Hey U.N. – show us your tipping points!

Pathetic handwaving double down from the UN

Eric Worrall writes: A number of MSM outlets are carrying news of a “leaked” UN document, which claims that global warming may be causing irreversible damage.
According to the Bloomberg version of the leak story;

“Global warming already is affecting “all continents and across the oceans,” and further pollution from heat-trapping gases will raise the likelihood of “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems,”

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-26/irreversible-damage-seen-from-climate-change-in-un-leak.html
The problem with this vapid handwaving nonsense is that it is so vague. I mean, in the good old days, alarmists made interesting predictions;
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past; http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Al Gore’s ice free arctic (in 5 years!);
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/16/nature-proves-al-gore-wrong-again/

Rain will never fill Australian reservoirs again;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/18/hard-times-for-aussie-alarmists-flannery-begs-in-new-video/

tipping_point_scrThe great thing about bold predictions is they are easily falsified – all you have to do is wait a few years, then point and laugh.

The survivors of that golden age of bold stupidity are far too timid – they issue vague predictions of calamity which won’t occur until long after we are all safely dead, and promises that if we wait a few decades we might see something worrying.
I mean, seriously folks, is this the best you can do? Can even the most rabid alarmists get enthused by such a pathetic effort?

About these ads

65 thoughts on “Hey U.N. – show us your tipping points!

    • Exactly me too.

      I’m embarrassed that I used to be one of the hand-waving doom n gloom merchants with respect to global warming.

      They truly overcooked the pudding on this one.

      To the exclusion of other genuine and pressing environmental concerns.

      Jones

  1. Convenient leak. Same crapola Alarmist story ran on weather.com’s Home page lead item last night, but it was gone by the morning.

    Weather.com replaced the leak IPCC doc story with a “Warning: Threat Brewing the Gulf?” banner to gin up alarm sensationalism. Oh the Horror!!

    • Joel-the problem is that the mere appearance of nonsense in print means that the creators of K-12 curriculum can now include it in ‘science’ or ‘social studies’ materials as if it were factual. The publication creates an authenticity that students, now to be taught concepts instead of a body of facts, will be in no position to challenge.

      Perfect for the shift in education from the traditional transmission of knowledge paradigm to the new shaping Worldviews and Mindsets paradigm. Because digital materials are replacing textbooks, parents will likely never know what their kids are being falsely led to believe. At least until the kid becomes rabid in his or her self-righteousness as their emotions have been consciously manipulated as well.

      • Robin, you are right. This is an old propaganda technique perfected by the Soviet Union. They would plant an absurd self-serving and obviously fraudulent story in a foreign publication that nobody gave a crap about, . Then they would have their agents in a slightly more respectable media pick and run that story. Then the process would repeat as often as necessary until finally a reputable publication (sometimes innocently) would run or refer to the story. At that point, it would cited by the Soviets as a true story running in a respected publication. But of course it was still the same old crap.

  2. Seth Boorenstein on the Weather Channel this morning:
    “IPCC used the word irreversible 36 times.”
    Repetition = truth.

  3. “Can even the most rabid alarmists get enthused by such a pathetic effort?”

    Unfortunately, the answer to that question is Yes.

  4. Global warming? Irreversible damage?

    One ‘for instance’ might be helpful, as I just cannot think of any.

    Perhaps if I wasn’t a practicing geo-scientist, but an economist, bureaucrat or politician instead, I might be able to dream up one.

  5. “…further pollution from heat-trapping gases will raise the likelihood of…”

    First of all heat trapping gases are not pollution.

    Secondly “raising the likelihood” is meaningless without knowing the likelihood first.

    Anyone can “raise the likelihood” of marrying a young, beautiful and wealthy actor by moving to Hollywood, but the improvement in likelihood is unlikely of any consequence.

    You can significantly, actually double your likelihood of winning the lottery by buying two tickets instead of one, but again I would not quit your day job over your massively improved likelihood.

  6. Can even the most rabid alarmists get enthused by such a pathetic effort?

    I’m sure I read somewhere that global warming will cause more rabies, unless of course it will cause less rabies.
    /snark

  7. While I’m a skeptic, and have my arguments with my (intelligent) CAGW friends, I am a skeptic. That means I don’t know what will happen if say we were to quadruple CO2 over 1940s values.

    A half century to deal with the issue seems much more reasonable than “We are all going to die” if we don’t build out solar/wind all electric fleet in the next 10 years (10 years ago). It seems like plenty of time to migrate to nuclear power, for instance. Or, less likely, for some breakthrough in some other energy source to come about.

