World 'nowhere near on track' to avoid warming beyond 1.5C target

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
If you can show any local council that will require more budget than its' traffic light budget (as long as it has one) to cope with any single aspect of global warming say what and where it is.

Port facilities generally need updating all the time as well as the ocean batters them and shipping technology and practice changes over time. It would be the additional cost that is the number needed.

Actually the point is that the world is not on track for keeping the would within 1.5 degrees

You don't think any foreseeable effects of climate change will be a problem. If the seas boiled you would still be trying to convince people that everything is fine with made up numbers.

Extreme argument fallacy. 1.5 degC warming is not going to cause any ocean to boil.

Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

...deleted insult and extreme argument fallacies...

RandU is not a word, write in English then people might know what the hell you are talking about.

randU is a mathematical term. It is a type of random number. An argument from randU is an argument that is using made up numbers or manufactured 'data'.

"RandU" Might be an arcane mathematical term but "Argument from RandU." is your invention


Anyway I did not use random numbers all the numbers I used are sourced, I accused Tim the plumber of using random numbers but I said that in English. Top tip If you read what is written it makes a discussion easier.

So you are just trying to derail the discussion, as per usual.

...spot,
...deleted random unrelated ramblings..
..with itn and gas guzzler that's the only thing that needs to be discussed. They can't discuss actual science.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that denies science. You are also denying math.

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report

The world's governments are "nowhere near on track" to meet their commitment to avoid global warming of more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial period, according to an author of a key UN report that will outline the dangers of breaching this limit.

It seems to be like a good thing. All this burning of fossil fuels has led to the greatest prosperity and health humanity has ever seen. The predicted disasters have not materialized. There is no acceleration in sea level rise; storm intensities are not increasing; droughts and floods are not increasing; the planet is greening at a phenomenal rate. What's not to like?

Wake wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report

The world's governments are "nowhere near on track" to meet their commitment to avoid global warming of more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial period, according to an author of a key UN report that will outline the dangers of breaching this limit.

It seems to be like a good thing. All this burning of fossil fuels has led to the greatest prosperity and health humanity has ever seen. The predicted disasters have not materialized. There is no acceleration in sea level rise; storm intensities are not increasing; droughts and floods are not increasing; the planet is greening at a phenomenal rate. What's not to like?

That is a very good practical vision. But they start throwing fake science at you and you get caught up arguing.

Science actually has a very tight grasp on the basics of climate and none of this AGW makes the slightest sense. Of all of the qualified scientist 99.8% do not believe that we are even warming un-naturally let alone being caused by man.

The NASA paper that Obama demanded of them was clearly a totally fake paper. It was generated quite easily - you make totally inappropriate corrections for Urban Heat Island Effect over the most rapid urban growth period in the history of the US. This is almost impossible to correct for in the first place because the placement of the weather stations and the wind speeds can change temperatures dramatically and unpredictably.

Also during this time occurs the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the temperature returning to normal is presented as abnormal heating.

We only have absolutely accurate measurement of the global mean temperature since we launched the US weather satellites in 1979.

However, while Obama's paper to the IPCC proving AGW without a doubt by showing over a 1 degree C. increase in mean global temperature, this was almost entirely between 1979 and the present.

During this same period of time that weather satellite reports of mean global temperature show that it has remained flat or by some interpretations as riding 0.1 degree C. Personally I do not go with even the slight increase though it could be there as the recovery from the little ice age I spoke of previously. My interpretation of the temperature is that it is no more than the normal chaotic temperature variations.

By "chaotic" I mean that we humans do not have the ability to calculate the billions of things that can cause a change that can move into something major. Or as the explanation of chaos theory goes - a butterfly flapping its wings on one side of the world may cause a hurricane on the other side of the world. This is not literally true but a demonstration that the smallest thing can cause a cascade effect that does something that no one could predict. But it may be nothing more than the butterfly flapping its wings as it is a quintillion other times.

spot wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report

The world's governments are "nowhere near on track" to meet their commitment to avoid global warming of more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial period, according to an author of a key UN report that will outline the dangers of breaching this limit.