The 1.5-degree global warming ‘limit’ is not impossible—but it soon will be, doomsayers fear

Posted: May 4, 2021 by oldbrew in alarmism, propaganda, Temperature
Tags: ,
earth-temp

Image credit: livescience.com

Perpetuating the myth of human ability to control the Earth’s climate, and comparing heavily ‘adjusted’ temperature data to a time when there were few records of it on a global scale to refer to. What could possibly be less than credible there?
– – –
Limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C this century is a central goal of the Paris Agreement, says The Conversation / Phys.org.

In recent months, climate experts and others, including in Australia, have suggested the target is now impossible.

Whether Earth can stay within 1.5 degrees C warming involves two distinct questions.

First, is it physically, technically and economically feasible, considering the physics of the Earth system and possible rates of societal change? Science indicates the answer is “yes”—although it will be very difficult and the best opportunities for success lie in the past.

The second question is whether governments will take sufficient action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This answer depends on the ambition of governments, and the effectiveness of campaigning by non-government organizations and others.

So scientifically speaking, humanity can still limit global warming to 1.5°C this century. But political action will determine whether it actually does. Conflating the two questions amounts to misplaced punditry, and is dangerous.

1.5 degrees C wasn’t plucked from thin air

The Paris Agreement was adopted by 195 countries in 2015. The inclusion of the 1.5 degrees C warming limit came after a long push by vulnerable, small-island and least developed countries for whom reaching that goal is their best chance for survival.

They were backed by other climate-vulnerable nations and a coalition of high-ambition countries.

The 1.5 degrees C limit wasn’t plucked from thin air—it was informed by the best available science. Between 2013 and 2015, an extensive United Nations review process determined that limiting warming to 2 degrees C this century cannot avoid dangerous climate change.

Since Paris, the science on 1.5 degrees C has expanded rapidly. An Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report in 2018 synthesized hundreds of studies and found rapidly escalating risks in global warming between 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C.

Full article here.

Comments
  1. Neil Catto says:

    Looking at the natural forces such as PDO, AMO, ENSO all negative and the current Solar cycle looks like the 1.5 Deg C might have a negative sign in front of it.

  2. Curious George says:

    “The 1.5 degrees C limit wasn’t plucked from thin air—it was informed by the best available science. Between 2013 and 2015, an extensive United Nations review process determined that limiting warming to 2 degrees C this century cannot avoid dangerous climate change.”

    Dear old UN is the best available science organization. Einstein and Pasteur worked for it.

    Fool me twice ..

  3. oldbrew says:

    Tuesday, May 04, 2021
    Highlighting Need for World Leaders to Go Into ‘Emergency Mode,’ Analysis Finds Earth on Track for 2.4˚C of Warming

    “The fact that current global warming is now at 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels only serves to reinforce the urgency of further NDC updates,” says a new analysis from Climate Action Tracker.

    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/05/04/highlighting-need-world-leaders-go-emergency-mode-analysis-finds-earth-track-24c
    – – –
    ‘Earth on track’ – what track?

    An Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report in 2018 synthesized hundreds of studies — Eh?

  4. Gamecock says:

    10-4, oldbrew. I have no clue what ‘synthesized studies’ means. Based on their previous actions, I surmise it means they took the mean of hundreds of junk studies, and declared that to be a valid number. That had the additional – required – benefit of being scary.

    The average of junk is junk.

    “The fact that current global warming is now at 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels only serves to reinforce the urgency of further NDC updates”

    So we are 80% of the way there. I guess all the really bad stuff they have been warning us about comes with that last 0.3°C.

  5. Gamecock says:

    ‘The second question is whether governments will take sufficient action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This answer depends on the ambition of governments, and the effectiveness of campaigning by non-government organizations and others.’

    Xi Jinping re-educates non-government organizations.

  6. jb says:

    “First, is it physically, technically and economically feasible, considering the physics of the Earth system and possible rates of societal change? Science indicates the answer is ‘yes’.”

    This is why these people are not real scientists. “Science” does not indicate anything. There’s no Mogwai speaking for all or any of science. No inherent oracles or gizmodo pointers.

    Last I knew, science was the process of falsifying an hypothesis by testing. Where is there anything here that was tested on a global scale? Where are all the data points covering the earth’s prior environmental changes long before humanity existed as a baseline? Nobody can even say at this point when or if humans had technology prior to the Holocene.

    “…to rigorously study the anthropogenic CO2 – climate change hypothesis, for example, we would need another planet earth with the same number of humans, cows, lakes, oceans, and kittens that did NOT burn fossil fuels for 50 years. But, since these scenarios are never going to happen the folks that carry out natural experiments do the best they can to statistically manipulate data to separate as many confounding factors as possible in every effort to identify the relationship between cause and effect.” –Dr Peter Attia

  7. ivan says:

    Why do I get the impression that the clowns at The Conversation have been looking at too many computer models and never actually looking outside their ivory towers.

    All of what they say is complete rubbish, one would think they were producing a plot for a dystopian ‘wipe out the world’ film – there is no real science to support ant of their claims, beside which the earth is quite capable of looking after itself thank you.

  8. Phoenix44 says:

    Quick, quick do more NOW!

    Impatient children shrieking for their presents immediately.

  9. tom0mason says:

    More ravings from shameless absurdists! I wonder how they explain what’s under so many glaciers? Strong indicators of warmer periods and nature flourishing very well! See here, here, and here

    Also of note is that during a 40 year period from 1961 to 2002, observations of the Greenland shows that the ice sheet cooled, thickened, and gained mass. This was during the period when it is said anthropogenic CO2 emissions were sharply rising (from 2500 to 6500 metric tonnes).

  10. oldbrew says:

    Low solar cycles for a decade or three will play a part.

