Tipping Points

Fabulous archive of climate emergency media publications in the past 10years. Good work. Very interesting

Thongchai Thailand


    A meltdown of the massive ice sheet, which is more than 3km-thick would raise sea levels by an average seven meters, threatening countries such as Bangladesh, certain islands in the Pacific and some parts of Florida. Greenland’s huge ice sheet could melt within the next thousand years if emissions of carbon dioxide (CO
    2) and global warming are not reduced.
    The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report says: increasing greenhouse gases from human activities is causing the Arctic to warm twice as fast as the rest of the planet; in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia winter temperatures have risen by 2C to 4C in the last 50 years; the Arctic will warm by 4C to 7C by 2100. A portion of Greenland’s ice sheet will melt; global sea levels will…

View original post 10,629 more words


Latest Computer climate modeling producing more fear



New Models Point to More Global Warming Than We Expected

August 6, 2019, 12:09 PM EDT

Our planet’s climate may be more sensitive to increases in greenhouse gas than we realized, according to a new generation of global climate models being used for the next major assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The findings—which run counter to a 40-year consensus—are a troubling sign that future warming and related impacts could be even worse than expected.

One of the new models, the second version of the Community Earth System Model (CESM2) from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), saw a 35% increase in its equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), the rise in global temperature one might expect as the atmosphere adjusts to an instantaneous doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead of the model’s previous ECS of 4°C (7.2°F), the CESM2 now shows an ECS of 5.3°C (9.5°F).

“It is imperative that the community work in a multi-model context to understand how plausible such a high ECS is,” said NCAR’s Andrew Gettelman and coauthors in a paper published last month in Geophysical Research Letters. They added: “What scares us is not that the CESM2 ECS is wrong…but that it might be right.”

At least eight of the global-scale models used by IPCC are showing upward trends in climate sensitivity, according to climate researcher Joëlle Gergis, an IPCC lead author and a scientific advisor to Australia’s Climate Council. Gergis wrote about the disconcerting trends in an August column for the Australian website The Monthly.

Researchers are now evaluating the models to see whether the higher ECS values are model artifacts or correctly depict a more dire prognosis.

“The model runs aren’t all available yet, but when many of the most advanced models in the world are independently reproducing the same disturbing results, it’s hard not to worry,” said Gergis.

A potential upending of a four-decade consensus

The IPCC issues comprehensive climate assessments every few years, along with interim reports on special topics in between. The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) will be written over the next several years and released in 2021-22, based on papers being published through the end of 2019.

Back in 1979, a landmark U.S. climate study informally called the Charney Report estimated that the planet’s equilibrium climate sensitivity was between 1.5°C and 4.5°C. Each of the IPCC’s five major assessments since 1990 has largely agreed with this conclusion, although a few individual models have gone outside the range.

The consensus range of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from each of the IPCC's five assessment reports released since 2000, plus values from NCAR models
Figure 1. The consensus range of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from each of the IPCC’s five assessment reports released since 2000. Model assessment is still under way for the sixth report, due in 2021-22. Also shown are ECS values for each of the models contributed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) since the third IPCC report in 2001, as well as the value for the NCAR Community Earth System Model, version 2 (CESM2), which is being used in the next IPCC assessment. Image credit: Values drawn from archived IPCC asssessments. Note: This image has been updated to add the CESM1 value and correct the CESM2 value.

It does indeed look like many of the latest models will have ECS values higher than the IPCC ‘likely range’ of 1.5-4.5°C,” said Peter Cox (University of Exeter) in an email. “It seems that the new models with high ECS have more low-level cloud that tends to burn off under climate change, producing an amplifying feedback on warming.”

Cox is lead author of a 2018 study in Nature that examined temperature variability around long-term warming. The study concluded that the odds of ECS going outside the long-accepted range of 1.5-4.5°C were very small. “It is worth noting that observational constraints from both the temperature trend and temperature variability still suggest ECS of around 3°C,” said Cox. “So climate science has a conundrum to solve here.”

Clouds in the picture

Cloud-related effects have long been one of the biggest question marks in projecting future climate change, apart from uncertainties in future greenhouse emissions that hinge on human behavior. Low clouds—especially marine stratocumulus, which cover huge swaths of tropical and subtropical ocean—are especially crucial, as they tend to cool the climate by reflecting large amounts of sunlight.

