Claim: Half a degree less warming can avoid precipitation extremes

Just half a degree Celsius could make a major difference when it comes to global warming, according to a new paper published by a collaborative research team based in China.

The study, which appears in Nature Communications on August 8, 2018, confirms the significance of the incremental global warming limits articulated by the Paris Agreement, an accord structured within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. A total of 175 parties (174 countries and the European Union)* agreed to work to stop global warming from increasing more than 2°C, and every effort is to be made to limit the increase to 1.5°C and prevent the last half of a degree of warming. The half a degree Celsius is so significant that it could be the barrier preventing extreme precipitation events, according to Tianjun Zhou, the corresponding author on the paper.

Zhou is a senior scientist at the State Key Laboratory of Numerical Modeling for Atmospheric Sciences and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics in the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He is also a professor at the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences.

“As the climate warms, both the mean state and the variability of extreme precipitation are projected to increase, inducing more intense and dangerous extreme events,” Zhou said. “Limiting global warming to 1.5°C, compared to 2°C, would reduce areal and population exposures to once-in-10-year or once-in-20-year extreme precipitation events by approximately 20 to 40 percent.”

Zhou and his team combined CMIP5, an archive of comprehensive climate models, with socio-economic projections to investigate future climate changes and the accompanying impacts. The researchers specifically examined extreme precipitation events in the global monsoon region, which sprawls north and south from the Earth’s equator and includes nearly two-thirds of the world population. This region is more impacted by extreme precipitation than any other land mass on Earth.

The scientists found that by reducing the global warming limit by 0.5°C, a significant number of extreme precipitation events and their impacts could be avoided.

“Realizing the 1.5°C low warming target proposed by the Paris Agreement could robustly benefit the populous global monsoon region, in terms of lower exposure to precipitation extremes,” Zhou said, referring to the severe floods, landslides and debris flows that can result from excessive rain. “[Our results] are robust across climate models, different definitions of dangerous events, future greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, and population scenarios.”

The researchers will continue to study the physical processes of how 0.5°C less warming affects dangerous precipitation extremes. They’re also calling others to attention and action in regions that are the most sensitive to the 0.5°C additional warming.

“Among the global land monsoon regions, the most affected sub-regions, the South African and South Asian monsoon regions, are already among the most vulnerable to adverse impacts of climate change,” Zhou said. “Our results call attention to more effective adaption activities in these sensitivity regions.”


*The United States has announced it will withdraw from the Paris Agreement by 2020.

The paper:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alan Tomalty
August 8, 2018 10:38 am

“Zhou and his team combined CMIP5, an archive of comprehensive climate models, with socio-economic projections”


Send us more money for research and it might even work out to an 1/8 of a degree.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 8, 2018 10:47 am

Sounds like Agent 86, Maxwell Smart.
“Surrender now! You are surrounded by 50 federal agents with machine guns.”
“I find that hard to believe.”
“would you believe 25 state troopers?”
“…how about 6 lost boy scouts with a pocket knife?”

Lee L
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 8, 2018 11:11 am

More like ‘Buy our new all Chinese nuclear power plant’. Works anywhere to save the planet.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 8, 2018 11:51 am

I was thinking that the sales of those Chinese made solar panels must be dropping off.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 8, 2018 12:59 pm

The next study will headline…if China can bust the US economy…while doing everything in their power to get their energy rates down

Matt G
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 8, 2018 1:29 pm

The climate models are awful with ice, clouds and water vapor so there is no way :-

1) They have any idea how a 0.5c change in temperature will effect precipitation.
2) They have any idea how this will effect clouds and water vapor.
3) They have any idea how this will effect polar ice.
4) They have any idea even if this 0.5c will be natural or not.

To sum up they have no idea and just a bad educated modelled guess.

Reply to  Matt G
August 9, 2018 9:23 am

The climate models keep telling us to expect more extreme weather.
The weather on the other hand continues to ignore the climate models.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 8, 2018 1:55 pm

“Zhou and his team combined CMIP5, an archive of comprehensive climate models, with socio-economic projections”…….and that is all you need to know!

