More climate alarm hype: ‘Keeping warming to 2 °C is not enough to save species’

Posted: March 27, 2015 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Idiots, pause, propaganda

Heads in the clouds?

Heads in the clouds?

If temperatures won’t go up, bring the so-called ‘target’ down. That’s the latest brainwave of climate fear merchants, seemingly oblivious to the lack of any temperature rise this century.

Former Guardian writer Fred Pearce reports:
Is the world’s target of limiting global warming to 2 °C too high, or too low? Does it even make scientific sense? The consensus around the target, which was agreed at climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009, seems to be coming unstuck.

Back in October, US climate analysts David Victor and Charles Kennel called it scientifically meaningless and politically unachievable. We should get used to the idea of something warmer, they said.

Now the target has been denounced as “utterly inadequate”, by Petra Tschakert of Penn State University in University Park, who has been involved in a UN review of the target. She wants a 1.5 °C target instead. Writing in the journal Climate Change Responses, she says this lower limit is necessary if we want sea levels to rise less than a metre, to protect half of all coral reefs, and to still have some ice during Arctic summers.

Tschakert is not alone. There was a groundswell of support for a revised 1.5 °C target at an expert meeting during the climate conference in Lima, Peru, last December, as part of the UN’s target review. The review is set for publication in June and could be adopted at the Paris climate negotiations this December, where new emissions limits for after 2020 will be agreed.

Full New Scientist report.

‘Does it even make scientific sense?’ – Good question.

  1. oldbrew says:

    ‘limiting global warming’

    The arrogant assumption being that we have superhuman powers of control over nature.

  2. David Blake says:

    First they fixed the science.
    Then they fixed the data (and still are “fixing” it).
    Now they fix the [meaningless] target.

    “and to still have some ice during Arctic summers.”

    ..and now they want to fix Earth’s thermostat. The arctic ice opens to release heat to space, and closes to retain it.

  3. David Blake says:

    [Hope I’m not getting too far off topic – feel free to bin comment..]

    During the record 2012 low in Arctic ice, air temperatures rose considerably:

    The climate gang are confucing cause and effect. To me this suggests that the warmer ocean, free from the insulating ice, was able to warm the atmosphere above it.

    Comparing with 2008, where there’s more ice.

    The maximum air temperature throughout the series is always around the same (+2C) – so it’s not air temperatures melting the ice. It’s the under-ice temperature that’s important. And that comes from the warm Atlantic circulation.

    The excuse we are given about lower albedo allowing more energy into the sea is BS. a) the insolation is oblique, and b) the arctic melts *after* summer has finished, but can radiate early/late in the year before the ice forms again.

    Viz: The arctic ice is the earth’s thermostat. It opens to release heat from the Earth system, and closes to retain it. This natural thermostat is the cause of the ice age cycles: when there’s no arctic ice 14 billion m^2 of sea can radiate (& evaporate) tens of W/m^2 to space. When it’s closed heat builds up.

    Today’s melting ice is entirely natural, but is probably the (very first) step towards a (hopefully distant) glaciation…

  4. Petrossa says:

    I’m sure no one will shed a tear over the loss of this species, homo sapiens barely surviving 100.000 years against for example a crocodile out-surviving us by 200 million years. Really , does anyone seriously image we’d even make 1 million years? So regardless the temperature (which evidently we can adapt to easily in view of the species living in the tropics as well as the poles) i’d worry more about homo sapiens being one of those errors of evolution destined for extinction.

  5. Doonhamer says:

    Ah. So the science is not settled.

  6. David Blake says:


    “Ah. So the science is not settled.”

    No. Please send more money.

  7. oldbrew says:

    The opposite of settled, more likely.

    ‘Here we discuss the cosmogenic 10Be isotope record from this core. The results show Eemian average 10Be concentrations about 0.7 times lower than in the Holocene which suggests a warmer climate and approximately 65–90% higher precipitation in Northern Greenland compared to today. Effects of shorter solar variations on 10Be concentration are smoothed out due to coarse time resolution, but occurrence of a solar maximum at 115.26–115.36 kyr BP is proposed.’

  8. edhoskins says:

    There is a pretty cogent reason why +2 deg C could never be reached by Man-made Global warming

  9. Jaime says:

    Climate alarmist hype keeps pace with real science. Lewis/Curry and others keep snipping away at climate sensitivity (TCR and ECS), meaning alarmists have been looking glumly at an ever receding target for ‘dangerous’ warming. What to do? Simples – lower the target!

  10. Curious George says:

    These numbers are invariably based on models. The only kind of models respecting a temperature difference between day and night, between summer and winter, are General Circulation Models. They typically use a 1 hour time step. There are 105,120 hours in 12 years. Not even GCM modelers themselves claim an accuracy of 0.001% for a time step – you need that if your results for a 12-year simulation should be even partially realistic.

  11. What is needed is not only the current pause in global temperatures but a drop in the global temperature trend which I am confident will be in evidence before this decade is out.

  12. Ron Clutz says:

    About those climate models.

    For the 30 years from 2006 to 2035, the average CMIP5 model projects the warming rate at 2.28C/century. These estimates are in contrast to the 145 years of history in the models, where the trend shows as 0.41C per century.

    Clearly, the CMIP5 models are programmed for the future to warm more than 5 times the rate as the past.

    And yet, the warming is not happening, and not in time for Paris COP.

    More detail and data here:

  13. Bob Greene says:

    Reblogged this on and commented:
    Before we invented climate science, warmer periods were called optima. Courtesy prohibits me from referring to this climate scientist as an unscientific activist twit.

    [reply] Tut tut 😉

  14. Bob Weber says:

    None of the climate models will turn out correct, as solar activity is not paramount in them, and as such, the warmists have no idea what’s coming around the bend: cooling from low solar activity.

    The temperature targeting tactics are like sales projections in business, and anyone who has done business planning knows how easy it is to become “certain” of business success based on marketing projections, and most of us who’ve been down that road know how easy it is to arrive at “confirmation bias” with such techniques.

    They are fooling themselves, all of them.

  15. oldbrew says:

    Bob W: ‘They are fooling themselves, all of them.’

    And trying to take everyone else down with them.

  16. Ron Clutz says:

    Bob W: Too True. When I was active in management consulting we had a client who was shocked to discover that his company’s ten-year record of meeting targets was a fraud. Some whiz in the IT department had systematically adjusted the targets to be slightly below performance results.

  17. Fanakapan says:

    Dont forget that in the USA, academic institutions are primarily Money Making centres, and in the case of Penn State, the success of the football team as a potential encouragement to fee paying applicants was sufficient to overlook the child sexual abuse performed on site by the Coach of that team.

    Obviously this is just another attempt to garner publicity that will encourage ‘Right Thinking’ kids wanting to enter higher education, to maybe give Penn State a look over 🙂

  18. dikstr says:

    It may be better for us all to keep providing the CAGW modelers and IPCC types with the funding to play with their models, reports and AGW targets. Turning this lot out onto the streets may inflict even more destructive and pointless mischief upon us.

  19. hunter says:

    More cowardly moving of goal posts by climate fear mongers.

  20. Kon Dealer says:

    Petra Tschakert of Penn State University. Now which Mann do you think she talks to?

  21. michael hart says:

    Bureaucracy 101. When reality fails to meet targets change the targets. Or how the targets are defined. Or how reality is measured.

    Then one can confidently move on to announce “Thanks to the leadership of Comrade Stalin, tractor production will increase 97% in the next five years, despite ongoing actions by counter-revolutionaries who we are currently rounding up for re-education.”

  22. ren says:

    With forecasts indicate that in early April it gets very cold in Central and Eastern Europe.

  23. ren says:

    David Blake:
    Changed the position of the polar vortex and ice in the Arctic is rapidly growing. Similar to the previous year.

  24. ren says:

    Bob Weber:
    Spring will come to you, but I will come back again cold in April.

  25. Bob Weber says:

    Thanx ren, we could always use some more cold weather… this morning it’s 8F here, with -8F reported in the Upper Peninsula, making Michigan the coldest place in the states right now.

    I’m not expecting a very warm spring, as solar flux is going to be ~120 in April/May, unless the sun perks up. Last spring we didn’t warm up until June, and our garden (and tomatoes) struggled, whereas in 2013 it was bountiful, with lots of tomatoes!

    I noticed that when solar flux was less than ~135 this winter, I didn’t feel the sun’s warmth on my skin here on the 45th parallel. Cold sun. We are looking at potentially a decade or more of that.

  26. ren says:

    Already can see forming a blockade on the southern the polar circle.