Climate-gate

[Trippy]

Really, could people find a picture of clay offensive? Does not the dedication to, and love of, the craft matter?

If they realize it's clay, probably not.

 

[sculptor]

If they realize it's clay, probably not.

OK?
I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[Billy T]

It may be a little too technical / fact filled / for all to follow, but this less than month old text: tells why we are probably doomed by GW's many feed backs - I. e. already past the point of no return: http://www.apollo-gaia.org/Sensitivity and the Carbon Budget.pdf Author is David Wasdell (Director of the Apollo-Gaia Project) who also gave the keynote address to the Club of Rome recently (20 September 2013) telling the same story in terms less precise / more easily followed / terms at: http://www.apollo-gaia.org/CoR Keynote.pdf - 2.3 M bits / 39 pages as many charts, etc. but on page 6 our possible futures are graphically displayed. - at least see and understand that. There is still hope humans can survive, but the actions needed will probably not be taken.

For years, I have been pushing for switching to sugar cane based alcohol fuel for ALL cars on earth needing liquid fuel and as it is cheaper per mile driven and requires at most 3% (less than 1% if cellulosic alcohol is economically feasible) of Earth's arable land to fuel all the cars (with other measures like more car-pooling & telecommuting to work). Main benefit of such a switch is of course all the CO2 coming out of car tail pipes was earlier removed from the air. (only economically way to remove CO2 from the air, and some that would be removed remains safely stored in the growing cane, it roots, in ocean tankers taking fuel to markets, in the large storage tanks at ports and not yet used fuel in ~100 million car's fuel tank.

This switch to 100% alcohol fueled cars would take most of a decade, but existing cars can be converted to "flex-fuel" (use any mix of alcohol & gasoline) for a couple of hundred dollars. Deductible from your tax bill would be good policy, and much cheaper than continuing to give millions in subsidies to corn growers, destroying part of a food crop to make alcohol with marginal energy RoE (Return on energy input) in contrast to sugar cane's RoE = ~10. Also the huge tax breaks given to big oil (and their large "depetion allowance") alone could better be used to put a pure alcohol pump at every filling station during the decade of conversion. Every filling station in Brazil has such a pump and I always use pure alcohol in my car as not only is it cheaper, less tune ups etc. as cleaner burning, but also gives slight more power to car motors.

I. e. There is no reason not to switch, even if there were no possibility mankind is on a path to extinction. (an hour in 35C wet bulb environment kills you - many are already dying in heat waves - more will most every coming year as temperatures and average humidity rise. (Floods, like those in the Balkans, have never happen before in known history. More atmospheric water vapor is the cause and also stores 540 calories per gram so storms are growing stronger and more destructive. The fact that Arctic is warming ~5 times faster than the temperate zone, has reduced their temperature difference. Thus the jet stream is weakening - has less angular momentum around the N. Pole. That makes for greater NS wanderings - big loops of cold air going farther than "normal" into the lower latitudes. That is why Atlanta, GA was shut down for more than a day by worst ever ice storm this past winter. My son-in law spent 30 hours trying to get home from work - most there don't drive well on ice, so many wrecks, cars running out of gas in stalled traffic were abandoned, as his did and was, but he could walk a few miles to friend's house to sleep and then walk home next AM. Those big cold air loops contacting warm air from the Gulf of Mexico is why tornados are more common and stronger in the deep south now.

All this trouble will just get worse is we continue to fuel cars with a fossil fuel. In 2013, China sold 22 million cars - more than twice as many as the US did.
Big Oil has us over a barrel rolling mankind to 35C wet bulb extinction.* It is past time we wise up and revolt.

I strongly suggest you read both, but the Club of Rome keynote address if only one. (It is just a little lighter on the supporting evidence.) The Apollo-Gaia Project has spent the last 8 years in careful review of the data and models of GWing. The first four years mainly trying to test the model against information (from ice cores mainly) as inputs to existing model during last 5 or so ice ages (and the inter glacial periods) and found that all basically UNDER predicted what happened. In the second four years that working group turned the task around - used what happened to develop a new model / approach they call Earth System Sensitivity, ESS. ESS gives:

"significantly higher and with less uncertainty than is possible with the current ensemble of climate models used in the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC. (7.8°C at eventual equilibrium in response to a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of CO2, in contrast to the conservative current estimate of c. 3°C). Key implications of the new value were reviewed:
* Temperature rise to which we are already committed.
* Realistically safe level of CO2 concentration.
* Temperature rise to be expected at so-called "safe" concentration of 440 ppm.
* Collapse of budget approach for current international negotiations.
* Rise in temperature associated with current set of commitments to decarbonisation.

