GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[notsonice + 1,266]

BBC

 

Global warming set to break key 1.5C limit for first time

• Published

• 17 May

 

Image source, Science Photo Library

Image caption,

This is how El Niño brought heat to the surface of the Pacific in 2015

By Matt McGrath

Environment correspondent

 

Our overheating world is likely to break a key temperature limit for the first time over the next few years, scientists predict.

Researchers say there's now a 66% chance we will pass the 1.5C global warming threshold between now and 2027.

The chances are rising due to emissions from human activities and a likely El Niño weather pattern later this year.

If the world passes the limit, scientists stress the breach, while worrying, will likely be temporary.

Hitting the threshold would mean the world is 1.5C warmer than it was during the second half of the 19th Century, before fossil fuel emissions from industrialisation really began to ramp up.

And breaking the limit even for just one year is a worrying sign that warming is accelerating and not slowing down.

 

The 1.5C figure has become a symbol of global climate change negotiations. Countries agreed to "pursue efforts" to limit global temperature rises to 1.5C under the 2015 Paris agreement.

Going over 1.5C every year for a decade or two would see far greater impacts of warming, such as longer heatwaves, more intense storms and wildfires.

But passing the level in one of the next few years would not mean that the Paris limit had been broken. Scientists say there is still time to restrict global warming by cutting emissions sharply.

• How do El Niño and La Niña change the weather?
• Unexplained ocean warming alarms scientists
• Can we take CO2 back out of the air

Since 2020 the World Meteorological Organisation has been giving an estimate of the chances of the world breaking the 1.5C threshold in any one year.

Back then they predicted there was less than a 20% chance of breaking 1.5C in the five years ahead.

By last year this had increased to 50%, and now it's jumped to 66%, which the scientists say means it's "more likely than not."

 

What does going over 1.5C mean?

The figure is not a direct measure of the world's temperature but an indicator of how much or how little the Earth has warmed or cooled compared to the long term global average.

Image source, Getty Images

Image caption,

A school child tries to stay cool amid a heatwave in Indonesia this year

Scientists use average temperature data from the period between 1850-1900 as a measure of how hot the world was before our modern reliance on coal, oil and gas.

For decades they believed that if the world warmed by around 2C that would be the threshold of dangerous impacts - but in 2018 they significantly revised this estimate, showing that going past 1.5C would be calamitous for the world.

Over the past few decades our overheating world has nudged the mercury up so that in 2016, the warmest on record, global temperatures were 1.28C above the pre-industrial figure.

Now researchers say that figure is set to be smashed - they are 98% certain the high mark will be broken before 2027.

And in the years between now and then they believe there's a very solid chance the 1.5C limit will be surpassed for the first time.

 

"We really are now within reach of a temporary exceedance of 1.5C for the annual mean temperature, and that's the first time in human history we've been that close," said Prof Adam Scaife, head of long range forecasts at the Met Office, who compile the data from weather and climate agencies around the world.

Image source, Carlos Gil

Image caption,

Flamingoes in Spain find their nesting area hit by drought after fierce heatwave this spring

"I think that's perhaps the most stark and obvious and simplest statistic that we've got in the report," he told a news conference.

The researchers stress that temperatures would have to stay at or above 1.5C for 20 years to be able to say the Paris agreement threshold had been passed.

• A really simple guide to climate change

"This report does not mean that we will permanently exceed the 1.5C level specified in the Paris Agreement which refers to long-term warming over many years," said WMO Secretary-General Prof. Petteri Taalas

"However, WMO is sounding the alarm that we will breach the 1.5C level on a temporary basis with increasing frequency," he said.

What difference will El Niño make?

There are two key elements - the first is the continuing high levels of carbon emissions from human activities that despite a fall during the pandemic are still going up.

The second, critical part is the likely appearance of El Niño, a weather phenomenon with global implications.

For the last three years the world has been experiencing a La Niña event which has dampened climate warming to some extent.

Media caption,

El Niño: How does it affect global weather?

But the extra heat that El Niño will bring to the surface of the Pacific will likely push the global temperature to a new high next year.

