Today with press releases, live TV coverage and some media fanfare, the IPCC SR15 report was published. Without comment, here are the press release and “headline statements” as the IPCC sees them.
We’ll have more coverage later, and a link to the full report is at the end of this post. Comments from readers are welcome.
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.
Summary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC approved by governments
INCHEON, Republic of Korea, 8 Oct – Limiting global warming to 1.5ºC would require rapid, far- reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said in a new assessment. With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, limiting global warming to 1.5ºC compared to 2ºC could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said on Monday.
The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC was approved by the IPCC on Saturday in Incheon, Republic of Korea. It will be a key scientific input into the Katowice Climate Change Conference in Poland in December, when governments review the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change.
“With more than 6,000 scientific references cited and the dedicated contribution of thousands of expert and government reviewers worldwide, this important report testifies to the breadth and policy relevance of the IPCC,” said Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC.
Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries prepared the IPCC report in response to an invitation from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) when it adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015.
The report’s 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.
“One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,” said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.
The report highlights a number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5ºC compared to 2ºC, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2ºC.
“Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5ºC or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems,” said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
Limiting global warming would also give people and ecosystems more room to adapt and remain below relevant risk thresholds, added Pörtner. The report also examines pathways available to limit warming to 1.5ºC, what it would take to achieve them and what the consequences could be.
“The good news is that some of the kinds of actions that would be needed to limit global warming to 1.5ºC are already underway around the world, but they would need to accelerate,” said Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Co-Chair of Working Group I.
The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.
“Limiting warming to 1.5ºC is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes,” said Jim Skea, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.
Allowing the global temperature to temporarily exceed or ‘overshoot’ 1.5ºC would mean a greater reliance on techniques that remove CO2 from the air to return global temperature to below 1.5ºC by 2100. The effectiveness of such techniques are unproven at large scale and some may carry significant risks for sustainable development, the report notes.
“Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being, making it easier to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals,” said Priyardarshi Shukla, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.
The decisions we make today are critical in ensuring a safe and sustainable world for everyone, both now and in the future, said Debra Roberts, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
“This report gives policymakers and practitioners the information they need to make decisions that tackle climate change while considering local context and people’s needs. The next few years are probably the most important in our history,” she said.
The IPCC is the leading world body for assessing the science related to climate change, its impacts and potential future risks, and possible response options.
The report was prepared under the scientific leadership of all three IPCC working groups. Working Group I assesses the physical science basis of climate change; Working Group II addresses impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; and Working Group III deals with the mitigation of climate change.
The Paris Agreement adopted by 195 nations at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in December 2015 included the aim of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change by “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre- industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”
As part of the decision to adopt the Paris Agreement, the IPCC was invited to produce, in 2018, a Special Report on global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. The IPCC accepted the invitation, adding that the Special Report would look at these issues in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
Global Warming of 1.5ºC is the first in a series of Special Reports to be produced in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Cycle. Next year the IPCC will release the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, and Climate Change and Land, which looks at how climate change affects land use.
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) presents the key findings of the Special Report, based on the assessment of the available scientific, technical and socio-economic literature relevant to global warming of 1.5°C.
The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC (SR15) is available at http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
Headline Statements
A. Understanding Global Warming of 1.5°C4
A1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate (high confidence).
A.2. Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long- term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence), but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C (medium confidence).
A3. Climate-related risks for natural and human systems are higher for global warming of 1.5°C than at present, but lower than at 2°C (high confidence). These risks depend on the magnitude and rate of warming, geographic location, levels of development and vulnerability, and on the choices and implementation of adaptation and mitigation options (high confidence).
B. Projected Climate Change, Potential Impacts and Associated Risks
B1. Climate models project robust7 differences in regional climate characteristics between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C, and between 1.5°C and 2°C. These differences include increases in: mean temperature in most land and ocean regions (high confidence), hot extremes in most inhabited regions (high confidence), heavy precipitation in several regions (medium confidence), and the probability of drought and precipitation deficits in some regions (medium confidence).
B2. By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be around 0.1 metre lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence). Sea level will continue to rise well beyond 2100 (high confidence), and the magnitude and rate of this rise depends on future emission pathways. A slower rate of sea level rise enables greater opportunities for adaptation in the human and ecological systems of small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas (medium confidence).
B3. On land, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including species loss and extinction, are projected to be lower at 1.5°C of global warming compared to 2°C. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C is projected to lower the impacts on terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal ecosystems and to retain more of their services to humans (high confidence).
