Climate change science implodes as IPCC climate models found to be “totally wrong” …

[Big Sleazy]

… temperatures aren’t rising as predicted … hoax unraveling

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09...rent-rising-as-predicted-hoax-unraveling.html

Goldman Sachs is going to be pissed about this ! They own the patent on carbon credits and they've thrown around a lot of bribes to our Politicians to get there bogus carbon taxes thru. They might have to pull Justin Hair-doos Silver spoon.

 

[fuji]

Natural News?

Lol

 

[fuji]

Some other recent zingers from that site:

Minorities don't face discrimination

Human population being wiped out by food chemicals

Scientists are controlling and augmenting hurricanes

Plus a lot of anti vaccine garbage.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Natural News?

Lol

Maybe trying reading the article for a change.
Study was published in a science journal called "Nature Geoscience".

Which....haha....is part of nature.com, a journal you previously cited as credible :biggrin1:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html

 

[canada-man]

JAMES DELINGPOLEHow scientists got their global warming sums wrong — and created a £1TRILLION-a-year green industry that bullied experts who dared to question the figures
The scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finally come clean. The planet has stubbornly refused to heat up to predicted levels


No, the actual hardest word — which scientists use so rarely it might as well not exist — is “Sorry”.

Which is a shame because right now the scientists owe us an apology so enormous that I doubt even a bunch of two dozen roses every day for the rest of our lives is quite enough to make amends for the damage they’ve done.

Thanks to their bad advice on climate change our gas and electricity bills have rocketed.

So too have our taxes, our car bills and the cost of flying abroad, our kids have been brainwashed into becoming tofu-munching eco-zealots, our old folk have frozen to death in fuel poverty, our countryside has been blighted with ranks of space-age solar panels and bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes, our rubbish collection service hijacked by hectoring bullies, our cities poisoned with diesel fumes . . .

And all because a tiny bunch of **scientists got their sums wrong and scared the world silly with a story about catastrophic man-made global warming.

This scare story, we now know, was at best an exaggeration, at worst a **disgraceful fabrication. But while a handful of reviled and derided sceptics have been saying this for years, it’s only this week that those scientists have fessed up to their mistake.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4503006/global-warming-sums-experts-bullies-james-delingpole-opinion/

 

[Insidious Von]

You want natural geoscience, whatever that means, I'll give you natural geoscience!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6psbtr3XpIo

 

[fuji]

Maybe trying reading the article for a change.
Study was published in a science journal called "Nature Geoscience".

Which....haha....is part of nature.com, a journal you previously cited as credible :biggrin1:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html

So read and quote from that instead of the hideous misrepresentation in the OP.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

So read and quote from that instead of the hideous misrepresentation in the OP

Or you could just try reading the study before refuting Natural News, you genius

 

[fuji]

Quote from the study, clearly calling global warming confirmed fact:





Human-induced warming reached an estimated 0.93 °C (±0.13 °C; 5–95 percentile range) above mid-nineteenth-century conditions in 2015 and is currently increasing at almost 0.2 °C per decade2. Combined with the effects of El Niño and other sources of natural variability, total warming exceeded 1 °C for the first time in 2015 and again in 20163. Average temperatures for the 2010s are currently 0.87 °C above 1861–80, which would rise to 0.93 °C should they remain at 2015 levels for the remainder of the decade. With a few exceptions4, 5, mitigation pathways that could achieve peak or end-of-century warming of 1.5 °C have thus far received little attention. Even the ‘Paris, increased ambition’ scenario of ref. 6 results in CO2 emissions still well above zero in 2100, and hence a low chance of limiting warming to 1.5 °C.

Long-term anthropogenic warming is determined primarily by cumulative emissions of CO2 (refs 7,8,9,10): the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC-AR5) found that cumulative CO2 emissions from 1870 had to remain below 615 GtC for total anthropogenic warming to remain below 1.5 °C in more than 66% of members of the 5th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) ensemble of Earth system models (ESMs)11 (see Fig. 1a). Accounting for the 545 GtC that had been emitted by the end of 201412, this would indicate a remaining budget from 2015 of less than seven years of current emissions, while current commitments under the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) indicate 2030 emissions close to current levels1

 

[Insidious Von]

I did read it - after it conflicted with my adblocker - cmon felles ya got to do better than that! Nonsensical gobbledygook.

To quote David Lee Roth: One natural geoscience comin up!

 

[Frankfooter]

… temperatures aren’t rising as predicted … hoax unraveling

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09...rent-rising-as-predicted-hoax-unraveling.html

Goldman Sachs is going to be pissed about this ! They own the patent on carbon credits and they've thrown around a lot of bribes to our Politicians to get there bogus carbon taxes thru. They might have to pull Justin Hair-doos Silver spoon.

You guys are such suckers, you read the headline and don't go any further.
Clicking on the link to the study it shows this as the abstract for the actual study.

Abstract• References• Author information• Supplementary information
The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5 °C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9 °C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade. We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 °C in 66% of Earth system model members of the CMIP5 ensemble with no mitigation of other climate drivers, increasing to 240 GtC with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation. We combine a simple climate–carbon-cycle model with estimated ranges for key climate system properties from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 °C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.

The study claims that with incredibly aggressive CO2 reductions we can keep climate change to the lower end of IPCC projections, which is pretty much what the IPCC says as well.
Sheesh.

It basically confirms IPCC reports and says that we need aggressive action to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere.

In other words your article is bullshit, the study didn't say what they claimed it said.

Suckers.

 

[oldjones]

… temperatures aren’t rising as predicted … hoax unraveling

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09...rent-rising-as-predicted-hoax-unraveling.html

Goldman Sachs is going to be pissed about this ! They own the patent on carbon credits and they've thrown around a lot of bribes to our Politicians to get there bogus carbon taxes thru. They might have to pull Justin Hair-doos Silver spoon.

As expected from your title, you cited a biased secondary source telling people what to think, not the actual study, which was serious climate change science that supposedly 'implodes' … . Implodes what? "Climate change science", says your source. Kinda like proving God doesn't exists because you He told you He didn't, don'cha think?

Anyway, it ain't what the scientists your source misinterprets actually said (Just Google the title of the cited article for the truth). Here's the actual words: "Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible."

In simpler terms: It's not yet impossible; we can still limit warming to 1.5˚C, but we'll need to do more that we agreed to by 2030, and even more after that. If we made real progress reducing CO₂ now, it would help if we have trouble with those later targets, or if the climate changes even faster than expected.

 

[Zoot Allures]

climate change will be stopped through technology that creates profit

get over it

money rules so create better technology that corporations can profit from not a bunch of complex agreements

 

[Frankfooter]

climate change will be stopped through technology that creates profit

get over it

money rules so create better technology that corporations can profit from not a bunch of complex agreements

To a certain extent that's starting to happen.
Coal is now more expensive the wind/solar and its use is declining, despite the crazy orange guy trying to keep it alive.

But its also surprising how 90 companies have done most of the damage to the planet.

Two thirds of human released CO2 has come from only 90 companies according to a new study.

Recent findings that nearly two-thirds of total industrial CO2 and CH4 emissions can be traced to 90 major industrial carbon producers have drawn attention to their potential climate responsibilities.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-1978-0#Sec10

A good example of how companies fight for profit against green energies is in Florida, where due to lobbying they made it illegal to use solar panels to power your house, you have to run it into the grid and when the grid goes down you're not allowed to use them to power your home.

FPL's lobbying wing has fought hard against letting Floridians power their own homes with solar panels. Thanks to power-company rules, it's impossible across Florida to simply buy a solar panel and power your individual home with it. You are instead legally mandated to connect your panels to your local electric grid.

More egregious, FPL mandates that if the power goes out, your solar-power system must power down along with the rest of the grid, robbing potentially needy people of power during major outages.

"Renewable generator systems connected to the grid without batteries are not a standby power source during an FPL outage," the company's solar-connection rules state. "The system must shut down when FPL's grid shuts down in order to prevent dangerous back feed on FPL's grid. This is required to protect FPL employees who may be working on the grid."

Astoundingly, state rules also mandate that solar customers include a switch that cleanly disconnects their panels from FPL's system while keeping the rest of a home's power lines connected. But during a disaster like the aftermath of Hurricane Irma, FPL customers aren't allowed to simply flip that switch and keep their panels going. (But FPL is, however, allowed to disconnect your panels from the grid without warning you. The company can even put a padlock on it.)

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-frustrated-with-fpl-after-hurricane-irma-9666311

 

[fuji]

Or you could just try reading the study before refuting Natural News, you genius

.. Phil has run away ..

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

.. Phil has run away ..

I'm right here, sweetiepie.

Next time read links more thoroughly so you dont like a total fool

 

[Frankfooter]

I'm right here, sweetiepie.

Next time read links more thoroughly so you dont like a total fool

This whole thread is from climate deniers who didn't read the report, only some lobbyist's claims about the study.
That's who is looking like a fool right now.

As the author of the study himself said:

I think some press reporting is misleading as our paper did not assess climate impacts or climate model performance. Rather, our paper confirms the need for much increased urgent action from around the world if society stands a chance of limiting warming to 1.5C.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-climate-models-have-not-exaggerated-global-warming

 

[oldjones]

Maybe trying reading the article for a change.
Study was published in a science journal called "Nature Geoscience".

Which....haha....is part of nature.com, a journal you previously cited as credible :biggrin1:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html

I'm sure you meant the link to be helpful, but that Nature article actually contradicts what Sleazy's headline says and the specious, misleading article that he cited.

In their Abstract, here's how the author's summarize what we should do [my emphasis]: Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.

'Do more now; it'll only get harder later'. A far cry from the Sleazy claim they 'imploded' climate science or disproved the IPCC models.

 

[Nesbot]

You guys are such suckers, you read the headline and don't go any further.
Clicking on the link to the study it shows this as the abstract for the actual study.


The study claims that with incredibly aggressive CO2 reductions we can keep climate change to the lower end of IPCC projections, which is pretty much what the IPCC says as well.
Sheesh.

It basically confirms IPCC reports and says that we need aggressive action to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere.

In other words your article is bullshit, the study didn't say what they claimed it said.

Suckers.

So basically the people claiming Fuji didnt read the article...didnt read the article, because the stupid idiots from the naturalnews didn't either.

 

[Frankfooter]

So basically the people claiming Fuji didnt read the article...didnt read the article, because the stupid idiots from the naturalnews didn't either.

The people from naturalnews, or whatever that site is, are most likely fossil fuel funded lobbyists masquerading as journalists, as the article is a total fabrication that will satisfy the deniers but is easily debunked by anyone who does a basic check.

So basically, I'd expect that the naturalnews, or whatever that site is called, don't think much of their denier readers, otherwise they wouldn't publish something that is so easily shown to be crap.