Reply to  sunderlandsteve
August 8, 2018 5:57 pm

A real melange of goop.
reminds me of Shakespeare:

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and caldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder’s fork and blind-worm’s sting,
Lizard’s leg and howlet’s wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and caldron bubble.
Cool it with a baboon’s blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 8, 2018 6:50 pm

We are already saved,at least in the US. NOAA’s Climate Reference Network temp anomaly for July in the lower 48 is just in – about a degree less than June. This despite all the caterwauling by Gov. Brown and countless press announcements about July’s hot weather,oops, excuse me, hot and hotter climate leading to drought, forest fires, dumber people and whatnot. Perhaps everybody else knows and that is why they are trying to get here? If we all keep trying we might get through to these people about the difference between weather and climate.

Reply to  DHR
August 9, 2018 12:28 pm

Were you to take a non-understander [especially if their lack of understanding is directly linked to continued employment, election, etc.], tied them up; held their head in a freezer ( -18 C is good, without LNG at -159 C!) , and held their feet in a operating gold smelter [over 1000 C] – then explain that their personal climate is – well – about average, they might get the point.

NB – No politician was injured in this thought experiment. Not even one surnamed Moonbeam!

Auto – caring for kittens, little puppies and Moonbeams since the 1950s!
Does Moonbeam care for us?
As much as the kitten? Almost?

August 8, 2018 10:44 am

Of course China is on board with the deception. They will benefit more than anyone else from the flawed, unverifiable, illogical, physics defying pseudo science pushing the CAGW narrative and that’s harming their ideological, military and economic competitors as they skate free.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 8, 2018 1:13 pm

All the while dumping much of the CO2 in to the air.

Reply to  Gary
August 8, 2018 4:02 pm

But isn’t it a good thing to have more of a life essential plant food gas in the atmosphere? In the Cambrian era, when vegetation got started and flourished ,it was 7000ppm

Reply to  judy
August 10, 2018 8:32 am

It’s especially good when everyone else is making coal cheaper for you by taxing their own emissions to suppress demand.

August 8, 2018 10:58 am

Lunatic claims like this make me want to pull my hair out.

Reply to  John
August 8, 2018 11:51 am

I only wish I could still pull my hair out.

Reply to  MarkW
August 8, 2018 1:33 pm

MY hair pulls itself out … and I hope it stops. I am headed (pun intended) toward a Trumpian combover with hairspray shell.

Joel O'Bryan
August 8, 2018 11:08 am

I’m waxing nostalgia for the good ‘ole days when the scammers at least had the decency to claim that +4.5 to 6.0 ℃ of CAGW was supposedly just around the corner if we didn’t stop burning fossil fuels. At least they had a number that would be scary.

Observational reality is leaving the climate scam with little choice now but to retreat to fractions of a degree below +2 ℃.

Louis Hunt
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 9, 2018 3:14 pm

“…every effort is to be made to limit the increase to 1.5°C and prevent the last half of a degree of warming.”

That last half of a degree is the magical threshold that will prevent the climate from transforming from Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde. Got it. Now tell us how to prevent climate researchers from evolving from writing about science to science fiction, and now to the horror genre, just to scare us into giving them control of our future.

Joel Snider
August 8, 2018 11:21 am

Pretty tight regulation requirements, there – I would say utterly impossible, but apparently that’s no reason not to employ psychotic control-freak laws worldwide.

August 8, 2018 11:22 am

Two questions:
Is the author talking about 1.5C warming from now, or from when AGW is supposed to have become significant (about 1950)?
Is 0.5C actually statistically significant, so can this minor amount of warming actually be measured?

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Bsl
August 8, 2018 11:31 am

If we recognize the LIA then we’re just getting back to something tolerable now.

Reply to  John Harmsworth
August 8, 2018 11:55 am

If we recognize the LIA, then we are certainly doomed since at least 1.5C warming has happened since then…
but how much of that is due to combustion of fossil fuels?

And this reminds me-how much of the apparent current warming is natural and how much is related to combustion? This is the most important unanswered question.

