10.02 °C of Warming & Human Extinction by 2026!!! Film at 11.

Guest ridicule by David Middleton

“Film at 11” is a US idiom from television news broadcasting, where the viewers are informed that footage of a breaking news story will be screened later that day.

–Wikipedia

Eric Worrall’s brilliant ridicule of a Toronto Now article about imminent human extinction due to climate change elicited an even more ridicule-worthy comment (H/T Tony McLeod), citing a yet-even more ridicule-worthy blog post on an even more imminent threat of climate-driven extinction.

extinction-2

Figure 1. 10.02 °C of warming by 2026? Source: Arctic News

There really is no way to describe this sort of nonsense without using a word that rhymes with petard.  The author, Sam Carana, presents this table to itemize the sources of 10.02 °C by 2016.

temperature-rise-2

Figure 2. That’s it then. Source: Arctic News

So… According to Mr. Carana, 1.62 °C of warming has already occurred and an additional 8.4 °C of warming will likely occur over the next 9 years.

Life is too short to tackle Mr. Carana’s predictions about 8.4 °C of warming over the next nine years; however, the 1.62 °C of warming from 1900 to February 2016 (cherry pick much?) can be easily and quickly shot down in flames.

February 2016 rise from 1900 (1.62°C)

The magenta element at the top reflects the temperature rise since 1900. In February 2016, it was 1.62°C warmer compared to the year 1900, so that’s a rise that has already manifested itself.

Following Mr. Carana’s link…

A polynomial trend can reduce variability such as caused by volcanoes and El Niño events. The graph below was created with the NASA L-OTI monthly mean global surface temperature anomaly, which has a 1951-1980 baseline, and then with 0.29°C added, which makes the anomaly 0°C in the year 1900 for the added polynomial trend.

This gives an idea of how much temperatures have risen since the year 1900, with a rise for both February and March 2016 showing up that was more than 1.5°C, as also illustrated by the image below. The trend further points at temperature anomalies that will be more than 1.5°C (from 1900) within a decade and more than 2°C soon thereafter.

Arctic News

Show of hands… How many readers can identify the most egregious error in Mr. Carana’s claim of 1.62 °C of warming since 1900?

to_2016 (1)

Figure 3. GISTEMP LOTI global mean temperature anomaly (°C) 1900 to February 2016. Source: Wood for Trees.

If we look at the raw values, we get:

  • January 1900 -0.39 °C
  • February 2016 1.34 °C

This actually works out to 1.73 °C of warming… It’s worse than previously thought!!!

Setting aside the fact, that point-to-point measurements are not the way temperature changes over time are determined… What has happened since February 2016?

from_2016 (2)

Figure 4. Ooops. Source: Wood for Trees.

If we look at the raw values, we get:

  • February 2016 1.34 °C
  • September 2017 0.80 °C

This actually works out to 0.54 °C of cooling since February 2016… It’s better than previously thought!!!

If we look at GISTEMP from a scientific perspective, we would throw it out… Short of throwing it out, we would look at the trend exhibited by the data, in order to determine how much warming it shows since 1900.

trend

Figure 5.  About 1 °C of warming since 1900… in the data set which exhibits the most warming.  Source: Wood for Trees.

GISTEMP LOTI exhibits a trend of just under 1 °C of warming per century.

While the fact that Mr. Carana’s assertion of 1.62 °C of warming from 1900 to February 2016 conclusively demonstrates that he is either scientifically illiterate or dishonest to the point of disregarding anything he says, it doesn’t necessarily disprove the rest of his “theory”… 8.4 °C of additional warming over the next 9 years, would require a trend of 9.3 93 °C per century, 10 100 times the trend of HadCRUT4… nearly 10 100 times the trend of GISTEMP LOTI.  Quite frankly…

If I find the time and patience, I might tackle Mr. Carana’s forecasts… If they are half as bad as his hindcasts, it might be fun.

Addendum

RCP8.5 (bad science fiction) only yields 5-6 °C of warming from 1900 to 2100.

CO2 levels rise to 936ppm by 2100 making the global temperature rise by about 5-6°C by 2100

https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/climate-model-temperature-change-rcp-85-2006-2100/

 

 

Advertisements

146 thoughts on “10.02 °C of Warming & Human Extinction by 2026!!! Film at 11.

  1. A combination of EMP exchanges, super volcanoes going off, asteroid hits and the Sun going nova.
    Oh, and human caused global warming as a contributing factor.

    • But, but, but what about those other warnings of very significant cooling by 2026 (and earlier). But wait the cooling will (amazingly!!) be caused by global warming also. Oh my, who to believe!

    • If you really want a laugh then…wait for it… we sterilise the surface by leaving 400 nuclear reactors unattened. lol

      • Well done David. Another careful, accurately crafted post. You must have spent what, minutes checking things. You are sure to keep the arm-wavers and spell-checkers busy with this one. I just hope one or two here have an open mind and check the material for themselves.

        Just for the record, I don’t feel this evidence conclusively proves anything by the way. Certainty is the biggest delusion, it’s the opposite of science. It is why I choose to comment here where there is so much un-supported certainty.

        It’s awesome to disagree but unless you’re citing published research to support your rebuttal…(that doesn’t include squawking, ParrotG55)
        Joelobryan did that on another thread. Still reading through it, thank you.

        I realise careful analysis isn’t your thing David, but maybe try this:

      • It’s awesome to disagree but unless you’re citing published research to support your rebuttal…

        GISTEMP and HadCRUT aren’t “published research”?

