rationalskepticism.org

Macdoc wrote:OK

If the expectation is for the future rate to be markedly different from the current rate, what's the cause?

You didn't read the paper did you? Just dismissed it as crank. Nor did you read the IPCC 1.5C report where the graph indicates 2034 without taking into account the decadal oscillation which could shift that forward into late 2020.

I did read the abstract, but the paper itself is paywalled. I didn't dismiss it as "crank", that's entirely your own invention. I've reported your posts in the past for chronically mischaracterising my position on climate change. Do I need to start again?

The paper says we're headed for 1.5C sooner than the established consensus. That could be due to several factors: that we're (i) starting from closer than we thought, (ii) we're warming faster than we thought, or (iii) that warming will accelerate starting Real Soon Now. The IPO turning positive would be a factor contributing to (iii), but in the past has not produced warmings of the magnitude required to draw the conclusions drawn by the paper, so I'm wondering if the authors, or yourself, propose a contribution from (i) or (ii).

The graph you refer to as from the IPCC 1.5C report is in fact a third party graph that claims to use the IPCC 1.5C report data. It does indeed show 1.5C by 2034, but it also shows 1.18C by 2018, which is about 0.15C higher than most estimates of current warming. That's about a decade's worth of warming, so it makes sense that that graph shows 1.5C about a decade earlier than most, which is an example of how an earlier forcast of 1.5C could be due to explanation (i) above, rather than (iii).

Hence my questions.

So why don't you have a go at answering them?

I'd be genuinely interested in (a) what your position actually is, and (b) whether, despite all your chest-beating and claims of expertise, you actually CAN answer such simple questions with direct answers, because I'm genuinely starting to have my doubts whether your technical familiarity with the subject even stretches that far; or whether your interest is entirely on an emotional/activist level (nothing wrong with that). Every time you're asked for specifics, you reply with bluster. If you do that again here, the natural conclusion would be that you're not in possession of the fairly fundamental facts requested. I'm not sure you have it in you to surprise me with honest answers.