Global temperatures to rise faster and higher than UN prediction: IEA

Now that I just noticed the author : “Anthony Halley is an assistant editor at MINING.com. Before arriving at InfoMine, Anthony worked as a policy analyst at the Trade and Agriculture Directorate of the OECD. He holds an MA in international affairs from Johns Hopkins University SAIS.” – it is all clearer isn’t it?! Again – quite shameful for mining.com quality of collaborators.

Dan, your ‘points’ of information appear to reveal a very strong bias, broad generalizations, revealing weak analysis. Yet you accuse scientists of having ‘no idea how climate works’ and who ‘falsify data’. Now that your style has revealed yourbias and undermined your arguement can you tell this geologist who has studied climate history for years how to get a breath of fresh air in Beijing not only now but in 20 years? With all their faults, the Chinese are at least investing more money in green energy than the rest of the world combined and their overproduction of solar panels have made it a viable cost effective energy alternative for small users like homeowners in the SW USA.. Keep your head in the sand while others take out an insurance policy by investing in the future.

Solar 11-year cycles account for variations of only 0.27 W/m2 in the Earth’s radiative budget whereas radiative forcing associated with long-lived GHGs, which effect is amplified by positive feedbacks as the one involving water vapor, are on the order of 2 W/m2. 120 years after Arrhenius first scientific statements about the potential effects of increasing CO2’s atmospheric concentration, to deny the reality of humanity as a dominant climatic driver today is unacceptable.

CO2 is lower today than it has been through most of the history of life
on earth…At 150 ppm CO2 all plants would die, resulting in virtual end of life on earth’. So, says founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore. At 400 ppm plants love it. 2,000 ppm is optimum for plant growth. This is why greenhouse growers pipe the exhaust from their gas and wood heaters back into the greenhouse to increase CO2 levels 3-5 times the level in the atmosphere, resulting in 50-100% increase in growth of their crops. And they should recognize that CO2 is lower today than it has been through most of the history of life on earth.

In the history of the earth temperatures have been higher and lower than
present…….or should you forget Antony about Ice ages the last of which only
ended 10,000 years ago. But how would you know that with a degree in international affairs.

Let this geologist give you the big picture. For the last 450,000 years the overall
temperature has been decreasing with a number of glacial periods and inter-glacial periods, like the one we are currently experiencing. If the sun has its way in the current Solar Cycle 24, in which there are under 60 sunspots at the peak, which was this year, over the next 10 years, at least, we can expect very cold winters. The so called climate scientists and NASA were shocked the sun acted this way. Maybe, as some scientists have suggested we are entering another glacial period. Only time and the sun will tell. Keep your eye on that.

Currently, the Antarctic ice pack is at its greatest extent recorded and though
in 2012 the Arctic ice pack was at its least extent this year it has increased
15%. As the earth heats up the CO2 increases, as it cools the CO2 will decrease. No climate scientists are reporting that.

The little rise and ruckus is about the last 150 years, which were also
high number of sunspot years. So, depends if you look at short term or long term. The long term graph below tells it all.

Anthony,
I realize your youth, but if you are to use/repeat this stuff, you need to evaluate reality in data coming from the US Gov’t. before printing their propaganda. So as not to give InfoMine a bad rap, you should consider the actual picture and data. Therefore you must seriously consider withdrawing your article.
Research and new data is becoming ever more clear now. Temperature is decreasing now for a 17-year period at a rate of 0.25 deg C per decade while CO2 rises (Hadley CRUT3 and UAH MSU). The EIA temp. increase is based on models and positive feedback; both are false. There is no connection of CO2 and temperature as the Greenland (GISP) and Antarctic (EPICA) ice coring project data clearly show. The feedback factor due to CO2 in the upper atmosphere also relied upon by propagandists to hype imagined temperature increases is also strongly negative proving there is not an additive effect even if CO2 increases. CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere; water is the real greenhouse gas, not CO2. Lindzen (MIT) and Choi (Korea) from two studies show this, from satellite data that, both the LW and SW feedback is stongly negative and clearly they trash the GCMs. This reality and recorded temperatures are at odds with more than 100 Global Circulation Climate Models generated from computer modeling and the homogenized temperature data from NASA and NOAA. However the Lindzen-Choi data represent actual observation while the dreamy GCMs are just garbage in-garbage out, as usual. The NOAA temperature data also cannot be relied upon to present truth, as since about 2002, these data are adjusted upward, called homogenizing. NOAA and NASA actuallychange the recorded data to a temperature which is not recorded.
The Danish CERN project (J. Kirby) are close to confirming that solar and extrasolar cosmic affect cloud formation, and therefore weather. Archibald (Aust.) has already shown that increasing solar cycle length portends cooling temperatures in subsequent years. I havent even mentioned the effect of PDO, AMO and other ocean cycles. Nor does any of this mention the temperature extremes experienced in the previous 10,000 years, the Roman Warming, Medieval Warm Period, the Hebrew Exodus that equal or exceed the warming you repeat, and then there are the many cold periods during this time. The information that does not show warming is far more clear and truthful. The real fear is cold, and that seems where we are headed now. I strongly suggest you read Lindzen’s, Archibald’s, Spencer’s and Goldberg’s works before printing this trash. Listen to the papers and review the slides form NIPCC from Heartland Institute and SEPP. Read the papers at CO2 Science and on the way you will find more.
Anthony–InfoMine wants you to spend time to get this right. I can suggest more.

What is so sad about all this is that any respect the “scientific community” have/had from the “man in the street”, like me, has now vanished. These guys are as trustworthy in their predications as market analysts