Check out this US Carbon Footprint Map, an interactive United States Carbon Footprint Map, illustrating Greenest States to Cities. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State & City energy consumptions, demographics and much more down to your local US City level...

http://www.eredux.com/states/

So when are the scientists going to computer model my "Underwater Suspension Tunnel" idea to restore this Arctic ice to pre-industrial revolution levels. Time is running out folks.

Four days off a twenty-year average doesn't strike me as anything significant. What is the year-to-year variability in date of lowest sea ice extent?

And why have these folks departed from their usual practice of fitting a line to everything? Could it be because there is no "trend" in the data?

First, it is really hard to ignore the statistical significance of this decline.
Yes, I know that people in denial are experts at doing that, but come on folks! Be real.

Second, as most everybody should know, there are feedback mechanisms at work in the climate. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It is not well mixed like CO2 and CH4, but it is actually more powerful. With such a large area of open water in the artic, there will be significantly higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere and this will tend to warm the artic this fall and further retard ice development over the winter. So, the current record will likely be obliterted within another year or two.

As noted in the article, the time of minimum sea ice is occurring later in the year.
Sunset in the artic is around Sept 21 and there is hardly any sunshine during the few weeks before. So, this is another clue that the warming is not related to the sun as much as it is to the warmer atmosphere and ocean currents. The other clue is that solar irradiance has not increased for the last 50 years and has actually declined since 2001.

Finally, why is it that deniers have such a difficult time accepting responsibility?

There are 6.6 Billion people on this planet. Even if you are way above average as a carbon emitter, your contribution to the warming is less than 1 in a billion. Polar Bears are not very happy with the warming, but for most people it has not been so bad. Are deniers really that afraid of potential taxes?

Hey Brett! What is going on?

A number of key quotes were not included from the press release!

If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s.

Reply: that's why I link to these articles, I cannot repeat everything in there. If I did I might has well just copy and paste the article, but of course I cannot do that. The above comment seems like something they are not sure about anyway.

While a number of natural factors have certainly contributed to the overall decline in sea ice, the effects of greenhouse warming are now coming through loud and clear. Reply: nothing that we have not heard before and I have posted comments similar to these many times. Brett.

Serreze said, "The sea ice cover is in a downward spiral and may have passed the point of no return. As the years go by, we are losing more and more ice in summer, and growing back less and less ice in winter. We may well see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer within our lifetimes." The scientists agree that this could occur by 2030.

Reply: strong comment here and certainly worthy of being posted, but like I said above, I have posted very similar predictions such as this one several times on this blog. The focus of this piece was on the September sea ice extent.

So, the press release points out that the decline since the 1950s may be more severe, affirms that Greenhouse Gases are the culprit and has moved up the date of an ice free summer arctic by a decade.

Personally, I suspect that a virtually ice free summer arctic will be reached before 2020.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029703.shtml

From 1953 to 2006, Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the melt season in September has declined sharply. All models participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) show declining Arctic ice cover over this period. However, depending on the time window for analysis, none or very few individual model simulations show trends comparable to observations. If the multi-model ensemble mean time series provides a true representation of forced change by greenhouse gas (GHG) loading, 33-38% of the observed September trend from 1953-2006 is externally forced, growing to 47-57% from 1979-2006. Given evidence that as a group, the models underestimate the GHG response, the externally forced component may be larger. While both observed and modeled Antarctic winter trends are small, comparisons for summer are confounded by generally poor model performance.

All of this is happening while total solar irradiance has been flat since the 1950s.

Several points that I question here .... it will take some energy ( think of your kettle ) to convert Andrew's arctic water to vapour and that will cool the air or water. Water vapour can keep heat in but it can't create heat.
Andrew seems confused about daylight in the arctic and he should check that out. Prior to the equinox it will be daylight 24 hours a day at the pole but the main factor is the low angle of the sun & the amount of atmosphere that the sun's rays must pass through. Post equinox the sunsets & it is dark 24 hours a day ( disregarding twilight ) ... the darkness descends south until at the solstice all areas north of the arctic circle are in darkness.

