Most of us on here have been saying that's a bunch of malarky all along, and we didn't even have to do the great study.
Same goes for the whole AGW swindle, and it doesn't take a scientist to figure out either.

The failure of this theory is understandable considering the statistics in the following quote from Wikipedia.

"The total concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is just 0.054%, a very minuscule amount. Humans contribute much less than 1% of that. The documentary states that volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans (Durkin has subsequently admitted that this claim is wrong[8]), while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and that the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a "mere" 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions therefore cannot be causing global warming".

NOAA is forecasting that most of the ocean will be below normal temperatures for at least the next year.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/images/glbSSTSea.gif

Colder water absorbs more CO2. Might be best to leave the oceans alone.

And another good discussion of how the IPCC got their hurricane claims wrong.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2474#comments

Another instance where the science is not settled.

It would be nice if the 'global warming' crowd for once engaged in the scientific enterprise before making their absurd clams.

Better give up your computer too.

"Carbon emissions from computing are now approaching those of aviation, according to new research to be published on Monday.

The report, by environmental campaign group Global Action Plan, will say that IT now accounts for 10% of the UK's annual energy consumption.

That is the equivalent of four nuclear power station's worth of electricity and 1 billion tonnes of CO2 worldwide."

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1295295,00.html

Paul,

The sky is falling in Colorado! 44" of new snow this weekend.

http://www.wolfcreekski.com/snow.asp

Looks like you will have a nice ski holiday.

Apparently the UN likes warm weather and CO2 after all.

Carbon footprint fears for UN climate summit in Bali. The 15,000 politicians, civil servants, green and industry lobbyists and journalists who will fly in are estimated to emit the equivalent of more than 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to the annual emissions of the African state of Chad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml;jsessionid=GFDX5OD5H3Y4VQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/earth/2007/12/02/eabali102.xml

Why not have the conference in Yellowknife at -24F to dramatize the devastation of warming in the Arctic? I hear that the polar bears are really suffering from a lack of cold and ice.
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/71936.html

And this study was about as pointless as a swimming pool in Alaska outisde!

I hope I don't sound like an idiot, but, just from putting two and two together, I would say that, (A) because the Climate Crisis causes the Winters to have less cold weather and (B) because--as in this article--"less carbon was transported to deep water during summertime bloom than the rest of the year," then a logical deduction of these two statements is the possibility that the Climate Crisis would incline because the less amount of cold weather would retreat some of the natural turnover of carbon in oceans. I am assuming that the turnover depends on warmth of Winter rather than the Winter season itself.

If so, I don't see how the article's conclusion is a happy one. Was I making a wrong assumption?

Point Two:
There is a comment here from someone called "Chris" who doesn't seem to address the subject here. The subject here is not Al Gore or any "AGW swindle." If this gentleman were actually having a conversation in a way that respects the discussion here, then his comments would be directed at the subject of this article. If he doesn't want to talk about the article, perhaps he might restrain himself from pushing others into a peripheral and politicized debate that doesn't address the matter at hand. Of course, I don't suggest any loss of rights on the part of "Chris" or someone who is interested in a Climate Crisis; I'm questioning his manners and not his voice. If I had a personal association with someone doing what he's doing, I would think of him as a person with psychological issues. I've seen this kind of attitude before, so naturally I've become adept at pointing it out. Just because I've seen it before doesn't mean it's a proper way to act. No offense intended.

Alaska was nearly 10 degrees above average in November. I guess the cherry-pickers can't use Alaska for a while.

there is no climate crisis, arthur. Next you'll tell us Earth's climate has been stable until industry came along. That wasn't true before Michael Mann came along and erased the last two big climate events from the record and it's not true now that his hockey stick has been discredited.

my stance is this: if the Earth is still warming at an accelerating pace in 2018, then I'll believe the alarmists. Right now, I think a hefty portion of it is natural and some is anthropogenic. Interesting thing is, a year ago, I thought the opposite. Then I discovered Climate Audit.

Hi Mark,

-43F in Alaska right now! Good thing the global warming conference is in Bali.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=62.96,-141.93

BTW - nearly half the cities in Alaska have cooled over the last 30 years.
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/7706Change.html

Alaska was nearly 10 degrees above average in November.

Uh, Mark, you wouldn't happen to have a source/link for this declaration, would you? Or, do I just take your word for it?