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/
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.”
“…limiting global warming to 1.5ºC compared to 2ºC could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society…” And there it is – socialists can’t help tell us the true motivation.
The BBC is, of course, beside itself with gleeful predictions of imminent climate catatrophe:
‘Climate report: Scientists urge deep rapid change to limit warming
It’s the final call, say scientists, the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures. Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C states that the world is now completely off track, heading instead towards 3C. Staying below 1.5C will require “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”. It will be hugely expensive, the report says, but the window of opportunity is not yet closed. After three years of research and a week of haggling between scientists and government officials at a meeting in South Korea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5C.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45775309
I’ve lived with ‘imminent climate catastrophe’ for 55 years now. How are people still fooled by these charlatans?
Maybe I,m dislexic or something but when I read: IPCC. I think I,m reading: CCCP…
Funny, I always read IPECAC. The effect of reading this report certainly has that effect.
Well, in rough numbers they are talking about cutting 2010 emissions in half, and 2010 emissions were not far off current emissions. So we are talking, round numbers, of going from about 37 billion tons to about 19 billion tons by 2030.
Within the current figure of 37 billion, China is doing 10 billion+, India and the other developing countries are also increasing.
This is simply not going to happen. It would require China and the West to abolish the use of ICE vehicles, stop using coal for electricity generation, and move their populations into energy miserly very dense housing, from which they would walk or bike to work.
And stop shopping for ‘stuff’.
This is simply not going to happen, in fact emissions will probably rise over the period, so we are conducting a critical experiment, either the disaster will happen as a result, or it will not.
Very unwise to make such firm predictions….
But the good thing is that it makes it impossible to keep on ignoring the Chinese elephant in the room.
Yes this may well prove to be rather a ‘cock-up’. Their usual practice of making vague claims or ones for decades ahead , allows them to play ‘find the lady ‘ has they can always use the ‘could , may might, increasing’ trick and those that walk the street saying the ‘end if nigh ‘ do
By 2030, China and India between them will probably be doing close to the 18 or 19 billion they are saying the whole world has to get below by that date. China was going to lower its CO2 intensity per unit of GDP in Paris. If you did the math with their target growth rate, this would lead to around 15 billion. India is a couple billion now and rising. Add the other developing countries, and you are looking at well over the 18 or 19 even if the entire West took itself down to zero.
But no-one is prepared to ask China to reduce its tons emmitted – and to be fair, the regime probably could not survive doing that.
One of the very interesting things when actual reductions are discussed is how the ground shifts. We start out arguing about how it will be the end of civilization unless we get emissions down to zero. Then when someone asks what China’s contribution is, the whole end of civilization argument evaporates and they start arguing about what it is fair for China to emit considering population and history.
So it seems to have been totally forgotten that what is fair will, on the starting argument, lead to the end of civilization, so whether its fair or not, ie in proportion or not, is immaterial….
I see no signs that the Chinese leadership, or indeed the Chinese generally, believe at all in CAGW. If they did they would be behaving very differently.
Basically it say: It will rain frogs and scorpions. One third of water sources and rivers will turn into blood… Bla, bla, bla…
Repent and pay your CO2 taxes, sinners…
P.Ford “lived with ‘imminent climate catastrophe’ for 55 years now. How are people still fooled by these charlatans?”
good question.
another good on would be
How are people still fooled by
“[people] could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society,[with] the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
The BBC is really pushing climate change hard, it’s desperate stuff
…we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, around 2.5% of global GDP, for two decades.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45775309
The BBC moved much of its operations to Salford Quays, Manchester in what they call MediaCityUK. Now they all have to commute ~170 miles to and from London…
Our figures show that that the director general’s office and other administrative and technical departments spent £34,111 on taxi rides to and from MediaCityUK in 2016/17 and then £25,579 in 2017/18.
In 2016/17 a ‘wait and return’ journey from London to Salford Quays for seven in a people carrier costing £637 was booked because it was cheaper than seven return rail fares, according to a spokesman. The most expensive fare in 2017/18 was from Salford Quays to the Chorley area and cost £98.
These taxi rides were paid for via the BBC’s centralised booking systems, and do not include journeys claimed by staff through their expenses meaning the overall taxi bill will be much higher. The BBC has refused to reveal how much it spends on fares for other departments, arguing it was exempt from being released as it concerned ‘art, journalism or literature’.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bbc-spends-60k-cabs-mediacity-15123761
That kind of largesse isn’t going to change
“The BBC has refused to reveal how much it spends on fares for other departments, arguing it was exempt from being released as it concerned ‘art, journalism or literature’”
BBC journalism can certainly be very creative, so it’s not surprise to see they lump it together with art and literature.
Yup, UK will be doing its bit come winter:-
‘Coal plants set to generate highest profits in years as cost of gas spikes’
“Britain will rely on its dwindling fleet of ageing coal-fired power plants as it prepares to face the coldest winter weather in a decade and the cost of gas hits new highs.
The country’s seven remaining coal plants will be called on more than in previous winters because for the first time in years they are as economic to run as gas-fired power plants, even as global coal prices hit five-year highs.
