In that same year, Australian environmental scientist Tim Flannery said that the current “round of negotiations” on climate was “likely to be our last chance as a species to deal with the problem.”
Then in 2009, James Hansen, the mother of all global warming alarmists, said incoming President Barack Obama had four years to save the world.
Yes, the end is near. Or it isn’t. We won’t really know until we get there. But quite clearly the Great Global Warming Derangement Syndrome has caused some to draw near the end of their senses.…
Oh No! Not another ‘tipping point!’: World must hit zero carbon emissions ‘well before 2040’, scientists warn – ‘To prevent global warming getting out of hand’
Humans must reduce net greenhouse gases emissions to zero “well before 2040” in order to ensure global warming does not go above 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, scientists have warned after carrying out a study using a sophisticated new computer model.
The analysis suggests that efforts to prevent temperatures rising to potentially dangerous levels may have to rely heavily on “negative emissions” technology that is still in its infancy.
Commenting on the study, Professor Richard Betts, head of climate impacts at the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, said the “important” research spelled out the “enormous challenge” ahead.
The new study, described in a paper in the journal Nature Communications, is one of the first to use the new FeliX computer model, which includes social and economic factors along with environmental ones.
One of the researchers, Dr Michael Obersteiner, of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis near Vienna, said: “The FeliX model … provides a unique systemic view of the whole carbon cycle, which is vital to our understanding of future climate change and energy.
“The study shows that the combined energy and land-use system should deliver zero net anthropogenic emissions well before 2040 in order to assure the attainability of a 1.5C target by 2100.”
This does not necessarily mean that humans would have to stop burning fossil fuels in little over 20 years, as the researchers included natural carbon sinks – such as forests – and the use of carbon-capture technology in their calculations.…
Eco-Hypocrite Sting sings about ‘climate change’: ‘Dear leaders, please do something quick’ – ‘Time is up, the planet’s sick’
BY CHRISTIAN TOTO
The official video for “One Fine Day,” from the rocker’s new album “57TH & 9TH [Deluxe Edition],” features the following lyrics:
The weather’s just a cycle we can’t change
We’ve pushed those cycles way beyond
Dear leaders, please do something quick
Time is up, the planet’s sick
But hey, we’ll all be grateful
One fine day?
Today the North West Passage just got found
Three penguins and a bear got drowned
The ice they lived on disappeared
Seems things are worse than some had feared…
The New York Times on Wednesday tried to calm panicky readers fearing Trump-induced global warming destruction. This was the actual headline on the front page of the business section: “Earth Isn’t Doomed Yet. The Climate Could Survive Trump.” Notice the “yet.”
Columnist Eduardo Porter wondered, “Is the battle to contain global warming now lost?” Later, he worried about the “ticking” “bomb.” At first, the Times journalist tried to find ways in which global warming policies could survive a Trump presidency:
Most importantly, climate objectives could mesh with Mr. Trump’s goal of energy independence. According to the 2016 edition of the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook, the United States could pretty much become energy independent by 2040 — reducing its annual oil imports to 1 million barrels a day from 6 million in 2014 — as long as Washington sticks to current policies.
But then he went back to panicking, essentially suggesting that the world may survive one-term of Trump. But maybe not two: “This is not to say that the world could survive forever an American administration that doesn’t believe in climate change and does nothing to contain it.”
In four years, the United States might have an administration that is less hostile to the concept of climate change. In any case, the rationale for policies to support low- and no-carbon energy sources will be even stronger then than it is today.
“If a Trump administration lasts only four years, the process could maybe absorb that,” said Oliver Geden, head of research at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
The bomb is ticking, but the world still has some time.
The Guardian’s “100 Months To Save The World” – Part II
According to the Guardian’s Andrew Simms, we are two months away from reaching a tipping point for the beginnings of runaway climate change.
So, how much has the world’s climate changed since 2008?
Atmospheric temperatures have barely changed in the last eighteen years:
Arctic sea ice extent in September has remained stable:
Winter Arctic ice extent has barely changed since 2005:
Antarctic sea ice has been growing rapidly: (note that data since April is spurious, due to satellite problems).
And global sea ice is also stable:
Hurricanes keep on doing what hurricanes do:
Tornadoes remain at historically low levels:
Major droughts in the US are a thing of the past:
And the same in Australia:
In short, far from climate catastrophe, people would be excused for not noticing any change at all the the Earth’s climate.
Meanwhile, all of that extra CO2 in the atmosphere has contributed to a remarkable greening of the world:
And global food production continues to rise in leaps and bounds:
The ability to make accurate predictions is a hallmark of good science. Predictions by environmental doom-mongers have proven to be wrong time and time again. No wonder most people no longer believe them.
