IPCC special report - Global Warming of 1.5 °C

[PointOfViewGun]

The first time a climate alarmist appeared for profit was in 1864. This is not new stuff. The IPCC report is junk science, but no matter, one tut of the whistle and the Pavlovian puppies in the left wing press start drooling out cries of alarm.

An audit of the IPCC report reveals just how bad the data has been corrupted:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/

Hilarious! You talk about "climate alarmists" appearing for profit a century and a half ago but the supposed "audit" you linked to itself requires to be purchased to view it...

Also, the audit, according to your article, is published before the IPCC report is...

[B. W.]

Hilarious! You talk about "climate alarmists" appearing for profit a century and a half ago but the supposed "audit" you linked to itself requires to be purchased to view it...

Also, the audit, according to your article, is published before the IPCC report is...

So now you're claiming that an $8.00 paywall is the equivalent to the billions of dollars already received by the IPCC, third world countries, first world investors (Al Gore, etc.), and the 2,000 or so "scientists" that represent the global consensus that we keep hearing about. Now, the same collection of miscreants is asking for another handout.

You also missed the part that stated the data has been updated.

More on this fraud and its corruption of data:

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/fir...boats-on-land/

[PointOfViewGun]

So now you're claiming that an $8.00 paywall is the equivalent to the billions of dollars already received by the IPCC, third world countries, first world investors (Al Gore, etc.), and the 2,000 or so "scientists" that represent the global consensus that we keep hearing about. Now, the same collection of miscreants is asking for another handout.
You also missed the part that stated the data has been updated.
More on this fraud and its corruption of data:
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/fir...boats-on-land/

Not really equivalent. For starters, it's not a pissing contest. The side that gets less money doesn't own the valid hypothesis. Science doesn't work like that. Yet, it was ironic to claim profiteering on unsubstantiated claims with a paper that you had to buy to access to. Also, the IPCC operates at a 4.3 million dollars a year budget. When USA pulled its money out of it it wasn't such a drama to fund it from elsewhere. On the other hand, you talked about billions of dollars... Of course, the only party in this debate that we know asks for money to access its work is your "audit" though your source didn't even do his own primary research. It's "findings" are based on what other people spent money to find. I read somewhere that it was downloaded for about 3 thousand times which makes about 24 thousand dollars for someone just sit in front of a laptop and typed a bunch of words.

Almost forgot, your "more on this fraud" link is simply an other article on the exact same topic and substance of the so-called "audit".

[Prodromos]

Pardon, but I thought it was already too late to save the Earth?

But these “tipping points” and “last chance” claims now have a long history. The United Nations alone has spent more than a quarter of a century announcing a series of ever-shifting deadlines by which the world must act or face disaster from anthropogenic climate change.

Recently, in 2014, the United Nations declared a climate “tipping point” by which the world must act to avoid dangerous global warming. “The world now has a rough deadline for action on climate change. Nations need to take aggressive action in the next 15 years to cut carbon emissions, in order to forestall the worst effects of global warming, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” reported the Boston Globe.

But way back in 1982, the UN had announced a two-decade tipping point for action on environmental issues. Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, that the “world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.” According to Tolba, lack of action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”

In 1989, the UN was still trying to sell that “tipping point” to the public. According to a July 5, 1989, article in the San Jose Mercury News, Noel Brown, the then-director of the New York office of UNEP was warning of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the Herald, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

But in 2007, seven years after that supposed tipping point had come and gone, Rajendra Pachauri, then the chief of the UN IPPC, declared 2012 the climate deadline by which it was imperative to act: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced his own deadline in August 2009, when he warned of “incalculable” suffering without a UN climate deal in December 2009. And in 2012, the UN gave Planet Earth another four-year reprieve. UN Foundation president and former U.S. Senator Tim Wirth called Obama’s re-election the “last window of opportunity” to get it right on climate change.

Heir to the British throne Prince Charles originally announced in March 2009 that we had “less than 100 months to alter our behavior before we risk catastrophic climate change.” As he said during a speech in Brazil, “We may yet be able to prevail and thereby to avoid bequeathing a poisoned chalice to our children and grandchildren. But we only have 100 months to act.”

To his credit, Charles stuck to this rigid timetable—at least initially. Four months later, in July 2009, he declared a ninety-six-month tipping point. At that time the media dutifully reported that “the heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James’s Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world. And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the ‘age of convenience’ was over.”

At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009, Charles was still keeping at it: “The grim reality is that our planet has reached a point of crisis and we have only seven years before we lose the levers of control.”

As the time expired, the Prince of Wales said in 2010, “Ladies and gentlemen we only—we now have only 86 months left before we reach the tipping point.”

By 2014, a clearly exhausted Prince Charles seemed to abandon the countdown, announcing, “We are running out of time. How many times have I found myself saying this over recent years?”

In the summer of 2017, Prince Charles’s one-hundred-month tipping point finally expired. What did Charles have to say? Was he giving up? Did he proclaim the end times for the planet? Far from it. Two years earlier, in 2015, Prince Charles abandoned his hundred-month countdown and gave the world a reprieve by extending his climate tipping point another thirty-five years, to the year 2050!

A July 2015 interview in the Western Morning News revealed that “His Royal Highness warns that we have just 35 years to save the planet from catastrophic climate change.” So instead of facing the expiration of his tipping point head on, the sixty-nine-year-old Charles kicked the climate doomsday deadline down the road until 2050 when he would be turning the ripe age of 102. (Given the Royal Family’s longevity, it is possible he may still be alive for his new extended deadline.) Former Irish President Mary Robinson issued a twenty-year tipping point in 2015, claiming that global leaders have “at most two decades to save the world.”

Al Gore announced his own ten-year climate tipping point in 2006 and again in 2008, warning that “the leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis.” In 2014, with “only two years left” before Gore’s original deadline, the climatologist Roy Spencer mocked the former vice president, saying “in the grand tradition of prophets of doom, Gore’s prognostication is not shaping up too well.”

Penn State Professor Michael Mann weighed in with a 2036 deadline. “There is an urgency to acting unlike anything we’ve seen before,” Mann explained. Media outlets reported Mann’s made a huge media splash with his prediction, noting “Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036.”

Other global warming activists chose 2047 as their deadline, while twenty governments from around the globe chose 2030 as theirs, with Reuters reporting that millions would die by 2030 if world failed to act on climate: “More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2% of GDP by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday. As global avg. temps rise due to ghg emissions, the effects on the planet, such as melting ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and livelihoods, said the report conducted by the humanitarian organization DARA.”

As we saw in chapter five, top UK scientist Sir David King warned in 2004 that that by 2100 Antarctica could be the only habitable continent.

Perhaps the best summary of the tipping-point phenomenon comes from UK scientist Philip Stott. “In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years. We have been serially doomed,” Stott explained. “Our post-modern period of climate change angst can probably be traced back to the late-1960s, if not earlier. By 1973, and the ‘global cooling’ scare, it was in full swing, with predictions of the imminent collapse of the world within ten to twenty years, exacerbated by the impacts of a nuclear winter. Environmentalists were warning that, by the year 2000, the population of the US would have fallen to only 22 million. In 1987, the scare abruptly changed to ‘global warming’, and the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was established (1988), issuing its first assessment report in 1990, which served as the basis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).

This "Point of No Return" keeps getting pushed farther and farther into the future. Is it really based in reality, or is it a politically-driven scare tactic, as encouraged by leading climatologist Stephen Schneider, who said:

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Indeed. And we in turn must be careful not to confuse political schemes for actual scientific research.

[Diamat]

snip

snip

snip

Thanks for all the responses. I think I understand the issue better now. Based on my reading of the research, it seems that the goal should be a +2°C above preindustrial levels (some say +1.5°C), which, if not achieved by 2030, will only get more costly to achieve. So the literature does suggest it is actually possible to stabilize the temperature increase, though it would take a long time for everything to recover, if at all. It seems like places such as Africa are screwed no matter what. The bottom line (per my understanding): a stabilization is achievable though not ideal; negative climate effects WILL occur.

[TheDarkKnight]

My question for the science deniers...Climate and pollution are hand in hand.

Do you really think it is even worth the risk?

You may live a nice long happy life but if we assume that the scientists are correct...You are dooming generations of people (including your own descendants for god's sake) for nothing other than selfish reasons and by trusting the word of those that stand to lose a modicum of money over those that actually study these things.

Seriously...what do we have to lose by cutting back on emissions? What do we have to lose by making sure the Earth is clean? You, personally, will lose nothing by having OTHER PEOPLE do their part in cutting emissions. Why do you care so much?

Because if we don't, and YOU are wrong (again, not the scientists who STUDY these things) what we have to lose is humanity. And if you think the refugee crises going on now are bad, waiting until hundreds of millions of people on the coast need to move inland.

