uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 4th 20, 10:09 AM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,414
Default 1.5 deg of warming RIP?

This is quite an alarming animation. It seems to me that the chances of
limiting global warming to 1.5 deg are long since gone. A warming well
in excess of 2 deg seems much more likely.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1213272332464082944

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

  #2   Report Post  
Old January 4th 20, 10:58 AM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Jan 2016
Posts: 95
Default 1.5 deg of warming RIP?

On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 10:09:35 AM UTC, Norman Lynagh wrote:
This is quite an alarming animation. It seems to me that the chances of
limiting global warming to 1.5 deg are long since gone. A warming well
in excess of 2 deg seems much more likely.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1213272332464082944

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr


Agree. Not if you go by Roy Spencer, however:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/...-observations/

There's always one, but you never know, the lone voices (and Trump) may be right...
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 4th 20, 11:28 AM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Jun 2019
Posts: 94
Default 1.5 deg of warming RIP?

On 04/01/2020 10:58, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 10:09:35 AM UTC, Norman Lynagh wrote:


This is quite an alarming animation. It seems to me that the chances of
limiting global warming to 1.5 deg are long since gone. A warming well
in excess of 2 deg seems much more likely.


https://twitter.com/i/status/1213272332464082944

Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire


Agree. Not if you go by Roy Spencer, however:


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/...-observations/


There's always one, but you never know, the lone voices (and Trump) may be right...


Spencer has cleverly chosen to compare real-life data with model
predictions, and in doing so was 'on a winner' as the models have
consistently failed to predict anything that's actually turned up in
reality.

The real-life data clearly shows the current 20-year plateau in the
temperature 'anomaly' that the models dare not reflect as it could mean
a threat to their creators' funding, publications, travel to
conferences, etc, as has happened all too often for those whose research
results are 'off message'.

Spencer mentions the possibility that the models incorporate too much
positive feedback, but this is a necessary part of the current reliance
of CO2 as a driver for the claimed planetary warming.

--
Spike
  #4   Report Post  
Old January 4th 20, 11:47 AM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Jan 2016
Posts: 95
Default 1.5 deg of warming RIP?

On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 11:27:56 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 04/01/2020 10:58, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 10:09:35 AM UTC, Norman Lynagh wrote:


This is quite an alarming animation. It seems to me that the chances of
limiting global warming to 1.5 deg are long since gone. A warming well
in excess of 2 deg seems much more likely.


https://twitter.com/i/status/1213272332464082944

Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire


Agree. Not if you go by Roy Spencer, however:


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/...-observations/


There's always one, but you never know, the lone voices (and Trump) may be right...


Spencer has cleverly chosen to compare real-life data with model
predictions, and in doing so was 'on a winner' as the models have
consistently failed to predict anything that's actually turned up in
reality.

The real-life data clearly shows the current 20-year plateau in the
temperature 'anomaly' that the models dare not reflect as it could mean
a threat to their creators' funding, publications, travel to
conferences, etc, as has happened all too often for those whose research
results are 'off message'.

Spencer mentions the possibility that the models incorporate too much
positive feedback, but this is a necessary part of the current reliance
of CO2 as a driver for the claimed planetary warming.

--
Spike


'claimed' and a reliance on one person's perspective, as opposed to almost every other single person working in climate science.

Says it all really 'spike'.
  #5   Report Post  
Old January 4th 20, 12:22 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Jun 2019
Posts: 94
Default 1.5 deg of warming RIP?

On 04/01/2020 11:47, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 11:27:56 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 04/01/2020 10:58,
wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 10:09:35 AM UTC, Norman Lynagh wrote:


This is quite an alarming animation. It seems to me that the chances of
limiting global warming to 1.5 deg are long since gone. A warming well
in excess of 2 deg seems much more likely.


https://twitter.com/i/status/1213272332464082944

Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire


Agree. Not if you go by Roy Spencer, however:


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/...-observations/


There's always one, but you never know, the lone voices (and Trump) may be right...


Spencer has cleverly chosen to compare real-life data with model
predictions, and in doing so was 'on a winner' as the models have
consistently failed to predict anything that's actually turned up in
reality.


The real-life data clearly shows the current 20-year plateau in the
temperature 'anomaly' that the models dare not reflect as it could mean
a threat to their creators' funding, publications, travel to
conferences, etc, as has happened all too often for those whose research
results are 'off message'.


Spencer mentions the possibility that the models incorporate too much
positive feedback, but this is a necessary part of the current reliance
of CO2 as a driver for the claimed planetary warming.


'claimed' and a reliance on one person's perspective, as opposed to almost every other single person working in climate science.


Presumably, this is science that you don't want to unite behind.

Says it all really 'spike'.


"It" being your argumentum ad populum, you mean.


--
Spike


  #6   Report Post  
Old January 4th 20, 04:09 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Oct 2019
Posts: 16
Default 1.5 deg of warming RIP?

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 12:22:40 +0000
Spike wrote:

On 04/01/2020 11:47, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 11:27:56 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 04/01/2020 10:58,
wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 10:09:35 AM UTC, Norman Lynagh
wrote:


This is quite an alarming animation. It seems to me that the
chances of limiting global warming to 1.5 deg are long since
gone. A warming well in excess of 2 deg seems much more likely.


https://twitter.com/i/status/1213272332464082944

Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire


Agree. Not if you go by Roy Spencer, however:


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/...-observations/


There's always one, but you never know, the lone voices (and
Trump) may be right...


Spencer has cleverly chosen to compare real-life data with model
predictions, and in doing so was 'on a winner' as the models have
consistently failed to predict anything that's actually turned up
in reality.


The real-life data clearly shows the current 20-year plateau in the
temperature 'anomaly' that the models dare not reflect as it could
mean a threat to their creators' funding, publications, travel to
conferences, etc, as has happened all too often for those whose
research results are 'off message'.


Spencer mentions the possibility that the models incorporate too
much positive feedback, but this is a necessary part of the
current reliance of CO2 as a driver for the claimed planetary
warming.


'claimed' and a reliance on one person's perspective, as opposed to
almost every other single person working in climate science.


Presumably, this is science that you don't want to unite behind.

Says it all really 'spike'.


"It" being your argumentum ad populum, you mean.



Dawlish 0 : Torquay 1

A surprise away win for Torquay.




  #7   Report Post  
Old January 4th 20, 06:52 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Jan 2016
Posts: 95
Default 1.5 deg of warming RIP?

On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 12:22:35 PM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 04/01/2020 11:47, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 11:27:56 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 04/01/2020 10:58,
wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 10:09:35 AM UTC, Norman Lynagh wrote:


This is quite an alarming animation. It seems to me that the chances of
limiting global warming to 1.5 deg are long since gone. A warming well
in excess of 2 deg seems much more likely.


https://twitter.com/i/status/1213272332464082944

Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire


Agree. Not if you go by Roy Spencer, however:


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/...-observations/


There's always one, but you never know, the lone voices (and Trump) may be right...


Spencer has cleverly chosen to compare real-life data with model
predictions, and in doing so was 'on a winner' as the models have
consistently failed to predict anything that's actually turned up in
reality.


The real-life data clearly shows the current 20-year plateau in the
temperature 'anomaly' that the models dare not reflect as it could mean
a threat to their creators' funding, publications, travel to
conferences, etc, as has happened all too often for those whose research
results are 'off message'.


Spencer mentions the possibility that the models incorporate too much
positive feedback, but this is a necessary part of the current reliance
of CO2 as a driver for the claimed planetary warming.


'claimed' and a reliance on one person's perspective, as opposed to almost every other single person working in climate science.


Presumably, this is science that you don't want to unite behind.

Says it all really 'spike'.


"It" being your argumentum ad populum, you mean.


--
Spike


To you 'Spike' and to Spencer, that would be exactly right. You two know what's happening, don't you? The rest of science, with overwhelming evidence, which you could research if you wished to, is wrong.

As it will always be for you. *))
  #8   Report Post  
Old January 4th 20, 08:16 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
JGD JGD is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: May 2018
Posts: 62
Default 1.5 deg of warming RIP?

On 04/01/2020 11:28, Spike wrote:
On 04/01/2020 10:58, wrote:


Agree. Not if you go by Roy Spencer, however:


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/...-observations/

There's always one, but you never know, the lone voices (and Trump) may be right...


Spencer has cleverly chosen to compare real-life data with model
predictions, and in doing so was 'on a winner' as the models have
consistently failed to predict anything that's actually turned up in
reality.


Whoosh!

  #9   Report Post  
Old January 4th 20, 09:14 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Oct 2019
Posts: 16
Default 1.5 deg of warming RIP?

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 10:52:12 -0800 (PST)
wrote:

On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 12:22:35 PM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 04/01/2020 11:47,
wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 11:27:56 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 04/01/2020 10:58,
wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 10:09:35 AM UTC, Norman Lynagh
wrote:


This is quite an alarming animation. It seems to me that the
chances of limiting global warming to 1.5 deg are long since
gone. A warming well in excess of 2 deg seems much more
likely.


https://twitter.com/i/status/1213272332464082944

Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire


Agree. Not if you go by Roy Spencer, however:


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/...-observations/


There's always one, but you never know, the lone voices (and
Trump) may be right...


Spencer has cleverly chosen to compare real-life data with model
predictions, and in doing so was 'on a winner' as the models have
consistently failed to predict anything that's actually turned
up in reality.


The real-life data clearly shows the current 20-year plateau in
the temperature 'anomaly' that the models dare not reflect as it
could mean a threat to their creators' funding, publications,
travel to conferences, etc, as has happened all too often for
those whose research results are 'off message'.


Spencer mentions the possibility that the models incorporate too
much positive feedback, but this is a necessary part of the
current reliance of CO2 as a driver for the claimed planetary
warming.


'claimed' and a reliance on one person's perspective, as opposed
to almost every other single person working in climate science.


Presumably, this is science that you don't want to unite behind.

Says it all really 'spike'.


"It" being your argumentum ad populum, you mean.


--
Spike


To you 'Spike' and to Spencer, that would be exactly right. You two
know what's happening, don't you? The rest of science, with
overwhelming evidence, which you could research if you wished to, is
wrong.


You haven't presented any evidence! All you've done is ranted "my team
is bigger than your team", with nothing at all to back it up.

As it will always be for you. *))


Why not present some of this "overwhelming evidence" to counter Burt's
point above?



  #10   Report Post  
Old January 5th 20, 09:55 AM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Jun 2019
Posts: 94
Default 1.5 deg of warming RIP?

On 04/01/2020 20:16, JGD wrote:
On 04/01/2020 11:28, Spike wrote:
On 04/01/2020 10:58, wrote:


Agree. Not if you go by Roy Spencer, however:


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/...-observations/

There's always one, but you never know, the lone voices (and Trump) may be right...


Spencer has cleverly chosen to compare real-life data with model
predictions, and in doing so was 'on a winner' as the models have
consistently failed to predict anything that's actually turned up in
reality.


Whoosh!


Spencer's graph shows a huge disparity between the forecasts of the
temperature 'anomaly' as shown by the results of ~100 climate models,
and the data from the satellites. The latest data points for the
satellites are now below *all but one* the predicted temperature
'anomalies'. This difference should be of major concern to all who have
a genuine interest in these matters and is well worthy of discussion, to
which your somewhat silly remark adds nothing. At least Spencer advances
some possible causes for the disparities.


--
Spike


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
deg F in Summer and deg C in Winter Phil Layton uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) 20 December 9th 10 08:17 PM
"Break the Grip of the Rip" National Campaign Kicks-Off NewsBot Latest News 0 March 24th 06 09:25 PM
Rip currents kill more people than tornados, hurricanes, and lightning. NewsBot Latest News 0 March 24th 06 08:23 PM
NOAA Highlights The Dangers Of Deadly Rip Currents NewsBot Latest News 0 March 24th 06 08:22 PM
Davis Weather station accessory pricing Rip off Stu uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) 2 December 7th 04 06:01 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 Weather Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Weather"

 

Copyright © 2017