Global Warming Could Exceed 1.5C Within Five Years, Report Says (theguardian.com) 319
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.
What if... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:What if... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the old saying, "Put your money where your mouth is."
Is it even possible for you US-Americans ... (Score:2, Funny)
... to NOT reduce literally everything to money?
Even psychopaths are horrified by your cultural mindset.
Re: (Score:2)
Bets don't work like that on an individual scale, because the value of money is highly non-linear. Let's take a coin toss; if I lose, I lose my house, but if I win, i get THREE more houses worth the same money as mine. Although this bet is, statistically, quite heavily in my favour, I would never take it because I really really need the one house I've got, but for more of them (or the money I could sell them for) I don't care quite as much.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got two houses. I'll take the bet.
Re: What if... (Score:2)
"The real test of any indication of confidence is an actual wager"
This is not how science works. It's not a competition.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Climate deniers
Except almost nobody denies that the climate changes and is changing. They deny that polar bears are literally in the tropics now and that changing to CFL bulbs will SAVE US ALL from Al Gore's oceanfront property being washed away two decades ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Living in Canada, we've got more polar bears then ever before. The numbers are large enough that they're pushing into brown and black bear territories. Oh, and CFL's? You mean those same CFL's that burn out in half the time of a incandescent, but require more raw materials to make. So ... great ... for the environment.
Re:What if... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously.
Their natural summer habitate does not exist anymore, so they migrate.
So ... great ... for the environment.
So you don't dispose your light bulbs properly but blame the material for environmental hazards?
Re: (Score:2)
And you miss the part of light bulbs being manufactored in factories, that usually have strict environmental rules and closed production cycles with now waste ...
Re: (Score:3)
Well, look at that. Not only are you a special kind of idiot, but one that can't even get things straight. Give you a bonus point if you can figure out where I've worked in the far north, I've said that one too. Give you a hint, it's cold and not in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Ontario.
I'm not Canadian but I HAVE been to not just Northern Canada, and Greenland, and Svalbard, and I can say with absolute certainty that yes the ice cover has drastically decreased, and yes, polar bears are suffering and dying as a result, and yes it's pushing them south into ever greater contact with humans and other species.
So which is it? The fact that counts, electronic tagging and trackers, and setting up and recording numbers through migration paths showing that the numbers are increasing. And that primary diet animals are also on an increase. Or that the studies done on it, and the fact that they show the opposite of what you just said is a lie.
You can have your opinions, but your lies are never going to work, because some of us really have seen these things with our own eyes, and your lies are never going to beat real actual experience and first hand knowledge.
I'm sure you did. So how much was the loaf of bread and milk? And why is mock chicken popular in Northern Canada. By the way, what's the difference between beaver tails and beaver tails?
Moreover populations that are predator-prey, which is almost all of them, follow cyclic patterns as prey explodes, then predators, who eat them down, then start starving themselves.
You can't just look at a few years here and there and compare it to another random segment from a previous cycle.
Thank differential equations for showing this. Stable populations are the lie.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: What if... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Weird.
It must because their population is exploding. Only explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
The Polar Bears are moving south.
Weird.
It must because their population is exploding. Only explanation.
Well, what happens when a population increases in size and then further discovers easier hunting grounds? Plenty of research on that topic among various predator species.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're moving south because the ice they used to live on is melting, and they can't walk on water... so they move to land. With is south.
Boy are you gonna be surprised when you discover that Polar Bear Provincial Park, isn't really ice but tundra. By the way, good luck visiting there it requires special access these days. Avoid the winter, and be in good health. It's fly-in only. Also don't piss off the people in Peawanuck they're pretty nice.
Woosh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Polar Bear Population on the Rise" according to new study by the University of Bad Math, Ontario.
And to think, that article is over 6 years old~ [theglobeandmail.com] And the numbers are still increasing...and they've actually increased the kill quotas a couple of times for inuits because they've become a problem.
It's like people believe whatever bullshit is fed to them, and take it for gospel truth.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean those same CFL's that burn out in half the time of a incandescent
Sorry I don't buy chinese shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I don't buy chinese shit.
So you're buying american made, packed with chinese shit then? You should crack open a CFL or LED bulb one of these days then go look at the MTBF on the various components. Boy will you be surprised when you discover the diodes are as cheap as they come with a MTBF of 250 hours. And even at that high rate of failure a company that advertises "10 year life" can send you a replacement and it still is profitable enough for them.
