Essay by Eric Worrall
You naughty proletariat, instead of spanking you for failing to reign in your emissions, we’re going to give you another chance to behave.
Earth 2.0°C: How to Make Passing the 1.5°C Climate Change Threshold An Opportunity
JANUARY 22, 2024 11:06 AM EST
Solecki is a professor of geography at Hunter College, City University of New York. He was an author of the 1.5°C Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released in 2018.
Addressing the climate crisis will be difficult and demand focused attention and action. It is not a problem that will go away, and in fact a lot of new evidence shows that the world is heating and changing faster, weather-wise, than we expected just a few years ago. Many highly vulnerable populations and ecosystems already are facing the devastating impacts of climate change. While the COP28 meeting in Dubai late last year provided some glimmers of hope that the world’s countries can meaningfully respond to climate change, it is increasingly clear that the rise in global temperature will exceed the 1.5°C (2.7°F) threshold first defined as part of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. Currently the earth has experienced approximately 1.15°C of heating above the 19th century baseline and will likely pass the 1.5°C level globally in the mid-2030s. The window of opportunity to forestall this event is about to close, as significant barriers including lack of financing and institutional capacity, and to say nothing of poverty, consumption, and lack of societal trust.
While the challenges to address the climate crisis are great, several valuable opportunities to advance climate solutions lie well within our grasp. It is important that we collectively work to achieve the goals of what is called “climate resilient development,” and thereby simultaneously adapt to growing climate risks and incentivize opportunities to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Together, these two aims could tackle climate change while promoting economic advancement that is both sustainable and equitable. Equity is central to the process of transition. Whether it is industries and employees retooling for a green economy, or communities fearing loss of their neighborhood to flooding or climate gentrification, the evidence is overwhelming that the more equitable and engaged the decision-making process, the more likely the climate action will be successful.
…
Furthermore, we know that solutions should focus on securing the needed knowledge, financing, and decision-making capacity in advance, and being prepared to act when a window opens. Shocks like massive floods and disease outbreaks can become tipping points and bring attention to issues; but if emergent policies are to be effective and provide long-lasting solutions, they must also address underlying societal conditions, such as inequity and lack of trust in those in power due to a history of being cut out of the decision-making process.
…
Read more: https://time.com/6565044/earth-2-point-0-climate-change/
Here I was thinking 1.5C was an uncrossable red line, and just like that it has now been redefined as an opportunity. No wonder there are “societal trust” issues.
I’m disgusted by the suggestion green policy advocates should be ambulance chasers. In my opinion seeing people traumatised by a major natural disaster as “windows of opportunity” for pushing green policies seems pretty low. If green ideas had any merit, proponents wouldn’t have to wait until people were too traumatised to think straight before trying to push their policy ideas.
1.5C was an uncrossable red line,
The Climate Rubicon
The last time the Rubicon was crossed, the result was a dictator.
I fear the Big Green alarmists would be happy with that outcome for this crossing.
They should be careful what they wish for, they may not get the dictator they want.
Funny that Trump has said he’ll be a dictator for a day- just enough to lock the borders and encourage the energy industries to “drill baby drill”. If I think he can pull it off, I’ll vote for him even though he often acts buffoonish. I do think much of his silly behavior is just to get attention and it works. I’ve read biographies of him- and apparently in a private conversation, he’s not like that.
Trump says some things just to get under the skin of radical Democrats. The “dictator” bit is one of them.
It’s obvious to any rational person that Trump is kidding about being a dictator.
The radical Democrates seize on anything Trump says to try to twist his meaning into something sinister. It’s just part of the continuing demonization of Trump by the Left. This is their game plan. They hope to fool enough people into thinking Trump is an evil dictator bent on desroying the nation,to make a difference in the election.
Trump doesn’t have to act like a dictator to secure the border and drill, baby, drill. He did it the first time he was in office and there was no dictatorial behavior to be seen.
The radical Democrats and the Leftwing Media will eagerly distort anything Trump says. It is their “stock in trade”. Don’t believe a word of it. If you don’t hear it from Trump’s lips, then don’t believe it.
To the left, when their president issues presidential decrees, it’s just democracy in action.
However when the next president uses presidential decrees to cancel their president’s presidential decrees, it’s proof of the US turning into a dictatorship.
Democrats are hypocrites, among other things.
Yes; he was mocking Biden.
DJT was saying he’d be a dictator for a day to reverse Biden’s Day One unilateral stoppage of the pipeline and new drilling.