However there is still uncertainty around the onset and scale of the event.

"It's worth noting that a lot of our forecasts that are being made now for the El Niño that we think is developing this winter, are showing pretty big amplitude," Prof Scaife told reporters.

"But to actually predict the magnitude, or a subsequent event within the five-year period, we can't give the exact dates of that beyond this one year ahead, so it could be in three or four years from now we get to two and a half degree El Niño and that might be the one that does it. "

What are the likely impacts in the UK and elsewhere?

The Arctic will experience warming at a greater level than many regions, with the temperature anomaly expected to be three times as large as the global figure over the next five northern hemisphere winters.

Northern Europe including the UK will likely experience increased rainfall for the May to September period over the next five years, the report says.

Follow Matt on Twitter @mattmcgrathbbc.

[bloodman33 + 22]

Ecocharger patheti regarding  I was unable to ...  

I did not bother look.  99% of published articles out there already dispute it.  To look would mean I was giving the article and the oil company shills the time of day.  I did briefly look and I realized I would have to spend hours digging through the BS and for what, nothing.  The paper is falling on dead ears.  The world already knows you are full of it. 

Explain the article to me.  I don't think you have a clue about it other than grasping at the conclusion like the oil company shill you are. That said i still work and don't have the time. I work on Weather data in the US.  LOL  What do you do buddy?

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

3 hours ago, notsonice said:

 

Just hot air???? well check the temperatures around the globe.......thanks to the idiots that promote Coal ....Oil...nat gas.....

keep telling yourself it is not get hotter outside in relation to CO2, no one agrees with you except the idiots

CO₂ contributing 3.3K says it all ..thats 3.3 K too much

now tell me it is not getting hotter.....no one believes you

been to Phoenix lately...........Damn F....ing hot...thanks to the morons that deny global warming is happening

 

Coal burning ....only idiots support it these days

 

 

Perhaps the IPCC and the BBC should start by giving citations to the published work they are supposedly relying upon for their wild projections. Then a valid debate could be held. By avoiding citations, the IPCC hopes to avoid debate and discussion, which ultimately is what science is all about. 

Nothing in your BBC blurb above mentions a citation or suggests that CO2 is related to global warming, so your attempt to discuss the issues misses the point.

I guess they have little confidence in the quality of their own work.

Edited July 21, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

1 hour ago, bloodman33 said:

Ecocharger patheti regarding  I was unable to ...  

I did not bother look.  99% of published articles out there already dispute it.  To look would mean I was giving the article and the oil company shills the time of day.  I did briefly look and I realized I would have to spend hours digging through the BS and for what, nothing.  The paper is falling on dead ears.  The world already knows you are full of it. 

Explain the article to me.  I don't think you have a clue about it other than grasping at the conclusion like the oil company shill you are. That said i still work and don't have the time. I work on Weather data in the US.  LOL  What do you do buddy?

If 99% of the articles dispute it, it should be simple for you to cite one of them and we can discuss it from there,.

If you cannot find anything which disputes it, I guess the climate alarmists have no confidence in their own work.

And that would mean you have no idea what you are babbling on about.

Edited July 21, 2023 by Ecocharger

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,194]

6 hours ago, bloodman33 said:

Ecocharger Why do you not post the 99% of scientific articles out there by climate scientists that show you a wrong?  And feel free to explain to me the article and math.  I do not have the time.  My guess is you found it and have no idea what it says.

And none of them are working with the raw data as they are pretending computer models are science.  They are not.  They are the antithesis of science. 

If you bothered to read the journals, the actual articles, you would find that the first paragraph has the words climate change and the last paragprahs always have the words climate change in them, but the bulk of the articles are routinely destroying the narrative, but in order to get funding, you have to go along with the religious cult even though they have been proven wrong regarding basic geophysics of black body radiation decades ago and it is well known as that is HOW WE use satellites to determine a planets temperature... Their atmospheric composition matters not one whit as long as a wavelength gap is covered.  Once covered it matters not how much of said gas is in excess, you can't absorb more spectrum from the sun than you already do.  100% is 100%.

[bloodman33 + 22]

Ecocharger: Other then yammer on this board being an oil shill what do you do?  Are you retired.  What did you do?  Do you have a college degree, Masters, or PHD.  Who is Ecocharger.  It is a valid question given the amount you post here. How do you make your money?

[Polyphia + 83]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/20/world/greenland-ice-sheet-melt-sea-level-rise-climate/index.html

Long-lost Greenland ice core suggests potential for disastrous sea level rise

"A recently discovered ice core taken from beneath Greenland’s ice sheet decades ago has revealed that a large part of the country was ice-free around 400,000 years ago, when temperatures were similar to those the world is approaching now, according to a new report – an alarming finding that could have disastrous implications for sea level rise.

The study overturns previous assumptions that most of Greenland’s ice sheet has been frozen for millions of years, the authors said. Instead, moderate, natural warming led to large-scale melting and sea level rise of more than 1.4 meters (4.6 feet), according to the report published Thursday in the journal Science."

"The potential implications for sea level rise are enormous, Tammy Rittenour, a professor from Utah State University and study co-author said in a statement. 'We are looking at meters of sea level rise, probably tens of meters. And then look at the elevation of New York City, Boston, Miami, Amsterdam. Look at India and Africa – most global population centers are near sea level.'

As well as contributing to sea level rise, the loss of the ice also accelerates global warming, as white ice, which reflects the sun’s energy away from the Earth’s surface, is replaced with darker rock and vegetation, which absorbs the sun’s energy."

[Polyphia + 83]

10 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

And none of them are working with the raw data as they are pretending computer models are science.  They are not.  They are the antithesis of science. 

If you bothered to read the journals, the actual articles, you would find that the first paragraph has the words climate change and the last paragprahs always have the words climate change in them, but the bulk of the articles are routinely destroying the narrative, but in order to get funding, you have to go along with the religious cult even though they have been proven wrong regarding basic geophysics of black body radiation decades ago and it is well known as that is HOW WE use satellites to determine a planets temperature... Their atmospheric composition matters not one whit as long as a wavelength gap is covered.  Once covered it matters not how much of said gas is in excess, you can't absorb more spectrum from the sun than you already do.  100% is 100%.

Seriously? Computer modeling is the antithesis of science? Computer modeling uses math, science, and computer science often to predict what is likely to happen in complex systems. And existing data are most certainly used to build the models. 

[turbguy + 1,555]

UH-OH!

Shades of "big tobacco"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/climate/climate-lawsuit-puerto-rico.html?unlocked_article_code=uU8Ul9Q_Cd22d75sJ9DfFNsxXu_PVNhMQe4_1DIUpc8NdCDUgbsRp9gu3_fL7qWLtc0LdoasoISLYwwhvYV2WD9lAl_H37BUJkWNK4kO5XEzBWLkhRGkZA9TSzNFhjjp200u9ZPpufYPHrgXszzoawc3k47z53xH7FG_hv_3gxpnA68xNzYuwmkAmCFRtGy5oUPRRGHLBodrHlLQmFPjeQVvzZWtr7BlUjkFyoV9pUt1AvTEtEdMcKwXEFxlAIH0WnB-8oiNgBjr9Ela6R5TKtZ8l4ltrGPaCGTJmAEvuFk6cLaFWh97k_yFUI0-Dd2fmqTi3lBxzOAMbkrSMlSeGL9givr3&smid=url-share

 

..and then there's Shell's "TINA"...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411118-Document27a.html#document/p1/a414603

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4426809-Document27b#document/p3/a415260

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4430277-27-1-Compiled.html#document/p122/a415455

...and then:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/shell-oil-climate-change-risks_n_5ac628d9e4b09ef3b24440d5

Edited July 21, 2023 by turbguy

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

12 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

 Their atmospheric composition matters not one whit as long as a wavelength gap is covered.  Once covered it matters not how much of said gas is in excess, you can't absorb more spectrum from the sun than you already do.  100% is 100%.

The fact that earth and other planets are visible from space makes it obvious they do not absorb 100%, or at least they emit a significant fraction.  Reducing the amount they emit is essentially the definition of a "Greenhouse."

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

Coal is still King of energy security.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/polish-court-overturns-decision-suspend-permit-turow-mine-2023-07-18/

"A Polish court on Tuesday overturned a ruling that work at the Turow lignite mine should be halted on environmental grounds, in a boost for the government which had vowed to keep it open.

In June, a Warsaw court ruled the environmental permit for the mine should be suspended amid an ongoing court case around its impact, because it could cause significant damage to the environment.

The ruling nationalists Law and Justice (PiS) said they would resist attempts to close the mine, which supplies 8% of Poland's energy, as they wanted to protect jobs and the nation's energy security."

Edited July 21, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

11 hours ago, bloodman33 said:

Ecocharger: Other then yammer on this board being an oil shill what do you do?  Are you retired.  What did you do?  Do you have a college degree, Masters, or PHD.  Who is Ecocharger.  It is a valid question given the amount you post here. How do you make your money?

I ordered you to provide a citation to support your nonsense, and you are running away. Now get to work.

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

2 hours ago, Polyphia said:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/20/world/greenland-ice-sheet-melt-sea-level-rise-climate/index.html

Long-lost Greenland ice core suggests potential for disastrous sea level rise

"A recently discovered ice core taken from beneath Greenland’s ice sheet decades ago has revealed that a large part of the country was ice-free around 400,000 years ago, when temperatures were similar to those the world is approaching now, according to a new report – an alarming finding that could have disastrous implications for sea level rise.

The study overturns previous assumptions that most of Greenland’s ice sheet has been frozen for millions of years, the authors said. Instead, moderate, natural warming led to large-scale melting and sea level rise of more than 1.4 meters (4.6 feet), according to the report published Thursday in the journal Science."

"The potential implications for sea level rise are enormous, Tammy Rittenour, a professor from Utah State University and study co-author said in a statement. 'We are looking at meters of sea level rise, probably tens of meters. And then look at the elevation of New York City, Boston, Miami, Amsterdam. Look at India and Africa – most global population centers are near sea level.'

As well as contributing to sea level rise, the loss of the ice also accelerates global warming, as white ice, which reflects the sun’s energy away from the Earth’s surface, is replaced with darker rock and vegetation, which absorbs the sun’s energy."

Again, you are confusing global warming with CO2 greenhouse gas effects, which are two different subjects.

CO2 greenhouse gas effects are insignificant in the larger picture of global warming/cooling.

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

2 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Seriously? Computer modeling is the antithesis of science? Computer modeling uses math, science, and computer science often to predict what is likely to happen in complex systems. And existing data are most certainly used to build the models. 

UNLESS...you do not like the model.

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

UH-OH!

Shades of "big tobacco"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/climate/climate-lawsuit-puerto-rico.html?unlocked_article_code=uU8Ul9Q_Cd22d75sJ9DfFNsxXu_PVNhMQe4_1DIUpc8NdCDUgbsRp9gu3_fL7qWLtc0LdoasoISLYwwhvYV2WD9lAl_H37BUJkWNK4kO5XEzBWLkhRGkZA9TSzNFhjjp200u9ZPpufYPHrgXszzoawc3k47z53xH7FG_hv_3gxpnA68xNzYuwmkAmCFRtGy5oUPRRGHLBodrHlLQmFPjeQVvzZWtr7BlUjkFyoV9pUt1AvTEtEdMcKwXEFxlAIH0WnB-8oiNgBjr9Ela6R5TKtZ8l4ltrGPaCGTJmAEvuFk6cLaFWh97k_yFUI0-Dd2fmqTi3lBxzOAMbkrSMlSeGL9givr3&smid=url-share

 

..and then there's Shell's "TINA"...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411118-Document27a.html#document/p1/a414603

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4426809-Document27b#document/p3/a415260

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4430277-27-1-Compiled.html#document/p122/a415455

...and then:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/shell-oil-climate-change-risks_n_5ac628d9e4b09ef3b24440d5

These lawsuits always fail. No legal basis. Governmental responsibility takes precedence over individual nuisance claims.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/climate/climate-change-lawsuit-san-francisco-oakland.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-lawsuits-idUKKBN1JM0EP

Edited July 21, 2023 by Ecocharger

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,194]

3 hours ago, Polyphia said:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/20/world/greenland-ice-sheet-melt-sea-level-rise-climate/index.html

Long-lost Greenland ice core suggests potential for disastrous sea level rise

"A recently discovered ice core taken from beneath Greenland’s ice sheet decades ago has revealed that a large part of the country was ice-free around 400,000 years ago, when temperatures were similar to those the world is approaching now, according to a new report – an alarming finding that could have disastrous implications for sea level rise.

The study overturns previous assumptions that most of Greenland’s ice sheet has been frozen for millions of years, the authors said. Instead, moderate, natural warming led to large-scale melting and sea level rise of more than 1.4 meters (4.6 feet), according to the report published Thursday in the journal Science."

"The potential implications for sea level rise are enormous, Tammy Rittenour, a professor from Utah State University and study co-author said in a statement. 'We are looking at meters of sea level rise, probably tens of meters. And then look at the elevation of New York City, Boston, Miami, Amsterdam. Look at India and Africa – most global population centers are near sea level.'

As well as contributing to sea level rise, the loss of the ice also accelerates global warming, as white ice, which reflects the sun’s energy away from the Earth’s surface, is replaced with darker rock and vegetation, which absorbs the sun’s energy."

So, the Danes will get rich teaching dike building... Common man this is pathetic.  "rapid" = hundreds of years.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,194]

4 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Seriously? Computer modeling is the antithesis of science? Computer modeling uses math, science, and computer science often to predict what is likely to happen in complex systems. And existing data are most certainly used to build the models. 

What is the scientific method?  If you do not have TESTIng do you have said method?  No.  Computer models are engineering, not science.

[AlBub + 14]

I tend to agree with the people who say the climate models age good science. The get gov't money to search for date and program the model to get the results the government pays for to increase their power over the citizenry and make their buddies rich. Political science at its greatest!

[AlBub + 14]

Long-lost Greenland ice core suggests potential for disastrous sea level rise

"A recently discovered ice core taken from beneath Greenland’s ice sheet decades ago has revealed that a large part of the country was ice-free around 400,000 years ago, when temperatures were similar to those the world is approaching now, according to a new report"

 

 

So, it has been warmer before than we are now. Hmmm!

And the lack of sea ice didn't stop the Earth from cooling afterward. Double Hmmm!

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

8 minutes ago, AlBub said:

I tend to agree with the people who say the climate models age good science. The get gov't money to search for date and program the model to get the results the government pays for to increase their power over the citizenry and make their buddies rich. Political science at its greatest!

"The government" which one?  All of them?  Climate scientists span many nations and institutions (private and public).

[turbguy + 1,555]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

These lawsuits always fail. No legal basis. Governmental responsibility takes precedence over individual nuisance claims.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/climate/climate-change-lawsuit-san-francisco-oakland.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-lawsuits-idUKKBN1JM0EP

Tell that to Phillip Morris...

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

4 hours ago, turbguy said:

Tell that to Phillip Morris...

Phillip Morris produced oil?

[turbguy + 1,555]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Phillip Morris produced oil?

Phillip Morris produced a similar addicting product.

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

21 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Phillip Morris produced a similar addicting product.

The difference for the legal basis is that the government issued warnings against tobacco but the Biden people have been encouraging the oil industry to increase production. That means that the oil industry is in line with government policy and is not legally liable.

Edited July 22, 2023 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,555]

17 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The difference for the legal basis is that the government issued warnings against tobacco but the Biden people have been encouraging the oil industry to increase production. That means that the oil industry is in line with government policy and is not legally liable.

..and the legal similarity is suppressed knowledge of harm for decades beforehand.