Good News: Climate Doom Again Pushed Out 10-12 Years

So strange that doom over breaking the 1.5C threshold keeps being pushed out

Plenty more out there (and smacked down here), but, now, instead of computer models, we have AI models

AI: World likely to hit key warming threshold in 10-12 years

The world will likely breach the internationally agreed-upon climate change threshold in about a decade, and keep heating to break through a next warming limit around mid-century even with big pollution cuts, artificial intelligence predicts in a new study that’s more pessimistic than previous modeling.

The study in Monday’s journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reignites a debate on whether it’s still possible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as called for in the 2015 Paris climate agreement, to minimize the most damaging effects of climate change. The world has already warmed 1.1 or 1.2 degrees since pre-industrial times, or the mid-19th century, scientists say.

Two climate scientists using machine learning calculated that Earth will surpass the 1.5 degree (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) mark between 2033 and 2035. Their results fit with other, more conventional methods of predicting when Earth will break the mark, though with a bit more precision.

“There will come a time when we call the 1.5C target for maximum warming dead, beyond the shadow of a doubt,” Brown University environment institute director Kim Cobb, who wasn’t part of the study, said in an email interview. “And this paper may be the beginning of the end of the 1.5C target.”

So, what happens if this doesn’t happen? Who is punished for grossly irresponsible fearmongering? These climahysterics just can’t help themselves with their prognostications of doom

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “Good News: Climate Doom Again Pushed Out 10-12 Years”

  1. Professor Hale says:

    They are using the “science” of psychology instead of the “science” of climate. Activists know that you have to pick a time that seems soon enough to spur you to action, without being so soon that you feel action is futile. That sweet spot time is 12 years. 12 year also seems to be pre precise than rough guesses like 10 or 20 so people naturally and falsely assume it is based on some actual calculation of an actual metric. This works fine for brand new issues. It fails when an issue has been around long enough for the 12 years to come and go several times and enough non-activists are still alive to remember it.

    It reminds me of the 5 year plans that the Soviet union had for economic productivity. Are their “achievements” were in the future. All their challenges were in the now.

    Also reminds me of congresspeople back in the 90’s claiming economic growth 20 years from now would produce enough tax revenues to pay back all the debt, so it was OK to borrow more. Of course, that was back when the government actually resorted to borrowing instead of just creating money out of thin air.

  2. Dana says:

    Remember when former Vice President and thankfully never President Al Gore told us, in 2009, that “there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years”?

    How many ‘tipping points’ have we passed so far?

    • Professor Hale says:

      I’m just waiting for that final tipping point beyond which any action at all is futile, so we can all stop pretending that any action at all matters.

      • Dana says:

        We’ve already passed so many of those that I can’t keep track. But, not to worry: there will always be another tipping point against which we must spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax out in the future.

  3. H says:

    Gore was quoting from a US Navy report.
    How accurate was it ?
    At summer minimum in September last year it was 88% ice free.
    The trend is clearly going down
    At least you did quote him accurately as saying “could” not would.
    Dana do you think that the Arctic ice extent will continue decreasing ?I do.

    • alanstorm says:

      At summer minimum in September last year it was 88% ice free.

      September is usually the moth for lowest ice coverage, according to the NSIDC.

      The trend is clearly going down

      Not according to this, also from the NSIDC:

    • Dana says:

      One thing is clear, Mr H: you didn’t bother to read the documentation I kinked in my comment. Try to do better.

      You’ll note that the source cites was National Public Radio, not exactly an evil reich-wing source.

    • Facts Matter says:

      From CLIMATE.GOV

      That’s a loss of 31,100 square miles—an area the size of South Carolina—per year.

      Notice it is a loss. Yet this ice is sitting in the ocean and therefore if it melts or not will not account for a single MM rise in ocean elevation.


      I just got back from Juneau Alaska where they had been in a drought for about a year. It has now been raining and snowing almost every day since the first of July and the drought is certainly over by a long, long way.

      In Siberia, a recent temperature was recorded at -87 degrees F. All-Time Record. Explain to the

      The real reason the sea ice is melting in the North is because of warmer water being pushed up by the serious El Nino’s the earth has been experiencing the last 30 plus years.

      The last time the earth suffered a warm period was approximatley 2.6 to 4 million years ago when the Co2 was in the region of 400-500 ppm.

      From the Scholars of New Zealand responding to their own article about the melting sea ice.

      I quote:James Shulmeister
      Professor, University of Canterbury

      Yes, we have analogue geological periods for higher CO2. One of the challenges, as you go further back in time, is that other factors such as continental drift changing the arrangement of the continents and oceans make direct comparisons a little harder. We also focused on 400ppm because it has already happened. No prediction required.

      YET even by his own admission Continental drift was certainly in play and in fact the earth had the continents squeezed together such that the warm souther ocean currents were forced directly to the northern pole melting the ice in both Greenland and the Arctic ocean ice. This did in fact cause extermely warm temperatures in the very far north.

      Again from the same professor.

      Beyond a million years, we don’t have any direct measurements of the composition of ancient atmospheres, but we can use several methods to estimate past levels of carbon dioxide.

      A geologist friend I work with explains things quite nicely to me. The past is a prediction based upon ocean sediment sampling which can or cannot be accurate for any given time based on the drift of continents and the amount of volcanic activity in the region at the time.

      Core samples of Ice are the best indicators of the past and they are as the good professor explains, very inaccurate after 1 million years. So trying to compare today’s 410 ppm to 2.7 million years ago 410 ppm is a pursuit of vanity meant to keep the research dollars flowing.

      And now you know part of the rest of the story.

  4. H says:

    Climate change will most adversely affect the poorest humans. Those who subsist on about 1$ per day.
    Prof Hale I am assuming that climate change will not affect you personally over the course of your final years living in the USA
    However, not all humans on our planet will be so fortunate
    Have a great day !!

    • Professor Hale says:

      Why are longer growing seasons and shorter winters bad for poor people?

      How does a 1.5 degree change in temperature adversely affect anyone at all?

      You can skip all the hype about deadly storms. Say something reasonable that isn’t an activist talking point and you will earn being taken seriously.

    • CarolAnn says:

      Not all humans on our planet are fortunate at all. So what? Does that mean we shouldn’t be because everyone else isn’t? That’s typical America hating leftist crap. You realize our entire country is part of the 1% of the earth?

      We have built a great nation, a powerful successful nation with many advantages. Should we give them up because they don’t have access to them in Somalia?

      You’re a typical rich white leftist Hairy. You sit in your house with all your amenities, living better than a king a mere 80 years ago and pass judgement on everyone based on what you think they should have. Do you drive a EV yet? No. Have you brought illegals to live with you yet? No. Do you spend your retirement years giving food and clothing to the poor? No.

      But you do have time to come here and like Elwood insult people who do help. You leftist radicals are amazing.

      Freedom entails a certain amount of unfairness. If you don’t understand that then perhaps a mostly free nation is not the place for you. Scope out N Korea, it may be a better fit. No hard feelings, really!

    • Jl says:

      Johnny-climate change will most adversely affect the poorest humans..”
      Thanks, Johnny -most everything “bad” that happens in life will affect the poorest the most. So why in the world does the cult want to straddle the poor with unreliable, expensive energy?

    • david7134 says:

      Why is warming bad. The earth has been warming and ice receding for 20,000 years. You attribute this to carbon with very little evidence. That is fine, but wrong, but your solutions for remedy are all political or major alterations in our economy and well being. And your solutions will definitely harm the less fortunate and all the rest of us and have zero impact.

  5. James H Lewis says:

    Dear H:

    Actually, a study of history shows that mankind’s best periods were during warming cycles.

Pirate's Cove