Oh No

Temperature rise as concealed (rather than revealed) in the BBC Film 'Climate Facts'. The reality is 'Acceleration'.
Concealing this means either the BBC is still in denial or is now actually acting as an agent provocateur.

Temperature 'acceleration' means increasing loss-of-control

The project for ecological recovery was started in Thailand 30 years ago.

Even David Attenborough finally came out saying only a madman (or an economist) believes in infinite economic growth on a finite planet.
Now he says humans have made, "a tragic, desperate mess" of the planet, promoting recovery.

Click logo to return to 'links-page'

It has been obvious since the creation of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 that the problem of climate change is real and threatening.
Since 1992 and reflecting UNFCCC principles of precaution & equity, GCI proposed an internationally integrated response to this problem known as 'Contraction and Convergence' (C&C).

With the introduction of C&C at COP-2 in 1996, GCI also declared a climate emergency at COP-2. We all had considerable success addressing the primary problem with the C&C principle
and with the exception of support from the UK the C&C principle was widely agreed at COP-3 in 1997 and agreement continued to generate thereafter.

However, various experts and others started picking scientific, political numbers & particularly 'un-economic' numbers out of a hat, thus reducing the chances of UNFCCC-Compliance.
Now in 2019, whether there is a will to face it or not, the increasing acceleration-reality of the climate-emergency is what we face, with the increasing disintegration of politics to match.

This year, after 30 years of avoidance & equivocation about these matters, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has finally made a film called 'Climate-Facts'. It reveals that there
is a problem, but why only now do they do this? Moreover, why within this do they more conceal than reveal the change-rate-danger of acceleration we are now in?

The film shows temperature rise saying, "its all happening much faster than many of us thought possible". This is acceleration. In other words on average temperature rise is
not merely evident in the data shown, it is getting faster and faster per unit time and this acceleration is now (in 2019) undeniably evident in the data used in the movie.

While this admission alone corroborates the 'losing-control' arguments that follow, the BBC's charts conceal rather than reveal, how this curvature is already
shaping the future.

The quote from Michael Mann points at the heart of the matter; the acceleration-reality. It was the major point of contention in the UK Parliament's EAC Enquiries (2009-2013).
The All Party Group on Climate change in the UK Parliament (2006) started this enquiry in 2009. GCI evidence to EAC warned about this acceleration becoming 'out-of-control' curvature.

Now on Capitol Hill TV (03 07 2019) Michael Mann (the scientist at Pennsylvania State University quoted above), now also calls for 'world-war type mobilization' to combat climate change
“We do need a world-war type mobilization and that means putting in place incentives to move our economy as quickly as we can away from fossil fuels to renewable energy.”

The UN itself is now openly stating that, "climate-impact-events are causing death, displacement and suffering are occurring much faster than predicted.
This is not about the future, this is about today." Mami Mitzutori UN Secretary General's special representative on disaster risk reduction.

How many Billions get to Die?

************************************

This further corroborates criticisms of the handling of this issue by the UKMO in 2013 as incompetent & deliberately opaque. Positive-feedbacks were omitted & the UKMO lied under oath
to parliament to conceal that omission, continuing to model 'keeping control' curvature, whilst ecologically & politically the reality is that we have all been losing it all along the way.

The UKMO claimed to dominate preparations for IPCC AR5 with 2.0°C as the minimum temperature control target in IPCC AR5. Their evidence to Parliament in 2013 included the remark,
“we have probably contributed more model simulations than virtually any other group in the world, so we take the IPCC process very seriously” (Julia Slingo UKMO Chief Scientific Officer).

UKMO's denials about positive-feedback omissions were subsequently rebutted by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in 2016,
shortly before it was closed down in favour of the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).

However, the consequences of this approach on the 5th IPCC Assessment (AR5) of 2015 was catastrophic. No effort was made to prepare the global community for the much greater sense
of urgency introduced in the Paris Agreement, which for the first time included a temperature control target of 1.5° C, with small island states saying 1.5° C to stay alive - 1.5° to stay alive.

There is the further matter of 'Climate-Sensitivity' - it is not a universal-constant, nor just an estimated-response-to-CO2-doubling (that keeps rising), it is a response to rising temperature itself.
That is what positive feedback is about - reflexivity - & sadly a real cause for 'fear'

************************************

Despite all this the BBC film 'Climate-Facts' continues the deliberately opaque and self-exculpatory approach started by the UKMO in its preparations for IPCC AR5.

When we start from 1750 (not 1850 as shown in the BBC film) the average temperature of the planet is in 2019 already at 1.5°C above 'pre-industrial'.
Even without rebasing from 1850 to 1750, the UKMO said in January this year, we would reach 1.5° C by 2023 (Guardian February 6th 2019).

On average since 1750, the rate of increase has been acceleration throughout (shown by the 'concave' or out-of-control shape-of-the-curve) and continuing the present average rate
of rise in the absence of mitigation policy (in this chart), shows we will be at 2.0°C above pre-industrial by 2038. To avoid this emissions C&C measures are required immediately.

