Essay by Eric Worrall
“… The fact is, while not exactly picked out of a hat, the 1.5C figure is an arbitrary one. …”
Why we should forget about the 1.5C global heating target
Bill McGuire
Tue 13 Sep 2022 02.48 AESTThe goal of 1.5C by 2030 is arbitrary and now unachievable – yet working to prevent every 0.1C rise can still give us hope
Bill McGuire is professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at UCL
Keeping the global average temperature rise (since pre-industrial times) below 1.5C is widely regarded as critical if we are to sidestep dangerous, all-pervasive climate change.
…
To have a fair chance of keeping this side of 1.5C, emissions have to fall by 45% in little more than 90 months, and I am on record as saying that this is practically impossible. But it’s worse than that. It is perfectly feasible that we will crash through the 1.5C guardrail even earlier.
…
Maybe we are too fixated with this precise temperature rise. The fact is, while not exactly picked out of a hat, the 1.5C figure is an arbitrary one. The exact level of temperature rise at which climate change becomes dangerous is simply not known. Indeed, the 33 million people displaced from their homes in Pakistan might justifiably say we have reached it already. As for tipping points, any or all of those flagged in the new research could happen at some point below 1.5C, so we may have crossed one or more already – only time will tell. Just as easily, we might need a 1.6C, 1.7C or even higher rise before the first runaway impacts of global heating are encountered.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/12/global-heating-fighting-degree-target-2030
I love the downgrade on the 1.5C limit – “… the 1.5C figure is an arbitrary one…”.
The reality is nothing bad will happen when or if we breach 1.5C. So it would be intensely embarrassing for climate alarmists if this breach occurs in the next few years, rather than decades from now, after they are all safely retired or dead.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I never cease to be amazed at the arbitrariness of claims that climate change of any kind is “dangerous”. Dangerous to whom, in what way, is never defined.
It really comes down to a false belief that whatever climate one individual experiences at this particularly arbitrary point in space and time is somehow optimum, and any change whatsoever is a negative outcome.
Given that every living thing on the planet today is the product of 4.6 billion years of constant change, if should be obvious that climate change must be a net positive. After all, on what other known planet is the climate better for living things than earth’s?
Haven’t you been paying attention? Explanations are provided every day. Floods in Pakistan were mention is the very short extraction above. Anything and everything that harms or inconveniences anyone are obviously due to climate change and obviously dangerous.
Pakistan floods (so common a wiki page for Pakistan floods) had 1710mm of rain over 53 days and the flood covered 5% of Pakistan. List of floods around the world goes back to 14th century. Most cases near coast or a river. River management is poor in most developing countries.
The fact that the minister stated and the media adoringly parroted the ridiculous 33% without question really tells us all we need to know.
Colonialism apparently.
It seems some levees and flood relief measures we evil Victorian British built in Pakistan have fallen into disrepair since we left the place.
So it’s all our fault.
Floods have been mentioned since Biblical Times. I can name one worse than the flood in Pakistan.
Importantly the IPCC has ‘low confidence’ in the Pakistan floods being related to global warming.
G’Day Stephen,
“River management is poor in most developing countries.”
You may recall the floods in England at about the time they were leaving the EU. Seems that one of the strictures imposed on England by the EU was “No dredging of rivers.” England had been doing that for centuries.
It’s not just the developing countries.
The campaign to remove dams and stop building of new dams is also working to increase the number of floods.
Dangerous to one’s reputation perhaps?
The intriguing detail here is the uncertainty on ECS. It has been estimated to be somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5K. Since then it was moved upward somewhat. That is a lot of uncertainty to predict we were soon to “achieve” the 1.5K target.
To get around it, you will have to assume any warming since “preindustrial” was due to CO2. Eventhough it can not be, as temperatures fluctuated a lot “early-industrial”, when CO2 could only have negligible impact.
Indirectly, given the lower limit of only 1.5K ECS, there is admission to this problem. We are not yet half-way to a doubling of CO2. If CO2 had warmed Earth already by 1.3K and considering the warming takes time (you know oceans..), ECS would need to be a lot higher. That is at least, though very unlikely, just 3K, and much more likely 4K+. By no means it could only be 1.5K.
You can not have it both ways. Either the recorded warming has a significant natural (or other) cause in it, or the lower to moderate ECS estimates have to be ruled out.
