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
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.
===========
nonsense!!
From personal experience; consider the Fort Mac fire in Alberta in 2016. After 15 months and 2400 homes were destroyed, the fire was officially declared out.
Many people would consider this a catastrophe. And to listen to news, CO2 had all but destroyed Alberta. But in point of fact the fire was a blessing in disguise. Alberta had been dealt a death blow by low oil prices, carbon taxes and lack of export capability for their oil. They have been selling oil for as low as $7.50 a barrel, when the market value is $50+ higher.
However, at the same time, billions of dollars in insurance money has been flooding into Alberta to repair and or replace the homes damaged and destroyed in the fires. This money has been providing jobs for people that would have otherwise gone bankrupt. And in most cases, people that lost old houses have had them replaced with brand new houses.
Yes, for some the fires were catastrophic. Two people were accidentally killed during the evacuation, and likely not everyone would have had adequate insurance.
But it can be said that almost universally, government policies regarding oil, pipelines, and carbon taxes have had a much more devastating effect on Alberta than has global warming.
The Canadian constitution has a “no withstanding” clause that the government could use at any time for the national interest. But since this disaster is out west in Alberta, it gets no notice from the “National” government in Ottawa. Instead, the TrueDope government and Climate Barbie use the “climate change” excuse to avoid taking any action.
“hot extremes in most inhabited regions.”
Urban Heat Island Effect? That’s really the only climate change that humans can actually feel.
The difference between (per the EPA) rural areas and urban centers can be as much as 7-8 F in the afternoon, and as much as 22 F can be retained in urban centers during the evening hours. Those are the temperatures that people are talking about when they say they’ve never felt it this hot before.
That is not associated with GW, nor AGW, but it is associated with interjecting a bias in GT’s.
global warming of 1.5°C (2.7°F) above preindustrial levels
================
this is more nonsense.
As Gavin pointed out, it is THE CHANGE that is the problem. Probably 90 % of our current technology was not installed during the preindustrial era. It was installed only very recently, after much of the warming had already taken place.
Our technology and society has already been optimized for 1.0 C warmer temperatures. For example, houses have been insulated, incandescents lights have been replaced, car fuel economy has been increased.
And house thermostats have been turned down. Houses used to be set to 22 C back in the mid 1900’s. Now they are almost universally set to 20 C. This shows that we have already adapted to 2.0 C of climate change since the mid 1950’s!!
Thus, by the very reasoning that Gavin uses, it would be catastrophic for us to return to preindustrial temperatures, because our technology was not designed for those conditions. If our earth was to suddenly cool to return us to the temperatures back in 1870, that would be a huge problem.
Thus, worry about 1.5 C is nonsense, because it ignores that 1.0 C of that warming is already accounted for in our current technology, and that we as humans have already adapted to 2.0 C of climate change.
Thus, at the most, we are only facing a 0.5 C or 1.0 C increases, because our society and technology has already been build and optimized for 1.0 C to 2.0 C of increase since 1870.
” Probably 90 % of our current technology was not installed during the preindustrial era. ”
So, nobody knows what is the pre-industrial level.
So, what is this nonsense of 1.5 degree above pre-industrial levels????
It all depends on what is is I guess
There is no end of questions.
Did the IPCC predict there will be or will not be catastrophic anthropogenic climate change by 2030?
Will countries still be spending money on wind and sun gathering in 2030?
Will the IPCC still be around in 2030?
Will the planet be warmer or colder in 2030?
Que será, será
(the future is not ours to see)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrc
It is amazing how long this scam has gone on.
Observational evidence and analysis (dozen independent observations) shows unequivocally that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has not caused by humans and of course that the rise in planetary temperature and pause/hiatus (sic) in the rise in temperature has not caused by rise in atmospheric CO2.
This is a presentation by Salby which was recommended by one of the WATTSUP readers in another thread. It is a slam dunk, slam dunk, slam dunk, and so on.
I have read (much of) the referenced document . There is indeed a long argument explaining that 1.5 is less harmful than 2.0 – thoroughly pointless. It is admitted that we are already over half way to 1.5 with a lot of lies about extreme weather caused thereby. Then there are many mother and apple pie wish lists which will require immediate transnational coercive actions. Even the authors don’t believe this will happen.
Given that the IPCC is demonstrably corrupt and has been for years – many examples- I believe this is its swan song. It’s impenetrable jargon is a disgrace to the English language. Its arguments are laughable. Prof Bates (see GWPF website) destroys it politely. It is not scientific. But the Synod of the Church of England loved it, the poor fools
The key debate in this whole farrago is this:
‘Will well targeted, appropriate reafforestation programmes across the globe be the most cost-effective means to moderate temperature extremes and rebuild soil formation?’
Africa is building a corridor across the southern Sahara using this approach (mostly acacia trees). Scotland is redeveloping the Caledonian forest, slowly but relentlessly, starting over thirty years ago. To name one major and one minor example.
Of course in other parts of the world, deforestation is still a major issue.
Trees are the easiest, cheapest way to moderate climate known.
Can we not replace IPCC with International Programme for Tree Planting and Husbandry?
Reading that precisely, we can wait ’til 2030 before we need to do anything.
Or to be more precise…..yada yada blah blah
Or as we say in my world “same sh1t different day”
Perhaps the IPCC should STFU 😎
“undermine the credibility of the IPCC and climate science more generally”
Wouldn’t they need to have credibility before it can be undermined?
Wait till the horse has been out of the barn for weeks. Then quietly complain, That’s not what I said.
This thread is one of the best reads. Thanks guys.
Are there *any* references to 2030 (or 12 years) in the report?
Well of course the SYNOD of the Church of England loved it. They are singing from the same faith after all.
MJE
IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels:
“… 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) …” .
====================================================
I don’t know how that translates into English — let alone Mandarin.
A catastrophe will happen if their political ambitions are realized.
Or to be more precise…..yada yada blah blah
Or as we say in my world “same sh1t different day”
Perhaps the IPCC should STFU 😎
IPCC says:
Well, they got that right, global warming will increase temperatures. They must have pondered long and hard about that one! Not so sure about the rest of it though.
I am left confused by their ‘confidence’ levels:
B.2 – 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)
B.6 – Most adaptation needs will be lower for global warming of 1.5C compared to 2.0C(high confidence)
It appears that only islands, deltas, etc will have more trouble adapting, even though they are supposed to be the recipients of much of the ‘penance’ the rest of us are expected to pay.
From the article: “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)”
Well, there were no impacts associated with reaching the 1.5C mark above pre-industrial levels the last time we got to that level a couple of years ago.
We reached that 1.5C level in Feb. 2016 (the Hottest Year Evah!), if the claim is that we are currently, in 2019, at 1C above pre-industrial levels. If that’s the case, then Feb. 2016 was at the 1.6C level so we have already gone over the IPCC’s critical limit, since it is currently about 0.6C cooler than Feb. 2016.
Thank Goodness it cooled off from 2016 or we would really be in trouble.
That’s right, the atmosphere cooled off after 2016 even though CO2 levels keep going higher. The CAGW speculation says if there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere it will get hotter. The CAGW speculation must be wrong since its predictions are wrong.
What strikes me time and again in the whole sordid story is that, add up North America, the EU, Australia and NZ, and you’ve got a small portion – 900 million people and their collective MSM – out of 7 billion worldwide – running around hollering messages of impending catastrophe and doom in an echo chamber, convincing politicians that we need to terminally neuter our western economies to save the planet, and override over democratic systems if need be.
Meanwhile back at the farm, the Paris Accord is a dead man walking – the US is out as are for all practical purposes and some virtue signalling aside, China, India, Brazil, Japan, Australia and several others. A couple of recent surveys show that around the world there are some 1500 new coal fired power plants at various stages of pre-construction planning and actual construction, including in Uber Green Germany that has several on the books and a newly opened one already on-line.
Reality is that other than the official grandstanding and virtue signalling by the governments, CAGW/CACC doesn’t show up on the radar of the other 6 billion – a complete non-issue, as evidenced by several open ended global surveys where asked to rank the issue it consistently came in dead last. Those folks have far more pressing issues to deal with in their lives.
Maybe the observation that the noise is the loudest just before it dies applies in this collective hysteria and that Charles McKay was right in observing that: “ …men think in herds, go mad in herds and regain their sanity slowly, one by one”.
Amen
Good post, tetris!
Everybody is talking about 1.5 (or 2.0) degree of warming. But nobody tells you over what? Originally, it was over “pre-industrial” levels. But now, they leave out the crucial “pre-industrial levels”. It’s just 1.5 degree “of warming”! You know why? BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE PRE-INDUSTRIAL LEVEL OF GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS (or is) !!!
The IPCC is wholly incapable of estimating impacts. One needs a crystal ball to see human impacts from anything doesn’t unfold in a matter of months much less decades.
What they do though is assume people are like programmed robots and aren’t going to adapt. There is another word more commonly substituted for adapt and thats innovation. The past century and a half has seen innovation on a scale never imagined a century before. Thats a condition not likely to change soon.
Mankind is constantly renewing itself. Everything mankind creates depreciates and depreciates rapidly. But thats not because mankind is a poor builder of things its because innovation is the primary driver of depreciation. Out with the old and in with the new.
The creative destruction of Capitalism, Robert. The UN IPCC sustainable development will have none of that; we will limit ourselves to what is currently known. In other words, the inevitable failure of Socialism.
>>
Instead, impacts seem to be on a continuum where they simply get worse with more warming.
<<
So ALL warming is bad. This is complete nonsense. Following this logic backwards, you arrive at the height of the last ice age with ice sheets kilometers thick–and that’s supposed to be good? I’m not surprised–this post was recommended by Mr. Mosher.
Jim
For the author to have anxieties about the IPCC’s credibility being undermined, suggests he is not thinking straight.
The whole expensive pointless targeting of CO2 by the IPCC and its followers needs to be discredited at every opportunity.
Why anyone imagines the climate condition pre-industrialisation were better than they are today, tells me they do not read history and have never tried surviving in a cold climate.
If the IPCC and the Greens, continue with their climate scaremongering and continue claiming, increasing atmospheric CO2 will be the cause of some future thermageddon, they deserve to be vilified, pilloried and treated with the contempt their nonsense projections deserve.
“2) I believe that spreading this messaging will ultimately undermine the credibility of the IPCC and climate science more generally.”
That ship sailed long ago.
Chris