Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Much angst has been expended on a very vague climate threshold, the so-called “2 degrees Celsius limit”, sometimes called the “2° global warming tipping point”. I find it all quite hilarious, for a reason that will become clear shortly. First a bit of prologue. Here’s the New Republic from 2014 about the two-degree limit:
This Is What Our Hellish World Will Look Like After We Hit the Global Warming Tipping Point
BY REBECCA LEBER
December 21, 2014
The de facto assumption of climate change policy is that the world must limit the increase in global temperatures to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above pre-Industrial levels, or risk hitting a tipping point where the impact becomes irreversible. The figure dates back to 1975, when economist William Nordhaus suggested that more than 3.6 degrees [F] of warming would “take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.” By the 1990s, 3.6 degrees [F] gained traction in the scientific community and then in politics, when the European Council argued in 1996 that 3.6 degrees [F] should be the United Nations’ red line for global warming. It wasn’t until four years ago, at a climate conference in Cancun, Mexico, that countries finally committed to “hold the increase in global average temperatures below” 3.6 degrees [F].
Here’s another, from “The Conversation” in 2017, along with its obligatory accompanying heartbreaking graphic (emphasis mine):
BY DAVID TITTLEY
August 22, 2017 10.04pm EDT
If you read or listen to almost any article about climate change, it’s likely the story refers in some way to the “2 degrees Celsius limit.” The story often mentions greatly increased risks if the climate exceeds 2°C and even “catastrophic” impacts to our world if we warm more than the target.
Recently a series of scientific papers have come out and stated that we have a 5 percent chance of limiting warming to 2°C, and only one chance in a hundred of keeping man-made global warming to 1.5°C, the aspirational goal of the 2015 Paris United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference. Additionally, recent research shows that we may have already locked in 1.5°C of warming even if we magically reduced our carbon footprint to zero today.
And there’s an additional wrinkle: What is the correct baseline we should use? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) frequently references temperature increases relative to the second half of the 19th century, but the Paris Agreement states the temperature increases should be measured from “preindustrial” levels, or before 1850. Scientists have shown such a baseline effectively pushes us another 0.2°C closer to the upper limits.
Be afraid … be very afraid … the IPCC says that we shouldn’t go warmer than 2°C above the temperature of the late 1800’s. The Paris agreement says that we shouldn’t go warmer than 1.8°C above the temperature of the late 1800’s (which they say is 2°C above “preindustrial”).
Or else, we’ve been warned over and over … or else we’re facing Thermageddon, the fabled end of times. More floods. More droughts. More heat waves. More cold waves. At 2°C of warming, we’re supposed to be in deep trouble. Plants and animals curl up their toes and die. Birds fall off the perch, parrots are pining for the fjords. Stick a fork in the globe, we’re toast.
Now, there’s kind of a truism in the study of the global climate. You can’t set up a controlled experiment with respect to the global climate. And it’s a fact. There’s no other planet to use as a control … plus you can’t vary the experiment, you can’t dial the global barometric pressure up a ways and see what happens.
However, noticing this lack of a control should not make us give up experiments. Although there are no controlled experiments, there are “natural experiments”. I first came across this term a while ago in the 1998 paper by Sherwood Idso. It’s available at Warwick Hughes’ site here.
So … what natural experiment might we look at regarding the dreaded 2 degrees Celsius lime?
Well, we have the Berkeley Earth global average surface air temperature record, available here. As with all datasets, it has its problems, one of which I discussed here. But it’s arguably the best we have, and not a whole lot different from the others … so with all that as prologue, and without further fanfare, below I give you the Berkeley Earth global average surface air temperature anomaly. The light blue line is the monthly temperature anomaly. The yellow and black line is a six-year Gaussian smooth of the monthly temperature anomaly.
… there is our natural experiment. I’m sure you can see the problem …
We are already two degrees warmer than the 1850’s … more than that since the early 1800’s.
So my question to the assembled masses is … now that we’ve breached the all-important two degree Celsius climate limit, where are the corpses? Where are the unusual disasters? Where are the climate-related catastrophes? Why are there no flooded cities? What happened to the areas that were supposed to be uninhabitable? Where are the drowned atolls? We were promised millions of climate refugees, where are they?
