Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

Jack Hays · Aug 7, 2022

HereWeGoAgain said: ↑

B.1. Climate models project robust

differences in regional climate characteristics between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C,and between 1.5°C and 2°C. These differences include increases in: mean temperature in most land and ocean regions (high confidence), hot extremes in most inhabited regions (high confidence), heavy precipitation in several regions (medium confidence), and the probability of drought and precipitation deficits in some regions (medium confidence). {3.3}

B.1.1. Evidence from attributed changes in some climate and weather extremes for a global warming of about 0.5°C supports the assessment that an additional 0.5°C of warming compared to present is associated with further detectable changes in these extremes (medium confidence). Several regional changes in climate are assessed to occur with global warming up to 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial levels, including warming of extreme temperatures in many regions (high confidence), increases in frequency, intensity, and/or amount of heavy precipitation in several regions (high confidence), and an increase in intensity or frequency of droughts in some regions (medium confidence). {3.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, Table 3.2}

B.1.2. Temperature extremes on land are projected to warm more than GMST (high confidence): extreme hot days in mid-latitudes warm by up to about 3°C at global warming of 1.5°C and about 4°C at 2°C, and extreme cold nights in high latitudes warm by up to about 4.5°C at 1.5°C and about 6°C at 2°C (high confidence). The number of hot days is projected to increase in most land regions, with highest increases in the tropics (high confidence). {3.3.1, 3.3.2, Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 3}

B.1.3. Risks from droughts and precipitation deficits are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming in some regions (medium confidence). Risks from heavy precipitation events are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming in several northern hemisphere high-latitude and/or high-elevation regions, eastern Asia and eastern North America (medium confidence). Heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones is projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C global warming (medium confidence). There is generally low confidence in projected changes in heavy precipitation at 2°C compared to 1.5°C in other regions. Heavy precipitation when aggregated at global scale is projected to be higher at 2°C than at 1.5°C of global warming (medium confidence). As a consequence of heavy precipitation, the fraction of the global land area affected by flood hazards is projected to be larger at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming (medium confidence). {3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.6}

B.2. By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be around 0.1 metre lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence). Sea level will continue to rise well beyond 2100 (high confidence), and the magnitude and rate of this rise depend on future emission pathways. A slower rate of sea level rise enables greater opportunities for adaptation in the human and ecological systems of small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas (medium confidence). {3.3, 3.4, 3.6}

B.2.1. Model-based projections of global mean sea level rise (relative to 1986–2005) suggest an indicative range of 0.26 to 0.77 m by 2100 for 1.5°C of global warming, 0.1 m (0.04–0.16 m) less than for a global warming of 2°C (medium confidence). A reduction of 0.1 m in global sea level rise implies that up to 10 million fewer people would be exposed to related risks, based on population in the year 2010 and assuming no adaptation (medium confidence). {3.4.4, 3.4.5, 4.3.2}

B.2.2. Sea level rise will continue beyond 2100 even if global warming is limited to 1.5°C in the 21st century (high confidence). Marine ice sheet instability in Antarctica and/or irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheet could result in multi-metre rise in sea level over hundreds to thousands of years. These instabilities could be triggered at around 1.5°C to 2°C of global warming (medium confidence). (Figure SPM.2) {3.3.9, 3.4.5, 3.5.2, 3.6.3, Box 3.3}

B.2.3. Increasing warming amplifies the exposure of small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas to the risks associated with sea level rise for many human and ecological systems, including increased saltwater intrusion, flooding and damage to infrastructure (high confidence). Risks associated with sea level rise are higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C. The slower rate of sea level rise at global warming of 1.5°C reduces these risks, enabling greater opportunities for adaptation including managing and restoring natural coastal ecosystems and infrastructure reinforcement (medium confidence). (Figure SPM.2) {3.4.5, Box 3.5}

B.3. On land, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including species loss and extinction, are projected to be lower at 1.5°C of global warming compared to 2°C. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C is projected to lower the impacts on terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems and to retain more of their services to humans (high confidence). (Figure SPM.2) {3.4, 3.5, Box 3.4, Box 4.2, Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 3}

