Several other critics have pointed out on the other hand that all IPCC CO2 emissions scenarios may be overstated. There simply isn't that much fossil carbon left to burn. It is thought that coal will have reached an economic peak extraction rate by 2030, meaning that remaining deposits will be too deep, thin layered or waterlogged. So I guess it all boils down to the next 20 years or so. If the coal burn rate is too high it will release methane from soils and seafloors, help burn forests and expose rock now covered in ice. One estimate using a simplified atmospheric model suggests warming will peak at 2C.

Since conditions have been hellish with 0.6C of warming a full 2C seems too much to bear. In Australia that means more firestorms, floods, cyclones, tidal surges, coral bleaching, forest dieback and water supply crises. You'd think the Australian government would do better than 5% CO2 cuts by 2015 which some even think is too much.

Taswegian,
I think you've missed the point. It isn’t just a matter of a few degrees it’s what that will cause. The informed predictions actually state that the 2 degrees will increase the frequency of a series of 'natural' disasters, droughts, heat waves, cold snaps...bushfires and floods etc. I for one don’t want the current intensities of fires and floods to become more regular, the barrier reef to die, or many of our islands to be inundated, then there’s the coastal damage from increased tidal surges and more Cyclones for the north. The good luck don't die isn't quite enough.

You may want to check the recent data on Arctic sea ice melt. Two days ago the American- National Snow and Ice Data centre:http: //nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ : acknowledged that their satellite's sensor was faulty and underestimated the amount of artic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers To put that into perspective: the land mass of Australia is about 7.5 million square kilometers, ie: it underestimated the Arctic ice by about 1/15 the size of Australia-- this is a very big error.

Just to be fair to the writers of the report cited, if one goes to the National Snow and Ice Data centre to read the news, you will find:

"We stress, however, that this error in no way changes the scientific conclusions about the long-term decline of Arctic sea ice, which is based on the the consistent, quality-controlled data archive discussed..."

John

RenegadeScience, I should have mentioned that. I do acknowledge that they still standby their original claims. But what I was trying to point out is that while this blog seems to state that there has been a massive increase just recently (within the last 1-2years) that far exceeds the original predictions it maybe more prudent to wait a while to till this correction for the error is calculated in before making such a claim.
(Just for the record, personally I believe the climate is changing- it always has. Whether the current scenario is predominately due to humans or not- I'm not so sure; more science has be done. Whether it makes real big difference to my life and the lives of the vast majority compared to things such as the economy or viruses/other disease or war/other political conflict (that we can mainly control/are directly responsible for) I'm pretty sure that it doesn't and that it should barely get a mention.)

Ho Hum,
Another 'global warming' thread and still no evidence that human activity is a cause or that we can do anything about it.

It is now some years ago that the alarmists were all upset about the 'hole in the ozone layer' and were predicting dire consequences.
This author makes mention of 'the hole' and predicts warmering because it is closing. Can't satisfy some people. Remember the 2000 milininum bug that was supposed to wipe us all out. Ocean acidifacation is the coming next big fear. Standby to hear more and more on that.

No worries thinkabit.

No hidden agenda in my comment, just fyi for all.

John

Banjo,
AGW or no AGW all that water has to go somewhere and to assume that it won't effect other things is wishful thinking in the extreme.
Even if its natural (which I doubt)we will have to deal with the consequences

The term IPCC really stands for International Population Control Collective.

Examinator,
In later years the temps have been stable or decreasing. Who is to say that trend will not continue?

The vikings colonised Greenland in 986 and grew crops there, so it must have been a lot warmer then than today. I have not seen any record of low lying lands being flooded then. It gradually got colder until the colony was abandoned in 1400.

There are many possible reasons for our climate to change. Those that think we cause climate change consider our importance too highly. Our effect is puny compared to nature. What about the amount of gasses the volcanos continually put out, the power of earthquakes or the effects of continental drift.

If it is proven that humans have an effect on climate change, I am sure we will all hear about it. Until then I'll think about more important and practical things. The over population of the world is an interesting conundrum.

With regard to the methane release from the thawing permafrost, the climate must have been warmer when these beds of vegetation with their snap frozen mammoths were laid down.
Until climate scientists can explain the process why the climate was so much warmer during that epoch and why it all froze in such short order, I will still doubt that anthropogenic carbon emissions are the single cause of ongoing climate change.
Something caused those historic events and are in all likely hood still effecting the earths climate.

No amount of egg on face will stop these climate 'scientist' from making even more absurd claims. Its a pity the 'models' could not even predict the wet in Northern Queensland. According to BOM only a couple of months ago North Queensland was in for a below average rainfall season. The more predictions these guys make the sillier they look. If only people would face up to their own greed, lust and unfaithfulness they would not have to adopt some outward morality blaming others for events outside human control.

The claims in the article are bizaare. In fact the exact opposite has been happening. Global temperatues were markely lower in 2008 than in 2007 mainly due to la nina - a point acknowledged even on the Goddard Institute site. They have since bounced back but to a level lower than 2007. And those temperatures are, in turn, part of a long, slow decline since the end of the century evident on four of the five sites that track temperatues - UAH, Hadley, RSS and NOAA but not on GISS (Goddard), which has temperatures level pegging. As for all the stuff on ice sheets in Greenland and the like if the author looks again he will find that the bulk of it has been quietly dropped. The New Scientist articles make interesting reading on that point. There is certainly nothing in current sea level heights - what's being recorded in recent years, as opposed to projections, to suggest any acceleration in the steady increase (0.3 metres over a century) that has been occuring for decades. The University of Colorado operates satellite sea height measuring programs which, sorry, don't give the results the author would hope for. Again we are talking the exact opposite - admittedly, over a limited time. If these trends continue, the IPCC will have a great deal of explaining to do. This article does not help.