Just keep moving the goalposts.
With a Media who just want a Doom & Gloom scenario, we will continue to make up scare stories.
Perhaps the now close Winter in the Northern Hemesphere will scare the politicians enough, like losing their well paid jobs, that sanity will finally return.
But it will take many years to repair the damage caused by the Greens.
Michael VK5ELL
CO2 doesn’t cause warming. It’s like saying put ice cream in your tea, your tea will increase in temperature. At 11km the average temperature is between -63C winter and -66C summer. Below these temperatures carbon dioxide doesn’t absorb earths heat towards the surface. CO2 absorbs at 4.3 micrometers to the wavelength of 15 micrometers. Carbon dioxide cools the mesosphere the coldest layer in the atmosphere at -101C. CO2 reaches max -70C. Absolute zero is -273C so motion by force of pressure on physical molecules raises temperature by 200K.
Do you have a reference/source material for this contention?
Total nonsense.
Not total nonsense. A doubling of CO2 will not cause any warming.
Actually it will, just not much.
The goal of 1.5C by 2030 is arbitrary and now unachievable
In fact it is not only “achievable”, it is actually being “achieved”. With no help from any of the so-called “climate policies” of governments around the world.
But the Guardian, the alarmists, and the uninformed don’t know it because they get their information from only one source: alarmists. And the alarmists generate their information from only one source: hand-tweaked computer models based on wildly incorrect assumptions about “forcings” and “feedbacks”. None of them bother to check observations.
In reality, according to Berkeley Earth, NASA GISS, and HadCRUT, global average temperature has increased about 1° to 1.3° C since 1850 (depending on how much they fiddled the data, GISS always runs more extreme than the others). It is unlikely that it will suddenly increase enough in the next 7 years to overshoot the 2030 “target” of 1.5°C. You’d think they would be celebrating this “achievement”.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/land-and-ocean-summary-large.png
As is well known,Steve Koonin recalled in his book “Unsettled” that he queried Hans Joachim Schellnhuber some years ago as to the basis for two degrees warming rather than 1.5C, 2.5C or some other figure.
The response was to the effect that “Well, it’s about right and it’s an easy number for politicians to remember.”
There is no scientific basis for the Paris Accord target of limiting warming to two degrees.
The 1.5C for annual average might be for a decade & the 2C limit is for any single year.
Because 1.5C (or any other value) is an average, some areas may be higher at times while others spend some of the time below. They wanted the annual average of any area to be within the 2C limit & gives a margin for annual fluctuations of the global average.
So actually, they are almost the same limit but with slightly different definitions depending on who’s definition you use.
But all values are really dependent on method, location, reference base, sources, by who & over what time frame.
We know temperature is an indirect measure of energy & depends on many other factors & averaging is not accurate.
The figure was based on the expected rise of 2xCO2 & expectations around 2050. It’s a carrot to dangle infront of the public to get the donkey to move but far enough into the future for “not in my lifetime” of those originally making the target.
Won’t happen at all.
“We know temperature is an indirect measure of energy…”
Joule will be disappointed by this. He said internal energy is at most dependent on temperature. He directly measured temperature to come to this conclusion.
The 2 degrees C number was the one that was supposed to prevent a “tipping point.” The 1.5 C was an “aspirational” goal to goad us into ending CAGW early.
If the Guardian, one of the world’s most alarmist climate publications, is backing off on the 1.5 figure, there’s a good chance that that others of its ilk really don’t know what the supposed “tipping point” figure is either, and that’s if there is one in the first place. So we have yet another example of exaggerated and unproven claims of looming environmental catastrophes.
Always has been. They’re never been shy about it, which is why the name changes every time the alarmists realize nobody believes them, except people addicted to misinformation and fear.
Careful. From their (Au) website:
“Tens of millions have placed their trust in the Guardian’s fearless journalism since we started publishing 200 years ago, turning to us in moments of crisis, uncertainty, solidarity and hope. More than 1.5 million supporters, from 180 countries, now power us financially – keeping us open to all, and fiercely independent”..
Cheers,
Bill
G’Day Edward,
“If the Guardian, … is backing off …”
In the past month or so, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times have each published at least one article that was not 100% “doom and gloom”.
Could it be that some editors are starting to try to cover their rear ends?
