* How much warming is in the pipeline?, is equivalent to How much ‘unrealised’ warming is in the oceans?.

* As Barry has explained in elsewhere, as things stand we lack the necessary data on changes in ocean warming.

Surely therefore we lack the necessary data to comment on what if any warming exists in the pipeline?

This article WAS intended to illustrate the shortcuts and shortcomings in climate ‘science’ right? Well done.

Scientific evidence of catastrophic global weather events created by huge palls of smog is rapidly gaining credibility.

Instead of aerosols being considered helpful in reducing temperatures, they should be recognised as being extremely harmful, even more so than rising CO2 levels, and urgent steps should be taken to eliminate those with anthropogenic origins.

I am not completely convinced CO2 has anything to do with Global Warming. That notwithstanding, I am certain that reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is both a good idea and necessary, for a large number of obvious reasons.

The good news is that we can all make a difference. It goes way beyond buying a few (polluting) low energy light bulbs, and will have a real impact if even half of those concerned about Global Warming follow the proposals. The beauty is that even if only half do this, it makes no difference what the rest do! Renewable energy will become cheaper than fossil fuels with enough investment in the technology, and everyone will move over naturally!

Firstly, buy renewable energy.

As far as I am aware, you have the choice to buy renewable electricity in all developed countries. If you cannot now, you should campaign for that inalienable right immediately. Currently our own household buys 25% of our electricity as renewable, costing us about US$33 extra per year. 100% would cost US$183)*.

Some argue that if millions of householders (and industries, I would hope) buy renewable energy, there will not be enough. If you do not buy it, there will NEVER be enough. If you do, the money will be used to INVEST in infrastructure for future renewable energy, so making the expense just as effective.

Merely by choosing to buy this, you are immediately and directly investing in the renewable energy industry, and sending a powerful and undeniable message to those who matter, the people who actually generate electricity, not environmentalists or politicians who may have different agenda.

Secondly, stop investing in ‘Big Oil’ and ‘Big Coal’.

It comes as a shock to many ordinary citizens to be told that the huge greedy corporations actually make money for THEM, not for some faceless consortium. Sure, corporate flunkies may make millions of dollars, but WE, as investors, make billions, and even trillions. Their huge payouts and massive junkets are insignificant compared to the profits the companies make for their investors.

You may well think that you do not invest in these companies, but if you have a pension or investment fund, you almost certainly do. These funds will, quite obviously, be invested in the very companies that make the most profits and returns for their investors. All these corporations are doing is actually acting effectively YOUR instruction, ie to get the best possible return. If WE stop investing in them, they fail, and will be forced to change their practices to survive in a capitalist environment.

The answer is to choose ethical investments (there may be different names). Talk to your financial adviser and make the switch now. ONLY YOU control your investments. Make the choice and stop letting others do it for you.

The message is that YOU control the future of energy production with your wallets. The bad news is that it will cost, but nothing the environmentalists or governments will ever do about this issue will cost you less than this, and most of what they want to do will take control away from you and waste most of your expenditure in bureaucratic bungling and misguided foolishness, in my opinion. This simple two-step approach has all the potential to work and with no complex side effects that I can see immediately. It has a direct and immediate effect.

It is so rare that we are able to do something so straightforward in this complex world. If Global Warming concerns you, I urge you to put your money where your mouth is, and make an immediate difference TODAY, before the power is taken away from you.

* Based on a usage of 5,000 kWh of electricity.
Source: http://www.originenergy.com.au/1142/Green-energy-FAQs#extracost

http://www.carbonclimate.info/2009/03/individuals-can-prevent-global-warming.html

http://climatesci.org/2009/03/05/is-there-climate-heating-in-the-pipeline//

Sorry…

Whilst I know that it’s not as simple as correcting such graphs for known effects like ENSO, PDO, and other natural cycles to see what’s left, do such methods have a significant place or does it quickly get so complicated only a supercomputer running a GCM can keep track of them all? It seems like the former method is the mainstay of climate change skeptics (almost always with a single or very few, rather than all known) effects taken into consideration and usually with the intent of showing some expected change hasn’t taken place – ie to “prove” science has it wrong.

Also, what’s happened in the Arctic seems to indicate IPCC projections hve underestimated significant impacts. Can we expect to see better understanding and better predictions from looking at why? Any time soon?

But really, by the time we’ve crossed 750ppm, there’s no chance for our society, so the planet can have a carbon party after that and humanity won’t be around in a civilised form to give a rat’s. The 300-400ppm range is sufficient to trigger major adaptation challenges and costs, and the 450-650ppm range is enough to push us to or beyond the limits of adaptation.

Can you clarify whether the world is currently on track for over 1000 ppm atmospheric CO2-e based on business as usual? As you noted in a recent post, global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are increasing at over 3% a year at the moment (http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/26/ongoing-rise-in-global-carbon-emissions-and-the-lazy-audience/) which put us on track for a 150% increase in emissions between 2000 and 2050.

Looking at Table SPM-6 on page 20 of the IPCC Synthesis Report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf) an increase in emissions of 140% by 2050 (compared to year 2000 emissions) puts us on track for atmospheric GHGs and aerosols around 1130ppm and rises in mean temperatures of over 6 degrees Celsius.

Kind regards

Chris

What’s the go with the ‘trendline’ on that graph? It certainly isn’t a moving average. It looks to be a polynomial fit, and least a cubic and possibly a higher order. That’s not science, that’s dredging, in an attempt to give an unjustifiably large drop at the end of a graph that will continue to extend with time.

I think you’d find it one applied Tamino’s time series rigour to the data there would be a trend upward with only a bit of downward noise in the last year. Time series data should not be treated with high order polynomials to describe the ‘ends’ of the dataset.

If anyone should be sceptical it should be you, with respect to the distorted analyses you seem to rely upon.

He suggests that the lessons from the US financial crisis are that the pre-conditions for massive, rapid government action are:

1. Multi-hundred-billion-dollar-sized government action happens only when there is a very, very big crisis.
2. A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a crisis to be “very, very big” is that it must be labeled as such by very serious people who are perceived as essentially nonpartisan opinion leaders.
3. In addition, bad things must be happening to regular people right now.
4. The credible people must say that the government action is going to solve the problem.

He concludes that “450 is not politically possible today. Nor is 550. Nor is action sufficient to stave off 1000 ppm and 6°C warming.”

His point about the need for a crisis and bad things happening remind me of the Stockholm Network’s “Step Change” scenario for radical change in future climate policy driven by the occurrence of stochastic weather events such as major droughts. We’ve seen that sort of approach on water policy in Australia in the past decade.

Unfortunately, until we reach that crisis point, the Stockholm Network’s “Agree and Ignore” scenario seems much more likely: http://www.stockholm-network.org/Conferences-and-Programmes/Energy-and-Environment/carbonscenarios

Please show everyone here the working, with numbers, to substantiate your “800% increase in ACO2 and no net warming” claim.

Please.