Andrew:
With such a large area of open water in the artic, there will be significantly higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere and this will tend to warm the artic this fall and further retard ice development over the winter. So, the current record will likely be obliterted within another year or two.

As noted in the article, the time of minimum sea ice is occurring later in the year.
Sunset in the artic is around Sept 21 and there is hardly any sunshine during the few weeks before

Andrew,

You: We may well see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer within our lifetimes." The scientists agree that this could occur by 2030.

We "may" see this. Do "all" of "The scientists" agree that this "could" happen? With all of this melting we have seen, has it effected ocean levels? We are down to 80 percent of fossil fuel reserves and counting. Can we survive after burning what is left of these reverves? Are we doomed if the arctic cap melts away? If we are not doomed, what will happen when it does? Can we really, absolutley stop this from happening, or just slow down the process? Do you have specific details on the fate of the world after all of this melting? I respectfully request that you "specifically" share your detailed and timelined thoughts on the worlds fate after this melting.

I would like to see a sticking theory, one that is handed in to the teacher, if you will, for a grade. One that is not altered as more and more information is gathered. One we can hold accountable if it doesn't pan out as expected. You know, like the hurricane forecasts. A virtually ice free summer arctic will be reached before 2020. Is this your final answer?

You: Polar Bears are not very happy with the warming.

Classic. Have the smiles from their faces gone away? ;(

I look forward to your detailed theory. Other pipers are welcome to post their theories as well. You may want to disclose that "past performance is not indicative of future results", just to cover yourselves. Thank you.

Brett---

I like your responces. It seems to be a requirement of such articals that they include some exciting paragraph about "reaching a point of no return." Likely it increases interest and sales. I personally don't mind if you cut such stuff out, and only include the meat of the story, as long as you provide a link to the entire story

Andrew---
You quote: "All of this is happening while total solar irradiance has been flat since the 1950s."

Is this factual? If so, why are the icecaps of Mars shrinking?

Also you might want to consider a few other points. For example, if the current warm-Atlantic-cycle is from 1990 to 2020, then we are 17 years into the cycle. 17 years into the 1930-1960 warm-Atlantic-cycle would be the year 1947. That should make you think twice about the statement: "If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s." Why think twice? Because ice can grow as well as shrink, and there could have been a reversal between 1947 and the 1950's, when records began.

Forgive me as I speculate how this could happen: When I lived on the ocean in Maine during the cold winters of 76-77 and 77-78 I noticed each snowfall increased the thickness of the sea-ice. The weight of the snow pushed the ice down, water welled up and turned the snow to slush, and the slush froze.

If, as you say, open water in the arctic increases the moisture of the arctic air mass, it seems likely the snowfall would increase, which might increase the rate the ice reformed.

You have every right to clobber me for using the word "might." But please note your quote uses the word "may," in the phrase "sea ice may have fallen by as much as fifty percent."

Most theory involves the words "may" and "might." I have read a theory which states that, during the ice ages, glaciers might have been like a vast donut around the poles, and the arctic ocean itself might have been ice-free, adding moisture which increased snowfall which formed the glaciers.

Such theory should increase our sense of wonder, but I think it is wise to retain some skepticism, and avoid selling-out and moving. After all, should we move north to avoid the heat, or south to avoid the grinding glaciers?

Andrew please don't post lies.
The temps were warm in the 30s & 40s, cooler through the 50 to late 70 period & then warmer. Despite the inaccuracies of the temperature record these trends are clear & you won't find any reputable glo-BULL warmers who would dispute these variations.
To say ice coverage has been declining since the 50s is bull.
What about the record Antarctic ice coverage??
What about the below average temps in Antarctica?
Reply: BTW, that is the subject of the next post Rick. Brett
How come you never want to post that data Andrew?
Brett do you have any temp data for the past year in the arctic. After a hot July, Calgary has been below average through August & September so I wonder what temps were like at Resolute for example.
I read that much of the " melting ice " was the result of prevailing winds pushing the ice pack around. There was a Norwegian ice breaker which tried and failed to to get to the pole in August, turned back by the thickness of the ice pack. Ice breakers of this type are good for metre thick pack ice but it was encountering ice ridges of up to 6 metres.
Food for thought but I'm sure Andrew's mind is made up & he doesn't want to be be confused by anything factual.

