All that warming CO2 being released from the southern oceans must be what is causing record sea ice and cold winters down there.

And the lack of ocean mixing must be what is driving SST's rapidly down in the Pacific.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly/5.gif

Nice how the real climate crew lives in the real world of their own fantasies. Is Mann still playing hockey?

Wow; Plenty of comments on this article by the folks at Real Climate!

Anyhow, Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere show no signs of slowing down. If anything there appers to be a slight acceleration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Some blame China building a new coal plant every week. There is also India of course and the rest of the world.

As the article implies, it could even be that the oceans are slowing down in the absorption or maybe it's the increase in forest fires. Anyway one cuts it, climate change is coming. Less than half a degree F per decade, but still warming.

Mark,

half a degree F per decade, but still warming

Temperatures have gone down in the past decade, and the 1990s were almost as warm as the 1930s.

poorly understood and alot of unanswered questions but nevertheless they cannot resist the temptation to further doom and gloom hypothesis that its all man's fault... kinda fits the AGW scam perfectly......heh, heh, the only thing i found appropriate in the article was the authors name...

The article says -

We have to keep in mind that it is a tricky business to invert the atmospheric CO2 concentration to get sources and sinks. The history of this type of study tells us to wait for independent replication before taking this result to the bank.

Their statement that the southern ocean has been releasing CO2 since 1990 is almost certainly hogwash.

I am totally confused. More wind, more mixing at the surface, more CO� uptake?

More wind, more mixing, less CO� uptake.

More CO� above the surface, less absorbed

More CO� above the surface, more absorbed. These Mannian guys can sure write a good story. First its sports journalism and now it's fairy tales.

Reply: That's why there are a lot of unanswered
questions in regards to the topic.

Fact. warm water takes up more CO�, cool water gives it out.

Fact. Southern ocean is cooling, donc, more out less in.
These guys don't even understand the
effects of cloud on the atmosphere yet. I suggest they start there and work their way down. By they time they to the oceans the planet will have already cooled and what they have to say will be irrelavent then as now.

Kind regards

Stephen R

"All that warming CO2 being released from the southern oceans must be what is causing record sea ice and cold winters down there."

Actually, the anthropogenic CO2 sink in the Southern Ocean is thought to be weakening due to the trend in stronger westerlies over those latitudes observed in the last several decades. The Le Quere et al. paper describes in further detail the mechanism for how winds can influence the ocean carbon cycle.

But, the important thing here is that the trend in stronger westerlies (also termed the Southern Annular Mode) over the high-latitude Southern Ocean is also associated with colder temperatures over much of Antarctica (the exception being the Antarctic Peninsula) and increasing sea ice as well. This circulation pattern is actually able to account for a huge percent of the temperature trends over Antarctica. It's also believed that increasing CO2 will continue to drive this trend in the westerlies.

OK, so CO2 will increase more rapidly. Why should we be concerned about CO2 concentration that's been accelerating for the last decade or two? What I mean is that if you plot tropospheric temp from NSSTC data you don't see a whole lot going on since 1979, and virtually nothing more recently. What's keeping the positive feedbacks on atm temp from kicking in? Meanwhile, the plants are loving it.

Did anyone else catch the Freudian slip phrase that "The history of this type of study tells us to wait for independent replication before taking this result to the bank.".

No really, this is about the future of mankind, not funding(or my job).

They may not understand it, and I have to seriously doubt if the researchers have the proper context of their research relative to reality, but why not throw it out there for people to get wound up about.

The comments were quite a hoot. Some poor person wrote in that she was just so upset about how human life has fragile future at best on this planet. The author's response was classic, "Don't despair. If nothing else, it�s unproductive. The technology exists to cut CO2 emissions to safe levels at reasonable cost."

Wasn't the point of the article that there is this feedback thing that basically screws up everything? Seems like cutbacks are not productive.

Just wondering; was that a peer riviewed story?
Was it reported on any credible web sites?

Reply: I do not know if it was peer reviewed, but I would consider RealClimate.org a credible web site, so yes to your second question.

An interesting commentary from the former Director of Meteorology of the Weather Channel:
Whodathunkit?

Comments About Global Warming
I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time. John currently works with KUSI in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.

By John Coleman

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the �research� to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild �scientific� scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you �believe in.� It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won�t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

Amy,

A few months ago the theory was that Antarctica was going to warm disproportionately because in the absence of water vapor, increases in CO2 would cause relatively large increases in IR absorption. That didn't work out so now the theory has been switched to CO2 making Antarctica cold.

What a great science AGW is! Whatever happens in either direction, just blame it on CO2. No one remembers what was said last month anyway.

PH,

Temperatures have gone down in the past decade, and the 1990s were almost as warm as the 1930s.

Totally false!

In fact, the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s were all successively warmer AND warmer than the 1930s.

Also, the last 10 year (1997-2006) was 0.42F warmer than the previous 10 years (1987-1996).

Check out the following links for Global (Land and Ocean) Temperatures from NOAAs National Climate Data Center.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html#means

I realize that 0.42F does not seem like a whole lot. However, there has been no sign of a slowdown either.

Gary,

John Coleman has his opinion, and the Weather Channel has a position statement.

The Weather Channel Position Statement
on Global Warming
November 2007
Introduction
The scientific issue of global warming can be broken down into three main questions: Is global warming a reality? Are human activities causing it? What are the prospects for the future?

Warming: Fact or Fiction?
The climate of the earth is indeed warming, with an increase of approximately 1 - 1 1/2 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century, more than half of that occurring in the past three decades. The warming has taken place as averaged globally and annually; significant regional and seasonal variations exist

Impacts can already be seen, especially in the Arctic, with melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, and rapid retreat and thinning of sea ice, all of which are affecting human populations as well as animals and vegetation. There and elsewhere, rising sea level is increasing coastal vulnerability.

Odds are now leaning toward increased frequency and intensity of heat waves in the warm season and warm spells in the cold season in parts of the world, as well as reduced frequency of low temperature extremes. There is evidence in recent years of a direct linkage between the larger-scale warming and short-term weather events such as heat waves.

In some regions there has been a tendency for an increase in precipitation extremes, both wet (including floods) and dry (droughts). These observations over the past several decades are consistent with what theory and global climate models would suggest.

The jury is out on exactly what effect(s) global warming is having or will have in the future upon tropical cyclones.

Human Influence
To what extent the current warming is due to human activity is complicated because large and sometimes sudden climate changes have occurred throughout our planet's history -- most of them before humans could possibly have been a factor. Furthermore, the sun/atmosphere/land/ocean "climate system" is extraordinarily complex, and natural variability on time scales from seconds to decades and beyond is always occurring.

However, it is known that burning of fossil fuels injects additional carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This in turn increases the naturally occurring "greenhouse effect," a process in which our atmosphere keeps the earth's surface much warmer than it would otherwise be.

More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists. Any meaningful debate on the topic amongst climate experts is over.

Humans are also changing the climate on a more localized level. The replacement of vegetation by buildings and roads is causing temperature increases through what's known as the urban heat island effect. In addition, land use changes are affecting impacts from weather phenomena. For example, urbanization and deforestation can cause an increased tendency for flash floods and mudslides from heavy rain. Deforestation also produces a climate change "feedback" by depleting a source which absorbs carbon dioxide.

The Future
The bottom line is that with the rate of greenhouse gas emissions increasing, a significant warming trend is expected to also continue. This warming will manifest itself in a variety of ways, and shifts in climate could occur quickly, so while society needs to continue to wrestle with the difficult issues involved with mitigation of the causes of global warming, an increased focus should be placed on adaptation to the effects of global warming given the sensitivity of civilizations and ecosystems to rapid climate change.

Potential outcomes range from moderate and manageable to extreme and catastrophic, depending on a number of factors including location and type of effect, and amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Not every location and its inhabitants will be affected equally, but the more the planet warms, the fewer "winners" and the more "losers" there will be as a result of the changes in climate. The potential exists for the climate to reach a "tipping point," if it hasn't already done so, beyond which radical and irreversible changes occur.

http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/index.html

Stephen Richards: Fact. warm water takes up more CO2, cool water gives it out.

Just to deny someone like Steve Bloom the pleasure of correcting this, the opposite is true. CO2 dissolves better in cold water, which is why Coke fizzes more when it's heated up. As I recall, whether a substance dissolves better in cold or warm water depends on whether forming a solution is an exothermic or an endothermic reaction.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

I wonder if Gary or John are willing to assert that these predictions have a 100% certainty. If, on the other hand, either admits any uncertainty in this prediction, I wonder then what cost humanity pays for the mistake?

Darren and I went through this exercise many months ago. When our contrarians and deniers tally up the proposed costs of paying attention to AGW, they have a tendency to forget to tally up the expected cost of doing nothing.

Try this exercise: suppose the risk that Gary and John are wrong is small -- 10%? 5%? 1%? Multiply that number by the cost if the polar icecaps melt, the world's coastlines are all inundated, and the "super storm pattern" (whatever that means) all come to pass.

Different folks can come to different estimates of the uncertainty of these predictions. The cost impact of these events is so enormous that, even when transformed into an "expected value" by the process I describe, it still dwarfs any of the measures currently being proposed by those of us who want to do something.

Andrew,

According to the good doctor Hansen, temperatures have cooled since 1998. This is the last full year plot of trends since 1998. Temperatures are plummeting in the Canadian Arctic.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1998&year2=2006&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

Now consider that since 2006, the Pacific has dropped well below normal. Next years GISS plot should be dominated by blue.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly/5.gif

Hansen says that 1998 was the warmest year worldwide. By definition, temperatures have cooled over the last 10 years.

BT:

You are correct we had that discussion and I agree with your assessment that the "cost" of doing nothing does need evaluated and is often overlooked by skeptics.

I guess I have come to the conclusion that coast inundation and other attendant issues will occur as such a slow process that adaptation can be made with little real effort or cost.

The idea of "superstorm patterns" (I agree, whatever that means) has an even less chance of occurring in my opinion. This, and last year are perfect examples of my thought that a LACK of hurricanes is a much better example of a warming climate. That is contrary to the standing worries of some AGwers who consistently lead the drumbeat about warm climate, bigger storms, ie: more panic.

Andrew:

The Weather Channel's position is a perfect example of fear mongering being important for their financial well-being. They have made and created a cottage industry over fear of all things weather. Look at their program lineup sometime, everything is "extreme" and has a slant geared toward how GW will make it "more extreme" in the future. No fear, no viewers, no money. Companies like ACCUWEATHER are stealing their client base with the internet etc. They have to do something to make themselves relevent. As JB says, they are reaping the reward of their horrible forecasts. When TWC first came out, it was THE only source for weather outside of the local newscasts. Now, it is a repository of crappy GFS forecasts. Who wants to see that?

The change to the dark side (AGW LOL) came when they made their TV personalites get makeovers. The girls started showing more skin and had complete makeup changes, the guys slimmed down and had "hip" new suits.

If RealClimate.org is credible, what is the opinion of ICECAP?

From The Weather Channel's Political -- I mean, Position -- Statement: "The potential exists for the climate to reach a 'tipping point,' if it hasn't already done so, beyond which radical and irreversible changes occur."

If the climate has already reached "The Tipping Point" (that has to be the title of the next alarmist movie, by the way), does that mean we can stop worrying about global warming because there is nothing else that can be done? Can we get on with our lives and, say, watch an NFL game without a major network shoving "green tips" down our throats. I sure hope so.

Darren/bt

Looks like the AGW zealots can have it both ways.

(emphasis mine)

"Southeast drought culprit: Not enough hurricanes? [Henry Payne]

Headlines trumpeting a drought crisis in the southeast United States this fall expose the absurdities of global warming paranoia. Green hysteria that blames every weather event on global warming has become commonplace, and journalists from The New York Times to the Augusta Chronicle have blamed the Southeast's woes on man-made carbon dioxide.

Wrote the Chronicle: "Indeed, the drastic effects of global climate change intrude everywhere on our daily consciousness - from the serious drought that now threatens cities in the Southeast to. . . Category 5 hurricanes regularly battering coastlines."

But, according to the AP stories that ran across the nation, the drought conditions are a result of "stifling summer heat and a drier-than-normal hurricane season."

Complained a USA Today story: "With hurricane season nearing an end, no one expects relief before winter."

Huh? We have a dearth of hurricanes?

But if global warming is causing drought, shouldn't it also be creating more hurricanes that provide the precipitation necessary to quench the region's thirst? Will we soon witness Nobel laureate Al Gore bemoaning the lack of global warming needed to induce hurricanes to relieve a Southeast parched by too much global warming?"

So, bt, which is it?