Splitting degrees to say a half of degree warming matters

From EGU

1.5 C vs 2 C global warming: New study shows why half a degree matters

European researchers have found substantially different climate change impacts for a global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C by 2100, the two temperature limits included in the Paris climate agreement. The additional 0.5°C would mean a 10-cm-higher global sea-level rise by 2100, longer heat waves, and would result in virtually all tropical coral reefs being at risk. The research is published today (21 April) inEarth System Dynamics, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union, and is presented at the EGU General Assembly.

“We found significant differences for all the impacts we considered,” says the study’s lead author Carl Schleussner, a scientific advisor at Climate Analytics in Germany. “We analysed the climate models used in the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] Fifth Assessment Report, focusing on the projected impacts at 1.5°C and 2°C warming at the regional level. We considered 11 different indicators including extreme weather events, water availability, crop yields, coral reef degradation and sea-level rise.”

The team, with researchers from Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands, identified a number of hotspots around the globe where projected climate impacts at 2°C are significantly more severe than at 1.5°C. One of these is the Mediterranean region, which is already suffering from climate change-induced drying. With a global temperature increase of 1.5°C, the availability of fresh water in the region would be about 10% lower than in the late 20th century. In a 2°C world, the researchers project this reduction to double to about 20%.

In tropical regions, the half-a-degree difference in global temperature could have detrimental consequences for crop yields, particularly in Central America and West Africa. On average, local tropical maize and wheat yields would reduce twice as much at 2°C compared to a 1.5°C temperature increase.

Tropical regions would bear the brunt of the impacts of an additional 0.5°C of global warming by the end of the century, with warm spells lasting up to 50% longer in a 2°C world than at 1.5°C. “For heat-related extremes, the additional 0.5°C increase marks the difference between events at the upper limit of present-day natural variability and a new climate regime, particularly in tropical regions,” explains Schleussner.

The additional warming would also affect tropical coral reefs. Limiting warming to 1.5°C would provide a window of opportunity for some tropical coral reefs to adapt to climate change. In contrast, a 2°C temperature increase by 2100 would put virtually all of these ecosystems at risk of severe degradation due to coral bleaching.

On a global scale, the researchers anticipate sea level to rise about 50 cm by 2100 in a 2°C warmer world, 10 cm more than for 1.5°C warming. “Sea level rise will slow down during the 21st century only under a 1.5°C scenario,” explains Schleussner.

Co-author Jacob Schewe, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, says: “Some researchers have argued that there is little difference in climate change impacts between 1.5°C and 2°C. Indeed, it is necessary to account for natural variability, model uncertainties, and other factors that can obscure the picture. We did that in our study, and by focusing on key indicators at the regional level, we clearly show that there are significant differences in impacts between 1.5°C and 2°C.”

William Hare, a senior scientist and CEO at Climate Analytics who also took part in the Earth System Dynamics research, adds: “Our study shows that tropical regions – mostly developing countries that are already highly vulnerable to climate change – face the biggest rise in impacts between 1.5°C and 2°C.”

“Our results add to a growing body of evidence showing that climate risks occur at lower levels than previously thought. It provides scientific evidence to support the call by vulnerable countries, such as the Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States, that a 1.5°C warming limit would substantially reduce the impacts of climate change,” says Hare.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
oebele bruinsma
April 22, 2016 1:09 am

As climate models fail to produce any meaningful result, we are talking individual opinions.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  oebele bruinsma
April 22, 2016 3:52 am

So far the global warming component is 0.1 degree Celsius. How many centuries it is going to take to reach 1.5 degrees Celsius. Such trash articles has any significance?.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
April 22, 2016 6:26 am

Considering the near logarithmic impact of additional CO2 and the fact that the bandwidths absorbed by CO2 are either fully or almost fully saturated already, I would say it would take an infinite number of centuries to reach 1.5C.

Reply to  oebele bruinsma
April 22, 2016 4:22 am

It is meaningless drivel.Really this is post-modernist guff in full .Embarressing.Zu befehl!

Reply to  oebele bruinsma
April 22, 2016 8:28 am

Climate models certainly fail to predict the impact of doubling CO2 but the immutable physics is pretty clear that the most warming it can cause is under 1C, so doing nothing would be the best course. Unfortunately, the physics contradicts the narrative, so the IPCC’s self serving ‘consensus’ suppresses the constraints imposed by physical laws so that it can justify its regressive agenda of redistributive economics under the guise of climate reparations. It’s unbelievable to many that politics, especially the politics they agree with. can turn ostensibly intelligent scientists into idiots and this is what makes overturning the narrative so difficult.

April 22, 2016 1:10 am

..Notice they don’t mention the BENEFITS that all Northern regions would experience with a few degrees of warmth, especially Canada ..I wonder how many people realize that 90% of the population,of the world’s second largest country, live within 200 miles of the U.S. border ?? Why ?? Because it’s $#%^ing COLD !!