The cost of gas for this winter reached 10-year highs above 81 pence a therm last week, up by more than half from the previous winter when the average price was less than 50p a therm. The average wholesale gas price last motnh was the biggest percentage increase for two years, according to S&P Global Platts data.
As a result the market price for electricity in the darkest months of the year climbed by more than half to over £70 per megawatt hour from less than £45.
Soaring market prices have raised fears for cash-strapped families as the extreme cold threatens to bring Britain’s coldest winter in a decade….”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/10/06/coal-plants-set-generate-highest-profits-years-cost-gas-spikes/
It is unclear how Silly Jilly knows this winter is ‘Britain’s coldest winter in a decade’. Time will tell!
“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.”
_________________________________________________
Tell me:
Where are those “long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems,”
to associate risks with.
Did they specify what the Pre-Industrial temperature was and how they arrived at it? Also why that temperature instead of say the Medieval Warm Period peak, or the Roman Warm Period peak for instance. Why the cherry picking of time and value?
Also once again we are told that the deal needs to be done right away before it’s too late. This is the nth time we have heard this. It’s like a car salesman telling you that he has other offers so buy now.
Sleazy stuff indeed.
Also which iteration of the ever changing temperature record are they using and what’s to be done when it inevitably changes once again.
The BBC were all over the report this morning. That scion of climate studies – non other than Chris Evans – declared that current temperatures are the highest they have ever been.
First, when did the Industrial revolution in the UK really start. I would say with the use of the steam engine, although we had smelting of iron before that with water wheels supplying power for the hammers.
So what was the temp. back then, no thermometers so we don’t know . So how can the IPCC say now what figure to start with re. the 1.5 C.
MJE
actually that is good question , in reality it depends on the starting point you use and shows one of many problems of this area when was ‘pre-industrial’ given the importance given to post industrial climate changes knowing this start point is rather important . And yet there is not agreed date !
I wonder how long it will be before the IPCC realise that the only way to meet their “requirements” is to reduce global population by about 7 billion people, within a few years? I wonder which one of them is bold enough to suggest that developed nations distribute poison to the population to assist in this reduction?
You will note that many of the claims made are completely incapable of substantiation in any way, which is not any kind of science. Strangely there is no comment on the last 20 years temperature record, surely this shows that CO2 reduction is succeeding? Ah I know, it doesn’t match the computer models!!!
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.
_________________________________________________
That’s saying:
give models temperatures
“between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C, and between 1.5°C and 2°C.”
and hopefully
“models project robust differences in regional climate characteristics.”
_________________________________________________
The hole chapter B is built of that misleading text modules.
What is “Sustainable development”? and how if we ar e to cut back on development such as less energy to be generated, how can we eraducate povety. ?
MJE
I am interested in the CO2 emissions from space heating. Are the IPCC suggesting that this be banned in cold countries? Space heating accounts for a considerable section of CO2 production, in my case much more than my vehicle, what is the alternative offered by the IPCC? I suppose we could all move to live in the “warm zone” around the equator, but then the effect on ecology would be immense. Is it possible that any of them live in the Arctic zones, the next meeting should be held in Anchorage Alaska in the middle of winter at potentially -40C, not some wonderful warm location as is usual. The space heating should be turned off of course!
I would vote your post “up” if I had a button to click, David. 🙂
I bet IPCC executives and researchers, have and use climate control in their cars, homes and offices. I bet their kids watch YouTube videos or play video games on a computer or smart phone. I bet many of them have pets. I bet they advocate for distributed wealth, but are themselves wealthier than average (certainly if we compare globally, but most likely even within their respective countries of residence).
Do as I say, not as I do. As always.
The IPCC and the UN are a disgrace. This report is essentially a comparison of two IMAGINED scenarios … “ the models” (which have proven to be inconsistent with the facts and reality). There is no evidence here. Really, what this bunch of socialists are saying is that IF you “imagine” their ridiculous fantasy, you might recognise how wonderful and brainy they are. And they could be made king of the world … or something silly like that. Their imagines are childish OCD cravings for attention. Reality, evidence and analytics has no part of this make believe “world”. It is the conflict of the quantitative vs the qualitative as Bertrand Russell described accurately many years ago.
You just have to see the two completely imagined scenarios in context. Theirs with all the button pushing grievance buzz words for the faithful. As we’ve just seen add the right amount of grievance buzzwords and you’re in with any old tripe. They don’t even know how ridiculous they sound to normal people anymore as they lift off planet earth for the stratosphere. Smoking CO2 must really do something for some heads.
@David Stone “I wonder how long it will be before the IPCC realise that the only way to meet their “requirements” is to reduce global population by about 7 billion people, within a few years? I wonder which one of them is bold enough to suggest that developed nations distribute poison to the population to assist in this reduction?”
I am fairly certain they know this already but just have trouble saying it clearly in public. I often wonder, if CO2 had not increased, but stayed at pre-industrial levels, would crop yields have kept up with population these last 50 years? Would the current population even have been possible to achieve?
