Posted: Jan 13, 2020 10:22 am
by OlivierK
Macdoc wrote:My apologies that was supposed to be 1.5 above not 1.2 ....Australia all ready there.

2019 was Australia's hottest year on record – 1.5C above average temperature
Bureau of Meteorology data shows average temperature record across the country beat previous high of 2013

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... emperature

Met for the first time anticipates a global year above 1.5 C in its 5 year forecast.

Global warming could temporarily hit 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for the first time between now and 2023, according to a long-term forecast by the Met Office.

Meteorologists said there was a 10% chance of a year in which the average temperature rise exceeds 1.5C, which is the lowest of the two Paris agreement targets set for the end of the century.


Again, no shit. We've had a Nino year at 1.4C above pre-industrial globally in 2016. Add 0.2C warming per decade, and we're quite likely to have a 1.5C year before 2023. This is NOT news, this is just knowing how to read a graph.

And in any year, some places will be above the global average, and some below, so that's not news either.

Macdoc wrote:it's NOT going be 2040 when it crosses the 1.5 threshold in a non El Nino year globally.

So when is the current very steady 0.2C/decade warming going to accelerate and what's the trigger going to be? I presume you're hanging your hat on methane, in which case you might want to quantify what you think the warming attributable to methane will be.

Macdoc wrote:One of the major issues is if methane release in the northern continents and ocean verges has now charted its own course.

Levels of a powerful greenhouse gas jumped again last year, continuing a surge in the past few years that researchers still cannot fully explain.

Atmospheric concentrations of methane climbed by 10.77 parts per billion in 2018, the second highest annual increase in the past two decades, according to provisional data released recently by US agency NOAA.

Methane is a shorter-lived but much more powerful greenhouse than carbon dioxide. The amount finding its way from human and natural sources, which can include everything from oil and gas wells to wetlands, has been rising since 2007. The rate has accelerated in the past four years.

Researchers warned earlier this year that if methane levels keep increasing at current rates then the Paris climate deal’s goals – of limiting global warming to 2°C and pursuing efforts to keep below 1.5°C – would be very difficult to meet.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... z6Apqkpg6C


a known unknown but makes rose coloured projections of relying on 30 year trends rather moot.

The 1.5 was of course an electric prod that was never realistic....at this point neither is 2C 80 years out barring some serious CO2 removal.

Keeping things below 1.5C is already impossible with the warming locked in by current CO2 levels. I distrust any article that says that it's possible. To say it's "difficult" is to misunderstand where we're at.

Look, Macdoc, I know that you think that we'll cross 1.5C of trend warming before 2040. God knows you've posted it often enough. What I'd like to see is why you think that. We've got half a century of data that says we're warming the planet at a thoroughly dangerous pace of 2C/century, which puts us on track for 1.5C of warming by 2040. For trend warming to reach that level much sooner than that, the rate of warming has to increase substantially above 2C/century, and that substantial change has to happen very soon. The idea that in addition to our current disastrous levels of warming there's some large additional source of warming likely to act on the global climate very soon is a big claim that requires evidence that you seem resistant to providing, even as you repeat the claim over and over. Breathless New Scientist articles about how scientists "just don't know what methane will do" don't count.

The first IPCC report of 1990 predicted around 1.5C of warming by 2040, which was then 50 years away. 30 years of data later, those models are looking pretty close to bang on.

So what do you know that climate scientists don't? Given the frequency with which you post stuff containing basic innumeracy, I'm guessing: not much.