Reply to  Marcus
April 22, 2016 1:28 am

I thought that global warming was supposed to heat the poles more than the tropics. This sounds as though they are saying the opposite. Which is the case? It also sounds as though the models they are analysing ( not something boring like measurements of the real world) are the same models we already know don’t work. I am getting so tired of this madness. Where is the healthy doubt?

richard verney
Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
April 22, 2016 3:49 am

Global warming is anything but global in nature; according to satellite data, the tropics have seen very little warming for the past 37 years, so why should they certainly experience significant warming during the next 80 or so years;

Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
April 22, 2016 5:36 am

Correct, Richard.
During all Ice Ages, the tropics remained firmly tropical. No glaciers in Brazil.

Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
April 22, 2016 6:28 am

Aren’t the western half of the Andes on the Brazilian border?

Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
April 22, 2016 9:07 am

Where is the health doubt?
How can one have doubt when the story is a big lie and they know it, but it pays well.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
April 22, 2016 9:26 am

Yes, warms more where it is colder and drier…but those areas benefit from it. Shhhhhh 😉

Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
April 22, 2016 12:03 pm

The tropics must heat up in order to create the greater potential for transport of heat, the heat needs to be there in the first place so if the tropics are not heating up then they are not overly warming the poles than at any other time in history.
It’s a bit like the Troposphere warming, the oceans ate it maybe? 😀

Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
April 22, 2016 6:47 pm

They say the Poles are most affected by global warming when it suits them, and then they switch to the Tropics when that suits them. Doublespeak!

Reply to  Marcus
May 1, 2016 7:00 am

I wish this would come out in the articles as well. Every study has shown that overall mortality would decrease by millions of people if temperatures were to rise that extra 0.5C. They talk about a few cm rise in water amounting to a couple inches and then forget to mention a million lives saved from reduced deaths from cardiac, pneumonia and numerous other conditions as proven by Lancet and other studies. Unfortunately there is no way even if we continued pumping exponentially greater co2 into the atmosphere we’d ever get that rise from co2 alone. So, the whole discussion is pointless.
Since 1650 to 1880 : +0.5C with 0ppm change in CO2
Since 1880 ro 1945: +0.4C with 30ppm change in CO2
Since 1945 to 2015: +0.3C with 100ppm change in CO2
TO 2100: +0.3C with 200ppm change in CO2
Total change = 1.5C. Of course less than half this can possibly be ascribed to CO2
Chances of getting to 2C unknown but from CO2 (0% we’d need to pump 1000ppm above predicted levels to get anywhere near another 0.5C)
The ice ages see a change in CO2 of roughly 100ppm from changing solubility of CO2 in the ocean. Temperatures go up 8C during the ice ages but have risen maybe 0.7C or 1/10th the ice ages for pumping 50% MORE THAN an ice age variation of CO2 into the atmosphere. Conclusion: CO2 doesn’t cause the change they predicted it would. Not even close. My blog http://logiclogiclogic.wordpress.com has several articles that explain how they went wrong.
Of course this is not about science anymore. They just say whatever they want and the press reports it as fact never fact checking any previous predictions they’ve made. I have a blog at the above address on the 50+ prediction failures.

April 22, 2016 1:24 am

It would be ‘useful’ if links to relevant documents were included in reports, where available
Full article free – 25 page PDF
Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: the case of 1.5 ◦C and 2 ◦C
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 327–351, 2016
© Author(s) 2016. CC Attribution 3.0 License.
EGU website

April 22, 2016 1:30 am

So how, exactly, do a bunch of computer model runs constitute “evidence”? And how does this “growing body of evidence” look without them?
Pure fantasy.

Doug Bunge
Reply to  ChrisDinBristol
April 22, 2016 5:36 am

Exactly. They didn’t “find” anything. They are predicting.

Reply to  ChrisDinBristol
April 22, 2016 6:56 am

They don’t. Computer models are literally the researchers’ hypothesis…in computer form. Computer modeling of uncertain systems has a very high probability of doing nothing more than confirming your own existing bias.

Reply to  ChrisDinBristol
April 22, 2016 2:10 pm

That got me too. All of their “evidence” comes from computer models. They don’t have a clue what evidence really is, for them it’s all opinion and programming. And then they think that’s robust!

Reply to  ChrisDinBristol
April 22, 2016 7:55 pm

“Climate Scientists” have been belaboring for years under the delusion that a computer model is an experiment.
If you know nothing else about them, this one tidbit of information tells a person about all one needs to know in order to assess their credibility.

Filippo Turturici
April 22, 2016 1:34 am

In Mediterranean Italy (from Tuscany to Sicily) there was no drought whatsoever during last decade or even more. Actually Italians often mock old alarms/reports from the ’90ies, stating that “Southern Italy and Sicily are going to be a desert”, because last years problems were all due to floodings, so the excess of water, rather than its lack. It would be anyway likely that some part of Sicily could become a desert: but that is due to bad soil management, not to (still-to-be-seen) climate change. I think that they misunderstand the recent drought in the Near East: first of all, they misunderstand Syria for all Mediterranean region; and second, they misunderstand a single event (until now, we really cannot say anything more) for a long-term trend.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Filippo Turturici
April 22, 2016 2:37 am

