Climate change: New report will highlight ‘stark reality’ of warming
By Paul Homewood
Once every five years, the IPCC publishes its latest Assessment Report into the state of the climate. And every five years, governments get together to write their own scary version:
UN researchers are set to publish their strongest statement yet on the science of climate change.
The report will likely detail significant changes to the world’s oceans, ice caps and land in the coming decades.
Due out on Monday, the report has been compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
It will be their first global assessment on the science of global heating since 2013.
It is expected the forthcoming Summary for Policymakers will be a key document for global leaders when they meet in November.
After two weeks of virtual negotiations between scientists and representatives of 195 governments, the IPCC will launch the first part of a three-pronged assessment of the causes, impacts and solutions to climate change.
It is the presence of these government officials that makes the IPCC different from other science bodies. After the report has been approved in agreement with governments, they effectively take ownership of it.
On Monday, a short, 40-page Summary for Policymakers will be released dealing with the physical science.
It may be brief, but the new report is expected to pack a punch.
"We’ve seen over a couple of months, and years actually, how climate change is unfolding; it’s really staring us in the face," said Dr Heleen de Coninck, from Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands, who is a coordinating lead author for the IPCC Working Group III.
"It’s really showing what the impacts will be, and this is just the start. So I think what this report will add is a big update of the state of the science, what temperature increase are we looking at – and what are the physical impacts of that?"
One key question in the new summary will be about the 1.5C temperature target. The climate summit held in the French capital, Paris, in 2015, committed nations to try to limit the rise in global temperature from pre-industrial times to no more than 1.5 degrees.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58102953
The fact that governments “negotiate” tells us every thing we need to know. Their Summary for Policymakers will not be an objective, independent scientific report, it will be a political statement.
This will be the sixth report, and every previous one has used progressively more scary language, in order to ramp up the propaganda. The gullible western media naturally laps it all up, despite the fact that none of their apocalyptic warnings have come true. Meanwhile, the rest of the world merely pays lip service to it, demands ever more blood money and carries on as normal.
McGrath, not for the first time, shows how poorly he understands the Paris Agreement, misleading readers by saying “The climate summit held in the French capital, Paris, in 2015, committed nations to try to limit the rise in global temperature from pre-industrial times to no more than 1.5 degrees.”
It did no such thing. While it aimed to keep temperature rise below 2C, and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C, the national pledges actually made in Paris meant that emissions would remorselessly increase, as of course they have done. The Agreement committed nobody to limit the rise.
We must wait for the report, but I have little doubt it will contain the usual threats about melting ice caps, sea levels, storms, floods, hurricanes, droughts, famines and wildfires. All of these will get much worse in years to come, it will say, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence to support this. When the full scientific report is eventually published, this will all be apparent.
Meanwhile global temperatures, following on from the record El Nino in 2015/16, are no higher now than they were two decades ago. Isn’t it strange that things like Germany’s floods this year have been based on global warming, when there has not been any for twenty years!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I can hardly wait to see how they handle the “hot model” problem:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming
With lies and twisted data… the usual….
I wonder if they will explain, or try to justify, the “Tipping point” of 1.5 deg K above LIA temperatures? This was originally 4 deg K and has steadily reduced to 1.5 over the last 20 years.
In all reality this is simply a “Fear-trigger” with no basis in science.
The science has never mattered. The only thing that matters is the scary propaganda and the stupidity and gullibility of western politicians.
Here they go again. BBC love showing forest fires. Don’t they realise that for wood to spontaneously combust it needs between 200 and 250 Deg.C. Did it get that hot in recently Turkey, or was it the PKK who started them? Ignorance says the former, science the latter!
I should like to think it was all about stupid politicians but when illogical things happen, look for the money root. I think you will find the scare drivers there.
“Isn’t it strange that things like Germany’s floods this year have been based on global warming, when there has not been any for twenty years!”
All you have to do is keep telling people it is getting warmer and it is the truth for many.
There is always a lag (isn’t there always in climate and oceanography) where BS gets adhered to until it runs out of credibility – polar bears and coral comke to mind – but even then……… I reckon based on the “temp pause” the lag is 8 to 10 years.
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it’s the illusion of knowledge.”
Daniel J. Boorstin
Off topic, but John Humphrys writes in the Mail that warmer waters will ‘stop the Gulf Stream.’ Really? A fraction of a degree stopping the Gulf Stream? I can’t help feeling that as an interviewer he would have roasted any politician making such a preposterous claim.
He also claims there isn’t a scientist who doesn’t agree about the dire threat from global warming. How about the 31,487 scientists who signed the Petition Project or the 900+ of the Climate intelligence Foundation who declared there is no climate emergency?
An old scare.
https://climaterealism.com/2021/08/relax-contrary-to-media-reports-research-shows-gulf-stream-collapse-is-not-occurring/
Are they planning to level the Rocky mountains?
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/forget-about-the-gulf-stream-britain-is-really-kept-warm-in-winter-by-the-rocky-mountains-118560.html
Award winning journalist Matt McGrath at his best!
please!!!! award winning “science” journalist!!!
Thank you.
The global temperature in 1880-1900 was about 14.0°C (Phil Jones, et al.) Add the1.5°C “target” to that and you get 15.5°C. or 59.9*F. According to NASA/GISS the temperature at the end of 1995 was 59.7°F. Almost there? GISS used the 1951-1980 base period of 59°F, 15°C, but no longer does??? Wonder why?
