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).
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.