Reason magazine recently posted an article on its website titled “There Is No 1.5°C Climate Cliff,” arguing that the 1.5°C threshold touted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, world governments, and activists, is not based on any scientific investigation, but is rather arbitrary. This is true. The threshold value was first developed by a panel of advisors who had no data to show that 1.5° warming would be catastrophic, and the language used by the media has only become more extreme since then.
In the post, writer Ronald Bailey explains that the 1.5°C threshold was developed in the 1990s by the German Advisory Council on Global Change.
Bailey writes:
The advisors adopted two principles to guide their work. The first was the “preservation of Creation in its present form” achieved chiefly by staying within their guess of what would be “a tolerable ‘temperature window.’’’ The second was the “prevention of excessive costs.” Their analysis of what would constitute a tolerable temperature window occupies a single paragraph. There they reckoned that the mean maximum temperature during the last interglacial period was 16.1 C to which they arbitrarily added a further 0.5 C to establish tolerable maximum temperature of 16.6 C. They then assumed that in 1995 the current global mean temperature was around 15.3 C which would be only 1.3 C below their tolerable maximum. Finally, they presupposed the 1995 average was 0.7 C above the preindustrial average which yields an overall 2.0 C threshold.
This was clearly not a rigorous scientific investigation. Climate Realism has explained this fact in past posts as well, such as, here, here, and here, where we point out that there is also no evidence to suggest passing that arbitrary warming threshold would cause “climate chaos” or positive-feedback type cascading events. Climate at a Glance: Tipping Points concurs, showing that there is no evidence that irreversible tipping points exist at all. Since the conception of the threshold, only computer models with faulty assumptions built in have driven the alarmist claims and associated headlines tied to the 1.5C figure.
It is also possible that the 1.5°C threshold has already been passed. Meteorologist Anthony Watts explains in “Media Regurgitates IPCC’s ‘Final Warning’ on Climate Change – Without Realizing We’ve Already Passed 1.5°C,” Berkeley Earth global surface temperature data show that the planet may have warmed a full 4°C since 1750. Despite this, no catastrophes have occurred, and extreme weather has not become worse since that period.
Bailey writes “it is good, although not surprising, news that when the world passes through the 1.5 C target, it will not be plunging to its death over a climate cliff.” He is absolutely correct, and what’s more, some climate scientists and media have been cautioning against making claims that make 1.5°C sound like an existential threat. The fact is, if it has not been passed already as discussed above, the threshold is going to be passed soon, even if immense fossil fuel cuts are made. When disasters don’t materialize, climate scientists who previously hyped the 1.5 C threshold as an catastrophic tipping points will, or at least should, lose credibility.
Reason and Ronald Bailey should be applauded for publishing such a detailed and thorough investigation of the origin and lack of scientific basis for the popular global warming threshold. There is no evidence that supports the idea that 1.5°C warming will be a dangerous “climate cliff” that will cause more chaotic weather.
“Pre-industrial” also means Little Ice Age as far as temperature. The Green Blob must feel nostalgia for famine, plague, and war, if they think the LIA was a Golden Age.
Pre-industrial means a few thermometers in the US, Europe, eastern China and eastern Australia. Oceans measured with buckets mainly in N.H. shipping lanes The global average temperature does not exist in 1850. It is a very rough guess of the N.H. average. Could have a margin of error of +/- 0.5 degrees C. or more. Could be off by 1 degree C.
I would think records of what was successfully grown where, or dates of first freeze, and the like are better than inferring temperature from a limited number of thermometers.
Yes Tom, but compiling that DATA would require real research and hard work for a scientist’s grant money.
It is much easier to get DATA sitting at your desk “tuning” a model.
The “global average temperature” has never existed and will never exist, except in pseudo-scientific fever dreams.
Written in the wood
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/global-heat-record-arizona-trees-rings/
The big lie, as Goebbels well knew. I copied all of it since if I gave the link you probably wouldn’t able to see it.