Reply to  Bsl
August 8, 2018 12:40 pm

This question was answered some time back by John Christy (Prof of Atmospheric Sciences at UAH and custodian of NASA’s satellite data) – he reckoned 75% was natural. A little story behind this: Roger Harrabin, environment correspondent of the BBC, called me just before he was about to interview Christy and asked ‘what questions should I put to him?’ (Harrabin had read my book ‘Chill’)….I told him ‘Don’t ask whether global warming is real, or if humans contribute – we know it is, ask him what percentage he thinks is natural’. The reply went out on the BBC later that week, but has never resurfaced! Since then (2010 I think) Christy published a paper that detailed 1) all warming prior to 1950 is agreed to be natural, 2) and IPCC believes ‘most’ of the post 1950 rise is man-made, 3) ‘most’ is not defined, 4) prior to 1950, we had roughly half of the 1 degree C of observed warming since 1800, most of which occurred between 1920 and 1940, 5) looking at the remaining 50%, we can deduct the rise of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation….which has an amplitude trough-to-peak of 0.2~0.4 C). He also pointed out that he was not including the background rate of recovery from the Little Ice Age….about 0.05/decade.

Thus, if we take the lower estimate for the AMO….we get 70% natural forces, and the higher will give 90%. If we take IPCC ‘most’ as anywhere from 51-99%, then even their own lower figure will give us 74% natural!

It really is not hard to get an answer. The problem is getting anyone in government/media/campaign groups to do the sums!

Reply to  Peter Taylor
August 8, 2018 2:41 pm

It’s a pity you’re not speaking at Porto2018.
Diversity is good . . .

Pat Frank
Reply to  Bsl
August 8, 2018 12:13 pm

Bsl, it’s 2 degrees from 1950. All of that 2 degrees is supposed to be caused by human GHG (mostly CO2) emissions.

The 0.5 C is not only not statistically significant but it’s also the lower limit 1-sigma accuracy (1 MB pdf) of the global air temperature record.

There isn’t a climate model in the world that can predict air temperature to ±0.5 C accuracy. They can’t predict air temperature to ±10 C accuracy (Let no one pretend tuned models demonstrate accuracy).

And to suppose that a GCM can predict precipitation differences at that resolution is scientific lunacy.

But when has scientific lunacy ever stopped Nature from publishing a climate scare story?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Pat Frank
August 8, 2018 1:30 pm

Pat No one I know has ever said more than 1 C increase for last 70 years. Did you mean Fahrenheit?

Pat Frank
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 8, 2018 3:05 pm

Hi Alan, that 2 C refers to the amount of warming from 1950 til the year 2100, i.e., the IPCC target. It’s not the warming between 1950 and now.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pat Frank
August 8, 2018 3:46 pm

From what I have read, the different models give contradictory regional predictions on precipitation. As bad as the temperature predictions are, they are better than the precipitation predictions.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 8, 2018 5:34 pm

The models fail when it comes to regional temperatures, too. There’s a reason the focus is always on global temperatures. But yes, they fail with other parameters as well…

Pat Frank
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 8, 2018 6:59 pm

You’re right, Clyde.

With the qualification that the temperature predictions aren’t good at all.

If the temps are trash, in other words, the precips are swill. 🙂

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Pat Frank
August 8, 2018 8:53 pm

2C from pre industrial. The definition of which is under review.
several papers on this.
IF you could read

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 9, 2018 7:59 am


“IF you could read”

Your snarky, arrogant remarks win you no converts! If you actually have something substantive to contribute — such as a link to a paper — that would be the actions of a scientist. Instead, what you provide sounds like someone trying to convince himself how superior he is.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 9, 2018 9:29 am

Steve is in with the in-crowd, Clyde. He knows what the in-crowd knows and goes where the in-crowd goes.

We here are all out–crowd and Steve doesn’t want us to forget it.

About science, Steve is not at all ‘in.’ So, in that arena he has to indulge his superiority where he can.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 9, 2018 8:34 am

We’ve already had AT LEAST +1.5 degrees C.
warming since the cold period in the late 1600s
during the Maunder Minimum — and probably
+2 degrees C. or more.

There was no harm.

The warming was good news.

Since greenhouse warming
is mainly at night,
and mainly in colder, drier
latitudes, it is harmless
— actually good news for the
few people who live there !

The greening of our planet,
from more CO2 in the air,
and acceleration of food crop
growth from more Co2 in the air
is a bonus.

There has been no bad news from
all the warming since the late 1600’s,
probably +2 degrees C. from the coldest year,
only good news.

But who cares about the past reality
when you can only get attention today
with scary (wrong) speculation about
all the damage that will (not) be done
by carbon dioxide.

Masher, you should find another religion
and drop out of the CO2 is Evil Cult —
you are wasting your time in the minutia
of tenth of a degree average temperature changes,
as if anyone actually lived in the average temperature.

Meanwhile, people still prefer to vacation
in warm areas, and older people tend to move
from Canada and northern US states
to southern US states,
at least for the winter,
if they can afford it.

Give me more Co2 in the air,
to maximize food crop growth,
and if there is more nighttime
warming in the higher latitudes,
as a result of more Co2,
that’s good news too.

My climate change blog

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 9, 2018 9:27 am

1) Anyone who claims that we know within 5C what the actual temperature was pre-industrial is either delusional or lying.
2) So what?
3) Most of it happened before the big increase in CO2 levels.

Dale S
Reply to  Bsl
August 8, 2018 12:16 pm

It’s 1.5C warming from “pre-industrial” times, where “pre-industrial” is actually a few late-19th century decades and not pre-industrial at all. (And of course, pre-industrial temperatures weren’t remotely fixed, either.) . The significance of that beginning level is that we’ve *already* warmed about 1C, with a significant portion of that warming coming before 1950. Of course, I wonder why the difference between another half degree and another full degree is supposed to have some dramatic effect, when the dramatic effects of the full degree we’ve warmed so far have been so undramatic.

Or I would wonder that, if this paper, like so many other impact papers, wasn’t based on regional effects from a GCM. I don’t believe any GCM makers have either claimed or demonstrated that their models demonstrate skill at the regional level. Heck, they don’t even simulate actual temperature well at the global level — the only thing they look somewhat competent at is temperature anomaly trends, if your expectations for such predictions are extremely low.

Reply to  Bsl
August 9, 2018 4:40 am

From the paper: “The timings of the 1.5 and 2 °C warming scenarios above the preindustrial levels (1861–1890)…”

August 8, 2018 11:30 am

God are they grasping at straws or what?

Since we can’t talk you into A……can we at least get B

paul courtney
Reply to  Latitude
August 8, 2018 5:55 pm

Latitude: Exactly. They finally seem to have realized that preaching “radical” “necessary” reduction in co2 emissions wasn’t going anywhere, it’s just too hard for those of us less virtuous than CliSci’s. Good thing they’ve already worked out those socio-economic projections, next they’ll tell us precisely how much of a carbon tax will get us that absolutely critical half-a-degree.

Reply to  Latitude
August 8, 2018 8:36 pm

Not allowed straws any more, have to grasp something else.

August 8, 2018 11:30 am

As the climate warms, both the mean state and the variability of extreme precipitation are projected to increase, …

More precipitation means more water has to evaporate. The Earth receives only a finite amount of energy from the sun. There is a hard cap on the amount of water that can be evaporated. There’s room for more evaporation but that would reduce the global temperature.

Reply to  commieBob
August 9, 2018 1:21 am


If you pop along to a nuclear/fossil power station you will find that although the power output can vary, the amount of water remains the same as it is recycled. It is the Rankine Cycle and it is this cycle in the atmosphere that provides the basic global thermostat
There is no hard cap on the amount of water that can be evaporated. It just recycles faster if there is an increase in energy input and maintains the same temperature.
Try boiling your kettle above 100C at sea level by turning up the heat. Can’t be done.

Reply to  Alasdair
August 9, 2018 3:42 pm

… It just recycles faster if there is an increase in energy input …

The sun sends only a fixed amount of energy to us. That’s what puts a cap on the amount of evaporation possible.

Ron Long
August 8, 2018 11:36 am

Now I’m really confused. CNN International is going on and on about extreme droughts becoming more common due to Global Climate Change and Trump abandoning the Paris Agreement, and now the Chinese researchers “robustly” proclaim that extreme excess precipitation events are more likely.

