4 degrees warming "likely" without CO2 cuts: study

Global temperatures may be 4 degrees Celsius hotter by the mid-2050s if current greenhouse gas emissions trends continue, said a study published on Monday.

[btw]

In our eagerness to avoid about $1 trillion worth of climate damage, we are being asked to spend at least 50 times as much -- and, if we hinder free trade, we are likely to heap at least an additional $50 trillion loss on the global economy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

[Fair Game]

btw wrote:

In our eagerness to avoid about $1 trillion worth of climate damage, we are being asked to spend at least 50 times as much -- and, if we hinder free trade, we are likely to heap at least an additional $50 trillion loss on the global economy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

Accusations of scientific dishonesty

After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.
[edit] DCSD investigation

On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[3]

Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty....In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

1. Fabrication of data;
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5. Plagiarism;
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lombo...

[Fair Game]

Here's what 4 degrees' warming would do to the planet:

http://www.tikkun.org/tikkunblog/wp-content/u...

The SW USA would basically be a desert.

(No doubt Bjorn Lomborg would claim it will be cheaper for all the people there to move to Canada than to do something about AGW.)

[Southern B]

The SW of the USA is a desert. This area suffered a terrible drought 700 or so years ago that lasted for centuries. It drove out nearly all of its residents. Never consider history or facts when making your alarmist predictions.

[Raptor in Michigan]

The other thread said 6 degrees in 100 years. Now it's 4 celcius (39.2 degrees) by 2050. The freaks need to get a life.

[Raptor in Michigan]

Southern B wrote:

The SW of the USA is a desert. This area suffered a terrible drought 700 or so years ago that lasted for centuries. It drove out nearly all of its residents. Never consider history or facts when making your alarmist predictions.

And I'm sitting on top of an old glacier. They seem to forget that change happens.

[frank miller]

Great! That should be a boost to the cruise ship
industry, with new warmer destinations to ply the
seas!
F.M.

[Northie]

Southern B wrote:

The SW of the USA is a desert. This area suffered a terrible drought 700 or so years ago that lasted for centuries. It drove out nearly all of its residents. Never consider history or facts when making your alarmist predictions.

Ignorance rides again. You are referring to the drought that ended the Anasazi and Mayan civilizations. That drought was a side effect of Europe's Medieval Warming Period, demonstrating that warming causes droughts and spreads deserts in the subtropics.

Here is what real scientists have to say about the US Southwest:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/31...

[Northie]

Raptor in Michigan wrote:

The other thread said 6 degrees in 100 years. Now it's 4 celcius (39.2 degrees) by 2050. The freaks need to get a life.

Sorry to confuse you dear, but a temperature rise of 4 degrees Celsius equals a rise of 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, not 39.2.

[Raptor in Michigan]

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry to confuse you dear, but a temperature rise of 4 degrees Celsius equals a rise of 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, not 39.2.

Either way they are full of feces.

[Southern B]

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Ignorance rides again. You are referring to the drought that ended the Anasazi and Mayan civilizations. That drought was a side effect of Europe's Medieval Warming Period, demonstrating that warming causes droughts and spreads deserts in the subtropics.
Here is what real scientists have to say about the US Southwest:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/31...

Yes the Medieval warm period was at the same time which likely caused the Atlantic Ocean to warm which results in drought conditions in the SW. Was that warming and drought caused by man. No. Since I already know what you have posted I was not ignorant. I merely pointed out the tendency for this region to under go extreme drought. Anyone who has been to the SW is not ignorant to the fact that it is a desert and is not being turned into one by global warming.

[Raptor in Michigan]

Southern B wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes the Medieval warm period was at the same time which likely caused the Atlantic Ocean to warm which results in drought conditions in the SW. Was that warming and drought caused by man. No. Since I already know what you have posted I was not ignorant. I merely pointed out the tendency for this region to under go extreme drought. Anyone who has been to the SW is not ignorant to the fact that it is a desert and is not being turned into one by global warming.

And just because it's a desert doesn't mean it's a wasteland, as some people think. A healthy desert ecosystem is teeming with wildlife. Even more so than an old-growth forest. One of my favorite places to go bird watching is, in fact, in the desert southwest.

[Fair Game]

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Ignorance rides again. You are referring to the drought that ended the Anasazi and Mayan civilizations. That drought was a side effect of Europe's Medieval Warming Period, demonstrating that warming causes droughts and spreads deserts in the subtropics.
Here is what real scientists have to say about the US Southwest:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/31...

Thanks.

Had to register, but here's the summary:

How anthropogenic climate change will affect hydroclimate in the arid regions of southwestern North America has implications for the allocation of water resources and the course of regional development. Here we show that there is a broad consensus among climate models that this region will dry in the 21st century and that the transition to a more arid climate should already be under way. If these models are correct, the levels of aridity of the recent multiyear drought or the Dust Bowl and the 1950s droughts will become the new climatology of the American Southwest within a time frame of years to decades.

[Fair Game]

Global warming could happen sooner

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/827...

[Earthling]

IF a 4ºC warming is "likely" without CO2 cuts, it is also "likely" if CO2 is cut.
One day in the future, humans will come to terms with the fact that it's not a good idea to overpopulate anywhere.
Westerners say that some African and Asian nations are guilty of overpopulation, but some western nations are similarly guilty of overpopulating land that cannot support its inhabitants, due to lack of natural resources.

[Brian_G]

If our CO2 doesn't make any difference, let's dump this losing conservation energy strategy and try to reduce poverty by making energy affordable.

[Northie]

Earthling wrote:

IF a 4ºC warming is "likely" without CO2 cuts, it is also "likely" if CO2 is cut.

Twisted logic--and not at all what the academies predict. They forecast considerably lower temperatures ahead if we cut emissions now.

[Northie]

Brian_G wrote:

If our CO2 doesn't make any difference, let's dump this losing conservation energy strategy and try to reduce poverty by making energy affordable.

A megawatt saved costs far less than a megawatt added. Conservation is where it's at, first and foremost.

[Brian_G]

Northie wrote:

A megawatt saved costs far less than a megawatt added. Conservation is where it's at, first and foremost.

Where did you learn math? A megawatt is a megawatt. Conserve when you die.

We need to end the thirty year ban on exploaration off the California coast. We need more, cheaper energy now, not later. We need clean water now, not conservation. We need now, cut taxes. End restrictions that prevent growth.

[Earthling]

Northie wrote:

Twisted logic--and not at all what the academies predict. They forecast considerably lower temperatures ahead if we cut emissions now.

Forecasts are predictions and you know what the guru of AGW says about them:

MattJ wrote:

It is unscientific in the extreme to make predictions

BTW, how's the "cooking?"