2 degrees C

The website "2 degrees C" ( "2 degrees C” : https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2-degrees-c ) is an alphabetically-organized compendium of the documented opinions of expert scientists, and also of science-informed writers and activists, about a looming, catastrophic plus 2 degrees Centigrade global warming due to relentlessly increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution.

In short, the present plus 1 degree C is already catastrophic for low-lying Island States and a plus 2 degree C warming is considered to be more generally catastrophic.

At the 2015 Paris Climate Conference all governments in the world agreed to an ideal target of no more than 1.5 degrees C and to less than 2 degrees C of warming. Unfortunately, the national commitments given at Paris indicated an actual plus 3 degrees C temperature rise this century. According to the UK Met Office the 1.5 degree C target may be exceeded in a few years' time associated with a global El Nino event.

The 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014): “Multi-model results show that limiting total human-induced warming to less than 2°C relative to the period 1861–1880 with a probability of >66% would require cumulative CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources since 1870 to remain below about 2,900 GtCO2 [billion tonnes of CO2] (with a range of 2,550–3,150 GtCO2 depending on non-CO2 drivers). About 1,900 GtCO2 had already been emitted by 2011" i.e. leaving a terminal carbon budget (emissions budget, carbon budget, emissions quota, or allowable emissions) of about 1,000 Gt CO2 before 2 degrees C is exceeded . Unfortunately relatively short-term exceedance of 2 degrees C now appears likely as atmospheric levels of CO2 and of other GHGs relentlessly increase.

Thus the revised annual global GHG pollution taking land use into account is 64 billion tonnes CO2-e per year (Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang. “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf .) and at this rate the Terminal Global Carbon Budget for a >66% probability of exceeding plus 2 degrees C would be exceeded in 1,000 Gt CO2/64 Gt CO2-equivalent per year = 15.6 years relative to 2011 i.e. by 2027. Of course one can well ask: would you board a plane if the probability of crashing was 33%?].

The science-based opinions are set out alphabetically below in 2 categories, (A) Short-term exceedance of 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C this century, and (B) Long-term exceedance of 2 degrees C and higher in coming centuries.

(A) Short-term exceedance of 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C this century.

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE. Agence France-Presse (2018): “A draft “special report” by the UN climate science panel [IPCC] to be unveiled in October, obtained by AFP, concludes that “holding warming at 1.5 degrees C by the end of the 21st century [is] extremely unlikely” (Agence France-Presse, “Limiting global warming to 2 degrees won’t save earth”, 3 April 2018: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/979704/limiting-global-warming-to-2-degrees-wont-save-earth ).

ANDERSON. Kevin Anderson (professor of energy and climate change, University of Manchester, UK, and heads the energy and climate change research program at the Tyndall Center) (2017): “I think it is just about possible to hold … to 2 degrees C of warming. But let's also be clear that 2 degrees of warming is a global average. Two degrees centigrade of warming will be dangerous, if not deadly, for some people around the world and we shouldn't see it as a safe threshold. But I think now that's about the best that we can hope for. Unless we're incredibly lucky with these new negative emission technologies — which don't yet exist — which we hope will suck the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in the future, unless they work — and no one really thinks are going to work at huge scale — then I think 1.5 degrees centigrade is no longer viable. I find that really quite depressing to say because many people would benefit if we could set 1.5 rather than 2 degrees centigrade. All I can say is, my deepest apologies and sympathy. The West should have done much more. I think our chances of failure [to keep under 2C] are about 95 percent. I think we're going to hell in a handcart. But that 5 percent isn't a random chance. That 5 percent is a choice. Realistically, unless emissions start coming down very rapidly in the next three or four years — I mean very rapidly indeed — then I think we will fail on 2 degrees centigrade of warming” (Charlotta Lomas, Kevin Anderson interview, “2^oC: “we have a 5% chance of success””, DW, 16 November 2017: https://www.dw.com/en/2c-we-have-a-5-percent-chance-of-success/a-41405809 ).

AUSTRALIAN CLIMATE CHANGE INSTITUTE. Australian Climate Change Institute (TCI) on Terminal Global Carbon Budget (2013): “Global carbon budget: The CCA sets out a carbon budget consistent with a 67 per cent probability of avoiding a 2°C rise . This presents significant risks to Australian communities and natural systems. A more stringent budget with a 75 per cent probability (or 870 billion tonnes of CO2-e from 2013–2050) of avoiding 2°C would be more prudent. Given the high risks associated with climate change, erring on the side of caution is a safer choice than hoping the climate dice roll in our favour… Figure 1. Global action and Australia’s national climate interest. This figure illustrates current mid-range projections of global warming based on scenarios in which: no action is taken [plus 4.6°C], the minimum emission pledges countries have already made are achieved [plus 3.3°C]” (Climate Change Institute, “The Climate Institute (TCI) Submission to the Climate Change Authority (CCA) on its draft report, Reducing Australia’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Targets and Progress Review”, December 2013: http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/TCI_Submission_CCA_ReducingAustraliasGreenhouseGasEmissions_December2013.pdf ).

[Editor: the revised annual global GHG pollution taking land use into account is 64 billion tonnes CO2-e per year () and at this rate the Terminal Global Carbon Budget for a 75% probability will be exceeded in 870/64 = 13.6 years i.e. by mid-2026 or in 8 years relative to mid-2018. Of course, would you board a plane if the probability of crashing was 25%?].

BELCHER. Prof Stephen Belcher (Chief Scientist at the UK Met Office) (2018): “Given we’ve seen global average temperatures around 1 °C above pre-industrial levels over the last three years, it is now possible that continued warming from greenhouse gases along with natural variability could combine so we temporarily exceed 1.5 °C in the next five years” (Met Office, “Five-year forecast indicates further warming”, 31 January 2018: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/decadal-forecast-2018 ).

COLORADO UNIVERSITY BOULDER. Colorado University Boulder (2017): “Even if humans could instantly turn off all emissions of greenhouse gases, Earth would continue to heat up about two more degrees Fahrenheit by the turn of the century, according to a sophisticated new analysis published today in the journal Nature Climate Change. If current emission rates continue for 15 years, the research shows, odds are good that the planet will see nearly three degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 Celsius) of warming by then… Even if all fossil fuel emissions stopped in 2017, warming by 2100 is very likely to reach about 2.3 F ([5% - 95%] range: 1.6-4.1) or 1.3 degrees C (range: 0.9-2.3)” (Colorado University Boulder, “An inevitable warm-up for earth”, 31 July 2017: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2017/07/31/inevitable-warm-earth ).

EVERSHED. Nick Evershed (Guardian writer) (2017), “One way of looking at emissions targets is as a fixed budget amount, or quota. This countdown shows one estimate of how long it will take to reach an amount of greenhouse gas emissions beyond which 2C of warming will be likely… Total carbon budget used since 1870, in Gtons (CO2-e): 2,164.7… Total carbon budget remaining in Gtons (CO2-e), if we want to limit human-induced warming to less than 2C: 735.3… total carbon budget in tons (CO2-e): 2,900… 18 years left” (Nick Evershed, “Carbon countdown clock: how much of the world’s carbon budget have we spent?”, Guardian, 19 January 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2017/jan/19/carbon-countdown-clock-how-much-of-the-worlds-carbon-budget-have-we-spent ).

FRIERSON. Dargan Frierson (UW associate professor of atmospheric sciences, University of Washington) (2017): “Countries argued for the 1.5 C target because of the severe impacts on their livelihoods that would result from exceeding that threshold. Indeed, damages from heat extremes, drought, extreme weather and sea level rise will be much more severe if 2 C or higher temperature rise is allowed. Our results show that an abrupt change of course is needed to achieve these goals” Hannah Hickey, “Earth likely to warm more than 2 degrees this century” , University of Washington News, 31 July 2017: http://www.washington.edu/news/2017/07/31/earth-likely-to-warm-more-than-2-degrees-this-century/ ).

GEGELL. Laura Geggel (addressing how 2 degrees of warming change the planet) (2017): “Global warming doesn't just increase temperatures; it also threatens the food, water, shelter, energy grid and health of humans… As temperatures warm and glaciers melt, the corresponding sea-level rise can destroy homes and cities. About 40 percent of the world's population lives within 62 miles (100 kilometers) of the coast… In 2010, more than 123 million people, or 39 percent of the United States' population, lived in counties touching the shoreline, according to the National Ocean Service… The Earth is anticipated to exceed the 2.7 degrees F (1.5 degrees C) milestone in about 15 years — between 2032 and 2039” (Laura Geggel, “How would just 2 degrees of warming change the planet”, Live Science, 29 April 2017: https://www.livescience.com/58891-why-2-degrees-celsius-increase-matters.html ).

GUARDIAN. Guardian (2018): “Global temperatures could break through the internationally agreed upper 1.5C limit within the next five years, according to a forecast by British scientists that raises fresh questions about the world’s efforts to tackle climate change. The Met Office forecasting service said that in the period from 2018 to 2022, annual global average temperatures are likely to exceed 1C above pre-industrial levels and could top the 1.5C threshold set as an aspiration by the global Paris climate change deal in 2015 (“Met Office warns of global temperature rise exceeding 1.5C limit”, Guardian, 1 February 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/31/met-office-warns-of-global-temperature-rise-exceeding-15c-limit ).

HICKEY. Hannah Hickey (University of Washington News) (2017): “Warming of the planet by 2 degrees Celsius is often seen as a “tipping point” that people should try to avoid by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. But the Earth is very likely to exceed that change, according to new University of Washington research. A study using statistical tools shows only a 5 percent chance that Earth will warm 2 degrees or less by the end of this century. It shows a mere 1 percent chance that warming could be at or below 1.5 degrees, the target set by the 2016 Paris Agreement… The new paper focuses instead on three quantities that underpin the scenarios for future emissions: total world population, gross domestic product per person and the amount of carbon emitted for each dollar of economic activity, known as carbon intensity. Using statistical projections for each of these three quantities based on 50 years of past data in countries around the world, the study finds a median value of 3.2 C (5.8 F) warming by 2100, and a 90 percent chance that warming this century will fall between 2.0 to 4.9 C (3.6 to 8.8 F)” (Hannah Hickey, “Earth likely to warm more than 2 degrees this century” , University of Washington News, 31 July 2017: http://www.washington.edu/news/2017/07/31/earth-likely-to-warm-more-than-2-degrees-this-century/ ).

HANSEN. James Hansen et al. (2013): “We assess climate impacts of global warming using ongoing observations and paleoclimate data. We use Earth’s measured energy imbalance, paleoclimate data, and simple representations of the global carbon cycle and temperature to define emission reductions needed to stabilize climate and avoid potentially disastrous impacts on today’s young people, future generations, and nature. A cumulative industrial-era limit of ∼500 GtC [1,835 Gt CO2] fossil fuel emissions and 100 GtC [367 Gt CO2] storage in the biosphere and soil would keep climate close to the Holocene range to which humanity and other species are adapted. Cumulative emissions of ∼1000 GtC [3,670 Gt CO2], sometimes associated with 2°C global warming, would spur “slow” feedbacks and eventual warming of 3–4°C with disastrous consequences. Rapid emissions reduction is required to restore Earth’s energy balance and avoid ocean heat uptake that would practically guarantee irreversible effects. Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice. Responsible policymaking requires a rising price on carbon emissions that would preclude emissions from most remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels and phase down emissions from conventional fossil fuels” (James Hansen et al, “Assessing "dangerous climate change": Required reduction of carbon emissions to protect young people, future generations and nature”, PLOS, 3 December 2013: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648 ).

IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report … Synthesis Report: “Multi-model results show that limiting total human-induced warming to less than 2°C relative to the period 1861–1880 with a probability of >66% would require cumulative CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources since 1870 to remain below about 2,900 GtCO2 [billion tonnes of CO2] (with a range of 2,550–3,150 GtCO2 depending on non-CO2 drivers). About 1,900 GtCO2 had already been emitted by 2011.” Given in the unit GtC, the >66 per cent probability budget becomes 790 GtC [2,899 Gt CO2], with a remaining budget in 2011 of 275 GtC [1,009 Gt CO2] after subtracting the 515 GtC [ 1,890 Gt CO2] historical emissions” (Rajendra Pauchari (chairman), 5th Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , “Climate change 2014. Synthesis report. Summary for Policymakers”, 2014, page 10: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf ).

[Editor: the revised annual global GHG pollution taking land use into account is 64 billion tonnes CO2-e per year (Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang. “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf .) and at this rate the Terminal Global Carbon Budget for a >66% probability will be exceeded in 1.009/64 = 15.8 years relative to 2011 i.e. by 2027. Of course, would you board a plane if the probability of crashing was 33%?].

MAURITSEN. Thorsten Mauritsen (Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) and Robert Pincus (Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), a partnership of the University of Colorado Boulder and NOAA) (2017): “Due to the lifetime of CO₂, the thermal inertia of the oceans, and the temporary impacts of short-lived aerosols and reactive greenhouse gases, the Earth’s climate is not equilibrated with anthropogenic forcing. As a result, even if fossil-fuel emissions were to suddenly cease, some level of committed warming is expected due to past emissions as studied previously using climate models. Here, we provide an observational-based quantification of this committed warming using the instrument record of global-mean warming, recently improved estimates of Earth’s energy imbalance, and estimates of radiative forcing from the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Compared with pre-industrial levels, we find a committed warming of 1.5 K (0.9–3.6, 5th–95th percentile) at equilibrium, and of 1.3 K (0.9–2.3) within this century. However, when assuming that ocean carbon uptake cancels remnant greenhouse gas-induced warming on centennial timescales, committed warming is reduced to 1.1 K (0.7–1.8). In the latter case there is a 13% risk that committed warming already exceeds the 1.5 K target set in Paris. Regular updates of these observationally constrained committed warming estimates, although simplistic, can provide transparent guidance as uncertainty regarding transient climate sensitivity inevitably narrows and the understanding of the limitations of the framework is advanced.” (Thorsten Mauritsen and Robert Pincus, “Committed warming inferred from observations”, Nature Climate Change volume 7, pages 652–655, 2017: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3357#affil-auth ).

Thorsten Mauritsen (Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) (2017): “Our estimates [“a committed warming of 1.5 K (0.9–3.6, 5th–95th percentile)”] are based on things that have already happened, things we can observe, and they point to the part of future warming that is already committed to by past emissions. Future carbon dioxide emissions will then add extra warming on top of that commitment” (Colorado University Boulder, “An inevitable warm-up for earth”, 31 July 2017: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2017/07/31/inevitable-warm-earth ).

MILLAR. Richard Millar et al., “The 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) … Synthesis Report: “Multi-model results show that limiting total human-induced warming to less than 2°C relative to the period 1861–1880 with a probability of >66% would require cumulative CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources since 1870 to remain below about 2,900 GtCO2 [billion tonnes of CO2] (with a range of 2,550–3,150 GtCO2 depending on non-CO2 drivers). About 1,900 GtCO2 had already been emitted by 2011.” Given in the unit GtC, the >66 per cent probability budget becomes 790 GtC [2,899 Gt CO2], with a remaining budget in 2011 of 275 GtC [1,009 Gt CO2] after subtracting the 515 GtC [ 1,890 Gt CO2] historical emissions” (Rajendra Pauchari (chairman), 5th Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , “Climate change 2014. Synthesis report. Summary for Policymakers”, 2014, page 10: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf ; Richard Millar, Myles Allen, Joeri Rogelj, and Pierre Friedlingstein, “The cumulative carbon budget and its implications”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 32, Number 2, 2016, pp. 323–342: https://watermark.silverchair.com/grw009.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAaMwggGfBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggGQMIIBjAIBADCCAYUGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMuhMqWZUM_rlLOiU_AgEQgIIBVjZv86YRz4Y9QrPqdwcFeyF-MpIEF7I-nu1BoxnQEtIKbKklNNUXjnkqFyr65rJo_wxjVffuih5T_FpnXAsdFAS7UWwR59gDvTzYFli8WRqBI9xfojIAg9-enQjMuUcBtI174RWOBAzsHT0JPxeVNhMJsx51_oPL8CYMEJ7YlUNsETUl-dzSfUV3CT4cqnuzkDW9axdxtd2-l6BEp_b6O5m5mlOyurUVe3n5_Nf7ArWG5OmSnppR1j7w6eBTRT74iPMQ3n4fq3i9SCK0EkhO1tfh69Tc9Hf0C572qUA0pyL9wRX3Fxgs7XiVuynbPtzzQyXkm3JpROv4R-Q-EqTuh8fcICI4a26rr6Mu36RYFbImtm0pXe1Yez_GG20xIzveExE_Vag35gV8RRMlC1baGsyW3J1ybA98WzIy473gchw29gPrptOEU2xMWj8otGQ-uxv4EUUlaA ).

[Editor: the revised annual global GHG pollution taking land use into account is 64 billion tonnes CO2-e per year (Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang. “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf .) and at this rate the Terminal Global Carbon Budget for a >66% probability will be exceeded in 1.009/64 = 15.8 years relative to 2011 i.e. by 2027. Of course, would you board a plane if the probability of crashing was 33%?].

MILMAN. Oliver Milman (writer for The Guardian (2018): “There is only a 5% chance that the Earth will avoid warming by at least 2C come the end of the century, according to new research that paints a sobering picture of the international effort to stem dangerous climate change. Global trends in the economy, emissions and population growth make it extremely unlikely that the planet will remain below the 2C threshold set out in the Paris climate agreement in 2015, the study states [Adrian Raftery, Alec Zimmer, Dargan M. W. Frierson, Richard Startz & Peiran Liu, “Less than 2^oC temperature rise by 2100 unlikely”, Nature Climate Change, volume 7, pages 637–641, 2017: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3352 ]” (Oliver Milman, “Planet has just 5% chance of reaching Paris goal, study says”, Guardian, 1 August 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/31/paris-climate-deal-2c-warming-study ).

PARIS AGREEMENT. 2015 Paris Climate Agreement (2015): “The Paris Agreement central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius” (United Nations Climate Change, “The Paris Agreement”, 2015: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement )

PINCUS. Robert Pincus (Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), a partnership of the University of Colorado Boulder and NOAA) (2017): “This ‘committed warming’ [“a committed warming of 1.5 K (0.9–3.6, 5th–95th percentile)”] is critical to understand because it can tell us and policymakers how long we have, at current emission rates, before the planet will warm to certain thresholds. The window of opportunity on a 1.5-degree [C] target is closing” (Colorado University Boulder, “An inevitable warm-up for earth”, 31 July 2017: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2017/07/31/inevitable-warm-earth ).

RAFTERY. Adrian Raftery, Alec Zimmer, Dargan M. W. Frierson, Richard Startz & Peiran Liu (2017): “The recently published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections to 2100 give likely ranges of global temperature increase in four scenarios for population, economic growth and carbon use¹. However, these projections are not based on a fully statistical approach. Here we use a country-specific version of Kaya’s identity to develop a statistically based probabilistic forecast of CO₂ emissions and temperature change to 2100. Using data for 1960–2010, including the UN’s probabilistic population projections for all countries, we develop a joint Bayesian hierarchical model for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita and carbon intensity. We find that the 90% interval for cumulative CO₂ emissions includes the IPCC’s two middle scenarios but not the extreme ones. The likely range of global temperature increase is 2.0–4.9 °C, with median 3.2 °C and a 5% (1%) chance that it will be less than 2 °C (1.5 °C). Population growth is not a major contributing factor. Our model is not a ‘business as usual’ scenario, but rather is based on data which already show the effect of emission mitigation policies. Achieving the goal of less than 1.5 °C warming will require carbon intensity to decline much faster than in the recent past” (Adrian Raftery, Alec Zimmer, Dargan M. W. Frierson, Richard Startz & Peiran Liu, “Less than 2^oC temperature rise by 2100 unlikely”, Nature Climate Change, volume 7, pages 637–641, 2017: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3352 ).

Adrian Raftery (professor of statistics and sociology, University of Washington) (2017): “Our analysis shows that the goal of 2 degrees is very much a best-case scenario. It is achievable, but only with major, sustained effort on all fronts over the next 80 years. Our analysis is compatible with previous estimates, but it finds that the most optimistic projections are unlikely to happen. The IPCC was clear that these scenarios were not forecasts,” Raftery said. “The big problem with scenarios is that you don’t know how likely they are, and whether they span the full range of possibilities or are just a few examples. Scientifically, this type of storytelling approach was not fully satisfying… Overall, the goals expressed in the Paris Agreement are ambitious but realistic. The bad news is they are unlikely to be enough to achieve the target of keeping warming at or below 1.5 degrees” (Hannah Hickey, “Earth likely to warm more than 2 degrees this century” , University of Washington News, 31 July 2017: http://www.washington.edu/news/2017/07/31/earth-likely-to-warm-more-than-2-degrees-this-century/ ).

SCAIFE. Prof Adam Scaife (Head of Long Range Prediction at the Met Office) (2018): “These [2018 UK Met Office] predictions show that 1.5 °C events are now looming over the horizon, but the global pattern of heat would be different to a more sustained exceeding of the Paris 1.5 °C threshold. Early, temporary excursions above this level of warming are likely to coincide with a large El Niño event in the Pacific” (UK Met Office, “Five-year forecast indicates further warming”, 31 January 2018: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/decadal-forecast-2018 ).

SPRATT. David Spratt (Climate System Emergency Institute ) : “C = Certain Climate Planetary Catastrophe. The accumulated evidence is overwhelming that 2C is far beyond dangerous, and is certain catastrophe for billions, for world food security, for sea level, and the ultimate danger of climate change runaway feed back (runaway carbon dynamic IPCC). 2C would devastate world agriculture ​. 2C would devastate the planet due to multiple amplifying feedback runaway (runaway carbon dynamic IPCC). 2C = Certain Climate Planetary Catastrophe. The accumulated evidence is overwhelming that 2C is far beyond dangerous, and is certain catastrophe for billions, for world food security, for sea level, and the ultimate danger of climate change runaway feed back (runaway carbon dynamic IPCC). 2C would devastate world agriculture ​. 2C would devastate the planet due to multiple amplifying feedback runaway (runaway carbon dynamic IPCC)… With the publication of the 2013-2014 assess fifth assessment of the IPCC, the evidence is now overwhelming and obvious that 2° C is intolerably dangerous due to projected multiple disastrous to catastrophic impacts on huge human populations major planetary ecosystems and planetary tipping point. that 1.5° C is dangerous due to the same reasons, and that the true danger limit by the science is 1° C” (David Spratt, “No 2C! only under 1.5C for all of us to stay alive”, Climate System Emergency Institute: https://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/2c.html ).

TITLEY. David Titley (2017): “If you read or listen to almost any article about climate change, it’s likely the story refers in some way to the “2 degrees Celsius limit.” The story often mentions greatly increased risks if the climate exceeds 2 degrees C and even “catastrophic” impacts to our world if we warm more than the target. Recently a series of scientific papers have come out and stated that we have a 5 percent chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees C, and only one chance in a hundred of keeping man-made global warming to 1.5 degrees C, the aspirational goal of the 2015 Paris United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference. Additionally, recent research shows that we may have already locked in 1.5 degrees C of warming even if we magically reduced our carbon footprint to zero today. And there’s an additional wrinkle: What is the correct baseline we should use? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) frequently references temperature increases relative to the second half of the 19th century, but the Paris Agreement states the temperature increases should be measured from “preindustrial” levels, or before 1850. Scientists have shown such a baseline effectively pushes us another 0.2 degrees C closer to the upper limits” (David Titley, “Why 2 degrees Celsius more warming limit so important”, Yale Climate Connections, 20 September 2017: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/09/why-2-degrees-c-of-warming-is-so-important/ ).

TYREE. Mel Tyree (Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, OVEC) (2017): “The temperature of 1.5 degrees Celsius (C.) equals approximately 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (F.) and 2 degrees C. equals approximately 3.6 degrees F. Two degrees C. above preindustrial levels, is a somewhat arbitrary limit, however, climate scientists generally agree that global temperature increases above this, “guardrail” level will result in catastrophic global climate change impacts. Catastrophic climate change impacts include dangerous changes to all of earth’s major systems including: the hydrosphere, biosphere, atmosphere, and cryosphere. Some important individual catastrophic impacts from just a 2 degree C. increase above preindustrial levels include: wiping out of virtually all tropical coral reefs; a 16% decrease in global wheat yields; a 6% decrease in corn yields; up to a 1.5 month increase in heatwaves; a greater frequency of 1000-year-flood events; and, perhaps up to a 10% extinction of all earth’s plant and animals… [a study] published in the journal Nature Climate Change on July 31, 2017 maintained that essentially we had pretty much already busted the carbon budget for 1.5 degrees C. and we only had a 1% chance of stabilizing temperatures at that level. The same study noted that stabilizing at 2 degrees C. had about a 5% chance and was unlikely” (Mel Tyree, “2 degrees Celsius: how much time left to that climate threshold”, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (OVEC) , 25 June 2018: https://ohvec.org/2-degrees-celsius-how-much-time-left-to-that-climate-threshold/ ).

UK MET OFFICE. UK Met Office (2018): “A new forecast published by scientists at the Met Office indicates the annual global average temperature is likely to exceed 1 °C and could reach 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels during the next five years (2018-2022). There is also a small (around 10%) chance that at least one year in the period could exceed 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels (1850–1900), although it is not anticipated that it will happen this year. It is the first time that such high values have been highlighted within these forecasts… The global temperatures quoted here are calculated relative to a baseline of 1850-1900 providing a measure that is relative to the pre-industrial period for comparison with the Paris ambition and target to limit warming to 1.5 °C and well below 2 °C respectively above pre-industrial levels” (UK Met Office, “Five-year forecast indicates further warming”, 31 January 2018: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/decadal-forecast-2018 ).

WIKIPEDIA. Wikipedia re “emissions budget”: “An emissions budget, carbon budget, emissions quota, or allowable emissions, is an upper limit of total carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) emissions associated with remaining below a specific global average temperature. An emissions budget may also be associated with objectives for other related climate variables, such as radiative forcing… [e.g. 1,280 GtCO2 after 2011 for 50% likelihood of exceeding 2^oC]” ( “Emissions budget”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_budget ).

Wikipedia re “transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions”: “The transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions (TCRE) is the ratio of the globally averaged surface temperature change per unit carbon dioxide (CO₂) emitted. As emitted CO₂ exhibits atmospheric lifetimes on millennial timescales, this response is conceived as the amount that global temperature changes per the amount of total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. With respect to cumulative CO₂ emissions over time, global temperature is reasonably estimated to change linearly irregardless of the path taken to reach peak CO₂ emissions. This means that for specific amount of cumulative CO₂ emissions, a known global temperature change (within a range of uncertainty) can be expected, which indicates that holding global temperature change to below specific thresholds is a problem of limiting cumulative CO₂ emissions, leading to the idea of a carbon budget…. The observed and calculated linear TCRE [transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions] and RTCRE [regional transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions] leads to the notion of a carbon budget. A carbon budget is the cumulative amount of CO₂, emitted anthropologically as a globe, that leads to a set limit of global warming. The IPCC estimates the CO₂-only carbon budget (with a 50% chance) for staying below 2 °C at 1210 PgC (or 1.21 Tt C). Accounting for the 515 PgC of CO₂ emitted between 1870 and 2011, this leaves a CO₂-only carbon budget of 695 PgC [695 GtC or 2551 Gt CO2], for a 50% chance of staying below a global average temperature change of 2 °C [others: 1280 Gt CO2 from 2011 and 1500 Gt CO2 from 2015]” (“Transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_climate_response_to_cumulative_carbon_emissions ).

(B) Long-term exceedance of 2 degrees C and higher in coming centuries.

BIELO. David Bielo (a contributing editor at Scientific American) (2013): “ On May 2 [2013], after nightfall shut down photosynthesis for the day in Hawaii, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere touched 400 parts-per-million there for the first time in at least 800,000 years. Near the summit of volcanic Mauna Loa—where a member of the Keeling family has kept watch since 1958—sensors measured this record through sunrise the following day. Levels have continued to dance near that benchmark in recent days, registering above 400 ppm for the first time in eons after midnight on May 7. When the measurements started the daily average could be as low as 315 ppm, already up from a pre-industrial average of around 280 ppm… The last time CO2 levels at Mauna Loa were this high, Homo sapiens did not live there. In fact, the last time CO2 levels are thought to have been this high was more than 2.5 million years ago, an era known as the Pliocene, when the Canadian Arctic boasted forests instead of icy wastes. The land bridge connecting North America and South America had recently formed. The globe's temperature averaged about 3 degrees C warmer, and sea level lapped coasts 5 meters or more higher… (Scripps Institute graph showing less than about 300 ppm CO2 for the last 800,000 years) given CO2's long lifetime in the atmosphere, the world will continue to warm to some extent; at least as much as the 0.8 degree C of warming to date is likely thanks to the CO2 already in the atmosphere. At present pace, the world could reach 450 ppm in a few short decades. The record notches up another 2 ppm per year at present pace. Human civilization developed and flourished in a geologic era that never saw CO2 concentrations above 300 ppm. We are in novel territory again and we show no signs of slowing to get our bearings, let alone stopping” (David Bielo, “400 ppm: carbon dioxide in atmosphere reaches prehistoric levels”, Scientific American, 9 May 2013: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/400-ppm-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-reaches-prehistoric-levels/ ).

BROOK. Professor Barry Brook (Sir Hubert Wilkins chair of climate change and director of climate science at the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute ) (2009): “If the planet is like an oven, it's still possible to turn down the temperature. The number is 300 and the methods will be extraordinary. In 2007, a climate awareness campaign was launched by well-known environmental author Bill McKibben. It was coined 350.org, with the slogan "350 is the most important number on the planet". The figure refers to a target concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, in parts per million (ppm). This number was drawn from a recent study by a team of climate scientists, led by NASA's Dr James Hansen ... But there is another, more surprising, problem with 350. It's the wrong number. While 350 ppm should give us a reasonable shot at avoiding more than two degrees of warming, that's hardly a safe future to be aiming for. We need only to look at the impacts at less than one degree to know we're already committed to some tough adaptation problems … A target of 300 to 325 ppm CO2 - the levels of the 1950s - is necessary if we wish to cut additional warming and start to roll back the already damaging impacts. As such, 350 is not a target, it's a signpost to a goal. So we're aiming at 350 but the real goal is 300 and we're already at 385” (Professor Barry Brook, “Six degrees of separation”, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 March 2009: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/earth-hour/six-degrees--of-separation-for-the-planet-20090324-984c.html ; Professor Barry Brook, “BraveNewClimate.com: http://bravenewclimate.com/ ).

COX. Lisa Cox (Guardian environment journalist) (2018): “Temperature rises as a result of global warming could eventually be double what has been projected by climate models, according to an international team of researchers from 17 countries. Sea levels could also rise by six metres or more even if the world does meet the 2 degree target of the Paris accord. The findings, published last week in Nature Geoscience, were based on observations of evidence from three warm periods in the past 3.5m years in which global temperatures were 0.5-2 degrees above the pre-industrial temperatures of the 19th century [Holocene thermal maximum, 5,000 to 9,000 years ago; last interglacial, 116,000 to 129,000 years ago, and the mid-Pliocene warm period, 3m to 3.3 m years ago]. The researchers say they increase the urgency with which countries need to address their emissions. The scientists used a range of measurements to piece together the impacts of past climatic changes to examine how a warmer earth would appear once the climate has stabilised. They found sustained warming of one to two degrees had been accompanied by substantial reductions of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and [long-term] sea level rises of at least six metres – several metres higher than what current climate models predict could occur by 2100” (Lisa Cox, “Global temperature rises could be double those predicted by climate modelling”, The Guardian, 6 July 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/06/global-temperature-rises-could-be-double-those-predicted-by-climate-modelling ).

DAVIES. Dr Geoff Davies (geophysicist, author of “Economia: New Economic Systems to Empower People and Support the Living World” , Senior Fellow in geophysics at the Australian National University and has authored 100 scientific papers and a scientific book, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union) (2011): “In a new scientific paper (pdf, 600kb) prominent climate scientist James Hansen and his colleague Makiko Sato argue that the Earth is now at least as warm as it was between earlier ice ages, and further warming by even one degree celsius could result in sea level rising by anything from 5 to 25 meters, with perhaps 5 meters rise by the end of this century. This implies more stringent limits than current, politically-adopted targets to keep warming below two degrees celsius and atmospheric carbon dioxide content below 450 parts per million (ppm). Hansen now says the present targets are “prescriptions for disaster”, and that we must keep warming to less than one degree. This requires reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide to less than 350 ppm, from its present value near 390 ppm, as quickly as possible. Meeting the new targets would require very rapid reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and active efforts to withdraw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Bio-sequestration (using plants to build carbon in soil) is an option that can be undertaken immediately… The old targets, limiting the temperature increase to less than 2 degrees celsius and carbon dioxide to less than 450 ppm, were based on ice core records, which indicated that two previous interglacial periods, about 120,000 and 400,000 years ago, were 2.7-3.7 degrees celsius warmer than the Holocene. The figure below shows two estimates of ice-age temperatures (red) compared with the same reference calculation (blue) based on known ice extents and greenhouse gas concentrations. Panel (a) shows ice-core estimates, featuring quite high peaks in several of the more recent interglacials. At those times sea level was 5 metres or more higher than now. However Hansen and Sato now argue that the ice core record is affected by extra regional warming over the polar ice sheets, and it is not representative of the globe as a whole. They argue the deep sea sediment record is more globally representative, and this shows the earlier temperature peaks to have been no more than 1 degree warmer than now, as can be seen in Panel (b). So in this interpretation, [interglacial] sea level was 5 metres higher despite the temperature being no more than one degree higher than now” (Geoff Davies, “Global warming danger: catastrophic?”, On-line Opinion, 8 February 2011: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11588 ; ) [Editor note: plus 2C is now unavoidable, plus 1.5 C is predicted within 4-10 years and plus 1.2C was reached in 2016 - WMO, “Provisional WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 2016”, WMO, 14 November2016: https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/provisional-wmo-statement-status-of-global-climate-2016 ].

DI-APING. Ambassador Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping. briefing to Civil Society NGOs, 11 December, 2009: “The first fundamental that we have to agree on at 5(4) is the issue of the 1.5 degree Celsius and the 350 ppm [CO2]. And the centrality of this is because a deal that cannot save God, humanity and nature is not a deal that we should entertain in the first place. Those who articulated a perspective and tried to persuade us that the 2 degrees Celsius is a sound choice have made a trade off between life, humanity, and profit-seeking pursuits. It has no base in science. The very reports that they try to persuade us that they are based on, do not support their case. The IPCC AR4 [4th Assessment Report] says that two degrees Celsius will result in Africa warming up to 3.5[C] and the small islands states equally being threatened by the sea level rise. I will say this and I will say it with absolute conviction. Two degrees Celsius is certain death for Africa, is certain devastation of island states” ( Cory Morningstar, “The most important COP briefing that no one ever heard – truth, lies, racism and omnicide”, The Art of Annihilation, 11 Decemebr 2012: http://www.theartofannihilation.com/the-most-important-cop-briefings-that-no-one-ever-heard-truth-lies-racism-omnicide/ ).

FISCHER. Hubertus Fischer, Katrin Meissner [and 57 other climate scientists] (2018): “Over the past 3.5 million years, there have been several intervals when climate conditions were warmer than during the pre-industrial Holocene. Although past intervals of warming were forced differently than future anthropogenic change, such periods can provide insights into potential future climate impacts and ecosystem feedbacks, especially over centennial-to-millennial timescales that are often not covered by climate model simulations. Our observation-based synthesis of the understanding of past intervals with temperatures within the range of projected future warming suggests that there is a low risk of runaway greenhouse gas feedbacks for global warming of no more than 2 °C. However, substantial regional environmental impacts can occur. A global average warming of 1–2 °C with strong polar amplification has, in the past, been accompanied by significant shifts in climate zones and the spatial distribution of land and ocean ecosystems. Sustained warming at this level has also led to substantial reductions of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, with sea-level increases of at least several metres on millennial timescales. Comparison of palaeo observations with climate model results suggests that, due to the lack of certain feedback processes, model-based climate projections may underestimate long-term warming in response to future radiative forcing by as much as a factor of two, and thus may also underestimate centennial-to-millennial-scale sea-level rise” (Hubertus Fischer, Katrin Meissner [and 57 other scientists] , “Paleoclimate constraints on the impact of 2^oC anthropogenic warming and beyond”, Nature Geoscience, volume 11, pages 474–485, 2018: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0146-0 ).

Professor Hubertus Fischer ( University of Bern; one of 59 co-authors of Hubertus Fischer et al. , “Paleoclimate constraints on the impact of 2^oC anthropogenic warming and beyond”, Nature Geoscience, volume 11, pages 474–485, 2018: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0146-0 ) (2018): “Observations of past warming periods [Holocene thermal maximum, 5,000 to 9,000 years ago; last interglacial, 116,000 to 129,000 years ago, and the mid-Pliocene warm period, 3m to 3.3 m years ago] suggest that a number of amplifying mechanisms, which are poorly represented in climate models, increase long-term warming beyond climate model projections… .This suggests the carbon budget to avoid 2°C of global warming may be far smaller than estimated, leaving very little margin for error to meet the Paris targets” (Professor Hubertus Fischer quoted in Lisa Cox, “Global temperature rises could be double those predicted by climate modelling”, The Guardian, 6 July 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/06/global-temperature-rises-could-be-double-those-predicted-by-climate-modelling ).

GLIKSON. Dr Andrew Glikson (an Earth and paleo-climate research scientist at Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) (2009): “For some time now, climate scientists warned that melting of subpolar permafrost and warming of the Arctic Sea (up to 4 degrees C during 2005–2008 relative to the 1951–1980) are likely to result in the dissociation of methane hydrates and the release of this powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere (methane: 62 times the infrared warming effect of CO₂ over 20 years and 21 times over 100 years) … The amount of carbon stored in Arctic sediments and permafrost is estimated as 500–2500 Gigaton Carbon (GtC), as compared with the world’s total fossil fuel reserves estimated as 5000 GtC. Compare with the 700 GtC of the atmosphere, which regulate CO₂ levels in the range of 180–300 parts per million and land temperatures in a range of about – 50 to + 50 degrees C, which allowed the evolution of warm blooded mammals. The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has already added some 305 GtC to the atmosphere together with land clearing and animal-emitted methane. This raised CO₂ levels to 387 ppm CO₂ to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO₂ levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres. There is little evidence for an extinction at 3 Ma. However, by crossing above a CO₂ level of 400 ppm the atmosphere is moving into uncharted territory. At this stage, enhanced methane leaks threaten climate events, such as the massive methane release and fauna extinction of 55 million years ago, which was marked by rise of CO₂ to near-1000 ppm” (Dr Andrew Glikson, “The Methane Time Bomb and the Triple Melt-down", Countercurrents, 2009 : http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm ).

GOREAU. Dr T. Goreau (Jamaica delegation climate change expert making a scientific and technical briefing to the Association of Small Island States, UN Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, December 7-18, 2009, President of the Global Coral Reef Alliance, an international NGO for restoration of coral reefs, and a member of the Jamaican delegation to UNCCC; previously Senior Scientific Affairs Officer at the United Nations Centre for Science and Technology for Development, in charge of Global Climate Change and Biodiversity issues, where he contributed to the original draft of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ) (2009): “Summary. The long-term sea level that corresponds to current CO2 concentration is about 23 meters above today’s levels, and the temperatures will be 6 degrees C higher. These estimates are based on real, long term climate records, not on models. We have not yet felt the real impacts of the current excess of greenhouse gases produced by fossil fuels, and the data shows that they will in the long run be many times higher than IPCC models project. In order to prevent these long term changes, CO2 must be stabilized at levels below preindustrial levels, around 260 parts per million. CO2 build up must be reversed, not allowed to increase or even to be stabilized at 350 ppm, which would amount to a death sentence for coral reefs, small island developing states, and billions of people living along low lying coast lines. The good news is that all tools for reversing global warming and reducing CO2 to safe levels are ready, proven, and cost effective, but are not being seriously used due to lack of polices and funding” ( Dr T. Goreau, “What is the right target for CO2? 350 ppm is a death sentence for coral reefs and low lying islands, the safe level for SIDS [Small Island Developing States] is around 260 parts per million [ppm]”, scientific and technical briefing to the Association of Small Island States, UN Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, December 7-18, 2009: http://www.globalcoral.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/aosis_briefing_2009.pdf ).

HANSEN. James Hansen et al. (2013): “We assess climate impacts of global warming using ongoing observations and paleoclimate data. We use Earth’s measured energy imbalance, paleoclimate data, and simple representations of the global carbon cycle and temperature to define emission reductions needed to stabilize climate and avoid potentially disastrous impacts on today’s young people, future generations, and nature. A cumulative industrial-era limit of ∼500 GtC [1,835 Gt CO2] fossil fuel emissions and 100 GtC [367 Gt CO2] storage in the biosphere and soil would keep climate close to the Holocene range to which humanity and other species are adapted. Cumulative emissions of ∼1000 GtC [3,670 Gt CO2], sometimes associated with 2°C global warming, would spur “slow” feedbacks and eventual warming of 3–4°C with disastrous consequences. Rapid emissions reduction is required to restore Earth’s energy balance and avoid ocean heat uptake that would practically guarantee irreversible effects. Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice. Responsible policymaking requires a rising price on carbon emissions that would preclude emissions from most remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels and phase down emissions from conventional fossil fuels” (James Hansen et al, “Assessing "dangerous climate change": Required reduction of carbon emissions to protect young people, future generations and nature”, PLOS, 3 December 2013: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648 ).

MEISSNER. Dr Katrin Meissner ( University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre) re Hubertus Fischer, Katrin Meissner et al. , “Paleoclimate constraints on the impact of 2^oC anthropogenic warming and beyond”, Nature Geoscience, volume 11, pages 474–485, 2018: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0146-0 ) (2018): “During that time [Holocene thermal maximum, 5,000 to 9,000 years ago; last interglacial, 116,000 to 129,000 years ago, and the mid-Pliocene warm period, 3m to 3.3 m years ago], the temperatures were much warmer than what our models are predicting and the sea levels were much higher… Two degrees can seem very benign when you see it on paper but the consequences are quite bad and ecosystems change dramatically. Climate models appear to be trustworthy for small changes, such as for low-emission scenarios over short periods, say over the next few decades out to 2100. But as the change gets larger or more persistent ... it appears they underestimate climate change” (Dr Katrin Meissner quoted in Lisa Cox, “Global temperature rises could be double those predicted by climate modelling”, The Guardian, 6 July 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/06/global-temperature-rises-could-be-double-those-predicted-by-climate-modelling ).

OESCHGER CENTER FORCLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH (OCCR). Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research (OCCR) re Hubertus Fischer et al. , “Paleoclimate constraints on the impact of 2^oC anthropogenic warming and beyond”, Nature Geoscience, volume 11, pages 474–485, 2018: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0146-0 ) (2018): “The study was coordinated by the University of Bern in Switzerland, the University of New South Wales in Australia, and Oregon State University in the United States. The compiled evidence from the past suggests that even with a global warming limited to within 2°C above preindustrial levels, as aimed at in the Paris Agreement, climate zones and ecosystems will shift, rapid polar warming may release additional greenhouse gases, and sea-level will rise by several meters over several thousand years. These observations show that many current climate models designed to project changes within this century may underestimate longer-term changes. Over the past 3.5 million years, several time intervals are known for being 0.5-2°C warmer than the so-called preindustrial temperatures of the 19th century [Holocene thermal maximum, 5,000 to 9,000 years ago; last interglacial, 116,000 to 129,000 years ago, and the mid-Pliocene warm period, 3m to 3.3 m years ago]. These intervals reveal much stronger regional warming at high latitudes than in the tropics, similar to what models predict for a 2°C global warming by the year 2100. Although not all these past warmings [specifically the Holocene thermal maximum, 5,000 to 9,000 years ago and the last interglacial, 116,000 to 129,000 years ago ] were caused by higher CO2 concentrations, they are helpful to assess the regional effect of a warming of a scale comparable to that aimed at in the Paris Agreement... Even a warming of 1.5-2°C above preindustrial levels will be sufficient to trigger substantial long-term melting of ice in Greenland and Antarctica and sea-level rise of more than 6 meters that will last for thousands of years. Rates of sea-level rise higher than those of the last decades are likely” (Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research (OCCR), “Lessons about a future warmer world using data from the past”, 25 June 2018: http://www.oeschger.unibe.ch/about_us/news/warmer_world/index_eng.html ) .

SPRATT. David Spratt (Australian climate change analyst) provides the following stark picture of a hugely insufficient decarbonisation rate in the global energy sector (2018): “To avoid dramatic climate system tipping points, the world needs to decarbonise very quickly and start drawing down the level of carbon in the atmosphere, because it’s already unsafe. As one dramatic example, in past periods when greenhouse [gas] levels were similar to the current level, temperatures were 3–6°C higher and sea levels around 25–40 metres higher than in 1900. So climate warming is now an existential risk to human civilisation, that is, an adverse outcome that would either annihilate intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential…

Global energy consumption [still rising] … Coal consumption has [possibly] peaked and is falling, but oil use is rising, and gas even more so; nuclear is down and renewables are shooting up from a low base…

The revolution in the cost of solar energy has upended the electricity market. This chart of Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy, courtesy of Business Insider, shows that in North America, the cost of electricity from new installations of solar (without storage) and wind, at $50 and $45 per megawatt hour respectively, are cheaper than gas ($60), half the cost of coal ($102) and one-third the cost of nuclear power ($148). The same fate has befallen coal in Australia…

Despite 25 years of global climate policy-making, decarbonisation rates are not within cooee of what is required. Global policy-making often bandies about a goal of full decarbonisation by 2050. That's miles too slow, because today we have no carbon budget left for 1.5C, and none left for 2C either from a sensible risk-management perspective…

[In the energy sector] annual decarbonisation rate of -3% for “zero carbon from energy by 2050” for all years between 2017 and 2050 … annual decarbonisation rate of -7.5% for “zero carbon from energy by 2030” for all years between 2017 and [2030]… actual annual decarbonisation rate of 0% to -0.5% (1965-2017)” (see David Spratt, “Our energy challenge in 6 eye-popping charts”, Climate Code Red, 17 June 2018: http://www.climatecodered.org/2018/06/our-energy-challenge-in-6-eye-popping.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateCodeRed+%28climate+code+red%29 ).

War is the penultimate in racism and genocide the ultimate in racism. It is very powerful to quote expert opinion. Thus eminent physicist Stephen Hawking on the key existential threats facing Humanity (2018): “We see great peril if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change” (Stephen Hawking, “Brief Answers to the Big Questions”, John Murray, 2018, Chapter 7). Most of the following websites alphabetically list expert opinions in 4 inter-connected key areas, namely “Reverse climate change”, “Stop lying and censorship”, “End war and genocide”, and “Free Palestine”, Everyone is invited to make use of this substantial resource and to feel free to disseminate this list to everyone they can.

REVERSE CLIMATE CHANGE

“1% on 1%: one percent annual wealth tax on One Percenters”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/1-on-1 .

“2 degrees C”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2-degrees-c .

“100% renewable energy by 2020”: https://sites.google.com/site/100renewableenergyby2020/ .

“300 ppm CO2 ASAP: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-ppm-co2-asap .

“2011 climate change course”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course .

“300.org”: . https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org .

“300.org climate crisis glossary”: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/300-org-climate-crisis

“300.org – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm CO2”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm .

“Are we doomed?”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/are-we-doomed .

“Banyule Climate Action Now”: https://sites.google.com/site/banyuleclimateactionnow/ .

“Biofuel Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/biofuelgenocide/ .

“Carbon Debt Carbon Credit”: https://sites.google.com/site/carbondebtcarboncredit/ .

“Climate crisis articles”: https://sites.google.com/site/climatecrisisarticles/home .

“Climate Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/ .

“Climate Justice & Intergenerational Equity”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/climate-justice .

"Climate Revolution Now": https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/climate-revolution .

“Cut carbon emissions 80% by 2020”: https://sites.google.com/site/cutcarbonemissions80by2020/ .

“Divest from fossil fuels”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/divest-from-fossil-fuels .

“Eco-socialism, green socialism”: https://sites.google.com/site/ecosocialismgreensocialism/

“Gas is not clean energy”: https://sites.google.com/site/gasisnotcleanenergy/ .

“Methane bomb threat”: https://sites.google.com/site/methanebombthreat/ .

“Nuclear weapons ban, end poverty & reverse climate change”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/nuclear-weapons-ban .

“Older people and climate change”: https://sites.google.com/site/olderpeopleandclimatechange/home .

“Science and economics experts: carbon tax needed and not carbon trading”, 300.org: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/sciennce-economics-experts-carbon-tax-needed-not-carbon-trading .

“Stop air pollution deaths”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/stop-air-pollution-deaths .

“Stop climate crime”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/stop-climate-crime .

"Too late to avoid global warming catastrophe": https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/too-late-to-avoid-global-warming .

“Yarra Valley Climate Action Group”: https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home .

STOP LYING & CENSORSHIP

“ABC censorship”: https://sites.google.com/site/abccensorship/abc-censorship .

“ABC fact-checking unit & incorrect reportage by the ABC (Australia’s BBC)”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/abc-fact-checking-unit .

“Boycott Murdoch media”: https://sites.google.com/site/boycottmurdochmedia/ .

“Censorship by ABC Late Night Live”: https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbyabclatenightlive/ .

"Censorship by ABC Saturday Extra": https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbyabclatenightlive/censorship-by-abc-sat .

“Censorship by the ABC”: https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbytheabc/ .

“Censorship by Crikey (Australia)”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-crikey .

“Censorship by SBS (Australia)”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-sbs-australia .

“Censorship by The Age”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-the-age .

“Censorship by the BBC”: https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbythebbc/ .

“Censorship by The Conversation”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by .

"Censorship by The Guardian Australia": https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/home/censorship-by-the-guardian-a .

"Censorship by The Guardian UK": https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-the-guardian-uk .

“Educational apartheid”: https://sites.google.com/site/educationalapartheid/ .

“Experts: US did 9/11”: https://sites.google.com/site/expertsusdid911/ .

“Expose holocaust denial & ignoring”: https://sites.google.com/site/exposeholocaustdenialignoring/Home .

“Exposing Australia”: https://sites.google.com/site/exposingaustralia/home .

“Free university education” : https://sites.google.com/site/freeuniversityeducation/home

“Lying by omission”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/lying-by-omission .

“Mainstream media censorship”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/home .

“Mainstream media lying”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/ .

“Questions Q&A won’t ask”: https://sites.google.com/site/questionsqawontask/home .

“Subversion of Australia”: https://sites.google.com/site/subversionofaustralia/home .

END WAR AND GENOCIDE

“Aboriginal Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/aboriginalgenocide/ .

“Afghan Holocaust, Afghan Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/afghanholocaustafghangenocide/ .

“Iraqi Holocaust, Iraqi Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/iraqiholocaustiraqigenocide/ .

“Afghanistan Genocide essays”: https://sites.google.com/site/afghanistangenocideessays/ .

“Art for peace, planet, mother & child”: https://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/ .

“Bengali Holocaust (WW2 Bengal Famine) writings of Gideon Polya”: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/bengali-holocaust .

“Gideon Polya”: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/home .

“Gideon Polya writing”: https://sites.google.com/site/gideonpolyawriting/ .

“Iraq Genocide essays”: https://sites.google.com/site/iraqgenocideessays/ .

“Muslim Holocaust Muslim Genocide”: http://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/ .

“Poetry reviews by Gideon Polya”: https://sites.google.com/site/poetryreviewsbygideonpolya/ .

“Report genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/reportgenocide/ .

"State crime and non-state terrorism": https://sites.google.com/site/statecrimeandnonstateterrorism/ .

“Stop state terrorism”: https://sites.google.com/site/stopstateterrorism/ .

FREE PALESTINE

Apartheid Israeli state terrorism: (A) individuals exposing Apartheid Israeli state terrorism, and (B) countries subject to Apartheid Israeli state terrorism”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/apartheid-israeli-state-terrorism .

“Boycott Apartheid Israel”: https://sites.google.com/site/boycottapartheidisrael/.

“Gaza Concentration Camp”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/gaza-concentration .

“Jews Against Racist Zionism”: https://sites.google.com/site/jewsagainstracistzionism/ .

“Non-Jews Against Racist Zionism”: https://sites.google.com/site/nonjewsagainstracistzionism/ .

“One-state solution, unitary state, bi-national state for a democratic, equal rights, post-apartheid Palestine: https://sites.google.com/site/boycottapartheidisrael/one-state-solution .

“Palestinian Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/ .

“Palestinian Genocide essays”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestinegenocideessays/ .

"Zionist quotes re racism and Palestinian Genocide": https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/zionist-quotes .