Despite Climate Change Activists' Demands, 1.5°C Is Already Dead
The good news is that does not mean "instant Armageddon" by 2030.

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt — "We'll either leave Egypt having kept 1.5C alive, or this will be the Cop where we lose 1.5C," warned Alok Sharma earlier this week at COP27. Sharma is the former U.K. cabinet minister who chaired last year's United Nations COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow. The communiqué issued at the Bali G-20 summit earlier this week confirmed the commitment of the world's largest economies to "pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C." Actually, 1.5 degrees C is already dead.
First, some background. The 1.5 degrees C figure that Sharma wants to keep alive comes from the 2015 Paris Agreement in which signatories agreed to hold "the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels" and pursue "efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels." The World Meteorological Organization reports that the global average temperature for 2021 was 1.1 degrees C above the 1850–1900 baseline. Using the same baseline, the independent climate analysis group Berkeley Earth reported that the 2021 global average temperature was 1.2 degrees C higher and that the average over the Earth's land areas was already 1.7 degrees C higher. Clearly, the world is even now bumping up against the 1.5 degrees C threshold.
So what would it take to keep the world from exceeding this temperature threshold? Only cutting global greenhouse gas emissions by around 45 percent between now and 2030, says the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Instead of falling, global greenhouse gas emissions are projected to increase over 10 percent between now and the end of this decade, according to a U.N. assessment of the greenhouse gas reduction commitments made by Paris Agreement signatories. "We've barely scratched the surface. And the one year since Glasgow, frankly, has been a year of climate procrastination. By 2030, we need to reduce emissions by between 30 to 45 per cent, but since COP26 we've shaved off one per cent. So, we have a long way to go," said the U.N. Environmental Programme chief, Inger Andersen, at a COP27 event.
In a recent analysis over at Carbon Brief, University of Leeds climate scientist Piers Forster and his colleagues calculated that "cutting global CO2 emissions to zero by 2050, in line with limiting warming to 1.5C, would require them to fall by about 1.4GtCO2 every year." It is estimated that global carbon dioxide emissions will reach a record of 37.5 gigatons this year. As the researchers point out, an annual 1.4 gigaton cut in carbon dioxide emissions would be comparable to the drop in 2020 resulting from COVID-19 lockdowns around the world. More levelheadedly, they observe, "It is important to note that it is neither harmless to keep emitting CO2 up until the budget is blown, nor instant armageddon if it is exceeded."
Other evidence bolsters the point made by the Leeds group. Consider a recent briefing paper by researchers associated with the Climate Resource consultancy. Assuming that all of the signatories to the Paris Agreement keep their greenhouse gas reduction pledges, their "best-estimate" is that warming by 2100 will be just below 2 degrees C at 1.9 degrees C. This is obviously in line with the Paris Agreement's goal. The Climate Resource calculations are in line with an earlier study this year in Environmental Research Letters by University of Colorado climate policy researcher Roger Pielke Jr. that concluded that worst-case climate scenarios are "highly implausible" and that the world's current trajectory would result in an average global temperature increase of around 2.2 degrees C above the pre-industrial baseline by 2100.
The Leeds researchers are right: When the global average temperature exceeds the 1.5 degrees C threshold in the next decade or so, climate Armageddon will not break out.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I will start taking these climate summits seriously when they meet in Akron, Ohio.
Honestly, anything that's not a zoom call is hypocrisy.
They are burning the equivalent of 1000's of people's entire lifetime carbon footprint to meet in person, sniff each other's farts, and talk about how we can get the rest of the 99.999999% of the population to burn less carbon.
I will still question the validity of their junk science, but Im not even willing to listen to their junk science so long as they are free to burn unlimited carbon and eat unlimited filet mignon while they demand I do the opposite.
"...Honestly, anything that’s not a zoom call is hypocrisy..."
And support for nukes; all else is commentary.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job (lmd-05) online! i do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
When all people have to have the same carbon footprint, there will be zero advantage to being wealthy.
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
not if they set the carbon footprint so high a regular person of modest means could never attain it
That would defeat the purpose of blaming people for climate change.
Seriously. Fk these people.
Just like a doomsday cult leader preaching sex is bad. The leader still get to fk everyone in the cult. Don't join the cult.
It pays to be the leader, apparently.
The pay may be better, but you have more fun as a follower.
courtesy of:
http://www.creedthoughts.gov/creedthoughts
You beat me to it.
The only time having a cult following is a great thing is when you are actually in a cult. Then you get be a cult leader and life is milk and honey… everyone thinks you are God… you get to lie down with all the ladies from the cult… In a short matter of time, you become drunk with power and begin to lie down with the men also, not because you want to, but just because you can. Yes, being a cult leader with a cult following is fine work if you can find it. /Norm MacDonald
Honestly, anything that’s not a zoom call is hypocrisy.
Email and FTP/P2P.
The problem is still 80 yrs. away and you want to roll industry back to 90s or 00s or whatever level? You can suck it up, save the carbon, and communicate with each other over a 5 min. lag at 1 Mbps.
Email and Zoom burn electricity. Why not smoke signals? You can stay were you are.
Smoke signals??!! Are you mad?? Smoke is full of super dangerous CO2, not to mention some particulates, CO, other partial combustion products, and the most dangerous greenhouse gas of them all - H2O!
Around here, we call it HO2.
Google paying a splendid earnings from domestic 6850USD a week, this is awesome a 12 months beyond i was laid-off in a totally horrible financial system. “w many thank you google every day for blessing the ones guidelines and presently it’s miles my responsibility to pay and percentage it with all and sundry ..
OPEN>>http://pay.hiring9.com
Email and Zoom burn electricity.
They do, but asynchronous email burns much less than Zoom. I wouldn't even attempt to compare it to anything like telephones, radio, or smoke signals, especially given spam. But, if your science requires a human face and literal hand waving, you're not doing science.
The problem is still 80 yrs. away
The problem is already here.
True enough. Greenies are already destroying the infrastructure to the point that it's a struggle to adapt to the weather today, let alone the climate tomorrow.
Whether or not it's junk science, the proposed solutions are all junk solutions unlikely to do much other than further enrich the wealthy and corrupt and make the world's poor poorer.
That is why the focus of much of the negotiations is how much money richer nations should pay poorer nations. So, they're haggling how much of our money to pay to other countries. While at the same time making us poorer, too. It always seems like collectivists ideology demand everyone (but elites) become poorer to achieve their goals.
And any money going to poorer nations is going to mostly end up in the hands of the corrupt elites of those nations.
The only way to actually help poorer countries deal with climate change problems is to encourage and enable economic development so people can adapt effectively. And I don't think that can really happen without reform of their fucked up, corrupt governments.
Stop.
You're conceding "climate change" is real and requires dealing with.
You've already lost.
The IPCC is the ultimate global authority on the subject of climate change. They do a fantastic job of documenting the observed changes and presenting lots of models about the potential changes. But then they spend as much time addressing poverty and inequality as they do talking about actual solutions (and most of the "solutions" proposed take the form of getting government force people to emit less CO2, by any means required...they call it "behaviour- and lifestyle- related measures" and "demand-side management" but what they really mean is "Enabling this investment requires the mobilization and better integration of a range of policy instruments that include the reduction of socially inefficient fossil fuel subsidy regimes and innovative price and non-price national and international policy instruments.") The whole report is basically about money, money controlled by governments...
Government "demand-side management" means force, means taking from people to give to other people to pay them for not doing the things the governments decide are bad.
They pretty much say as much:
Enabling Rapid and Far-Reaching Change
The speed of transitions and of technological change required to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels has been observed in the past within specific sectors and technologies {4.2.2.1}. But the geographical and economic scales at which the required rates of change in the energy, land, urban, infrastructure and industrial systems would need to take place are larger and have no documented historic precedent (limited evidence, medium agreement). To reduce inequality and alleviate poverty, such transformations would require more planning and stronger institutions (including inclusive markets) than observed in the past, as well as stronger coordination and disruptive innovation across actors and scales of governance.
The IPCC is the ultimate global authority on the subject of climate change.
No they aren’t. Not even close. The sun is the ultimate global authority. Then the moon. Then all the water on the surface of the Earth. Then all the land. The the biosphere. Then *maybe* humans. The IPCC isn’t the ultimate global authority of humans. You've obviously confused nominal or proxy authority with actual authority. It’s like saying the turn signals are the ultimate authority of a car.
Starting with such an obvious and oxymoronic misunderstanding, I’m certain everyone can save a lot of time and just ignore the rest of what you have to say pretty much the same way they would ignore anyone else headed down the highway, miles away from an exit, with their blinker on.
Mpercy explained the problem, s/he was not advocating.
You missed the point.
Don't care. If I said from 2016-2020, Donald Trump was the ultimate authority on US immigration and then proceeded to lay out a pro-immigration policy, would you just accept my statement that Trump is the authority out of hand? Or would you, rightly, recognize that I'm ceding undue authority?
I have made $16498 in one month by telecommuting. At the point when I lost my office employment multi month prior, I was disturbed and an ineffective go after a quest for new employment I was secured this online position. what's more, presently I am ready to win thousands from home. Everyone can carry out this responsibility and win more dollars online by follow this link...,.
OPEN>http://pay.hiring9.com/
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): "Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, made the revealing admission in a meeting with Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate director in May. A Washington Post reporter accompanied Chakrabarti to the meeting for a magazine profile published Wednesday: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all...Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added.
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Bingo.
"They are burning the equivalent of 1000’s of people’s entire lifetime carbon footprint to meet in person, sniff each other’s farts, and talk about how we can get the rest of the 99.999999% of the population to burn less carbon."
Uh, you really think the fucktards in control give a shit about CO2? How about focusing on the real goals: global socialism run by the 0.000001% who live like emperors?
While I do think pointing out their hypocrisy violating their own premise is important, you are correct. The more important thing to do is call out their false premise for what it is: a made up lie they use to gain power and control.
Correct
They should meet in Buffalo, New York, today.
Naked. Outside. At night.
That’s just gross. You really want to see that?
Anyone who truly believes this AGW shit should commit suicide. Otherwise, how can we take them seriously?
Correct
The biggest hoax in the history of the world.
Not a hoax. It is a FAILED HYPOTHESIS. A hoax is complete BS, this is merely super-exaggerated, badly calculated, corruptly evaluated propaganda. When you call it a hoax you are putting yourself in the conspiracy class. Rather call it out for the junk science it is.
“….super exaggerated, badly calculated, corruptly evaluated….”
Well done, T.
Not a hoax. It is a FAILED HYPOTHESIS. A hoax is complete BS, this is merely super-exaggerated, badly calculated, corruptly evaluated propaganda.
^
This is a really good point.
It’s WrongThink like this that stole Greta’s childhood!
It's already been warmer than that within recorded history, and they keep trying to erase it.
I just love that there is actually this big hubbub about 1.5 degrees and yet no one seems to care that this number is completely arbitrary with no scientific basis behind it as some type of temperature to avoid. It was simply picked out of a hat by policy pushers as a way to advertise and sell climate catastrophe to people.
The Eemian Interglacial 115 kya was 4C warmer than the "baseline". And 15 kya, it was 10C cooler than said baseline. The sea level was 140 meters lower, too.
Gotta stop tolerating this fiction as real or appropriate to do anything about.
It's just an excuse to destroy our way of life and take our rights.
Armageddon will not strike until Reason's COP27 correspondent is presented with his lunch tab:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/11/you-cant-expect-30000-delegates-to-eat.html
This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.
For more info visit on this web Site........>>> onlinecareer1
Using the same baseline, the independent climate analysis group Berkeley Earth reported that the 2021 global average temperature was 1.2 degrees C higher and that the average over the Earth’s land areas was already 1.7 degrees C higher. Clearly, the world is even now bumping up against the 1.5 degrees C threshold.
Clearly, this is definitely not a case of measuring shit in a thousand different ways while looking for a narrative.
Averaging the average averages.
I think the answer to all the gibbrish, as it always was to the "we will be dead in 10 years!" scenarios, is:
"ya, and then nothing happened"
We should oblige them now.
If we've only got 9 years left, enjoy the warmer winters. It was 36 degrees here in California yesterday.
Yeah, it's plainly obvious that "1.5C" is just an arbitrary number they picked out because some UN-aligned NGO marketing company figured it sounded catchy.
The fact that this is a UN-directed initiative is reason enough to reject it outright. That's an organization which lost all credibility decades ago and is really nothing more than a lever for globalist dystopian fantasies.
Well,heck, look at how great the UN has been at eliminating war and tyranny and preventing genocides. Who’s to say they’re not competent to control the planet’s climate?
Clearly, the world is even now bumping up against the 1.5 degrees C threshold.
Millions died already. We are all doomed! Only a few years left until the Earth is burnt to a cinder!
Again?
The worlds already been destroyed at least 3 times by now based off the models. So why worry, light up a carbon spewing doobie and relax.
Doobies are carbon neutral.
I make sure my plants are all fed only by CO2 that is the product of burning coal.
Coal? I feed mine co2 and nitrogen I make using natural gas.
Pretty ballsy of these fuckers to schedule a conference in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt where the average daily temperature regularly exceeds 4000 degrees Celsius.
and thats in the shade!
WOLF! (again)
"If 1.5 dies, our patients die too."
^Is that a threat?
The biggest hoax in the history of the world.
Also the most profitable - - - - - - -
The future imagined by the conference attendees is one where the deserving elites continue to travel by private jet and keep comfortable while the masses sweat or freeze on their bicycles. All solutions have as a realistic outcome that there will be far fewer private vehicles and small flats in walk-up towers for the rest of us.
We should square our shoulders and face bravely our future.
Don't forget eating Wagyu beef and Kobe steaks while the climate warrior foot soldiers feast on crickets.
Who can afford crickets?
Tofu toast is $30 bucks at COP Gourmet, and cocktails are $125 a pop.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/11/you-cant-expect-30000-delegates-to-eat.html
That angus steak shows how unserious the whole thing is.
Damn XX's they're always too Hot/too Cold, Pussies too wet/too dry, Bleeding too much/Not Bleeding, take a chill pill (or hot toddy if you're cold, dammit)
Frank "Some like it hot"
Wouldn’t everyone feel foolish if the world economy was set back to 1347 A.D. by the draconian mandates they’re claiming will work and the average global temperature went up 1.5 C anyway because global warming is part of the interglacial global warming and not due to anthropogenic fossil fuels energy production after all? Assuming there are any climate scientists left to measure global temperatures after the world-wide economic crash, that is. Or more than ten percent of us left alive by then to feel foolish.
Assuming there are any climate scientists left to measure global temperatures after the world-wide economic crash, that is. Or more than ten percent of us left alive by then to feel foolish and capable of feeling foolish in context.
FIFY.
You might push things back and end up, you know, like 1347, where even if you did have the ability to measure the temperatures and could prove you fixed the problem (or didn’t) people wouldn’t just burn you at the stake because someone who didn’t like you said you turned them into a newt and you weighed more than a duck.
If only we could go back to that magical time, 1850-1900. Average lifespan 45. Slavery and war. Subsistence farming for the lucky ones. No penicillin so if you get a tooth infection start digging a grave. Shit in a hole in the backyard at 30 below. Water from a bucket until the well runs dry. Raw sewage running down the boulevard. Really the best of all possible worlds and always a cool wind blowing.
Shit, it's that way in a good portion of the world still. I don't even need to visit a foreign country to see hell on earth, just go to Venice Boulevard, or the Denver Civic Center.
Why such half measures? How about going back to the noble times of 850-900? Average lifespans under 30. Feudal societies at best. And even the richest king was worse off than the poorest Americans today.
And if that seems too plush, let's go for 20,000 BCE. Then they can really bitch about the climate--and demand it change.
think some people would have complained bitterly about the retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet, if they could pin in on oil companies or capitalism. Heck, they would if asked on polls: "Do you believe AGW is the cause for retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet? Yes or no?" because 99% of people (a made up statistic) have no clue what the Laurentide ice sheets were.
Sometimes I imagine a modern society 10,000 years ago, complete with MSNBC announcers pronouncing their dismay about the loss of habitat for the Ohio Basin polar bears, because the ice "which was once 1km thick is now only 250m and completely gone at some points". This is despite the huge beneficial impact that the melting of the ice sheets had on humanity as a species. Not that I'm claiming AGW is a good thing, but simply stating a fact that not all climate change is bad for humanity, and that it is reasonable to wonder if AGW may possibly include any positive effects--for example, growing seasons will be longer at higher latitudes.
And a good representation of the foot soldiers for the movement pictured:
Mentally ill, anxiety ridden young girls who have been duped by panic porn, yet again, that the sky is falling.
Just people looking for some meaning in their lives. Fighting for social justice or to save the planet gives people a sense of purpose. Even if society is more just than ever already, and the planet is not in any real danger.
Society is racist, mysogenist, homophobic, islamophobic, and transphobic. The internet told me so.
Look, I'm a reasonable man. Just mix a little more actual porn in with your panic porn and I'm there.
Blondie on the left takes her shirt and pants off (leave the lab coat and glasses on, yeah) and I'll defend her right to wave any sign she likes. Both blonds and Adara Boustany
on the right do it and I'll even chant in time if they like.
Harold Ramis' daughter in the middle needs to find more hot friends.
Speaking of global warming hotties. Turns out Gretta just doesn't make the grade.
https://twitter.com/KaiFund/status/1593319218854137856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1593319218854137856%7Ctwgr%5E23e33bacbb9ca3ca784893381e45967f2ad30d28%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fcop27-climate-virtue-signaling-boondoggle-ends-failure-without-fossil-fuel-pledge
Pic
https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/sophia%20kianni.jpg?itok=0_xEKvlQ
She just broke the 1.5 degree threshold!
If you're going to talk about global warming, then a bikini contest just makes sense.
It's hilarious how the older she gets, the more she looks like a Fetal Alcohol Syndrome case.
Greta, I’ll have you know, is quite literally a Babe (I.e. a Pig Tale)
More testing needed.
Why can't develop a vaccine for mother earth?
1. Warmer weather is better for humanity.
2. None of the proposals would have changed the temperature anyway.
3. Not doing the proposals reduces the harm to the economy, so people can deal better with any climate change that does occur.
This.
Can we stop paying attention to these retard parties?
The problem is these retard parties have the backing of the world's elites, so ignoring them isn't possible. What is important isn't just to mock these tards, but push back against them and their handlers to the greatest extent possible.
These assholes love confrontation, they just don't want resistance.
I really don't understand the obsession about 1.5C. For all practical purposes, it was dead when it was created as the goal. The obsession has eliminated all understanding of what will occur absent some silly negotiation in some short term or long term. It has eliminated all discussion of the best alternative (violent or otherwise) to the path of silly negotiation. How the fuck is a negotiation being entered without a BATNA? It has eliminated all ability to prioritize some actions now (simply because they can be agreed upon) - and to wait for other actions until some ugly realities become manifest.
Obviously some have an agenda that has nothing to do with climate. But I'm struck by how bullshitty and emotional the framing of the issue has become over the last couple decades
But I’m struck by how bullshitty and emotional the framing of the issue has become over the last couple decades
It has to be that way. "It's possible that it's going to gradually become slightly warmer in some areas of the world over the next 100 years" isn't exactly dire enough to convince a generation of idiots hand over all of their rights to a global cabal of central planners
“It’s possible that it’s going to gradually become slightly warmer in some areas of the world over the next 100 years” isn’t exactly dire enough to convince a generation of idiots hand over all of their rights to a global cabal of central planners
^
That's certainly what 1.5c is - slightly warmer and pretty meaningless because that's what we've already hit. But 2.5c or 3.5 c or 4c are far more significant - and those are what we are going to hit in future.
No one cares, and no one is concerned. Well, no one with a brain
America fucked up when responsible people stopped beating hippies when they ran their mouths. Beating dirty hippies is ALWAYS the right call.
^×10
"Obviously some have an agenda that has nothing to do with climate."
Sounds like you're starting to catch on to the game.
I really don’t understand the obsession about 1.5C.
There's nothing empirical about it, it's just a marketing gimmick to rally dumb Zoomers and Millennials who think the world is going to burn to death.
These people aren't any different than the idiots who were wringing their hands about the ozone layer and nuclear winter in the mid-1980s.
What was the big deal about nuclear winter?
A nuclear war was believed to put so much ash and particulates in the air that it would reduce the solar influx enough to drop the temperature of Earth so crops wouldn't grow. Not completely crazy, but not well considered either.
Mount Pinatubo. Ash and SO2. The next year saw a 1F decline in world wide temperature. Perhaps also linked to flooding in Mississippi and drought in Sahel.
Krakatoa equivalent yield, ~200MTnT - 1.2* drop for a year.
Largest nuke ever tested: Tsar bomba, 50MTnt - can find no info at all regarding effects on global temps (not deliverable)
Seems it would take a whole lot of nukes to really have an effect, and they'd have to be pretty much simultaneous, as the warring powers probably would get a second punch in.
"...probably would NOT get a second punch in."
Actually, depending on the narrative, it is/was well considered. Total yield between the US and USSR was, extremely conservatively, ~1 *Tera*ton TNT eq (Largest documented US test was 15Mt and between the two nations there were ~70k warheads). The point was, if the US and USSR attained even 1% of full MAD, pretty much everyone in the N. Hemisphere was going to die and even Australians were going to have a bad several years of harvest.
So a colder climate was a bad thing?
Biden is going to show us very soon.
It's more that that. Yes I agree that it had something to do with motivating the more autistic (resistant to change) of the young generation. But how has that strategy become almost the sole way discussion has been framed?
And actually the ozone hole discussion worked phenomenally well. CFC's were phased out starting in 1988 - and the ozone hole over the poles started repairing about 20 years later. Absent that, the projection would be that the ozone 'hole' would have extended over the entire atmosphere and by mid century or so would have resulted in UV indexes of 15 or so (10 is currently extreme risk of UV harm) in temperate zone summers.
Ya know, I've got a rock near the back door, and it's really been effective at keeping the (projected) tigers away, chicken little.
Ironically, warming may be as effective at combating the Ozone hole as the banning of CFCs. CFCs are heavier than air and *tend* to remain on the surface. They *are* carried to the upper atmosphere where they *do* destroy ozone by atmospheric mixing. Much of this mixing is driven by the jet stream and the dramatic difference in temperature between the equator and the poles. Since CFCs were banned, the southern jet stream has weakened significantly and may even be reversing. The banning of CFCs alone cannot account for the weakening.
It should also be noted that CFCs and the Ozone are a wholly different situation than CO2 and warming to the point that comparing the two is pretty scientifically dishonest. CFCs exponentially catalyzes ozone depletion, have readily abundant substitutes and/or aren't essential, are not consumed/produced except for, mostly or most essentially, enclosed systems, and are not consumed by natural systems. Whereas "half" the biosphere produces CO2 openly and essentially, the other "half" consumes it (far more prodigiously, thus closer to CO2 starvation than suffocation), and it only fractionally/logarithmically increases temperatures.
"I really don’t understand the obsession about 1.5C."
It sounds like a small amount, and at the moment, if it were 1.5 C warmer, I'd still be quite comfortable. I think the problem comes when you plot the temperatures we experience, you'll find a bell curve distribution. If you shift the curve over to the right by 1.5C, look at the extreme right hand tail: heat waves are going to become hotter and lengthier. That puts our food production in jeopardy.
you probably have a good 100 years to adapt. Youll be fine
I don't know. Heat waves kill in a matter of days. Man, beast and food crops. Heat waves already kill people and damage crops. 1.5C warmer means they kill more people, and damage more crops. Take a plot of temperatures now and shift to the right a bit and see for yourself.
A lack of heat kills more than too much heat, period. You have just proven your well demonstrated ignorance once again.
The 1.5 comes from average winters being milder, not warmer summers. So less people die of hypothermia.
"So less people die of hypothermia."
'Fewer' is the word you want. And CO2 traps heat all year round. It's not a seasonal thing.
Anyone remember Acid Rain? Now THAT was a REAL trip!!
Glad we regulated that hydrogen hydroxide, the primary component of acid rain.
My longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, made this point.
https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=380576&p=4522359#post4522359
No wonder he greatly influenced my own political views for twenty-five years!
"The prosperity of the American people."
You mean the energy consumption of the American people. Energy has a physical presence and it's the job of scientists to observe it and measure it. Prosperity is an airy fairy concept. Ask a dozen people what prosperity is and you get a dozen answers. It's energy that influences climate, not prosperity, not pie in the sky.
Are you purposefully missing the point or did you truly miss the point of Michael's comment?
Are you purposefully missing the point
It's what he does.
The point is so banal and cliched it’s better that we pass it in silence.
You are so full of shit, it's better if you pass in silence.
Prosperity may well be valued individually, but prosperity is a condition and we do not want to go back to digging root vegetables, regardless of bullshit assertions by you or other chicken littles.
FOaD, asshole.
"Are you purposefully missing the point"
I really don't care what his point is. It doesn't bear thinking about in any case. My point is that physical phenomena have physical causes. Anything else is mystification.
"I don't actually care about a comment that I posted a rebuttal to" is an impressively retarded way to deflect from getting called out.
"an impressively retarded way to deflect from getting called out."
I know my audience.
We produce a lot of stuff here. Democrats apparently envision America to go back to alre industrial period.
I differ. I envision a country with a much lower population, and very few democrats.
COP festivals, where everybody tries to be more extreme than some random teenager on social media.
Why is 1850-1900 the benchmark? It's completely fucking arbitrary. Why not 1400? Or 500? Or 15,000 years ago?
1850-1900 was a time before large scale use of oil, so it is believed that only natural forces were at work.
Correlation, not causation.
"Why is 1850-1900 the benchmark? "
I don't think it was completely arbitrary. There's a couple of reasons. One, we can get reasonably accurate measurements of temperature from that time onwards. Two, it was the era when industrialisation spread and fossil fuels began to be widely burned. That's three I guess. It's basically the dawn of the modern age. Four.
But the earth has existed for literally billions of years and its temperature has varied wildly across the ages. Picking a 50 year span, any 50 year span, out of the entire existence of the planet, and pegging that as the ideal temperature earth should be lest cataclysm ensue is completely arbitrary. And stupid. And obviously false.
“But the earth has existed for literally billions of years and its temperature has varied wildly across the ages.”
We don’t have accurate records for the earth’s temperature billions of years ago. (See number one.) And setting the baseline billions of years ago would make the entire enterprise of modelling more expensive, complex, time consuming and uncertain.
“as the ideal temperature earth”
It’s a baseline, as the article makes clear. Baseline is a concept from mathematics. Ask any mathematician what a baseline is and he will give you the same answer as the next one, and down the line. Your word ideal misconstrues the whole project. If you want to see the affect of burning fossil fuels on the climate, set your baseline at the point where fossil fuel burning became a prominent contributor to our energy consumption. There’s nothing ‘ideal’ about the climate of a century ago, it is what it is. Or in this case, it was what it was.
More bullshit:
"We don’t have accurate records for the earth’s temperature billions of years ago."
We do have pretty accurate data, and it shows the earth going through far greater thermal extremes than even chicken littles like you fantasize, with certain effects on populations, none of which were exterminated, and they had nowhere near the abilities or technology which we have now.
"...There’s nothing ‘ideal’ about the climate of a century ago, it is what it is. Or in this case, it was what it was..."
So chicken little admits there is no reason to attempt to match this or any other limit.
Thank you, now FOaD.
It's during "the little ice age", so good time to set the baseline if you're looking to lie to people about current conditions so you can impose totalitarianism
Ask the Amish.
"So what would it take to keep the world from exceeding this temperature threshold? Only cutting global greenhouse gas emissions by around 45 percent between now and 2030, says the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Instead of falling, global greenhouse gas emissions are projected to increase over 10 percent between now and the end of this decade"
Such a decrease could well be a thing some time between now and 2030. If the past couple of decades has shown us anything it's that economic down turns (2000, 2008) and pandemics (2019) will level off CO2 emissions. Have the climate modellers at the UN taken into account such disasters? They must be impossible to predict, but I feel there are going to some unwelcome bends in the rocky road that lies ahead.
"...but I feel there are going to some unwelcome bends in the rocky road that lies ahead."
Here's trueman crying WOLF! (again).
This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.
For more info visit on this web Site........>>> onlinecareer1
"climate Armageddon will not break out"
Fortunately we'll have ignorant children trained to screech us into submission.
Meanwhile, FIFA decided to play the World Cup soccer matches in a literal blast furnace named Qatar, since the people picking the site were taking bribes.
And now, unsurprisingly, Qatar has banned alcohol sales at the games:
https://babylonbee.com/news/with-beer-sales-outlawed-world-cup-attendees-forced-to-watch-soccer
DOHA, QATAR — In a move that quickly received international backlash, the World Cup host country of Qatar has banned the sale of beer in or near arenas where matches will be played. With beer sales outlawed, the World Cup's estimated 1 million attendees will be forced to just sit there and watch soccer. FIFA organizers responded to Qatar's alcohol ban by flopping onto the ground and screaming as if gravely injured.
Qatar has already been threatened with a boycott by other sports organizations that rely wholly on beer to prevent fans from having to watch, including baseball, cricket, lacrosse, and basketball when it's the Lakers.
Only Gov-Gods control the weather!
Isn't that the message of all of it.
Arrest them all and put them on trial for crimes against humanity.
Like we would with ISIS for demolishing archaeological sites.
"Oh, you think 8 billion is too many people? Let's reduce it by you."
A friend of mine once wrote to me in an email discussion we were having:
"But back to the issue of climate change and whether it's entirely natural. It seems that there is this assumption that if it's entirely natural, then there's no reason to take any action. However, if you're the one losing your house or, worse yet, your entire country into the sea, then it doesn't really matter whether the source of climate change is human or natural, you have to do SOMETHING, because you're losing your house, your country or whatever. I think a lot of people are hung up on this, that if there's a possibility we weren't entirely responsible for these changes, then there's no point in doing anything."
My response was:
The huge problem with this is that DOING SOMETHING so very, very, very often proves to be exactly the worst possible thing to do. Sea walls built to prevent erosion end up exacerbating erosion. Dikes to control flooding make floods worse. Wildfire suppression efforts make wildfires worse. Subsidies to help insure people against floods and hurricanes keep people building their homes in flood-prone and hurricane areas.
Sometimes the answer *has* to be people lose their homes and society has to say "That's too bad, sorry." Maybe help them move somewhere else, but we 100% cannot support rebuilding your house in the floodplain/wildfire zone/volcano hillside...
Will we really succeed in building 20 foot seawall around NYC or Miami or NOLA? When will we jsut say: "Folks, in 20 years this is all going to be underwater. Enjoy it while it lasts, but you should really consider moving, because we can't afford to save all your houses and businesses."
From a Libertarian POV, it might already be past the time when government should cut the cords that keep people living in areas that are projected to be hit hardest by climate change. That action would be to simply say: you can buy that piece of property, and even build on it. But no one will be willing to insure it, and we will not have laws that force them too; nor will government at any level cover any loses on that property. And for the people who already built there and live there, well, maybe they chose poorly and why is it my problem? I was smart enough to NOT build my house in a floodplain or in a city that is 10 feet below current sea level and expected to be 20 feet below in 50 years.
"The huge problem with this is that DOING SOMETHING so very, very, very often proves to be exactly the worst possible thing to do. "
They call this the iron law of liberalism:
Any market reform, any government initiative intended to reduce red tape and promote market forces will have the ultimate effect of increasing the total number of regulations, the total amount of paperwork, and the total number of bureaucrats the government employs.
From a Libertarian pov, this is the saddest of all the iron laws.
"Any market reform, any government initiative intended to reduce red tape and promote market forces will have the ultimate effect of increasing the total number of regulations, the total amount of paperwork, and the total number of bureaucrats the government employs."
Bullshit assertions from lefty shits =/= argument or evidence.
What? You mean you're telling me that all those Hollywood movies and TV shows that say that climate change will make the earth unhabitable in the near future aren't telling the truth. For Shame!
“1850–1900 baseline”
Which, as we all know, is what Holy Gaia has decreed is the proper temperature for the planet ... and also includes a severe cold period.
With exceptionally accurate temperature data, and with very similar urbanization and concrete-covered heat islands like we have now.
"Which, as we all know, is what Holy Gaia has decreed is the proper temperature for the planet"
Like others here, you seem confused about the concept of baseline. It's a point against which subsequent temperatures are measured and compared. It's not normative, ie meant to be construed as an ideal temperature.
Instead of voluntary international COP carbon reduction agreements (that allw the world’s largest carbon emitter China to double its emissions by 2030, while US reduces ours by another 25%-40%), everyone who advocates/endorses massive worldwide carbon emission declines should agree to revealing and reducing/maintaining their own carbon footprint (and be held publicly accountable for doing so) to the same internationally sustainable level they want to impose on everyone else.
Every person at that so-called international environmental conference (and of course everyone who goes to Davos annyally) has emitted far more carbon dioxide than me (and most other Americans) have done during the past month, year and decade.
Meanwhile, China's Xi loves the UN/Biden/Kerry voluntary carbon emissions treaty because it severely cripples the US and western economies/nations, while enriching, enabling and emboldening China to become the world’s largest and most powerful economy and military long before 2030.
BTW, if all Americans had the same or similar carbon footprint (as do my wife and I), overall American carbon emissions would decline by more than 75% immediately.
Whatever happened to leadership by example?
And whatever happened to the news media holding politicians accountable for their deceitful lies and hypocrisies?
There’s an interesting animated graphic showing the total yearly CO2 emissions by country from 1984 to 2020. (and how they’ve changed)https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-58922398
USA 1984 – 1272 million tonnes; 2020 – 1286 million tonnes China 1984 – 504 million tonnes; 2020 – 2912 million tonnes India 1985 – 114 million tonnes; 2020 – 666 million tonnes
These are the top three emitters as of today. Interesting to see that China and India both increased their emissions six fold, (both also heavily reliant on coal, both have ambitious nuclear goals) while the US remained almost unchanged.
“China to double its emissions by 2030, while US reduces ours by another 25%-40%”
These are some announced CO2 reduction (% below 2005 levels in 2030 - in some cases, in others ?) targets for a few of the world’s most populace countries: India 45% Nigeria 20% Indonesia 32% China 65% USA 50%
Can you recommend a good source for comparison? Both for emissions, reduction targets and how they’re measured. This source has China emitting just under 10,000 million tonnes of CO2 yearly in 2020.https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-new-2030-targets-promise-more-low-carbon-power-than-meets-the-eye/ I have to admit the more I look into it, the more confusing I find it.
"We have to keep global temperature rise to less than..."
The most arrogant thing to have ever been said.
Latest findings are that if temperatures rise by 1.49 degrees everything will be fine. But if the temperature rises by 1.50 degrees the world will end. (sarc)