    If the costs are low, and a world-wide solution can be developed, I say why not? Like the molten salt nuclear reactor idea, made cheaper over thirty years such that it costs on par with coal.

  8. All this BS after last weeks GeoEngineering Globalist’s Meeting in Germany. It already smells like another UN Fairy Tale.

  9. There is obviously a lot more money in this UN game than dealing with Ebola or various jihadist war games.

  10. On tipping points:
    So, it is true that many Texans go to Colorado this time of year due to the need to cool off.
    Another of my buds and wife are driving today from Pueblo Col. to Aspen where they will
    soak up some cool.
    He called around 8:00 Texas time said he was driving in a snow storm west of Pueblo.
    So a nice read on the National Weather Service for western Colorado for today.

    http://www.weather.gov/

    under the radar and weather forcast area…

    in part ” cool air has infiltrated a low pressure area and along with strong thunder storms and an inch or more rain some snow above 12,000 …. only thing is my bud is not at 12,000,,, and it is snowing on him.

    “infiltrated” sort of give the weather/climate a human face,, makes the sheeple feel good to know it is only an “infiltration”.

    Just weather but the weather now includes snow.

    • just up the road about 60 miles is CoSpgs, didn’t need to go to Aspen. It has been a cool summer here, and while still warm in Pueblo, I didn’t see hardly any 100 F+ days or any at all that one can normally expect. A couple of days in July we turned on the heat.

  11. May I suggest it should be termed “Anthropogenic Gullible Warming”? (This suggestion may not be original).

  12. Reall? There is no global warming, there has not been any since the around the middle of the 1990’s, as can be seen from my own investigations

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf

    Note my graph on the very bottom. Minimum temperatures are supposed to be affected by greenhouse gases, but it seems to be going down naturally?

    \
    If you do not believe me, believe 4 of the major global data sets that show that it is global cooling from 2002

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

  13. Hasn’t it already been too late several times? I’m sure I remember that we only had 18 months at one point to reverse the warming before it became unstoppable. And there were other tipping points I recall, one of them, I believe, being five years. It would be interesting to collect all the tipping points together in one spot.

  14. The timing of this report, amplified by climate expert Seth Borenstein (yup, heard that on radio news this AM), coincides with media reports of Obama doing something all by himself on “climate change”. Hmmm.

    • Totally agree with this…

      The timing is remarkable that this story just happened to “leak” today.

      The blatant manipulation of the media by this US Admin still impresses me…the audacity is incomparable to any before it.

      • When your administration employed spouse comes home and says “dear, we could really use a little more noise on the topic from your newspaper” you either oblige or you aren’t getting any that night.

  15. M Courtney August 27, 2014 at 9:03 am
    The end of the world is nigh*

    Bill Nigh, the Science Gigh.

    • Bill Nye, the science Lie, more like. After his pathetic attempt to design an experiment that would never work and then allowing his name to be associated with a false and inaccurate result faked by post production video editing.

      Not only was he too crap to design an experiment, he did not even have the intelligence to realise what the results were telling him: that the experiment as he had designed it would not cause warming.

      This guy is a TV clown who dresses up in a silly tie to entertain children.

      What sort of qualification ( apart from a bow tie ) are required to have the title of science “guy”?

  16. Science is all about using your hypothesis to make forecasts, not just “scenarios”.
    I commend those bold enough to make them, even when they are wrong. But, for those sleazy ones that want us to pay their salaries and dodge the task at hand, I have no sympathy.

  17. Isn’t this convenient? During the first draft you put in all sorts of unsupported alarmist nonsense. You then leak it and garner screaming headlines. In subsequent re-writes you take out the sensational junk leaving a bland summary that no one reads. And you’ve left the public and the press with the impression that we’re all doomed even though there’s not a whit of proof or science to back it up. *sigh*
    Did you notice this in the Bloomberg article:
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————–
    The pace of temperature increases slowed to about 0.05 of a degree per decade from 1998 through 2012 from 0.12 degrees per decade for the longer period spanning from 1951 to 2012. The IPCC said 111 out of 114 climate models predicted a greater warming trend than was observed from 1998 to 2012. And for the period from 1984 to 1998, most models showed less warming than was finally recorded, they said.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————————
    So they admit the models aren’t very good, but we still must believe them. I like how they then say if you take a LONG enough time period the models are almost good.

  18. How long will it be before the AGW crowd stop making upward predictions, and start claiming credit for the flat temp record since ’97 ?

  19. There will be many laughs. [I have the links for these quotes, but it may get held up in the spam].

    Xinhua News Agency – 1 March 2008
    “If Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions,” Orheim said.
    [Dr. Olav Orheim – Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat]
    __________________

    Canada.com – 16 November 2007
    “According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

    “And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” said Fortier,””
    [Professor Louis Fortier – Université Laval, Director ArcticNet]
    __________________

    National Geographic – 12 December 2007
    “NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” ”
    [Dr. Jay Zwally – NASA]
    __________________

    BBC – 12 December 2007
    Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,”…….”So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
    [Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
    __________________

    National Snow and Ice Data Center – 5 May 2008
    “Could the North Pole be ice free this melt season? Given that this region is currently covered with first-year ice, that seems quite possible.”
    __________________

    National Geographic News – 20 June 2008
    North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer
    “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.
    [Dr. David Barber]
    __________________

    Independent – 27 June 2008
    Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer
    “…..It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it’s not happened before,” Professor Wadhams said.”
    [Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University]
    __________________

    Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Report – 2009
    “…There is a possibility of an ice-free Arctic Ocean for a short period in summer perhaps as early as 2015. This would mean the disappearance of multi-year ice, as no sea ice would survive the summer melt season….”

    http://www.arctis-search.com/Arctic+Marine+Shipping+Assessment+%28AMSA%29

    __________________

    Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
    Vol. 40: 625-654 – May 2012
    The Future of Arctic Sea Ice
    “…..one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover…..”
    [Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
    __________________

    Guardian – 11 August 2012
    Very soon we may experience the iconic moment when, one day in the summer, we look at satellite images and see no sea ice coverage in the Arctic, just open water.”
    [Dr Seymour Laxon – Centre for Polar Observation & Modelling – UCL]
    __________________

    Yale Environment360 – 30 August 2012
    “If this rate of melting [in 2012] is sustained in 2013, we are staring down the barrel and looking at a summer Arctic which is potentially free of sea ice within this decade,”
    [Dr. Mark Drinkwater]
    __________________

    Guardian – 17 September 2012
    This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates“.
    [Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University]
    __________________

    Sierra Club – March 23, 2013
    “For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean….”
    [Paul Beckwith – PhD student paleoclimatology and climatology – part-time professor]
    __________________

    Financial Times Magazine – 2 August 2013
    “It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,”
    [Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University]
    __________________

    The Scotsman – 12 September 2013
    “The entire ice cover is now on the point of collapse.
    …….It is truly the case that it will be all gone by 2015. The consequences are enormous and represent a huge boost to global warming.”
    [Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University]

  20. In Python pseudocode the scheme looks something like this:

    carbonDoom = (“some hysteria”) #Carbon Priest defined before runtime!
    socialism = (Carbon_Excuse_Command_Economy)
    doomForMoney(Globehop_conference_agitate, from government(steal_Moolah))

    while not True(carbonDoom):
    doomForMoney()
    if True(socialism):
    break

    Note how there’s no way this loop ever ends until CarbonDoom or Socialism come true.

  21. Here is an example of why we should not pay any attention to alarmists. This is another FAIL. Irreparable!!!

    CLAIM

    Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg – 2000
    Great Barrier Reef faces destruction within the next century
    “As much as I would love to be proven wrong, it is very hard to argue around it,” said Professor Hoegh-Guldberg. “We now have more evidence that corals cannot fully recover from bleaching episodes such as the major event in 1998. Although some small areas of coral can bounce back, the overall damage is irreparable.

    “People react very badly to this news because they don’t want it to be true. However, we can’t escape the consequences of environmental damage and we need to take urgent steps to ensure the survival of these crucial marine ecosystems.”

    http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2000/10/great-barrier-reef-faces-destruction-within-next-century

    OBSERVATIONS

    [Australian Institute of Marine Science – 2009?
    Most reefs recovered fully with less than 5% of inshore reefs suffering high mortality.”]

    http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/climate-change/coral-bleaching/bleaching-events.html

    Guardian – 22 April 2009
    Damaged Barrier Reef coral makes ‘spectacular’ recovery
    Lucky combination of circumstances means corals have unexpectedly grown back within a year
    Sections of coral reef in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef have made a “spectacular” recovery from a devastating bleaching event three years ago, marine scientists say.

    • Now this is interesting. Only 10% of coral decline is caused by bleaching.

      Abstract – 2012
      G. De’ath et al
      The 27-year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes
      “…Tropical cyclones, coral predation by crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS), and coral bleaching accounted for 48%, 42%, and 10% of the respective estimated losses, amounting to 3.38% y-1 mortality rate….”

      http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208909109

  22. It is too late, again?!

    We are all gonna die, again – the last time just did not take, we just did not stay dead. How inconvenient.

