Global average temperatures could pass 1.5C above pre-industrial levels within the next decade, new projections suggest

The timing of when we actually hit the 1.5C threshold will depend heavily on a natural cycle in the Pacific Ocean, the study finds, which can either dampen or accelerate global temperature rise.

The results suggest, on current trends, that warming is likely to reach 1.5C between 2026 and 2031, though it could be even earlier…

In 2015, global average annual temperatures hit the landmark of a full 1C above pre-industrial levels. The following year, annual temperatures passed 1.1C of warming.

While these record temperatures were spurred on by a strong El Niño event in 2015-16, they show that warming of 1.5C – an aspirational limit laid out in the Paris Agreement – is rapidly approaching.

With this in mind, the new Geophysical Research Letters study estimates the trajectory of global temperatures towards 1.5C. The research shows that, along with human-caused emissions, how quickly we reach 1.5C will depend heavily on a natural cycle in the Pacific Ocean called the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO)…

Last month, Carbon Brief published analysis showing that, at the current rate of emissions, we’ll blow the budget for a good chance of staying below 1.5C within four years. The figures in the new study reflect the time lag between our emissions and the warming that they cause.

Is it a valid concern that we don’t know enough about the global climate cycle and humanities contribution via pollution/emissions, etc could actually cause a runaway effect and drastically effect the planet within a short time frame (I’m talking much much worse that the worse case scenario proposed)

It us a valid concern that we don’t know enough about the all of the global climate cycles.

As the study points out we don’t know where we are in the IPO..

“The phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) will regulate the rate at which mean temperature approaches the 1.5°C level. A transition to the positive phase of the IPO would lead to a projected exceedance of the target centered around 2026. If the Pacific Ocean remains in its negative decadal phase, the target will be reached around 5 years later, in 2031. Given the temporary slowdown in global warming between 2000 and 2014, and recent initialized decadal predictions suggestive of a turnaround in the IPO, a sustained period of rapid temperature rise might be underway. In that case, the world will reach the 1.5°C level of warming several years sooner than if the negative IPO phase persists.”

Cymek said:

Is it a valid concern that we don’t know enough about the global climate cycle and humanities contribution via pollution/emissions, etc could actually cause a runaway effect and drastically effect the planet within a short time frame (I’m talking much much worse that the worse case scenario proposed)

Yep. this is also on the cards and it is up to us to intercede.

Cymek said:

Is it a valid concern that we don’t know enough about the global climate cycle and humanities contribution via pollution/emissions, etc could actually cause a runaway effect and drastically effect the planet within a short time frame (I’m talking much much worse that the worse case scenario proposed)

This is a bit of a weird question. I mean basically you are asking “Is the real worst case scenario worse than the world’s leading experts on the topic say is the worst case scenario?”
On what basis could we say “yes”?

dv said:

Cymek said:

Is it a valid concern that we don’t know enough about the global climate cycle and humanities contribution via pollution/emissions, etc could actually cause a runaway effect and drastically effect the planet within a short time frame (I’m talking much much worse that the worse case scenario proposed)

This is a bit of a weird question. I mean basically you are asking “Is the real worst case scenario worse than the world’s leading experts on the topic say is the worst case scenario?”
On what basis could we say “yes”?

A runaway climate change were a tipping point is reached and for example ocean currents cease, the icecaps permanently melt. We seem to think it will be gradual and something we could probably cope with but what if it’s not.

A runaway climate change were a tipping point is reached and for example ocean currents cease, the icecaps permanently melt. We seem to think it will be gradual and something we could probably cope with but what if it’s not.

———-

Climate scientists have been talking about “tipping points” for a long time. Trouble is they’really ill defined.

The climate changes coming almost certainly won’t be smooth transitions.

Ian said:

A runaway climate change were a tipping point is reached and for example ocean currents cease, the icecaps permanently melt. We seem to think it will be gradual and something we could probably cope with but what if it’s not.

———-

Climate scientists have been talking about “tipping points” for a long time. Trouble is they’really ill defined.

The climate changes coming almost certainly won’t be smooth transitions.

No but I wonder if the climate changes are all pretty tame worse case scenarios and its possible (but not provable) that they could be far worse, hopefully not Earth turns into Venus bad.

