Here you go, because you love graphs so much.
I will provide again the link to the 2008 NOAA State of the Climate report, which stated:
Where did your 'at the very least 30 years' come from?The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create
a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
Are you saying that NOAA is not a reliable source? Or the HADCRUT temperature dataset not a reliable source. Or the UK BoM?
Over 40 plus years. If the 'realists' view the change as linear, which that graphic indicates, what would be the temperature in 2100 when compared to 2000?
My maths indicate an increase of about 1.5C. I do not disagree at all with this prediction at all. I do however, find the government's 5C prediction ludicrous.
Did you read the stuff below that explains it all, or did you - like Dave Rose - think, oh there are the squiggly lines on the graph and it tells me all I need to know. Sometimes as much as we like to believe we can, we just can't read graphs correctly - that is why I want you to actually read what is written on the page.
PS - of course it is not my expert opinion. It is the climate scientists of the world's expert opinion. And that is good enough for me.
There are two types of people in the world, those of us who admit we are not specialists in a specific field, but who give credit to those that are, and realise that if 95% of them are saying something, then it probably is true.
Then there are those types of people, like yourself - and Lord Monkton for example, who for some reason, even though they have absolutely no training in the area, think that they are somehow cleverer than most of the climate scientists in the world. The mind honestly boggles. I just can't even begin to imagine what it must be like to have an ego that size.
'In some ecosystems, maximum daily temperatures might climb beyond the tolerance of indigenous plant or animal. To survive the extreme temperatures, both marine and land-based plants and animals have started to migrate towards the poles. Those species, and in some cases, entire ecosystems, that cannot quickly migrate or adapt, face extinction. The IPCC estimates that 20-30 percent of plant and animal species will be at risk of extinction if temperatures climb more than 1.5° to 2.5°C.' http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/F...ming/page6.php
I really liked this graph.
Especially considering that Hansen's scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions from 2000. Looks like we have outdone ourselves
The IPCC has estimated alot of things. 'At risk' does not mean much. I am at risk of extinction every time I cross the road.
You don't have much faith in the resilience of nature. With some areas having a diurnal variation of 40 degrees in one day. I would like to think that plants and animals should be able to cope with a change of 1.5 degrees over 100 years.
Its a prediction based on what evidence? Flannery predicted that our dams weren't going to fill anymore - we built desal plants. They are now mothballed after wasting billions on them.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!