The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[laserguy]

Well thank god for that! Otherwise we would be plunged into an extensive ice age rather than just cooling.

BFTP

[Thundery wintry showers]

As for some of those who are speaking out against AGW, where's the consistency? The line of argument is consistently, "AGW definitely isn't happening, but on the other hand it might be happening but if it is, it's a good thing". Plus finding any articles that support either of those positions and quoting them as if they're the final word on this extremely complex set of issues.

The only consistent thing about those two positions is the conclusion that they reach: "do nothing about AGW". Hence my allegations of circular reasoning, I get a sense that the "do nothing about AGW" is the premise, "evidence" is being fit around that premise, and then used to "prove" the correctness of the premise er... conclusion.

On the other hand, Noggin's latest link is genuine food for thought- credit where it's due I say. I think it's highly likely that the IPCC will be near the mark if the prevailing assumptions in current climate models are accurate. However, therein lies the problem- what if the models are overestimating the effects of carbon dioxide or underestimating some other atmospheric process? In all modelling, if you make too many assumptions and they turn out to be flawed you risk reaching an erroneous conclusion.

As for the thread title, it was changed to better reflect the topics being discussed and make it appear a bit more "neutral"- it is indisputable that climate change happens and will continue to happen, but "global warming" is a little more politically and scientifically charged.

[laserguy]

As for some of those who are speaking out against AGW, where's the consistency? The line of argument is consistently, "AGW definitely isn't happening, but on the other hand it might be happening but if it is, it's a good thing".

Sigh.. I presume you're referring to my post immediately before yours,TWS? I was merely pointing out the double-edge of the warmer's argument,not mine. It is absolutely self-evident that if all these GHG's were not present then temps would be much(?) colder than they currently are,according to the AGW theory/hypothesis. Would that be a 'good thing' in the warmista's mind? My stance is perfectly clear -there is absolutely no worldwide human-induced climate change of any description whatsoever.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, you say that, but sometimes your posts deviate off into the "if human-induced change is happening then it's a good thing anyway" (this applies to a few other members as well). I would also like, for purposes of discussion, to see more evidence for such a position rather than just "I know I'm right" or "article X, Y and Z agrees with me so it must be right and therefore I must be right", or stuff along those lines.

[pottyprof]

I don't think the IPCC contributors are necessarily worried about losing funding for this reason - but certainly, many of the contributors are less than impressed at the big difference between the work they produce, and the "results" that eventually find their way to the general public!

Thanks for that one Ian.. Its one point that I tried to put over a while ago regarding the interpretation of findings.. Some were quick to be offended by what I said in questioning the way results were presented..

Thank you for that..

[Gray-Wolf]

? My stance is perfectly clear -there is absolutely no worldwide human-induced climate change of any description whatsoever.

Urban heat islands don't exist then? Temperature records from within developing urban sites show a true correlation with the climate trends in general? Rainforest's depletion, and the loss of transpiration across these areas, is not occurring/is natural? Spanish regional cooling due to the reflectivity of glass house roofed farms is a mere myth? Asian 'smogs' do not impact the areas plagued by them in any 'notable' climatic way? Acid rain is not poisoning/has poisoned lakes and forrests across areas downwing of massive industrial activity? Cloud seeding has no immediate impacts on weather and climate both in the areas of seeding or the 'rainshadow' area?......

need I go on? (and on, and on, and on, and on........)

[laserguy]

Urban heat islands don't exist then? ........

GW my post clearly said worldwide,check and see! You are of course right about UHI's,where I think you'll find many recording apparatus is situated. Make of that what you will. As for the rest of your post,I can't argue with you- you are right and I do agree with you about the pernicious local effects. But cumulative effects having a global influence? Not a chance.

[Mondy]

need I go on? (and on, and on, and on, and on........)

No, please don't :lol:

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, I would like to see evidence that human activity (encompassing all actions including deforestation, anthropogenic release of methane, aerosols as well as CO2 etc) is definitely not having any significant effect on the global mean temperature.

I would be just as sceptical about claims that humans are definitely causing a fair amount of warming. I have seen a fair amount of evidence to suggest that humans are probably causing a fair amount of warming, and a smaller (but still significant) amount of evidence to suggest that they probably aren't. But I am yet to find any evidence that provides definitive proof one way or the other, and I don't consider "because I say so" or "it's true because it's true" to be sufficient evidence for the position.

[Gray-Wolf]

Well, I would like to see evidence that human activity (encompassing all actions including deforestation, anthropogenic release of methane, aerosols as well as CO2 etc) is definitely not having any significant effect on the global mean temperature.

I would be just as sceptical about claims that humans are definitely causing a fair amount of warming. I have seen a fair amount of evidence to suggest that humans are probably causing a fair amount of warming, and a smaller (but still significant) amount of evidence to suggest that they probably aren't. But I am yet to find any evidence that provides definitive proof one way or the other, and I don't consider "because I say so" or "it's true because it's true" to be sufficient evidence for the position.

T.W.S. , you are as interested in all things weather as any on here and yet the plethora of 'events', the rapidity of repetition of such events, the occurrence of events beyond human witnessing/experience and all occurring within a period of time that has piqued so many scientists (working within the relevant fields) into closer study does not sway you towards seeing a 'significant' human input as a root cause???

I would not have any view were it not for my general 'nature' interests and the understanding that the things I have witnessed in my lifetime were beyond the normal 'remit' of climate. I would be less concerned if the 'predictions of 30 years ago (by the then 'extremists') were not being amply proven by diverse occurrences ,planet wide, month upon month.

I can excuse folk born 'within' this period as ,to them ,these are their 'background normalities' but for anyone privy to the initial predictions of mass extinctions and climate shifts then there surely must be enough mounting evidence to prove those old 'fears' made flesh? even if it is the lack of snow/extended cold in the British winter (for those who remember the old 'cold weather payments' and their trigger points).

Edited October 26, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Shandiman]

TWS, with reference to your looking for evidence, take a look skywards on a relatively cloud free day!!

Going on with the thought from Jethro (and winston), when certain 'people' decided to do a darstardly thing on Sept 9th in America, obviously all air travel was cancelled for a short while.

Not so long ago, there was a documentary shown which showed what happened when there was no air travel. This showed that the day before (Sept 8th) the air temp was 'x' and the ground temp was 'y' (Sorry about being vague but i cannot remember all specific details ).

The day after (Sept 10th) the 'x' & 'y' temperatures increased dramatically, not by full degrees but significant nevertheless. By the time air travel was resumed it was found that in some areas of the world the whole atmosphere had changed & warmed quite dramatically. Once air travel had resumed the figures had reduced back to (in the documantarys' words) normal levels. I take it they would be referring to the pre-event data readings.

This showed that aircraft have an active effect on the climate & weather due to the amount of Vapour trails that they leave on a journey by journey scale.

Perhaps this is the most visual of humans' impact on our climate, but we don't widely realise it?

[Gray-Wolf]

there are so many pieces of such evidence Shandiman ,be it pan evaporation rates in the 'dimmed period'( and the new 'Asian' experience of the same) etc. which cannot be levelled at coincidence /climate oscillations alone but ,we have to accept that there are "None so blind as those who will not see....."

Edited October 26, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Again this comes back to the artificially dimmed period as being the true anomaly in the temperature series, vapour trails after 9/11 a graphic demonstration too. Temperatures were as high, if not higher in the 1920's & '30's as today, our mucky habits dimmed the world, thus cooling it; since cleaning up our act, we've warmed up again. Not to unprecedented levels, but to a warm level set back early in the 20th century, that in it's self a natural rebound from the LIA plus the beginnings of industrialisation.

Just how does CO2 fit into that scenario? Well it's logarithmic, the first increases in emissions have the most impact, subsequent emissions, especially in the last thirty odd years have had very little impact upon temperatures - this fitting of temperatures to emissions is seriously flawed.

Taking measurements today and gauging a warming climate against an un-naturally cold period, is skewing the evidence IMO.

[Thundery wintry showers]

TWS, with reference to your looking for evidence, take a look skywards on a relatively cloud free day!!

...

I agree. I was referring to the question of whether or not humans are largely responsible for the rise in global surface air temperature over the last 50 years, for which my points still stand- but indeed, there's absolutely no denying, in itself, that humans can influence climate. Contrails, urban heat islands, aerosols, changes in albedo, you name it.

And yes, contrails and the like are indeed a major source of uncertainty as far as the anthropogenic forcing on climate is concerned. I know people who are doing a lot of research into this at the moment. And yes, the findings on diurnal ranges around September 11 2001 were pretty eye-opening!

[HighPressure]

I see this as the real issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7696197.stm

Climate may not be proven but this is, and surely there cannot be a single member of this forum who can argue that we do not need to reduce our fossil fuel burning. Does this angle not allow for continued climate debate whilst giving almost unanimous agreement on action?

[Chris Knight]

TWS, with reference to your looking for evidence, take a look skywards on a relatively cloud free day!!

Going on with the thought from Jethro (and winston), when certain 'people' decided to do a darstardly thing on Sept 9th in America, obviously all air travel was cancelled for a short while.

Not so long ago, there was a documentary shown which showed what happened when there was no air travel. This showed that the day before (Sept 8th) the air temp was 'x' and the ground temp was 'y' (Sorry about being vague but i cannot remember all specific details ).

The day after (Sept 10th) the 'x' & 'y' temperatures increased dramatically, not by full degrees but significant nevertheless. By the time air travel was resumed it was found that in some areas of the world the whole atmosphere had changed & warmed quite dramatically. Once air travel had resumed the figures had reduced back to (in the documantarys' words) normal levels. I take it they would be referring to the pre-event data readings.

This showed that aircraft have an active effect on the climate & weather due to the amount of Vapour trails that they leave on a journey by journey scale.

Perhaps this is the most visual of humans' impact on our climate, but we don't widely realise it?

It's not only the water vapour, but the unburnt hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates etc., resulting from aviation in that region of the troposphere that has effects on our climate, and our increasing burden of carbon dioxide background levels. In temperatures where liquid water cannot exist, as in the upper troposphere, there are no natural sinks for carbon dioxide, except diffusion and wind transport. If Kyoto agreement levels are attained in the UK, Aviation (international flights are exempt from Kyoto) will account for 25% of UK CO2 emissions by 2030.

The cocktail of emissions from aircraft has 3x the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide alone, and located around upper cloud level in the temperate zone, where the bulk of aviation routes are, represent a likelihood of global cooling, rather than warming, since statistically more of the long wave radiation will escape upward, away from earth, rather than downward, towards the planet.

references to 9/11 effect:

Travis, D.J., Carleton, A.M., DeGrand, J.Q., and J.S. Johnson (2005).

"U.S. Jet Contrail Frequency Changes: Influences of Jet Aircraft Flight Activity and Atmospheric Conditions." The International Journal of Climate, Submitted.

Travis, D.J., Carleton, A.M., and R. Lauritsen (2004).

"Regional Variations in U.S. Diurnal Temperature Range for the 11-14 September 2001 Aircraft Groundings: Evidence of Jet Contrail Influence on Climate." Journal of Climate, In press.

2002

Travis, D.J., Carleton, A.M., and R. Lauritsen (2002).

"Jet Contrails and Climate: Anomalous Increases in U.S. Diurnal Temperature Range for September 11-14, 2001."Nature, Vol. 418, p. 601.

2001

Aviation, contrail formation & effects:

http://www.aero-net.org/pdf-docs/schumann_...%20physique.pdf

http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/amp/aemp/docu...ments/INF.5.doc

http://www.ncas.ac.uk/meetings/past/aviati...ground_info.pdf

[Chris Knight]

It's not only the water vapour, but the unburnt hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates etc., resulting from aviation in that region of the troposphere that has effects on our climate, and our increasing burden of carbon dioxide background levels. In temperatures where liquid water cannot exist, as in the upper troposphere, there are no natural sinks for carbon dioxide, except diffusion and wind transport. If Kyoto agreement levels are attained in the UK, Aviation (international flights are exempt from Kyoto) will account for 25% of UK CO2 emissions by 2030.

The cocktail of emissions from aircraft has 3x the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide alone, and located around upper cloud level in the temperate zone, where the bulk of aviation routes are, represent a likelihood of global cooling, rather than warming, since statistically more of the long wave radiation will escape upward, away from earth, rather than downward, towards the planet.

references to 9/11 effect:

Travis, D.J., Carleton, A.M., DeGrand, J.Q., and J.S. Johnson (2005).

"U.S. Jet Contrail Frequency Changes: Influences of Jet Aircraft Flight Activity and Atmospheric Conditions." The International Journal of Climate, Submitted.

Travis, D.J., Carleton, A.M., and R. Lauritsen (2004).

"Regional Variations in U.S. Diurnal Temperature Range for the 11-14 September 2001 Aircraft Groundings: Evidence of Jet Contrail Influence on Climate." Journal of Climate, In press.

2002

Travis, D.J., Carleton, A.M., and R. Lauritsen (2002).

"Jet Contrails and Climate: Anomalous Increases in U.S. Diurnal Temperature Range for September 11-14, 2001."Nature, Vol. 418, p. 601.

2001

Aviation, contrail formation & effects:

http://www.aero-net.org/pdf-docs/schumann_...%20physique.pdf

http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/amp/aemp/docu...ments/INF.5.doc

http://www.ncas.ac.uk/meetings/past/aviati...ground_info.pdf

Just in case there's a relationship between aviation CO2, and background levels of CO2:

Here's the government statistics to 2003 on UK air passengers:

And here's the Mauna Loa annual CO2 growth rate data:

[millennia]

If the world community really believes that the northern ice cover is about to disappear and that this is an unacceptable outcome, then the only way to prevent it is by engineering a solution. You can reduce carbon dioxide as quickly as any idealistic projection might imagine and it would have almost no effect on the natural cycles at work, so given our low level of understanding of these natural variations, we would have to intervene before the point of no return, which means basically the next five or ten years on current projections.

I hope people understand this, because the current approach is not only unrealistic (in terms of both overestimating human contributions to the warming and our real capability of reducing carbon dioxide), it is potentially harmful to the economy. In other words, it is a total waste of time except for the people who get to go on expensive junkets to Rio, Bali and (not so much) Montreal.

So if people want to solve this problem, they need to get together a large-scale plan to keep warm water out of the polar basin. The only obvious way of doing that is to build a large dam across the Bering Straits, something that would take probably five to ten years and perhaps a hundred billion dollars. I'm not sure on the engineering studies done by the Soviets in their heyday, but this project was once considered as a source of hydro-electric power generation so that concept must have involved a certain amount of flow back and forth, whether that would still reduce the inflow or not, I am not qualified to say.

You could also consider smaller but still very costly projects between Ellesmere Island and Greenland, and Novaya Zemlya and the Russian mainland.

Projects like this would have very large uncertainties about future climate outcomes, although it would stand to reason that if the arctic ocean was maintained at a current or slightly colder level, then Greenland and North America if not eastern Siberia would probably all remain near their current temperatures even if a natural warming effect was still underway. If the natural cycle seemed to be reversing, I suppose these dams could be engineered in such a way that water transfer could resume.

One would have to weigh this project and its costs and uncertainties against the alternatives, less uncertain and predictable disruptions to large populations and economic interests (not to mention entire island nations) about to be flooded by the northern meltdown (the rise in sea level likely to be 1 to 1.5 metres). That would probably cost far more than a hundred billion dollars (my billion is a thousand million by the way).

On the other hand, choosing to adapt rather than prevent would remove uncertainty -- we would know what we might be facing and what needed to be done, whereas the engineering solution would not guarantee a solution. The natural warming cycle might prove to be too robust to overcome even with this rather large shift in the natural balance of heat and energy.

Other engineering solutions that come to mind would include enhancing precipitation (snowfall) over northern Canada and Russia in transitional seasons to extend the length of the winter season back to perhaps early 20th century levels. That lies pretty much at the frontier of our current understanding and would have unknown but presumably large costs in the dozens of billions of dollars, at a minimum.

Another approach would be more aggressive desalinization in arid regions such as California, Mexico, Chile, Africa and Australia. Here the solution would be to remove excess seawater and provide large-scale irrigation for extension of agricultural production zones. Indirectly this might feed back into the global climate in terms of increased rainfall in these zones.

Large-scale engineering projects that were tried in the former Soviet Union often ended up in widespread natural disasters, such as the death of the Aral Sea, so I am not necessarily a big fan of this approach, but I am just putting these ideas out for discussion because if people really want to solve what they see as a problem, there is very little point in doing something very expensive and very ineffectual to seek a solution. If the problem needs solving, then engineering is probably the only chance we have, and we need to get started on the Bering Strait project very soon because it won't happen overnight.