“2023….hottest year humanity has ever seen” ….scary scary scary….almost as scary as the Bribe’em administration’s spending on climate….billions here….billions there….adds up to more than drunken sailors could manage…..the hogs at the trough are lovin’ it…..the sailors and hogs are demrats.
Almost everyone is singing the same opera tune- all getting in line for the $$$ including some fossil fuel companies- apparently thinking “if you can’t beat the, might as well join them”. So the burro-crats, academia, the media, many if not most corporations- all going over the cliff like lemmings.
and of course, most politicians- 100% in Wokeachusetts
The rich either own or control the organizations you mention.
As I was in the Navy and I was drunk at least once, I take exception to being called a “demrat!”
“Bribe’em administration’s”
geat phrase
a classic
Better than the Bidet Maladministration I used to use
“But then came 2023, the hottest year that humanity — and Bigelow 224 — had ever seen.” Hotter than ~6000BC??? Or during the Minoan or Roman warm periods??
Don’t journalists have to do research before writing an article? Don’t journalists have to tell the truth?
Nowadays they would rather be ‘first’ than right.
Apparently not.
Maybe the newspaper owners are hoping to make large amounts of money off of “climate change” spending.
Bloomberg estimates it will cost $US 200 trillion to stop warming by 2050.
A massive underestimate. Individual states in the US are on the order of trillions. Multiply that by all the US states and add in the rest of the world & you get a truly gigantic cost.
And it isn’t just measured in money. Think of all of those families suffering in the cold and the dark on the long winter nights because there’s no power and they aren’t allowed to use firewood. The death toll will be immense. Not that that’s an accident.
Watch the pea.
They ain’t lying but ain’t telling the whole truth either
The Tree in question is *’only’* 200 years old.
It’s a baby.
No. Journalists now form “teams” to write as shown by all the multiple bylines published in the MSN. That way, each team can assume that someone else did the research when they read the copy and then vote on what will actually be published.
It’s called “Consensus Journalism”. Since they all agree, it must be right.
The Washington Post does not employ journalists. They employ paid liars (propagandists) to push the narrative they want to push, in this case OH NO WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE FROM GLOBAL BOILING GIVE MONEY AND POWER TO THE GOVERNMENT AND LEFTISTS!!!1!
What this fails to tell you is that all plants have a ‘comfort zone’ – if the temperature goes a little above this or a little below this, the plant will go dormant. This is not a problem, not a disaster or warning or distress signal, this is how plants cope with seasonal changes – why do you think tree rings are clearly defined?
This is where it all unravels but of course, Gaia is a girl and wtf do girls know.
The plants make their own comfort zone – do not anthropomorphize them
Who wrote that crap? Some James Michener wanna be?
If you mean the W. Post article, the authors are:
By Sarah Kaplan
,
Bonnie Jo Mount
,
Emily Wright
and
Frank Hulley-Jones
Kaplan: Education: Georgetown University, B.S. in International Culture and Politics
Sarah Kaplan is a climate reporter covering humanity’s response to a warming world. She previously reported on Earth science and the universe.
J Mount: Bonnie Jo Mount is a Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist at The Washington Post. She fell in love with photography after learning to print black and white photographs when she was ten years old. She has lived in a variety of places, working as an editor, educator and photojournalist. She joined the Post in 2008 as the Picture Editor. Previous positions include: assistant professor at Hampton University (VA); deputy managing editor for visuals and interactive media at The News & Observer (NC); director of photography at The Gazette (Colorado Springs, CO); photography editor at The Jackson Ho
Wright: Education: Ball State University, BS in journalism
Emily Wright is a designer and art director working on digital and print projects for The Washington Post. Originally from Indiana, Emily studied journalism graphics and graphic arts technology at Ball State University. She now lives in Washington D.C. with her cat.
Hulley-Jones: Education: Falmouth University, BA in Graphic Design
Frank Hulley-Jones is a designer and developer for The Washington Post. He produces interactive pieces to help audiences engage with complex and important news stories. Before joining the Post in 2021, he was design lead for the visuals team at the Guardian in London.
I bet not one has enough knowledge of the climate to pass the first quiz in Climate 101, after the first lecture.
One of my kids has a design degree. While she is very smart as to her business, I am always surprised by how poor her scientific knowledge is. And yes, she did graduate from college and got a masters degree. Just not in science. These people sound like they have the same sort of background.
good for designing awesome, scary, climate horror stories 🙂
So one person to write a load of drivel and three to produce some fancy graphics.
Mt. Bigelow is near Tucson, Arizona
Which is certainly warmer than where the tree was growing, perhaps a lot warmer, as trees can grow high up on mountains.
TUSCON
Warmest July 2023 averaged 94.2 degrees F.
Second warmest July 2020 averaged 92.0 degrees F.
The NY Slimes is claiming a month averaging +2/2 degrees F. warmer than the prior record in 2020, a mere +2.2% warmer, killed an estimated 200 year old tree, because they say so?
We are never told what kind of tree it was or if it had a disease. Probably a Ponderosa pine.
Always think:
Is that true,
or did you read it
in the New York Times
Read closer, Richard. The tree didn’t die; its 2023 growth ring was stunted by high temperatures and a delayed monsoon. A lack of water is the proximate cause of the lack of normal growth.
When I moved to Tucson in 1968 for my graduate work at U of A I met and became friends with a member of the agronomy department, who was proud and pleased to introduce me to the then-novel,”dendrochronology lab.” He explained to me in some detail how tree rings were being used to study variations in rainfall. Temperature never came up. And I hiked on Mt Bigelow, where yes it is noticeably cooler than in the valley.
I’ve cut down a lot of trees for various reasons. I’ve also planted a lot of trees — just so you know. I was a career farmer for 33 years, so I have a lot of experience with plants; animals, too.
When a big tree gets cut down, I often count the growth rings on the stump, to see how old it is, and what kind of a life it had. Tree rings are NEVER — I repeat NEVER — uniform in width. Trees have good years and bad years. When a tree has a string of good years — wide growth rings — we can safely infer that trees nearby were removed, and the added sunlight stimulates faster growth. This years of faster growth invariably slow down, as the tree ages and/or other nearby trees get bigger also, and compete for sunlight, nutrients etc.
My area was whacked by the 1938 New England hurricane. One of the commonest, most vigorous trees in the vicinity is Eastern White Pine, which grows fast, prefers high moisture, seeds its successive generations readily, but has a shallow root system that lets go if the winds get too strong.
White pine forests in most of New England toppled like dominos on 9/21/38, with losses of about 90% from Cape Cod to Vermont. The small seedlings survived and kept growing. When a large white pine is cut nowadays, it’s rare to find more than 90 growth rings. That means it germinated in the 1930s, and was a mere sapling when the Big One blew through. If you find a pine stump from before that, there is a growth spurt in the 1940s when nearby competitors went down, and sunlight was abundant for several years.
They should have had it dying — would have been a better fairy tale.
If it did not die the story is completely worthless.
Being from the NYT, I assumed it was a worthless article and read it very fast.
200 year old tree had a bad year is not much of a story
I’m still waiting for a Climate Change Killed My Dog story.
You believe what you read in the Washpoo?
Sad.
Of course not- didn’t think I needed to say that.
No climate cliff but lots and lots of money to be made if you can afford some lobbyists and can learn to bundle campaign donations. Already being a billionaire seems to help, too.
“There Is No 1.5°C Climate Cliff”
Reality has to be excluded in order for the narrative to stick.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/20/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-580/#comment-3833714
What scepticism really needs is a major breakthrough in the msm and that is yet to come.
Levelized Cost of Energy by US-EIA
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major
Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need expensive support systems to exist on the grid.
The LCOE of expensive support systems increases exponentially with more W/S systems
The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE “analyses”, are deliberately working to keep the people ignorant.
