Global Surface Air & Sea Temperatures: Current Conditions and Future Prospects

[VillagePlank]

Mrs Trellis....

No one is disputing this. I have already suggested that may be the CO2 warming signal?, but it is only showing 0.2C per century so maybe some people on here will not accept it.

We will see. The next 10 years will proove you're theory or dismiss it.

I wouldn't like to say which one will be correct..

but from the actual data my money is slightly on the natural cycles (as you call it)!!

I do not know what is causing it, but there is something showing up in this detrended data that is unexpected and it will give us a method of seeing which way the money will be going in the future!!!

MIA.

Any time series has three components: seasonality, trend, and noise.

We all, I hope, understand what noise is with reference to climate time series: it's the weather; such that unusually strong conditions at one part of the planet throw the average. That's the problem with the arithmetic mean average whether spatial or linear: it's very sensitive to outliers so, for instance, a warm Arctic extrapolated about empty grid squares, kriging, at the very outset is statistically suspect at best. The authors of that paper virtually boast about it - declaring in their abstract that once you do data differently for the Arctic it affects the overall average. This is not in dispute. Outliers affect the arithmetic mean more than any other measure of central tendency.

We all know about trends in climate. This is the focal point in climatology. What exactly did cause, and, perhaps continue to cause the late 20th century rapid warming event. Trends, it seems to me, are not enough to to explain the slowdown (the rate of change graphs I posted 18 months and earlier) as well as MIA (re)discovery of the same technique definitively show that the rate of change of warming has slowed. This is definitive and without doubt. Whether this is statistically significant is the only question that remains.

Which leaves us with seasonality. Countless morons and geniuses have tried to explain climate using Fourier analysis and later wavelet analysis; to try and find the definitive pattern in the data. On the link that I posted above it contains a Fourier analysis that was unfruitful except the 28/30 year cycle I subsequently identified. Now it's true that anyone with a spreadsheet and an ounce of sense can find any pattern in anything. The charge is to show that whilst we can make sinusoidal models out of the pattern is it there by chance or is it an actual real phenomena? I haven't done that work yet, and I will try to do it this weekend.

Even it were established that this sinusoidal pattern is an actual phenomena, where did it come from? It could well be an artefact of computer programming given the coincidental nature of the 30 year cycle and the 30 year mean average. It could be related to the AMO and thus the THC which corresponds to current thinking regarding deeps sea sequestration of excess atmospheric energy - which means it acts just like a leaky integrator. Old hands here will remember that one.

Who really knows. What's for sure is that firstly the trend is unexplained. Whilst I think it might be CO2, it flies in the face of some convincing physics. Secondly the sinusoid is unexplained.

There are reasonable ideas to explain this but there's a whole shed load of work to get this even into a form where the community at large would consider it a conjecture. And, to get this Into a hypothesis? Well, that's an even longer amount of time.

And then, and only then, would it be sensible and right to consider it a theory.

See https://forum.netweather.tv/topic/77979-the-pause/?p=2803658 for a more indepth discussion way back in Oct 2013. Probabaly best to read the whole page.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Sparkicle

[VillagePlank]

Why not. If, as we should do, replace the incorrect statement, "CO2 manmade controlling the temperatures". with anthropogenic global emissions of CO₂ are the main cause of climate change/global warming?

To be fair, according to the IPCC, anthropogenic CO2 *is* the primary driver of climate over the last 50-100 years.

[knocker]

To be fair, according to the IPCC, anthropogenic CO2 *is* the primary driver of climate over the last 50-100 years.

 

irrespective I'm still interested in MIA's reasons why the climate record doesn't fit.

 

Edited March 13, 2015 by knocker

[VillagePlank]

irrespective I'm still interested in MIA's reasons why the climate record doesn't fit.

Yes, on the face of it, it correlates well. What's the Pearson score for that line? Is it statistically significant? We both know that that chart has been posted with apriori bias. You would expect me to do the work, so on the basis of mutual respect I expect you to do the work and publish the figures, too. If indeed they have actually been done.

Irrespective, we've known for over 100 years that CO2 effect on temperature is logarithmic. A linear match-up like your chart is always going to court serious questions. De trend both data samples and you should find that the correlation falls away and you have to change the axis to a log axis.

(Almost certainly that chart is 'lifted' from some other paper or blog. So, at least, acknowledge the source)

Edited March 13, 2015 by Sparkicle

[Midlands Ice Age]

irrespective I'm still interested in MIA's reasons why the climate record doesn't fit.

 

 

This apparent link of the detrended data was also shown by Lanky on Two, but after it was pointed out that the expected CO2 effect was logarythmic,           Lanky dismissed the apparent link.  I think I have just seen  Sparks reply to the same effect..

 

Irrespective when you take out all the known and understood climate drivers you come up with the graph  I posted in my first post on the subject. It would seem as though it is very possible that CO2 has been increasing at exactly the same time period that all the basic climate drivers have been increasing?.    What do I know. I just look at the data.

 

MIA

[knocker]

Yes, on the face of it, it correlates well. What's the Pearson score for that line? Is it statistically significant? We both know that that chart has been posted with apriori bias. You would expect me to do the work, so on the basis of mutual respect I expect you to do the work and publish the figures, too. If indeed they have actually been done.

Irrespective, we've known for over 100 years that CO2 effect on temperature is logarithmic. A linear match-up like your chart is always going to court serious questions. De trend both data samples and you should find that the correlation falls away and you have to change the axis to a log axis.

(Almost certainly that chart is 'lifted' from some other paper or blog. So, at least, acknowledge the source)

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

[knocker]

This apparent link of the detrended data was also shown by Lanky on Two, but after it was pointed out that the expected CO2 effect was logarythmic,           Lanky dismissed the apparent link.  I think I have just seen  Sparks reply to the same effect..

 

Irrespective when you take out all the known and understood climate drivers you come up with the graph  I posted in my first post on the subject. It would seem as though it is very possible that CO2 has been increasing at exactly the same time period that all the basic climate drivers have been increasing?.    What do I know. I just look at the data.

 

MIA

 

But not the AMO.

 

http://rankexploits....modern-warming/

[Midlands Ice Age]

Any time series has three components: seasonality, trend, and noise.

We all, I hope, understand what noise is with reference to climate time series: it's the weather; such that unusually strong conditions at one part of the planet throw the average. That's the problem with the arithmetic mean average whether spatial or linear: it's very sensitive to outliers so, for instance, a warm Arctic extrapolated about empty grid squares, kriging, at the very outset is statistically suspect at best. The authors of that paper virtually boast about it - declaring in their abstract that once you do data differently for the Arctic it affects the overall average. This is not in dispute. Outliers affect the arithmetic mean more than any other measure of central tendency.

We all know about trends in climate. This is the focal point in climatology. What exactly did cause, and, perhaps continue to cause the late 20th century rapid warming event. Trends, it seems to me, are not enough to to explain the slowdown (the rate of change graphs I posted 18 months and earlier) as well as MIA (re)discovery of the same technique definitively show that the rate of change of warming has slowed. This is definitive and without doubt. Whether this is statistically significant is the only question that remains.

Which leaves us with seasonality. Countless morons and geniuses have tried to explain climate using Fourier analysis and later wavelet analysis; to try and find the definitive pattern in the data. On the link that I posted above it contains a Fourier analysis that was unfruitful except the 28/30 year cycle I subsequently identified. Now it's true that anyone with a spreadsheet and an ounce of sense can find any pattern in anything. The charge is to show that whilst we can make sinusoidal models out of the pattern is it there by chance or is it an actual real phenomena? I haven't done that work yet, and I will try to do it this weekend.

Even it were established that this sinusoidal pattern is an actual phenomena, where did it come from? It could well be an artefact of computer programming given the coincidental nature of the 30 year cycle and the 30 year mean average. It could be related to the AMO and thus the THC which corresponds to current thinking regarding deeps sea sequestration of excess atmospheric energy - which means it acts just like a leaky integrator. Old hands here will remember that one.

Who really knows. What's for sure is that firstly the trend is unexplained. Whilst I think it might be CO2, it flies in the face of some convincing physics. Secondly the sinusoid is unexplained.

There are reasonable ideas to explain this but there's a whole shed load of work to get this even into a form where the community at large would consider it a conjecture. And, to get this Into a hypothesis? Well, that's an even longer amount of time.

And then, and only then, would it be sensible and right to consider it a theory.

See https://forum.netweather.tv/topic/77979-the-pause/?p=2803658 for a more indepth discussion way back in Oct 2013. Probabaly best to read the whole page.

 

Sparks,

 

I've been back and looked at your previous on the subject. I wasn't aware of your previous exchanges with much more qualified people than yours truly, back in 2013.

.

It seems as though you did quite a bit of work on the Fourrier Analysis back then. I also  noted that you observed the rate of increase dropping off right at the end of your work. You were trying to persuade the usuals that the 'pause' in warming was real. 

 

The latest graph I have posted as a result of Lanky's work seems to have confirmed your earlier suggestions.

 

Of interest, as you pointed out at that point, the data was not scientifically distinguishable from background noise at that point so you have fallen away from following it up.  Has that situation changed now? and do you have the data that Lanky has used to detrend the data? It seems as though it all depends upon that.

 

The other interest to me in your previous work was that you also found some effect from the AMO. It seems as though it is the only climate driver (we know about)  which we cannot model efficiently. It is odd that it keeps coming up and yet everyone says its effect is neutral.

 

Is it just possible that the AMO is the main driver which can switch the heat from the southern hemisphere  to the northern hemisphere (as per J Curry's latest ) and therefore is a very good proxy for this 'unknown'  and new climate driver..?. Irrespective of whether it can be modelled correctly?

 

What would happen if we actually included a 'proxy' Atlantic sst say at the equator  for example. Would it take up most of the upswings/downswings  in the rate of change graph and then show a true Manmade CO2 effect? Also could it then be taken back 500 years (say) to bring about a history of the temps, as well as the exercise you did previously of going forwards to 2101?  If it could be done it would give us a good feeling as to whether it is worth progressing at this stage. 

 

Anyone know of a decent record of Atlantic sst's?

 

I do recognise that it is extremely unlikely to show anything as we do not know what has happened historically to the AMO, though someone could have worked on ancient ships logs?

;

So many questions I am  afraid, but no answers.. 

 

Thanks for all your patience

 

MIA

[stewfox]

 

If (as G Wolf suggests  repeatedly) the  climate warming really takes off in the next 10 - 20 years, then I think the game is 95% certainty that CO2 is messing around with the cycles. (My 2sigma scientific bounds), but if not then we need to start looking elsewhere. 

 

 

I think another 30 years of data to see where we are.

 

Most of the climate prediction have failed and we just need much more data and time.

[VillagePlank]

Sparks,

I've been back and looked at your previous on the subject. I wasn't aware of your previous exchanges with much more qualified people than yours truly, back in 2013.

.

It seems as though you did quite a bit of work on the Fourrier Analysis back then. I also noted that you observed the rate of increase dropping off right at the end of your work. You were trying to persuade the usuals that the 'pause' in warming was real.

The latest graph I have posted as a result of Lanky's work seems to have confirmed your earlier suggestions.

Of interest, as you pointed out at that point, the data was not scientifically distinguishable from background noise at that point so you have fallen away from following it up. Has that situation changed now? and do you have the data that Lanky has used to detrend the data? It seems as though it all depends upon that.

The other interest to me in your previous work was that you also found some effect from the AMO. It seems as though it is the only climate driver (we know about) which we cannot model efficiently. It is odd that it keeps coming up and yet everyone says its effect is neutral.

Is it just possible that the AMO is the main driver which can switch the heat from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere (as per J Curry's latest ) and therefore is a very good proxy for this 'unknown' and new climate driver..?. Irrespective of whether it can be modelled correctly?

What would happen if we actually included a 'proxy' Atlantic sst say at the equator for example. Would it take up most of the upswings/downswings in the rate of change graph and then show a true Manmade CO2 effect? Also could it then be taken back 500 years (say) to bring about a history of the temps, as well as the exercise you did previously of going forwards to 2101? If it could be done it would give us a good feeling as to whether it is worth progressing at this stage.

Anyone know of a decent record of Atlantic sst's?

I do recognise that it is extremely unlikely to show anything as we do not know what has happened historically to the AMO, though someone could have worked on ancient ships logs?

;

So many questions I am afraid, but no answers..

Thanks for all your patience

MIA

I purported that the AMO was driven by the THC, so in effect, the AMO is an effect not a driver. The detrending technique is incredibly simple: deduct the linear regression from the data, and I suspect that this chap somewhere else is making life much more difficult than it has to be. As I think knocker pointed out at the time, there is no proxy for the THC so getting data is pretty much impossible unless new techniques come to light. It's therefore at best a very interesting conjecture nothing else I'm afraid.

That's not to discount it; inherently most ideas are interesting.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Sparkicle

[VillagePlank]

But not the AMO.

 

http://rankexploits....modern-warming/

That's wrong. The conjecture is that the AMO affects the rate of change of the climate not the temperature directly. That link - quite correct btw- has nothing to do with what is being discussed here at the moment

[Midlands Ice Age]

Sparks,

 

I've been back and looked at your previous on the subject. I wasn't aware of your previous exchanges with much more qualified people than yours truly, back in 2013.

.

It seems as though you did quite a bit of work on the Fourrier Analysis back then. I also  noted that you observed the rate of increase dropping off right at the end of your work. You were trying to persuade the usuals that the 'pause' in warming was real. 

 

The latest graph I have posted as a result of Lanky's work seems to have confirmed your earlier suggestions.

 

Of interest, as you pointed out at that point, the data was not scientifically distinguishable from background noise at that point so you have fallen away from following it up.  Has that situation changed now? and do you have the data that Lanky has used to detrend the data? It seems as though it all depends upon that.

 

The other interest to me in your previous work was that you also found some effect from the AMO. It seems as though it is the only climate driver (we know about)  which we cannot model efficiently. It is odd that it keeps coming up and yet everyone says its effect is neutral.

 

Is it just possible that the AMO is the main driver which can switch the heat from the southern hemisphere  to the northern hemisphere (as per J Curry's latest ) and therefore is a very good proxy for this 'unknown'  and new climate driver..?. Irrespective of whether it can be modelled correctly?

 

What would happen if we actually included a 'proxy' Atlantic sst say at the equator  for example. Would it take up most of the upswings/downswings  in the rate of change graph and then show a true Manmade CO2 effect? Also could it then be taken back 500 years (say) to bring about a history of the temps, as well as the exercise you did previously of going forwards to 2101?  If it could be done it would give us a good feeling as to whether it is worth progressing at this stage. 

 

Anyone know of a decent record of Atlantic sst's?

 

I do recognise that it is extremely unlikely to show anything as we do not know what has happened historically to the AMO, though someone could have worked on ancient ships logs?

;

So many questions I am  afraid, but no answers.. 

 

Thanks for all your patience

 

MIA

 

Knockers reference above goes back to the work by Zeke, Bob Tisdale, and many others in 2011 on the AMO

 

So as you suggested this work  has been going on some time. It is not new. What is new is the symmetry between the warmings of the earlier and later warming periods and the possibilty of a new climate driver  such as the AMO which seems to mimic the resultant left-over signal. This has occured as the AMO is being implicated as a prssible vehicle for moving heat from south to north as satellite data is now strongly indicating. AKA the Curry blog.

 

 .

Also I think that as people like Bill Illis was pointing out then, the work of Zeke assumed that the forcing being shown in the AMO was caused mainly by Antho-warming, and hence many people were not happy that this had been removed when that was the effect people were trying to establish. It uses asumptions that it is correct,  to prove the answer!!

 

So plenty to query in there.

 

Interesting to note that they all use North Atlantic sst's, as where the greatest change in the  ocean temperatures  seemed to be occuring and proceeded to remove the anthropegenic warming signal (which is a sum of all other unknown forcings). So what happens if the Atlantic is actually after all a part of the global climate in transferring the heat from the south to the north? ,  

 

HMMM......... Interesting.

 

So what happens if we used the equitorial Atlantic? Surely this should remove a lot of the anthro warming as the temperature is reasonably constant there..

.

The final post on that entry was quite interesting. Basically and from memory....  ' if we cannot disprove any anthro-warming in the latest bout of warming (the conclusion of the article) what then caused the warming in the AMO in the 1910 to 1940 period.'

 

Could that last post have been prophetic?

 

All for today

 

MIA

[VillagePlank]

THC links are on the stuff I did in 2013

[knocker]

I think another 30 years of data to see where we are.

 

Most of the climate prediction have failed and we just need much more data and time.

 

Even Guy Callendar who in 1938 proposed a logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature (expressed as an anomaly to then present mean temperature.) ?

 

More time?

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/pdf

Edited March 13, 2015 by knocker

[knocker]

Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures

 

The recent slowdown in global warming has brought into question the reliability of climate model projections of future temperature change and has led to a vigorous debate over whether this slowdown is the result of naturally occurring, internal variability or forcing external to Earth’s climate system. To address these issues, we applied a semi-empirical approach that combines climate observations and model simulations to estimate Atlantic- and Pacific-based internal multidecadal variability (termed “AMO†and “PMO,†respectively). Using this method, the AMO and PMO are found to explain a large proportion of internal variability in Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures. Competition between a modest positive peak in the AMO and a substantially negative-trending PMO are seen to produce a slowdown or “false pause†in warming of the past decade.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6225/988.short

[VillagePlank]

Even Guy Callendar who in 1938 proposed a logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature (expressed as an anomaly to then present mean temperature.) ?

 

More time?

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/pdf

Arrhenius got there even earlier

[Midlands Ice Age]

Even Guy Callendar who in 1938 proposed a logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature (expressed as an anomaly to then present mean temperature.) ?

 

More time?

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/pdf

 

Knocks..

 

An interesting real scientific historical paper, that even  I could follow!

 

Unfortunately he didn't  include any other feed-backs or drivers at the top of the 1910 to 1940  uplift cycle. .

Things haven't moved on that much since any other unknown feedbacks seemed to have been ignored then..

 

MIA

[stewfox]

Even Guy Callendar who in 1938 proposed a logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature (expressed as an anomaly to then present mean temperature.) ?

 

More time?

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/pdf

 

Guy felt a small global temperature rise would be good for the reasons he stated in that article, which hold true today.

 

He also admitted the limited data available cira 65yrs but largely less then that (back in 1938) and didn't consider any other drivers that would respond.

 

Now of course some folk know what the arctic sea ice was exactly  like in 23,000 years ago.

 

Of course there was a slight global cooling for 30yrs after that article was written despite large increases in CO2

Edited March 13, 2015 by stewfox

[stewfox]

 

If M.I.A. frequents TWO then he will know that Grandad has provided a wonderful opportunity for others to highlight why we ought have concerns about this new warm phase as he tries to say it is all adequately explained by a 60 year mysterious cycle. 

 

How can you become concerned about something that hasn't happened ?? , based on the same folk who have postulated theories over the last 30 years that haven't happened ??

[knocker]

Guy felt a small global temperature rise would be good for the reasons he stated in that article, which hold true today.

 

He also admitted the limited data available cira 65yrs but largely less then that (back in 1938) and didn't consider any other drivers that would respond.

 

Now of course some folk know what the arctic sea ice was exactly  like in 23,000 years ago.

 

Of course there was a slight global cooling for 30yrs after that article was written despite large increases in CO2

 

Which is perfectly in accord with current thinking as natural variations and sometimes external forcing (global dimming) will impact the general trend.

 

 

How can you become concerned about something that hasn't happened ?? , based on the same folk who have postulated theories over the last 30 years that haven't happened ??

 

So we shouldn't have been concerned about the possible destruction of the ozone layer. There isn't much point in being concerned after the event.

Knocks..

 

An interesting real scientific historical paper, that even  I could follow!

 

Unfortunately he didn't  include any other feed-backs or drivers at the top of the 1910 to 1940  uplift cycle. .

Things haven't moved on that much since any other unknown feedbacks seemed to have been ignored then..

 

MIA

 

Of course he didn't but his prediction was correct which was the point of my reply.

Edited March 13, 2015 by knocker

[stewfox]

 

So we shouldn't have been concerned about the possible destruction of the ozone layer. There isn't much point in being concerned after the event.

 

No its been fixed

 

Ozone layer showing 'signs of recovery', UN says

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29152028

 

Anyway lets get some predictions, which is what this thread was for ??

Edited March 14, 2015 by stewfox

[knocker]

 

Anyway lets get some predictions, which is what this thread was for ??

 

Okay, my conclusion is this. After sorting out the wheat from the chaff if the AMO and PDO cause decadal spikes, both negative and positive, in the global temperature trend then over the longer time frame this will have little impact on this trend. Thus I see no reason why this trend should not increase ( by how much is $64,000 question given the difficulty in quantifying future feedbacks ) unless the main driver of this, carbon emissions, are seriously curtailed, keeping in mind the long lifetime of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

 

And I base this, not only on the temperature trend but on the clear evidence that climate change is already occurring. Glacier melt, for example, is indisputable and because of this there are deep concerns about water supply in areas such as parts of South America and Asia. Sea levels are rising, sea ice is diminishing despite the temporary increase in Antarctic sea ice and nature doesn't lie when flora and fauna are moving north and south and upwards.

 

Must dash now as my morning three yard dash to the coffee machine beckons.

Edited March 14, 2015 by knocker

[Midlands Ice Age]

THC links are on the stuff I did in 2013

 

OK

Yep,

I read all that...

 

But surely if the transport of heat, was to move the heat to somewhere where it could be more easily transported back into space?

 

How does it appear to change the wavelength of these warming/ cooling  cycles. Could it be CO2 doing this? Or are there more medium term drivers at work?

 

The other thing  about all this  is that  most of the heat currently being ascribed to CO2 might well be an artifact of the AMO effect, which may well be a proxy for something else entirely. I think the Curry report is just one thing to be considered, thre could be other effects further downstream.

 

Too many things unknown at the moment to be sure what is afoot. 

 

MIA

[knocker]

OK

Yep,

I read all that...

 

But surely if the transport of heat, was to move the heat to somewhere where it could be more easily transported back into space?

 

How does it appear to change the wavelength of these warming/ cooling  cycles. Could it be CO2 doing this? Or are there more medium term drivers at work?

 

The other thing  about all this  is that  most of the heat currently being ascribed to CO2 might well be an artifact of the AMO effect, which may well be a proxy for something else entirely. I think the Curry report is just one thing to be considered, thre could be other effects further downstream.

 

Too many things unknown at the moment to be sure what is afoot. 

 

MIA

 

No only does that go against all current scientific thinking. the blog by Zeke and the recent paper quoted above are examples, it at the same time repudiates the Greenhouse Effect. So your reasons for thinking that are of interest. Most natural cycles tend to redistribute heat via oceanic-atmospheric interactions, not generate it.

 

 

Too many things unknown at the moment to be sure what is afoot.

 

One very important thing is known.

Edited March 14, 2015 by knocker

[stewfox]

Okay, my conclusion is this. After sorting out the wheat from the chaff if the AMO and PDO cause decadal spikes, both negative and positive, in the global temperature trend then over the longer time frame this will have little impact on this trend. Thus I see no reason why this trend should not increase ( by how much is $64,000 question given the difficulty in quantifying future feedbacks ) unless the main driver of this, carbon emissions, are seriously curtailed, keeping in mind the long lifetime of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

 

And I base this, not only on the temperature trend but on the clear evidence that climate change is already occurring. Glacier melt, for example, is indisputable and because of this there are deep concerns about water supply in areas such as parts of South America and Asia. Sea levels are rising, sea ice is diminishing despite the temporary increase in Antarctic sea ice and nature doesn't lie when flora and fauna are moving north and south and upwards.

 

Must dash now as my morning three yard dash to the coffee machine beckons.

 

The thread seems to be going back and forth re what is happening now (which we have done on this forum for a couple of years) I cant see any predictions?

 

I think by 2030 only then will we see carbon admissions going in the right direction as countries such as China USA etc have more of a buy in. Mitigation has costs and i think many folk ignore the costs. There is no 'clear evidence' of a impending disaster and that's reflected by governments current 'goals' on reduction. 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/12/china-and-us-make-carbon-pledge

 

This is based on 'the pause' being not as a result of just back ground factors and we don't see a rapid rebound in global warming in the near future. To quantify that,if we see a rapid increase of around a 0.5c to 0.8c in global temps by 2030 ,I believe governments will act quicker and 'goals' would change.

 

However based on current evidence i cannot see more then 0.5c rise by 2100 , I think increase cloud cover could be a mitigating factor i also thing we will see more weather extremes because of more reporting stations and having more energy (heat) in the system. 

 

Unfortunately i think the alarmist will continue for another 15/20 yrs

 

---------------------------

 

In its ' business as usual' story line humanity continues to burn significant amounts of coal, and greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase at their present rapid rate. This scenario - and others the IPCC assessed where no effort at all is made to reduce emissions -  suggest temperatures could rise by 3.7 to 4.8°C by the end of the century, the panel says.

--------------------------

 

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/04/degrees-of-change-the-ipcc%E2%80%99s-predictions-for-future-temperature-rise/

 

---------------------------------------

 

However i do not support doom day scenarios and i also don't buy 'it will be too late'.  The worlds population by 2100 will be far higher then it is now and we will be doing fine , I also think we will still be able to go to the Maldives.. Perhaps my 5yr old niece could review predictions in 2100 ?? The hype over global warming/climate change in the late 1990s upto 2025 will by laughed at by 2100.

Edited March 14, 2015 by stewfox