Oh good...we have 10 years to save the planet!

Is that different to the ten years we had ten years ago?

Or the ten years we had 15 years ago? ("And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return"
Al Gore)

Or the ten years we had 30 years ago?...

"A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control."

We've always got 10 years, except when we've only got 4 years, but when nothing gets done, miraculously the ten years gets replenished. Its the world's most successful recycling scheme.

And news just in of a new record high for Europe. 48.8 degrees recorded in Italy.

Apparently nothing to see here.

Dear mhaze,

Yes they are trying to give some hope. It is abundantly clear to all but the most ideologically willfully ignorant that the world is already suffering the impacts of a warming planet and it is very likely that the future world we are leaving to new generations will be quite different to the one we have enjoyed thus far, with far more challenges that we have had to face.

If you truly had any regard for the mental health of our young then you may have some inkling of how important that is.

"the world is already suffering the impacts of a warming planet ..."


So you've chosen to ignore the evidence that climate impacts have been declining for a century?

for example (among myriad other data)...http://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/deaths_from_extreme_weather_1900_2010.pdf

"If you truly had any regard for the mental health of our young then you may have some inkling of how important that is."

Well to allay the fears of the young I'd tell them not to worry because even though we've only got 10 years to save the planet, in ten year time, we'll still have ten years to save the planet. Indeed they can rest assured that, based on past evidence, their grandkids will still have ten years to save the planet.

I keep reading statements that the increase in CO2 follows temperature
increase, NOT the other way around.
This contradiction to AGW never gets explained.
Why ?

Bazz,
It's not just a case of one following the other; it's a positive feedback loop. Increasing CO2 increases temperature (because it absorbs and reradiates infrared), and increasing temperature increases atmospheric CO2 (because CO2 is more soluble in cold water than in hot). Conversely, decreasing CO2 has a cooling effect, and cooler oceans hold more CO2 and hence reduce its atmospheric concentration.

Data from ice cores seems to show the warming and cooling start before the CO2 levels start to increase and decrease respectively. Due (I think) to the time taken for snow to turn to ice, there is some doubt over whether the data that conclusion is based on is interpreted correctly, but assuming it is, the explanation's simple enough: changes in the amount of solar radiation this planet receives (I think due to changes in its orbit) result in some warming, which results in CO2 being released from the oceans, resulting in more warming, and more CO2 released, and more warming and so on until eventually the effect is stopped by a decrease in the amount of solar radiation this planet receives, at which point a cooling feedback cycle begins.

Note that it's a slow process; much slower than the current rises in CO2 and temperature.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
You misunderstand the way mathematics applies in the real world. Correct calculations won't give the correct result if they're based on incorrect assumptions.

mhaze,
It varies from country to country, but humans are generally pretty good at modifying their local environment to minimise the chances of extreme weather resulting in human deaths. It doesn't mean the problem's not worsening.

We had a chance to limit warming to 1°C. We blew it.
We had a chance to limit warming to 1.5°C. We blew it.
Now the best realistic scenario is to limit warming to 2°C, and we're not even on track to achieve that.
And keep in mind the above figures are the average - the extremes will be much hotter.

If we fail then however bad things get, of course we're going to try for a new, achievable target to limit the consequences of our actions as far as possible. We'll have to live with the consequences of our past failures. But many creatures won't be able to live with it.