Without locking the existing commitments in place, EU officials say it will be difficult to move the discussion forward to the more ambitious goals needed to achieve the Copenhagen target of keeping global warming within 2C by 2050.
What a happy day for all people who live on this planet!!! HadCrut shows that Earth is warming at a fairly steady rate of about 0.4C/century.
By the year 2050, we can expect it to warm less than 0.2C additional. The Copenhagen goals have been met and exceeded by an order of magnitude.
So where does Hansen get his 2.0C/century from? It is called “cherry picking.” He finds the steepest slope in his graph and tells Congress that is the long term trend. If he worked in the private sector, this type of shoddy work would probably be called “termination.”
By the year 2050, we can expect it to warm less than 0.2C additional.
That’s before UHI adjustment. It would be even less after UHI adjustment. 🙂
That’s before UHI adjustment. It would be even less after UHI adjustment.
There’s no UHI effect on satellite data, Amino. The current (25-year) trends are:
UAH: 1.8degC/century
RSS: 2.0degC/century
That would put the increase by 2050 at 0.72C or 0.8C.
HadCrut is satellite data?
Are RSS and UAH mentioned in this post?
I showed the UAH and RSS data sets. I did not show HadCRUT or GISTEMP because you think they’re affected by UHI.
But all this is obfuscatory anyway. What is this post about? Paraphrasing, “We have already met the 2050 temperature target!” But there was no 2050 temperature target. Are you so bullheaded on this subject that you can’t see the problem with that?
And kindly note that I did not blame Steve for this. The mistake was made by the Guardian.
No, HadCRUT is not satellite data.
You said that after “UHI adjustment”, the increase would be even less than 0.2C by 2050.
I noted that neither RSS nor UAH are affected by UHI, and that they both show a trend that will will result in significantly more warming than 0.2C by 2050 (even assuming that the trend is linear).
This is a perfectly reasonable response to your post, sorry.
Employment terminations at GISS are precisely the solution to the warming church. What is NASA doing in the climate business anyway? Other than Jim anointing himself the high priest of incineration?
Even a re-assignment would do the trick. But a thorough audit of the “work” already done is in order as well… and with that, criminal charges, I would wager.
” What is NASA doing in the climate business anyway? ”
Well, NASA is in the climate biz because they put up and run the satellites.
Unfortunately, however they outsource Mars research to Malin Space Sciences.
http://www.msss.com/all_projects/mgs-mars-orbiter-camera.php
What is NASA doing in the climate business anyway?
Everone forgets the second letter. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Weather–and therefore climate–matters.
And that is, of course, in addition to the satellites…
Aeronautics (from Greek ??? ??r which means “air” and ??????? nautik? which means “navigation, seamanship”, i.e. “navigation of the air”) is the science involved with the study, design, and manufacture of flight-capable machines, or the techniques of operating aircraft. While the term—literally meaning “sailing the air”—originally referred solely to the science of operating the aircraft, it has since been expanded to include technology, business and other aspects related to aircraft.
The definition goes on to say that aeronautics includes lghter than air and experimental craft.
Weather certainly affects aviation and aeronautics.
Climate, not so much.
Weather certainly affects aviation and aeronautics.
Yes, and climate affects weather, no? How weather might be changing would hold no interest for aeronautics?
In any event, that was just an aside. Not a big deal. The main reason NASA’s involved with climate study is the one noted by Jimash.
Jimash being, as it happens, you.
Without locking the existing commitments in place, EU officials say it will be difficult to move the discussion forward to the more ambitious goals needed to achieve the Copenhagen target of keeping global warming within 2C by 2050.
The Guardian missates the accord. The 2050 target date is for emissions, not temperature. The accord says nothing about “keeping global warming within 2C by 2050” (or any other date, for that matter). In terms of temperature, it simply “recognizes” the “scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius”. There is nothing in the accord about a specific temperature target for a specific date.
It strikes me that this pretty much renders the rest of this post moot.
Moot: “of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.” This word describes efforts like Copenhagen perfectly.
Hey Dudley, are you still defending Alarmist snuff films?
Addressing the point I actually made would have been so nice.
Addressing the data sets in the post would have been nice too.
Fine, here are the current 25-year trends for all the data sets (2050 rise in parens, assuming linearity):
HadCRUT: 1.8C/decade (0.72C)
UAH: 1.8C/century (0.72C)
GISTEMP: 1.9C/century (0.76C)
RSS: 2.0C/century (0.8C)
All considerably higher than 0.2C. And note how little difference there is between the trends. Where’s the UHI effect you’re worried about?
25 year trends is cherry picking. The trend from 1910 to 1940 was nearly identical, and then it declined for 30 years.
No, it’s not cherry picking. It’s the current trend, and it’s plenty long enough to be statistically significant.
Using the entire dataset from 1850 (or whatever it is) is meaningless. It does not reflect what’s happening now. CO2 was not at nearly 400ppmv in 1850.
And I think you know the primary cause for the decline that began in ~1940, and why it stopped, and why it’s no longer applicable.
But the bigger question is, why haven’t you acknowledged the simple fact that there was no 2050 temperature goal in the accord? Do you find this to be irrelevant to your statement that “The Copenhagen goals have been met and exceeded by an order of magnitude”? How can the goal have been “met” if there wasn’t one?
Hell’s bells, I even gave you an out. It wasn’t your mistake.
If you plot one leg of a wave as a linear function, you are always going to get the wrong answer.
Sure , using the current, statistically significant 25-year trend is cherry-picking, but posting a 3-day weather forecast for Moscow to rebut “hottest year ever globally” is just fine? Please.
No comment on the fact that there’s no temperature goal in the accord? Really?
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Wow. All I can say is wow.
You post a bit about how we’ve met the accord’s goal when there was no goal, and it doesn’t even seem to register that this should be corrected or even acknowledged. It appears that you just couldn’t care less.
Wow.
Here, I’ll do it for you.
“The Guardian article quoted above stated that the 2009 Copenhagen accord contained a goal of no more than a 2C increase in global temperature by 2050. In fact, the accord did not specify a temperature goal for 2050 or any other specific year, so the Guardian was incorrect, and I failed to check it. I regret the error.”
There, now, was that so hard?
Chris
You are unfairly using data to promote some sort of alarmist agenda.
Here’s one for you, Dudley. “We thought the world was going to end because of a trace gas man was releasing into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, because we were such awful communicators AND complete assholes, no one would listen to us.”
Ah, name-calling, really adds to your argument. Really enhances your creds.
I’m not part of a group that couldn’t pass any significant climate legislation even though they owned the media, the House, the Senate, and the presidency. You are the one lacking “cred.” All I have to worry about is preventing people like you from committing any harm.
You don’t understand communication and democracy and all that other mucky social study stuff, do you Chris. You still think, to this day, that your scientific case is so strong and so right that that’s all it takes. You don’t need to persuade. You don’t need to appease skeptics. You don’t need to form coalitions. You don’t need a majority. You think for some reason, without any historical precedent to fall back on as an example, that we should just submit.
That is breathtakingly dumb. Its one of the many reasons you people are not to be taken seriously.
Mike, you are WAY off topic. What you are talking about has nothing whatseoever to do with the very, very simple point I raised.
An inability to deal with the issue at hand, and to instead try to obfuscate with generalities about “mucky social study stuff” and expecting people to “submit” is one of the many reasons you people are not to be taken seriously.