Unsure of Climate Science's Predictions? Do it yourself!

Well before mid century we will probably pass a threshold beyond which we'll really regret having not curtailed the release of fossil Carbon into the atmosphere in the form of Carbon Dioxide. The best case scenario for "business as usual" release of the greenhouse gas is that some of the carbon, or some of the heat (from sunlight) gets taken out of the main arena (the atmosphere and sea surface) and buried or reflected somewhere for a while, and this all happens on a slightly delayed time scale.

The reason we know this is a little thing called science. And, more exactly, physics. And physics is math embedded in reality (or reality draped on math if you like), so there's also math. And here is the formula:

the formula the formula

For instructions as to how to use this formula to understand the statements in the first paragraph of this post, including the data you need to do the calculations, visit this new item on Scientific American's web site, Why Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036, by climate scientist Michael Mann. He's also got an article in the print edition of Scientific American, which I've not seen because I let my subscription lapse.

More like this

In Paul Krugman's May 29 column he wrote about Pat Michael's "fraud, pure and simple" that James Hansen's 1988 prediction of global warming was too high by 300%. (Michael's fraud was described earlier by Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Hansen again and me.) Michaels has posted a denial, so I'm going to go…
A letter in Climatic Change looking at the life-cycle greenhouse warming potential of natural gas raised a lot of hackles a little while back. If, as the authors posit, replacing coal and oil combustion with gas-fired turbines could actually accelerate global warming rather than slow it down, then…
David Tiley has an has an interesting summary of a BBC program on Global Dimming. It seems that, over the past 40 years, while the amount of sunlight reaching the top of the atmosphere has not changed, the amount of sunlight reaching the surface has declined. Despite this, the earth has warmed…
"Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life." -Hal Lewis The most valuable natural resources we have at our disposal during our brief lives are the following. That's right, the Earth and the Sun. And if we want life on Earth to continue as…

What's the significance of the red and blue on the graph? Why is the baseline temp not at the bottom, but is at 57.6?

The blue and red extend above or below a baseline climatic average, and show anomalies, below or above said baseline.

Interesting graph, at first glance the relationship seems to be clear and strong. I note the current level of CO2 is 399.49 ppm [which would place it bang on the top right corner of the graph] however, the temperature/baseline climatic average [if this graph is based on HadCRUT4 data], has remained [from a rough eyeball glance] lower for every subsequent year the graph has not be updated for. Could we see an identical comparative graph that goes to and includes 2013?

Looks like a bad case of "pause" denial to me.

By catweazle666 (not verified) on 19 Mar 2014 #permalink

Peter, the graph obviously goes to 2013.

Hi Juice,

Each 'dot' along the horizontal axis represents 5 years.

The last coloured bar in the graph is data for 2009.

CO2 certainly rose above 390 ppm in 2011.
The last year the CO2 graph covers is *perhaps* for the year 2009.

Again, it would be good to see a comparative graph utilising up-to-date data...I don't have the programs though.

My Data:
CO2 is here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
HadCRUT4 is here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png


Anyone have an up-todate graph? Greg?