Friday
Nov072014
by 
Josh
Josh Irreversible - Josh 301
Nov 7, 2014 Climate: IPCC Josh ;)
Click image for a larger version
Following the IPCC Synthesis Report we have had many catastrophists describing the impacts of climate change as 'Irreversible' and using the phrase 'Immorality of inaction' - I can certainly think of some irreversible impacts that require more immediate action.
Reader Comments (85)
Very good Josh. It sums it up nicely but sadly.
The Immorality of Green Action - increased fuel poverty in the developed world, persistence of poverty in the developing world,demonising of DDT leading to millions of deaths by malaria, etc. etc. etc.
But they go back to their nice warm middle class homes and feel pleased since they have saved the planet!
The Green Blob loves humanity but hates people.....
The "eradication" of small pox and inoculation in general is one of the achievements of the 20th Century that I believe we should cling on to.
Very effective, Josh - and beautifully drawn.
Nice one Josh.
You want climate catastrophe? You should research the medieval records like I am doing for my next article. Prodigious amounts of rain, drought and wind. But then it all improved, before going downhill again.
The claims of the 'hottest, coldest, rainiest or windiest ever known to man'; occurs so frequently I have had to put in a notation into my article pointing out that at most this sort of statement generally means at most, the worst in a generation.
Here is a brief example of this variable weather and the claims made for it IPCC take note;
1249 very mild winter so that neither snow nor frost covered the face of the earth nor bound it in their customary weather, trees were seen to be sprouting in February. Winter was turned into summer but intense cold came at end of March and lasted until middle of May that made people shiver that casting off linen they were compelled to resume double clothing.
1252 very hot and dry summer, very wet autumn. Heat of the sun so great that all the earth became dry no fruit grew on trees. At end of harvest there was great flooding breaking bridges mills and houses adjoin the rivers
Matthew Paris notes in most of march and the whole of the months of april and may the ground was burnt up by the sun the wind continuing from south west north or east. The sun rose up to its solstitial culmination and its immoderate and intolerable heat so burned up the earths surface and multiplied its warmth that the herbage withered away. Moreover the heat continued into the night and generated flies flea and other injurious pests.
He also writes in april may june and july heat and drought prevailed intolerably without beneficial sprinkling of rain or dew. Meadows were stripped of their grass, plant foliage withered. According to john de taxter ‘this year many died from the excessive heat of the summer. There was much thunderstorms. Robert of Gloucester noted in 1270 ‘in the year of grace 1252 the summer was so dry and hot that even until this day there has been none hotter .’ Short cold spell around oct 13 which was very wet. '
tonyb
Cripes, Josh! That's powerful stuff - which reminds me: The other day the DM was discussing homonyms; I've just thought of one that would fit on one of the graves: 'Powerless'.
"Green Genocide"
"Irreversible, that's what you are...."
Tony
"Matthew Paris notes"
I knew he was getting on a bit, but even so... :-)
The hypocrisy of it. As a community that collectively thinks that all foreign aid is "harmful" or some such nonsense, you are in no position to assume any moral superiority. Not one of you can answer the question I posed in How to spend $1.7 trillion in foreign aid. So how would you alleviate the ills you see?
How is it that after 100 years of more of fossil fuel use by developed countries we still see hunger, poverty and disease in the developing world? If fossil fuels are the only answer, why have they not worked? Could it be because people like you would rather keep that $1.7 trillion for themselves?
Raff
"How is it that after 100 years of more of fossil fuel use by developed countries we still see hunger, poverty and disease in the developing world."
You miss the point. After 100 years of more of fossil fuel use by developed countries there is a great deal less hunger, poverty and disease in the developed world. Go figure.
Sombre and very moving. Especially poignant for this November, 100 years on from 1914.
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/histclimat.htm
Nov 8, 2014 at 3:55 PM | tonyb
Do you know this site? It might help.
I fear that Raff's balloon has escaped its tether.
Bjorn Lomberg's comment is worth repeating again and again:
"We live in a world where one in six deaths are caused by easily curable infectious diseases; one in eight deaths stem from air pollution, mostly from cooking indoors with dung and twigs; and billions of people live in abject poverty, with no electricity and little food. We ought never to have entertained the notion that the world’s greatest challenge could be to reduce temperature rises in our generation by a fraction of a degree."
Alleagra
You are only considering one component of the ropadope. Later this century we will be hit by a triple blow of overpopulation, resource depletion and climate change.
I will be dead by then, but my grandchildren will be trying to feed 12 billion people without oil, while climate zones shift around them and sea level inundates their coastlines.
Stephen Richards
Yes I know the site but it does not have enough detailed observations to be able to make any sort of estimate of annual temperatures
Tonyb
@Entropic Man
...Later this century...
Wake me up when it happens...
Just watched the final part of the Beeb's series Maps: Power, Plunder and Possession. Very disturbing bit on on new mapping of the Arctic seabed in terms of resources and national ownership, and what will happen " when the ice has all melted due to climate change".
Nostradamus...err...EM,
B.S. Where's your crystal ball? You can see 80 years into the future with perfect clarity and certainty, but you couldn't foresee the 16-18 year stoppage (yes, I said it) of global warming? And yes, I said global warming, because that is your nightmare. Have the courage to say global warming and not climate change, because climate change also includes global cooling.
We, our parents, grandparents, and ancestors have overcome a lot more challenges than may be faced by a small rise in temperature (and a drop in temperature would be far worse). And if your grandchildren will be "trying to feed 12 billion people without oil, while climate zones shift around them and sea level inundates their coastlines," I suggest you send them to a better school where they learn a little common sense and how to solve problems for themselves.
Salopian
Yes I watched it too.Briilliant programme.
When they talked about maps being used for power, prestige, advancement of ideas etc I was put in mind with the parallels to the IPCC reports.
Tonyb
Honestly, Raff, can you really not tell the difference between the world of today and that of the 1910's? Denying the reduction in infant mortality alone is perverse.
Nov 8, 2014 at 9:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man
"my grandchildren will be trying to feed 12 billion people without oil, while climate zones shift around them and sea level inundates their coastlines."
=================================================
We've heard all this overblown, hysterical, scaremongering claptrap before, and none of it has ever come true. EVER!
...but my grandchildren will be trying to feed 12 billion people without oil...
That's nothing! My great-grandparents had to feed their family with no electricity, pesticides or genetic engineering. They wouldn't have believed what their great-grandchildren were able to do.
I confidently expect the same of my grandchildren. If yours follow your example, however, they will probably be living in a cave...
Hey EM! Give us six numbers between 1 and 49 - you know the future so I'll believe you have the power.
102 years ago the Wright brothers flew from Kill Devil Hills in NC. They managed a couple of hundred yards. Fewer than 60 years later man walked on the moon. Do you have so little belief in the ingenuity of man that your grand-children (and so on) will not benefit from the developments of man yet to be made? There is no way that you can frame your descendants' lives in the context of yours.
Dodgy geezer
They also had 50% child, mortality, an average lifespan of 40 years and a world population of 1 billion. We live better than they do at the cost of 80 million barrels of oil per day. Once the oil is gone we will revert to their situation after a bloody population crash.
Harry passmore
I lack your optimistic belief in progress. Your example of flight is well chosen to illustrate the fallacy of human progress Our capabilities peaked 40 years ago with the Moon landings and have declined ever since.
another artic blast in north america: the mysterious ways of all that "trapped heat", eh..
Phil R
CO2 increase is the cause, global warming ia the effect, climate change is the consequences. They are distinct phenomena, not synonyms.
EM: you're so wrong. Flight capabilities did not "peak" (could have been a pause, you know) 40 years ago. What did you fly in then? An old 707 or newish 747? When only four-engined aircraft could cross the Atlantic? Just look at what aerospace has achieved since then - Concorde was a real aircraft, you know.
Landing on the moon was a Kennedy token. Using the technology that got us there is man's token. You are well behind the curve if you think that aerospace ended in 1969.
Of course, if we have declined ever since, as you say, we'll be flying old turboprops soon - and stealth bombers and SSTs will be a figment of [y]our imaginations.
Salopian, tonyb
Relax. The experts at BH, WUWT and Climate etc assure us that the Arctic ice is not melting. There is therefore no danger of conflict over Arctic resources which will remain inaccessible. :-)
unless technology advances ..which it never does ........in Climate Loony Lalaland (but we live in the real world)
EM,
This is complete gibberish and makes absolutely no sense at all. Let's see if this can be put in the proper order.
Science, at it's very core, is based on observation first and foremost, then proposes hypotheses to explain those observations. To the extent that global warming is (or was) happening, it was an empirical observation. Once observed, scientists developed hypotheses to explain the observed warming. The preferred hypothesis of the warmists and moneygrubbers is that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature (i.e., global warming). Fair enough, and there was correlation during the 1980s and 1990s. But remember, correlation does not imply causation. However, you have already accepted as fact that CO2 alone causes global warming and yet you cannot explain, or avoid addressing, how global warming stopped over the last 18 years even though CO2 has continued to increase.
And climate change is not an effect. Climate change is a convenient obfuscation to hide the fact that global warming has stopped and you don't know why.
Henry passmore
Concorde is gone and supersonic passenger travel with it. So are the SR71 and the X-15. The pattern of current airliners was set by the Boeing 767 in 1981.
The United States, supposedly the most advanced nation in the world, cannot put a man over Mach 3 or above the Karman Line, let alone put him into orbit.
The Russians are still using the 1970s vintage Soyuz and the Chinese spacecraft are similar.
Progress in aviation was always measured by bigger faster and higher. By those measures, capabilities have been in retreat for decades.
Price ..apart from bloody UK eco taxes (which is why I'll fly via Norway) flyinghas advanced to become much cheaper, quieter etc
...stop digging mate ..and get some sleep ..you'll wake up with new inspiration in the morning
"In experimentation, it is always necessary to start from a particular fact and proceed to the generalization....but above all, one must observe"
-Claude Bernard
So do we have a Metallica fan for a cartoonist? Who's the Master of Puppets? Maurice Strong or Crispin Tickel?
