There Is No 1.5°C Climate Cliff
The world will not come to its end in 2030 because of climate change.
Dubai, United Arab Emirates—"The North Star of the COP28 Presidency is to keep 1.5°C within reach," has been the frequent refrain of Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, the COP28 president overseeing the current U.N. climate change negotiations in Dubai. Al Jaber is reflecting the oft-chanted activist slogan "Keep 1.5 Alive!" The idea is that humanity must reduce its emissions of globe-warming greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels sufficiently to keep the planet from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial baseline (1850-1900).
It is worth tracing the history of where the 1.5 C "North Star" originated and what the consequences of breaching it would likely be. The 1.5 C threshold was officially enshrined as a goal under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change with the adoption of the Paris Climate Change Agreement in 2015. Article 2 in the Paris Agreement commits signatories to strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change by "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change."
In his 2007 article in Energy Policy, University of Sussex economist Richard S.J. Tol traces the germination of the 2 C target back to a 1995 report on a workshop convened by the German Advisory Council on Global Change. It is notable that only one member of the eleven-member advisory council was a meteorologist, but, on the other hand, there were four economists.
The advisors adopted two principles to guide their work. The first was the "preservation of Creation in its present form" achieved chiefly by staying within their guess of what would be "a tolerable 'temperature window'." The second was the "prevention of excessive costs." Their analysis of what would constitute a tolerable temperature window occupies a single paragraph. There they reckoned that the mean maximum temperature during the last interglacial period was 16.1 C to which they arbitrarily added a further 0.5 C to establish tolerable maximum temperature of 16.6 C. They then assumed that in 1995 the current global mean temperature was around 15.3 C which would be only 1.3 C below their tolerable maximum. Finally, they presupposed the 1995 average was 0.7 C above the preindustrial average which yields an overall 2.0 C threshold. (For what it's worth, the advisors just as sketchily calculated that if global average temperatures rose by 2.0 C above preindustrial levels that global GDP would be 5 percent lower than it would otherwise have been.)
Tol notes that the 2.0 C target was adopted by the Council of the European Union (CEU) just a year later when it stated that it "believes that global average temperatures should not exceed 2°C above pre-industrial level." As Tol points out the CEU reaffirmed that target in 2004. Ultimately Tol persuasively argues that "the official documents that justify the 2°C warming target for long term climate policy have severe shortcomings. Methods are inadequate, reasoning sloppy, citations selective, and the overall argumentation rather thin." He adds, "This does not suffice for responsible governments, answerable to the people, when deciding on a major issue."
Nevertheless, other countries involved in climate negotiations could not ignore the European Union's push for a 2 C warming target. As it happens, the 2 C target was internationally recognized in the Copenhagen Accord which was hastily cobbled together at the last minute in order to prevent COP15 from total collapse in 2009. In the Accord, countries agreed that deep cuts in global emissions would be needed "so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius." In addition, the last paragraph of the Copenhagen Accord is where the lower 1.5 C was also first officially incorporated.
In their 2023 article in WIREs Climate Change, two researchers with the French Center for Scientific Research, Béatrice Cointe and Hélène Guillemot, trace the history of diplomatic jockeying that led to the order to achieve this goal, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report concludes that humanity must cut greenhouse gas emissions—chiefly carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels—in half by 2030, and reach net zero emissions by 2050. The researchers note that the lower threshold was initially championed in climate negotiations by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) who are concerned about the effects of rising sea levels owing to glacier and ice sheet melt caused by increasing temperatures. AOSIS persuaded the Least Developed Countries (LDC) bloc to sign onto the goal, resulting in its inclusion in the Paris Agreement in 2015. Cointe and Guillemot do tellingly note that "before the Paris Agreement, the 1.5°C limit was outside the range of explored pathways. It was deemed unrealistic."
However, the Paris Agreement set up a process through which the IPCC would commission a report specifically probing the effects of a temperature increase of 1.5 C and exploring possible emissions pathways to get there. The result was the IPCC's 2018 special report Global Warming of 1.5 C. That report concluded that to hold temperature increases below that threshold, humanity would have to cut greenhouse gas emissions—chiefly carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels—in half by 2030, and reach net zero emissions by 2050. In fact, it is the special report that is largely responsible for embedding the concept of "net zero" into current climate negotiations. "The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change," is how Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in 2019 infamously mischaracterized the report's findings. And the congresswoman is far from alone. Earlier this year, President Joe Biden asserted, "If we don't keep the temperature from going above 1.5 degrees Celsius raised, then we're in real trouble. That whole generation is damned. I mean, that's not hyperbole, really, truly in trouble."
Cambridge University climate researcher Michael Hulme forcefully rejected this kind of catastrophizing deadline-ism in his 2019 editorial in WIREs Climate Change. "The rhetoric of deadlines and 'it's too late' does not do justice to what we know scientifically about climate change," observed Hulme. "It is as false scientifically to say that the climate future will be catastrophic as it is to say with certainty that it will be merely lukewarm. Neither is there a cliff edge to fall over in 2030 or at 1.5°C of warming."
Pennsylvania State University climate researcher Michael Mann also rebuffs this kind of climate doomerism. In a post on X (formerly Twitter) Mann called out Biden's comment as "Unhelpful rhetoric, unsupported by the science. It's a continuum not a cliff." He further noted, "If we miss the 1.5C exit ramp, we still go for 1.6C exit rather than give up."
To keep the global average temperature below 1.5 C, a recent U.N. report calculated that the world must cut by 2030 its greenhouse gas emissions 43 percent below their levels in 2019. The world is very unlikely to achieve such steep cuts during the next six years. So, it is good, although not surprising, news that when the world passes through the 1.5 C target, it will not be plunging to its death over a climate cliff. The upshot is that Al Jaber, climate activists, and COP28 negotiators are pursuing a fake North Star.
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
No shit. This has been known for decades.
asdsad
All of you need to take a course in General Science. You do not need my MS in this field, you only need to read the science.
Your ignorance is killing us.
If you believe in fairies, Tinkerbelle won’t die.
Political prejudice is killing us.
Not one of you understand the complexity of the environment. You are being enabled by technical ignorance.
One of who? I have said nothing about what I think of climate science.
And you think that a course in General Science will cure one of technical ignorance?
In my experience, skeptics of climate change alarmism are often quite a bit more technically sophisticated and knowledgeable in their analyses than.
You do not need my MS in this field
Oh, I don’t think we disagree on the unfalsifiable statement that I don’t need the MS you don’t have as an accurate depiction of climate science as you think we do.
Your lies are killing us. As a real scientist, not a made up one like you, you use the scientific method.
If the gathered data doesn’t support your hypothesis, than your hypothesis is wrong.
And it has been wrong. Not one prediction of doom has it. Plots show temp goes up before CO2.
Climate scientists fudge data to try and get it to fit their view. It doesn’t. Why is it Climate change and not global warming? Because you were wrong. Remember climate scientist saying snow will be a thing of the past after 2010.
Wait let’s go back to 70s/80s global cooling because of pollution.
It’s your ignorance that is killing everyone. I’ll put up my 3 degrees and decades in science fields against your scum lies anyday.
Reason ‘reporter’ challenge:
Find one global climate warming change model ever, that covered more than a 10 year projection, that was correct.
I know that actual research and verification are new to most of you, but give it a try anyway.
Every once in a while, some “skeptic” (read: realist) runs an old model on what was its future when introduced, and they all fail miserably.
Models are fine as indications of what areas can use some real investigation. The problem is believing them to be reality.
Climate Modelers won the Nobel Prize in Physics, but you do not know what that is.
Cool, that must mean that their model turned out to be accurate!
Please provide a link to that climate model an the predictions that it made!
Just look it up yourself. It is real.
Your question betrays the fact you do not understand it.
Does it hurt to be so wrong that you can’t defend your field. Statement – models do not represent actually reality. Your defense is an award that is political now. You didn’t provide data or error bars. You didn’t state that the models error was low.
If your only response is “you look it up” because your a little boy hiding behind Al Gore skirt.
Don’t call yourself a scientist you hack.
In science, models are hypotheses, not conclusions. And even if your model does match reality, it could still be wrong.
I keep going back to the Atlantic hurricane models. It’s only a small subset of climate and, despite the “We only have one Earth.” retardation, you get to have a go at it every year. Moreover, it’s (generally) got three potential parametric outcomes that are a bit subjective. The “hit” rate on the prediction for any/all parameters is less than 50% and, in any given year, you can watch the models over fit the outcomes “in real time”.
All of you need to take a course in General Science.
Again, I concede to your superiority at dissuading people from the intelligence involved in the pro-climate change arguments.
WTF is “General Science”?
Again prove him wrong. Remember you climate hack that the predicts would be bigger badder hurricanes. That didn’t happen.
Go hide in general science, whatever made up class that is.
Your question shows you do not understand the processes.
Take a course in environmental science!
It is always room temperature.
Pretty tepid comment, coming from you.
Just lukewarm?
This thread’s gone cole.
Comment had a chilling effect?
It’s a hot topic.
It’s nice to see Ron finally admit it’s all a fraud.
Now if he would only admit he just admitted it.
My favorite transformation that happened with my friends on the left who were skeptical of COVID, they realized the COVID rhetoric was alarmingly similar to Climate change. This caused them to go back and re-evaluate their long-held position on climate politics.
The leftists you know must be smarter than the ones I know. All of them not only bought into the Fauci Covid paranoia, they also doubled down on their climate hysteria.
Well, I’m separating those out. The VENN diagram between the Branch Covidians and Climate Alarmism was complete overlap. And those few liberty-minded people on the left who were skeptical of the COVID narratives started to notice that.
There are self-described progressives who now realize that… to give one minor example, that Greta Thunberg is literally a creation of corporate globalists– that she is ultimately a stalking horse for… um, “massive societal transformations”.
Once they started fucking with everyone’s kids, some of them woke up. That’s the thing that the non-kid crowd doesn’t realize. To decent human beings, their kids are their life and not to be pushed around for political points or control.
Every “problem” during my lifetime has always had the solution – less freedom for the individual. After a while, even progressives see this, but for them, it’s a feature not a bug.
Indeed. All of th leftists I know have never learned a goddamned thing.
Example:
Yep, “massive societal transformation” based on your failed model. Fuck off.
Excellent example.
If you read what he’s saying, it “worked” because it generated the desired political outcome.
It’s worse than that – they’re saying that the fact that it was wrong, proved that it worked.
My favorite was the “studies” that showed that a mask could stop the COVID virus. When I questioned these “studies” I was told that if I wasn’t an expert in microbiology, then I was a fraud and needed to shut up. I replied that it wasn’t a microbiology problem, it was a fluid dynamics problem and yes some considered me well versed in the field.
We just need to get rid of the democrats. Then this can all be solved.
American rights > democrat lives
Take a course in environmental science!
More testing needed!
It is indeed a continuum, and off-ramp options are widening with time. Even Putin’s oilygarchs are getting in on the game. One proposes to Make Siberia Great Again and curb methane release by re-establishing its Ice Age ecology with cloned wooly mammoths and other megafauna:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/12/one-mammoth-steppe-for-mankind.html
Stop pushing your false narrative website. Nobody here is being tricked.
Missed this was a re sponse at first and it still made sense.
Especially the Honorary Deputy Sherif of Tombstone, Lord Monckton.
How would a cloned wolly mammoth prevent the permafrost from melting?
Grass is preferable to trees, ostensibly reflecting more solar energy. Mammoths thrash trees preventing grasslands from turning into forests and can convert forests into grasslands.
Also, the megafauna disturb and pack down and disturb the snow while foraging in winter. This exposes the soil to colder temperatures for longer periods. This freezes the soil deeper to help keep layers cold during summer. The Pleistocene Park documentaries provide more details. Some are available on YouTube.
Would trampling snow to get at the grass expose dirt to sunlight, thus warming it?
Which is hotter, an open grassland or a shaded forest floor?
In winter, snow cover insulates. It keeps the soil warmer (keeps it from losing more heat).
Pleistocene Park is linked directly in the blog post above
Snark warning : PP was one of a hundred wannabe world saver pavillions in the Green Area at COP28 Dubai.
Cop27 Sharm Al Shiek featured dancers in inflatable polar bear suits.
I’m not visiting your blog.
If you think the methane released by cows is bad, wait till Siberia is populated with woolly mammoths.
Do grass-fed animals generate more or less methane than grain-fed animals?
Pleistocene Park in Siberia is already doing this with megafauna.
“Find one global climate warming change model ever, that covered more than a 10 year projection, that was correct.”
There have been so many model runs that you are shooting at your foot with the question. But you asked for it, and here it is, a critical review article edited by the scientist Ron quotes. Now read it:
https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.648
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project: History, uses, and structural effects on climate research
Ludovic Touzé-Peiffer, Anouk Barberousse, Hervé Le Treut
First published: 20 April 2020 https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.
Hulme notes “While the principle behind it has always remained the same—comparing different climate models under similar conditions—its design and motivations have evolved significantly over the phases of the project. This evolution is closely linked to that of the IPCC since, historically as well as today, the results of CMIP have played a major role in the Panel’s reports. This role increased the visibility of CMIP. Over time, more and more people started to be interested in CMIP and to analyze its results.
Despite this success, the way CMIP is used today raises methodological issues. In fact, CMIP has promoted a particular way of doing climate research, centered on a single tool–Global Coupled Models (GCMs)–and creating a gap between model developers and model users.
Due to the debates regarding the interpretation of multi-model ensembles and the validation of GCMs, whether the emphasis on this particular way of studying climate is serving the progress of climate science is questionable.
Did you actually read the article you cited? Did you even read the abstract that you cut-and-pasted into the comment? That article is a harsh criticism of the entire climate modeling process.
Furthermore, it’s based entirely on the model-to-model comparisons. When compared to actual observations, it gets even worse. To Longtobefree’s original point, not one of the models has statistically significant predictive power. And as the multi-model ensembles demonstrate, the errors are systemic, not stochastic (that is, the errors do not average away).
“That article is a harsh criticism of the entire modeling process” No it’s not.
Hulme is a sensible climate modeler criticizing climate hype-
Please read to the end of abstract before re-inserting your foot into your mouth. it concludes
“Due to the debates regarding the interpretation of multi-model ensembles and the validation of GCMs, whether the emphasis on this particular way of studying climate is serving the progress of climate science is questionable.”
Both Ron and I wrote about it when it came out three years ago.
What would officials do to keep the world terrified if they were not allowed to use sloppy guesswork and hasty calculations by non-scientist official experts? The typical world citizen can’t be bothered to try to understand actual evidence based science and probably could not even if they tries. But typical world citizens CAN understand that they are being lied to and that the mumbo-jumbo being parroted in the news entertainment media doesn’t make any sense at all, with or without evidence or scientific expertise. It is, however, encouraging that powerful people are finally starting to push back despite the social pressure.
Sorry, the editor would not accept my corrections and clarifications.
Good article.
So, it is good, although not surprising, news that when the world passes through the 1.5 C target, it will not be plunging to its death over a climate cliff. The upshot is that Al Jaber, climate activists, and COP28 negotiators are pursuing a fake North Star.
It looks to me like nothing has changed for either the deniers or the activists. The future for them both is to wrestle in their trough (hopefully well below sea-level) forever. One pretending that a political aspiration of (mostly) bureaucrats/socialists is reality. The other that reality itself isn’t reality until it knocks you upside the head and you die.
Once those two are eliminated – who’s left now? Because however stupid the basis for either the 1.5ers or the deniers, gotta admit they were very successful at convincing people. Should be an entertainingly big fight in that trough.
So – what does a 2.5C world look like? Or alternatively – what does 30-years-in-future look like ‘here’? Because both of those projections/ranges are exactly what is needed for the real world (the market) to do something if something is big enough to need doing. Indeed, that might make for an interesting AI app (NOT some BS CA VC ‘Big Tech’ shit intended to sell eyeballs) to help people assess investments, home purchases, relocations, muni-level infrastructure, etc.
Just realize the people “in the know” still purchase large homes on the waterfront.
For any true Hayekian libertarian, the important thing about ‘climate change in future’ is to open ‘in the know’ to everybody. Not just to limit ‘in the know’ to government, BigCo, BigTech, BigBank, billionaires, and the Davos crowd.
The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form, but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.
That is the only way markets/pricing system can work. To leverage knowledge instead of cronyist connections, existing power, etc.
I will, again, repeat Instapundit:
I will believe it is a crisis when the people who say it is a crisis act like it is a crisis.
The biggest destractors to your environmental beliefs, JFree, are the people most loudly proclaiming them.
Sorry about that.
You assume that those people are acting on ‘the knowledge’ of what they know about the future climate rather than ‘the knowledge’ that they personally will be bailed out of any bad decision they make.
I don’t know man, what would you think of a person who bragged they were vegan, but lived on a diet of cheeseburgers?
Vegan brownies have a name: Frownies
Vegans also fart a lot.
Never again!
If they refuse to abide by the demands they are trying to place on others, why should anybody abide by them?
If Congress decided to lecture Americans on fiscal responsibility, it might ring hollow to most.
“Just realize the people “in the know” still purchase large homes on the waterfront.”
Some choose sites more wisely than others :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/09/pride-goeth-before-squall.html
I’m looking at you Barack!
You used the word “deniers”.
Yes I did. Because there are a ton of people who deny that climate has actually changed so far. Not talking about opposing the hoohaa of the 1.5ers.
Can you cite these people claiming climate doesn’t change? It is your side claiming a holistic optimal temperature while ignoring the past. So please provide your citation.
” It is your side claiming a holistic optimal temperature while ignoring the past”
Cite?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
How many ( fifty year old) beach houses will have to fall into the drink on Nantucket, and how many half-drowned ExFox talking heads will have bail from Boca and other soon to be Galvestons along the Gulf, before 60 Minutes comes calling uninvited ?
The genius of the Florida real estate pioneers consisted in buying up and personally colonizing the coral rock high ground from Hobe to Palm Beach, and building rail infrastructure to cater to the dicier bayou coasts on both side of the peninsula. Flagler didn’t turn Miami into a megapolis— Castro did.
“How many ( fifty year old) beach houses will have to fall into the drink on Nantucket, and how many half-drowned ExFox talking heads will have bail from Boca and other soon to be Galvestons along the Gulf, before 60 Minutes comes calling uninvited ?”
That’s all you got? I was promised apocalypse and whole states being underwater, non stop hurricanes, sharknados, and decimation of the world as we know it and the best you got is maybe beach houses went down?
When you predict a bunch of batshit insane tripe and deliver not but 0.0001% of what you said, the burden of proof still rests on your shoulders not mine.
I hope you don’t under deliver this much with your wife, for her sake
These climate cultists would be joke if they had t already done so much damage with their bullshit at every level of life. I’m not sure we can survive their continued existence.
American rights > democrat lives
Pretty much everyone accepts that climate has always changed, and they say “so what”.
Are these so called deniers “denying” the ice ages or any historical changes? I would say that deniers is inaccurate, its more shoulder shurggers.
Tell me why the fuck I should care about this weeks chicken little tantrum from you?
Half you deniers would deny the earth is round. Or that gravity exists. Or that temperature can be measured. And it’s all a conspiracy.
It has nothing to do with ‘climate’ since it’s the same m.o. (and the same people conspiring against you) for everything.
If you think you’re selling healthy skepticism, you’re not.
“Half you deniers would deny the earth is round. Or that gravity exists. Or that temperature can be measured. And it’s all a conspiracy.”
Wow, throwing out the “denier” argument ender and absolutely dispatching a big bad strawman that doesn’t exist. Pace yourself JFree! You dont need to use every trick in the book to show you dont have a cogent argument.
“It has nothing to do with ‘climate’ since it’s the same m.o.”
Ya sorry. You dont get to make a shitty attempt at pleading your case, and then when you are made fun of say “well I mean they just wouldn’t listen to reason on ANYTHING, its not MY fault they dont believe my super serial science facts!”
You have the very unfortunate position of being given a shitty client to defend, and also lack the basic skills to prosecute any case in general, and it shows.
When did become carbon neutral and how did you accomplish this?
Yes I did
You are a priest, not a thinker
A +2.5C world looks a lot like the climate, structure and food production patterns during the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period before that.
Does it? Because from what I’ve read, the Roman Warm Period was explicitly created as a term for a regional European/Mediterranean and (maybe) North Atlantic/Gulf Stream phenomenon. NOT global.
I doubt you’ve ever read anything longer than a bazooka joe comic.
Your being generous.
You know global average temperature is utter bullshit right?
I can think of some ways to measure a global temperature that isn’t bullshit.
I don’t actually know what the basis is for the global average temp that climate scientists and alarmists use. I suspect it is kind of bullshit.
you are a useful idiot
Right. It’s so serious, all the big wigs have to fly their private jets there, than hide their motorcades from public view.
But hey Teams is good for the rest of us.
And right on cue, here steps in the chief climate alarmist:
It is irresponsible and wrong for him to be so reckless with the truth.
I request a fact check here.
I’ve requested he commit suicide dozens of times. I’m still waiting.
“That whole generation is damned.”
Can we get confirmation from Satan?
Since he got the UN account, he’s been too busy writing advertising copy to reply:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/12/gobsmacking-bananas-crash-and-burn-in.html
Stop pumping your spam site.
It is like squirrel has a twin.
Indeed Biden’s and AOC’s rhetoric is not useful. Much better to look at primary sources.
I’m still waiting, though, for denialists and sceptics to provide the models that support their opinions particularly showing why the large human caused rise in CO2 would not have any effect, contrary to hypotheses that existed well before recent times, and showing, also that these models track recent climate trends while not supporting further rises. I mean, these models that support your opinions have to exist, right?
“denialist” is the type of word used by priests and inquisitors, not rational thinkers.
We are not the ones demanding massive programs to address the issue.
Your side is.
It is, therefore, up to your side to provide the evidence and that has not been done to date.
If you’re still waiting, it’s because you’re intentionally not looking. It is, in fact, the null hypothesis – that CO2’s impact on climate is dwarfed by the impact of the water cycle and that, contrary to the CAGW hypothesis, the water cycle is dominated by negative feedback effects on climate.
The null hypothesis also includes the observation that climate even in a water-dominated environment goes through periodic cycles and that the planet is still emerging from the Little Ice Age. In other words, we are still regressing to the mean – and would be regardless of the industrial increases in CO2 production.
That’s a lot of denying in one paragraph.
And yet you don’t deny a bit of it.
That’s a lot of L’s you just took
The only people claiming climate has a stable ideal global temperature without natural variation is your side dummy.
Yawn, cite please?
The “cite” is anyone who has been paying attention to you retards for the past 40 years.
Mamma don’t wan’t no science journals round here.
Another great rebuttal.
Weird, people just picking apart every one of your arguments and all you can respond with is “denier!” and “read a science journal” yet you have brought the least amount of actual scientific information to the table.
Funny that
*yawn* Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Demanding massive changes to prevent the Earth from getting “too hot” is a clear indication that there IS a proper temperature for the Earth and any real change from it is bad.
Do you follow the logic of what you profess to think?
You’re operating from the flawed premise that human activity caused a significant increase in temperature . So everything else you wrote is bullshit by default.
You dont have to fight the denialists and the skeptics, you have to fight the realists.
You aren’t arguing against people that think the greenhouse effect is made up and burning fossil fuel in no way could cause any change whatsoever.
You are arguing against the vast majority that say “ya, so what.” And they probably think that because burning fossil fuels has led to the largest technological and quality of life enhancement in all of human history, and the supposed downsides the cult warns about never seem to come about. At this point Florida is supposed to be fully underwater, we are supposed to be having crazy superstorms every year, and the temperature is supposed to be significantly higher, and the people bitching about burning fossil fuels continue to buy waterfront property in areas that supposedly should be underwater right now, while flying around in jets burning millions of times the amount of carbon than the average American.
So you dont have to convince them that it is a thing that exists, you have to convince them why they should possibly give a fuck about it when the end of times was supposed to come about 5 times over now, and never does.
And by “it exists” I mean the greenhouse effect and the concept it is based on, not that burning fossil fuel actually results in climate change, which it clearly does not.
How many ( fifty year old) beach houses will have to fall into the drink on Nantucket, and how many half-drowned ExFox talking heads will have bail from Boca and other soon to be Galvestons along the Gulf, before 60 Minutes comes calling uninvited ?
The genius of the Florida real estate pioneers consisted in buying up and personally colonizing the coral rock high ground from Hobe to Palm Beach, and building rail infrastructure to cater to the dicier bayou coasts on both side of the peninsula. Flagler didn’t turn Miami into a megapolis— Castro did.
Each post you make results in more carbon emissions. Consider reducing your carbon footprint.
Have any done so?
“Climate change” has been an obsession for about 40 years so far.
Beach erosion never happened before 50 years ago? Sea levels never changed?
I’m still waiting, though, for denialists and sceptics to provide the models that support their opinions particularly showing why the large human caused rise in CO2 would not have any effect,
Strawman argument detected. The actual argument is we don’t know what kind of effect it will have. Maybe negatives will outweigh positives, maybe not. The alarmists are the ones running around saying the planet is imperiled by a temperature increase of a mere 2 degrees.
A natural warming trend, possibly augmented by human activity, is a reasonable hypothesis. And if such a trend exists, then any model that models a system with gradually rising temperatures will look somewhat like reality.
Your the guilty prove yourself innocent crowd.
It’s your job to convince people their is a problem. Not the other way around. You have to prove facts.
Have you? Show them. Sure the proof it’s all man made. Show it doesn’t have anything to do with solar activity. Show it wasn’t hotter in the past.
“The idea is that humanity must reduce its emissions of globe-warming greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels sufficiently to keep the planet from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial baseline (1850-1900).”
Consider this. We have only had thermometers capable of measuring the temperature to 1/10 of a degree, either F or C, since the 1950’s. We haven’t collected enough data to have established the baseline to know if we are effecting the “global temperature” or not.
Yeah, but acknowledging that won’t help democrats sell more Marxism.
LOL!
Ever hear of a thermal Wheatstone Bridge?
How about finite element thermal modeling ?
Geophysicists & instrument makers moved on from microkelvins to nanokelvins around the time we landed on the moon.
Geophysicists & instrument makers moved on from microkelvins to nanokelvins around the time we landed on the moon.
So you agree that we only have accurate data going back about 50-60 years, at best.
I’ll just leave this here…
https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/ipcc-climate-policy-redistributing-worlds-wealth-greg-pollowitz/
Most of the climate change models so far seem to have underestimated feedback loops and impacts. We screw around with this at our peril; meanwhile increasing CO2 absorption in the oceans pollutes the water to the point where it’s getting too acidic in colder water for shellfish to develop, which knocks out a large part of the entire oceanic food-chain and anything that migrates between salt and freshwater. And we also know that it’s not a linear process; the cycling during the ice ages from roughly 150ppm to 280ppm and back again was accompanied by periods of stability punctuated by sudden changes in sea level, not gradual change. And now here we are at 420 and increasing many times as rapidly than we ever did prior. The CO2 pollution itself and the consequences, like hotter and less stable weather, are happening too fast for nature and anything that depends on it, like our food production, to evolve and keep up with.
Free markets and free economies tend to thrive with stability, even if that stability comes at an additional short-term price, and tend to unravel with disaster. We should do more to avert disaster.
it’s getting too acidic in colder water for shellfish to develop
This is untrue.
the consequences, like hotter and less stable weather, are happening too fast for nature and anything that depends on it, like our food production, to evolve and keep up with
This is also not true.
LOL.
These climate kids are so used to both spouting, as well as hearing, that “99000 experts all agree everything terrible is happening and the world is ending” that they are getting very lazy with their talking points.
Off topic, but reminds me of our affirmative action SCOTUS judge, who ran with the whopper that went something like “a black baby has 2x survival rate if taken care of by a black physician” (cant remember the exact wording). But this is the kind of intellectually lazy stuff you get when you are produced by, surrounded by, and fully bought into your own extreme bubble.
They will say shit that you would assume would either instantly trigger themselves, or someone immediately in the vicinity, to go “…I mean no that’s retarded you know that cant be true right?”
One of the most impressive things Trump did was exiting the Paris Accord and only out-oppressed by Biden re-enacting it.
There is no Constitutional authority for pursuits of weather control because gov-‘guns’ (the only tool in it’s toolbox) can’t control the weather.
Ironically the biggest strides to environmental control are the same strides the environmentalists want taken away. I’m curious where all the pollutants are going to go once all the energy used to take care of them are eliminated. I guess the answer is let’s all think backwards from human intelligence so the magic of ‘gun’-force can save us all….
If democrats had the courage of their convictions on climate change, they would all commit suicide to save the planet.
There’s a saying from the dawn of the computer age in the mid 20th century that’s appropriate today: “Garbage in. garbage out”.
If this commentariat becomes discourse fodder for LLM Chatbot trainers, the world is doomed !
Says the bot.
The world is doomed
Nothing lasts forever.
Everything lasts forever
Interesting to note that many commenters here interpret the article to be proof that we shouldn’t care about any of this climate change stuff. In other words, let’s keep our heads firmly ensconced in the sand so long as there is profit to be made from selling fossil fuels.
Let me simplify things for you. Humanity is taking carbon captured by the biosphere over millions of years of & returning it to the atmosphere in a matter of decades. The impact on climate is uncertain but what is 100% certain is that humanity is engaging in a planetwide geo-engineering project with unknown consequences for civilization.
I daresay that plenty of people believe that their wealth will insulate them from any ecological changes. I say that when we are engaging in Russian Roulette with our only viable planet, it is prudent to try & empty some bullet chambers.
There is an argument to be made that many of the migration issues facing humanity can be attributed to climate collapse in different parts of the world. Droughts being only one example of what is driving people to leave their homes. Humanity will probably survive a significant rise in temperature. Civilization as we know it is much less likely. Anyone who thinks that they can be assured of surviving the chaos in comfort is delusional.
“There is an argument to be made that many of the migration issues facing humanity can be attributed to climate collapse in different parts of the world”
So? People make stupid arguments all the time. Especially Marxists (democrats here in the US). We shouldn’t use any of that as a basis for policy. Especially when such policies are unconstitutional.
A much more rational argument can be made that Marxists and its adherents are an existential threat to humanity. Which should be used as a basis for policy.
I’ll take the Russian Roulette of the weather any day over Gov-‘gun’ Russian Roulette (one of ‘unknown consequences’ by your own words) and frankly all of earths history makes my odds of survival far better than your game of Russian Roulette.
Never-mind that the ecological changes of any significance never existed *until* the ‘Climate Change’ hoax began in the 1980s. Why it’s almost like it’s a sef-propelling machine of pure BS.
Look, if you’re so worried about a hotter world, just do the whole animatrix blot out the sun thing.
the simplest solution always works.
There is an argument to be made that many of the migration issues facing humanity can be attributed to climate collapse in different parts of the world.
There is an argument that is made, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The number-one driver of forced migration is political turmoil, full stop.
Let me simplify it even more for you:
Fuck off, slaver.
Proposed mitigations of climate change have significant negative consequences too. Way too many people ignore that part. Cheap, readily available energy is what makes people rich and prosperous and able to adapt quickly. If you try to eliminate fossil fuels without having something better to replace them with (and “renewables” that exist are not that by a long shot), a lot of people are going to suffer.
If climate change ends up being significant, there may well be some somewhat difficult times of adjustment. But a slightly warmer world is far from a disaster for humanity in the long term. And probably less harmful than forced, top down, reorganization of society in the short term.
You do realize droughts and temp changes in the past shaped humanity. Or do you just believe 5000 years people just – hey I’m going on a stroll just for some place new. They went because conditions became bad.
How about wildfires as an example – climate change true believers say its because it’s hotter and dryer. Data, true data shows that it’s because of environmental policies. A wild fire is nature’s way to prune undergrowth. Yet, people are allowed to go in a prune undergrowth which would stop major wild fires.
Climate changes though history. Who says that this small slice of temp is correct?
Good post, but you’re in the wrong forum. These climate posts draw in the same crowd of confident idiots declaring up is down and there’s nothing you can do to change minds. It’s like reading Kafka.
Seriously, with handles like these you know you’re wasting your time. I, WoodChipper, the philosophical foundation of rationality. And One Puch Man, able to defeat climate Marxists in a single retort. What a hoot!
I choose to ignore this 1.5 C mandate because I use the American Fahrenheit scale.
The C is for Commie.
Fahrenheit is the superior scale for weather for sure. Degrees C are too big.
That’s the problem with the whole Metric system. Units jump up by a factor of 10—no intermediate units that are practical in real world measuring situations. You end up using units that are too small or too big for everyday purposes.
Even my 3 year old has been able to see the changing climate in their short time here on Earth. They/thems first words were “How Dare You!”
As a Christmas present to evangelicals and Calvinists who think sea level can’t rise because God told Noah otherwise, Biden should order NOAA to scrap degrees Kelvin and switch Degrees C. to ˚Calvin, since he set the Predestination ball rolling.
If you’re so worried about sea levels rising, just do the whole Animatrix blot out the sun thing, to cause sea levels to drop.
the simplest solution always works.
In cartoons, but most road runners think freezing the oceans a suboptimal solution to the problem of sea level rise.
As a Christmas present to evangelicals and Calvinists who think sea level can’t rise because God told Noah otherwise
Here’s hoping you find one.
Christians already have been given a great gift by climate cultists:
They have mimicked almost perfectly the concepts of the garden of eden, original sin, evangelizing, and the rapture to T. In fact, they really differ from religious folks in just a few key details, but they have really paid homage to the rest of the nuts and bolts quite well.
Eventually they’ll get around to forgiveness and redemption, maybe even a bit of “Love thy neighbor.” Just give them another 30 years or so.
Maybe, if we’re lucky, all the liberals will die when the global temperature increases by 1.5c.
The first was the “preservation of Creation in its present form”
The term for that is “stagnation.”
I’m not even going to make the argument. I’m just going to reference the best explanation of it I’ve ever heard:
https://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/why-socialists-need-capitalism-best-explanation-so-far-t17696.html
Socialism conserves the stage in which the society existed at the time it was overtaken. Cubans still drive American cars from the 1950s, North Koreans still dress in the fashions of the same bygone era, and in the USSR I grew up in a government-owned house that was taken from the rich and given to the needy in 1920s and remained without indoor plumbing or running water and with ancient electrical wiring until it was condemned and demolished in 1986.
A planned economy is mostly focused оn providing the basic needs that have already been declared “human rights,” and even then it struggles to keep up with the demand. The USSR had smart inventors and brilliant scientists, but the first personal computer was built in a Californian garage and not in a Siberian one — because America had free enterprise and the USSR didn’t. In the absence of free markets and competition, innovation becomes an almost insurmountable task. There is no time nor money for new products and services; that way it’s also easier for the government to run the economy. And when the people don’t know what they are missing, there’s no reason to be unhappy.
That, however, works best when the rest of the world no longer has competing capitalist economies and no nation lives better than the rest. For example, if it weren’t for capitalist America and Western Europe with their never ending innovation and higher living standards, it would have been a lot easier for Soviet citizens to remain content with their socialist government and thus the USSR would probably still exist.
But wouldn’t it be great if the entire world lived like one socialist village — even if it conserved some ancient technology — and people wouldn’t be missing any consumer products they knew nothing about anyway? Absolutely not — and for a reason that is allegedly dear to every socialist in the West: environmental protection. Centrally planned economies of the Eastern Bloc, China, and other socialist states inevitably became some of the world’s worst polluters.
On the one hand they were stuck with outdated technologies, and on the other they had no budgets for cleanup. Their grimy and polluting state-run factories had to meet their production quotas at any cost, for the glory of the Motherland — even if it meant the destruction of the Motherland’s environment and endangering the health of workers and local residents. Complaining to the state about the actions of the state would be pointless and often more dangerous than breathing bad air and drinking polluted water.
Having the entire world adhering to this model would have resulted in an environmental apocalypse and there would be no Greenpeace to bemoan it because that would mean economic sabotage and the activists would by default become enemies of the state.
Read the whole thing if it’s your first time seeing it.
Nothing between the link and “read the whole thing” is mine. Reason’s janky comment system is ridiculous for sourcing stuff.
If they were like let’s start building nuclear plants as fast as we can I’d be on board but the stupidity of wind and solar proves they aren’t serious and it’s just a power play.
I’d shoot for massive gains in hydro-electric but apparently the “natural” corrosion/destruction of the earth by running water is so desirable its such a big no, no that there’s political talk of destroying the one’s already in place. You see, on the West, plant and soil deb-re infested water is good but down in Florida it’s a massive pollutant.
Which-ever way pendulum has to swing to take away human resources because some people’s envy has to stop at any cost.
Exactly. They also leave out that wind turbines can’t be recycled. Solar panels also have that issue.
Electric cars are worst for climate change over their life cycle than ICE but it makes you feel good (even though it’s charged with coal power)
We had something like climate change religion back in the 1800s except now if you sin you plant a tree or pay a carbon tax.
Come on true climate believers, admit it’s a religion. You do it because it makes you feel good like the myth of recycling. You sin or indulgence and plant a tree.
I’ve lost track of all the wrong predictions
There was peak oil
There was the population bomb
There was global cooling because of pollution
Of course nuclear will end all of us
Oh, we need to recycle because we are running out of materials
No more snow falls after 2010
4 years to save the plant every 4 years.
Oh Y2k will make the world back like the stone age.
Always something to stress.
The warming will tend to concentrate in already cold climates and at night time. So two degrees concentrated in Siberian nights, making it 28 rather than 30 below zero celsius (almost same in Fahrenheit by coincidence) does not sound like desaster at all, especially for Gretas Sweden.
I realise the risks are greater and more complicated than that, but is it not a bizarre way to raise alarm about the issue? Let alone talking about the planet sizzling? Or for that matter using the colour green for policies aiming to REDUCE greenhouse gases?
The left’s hysterics and obvious lies have brought forth more climate deniers than any right wing organization could give us. The left is clearly lying, which makes us wonder if anything they say is true. John Stossel recently reported that leftist activists claim that higher Temperatures have caused something like 116K deaths from het, but don’t mention the 286k people who would have died of excessive cold without higher temperatures of the last 20 years. This means that higher temperatures are a good thing, and the only danger is to Obama’s multimillion dollar mansion on the beach. (My numbers may be slightly off, but they are close to what was reported.)