Climate Change , A Final Warning

How many "final warnings" is this now?

Why is it the threats of doom and gloom climate alarmists always rant about never come to pass?

Could it be we're being lied to?

 

As far as I know this is the only "final warning" for the 1.5C warming threshold. I know of no other IPCC publication that focuses on 1.5C as a milestone that we are quickly approaching.

There will be more "final warnings" though. I suspect we'll see them for 2.0C, 2.5C, etc. assuming humans continue down the business-as-usual pathway.

I should point out that many scientists disagree with the IPCC publishing SR15. Not because they are against notifying the public of certain warming thresholds, but because many think capping the warming at 1.5C is no longer a realistic option. That kinda makes SR15 a dollar short and a day late they say.

 

somewhere between 6 amd 10 I suspect

 

You're right. They don't have perfect understanding. They never will. But they are improving their knowledge base and have accumulated a huge amount of evidence that gives them confidence that the fundamental concepts and principals are well understood. This is actually the state of affairs with all scientific disciplines. If you don't like it then you're likely going to be very dissatisfied with science in general.

 

Can you show me 6 publications from the IPCC in which they have focused on this 1.5C warming target and the remediation steps necessary to prevent the Earth from warming beyond that point?

 

The IPCC is not the only game in town

But libs do seem to be getting desperate either as a tactic or because they are victims of their own bs

 

Any "Final Warning" is pointless bluster and a bit too late regardless, we have already crossed a few tipping points so perhaps warning is the wrong wording.

 

So is it safe to say that you are upset that different groups who may not be aware of the other's work are publishing similar things?

 

There's truth to this. Afterall no one really understands why the IPCC holds on to the illusion that the lower bound of warming from a doubling of CO2 is only 1.5C. We aren't even 50% of the way to a doubling yet and we've already warmed by 1.0C and that's without the tipping point feedbacks which the IPCC largely ignores and the suppressive effect of human aerosols and reduced solar radiation which are temporary.

 

They are all aware of each others work and rely on the same rigged computer models

 

Do tell... I have a word too.. I call it fantasy.

 

If this is what you really believe then you need to read the IPCC AR5 report. If you think this is all based on computer models then you're perfectly setup for a huge wake-up call. Afterall, I'm pretty sure Callendar didn't have a digital computer in 1938 and I'm even more certain that Arrhenius didn't even know they were possible back in 1896! The fact is that computer model's aren't even remotely close to being the only evidence that is considered. Read the science and familiarize yourself with the evidence.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

 

Just wait until this kicks in:


CO2 will be an afterthought.

 

You have said that you support the data, and yet, here you are, ignoring the relevant recent data. That seems problematic for you. Most current science actually repudiates the limits, several studies for this. Each have said that we would be lucky to even see the lower limits expressed in the IPCC model calculations. So, clearly, actual temp collection also indicates that the average temp is now in decline. But hey, you say you support the data. There you are.

 

And what if it does? More likely, it probably wont. But just on the off chance that your example is reliable, then what? England will never see snow again in the future? Miami will be flooded to a depth of 13 feet? The city of NY will be uninhabitable?

I mean, it's fun to try to scare yourself sometimes, but every day?

 

I'm sorry but this is not correct. Most research is showing that the IPCC's lower bound of 1.5C of warming is too low. Even Judith Curry (who you know is an outspoken skeptic) published a paper earlier this year that showed the climate sensitivity at 1.6C to 1.7C. And that's from a skeptic who's work has already been shown to have made mistakes that result in a low biased result. Her own paper even acknowledges this.

And keep in mind that the Earth has already warmed by 1.0C.

Can you show me a dataset that publishes a global mean surface temperature or oceanic heat content which shows that the Earth is now cooling?

 

What evidence can you present to support this claim?

 

What evidence can you produce that doesn't support this claim? And by this, I don't mean mathematical models, I mean, evidence. Can you point us to the uniqueness of methane vents? Given that they exist globally, why suddenly does one youtube video about them make them unique or otherwise unnatural? If CO2 vents happen deep within the ocean at a temperature that hasn't fluctuated remarkably at all, then what? They become a feature, right? Clearly, they are natural, we see evidence of this activity all along tectonic regions, no? If methane is released, it's a natural occurrence. We might just as usefully rail against the rising sun.

 

I've made the claim that the net effect of all climate forcing agents will result in warming. My evidence is includes 30,000 1st order lines of research reviewed by 3,500 experts in the field to produce a 5,000 page summary of the science. You can read it here. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

You're claiming that certain tipping point feedbacks such as methane release will likely not occur. I've presented an abundance of evidence for my claim. Now it's your turn.

 

It is already happening and I have no fear or even care because when it gets bad I will be long dead. Hyperbolic talking points aside for anyone who bothers to research and comprehends the results it is pretty obvious. That said, I no longer care what is accepted or denied as it makes no difference. If you are right we have nothing to worry about and if I am there is nothing we can do anyways.

 

Repent the end is nigh.

 

Ah... the sanctity of the liturgy of the IPCC. As if this will ever change. Fun though. And frankly, I'm saying that methane release isn't unique, at all. Clearly, also then not an "indicator" of a "tipping point". Fraudulent assertion on your part. Simple as that.

 

It is already happening because it has always happened. It's like suddenly you got to the edge of the beach and miracles there's an ocean out there. That doesn't suddenly make it either unique or something that hasn't always been there. I cannot tell you to worry or not, but I can express my learned opinion about what I worry about. If you choose to discount it, that's your issue. But, I would caution that the issue here isn't the weather. it's the use of the weather to take away your civil rights, your liberties, and frankly your identity. I worry about those things. We adapt to the weather. And the climate.

 

This is another "nuh-uh" argument. I just presented 30,000 lines of evidence (none of which were commissioned by the IPCC by the way) while you presented exactly zero.

If you want me to seriously consider your claims you need to be at least as convincing as what I already have. 30,000 1st order lines of evidence would at least put you on equally footing to what I already have.

I'm sorry if that seems insurmountable. But, that's not my fault that so much evidence has piled on to support my claim and yet you have so little for your side of the argument. Why do you think I picked the position I did? It's not because I rolled a dice or blindly followed what some political party told me to believe. I choose the position that had the most evidentiary support. Again, that's not my fault.

 

Should I put my tinfoil hat on?