Perhaps we should remind our politicians that in the second IPCC report, the Science Group,after five long years of deliberations,concluded that a connection between CO2 and rising temps. could not be discerned. The politicians and Govt. representatives deciided otherwise and in their Summary Report for their masters.they stated exactly the opposite,and the Green Climate Scam was born.But what is truly sickening,is that an IPPC scientist went back to the Science Report and changed the wording to match the Political Summary Report.
Job done.
Was Sharma and all his flying from country to country ensuring that the Report says what is required to continue the Greatest Lie Ever Told.
Ben Santer.
And after that, no reputable scientist has had anything to do with the IPCC climate advocacy group. Lawrence Soloman in The Deniers pointed out that a group of 12 run the IPCC reports and highlighted that, unlike eminent scientists such as Richard Lindzen et al, had produced nothing of any worth. In fact the IPCC reports have cost humanity £trillions of wasted resources and effort.
” the IPCC will launch the first part of a three-pronged assessment of the causes, impacts and solutions to climate change.”
Should be fascinating to read about the solutions to this small fractional rise in temperature since pre-industrial time. Take CO2 back to 350 ppm would be back to the climate of 1987. And net-zero would require the capture and burial of about 500 billion metric tons. Should be simple.
And very cheap……
Not mentioned will be the locations with, and timing of, the most warming since the 1970s
Warmer winter nights in the Arctic, where that is 100% GOOD NEWS.
Lakes with cities on their shores warm much faster than pristine lakes e.g. Lake Michegan.(twice the global warming rate.)
I can explain this but this margin is too small.
JF
Please note: my previous post is post-science science. I have a theory which I believe in and have no need to look at or for the evidence. Well, it’s good enough for Gummer. And the IPCC.
JF
In their previous reports, the scientific findings within the report – those that found no worsening L-T trend in extreme weather events (hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, drought, wildfires, etc), as well as no attribution to AGW were fairly easy to find. One wonders if such understandings – findings – will be hidden away with this version.
‘UN researchers are set to publish their strongest statement yet on the science of climate change.’
C’mon, man. We’ve been getting their ‘strongest statement yet’ for decades. They fell into diminishing returns long ago. There is something new they can say?
“Scientists Warn Of New Supersized Double Mega Limited Edition Teenage Mutant Ninja Snyder Cut Climate Variant With Frickin’ Laser Cannons” H/T TheBabylonBee
‘The report will likely detail significant changes to the world’s oceans, ice caps and land in the coming decades.’
Not only can they predict the future, they can provide details. Science is amazin’.
Given that these model runs have been certified as “unfeasibly” hot and “insanely scary” by Science journal/magazine, all coming decade forecasts are unusable. How will they deal with this fiasco?
Not content with going from global warming, to climate change, to climate apocalypse we now have “It will be their first global assessment on the science of global heating since 2013.”
Any clues as to how the science of global heating differs from any of the other sciences other than sounding worse?
Unlike other science, in CS if observations disagree with the models the observations are deemed wrong. Much easier that way.
To Cheshire Red above,Yes.
Do note that the IPCC Summary for Propagandists bears little similarity to the main science reports that are published later. The Summary is pure propaganda. They get all their headlines from it and then no-one reads the main reports that follow (they will be after Copout26 so as not to mute the propaganda). Many scientists in the past have complained (and resigned) over this fake summary being published but they get cast into the outer darkness. Nothing in the Summary can be taken as true. Every claim will need reassessing against actual data. When done most of the Summary is found to be deliberate falsehoods. Just remember such illustrious fraudsters as M Mann and Phil Jones have been editors of the Summary.
Not involved in the summary but complicit in spreading the alarm, don’t forget the Climate Change Committee which gives bad advice to HMG. Chairman Lord Deben and one of its members is also a member of the Nudge Unit.
If it’s good enough for Gummer it should be good enough for you peasants.
JF
The CCC has not been forgotten! Its scheming has been monitored and its crazed ideas are noted.
The Graun has a “we must panic now piece”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/07/were-on-the-brink-of-catastrophe-warns-tory-climate-chief
There is a picture of world champion hypocrite Airmiles Alok Sharma, looking serious and constipated, and seriously constipated. The man recently few to 19 countries in 3 months on his mission to save the world, by cutting CO2 emissions.
Actual ‘proof’ of Global Warming (from predictions)
1974: Another Ice Age — Armadillos moving south
Tell tale signs are everywhere, the migration south by a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Mid-west.
2015: Climate Change — Armadillos moving north
“Some of that migration, however, is clearly triggered by a changing climate. For the nine-banded armadillo, it looks like it’s Canada or bust!”
2008 University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber predicted an ice-free North Pole for the first
time in history in 2008,
2008: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013
December 14, 2008 Al Gore addressing the COP15 climate Conference
2009: Arctic ice-free by 2014 Al Gore USA Today
2012 Prof. Peter Wadhams, the University of Cambridge (UK), predicted a collapse of the
Arctic ice sheet by 2015-2016,
2013: Arctic ice-free by 2016 The Guardian, quoting source at the US Navy
2019: Scientists training for a year on Arctic ice.
It’s the same old story. Why would you want ice in the Arctic? An ice-free Arctic would be of extreme value.
Same with “global warming.” A warmer earth is a better earth. Why wouldn’t you want global warming?
Try telling them that, they are completely deaf and blind to reason.
Remember Einstein’s comment about the two infinite – “I’m not sure about the Universe”!!!!!
They all fell into the trap of extrapolating a trend without questioning whether it was science or short-term trend.
An amusing trend, if one believes correlation = causation, is that the CO2 level in the world has risen by 2.2 ppm per COP conference: ergo, abandon COP 26 quickly to save the world.
Let us not forget the list of predictions that they have got right. Here they are:-