You are here:  Home  >  Deconstructing Headlines  >  Current Article

The IPCC warns 10 more years left to prevent catastrophic climate change

By   /  October 8, 2018  /  33 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

The IPCC is an incredibly conservative body who only publish science that everyone agrees with and this (along with them not including methane release from permafrost and from the ocean floor) has been one of the great criticisms of the panel, so when they come out with a damning report as serious as their latest one, complacency, climate denial and apathy are no longer options.

    Print       Email

I’ve been following the IPCC reports on climate change since they first began and my fear has been how the worst case scenarios are becoming the only scenarios.

The IPCC is an incredibly conservative body who only publish science that everyone agrees with and this (along with them not including methane release from permafrost and from the ocean floor) has been one of the great criticisms of the panel, so when they come out with a damning report as serious as their latest one, complacency, climate denial and apathy are no longer options.

Keeping future global warming within 1.5C demands ‘truly heroic’ effort
A hard-hitting report warning the world has merely a decade to make unprecedented efforts to keep future warming within another 1.5C should end “magical thinking” about climate change, a Kiwi contributor says.

The 1.5C Global Warming Report, released today by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), estimates temperatures have already risen 1C higher than above pre-industrial averages, with the planet heating up at a rate of about 0.2C each decade.

We have 10 years left to make enormous changes to keep the planet at only a 1.5degree increase, and even if we are able to do that, the planet will be damaged in ways that can’t be healed for centuries and will make parts of the planet difficult for societies to function in.

Even the difference between what another 1.5C and 2C would bring was “earth-shattering”, said Professor Jim Salinger, a former IPCC lead author.

“For example, coral reefs would decline by 70 to 90 per cent with global warming of 1.5C, whereas virtually all would be lost with 2C,” he said.

“With a global average temperature rise by 2C above pre-industrial values, then around 400,000 of the species that we know could go extinct, the numbers for 1.5C would probably be about a third to half this number.”

The report was “unequivocal” that climate change was already transforming the planet, through extreme weather, sea level rise and impacts on coral reefs and Arctic sea ice.

Without unprecedented cuts to emissions now, the world would have fewer opportunities to develop sustainably, and be forced to rely increasingly on unproven, risky and possibly socially undesirable technologies to remove carbon from the atmosphere in the future, Hayward said.

“But to avoid climate warming above 1.5C, we have to scale up action in unprecedented ways across all sectors of our economy and everyday life, over the next 10 years.”

10 years. We have 10 years left.

Want to support this work? Donate today
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
    Print       Email


  1. CLEANGREEN says:

    So is Jacinda and her party going to join with NZ First policy (RONI) of “Rail of National Importance.” & together going to protect her child’s future by using rail and drop the love of “road freight overuse”????

    Here is why; – and we just hope jacinda gets the message here to use rail in our regions, and not just in Auckland, and use steel wheels with trains, and not use tyres, as one truck tyre uses 30 litres of oil to produce the tyre and a truck has from 18 to 32 tyres each truck.

    Steel wheels don’t pollute; – or leave black tyre dust on our polar and continental ice shelves that would cause rapid melting of the ice caps.


    When black carbon tyre particles reach the ice caps this is what happens.


  2. Nitrium Nitrium says:

    Prediction: in 10 years you’ll still be saying that, just like ~10 years ago you were also saying it (apologies if I’m mistaken). The reason I say that is that the IPCC all base their predictions on hopelessly flawed climate models (since they are crammed to the brim with assumptions) that have yet to make an accurate 10 year forecast. That said, I’m all for lowering emissions for better air quality, if nothing else, given how particulates and NOx cause all manner of health issues.

    • Sam Sam says:

      In 10 years we’ll have more old people and less capacity to deal with them because 90% of medical costs happen in the last decades of some ones life. Medical technology can barely keep up with elective surgery’s now so medical technology will only get more desperate.

    • Afewknowthetruth says:

      Sadly, the rate of planetary overheating has been greater than indicated in the past by the UNIPCC.

