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.
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"
"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.
The people who polar bear related jobs.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Tesla owners.
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.
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.
Whoosh.
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.
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...
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?
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
You were saying...
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
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.
That's not how statistics work
In the series 0,1,2,3,4,3,4,5,4,6,5,7,8,9,8
if you said it was a trend downwards because the last two numbers are 9 then 8 you would likely be wrong. And of course there are a few places in that sequence where the numbers reduce. When applied to climate some say "cooling", even though the average in some window (say 5 numbers in the above) keeps going up.
People who live on a planet where food production is related to climate? They might care.
Those aren't weasel words, but because those are the standard language of science since nothing is ever absolutely proved beyond doubt. Even if you think something will happen 99.9999% of the time, you use 'highly likely', specify the probability, and error bars.
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.
... to NOT reduce literally everything to money?
Even psychopaths are horrified by your cultural mindset.
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.
I'm sorry, but that's just physically impossible, period, all stop.
The absorption spectrum of CO2 is well known. You don't even need to do an experiment to show that the system will warm as the CO2 increases.
How much, atmospherically, is up for debate- serious debate given the sheer complexity of all the heat sinks this planet has. But to deny that industrial output will lead to a warming planet is unspeakably stupid. I hope you aren't allowed to breed.
Are you claiming Earth is so special that laws of thermodynamics don't apply?
Well, it is nice that I wont have to move to Southern Europe for a nice sunny retirement.
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.
I'm not even sure to whom you are replying, but damn you, I smiled when I read your post :)
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
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.
No.
They're getting paid when you click on this shit.
Thanks for playing.
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.
People with kids. Or more than 30 years to live.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Another shining example to add to the AC's reputation for wit.
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
You do know how the story ends, right?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's like loading your gun with 5 blanks and a live round.
In other words, it's all shits and giggles 'til it's right ONCE.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That was written by this guy. Respectfully, you might want to check your sources more carefully from now on.
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
I really wish I could mod this up.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
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?
At this point when it comes to climate predictions we all remember lots and lots of wrong predictions, but very few people remember any correct ones. And what ones do happen to be correct, tend to be contained in a flood of ones that weren't.
The climate is changing. But to constantly put out predictions that prove inaccurate (and alarmist) does a severe disservice to that cause. It also doesn't help that every single adjustment to past data is to move it towards predicted models, and away from actual measurements. It used to be that measurements were taken to establish the accuracy of models. Now models are made to establish the accuracy of actual measurements.
Too much politics interfering with the science.
Many studies show that a warming climate will increase available land for growing crops, specifically in the northern hemisphere. They also indicate that a warmer climate is likely to equate to longer growing seasons in those areas.
So yes, I suppose people wanting more food production should care about it...
Some people own Teslas because they like the tech, not because they're trying to make some social/political statement.
The problem is, how do you figure out which one of thousands upon thousands of BS predictions will actually be correct? We're getting awful tired of the wrong ones.
Apparently these "scientists" didn't learn anything from the story either.
How loudly would you proclaim your prediction if there was a 90% chance you'd be wrong?
Why do an actual experiment when you have computer models? If you find data that disagrees, it's the data that must be wrong, never the model.
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
When your gun has tens of thousands of rounds, even if one of them finally does turn out to be live, russian roulette stops being so risky, and people lose interest awful quick.
There are far more things we could be worrying about, with science that makes far more accurate predictions. It's a shame so much money is going to this instead of places that could make a real difference in quality of life on this planet.
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.
Its linearity was never in debate. The core physical principle was, and that is simply: Anything in the atmosphere that impedes the transmission of long-wave radiation back out to space *will* warm our atmosphere. Period. All stop.
Let us devise an experiment. You shall put a steel ball in an opaque container, shake it around a bit, and then put another ball in it. Shake it around some more, and then dump out the balls and count them.
If there are 2, then the laws of physics hold, and increased CO2 causes a decrease in output thermal radiative flux.
If there are 1, you've either got a quantum black hole in there, you only put one in to begin with, you can't count, or there's a fucking hole in the box.
None of those things changes the core law that 1+1 simply fucking equals 2.
As I said, *how much* it warms can be debated (and modeled) but modeling whether or not it will will never be done, because nobody who made it past highshool questions the core physics that make that obvious.
I'm forced to conclude that you did not make it past high school, or even pay very good attention while you were there.
Interesting that you are putting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't warming. But no favours are done by exaggerating it for sensationalist stories, and when actual measurements are changed to fit models, instead of the other way around, a LOT of credibility is lost.
If we were talking science instead of religion, it would be possible to have an intelligent discussion on the subject, however in the alarmist religion, even questioning the tiniest detail in a sensationalized press release gets you instantly labelled a "denier" instead of simply someone who wants high quality science on a very important topic.
To go back to your analogy, we put 2 steel balls in the opaque container, shook it, and then counted the balls that came out. There were still only 2, but the model said there should be 3 now, so we told everyone that there were 3 even though only 2 were actually present. There were still 2 steel balls, it was important that there were 2 steel balls, but because we lied to the world and claimed 3, many people decided that we must be lying about the whole thing and refused to admit that there was even a single ball. We then blamed them for questioning our authority instead of admitting that we exaggerated our results for political gain.
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
Like what?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
No, chief.
Nobody made a model saying there were 3. They modeled how long it would take them to stop moving, or how long it would take them to fall out.
That's the correct analogy here. And that is the level of stupidity involved with denial based upon the fact that the models are of questionable quality.
The models could be 100% wrong, and they would keep trying to fix them, because the core physics says *the planet must be collecting thermal energy somewhere*
If less than 2 balls come out of that container, you try to figure out where you fucked up your experiment, not invent new physics to make it possible for things to disappear into the void.
Let me know when they start making predictions that are actually accurate.
Oh you didn't understand that's how science works did you ?
The models could be 100% wrong, and they would keep trying to fix them, because the core physics says *the planet must be collecting thermal energy somewhere*
Except the models ARE wrong, that much has been proven repeatedly. But instead of trying to fix them, they try to fix the data that proves them wrong. It's not science, it's religion.
Unfortunately far too many "scientists" are trying to invent new physics rather than admit their computer model is wrong.
In fact your entire post is exactly the opposite of what we keep seeing. When scientific models disagree with reality, the correct answer is never to assume reality is wrong and adjust the measurements, the correct answer is ALWAYS to adjust the model to match reality.
Instead we see models that are provably wrong because they don't match reality being touted as absolute truth.
Not everyone lives in the Northern Hemisphere, let alone anywhere that will benefit. Many studies show an overall reduction in capacity to produce food.
A very important point to consider is that weeds would undergo the same acceleration of cycle as cultivated crops, and would also benefit from carbonaceous fertilization. most weeds are C3 plants, they are likely to compete even more than now against C4 crops such as corn
In the areas that are heavily dependent on water runoff from glaciers that melt during the warmer summer months, a continuation of the current retreat will eventually deplete the glacial ice and substantially reduce or eliminate runoff. A reduction in runoff will affect the ability to irrigate crops and will reduce summer stream flows necessary to keep dams and reservoirs replenished.
ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) will affect monsoon patterns more intensely in the future as climate change warms up the ocean's water. Crops that lie on the equatorial belt or under the tropical Walker circulation, such as rice, will be affected by varying monsoon patterns and more unpredictable weather. Scheduled planting and harvesting based on weather patterns will become less effective.
The US Global Change Research Program (2009) assessed the literature on the impacts of climate change on agriculture in the United States, finding that many crops will benefit from increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations and low levels of warming, but that higher levels of warming will negatively affect growth and yields; that extreme weather events will likely reduce crop yields; that weeds, diseases and insect pests will benefit from warming, and will require additional pest and weed control; and that increasing CO2 concentrations will reduce the land's ability to supply adequate livestock feed, while increased heat, disease, and weather extremes will likely reduce livestock productivity.[73]
Again, no.
The models aren't wrong in the way you're characterizing them. You're wrong in the way you're characterizing them.
The models are misjudging the amount of warming, you're trying to invent a magical way for there to be no warming where there physically must be (and there is, just different levels from what models predict)
I can't figure out if you're stupid, or maliciously trying to mislead.