Well it's nice to see someone asking a question on climate in good faith, and receiving an answer in the same spirit.

Joe,

Obviously you are far from an idiot or a simpleton. We can't all be experts in the fields that draw our interest, but we can learn from those who have some expertise in these areas.

Hi Poirot,

Yes we can, if they deign to share their knowledge with us. Nobody has expertise in every major field, so those who have it, should share it. But to be honest, trying to get information about more or less precisely how much, say temperature or sea-level rise, is like trying to get your constipated kid to produce the goods. And I think you might know what that is like ;)

Aren't you glad that dissent isn't being silenced ?

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Great ideas and great societies are the products
of free inquiry. They must continue to remain free.

Galileo was put under house arrest by the Vatican
for saying that the earth moved around the sun.
In fact, in 1633 the church made him recant his theory
of the universe.

In case we dismiss this religious intervention in
science a thing of the past, be aware that on issues which
require radical solutions that are likely to harm vested
economic interests and political interests, censorship
exists today.

As I pointed out in an earlier post - "In Australia in
2006, leading climatologists with that country's
pre-eminent public research organisation, CSIRO, were
forbidden by the organisation's management from publicly
discussing the implications of climate change. Management
was acting on behalf of the government. And Australia is
one of the standout countries in terms of human development
status. It is not corrupt. Its science is world class.
None of this mattered. In 2006, the Australian Government's
position was to cast doubt on global warming and refuse to
enter into UN agreements such as the Kyoto protocol..."
(Tor Hundloe).

New ideas instead of being welcomed for the opportunities
they open up for the improvement of the human lot, are
threats to those who have become comfortable in their
ideologies, (religious or otherwise).

I'll end this post with the following thought:

"Somebody in France wanted to put Voltaire in jail.
Somebody in Franco's Spain sent Lorca, their
greatest poet, to death before a firing squad.
Somebody in Germany under Hitler burned the books,
drove Thomas Mann into exile, and led their Jewish scholars
to the gas chamber. Somebody in Greece long ago gave
Socrates the hemlock to drink. Somebody in the USSR
banned Solzhenitsyn and Pasternak. Somebody at Golgothe
erected a cross and somebody drove the nails into the
hands of Christ. Somebody spat on his garments.
No one remembers their names."
(Milton Meltzer, "Four Who Locked Horns With the Censor.").

Hello Joe

There is a very well-known study (since verified/validated) that explains why reducing the temperature increase (say from 2 degrees C) will take hundreds of years. Google Susan Solomon if you want to know more.

The paper was misrepresented and distorted by Bolt/Jones & Co here in Oz last year when it was released. What Bolt/Jones & Co failed to understand is that not only will temperature keep going up, but it will take a much longer time to stabilise then fall. All this notwithstanding we are supposed to be heading for another ice age (in many 1,000’s of years, give or take).

Limiting the increase will be extremely difficult to do. The world’s population is expected to peak at about 10 billion in 40 years’ time, with all that entails - even more energy and national/international stressors, for example. There are plenty of graphs on the web that shows this exponential growth, the implications are not pretty.

There is also plenty on the web to show the expected rise in temperature, out to 2100. But again, the world does not end in 2100.

Joe, the BEST study found that the mean global surface temperature has risen by 0.9 degrees C over the past 50 years (although they have been able to go back 250) and mainly attributable to increased GHG’s – which is consistent with previous analyses. It addressed concerns about the urban heat island effect, poor station siting, and solar effects, volcanoes and data selection bias. If anything (and it hasn’t been peer reviewed yet) it adds even more weight to what we already know – the planet is warming and humanity is playing a significant part.

My opinions:
Do I think we can do anything about it? Yes, but we have to start soon, very seriously.
Do I think we will do anything about it? Nothing really substantive – at least not before it’s too late anyway.

Apologies to Mr Wiggles, we do digress : )

A new paper is going for peer review and publication.
It is the result of the heat island effect on US wx stations.
It seems that the surface temperature rise in the US up to one third
of the previous believed rate.

The paper is available for discussion here;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

and the paper is available at;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#more-68286

At that location there are a number of documents showing methodology etc.

Bazz,

Where's it going for peer review?
At the moment it's a draft pre-print and is undergoing pal-review.

Publication?....respected journal?

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/07/29/watts-disappoints/

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/blog-review-of-watts-et-al-2012.html