Brett I drove to Fernie yesterday through about 1 1/2 hours of some of the most wintery and at times almost blizzard like weather. It is very pretty here with fall in the valley & winter from mid mountain to the top. More typical of November than October. Reply: Yes, things have been pretty wintery around there lately. They have a nice webcam from the ski area there.

Be good,
Rick.

"The graph below shows the September ice extent from 1979-2007. An average decrease of 10% per decade."

Slightly worrying is that looking at this chart, 2007 was a bit of an outlier. Next year, if the passage is frozen solid then predict a few headline grabbers from the sceptical side of the debate...

Good response Caleb. I would tend to also believe that it is a cycle that repeats itself. When it does become ice free it is bound to start snowing more once again due to the open water and then the process merely repeats and builds the ice back up. To think it is just going to be ice free is silly as it is just way too cold up there for that to happen. The sun doesn't shine in the winter up there and it is going to freeze the water like it or not. Andrew lighten up. Article is full of may happen not will happen. It is all speculation at best. I do believe it snows more around the Great Lakes on years when the lakes have less ice. Seems this article doesn't take this into account.

Caleb,

Here is a link to a very recent study on lack of a potential role for the sun with climate over the last 20 years.

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

The following articles indicate that the southern ice cap of Mars is responding to changes in the albedo of the planet. Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era. Skeptics have their theories, but that is nothing new. If they had merit, they would be embraced.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070407/fob7.asp

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Here is a quote from a peer reviewed science journal on the NAO.

The observed temporal trend in the NAO in recent decades lies beyond the natural variability found in the model control runs. For the majority of the models, there is a significant increase in the NAO trend in the forced runs relative to the control runs, suggesting that the NAO may intensify with further increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021064.shtml

In other words, similar to Marion Jones, the NAO appears to be on CO2 warming steroids.

Rich,

Don't see why you think I am confused about the equinox. My point was that in the week prior to the equinox, the sun is so low in the sky that there is little sunlight in the arctic.

Anyhow, I doubt we can effectively limit CO2 emissions enough to change our fate.
By 2027, Global Temperatures will probably rise between 0.6 to 2.0 F.
Lots of unknowns in how the earth will respond to that. After all, this is just a large uncontrolled experiment in climate science.

Andrew,

"Personally, I suspect that a virtually ice free summer arctic will be reached before 2020."

I'm beginning to think that you've reached a stage in your beliefs, where your hoping the Arctic will be ice free, just to prove your point.

There's only one explanation for this sudden and dramatic drop-off from the mean decline; anthropogenic gases are finally kicking in a strong warming.

What about sea ice extent maximum for SH? Cryosphere today

Reply: I have a post ready to go on that for tomorrow.

It is ridiculous to blame CO2 for the Arctic trend. CO2 has also increased in the Antarctic, which is currently experiencing a record maximum sea ice extent. The AGW models fall flat on the their faces.

And as rick pointed out, the limit on the length of Arctic melt is the angle of the sun. This year's melt pretty much maxed out that parameter. There is too little sunshine in the Arctic after August to melt any ice, so the possibility of further melt after August is pretty close to zero. Additionally, the melt only occurred on one side of the Arctic. Greenland sea ice is above normal.

In short, the discussion of an "ice free Arctic" is based on a lack of serious analysis. Typical of the AGW religion. It isn't going to happen.

Andrew,

Thank you for providing me with the links. The first is a bit long, and appears at first glance to be over my head. I will take you at your word that it suggests the heat produced by the sun is a constant.

This seems to counter other papers I've read which state the sun pulses and throbs, with hot spells and cool spells, and even mysterious periods without sunspots which seem to connect to the Mini-ice-age.

So, which papers am I to rely on?

I suppose we will have to wait until these papers undergo something all scientists seem to dread, "Peer Review." (Scientists don't seem to mind dishing it out, but they grow pale when their own papers get sliced and diced.)

The links about warming on Mars are also interesting, however it seems the jury is still out on that topic. I personally don't think such warming can be dismissed as a merely "local" phenomenon, having nothing to do with the output of heat from the sun, but I'll try to keep my mind open.

However, if I accept the statement that "as much as" 60% of Martian warming is caused by dust being blown away from dark rocks which absorb heat, my mind immediately thinks that "as little as" 40% of the heating must be caused by something else.

The third link has the statement:

'Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years." '

Do you see how statements like this counter statements that the sun is a constant?

I do thank you for making me think so hard. I think we all have a bad tendency to cherry-pick our news, prefering the sites that agree with our personal views, but I can always depend on you to direct me to the more challanging sites. However my wife does not appreciate you at all, and I fear that if I don't shut down this computer I will be giving her grounds for divorce.

I agree with Andrew, Mark and BT as far as this being an "experiment". The question is who or what is running the experiment? That's what makes this discussion so intriguing. There is a lot of information out there for us to disect. How much melting is directly related to burning fossil fuels? Can we blame this melting entirely on CO2 emmissions? Will burning the remaining 80 percent of our fossil fuel reserves alone result in catastophy, or is there more than one reason for the melting?

Mars. The ice caps on Mars are made up of frozen CO2, dry ice. The south cap is losing mass. As the south cap vaporizes or "melts", the CO2 is released into the atmosphere. There are 2 caps on Mars, north and south, like earth. The south cap vaporizes, yet the north cap is growing. It's a balancing act, similiar to our planet. The south cap on earth is gaining in mass, yet the arctic is losing mass. The question is, what caused the initial decrease in Mars' south cap to begin with?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Whatever is causing the melting, it is irrelevant to the ice cap. I agree with you Andrew, our fate has already been sealed.

Caleb,

I should have stated that there has been no significant trend is solar irradiance since 1950. There have been measurable changes since then on a 11 year frequency, but no trend. Also, the current level is near the minimum since 1950.

I believe the consensus is that while solar output will increase slightly over the next few years as part of its 11 year cycle, the overall trend over the next 50 years will be lower. However, these changes are so small that they will be barely noticeable compared to the overall warming from rising CO2 levels and associated feedbacks.

Prior to 1950, there was a positive trend in solar irradiance. Humans had an influence on the climate before then, but the consensus is that natural variations dominated the climate. Since 1950, human influences due to CHG emissions, land use and sulfate aerosals have dominated over natural variations.

Rick,

I do not lie!

If you think I have made an error just point it out like an adult. I have noticed that you tend to put words in my mouth and then attack me. That is not being fair, honest or mature.

Try to stick to the facts without restorting to picking cherries or character assissination.

More Evidence that the Arctic melt is perfectly natural and cyclic

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Climate_Shift_and_the_Relationship_of_Oceans_on_Global_Temperatures.pdf

Andrew,
"Skeptics have their theories, but that is nothing new. If they had merit, they would be embraced."
Aside from Mark's comments, this is one of the more arrogant statements I've read on this board. Basically, you're dismissing any ideas that run counter to yours as lacking in merit. That is about as unscientific as it gets. Science is about questioning and learning. Once you think you know it all, then you've devolved into the realm of religious fundamentalists who claim that there is no way but their way and any one who dares to question them is a heretic.
The bottom line is that the NAO and AO are factors that had yet to be considered as impacting the Arctic ice melt. Instead of having this suggest that there may be still other factors out there that have yet to be considered, you predictably search the web for "peer-reviewed" articles from several years ago that point to CO2 concentrations as the culprit for these factors. If you embrace the idea that correlation equals causation, then the fact that my daughter's grades have gone up over the past several years is attributable to increased CO2 concentrations.

Andrew,

I should have stated that there has been no significant trend is solar irradiance since 1950.

Do you have any clue as to whether there has been a significant trend in solar irradiance since 1950? Can you please tell me what a significant trend would be? Kind of strange that science is now so subjective. When I was in school, we experimented and calculated numbered results that others could find significant or not. Today the numbers are avoided or adjusted and the "scientist" labels the results with some subjective term meant to lead the audience.

I do not lie!

I don't think you lie in the conventional sense of actively attempting to deceive, but in the sense that you are expressing a false statement or impression because you are careless and do not understand what you are parroting.

You often state things as fact when you yourself have no clue whether you are writing truth or not. That is child like yet you whine about needing to be treated as an adult. Well act like one.

A good example is your CO2 and CH4 gaining importance as altitude increases thought. Many AGW advocates are so trained in on CO2 and CH4 that Convection, the primary means for cooling the troposphere, is completely ignored. You took a very poor AGW argument that someone else created and attempted to defend and explain it. Your explanation ignored air density and temperatures at those altitudes completely. Novice or liar?

Well, did Bush "lie" about WMD or did he get bad info? Were you lying about CO2 and CH4's importance in the upper troposphere or were you parroting bad info? Were you lying when you posted articles that were meant to explain you point but ended up being off topic? Pure sloppiness or you actually thought they proved your point?

Many of us in this blog have pointed out your sloppiness and/or "lying", yet you still exhibit the behavior. Be prepared to be called a liar a great deal more if you don't choose you words more carefully.

Try to stick to the facts without resorting to picking cherries or character assassination.

Nice :) Is it character assassination or Character Suicide?

Regards,

Steve

I don't think you lie in the conventional sense of actively attempting to deceive, but in the sense that you are expressing a false statement or impression because you are careless and do not understand what you are parroting.

Rich didn't accuse Andrew of being careless, or of not understanding what he was "parroting", or of being sloppy, or anything else.

Rich accused Andrew of LYING. His comment reads:
Andrew please don't post lies.
The temps were warm in the 30s & 40s, cooler through the 50 to late 70 period & then warmer. Despite the inaccuracies of the temperature record these trends are clear & you won't find any reputable glo-BULL warmers who would dispute these variations.
To say ice coverage has been declining since the 50s is bull.

Rich called Andrew a liar, with no justification whatsoever. Andrew requested, rather politely I think, that Rich avoid such personal insults. I suggest that if more of us followed Andrew's advice AND example, our exchanges might have more light and less heat.

Thanks Brookline Tom,

I appreciate the support and your post as well.

Steve,

A significant trend in solar irradiance would be one that could explain changes in global temperatures that has been experienced. However, as stated there has been none since the 1950s. In fact, for the last 20 years trends in solar forcings have all been in the wrong direction as shown in the following paper.

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

If you honestly believe that convection is somehow the cause for the recent global warming then please share details of your theory or better yet point out a reference that supports it.

Meanwhile, I will take all of your attempts to belittle me as nothing more than a reflection of your character.

BT;
I refer you once again to the famous quote from one of the original designers of the Kyoto protocol, Maurice Strong. " Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about? "

When I elude to socialist agenda, I do not refer to any of us. None of us are even close to important enough to matter. I am speaking of people of real power at a level way above anyone here.

Andrew and BT:

While I would not be quite so direct as to call Andrew a liar I do whole-heartedly agree with NGW Steve. Andrew, if you recall what you wrote a few days ago in a different thread..
Andrew:
Oh I get it!

Rather than rely upon studies that are actually published in reputable peer reviewed science journals, the skeptics make up junk science and then pass it around like a pipe.

Sorta like telling a lie.
___________________________________
My point is that you do the exact same thing. So if you or BT is going to get all upset about "personal attacks" watch what your own words say. You were vague but the meaning was clear. You said skeptics lie.

BrooklineTom,

Our paths cross yet again. Your lack of thought provocation festers in this blog.

I, RICH with an H, never called Andrew a liar. You are confusing me with someone else. Your animosity should be directed towards Rick with a K or Natural GW Steve. However, it is nice to see that I am starting to have an effect on you. LMAO. Maybe there is hope for you yet?

Cheers.

Of course there has been a trend in solar radiation since 1950. It has been consistently near historic highs. This causes the heat content of the oceans to steadily increase, which affects SST's and thus the earth's weather.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

If you don't understand the basics of thermodynamics, then please don't pretend to get involved in a technical discussion of the subject. (Unfortunately that description seems to apply to the bulk of the AGW community.)

Brookline Tom,

You are quite right: it is important to be civil, but you need to practice what you preach. As I recall you described me as a brainwashed stooge of Exxon-funded deniers, or words to that effect.

I actually have a pretty thick skin and don't take insults to heart. The witty ones make me chuckle, despite myself. A few even approach the wit of Winston Churchill, who had to listen to a great many insults before he was allowed to speak, and still managed to keep his sense of humor.

I think Brett does a very good job as moderator. I imagine there are some "comments" he must delete.

However the really wonderful thing about this site is the exchange of ideas. Often a person I disagree with provides a link which teaches me something I was unaware of. Therefore I am grateful the person disagreed with me, for they have made me smarter.

I think what annoys commentators on both the alarmist side and the denier side is the politics. Modern politics is prone to be one-sided, and to think propaganda is justified. Rather than the exchange of ideas there is the attempt to sell one side while ridiculing the other.

Propaganda creates the myopia of a Cyclops. True science seeks more than one view, through sharing information and through peer review. By doing this it gains the depth-perception which a Cyclops lacks, yet which having more than one eye allows.

It would be a very real pity if this site decended to the level of politics and propaganda. The subject we are discussing is vast, and full of wonder and beauty.

I, RICH with an H, never called Andrew a liar.

I stand corrected. I did, in fact, mis-read the post from "Rick" and wrongly associate it with "Rich". Rich is correct that my post and animosity is directed at Rick (with a "k") and not Rich (from NH).

Rich, I apologize for my mistake.

Andrew,

:) I have to say it yet again, Did you read that? Quite amazing.

The very first sentence explains that the sun had considerable influence on the Earth's climate prior to the Industrial Revolution which BTW is also the End of the Little Ice Age. They go on to say that it may have been a factor in the first half of the last century.

What happened from 1850 to 1900 they do not explain :) Little thing about physics. If a fire burnt you yesterday, it will burn you today. While infants initially have a hard time with this concept it gets through fairly quickly.

NASA says Solar Irradiance has gone up .05% every decade for the last three decades while Lockwood says it is going down. Who to believe? Someone who spends a great deal of time explaining his smoothing techniques or NASA?

The evidence that Solar radiation decreased enough to cause the LIA is quite compelling. I have seen estimates that it was a 5 Watt m-2 decrease. A .15% increase in 3 decades is a 2 Watt m-2 increase. If you increase 300 K ( the Earth's mean temp) by .15% you get an increase of .45 C. Pretty amazing that is so close to what many say the Earth has warmed in the last 30 years if small changes in the Sun do not cause climate change.

The idea of "forcing" is labeled as a concept by the IPCC, perhaps you shouldn't put so much faith in it.

Regards,

Steve

If you honestly believe that convection is somehow the cause for the recent global warming then please share details of your theory or better yet point out a reference that supports it.

:) Andrew,

I make sure I understand what I read before I parrot it, secondly I never suggested Convection causes Global Warming, I said it is the main way the Earth cools. If I have a theory I will explain it using physics, no other references will be necessary.

Heat transfers by three means. Conduction, convection, and radiation. Conduction is the most efficient, Convection is second, and Radiation third.

The Sun heats the Earth. The Earth warms and the heat is radiated and convected towards space. The poorly named Greenhouse Gases absorb this heat through conduction and radiation. Convection now takes place because the heated gases become less dense and more buoyant.

As the air rises a few things take pace. Kinetic energy is being lost because air density is decreasing. Kinetic energy is being lost due to gravity. And heat energy is being lost due to radiation. The air cools and sinks. Convection stops at the Stratosphere because there is too little matter and energy to continue.

Water vapor has twice the specific heat as CO2 and it is at least 70 times more abundant at any given moment. I understand that it is not "well mixed", if it were then things would be much different.

It gets cold in the desert at night because CO2 looses the "trapped" heat much quicker than water vapor. So if you add a third more it will still loose that energy twice as fast. It stays warmer in humid areas because water vapor holds twice as much heat and is far more abundant than CO2.

You seem like a very pleasant person, but you consistently attempt to make false statements appear to be true even if you are parroting a bad hypothesis.

Titles, degrees, and peer review do not impress me as they do you. A good explanation of a theory using physics and the scientific method does.

You say that I belittle you, but this is not the case. You are belittling yourself by parroting bad theories and making it look like you actually understand what you are parroting. No wonder peer review is so important to you. You have to trust someone else rather than draw conclusions yourself.

This wouldn't be so bad if you, the folks who convinced you of AGW, and the folks you are convincing didn't have influence over the jerks that are already taxing me too much for programs and entitlements that make little sense. Now you and many others are trying to take a great deal more money for something that cannot be avoided by reducing CO2 emissions.

I may be berating you, but you are belittling yourself.

Regards,

Steve

Patrick Henry,

The lack of any increasing trend since the 1950s in solar irradiance is key to the dismissal of solar as a cause of the most recent warming.

There were trends in solar irradiance before 1950, however global temperatures have been rising steadily since the mid 1970s and this was despite 2 major vulconic erruption. Mt Pintubo and El Chichon both resulted in significant global cooling in the 1980s and 90s.

So, how in the world could anybody ever come to the conclusion that a trend that ended over 25 years earlier have any part of the warming?

A 25 year delay!

Also, it has been 32 years since 1975.

So, why has the temperture continued to rise? Globally, 2005 was the warmest year.

The last 5 years are the warmest 5 years since instrumented records have been kept.

The last 10 years are the warmest 10 years.

I could keep going, but most people already see the point.

The last 5 years are the warmest 5 years since instrumented records have been kept.

The last 10 years are the warmest 10 years.

Which of the re-re-re-re-re-re-adjusting of the data set are you on? The last few I've seen since Hansen got busted at least include one 1930s date in the top five....

"didn't have influence over the jerks that are already taxing me too much for programs and entitlements that make little sense. Now you and many others are trying to take a great deal more money for something that cannot be avoided by reducing CO2 emissions."

Classic denier pattern right here. Most of Steve's post, although off the mark, was written about science. Then, at the very end, he grinds his political ax, thus undermining whatever credibility his post had.

Patrick Henry

Thank you for providing the link to the NASA graph of solar irradience available at

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

I notice the graph starts back at the year 1611. Do you happen to know how NASA came up with the numbers for that far back in time?

There doesn't seem to be an obvious spike during the Dust Bowl years. Is there a factor besides solar irradience which explains that warm period?

Classic denier pattern right here. Most of Steve's post, although off the mark, was written about science. Then, at the very end, he grinds his political ax, thus undermining whatever credibility his post had.

Mark,

I am very impressed with your argument. You say that my arguments are off mark, do not give any examples, and then say that an unrelated topic undermines the "credibility" of the argument that you did not give an example of.

Bravo! You must have been top of your class in debating. I'm curious how stating my irritation about people, left and right, having influence over the amount of taxes I pay undermines the credibility of the convection process. Can you please explain? Do you have other examples as your post suggests?

Regards,

Steve

"I notice the graph starts back at the year 1611. Do you happen to know how NASA came up with the numbers for that far back in time?"

Patrick claims that old temperature records from Europe are unreliable because they were too busy fighting wars and famine. What I want to know is -- using his flawed logic -- why does Patrick trust old solar records. Apparently, Patrick thinks that they were too busy with wars and famine to keep temperature records, but they weren't too busy to count sunspots.

Seriously, guys, there is a future for you in stand-up comedy. It's never too late for a career change!