B4. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2ºC is projected to reduce increases in ocean temperature as well as associated increases in ocean acidity and decreases in ocean oxygen levels (high confidence). Consequently, limiting global
warming to 1.5°C is projected to reduce risks to marine biodiversity, fisheries, and ecosystems, and their functions and services to humans, as illustrated by recent changes to Arctic sea ice and warm water coral reef ecosystems (high confidence).
B5. Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C.
B6. Most adaptation needs will be lower for global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (high confidence). There are a wide range of adaptation options that can reduce the risks of climate change (high confidence). There are limits to adaptation and adaptive capacity for some human and natural systems at global warming of 1.5°C, with associated losses (medium confidence). The number and availability of adaptation options vary by sector (medium confidence).
C. Emission Pathways and System Transitions Consistent with 1.5°C Global Warming
C1. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40– 60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). For limiting global warming to below 2°C, CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 20% by 2030 in most pathways (10–30% interquartile range) and reach net zero around 2075 (2065–2080 interquartile range). Non-CO2 emissions in pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C show deep reductions that are similar to those in pathways limiting warming to 2°C (high confidence).
C2. Pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems (high confidence). These systems transitions are unprecedented in terms of scale, but not necessarily in terms of speed, and imply deep emissions reductions in all sectors, a wide portfolio of mitigation options and a significant upscaling of investments in those options (medium confidence).
C3. All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot project the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the order of 100–1000 GtCO2 over the 21st century. CDR would be used to compensate for residual emissions and, in most cases, achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence). CDR deployment of several hundreds of GtCO2 is subject to multiple feasibility and sustainability constraints (high confidence).
Significant near-term emissions reductions and measures to lower energy and land demand can limit CDR deployment to a few hundred GtCO2 without reliance on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) (high confidence).
D. Strengthening the Global Response in the Context of Sustainable Development and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty
D1. Estimates of the global emissions outcome of current nationally stated mitigation ambitions as submitted under the Paris Agreement would lead to global greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 of 52–58 GtCO2eq yr-1 (medium confidence). Pathways
reflecting these ambitions would not limit global warming to 1.5°C, even if supplemented by very challenging increases in the scale and ambition of emissions reductions after 2030 (high confidence). Avoiding overshoot and reliance on future largescale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can only be achieved if global CO2 emissions start to decline well before 2030 (high confidence).
D2. The avoided climate change impacts on sustainable development, eradication of poverty and reducing inequalities would be greater if global warming were limited to 1.5°C rather than 2°C, if mitigation and adaptation synergies are maximized while trade-offs are minimized (high confidence).
D3. Adaptation options specific to national contexts, if carefully selected together with enabling conditions, will have benefits for sustainable development and poverty reduction with global warming of 1.5°C, although trade-offs are possible (high confidence).
D4. Mitigation options consistent with 1.5°C pathways are associated with multiple synergies and trade-offs across the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While the total number of possible synergies exceeds the number of trade-offs, their net effect will depend on the pace and magnitude of changes, the composition of the mitigation portfolio and the management of the transition (high confidence).
D5. Limiting the risks from global warming of 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication implies system transitions that can be enabled by an increase of adaptation and mitigation investments, policy instruments, the acceleration of technological innovation and behaviour changes (high confidence).
D6. Sustainable development supports, and often enables, the fundamental societal and systems transitions and transformations that help limit global warming to 1.5°C. Such changes facilitate the pursuit of climate-resilient development pathways that achieve ambitious mitigation and adaptation in conjunction with poverty eradication and efforts to reduce inequalities (high confidence).
D7. Strengthening the capacities for climate action of national and sub-national authorities, civil society, the private sector, indigenous peoples and local communities can support the implementation of ambitious actions implied by limiting global warming to 1.5°C (high confidence). International cooperation can provide an enabling environment for this to be achieved in all countries and for all people, in the context of sustainable development. International cooperation is a critical enabler for developing countries and vulnerable regions (high confidence).
Full report (5 chapters) here: http://ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So it’s basically Paris 2.0? Nothing we didn’t already know and just one giant virtue signal.
The only real issue regarding the arrogant imbeciles who form the IPCC is whether that are arrogant because they are imbeciles or whether they are imbeciles because they are arrogant.
If you look at the chart, it is a hokey stick again, however 180 degrees turned 🙂
Good one Komrade Kuma!
Did Paris also refer to non-climate outcomes?
I’m not sure how to read that sentence. Are they just saying that the climate outcomes can be achieved without wrecking the economy? On the other hand, are they saying that they are explicitly pursuing non-climate outcomes?