      • Andy, i’ve got this theory that the Good Lord sent McLoud here to make Crackpipe look good in comparison. (and i’ll be darned if it ain’t workin’)…

      • “tony mcleod November 24, 2017 at 12:21 pm”

        I can understand your lack in comprehension of science topics, especially climate, if this is the sort of “quality material” you consume. 21 views?

        Yes, Queenslanders do do things differently to the rest of us.

      • A minor spelling mistake disproves everything else?
        As always McClod will grasp at any straw in order to avoid the obvious.
        BTW, considering the whopper of a spelling mistake in your last post, you have no room to complain.

  2. ‘If we look at the raw values, we get:
    February 2016 1.34 °C
    February 2016 0.80 °C’

    To infinity and beyond! (Assume it should be 2017)

  3. In June around here it was about 20 degrees (cool summer) and now it’s about 2 degrees. An 18 degree drop in just a few months!!!! Forget 2026, we’ll all be dead by Spring!

  4. They’ve really been dialing up the climate fear porn lately. FWIW, I found this recent sequence to be interesting/revealing.

    1 – Eric Holthaus wrote a sky-is-falling article about the Antarctic ice shelf

    https://grist.org/article/antarctica-doomsday-glaciers-could-flood-coastal-cities/

    2 – A climate scientist refuted his nonsense with her own very good article. Though I don’t agree with everything she said, I was really impressed by her intelligence and scientific integrity. Recommended reading to illustrate how unscientific and out of touch with reality Holthaus’ fear mongering is.

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2017/nov/23/climate-change-how-soon-will-the-ice-apocalypse-come-antarctica?CMP=share_btn_tw-

    3 – A twit (is that the right word for a Twitter user?) tweeted this in response to Holthaus regarding the climate scientist’s article (@guardianeco article), which just goes to show that some of these people really don’t care at all about the science, but are more interested in opportunities to manipulate.

    https://twitter.com/Cellist_KRule/status/933938339605909504.

    • With a 7 degree polynomial fit I get -120 degrees of cooling by the year 2500. I’ll take to 10 degrees of warming please!

    • You came, saw etc.: I also came and saw that propaganda piece from Holthaus, it was on MSN homepage! Tells us something that it was too much bs even for the Gruaner, but not for MSN.

  5. Why such a fuss over Now Magazine, a lefty publication where you can find the 10 best pubs or find someone to satiate your carnal needs?

    • The Expulsive

      There”s journalism, there’s entertainment, then there’s wilful and irresponsible people who get their kicks from terrorising the type of people who read crap like Now Magazine.

      Perhaps the worst accusation that can be levelled at sceptics is that we’re optimists. This, on the other hand, is wrong, nasty, and extreme pessimism, cubed.

      • Hotscot, as a fellow UK citizen have you seen the articles in the 2012 Telegraph and yesterday’s Daily Express on Memorandum FCO 30/1048?
        It was written to Edward Heath in 1971 and outlines why the Government should not tell the UK public what joining the EEC actually meant.
        The Civil Servant(s) that wrote it were very good.
        It is a must read on why we actually should not even be in the EU let alone leaving it.
        See
        https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Brexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public

        https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/883540/FCO-30-1048-Brexit-EU-secret-document-damned-Britain-EU-membership

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/9233096/Europe-alienates-us-all-as-foretold-40-years-ago.html

        The comments in the Express also highlight some other very dubious dealings at that time as well.

      • A C Osborn

        Sadly, there’s nothing in those reports that we haven’t been saying for years. One of the problems is of course, that the author is anonymous and the other is that there were probably numerous reports from various quarters which painted a quite different picture.

        And the fact is that we were the poor man of Europe at the time so the Common Market was a bit of a lifeline. The problem is, every government since has just sleepwalked deeper into the very political and fiscal union you and I were told wouldn’t happen. We were made out to be the fools then, but I guess that’s what happens when one’s a sceptic. And now, of course, we’re just contemptible Brexiteers; it seems the EU pixie dust has worked it’s magic, but then again, our youff have never known anything different so we’re the old fools who want to drag them away from everything they know.

        Personally, I think Germany has some unfinished business, they have always had designs on some of that luverly Russian soil and it’s mineral wealth. And as xenophobic as it may sound, I wouldn’t trust them with their hands on the controls of another army, one possibly even larger than their last one.

        As is pointed out in one of those articles, we Brits have an inherent distrust of foreigners, for very good reason, we have been targeted by the French, Spanish, Germans and of course, the Scot’s but we have yet to roll over, unlike our French cousins. Which is almost treasonous coming from a Jock as we had a close relationship with France, Bonnie Prince Charlie and all that. But I have lived in England longer than I have in Scotland and I value the pride the English have in the independence and sovereignty they have fought for, for hundreds of years.

        And the only politician I see displaying anything approaching loyalty to our nation, is Boris Johnson. He may present himself as a buffoon, but in some ways like Trump, he’s the only politician I can recall recently actually holding the Union flag, and with some gusto I might add.

        And if memory serves me well, I believe Churchill wasn’t a popular choice for PM when first elected.

      • I don’t think there has been any “sleep walking” involved. I am pretty sure that they have all known exactly what they were doing and where it was leading.
        What they didn’t reckon on was the public backlash against unallected bureaucrats running the UK to their advantage at such a cost to us and then add in the “open borders” it was just too much.
        I voted against the EEC and for Brexit, growing up after the war it was difficult to trust anything coming out of Europe and we were right.

      • A C Osborn

        Yep, you’re right. Sleepwalking was entirely the wrong term. It has been deliberate.

        Thankfully, once again the cannon fodder ‘common man’ has prevailed and we are heading out, at long last. And I think that is down to national pride in a common identity, shared values, and respect for a national community.

