Well, the new report is out from the IPCC, the Indefatigable Predictors of Climate Catastrophe. It’s our last-chance must act now warning of upcoming Thermageddon … I think we’re up to Last Chance Warning Number Thirty-Seven or something like that.
And the UNFCCC, the United Nations Foundation for Collecting Climate Cash, point out that the IPCC report is full of all kinds of dire warnings like the following:
The IPCC’s special report clearly states that the world has already warmed by 1ºC due to human activity. As a result, climate change is already affecting people, ecosystems and livelihoods across the globe, with impacts such as floods or droughts disproportionately affecting the poorest and most vulnerable. Some of the most affected areas are small islands, megacities, coastal regions and high mountain ranges.
Their new push is that shooting for 2°C of warming is not alarmist enough, it’s sooo last week, so now they’re aiming for a maximum warming of 1.5°C … in passing, let me note the hubris in thinking that we can actually control the temperature of the planet to the nearest half-degree. But I digress.
All of this, of course, is justified on the basis that warming hurts the “poorest and most vulnerable”. I mean, what more noble cause can there be than keeping the poorest and most vulnerable from further harm?
In that respect, let me offer up a couple of graphs. For your first graph, here’s the Berkeley Earth estimate of the change in temperature since 1850.
Now, we can argue about the details, and the warming may not be as great as shown. But clearly, the earth has steadily warmed, in fits and starts, over the last century or so.
And for your second graph, here’s Max Roser’s look at the change in the number of people living in extreme poverty around the planet during that time.
Now, looking at those two graphs, can anyone tell me with a straight face that increasing global temperatures harm “the poorest and most vulnerable”???
It gets worse. The majority of the warming to date has occurred in the extratropics, in winter, at night … I don’t think too many people in Vladivostok or New York City will be hard hit if the winter nights average a couple of degrees warmer. Which is OK, because in general, excess cold kills more people than excess heat.
And having spent a couple of nights sleeping out on a New York City sidewalk, with my pants and shirt stuffed with newspaper and my hands burrowed into my pockets, I can assure you from painful experience that I wouldn’t have minded a bit more warmth …
So the next time someone starts up with the usual garbage about how we have to stop using fossil fuels to save the poor from a slight warming in 50 years … point them to these graphs and ask them …
If warming is so bad for the poor, how come the world has steadily warmed over the last century and the lives of the poor have steadily gotten better?
Here, we’re having the last days of summer. Me, I’m a tropical boy, I don’t like the cold weather … but a crisp fall day is just about heaven …
And finally, if you’re interested in more than climate science, let me invite you to join the discussions at my blog, or to follow me on Twitter,@WEschenbach.
Best regards to everyone,
w.
PS—When you comment, please quote the exact words you are referring to, so we can all be clear what you are discussing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, is “life on earth” no longer at stake, and climate change will mostly just affect the poor? I have a feeling that wealth transfers to poor people living in tropical climates will spend it on air conditioning. If we’re still at risk of flooding the Statue of Liberty up to her armpits then can we afford to increase energy use like that?
But if helping poor people and protecting them from climate change is the objective, insisting on technologies that make electricity expensive are counter-productive. That means more people die.
Headline in today’s El Tiempo, Bogota, Colombia
La Humanidad tiene 12 anos para evitar cambio drastico del clima – Humanity has 12 years in order to avoid drastic climate change
I suppose this is typical of ‘newspapers’ worldwide…
Again? How nice to give us a reprieve.
Willis:
Climate Change is extremely simple, and has two components:
1. Natural recovery from the Little Ice Age cooling: Approx. .05 deg. C/decade
2. The amount of anthropogenic SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere: Approx. .02 deg. C. of temperature change for each net Megaton of change in global SO2 aerosol emissions.
Superimposed upon this are the effects of volcanic SO2 emissions, which lead to the formation of La Ninas (on average, 15 months after a VEI4 or higher eruption), and El Ninos on average,about 2 years after an eruption).
Since circa 1975, all of the anomalous warming that has occurred has been due to the environmental movement’s reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions. CO2 has had no climatic effect.
Apart from continued natural recovery from the LIA cooling, future temperature changes will be governed solely by the amount of anthropogenic and volcanic SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.
Anthropogenic emissions can be adjusted, but we are at the mercy of random volcanic emissions.
Willis:
I am somewhat amazed that you have exhibited no objection to my explanation of Climate Change, implying that you are in full agreement (as someone with your intelligence should be!)
My post was a simple”broad brush” explanation–further details, if you are interested, can be viewed at the pre-print site “https://www.Osf.io/bycj4/”
Burl:
I am somewhat amazed that you think I read everything everyone writes.
And now that you’ve falsely claimed that my lack of response to whatever you might have written is somehow equivalent to agreeing with something I haven’t read … you can be sure I’ll never read it.
Well played …
w.
Willis:
Yes, I had assumed that you at least skimmed or read all posts.
You have soundly criticized all of my other posts, and a lack of response this time led me to believe that you had finally found no area of disagreement.
(I was actually hoping that you might point out some flaw which I could, hopefully. address, to strengthen my conclusions).
Burl, I do try to read all posts. Still human, though, and I might not see some.
If you’d like some reply to your post, how about you just ASK rather than assuming that silence mean agreement.
OK, hang on … here’s your post:
Burl Henry October 9, 2018 at 6:20 am Edit
Willis:
“Extremely simple”? It’s one of the most complex systems we’ve every tried to model.
Sorry, but this is totally unsupported. Where is your analysis to bear out these curious claims? They might be true, but without a rigorous analysis, it’s just words …
You have not established if either of these is true.
Anybody, including you, who thinks that they can predict the future evolution of the climate is blowing smoke.
I’ve written maybe ten posts demonstrating using, you know, evidence, that the effect of volcanoes is local and short-lived. You’re just making unsupported, unverified, unanalyzed claims.
OK, I’ve pointed out the flaws in your post … can I go now?
w.
That second graph demonstrates conclusively that warming has killed off most of the poor people! From90% to 10% that’s 90% of the poor GONE! Oh! The humanity!
should anyone need it
What hurts the “poorest” are the absurd policies enforced by deluded governments, not the slight increase in temperatures.
A) Just which climate model(s) provided proof that the poorest are affected by climate, at all!?
Meaning that the IPCC’s claim about the poorest being harmed is all alarmism with zero science or economy tracking.
B) Where are those “most vulnerable” defined and identified explicitly!?
It appears that the IPCC used emotional laden words that have zero meaning when discussing climate.
Once again, alarmism is the primary product of the IPCC and UNFCCC, not science and certainly not climate or atmosphere analysis.
* – After years of claiming climate refugees by the millions will be caused by increasing CO₂, the IPCC and alarmists have found none. Nor are any of their favorite alarmist claims occurring; e.g. my testicles are unchanged by CO₂. Though I could increase my beer intake to verify the lack of impact; but I require a couple million dollars for research costs.
* The islands are not sinking below the seas.
* The seas are not rising beyond miniscule amounts.
* Arctic ice is not vanishing.
* Antarctic ice is not melting, except for a few small areas where volcanoes and warm ocean water meet the ice.
* Rainfall is not increasing.
* Floods are not increasing.
* Storms are not increasing, in number or ferocity.
* Droughts are not more common and certainly not as long as historical records indicate.
* Oceans have barely warmed in certain areas. Leaving vast quantities of ocean water slightly above 0.0°C.
* Seasons still occur for all parts of Earth.
etc. etc.
Excellent article Willis!