Predicting Climate Failure

I’ve often taken pot shots at the scientific community for either deliberately misrepresenting the trajectory of the Earth systems, (specifically climate, but not just climate) or for practicing “scientific reticence” when the data – mind you, their own data – made it perfectly clear that we were on a hellish trajectory with little to no chance of saving ourselves from dangerous temperatures that would ultimately lead to human extinction (and extinction of the world’s fauna).

That’s a hell of an opening statement, but I’m trying to encapsulate both context and meaning of this article and the reason for numerous past articles. There is now a new article that actually admits to this dilemma. Some call it a predicament, which is a situation you can’t get yourself out of. And indeed, this is “high likelihood” according to this article.

First off, more context. It’s just 2021 now – not 2030 or 2050. Already, we are out of “Few realistic scenarios left to limit global warming to 1.5°C”.

Some of us have known this for some time, but now we’re finally seeing some actual research on the claims, assumptions, promises and expectations made by climate scientists themselves in a comprehensive form. That’s why this is important.

400 climate scenarios were examined.  50 scenarios (assumptions) avoid dangerously overshooting 1.5°C. Only 20 “make realistic assumptions on mitigation options“.

Do you understand the significance of this? 380 scenarios are useless. The claims, assumptions, expectations and promises presented in those 380 climate scenarios will lead to deadly (fatal) climate change. All 380 scenarios did not make realistic assumptions on mitigation options, which is why they are useless.

How did this happen? Why would climate scientist publish or even investigate scenarios that would not make realistic assumptions? Keep that tidbit in the back of your mind as I turn towards the 20 that supposedly did.

Of the 20, all of them required at least one mitigation effort that was deemed “challenging”. You need to understand what this term means in this context, because it is very important.

Challenging means we think it’s doable (an assumption), provided x,y, and z (and a whole lot more) all falls exactly into place.

Example: political will, funding, public support, industry support and so on. There is also the super-critical issue of timing, this has to be done within a very short time frame.

The assumptions here are actually wrong and dangerous – because none of these points has ever been achieved to date, which is a clear evidence-based demonstration of what will actually be done. Claiming that it “could still happen” doesn’t make it true. It’s just more assumptions, and as I’ve just shown, it’s probably useless.

All of the scenarios have made dangerous assumptions with over estimates and under estimates, things considered and things not considered, with some “pie in the sky” (unachievable) expectations. For the 20 that make realistic assumptions, they would need to pull “all 5 climate mitigation levers” (probably at once).

Ostentatiously:

Hence the world faces a high degree of risk of overstepping the 1.5°C limit. The realistic window for meeting the 1.5°C target is very rapidly closing.

Personally, I think this is double-speak (dishonest). Depending on how it’s measured, we’re impossibly close to 1.5°C right now in 2021, and with the inertia of the climate system already virtually and irrevocably baked in, the 1.5°C “target” is just more double-speak, we are going to blow right past it, of this I have zero doubt at all.

What this article reveals is that the vast majority of the past assumptions being utilized from different climate scenarios are all wrong, which means that the publication where they were presented is also dead wrong (and therefore, nearly useless) – the IPCC Report.

The researchers drew from existing research…

Nearly all of them would not achieve any degree of success necessary to keep warming below the targeted amount. The remaining 20 all lack global cooperation. They lack funding, political will, public support and importantly, timing. What are the odds that these will also fail to? They didn’t include a risk category for “fail” but they should have, because this is the likely outcome.

This equates to a “high degree of risk” on what the likelihood is for overstepping this target temperature (which is just an average temperature anyway, and therefore, quite dangerous as the average temperature is a meaningless metric). If your average temperature increase in North America is supposedly 1.5°C increase, what is the actual temperature around the Equatorial region?

The climate science community is still badly misleading the world about what is presently unfolding across the Earth. They know it too – but can’t bring themselves, or are not be allowed, to tell the whole truth. Siding on optimism in a life or death situation is just plain stupid. Siding on the false claims that “we still have time” or “The realistic window for meeting the 1.5°C target is very rapidly closing” is also disingenuous because their assumptions are simply (and consistently) wrong.

I believe that more and more climate scientist know this. I believe that they err on the side of calm and caution, but I also believe, and can show from their own claims, that they are making a catastrophic mistake that will lead the world into hellish conditions. The IPCC Report is considered one of the best publication for climate science, but it’s consistently misrepresented the danger the world is facing. There are other blog articles here about the problems with the IPCC data, but they’re still using this flawed information to make future predictions.

 

 

 

 

 

admin

admin at survivalacres dot com

4 thoughts on “Predicting Climate Failure

  • May 14, 2021 at 5:14 pm
    Permalink

    I have just had a very interesting conversation with a woman I had not met before; she is a councillor on my local council.

    Amongst many other things, I highlighted the ‘Limits to Growth’ report and publication, which basically said: “This is where we are and this is where were we will be if we don’t address the issues of the times -population growth, energy use, resource use and pollution.” That was 1972.

    I pointed out the ‘Limits to Growth’ narrative was crushed (almost completely out of existence) by banks, corporations and economists. And we are now pretty much where the Meadows team forecast we would be.

    What the Meadows team failed to recognise was the speed at which planetary overheating increases, due to positive feedbacks. So the conditions in the future will depart radically from the LTG projections by a huge margin (for the worse).

    Only a massive die-off now would provide any chance of chance for a remnant of humanity to make it past 2040. And even with a massive population die-off, the gases already in the atmosphere and oceans would continue to keep the temperature elevated, and might well lead to future overheating.

    Professor Albert Bartlett famously described all the factors we think as being negative as actually being positive as far as keeping human numbers down.

    “But who is going to vote for more wars, more disease, more accidents and fewer hospitals, fewer sewage systems etc.