The ability for us to hold things steady, less alone reduce global warming, has largely passed through our fingers. Nature, evolution or call it what you will, waits for no one. We have put into motion a massive system, which is now influencing other massive systems. Just because we started it, does not mean we can now stop it and so if we cannot change our ways, then nature will do it for us. Humans have always been extremely arrogant that they think they can control nature; we can influence it, but cannot control it. We and most other creatures are therefore in for a very rough ride. This is not an extremist view, but is accepted in one way or another by a great many climate scientists.

PermeateFree said:

The ability for us to hold things steady, less alone reduce global warming, has largely passed through our fingers. Nature, evolution or call it what you will, waits for no one. We have put into motion a massive system, which is now influencing other massive systems. Just because we started it, does not mean we can now stop it and so if we cannot change our ways, then nature will do it for us. Humans have always been extremely arrogant that they think they can control nature; we can influence it, but cannot control it. We and most other creatures are therefore in for a very rough ride. This is not an extremist view, but is accepted in one way or another by a great many climate scientists.

I wonder if we dedicated massive resources to cleaning up our mess would it make a difference, the sort of effort that went into World War II but scaled up for our capacity today. Planting trillions of trees, cleaning up all pollution everywhere and so.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

The ability for us to hold things steady, less alone reduce global warming, has largely passed through our fingers. Nature, evolution or call it what you will, waits for no one. We have put into motion a massive system, which is now influencing other massive systems. Just because we started it, does not mean we can now stop it and so if we cannot change our ways, then nature will do it for us. Humans have always been extremely arrogant that they think they can control nature; we can influence it, but cannot control it. We and most other creatures are therefore in for a very rough ride. This is not an extremist view, but is accepted in one way or another by a great many climate scientists.

I wonder if we dedicated massive resources to cleaning up our mess would it make a difference, the sort of effort that went into World War II but scaled up for our capacity today. Planting trillions of trees, cleaning up all pollution everywhere and so.

Bit like saying sorry after you have burnt the house down. Better than nothing, but hardly enough.

• Bit like saying sorry after you have burnt the house down. Better than nothing, but hardly enough.

Commonly referred to as “Shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.” …

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

The ability for us to hold things steady, less alone reduce global warming, has largely passed through our fingers. Nature, evolution or call it what you will, waits for no one. We have put into motion a massive system, which is now influencing other massive systems. Just because we started it, does not mean we can now stop it and so if we cannot change our ways, then nature will do it for us. Humans have always been extremely arrogant that they think they can control nature; we can influence it, but cannot control it. We and most other creatures are therefore in for a very rough ride. This is not an extremist view, but is accepted in one way or another by a great many climate scientists.

I wonder if we dedicated massive resources to cleaning up our mess would it make a difference, the sort of effort that went into World War II but scaled up for our capacity today. Planting trillions of trees, cleaning up all pollution everywhere and so.

Bit like saying sorry after you have burnt the house down. Better than nothing, but hardly enough.

I think so.
I wonder if the mentality of those that don’t care is I’ll be dead by the time the worst of it comes and I’m also rich so can weather it out”
The worst affected are probably those least responsible for it occurring which is pretty much SNAFU

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

I wonder if we dedicated massive resources to cleaning up our mess would it make a difference, the sort of effort that went into World War II but scaled up for our capacity today. Planting trillions of trees, cleaning up all pollution everywhere and so.

Bit like saying sorry after you have burnt the house down. Better than nothing, but hardly enough.

I think so.
I wonder if the mentality of those that don’t care is I’ll be dead by the time the worst of it comes and I’m also rich so can weather it out”
The worst affected are probably those least responsible for it occurring which is pretty much SNAFU

Like most things nature related, most people are so tied up with their own lives that they have neither the time or the interest. Put simply, most don’t care.

Things are not quite as dire as PF states IMO.

Search “climate change” “reasons to be optimistic”

It’s peaked.

Peak Warming Man said:

It’s peaked.

Yeah.. couple of hours ago..
Be warmer tomorrow

Cymek said:

Is it a valid concern that we don’t know enough about the global climate cycle and humanities contribution via pollution/emissions, etc could actually cause a runaway effect and drastically effect the planet within a short time frame (I’m talking much much worse that the worse case scenario proposed)

Yes, that’s the trouble with “worst case scenarios”. To be treated seriously they have to be very much less bad than the true worst case scenario.

Ian said:

Things are not quite as dire as PF states IMO.

Search “climate change” “reasons to be optimistic”

We should follow the basic strategies of bridge:

If there is one distribution of the cards that can result in you not making your contract, assume that distribution exists, and play accordingly.

If there is one distribution of the cards that allows you to make your contract, assume that distribution exists, and play accordingly.

Peak Warming Man said:

It’s peaked.

Sure

The Rev Dodgson said:

We should follow the basic strategies of bridge:

If there is one distribution of the cards that can result in you not making your contract, assume that distribution exists, and play accordingly.

If there is one distribution of the cards that allows you to make your contract, assume that distribution exists, and play accordingly.

Ah, the Suzuki gambit.

You people must have high horror tolerance as the outcome of IPCC’s WSC (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5) are bad enough…

dv said:

You people must have high horror tolerance as the outcome of IPCC’s WSC (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5) are bad enough…

…while in the extended RCP8.5 pathway, CO2 concentrations reach around 2000 ppmv in 2250, which is nearly seven times the pre-industrial level.

——-

In that case we’re fucked.

Ian said:

In that case we’re fucked.

Yeah but we have known that since 1960. the problem has been that nobody gives a shit.

roughbarked said:

Ian said:

In that case we’re fucked.

Yeah but we have known that since 1960. the problem has been that nobody gives a shit.

Really? Since 1960?

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

Ian said:

In that case we’re fucked.

Yeah but we have known that since 1960. the problem has been that nobody gives a shit.

Really? Since 1960?

You are indeed correct.

“In 1896 the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth’s atmosphere, we would raise the planet’s average temperature.”

“Painstaking measurements by C. D. Keeling drove home the point in 1960, showing that the level of the gas was in fact rising, year by year.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/discovery-of-global-warming/

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

Ian said:

In that case we’re fucked.

Yeah but we have known that since 1960. the problem has been that nobody gives a shit.

Really? Since 1960?

Earlier if you want. The whole thing is at least a century in the being aware.

Michael V said:

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

Yeah but we have known that since 1960. the problem has been that nobody gives a shit.

Really? Since 1960?

You are indeed correct.

“In 1896 the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth’s atmosphere, we would raise the planet’s average temperature.”

“Painstaking measurements by C. D. Keeling drove home the point in 1960, showing that the level of the gas was in fact rising, year by year.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/discovery-of-global-warming/

Yep. Nobody gives a shit.

Yep. Nobody gives a shit.

———-

Wrong

Ian said:

Things are not quite as dire as PF states IMO.

Search “climate change” “reasons to be optimistic”

Don’t take my word for it, try reading some of the letters contained in the link below (courtesy of Sarah’s Mum). You do not need to read them all, just a dozen or two.

http://www.isthishowyoufeel.com/this-is-how-scientists-feel.html#stefan

Don’t take my word for it, try reading some of the letters contained in the link below (courtesy of Sarah’s Mum). You do not need to read them all, just a dozen or two.

—————-

Yes, I saw those the first time around. I thought that the “how do you feel” approach was unscientific and that the semi-legible hand-written letters idea was particularly lame.

Still, I hope that those letters penetrated the consciousness of some who don’t read the scientific literature and are susceptible to that approach.

Ian said:

Yes, I saw those the first time around. I thought that the “how do you feel” approach was unscientific and that the semi-legible hand-written letters idea was particularly lame.

But dealing with climate change isn’t science, it’s engineering, which requires a different approach.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

Yes, I saw those the first time around. I thought that the “how do you feel” approach was unscientific and that the semi-legible hand-written letters idea was particularly lame.

But dealing with climate change isn’t science, it’s engineering, which requires a different approach.

How do you feel about the various engineering approaches that will need to be considered?

Ian said:

Don’t take my word for it, try reading some of the letters contained in the link below (courtesy of Sarah’s Mum). You do not need to read them all, just a dozen or two.

—————-

Yes, I saw those the first time around. I thought that the “how do you feel” approach was unscientific and that the semi-legible hand-written letters idea was particularly lame.

Still, I hope that those letters penetrated the consciousness of some who don’t read the scientific literature and are susceptible to that approach.

I feel sorry for you, still ignorance is bliss I suppose. Hope you live a very long life so you can see for yourself, because nobody under any circumstances is going to be able to tell you anything. And please cut it’s not science crap, when referring to the views of people who actually know what they are talking about.

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

Yes, I saw those the first time around. I thought that the “how do you feel” approach was unscientific and that the semi-legible hand-written letters idea was particularly lame.

But dealing with climate change isn’t science, it’s engineering, which requires a different approach.

How do you feel about the various engineering approaches that will need to be considered?

Glad you asked.

I feel that minimising the long-term adverse consequences of what we do is the very essence of engineering, and that attempts to hide future costs for political convenience is reprehensible.

PermeateFree said:

Ian said:

Don’t take my word for it, try reading some of the letters contained in the link below (courtesy of Sarah’s Mum). You do not need to read them all, just a dozen or two.

—————-

Yes, I saw those the first time around. I thought that the “how do you feel” approach was unscientific and that the semi-legible hand-written letters idea was particularly lame.

Still, I hope that those letters penetrated the consciousness of some who don’t read the scientific literature and are susceptible to that approach.

I feel sorry for you, still ignorance is bliss I suppose. Hope you live a very long life so you can see for yourself, because nobody under any circumstances is going to be able to tell you anything. And please cut it’s not science crap, when referring to the views of people who actually know what they are talking about.

Pathetic. I didn’t say that “it’s not science” I said that the approach was unscientific but wished them success nevertheless. I still think that this is pretty lame….

…………………….

Many reading the article will start to read the first long-hand letter like I did and think WTF!

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But dealing with climate change isn’t science, it’s engineering, which requires a different approach.

How do you feel about the various engineering approaches that will need to be considered?

Glad you asked.

I feel that minimising the long-term adverse consequences of what we do is the very essence of engineering, and that attempts to hide future costs for political convenience is reprehensible.

Where “feel” = “think”… not the context in which the word is used in the article.

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

How do you feel about the various engineering approaches that will need to be considered?

Glad you asked.

I feel that minimising the long-term adverse consequences of what we do is the very essence of engineering, and that attempts to hide future costs for political convenience is reprehensible.

Where “feel” = “think”… not the context in which the word is used in the article.

Separating “thoughts” from “feelings” is not a logical thing to do, when thinking about things that will have an effect on everyone in the future.

FWIW, I think my use of the word “feel” is exactly in the context used in the article.

Ian said:

PermeateFree said:

Ian said:

Don’t take my word for it, try reading some of the letters contained in the link below (courtesy of Sarah’s Mum). You do not need to read them all, just a dozen or two.

—————-

Yes, I saw those the first time around. I thought that the “how do you feel” approach was unscientific and that the semi-legible hand-written letters idea was particularly lame.

Still, I hope that those letters penetrated the consciousness of some who don’t read the scientific literature and are susceptible to that approach.

I feel sorry for you, still ignorance is bliss I suppose. Hope you live a very long life so you can see for yourself, because nobody under any circumstances is going to be able to tell you anything. And please cut it’s not science crap, when referring to the views of people who actually know what they are talking about.

Pathetic. I didn’t say that “it’s not science” I said that the approach was unscientific but wished them success nevertheless. I still think that this is pretty lame….

…………………….

Many reading the article will start to read the first long-hand letter like I did and think WTF!

To make it easier for people like you to read, there is a typed copy below the hand-written letter/note. There are many opinions there, virtually all expressing the same dire consequences of our excessive fossil fuel use. Yet you pick one and claim it is not science. Well you are quite right it is not science, it is an opinion. If you want the science, you will need to read their papers that should not be too difficult for you to find, and as you seem so keen to understand the science, I presume you will spend a few weeks going through them all to find the facts. In the meantime, you might like to read some of the other letters, as people express themselves differently, especially when trying to be brief.

These people are trying to describe their findings and those of others in a brief simple manner, based on their research, knowledge and experience in order that the general public might understand the astronomical problems facing us, and all other living organisms on this planet. However, seeing as you are so scientifically inclined you would have already read most of the published material on the subject and like the climate scientists mentioned, you would already know the situation and be highly concerned about it, if only for your children’s sake.

Hmmm.. what’s been going on here?

Ah, of course, PF is thoroughly misconstruing my position and starting into ad hominem attacks.. par for the course, and TRD wants to argue semantics.

I have more important things to do. So, what I would suggest is that TRD picks on a point of difference with PE and the two of you can take it away.

Ian said:

Hmmm.. what’s been going on here?

Ah, of course, PF is thoroughly misconstruing my position and starting into ad hominem attacks.. par for the course, and TRD wants to argue semantics.

I have more important things to do. So, what I would suggest is that TRD picks on a point of difference with PE and the two of you can take it away.

Very difficult to argue against the facts of the matter, which you now concede. This is not the place for pseudo-science as is your want.

PermeateFree said:

Ian said:

Hmmm.. what’s been going on here?

Ah, of course, PF is thoroughly misconstruing my position and starting into ad hominem attacks.. par for the course, and TRD wants to argue semantics.

I have more important things to do. So, what I would suggest is that TRD picks on a point of difference with PE and the two of you can take it away.

Very difficult to argue against the facts of the matter, which you now concede. This is not the place for pseudo-science as is your want.

i win. i win. i win.

:-)

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

Ian said:

Hmmm.. what’s been going on here?

Ah, of course, PF is thoroughly misconstruing my position and starting into ad hominem attacks.. par for the course, and TRD wants to argue semantics.

I have more important things to do. So, what I would suggest is that TRD picks on a point of difference with PE and the two of you can take it away.

Very difficult to argue against the facts of the matter, which you now concede. This is not the place for pseudo-science as is your want.

i win. i win. i win.

:-)

Pseudo-science should be questioned. It has nothing to do with winning Boris.

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

Very difficult to argue against the facts of the matter, which you now concede. This is not the place for pseudo-science as is your want.

i win. i win. i win.

:-)

Pseudo-science should be questioned. It has nothing to do with winning Boris.

your comprehension is abysmal. Ian in no way doubts the science. just this particular delivery style.

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

i win. i win. i win.

:-)

Pseudo-science should be questioned. It has nothing to do with winning Boris.

your comprehension is abysmal. Ian in no way doubts the science. just this particular delivery style.

Yes he was correct in calling those letters from the climate scientists as not being science. Pity he didn’t think their opinions were science based, which I think makes your comprehension abysmal, although there would be a considerable amount of bias in your understanding.

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

Pseudo-science should be questioned. It has nothing to do with winning Boris.

your comprehension is abysmal. Ian in no way doubts the science. just this particular delivery style.

Yes he was correct in calling those letters from the climate scientists as not being science. Pity he didn’t think their opinions were science based, which I think makes your comprehension abysmal, although there would be a considerable amount of bias in your understanding.

LOL, he said the idea was unscientific not the message.

Yes, I saw those the first time around. I thought that the “how do you feel” approach was unscientific and that the semi-legible hand-written letters idea was particularly lame.

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Yes he was correct in calling those letters from the climate scientists as not being science. Pity he didn’t think their opinions were science based, which I think makes your comprehension abysmal, although there would be a considerable amount of bias in your understanding.

LOL, he said the idea was unscientific not the message.

Yes, I saw those the first time around. I thought that the “how do you feel” approach was unscientific and that the semi-legible hand-written letters idea was particularly lame.

Those letters were not meant to be scientific and he totally ignored the fact that they were climate scientists making them, not a bunch of armchair experts.

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

LOL, he said the idea was unscientific not the message.

Yes, I saw those the first time around. I thought that the “how do you feel” approach was unscientific and that the semi-legible hand-written letters idea was particularly lame.

Those letters were not meant to be scientific and he totally ignored the fact that they were climate scientists making them, not a bunch of armchair experts.

so Ian’s analysis was correct then?

:-)

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Yes he was correct in calling those letters from the climate scientists as not being science. Pity he didn’t think their opinions were science based, which I think makes your comprehension abysmal, although there would be a considerable amount of bias in your understanding.

LOL, he said the idea was unscientific not the message.

Yes, I saw those the first time around. I thought that the “how do you feel” approach was unscientific and that the semi-legible hand-written letters idea was particularly lame.

I repeat my comments again; I should not like my comments to be confused with those of Boris.

Those letters were not meant to be scientific and he totally ignored the fact that they were climate scientists making them, not a bunch of armchair experts.

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Those letters were not meant to be scientific and he totally ignored the fact that they were climate scientists making them, not a bunch of armchair experts.

so Ian’s analysis was correct then?

:-)

If you read the thread, you might understand it more.

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

Those letters were not meant to be scientific and he totally ignored the fact that they were climate scientists making them, not a bunch of armchair experts.

so Ian’s analysis was correct then?

:-)

If you read the thread, you might understand it more.

I understand perfectly.

:-)

… can I help??

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

so Ian’s analysis was correct then?

:-)

If you read the thread, you might understand it more.

I understand perfectly.

:-)

That is your trouble Boris, you think you know, but really you have no idea.

Ian said:

Yep. Nobody gives a shit.

———-

Wrong

I know that but it is those that don’t who are the bigger number by far.

dv said:

… can I help??

i hope so. we need a cool head and a steady hand here.

Bogsnorkler said:

dv said:

… can I help??

i hope so. we need a cool head and a steady hand here.

Summarise for me the essence of this dispute.

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

If you read the thread, you might understand it more.

I understand perfectly.

:-)

That is your trouble Boris, you think you know, but really you have no idea.

yeah, usual rubbish from you. you really need a new attack. people just laugh at you.

Bogsnorkler said:

dv said:

… can I help??

i hope so. we need a cool head and a steady hand here.

I see you have been referring to the DO handbook again.

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

I understand perfectly.

:-)

That is your trouble Boris, you think you know, but really you have no idea.

yeah, usual rubbish from you. you really need a new attack. people just laugh at you.

:)))) Idiot.

It is understood that the current climate models could be wrong by up to seven degrees.

This could be considered catastrophic.

dv said:

Bogsnorkler said:

dv said:

… can I help??

i hope so. we need a cool head and a steady hand here.

Summarise for me the essence of this dispute.

PF thinks Ian’s criticism of the letters shows he doesn’t accept, or is doubtful about, climate change. I contend that Ian thinking that the method of delivery, the handwritten letters and the “how do you feel” sentiment, as unscientific doesn’t reflect upon the science but just the delivery.

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

That is your trouble Boris, you think you know, but really you have no idea.

yeah, usual rubbish from you. you really need a new attack. people just laugh at you.

:)))) Idiot.

As I’ve told you numerous times, PF. Don’t play the game. Stick to your science. It is good up until you allow yourself to be goaded.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

yeah, usual rubbish from you. you really need a new attack. people just laugh at you.

:)))) Idiot.

As I’ve told you numerous times, PF. Don’t play the game. Stick to your science. It is good up until you allow yourself to be goaded.

LOL, he starts this shit.

Bogsnorkler said:

dv said:

Bogsnorkler said:

i hope so. we need a cool head and a steady hand here.

Summarise for me the essence of this dispute.

PF thinks Ian’s criticism of the letters shows he doesn’t accept, or is doubtful about, climate change. I contend that Ian thinking that the method of delivery, the handwritten letters and the “how do you feel” sentiment, as unscientific doesn’t reflect upon the science but just the delivery.

Rather than relying on the normal bias report from the armchair expert, why don’t you read the thread and make up your own mind.

Well whether he does or doesn’t, isn’t it your part to help correct rather than throw off course? Bogsnorkler said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

:)))) Idiot.

As I’ve told you numerous times, PF. Don’t play the game. Stick to your science. It is good up until you allow yourself to be goaded.

LOL, he starts this shit.

Well whether he does or doesn’t, isn’t it your part to help correct rather than throw off course?

Bogsnorkler said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

:)))) Idiot.

As I’ve told you numerous times, PF. Don’t play the game. Stick to your science. It is good up until you allow yourself to be goaded.

LOL, he starts this shit.

Yes dear. I’m sure the people who have read the thread can make up their own minds about that.

Nearly time for Ambiguities on ABC.

PermeateFree said:

Yes dear. I’m sure the people who have read the thread can make up their own minds about that.

Yeah everyone who agrees with you will no doubt jump in shortly:

buffy said:

Nearly time for Ambiguities on ABC.

Whoops, sorry. But possibly fits here anyway.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Yes dear. I’m sure the people who have read the thread can make up their own minds about that.

Yeah everyone who agrees with you will no doubt jump in shortly:

There are also those who don’t see it as an argument worth entering.

Ian said:

Don’t take my word for it, try reading some of the letters contained in the link below (courtesy of Sarah’s Mum). You do not need to read them all, just a dozen or two.

—————-

Yes, I saw those the first time around. I thought that the “how do you feel” approach was unscientific and that the semi-legible hand-written letters idea was particularly lame.

Still, I hope that those letters penetrated the consciousness of some who don’t read the scientific literature and are susceptible to that approach.

I hope so too. Different people will respond to different things and I don’t mind the “scattergun” idea of trying several different approaches.

buffy said:

buffy said:

Nearly time for Ambiguities on ABC.

Whoops, sorry. But possibly fits here anyway.

:)

roughbarked said:

Well whether he does or doesn’t, isn’t it your part to help correct rather than throw off course? Bogsnorkler said:

roughbarked said:

As I’ve told you numerous times, PF. Don’t play the game. Stick to your science. It is good up until you allow yourself to be goaded.

LOL, he starts this shit.

Well whether he does or doesn’t, isn’t it your part to help correct rather than throw off course?

what the fuck have i been doing if not correct a misinterpretation. Fuck of roughie if you have nothing to say and can’t even follow the discussion.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Yes dear. I’m sure the people who have read the thread can make up their own minds about that.

Yeah everyone who agrees with you will no doubt jump in shortly:

Here come the attack dogs.

dv said:

Ian said:

Don’t take my word for it, try reading some of the letters contained in the link below (courtesy of Sarah’s Mum). You do not need to read them all, just a dozen or two.

—————-

Yes, I saw those the first time around. I thought that the “how do you feel” approach was unscientific and that the semi-legible hand-written letters idea was particularly lame.

Still, I hope that those letters penetrated the consciousness of some who don’t read the scientific literature and are susceptible to that approach.

I hope so too. Different people will respond to different things and I don’t mind the “scattergun” idea of trying several different approaches.

The laymen need to read things they may see some light in.

Bogsnorkler said:

roughbarked said:

Well whether he does or doesn’t, isn’t it your part to help correct rather than throw off course? Bogsnorkler said:

LOL, he starts this shit.

Well whether he does or doesn’t, isn’t it your part to help correct rather than throw off course?

what the fuck have i been doing if not correct a misinterpretation. Fuck of roughie if you have nothing to say and can’t even follow the discussion.

You are the one talking about delivery.

Bogsnorkler said:

roughbarked said:

Well whether he does or doesn’t, isn’t it your part to help correct rather than throw off course? Bogsnorkler said:

LOL, he starts this shit.

Well whether he does or doesn’t, isn’t it your part to help correct rather than throw off course?

what the fuck have i been doing if not correct a misinterpretation. Fuck of roughie if you have nothing to say and can’t even follow the discussion.

of = off I think is what he meant.

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

roughbarked said:

Well whether he does or doesn’t, isn’t it your part to help correct rather than throw off course?

Well whether he does or doesn’t, isn’t it your part to help correct rather than throw off course?

what the fuck have i been doing if not correct a misinterpretation. Fuck of roughie if you have nothing to say and can’t even follow the discussion.

of = off I think is what he meant.

I’ve been getting that same message for about I dunno 18+ years.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

what the fuck have i been doing if not correct a misinterpretation. Fuck of roughie if you have nothing to say and can’t even follow the discussion.

of = off I think is what he meant.

I’ve been getting that same message for about I dunno 18+ years.

A “Fuck of roughie.” Sounds like someone wants a piece of you rb.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

of = off I think is what he meant.

I’ve been getting that same message for about I dunno 18+ years.

A “Fuck of roughie.” Sounds like someone wants a piece of you rb.

To get it of, means I’d have to be willing to give.

Ian said:

Hmmm.. what’s been going on here?

Ah, of course, PF is thoroughly misconstruing my position and starting into ad hominem attacks.. par for the course, and TRD wants to argue semantics.

I have more important things to do. So, what I would suggest is that TRD picks on a point of difference with PE and the two of you can take it away.

So you make a comment about the use of a particular word, I respond to it, and you say I want to argue semantics?

As for taking it away with PE, no thanks.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

Hmmm.. what’s been going on here?

Ah, of course, PF is thoroughly misconstruing my position and starting into ad hominem attacks.. par for the course, and TRD wants to argue semantics.

I have more important things to do. So, what I would suggest is that TRD picks on a point of difference with PE and the two of you can take it away.

So you make a comment about the use of a particular word, I respond to it, and you say I want to argue semantics?

As for taking it away with PE, no thanks.

Isn’t PE otherwise known as calisthenics?

If I can help just let me know.
I’m regarded as a bit of a fixer, a deal maker, a councillor and an intermediatory negotiator who can lay out a road map to an agreed face saving position suitable to the interlocutors without wanting to bathe in the reflected glory of any successful outcome.
Just cross my palm with a suitable amount of a yellow noble metal and I’ll walk away into the sunset, unheralded.

Peak Warming Man said:

If I can help just let me know.
I’m regarded as a bit of a fixer, a deal maker, a councillor and an intermediatory negotiator who can lay out a road map to an agreed face saving position suitable to the interlocutors without wanting to bathe in the reflected glory of any successful outcome.
Just cross my palm with a suitable amount of a yellow noble metal and I’ll walk away into the sunset, unheralded.

I beg your pardon?

kii said:

Peak Warming Man said:

If I can help just let me know.
I’m regarded as a bit of a fixer, a deal maker, a councillor and an intermediatory negotiator who can lay out a road map to an agreed face saving position suitable to the interlocutors without wanting to bathe in the reflected glory of any successful outcome.
Just cross my palm with a suitable amount of a yellow noble metal and I’ll walk away into the sunset, unheralded.

I beg your pardon?

that will be twenty gold ducats.

kii said:

Peak Warming Man said:

If I can help just let me know.
I’m regarded as a bit of a fixer, a deal maker, a councillor and an intermediatory negotiator who can lay out a road map to an agreed face saving position suitable to the interlocutors without wanting to bathe in the reflected glory of any successful outcome.
Just cross my palm with a suitable amount of a yellow noble metal and I’ll walk away into the sunset, unheralded.

I beg your pardon?

I didn’t promise a rose garden.

Thank goodness for that.

kii said:

Thank goodness for that.

hear hear.

kii said:

Peak Warming Man said:

If I can help just let me know.
I’m regarded as a bit of a fixer, a deal maker, a councillor and an intermediatory negotiator who can lay out a road map to an agreed face saving position suitable to the interlocutors without wanting to bathe in the reflected glory of any successful outcome.
Just cross my palm with a suitable amount of a yellow noble metal and I’ll walk away into the sunset, unheralded.

I beg your pardon?

He’s a cleaner. He makes problems go away. Sometimes with a quiet word, sometimes with a tub of fluoric acid. We don’t ask questions.

Anyway, the point of this thread was to highlight this interesting new study……

Global average temperatures could pass 1.5C above pre-industrial levels within the next decade, new projections suggest

The timing of when we actually hit the 1.5C threshold will depend heavily on a natural cycle in the Pacific Ocean, the study finds, which can either dampen or accelerate global temperature rise.

The results suggest, on current trends, that warming is likely to reach 1.5C between 2026 and 2031, though it could be even earlier…

In 2015, global average annual temperatures hit the landmark of a full 1C above pre-industrial levels. The following year, annual temperatures passed 1.1C of warming.

While these record temperatures were spurred on by a strong El Niño event in 2015-16, they show that warming of 1.5C – an aspirational limit laid out in the Paris Agreement – is rapidly approaching.

With this in mind, the new Geophysical Research Letters study estimates the trajectory of global temperatures towards 1.5C. The research shows that, along with human-caused emissions, how quickly we reach 1.5C will depend heavily on a natural cycle in the Pacific Ocean called the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO)…

Last month, Carbon Brief published analysis showing that, at the current rate of emissions, we’ll blow the budget for a good chance of staying below 1.5C within four years. The figures in the new study reflect the time lag between our emissions and the warming that they cause.