2011 Global Temperatures

[tacoman25]

Of course, a lot of things other than just warm anomalies have been directly and indirectly attributed or blamed on AGW.

[dabize]

Of course, a lot of things other than just warm anomalies have been directly and indirectly attributed or blamed on AGW.

Not sure if I understand your point.......

[Sunny and Warm]

It seems to me that the key variable overlooked or distorted by (by honest or otherwise skeptics of AGW, respectively) is the fairly steadily increasing geographical extent of warm anomalies over the past 30 years relative to the previous 30. Even though this analysis necessarily limits the time considered to the modern era (of the Keeling curve, global satellite data, etc), it seems to me that this approach describes how local temp anomalies (i.e. "weather") can be linked to (and should be considered in the context of) clear and serious changes in climate driven by non-contestable changes in global CO2 levels.

The problem with your supposition is that satellite data (which I personally believe in since it is less able to be manipulated) only goes back 32 years. The longer datasets go back further, but are fraught with human abuse, whether it be by:

1. placement of equipment

2. heat island effect

3. Direct manipulation by humans (GISS)

4. Intentional deception by humans (Hansen) making the past cooler and the present warmer by adding modifications to the raw data.

The most important meteo reason for what you are seeing is the decadel cycles that the Earth goes through every 30 years or so. The Pacific PDO was in a warm phase from the late 70's to about 2007. It is now in a cooler phase as it was from the 40's to the 70's. It just so happens that the last 30 years of good data were in a warm phase. When we get to satellite datasets being 60 years long and more, then I'd feel more comfortable in raising alarms. Not til then though, and my feeling is that this end up being much ado about nothing.

[Sunny and Warm]

Agreed that while the warming/CO2 correlation is not an established causal relationship, the established nature of CO2-induced heat trapping makes it hard to believe that such widespread heating does not have a causal element from CO2. Not sure how you could formally show causality without a "control" planet to play with, anyhow.

I guess CO2 is the trout in the (ever warming) global milk.......to butcher the classic metaphor for extremely strong circumstantial evidence.

This kind of presentation makes it really hard for a skeptic to hide in in the underbrush of UHI and local variation.

That should apply especially to scientifically trained (read pro met) skeptics, of which there are surprisingly many.

The appalling willingness of American culture to root against scientists and science is another matter.....

your bias is showing through loud and clear. If you wish to have a decent conversation here, please tone the rhetoric down. You asked in your original post for commentary, and now in your second post use the "skeptic" tool as if you have a monopoly on right and wrong.

[dabize]

your bias is showing through loud and clear. If you wish to have a decent conversation here, please tone the rhetoric down. You asked in your original post for commentary, and now in your second post use the "skeptic" tool as if you have a monopoly on right and wrong.

Never mind. I know which way is up....I'm a scientist.

My bias is in favor of stuff which is absolutely nailed down....like Arrhenius ' demonstration of the physical properties of CO2.

I question plausible assumptions more than most do in my field (Alzheimer's research), but I don't go around disputing

things like the existence of S ands P orbitals, using bad faith arguments to advance my view by sowing confusion.

I respect the process.

You don't.

Your posts are not those of an honest skeptic.

You are (apparently) politically motivated, or if not that, firmly committed to your position

by something other than logical sequence, and I won't waste my time trying to reach you.

I don't expect you to see me as anything but an enemy.

There are plenty of others worth conversing with, though.

In my field, I've seen plenty of people be honestly wrong by assuming the crowd was right.

But I don't see many of you.

Thankfully.

[WeatherRusty]

The problem with your supposition is that satellite data (which I personally believe in since it is less able to be manipulated) only goes back 32 years. The longer datasets go back further, but are fraught with human abuse, whether it be by:

1. placement of equipment

2. heat island effect

3. Direct manipulation by humans (GISS)

4. Intentional deception by humans (Hansen) making the past cooler and the present warmer by adding modifications to the raw data.

