PowerSwitch

Levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... NETTXT9038

Looks like a complete collapse of the global economy is the only hope for our grandchildren

biffvernon wrote:

Levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... NETTXT9038

Looks like a complete collapse of the global economy is the only hope for our grandchildren

Cheery.

Save lives: don't have children.

A lot of media are reprinting the press release. They are all hopeless. We shouldn't talk about the 2010 jump over 2009 without also considering the longer timeseries. What happened in 2009 and 2008?

This page unpicks the US data:
http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

Strange then that global temperature hasn't risen over the last 10 years.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/10/best- ... -flat.html

An Inspector Calls wrote:Strange then that global temperature hasn't risen over the last 10 years.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/10/best- ... -flat.html

Strange then that it has:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... n-1998.htm

Or then again, perhaps not:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 92,00.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... l-warming/

http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4230 ... still.html

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/short ... eld-s.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/200 ... emperature

Ok, some people, maybe a few people, believe that there are doubts about GW/CC. This video puts asks the question "What should we do if we have doubts about GW/CC?"

We are in a period of low solar output which could have affected world temperatures but we don't know to what degree or by what mechanism this happens. The difference in solar output is very small and seemingly can't change temperature ranges by a significant degree but there have been significant drops in temperatures in the past - The Maunder Minimum. So there are doubts on both sides.

Surely the best thing to do is to conduct a risk analysis as suggested in the video and work from there.

An Inspector Calls wrote:Or then again, perhaps not:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 92,00.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... l-warming/

http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4230 ... still.html

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/short ... eld-s.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/200 ... emperature

Have you actually read those reports? All but two you quote are popular media, not science sites. The two science ones you quote both say that CO2 has risen and that there are reasons why warming has been masked. Still doesn't alter the fact that the hottest years on record have been since 1998.

Well, equally, the only reference you gave me was a popular media site and thus non scientific! At least I've managed two science sites.

And whatever the reasons, and whatever the absolute temperature level, the fact we have rising CO2 levels and no apparent temperature change is somewhat remarkable? Just maybe, given the prehistoric record of CO2 levels lagging temperature rise, CO2 is rising as a response to recent warming. You might disagree, but that explanation has the Occam charm that it requires the least construction of new theories.

lagger
The video has been around a while - not that that changes what it says.

I agree about the potential of a risk analysis. This one is rather simplistic (and wrong: the consequences of no action/CAGW real are not necessarily catastrophic; many commentators have pointed this out).

horapollo123, welcome back. Please don't feed the trolls, especially paid ones. Although even this post will - he's one of those tiresome obsessives who simply must have the last word, as evidenced by the many hijacked threads which finish with his smug, untruthful inanities - just watch.

OK AIC, from a peer-reviewed science paper:


"There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward. While 1998 was the world’s warmest year in the surface-based instrumental record up to that point in time, 2005 was equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998. A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño’s warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious.

"Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the “noise” of those year-to- year fluctuations. Hence, the fact that 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, is nowhere near enough data to clearly establish a cooling trend.

'Global warming stopped in 1998. Global temperatures have remained static since then, in spite of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Global temperatures have cooled since 1998. Because 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, a global cooling trend has established itself.'

"All these statements, and variations on them, have been confidently asserted in the international and Australian media in the past year or so, but the data do not support them."

Source: http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting ... ooling.pdf

You also didn't answer (as is the way of internet forums) my point that the two actual science sites you linked to both say that there are factors that mask warming (i.e. aerosols from China, yadda yadda), which isn't quite the same thing as your assertion that there is no warming trend.

OK horapollo123

I didn't note your two points about the sites I linked saying that the warming may have been masked, so that's why I didn't take up that point. I was actually taken back by your blazen counter that I'd only referenced two science sites (I'm not sure why you might dismiss Judith Curry so casually) when you hadn't originally even quoted one!

I'm aware of those views about masked warming, especially those on aerosols. However, it also must be said that this is piling conjecture and modelling upon conjecture and modelling. There is already the counter argument that the aerosol plumes have a very short life and are quite small in area so cannot explain the warming 'supression' that has occurred given the IPCC's predictions of climate sensitivity to CO2.

Your lengthy quote dodges the issue raised that the last ten, possibly eleven years, may well be the warmest for a long time, but they are not warming. They have shown very slight cooling. And that's damned odd given the large rise in CO2, and runs counter to the predictions from the IPCC.

The next ten tears will say a lot.

As you wish, AIC.

I've removed a few posts to keep this thread on track.

As Horapollo says, if you take out the exceptional 1998 temperature there is still a warming trend.

This is despite a possible reduction in the sun's output. There was mention on BBC2 this evening of current ongoing research at Reading University into a measured lessening of UV output from the sun during periods of low sunspot activity such as we have at present. This is thought to cause a reduction in the heating of the stratosphere which is then communicated to the lower atmosphere by mechanisms not yet understood. This reduction in sun spots is a cyclic thing so will only last a comparatively short time, although that could be thirty years according to other research.

As the inspector and I have said, we will have to wait and see. But on a precautionary basis it would be wise to take action now against renewed warming as we come out of the cold cycle. As we are facing a future energy shortage and the possibility of very cold weather for the foreseeable future it would be wise to insulate our buildings to a very high standard. This would mean that as we come into a warming climate many buildings would not need a heating system and would also be kept cool by their insulation. The cooling would be helped by the incorporation or retention of thermal mass in buildings so that we can make use of night time cooling to keep buildings comfortable during warmer days than we experience at present.