Today with press releases, live TV coverage and some media fanfare, the IPCC SR15 report was published. Without comment, here are the press release and “headline statements” as the IPCC sees them.
We’ll have more coverage later, and a link to the full report is at the end of this post. Comments from readers are welcome.
Global Warming of 1.5 °C an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
Summary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC approved by governments
INCHEON, Republic of Korea, 8 Oct – Limiting global warming to 1.5ºC would require rapid, far- reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said in a new assessment. With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, limiting global warming to 1.5ºC compared to 2ºC could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said on Monday.
The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC was approved by the IPCC on Saturday in Incheon, Republic of Korea. It will be a key scientific input into the Katowice Climate Change Conference in Poland in December, when governments review the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change.
“With more than 6,000 scientific references cited and the dedicated contribution of thousands of expert and government reviewers worldwide, this important report testifies to the breadth and policy relevance of the IPCC,” said Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC.
Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries prepared the IPCC report in response to an invitation from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) when it adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015.
The report’s full name is Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
“One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,” said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.
The report highlights a number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5ºC compared to 2ºC, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2ºC.
“Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5ºC or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems,” said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
Limiting global warming would also give people and ecosystems more room to adapt and remain below relevant risk thresholds, added Pörtner. The report also examines pathways available to limit warming to 1.5ºC, what it would take to achieve them and what the consequences could be.
“The good news is that some of the kinds of actions that would be needed to limit global warming to 1.5ºC are already underway around the world, but they would need to accelerate,” said Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Co-Chair of Working Group I.
The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.
“Limiting warming to 1.5ºC is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes,” said Jim Skea, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.
Allowing the global temperature to temporarily exceed or ‘overshoot’ 1.5ºC would mean a greater reliance on techniques that remove CO2 from the air to return global temperature to below 1.5ºC by 2100. The effectiveness of such techniques are unproven at large scale and some may carry significant risks for sustainable development, the report notes.
“Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being, making it easier to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals,” said Priyardarshi Shukla, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.
The decisions we make today are critical in ensuring a safe and sustainable world for everyone, both now and in the future, said Debra Roberts, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
“This report gives policymakers and practitioners the information they need to make decisions that tackle climate change while considering local context and people’s needs. The next few years are probably the most important in our history,” she said.
The IPCC is the leading world body for assessing the science related to climate change, its impacts and potential future risks, and possible response options.
The report was prepared under the scientific leadership of all three IPCC working groups. Working Group I assesses the physical science basis of climate change; Working Group II addresses impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; and Working Group III deals with the mitigation of climate change.
The Paris Agreement adopted by 195 nations at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in December 2015 included the aim of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change by “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre- industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”
As part of the decision to adopt the Paris Agreement, the IPCC was invited to produce, in 2018, a Special Report on global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. The IPCC accepted the invitation, adding that the Special Report would look at these issues in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
Global Warming of 1.5ºC is the first in a series of Special Reports to be produced in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Cycle. Next year the IPCC will release the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, and Climate Change and Land, which looks at how climate change affects land use.
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) presents the key findings of the Special Report, based on the assessment of the available scientific, technical and socio-economic literature relevant to global warming of 1.5°C.
The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC (SR15) is available at http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
Headline Statements
A. Understanding Global Warming of 1.5°C4
A1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate (high confidence).
A.2. Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long- term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence), but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C (medium confidence).
A3. Climate-related risks for natural and human systems are higher for global warming of 1.5°C than at present, but lower than at 2°C (high confidence). These risks depend on the magnitude and rate of warming, geographic location, levels of development and vulnerability, and on the choices and implementation of adaptation and mitigation options (high confidence).
B. Projected Climate Change, Potential Impacts and Associated Risks
B1. Climate models project robust7 differences in regional climate characteristics between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C, and between 1.5°C and 2°C. These differences include increases in: mean temperature in most land and ocean regions (high confidence), hot extremes in most inhabited regions (high confidence), heavy precipitation in several regions (medium confidence), and the probability of drought and precipitation deficits in some regions (medium confidence).
B2. By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be around 0.1 metre lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence). Sea level will continue to rise well beyond 2100 (high confidence), and the magnitude and rate of this rise depends on future emission pathways. A slower rate of sea level rise enables greater opportunities for adaptation in the human and ecological systems of small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas (medium confidence).
B3. On land, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including species loss and extinction, are projected to be lower at 1.5°C of global warming compared to 2°C. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C is projected to lower the impacts on terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal ecosystems and to retain more of their services to humans (high confidence).
B4. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2ºC is projected to reduce increases in ocean temperature as well as associated increases in ocean acidity and decreases in ocean oxygen levels (high confidence). Consequently, limiting global
warming to 1.5°C is projected to reduce risks to marine biodiversity, fisheries, and ecosystems, and their functions and services to humans, as illustrated by recent changes to Arctic sea ice and warm water coral reef ecosystems (high confidence).
B5. Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C.
B6. Most adaptation needs will be lower for global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (high confidence). There are a wide range of adaptation options that can reduce the risks of climate change (high confidence). There are limits to adaptation and adaptive capacity for some human and natural systems at global warming of 1.5°C, with associated losses (medium confidence). The number and availability of adaptation options vary by sector (medium confidence).
C. Emission Pathways and System Transitions Consistent with 1.5°C Global Warming
C1. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40– 60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). For limiting global warming to below 2°C, CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 20% by 2030 in most pathways (10–30% interquartile range) and reach net zero around 2075 (2065–2080 interquartile range). Non-CO2 emissions in pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C show deep reductions that are similar to those in pathways limiting warming to 2°C (high confidence).
C2. Pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems (high confidence). These systems transitions are unprecedented in terms of scale, but not necessarily in terms of speed, and imply deep emissions reductions in all sectors, a wide portfolio of mitigation options and a significant upscaling of investments in those options (medium confidence).
C3. All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot project the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the order of 100–1000 GtCO2 over the 21st century. CDR would be used to compensate for residual emissions and, in most cases, achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence). CDR deployment of several hundreds of GtCO2 is subject to multiple feasibility and sustainability constraints (high confidence).
Significant near-term emissions reductions and measures to lower energy and land demand can limit CDR deployment to a few hundred GtCO2 without reliance on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) (high confidence).
D. Strengthening the Global Response in the Context of Sustainable Development and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty
D1. Estimates of the global emissions outcome of current nationally stated mitigation ambitions as submitted under the Paris Agreement would lead to global greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 of 52–58 GtCO2eq yr-1 (medium confidence). Pathways
reflecting these ambitions would not limit global warming to 1.5°C, even if supplemented by very challenging increases in the scale and ambition of emissions reductions after 2030 (high confidence). Avoiding overshoot and reliance on future largescale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can only be achieved if global CO2 emissions start to decline well before 2030 (high confidence).
D2. The avoided climate change impacts on sustainable development, eradication of poverty and reducing inequalities would be greater if global warming were limited to 1.5°C rather than 2°C, if mitigation and adaptation synergies are maximized while trade-offs are minimized (high confidence).
D3. Adaptation options specific to national contexts, if carefully selected together with enabling conditions, will have benefits for sustainable development and poverty reduction with global warming of 1.5°C, although trade-offs are possible (high confidence).
D4. Mitigation options consistent with 1.5°C pathways are associated with multiple synergies and trade-offs across the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While the total number of possible synergies exceeds the number of trade-offs, their net effect will depend on the pace and magnitude of changes, the composition of the mitigation portfolio and the management of the transition (high confidence).
D5. Limiting the risks from global warming of 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication implies system transitions that can be enabled by an increase of adaptation and mitigation investments, policy instruments, the acceleration of technological innovation and behaviour changes (high confidence).
D6. Sustainable development supports, and often enables, the fundamental societal and systems transitions and transformations that help limit global warming to 1.5°C. Such changes facilitate the pursuit of climate-resilient development pathways that achieve ambitious mitigation and adaptation in conjunction with poverty eradication and efforts to reduce inequalities (high confidence).
D7. Strengthening the capacities for climate action of national and sub-national authorities, civil society, the private sector, indigenous peoples and local communities can support the implementation of ambitious actions implied by limiting global warming to 1.5°C (high confidence). International cooperation can provide an enabling environment for this to be achieved in all countries and for all people, in the context of sustainable development. International cooperation is a critical enabler for developing countries and vulnerable regions (high confidence).
Full report (5 chapters) here: http://ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“…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.