2009 2nd warmest year on record

[fiannafailure]

What's with the "taking the piss" and "get a life" comments in this thread? I don't understand the objection to this data at all.

A problem without an iterated solution is boring and brain deadening. Everybody knows that we have a problem, its the messenger that people object to.

The IPCC has been able to generate a nice living for its proponents, and I am not taking a swipe at the posters in this forum, but now it is time to move on to implimenting the solutions.

[SAT]

According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the results for 2009 are in and 2009 is now ranked 2nd hottest year in over a decade, second to 2005


According to the denialists. we are in a '11 year cooling trend'
How can we be in a "11 year cooling trend" if we've just had the second warmest year on instrumental record?

Spot the error??

[fiannafailure]

Spot the error??

How is the fuel guage ?

[Gimpanzee]

My own organisation have brought the installed cost of onshore wind below the best new entrant price of thermal. We are now working on large scale pumped storage which negates the need for thermal back up of wind energy.

And very soon we will be tackling the problem of perceptions in the general public, in concert with the changes necessary in the regulatory system.

And we have now started to work very seriously on the socialisation of renewable energy.

I'm not arguing against your approach from a domestic energy security pov, I'm all for it. I just don't believe it will be adopted fast enough to solve the global problem of CO2 build up. I can't see any way that we won't have to take it out of the atmosphere at some point this century.

[sharper]

A problem without an iterated solution is boring and brain deadening. Everybody knows that we have a problem, its the messenger that people object to.

The IPCC has been able to generate a nice living for its proponents, and I am not taking a swipe at the posters in this forum, but now it is time to move on to implimenting the solutions.

I don't know whether you actually read the posts in this forum or not but it's heavily populated by people who don't accept there's a problem, don't think we're responsible for the problem even if there is one and don't think we can solve the problem even if we are responsible for it.

I'm all for implementing solutions but I don't even get around to discussing that here - the limited time I do spend here is used correcting basic scientific errors or outright lies.

[SAT]

I have outlined my ideal solution on a different thread, Personalised carbon credits where a safe level of carbon dioxide emissions is rationed equally amongst the worlds people who can choose to use them themselves, or sell them to others who live more polluting lifestyle.

It's an equitable version of carbon trading that puts the people first, preserves freedom of choice and generates an instant market for renewable and carbon neutral products and services. I have no idea why the free market capitalists on here would oppose such a system other than unwillingness to move away from their entrenched position of hating environmentalists)

That's precisely what the former communist USSR did with capital after it's break up. Within a few years the vast majority were landless, assetless and poverty stricken with all the capital in the hands of a few oligarchs who now use some of their gains to buy premier league football clubs as hobbies.

[Akrasia]

How about simply doing the sustainable approach. Only emerging technologies need subvention and there are enough techs at an economic stage of development now to get the ball running

Because we're at a phase now were we can't simply wait change to occor naturally, it needs to be pushed forward and this can only be done through deliberate policy decisions at an intergovernmental level

Without fiscal measures to make carbon emission uneconomical then even if renewables become the dominant form of energy generation, this will push demand for oil down and the same amount of oil will still be burned just at a lower economic price (which will put increased pressure on demand for renewables....)

[fiannafailure]

I don't know whether you actually read the posts in this forum or not but it's heavily populated by people who don't accept there's a problem, don't think we're responsible for the problem even if there is one and don't think we can solve the problem even if we are responsible for it.

I'm all for implementing solutions but I don't even get around to discussing that here - the limited time I do spend here is used correcting basic scientific errors or outright lies.

Do some research into the reasons for this attitude, but don't waste your time promoting a message that the majority of people can agree with, provided the solutions proposed do not impact on their standard of living.

Remember the root cause of the problem, energy supply and the inefficient use of the resulting energy.

Both of those headings tackle sustainability in a way that provides employment and real economic activity in a practical and positive sense.

[fiannafailure]

Because we're at a phase now were we can't simply wait change to occor naturally, it needs to be pushed forward and this can only be done through deliberate policy decisions at an intergovernmental level

Without fiscal measures to make carbon emission uneconomical then even if renewables become the dominant form of energy generation, this will push demand for oil down and the same amount of oil will still be burned just at a lower economic price (which will put increased pressure on demand for renewables....)

Akrasia,

this will push demand for oil down and the same amount of oil will still be burned just at a lower economic price (which will put increased pressure on demand for renewables.

Thats one scenario, there are others

[SAT]

And yet according to GISS (the provider of the data in the OP) aerosols rather than CO2 may be the problem.

Perhaps before spending billions on panic solutions it would be a better idea to identify exactly what problem we are trying to solve

I suspect some AGW alarmists don't really care. Any excuse that returns us to a (non-existent) ideal age of perfect harmony with nature will do for them.