Alan Kennedy: "You miss the point. After 100 years of more of fossil fuel use by developed countries there is a great deal less hunger, poverty and disease in the developed world. Go figure."
No you miss the point. Your Bishop said,
So what action do you and he think we should be taking to alleviate third world hunger, poverty and disease? Come on, it is not a difficult question if you are serious instead of posturing. Your Bishop has no problem identifying some "irreversible impacts that require more immediate action" so let's have your or his suggested action.
Brute, I have no need to deny anything. Fossil fuels have done wonders for the developed world. I want to see whether your collective horror at the fate of those in terrible conditions amounts to anything more than a hammer with which to hit "greens" or whether it has a form that can be clearly expressed and acted upon.
Nov 9, 2014 at 12:27 AM | shub asks the raff-troll:
It never ceases to amaze me how these attention-seeking thread-derailers are soooo similar in their ... uh ..."approach".
Reminds me of the good old days when I was involved in combatting the drivel spouted by Holocaust deniers! So easy to spot ... Such cretins were so quick to parrot the unexamined bill of goods they'd picked up somewhere along the way and oh-so-dutifully copied 'n pasted as though it were gospel truth!
To the best of my recollection, not a single one was able to conjure-up an approach that was even remotely deserving of consideration. Although a few - in their virtually infinite ignorance of history and reality - did provide amusement from time to time.
YMMV, but to my mind Raff and the Entropic one (aka his doppler/partner in slime) are not even amusing.
But back to the actual subject of this thread ...
As always, Josh, so eloquent, so timely, and so right-on-the-mark.
Thank you for this reminder of that of which we sometimes lose sight and from which (as I noted above!) others so desperately - and oh-so-lamely and transparently - attempt to detract.
Raff:
Finance for coal-fired power plants in developing countries. For clean water, anti-malaria.
Not finance for wind turbines in Sierra Leone.
Hilary Ostrov:
I have seen enough poverty and deprivation on this planet to know that you are right to say that they are not amusing, and that they are indeed 'partners in slime'.
Raff, you make things up and, when call on it, you make more things up. It's pointless.
But I'll humour you once more and give you one example.
Lesotho is sitting (like the UK) on sizeable coal deposits. There were plans to use some of that coal for electricity generation — you know, the sort of thing that can pump clean water, provide clean methods of heating, provide cheap lighting for schools and homes and reliable energy for drainage and sewerage systems. The sort of thing that we in the "developed" world take for granted.
And who was using every means at their disposal to block this plan (successfully so far)? Yes, that's right; our old friends Greenpeace.
Let me remind you, for the umpteenth time, of the words of Michael Oppenheimer, of the US Environmental Defense Fund Nice, eh?
And the Four Riders of the Apocalypse welcomed into their midst a Fifth, and looked on him in wonder.
For Rider Sustainable did not ride a horse, but drove a Prius, and wore his Greenpeace/WNF/FotE pins with pride; but they nodded and approved his lethal weaponry composed of the Scything Windmill, the Crushing Tome of Despair - strangely and cryptically labeled "IPCC AR5" - but his most dangerous weapon was his voice, for he could entice people to ruin by convincing them it was already too late to repent and their time had come.
... an inspired joke and a quick exchange with a similarly sceptical friend turned into this :) (Feel free Josh)
Well said, Hilary.
The remarkable power to accurately divine the future is an instant giveaway that we are dealing with a belief system, not facts. And it is always accompanied by a new set of rules and prescriptions about what we "must" do now.
Good one, Josh. About time that the human consequences of abstract ideas like "saving the planet" were put in visual form.
Entropic man (our very own 'Paul Ehrlich'):
That was of course Lomborg's comment not mine. But yes I would agree with him. Meanwhile you forgot to mention the undisputed (by any scientist - consensus not needed!) probabilities relating to extra-terrestrial bodies slamming into the Earth. Tons of money on that? Actually, not. Now why should that be?
This is not the place for refutation of mere supposition but on resources, all the elements on earth aside from helium, are present to the degree to which they were around when the earth was formed. There is no resource problem nor likely to be. That doesn't stop nonsense being uttered regarding 'reserves' of this that and the other.I refer you to Tim Worstall who earns his living by knowing what he's talking about on this subject.
One small example: Nature/Mineral demands
Eventually fossil fuels will indeed give out but there are plenty of people around looking and developing imaginative solutions for that one.
OMFG this thread is hilarious!
The green mask slips to reveal a misanthropic Malthusian, surprising no-one.
And this will be a lot easier if those benighted souls in Lesotho (and other parts of what Oppenheimer would like to remain "darkest" Africa) were allowed to attain or at least aim at our level of development, wealth, health, and longevity.
EM doesn't want that and Raff thinks we don't want it in spite of everything that this site has been saying for as long as I've been contributing to it.
'Immorality of inaction'
When you introduce sound-bites to a science debate, surely it ceases to be science and instead becomes a sales pitch? And I ain't buying whatever they're selling.