New climate doom goalpost, in the year 2035

From the EUROPEAN GEOSCIENCES UNION and the “doom is always just a few years away” department

Deadline for climate action

Act strongly before 2035 to keep warming below 2°C

If governments don’t act decisively by 2035 to fight climate change, humanity could cross a point of no return after which limiting global warming below 2°C in 2100 will be unlikely, according to a new study by scientists in the UK and the Netherlands. The research also shows the deadline to limit warming to 1.5°C has already passed, unless radical climate action is taken. The study is published today in the European Geosciences Union journal Earth System Dynamics.

“In our study we show that there are strict deadlines for taking climate action,” says Henk Dijkstra, a professor at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and one of the study authors. “We conclude that very little time is left before the Paris targets [to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C] become infeasible even given drastic emission reduction strategies.”

Dijkstra and his colleagues at the Utrecht Centre for Complex Systems Studies and at Oxford University, UK, wanted to find the ‘point of no return’ or deadline for climate action: the latest possible year to start strongly cutting greenhouse-gas emissions before it’s too late to avoid dangerous climate change. “The ‘point of no return’ concept has the advantage of containing time information, which we consider very useful to inform the debate on the urgency of taking climate action,” says Matthias Aengenheyster, a doctoral researcher at Oxford University and the study’s lead author.

Using information from climate models, the team determined the deadline for starting climate action to keep global warming likely (with a probability of 67%) below 2°C in 2100, depending on how fast humanity can reduce emissions by using more renewable energy. Assuming we could increase the share of renewable energy by 2% every year, we would have to start doing so before 2035 (the point of no return). If we were to reduce emissions at a faster rate, by increasing the share of renewable energy by 5% each year, we would buy another 10 years.

These plots from the study show the probability of staying below the 1.5°C (left) or 2°C (right) global-average temperature increases, set by the Paris Agreement. The coloured curves represent the various emission-reduction scenarios, i.e., how quickly we would be able to reduce emissions by using more renewable energy: m1 (red) indicates a scenario where we would be able to increase the share of renewable energy by 1% each year, m2 (green) one where the share of renewable energy would increase by 2% each year, and m3 (orange) one where the share of renewable energy would increase by 5% each year. The top and bottom panels show the cases with and without strong negative emissions, respectively. The ‘point of no return’ for a given emission-reductions policy is given by the point in time where the probability drops below a chosen threshold. The default threshold of two-thirds (67%) is dashed. The unachievable region is bounded by the extreme mitigation scenario: one where we would be able to completely stop greenhouse gas emissions instantly. CREDIT Aengenheyster et al., Earth System Dynamics, 2018

The researchers caution, however, that even their more modest climate-action scenario is quite ambitious. “The share of renewable energy refers to the share of all energy consumed. This has risen over the course of over two decades from almost nothing in the late nineties to 3.6% in 2017 according to the BP Statistical Review, so the [yearly] increases in the share of renewables have been very small,” says Rick van der Ploeg, a professor of economics at Oxford University, who also took part in the Earth System Dynamics study. “Considering the slow speed of large-scale political and economic transformations, decisive action is still warranted as the modest-action scenario is a large change compared to current emission rates,” he adds.

To likely limit global warming to 1.5°C in 2100, humanity would have to take strong climate action much sooner. We would only have until 2027 to start if we could increase the share of renewables at a rate of 5% a year. We have already passed the point of no return for the more modest climate-action scenario where the share of renewables increases by 2% each year. In this scenario, unless we remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, it is no longer possible to achieve the 1.5°C target in 2100 with a probability of 67%.

Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, by using ‘negative emissions’ technology, could buy us a bit more time, according to the study. But even with strong negative emissions, humanity would only be able to delay the point of no return by 6 to 10 years.

“We hope that ‘having a deadline’ may stimulate the sense of urgency to act for politicians and policy makers,” concludes Dijkstra. “Very little time is left to achieve the Paris targets.”

###

Please mention the name of the publication (Earth System Dynamics) if reporting on this story and, if reporting online, include a link to the paper

0 0 vote
Article Rating
126 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MarkW
August 30, 2018 8:21 am

1) There isn’t a shred of evidence that CO2 can increase temperatures by 1.5C, much less 2.0C.
2) There isn’t a shred of evidence that increasing temperature by 2.0C would be bad.
3) If temperatures did increase by 2.0C we would still not be up to the average temperature for the last 10K years.

shrnfr
Reply to  MarkW
August 30, 2018 8:35 am

I dunno, I have barely been able to live with the 100 degree F change in climate here in Boston between january and yesterday. I am sure that 3.6 degrees F would be a total catastrophe.

Greg
Reply to  shrnfr
August 30, 2018 9:11 am

I’ve barely been able to stand the suspense of the last ten years of being on the edge of thermodynamic Armageddon . I don’t think I can handle another 35 years !!

MarkW
Reply to  Greg
August 30, 2018 9:50 am

Would that be climate change math?

