No-one currently on/in the World Bank or the PICIR
will be alive to say “I told you so” or “I’m sorry” by 2100 and even if the 4C happens it won’t do so overnight.
We’ll adjust.

TGC, Indeed we will change, you will have fins and gills and blow bubbles!

#1 - the ultimate selfish dismissal - no recognition of run-away effects that scientists agree will be highly likely if not inevitable. Climate change shocks might confront us in our very own front yards. Real dangers like run-away fungi or insect epidemics may make it unsafe to go outdoors. Yes, scientists agree on the seriousness of human induced global warming even if those who turn a blind eye do not. The careless may not be able to wish it all on generations to come and get off scott free. Ignorance will be no escape. Only ignorance could prompt the dismissal in comment #1.

Christine could help reduce climate change by changing Green polcy and giving carbon credits for burning forest residues in wood fired power stations as WWF does worldwide. Australia is the only country in the modern world that does not recognise that burnig wood is a sustainable and renewable energy source.Trees are stored sunlight energy. Cut them down ,use the stored energy, replant;  it’s a cycle, 5 10 or 20 year cycle.Burning coal or gas is a cycle as well but a 10,00 year cycle. Leave the coal in the hole.Burn wood, it’s sustainable.
Why is Australia so out of step with the rest of the modern world regarding this. Because ideoligy has taken over from science once again . No wonder Tasmania is a basket case and until someone has the balls to stand up to the dreamers

The World Bank…seriously?!  When they become climate experts?

UK Met Office data shows no discernible rise from 1996 to 2012. 

The Argo bouy project since deployed in 2003 shows no rise in sea temperature.

Research shows cost of adaption to climate change at 1/50th of cost of trying to stop climate change.

The World Bank should focus on what it does best…destroying economies around the world with its out-dated Keynesian policies.

#3 in other articles on TT-the Super Trawler Case-
the “science” supporting that fishing operation has been discredited-so posters claim. But not the climate science?- that’s absolutely reliable?
If it is then there’s nothing we can do about it so we may as well go on as we are presently.

For those who will not cover their eyes and ears, for those who care what happens to the world at large, its poorer people, children, animals and plants, here is the World Bank’s take on climate change today in The Age.

Degrees of devastation: major report warns of drastically hotter planet

November 19, 2012

The World Bank has warned the planet is on track to warm by four degrees Celsius this century - causing increasingly extreme heat waves, lower crop yields and rising sea levels - unless significant action is taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
In a major report released ahead of the year-end United Nations climate summit in Qatar, the bank says changes associated with four degrees of warming would have dramatic and devastating effects on all parts of the world, including Australia, but that the poor would be most vulnerable.
Scientists say global warming must be kept within two degrees of pre-industrial temperatures to give the world the best chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.
The report – a snapshot of the most recent climate science prepared for the bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics – says global mean warming is now about 0.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
It says that if current promises by nations to curb emissions are met then it is most likely there will be more than three degrees warming. However, under that scenario it warns there is also a 20 per cent likelihood that four degrees of warming will occur by 2100.
If current promises are not met, then the world is “plausibly” on a path to warm by four degrees this century, possibly as early as 2060, the bank says.
The report, titled Turn Down the Heat, says if the world experiences four degrees of warming it would:
* See a 150 per cent increase in ocean acidity, leading to the extinction of some sensitive coral reef ecosystems.
* Result in sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1 metres by 2100, with more in following centuries, affecting low-lying islands and coastal communities.
* Lead to more extreme heatwaves, reduced run-off into major rivers and a significant decline in biodiversity, all risking the support systems of humans.
The report says the full impact on human development of a four-degree-hotter world is unknown, making it is unclear whether humanity would be able to adapt.
“A 4°C world is likely to be one in which communities, cities and countries would experience severe disruptions, damage, and dislocation, with many of these risks spread unequally,” the report says.
“It is likely that the poor will suffer most and the global community could become more fractured, and unequal than today.”
World Bank Group president Jim Yong Kim said: “A four-degree-warmer world can, and must be avoided – we need to hold warming below two degrees.”
“Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today. Climate change is one of the single biggest challenges facing development, and we need to assume the moral responsibility to take action on behalf of future generations, especially the poorest.”
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said: “This new report from the World Bank reminds us that climate change is happening – now. The evidence is clear. No country is immune. If we mobilise today, we can make a difference tomorrow.”
The World Bank is the second major international body this month to raise concerns about the rate of greenhouse gas emissions being released into the atmosphere.
The International Energy Agency last week warned in its latest World Energy Outlook that no more than a third of the world’s proven fossil fuel reserves can be consumed to 2050, without carbon capture and storage technology, if the two degrees target is to be met.
The warnings come as nations meet in Doha, Qatar next week for the next major round of international climate change negotiations.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/degrees-of-devastation-major-report-warns-of-drastically-hotter-planet-20121119-29l3c.html#ixzz2CfNj41go

Re #1 - We may well adjust if Kelvinator etc make air-cons that turn up to eleven.