Trump was one of the main ones hiring illegal aliens to work at his golf courses and hotels before he decided to clean up his act and run for President.
Just like all of the Democrat progressives … there’s 2 reasons they opened up the southern borders (1) cheap labor, and, in time, guaranteed votes.
They would certainly get not the dictator they want. “Oldthinkers who unbellyfeel” may be escorted out at bayonet points, but those who claw for power get dragged to the guillotine. Summarily. If not, the one on top simply gets replaced until the next one has a clue.
1.5 degrees is a target, it is not a physical climate threshold. Any reduction in warming summarily reduces the likelihood of severe impacts. If we miss 1.5 degrees, it is still better to hit 1.6 degrees than 1.7, if we miss 1.6, 1.7 is better than 1.8, and so on.
The myth, propagated by this site and much of the contrarian media, is that scientists have defined 1.5 degrees as some kind of “world ending threshold” beyond which we can do nothing.
“Now it is crystal clear how important it is to limit to 1.5 – and that is repeated throughout this decision.”
John Kerry
Is Kerry just saying this without understanding why?
He must know, it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than now, it was warmer during the Roman Warm Period than during the MWP
Both periods had high economic activity, huge cathedrals were built with surplus resources, people were thriving, until the Black Death and the Little Ice Age put an end to the MWP
We need to do resilience and adaptation, such as build dikes, and culverts to guide rain water to reservoirs, just like the Dutch did after 1953
Kerry may have a reason for making these grossly misleading statements and it could be anywhere from ignorance to wilful deceit. The fact that the IPCC doesn’t consider it a “Tipping Point” certainly has not caused him any consternation in declaring it one and the media quotes him as if he were the guru of climate and rarely asks for a second opinion so the truth is obscured.
Kerry doesn’t have a clue- not a clue.
The”Tipping Point” was a couple of hundred years ago at the minimum of the Little Ice Age. It has been warming ever since
Rhetorical?
Immediately preceding your quote:
“as much as 4 degrees of warming”
total bullshit
Meaningless numbers pulled from the AGW darkest cavity.
Why are you lying and claiming that AGW “scientists” & the IPCC supposedly haven’t said 1.5 is a threshold beyond which really bad things will supposedly happen? A two second search shows that they’ve said it’s a serious threshold, not just a vague goal as you keep claiming. And that claim isn’t coming from sites like this or the right – it’s coming from the IPCC and AGW supporting “scientists” and activists. Here are just a few examples:
Chapter 3 — Global Warming of 1.5 ºC – IPCC
How Close Are We to Climate Tipping Points? – IPCC Report AR6
1.5°C is a physical limit: this climate target can’t be negotiated
Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping …
Global Warming of 1.5 ºC – IPCC
IPCC says the planet will reach 1.5 degrees warming a decade early
The evidence is clear: the time for action is now. We can halve … – IPCC
Of course he’s no scientist- but hey- he’s the f*****g climate czar!
Before the 1.5 degree disaster limit, it was 2.0 degrees.
Both are completely arbitrary, pulled from where the sun don’t shine. But it was reduced from 2.0 because they were concerned that the higher limit wouldn’t occur soon enough for their political purposes.
AJ,
The myth propagated by anyone who supports the CO2 fraud is that bird choppers, solar panels and EVs and the extreme lowering of the global standard of living will somehow stop the climate from changing and save humanity by keeping the “global average temperature anomaly” from exceeding X. And X is whatever you and your high priests say it is TODAY.
As an apparent true believer, you have chosen to conflate the “doubling will kill us all” dogma with the idea that: “Actually ANY LITTLE DECREASE IN WARMING will save us.”
So AJ, I will ask you the same question I ask NS regularly, not expecting a reply, but none the less, here is the question: Why do you think it is essential to spend massive amounts of other peoples money (taxes and forced increased fees) to build massive amounts of bird choppers, solar panels and EVs, thus reducing the global average standard of living, for NO EFFECT on the “global average temperature anomaly? IOW, why do YOU hate poor people??
Why would you expect a serious response to a comically loaded question? Have you finally stopped beating your wife?
More seriously, you don’t need to agree that 1.5 degrees is a worthwhile target to acknowledge that it is, in fact, a target, and not a physical threshold. And that this is why, if we fail to meet the target, we can set a new one. Being a contrarian about every single thing just forces you to defend stupid things.
You are the poster child of prevarication. Deflection too
not it’s not a worthwhile target- that’s the point that you can’t grasp
“ you to defend stupid things”
Yet that is exactly what you are doing…. defending stupid things.