Filippo, Bold Letters –
Actually Italians often mock old alarms/reports from the ’90ies, stating that “Southern Italy and Sicily are going to be a desert”, because last years problems were all due to floodings, so the excess of water, rather than its lack.
Thanks -Hans

April 22, 2016 1:35 am

(This is a clearly a strange new use of the word “evidence” I wasn’t previously aware of – h/t the great Douglas Adams)

April 22, 2016 1:42 am

And the old coral reef destruction bullshit is repeated

Reply to  David Johnson
April 22, 2016 2:04 am

Yep, the 15 or so natural causes of bleaching ignored. All of it blamed on CAGW.
Now we have every possible negative climatic impact blame directly on a poorly understood global average temperature, which is a fictitious entity that means nothing to the climatic systems that created the residue.
The individual temps matter not the average, the earth’s weather system doesn’t care about global average temperature, especially one that is more fiction than fact.

Reply to  Mark
April 22, 2016 4:31 am

It’s modeled, therefore it is…

Reply to  Mark
April 22, 2016 6:30 am

I model, therefore I earn (an income)

Reply to  Mark
April 22, 2016 12:38 pm

Even the artificial causes are almost always due to effluent and toxins. You know, what environmentalists used to blame it on back before CO2 became responsible for everything.

Reply to  David Johnson
April 22, 2016 6:11 am

And the old coral reef destruction bullshit is repeated
coral reefs are found almost exclusively in the hottest waters on earth. here is my challenge to the climate science community. tell us specifically where the ocean waters are too hot for coral to grow? Outside of volcanic vents, no such place exists.
notice when they talk about coral bleaching, they don’t say coral death. because bleaching doesn’t kill the coral polyp. what happens is that the polyp kicks the “cold” algae out of the house, because the algae isn’t paying its rent, and it is the algae that gives coral its color.
and then the polyp puts up a room for rent sign, and waits for algae better able to pay the rent. and when a new “hot” algae moves in, the coral bleaching is over. sort of like divorce, you move out the cold partner and bring in a hot one. well that is the plan anyways, doesn’t always work out that way.

Reply to  ferdberple
April 22, 2016 9:39 am

“… sort of like divorce, you move out the cold partner and bring in a hot one. well that is the plan anyways, doesn’t always work out that way.”
Great analogy! I love that 🙂

Horace Jason Oxboggle
Reply to  ferdberple
April 23, 2016 1:16 am

Aren’t the greatest coral reefs in the Artic and Antarctic Oceans?
No sarc here! (nudge nudge wink)

Ivor Ward
April 22, 2016 1:44 am

“The growing body of speculation.”

April 22, 2016 2:02 am

Is this the new dogma, forget the actual physics of atmosphere and ocean and blame temperature.
So all of these things are derived from an estimated residue of climatic changes?
it seems like it is straight out of the Trenberth school of climate science.
My faith in science has been smashed this past decade

Johann Wundersamer
April 22, 2016 2:15 am

‘With a global temperature increase of 1.5°C, the availability of fresh water in the region would be about 10% lower than in the late 20th century. In a 2°C world, the researchers project this reduction to double to about 20%.’
: rising temperature – less precipitation : sure?

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
April 22, 2016 2:22 am

It is amazing they are actually attempting to reduce the earth’s not well understood system to temperature. A temperature we can’t actually currently accurately measure.
It is insanity!
Only a study on the regions of earth and how climates and events will interact, and in fact high resolution of those events would help. They are bypassing essentially all the science we do understand on atmosphere and ocean and going with purely a guessed temeprature residue and claiming it is a driver.
Global average temperature is useless as a driver of future changes as past changes created the average temp residue and those past changes lead into the short term changes in the future, nothing happening with global average temp now will have any bearing on what the world will be like in 2100, someone should tell these idiots called “scientists” that..

April 22, 2016 2:22 am

not sure why they are worried, Australia is off the richter scale scale of hotter than the UK and yet-
“The primary reason Australian wheat yields are relatively low by international standards is the fact that Australian farmers have become highly specialised in low rainfall farming techniques. As a result, the Australian Wheatbelt has extended inland over time to areas where rainfall is lower. Indeed, the majority of the Wheatbelt receives low to medium rainfall, with the largest single category of farms by land area being in the low rainfall areas”

Reply to  englandrichard
April 22, 2016 9:29 am

And of course part of their success in low rainfall farming is the extra CO2.

Horace Jason Oxboggle
Reply to  englandrichard
April 23, 2016 1:25 am

And of course there are our successes in a wide variety of sports, especially on a per capita basis!

April 22, 2016 2:24 am

In fact global average temperature is a fiction that does not play a part in anything that happens with weather or climate, it is a useless residue, erm… metric.. no wait residue! 😀
it is pseudo science and pure delusion to predict the future based on global average temperature

Johann Wundersamer
April 22, 2016 2:28 am

We considered 11 different indicators including extreme weather events, water availability, crop yields, coral reef degradation and sea-level rise.”
The team, with researchers from Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands, identified a number of hotspots around the globe where projected climate impacts at 2°C are significantly more severe than at 1.5°C. One of these is the Mediterranean region, which is already suffering from climate change-induced drying. With a global temperature increase of 1.5°C, the availability of fresh water in the region would be about 10% lower than in the late 20th century. In a 2°C world, the researchers project this reduction to double to about 20%.
Armageddonism, alarmism, catastrophism, exaggerationism, nonsesimism – the MSM seeks for; but I wonder how interested the average reader still trusts on that.

