Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Could Exceed 1.5C Within Five Years, Report Says (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Global warming could temporarily hit 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for the first time between now and 2023, according to a long-term forecast by the Met Office. Meteorologists said there was a 10% chance of a year in which the average temperature rise exceeds 1.5C, which is the lowest of the two Paris agreement targets set for the end of the century. Until now, the hottest year on record was 2016, when the planet warmed 1.11C above pre-industrial levels, but the long-term trend is upward. In the five-year forecast released on Wednesday, the Met Office highlights the first possibility of a natural El Niño combining with global warming to exceed the 1.5C mark. Climatologists stressed this did not mean the world had broken the Paris agreement 80 years ahead of schedule because international temperature targets are based on 30-year averages. Although it would be an outlier, scientists said the first appearance in their long-term forecasts of such a "temporary excursion" was worrying, particularly for regions that are usually hard hit by extreme weather related to El Nino. This includes western Australia, South America, south and west Africa, and the Indian monsoon belt.
If it doesn't hit 1.5C in 5 years, can I criticize the prediction. Well no. They did day "maybe." No matter what happens, they get to claim victory. Nothing presented is falsifiable. No matter what you think of global warming, that ain't science.
Nobody will remember the wrong prediction. And so it continues...
A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products
The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy-sensitive applications.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...
Or free from extraneous influence
ABSTRACT: Monthly surface temperature records from 1979 to 2000 were obtained from 218 indi-vidual stations in 93 countries and a linear trend coefficient determined for each site. This vector oftrends was regressed on measures of local climate, as well as indicators of local economic activity(income, gross domestic product [GDP] growth rates, coal use) and data quality. The spatial patternof trends is shown to be significantly correlated with non-climatic factors, including economic activ-ity and sociopolitical characteristics of the region. The analysis is then repeated on the correspondingIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gridded data, and very similar correlationsappear, despite previous attempts to remove non-climatic effects. The socioeconomic effects in thedata are shown to add up to a net warming bias, although more precise estimation of its magnitudewill require further research.
https://www.int-res.com/articl...
Here's why people have stopped caring about "global warming"/"climate change" : https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
Check the dates.
Gets hot? Global warming as predicted.
Gets cold? Climate change as predicted.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Who gives a fuck about climate change?
It's pretty clear, I'm sure even you can see a trend in this graph:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/06/climate/fourth-hottest-year.html
"Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP, said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control."
Written in 1989. We are too late already. I hope Musk gets his stainless steel rocket ready soon. I heard it fell over in the wind, but I am sure it will be up to the task of getting us off this planet.
Who cares. Nobody, that's who.
If anybody actually cared about this, then humans wouldn't be on the verge of extinction.
Well, good riddance to bad rubbish. Stop pretending, it really doesn't suit you.
It means between the apocalypse and halfway being there lies just one cycle.
It means 10 years of 7% growth result in a *doubling*!
It means if you think now you should start doing something, you're already seconds from ramming into the wall.
Global politics and exponential worsening ... there couldn't be a worse combination.
Is there a doctor here? I need a bullet pulled out of my foot. A tank shell, to be precise.
--.--
P.S.: I forgot: The main cause of extinction, including human, can be observed in the rest of this /. comment section. It'll be fun seeing them go down against nature.
If you ask people around here if they are worried about a 2 to 3 degree F temperature increase, they would say they'd welcome it, especially at this time of year.
Last week it hit -35F (actual temperature, not wind chill)
Of course ots not as simple as that, climate change means preciptation patterns change and extreme weather events (floods, droughts and storms) become more common.
In recorded and prerecorded history the climate/weather problem that has killed the most people is drought.
Seems to me he was absolutely right. Humans have clearly demonstrated they are unable to control their greenhouse emissions.
McKitrick is an economist; no surprise he thinks global warming is due to economic factors. That first paper wasn't even published, it's purely an opinion piece. And the second paper completely ignores all the correlating lines of evidence from oceanic and satellite data, temperature proxies, etc etc.
That isn't what he was saying. He was saying that in ten years (1999) it would be too late to solve the greenhouse effect and after that the greenhouse effect is out of human control. So according to him (and the experts) it is too late to do anything about it. We had the chance 20 years ago, but it too late now.