Defending stupid things? You’d certainly know about that.
“if we fail to meet the target, we can set a new one”
ROFLMAO.
Do you realise just how stupid you sound !!
You have just agreed that it is a totally meaningless number.
In January, I set a goal to lose 14 pounds by July 1. In May, I realize I have only lost 8 pounds, and will not likely meet the 14 pound target. I can still set a new goal of 11 pounds. The original target was not meaningless, it was a solid number that I feasibly thought I could reach in January. Not meeting the 14 pound target does not mean my efforts were meaningless.
Petty and false analJ-ogy !
The 1.5C “whatever” is totally meaningless.
So what? Your target means nothing whatsoever to me or anyone who’s not you. It only has meaning to you.
Same with climate targets. They mean nothing to anyone. When achieved their effect will be zero.
The difference is simple: in meeting your target you may actually lose weight. The climate targets will achieve nothing positive for anyone anywhere in the world.
Except for the grifters trying to get rich on nonsense and fairy-tales.
If you believe that the science of diet and exercise are fraudulent, then of course it makes sense that you will believe that any weight loss target prescribing diet and exercise is pointless. The point, repeated again here, is that the target is not being presented as a physical threshold within the climate system, although that’s what contrarian media is claiming it’s being presented as. Contrarian media outlets falsely claim that scientists think the 1.5 degree target is a physical threshold so that they can decry the science of climate change by saying, “look! We’ve hit 1.5 degrees and the world didn’t explode like the scientists said it would.”
“…the science of diet and exercise…”
‘science of’?
The best laugh I’ve had this week.
Oh yes, how could I forget, everyone here is a medical science denier as well.
From Atkins to Keto to Weight Watchers. Science? I don’t believe you know what that word means.
Again, the 1.5C is a value with absolutely ZERO SCIENTIFIC MERIT !!
It is a meaningless political agenda number.
The cost is about $US200 trillion to stop warming by 2050 according to Bloomberg’s green energy research team, other estimates are similar.
Most of the developing world is too poor to contribute anything, so that means about $1 million per household in the developed world, or about $39,000 per year for 26 years.
Most households would rather have a million in the bank and a degree or two of warming.
ACV, a country that’s $33 trillion in debt and well on its way to $50 trillion in debt in a dozen or so years can’t afford it either.
Yeah, and Biden isn’t helping anything because Trump is going to have to increase the Defense budget because of Biden’s neglect, and getting us involved in wars that wouldn’t have started had Trump remained in office.
Trump followed Obama and Biden the first time and on Trump’s first day in office, his Defense Secretary came to him and told him the U.S. was “critically short” of ammunition.
How would you like to hear that on your first day as president? So Trump had to increase the U.S. Defense budget.
Trump will probably hear that same thing the next time he occupies the Oval Office.
Joe Biden is the Worst President Evah!.
I’d imagine as much as you persist in chasing little boys around.
They don’t hate poor people. They hate everyone, except their own tiny self-appointed “elite” clique. Poor people are just the first and easiest targets.
Many environmental activists would beg to disagree with you.
Pretty much all of them.
Activists are not scientists. In this case, they aren’t even well-informed laymen.
You’re an idiot, just in case no one has reminded you of this reality recently.
Alan: You are, of course, correct in that 1.5 is not a cliff, but something closer to an arbitrary point on a line. However, the proponents of the AGW myth have repeatedly said that, in fact, it is a cliff — or at least a break from an otherwise linear trend in civilization’s viability. Your argument, in other words, is not with the folks on this site, but with the green mob.
That said and settled, the more interesting discussion is whether you or anyone else or any group of like-minded folks (no matter how numerous) can do anything about this warming towards or beyond the arbitrary threshold. The case that CO2 has anything whatever to do with climate change is weak at best. But assume, for fun, it is the very thing that causes change. Ninety-seven percent of atmospheric CO2 is exogenous to man’s activities. So, 0.03 times 0.0004 gives us the fence-line of control. That would have to be, must be, one heckuva gearing to effect any change whatever. And of course, nearly all of the 0.03 is non-discretionary or locked up in jurisdictions beyond the control of the nimrods at the helm.
So, I ask you: Does your point of clarification have any relevance?
Defining the 1-5 degree as some kind of world ending threshold is certainly what the UN and most of the world’s media do. I don’t remember seeing many climate scientists objecting.
Sigh. 1.5degree obviously.
I’ve not seen it reported as such, from the UN or any media outlets. By googling “1.5 degree threshold” you can find countless articles from mainstream media outlets and scientific orgs explaining exactly what it is – a target. However, it is almost ubiquitously claimed to be reported as a world-ending cliff by sites like this one, or media outlets like FOX News, but these places are spreading misinformation. Ask yourself why they’re doing that.
AnalJ – 1.5° isn’t a cliff edge, tipping point or target – it’s just a number plucked from an artificially created ‘average temperature series’ that has no meaning in the real world. Temperatures around the world, in the various different climactic regions, will do whatever they will do, irrespective of what some insignificant little group of activists want to happen. Face facts – even if we removed every single man-made thing that emmitted some CO2, it would have no effect whatsoever – temperatures will go up or down, storms will come and go, sea levels will keep going up ever so slightly. It means nothing, nada, zip, diddly-squat – get over it and move on, you’re just being a bore now.
This needs repeating in bold.
It means nothing, nada, zip, diddly-squat
Translation, unless it’s in a scientific paper that hasn’t been memory holed, it never happened. Just ignore the millions of activists who have been preaching it from every soap box they can find for the last couple of decades.
A target implies an attempt to “hit” something, not an effort to miss it.
AlanJ following the democrat playbook, blame the other guy for what you yourself are doing. Ho hum.
Activists have certainly claimed first 2 degrees and more recently 1.5 as critical thresholds, and this is what has been driving energy policy in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and to a lesser extent Germany.
The activists correctly judge that without the urgency of a deadline which we are rapidly approaching, and a prophesied disaster if we exceed it, the hare-brained proposals for moving everyone to EVs and heat pumps powered by wind turbines would never get any traction.
Haven’t you noticed the repeated claims that we have only a few years to do something or other about emissions to save the planet and avert disaster? Every couple of years, usually around COP time, we hear this. It was proclaimed at Paris and before, and has been regularly proclaimed since.
In fact, the 1.5 parameter, such as it is, is pretty close to being hit at the moment, and nothing much is happening.
Greta demands that we panic. Al Gore says the oceans are boiling. I don’t give a dam what the target is- they’re all crazy- bat shit crazy.
Which dam do you plan on giving? Hope it’s not the Hoover dam, Las Vegas still depends on it.
This is like the stock craze of the 1920s when everybody was buying hyped stocks that ended in the Great Depression.
Global Cooling in the 1960s was the start of the “climate” activism.
Maybe not many scientists have done that- but most of the media has. And the scientists don’t seem to care to correct the media. As for severe impacts, many of us don’t think there will be any- au contraire– there may very well be some great benefits- which of course you fail to consider.
NO, it was a random number pulled out of some climate fool’s nether regions.
It is totally meaningless, and far below what most of the Holocene has experienced.
Thank you for concretely affirming exactly what I’ve stated.
Thanks for confirming it is a totally meaningless number, pulled out of the nether regions of some moronic climate clown.
Exactly so. If achieved it will result in exactly nothing except a world of increased disease, poverty, starvation. That is the world for which Alan is advocating.
Over 20 percent of the land surface is frozen and 4 million more people per year are dying from the cold causing increased strokes and heart attacks in the cooler months. Why do they want to keep it cold? The Earth is still in a 2+ million-year ice age.
Funny, I don’t recall you going out of your way to correct all of the speakers who were claiming that 1.5C was a threshold of destruction.
It’s only when the wild claims are no longer useful to you, that you stir yourself to disagree with them.
Regardless, the chance of continued warming causing any severe impacts in the next few hundred years are so close to zero, that the difference isn’t worth discussing.
Maybe you can do us the favour of reminding the loonies adjacent to your climate position that they are just targets then. There are absolutely individuals who believe that 1.5 C is something like a point of no return.
1.5C was pulled from the rear port of PIK’s greatest alarmist ever, none other than the despicable climate-humper Stefan Rahmstorf.
If 1.5 is not scientifically defined, then the entire base that it lies on is nothing more than guessing. The conclusion is that the “science” is not settled.
As Nick Stokes professed in another thread here, governments are operating under the Precautionary Principle with no idea about the actual risks and where they occur. A perfect theory for the expansion of government and for the enrichment of the monied class!
The article also exemplifies another standard alarmist ploy:
If you start with a false premise you can come up with any conclusion you desire.
and all you have to do is say what COULD happen- it covers all potential catastrophes
In truth, science is never “settled.” In science the best available explanation is accepted only until a better one comes along.
