Great article Kano! This correlates almost exactly from the 1990 IPCC report. This has a higher resolution though. But it shows that these calamity howlers are making a mountain out of a molehill. 0.87 degrees rise in temperature in around 350 years, coming out of the LIA at that, and it is considered catastrophic?
Why are our governments making inane laws and collecting abhorrent taxes based on 0.87 degree rise in 350 years? It makes no sense to the normal thinker.
Quite a while. The IPCC has now put 1.5C back into the possible range of warming, so as not to appear totally wrong in the future. Papers published after the IPCC deadline made the low end even more likely.
"Gringo even the IPCC says warming up to but not beyond 2C is likely to be beneficial"
Well if Gringo says that, that is good enough for me!
Mechanical measurements do give us an idea, but considering the constant flow of temperatures in all areas and in every direction (even underground), it's hard to pin down an actual temperature. I'd say that a "noon rush hour" (in the heat of the day) in a major city like New York or L.A. would show a tremendous climb in temperature if CO2 was as much of a driver in temperatures as the warmists say it is. Factoring out the 'heat island effect' (concrete and asphalt) I doubt that there is an appreciable warming in those areas.
Downtown Chicago is a prime example. There is very little difference (if any) in temperature from the suburbs and downtown in a downtown rush hour.
Maybe they should start taking temperature readings from on top of light posts at major intersections (stop lights) and observe the difference in temperature with high CO2 in the air? Especially on sunny days. I bet they could get a great idea of how CO2 affects temps in those areas as long as they can factor out the warming from concrete and asphalt.
I've never noticed the difference, but maybe that's because I've never sat on top of a light post with a thermometer either. :-)
<
You're hallucinating again, Kano.
Off your medication?
your quoting WUWT streches your credibility.
I would argue that Sandy was catastrophic and climate change(particularly the polar jet stream influenced by warming arctic, as well as warmer Atlantic ocean temperatures) were contributing factors.
so, you really need to define catastrophic. I'm sure Australia is not benefiting from higher temperatures even today, let alone in 50 years from now.
There is nothing in this article saying that the 2C limit was supposed to be reached last year and BTW WWUT is a denier rag that prints a great deal of misinformation, not news In fact the estimate there is 800 years which is a joke. If we don't make a concerted worldwide effort to drastically reduce greenhouse emissions, there will be no human life in 800 years.2C ys the catastrophic level but 1C is a danger level...so where do you imagine you saw someone prediction last year...news to me
We were told that was going to happen years ago. OOOOOPS. The brevity of daring to ask a question full of such heresy.
Never. It is a fraud.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/how-long-before-we-reach-the-catastrophic-2c-warming/
