From Patrick T. Brown, PhD’s blog
Posted on January 4, 2019 by ptbrown31
In late 2018 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report on the impacts associated with global warming of 1.5°C (2.7°F) above preindustrial levels (as of 2019 we are at about 1.0°C above pre-industrial levels) as well as the technical feasibility of limiting global warming to such a level. The media coverage of the report immediately produced a meme that continues to persist. The meme is some kind of variation of the following:
The IPCC concluded that we have until 2030 (or 12 years) to avoid catastrophic global warming
Below is a sampling of headlines from coverage that propagated this meme.
However, these headlines are essentially purveying a myth. I think it is necessary to push back against this meme for two main reasons:
1) It is false.
2) I believe that spreading this messaging will ultimately undermine the credibility of the IPCC and climate science more generally.
Taking these two points in turn:
1) The IPCC did not conclude that society has until 2030 to avoid catastrophic global warming.
First of all, the word “catastrophic” does not appear in the IPCC report. This is because the report was not tasked with defining a level of global warming which might be considered to be catastrophic (or any other alarming adjective). Rather, the report was tasked with evaluating the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C (2.7°F) above preindustrial levels, and comparing these to the impacts associated with 2.0°C (3.6°F) above preindustrial levels as well as evaluating the changes to global energy systems that would be necessary in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
In the report, the UN has taken the strategy of defining temperature targets and then evaluating the impacts at these targets rather than asking what temperature level might be considered to be catastrophic. This is presumably because the definition of a catastrophe will inevitably vary from country to country and person to person, and there is not robust evidence that there is some kind of universal temperature threshold where a wide range of impacts suddenly become greatly magnified. Instead, impacts seem to be on a continuum where they simply get worse with more warming.
So what did the IPCC conclude regarding the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C? The full IPCC report constituted an exhaustive literature review but the main conclusions were boiled down in the relatively concise summary for policymakers. There were six high-level impact-related conclusions:
So to summarize the summary, the IPCC’s literature review found that impacts of global warming at 2.0°C are worse than at 1.5°C.
The differences in tone between the conclusions of the actual report and the media headlines highlighted above are rather remarkable. But can some of these impacts be considered to be catastrophic even if the IPCC doesn’t use alarming language? Again, this would depend entirely on the definition of the word catastrophic.
If one defines catastrophic as a substantial decline in the extent of artic sea ice, then global warming was already catastrophic a couple decades ago. If global warming intensified a wild fire to the extent that it engulfed your home (whereas it would not have without global warming) then global warming has already been catastrophic for you.
However, I do not believe that changes in arctic sea ice extent and marginal changes in damages from forest fires (or droughts, floods etc.) are what most people envision when they think of the word catastrophic in this context. I believe that the imagery evoked in most peoples’ minds is much more at the scale of a global apocalyptic event. This idea is exemplified in Michael Barbaro’s question about the IPCC report that he asked on The New York Times’ The Daily:
“If we overshoot, if we blow past 1.5°C and 2°C degree warming, is it possible at that point that we’ve lost so much infrastructure, so much of the personnel and the resources required to fix this that it can’t be done anymore? Will there be enough of the world left to implement this in a way that could be effective?”
-Michael Barbaro, New York Times, The Daily, 10/19/2018
It is also articulated in a tweet from prominent climate science communicator Eric Holthaus:
If catastrophe is defined as global-scale devastation to human society then I do not see how it could be possible to read the IPCC report and interpret it as predicting catastrophe at 1.5°C or 2°C of warming. It simply makes no projections approaching such a level of alarm.
HT/Steven Mosher
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Noting that the IPCC left out the word “catastrophic” from their projections is really begging the issue, because when you read their descriptions and the adjectives they use it is saying that. This report is like saying “take the prisoner out and shoot him many times in the general area of his heart” instead of saying “take the prisoner out and execute him”.
Actually, I think Patrick makes the point that, when you read the report closely, it doesn’t predict catastrophe.
CAGW and Fusion Power seem to have a lot in common…
Both are perpetually only 10 years away
The risk analysis is useless no matter what temperature triggers the so-called “risks”, because the “analysis” only projects negative impacts, not positive impacts. Which falsifies the entire analysis.
For example, economic growth is obviously triggered by availability of cheap energy. Continuing to produce cheap energy from a variety of sources, such as fracked hydrocarbons as well as reductions in costs from renewables, promotes much faster economic and social growth which is not accounted for in their “analysis”. Yet the climate alarmists would do the opposite, heavily tax the cheaper fuels and thus raise the cost of energy which is a principal underpinning of any growing economy (like China’s).
