And the warmest August by over 0.2C; a huge amount. The period June/July/August has also been the warmest on record by a wide margin.

No El Niño yet and El Niño conditions are forecast to continue well into next year.

Worrying times for global climate and for us humans.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Paul from Llanmaes <pauljgarvey03@gmail.com> wrote:
> And the warmest August by over 0.2C; a huge amount. The period
> June/July/August has also been the warmest on record by a wide margin.
>
> No El Niño yet and El Niño conditions are forecast to continue well into next year.
>
> Worrying times for global climate and for us humans.
>
> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The globe has been here before, and it has survived.

So have humans.

No climate believer has ever explained why the particular climate we have
enjoyed is so special that it should be preserved in aspic, especially
because of the known regular and wild swings in planetary temperatures
driven by forces we don’t understand and can’t control. Any chance, with
your searing insight, you could come up with something in the way of an
explanation?

--
Spike

On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 4:34:37 PM UTC+1, Spike wrote:
> Paul from Llanmaes <pauljg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And the warmest August by over 0.2C; a huge amount. The period
> > June/July/August has also been the warmest on record by a wide margin.
> >
> > No El Niño yet and El Niño conditions are forecast to continue well into next year.
> >
> > Worrying times for global climate and for us humans.
> >
> > https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
> The globe has been here before, and it has survived.
>
> So have humans.
>
> No climate believer has ever explained why the particular climate we have
> enjoyed is so special that it should be preserved in aspic, especially
> because of the known regular and wild swings in planetary temperatures
> driven by forces we don’t understand and can’t control. Any chance, with
> your searing insight, you could come up with something in the way of an
> explanation?
>
> --
> Spike

Better to enjoy a good laugh at idiots like you and your blind idiocy. 😂😂😂😂😂

On 14/09/2023 16:34, Spike wrote:
> Paul from Llanmaes <pauljgarvey03@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And the warmest August by over 0.2C; a huge amount. The period
>> June/July/August has also been the warmest on record by a wide margin.
>>
>> No El Niño yet and El Niño conditions are forecast to continue well into next year.
>>
>> Worrying times for global climate and for us humans.
>>
>> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
>
> The globe has been here before, and it has survived.
>

Sure

> So have humans.

Never before with 10 billion (by 2100) mouths to feed, provide water
for, and preserve some decent semblance of law and order, and quality of
life. That is the nub of the problem.

Not sure anyone is forecasting the extinction of homo sapiens, even in
the worst case. But mass starvation, serious lack of drinking water,
widespread breakdown of society and relative prosperity is very much on
the cards and a very real prospect, absent all the various net zero
measures. But maybe you see it as a good way of culling much of the
world's population? That wouldn't surprise me!

--
Order alone is boring; complexity alone is chaos

On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 5:23:18 PM UTC+1, JohnD wrote:
> On 14/09/2023 16:34, Spike wrote:
> > Paul from Llanmaes <pauljg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> And the warmest August by over 0.2C; a huge amount. The period
> >> June/July/August has also been the warmest on record by a wide margin.
> >>
> >> No El Niño yet and El Niño conditions are forecast to continue well into next year.
> >>
> >> Worrying times for global climate and for us humans.
> >>
> >> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
> >
> > The globe has been here before, and it has survived.
> >
> Sure
>
> > So have humans.
>
> Never before with 10 billion (by 2100) mouths to feed, provide water
> for, and preserve some decent semblance of law and order, and quality of
> life. That is the nub of the problem.
>
> Not sure anyone is forecasting the extinction of homo sapiens, even in
> the worst case. But mass starvation, serious lack of drinking water,
> widespread breakdown of society and relative prosperity is very much on
> the cards and a very real prospect, absent all the various net zero
> measures. But maybe you see it as a good way of culling much of the
> world's population? That wouldn't surprise me!
>
> --
> Order alone is boring; complexity alone is chaos

