The Most Dire Climate Assessment Ever Still Fails To Acknowledge Climate Engineering

Share

Today, November 2nd, the largest scientific panel ever assembled on any subject in human history has issued the most dire warning yet on the state of the climate. This being said, the assessment still falls far short of stating how horrifically the climate is damaged and worse still the report does not say a word about the catastrophic and ongoing climate engineering programs. In our Orwellian world of total denial and omission the population is still completely oblivious to the fact that our biosphere is imploding. The global geoengineering assault is radically accelerating this planetary unraveling. Though the article below totally omits any mention of climate engineering, and is conservative in its still alarming conclusions, the data it does contain should be evaluated and considered.
Dane Wigington
geoengineeringwatch.org

World’s Scientists Warn: We Have ‘High Confidence’ In The ‘Irreversible Impacts’ Of Climate Inaction

Source: Climate Progress

surface temp

Humanity’s choice (via IPCC): Aggressive climate action ASAP (left figure) minimizes future warming and costs a mere 0.06% of annual growth. Continued inaction (right figure) results in catastrophic and irreversible levels of warming, 9°F over much of U.S. and world.

The world’s top scientists and governments have issued their bluntest plea yet to the world: Slash carbon pollution now (at a very low cost) or risk “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.” Scientists have “high confidence” these devastating impacts occur “even with adaptation” — if we keep doing little or nothing.

On Sunday, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the “synthesis” report of their fifth full scientific climate assessment since 1990. More than 100 governments have signed off line by line on this review of more than 30,000 studies on climate science, impacts, and solutions.

Like every recent IPCC report, it is cautious to a fault — as you would expect from “its consensus structure, which tends to produce a lowest common denominator on which a large number of scientists can agree,” as one climatologist explained to the New York Times. And that “lowest common denominator” is brought to an even blander and lower level in the summary reports since they need to end up with language that satisfies every member government.

The authors clearly understand this is the last time they have a serious shot at influencing the world’s major governments while we still have a plausible chance of stabilizing at non-catastrophic levels. IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said this report will “provide the roadmap by which policymakers will hopefully find their way to a global agreement to finally reverse course on climate change.” That global agreement is supposed to be achieved over the next year and finalized at the December 2015 international climate talks in Paris.

And yet, as conservative as the process is, this final synthesis is still incredibly alarming — while at the same time it is terrifically hopeful.

How hopeful? The world’s top scientists and governments make clear for the umpteenth time that the cost of action is relatively trivial: “Mitigation scenarios that are likely to limit warming to below 2°C” entail “an annualized reduction of consumption growth by 0.04 to 0.14 (median: 0.06) percentage points over the century relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6 percent and 3 percent per year (high confidence).”

Translation: The cost of even the most aggressive action — the kind needed to stave off irreversible disaster — is so low that it would not noticeably change the growth curve of the world economy this century. With high confidence, we would be reducing annual consumption growth from, say, 2.4 percent per year down to “only” a growth level of 2.34 percent per year.

How bad can it get if we won’t devote that tiny fraction of the world’s wealth to action? The IPCC already explained that in the science report from last fall (see “Alarming IPCC Prognosis: 9°F Warming For U.S., Faster Sea Rise, More Extreme Weather, Permafrost Collapse”). And they expanded on that in the impacts report (see “Climate Panel Warns World Faces ‘Breakdown Of Food Systems’ And More Violent Conflict”).

The synthesis report ties it all together:

In most scenarios without additional mitigation efforts … warming is more likely than not to exceed 4°C [7°F] above pre-industrial levels by 2100. The risks associated with temperatures at or above 4°C include substantial species extinction, global and regional food insecurity, consequential constraints on common human activities, and limited potential for adaptation in some cases (high confidence).

Translation: There is high confidence that if we keep doing little or nothing [the RCP8.5 case], we will create a post-apocalyptic “hunger games” world beyond adaptation.

Ever cautious, the IPCC euphemistically writes of “consequential constraints on common human activities.” Elsewhere they explain that “by 2100 for RCP8.5, the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is expected to compromise common human activities, including growing food and working outdoors (high confidence).”

Translation: We are at risk of making large parts of the planet’s currently arable and populated land virtually uninhabitable for much of the year — and irreversibly so for hundreds of years.

Indeed, the report makes clear that future generations can’t plausibly undo whatever we are too greedy and shortsighted to prevent through immediate action. And as bad as the impacts described in this report are, things will be even worse after 2100 in every case but the one where we aggressively act ASAP to stabilize at 2°C total warming.

And remember, this is a super-cautious, consensus-based, “lowest common denominator” report. The Washington Post has an excellent piece on the inherently conservative nature of these reports and why they “often underestimate the severity of global warming.”

So things are probably going to be much, much worse for our children and grandchildren and future generations if we fail to act. Do we really want to find out just how much worse things could be?

Source: Climate Progress

11 Responses to The Most Dire Climate Assessment Ever Still Fails To Acknowledge Climate Engineering

  1. Sr. Gladys Marhefka says:

    How about everyone writing a letter to Ban Ki Moon at the United Nations and Pres. Obama. to tell him that we want it stated in the draft that will be worked on in Lima, Peru that Geo engineering is happening to cool the planet, but also that it is effecting the eco-systems and hydrological cycle. Thanks.Sister Gladys
    Pres. Barack Obama, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania AVe NW, Washington, DC 20500

  2. How many people reading this post have flown in commercial aircraft? 99% of readers? 99.9? How much fuel is burned per person per flight? One ton? A hundred gallons? 400 gallons? How much? I’ve never flown in an commercial aircraft. I seem to have a reason of conscience that says no to stupified industrialized waste.

    How many readers would have courage enough to BAN all commercial and military aircraft forever? One? Two?All right: How many readers think dismantling all international airports would be an environmental step in the right direction? Any takers? Probably not. That’s because civilization has lost any and all sense of personal integrity and risk assessment. Most auctioned off their courage long ago.

    Hints: We don’t need to fly in jumbo jets order to grow food. Hint: We don’t need military aircraft to grow food either. We don’t need cruise ships, aircraft carriers, battle groups, tanks, missiles, rockets, or any more military/industrial excuses.

    Tens of millions of human beings starved to death in 2014. No one reports the figures in the National media, and no one gives a shit anyway. They’re too busy flying to their next entertainment destination, or much too self absorbed to even pay attention to the color of the sky.

    Turn the lights off as you leave planet Earth…

  3. KATHY A ORNSTEIN says:

    WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BREATHE HEALTHY AIR. WE NEED CRITICAL MASS.

  4. Karla says:

    Dear Grandma – itś always the same strategy – the “elites” kill and destroy and put the blame on us.

    Then they want money to relieve the problem.

    Money will not resusitate the dead.

  5. Ken says:

    ya, he’s a douchebag who won’t acknowledge geoengineering.

  6. dave marsden says:

    Two Words: Guy McPherson.

  7. SkywatcherGrandma says:

    Thanks Steven. I think we see our feelings in so many posts made by all concerned about this insane program. Here’s another question for everyone. What happens after they get the carbon tax they want? Wish I could get rid of this cold, need to get back to talking to people.

  8. Steven Chamberlain says:

    SkywatcherGrandma, You Rock! I have the same sick feeling about this crap that you do. I just wanted you to know that you are not alone. Thank you for your activism and your posts.

  9. manor dweller says:

    any show of economics into this equation proves the banksters have their grimy hands all over this

  10. Freedom Ranger says:

    I saw the mindless rage in the climate change march, mindless. It is all contrived to pit the have nots against what remains of America… the middle class.
    It’s all bull, control, destruction of all middleclass wealth all independence… destroyed. Carbon emissions equal prosperity to them our rulers who want to stamp out every last liberty. It is an insatiable wave of mindlessness. They have created so many have nots. The have nots are so angry at the people who grew up right beside them but made something of themselves against all odds. The have nots are angry that a middle class can exist against all opposition. The have nots mindless rage wants all prosperity destroyed except the parasitic super wealthy class whom they have been programmed to believe are entitled to all wealth. Have nots are angry that some of us are independent of the government. This is what is happening. This is about control.

  11. SkywatcherGrandma says:

    If this is such a dire situation why aren’t countries passing bills for more regulations and cutting emissions? With a deadline to take effect in a couple of years, not 20. Why are they allowing all this fracking that releases methane? How can they predict what the temperatures will be from 2081-2100? When did global warming actually start, before or after the geoengineering program began? What are they hiding that they won’t mention geoengineering is going on now? Never a word about the side effects of geoengineering. I hate to think, how many more years of this insanity can earth take and what it will do to all living things. Which is worse, death from a warmer earth or poisoned from chemicals falling from the sky? If they weren’t messing with the earth would it heal its self? Hasn’t it been doing this for billions of years? As I watch the sky today go from blue in the morning to solid white in a few hours, (this is the norm 5 out of 7 days here in the Midwest). I can’t help but wonder what color the people think the sky is “suppose” to be. How can you not wonder what is going on when you see and hear jets come out and spray and then the sky turns white. I wonder if the crayon box still contains the one that says “sky blue” ? Maybe we should all be asking people on the street, “what color is the sky suppose to be”? If they should happen to look up, you could say what is wrong with this picture? I’m really ticked off today and sick of the sky, plus I can’t get rid of a terrible cough. I’m just plain mad as hell! Why are they saving all the organic seeds in seed vaults!? Why is the weather traded as a commodity on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange? Something that really makes me sad is looking at art work, everyone paints with chemtrails and chem clouds. Sickening!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers