'Turn Down the Heat' Warns Without Policy Action, Results Could Be Dire

New scientific report, 'Turn Down the Heat' says the world is barreling down a path to heat up by 4 degrees at the end of the century if the global community fails to act on climate change, triggering a cascade of cataclysmic changes that include extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks and a sea-level rise affecting hundreds of millions of people. President Jim Yong Kim says the world must tackle the problem of climate change more aggressively.

http://www.worldbank.org/climatechange

Link to report: http://climatechange.worldbank.org/co...

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[haladacara]

We ignore the deceptively sophisticated core of the denialist movement at our peril. While some deniers only repeat talking points, that propaganda machine actually affects more intelligent deniers more strongly, training them to self-select information from a carefully maintained stable of denialist sources funded by the fossil fuel industry. We must take the rhetorical battle directly to these sources and demonstrate their errors and bias in the most public and dramatic manner possible.

[Rafael Gómez-R]

First, tell other people in your families, friends, net works. Open their eyes. WB is an official non-radical but scientifically grounded voice. If the WB president calls for urgent action this is serious. Growing consciousness will lead to citizens demanding their governments to do the right thing. We have the power but we don´t know. Every single action counts. Together we citizens can demand clean renewable energy, oil progressive substitution, and food for people not for cows or pigs.

[1000frolly]

I do not think it is silly to be precise.

Just look at where all the imprecise science of global warming has led us-right up the garden path to a dead end.

[aylesmerep]

Oh come on, you nitpicker - this is a Youtube comment thread, not a Nature or Science type journal. The equilibrium climate sensitivity is routinely referred to as the global equilibrium temperature increase expected for a doubling of CO2. Stop being so silly.

[1000frolly]

Do you really know anything about this subject?

The 0.15 that I was speaking of is the climate sensitivity, (NOT the temperature increase for a doubling of CO2).

To get the temperature change, you multipy the climate sensitivity by the forcing; in this case 3.8c.

i.e. 0.15 x 3.8 = 0.57c

Try to control your tendency to add ad-hominems constantly.

[1000frolly]

Let me tell you what the 'consensus' really is; CO2 is a GHG. (I and Lindzen agree)

It is rising (at least partly) because of human activity. (I and Lindzen agree)

This should warm the climate. (I and Lindzen agree)

CO2 is not the main climate driver. (I and Lindzen agree)

As you should know, the argument is ONLY about climate sensitivity.

[aylesmerep]

So you deny that, as Richard Lindzen, darling of the smarter "sceptics," says:

"Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate"

That's from an interview in the NYTimes but if you want more, saying the same thing, including directly from his work, just ask.

CO2 IS a climate driver.

[1000frolly]

Mate, just what do you know about climate science?

The GCMs are quite useless, and have proven themselves to be over and over.

Volcanos are not relevant much to the climate, but its very relevant how the GCMs hindcast them. The results show that models are overly sensitive.

The GCM's are told that CO2 drives the climate, and so the results from the models simply track CO2.

You do not need models at all if you are going to input this in; all you need is a graph of CO2 and re-name it "temperature"

[aylesmerep]

"the GCMs, which cannot even predict 15 years of cooling in advance"

Well, it isn't 15 years of planetary cooling is it? It's drawing a trend line from a hot surface temp year, when a cyclic event pushed a lot of heat out of the sea and into the atmosphere, to today where more heat is going into the ocean and less is warming the surface. The whole planet is still steadily warming and that is what will cause all the long term trouble. GCMS handled Pinatubo well. Volcanoes are mostly irrelevant.

[1000frolly]

My crystal ball is incredibly inaccurate; in fact it was so useless I threw it away yesterday.

However, as I said, it was still better than the GCMs, which cannot even predict 15 years of cooling in advance.

Worse than that, they cannot even hind-cast (predict the past) accurately due to their programmed-in high climate sensitivity.

There are very high residuals, and they also cannot handle volcanos.