B.3.1. Of 105,000 species studied

, 6% of insects, 8% of plants and 4% of vertebrates are projected to lose over half of their climatically determined geographic range for global warming of 1.5°C, compared with 18% of insects, 16% of plants and 8% of vertebrates for global warming of 2°C (medium confidence). Impacts associated with other biodiversity-related risks such as forest fires and the spread of invasive species are lower at 1.5°C compared to 2°C of global warming (high confidence). {3.4.3, 3.5.2}

B.3.2. Approximately 4% (interquartile range 2–7%) of the global terrestrial land area is projected to undergo a transformation of ecosystems from one type to another at 1°C of global warming, compared with 13% (interquartile range 8–20%) at 2°C (medium confidence). This indicates that the area at risk is projected to be approximately 50% lower at 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence). {3.4.3.1, 3.4.3.5}

B.3.3. High-latitude tundra and boreal forests are particularly at risk of climate change-induced degradation and loss, with woody shrubs already encroaching into the tundra (high confidence) and this will proceed with further warming. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C rather than 2°C is projected to prevent the thawing over centuries of a permafrost area in the range of 1.5 to 2.5 million km2 (medium confidence). {3.3.2, 3.4.3, 3.5.5}

B.4. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2ºC is projected to reduce increases in ocean temperature as well as associated increases in ocean acidity and decreases in ocean oxygen levels (high confidence). Consequently, limiting global warming to 1.5°C is projected to reduce risks to marine biodiversity, fisheries, and ecosystems, and their functions and services to humans, as illustrated by recent changes to Arctic sea ice and warm-water coral reef ecosystems (high confidence). {3.3, 3.4, 3.5, Box 3.4, Box 3.5}

B.4.1. There is high confidence that the probability of a sea ice-free Arctic Ocean during summer is substantially lower at global warming of 1.5°C when compared to 2°C. With 1.5°C of global warming, one sea ice-free Arctic summer is projected per century. This likelihood is increased to at least one per decade with 2°C global warming. Effects of a temperature overshoot are reversible for Arctic sea ice cover on decadal time scales (high confidence). {3.3.8, 3.4.4.7}

B.4.2. Global warming of 1.5°C is projected to shift the ranges of many marine species to higher latitudes as well as increase the amount of damage to many ecosystems. It is also expected to drive the loss of coastal resources and reduce the productivity of fisheries and aquaculture (especially at low latitudes). The risks of climate-induced impacts are projected to be higher at 2°C than those at global warming of 1.5°C (high confidence). Coral reefs, for example, are projected to decline by a further 70–90% at 1.5°C (high confidence) with larger losses (>99%) at 2ºC (very high confidence). The risk of irreversible loss of many marine and coastal ecosystems increases with global warming, especially at 2°C or more (high confidence). {3.4.4, Box 3.4}

B.4.3. The level of ocean acidification due to increasing CO2 concentrations associated with global warming of 1.5°C is projected to amplify the adverse effects of warming, and even further at 2°C, impacting the growth, development, calcification, survival, and thus abundance of a broad range of species, for example, from algae to fish (high confidence). {3.3.10, 3.4.4}

B.4.4. Impacts of climate change in the ocean are increasing risks to fisheries and aquaculture via impacts on the physiology, survivorship, habitat, reproduction, disease incidence, and risk of invasive species (medium confidence) but are projected to be less at 1.5ºC of global warming than at 2ºC. One global fishery model, for example, projected a decrease in global annual catch for marine fisheries of about 1.5 million tonnes for 1.5°C of global warming compared to a loss of more than 3 million tonnes for 2°C of global warming (medium confidence). {3.4.4, Box 3.4}
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
Click to expand...

Model blather.

Jack Hays · Aug 7, 2022

HereWeGoAgain said: ↑

B.5. Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C. (Figure SPM.2) {3.4, 3.5, 5.2, Box 3.2, Box 3.3, Box 3.5, Box 3.6, Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 3, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 4, Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 5, 5.2}

B.5.1. Populations at disproportionately higher risk of adverse consequences with global warming of 1.5°C and beyond include disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, some indigenous peoples, and local communities dependent on agricultural or coastal livelihoods (high confidence). Regions at disproportionately higher risk include Arctic ecosystems, dryland regions, small island developing states, and Least Developed Countries (high confidence). Poverty and disadvantage are expected to increase in some populations as global warming increases; limiting global warming to 1.5°C, compared with 2°C, could reduce the number of people both exposed to climate-related risks and susceptible to poverty by up to several hundred million by 2050 (medium confidence). {3.4.10, 3.4.11, Box 3.5, Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 3, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 4, Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 5, 4.2.2.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.6.3}

B.5.2. Any increase in global warming is projected to affect human health, with primarily negative consequences (high confidence). Lower risks are projected at 1.5°C than at 2°C for heat-related morbidity and mortality (very high confidence) and for ozone-related mortality if emissions needed for ozone formation remain high (high confidence). Urban heat islands often amplify the impacts of heatwaves in cities (high confidence). Risks from some vector-borne diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever, are projected to increase with warming from 1.5°C to 2°C, including potential shifts in their geographic range (high confidence). {3.4.7, 3.4.8, 3.5.5.8}

B.5.3. Limiting warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C is projected to result in smaller net reductions in yields of maize, rice, wheat, and potentially other cereal crops, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central and South America, and in the CO2-dependent nutritional quality of rice and wheat (high confidence). Reductions in projected food availability are larger at 2°C than at 1.5°C of global warming in the Sahel, southern Africa, the Mediterranean, central Europe, and the Amazon (medium confidence). Livestock are projected to be adversely affected with rising temperatures, depending on the extent of changes in feed quality, spread of diseases, and water resource availability (high confidence). {3.4.6, 3.5.4, 3.5.5, Box 3.1, Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 3, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 4}

B.5.4. Depending on future socio-economic conditions, limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C may reduce the proportion of the world population exposed to a climate change-induced increase in water stress by up to 50%, although there is considerable variability between regions (medium confidence). Many small island developing states could experience lower water stress as a result of projected changes in aridity when global warming is limited to 1.5°C, as compared to 2°C (medium confidence). {3.3.5, 3.4.2, 3.4.8, 3.5.5, Box 3.2, Box 3.5, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 4}

B.5.5. Risks to global aggregated economic growth due to climate change impacts are projected to be lower at 1.5°C than at 2°C by the end of this century

(medium confidence). This excludes the costs of mitigation, adaptation investments and the benefits of adaptation. Countries in the tropics and Southern Hemisphere subtropics are projected to experience the largest impacts on economic growth due to climate change should global warming increase from 1.5°C to 2°C (medium confidence). {3.5.2, 3.5.3}

B.5.6. Exposure to multiple and compound climate-related risks increases between 1.5°C and 2°C of global warming, with greater proportions of people both so exposed and susceptible to poverty in Africa and Asia (high confidence). For global warming from 1.5°C to 2°C, risks across energy, food, and water sectors could overlap spatially and temporally, creating new and exacerbating current hazards, exposures, and vulnerabilities that could affect increasing numbers of people and regions (medium confidence). {Box 3.5, 3.3.1, 3.4.5.3, 3.4.5.6, 3.4.11, 3.5.4.9}

B.5.7. There are multiple lines of evidence that since AR5 the assessed levels of risk increased for four of the five Reasons for Concern (RFCs) for global warming to 2°C (high confidence). The risk transitions by degrees of global warming are now: from high to very high risk between 1.5°C and 2°C for RFC1 (Unique and threatened systems) (high confidence); from moderate to high risk between 1°C and 1.5°C for RFC2 (Extreme weather events) (medium confidence); from moderate to high risk between 1.5°C and 2°C for RFC3 (Distribution of impacts) (high confidence); from moderate to high risk between 1.5°C and 2.5°C for RFC4 (Global aggregate impacts) (medium confidence); and from moderate to high risk between 1°C and 2.5°C for RFC5 (Large-scale singular events) (medium confidence). (Figure SPM.2) {3.4.13; 3.5, 3.5.2}
Click to expand...

More model blather.

Bullseye · Aug 7, 2022

HereWeGoAgain said: ↑

C.1. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). For limiting global warming to below 2°C

CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 25% by 2030 in most pathways (10–30% interquartile range) and reach net zero around 2070 (2065–2080 interquartile range). Non-CO2 emissions in pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C show deep reductions that are similar to those in pathways limiting warming to 2°C. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.3a) {2.1, 2.3, Table 2.4}

C.1.1. CO2 emissions reductions that limit global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot can involve different portfolios of mitigation measures, striking different balances between lowering energy and resource intensity, rate of decarbonization, and the reliance on carbon dioxide removal. Different portfolios face different implementation challenges and potential synergies and trade-offs with sustainable development. (high confidence). (Figure SPM.3b) {2.3.2, 2.3.4, 2.4, 2.5.3}

C.1.2. Modelled pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot involve deep reductions in emissions of methane and black carbon (35% or more of both by 2050 relative to 2010). These pathways also reduce most of the cooling aerosols, which partially offsets mitigation effects for two to three decades. Non-CO2 emissions

can be reduced as a result of broad mitigation measures in the energy sector. In addition, targeted non-CO2 mitigation measures can reduce nitrous oxide and methane from agriculture, methane from the waste sector, some sources of black carbon, and hydrofluorocarbons. High bioenergy demand can increase emissions of nitrous oxide in some 1.5°C pathways, highlighting the importance of appropriate management approaches. Improved air quality resulting from projected reductions in many non-CO2 emissions provide direct and immediate population health benefits in all 1.5°C model pathways. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.3a) {2.2.1, 2.3.3, 2.4.4, 2.5.3, 4.3.6, 5.4.2}

C.1.3. Limiting global warming requires limiting the total cumulative global anthropogenic emissions of CO2 since the pre-industrial period, that is, staying within a total carbon budget (high confidence).

By the end of 2017, anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the pre-industrial period are estimated to have reduced the total carbon budget for 1.5°C by approximately 2200 ± 320 GtCO2 (medium confidence). The associated remaining budget is being depleted by current emissions of 42 ± 3 GtCO2 per year (high confidence). The choice of the measure of global temperature affects the estimated remaining carbon budget. Using global mean surface air temperature, as in AR5, gives an estimate of the remaining carbon budget of 580 GtCO2 for a 50% probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and 420 GtCO2 for a 66% probability (medium confidence).Alternatively, using GMST gives estimates of 770 and 570 GtCO2, for 50% and 66% probabilities,respectively (medium confidence). Uncertainties in the size of these estimated remaining carbon budgets are substantial and depend on several factors. Uncertainties in the climate response to CO2 and non-CO2 emissions contribute ±400 GtCO2 and the level of historic warming contributes ±250 GtCO2 (medium confidence). Potential additional carbon release from future permafrost thawing and methane release from wetlands would reduce budgets by up to 100 GtCO2 over the course of this century and more thereafter (medium confidence). In addition, the level of non-CO2 mitigation in the future could alter the remaining carbon budget by 250 GtCO2 in either direction (medium confidence). {1.2.4, 2.2.2, 2.6.1, Table 2.2, Chapter 2 Supplementary Material}

C.1.4. Solar radiation modification (SRM) measures are not included in any of the available assessed pathways. Although some SRM measures may be theoretically effective in reducing an overshoot, they face large uncertainties and knowledge gaps as well as substantial risks and institutional and social constraints to deployment related to governance, ethics, and impacts on sustainable development. They also do not mitigate ocean acidification. (medium confidence). {4.3.8, Cross-Chapter Box 10 in Chapter 4}
Click to expand...

Are you planning to post anything other than C & P?

HereWeGoAgain · Aug 7, 2022

HereWeGoAgain said: ↑

C.1. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). For limiting global warming to below 2°C

CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 25% by 2030 in most pathways (10–30% interquartile range) and reach net zero around 2070 (2065–2080 interquartile range). Non-CO2 emissions in pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C show deep reductions that are similar to those in pathways limiting warming to 2°C. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.3a) {2.1, 2.3, Table 2.4}

C.1.1. CO2 emissions reductions that limit global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot can involve different portfolios of mitigation measures, striking different balances between lowering energy and resource intensity, rate of decarbonization, and the reliance on carbon dioxide removal. Different portfolios face different implementation challenges and potential synergies and trade-offs with sustainable development. (high confidence). (Figure SPM.3b) {2.3.2, 2.3.4, 2.4, 2.5.3}

C.1.2. Modelled pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot involve deep reductions in emissions of methane and black carbon (35% or more of both by 2050 relative to 2010). These pathways also reduce most of the cooling aerosols, which partially offsets mitigation effects for two to three decades. Non-CO2 emissions

can be reduced as a result of broad mitigation measures in the energy sector. In addition, targeted non-CO2 mitigation measures can reduce nitrous oxide and methane from agriculture, methane from the waste sector, some sources of black carbon, and hydrofluorocarbons. High bioenergy demand can increase emissions of nitrous oxide in some 1.5°C pathways, highlighting the importance of appropriate management approaches. Improved air quality resulting from projected reductions in many non-CO2 emissions provide direct and immediate population health benefits in all 1.5°C model pathways. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.3a) {2.2.1, 2.3.3, 2.4.4, 2.5.3, 4.3.6, 5.4.2}

C.1.3. Limiting global warming requires limiting the total cumulative global anthropogenic emissions of CO2 since the pre-industrial period, that is, staying within a total carbon budget (high confidence).

By the end of 2017, anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the pre-industrial period are estimated to have reduced the total carbon budget for 1.5°C by approximately 2200 ± 320 GtCO2 (medium confidence). The associated remaining budget is being depleted by current emissions of 42 ± 3 GtCO2 per year (high confidence). The choice of the measure of global temperature affects the estimated remaining carbon budget. Using global mean surface air temperature, as in AR5, gives an estimate of the remaining carbon budget of 580 GtCO2 for a 50% probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and 420 GtCO2 for a 66% probability (medium confidence).Alternatively, using GMST gives estimates of 770 and 570 GtCO2, for 50% and 66% probabilities,respectively (medium confidence). Uncertainties in the size of these estimated remaining carbon budgets are substantial and depend on several factors. Uncertainties in the climate response to CO2 and non-CO2 emissions contribute ±400 GtCO2 and the level of historic warming contributes ±250 GtCO2 (medium confidence). Potential additional carbon release from future permafrost thawing and methane release from wetlands would reduce budgets by up to 100 GtCO2 over the course of this century and more thereafter (medium confidence). In addition, the level of non-CO2 mitigation in the future could alter the remaining carbon budget by 250 GtCO2 in either direction (medium confidence). {1.2.4, 2.2.2, 2.6.1, Table 2.2, Chapter 2 Supplementary Material}

C.1.4. Solar radiation modification (SRM) measures are not included in any of the available assessed pathways. Although some SRM measures may be theoretically effective in reducing an overshoot, they face large uncertainties and knowledge gaps as well as substantial risks and institutional and social constraints to deployment related to governance, ethics, and impacts on sustainable development. They also do not mitigate ocean acidification. (medium confidence). {4.3.8, Cross-Chapter Box 10 in Chapter 4}
Click to expand...

Sunsettommy · Aug 9, 2022

Page 20 and still no climate emergency to talk about and post one article CONTENT continues to be avoided in sheer terror by warmist/alarmists the world over.

Post one article is unchallenged and still stands on its hard evidence presented.

Jack Hays · Aug 9, 2022

The Jet Stream is healthy.
Models, Climate Scientists Wrong Again…New Study Finds Jet Stream Strengthening, Not Weakening
By P Gosselin on 9. August 2022

Share this...
Alarmist climate research centers like the Potsdam Institute and the unquestioning media have been claiming for years that the Jet Stream is weakening, hence this would lead to greater weather extremes across the northern hemisphere due to blocking. Responsible for this of course is man-made global warming.

Hat-tip: The Klimaschau

But a recent paper by Samantha Hallam et al published in the journal Climate Dynamics looks at the seasonal to decadal variations in Northern Hemisphere jet stream latitude and speed over land for the period 1871–2011. The authors were unable to find any weakening of the sort climate alarmists have been warning about.

Quite to the contrary, the authors in fact found that the winter jet stream over the North Atlantic and Eurasia has increased in average speed by 8% to 132 mph. The authors found the 141-year trends in jet latitude and speed show differences on a regional basis and that jet speed shows significant increases evident in winter (up to 4.7 ms −1 ), spring and autumn over the North Atlantic, Eurasia and North America. Over the North Pacific, no increase was observed.

Source: Figure 9, Climate Dynamics.

Moreover, the Jet Stream was found to have shifted northward by some 330 kilometers. Overall, the paper’s findings contradict the claims of a weakening jet Stream regularly made by the climate alarmists and their media minions.

Applying climate alarmist science, we’d have to conclude now, due to the strengthening Jet Stream, less weather extremes should be expected. This would be good news of course. But don’t expect the fear-porn media to look at this.

HereWeGoAgain · Aug 12, 2022

The main panel shows global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions in pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited (less than 0.1°C) overshoot and pathways with higher overshoot. The shaded area shows the full range for pathways analysed in this Report. The panels on the right show non-CO2 emissions ranges for three compounds with large historical forcing and a substantial portion of emissions coming from sources distinct from those central to CO2 mitigation. Shaded areas in these panels show the 5–95% (light shading) and interquartile (dark shading) ranges of pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot. Box and whiskers at the bottom of the figure show the timing of pathways reaching global net zero CO2 emission levels, and a comparison with pathways limiting global warming to 2°C with at least 66% probability. Four illustrative model pathways are highlighted in the main panel and are labelled P1, P2, P3 and P4, corresponding to the LED, S1, S2, and S5 pathways assessed in Chapter 2. Descriptions and characteristics of these pathways are available in Figure SPM.3b. {2.1, 2.2, 2.3, Figure 2.5, Figure 2.10, Figure 2.11}
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

(original)late · Aug 12, 2022

What paid trolls do is try to create the appearance of controversy, where none exists.

Big Tobacco invented the strategy when they were trying to dodge the lung cancer bullet. They knew better, Big Oil has known better since the 1970s..

They are going to kill billions, wipe out many thousands of species, and crash civilisation.

"I wouldn't let them, if I were you."

HereWeGoAgain · Aug 12, 2022

HereWeGoAgain said: ↑

The main panel shows global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions in pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited (less than 0.1°C) overshoot and pathways with higher overshoot. The shaded area shows the full range for pathways analysed in this Report. The panels on the right show non-CO2 emissions ranges for three compounds with large historical forcing and a substantial portion of emissions coming from sources distinct from those central to CO2 mitigation. Shaded areas in these panels show the 5–95% (light shading) and interquartile (dark shading) ranges of pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot. Box and whiskers at the bottom of the figure show the timing of pathways reaching global net zero CO2 emission levels, and a comparison with pathways limiting global warming to 2°C with at least 66% probability. Four illustrative model pathways are highlighted in the main panel and are labelled P1, P2, P3 and P4, corresponding to the LED, S1, S2, and S5 pathways assessed in Chapter 2. Descriptions and characteristics of these pathways are available in Figure SPM.3b. {2.1, 2.2, 2.3, Figure 2.5, Figure 2.10, Figure 2.11}
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
Click to expand...

Characteristics of four illustrative model pathways in relation to global warming of 1.5°C introduced in Figure SPM.3a. These pathways were selected to show a range of potential mitigation approaches and vary widely in their projected energy and land use, as well as their assumptions about future socio-economic developments, including economic and population growth, equity and sustainability. A breakdown of the global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions into the contributions in terms of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and industry; agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU); and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is shown. AFOLU estimates reported here are not necessarily comparable with countries’ estimates. Further characteristics for each of these pathways are listed below each pathway. These pathways illustrate relative global differences in mitigation strategies, but do not represent central estimates, national strategies, and do not indicate requirements. For comparison, the right-most column shows the interquartile ranges across pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C. Pathways P1, P2, P3 and P4 correspond to the LED, S1, S2, and S5 pathways assessed in Chapter 2 (Figure SPM.3a). {2.2.1, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.4, 2.5.3, Figure 2.5, Figure 2.6, Figure 2.9, Figure 2.10, Figure 2.11, Figure 2.14, Figure 2.15, Figure 2.16, Figure 2.17, Figure 2.24, Figure 2.25, Table 2.4, Table 2.6, Table 2.7, Table 2.9, Table 4.1}
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

Sunsettommy · Aug 12, 2022

It appears that warmist/alarmists can't answer a simple question posed at POST ONE which asked:

Where is the climate emergency?

The replies have been insultingly dismissive, trolling, fallacies and threadjacking all the while the question gets ignored.

It is clear there is NO climate emergency at all since after 20 pages warmist/alarmists never once addressed the CONTENT of Post one article.

The climate in my region is the same today as it was in 1964 and people are satisfied with their lives there as it had quadrupled in population since 1964 Americans have for many decades made it clear they prefer to live in the warmer areas of America look at Pheonix, Las Vegas, Palm Springs, Miami and so on cities growing in some of the hottest areas of America while the Northern states population grows much slower as it is less warm there.

Climate emergency exists only in the brainwashed warmist/alarmist suckers and dishonest political circles who are trying hard to be planetary saviors egged on the chronically lying Media who has a long history of manufacturing scenarios that doesn't exist.

Pieces of Malarkey · Aug 12, 2022

Sunsettommy said: ↑

It appears that warmist/alarmists can't answer a simple question posed at POST ONE which asked:

Where is the climate emergency?

The replies have been insultingly dismissive, trolling, fallacies and threadjacking all the while the question gets ignored.

It is clear there is NO climate emergency at all since after 20 pages warmist/alarmists never once addressed the CONTENT of Post one article.

The climate in my region is the same today as it was in 1964 and people are satisfied with their lives there as it had quadrupled in population since 1964 Americans have for many decades made it clear they prefer to live in the warmer areas of America look at Pheonix, Las Vegas, Palm Springs, Miami and so on cities growing in some of the hottest areas of America while the Northern states population grows much slower as it is less warm there.

Climate emergency exists only in the brainwashed warmist/alarmist suckers and dishonest political circles who are trying hard to be planetary saviors egged on the chronically lying Media who has a long history of manufacturing scenarios that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Of course there isn't. There isn't a rational argument for "climate change".

Sunsettommy · Aug 14, 2022

Human generated problem being blamed on the nebulous phrase Climate Change a gigantic lie the miserable media made.

Real Climate Science

The Press Vs. Science
Posted on August 14, 2022 by tonyheller

The press says the Great Salt Lake is shrinking due to the burning of fossil fuels.

(Snip)

Scientists say that isn’t true.

Utah's Great Salt Lake has lost half its water, thanks to thirsty humans
New study suggests consumption—not climate change—is to blame for falling water levels

3 NOV 2017

BYSARAH DEROUIN

LINK

No climate emergency here.

Jack Hays · Aug 15, 2022

As expected, the rainfall in Kentucky is not unprecedented.
Were Kentucky’s Floods Caused By Climate Change?
EXTREME WEATHER AUGUST 15, 2022
Trends in extreme rainfall are not on the rise in Kentucky:

https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/ky/

modernpaladin · Aug 15, 2022

Moonglow said: ↑

The storm of climate change over the next one thousand years...
Click to expand...

You mean the thawing of more permafrost into more arable land?

Sunsettommy · Aug 15, 2022

Jack Hays said: ↑

As expected, the rainfall in Kentucky is not unprecedented.
Were Kentucky’s Floods Caused By Climate Change?
EXTREME WEATHER AUGUST 15, 2022
Trends in extreme rainfall are not on the rise in Kentucky:

https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/ky/
Click to expand...

Yeah, a simple check in actual data shows that the Media is lying again which should have long ago taught people to stop relying on them and look it up for themselves instead which is what Independent Free-Thinking people normally do.

Sunsettommy · Aug 15, 2022

modernpaladin said: ↑

You mean the thawing of more permafrost into more arable land?
Click to expand...

Permafrost used to be in Illinois, N and S Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, New York, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and more down to around the 42-45 degrees North latitude and it was similar in Europe and Asia too.

Yet people today go bananas over a small Permafrost melt that is already in the far north and the world never died off from the supposed torrential Methane release over thousands of years as the Permafrost line receded to the north.

bringiton · Aug 17, 2022

(original)late said: ↑

What paid trolls do is try to create the appearance of controversy, where none exists.
Click to expand...

What gaslighters do is tell you that facts you know from your own experience are not reality. The claim that no controversy exists on the question of CO2's effect on global surface temperature is therefore flat-out gaslighting.

Big Tobacco invented the strategy when they were trying to dodge the lung cancer bullet.
Click to expand...

That is a fallacious, disingenuous, and even bizarre attempt to claim guilt by association in the absence of any actual association.

They knew better, Big Oil has known better since the 1970s.
Click to expand...

Baldly false.

They are going to kill billions, wipe out many thousands of species, and crash civilisation.
Click to expand...

Absurd hysteria mongering.

bringiton · Aug 17, 2022

Pieces of Malarkey said: ↑

Of course there isn't. There isn't a rational argument for "climate change".
Click to expand...

More accurately, there isn't a rational argument for climate change that was never caused by CO2 from fossil fuels before to somehow be caused by CO2 from fossil fuels this time.

Pieces of Malarkey · Aug 17, 2022

bringiton said: ↑

More accurately, there isn't a rational argument for climate change that was never caused by CO2 from fossil fuels before to somehow be caused by CO2 from fossil fuels this time.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Sunsettommy · Aug 24, 2022

3 weeks later still ZERO answer to the Post 1 article, the terror of it must be paralyzing.

Where is the Climate Emergency?

Even the Cut and Paste master couldn't answer a simple question as he was too busy posting off topic drivel that doesn't address post one at all which means he doesn't have the answer either.

This is the greatest fly paper article I have even seem one that so totally reduces warmist/alarmists into making chronic off topic drivel and avoid the simple question completely because they know in the corner of their heads that they can't address the evidence in post one article.

Post one article remains unaddressed and unchallenged

Sunsettommy · Aug 25, 2022

There is a growing body of scientists who have signed a declaration that there is NO Climate Emergency, 1,107 signed this 38-page declaration,

World Climate Declaration LINK

There is no climate emergency Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming. The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted. The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2 mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.

LINK

bringiton · Aug 25, 2022

Sunsettommy said: ↑

There is a growing body of scientists who have signed a declaration that there is NO Climate Emergency, 1,107 signed this 38-page declaration
Click to expand...

A breath of reason. Thank you for posting this. The scientists and other professionals who signed this declaration are going to enjoy some of the biggest I-told-you-so rights in academia. Count on it.

Sunsettommy · Sep 28, 2022

Then we have this from 20 years ago:

Global Warming Petition Project

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

LINK

Jack Hays · Nov 3, 2022

The tide is turning.

Coverage of Climate Shifts As More Scientists Admit to Problems with RCP8.5
ALARMIST MESSENGERS/CLAIMS NOVEMBER 3, 2022

Sunsettommy · Nov 3, 2022

Jack Hays said: ↑

The tide is turning.

Coverage of Climate Shifts As More Scientists Admit to Problems with RCP8.5
ALARMIST MESSENGERS/CLAIMS NOVEMBER 3, 2022

Click to expand...

The use of RCP was a very stupid idea as it is impossible for it to happen based on the already dead AGW conjecture.

It has been just above RCP 2.6 most of the time.....

Log in or Sign up

Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

Bullseye Well-Known Member

HereWeGoAgain Banned

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

HereWeGoAgain Banned

(original)late Banned

HereWeGoAgain Banned

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Pieces of Malarkey Well-Known Member

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

bringiton Well-Known Member

bringiton Well-Known Member

Pieces of Malarkey Well-Known Member

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

bringiton Well-Known Member

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

Bullseye Well-Known Member

HereWeGoAgain Banned

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

HereWeGoAgain Banned

(original)late Banned

HereWeGoAgain Banned

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Pieces of Malarkey Well-Known Member

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

bringiton Well-Known Member

bringiton Well-Known Member

Pieces of Malarkey Well-Known Member

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

bringiton Well-Known Member

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches