Three Years To Save The World!
By Paul Homewood
Put this in your calendar for 2020!
The world has three years to start making significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or face the prospect of dangerous global warming, experts have warned in an article in the prestigious journal Nature.
Calling for world leaders to be guided by the scientific evidence rather than “hide their heads in the sand”, they said “entire ecosystems” were already beginning to collapse, summer sea ice was disappearing in the Arctic and coral reefs were dying from the heat.
The world could emit enough carbon to bust the Paris Agreement target of between 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius in anything from four to 26 years if current levels continue, the article said.
Global emissions had been rising rapidly but have plateaued in recent years. The experts, led by Christiana Figueres, who as Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change played a key role in the Paris Agreement, said they must start to fall rapidly from 2020 at the latest.
“The year 2020 is crucially important for another reason, one that has more to do with physics than politics,” they said.
Citing a report published in April, they added: “Should emissions continue to rise beyond 2020, or even remain level, the temperature goals set in Paris become almost unattainable.
“Lowering emissions globally is a monumental task, but research tells us that it is necessary, desirable and achievable.”
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
These kinds of forecasts are based on a function called Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions (TCRE) derived from an observed high correlation of cumulative warming with cumulative emissions and also of cumulative changes in atmospheric CO2 with cumulative emissions. They use this function to forecast future climate scenarios based on various emission pathways. However, there is a serious maths problem with this methodology that invalidates its forecasts.
Please see
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3000932
If SSRN refuses to let you download, please try this link
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318363023_LIMITATIONS_OF_THE_TCRE_TRANSIENT_CLIMATE_RESPONSE_TO_CUMULATIVE_EMISSIONS
I thought it was much simpler – they are lying.
That’s always possible of course
Repent! Then end is nigh!
And when 2020 comes and goes, without the sky falling, the same bozos will be saying that disaster will befall us in (fill in the blank) years time.
What a bunch of charlatans.
This is very worrying. Earlier this year the experts were telling us we had 10 years to save the planet.
https://www.ecowatch.com/earth-deadline-climate-change-2359010566.html
Now we learn it’s only 3!
And we were also told, by NASA expert Jay Zwally in 2008, “within five to less than 10 years.” the “Arctic could be free of sea ice in the summer.” Well, that didn’t seem to work out. So…This year we are warned that “the Arctic is on course to be ice-free during summers by 2045.”
It’s great to see the world does not agree with them! I have always said the worst job is to forecast the weather because the world is not told and every day the world puts 2 fingers up to you !
So they give two examples that are bogus to back up their ludicrous claim. You can almost smell the fear and desperation of the warmists that the world is coming to an end – their world obviously not the real world that is doing just fine.
Calling for world leaders to be guided by the scientific evidence rather than “hide their heads in the sand”,
— Now if only they *would* attend to the scientific evidence !
summer sea ice was disappearing in the Arctic
— Yes, so fast that Newfoundland was icebound through April
and coral reefs were dying from the heat.
— Yes, the Gt Barrier Reef has died several times over since the 1970’s.
Seem to be relying heavily on the prior propaganda. As for ramping up the scary timescales, someone is getting rattled that have only 3 years to spring their political traps before the fable is rumbled.
These “scientists” will never give in. This is all the more reason that global focus should be clearly placed on their absurd solution…Capture and geologically store 100 billion metric tons of CO2….hide it somewhere and at an impossibly large cost… many trillions.
Broadlands:
There is a simple method; when the faeries ride the unicorns down to leave big bags of money at the bottom of the garden, have them use previous bags and fill them with CO2 and take them away to never-never land.
But… they cannot put 44 “pounds” of CO2 into a 12 “pound” carbon bag…regardless of the money. This is the point.
Broadlands: The only way to make CO2 capture possible must involve magic. Why you would want to is another question.
I recall over the past 25 years or so scientists telling us we had a week, month, year or decade to save the world from climate change. It all depended on the treaty or agreement de jure. Three years is on the upper end of the doom forecasts. So, this sounds like a reprieve.
In the movie, the line was something like “build a field and they will come.” It appears that if you can get people to “call you an expert,” you will never run out of opportunities for interviews. So how does one get oneself deemed an “expert?” Is that a self-proclamation or does it require someone else to agree? Surely there must be some more “experts” wiling to step forward and take in Billy Joel’s “Easy Money.” A world can never have too many experts, you know!
If these experts are so worried about climate change and the use of fossil fuels why do THEY, still drive cars, still fly for business and holidays, still use products made from carbon, steel, cement etc etc. Especially communication devices.
Now if they lead by example, I still wouldn’t be worried because they are liars.
Was it not this same Figueres that said that AGW was the scare story needed by the UN to bring down Capitalism. It was also mentioned by some other fraudster to keep the pot stirred.
Another climate apocalypse? Should i believe them this time? 😉
We already passed the 96 months Prince Charles gave us to act or face irreversal climate doom. It’s too late. Nothing can be done to save the planet. Give up, go home and party!
Definition of expert …ex is a has been…spurt is a drip under pressure.
62 countries are in the process of building 1600 coal fired power stations to produce cheap reliable electricity. It would seem World Leaders aren’t listening to them.
This is a trump card to which there is NO green blob answer. It’s an unplayable Yorker, a 30 yard screamer, an ace down the middle. Impossible to refute and should be used as often as possible, especially as its logic is so unimpeachable that green explode with fury! Worth it for that alone. lol.
I’ve said this often but it’s worth repeating. If ‘the greatest threat to humanity, ever’ really is a serious problem, then why do NONE of the ‘solutions’ get anywhere near the required standard to prevent further warming?
‘Paris’ allows dozens of countries to continue to emit and to emit MORE CO2, not less!
We’d ban 90% of all air travel.
We’d ban 90% of cars from having engines bigger than 2 litres.
We’d ban all coal power plants immediately.
We’d move to lower emission gas, and zero emission nuclear.
We don’t. The reason is nobody actually believes the climate change guff. It’s always about the money, the power, the influence. Always has been.
As a general point…remember…if they can’t blame you for it, they shouldn’t charge you for it.
Surely Paul, your headline should be “Three MORE Years To Save The World!”
The experts were hand-picked by Christiana Figueres, an Executive Secretary expert.
Three is only one technical word to describe the Nature article – “bo££ocks”.
Philip Bratby,
It’s totally off topic but I thought you might find this interesting.
http://www.lemonde.fr/energies/article/2017/07/10/le-juge-administratif-annule-un-projet-de-parc-eolien-dans-le-morbihan_5158742_1653054.html
In its reasons, the court emphasizes that the forest of Lanouée “represents a strong element of identity of the territory”.
“Landscape impact of project difficult to mitigate”
The sad and almost criminal point is that these sayers of doom can really scare the less informed and more susceptible people. What is the difference between these purveyors of disaster scenarios and the old preachers declaiming that “the end of the world is nigh”. As an ecologist of 56 years experience, starting when we had real pollution in the then developed world, I have been through several “end of the world” disasters, for example, thermal pollution, nuclear holocaust and acid rain. Who remembers thermal pollution in the 1960s to 80s? Guess what the doom merchants said…..” Warm water effluents from power stations will warm the seas so much that the ice-caps will melt and flood the world”. Chernobyl was an end of the world scenario…yes a tragic and drastic event that spread radioactivity over too wide and area and affected too many innocent people …but not an accident…a stupid group doing a live experiment on an operating nuclear power station which caused a steam explosion (not a nuclear one) and scattered radioactivity but it didn’t end the world. Same with acid rain, mostly isolated events in certain areas caused by localised emissions, some even caused by changes in agriculture rather than aerial emissions. “Climate change” inserted into almost every declamation by some scientists and media people is simply a massive attempt to extort money for governments, some academics and “green” organisations. It is an unproven hypothesis and nothing more. Look out for acidification of the oceans….its on its way but as yet does not have the public impact that climate change has. Am, I a sceptic ?? The real problem we have and ignore is simply overpopulation. Sorry for the rant. Terry Langford.
Well, Terry, we are in this position: Ninety-eight percent of the people in the World have arrived AFTER US and WITHOUT OUR SAY-SO.
Just time for another bath then (Hitch-hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy)
3 years? Should be a piece of cake. Flash Gordon only had 14 hours and he pulled it off.
Not so much of a Flash Gordon then.
Do we need all that math when correlation between warmth and CO2 is so patently not there? Forties seventies ice age scare, today’s hiatus etc etc?
I think there was a Guardian newspaper hundred months to save the world which ran out quite recently. Never saw anything in the Guardian, tho’
‘
Andrew Simms. He went very quietly.
Just found it – we’ve reached a tipping point for catastrophe after 100
months since Nov 2008. Has Simms shot himself? If not why not?
The usual drivel. Most people it seems are convinced by all this scaremongering. Mention the words ‘greenhouse gasses’ and throw in ‘global emissions’ and cue nods of righteousness all over the metropolitan liberal world. Ask some searching questions such as ‘What is the most abundant greenhouse gas?’ (water vapour) and ‘Is CO2 a pollutant?’ (no, but we all knew that didn’t we?). The real reason for all this panic is the funding is coming to a halt along with the ultimate goal of a one world government.
But it’s only the metropolitan liberal world, Simon. The politicians my well pay lip service but they don’t actually do anything, do they?
The likes of Figueres run off at the mouth desperately trying to reorganise the world’s economy apparently blissfully ignorant of what is going on around them. China is doing nothing; India is doing nothing; Russia is doing nothing. Mexico is saying “oil?! Bring it on!”
Germany is back to using lignite which everyone knows is filthy stuff — genuinely filthy as opposed to the non-filth that is CO2. Turkey will only sign if we let Erdogan pretend his country is a “developing nation”. Half the G20 are trying to be major economies but want to avoid any of the responsibilities.
And the while thing is (to quote Phillip Bratby) “Bo££ocks” (or perhaps Bo$$ocks or even Bo€€ocks) — all about money and political power and naff all to do with climate!
The only consolation (mebbe) is that the activists know it’s rubbish and everyone else is bored to death with the whole business. It’s not quite happening yet but when the sheeple finally get fed up with having climate stuffed down their throats and realise it is their lifestyle that is paying for this nonsense there will be a groundswell and Figueres et al will be looking for a lifeboat — or some other mixed metaphor!
Agreed Mike. Once the anthropogenic warming scare has run out of steam ( there’s that water vapour again), the global government movement will come up with another ruse.
The real reason for all this panic is the funding is coming to a halt along with the ultimate goal of a one world government.
Right. Though perhaps you should insert “if” before “the funding”.
Thought the same myself. This is pure politics, and the activists reliant on the global warming and CO2 memes are running scared at the number of people waking up and saying “I don’t see any clothes on the Emperor”. Too much of that, and the political vision starts to evaporate. Hence all the censorship, via BBC, learned societies, lefty press etc; if that doesn’t work, hate campaigns one the “climate denier” theme will be brought into play, and so on. They would so much prefer to move with the better classes however (i.e. metropolitan liberals), so expect lots more in glossy and respectable “learned” journals about how desperate the situation is.
“CO₂ levels become unsustainable” ………………….. er wot?
Phil got it: total bo77o₢ks.
In the UN hen house headless amok, the feathers are flying and there, emits a great panicked sound of clucking.
This is all to do with the Paris stitch-up, as we see it is frankly dying the death, so what do the eejits do but scweam and scweam “the sky is falling in!”
Up the ante!
Scheiß went up the cry “oh no not again…………..
it’s Chicken Little!”
Experts with an article in Nature show their ignorance with this statement: “rather than “hide their heads in the sand”,”
Thus one does not need to read farther.
FROM:
MYTH: Ostriches bury their heads in the sand when they’re scared or threatened.
HOW IT STARTED: It’s an optical illusion! Ostriches are the largest living birds, but their heads are pretty small. “If you see them picking at the ground from a distance, it may look like their heads are buried in the ground,” says Glinda Cunningham of the American Ostrich Association.
