The UN gives a hilarious reason
President Trump took a victory lap late Saturday after a prominent international climate change panel backed off using some of the most aggressive doomsday estimates after determining that they were not the most plausible outcomes.
The United Nations-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had quietly adjusted its modeling frameworkof a 4–5°C warming by 2100 last month. That framework had underpinned a myriad of other analyses predicting terrifying consequences for greenhouse gas emissions.
“GOOD RIDDANCE! After 15 years of Dumocrats promising that ‘Climate Change’ is going to destroy the Planet, the United Nations TOP Climate Committee just admitted that its own projections (RCP8.5) were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!” Trump chided on Truth Social.
Again, they had been prognosticating a 7.2F to 9F rise by 2100, despite the Earth only seeing a 1.7F increase since 1850
The IPCC framework in question was used to forecast a dramatic rise in sea levels, global crop failures, rapid melting of glaciers, and more, which made some hardcore climate change activists fret about future extinction.
But ultimately, scientists cited data and argued that the push towards renewable energies made that scenario less likely.
There’s always some excuse when a doomy prognostication is made and fails. Well, when they bother to address it at all. And their models usually fail.
Wait, what? Does this mean another passed tipping point is no longer a tipping point, and it’ll be moved to the future?
China forces Trump to flip flop.
China now allowed to buy USA farmland.
Teach and Dana give silent approval?
No doubt, if you want the truth turn to the NYPost, Deteriorating Donny and The Teach. LOL.
Donny is always, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! But He’s your God-King, so follow Him!!
Pleae read the article. https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/2627/2026/
6?Discussion and conclusions
We have proposed a limited set of scenarios that, modeled by IAMs, would provide pathways of emissions, concentrations, and land use for use as external forcings for ESMs participating in CMIP7. These scenarios with their climate system outcomes are intended to facilitate studies of climate processes; provide inputs to a wide range of studies of impacts, adaptation, and mitigation; and support climate policy development and communication. They cover a wide range of plausible outcomes, from a High scenario representing policy failure and strong drivers of greenhouse gas emissions, to a Very Low scenario with dramatic emissions reductions.
Another Fail for Teach
One of the logical failures in any argument occurs when you appeal to authority, in the case the NY Post, without subjecting it to robust scrutiny
The Trump Iran war, but not really a war, is putting the global economy in danger of recession
Dominos, the cheapest pizza chain, failed to meet expected revenues. Americans can not afford to buy pizza
“the climate has always changed”
Yeah when the ice age ended it took 10000 years to earn 5 C. 2000 years to warm 1 C
Lol
Now less than 100 years.
And what effects are allegedly happening now that wouldn’t happen under the slower scenario? Good luck with that. Lol
The “rate” concept alludes Mr Jl.
A car crash a 20 mph causes more damage than at 5 mph.
Wrong analogy-one would have to specify what the “damage” is, which hasn’t been done verifiably.
to what type of damage would that analogy NOT apply?
You deny that there is ANY damage from global warming. Or that greenhouse gases can cause warming.
Just get a new crystal ball.
“The future is not what it used to be.”
We just had last week as a guest here at LAGCC Professor Ryan O’Laughlin of Queens College Ireland giving a presentation on Modeling. In brief he explained how a model can only help us understand the possibilities of the future. Some may be low, some may be too high. In the case of the over 100 models of the future of Climate Change from 100 different institutions more have been too low outside of the standard model of deviation, than high. He also discussed the values of those that fall outside of the standard model. The IPCC has predicted that the temp rise would average .3 C per decade this century. It has been very accurate. It has also been very accurate that sea level rise would be 1.5″ to 3″ by 2100.
Obama’s house is at least 15 feet above current sea level. However! he of course is rich enough not to really care if his house lasts just as long as his life I am sure he would consider it a wise investment.
Let’s repeat,
“The future is not what it used to be.”
and neither was the past
No, I’m just asking what the “damage” is that can be verified, not model projections of what “could” happen
The average temperature has increased. Even deniers have come around to that fact, kicking and screaming.
The distribution of viruses, bacteria, fungi, plants and animals is changing. Melting polar ice. Rising sea level. Decreasing ocean pH. Melting glaciers.
All verified.
So Rimjob what is the average temperature currently?
The average global surface temperature in 1990 was approximately 14.5 °C (58.1 °F)
Currently the average surface temperature of the Earth is approximately 15 degrees Celsius
(59 degrees Fahrenheit).
*Actually 58.86 F.
All things that have happened before, sorry
Nice try-no one is denying that the temperature has increased. The issue is the cause, and more importantly, the alleged effects.