That’s right. That’s the way legitimate science works.
Real world, 1.5 C is about the lower bound of actual warming that could be detected, given the uncertainty of records and proxies from the end of the Little Ice Age. The elephant in the room is the presumption that warming is a Bad Thing. The LIA was a time of war, plague, and famine, so I regard any nostalgia for that era Green perversity.
“The elephant in the room is the presumption that warming is a Bad Thing.“
___________________________________________________________
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
Right on, man. Time to rebrand the affair as the Climate Improvement, or Climate Moderation, or Climate…. uh, I dunno, must be a good counter to “Crisis”- and we should all be pitching the new mantra as loud as the MSM- sufficient to get them to pick up on it- you know how they always seek the newest latest thing… They’re probably also tired of this phony crisis.
Climate Irrelevance!
Better weather is not a problem.
And that’s the real irony, their effort to conflate “bad weather” with “climate change” (aka global WARMING).
Since the Earth doesn’t warm evenly, the warming REDUCES the tropics to high latitudes/poles temperature DIFFERENTIALS, and REDUCES day to night temperature DIFFERENTIALS, and if their fantasy Hotspot existed, would also reduce surface to upper atmosphere temperature DIFFERENTIALS.
And since violent weather is in the main about air masses having higher temperature DIFFERENTIALS, it is a COLDER climate that would lead to more violent weather. As usual, they have it ass-backwards.
While for most types of “bad weather” there have been insignificant decreases, that is because the changes to the climate have been SO SMALL. Yet the most violent type of the most violent weather, EF3 to EF5 TORNADOES, have seen a significant decrease in the (slight) colder to warmer climate change.
Death rates from natural disasters have dropped from about 26 per 100,000 in the 1920s to about 0.5 deaths per 100,000 today.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/decadal-average-death-rates-from-natural-disasters
Floods and heat waves are not problems?
Not saying that CO2 is capable of causing either, but blindly claiming that more rain and more heat are never problems is quite stupid.
https://www.cfact.org/2023/11/01/i-must-be-getting-over-the-target/
Joe Bastardi describes how seismic and undersea volcanic activity goes up with global temperature anomalies starting around 1980.
Further proof El Ninos are fueled by deep-sea geological heat flow – Climate Change Dispatch
“..a lot of new evidence shows that the world is heating and changing faster, weather-wise, than we expected just a few years ago. “
That statement is flat out false!
The dire predictions of alarmists are consistent in being WRONG.
We could go on…..
George – You are right. Also next sentence: “Many highly vulnerable populations and ecosystems already are facing the devastating impacts of climate change.” Is typical of alarmist rhetoric. They never provide any specific evidence for the claim. Who exactly has been impacted, how, by what event and what is the evidence the cause was climate change? This is what is known in law as claiming facts not in evidence. I can’t think of any damaging events due to weather that are not within the normal range of variability. There is not a single weather related disaster that has occurred in the last few decades that is unprecedented.
“and what is the evidence the cause was climate change?”
That is the answer the climate alarmists don’t have. They can’t show a connection between CO2 and any weather event on Earth. Yet they keep claiming there is a connection.
Unstubstantiated Assertions is all we get from Climate Alarmists. It’s all they have.
George,
Re fast-changing climate claims:
This graph could be used to claim that Australian school children younger than 11 years old have never felt climate change, good or bad, yet they are being pressured to regard it as a life-threatening crisis. That’s the power of propaganda for you.
To those spreading propaganda – just stop it. Now. Geoff S
There are trillions of dollars to be made off of “climate change” spending.
That’s one of the problems. Greed trumps Science.
This is hardly the first time the warmunists have promoted the ‘climate crisis’ as an opportunity to seize more power. What always amazes me is that they read their stage directions out loud.
BTW, I appreciate the Monty Python reference
“Bad, naughty Zoot” “There must be a spanking.”
“Many highly vulnerable populations and ecosystems already are facing the devastating impacts of climate change.”
What vulnerable populations? What ecosystems?
If you can’t enumerate them then do they really exist? Perhaps they only exist in your religious dogma.
Record setting food harvests every year and greening of the earth are *NOT* devastating impacts except for those who wish to see people die in order to lower the human population.
“Top men” — /smokes pipe
CAGW Alarmists always fumble and stumble when asked to provide evidence for their scare stories.
Except for invasive species, forests are growing faster. The invasive species thing is mostly due to people moving species around- on purpose or through carelessness. Some species might be moving north- not so much because of warming but because they happen to move slower than other species.