According to the UN it can all be fixed by sending hundreds of millions to poorer countries.
Silly humans think they have a choice in what they do.
It's really not clear that we haven't already warmed more than 1.5C above pre-industiral. Just look at the Berkley record which goes farther back than others and includes confidence intervals. It's possible we're much closer to 2C above pre-industiral.
People often strawman the China\India argument implying people are against action to prevent increased temperatures. They do this because they are arrogant little pricks that get off defending their Chinese iPhone making overlords.
Tell China and India to get their shit together. Stop buying their garbage.
I live in a desert, and meteorologists still manage to get the weather reports wrong. So I'll take any long term forecasts for the globe with a mountain of salt.
Let me know when you don't believe whining about a snowball is a better show of science.
A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products
The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy-sensitive applications.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...
Or free from extraneous influence
Well lets forget those decades of research by thousands of climate scientists.
You found an unpublished paper by an economist!!
Clearly he must have found a bunch of issues that the climate scientists weren't aware of and had no idea how to correct for!
ABSTRACT: Monthly surface temperature records from 1979 to 2000 were obtained from 218 indi-vidual stations in 93 countries and a linear trend coefficient determined for each site. This vector oftrends was regressed on measures of local climate, as well as indicators of local economic activity(income, gross domestic product [GDP] growth rates, coal use) and data quality. The spatial patternof trends is shown to be significantly correlated with non-climatic factors, including economic activ-ity and sociopolitical characteristics of the region. The analysis is then repeated on the correspondingIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gridded data, and very similar correlationsappear, despite previous attempts to remove non-climatic effects. The socioeconomic effects in thedata are shown to add up to a net warming bias, although more precise estimation of its magnitudewill require further research.
https://www.int-res.com/articl...
Ohhh! This time he found a small (now defunct) journal and a co-author who is one of the few climate scientists who is a skeptic! (and incidentally is funded primarily by oil companies).
That totally proves that the planet isn't warming and that all those other signals like drought, shrinking glaciers, shifting plant growth patterns, ocean temperatures, etc, etc, are somehow misleading.
I stole this Sig
Bill gates and Soros will adopt all stupid sand n1ggers and bring them home to take over your shitty job.
WOLF!
You found an unpublished paper by an economist!!
Yeah that would be the same guy who showed the hockey stick was B.S. while thousands climate scientists were pushing it like the second coming
https://www.technologyreview.c...
But thank you for the Ad Hominem and the appeal to authority. Did you want to make it any clearer you don't have the intellectual horsepower to discuss the topic on your own ?
Well, will everybody shut the hell up about it, then?
Notice how they always use vague weasel words?
"May"
"Could"
"Might"
Yeah, well, the average temperature could be 1.5C colder in 5 years - and they'd still blame it on climate change.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
You were saying...
With all these so-called "witchhunts" we can expect liberal bonfires polluting the air.
That you bring up the hockey stick graph like the replican talking point it is, showsyou have zero clue. It’s a nonissue, trying to correct data and was never hidden.
I wish I could say much ado about nothing, but people like you want to misinform and FUD on a very much important issue, whether out of ignorance, political or financial gain.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
According to records, glacial recession began before the industrial era, as did the polar icecap changes as observed by British Royal Navy ships. However since 2000 there has been effectively zero warming despite record CO2 output. Warming and indusrial activity are almost completely unrelated.
You found an unpublished paper by an economist!!
Yeah that would be the same guy who showed the hockey stick was B.S. while thousands climate scientists were pushing it like the second coming
https://www.technologyreview.c...
So 20+ years ago a researcher published a graph (that got a lot of publicity), and the underlying math had some minor statistical errors that didn't actually affect the result much. And methods without the flaws have consistently produced similar graphs since.
Therefore no global warming!
Can we try "appeal to the completely irrelevant"?
But thank you for the Ad Hominem and the appeal to authority.
So you misunderstand how "Ad Hominem" work. You can criticize the person's expertise or character when it's relevant to their argument.
