World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency
William J Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Thomas M Newsome, Phoebe Barnard, William R Moomaw Author Notes
BioScience, biz088, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
Published: 05 November 2019

11000 individuals apparently think this publication is science. What am I missing?

Well, one attribute of a scientitific hypothesis is that it is capable of falsification. The article lays out the reasons for the assertion of a climate emergency in admirably clear graphical format.

Perhaps you could indicate which of their indicators is false, or where the conclusions do not follow from the evidence?

11,258 scientist signatories from 153 countries

See the list (zipped)

Avaaz members?

"The article lays out the reasons for the assertion of a climate emergency in admirably clear graphical format."

I must have read a different article Phil. I saw one chart of a temperature metric which increased by about 0.8 degC over 40 years.

Over in Bioscience we’ve the latest insistence that we’ve all got to return to our wattle and daub huts and live, happily ever after, as medieval peasants.

Not sure its worth engaging at that level of dishonesty. Got anything better?

I must have read a different article Phil. I saw one chart of a temperature metric which increased by about 0.8 degC over 40 years.

Thank you for confirming the model projections were accurate. All the economic and scientific analyses I'm aware of indicate that the consequences of future temperature rise in line with that trend range from serious to extremely dangerous.

All Worstall has done is misrepresent what the report says and put up a series of selective straw men.

To take just two

Bioscience: Economic and population growth are among the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion

Worstall: No they’re not. The UK has grown both population and the economy since the 1990s and has reduced emissions over that period of time. Not just emissions per unit of population or economy, but overall emissions.

Classic example of using a selective sample (the UK) to rebut a global claim. The most rapid growth in emissions has come from the developing world, notably China and India, as they have grown their economies and population. Worstall needs to ignore data he doesn't like to make his point.

Bioscience: We should leave remaining stocks of fossil fuels in the ground (see the timelines in IPCC 2018) and should carefully pursue effective negative emissions using technology such as carbon extraction from the source and capture from the air and especially by enhancing natural systems (see “Nature” section).

Worstall: I have me a little test for this. We have a negative emissions technology which we know works and which we know is cheap. It’s also illegal to even test it further. Iron fertilisation of the oceans. My insistence is that no one is being serious if they don’t advocate at least further testing of this process. Other than a few other weirdos like me no one does so advocate – therefore they’re not being serious.

It is Worstall who is not being serious. Iron fertilisation - the creation of artificial algal blooms that sequester carbon to the sea floor has been tested and it does not work, basically all the local predators detect the free lunch and gobble up the surplus algae, also fertilising one area of the ocean causes 'deserts' elsewhere which does not go down well with the local fishermen. Finally, even if it worked, you'd need to fertilise unfeasibly large areas of the seas to make a significant impact.

He really should try opening a scientific paper once in a while.

 Iron fertilization of macronutrient‐rich but biologically unproductive ocean waters has been proposed for sequestering anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2). The first carbon export measurements in the Southern Ocean (SO) during the recent SO‐Iron Experiment (SOFeX) yielded ∼900 t C exported per 1.26 t Fe added. This allows the first realistic, data‐based feasibility assessment of large‐scale iron fertilization and corresponding future atmospheric CO2 prognosis. Using various carbon cycle models, we find that if 20% of the world's surface ocean were fertilized 15 times per year until year 2100, it would reduce atmospheric CO2 by ≲15 ppmv at an expected level of ∼700 ppmv for business‐as‐usual scenarios. Thus, based on the SOFeX results and currently available technology, large–scale oceanic iron fertilization appears not a feasible strategy to sequester anthropogenic CO2.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL022449

So Worstall makes sh*t up, misrepresents and is ignorant of the science, is this the state of art?

Me
I must have read a different article Phil. I saw one chart of a temperature metric which increased by about 0.8 degC over 40 years.
Phil:
Thank you for confirming the model projections were accurate. All the economic and scientific analyses I'm aware of indicate that the consequences of future temperature rise in line with that trend range from serious to extremely dangerous.
**
Thank you for illustrating so clearly the problem that I have with the paper:

I note I have seen a chart and you then extrapolate this to me confirming "model projections were accurate".

Accompanying press coverage of the paper showed a graphic of the global temperature anomaly for this October relative to a 1981 - 2010 base which apparently shows that Antarctica was some 12degC hotter than the base figure.

Do you think that by the fact that I have seen this graphic, I confirm that it is accurate?

The anomaly graphic is shown here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50302392

NBY - I assume you meant their Figure 2d? This actually quotes a trend of 0.183C/decade in the surface temperature since 1979, sourced to NASA GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index in the Supplementary Info. This is in line with model projections for the period.

The global anomaly graphic is sourced to Copernicus

https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-october-2019

I haven't drilled into the data, however there have been some high anomalies in the Arctic in recent times, the daily temperature was 20C and higher above average last year...

The north pole gets no sunlight until March, but an influx of warm air has pushed temperatures in Siberia up by as much as 35C above historical averages this month.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/27/arctic-warming-scientists-alarmed-by-crazy-temperature-rises

no commenters banned over there as far as I know Phil

There are no commenters over there, well just me. Apparently China will be following us in banning coal power by 2025, and a carbon cost of $400 US per tonne counts as 'near zero' on planet Worstall.

Facepalm.

The lead author (Newsome) isn’t even a Prof, he’s a lecturer in environmental science. Then you have a post doc in forestry (Wolf), and two policy people.

Just a Dr, not a full Prof, LOLZ. Well, that's ad hominem rather than substantive, and you seem to have omitted Distinguished Professor William Ripple, who is described in the Guardian as the Lead Author. Also this is an opinion paper published in the Viewpoint section of the journal, its not original climate research. Any trained academic could have done the science review work.

‘We have a negative emissions technology which we know works and which we know is cheap.

Tim Worstall, explaining why he doesn't take people seriously unless they support Ocean Fertilisation, his geoengineering solution of choice.

We have this not entirely understood nor costed method of climate change mitigation’

Worstall again, in comments after I challenged him on this and some other bogus arguments, at Tomo's suggestion.

If you're going to 'delegate' the debate, perhaps choose someone with a clue?

"This is in line with model projections for the period.
Nov 6, 2019 at 10:06 AM | Phil Clarke"

So it must be fake

"Scientists....."

Indeed, GC. Whenever I see "in line with" or "consistent with", I know I am looking at propaganda.

The team have cleaned up invalid signatures that were missed by the original screening. The total remains comfortably above 11,000.

Yet another "discussion" devolving into another spat between Phil Clarke (whoever they may be) and the BH all comers. Not adding much to the sum of human knowledge.

tomo More to the point is how many signatories are the result of a request to sign a hardly-read document that comes across your desk, followed often in my case, when I didn't comply, by a "request" to provide an explanation as to why I did not. Mass signature documents are near worthless. The costs of verification are always too high, and not worth the effort. I applaud those who sabotaged this particular version with Professor Mickey Mouse and the like, demonstrating the lack of quality control.