Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

You are talking in circles.

 

Post one article continues to be unchallenged and there is still no Climate Emergency ongoing either which is too bad for the climate hysteria cult to handle which is why they can't handle evidence and reality all around them and surely, they must be in steep gloom not seeing dozens of hurricanes swirling around the Atlantic these days while they continue to ignore the lack of landfalling major hurricanes that lasted about 12 years.

The climate in my area is the same today as it was in 1964 when I moved there still the usual hot and dry summer weather comes nearly every day but soon there will be some signs of fall weather creeping in as the middle of August is coming up.

 

Atlantic Hurricane season off to a slow start no climate emergency here.



===

Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity for 2022 (2022/2023 for the Southern Hemisphere)

Colorado State University LINK

===

ACE is well below average in the North Atlantic Ocean just more evidence of no climate emergency showing up I know that warmist/alarmists are rolled up in a fetal ball this year over it which is why they jump on any small hot days which is a WEATHER event to compensate which is a sign of suffering from climate cultism disease.

 

Tornado season below average once again for 2022:

Accuweather

Tornado reports slip below normal in 2022 after robust start to season
Tornado activity began to slow down during a month that is typically the most active of the year. Not only are numbers lower than in 2021, another trend that has developed over recent decades has been observed this year.

LINK

===

No climate emergency brewing here either oh what a bad year for climate cultists!

 

That is not a valid measure of the problem. Nor are your cherry-picked examples that ignore science

Next?

 

Technology has changed but.... That's a very big but that you ignore

 

Haw haw haw haw haw haw, you just like the others in the thread make blanket assertions without evidence and avoid the evidence from the NOAA, Satellite Data, EMDAT, NASA and more in the article.

Post One article remains unchallenged

 

Global temperature has fallen since 2016.

 

No climate emergency there just another meaningless chart based on modeling constructs it is boring!

No one is disputing the warming.

Post one article remains unchallenged there is still no climate emergency shown.

 

Global temperature has fallen since 2016.

 

Here we go again with another meaningless chart since it doesn't challenge Post one article at all.

No one is disputing the warming.

Post one article is STILL unchallenged and unaddressed at all, wonder why warmist/alarmists are so afraid of the article?

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_TechnicalSummary.pdf

 

YAWN, still no response to Post one article and that you have COMPLETELY avoided the question which is the title of the thread:

Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

You are also avoiding Posts 453 and 454 which shows no climate emergency from Tornadoes and Hurricanes trends.

 

High concept arm waving.

 

Bloomberg Is Right, the Hurricane Season Is Off to a Slow Start
EXTREME WEATHER AUGUST 5, 2022

 

So lets provide everyone with an introduction to real science

Page 1
Introduction

A.1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming

above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}


A.1.1. Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)

higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table 1.1, 1.2.4}


A.1.2. Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence) {1.2.1, 1.2.2, Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2}

A.1.3. Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence). This assessment is based on several lines of evidence, including attribution studies for changes in extremes since 1950. {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3}

A.2. Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence), but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C (medium confidence). (Figure SPM.1) {1.2, 3.3, Figure 1.5}

A.2.1. Anthropogenic emissions (including greenhouse gases, aerosols and their precursors) up to the present are unlikely to cause further warming of more than 0.5°C over the next two to three decades (high confidence) or on a century time scale (medium confidence). {1.2.4, Figure 1.5}

A.2.2. Reaching and sustaining net zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and declining net non-CO2 radiative forcing would halt anthropogenic global warming on multi-decadal times cales (high confidence). The maximum temperature reached is then determined by cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions up to the time of net zero CO2 emissions (high confidence) and the level of non-CO2 radiative forcing in the decades prior to the time that maximum temperatures are reached (medium confidence). On longer time scales, sustained net negative global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and/or further reductions in non-CO2 radiative forcing may still be required to prevent further warming due to Earth system feedbacks and to reverse ocean acidification (medium confidence) and will be required to minimize sea level rise (high confidence). {Cross-Chapter Box 2 in Chapter 1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, Figure 1.4, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 3.4.4.8, 3.4.5.1, 3.6.3.2}

A.3. Climate-related risks for natural and human systems are higher for global warming of 1.5°C than at present, but lower than at 2°C (high confidence). These risks depend on the magnitude and rate of warming, geographic location, levels of development and vulnerability, and on the choices and implementation of adaptation and mitigation options (high confidence). (Figure SPM.2) {1.3, 3.3, 3.4, 5.6}

A.3.1. Impacts on natural and human systems from global warming have already been observed (high confidence). Many land and ocean ecosystems and some of the services they provide have already changed due to global warming (high confidence). (Figure SPM.2) {1.4, 3.4, 3.5}

A.3.2. Future climate-related risks depend on the rate, peak and duration of warming. In the aggregate, they are larger if global warming exceeds 1.5°C before returning to that level by 2100 than if global warming gradually stabilizes at 1.5°C, especially if the peak temperature is high (e.g., about 2°C) (high confidence). Some impacts may be long-lasting or irreversible, such as the loss of some ecosystems (high confidence). {3.2, 3.4.4, 3.6.3, Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 3}

A.3.3. Adaptation and mitigation are already occurring (high confidence). Future climate-related risks would be reduced by the upscaling and acceleration of far-reaching, multilevel and cross-sectoral climate mitigation and by both incremental and transformational adaptation (high confidence). {1.2, 1.3, Table 3.5, 4.2.2, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 4, Box 4.2, Box 4.3, Box 4.6, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, 4.4.1, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, 4.5.3}
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

 

A cut and paste master hath arrived!

He can't answer a simple question,

Where is the climate emergency?

 

Except it's not real science.
--How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted
--Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic
--Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776

 

Another cut and paste reply which doesn't address post one article whose title is,

Where is the climate emergency?

This cut and paste artist apparently has no answers to post one which continues to be unchallenged,

 

Panel a: Observed monthly global mean surface temperature (GMST, grey line up to 2017, from the HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, Cowtan–Way, and NOAA datasets) change and estimated anthropogenic global warming (solid orange line up to 2017, with orange shading indicating assessed likely range). Orange dashed arrow and horizontal orange error bar show respectively the central estimate and likely range of the time at which 1.5°C is reached if the current rate of warming continues. The grey plume on the right of panel a shows the likely range of warming responses, computed with a simple climate model, to a stylized pathway (hypothetical future) in which net CO2 emissions (grey line in panels b and c) decline in a straight line from 2020 to reach net zero in 2055 and net non-CO2 radiative forcing (grey line in panel d) increases to 2030 and then declines. The blue plume in panel a) shows the response to faster CO2 emissions reductions (blue line in panel b), reaching net zero in 2040, reducing cumulative CO2 emissions (panel c). The purple plume shows the response to net CO2 emissions declining to zero in 2055, with net non-CO2 forcing remaining constant after 2030. The vertical error bars on right of panel a) show the likely ranges (thin lines) and central terciles (33rd – 66th percentiles, thick lines) of the estimated distribution of warming in 2100 under these three stylized pathways. Vertical dotted error bars in panels b, c and d show the likely range of historical annual and cumulative global net CO2 emissions in 2017 (data from the Global Carbon Project) and of net non-CO2 radiative forcing in 2011 from AR5, respectively. Vertical axes in panels c and d are scaled to represent approximately equal effects on GMST. {1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 2.3, Figure 1.2 and Chapter 1 Supplementary Material, Cross-Chapter Box 2 in Chapter 1}

An interactive version of the SPM.1 figure has been designed and produced by Stuart Jenkins and Myles Allen, Department of Physics and Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, with support from the UK Natural Environment Research Council. To view this figure please click this link SPM.1: Interactive Figure
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

 

Yawn still no evidence of climate emergency presented just the usual cut and paste of climate models.

Hurricanes are down LINK

Major Hurricane Frequency LINK



Wildfires are down NASA data LINK



Cooling for over 6 years LINK



Deaths from climate related events dropped over 90% since 1920



Worldwide drought is declining LINK from Nature



Large temperature swings with no CO2 swings for the first 1800 years.



No indication of climate emergency brewing here.

Can easily post more like this to show there is NO climate emergency building up at all.

Post one article remains unchallenged

 

Herewegoagain isn't even on topic since all he does is post modeling constructs which doesn't address the question at all,

Where is the climate emergency?

He ignored posts 453 and 454 because he doesn't know the answer at all which is why he is desperately posting a bunch of cut and paste modeling constructs hoping I fall for his attempt to create a false trail away from the topic which once again,

Where is the climate emergency?

If this is the best warmist/alarmists can do, then they have no answer to offer and have lost the debate since they are AVOIDING it completely maybe because they are TERRIFIED of the question and of post one article CONTENT they constantly avoid.

It is truly amazing!

 

And this they will ignore because the increase is negligible:

===

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation."


"The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"

LINK

===

Warmist/alarmists have no idea how small the postulated warm forcing of CO2 by itself.