I don't have time just now for more than a quick skim of the Stanhill article, but for the moment I would refer folks to this recent RealClimate article by Beate Liepert (quoting):

"Climate simulations are the primary tools for explaining and understanding observations that might otherwise seem counterintuitive. For instance, how global dimming can go hand in hand with global warming. In 2004, at the MPI in Hamburg my coauthors and I (Liepert et al. GRL 2004) analyzed output data from a brand new version of the ECHAM general circulation model (GCM) that incorporated a fully interactive aerosol module and aerosol-cloud-scheme. This model interactively calculates aerosol chemical transformation, aerosol transport, rainout and fallout processes and even aerosol formation for some species (e.g. sulfate). We showed that, in the model, global warming caused changing rainfall patterns that fed back on aerosol distribution and composition supressing the water cycle (i.e. evaporation) as had been observed. The key to explaining the apparent contradiction was that the surface forcing changes can be very large without affecting the top-of-the-atmosphere radiation as much."

So apparently Stanhill's major point isn't much of a surprise. Also, the way Eos generally operates I would expect a rebuttal shortly.

Boy oh boy. I know you guys get your big bucks from corporations, but do each and every one of you have to be nattering nabobs of global warming negativism. Joe Bastardi, Elliot Sober and the rest are clearly and obviously biased in their outlook and yet, as far as I know, none of these folks are climate modelers or global climatologists, which is a might site different from being a weather forecaster.

Of course the study takes global dimming into account. The report prior to the one just realesed noted that global warming would be significantly greater if the couter balancing effect of global dimming had not been in place over the last century, this due largely to man-made aerosols and particulates generated over the last century and a half.

What is incontrovertable is that there is a direct relationship between the increasing concentrations of green house gasses (CO2, CH4, and H20) and an increase in the average global temperature. Until man started burning fossil fuels, geological and biological propcesses tended to provide significant sinks for atmospheric concentration of CO2, perhaps the most important of the three since temperature rises created by CO2 result in concommitant rises in the ability of the atmosphere to hold water (H20) and the ability of organisms to undergo methane-producing anaerobic respiration. It clear from ice cores obtained in both the arctic and anarctic, from oxygen isotope ratios in the shells of ocean going forams and from the taxonomic composition of pollen and fossil leaf floras that global climate change can occur remarkably quickly, particularly transitions from cold/cool to greenhouse climates. A global tripling of CO2 concentrations at the end of the Cretaceous, brought on by a combination of factors including cometary impact and possibly related super volcanic eruptions and basaltic flows in Siberia, was enough to through the earth into a super greenhouse the likes of which had not happen in nearly 300 million years, with subtropical conditions extending to the poles and extensive worldwide desertification. If we as a specirs continue to burn fossil fuels at our current rate, we will easily be able to acheive greenhouse gas levels similars to those that existed 60 million years ago during the Paleocene/Eocerne greenhouse event.

Another aspect of reporting that bothers me about your site is the failure to explain fully that the effects of significant changes in the natural environment, such as anthrogenically elevated CO2 levels, can take centuries to play out. Even if no further CO2 were pumped into the atmosphere starting today, global warming would continue for decades if not centuries into the future. Another factor that is also given short shrift is the concept of the tipping point. In our day to day lives, few of us have any direct experience with tipping points. But there is ample evidence from that past that tipping points in the environment do occur. For example, one of the paradoxical outcomes of global warming illustrating thr tipping point phenomenon is the Atlantic Gulf Sytream heat conveyor that transports excess heat from the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean to the north Atlantic, thereby greatly moderating the climate of Atlantic western Europe. If global warming rises sufficiently to melt the Greenland ice cap, the north Atlantic could be flooded with a surface layer of extremely low saline water. This would prevent cold sea water from sinking in the north Atlantic and thereby shut down the flow of the Gulf Stream (and live-giving heat) that northern Europe depends on. On the way to a global warming world, western Europe could be plunged into a mini Ice Age where summers would be too short and cold to grow crops realiably and winters arctic in thier severity. All anyone has to do is look at a map. England and Scotland stretch across the same latitudes as Labrador and Hudson Bay in Canada, home to arctic Taiga and Tundra, the Polar Bear and the arctic Fox.

In short, I find it extremely maddening when I read article after article implying that the vast majority of the world's climatologists are at worst engaged in a vast left wing conspiracy to shut down private enterprise through the regulation of green house gasses, or at best, nothing more than the intellectually lazy dupes of such a crowd.

In fact, I suspect it is Accuweather.com that is at best the unwitting dupe of global corpratists who care only about profit and don't give a fig if the wotld they leave behind is despoiled and unihabitable, only so long as they rack up the millions necessary to fund the creature comforts of thier Lear jets, vacation homes and stock portfolios.

We just swing from one "consensus" to another depending on the weather! I'm in the UK, and last week we had one of our warmest Jan days ever (high of +16C). last night was the coldest in 10 years (-10C). A warm summer and winter and everybody blames anthropogenic warming, then it turns cold and the sceptics come out in force.
Could it be that the truth is somewhere in the middle? A so called golden mean? Perhaps, given that our oil supply is A) controlled by a cartel headed by a bunch of Muslim fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia B)will run out inside 300 years, we should assume our activity is causal of warming? Threats of drought and floods seem to be the one thing which can motivate the masses...at least here in Europe

Dear Laura,

I find it interesting to compare the graph offered in the EOS article to the graph in your previous post from the Canadian Friends of Sceince group. It would seem intuitively that solar radiation would have a closer correlation with global temperatures than the lenght of sunspot cycles. Yet looking at these graphs that appears not to be the case. The correlation in the sunspot cycle graph is so close, it seems to good to be true. That graph also makes any correlation between CO2 & temperatures iffy, whereas the EOS graph seems to support a correlation. If the sunspot cycle graph is valid & the solar radiation graph is valid, it would seem to me to support the argument that there must be another energy transfer mechanism involved other than solar radiation. Do you know if the Freinds of Sceince have postulated anything about that? Also, both graphs end in 1990. Are there any updates avaiable?

This is interesting, but looks to me like the political thrust is to once again blame man for the global cooling the alarmists will soon be ranting and raving about. However, there is plenty of evidence that the sun has its own cycles that effect its output even before it reaches our atmosphere. I am only listing a few links, but there are plenty more. Laura had one of her own a while back by a Russian Physicist.

"A composite record of the Sun�s total irradiance compiled from measurements made by five independent space-based radiometers since 1978 exhibits a prominent 11-year cycle with similar levels during 1986 and 1996, the two most recent minimum epochs of solar activity. This finding
contradicts recent assertions of a 0.04% irradiance increase from the 1986 to 1996 solar minima and suggests that solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2 C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past
decade. Nor does our 18-year composite irradiance record support a recent upward irradiance trend inferred from solar cycle length, a parameter used to imply a close linkage in the present century between solar variability and climate
change." (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&q=cache:5MufpsnOEoUJ:ieg.or.kr:8080/abstractII/G0102523037.PDF+author:%22Fr%C3%B6hlich%22+intitle:%22The+Sun%E2%80%99s+total+irradiance:+Cycles,+trends+and+related+...%22+)

"A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. ... The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years. ... The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html)

...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&q=cache:k7rHpGlScFYJ:www.linmpi.mpg.de/~natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf+author:%22Solanki%22+intitle:%22Can+solar+variability+explain+global+warming+since+1970%22+

Ther was a program about global dimming last year on the PBS series Nova. They took the alarmist view that global dimming was masking the actual affect that human activity is having on global warming.

Sprays, freon, etc. Everything is harmful to us. Well I use an inhaler. An FDA panel has recommended said inhaler be banned because it's depleting the ozone. I say nonsense. So I guess I should just stop breathing and die rather than hurt the ozone layer? This stuff gets to be a little much to take.

Raymond - Our goal is to provide information on both sides of the issue. I've been accused of bias from both sides, which probably means I'm doing a fairly good job of staying in the middle. I've never had anyone at AccuWeather dictate to me what my opinion should be - all of our employees are free to have our own opinions.

You do make excellent points on tipping points and the long-lasting effects of CO2. I've touched on those things briefly in the past, but should probably emphasize them again.

Laura: Your thoughts on this paper which discusses dimethylsulphide as an important GHG:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N6/EDIT.jsp

"The Star of the Magi, Global Warming", is presented on the "About: Physics" forum,

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=display&webtag=ab-physics&tid=2548

This post discusses religious symbolism relative to the theory of relativity to suggest that when cycles of concentric alignments of the sun and planets are formulated as time dependent events, in terms of weather super cycles, it appears that it represents the 2000 year weather super cycle, starting with global warming and followed by global cooling.

Blessings,
Bill

They tell the story of the wise old lawyer addressing an incoming class of eager new law students. If, the wise old lawyer said, you have the facts on your side, pound on the jury. If the law, pound on the judge. But, asked one of the eager new students, suppose you have neither the facts nor the law on your side? Then, said the old lawyer, pound on the table.

I'm no climatologist, but it seems to me that there's been a awful lot of pounding on the table in the global warming debate; and almost all of it comes from one side. I'll leave it to the eager new students to determine which side.