Given that the IPCC is part of the UN, CO2 reduction seems like one way to address the UNs population concerns and agenda, as stated clearly here in 1974 http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/bkg/wppa.html
“The Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order and the Programme of Action to achieve it, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its sixth special session (resolutions 3201 (S-VI) and 3202 (S-VI) of 1 May 1974), provide the most recent over-all framework for international co-operation. The explicit aim of the World Population Plan of Action is to help co-ordinate population trends and the trends of economic and social development. The basis for an effective solution of population problems is, above all, socio-economic transformation.”
there it is, in black and white, clearly, a new socio-economic order, focused on population “co-ordination”
they’re from the government and they’re here to help.. lol.
Damn!!! The sky is still falling
Isn’t it amazing what crap data in the hands of dedicated experts can lead to?
In his “Factfulness”, Hans Rosling provides data from his experiments – questionnaires – which demonstrates that “the experts” have a more inaccurate perspective of the real world, than normal reasonal citizens. Even chimpanzees could guess at reality better than the experts!
How drunk were the chimpanzees – whilst still getting better guesses?
Auto – not in the least sarc.
We know drunken dart-throwing chimps can model climates at least as well as the IPCC’s tame astrologers.
Well what is the climate sensitivity of CO2?. Without first pinning that number down all the rest of what they are saying is BS.
The Five Biggest Oil Companies In The World
Saudi Aramco. Saudi Aramco is the largest and leading world oil company in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. …
Sinopec. …
China National Petroleum Corporation. …
Petro China. …
ExxonMobil.
_________________________________________________
With 5 competing oil companies, every single oil company must strive for the customer.
If only ONE IPCC is on the market, the IPCC can sell us what they want at THEIR prices.
And of course IPCC gives us what THEY want.
The economist who invented the 2 degree limit, William Nordhaus, has just been awarded the Nobel Prize on the same day that the IPCC releases its 1.5 degree report. (I’m kind of glad GWPF’s David Henderson did not live to see that).
Step way way back and defocus your view.
No. Further than that. Way way further.
No faces. No individual personalities or words.
Don a space suit maybe, or full personal protective gear for underwater welding in the Mariana Trench, while doing left-handed lumberjacking on a tree that is 500 metres tall. PS: The ‘water’ you’re under is actually pH14 Potassium Hydroxide solution (You’ll understand why in a minute)
What do you see?
I see a large group of self important belligerent people who are utterly convinced of their own good intentions and correctness. Interlopers are summarily shot. They *know* how to run the world, everyone else is ‘wrong’
I see a Drunken Rabble.
They demonstrate exactly that state of mind and behaviour. Exaggerated words and over-the-top (suggested) actions & goals but everyone else has to do the hard work and pay the money.
These people are toxic.
(That is why no visitors from other worlds have ever made themselves visible – they’ve done a recce and have donned their protective gear = intergalactic space-ship. IOW Cleared off and gone home)
But I’m especially throwing Ad-Hom – of course they are not (classically) drunk with ethyl alcohol.
What then could be causing that amongst *such* a large group of people?
You know me by now.
I assert it’s something they ate (are eating daily) in conjunction with something they don’t eat (anymore)
And they eat that stuff in the safe & secure knowledge that eating ever more of it will contribute to The Saving of The World
And the *real* beauty and real joke of the whole thing is that, the production of that very (mind bending) thing is what is causing the ‘climate changes’ they think they’ve found, especially the rise of atmospheric carbonoxide.
An incredible positive feedback loop, an epic and total slow-motion train-wreck that you cannot take your gaze from.
But for who – us or them?
blew it a bit missed a negative- you know where
Thinks, I could do Climate Science and NASA rocketry – they get negatives the wrong way round, especially when it comes to Cause & Effect.
Mmmmmmm yes, I feel another Nobel coming on.
😀
So by corollary 1.5 degrees of cooling will be very good for us then. Just as well if certain solar scientists are right. Who cares if that notion disagrees with all of recorded history.
And all we need do for this climate nirvana is that the developing world must be starved while the developed world must live like the Amish.
“So by corollary 1.5 degrees of cooling will be very good for us then.”
We are over halfway to 1.5C of cooling, having experienced a drop of global temperatures of 0.8C since the peak of Feb. 2016.
Alarmists seem to be living in the past and thinking we are still at the Feb. 2016 temperature peak. They apparently have blocked the temperature reduction since that time out of their minds.
People who are fixated block out thoughts that contradict their fixation.
My 2 cents on sr15
https://twitter.com/Thongch34759935/status/1049105926366486528
“The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC was approved by the IPCC …”
They’re trying to increase the temperature 1.5ºC is what the statement seems to indicate.
I call on Donald Trump to begin the process to end the participation of the US in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and thereby end all US participation in the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC). This is far more important that removing the US from the Paris Agreement. We need to end the flow of money and power to these would-be world government rulers and totalitarians. We need to strangle this ersatz world government baby in it’s crib. No sane American wants to live in a world that would develop if these people got their way.
I don’t know why you would leave you can do far more damage by staying in and playing them at there own game. What you really need however is China to have to cut emissions, which if the game is played well you could corner them into having to do. USA is in much better shape to have to cut emissions than China.
The UN should follow in the steps of the League of Nations (its predecessor before WW2) and dissolve itself. Getting the UN out of the USA and getting the USA out of the UN should help.
“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.”
“Ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society” is just code for centralized, top-down Marxist government where most of us are serfs living our lives in strict conformity to the edicts handed down by our political masters. See Orwell’s 1984 for details. The opening statement by the IPCC says it all, the rest is just window dressing. The object of this report is purely political, and when all is said and done, has very little to do with CO2.
In paragraph A.2, they say “these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C.” If they mean this, then they are confessing that they believe equilibum climate sensitivity to be quite low and that they do not really think emissions can raise global mean temperature another 0.5 degree to 1.5°C. So what’s all the hubbub? This statement alone undermines the premise of the entire report.
From the article: “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.”
Shouldn’t they call themselves the IPCCSDEP?
The IPCC seems to be taking on a little more than is in their mandate. Their mandate is for them to find proof that humans are causing the climate to behave in ways it wouldn’t otherwise do without human input.
I didn’t see sustained development or eradicating poverty, anywhere in their defined mandate. Maybe I missed it.
Indeed no AGW, no IPCC, now what do you think they going to ‘find ‘ ?
Only Working Group I (WGI) of the IPCC is dedicated to the physical science basis. WGII addresses socio-economic impacts of climate change and WGIII addresses emission reductions and mitigation pathways and their various impacts. That’s always been the case. According to its SPM, this report covers the remits of all the IPCC Working Groups.
‘this important report testifies to the breadth and policy relevance of the IPCC,
send more money and send it now
By the way no UN body ever ,ever , ever offers reports that writes anything without saying how important the work is they do and therefore how ‘very important’ it is that their funding is increased .
Already told IPCC –
To: tsu@ipcc-wg2.org
Subject: IPCC calls for urgent action:
“call for action is breach of peace.
Get Lost.”
__________________________________________________
Sent too to
CNN
NTV Germany.
___________________________________________________
IPCC should not be able to excuse on a gullible majority of trust.
Another Summary based on total BS. the CBC in Canada has already lapped it up.
Now we need Steve to tell us they used (B)Science.
that is what a few at the top do.
How I think they see it:
They’re in the Last Chance Saloon, on the verge of losing their most important mark: USA, away from the IPCC process. It forces one last all-in bet. As is well known, Social Justice Warriors always Double Down. What else can one expect?
How I see it.
They already lost USA; but desire lingers on, on one side only. Decades of unbelievable scams mean their reputation is at an all time low. Despite broken love affairs, none of their former sugar daddies can find it in their heart to say: “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn“. So the charade of a tryst continues. But the love has turned to contempt. One forlorn side, puts everything on the line to force commitment. They will be let down again.
I scrolled directly to the comments box because I am not sure that I really care what any alarmist has to say after reading the report on the temperature data set. Garbage in garbage out. Anything and everything which comes out of their mouths can be refuted by simply referring them to that report.
In the article it says the IPCC is “pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”
So my question is: What is the pre-industrial temperature against which we are measuring current temperatures?
And they are saying that we have already increased the temperature by 1C above pre-industrial levels, and this increase is already causing damage that otherwise would not have occurred if not for human-caused CO2 (a claim they cannot prove).
So I want to know where they are starting from temperature-wise, and if they are basing their claim of a 1C increase on Feb. 2016 (Hottest Year Evah!) temperature?
If they are basing their 1C claim on Feb. 2016, then apparently they have not considered that global temperatures since Feb. 2016, have *decreased* by 0.8C, so I think they need to revise their claim.
The IPCC assumes a steady increase in temperatures because we have a steady increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, but the thermometers are not in agreement with this notion. The temperatures are going lower, not higher.
And btw, 2016 is supposedly the “Hottest Year Evah!” but the year 1934 had higher temperatures, about 0.4C higher. Which means we are not in unprecedented territory like the IPCC wants us to believe.
“So my question is: What is the pre-industrial temperature against which we are measuring current temperatures?”
______________________________
You can download the summary for policymakers (SPM) from the link in the article. See Box SPM 1 (pg. 33). ‘Pre-industrial’ is defined as “The multi-century period prior to the onset of large-scale industrial activity around 1750. The reference period 1850 –1900 is used to approximate pre-industrial GMST.” Fuller details can be found in the main report at 1.2.1.2.
“If they are basing their 1C claim on Feb. 2016, then apparently they have not considered that global temperatures since Feb. 2016, have *decreased* by 0.8C, so I think they need to revise their claim.”
___________________
It’s not affected much by recent high temperatures. It’s derived from linear regression of the entire data series from January 1901. They use the average of the main global surface temperature data sets, namely HadCRUT4, GISS, NOAA and Cowtan and Way, which is a krigged version of HadCRUT4, as far as I know (takes greater account of higher latitudes which are poorly represented in HadCRUT4).