Instruments aboard NASA's CERES satellite analyze Earth’s total radiation budget
Figure 2. Instruments aboard NASA’s CERES satellite analyze Earth’s total radiation budget and provide cloud property estimates that enable scientists to assess clouds’ roles in radiative fluxes from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. Image credit: NASA.

The recent concerns about low-level clouds have been reinforced by ongoing work at NASA drawing on data from the CERES satellite program (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System). Measuring the amount of energy entering and leaving the top of Earth’s atmosphere, CERES data shows that net energy in the atmosphere and oceans has climbed steadily with the increase of human-produced greenhouse gases—including both during and after the so-called “hiatus” in global temperature from about 2000 to 2013, when the oceans took up extra energy.

After 2013, the eastern Pacific saw a major drop in low cloud cover, global air temperatures spiked, and “there was a huge increase in sea surface temperatures,” said CERES principal investigator Norman Loeb, who outlined the changes in a 2018 paper.

Loeb is now analyzing how well the models for the upcoming IPCC report—with the higher sensitivities in place—can reproduce cloud cover and air temperature during and after the hiatus, given sea surface temperature. He discussed initial results last month at the 27th IUGG General Assembly (International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics), held in Montreal.

According to Loeb, “some of the models do really darn well” in depicting the cloud changes of the past two decades. He cautions: “I don’t know how far you can extrapolate this. There’s a danger in saying ‘you take the current record and the models nail it, therefore they have the climate sensitivity right.’ I’m cautious about making that leap, but it’s intriguing that they are nailing that post-hiatus difference.”

Changes in SST and top-of-atmosphere radiation reflected from low clouds during vs. after hiatus
Figure 3. Differences in sea surface temperatures (left) and in CERES/MODIS-observed energy reflected from low clouds at the top of the atmosphere (right) between the so-called “hiatus” period of dampened surface air temperature increase (defined here as July 2000 – June 2014) and the subsequent period of amplified air temperature increase (July 2014 – June 2017). The post-hiatus period saw a dramatic increase in surface temperature across much of the eastern Pacific, together with a marked decrease in low-level cloud cover. Image credit: Courtesy Norman Loeb.

A 2019 study in Nature Geoscience that used a fine-scale cloud dynamic model found that marine stratocumulus could be depleted in large amounts if carbon dioxide levels were to reach about four times their current values, possibly triggering up to 8°C in additional global warming. See the post from last May by Dr. Jeff Masters on this paper.

Clouds and pollutants

The new NCAR model is based on tests of nearly 300 model configurations, with a focus on how well the models simulated pre-industrial climate and how well they reproduced the main global temperature trends of the last century. These trends include warming from 1920 to 1940, a period of roughly steady global temperature with regional cooling in the mid-20th century, and a more sustained global warming since the late 20th century.

The model also took into account new estimates of aerosol emissions (soot and other particles and droplets). These estimates were designed to be employed by all of the latest IPCC model configurations. Aerosol pollution tends to cool the climate overall, both by blocking sunlight directly and by serving as nuclei for clouds that block sunlight more effectively.

The new data on aerosol emissions led to a stronger cooling effect in the NCAR model than previous versions. However, the stronger aerosol-related cooling also led to an unrealistic portrayal of 20th century climate. When the model was reconfigured in response, it produced a more accurate reproduction of 20th- and 21st-century climate, including cloud behavior—but with a higher ECS, which pointed to a more ominous portrayal of future change.

If the higher ECS in the new models turns out to be on the right track, “it’s really bad news,” said Gettelman. “It means we are going to be on the warm end of projections, with larger impacts for any given emissions trajectory.”

A durable index

The ECS allows for apples-to-apples comparison between the bare-bones climate models of decades ago and the far more sophisticated versions now in place. The ECS calculations begin with an instant doubling of carbon dioxide, whereas in our actual atmosphere, carbon dioxide is increasing gradually rather than all at once. The warming produced by the end of a more gradual doubling of CO2 rise is called transient climate sensitivity (TCS). “While TCS may be a better metric for comparison to observations and estimating near-term climate response…ECS has a long history as a convenient metric of future climate change,” said the authors in their GRL paper.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by about 45% during the rapid industrialization of the last 150 years. Since regular measurements began atop Mauna Loa, Hawaii, CO2 concentrations have increased from about 315 parts per million in 1957 to around 410 ppm today. Fossil fuel burning and other human activities generate more than 35 billion tons of airborne CO2 a year, about half of which stays in the atmosphere for more than a century.

Although other human-produced greenhouse gases warm the planet—methane molecules, in particular, are very powerful warming agents—CO2 is expected to account for most of the human-produced warming over the next few decades and beyond, as it remains in the atmosphere much longer than methane and is much more prevalent.

The Weather Company’s primary journalistic mission is to report on breaking weather news, the environment and the importance of science to our lives. This story does not necessarily represent the position of our parent company, IBM.

The two-faced UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is an ever-growing MAZE.
Keep up to date with this plethora of panels, commissions, agendas, goals, protocols,conventions. The United nations and the elite behind this AGW scare want the nations to sell their soul to the devil!

The View From Here

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is an ever-growing maze.

Its latest and greatest growth project derives from the seeds it had planted during the Rio+20 jamboree held approximately two years ago.

Needless to say, the activists were considerably less than thrilled with the outcomes; however, the UNEP’s word-salad tosser-in-chief, aka Achim Steiner, attempted to mollify the dissatisfied by telling them that they would be pleasantly surprised with one of the outcomes.

As I had noted last year:

The UNEP, parent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its highly unsuccessful Kyoto Protocol, as well as a multitude of other acronymic offspring, is about to celebrate 40 years of generating and promulgating increasingly scary stories – and its recently acquired “upgraded” status in the UN maze. [emphasis added -hro]

Long story short (at this point) is that…

View original post 544 more words


‘Global warming’ is the Trojan Horse the regulating class (corporations)are hoping to ride to victory over the people.

The Elite class (corporations) aims to gain global bureaucratic control via a global AGW treaty..

monopoly board

After reading Tallbloke’s blog on how the BBC (media)are
“BBC journalists are being sent on courses to stop them inviting so many cranks onto programmes to air ‘marginal views’
The BBC Trust on Thursday published a progress report into the corporation’s science coverage which was criticised in 2012 for giving too much air-time to critics who oppose non-contentious issues.”

I responded to TB with my concerns

weathercycles says:

July 4, 2014 at 11:13 am

Was reading the global company news yesterday and there seems to be big push for ‘green energy/sustainability’ etc currently. (see Guardian/ sustainability section)
I don’t pretend to understand how the big global companies make money out of the AGW propaganda / carbon credit stuff.?
I read that global warming is causing the financial economy to collapse. LOL

For a reason l don’t understand global companies have their fortunes/ control mechanisms hinged on this AGW scam.
They obviously need to have the public on board to implement carbon trading or green credits?.
Global companies have taken over the western media and beyond so it is no surprise that employees are being told to tow the line or ship out!

There is no such thing as un biased reporting anymore. Companies control the lot. They feed the public what ever suits their corporate power population manipulation.
Including universities and school education and the media

Control, control..control
and if they have infiltrated the judiciary system TB . You haven’t got a hope.
They will try to make it illegal to be sceptical about AGW or anything that suits them for that matter.

If companies control everything . Where is their accountability?
There isn’t any.
Monopoly . Game set and match

If you make enough noise they may try to shut you down on wordpress or censor you..
Your aiming to challenge the ‘big wigs’ of the New world corporate government.


I did some research as to why the Global elite ( corporations) are desperately wanting to stimmy AGW debate
There are ulterior motives
Thanks to JO NOVA and


for enlightening me
JO was onto this manipulation and control in 2012!! How prophetically true JO!
EXTRACTS.. . Serious stuff here!!
But above all, they want to shut their critics up—by any means short of violence. Opinions and evidence counter to the interests of the regulating class are “illegitimate”, and are ruthlessly suppressed.


Obviously the regulating class will now respond by regulating the Internet and lobbyist’s briefcases.

The Regulating Class
Consider the array of forces in the climate argument:
UN (including the IPCC)
Western governments
NGO’s and Greenies
Totalitarian leftists
Renewables corporations
Mainstream news media
Major banks and finance houses
Independently-funded scientists
Private sector middle class
Amateurs (from amore , the Latin for love)

Why Global Warming is So Important to the Regulating Class

If human emissions of CO2 are causing a major planetary problem, then there are only two plausible solutions: wait and adapt, or regulate and reduce. Only the second solution interests the regulating class. To regulate CO2 emissions effectively and fairly you must regulate nearly all energy use, and thus most of the economy, in every nation of the world.
The regulating class promotes the dual beliefs that the “problem” of global warming is very scary and that it is caused by human emissions of CO2. The only solution they offer just happens to be complete regulation of the whole world’s economy by … the regulating class, of course.
The theory of manmade global warming is not a conspiracy. It is a confluence of vested interests in increased political regulation of the economy and rejecting market forces.
Bureaucrats, academics, government scientists, utilities, renewables manufacturers, bankers, most politicians—all these have a shared financial interest in imposing their solution to “manmade” global warming.

The Copenhagen Treaty was an Attempted Coup

Nearly all the world leaders met in Copenhagen in late 2009, expecting to sign the “Copenhagen Treaty” to limit CO2 emissions. But China and India torpedoed the negotiations, saying more research was needed to establish whether warming is manmade
The Treaty would have set up a new bureaucracy with the power to regulate CO2 emissions worldwide, able to regulate any market, over-riding national governments as required.
It could also fine and tax any signatory government.
In the hands of a judge from the regulating class, it could be interpreted to give this new global bureaucracy the power to tax every signatory nation and regulate its energy use almost completely—just look at how the US Constitution has been extended by interpretation over the years, and that’s a much clearer document. A hint in the Treaty could become the basis for a full blown mechanism to do almost anything the bureaucrats wished.
From experience with the monotonic growth of centralized power in federations of states, such as the United States or Australia, it is almost inevitable that within a few decades this new body would be parlayed up into a strong global bureaucracy regulating more than just CO2 emissions.

If something like the draft Treaty had been signed, it would have been the biggest transfer of sovereign power in recorded human history: nearly all the nations of the world would have ceded much of their sovereign power all at once. Yet the media scarcely raised an eyebrow.
All of that national sovereignty would have been ceded to an unelected group of global bureaucrats: Never in the field of human administration would so much power have been transferred by so many to so few. This was a narrowly averted global coup, an attempt to seize a great deal of power by stealth without the knowledge or explicit consent of the world’s people. It can only have been kept silent with the active support of the world’s media. But because of that silence, the coup has never been acknowledged, so the people of the world are unaware of it and further attempts could be made. Climate “science” is clearly flawed, but it is an excuse for a massive power play.

Figure 2: It is one of the oldest scams in human history: witchdoctors go to the rulers and say “the Gods are angry, there will be (more) catastrophes … we know how to appease the Gods, but it will cost you”. [Credit: CDC]

A Global Bureaucracy Would Be Bad

If a bureaucracy is global, there is nowhere to run to from high taxes, persecution, exploitation, selective enforcement of regulations, and so on
If their “solution” to global warming ushered in a global bureaucracy, people like these would be setting regulations worldwide, with no escape for anyone
The Trademark Tactics of the Regulating Class
If you oppose the regulating class, you will get called an “extremist”, a “nut”, a “conspiracy theorist”, “right wing”, and every variation of “stupid” and “ignorant”, irrespective of the merits of what you say. Say anything that mentions or might imply race and they will also call you a “racist”. Because they own the mainstream media

They hold pretend debates in their media studios with an audience of their supporters or a panel predominately of their supporters
The result: professionals and organizations appear to be all on their side. After all, they have all the government power, and all the taxpayers’ money.
Climate criminals almost took control of the whole world by deception, a grand fraud. Money has changed hands on a vast scale
All the beneficiaries are from the new regulating class, which happens to be in charge of the justice system. So no one will go to jail or even pay back their ill-gotten gains to the taxpayers. The rest of society paid for this nonsense, transferring huge quantities of money to the new class,


The push towards a global bureaucracy, using climate change as an excuse,
The real issue here is a grab for absolute power by those who already govern. They have grown tired of democracy and would like to do away with it, without ever giving the game away by actually saying so.
“global warming” is the Trojan Horse the regulating class are hoping to ride to victory over the people.

About the Author
Dr David M.W. Evans

consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010,
In 2007 .. skeptical …. there was more to the global warming issue than just the science..





This TOPIC THREAD will provide links and discussion from a perspective of the AGW SKEPTIC

. Feel free to comment and add at the comments section at the base of this page

proof of AGW comic