« Please Lie To Me Plead Pathetic Scots | Main | Early Bath »

Runaway Global Warming

2012 expected to be ninth warmest year on record | Environment | guardian.co.uk

World Meteorological Organisation data shows average global temperature to date is 14.45C, higher than long-term average (1961 to 1990).

This year is likely to be the ninth warmest on record, with global temperatures in 2012 cooler than the average for the past decade owing to the effects of La Niña weather patterns early in the year.


Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the UK's Met Office, whose data contributed to the WHO estimate, said: "Although the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest on record, warming has not been as rapid since 2000 as over the longer period since the 1970s. This variability in global temperatures is not unusual, with several periods lasting a decade or more with little or no warming since the instrumental record began."

Although climate change sceptics may seize on the data, it does not change the long-term warming trend. Nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001, according to the Met Office.

, "warming has not been as rapid since 2000 as over the longer period since the 1970s" - I think we can call that an understatement.

The UN organisation’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said climate change was “taking place before our eyes” and would 
continue to do so as a result of rising greenhouse gas emissions, which have reached record 
levels this year. (The Scotsman)

It is not so much "before my eyes" but more "in my wallet" that I'm noticing it.


Well said. Considering that the Met Office is on record as saying that they only 'average' the HIGHEST temperatures and apparently ignore the LOWEST in their calculations I take leave to doubt their records. Especially as they "smooth," "correct" and "massage" the data before using it anyway and keep "adjusting" the older records downward to maintian their "upward" trends ... I'd suggest their data has been adjusted to the point of irrelevance.

As you say, this is about a political agenda to destroy western "capitalism" and redistribute 'wealth' and jobs from us to the new super powers in India, China and Brazil under the guise of 'fighting poverty.' They're getting really desperate now, because we've caught on, but the puppets in the mass media are still trying to peddle the "message."

My gas and leccy bill is loaded with a 10% Green surcharge which the government allegedly forces/allows/orders the suppliers to add prior to charging vat on the whole bill to pay for turbines and such.
Well the next bill will be paid net of the 10% surcharge and with the corresponding lower amount of VAT.
Until we start rapping the knuckles of those who think they have divine right to steal money we earn they will go on an on grabbing more.

It's the only way short of outright revolution to rid ourselves of these parasites.

A "back-of-the-envelope" calculation* of the effect of CO2 on temperature:

In the last 100 years, the temperature has gone up by 1 deg. C
In the last 100 years, the CO2 has doubled (from 200-400 ppm)

Doubling CO2 again (from 400-800 ppm) will produce another 1 deg. C rise in temperature.
Assume the rise in CO2 continues at the current rate i.e. 3 ppm pa (a high estimate - remember "Peak Oil"!).
The doubling of CO2 will take 400/3 years or 130 years.
Hence, we will have a temperature rise of 1 deg C around 2140 AD.

Taking 30 years per generation, I don't feel a strong concern for my children, my children's children, my children's children's children ...

* All ball park figures but close enough to make the point.

"warming has not been as rapid since 2000 as over the longer period since the 1970s"

Nearest thing to an honest statement that I have ever seen from a warmist.

Translation: there was a bit of warming between 1970 and 2000 but then it stopped.

So, we should panic? Bankrupt ourselves? Put the eco-fascists in charge of everything?


Oh, and btw, can we please compare what has actually happened since 1998 (in case you forgot - NO WARMING AT ALL) with what they said would happen?

And we're supposed to believe them now? Why, exactly?

@Bill: it's not a linear relationship.

There's only so much radiation that CO2 can absorb, and the more you add the less difference each fraction makes, if you understand my simplification here.

So if the last doubling caused a 1C rise (which is itself an assumption that may or may not be supported by the facts), then the next doubling will cause less of an increase, unless some positive feedback is at work. And so it goes on, asymptotically approaching the theoretical limit.

All the alarmist models depend on a positive feedback for their predictions, but guess what, so far none has been observed in practice.

The "long-term record" started in 1961? Amazing.

And the highest temperature is for the last decade? Gosh. Of course, any given decade since about 1855 hsa been warmer than andy given decade 1600-1840 - but none as warm as the MWP. Which only occured in the Northern Hemisphere, "insufficiemt records" exist for the Southern hemisphere so "climate scientists" such as Prof. Phil Jones feel quite free to assume it was as much colder as the Northern was warmer for a net of zero...

If I set my oven at 200F, the temp will increase until that is reached: for several minutes, it will be warmer than any few-minute period since having at room temperature...


To Andrew Duffin, November 29, 2012 4:05 PM

Don't blame Bill, it was I wot wrote it. The author's name comes after the contribution.
Your point is valid but so too is my back of envelope maths!
I think you'll find that I used doubling both times which takes the "law of diminishing returns" into account.
The effect on temperature is linear if you take the log of the CO2 concentration.

Mr Duffin
WTF are you on about?
Oh just read the reply from Mr Bates...

Not to Mr Duffin and myself PAY ATTENTION!

Post a comment