You can download all these monthly data sets and average them (make sure to the same anomaly base period). Linear regression of this data series (I used the LINEST function on Excel multiplied by the number of individual monthly values) gives a value very close to 1.0 from January 1901. You might disagree with the values in the data sets, but the 1.0 C figure since 1901 is valid, given what data they have at hand.
Now like a carpet seller they are bargaining. Lets wait a few more years, they’ll be ready to accept just 0.25 C increase.
So many lies, so little time. I’ll pick this gem though: “Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia…”. As usual, they have couched lies within bigger lies, like the layers of an onion. In the pre-industrial period, which would be before roughly 1760, we were in the LIA, a particularly cold period inhospitable to man and pretty much all life. But even the Climate Liars know that man’s CO2 emissions didn’t seriously begin to ramp up until well into the 20th century, over 150 years later. A close reading of CO2 levels and temperatures the past 150 years shows little correlation. When temperatures ramped up, man’s emission levels were still relatively low. Then, during a time when emissions had ramped up, temperatures actually cooled.
The idea that their mythical manmade warming “will persist for centuries to milennia” is an absurd lie.
Bruce Cobb
“In the pre-industrial period, which would be before roughly 1760, we were in the LIA, a particularly cold period inhospitable to man and pretty much all life. ”
________________________
Perhaps, but as they mention in the SPM, the period used to approximate the pre-industrial temperature anomaly is much later than 1760; it’s based on the 1850-1900 average. HadCRUT4, which they use as one of their temperature databases, covers this period. In HadCRUT4, the period 1850-1900 was, on average, less than a tenth of a degree cooler than the period 1901-1950 (-0.32 versus -0.23 C relative to the 1961-90 global average). So it really avoids the worst of the LIA.
But the average of 1901-1950 doesn’t reflect how much warming has happened *since 1950*. The average of the 40s is visually equivalent to the 61-90 reference, so there’s about 0.3C of warming included that can’t be reasonably charged to anthropogenic influence.
Yes, of the ~1.0 C warming that occurred since the start of the 20th century ~0.46 C occurred between 1901 and 1950 and ~ 0.64 C occurred from 1951-present. However, the point I was trying to make is that in terms of ‘average’ temperatures, the period 1901-1950 wasn’t significantly colder than the period 1850-1900; so it’s not valid to claim that the period used to estimate ‘pre-industrial’ temperatures used by the IPCC (1850-1900) is unduly influenced by the LIA. It wasn’t particularly cold in terms of periods of similar duration right up to 1951.
The period 1901-1950 wasn’t significantly ‘warmer’ than the period 1850-1900, I should say.
“The period 1901-1950 wasn’t significantly ‘warmer’ than the period 1850-1900”
Also, the period 1950 to 2018 is not significantly warmer than 1901 to 1950.
Tom Abbott
“Also, the period 1950 to 2018 is not significantly warmer than 1901 to 1950.”
__________________
The average temperature over the period 1950-1918 (to date) was ~ 0.51 C, relative to the 1961-1990 mean. The average temperature 1901-1950 using the same index was 0.0 C relative to the same index. I would suggest that over half a degree C is significantly warmer than zero.
DWR54
Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) says early Twentieth Century warming and current warming are “not statistically significantly different from each other”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
Phil Jones: “As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other”
end excerpt
The climate warmed from 1910 to 1940, then the climate cooled from 1940 to 1980, reaching the same low temperature level as 1910, then the climate warmed from 1980 to the present at the same magnitude as the warming from 1910 to 1940. So whatever caused the warming from 1910 to 1940 could also have caused the warming from 1980 to the present since both periods started at about the same low temperature and warmed to the same high temperature. The temperatures were actually warmer in the 1930’s than the hottest period today by about 0.4C..
This is called natural climate change. There’s nothing to see here. Even Alarmist Phil Jones, using bogus, bastardized surface temperature charts says so.
You used 1901 to 1950 and 1950 to the present. The 1950’s was a fairly warm decade before cooling into the late 1970’s. Not sure why 1950 was used in your calculation.
Ah, so HADCRUD (motto: “we’re famous for our tamperatures’) uses a completely definition of pre-industrial from everyone else, putting it some 100 – 150 years smackdab into the industrial period.
Interesting. It’s all becoming so much clearer now.
It’s not HadCRUT that uses this definition; it’s the IPCC. I guess the reason they use the period 1850-1900 for their estimate of ‘pre-industrial’ temperature is that HadCRUT4 (also Cowtan and Way) provide usable global temperature data for that period.
Why can’t I feel excited living in “the few most important years in our history”? Feels just like monday afternoon in same old overcrowded office. Oh well.
The IPCC are still “misleading” everybody about who the authors of the report were.