The most important meteo reason for what you are seeing is the decadel cycles that the Earth goes through every 30 years or so. The Pacific PDO was in a warm phase from the late 70's to about 2007. It is now in a cooler phase as it was from the 40's to the 70's. It just so happens that the last 30 years of good data were in a warm phase. When we get to satellite datasets being 60 years long and more, then I'd feel more comfortable in raising alarms. Not til then though, and my feeling is that this end up being much ado about nothing.

Why is the Earth more than 0.4C warmer than the first half of the 20th century if the warming has been due to a positive PDO? As a form of internal climate variability, the PDO redistributes available thermal energy around the system of ocean and atmosphere. It does not add any heat to the system. Attributing long term warming to PDO makes no thermodynamic sense,.

[Sunny and Warm]

Never mind. I know which way is up....I'm a scientist.

My bias is in favor of stuff which is absolutely nailed down....like Arrhenius ' demonstration of the physical properties of CO2.

I question plausible assumptions more than most do in my field (Alzheimer's research), but I don't go around disputing

things like the existence of S ands P orbitals, using bad faith arguments to advance my view by sowing confusion.

I respect the process.

You don't.

Your posts are not those of an honest skeptic.

You are (apparently) politically motivated, or if not that, firmly committed to your position

by something other than logical sequence, and I won't waste my time trying to reach you.

I don't expect you to see me as anything but an enemy.

There are plenty of others worth conversing with, though.

In my field, I've seen plenty of people be honestly wrong by assuming the crowd was right.

But I don't see many of you.

Thankfully.

Oh look, another ad hominem attack. I never saw that one coming from a RC supporter. I'll leave you alone now that I know you are a "scientist". Wouldn't want to shake your house of cards too hard. Beware believing in your opinions too much when the underlying science isn't "settled".

Edit: You'll love Skierinvermont and Frivolousz21. They think just like you and I'm sure they'll be eating out of your hand in no time. They revere scientists and never question orthodoxy.

[Sunny and Warm]

Why is the Earth more than 0.4C warmer than the first half of the 20th century if the warming has been due to a positive PDO? As a form of internal climate variability, the PDO redistributes available thermal energy around the system of ocean and atmosphere. It does not add any heat to the system. Attributing long term warming to PDO makes no thermodynamic sense,.

Rusty,

I believe I answered your question in my post that you reference.

[WeatherRusty]

The problem with your supposition is that satellite data (which I personally believe in since it is less able to be manipulated) only goes back 32 years. The longer datasets go back further, but are fraught with human abuse, whether it be by:

1. placement of equipment

2. heat island effect

3. Direct manipulation by humans (GISS)

4. Intentional deception by humans (Hansen) making the past cooler and the present warmer by adding modifications to the raw data.

The most important meteo reason for what you are seeing is the decadel cycles that the Earth goes through every 30 years or so. The Pacific PDO was in a warm phase from the late 70's to about 2007. It is now in a cooler phase as it was from the 40's to the 70's. It just so happens that the last 30 years of good data were in a warm phase. When we get to satellite datasets being 60 years long and more, then I'd feel more comfortable in raising alarms. Not til then though, and my feeling is that this end up being much ado about nothing.

In the first half of this post you are essentially strongly questioning the existence of the warming trend. You must not understand that the Earth has warmed by some 0.8C since the mid 19th century regardless of cause. ( I cautiously refrain from using the term denier )

[Sunny and Warm]

In the first half of this post you are essentially strongly questioning the extent of the warming trend.

Rusty,

Changed your quote to reflect my beliefs. This now correctly expresses by opinion.

[WeatherRusty]

Rusty,

Changed your quote to reflect my beliefs. This now correctly expresses by opinion.

Change acknowledged and accepted.

So are you then saying there is negligible warming to account for between +PDO phases?

[skierinvermont]

The problem with your supposition is that satellite data (which I personally believe in since it is less able to be manipulated) only goes back 32 years. The longer datasets go back further, but are fraught with human abuse, whether it be by:

1. placement of equipment

2. heat island effect

3. Direct manipulation by humans (GISS)

4. Intentional deception by humans (Hansen) making the past cooler and the present warmer by adding modifications to the raw data.

