The future of life on Earth looks very different if the global temperature rises by 2C, as the report Monbiot cites (pretty much in line with all the other science) predicts will happen if the implementation of Paris is lacklustre.

Not that difficult.

Oh, please. It was a filler piece written by a business journalist. It does not include any timescale from Viner.

Perhaps Phil Clarke in his own words of "bollocks" could elaborate on "ad hominem" attacks, and admonish The Guardian and Skeptical Science for repeating the "bollocks" of the "97% consensus" on an "ad nauseam" basis after all..

Watts up With That have published a Time Line in response to the original one used to start this thread, and presumably Phil Clarke is incapable of responding in any other way, until his professional buddies in Climate Smearology have given him something to copy.

Watts up With That have published a Time Line in response to the original one used to start this thread

Would that be the one from Josh, where a single point Greenland stands in for the entire globe?

You're cool with that? Heh.

Fantastic illustration of the Goldilocks fallacy by Mombiot and now PC. Today (or rather sometimes in the 18th century) was the bestest, bestest for life on Earth. Any departure from that will imperil life as we know it. An increase of 2oC is nothing compared to what happened in the geological past when life thrived. All indications are that life is doing very well from any recent climate change. But the future, scary, current trends will somehow reverse and all will be doom. Give me strength.

ACK, it would be reasonable to expect people in climate science to start carrying out a Post Mortem, prior to an inquest, rather than keep denying that they killed climate science by failing to substantiate anything.

If a science can not self correct, it is not a science. Climate science keeps giving peer approval to it's own failures, without acknowledging or thanking the people such as McIntyre who have pointed out the problems. Phil Clarke would rather continue with ad hom attacks on the likes of McIntyre, but sqeals "foul" at the first hint of his own medicine. It is called hypocrisy, unfortunately Nobel Prizes are not awarded for Hypocrisy, though Mann claimed one.

Would that be the one from Josh, where a single point Greenland stands in for the entire globe?

You're cool with that? Heh.

Sep 30, 2016 at 11:17 AM | Phil Clarke

Wrong again, as anyone can see. You are overheating again. All you had to do was read, but you could not be bothered, preferring to adopt the normal Professional Climate Smearology approach.

Thank you for helping to narrow down the search for the 3% of Climate Scientists who should be listened to.

Hey, all I did was ask a question ..... you surely don't expect me to read all the woo that Watt posts up?

Phil Clarke, ad hom, ad nauseam.

QED

Why should anyone take notice of your scares about the climate changing, when your failed modus operandi never does?

ACK

2C warming puts us back into Pliocene conditions. Biome boundaries 400 km further North than at preset and sea level 30M higher.

Done slowly over tens of thousands years life can adapt. The biome boundaries can move northwards several hundred kilometres North and retreat from the 30M sea level rise.

I doubt that they can do it in a two centuries.. Can a tree which drops it's seeds at its roots move it's range by 400 km in 200 years(2km/year)?

It is not just life. Can a civilisation adapt to a 30M sea level rise?

EM. What is the evidence that 1) Pliocene sealevels were 30m higher than at present, 2) a 2oC rise would cause such a sea level rise, and 3) when will (if ever) temperatures reach +2oC, and what rate of sealevel rise would be required to reach +30m by then?

400km over 2 centuries is only 2km per year. Most plant species have ranges considerably wider than this. What major plant species only drop their seeds in the immediate vicinity? What species have been stranded so far? Any?

Your fears, even at there most extreme, are overblown.

ACK

Pliocene sea level

Pliocene temperatures

For the link between temperature and sea level go to Rohling et al 2009, Figure 2B.

When will we reach 2C?

By my calculation (my usual forcing equation) 2C above the 1880 value corresponds to 445ppm CO2. At 3mm/year increase that will be reached about 2031. Allowing for the usual 25 year lag as ocean heat content catches up I expect 2C around 2056.

That is a rate of warming of 2C in 176 years.

In the early Holocene a 5C warming in 10,000 years (2C in 4000 years) produced a 120 M sea level rise equivalent to 12mm/year. If the relationship were linear, this would imply that 2C in 176 years would ultimately produce sea level rise of 274mm/year. That would raise sea level by 30 M in 110 years.

In practice ice melt is non-linear, starting slowly and accelerating exponentially. With luck we might get longer.

It's Javier's cartoon, Phil. Much food for thought in Javier's post there and at Judy's; and Andy May's at Watts Up.
================

Javier's post is at Judith Curry's blog, Climate Etc. found @ judithcurry.com

Willis Eschenbach has threatened to blow it up, but is probably still lost in the paleoclimatology.
===================

"Geronimo, anyone turning to the opinion pages of the Independent for good science journalism was always going to be disappointed. None of the primary sources (IPCC, the literature) ever predicted the imminent demise of winter UK snowfall."

Yes, but a UK scientist did, and then when it snowed an ecoloon said that that was what global warming looked like, which is something the IPCC also didn't tell us i.e. that global warming would result in freezing cold, snowy winters.

What is it you want? Apart from coming on this blog and entertaining its denizens with your sophistry, what is your objective?

"Extreme weather events, rising oceans, and record setting temperatures are already wreaking havoc on hundreds of millions of lives and livelihoods around the world."

From the paper Phil is quoting. Extreme weather events are not increasing, temperatures have more or less flat-lined for 20 years, and are not wreaking any havoc on anyone. Sure the oceans are rising, but they've been doing that for the last 8000 years.

Do you believe all that stuff Phil?

Miner's not repentant - he said a few years, that's a ballpark timescale isn't it?

"Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.

‘This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’

So ten years ago Dr. Viner made a short-term prediction. This prediction was contradicted by shovelfuls of frosty white evidence in nine of the ten years that immediately followed. Ignoring these facts, Dr. Viner declares that three weeks of cold weather don’t mean anything and that he still believes his prediction is accurate." nofrakkingconsensu.com

Sep 30, 2016 at 7:51 PM | Entropic man
A lot of invasive species show that once established then spread can be rapid, certainly less than the 200 years you're talking about. Rhododendron, Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan Balsam and Spanish Bluebell come to mind without an internet search. So unless an imported species gets there first re-colonisation may well take decades rather than centuries. I'd also point out how quickly trees and shrubs establish themselves on waste ground and bare soil along new motorways and bypasses. Hereabouts every year there are thousands of Oak seedlings in fields spread by wild life which sometimes escape being ploughed or eaten, admittedly oak seeding requires animal/bird assistance but this is not the case for other trees such as Ash, Willow, Lime and Sycamore for instance. So i'd be optimistic about recolonization which appears not to be unprecedented.

Is this chart regarded as an accurate representation?

Geronimo

Extreme weather events are not increasing,

That turns out not to be the case.

temperatures have more or less flat-lined for 20 years,

That turns out not to be the case.

The linear trend has increased 0.38C since 1996. Hardly flat-lined.

Sandy S

The graph is about right. IIRC O years ago is 1950 in paleo graphs.Update to the present and the Holocene should be showing 1C, instead of 0.3C

It also gives me the opportunity to point out the during the last interglacial sea levels were 5-7 metres above present levels. for a ∆T of 2.5C.

There are multiple examples of higher sea levels accompanying higher temperatures, which is why I find ACKs opinion so naively optimistic.

Entropic man
Over what time frame and area are we talking for extreme weather events? Lots of major storms, worse than currently, in the UK during the LIA. Just a couple: Culbin buried in sand late 17th century, 1791/92 many severe gales in Europe (Lamb) and a wet September in 1791 (Top 10). Bearing in mind the sparsity of accurate weather records from before the 20th century I'm not convinced by modern reported extremes being worse.

Thanks for confirmation of chart. What's the issue with sea level in terms of unprecedented in history, isn't this one of the lowest peaks for a recent interglacial and doesn't need to rise a bit yet to be exceptional. The fact we choose to live close to sea level is our problem not nature's. Not being able to deal with mass migration is a human problem, if it all ends in disaster nature will have another go at creating a top species that manages to organise itself in a better fashion..Most species will survive a rise in sea level, even a rapid one, giving plenty of raw material to work with.

We need to worry when sea level stops rising. Warming will be over by then, but unless we've been hypnotized by mistaken fear of warming, cooling should be obvious long before that..
==============

EM Where did you get the idea that I don't link warmer climates with higher sea levels. Raised beaches around our coasts indicate sealevels 5m above present day levels and indicate much warmer conditions than today. The interglacial Cromer Forest Bed contains bones of hippopotamus and macaques representing a biome surely more than 400km to the south today. It is for these reasons that the most likely predictions of AGW do not exceed what has happened in past interglacials.

I was hoping you knew of evidence that sealevel.was 30m higher during the Pliocene. You don't.

Miner's not repentant - he said a few years, that's a ballpark timescale isn't it?

Read it again; he said no such thing. Surely you've heard of quote-mining? Like I said it was a filler piece in the opinion pages, completely out of step with the mainstream science.

Speaking of which, the effects of shrinking the Arctic ice cap were not well-understood in 2000, things have advanced since then...

While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia. Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation. This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters.

Source (Judith C is a coauthor btw)

So the 'ecoloon' was doing no more than passing on the latest scientific understanding,He does that quite a lot.