On so-called “species loss”, the alarmists only consider the warming climate losers, and totally ignore the warming climate winners, so the net species loss or gain cannot be calculated. For every species that doesn’t like warmer weather, there is another that prefers warmer weather. Other species, like corals, simply move around in the water column vertically and spatially in order to adapt to the most efficacious climate condition for their species. That’s how corals survived and thrived throughout millions of years of alternating cooling and warming cycles, and glaciations and inter-glacials. Ditto with polar bears, etc. etc.
Useless propaganda when in only looks for desired results and ignores everything else.
That’s what they want to stop. The greenies think we need four planet Earths to sustain our lifestyle if everyone could live in the developed world. link They think we have to curtail the development of the third world and massively cut back on our own lifestyles.
It’s not actually a given that growing the economy and providing more goods and services requires more resources.
The greenies have trouble with that concept. Technology allows us to do more and more with less and less. Buckminster Fuller
One of the two primary topics of discussion reads, “I believe that spreading this messaging will ultimately undermine the credibility of the IPCC and climate science more generally.”
When has the IPCC been credible? Never. It is a political entity, not a scientific one. And once climate “science” in general began to be presented as a consensus, it too lost all credibility.
Regards to all,
Bob
I really don’t care how much the credibility of warmunist propaganda is undermined. I would like to see us reach the point where IPCC reports are punch lines on late night TV comedy monologues., as they should be.
So my response is rave on.
Sir David said: “Right now, we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale. Our greatest threat in thousands of years. Climate change.
“If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”
The naturalist is taking up the “People’s Seat” at the conference, called COP24. He is supposed to act as a link between the public and policy-makers at the meeting.
“The world’s people have spoken. Their message is clear. Time is running out. They want you, the decision-makers, to act now,” he said.
Then 15 year old Gretta read a heart rending homily – scripted by her mother a devout Norwegian green.
It is strange though because last year we had 24 hours to save the planet and now we have 12 years.
When Al Gore made Inconvenient Truth think we had five minutes.
Here in the UK Lord Deben is recommending that we destroy our livestock farming because it represents 7% of UK emissions but only 2 millionths of global emission. But what is a few millionths when you are saving the planet. Barking mad.
Not Norwegian, Swedish.
Sweden is probably more affected by climate hysteria than any other country, mostly due to the state-controlled radio and TV .
Agreed, Bob; the UN IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one. All of its “science” is filtered through social justice, income redistribution, gender equity, kleptocracy, etc. screens. That will not change as long as marginal and mendicant countries such as the Maldives get to vote on the “science” conclusions.
And don’t get me started on those unverified, ridiculous UN IPCC climate models. Pure bunk.
The World Bank is involved in efforts to address greenhouse emissions with aim to help build resilience to climate change in vulnerable third world communities.
Now Jim Yong Kim is retiring who is the favourite:
Ivanka T or Nikki Haley ?
It is unclear at the moment who the sub will be. Anyone heard anything? Anyone waiting in the wings? Who will the US insist on?
This could be interesting. Having a WB out of touch with the governments, including those who are not buying into the C of the AGW would cost in more ways than one. The WB makes loans to governments. It is not an NGO granting largesse, it is a bank. That’s why it is called the Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Something hanging over the conversation is that there are now competing enterprises with perhaps more sympathy to the borrower’s interests. My advice: never assume anything. Policies are flexible and opportunities, contextual.
Or, more colloquially, Crispin: If there is a buck to be made, someone will jump in. China? Others?
Oh boy, another moronic “10-Year Weather Plan” from the idiots at the IPCC!
They make used car salesmen look like saints!
The UN, the science, the media many times are wrong because of their ideological constraints, but unfortunately they are right about climate change. The French events unfortunately prove that if we wanted to act, it would not be possible because of the resistance of the broad masses. Do not pretend that the removal of fossil fuels depends on us. That’s why we only have two options to save the Earth, LENR and Geoengineering.
The earth does not need to be saved, it is just fine. The greatest threat to civilization as we know it is the power grab by the self styled “elite”, aka the IPCC.
Spit out the Kool-Aid. The earth is in no danger. The only thing in danger is freedom and prosperity.
Engineer here. Unintended consequences anyone?