In short, where are any of the terrible occurrences that we’ve been warned would strike us at the 2 degree Celsius limit?
Seriously, we’ve just done the natural experiment. The world has warmed up the feared amount, and there have been no increases in any climate-related disasters.
Why no increases? Good question. Part of the answer is that much, perhaps most of that warming has occurred a) at night b) during the winter c) in the sub-polar and cold-temperate regions of the planet. And call me crazy, but I don’t think anyone in Boston or Vladivostok will complain if midwinter nights are a degree or so warmer, particularly the poor …
Another part of the answer is that in general, warmth is a good thing for both animals and plants. Longer growing seasons, less ice on the rivers, warmer soil, less frostbite for the homeless, less need to insulate and heat, every bug is happy … there is a reason that life grows riotously and quickly in the tropics, and sparsely and slowly near the poles.
I guess the best news is that the worst has happened, nothing we can do, we’re doomed. We’ve lost the war on the thermometer. We’ve gone over the climate tipping point, we’ve surpassed the 2-degree climate limit, been there, exceeded that … so perhaps, at last, we’re now free to go attack some real problems.
But … where are the corpses?
w.
PS—Sadly, this mad preoccupation with changes of tenths of a degree obscures the astounding stability of the Earth’s climate system. It is this ever-surprising stability which first attracted my attention and led me to study the climate. Looking at that stability let me know immediately that the temperature of the system was governed by some combination of thermoregulatory phenomena. You don’t get that kind of stability by accident.
So let me leave you with the exact same data that you see in the graph above, but this time in engineers’ terms, looking at the climate as a planet-wide heat engine.
Best to you all in this most awesome world of marvels, stars, and northern lights,
w.
As the title says BEEN EXCEEDED
Warwick Hughes, via Jo Nova looks at past temperatures in the Richmond, Windsor Penrith area.
Been MUCH warmer than Sunday was. When CO2 was a thing of the future. !!
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/sydney-before-climate-change-over-50c-122f-recorded-at-windsor-observatory-1939/
“most of that warming has occurred a) at night b) during the winter c) in the sub-polar and cold-temperate regions of the planet”
And this is the crucial point, GH gasses reduce extremes of temperature.
With the additional CO2 we see the planet responding with ~20% increased leaf area since juts the 80s. (NASA LAI data)
If there is an Earth2 in a parallel universe identical in all respects to ours except that CO2 is 100 ppm higher, the Earth2 global warming scientists would have a decreed a 2C limit. And if there is an Earth3 identical in all respects except that CO2 was 200 ppm higher, the Earth3 global warming scientists would have decreed a 2C limit. Etc.
The earth’s climate is not stable for if were there would be no glacial and inter glacial periods.
The reason why is because the earth’s climate system is in a delicate balance and any change to the balance can cascade the climate of the earth into a different regime. This has happened many times in the past as evidenced by the glacial and non glacial periods of time and will happen again.
Meanwhile the very low solar is effecting overall sea surface temperatures now +.175c down from around +.35c this past summer. They will still be going lower, as will the global temperatures as we move forward.
Part of the answer is that much, perhaps most of that warming has occurred a) at night b) during the winter c) in the sub-polar and cold-temperate regions of the planet.
Which says to me that there is some regulatory mechanism limiting the upper end of the heating range. The only place for “stored” heat is at the low end. Even there it is flowing away from those places as fast as physics allows. It’s just that there is a little more that needs to hustle through the exits.
Yup, it’s called convection. More IR back to the surface evaporates more water and very light water vapor increases. This reduces the density of the surface air prompting faster convection. This leads to more clouds. Since this occurs mainly during the day and days are longer in summer that is where this negative feedback is strongest.
I was looking at maps around the north pole a couple days ago and something struck me – the concentration of ice is not symmetric. The Bering Strait inhibits the flow of water between the Pacific and the Arctic. If you really want to cool the earth by a couple degrees the solution is fairly simple (and probably cheaper than CO2 regulations). All you would need to do is move enough dirt to expand the Faroe Islands until they are roughly the size of Iceland. You would block the movement of ice out of the Arctic, ensure that the entire Arctic remains frozen basically year round, and likely get to the point where London is colder than North Dakota is currently. Cooling the planet actually isn’t that hard.
However, the good folks who live in London might object. That’s the problem – nobody actually wants it to be colder, because it sucks to be cold.
Let me add it is the delicate balance the earth’s climate system is in which makes an otherwise relatively stable system unstable.
Willis, your last graph doesn’t seem to show the 4 degrees C annual fluctuation of the average temperature. Instead you seemed to have tacked on the seasonally adjusted temperatures to a baseline temperature.
Ehm, the concept of a planetary temperature is somewhat dubious as it is very far from the annual over 20K swing we have with max fluctuations more than double that during one year.
The average temperature of the earth changes throughout the year due to the differences of land mass between the northern and southern hemispheres. I have not been able to locate any information on the size of the difference between the high and the low. I only find anomalies and not actual monthly temperatures, just annual anomalies.
Can anyone tell me how much the earths annual temperature changes from its high to its low in one year?
By the alarmist logic, a tiny bit of harmless global warming is supposed to vastly increase the frequency of extreme events. But then, when it was truly much much warmer in the past, such events must therefore have been going on pretty much 24/7/365. But they didn’t. Variance and variability do not increase with increasing temperature, they decrease. This is the primary dishonesty they took on board when they decided to change the name of the game from global-warming to climate-change.
Yup. Somehow, they delude the true believers to believe that a warmer world, with less temperature differential (even according to their own AGW religion) between the equator and the poles, “bad weather” will increase, when it actually means LESS turbulent and violent weather, not more. This only makes logical sense – the most violent weather occurs when air masses of vastly different temperatures collide.
“According to any textbook on dynamic meteorology, one may reasonably conclude that in a warmer world, extratropical storminess and weather variability will actually decrease.”
— Richard Lindzen
Willis, that was so good!
Now I will go observe and comment on what 97% of all Canadians express many times each year……..”It’s COLD………it’s REALLY cold!”
The human element in global warmingdate back15,000 years.
We killed off the Siberian Musk Ox. Their main diet was Birch trees which grow in Northern climates
With Musk Ox gone the Birch trees in the Artic Circle are flourishing. They shade the snow.
The result is heat absorbed. Heat which would have been reflected by white snow.
JOHN ROSA. BERNICE LOUISIANNA.
John Rosa January 9, 2018 at 7:40 am
Thanks, John. First, the area where the Siberian Musk Ox lived gets only about 20 W/m2 of sunshine, a trivial amount. Most of the energy up there comes from downwelling longwave, about 200 W/m2. So the change in energy from the supposed loss of birch trees would be too small to affect much of anything.
Next, their diet is not mostly trees. From the National Geographic:
During the winter they will dig through the snow for the shoots of willow and birch. However, I can’t find anything that says that they extirpated the birch trees, and I doubt it because it’s only a small part of their diet.
Best regards,
w.
There is a small shrub called dwarf birch in these areas. The plant looks birchy to be sure. It has bigger tough clinging roots that are thicker than the twiggy above ground part (sign of once more robust growth?). They are handy for a small tea fire and used also for smoking grayling, char, etc.
https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/betnan/all.html
Berkeley Earth is the best dataset we have? Then we don’t have very much. I downloaded their data and recreated their published plot of the ever increasing temperature anomaly. It is the worst kind of tripe. They literally are throwing a bunch of unrelated data together, which is 100% wrong. Yes, if I measure the temperature of the oven and the freezer I am doing the same thing. However, you can’t average the two together just because they are both temperature measurements. That is what they are doing. Hell, some 30% of the stations they use for their data supplied data covering one year or less. Most of the stations supplying data after 1999 provided no data prior to 1990. There are very few stations supplying complete annual data from 1900 to 2004. They have no clue how the temperature in 2000 actually compared to the temperature in 1936.
If you doubt me look at the very first graphic in this post from my blog. I copied their curve straight from their website using a snipping tool. Having recreated their curve with their data and having examined their data in depth I can tell you they are not using any homogenization technique what so ever.
http://bubbaspossumranch.blogspot.com/2017/07/2016-was-hottest-year-evah-or-was-it.html
Hello Willis,
What data are you plotting? Here is the Wood for Trees plot of the BEST land/ocean average: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/plot/best/mean:49
Looks to me like maybe 1.25 +/-0.15C since 1850 (though the data are noisy). Are you perhaps plotting Best land only average?
