I don't think too much of it Brett. Gore himself said the earth "has a fever". Well for people to have a fever we have a consistent temperature (98.6) and take it from there. Now with earth there is not, never was, and never will be a consistent temperature. So who is to say that earth has a fever? It doesn't have a consistent temperature or an average.

We are in a warming trend in earths life time, that's all it is. There was warmer times and there were cooler times, that's how it is! I hate how people talk about "average", average what? 120 years? That's a joke when you think about how old this planet is, a joke. Not to mention, I don't think readings that long ago were even accurate. We have problems today with temperature data, just ask Hansen. Funny, we will be sending men to mars soon but we can't record accurate climate data, scary actually.

It is remarkable that temperatures have risen over so many areas of the earth while total solar irradiance shows no meaningful trend since the 1950s.

Some skeptics tend to think that either temperatures have not rise (which is false) or that they have risen for no apparent reason (which is also false).

We know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are well-documented and understood.

The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

A warming trend has occurred in both the hemispheres, and over the oceans.

The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

What's Likely?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"

Summary

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

Frequently Asked Question.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf

Historical

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch01.pdf

I think the most telling graph is the 2nd to last graph which gives a 50 year trend. The year 1976-77 illustrates the Great Pacific Climate Shift. That was the year the PDO went from negative to positive. Also 1995 was the year the AMO went from negative to positive. At least for the NH, one can surmise that the ocean circulation patterns reflect a dominance in tropical air masses, which mitigate the penetration of polar air masses equatorward. Since 1976, we have been at the mercy of an ENSO driven climate. Couple this with a very warm North Atlantic Basin, and it is no wonder that NH surface temps remain elevated.

Look at the raw data, and go back to the years from 1880-1913 (and to a lesser extent, through about 1924). If we were living back then, the exact same argument could be made about some human reason causing "global cooling" that is being made for "global warming" today. Add in the fact that temperature readings in past years, and even those taken today in parts of the world are extremely suspect, and its at least scientifically acceptable to question that "global warming" is taking place. The data in these graphs, which looks so obvious, can be easily manipulated by changing base periods (5 of the graphs don't even state what the base period is).

I'm not necessarily saying global warming isn't happening (and AccuWeather, in general, is one of the few outlets that leaves it to readers/viewers to draw their own conclusions), but I think this data is more proof that intelligent arguments can be made on either side. To present global warming (let alone taking as gospel that this is due to man's activities) as a "done" argument as Al Gore and company do is doing a great disservice to science and the world in general.

Andrew,

Let's take a look at a couple of graphs. First, we will look at CO2 (your favorite culprit) versus temperature.
Notice the tight fit of the two curves, especially between 1911 and 1943 and the last 30 years since 1976. I can definitely see a tight correlation and now can say with absolute certainty that increasing CO2 concentrations have absolutely caused increasing temperatures.

/sarc off

The second graph is solar irradiance vs temps. I now see why you like to use data from the 1950s on. However, when combined with cosmic ray flux which is linked to solar "activity" (not irradiance) which includes sunspot number, sunspot activity length (Figure 6), the solar magnetic field, etc., the link is much stronger. In fact, much stronger than the "alledged" CO2/temperature correlation (which is practically nil).

Andrew:
I know you have a fondness for the IPCC.
I would be interested in your take on this article.
" IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, October 26, 2007

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

Man, I just love Andrew and his effervescent bubbling compassion for the IPCC. How did you spend your Nobel Peace Prize money by the way?

Funny, how just a few dots represent a real big area of land. I'm really struck by the concept that the land is retaining heat somehow. I know, I know, the sun's the same blah blah blah, but just really look at it. It looks really suspicious to me.

Brett,

I'm glad you seem to be feeling better.

Guys,

I've been temperature anomalies in a couple of reporting stations in Nunavut, (Shepherd Bay, Isachsen, Eureka) and they seem to be having an exceptionally warm October, as has been the case for the past several years. I should note t hat all three station's base means may be a little old, especially Isachsen, so take their anomalies with caution. I'll try to post some data on Thursday, after the month has ended.

Paul

About that JunkScience graph you posted. CO2 has been rising. So has temperature. Of course it doesn't prove causation, but it surely doesn't disprove it either. Just because the temperature rise hasn't been as smooth as the CO2 rise doesn't discount CO2 as a major causal factor. I'm curious to see what it would look like if extended past 2001.

Paul,

I've looked at sunspot cycle length and it is basically junk science. Consider figure 6 of your link. Notice that the scale for cycle length varies from 9.5 to 12 years.

Next look at some raw data for sunspots and what becomes obvious is that the length of sunspot cycles is not clearly defined at all. In other words, its entirely a matter of opinion of the cycle is 10, 11 or 12 years.

So, what has happened is that some people cherry pick cycle lengths to match their political views. In other words worse than junk.

Here is a link to a current paper from a reputable science journal. Please consider it carefully.

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

I agree, that prior to the 1950's solar factors were on par with rising CO2 levels for climate influence. However, since then CO2 is driving the climate warmer than what nature would. That is why people are concerned since it is obvious that CO2 levels won't be lowering anytime soon unless some action is taken. The current climate in not necessarily dangerous except for polar bears and walrusus, but in 75 years or so, it will become problematic for humans.

Galatic Cosmic rays is another dead end where junk scientist get stuck. Consider the following for the latest commentary.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%e2%80%99t-die-so-easily/

Is it possible? Al Gore is wrong about hurricanes?

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/yearly_tcdays_small.jpg

Thanks to climate audit for this link

Brett,

What do you mean by "raw data" ? The numbers on that NCDC page have all been through massive amounts of data processing and adjustment.

Reply: sorry Oleg, wrong choice of words. My fault. Brett

FYI - my buddies at un-real climate are back to their old censorship tricks, refusing to print my posts. They need to be sure that no disruptive thoughts find their way into the Borg consciousness.

Paul, AGW Steve, Oiznop - "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated."

Andrew,

You forgot about the Narwhals.

western Greenland and Baffin Bay have been getting colder in recent decades, and increasing concentrations of sea ice in these regions may be 'too much of a good thing' for narwhals
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06arctic/background/edu/purpose.html

And another thing, why is it that Northern hemisphere seems to be so much warmer than the southern? (Reply: It is likely that due to the much larger ocean to land ration in the southern hemisphere. The oceans have a modifying effect, reducing the amount of annual extremes, whether warm or cold.) It seems odd to me that the so called global warming really is hemispherical warming. But since there is such a disparity it kinda resembles an instrumentation, interpretation, or statistical issue. I know, I know, the logical skeptic wondering about measuring stuff again, but just look at the graph and ask yourself the question instead of rejoicing in the pretty red dots.

Andrew,

Looked at your Lockwood link, now I suggest you look at this reply to your link. I especially like this quote from the paper, "When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record."

Your realclimate site is very entertaining in that in the article and again in the comments, the very arguments that they like to use to debunk the cosmic ray theory is the same problem I have with CO2. Namely, the period studied isn't long enough and the curves don't match.

I also love that, miraculously, the main driving force for climate over the last 500 million years, or more, is now decoupled from the process and only anthropogenic CO2 is driving climate change. How convenient!!

I have no idea how this data has been collected over the years - is there not any chance that the method of data collection has changed since 1880 - accounting possibly for a variance.
I know it's not politically correct to question data in favour of the global warming theory - so sorry!!

Andrew,

I've looked into your claim that sunspot cycle length is junk science. Specifically, you claim Next look at some raw data for sunspots and what becomes obvious is that the length of sunspot cycles is not clearly defined at all. In other words, its entirely a matter of opinion of the cycle is 10, 11 or 12 years.

According to this graph, sunspot cycle length is based on the time between sunspot minimum. I'm not sure how this is "cherry-picked". We are right now smack dab in the middle of a true minimum, that is zero sunspots. There have been zero sunspots since October 9, 2007. A sunspot minimum was predicted in the first link for sometime in August through November. They were right. Let's just hope that it doesn't last as long as the last extended period with no sunspot activity, the Maunder Minimum.

Anyway, based on the above, I think that you might have a hard time justifying your "cherry-picking" statement. Comments?

PH - I was reading on realclimate.org a discussion about terraforming Mars, because the earth will soon become uninhabitable. The same people who are desperately concerned that a few PPM of CO2 will make earth unlivable also believe that it will be possible to make Mars a safe place to live.

It would appear that AGW is more about insanity than science. How far out of touch with reality can a person become?

Andrew,

One more item, apparently NASA has this solar cycle length thingy figured out. I wonder if they "cherry-pick" the cycle lengths?

Oh yeah. Concerning the Maunder Minimum. Check out NASAs own site where they say, "Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research."

However, since the "science is settled" maybe we/NASA should divert this money to AGW, eh?

Earthquakes and fires in California. Antarctica is melting. Wars in the Middle East. Just as Al Gore predicted.

AGW may be happening, however, the surface temperature data used to support it is suspect.
Many temperature stations are substandard and may be instead measuring the effect of urban heat islands rather than CO2-induced warming.

http://surfacestations.org/

Paul:
I would suggest that realclimate and the IPCC have about equal credibility on the topic of AGW.
You should find this post entertaining as well.
IPCC too corrupt to save ....
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

I believe the operative term is prophesized, not predicted.

You know, as I recall, all of the events mentioned by Eva also occurred during the time the high priest was in office, and prior to his quatrains. Wonder what that means?

So hurricane activity is at a 30 year low. Tornadoes have dropped off significantly from the peak of 30 years ago. Worldwide SST's are close to the 1971-2000 average. The arctic is freezing fast and the Canadian Archipelago has 60% more ice than this time last year.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.12.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly/5.gif
Where are the NOAA headlines emphasizing the moderate weather?

All this despite "unprecedented warming" over the last 30 years. What a farce.

Paul - re: Oct. 30 "Let's take a look at a couple of graphs. First, we will look at CO2 (your favorite culprit) versus temperature." This is the wrong graph to look at. CO2 is not the only forcing affecting global temp, it is the primary positive forcing. A better test is to plot the net radiative forcing including other GHG's, aerosols, black carbon, land use changes, and solar variation(click on the link for tabulated data at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/) and temp
(click on the link for tabulated data at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) vs. year and note the comparison in trends. The modeled net forcing is consistent with the temperature anomalies. It is naive to attribute trends in temperature anomaly to one factor alone.

Eva, are you being sarcastic? (just can't tell over the computer, no emotions. lol)

Lol, I'm sorry if you are sarcastic but if you are serious its a different story.(Anyway if this is what Gore really said than....)

1. I don't think C02 has anything to do with earthquakes.

2. The fires were set by one person.

3. Anartica is now starting to melt because its spring.

4. Middle east has always had war.