It would be pretty good if they were admitting that achieving the climate goals would lead to economic collapse and global starvation, disease, and mass death.
They’re Fools In A Hurry, cB, they can’t help but blurt out the truth sometimes.
“I’m not sure how to read that sentence. Are they just saying that the climate outcomes can be achieved without wrecking the economy?”
They are saying the UN should micro-manage the world’s economy and the IPCC is leading the charge. They know what is best for the rest of us.
And if the world is more sustainable with 30% fewer humans, so much the better. They want to reduce human populations humanely, of course. If their policies are followed, (not likely) I am afraid we would get large decreases in population from starvation and disease. Not sure if that counts as humanely or not in their book.
Co-chair Zaio suggests that “extreme weather” impacts are all ready being seen from the 1C rise on temps we’ve already experienced and that it will increase at 1.5C and 2C but there is no mention of such an increase in activity in the Potential Impact & Associated Risks section that only mentions Medium Confidence for increases in wet/drought impacts or extreme temperature, which curiously will only affect inhabited regions. What about severe storms ?
Co-chair Zaio suggests that “extreme weather” impacts are all ready being seen from the 1C rise on temps we’ve already experienced and that it will increase at 1.5C and 2C but there is no mention of such an increase in activity in the Potential Impact & Associated Risks section that only mentions Medium Confidence for increases in wet/drought impacts or extreme temperature, which curiously will only affect inhabited regions. What about severe storms ?
Thanks to Trump, more than any other single person, nobody is seriously listening to this nonsense anymore. Oh, the True Believers still Believe Truly, but it’s not going to change anything. All they can do now is just sit around and cry about it.
They are just doubling down like the Democrats on the SCOTUS debacle. Losers.
Paris? Are you kidding. Paris is still one of the most fantastic cities in the world. Paris is famous for Champagne, fine food, 3 star restaurants, luxurious boutiques, great hotels, and beautiful women.
Inchon Korea is famous for a horrendous battle in the Korean War.
Paris is as much better than Inchon as a destination as ice cream is better than oatmeal as a food.
What is the point of these confabs anyway? To sit in darkened rooms and sleep through power points?
The question answers itself.
Another IPCC pile of bulldust. The mountain is now almost up to Everest’s level. One day soon it will topple onto the heads of these rent-seekers, & hopefully we will never hear from them again.
It seams we always will have another 12 years to do something stupid? If we do that then it defenatly will be to late?
It was only 3 year’s left just a year ago so we must be doing something right.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/28/world-has-three-years-left-to-stop-dangerous-climate-change-warn-experts
We still have 12 years? I thought we hade passed the line long time ago. This means that we will have another 12 years in 12 years?
It says (D1):
“avoiding overshoot and reliance on future largescale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can only be achieved if global CO2 emissions start to decline well before 2030 (high confidence).”
Where does it say we still have 12 years?
Absolutely. The right number is 17 years ago, according to the Time magazine in 2001.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,167699,00.html
How well said. Thanks to
http://climatechangepredictions.org/categories/last_chance
Do the maths ” Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate (high confidence).”.
What is the current rate of increase?
UAH and USCRN show no increase. These are two of the most accurate, best quality, free from UHI, with no arbitrary adjustments, no infills. Should I trust junk HadCRUT4 data instead?
Jon-Anders Grannes, catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is a relativistic phenomenon. To any observer at any point in time, the time until the occurrence of CAGW is a constant. (Einstein worked this out a long time ago.) The reason for this is obvious – if CAGW were actually to occur, then there would be no point in trying to prevent it, and so all those grandiose schemes such as carbon capture and removal, would be pointless.
Roger, are you a little concerned, like I am, when they mention CO2 removal schemes? I like the enhanced greening of the earth and don’t want it more brown.
Many ways of saving the world have already been thought through: “There’s a great summary of options via Sally Benson https://t.co/EU42Wx1cPs”
I find this a lot scarier than the claimed effects of too much CO2!
10 years to say the world – again!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/03/climate-scientists-are-struggling-find-right-words-very-bad-news/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0a248cd87164
blah blah blah
*save the world
D7, “International cooperation”- read – give us all the money and power, trust us…NO THANKS!
Would we suffer a loss of any kind if we cut U. S. ‘contribution’ to funding the United Nations to what it is worth to us as a country and as a people: Cut it to zero?
BBC early morning news have been reporting this with glee, lots of – ‘we must come off carbon’, ‘energy costs must rise’, ‘wind & solar are cheap’, ‘society must be changed’ …. comments from the usual suspects, especially now the BBC wont allow ANY opposing views to be heard.
Yes it is all rather sick-making & utterly redictable! Time to privatise the state broadcaster me thinks!
Wouldn’t make any difference, Alan, the rest of the British broadcasters are just as bad.
Very true!
True but then I wouldn’t be forced to pay for it at least.
I would be very interested to see the take up of the BBC as a subscription channel.
TVNZ the same nonsense, with the newsreader positively gloating. I thought these fraudsters were on the run, but now I’m not so sure. Our socialist-green government is in full cry, with ignorant green ministers announcing ridiculous policies almost daily. Wanting to plant a BILLION tres over next 10 years is typical – totally impossible!
“Mike Lowe October 8, 2018 at 12:35 am
Wanting to plant a BILLION tres over next 10 years is typical – totally impossible!”
Tires or trees?
They don’t know what a billion is – most think it’s just a bit bigger than a million.
A billion trees in ten years is 100 million a year. Say you dedicate 10% of the working population of NZ to that – say 300,000 people. That’s 333 trees each each year, or 1.3 a day on average.
Just about possible if you assume that you have to also clear and prepare land I suppose. But you will have to dedicate 105 of your labour force to it. Land area would be say 1 billion times average area for a tree farm – that’s around 67,745 square km, or around 25% of the land area of New Zealand. Good luck with that.
“I thought these fraudsters were on the run, but now I’m not so sure.”
Keep in mind that the Alarmists live in a bubble of their own creation. They think they know what they are doing and procliam it confidently. It’s like the psychopathic criminal who thinks he is smarter than everyone else and decides to be his own lawyer in court. He is supremely confident in his abilities, but he ends up going to jail anyway because he really wasn’t as smart as he thought he was.
The IPCC is supremely confident but they can’t change the fact that the global temperatures are cooling off. Just the opposite of what they are supremely confident about.
Yes, BBC did seem to celebrate the news somewhat. They even wheeled out the egregious and oleaginous Barry Gardiner (MP) to declare that it will be worth the 27 Trillion Dollars it will cost.
I did like the way the report beats up the reader with large numbers all the time. This is one: “Ninety-one authors and review editors..” – OK, of that 91, how many were real scientists and how many were just word-smiths? Ad, if you removed all the ‘may’s, ‘probably’s and ‘could’s and ‘would’s, just how long would the report be?
More importantly, how many are NGO activists or self-serving government bureaucrats, seeking to expand and insure the continuity of their own rice bowls?
My suspicion? – around 97%.
You set up a constant increasing number of “climate institutes” around the world, you seed them with your new PhD’s from UEA, Stanford, Potsdam et al, give them the existing models and claims and tell them to go play with it. Not many famous names in the list of authors, notable are Myles Allen of Oxford Environmental Change Unit, he of climate litigation fame, global governance exponent Diana Liverman, formerly Oxford ECU, now at Arizona U, and a few more IPCC stalwarts like Rojelj, Shindell, Hogh-Guldberg, Warren from UEA.
Social scientist, private contractor to EPA and a reviewer of the Endangerment TSD, Susanne Moser was on the scientific advisory panel for the report.
Not to worry, mate, PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) is going the same way in the United States.
And the BBC at lunchtime had a “balanced discussion” with 4 commentators and a presenter who all agreed how bad the problem was and only differed in the extent to which governments must go to prevent it and the pain that their voters must feel as a consequence. One of their remedies was that we must all walk more. I will do that when the great and the good walk to the next IPCC gabfest.
“One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,” said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.
It looks like a pack of lies to me.
“One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather”
Well, first of all, they couldn’t prove this claim of “seeing consequences” if their lives depended on it. Just saying it is so doesn’t make it so. They are liars.
I would issue a challenge to any Alarmist to show one connection between a local weather event and human-caused CO2. They can’t do it. They should be challenged to back up these unprovable claims.
This is definitely a serious weakness in their claims because there is no visible link between weather and CO2. There’s not even a visible link between CO2 and a net increase in heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, yet the IPCC claims they see a link to extreme weather. Show us this link or otherwise shutup about there being a connection.
yep, reading that reminded me of something I stepped in out in the pasture this morning.
Seems to me that the ICPP and the CAGW folk are getting really worried that their entire scam will soon fall apart as the world enters another (natural) cooling period.
Next meeting in December in Poland should chill their bones.
Shorthand for :
“Give us the unelected and unaccountable global government filled with elites and interest-groups that we invented climate change to achieve and We’ll give you a global Marxist-Socialist government that will save you.”
Haven’t read the report in depth yet but I am looking forward to learning how much of the global warming above pre-industrial levels was not caused by human activities and how they can tell.