Why don’t we just keep actual pollution under control and adjust to whatever climate changes we encounter, the best we can. Some people won’t be happy until the next glacial event is well underway.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Ron Long
August 8, 2018 12:12 pm

You will find progressive/warmist talking points – mindlessly parroted by CNN – often at direct contradiction to each other.

And you’re right – this should be a no-brainer – rather than trying to control the Earth’s climate, why not just act on what actually does happen – as opposed to acting on projections a hundred years out.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Ron Long
August 8, 2018 5:35 pm

They want you to believe that you’ll suffer from a flood or a drought with little in between.

Bryan A
August 8, 2018 12:11 pm

A total of 175 parties (174 countries and the European Union)* agreed to work to stop global warming from increasing more than 2°C, and every effort is to be made to limit the increase to 1.5°C and prevent the last half of a degree of warming. The half a degree Celsius is so significant that it could be the barrier preventing extreme precipitation events, according to Tianjun Zhou, the corresponding author on the paper.

So if it is the “Last 0.5C” that needs to be eliminated to avoid the extreme precipitation events then since that threshold hasn’t been crossed (as of yet) it is obvious there have been no AGW Caused extreme precipitation events to date

paul courtney
Reply to  Bryan A
August 8, 2018 6:26 pm

Bryan: You make more than a good point, it’s a dagger in the heart of the “AGW is here and dangerous” zombie. So why don’t it die?!

Bryan A
Reply to  paul courtney
August 8, 2018 6:46 pm

Zombies don’t have functioning hearts, they have to be shot in the head

Reply to  Bryan A
August 9, 2018 9:32 am

The original statement was a claim that the Medieval Warm Period was 2C warmer than the bottom of the Little Ice Age. From that, the claim that we only know what is going to happen with the climate up to that 2C limit. Beyond that was unknown territory.

It only took a few years for the alarmists to warp “unknown terriroty” into, we’re all gonna die if we exceed 2C.

There is not and never has been anything magical about the 2C number. It’s as made up as every other number used by the alarmists.

Robert W Turner
August 8, 2018 12:13 pm

288.15 K v 288.65 K, the magic thermal barrier. How do we know this is the magic thermal barrier?
Well surpassing that barrier during the Holocene Climate Optimum is the reason the Earth ended 8,000 years ago, it got better.

Bryan A
Reply to  Robert W Turner
August 8, 2018 2:05 pm

288.15 added together 2+8+8+1+5 = 24 Mirrored is 42…The answer to Life, The Universe and Everything
A bit of a stretch but also 8+8+5 * (2/1) = 42

August 8, 2018 12:17 pm

What’s the Communist party doing- yup,.. build more coal plants at home, subside more plants overseas. Mao laughing!

David Guy-Johnson
August 8, 2018 12:23 pm

“Zhou and his team combined CMIP5, an archive of comprehensive climate models, with socio-economic projections” Perhaps they should have used meteorological data as a start point instead of all that crap.

August 8, 2018 12:23 pm

In the last few days, in the UK media every climate ‘scientist’ and his dog were jumping on ‘hothouse earth’ bandwagon, today the temperature in my back garden was nearly 10C lower than 2-3 days ago, however on the telly no sign of any climate ‘scientists’, don’t know what happened to the dogs though.

Reply to  vukcevic
August 8, 2018 12:41 pm


The UK public bitches about the weather year in, year out. We get a nice summer and are made to feel guilty about it.

The last one was in 1976, when will the next one be I wonder? Or will the effing crystal ball merchants be able to tell us that beyond “oooh errrrr well it’s bound to happen sooner than the period between 1976 and 2018.”

A 42 year window of opportunity. Thanks an effing bunch!


Mr. Angry!

Reply to  HotScot
August 8, 2018 1:42 pm

1936, North American he Summer heat wave was one of the most severe heat waves in the modern history of North America.
1976, 40 years later it was the UK summer with no rain, hottest for decades.
2018, 42 year later we have another heat wave in the UK

Matt G
Reply to  HotScot
August 8, 2018 3:46 pm

Interesting relation of events.

The start of the dust bowl years, 1976 and 2018 all had one thing in common?