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
August 30, 2018 3:22 pm

2035 is only 17 years off.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  MarkW
August 30, 2018 8:13 pm

Rounding error.
Near enough for government work.

Bill Powers
Reply to  MarkW
August 30, 2018 9:04 am

Absolutely Mark. Put someone out in the wilderness away form the howling press. Turn the planets themostat up 3 1/2 degrees F and they would easily survive the summer and enjoy the respite in the winter. Not to mention they would eat better and find more fire wood to warm their hut. It’s all this barking at the moon about doom and gloom that will raise your stress levels and kill you. Not the temperature. Easy IPCC the snowflakes are about to riot in their safe zones. Some of them are gonna get hurt long before they melt.

Greg
Reply to  MarkW
August 30, 2018 9:09 am

“We hope that ‘having a deadline’ may stimulate the sense of urgency…..”

Sales strategies 101: create urgency in the mind of the customer.

rocketscientist
Reply to  Greg
August 30, 2018 9:19 am

A ‘strict’ deadline too.
…or else we will be put on ‘Double Secret Probation’!

James Beaver
Reply to  rocketscientist
August 30, 2018 11:44 am

… with a riding crop raised in readiness for the spanking.

michael hart
Reply to  James Beaver
August 30, 2018 5:16 pm

Steady on there, James. That sounds a bit like something from a novel by Rajendra K. Pachauri, former IPCC chairman who liked his global warming hot and sweaty.

Rich Davis
Reply to  rocketscientist
August 30, 2018 4:51 pm

This time we really, really, really mean it.

JonB
Reply to  Greg
August 30, 2018 11:42 am

Exactly. Perhaps first play in every lefty’s playbook, “The Chicken Little Reverse.”

Bill_W_1984
Reply to  MarkW
August 30, 2018 9:45 am

Isn’t this actually 1.5 or 2 C from the temperature in 1880? If so, they are talking about an additional 0.7 C on top of 0.8 C that has already occurred being catastrophic.

manalive
Reply to  Bill_W_1984
August 30, 2018 2:24 pm

“Isn’t this actually 1.5 or 2 C from the temperature in 1880? …”.
As a droll comment a little while back said, if and when the +1.5C “limit” is approached habitual data up-adjustments may start going into reverse.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  manalive
August 30, 2018 3:53 pm

manalive

“Isn’t this actually 1.5 or 2 C from the temperature in 1880? …”.

Well, you see, until about 2-1/2 years ago, when they suddenly noticed that their predictions were not alarming enough people sufficiently enough to destroy the world’s economies, the CAGW propaganda machine decided to “reset” their baseline to 1850. But, until 2-1/2 years ago, the world’s CAGW propagandists NEVER got upset with the original “baseline” of 0.0 at the conveniently low point of mid-1970!

Reply to  Bill_W_1984
August 30, 2018 2:35 pm

Yes, that is correct–unlike the assessments about wilderness survival under a 2 C scenario above.

August 30, 2018 8:28 am

A total waste of time this article is.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 30, 2018 11:56 am

Sal, here’s a doomy video to an old song on predicting the future to keep us entertained.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Pop Piasa
August 30, 2018 12:37 pm

I was already looking for this video – you beat me to it.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Pop Piasa
August 30, 2018 8:16 pm

This video contain content from SME, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
Well, whatever it is, they don’t want everyone to know about it.

Cascadian
August 30, 2018 8:30 am

I suddenly lost interest at “Using information from climate models.”

Gary
Reply to  Cascadian
August 30, 2018 8:55 am

My model says that if we could eliminate this alarmist nonsense at the rate of 10% per year we would be rid of it before we reach the tipping point of ubiquitous, absolute, utter stupidity. Think of the children…

rocketscientist
Reply to  Gary
August 30, 2018 9:23 am

Better make it a set amount of reduction or we’ll end up in Xeno’s Paradox of only eliminating 10% of an ever shrinking number.

Reply to  Cascadian
August 30, 2018 9:42 am

I suddenly lost interest at “Using information from climate models.”

… similar to my first reaction to their mention of climate models. What was that? — after about a couple sentences of the abstract? Nah, I don’t have ADD — I have Climate Repulsion Associated with Pseudoscience syndrome (CRAP, for short).

Sandyb
Reply to  Cascadian
August 30, 2018 11:25 am

Along with: according to the Guardian or NY Slimes, and key words…may, might, could, should, etc,etc. which appear in EVERY so called study that we pay for.

Yirgach
Reply to  Cascadian
August 30, 2018 12:41 pm

Reminds me of:
Green Day
Do you have the time to listen to me whine
About nothing and everything all at once
I am one of those
Melodramatic fools
Neurotic to the bone
No doubt about it.

Sometimes I give myself the creeps
Sometimes my mind plays tricks on me
It all keeps adding up, I think I’m cracking up
Am I just paranoid, or am I just stoned?