1) All this ‘could’ happen and it has been coulding happening for over 40yrs with no sign so far that we have moved out of the range of changes encountered during the Holocene.
2) a change of half a degree will not be measurable from the tropics (no change) to the temperate zones (marginally warmer nights) and the 1C change in the polar regions that is usually bandied about will increase 10s of degrees below zero to ‘nines’ of degrees below zero.
3) All the storminess types show a reduction to no-change with warming.
4) The elephant in the room, the only unequivocal climate change that HAS taken place is “The Great Greening Epoch ^тм”, now approaching a remarkable 20% more “leafing” out, and nearly as much expansion of planetary forest cover! Diversity loves this expansion of habitat! And similar magic is occurring in the oceans. And bumper crops for humans.
4) The population is heading for a 9B peak after mid century (85% there) and the abundance of resources of all kinds promises broad prosperity and its product, – peace. “The Garden of Eden Earth^тм” is in the offing.
As an engineer, do nothing to interrupt this, at least until coulding turns to happening, not when the consensus tells us so but when it is even a fraction as evident as the Great Greening that is so studiously ignored. It completely reverses the “cost” to a huge benefit.
Your reply saved me the trouble. Thanks. Very eloquently and accurately put.
LENR & geoeng? LMAO. How about LFTR instead?
Thanks
As in all things where the outcome is uncertain, where the risk of not proceeding is certain and the risk of proceeding uncertain, any logical person will proceed while carefully monitoring situational changes and adjusting for reality.
Unfortunately, little of humanity, either individually or as a group is capable of logical action or thought.
malkon700,
No. The IPCC couldn’t be more wrong about CO2 and climate change if they tried, and to be sure, they’re trying very hard to be very wrong. They must in order to follow their charter of identifying science in support of the UNFCCC, simply because there’s no proper science that can serve their needs. Yes, the effect of CO2 on the climate is finite, but to stretch this tiny truth to the point of absurdity in order to justify redistributing trillions in western wealth is about as far from truthful science as you can get.
I find it incredibly disturbing that so many blindly accept that this conflict of interest is somehow for the greater good, when all it does is enable the greater harm.
Are you serious? Cold fusion? Well, it’s been 30 years since the brief hype in 1989, so it is now officially a fusion technology. What’s your explanation for why in three decades, the technology is still not demonstrated?
“What’s your explanation… ?”
Russian Bots??
/snark 😀
In a month, we might be smarter:
https://e-catworld.com/2019/01/07/rossi-to-show-video-of-two-hour-e-cat-test-on-january-31st/
“We” were acting during the 8 years of Obama. “We” kept economic growth to practically zero.
They gave themselves away with the simple statement: “…increases in ocean acidity..” in section B.4. That alone says they’re cooking their results to invoke as much fear as possible. There’s no way anyone with an iota of common sense can look at that report and take is as unbiased. It’s just another way for them to try to justify the gravy train.
They also warn about the danger of increased malaria due to higher temperatures, in the1.5 report, a myth long busted. It is simply a catalogue of woes, cooked up for the Katowice COP meeting.
The “acidity” will increase if you consider chemically pure water to be orders of magnitude more “acidic” than sea water.
The goalposts have been mounted to a wagon so they can be moved easier.
Does what the IPCC think matter anymore?
By action almost every country is going to fail what they promised the IPCC in emission controls and world emissions are going up …. I think countries voted the IPCC just didn’t get the memo.
So the story here is – Don’t listen to the news media. I can live with that.
Sounds like we might have the start of a new coalition…I would be willing to go along with “saving” the planet if it didn’t mean millions of people dying for the Marxist utopia… I’ll take my chances with global warming.
“First of all, the word “catastrophic” does not appear in the IPCC report.”
2.2.4 Risk of catastrophic or abrupt change – AR4 WGIII … – IPCC
“The possibility of abrupt climate change and/or abrupt changes in the earth system triggered by climate change, with potentially catastrophic consequences, …”
Questions:
Is that the only time the word “catastrophic” appears in the IPCC report?
Does the IPCC report suggest with any level of confidence that there will be an “abrupt climate change”?
Do they even define what an “abrupt climate change” is?
I believe he is only referring to the 2018 report, not 2007….IIRC
…and the loons have been quoting them since 2007
they didn’t start using that word in 2018 either
If we restrict ourselves to IPCC SR1.5:
Chapter 2: “There has been a discussion in the literature to what extent CBA-IAMs underestimate the SCC due to, for example, a limited treatment or difficulties in addressing damages to human well-being, labour productivity, value of capital stock, ecosystem services and the risks of catastrophic climate change for future generations.”
