3 ms·

> Do you also now accept that the 1.5C figure (or 1.5-2.0 range) isn't merely a communication device set at an arbitrary threshold for political reasons, but on

> Do you also now accept that the 1.5C figure (or 1.5-2.0 range) isn't merely a communication device set at an arbitrary threshold for political reasons, but one that appears in scientific papers that claim there are non-linear responses involved? Your own quote in your previous comments contradicts that. I can’t really make sense of your two questions. Your 1 entirely misses the point. Yes, the whole thing is about deltas. Sorry, I’m going to do more productive things with my time. I hope I gave you or an eventual reader some elements to ponder. If not, that’s fine too.

mike_hearn 2y ago
For others who observe then, I will post a final reply too. > the whole thing is about deltas. That isn't physically possible. Take the collapsing ice sheets. Ice isn't melted by a change in temperature, it's melted by reaching a specific absolute temperature. Saying "if the temperature goes up by 5 degrees this ice will melt" isn't a checkable claim unless you already know what the baseline temperature is, because going from -50 to -45 isn't going to affect it whereas going from -2 to 3 will. Every claimed tipping point is like this. Abruptly thawing permafrost, coral die-off, ice sheets etc. All dependent on actual absolute temperature levels being crossed. Baseline is everything! That's why when Mann claims the baseline doesn't matter everyone calls him out on it (except on HN...). Only someone who has totally lost their grip on scientific reality would claim otherwise. That this has happened to such a high profile climatologist should make everyone concerned about whether there's a psychology-style replication crisis in the field.
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  The whole discussion is about how much excess warming we get from human released GHG. That’s why it’s about deltas, why we talk about warming, why the discussion about baselines happen. Obviously the delta will depend of the baseline you take but no one is discussing that either and obviously, some thresholds are in actual value. No one ever denies that. I don’t understand your obsession about Mann and your weird conspiracy theory about the field. The controversy surrounding Mann was about temperature behaviour and the presence or not of warming acceleration. Nothing to do with baselines. Mann is a respected climatologist. It’s hard for me to follow the discussion because it’s a bit all over the place but to me. It seems you want to be right and everyone else to be wrong and misinformed so much that you are actually the one missing the point.

mike_hearn 2y ago

For others who observe then, I will post a final reply too. > the whole thing is about deltas. That isn't physically possible. Take the collapsing ice sheets. Ice isn't melted by a change in temperature, it's melted by reaching a specific absolute temperature. Saying "if the temperature goes up by 5 degrees this ice will melt" isn't a checkable claim unless you already know what the baseline temperature is, because going from -50 to -45 isn't going to affect it whereas going from -2 to 3 will. Every claimed tipping point is like this. Abruptly thawing permafrost, coral die-off, ice sheets etc. All dependent on actual absolute temperature levels being crossed. Baseline is everything! That's why when Mann claims the baseline doesn't matter everyone calls him out on it (except on HN...). Only someone who has totally lost their grip on scientific reality would claim otherwise. That this has happened to such a high profile climatologist should make everyone concerned about whether there's a psychology-style replication crisis in the field.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago
The whole discussion is about how much excess warming we get from human released GHG. That’s why it’s about deltas, why we talk about warming, why the discussion about baselines happen. Obviously the delta will depend of the baseline you take but no one is discussing that either and obviously, some thresholds are in actual value. No one ever denies that. I don’t understand your obsession about Mann and your weird conspiracy theory about the field. The controversy surrounding Mann was about temperature behaviour and the presence or not of warming acceleration. Nothing to do with baselines. Mann is a respected climatologist. It’s hard for me to follow the discussion because it’s a bit all over the place but to me. It seems you want to be right and everyone else to be wrong and misinformed so much that you are actually the one missing the point.