  11. […] 4 May 2021, Tallbloke’s Talkshop highlighted a story that appeared in PHYS.ORG.  Phys.org is a unit of Science X and touts […]

  12. Coeur de Lion says:

    I have read much of the IPCC’s SR1.5, it is unreadable jargon and guesswork. It states for starters that ALL the warming since 1850 is human caused. The pathways to 1.5degsC etc require pan- national coercive measures that will never happen. What it cost heaven knows. Grown men wrote this stuff

  13. dennisambler says:

    “The 1.5 degrees C limit wasn’t plucked from thin air—it was informed by the best available science.”

    Disclaimer: no science was employed in the promotion of this target.

    The history of this whole progression is important but little attention is paid to the pre-IPCC days.

    “World Climate Programme – International Conference on the Assessment of the Role of Carbon Dioxide and of Other Greenhouse Gases in Climate Variations and Associated Impacts, VILLACH, AUSTRIA, 9-15 OCTOBER 1985”
    https://library.wmo.int/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6321#.W8HF1vZRfs0

    UEA’s Phil Jones and Tom Wigley were both participants, as was Martin Parry, now at the Grantham Centre at Imperial.

    “As a result of the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, it is now believed that in the first half of the next century a rise of global mean temperature could occur which is greater than any in man’s history. The role of greenhouse gases other than CO2 in changing the climate is already about as important as that of CO2.

    If present trends continue, the combined concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases would be radiatively equivalent to a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels possibly as early as the 2030’s. The most advanced experiments with general circulation models of the climatic system show increases of the global mean equilibrium surface temperature for a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, or equivalent, of between 1.5 and 4.5°C.”

    The whole thing grew legs and has now morphed into the massive nexus that pertains today. In 1990, the IPCC had happened and was to produce issue that year. Prior to that there was a report from the Stockholm Environment Institute which built on the Villach and Bellagio WMO conferences:

    “Targets and Indicators of Climatic Change” edited by F.R. Rijsberman and R.J. Swart
    The Stockholm Environment Institute 1990

    The executive summary for WG2 was written by a couple of familiar IPCC names, Per Vellinga and a certain Peter Gleick, of Heartland documents fame.

    They took hubris to a whole new level which has not dissipated to this day, with the belief that the climate can be controlled by government diktat.

    “Principal Conclusions and Recommendations
    Limit the impacts on human society and natural ecosystems;
    • Limit the rate and magnitude of sea-level rise;
    • Limit the rate and magnitude of temperature change;
    • Stabilize the ambient concentrations of specific greenhouse gases;
    • Stabilize and/or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and enhance sinks to stabilize
    the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases; and
    Take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an equitable manner among the different actors.

    SEA-LEVEL RISE
    A maximum rate of rise of between 20 and 50 mm per decade.
    A maximum sea-level rise of between 0.2 and 0.5m above the 1990 global mean sea level.
    Limiting sea-level rise to a maximum of 0.5m would prevent the complete destruction of island nations, but would entail large increases in the societal and ecological damage caused by storms.

    The “new” target of 1.5 degrees C is not new at all but is a fudge between the 2 degree meme and the desired 1 degree from this group.

    “MEAN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
    A maximum rate of change in temperature of 0.1 °C per decade. The rate of temperature change target refers to realized warming.

    Two absolute temperature targets for committed warming were identified. These limits entail different levels of risk:

    (i) A maximum temperature increase of 1.0 °C above pre-industrial global mean temperature.
    (ii) A maximum temperature increase of 2.0 °C above pre-industrial global mean temperature.

    These two absolute temperature targets have different implications. It is recognized that temperature changes greater than the lower limit may be unavoidable due to greenhouse gases already emitted. The lower target is set on the basis of our understanding of the vulnerability of ecosystems to historical temperature changes.

    Temperature increases beyond 1.0 °C may elicit rapid, unpredictable, and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage. [what happened to that?]

    An absolute temperature limit of 2.0 °C can be viewed as an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems, and of non-linear responses, are expected to increase rapidly.”

    A footnote says “Greenhouse gases differ in their heat-trapping capabilities. A CO2-equivalent concentration of 400 ppm refers to a combined warming effect from increases in all greenhouse gases that is equal to increasing the concentration of CO2 alone to 400 ppm.

    Varying combinations of concentrations of greenhouse gases — and consequently
    varying combinations of emissions — are possible to meet the same temperature targets

    The IPCC First Assessment Report stated that: “Our judgement is that: global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6 oC over the last 100 years…; The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report

    Now of course, their claim is that CO2 is the Devil’s breath.

  14. Neil Catto says:

    So it has nothing to do with recovery from the LIA? Models vs nature, models lose every time..

  15. oldbrew says:

    Global Temperatures so far (March 2021)
    Posted on May 2, 2021 by Clive Best

    HadSST3 has finally been updated for February and March so I can calculate global temperatures based on spherical triangulation.

    So far 2021 is running much cooler than 2020. The temperatures for the first 3 months of the year are:

    Jan 0.65C (down 0.01C from Dec 2020 and 0.31 from Nov 2020)
    Feb 0.52C (further drop of 0.16C)
    Mar 0.65C (rise of 0.13C)
    . . .
    Much of the Southern Hemisphere temperatures are actually even lower than the 1961-1990 average temperature.

    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9930
    – – –
    Doomsayers take note.

  16. oldbrew says:

    Telling you how not to live…ditch the car, live in a small house, go vegan, quit flying etc. etc.

    EU 1.5° Lifestyles:
    Policies and Tools for Mainstreaming 1.5° Lifestyles

    A new H2020 project starting in spring 2021

    https://onepointfivelifestyles.eu/
    – – –
    Work programme
    The EU 1.5° Lifestyles project comprises six Work Packages (WP) below, plus a Coordination & Management WP:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s