Chapter 3: “Starting with an intense El Niño-La Niña phase in the 2030s, several catastrophic years occur while global temperature warming starts to approach 2°C.”
Chapter 3, Supplementary Material: “Substantial decline in the viability of major krill populations in the Southern Ocean may occur within the next 100 years (Kawaguchi et al. 2013), which could have catastrophic consequences for dependent marine mammals and birds.” and “The set of events has increased risk with current conditions being of high risk, and even low levels of future climate change being largely catastrophic for coral reefs.”
There are also referenced reports that have “catastrophic” in their titles.
When somebody cannot even use the search function in the PDFs of the report, one has to question his competence to analyse the report.
“….the report was tasked with evaluating the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C (2.7°F) above preindustrial levels,…”
Reverting back to basics as one must when confronted by the incomprehensible, I must ask what exactly is the relevence of 1.5°C in a world where at any given moment the temperature range from the hotest to the coldest is 100°C give or take a Kelvin or two. The average global telephone number comes to mind as another example of statistical irrelevence. How does that change given the Anthropogenic addition of millions of new numbers annually?
Just musing
Cheers
Mike
“what exactly is the relevence of 1.5°C ”
None. But alarmists will tell us it means there is more energy in the system which could possibly lead to runaway global warming.
Has anybody ever suggested a plausible physical mechanism for a “runaway?
“Has anybody ever suggested a plausible physical mechanism for a “runaway?”
Not a plausible one but Skeptical Science once printed this load of BS on positive feedbacks.
“…..the “effect” reinforces the “cause”, which will increase the “effect”, which will reinforce the “cause”… So won’t this spin out of control? The answer is, No, it will not, because each subsequent stage of reinforcement & increase will be weaker and weaker. The feedback cycles will go on and on, but there will be a diminishing of returns, so that after just a few cycles, it won’t matter anymore. ”
PHEWWWW! Thank god AGW is sentient and knows when to hold back.
Not even an idea. Systems have positive feedbacks and negative feedbacks. If the feedbacks are net negative the response of the system to inputs is damped. if it is positive, the response is amplified. A system dominated by positive feedbacks will runaway. A system dominated by negative feedbacks will return to equilibrium.
A core problem with warmist theorizing is that there is no proposed positive feedback mechanism.
The Earth’s climate system has been subject to perturbations in geologic times, e.g. meteor strikes, super volcanoes, changes in the earth orbital parameters. Yet the system has always returned towards an equilibrium. It has never runaway. It gives no sign of being dominated by a positive feedback mechanism.
>>
Walter Sobchak
January 12, 2019 at 11:14 am
Systems have positive feedbacks and negative feedbacks.
>>
Actually, it’s only systems that have feedback where the feedback is positive and/or negative.
Jim
You left out “tipping point”. And when it comes to such, if the Earth’s climate had a “tipping point”, it would have tipped a long time ago, and we wouldn’t even be here to argue about it!
Runaway requires the missing, but implicit, power supply. In a feedback amplifier, the input+feedback is measured to determine how much power to deliver to the output from an implicit power supply. When 1 unit of input results in more than 1 unit of positive feedback, the amplifier becomes unstable, since the feedback will generate its own unit of feedback and so on and so forth. For each iteration, more power must be delivered by the implicit power supply, until it runs out of capacity. The existence of an implicit power supply is a simplifying assumption so that COE doesn’t need to be applied between the input and output of the amplifier.
The climate model is based on the amplifier model, but since there’s no implicit power supply, COE must be applied between the input and output where the output of the model can be either actual output power or feedback power, but not both. For unit open loop gain, which is what the climate model assumes, when 1 unit of input results in 1 unit of feedback (100% positive feedback), nothing is left for the output.
The bottom line is that because of this and other reasons, the feedback amplifier model as applied by climate scientists, whether considering feedback positive, negative, runaway or not has no relevance to the climate system. Insisting that it does only perpetuates runaway pseudo science based on an irrelevant model supporting an impossibly high ECS.
In this analogy, the power supply would be the Sun’s light hitting the Earth.
If the Earth absorbed 100% of the Sun’s light without radiating any of it back to space, the Earth’s temperature would rise extremely quickly. Obviously, it doesn’t because most of the heat goes straight back to space.
Feedback here implies that absorbing a slightly larger fraction will cause us to absorb an even larger fraction, etc etc until we’re all doomed.
Roy,
“In this analogy, the power supply would be the Sun’s light hitting the Earth.”
No. The solar energy hitting the Earth is the forcing, not the implicit power supply. It can’t be both. Bode’s linear feedback amplifier analysis that the climate model is based on doesn’t support connecting the forcing input and power cord of an amplifier to the signal source and this is exactly what you’re claiming is the case.
The point of Bode’s assumption of an implicit power supply is to avoid any COE constraints between the input and output of an amplifier. The climate system doesn’t correspond to the model they used, as the output power originates from the input forcing power and not an implicit power supply, thus COE must be satisfied between the input and output of the amplifier which the climate model fails to do.
Don’t be confused by the obfuscation of making the output a temperature. Converting temperature into W/m^2 using the SB law equivalently represents degrees K with W/m^2, which unlike degrees K, are linear to the W/m^2 of forcing. Don’t be confused by the misrepresentation of the input and output as incremental, as another of Bode’s ignored simplifying assumptions is that the incremental gain and absolute gains must be the same. Per the climate model, of P is the forcing and T is the temperature, T / P == deltaT / deltaP is a necessary requirement for the model to be relevant.
Regarding your last point, the atmosphere can’t absorb 100% without at least half of this being emitted into space and this is true even in the presence of the highest, coldest clouds. The power at TOA is always >= 1/2 of the power emitted by the surface. Where do think all this power is coming from?
If it’s about science and not politics, why does the ICPP say that ocean acidification will increase (high confidence)? This statement tells me that their climate scientists either have not taken an introductory class in chemistry, or they are politically aligned. If the ocean were really acidic, the pH would approach dangerous levels such as that of bread, salmon, potatoes, and normal rain (pH ~6).
Whoops – make that IPCC – dyslexia must be kicking in.
‘acidification’ does not mean the ocean will become acidic, it means ‘the addition of acid’, which anyone who has taken an introductory class in chemistry should know.
I think he confused that term with the phrase ‘more acidic’. When talking about the ocean, which is not acidic, and saying that it is becoming more acidic is confusing. That’s somewhat like saying that condensing steam is becoming more frozen, or icier.
Why not just say it is becoming less basic or more neutral? My comment was to highlight the use of the phrase “more acidic” in B-4 of the article which is not true. Most readers will assume that “more acidic” means it was acidic to start with. How can you take a basic solution (sea water) and make it more acidic and still end up with a basic solution? I’ve done many a titrations in 1st-year chemistry so I get the concept. I even did pilot tests with an evaporator crystallizer while at Hanford so have done acid-base reactions on simulated nuclear waste. Even the use of “acidification”, while correct, implies that it is acidic to those less informed.
From Webster’s 1975 edition (pre-AGW science):
Acidification, n. the act or process of changing into an acid.
Neutralization, n. the act of neutralizing or the condition of being neutralized.
Now as a scientist, tell me what is really happening to the oceans. Is the process “acidification” or “neutralization?”
What is the ICPP?
Acidification is a word used to describe a lowering of pH, even in an introductory class in chemistry. Other terms could be used, and I have no doubt that acidification is most commonly selected for effect due to the acidic connotation, but the notion that something has to be acidic in order to have received acidification is silly.
A basic introductory class in chemistry would also tell someone that there is a huge difference between a pH of around 8.1 (current oceans) and pH ~ 6. I noticed that you mention a freshwater fish in salmon…freshwater fish tend to prefer pH ranging from 5.5-7 whereas saltwater fish (like those that live in the ocean, of course) prefer 8 and higher.
You practiced as a chemical engineer like this, or does “Ch E retired” mean something else?
“What is the ICPP?”
He means ICUP.
Michael Jankowski –
RE ICPP, see my Whoops comment above.
Regarding “lowering of pH” see my 3rd & 4th comments above.
Regarding Salmon being a freshwater fish, please check out the life cycle of salmon. In August 2018 I fished for salmon in a saltwater bay in southeast Alaska. After spending a couple of years or so at sea, the salmon return. At our location, there was a harvest point in a nearby creek where a portion of the salmon run is commercially captured, put on ice, and sent to the lower 48. Once the salmon run starts, the fish aren’t interested in feeding and they spend a very short time in fresh water before the harvest point. I realize that much of the salmon consumed is farmed so maybe you are referring the the farmed salmon as being freshwater. I’m not an expert. My pH comment above came from a web search where salmon was given as one example of pH 6. Seawater was given as one of the examples of pH 8 and blood was one example for pH 7.