Complete Basket Case

Latitude
August 30, 2018 8:33 am

….only 17 more years….from your lips to God

We have already passed the point of no return

Malcolm andrew bryer
August 30, 2018 8:35 am

Yet another prediction fails to materialise. I.e. Do not worry comrades, if we persevere, perfect communism will be reached. Just keep the faith.

Reply to  Malcolm andrew bryer
August 31, 2018 12:43 pm

True. If the 5-year plan fails, make a 17-year plan.

Tom in Florida
August 30, 2018 8:37 am

Mods my previous comment I entered my email in the name part. Please do not publish that. Sorry

[Done. .mod]

Jimmy
August 30, 2018 8:37 am

So they’re using information from climate models, which are inaccurate? What can go wrong?!

Tom in Florida
August 30, 2018 8:38 am

Isn’t the year 2100 an arbitrary selection? If we just move the date to 2120, we give ourselves an extra 20 years.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 30, 2018 9:04 am

Tom,
Yes, picking an even number (based on when we think Christ was born), in a decimal system of counting, is not unlike believing in lucky (7) and unlucky (13) numbers — superstition! I guess we could call this the Y2.1K disaster, with probably less impact than the forecast Y2K apocalypse.

Sandyb
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 30, 2018 11:19 am

My doctor told me I only had a month to live. When I told him I couldn’t pay him for the visit he gave me another month.

J Mac
Reply to  Sandyb
August 30, 2018 1:28 pm

Bhu-dump! Tish!

I went to the doctor the other day.
He said I was fat. I said I wanted another opinion.
He said “OK. You’re ugly too!”

(The unparalleled Rodney Dangerfield.)

Tom in Florida
Reply to  J Mac
August 30, 2018 2:32 pm

My wife is such a bad cook we find bones in our French Toast.
(another Rodney gem)

MarkW
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 30, 2018 3:24 pm

Possible, if you use fertilized eggs.

Tom Halla
August 30, 2018 8:40 am

Society will never reach the desired proportion of “renewables”, as it would collapse with any widespread reliance on wind and solar. There is no way, given current or foreseeable technology, to actually build wind and solar installations using only wind and solar.

markl
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 30, 2018 10:34 am

Technically they could but not even close to being realistic. It doesn’t take an engineering degree to figure out the time, cost, land area, and logistics to match the current electrical grid energy delivery system is unrealistic.

Dave Fair
Reply to  markl
August 30, 2018 11:55 am

Airplanes, long-haul trucking, etc. ad infinitum.

JonB
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 30, 2018 10:49 am

I’m guessing that if our civilization is around 80 years from now, abundant clean energy will not be the problem. We will have developed so many civilization ending technologies, we will have set ourselves back to proverbial stone age. Remember the early days of “global cooling” we learned about on the first earth day? Perhaps not that many of you. There were those even then as now that fervently believed we needed to reduce the population by 90% to save our “Mother”. Their descendants are the ones to be concerned about. Remember we haven’t developed a single technology that hasn’t been used. Personally I’m looking forward to global warming. Perhaps is will melt some of the “snowflakes.” Apolologies if I’m cribbing an earlier post.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 30, 2018 12:01 pm

Has anyone told the Germans that as soon as they make bats extinct with their windmills the German ECO system will collapse?

Role of bats in our ecosystems
https://www.google.com/search?q=Role+of+bats+in+our+ecosystems&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab

JonB
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 30, 2018 12:56 pm

According to my models, they have reached the point of no return. Mosquitoes will become the dominant intelligent species in central Europe in 43.6 years +/- 3 months.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  JonB
August 30, 2018 8:05 pm

Why do you think they would necessarily wind up with an intelligent species?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 1, 2018 6:43 pm

Something like 75% of the power from the grid would have to be devoted to replacing components of the grid. Think of all the jobs that would create!

ResourceGuy
August 30, 2018 8:40 am

Paris and deadlines were the driving key words for this form fit, mail order study.

August 30, 2018 8:40 am

“We find that cumulative CO2 emissions from 2015 onwards may not exceed 424 GtC and that the
Point of No Return (tipping point) is 2035 for the policy scenario where the share of renewable energy rises by 2% per year. Pushing this increase to 5% per year delays the Point of No Return until 2045. For the 1.5 K target, the carbon budget is only 198 GtC and there is no time left before starting to increase the renewable share by 10 2% per year”

Downloadable pdf available online at
https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2018-17/esd-2018-17.pdf

The analysis is based on the TCR “carbon budget” based on the Matthews 2009 study of the “proportionality of temperature with cumulative emissions. Believe it or not THIS PROPORTIONALITY IS BASED ON A SPURIOUS CORRELATION. Please see

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/tcr-transient-climate-response/

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/27/spurious-correlations-in-climate-science-2/

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/ecs-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/

Bruce Cobb
August 30, 2018 8:41 am

Something wrong with their Climate Cuckoo Clock, if they have to keep re-adjusting it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 30, 2018 9:07 am

The world will end mañana! Only mañana is always in the future.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 30, 2018 3:26 pm

Free beer tomorrow

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 30, 2018 3:31 pm

Clyde
Here in RealistWorld, for this world-saving (TM) task, we have no word with quite the same sense of emergency urgency as mañana.

