Bring it on!  The Bailo Model has forecast just such rapid rises while IPCC engineers were stringing their abacuses to try and make the model match the data.

Plus the Bailo Plan welcomes the predictions of the Bailo Model.   Warmth, rain in the desert, new swatches of arable land, clean air from hydrogen vehicles, less need for heat, better fuel efficiency...

Wouldn't it be better to just drop heat as the parameter and switch to energy?  

Drop the term global warming and emphasize the retention of energy from the Sun trapped by GHG that is intensifying the energy in the global atmospheric and oceanic systems?

Wind and temperature and preciptitaion extremes that result from the higher energy level would be a more accurate and easier to understand metric.  Free from the "It's cold outside, where is your global warming now"  dimbulb limboob talking point mythology.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Joseph Romm seems to be ill informed on two counts.  First with respect to solar minima, of which there are two, one which affects the earth's climate, and one which does not.  The sun goes through 11 year Schwabb cycles, and between cycles, sunspots are at a minimum.  This minimum has no effect on the earth's climate, so the current minimum is irrelevsnt.  Each cycle has a maximum smoothed sunspot number (Rz).  Thus we get one value of maximum Rz every 11 years.  If you plot these, this curve goes through maxima and mimima.  These minima control the earth's temperature, and the two major ones are called the Maunder and Dalton minima.  The crucial number we dont know is what will be the maximum Rz for solar cycle 24.  If it is small, then we are in for a cold climate.  Estimates vary between 35 and 150.
A second point is that when a cooling trend follows a warming trend, the cooling trend starts at the maximum of the warming trend.  This is what is now happening.  So, of course, the current temperatures are close to the maximum;  the earth' temperature is currently going through a shallow maximum.  What counts is the slope of the "climate temperature" against time.  Proper anaylsis shows that for all 5 sets of temperature anomalies, the current slope is negative.  That is what matters.

about climate change. I also agree that spewing a lot of anything into the atmosphere is probably not a good idea in principal. However, I object to this language:

"And no, I don't think the monthly data tell us much about the climate -- but I know reporting it annoys the deniers, and I am trying to enjoy my vacation."

This language shows a lack of respect for people who have a differing viewpoint from yours - which is why I do not label myself and environmentalist; they are far too intolerant.

Victory in Pattani

I agree with DB2.  I can't believe anyone even bothers to look at GISS, or even Hadley any more.  Why?  The temp change we should be looking for is in the oceans and the troposphere.  And the troposphere shows little or no sign of it now.  The 'problem' has ceased.  Whether it stays flat or even falls remains to be seen, but quite clearly it's the atmosphere and the seas that we should take note of.  If we have a PDO shift then we can look forward to cooling temperatures in the coming decade.  That will end all worry on GHGs, and a heck of a lot of people are going to look pretty stupid too.  Time will tell...

Most interesting to me is the question as to why non-specialists feel bound to contest the work of the overwhelming proportion of the world's climate change authorities.

It's one thing for Galileo to challenge the Jesuit geocentrists. It's another for his hairstylist to do so.

A critical part of critical thinking is thinking about the limits of one's competence to contribute to knowledge on a subject.

We do not pull out our slide rules to contest the results of theoretical physics. Why this?

Because we can look outside at the sky, or because we have been socialized to oppose change that the power elites oppose--the Jesuit geocentrists of our day.

The sicentific community has a history of being dishonest concerning climate change. More importantly, there are reputable scientists who dispute the fundings - but they are always labeled as being in someone's pockets. That means you can't really trust anyone in this debate - scientist or otherwise - because hidden agendas are at work on every side of the debate.

Victory in Pattani

"Scientific consensus happens only when the theory fits to the facts. Having a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere is clearly an abnormal thing, and there is sufficient evidence to prove that it does a lot of bad things to our climate."

I would argue there is sufficient evidence to say that it PROBABLY influences the temperature of the climate. There is an assumption made by almost everyone that ANY CHANGE is bad. And that assumption  is probably false. As Jared Diamond points out, there will be winners and loser in climate change.

"You don't "trust" persons in science, it is not politics nor religion. There is no question about honesty/dishonesty in this. Either you have a scientific bent of mind, or you don't. It is as simple as that."

That does not explain the dissent within the scientific community concerning climate change. And there is dissent. But on Grist, when dissent is highlighted, it is portrayed as either:

a. Ill-informed (that's the generous interpretation).

b. Malicious - that the scientists or scientific organization in question is full of bought off charlatans.

In short, while I agree that dumping a lot (although I don't really know if going from 385 PPM to 400 could be defined as "a lot" - let's be honest, a lot of scare mongering is going on here) of anything into the atmosphere or into the water supply is probably a bad idea and should be curbed, I also note that there is simply a lot of dishonesty floating around concerning this debate on both sides of the isle.

Victory in Pattani

"Now we know that coal is dangerous for atmosphere, so we should stop it. It is just common sense."

You should have written "Now we have strong suspicion that rising CO2 levels very probably have negative side effects that could be extreme. Therefore, we need to curb CO2 output."

But you went from CO2 to coal - as if there is NECESSARILY a cause and effect, when you know there is not. CO2 can be sequestered. Therefore, Coal doesn't need to be stopped - the CO2 outputs across the board need to be curbed.

Victory in Pattani