4 ms·
"And the chance of temporarily reaching 1.5°C above average has roughly doubled compared to the predictions made last year. The main reason behind it is the use
by ipspam 5y ago
"And the chance of temporarily reaching 1.5°C above average has roughly doubled compared to the predictions made last year. The main reason behind it is the use of an improved temperature dataset to estimate the baseline rather than sudden changes in climate indicators."
Right. So go back in time, re-calculate the baseline, and then claim the odds of crossing a magical UN line have doubled.
Then complaint the climate skeptics say the historical baseline temperatures start at a convenient year and are being revised downward to artificially show more warming now to cover up for failed predictions.
Which of course BEGS the question, how exactly did a re-analysis of baseline data double the odds of reaching 1.5c increase? Was the historical data revised downward?
I'm genuinely interested not in a fight, because climate fights are blase. I'm interested in how they did this. On the one hand, more confidence in historical data could give more confidence in future extrapolations. But that isn't the claim here. The claim is that the "new" model, re-fed historical data, now shoots out a more catastrophic conclusion.
- Comevius 5y agohttps://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2020/hadcrut5-announcement https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weat... "The estimate of global warming from 1850 to 2018 revised upwards, from 0.91 to 1.07 °C." The consensus on anthropogenic global warming among research scientists has reached 100%. The climate skeptics don't say anything, they largely stopped publishing papers. You can guess why. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467619886266 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467619886266
- noname120 5y agoI can't guess why, could you elaborate?
- ipspam 5y agoThis is a pretty funny argument. It only further emboldens climate change deniers because of its inherent dishonesty. There can be no such thing as 100% consensus. The consensus only further proves what climate deniers have known for a long time: it's not about science, it's ideological. "The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019."