        I was on a senior constables course in 1980’s Glasgow (no big deal, 9 years service was the qualification) and we had a presentation from a Pakistani shopkeeper representing his community, which basically identified every cop in the room as racist, bigoted and oppressive because we neither understood nor conformed to his communities demands.

        In all innocence, I asked him how we could conform to his communities values when they showed no respect for their adopted countries values. Openly selling booze to under aged kids; consiprationally chattering amongst themselves in their mother tongue whilst displaying contempt for the customers they were forced to serve in their shops; persistently, and wrongly accusing people of theft; open hostility to other minority groups; filthy hygiene; language barriers when it suited them etc. etc. etc.

        He walked out without finishing his presentation. Much to my surprise, I was given a standing round of applause by 50 or so cops, including the instructors one of whom said “no one has ever had the balls to stand up to the little turd.”

        Not that I did, I just asked some questions I thought needing asking. The innocence of youth, I suffered for it later.

      • “A C Osborn November 24, 2017 at 9:07 am”

        Interesting reads. I have always maintained the public were conned. Go Brexit!

      • HotScot

        Well, as a non-Brit I feel obliged to remind you that the Brits have also targeted plenty of other countries in the course of history, so I wouldn’t be surprised if other people don’t really trust the Brits either. :P

        What do you mean by “loyalty to our nation”? Define “nation”. Like the citizens should do whatever the nation (politicians) tell them to? I don’t want to sound too judgy, but for hundreds of years, British government (just like any other) have been taken taxes and sending young men to their deaths overseas killing Americans, Indians, Africans, Russians, and countless of other people and then telling them it’s for the “good” of their country. In reality these wars have enriched the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else. Some wars are worth fighting for of course, but also so much death and destruction have been caused because people are justly blindly loyal to their nation (their leaders). That sounds a bit like communism, doesn’t it? Like you don’t own your body, the “nation” does, and you should do whatever the “nation” commands because that is how you show loyalty and that is good. It’s no wonder that some people think that communism is just monarchy in disguise. And just like communism, politicians and monarchs always claim to fight for “good cause”. Isn’t this supposed to be a free society? Shouldn’t we be fighting for the freedom of choice for the people, instead of for the “loyalty to the nation”?

        I don’t really want to get into the argument whether Brexit was good or bad, but I have seen lot of typical black and white views and dubious claims from both sides. Like the claim from Remain side that the world was going to end after the result became clear. Or how about the 350m claim from Leave side? Farage then admitted that was exaggerated, of course after the voting had already ended. Or the fact that for years British tabloids (including Johnson!) invented scare stories about EU? Like the claims that EU dictates which size condoms should be, that cows should wear diapers, or that EU was planning to blow up their own headquarters because of asbest. In other countries newspapers often criticized EU politics but those were based on truths.

        Also which “comman man” are you talking about? If I remember correctly 48%, which is almost half, voted to remain. This reminds me of the Green arguments of “natural”. “Whatever my views are, i’m always right because i’m “natural””. Populist politicians also use similar logic by saying: “No matter what my true support is, I’m always right because i’m the champion of the “peoples” or “common man””. They capture the moral high ground with vague nonsense. I guess folks who voted remain are not “common men” or “people”. Maybe they are not even human? Like some kind of “untermenschen”? Politicians always have the monopoly in telling who is part of the “people” and who is not. Nazis were especially good at that. In reality common men voted leave and common men voted remain. People are individuals, not collective, no matter what politicians and leftist enviromentalists say.

        Isn’t it funny how it’s always the “other side” who is wrong and ignorant, and how we are ourselves always the wise and enlightened ones? And then instead of debate and discussion, both sides just yell at each other.

        I just hate politics and enviromentalism because of all that vague, silly language, the generalization, and the fact that these people are constantly trying to claim the moral high ground with the BS-speak. Not to mention this worshipping of your “nations” and politicians, which have caused so much death and destruction in the worls. Politics turn nice people into jerks.

      • Those express and daily telegraph links also show how we are only skeptical of things that we disagree with. If we see something that confirms our believes then we just blindly believe that. Everyone, including me, is guilty of that. I try to fight it and be skeptical even when I see article that challenges climate alarmism for example. But then again, i’m only human, like that song says.

      • Fredar on November 25, 2017 at 2:33 am
        Oh stop it. I don’t “argue”. I rationally explain why I am always right.

      • squiggy9000

        “Oh stop it. I don’t “argue”. I rationally explain why I am always right.”

        Try that one on my wife.

        I’ll stand on the sidelines and watch your demolition.

        :)

      • Fredar

        As a foreign born Brit, I might remind you that most British overseas activities were founded on trade, nothing more. And if you are having a tilt at colonialism, the USA and Australia wouldn’t exist in their present westernised state were it not for colonisation, nor did Britain have a monopoly on it.

        I won’t take issue with your assertion the the UK ran round the world plundering and murdering everything in its way. Although I could. But, to say “In reality these wars have enriched the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.” is naive. War is largely a profitable enterprise, but it takes two to fight one. The profits of war are generally invested, as are profits from anything, by the wealthy, to create jobs and improve society. So the rich get richer, sorry, but big deal, the poor also get richer. Without that simple concept, society itself would stagnate.

        In terms of the definition of a nation, as far as the UK is concerned, it’s the people that fall under the protection of the crown. In other words our Queen. We work, and fight to enrich the lot of the people falling under that protection. In return, we have one of the oldest, best established network of embassies round the world to ensure the safety of individuals, and one of the best armed forces in the world to protect the shores of good old Blighty. Our democracy is protected by rich and poor alike; our values, traditions, culture and religions are protected from interference from outside agencies by both. It is a two way transaction. And people are no longer conscripted to fight for our nation, they volunteer to do so.

