update on world temperatures

govt here has introduced a carbon tax.

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/our-plan/clean-energy-australia/

not popular with some, but many people do understand how important it is. even indusrty leaders:

http://www.news.com.au/business/bre...-power-firm-says/story-e6frfkur-1226309649308

ps - China, for its many faults - is at least investing in renewables.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/25/china-renewable-energy-pew-research

not enough when you look at their growth rate, but they also are aware of the impact of AGW - they have already been badly hit by this with droughts and typhoons.

 

China and India have the potential to erase what ever improvements are made by other countries. Brazil as well as they become industrialized and continue deforestation of the amazon basin. The US has to fix it's economy before a actual effort will be considered. The agriculture methods are a huge problem as you know. I do not expect large ranches and farms to go organic in near future. I grow as much of my own food as possible but most do not have that option.

The four countries above hold the key to solving the problem. I could not think of four worse to depend on. I am very interested in this topic just most actions by the main players seem insignificant. I do hope I am wrong on this but my instincts tell me otherwise.

 

we are not even starting to make improvements - our emissions continue to rise in most cases.

this is interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17476542

a few decades ago, when we were concerned with pollution, the motto was "reduce, reuse, recycle"

we could think about how to reduce our consumption of energy, by (wherever possible) choosing more energy efficient alternatives.

where I live, the average dwelling size has almost doubled in the last fifty years, but family sizes are much smaller.

only a few years ago I knew very few people who had air conditioning, now, people regard you as a luddite if you don't. and while there are more efficient models on the market, people still go for cheaper (but more expensive to run) models.

there are numerous examples which demonstrate that while people whine constantly abuout the high price of energy, the fact is we choose to use a lot more than we did in the past, and choose not to make wise purchases.

in the UK a couple of years ago there was an advert ... "save tomorrow, save today"

having been brought up by parents who experienced the depression, I have always been conservative in my use of resources ... "waste not, want not" has always been something I subscribed to.

consequently, I have sometimes been surprised at how much people spend on energy bills, even though their lifestyle is really no more comfortable than mine.

 

My energy bills are way to high I would like to get off the grid but geo-thermal, and solar are expensive.
Have you ever heard of a particle called "Criegee Biradicals" I hear it is promising.

This is another approach I don't know what you think about it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/12/02/technology-solar-radiation-management.html

 

Nothing too shocking here scientifically. The new Hadley data bumps the recent decade's trend closer to that of the other surface products, which is entirely expected when you include more data coverage in high northern latitudes. The Arctic region is warming more than average, particularly last decade. None of the data sets have 100% coverage, but others had been much closer to approximating a global mean temperature than HadCrut.

It does seems to squash a denier talking point though. Harder to cherry-pick data from HadCrut now and claim 1998 was the warmest.

 

Why would I still use surface reconstructions when we have a satellite record. The surface record is only useful for comparisons between the present and distant past before the satellite record existed. For comparisons within the satellite era best to use the satellite records.

You are asking us to essentially take the x-ray over the MRI.

 

Keep in mind they measure different things, but you should know that by now. The satellite record has had a difficult history, particular with the data set denier Roy Spencer manages.

Dessler put it best.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1185

This doesn't mean it's not useful, but the severity of the problems discovered and magnitude of corrections made don't make it more reliable. It serves as a useful compliment to the surface products. The reliability and robustness of both sets of data has continued to improve.