WHY IT’S NOT TRUE: Ostriches don’t bury their heads in the sand—they wouldn’t be able to breathe! But they do dig holes in the dirt to use as nests for their eggs. Several times a day, a bird puts her head in the hole and turns the eggs. So it really does look like the birds are burying their heads in the sand!
Link doesn’t show. Click on the icon.
Well John, I think the “experts” referred to in the article have their heads stuck in a far darker and stinkier place than a hole in the sand.
And I am still waiting for monkeys to fly out of my butt as well – three year reprieve, 30 year, 50, 2100 as per paris circle jerk, I wish the charlatans could at least get a “consensus” about how long we have to live… lets worry more about N. Korea, and less about JUNK science doom and gloom. Anyone familiar with these mental giants know every 20 to 30 years they crawl out of the woodwork with the end is “Neigh” stories, including overpopulation, species extinctions, running out of food – anything man made – unless we worship at the church of Al Gore and pass around the collection plate. Funny, my church uses its money to build wells, homes, and feed people, not tell them constantly they are about to perish – I guess it’s gone past religion, now we are in the hostage stage – pay us (middle class), or you are all dead – don’t they know, you can’t eat money or gold?. NOTE: The like to roll the big end of it all stories during NA summer….notice that? As if somehow 95 degrees in the middle of July in my town is a heatwave!
30% of all man made “influence” in the last 18 years but no warming for almost 20 -sure I will give you all my money – we came out of the ice age scare in 1979 or so and warmed up zzzzzzzzzzzzzz…, and are in a natural, very mild and mainly beneficial warming period..boy are they going to have a hard time selling the ice age scare as it cools. Their is no pause or “hiatus” – it is simply a 20 year leveling off of a natural warm period – BTW, SOIL alone, just to pick one source, emits 9X the c02 of ALL HUMAN activities combined (don’t pass this around – they will want Billions to black top all soil), not just FF burning (about 3.75% to mother natures 96.25% with no cap N trade) – go sell it to someone with lots of dough and zero critical thinking skills – snake oil, sales…
Sorry – you lost me at “experts led by Christina Figueres”.
Spoke to an engineer on a power station some time ago who said that stupid wind machines were making a nonsense of supply planning and forecasting. Having prepared a thermal station for going on the system to supply, a sudden outbreak of wind (not from the green lobby) will cause Grid Control to cancel the thermal supply but have no idea when the wind might stop. . A wasteful and not sustainable system.
1600 new coal fired power plants around the world will help a small amount..
MORE CO2 STILL NEEDED.
Or are these jokers saying they only have 3 years left to destroy western economies?
It is the middle of July, and the main part of the Greenland Ice Sheet has not even begun to melt:
“…these jokers…” rely on the fact that people are SO like sheep:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11433845/Tourists-heading-for-Welsh-island-get-stranded-in-sand-after-satnav-doesnt-say-they-need-a-ferry.html
I think what saddens me is that many of my colleagues whom I respect for their science and dedication are trapped in the “climate change” scenario often because they believe the guff or because they won’t get funding or grants if they are sceptics. This then leads to poor career progression and non-acceptance of publications. Its best as an ecologist if you steer clear of the topic though chances for large funding are fewer. After 30 years in the power industry as an ecologist I have seen bad and good environmental care at sites but mostly the latter. Interestingly, most visitors to our ecology laboratory at Fawley in Hampshire were much more interested in seeing round the large power station next to it than hearing about ecology.
Over time the alarmist community have become ever more extreme in their proposed emissions pathway is commensurate with 2°C of warming over time, shown by by simple graph below.
The reality-check is from my First Law of Climate Mitigation
It might be an obvious truism, but all the policy-makers just ignore it. To reduce global emissions to near zero requires inclusion of all 195 countries. Most have no intention of reducing their emissions in the near future.
In that graph, the dark line is horizontal from 2075 to 2085 and then
there is a distinct tipping down.
That is impressive.
Give them a sandwich board and let them walk up and down a high street somewhere preaching were all doomed !