See above – low solar activity over around two 40-42 year periods. (roughly half of the 90 year solar cycle)

Reply to  Matt G
August 8, 2018 4:50 pm

Matt G

The winter of 2009/2010 was bad in the UK. The Aberdeenshire area had snow for almost 6 months. Not that it confirms anything, just interesting to see what happens this winter.

I don’t imagine sunspots alone, like CO2 alone, determine weather or climate. I recall a bad winter around 1980 and it seems sunspot activity was at it’s highest.

Frankly, my guess is the whole thing is a lot of horshit and far to complicated for the scientific community to figure out.

Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
August 9, 2018 4:54 am

There is one thing that it is complicated, but most scientists tend to make things more complicated then they actually are. Solar activity and CO2 in isolation are far from being on a level playing field.

There is no way anyone could forecast weather events or blocking patterns with immediate changes in CO2, but you can with changes in solar activity and physics laws.

Solar activity alone of course can’t count for all the dynamics of the ocean and atmosphere because internal mechanisms tend to slow or speed things accordingly. What happens in the Tropics does have a butterfly effect later down the line changing variables in the Arctic for example.

The key point here being low solar activity considerably increases the chances for blocking patterns to develop across the atmosphere. The jet stream becomes far more meridional than zonal and influence parts of the world accordingly.

The ENSO has quite a large influence on the jet sream so even the UK is effected by it. The ENSO often goes against the signal of low solar activity because strong ENSO phases strengthen the jet stream and favour zonal formation. The reverse also happens with high solar activity when the ENSO being weak contributes towards a more frequent meridional jet stream. This particularly influences the UK and Europe more because its weather from the Atlantic ocean has a huge moderating effect.

The ENSO, global wind oscillation (slow and amplified for example), QBO, MJO, all have influnce on AO and NAO for example. The ENSO so far looking like Modoki El Nino development by winter.

There are two basic rules:- (mainly based on UK and north western Europe, not in any order)

1) Low solar activity, weak ENSO, easterly QBO, MJO phases 6&7 = cold winter.
2) High solar activity, strong ENSO, westerly QBO, MJO phases 3&4 = mild winter.

Matt G
Reply to  vukcevic
August 8, 2018 1:15 pm

All this about 1976 when the CET hasn’t even beaten 2006 yet for summer.

Summer so far.

Year June July Mean
1976 17.0c 18.7c } 17.85c
2006 15.9c 19.7c } 17.80c
2018 16.1c 19.1c } 17.60c

For the CET the summer so far 2018 is 3rd with both 1976 and 2006 warmer.

Reply to  Matt G
August 8, 2018 1:45 pm

CET daily average 1976 & 2018

Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
August 8, 2018 2:34 pm

August CET

1976 17.6c
2006 16.1c

For this month 17.6c is not a easy target to reach, but needs to be at least 17.85c to equal or beat 1976.

August 2018 has had a good start though at 19.8c to 7th.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Matt G
August 8, 2018 4:49 pm

The UK is still rather cold. It is in the mid 30’sC in Texas.

Paul Johnson
August 8, 2018 12:35 pm

This is a hopeful sign. Global Warming zealots have reacted to mounting scientific evidence disproving CO2 hysteria with the classic stages of grief. First there was Denial – Global Warming is real and we have lots of models to show it. Second there was Anger – How dare you dastardly deniers question the scientific “consensus”. Now they have reached the Bargaining stage – Quibbling over half-degrees. Next they should reach Depression – Whining over how no one cares anymore (as if anyone ever did). Finally they will reach Acceptance and forget about the whole thing. It can’t happen soon enough.

August 8, 2018 12:58 pm

Crazy. No way they can measure what they claim to be true.

Steven Fraser
August 8, 2018 1:27 pm

Let’s see how it works out when they pitch it to their own govt.

August 8, 2018 1:30 pm

I am NOT a scientist. However, I am well educated (a degree from UC Berkeley), and well read. When I read silly claims such as this … it might as well be ME writing this tripe with no data, evidence, frame of reference, or experiment to verify my wild ass claim. That’s pretty sad for the “climate industry”. It’s all become political “science”. Words on paper. Meh.

And you wonder why the general public doesn’t give a crap about … global warming aka climate change aka sudden catastrophic existential climate change aka … EXTREME weather aka Polar Vortices aka mass wildfires aka … any other term of FEAR mongering.