It will require nuclear power to run them all.

Just as TGC criticeses the authors and the institution [members] for not being alive in 2100 so it will be for TGC. Further I postulate that his idea of some adjusted future at an average of 4dC will go with him.

Currently the chance of a 4dC rise is given at 20%. Humanity, individually or through its organizations should do all it can to avoid such an outcome.

5AR will tell us more about trends and better define the rate of change needed to avoid more than 1.5dC, although with 1.3dC locked in that seems an extremely difficult task.

Stand by for refugee flows that make the current movements pale if we fail to slow the rate of warming and then arrest it for a long slow decline.

TGC has a lot to tell us about human capacity to put the profit motive above all reason, including the survival of our own species.

John Hayward

Australia has one of the highest levels of climate change denial in the developed world. Our ubiquitous media mogul Rupert Murdoch has led the charge for his advertisers in the coal and oil lobby. Environmentalists are criticized in this forum for accepting climate change science yet rejecting the science that ratified super-trawling for small pelagic fish. In universities across the world, scientists with no vested interests have developed an overwhelming consensus recognizing human-induced climate change. In contrast, an industry-sponsored group of scientists has permitted a bigger resource take in a local fishery. The narrow basis of the science has been criticized. Contrasting two such disparate reactions to science is hardly a case of comparing apples with apples. It is an argument that clutches at straws. However, the arguments can be weighed on Tasmanian Times in a depth in which they have never been canvassed by our mainstream media. This irks people clinging to the populist line that comforts them in the local newspaper.

TGC may find the following interesting, published just last week by the Royal Society for the protection of Birds, or he may choose to ignore it, whatever.

The point is, and its quite obvious when you think about it, a unit of coal produces far more heat than a unit of wood, and emits far less CO2 for that heat than wood does. Coal is now too dirty to continue burning without risking extreme climate change, and wood is worse.

[Excerpt, Electricity from trees ‘dirtier than coal,’ RSPB, 12 November 2012, http://www.rspb.org.uk/news/328523-electricity-from-trees-dirtier-than-coal ]

Harry Huyton, RSPB Head of Climate Policy, says; “When trees are burnt in power stations, CO2 comes out of the chimney, just like it does when you burn coal.  The difference is that the wood is less energy dense and is wetter than coal, so it takes a lot more energy to harvest, transport, process, and finally burn it.

“Government has justified burning trees in power stations by claiming the chimney emissions are offset by the carbon that the forest takes in when it re-grows after being harvested, but this is misleading. It can take decades, if not centuries for the trees to recapture that carbon, leaving us with more emissions in the atmosphere now – when we least need it.

The people to come are going to wonder why we, of this age now, never acted when we knew the outcome of our unhealthy lifestyles.
Life is going to change whether we like it or not, it is the rate at which we change that hinges on our current decisions.

Why do we argue that even if we do alter our lifestyles it is going to be cleaner and more comfortable for us anyway, even if climate alteration is a consequence of not.  This clinging on for dear life to the old hat is considered anal retention - any of you have trouble emptying?

Re#1: When has TGC demonstrated an understanding of adaptation?

#5. The UK Met Office and its US equivalent have said that global warming evidence is unmistakable with clear fingerprints of man-made climate change.
Without withdrawing that statement they have admitted that computer modelling is imperfect and incomplete and climate is far more complex than models assert. They also say that a 15 to 16 year period is a far too short a period to draw conclusions from.
In respect to the Argo buoy it is a relatively new science and there appears to be some thought that it is not yet possible to detect global change signals as the dataset is not yet long enough. However,in an article on the NASA Earth journal it states that after correcting the errors in the Argo thermometer measurements the results show that the world’s oceans have been absorbing additional energy and have been warming.

“They also say that a 15 to 16 year period is a far too short a period to draw conclusions from.”

Yet the temperature rise in the period 1980 to 1996 was the catalyst for global warming action.  A period of just 16 years…

What happens if there is no discernible rise for 18 years or 20 years?

#16
“Yet the temperature rise in the period 1980 to 1996 was the catalyst for global warming action.  A period of just 16 years…”

say who davies??? do you have a reference for this??

Well I am glad we don’t have to bother listening to all those experts when we have the eminent opinion of the Troll to quell our fears.
In a way he is probably scarily correct. Those with the money for secure enclaves, airconditioned high rises and off grid powered bunkers may just survive and adapt while the rest of the plebs go about massacring each other for remaining clean water, food and arable high ground. Hmmmm sounds like a place I’d want to live.
Because I can’t use expletives to express my contempt, I’ll just say what an owner operator.

#18 is well entitled to be “listening to all those experts(warning about the terrors of climsate change)” and if persuaded, personally adopt whatever measures may seem appropriate to counter those effects.
Just include me out!