Still haven’t found how they distinguished natural and man-made warming but I did find this doozy in Box 1.1.
Clearly the IPCC hasn’t heard of differences in resolution between different measurement methods and proxies.
So far this hasn’t been a pinnacle in the history of science.
My last comment as I have work to do. From 1.2.1.3 Total versus human–induced warming and warming rates:
In other words, assuming that the only impacts on total warming are:
A: The Sun’s output.
B: Volcanoes.
C: Man.
We find that Man dominates all others over this period.
However, assuming that the climate is more complex than just three inputs we find that this report is fundamentally flawed.
For example, the cause of the end of the LIA is not included in this report, whatever it was.
“…..assessing empirical studies quantifying solar and volcanic contributions to GMST from 1890 to 2010,……”
What successful empirical studies have been undertaken to demonstrate that CO2 is responsible for global warming, never mind mankind’s contribution?
To my knowledge and to the nearest round number, Zero.
Despite the ‘desperate’ nature of this growing ‘pollutant’ over the last century, no one has conducted a single, credible, empirical study that demonstrates CO2 causes warming. Not one!
There should be dozens, if not hundreds of utterly convincing studies but there’s none.
Talk about gullible. It the single most important question to be answered in this whole effing fiasco, but no one’s asking it.
Wholly Mammoth barbecues of course. Man messing with nature even then.
M Courtney: well they haven’t consulted my 2018 JASTP paper when discarding the Sun, where in 2 different ways I estimate 35% of recent warming by the Sun (see bold text):
Paper at: https://github.com/rjbooth88/hello-climate/files/1835197/s-co2-paper-correct.docx .
Abstract:
By combining Solar Cycle Lengths (SCL) and CO2 this paper predicts a global average surface temperature (GAST) anomaly of 1.5K in the year 2100 compared to 0.42K in 1996-2006. This assumes a continuing CO2 increase of 2ppm per year and our derived form of Transient Climate Response (TCR), whose value 1.93±0.26 Kelvin (K) per CO2 doubling would be 1.23 times higher if the Sun were ignored. After the CO2 effect has been subtracted out, the SCL explains a healthy 55% of the remaining variance. It also estimates that 37% of the recent warming from 1980 to 2001 was due to solar effects. We then compare with models created from Scafetta (2010, 2013) (the first of which has the best fit of all) and from radiative forcings estimated by Myhre et al. (2001) and Skeie et al (2011). The latter confirms the solar contribution to 1980-2001 warming as 33%, in contrast to the negligible value given by Benestad & Schmidt (2009). It also gives a TCR of 1.3K if only CO2 continues to rise, and 2.0K if CH4 and NO2 also rise proportionately. Likewise this model estimates the ratio between the sensitivities of forcings from the Sun and greenhouse gases as 2.9 (versus 1.0 for Benestad & Schmidt (2009)). We develop a negative exponential model for post-forced warming to derive a ratio between Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and TCR, estimated to be 1.15. Two statistical novelties of the paper are the computation of the exact left tail probability of the Durbin-Watson statistic, and the demonstration of an approximate relationship between the Akaike Information Criterion and the tail probability of the F-statistic.
So a sustained rise of 2 ppm/decade instead of 20 over the past 800,000 years means the starting point must have been 160,000 ppm lower than today. How does that work?
Yeah, I know it must have gone down as well as up, but if they can make things up, so can I.
“D1. Estimates of the global emissions outcome of current nationally stated mitigation ambitions as submitted under the Paris Agreement would lead to global greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 of 52–58 GtCO2eq yr-1 (medium confidence). Pathways reflecting these ambitions would not limit global warming to 1.5°C, …”
It appears that after all the work to get the Paris agreement signed, even if all the nations meet their intended CO2 reductions, we’ll still overshoot 1.5 degrees. So even the Paris Agreement isn’t good enouggh? What a monumental waste of effort.
The BBC in the UK has already gone into total overkill mode on the breakfast show. They must have already known what was in the report to have so many articles recorded with the information.
Andy
Of course they knew. It’s just regurgitating the same old crap.
No, they get it before under an embargo.
The BBC allows its guests to lie, probably through ignorance, for example Richard Black (ex BBC, now Green Gravy Train) claiming that “we know how to do carbon-free electricity”, then going on to complain about vested interests.
And that is how they lie. Yes, we “know” how to do stuff – and we also know that it costs far, far more than other ways. That. believe it or not Mr. Black, is why we use the other ways. I am more than happy to use the cheapest way of making electricity. Not one problem with that whatsoever.
Two subjects dominate the BBC news channel
– Catastrophic global warming
– Dr. Who
both of equal realism value, both good old science fiction, no more, no less.
They have a guaranteed income, independent of viewer’s satisfaction.
The difference is that Dr Who isn’t trying to implement government policies.
To keep below 1.5°C, the whole world’s emissions need to reduce 2010 emissions by 45% over the next 11 years!
As the UNFCCC requires no reductions from developing countries (including China) during the first commitment period to 2030, the entire 45% must come from developed countries – who were responsible for 37% of total emissions in 2010. So OECD countries will need to reduce their emissions by at least 122%.
Achieving this reduction will require ANNUAL average investments of $2.4 trillion for the next 17 years. In addition, $100 billion pa is payable to developing nations as reparations.
If a Republican president is elected in 2020, the remaining OECD nations will be responsible for the full 45% reduction in planetary emissions. In 2010, they produced only 24% of those emissions. So they will have to go quickly to net zero, and then disappear under trillions of pine trees.
Barry Brill
You have just successfully demonstrated how utterly out of touch with reality these people are.
It also illustrates the sloppy nature of the IPCC exemplified by John McLean in his audit of HadCRUT4 (BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors) featured on WUWT yesterday.
Every government around the world has already faced a minor backlash from the right. Most are well aware they can go no further and this is all just hot air which will amount to nothing.
“The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050.”
With some luck I will be around to see the 2030 mark come and go without major transitions that will actually reduce global emissions of CO2. I do not expect to be here in 2050 so will miss seeing the ‘net zero’ mark not be reached.
32 years is long enough to imagine a few transitions of significance. What those will be remain a mystery.
I hope to see some of what the future will bring but I’ll guess most of the IPPC experts and authors are going to be disappointed. Maybe they are young and will witness a transition.
Disappointed? …In 32 years they’ll still be earning six figure salaries, driving around in limos, entertaining their groupies, and occasionally stopping for martinis & caviar by the pool. I don’t believe they’ll be disappointed at all.
Just sayin’
Almost every statement in the new IPCC SR15 climate report is marked (high confidence). A few are marked (medium confidence). None are marked (low confidence), however, that is where my confidence in this whole IPCC money grab lies. The whole scam is based on shaky data, non-existent science, and hysterical political propaganda. It would be wisest to ignore it for another 12 years.
I find it amusing that in addition to climate change, they managed to slip sustainable development and eradicating poverty into the full title. I wonder what is going to be tacked on to the title of SR16, “…and the heartbreak of psoriasis”?
Aussiebear
Haemorrhoids.
Something must be done, their growth is unprecedented and exponential!
Ingrowing toenails.
Teenage acne.
The young emote (and may vote) – so that is an essential.
Auto
IPCC lost all policy relevance when science was settled and Paris agreement finalised. The report testifies to the breadth of taxpayer funds wasted.
Because IPCC is still running, it’s time to start questioning the structure enabling the wastage – that’s WMO. Global climate is an artificial construct. Climates are regional and weather is local. UN has no business in either.
And our country will be the first implementing fully the co2 reductions.. I wonder how we will heat our houses in coming cold years..
You won’t. That’s the price of being on the bleeding edge.
Well then, let us just hope Okiluoto 3 becomes operational on schedule.
“Limiting global warming to 1.5ºC would require rapid, far- reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”
Clearly that isn’t going to happen.
That is the problem with alarmism, it gets so ridiculous people switch off.
MattS
There’s that word again:
Unprecedented
In other words, impossible.
And all for 10cm (10 cm!) less sea rise by 2100 (among other things)
The proper statement is, “rapid, far reaching, unprecedented and catastrophic changes …”
They are doubling down on the 1.5 C drumbeat.
This is beyond idiotic.
It is abusively anti-science, anti-intellect, anti-rational.
1.5 C warmer than the cold minimum of the LIA – is meant to be dangerous?
And we’re already had 1 C so another 0.5 C is catastrophic?
The residents of isolated north Canadian communities such as Paulatuk, Kugluktuk and Cambridge Bay are running out of food and essential supplies since ice breakers can’t penetrate the exceptionally thick sea ice to reach them.
https://www.iceagenow.info/canada-extreme-sea-ice-prevents-crucial-deliveries-to-isolated-communities/
Just imagine how catastrophic 0.5 C warming would be to these communities?
(/sarc)
This signals the end of the age of reason and the return of Medieval doctrinal purity at the point of the sword or pike. It deserves to be tossed aside for the dangerous rubbish that it is.
BTW did they include a chapter on CO2 greening, more trees now than 50 years ago, greening of deserts and surging agricultural production?
Probably the usual mantra “looks good now but just you wait – our computer models say it will all turn bad any day now.”
Any day now…
I think I saw 1.1 C mentioned in the report, so an additional 0.4 C will doom us all.
The UN is unfit for purpose.
It’s time that the UN was trashed, with extreme predjudice.
I think the people who believe this stuff owe it to us to put their money where there mouth is and reduce their carbon footprint to zero (or better) immediately.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I drive a Nissan Leaf EV, not because I believe in Global Warming, but because it only costs about $0.04 per mile to drive!)
And as long as you are not taking 600 mile trips on a routine basis this works out well for you. If I lived in a city and never ventured beyond, an all electric vehicle would make good sense. For my commute and frequent trips to visit family that would be an exceedingly difficult car to drive.
“The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) presents the key findings of the Special Report, based on the assessment of the available scientific, technical and socio-economic literature relevant to global warming of 1.5°C.”
The WG’s create their works. The SPM is written by the politicos. The main report is altered to generate the ‘science needed to support the SPM. The document is not created as suggested in the quote.
Read the SPM and its certainties, then read the actual report. Find out what the ‘experts’ actually said.
Is that a claim I see suggesting that all 6000 citations are from peer reviewed journal articles? Would someone like to audit that claim?
There are some basic conflicts. If the human impact arises from 1950, why do they consider warming since 1880 in their “1.0 degrees C of human impact”? It has not warmed 1 C since 1950.
If half is since 1950 and the other half natural pre-1950, how do we know that all warming was not natural? Did natural warming cease completely in 1950? Why?
At present, the world is steeply cooling. Is that natural or human-caused? If it is natural, why does nature cool the globe but not warm it? That is unlikely. Why is Nature able to cool so quickly if Mankind is warming it so rapidly? If we continue to increase emissions and the world continues to cool for, say, twenty years, will the IPCC reconsider their SPM text?
As everyone and his dog thinks we are headed into cooling for at least a decade, maybe three, how much should we spend on decarbonization and how much on new energy production systems in the short term?
The world is not provably cooling in a climatic timescale, and if it happened to have started, you could not be able to say it yet.
Shortly, the answer is that the ‘humankind’ warming the planet does not overwhelm all natural variation in the annual data. The decadal data seems to suggest long term variation is strongly affected by the women and men, China and Japan, Russia and Western countries using a lot of fossil energy to eradicate death, illness and poverty caused by energy poverty.
Of the world cools for twenty years, I think the CAGW scare will die. But I think it will eventually die already if the warming is not accelerating. The missing acceleration suggests the theory is missing some pieces.
Hugs
If we see global cooling (unlikely as the numbers will be ‘adjusted’ again) the green lunatics will claim it a success of their ‘untiring endeavour to implement effective renewable energy sources like wind and solar’. “At last” they will say, “our tireless devotion to renewables is paying off, global temperatures are no longer accelerating out of control”.
The world will be bankrupt, we’ll all be eating gruel with wooden spoons and tearing down forests for firewood, but renewabls will be hailed as a success.
HotScot
“…will claim it a success of their ‘untiring endeavour to implement effective renewable energy sources like wind and solar’.”
Well, they might do that but it will not be because of a reduction in CO2 concentration, which was their main claim for ‘need’.
The ice cores, unless they are meaningless, shows we should expect as a major cooling commences, the CO2 should keep rising for a while, about 800 years.
That pattern may not continue because there was a climate shift about 1868-1870. Cause unknown. Let’s watch.
The 1.5 degree SPM document is very short on science. Obviously they have a program that says degrees = damage, therefore 2 degrees is ‘worse’ than 1.5. Saying it twenty times apparently makes it more believable.
Something to chew over, given the hints here and there that everywhere it will be 2 degrees warmer: as warming from the sun via various mechanisms, is said to happen to a greater degree at the poles, then less towards the equator, what will the equatorial temperature rise be when the average overall is up 1.5 C?
The reason I ask is that I expect from experience the answer is about zero. So, what about the claims for the death of all corals? I find that downright silly. The difference will be immeasurable in the major coral growing areas. Will they die in sympathy with the Arctic Islands?
Similarly, elsewhere the ‘forecast rise’ will be far less than the average of 1.5 degrees in many populated zones. The variation will be in the mud, as HAMS say, detection almost impossible in many places.
What then? No compensation because of a lack of harm? Aha, there is the rub: all damage from anything will be blamed on AGW and presto, according to the SPM, money flows! This can continue until the other people’s money runs out.
Crispin
And of course, with the northern hemisphere nigh time and winter time temperature rise, might just come the releasing from permafrost the vast acreage of both Canada and Russia for agricultural crops. What a catastrophe that will be. Imagine that, more food than we know what to do with!
And of course, the threat to coral is ONLY because of man. Coral has never been forced to endure variable global temperatures and rising/falling sea levels. I mean, it’s only been around for several million years, whatever did it do before man pitched up?
What is this obsession with maintaining the ice poles anyway? If the Arctic sea ice melts it will make not a jot of difference to sea level rise, because it’s sea ice. And if all the Antarctic sea ice were to melt it would make the same difference. To melt the continents of Antarctica and Greenland thereafter, which would make a difference to sea level, would thereafter take thousands of years, were it even possible with an average global temperature rise of 1.5˚C Vs -20˚C summer temperatures (just a guess).
But as an uneducated man, perhaps you can help me out. It just seems common sense to me that as the planet is the coldest it has ever been without actually falling into a full blown ice age (I realise we are interglacial at the moment), and CO2 has only once (from memory) been as low as it is now in the planets history, we should be so lucky if global temperatures did follow increasing CO2. As it is, I’m far happier we are moving away from CO2 at 150 ppm, when all meaningful life dies, than moving towards it.
Meanwhile, as I repeatedly say, no one has empirically demonstrated atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm, far less the 2 ppm man contributes every year, and the only observable manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is that the planet has greened by 14% in 35 years of satellite activity.
I really despair at alarmists of the layman species. Those of my acquaintance listen to the BBC and Guardian propaganda and with no further inquiry recite claims of catastrophic sea level rise/melting glaciers/increased hurricanes/tornadoes/drought/wildfires etc. but because I have actually made the effort to educate myself on the subject, I’m the idiot denier! Meanwhile, I take some pride in educating myself on “the most important subject of our time”
Stoopid is as stoopid does – Forrest Gump.
Sorry, veered OT a tad.
Several hundred million years I guess.
I’m sure we will drive them to extinction by adding 200ppm CO2. If not, we’ll adjust the science. 🙂
It will take large scale rejection from ordinary folks to stop the global warming madness. Good news is that this is just starting in Canada. The leaders of several provinces have now told Trudeau’s Liberal Government that they reject the so-called “National Carbon Tax”.
Lol yes, the climate will be ‘already healing’ as king Canutes (usually Dims) declare themselves suitable for a Nobel Peace Award.
Could you guys tell why it took exactly 10 years for Obama to fix the unemployment issues? Just kidding, but evidently his economics was not working as long as he was the driver. Obviously Trump has to be very lucky in that he followed in office such a genius as Obama 😉
“The world is not provably cooling in a climatic timescale, and if it happened to have started, you could not be able to say it yet.”
The global temperature has cooled 0.8C since the peak in Feb. 2016. Granted that is only three years ago but CO2 is rising and temperature are cooling.
Two years is not climatic timescale. You need decades to see changes. Unless it’s upwards, then Grauniad declares it climatic in mere months. That’s wrong of course.
I believe the BP projections of global energy sources.
There is wailing and gnashing of teeth…from 1 degree of warming already. They better hope we don’t see 1.5-2 C of cooling, or that will really be a challenge to deal with. Be careful what you wish for.
I vote we just laugh at these clowns now. I mean shiesters…and get the rest of humanity to laugh at these Maroons. It really has turned into a joke. This is why I tell any leftist friends I have left is why Trump got elected, which is to stop these types of vagrant fr@uds. Literally. They just need to understand they are crazies now. If it has to be a shouting match, then let the shouting begin. They just lie about the science anyway, so there is really not a lot to be gained even arguing or debating with them. Just vote all these liars out since the sham is being perpetuated by the West. The rest of the world just wants in on the gravy train so they go along with it. Can hardly blame them for accepting free money and the lies they must repeat that are made up by Western academia, media and politics. And Russia of course.
Never proven, always claimed fantasies:
“One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,” said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.
_________________________________________________
contraryring claims, obviously science fiction:
“Limiting warming to 1.5ºC is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but” …
[needs]
” a greater reliance on techniques that remove CO2 from the air to return global temperature to below 1.5ºC by 2100.”
[and]
“The effectiveness of such techniques are unproven at large scale and some may carry significant risks for sustainable development.”
_________________________________________________
Hollywood scripts, from doomsday scripts to
“we can do it if we believe in it.
With IPCC to a better future without regards of losses.”