That Hansen's et al. 2011 paper...

Well, we can disregard Jim Hansen as alarmist whacko, or, more wisely, we can regard him as one of the most experienced and respected climate scientist with 25+ years of experience with top climate change research. In his latest paper together with co-authors he writes:

"Therefore we can say with a high degree of confidence that events such as the extreme summer heat in the Moscow region in 2010 and Texas in 2011 were a consequence of global warming."

And:

"People who deny the global warming cause of these extreme events usually offer instead a meteorological "explanation".  For example, it is said that the Moscow heat wave was caused by an atmospheric "blocking" situation, or the Texas heat wave was caused by La Nina ocean temperature patterns.  Of course the locations of the extreme anomalies in any given season are determined by the specific weather patterns.  However, blocking patterns and La Ninas have always been common, yet the large areas of extreme warming have come into existence only with large global warming.  Today's extreme anomalies occur because of simultaneous contributions of specific weather patterns and global warming.  For example, places experiencing an extended period of high atmospheric pressure will tend to develop drought conditions that are amplified by the ubiquitous warming effect of elevated greenhouse gas amounts.

Why is this climate shift important? Can't we just say, o.k., we have a new climate, we will adapt to this new temperature probability distribution? Biology and ecosystems on our planet are adapted to the rather stable climate of the Holocene, the past 10,000 years or so.  Local climate effects of global warming, arguably, are already noticeable and significant,, but the big problem is that more warming is already in the pipeline without further increase of greenhouse gases and the gases are continuing to increase. The most important effects of the warming probably come via the effect of warming in exacerbating the extremes of the hydrologic cycle: more intense droughts at times and places where it is dry and more extreme precipitation and floods at other times."

Full article here .

We will adapt to climate change

Unfortunately, there are still number of (supposedly serious?) climate scientists who think we will adapt to climate change.

Well.... they should think again:

"Atmosphere is on steroids" according to Jeff Maters (founder of the Weather Underground) and one can not adapt to ever increasing amounts of steroids.

I think those climate scientists should think again. And this time properly.

PF 2012

Ok, not so much optimistic, but here is my PF 2012:

!GOOD LUCK!

Globálne otepľovanie sa zastavilo!

Ide o pomerne starý, ale stále často používaný argument, v skutočnosti je to 9. najpoužívanejší argument proti teórii ľuďmi podmieneného globálneho otepľovania z celkovo 173 argumentov. Od roku 1998 sa vraj neotepľuje (a od roku 1994 sa neotepľuje "štatisticky významne").

K inému záveru dospeli v novej analýze globálnych teplôt (Global Temeperature Evolution) matematik Grant Foster a klimatológ Stefan Rahmstorf.

Vo svojej analýze 5. hlavných záznamov globálnych teplôt oddelili prirodzené faktory ovplyvňujúce teplotu na zemi (ako sopky, alebo osciláciu ENSO). Zistili, že od roku 1979 pokračuje otepľovanie (vplyvom rastu koncentrácie skleníkových plynov) prakticky nezmeneným tempom:

Zdroj: Tamino 

Je možné si všimnúť, že podľa každého záznamu globálnej teploty patrili roky 2009-10 medzi najteplejšie.

Navyše, rok 2011 sa podľa Svetovej meteorologickej organizácie (WMO) zaradil medzi najteplejšie "la Ňina" roky (la Ňina je chladnou fázou ENSO oscilácie a prispieva k znižovaniu globálnych teplôt):

Zdroj: WMO 

A nakoniec sa môžete pobaviť tým, aký je rozdel medzi vnímaním globálnych teplôt medzi klimaskeptikmi a realistami:

Zdroj: Skeptical Science