Tags

, , , , ,

The IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (12-17 November 2007) claims it covers all aspects of global climate change, and includes projections to the year 2100. It has considerable access to super computers for calculating various scenarios, and implies that its calculations take into account all of the important forcing factors of climate change. This is clearly wrong because they don’t factor in the two greatest forcing factors, and therefore their calculations are not predictive. The two biggest forcing factors are food and major war. There is little or no mention of population, and none of population expansion or if it was included in the forcing factors in their computer calculated projections of climate, it wasn’t mentioned. Population is mentioned only in the context of human displacements caused by sea level rise, and cyclone activity increases. There is no mention of war or major war in their calculations even though this is a common event on century long time scales. And the only paragraph long mention of food availability is the following paragraph:

IPCC Topic 3

3.3 Impacts of future climate changes

Food
 Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid- to
high latitudes for local mean temperature increases of up to 1
to 3°C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that in
some regions (medium confidence). {WGII 5.4, SPM}
 At lower latitudes, especially in seasonally dry and tropical
regions, crop productivity is projected to decrease for even small
local temperature increases (1 to 2°C), which would increase
the risk of hunger (medium confidence). {WGII 5.4, SPM}
 Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase
with increases in local average temperature over a range
of 1 to 3°C, but above this it is projected to decrease (medium
confidence). {WGII 5.4, 5.5, SPM}

That paragraph seems to suggest that a couple of degrees of global warming is a good thing to do. And the IPCC study’s failure to acknowledge major war, and a nuclear winter appears to be an intentional exclusion, and not a mere oversight because nuclear winter, and its catastrophic effects on climate were greatly feared only ten years ago. NewScientist has a feature article in 03 March 1990 about how A nuclear winter would ‘devastate’ Australia. Another blog on The Nuclear Winter Game covers the problem This is seven years after Carl Sagan et al published their TTAPS report.

War with nuclear winter projections

Nuclear war with nuclear winter projections

This chart shows their projections of various H-bomb wars upon the global surface temperature. How can we as outsiders know how accurate these figures are? But they were created by some of the most respected scientists of the 1970s-90s period using supercomputers. The IPCC worries about the effects of a 1 degree to 5 degree global temperature shift over a century but the TTAPS report, as seen in the graph above, gives upwards of 30 degrees shift in only a month.

There is an article by Russell Seitz called The ‘Nuclear Winter’ Meltdown which debunks this chart published in Science Vol. 222, 1983. He claims the obvious, ” ‘Nuclear Winter’ never existed outside of a computer except as air-brushed animation commissioned by the a  PR firm – Porter Novelli Inc.” Seitz apparently is a true scientist, and would have to shoot himself in the foot to see if that hurts or causes injury. The idea of verification is wonderful, but in this case it is undesirable as being a bit too expensive. Furthermore good science is never based on a single example, and he would have to perform the experiment several more times before he could be confident of the results. He apparently suggests we wait until thirty thousand H-bombs have been detonated, and observe their effects before we decide its a bad thing to do.

The TAPPS projection of a worst case was for 10,000-MT of H-bombs, but the current supply is more like 30,000 bombs, and some of them are in the 50-MT range although it is reported that most on US missiles are “only” 0.4-MT. The estimate of total energy available in the form of bombs is approximately 1×10 to the 5th Megatons or 100 times more than used in the TTAPS worst case scenario #9 which gives a 35 degree downward shift. But don’t worry because Seitz says Sagan was wrong in his assumptions, and calculations and we have to wait for a real world test.

That wars have been common for all three thousand years of recorded history, ever since Troy, and without doubt far longer, gives one some doubt that they will suddenly stop just because we haven’t had one, well a big one, for a while. But the IPCC doesn’t consider this even as an outside possibility, when doing 100 year projections, so it isn’t even mentioned, and all of their projections are complexified, and computerized straight line projections based on the recent past. Look at the graph below to see how speculative their projections are.

Food shortage and famine precipitated by the excess human population is another obvious problem which they avoid by simply not mentioning it. The Malthusian collapse is considered to be a phantom because in 200 years it hasn’t happened, at least not on a global scale. Humans have always figured out ways to make more food and always will is their observation. That is the kind of standard mythology that drives stock markets to crash every so often. Usually the fallacy is abundantly clear to most people, but too many people are making money supporting the lie so it continues to expand until the bubble pops. It is a form of over optimistic speculation that natural processes always bring back to equilibrium, and generally far past it. In the case of a population crash it will drop far below that which could be sustained stably.

IPCC population projections

IPCC population projections SRES 1992

Pick a number, any number, with projections like this they have everything covered except the obvious—there will be at least one famine, and there will be at least one war. A more likely graph will look like the one below.

Doomsday with a food shortfall precursor

Doomsday with a famine precursor to total nuclear war.

Note that these are sliding scales with no exact date predicted for Doomsday, but with even the best case scenario in the IPCC chart above it the IS92c,d line the population is tremendous, and will bring Doomsday on. Even this IS92c,d projection doesn’t have a noticeable population decrease for fifty years, and where will CO2 be by then? It will be much higher than it is today, and growing even more rapidly than it is today if the population is bigger, as they project it to be, even in their best case scenairo. The current world population counter show 6.848 billion which is closer to the worst case IS92f curve. Click it to see where we have come since 02 Oct 08. By the year 2020 their estimate is 8 billion people which just sounds like a number, but this huge population must be fed with real food. Even now the food supply depends on a lot of factors being very benevolent. As the environment continues to be stressed, and even more stressed by the growing population at some point these benevolent supplies will be consumed only to be replaced by others which are already over stressed, and so they also will soon fail and then the people will turn to other very overstressed things, and those will fail even quicker. You get the idea—soon there will be a big squabble over who is going to get the last of the remaining food. It will be an ugly food fight. The green line above shows this food shortfall as a  precursor to a total nuclear war. When that happens the population will fall precipitously as will the capacity for creating food. At some time a new point of viability will be reached, but it will be an ugly planet which those people will be forced to live in for the rest of their lives. Later perhaps it might get a little better, but never again like the beautiful planet which we are now exploiting to extinction.

A few years after Doomsday hits, and the survivors, if any, are rehashing what happened the global warming issue will be seen as a canary in the mine dropping dead from foul gasses in the air created by too many people. Many of the people were trying very hard to be good Earth citizens and save the planet, but there were just too many of them. Far too many-!!! I like people and am interested in maximizing their well being, but to do that requires a smaller world population living at any one time. What would be better is a much smaller population living in a sustainable balance with the Earth for a much longer time. Presently we have a population bubble which will soon burst. I can not say the time that it will come but if you are young you will live to see Doomsday, or see something much much stranger. There is a difference in the Doomsday event’s timing between IS92f maximum growth and IS92c,d minimum growth of only a few years because the accumulation of past exploitation is cumulative. But the larger the population becomes the faster this foul accumulation grows.