1.5, 0.5, whatever. Science is with cause a philosophy and practice in the near-domain. Welcome to chaos, to evolution (aside from “our Posterity” which is the model of fitness).
eh?
This is totally expected and now that this joker has broken the ice it will be no time at all before we start hearing the other side proclaiming that there has always been a degree of uncertainty. They now have it on record that 1.5 C was never written in stone! These people are a disgrace.
This is all about power. Nothing else.
If the political and academic elites think pushing the Green Agenda hard is going to impact their power status as the economic reality of their actions begin to bit hard, they will ease off. All they care about is their own economic interests.
Hardiness zones are growing wider and moving northward.* In other words there is more arable land. Hardly a recipe for an existential crisis or any other sort of panic.
*Source: Google search on “Changing hardiness zone map”
Hemispherist!
That’s a bit harsh dear chap…….
You must be from that place where the Moon rises upside down, the sundials run counterclockwise and the damn fools drive on the wrong side of the street.
They are right and they are wrong, 1.5C WAS just “picked out of a hat” … well not exactly a hat but Schellnhuber Pik(d) it out of his az.
Actually 1.5°C wasn’t picked out of a hat. The figure that WAS picked out of a hat was Schellnhuber’s preposterous 2°C.
But it was clear that we’d wait for ever for that rise, so they just trimmed 25% off their hat pick in order to ramp up a bit more panic.
It is also obvious that a rise of 3 or 4°C would be overwhelmingly beneficial anyway. And that we need more, not less CO2, in any case.
It is also obvious that a rise of 3 or 4°C would be overwhelmingly beneficial anyway. And that we need more, not less CO2, in any case.
_____________________________________________________
And the IPCC says there would be more rain. So it all adds up to:
The elephant in the living room that never gets discussed.
“The fact is, while not exactly picked out of a hat, the 1.5C figure is an arbitrary one.”
…
“As for tipping points, any or all of those flagged in the new research could happen at some point below 1.5C, so we may have crossed one or more already – only time will tell.”
Without skipping a beat, Bill kept the “fear factor” cranked up to 11!
Oh, he’s good alright! He’s reeeeeaaaaalll good!!!
They may be backing off because they are worried how a winter of freezing in the dark is going to go over with the people who have been forced against their will to fund the climate fraud with their tax dollars.
Freezing in the dark in winter, 1.5C is not going to cut it.
“We’re freezing our @ur momisugly$$es off. You promised there’d be Global Warming. We want our Global Warming, and we want it NOW!!”
–
–
First the sheeple were convinced that we’re all gonna fry and we’re all gonna die. Then the alternative shows up instead and the sheeple are not happy at all.
How will the politicians and meedja handle that one?
Why did they pick something (weather) over which they have no control? It had to come back and bite them in the @ur momisugly$$ eventually.
They should have opted for solving Global Halitosis or Stinky Feet or something.
Picking weather was brilliant: There is always some bad weather somewhere you can blame on climate change. Attribution modelturbation was ginned up to make it sound sciency.
That’s very good…
Beeeep, beeeep, beeeep, beeeep…
Roadrunner?
At the Coyote?
Rapidly backing up.
just putting it into reverse …
Lorry backing up.
Clown show
They always talk maintaining the global warming level below 1.5 deg. C since pre-industrial times. The Industrial Age (if I recall correctly) is believed to have started late in 18th century in Britain. They do that without saying a word about how much warming might be natural due to Earth’s emergence from the Little Ice Age since the mid-19th century.
But if they still give Mikey Mann’s hockey stick temperature graph any credibility, I imagine they still want us to believe that there was no LIA to emerge from.
IPCC computer modelling apparently can only predict warming trend.
Well, of course. Models only predict what the programmers want them to.
Better than half the warming occurred prior to 1950. During that same period CO2 levels barely budged, moving from around 280ppm to about 300ppm. During the 70 years since then, CO2 has gone up by over 30%, to over 400ppm. During that period temperatures continued increasing at pretty much the same rate that it had been increasing prior to 1950.
“Better than half the warming occurred prior to 1950.”
Did you just make that up? Mmm, I think you did.
“During that period temperatures continued increasing at pretty much the same rate that it had been increasing prior to 1950.”
Make-it-up Mark, jus’ makin’ stuff up.