      There are many reasons for this, mostly political, i.e. in the past the wording of assessments was doctored so as to not rock the boat too much. Hence the numerous ‘faster than expected’ reports we have seen over recent years.

      Sadly, most people do not know the fundamental chemical and physical factors which have governed the Earth’s average temperature since the Earth first formed.

      Atmospheric CO2 at 175 ppm above the long-term average (405 ppm versus 230 ppm) and 125 ppm above the pre-industrial level does not bode at all well for the future; the overheating witnessed in recent decades is certain to continue and is likely to accelerate as positive feedbacks are increasingly activated.


    • Dave Brown says:

      Nitrium, with your head buried in the sand why worry about air pollution?

    • Mjolnir says:

      ” The reason I say that is that the IPCC all base their predictions on hopelessly flawed climate models
      We don’t need denialists invoking “flawed climate models ” because temperatures have been rising consistently over the last few years and decades. Or is everyone lying Nitrium?? Where do you get valid scientific data Nitrium that would counter the collected scientific data from NASA, NOAA, and hundreds of other sciencebased institutions?? Or are they all lying??

      Who is your source of truth Nitrium??

      • Iain McLean says:


        Nothing personal, but have chosen my reply here because;

        1. You seem to be the main perpetrator of many highly alarmist posts.

        2. You keep posting these meaningless graphs. (Looks normal to me)

        3. We have both had a lengthy conversation recently that somehow ended
        with my links on this very subject, but would take time to digest, here:

        (Worth reading)

        These links below are for everyone on these pages.
        (Especially the ‘faith based’)

        I have chosen them not only because they are short (4-5mins) but the
        information is from real experts and insiders.

        From Dr Ottmar Edenhofer – Co-Chair of the UN-IPPC who’s
        literature seems to be the “go to bible.’

        “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate
        policy is environmental policy.”

        “This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore,
        with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”

        “We redistribute de facto the worlds wealth by climate policy.”
        “What’s the Real Agenda Behind Climate Change Alarmism?”

        GreenPeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore.
        “What They Haven’t Told You about Climate Change”

        Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s
        leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.
        “Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?”

        Physicist Wal Thornhill explores whether consensus science is leading toward or away from a better understanding of climate change.
        It’s one of the greatest controversies in modern times: the question of whether human activity is the cause of changes in Earth’s climate.”
        “Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance | Space News”

        For those that need a more in depth inquiry. ( The only way)




        Martyn’s caption at top of article sums it all up nicely.

        A pure Truth Image.


        • Physicist Wal Thornhill is a physicist. Not a climate expert.

          Just as climate experts aren’t trained to operate particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider.

          Meanwhile, each year and each decade is warmer than the previous and CO2 level;s continue to increase…

        • e-clectic says:

          Another grab bag of “ABC” experts whose only idea in common is that warming to date is from anything but carbon.
          Add in some vague conspiracy theory and that’s the deniers’ case.
          If we agreed that nuclear power was the solution then we might be more accepting of the problem.

        • e-clectic says:

          @Iain – are you serious?
          The Lindzen & Moore videos are from PragerU a YouTube propaganda channel masquerading as a “University”.
          Lindzen at least puts up some agreement with mainstream climate scientists with regard to the role of CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect – but, of course, he minimises that in terms of what happens when CO2 concentration rises.
          Moore, on the other hand, proposes that CO2 has virtually no correlation to earth temperature. On the plus side, his righteous me victim closing was quite entertaining.
          They can’t both be right – so which one is it?
          As for Thornhill’s dissembling interspersed with quotes from various people sniping about the scientific process is meaningless mumbo jumbo driving at “the science isn’t settled” mantra, what can one say? It’s not 2005 any more.

  3. Andrew says:

    Ten years? Unfortunately we’ve been here before.

    In 2006 Al Gore said that within ten years we’d be in a “planetary emergency”. Since then we’ve had essential no temperature rise and for the last two we’ve seen some slight cooling.

    In 2009 Prince Charles said we have “Just three years left to save the planet from climate change”

    This is the problem with ‘crying wolf’ – not many are gullible enough to believe them anymore.

    • John W says:

      “Crying wolf”??????????.

      Broad based and expert evidence is needed Andrew.

      Cherry picking does nothing.

      You just haven’t been at 406 ppm of atmospheric CO2 in your lifetime nor for many thousands of years


    • e-clectic says:

      @Andrew – can you cite your references?

      “In 2006 Al Gore said that within ten years we’d be in a “planetary emergency”. Since then we’ve had essential no temperature rise and for the last two we’ve seen some slight cooling.”

      Essentially no rise since 2006 and slight cooling in the last two years? Seriously? Let me guess, some cherry-picked data published on WattsUpWithThat?

      From UK Met Office:

      Dr Colin Morice of the Met Office Hadley Centre said: “The global temperature figures for 2017 are in agreement with other centres around the world that 2017 is one of the three warmest years and the warmest year since 1850 without the influence of El Niño.

      “2015, 2016 and 2017 were the three warmest years in the series. In addition to the continuing sizeable contribution from the release of greenhouse gases, 2015 and 2016 were boosted by the effect of a strong El Niño, which straddled both years. However, 2017 is notable because the high temperatures continued despite the absence of El Niño and the onset of its cool counterpart, La Niña.”


      Still waiting for your explanation of the cause of global warming since 1800s.

    • dennis dorney says:

      Andrew, I find it difficult to believe that any one doubts the sincerity of the scientists who compile these reports. It is just possible to believe they are wrong but their good intentions must be beyond doubt. What possible motives can they have to fill reports with malicious intentions. The malice comes from the unbelievers on your side of the debate who may be hoping to maintain their dividends from the oil industry.
      The scientists say that we have ten years to get it right; that only a supreme act of will by ALL of us can save human society. I dont know your motives but I strongly resent your messing with my life. For sometime now I have foreseen this and have been making such sacrifices as I can. I have been doing this as much for you as for me (I am 78 and may miss the worst). I would appreciate as much from you.

    • Mjolnir says:

      With more energetic storms and droughts, I’d say we were well on the road to a “planetary emergency” Andrew. You simply haven’t the wit to understand this. Like the Dodo, you don’t seem to comprehend the threat that is right in front of you.

      And still CO2 and temperatures continue to rise.

  4. Afewknowthetruth says:

    Preventing further overheating of the Earth and further acidification of the oceans is not compatible with the growth requirements of the globalised financial-economic system.

    Thus far the financial-economic system has always taken precedence over the environment. Is there any reason to think that will not be the case in the future?

    • CLEANGREEN says:

      Andrew will be while he has time growing gills so he can be aquatic then?

      They are just ‘a ship of fools’ as now the lowering of our oxygen levels as the CO2 levels also rise will stop our food supply from sustaining us by then.


      Atmospheric Oxygen Levels are Decreasing
      Oxygen levels are decreasing globally due to fossil-fuel burning. The changes are too small to have an impact on human health, but are of interest to the study of climate change and carbon dioxide. These plots show the atmospheric O2 concentration relative to the level around 1985. The observed downward trend amounts to 19 ‘per meg’ per year. This corresponds to losing 19 O2 molecules out of every 1 million O2 molecules in the atmosphere each year.

  5. Marc says:

    Going by the complaining in the MSM and also at work places all over NZ Inc, that being about the too high petrol prices, would anybody expect the bulk of voters to actually take the IPCC reports seriously?

    The majority of people I see every day are more worried about their four wheels and the price of petrol to get from A to B, than they would be worried about global climate change, let alone do anything about it.

    It is business as usual, and we are heading towards the abyss, in the end they all stand in a circle and point the finger at the person behind them. Who was to blame, will be the question asked in a decade or two, when we will have runaway climate disaster.

    People are locked into a totally unsustainable energy system, nobody wants to make a sacrifice or move first, and GROWTH will be what governments and business will preach, until it all ends in mass starvation, wars, civil wars, looting, perhaps even cannibalism, as some will not find any food but dead humans.

  6. Afewknowthetruth says:

    Martyn wrote: ‘complacency, climate denial and apathy are no longer options’.

    NITRIUM and ANDREW demonstrate yet again that for some people denial of reality is an option.

    Indeed, they demonstrate a greater level of denial reality than even the mainstream media.

    ‘The six hottest years have all occurred since 2010 and 17 of the 18 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001.


  7. Marc says:

    The PM is ‘hugely concerned’ about petrol prices:


    I watched and heard her on MSM this morning, offering no real answers or solutions. So the pressure by the motorists driving fossil fuel powered cars is mounting, and the government seems to give in under the pressure.

    How the hell can you address the climate change crisis, without making petrol so expensive, it will no longer incentivise people to buy fossil fuel powered vehicles?

    You cannot have it both ways, I fear.

    And all this talk about research, science and technological solutions, that do not even exist yet, and that are not even economical, is just day dreaming stuff.

    • Andrew says:

      I applaud the increase in fuel price because it achieves two commendable objectives:

      1. It will help push poor people off the highway thus clearing the road for the wealthy, such as myself.

      2. It will drive a massive wedge between the Labour Party and the lower classes – excellent news for the next election.

      • John W says:

        Andrew – you should get a prize, which would have nothing to do with humanity.

      • Mjolnir says:

        Spoken like a true blinkered National/Act supporter Andrew. Never let facts get in the way of partisan politics, eh?

        Meanwhile CO2 levels are increasing.

  8. CLEANGREEN says:

    Oil Companies will kill people before giving up their constant need to keep selling of their dirty oil.

  9. CLEANGREEN says:

    This is our open letter to the PM Jacinda today so Jacinda please read/hear of this letter today.

    9th October 2018.
    TO all rail stakeholders,
    Subject; New Zealand’s challenge to achieve climate resilient development
    This am we watched PM Jacinda Ardern struggle with the questions asked of her during the AM show as Duncan Garner asked Jacinda “what is the time line has the Government set for changes to our carbon emissions to save our future” and Jacinda you were definitely struggling with an answer.
    Here is a simple method to counter that question. The answer was given by the other guest on the AM show after you PM by Bronwyn Hayward is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Canterbury Hayward was New Zealand lead author serving on UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    Professor Bronwyn Haywood said that we need to now to “change the way we move our freight and ourselves around our country”.
    Phil Twyford was also on the news on the AM show this morning 9/10/18 announcing that millions will be put into the upgrading of the Wairarapa rail line service for freight and passenger services, – so hurray to Phil for this, our committee applauds you for restoring regional rail policy finally, – so HB/Gisborne requires the same level of funding at least to adequately restore our ‘rundown rail services too, and we need passenger rail returned to Gisborne Napier regions as the elders and young can travel safely again by rail as our roads are unsafe with a very high ‘truck freight industrial activity’.
    Quote; “Wairarapa rail tracks are getting a major funding boost and upgrade.”
    This morning Transport Minister Phil Twyford announced a $96 million investment, which includes $50m for track infrastructure and the rest for double-tracking between Trentham and Upper Hutt.
    He said it would help grow the region’s economy and tourism.
    Without the investment, the line would deteriorate and cause delays and disruptions for commuters, Mr Twyford said.
    “Passengers have a right to expect a safe and reliable service, and this investment will ensure the long-term future of this route.”
    Mr Twyford said the investment could have spinoffs into other investments.
    It would give the Greater Wellington Regional Council more confidence to invest in upgrading and improving the line’s rolling stock, he said.
    Work on the Wairarapa rail line was expected to start in April next year.

    “They would have the versatility to support the regional routes, as well as providing extra capacity on the Wellington services.”
    Transport Minister Phil Twyford said “the Labour-led Government was committed to developing a transport system that embraced all modes of transport. – “This includes looking at increasing investment in public transport.”
    Our Regional request; to NZ Government;
    We in HB/Gisborne also now require the same “freight and passenger services” be restored to Gisborne Napier line, so our freight and passenger services once again can be connected to “the capital connection” and all other export ports for our own “economic and wellbeing health & security” is assured for the future please.
    Below are the coverage of Bronwyn Haywood’s speech that was covered by the media to support transport changes we are supporting now with a plan to return to cleaner less carbon emitting rail freight and passenger services model.
    CEAC answer to transport emissions reductions.
    Use steel wheels with trains, and not use tyres, as one truck tyre uses 30 litres of oil to produce the tyre and a truck has from 18 to 32 tyres each truck.
    Steel wheels don’t pollute or leave black tyre dust on our ice shelves and will cause rapid melting of the ice caps.
    When black carbon tyre particles reach the ice caps this is what happens.

  10. Afewknowthetruth says:

    Unsurprisingly, many scientists have criticised the latest UNIPCC report for failing to include numerous factors that have the potential to speed up the rate of planetary meltdown and cause even greater catastrophe that indicated in the report.

    For instance, the Guardian has reported:

    “As ice sheets melted after the last glacial period, there were times when sea level rose at a rate of more than three metres per century, an order of magnitude faster than the current rate,” he said. “This implies that there are situations in which ice sheets can melt much more rapidly than they have over the period we have been observing them. We should be very cautious about disturbing these sleeping giants.”

    Another issue with melting ice is that it uncovers and destabilises permafrost. This layer is known to contain vast quantities of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas with a warming effect many times that of carbon dioxide. Melting permafrost will release that gas into the atmosphere, with unpredictable consequences.’


    What is not mentioned in the Guardian article (nor, to my knowledge, anywhere else except on Internet blogs) is that once the bulk of the ice floating on the Arctic Sea melts, not only will more heat be absorbed but also that heat will no longer cause phase change (ice to water) but will manifest as rapidly increased temperature water temperature. That higher water temperature would be expected to result in much more heat being transferred to ice land masses currently covered with ice, and speed up another positive feedback.

    All this is rather academic because the attitude of governments is generally nothing short of appalling, as demonstrated by the Australian government, which has already rejected the IPCC report and declared it will encourage the continued burning of coal, despite Australia being in the frontline when it comes to overheating and its consequences.


  11. mosa says:

    Simple the planet will be trashed because of the same old problems keep getting in the way.

    Short term reactions
    Political expediency
    Powerful agendas
    Utter stupidity

    In short i think we can safely predict we will in twenty years be arguing , when we are feeling the severity of the effects , who do we blame for all this and when do i get compensated.

    • Mack says:

      That list quintessentially describes the attributes of your average “climate scientist” .

    • Afewknowthetruth says:

      I doubt we have 20 years left. We certainly donl’t have 20 years of current political-economic-social arrangements. Indeed, there are many reasons to believe the ‘shit will hit the fan’ in less than 10 years….well the shit is hitting the fan already but I mean really nasty stuff.

      For instance, atmospheric CO2 has been doing very strange things recently, not following the normal seasonal pattern.


      The there is the Arctic sea ice cover, which is very unusual for this time of the year, to say the least, i.e. ice failing to form at anything like the normal rate.


      To catalogue all the unprecedented extreme events and disturbing trends would take the rest of the day.

      Your list sums up human failings succinctly.

      Let’s remind everyone what one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century said.

      “Only two things are infinite, the universe and humans stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” -Einstein


  12. phillip ure says:

    the aspect of this you all dance around/ignore/de-platform..(and it has always been thus..)

    i know y’all don’t give a flying fuck about the cruelties inflicted on the animals you just ‘have to eat’..

    (i mean – how fucken piss-weak you all are – can’t even think about giving up that addiction..?..to save the planet you so earnestly declare to so care about..?…bullshit on a fucken stick..all of ya..!,,and hey..!..it isn’t fucken heroin..eh..?..it isn’t that hard to do..)

    but it’s getting harder and harder for you to ignore the environmental outcomes from your animal-eating – and that’s only gonna get more so..


You might also like...

I have no time today for the complaints of non-unionized teachers or unionized baby thieves

Read More →