previous discussions of climate change, I thought I would start this thread.

https://www.ipcc.ch

Thank you for that, I didn't know it was already out. I could access the site just fine, maybe I just got lucky.

Direct links to the summary (42 pages) and the full report (almost 4000 pages). I think I already know what I'm going to do tonight. And tomorrow night. And... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

They knew and they minimised.

IMO this is a crime and there should be substantial jail terms.

"Not In My Bottom Line"

Frankly, you're dealing with the singular most extreme case of an externality. You can no longer count on state intervention because states are incentivized to race to the bottom if not outight focus on the benefits of global warming, lest they fall behind in the dog-eats-dog area of economic geopolitics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To anyone who reads it -- words like "likely" and "very likely" as used in the report are strictly defined:

Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and typeset in italics, for example, medium confidence. The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99100% probability, very likely 90100%, likely 66100%, about as likely as not 3366%, unlikely 033%, very unlikely 010%, exceptionally unlikely 01%. Additional terms (extremely likely 95100%, more likely than not>50100%, and extremely unlikely 05%) may also be used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, for example, very likely. This is consistent with AR5. In this Report, unless stated otherwise, square brackets [x to y] are used to provide the assessed very likely range, or 90% interval.

Edited by mikegarrison
fixed a typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021
 

Quote

 

What’s new in this year’s report

The Emissions Gap Report 2021 shows that new national climate pledges combined with other mitigation measures put the world on track for a global temperature rise of 2.7°C by the end of the century. That is well above the goals of the Paris climate agreement and would lead to catastrophic changes in the Earth’s climate. To keep global warming below 1.5°C this century, the aspirational goal of the Paris Agreement, the world needs to halve annual greenhouse gas emissions in the next eight years.

If implemented effectively, net-zero emissions pledges could limit warming to 2.2°C, closer to the well-below 2°C goal of the Paris Agreement. However, many national climate plans delay action until after 2030. The reduction of methane emissions from the fossil fuel, waste and agriculture sectors could help close the emissions gap and reduce warming in the short term, the report finds.

Carbon markets could also help slash emissions. But that would only happen if rules are clearly defined and target actual reductions in emissions, while being supported by arrangements to track progress and provide transparency.

 

I just want to say here that I find it depressing when people assume this sort of reporting is "intentional alarmism" designed to scare us into better behavior. It's just math, and the math is relentless and doesn't care about our feelings or our hopes that things aren't as bad as we think they are.

If the sky really is falling, you aren't being Chicken Little when you point that out. It's just that in this case the sky is falling quite slowly compared to a human lifetime. I know I won't be alive by the end of the century. And I don't have any kids. But I still feel some responsibility for the people who are going to have to be living with the mess that I left for them.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021
 

I just want to say here that I find it depressing when people assume this sort of reporting is "intentional alarmism" designed to scare us into better behavior. It's just math, and the math is relentless and doesn't care about our feelings or our hopes that things aren't as bad as we think they are.

If the sky really is falling, you aren't being Chicken Little when you point that out. It's just that in this case the sky is falling quite slowly compared to a human lifetime. I know I won't be alive by the end of the century. And I don't have any kids. But I still feel some responsibility for the people who are going to have to be living with the mess that I left for them.

When your livelihood depends on something being true, it is very difficult to find the opposite.

While petroleum companies can expand into other areas(like wind and solar), it would still cause them  serious financial harm to cease all petroleum operations.

On the same token, if you want to make money studying the climate, you can either struggle for one of the few dozen jobs world wide helping to make the weather forecast more accurate, or you can support the climate change crisis which requires lots of climatologists to make sure we do not accidentally wipe all life from this planet.  If you are either a mediocre climatologist, or want to be a hero, the choice is obvious.  (we would not even have an IPCC if not for 'alarming' claims made by climatologists after all, so if the first report was 'nothing to worry about, all is good' would the IPCC receive any funding for the 30 years since that report?) 

When both sides have easy to understand reasons to lie(like $$$), that makes it much harder to believe either one. 

'Do what we say, not what we do' from politicians trying to ride the band-wagon does not help much either.

 

Personally, I'll find the climate change 'crisis' more believable when the activists are fast-tracking nuclear power plants so as to more quickly decommission coal fired power plants. (as opposed to shutting down nukes and replacing them with coal/natural gas)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Terwin said:

When your livelihood depends on something being true, it is very difficult to find the opposite.

If you want to make money studying the climate, you can either struggle for one of the few dozen jobs world wide helping to make the weather forecast more accurate, or you can support the climate change crisis which requires lots of climatologists to make sure we do not accidentally wipe all life from this planet.  If you are either a mediocre climatologist, or want to be a hero, the choice is obvious.  (we would not even have an IPCC if not for 'alarming' claims made by climatologists after all, so if the first report was 'nothing to worry about, all is good' would the IPCC receive any funding for the 30 years since that report?) 

I know a fair number of climate scientists personally. This is a bad take. Even the ones that work for industry and are paid to find ways to keep industry profitable are completely convinced of the basic climate science greenhouse gas understanding. They argue details about models and don't all agree on the best way to go forward, but pretty much everybody agrees on what the results are going to be in the "do-nothing, carry on as usual" case.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the provincial govt here just had an update on their climate action plan, I find it amusing but disappointing that all they seem to talk about is carbon tax. Nothing about reining in the oil/gas industry, or solar anywhere. But with all our future hydro from an under-construction dam megaproject, of course they don’t want to talk solar or microgrids, as much as it makes sense… Nothing to see here with our heads in the sand, move along….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Terwin said:

Personally, I'll find the climate change 'crisis' more believable when the activists are fast-tracking nuclear power plants so as to more quickly decommission coal fired power plants. (as opposed to shutting down nukes and replacing them with coal/natural gas)

And this attitude is exactly why we are here in the first place. Why do you only believe something if it is profitable to shareholders? Clearly coal is cheaper than Nuclear. Just like its cheaper to not put airbags or seatbelts into cars. Just because Germany made a stupid decision a few years ago doesn't mean they are correct. Let that analogy sink in for a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

And this attitude is exactly why we are here in the first place. Why do you only believe something if it is profitable to shareholders? Clearly coal is cheaper than Nuclear. Just like its cheaper to not put airbags or seatbelts into cars. Just because Germany made a stupid decision a few years ago doesn't mean they are correct. Let that analogy sink in for a second.

I want to point out that Germany went heavily into solar power. They didn't just say "no more nukes". Last time I was there was almost 10 years ago, but I was pretty amazed at the number of houses with large solar arrays on the roofs. I found out that the government was basically subsidizing them so heavily that they were almost free.

I do still think that nuclear is a key replacement for fossil fuel, but it's not the only answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, cool thanks for bringing that up! I was unaware of the solar power push over there. I recall when the decision to phase out nuclear was made, it was kind of an emotional reaction rather than a pragmatic one so this is great to hear!

Edited by Meecrob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

I want to point out that Germany went heavily into solar power. They didn't just say "no more nukes". Last time I was there was almost 10 years ago, but I was pretty amazed at the number of houses with large solar arrays on the roofs.

Wait, is it that exact Germany which just contracted a new gas pipe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Meecrob said:

I recall when the decision to phase out nuclear was made, it was kind of an emotional reaction rather than a pragmatic one so this is great to hear!

I presume you are talking about 1986 or thereabout? That's when they stopped building any new nuclear plants. The newest nuclear plant in Germany opened in 1989. Germany has never operated a nuclear power plant for more than 30-something years. When the currently running plants opened in the late 1980's, it was already given that they would cease operation in the early 2020's. The decision to discontinue nuclear power was effectively taken in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster, as no new nuclear plants were built that could take over when the ones from the 1980's were retired. Merkel made a bit of a big deal about "phasing out nuclear" after Fukushima, but I think this was mainly a continuation of the existing policy. The right time to build more nuclear power stations in Germany would have been in the 1990's and 2000's, when the engineers who designed plants like Brokdorf or Emsland were still working. But by the mid-2000's or so, most of them would have retired, and now many of them might be dead. If Germany were to build more nuclear power stations now, they'd have to build expertise from scratch. 

That being said, that's no excuse. They should have started phasing out coal a long time ago. I saw a meme the other day, about Germany reducing its CO2 emissions, yet allowing that La Palma eruption to spew out CO2 without repercussions. The meme makers had done a poor job running the numbers, so I decided to look it up. The volcanic eruption at La Palma has released as much CO2 over the course of two months, as Germany does in 40 minutes. That really puts things into perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

I saw a meme the other day, about Germany reducing its CO2 emissions, yet allowing that La Palma eruption to spew out CO2 without repercussions.

What were the Germans supposed to do? Was the poster endorsing a German nuclear weapons program?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

The volcanic eruption at La Palma has released as much CO2 over the course of two months, as Germany does in 40 minutes.

And that's wwithout Eyjafjallajökull.

Together they would troll the green powerplants even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

And that's wwithout Eyjafjallajökull.

Together they would troll the green powerplants even more.

If I recall correctly, Eyjafjallajökull was a couple of orders of magnitude more serious. It equaled about a week of German emissions.

 

9 hours ago, DDE said:

What were the Germans supposed to do? Was the poster endorsing a German nuclear weapons program?

I think the logic was something along the lines of "We can't do anything about the volcanoes, so why do anything about the powerplants?". Fact checking was never the strong suite of the people who meme about carbon emissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Unfortunately any meaningful climate action is dependent on political will, making the most important parts of this discussion heavily political. 
 

So I shall limit myself to asking if there is a cartoon of world leaders fiddling while the planet burns? If not, I expect someone will create one soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

world leaders fiddling

I'll leave out my first bitter remark - but will say that one response to the current actions of a certain fossil fuel exporting kleptocratic dictator has made a change where I hear folks outside of the beards n birkenstocks crew saying things they'd agree with... For totally different reasons. 

IOW Nuclear, solar, wind and other alternative sources are being viewed as strategic independence factors, not just expensive boondoggles that will drive up the price of everything. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the three IPCC working groups are WG1 (the physical basis for the science), WG2 (the effect that climate change is expected to have), and WG3 (the possible mitigation).

The report from last summer was WG1.  This report is WG2. And the WG3 report is expected in a few months. All three reports together make up the 6th Assessment Report.

So if you want to discuss mitigation efforts, the report you want to watch for is the WG3 report.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...