Re: (Score:2)
"control like solar maximums" BS, read the proper science articles and stop spouting right-wingnut "theories".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What if... (Score:3, Interesting)
I must reluctantly admire the faith of a climate fundamentalist who puts his money where his mouth is. May I ask, how have you made a real money bet on climate change?
Perhaps you bought shares in an engineering company that specializes in building dikes? Or maybe you invested your retirement funds in an inverse ETF that aggressively shorts fossil fuels? Enquiring minds want to know!
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure haven't already reached 1.5C? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't you compare crest to crest and do it over a realistic period of time - let's say 120 million years. Why 120 million years? Because that was when proto-mammals first appeared. The environment had been acceptable for mammals for millions of years before that.
Oh you think that's too long a range? How doing your chart from about 80 million years ago (when mammals appeared on
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize there was a little Ice Age at the end of the 17th C. So you're comparing the trough of a wave with a crest.
The LIA had ended by the second half of the 18thC when the Berkley temperature analysis [woodfortrees.org] starts. So there is no trough included in this graph.
Here's a longer term view [skepticalscience.com] if you like. Notice the 6000-8000 year trend back into an ice age that was dramatically reversed during the industrial revolution.
Re: What if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone buying waterfront property is betting against most common models of climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not really true.
If warming can be limited to about 2C or 3C even, there won't be much sea level rise.
Sea level rise is a danger if we fail to limit AGW ... because then Greenland or Antarctica might contribute several meters to sea level rises, depending on how warm it gets and how long the warms lasts.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to fail to grasp how the warming will occur across the planet. It wont get much warmer at the equator, the same amount of sunlight more heat trapped. It is the amount of heat trapped overnight that counts and where the wind takes that warm air. Trapped heat will tend to warm those spots the most that get the least sunlight, so the further north the worse the impact. Sea level change is also not uniform not in the least. The closer to the equator the higher sea level rise, the higher the tides in yo
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to fail to grasp how the warming will occur across the planet.
How do you come to that idea?
You are quite right, nevertheless a moderate increase to +3C or +4C will not melt much ice ... hence: except Bangladesh, Florida and Pacific islands, there won't happen much.
Re: (Score:2)
In my area, those landowners refuse to accept managed retreat and are betting that others will cover their losses. They're probably right, unfortunately.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I deny AGW because there is zero evidence.
There is boatloads of evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
It is all down to the great planetary fart. How hundreds of thousands of years of methane hydrates are released and that is down to weather extremes not so much climate. The new weather extremes capable with a warmer climate and that could occur at any time, this upcoming summer, could see a heat peak that would result in the result of a massive amount of methane, methane that has been trapped for hundreds of thousands of years, really quite problematic. Will it occur this summer, well it depends upon weath
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What if... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: What if... (Score:2)
Right. But our knowledge of the outcomes involves melt offs over 100s to thousands of years. This rapid meltdown were seeing hints of unprecedented We have no historical record to measure it against. It's new and very very worrying territory. The Permian extinction involved a 4c rise over a thousand or so years leading to a meltdown that then kicked it up another 10c.we could hit 4c within half a century if the most pesistic model settings pan out
Re: (Score:3)
I am trying to figure out how your brain works, once it is warm enough the methane hydrates break down, all at once, not in slow motion. It just needs to get warm enough once and it is done, how much is how warm, not how long, taking into account the idea of hours, sure but not years. One really hot summer is all it will take. Look each and every year it gets warm enough to melt winter deposits of methane, what is happening is it is getting warmer than it has been for hundreds of thousands of years, methane
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No it's not science.
It's a prediction based on science.
Assume the theory was that a coin was weighted to land 60% heads. So you flip it 10 times and get 7 heads. Does that prove or disprove the theory? What if you only get 4 heads?
Now if you flip enough then yes, you do get to do real data. But 10 flips? That's meaningless. If you want to prove or disprove that the coin is biased you don't look at the 10 flips. You look at the person who claimed it averages 60% heads and evaluate the evidence they present.
H
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is not science.
Because it is only a single prediction.
Perhaps if you had read the linked article, you had realized: it is news!
What is wrong with posting news based on scientific predictions?
Re:What if... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: What if... (Score:2)
Aaaand the anti-science AC gets the "insightful" nod yet again.....
Yes. It might be wrong That's how science works. Predictions are made, probabilities are assigned, then we see if it planned out. If it doesn't , the assumptions are examined to find where the fault was, assuming there was a fault, and it wasn't simply statistics being statistics. Then newer predictions are made , taking into account the revised data points.