Chris in Melb
April 22, 2016 2:30 am

I stopped reading when they said “we analysed climate models…”

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Chris in Melb
April 22, 2016 4:59 am

I guess that constitutes scientific research these days.

April 22, 2016 2:35 am

what about randomness and uncertainty?

April 22, 2016 2:35 am

This obsession with global average temperature is ridiculous and I can only imagine it is to serve as a false point of debate, as in no one really believes it matters and it is designed to draw attention, it really is not worth discussing.

April 22, 2016 2:46 am

” … we analysed climate models … ”
When will they look out of the window, or even go for a walk in the countryside and talk to an old farmer?
Of course, I forgot, silly me, talking to old farmers is heresay, not data.

Reply to  Oldseadog
April 22, 2016 6:32 am

As I have to remind the environmentalists
The plural of anecdote, is not data.

Horace Jason Oxboggle
Reply to  Oldseadog
April 23, 2016 1:28 am

The reality is not the model result. Surely you can understand that? Computers rule!

Johann Wundersamer
April 22, 2016 2:54 am

 conference activities online. Read more
Safety regulations
The recent terrorist attacks in Belgium and France were atrocious and inhumane, and we understand that many people are concerned about visiting public places and large events. We have no indications that the EGU General Assembly poses an increased risk. However, we aim to provide a safe conference in which attendees can feel comfortable in their surroundings.
Excerpt EGU 2016.
higher security afforded for gathering today.
no news in the media until now.
So they’re producing their Sensationalisms in the save space.
Spreading afterwards.

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
April 22, 2016 3:09 am

Too bad they didn’t use the Lewis, Curry model. The world would have been saved.

April 22, 2016 3:20 am

Ooh apparently the Mediterranean is drying out! lol
Those dry periods during the Roman empire, the med droughts, must have been caused by CO2’s temporal influence baaahahaha.
The med has been far dryer in the past.

April 22, 2016 3:35 am

Drought and the fall of Rome from cold induced droughts.

April 22, 2016 4:18 am

It sounds like a precursor to some parametric tweaking to bring modelled CO2 sensitivity more into line with observations, whilst ensuring the gravy train stays on the rails. The climate ponzi is far too big to be allowed to fail.
I wonder how long until we see studies claiming the climate of the Little Ice Age was actually benevolent, and that crop failure and famine in this period were merely due to political unrest? It would follow that only a return to this state could save the planet (money on the plate please)..

Reply to  JJB MKI
April 22, 2016 5:36 am

If you look at the history of NOAA adjustments it is clear they are trying to bring the temp record in line with the CO2 growth curve.
Thrown in Mann’s hockeyschtick and that takes the revisionism back 1000 years in order to match what CO2 driven models produce.

Horace Jason Oxboggle
Reply to  JJB MKI
April 23, 2016 1:34 am

And it also allowed the planet to rejuvenate, otherwise the soil would have been worn out! Always think of the planet, and the children (and the grants)!

Johann Wundersamer
April 22, 2016 4:25 am

Thou shallst believe!
1. CO2 drives temperature / cooling, warming ad lib.
2. Temperature drives weather / draining, drowning ad lib.
3. Live on earth drives impact to extremes. Until now we’re up to 11 counts of evidence.
No proofs to date, but ever confident.
The geopalaeloclimate experts hold records of the planet feedback accelerated unstoppable going into death spirals forced by GHGs. – wait – not yet, but we’ll find.
Wait and see!

Steven Swinden
April 22, 2016 4:27 am

I thought I recognised ‘Climate Analytics’.
See the projections for 2100 about half way down this piece from the ever willing to repeat the press release rather than read the study BBC:

Reply to  Steven Swinden
April 22, 2016 5:40 am

This nut of the BBC I am aware of, I had it out with this guy over his claims of glacier retreat, when I pointed out his two posterboy glaciers were retreating since 1800s, he went dark and my posts disappeared.

Johann Wundersamer
April 22, 2016 4:31 am

Why don’t they bring solid, basic, usefull new findings in the real world – does’nt pay?

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
April 22, 2016 5:38 am

Science the institution stopped being experimental a century ago and instead retreated to the cosy concept building world of mathematics, that place where reality is not on the “list” the doorman has

Owen in GA
Reply to  Mark
April 22, 2016 5:49 am

I know, you take a complicated pde with defined boundary conditions to a mathematician and you may get an answer like “the problem is irreducible in the general case.” When you go over it with them you realize that to them the general case involves number realms for beyond the reals. When you mention that it needs to be reduced to the real observable world you get an answer like “oh I didn’t know you wanted the trivial case” and gives you a very acceptable answer. Some mathematicians live in a strange mental world.