  23. Why bother. The calamity is done and it is irreversble.
    In plain language it means that we cant help, so we better use what we have to withstand the weird weather, instead of trying to change whats irreversible. Got it?

  24. Pray tell me dear United Nations (or anyone else out there who wants to reply), how does humanity cause “irreversible damage” to the climate?? Does this not imply that the climate has no repair mechanism to undo what was done to it?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  25. Gotta love the “scientific” statement “raise the likelihood”…. What is the current likelihood that Anthropogenic C02 is having severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts on people and eco systems? It sounds like the answer is based on one’s opinion rather than any sort of scientific data/measurement/study.

  26. Take a business card or, if you dare, a credit card, and flex it and hold it between your fingers in the form a bow. Then, with the tip of the index finger of your other hand, very gently press down on the bowed card. First, it deforms, then it buckles and then the bow suddenly snaps to its inverted position. It changes state instantly – that is a catastrophic change of state or it has, as Malcolm Gladwell described it, gone through a ‘tipping point’. An almost imperceptible alteration in the pressure exerted by your index finger has caused a radical and locally irreversible change of state. Rene Thom, described the ability of systems to suddenly change state mathematically and showed that any system controlled by two or more variables can flip suddenly and without warning from one state to another. With the climate the proposition is that its principal state variable (temperature) is controlled by two important greenhouse gases: water vapour and carbon dioxide. At low levels of CO2, any changes in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere produces a smooth transition from cold to warm and vice-versa. With the progressive addition of CO2, a relatively high persistence greenhouse gas, we have a splitting variable which whilst having what appears to be only a minor effect on global temperature can create dynamic instability – enabling catastrophic changes in climate state to occur. In reality there are many more variables influencing the dynamics of our climate – but they all have the effect of making the catastrophic changes of state more complex in impact and difficult to model. It is comforting to note, as I think Robert Brown at Duke has pointed out, sudden changes of state do not appear to be a feature of climate history and that we are not at, or close to, such a tipping point now. I am not so sure. At the present rate of change of global temperatures climate catastrophe appears to be a long way off. But, as a skeptic, the possibility of a climate tipping point is what really keeps me awake at night.

    • Given the scope of content of comments upthread, I so do sincerely hope you are speaking about a ‘tipping point’ towards a mini-Ice Age, Mr Ryan! Of which CO2 might play only some peripheral atmospheric chemical role – that is, one of many ‘splitting variables’, especially as it is by-no-means ascertained to any degree of scientific certitude that “the proposition is that its principal state variable (temperature) is controlled by two important greenhouse gases: water vapour and carbon dioxide”
      Sincerely,
      Mr Sharkey
      In the alternative, try Lunesta

    • Its not good enough to say “I’m worried the sky is going to fall” – you have to give credible reasons why people should divert energy and effort from their daily lives to address the problem identified by your theory.

      Credibility is what is missing from climate alarmism – their demand that we should worry about an imaginary problem, based on output from models which perform very poorly at predicting real world phenomena, does not compare well to problems we should be addressing right now, such as the horrifying Ebola outbreak in Africa, or the very real possibility that the next significant meteor strike will do more than break a few windows.

      If we had infinite resources, we could address every remote possibility, no matter how outlandish. But in the absence of any real evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a problem, we are better off using scarce resources to address problems which are killing people, right now.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/10/why-a-compelling-theory-is-not-enough/

    • The only tipping point we know of is toward cold not warm, that why we have ice ages. Present it the coldest it been in about ten thousand years even with a small warming period in the 1990s. If the climate was that unstable we would not be here to talk about it. PS the Mastodon feed on the steppes of the north after the last ice age, they went extinct when those steppes change to tundra. By the way steppes is another name for prairie or grass lands.

    • I remember studying Catastrophe Theory in the mid-1970s when it was still brand new. It was exciting to think ENSO phase could be predicted if only the right parameters could be modeled. Such dreams were crushed by the harsh reality of the complexity of the atmosphere and its interaction with the cryosphere, lithosphere, and hydrosphere. Without that ability, I think its foolish to speak of tipping points when you can’t mathematically demonstrate them. It becomes a propaganda buzz word at that point.

  27. Leaked reports are magical, you can conjure up a bunch of lies, get it leaked, and then depending on the results deny you said or add to it, a win win situation, as the the initial leaked report sticks in the mind,

  28. ah the font has changed, much better , the site looks good, much cleaner and easy on the eye, the font to me was looking weak but great now.

  29. Everyone keeps repeating the mantra that “there is no irreversible damage”, but that’s not true. The billions wasted on this scam have already been spent. That money will never be available to spend where it could truly do some good. So, in fact, there has been irreversible damage.

Comments are closed.