Since 1750 when the industrial revolution began, UK accumulated per capita missions are greater than even the USA and many many times greater than India and China.
Though half these emissions are still in the atmosphere, leading members of the UK Climate Change Committee state that, "it is not helpful to talk about the past".

However, the apex point here is that *temperature acceleration* has increasing momentum, & this is increasingly amplified by the growing influence of positive feedback-effects/emissions.
It sums as increased loss-of-control curvature. All this was omitted in the UKMO's 'climate-modelling' in the RCPs in 2013 & they removed their web-page admitting this (GCI kept a copy).

Why and for whom is the BBC now concealing this? Is it possible BBC are now acting as agent provocateur as part of a larger strategy to criminalize any public protest against climate change?
If criminal charges are to be laid against protestors against the climate-emergency accelerating out of control, the greater charge is why did the UKMO lie and deny acceleration in the EAC enquiry?

The PAST

Data (from four sources, NASA/GISS UKMO JMA NOAA) covering the past (since 1850) are super-imposed (as shown in the left-hand BBC chart above)

NOISE in the data (data-points bouncing up & down year to year), nonetheless contains SIGNAL (acceleration curvature) revealing: -

an upward trend average (1850-2019) & more importantly, but less obviously

acceleration, or an increase in the upward rate of this average rise per unit time where

this acceleration average (as shown here & below) being 'concave', increasingly equals 'loss-of-control' curvature.

UKMO pretends it is and therefore we are all supposed to belive this is keeping control with curvature to match;

which is nonsense as their own data now shows acceleration which is obviously the opposite and the killer if we continue to ignore this

So the questions are, why and for whom are the BBC doing this? It is obviously not 'keeping-control'; it is in every sense losing it.

The FUTURE

However, the future (2020 to 2100) is merely 'projected' (and not predicted) in the BBC film as flat lines continuing upward somewhere in the range shown.

In this future, a rise of between +3.5° & +5.5° Celsius by 2100 is shown with a 'linear' (flat) average to +5° Celsius by 2100 (shown in the right-hand BBC chart above).

The acceleration mysteriously disappears (citing merely that the IPCC created this chart) and while this is as arbitrary as just waving your arms about, it is actually worse.

It is seriously deceptive with respect to the matter at issue here - keeping control versus losing control.

There are five significant points here:

the already established acceleration average quite arbitrarily just disappears in the future,

combining this with the now expanded 'y' axis, has the effect of flattening PAST temperature rise,

doing this simply replicates the feedback-free RCPs, about which the UKMO lied during the EAC Enquiries

however, in this flat-line future the rise now has the appearance of showing the problem increasing SUDDENLY in the FUTURE but with acceleration throughout concealed.

and at the same time, no rates of an organised global prevention strategy are shown or even mentioned here or indeed anywhere in the BBC's film.

Again, why & for whom are the BBC doing this? It has been obvious for three decades this problem (if it can still be 'solved' at all) is not going to be solved by 'experts'
arbitrarily picking policy numbers out of their various hats, whilst also pretending all these numbers are joined up so that Developing Countries can be blamed for the future.
Is it just a coincidence that the BBC now starts broadcasting interviews with 'Western experts' who immediately start blaming India, China & Africa for this future (while excluding the US/UK)?

****************************************************************

As shown next, the signal of acceleration of the actual & also the potential temperature rise into the future (i.e. throughout) is the impartial way to address this.
The question we need to ask ourselves is why would this acceleration even slow down, stop stablize let-alone go negative in the absence of prevention policy?

The BBC Film concealed rather than revealed this most crucial indicator of the situation we are really in, where what is now needed is international acceptance
& implementation of a collective and effective non-random global zero-emissions-strategy based on precaution & equity at rates that are UNFCCC-Compliant.

****************************************************************

The chart below more correctly indicates the dilemma we are all now in; causing the problem relentlessly faster per unit time than we have been responding to avoid it.
The dilemma is that on average every time-unit of 'mitigation-policy-delay' loses at least two units of the response time left to achieve UNFCCC-Compliance.
In the absence of significant global mitigation policy, past acceleration is going to continue in future & this danger needs to be revealed not concealed.

BBC appear now to be changing their tune

To put this in the infamous RCP context,

we are now trying desperately to avoid 1.5° C as an upper global temperature limit

not the 2.0° C, as was predicated by UKMO in IPCC AR5 in 2015)

we are now on an emissions:concentrations path greater than RCP 8.5 (at rates pointed at the equivalent of the Permian Extinction)

we are not on the now defunct RCP 2.6 scenario, as was predicated by UKMO in IPCC AR5 in 2015.

****************************************************************

Here are the BP & International Energy Agency basic Fossil Fuel demand projections to 2040,
compared with global carbon-emission-control to net-zero by 2040, 2035, 2030, 2025.

If we are to have chance of avoiding the worst of the unfolding climate catastrophe, these demand projections need
to be subordinated at least to the rates of UNFCCC-compliance requirements, as now defined for 1.5-2.0°C.

This will not happen as the result of 'guesswork' or picking more numbers out of a hat.
It requires an international contraction & convergence 'framework'.

Click the next image to animate it.