COMPLETELY screw up "appeal to authority". It's appealing to an authority in an unrelated field that is the problem. For instance, appealing to the authority of a climate scientist about climate scientist, you're doing it right. Appealing to the authority of an economist on climate scientist... now you're straying towards "appeal to authority".
Now how do you follow up your complete ignorance of logical fallacies?
Did you want to make it any clearer you don't have the intellectual horsepower to discuss the topic on your own ?
LOL
I stole this Sig
Are you sure you don't mean degrees C rather than just C?
Agree or disagree, it's a little sad when a post quoting about something directly pertaining to TFA gets modded as "flamebait".
Humans are buggy.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
And when the quality issues were fully examined by the BEST study and Cowtan and Way it became apparent that it tended to underestimate the rate of warming.
I couldn't find it anywhere but it is 230am. Does anyone know if their research includes the coming solar minimum around 2020?
Frankly, I'm just sick of the dude. I caught myself wanting to downmod him without even having read his posts.
He sucks at marketing his points in a major way.
Maybe it's time to look at actual implementation of ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS instead of screaming "wolf" in an endless and useless fashion.
You know, do something with an actual, achievable, PRODUCTIVE OUTCOME!
All you're doing is contributing to subject matter fatigue.
... to NOT reduce literally everything to money?
Even psychopaths are horrified by your cultural mindset.
Does the rounding error matter if I blend 0.17 mol of each of the three alcohols?
Ad hominem: you served jail time for "insert your crime", hence your argument must be wrong.
Appeal to Authority: he is a professor (about greek history) and you are mechanics, so his few about climate change must be right, and you are wrong.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It's certainly too late to prevent it completely, as it's been having observable effects for a decade or two now. The CO2 we've emitted over the last 30 years will be affecting us for another century or so. It's never too late to avoid further effects though.
It sounds like you're interpreting his words to mean we'd hit a runaway greenhouse effect by 2000. Back then that was a possibility, but was far from certain. These days, research suggests that's pretty unlikely - unless we pump another 200-300 ppm into the atmosphere, then all bets are off again.
Weather isn't climate.
And you're a moron if you think your local weather is particularly relevant on the global scale or that any relevant conclusions can be made from looking at your little local data point and that alone. It's like trying to predict the temperature in your house by looking at the temperature in the oven. Fucking tool.
Well lets forget those decades of research by thousands of climate scientists.
How much of that research is based on 'adjusted' data sets? Who is using the actual underlying raw data, and using it properly?
One frustration isn't whether there's global climate change or not, it's that all of the noise is coming from people that wouldn't know how to run an honest regression model if the future of the planet depended on it. Which is, lets face it, fucking ironic.
Another frustration is that people always act as though global warming is somehow bad. I like the sun, I like deserts and I like extreme weather events, so things are going just fine for me.
Another frustration is the sheer dishonesty of people on this topic. "We have to save the planet" or "People might die" or the old classic, "Think of my children". No, the planet will be perfectly fucking fine for quite some time irrespective of whatever the fuck humans do, your children will be fine whatever the weather and if you really care about the human race then acknowledge that the planet can't support the population it's going to have (and will eventually be eaten by the sun) so fuck global warming and invest properly in space exploration and colonisation.
You found an unpublished paper by an economist!!
Economists, with all their flaws, idiocies and demonstrable wrongness still somehow manage to retain greater credibility than climate scientists. That's pretty fucking damning.
Not really. The miscibility is different for different alcohols, so the reaction might be faster for one alcohol than another. With the HONO decomposing and forming gas, there is less opportunity for the esterification to happen but not much. If you make too much excess HONO, you end up with lousy yield for whatever reasons. i.e. don't go far past 1:1.2 for the alcohol:HONO ratio.
I'm not even sure to whom you are replying, but damn you, I smiled when I read your post :)
At what point will it suddenly change into a different "theory", denying it was ever different than the new thing?
Will we witness a bug purge of academia from people who will still believe in AGW?
More lies from the alarmists. They are getting desperate now. Their models have been wrong EVERY TIME so far.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
It's like predicting that your mighty stove will make a pot of tepid water boil, and ignoring a factual observation of ice cubes being formed because they are "local". Others may conclude that your stove is not up to par.
I mean, why so old when other sources show that by 2007 mcintre et al was disputed as being flawed, AND in the itnerim time many more models confirmed the hockey stick shape ? Why indeed show only something from 15 years ago ? The reader may decide if this was intentional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Have all the good scientists quit and been replaced by teenage bloggers?
He already went back on that article. Turns out, the calculations were right after all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w
Money is toxic... You need to get rid of all of your money right now, or it'll poison you in 20 years. Just sent it over to me... You wouldn't want to be one of those idiots transporting your baby on top of the car would you?
How much of that research is based on 'adjusted' data sets? Who is using the actual underlying raw data, and using it properly?
Using it properly means that you have to adjust for various errors. Simple example: instead of using a wooden bucket and thermometer to measure sea temperature, ships now continuously measure temperature at inlet of cooling water. While both methods are fine, there is a small offset between the two, so if you want to use both in same graph, you need to adjust one or the other.
The raw data is still available for download, as well papers describing the methods for adjusting. If you want to propose a better adjustment method, go ahead.
. . . but that doesn't mean it will. It's called an observation, which is inert. Your panicked emotions are yours alone, and not a particularly good frame of mind from which to be exploring potential solutions.
More likely they are concluding that you're a retard since, judging from the formation of ice cubes, you're apparently looking in the freezer rather than on the stove, while thinking it's relevant somehow.
Reductio ad absurdum? Already?
But entertain us, provide an example of this bullshit being even in the same ballpark as reality.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's a violation of Lorentz invariance! I'm literally angry with rage.
Another shining example to add to the AC's reputation for wit.
If we had begun paying higher taxes and sent a lot of money to third-world countries like the Paris Accords wanted us to do, then all of this would not be happening, right?
Stop lying!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgxgkRmsF2g
https://www.nola.com/expo/news...
This woman claims she "had to" destroy a home due to sea-level rise from climate change, because "she couldn't sell it, even after reducing the price 11 times".
She bought the house just over 20 years ago. Sea level has risen 3" since then (at the most generous calculation). 3" makes this 80 year old home "unsellable"? Really?
Then check this:
https://blog.luxurysimplified....
which links to this GIS map https://www.luxurysimplified.c...
From that review, "...or fun, move to the "Historic Maps" layer and add the layer reflecting the map of 1680. The areas that are susceptible to flooding are exactly those that used to be marsh or creek. ..."
Don't build your house in a creek bed and then complain that it floods. Complain to the builder/seller that they didn't disclose your house is where water should be.
-Styopa
While cruising the Florida Everglades in air boats looking for nature drama our film producers chanced to stumble upon a polar bear. Not normally seen in these parts due to their preference for snow and ice, climate change is drawing them further south every year on their annual migration to the lemming herd feeding grounds in the southern keys. This is a rare opportunity to witness this majestic beast going about it's business, living as nature intended.
Oh oh! Looks like there's a hungry alligator that's not about to give up it's meal! This could mean trouble!
That was written by this guy. Respectfully, you might want to check your sources more carefully from now on.
Setting fire to railroad tracks needs to come to an end now.
Climate change policy is about how we redistribute the world’s wealth.
--Ottmar Edenhoffer
The leading global expert on climate change policy, working for the IPCC, who produced the reports which informed the Paris Agreement drafting committee has been quite outspoken about the actual impact and goals of climate change research.
But one has to be clear: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy.
First Source.
Entertained yet? Is the leading expert on climate change policy who has been employed or advised nearly every major committee or conference enough to constitute "even in the same ballpark as reality?"
The other point is this:
For each X of increased temperature there is a DOUBLING of C02 required.
That means it's literally impossible for there to be a runaway greenhouse effect without infinite c02.
We will run out of stuff to burn before we get anywhere near 4 or 5 doublings of the quantity of carbon dioxide
For reference: we're at 450 right now.
1x doubling is 900
2x is 1800
3x is 3600
4x is 7200
5x is 14400
Those numbers are starting to get astronomically big,.
Fuck right off you disingenuous, lying, piece of shit.
CFLs fail often and fail fast! I've had dozens of failures over the years.
I stopped buy CFLs a several years back due to their terrible performance. Instead I opted to pay EVEN FUCKING MORE for LEDs and the failure rate on those may well be on par with the CFL failure rate, at thrice the cost. Light emitting diodes may last for a very long time, but the drivers necessary for them to work in bulbs burn out in no fucking time.
So, fuck right off you lying disingenuous piece of shit.
You clearly don't understand how science works. The IPCC reports are based on TENS OF THOUSANDS of studies. So for you to point at one or two (or even a dozen) papers and say, "those don't work, so it's all fake" tells me that you either don't understand science, or you're intentionally trying to make shit up.
I don't respond to AC's.
It's fairly simple to cut your individual emissions to about 1/10th of what they were. I personally cut mine to 1/20th, by some fairly simple measures. And, bizarrely, almost all of the actions taken SAVED ME MONEY.
Things like buying some solar panels in bulk (my house was built in 2000, so it can support solar panels and the electrical has to be able to deal with it. Replacing an old gas furnace with a more efficient two-phase one (the old one only had instant on full blast fans), replacing lightbulbs everywhere (dramatic drop from that, my new LEDs even include external floods that are way brighter than the old incandescent ones, but use 1/6th the energy, trick is to buy them in bulk when they have sales and replace from the ones left on the most to the ones used the least), new fridge/stove/washer/dryer (pro tip: buy the most efficient one, even if you don't get a discount from your utility, surprised how much that saved.
We can rapidly remove all tax exemptions, deductions, and exclusions for all fossil fuel infrastructure. It's about 90 percent of the DOE budget. And create jobs - solar and wind combine very well for a good power curve, and they create a lot of local jobs and income stream for farmers and ranchers. Just covering irrigation canals with solar panels reduces evaporation and reduces salt impact on your crops.
We fought both the Nazis and Japan in WW II. We can easily do this.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Leave it to a denialist to distort the statements that people say.
This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dying or ozone hole.
He's merely differentiating using the free market to regulate gov't mandated carbon release restrictions from environmental issues. Reducing global warming with economic policy doesn't fix forests dying or ozone holes.
This may be a useful article to illustrate what the Duplicitious Coward is trying to do.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Please remember "Weather isn't climate." when pointing to "record high temps", "New hurricanes", and "Record cold Winter" As those are weather as well.
Chaos theory is described as a butterfly flaps its wings in China and there is a hurricane in Florida. As such, the climate is a chaotic system.
No. I'll take a man's actual words from an actual interview to determine what they said instead of some silly blog or your revisionist additions and willful ignoring of the rest of what was provably said.
I'm with the professor on this one, let them lead by example and stop using air conditioning in government office buildings.
(and the experts)
That's weird, because "The Experts" say otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqejXs7XgsU
Oh, you meant to say your lying exerts.
If you believe it's too late to do anything about it, then why are you bothering to write anything? Why are people still buying ocean front property? Why are people bothering to get a college degree? Why are people planning for retirement? Why are people getting married and having children? Yep life goes on in spite of the science mafia and leftist lies. Besides Al Gore said we would all be under water by 2013. Glub Glub. Nasa and Noa are doctoring the data every day to make the fake hockey stick - or didn't you know that. You can find pictures from 50 years ago and compare them with today and yep, no discernible difference in sea levels. Keep falling for their alarmism - that's how they get their money, hey even send them all your money if you feel you have to but leave my wallet alone. Yes, we deny your bs. Look at the book the grapes of wrath which talks about how hot was in the 30's and then wonder why we are saying it's hotter today. Nope the climate is not getting hotter, you're being lied to.
Yeah that would be the same guy who showed the hockey stick was B.S. while thousands climate scientists were pushing it like the second coming
And he was wrong then, what makes you think he is right this time?
... And the only solution is for Americans to freeze to death in the dark on public transit on their way to the tax offices to hand over their wealth for redistribution!
Until their are no more deniers. Look now you can have a consensus on your lies.
Kit up and put it in escrow, kid. Easy to bet someone else's money, isn't it? Not so easy to bet your own. Especially since you're getting 1-9 odds against you.
They insist that it hasn't lasted even 10,000 years. Others deny the climate IS changing. Others deny that AGW can cause climate change (denying climate change too)
You're a moron.
So it is meaningless for you to bullshit about that. Moreover,if we were coming out of an ice age, how come it's warmer than the MWP? Can't be coming out of an ice age when were already warmer than when you claim it was roasty-toasty, can we?
Oh, and I'd like to see your proof that we were not out of a the LIA by 1850, plz.
Hansen's 1988 paper. Go look it up 100% all in there.
Already happened. Global warming is never talked about anymore. But currently all the money is in promoting AGW. You literally CANNOT be published unless you follow the doctrine. It's religion. Not science.
Its not my revisionist additions, its the OPs removal of words in a sentence, to distort the meaning. I took the trouble to get a translation of the webpage, and then read the interview.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
You replaced a period with a comma, changing the meaning of the sentence. Then ignored this, which refutes your revision:
But one has to be clear: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.
Yeah, you are charging others with what you are guilty of and double down with ad hominem.
And since we're bitching about stuff that is not math or science, neither is anything in Economics. Oh sure, you use math to add and subtract actual amounts of money, but you cannot make laws based in economics. At best you can make some predictions, but then that's statistics which is also not math or science. There is no "law" of supply and demand. Sometimes it doesn't work because anything in economics requires the perfectly nebulous "reasonable person" which no standard person exists to calibrate against. There's just no such thing since "reasonable" is a subjective measure. Economics and stats both can also be gamed. You cannot game Newton's Laws or the Laws of Thermodynamics. Let me know when we can avoid Conservation of Energy, Lenz Laws. But your money? Your stats? Let me know then answer you want and I'll make it happen. I've worked in a calibration lab my whole life. I can make the best pressure transducer fail and make the junkiest one pass like new. Thermometers are even easier.
Why do you think the idiom "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" exists?
EWW!!!!!!! EWWW EWWW EWW!!!! You do NOT kiss a whore on the mouth. You already have a good idea where it's been, you nasty fuck.
The particular brand of stupidity on display also points to another signal vanity of our time: the conviction that if you measure things enough, you can control them. http://bit.ly/1B1VhBx
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
It's so cold in the winter and I'm still waiting for promised Global Warming ;(
Global warming is never talked
Oh christ not this again. Global warming is happening and yes it is talked about. Guess what it causes: climage cha...
But currently all the money is in promoting AGW.
wait what? OK that's new. Do you know what the GW stands for in AGW? I'll give you a clue, it's something about warming globes.
you literally CANNOT be published unless you follow the doctrine. It's religion. Not science.
Much like you can't get published unless you follow the doctrine of globe Earth. Globe-earthism isn't science it's RELIGION. The earth is FLAT! WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!!!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yeah. Hard to love the message while hating the messenger. I sort of found myself in a situation like that at work. I had to start sneaking in ideas via alternate methods than direct communication. It sort of worked. Slowly.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Dude one of these somebody has to have a good explanation for why it's legitimate to adjust a particular from a century ago that was the warmest and would still be the warmest without applying that same adjustment over at least a wide swath of the data set if not the whole thing. The whole point of the GHCN is to have a consistent methodology over time.
should read particular year.
What is the track record of these predictions being accurate?
The US Government's National Climate Assessment just came out with a report saying the worst case scenario for global climate change means the US has a 10% GDP decline over 80 years. Let's disregard the fact that an 80 year prediction is ludicrous and just take them on face value. If the worst case scenario is the US takes a 10% GDP hit over 80 years, then this is not a big problem. If someone told you that if the US had made different decisions 80 years ago, the GDP would be 10% higher, would you even notice? (Which is probably a true statement anyway.)
Or alternatively, you hate China so that's why you made up a bullshit anecdote.
Let me know when they start making predictions that are actually accurate.
Oh you didn't understand that's how science works did you ?
Why are all the high temperature predictions made when we expect the next sunspot cycle to hit maximum. There were these same predictions for 2000, 2011, 2023? My dates are approximate, and don't exactly match the actual sunspot cycle.
I am not saying that global warming is not happening, but why does all the hype happen when the sun is at this point in the solar cycle?