4 ms·

> and of course global warming was also blamed for that "Global warming" has been a poor choice of name because people lacking sufficient educational backgroun

> and of course global warming was also blamed for that "Global warming" has been a poor choice of name because people lacking sufficient educational background expect there to literally be uniform warming. And then you get the 'we had an early cold snap, so much for global warming!' crowd. What global warming actually means is that additional energy is being added to the weather system, which will amplify both low and high temperature maxima as well as causing more frequent high-severity weather anomalies like hurricanes. But on average, the global mean temperature trend will continue to go up and eventually those local minima will cease to exist. Maybe this will help understand: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/139/graphic-global-warming-from-1880-to-2018/ https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/139/graphic-globa...

kgwgk 7y ago
> But on average, the global mean temperature trend will continue to go up The trend is up to now in the low end of the ranges published by the IPCC since 1990, isn’t it? What are you talking about precisely when you say that “the most pessimistic models have turned out to still fall short of the mark”?
- MagnumOpus 7y ago
  > The trend is up to now in the low end of the ranges published by the IPCC since 1990 The 1990 IPPC 'that under a "business as usual" (BAU) scenario, global mean temperature will increase by about 0.3 °C per decade during the [21st] century' We saw a warming of 0.8°C in 30 years, and the warming is accelerating. Which means that the BAU base forecast (from 30 years ago!) was on the mark and you should lend credence to the IPCC.
  - kgwgk 7y ago
    > We saw a warming of 0.8°C in 30 years Or 0.4°C, it depends on what particular years you pick for the calculation. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... > you should lend credence to the IPCC Note that the one saying that IPCC forecasts are completely off the mark because even the more pessimistic scenarios have proved too mild is missosoup, not me. By the way, they also predicted the mean sea level to raise about 20cm by 2030. I think we are not even at 10cm after thirty years, sea level rise is tracking at the low end of the range they gave in 1990.

kgwgk 7y ago

> But on average, the global mean temperature trend will continue to go up The trend is up to now in the low end of the ranges published by the IPCC since 1990, isn’t it? What are you talking about precisely when you say that “the most pessimistic models have turned out to still fall short of the mark”?

MagnumOpus 7y ago
> The trend is up to now in the low end of the ranges published by the IPCC since 1990 The 1990 IPPC 'that under a "business as usual" (BAU) scenario, global mean temperature will increase by about 0.3 °C per decade during the [21st] century' We saw a warming of 0.8°C in 30 years, and the warming is accelerating. Which means that the BAU base forecast (from 30 years ago!) was on the mark and you should lend credence to the IPCC.
- kgwgk 7y ago
  > We saw a warming of 0.8°C in 30 years Or 0.4°C, it depends on what particular years you pick for the calculation. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... > you should lend credence to the IPCC Note that the one saying that IPCC forecasts are completely off the mark because even the more pessimistic scenarios have proved too mild is missosoup, not me. By the way, they also predicted the mean sea level to raise about 20cm by 2030. I think we are not even at 10cm after thirty years, sea level rise is tracking at the low end of the range they gave in 1990.