Skip to content

BBC Worry That 1.5C Target Might Be Breached

July 9, 2020

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby/Robin Guenier


The World Meteorological Organisation says there’s a growing chance that global temperatures will break the 1.5C threshold over the next five years, compared to pre-industrial levels.

It says there’s a 20% possibility the critical mark will be broken in any one year before 2024.

But the assessment says there’s a 70% chance it will be broken in one or more months in those five years.

Scientists say that keeping below 1.5C will avoid the worst climate impacts.

The target was agreed by world leaders in the 2015 Paris climate accord accord.

They committed to pursue efforts to try to keep the world from warming by more than 1.5C this century.

This new assessment, carried out by the UK’s Met Office for the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), says there’s a growing chance that this level will be breached.

Researchers say that the Earth’s average annual temperature is already more than 1C higher than it was in the 1850s – and will probably stay around this level over the next five years.

The rest of the article is the usual load of drivel from Matt McGrath, including the absurd claim that there will be more storms over western Europe thanks to rising sea levels. What on earth do rising sea levels have to do with storms?

I still cannot understand the obsession with pre-industrial temperatures. For whatever reason the world has warmed up a bit since the Little Ice Age, and is a thoroughly better place to live as a result.

As McGrath notes, the world appears to be about a degree warmer than back then. So when they talk of 1.5C warming, they don’t mean from now, but from the 1850s:

Global time series

So they really mean half a degree of warming from current temperatures. Yet global temperatures can fluctuate by about half a degree anyway from year to year, and the El Nino year of 2016 was already pushing the 1.5C mark.

Why then should anybody be scared by the prospect of similar years in future?

Of course, the real reason for the 1.5C marker is that it sounds much scarier than 0.5C. Unfortunately for themselves, climate scientists, green activists and governments, having staked their reputations on the 1.5C mark, now find themselves in the position where it could come and go without anybody actually noticing. This would really undermine their apocalyptic threats.

This no doubt is one reason why Matt McGrath has included this chart. (It also plays a video on the BBC page. It ends with weatherman, Matt Taylor, telling us we must curb our emissions. I’m not quite sure when it became the job of a weatherman to tell the public how to live their lives!):


He no doubt hopes to scare people about increasing heatwaves, though I’m not sure why they would worry about 19 hot days in a decade?

But what about the figures? Do they reflect what has actually been happening?

A glimpse at the average maximum temperatures in summer suggests that summers are not getting hotter, as the BBC chart implies. Certainly not since 1976:

The BBC’s chart is actually pretty meaningless and misleading, as it is based on an everchanging mix of stations, many affected by UHI. As more and more sites get added to the Met Office monitoring network, the more likely it becomes that one station will record a 30C day.

And, of course, some parts of the country are naturally warmer than others, so you cannot compare a temperature at Heathrow with one in Sheffield. There is only one way to monitor trends, and that is to use a consistent database of daily temperatures. The only one we have, other than individual stations, is the Central England Temperature series.

When we analyse daily temperatures above 28C, we find:


Decades run from 1880 to 1889, etc. I have chosen  a 28C threshold, as CET tends to be a bit lower than the temperatures in the southeast, where most of the 30C days occur. But we can also do the same exercise with 30C days:


Neither chart shows any evidence that hot days are becoming more frequent, as the BBC purport to claim. Hot days in the most recent decade are less frequent than in the 1970s and 1990s. They are also not distinguishable from the 1940s.

It is worthwhile noting, however, that the BBC chart begins in the cold 1960s. It also, for no obvious reason, only considers June temperatures. Maybe a chart beginning in 1900, and using temperatures across the summer as a whole, might have yielded different conclusions!

  1. July 9, 2020 2:33 pm

    BBC worried about 19 hot days in a decade? Just move to Scotland.


  2. July 9, 2020 2:43 pm

    “Previous studies had put the short-term chances of going above 1.5C at 10% – that’s now doubled say the climate modellers, and it’s increasing with time.”
    Which means there is a greater than 80% chance that temperatures will remain as they are, as they have done now for several years.
    Stop wetting your nickers, BBC, with all this scaremongering.

    • Curious George permalink
      July 9, 2020 4:06 pm

      Are these the same models that run 6x too hot?

      • Gerry, England permalink
        July 10, 2020 3:24 pm

        Or are they the new CIMP6 which have been made to be even more scary and even less attached to reality.

  3. July 9, 2020 2:46 pm

    “I still cannot understand the obsession with pre-industrial temperatures.”

    It is odd isn’t it? Especially as 1850 isn’t preindustrial – only about a century out in fact. It’s worth noting that almost all the numerical “facts” in this article were inexistent only 20 years ago. The 1.5°C “critical mark;” the 1850 beginning of global temperature measurement; the 1°C rise already recorded in the 20th century (it used to be 0.5°C. If it keeps rising like that, the critical 1.5°C mark will be found to have already been breached when James Hansen was in short trousers;) the idea of a percentage chance that something difficult to measure will have a larger probability of happening one day in June in Bognor Regis because something else impossible to measure has happened on average all over the world…

    It’s all so weird. I’ve been reading a book of magic spells used in ancient Greece. Much more entertaining, and useful too.

  4. July 9, 2020 2:54 pm

    “I still cannot understand the obsession with pre-industrial temperatures. For whatever reason the world has warmed up a bit since the Little Ice Age, and is a thoroughly better place to live as a result”.

    If I am not mistaken the B(lm)BC have been running with this baseless conflation for a while now. They trot it out at every opportunity with the intention of getting the weak minded to think that temperatures started rising in the 1850s. Given that the BBC support historical revisionism is it any wonder that none of the arts graduates there actually know when “pre industrial ” was or that warming began 350 years ago?

    This is pure marxism….just keep repeating the lie and the useful idiots will believe it.

    • 01 Cat permalink
      July 9, 2020 6:44 pm

      Or, perhaps, the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation?!!!!

  5. Phillip Bratby permalink
    July 9, 2020 3:05 pm

    Of course that graph of global average temperature 1850 – 2018 is meaningless. Firstly the concept of a global average temperature is mathematical nonsense. Secondly, who was measuring temperatures across the globe 170 years ago? How many temperature measurements were made in Antarctica in 1850? Let alone in the over 70% of the globe that is oceans.

    The Met Office is totally unscientific and should be defunded. It is not fit for purpose (a bit like the Matt McGrath and the BBC).

    • July 9, 2020 3:11 pm

      Unfortunately Phillip it is just one of many UK institutions which have been infected with Left Wing ideologs as part of the Long March through the Institutions. The left when in office were very clever to politicize all of the non government institutions. For some reason the Conservatives either do not know this or do not care. From the National Trust Christian Aid through all the main charities….all the way through the Quangos there are socialist hierarchies. Boris needs to take this seriously and DRAIN THE SWAMP!

      • Phillip Bratby permalink
        July 9, 2020 4:32 pm

        I know. I have given up membership of organisations which have been infected.

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      July 9, 2020 10:01 pm

      Phillip Bratby:
      As per your question the number of temperature measurements in Antarctica in 1850 was zero.
      The HADCRUT data starts in 1855 and has only ONE record for the whole southern hemisphere (from a thermometer in what is now Indonesia). From 1858 it was joined with some others (probably Sydney & Melbourne).

  6. July 9, 2020 3:05 pm

    I still get pretty miffed that we are being told numbers which come from models as if they are statistically significant empirical data. THIS IS NOT EMPIRICAL DATA BBC! Also I get VERY miffed by the money swishing around and thrown at any two bit “research” with global warming or climate change in the title.
    It is wilfully disingenuous as well as scientifically bankrupt to make ANY claim about the current welcome warming without first understand exactly what caused the Minoan, The Roman and the Medieval warmings AND show that NONE of those processes are acting today. Only then can it be considered that the current warming is produced by another agency. This still does NOT prove that man is to blame, only that another agent other than those responsible for the three previous warmings is at work.
    The low standard of critical thinking and deliberately narrow scope of so much of the supposed research beggars belief. The climate fraud is the only area of “science” one where the claimed science starts from a conclusion.
    That alone should tell anyone with more than three active brain cells that we is being had!

  7. Harry Passfield permalink
    July 9, 2020 3:13 pm

    I’ve a question for McGrath: Who’s to say that, in actual fact, the climate in 1850 was colder than it should have been (being not long after the LIA, after all) and that the increase in T since has just been nature’s way of re-balancing? Which is to say, do you know what the ideal climate should be? (A rather naive question, I know, but one I have been asking on blogs for almost 15 years or more – and never getting an answer).

    • dennisambler permalink
      July 9, 2020 4:17 pm

      I exasperate my wife when I shout at the telly as a weather forecaster says the temperature is warmer, (or colder) than it should be. What should it be? Who knows? I also am amused when they tell us it will be “warm in the sunshine”.

    • Crowcatcher permalink
      July 9, 2020 4:59 pm

      If you look at the geological record for the last 500M years or so on average the climate was about 8 – 10 C warmer than the current average with no polar ice caps for between 85 to 90% of that period, so I think you can safely say that the “normal” state of the Earth’s climate is about 9C warmer than present.
      As far as I can ascertain there has never been a period in which the climate has “overheated” and been destructive to life – cold is the well proved killer!

    • CheshireRed permalink
      July 9, 2020 9:52 pm

      Exactly. There is NO ‘correct’ temperature. They know this full well.

  8. jack broughton permalink
    July 9, 2020 3:13 pm

    The “1.5 deg K crisis-value” is worth further examination: it seems to be purely a number plucked out of the air. Some weeks ago Chaamjamal showed how the “Fear-value” has reduced as the IPCC became more desperate to frighten the world. I don’t have the figures to hand, but I think that it fell from 4 deg K in 2000 to 1.5 deg K in 2019. Personally, I’d like to see the world warmer, and certainly do not want to return to the LIA!

  9. MrGrimNasty permalink
    July 9, 2020 3:18 pm

    As per my previous post:-

    It’s official the MO/WMO/BBC are in cahoots.

    30 years of non-summer warming according to WUWT.

    It’s difficult to know where to start, I could say a lot about UHI/hotsites, why they started in 1950, the number of thermometers/chances of catching a 30C day, the political arbitrary nature of +1.5C, decadal ‘batching’, how no one knows what the temperature of the globe was ‘pre-industrial’ (ocean temps. for a start) even if it is a valid concept………

    • Al Shelton permalink
      July 9, 2020 3:41 pm

      Morris Strong set up the WMO , I think.
      Thereby, insuring that the UN IPCC gets the properly tampered data

      • dennisambler permalink
        July 9, 2020 4:37 pm

        Strong set up UNEP. WMO was earlier than Strong, but he did co-opt it along the way, in particular to produce the IPCC in 1988, in conjunction with UNEP.

        “Controlling the Planet’s Climate” – J. 0. Fletcher (Rand corporation)

        From the book “Omega –Murder of the Eco-system and the Suicide of Man” , Paul K Anderson, 1971. (The language hasn’t changed).

        “In 1961, President John F. Kennedy, in a statement to the United Nations, proposed “further co-operative efforts between all nations in weather prediction and eventually in weather control.” In response, on 11 December 1961, the United Nations adopted Resolution 1721, which calls on all of its Member States to join in a co-operative world weather programme.”

      • Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
        July 10, 2020 4:03 am

        Maurice Frederick Strong, was a Canadian oil and mineral businessman and a diplomat who served as Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations.
        Not Morris.

  10. Broadlands permalink
    July 9, 2020 3:41 pm

    The updated chart shows the Met Office temperature history with respect to the 1961-1990 average in degrees C. Now at ~plus 0.8°C. What is that Met Office 30 year mean value to which we are supposed to add the latest anomaly? Not given?

    According to NASA/GISS they use 15°C, the 1950-1981 mean. Last year the NOAA global anomaly was plus 0.83°C above their 14.0°C 20th century mean…14.83°C That number is lower than the NASA 1950-1981 mean. Confused? Take your pick on a moving target.

  11. Geoff B permalink
    July 9, 2020 3:47 pm

    The data is being manipulated to show the result that the met office/bbc want. They are not really interpreting the data in a statistically valid way. There are many standard tests for significance. You have to make a Null Hypothesis and calculate the probability that the hypothesis is true/false. I am baffled how these meaningless statistics are allowed to be published by government scientific organisations just to justify their existence.
    Green loonie lefties at the top seems to be the best explanation.

  12. Crowcatcher permalink
    July 9, 2020 4:59 pm

    If you look at the geological record for the last 500M years or so on average the climate was about 8 – 10 C warmer than the current average with no polar ice caps for between 85 to 90% of that period, so I think you can safely say that the “normal” state of the Earth’s climate is about 9C warmer than present.
    As far as I can ascertain there has never been a period in which the climate has “overheated” and been destructive to life – cold is the well proved killer!

  13. Robin Guenier permalink
    July 9, 2020 5:05 pm

    Paul you say:

    Unfortunately for themselves, climate scientists, green activists and governments, having staked their reputations on the 1.5C mark, now find themselves in the position where it could come and go without anybody actually noticing. This would really undermine their apocalyptic threats.

    True. But don’t worry – a Reuters article about the WHO report deals with any possible misunderstanding:

    ‘That does not mean the world would be crossing the long-term warming threshold of 1.5C (2.7 Fahrenheit), which scientists have set as the ceiling for avoiding catastrophic climate change.’

    And that explains ‘the obsession with pre-industrial temperatures’. You see, scientists have set 1.5ºC ‘as the ceiling for avoiding catastrophic climate change’. And, shudder, we can’t have that happening quite yet.

  14. Broadlands permalink
    July 9, 2020 5:31 pm

    “Currently, the long-term trend has average global temperatures at about 1.2C above pre-industrial levels, said Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University.”

    The ‘pre-industrial’ level is 14.0°C. Thus 15.2°C is only 0.2°C above the 1950-1981 mean value that James Hansen told the Congress in 1988 was 15°C…59°F.

    “Dr. Hansen, who records temperatures from readings at monitoring stations around the world, had previously reported that four of the hottest years on record occurred in the 1980’s. Compared with a 30-year base period from 1950 to 1980, when the global temperature averaged 59 degrees Fahrenheit…” New York Times.

  15. Keith Gugan permalink
    July 9, 2020 5:58 pm

    It is about time these ‘researchers’ were named on each and every occasion they issue this rubbish. They should not feel that their opinions are entitled to protection by anonymity. This would enable us all to make judgments on the bases of their qualifications, experience, and reputations as responsible scientists deserving, or not, of the public ear. They have got away with this sort of stuff for far too long.

  16. Jackington permalink
    July 9, 2020 6:02 pm

    “Global temperatures will break the 1.5C threshold over the next five years” – cripes that means the world will end in 2025. Time to panic Captain Mainwaring. There is a big push going on by the alarmists; this mornings Today programme had Al Gore telling us this was the perfect time to save the planet (and make him a lot of money) Has nobody at the BBC seen Planet of the Humans?

  17. Thomas Carr permalink
    July 9, 2020 6:05 pm

    Perhaps we get ‘over-heated’ about the Met Office and the weather pronouncements from the BBC. Their words are now mainly ad hoc with phraseology like “spits and spots” and other infantilisms so is it worth getting concerned about forecasts as now presented?

    There is a plan for the Met Office to get an even more powerful computer so perhaps what we hear is used to justify the case and a further cost to taxpayers.

    More useful would be to keep an up-to-date list of the more insistent broadcast and newsprint jeremiah journalists and, by keeping them posted, ensure that they have the facts and are not lazily repeating what they are being sent by one lobbying group or another – – scientists included. Mind you, to be able to repeat the warnings of others means less time wasted producing your own copy.

    Anything to to confront the adherents to the School of Uncertainty with its mights, coulds, mays , a chance, a possibility, within at least x years etc.

    I’m afraid you have read this before but the BBC is less concerned with reporting the news than telling us what we can expect in the near future — a press release agency, in effect, for conference speech makers, event organisers, inquiry report publication and all things which MAY happen soon or even later that day.

  18. Gamecock permalink
    July 9, 2020 6:15 pm

    They use a decimal point to show they have a sense of humor.

    STOP PLAYING THEIR GAME with ‘anomaly’ charts.

    Post all charts in Kelvin temperatures. So instead of GMT being 278K, it will be 279.5K.

    I.e., trivial.

    • July 10, 2020 8:03 pm


      I never tire of posting this by Richard Lindzen, addressing”anomalies” (which they often falsely refer to as “temperatures”), and putting those “anomalies” in proper perspective.

  19. StephenP permalink
    July 9, 2020 6:49 pm

    Now the BBC is to make the over 75s pay the licence fee of £157.50, maybe us oldies can have some input to the content of programmes, which up to now have been pretty dismal, produced in a forlorn attempt to increase the proportion of younger viewers.

    As to the 1.5C increase in world temperatures, why do the forecasters frequently say at the end of a forecast that temperatures will be 2 or 3 degrees colder in the countryside. Something fishy there (UHI effect?), so if you want to avoid the temperature increase move out into the countryside.

  20. MrGrimNasty permalink
    July 9, 2020 7:21 pm

    More BBC, reinforcing the private car/air quality thing again.

    It looks superficially convincing, but then you start to see all the discrepancies, look at the geographical areas and conflicting evidence that they are not pointing at/comparing.

    Look at all the factors they don’t highlight – industry, farming, public transport, meteorological, imported pollution from the EU.

    Some of the ‘issues’ at first glance:-

    Why so focused on NO2, not other pollutants with somewhat inconvenient levels?

    Central London all but unchanged May/June 2020.

    SE England below London from Kent to the IOW is LESS ‘polluted’.

    Much of the sea around the UK shows slightly higher levels – natural emissions?

    The English Channel (shipping and/or EU air).

    The Ruhr (Europe) hotspot – actually worse in May 2020 than 2019.

    Marylebone/Cambridge graphs show no clear upwards trend during lessening lockdown.

    Most of the increase in the May/June 2020 maps is over farming land.

    Explained well in this. (paste/fix link to view)

    *** emissions_vfinal2.pdf***

    “signs that NO2 is beginning to creep slowly back…., ….still some way to go.”
    Yet private car use is only 10% down on normal, if that now.

    “NO2 is a byproduct from the burning of fuels such as petrol and diesel”
    But not the major sources? And private cars are only a subset of petrol/diesel use.

    They can’t explain the PM2.5 increase in places – yet are sure of reasons for less NO2?

    I don’t know why NO2 levels have dropped in cities from the 5 year mean, it would seem logical it is something that ‘shutdown’, but clearly private motor cars are not the main issue. Dr Pourshamsi is a little circumspect in places – the only redeeming point.

    There is a glaring clue that BBC reporters don’t have a clue.

    “NO2 is not the only air quality indicator. Ozone was seen to climb during lockdown – that’s because some [of] the chemistry that surpasses it is tied up with NO2 emissions.”

    Obviously if they understood (or bothered to research ‘the chemistry’) they would have correctly typed ‘suppresses’ instead, because ironically traffic emissions may suppress the dangerous!!! ground level ozone from natural sources – fear the trees! Who thought it, green cities with no cars will be deadly.

    This article is more balanced, but perhaps still a little presumptive.

  21. July 9, 2020 8:42 pm

    This is slightly o/t, but I have to tell someone. I have just completed the car tax on-line form for the next 12 month and I was presented with a message stating that “28000 – 36000 die every year as a result of air pollution.What you drive makes a difference.” There is a link below the text with the words; “make your next car electric.”
    No indication of where those deaths occur, what sort of pollution, etc,etc. What with the 3 outbreaks of a pandemic virus originating from Wuhan in the last 24 years, I’m bloomin’ seething!!
    …aaaaand calm.
    Thank you for listening.

    • Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
      July 10, 2020 4:12 am

      In the good old USA, many spend the summer grilling meat and veggies over charcoal. Some use gas grills. People die. So make your next meal raw. [Invoking Poe’s Law.]

  22. CheshireRed permalink
    July 9, 2020 9:51 pm

    The 1.5C figure has NO scientific justification whatsoever. It’s there just as ALL ‘threshold’ figures are in ‘climate science’ – to promote alarmist propaganda.

    It’s been chosen because it’s so close to the long-term mean that it’s entirely likely it’d be passed in a naturally-warming world, at which point they’ll howl and wail and demand more rules.

    They go back to the 1800’s to start from the lowest temperature they can get away with, which in turn allows them to extrapolate out to a higher ‘increased warming’ figure to amplify their rhetoric. What a bunch of w@nkers they are.

    • Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
      July 10, 2020 4:19 am

      A slow motion pseudo-crisis wasn’t getting the job done. No one was getting emotional about the year 2100.
      Pick a lower target and the crisis comes sooner and is more scary.
      We are all going to die by 2025 gets attention. Well it would if it were true.

    • Gamecock permalink
      July 15, 2020 7:23 pm

      CheshireRed, the 1.5C figure is also a fake precision fallacy.

      The decimal point is to show they have a sense of humor. It implies a precision that doesn’t exist.

  23. Messenger permalink
    July 10, 2020 12:00 pm

    Apologies: I posted this in the wrong place first time round.

    In my town we have been the recipients of the attempts to conflate Covid -19 and climate change I have recently been notified by a neighbour of proposed dramatic changes to the town centre ostensibly in response to Covid-19. They have not been put out for full public consultation and consist of immediate pedestrianisation, or one-way pavements, encouragements to cycle in town, street closures, extra traffic wardens ( as a friend suggests– probably with whips) to and some parking removal There are no sensible proposals for any alternative parking. The movement is being fostered by the money on offer to the local council from the single-issue unelected pressure group SUSTRANs who declare themselves as follows:

    “SUSTRANS Scotland successfully influences policy development to ensure that more people have the choice to walk, cycle or take public transport for more of their everyday journeys. We work closely with the Scottish Government, Local Authorities, government agencies and politicians in order to achieve this aim …………….In order to respond fully to the climate crisis, we need to reduce our…………….In order to respond fully to the climate crisis, we need to reduce dependency on cars altogether”.

    It is evident that these proposals have very little to with Covid-19 but are the result of the SUSTRANS group’s climate change and “sustainability” aims. During the epidemic travel by car has obviously been a much safer way of getting between two points. The recorded cases are now in decline here and in many other places. The whole local populace have not been asked for their opinion, why should we accept these decisions being imposed on us?

  24. July 10, 2020 7:42 pm

    Chile pours bottled water, for which someone paid money, over her head to keep cool…

    …when there’s free sea water right behind her.


    Who’s stupider, the child or the BBC?

    • July 11, 2020 12:24 am


      I thought it looked like a boy, but I also thought the caption read “herself.” I need new glasses, I guess.

      Still, is there any lie the BBC won’t tell, especially when it involves Israel?

      In contrast – I have a friend in Tucson, AZ, who has to endure the same or hotter every summer. Their current forecast is for a daytime high of 110 Deg F on Sunday. If I recall, last year it was over 115 on a number of occasions.

      NEWS FLASH – It gets hot in the summer, and sometimes we experience record or near record warmth. According to Wolfram Alpha, the high in Eilat, Israel was 120 Deg F back in 1965, and the current forecast for June 21, 2020 is for 105. Also, according to W.A., the temps in Eilat have been rising slowly for several decades, and are almost as warm as they were back in the 1950’s. Excuse me, BBC, if I don’t clutch my pearls and faint!

      • July 12, 2020 5:12 am

        Arizona update…

        My pen pal tells me that today it was 116F with a dust storm warning. I.e., typical Southern AZ summer.

  25. tom0mason permalink
    July 11, 2020 9:44 am

    No Matt McGrath globally averaged temperature is not a good proxy for ‘climate’ trends. You are wrong because real climate effects are NOT global they ONLY ever are local!

    And also Matt McGrath averaging a few (chaotic) climate factor does not tell you the trend of the climate, it just give you a worthless number. The climate is chaotic and unless you understand EVERY factor in the process you can not predict a trend.

    Matt McGrath what temperature should this planet be at? Please investigate some weather history. Discover what it was like during those periods when the temperature was at what you believe it should be. You will discover that it has never been perfect globally. Here’s something to help you

    P.S. Mr. McGrath I, like you, have easily survived temperature variations spanning many degrees almost daily. As Darwin pointed out a while ago people, animals, plants, fish, etc., have an innate drive to survive and so adapt to weather and climate variations.

  26. jelorenzo permalink
    July 11, 2020 10:07 pm


    There is much more meat to chew in Matt McGrath’s article and I think it is worth giving this information to your audience. He is actually referring to a new international science collaboration co-ordinated by the WMO and led by the UK’s Met Office. “For the first time, climate scientists have joined forces and resources to produce an annually-updated climate snapshot looking at the next five years.”

    They have created an interactive web page ( where one can see the results of each one of the models for variables such as temperature, precipitation, pressure. It is really appalling to realise how different the result are among the 10 different models, even at forecasting 1 year ahead. This again confirms that the models are not good for regional forecastings. The report ( left me speechless as I notice the fairly large indetermination of several natural oceanic indices, even upon hindcasting.

  27. July 12, 2020 3:36 pm

    OMG! The crisis has arrived. Let us pray for our dear little planet!

  28. jack broughton permalink
    July 12, 2020 10:02 pm

    Thanks, Chaamjamal, this link gives the trend in the “catastrophe limit”. IPCC reports gave the crisis value for temperature rise as 5 deg K in 2001, 4 deg K in 2007, 3 deg K in 2013. The 2 deg K value came in 2015 to be rapidly replaced with the 1.5 deg K value in 2018.
    Not one of these has any real science behind it but they are cited as though fundamental truths.

    Armageddon is getting closer by the year for the flat-earthers.

  29. jack broughton permalink
    July 16, 2020 11:47 am

    The Beeb are back on their recent “Siberian disaster” theme, news last night and web-page.
    They still post the line ” Why you can trust BBC News”. I guess that it shows a sense of humour by someone there: should read “Why you cannot trust BBC News” really

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: