I found this POS article for laughs at Tom Nelson: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea ... te-deniers Get this: Even a very optimistic set of assumptions about when global emissions will reach a peak and the rate at which they will then decline will see the world warm by around 4°C by the 2070s. That will make the Earth hotter than at any time for the last 15 million years. And of course the temperature will not stabilise at that level because feedback effects will have taken control of the Earth’s climate out of our hands.
The conditions of life on Earth will be wholly transformed, ecosystems will be remade, and humans will be retreating to the poles, with those already occupying the higher latitudes resisting the influx. All this will occur within the life-times of children born today.
Yet almost everyone, even those very concerned about warming, is going about daily life as though the future will be a gradually improving version of the present. I told you that Groupie and Q were not doing their part fighting climate change.
Mike, This is a wonderful article, chock full of loopyness, and very much enjoyed. For anyone who doesn't have time to read the whole piece, here is a short summary of the main points.
Jeering and demeaning are easier than scientific debate, and therefore are the mainstay of AGW argumentation. Nonetheless, the pro-AGW argument is being lost. Although humans do currently have control over the Earth's climate, this will all change in the future due to gas emissions, unless we follow the one true faith described in the author's latest book (Requiem for a Theory).
Changing to use low energy light bulbs is pointless. This is because consumerism has encouraged in people a mixture of individualism and political passivity. The problem is that businesses still want to sell stuff to people, but governments are increasingly reluctant to allow this to happen. By the way, democracy is corrupt, and needs to be replaced by an authoritarian regime run by climate change activists. If eggs need to be broken to achieve this, then so be it. Will it work? No.
Having read extensively around the subject of climate over the past few years, I can only conclude that global temperature is likely to change in the future, up or down. My understanding is that humans do not have anywhere near enough knowledge of how the global climate system works to have any hope of predicting future temperatures with any degree of certainty at all. Although, the case for cooling over the next 20 years seems more likely than warming based on known data (PDO switch, quiet sun, increase in volcanism, temps stalling over the past 15 years etc), but we cannot be sure. There is simply insufficient data and incomplete theory to make any kind of dependable projection.
What I have learnt is that the obsession of climate scientists with CO2 and other greenhouse gasses has put climate science back 30 years. We do not understand climate because they have been barking up completely the wrong tree!
CR: I noticed claims that the AMO has a few years before it again goes into its negative phase and the real cooling will begin when the PDO, AO, and AMO are all three in negative phase at the same time. The PDO appears to have been in a short warming phase ( positive might be a better term). The last climate shift was around 1975 and if the recent shift was 2005 then the timing would be about right. There are claims the PDO went negative as early as 2000 or 1998! The interesting thing about the cycles is that you do not know what condition they are in until after they shift to the next phase. They can not be accurately predicted and like ENSO events the extent is not known until after the event has been ended for a time. But of course that is weather! The IPCC has based their claims on normal weather fluctuations rather than climate. One problem with the anomaly method is the use of an average to determine above or below average when the actual trends are important rather than whether it is above or below a fabricated line. The is always the Thermohaline circulation that is also cyclic in nature, which needs to be taken into account but it is little understood!