Joe, in the ball park but deliberately obtuse.

While this may sound simplistic (it is), what many people fail to appreciate is that those numbers you cite are significant. In geologic time they may not seem so, but over a few decades they are. If you can accept that 50 years (say) is required to separate the noise from the signal (e.g. natural variability from an un-natural warming trend) then you are on your way to understanding that we are skating on thin ice – the planet is ‘squealing’, Joe. The current episode of global warming is a symptom of human activity.

Your question. Interesting, most deniers (of AGW) seem to think it is the vast body of scientists and scientific institutions that are involved in a world-wide conspiracy. Maybe you’re right though, an even smaller coterie of nuclear conspirators is the culprit.

Seriously ... it’s going to take decades to adapt (some species won’t be able to) and it would be prudent to live in a more sustainable way (as you allude to), regardless of what you think about AGW.

Yes, people will believe only what they want to believe, regardless of the truth. Let me put it to you this way - do you really think people want to believe they are having a serious impact on the planet’s climate? I don’t, but I work in the field and research the stuff – and the truth hurts. And God forbid that people like runner are not loving (or caring for) His kingdom.

Qanda,

So it's two degrees in fifty years ? Two inches in fifty years ? That's it ?

But why do you assume that nothing can be done ? Why do you assume that everybody is happy to sit back and do nothing ? I'm quite happy with the precautionary principle, that, regardless of the extent of AGW, we should and can do many things right now: re-forest, switch to renewable energy ASAP, tax air pollution, buy back water now used for idiotic crops like cotton and rice, re-cycle storm-water for grey water household systems, etc., etc. And teach precautionary techniques of all sorts from the earliest years in school.

Alternatively, we could crawl into a cave somewhere with out cartons of baked beans and bottled water, and scream out at the world 'You'll all be sorry !'

>> So it's two degrees in fifty years ? Two inches in fifty years ? That's it ? <<

Joe, you are starting to sound like Basil again.

No, Joe – I DON’T “assume nothing can be done”, and I DON’T “assume that everybody is happy to sit back and do nothing” – quite the contrary, in fact. A lot can be done to meet the challenges of a warmer and wetter world, and there are many people, institutions, countries and captains of industry, that are doing these things ... although not enough, in my opinion.

Perhaps you are equating my despondency with human nature to crawling into a cave somewhere with a carton of baked beans and bottled water, and screaming out at the world 'you’ll all be sorry!’ I am not an AGW ‘alarmist’ but I do think what’s in store for humanity is alarming, even using ball-park Fawlty numbers.

What I DO assume is that most people have little understanding of a few salient points, not least:

• The ‘enhanced green-house effect’
• ‘radiative forcing’
• The ‘Earth’s energy imbalance’
• ‘climate sensitivity’
• The ‘global climate monitoring system’
• ‘time series statistical analysis’

If they did, they would also understand that 2 degrees and 2 inches (in fifty years) is NOT ‘it’. Given that we are belching billions and billions of tonnes of heat-trapping GHG’s into the atmosphere (increasing exponentially every year) ‘it’ will get worse. How much worse? We’re tracking at the high end of the IPCC projections.

How to address this ignorance is a problem, but it can be overcome with reasoned explanation, appropriate and rational public discourse. However, there is a bigger problem – there is a concerted effort by those that would lose their power and control (if policies and actions were implemented to address AGW) to deny and delay, to sow the seeds of doubt, to distort and misrepresent anything that gives credence to the robustness of the science. We need real leadership to counte

Qanda,

'How to address this ignorance is a problem, but it can be overcome with reasoned explanation, appropriate and rational public discourse.'

Well, thank goodness we have experts like you around, to instruct the ignorant.

Are emissions really increasing exponentially ? Each Saturday, the national newspaper publishes emission totals for the previous week, for most states and nationally: each week so far this year, the total has been less than the corresponding week last year, and to date, this year's total is well down on last year's total to this time. Of course, that's The Australian, that muck-raking, capitalist-consumerist, lickspittle rag, but it's probably the best we've got to go on at the moment.

So, what is 'it' ? Am I under or over ? And what can we do about it ? I know this is not the right postmodern question to ask - I should be listing causes and consequences, not seeking remedies, and that I should be finding who is at fault (modernism, capitalism, technology, consumerism of course) and denouncing the futility of changing minds and doing anything, that it's all too late, only fools would want to try to do anything about it.

But I guess I'm an irredeemably pre-postmodern modern old f@rt.

Still, I'm ready and willing to do something about it: just tell me what :)

Joe

I'd start by learning the difference between "significant/ significance" as it is used in common language, and "statistical significance" as it used by scientists and statisticians.

Hint: statistical significance has nothing to to do with importance.

You might even be able to convince someone who knows the difference t hat it's not a complete waste of time in having a converstaion with you.

Bugsy,

Yes, from memory Prof. Jones cited a figure of 0.07 degrees C, at the 95 % confidence level of about 0.07 degrees C, something like that ? i.e. somewhere between 0 and 0.14 degrees C, over fifteen years ?

But regardless of how many angels we can fit on the head of this particular pin, what are we going to do about it, assuming there is some actual warming - something other than building a tropical beach shack on a Tasmanian mountain ? i.e. something remedial, restorative, whatever you like to call it ? Why assume that there is nothing we can do and just look around for who to curse ?

Surely we would have done/can do something about the environment - renewables, and recycling, and re-forestation, etc., etc. - even if there had/has been no global warming ? AGW is not the be-all and end-all. (?)