A denier like spikey would rather put his hands over his ears, a blindfold over his eyes two pencils up his nose and sing 'Lalalalalala' as loud as he can not to see, hear and smell that message. 😂😂😂😂😂

On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 16:34:37 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
> Paul from Llanmaes <pauljg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And the warmest August by over 0.2C; a huge amount. The period
> > June/July/August has also been the warmest on record by a wide margin.
> >
> > No El Niño yet and El Niño conditions are forecast to continue well into next year.
> >
> > Worrying times for global climate and for us humans.
> >
> > https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
> The globe has been here before, and it has survived.
>
> So have humans.
>
> No climate believer has ever explained why the particular climate we have
> enjoyed is so special that it should be preserved in aspic, especially
> because of the known regular and wild swings in planetary temperatures
> driven by forces we don’t understand and can’t control. Any chance, with
> your searing insight, you could come up with something in the way of an
> explanation?
>
> --
> Spike

This might explain the urgency https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/13/earth-well-outside-safe-operating-space-for-humanity-scientists-find?utm_term=6502e8df8ab72438479798b73e7d2a18&utmp_campaign=DownToEarth&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=greenlight_email
Besides the level of CO2 is now higher at 420 ppm than it has been in the last 800,000 years, long before the emergence of Homo sapiens 120,000 years ago. Do you really want humans to go back condions then.

On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 16:34:37 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
> Paul from Llanmaes <pauljg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And the warmest August by over 0.2C; a huge amount. The period
> > June/July/August has also been the warmest on record by a wide margin.
> >
> > No El Niño yet and El Niño conditions are forecast to continue well into next year.
> >
> > Worrying times for global climate and for us humans.
> >
> > https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
> The globe has been here before, and it has survived.
>
> So have humans.
>
> No climate believer has ever explained why the particular climate we have
> enjoyed is so special that it should be preserved in aspic, especially
> because of the known regular and wild swings in planetary temperatures
> driven by forces we don’t understand and can’t control. Any chance, with
> your searing insight, you could come up with something in the way of an
> explanation?
>
> --
> Spike

Spike,

Here’s another answer to your question https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwztzNtNRtNDdMrgWDjKvhCXr

Alastair B. McDonald <abmcdonald33@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 16:34:37 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>> Paul from Llanmaes <pauljg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> And the warmest August by over 0.2C; a huge amount. The period
>>> June/July/August has also been the warmest on record by a wide margin.
>>>
>>> No El Niño yet and El Niño conditions are forecast to continue well into next year.
>>>
>>> Worrying times for global climate and for us humans.
>>>
>>> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
>> The globe has been here before, and it has survived.
>>
>> So have humans.
>>
>> No climate believer has ever explained why the particular climate we have
>> enjoyed is so special that it should be preserved in aspic, especially
>> because of the known regular and wild swings in planetary temperatures
>> driven by forces we don’t understand and can’t control. Any chance, with
>> your searing insight, you could come up with something in the way of an
>> explanation?
>>
>> --
>> Spike
>
> This might explain the urgency
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/13/earth-well-outside-safe-operating-space-for-humanity-scientists-find?utm_term=6502e8df8ab72438479798b73e7d2a18&utmp_campaign=DownToEarth&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=greenlight_email
> Besides the level of CO2 is now higher at 420 ppm than it has been in the
> last 800,000 years, long before the emergence of Homo sapiens 120,000
> years ago. Do you really want humans to go back condions then.

You do realise that deltaT is dependent on a logarithm of CO2
concentrations?

IOW 200ppm to 400ppm produces the same deltaT as 400 to 800ppm and 800 to
1600ppm?

At 1600ppm vegetation, which includes crops, will grow lush, especially as
the increased temperature will bring about more rain.

--
Spike

Alastair B. McDonald <abmcdonald33@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 16:34:37 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>> Paul from Llanmaes <pauljg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> And the warmest August by over 0.2C; a huge amount. The period
>>> June/July/August has also been the warmest on record by a wide margin.
>>>
>>> No El Niño yet and El Niño conditions are forecast to continue well into next year.
>>>
>>> Worrying times for global climate and for us humans.
>>>
>>> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
>> The globe has been here before, and it has survived.
>>
>> So have humans.
>>
>> No climate believer has ever explained why the particular climate we have
>> enjoyed is so special that it should be preserved in aspic, especially
>> because of the known regular and wild swings in planetary temperatures
>> driven by forces we don’t understand and can’t control. Any chance, with
>> your searing insight, you could come up with something in the way of an
>> explanation?
>>
>> --
>> Spike
>
> Spike,
>
> Here’s another answer to your question
> https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwztzNtNRtNDdMrgWDjKvhCXr

I don’t have a Google account…

--
Spike

On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 21:55:27 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
> > On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 16:34:37 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
> >> Paul from Llanmaes <pauljg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> And the warmest August by over 0.2C; a huge amount. The period
> >>> June/July/August has also been the warmest on record by a wide margin..
> >>>
> >>> No El Niño yet and El Niño conditions are forecast to continue well into next year.
> >>>
> >>> Worrying times for global climate and for us humans.
> >>>
> >>> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
> >> The globe has been here before, and it has survived.
> >>
> >> So have humans.
> >>
> >> No climate believer has ever explained why the particular climate we have
> >> enjoyed is so special that it should be preserved in aspic, especially
> >> because of the known regular and wild swings in planetary temperatures
> >> driven by forces we don’t understand and can’t control.. Any chance, with
> >> your searing insight, you could come up with something in the way of an
> >> explanation?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
> >
> > Spike,
> >
> > Here’s another answer to your question
> > https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwztzNtNRtNDdMrgWDjKvhCXr
> I don’t have a Google account…
>
> --
> Spike
Well here is the text copied and pasted:

Why is 1.5 so important?

Almost every country agreed to try and limit global heating to 1.5°C at the 2015 Paris climate conference. The decision was hailed by small islanders and scientists who warned that devastation lay beyond this threshold.
Nearly eight years later, meteorologists have confirmed that July 2023 was the hottest ever recorded – a month in which the air temperature at our planet's surface was 1.5°C hotter than the pre-industrial average..
Have efforts to avert dangerous warming now officially failed? And what is so important about the 1.5°C target anyway?
You're reading the Imagine newsletter – a weekly synthesis of academic insight on solutions to climate change, brought to you by The Conversation. I'm Jack Marley, energy and environment editor. This week, we're discussing life at 1.5°C.
"The threshold was breached for a month before average temperatures dropped back. And July 2023 isn’t actually the first time this has happened either – the dubious honour goes to February 2016, where we broke the threshold for a few days," say Ailie Gallant and Kimberley Reid, climate and atmosphere scientists at Monash University.
Then, as now, Earth was in what is called an El Niño event. This is the hot phase of a natural fluctuation in the climate which tends to last a few years and temporarily amplifies the background rate of warming caused predominantly by burning fossil fuels (animal farming and deforestation are also big sources of planet-warming greenhouse gases like CO₂ and methane).
These two factors combined meant Earth exceeded the 1.5°C threshold for a whole month for the first time this summer.
"But the climate is more than a single month," Gallant and Reid stress.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the global authority on climate change, defines the threshold as the first 20-year period in which air surface temperatures average 1.5°C above what they were between 1850 and 1900 (referred to as the pre-industrial average). A study published earlier this year estimates that we could pass this point in the early 2030s.
So what awaits us in this world made a degree-and-a-half hotter? Gallant and Reid describe "dangerous" levels of warming as that which threatens the stability of ecosystems, economies and agriculture and makes adapting very difficult or impossible.
"Put simply, the 1.5°C threshold is the best estimate of the point where we are likely to find ourselves well up the proverbial creek, without a paddle," they say.
And then there is the risk of triggering irreversible climate tipping points. These are self-sustaining shifts in the climate system that lock in devastating changes after a certain level of warming has occurred, such as the collapse of ice sheets or the rapid die-back of the Amazon rainforest. Both changes could accelerate the rate at which Earth is heating by reflecting less sunlight to space or releasing more carbon to the atmosphere.
But a scientist studying these possible tipping points explains that passing 1.5°C is not necessarily "game over" for the climate.
"Most scientists don’t expect the world to reach a slew of climate tipping points if El Niño causes the world to cross 1.5°C briefly," Stockholm University's David Armstrong McKay wrote in April.
"Our estimates for climate tipping point thresholds are based on what would happen if global warming stayed at that level for many years. So a tipping threshold that is estimated to lie at 1.5°C won’t have been reached until global temperatures average 1.5°C for around a decade."
If that sounds reassuring, McKay has a caveat:
"Recent research I led judged that several of these climate tipping points become likely beyond 1.5°C and can’t be ruled out even at current warming of around 1.2°C."
If dangerous shifts in Earth's climate are possible south of 1.5°C, why is so much hope and anxiety invested in it?
"There’s nothing magic about this number," Gallant and Reid say. "Every increase worsens the impacts."
'2°C is a death sentence'
For much of the time countries have been debating Earth's rising temperature, 1.5°C was not the official goal at all.
"Halting global heating at 2°C remained the horizon to which negotiators strived for nearly two decades," says Piers Forster, director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds. "And yet, you’re more likely to hear about the rapidly approaching 1.5°C temperature limit nowadays."
That world leaders eventually agreed to revise down the acceptable level of climate damage is testament to the campaigning of a formation of island nations known as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), Forster says.
At Copenhagen's 2009 climate summit, the world still lacked a scientific assessment of what a "safe" limit to warming looked like. But research had started to paint a picture of an Earth 2°C warmer: widespread coral bleaching, receding coastlines and increasingly erratic weather. Worse, it seemed sea-level rise would proceed more rapidly and violently than in earlier predictions. At stake was the survival of some small islands.
"Only stopping global temperature rise well below 1.5°C would head off this catastrophe, AOSIS argued," Forster says. "As Mia Mottley, prime minister of Barbados, would later put it: '2°C is a death sentence.'"
"The idea that a 'safe' level of warming could be achieved was subjective: current levels were already unsafe for those on the sharpest end of climate change," Forster adds.
The story of the 1.5°C limit highlights that the only acceptable level of warming is that which humanity collectively decides, Forster says. So can the Paris signatories still keep their promise? Maybe, say Gallant and Reid.
"We would need extremely aggressive cuts to emissions to have a chance. Failing that, we will likely exceed the Paris target within the next decade or so."
"The closer we stay to the line – even if we cross it – the better. And there’s now good evidence that even if we overshoot 1.5°C, we could still reverse it by ending emissions and soaking up excess greenhouse gas emissions.
"It’s like turning around an enormous container ship – it takes time to overcome the inertia. But the sooner we turn around, the better."
Correction: last week's newsletter on invasive species referred to "rivers choked with [Japanese] knotweed". This behaviour is more accurately ascribed to Himalayan balsam.
- Jack Marley, Environment commissioning editor

Was this email forwarded to you? Join the 20,000 people who get one email every week about the most important issue of our time. Subscribe to Imagine.

On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 21:55:27 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
> > On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 16:34:37 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
> >> Paul from Llanmaes <pauljg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> And the warmest August by over 0.2C; a huge amount. The period
> >>> June/July/August has also been the warmest on record by a wide margin..
> >>>
> >>> No El Niño yet and El Niño conditions are forecast to continue well into next year.
> >>>
> >>> Worrying times for global climate and for us humans.
> >>>
> >>> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
> >> The globe has been here before, and it has survived.
> >>
> >> So have humans.
> >>
> >> No climate believer has ever explained why the particular climate we have
> >> enjoyed is so special that it should be preserved in aspic, especially
> >> because of the known regular and wild swings in planetary temperatures
> >> driven by forces we don’t understand and can’t control.. Any chance, with
> >> your searing insight, you could come up with something in the way of an
> >> explanation?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
> >
> > This might explain the urgency
> > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/13/earth-well-outside-safe-operating-space-for-humanity-scientists-find?utm_term=6502e8df8ab72438479798b73e7d2a18&utmp_campaign=DownToEarth&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=greenlight_email
> > Besides the level of CO2 is now higher at 420 ppm than it has been in the
> > last 800,000 years, long before the emergence of Homo sapiens 120,000
> > years ago. Do you really want humans to go back condions then.
> You do realise that deltaT is dependent on a logarithm of CO2
> concentrations?
>
> IOW 200ppm to 400ppm produces the same deltaT as 400 to 800ppm and 800 to
> 1600ppm?
>
> At 1600ppm vegetation, which includes crops, will grow lush, especially as
> the increased temperature will bring about more rain.
>
> --
> Spike

You have been reading too many IPCC reports. The IR radiation is absorbed close to the ground viz Beer’s law. If you double CO2 you absorb the same radiation in half the depth. That is the air at the surface gets twice as hot.

Alastair B. McDonald <abmcdonald33@gmail.com> wrote:

>> You do realise that deltaT is dependent on a logarithm of CO2
>> concentrations?

>> IOW 200ppm to 400ppm produces the same deltaT as 400 to 800ppm and 800 to
>> 1600ppm?

>> At 1600ppm vegetation, which includes crops, will grow lush, especially as
>> the increased temperature will bring about more rain.

> You have been reading too many IPCC reports.

The IPCC reports are what underpins the whole AGW/ACC scenario. If you’re
going to dismiss them, it might help to give your reasons.

> The IR radiation is absorbed close to the ground viz Beer’s law. If you
> double CO2 you absorb the same radiation in half the depth. That is the
> air at the surface gets twice as hot.

The air close to the ground doesn’t get twice as hot, as the CO2 content is
a tiny fraction of it.

If CO2 comprised 1% of the atmosphere, and its temperature doubled, the
bulk of the atmosphere would rise by 1% of that doubling, all other things
being equal.

--
Spike

Alastair B. McDonald <abmcdonald33@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 21:55:27 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 16:34:37 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>>>> Paul from Llanmaes <pauljg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> And the warmest August by over 0.2C; a huge amount. The period
>>>>> June/July/August has also been the warmest on record by a wide margin.
>>>>>
>>>>> No El Niño yet and El Niño conditions are forecast to continue well into next year.
>>>>>
>>>>> Worrying times for global climate and for us humans.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
>>>> The globe has been here before, and it has survived.
>>>>
>>>> So have humans.
>>>>
>>>> No climate believer has ever explained why the particular climate we have
>>>> enjoyed is so special that it should be preserved in aspic, especially
>>>> because of the known regular and wild swings in planetary temperatures
>>>> driven by forces we don’t understand and can’t control. Any chance, with
>>>> your searing insight, you could come up with something in the way of an
>>>> explanation?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Spike
>>>
>>> Spike,
>>>
>>> Here’s another answer to your question
>>> https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwztzNtNRtNDdMrgWDjKvhCXr
>> I don’t have a Google account…
>>
>> --
>> Spike
> Well here is the text copied and pasted:
>
> Why is 1.5 so important?
>
> Almost every country agreed to try and limit global heating to 1.5°C at
> the 2015 Paris climate conference. The decision was hailed by small
> islanders and scientists who warned that devastation lay beyond this threshold.
> Nearly eight years later, meteorologists have confirmed that July 2023
> was the hottest ever recorded – a month in which the air temperature at
> our planet's surface was 1.5°C hotter than the pre-industrial average.
> Have efforts to avert dangerous warming now officially failed? And what
> is so important about the 1.5°C target anyway?
> You're reading the Imagine newsletter – a weekly synthesis of academic
> insight on solutions to climate change, brought to you by The
> Conversation. I'm Jack Marley, energy and environment editor. This week,
> we're discussing life at 1.5°C.
> "The threshold was breached for a month before average temperatures
> dropped back. And July 2023 isn’t actually the first time this has
> happened either – the dubious honour goes to February 2016, where we
> broke the threshold for a few days," say Ailie Gallant and Kimberley
> Reid, climate and atmosphere scientists at Monash University.
> Then, as now, Earth was in what is called an El Niño event. This is the
> hot phase of a natural fluctuation in the climate which tends to last a
> few years and temporarily amplifies the background rate of warming caused
> predominantly by burning fossil fuels (animal farming and deforestation
> are also big sources of planet-warming greenhouse gases like CO₂ and methane).
> These two factors combined meant Earth exceeded the 1.5°C threshold for a
> whole month for the first time this summer.
> "But the climate is more than a single month," Gallant and Reid stress.
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the global authority on
> climate change, defines the threshold as the first 20-year period in
> which air surface temperatures average 1.5°C above what they were between
> 1850 and 1900 (referred to as the pre-industrial average). A study
> published earlier this year estimates that we could pass this point in the early 2030s.
> So what awaits us in this world made a degree-and-a-half hotter? Gallant
> and Reid describe "dangerous" levels of warming as that which threatens
> the stability of ecosystems, economies and agriculture and makes adapting
> very difficult or impossible.
> "Put simply, the 1.5°C threshold is the best estimate of the point where
> we are likely to find ourselves well up the proverbial creek, without a paddle," they say.
> And then there is the risk of triggering irreversible climate tipping
> points. These are self-sustaining shifts in the climate system that lock
> in devastating changes after a certain level of warming has occurred,
> such as the collapse of ice sheets or the rapid die-back of the Amazon
> rainforest. Both changes could accelerate the rate at which Earth is
> heating by reflecting less sunlight to space or releasing more carbon to the atmosphere.
> But a scientist studying these possible tipping points explains that
> passing 1.5°C is not necessarily "game over" for the climate.
> "Most scientists don’t expect the world to reach a slew of climate
> tipping points if El Niño causes the world to cross 1.5°C briefly,"
> Stockholm University's David Armstrong McKay wrote in April.
> "Our estimates for climate tipping point thresholds are based on what
> would happen if global warming stayed at that level for many years. So a
> tipping threshold that is estimated to lie at 1.5°C won’t have been
> reached until global temperatures average 1.5°C for around a decade."
> If that sounds reassuring, McKay has a caveat:
> "Recent research I led judged that several of these climate tipping
> points become likely beyond 1.5°C and can’t be ruled out even at current
> warming of around 1.2°C."
> If dangerous shifts in Earth's climate are possible south of 1.5°C, why
> is so much hope and anxiety invested in it?
> "There’s nothing magic about this number," Gallant and Reid say. "Every
> increase worsens the impacts."
> '2°C is a death sentence'
> For much of the time countries have been debating Earth's rising
> temperature, 1.5°C was not the official goal at all.
> "Halting global heating at 2°C remained the horizon to which negotiators
> strived for nearly two decades," says Piers Forster, director of the
> Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds.
> "And yet, you’re more likely to hear about the rapidly approaching 1.5°C
> temperature limit nowadays."
> That world leaders eventually agreed to revise down the acceptable level
> of climate damage is testament to the campaigning of a formation of
> island nations known as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), Forster says.
> At Copenhagen's 2009 climate summit, the world still lacked a scientific
> assessment of what a "safe" limit to warming looked like. But research
> had started to paint a picture of an Earth 2°C warmer: widespread coral
> bleaching, receding coastlines and increasingly erratic weather. Worse,
> it seemed sea-level rise would proceed more rapidly and violently than in
> earlier predictions. At stake was the survival of some small islands.
> "Only stopping global temperature rise well below 1.5°C would head off
> this catastrophe, AOSIS argued," Forster says. "As Mia Mottley, prime
> minister of Barbados, would later put it: '2°C is a death sentence.'"
> "The idea that a 'safe' level of warming could be achieved was
> subjective: current levels were already unsafe for those on the sharpest
> end of climate change," Forster adds.
> The story of the 1.5°C limit highlights that the only acceptable level of
> warming is that which humanity collectively decides, Forster says. So can
> the Paris signatories still keep their promise? Maybe, say Gallant and Reid.
> "We would need extremely aggressive cuts to emissions to have a chance.
> Failing that, we will likely exceed the Paris target within the next decade or so."
> "The closer we stay to the line – even if we cross it – the better. And
> there’s now good evidence that even if we overshoot 1.5°C, we could still
> reverse it by ending emissions and soaking up excess greenhouse gas emissions.
> "It’s like turning around an enormous container ship – it takes time to
> overcome the inertia. But the sooner we turn around, the better."
> Correction: last week's newsletter on invasive species referred to
> "rivers choked with [Japanese] knotweed". This behaviour is more
> accurately ascribed to Himalayan balsam.
> - Jack Marley, Environment commissioning editor
>
>
> Was this email forwarded to you? Join the 20,000 people who get one email
> every week about the most important issue of our time. Subscribe to Imagine.

I’m very sorry to have to say this, but the above article is warmist
claptrap, merely perpetuating the sort of doom-laden speculation that in
previous decades gave us ‘Polar bears are dying out’ (they weren’t and they
haven’t) and, since it mentions the year, that ‘The Maldives will be under
water by 2015’ (which they weren’t and they aren’t).

On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 10:04:45 UTC, Spike wrote:

> I’m very sorry to have to say this, but the above article is warmist
> claptrap, merely perpetuating the sort of doom-laden speculation that in
> previous decades gave us ‘Polar bears are dying out’ (they weren’t and they
> haven’t) and, since it mentions the year, that ‘The Maldives will be under
> water by 2015’ (which they weren’t and they aren’t).
>
> There’s nothing scientific in any of it, it’s just propaganda for the
> faithful.
>
> --
> Spike

You are correct about it being unscientific and propaganda for the faithful, e.g., “… there’s now good evidence that even if we overshoot 1.5°C, we could still reverse it by ending emissions and soaking up excess greenhouse gas emissions. "It’s.lll like turning around an enormous container ship – it takes time to overcome the inertia. But the sooner we turn around, the better."

Ending emissions will not solve the problem and soaking up excess emissions is even more difficult. It’s not like turning an enormous container ship around. It is more like putting it in reverse - much more difficult..

We won’t know when we reach the tipping point, only when it is too late to stop it.

Alastair B. McDonald <abmcdonald33@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 10:04:45 UTC, Spike wrote:
>
>> I’m very sorry to have to say this, but the above article is warmist
>> claptrap, merely perpetuating the sort of doom-laden speculation that in
>> previous decades gave us ‘Polar bears are dying out’ (they weren’t and they
>> haven’t) and, since it mentions the year, that ‘The Maldives will be under
>> water by 2015’ (which they weren’t and they aren’t).
>>
>> There’s nothing scientific in any of it, it’s just propaganda for the
>> faithful.
>>
>> --
>> Spike
>
> You are correct about it being unscientific and propaganda for the
> faithful, e.g., “… there’s now good evidence that even if we overshoot
> 1.5°C, we could still reverse it by ending emissions and soaking up
> excess greenhouse gas emissions. "It’s.lll like turning around an
> enormous container ship – it takes time to overcome the inertia. But the
> sooner we turn around, the better."
>
> Ending emissions will not solve the problem and soaking up excess
> emissions is even more difficult. It’s not like turning an enormous
> container ship around. It is more like putting it in reverse - much more difficult.
>
> We won’t know when we reach the tipping point, only when it is too late to stop it.

But that presumes there is such a thing as a ‘tipping point’, and further
that CO2 is a driver.

Perhaps climate just changes, being a chaotic system, and what drives the
transition from glacial to interglacial periods is far more powerful than
the change of a few ppm of a trace gas.

--
Spike

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 9:44:10 AM UTC+1, Spike wrote:
> Alastair B. McDonald <abmcdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 10:04:45 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >
> >> I’m very sorry to have to say this, but the above article is warmist
> >> claptrap, merely perpetuating the sort of doom-laden speculation that in
> >> previous decades gave us ‘Polar bears are dying out’ (they weren’t and they
> >> haven’t) and, since it mentions the year, that ‘The Maldives will be under
> >> water by 2015’ (which they weren’t and they aren’t).
> >>
> >> There’s nothing scientific in any of it, it’s just propaganda for the
> >> faithful.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
> >
> > You are correct about it being unscientific and propaganda for the
> > faithful, e.g., “… there’s now good evidence that even if we overshoot
> > 1.5°C, we could still reverse it by ending emissions and soaking up
> > excess greenhouse gas emissions. "It’s.lll like turning around an
> > enormous container ship – it takes time to overcome the inertia.. But the
> > sooner we turn around, the better."
> >
> > Ending emissions will not solve the problem and soaking up excess
> > emissions is even more difficult. It’s not like turning an enormous
> > container ship around. It is more like putting it in reverse - much more difficult.
> >
> > We won’t know when we reach the tipping point, only when it is too late to stop it.
> But that presumes there is such a thing as a ‘tipping point’, and further
> that CO2 is a driver.
>
> Perhaps climate just changes, being a chaotic system, and what drives the
> transition from glacial to interglacial periods is far more powerful than
> the change of a few ppm of a trace gas.
>
> --
> Spike

But there's no 'perhaps' about you living in denier cloud cuckoo land. 😂😂😂😂😂

Paul from Llanmaes <pauljgarvey03@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 9:44:10 AM UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>> Alastair B. McDonald <abmcdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 10:04:45 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>>> I’m very sorry to have to say this, but the above article is warmist
>>>> claptrap, merely perpetuating the sort of doom-laden speculation that in
>>>> previous decades gave us ‘Polar bears are dying out’ (they weren’t and they
>>>> haven’t) and, since it mentions the year, that ‘The Maldives will be under
>>>> water by 2015’ (which they weren’t and they aren’t).
>>>>
>>>> There’s nothing scientific in any of it, it’s just propaganda for the
>>>> faithful.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Spike
>>>
>>> You are correct about it being unscientific and propaganda for the
>>> faithful, e.g., “… there’s now good evidence that even if we overshoot
>>> 1.5°C, we could still reverse it by ending emissions and soaking up
>>> excess greenhouse gas emissions. "It’s.lll like turning around an
>>> enormous container ship – it takes time to overcome the inertia. But the
>>> sooner we turn around, the better."
>>>
>>> Ending emissions will not solve the problem and soaking up excess
>>> emissions is even more difficult. It’s not like turning an enormous
>>> container ship around. It is more like putting it in reverse - much more difficult.
>>>
>>> We won’t know when we reach the tipping point, only when it is too late to stop it.
>> But that presumes there is such a thing as a ‘tipping point’, and further
>> that CO2 is a driver.
>>
>> Perhaps climate just changes, being a chaotic system, and what drives the
>> transition from glacial to interglacial periods is far more powerful than
>> the change of a few ppm of a trace gas.
>>
>> --
>> Spike
>
> But there's no 'perhaps' about you living in denier cloud cuckoo land. 😂😂😂😂😂

🎭👸

--
Spike