"So according to this guy we have a year of global warming, followed by a year of global cooling, then maybe another year of cooling, then warming and so on, with no long term trend? What a crock."

Actually, there have been no warmer years than 1998 since 1998. I would say that's a fairly long term trend.

Want a longer trend? During the West's heavy industrialisation, global temperatures actually FELL, right up to 1977.

Been preparing for the release tomorrow, I am tired.

Bazz

The Working Group III’s 4th Assessment Report (Chapter 4: Energy Supply) specifically covers your question about hydrocarbons (coal, oil, gas) and talks about trends (global and regional).

Have you actually read the IPCC reports? Your questions indicate you have not. Leave the SPM's to the policy makers if you want to understand the science.

Did you watch David Rutledge’s video? You make no comment – strange seeing it explicitly talks about your questions.

I recall pointing you to precise page numbers in the IPCC reports in another thread about other questions you had – I think your response had something to do with bandwidth or speed? Is this still the case?

AJFA,

I looked some; I read some – another blogger (and which one is you?). So, you think you know something about climate science – give me a break! I suggest you research the technical reports (if not the published papers themselves) before you make such foolish statements.

Freediver,

The “guy” does not have a clue about trend analysis or even simple linear regression.

_________________________________________

It amazes me why people with concerns or questions about a particular topic, or those that are prepared to make disparaging remarks about processes and procedures they have little understanding about; do not go to primary (or secondary) sources before they make erroneous comments.

One has to question their agenda or motivation.

BTW, sunspots and cosmic rays are examined in the links I have given, as is radiative forcing and attribution studies.

Bazz, as I expected, and as I explained in the previous thread about that coal report, the conclusion of peak coal is based on unreasonable assumtions. The authors only include proven reserves. If you made the same mistake with any mineral at any time through history, you would conclude that peak production is imminent. The reason is that proven reserves are not in any way a reflection of actual reserves. Rather, they are a reflection of the economic viability of spending millions of dollars on mapping a body of ore or coal. If you aren't going to mine the stuff for 100 years, there's no point wasting a huge sum of money on it. Reports such as these are a perpetual joke in the mining industry.

"Actually, there have been no warmer years than 1998 since 1998. I would say that's a fairly long term trend.

It's not a trend. It's drawing a line through a single point. It's the statistical equivalent of seeing one red car and proclaiming that all cars are red.

"Want a longer trend? During the West's heavy industrialisation, global temperatures actually FELL, right up to 1977.

So what? Did you know that it was only recently (about 1977) that our cumulative CO2 output started skyrocketing? Prior to that there was a very slow cooling trend, but this hardly proves that there isn't a warming trend now. This is the equivalent of arguing that the temperature didn't really start going up at dawn because it was still dropping after midnight.

Davsav;
I have been searching through Assessment Report 4 and I cannot
find any reference to hydrocarbon depletion being taken into account.
Have I missed it ?
Am I looking in the wrong place ?
Can you tell me what working group talks about it ?
Is it in fact there at all ?

Bazz, see above.

Good morning/night

Davsab;
Here is the section you mention;
Energy Supply Improved supply and distribution efficiency;
fuel switching from coal to gas; nuclear power;
renewable heat and power (hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal and bioenergy);
combined heat and power;
early applications of CCS (e.g. storage of removed CO2 from natural gas)

Text there about efficiency, using gas etc etc but nothing that talks
about a reduction in the available fuels.

I wonder if we are talking about the same document.
Yes I do have a 400Mbyte limit. It makes videos a bit expensive.