Keep in mind climate models have generally been pretty accurate with a slight tendenc
Re: (Score:2)
Or 2024 could be co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What if... (Score:2, Insightful)
Global warming predicts everything. Lower lows, higher highs, higher lows, lower highs and abnormally normal normals.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: What if... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What if... (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on 02-07-19 6:03 (#58083510)
I have a statistics PhD.
[citation needed]
Yeah let me know when revisions don't swamp data (Score:3, Informative)
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... [ssrn.com]
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... [int-res.com]
Re: (Score:2)
IPCC based on 10,000's of papers (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
You were saying...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
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... [technologyreview.com]
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
always the same denier trick why 2004 ? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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/... [wikipedia.org]
Convenient to leave out Mann's biggest trick. His original hockey stick graph displayed to disparate datasets. His proxy reconstruction of old temperatures, and superimposed on that was the instrumental record. This created the shocking effect of the graph abruptly surging away after 1900. Everyone then made a big deal about that coinciding with CO2 emissions, but much less attention was directed to that also coinciding with the change in datasets...
You are correct that more recent studies have more or less
Re: (Score:3)
That was written by this guy. [wikipedia.org] Respectfully, you might want to check your sources more carefully from now on.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
No AI winter for meteorologists (Score:4, Funny)
Gets cold? Climate change as predicted.
Re: (Score:3)
Gets hot? Global warming as predicted.
Gets cold? Climate change as predicted.
When did it get cold?
Just because you're individually cold doesn't mean the planet is colder.
That's the whole point of the polar vortex, it's isn't the planet getting colder, it's cold air from the pole coming down and your nice warm air going somewhere else [weather.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Gets cold?
It hasn't gotten cold.
Re:No AI winter for meteorologists (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the temperature swings *are exactly* what the models were predicting even some twenty years ago: not just uniformly warmer *weather* but extreme local weather events.
If you look at maps of *global* temperature anomaly you can see why. Globally most places are warmer, but the greater energy in the atmosphere is causing warm air to intrude northward. Since air (or ocean for that matter) mixes *very* slowly on a global scale, that means the cold Arctic air doesn't just disappear, it gets displaced southward.
Sitting on one spot on the planet, you get *extreme* swings of temperature. I plotted the temperature swing at my house; it went down thirty five degrees C in *five hours*. Then after a couple days it rocketed up forty degrees overnight. Over in Chicago they had a *seventy degree* temperature swing over four days. If you're just thinking about your *local* weather, it seems mysterious. If you look at what's happening *globally* it's quite simple and straightforward.
Average temperatures can be misleading (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
I'm up in Alberta. We love to complain about the cold... but you learn how to dress and its fine. The problem this winter isn't the cold snaps (-34C a couple days ago), it's the warm snaps. A couple days of +5C in the middle of January sounds lovely, until the weather drops the next week and the streets and sidewalks turn into skating rinks.
Global warming also sucks because our economy runs on oil. We can keep pumping the oil the next 5 years, probably 10. But in 20 years? 40? Sooner or later it's going to
Re: (Score:3)
You obviously haven't been in Alberta long.
I've been here my whole life, and the -34c in winter is normal. the +5c in winter is also normal. That's Alberta weather for you. If anything is unusual this winter it's not the temperatures, it's the slightly lower amount of precipitation, but even that happens some winters, and has for decades. The temperatures this winter are well within the normal range for Alberta (and sure, there may have been a record broken here or there for a specific day, but if the same
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is floods.
From a drought you can "run away", from a flood not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
You can only run so far, 'til you meet someone with a bigger gun who is already there and not too eager to share what's left of his arable land.
Silly humans (Score:3)
Hysteria (Score:3)
https://www.nola.com/expo/news... [nola.com]
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.... [luxurysimplified.com]
which links to this GIS map https://www.luxurysimplified.c... [luxurysimplified.com]
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.
It's a range the Green New Deal can fix (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's why people have stopped caring about "global warming"/"climate change" : https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
Check the dates.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:In before the dishonest Republican incel denial (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the UN it can all be fixed by sending hundreds of millions to poorer countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Reductio ad absurdum? Already?
But entertain us, provide an example of this bullshit being even in the same ballpark as reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, will everybody shut the hell up about it, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is nice that I wont have to move to Southern Europe for a nice sunny retirement.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
They're getting paid when you click on this shit.
Thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:2)
People with kids. Or more than 30 years to live.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know how the story ends, right?
Re: (Score:2)
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.