LM,

No the global temperature increase has been about 0.7c / century while the overall land increase has been about 0.9c/century.

Those who 'homogenise' the data claim that their changes take the urban heat-island effect into account but there is massive argument about that and it remains unclear if their changes are correct.

So globally the temperature rise has been around 0.7c/century or around 1.2c since around 1850. Assuming the rise continues like that that means a further rise through to year 2100 of about 0.5c which would give an overall increase from 1850-2100 of less than 2c.

Do you remember a decade or so ago the claim was that we needed to keep temperatures below a 2c increase? That changed around 2010 to saying we needed to keep it below 1.5c. Why the change? Because it was suddenly realised we may never get to a 2c increase.

So will the rise continue as in the past? Will it accelerate? will it decelerate?

It might accelerate if developing nations dramatically increase emissions.

OTOH we know that the ability of CO2 to absorb heat decreases as more is added to the atmosphere. So the rate of temperature rise might decelerate.

No one knows. And that's why we need to hold off massive societal changes until we do know. No matter what, the rises are slow and we have plenty of time to adapt if the more pessimistic forecasts turn out to be valid.

Dear NNS,

You write;

“In the end it doesn't matter if you said you'd look over one argument and have since changed your mind because it's too much time.”

Don't be so childish. I certainly haven't said I wouldn't look at an argument. All I requested was for you to identify which reference you felt to be the strongest having effectively dispatched the first.

If this ended up taking some time to step through them all I would have been fine doing so, but I wasn't prepared break each and every one of them apart in one hit. Especially since after doing the work on Lindzen paper you gave absolutely zero response to what I had raised.

What I think is happening is that you see yourself on a potential hiding to nothing by continuing and have picked up your bat and ball. Of course that is your prerogative but don't go blaming me for it.

Anyway for the record I thought I would have a look at the Lewis-Curry paper of 2014 which was the next reference. In 2013 the IPCC put the Transient Climate Response (TCR) at between 1.0 and 2.5 degrees while this paper put it at 1.05 to 1.8 degrees Celsius. Not a dramatic difference.

If you wanted to read more about climate sensitivity you can do so here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivit

Dear mhaze,

You write;

“So globally the temperature rise has been around 0.7c/century or around 1.2c since around 1850. Assuming the rise continues like that that means a further rise through to year 2100 of about 0.5c which would give an overall increase from 1850-2100 of less than 2c.”

This is exactly why people like yourself are shown to either not have a clue about this issue or are politically inspired to fudge the figures.

The vast bulk of the rise in CO2 has been in the last 50 to 60 years and the vast bulk of the temperature rise has been in the same period as one would expect.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

Yet you are attempting to make an argument that the temperature rise should be calculated since 1850 which of course dramatically hides the accelerating nature of the global temperature rise.

It is one of the more crude attempted deceptions you have attempted to propagate on this forum.

Lift your game old son because you run the risk of any position you put will be regarded by default as utterly suspect and not worthy of any due consideration.

SR.

You surely are joking. Even you can't be this dim-witted.

You tried to trick Loudmouth into thinking that "temperature increases sit at around 2C."

I was merely trying to show him that that number was utterly bogus.

And why did I use 1850 as my starting point?

Because YOU used 1850 as YOUR starting point for the 2c figure (check the graph you got that number from again). What a dill!!

I was comparing like with like. I don't agree with using 1850 but since you'd done so, to refute your fake number, I also did so.

"Yet you are attempting to make an argument that the temperature rise should be calculated since 1850...

It is one of the more crude attempted deceptions you have attempted to propagate on this forum.

Lift your game old son because you run the risk of any position you put will be regarded by default as utterly suspect and not worthy of any due consideration."

Actually no, you SR don't run that risk. I already know that any time you start using numbers and graphs, you are utterly out of your depth.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Slither, slither.

No mate, you first introduced the date. i clearly said over the last century not since 1850.

But hey, let's play it your way.

Here is the Berkeley raw land data.

"Estimated Global Land-Surface TAVG based on the Complete Berkeley Dataset"

1850 anomaly is -0.952

2018 anomaly is 1.115

More than 2 degrees it would seem. How is your math?

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Complete_TAVG_summary.txt

Dill indeed.

SR,

A lot has happened to influence the climate over the past seventy years. Manufacturing has massively increased, increasing the world's standard of living generally by some orders of magnitude. So of course, the emission of CO2, as a by-product of the energy sources used, oil, gas and coal, has increased, although I would assume that manufacturing technologies are cleaner now than seventy years ago, including those used in the manufacture of solar panels and wind-towers.

As well, the increase in the reliance on air-conditioning has been massive. Industrial activity and air-conditioning have at least one thing in common - they generate heat, especially in urban areas. The extra heat generated may have also increased the world temperature significantly.

So is it possible to differentiate some of the man-made causes of temperature rise: CO2 and heat amongst them, to identify how much temperature increase each factor has contributed ? Certainly, there need to be urgent measures to reduce the emissions of CO2 and other gases and particulates as well, but would it also be possible to reduce the production of heat from such economic and social activity ?

Or is this a silly question ?

Cheers,

Joe