The wind/solar/battery bubble is in meltdown mode. This is not a surprise, because the US-EIA makes LCOE “evaluations” of W/S/B systems that purposely exclude major LCOE items.
The EIA deceptions reinforced the delusion W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.
The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.
W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies
W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without the last four freebies.
1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S to load centers
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the W/S up/down output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365,
4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,
5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced
The key question is –
“Is there a GLOBAL AVERAGE PERSON to experience the effects of a 1.5C increase in global average temperature?”
When the Ice Returns it is Time to Adapt and/or Migrate
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/when-the-ice-returns
.
by Viv Forbes, with help from friends
15 Dec 2023
.
EXCERPT
A long time ago, the universe was made of ice.
Then, one day, the ice began to melt, and a mist rose into the sky.
Out of the mist came a giant made of frost, and the earth and heavens were made from his body.
That is how the world began, and that is how the world will end.
Not by fire, but by Ice.
.
From: an Ancient Scandinavian Legend, quoted by Robert W Felix in his great book: “NOT BY FIRE BUT BY ICE”.
……..
.
Earth is living in the latter days of the Holocene Warm Era.
This is the latest short, fertile, warm interlude within the long, barren, Pleistocene Ice Age.
.
Here is a link to download below graph
.
From: John Kehr 2011 “The Inconvenient Skeptic”, p42.
Temperature Reconstruction using deep sea sediment cores. After Raymo, 2005.
.
We are at the top on the RHS of that cycle. Does that look like a bottom, or a top?
The eight cycles lasted about 700,000 years, and during that time:
1) The natural CO2 curves mimicked the temperature curves, and
2) The natural CO2 varied from a low of 180 ppm during cold periods to a high of 300 ppm during warm periods
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-the-rise-and-fall-of-co2-levels-influenced-the-ice-ages/
Temperature changes usually lead CO2 level changes.
When the temperatures are cold the oceans can hold more CO2 and the atmospheric CO2 goes down.
When the temperatures are warm the oceans can’t hold as much CO2 and the atmospheric CO2 level goes up.
Henry’s Law does NOT apply to water and carbon dioxide
Water is a liquid, carbon dioxide is a gas and they don’t get a free pass….
Here is a WIKI chart regarding Temperature and CO2. It says one thing but implies something else if extrapolated.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Co2-temperature-records.svg
The temperature record (Red) stops a little short of current temps (slightly below the last 3°C peak 120,000 years ago). We aren’t yet near that 3°C anomaly today yet CO2 has risen to over 420ppm today, above the top of the graph. Now IF CO2 drove temperature to increase equally, our current anomaly should be in the neighborhood of over 17°C…above the top of the chart.
This similar chart from AJNE(dot)ORG if.extended to today’s concentration levels would also indicate a current anomaly of 17-18°C would be induced by current CO2 levels
Clearly Temperature can drive natural CO2 levels but increasing CO2 levels aren’t proportionally driving Temperatures
Gas does not get a pass
But one can pass gas
I give gas a pass.
From time to time I just get a gut feeling about it
Peta, do you buy fizzy drinks or tonic? To put the CO2 into the liquid, the water is chilled to 0C and then subject to CO2 pressure. When you open the bottle the pressure falls and it fizzes. If you chill the bottle it does this much less, that is why we add ice after opening at room temperature. CO2 dissolves much more at lower temperatures, and is emitted at higher ones. An ideal demonstration of Henrys Law!
The Brits drink beer warm
What do they know about Henry’s Law?
Does Henry’s law apply to CO2?
Henry’s Law is temperature dependent and warmer liquids hold less gas than colder liquids.
Henry’s Law of solubility of gases explains why CO2 leaves until it is in equilibrium with the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide obeys Henry’s Law (which states that the concentration of a dissolved gas in a solution is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas above the solution) an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere directly leads to an increase in the amounts of CO2 absorbed by the oceans.
