Prof. Camilo Mora: 'The actual writing of the paper took us about two months. It’s 40 pages altogether. But it’s amazing that the press release on this paper took us two months to prepare. It was a massive investment of time for just two pages of paper. So another limitation for us as scientists is that it’s very hard for us to commit that kind of time to prepare for that press release.'
What motivates Mora? 'My motivation and everybody’s motivation whenever we produce these papers is trying to increase the level of awareness of people and politicians to take action on these things...So as scientists, we are struggling to figure out how we can increase public awareness on this issue.'
The UN IPCC report is so yesterday as warmists promote new model fears!
Climate Depot's Marc Morano: 'Global warming activists have finally committed to a Mayan calendar like deadline for the planet's doom. Kudos to the warmists for finally shaming Nostradamus. He never allowed his prognostications to get this specific.'
Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That: 'Has Harold Camping approved the date yet?'
Real Science's Steve Goddard: 'Paul Ehrlich will be angry. He finished off Earth 30 years ago, and this study just isn't taking his past work seriously.'
University of Alabama-Huntsville's Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: 'I'm gonna plan for 2046, just in case they are off by a year.'
Briggs: 'Science says we have 34 years left...Dude. If Mora is right the last thing we want to be is sober. If the temperatures keep soaring the way they’ve done over the past seventeen years, I’m going to start hanging out with Bob Geldorf and at least go out with a withered smile on my face. Well, maybe the temperatures haven’t been soaring, maybe they’ve been holding steady or even decreasing. But that’s a mere observation and observation can’t trump theory...That many computer models (39) simply cannot be wrong. Sure, one or two could be off. But 39? That would be unprecedented. I used to complain about the asinine use of statistics in papers like this—they have straight-line correlations and wee p-values!—but I’ve learned my lesson. There’s too many authors with opinions different than mine; therefore, they must be right, and I must be wrong.'
Prof. Camilo Mora: 'Within my generation, whatever climate we were used to will be a thing of the past.'
'We don't know what the impacts will be. If someone is about to fall off a three-story building you can't predict their exact injuries but you know there will be injuries," said Camilo Mora, an ecologist at University of Hawai'i in Honolulu and lead author.
"The results shocked us. Regardless of the scenario, changes will be coming soon," said Mora. Extreme weather will soon be beyond anything ever experienced, and old record high temperatures will be the new low temperatures, Mora told IPS. This will affect billions of people and there is no going back to way things were.'
Cigarette packages come with warning labels. So should IPCC reports.
The coverage in the New York Times that was truly remarkable. The story there was 20 paragraphs long. This was paragraph number six:
The research comes with caveats. It is based on climate models, huge computer programs that attempt to reproduce the physics of the climate system and forecast the future response to greenhouse gases. Though they are the best tools available, these models contain acknowledged problems, and no one is sure how accurate they will prove to be at peering many decades ahead. [bold added]
AP's Seth Borenstein: 'To arrive at their projections, the researchers used weather observations, computer models and other data to calculate the point at which every year from then on will be warmer than the hottest year ever recorded over the last 150 years.'
Doomsday dates for American cities: 'By 2043, 147 cities — more than half of those studied — will have shifted to a hotter temperature regime that is beyond historical records...The 2047 date for the whole world is based on continually increasing emissions of greenhouse gases from the burning of coal, oil and natural gases. If the world manages to reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases, that would be pushed to as late as 2069, according to Mora.' (So, if the world manages to reduce carbon emissions, we'd only gain 22 years before the world ends.)
Skeptics Mock new warmist study:
Climate Depot's Marc Morano said, "Global warming activists have finally committed to a Mayan calendar like deadline for the planet's doom. Kudos to the warmists for finally shaming Nostradamus. He never allowed his prognostications to get this specific."
Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That asked, "Has Harold Camping approved the date yet?"
Real Science's Steve Goddard answered, "Ehrlich will be angry. He finished off Earth 30 years ago, and this study just isn't taking his past work seriously."
Dr. Tim Ball added, "If the accuracy equals Phil Jones estimate of global temperature in the 2001 IPCC Report the accuracy will be ±33 percent."
University of Alabama-Huntsville's Roy Spencer: "I'm gonna plan for 2046, just in case they are off by a year."
Hulme: "January 12021, a new World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) climatological standard normal came into effect. The ‘present-day’ climate will now formally be represented by the meteorological statistics of the period 1991-2020, replacing those from 1961-1990. National Meteorological Agencies in member states are instructed to issue new standard normals for observing stations and for associated climatological products. Climate will ‘change’, one might say, in an instant; today, the world’s climate has ‘suddenly’ become nearly 0.5°C warmer. It is somewhat equivalent to re-setting Universal Time or adjusting the exact definition of a metre." ...
"So, what is the significance of the move to a new 1991-2020 WMO normal in January 2021? On the one hand, it is a pragmatic move to redefine ‘present-day’ climate for operational applications to that of the most recent 30-year period. On the other hand, it puts into play a third climatic baseline. Already existing is the ‘pre-industrial’ climate of the late nineteenth century and the ‘historic’ climate’ of 1961-1990, the latter about 0.3°C warmer than the former. And now there is the new ‘present-day’ climate of 1991-2020, in turn about 0.5°C warmer than the ‘historic climate’ of 1961-1990." ...
"Combining a climatic tolerance of 2°C—or indeed 1.5°C—with a pre-industrial baseline yields a very different climate target than, say, using a 1986-2005 baseline, the period widely adopted by IPCC AR5 Working Group I as their analytical baseline. The choices of both baseline and tolerance are politically charged. They carry significant implications for historic liability for emissions (La Rovere et al., 2002), for policy design (Millar et al., 2017) and for possible reparations (Roberts & Huq, 2015)."
Christopher Monckton: "At long last, following the warming effect of the El Niño of 2016, there are signs of a reasonably significant La Niña, which may well usher in another Pause in global temperature, which may even prove similar to the Great Pause that endured for 224 months from January 1997 to August 2015, during which a third of our entire industrial-era influence on global temperature drove a zero trend in global warming. ... As we come close to entering the la Niña, the trend in global mean surface temperature has already been zero for 5 years 4 months.
However, the new Pause is at a surface-temperature plateau 0.3 C° above the old Pause."
Scientists continued defying the “unprecedented” global warming narrative by publishing nearly 150 papers in 2020 that show large regions of the Earth (a) haven’t warmed in recent decades, (b) were as-warm or warmer within the last several centuries, and/or (c) were 1-7°C warmer than today just a few millennia ago.
Greanpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: "What a farce the IPCC Paris Accord and all previous 'agreements' to reduce CO2 emissions have been. If only the collective billionaire-class would recognize that CO2 is entirely beneficial we could get on with making the world a better place."
Climate Depot's Marc Morano: "Get ready for more futility as the Green New Deal will continue meaningless 'climate action.'"