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/
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!