It does seem to be land only. BEST land/ocean starts in 1850.
Hey Nick, how are your anomalous anomalies going today?
I love the red spot over Siberia that was supposed to balance the blue over N America. It was really hot , yes MINUS 15c rather than MINUS 17C ( based on some arbitrary 30 year average of data points that don’t exist).
How about some real temperatures, you know, the stuff we really experience? How about showing how maximums have really behaved , and how average temperatures are really formed, and why its really all about very slight increases in minimums?
How about telling the truth!
“yes MINUS 15c rather than MINUS 17C ”
Seems some people think that when the thermometer is below zero it doesn’t count as a temperature.
When it’s winter in the coldest parts of NH that’s the size of it.
From Nick’s website…..
Toneb, you have just proved my point. The only thing you can do is reproduce meaningless anomalous anomalies. I don’t think there is any proof at all that Siberia is warmer right now than it has been over the last 30 years at this time of year. There are just not enough real data points to prove that. But more to the point the real temperatures are minus 15C and below. If the poor citizens of Siberia have got slightly warmer nights, ie not minus 49C but minus 40C so giving an arbitrary average increase of 2C , well I guess they will be sacrificing themselves on the alter of AGW to return to colder nights.
Tell the truth, quorte real temperatures, night, day, winter, summer, tell it as it really is, not hide behind stupid ‘anomalies’.
“Toneb, you have just proved my point. The only thing you can do is reproduce meaningless anomalous anomalies. I don’t think there is any proof at all that Siberia is warmer right now than it has been over the last 30 years at this time of year.”
My friend anomalies are all we have in terms of data of trends.
As is ever my expectation from denizens here….
There will never be proof.
The Goal-posts are ever shifting.
If it makes you happy …. if you say so.
” If the poor citizens of Siberia have got slightly warmer nights, ie not minus 49C but minus 40C so giving an arbitrary average increase of 2C , well I guess they will be sacrificing themselves on the alter of AGW to return to colder nights.”
You really are conflated.
The point is NOT that in Siberia, warmer in winter is better.
But that there is a warming trend.
No more. No less.
The graph that Toneb shows bases the anomolies on a cherry picked base period.If the series starts in 1850 and ends in 2017 why pick a colder period for your base rather than the average of the whole period I wonder – could it be to show even warmer anomolies by any chance? At least explain the use of 1951-80 as a base line please., Or show the same anomolies with a base of 1979 – 2017 or one of the other warm periods covered by the data series. What relevance has the anomaly base line to a temperature in Dec 2017 that finished 37 years ago
“At least explain the use of 1951-80 as a base line please.”
I made the graph, and I chose 1951-80 to match the GISS period. I matched the GISS colors too. It’s all so that they can be compared. In fact, choice of anomaly base makes no difference to plots; it just shifts them by a constant amount, and the colors should change accordingly.
GISS uses 1951-80 because it started in the 1980’s. There is no reason to change, and it just causes confusion. For all the old data and graphs, you then have to explain carefully whether it is old base or new base. It would be abit like changing US from F to C.
Thanks for the explanation, I get that and fair enough. However in isolation you perhaps could accede that the illustration as a result uses ‘hotter’ colours than would have been used if the base was represented by a warmer 30 year period and therefore claims of cherry picking without a balancing or control illustration to back up this single example are not unreasonable. I have the greatest of admiration for collators of data and I expect them to display them in a manner that represents their point of view – not to explain the base for the anomalies, however, is to allow misinterpretation of the results. But thanks again anyhow.
Definitely more than +2 degrees C. since the late 1600’s
maunder Minimum low solar energy period.
I’d say at least +3 degrees C. from the coldest
point during the Little ice Age.
Did the people in the 1600s like the cold?
No they hates it, and there were some famines.
Did the people love the warming that followed.
Anecdotal evidence says they did.
Of course the +2 degrees is meaningless nonsense.
The claim that CO2 controls the climate is meaningless nonsense.
The claim that CO2 could cause runaway warming is meaningless nonsense.
