Dr. Keller
Be saying the global cooling of the 40-70's was due to the effect of the changes in solar radiation, do you not see it being the AMO? The AMO was in the cool phase from 30-the 60's, and is now in the height of the warm phase. What if the fluctuations in temp. is due to the AMO and we cool back down in the 2010-2040's?

Mike

Here is the final report from the Danish Space Center.

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/ISAC_Final_Report.pdf

Sorry AGW'ers - It's the Sun.

Brett, you had better start a thread on this.

Dancing around Al Gores movie and not calling it scare tactics is shameful.
Folks always be careful of a guy who refuses to make eye contact with the person he is talking to. That and rolling eyes has been noted by some body language experts as a sign of not only being uncomfortable with what they are saying but a sure sign of being down right deceitful.
...and the spin goes on....along with our money.
LOL have a great weekend

Wow, one of my questions was used. I'm not
worthy, I'm not worthy.

And the spin begins, the "only" people who use scare tactics are those that oppose global warming. HUH? I'm not opposed to global warming. I'm actually kinda for it in a way.

I like that, "high end" of the error bars part with Gore. No, you think it was the high end? LOL.

And the IPCC has no scare tactics, LOL. Andrew, I'm sure can fill us in on the dire predictions for the human race if no immediate action is taken.

re 160 page DNSC report posted above by anomynous: This is probably the most comprehensive up to date report on sun-climate and I expect will raise a lot of question re current AGW theories. This is hard core reliable data. Brett: if below to much info just nip (or as anonymous suggest major reason to post new thread)

Conclusions
The Sun:
� Sunspot number catches only part of solar activity
� The Sun�s magnetic field drives short term changes
� Solar output predictability is at most years ahead
� The overall solar cycle dominates solar-climate correlations.
� Statistically robust signals of the impact of solar variability have been detected
throughout the stratosphere and troposphere in temperature, wind and atmospheric
circulation. These include, when the Sun is more active,:
o a warming of the upper and lower stratosphere in low-to-middle latitudes
o a strengthening of the winter stratospheric polar night jet
o vertical bands of warming in the mid-latitude troposphere
o a weakening and poleward expansion of the tropical Hadley cells and a
poleward shift of the Ferrel cells
o a more positive tendency of the North Atlantic Oscillation
o the solar signal in stratospheric temperatures and in the tropospheric polar
modes of variability is modulated by the phase of the quasi-biennial
oscillation
� Direct heating by absorption of solar ultraviolet radiation can explain most of the
temperature response in the upper stratosphere but not the signals in the lower
stratosphere and troposphere.
� When removing the solar cycle the most robust tropospheric correlations are seen
with UV and cosmic rays.
� UV and GCR show negative(positive) bands of correlations with low clouds at
mid-to-high latitudes. These bands are strengthened by removal of the solar cycle.

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/ISAC_Final_Report.pdf

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=135813

Coldest winter in nearly 15 years ahead - Big chill coming for most of (Canada)

Dr. Hansen and Dr. Keller tell us that the high latitudes are most susceptible to greenhouse gas emissions, so the warming effect is greatly exaggerated there. Thus explaining the persistent sub-zero temperatures in the Canadian Arctic this autumn.

Which would be better for the Democrats new motto - "In Science We Trust" or "In Gore We Trust" ? The latter would only require changing a couple of letters imprinted on the back of a quarter.

Q: You plan to debate Dr. Charles Keller in Pittsburgh next week --

A: Right. I will show the evidence, and if he's honest, he'll agree with me.

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2007/10/unstoppable-skeptic-dr-fred-singer.html

Congress has finally agreed to increase the CAFE standards last night. This is an encouraging development.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/01/news/economy/fuel_efficiencysat/index.htm?postversion=2007120107

I'm eagerly anticipating the claims that the economy will go into a Depression, how we're going into the Stone Age, how we're adopting Communism, yadda, yadda, by the corporate apologists.

Congress has finally agreed to increase the CAFE standards last night. This is an encouraging development.

Hi Mark,

Nothing wrong with making more efficient cars, but according to the IPCC models, that law should lower the worldwide temperature by about 1/100 of a degree in the year 2050. That just might save us from a tipping point.

This paragraph from your article is pretty astonishing. AGW (CH) types are driven by distrust, arrogance, control and punishment - which is exactly the root of communism.

There's been some debate in this country as to whether higher fuel efficiency standards would result in people using less gas. Some argue a simple gasoline tax would be better, as American's will merely see their newfound mileage gains as a chance to drive more.

I like denialist logic. The NAS and Royal Society are corrupt and wrong, and so is every other scientific body that studies the climate.

But the Danish Space Center--we can trust them!

I guess the fact that there is no trend in cosmic rays still hasn't sunken in.

Another UN big lie exposed.

Fall in weather deaths dents climate warnings

GREEN scientists have been accused of overstating the dangers of climate change by researchers who found that the number of people killed each year by weather-related disasters is falling.

Their report suggests that a central plank in the global warming argument - that it will result in a big increase in deaths from weather-related disasters - is undermined by the facts. It shows deaths in such disasters peaked in the 1920s and have been declining ever since.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2983816.ece
http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_20.pdf

Mark wrote: I'm eagerly anticipating the claims that the economy will go into a Depression, how we're going into the Stone Age, how we're adopting Communism, yadda, yadda, by the corporate apologists.

From the article: "More hybrids. More diesels. Smaller engines and fancier technology. And an initial sticker price increase that could total a couple thousand dollars."

Did you read the part about vehicles costing a couple thousand dollars more? Diesel is going for $3.40/gal near me and cost thousands as an option already. Upgrading to hybrid technology also costs thousands. At those prices I'll be forced to stick with my old pickup since I won't be able to afford something else. The article linked to a page that showed how long it takes to recoup the cost of buying a hybrid and the fewest years listed was over 4. Vehicles are one of the poorest investments a person can make and to make it worse by forcing people to spend thousands more isn't going to help. Of course there are some people who would love to see everyone having to get rid of their vehicles. Nice little social engineering project that's being sold to us.

"deaths in such disasters peaked in the 1920s and have been declining ever since."

We've been through this before, Patrick. Deaths from disasters have decreased due to the fact that warning systems, technology and dissemination of information has greatly improved.

Hi Mark,

In 1970 a typhoon killed 500,000 people in Bangladesh - despite plenty of warning. It was a big storm. How do you expect Bangladesh to evacuate tens of millions of people without cars over a two or three day period? Where would they go?

But I'm glad you agree that climate related deaths have greatly declined.

Boris,

You obviously did not read the report yourself or you would not have made such ignorant comments.

They are a scientific agency on par with NASA, NOAA, NCAR, etc., and if nothing else this report should serve to show that clearly the science is not settled, there is no concensus, much more research is needed, and anyone on either side of the argument could be proven wrong in the future.