Richard Briscoe
April 22, 2016 4:46 am

For decades, 2°C has been promoted as the limit we need to hold warming to, on the grounds that that’s the point at which the harmful effects start to outweigh the benefits. In other words, any warming up to and including 2° actually leaves us better off.
Why then, at the recent Paris conference was it decided to lower the target to 1.5° ? By all the arguments put forward by the alarmists, we’re supposed to be better off with 2° of warming than 1.5°.
To my eyes, it’s really simple. With one sixth of the century gone already, and no warming at all so far, it becomes increasingly obvious that there’s little or no prospect of so much as 2° of warming by 2100. That leaves policy makers with two options – abandon the anti-carbon crusade, or set a new, lower, target.
They took the obvious decision. Now they need evidence to support. Expect more where this came from.

Phil's Dad
Reply to  Richard Briscoe
April 22, 2016 7:54 pm

Yours is the correct analysis of what is (regrettably) happening here. “Business as usual” looks like it will result in under a 2C increase which is benign. This gives the control freaks no leverage and so they must move the goal posts.
I asked right after Paris what difference half a degree would make and here is their response; but it is important to remember that this “growing body of evidence” comes months after they had made their minds up that 1.5C was the new “tipping point”.
Cause = Need to control
Effect = “New evidence suggests…”

Bruce Cobb
April 22, 2016 4:54 am

“Our results add to a growing body of evidence…”
Oh, is that what they call it? I guess cows and horses aren’t the only ones then.

April 22, 2016 5:00 am

It’s really amazing to me how a coupled, non-linear chaotic system that cannot be modeled is not only modeled, but the non-modelable system model is subdivided into small sections of the earth’s surface and fractions of a degree. It’s akin to trying to measure the size of a molecule with a yardstick.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Trebla
April 22, 2016 5:10 am

And then they refer to the model out put as scientific evidence.

April 22, 2016 5:33 am

Yet another flaw in the models is touted as a scientific ‘discovery’.

April 22, 2016 5:33 am

Here in upstate NY near Canada, we had exactly ONE really warm day this month, yesterday. I fixed roofs all day long. NOAA predicted this month would be one of the warmest ever for my region. Super duper warm.

Reply to  emsnews
April 22, 2016 5:41 am

Even though you feel the cold, the NOAA anomaly will tell you your skin is lying

Reply to  Mark
April 22, 2016 5:45 am

Just looked out the window and am amazed that one of my maple trees has tiny buds on it now! The entire forest was stark naked for nearly the entire month.

Reply to  Mark
April 22, 2016 5:57 am

In Helsinki Spring is sluggish and barely opening its eyes, given Finland is prone to get heat from Asia as well as our recent El Nino, this spring is remarkable in how mild it is, see what I did there 😀

April 22, 2016 5:47 am

One wonders, all the empirical data shows things are better and all the doom is projections of the future.
Funny old game 😀

April 22, 2016 6:01 am

The bottom line from this probably is the use of 1.5C as a criterion for transferring wealth to the have not nations. They desperately need to establish and increase the global climate fund to fulfill the UN mandate. If they continue to use temperature as the primary metric for assessment of impacts, they will have have to go back to global warming as the moniker for the movement.

April 22, 2016 6:09 am

These people are not scientists. I’m not sure what they are, but they are not scientists.

April 22, 2016 6:10 am

Mercenary grant chasers.
Of course, if they had concluded that the difference of impact between 1.5 and 2 degC would be minimal or insignificant, the paper would not have been published.

Tom Halla
April 22, 2016 6:22 am

Interesting that their models predict dread effects from warming that finally exceeds the error band in measurement. Being very generous, perhaps global temperature can be measured to whole degrees C, but the greens have not even proven that assertion.

April 22, 2016 6:22 am

Who knew that there was a difference between 1.5C and 2.0C. These scientist guys are masterful.
And then in a stroke of pure brilliance, the applied poorly substantiated assumptions of the effects of the .5C difference just recently discovered. And it all must be true because the computer thingies they use said so.

April 22, 2016 6:25 am

They projected the impact of their projected temperature increases.
It’s turtles all the way down.

Reply to  MarkW
April 22, 2016 8:47 am

“It’s turtles all the way down.”
Oh man that made me laugh my a$$ off

Reply to  MarkW
April 22, 2016 8:48 am

I’m still laughing!

Bruce Cobb
April 22, 2016 6:59 am

“Splitting degrees”? I prefer by far to split infinities.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 22, 2016 9:07 am

What if we split a banana?

Reply to  MarkW
April 22, 2016 2:23 pm

Sometimes, with this current mob of greenheads, I’d like to split an atom.

Steve from Rockwood
April 22, 2016 7:04 am

Unbelievable crap. I had to say it. Now I feel better. Thanks.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
April 22, 2016 8:35 am

The good about not selling corn to privates – since then beer stems from controlled breweries, SOP “Reinheitsgebot”.
Interesting news: greens searched and found Glyphosat. Now yelling about 1/1000 of health threshold.

Johann Wundersamer
April 22, 2016 7:12 am

Until high medieval time citizens bought corn, wheat at the marketplace from the local farmers. At the house holds wheat was grinded to flour.
Since then farmers were forbidden selling wheat to private persons – wheat has to be brought to windmills and the price for flour inherited a share for the local government.
The same here – don’t think for yourself, buy at the internext experts.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
April 22, 2016 8:04 am

afonzarelli on April 22, 2016 at 7:27 am
I’ve just read all 62 comments here and not a one is from an agw “believer”! You really know that a posting is indefensable when there’s nobody here to defend it…
Afonz don’t you think believers shy to post without argument, without clue?

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
April 22, 2016 1:09 pm

Johann, that’s to my point! (this one is SO bad that they’re not even trying…)

April 22, 2016 7:27 am

I’ve just read all 62 comments here and not a one is from an agw “believer”! You really know that a posting is indefensable when there’s nobody here to defend it…

April 22, 2016 7:49 am

In Richard Lindzen’s new video, he points to an observed increase of 1C in the last 2 centuries.

Joel Snider
April 22, 2016 8:31 am

This is one of the presumptions that has allowed the anti-human climate narrative to metastasize – the idea that any effect at all is, by definition, destructive. Sort of a half-a$$ed extrapolation of the butterfly effect, crossbred through popular media – instead of ‘we can’t predict or control complex systems because of the effects of small factors’ to ‘we cannot ALLOW small factors to exist or we will destroy the system.’ Thus, by this logic, any effect at all is potentially (even likely) catastrophic.
All with the abiding philosophy that humans are some kind of unnatural phenomenon and not part of nature – even our cities – as any other part of the biosphere. It’s not insignificant that one of the groups pushing this the hardest is Hollywood – quietly governed by a pseudo religion that suggests we were planted by aliens – and by extension have no claim to this planet at all. And even on the more ‘rational’ front, we have the high-brow academics who routinely refer to humans as a ‘pestilence’ or a ‘plague’ and speculate from the safety of their modern homes and campuses that we need to cull down the human population by ninety-percent or so – or can’t shower, or eat the wrong foods, or drive, or heat our homes, or wash our cars in our own @#$#% driveways.
Sorry, for the crankiness, but I woke up in Oregon on Earth Day, waiting for the Paris Climate deal to be signed, and I’m losing hope fast.

Steve from Rockwood
Reply to  Joel Snider
April 22, 2016 9:50 am

The world cannot be allowed to warm./s

April 22, 2016 8:51 am

These institutions and the government have previous for creating bogus science to serve a purpose.
Lie detectors, bite analysis and hair analysis were and are all pseudo sciences that were invented to convict people the FBI was sure was guilty but had insufficient evidence to prosecute.
Science gladly provided this nonsense for the FBI no questions asked.
I don’t see AGW science as any different in that respect

Reply to  Mark
April 22, 2016 10:15 am

Lie detectors aren’t used in courts.
Do you have any evidence that bite analysis and hair analysis are invalid?
It’s no different than science telling the jury that the suspect is such and such a height with a particular blood type.

Reply to  MarkW
April 22, 2016 10:40 am

well let me see Marko, there was the guy who was given a few decades in prison based on expert hair analysis, and it was a dog hair, sorry mate, until recent decades you could not tell a dog hair from a human hair,
Here, I searched and the first link lol
but no flaw, it was pseudo science portrayed as valid science, overstated? giving someone 30 years for violen rape based on a dog hair you found… yeah right
Bite mark analysis is pseudo science, if you are interested in that you should look into it. It is nonsense.
Then ask yourself how many people have been exonerated with bite mark analysis? Probably none, only convictions.

Reply to  MarkW
April 22, 2016 10:41 am

and you can defeat a lie detector by lightly flexing your bunghole throughout the entire test its said.

Reply to  MarkW
April 22, 2016 12:11 pm

Was that the only piece of evidence, or was it just one among many?
If the witness lied about the conclusiveness of the evidence, that’s on him, not the science.
It’s also on the defense attorney for not attacking the science. He knew they were going to introduce hair evidence.
As to how many are exonerated, you will never know, because those are ruled out before going to trial.
Just as if the blood evidence shows that the suspect is Type A, then anyone who doesn’t have Type A blood is dropped from the suspect list.

April 22, 2016 9:09 am

From the article:
“the additional 0.5°C increase marks the difference between events at the upper limit of present-day natural variability and a new climate regime, particularly in tropical regions,” explains Schleussner.”
I wonder if he considers the extreme weather of the 1930’s to be within the bounds of natural variability?

Reply to  TA
April 22, 2016 9:27 am

Some papers online go back to the late 1700s and there are Royal navy records in the UK that also have a lot of stuff relevant.
The river Tyne rose 12 feet, imagine if that happened today.. or if the Hurricane new York seen in the 1800s that wiped out an island, if that happened today.. there would be absolute hysteria.
As is people are literally looking at their thermometers and actually believing they are warmer than they should be!
I’ve spent a bit of time going through old news reports, and granted there may be some exaggeration to some extent, there are many detailed descriptions of the effects of flooding and storms, ice recession and islands being battered to hell.
One of the best and most easy to debunk is the example of revisionist history on Kiribati, who on their own government website say erosion has been an issue when the recording started in the early 1900s yet somehow this has been revised to “caused by the CO2 warming that took effect in 1970 according to the IPCC”.
No doubt the immediate scientifically unsupported response to this is “climate change is making the change faster” and of course you then ask “well then how much is human change and how much is natural?” and you never get a satisfying answer.