        We don’t embrace this blindly or without choice, the democracy we fight for provides us an informed choice, assuming we care to both seek it out and exercise it. One can become a conscientious objector to conflict, even when conscripted. And if a war was so objectionable, all British participants are allowed to invoke that right, conscripted or otherwise.

        Your ignorance of Brexit is clear. And having said you don’t want to get into it, you then recite your distorted perspective on it.

        Nigel Farage had nothing to do with the £350M claim. It was Boris Johnson who plastered his battle bus with the text that led to that particular distortion of the claim itself. If you care to examine the bus, there were two exclusive statements; “We send the EU £350 million a week” On the next line “Lets fund the NHS instead”. It did not say, let’s give the NHS £350 Million a week.

        It’s also clear you know nothing of British tabloid humour, or the humour of the average Brit. Stories of condoms, bananas and cucumbers were known as a phallic joke. However, EU regulation on non compliant vegetables relative to size and weight were not a joke, resulting in tons of produce being dumped. Something like their fishing regulations that required the dumping of fish species caught unintentionally whilst seeking to fulfil the allocation of one particular species. Boat owners were fined if found to have other ‘species’ in their catch, so they dumped millions of tons of dead carcasses over the side.

        How very environmental, how very economic, how very humanitarian.

        “Also which “comman man” are you talking about? If I remember correctly 48%, which is almost half, voted to remain.”

        By the rules of the referendum, agreed beforehand, by everyone, including remainers and, notably, Brexiters most of whom, including me, expected to fail in our endeavour to leave the EU, there was an entirely reasonable 50/50 definition of the winning or losing side of the debate. I’m not sure I can imagine a more democratic voting system anywhere in the world. The definition of the ‘common man’ is irrelevant, it’s a turn of phrase for a popular uprising, which is precisely what Brexit, and arguably, Trump was all about. A people talking with one voice on a single subject.

        What continues to confound me is that remainers refuse to learn a lesson from it, instead, calling for the undemocratic overthrowing of a democratic decision. Where does that lead our democratic nation, when the rule of law is usurped and the deaths of millions of British combatants to defend our nation and its democracy is simply swept away by activists? Treason laws were developed for situations just like this, and in my opinion, should be invoked against activists who, with no legal precedent, incite dissent and violence against our democratic system.

        Remain voters generally accept the decision to leave, they may not like it, but they recognise it as the result of democracy. Perhaps these are the ‘common men’ you seek to condemn and ridicule, those who work towards a common end; support of our democracy, way of life, freedom of choice, defence of our nation, including outlying communities.

        Your statement “Politicians always have the monopoly in telling who is part of the “people” and who is not.” is entirely contradicted by Brexit itself and Mrs. May’s government’s determination to deliver the will of the country. “Nazis were especially good at that.” is particularly offensive and reveals your ignorance of democracy and its values. Or perhaps you though it was clever.

        “People are individuals, not collective, no matter what politicians and leftist enviromentalists say.”

        A preposterously inane comment, worthy of an leftist environmentalist. People vote individually based on their beliefs. Democracy ensures their individualism is respected, by collective opinion. This fundamental concept has nothing to do with the colour of ones political beliefs nor political leanings. Believe it or not, as a capitalist, and a Conservative voter, I place great value on our green, socialist, communist etc. opposition. Without them there would be no one to keep us honest, no one to ensure we don’t stray from the path of democracy, no one to ensure we don’t falter in our humanitarian endeavours. Opposition is vital to truth, that’s whay we climate sceptics are valuable to science, we may not be right, but at least we scare the shit out of the alarmists so they have to make sure they deliver clear, science based reasons for their belief. I think they have failed,but that’s my opinion, however, I form part of a valuable collective, based on our collective but individually cohesive opinions. That doesn’t make me a communist.

        “Politics turn nice people into jerks.”

        Your puerile attitude is exposed. Politicians are not in the job to be popular, they are there to make the difficult decisions the rest of us won’t.

        Try standing for parliament and discover what a shitty job it really is. You may think all your friends like you; politicians have it in black and white.

        At least they have the guts and honesty to ask the question few of us would dare pose.

  6. This nonsense is floating around t’internet, and there’s supposed to be a reaction to fake news in the western world? e.g. have it deleted, or ignored by Google.

    Doesn’t seem to be working too well, this fake news censorship thing.

  7. Clever. Mr. Carana manages to find an ‘accurately’ assessed 1.62 degrees temperature increase (how on earth was it calculated out to 2/100th of a degree?) so he can fecally glue on another 8.4 degrees. Now, instead of an off-the-cuff guesstimate sounding 10 degree increase Craven Carana can whoop it up to a very scientificky and certain sounding ten-point-zero-two degrees.

    But it’s still a joke.

    • You didn’t get the memo, did you? It is not a joke, it’s a freaking insane imaginative vision, which I would like to get as much publicity as possible. And, I wanted to lock him up for figuratively shouting fire in a crowded theatre – or not exactly, because I actually think people should have the right to ridicule themselves, if they’re not doing it for money and collecting eggregious sums by scaring people. Please write this down and set up an alarm in 2026, just for the giggles.

    • I heard a really good example recently. The team that originally surveyed Mount Everest went to great lengths to get a really accurate height figure. The measured all the surrounding mountains, then used them to survey Everest. And they got an extremely accurate height figure. Exactly 10,000 feet. Who in the world is going to believe 10,000 feet is accurate, though? So they recorded it as 10,004 feet, plus or minus 4 feet.

      A really good example of how spuriuous accuracy creates belief that you know what you are doing.

  8. Keep in mind that a huge segment of the population believe much of the article to be accurate. In our technology focused society, most people are increasingly ill-equipped to critically evaluate what they hear about climate change. Unfortunately, to them, a “sciency” sounding article is convincing, especially when confirming what they’ve heard for the past few years.
    I’ve found that well-educated people in non-science fields are the most entrenched in their beliefs. Much like other religious perspectives, they usually aren’t open to discussing, nor hearing of facts to the contrary.

    • Erroneous hypotheticals can quite easily be dogmatized, then with the use of today’s “social media,” be socialized and shared widely with the repetitive use of a small set of buzz words and buzz phrases. Do you read a language? Yes? Well, very good. We don’t need no stinkin’ knowledge of math and science to be experts and to speak authoritatively about anything upon which we wish to propound. For instance, there’s this one from the net: Climate: Why CO2 Is the “Control Knob” for Global Climate …
      science.time.com/2010/10/14/climate-why-co2-is-the-control-knob…

    • Nevertheless, “climate change” only makes the very bottom of the list anytime the public is polled about the subjects of its major worries. Economy, price of health care, crime, war etc. WAAAAAAY more concerning to practically everyone. We at WUWT are I think in a “bubble” of our own, because weather and climate are of more-than-average interest to us. Most people just say, “Well, no use worrying about something I can’t control anyway,” and don’t give it another thought. Also, younger people are MUCH more media-savvy these days and get the difference between a rag or BS website and a credible source.

    • Those are the folks you can easily sell to at a steep markup or buy from and end-of-the-world discounts. Consider it an opportunity.

  9. There is a serious side to this. Sheeple who read this crap and believe it must feel that there is no future, no hope, so would this drive up more drug use, suicides, and people who forego having children? If so, who would be responsible for these ruined lives when this extinction doesnt happen?

  10. Curve fitting and then extrapolating is simply illiterate and/or innumerate.

    With four parameters I can fit an elephant. With five I can make his trunk wiggle.” – John von Neumann link

    Presumably, the people at Toronto Now have four year college degrees. That’s a huge indictment of the education system.

  11. Foremost among the alarmist’s illusions is the “tipping point” concept. If you only thought about this a little, you’d realize that if “tipping points” were so easy to trigger, they would already have been triggered.

    • You mean the planet hasn’t been precariously and delicately balanced for the past 4.5 billion years… just waiting for humans to cause tipping points?

    • “if “tipping points” were so easy to trigger, they would already have been triggered.”

      Look at the temperature climb up to the Emian intergalacial 125,000ya. Some tipping point is triggered and within 5000 years you go from deep glaciation to Hippos in the Thames. Triggered. Tipped over an edge plunging towards a new attractor.

      Dude, temperature flops around at the tiniest change. Slow, tiny changes like Milankovich cycles trigger tipping points. I can count 8 triggered tipping points on that graph. There are probably dozens if you could see a fine enough resolution. These really, really slow, really, really small changes but they appear to trigger things.

      Triggers tend to be easy to trigger.

      • Tony, you are a waste of time, but I’ve got time. Just to get the discussion started, knowing that you don’t believe what you post and all, please tell us which of the points on your chart were tipped by humans? Or by some life form on the surface? Was it the same life form doing the same thing for each of the five trigger points on your chart? The only discussion you are generating is whether the ignorance of alarmists can be any more profound than they have already shown. Based on observation, there’s a consensus “yes” opinion forming. Thanks for providing data with your posts here. Keep on welching!

      • Definition of tipping point

        : the critical point in a situation, process, or system beyond which a significant and often unstoppable effect or change takes place

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tipping point

        Which cyclical inflection point is the tipping point “beyond which a significant and often unstoppable effect or change takes place”?

        The Quaternary glacial-interglacial cycles, by definition, do not represent climate tipping points.

        The IPCC AR5 report stated with medium confidence that precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger a tipping point, defined as a threshold for abrupt and irreversible change, remain uncertain, and that the risk associated with crossing multiple tipping points increases with rising temperature.[1]

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(climatology)

      • Tony, you’re just an oxygen thief. Only you would think that grafting temperature data with an annual or monthly resolution onto a proxy record with century resolution actually means something.

  12. Right down the road from where I live, the town put up a sign which reads:

    Turn Around, Your GPS is Wrong!

    They got tired of rescuing the tourists who thought they had found a great shortcut…

  13. OK David, so you disagree with Carana. But his math was just fine with Mr.Tony Mcleod. If you were to take the new math introduced in govmint Core Subjectives of the last decade, then perhaps you wouldn’t be so smug. Apparently, from the web site of of IgnoramusesArePeopleToo.com it is their right to have diversity of reality as well as other diversity subjectives. Diversity of thought and deed are the only punishable offence. The site does have a helpful index for Correctal thinking and doing that will keep you on track. The rest is up for grabs. er… sarc?

    • He lives in Queensland, Australia, where the residents of the state believe daylight savings turns cows milk sour. It is, therefore, understandable that he believes in peer (Pal) reviewed climate science (TM) literature.

  14. Will that be before, or after pigs sprout wings and fly? Need to keep my timeline straight. I do believe the invasion by space aliens may actually be before 2026, so this may all be moot.

  15. Doomist and serial unteachable trollop McClode claims the links in Carana’s article “prove” everything…
    Yeah, riigghht. Drink a lot of that “end of times” koolaid, McClode?

    “Dr. Natalia Shakhova et al. wrote in a paper presented at EGU General Assembly 2008 that “we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time”

    “consider”
    “Highly possible”
    “abrupt release at any time”

    Weasel words and fallacious prediction claims.
    All absurdities!

    “and over the next ten years this 5 Gt is already responsible for more warming than all the carbon dioxide emitted by people since the start of the industrial revolution”

    This from an article written in 2008!?
    We are a few months short of that ten years; yet there is no indication that hydrates are releasing or that any abrupt release is imminent. Alarmists take minor realms of distant possibilities and immediately turn them into dire pending threats.

    Meanwhile, hydrate atmospheric bomb ignores research over the last five years discount hydrate release potential. Research papers that attempt to cover more for the lack of disasters predicted versus any serious examination of hydrates.

    From the IPCC AR5, a total lack of surety:

    “f/ There is low confidence on magnitude of carbon losses through CO2 or CH4 emissions to the atmosphere from thawing permafrost. There is limited confidence in projected future methane emissions from natural sources due to changes in wetlands and gas hydrate release from the sea floor. {6.4.3}”

    The IPCC AR5 discounts methane hydrate release; leaving only those doomists who prefer such scenarios.

    Please also note Carana’s use of somebody else’s total atmospheric methane weight instead of the regularly used (parts per billion/million volume) ppbv/ppmv
    e.g.:

    Please note that USA’s methane emissions have been declining:

    Not that the EPA’s numbers/presentations are at all trustworthy; they are simply available.

    Carana makes use of a major contributor to GCMs’ overestimates of feedbacks: “Extra water feedback”; where extra atmospheric CO2 requires “extra water feedback” multiplier for alleged temperature increases.

    “an additional warming over the next few years of 2.1°C due to extra water vapor in the atmosphere therefore does seem well possible over the next few years.”

    As with every one of Carana’s citations and claims, weasel words preface and internally bolster his absurd claims; e.g. “does well seem”, such scientific language.

    Then there is Carana’s reliance upon the delusional prof. Peter Wadhams:

    “Albedo changes in the Arctic (1.6°C)
    Warming due to Arctic snow and ice decline (i.e. of both sea ice and the snow and ice cover on land) may well exceed 2.6 W/m², calculated Professor Peter Wadhams in 2012.”

    Ignoring prof Wadham’s and Carana’s ignorance that there are two polar regions; where is the Arctic snow and ice decline?
    The Arctic’s cyclical decline since 1979 appears to have turned the corner in 2007 and are now cyclically increasing.
    Polar regions following opposite cycles have been noted in planetary research where one polar region waxes and the other pole wanes.

    Hemispheric snow and ice coverage remains similar to polar coverage. So similar that one must suspect that polar cycles are actually hemispheric cycles.

    Arctic ocean albedo, while a distinct change from ice albedo; is still an indicator of Earth’s rapid heat loss, not substantive warming.
    Hemispheric snow coverage losses expose substantial albedo changes that do contribute to warming.
    As the Arctic, or actually Northern Hemisphere cools, one expects that snow cover to return to normal pre-1980 levels.

    ” Falling away of the aerosols masking effect (2.5°C)
    With dramatic cuts in emissions, there will also be a dramatic fall in aerosols that currently mask the full warming of greenhouse gases. From 1850 to 2010, anthropogenic aerosols brought about a decrease of ∼2.53 K, says a recent paper.”

    Don’t you just love these “research papers” that attribute Western Civilization’s clean fossil fuels and alleged renewables lower particle emissions to the entire globe?
    • No mention of China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, etc. etc. etc.
    • No mention regarding 1,600 coal plants under construction or are scheduled to be constructed.
    • No mention that all renewables require 100% backup by fossil fuels or nuclear power facilities.

    Instead, it’s invent a claim, allegedly prove that claim in a Northern Hemisphere Western Civilization country; then assume the entire world is identically following suit.

    “Rise due to carbon dioxide from 2016 to 2026 (0.5°C)
    The purple element reflects warming due to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 2026. While the IEA reported that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions had not risen over the past few years, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise, due to feedbacks that are kicking in, such as wildfires and reduced carbon sinks. Furthermore, maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission”

    “Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission”!?
    How does that work?
    CO2 molecules are in hibernation for ten years, or so?

    Or is that all of the alleged forcings and multipliers take ten years to reach some sort of maximum?
    Today’s CO2 emissions do not take full effect for ten years…
    Can one be more specious? It makes that whole future CO2 claim waffle word sophistry.

    Meanwhile that “rise due to carbon dioxide” claim completely overlooks that no-one to date has actually measured carbon dioxide’s atmospheric effect.

    It’s a religious belief and prediction, not science.

    “February 2016 rise from 1900 (1.62°C)
    The magenta element at the top reflects the temperature rise since 1900. In February 2016, it was 1.62°C warmer compared to the year 1900, so that’s a rise that has already manifested itself ”

    Isn’t amazing what cherry picked numbers can accomplish!?
    From the decidedly non-global mercury thermometer 1900 temperature anomaly estimate to February 2016’s swaged manipulated adjusted abused El Nino peak temperature anomaly.

    Which completely ignores:
    A) temperature comparisons of wildly different equipment
    B) Grossly different temperature station anomaly comparisons
    C) NOAA, MetO, BOM serial abuses of temperature records
    D) Absolute defiance to recognizing and tracking error propagation.
    N.B.;
    – a) Different temperature instruments.
    – b) over different and constantly changing temperature stations.
    – c) Different temperature recording practices and methods.
    – d) Temperature stations that increased until the 21st century then suffered drastic declines.
    – e) Temperature stations included or excluded depending upon NOAA confirmation bias expectations.
    – f) Error tracking and propagation includes:
    – – 1) multiple unique temperature instrumentations.
    – – 2) at multiple unique different locations.
    – – 3) at mostly lower elevations, (courtesy NOAA selective temperature station removal)
    – – 4) Serial temperature adjustments: adjustments that immediately define assumed errors.

    One should note that an alleged temperature record over one century long includes propagated errors that are additive as well as running averages.
    Generating error bounds well beyond Carana’s and McClod’s specious temperature alarmist doom claims.

    Just how old are these dogs?

    • Tour de Force, ATheoK.

      I predict Tony Mcleod will not apear to refute any of your points. Still licking his wounds from that other thread.

    • As I say elsewhere, responding to unsupported arm-waving is pointless. Especially when there is this kind of rubbish in the first sentence: “McClode claims the links in Carana’s article “prove” everything…”

      • McClod:
        As when you first posted that nonsense, you are projecting your own inadequacy.

        Our posts, as mine above does responding to your silly Carana claims are fully supported.

        Whether I included the links, quotes or references, which I did for the majority of falsifying your claims is immaterial.
        You post nonsense frequently, McClod, without support, without links to reliable science, without documentation, without rationality.

        That makes your “response” above claiming that I am “hand waving” another pure projection fiction from you, tony.

        Let’s ask you some questions, tony:
        Why do you post silly claims from the internet?

        It appears that so long as your source makes claims you like, (confirmation bias), you treat them as legitimate.
        When a few seconds of reviewing actual science references utterly destroys those claims.

        • A) Temperature claims with proper error bounds are pure falsehoods. None of the governmental agencies treat error bounds properly.

        • B) Cherry picking the highest temperature achieved during an El Nino and then claiming that represent the temperature increase over a century is not only absurd, it is fraudulent.

        • C) Insisting that someone’s future prognostications have any merit besides humor is also absurd. Especially when those people are aggressively inflating and exaggerating their dire claims.
        Even the IPCC removes those future alleged disasters from consideration; and no one can claim the IPCC fails to boost any climate fear possible. Those fears are necessary to keeping the IPCC employed.

        • D) For apparently perverse reasons, tony, you reference discredited sources and people.
        e.g.; Even the BBC is leery of using prof Wadhams predictions any more; fooled once, fooled twice, fooled many times caused even the BBC to recognize who’s really to blame.

        • E) History of mankind illustrates mankind’s flourishing during warm periods. Warm periods that are termed “Optimums” explicitly for their notable benefit to mankind.
        Mankind history’s cold periods have been devastating to mankind.

        There is ample historical evidence that man should welcome warm climate periods. Mankind refusing to acknowledge and benefit from a warm period is abject malfeasance on the part of every anti-warm period crackpot.

        • 1) Within the current Holocene interglacial, there is ample evidence that Earth has been substantially warmer than now; or is projected to realistically achieve.
        – • a) There are no recorded hydrate releases.
        – • b) There have never been “tipping points”
        – • c) 20th and 21st Century warming since the Little Ice Age appear perfectly normal. Which is why alleged CO2 claims, unmeasured and unverified are baseless claims until “Natural Variability” is proven insufficient.
        No CO2 proof? Then recent warming periods are natural. Perhaps someday, grapes and grain crops can be raised as close to the polar regions as they once were; but that is still “natural”!

        Fear the cold, tony! Warm periods in man’s histories are all too brief.

  16. David:
    Please check the spam bin?

    I posted, then tried a repost that both appeared to disappear into the ether. With luck, you’ll find them in the spam bin.
    Please, delete the first post if you find them…

    Without luck, the posts fell afoul of WordPress’s selective puzzling post suppression process.

    Thank you!
    (for the article above and spam diving)

      • David:
        I assume you are operating with basic moderator stats; which may or may not include access to the spam bin.

        Your not seeing the posts in the spam bin are indicative that I ran afoul of a WordPress filter.
        Normally, when WUWT’s filters kick in, the page still repositions back to where the comment was entered.
        When WordPress’s filters kick in, they tend to leave one at the top of the page; as if just starting to read the page.

        I once spent a significant amount of time editing out sections of a post that WordPress kept evaporating.

        The section that triggered WordPress’s filter was the name of an actress. Just the name; I could post the rest of the paragraph, but not the name.
        So much for my deleting suspicious possible words; e.g. fraud, fraudulent, curses, etc. I was on my 18th edit and repost when I learned it was the name.

        Thank you for trying David!

  17. I already wrote that, but a correct prediction of +5C in less than 10 years (while nobody expect that) is a promise to turn billionaire in the said time. Worth the effort.
    IF you are not nuts, of course.

  18. David Middleton Thanks
    The IPCC scenarios are inconceivably improbable when actual fossil resources are included.
    Roger Pielke Jr highlights the work by Justin Ritchie and Hdi Dowlatabadi:
    The Politics of Inconceivable Scenarios
    https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2017/11/16/pielke-on-climate-7/

    Last for this month, but perhaps most important, is a hugely significant paper published by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabdi of the University of British Columbia titled Why do climate scenarios return to coal?
    The paper argues that the IPCC’s scenario for future emissions of carbon dioxide most often characterized as “business-as-usual” (technically called RCP 8.5) should be considered implausible.
    They explain: “RCP8.5 no longer offers a trajectory of 21st-century climate change with physically relevant information for continued emphasis in scientific studies or policy assessments.”. . .
    Richie says he has faced some difficulties getting his arguments published: “Despite getting over 30 peer reviews collected from all of these journals, no one has shot it down,” he said, adding that he still has detected a reluctance among some scholars to grapple with his observations. “Maybe I’m completely wrong about all of this, and here I’ve written all these papers and there’s some critical flaws in them. That’s great—tell me about it,” Ritchie said. “Please! Someone just read it!”
    Read it. It is important.

    Why do climate change scenarios return to coal?
    Justin Ritchie, Hadi Dowlatabadi, Energy 140 (2017) 1276e1291
    https://cedmcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Why-do-climate-change-scenarios-return-to-coal.pdf

    Accounting for this bias indicates RCP8.5 and other ‘business-as-usual scenarios’ consistent with high CO2 forcing from vast future coal combustion are exceptionally unlikely. Therefore, SSP5-RCP8.5 should not be a priority for future scientific research or a benchmark for policy studies.

    Another 2017 paper indicating that both RCP 8.5 and RCP 6.0 seem to be wildly exaggerated:
    The implications of fossil fuel supply constraints on climate change projections: A supply-driven analysis
    Wang, J., Feng, L., Tang, X., Bentley, Y. and Höök, M., 2017.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303621100_The_implications_of_fossil_fuel_supply_constraints_on_climate_change_projetions-A_supply-side_analysis

    . . .Climate projections calculated in this paper indicate that the future atmospheric CO2 concentration will not exceed 610 ppm in this century; and that the increase in global surface temperature will be lower than 2.6 C compared to pre-industrial level even if there is a significant increase in the production of non-conventional fossil fuels. Our results indicate therefore that the IPCC’s climate projections overestimate the upper-bound of climate change. Furthermore, this paper shows that different production pathways of fossil fuels use, and different climate models, are the two main reasons for the significant differences in current
    literature on the topic.

  19. Even though such “forecasting” as this is silly, the US National Science Board and National Science Foundation will get themselves worked up in to sex orgy mode.

    So Mr. Carana will easily win funding of $5,000,000 dollars.

  20. “Life is too short to tackle Mr. Carana’s predictions about 8.4 °C of warming over the next nine years”

    You’d think that somebody from the Green Blob might take Carana aside and explain how ridiculous his ‘calculations’ are in the real world and how bad such stupid wolf crying is for their cause.

  21. Okay, so as I understand it, 11 years from now, we’ll all be frying because the temperature will go from a normal 32F to 50.036F? That sounds like a pretty normal temperature run in the Spring. In fact, the high today in my kingdom (3 miles west of Lake Michigan 35 north of Chicago) was 62F, so 50.0something F would be pretty normal for this time of year.

    Obvious questions:
    Isn’t that 11 years one solar cycle?
    Is that guy nuts?
    Does he have nothing to do except make himself look silly?
    Are the magnetic poles going to flipflop before 2026?
    Should I stock up on popcorn and beverages for the denouement?

  22. I hadn’t realised it was tony mcleod, of Queensland, Australia, who posted a link to the same table in figure 2 in another thread. Rib tickling stuff! Thanks for the laugh tony. If you had any credibility before that post, it’s totally gone now.

    • Lol, yeah, that’s where David found it.

      If you really want a laugh then…wait for it… we sterilise the surface too by leaving 400 nuclear reactors unattened. lol

      • I used to work with someone here in Aus that is from Romania. He worked in Romania in a nuclear power station during the Y2K crossover. What you claim here is nothing based in reality, and nothing happened at that power plant in the Y2K transition.

        Being a self proclaimed leftist, did you vote to ruin your state?

      • I thought I’d coined it but googled it I saw that earlier mention of it.
        Thanatos – Greek for death

      • “Tony mcleod November 25, 2017 at 1:26 am”

        Greeks, responsible for most words you and I know and use, so no surprise you thought you were the first and then failed.

      • I did go and look up the parts and come up with the Thanatozoic Era – the Death Era – following on from the Cenozoic.

        The potential effect of homo sapiens could need more than a new epoch. So I’m claiming it as original.

      • “tony mcleod November 25, 2017 at 9:37 pm

        So I’m claiming it as original.”

        Have you submitted your claim to the appropriate authority and in the appropriate literature? Was it peer reviewed? I mean, you are not just making it up are you? You can backup your claim with facts, right?

      • Who is th “appropriate authority and in the appropriate literature”.

        Isn’t an entry here good enough?

      • “tony mcleod November 25, 2017 at 10:42 pm

        Btw, I’m not that happy about being the guy who named the end of the world.”

        Please tony, *STAY* in Queensland. New South Wales has enough cognitively challenged people, mostly politicians, already.

  23. Prophets frequently end their caeers by msling the classic porphet’s error of predicting specific things in a short enough horizon that their predictions can be tested.
    But even by that standard Carana is a self parodying fool.

  24. Figure 2, “Potential global temperature rise by 2026” reminds me of the many auto mileage “enhancers” that can be found at the local auto parts store. Install all of the on your vehicle, add up all the claimed mileage increases, and your mpg goes to infinity. (I’ll stop short of claiming that you’re producing gasoline.)

  25. “Show of hands… How many readers can identify the most egregious error in Mr. Carana’s claim of 1.62 °C of warming since 1900?”

    Show of hands: How many readers think that a “global average temperature” is physically meaningful and/or accurately reflects “climate”?

      • Sorry. It’s a calloquial saying: ‘she’ll be apples’ means everything will be fine and there will be no problems.
        Googling shows it’s from the rhyming slang: apples and spice = nice.

        In other words, you are saying ” Meh, move along, nothing to see…”

  26. And why shouldn’t warmistas make completely ridiculous and over the top predictions?
    Look where the fear mongering has got them so far.
    Look how much their dismal record of forecast accuracy has cost them in credibility within the minds of the credulous.
    By all indications, they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by keeping the ridiculousness knob turned up to somewhere between “Three Stooges” and “Overweight Mimes”.

  27. Polynomial predictions are usually polynomial predictions.
    If I had a nickle for every time I predicted a future stock price based on a polynomial prediction….

    I’d be broke.

Comments are closed.