Reply to  Kenji
August 8, 2018 4:59 pm


I left secondary school (high school I suspect in the US) with a handful of basic qualifications. I don’t need one of them to understand that no one has demonstrated empirically that CO2 causes global warming.

The greatest assembly of scientists possibly ever seen can’t demonstrate, over a 40 year period, the fundamental principle upon which mankind’s future is currently determined by.

Every solar panel and wind turbine ever erected will be monuments to the utter failure of scientific dogma.

August 8, 2018 1:36 pm

Sounds like more ecotard horsesh*t.

August 8, 2018 2:30 pm

[deleted duplicate post]

August 8, 2018 2:40 pm

Global warming scaremongering as a sales tool for air conditioners:

This sentence in the ad’s introduction has surely been plagiarised from a climate science publication:

There is incontrovertible evidence that global temperatures are rising everywhere.

August 8, 2018 2:50 pm

China can prevent the 1/2 degree rise, by curtailing their use of fossil fuels — Zhou et al should lead by example.

August 8, 2018 3:03 pm

I would think that rather than any increases in projected temperatures affecting the incidence of extremes of weather, it would be any changes in the differential temperatures of the northern and southern hemispheres that affects the ability of the global weather systems to equalise.

J Mac
August 8, 2018 3:40 pm

They’re comparing the “Classic Climate Models’ to the ‘New Millenial Climate Models’, pretending the comparison provides meaningful ‘data’, and calling it ‘science’ +/-0.5C.
Old crap compared to New crap yields Latest Crap… Details to follow. More crap at eleven.

August 8, 2018 3:44 pm

NCDC global precipitation measured from 1900 to 2017.
Global average total precipitation is about 83 millimeters per month.
Baseline shows anomaly, ie the 83 mm average is subtracted from all points.
No significant change since 1900, ie. baseline slope is zero.

Bruce Cobb
August 8, 2018 3:46 pm

Beware Climate Geeks bearing gifts.

Michael S. Kelly, LS, BSA, Ret.
August 8, 2018 5:13 pm

I’m dyslexic. For example, when I see a Chick-fil-A sign, I see it as “Chick-A-fil.” It takes me almost a minute to unsee that, and recognize what it actually represents.

Whenever I see CMIP, I see it as “CHIMP.” That may be a more apt misreading than Chick-A-fil. It’s like the old saw of taking an infinite number of chimps and an infinite number of typewriters, and the result would eventually be that they would (by random chance) type all of the works of Shakespeare. The ensemble method of blending climate model outputs is strikingly similar, don’t you think? Eventually, by random chance, it might produce a result corresponding to reality.

Michael Jankowski
August 8, 2018 5:41 pm

It is interestingly referred to as 2 degrees…not 2.0 degrees. So is it a range of 1.5-2.4 degrees?

So how different from 2 is 1.5 degrees? Did they use 2.0 degrees in the model, or 2.4 degrees posing as 2 degrees?

It’s pretty amazing that the magic number for this study is exactly 1.5 degrees C. Funny how we always end-up with common digits and ratios in climate science.

M_ S_
August 8, 2018 6:38 pm

These guys just make this s . . . . stuff up, and no one calls them on it.

flow in
August 8, 2018 7:08 pm

that’s great. All we need to do is turn the sun down. Since it did that all on its own are we safe now?

Walter Sobchak
August 8, 2018 10:19 pm

1. Mathematical onanism.

2. China announces that the US must shut down its industries and bleed its economy dry to send money to third world kleptocrats who will use the money to buy stuff from China.

