This is scaremongering with an out: they’re saying we’re doomed but if it doesn’t happen they didn’t say it would, just that it might. So, it’s not really a scientific study, it’s a political study
EARTH MAY PASS A DANGEROUS WARMING LIMIT BY 2024 — STUDY
THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT SEEKS TO LIMIT GLOBAL WARMING TO 1.5℃ THIS CENTURY. A new report by the World Meteorological Organization warns this limit may be exceeded by 2024 – and the risk is growing.
This first overshoot beyond 1.5℃ would be temporary, likely aided by a major climate anomaly such as an El Niño weather pattern. However, it casts new doubt on whether Earth’s climate can be permanently stabilized at 1.5℃ warming.
This finding is among those just published in a report titled United in Science. We contributed to the report, which was prepared by six leading science agencies, including the Global Carbon Project. (big snip)
Our report predicts a continuing warming trend. There is a high probability that, everywhere on the planet, average temperatures in the next five years will be above the 1981-2010 average. Arctic warming is expected to be more than twice the global average.
There’s a one-in-four chance the global annual average temperature will exceed 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels for at least one year over the next five years. The chance is relatively small, but still significant and growing. If a major climate anomaly, such as a strong El Niño, occurs in that period, the 1.5℃ threshold is more likely to be crossed. El Niño events generally bring warmer global temperatures.
Under the Paris Agreement, crossing the 1.5℃ threshold is measured over a 30-year average, not just one year. But every year above 1.5℃ warming would take us closer to exceeding the limit.
Temperatures have gone up at most 1C since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. Now they are saying there’s a 25% chance that it would go up another .5C in the next 3 years? Pure scaremongering Junk Science.
Our report models a range of climate outcomes based on various socioeconomic and policy scenarios. It shows if emission reductions are large and sustained, we can still meet the Paris goals and avoid the most severe damage to the natural world, the economy, and people. But worryingly, we also have time to make it far worse.
So, not a scientific paper, but, a political science one. Like most from climate cultists pushing doomsday, but, refusing to make their own lives carbon neutral.
Might as well forget about
global warmingclimate change, then! All of the warmunists’ proposals deal with infrastructure changes which would take decades, and now we’re s’posed to see 1.5º C in three years?1.5º C over what?? Some arbitrary number that they admitted a long time ago that they pulled out of their ass?
We promise, this extra half-degree change will set off all dire things we’ve told you about for the last 30 yrs or so…
TEACH doesn’t understand how science progresses.
Let’s say a cancer clinical trial is conducted, adding an investigational drug to a known treatment for lung cancer. The results show that the investigational drug added a statistically signficant 9 mo to mean overall survival!
Would you reject the finding since it cured no one? In fact the investigational drug had no effect on hundreds of patients. What would you tell a patient? How about, this new drug will increase the likelihood that you will live longer, but it’s just as likely you will see no improvement. The point is that science is rarely all-or-none but addresses probabilities.
1.5º C over what?? 1.5º C greater than the mean global surface temperature measured earlier. For example since 1920 has already risen 1.5º C. But scientists use curve fitting to correct for the yearly variability in mean temperatures. Conservative cherry-pickers DO NOT do this, instead they cherry-pick intervals that they imagine helps their case. For example, only measuring the interval 1998 to 2015 shows that the trend line was flat, i.e., the Great Pause!! But when you extend the interval to 2020 suddenly you see a large increase in temperature.
Rimjob’s back and still has no clue about what he’s writing.
Great job, perv.
Lolgf
Porter Good’s backup Fluffer, Lil RodJob, has no clue about what he’s reading.
It’s stunning how little nuCons understand, the hazard of being driven by magical thinking, dogma and fable.
Perhaps Professor Rimjob could explain to us rubes his claim that massive amounts of CO2 could block incoming solar irradiation.
Be sure to includes words you don’t understand.
Lolgfy
Perhaps Porter Good’s Fluffer Call-Boy, Rodjob, could point out where we claimed that CO2 significantly blocked incoming solar irradiation.
