Catch 22;
The IPCC are using incorrect fossil fuel energy quantities available.
Decline in available oil, gas and coal will cause greater CO2 reduction
than all the expensive programs.
It is absolutely certain that alternative energy systems need to be
developed but for much more urgent reasons than global warming.
They are also needed much earlier than for global warming reasons.

To construct such enormous infrastructure will require large production
of steel and other building supplies. We should leave our coal and oil
energy system intact to enable the transition to whatever energy system follows.

Julian, stop your worrying. Nuclear war is far more likely to get us before mass starvation does.

Israel and Iran are on a collision course and so are the imperialist U.S. and China.

Enjoy your day!

Well, when any of this stuff actually happens, I'll apologise humbly to Julian. Till then I'm going to file it with the story about the 50 million climate refugees we're going to get by 2010:

http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-refugees/

By the way, Julian, I note that you've already predicted an Apocalypse of Weeds and an Apocalypse of Nanotechnology.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2584
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4411

So make up your mind: how ARE all the self-indulgent guilty capitalists going to die in order to satisfy your loathing for the human race? You really need to get your story straight on this.

Jon J. Well said that man! Could not agree more. Julian, the only immediate and future threat to food supply is you envirocooks mandating food conversion to fuel.

Yep, PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the World Bank are, of course, famous 'envirocrooks. As is the Pentagon.

Julian
Just supposing for a moment that any of the emission and temperature projections are right - and basically they are pile of guesswork, not settled science as some people have tried to pretend - then where does the hunger part come from? You and several others are assuming that higher temperatures means less rainfall.. what will probably happen (assuming any of the projections are right) is that the growing areas and rainfall patterns will shift around. More of Russia will become productive, maybe less of central Africa.

After all, the bulk of the world's hunger has to do with political issues and failure to introduce rule of law, not local growing conditions as such. If you want to make a difference chuck away the climate scare stories and insist on transparent government decision making in third world countries..

Well argued, and from a base of actual knowledge, which is clearly found wanting in some of the detractors?
A rise of just 2C, as attested to by the palaeoecological record, will be enough to melt the frozen tundras, and release the trillions of tons of methane they hold.
Ditto various continental shelves!
The release of this methane, which by the way equates per unit, to 21 units of carbon, will increase global temperature by at least a further additional 3C, making a total rise in ambient temps, of 5C Min.
A rise in average ambient temperatures of just 5C, will turn the British isles into a windswept salt laden desert, with wind speeds regularly exceeding 300Kph!
Nothing could or will grow in such an environment, and no normal commerce would be possible.
Nonetheless, climatic conditions there, would pale into insignificance, beside the almost endless and destructive storms, that would ravage more tropical climes, with the frequency, season and destructive abilities of cyclones, hurricanes, tornadoes and summer storms, trebled.
Long before we see any of this, our food production possibilities will be seriously curtailed; and or, largely limited to under bullet/hail proof polycarbonate and serviced via reliable sea water, filtered through ag pipes, wrapped in salt filtering membrane. Plants doing the work of pumps, all while providing pristine collectable reusable evaporate and life preserving oxygen!
Justice will be served in full measure, on the offspring of all who stood in the way of essential, climate moderating change.
[Please please, live to see it!]
We can actually ring in these changes; and peacefully reduce population numbers, all while prospering every economy.
The only ones adversely affected?
Those with an addiction to fossil fuels, or large shareholdings in same.
Or indeed, a predilection for the most expensive alternatives, thereby effectively and endlessly, extending our reliance on fossil fuels indefinitely!
Rhrosty.

Do catch up Julian, you are sounding like a cracked record, stuck in the groove, & you know how out of date records are don't you, or do you?

This old boogeyman is long past. Time to get a new catastrophe to write about.

This article is grotesque; the predictions by the World Bank and this other mob are predicated on discredited theories about climate sensitivity.

For a definition of climate sensitivity see:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-man-made-global-warming-been.html

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-global-warming-been-disproved-part-2.html

Anyway I'm surprised the author didn't rely on this paper which predicts temperature increases of 12C:

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552

This isn't science, it is science fiction and this article relies on this nonsense.

Candide, do you realise what humungous amounts of money PriceWaterhouseCoopers and their kind stand to make if 'environmental accounting' is given governmental approval? Think on that for a moment, then consider whether they don't have just as much motivation to be 'envirocrooked' as, say, James Hansen or Peter Gleick.

As for the World Bank, it doesn't just manufacture the money, you know, it has to get it from somewhere: and terrifying the crap out of taxpayers and governments who don't know any better is a very effective way of securing copious supplies of ready cash.

As a taxpayer I am not terrified Jon J - just depressed that people like you are so frightened of the facts that you would rather the human race faces a gruesome future that do the hard yards here and now so that the world will be an OK place for people in the future. The real people haters are you and your ilk.

Candide says:

"The real people haters are you and your ilk."

Not true; the AGW supporters are the misanthropes:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/our-abc-green-narrative.html

Rhrosty

This comment: "A rise of just 2C, as attested to by the palaeoecological record, will be enough to melt the frozen tundras, and release the trillions of tons of methane they hold."

Sorry but straight speculation, and the bit about palaeontological record is a real stretch from anything that actually happened. Granted that there is a chance this might happen, if and when temperatures actually do increase by 2 degrees,and granted there is an episode in climate history that can be invoked as part of the scare story but if you look closely at reliable sources you'll find it wasn't an overnight, or even over century matter. Basically you're on new ground, if and when temperatures do rise by the forecast amounts..

As for the current methane content in the atmosphere you find that if you look at records for the Cape Grim CSIRO measuring site you'll find that methane content has actually leveled off in the past decade. there has been some speculation about why its leveled off, with a lot of the betting on improvements to European gas pipelines, but no one really knows.

Julian
It is in PWC's commercial interests to take the AGW pseudo science as gospel, as it generates lots of consulting business from alarmed clients who mistakenly believe in AGW. That business would not exist if PWC took the opposite view.

With regard to the World Bank's alarmist report about global temperature rising by 4 degrees by century-end, I will take the lazy way out and refer you to OLO contributor Don Aitkin's comment at

http://donaitkin.com/the-world-bank-cries-climate-disaster/

If the ice is at -40c, why would it melt at -38c degree ?

Isn't the World Bank closely associated with the United Nations? Apparently some people think this is an organisation of world banks?? No, it is simply an arm of the originators of the big warming scam, the UN. Its no co-incidence that all these reports are coming out now before the next big climate meeting. Its all about pushing the public to push the pollies to do what the UN wants.

Here is the IPCC Calendar. http://www.ipcc.ch/scripts/_calendar_template.php?wg=8#.ULRFh4ZadT8

Its clearly a tax payer funded full time job for hundreds of people pushing the big agenda. Looks like it really pays for some!

Bazz

you raise a good point about the ice.. certainly the temperature increases should not be enough to melt the ice but the scare story is linked to an acceleration in the normal ice burg forming process.

As you are probably aware iceburgs are always breaking off the likes of the greenland and antarctic ice sheets - the higher temps are supposed to boost the breakup process.. something along the lines of more water lubricating the base of the ice sheet, or at least that use to be the story. Of late scientists have come to the sad conclusion that ice sheets just don't don't break up that fast, and that's why you don't hear about the really big sea level increases of meters within a century any more.

Satellite measurements of sea level increases, incidentally, show that they have increasing at exactly the same, small rate of 3.1 mm a year almost since the IPCC was formed. No change at all.. see http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

cohenite,

...but you keep linking to your blog.

Here's a good demonstration on what happens when the people with real scientific credentials come up against the non-credentialed "skeptics".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s

(hint cohenite is Michael Palin:)

For once somebody is talking about how near we are to tipping points. This is not something to put off until some politically convenient time.

We are dangerously close to the point where plants breathe in oxygen and emit carbon. Will food be edible in that form? Should we destroy all our crops because they compete with us for air?

In the last few years, food prices on certain items have rocketed. Partly because we like to eat unseasonal food from other regions, adding to transport costs and therefore carbon emissions.

Another reason is that the duopoly has taken advantage of the odd cyclone to inflate all food costs from every region.

The main reason however, is because unseasonal cool weather has slowed growth, droughts have caused crop failures and flooding has washed away whole areas of food production.

Nobody wants to say it but peak oil happened some time back and that is why we have such a surge in oil prices. To admit that would create mass panic. What that means to the average person is a lack of everything we take for granted including food.

Self-sufficiency may not be the answer either, because if the weather does not allow food to grow we will still fall short.

We need to get serious about the issue of food security in Australia, instead of arguing about whether climate change is happening and is anthropogenic. Less than 2% of the Earth’s water is potable and much of that is polluted. We have toxic plantation trees in our water catchments, chemical sprays in water tables and CSG, which is rapidly poising what little water we have left. When the water runs out, you have only days to live. As water is essential for food production, even if you have some water in the tank, the food will run out and you have weeks.

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is another warning sign. Bees are responsible for two-thirds of what you eat. They are dying en-masse globally. To quote Einstein “When the bees die man has 4-years to live” Mathematics again… funny that.

David Leigh says:

"We are dangerously close to the point where plants breathe in oxygen and emit carbon. Will food be edible in that form? Should we destroy all our crops because they compete with us for air?"

That would only be fair; I've seen plenty of humans, especially pro-AGW advocates, impersonating vegetables.

cohenite et al,

http://theconversation.edu.au/straw-man-science-keeping-climate-simple-10782

"Straw man climate science is like real climate science, but without all the annoying science."

>>We are dangerously close to the point where plants breathe in oxygen and emit carbon.<<

No we're not: plants have been aerobically respiring since before we climbed down from the trees - let alone started releasing lots of CO2. Although technically they don't really breathe unless they're Triffids.

Looks like it's not just the deniers who aren't all that fussed with all that annoying science.

Cheers,

Tony

There is some argument about sea level rise at the Port Arthur tide mark.
Since 1888 according to one measurement by Commander J Short RN;
He found the mark to be 34cm above sea level - only 2½ cm different to its current position.;

The sea has risen 0.3 mm per year since 1888.

For what it is worth;

http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm

Julian is right.,
The latest research shows that Global warming is vicious circle producing a catastrophic thawing of the artic permafrost and Methane emissions.
Human-induced emissions now appear to have warmed the Arctic enough to unlock this vast carbon bank, with stark implications for international efforts to hold global warming to a safe level. Ancient forests locked under ice tens of thousands of years ago are beginning to melt and rot, releasing vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the air.
Advertisement
The report estimates the greenhouse gases leaking from the thawing Arctic will eventually add more to emissions than last year's combined carbon output of the US and Europe – a statistic which means present global plans to hold climate change to an average 2degree temperature rise this century are now likely to be much more difficult.
Until very recently permafrost was thought to have been melting too slowly to make a meaningful difference to temperatures this century, so it was left out of the Kyoto Protocol, and ignored by many climate change models.
"Permafrost emissions could ultimately account for up to 39 per cent of total emissions," said the report's lead author, Kevin Schaefer, of the University of Colorado, who presented it at climate negotiations in Doha, Qatar. "This must be factored in to treaty negotiations expected to replace the Kyoto Protocol."
What isn't known is the precise rate and scale of the melt, and that is being tackled in a remarkable NASA experiment that hardly anyone has heard of, but which could prove to be one of the most crucial pieces of scientific field work undertaken this century.

Really those who believe in an impending crisis idea are similar to the adherents of the Mayan prophecy. Facts to support the end of the world idea are elusive.

The loss of bee colonies for example, wrongly attributed WITHOUT evidence to Global Warming and pesticides was found to be caused by a Mite which carries a virus causing wings to be deformed. You would think after reading some posts here that this had never been discovered. They ignore the facts and pursue their wacky ideas. e.g that the loss of bees was a 'warning sign' Really?

Global Worriers theory - If the facts don't tally, ignore the facts and carry on.

Of course, Atman, the Mayans are renowned for their scientific prowess (their jet propulsion laboratory is the stuff of legends:)...so there's definitely a correlation there : )

As for bee colony decimation - it's complicated.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May07/bees.kr.html

Don't worry about the honey bees Poirot, they'll be right, just like the butterflies:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/butterfly_broken/

PEST

I also saw that article on methane from permafrost in the SMH. Now go and look at the actual concentrations of methane in the atmosphere as recorded at the CSIRO Cape Grim site..
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/research/capegrim_graphs.html click on the methane graphic

Basically the concentration of methane in the atmosphere leveled off about the turn of the century, and remain well below projections made in 2000. There has been a slight uptick in the last couple of years but levels would have to move up a fair way before they get anywhere near even the business as usual scenarios..

No one has yet been able to satisfactorily explain why methane levels haven't budged much although a favored explanation concerns fixing up of European natural gas pipelines.

curmudgeon:"Basically the concentration of methane in the atmosphere leveled off about the turn of the century, and remain well below projections made in 2000. There has been a slight uptick in the last couple of years but levels would have to move up a fair way before they get anywhere near even the business as usual scenarios..
No one has yet been able to satisfactorily explain why methane levels haven't budged much although a favored explanation concerns fixing up of European natural gas pipelines."

Don't you mean "Basically the concentration of methane in the atmosphere leveled off about the turn of the century For about five years, and remain well below projections made in 2000. There has been an uptick in the last 6 years, which is simlilar to the previous pre-200 rate of increase, but levels would have to move up by a few percent before they get anywhere near the middle of the projected scenarios..

No one has yet been able to satisfactorily explain why methane levels leveled off for 5 years, although a favored explanation concerns fixing up of European natural gas pipelines, which presumably all broke again in 2006."

There, fixed.

Poirot

Your link to the Bees problem was from 2007 ...way out of date. No-one knew the cause then. By 2012 the real cause was discovered. Hence your explanation of the problem being 'complex' is patently false. The cause of the problem has been discovered and it doesn't support with the ecological disaster theory.

Secondly, its not the Mayans I'm referring to, its the disaster theorists who believe that the end of the world is nigh. Some of them use the Mayan calendar theory and others the loosely cobbled together enviro-disaster theory yet they are very similar in their approach and conclusions. Get some information and piece it together to support the answer you already believe in.

Atman,

Bee colony decimation - it's complicated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/29/crop-pesticides-honeybee-decline?intcomp=122

I glean my information from climate scientists such as oceanographers and atmospheric physicists, etc.....as opposed to perusing inexpert opinion on denialist blogsites....something you'd no doubt recommend.

Right. So fracking causes earthquakes, bears are drowning in the north pole due to melting sea ice, population growth means higher suicide and murder rates, global warming is creating killer storms, the sea level is rising at an astronomical rate, we won't be able to feed ourselves due to climate change and over population, we'll run out of oil/petrol and alternative power sources are useless anyway, disease will run rampant, the Sydney Opera House will be underwater, the Mayans prophesised this and we're all fools except for a select few who have synthesised this and who speak with one voice - 'we're buggered'.

Now you're picking on the bees...

Cheryl,

Your post is "alarmist" - not mine.

In fact, your post is almost solid alarmist strawman (although you're expecting if you list all the concerns in one trite over-simplified vignette, you won't be required to knock them down)

I'm curious - is the reference to Mayans the latest "skeptic" technique?

It's funny how Atman accepts a "scientific" conclusion regarding mites on bees, but rejects overwhelming scientific consensus on climate. It's always fascinating that climate "skeptics" don't have a problem with other scientific disciplines, but think climate scientists are conducting a massive fraud.

You guys are the Mayans of the 21st century - not the climate scientists.

Bugsy

Only a five year pause for methane? Hmmm! Its true that the readings shown some slight activity in the past few years, but nothing to write home about, and nothing like the pre-2000 increases .. still go with uptick in the past two years.. but thanks for the feedback.

Bugsy and Curmudgeon,

Regarding methane emission fluxes in the Arctic:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/06/methane-game-upgrade/

Gee Cheryl, thanks for the warning.

I'd best go do those couple of round Oz trips in my 12 liter V8 petrol SUV, towing my 36Ft caravan, before the whole place goes under water, & we all burn up in the flood, as we starve.

If it hadn't been for your warning, I might have left it to next month, & it been too late to even start.

Don't care too much about the Opera House, I never did care for those fat ladies, who always had to have the last word.

Do you think I aught to tow a 36Ft boat along as well, just in case? Must apply the precautionary principle I suppose.

Curmudgeon:"thanks for the feedback"

You're very welcome, god knows you need it.

Ok, so the pause was more like 7 or so years, but the trend has up wards of about 6.4ppb/year since 2007, compared to 6.8ppb in the five yeasrr preceeding 2000 (1994-1999), which is pretty similar don't you think?
Have a look your self:
http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/
(Select methane)
A bit longer than a couple of years, so what happened? Did all the European gas pipeline break down five years ago? I didn't hear about that.

Time to get a new story, you've been trotting out that one for years now...

Hasbeen said;
Do you think I aught to tow a 36Ft boat along as well, just in case?

Yes, but make sure it is a trailer sailer !

Interesting video - "What Colour is a Glacier?"

Complexities.

Scientists.

Questions.

http://vimeo.com/51589462

Please don't worry Cheryl, we are not all fools, its the select few who are the noisy denialists while the vast majority, the 'we all', accept the reality of climate change.

Hmmm. Very interesting Candide.

It would seem that your - "the vast majority, the 'we all'" - are quickly becoming the vast minority, the 'who, not us bro'.

Go read -
Reuters
EU climate fight hit by new record low carbon price
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/30/us-carbon-price-idUSBRE8AT0U020121130

Yo LOL!

You've gotta love it. Bring it all on.

Cheers all.

Julian
You fail to mention the part that the science and economics illiterate Greens and their disciples are playing in bringing on the famines.

Whereas the provision of low-cost electricity would assist food production, thanks to the Greens preaching the AGW dogma, electricity provision has become much more costly due to enforced measures, e.g. taxing of anthropogenic emissions, to subsidise the supply of more unreliable and uneconomic renewable energy. Even more ironic is the diversion of certain crop harvests from food to renewable fuels production.

As a result of bowing to the Greens' demands for environmental flows , the Government's enacted Murray-Darling Plan will result in lower irrigation water allocation and consequently lower food production. Ironically, the Plan completely overlooked the restoration of natural environmental flows at the Murray mouth, where once the last 70 or so kilometres of the river were subject to tidal flows, until barrages were installed right at the river mouth so as to turn the water in Lake Alexandrina from salt to fresh. Thus, many gigalitres of MD water are lost to evaporation. Furthermore, the environmentalists forget that, prior to the building of storage dams on rivers in the MD basin, natural flow in those rivers was reduced to a trickle for at least 10 months of the year.

And there's more! The declaration of vast areas of marine parks, will ensure that Australia's former fishing grounds will become the most under-utilised -- and the sharks will become the best-fed -- in the world.