IPCC report is ‘code red for humanity’

Posted: August 9, 2021 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, IPCC, Politics, predictions, Temperature, weather
Tags: ,

.

So say the totally predictable climate cultists in the political summary version of the IPCC’s not yet published report, version whatever.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

Humanity’s damaging impact on the climate is a “statement of fact”, say UN scientists in a landmark study.

The report says that ongoing emissions of warming gases could also see a key temperature limit broken in just over a decade.

The authors also show that a rise in sea levels approaching 2m by the end of this century “cannot be ruled out”.

But there is new hope that deep cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases could stabilise rising temperatures.

This sober assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) features in a 42-page document known as the Summary for Policymakers.

It leads a series of reports that will be published over coming months and is the first major review of the science of climate change since 2013. Its release comes less than three months before a key climate summit in Glasgow known as COP26.

“Today’s…

View original post 419 more words

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    the science of climate change

    Meaning the attempt to blame humans for the weather.

  2. Cheshire Red says:

    BBC picture editors have had a field day there.

  3. watersider says:

    Indeed Old Brew,
    “Climate Science” the ultimate oxymoron.

  4. dennisambler says:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/08/03/jamal-munshi-the-united-nations-an-unconstrained-bureaucracy/

    Worth re-reading…

    The IPCC AR reports are biased. They are primarily concerned with selling the idea of climate change calamity and its mitigation by emission reduction. Their use of science is limited to its utility in supporting that primary purpose. The bias in IPCC AR documents is documented in a 2010 commentary by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency which took it upon itself to audit the IPCC AR4 WG2 forecasts and concluded that “The IPCC systematically favors adverse outcomes in a way that goes beyond serving the needs of policymakers.”

    …there is no empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that changes in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution can be attributed to fossil fuel emissions (Munshi, Responsiveness of Atmospheric CO2 to Anthropogenic Emissions, 2015).

    …climate sensitivity is irrelevant until it can be shown that changes in atmospheric CO2 can be attributed to fossil fuel emissions (Munshi, Responsiveness of Atmospheric CO2 to Anthropogenic Emissions, 2015

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2873672
    No evidence exists to relate changes in atmospheric CO2 or the rate of warming to fossil fuel emissions because correlations presented for these relationships are spurious. The UNFCCC holds annual COP meetings and calls for reductions in fossil fuel emissions to attenuate global warming without evidence that warming is related to emissions.

  5. stpaulchuck says:

    now that the NWO oligarchy has found that the mass of morons can be stampeded into lockdowns and useless slave masks, this is round two, shifting from a barely harmful virus to the totally debunked rising oceans, drought, massive hurricanes, etc. caused by my lawn mover and barbecue grill.

    In order to rule us absolutely they have to get rid of single family homes, personal automobiles, cheap air travel, cheap abundant energy and anything that contributes to individual freedom. Their future for us is a cross between Soylent Green and Idiocracy. Just look at the ignorance of the younger public on constitutions and similar documents, as well as ignorance on basic economics and basic science.
    ————–
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” – H.L. Menken

  6. ren says:

    Javier:
    August 9, 2021 7:29 am
    “One factor that Pierre Gosselin did not take into account is that the QBO just turned Eastward in June, and solar activity is still low. Low solar activity during QBOe years has a devastating effect on the winter Polar Vortex in the Northern Hemisphere. We can expect a disorganized polar vortex, with meandering Jet Stream, cold air masses intrusions into mid-latitudes, higher snow fall. As more warm air goes to the Arctic and escapes to space, the Earth cools down.”

    There is even some QBO anomaly visible in the middle stratosphere, perhaps related to the decrease in UV radiation.

    Comparison of UV solar activity in the three most recent solar cycles (SC) 22-24. The thick curves show the Mg II index timeseries twice smoothed with a 55-day boxcar. Dates of minima of solar cycles (YYYYMMDD) were determined from the smoothed Mg II index.

  7. oldbrew says:

    IPCC political summary:
    The authors also show a rise in sea levels approaching 2m by the end of this century “cannot be ruled out”.

    Really? Let’s ‘show’ this is just alarmism…

    From the human-caused warming believers at the Royal Society:
    How fast is sea level rising?

    Long-term measurements of tide gauges and recent satellite data show that global sea level is rising, with the best estimate of the rate of global-average rise over the last decade being 3.6 mm per year (0.14 inches per year).

    https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-14/

    3.6 mm* 80 (years) = 288 mm
    2 metres = 2000 mm
    2000/288 = almost 7 (6.944)

    So they’re hoping to scare us with 7 times the current rate of sea level rise by the end of the century? Fail.

  8. Graeme No.3 says:

    oldbrew:
    I think that they are saying that sea levels will be 2 metres higher than now, or else they expect an exponential rise in rates. In either case 2 words (Hint – the starting letters are B & S).

    And as Marc Morano has noted
    https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/01/22/earth-serially-doomed-the-official-history-of-climate-tipping-points-began-in-1864-a-new-global-warming-12-year-deadline-from-rep-osasio-cortez/

    shouldn’t we prepare for the 150th anniversary of Climate Doom? A public campaign to ‘celebrate’
    the success of that, and every other climate doom prediction since?

  9. Curious George says:

    IPCC report is code red for the UN. What a useless bunch of parasites!

  10. tom0mason says:

    IPCC report is ‘code red for humanity’
    IT’S NOTHING BUT POLITICS!
    “Code Red” = socialist destruction of Western economy with the imposition national and personal ‘Carbon’ credits through the One World Government(OWG).
    A OWG operating on strict socialist/Marxist-Leninist methods. Standard socialist fare of a ruling elite enjoying everything and anything they want, and everyone else working for the elites, and their crony capitalists. Then ‘workers’ allowed to perish when they are no longer useful; terminated by bureaucratically enhanced neglect — e.g. the confusion and laxity of the WHO responses, the UK’s NHS eugenics for the old, the deliberate US mess of the CDC and US NIAID, etc.

  11. Phoenix44 says:

    I’m still waiting for evidence the climate has been “damaged” let alone any damage is out fault.

    So far in 2021 in the UK has the limited been anything other than entirely similar to the climate pre-1970? Take the means and 2 SDs of temperatures, rainfall etc and we are completely within the averages. This relentless focus on simply “average” is unscientific.

  12. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    During times of low solar wind magnetic activity, a weakening of the jet current (slowing of the zonal circulation) is observed. Why does this happen? When the solar wind is weak there is an increase in galactic radiation (primary and secondary) at high latitudes. The distribution of this radiation depends closely on the geomagnetic field. Similarly, the distribution of ozone, as a diamagnetic, is highly dependent on the geomagnetic field. The geomagnetic field over the Arctic changes very rapidly. There are two geomagnetic field maxima at the moment, one over northern Canada (weakening rapidly), the other over Siberia (strengthening). Where the geomagnetic field is weaker the concentration of both GCR and ozone increases.
    “A map of cutoff energies as calculated in real time at the University of Bern is shown in this Figure. Red shading at the borders of the map is for regions where protons with energy below 125 MeV can penetrate to the atmosphere (20 km above the ground), while energies above 15 GeV (green colour within the closed contour) are required in equatorial regions above southern Asia. The contours of equal cutoff energy are curved, because the axis of the terrestrial magnetic field is inclined with respect to the rotation axis. Overall one notes that the closer one approaches the magnetic equator, the higher the minimum energy required for cosmic rays to reach the atmosphere. The cutoff energies are higher within the closed contour above southern Asia, because the Earth’s dipole is located somewhat outside the centre of the Earth, closer to southern Asia than to the region on the opposite side of the Earth above the western Atlantic Ocean.”

    The concentration of ozone and GCR in regions of weaker geomagnetic field in high latitudes is responsible for blocking circulation in the lower stratosphere, which is especially important during the winter season.

  13. oldbrew says:

    Graeme – let’s put it this way, they are just being irresponsible in even mentioning such absurd SLR numbers.

  14. Gamecock says:

    Sea level rise is geologic, not weather related. Not only does Man not influence global weather, Man doesn’t affect global geography.

    The volume of the ocean basin is not fixed, nor is it measured. We don’t know what’s going on down there. Claims that Man affects sea level are beyond silly, they are child like.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for Children.

    Fixed it.

  15. Graeme No.3 says:

    Gamecock:
    “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for Child-like minds & politicians.”

    Fixed it.

  16. oldbrew says:

    Astronomical theory of Paleoclimates and the last glacial-interglacial cycle (1992)
    A.L.Berger

    Accordingly, the model predictions for the next 100,000 years are used as a basis for forecasting how climate would evolve when forced by orbital variations in the absence of anthropogenic disturbances: the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 5,000 years [bold added]

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/027737919290014Y

  17. oldbrew says:

    RP reckons over 50% of the IPCC report uses the discredited RCP 8.5 scenario, so that’s half the output straight into the junk science category. Likewise anyone who quotes such stuff is discredited too.

  18. oldbrew says:

    Look! The world’s on fire… 🙄

    AUG 11, 2021.
    College Professor Suspected Of Setting SEVEN Fires In California

    “Agents had installed a tracker on his vehicle,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Anderson wrote in a memo, in which he argued Maynard should remain in custody. “Where Maynard went, fires started. Not just once, but over and over again.”

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/college-professor-suspected-of-setting-seven-fires-in-calif/

  19. oldbrew says:

    You have to laugh…

    Shocking Report! Climate Change Will Destroy Us All! Gads!
    By BRIGGS on AUGUST 9, 2021

    * Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
    * Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years
    * Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

    Oh, did I mention the report was written in the Year of Our Lord 2003?

    And “leaked” to the press in early 2004?

    So, Expert readers, let me ask you this. Has Britain turned Siberian?

    What’s that you say? Speak up. Us non-Experts have a hard time hearing you.

    https://wmbriggs.com/post/36933/

    Guardian 2004: Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

  20. oldbrew says:

    Monitoring the effectiveness, or not, of all those climate-saving(?) renewables 🙄
    Can we see it yet? Or is the trend line getting steeper as more wind and solar are added?

  21. oldbrew says:

    AUG 12, 2021
    Climate Scientists Admit Climate Models Exaggerated Warming

    most computer climate models forecast unrealistic warming — warming not observed anywhere in the real world.
    . . .
    Thus, solid empirical evidence shows that belief in dangerous greenhouse warming is unwarranted, based on faulty computer climate models.

    That scientists working within the IPCC now acknowledge these models’ errors could be the first step for climate science’s return to normalcy — that is, to the skepticism that is a hallmark of science — after decades of adherence to the doomsday narrative.

    But there are obstacles in the way.
    . . .
    Funding for the climate science community flows largely through entities that seek to gain politically from climate fear. This must stop, and academic institutions must no longer function as public relations agencies for fearmongering political narratives.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-scientists-admit-climate-models-exaggerated-warming/

  22. oldbrew says:

    How to Understand the New IPCC Report: Part 1, Scenarios

    Contrary to what you’ve been reading, the massive new IPCC report offers grounds for optimism on climate science and policy

    Roger Pielke Jr.

    Instead of apocalyptic warnings about “immediate risk” a top line message of this report should be: Great News! The Extreme Scenario that IPCC Saw as Most Likely in 2013 is Now Judged Low Likelihood. I am actually floored that this incredible change in such a short time apparently hasn’t even been noticed, much less broadcast around the world.
    . . .
    In fact, the proportion of references to extreme, low likelihood (IPCC words), implausible (our word) scenarios has increased from the 2013 to the 2021 report. In the 2013 report the most extreme scenario represented about 30% of mentions, and in 2021 that jumped to over 40%. Why is the IPCC spending so much time on a scenario judged unlikely and so little time on a scenario judged in line with current policies? This hasn’t been explained.

    The result is a report that appears to have an apocalypse bias.
    . . .
    One day PhD dissertations will be written on how the IPCC got off track in its use of scenarios. But for now, we will have to make sense of it on our own.

    https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-to-understand-the-new-ipcc-report

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