Admitting you’re a “rube” implies you’re more dumb than dishonest, all evidence to the contrary.
Rimjob posted it.
Perhaps if he wasn’t so lazy he could look it up for himself.
But that would require effort, something he is sorely lacking.
Lolgfy
Perhaps Porter Good’s favorite rube, ShitStain, is lying again.
Does ShitStain believe that atmospheric CO2 blocks incoming sunlight?
ShitStain once stated that CO2 can’t block outgoing infrared radiation. LOL.
From Rimjob’s actual post Sept. 4
So you’re ignorant and a liar.
There is no such thing as incoming solar irradiation.
Thanks again for another opportunity to point out what a f#cking dumbass you are.
Lolgfy
And maybe if he has time he could also share with us the propensity of the evidence.
Bwaha! Lolgfy
Jeffery thinks Gropin’ Joe is a “decent” man.
He should talk.
Porter’s Most Loyal Fluffer, Edward, thinks trump is a decent man.
VP Biden is a decent man, especially when compared to Trump.
Nobody falls victim to the hazards of being driven by magical thinking, dogma and fable more then Lefties.
They refuse to admit socialism doesn’t work.
Socialism doesn’t work.
That’s why I neither support or advocate it.
Do you know what socialism is?
Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Usage Guide
In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, “pure” socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.
Would you reject the finding since it cured no one?
You have.
God, he is so easy.
I love it when Jeffery “explains” science to us, so I can’t wait to have him “explain” the law.
Federal court just knocked down PA’s lockdown. And, since it’s Federal, what does that mean, kids?
Deep State Dwarf hardest hit.
Porter Good’s Fluffer, Sibley, has little understanding of science, or anything, save propaganda.
I notice you didn’t answer my challenge to your question, “Would you reject the finding since it cured no one?”.
Obviously, I understand more than you.
Would you reject the finding since it cured no one? In fact the investigational drug had no effect on hundreds of patients. What would you tell a patient? How about, this new drug will increase the likelihood that you will live longer, but it’s just as likely you will see no improvement. The point is that science is rarely all-or-none but addresses probabilities.
Elwood please respond. Your answer about HydroxyChloroquine, Zinc and Zithromycin was exactly opposite of the hypothetical drug in your scenario about cancer.
Would you reject the finding since it cured no one? In fact the investigational drug had no effect on hundreds of patients. What would you tell a patient? How about, this new drug will increase the likelihood that you will live longer, but it’s just as likely you will see no improvement. The point is that science is rarely all-or-none but addresses probabilities.
You deny HDC to those patients under the same umbrella of your cancer hypothetical while claiming it is a sound practice for Cancer treatment and AGW, knowing that in both cases their is a possibility that both cancer and COVID-19 could lead to death.
I would rethink your positions Mr. Elwood. I rub shoulders with doctors and scientist daily and most of them you are unable to distinguish their political leanings. You pretend to be a doctor or scientist and yet your political leaning has clouded your judgement. I would certainly never want you to be my doctor nor put you in charge of any program for the simple fact your bias affects your judgement.
Fine. You can post all the political nonsense you want, just don’t pretend to be anything but what you are. A biased and prejudiced human being with a degree in science.
Porter’s Most Loyal Fluffer, Edward, thinks Trump is a decent man.
Compared to Gropin’ Joe? Trump hasn’t grabbed the breast of a Secret Service agent’s girlfriend. Trump doesn’t swim nude in front of female Secret Service agents. Trump doesn’t fondle little girls.
VP Biden is an indecent man, especially when compared to Trump.
FIFY
Perhaps Porter Good’s Fluffer Call-Boy, Rodjob, could point out where we claimed that CO2 significantly blocked incoming solar irradiation.
You probably did. You lie so much it’s hard to remember them all.
Admitting you’re a “rube†implies you’re more dumb than dishonest, all evidence to the contrary.
You’re the rube, but you’re as dumb as you are dishonest. You accept anything the Left tells you to.
PS I’d still like to know how you explain trying to put us on the spot with, “Would you reject the finding since it cured no one?â€, when you’re the one who’s been doing just that for months.
At your massas orders, of course.
Socialism doesn’t work.
That’s why I neither support or advocate it.
Do you know what socialism is?
Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Usage Guide
In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, “pure†socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.
Then why do you keep yammering about why all the “advanced” nations are doing?
Of course you support it (actually you support Communism, but, as Lenny said, “The object of Socialism is Communism”).
You also lie.
Of course you support fascism, crony capitalism and white supremacy.
Porter’s favorite ShitStain, RimRod, is ignorant, even for a connie.
The Drotos et al 2020 paper used computer modeling to show that levels of thousands of ppm of CO2 would cause so much warming and so much water evaporation that clouds would form that would cut incoming solar irradiation.
Someone here, probably jl (pronounced, Jill), quoted some work reported by Pierre Gosselin, and I actually looked up the articles linked in the NoTricksZone.
In any event, Drotos et al used computer modeling to show that thousands of ppm of CO2 would such warming and humidity that low level clouds (not CO2) would block incoming solar radiation. You see, I was being honest in reporting (you should try it, you soulless propagandist) what Drotos et al concluded.
Clouds actually do block visible wavelengths (duh, clouds make it darker), on the other hand the radiation emitted from Earth is largely infrared radiation (heat) and that IS absorbed by CO2.
The point I was making was that (1) the NoTricksZone suddenly approves of computer modeling (2) the Drotos hypothetical model ONLY occurred at over 1000 ppm.
Again Rimjob blaming his incredible f#cking stupidity on someone else although that’s nothing new around here.
Now once again, how does that incoming solar irradiation (exactly what YOU posted) work and how is it cut?
Just give us the definition of incoming solar irradiation. Shouldn’t be too difficult for such a scientist like you.
Maybe you could produce a propensity of the evidence to back up your claim.
Or explain how signing up for the Army doesn’t imply enlisting or joining.
Bwaha! Lolgfy
Rodjob is incapable of learning.
Let’s start with a bit of 6th Grade Earth Science. Do you understand that clouds block visible light? If not, you should go back to school, moron.
How might one volunteer for the Army and yet, not serve? Think.
What is TEACH paying you? Does he share his doggie with you?
Ah, Rimjob can’t answer questions about what he wrote.
Thanks again for proving what a f*cking dumbass you are.
Lolgfy
You can tell Jeffery knows his world is crashing down around him. He’s got the bear suit on.
And computer models are only as good as the data they are fed. If they’re hones in the first place.
Porter’s Pud, Edward, typed: computer models are only as good as the data they are fed
Note too that models are models.
Exactly. That was the point. Drotos et al 2020 was used by NoTricksZone, jill and TEACH with the intent to make rubes think that the more CO2, the better. The hypocrisy was that the Trickster, jill and TEACH used computer modeling to support THEIR case.
You’re arguing against yourselves and you didn’t even know it.
If you spent more time studying and less time whining and lying you might actually enjoy life.
Note too that models are models.
Wow! You figure that out all by yourself? Next you’ll tell everybody Truth is true or something.
A good model, fed good data, can be usefully predictive in anticipating future actions
the more CO2, the better
Actually, that would be true. CO2 is the basis of all plant life. The more there is, the more plant life.
You still reject photosynthesis.
jill and TEACH used computer modeling to support THEIR case.
Actually, they said nothing of the kind.
If you spent more time studying and less time whining and lying you might actually enjoy life.
Clearly, you don’t enjoy yours, trying to bring everybody down with lies and accusations.
PS Still asking you to explain your crack about, “Would you reject the finding since it cured no one?”.
You did, when it suited your interest, but you’re afraid to answer it because you’d look like the fool you are.
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.
Perhaps Porter Good’s favorite rube, ShitStain, is lying again.
Does ShitStain believe that atmospheric CO2 blocks incoming sunlight?
ShitStain once stated that CO2 can’t block outgoing infrared radiation. LOL.
You’re babbling.
Again.