With all the crazy talk about “Russian meddling” in the 2016 Presidential election, one wonders if the same sort of crazy talk might be applied to the release of a special climate report just weeks before the U.S. mid-term elections. Given the timing, you can be sure that whatever is in the report will be front page news and used by the left as a political tool. Here is a press release from the IPCC, h/t to Dr. Willie Soon
Save the Date: IPCC Special Report Global Warming of 1.5ºC
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will meet in Incheon, Republic of Korea, on 1-5 October 2018, to consider the Special Report Global Warming of 1.5ºC. Subject to approval, the Summary for Policymakers will be released on Monday 8 October with a live-streamed press conference.
The press conference, addressed by the IPCC Chair and Co-Chairs from the three IPCC Working Groups, will be open to registered media, and take place at 10:00 local time (KST), 03:00 CEST, 02:00 BST, 01:00 GMT and 21:00 (Sunday 7 October) EDT.
Registered media will also be able to access the Summary for Policymakers and press release under embargo, once they are available. They will also be able to attend the opening session of the meeting at 10:00-11:00 on Monday 1 October. All other sessions of the IPCC meeting are closed to the public and to media.
The opening session of the meeting will include statements by the Chair of the IPCC, senior officials the IPCC’s two parent bodies World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) and of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and senior officials of the Republic of Korea.
The IPCC meetings and the press conference will take place at Songdo Convensia in Incheon.
Arrangements for media registration, submitting questions remotely, booking interviews, and broadcast facilities will be communicated in the coming weeks.
The report, whose full name is Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, is being prepared under the scientific leadership of all three IPCC Working Groups.
Formally, the meeting will start with the 48th Session of the IPCC. Next a joint session of the three Working Groups chaired by their Co-Chairs will consider the Summary for Policymakers line by line for approval. Then the 48th Session of the IPCC will resume to accept the Summary for Policymakers and overall report.
The IPCC decided to prepare the report, in response to an invitation from the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties at its 21st meeting in December 2015 when the Paris Agreement was signed.
Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/ma-p48.shtml
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A reasonable guess that it will include ample doom and gloom.
It will be worse than we thought.
Yes. I can hardly contain my excitement at the prospect. Not.
Even worse than worse than we thought
The touted message will be Trump is worse than we (the press) thought.
It’s been worse than we thought for 30 now. Each year worse than the last. Paradoxically, I personally feel more optimistic about climate change than I’ve felt for 30 years. I guess that’s because I now discount everything they tell me.
That makes you a wise man indeed.
Women and children hit hardest?
No, unless they also are LBGBQWERTY
I prefer BLIGT (Bisexual, Lesbian, Intersex, Gay & Transvestite).
Pronounced as “blight”.
“Women and children hardest hit.”
When did Climate Change stop beating his family?
I think the venue’s location requires clarification, word ‘People’s’ is missing/sarc
I truly love countries named, “The Peoples Democratic republic of………(fill in the blank)”. The two things they are never for are democracy, & specially, the people!!!!!
“Given the timing, you can be sure that whatever is in the report will be front page news”…
…as reported by the US media
Hoesung….Kavanaugh druged me and Trump held me down while he raped me…..out in the middle of the field at the Alabama Auburn game….but their are no witnesses
Doom, gloom, despair, tragedy, hysteria, victimization, Nazis burning down your house, less happiness, sharks with laserbeams on their heads, acid oceans, alkaline rain, blizzards during heat wave inspired droughts, crab people, and helplessness — but we have exactly 3 weeks to save you if you vote for democrats.
This will be the announcement that as none of the catastrophic climate predictions made over the last 40 years have materialised, the IPCC is giving up the futile struggle to convince people of the lie they have perpetuated and will disband forthwith.
“Rise in CO2 is now the leading cause of parasitic hypocrites scourging and crucifying scientists.” – UN IPCC
Would anyone expect anything else? It is after all a political body.
A political body that proceeds in secret scares the hell outta me.
yup – see FISA
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
They’ll get a surprise, but not one they are looking for!!!
At the Climate Conference just held at the University of Porto in Portugal, the major flaw in satellite altimeter readings was revealed. Reported Sea Level Rise by the University of Colorado is actually less than half of the 3.3mm/yr. that they have been reporting for a quarter-century.
The culprit was shown to be coding error, and not NASA’s altimeter instrumentation!!!
Stay tuned!!!
Do you have a citation or reference? I have puzzled over the discrepancy between the gauges and the satellite record each time the issue comes up.
I took the liberty of forwarding your message but not your name to an MP of the Opposition in New Zealand. Our local MP is in charge of Climate Warming matters for the LabourGovernment.
Our PM is now in New York and is not persuadable anyway.
M E
September 24, 2018 at 1:37 pm
Oh great…James Shaw is your MP…bad luck!
Which National MP did you forward the information too…is there one who understands the issue? Ours in the Coromandel is Scott Simpson and I’m not sure he really gets it. It’s much easier for these guys to go with the flow.
Told you so.
tomwys
September 24, 2018 at 12:14 pm
Yes Tom, as I said to you at the conference your paper was the best and potentially the most important. If you can get access to the data you require the game is over for the warmists. Good luck…please keep us all posted here.
Is this why sealevel.colorado.edu has been off line the past couple days? No google cache of it either.
Oh, wait for it – there is no bottom to their tactics.
They just wear you down with the propaganda. Mencken made many great points over his life. Two of the keenest observations were:
“Freedom of press is limited to those who own one.”
In essence he who controls the peer review process hence the message boards controls the message.
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” All the manufactured hobgoblins are created to extort the public’s money and liberty through bureaucratic regulation our saviors desire to rule us.
This Progressive movement is as relentless as the tides that carve the cliffs out of the rocky shoreline
Mencken also said (quoted to our class by a professor): “Education today is the casting of synthetic pearls before real swine.”
Two more quotes on education by Mencken:
The effects of such education are already distressingly visible in the Republic. Americans in the days when their education stopped with the three R’s, were a self-reliant, cynical, liberty-loving and extremely rambunctious people. Today, with pedagogy standardized and school-houses everywhere, they are the herd of sheep (Ovis aries).
All that is taught to the end of grammar school could be imparted to an intelligent child, by genuinely scientific methods, in two years and without any cruelty worse than that involved in pulling a tooth. But now it takes nine years,
Wikiquotes says:
“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. A. J. Liebling, in “Do you belong in journalism?”, The New Yorker (14 May 1960); sometimes paraphrased : “Freedom of press is limited to those who own one”; sometimes misattributed to H. L. Mencken.”
It appears the point is such a good one that it gets passed along. Who knows, maybe Liebling plagiarized Mencken, who died in 1956. After all Mencken was a pioneer in early 20th century journalism. Or maybe he attributed to Mencken in his book. In addition to Wiki, did you read Liebling’s book? I choose to not reference open sourced wiki, as so much is misattributed often by government paid propagandists but that takes us off the point of the Climate flim flam.
I do however, keep Mencken in mind, when considering what comes out of the Bureaucratic Government Propaganda Ministry, better known and the Mainstream Press, when it comes to this boogie man known as Global Warm….ahhhh we really meant Climate Change all along.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Gary Pearse more than once said about the First Amendment: “Freedom of the press to do what exactly?” In more moral times it didn’t need to be spelled out.
So, Gary – can I quote you on that?
“… in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty …”
Are the latter two attempts at tautologies?
– If you argue against ‘sustainable development’ you must be in favor of Unsustainable development
– if you argue against ‘eradicating poverty’, you must be n favor of continuing poverty
Naturally, these two are lumped in to form the same type of argument for “strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change”. Except in this case, if you argue against “CO2 = pollution”, you’ve got science on your side.
Both require the same answer to the question “when did you stop beating your wife?”.
The answer must be a restatement of the position, not a yes/no.
My favorite response to questions like that is to answer “you’re an idiot”. That throws them sufficiently that you can make a clean getaway 🙂
Thomas…well said! I am surprised they didn’t tack on ‘children, baby seals, polar pairs and otters holding hands!’
Everything the IPCC proposes, almost by definition, increases poverty. The IPCC was created to demonize affordable energy, which plays into the cost of all goods and services. Increase the cost of energy and all goods and services become more expensive. For the IPCC to spin anything that they do as associated with efforts to eradicate poverty is like your stove proclaiming that it will no be making ice cubes. It ain’t gonna happen.
The phrase ‘sustainable development’ is one of those phrases that everyone thinks they understand, until you ask them what it is. Then they realize that it doesn’t mean anything. But that is not the worse part of the phrase. While it may have no real meaning, it implies that something akin to ‘development nirvana’ may actually exist, or that you can design something that never requires adaptation or redesigning. That is a very dangerous notion to put in the minds of people.
Adaptability is probably the greatest asset of the human race, and the one the IPCC has worked hard to deny. If we acknowledge human adaptability, the threat of a few degrees of warming becomes a joke, and the IPCC looses all of its power and reason for existing.
To date, every attempt to create “sustainable development” has resulted in increasing levels of global poverty.
By design.
Instead of just saying IPCC, I think it’s time to start referencing the names of those that worked on the report. They need to take ownership of this report.
Raise tariffs on all the signatories to help pay for policy damage awards to citizens and science.
Presedential?
What happened to “2 degrees C”?
Gone with the wind?
Do I hear a bid for 1.4 degrees?
1.5 degrees?
Something odd is happening. As evidence for high sensitivity continues to not materialize, they appear to be moving a different set of goal posts.
It wasn’t long ago that the goal was no more than 2.0 degrees, and we should aim for 1.5. Now it seems all we hear about is 1.5. So 2.0 has turned into 1.5. My recollection going back to AR3 or something like that was a lot of wailing and hand ringing over 3.0!
So, as evidence for low sensitivity keeps on piling up, they instead reduce the amount of warming to consider dangerous. LOL. One can only wonder how low they can go before someone wakes up and says…but that’s below where we are now.
davidmhoffer
The claim will be that with all the efforts put into renewables there is a demonstrable success, so we must allow governments to spend even more on renewables!
Seriously, just wait, it’s coming.
Didn’t you hear? The California wildfires are what happens when you reaching tipping points!!
I thought ‘tipping point’ was at the end of the meal when you’d had good service.
Most objects have a “tipping point” where their oxydation becomes a lot faster.
I’m pretty sure that isn’t true. The oxidation rate increases linearly with temperature. What happens is that at a certain temperature the rate of oxidation (and hence energy release) passes the amount of energy needed to maintain that elevated rate of oxidation.
~¿~
The origins of 2 degrees go back to 1975 and was first mentioned by economist William Nordhaus in 1975:
CAN WE CONTROL CARBON DIOXIDE? William D. Nordhaus June 1975 http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/365/1/WP-75-063.pdf
(A working paper for IIASA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Institute_for_Applied_Systems_Analysis
“As a first approximation, it seems reasonable to argue that the climatic effects of carbon dioxide should be kept well within the normal range of long-term climatic variation. According to most sources the range of variation between climatic (sic) is in the order of ± 5 °C., and at the present time the global climate is at the high end of this range.
If there were global temperatures more than 2 or 3°C. above the current average temperature, this would take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.
Within a stable climatic regime, the range of variation of ± l °C is the normal variation: thus in the last 100 years a range of mean temperature has been 0.7°C.”
We are told that current “warming” since pre-1850 is l °C, so we are within the range of natural variation, according to Nordhaus in 1975, yet we are told that this is all due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2.
In 1977, Nordhaus expanded on his theme in Discussion paper 443 for the Cowles Foundation at Yale:
“Strategies for the Control of Carbon Dioxide” http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d04/d0443.pdf
In this paper he repeated a lot of his IIASA paper, including the seminal paragraph: “If there were global temperatures more than 2 or 3°C. above the current average temperature, this would take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.”
However, he changed his figure for the range of variation within a stable climatic regime “such as the current interglacial”, from l°C, to 2°C and said that in the last 100 years a range of mean temperature had been 0.6°C, rather than his earlier 0.7.
In 1990, the UN AGGG (United Nations Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases), was asking for no more than a 1 degree rise in global temperature. That in turn traces back to the Villach Conference of 1986, and the subsequent Bellagio Conference in 1987, when some of the main proponents of the AGW meme were present, and have been driving it ever since. That then morphed into 1.5 degrees and again into 2 degrees. After Paris, 1.5 degrees is the new mantra for the activists.
In 1995, John Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute (and Climate Advisor to the Pope), promoted 2 degrees via the German Advisory Council on Global Climate Change, of which he has been alternatively Chairman and Vice-Chairman for many years. He has claimed 2°C as “his” ever since. It was essentially based on the simplistic logic of Nordhaus and in 1996, it was adopted by the EU.
The WBGU’s recommendation: A maximum of 2°C warming is acceptable. The WBGU reaffirms its conviction that in order to avert dangerous climatic changes, it is essential to comply with a ‘climate guard rail’ defined by a maximum warming of 2°C relative to pre-industrial values. As the global mean temperature has already risen by 0.6°C since the onset of industrialization, only a further warming by 1.4°C is tolerable. A global mean long-term warming rate of at most 0.2°C per decade should not be exceeded. This climate window should be agreed as a global objective within the context of the UNFCCC process. The European Union should seek to adopt a leading role on this matter.”
Richard Tol also examined the 2 degree target in 2005, here: “Europe’s Long Term Climate Target: A Critical Evaluation”
http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-papers/twodegreeswp.pdf, with a later version in 2007:
https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v35y2007i1p424-432.html
His conclusion was, “This target is supported by rather thin arguments, based on inadequate methods, sloppy reasoning, and selective citation. Overall, the 2°C target of the EU seems unfounded.”
The EU’s own defence of it in 2008, is here: http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/uploads/2C_EU.pdf. Full of quotes from AR4 and modelling projections.
“This paper outlines the scientific background for the EU climate protection target – the 2oC limit – established by the EU Governments in 1996 and reaffirmed since then by the Environment Council 2003, and European Council, 2005, 2007. The paper also identifies how this target may be achieved through global action.”
I thought it came from the same place as the Anglo-Irish Bank bailout numbers.
The issue that is being hidden is 2 deg above what?
The 1975 paper was 2 to 3 deg above current (i.e. 1975) average temperatures. Now it is 1.5 to 2 deg above pre-industrial temperature, and nobody has a definite value for pre-industrial temperature. Most estimates I have seen suggest we are now about 1.2 deg above pre-industrial temperature, so all this alarm is about a temperature rise of about 0.3 deg above current termerature.
Thanks for the history lesson and links, dennis.
Mods
My explanation of the 1.5 degrees seems to have gone down the worm hole.
cheers
dennisambler
IIRC in early 00’s they advocated for less than 3C warming from that point onward, although it might have just been poor reporting from media at the time.
Wonder how many private jets will be parked for this event. Even better how many souls will be on board each private jet and what will the carbon dioxide to humans mix will be.
Don’t forget all the CO2 from the champagne bottles.
Isn’t Champagne CO2 renewable?
Sure – particularly if somebody else is paying.
The IPPC is about to announce a new high range equilibrium climate sensitivity figure for a 2 x CO2 scenario – 0.5C to 1.5C.
LOL
The only way the IPCC could surprise anyone would be to come out and state – “Global climate change is not a threat.”
This might explain the recent rash of rather pointless scientific papers of dubious quality.
fighting climate change and eradicating poverty at the same time? Good luck with that.
Roy W. Spencer
Ah! But now they use climate change as an excuse for poverty. So it’s all our fault!
An October Surprise? Given the level of interest in climate change in the US coupled with the American’s propensity to elect politicians who focus on immediate problems rather than long term problems, a lot of noise from the IPCC would likely motivate the “wrong” voters.
I think the announcement is about an Angry Birds tool that lets signatories aim and shoot for various CO2 outcomes depending on their skill and commitment level (and budget need). /sarc
Spoiler alert.
Given how past SPMs have deviated from what was in the Working Group reports, do you think they might actually correct the SPM where it deviates?
Nah!
Starting with the 4Ar, they changed the working group report to be in line with the negotiated SPM.
Wait – what?
1.5 Celsiue is 34.7Fahrenheit. Do these silly people expect me to believe that the entire planet has warmed up by nearly 35 degrees Fahrenheit? That would make my Autumn temperature closer to 90F than the current and very normal 62F.
Do they have even a tiny clue to how silly they are? No?
I didn’t think so. Just asking.
You know, if I want baloney, I can get it for a lot less effort at the local grocery store. Just sayin’…. Moving on.
One Celsius degree is not the same as one degree Celsius.
Must one earn a Celsius Degree? 🙂
an increase and a temperature are not the same thing:
a 1.5 C increase is the same as 2.7 F increase.
a temperature of 1.5 C = a temperature of 34.7 F
therefore if you had a temp of 1.5 C (34.7 F) and increased it by 1.5 C the resultant temp (1.5 + 1.5 = 3 C) would be:
a) 37.4 F (34.7 + 2.7)
or
b) 69.4 F (34.7 + 34.7)
Answer is a) 37.4 F
Though judging from your post Sara, you seem to wrongly think the answer is b) 69.4 F
I await this Special Report with bad breath (forgot to brush my teeth).
At least it’s not baited breath (as in catfish bait)…
“an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”
That is a loaded sentence in an attempt to link warming with industry.
It should more fairly say above little ice-age levels.
Perhaps a good time for Kim to launch his own surprise?
A more mature looking haircut would definitely surprise me.