Alan Tomalty
August 8, 2018 11:20 pm

The alarmists admit that CO2 cannot do it by itself. It has to create more warming by forcing more water vapour in a supposedly viscious runaway scenario. However since water vapour is lighter than air, the water vapour air rises by convection and thus the heat is lost to higher and higher regions of the troposphere and stratosphere. The hottest places on the planet are deserts; not tropical rain forests. When it rains almost all of the latent heat that is then released ( not all of it, because we know that when that rain water that makes it to the ground and if it then freezes it releases latent heat) must go into the higher atmosphere. If it made its way back to the lower troposphere, there would be runaway global warming ~ 86.4 W/m^2 based on the ~486000 – 577000 km^3 of water ( depending on which source) of evaporation/transpiration globally per year. The hydrological cycle is fairly constant (NASA couldnt prove any increase in over 20 years of trying). This is the cycle that releases most of the heat from the surface of the earth. Planets without oceans become either ovens or refrigerators. CO2 has little to do with heat on the earth. Its place in the world is photosynthesis and combustion activities like breathing and fossil fuel burning. IT IS ABOUT TIME THAT Mr. CO2 BE LET OUT OF JAIL.

michael hart
August 8, 2018 11:20 pm

Even if the modeling is correct (ho ho), he said the wrong thing and won’t be getting any Christmas cards from the Western Khmer-Vert because he used the A-word: Adapt.

If we simply adapt to these modest putative changes in climate then the Greenies will have to wave goodbye to all those draconian new laws designed to roll back the industrial revolution (and also forgo all that lovely money, influence, and power to make our lives miserable). I am sure the good Professor is also aware that rolling back the Asian industrial revolution, and all the benefits it brings, is a complete non-starter in Chinese politics.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  michael hart
August 8, 2018 11:29 pm

The fight has gone way past your point. The greenies wont be satisfied until every fossil fuel is left in the ground. It isnt really about climate change anymore. It is whether a society can be 100% renewable or not. We skeptics know that is impossible but the Greenies have faith you see. How does the saying go? Faith conquers all before it; Truth or Not.

JLC of Perth
August 9, 2018 12:57 am

They have reached the “bargaining” stage of grief, soon to be followed by despair, then acceptance that their science is rubbish and their careers were a waste of time.

August 9, 2018 2:42 am

Models R Us, maybe one day they will end up like the other sales outfit:

August 9, 2018 2:56 am
UEA engaging in China

CMIP5 example:
“Abnormal westward extensions of ENSO patterns are a common feature of all CMIP5 models, while the warming of the Indian Ocean that happens during El Niño is not correctly reproduced. This could impact the teleconnection between ENSO and Southern African rainfall which is represented with mixed success in CMIP5 models.

Large-scale anomalies of suppressed deep-convection over the tropical maritime continent and enhanced convection from the central to eastern Pacific are correctly simulated. However, regional biases occur above Africa and the Indian Ocean, particularly in the position of the deep convection anomalies associated with El Niño, which can lead to the wrong sign in rainfall anomalies in the northwest part of South Africa.

From the near-surface to mid-troposphere, CMIP5 models underestimate the observed anomalous pattern of pressure occurring over Southern Africa that leads to dry conditions during El Niño years.”

Michael Carter
August 9, 2018 3:16 am

Where does one buy one of these crystal balls? – I need one!

Gerald the Mole
August 9, 2018 4:02 am

When people talk about changes in atmospheric temperatures I always look at the absolute temperatures in Kelvin. It is usually most enlightening.

Ulric Lyons
August 9, 2018 7:44 am

‘An analysis of 50 years of rainfall data in arid regions by researchers at Cardiff University and the University of Bristol in the UK has shown a decline in rainfall intensity, despite an increase in total rainfall. The findings run counter to research that suggests that global warming causes heavier rainfall, because a hotter atmosphere can hold more moisture, and warmer oceans evaporate faster, thus feeding the atmosphere with more moisture. ‘

D Cage
August 9, 2018 9:44 am

We need to look at the effect of over doing the clean air acts on rainfall before going onto more obscure effects of climate.

August 10, 2018 6:16 am

In the utterly failed world of predicted climate dooms:

“The half a degree Celsius is so significant that it could be the barrier preventing extreme precipitation events, according to Tianjun Zhou”

Zhou adds another modeled absurdity to their lists of failed predictions.

As other astute commenters point out, it’s all a demand for more funding for researchers working in isolation fantasy loops.

A) Require and evaluate all products used and produced by this group.
B) Require certification of all involved models’ code.
C) Account for and certify expenditures, including travel.

Unable to comply?
Defund them!

August 10, 2018 8:31 am

Glad we don’t live in a climate model. It sounds really rough in there.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights