What do you think about the IPCC's plan to shift their focus to practicality and precision?

Question

The scientists agreed to focus on providing more information about the actual impacts of global warming and what can be done to reduce GHG emissions growth. In order to get the report out by 2013, within the usual 6-year time frame, they decided to omit several sections -- primarily the more data-heavy scenarios some researchers use to build their global warming models.

For those who've criticized the IPCC for being too conservative or for employing outdated numbers, the panel sponsored a series of workshops to elaborate more timely emissions scenarios -- taking into account new statistics on energy use, population growth and emissions reductions technologies. Its members chose four to use in future models, the most pessimistic of which predicts atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could hit 1370 ppm by 2100; the most optimistic one predicts they will peak at 490 ppm before starting to fall.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/next-ipcc-report.php

What do you think?

Answer 1

That anyone still pays the least amount of attention to ANYTHING that comes out of the US is telling in it's self.

The best thing that could happen is a nice chunk of ice fall off and the sea level rise to the point that the cess pool that is the UN building, be lost.

Answer 2

Something has to be done to change the U.N.'s focus on divisive solutions.

"providing more information about the actual impacts of global warming and what can be done to reduce GHG emissions growth"

Sounds like they'll paint a lot of whiney scenarios about countries that refuse to deal with their overpopulation issue, then they'll ask 20% of the world's current working population so solve our problem with the world's entire cumulative historic emissions from the last 200+ years.  

So far the U.N. wants to simulateously exempt from the solution 80% of the world population with the largest emissions (China) and with the largest growth (entire developing world).

The U.N. has been drafting IPCC reports on global warming for 20+ years.  Knowing full well the dire scenarios in store for developing nations, how effectively did the U.N. prepare those nations for the coming droughts and food shortages?  They sent them food, so they could dramatically grow their population.

Both the developed and developing nations need to tackle this problem simultaneously, or we're all screwed.

Blaming others for your own problems (such as the tragic outcome of overpopulation and resource overultilization) is how wars start.  I expect that escalating food and energy costs and the escalating rhetoric over the next dozen years will pave the way for increasing nationalism and the election of a new president that will make Bush look like Gandhi.  One strategy to instantly reduce global emissions that will be discussed would be to bomb coal-fired power plants (in any nation that can't effectively strike back).  The neutron bomb may be brought back into national arsenals to deal with overpopulation issues or mass migrations that threaten national borders.  We can still prevent all of this by working together now, but politicians are too fond of pointing fingers and doing nothing, so the U.N. rhetoric will probably continue to give the U.S. ample reasons to maintain and build its military defenses.

Just as climate models factor events such as volcanoes into their assumptions, IPCC scenarios should start working major wars and economic decline due to "peak oil" into their scenarios.  Either one could slow the rate of emission growth, but at the same time they'll make it harder for nations to work cooperatively.  Working those sorts of impacts into the future outlook could create some opportunites for converging on a solution.  For example, forecasting the end of China's economic boom (built on cheap oil and global peace) could encourage China to rethink their "growth at all costs" strategy.

Answer 3

Its about time.

Answer 4

They're through with science, they're now focusing on fortune-telling and policy making?  And I thought they couldn't get any more useless!

Edit:  I just got it!  It's because the latest data shows a cooling trend.  HA HA HA HA HA!! (They can't honestly state they don't have the resources at their disposal to get a single report out in 5 years, can they?  They've got this entire "consensus" to draw upon!)

Answer 5

Frankly, I don't care what the IPCC does.  I just wish they would go away and stop wasting my money.

Answer 6

Your question says it all.  They seek to reduce before giving information about the "actual impacts".  Why would they seek to reduce if they don't know the impacts.  That indicates they have started out with a bias.  Why would you trust such biases sources.  I wouldn't trust them to provide actual impacts before they happen.  They pretend to be Nostradamus.  What happened to the actual benefits.  Are we supposed to discount those.  Words mean things.  If they are not going to give an honest assessment of benefits as well as negative consequences, it is worthless or worse than worthless.  It would be meaningless propaganda.