If we do not reverse global warming by the year 2000, “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels”, warned Noel Brown, a director of the United Nations Environment Programme, in 1989.
It is common cause that sea levels have been rising ever since the start of the Holocene at the end of the last Ice Age, about 11,700 years ago. Throughout the 20th century, tide gauge data has shown this rise to be fairly steady at about 1.5mm/year, and largely unaffected by changes in temperature or atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Since 1993, satellite altimetry has determined a fairly constant sea level rise of just over 3mm/year. However, it is far from clear whether this represents an acceleration or an artefact of how sea level is measured with respect to surrounding land.
A 2016 paper by Australian scientists Albert Parker and Cliff Ollier suggests that the altimetry record suffers from errors larger than its trends, and “returns a noisy signal so that a +3.2 mm/year trend is only achieved by arbitrary ‘corrections’”.
“We conclude that if the sea levels are only oscillating about constant trends everywhere as suggested by the tide gauges, then the effects of climate change are negligible,” they write, “and the local patterns may be used for local coastal planning without any need of purely speculative global trends based on emission scenarios. Ocean and coastal management should acknowledge all these facts. As the relative rates of rises are stable worldwide, coastal protection should be introduced only where the rate of rise of sea levels as determined from historical data show a tangible short term threat. As the first signs the sea levels will rise catastrophically within a few years are nowhere to be seen, people should start really thinking about the warnings not to demolish everything for a case nobody knows will indeed happen.”
Clearly, history proved Noel Brown wrong.
In 2002, George Monbiot urged the rich to give up meat, fish and dairy, writing: “Within as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or …
Wait, What?! We still haven’t ‘solved’ global warming?! UN Climate Chief: Climate change still a ‘race against the clock’ – Despite UN Paris Climate Deal!
Even after the world sealed a historic climate deal in Paris, the UN’s climate chief is worried humanity won’t be able break its fossil fuel habit in time to avert catastrophe, she told AFP Thursday.
“My concern is whether the transformation is going to happen fast enough to avert the worst impacts,” Christiana Figueres said, referring to the global shift from carbon-polluting fossil fuels to green energy.
“Greenhouse gas emissions have to peak quickly and descend,” she said in an interview, as diplomats wrapped up their first negotiating session since hammering out the landmark pact in December.
“It is a race against the clock.”
Figueres, from Costa Rica, took on the UN climate brief in the aftermath of the failed 2009 Copenhagen summit, and played a key role in laying the groundwork for the world’s first universal climate deal.
Under the Paris Agreement, 195 nations vowed to hold average global warming to well under two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), and even 1.5 C if possible.
Barely 1 C of warming so far has fuelled a crescendo of devastating droughts, super storms and rising seas threatening the homes and livelihoods of tens of millions.
But the tally of national pledges to curb greenhouse gases still falls far short of the mark, and scientists say they must be rapidly strengthened to hit the Paris goal.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-05-climate-clock-chief.html#jCp
Prince Charles gives world reprieve: Extends ‘100-Month’ climate ‘tipping point’ to 35 more years – Prince Charles had previously issued a 100 month climate tipping point deadline in 2009.…
Gore said we only have two years left to save the planet and to convince people of global warming’s imminent threat.
Since 2006, when his movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ hit the film circuit, Al Gore has been making these end-is-nigh proclamations. He said the Arctic would be ice free by 2014. He got that wrong. He had so many scientific errors in his documentary, a UK judge forbade it from being shown in British schools without “guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.”
That may be why in Manila he showed an “updated version” of his film. He also notes the Philippines (like the rest of the world) are “still dependent on fossil fuels,” what he believes is responsible for any changes in the climate.…
Have you ever wondered where the 2⁰C number comes from? Does it sound like the Y2K scare all over again? Well, let me tell you, because I have something to do with provoking its original publication.
In 1995, I published an article in Eos, the journal that goes to every member of the American Geophysical Union, a professional society of which I am a life-member and an elected Fellow. I claimed there that we couldn’t see any evidence for a significant human contribution to global warming. Naturally, this provoked some immediate responses — which I commented on in turn.
One response came from two Swedish scientists, Henning Rodhe and Christian Azar of Stockholm University. This was the first time I saw this magic 2⁰C value. Of course, they gave a reference for this number, which turned out to be a publication in the Swedish journal Tellus — by the same authors. In other words, it was a self-reference — or a circular argument if you prefer. It may even have been self-refereed; I don’t know. Anyway, there is nothing to indicate that anything drastic will happen at the 2⁰C limit. None of the climate models suggest any particular disaster; there will be no runaway warming; and climate warming will not become irreversible.