World on pace for significantly more warming without immediate climate action, report warns

Whatever action they do or don't do will have no effect on climate.

Whatever action they do or don't do will have no effect on climate.

Based on what scientific report exactly? the current consensus is that there many measures that would have a significant impact on climate change, just claiming the consensus is wrong without offering any evidence of this makes the claim irrelevant. The same was said for the ozone layer hole and the actions were extremely effective, mostly because they didn't have the fossil fuel industry spending mountains of money to mislead credulous people into thinking there was nothing to do.

Whatever action they do or don't do will have no effect on climate.

How about eradication of all humans? If that wouldn't work then maybe you have a point.

I am waiting to have warmer climate.

It would mean reduced energy bill (no A/C needed for me ever). And less GHG emissions at the same time.

Affected areas because of climate change are known. People have time to move, something like decades.

Urban development and many human more local events have way more impact on your life than climate change.

Just a major way to make you pay taxes to pay the always ballooning budgets of rich countries.

I am waiting to have warmer climate.

Because you give more importance to your own convenience even if it means literally hundreds of millions dying because of the expected disastrous consequences?

The whole globe is expected to be affected, with economies losing trillions, exacerbated disasters killing and ruining people in every continent, decrease in the production of food, availability of natural resources, and no, there is no other human action that will impact more the lives of the people in general than climate change, much less purely local events. If anything those local events are going to be deeply affected by climate change.

The only thing that is making poor countries pay the cost so rich countries can profit is pretending climate change is not real or will have no significant impact. The actual measures that will have an impact are meant to protect developing countries and make the ones that actually are producing the changes to take responsibility, including economically.

J.P. like it, I stopped using a/c many years ago at lat21N and am now trying to avoid winter heating rads. I venture that it is the individual responsibility to reduce energy waste, Urban effects are so evident, and can be seen on-line night temp maps, but people have to live somewhere, (may I say hi Tokyo :)) nahbody is perfect, I still drive a 5.0 V8, sorry! but only do ~2K km/yr. cheaper to use the MTR.

virusrex

Based on what scientific report exactly? the current consensus is that there many measures that would have a significant impact on climate change, 

Ah, the "consensus" again. You forgot "the experts" and the "worldwide respected institutions". Fact is, there is a wide range of opinions among climatologists. But the big grant money goes to the ones promoting the the IPCC agenda, with predictable results, so I suppose that is where your "consensus" comes from.

As all climate forecasts are based on models, they have been consistently wrong. As is to be expected, since there is no way to accurately model a hugely complex system with a number of unpredictable factors. What is constant is the politicians drive for more power.

Well, a look at a trend of global temperatures (land and sea surface) and atmospheric CO2 levels looks pretty darn simple. Average annual temperature and CO2 go up up up since the industrial revolution. I think I can guess the direction of the future temperature even without a model.

As all climate forecasts are based on models, they have been consistently wrong. As is to be expected, since there is no way to accurately model a hugely complex system with a number of unpredictable factors. What is constant is the politicians drive for more power.

Well, at least you are honest and don't pretend that global warming doesn't exist. The climate change deniers are typically selfish and delusional.

I am waiting to have warmer climate.

It would mean reduced energy bill (no A/C needed for me ever). And less GHG emissions at the same time.

Affected areas because of climate change are known. People have time to move, something like decades.

Urban development and many human more local events have way more impact on your life than climate change.

Just a major way to make you pay taxes to pay the always ballooning budgets of rich countries

fallaffel

Well, a look at a trend of global temperatures (land and sea surface) and atmospheric CO2 levels looks pretty darn simple. Average annual temperature and CO2 go up up up since the industrial revolution.

How many measurings stations were there at the industrial revolution and where were they?

I think I can guess the direction of the future temperature even without a model.

Of course you can guess everything. We are all free to guess.

fallaffel

The climate change deniers are typically selfish and delusional.

"Deniers" is a religious term. Only religionists accuse people of being "deniers" of god and some such. The term has no place in a conversation about science.

And, fwiw, I have yet to meet anyone who claims the climate never changes. Can you refer us to one?

Inconvenient science :

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=131993

Global greening is ushering in an era of giant global surplussed of food.