I think there is still a lack of understanding just what a financial hole we are all in. All this talk about spending billions on grandiose engineering projects with no known benefit when we can't even mortgage a bloody semi is about as pie in the sky as you can get. Heads out of the sand, this global recession will take years to work through and all we can afford to do is react and adapt to changes that actually happen - that is the cheaper option and that is what will be done in the end despite all the political posturing out there. Predicting what it would cost to stop something we don't even know will happen, and to what magnitude, is 99.999% less likely than predicting how much the Olympics will cost when they are bid for - or any other engineering project on the drawing board come to that.

There is not enough spare cash in the world for a packet of maltesers, never mind an Arctic dam, we are in debt up to our back knackers and it will take decades to just pay that off - if we ever do. This isn't an environmental problem anymore, it is an economic one and the goal posts are not even on the same pitch.

[millennia]

I see this as the real issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7696197.stm

Climate may not be proven but this is, and surely there cannot be a single member of this forum who can argue that we do not need to reduce our fossil fuel burning. Does this angle not allow for continued climate debate whilst giving almost unanimous agreement on action?

Yes resources are finite and therefore we are going to run out. However there is another 50 years of oil in offshore locations that are banned from being exploited (rightly or wrongly, I'm not trying to start a debate over oil covered seals here) and about 400 years of coal reserves - albeit creating ever greater damage as it becomes harder to extract.

So actually the problem isn't yet resources but is still environmental if you are to convice anybody to change. Trouble is the politicians are starting to rapidly get cold feet as they desperately try to keep their economies afloat and themselves in jobs, so another front has now opened in the Climate Wars. The warmers now have to fight the skeptics and macroeconomics.

Best of luck with that one.

The only silver lining will be a substantial reduction of consumption in the next few years - it will be interesting to see if CO2 starts to drop and then it won't be long before the cooling trend we are currently in is attached to the economic contraction as "proof" that less consupmtion equals lower temperatures - never mind the cooling predating the crunch.

Ah the waters are about to get a lot muddier.....

[Thundery wintry showers]

I can't agree I'm afraid- I know there's a lot of inefficient expenditure on tokenistic measures out there, but it doesn't mean that the best, or only viable, policy is to just "wait and see" and soak up whatever trouble arises, adapting/reacting to it if and when it arises.

Surely if we try to bring about and manage a steady reduction in reliance on fossil fuels and overall consumption over a long period of time, and work to provide good energy-efficient alternatives, while we won't avoid a recession, and might have to suffer a little extra short-term pain for greater long-term gain, we can reduce the extent of the coming depression.

Alternatively if we just continue "as is", we'll only cut down when we're forced to. That most likely means sudden change (see the recent economic recession for an example of how trying to stave off cutting down in the short-term can lead to more misery in the long-term) and, more importantly, need to bring in a big stick in order to force the sudden change. All stick and no carrot = people having to cut down more than they need to in order to facilitate a given level of environmental improvement, simply because there won't be viable alternatives where there could have been some if only the recession had been managed through long-term, forward-thinking policies.

As I often say in these threads, if we have a problem, and our attitude to it is "that's life" and we just accept as given that it can't be helped, it will never be helped- regardless of whether it's possible to help it or not. We assume limits, we bind ourselves by those limits.

[millennia]

I can't agree I'm afraid- I know there's a lot of inefficient expenditure on tokenistic measures out there, but it doesn't mean that the best, or only viable, policy is to just "wait and see" and soak up whatever trouble arises, adapting/reacting to it if and when it arises.

Surely if we try to bring about and manage a steady reduction in reliance on fossil fuels and overall consumption over a long period of time, and work to provide good energy-efficient alternatives, while we won't avoid a recession, and might have to suffer a little extra short-term pain for greater long-term gain, we can reduce the extent of the coming depression.

Alternatively if we just continue "as is", we'll only cut down when we're forced to. That most likely means sudden change (see the recent economic recession for an example of how trying to stave off cutting down in the short-term can lead to more misery in the long-term) and, more importantly, need to bring in a big stick in order to force the sudden change. All stick and no carrot = people having to cut down more than they need to in order to facilitate a given level of environmental improvement, simply because there won't be viable alternatives where there could have been some if only the recession had been managed through long-term, forward-thinking policies.

As I often say in these threads, if we have a problem, and our attitude to it is "that's life" and we just accept as given that it can't be helped, it will never be helped- regardless of whether it's possible to help it or not. We assume limits, we bind ourselves by those limits.

I take your point - but still maitain it will never happen. Al Gore made $100 million preaching doom and nobody can convince me that if there wasn't money, fame and power (watch for a Al to make a Mandelson type comback with Obama in the White House) in it he'd give two figs for the environment. The day he gives it all away to environmental charities, and works for free to spread the word I will truly start to take notice.

And that, TWS, is why your noble sentiments will most likely remain in media such as this forum rather than become a blueprint for our future. Noble people do not rule the world......

[laserguy]

Al Gore made $100 million preaching doom .......

Yes,and promptly spent a goodly proportion of it on a seafront mansion with a carbon footprint bigger than a herd of elephants who'd just mosied across a freshly tarmacced road! Wonder why he chose there if his beloved AGW was about to send it crashing into the boiling ocean?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I take your point - but still maitain it will never happen. Al Gore made $100 million preaching doom and nobody can convince me that if there wasn't money, fame and power (watch for a Al to make a Mandelson type comback with Obama in the White House) in it he'd give two figs for the environment. The day he gives it all away to environmental charities, and works for free to spread the word I will truly start to take notice.

And that, TWS, is why your noble sentiments will most likely remain in media such as this forum rather than become a blueprint for our future. Noble people do not rule the world......

I can see your point, but the trouble is, if we all accept that it won't happen, it's 100% certain that it won't happen. If we maintain some hope that it might happen, it still might not happen, but then again, it might. Another (and probably the most likely) possibility is that we might get some of the way there, but not fully achieve it- which would still, most likely, be better than nothing.

No doubt in the 1920s there will have been masses of people preaching that we would never see the breakdown of the prevailing sexist and racist values of the time, because there were various aspects of society that made it seem an impossibility and "society can't be changed because it's just the way it is". If everyone had followed that way of thinking, chances are, sexism and racism would still be as prominent today as it was then.

But such change can only come about if enough people, with enough power, challenge the status quo- hence accepting that we're doomed to a given scenario is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Yes,and promptly spent a goodly proportion of it on a seafront mansion with a carbon footprint bigger than a herd of elephants who'd just mosied across a freshly tarmacced road! Wonder why he chose there if his beloved AGW was about to send it crashing into the boiling ocean?

Because he is deceitful?

BTP

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81029090335.htm

This has always been another reason why I couldn't 'sign up' to the 'natural variation' side of the debate. where , in the geological record ,do we find evidence of past periods of coral death associated with CO2 induced warming? Where do we find, in the geological record, evidence of sea level fluctuations associated with 'heat expansion' in the beaches, raised beaches around the world?

We may well assess past periods of warming but , it appears, those periods were 'in balance' with nature and she was able to 'adjust' ,and then reverse, past warming periods.

The current period is happening with such ferocity that poor old mother nature does not stand a snowballs chance in hades of coping with it and ,subsequently, the impacts of the warming are all around for us (those who choose to look and question) to see.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2279/an...mosmagazine.com

And , of course ,we are awaiting this years figures on methane in the atmosphere. Last year saw the first rise in 10yrs (after Russia got it's act together and stopped it's leaky gas distribution) which went hand in hand with the terrible melt in the arctic and the 'loosening of the permafrosts there. This year ,for the first time ,scientists witnessed 'free methane' (not dissolved into the sea water above the melting deposits) bubbling up from the shelf seas off Russia. I will quite happily take any number of 'sportsman's bets' that 2008 figure will be up on 2007 figures.

Those wishing to dismiss the obvious, in favour of many years of continuous records to prove a change, will seek to filibuster for a few ten's of years instead of preparing for the inevitable impacts. For me ,the witnessing of permafrost melting and the releases from areas of shelf sea that used to be ice locked all year, the trend is readily predictable and yet another sign that we are well beyond the tipping point that has the High arctic on a one way road to meltdown.

So, sea level hikes ,from a melting Greenland ice dome, and a warming acceleration, due to the release of the 'super greenhouse gas' Methane, are now enevitable......all a question of timescales.

No matter what humanity does to reduce his CO2 outputs we are now into the period (as is shown in past 'warmings') of natural CO2 releases, which were of course, followed by greater warming.

Th-th-th-th-that's all folks

Edited October 30, 2008 by Gray-Wolf