Posts
Paul
Beckwith blows duplicitous global temperature slight-of-hand out of
the water
In
this very important video Paul Beckwith makes several
vitally-important points.
The
first is that IEA figures purport to show flattening CO2 emissions
while concentrations are increasing in an exponential manner.
The
conclusion to be reached is that carbon sinks are failing meaning
that “natural” causes (such as forest fires) are taking over as
sources of greenhouse gas concentarations from human emissions.
In
anybody’s language that is a tipping point.
The second important point is that conventional scientists have switched fron measurements since the onset of the industrial age to measurements since 1950.
This shows a moderate increase of 1.1C whereas if you use the same beginning and end-points the increase in temperature was 1.8C compared with pre-industrial levels which exceeds the minimum level of 1.5C in the Paris Agreemwent and approaching the ficticious level of 2.0C.
Note that the previous level reached previously by James Hansen beyond which we could not go without setting off positive feedbacks was 1.0C and possibly the true level was 0.5C relative to pre-industrial levels.
This 1950 sleight-of-hand was recently used in a talk I went to by Prof. Emeritus Peter Barrett to demonstrate a moderate and linear increase of 0.1C per decade.
In my books that represented either unforgivable incompetence or worse, fraud.
No other word for it.
x
Listen
carefully to what Paul has to say on this
Vital Info: Paris 2 Degree Rise Relates to 1750
In
2015 and 2016 atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide spiked
upward by record amounts. How was this possible, given claims that
global human emissions flattened out?
Does it really mean that forests and oceans are absorbing less carbon?
The Paris Accord "safe temperature level of 2 degrees C (hope 1.5)" is relative to a start year of 1750 (pre-industrial). Please remember this; it is VERY important!!
Here is a video methane made about a month ago
From Sam Carana
How Much Warming Have Humans Caused?
A global average surface temperature is only an indicator of the Earth's heat and warming, because incoming insolation involves heat flow into the oceans (the major heat sink) and warming gases and producing a water phase change. A problem with the average temperature baseline, is that the further back the records, the less accurate they are for a global averages. There is no hard way to set a baseline and it is always approximate and has to be agreed as a standard. It seems that there is no agreed standard because the data are imperfect and the interpretation is evolving. It does not appear that this is some kind of conspiracy. The following quote suggests a standard would be helpful, and that 2015 was the first year >1C above a pre-industrial baseline. What happens if the global mean surface temperatures then fall the following year, because of variability, are you then going to say that the planet cooled? Oh!
ReplyDeleteQUOTE
"A new analysis by an international team of researchers aims to better define the pre-industrial baseline, informing the world’s decision makers on the required limits to greenhouse gas emissions needed to meet the terms of the Paris agreement. The study concludes that 2015 was likely the first time in recorded history that global temperatures were more than 1°C above pre-industrial levels."
https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2017/defining-pre-industrial/
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0007.1
http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/30838296/30837802._AAM._Hegerl._Schurer..pdf
QUOTE
Climate Central compared 2016’s temperature anomalies to an 1881-1910 average temperature baseline, the earliest date for which global temperature data are considered reliable.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-flirts-with-a-1-5-degree-celsius-global-warming-threshold1/
QUOTE
Paris Agreement (A2):
"(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below
2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature
increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would
significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change; "
It doesn't say which years make up the pre-industrial period.
QUOTE
BBC Article:
"At the moment, researchers tend to use the period 1850-1900, and this will often be described as "pre-industrial"."
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38745937
Whatever the situation we are stuck with a situation of perhaps 10yts latent heat still to be absorbed even if no more emissions take place...,ugh Allan
ReplyDeleteWhatever criteria were used to establish the 1750 baseline, we have to compare the same set of data at the present time. Then we'll, at least, know how much increase there was for X region.
ReplyDelete