3 ms·

The IPCC 4th assessment report states that greater than 40% of species are likely to be extinct given a temperature increase of ~3.8C, with 30% of species at in

by chrisb 16y ago

The IPCC 4th assessment report states that greater than 40% of species are likely to be extinct given a temperature increase of ~3.8C, with 30% of species at increasing risk of extinction given a temperature increase of only ~1.5C. A rise of 1.5C is certain to happen by 2100, even in the best case scenario where emissions peak soon; and a rise of 4.0C is depressingly likely given the current continuous rise in emissions. See pages 22, 23 and 29 of the synthesis report: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf I would recommend everyone reads this report; it's not too long, and I found it very readable and succinct. Given that we're all going to be affected, isn't it worth knowing the facts about this stuff?

jozo 16y ago
Also readable online at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.htm... I would assume this is where the 70% came from: "[...] As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5°C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40 to 70% of species assessed) around the globe." http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-4.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-4...
- jbarham 16y ago
  > 40 to 70% That's one heck of a margin of error.
WozRocks 16y ago
The IPCC is a political institution and its reports have no scientific validity. If you want to know the facts about this stuff, look into the IR absorbtion of CO2, and the planets history of temperature and CO2 levels. If you do this, you'll find that the entire global warming movement is operating from a fallacious basis, and that in the past the planet has been warmer, and later, as a result of being warmer, had higher CO2 levels than are projected. Or, in short, the planet has a propensity for ice ages, and these warm periods are to be appreciated. If you belonged to a global anti-science religious cult that was predicting a coming ice age and you were quoting political reports from agencies who want a global tyrannical control over the planet... well, at least then you'd be consistent with history, and predicting something that is likely. The thing is, once you have drunk the global warming koolaide there is little that can be said to pursuade you. You believe what you believe because you want to believe it, and you will accept any "evidence" that you can rationalize to defend your belief. Meanwhile, the science is against you. As the person you're responding to said, this is pure bunk. Pulled out of their asses. Think that most glaciers are receding due to global warming? You're not the only one. There is a lot of propaganda along those lines. Reality -- there are far more glaciers on the planet than have ever been counted, nobody is watching even a fraction of a percentage of them, and thus nobody can say whether they are receding or expanding. It is a bunch of anecdotal BS that gets spread around using pictures of a few glaciers that are receding and then all the anti-science warmist religious nuts start claiming that the glaciers are receding.

by chrisb 16y ago

jozo 16y ago

Also readable online at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.htm... I would assume this is where the 70% came from: "[...] As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5°C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40 to 70% of species assessed) around the globe." http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-4.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-4...

jbarham 16y ago
> 40 to 70% That's one heck of a margin of error.

WozRocks 16y ago

The IPCC is a political institution and its reports have no scientific validity. If you want to know the facts about this stuff, look into the IR absorbtion of CO2, and the planets history of temperature and CO2 levels. If you do this, you'll find that the entire global warming movement is operating from a fallacious basis, and that in the past the planet has been warmer, and later, as a result of being warmer, had higher CO2 levels than are projected. Or, in short, the planet has a propensity for ice ages, and these warm periods are to be appreciated. If you belonged to a global anti-science religious cult that was predicting a coming ice age and you were quoting political reports from agencies who want a global tyrannical control over the planet... well, at least then you'd be consistent with history, and predicting something that is likely. The thing is, once you have drunk the global warming koolaide there is little that can be said to pursuade you. You believe what you believe because you want to believe it, and you will accept any "evidence" that you can rationalize to defend your belief. Meanwhile, the science is against you. As the person you're responding to said, this is pure bunk. Pulled out of their asses. Think that most glaciers are receding due to global warming? You're not the only one. There is a lot of propaganda along those lines. Reality -- there are far more glaciers on the planet than have ever been counted, nobody is watching even a fraction of a percentage of them, and thus nobody can say whether they are receding or expanding. It is a bunch of anecdotal BS that gets spread around using pictures of a few glaciers that are receding and then all the anti-science warmist religious nuts start claiming that the glaciers are receding.