So much for the claim that most of North America was below average this winter:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/feb/map_blended_mntp_13_2007_pg.gif

Lots of reds in Canada and Alaska.

Mark,

The map you sent over (cleverly) uses a base period that coincides with the "new ice age" panic. Temperatures were unusually low during that time.

Here are some more representative graphs which use a 112 year base that show most US states in the lower 50% of temperatures during the past winter.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/feb/12_02_2007_DvTempRank_pg.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/feb/12-02Statewidetrank_pg.gif

Here is another fun map. On May 15, the NOAA climate prediction center predicted that Florida, the US Southwest and Alaska would be above normal in June. Wrong on all counts-
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/MonthTDeptUS.png

It is mid-summer and 28 degrees F in Barrow, Alaska. I hope the permafrost isn't melting in the "extreme" heat.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=71.29,-156.77

Patrick - I hate to step into these quarrels you and Mark have, but let's take a look at what you've written here. Mid-summer? It's not even the first day of summer. That's a lot more significant in the far northern latitudes. Even more important when you mention that 28 degree temperature is to remember that the current local time in Barrrow is 7:00 a.m., and that 28 degrees is the morning low. The normal low at this time of year is 30. Normal high is 39.

Mark;

Yes, there is lots of red in Alaska and Canada. However, by far most of the red is in central Asia and Europe.

If one were to look at just the continental US, it'd be easy to be mislead as to the full extent of global warming. It's almost amusing to see how some people will look at just one location as a proxiy for the entire world.

Anyhow, the lead article is about the impact of global warming on long waves in the ocean. The researchers have made a point. However, I wish they would discuss some of the implications of faster waves.

For example, is it possible that faster waves will result in more mixing of the oceans? Could this lead to more water from the tropics entering polar regions and hastening the melting of sea ice? In other words, could it be another positive feedback mechanism? If so, then this would have major implications for how much more global warming we will experience in the near term.

Laura,

Being English, I use the European definition of "midsummer" - which is the solstice next week.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midsummer

Temperatures along the north slope of Alaska have been running generally below normal for the last couple of months - which is the point I was making.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/PABR/2007/5/14/MonthlyHistory.html

Ice in the Bering sea is sitting right at the 1979-2000 norm.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html

If greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing exponentially, and they have greatly amplified impact in the arctic as claimed, I don't see how temperatures could be below normal. Where is the cold air originating if not in the arctic?

Also, why isn't the antarctic affected like the arctic? The NASA graphs you have on your page show stable temperatures in the southern hemisphere, and sea ice has been increasing there for the last 20 years.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=05&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2005&year2=2006&base1=1930&base2=2005&radius=1200&pol=reg

The atmosphere is fairly consistent around the planet - how come the greenhouse effect works in the northern hemisphere, but not the southern hemisphere?

I'd be interested to see how hot they think it will get in order to satisfy the predictions they made. If they are using the IPCC's findings I would be very skeptical. I've been asking for months for someone to point me to any evidence that CO2 is causing GW. Steve Bloom pointed RealClimatefor my answer. Boy howdy, I was not disappointed. One of the most nonsensical pieces of work I have ever laid my eyes on. Steve, please tell me that you didn't read this first.

The proof I was looking for was not there but a very good explanation for why it wasn't was. They explain that whether we can attribute CO2 increases to GW is an important question, but instead of looking for proof these things are generally a matter of probability. To back up their claims that simply stating that it is a high probability without explaining why, they point to our good friends at the IPCC . This my friends appears to be written by Star Trek writers, it is worth the time to read it.

Here's some of what they have to say "The combination of natural external forcing (solar and volcanic) and internal variability is unlikely to account for the spatio-temporal pattern of change over the past 30 to 50 years, even allowing for possible amplification of the amplitude of natural responses by unknown feedback processes." Uhhhhhhhh, whaaaaat? "Captain! The Spatio-Temporal pattern is changing the Carbonite Ionic Matrix! Abandon all hope!"

The next bullet explains that Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases are likely to have made such a substantial contribution to GW, mind you only in the second half of 1900's, that it is larger than the total observed warming. This seemingly impossibility can only be observed while traveling WARP 9 or faster. But wait! There's more.

The last bullet explains that warming from non-anthropogenic sources was likely the cause of warming in the early 1900's. So in the early 1900's GW was naturally caused and late 1900's it was caused by humans. I believe the change in the Spatio-Temporal (Love using that term!) pattern caused natural climate change to cease and altered CO2's role in climate change.

This is serious business folks, listen up! Although we cannot explain how or how much CO2's role changed since the 1950's, we can definitely say with a high probability that it is likely to be the only cause of GW today, but with some uncertainty, of course, as to the exact percentage depending upon how you look at it. You see, it's very technical.

Who needs proof when you have an almost definite promise from the IPCC that there is a pretty good chance that the probability is high, however some ambiguity exists as to the effect depending on which way the wind is blowing. Don't ask THE DENIERS, they'll just go on about proof and scientific method mumbo-jumbo.

Laura,

That's a full two degrees below their normal low underscoring Patrick's point exceptionally!

Maybe it's time for Laura to start adding a yellow-card and red-card, as practiced in soccer.

A yellow-card might, for example, delay subsequent comments from the author for a time. A red-card might cause the author's comments to be blocked altogether for a time.

Specific public feedback tagged on specific posts will surely help all of us better understand the desires of our board's "referee".

laura,

i concur with your statement that mr henry errored when he stated that it is summer in a alaska...however, it is my opinion that you should have also pointed out that he is correct in stating that mark used a dubious select temperature baseline and picture to make a dubious assertion about the weather to sound a global warming alarm...its the same as the infamous hockey stick argument...in my opinion it calls into question his (mark) motives of choosing to talk about the weather as an introduction to an article about waves...i think us "deniers" recognize the fallacy of mark's claim...if, we are to understand changes in climate and the cause thereof, it must be taken in context with what we know of the earth's past climate...we have some understanding of what it was like and have 4 billion years of data to draw upon...may i suggest a review of a portion of that knowledge here...http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/mollglobe.html...the pleistocene image is good example of what we think the earth looked like and how the earth has been warming since then...the idea that we can model the earth's climate to predict the future or what kind of waves it will cause and make life influencing policy upon them is ridiculous...this manmade global warming hype is all about politics and money...the complexity of the earth's climate derived from the interaction of the sun with earth's oceans, clouds, landmasses, orbital and wobble variables dwarfs anything we humans think we are doing to heat up the planet...especially when you consider we are talking about a few hundred parts in a million of a beneficial gas in a historically stabilizing cycle that is the socalled demon of disaster with which the agw'rs claim...i guess like mr henry, i am compelled to comment when i see a ruse such as mark's that is being used to justify a position when all that is being said is something about last years weather in no context or appreciation of natural occurring global climatic temperature variance...earth's climate is far too complex to trust some future predicting computer program to tell us my fossil fueled lifestyle is going to make ocean waves go faster...give me an ocean-sized-wave break!!! have a nice sunny day...its a good thing...

"It's almost amusing to see how some people will look at just one location as a proxiy for the entire world."

Andrew,

Glad you are amused. I find it interesting that AGW advocates choose to focus almost exclusively on the northern 20% of the earth - which might be considered a small geographical area. They conveniently ignore that the Southern Hemisphere shows almost no warming. Al Gore makes movies about what will happen when Antarctica melts, despite the fact that Antarctic ice is steadily increasing.

Brookline,

Interesting how the standard response to all AGW criticisms ultimately comes down to censorship and/or ridicule.

If you think that sways anyone towards your point of view, you probably are mistaken.

I often wonder if these mouse potato global warming alarmists, the non-scientists who have glommed onto this supposed disaster-in-the-making, are also the same people who were worried about Y2K and stockpiled toilet paper and bottled water expecting that computers would forget how to think when 2000 rolled around. It would just be funny and kind of sad if it wasn't so dangerous.

Hmm, well, I was expecting a rant and sure enough I got one. Steve, this just goes to show that those who refuse to even try to understand the science will continue to not understand the science.

There you go again, Guiltline Tom. Censorship! Censor those who refute your rantings from the church of Al Gore. You guys really are the limit!

Passerby,

I suspect you are right that the celebrity and press bandwagon is motivated by the same "the end is near" mentality as Y2K.

The concept of being punished with climate disasters for our bad behavior goes back much further though. Noah was one of the first stories about this, but every culture and religion has their own stories about droughts, floods, famine, heat, being delivered as punishment for mankind's sins. Much of our greatest literature is based around this idea.
http://baronvonhoopla.wordpress.com/2006/01/25/agamemnon-and-the-ill-wind/
http://etext.virginia.edu/stc/Coleridge/poems/Rime_Ancient_Mariner.html

As far as the press and scientific community goes-
"Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods."
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

Steve:

"Who needs proof when you have an almost definite promise from the IPCC that there is a pretty good chance that the probability is high..."

Amazing logic there...

As if the IPCC does not have an agenda. Remember, they were brought to you by the same UN that has so many problems that they are the very definition of SNAFU. Look it up, next to SNAFU is a picture of the UN building in NYC.

To the AGW crowd, please avert your eyes for min. Thanks

To all of those out there who question the "consensus", what we apparently need is some sort of snazzy panel (that we can refer to as a bunch of letters) who can state, with the apparent authority given to any panel of concerned citizens, that the A in the GW is not all too correct.

OK, welcome back to the rest of you. Back to your regularly scheduled debate.

In a press release, the IPAAGW (International Panel Against the A in Global Warming) has recently announced that the human induced global warming scare is really about socioeconomic redevelopment of this good planet perpetrated by everyone who feels guilty about living better than someone else.

Not sure how any of this relates to ocean waves but I really don't get what any of that means anyway. Seems a bit hocus pocusy to me.

CENSORSHIP! RIDICULE!

Oh my, not that. "Patrick Henry" and "Oiznop" would SURELY never stoop to RIDICULE!

Laura, I think you have to decide whether you do or do not want to encourage civility in this forum. A long line of forum and chat-room moderators, stretching back more than a decade, have learned the same hard lessons.

If you want to encourage civility, you have to act like a referee, and show your community quite specifically how you're going to call the game (because it IS your game and your calls). If you don't do that, then you waste your time and ours asking us to "play nice."

I'll adjust my comments to fit whatever game you want to call.

Brookline Tom,

From what I read a lot here, you like to attach others, so wouldn't you be the first to receive the Yellow or Red card?

Steve Bloom,

A rant? LOL :) What you pointed me to was hogwash. No substance what-so-ever. Did you read the links you pointed me to? Do you really think that in lieu of using the scientific method to arrive at an understanding of a phenomena that one can simply state a probability that their conclusion is correct by grasping at air, or CO2 in this case? Did you read what you pointed me to?? Basically they say they need no experiments because they can say with a high probability that CO2 is the problem. HOW? I cannot find where they arrived at that conclusion other than to simply state it. Where is the SCIENCE?

They go on to say that they have enough experience with modeling that they can estimate the various "forces". Really? This is based upon the original error where they simply made a statement and assumed it was correct. Here is a link to the definition of Scientific Method. Does it not apply to AGW as it does EVERY other science?

It baffles me that while CO2 did not play any significant role in Climate Change over the last several Ice Age events that incredibly today it has taken lead role. Temps go up and down without CO2's help for hundreds of thousands of years, but after the Industrial Revolution something gave CO2 some new form of motivation? Simply showing that Co2 levels went up and temps went up will not do. Please take a look at the temps and CO2 levels over the last 10 to 12 thousand years. See anything interesting? Hint: Temps went up and down without any change to CO2 levels.

If it were science then someone could show me how they arrived at their conclusions. Can you? I understand physics fairly well, you can explain it in lay or scientific terms, however simply stating something without anything other than someone's word will not do. I never had an invisible friend nor took interest in someone else's invisible friend. Sorry but simply having faith that AGW is real does not work for me especially after reading that laughable article on CO2's contribution to GW. It is difficult for me to believe you have read it and are willing to defend it.

I am failing to see what science I am missing, anyone else care to comment? Anyone else read the articles mentioned in my post above?

Patrick,

Where is your proof to your claim that Canada and Alaska were below normal this past winter? You only show links showing the lower 48. The map I showed has Canada & Alaska above normal.

Also, your question regarding the Southern Hemisphere is an easy one. The Southern Hemisphere warms slower than the Northern Hemisphere because it contains much more ocean area. Water warms slower than land. Climate models have predicted that the Northern Hemisphere would warm faster than the Southern, and this is verified through observation. As I've said, the climate models have been pretty accurate thus far.

Darren,
Since you believe that all scientists have an agenda, what do you make of Bush's own panel on climate change? As you may know, he appointed a panel to "study" global warming and report the results. Much to his chagrin, they came up with the same conclusions as the IPCC, along with nearly every other scientific body out there -- that AGW is real, signifigant, and needs to be addressed. Do you think they have an agenda too? You would think that they'd be pressured to conclude that AGW was ~not~ occuring.

In the June 8 2007 issue of Science magazine, there is an article, "Marine Radiocarbon Evidence for the Mechanism of Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise", which basically proposes that Pacific deep waters stored CO2 during glacial times and then vented it as deglaciation started, accelerating the temperature rise. It provides more data points that humans may not be the only cause of global warming. To quote the reviewer of the report (who tried to find the holes), "The study nevertheless leaves the skeptics with arrows in their quiver." "if subsequent work supports the findings, we may look back at this study as a key turning point in the quest to understand glacial and interglacial CO2 changes".

The main point is that we still need to study and debate global warming and be open-minded so we humans don't implement knee-jerk "solutions" (which seems to be on the plate of many followers of the AGW crowd) and subsequently cause the "solution" to be worse than the "problem".

Consensus in science does not necessarily mean the hypothesis or theory has been proven. It is just general agreement based on the data and information gathered to date. Science should never close and lock the doors to debate, to discussion, to study, or to questions. If it did, it would not be science.

"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects." --Margaret Thatcher

Mark,

Nice theory about the ocean temperatures, but if you look at the actual SST anomalies there isn't much variation between hemispheres-
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly.html

Also interesting to note is that Atlantic temperatures are currently close to normal and temperatures are warming up in the central Pacific (El Nino.) Could be another disappointing hurricane season for AGW proponents, who seemed to enjoy Katrina so much.