Henry’s law does apply to water and CO2. However, you can’t assume all the CO2 in the liquid phase exists as molecular CO2 like you could if you were measuring the Henry’s constant of methane or nitrogen. You must account for the chemical equilibria of dissolved CO2 and carbonic acid in equilibrium with bicarbonate in equilibrium with carbonate. Most gasses don’t react with water so this is not a complication for methane or nitrogen. It is difficult to measure the actual solubility of CO2 in water because the reaction consumes most of the CO2 and its concentration is quite low. It is common to lump all the CO2 species together to calculate the liquid concentration of CO2 when measuring the Henry constant since this is easier than developing a method to differentiate between molecular CO2 in your sample and the three ionic species (carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and carbonate). For example, in studying gas-treating compounds like methyl diethanolamine (MDEA), the partial pressures of CO2 and H2S are measured versus their liquid concentrations, ignoring all the complex chemistry going on. This gives an effective Henry’s constant and allows the performance of a particular solvent blend to be evaluated.
I’m a trained scuba diver. You are full of it! It’s nitrogen we worry about, but CO2 is a gas too. We have enzymes that absorb and remove CO2 from our blood and not the nitrogen. Henry’s Law says nothing about excluding CO2 from water or carbonated drinks.
Really? Cold beer holds more CO2 than warm beer, or so I’ve found.
“Temperature changes usually lead CO2 level changes.”
True but irrelevant for any conclusion about manmade CO2 emissions because there are virtually no manmade CO2 emissions in the ice core era.
Why should anthropogenic CO2 behave any differently than natural CO2?
“2) The natural CO2 varied from a low of 180 ppm during cold periods to a high of 300 ppm during warm periods”
FALSE
Natural CO2 stayed the same
The percentages of that natural CO2 in the oceans and in the atmosphere changed, but the total amount of natural CO2 did not change.
“There is no evidence that supports the idea that 1.5°C warming will be a dangerous “climate cliff” that will cause more chaotic weather.”
It may cause less chaotic weather. Since the poles are warming more- there’ll be less differential temperature across the planet- isn’t it possible that might reduce severe storms?
Wild guessing here. I have zero education in climate science- other than what I’ve learned here and from Tony Heller, et. al.
Antarctica is not warming at all
But severe weather has been significantly reduced in the Northern Hemisphere
COMING CLIMATE CHANGE CRISIS PROPAGANDA IS SO EFFECTIVE THAT IT PREVENTS MOST PEOPLE FROM ENJOYING TODAY’S WONDERFUL CLIMATE.
For the US:
U.S. HURRICANES MAKING LANDFALL HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND SINCE THE LATE 1800s.
MAJOR US TORNADOES HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND SINCE THE 1950s.
US HEAT WAVES, DROUGHTS AND FOREST FIRE ACRES BURNED PEAKED IN THE 1930s.
THE 1930s STILL HAVE THE MOST US STATE MAXIMUM HEAT RECORDS OF ANY DECADE, BY FAR.
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
“severe weather has been significantly reduced in the Northern Hemisphere”
but that means it’s different, thus we should panic! 🙂
There may be no climate cliff, but we can build one. It looks like it is being done down the road to ‘renewables’.
The real cliffs are:
Only fascism can stop climate change and save the planet, say the leftists.
If the baseline temperature was 15.3 C in 1995, that corresponds to 288.45 K as an absolute temperature. Increasing this by 1.5 C would result in 289.95 K, or an increase of 0.52% on an absolute scale, which would lead to an equivalent increase in the volume of the atmosphere at constant pressure.
Since outgoing IR radiation is proportional to T^4 (the Stefan-Boltzmann law), the 0.52% increase in absolute temperature would result in a 2.10% increase in outgoing IR radiation. Wouldn’t this increase in radiation loss tend to cool the climate (negative feedback), and stabilize it at a new equilibrium?
How does a 0.52% increase in temperature lead to thermal runaway? It doesn’t make sense!
During eras when the world was not in an ice age, the planet was significantly warmer than now and life did not end. If you wanted to live in Florida, that was an issue since it was mostly underwater. the sea level was 60-80 meters higher.
Off topic but for Dec. 20, it appears we have more ice this year (and the last 8 years) in the Arctic than since 2014. Odd ice behavior for the hottest year ever…
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Antarctic sea ice has also been increasing over the past month.
We hit +1.5 in July 2023
Nothing happened
The new number
is being chosen
at an auction
1.6 bid
1.6 going once
We have 1.6 bid, now 1.7,
will you give me 1,7?
1.8 is bid
1.8 going once
We have 1.8 bid. now 1.9
1.9 going once
We have 2.0 bid, now 2.1
will anyone go 2,1?
Going once
Going twice
Sold at 2.0, and the winner
gets a free chicken dinner.
The new tipping point is +2.0
At +2.01 your dog dies
At +2.02 you die,
with no dog for company.
You could reverse that last bit to tug at more heartstrings… remember fighting GW is all about Feeeeelings
At +2.01 you die
At +2.02 your dog dies
Because you weren’t here to feed it and your corpse no longer provides for it
According to RSS data we have 1.33 (last 3 months) + -0.225 = 1.56 C from the start of their data in 1979. I assume the starting point was at least 0.5 C over the preindustrial temperature. This puts us over the 2 C cliff already.
And absolutely no-one would have noticed anything were it not for the rampant AGW propaganda carry-on and shrieking
I am tired of pointing out the blindingly obvious that is of absolute relevance to our problem and based on the absolute measured realities of the self evident empirical climate system, versus the system made up in models that make up all their parameterizations and sensitivities and leave out anything that doesn’t fit their narrative about how nature works. AS a result they can’t predict next week with any accuracy. But we an and have measured the macro level effects and understand the general physics, so I will again attempt to explain why the blindingly obvious you can measure trumps a model that is almost entirely fabricated to prove anaenda it comprehensively fails to do sinc eit was begun. Because it is real and is wrong.
MY approach is usually only expressed qualitatively, most recently by John Clauser, . But PAY ATTENTION …. here some numbers to go with his (and my) empirical ideas. JUst chuck the garbage science fiction general circulation models in the trash, where they and their pseudo science promoting number wanglers both belong, and look at the major elements of the planetary control system as whole outside any model, the key variables instrumentally measured by NASA so we know which they are and how they must vary at a macro scale. Forget the details and concentrate on the macro level effects first, what actually happens and how relatively large different causes and effects are.
Basic engineering of e planetary system’s thermal balance control. It’s by the oceans. The land is irrelevant. The oceans have a highly sensitive evaporative response system over 70% of Earth’s surface, Stefan Boltzman matters but is 1/5 the sensitivity of surface evaporation in term of W/m^2 per deg of feedback to perturbations from the mean.
When there is a positive GHE change perturbation in the Earth’s atmospheric heat transfer system, from the surface to the effective TOA of the overall/external Earth system, that will warm the planet until the surface warms enough to lose more heat and maintain thermal equilibrium. .
On a solid rock that would be roughly 1% change in radiative loss from the surface per deg K at 288K, because I=kT^4. So 2.4W/m^2 across the whole Earth radiative TOA feedback today.
However….. earth’s surface is covered by deep oceans where nearly all the stored surface heat is (and all the negative feedback comes from, as well as the positive feedback GHE). The stored heat is asymmetrically distributed with 1/3 in the NH and 2/3 in the SH, Which is why the NH is more affected by changes in external heating. BUt that’s a whole other story.
Crude averages say the response creates 6W/m^2 more evaporative cooling per deg K because vapour content rises by 7% per deg across a wide range of RHI and Temperature, using the base of 86.4W.m^2 at 288K that NASA reports for the energy transfer from the ocean to the Troposphere in the latent heat of water vapour. Simple!
THis will then form similarly more clouds, about 7% more of the 67% planetary cloud cover that created 50W/m^2 of increased albedo feedback,so 3.5W/m^2 more albedo, perhaps?
There is another c.2W/m^2 of S-B radiative loss per deg.
Because it must?
The positive GHE effect of the extra water vapour is 2W/m^2 per deg K per NASA.
So the likely total negative feedback to 1 deg of warming due to water vaour and S-B is c.10W/m^2. Why does nobody say?
So in fact the total AGW contribution of 1.6W/m^2 will require an SST increase of 0.16 deg to re balance the system radiatively.
Roughly 1/10 the change that is supposed to be attributed to that 1.6W/m^2 of AGW, which is simply false attribution without probable cause, apart from the tiny bit the negative feedback needed to adjust for. Obvious or what?
The rest of the change is nota mystery, its matches the same natural cycles seen in the proxy record of the cyclic past, which are denied this cycle around to attribute this natural andovertly solar driven variability to humans, and make some easy money for academic charlatans, fiscal fraudsters and global power brokers at the expense of the prosperity and freedoms of the people in whose names these frauds are paid for and passed into law. Legalised crime..
SOme other thoughts as regards scale:
Its worth considering that, during a 100Ka eccentricity maximum, the insolation reaching the asymmetric earth surface control system MUST vary by +/- 40W/m^2 by the inverse square law.
Great summers and great winters of the Laskar cycles caused by 23Ka precession and 41Ka obliquity are at a similar scale of tens of W/m^2 variability.No tipping points. Go figger.
1.6W/^2 AGW will not cause 1.5 deg warming. because it cannot. It si strongly controlled, as not included in models.
The oceans will balance out such a tiny radiative 1.6W/m^2 perturbation with an imperceptible warming of more like 0.15deg. GIve or take. The rest is natural.
It don’t take a weather man…… this is real science we can explain and observe to test our explanation do not pass this most fundamental of scientific tests.. .
The other stuff is science fiction made up in a computer to a magic formula from the political committee of the IPCC for an easy grant by charlatan pseudo scientists, whose outputs fail to predict the future we measure, for 40 years – and are thus wrong.
You’ve been falsified!
Because models do not represent the complete holistic system we can treat empirically, as I do above. Probably..
The natural negative feedback is large and dominant. It has control. Just does. CEng, CPhys
“they reckoned that the mean maximum temperature during the last interglacial period was 16.1 C to which they arbitrarily added a further 0.5 C to establish tolerable maximum temperature of 16.6 C. They then assumed that in 1995 the current global mean temperature was around 15.3 C which would be only 1.3 C below their tolerable maximum. Finally, they presupposed the 1995 average was 0.7 C above the preindustrial average which yields an overall 2.0 C threshold.”
“A mean can be defined as an average of the set of values in a sample of data.” While “An Average can be defined as the sum of all numbers divided by the total number of values.” They are not the same thing.
The mean maximum temperature may or may not actually represent a generally warmer earth. The mean of the difference between the daily mean low and the mean maximum could be useful, except for the fact that atmospheric conditions are likely to change between the minimum and maximum temperatures. How can a mean for the earth be determined when the seasons differ from one hemisphere to another, when altitudes vary dramatically from one location to another and parts of the earth are at different distances from the sea, just three of many influences. Temperatures vary in just a few miles. Fixing a mean maximum is of dubious value for scientific purposes.
Very nice Linnea. This is really important and needs wide distribution. Written in very clear and simple language that all of us can understand. Kudos to Anthony Watts and Ron Bailey also.
It has always bothered me that we skeptics passively accept the alarmists boundaries and words. This issue should never be referred to as anything other than Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. That is what the alarmist crowd is preaching and we need to hold them to it. No blurring the issue with phrases like climate change.
Second I could never understand why we allow them to use the late 1800’s as a reference point. Berkeley Earth’s graph starting at 1750 makes way more sense to me but I would go back to the coldest time during the little ice age. I understand that they want to impress on us that it is industry that is responsible, I understand that regular recorded temperature records were sketchy before then but I don’t care. We need to use the boundaries and language most accurate and beneficial to us.
Yet another article that doesn’t differentiate quoted text from body text. It’s not difficult.