More likely they fear that there could only be 3 years of funding left to pay for their positions.
did the Nature article refer to its obvious source material: The Clown Prince of Wallies guide to climate change???
Would be interested to know where the magical deadly 2 C rise came from, could be the same authoritative source.
But wait – perhaps that three year warning was accurate. In 2004, the Pentagon told President Bush that over the next 20 years climate change could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters: LINK. An extract:
The article goes on to say:
Which just shows how foolish they were.
Robin
Look at it from the climate alarmists side. Catastrophic global warming is a truth that is prior to all experience. The only question is when it is happening and to what extent. We can only do that by modelling based on the laws of climate and from recent experience. But the models do not reconcile with experience, so how to reconcile them? Imagine a climate cost curve like the one below.
The costs of warming are not linear with temperature. The climate models tell us that above about 3C costs will escalate as the climate becomes increasingly unstable. The flatter the curve over the known temperature range (up to maybe 1C) the steeper the curve beyond 3C and the greater the urgency for action on climate change. Even worse, actual temperatures rises have for some unknown reason (or reasons) failed to keep up with the models. This is partly due to errors in calculating average temperatures, which are constantly being corrected. But it also means that in the near future average temperatures could catch up with the models very rapidly, causing a rapid transition to climate chaos. The only satisfying bit – and alarmists are waiting to put much emphasis on this aspect – is that sceptics and denialists will be left looking very stupid.
A similar argument, based on uncertainties, was put forward by Lewandowsky and Risbey in April 2014.
Conversely, the reason that there is a lack of evidence for the climate monster not showing signs of emerging is because he does not exist. The catastrophic global warming hypothesis is not supported by real world evidence.
It doesn’t matter for those that live at higher latitudes in the NH.
“Scientists” got Polar Bears put on the endangered species list because of what they claimed “Climate Change” would do to them.
Now “scientists” are saying that because of “climate change” humans will replace the seal as a primary food source for those endangered polar bears.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/07/13/polar-bears-hurt-by-climate-change-are-more-likely-to-turn-to-a-new-food-source-humans/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.54de2fe65593
The dung has gotten so deep no boots or waders can keep us out of it!
“The year 2020 is crucially important for another reason, one that has more to do with…”
Money. 2020, year of 100 billion dollars per anno flowing into coffers of developing nations. One of the funniest aspects of the “climate crises” recently is that Turkey insists on being a developing nation, in order to be eligible for UN climate funding.
The reason that Turkey is not considered a developing nation is because since 1961 it has been a member of the OECD – the club for developed nations.
Most people could live tolerably well on 100 billion dollars per year. Indeed most smaller nations could live very well with that level of National Income. But divided between over 5 billion people in developing nations for the countries to develop without fossil fuels it is a pittance.
Please spare a thought for the authors of the report. Some of the leading lights of the climate alarmist world get together to publish an alarmist report, and create a new website to promote the idea – mission2020.global
To spread the word somebody launched a very serious promotional video on 1 July. For climate alarmists it must be highly symbolic of climate change. There are as yet only 21 views, which means it is about to go viral. Similarly the lack of evidence for rising temperatures in the near future average temperatures could catch up with the models very rapidly, causing a rapid transition to climate chaos.
The Guardian has a “Most Viewed” list on its home page. Perhaps there should be an attempt to get this page on the leader board?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions
Let me guess here – would saving the world require a massive amount of money being directed to ” climate science research” perchance?
The world has been 3 or 4 years away from Climageddon for 20+ years, This is the conclusion of science. All the scientists voted and it was 97% – 3%. And the 3% are being searched for so they can be banned from future proceedings. sarc
Count me n Bruce. I have been watching the end of the world since at least 1961. Terry Langford.
The last 1000 years of temperature and CO2 levels show no correlation.
The last 10,000 years of temperature and CO2 levels show no correlation.
The last 1 million years of temperature and CO2 levels show no correlation.
Why does anyone think that this time it must be different.
Historical records alone say the CO2 levels and global temperature are NOT correlated.