Nice looking plants that are brought in as colourful decoration for gardens then spread fairly uncontrollably are a big ‘invasive species’ problem.
Humans are by far the most invasive species.
The population growth has been slowing for decades and will turn negative in a few more decades.
Families are realizing that almost all of their children are surviving and are having smaller families.
I wish they would read the article by Willis E. that we have passed 2.0 deg C and no problems.
Well, it’s true; global warming is one hell of an opportunity to line pockets and improve millions, if not billions
Impoverish
what is going on this site???
Check the latest software update on whatever you’re using – just make sure it wasn’t supplied by Dominion.
the edit feature is back
Testing
Well, what do you know! Great!
“…and in fact a lot of new evidence shows that the world is heating and changing faster, weather-wise, than we expected just a few years ago.”
Boles here – They keep saying this, year after year, just what are they seeing? Maybe they are just looking at their model output instead of real world measurements? They are always claiming things are getting worse than predicted or than last year. WHAT IS?!
They can’t admit anything else. If they ever row back on the alarmist crap, bang goes their jet setting, minor celebrity, saviours of the planet lifestyle.
“They are always claiming things are getting worse than predicted or than last year. WHAT IS?!”
It’s all subjective.
Definition of Subjective: “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions”
It’s not science-based.
Yeah, what is the statistical test for changing faster? What weather phenomenon is so very different? Et cetera.
“expected” is the key word. Their models and expectations were wrong.
What are they seeing?
“Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… MASS HYSTERIA!”
Ghostbusters (1984) and Al Gore Davos (2024)
These people are truly evil
They end up causing evil things.
Geography is not a quantitative science, it is instead a liberal art.
The GAT is a meaningless number that is not and cannot indicate anything about “the climate”.
He does not know this, and reporting anything to 10 mK is not “approximately”.
let’s try 1.15314159… !
I reckon the “4” is incorrect…should be a “6” 😉
This would change it to “about”!
I believe “approximately” is the correct term 😉
I believe that “roughly” would be a better fit for what they are attempting.
or maybe the acronym “WAG” !
“Addressing the climate crisis will be difficult and demand focused attention and action.”
Addressing the “climate crisis” begins when glaciation returns, not now. The 1.5 degree threshold is an opportunity because it takes us another 1.5 degrees above whatever threshold will begin the reglaciation that is probably just around the corner in geologic time. And since nothing but good has come from the modest warming over the last 170 years the definition of crisis may need to be revisited by the imbeciles who write this drivel. They state their most ardently held beliefs as if they were proven laws of nature. This is why the climate alarm is not a feature of science but a hallucination shared among the class of privileged idiots who are no longer anchored in reality. As an example:
“the evidence is overwhelming that the more equitable and engaged the decision-making process, the more likely the climate action will be successful.”
The question of how to adapt to an ice age would actually be interesting. I don’t know about everyone else, but it seems like that is the type of climate that would be the most challenging to adapt to. After all, you would need to have really good infrastructure, figure out to protect/rebuild it, and so forth.
The Earth is still in a 2.56 million-year ice age with over 20 percent of the land frozen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
It is in a warmer but still cold interglacial period between very cold glacial periods.
Yes and when typical widespread glaciation returns I will find a couple of kilometres thick ice sitting on my head here in Calgary.
William Solecki looks rather prosperous.
Pompous?
When you are swilling as deeply as this guy is from the climate trough…
… there’s LOTS of money up for the taking.
Fast cars, big SUV for the “partner”, large house with much fossil fuel heating and cooling.
Maybe a private jet, certainly travel by private jet, to conferences etc.
You become one of the AGW 1%
The 1.5 degree ‘target’ is a suggestion, like traffic lights in Rome.
So let’s work this one backwards…
1/ Using sines/cosines and proper RMS values, the average energy Earth absorbs from El Sol is 367Watts/m²
If Earth had a temp of 14°C we can derive an effective Emissivity for Earth of 0.954015
At that time, Earth was an idyllic haven of loveliness and Nice Climate
Now, as this one is claiming, Earth has a temperature of 16°C
So off we go with our Emissivity figure to find that Earth is now radiating 377.3Watts/m² = assuming all else is unchanged (El Sol, Albedo and Emissivity)
That is over 10Watts/m² more than it receives/absorbs
Is that A Good Thing to be happening?
It’s actually not a thing at all – because there is no “Earth temperature” that can be measured. And the statistical analyses done to find the 16C value are pure, unadulterated bovine output!
test
[QUOTE FROM ARTICLE] “Currently the earth has experienced approximately 1.15°C of heating above the 19th century baseline and will likely pass the 1.5°C level globally in the mid-2030s.”
Although Professor Solecki’s article was intended to be alarmist, there is a buried lede in the above sentence.
We are not told when the “19th century baseline” ended, but selecting the year 1899 would maximize the temperature rise rate from then until now. If temperatures rose 1.15 C in 125 years (2024 – 1899), this was an average rise rate of 0.0092 C per year.
If Professor Solecki believes that the 1.5 C level would be passed in the mid-2030s (assume 2035), this would represent a temperature rise rate of (1.5 – 1.15) / 11 = 0.032 C per year. According to Professor Solecki, the temperature rise rate from now until 2035 would be over 3.4 times faster than over the previous century.
Sir Isaac Newton wrote that every acceleration is caused by a force. What force will be responsible for a sudden tripling of the temperature rise rate during the next decade, which was not present during the previous century?
Speculating on a sudden tripling of the temperature rise rate is particularly dubious, since the temperature rise rate since 1998 has been slower than that between 1980 and 1998.
A more reasonable prediction would be a continuation of the long-term 0.0092 C per year trend into the future. At this rate, it would take another 38 years for temperatures to rise another 0.35 C, so that the “1.5 C rise since the 19th century” would be reached about the year 2062.
This means that we have about another generation beyond 2035 to evaluate whether a 1.5 C temperature rise since “the 19th century baseline” is actually harmful, harmless, or even beneficial.
We have much more time than Al Gore, John Kerry, and Greta Thunberg would want us to believe.
Not to mention that herd of elephants in the room – THERE IS NO CRISIS; A WARMER CLIMATE vs. THE LITTLE ICE AGE is a BETTER climate.
There’s a reason why the warmest period during the current epoch, the Holocene, was dubbed The Holocene CLIMATE OPTIMUM. Hint: NOT because it was a “crisis.”
For your Climate laugh of the day….from Vox. Venus’ atmosphere has CO2, what happened there could happen here, you have been warned.
“Venus could have been a paradise but turned into a hellscape. Earthlings, pay attention.”
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/22807575/venus-hot-hellscape-climate-change-earth
The Venusians failed to manipulate the weather and passed the 1.5 degree tipping point.
Unfortunately, the Venusians didn’t have an Al Gore or a Michael Mann or a James Hansen to warn them of what was coming.
At some point (as a teen maybe? not sure now), I couldn’t help wondering whether some of the claims regarding Venus starting out as Earth-like only to end up as it is now were stories to scare children. I think that I can still safely say that some presentations of the hypothesis are.
The atmosphere of Mars is 95 percent CO2 and very cold.
The clown responsible for this article has clearly never pumped up a bicycle tyre by hand, otherwise he would have noticed the pump getting hot. It’s called Adiabatic Compression Heating, and is the reason Venus is so hot (surface pressure about 90 bar). Nothing whatever to do with the Greenhouse Effect.
The idea that Vox has anything worthwhile to say about Physics is laughable.
Solecki like so many other warmistas must keep the “ tipping point” BS front and center. Otherwise they are finished in every way, reputation, career ,income and their self esteem/ ego all goes kaput ( sp) !
“Otherwise they are finished in every way”
A cooling trend would be the end for them. Of course, they could say it’s only temporary for a decade or so, although I think the population would be real skeptical of the Human-caused Climate Change narrative if we had steady cooling over some number of years.
Yes, climate alarmists, I know the current trend is up, but that can change. It has happened before in the past (1930’s), and right at about this current temperature level, too.
It was real hot in the 1930’s, and then the temperatures cooled by about 2.0C over the coming decades to the low point in the late 1970’s.
What’s that AMO doing?
Around the 1940s, the AMO had a double peak, around 1934 and 1950
If that pattern repeats, we are somewhere in the second peak after the first peak in about 2010. Maybe dropping down in the next few years.
“Around the 1940s, the AMO had a double peak, around 1934 and 1950”
The United States had a similar profile. After the cooling began in the 1940’s, it cooled for a while and then temperatures rose into the 1950’s, and then temperatures cooled all the way to the late 1970’s.
The AMO and the U.S. temperature profile mirror each other.
It is a fact that we just don’t have enough prior data to even see what previous AMO patterns (before 1930s,40s peak) might have been.
All this nonsense of AGW, Climate crises etc is based on such a short insignificant period of data.
The whole thing is idiotic.
Proxy data from around the world, clearly shows the planet is most probably still in a rather COOL period compared to the last 10,000 years.
If they had any real self-esteem…
.. they wouldn’t be backing this anti-humanity agenda.
At some point a lot of those with degrees in geography became infected with the ClimateCult™ virus. This is surprising and astounding thing. Other disciplines going this route are less surprising, but geography has been a broad-based subject, once known as “The Queen of the Sciences.” Rename: “The Jokers in the Cesspool.”
I guess the need to get funding, publish, and travel has promoted this perversion. (The word “perversion” is likely not the best choice but, at the moment, a better word won’t pop into my head.)
Corruption. There is a new subspecies of ‘thinking ape’ evolving – its the ‘corrupt ape’ and thinking is not what it does.
I think there are a lot of confused people out there, and the Media keeps them confused, in many cases, deliberately, for political advantage.
There are also trillions of dollars to be made from so-called “climate change” spending and the rich who hope to get richer own the news media.
This is true.
Everything is an opportunity for megalomaniacs… the weather, CO2 population growth, depopulation equity disparity, AI, the common cold, NIH, the WHO, Diabetes, socialism, Capitalism, Stakeholder Capitalism, anarchists, the WEF, Putin, old order communalist revolutionaries, Militiamen,, crispr Cas 9, censorship, radical libertarian libertinism, woke, racism, nationalism, the identify formation of children, tech capacity, the smart phone, ABA psych tech in all medias, EV and windmills, and their failures, Lithium batteries, Big oil, the grid, military, narratives good and bad, politicians…. it just doesn’t matter any, some or all of it will be leveraged. We only encounter the ground level folk.
Unfortunately the idealism of globalization didn’t unite us. It only served to develop he tech tools needed to centralize markets create demand for product no one really needs and concentrate power beyond the normal means of power acquisition; that is representative voting and voting with dollars. Even militarization and overt aggression is avoided. All the aggression is shadowy, incremental, and organic at the level of how we perceive reality.
Most people are incapable of integrated thought and solving for pattern, but AI has no problem with it. AI solves for pattern like beating a band. So if you want something and need to know what to do an go about it you go to AI (formerly called deep learning). As corporations, and individuals have don this you get a fully integrated solved for pattern approach to what ever goal or set of goals needed to acquire more power. This is why the power grab is shadowy, incremental and organic. It is not a one person conspiracy. It is everyone at the center of the key global markets power grabbing using the same tools.
The only thing that emerges are the aberrant outcomes with a few clues to the technique and meta- communicated goals.
Ultimately, the lack of having the best interest of local people in mind is the core aberration. The pandemic AI deep learned planned response is a clear example. The meta-communication is the consuming masses are the object of operation and the central problem.
Don’t think this is all about climate .climate is a tool.
sorry this is poorly written with lots of typos. Just didn’t have time to do it justice.
“…. if emergent policies are to be effective and provide long-lasting solutions, they must also address underlying societal conditions, such as inequity and lack of trust in those in power due to a history of being cut out of the decision-making process….
The climate is one thing- social/economic issues are an entirely different topic- mixing them up is not going to be effective at resolving if there even is a problem and if there is, what to do about it. As for trust, the smart thing is to NEVER trust those in power. They must constantly be challenged to prove themselves. Besides, the power structures are getting good at pretending that “the people” are part of the decision-making process”. You know, they allow “the people” to send them comments as they work on policies but they always ignore the comments- only paying attention to the major donors.
Here in Wokeachusetts I’ve been a forestry policy buff for over 50 years. I’ve seen how the establishment manipulates everyone. They’re currently working on a policy to more or less lock up the forests to do nothing but sequester carbon to “save the planet”. Even the forestry organizations sing the climate emergency song- that’s how powerful the propaganda is in this state. Some of the smarter ones actually attempt to co-opt the climate theme by coming up with policies that aren’t too much of a change while pretending they’re new policies designed to “save the planet”. I keep telling them to show some guts and skepticism about the climate because you won’t win the game of co-opting the climatistas.
The one degree or so of estimated warming in the last century is like the 15 cm or so of estimated sea level rise- due to seasonal and diurnal changes in temperature that are always occurring, no one will actually notice. Same with sea level- millimeter and centimeter changes will never be noticed, being swamped by daily or weekly changes driven by the tides and local meteorological conditions.
Where?
Where?
Where?
All good questions!