Reply to  Mark
April 22, 2016 9:55 am

“well then how much is human change and how much is natural?”
In my experience, most people’s idea of an explanation consists only of a label. What cause effect A? Simply B. Very few actually take the next step of assessing if B is in fact true or what else B would imply. As soon as the mind attaches a pleasant label, the thinking stops. Makes me wonder what the trillions we spend on education actually accomplishes. Makes the heart weep.

Reply to  Mark
April 22, 2016 10:33 am

Dave education in it’s current format is Neducation.
and if you should stray..comment image
Education is conditioning plain and simple, and 1 in 4 boys who are not behaving like good little robots by 5 years old are drugged. You must conform.
Most of all higher education teaches most people what they can and cant say as much as the subject material to prepare them for a world of ignoring the elephant in the room.

April 22, 2016 9:39 am

Let’s draw a surface temperature chart of the United States. Start with the decade of the 1930’s being the hottest decade of any subsequent year. Second, take the 1998, high temperature as being the hottest since the 1930’s, including every year in the 21st century with the exception of one month in the year 2016.
How high above the 1998, high temperature, should we set the temperature of the highpoint of the 1930’s (we can’t go by NASA/NOAA figures)? Well, we know that the 1930’s had the most extreme weather in modern history, with a decade-long heatwave covering the entire United States and Canada. It was so bad, that there were calls to evacuate the central parts of the United States because of the extreme heat and drought. The extreme weather then, is why a lot of current day Californians have grandparents who came from Oklahoma. 🙂
The kind of extreme weather we saw in the 1930’s is exactly the type of extreme weather that the Climate Alarmists are predicting will happen if our current-day temperatures increase by 2 degrees, so I think we should create the chart showing the highpoint of the 1930’s as being at least 2 degrees hotter than the 1998, high.
Next we draw a trendline that passes through the 1930’s highpoint and through the 1998, highpoint. Notice, we have a “longterm” downtrend. Extending the trendline past the 1998, highpoint, we see that the downtrend line was broken early in the year 2016, and has currently dropped down to about even with the downtrend line in subsequent months. (And El Nino is going away.)
So, we appear to be at a turning point of one kind or another, whether you go by the old, reliable charts, or the new doctored ones. Of course, if the temperatures start to increase from here, then we have to acknowledge the reality of that aspect, but that would not necessarily mean the rise was caused by humans, although the Alarminst would be off and running. There was no human influence on the climate of the 1930’s, so even if we were to get that hot, it would not necessarily mean it had anything to do with human activity.
Up or down, that is the question for the moment.
What is ironic is the Alarmists could have made practically their same argument without butchering the surface temperature data. They would just have had to start their shorterm CO2 temperature curve increase in the 1970’s instead of the 1930’s, and then keep claiming it was going to continue going up forever, as long as we continued to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.
Does this make all disputes over surface temperature maps irrelevant? I, personally, would never be satisfied until the Alarmist admitted they had doctored the data, but we have arrived at the same place, either way you look at it: either the temperatures push above the Alarmists 1998, “hottest year ever” benchmark, and keep going up, and the temperatures push above the 1930-1998 downtrend line and change things into an uptrend. Or, the temperatures could also get colder and continue the “longterm” downtrend line, and break the Alarmists “uptrend” line and turn it into a downtrend.
Of course, the real question to ask is, does CO2 have anything to do with any of this? The current answer is we don’t know.

Brian Pratt
April 22, 2016 12:05 pm

Well, I happen to have just attended the EGU General Assembly and I can tell you all that this press release came and went without fanfare for us participants, as far as I can tell. There is a lot of good science in the thousands of presentations. But, rather too much of it is laced with GW as the accepted climate trajectory or, as AGW, the justification for the research. One of the more bizarre posters I saw in this vein simulated lightning strikes on a wet sandstone surface using a copper cathode tip to produce a small pit in the melted rock, and the authors calculated the resulting crater equates to a maximum erosive equivalent of 1.8 µm/yr. This was claimed to be a significant because it “indicates that cloud-to-ground lightning play[s] a non-negligible role in the global erosion system” as lightning strikes increase in number due to GW. None of the authors was at their poster to defend this. Another oral presentation was by an individual, not a stratigrapher but a geographer, concerned with defending and defining the Anthropocene. WUWT readers may remember that the term Anthropocene is suggested (but not yet formally proposed) to become part of the geological time scale. It was an interesting presentation but he repeatedly used the discredited hockey stick graph which deleted the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Marinoan Warm Period. The one or two questions at the end were basically by people wringing their hands at the devastation wrought by human beings, not about the definition of the base of the proposed chronostratigraphic unit or whether or not it is necessary or useful.

Brian H
Reply to  Brian Pratt
April 27, 2016 11:03 pm

How long till the Roman and Medieval ports now far inland have water again?

April 22, 2016 1:00 pm

Models have been fit to hindcast have they not? What do they say about sea level rise in 2016? I am betting we should all be wearing snorkels.

Michael Carter
April 22, 2016 1:07 pm

These people have missed their calling. They could do very well as fortune-tellers in a travelling road show

April 22, 2016 1:25 pm

The finer you split it the greater your dread with each approaching split. Perfect. Pure theater, pure politics.

April 22, 2016 2:24 pm

More Xbox science…

April 22, 2016 3:29 pm

One of the major talking points during the negotiations at COP21 in Paris has been whether the international community should aim to limit global temperature rise to the internationally accepted 2C above pre-industrial levels, or a more stringent target of 1.5C.
Aren’t we already close to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial times with all the reports of “hottest ever”?
So perhaps the “scientists” can report how much more catastrophic the climate is today compared to 1880. How many more crops are failing? How much land has been destroyed by rising sea levels?
Those “scientists” should stop making dire predictions about what another 0.5 degrees will do if they can’t demonstrate what a rise of 1 degree has already done.
The world’s average temperature is about 15 degrees, yet people and plants and animals seem to survive quite nicely in average temperatures that range from 6 degrees in Toronto to 27 degrees in Singapore.
Who was it who decided that 14 degrees is the optimum world average temperature (which happens to be the average temperature in London)? Was it the IPCC scientists or the policymakers?
Evidence please, not another model run.

Proud Skeptic
April 22, 2016 3:33 pm

It’s all just made up. Anyone can project anything at this point and be as credible as the next guy.

April 22, 2016 5:20 pm

The Computer Models have all failed, no proof of the real CAGW action of CO2 has been produced, the public is losing interest in the continuing scam, so the Alarmists are redoubling the production of scary propaganda. This is the Age of Stupid upon us now calling spectres from the dark.
“I can call spirits from the vasty deep.”
“Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?”
“Why, I can teach you, cousin, to command
The devil”
“And I can teach thee, coz, to shame the devil—
By telling the truth. Tell truth and shame the devil.”
Henry The Fourth, Part I Act 3, scene 1, 52–58

April 22, 2016 6:38 pm

Hold it! Stop the presses!!! I have the answer!!! 10 centimeters equals 3.93701inches.
That’s right! The sea level will rise less than 4 inches if there is that much heat added to the atmosphere!
People, I beg you! Spread the warning before it’s too late!!!
The fact that this prediction fails to take into account that there are many places where the ocean has receded a lot, and that the ocean surface is not the same level from one place to another on the planet doesn’t matter at all, does it? No. It is of no consequence.
It is, indeed, time to panic! Stock up on popcorn and your favorite beverages.

April 22, 2016 9:08 pm

“With a global temperature increase…”
One more time….there is no such thing as the stated “global temperature”. I can’t believe they’re still using that term – in a paper, no less – and getting by with it.
“The additional 0.5°C would mean a 10-cm-higher global sea-level rise by 2100”
That would depend entirely on where the higher temps were happening.
One more time…..A half degree increase in the “global average” won’t melt ice anywhere. It’s not a temperature. It’s a statistic.

April 23, 2016 4:59 am

Kind of makes me wonder if relaxing the laws against smoking pot was such a good idea….

April 23, 2016 8:58 am

From the coolest period during the Maunder Minimum in the late 1600s, to the peak temperature in February 2016 during El Nino, I believe the average temperature has ALREADY increased two degrees C. (since the late 1600s).
So there’s no need to worry about +2 degrees C. — it’s already happened.
Almost no one noticed, but the +2 degrees C. was GREAT NEWS — if you read history, anecdotal evidence from that time shows people were VERY unhappy about the cool weather.
That means the first +2 degrees C. of warming was GOOD NEWS … and now smarmy warmunists want us to believe the next +2 degrees C. of warming will not be good news, but will be the end of life on Earth as we know it ?
I suppose they think the +5 degrees C. or more of warming in the past 20,000 years since peak glaciation was bad news?
Not for me, my property in Michigan was under a mile of ice back then.
Couldn’t build a house on that ice. Maybe an ice fishing shanty would work, but I’d need an oil drilling rig to bore through a mile of ice for ice fishing!
Sorry, I just can’t take the warmunists and their silly scaremongering seriously after 19 years of following this “political non-science” fantasy.
Here’s what the warmunists are actually saying:
– The average temperature and CO2 level on June 6, 1750 was perfect (compared with all 4.8 billion years) and that was announced to the general public at the time.
Many people disagreed, saying it was too cold, and their plants were growing too slow, but they were farmers, not government scientists, so what did they know?
Then it happened to be unusually warm during July 1750, and the government issued the first of their 1,261 (so far) global warming is going to end life on Earth as we know it red alerts.
Many people disagreed, but they were not government scientists, so no one cared what they thought.
Free climate blog for non-scientists
No ads – No money for me – a public service

%d bloggers like this: