"Large portions of many continents..." Wharfie, there are not many continents. There are only 5 or possibly 6. <Large portions of many continents had substantially warmer-than-average temperatures during July 2009. The greatest departures from the long-term average were evident in Europe, northern Africa, and much of western North America. Broadly, across these regions, temperatures were about 4-7 degrees F (2-4 degrees C) above average.
Cooler-than-average conditions prevailed across southern South America, central Canada, the eastern United States, and parts of western and eastern Asia. The most notably cool conditions occurred across the eastern U.S., central Canada, and southern South America where region-wide temperatures were nearly 4-7 degrees F (2-4 degrees C) below average. >
We can't conclude much if anything from that statement. It's a generalisation that some places were warmer and some were cooler. Well, crikey, what else would one expect? That's pretty much what weather does. Sometimes places are warmer and sometimes they are cooler. Sometimes they are wetter and sometimes they are dryer.
After 100 years of all-out effort, assuming we claim credit for ALL of the warming, then we have achieved almost nothing: <The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2009 was the fifth warmest on record, at 1.03 degrees F (0.57 degree C) above the 20th century average of 60.4 degrees F (15.8 degrees C). >
If we claim credit for ALL of the CO2 increase over the last 100 years, we have raised it from 280 ppm to 380ppm, which is not a huge success either.
If you calculate our total emissions of CO2 you'll find a LOT of it has leaked out of the atmosphere back into plants, animals, and oceans.
If we go for another 100 years, we might get to 480ppm and raise temperatures another 1 degree Fahrenheit, which is hardly a huge result for all the effort. It's hardly grounds for all-out panic now. Especially when the measurements are questionable and the causes debatable.
Mqurice |
