Report: Holding global warming to 2C increase still possible if nations act

Oct 24, 2011 by Bob Yirka report
Satellite image of ship tracks, clouds created by the exhaust of ship smokestacks. Image: NASA

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new report published in Nature Climate Change, by an international group of scientists, suggests that the goal of holding the average global temperature increase (due mainly to carbon emissions) to 2° C, that the United Nations agreed on at separate meetings in 2009/10, can still be reached, but it’s going to take an unprecedented effort by virtually all of the major countries of the world.

The group, comprised of European, Japanese, Chinese and Australian scientists and researchers, and led by Joeri Rogelj, has been studying the published literature comparing current and projected rates of carbon emissions and has correlated those numbers with an expected rise in global temperatures as a result. They then set up scenarios (using modeling developed by Malte Meinshausen) where they tried to predict likely outcomes (defined as a 66% or better chance) of average global temperatures peaking at or below the 2 degree goal given defined reductions in carbon emissions within certain timeframes. In so doing they found that in order to meet the 2 degree ceiling goal, carbon emissions would have to peak sometime between now and 2020, and then would need to immediately fall thereafter, at least to a median level of 44 Gt (gigatonnes or billion tonnes) of CO2 equivalent in 2020. And it doesn’t stop there, levels would have to continue falling, to around 20 Gt by 2050.

And while the group says it believes reaching these goals is possible, it’s clear that drastic action will need to be taken as last year’s estimates of carbon emissions was around 48 Gt, and based on the way things are going presently, many experts fear will increase to 56 Gt by 2020. As part of presenting their findings, the group laid out scenarios that they believe if followed, would result in meeting the 2 degree ceiling. These would generally include replacing carbon emitters (mainly coal) with energy producers that are based on solar photovoltaic, wind and biomass technologies.

Also of concern are increases in regional temperatures, which are uneven due to the Earth being covered mostly in cold water. As the Earth warms up, temperatures over landmasses heat up far more quickly than they do over the oceans, thus, temperatures for some places such as parts of Africa, the Arctic, Canada and Eurasia, which are already seeing spikes, are likely to continue to do so. Some experts warn these areas might see the 2 degree threshold in just ten or twenty years.

The next round of talks is scheduled to begin next month in Durban, South Africa, and some members of the research team are already speaking out, suggesting that unless immediate action is taken, the opportunity of meeting the 2 degree ceiling could slip away.

Explore further: Colorado River Delta greener after engineered pulse of water

More information: Emission pathways consistent with a 2 °C global temperature limit, Nature Climate Change (2011) doi:10.1038/nclimate1258

In recent years, international climate policy has increasingly focused on limiting temperature rise, as opposed to achieving greenhouse-gas-concentration-related objectives. The agreements reached at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Cancun in 2010 recognize that countries should take urgent action to limit the increase in global average temperature to less than 2 °C relative to pre-industrial levels. If this is to be achieved, policymakers need robust information about the amounts of future greenhouse-gas emissions that are consistent with such temperature limits. This, in turn, requires an understanding of both the technical and economic implications of reducing emissions and the processes that link emissions to temperature. Here we consider both of these aspects by reanalysing a large set of published emission scenarios from integrated assessment models in a risk-based climate modelling framework. We find that in the set of scenarios with a ‘likely’ (greater than 66%) chance of staying below 2 °C, emissions peak between 2010 and 2020 and fall to a median level of 44 Gt of CO2 equivalent in 2020 (compared with estimated median emissions across the scenario set of 48 Gt of CO2 equivalent in 2010). Our analysis confirms that if the mechanisms needed to enable an early peak in global emissions followed by steep reductions are not put in place, there is a significant risk that the 2 °C target will not be achieved.

Related Stories

Planet 'far away' on climate goals: study

Oct 04, 2011

The world remains far away from meeting UN-backed goals on holding back climate change, setting the stage for major damage without more ambitious efforts to cut emissions, a study said Tuesday.

Combating climate change by helping poorer countries

Nov 12, 2010

The effects of global climate change could be minimised by transferring ‘best available’ low carbon technologies from the rich to the poor nations, say researchers at the University of Bath.

Recommended for you

Confucian thought and China's environmental dilemmas

3 hours ago

Conventional wisdom holds that China - the world's most populous country - is an inveterate polluter, that it puts economic goals above conservation in every instance. So China's recent moves toward an apparent ...

Deforestation threatens species richness in streams

3 hours ago

With a population of 1.3 billion, China is under immense pressure to convert suitable areas into arable land in order to ensure a continued food supply for its people. Accordingly, China is among the top ...

User comments : 45

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (30) Oct 24, 2011
What will the corrupt Scaif brothers do now that their funded campaign of warming denialism has funded a massive research project that has concluded that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and that the IPCC has been right all along?

joefarah
2.3 / 5 (21) Oct 24, 2011
I'd like to see global warming of about 3 to 5C.
Canada, Alaska, Russia and Scandinavia are the most massive land masses in the world. A nice rise in GW would give us more available land mass.

Unfortunately, it's simply not going to happen without some natural event (massive solar flare period, significant thermonuclear activity, etc.) Adding Carbon to the environment just won't do it - time to correct your doomsayer models. I saw one model that had the hottest and coldest points just hundreds of miles apart - that would certainly solve our energy problems - but its unrealistic.

By the way, I think it's time to look at the naysayer projections from 10 years ago and compare them to today's actuals (maybe not publicly because that might give the models a bad name).
frenchie
3.9 / 5 (15) Oct 24, 2011
@joe farah - Clearly you know nothing about earth's biosphere and should abstain from posting unti lyou do some research on the effect of your 3-5 degrees (C) rise.

I mean, wherever you're pro/against AGW theories, you have to recognize that...
LVT
1.7 / 5 (35) Oct 24, 2011
The AGW scam's bubble has burst. This is just getting embarrassing for the global Marxists who force taxpayers to fund this nonsense.
Timothy_Hanes
4.1 / 5 (17) Oct 24, 2011
Joefarah, it's already been done. I don't imagine youve ever read or understood anything you've read on Skeptical Science, but the Denialists are way way off, IPCC AR4 is about dead on, and if you want to see if the Koch brothers agree, look at the BEST data- it shows that James Hansen was about dead-on back in 1988 at 0.9 C. Guess you won't follow-up with facts, though, I'll bet.
LVT- so you at least have the cohones to admit you're nuts- all of global warming and Climate Science is an 150 year long enviro-Marxist conspiracy led by Al Gore to hijack the world economy.
Nice tin hat you got there. You get a free bowl of soup with it? No I'm kidding, it looks good on YOU.
mememine69
1.3 / 5 (28) Oct 24, 2011
Science,
Thanks for the pesticides that poisoned our planet in the first place.
Climate change scientists have done to science what abusive priests did for religion.
Nice job girls.
Timothy_Hanes
3.7 / 5 (15) Oct 24, 2011
Meme, you lazy scumbag. There must be alot of climate news out today for you to come here so late to peddle your employer's hateful lying filth. Well, if the Koch's are paying you by the lie, and they don't fire you for incompetence, you are going to have a few boom years while the globe warms all around us and the consequences ensue. But remember, as you so frequently threaten, there might someday be consequences for those who are dishonest in this discussion.
brant
2 / 5 (21) Oct 24, 2011
IPCC has been shown to be crooked. The temperature is rising but not as fast as they say and certainty not due to man made causes... The climate models just dont take everything into account...So its not possible to make real predictions...

Not only that surfacestation.org shows the the temperature stations have been biased towards warming through elimination of the colder stations...
Nerdyguy
4.3 / 5 (15) Oct 24, 2011
We've gotten so far off track with this argument. Maybe some have worked hard to make sure that's the case, and the rest are just following along.

Our focus should be less on whether the climate will warm this year, next year, in a few years, maybe some, maybe a little maybe a lot.

Our focus and resources should be directed towards: cleaning our environment, developing clean renewable energy sources, and finding the least toxic alternatives for pesticides, herbicides, etc.

We are trashing our planet and have done so for so long that we are affecting human health in a hugely negative way.

BTW, I'm a conservative thinker and support a pro-business, pro-democracy, smaller-government-is-better philosophy as much as possible. But, we can and should be taking good care of the only home we have.
Timothy_Hanes
4 / 5 (13) Oct 24, 2011
Brant, takes you a long time to lie. Shorten it, you'll have more umph. Just like the rest of your tin hat crowd, just say "Al Gore is fat and stupid!". If you want to lie about each and every piece of evidence, well, you'll just end up being very busy.
axemaster
3.5 / 5 (13) Oct 24, 2011
God, it's stuff like this that really makes me sick of humanity in general. Bill Clinton gave a talk at my university last week, and one thing he said really stuck with me:

"People have to learn to live with each other, because you can't escape each other."

That's one of the most depressing things I've ever heard. I don't want to live with other people if they're going to ruin the world. And yet, there's nothing I can do. I'm just going to have to watch it all come crashing down, helplessly. It sucks.

Even worse than that, is the reality that this whole problem is political in nature. The technology exists to fix it, but they just_won't_do_it.
DrSki
2.1 / 5 (16) Oct 24, 2011
WOW - hope still exists for the MARTIAN global warming! (Temperatures on Mars have also risen - NASA) If we just concentrate on man-made sources (but not CHINA where global-warming books aren't selling well), even MARS will benefit!
Might not hurt to pray to the SUN-GOD to hopefully add that benefit to mankind's efforts. May need some help from the PLANT-GOD to hopefully not injure any plants that might use CO2 in order to grow in case the published 'goals' cause too much of a dip. SOME plants like CO2 (?"most?" of them...). Need also to make sure that California and Texas don't have any more wildfires (?FIRE-GOD) and no more volcanoes occur ANYWHERE!
Now - where is that ICE-AGE I was taught about when I was 10 years old... Has anyone else seen documentation of an average 0.1 degree C JUMP in the temperature over the past 100 years?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (27) Oct 24, 2011
The technology exists to fix it, but they just_won't_do_it.

Because 'they' don't want to use technology to 'fix' it. 'They' want more govt control, not fixes.
SemiNerd
3.9 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2011
God, it's stuff like this that really makes me sick of humanity in general. Bill Clinton gave a talk at my university last week, and one thing he said really stuck with me:

"People have to learn to live with each other, because you can't escape each other."

That's one of the most depressing things I've ever heard. I don't want to live with other people if they're going to ruin the world. And yet, there's nothing I can do. I'm just going to have to watch it all come crashing down, helplessly. It sucks.

Even worse than that, is the reality that this whole problem is political in nature. The technology exists to fix it, but they just_won't_do_it.

I both agree and disagree. Its sucks, but you CAN counter it by being one of those who support realistic and humane policies.
SemiNerd
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2011
The technology exists to fix it, but they just_won't_do_it.

Because 'they' don't want to use technology to 'fix' it. 'They' want more govt control, not fixes.

This is painting everyone with a broad stroke and an intensely cynical one at that. Have you ever talked to ANYONE who just wants more government control and not technological fixes? In you opinion, is this REALLY true of EVERYONE? Or just a few selected individuals?

You make the same mistake of most bigots. They cherry pick a few examples, generalize over entire groups, then see only those things they choose to see because of their preconceived notions. This is an entirely human tendency, and nothing to be ashamed of. The only thing to be ashamed of is being so intellectually lazy that you don't watch for it when it happens, and use logic and common sense to correct the bias internally when it happens.

You have made enough posts that for you specifically, I can tell your extroidinarly lazy.
Callippo
1 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2011
The only way, in which the people can stop the global warming by now is the nuclear winter. With introduction of cold fusion we could implement some real geoengineering, which I'm afraid will bring rather more problems than solutions.

But under current economical situation it's quite illusory to expect, the people could restrict the consumption of fossil fuels significantly. Every such restriction will slow down our global economy even more.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (25) Oct 24, 2011
Have you ever talked to ANYONE who just wants more government control and not technological fixes?

Have you heard any AGWite offer any solution except more govt controls?
We are seeing the results today with coal and oil bans and govt subsidies to not-ready-for-prime-time solar and electric car companies.
NameIsNotNick
4.8 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2011
I'd like to see global warming of about 3 to 5C.

Over 10,000 years... maybe. (I'm in Canada). Over 100 years, no thanks.
Skepticus_Rex
1.6 / 5 (18) Oct 24, 2011
Fact: It has neither warmed globally and significantly nor cooled globally and significantly for over ten years. We have been riding on a statistical plateau for over a decade.

Both sides of this argument need to give it a rest for the next two decades so we can see which way things actually will go. :)
Timothy_Hanes
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 24, 2011
Skepticus Rex, Nice name, a good one for you, actually. So Denialius Rex, where is this FACT from? Nowhere. It's not true. It's a lie. There has been continued warming as predicted. 2000-2010, hottest decade on record, continuing an accelerating trend. Haven't you heard about the science the Koch Brothers are choking on right now? No? Oh, that's okay, I can see you've been busy, lying.
Oh, and if we "give it a rest" we're screwed. It's over if we don't do something by the end of this decade. You and Bastardi give yourselves alot of time to be proven wrong. Thing is, he was off by a million square miles for the arctic ice about four years running now. You are off by about 1 C now. And you are both off by about 2-3 decades now. We can't wait thirty years until you figure out you are wrong. Why don't you just go back, right now, and discover that you are wrong RIGHT NOW.
Michael_Jones
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 24, 2011
Hold to 2 degrees C, HOW? Congress passed a resolution that would not even state Global warming is caused by HUMANS! What about "lead time" and "capital budgeting"? The investments made today will determine the climate for the next 50 years.
Sorry, we are passed 2 degrees C, now we are in the range of 3-5 degrees C. I don't have to tell you what that means.
3432682
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 24, 2011
It is clear that temperatures are up, but only a little, and nowhere near the predictions of IPCC. None of the predictions of catastrophic effects are anywhere near true. Earth's temperature and weather are benign. The temperature history of the last 10,000 years shows we are in a relatively cool period, the opposite of what the IPCC says, and that temperatures constantly change a good amount, for entirely natural reasons. The longer temperature history shows that an ice age is inevitable. Sea temperatures are flat or declining slightly, the real indicator of Earth temperature. At ease.
LVT
1 / 5 (23) Oct 24, 2011
[quote]Jon Snow the newsreader said that the media has "lost faith in climate change" - it won't cover global warming any longer because of Climategate. He speaks of the "war fought by the opponents of the belief in climate change"; "we are in a bad state", he says. (here from about 2min). "We" is an interesting choice of pronoun.[/quote]

HT Bishop Hill (PBUH)
Twin
1 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2011
10,000 years ago I was really cold. Now, just as we're getting the thermostat under control, you want to mess with our aquarium ????
Timothy_Hanes
4.6 / 5 (12) Oct 24, 2011
343 you are either ignorant or lying, but it doesn't matter which. Depending on which data set you choose, the IPCC models are either UNDER predicting the degree of warming we already see, or are right on. You see, I know BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study). And as to the oceans, that is exactly where we are seeing the heat go, with excellent understanding of the top 700 meters and good idea of the deep ocean heat deposition.
I'd assume you are just lying, but now I think about it, it may be that you read WTFUWT, where, despite reality, the arctic Ice cap is at historic maximum! (it's not, in fact the arctic ice volume is lowest ever measured). But that's okay for you. Next post, you or some jackass will just type whatever lie you choose to spread or believe. But it will be a lie.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2011
Check the data, Timothy_Hanes. Check the data. We have been sitting on a statistical plateau for over a decade now. It remains to be seen if Latif was correct all along or if something else will happen in the interim.

Even if the Arctic ice is the lowest level ever *recorded* instrumentally (hopefully the satellites have not gone out of calibration again) it is not lower than it was 125,000 years ago, when the Arctic was virtually ice-free.

Pink, yes, this may have been the hottest decade but the decade has not warmed but less than a tenth of a degree if we accept infilled data or not at all if we stick to the real data. And, if we accept only the data that has not been infilled into non-existent stations, there has even been a very slight cooling trend that, in spite of 2010, has continued since 1998.
dobermanmacleod
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2011
There is a new clean energy technology that is 1/5th the cost of coal. Dont believe me? Watch this video by a Nobel prize winner in physics: http://pesn.com/2..._fusion/

Still dont believe me? It convinced the Swedish Skeptics Society: http://www.nytekn...4827.ece

LENR using nickel. Incredibly: Ni+H+K2CO3(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. Here is a detailed description of the device and formula from a US government contract: www.lenr-canr.org...thyd.pdf

According to Forbes, electricity will be "too cheap to meter" if the Oct 28 demonstration succeeds: http://www.forbes...w-world/

By the way, here is a current survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleant...tion.htm
Howhot
5 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2011
We are seeing the results today with coal and oil bans and govt subsidies to not-ready-for-prime-time solar and electric car companies.

R2, man are you out in "Left" field. Coal and oil bans? It sounds good to me, what coal company has been banned an where?

Same for oil, where is there an oil ban? You are just making shit up.
ABSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE
1 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2011
looks like the jakass called Bob Yirka

dint get the memo the global warming is a bankster scam

proved without any doubt in climategate

yet this paid shill pushes on the scam
Timothy_Hanes
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2011
Skepticus, only if you make your baseline 1998. "With the exception of 2010"- the hottest year on record (predicted, by the way by James Hansen who said in 2008 we would have a new record in the next four years). Less than a tenth of a degree- yeah, for a total of 1 degree warming over the last century- simple math, man. Finally, Arctic ice- volume! Man volume! How do I make my money? Volume. The ice volume is 1/3 what it was, much lower than in 2007 than when it last virtually tied sea ice area. And when it come to Arctic responses, considering area preferentially over volume is, well, dishonest.
So to repeat- you lie. Go back, figure that out now, and cram it in your ear that we should wait another two decades. I don't want to give up on the planet so the Koch's can make another 100 billion
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2011
"... there has even been a very slight cooling trend..." SkepticusTard

Here is the temperature plot. Where is the cooling trend Tard Boy?

http://www.skepti...cord.gif
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2011
"We are seeing the results today with coal and oil bans..." - RyggTard

What the hell are you jabbering about Randite?

There are no coal and oil bans here on planet earth.

You Libertarian detachment from reality is nearly complete.
You need to see a psychiatrist about your mental disorder.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2011
"It is clear that temperatures are up, but only a little, and nowhere near the predictions of IPCC." - 3432682

Really? The IPCC looks to be right on target to me.

Perhaps you have been so stupid as to read some Turd Denialist blog and have been repeatedly lied to.

http://www.epa.go...tion.gif
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2011
Timothy,

I have a chart for you to look over. It is recent data up to 2010 and has the instrumental data in the form of a chart, with four differing methodologies, two of which are more closely related to each other, one a hybrid, and one only real data.

http://www.univer...aph1.jpg

Notice the differences in the results based on differing methodologies? Which one is right?

In any case, 1998 does not have to be my base to produce a statistically insignificant cooling trend. I can pick 2001 and still get the same result. In fact, it is even more so than if I picked 1998 when you crunch the numbers.

Now, if JMA is right, the cooling trend is more pronounced. If we pick MET, it is less but still a plateau. Even if we pick NOAA we still get a very slight cooling over the last decade. If we pick NASA Goddard--and we know that Hansen pulls the strings--we still get a decadal plateau with less than a tenth of a degree of warming.
Skepticus_Rex
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2011
Venditard,

You have picked only Hansen's modded NASA Goddard plot. Take a look at the other methodologies. All others that don't infill data into non-existing temperature stations do not place 2010 as the hottest year.

Note the JMA, which has the most pronounced cooling trend. JMA only counts existing stations and their data in the calculations and both NOAA and MET infill less than does NASA Goddard. Everyone else except NASA Goddard place 2010 in the number two slot. This means there is a "statistically insignificant cooling trend" in three out of the four plots in the above chart I linked. Take a good, hard look.

It also shows the amount of bias that can be generated by infilling data from non-existent sources of data like NASA Goddard do under Hansen.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
Am I missing something, or is Denialist-Rex (good one :)) unable to read graphs or understand statistical significance? Or is it more likely the extreme bias in his brain that preempts objective observation?
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
"Notice the differences in the results based on differing methodologies? Which one is right?" - SkepTard-Rex

Since all indicate that the warming trend continues, it hardly matters.

Through what lack of sense do you think it does?

"In any case, 1998 does not have to be my base to produce a statistically insignificant cooling trend. I can pick 2001 and still get the same result." - SkepTard-Rex

But you can't choose 2000, 1999, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1981, 1980, etc.

In fact you can't chose any year which produces a statistically significant result.

And that is why you are engaging in typical Denialist Dishonesty.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
"Now, if JMA is right, the cooling trend is more pronounced" - SkepTard-Rex

There is no cooling trend outside of your dishonest Tard Boy Imagination.

The very plot you provided shows that quite clearly.

Have you been a liar all your life?

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
"Am I missing something, or is Denialist-Rex (good one :)) unable to read graphs or understand statistical significance?" - Skultch

Rex illustrates that there is no such thing as a honest Denialist.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
"It also shows the amount of bias that can be generated by infilling data from non-existent sources of data like NASA Goddard do under Hansen." - SkepTard-Rex

The bias you refer to is your own of course. Your inability and unwillingness to follow the JMA line in the graph into 1998 and then beyond.

You dishonestly presume that JMA in 1998 is higher than your eyes think. So you concoct a nonsense lie that corresponds to your political ideology that there has been some kind of cooling.

Going directly to the JMA and finding the real data, illustrates the depth of your dishonesty.

http://ds.data.jm..._wld.png

Now where is your claimed cooling? Liar.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2011
No lies but your own VendiTard. It is easy to overwhelm the trendline in the configuration given. Separate out the last decade, however, and it allows its own statistics to stand on their own, and it is easy to see the trend. Depending upon how the numbers are played, it is easy to see the statistical plateau as well as the slight cooling trend of this last decade hidden within the overall trend.

To see where it actually is going we will need to obtain another two decades worth of data. For now, it is statistically insignificant but it still is noticeable.

And, you must admit from my plot that the JMA data does have more of a downward slope than does NASA Goddard. (But, you won't, which is the act of a denialist on the other side of the camp). That, however, is because they refuse to use non-existent data, unlike NASA Goddard.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2011
Denialist_Rex:

"I choose to use the phrase "more downward" when in reality, the correct phrase should be "less upward" or merely, "below."

How do you learn....anything? Seriously, dude. You have shown beyond a shadow of doubt that you are incapable of adding value to this discussion due to your extreme mathematical inadequacies. What is wrong with you? You must know and are hiding it. It's either you are a hopeless, lying, shill, or mentally disabled.

Why can't we get real, logical, conservative skeptics in here? I am honestly starting to believe that is an oxymoron. It's literally been over a year since I've seen a conservative win a single argument, on any topic, on any website. I guess I'm just not going to the sites where conservatives only argue with mentally handicapped liberals and centrists.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2011
"No lies but your own VendiTard. It is easy to overwhelm the trendline in the configuration given." - SkeptiTard-Rex

You know, excluding the 1998 outlier, the upward trend for the last decade almost exactly parallels the trend line from 1800

Now where is that cooling you were referring to? Liar.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2011
"And, you must admit from my plot that the JMA data does have more of a downward slope than does NASA Goddard." - SkeptiTard-Rex

Here is the JMA data presented clearly - straight from the JMA.

http://ds.data.jm..._wld.png

Your plot does not present the data clearly.

Clearly there is no downward slope, and you are therefore lying.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2011
A good synopsis of BEST and the Filthy, Lying, Denialist reaction to it.

http://www.youtub...Qts-8Cxo

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.