The whole point of the comment thread is that by over use of language like acidify, more acidic, acidification, etc. a reasonable person who’s been away from chemistry for a few years is given the impression that the ocean is going acidic. Is there a volume of scientific research or a scientific consensus that the ocean will become acidic (pH <7)? If not, lets not mislead anyone but rather communicate with them.
Ch E means Chem Eng – BS in 74 and MS in 76 – retired means I don't remember as much as I once did.
This attempted apologia for the IPPC seems very strange -if the media have wrongly described catastrophic results if the world does not follow the IPCC’s recommandations, then the climate scientists must speak out strongly against this. Have they? Doesn’t look like it. Maybe they think in lines of “all alarmism is good alarmism”, but then they let down their profession -catastrophically.
2030 was the EPA’s goal for realizing the Clean Power Plan. The schedule of various milestones for the states was based towards 2030. Paris was the cause.
That schedule covered five presidential administrations.
With Trump that schedule is pretty much toast.
“I believe that spreading this messaging will ultimately undermine the credibility of the IPCC and climate science more generally.”
Too late.
“I believe that spreading this messaging will ultimately undermine the credibility of the IPCC and climate science more generally.”
Too late; it’s credibility was undermined years ago (Climategate anyone?).
“First of all, the word “catastrophic” does not appear in the IPCC report.”
If you’re the IPCC, is there any other kind?
The six items stated above all use the fudge word, “projected”.
That is enough for me. It is all based on a bad assumption of CO2.
There are many more serious thing in the world today than “global warming” aka “climate change”.
Brown wrote: “… as well as the technical feasibility of limiting global warming to such a level.”
In a strict technical sense, this is true.
So is this: We have the technical feasibility to send Christy Brinkley to the Sun.
I say with high confidence that neither is going to happen.
I love collecting predictions from people for the next 20 years. 2019 to 2040. What is going to happen? Warmer? Colder? By how much? Or stay where we are? From what I can see this is the acid test for climate theories time. The IPCC “projections” show a 0.25C to 1.25C rise and natural cycles scientists are all saying -0.25C to -1.0C over the same period. Obviously they can’t both be correct.
Came across this one in my reading: 2018 – Barret Bellamy
http://barrettbellamyclimate.com/page4.htm
At current rates, we’ll hit 1.5ºC on a decadal-average basis by ~2040. The first year above 1.5ºC will occur substantially earlier, likely associated with a big El Niño event in the late 2020s/early 2030s.
-> So +0.15C per decade or +0.3C over the next 20 years – TRM
We have 4 decades of the best coverage ever for climate and UAH show 1.3C per century in reality.
I will make only one prediction. CO2 will continue to increase by 1 PPM per year for the next 20 years. China, India and the rest of the developing world will use whatever is cheapest and that is usually coal or gas.
I believe that spreading this messaging will ultimately undermine the credibility of the IPCC and climate science more generally.”
And the problem with that is….????
That’s a serious question. Look at its UN leadership…they are all jokes. The SPM is written by government reps with political agendas, making it nothing but a politcally motivated peice of garbage (the SPM). The science sections of WG1 report have some value, but not much as they exclude too much that doesn’t fit the agenda. And the WG2 and WG3 reports are complete frauds on the public.
“prominent climate science communicator Eric Holthaus.”
The guy is a barely functioning human, having to change his man-diaper every morning after a night of his own delusional climate nightmares. The only thing prominent about him is his whining.
The IPCC has revised their prediction.
This article is no longer relevant.
The tipping point is now June 6, 2029.
At 3:15 pm eastern Standard Time.
+/- 1.25 minutes.
Reaching ‘2.0° warming by 2100’ seems increasingly improbable. That makes the case for AGW being an important issue very weak.
Hence the need to make ‘1.5° warming by 2100’ to be the target.
If current trends continue expect that a mere ‘1.0° by 2100’ will be deemed the nightmare point soon.
We’re already at about 1.0 deg above pre-industrial. You don’t think we’ll get another deg of warming by 2100? That’s .125 deg per decade.
But it’s not from pre-industrial.
It’s from the 1960-1991, the thirty years prior to Rio.