And a warmer planet certainly means fewer deaths because of cold weather which kills more people than hot weather,

proxyToday 06:19 am JST

Global greening is ushering in an era of giant global surplussed of food.

And a warmer planet certainly means fewer deaths because of cold weather which kills more people than hot weather,

Even if that were true, people can't just up and move to new countries without causing severe disruption. And cold snaps are becoming more lethal.

Ah, the "consensus" again. You forgot "the experts" and the "worldwide respected institutions". Fact is, there is a wide range of opinions among climatologists.

About the origin and importance of climate change? no there is not, at least not in any degree when actual evidence is evaluated, this is as valid as saying that there is a wide range of opinions about doctors about microbes being the cause of infection, if you search enough and include deeply unprofessional people you will always find some that are not ashamed of being completely wrong.

But if you search actual institutions you have always been unable to find any that support what you choose to believe, that is what consensus means.

As all climate forecasts are based on models, they have been consistently wrong.

No, they have not, which is why every institution of the field clearly support them and use them, anonymous people in the internet claiming a whole field of science is wrong without offering any evidence is simply something that is not relevant.

How many measurings stations were there at the industrial revolution and where were they?

Surrogates have been validated and can let the professionals know temperatures without problem, you not understanding the science do not mean the professionals are in the same level.

"Deniers" is a religious term. 

No, it is not, when someone irrationally denies clear evidence without any argument then this can validly be called being a denier.

Inconvenient science :

A report from a non-professional, that offers no new data, that depends completely on ignoring the arguments that refute their explanations, that repeatedly publish the same debunked arguments even when they have been thrown down by the scientists on the field and that makes no effort to actually support the claims with actual methodology? that is not science and much less inconvenient, the moment a report is based on pretending clouds only reflect heat without mentioning that they can also trap it anybody (no need of being a professional) can easily see how flawed the conclusions are.

Global greening is ushering in an era of giant global surplussed of food.

No, it is not.

And a warmer planet certainly means fewer deaths because of cold weather which kills more people than hot weather,

Only in a theoretical planet where temperatures are homogeneous around the globe, not in the real one where the climatic changes are much more complicated, you can ask people in Florida if the warmer weather lead to less deaths.

Lol, you can see the author's affiliations are "Retired" and "Independent researcher", meaning they are not employed as scientists anywhere. And this is a predatory journal that will publish anything for money: https://predatoryjournals.org/news/f/is-scientific-research-publishing-scirp-a-predatory-publisher.

It's "inconvenient" in that people get fooled into reading it, but it's certainly not "science".

Inconvenient science :

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=131993

@virusrex

Go read the latest USDA WASDE report. Global food production is forecast to rise again in '24-25.

Go read the latest USDA WASDE report

What part of the report includes determinations related to expected increase of catastrophic weather, and conditions that affect human activity, water supply, necessary measures (and their cost) to account for changes, etc? and say everything will increase? because the latest report (october 11) clearly says most production is reduced without any mention of the "giant global surplussed of food" as you claim.

I mean, if agencies like the EPA warn about the possibility of heavy disruptions unless effective (and costly) measures are put in place, where are those claims rebuked by the USDA WASDE?

https://climatechange.chicago.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply

https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply

proxy

Global greening is ushering in an era of giant global surplussed of food.

And a warmer planet certainly means fewer deaths because of cold weather which kills more people than hot weather,

Nobody can predict this exactly, as there are too many unpredictable factors. But we have had things like the medieval warming period, which lasted for several hundred years, and people survived it just fine. And no, there were no SUVs when it started, and no "green energy" plans by the rulers when it ended. While we are it, towards the end of WW2, Europe experienced what people call a little ice age, with the coldest winters in memory (did not work out well for Hitler in the SU...). And you can be sure lots of fossil fuels are burned in a world war.

virusrex

I mean, if agencies like the EPA 

Are you saying the EPA is not a political institution, influenced by political motives?

Nobody can predict this exactly

And there is no need for anybody to predict things exactly, as long as there is enough information to make an educated guess based on data then this is a valid argument. Disasters becoming more common, water availability changing, infectious diseases becoming more prevalent, etc. Are all well known and proved changes that will affect negatively the world, so there is no need to predict in exact detail when one single location will get rain or when one specific person is going to die because of climate change, in general the predictions are accurate.

Are you saying the EPA is not a political institution, influenced by political motives?

I am saying that unless you can prove anything they say is wrong then they are a much more reliable source of information than nameless people on the internet claiming things without any evidence.

You say the EPA is wrong? then you can prove it, because if you can't that means your claim lacks any value.

virusrex

Disasters becoming more common, water availability changing, infectious diseases becoming more prevalent, etc.

All this is influenced by a number of factors. There is not one single, simple cause.

nameless people on the internet claiming things without any evidence

The thousands of climatologists who disagree with the ICCP agenda are not "nameless people on the internet". Bjorn Lomborg, who is agnostic about the ICCP claims but explains the insane economics of the "green" agenda is not a "nameless person on the internet". What is nameless are these obscure "experts", "consensus", and "worldwide respected institutions" that you constantly appeal to.

All this is influenced by a number of factors. There is not one single, simple cause.

Irrelevant, something being multifactorial do not negate in any way the many different ways climate change produce and instigates those factors, this argument works more in favor of climate change than against it.

The thousands of climatologists who disagree with the ICCP agenda are not "nameless people on the internet".

Imaginary climatologists are not a valid appeal to authority (not even if "thousands"), specially when the few that actually have any kind of relevance on the topic are completely unable to provide any evidence of their claims. They are in the same category as doctors that say there are no microbes or that water have magical memory, simply examples of people with diminished capacity (or ethics) so they insist on things that they can't prove, or worse things that others have clearly disproved.

Anybody that pretends the fossil fuel industry is not capable of funding much more than any institution or even government of the world automatically loses relevance, there is no economic power that could even rival them, but since the evidence is against their interests they will always find someone that will pretend small universities and governments are the "big bad" while one of the most profitable segments of the industry somehow have no money to oppose them, frankly unbelievable.

These thousands of climatologists that doubt anthropogenic climate change simply don't exist. The IPCC reports are actually very conservative because they need every government involved in the process to approve them. It means their message gets toned down to make China and Middle Eastern Countries (and sometimes, the US) happy.

Don't worry about the economics of it until you first understand the problem.

The thousands of climatologists who disagree with the ICCP agenda are not "nameless people on the internet". Bjorn Lomborg, who is agnostic about the ICCP claims but explains the insane economics of the "green" agenda is not a "nameless person on the internet". What is nameless are these obscure "experts", "consensus", and "worldwide respected institutions" that you constantly appeal to.

fallaffel

These thousands of climatologists that doubt anthropogenic climate change simply don't exist.

" Doubt anthropogenic climate change" is a vague term. There are all sorts of viewpoints out there, as there should. What is doubted by every unbiased person is the childish narrative that the "climate" is somehow controlled solely by the 0.000164% anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.

About the ICCP, it is an organization specifically set up to prove the premise of anthropogenic climate change, so which researchers to you expect them to support and publish?

Doubting an abundance of clear evidence because of your political views is what's childish. At least spell the organization's name correctly; it's not ICCP. _

There are all sorts of viewpoints out there, as there should.

Indeed. I saw some guy on youtube who said that it's OK to smoke 150 cigarettes a day as long as you believe sincerely in the Lord, because faith is much more powerful than all that silly medical science stuff.

Why should this guy's viewpoint not also be taken on board?

There are all sorts of viewpoints out there,

Those that can be demonstrated with evidence and validated methods are of course the ones that have value, and there are of course those that can be demonstrated as simply wrong with that evidence. Climate change has been demonstrated as produced by human activity, nobody have produced any kind of evidence that disproves this.

What is doubted by every unbiased person is the childish narrative that the "climate" is somehow controlled solely by the 0.000164% anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.

This is not what the consensus of science says, climate change is produced predominantly (as in happening only because of) human activity derived CO2. There is nothing wrong with this, as surely as nobody have disproved this explanation that correspond with the available evidence and allows for precise predictions about the changes.

About the ICCP, it is an organization specifically set up to prove the premise of anthropogenic climate change, so which researchers to you expect them to support and publish?

According to you researchers publish whatever they are paid to, and since fossil fuel is one of the most profitable industries ever it would follow every paper would debunk human activity derived climate change.

In reality the papers are published according to scientific rigor, the excuse that everybody in the world is in a conspiracy to hide the actual reality is just that, an excuse, and it is as valid as when it is used by creationists and flat earthers (to be clear, not valid at all).

virusrex

This is not what the consensus of science says, climate change is produced predominantly (as in happening only because of) human activity derived CO2. There is nothing wrong with this, as surely as nobody have disproved this explanation

It is up the claimants to prove the claim that the 0.000164% anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere controls the climate. It is not the sceptics job to disprove an unfalsifiable claim. This tactic is used in religion, not in ("prove that there is no god" etc.)

that correspond with the available evidence and allows for precise predictions about the changes.

Ah, the predictions.

Like David King (former chief scientific adviser to the UK government) in 2018: "climate change will wipe out all of humanity, unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years"?

Like Al Gore in 2008: "within a decade there will no snow on Kilimanjaro"

Like Al Gore in 2008: "the Northpole will be ice free in summer by 2013"

Like John Kerry in 2010: "in 5 years we will have the first ice free Arctic summer"

Like Neille DeGrass Tyson:: "by 2015 the statue of liberty will be under water until its elbow"

You mean these predictions? There are plenty more....

It is up the claimants to prove the claim that the 0.000164% anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere controls the climate. 

And that has been done beyond any reasonable doubt, when every single institution of science in a related field reaches the same conclusion based on the evidence there is no merit in thinking this has not been proved yet.

It is not the sceptics job to disprove an unfalsifiable claim.

The claim that every single institution of science in the world is in a global conspiracy against the interests of one of the most lucrative industries of the world is NOT an unfalsifiable clailm, it is just a false claim without any merit. Which is why it has no weight the same as when creationists and flat earthers make the same claim.

Ah, the predictions.

The scientific predictions, the ones in indexed journals where they are made with specific and clear parameters without any hyperbole or room for invalid generalizations.

Out of literally thousands of scientific reports that include predictions about the future you were able to bring exactly... zero to prove the science is wrong. That means you proved yourself that your claim is false.

virusrex

And that has been done beyond any reasonable doubt, when every single institution of science in a related field reaches the same conclusion

I continue to be impressed that you know exactly what every single „institution of science“ in the world is saying.

Can you actually cite one that says that  0.000164% anthropogenic CO2 is the only factor influencing the climate?

The claim that every single institution of science in the world is in a global conspiracy against the interests of one of the most lucrative industries of the world

Conspiracy is not the claim. And the "green" industries are certainly lucrative, at least as long as they receive government funding. If you mean oil and gas, please try to live for a day without things that are based on that. No food, no clothing, no electricity, no computer, and certainly not internet....

I continue to be impressed that you know exactly what every single „institution of science“ in the world is saying.

And you could easily disprove this by bringing any example, yet every single time you have to recognize you could not bring any, which is exactly what happens when every single one supports the consensus.

Can you actually cite one that says that  0.000164% anthropogenic CO2 is the only factor influencing the climate?

I already disqualified your strawman, human activity derived CO2 is the main factor according to science, enough to make it the cause for all practical purposes (without it it would not be happening now), so you make up an invalid claim pretending it has any importance, this would be like demanding that a doctor confirms that a victim with 13 gunshots in the chest died without any other health problem at all, or else this would mean the wounds are not the cause.

Conspiracy is not the claim

Yes it is, you repeatedly claim the conspiracy as the reason why you can't find any evidence that refutes the consensus, no institution in the whole wide world to support what you want to believe. That is the excuse you keep trying to use to avoid accepting that the science is right.

And the "green" industries are certainly lucrative, at least as long as they receive government funding

Compared with the fossil fuel industries? not even a tiny fraction. According to you that would mean all the reports would clearly refute the origin of climate change as caused by humans, since they are the ones that can pay much more, right?

In reality good science is the one that is published, even when oil and gas would love to pay fortunes to get the opposite in scientific journals.

f you mean oil and gas, please try to live for a day without things that are based on that. No food, no clothing, no electricity, no computer, and certainly not internet....

Fallacy of the false dichotomy, deeply irrational to expect only 1100% or 0% responsible lifestyle. This is a valid as saying that nobody leads a healthy life if they don't dedicate every second of their day to improve their health, in reality lots of people live ecologically responsible lifestyles even if not perfect, leading to a significant reduction of emissions without having to live in caverns as you misrepresent.