Their list of authors (http://ipcc.ch/report/authors/report.authors.php?q=32&p=) does NOT mention the many non-scientists who actually wrote the final version that has just been released to the public.
see:- http://steelydanswarandpeace.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/ipcc-reports-are-poltics-not-science.html
However, the IPCC are surprisingly honest about what I call “the smoking gun of 2+2=5” document. They openly link to this document here at: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_approved_trickle_backs.pdf
This “smokin gun” document is the list of alterations made by the non-scientists (diplomats and bureaucrats) together with the instructions that the original technical report be changed to match the fake science lied into existence by these non-scientists.
The IPCC are quite open about their deceptions, which means that all the media reports that claim that the report was written by scientists are knowingly wrong. Fake news generated from fake science!
Interesting to see that the ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corporation, have a listed IPCC author.
So a further 0.5C warming will kill 70-90% of coral reefs, but a further 1.0C warming will kill upwards of 99%?
Remind me what percentage of coral reefs were killed by the 1C warming we’ve already had since not-really-preindustrial temperatures.
So basically the IPCC are stating they want funding from now to 2030 and through until 2052 to monitor the minute temperature fluctuations, bit only look at one good photosynthesising life essential gas CO2 (NOT Carbon – idiots) so they can all they around being virtue signallers, whilst ignoring all the other myriad of variables; I say flipping sack them all and save the fossil fuels they’re wasting for the rest of us. What a waste of so-called scientists!
The new phone book’s here! The new phone book’s here!
Chicken Licken!
It is straight out of the classic alarmist playbook:-
1. An irreversible catastrophe of unimaginable proportions is just around the corner.
2. But fear not the high priests and priestesses (all paid for by Joe taxpayer) alone can now tell you the good news: there is a very short window (perhaps co-incidentally just long enough for all the priests and priestesses to have moved on to even more lucrative jobs & paid off those school fees and for everyone to have forgotten their predictions) in which if we all all make a huge sacrifice that we can perhaps prevent the impending cataclysm which is of course very close to being irreversible in its effects.
3. The effects of this irreversible catastrophe of unimaginable proportions will be everywhere and always negative. There will be no winners only losers. In short it will be like no change you have ever seen before.
4. No matter that the warming started before big increases in co2 kicked in. No matter that it was much warmer in the medieval warm period (when Eric the Red settled a fjord or two in south west Greenland) or in the time of the late Roman empire. No matter that the correlation between atmospheric co2 levels and earth’s climate is over geological time at best poor and patchy. No matter that less than 40 years ago we were worried about the threat of another ice age. No matter that the warming effect of co2 is not linearly related to its concentration. Mo matter that water vapour is a much better green house gas than co2 and present in the earth’s atmosphere in much higher concentrations than co2. No matter that most climate models don’t perform very well when looking at historical periods where the actual climate is known. No matter that there is a large and ever growing list of predictions about the future climate that have proved to be wildly wrong (Al Gore and the ice free arctic summers and Dr. Viner and the English school children who will grow up never having seen snow are just two examples). No matter global greening which has added a landmass equivalent to north America to the world’s area of food production. No matter that cold kills far more than heat as anyone in the northern hemisphere who has tried to bury their parents during a 20 minute slot at an overwhelmed church in January could tell you. IGNORE ALL THIS AS THIS TIME THE PRIESTHOOD HAVE GOT IT RIGHT.
IPCC SR15 is in short not evidence based science but more the outpourings of what increasingly resembles a religious cult with the usual paraphernalia: only the priests can tell us how to avoid hell and achieve salvation and huge sacrifice will be required to get there. I am sure we have heard this kind of message before somewhere.
Comprehensions of, particularly section D, requires translation and use of a gobbledygook dictionary. The only thing which comes out of it for me in this section is that poverty seems always to be an afterthought, popped in there just provide a bit of emotional balance.
All in all a document written by a cabal of politicians with a dangerous agenda.
“…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. No we aren’t, that pointy-headed moron ought to be fired for spreading misinformation.
He’s not the only one: The lead story on AljaBeeba all day today has been this looming, so-called CO2-driven climate catastrophe, and they even had the nerve to wheel on two spittle-flecked alarmists (Joanna Haigh and Chris Fogwill) who trotted out the usual lies without anyone there to challenge their assertions.
I would make another formal complaint, but I can’t really be bothered any more: AljaBeeba and The Grauniad are both so far beyond the pale now that nothing would ever come of it.
}:o(
That’s it, I’m hiding under the covers.
Cut the report into squares are send it to Venezuela.
They can at least find something useful to do with it – toilet paper!
I can’t believe that they said that coral could be down 99% – more or less extinct with 2 degrees warming. Is this the Himalayan Mountain Glacier debacle all over again? What kind of oversight do they have, do they just allow anyone to spout anything they want. Corals have lived for the last 535 million years, one of the first animals on the planet, 99% of this time has been above 2 degrees of 1850 temperatures. It’s so completely bonkers.
“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”
Who invited the IPCC? Did the 190 countries that signed Paris actually invite the IPCC to produce this garbage?
I just finished downloading the entire SR15 including figures, press releases, SPM and authors. It was interesting that the IPCC issued the press release for the Oct 8 release of SR15 in English, Arabic, Mandarin, Russian, French and Spanish, but not in the language of the host country.
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
The report’s full name SHOULD be:
Global Warming Fantasy Temperature Statistic 1.5°C, an IPCC especially ridiculous report on the delusions of 1.5°C above imagined pre-industrial levels and global magic gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global fear response to the non-threat of climate change (and, by that, we mean only climate change caused by humans, even though we pretend we mean otherwise sometimes), restricted development, and efforts to orchestrate mass wealth redistribution, even if it brings more poverty to regions formerly on a path of technological growth
Kirsten Zickfeld is one of the lead authors of the report. Humiliating to me, she is now a Canadian associate professor at Simon Fraser University in Canada. She obtained her post graduate degrees in Germany so she is probably German born and is now living off the Canadian taxpayer. She doesnt have a home page but she has a page on th euniversity website. The following is her special focus. As you can see those 4 areas are the crucial areas in this whole scam.
“Reversibility of human-induced climate change
Is global warming reversible, i.e. is it possible to restore the climate system to a desired state if human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases are reduced or completely eliminated? Climate change is potentially irreversible because of the long (centennial to millennial) time carbon dioxide (CO2) remains in the atmosphere, and the long reaction timescales of the deep ocean and ice sheets. Recent research has shown that human-induced climate change is largely irreversible (i.e. temperature will remain elevated and sea level will continue to rise) for several centuries even after emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped entirely. Against this evidence, technology that seeks to artificially remove CO2 from the atmosphere (which would slow the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and accelerate the atmospheric CO2 concentration decrease after a peak has been reached) is increasingly discussed. Research in my group explores whether carbon dioxide removal technology has the potential to enhance the reversibility of different components of the climate system (e.g. ocean, permafrost), given realistic constraints on the rate and scale this technology can be applied at.
Carbon cycle response to carbon dioxide removal
Under the 2015 Paris Agreement nations committed to “holding the increase in the global average surface temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C”. Meeting the temperature target in the Paris Agreement presents the enormous challenge of reducing CO2 emissions to zero within this century. Artificial removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (referred to as “carbon dioxide removal” or CDR) is a key mitigation measure in greenhouse gas emission scenarios that seek to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. Yet, our understanding of the carbon cycle response to CDR is limited. Research in my group seeks to better understand the processes that determine the response of the coupled climate-carbon cycle to CDR both at the global and regional scale, and their uncertainty in models. We also seek to develop metrics to quantify the effectiveness of CDR in lowering atmospheric CO2 and reversing human-induced warming.
Carbon budgets consistent with climate targets
Recent research has established that global warming at a given point in time is determined by the total amount of CO2 emissions emitted up to that time, and is independent of the emission trajectory. The proportional relationship between global warming and total or “cumulative” CO2 emissions arises because of compensation of different processes within the coupled climate-carbon cycle system. The total CO2 emissions that can be emitted over all times in order to limit global warming to a given level – e.g. the 1.5°C and 2°C limits mentioned in the Paris Agreement – is referred to as “carbon budget”. Carbon budgets are uncertain because the physical and biogeochemical response to CO2 emissions is not well constrained, and because it is uncertain how emissions of other greenhouse gases will evolve in the future. The method of quantification also influences the magnitude of carbon budgets. Research in my group investigates the physical and biogeochemical processes underlying the carbon budget concept, and seeks to quantify carbon budgets consistent with climate targets under consideration of a range of uncertainties.
Feedbacks between climate and the carbon cycle
A range of feedbacks operate in the climate system, which have the potential attenuate or exacerbate global warming. One class of feedbacks involves the carbon cycle, and determines how much of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by human activities remains in the atmosphere. For example, the solubility of CO2 in seawater decreases with temperature. Therefore, if the temperature of seawater rises, the ocean will be able to absorb less CO2. Similar feedbacks operate in the terrestrial carbon cycle. A prominently discussed feedback is the permafrost-carbon feedback, whereby permanently frozen soils thaw due to warming, releasing CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. These gases, in turn, amplify the greenhouse effect, leading to additional warming. Research suggests that the total effect of carbon-climate feedbacks is to amplify global warming (i.e a positive feedback), but no runaway carbon-climate feedbacks are anticipated, at least this century. Research in my group seeks to better understand the physical and biogeochemical processes that generate these feedbacks, and quantify them.”
SHE SAYS IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH that CAGW is not anticipated in this century. If that is the case, why is she one of the leading IPCC authors that are trying to scare us into believing in CAGW?
Did it occur to the IPCC that they might be shooting themselves in the foot, given that, in the real world, we have had the coolest September worldwide in the last decade, and the minimum extent of Arctic sea ice is really the same as it was in 2017, ‘16, ‘15, ’14, ’13, ’11, ’09, ’08, ’07.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I don’t think the IPCC use the satellite data in this report. The satellite TLT producers currently disagree with one another starkly (RSS was a lot warmer than UAH in September 2018 using the same data but different processing). The IPCC only uses surface data in this report, as far as I can see.
In any case, an extremely cold or warm month at the latter end of such a long series makes very little difference to the overall warming estimate, which takes account of all months since 1901.
Now that the summary for policymakers has been presented, the rebel teenager scientists will have to work hard to adapt the science to the agenda of the policymakers. Strange how “science” works, I guess Richard Feynman really didn’t know what science was about.
The socialist who run the IPCC don’t even try to hide it anymore.
“require rapid, far- reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, “
“Limiting global warming to 1.5ºC would require rapid, far- reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said”
Ok, if we need to make these changes, why haven’t they defined and explained what these “unprecedented” or “profound” lifestyle changes are going to be? My guess is that if they did, we’d revolt.
The report keeps referring to temperature increases of 1.5-2.0 degrees. But then they point out that is from a baseline in 1850. Why don’t they start with the current state – and then talk about the impact of 0.5-1.0 degree increase – not as scary?
Robber
The baseline for their ‘pre-industrial’ estimate isn’t 1850. It’s the average global temperature anomaly from 1850-1900.
The current rate of increase is estimated to be 0.2C (+/-0.1C) per decade from the current state. They mention that in the first couple of paragraphs of the SPM. Have you read it?
Anthony Watts
This does not need to be posted necessarily. I have no other way to communicate with you.
I copied a portion of this post in replying to a comment on another blog and stated that I copied it from a post on your website. I just mentioned your name. I am new to this so should I have included additional information? I want to follow the proper standards so please let me know if I made a mistake.
They want us to believe that another half degree of warming will reach a magical tipping point that kills off 4 out of 5 coral reefs. But what percentage of coral reefs were killed in the past when the planet was at least 5 degrees warmer than it is today? Is there any science behind these predictions, or are they consulting their Chrystal ball again?
Talking about starting dates . . .
I see a difference in what they say they use and the graphs posted in the Chapter 1 Annex regarding warming, where the starting point is 1960 and that date is the beginning of the comparison to 1850-1900. In addition, some of their graphs conveniently ended in 2015 as even the corrupted HadCRUT data has shown a 0.5 decrease from the 2016 spike and a 0.2 deg C decrease from the highest average temp in 2015.
Now lets talk about cherry picking reference points. Looking at the graph linked below you can tell they picked a nice cold period to use as their base that starts off with a negative temperature anomaly of approximately -0.45 Deg C
We have warming- surprise surprise. I also noticed the data from NCDC, GISS, and MAAT shows the temperature anomaly from that period as being 0.6 degrees below normal. So should we be surprised that we have seen temperatures increase from those dates?
North American tree ring data shows the same negative anomaly during their “reference”point.
So they are still picking information that will push the agenda rather than give a true picture of what is happening.
The IPCC
Brought out a press release on
A Special Report.
Yesterday’s news took
It in and solemnly fed
It to the public.
Strictly considered
(Which no one did), the report
Makes this crazy claim.
Dire things will happen
If temperature rises
By half a degree.
The report says the
Globe already warmed by [1°C] one
Degree centigrade.
If the warming goes
To [1.5°] one point five degrees, that
Will be horrid bad.
On its face, that is
Insanely ridiculous.
But no one noticed.
News stories treated
The [1.5] one point five figure as
Commencing from now.
The stories used the
IPCC press release
As their only source.
The report itself
Has every page marked with
“Do Not Cite or Quote”.
But the press release
Says that the Special Report
Is real important.
Obediently,
The stories stuck to what is
In the press release.
It has short made up
Statements from the Co-Chairs of
The three Working Groups.
Let me explain. The
IPCC divides its
Work among three Groups.
The first, the only
One that matters, looks at the
State of the climate.
The second attempts
To explain what the impacts
Of climate will be.
The third recommends
What governments, taxpayers,
Ought to be doing.
Briefer than briefly
Put, here is what the bigwigs
Are said to have said.
The Group One guy says
We have extreme weather, sea
Rise, less Arctic ice.
The Group Two guy says
That more warmth might risk loss of
Some ecosystems.
The Group Three guy says
We need unprecedented
Changes to fix it.
Most important is
What the IPCC Chair
Says, the chief bigwig.
He says the report
Confirms the relevance of
The IPCC.
Let us consider
Those four statements in order.
The first is a lie.
Weather is not more
Extreme; sea rise is constant;
The Arctic has ice.
The Arctic has a
Bit less, the Antarctic more,
Ice than recently.
The Group Two statement
Confirms no ecosystems
Have been lost so far.
To say there might be
Risk in the future is a
Vapid waste of breath.
The much greater risk
Is that increased plant growth will
Enhance the systems.
The Group Three statement
Is panicky hand waving.
Let’s all do something.
What? There is nothing
That can be done; and better,
Nothing needing done.
The one important
Thing to do is referred to
In the Chair’s statement.
The IPCC
Must continue. What matters
Most is its funding.
Let governments in
The U.N. take care of that
And all shall be well.
Duly, journalists
Made news from the press release.
They asked no questions.
Copyright © 2018 Denis Howarth
(Author of Hackyu Won Too Free)