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.
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You found an unpublished paper by an economist!!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
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
In *your part* of Canada. They are moving, because their habitat is being destroyed. By climate change.
Oh that explains the 50% rise in the population over the last couple of decades then. Boy, sure glad we know it's climate change that's encouraged them to have increased litter sizes and population growth.
Om, nomnomnom...