(Hell...if anything I would think that would make xenophobic and anti-liberal people want to make sure dem coastal libruls don't come into the heartland)

Sorry, but I'd rather take the chance that the scientists are lying (again, why would they?) and focus on making the earth better than believing the word of people who are CLEARLY driven by profits and greed. One outcome does not affect me in the slightest, whereas one outcome can and will.

[Prodromos]

Since all proposed "solutions" to the alleged problem entail the deindustrialization of the West, redistribution of wealth to the third world, and increasing government control over people's lives, that's quite a bit to lose. You'll need more than doomsday predictions to get us to sacrifice our liberty and living standards.

[TheDarkKnight]

I have yet to see anyone actually say we need to deindustrialize EVERYTHING. Talk about a doomsday scenario.

And even if that WERE the case (which it is not), would it not worth it for the survival of our species? Because once the effects of it are beyond an actual breaking point pointing fingers will not do anything to help, it will already be too late.

Stop thinking selfishly about short term sacrifices. No amount of money or "liberty" is worth our extinction. Maybe you don't care about what happens to your descendants but I kind of do.

[Prodromos]

Humanity is not going extinct any time soon... unless these crazy watermelons have their way.

Apocalyptic predictions come and go, whether it is overpopulation or global warming or the rapture. Few ever materialize. These gloom-and-doom types take advantage of weak-minded people to further their personal aims. They just change up the scam every few years.

[The spartan]

Since all proposed "solutions" to the alleged problem entail the deindustrialization of the West, redistribution of wealth to the third world, and increasing government control over people's lives, that's quite a bit to lose.

No they don't. Are you seriously being an alarmist about accused alarmism?

You'll need more than doomsday predictions to get us to sacrifice our liberty and living standards.

It wouldn't even take sacrificing liberty or living standards. Why would you want it to?

[Genava]

The first time a climate alarmist appeared for profit was in 1864. This is not new stuff. The IPCC report is junk science, but no matter, one tut of the whistle and the Pavlovian puppies in the left wing press start drooling out cries of alarm.

An audit of the IPCC report reveals just how bad the data has been corrupted:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/

Well, the blog of Watts is often misleading. He is just trying to create doubts with complex talks about data correction and models but very often when you look deep in it, it is just a total BS he has made up.

For example here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/...ke-procedures/

He put this picture trying to prove that the NOAA is increasing for purpose the temperature data:




But it is a SCAM! This picture is mixing the data from two different organizations which are using different baseline to calculate the anomalies! The Met Office (Hadley) use a baseline from the mean between 1961 and 1990 while the NOAA use a baseline from the mean between 1901 and 2000. If take this in account and did the calculation from the same baseline, here the true comparison:



If you listen to Watts, you can easily believe that each week a new manipulation on the part of climate scientists is revealed. But honestly, is it credible? As I said before:

Just in case somebody unaware of the situation could be misinformed, here the scientific consensus on the webpage of the NASA:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

As you can see, there are also the statements from high-level US academic institutions like the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society and the Geological Society of America. All of them recognize the current global warming and the anthropogenic causes through greenhouse gases emissions.

If someone wants to self-check the scientific literature on the subject, here is a good introduction:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60932716300308
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r...1-chapter1.pdf

For evidences of the CO2 as the major causes:
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...heric-warming/
https://skepticalscience.com/human_f...r_nights.shtml
https://climatenexus.org/climate-news-archive/science-primers/forcing-and-fingerprinting/

[PointOfViewGun]

Humanity is not going extinct any time soon... unless these crazy watermelons have their way.

Apocalyptic predictions come and go, whether it is overpopulation or global warming or the rapture. Few ever materialize. These gloom-and-doom types take advantage of weak-minded people to further their personal aims. They just change up the scam every few years.

Those bastards and their scheming to keep our planet clean and champion for cleaner and better technologies to tackle our inefficiencies. Purely the spawn of Satan!

[Genava]

Since all proposed "solutions" to the alleged problem entail the deindustrialization of the West, redistribution of wealth to the third world, and increasing government control over people's lives, that's quite a bit to lose. You'll need more than doomsday predictions to get us to sacrifice our liberty and living standards.

Outside of politics, there are scientific facts. The climate is warming and we are the cause through greenhouses gases, it is a scientific consensus backed with decades of data. I don't see the point to denying it.

The way to solve or not the problem is political. But to talk about a problem, the first step is to recognize it.

[Stario]

Sad part is, by time humanity will really notice the effect, it will be too late. We are literally the frog in boiling water. It is still okay..we still can manage but soon.. 3-4 degree rise in temperatures. Whole Middle-East, South Asia, parts of Africe uninhabitable.. Then the ecology problem will become sociological,political... :/

AND Siberia will become a bread basket. In reality the Polar Bears are thriving. This article https://www.theguardian.com/environm...mmer-next-year ; published in 2016 claimed the arctic will be free of ice summer next year (2017). After decades of false prediction being wrong works great for science...

Over the last couple of centuries the Northwest passage has been open before and closed before. In the next few centuries it will probably open again, and close again. This years summer, the icebreakers couldn't make the Northwest passage. Hard to see a trend; seems to be temporally correlated random variations. We always see ice in the Northwest passage in summer, there is always open water in winter. The Artic has less ice than it used to but the Antartic has more...etc

[Genava]

AND Siberia will become a bread basket. In reality the Polar Bears are thriving. This article https://www.theguardian.com/environm...mmer-next-year ; published in 2016 claimed the arctic will be free of ice summer next year (2017). After decades of false prediction being wrong works great for science...

The opinion of one scientist is not a scientific consensus:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/do-...-ice-free.html

The IPCC said:
"A seasonally ice-free Arctic sooner than the older IPCC models predicted, leading to the conclusion that a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean within the next few decades is a distinct possibility."

You can't tell exactly when it will happen.

Over the last couple of centuries the Northwest passage has been open before and closed before. In the next few centuries it will probably open again, and close again. This years summer, the icebreakers couldn't make the Northwest passage. Hard to see a trend; seems to be temporally correlated random variations. We always see ice in the Northwest passage in summer, there is always open water in winter. The Artic has less ice than it used to but the Antartic has more...etc

You are confusing a lot of things. The path of icebreakers is not the same than the path of usual ships. Especially because icebreakers pass through the sea ice most of the time in summer. The actual trends from NASA webpages:

[Stario]

The opinion of one scientist is not a scientific consensus:

I think I can find you the opinions of more scientist that were wrong in predicting the Arctic will be free of ice by last summer if you want!?

The path of icebreakers is not the same than the path of usual ships. Especially because icebreakers pass through the sea ice most of the time in summer

Whats your point?

the actual trends from NASA webpages:

The graphs you posted is land ice mass. That's only half-the story. To use the Antartic as an example, its 'Land Ice' is decreasing but its 'Sea Ice' is increasing (see graph figure 3) https://www.skepticalscience.com/ant...termediate.htm

[PointOfViewGun]

I think I can find you the opinions of more scientist that were wrong in predicting the Arctic will be free of ice by last summer if you want!?

I do. Please show us some scientists who claimed that the Arctic would be free of ice by the summer of 2018.

[Genava]

I think I can find you the opinions of more scientist that were wrong in predicting the Arctic will be free of ice by last summer if you want!?

Yes, I'm sure. But in what the opinions even from a few scientist is more important than peer-review articles ? You are cherry-picking what you want to draw the conclusion that suits you the best.

Whats your point?

You are using the argument of historical crossings through the Northwest Passage to contradict the actual decreasing trend of the arctic sea ice extent and it is wrong. Firstly because you are again cherry-picking the events that suits your opinion the best. Secondly because the crossing of the Northwest Passage depends on the weather too. As I said the icebreakers cross during the summer, when the ice extent can be regionally different from year to year. Snowfalls in June and in July can still happen in the Arctic, which can create short-term sharp increase of sea ice extent.

Look at the stats about of the Northwest Passage and you will find an increasing trends of transit.

The graphs you posted is land ice mass. That's only half-the story. To use the Antartic as an example, its 'Land Ice' is decreasing but its 'Sea Ice' is increasing (see graph figure 3) https://www.skepticalscience.com/ant...termediate.htm

Antarctica, not Antartic. But yes I know the difference thank you. In your opinion which is the best indicator for a continental ice cap? An increase of freshwater from the melting of the ice cap can easily increase the sea ice extent (salinity dilution effect). It is why you look at the total volume or total mass to monitor the trend.

[B. W.]

Billions have been wasted on this climate science fraud:http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/mas...nding-exposed/

[Genava]

Billions have been wasted on this climate science fraud:http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/mas...nding-exposed/

Firstly, why is funding a proof of a problem? The budget of the NASA is around 15-19 billions each year, far more than that.

Secondly, your link is saying there is no empirical proof... but there are several empirical proofs!
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...heric-warming/
https://skepticalscience.com/human_f...r_nights.shtml
https://climatenexus.org/climate-news-archive/science-primers/forcing-and-fingerprinting/
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz...lipona2004.pdf