28 thoughts on “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on Global Warming, Current Affairs 2018

  1. Follow Dr Gaurav Garg on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/gauravgargeducation

    Follow Prashant Dhawan on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prashant.dhawan.79

    Follow Dr Gaurav Garg on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/tirelesssoul/

    Follow Dr Gaurav Garg on Twitter – https://twitter.com/GauravGarg888

    Follow Prashant Mavani on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PrashantTMavani/

    Follow Prashant Mavani on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PrashantMavani

  2. The Earth is not warming because of human CO2 emissions. This may surprise you, but you already know this. No, you don't have to be a climatologist with a string of letters after your name. All you need is to know a little basic history and not live in the tropics. There are two basic lies being put about. The hockey stick graph from Michael Mann and the overstating of the greenhouse effect of CO2 by the media.

    Michael Mann from the IPCC produced a graph of the average temperature of the Earth over the last 1,000 years. This graph shows virtually no change in global temperatures from 1,000 years ago to the start of the industrial revolution at which point, driven by human CO2 emissions, it shoots up by, wait for it, an astronomic zero point eight degrees. In case you are wondering why anyone took this seriously, the entire Y axis he used was only about 1.5 degrees which made the 0.8 degree rise look huge and the media, always keen to jump on a good scare story, ignored the scale. The real problem with his graph, however, is the assertion that the temperature remained constant prior to the industrial revolution. You know that just isn't true. In the tenth century, the Vikings, led by Erik the Red, settled and farmed in Greenland. It was much warmer then. When the Earth cooled some 4 to 5 hundred years later they had to leave. By 1600, the Earth was in the grip of a mini ice age. Seas around Britain's shores froze, and there were regular winter fairs held on the frozen river Thames. George the 2nd then enjoyed a considerable warming period, almost back to today's level. However, by the time Charles Dickens wrote Scrooge and A Christmas Carol the temperature had again dropped and white Christmases were the norm. None of this is the stuff of legend. It is all well documented. At no time during these changes was there any significant change in sea level. The Michael Mann graph is just plain wrong.

    The second lie is that the Earth is kept warm by the greenhouse effect of CO2. This is nonsense and, provided you don't live in the tropics, you know this too. Go outside on a winter night when it's cloudy and it's quite warm. Go outside when it's a clear starry night and it's cold. I'm not talking about 0.8 degrees here. There is a difference of 6 to 10 degrees. The greenhouse effect is caused by clouds. Yes, CO2 does have greenhouse properties but consider this, the concentration of CO2 in the air is a balance between what is emitted by us and volcanoes and  what is absorbed by plants, the oceans and crustaceans. On a weekday, our power stations work at full capacity, belching CO2, to run our factories, belching CO2, and 100,000 trucks thunder up and down motorways also belching CO2. At weekends the factories close and the truck drivers go fishing. The plants oceans and crustaceans don't have weekends off so by Sunday night the CO2 concentration is less than it was on Friday night. Now compare the temperature on a cold starry Friday night with the temperature on a cold starry Sunday night. Feel the difference? Of course not. Now we really are talking about a fraction of a degree. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is minimal compared to that of clouds.

    Don't forget that CO2 is essential to life on Earth. The planet's core is cooling. The more it cools, the less volcanic activity there is. The less volcanic activity there is, the less CO2 there is. Two hundred million years ago the CO2 level was about 2,000 parts per million. Today, it is only about 400 parts per million and 100 of that is only because of our burning fossil fuels. Any attempt to reduce CO2 emissions is not just silly, it's downright dangerous. Please stop worrying about man made global warming. If you want to worry about climate change, worry about the next ice age. The next ice age will kill you.

  3. Prof. Dr. H. Stephen Schneider, IPCC's lead author in Working Group, said in 1989, "That's why we need to announce horror-chasing scenarios, make simplistic, dramatic statements, and set aside little mention of any doubts we may have. To attract attention, we need dramatic statements and no doubt about what is said. Each of us researchers has to decide how far he wants to be honest or rather effective. "

  4. 2800 nuclear detonations around the earth from 1945 to 2009. Of these 530 were atmospheric. The Soviet TSAR bomb was equivalent to 50 MT of TNT. The damage to the atmosphere was never measured and these factors are not even considered in Climate Science. Carbon is life and governments are using politics to control dumb people and tax them. Climate Science is 80% political, 15% science and 5% emotional nonsense. The same governments holding you accountable for their sloppy testing.

  5. What the scientists say about climate change:

    Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller has pointed out “total disconnects” between temperature and CO2 “going back ten centuries.” As Wysmuller wrote, “From 1000AD to 1800, over a period of relatively stable CO2 values that bounced around the 280 ppm level, temperature plummeted in the Little Ice Age and then rebounded over a century later. CO2 values neither led nor followed the temperature declines and recoveries. CO2 seems to have had little impact in either direction on the observed temperatures over a 10,000 year period. If CO2 is to be considered a major driver of temperatures, it is doing a counterintuitive dance around the numbers.”

    Australian geologist Ian Plimer wrote. “At present the Earth’s atmosphere is starved of CO2. On all time scales, there is no correlation between temperatures and CO2. If there is no correlation, then there is no causation.”

    Prominent award winning Swedish climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson (who was formerly a global warming activist) declared CO2’s “heating effect is logarithmic: the higher the concentration is, the smaller the effect of a further increase.” Bengtsson noted that global warming would not even be noticeable without modern instruments. “The warming we have had over the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.” Global warming activists were stunned by this public about face by one of the ‘census’ scientists and Bengtsson was subjected to harassment by the climate change community.

    Bengtsson said he had come under "an enormous group pressure" and said that "I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expected anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years." and "I had not expected such an enormous world-wide pressure to be put on me from a community that I have been close to all my active life.” He also said, “I am worried by a wider trend that science is gradually being influenced by political views."

    New Zealand climate scientist Chris de Freitas pointed out that, “Warming and CO2 are not well correlated. The effect of CO2 on global temperature is already close to its maximum.” He explained, “Adding more has a decreasing effect,” and also stressed that the “current warm phase is not unprecedented. From the results of research to date it appears the influence of increasing CO2 on global warming is almost indiscernible. Future warming could occur, but there is no evidence to suggest it will amount to much.”

    It is known that the planet has had CO2 concentrations in the past which were ten times what they are now, even during an ice age. The decreasing effectiveness in causing warming explains why there was no runaway greenhouse warming effect in the past, even with such high concentrations. So why should it be such a concern now? Unless the politicians and alarmists have somehow managed to change the laws of physics, we can all rest easy.

    Many have said that science is being perverted for political reasons by the IPCC. There has never been any disagreement with true science, which always seeks the truth and is prepared to modify its views as more evidence comes to light.

    Have you noticed that the climate change skeptics tend to be older scientists? Those who have retired and can no longer have their careers threatened. They are free to speak out publicly without fear of reprisal and damage to their careers.

    There are literally thousands of scientists who have grave doubts about the current climate change hysteria.

  6. Methane is actually 155 times worse than CO2 short term. However if methane is constantly being replenished in the atmosphere then it is 155 times more potent even 100 years from now.
    Jet streams always occur where the polar air mass meets the tropical air mass and that is also where storms occur.
    The rule of thumb is the stronger the temperature difference between the air masses, the faster the jet streams. The faster the jet streams the straighter they travel.
    Warm the Arctic and the jet streams weaken and meander more and it brings the storms with them.
    2 major feedback loops are now happening in the Arctic. 1 you have mentioned which is the underwater methane hydrates. The other is the thawing permafrost. I can remember as a kid when my Grade 9 teacher told the class that under no circumstances can the permafrost be allowed to thaw.
    Now we know why.
    The scientists from the Arctic Council said 20% of the permafrost will thaw by 2040. To the average person that doesn't sound so bad. To a scientist that means death to the world.
    Our current greenhouse gases warms the Earth by approximately 32°C. If the Earth had no greenhouse gases, the planet would be frozen and unable to support life. Water at the equator would be frozen solid and the atmosphere would be too cold for clouds to form.
    So too little can be very bad but the same applies for too much.
    The permafrost holds twice the amount of greenhouse gases as we currently have in our atmosphere. a 20% thaw will raise global average temperatures by at least 12.8°C.
    The same report also stated that all of the permafrost will thaw before 2100. Atmospheric greenhouse gases will triple.
    It's safe to say that we will not survive that.
    The recent IPCC report is dire to say the least but it is also watered down. They ignored the feedback loops in their report.
    Many scientists are calling them out on how inaccurate the report is.
    The IPCC report says we have 12 years to act but the science says that time for action has already passed or the amount of action needed at this point is so massive of an undertaking that there is zero chance that it can happen in the time we have left.
    All of the world's carbon capture technology last year only removed a little less than 40 million tonnes of CO2 from our emissions. We emitted 54 billion tonnes of CO2 last year.
    In order to make a difference we not only would have to remove more than what we emit but also remove what the feedback loops emit. We would probably need to remove as much as 100 billion tonnes per year to make a difference in Global Warming. That is a massive undertaking. It has taken many years just to build what we currently have and the weather extremes are destroying much of the infrastructure we have now.
    In a few more years, building the needed carbon capture infrastructure will no longer be possible because they will be destroyed by extreme weather events as fast as they are being built.
    We can't stop burning the fossil fuels because it has a beneficial side effect where the pollution it causes is helping to cool the planet. It's not enough since the warming of the planet is much more than the cooling but that cooling effect is buying us some time. Over North America the pollution blocks 10% of the sunlight. Over Russia and China it is blocked 30%.
    It's a catch 22.
    The burning of fossil fuels is both heating and cooling the planet.
    If we don't stop burning the fuel, we heat up the planet but if we stop then the pollution falls out and the planet warms up even faster (within weeks).
    So we have to keep burning the fossil fuels and build Carbon Capture on such a massive scale that it is impossible to do in such a short time.
    Scientists have been warning us for decades that there would be a cost if we waited to act. Now the cost is our extinction because we ignored the warnings from the scientists.

    Here is a breakdown of the IPCC report by various scientists

  7. Plz Laxmi Kant ki book k explanation ki video bhi start kr do because it is very important for upsc exam

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top