That quoted link gives more about the apollo-gaia organization (Apollo-gaia name is from ancient terms referencing the sun-earth)

* True those living at high latitudes will not be killed by 35C wet bulb temperatures - the plagues coming from more than 100 million unburied bodies will get them.

 

[sculptor]

ignoring plausible causality

A) The sun is growing weaker, and we may be heading into a solar grand minimum.

B) We just had our coldest winter here in Iowa in over a century. I live on the river and canoe and kayak it often. This spring, all of the beaches were hosts to dead fish---mostly flathead catfish, and carp. You could not find a ten foot stretch of beach without a dead fish. The local fishermen are claiming that this is the worst spring for fishing in their lifetimes. The consensus of these folks who know the river is that it froze faster and deeper than the fish had been accustomed to.

With the loss of hundreds of breeding age flatheads and others I doubt that the fishing will be good in the coming years. So far this year, I've only caught one blue and one channel catfish on the trot-line----same time last year, I already had 20-30 in the freezer.

whither hence?

 

[iceaura]

A) The sun is growing weaker, and we may be heading into a solar grand minimum.

That makes the observed warming trend even faster and more dramatic - it is overcoming even a weaker than average sun.

B) We just had our coldest winter here in Iowa in over a century

So how many 24 hour minimum temperature records did it set?

Not very many, is my guess (none, in southern Minnesota). How do you suppose it is possible to have a record cold winter without seeing record cold at night?

A quick check of the records for Des Moines, for example, show that no month from November 2013 through March 2014 even lists among the top ten coldest of that month since 1879. Not only no record cold month, but no top ten listing.

The only historically extreme severity of Des Moines winter weather of 2013/14 seems to have been heavy snow in February - almost triple the average, fifth snowiest Feb on record - and that would of course explain a fish kill: snow blocks sunlight, reducing photosynthetic oxygen production in under-ice algae while increasing their death and oxygen-depriving decomposition.

 

[sculptor]

That makes the observed warming trend even faster and more dramatic - it is overcoming even a weaker than average sun.

So how many 24 hour minimum temperature records did it set?

Not very many, is my guess (none, in southern Minnesota). How do you suppose it is possible to have a record cold winter without seeing record cold at night?

A quick check of the records for Des Moines, for example, show that no month from November 2013 through March 2014 even lists among the top ten coldest of that month since 1879. Not only no record cold month, but no top ten listing.

The only historically extreme severity of Des Moines winter weather of 2013/14 seems to have been heavy snow in February - almost triple the average, fifth snowiest Feb on record - and that would of course explain a fish kill: snow blocks sunlight, reducing photosynthetic oxygen production in under-ice algae while increasing their death and oxygen-depriving decomposition.

Hundreds actually. There were a lot more record low high(also referred to as maximum) daily temperatures than record low low temperatures.
I've found that local weather services are more likely to have reported the record cold days rather than monthly averages.

 

[billvon]

A) The sun is growing weaker, and we may be heading into a solar grand minimum.

Agreed. Increasing CO2 levels are warming the planet, but more slowly than we anticipated due in part to reduced solar radiation.

B) We just had our coldest winter here in Iowa in over a century. I live on the river and canoe and kayak it often. This spring, all of the beaches were hosts to dead fish---mostly flathead catfish, and carp. You could not find a ten foot stretch of beach without a dead fish. The local fishermen are claiming that this is the worst spring for fishing in their lifetimes. The consensus of these folks who know the river is that it froze faster and deeper than the fish had been accustomed to.

Yep. For the first time in about 20 years there were more cold records set than warm records set.

 

[Billy T]

... Yep. For the first time in about 20 years there were more cold records set than warm records set.

Not at all surprising as regions which never had ice storms set new cold records when the now weaker Arctic air jet stream is both fragmanted and wandered with deep south going loops.

Just be careful not to draw exactly the wrong conclusion that many new cold records set contradict the global warming story. They confirm it and were predicted by GW theory - even in some of my posts of a few years ago. Furthermore it is going to get still worse.
I. e. The unstable (unseasonable) temperature swings will kill many "spring sprouts" a drive up food prices.

The 10 December 2013 deep south excursion seen below probably set a few dozen local cold records.

Note Arctic air is over US's Gulf of Mexico coastline
Ice storms in N. Flordia and along the US's Gulf of Mexico coast line, surely set many records for cold.
I'm not sure of the date, but think this dip into the deep South is the one that totally shut Atlanta GA down - 1000s of cars that were stuck in traffic and ran out of gas. My son in law had to abandoned his and do rest of his 30 hour trip home from work on foot. Many wrecks as Atlanta's divers had no experience on iced over roads.

 

[billvon]

Just be careful not to draw exactly the wrong conclusion that many new cold records set contradict the global warming story. They confirm it and were predicted by GW theory - even in some of my posts of a few years ago.

While I agree that these do not contradict AGW I think it is erroneous to claim "that's what climate change predicts." Last winter was an outlier, as the years 1940-1950 were. This was not because the AGW theory predicts cooling trends, but rather because the climate is inherently chaotic, and thus only over long time spans can the trend be seen accurately.

 

[iceaura]

Hundreds actually. There were a lot more record low high(also referred to as maximum) daily temperatures than record low low temperatures.

And yet very few (none in southern or central Minnesota, very few if any in Iowa) record low temps for any 24 hour period. Greenhouse gas heat trapping explains that statistical inexplicability - predicts it, even. Weak sun does not.

In other words, this is extremely misleading:

Yep. For the first time in about 20 years there were more cold records set than warm records set.

Very few "cold records", by which is meant record low temperatures for a 24 hour period, were set in the area sculptor specified - none in southern and central Minnesota, and my brief survey found none in Iowa, and that area is right in the middle.

Daily lows, weekly and monthly averages, and duration of sub-standard-deviation minimum temps, were all around or even slightly warmer than the century average throughout the central North American continent in 2014. No month of the winter of 2013/2014 made the list of ten coldest representatives of that month in the past 130 years in Des Moines, Iowa, for example.

I've found that local weather services are more likely to have reported the record cold days rather than monthly averages.

The record low daily max, that is. No doubt. That tends to mislead, of course, as we see here.

Ice storms in N. Flordia and along the US's Gulf of Mexico coast line, surely set many records for cold.

Maybe, but not "surely" - there have been such events several times in the past. They are rare, but not unknown. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/snowstorms-in-the-south-an-historical-perspective

I'm not sure of the date, but think this dip into the deep South is the one that totally shut Atlanta GA down

The famous one last winter was around February 11th, 2014. Before that, the last one to hit Atlanta with such severity was in 2004 - there had been several in history, of course, spread out over the centuries.

On January 7 and 8, 1973, Atlanta and areas of north Georgia were hard hit by one to four inches of ice that closed schools and left 300,000 people without power for up to a week. - -

They may become more frequent, as the polar vortex weakens over the warming Arctic.

btw: Watching a TV miniseries called "Years of Living Dangerously" the other night, I heard for the first time that I can recall a talking head on TV expand on what I have considered for years to be the characteristic, most easily recognized, and most significant immediate effect of greenhouse gas heat trapping, the one I think should be hammered on by people trying to persuade the Fox-addled: the failure of the temperature to drop at night, diminished overnight cooling compared with the past. And true to form in my experience it wasn't a visiting expert or reporter or analyst emphasizing that - it was a big operation farmer, with decades of records as well as focused landscape memory.

 

[Billy T]

While I agree that these do not contradict AGW I think it is erroneous to claim "that's what climate change predicts." Last winter was an outlier, ...

I wish that were generally true, but unfortunately it is not. US was the small exception to the Global warming in 2013 and the ever growing greater cause for concern on the strength of / due to the/ more than 20 mutually re-enforcing positive feed backs, speeding the rate of global warming. See full picture for 2013's winter below:

Note the last blue bar was > 25 years ago! (with one very tiny statical anti-trend bar on land only.) This is not an "outlier" but the "new normal"!

Don't be mis lead by fact that Antarctic Ocean now has the gratest ice cover ever. That is due to global warming too ! Warmer ice has more rapid "plastic flow" under it own weight. Is both spreading out and thinning and the glacers feeding the floating ice are moving faster to the sea. To directly and correctly see the effect of global warming you need to look at data on the total ice mass, not the area the thinner ice is covering. The coldness of winter is best seen in first quarter of the new year.

While the United States had a winter that was indeed quite a bit cooler than the the winters of recent years, across the years of 1895-2014 in the U.S. temperature record NOAA ranked winter U.S. temperatures as “near average” — 46th coldest out of 119 years. Our last winter just felt especially cold to us because we’ve become used to really warm winters lately.

Of course, as you and I know, global warming is called “global warming” because it describes a tendency around the globe, not just the United States. The above pundits each make the mistake of assuming that what happens in the United States happens everywhere. But that’s not true. The United States got “extra cold” (from the 21st century perspective, but fairly average for the 20th century) this winter because the Jet Stream shut down. The Jet Stream is an air current that keeps cold polar air from reaching the United States most of the time. This year, the Jet Stream didn’t do what it usually does, so the U.S. received repeated blasts of relatively frigid polar air.

Around the globe, however, the story was different. It doesn’t matter whether you use NOAA’s calculation for January – April or NASA’s calculation for December – February — by either calculation global temperatures this past winter were really warm (either the 6th warmest on record or 7th warmest on record, respectively).

And what about the spring? Turns out that this March and April were either the second highest on record (NASA calculations) or the 4th and 1st highest on record (NOAA calculation) since recordkeeping began in 1880.
The United States was an anomaly in an otherwise warmer-than-average world.

 

[Billy T]

I know my posts about extinction via 35C wet bulb temperatures and massive plagues from ~100 million unburied bodies decaying sound extremists, but unless drastic changes are made ASAP in the use of fossil fuels that is almost certain now. By "now" I mean that my grandchildren will never see / have any grandchildren. When they normally would have, the most complex and intelligent species living on earth will probably be amphibians like alligators and sea turtles who can keep their bodies from overheating with adequate heat transfer to water via immersion in it.

Please re-read or read this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?97892-Climate-gate&p=3186464&viewfull=1#post3186464
and more importantly at least spend less than 20 minutes watching the link given near the end of it.
I. e.
For a very good discussion of the Artic Ocean CH4 problem, including brief view of the dense methane clouds bubbling up (at 7:30 & 9:45 into the less than 20 minute video), by four experts* watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsPHytEnJM&list=PLRlpsECwDGcKBvVd3pJetCgROMKkNmCCA

* World renowned experts: Dr James Hansen, Dr Natalia Shakhova, Dr Peter Wadhams, David Wasdell (Apollo-Gaia Project). The second is Russian leader who has been measuring these Artic changes for decades. I STRONGLY urge you to watch this video to the end.

 

[billvon]

I know my posts about extinction via 35C wet bulb temperatures and massive plagues from ~100 million unburied bodies decaying sound extremists

And alarmist. Honestly I don't have much respect for either the denier or alarmist sides of climate change politics. Both prey on people's emotions and try to overwhelm rational response with unreasoning emotional rhetoric.

but unless drastic changes are made ASAP in the use of fossil fuels that is almost certain now. By "now" I mean that my grandchildren will never see / have any grandchildren.

Completely unsupportable. Similar hyperbole resulted in all the predictions of an imminent ice age back in the 1970's.

When they normally would have, the most complex and intelligent species living on earth will probably be amphibians like alligators and sea turtles who can keep their bodies from overheating with adequate heat transfer to water via immersion in it.

Increasing the temperature where your great-great grandkids live by 1C will not kill them. (Of course.)

 

[Billy T]

... Increasing the temperature where your great-great grandkids live by 1C will not kill them. (Of course.)

True. It is an hour in 35C wet bulb conditions that will. Beijing over the past week-end had 41C and only a few died of the heat. I don't know what relative humidity would have killed them all, but it is less than 100%. The problem with 35 C is not the temperature - it is the 100% humidity that makes adequate evaporative cooling of your 37C body with its ~100W internal heat generation, even just resting, impossible that kills.

Also the most recent 8 year study by dozens of experts predicts we are bound for 7.3 C temperature increase:

The problem appears to worse than even Guy* understands. See: http://www.apollo-gaia.org/Sensitivity and the Carbon Budget.pdf - a new analysis released in May 2014 and that link of it was up dated to less than 30 days ago. It may be a little technical for some but here is an alternative which was the keynote speech to the Club of Rome's annual conference on 20 September 2013 by same author, David Wasdell
(Director of the Apollo-Gaia Project). They spent four years refining models and then tested them thur five ice ages and the interglacial eras between, found poor fits so developed a new methodology in the next four year they call "climate sensitivity." Here is link to the Club of Rome Keynote address: http://www.apollo-gaia.org/CoR Keynote.pdf and the graph form page 6 of 39 is sort of summary of possible futures.

BTW, BrasKem annually makes 400,000 TONS of two different plastics from sugar cane cheaper than using $90 / barrel oil as feed stock. Big oil has you over a barrel - time to wise up and revolt !

*http://guymcpherson.com/forum/index.php He is predicting with many believers at this "Nature Bats Last" link extinction by 2030.

Following foot note relate to my claim only 3% of arable land is required to be growing fuel for all the world's cars.

** Abandoned pasture or a very tiny fraction of the grass land in only Africa is more than enough. Furthermore, food production would INCREASE if only it were used as typically every fifth year, the available nitrogen in the soil is replenished by a crop of soy beans. Sugar cane is a grass and comes back from the roots well for four or so years.

 

[billvon]

It is an hour in 35C wet bulb conditions that will. Beijing over the past week-end had 41C and only a few died of the heat. I don't know what relative humidity would have killed them all, but it is less than 100%. The problem with 35 C is not the temperature - it is the 100% humidity that makes adequate evaporative cooling of your 37C body with its ~100W internal heat generation, even just resting, impossible that kills.

Agreed. So will being submerged in 40F water. So that will kill your great-great grandkids even faster if they decide to swim in 40F water.

A better choice would be for them to not live in 35C 100% humidity environments or swim in 40F water.

BTW, BrasKem annually makes 400,000 TONS of two different plastics from sugar cane cheaper than using $90 / barrel oil as feed stock. Big oil has you over a barrel - time to wise up and revolt !

If you prefer big ethanol to big oil - and want to pay whatever they demand, no matter what the price - go for it. I get my energy from the sun.

 

[sculptor]

Similar hyperbole resulted in all the predictions of an imminent ice age back in the 1970's.
Increasing the temperature where your great-great grandkids live by 1C will not kill them. (Of course.)

Respect where respect is due:
Let's take a look back to the state of the science in the '60s and 70's.
We'll start with Emiliani who was arguing that the(over 100yr) old concept that there had only been 4 glacial cycles within this ice age was flawed. Boy did that poor scientist suffer from the attacks of the old guard. Anyway, in 1966 he wrote that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years". His paleotemperature curve was often renamed the paleoglaciation curve.
As ice cores were too limited in time: He needed a better method of drilling for ocean cores to further test his theories which was beyond the technology of the day.
Then Kukla who was studying loess deposits in Czechoslovakia was coming up with dates which supported Emiliani.
I thinkit was Kukla who wrote: "Warm intervals like the past few thousand years normally did not last long."
Then Broeker who was doing some work based on terraces of ancient coral in Barbados, in 1972 wrote: "the present episode of amiable climate is coming to an end...we may soon be confronted with... a runaway glaciation." (even back in '72, Broeker was seeing the potential for anthropogenic atmospheric forcing to alter the past cycles)

These guys knew nothing of the potential of the super-interglacials discovered by the lake el'gygytgyn scientists, and were basing their predictions on the patterns which they were seeing of roughly 10,000 year long interglacials followed by a descent into another 90,000 year period of glaciation.

Some days it seems that the more we know the more we need to refocus our lens to maintain clarity.

 

[Billy T]

... A better choice would be for them to not live in 35C 100% humidity environments ...

Problem is most of humanity will have no choice - That will happen for more than an hour in the regions they inhabit. Global warmig, is much worse than most methodologies used are foretelling - more on this in another post. Here is part of why:

The July 2013 edition of the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society had carried a Review Article entitled “Climate sensitivity in the Anthropocene”. It was co-authored by an august group of twelve leading climate scientists, two of whom had also been involved in the drafting and review of the IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM.* The following quotation from the introduction to the paper is most pertinent:
“Based on evidence from Earth’s history, we suggest here that the relevant form of climate sensitivity in the Anthropocene (e.g. from which to base future greenhouse (GHG) stabilization targets) is the Earth System sensitivity, including fast feedbacks from changes in water vapour, natural aerosols, clouds and sea ice, slower surface albedo feedbacks from changes in continental ice sheets and vegetation, and climate-GHG feedbacks from changes in natural (land and ocean) carbon sinks. Traditionally, only fast feedbacks have been considered (with the other feedbacks either ignored or treated as forcings), which has led to estimates of the climate sensitivity for doubled CO2 concentrations of about 3°C. The 2xCO2 Earth System sensitivity is higher than this, being ~4-6°C if the ice sheet/vegetation albedo feedback is included in addition to the fast feedbacks, and higher still if climate-GHG feedbacks are also included. The inclusion of climate-GHG feedbacks due to changes in the natural carbon sinks has the advantage of directly linking anthropogenic GHG emissions with the ensuing global temperature increase, thus providing a truer indication of the climate sensitivity to human perturbations.” [Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc. 139: 1121-1131, July 2013 A]

* SPM is: Summary for Policy Makers part of the IPCC AR5 released late last year.

 

[billvon]

Problem is most of humanity will have no choice - That will happen for more than an hour in the regions they inhabit.

Sorry, I don't know how else to say this but -
That is bullshit. No one credible is predicting regular 35C 100% humidity conditions taking over even a significant part of the planet. Even the IPCC's worst case predictions are 6.4C over 100 years.

 

[Billy T]

I don't know how else to say this but -
That is bullshit. No one credible is predicting regular 35C 100% humidity conditions taking over even a significant part of the planet. Even the IPCC's worst case predictions are 6.4C over 100 years.

No. the BS is with the IPCC:

" Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC AR5 WG1 should be rejected as not fit for the purpose of policy-making. It is a compromise between what is scientifically necessary and what is deemed to be politically and economically feasible. It is a document of appeasement, in active collusion with the global addiction to fossil sources of energy. " - Same source as quote in post 697.

Read links I have given, and you will agree. I know you to be rational and influenced by evidence / careful analysis, such as by the Apolo-Gaia group's 8 years of work that was tested against the data of the last 65 million year and accurately agreed with historic fact.

My next post will tell some of the omissions (and down-right politically motivated distortions) in the IPCC AR5 WG1's data bases and methodologies. Perhaps that was necessary as what is needed to have a chance of avoiding extinction will not "fly with TPTB."

 

[Billy T]

Let us first summarise the analysis of the basis for a carbon budget embedded in the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC AR5 WG1:
 The adoption of a transient temperature response to cumulative carbon emissions, instead of the full equilibrium impact, allows a higher carbon output before the critical 2°C target is breached. No reference to the substitution is made in the text of the SPM.
 Treating the relationship between temperature response and cumulative carbon emissions as a linear, straight-line function also inflates the available carbon budget by some 10 years’ worth of emissions at the current rate.
 Removal of all visual representation of the current value of the cumulative carbon emissions, reduces the clarity of the present situation.
 Failure to link the total cumulative carbon emissions to the equivalent concentration of the airborne concentration of CO2 adds to the obfuscation of the presentation.
 Limiting the extent of climatic response to the fast feedback (transient or “Charney”) dynamics masks dependency on the function of climate sensitivity. This hides uncertainty in the modelling ensemble at the expense of portraying a grossly underestimated temperature response and a massively inflated carbon budget.

Secondly we note the consequences of applying a robust value for the Earth System Sensitivity:
 The temperature response to the proposed ceiling of allowed carbon emissions is 5.4°C, not the 2°C indicated in the SPM.
 The temperature response to the current set of emission-reduction pledges is c. 10°C, not c. 4°C as indicated in the SPM.
 The temperature response to which we are already committed at the present level of cumulative carbon emission is 3.9°C (+ effect of non-CO2 GHG emissions) not 1.5°C implied in the SPM.
 The budget of c. 300GtC of available carbon emission before breaching the 2°C policy target is seen to be an illusion. In reality the carbon account is already overdrawn by c. 288GtC.
 All the above figures should be treated as conservative underestimates as we move from the stable conditions of the Holocene into the far-from-equilibrium, rapid change and enhanced sensitivity of the Anthropocene.
 Recognition of the sensitivity of global climate dynamics to small changes in average surface temperature implies that the degree of safety assumed in the policy target of limiting increase to no more than 2°C above the pre-industrial value, is a delusion.
 Avoiding dangerous climate change is no longer possible. Limiting its intensity requires restriction of the target temperature increase to no more than 1°C.
 Achieving that goal requires reduction in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses to around 310 ppm of CO2e (from the current value of some 450 ppm CO2e).

Above comparison giving defects in IPCC AR5 WG1 vs. the demonstrated to be more accurate (on 65 million years of data) and more inclusive (all important effects, not just the very short term acting ones) Earth System Sensitivity analysis approach. Read the whole 21 pages here: www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/uploads/David_Wasdell_Mar_2014_AR5.pdf and dated February 2014.

If not willing to do even that look at the graphical difference in the preditions on page 17 - noting that in stead of being able to safely release an additional 341 Giga Tons of CO2 (as big oil wants to be true) we are already over that "safe 2 degree C" increase by 388 G. Tons.

If you would rather hear the director of the Apolo-Gaia group for 5 minutes there is a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9lyy3m6TBA but it does not try to give the proof there - that requires some study.

Ask yourself who has many billions to spend protecting the current fossil fuel base of economies - Big oil or a group of well qualified scientists trying to change where big oil is leading us.