The most important meteo reason for what you are seeing is the decadel cycles that the Earth goes through every 30 years or so. The Pacific PDO was in a warm phase from the late 70's to about 2007. It is now in a cooler phase as it was from the 40's to the 70's. It just so happens that the last 30 years of good data were in a warm phase. When we get to satellite datasets being 60 years long and more, then I'd feel more comfortable in raising alarms. Not til then though, and my feeling is that this end up being much ado about nothing.

The usual disproved lies about GISS..

It's funny that you revere the satellite sources as 'less able to be manipulated' when in fact it's quite the opposite. The satellite data requires multiple large calibration adjustments in order to make it at all useful and these adjustments introduce large uncertainty into the data (relative to the surface sources like GISS which requires smaller adjustments).

UAH has been revised multiple times to show much more warming. It used to show zero warming, now it shows .15C/decade. But you have no problem with that, only a problem with GISS making small adjustments to account for time of observation bias and the like.

[tacoman25]

Not sure if I understand your point.......

The paper you reference deals with warm anomalies and their relationship to AGW. But AGW is also blamed for many other events that occur, not just heatwaves or record warm months. So the paper doesn't really address the complete issue of attribution, and when is it correctly applied in relation to AGW.

[TerryM]

Diabiz

Hansen and friends & BEST seem to have removed any possibility of reasoned, reasonable debate from the issue. Do you see any possibility of meaningful mitigation under our present political / corporate structures? Hansen alerted the powers that be thirty years ago, and the only response has been the launching of an incredibly sucessful disinformation campaign. I fear that the well has been poisoned, and that as governors launch prayer campaigns to stop the disasters we will all happily approach the boiling point in our amphibian soup.

BTW Planet 3.0 might be interested in your post.

Terry

[Hambone]

When I, and let me make it perfectly clear that I too am a scientist.... (albeit political scientist and amateur meterologist) see a chart like this I think "recurring natural cycle...looks like we're due for and heading towards towards a glacial period".

Why are we so sure man is causing this this time around, when he clearly didn't cause it previously?

[Sunny and Warm]

Diabiz

Hansen and friends & BEST seem to have removed any possibility of reasoned, reasonable debate from the issue. Do you see any possibility of meaningful mitigation under our present political / corporate structures? Hansen alerted the powers that be thirty years ago, and the only response has been the launching of an incredibly sucessful disinformation campaign. I fear that the well has been poisoned, and that as governors launch prayer campaigns to stop the disasters we will all happily approach the boiling point in our amphibian soup.

BTW Planet 3.0 might be interested in your post.

Terry

WOW. I hope when I get to the grocery store later that they'll be some tin foil left for me to buy. This is the sort of over-the-top-by-a-bunch post that seems to pervade the alarmist side. Sheesh.

[The_Global_Warmer]

GISS really is a laughable dataset at this point.

How is GISS a laughable dataset at this point, please present your evidence?

[WeatherRusty]

WOW. I hope when I get to the grocery store later that they'll be some tin foil left for me to buy. This is the sort of over-the-top-by-a-bunch post that seems to pervade the alarmist side. Sheesh.

He says that because prayer represents the extent to which our governances have figuratively and literally responded to this point. It is not over the top to recognize what a disruptive influence 2C or more of global warming will bring to a temperature/moisture dependent biosphere.

[WeatherRusty]

When I, and let me make it perfectly clear that I too am a scientist.... (albeit political scientist and amateur meterologist) see a chart like this I think "recurring natural cycle...looks like we're due for and heading towards towards a glacial period".

Why are we so sure man is causing this this time around,

when he clearly didn't cause it previously?

We currently persist near the peak of the temps represented on that chart. Driving temp up by several more degrees will clearly be unprecedented over the period covered by the chart and well beyond. Also, we can explain the variation evident on the time scale covered by the chart as due to externally forced changes in solar radiation reaching Earth's surface caused by well understood changes in orbital parameters and axial tilt plus positive feedback by the climate system. These externally forced factors are not relevant on the scale of mere centuries.

[Sunny and Warm]

He says that because prayer represents the extent to which our governances have figuativly and literally responded to this point. It not over the top to recognize what a disruptive influence 2C or more of global warming will bring.

A drop of 5C would bring a disruptive influence as well. A 20 year drought out west would be disruptive, as would be a V7 volcano. I personally have not seen any reputable evidence that any of those four are more likely than another. Heck, I'm still waiting for the big warmup promised for this century. We're 11% into the century, and the anomaly is miniscule.

[WeatherRusty]

A drop of 5C would bring a disruptive influence as well. A 20 year drought out west would be disruptive, as would be a V7 volcano. I personally have not seen any reputable evidence that any of those four are more likely than another. Heck, I'm still waiting for the big warmup promised for this century. We're 11% into the century, and the anomaly is miniscule.

You have been shown that a doubling of CO2 will cause a 3.7W/m^2 imbalance to Earth's energy budget and that this forcing will produce a black body temperature response of just less than 1.2C at the surface at equilibrium. No honest scientist doubts this conclusion. It is a consequence of basic physics. You have also been shown that the climate system will respond to this perturbation by enhancing that warming to somewhere between 2C and 4.5C again at equilibrium. This estimate results from studies of past climate response, volcanic eruptions and computer modeling.

There is no evidence that we should expect anywhere near 5C of cooling for many thousands of years into the future.

[skierinvermont]

When I, and let me make it perfectly clear that I too am a scientist.... (albeit political scientist and amateur meterologist) see a chart like this I think "recurring natural cycle...looks like we're due for and heading towards towards a glacial period".

Why are we so sure man is causing this this time around, when he clearly didn't cause it previously?

What Rusty said. These climate changes depicted took many hundreds/thousands of years to occur and were caused by fairly well understood mechanisms, namely changes in orbital parameters and axial tilt + net positive internal feedbacks (CO2 and H2O).

Changes in orbital parameters are not relevant to our current situation and do not operate on the same timescale as our present warming situation.

And above all else, even if we knew nothing else, the physics of CO2 still dictates warming.

[Sunny and Warm]

You have been shown that a doubling of CO2 will cause a 3.7W/m^2 imbalance to Earth's energy budget and that this forcing will produce a black body temperature response of just less than 1.2C at the surface at equilibrium. No honest scientist doubts this conclusion. It is a consequence of basic physics. You have also been shown that the climate system will respond to this perturbation by enhancing that warming to somewhere between 2C and 4.5C again at equilibrium. This estimate results from studies of past climate response, volcanic eruptions and computer modeling.

There is no evidence that we should expect anywhere near 5C of cooling for many thousands of years into the future.

... and after that wonderful post Rusty, I still must ask where is the warming?? I see the latest IPCC report will discuss natural variability taking over for 30 years or so. When did that epiphany occur Rusty? I thought CO2 warming was monolithic and would crush all other forcings like a Terminator. Every time I read a report nowadays, I keep getting the sense that people are backing away from the incessant warming mantra. I just hope I'm not caught being too warm at some point and be accused of alarmism.

[dabize]

Diabiz

Hansen and friends & BEST seem to have removed any possibility of reasoned, reasonable debate from the issue. Do you see any possibility of meaningful mitigation under our present political / corporate structures? Hansen alerted the powers that be thirty years ago, and the only response has been the launching of an incredibly sucessful disinformation campaign. I fear that the well has been poisoned, and that as governors launch prayer campaigns to stop the disasters we will all happily approach the boiling point in our amphibian soup.

BTW Planet 3.0 might be interested in your post.

Terry

Check.

Poisoned well indeed.

This frog would like to leave the pot, not wanting to be raptured and/or parboiled in such company.

If the arena is political, the rhetorical weapon should be chosen to match (in this case, ridicule), and no cloak of scientific respectability should be offered - even tacitly.

Reading this thread feels really ironic to me - I just got back from a meeting where stuff I have been saying (and publishing papers on) for 10 years is now being accepted as a big breakthrough. I've been treated as a crank by many for all this time and am still getting the sneer from the "big" people who I have shown to have missed this (fortunately, not all of them). It felt like I was playing a role in a soap opera or a Dick Francis novel.

So yes, I am familiar with how scientists can be perversely wrong about big things and how that their discomfiture in being wrong can be reflected in the mistreatment of "skeptics".

But the real difference here is that my dispute with many in my field has been about truly controversial/non-established assumptions, whereas AGW is firmly based on stuff that is way too basic for honest doubt.

I doubted a common ASSUMPTION made by almost all the "big" people in my field - this assumption had not a shred of direct evidence to support it - it was merely highly plausible (I used to hold it myself). All I did was point out that there was another possibility which DID have a bit of evidence to support it.....and presented it with that evidence. I may still be wrong in my interpretation of this issue (i.e. the genesis of CSF tau in AD); a lot more work is needed. But in my field, something still seems to beat nothing, as it should, especially when the displaced assumption was starting to show its epicycles. I am a relative outsider, and am not often cited by the well funded CW types, but my work has now been accepted (and co-opted, but that is the way of the world). Also, while I have routinely bitched and whined about the unreasonable refusal of people in my own field to give me a fair hearing, I have always (well almost always) respected their competence as scientists.

The climate change thing is very different. AGW skeptics are doubting basic tenets of chemistry and physics that have been repeatedly tested and are now embedded in the structure of a common view of physical chemistry. Furthermore, they are obfuscating to advance their views, not providing credible alternatives that can be tested. The disrespectful tone in my post was due to the fact that this is not a respectable, constructive scientific activity - it is politically motivated trolling. AGW skeptics mostly stink of petro-politics.....their activities most resemble the behavior of tobacco companies.

I posted here on this because I am disturbed by the respect/tolerance accorded to the "skeptical" POV by many Met-tagged people here.

While I am clearly not competent to critique their judgement re meteorology, I feel I am on this - the level of concern one should have about AGW does not depend upon the ability to read a tephigram, but on the ability to see the contextual forest, something I have done successfully elsewhere.

I hope that the type of argument made in that recent Hansen paper might persuade them that AGW is in fact sufficiently alarming to justify abandoning the "wait and see" attitude.

[LakeEffectKing]

... and after that wonderful post Rusty, I still must ask where is the warming?? I see the latest IPCC report will discuss natural variability taking over for 30 years or so. When did that epiphany occur Rusty? I thought CO2 warming was monolithic and would crush all other forcings like a Terminator. Every time I read a report nowadays, I keep getting the sense that people are backing away from the incessant warming mantra. I just hope I'm not caught being too warm at some point and be accused of alarmism.

The draft that was released, will ultimately be modified. A lot of the "extreme" prognosticators will have to reassemble, if indeed the IPCC holds with it's draft form. And I really doubt that any admission of being overzealous with predictions is forthcoming anytime soon....More likely a slow retreat from the absurd forecasts that were made re: global temps, sea-level, OHC, etc. And the waffling that the self-proclaimed experts have done

on how much the sun in it's totality (ie Rusty...more than just the TSI) affects the climate system is telling....some say "very little" while others use it as some speculation for the reason we've flattened out.

But ultimately there will be no choice if temperatures hold fairly flat for the next 20-30 years (which would be 40 in total) and/or other predicted consequences attributable to AGW indirectly fail.....the believers will be culled to a decreasing minority, until those that are left just fade away. Meanwhile, many skeptics have positioned themselves in the middle (by way of strictly adhering to the Sci. method) by stating "we need more evidence"....which if it cools or warms would be a push. The outright deniers would win, whether by luck, or by "believing" in other hypotheses which turn out to approximate the system better than the AGW hypothesis.

[Sunny and Warm]

The draft that was released, will ultimately be modified. A lot of the "extreme" prognosticators will have to reassemble, if indeed the IPCC holds with it's draft form. And I really doubt that any admission of being overzealous with predictions is forthcoming anytime soon....More likely a slow retreat from the absurd forecasts that were made re: global temps, sea-level, OHC, etc. And the waffling that the self-proclaimed experts have done

on how much the sun in it's totality (ie Rusty...more than just the TSI) affects the climate system is telling....some say "very little" while others use it as some speculation for the reason we've flattened out.

But ultimately there will be no choice if temperatures hold fairly flat for the next 20-30 years (which would be 40 in total) and/or other predicted consequences attributable to AGW indirectly fail.....the believers will be culled to a decreasing minority, until those that are left just fade away. Meanwhile, many skeptics have positioned themselves in the middle (by way of strictly adhering to the Sci. method) by stating "we need more evidence"....which if it cools or warms would be a push. The outright deniers would win, whether by luck, or by "believing" in other hypotheses which turn out to approximate the system better than the AGW hypothesis.

Great post. Like most things in life, those who pick the contrarian viewpoint usually come out ahead in the end more often than not.

[LakeEffectKing]

Check.

Poisoned well indeed.

This frog would like to leave the pot, not wanting to be raptured and/or parboiled in such company.

If the arena is political, the rhetorical weapon should be chosen to match (in this case, ridicule), and no cloak of scientific respectability should be offered - even tacitly.

Reading this thread feels really ironic to me - I just got back from a meeting where stuff I have been saying (and publishing papers on) for 10 years is now being accepted as a big breakthrough. I've been treated as a crank by many for all this time and am still getting the sneer from the "big" people who I have shown to have missed this (fortunately, not all of them). It felt like I was playing a role in a soap opera or a Dick Francis novel.

So yes, I am familiar with how scientists can be perversely wrong about big things and how that their discomfiture in being wrong can be reflected in the mistreatment of "skeptics".

But the real difference here is that my dispute with many in my field has been about truly controversial/non-established assumptions, whereas AGW is firmly based on stuff that is way too basic for honest doubt.

I doubted a common ASSUMPTION made by almost all the "big" people in my field - this assumption had not a shred of direct evidence to support it - it was merely highly plausible (I used to hold it myself). All I did was point out that there was another possibility which DID have a bit of evidence to support it.....and presented it with that evidence. I may still be wrong in my interpretation of this issue (i.e. the genesis of CSF tau in AD); a lot more work is needed. But in my field, something still seems to beat nothing, as it should, especially when the displaced assumption was starting to show its epicycles. I am a relative outsider, and am not often cited by the well funded CW types, but my work has now been accepted (and co-opted, but that is the way of the world). Also, while I have routinely bitched and whined about the unreasonable refusal of people in my own field to give me a fair hearing, I have always (well almost always) respected their competence as scientists.

The climate change thing is very different. AGW skeptics are doubting basic tenets of chemistry and physics that have been repeatedly tested and are now embedded in the structure of a common view of physical chemistry. Furthermore, they are obfuscating to advance their views, not providing credible alternatives that can be tested. The disrespectful tone in my post was due to the fact that this is not a respectable, constructive scientific activity - it is politically motivated trolling. AGW skeptics mostly stink of petro-politics.....their activities most resemble the behavior of tobacco companies.

I posted here on this because I am disturbed by the respect/tolerance accorded to the "skeptical" POV by many Met-tagged people here.

While I am clearly not competent to critique their judgement re meteorology, I feel I am on this - the level of concern one should have about AGW does not depend upon the ability to read a tephigram, but on the ability to see the contextual forest, something I have done successfully elsewhere.

I hope that the type of argument made in that recent Hansen paper might persuade them that AGW is in fact sufficiently alarming to justify abandoning the "wait and see" attitude.

Please! Casting the most extreme views from the "deniers" side into the "skeptical" portion of the bell shaped curve of AGW viewpoints, gets you nowhere. The only thing most "skeptics" (that have some decent knowledge on the science) "doubt" is the assessment of that which is known to that which is unknown, and the value that is placed on that which is known relative to the vastness (and undefinable) unknowns.

AGW hypothesis has evidence in some data (albeit subject to varying interpretations). AGW hypothesis has SOME physics that would indicate a forcing in the positive direction for global temps. However the uncertainties, IMO and others, of the unknowns are too great to make bold predictions of climate chaos wrt the inhabitants of this fine planet.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The area of the planet losing the most ice that contains the most land doesn't seem to be flat-lining in November. I think we know pretty well why this is and the physical properties behind it.

A drop of 5C would bring a disruptive influence as well. A 20 year drought out west would be disruptive, as would be a V7 volcano. I personally have not seen any reputable evidence that any of those four are more likely than another. Heck, I'm still waiting for the big warmup promised for this century. We're 11% into the century, and the anomaly is miniscule.

I am still waiting for you to explain and I quote from your words:

GISS really is a laughable dataset at this point.

Please show us why this is?

[skierinvermont]

The draft that was released, will ultimately be modified. A lot of the "extreme" prognosticators will have to reassemble, if indeed the IPCC holds with it's draft form. And I really doubt that any admission of being overzealous with predictions is forthcoming anytime soon....More likely a slow retreat from the absurd forecasts that were made re: global temps, sea-level, OHC, etc. And the waffling that the self-proclaimed experts have done

on how much the sun in it's totality (ie Rusty...more than just the TSI) affects the climate system is telling....some say "very little" while others use it as some speculation for the reason we've flattened out.

But ultimately there will be no choice if temperatures hold fairly flat for the next 20-30 years (which would be 40 in total) and/or other predicted consequences attributable to AGW indirectly fail.....the believers will be culled to a decreasing minority, until those that are left just fade away. Meanwhile, many skeptics have positioned themselves in the middle (by way of strictly adhering to the Sci. method) by stating "we need more evidence"....which if it cools or warms would be a push. The outright deniers would win, whether by luck, or by "believing" in other hypotheses which turn out to approximate the system better than the AGW hypothesis.

The IPCC report is generally just a summary of recent literature on the subject.

There hasn't been any literature on the subject the past few years which suggests anything less than 2-4.5C equilibrium response to CO2. The science hasn't changed, and likely will not change except perhaps to become more precise over time. Likewise, sea level and OHC forecasts in published papers over the last 5 years have not been lower than previous papers. In fact, the sea level rise forecasts have generally become higher as dynamic ice sheet loss becomes better modeled.

Finally there is no reason to believe that temperatures will hold flat for the next 20-30 years. And that would not be 40 years in total, as we have been warming only slightly less than IPCC predictions over the last 10 years and no where close to being "flat' (~.12C/decade >>>> 0).

[tacoman25]

The IPCC report is generally just a summary of recent literature on the subject.

There hasn't been any literature on the subject the past few years which suggests anything less than 2-4.5C equilibrium response to CO2. The science hasn't changed, and likely will not change except perhaps to become more precise over time. Likewise, sea level and OHC forecasts in published papers over the last 5 years have not been lower than previous papers. In fact, the sea level rise forecasts have generally become higher as dynamic ice sheet loss becomes better modeled.

Finally there is no reason to believe that temperatures will hold flat for the next 20-30 years. And that would not be 40 years in total, as we have been warming only slightly less than IPCC predictions over the last 10 years and no where close to being "flat' (~.12C/decade >>>> 0).

Yet again, I must remind this is on the high end of estimates. If one looks at a combination of UAH/RSS over the past 10 years, the trend is lower. If one looks at a combination of GISS/HadCRU over the past 10 years, the trend is lower. If one looks at HadCRU/UAH Arctic over the past 10 years...yep, trend is lower.