The IPCC “95% confidence” is meaningless nonsense.
The “97% consensus” is from bogus surveys.
What else would you expect
from stupid leftists
who support:
Socialism,
Open borders,
Islam as a religion of peace,
Israel as the only evil nation
in the Middle East,
$15 minimum wage
to help low skilled workers,
Free college for everybody,
Banning GMO foods,
Nominating world class liar Hillary Clinton?
Leftists are stupid people
who take commands from their leaders
and do no independent research.
They are 99% emotions,
and 1% logical thinking.
Leftists are mind numbed robots — the borg.
Minds closed to skepticism.
Consider character attacks to be “debate”.
So I am now speaking to them
in their own language !
And that Tonedeaf poster
is Exhibit A.
End of rant.
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
“And that Tonedeaf poster
is Exhibit A.”
Actually you are my exhibit “C”
You come close but there a more extreme versions on here.
Oh, and BTW: if you say so.
If I ever open a comedy club,
Tonedeaf,
I’ll recommend you,
to my competitors !
As Monckton would say …..
“And your scientific point is?”
As you seem only to denigrate me rather than the science I link.
[snip – the commenter you were responding to is a fake, using a fake name, fake email, and fake Internet connection methodology – he is well known to us, and all of his comments have been removed because he has engaged in serial policy violations spanning months – Anthony]
Tonedeaf
Your links are to junk science.
The exact causes of warming are not known
CO2 is certainly not the climate controller.
Your links all think it is the controller.
So they are all junk science.
If CO2 really controlled the climate
the so-called models would provide
accurate predictions.
They don’t.
Not even close.
Case closed.
Your links are just as bad
as your comments.
You spout about
meaningless global warming religion
that can never be proven wrong
in your mind like all junk science.
Real science can be falsified.
I’ll wait here while you
look up that word
in a dictionary!
As an Australian, where do I apply as a climate refugee immediately?
We have just been informed by our Bureau of Meteorology ‘s head of climate monitoring, Dr Karl Braganza, that the national mean temperature for 2017 was 22.75C, making it 0.95C warmer than the 1961-90 average.
But that’s way hotter than the global average of 16C. And this month we have had some temperatures above 40C. Please think of me as I lie on the beach and wade into the ocean, waiting for climate change salvation.
My house has very cold things in it (freezer), very hot things (cooker), quite hot things (kettle, central heating pipework), rooms at different temperatures , a cat and 2 humans. If I were to take temperature reading of various things and average them (carefully, scientificaly and with the correct weightings) what does;
a) The result represent AND
b) what significance does it have.
Extend procedure to cover
1) house+ garden
2) 6 neighbours
3) village
4)nearby town
5)district
6)country
7)continent
8)whole globe
In each case answer a) & b).
Do you notice anything interesting?
If you plot your house hold climate trend over time while moving your thermometers around, generally moving them closer and closer to the stove, then you will have a perfect replication of exactly what these so called scientists have done.
http://bubbaspossumranch.blogspot.com/2017/07/berkeley-earth-super-duper-exposed.html
We’ll be open to your immigration to Western Canada. Had you been here the last three weeks you would have enjoyed -30C+ temps with wind chills much lower. Red TV screens warning of -40C+ are delightful. I’m sure you would be happy here. Shovelling snow definitely beats laying on a HOT Aussie beach.
The 2 °C limit fails because it is a figure pulled out of a hat with no connection to the real world. This limit was adopted to avoid dealing with the problem all says is important, but no one wants to deal with: CO2.
A mean temperature and an anomaly tells allmost nothing of the conditions at the Globe.
You can also calculate a mean telephone number, but gives it any meaning?
The weather gives the climate by averaging over some time, but you can not go back, the climate figures can not tell about the weather here and now, and not at all in the future. The temperature is only a small part of weather and climate, so they lost the battle when they only focused on temperature.
‘It wasn’t until four years ago, at a climate conference in Cancun, Mexico, that countries finally committed to “hold the increase in global average temperatures below” 3.6 degrees [F].’
They use a decimal point to show they have a sense of humor.
Willis, this is the sort of work for which you receive so much adulation from climate worrier and sceptic alike! The sober business of actually looking at the numbers is not kosher climate science and I just know the Team is grateful you draw these things to their attention.
Another huge experiment that worriers are keeping mum about these days and which I think is a bigger existential threat to the worrier meme than the dreaded ‘Pause ‘, is the Great Greening event – the 14% and counting increase in planet forest cover, not to mention fattening of existing stock of all other plants , crops, plankton, and even creatures in this growing habitat are probably experiencing a
obesity issues.
This paradigm change in the cost of carbon moves it unequivocally into big number benefit. A realistic outlook is for a Garden of Eden Earth with population peaked, prosperity spreading and peace (sorry no error bars on the latter) by mid century. It also would mean the end of the Malthusian neurosis and all the ugly byproducts of that including climateering.
Oh, and scientists will be back to looking at the numbers dispassionately and following where they lead instead of leading them to follow the theory.
Why all the hoo-ha? William Nordhaus was an economist!!
Any chance you can publish a higher resolution version of the last graph? As an engineer, I would like to post a print out on my office wall . . . Helps stop my physicists-in-training from bloviating . . .. .
So sorry to be late to the debate, but this…this is idiocy: Nick Stokes January 9, 2018 at 12:12 am “…It is easy to put CO2 into the air, but hard to get it out….” I wonder how many trillion tons of CO2 now exist in the form of rock, forever excluded from bringing sustenance to plants, from which they make oxygen for us to live. CO2, after water, is God’s greatest gift to life (at least as we know it). It’s precious. Maybe we should form a religion around it.
“I wonder how many trillion tons of CO2 now exist in the form of rock, forever excluded from bringing sustenance to plants, from which they make oxygen for us to live. CO2, after water, is God’s greatest gift to life (at least as we know it). It’s precious. Maybe we should form a religion around it.”
And how long does it take for CO2 to be weathered out of the atmosphere?
Point is there is an optimum atmospheric content for maintaining the biosphere in the balance humankind has flourished during this inter-glacial.
Toneb said
“Point is there is an optimum atmospheric content for maintaining the biosphere in the balance humankind has flourished during this inter-glacial.”
This sounds an awful lot like opinion and speculation to me. What exactly is the optimum CO2 content for the global biosphere? What physical and not modeled evidence do you have that it is optimum? How can say with any confidence that adding a bit more CO2 will not be even better for life on Earth?
“This sounds an awful lot like opinion and speculation to me. What exactly is the optimum CO2 content for the global biosphere? What physical and not modeled evidence do you have that it is optimum? How can say with any confidence that adding a bit more CO2 will not be even better for life on Earth?”
“What physical”
Just what I said.
To whit…..
“in the balance humankind has flourished during this inter-glacial.”
No opinion.
Just a basic fact.
We did.
Evidence for the harm any more CO2 (already 40% greater) is abundant.
But woe betide anyone rattling the echo-chamber’s cage by pointing that out.
Mankind has flourished with CO2 levels of around 280ppm for the majority of that time.
With which the carbon cycle matched sink and source.
Now it doesn’t.
“Point is there is an optimum atmospheric content for maintaining the biosphere in the balance humankind has flourished during this inter-glacial.”
Really…
And you are totally certain of that WHY, precisely?
That looks much more like an article of faith than a scientific statement to me – but there again articles of faith are all that your idea of “climate science” is based on anyway, aren’t they?
“Evidence for the harm any more CO2 (already 40% greater) is abundant”
Nice statement but no proof of this other than computer model projections….and your borderline religious beliefs.
“Mankind has flourished with CO2 levels of around 280ppm for the majority of that time.”
I am sure they might argue against this statement during the cold, droughts and famines that have peppered this interglacial. The most prosperous periods in this current interglacial have been when it has been the warmest similar to today (Roman, Medieval warm periods), not when the earth was cold. So why is a warmer planet such a risk?
“With which the carbon cycle matched sink and source.
Now it doesn’t.”
The carbon cycle has fluctuated back and forth for millions of years meaning at times they are out of balance until a new equilibrium is reached. Why is now any different and such a disaster?
Look I get it. You believe we should not be messing around with mother nature and the planet..This is a noble and honest cause. However, if you were to put your scientific hat back on for just a moment…you would step back and look at the observations and say..so far…the observed changes from recent warming have been mostly beneficial…not detrimental…
Putting all your faith in a computer model prediction 100 years from now when observations here and now are showing no major concern from a warmer planet and even potential benefits…then this is no longer science thinking, but a blind belief.
“Look I get it. You believe we should not be messing around with mother nature and the planet..This is a noble and honest cause. However, if you were to put your scientific hat back on for just a moment…you would step back and look at the observations and say..so far…the observed changes from recent warming have been mostly beneficial…not detrimental…”
Thank you for that.
We have not gone long enough to know the models are far wrong. Basic principles give a very similar result. Obs still lie within the individual GCM realisations of random NV.
“Beneficial” will not last though.
Detrimental will take over.
“Putting all your faith in a computer model prediction 100 years from now when observations here and now are showing no major concern from a warmer planet and even potential benefits…then this is no longer science thinking, but a blind belief.”
But I’m not putting all my faith” in them.
It’s just a matter of reasonable probability.
I am of the view that it’s sensible from many angles to move away from fossil burning.
And that anyway all the world is (slowly but surely) even the US (on a State by State basis) despite the current POTUS.
Do you have house insurance FI?
it’s call the precautionary principle.
And the odds are well beyond the chances of your/my house burning down.
Willis,
Well done. You have stated clearly and with great humour that the emperor really does have no clothes …
Where I live in Central England, the Met Office (for indeed it is they) predicts for tomorrow, Thursday, a max temperature of 4C. By next Spring the typical daily max temperature might well be a heady 16C. Sometime during the Summer (but this is England, so nothing is guaranteed) a day or two might even warm to a max of 28C.
I can cope! Everyone can cope! So a hypothetical permanent worldwide 2C upward shift would be as of nothing compared with the temperature ranges that almost all humans conveniently and efficiently deal with every day of their lives, wherever they live.
In a rational world your revelation would be the end of climate alarmism. Unfortunately we do not live in such a world. The populace has been indoctrinated too long with incomprehensible sciency stuff from politicians and their many fellow travellers. So the lack of understanding is not because it is complicated but because it is truly incoherent and illogical.
So we must all press on with simple truths. Keep up the good work.
Willis,
Well done. You have stated clearly and with great humour that the emperor really does have no clothes …
Where I live in Central England, the Met Office (for indeed it is they) predicts for tomorrow, Thursday, a max temperature of 4C. By next Spring the typical daily max temperature might well be a heady 16C. Sometime during the Summer (but this is England, so nothing is guaranteed) a day or two might even warm to a max of 28C.
I can cope! Everyone can cope! So a hypothetical permanent worldwide 2C upward shift would be as of nothing compared with the temperature ranges that almost all humans conveniently and efficiently deal with every day of their lives, wherever they live.
In a rational world your revelation would be the end of climate alarmism. Unfortunately we do not live in such a world. The populace has been indoctrinated too long with incomprehensible sciency stuff from politicians and their many fellow travellers. So the lack of understanding is not because it is complicated but because it is truly incoherent and illogical.
But we must all press on with simple truths. Keep up the good work.
+100
Using linear regression in Excel, the total warming since 1850 in the Berkeley data linked to is +1.55 C. Over the whole series, or since 1753 anyway, when continuous monthly data starts, it’s smaller, at +1.30 C (the late 1700s were relatively warm, according to Berkeley.)
Sure, current temperatures are over 2.0C warmer than they were for relatively brief periods in the past, such as the first decade or so of the 1800s. But that period isn’t representative of typical ‘pre-industrial’ temperatures. It was considered unusually cold even at the time. According to the Berkeley data, global temperatures have not yet risen to the full and sustained +2.0C above average ‘pre-industrial’ temperatures that the IPCC and co are talking about.
Temp data in 1850 has error bands well in excess of the 2C you are trying to show in a meaningless trend line.
Also tell the truth. Average Temps, not anomalous anomalies, have increased ever so slightly because minimums have increased ever so slightly more than maximums have declined. Its an outbreak of mildness.
And why, well having many many more humans living in cities that are ‘open’ 24/7 is bound to increase minimums. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a trace gas in the atmosphere.
TELL THE TRUTH!