    We’re in a progress trap from which there is no escape.

    As I said to the woman (above), the only kinds of growth we need are growth in knowledge, growth in wisdom and growth of food-bearing plants. And these need to be accompanied by Powerdown -continuous reduction in the use of fossil fuels.

    Quoting the cases of Galileo and Semmelweis, I pointed out it was often the one person who ‘swam against the stream’, who disagreed with the majority, who was right.

    I also pointed out that the average atmospheric CO2 concentration over the past 800,000 years was 230 ppm, and we are at 420 ppm, rapidly approaching the so-called safe level of 400 ppm, which we will blow through in 13 to 15 years.

    420 ppm which is not safe at all. A safe level was arguably about 360 ppm, which we blew through around three decades ago.

    I gave her lots to think about, including the phony and destructive nature of GDP.

    Like everyone in industrial nations, she had been thoroughly indoctrinated by he empire. She was yet to throw off the lies and fabrications, but didn’t baulk at anything I said.

    I left her with this:

    All we can do at this late stage is reduce the suffering that is to come (instead of increasing it, which the mainstream thinkers are doing) .

  • May 15, 2021 at 9:34 am
    Permalink

    Oops! Typing errors there.

    That should be (with amendments and additions):

    We are at 420 ppm (190 ppm above the long-term average), and rapidly approaching the so-called safe level of 450 ppm, (Stern Report) which we will very likely blow through in 13 to 15 years.

    450 ppm is not safe at all.

    Nor is the current 420 ppm safe. 420 ppm is causing accelerating meltdown of glaciers, previously-unheard-of storms and droughts, rapid overheating of the oceans, coral bleaching (death), and loss of biodiversity etc. There is much evidence 420 ppm is sufficient to trigger numerous positive climate feedbacks that lead to faster overheating.

    A safe level was arguably about 350 ppm, (c.f. Bill McKibben’s 350.org) which we blew through around three decades ago.

    What is dishonest and disingenuous about 350.org is the notion that we can somehow draw down the CO2 already in the atmosphere and return the Earth to the stable state it was in before rampant industrialism and overpopulation wrecked it, whilst STILL maintaining population overshoot and a consumer society!

    All such notions are in the realm of fantasy and do not correspond with anything we know about the actual physical-chemical mechanisms by which the Earth’s temperature is determined.

    What is notable about the Stern Report [to the UK government in 2006] is that it talks of the difficulty of stablising at 450 ppm and the likely blowing through 450 ppm to 550 ppm CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent)

    ‘Central estimates of the annual costs of achieving stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e are around 1% of global GDP, if we start to take strong action now. […] It would already be very difficult and costly to aim to stabilise at 450ppm CO2e. If we delay, the opportunity to stabilise at 500-550ppm CO2e may slip away.’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

    Well, if we take the concentration of methane in the atmosphere and multiply it by the relative heating potential factor appropriate for time scale that matter (around 200) we do the mathematics and and find

    2000 ppb = 2 ppm, and 2 ppm multiplied by 200 is 400, so we are already at 820 ppm CO2e before we include other greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide, with a warming potential of about 190 times CO2.

    Even taking the ridiculously low UNIPCC multiplier for methane of 86, we get 176 CO2e, which added to the 420 ppm of actual CO2 in the atmosphere takes us to 420 + 176 = 596 CO2e. And that’s without all the other gases that add to the warming.

    Thus we see that we have already blown it, and the future will be charactarised by substantial overheating. We just don’t know how much. But a reasonable estimate is in the 3oC to 5oC range. So we really are facing sea level rise of tens of metres and hellish conditions on much of the planet.

    What is more, increasing the average temperature by 3oC to 5oC causes complete breakdown of the permafrost and other stores of carbon trapped as carbon dioxide and methane or peat that gets broken down into carbin dioxide and methane..

    No wonder no one in ‘authority’ wants to talk about any of it.

    Actually, that’s all they have done, Talk, and talk some more, and talk some more. Year after year of talking, and then sometimes not talking. not talking. And then talking again, since the 1997 Kyoto meeting that led to the Kyoto Protocol that no nation was prepared to abide by, because to prevent humanity from causing its own extinction via out-of-control overheating would have impacted on the bankers’ Ponzi scheme. And nothing is allowed to do that.

    • May 15, 2021 at 10:46 am
      Permalink

      The danger is absolutely huge. Clearly catastrophic, extinction level event occurring in slow motion (not like an asteroid impact). The refusal of science and government to admit to the reality is absolutely appalling (criminally complicit). There is no doubt whatsoever what humanity and fauna are facing. The only question is how bad, how fast? The end point however isn’t doubtful at all.

      They’re doing more then talk – they’re also lying, distracting, engaging in useless exercises and more useless meetings, their also refusing to accept the known facts and known science, denying even their own conclusions at times. If I could have figured this out decades ago – surely they could (and should) have too. After all, I’m using their own assessments as are you and yet they pretend there is still a window of time, pretend that we can achieve “limited warming”, pretend that the impacts won’t be catastrophic, pretend that there is a “carbon budget”, pretend that carbon “credits” will “work”, pretend that these climate organization like McKibben’s are keeping us on track and informed (that’s why I almost never publish anything from 350.org – they’re lying non-stop), pretend that we can stay safe, pretend that we really do have a future and on and on.

      As I said, it’s all a giant fkn’ game to these people. They are sacrificing the whole of humanity to a hellish future that I believe will lead to our extinction. The numbers do not lie. All the remains to know is how bad, how fast?

  • May 15, 2021 at 1:42 pm
    Permalink

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair.

    We can revise that to: It is difficult to get someone to understand something when their salary, position in society, status and lifestyle depend on not understanding it or even knowing about it.

Leave a Reply