Assume conservatively that the temperature trend for the 21st century is flat, rather than the downwards trend shown by HadCrut. How long does it take to get to Hansen’s 9F rise by 2040 forecast?
9 degrees = N years * 0.0 degrees /year
9 / 0 = N
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Bob G on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Bob G on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Gordon Vigurs on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Ed on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Walter on Ellen Flees To The UK
- conrad ziefle on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- conrad ziefle on Ellen Flees To The UK
One other assumption you didn’t mention…that the rate so far continues for the next 30 years.
Personally, I think we saw ~30 yrs of increase, and now we will see about ~30 years of stagnation or a slight decrease (but less decrease than the previous increase). Basically, I think the warming we’ve seen is a combination of a small amount of warming from AGW riding on top of additional warming from natural variation (or pseudo-cycles). Yes, I think CO2 has an impact (as do land use changes and UHI), but I don’t see it being the out-of-control thing the IPCC reports. I think we’ll be forced to transition to alternative energy forms before we can produce enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cause all the problems they claim.
-Scott
Scott:
I would tend to disagree for a couple of reasons. The globe has not recovered from the LIA and probably reached the maximum warmth for this period in about the 30s.
The state of the surface temperature records currently throws those out of consideration and I base my claims on other records. The warm spells since the Holocene Optimum have gotten cooler and shorter for the last 5 thousand years with the MWP not achieving the warmth of the RWP and the RWP not achieving the warmth of the Minoan Warm Period and so on back every thousand years or so but the timing has gotten shorter between warm periods or rather the warm periods have gotten shorter. Overall the Globe is cooling.
Maybe a minor increase of GHGs will delay the reglaciation but overall the last few million years have been colder than now for over 90% of the time so we are experiencing the unusual weather at this time but even 2 thousand years ago the weather was more pleasant than now with glacier free passes in the Alps and a tree line further north. We live with what we were born into and adapt to what nature throws at us.
I would venture a guess of reaching that temperature in about 90 to 100 thousand years but that has nothing to do with Hansen’s Fantasy! It could be 110 thousand if the past 120K average holds! I detect a shift in the historical pattern but will wait to see the outcome during the next Interglacial! 😉
Hansen’s prediction will come true in about 1000000002100AD by which time the Suns’ luminosity will have increased by 1% as it slowly starts to run out of Hydrogen.
The worst-case scenario is the one outlined by Scott whereby the planet slowly warms as the rises during the 30-year natural warming cycles are not offset by the falls during the 30-year natural cooling cycles.
Sometime during the 22nd. century, it will become apparent whether we have a serious problem or not. If so, I am confident that technological advances and improved understanding will make us far better equipped to deal with it than we are today.
I would argue that we should have very concrete observational evidence confirming/disproving the warmists within 20 years or so. At the very least, we’ll know if it’s an apocalypse or not. 😉
-Scott
Scott says:
March 16, 2011 at 11:16 pm
I would argue that we should have very concrete observational evidence confirming/disproving the warmists within 20 years or so.
_____________________________________________
Nah. This one’s going to run and run. Mother Nature is having so much fun messing with everybodys’ heads that I don’t see her stopping any time in the next 100 years.
It is infinitely worse than we thought!
In programming, you alway check for zero before you divide…otherwise your program will give you a CAGW result….
hehe, this image fits right in here.
[seen in a FreeRepublic thread]