The Global Warming IPCC 2018 Report

The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC (SR15) was published two days ago, on October 8th, 2018. The Report was written by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “which is the UN body for assessing the science related to climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments concerning climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation strategies.” (IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC, Press Release).

The Report’s findings are very bad. Its Summary for Policymakers starts with:

“Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate.”

That’s 12 years from now.

IPCC 2018 - Copy
Extract from the IPCC (2018), Global Warming of 1.5 ºC, Summary for Policymakers. “Observed monthly global mean surface temperature (GMST) change grey line up to 2017, from the HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, Cowtan – Way, and NOAA datasets) and estimated anthropogenic global warming (solid orange line up to 2017, with orange shading indicating assessed likely range). Orange dashed arrow and horizontal orange error bar show respectively central estimate and likely range of the time at which 1.5°C is reached if the current rate of warming continues. The grey plume on the right of  shows the likely range of warming responses, computed with a simple climate model, to a stylized pathway (hypothetical future) in which net CO2 emissions  decline in a straight line from 2020 to reach net zero in 2055 and net non – CO2 radiative forcing increases to 2030 and then declines. “

Which means that we warmed up the world by 1.0°C (1.8°F) since 1850-1900. Continuing the way we have been doing, we will add another 0.5°C (0.9°F) to the world temperature sometime between 2030 and 2052, making the total human-made global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F).

That’s 12 years from now.

Half a degree Celsius doesn’t sound so bad until you look at the highly confident model prediction saying that gaining that extra 0.5°C (0.9°F) will result in terrible unseen before superstorms and precipitation in some regions while others will suffer prolonged droughts, along with extreme heat waves and sea level rises due to the melting of Antarctica. From a biota point of view, if we reach the 1.5°C (2.7°F) threshold, most of the coral reefs will become extinct, as well as thousands of other species (6% of insects, 8% of plants, and 4% of vertebrates).

That’s 12 years from now.

All these will end up increasing famine, homelessness, disease, inequality, poverty, and refugee numbers to unprecedented levels. Huge spending of money on infrastructure, rebuilding, help efforts, irrigation, water supplies, and so on, for those inclined to be more concerned by finances. To put it bluntly, a 1.5°C (2.7°F) increase in global warming costs us about $54 trillion.

That’s 12 years from now.

These effects will persist for centuries to millennia. To stay at the 1.5°C (2.7°F)  limit we need to reduce the carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 and achieve 0 emissions by 2050.

That’s 12 years from now.

The Report emphasizes that a 1.5°C (2.7°F)  increase is not as bad as a 2°C (3.6°F), where we will loose double of the biota, the storms will be worse, the droughts longer, and altogether a more catastrophic scenario.

Technically, we ARE ABLE to limit the warming at 1.5°C (2.7°F), If, by 2050, we rely on renewable energy, like solar and wind, to supply 70-85% of energy, we will be able to stay at the 1.5°C (2.7°F). Lower the coal use as energy source to single digits percentages. Expanding forests and implementing large CO2 capture programs would help tremendously. Drastically reduce carbon emissions by, for example, hitting polluters with crippling fines. But all this requires rapid implementation of heavy laws and regulation, which will come from a concentrated effort of our leaders.

Therefore, politically, we ARE UNABLE to limit the warming at 1.5°C (2.7°F). Instead, it’s very likely that we will warm the planet by 2°C (3.6°F) in the next decades. If we do nothing, by the end of the century the world will be even hotter, being warmed up by 3°C (5.4°F) and there are no happy scenarios then as the climate change will be beyond our control. That is, our children’s control.

141-ipcc hope - Copy

There are conspiracy theorists out there claiming that there are nefarious or hidden reasons behind this report, or that its conclusions are not credible, or that it’s not legit, or it’s bad science, or that it represents the view of a fringe group of scientists and does not reflect a scientific consensus. I would argue that people who claim such absurdities are either the ones with a hidden agenda or are plain idiots. Not ignorants, because ignorance is curable and whoever seeks to learn new things is to be admired. Not honest questioning either, because that is as necessary to science as the water to the fish. Willful ignorance, on the other hand, I call idiocy and is remarkably resistant to presentation of facts. FYI, the Report was conducted by a Panel commissioned by an organization comprising 195 countries, is authored by 91 scientists, has an additional 133 contributing authors, all these spanning 40 countries, analyzing over 6000 scientific studies. Oh, and the Panel received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. I daresay it looks legit. The next full climate assessment will be released in 2021.

141 Climate change - Copy


  1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2018). Global Warming of 1.5 ºC, an IPCC Special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 ºC above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Retrieved 10 October 2018Website  | Covers: New York Times | Nature  | The Washington Post | The Guardian | The Economist | ABC News | Deutsche Welle | CNN | HuffPost Canada| Los Angeles Times | BBC | Time .
  2. The IPCC Summary for Policymakers PDF
  3. The IPCC Press Release PDF
  4. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

By Neuronicus, 10 October 2018

The FIRSTS: Increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere results in global warming (1896)

Few people seem to know that although global warming and climate change are hotly debated topics right now (at least on the left side of the Atlantic) the effect of CO2 levels on the planet’s surface temperature was investigated and calculated more than a century ago. CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases responsible for the greenhouse effect, which was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 (the effect, that is).

Let’s start with a terminology clarification. Whereas the term ‘global warming’ was coined by Wallace S. Broecker in 1975, the term ‘climate change’ underwent a more fluidic transformation in the ’70s from ‘inadvertent climate modification’ to ‘climatic change’ to a more consistent use of ‘climate change’ by Jule Charney in 1979, according to NASA. The same source tells us:

“Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect”.

But before NASA there was one Svante August Arrhenius (1859–1927). Dr. Arrhenius was a Swedish physical chemist who received the Nobel Prize in 1903 for uncovering the role of ions in how electrical current is conducted in chemical solutions.

S.A. Arrhenius was the first to quantify the variations of our planet’s surface temperature as a direct result of the amount of CO2 (which he calls carbonic acid, long story) present in the atmosphere. For those – admittedly few – nitpickers that say his views on the greenhouse effect were somewhat simplistic and his calculations were incorrect I’d say cut him a break: he didn’t have the incredible amount of data provided by the satellites or computers, nor the work of thousands of scientists over a century to back him up. Which they do. Kind of. Well, the idea, anyway, not the math. Well, some of the math. Let me explain.

First, let me tell you that I haven’t managed to pass past page 3 of the 39 pages of creative mathematics, densely packed tables, parameter assignments, and convoluted assumptions of Arrhenius (1896). Luckily, I convinced a spectroscopist to take a crack at the original paper since there is a lot of spectroscopy in it and then enlighten me.

118Boltzmann-grp - Copy
The photo was taken in 1887 and shows (standing, from the left): Walther Nernst (Nobel in Chemistry), Heinrich Streintz, Svante Arrhenius, Richard Hiecke; (sitting, from the left): Eduard Aulinger, Albert von Ettingshausen, Ludwig Boltzmann, Ignaz Klemenčič, Victor Hausmanninger. Source: Universität Graz. License: PD via Wikimedia Commons.

Second, despite his many accomplishments, including being credited with laying the foundations of a new field (physical chemistry), Arrhenius was first and foremost a mathematician. So he employed a lot of tedious mathematics (by hand!) together with some hefty guessing along with what was known at the time about Earth’s infrared radiation, solar radiation, water vapor and CO2 absorption, temperature of the Moon,  greenhouse effect, and some uncalibrated spectra taken by his predecessors to figure out if “the mean temperature of the ground [was] in any way influenced by the presence of the heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere” (p. 237). Why was he interested in this? We find out only at page 267 after a lot of aforesaid dreary mathematics where he finally shares this with us:

“I certainly not have undertaken these tedious calculations if an extraordinary interest had not been connected with them. In the Physical Society of Stockholm there have been occasionally very lively discussions on the probable causes of the Ice Age”.

So Arrhenius was interested to find out if the fluctuations of CO2 levels could have caused the Ice Ages. And yes, he thinks that could have happened. I don’t know enough about climate science to tell you if this particular conclusion of his is correct today. But what he managed to accomplish though was to provide for the first time a way to mathematically calculate the amount of rise in temperature due the rise of CO2 levels. In other words, he found a direct relationship between the variations of CO2 and temperature.

Today, it turns out that his math was incorrect because he left out some other variables that influence the global temperature that were discovered and/or understood later (like the thickness of the atmosphere, the rate of ocean absorption  of CO2 and others which I won’t pretend I understand). Nevertheless, Arrhenius was the first to point out to the following relationship, which, by and large, is still relevant today:

“Thus if the quantity of carbonic acid increased in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression” (p. 267).

118 Arrhenius - Copy

P.S. Technically, Joseph Fourier should be credited with the discovery of global warming by means of increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in 1824, but Arrhenius quantified it so I credited him. Feel fee to debate :).

REFERENCE: Arrhenius, S. (April 1896). XXXI. On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (Fifth Series), 49 (251): 237-276. General Reference P.P.1433. doi: FREE FULLTEXT PDF

By Neuronicus, 24 June 2017

Only the climate change scientists are interested in evidence. The rest is politics

Satellite image of clouds created by the exhaust of ship smokestacks (2005). Credit: NASA. License: PD.
Satellite image of clouds created by the exhaust of ship smokestacks (2005). Credit: NASA. License: PD.

Medimorec & Pennycook (2015) analyzed the language used in two prominent reports regarding climate change. Climate change is not a subject of scientific debate anymore, but of political discourse. Nevertheless, it appears that there are a few scientists that are skeptical about the climate change. As part of a conservative think tank, they formed the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) as an alternative to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In 2013, the NIPCC authored Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (hereafter referred to as ‘NIPCC’; Idso et al. 2013), a scientific report that is a direct response to IPCC’s Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis (hereafter referred to as ‘IPCC’; Stocker et al. 2013), also published in 2013″ (Medimorec & Pennycook, 2015) .

The authors are not climate scientists, but psychologists armed with nothing but 3 text analysis tools: Coh-Metrix text analyzer, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count, and AntConc 3.3.5 concordancer analysis toolkit). They do not even fully understand the two very lengthy and highly technical papers; as they put it,

it is very unlikely that non-experts (present authors included) would have the requisite knowledge to be able to distinguish the NIPCC and IPCC reports based on the validity of their scientific arguments“.

So, they proceed on counting nouns, verbs, adverbs, and the like. The results: IPCC used more formal language, more nouns, more abstract words, more infrequent words, more complex syntax, and a lot more tentative language (‘possible’, ‘probable’, ‘might’) than the NIPCC. Which is ironic, since the climate scientists proponents are the ones accused of alarmism and trumpeting catastrophes. On the contrary, their language was much more refrained, perhaps out of fear of controversy, or just as likely, because they are scientists and very afraid to put their reputations at stake by risking type 1 errors.

In the authors’ words (I know, I am citing them 3 times in 4 paragraphs, but I really enjoyed their eloquence),

“the IPCC authors used more conservative (i.e., more cautious, less explicit) language to present their claims compared to the authors of the NIPCC report […]. The language style used by climate change skeptics suggests that the arguments put forth by these groups warrant skepticism in that they are relatively less focused upon the propagation of evidence and more intent on discrediting the opposing perspective”.

And this comes just from text analysis…

Reference: Medimorec, S. & Pennycook, G. (Epub 30 August 2015). The language of denial: text analysis reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics. Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1475-2. Article | Research Gate full text PDF

By Neuronicus, 4 November 2015