Hahaha.

Best,

D

Please, look at what you are doing and advocating, when you are truly speaking from vast ignorance.
==================================

All those lovely hydrocarbon bonds, sacrificed in the name of ignorant climate manipulation.
================================

Then, of course, as some time, it’ll bottom out and start rising again. We really ought to know the true climate sensitiviy to CO2 by that time; it’ll become increasingly important then to mitigate or adapt. For now, adapt to the cooling.
=============================

o 2008 is set to be cooler globally than recent years say Met Office and University of East Anglia climate scientists, but is still forecast to be one of the top-ten warmest years. Gosh, that’s cool!

o The Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia have today released preliminary global temperature figures for 2007, which show that the top 11 warmest years all occur in the last 13 years.

The provisional global figure, using data from January to November, currently places 2007 as the seventh warmest on record since 1850. Brrrrr!

o I guess, as the all-knowing (except for one thing) kim bot says for how long even I don’t know. , it’s about zero years:

Global top 10 warmest years
Year Difference from average (°C)
1998 +0.52
2005 +0.48
2003 +0.46
2002 +0.46
2004 +0.43
2006 +0.42
2007 (Jan-Nov) +0.41
2001 +0.40
1997 +0.36
1995 +0.28

o I guess, as the all-knowing (except for one thing) kim bot says for how long even I don’t know. , it’s about zero years:

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.

Huh.

As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing strong warming trend of the past 30 years…>

o Global warming stopped in 1998,” has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense.reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the “El Niño of the century” coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.

Will the kim bot now know for how long we’ve been “cooling”?

Don’t count on it, as the bot has much, much more disinformation to spread.

Best,

D

I call bullsh!t.

Bullsh!t on the kim bot.

The rate of warming may have slowed down depending upon the starting point (altho a commenter here today said 2005 was the warmest year evah).

So the kim bot says that, say, last year was cooler than 1975. Right kim bot programmer?

Bullsh!t.

Evidence. Show your numbers.

Best,

D

Thanks for the detailed reply to my comments on the Breakthrough piece, but I think you miss the point of what he is saying to some extent. He is not dismissing the seriousness of climate change, but what he IS doing is explaining the reasons why the general will to do anything about it is so weak. He says this explicitly in section 2, where he says he personally leans towards “quite severe” in the spectrum of possible outcomes. We know from surveys that acceptance of the problem as being urgent and severe amongst the general public is low (certainly in the UK and US) but he is NOT echoing that view.

One thing we must have learned from the last 20 years is that a global political solution to the problem of rising CO2 emissions may well prove impossible. We haven’t just failed slightly – we have utterly and completely failed. CO2 emissions just keep rising ever faster year on year.

I therefore have some sympathy for the argument that a possible solution lies in attacking fossil fuel on price. If this can really be done then coal fired power stations will suffer the same fate as the horse drawn plough when the tractor was invented, and all without a single politician having to persuade an unwilling electorate to vote for austerity.

This is not possible at the moment because, like it or not, renewable electricity costs more to generate than fossil fuel energy. From an economic/political standpoint is cannot be deployed on a large scale until this situation reverses. Hence the need for intensive R&D.