Temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030-2052 without rapid steps - U.N. report

[webfact]

Temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030-2052 without rapid steps - U.N. report

By Nina Chestney and Jane Chung

 

FILE PHOTO: People make their way through heavy smog on an extremely polluted day with red alert issued, in Shengfang, Hebei province, China December 19, 2016. REUTERS/Damir Sagolj/File Photo

 

LONDON/SEOUL (Reuters) - Temperatures are likely to rise by 1.5 degrees Celsius between 2030 and 2052 if global warming continues at its current pace and if the world fails to take rapid and unprecedented measures to stem the increase, a U.N. report said on Monday.

 

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) met last week in Incheon, South Korea to finalise the report, prepared at the request of governments in 2015 when a global pact to tackle climate change was agreed.

 

The report is seen as the main scientific guide for government policymakers on how to implement the 2015 Paris Agreement.

 

The Paris pact aims to limit global average temperature rise to "well below" 2C above pre-industrial levels, while seeking to tighten the goal to 1.5C.

 

There has already been a rise of 1C since the mid-1800s as industrialisation lifted emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas blamed for climate change.

 

A rise of 1.5C would still carry climate-related risks for nature and mankind but the risks would be lower than a rise of 2C, the report summary said.

 

Meeting the 1.5C limit required "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented" change in land and energy use, industry, buildings, transport and cities, it said, adding temperatures would be 1.5C higher between 2030 and 2052 at the current pace.

 

The targets agreed in Paris on cutting emissions would not be enough even if there were larger and more ambitious cuts after 2030, it said.

 

To contain warming at 1.5C, manmade global net carbon dioxide emissions would need to fall by about 45 percent by 2030 from 2010 levels and reach "net zero" by mid-century. Any additional emissions would require removing CO2 from the air.

 

"Limiting warming to 1.5C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes," said Jim Skea, co-chair of the IPCC working group which assesses climate change mitigation.

 

UNPRECEDENTED CHANGE

The summary said renewable energy would need to supply 70 to 85 percent of electricity by 2050 to stay within a 1.5C limit, compared with about 25 percent now.

 

Using carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, the share of gas-fired power would need to be cut to 8 percent and coal to between 0 and 2 percent. There was no mention of oil in this context in the summary.

 

If the average global temperature temporarily exceeded 1.5C, additional carbon removal techniques would be required to return warming to below 1.5C by 2100.

 

But the report said the efficacy of measures, such as planting forests, bioenergy use or capturing and storing CO2, were unproven at a large scale and carried some risks.

 

Steps like reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space were not assessed because of the uncertainties about using such technology, the report said.

 

It said keeping the rise in temperature to 1.5C would mean sea levels by 2100 would be 10 cm lower than if the warming was 2C, the likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century not at least once a decade, and coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent instead of being virtually wiped out.

 

"The report shows that we only have the slimmest of opportunities remaining to avoid unthinkable damage to the climate system that supports life as we know it," said Amjad Abdulla, the IPCC board member and chief negotiator for the alliance of small island states.

 

(Reporting by Nina Chestney in London and Jane Chung in Seoul; Editing by Edmund Blair)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-10-08

[canuckamuck]

Awesome news, I will be able to return to Canada for my twilight years after having missed the worst of the winters.

[ezzra]

"Après nous, le déluge" ("After us, the flood") is a French expression, attributed to Madame de Pompadour... we so much to worry about in our life times that worrying 50 years ahead is just too much...

[DM07]

Oooooh...come on!

When the dinosaurs pooped on Adam's front lawn, it was much hotter than today!

And plants need CO2, so why worry!?

And if we loose a few islands full of cannibals, somewhere in the Southern Pacific- who cares?

[connda]

On the bright side, shipping though an ice free Northwest Passage will lower shipping costs.

[UnkleMoooose]

Not that I believe in AGW, but the image shows pollution in Beijing, the Chinese who refuse to be bound by IPCC (bogus/biased "science" (ala Mann Hockey Stick, and the one defective sea level buoy in HK harbour)) findings, and haven't signed up to any accords, neither have the US, India....etc. You know, the biggest polluters. And don't get me started on carbon trading, the greatest Ponzi scheme ever.

Edited October 8, 2018 by UnkleMoooose

[727Sky]

The IPCC with their computer models said the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. Everything and I do mean everything their computer models have said would happen has not happened.

 

Anyone remember the hockey stick graph showing we would all be frying by now or before 2030 ?? It ain't gonna happen...

 

We are at solar minimum 25 going into solar minimum 26 so considering the last time the sun was this quite we were in the mini ice age called the maunder minimum.

 

Of course the earth has warmed since 1800 but if the history of cycles is correct we will cycle back into a cold period.. For those old enough to remember the 70s and all the scientific papers about us entering into another ice age well it did not happen.... do not take the IPCC to seriously.

 

Just one of many videos which track the actual temperatures world wide.. I suggest next time you hear the IPCC doom and gloom about climate warming pay attention and then go look at the area they are talking about. This is nothing but a wealth transfer scheme to make everyone/country equally miserable..

If cold, crops can not grow as the planting season is either shorter or unknown and therefore people will starve just like they have in the past.

NASA has stated within the last 2 months that

Earth's Thermosphere has Record Cold which is pretty good for them considering they adjusted the data for 1936 which was the hottest year on record for dramatic effect.

One of the reasons America pulled out of the climate change fraud that was exposed by testimony before the US senate. A long video but worth a listen for those who want to learn instead of parrot for an agenda

 

I will close with let us count the molecules:

 

Atmosphere

780,000 N2 Nitrogen which is 78%

210,000 O2 oxygen 21%

3,900 H2O water     +201 increase or about 5% unless you are in the desert

280 CO2  +120 increase .038%..... without C02 plants die

1 CH2 methane +1

Argon 1%

The IPCC computer models versus actual temps

 

[digger70]

Scaremongering load of Garbage It's all from the ice age Phenomenon.This has been happening for millions of years,nothing is changed it will keep on happening for millions of years to come.

[Justgrazing]

Should coincide nicely with that E Musk geeza's shuttle thing to the Moon so we can set about wrecking that place as well .. 

[GreasyFingers]

2 hours ago, 727Sky said:

The IPCC with their computer models said the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. Everything and I do mean everything their computer models have said would happen has not happened.

I agree. I first had to deal with the problem of rising sea levels in the early 80s when the rise would be with us in 2015. They just keep pushing the time frame out to suit their agenda.

[Scott]

Off-topic, nonsense and troll posts along with replies removed.  

 

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been removed.  

[iroc4life]

Just like when the Ice Caps were gong to gone by 2014-15 hahaha. All govt of the world want more control of anything and everything, they will stop at nothing to get it either. If the masses will not fall in line the militaries will move in sooner or later and force it.  

Edited October 8, 2018 by iroc4life

[DM07]

14 hours ago, GreasyFingers said:

I agree. I first had to deal with the problem of rising sea levels in the early 80s when the rise would be with us in 2015. They just keep pushing the time frame out to suit their agenda.

It may not affect you and therefor you don't care, but rising sea- levels already HAVE taken land and mind you: land,that people used to live on!

 

[DM07]

4 hours ago, iroc4life said:

Just like when the Ice Caps were gong to gone by 2014-15 hahaha. All govt of the world want more control of anything and everything, they will stop at nothing to get it either. If the masses will not fall in line the militaries will move in sooner or later and force it.  

Yeah...hahahaha...so funny!

Like the glaciers that have already disappeared and the fact, that the Greenland ice- shelf is the smallest in...like...forever!

But I guess, it doesn't get hot under your tin- foil hat, so you don't care!

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎10‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 2:19 PM, webfact said:

The summary said renewable energy would need to supply 70 to 85 percent of electricity by 2050

Nuclear can provide all of it without adding any CO2 at all.

Once again, we get some unacountable body telling us the sky is falling and we have to do something about it, but never, ever mentioning the biggest drivers of pollution- overpopulation, and big business ( destruction of rainforests to grow palm oil of raise cattle for hamburgers are just a couple of their sins ).

If it's really as bad as they claim, declare martial law and enforce measures to cut pollution. Politicians elected by the greedy will never do what is needed, as too afraid they'll lose their cushy, extremely well paid jobs and all the perks that go with it.

[RickBradford]

44 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If it's really as bad as they claim, declare martial law and enforce measures to cut pollution.

Christ, don't give them ideas! 

 

Actually, that's exactly what Big Green has been saying for ages -- a 2016 article in New Republic is headlined "We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII."

 

It's the usual Big Green refrain - regulate, control, suppress, issue demands.

 

While we're on the subject of hysterical media, the headline from the OP is grossly misleading, trying to give the impression that global temperature will rise 1.5C from now to mid-century.

 

The scientists said that by mid-century, global temperatures may be 1.5C higher than they were in 1850, which is usually taken as the baseline for the industrial revolution.

 

We have already seen warming of 1C from 1850 to now with no evident catastrophe, so the remaining rise from now to mid-century is estimated ac 0.5C.

 

Of course, that doesn't sound scary enough for the media.

[melvinmelvin]

not too worried

been calculating a bit re Greenland-ice and Antarctic ice melting,

my property in northern Europe will become a seaside land with private beach

 

increasing plenty fold in value

 

will end my days as rich!

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

 

The scientists said that by mid-century, global temperatures may be 1.5C higher than they were in 1850, which is usually taken as the baseline for the industrial revolution.

 

We have already seen warming of 1C from 1850 to now with no evident catastrophe, so the remaining rise from now to mid-century is estimated ac 0.5C.

 

Of course, that doesn't sound scary enough for the media.

Actually, the report said that the 1.5 degree increase could be reached by 2030. Is that your idea of mid century? And the IPCC has consistently been too conservative in its projections. In every update the rate of increase is higher than projected in the previous reports.

In addition to which, as is usually the case wth ACG deniers, you take no account of rate. So it isn't like temperature has been increasing at a steady rate since 1850. In fact, 2/3 of the increase has taken place in the last 42 years. And the rate of change is accelerating.

[RickBradford]

I have no idea what an "ACG denier" is, plus I implicitly noted that the rate of temperature change is accelerating by pointing out a rise of 1C from 1850 to today (1C in 168 years) with future projections of 0.5C in the next 32 years (equivalent 1C in 64 years, or even fewer on the shorter time projections).

 

I note that arithmetic is not your strong point, so let's try some general questions.

 

* If the rise in temperature is accelerating, and temperature rise is closely tied to CO2 emissions, then which countries do you think will be responsible for the majority of the projected temperature increase to 2050?

 

* Which countries were given a free pass at the Paris Climate Accords in 2015 to keep on pumping out as much CO2 as they want until 2030 at the earliest?

 

* Considering your answers to the first two questions, does that sound like a viable solution to you?

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I have no idea what an "ACG denier" is, plus I implicitly noted that the rate of temperature change is accelerating by pointing out a rise of 1C from 1850 to today (1C in 168 years) with future projections of 0.5C in the next 32 years (equivalent 1C in 64 years, or even fewer on the shorter time projections).

 

I note that arithmetic is not your strong point, so let's try some general questions.

 

* If the rise in temperature is accelerating, and temperature rise is closely tied to CO2 emissions, then which countries do you think will be responsible for the majority of the projected temperature increase to 2050?

 

* Which countries were given a free pass at the Paris Climate Accords in 2015 to keep on pumping out as much CO2 as they want until 2030 at the earliest?

 

* Considering your answers to the first two questions, does that sound like a viable solution to you?

ACG stands for Anthropogenic Climate Change

No, you didn't implicitly note it as far as the past is concerned. And what's with "32 years"? as I pointed out the IPCC pointed out that the rise could happen as early as 2030. That's 12 years, not 32. And the IPCC has a consistent record of being overly conservative in it's projections of change. In fact, every time a new report is issued, the rate is projected change increases.

As for India and China being given a "free pass,

Climate action by China, India to offset Trump: study

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-accord-temperatures/climate-action-by-china-india-to-offset-trump-study-idUSKBN1DF1LF

China leads in global shift to renewable energy

 

https://www.dw.com/en/china-leads-in-global-shift-to-renewable-energy/a-43266203

 

 I guess implicitly what you were saying is that even though China and India were given until 2030 to reduce emissions, they have both undertaken to reduce emissions way ahead of schedule.

 

 And not just that, China is on track to make its automobiles all EVs, which has effectively put the kibosh on the Trump administration's effort to put a halt to that development since China now produces more autos than the US and Japan combined or more than the EU. So automobile companies are ignoring the Trump adminstration's attempts to sabotage the growth of EV's.

[RickBradford]

I should have guessed that Trump would get dragged into this sooner rather than later ????

 

As for China, its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) as agreed at the Paris Accords has been rated as "highly insufficient" by the Climate Tracker consortium.

 

So despite Reuters' (again) acting as cheerleader for its efforts, it doesn't hide the fact that China, the world's largest CO2 emitter, is going in the direction of increased emissions, whereas other major emitters such as the US and EU, are steadily reducing emissions.

 

Yet all we hear from the self-appointed climate arbiters is the constant harping that Western nations have a "moral obligation" to be "doing more", even though they're doing plenty more already.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I should have guessed that Trump would get dragged into this sooner rather than later ????

 

As for China, its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) as agreed at the Paris Accords has been rated as "highly insufficient" by the Climate Tracker consortium.

 

So despite Reuters' (again) acting as cheerleader for its efforts, it doesn't hide the fact that China, the world's largest CO2 emitter, is going in the direction of increased emissions, whereas other major emitters such as the US and EU, are steadily reducing emissions.

 

Yet all we hear from the self-appointed climate arbiters is the constant harping that Western nations have a "moral obligation" to be "doing more", even though they're doing plenty more already.

Despite your gratuitous slam at Reuters, China is demonstrably and overwhelmingly doing more. Over half of the world's new solar capacity was built in China.

ANd it's projected rate of increase is way down.

ANd of course, anyone familiar with basic economics would understand why China and India were given more leeway. They're both developing nations still at an earlier stage of development than the industrialized Western economies. GDP per capita is definitive proof of that. Despite which, they are both way ahead of schedule in developing renewable energy.

And as for "dragging Trump" into this. Nice try. I did cite the Trump administration's conduct in relation to climate change. But , you're the one who brought the conduct of particular governments into this conversation. What are your criteria for deciding which ones are legitimate to invoke and which ones not?

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

I have no idea what an "ACG denier" is, plus I implicitly noted that the rate of temperature change is accelerating by pointing out a rise of 1C from 1850 to today (1C in 168 years) with future projections of 0.5C in the next 32 years (equivalent 1C in 64 years, or even fewer on the shorter time projections).

 

I note that arithmetic is not your strong point, so let's try some general questions.

 

* If the rise in temperature is accelerating, and temperature rise is closely tied to CO2 emissions, then which countries do you think will be responsible for the majority of the projected temperature increase to 2050?

 

* Which countries were given a free pass at the Paris Climate Accords in 2015 to keep on pumping out as much CO2 as they want until 2030 at the earliest?

 

* Considering your answers to the first two questions, does that sound like a viable solution to you?

Uhmmmm......1850....isn’t that about the time we came out of about 550 years of a colder time?

 Circa 1300 - circa 1850 ??

So shouldn’t we expect it to warm a bit? 

[RickBradford]

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I did cite the Trump administration's conduct in relation to climate change. But , you're the one who brought the conduct of particular governments into this conversation. What are your criteria for deciding which ones are legitimate to invoke and which ones not?

I never criticized the conduct of any government in the slightest.

 

In my estimation, China is doing exactly what a smart government in its position would do.

 

Extract concessions from the West to help save the precious "historic" Paris climate accord, continue to pump out as much CO2 as it wants, develop renewable energy wherever it makes sense, and leave the West to flagellate itself into a moral panic as much as it wants.

[Catoni]

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Despite your gratuitous slam at Reuters, China is demonstrably and overwhelmingly doing more. Over half of the world's new solar capacity was built in China.

ANd it's projected rate of increase is way down.

ANd of course, anyone familiar with basic economics would understand why China and India were given more leeway. They're both developing nations still at an earlier stage of development than the industrialized Western economies. GDP per capita is definitive proof of that. Despite which, they are both way ahead of schedule in developing renewable energy.

And as for "dragging Trump" into this. Nice try. I did cite the Trump administration's conduct in relation to climate change. But , you're the one who brought the conduct of particular governments into this conversation. What are your criteria for deciding which ones are legitimate to invoke and which ones not?

Are you talking about THIS China?........

 

   *** Runaway Expansion of Coal Power in China ***

 

     "Chinese coal-fired power plants, thought to have been cancelled because of 
government edicts, are still being built and are threatening to 'seriously 
undermine' global climate goals, researchers have warned. 

Satellite photos taken in 2018 of locations in China reveal cooling towers and 
new buildings that were not present a year earlier at plants that were meant to 
stop operations or be postponed by orders from Beijing. 
 

The projects are part of an 'approaching tsunami' of coal plants that would 
boost China's existing coal capacity by 25%, according to the research group 
Coalswarm. 

The total capacity of the planned coal power stations is about 259GW, bigger 
than the American coal fleet and 'wildly out of line' with the Paris climate 
agreement, the group said in a new report." 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/26/satellite-images-show-runaway- 
expansion-of-coal-power-in-china 

or https://is.gd/ZFSifV

[canuckamuck]

43 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

ACG stands for Anthropogenic Climate Change

No, you didn't implicitly note it as far as the past is concerned. And what's with "32 years"? as I pointed out the IPCC pointed out that the rise could happen as early as 2030. That's 12 years, not 32. And the IPCC has a consistent record of being overly conservative in it's projections of change. In fact, every time a new report is issued, the rate is projected change increases.

As for India and China being given a "free pass,

Climate action by China, India to offset Trump: study

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-accord-temperatures/climate-action-by-china-india-to-offset-trump-study-idUSKBN1DF1LF

China leads in global shift to renewable energy

 

https://www.dw.com/en/china-leads-in-global-shift-to-renewable-energy/a-43266203

 

 I guess implicitly what you were saying is that even though China and India were given until 2030 to reduce emissions, they have both undertaken to reduce emissions way ahead of schedule.

 

 And not just that, China is on track to make its automobiles all EVs, which has effectively put the kibosh on the Trump administration's effort to put a halt to that development since China now produces more autos than the US and Japan combined or more than the EU. So automobile companies are ignoring the Trump adminstration's attempts to sabotage the growth of EV's.

"ACG stands for Anthropogenic Climate Change" You should think that one over.

 

I strongly disagree with the opinion that the IPCC has a consistent record of being overly conservative on it's projections. 

I do agree however that they do increase their rate of projected change with every report. The temperature increase since 2000 is about 0.2 degrees If you go from 1998 it is even less than that. That's 18 years. Do you really think that it will increase a further 0.5 in just 12 years? No of course it won't. There is no evidence to support a sharp increase in the rate of warming in the next few years. The IPCC is only shouting louder because people aren't listening any more.

Warmer is better anyway.

[727Sky]

http://dailycaller.com/2018/10/08/a-240-per-gallon-gas-tax-to-fight-global-warming-new-un-report-suggests-carbon-pricing/

 

Quote

• A new U.N. report suggests a $240 per gallon gas tax equivalent is needed to fight global warming.
• The U.N. says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton in the year 2100.
• If you think that’s unlikely to ever happen, you’re probably right.

A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.

For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.

Since Australia went to wind farms and solar they pay twice as much for their electricity than someone in N.Y. City which basically rapes people with their surcharges and taxes.

 

As far as global sea level rise it is true that the oceans have risen in most places by 7cm...we are doomed.. What they never factor in for the ocean warming is the estimated over one million hydro-thermal vents that are guesstimated to be spewing their heat and gases at any given time under the ocean. 

 

Greenland has been losing ice that is also true ..Yes it regains ice during the winter but the over all ice loss over the last 50 years can be measured. There several huge aquifers underneath (in some areas) two mile thick ice and there are also thermal vents and even volcanoes ie heat sources.. which very few want to discuss when screaming we are all gonna drown. Remember in 2014  when one Icelandic volcano went off and disrupted international travel ?

 

People are going to believe what they want to believe or are told to believe. I am on the fence about the global warming craze because of the fiddled numbers that the supposedly experts have been caught adjusting to better serve their narratives. 1936 was the hottest year in the states yet after they got finished playing with the numbers it disappears as the hottest.. Go figure..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

Quote

Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).


But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

Considering the source this next link is a well balanced discussion (Video presentation) on climate change.. No hype just the facts of what we believe we know about Earth's climate over the last 400,000 years. I personally did not know that as recently as 30 million years ago the polar ice caps had totally melted. Earth's orbit and many things are discussed in the short video and the last 2000 years have shown the Roman warm period which was warmer than today with two cold ages to follow and the present warming period.. Anyway enjoy. http://prageruniversity.com/Environmental-Science/What-They-Havent-Told-You-about-Climate-Change.html#.Vc4sj_lViko

 

A waste of my time but: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123133612.htm

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

http://cds.cern.ch/record/1181073/

There are to many articles pointing out the numbers used were adjusted to a more favorable time line to show an increase instead of a decrease in temp. (they fiddle and lower the historical temps to show a bigger increase) The data and Computer Models that got the ball rolling with fear mongering (polar bears, Ice sheets, Cities flooded by now etc etc) and the great carbon Tax Gore and his well presented power point talks which have very little actual factual info.... as far as the models, they have been proved to be totally off the mark from day one.... Even after the numbers are supposedly favorably adjusted the models cannot be reconciled by simple observation of real data collected... .......

A certain part of me does consider this to be no more than a mechanism to provide a socialist agenda to redistribute wealth from so called 1st world countries to third world countries where most cooking is still done over Charcoal fires; all the while the middle men stand to make a fortune.

I am not anti anything except for bogus bought and paid for studies. If you are anti 'man made climate change' it is very hard to get funded from what I have read..... and those who do secure funding it is usually pointed out their funding came from some oil company. Unbiased truthful no fiddling with the numbers to make a predetermined or agenda driven/wanted outcome should be something that we can agree upon. Unfortunately IMO that is not what we have with this particular IPCC subject...

There are those who believe it is all part of a plan that was first cauterized in 1979 by members of the trilateral group because of the program of 'Technocracy' and the guidelines that it provides and appears are really being followed.

 

I just read both sides of an argument and the more I read the more the scales of my reasoning tilt one way or the other. People like to hang the cause and effect of something on a simple answer given by a computer models that started off with severely lacking data points... Unfortunately that is not the case with earth's climate as all the data is shown in cycles and ice core data..http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

As most who have studied history even in a limited way, if this is the beginning of a new mini ice age many of our pollution problems will be taken care of for there will be one heck of a lot less people is just a few years after onset. The mini ice age  crowd say 2035 (maybe sooner) will be the deciding year.

I remember back in Aviation weather long long ago it was stated that all weather and wind is caused by differential temperatures. More cold in certain areas and hotter in other adjoining locations and you can expect, due to the boundary differential, someone down below is gonna get pounded..

Ice age or global warming the differential temps are going to make us surface dwellers duck at times.

Since the alarmist missed many of the 2015 predictions ( eweee history we can't have that we want to talk about now and our new better predictions) it will be interesting to see if some of their predictions for the time frame of 2020 or 2025 are a little closer..

I will probably be dead by then.... to old... so you guys carry on.. and maybe I will watch from afar. hahah

 

 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by 727Sky

[Nyezhov]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

And not just that, China is on track to make its automobiles all EVs, which has effectively put the kibosh on the Trump administration's effort to put a halt to that development since China now produces more autos than the US and Japan combined or more than the EU. So automobile companies are ignoring the Trump adminstration's attempts to sabotage the growth of EV's.

EVs are as bad for alleged global warming as gas cars. Ya gots to burn something to make the juoice.

[sirmud63]

5 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

EVs are as bad for alleged global warming as gas cars. Ya gots to burn something to make the juoice.

on point .