Climate Armageddon Will Soon Be Here–But Who Will Notice?
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
It’s becoming more likely that a key global temperature limit will be reached in one of the next five years.
A major study says by 2025 there’s a 40% chance of at least one year being 1.5C hotter than the pre-industrial level.
That’s the lower of two temperature limits set by the Paris Agreement on climate change.
The conclusion comes in a report published by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
The analysis is based on modelling by the UK Met Office and climate researchers in 10 countries including the US and China.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57261670
Quite what a parched lake has to do with the article is beyond me. After all, David Shukman must know that the IPCC has consistently said that droughts are not getting worse. Surely the BBC would not be trying to deceive readers?
The trouble for alarmists such as Shukman is that when we hit that magic target nobody will notice the slightest difference.
Remember that the IPCC warned that all sorts of climatic disasters would befall us if the 1.5C target was breached. But if we did not have climate scientists to tell us how much the world ahs warmed, a thoroughly meaningless concept anyway, nobody would be any the wiser.
Meanwhile, around the world, everybody will still be getting just the same weather as they have always had.
And then, the alarmists might start to regret their scaremongering. Once bitten, twice shy, as they say.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Saturday 29th May and the weather has actually got warm .
This year has , so far , been one of the coldest on record .
So with just one warm day , how long before they start claiming the ” Warmest Ever ” again .
Monday?
BBC today..heading for the warmest day in May ever! pffft
(1) May is nowhere near the coldest in the CET mean, top 10-15% coldest currently.
(2) Given that the BBC forecast for Heathrow is 10C below the May record of 32.8C set in 1922/44, any chance of a record is also highly remote.
Have you got that wonderful book ” The Wrong Kind of Snow” by any chance because I just looked up the same figures from my copy!
While in the USA they will be challenging if not beating cold records set in the 1800s. Not much warming over there.
So the top 10% isn’t “one of the coldest”?
He didn’t say “the coldest”.
New York Times…January 1996
“Dr. Hansen, who records temperatures from readings at monitoring stations around the world, had previously reported that four of the hottest years on record occurred in the 1980’s. Compared with a 30-year base period from 1950 to 1980, when the global temperature averaged 59 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature was one-third of a degree higher last year. In the entire century before 1880, global temperature had risen by half a degree, rising in the late 1800’s and early 20th century, then roughly stabilizing for unknown reasons for several decades in the middle of the century.”
June 24, 1988…Same thing?
NOAA…
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1998/may/may98.html
“The average annual temperature of the globe is about 59 deg. F (15 deg. C).
That value can be added to global anomalies to approximate absolute temperatures.”
So, take your pick of which experts you want to believe? There’s “a 40% chance” that they disagree
And does the NYT know how much fewer the number of monitoring stations there now are? Probably 10% of what there were? Example: How many stations are there in Australia – or the Southern Hemisphere? Sheesh!
Would that be the same Dr. Hansen who predicted in 1988 that the world temperature would be 3℃ higher in 30 years? And that The Maldives would be underwater, along with part of Wall Street in NY?
I wonder how those predictions worked out, or did they join Dr. Viner’s 2000 prediction that “Children won’t know what snow is by 2010” in the round paper bin?
They have never yet been correct on any prediction about the natural recovery from the LIA.
What’s in it for these false prophets?
(Alarmingly false’ so far at least, and how did they persuade those in charge avoidably to ruin us?. Is it just as H.L.Mencken described? Or is it too disastrous even for that?
HLM? I one, caj.
How will the Henny Pennys (Chicken Lickens) handle the truth which all us grown-ups know becomes undeniable.
Right now we are in the inverse of the Emperor’s new clothes: a little girl is screaming that he has got clothes and no one dares deny it. Where is the child who will tell the truth.
Then a lot of people will suddenly be changing their stories – just like Gollum Cummings.
I hope I live long enough to see it.
” Gollum Cummings.” That is brilliant – that image is now indelibly stamped in my mind. Its a bit like the uncanny resemblance between Sir Keir Starmer and Kryten from Red Dwarf.
Amazing how that dock goes so very far out into the water. . .did they just build it new? And why are there kayaks that once were floating now sitting on parched land? The dock itself appears to be a “floating” dock built to adapt to changing water levels. For these reasons, I suspect the image is not of a “parched lake,” but of a tidal inlet somewhere.
The mud near the water is darker than the mud nearer the camera, suggesting it’s still damp from lake water. Parched it clearly isn’t.
Google that image and you will find it has been used literally hundreds of times for all manner of different articles. I wouldn’t mind owning the copyright on it.
It’s a reservoir
‘Major’.
‘Hotter’.
‘Temperature limits’.
‘Pre industrial times’.
‘1.5C’
‘Paris agreement’.
See how they use rhetoric and projection to present this ‘study’ (and everything around it) as being significant? Almost everything they do is verbal sleight of hand, including the absurd 1.5C ‘limit’ that has NO basis in science or nature as representing a problem.
Oh, and if nothing happens then they will simply hide behind the ‘40% likelihood’, which is rather convenient, eh? If needed it’d promptly be rolled out again in the future.
The world is being seriously gaslighted by these climate clowns.
What was so great about the temperature in the Little Ice Age.
If we had that temperature now, no doubt the activists would be calling for more CO2 to get the temperature up, according to their beliefs?
I can’t remember what they were suggesting in the 1970s when they were predicting another Ice Age.
Meanwhile the wind is taking another breather, so the gas generators are having to take up the slack.
This link has a load of predictions , some of the ones when we were going to get an ICE AGE.
But it also shows that everyone of their future climate claims has been proved wrong .
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/
Climate Armageddon?
There seems to be mass confusion about climate science here!
So I will teach everyone the basics, that I have learned in the past 24 years of intense study of pal reviewed, published in prestigious journals, climate science studies, and articles:
Bible:
IPCC Summary for PolicyMakers
Leader, Emeritus:
Al “the climate blimp” Gore
Current Leader:
Perfesser John Kerry
Assistant Leader:
Perfesser Alexandria Occasionally Coherent
Mascot:
The Polar Bear
Popular Quote #1:
“It’s worse than worse than we thought ”
Popular Quote #2:
“Please do not supply any more information, we are already too well informed.”
Popular Quote #3:
“It’s always possible that we are wrong, but that’s never at the top of our list of possibilities”
Popular Quote #4:
“We have a theory that it’s impossible to prove anything, but we can’t prove it”
Climate Science Terminology:
2018 = Global Warming
2019 = Climate Change
2020 = Climate Crisis
2021 = Climate Emergency
2022 = Climate Disaster
2023 = Climate Apocalypse
2024 = Climate Armageddon
2025 = Climate Holocaust
2026 = Climate Death
2027 = scary name contest currently in progress
Richard Greene
Bingham Farms. Michigan
My Motto: “Most of my faults, are not my fault”
Climate and Energy Blog:
http://www.elonionBloggle.Blogspot.com
Richard
Thanks for the effort of setting it all out. The second edition might classify the voids of absent research and authority which the alarmists seem to be able rely upon. I have been watching the farming web sites in Minnesota, South Dakota etc for evidence of weather extremes since last November. All very interesting for for a suburbanite in the U.K.
I hear that there is a move to declare Climate Collapse the key phrase for next year.
I am not sure what it means, if anything, but it sounds scary.
What will be left worth talking about at COP26?
Regarding the lake, if it were tidal there would be salt traces evident on the mud or at the edge of the cracking. My guess is that it is a fresh water reservoir in partial recovery from a drought long enough to crack the mud on the foreshore. Damp cracked mud indicates a partial retreat following a recent downpour.
“What will be left worth talking about at COP26?”
Here is an advance copy of the November 1 – 12, 2021
Glasgow, Scotland COP26 agenda:
Day 1 through 6
(1) Debate over the shape of the main conference table,
and who sits where (six days)
Day 7:
(3) Whether they should change +1.5 degrees C. to +1.475 degrees C,
because more decimal places sounds more scientific
Day 8:
(3) Whether the new scarier name to replace Climate Emergency —
“Climate Disaster” — is the best possible choice for 2022
Day 9 through 12:
(4) How much money to spend on the climate emergency.
Day 12.5:
Incompetent governments submit their claims against the US for climate reparations.
‘Climate: World at risk of hitting temperature limit soon’
Betcha they just raise the limit.
“And then, the alarmists might start to regret their scaremongering.”
Why should they? They are never held to account for it. There have been hundreds of failed doomsday predictions so far, non of them have come true. We know that the climate alarmists are wrong, because they are always wrong, every single time. You would think that their credibility would be in shreds, instead the media just uncritically parrot the latest end of the world cack that they come out with.
Daily Telegraph top letter:
‘The pandemic modelling scare made following the science deadly’
SIR – Matt Hancock, the NHS and the Prime Minister have all been blamed by Dominic Cummings for the appalling care-home Covid deaths at the start of the pandemic, but I feel none of these are the real culprits….
At the time, pandemic data modellers were forecasting huge numbers likely to need hospitalisation. So the Government, using the Armed Services, built Nightingale emergency hospitals in double-quick time.
The NHS, spooked by alarmist modellers, cleared the hospitals of all the non-Covid patients they clinically could, anticipating a deluge of Covid patients. Unfortunately, no one knew of non-symptomatic carriers, and the care homes were infected, with devastating results.
The hospital deluge predicted by modellers didn’t materialise, nor anywhere near it. The Nightingale hospitals were hardly used.
So, in apportioning blame for the horrendous care-home deaths, excitable modellers and their statistics, based on unrealistic assumptions, must be the primary culprits. It was a case of “following the science” that led policy-makers astray.
Steve Male
Highampton, Devon
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2021/05/28/lettersthe-pandemic-modelling-scare-made-following-science-deadly/
My response to letter beneath that:
The Covid models were not science and the climate models are not science.
In neither case do we have anywhere near enough accurate data or knowledge for models to be “science”. This is the fundamental mistake politicians are making.
‘We know that the climate alarmists are wrong, because they are always wrong, every single time.’ So true, Stonyground.
They now always claim that only a few ‘misguided’ CAs ever predicted these alarmist scenarios or they just got the year wrong.
As the Russians say, ‘The future we know, it’s the past that keeps changing’.
According to BEST, we have already reached 1.5 degrees and more, from 1890, but the sky didn’t fall in, and in any case it has little to do with CO2.
“Over land, we have already blown through the 1.5C threshold if measured since 1890. Temperatures around 1820 were more than 2C cooler. There has been a great deal natural variability in temperatures prior to 1975 when human caused global warming kicked in any meaningful way.”
No-one knows the global temperature anyway:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html
For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F (13.3 -14.4C) and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.
I was going to add, is there no natural variability after 1975? In the 60’s and 70’s it was cooling in spite of rising CO2.
How can it be becoming “more likely”?
That claim illustrates the utter nonsense of the piece. It is as likely now as it was a year ago, assuming nothing has changed. And since nothing has changed, neither has the probability. All that has happened is that a new model has been run.
It’s either just more lies or yet more utter misunderstanding of what has been done.
I mentioned this site on a post about the BBC over at Samizdata.
“I follow the Climate Change Sceptic Paul Homewood on his blog ‘Not a lot of people know that’. He often sends official complaints off to the BBC and does follow up posts about how the complaint is dealt with. The process always follows the same pattern.
1) Sit on the complaint until they receive a reminder.
2) Apologise for the delay and promise a response.
3) Issue a response claiming that they were correct that fails to address any of the points actually made in the original complaint.
4) Finally issue an actual response that sort of addresses the original complaint but usually by claiming that up is down, black is white and short is long.”
I got this response from a guy called Jim.
“I got No 4 when I complained to the BBC about a Jack Munroe article on their website that was about how to cook on a budget. In it she claimed that tinned potatoes were cheaper than loose ones. Which is utter nonsense, they are far more expensive per kilo. The person responding to my complaint declared that because a 500g tin of potatoes (cost 50p) is cheaper in absolute terms than a 2.5Kg bag of loose potatoes (cost £1), they were in fact cheaper.”
Black is white, up is down, short is long and 40p per kilo is more expensive than £1 per kilo.
Perhaps the BBC will get its final comeuppance over the Bashir lies and their subsequent cover up. It seems to be losing a lot of friends over this. I dropped them after the disgusting toads Brand and Ross insulted the late great Andrew Sachs.