As we discussed the report in class the message that emerged from the report is that if we do not reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by several 10s of percent, in the next 1 – 3 decades, then the warming and its impacts will become large enough that adaptation is not incremental; that is, adaptation will not, simply, be modifying what we know how to do. In some cases adaptation will not be possible – we will have to do something new, something different. It is also true that as the warming gets larger, we move outside of the range or parameters on which our models were trained. Therefore, model guidance becomes more unreliable
RickyRood, • 12:47 AM GMT on November 16, 2014
There is no doubt that the political instability in Washington extends through to the day-to-day practice of science – perhaps, disruption is the goal of our science policy makers. It is counter to what a nation needs to compete in the world, and it is counter to what is needed to address the challenges we face as a nation and individuals. I keep coming back to those Beardogs at the Watering Hole.
RickyRood, • 5:31 AM GMT on November 11, 2014
I find the need of the summary reports to hold on to this language frustrating – shuffling madness. The idea that “dangerous” still lurks beyond the horizon and that there is a tipping point that we can avoid is stupefying. And I find the notion that “will” is all that is missing from simple, non-disruptive solutions is naïve. The IPCC synthesis reports are part of the political discourse, and as such, enter into a world that runs on many fickle factors, of which, climate change is far down the priority list. I continue to maintain that those who use the knowledge of climate change will be winners, and those who do not will be left behind.
RickyRood, • 11:24 PM GMT on November 02, 2014