I think he is right, but if you disagree, just supply the real numbers. And a source.
But you don’t expect ‘make it up Mark’ – the person actually making the claim – to supply a source. Part-time skeptic?
You’re accusing someone of making stuff up when global warming and now climate change is a complete concoction?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
We are told one third of Pakistan is underwater by the alarmist media.
Turns out it’s somewhere between 5% – 8%, but you lot interpret a few pictures of people wading through water (provided by said alarmist media) as the whole world’s about to end.
Climate change is the only reason the worlds largest media company, the BBC, is still around. The Guardian (formerly the Manchester Guardian) would have gone under decades ago without it as well.
Universities are coining it in from grants to study something they have never reached a meaningful conclusion over, they finally admit 1.5ºC is an arbitrary number and you still accuse others of dishonesty!!!!!!
50 years of this crap and you still don’t understand you’re painting yourself into a corner.
Go on then, show us Mark is wrong. We’ll wait…
In 1981,James Hansen put out a paper showing a lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature:
https://climate-dynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/hansen81a.pdf
“The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3 .5°C for doubling of the C02 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm.
The major difficulty in accepting the theory has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic C02 increase. In fact, the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970, a time of rapid C02 build up.
In addition, recent claims that climate models over-estimate the impact of radiative perturbations by an order of magnitude, have raised the issue of whether the greenhouse effect is well understood. “
Hansen’s 1999 U.S. temperature chart shows a decrease of about 2.0C from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, while CO2 was increasing steadily.
So it’s even worse (from the alarmist point of view) than Hansen thought in 1981. The temperature decline was 2.0C, not 0.5C, in the face of a continuous increase in CO2.
I’ve provided references in the past, but you always refuse to look because they aren’t produced by the fake scientists that you worship.
There you go again.
Says the troll who refuses to read anything that hasn’t been approved by it’s handlers.
Classic. Article features prominent CliSci saying “well, it (the gold CliSci standard 1.5C meme) is arbitrary”- that is, made up. Good time for Lloydo to project really hard. Can’t make it up any better.
“The Industrial Age” title only refers to when the slow process of “The Industrial Age” actually began. CO₂ emissions prior to the 1960s are all natural increases.
Our parents, (grandparents to many) grew up without central air conditioning/heating, without vehicles for the most part, without televisions and a lot of effort saver appliances whether electric or fossil field.
Even IPCC graphical charts show most of the CO₂ increase as modern.
The reason alarmists want to begin CO₂ measurements back in the 19th century is so the alarmists can blame all CO₂ emission increases on mankind and they get to use 280ppm as their starting point.
Western Civilization’s fossil fuel use expansion only took off a couple of decades after WWII.
Leaving about sixty years of modern industrial age and greater CO₂ emissions.
IPCC admits their 8.5 scenario is all fear proselytizing, even their 2.6 scenario is on shaky ground. Especially, since so many alarmist government entities are adjusting temperatures furiously to keep global temperature anomalies increasing.
Bill McGuire, (professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at UCL), calls the “arbitrary 1.5°C” temperature anomaly arbitrary, then immediately follows that admission with another arbitrary imagining.
Inside that admission is the fact that UN intends ending our democracies, where after we join the socialist world where elites get everything and anyone poorer gets little. That the UN intended to use global warming alarm regarding CO₂ and temperatures that are frequently touted as doom for everything.
A fake and rather daft climate horror plan and picture is hereby made null, by Bill McGuire. Arbitrary factoid follows arbitrary factoid after arbitrary desperation factoid.
If this upcoming winter is as bad as many people forecast, then it is going to get very uncomfortable to everyone who predicted the end of the world because their climate tipped over.
The whole ‘the world is going to fry’ prediction will play badly as people experience:
When it’s cold at home and darn cold outside, one might think about how nice the upcoming summer is going to feel, one might start remembering all of the fools who predicted a frying Earth, much less kindly.
McGuire is a hint of the change in the weather, so to speak. That is, one of the first ones who start rolling back their predictions and arbitrary climate demands. Later, rather than sooner people are going to think of suing the perpetrators.
They will be lucky if all they get is sued. Things might go really pear shaped for them.
Walking it back just like nukes and gas are suddenly a helluva lot greener now their deplorables are chilling and that Lomborg bloke is ‘resonating’.
