UPDATE: CRU apparently been hacked – ..AGW HOAX revealed...

[Air Force Met]

Perhaps AFM also knows that the Dansgaard data is just ONE, in NW-Greenland. We do have some more these days, only some hundreds more.
The uppermost graph in the 'Climate Consensus' is from the first IPCC report in 1990. Actually, it is a graph from Lamb in 1982 re estimated Central England temperatures.

For more recent work, see:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/200 ... etal_2.pdf
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/shared ... ence09.pdf

Both studies have uncertainties. So that's science.
I prefer them above home-brew graphics.

No...here is "science"

From: Phil Jones xxxxxxxx To: John Christy xxxxxxxx Subject: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005 “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

Yet...everything they have said "IN PUBLIC" states that the global temp is still rising. They sent out a report recently stating that any reports that the global temp stopped rising in 1998 are lies.

So...my answer to you is..."whatever..." The reports you list are those with bad, false data...and YOU KNOW IT. They are made by the very people who in private say "we can't account for the lack of warming..." and "the world has cooled since 1998"...but in public they say "we are still warming at a record rate and here is our data to prove it...

And you have the audacity to expect me (or any other sane person) to believe these reports are real? Are you on some sort of drugs? I have testimony from YOUR authors stating they know its cooling and they don't understand why it’s not warming...yet you want me or anyone else to trust the "facts" they give and say its "science" when they trumpet warming? That is LAUGHABLE!

Then you want to say it’s not an agenda? It’s not an agenda to say one thing in private and another in public...and one is a heretic to not trust the science?

It's settled science because all these people, these bright people say it is (yet they CRUSH peer review and dissent...privately disclose their doubts...privately ADMIT the truth). It must be truth because they say it is.

Go tell that to Copernicus.

"HIDE THE DECLINE!!!!"

Yeah...you can take that science...I'll have none of it. Mann...Jones...Gore...And the AGW agenda out there supporting their ilk are the same people who would have burned Copernicus at the stake. Same people...different era. That may sound extreme but it is the truth. They crush dissent through ad hominem attacks and crushing peer review (where is the research money for natural cyclical GW research? Not there…the agenda WON’T allow it!)...they privately admit the truth but their private words do not match their public ones...and they are hypocrites. They live to a standard that violates the very principle they are trying to impose on others. And if they get their way...they will still live the high life...while denying others the same pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. They will still take their limo’s and fly their private jets.

And they will sell themselves carbon credits…and make a billion dollars in the process.

And this is the bottom line: The socialist movement just has a new face. It figured out that coming at it from an economic argument turned people away…and so they co-opted the environmental movement. That’s not AFM’s take on it…that is Patrick Moore’s take (and I agree)…and he is the co-founder of Greenpeace.

I’m done speaking to anyone who wants to use Mann or Jones as a source. They have proved themselves as liars and men of dishonor. I do know this…the truth will come out. It always does. I also know this. The American People…the ones who saved Europe twice last century…will save themselves this time. Whatever our President says at Copenhagen…he won’t get anything ratified by our Senate. That is the wisdom of our founding fathers.

[Air Force Met]

FACTS:

Greenhouse gases are 1% of the atmosphere.


Of the GHG...
95% is water vapor...
3.6% is CO2...or that 3.6%...only 3.4% is man-made.

That means .112% of the GHG are manmade CO2...and that is .0012% of the atmosphere.

The EPA just released a policy declaring CO2...now get this..."a pollutant!" So even though 96.6% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is natural...our wonderful government just called it a pollutant! That means you are polluting right now as you breath!

Settled science? 2500 scientists support it in IPCC report? That's a lie.

Of those 2500 scientists cited, only 600 looked at the science concerning CO2...of that 600, only 308 were part of the second review process...of those...only 62 looked at the last chapter which dealt with teh AGW issues/CO2 and climate change. Of those 62...only 7 were independent reviewers and 2 of those came to different conclusions.

So 5 independent scientists say there is a 90% chance CO2 causes climate change.

OTOH...31K scientists have signed a petition saying there is no conclusive evidence.

Ocean heat content, as compiled by Loehle. Conclusion: Cooling since 2004. That's contrary to predictions and models.

Sea levels: Steady since 2006. Contrary to predictions and models.

According to the IPCC in 1999...we should be at .6C above the mean now...we are .2C at the lowest, .4 at the highest. You cannot trust the models. They are subject to the initial inputs set by those running them.

[Air Force Met]

Global Warming Is Not Slowing, Says Weather Agency By ANDREW C. REVKIN and JAMES KANTER

COPENHAGEN — Despite recent fluctuations in global temperature year to year, which fueled claims of global cooling, a sustained global warming trend shows no signs of ending, according to new analysis by the World Meteorological Organization made public on Tuesday.

The decade of the 2000s is very likely the warmest decade in the modern record, dating back 150 years, according to a provisional summary of climate conditions near the end of 2009, the organization said.

The period from 2000 through 2009 has been “warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s and so on,” said Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the international weather agency, speaking at a news conference at the climate talks in Copenhagen.

The international assessment largely meshes with an interim analysis by the National Climatic Data Center and NASA in the United States, both of which independently estimate global and regional temperature and other weather trends.

Mr. Jarraud also said that 2009, with some uncertainty because several weeks remain, appears to be the fifth warmest year on record.

Addressing questions raised about the reliability of climate data after the unauthorized release of e-mail messages and files from a British climate research unit that provides data to the global weather group, he said there was no evidence that the various independent estimates showing a warming world were in doubt.


AFM Comment:

Of course...the very people who wrote this report have also PRIVATELY said: "The world has cooled since 1998" and "at present we can't account for the lack of warming."

So...its not warming...its cooling...yet this "very likely" the warmest decade.

Suuuuuuuuure. That makes sooooo much sense. Notice the verbal gymnastic to leave a little wiggle room.

These people have real chutzpah.

[x-y-no]

FACTS:

Greenhouse gases are 1% of the atmosphere.


Of the GHG...
95% is water vapor...
3.6% is CO2...or that 3.6%...only 3.4% is man-made.

That means .112% of the GHG are manmade CO2...and that is .0012% of the atmosphere.

Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. The average lifetime of a water molecule in the atmosphere is on the order of ten days or so. You're a meteorologist ... if one could magically remove a big chunk (say a quarter) of the water vapor from the atmosphere, how long do you think it would be before evaporation and vertical mixing get the system back to approximately the water vapor content it had before? Maybe a week or two?

Methane, with an average lifetime on the order of a decade, or carbon dioxide with an average lifetime on the order of more than a century are a very different matter.

The EPA just released a policy declaring CO2...now get this..."a pollutant!" So even though 96.6% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is natural...our wonderful government just called it a pollutant! That means you are polluting right now as you breath!

Where did you get the number 96.6%? That's completely false. More like 73%.

Settled science? 2500 scientists support it in IPCC report? That's a lie.

I doubt you've seen scientists say "settled science" since no science is ever "settled."

Of those 2500 scientists cited, only 600 looked at the science concerning CO2...of that 600, only 308 were part of the second review process...of those...only 62 looked at the last chapter which dealt with teh AGW issues/CO2 and climate change. Of those 62...only 7 were independent reviewers and 2 of those came to different conclusions.

So 5 independent scientists say there is a 90% chance CO2 causes climate change.

OTOH...31K scientists have signed a petition saying there is no conclusive evidence.

I could quibble with your methodology for getting down to the number 5 (since there are many, many more climate scientists than that who agree and who would say the probability is significantly greater that 90%) but granting it for the sake of argument, why do you not apply the same methodology to the "31k scientists" you cite? How many of them are even in a remotely related field? How many of those have closely examined the published science, let alone actually done any real research in the field themselves?

Ocean heat content, as compiled by Loehle. Conclusion: Cooling since 2004. That's contrary to predictions and models.

Pick a sufficiently short period from sufficiently noisy data and you can show any trend you like. Loehle looks at all of 4 1/2 years. There are also issues with how he used Argo profiling float data (which needs correction - see for instance Levitus et al, 2009 (pdf document)) but that's a smaller issue than the absurdly short period he uses to detect a trend.

Sea levels: Steady since 2006. Contrary to predictions and models.

Cherry-pick your endpoints in sufficiently noisy data and you can show any trend you want. Here is a graph of global mean sea level. If you pick the spike at 2006 as your staring point, you can indeed claim there has been no sea level rise since then according to this data. But you could also say that about 1994-1996, 1998-2001 and 2002-2005. But notice, each of those plateaus is higher than the last one.

According to the IPCC in 1999...we should be at .6C above the mean now...we are .2C at the lowest, .4 at the highest. You cannot trust the models. They are subject to the initial inputs set by those running them.

I'm not clear on what you are referring to - the Second Assessment Report was published in 1995, the Third Assessment Report in 2001, so I don't know what 1999 IPCC projection you are talking about. Also, the IPCC projections offer ranges with levels of confidence, not fixed predictions, so it's unclear what this 0.6C is supposed to be ... A lower bound? An upper bound? The highest probability value? And in which scenario of the three they generally talk about?

[x-y-no]

Of course...the very people who wrote this report have also PRIVATELY said: "The world has cooled since 1998" and "at present we can't account for the lack of warming."

Cherry-pick your endpoints and use a sufficiently short period in sufficiently noisy data and you can show any trend you want.

1998 was a huge warm spike because of el Nino.

And nobody denies there's all kinds of noise in this signal and we can't account for all of it. Not sure why that's supposed to be some kind of damaging admission. Do you understand perfectly how ENSO and PDO and AMO and so on and on all interact and affect global temperature?

[Air Force Met]

Where did you get the number 96.6%? That's completely false. More like 73%.

Be carefull who you are calling a liar. VERY careful.

The atmosphere contains about 850 GT of CO2...humans add 26 gigatonnes a year. 40% of that is being absorbed. That leaves 15 GT.

This from a AGW person: "Hi Dan, thanks for your comment. Yes, you're correct that humans only contribute 4% of CO2 emissions, but the thing is, it's a straw-breaking-the-camel's-back situation. Basically the natural CO2 emissions are balanced out by natural mechanisms for absorbing the CO2. However, these mechanisms can't cope with the extra CO2 we're putting out, and consequently it's accumulating in the atmosphere - hence the steep rise in CO2 levels."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... atter.html

http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2008-12- ... ate-dt.pdf

"Green House gases comprise no more than 5% of the atmosphere—and just 3.4% of CO2 is manmade..."

I could go on and on....

I doubt you've seen scientists say "settled science" since no science is ever "settled."

The scientists never came out and said this...the politicians...the ALGORES of the world have. However, the MANN and JONE's of the world have looked at it as settled science: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," and in the context of the email...it is clear they want to silence AGW skeptics. That is not a belief in science being unsettled. That's what you do when you think its settled....but know you can't win a fair fight: Knee-cap your opponent. Don't try that con job here. I won't buy it.

I could quibble with your methodology for getting down to the number 5 (since there are many, many more climate scientists than that who agree and who would say the probability is significantly greater that 90%) but granting it for the sake of argument, why do you not apply the same methodology to the "31k scientists" you cite? How many of them are even in a remotely related field? How many of those have closely examined the published science, let alone actually done any real research in the field themselves?

There is no quibble. That is an audit of the report. Bottom line is this. YOUR AGW "friends" walk around...and will walk around talking about 2500 scientists supporting this report...and its a lie. A lie...a lie...a lie...and THEY KNOW IT. Guess you don't have an issue with that. There have been scientists who were included in the list who have asked to be removed and they won't take their name off. Some have been removed after threatening legal action...because the IPCC, et al, are "misrepresenting" the community that "agrees" with the report.

AS far as the 31K...they are scientists. Some are doctors...in other fields. NONE ARE ON THE LIST THAT DON'T WANT TO BE THERE. WHICH CANNOT BE SAID FOR THE 2500!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are, however, in the position to look at the data...ALL OF IT (that they can at least...because FOI has been violated by CRU and other entities)...and have come to a different conclusion. My point was this...if this is so "settled"...to the point of crushing peer review ("re-define what peer review is"...no...you don't have a problem with that...)...why is there so much dissention? There are HUNDREDS of peer review papers out there DISCOUNTING AGW...but NONE are considered in the IPCC...because they are keeping them out...so...I'll stop before my head explodes.

Cherry-pick your endpoints in sufficiently noisy data and you can show any trend you want.

STOP IT RIGHT THERE. NOBODY is cherry picking ANYTHING. I find it EXTREMELY offensive that a AGW person would accuse ANYONE of cherry picking...since you guys have to LIVE by cherry picking data....and Mann, Jones et all earn a living by cherry picking...squashing dissent...killing peer review. DON'T EVEN.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf

IN a nut shell...I will explain what is wrong with your sea-level graph and why it is false data, manipulated by the IPCC and why what I said is right: The data is FUDGED. Fact.

"Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different
answers for wherever you are in the world. We have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives a 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area."

"Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it
changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so
nice. It looked as though they had recorded something, but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original data which
they suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge.
So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences
meeting in Moscow—I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!"
So...the tide gauge they used...is from an area undergoing subsidence! And yet you bring that here has proof that sea level is rising? Talking about cherry picking data. Read the entire report...it MAY enlighten you.

I'm not clear on what you are referring to - the Second Assessment Report was published in 1995, the Third Assessment Report in 2001, so I don't know what 1999 IPCC projection you are talking about.

The hockey stick was done by Mann in 1999, included in the 2001 report. Sorry for the confusion. Bottom line there: I can change any parameter in any model and get any desired outcome. YOU or I will never know what has gone into the climate models because they won't let "outsiders" know all the tweaking. I can tweak THEIR model and show cooling. They can tweak it and show what they want. When they refuse to disclose the data...its a corrupt process.

I am done with this. I have said what I have said...and will continue to post more as I come across. You post your "proof" of AGW...and I will post my proof that this is a natural cycle...caused by us coming out of MWP and LIA (which they admit to wanting to eliminate...but no problem with that...huh?)...and its caused by solar cycles. There is more evidence of DIRECT correlation out there that warming and cooling is controlled by cosmic radiation and solar cycles than CO2...but AGW'ers won't even give that a glance.

Why? Because its socialism wrapped in environmentalism...and they have an agenda...and I am not going to converse with ANYONE who cannot even confess that those who are leading this charge aren't doing it because of an agenda. Follow the money...and follow their words. They speak for themselves. If you can't HONESTLY sit here and discuss that these emails and data reak of agenda before science...then we really have nothing to discuss.

[Air Force Met]

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/SolarWind.html

Abstract: Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the geomagnetic aa index since 1868, are closely correlated with global temperature ( r = 0.96; P < 10-7). Geomagnetic activity leads temperature by 4 to 8 years. Allowing for this temperature lag, an outstanding aa peak around 1990 could explain the high global temperature in 1998. After 1990 the geomagnetic aa data show a steep decline comparable to the decrease between 1955 and 1967, followed by falling temperatures from 1961 through 1973 in spite of growing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This points to decreasing global temperature during the next 10 years.

AFM: Solar Wind, Galactic radiation have shown a much higher correlation to global temps throughout history than CO2. CO2 is a lagging indicator throughout the geological record. This papar accurately predicted a slight cooling trend during this decade due to solar flux declining. That has proved to be true.

If the sun continues it's quite ways...as it should...watch out. Another LIA may be around the corner...and I hate to break it to the AGW crowd...but a cool earth is much more deadly and unproductive than a warmer one...historically.

[x-y-no]

Where did you get the number 96.6%? That's completely false. More like 73%.

Be carefull who you are calling a liar. VERY careful.

The atmosphere contains about 850 GT of CO2...humans add 26 gigatonnes a year. 40% of that is being absorbed. That leaves 15 GT.

I didn't call anyone a liar, I said that figure is false. Are you never mistaken about anything?

Now take a look at your own numbers. 3.4% (the portion you say is the total human contributed atmospheric CO2) of 850 GT is 28.9 GT. You agree that humans contribute 26 GT per year and only 40% is absorbed, leaving 15 GT per year human addition to the total CO2 in the atmosphere. So by your own figures, in a mere 2 years humans add more than what you claim is the total atmospheric CO2 from human sources. But something close to this level of CO2 production has been going on far longer than a couple of years.

Furthermore, isotopic analysis shows that almost all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last century is from fossil carbon sources.

...

The scientists never came out and said this...the politicians...the ALGORES of the world have. However, the MANN and JONE's of the world have looked at it as settled science: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," and in the context of the email...it is clear they want to silence AGW skeptics. That is not a belief in science being unsettled. That's what you do when you think its settled....but know you can't win a fair fight: Knee-cap your opponent. Don't try that con job here. I won't buy it.

So it's offensive for me to point out one of your numbers is wrong, but it's OK for you to accuse me of conducting a con job?

And by the way, no campaign to discourage people from submitting papers to Climate Research ever took place, and the Soon and Baliunas paper as well as the McKitrick paper that ther were griping about were both referenced and discussed in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. No suppression actually happened.


...

STOP IT RIGHT THERE. NOBODY is cherry picking ANYTHING. I find it EXTREMELY offensive that a AGW person would accuse ANYONE of cherry picking...since you guys have to LIVE by cherry picking data....and Mann, Jones et all earn a living by cherry picking...squashing dissent...killing peer review. DON'T EVEN.

I don't know what else to call it when one picks a high outlier point as the starting endpoint in order to describe a "trend."

IN a nut shell...I will explain what is wrong with your sea-level graph and why it is false data, manipulated by the IPCC and why what I said is right: The data is FUDGED. Fact.

"Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different
answers for wherever you are in the world. We have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives a 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area."

"Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it
changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so
nice. It looked as though they had recorded something, but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original data which
they suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge.
So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences
meeting in Moscow—I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!"
So...the tide gauge they used...is from an area undergoing subsidence! And yet you bring that here has proof that sea level is rising? Talking about cherry picking data. Read the entire report...it MAY enlighten you.

First of all, the graph I linked is from the University of Colorado, not the IPCC. And it consists entirely of satellite altimeter measurements so all that stuff about tide gauges is irellevant to that graph. And my point still stands - there are several such plateaus in the trend (if one chooses one's starting point carefully. But the trend is quite clearly of rising sea level.

EDIT: OK, I had time to read through Dr. Morner's interview and I see I was mistaken about what he is saying (see how easy that is to say?). His claim is that the satellite data is adjusted according to tide gauges and that creates all of the trend. I'll do some digging to find out what I can about the process. Adjustments for altimeter drift are appropriate, but it's a valid question whether they are applied correctly.

[diddle]

My first and only post after being a lurker for many years. Thanks AFM, let the truth be told!

Here is Dr. Grays opinion as of today.




Puncturing the Climate Balloon

By Dr. Bill Gray

December 8, 2009

Had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events I would have likely been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate degradation.


There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO_2 ) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.

Rising levels of CO_2 are not near the threat these alarmists have portrayed them to be. There has yet to be a honest and broad scientific debate on the basic science of CO_2 's influence on global temperature. The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO_2 are badly flawed. They should never have been used to establish government climate policy.

The last century's global warming of about 1 degree F is not a consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century changes in the globe's deep ocean circulation. These ocean current changes have lead to a small and gradual increase in the globe's temperature. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age and into a generally warmer climate state. This is akin to the warmer global climate of the Medieval Period. We can do nothing but adapt to such long period natural temperature changes.

The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years. This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the US and of foreign governments were ever made public.

The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO_2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO_2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate.

The Cap-and-Trade bill presently before Congress, the likely climate agreements coming out of the Copenhagen Conference, and the EPA's just announced decision to treat CO_2 as a pollutant represents a grave threat to the industrial world's continued economic development. We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth. Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country's sovereignty.

[HenkL]

We have one month to go in the decade 2000-2009. So although the numbers still can go up or down by 0.01 degree, here is a comparison of mean temperatures decade 2000-2009 with 1990-1999, for five series of 'world temperatures':

GISS: +0.19°C
NCDC: +0.17°C
HadCRU: +0.17°C
UAH: +0.16°C
RSS: +0.17°C

The first 3 series (land stations and ships/buoys) include latest data from October, the other 2 (satellite measurements) latest data from November 2009.

The same series, but now comparing 1990-1999 with 1980-1989:

GISS: +0.14°C
NCDC: +0.17°C
HadCRU: +0.16°C
UAH: +0.11°C
RSS: +0.15°C

Sources for the data:
NASA/GISS: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table ... s+dSST.txt
NCDC/NOAA: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomal ... 00mean.dat
HadCRU: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/di ... sh/monthly
UAH: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
RSS: http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_t ... _v03_2.txt

[brunota2003]

I beg to ask this question:
What happens when we cut all of our emissions, and the Earth keeps warming?

[vbhoutex]

I beg to ask this question:
What happens when we cut all of our emissions, and the Earth keeps warming?

My thoughts exactly!!

[aerology]

Of course...the very people who wrote this report have also PRIVATELY said: "The world has cooled since 1998" and "at present we can't account for the lack of warming."

Cherry-pick your endpoints and use a sufficiently short period in sufficiently noisy data and you can show any trend you want.

1998 was a huge warm spike because of el Nino.

And nobody denies there's all kinds of noise in this signal and we can't account for all of it. Not sure why that's supposed to be some kind of damaging admission. Do you understand perfectly how ENSO and PDO and AMO and so on and on all interact and affect global temperature?

The details on how to find the missing cycles that are the high levels of noise and the periodic oscillations in the ocean basins is contained in my previous post.
See the last entry on previous page.
Richard Holle

[x-y-no]

I beg to ask this question:
What happens when we cut all of our emissions, and the Earth keeps warming?

Well we are committed to some additional decades of warming already no matter what we do.

[brunota2003]

I beg to ask this question:
What happens when we cut all of our emissions, and the Earth keeps warming?

Well we are committed to some additional decades of warming already no matter what we do.

Now, here is the second part to that...once we exit our warming phase (whether it be manmade or not) and the Earth starts cooling again (like it will, regardless of why we are warming, because Nature will always win and balance things out in the end), what will everyone be screaming then? "HUMAN CAUSED ICE AGE!!! AHHH!"? And blame it on what? Everyone going green?

[x-y-no]

I don't think we're in orbital position for another ice age for quite a few thousand years yet. So, no. I see no reason anyone would say (or scream) that.

Now on the other hand, in ten or fifteen (or whatever it is) thousand years from now when the next ice age does approach, we have plenty of experience in how to ward it off, don't we?

[brunota2003]

I still dont think we'd be able to ward it off...Mother Nature always finds a way to balance things out...we come at her with a sucker punch, and she'll come right back with a roundhouse kick and make us beg for mercy. We try to keep it warm, and suddenly a volcano or two explodes, throwing us into a volcanic winter.

[Aslkahuna]

Short of altering Earth's orbital and axial geometry and the perturbation to both, I seriously doubt that we could avoid another glacial period. In the meantime, we need to be aware of other trends that could crop up courtesy of Nature. I have no doubt that some of the current warming is AGW but I also have no doubt that some serious hanky-panky has been going on in certain climate research circles and that some of the big names have been outed as big phonies.

Steve

[jasons2k]

Short of altering Earth's orbital and axial geometry and the perturbation to both, I seriously doubt that we could avoid another glacial period. In the meantime, we need to be aware of other trends that could crop up courtesy of Nature. I have no doubt that some of the current warming is AGW but I also have no doubt that some serious hanky-panky has been going on in certain climate research circles and that some of the big names have been outed as big phonies.

Steve

Hi Steve, I think you summarize this well.

I also believe that some of this warming is AGW related. But the devil is in the details and I think there is a disconnect between what can be atrributed to "greenhouse gasses", and what can be attributed to natural causes, urban heat islands, etc. I think one has to look at everything and take more of a 'big picture' approach.

I take issue with the fact that "climate change" has been so politicized, it will be very hard for both sides to come into agreement somewhere in the middle, where the real truth likely resides (at least in my opinion). And it's all the more frustrating that the vast majority of the population has a very strong opinion on the matter, when they have the equivalent of a pre-schooler's knowledge on how the atmosphere works.

We have politicians, journalists, radio show hosts, and TV talking heads who are convinced that climate change is either a hoax or 100% due to burning fossil fuels and they couldn't tell you the difference between the statosphere and troposphere. It's frustrating to no end...

[vbhoutex]

Short of altering Earth's orbital and axial geometry and the perturbation to both, I seriously doubt that we could avoid another glacial period. In the meantime, we need to be aware of other trends that could crop up courtesy of Nature. I have no doubt that some of the current warming is AGW but I also have no doubt that some serious hanky-panky has been going on in certain climate research circles and that some of the big names have been outed as big phonies.

Steve

Hi Steve, I think you summarize this well.

I also believe that some of this warming is AGW related. But the devil is in the details and I think there is a disconnect between what can be atrributed to "greenhouse gasses", and what can be attributed to natural causes, urban heat islands, etc. I think one has to look at everything and take more of a 'big picture' approach.

I take issue with the fact that "climate change" has been so politicized, it will be very hard for both sides to come into agreement somewhere in the middle, where the real truth likely resides (at least in my opinion). And it's all the more frustrating that the vast majority of the population has a very strong opinion on the matter, when they have the equivalent of a pre-schooler's knowledge on how the atmosphere works.

We have politicians, journalists, radio show hosts, and TV talking heads who are convinced that climate change is either a hoax or 100% due to burning fossil fuels and they couldn't tell you the difference between the statosphere and troposphere. It's frustrating to no end...

BRAVO!! BRAVO!!! to both of you!!