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/
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)