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
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...
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 real test of any indication of confidence is an actual wager. If they're 10% certain, they should be willing to take bets that offer 9:1 odds or better. Similarly, you should be willing to make that same wager on the other side since you're at least 90% certain that they are wrong. If either of you won't make that wager, then you're not actually as confident as you claim.
It's the old saying, "Put your money where your mouth is."
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.
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.
Anyone buying waterfront property is betting against most common models of climate change.
What the hell brand of CFL ae you using that fail so quickly? I have literally had one a CFL fail and I was 100% CFL for a decade. Anyway, why would you buy CFLs now as opposed to LEDs? I now have 75% LEDs apart from a couple of small lamps that are rarely on (halogen), on a dimmer circuit that isn't the right type for dimmable LEDs (using halogens) and in the sheds which are using three of the same CFLs I used to have in the house. I have a stock of old CFLs should I ever need to replace one.
Statistics is not a science. It is not even math.
Statistics definitely is a branch of math. You are ridiculous. You made me respond even when I do not care much about climate change. But both sides sometimes can spit such a bullshit when talking about it. One side ignores models completely because they are sometimes wrong. The other side misleads about how expensive renewables are.
For example Hansen in 1988 made projections of what would happen over the next 30 years given various CO2 emissions scenarios, and the climate has changed as projected.
List them. All of them. Be specific.
People remember the few winners and ignore the many, many predictions which are disproven.
He talks about a "hots summer" that melts perma frost in siberia in a 10km or 100km wide stripe.
And yes, that could have a catastrophic effect.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You could have at least read as far as the second sentence in the summary. They said there is a 10% chance of one year being over the 1.5C line.
And if you dig only slightly further, you can see that their model provides probabilities for a number of scenarios. That's how climate modelling works, and why denier claims that "all models are wrong" are simply nonsense.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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! --