Auto

August 30, 2018 8:41 am

“World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns”
If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will ‘lose for ever’ the chance to avoid dangerous climate change
Source: The Guardian November 9, 2011

comment image

Reply to  Ron Clutz
August 30, 2018 3:34 pm

OM Golly Gosh!
It’s worse than we thought.
Extinction of Grauniadistas is now inevitable.
And should likely prove permanent.

Ahhhhhhhhhh.

Auto

CD in Wisconsin
August 30, 2018 8:43 am

“We hope that ‘having a deadline’ may stimulate the sense of urgency to act for politicians and policy makers,” concludes Dijkstra. “Very little time is left to achieve the Paris targets.”

Reminds me of the nuclear fusion joke: Nuclear fusion is just 10 or 20 or 30 years away, and it always will be.

We have “very little time left” to act on climate change, and we always will….. Sigh.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 30, 2018 8:53 am

Is the “point of no return” a new name for the “tipping point”. Not only do they move the goalposts, they change the language.

DonM
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 30, 2018 9:39 am

“permanent change of state” would be next if it weren’t too sciencey for the general public.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  DonM
September 1, 2018 6:50 pm

Predicting catastrophes is a Strange Attractor that causes people to move to a new mental state round which all things eschatological swirl. It is interesting that as the strange attractor settles into different stable domains, the solution is invariant: “Give me more money and I will make it go away.”

The more some things change, the more other things stay the same.

Another Paul
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 30, 2018 9:56 am

The tipping point is defined as when our climate starts to cool but we’ve done nothing drastic to reduce CO2. At least if they had the Paris garbage in place, they could tout a “win”.

rocketscientist
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 30, 2018 1:48 pm

The point of no return is used to depict a distance greater than half way towards a goal, as in it’s closer to your destination than the return trip would be.
Or in aircraft terms it means you’ve flown farther away from base than your fuel reserves will allow you to return.
However every day into the future is a point of no return to the past.

HotScot
Reply to  rocketscientist
August 30, 2018 1:53 pm

rocketscientist

Top comment.

The moment the founding fathers set sail for America was their point of no return.

There is no such thing as a tipping point, it’s just courage.

Socialist greens are cowards.

David nixon
August 30, 2018 8:58 am

This falls right in line with other apocalyptic forecasts for the end of civilization. https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1002422/Apocalypse-2040-MIT-computer-model-civilisation-world-end-Club-of-Rome

Clyde Spencer
August 30, 2018 8:58 am

“The point of no return?” In other words, the Tipping Point that has not occurred in 4.5 billion years of climate change!

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 30, 2018 9:57 am

Point of no return?

So even if we reduced CO2 to 0ppm, the climate would be stuck and couldn’t come back to the perfect climate we have right now?

HotScot
Reply to  MarkW
August 30, 2018 2:00 pm

MarkW

Aha!….the greens have outfoxed you there. Cunning devils.

The point of no return, or in their parlance, the tipping point, suggests that we can tip forward into the future, or tip back into the past.

Their preferred option is, of course, to tip back into the past where technology is but a romantic memory, instead we all grub for food from the gutter and obey the diktat’s of our lords and masters, which is of course them.

Am I overly cynical these days?……must be getting old, and wise, which makes me redundant by today’s standards.

HotScot
Reply to  HotScot
August 30, 2018 2:01 pm

Hold the wise bit. Just old and cynical.

Reply to  HotScot
August 30, 2018 3:37 pm

And I thought that the definition of a ‘Cynic’ is
– a realist whose rose-tinted glasses have been knocked off by facts.

Auto
PS – Age is just a number, until your knees tell you otherwise.

HotScot
Reply to  Auto
August 30, 2018 5:40 pm

Auto

Knees……….Ouch!

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  HotScot
September 1, 2018 6:53 pm

Enjoy your knees. You will miss them when they are gone.

HotScot
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 30, 2018 10:06 am

Clyde Spencer

‘The tipping point’ – “the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point”. The book seeks to explain and describe the “mysterious” sociological changes that mark everyday life. As Gladwell states: “Ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread like viruses do”. (My emphasis).

From The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference – Malcolm Gladwell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point

Climate Change myth, a virus, I like that.

rocketscientist
Reply to  HotScot
August 30, 2018 1:35 pm

You contract it from drinking tainted Kool-Aid.

HotScot
Reply to  rocketscientist
August 30, 2018 1:50 pm

rocketscientist

There’s an untainted Kool Aid?

J Mac
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 30, 2018 1:40 pm

Kansas: The Point Of Know Return
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-R8gHj_7v8&w=560&h=315%5D

kent beuchert
August 30, 2018 8:59 am

That “consensus” amongst the climate alarmists spans a very wide range. Wonder why they are so certain they can foresee a very cloudy fuutre so precisely. They give it away “It’s to scare the public into action.” Next question: By my estimates long before 2035 arrives, the molten salt nuclear revolution will have arrived, duw to both its low carbon chaacteristic and especially, its low cost, and also its inherent safety and resistance to nuclear proliferation. Conclusion – quit running your mouths about doom and start pushing molten salt technology, you morons.

JonB
Reply to  kent beuchert
August 30, 2018 11:02 am

No, “THEY” really want to get rid of the riffraff first. Except for those “THEY” need for worker bees. Even though I’m not rabidly anti-fission, I certainly agree one of the thorium solutions would be a far, far better option.

Trebla
August 30, 2018 9:00 am

Don’t these guys ever spend any time examining the feasibility of replacing fossil fuels with low density, non-dispatchable renewables such as wind and solar? It’s just not possible unless we all agree to start starving a major portion of the Earth’s population. NEWS FLASH: hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on renewables and they contribute a paltry 3.5% of the world’s energy needs. They have had zero measurable effect on CO2 emissions overall, especially if you consider the huge amount of fossil fuel spent on mining the raw materials for renewables as well as the production of cement, steel and plastic.

mark from the midwest
August 30, 2018 9:16 am

If … could … might … and Savannah State COULD win the NCAA Basketball tournament this year IF each of their players brings their game up to the level of a NBA Lottery Pick by late February.

Steve O
August 30, 2018 9:27 am

“If governments don’t act decisively by 2035…”
— They’re getting smarter. Our “time to act” used to be issued only in five year increments. But when you issue 17 year increments, it’s not as obvious that we’re on an automatic rolling extension compared to a five year rolling extension.

But rest assured, that automatic renewal will come as reliably as for your XM radio subscription.

Sweet Old Bob
August 30, 2018 9:27 am

Isn’t it supposed to be the year 2535 ?
As that song goes …

MarkW
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
August 30, 2018 10:00 am

If man is still alive …

HotScot
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
August 30, 2018 10:14 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yesyhQkYrQM

Evidently, we have 10,000 years.

John Endicott
Reply to  HotScot
August 30, 2018 11:32 am

and a billion tears. Mostly of the alarmists, we skeptics are too busy laughing at the doomsayers.

John Endicott
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
August 30, 2018 11:28 am

It asks if man is still alive in the year 2525 but then goes on to discuss 3535, 4545, 5555, 6565, 7510, 8510, and 9595

before saying:
“Now it’s been 10, 000 years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what he never knew
Now man’s reign is through”

So we’ve got some time left 🙂

HotScot
Reply to  John Endicott
August 30, 2018 12:22 pm

John Endicott

That was my point. 🙂

DHR
August 30, 2018 9:32 am

Did they use one of the INCMN(#) Russian climate models? Its the only one of dozens that comes close to actual warming over the past 50 years or so. Nope, they used the average of the CHIMP 5 set of 35 or so models – which runs hot.

One would think that if there were 35 or so climate models and one replicated observations and the others didn’t, the science community would focus on the model that worked best and move on from there. If one is concerned about a tipping point, run the best model and see what is says. This seems not to happen in the world of climatology.

Reply to  DHR
August 31, 2018 1:04 pm

Three statisticians on a hunt. Stat 1 keeps the record, Stat 2 shoots at the duck and misses left. Stat 3 shoots and misses right. “A hit!” claims Stat 1.

The curves can’t be averaged any better, and in any case will not even make the same predictions the next time the algorithms are twiddled.

Besides a model’s not being evidence of any real process (except for self-consistency if it weren’t also be twiddled), CO2 simply lacks the fundamental/inherent capability to be the driver of the average global temperature. That’s water’s job, with the rest of the atmosphere to help heat transfer.

August 30, 2018 9:35 am

Turn the ship around!!!! We’re gonna sail off the edge!!! The window has closed!!!
Whew!
What’s next?
The only thing that went up was my utility bill. Maybe they got the numbers mixed up. At this rate, ” children just won’t know what a warm house is in the winter”.

Steve O
August 30, 2018 9:41 am

At what point can we assume reality? For instance, let’s recognize that the public consensus is that radical action is NOT necessary, and therefore there is no political urgency. Sorry guys, you were unconvincing. Therefore, we need to change the strategy from mitigation to adjustment. Will this finally happen in 2035?

And based on that, what will you recommend?

I mean, as long as we’re on our way to hothouse earth anyway, do we really need all those windmills? Isn’t that ALL a colossal waste of money, given that we have no expectation of them preventing catastrophe? We’re on our way to hothouse earth, remember? Maybe we need to ensure that electricity is less expensive so that those vulnerable poor people I keep hearing about will be able to afford air conditioning. And if we’re going to have the expense of moving our cities inland, we’d better not blow our wad funding futile and meaningless gestures, like solar energy plants, and making gas out of corn. At a minimum, can we stop subsidizing construction in New Orleans?

JonB
Reply to  Steve O
August 30, 2018 11:10 am

I would submit the threat to New Orleans is not a higher gulf as it is a lower New Orleans. Perhaps we can save it by lowering the earth’s temperature until the ground under NOLA is permafrost.

Curious George
August 30, 2018 9:42 am

“The ‘point of no return’ concept has the advantage of containing time information, which we consider very useful to inform the debate on the urgency of taking climate action.”

Translation: We will do anything to get your money.

Bill_W_1984
August 30, 2018 9:43 am

They’ll do that in 2090.

gbaikie
August 30, 2018 9:49 am

–Deadline for climate action

Act strongly before 2035 to keep warming below 2°C–

So global average surface air temperature is about 15 C and some desire to act strongly
to keep below about 17 C ?
According to Berkeley Earth, Los Angeles is average yearly surface air temperature is about 16.5 C and in first part of 20th century it was about 16 C.
LA Mean of Daily High Temperature is now a bit over 23 C and in first part of 20th century was a bit less than 23 C and Mean of Daily Low Temperature has risen more than .5 C during same time
period, going from about 8 C to 8.5 C:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/34.56N-118.70W

Not sure about Urban heat island effect, probably trying to remove it it’s effect [“adjustments”], as I would think such huge increase in urban population- and freeways invented and built all over the place, and roadways, and all the buildings would have cause at least 1 C to average temperature.
So guess if including UHI effect, the Mean Daily Low Temperature of a year would average higher than 10 C, currently.
But continue to adjust to exclude UHI, is the goal to keep LA below a Mean Daily Low Temperature below 10 C or is to keep it below 12 C.
If looking more broadly, US average temperature is a bit below 10 C, {and if exclude Alaska it is about 12 C].
It’s Mean of Daily High Temperature is about 16.5 C
Mean of Daily Low Temperature is about 3 C

Since early part of 20th century, Mean of Daily High Temperature was a bit below 16 C and Mean Low about 2.5 C.
So is goal to keep entire average temperature US at or below 12 C- which already is if exclude Alaska- or keep US without Alaska below 14 C?

In terms of global temperature what is important is the global ocean surface temperature, which if include the tropics [40% of oceans] is about 17 C, and if exclude tropics it’s about 11 C and average tropics is about 26 C.
What would significant would be that ocean outside the tropics were to increase from about 11 to 13 C.
Is goal to prevent 2 C warming of oceans outside of tropics [60% of all oceans] ?
Or to prevent the tropical ocean from increasing by 2 C- so that increasing from about 26 C to about 28 C.
The tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world if tropical ocean were to warm by 2 C it could be that tropical ocean is warming the rest of world, less. But for global warming what is significant of for the 60% of the ocean to increase by 2 C. Or if tropical ocean to remain about the same and the rest of ocean were to increase from 11 to 13 C, this would have huge effect upon global temperature. Whereas if “somehow” the tropical ocean were to increase from about 26 C to 28 C and rest of world’s ocean were to remain around 11 C, this would be far less significant effect upon global temperature and have less global effect [and be a very strange thing to happen and maybe an impossible thing to happen].
Or the more plausible or normal way would be increase of temperature of the surface ocean outside of the tropics and if talking about global increase in temperature and by 2 C, you would be talking about the ocean surface temperature outside of the tropics increase by about 2 C.
So going from about 11 to about 13 C.

Reply to  gbaikie
August 31, 2018 1:10 pm

Honestly could not decipher your point. There is nothing we do that makes any temperature difference in air or water. If some process we don’t understand is actually making the Earth warmer, our best reaction is to prepare to weather the changes, so to speak.

MilwaukeeBob
August 30, 2018 10:08 am

Dijkstra and his colleagues at the Utrecht Centre for Complex Systems Studies and at Oxford University, UK, wanted to find – something that nobody else has thought of to study regarding human modification of the average of weather to assure continued funding of their respective departments. They were sitting at the local pub having a few pints, when one of them said: “Ah ha! I’ve got it! The POINT OF NO RETURN!” “Nobody has done that yet. We’ll get millions!”

rocketscientist
Reply to  MilwaukeeBob
August 30, 2018 1:42 pm

Nope, the rock group “Kansas” beat them to it.

Paul Penrose
August 30, 2018 10:09 am

Every time we get close to the point of no return, they move the date back. I see a trend here. Extrapolating this out it looks like the real point will be…never! Yeah, we just solved the CAGW problem!

Gary Pearse
August 30, 2018 10:34 am

They lowered the danger threshold to 1.5% increase and stretched the start-measuring date from 1950 back to 1850 when it became clear that we just couldn’t heat up 1.5 degrees above 1950 even with no added ruinoobles or reduction in fossil fuels. This way, they’ve already banked half the increase.

This was the beginning of the end. Like a chicken with its head cut-off, we are in the leaping and wild flapping stage of the meme.

John in Redding
August 30, 2018 11:06 am

“Using information from climate models” Once again modeling is the bases for their doom and gloom analysis. It is complete arrogance to continue using modeling when it has been established they are not a reliable source. Yes they are fun to play what-if but unacceptable to base monumental policies upon.

John Endicott
August 30, 2018 11:17 am

“If governments don’t act decisively by 2035 to fight climate change, humanity could cross a point of no return …”

Didn’t we already pass the point of no return several times by now?

– I’m pretty sure Hansen’s 2006 “At most 10 years” point of no return passed us by a couple of years ago.

– And Pachauri’s “without drastic action by 2012” point of no return is half a dozen years gone.

– It’s been 18 years since 2000 which is the point of no return the UN gave (back in the 1980s) that would result in rising sea levels washing away entire countries.

All those previous “point of no returns” (and many more) have come and gone and the predicted disasters remain elusive. How many times is the alarmist establishment have to cry wolf Point of No Return?

rocketscientist
Reply to  John Endicott
August 30, 2018 5:33 pm

Of course we’ve crossed the point of no return, and have no intention of going back to the ways of the past.

MikeN
August 30, 2018 11:18 am

This means they are not counting nuclear or hydro as renewable if late 90s was 0.

JonB
Reply to  MikeN
August 30, 2018 12:13 pm

Think of the “DYN-O-MITE!” hydro we’ll have when the ice caps melt.

rocketscientist
Reply to  JonB
August 30, 2018 5:34 pm

Actually it will reduce the over-all pressure head, but a moot point all the same.

Peta of Newark
August 30, 2018 11:52 am

Oxford University, UK, wanted to find the ‘point of no return’ or deadline for

Will someone point me to someone, anyone, living or deceased, from any previous time or era, any civilisation or society who DIDN’T want to know the future.

That folks from one of (supposedly) THE most prestigious & long established universities in The Whole World imagine they can find the answer inside a box of electronics…… is what?

The only word I can think is ‘sad’
(Or that computer salesman must have put One Epic Sales-Pitch. Bridge anyone?)

What happened. What went wrong.
What became of Original & Genuine Thought based on lifetimes of accumulated knowledge?

Or, despite all our claims to the contrary, we are no more advanced than the advisors to the Pharaohs – throwing chicken entrails across the floor.

rocketscientist
Reply to  Peta of Newark
August 30, 2018 5:38 pm

Yes and I cringe too at when my alma mater, MIT, makes ludicrous pronouncements. At least we had Lindzen, until they promoted him out. 🙁

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Peta of Newark
August 30, 2018 8:33 pm

A historical vestige of greatness of Oxford University remains in the high station it still has in the outdated valuation lists of world universities published each year. Harvard is still there, too, which is proof that post normal drones have taken over this work. It reminds me of the ruins of the Statue of Liberty still with its strong brow and and firm jaw, lying among the bricks and jetsam and flotsam in the planet of the apes.

I had always wondered if the movie was just a fanciful, light scifi tale for our entertainment or a deeper darker diabolically clever satire of the way the world was heading. I realize it was the former but it is gathering more intelligent Neo Dark Ages patina with age. Oxford’s greatness today is a warning to send your children to study in Eastern Europe.

Tom Gelsthorpe
August 30, 2018 11:54 am

We’re all doomed unless we stomp the peasants NOW! Cram the urban peasants into tenements on meager rations, with crummy jitneys to cart ’em around now and then. Cram the rural peasants into huts and make ’em do stoop labor for pennies, like the good old days.

The big shots will still get to fly around to conferences, nosh paté, and pontificate to the rest of us, and the airports and swish hotels will be a lot less crowded.

Coeur de Lion
August 30, 2018 12:16 pm

What do they mean by ‘climate action ‘? Kill the poor? And what level of CO2 equals 2 degrees? I’v e never seen a number.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
August 30, 2018 1:19 pm

That’s because they don’t know what climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is, so they’re just hoping no one has spotted that they seem to have misplaced their magic calculator.

Smart Rock
August 30, 2018 1:17 pm

You’d think that after all the previous deadlines that have passed without noticeable disasters, all the tipping points that have come and gone, that they might change the message a bit. Wouldn’t you?

Nobody paid attention when the deadline was just months away, so pushing it 17 years into the future is just telling people it’s OK to procrastinate.

They need to suppress this study, come up with something scary that will get all the dumb public aroused enough to do something positive. Something scary, but vague enough that nobody will notice when those damned denializationists try and deny it. Perhaps abandon “global warming” and substitute “climate change”. There’s an idea!!

David Dibbell
August 30, 2018 2:51 pm

Let’s see … in 2035, if I am blessed to live that long, I will turn 79 on June 23rd, which will also be the 47th anniversary of Dr. James Hansen’s testimony in that sweltering Senate committee room. Seems like an appropriately precise date for such a claim. I think I will put this on my calendar, to invite all the grandchildren to come watch the point of no return.

JonScott
August 30, 2018 3:07 pm

Am I alone in being sick and tired of the alarmists “could” and “might” and pathetic maybes? What about the scuence and every mught has also a mught not and maybe a may not. The standard of this junk being passed off as credible science makes the National Enquirer look authoritative.

Macha
August 30, 2018 3:24 pm

Lucky for me, I don’t subscribe to the notion that CO2 is pollution. Disaster averted.

August 30, 2018 3:36 pm

“If we were to reduce emissions at a faster rate, by increasing the share of renewable energy by 5% each year, we would buy another 10 years.”….Boy, have I got a deal for you, and if you like that, there’s this bridge that I’ve got that might interest you!

Gary Kerkin
August 30, 2018 3:57 pm

How old is Dijkstra? I rather hope he is considerably younger than me. I will probably see 2025, but 2035 is drawing a long bow. As someone wrote earlier, it is worth marking the year on the calendar so that our grandchildren know when to observe Dijkstra’s colleagues wiping the accumulated egg off his face (if he is still alive).

Living in a cool temperate climate as I do (central New Zealand) I rather hope that should I survive to 2035 it will be a couple of degrees warmer and that the increased carbon dioxide will enhance the growth my wife’s tomatoes.

michael hart
August 30, 2018 5:03 pm

“Using information from climate models, the team determined the deadline for starting climate action…”

But we have started.
lol. What did the team think was the point of all that champagne and canapés in Paris?
And what’s more, they are going to continue starting some climate action for many years to come. Probably until they run out of champagne and canapés or the sun blows up, which ever happens first.

Rich Davis
August 30, 2018 5:36 pm

I’ve sort of lost track, but wasn’t the world going to be past the tipping point by 2003 or something when Hansen did his first magical mystery tour?

At some point, this particular scam has to reach its expiration date, as natural variation puts us back into a 30-year cooling trend. That’s why we see such desperate hysterics.

If world socialism doesn’t get implemented very soon, it will be a terrible missed opportunity. It may be too late, maybe for a generation! They’ve got to be able to claim that the cooling is due to their actions saving the planet. If we go more than a few more years, decades of work will be down the crapper, and they’ll have to come up with new lies about how burning fossil fuels is driving global cooling that is going to destroy life on earth in 15 years.

But then again, I have high confidence in their ability to switch from global warming to global cooling without missing a beat. That’s what Climate Change TM and Climate Collapse TM are all about after all. Whatever happens, it’s BAD, we’re causing it, and the solution is “stop burning fossil fuels, we need more socialism”.

Louis Hunt
August 30, 2018 7:44 pm

We keep hitting the ‘point of no return,’ and then they promptly extend the deadline. How can the debate be settled if they keep moving the goal posts? They clearly don’t really know what they claim to know.

In my opinion, if the date given for some end-of-the-world catastrophe ends in zero or five, or if the years we have left is a variation of five or ten, it is just a wild guess intended to keep the populace alarmed and can be safely ignored.

Gary Pearse
August 30, 2018 8:00 pm

So we presently have 2% ruinoobles and it cost us $10 trillion. So, with our experience we can cut this down to $5 trillion a year in perpetuity. Do we have enough resources to print that much money.

John V. Wright
August 30, 2018 11:20 pm

And yet CO2 levels during the Triassic were at 1000ppm.
*pinches skin on arm until it hurts*
Nope, still alive apparently…

MattS
August 30, 2018 11:22 pm

2035, wasn’t that Pachuri’s Himalayan glacier year?

jon
August 31, 2018 2:29 am

ho hum

Edwin
August 31, 2018 10:15 am

Even if the Paris Agreement goals meant something, somebody needs to figure out exactly how the world transitions to renewable energy production at the level these idiots believe we should. Is there even enough space for enough wind farms solar arrays, etc. And even if they support nuclear considering the regulations some of these same people demand to build a plant we cannot build enough to reach their artificially, computer modeled goals.

Then being a bird lover, I wonder even if we could build enough wind farms to meet such goals, how many birds would die a year, how many bird species would be driven to extinction?

Then we have China and India. I vote we ship anyone making such suggestions to China make them stay there until they change their ways and their planned economic development.

August 31, 2018 12:36 pm

Old age is always 15 years in one’s future. All these end-of-the-world predictions are just far enough off that we are expected to forget the failure by the time the date has passed. I am not the slightest bit concerned, and have also no worries about Guy McPherson, who I trust will go extinct before the rest of us.

TimTheToolMan
August 31, 2018 11:04 pm

So when we actually pass a point of no return, one wonders what evidence the alarmists will point to, to justify the claim. I’ve heard a lot of claims of tipping points over the years but at no point has anyone given anything measurable to watch for to signify it happened.

Or is it going to be “tipping point” because something happened so entirely retrospective and entirely worthless?

Dean
September 10, 2018 5:46 am

Chicken Little anyone

%d bloggers like this: