Reposted from theclimatebet.com 2018 year ends on a low note, temperature wise
The UAH global mean temperature anomaly data for December 2018 is out: the figure of 0.25°C.
The average for the year was 0.23°C, with a maximum anomaly of 0.32°C and a minimum of 0.15°C. None of those figure is much different from the 2007 Bet base year average of 0.16°C, and are all well within the base year range of -0.04°C to +0.43°C.
Interestingly, in the now 11 years since 2007, monthly global mean temperature anomalies have fallen outside the 2007 range on only 32 of the 132 months, with nearly half of those months (15) falling below the 2007 minimum.
The 2018 year was cooler than any of the previous three years, and cooler also than 2010. In other words, 2018 was cooler than 40% of the previous ten years.
So how do things stand with the extended “Bet” between the no-change model forecasts and the IPCC’s 3°C-per-century “dangerous” warming projection (standing in for Mr Gore’s “tipping point” warnings)?
After 11 years, the Bet’s summary measure—the cumulative absolute error of the warming projection relative to that of the no-change forecasts—is 1.211. In other words, the errors of the “dangerous” warming projection have been 21.1% larger then the errors of the forecasts from a simple model that assumes that we do not know enough about the causes of climate change to make predictions over policy-relevant horizons that are more accurate than an extrapolation of the previous year’s average into the distant future.
Note also that unbiased forecasts would be expected be warmer than the actual temperature as often as they were cooler. To date, the actual temperature has been equal to or warmer than the IPCC/Gore projection for only 18.2% of months. That figure compares with the 40.9% of months that the temperature anomaly has been less than or equal to no-change projection.
Businesses throughout the decades have been extracting, retracting, culling and well, simply using a method of exploiting the world’s natural resources for mass market production. Whilst so doing, they have taken a somewhat visually impaired ‘glance’ at what steps they might need to take in order to replenish what they have ‘uprooted’.
The Golden Rule is nothing new. “[W]hatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets[.]” So spoke Jesus of Nazareth (Mathew 7:12).
Similar philosophies can be found in many other reglions; Abrahamic faiths (Judasim, Islam and Christianity), in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and many other branches of God-fearing groups – it is just phrased/worded differently. Once you take the religious connotations out of the equation it is simple enough to understand, right? Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to yourself.
Now, you do not need a religious upbringing to learn this simple social contract. We learn it very early on in our lives as children.
Yet those same children who grew up, maybe went to university/college, graduated and became a board member or a C.E.O of a major company seem to have forgotten this moral principle. Corporations have known for a long time through scientific research, what the negative effects their businesses contribute to the environment (including human well-being).
The Golden Rule should not just apply in the human context. What would we be without the oxygen we need to survive? Of which, I might add, we are given a round the clock service by the world’s atmosphere and the bio-chemical interaction where oxygen is produced as a resulting effect, which then enable us to sustain life. Therefore the environment should rightly be placed as having equal status.
So it’s best to remember this: Mother Nature does not owe us anything but we are eternally in Her debt. Her equal we are not and shouldn’t consider ourselves Her superior. It is foolish to think that because the plants don’t fight back instantly when you take them out the ground that we are above nature.
Take. Appreciate. Replenish.