Well, yes, 4 oC would be bad

But it’s not going to happen.

One out of six species faces extinction as a result of climate change and urgent action must be taken to save large numbers of animals from being wiped out, an analysis said Thursday.

The study, published in the US journal Science, found that a global temperature rise of four degrees Celsius could spell disaster for a huge number of species around the world.

Sigh:

“If we follow our current, business-as-usual trajectory (leading to a 4.3 degree Celsius rise)… climate change threatens one in six species (16 percent),” the study said.

All these fuckers are doing this.

Whether they’re using the older SRES models or the newer ones for AR5, they are always taking the worst projection and then calling that business as usual. And that is wrong.

No, not arguable, not justifiable, simply wrong. All of the projections are, by design, business as usual. All are deliberately constructed so as to be possible results without any governmental action upon emissions or climate change.

So, whichever people are using, A1FI, or the newer RCP 8.5, this is not “business as usual”, this is “one possible business as usual”.

Except that even that’s not quite right. Because we know absolutely that A1FI isn’t going to happen. We’ve already done enough in getting the price of solar down to make sure that neither that not RCP 8.5 are going to happen. And if we accept the projection that solar will be as cheap as coal in the next 5 years (something I am inclined to accept) then neither of those are in fact remotely possible. For we’re just not going to have a coal intensive energy generation system in 2070 if solar is cheaper than coal in 2020.

Yes, 4 oC would be a bad idea. But before we get upset about it we’ve got to work out how likely it is and the truth is, not very.

13 comments on “Well, yes, 4 oC would be bad

  1. Just a small point; if you hold the alt key and press 248 on the number keypad, when you let go of the alt key it will insert the ASCII character code for the degree sign so instead of 4oC you will get 4°C. Assuming that the text editor will allow it to display like that, it certainly works OK in the comments now as I type it. By the way it only works with the keypad on the extended keyboard not with the number keys above QWERTY.

  2. Yep, couple of minor details.

    Here we are in the UK at 50º+N, thus are less concentrated sun rays per sq metre. So, even covering every piece of available land – photo voltaic conversion of solar energy always will be a drop in the ocean and no answer to Britain’s energy requirements. The other rather salient bit – there ain’t much sun in the winter.

    They couldn’t make it [solar energy network] work in Spain, think on.

    Coal, in efficient burners gives base load electricity – something we all need.

    Why do you think they are building new coal generation plant in the fatherland?

    Have a gander over at the German experience – surging electrical power from their wunderbar green energy efforts combined, is regarded by industry and domestic consumers as useless, they try to sell it off to surrounding nations [Poland, Czechs] who don’t want it either – see No Tricks Zone blog.

    If we subtract Hydro, then, Green energy is no answer to energy supply requirements – in the northern hemisphere – period.

  3. Forget all the figures and all the other bogus bollocks Tim.

    This crew are proposing socialist tyranny using –literally–hot air as their “justification”. No amount of figures is going to convince them because they don’t really give a shite about the environment.

  4. Yes, 4 oC would be a bad idea. But before we get upset about it we’ve got to work out how likely it is and the truth is, not very.

    I am not sure that there is a lot of evidence that 4C would be bad. At least the sort of people who say it would be are the sort of people who have been wrong about everything else.

    But it does not matter. All the warming we have seen so far, either actual or projected, is the product of 1. useless computer models which have been deliberately fudged to produce the results they wanted or 2. adjusting the raw data upwards.

    Global warming may happen one day. We have no evidence it is happening now.

  5. Gotta agree with Mr. Ecks. They are totally söçâlïst wäñkêrs and shîƒè bags.

  6. Coal, in efficient burners gives base load electricity – something we all need.

    Why do you think they are building new coal generation plant in the fatherland?

    Because they shat themselves over Fukushima and started shutting down their nuclear.

  7. Why on earth do you bother to fret away at these details, Tim, when the CAGW brouhaha is plain fraudulent?

  8. Over the continental US the average temperature varies by about 30 C (there shouldn’t be a degrees sign if your using SI units) over roughly 1500 miles. So temperature varies about 1 C every 50 miles.

    Thus, if you wish to see what your world would look like after a 4 C increase, simply travel 200 miles south. Don’t forget to take your ‘zombie apocalypse’ kit, to deal with the roving Mad Max-style looters and warlords that will infest the parched and barren future!

    The issue is not ‘how much’ but ‘how fast’. The Earth has been more than 4 C warmer (or colder) many times in the past – those species that can only live in a narrow climate range simply move north or south. How in heck do you think all these species survived the end of the ice age, when temperature rose 10 C? The actual question is how fast can they move. If it happened overnight, some species would be in trouble.

    But if it happens over 200 years, they have to move about a mile per year – and stuff like trees have to get their seeds dropped a mile away each year. Most climate-sensitive species can do that (they need to be able to to survive shorter-term variations), and the others could be aided artificially.

    Since it looks like the rate is going to be about half that, it’s not likely to be a significant problem.

    There is a tendency for experts to recognise how frequently most media stories have effed up in their own particular domain, but to forget that entirely when reading stories on other subjects, and credulously believe every word of them. (It’s been dubbed the ‘Gell-Mann Amnesia effect’.) In this case, I’d say they messed up the ecology/climate science as badly as the economics. Does that give you a clue how badly climate science is messed up?

  9. I’m somewhat surprised only “one out of six species faces extinction”. Or is it “climate change” protecting the other five, so these are the ones got left out?
    All species are facing extinction, to one degree or another. That’s how evolution works. Or we’d all be 18 ft high, with scales & lay eggs. (Well, she who must be obeyed, anyway). So, at any time, there’s going to be at least one in six headed for extinction in the foreseeable future. But not cockroaches. Nor, unfortunately, estate agents.

  10. NiV
    Thus, if you wish to see what your world would look like after a 4 C increase, simply travel 200 miles south.

    Or about 600 meters higher. On your figures, that would be about ten feet per year. Since living things have a tendency to disperse, this doesn’t seem to me to be impossible.

  11. According to the article, 23% of S American species are for the chop.
    Since we don’t know even to an order of magnitude how many species there are in S America one wonders which end of their arses the study authors pulled this quite specific figure from.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.