“The fact is, while not exactly picked out of a hat, the 1.5C figure is an arbitrary one.”
A hat is not where they pulled that number from.
But a tinfoil hat is where it can be adjusted in the interests of settled science.
Maybe if they’d sat on the tinfoil hat they wouldn’t have come up with the figure!
I call it a “long, dark place.”
Climate scientists, government bureaucrats, politicians, academics, and the MSM are between a rock and a hard place. 1.5C will arrive with no noticeable effect, except our near-ideal climate will continue apace and the sky won’t be falling as predicted by the “experts” and politicians. The other option is for “climate science” to collude on the anomalies to delay the date of reaching 1.5C to avoid the reckoning. The problem with that is the current Monckton pause will shortly become long enough to matter in its own right.
The approximately 19-year pause blew the whole thing out of the water. It will soon become apparent to average people that they have been lied to by their governments and social institutions.
Who needs a pause?
The relationship between CO2 and temperature on the same time scale simply doesn’t exist.
Hey! Non-correlation doesn’t prove non-causation….
“Climate scientists, government bureaucrats, politicians, academics, and the MSM are between a rock and a hard place. 1.5C will arrive”
Are you sure about that?
Look at the UAH satellite chart. It shows 1998, as being statistically tied with the year 2016, for the warmest year in the satellite era.
NASA Climate and NOAA claim 2016 was 1.1C above their average, so that would make 1998 1.1C above the average, too.
Look what happened after 1998. A long temperature decline before the temperatures finally got back up to the same temperature in 2016.
And now the temperatures are cooling.
When will the temperatures again reach the 1.1C above the average mark, much less a 1.5C mark?
The wikipedia list of the worst floods in history, as far as lives lost, give an interesting perspective to this. the top 10 floods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
The most recent one in the top ten is 1975, in China. We were going towards the next ice age at that time.
Pakistan’s worst flood with 2950 people lost was in 1950, population then 38 million.
Today 220 million and 1100 lost.
Says nothing about how much rain came down by all means but the usual trend seems obvious. Scare the daylights out of the climate faithful and forget about any event that contradicts today’s story.
It wasn’t the rain that was the problem, wasting money on nuclear deterrents rather than maintaining what little infrastructure the country has, namely flood mitigation measures around rivers, is what caused the problem.
We note the hysteria isn’t anything to do with the dreaded sea level rise we are all assured will swamp dry land, it’s normal, regular annual monsoon’s the rest of the country relies upon for agriculture.
China tested its first nuclear bomb in 1964 which led to India beginning its nuclear weapons programme (Indeed the US seriously considered supplying India with nuclear weapons at the time) and India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974.
Pakistan was the poor relation when the UK left Colonial India and enmity over Kashmir led to it and India becoming mortal enemies. So Pakistan began its own nuclear weapons programme acutely aware that it was surrounded by an aspiring and a proven nuclear weapons state.
Meanwhile both countries became part of the wider Cold War with the US supporting Pakistan and the Soviet Union supporting India. Given this history Pakistan’s nuclear programme is perhaps understandable. Both India and Pakistan carried out nuclear tests in 1998.
Had Pakistan concentrated on creating a country worth occupying e.g. with flourishing industry, science and education it might be worth protecting with nuclear weapons.
As it is the country has appalling levels of poverty and its predominant religion is barbaric.
Well, that’s correlation and causation right there. Needs no further explanation.
Mods – I’ve been following and commenting on WUWT for years, decades even. Used to be Chuck In Houston, Chuck near Houston, Chuck no longer in Houston, and most recently Brazos Valley Chuck. The latest from probably a year ago. Why am I still being put into the Approval queue?
Ok chaps, politics has changed.We have a real energy crisis, and Putin is out of brown envelopes, so start the reverse weasel, ok?
Leo, with your latest missive I am reminded that we are separated by a common language. Brown envelopes, reverse weasel?
Why we should forget about the 1.5C global heating target
Because we’ve found something even more precious to us than climate change politics: Russophobia.
Every weather event particularly when human lives are lost is exploited shamelessly and shamefully by climate change™ industry stakeholders.
The tacit implication without any evidence is that the most recent Pakistan flood would not have occurred without climate change™, if so what about the high floods in “1942, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1979, 1992, 1994, 1995, 2003, 2005 and 2007”?
If they’d outlawed the Model T and made people buy these, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Electric, those floods wouldn’t have happened!
(or so goes the theory)
There was no warming from 1935 when most of the world still used horsepower.
Total warming is therefore only 0.6K.
Click in my name.
Should read
From 1935 until 1979
1.5C is 31.5w-m² above total solar irradiance 1407w-m2 and 1316w-m2.
July 5th reached 1403.5w-m2 (350.87w-m2) 7.5C 45.5F NH 16.91C, SH -1.98C
March 5th got as low as 1292.2C (323.05w-m2) 1.74C NH -0.91C SH 4.39C.
1.5C is made up and won’t happen.
When bad things happen the Climate Alarmists rejoice it is something they can point to as evidence of their claim that man is impacting climate.
‘Bad news is good, good news is bad’ if you are an alarmist. The ministry of truth, bans any dissent from realists trying to allay fears. The climate false alarm promoters. must have free rein, to operate, apparently.
Straight out of the 1984 play book.
It’s worth reading the BoM’s Climate Driver Update issued today (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/) …
La Niña under way in the tropical Pacific
The Bureau’s ENSO Outlook has been raised to LA NIÑA.
Key atmospheric and oceanic indicators of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) show an established La Niña. Tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures have been cooling since June and are now at La Niña thresholds. Atmospheric indicators including the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), trade wind strength, and equatorial cloudiness are also displaying patterns typical of a La Niña event.
Models indicate this La Niña event may peak during the spring and return to neutral conditions early in 2023. La Niña events increase the chances of above-average rainfall for northern and eastern Australia during spring and summer.
The negative Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) event continues. The IOD index has satisfied negative IOD thresholds (i.e. at or below −0.4 °C) since June, with the latest weekly value being −0.8 °C. All surveyed climate models agree that negative IOD conditions are likely to continue into late spring. A negative IOD event is typically associated with above average spring rainfall for much of Australia. When a La Niña and negative IOD combine, it further increases the likelihood of above average rainfall over Australia, particularly in the eastern half of the continent.
The Southern Annular Mode (SAM) is currently in a positive phase and is likely to be mostly positive for the coming three months. During the spring months, a positive SAM has a wetting influence for parts of eastern New South Wales and far eastern Victoria, but a drying influence for western Tasmania.
The Madden–Julian Oscillation (MJO) continues to show a weak signal with most models suggesting it will remain weak for at least the next seven days. A weak MJO is unlikely to have much impact on Australian climate.
Climate change continues to influence Australian and global climate. Australia’s climate has warmed by around 1.47 °C for the 1910–2020 period. Southern Australia has seen a reduction of 10–20% in cool season (April–October) rainfall in recent decades. There has also been a trend towards a greater proportion of rainfall from high intensity short duration rainfall events, especially across northern Australia.
__
Apart from confirmation that La Nina is officially happening, the final para has the bureau’s scratched record claim that Australia’s climate warmed by around 1.47C in 1910-2020.
Is the BoM living in a time warp? The bureau’s adjusted ACORN mean temperature anomaly in 2019 was 1.51C. In 2020 it was 1.13C. In 2021 it was 0.56C.
If indeed La Nina provides plenty of cloud cover over the next three to four months, there’s a risk that Australia’s mean temperature anomaly for 2022 will be somewhere around zero.
That’s probably too much of a nightmare scenario for the BoM so, based on their repetition of 1.47C over the past couple of years and nothing else, I suspect that early next year we’ll still be hearing that Australia has warmed by 1.47C since 1910.
PS … it’s also crap that there’s been a trend towards a greater proportion of rainfall from high intensity short duration rainfall events. That claim is based on hourly rainfall records which aren’t available for scrutiny and probably didn’t exist prior to 1990 at best, not on daily records which at most locations show a decline in 90th, 95th and 99th percentile rainfall days since the 1970s.
Actually the La Niña is coming up for a third winter. Take a look at ENSO NOAA and scroll down to the month by month red grey blue squares to appreciate the unusual length of this La Niña
Thanks for that excellent weather report, Chris.
C.Gillam…check out our own WA based Erl Happ. He has a lot of preview chapters leading up to this summary.
https://reality348.wordpress.com/2021/10/26/new-book-the-movement-of-the-atmosphere/