According to The Times, another of the paper’s authors, Michael Grubb, a professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admitted his earlier forecasting models had overplayed how temperatures would rise.
At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” [Emphasis added.]
STEVEN HAYWARD: "A revealing slip of the mask, no? And what a disappointment that the climatistas will still have to put up with elections and the people and such. Authoritarianism is so much more fun."
Professor Grubb said that the new assessment was good news for small island states in the Pacific, such as the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu, which could be inundated by rising seas if the average temperature rose by more than 1.5C. “Pacific islands are less doomed than we thought,” he said.
A new study by Scripps Institution of Oceanography finds a 5 percent chance that rapid global warming will be “catastrophic” or worse for the human race. The study led by Veerabhadran “Ram” Ramanathan, a distinguished professor of climate and atmospheric sciences and adviser to Pope Francis, found that an average global temperature increase greater than 3 degrees centigrade could result in “catastrophic” — and over 5 degrees “existential” — threat to humanity. These categories describe two low-probability but statistically significant scenarios that could play out by the century’s end according to an analysis of different models of global warming by Ramanathan and Yangyang Xu of Texas A&M University.
“When we say 5 percent-probability high-impact event, people may dismiss it as small but it is equivalent to a one-in-20 chance the plane you are about to board will crash,” said Ramanathan. “We would never get on that plane with a one-in-20 chance of it coming down but we are willing to send our children and grandchildren on that plane.”
A new analysis of global data related to wildfire, published by the Royal Society, reveals major misconceptions about wildfire and its social and economic impacts. Prof. Stefan Doerr and Dr Cristina Santin from Swansea University's College of Science carried out a detailed analysis of global and regional data on fire occurrence, severity and its impacts on society. Their research, published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, examined a wide range of published data arising from satellite imagery, charcoal records in sediments and isotope-ratio records in ice cores, to build up a picture of wildfire in the recent and more distant past. In contrast to what is widely portrayed in the literature and media reports, they found that:
global area burned has seen an overall slight decline over past decades, despite some notable regional increases. Currently, around 4% of the global land surface is affected by vegetation fires each year;
there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago;
direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades
The researchers conclude: "The data available to date do not support a general increase in area burned or in fire severity for many regions of the world. Indeed there is increasing evidence that there is overall less fire in the landscape today than there has been centuries ago, although the magnitude of this reduction still needs to be examined in more detail."
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) was forced to admit:
Overall, however, reduced melting and heavy early springtime snowfall may result in a net increase in Greenland’s ice mass this year for the first time this century.
The 2017 melt season has been less intense than recent years, and is below average melting for the 1981-to-2010 reference period. Surface melting has been low in the southeast, and has been limited to coastal regions at low elevations. “
The first thing to highlight about this, which should really give the whole away as an giant fraud, is that there were apparently virtually no extreme weather events in the early 20thC. Nobody with half a brain could seriously believe this, but apparently Economist readers do. There appears to be no provenance given for this graph, which in itself is utterly damning for a supposedly serious journal.
It is a sad fact of life that, to get to the truth, we have to rely on independent analysts with no vested interests.