"One of those authors stated that he was initially a strong skeptic, but after 15 years of researching climate change he is no longer a skeptic"

After 15 years, he decided if he was going to make any money, better jump on it.
Odd man out.

Reply: I highly doubt that. He actually has been involved with the climate change research for 15 years, he did not just start it. He is actually one of the deans at the University and listening to him, whether or not his research ends up being correct, you could tell he was very passionate about his work and truly believed in it. Brett

Nature

Climate models predict that the ocean's circulation will weaken in response to global warming, but the warming at the end of the last ice age suggests a different outcome.

Current climate-system models say that the ocean's overturning circulation will weaken over the next century19, but these predictions might not rest on a solid foundation.

It seems that the information from the past is telling us to expect a stronger oceanic circulation in the warmer climate to come

These are possiblities if the climate continues warming. And it isn't alarmist, just what the negatives and positives would be, and we'd also be able to adapt. We are good at that.

The debate over AGW is going to continue, and it should. There are good studies out there that refute it, but probably won't be considered until we see a cool period( which has been forcasted to happen soon by some). Then ,I think, these studies will be taken more seriously. Only time itself will produce the correct answer.

We need to have a standard that is agreed to by all concerning surface data. Unfortunately, that really is a shambles and anyone can take stats and manipulate them to suit their purposes. There has been to many changes over the past century as to the equipment and way we get data. Also the enviroment has changed which would favor warmth in the surface observations. I know adjustments are made, but again, that can be manipulated either way and not really reflect the truth as to what is really going on.

Kipp,

On a previous thread, I and a few other asked you to elaborate on CO and CO2 and their carcinogenic properties. Never heard from you. What's up with that?

You brought up that subject, not I. I would still like to hear your thoughts on these alleged carcinogenic compounds.

Buehler....Buehler.

My concern here is "education". It used to be that universities taught critical thought - with this teach-in they are being told to believe there is a problem and somehow they have to come up with a "solution". I would have more faith in the system if a few dissidents were invited to every one of the 1400+ sessions to give a different perspective. Without that, these are little more than propaganda gatherings. I am just reading the biography of Mercator and the conventional wisdom of his time (the Little Ice Age) was that the world would end in 1588. Forecasts were premature then and I strongly suspect that they are premature now.

Paul,

I did not read the post you refer to, but as a physician, I can unequivocally tell you the CO2 and CO have no carcinogenic properties. So I don't know where that idea came from.

As far as the prediction for the mid-Anlantic area, I am very concerned about the mosquito vector issue. As you know, mosquitoes are vectors for the world's most serious and enigmatic diseases, e.g.. malaria, West Nile Virus, Ebola virus, etc. Also, other vectors such as fleas and ticks could increase as well. Anyway, the more tropical the climate, particularly with large pools of stagnate water, means more mosquito-transmitted disease. That could lead to a disaster similar to the Plague, but much worse, do to the large population, the lack of immunity and lack of treatment regimes. And it is likely that this disaster will occur early in the course of GW.

So, before you dismiss AGW or just GW as a money-making enterprise for "experts", Mr. Anonymous (I would stay anonymous if I were you), know that this discussion of the disease probabilities related to GW is very pertinent and worrisome. What's as worrisome, however, is your dismissing attitude.

If we make an assumption, and then assuming something else happens, and possibly something else happens as a result, and if we ignore the rest of the evidence - then we can precisely define what the effects will be.

Thanks you very much.

I went to the Denver Planetarium today and saw a great show where they discussed the solar wind. I had no idea how powerful it is and how important the earth's magnetic filed is to protecting our atmosphere. Astonishing that AGW types are so intent on ignoring the very important effects of solar variability. "It must be CO2, because we are too lazy to think about anything else."

Reply: From what i heard on Thursday at the teach-in was that the IPCC members that were in attendance was that solar variability is indeed taken into account when they make their calculations.

A first look at temps for January 2008
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/rnl/sfctmpmer_30b.rnl.html
Lets see how NASA explains this one away. Cold land + sea + atmosphere

Didn't see anything there about assessing infrastructure (roads, bridges, wastewater treatment, etc.), potential structural adjustments and possible changes in seasonal maintenance.

Also - anyone yet mentioning potential impacts of adaptations on government budgets?

On Real Climate a blogger posted that he could see how some people could be skeptical of computer models, even if the data is based on physical observation. He had a hard time how people could be skeptical of the very dramatic changes, such as you mention.

I find it very difficult to look at the unprecedented, in geological terms, changes in Alaska -- glaciers melting, methane bubbling, huge temperature increases, invasive species, etc. -- and not have extreme concerns.

This isn't just an intellectual debate. There are dramatic changes that are apparent to anyone who observes nature. Changes that are taking place as the population heads towards 9 billion.

Speaking of a more variable climate, 7 cm of snow in Tokyo today where it rarely snows.

I put this in here for bt, because I know he loves to see daily weather reports that go against the CW of AGW. (Reply: I don't think those reports go against or support the CW of AGW, they are pretty meaningless when you look at the big picture. Brett)

Besides, I love to cherry-pick weather because it irritates him so much.

Reply: Oh, so your just posting those observations just to irritate BT and others? I'll keep that in mind next time.

Oh, yeah, the snow drought continues in the Rockies and Sierras:

Breckenridge - 61"
Keystone - 51"
Steamboat - 73"
Vail - 59"
Wolf Creek - 146" (26" yesterday)
Jackson Hole - 107"
Alta - 152"
Park City - 109"
Heavenly - 100"
Kirkwood - 155"
Whistler - 91"
Taos - 90"

And in Japan:

Niseko, Hokkaido - 102"
Hakuba, Nagano - 110"
Hiuchi, Niigata - 134"
Joetsu, Niigata - 83"

The snow drought continues.

Uh oh!! Looks like Sunspot Cycle 24 may not have started after all.

Mark, time for some spinning. See if you can spin up a new start to Cycle 24 so we can get on with the global warming.

Reply: Actually, the author of the link you posted to said that solar cycle 24 remains difficult to call definitively at this time, in his view.

Regional anomolies come in varying forms and forums.

I'm sure ......well almost ......that the next assessments should interpret this type of article in the Telegraph and place it in the proper context.

Excerpt:

"Sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But for some reason the warmists are less keen on the latest satellite findings, reported by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the website Cryosphere Today by the University of Illinois.

This body is committed to warmist orthodoxy and contributes to the work of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yet its graph of northern hemisphere sea ice area, which shows the ice shrinking from 13,000 million sq km to just 4 million from the start of 2007 to October, also shows it now almost back to 13 million sq km.".

As I tried to project in my previous comment specifically about media's role in this issue, it appears, as many are suggesting, that the "spin" is beginning to change direction for some reason.

Could it be that the science in not settled?

Could it be that weather IS indicative of climate?

Or, last but not least, this is all agenda driven lies, with elegant media spin and the movie will be coming out shortly! (oooops ...... again?)

I have yet to see why the consequences of this warming period will be different from previous one.

Does it matter whether the current warm period is primarily or entirely man-made? Isn't it most likely that if we experience continued warming, the climate will resemble what was experienced during the MWP and the Roman Warming Period.

Thanks for sharing the presentation Brett. Do you know if anyone at Penn St has ever considered the opposite of rapid GW? That is, rapid GC? Just a thought. I know everyone is focused on GW, and expect it to continue indefinitely, but there is a chance for the opposite to occur.

JP: I honestly do not know. That is a good question.

GettingWarm,

Where a lot of people differ on those observations is in what caused them. I just do not understand how we can theorize so profoundly based on 150 years of data, knowing that this planet is well over like a few hundred bajillion years old. That would be like analyzing Brett Favre's stats by looking at only his last attempt, and theorizing he was the worst QB ever because it was an interception.

What was Alaska like 1 million years ago, what was it like 5000 years ago, what was Alaska 386,000 years ago? Maybe 1 of these time frames was very similar to what it is like present day. Maybe glaciers were retreating, maybe they were advancing.

Now I just threw random numbers our there for this, so pardon me if someone has proven that 386,000 years ago was a tropical paradise or frozen wasteland.

Vincent,

I'm not sure if NASA will attempt to "explain it away." But let's just assume for argument's sake that for the month of January, the earth's averaged temperature anomaly was negative. What does that mean? Do you believe that one cool month disproves AGW theory? That is an honest question.
Look, I'm not trying to be too mean. I hate the idea of AGW, so seeing a cool month makes me happy. I just think you're making too much of a big deal about one cool month. And before you say that AGW promoters make a big deal about one warm month or season all the time; I agree with you. It's wrong of them to do it too.

Hi Guys,

Roger Pielke Sr. has done some excellent papers on this issue. I suggest you visit his site here on climate. Most concerning regional changes.

http://climatesci.org/

All this speculation on the deleterious effects of GW and AGW is very interesting but those, like myself, who are antipathetic to Climate Science as extant, differ regarding the facts, forget about possible consequences.
During the Little Ice Age, malaria was a serious problem in central Britain and northern Russia, circa Murmansk. This is just one example of AGW proponents' predeliction for reasonable assumption as opposed to deep investigation. The attitude that we are denier's so we can be condescended to will not engender submission.

Hi Brett,

I have learned from watching the climate change industry that the fact that they say they are factoring something into their models doesn't necessarily have much to do with reality.

For example, this press release from the Met, where they claim to be including the effects of solar variability, volcanic eruptions and SST in their 2014 prediction. Minor little problem is that neither volcanic activity nor SSTs can be predicted that far out, and there is no consensus on solar activity either.

The forecast for 2014...

The new model incorporates the effects of sea surface temperatures as well as other factors such as man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, projected changes in the sun's output and the effects of previous volcanic eruptions � the first time internal and external variability have both been predicted.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070810.html

David,

I did not read the post you refer to, but as a physician, I can unequivocally tell you the CO2 and CO have no carcinogenic properties. So I don't know where that idea came from.

That's what I'd like to know. Where on earth did Kipp come up with this revelation that CO2 and CO were carcinogens? He doesn't seem to want to respond.

Brett,

Two short-lived, high latitude sunspots in two years is evidence of the onset of Cycle 24? Seems like shaky evidence to me, when the preponderance of sunspots in the last two years are the old Cycle 23 spots.
Paul, All I was showing was the conclusion of the author you linked to.

As far as bt and cherry-picking goes, that's a bit of sarcasm. The real reason for posting weather related events is to counter the constant barrage of global warming alarmist rhetoric coming from the main stream media on a daily basis every time the thermometer gets slightly warmer than "normal". Once the MSM ceases the daily alarm, maybe we can stop pointing out the multitude of events that are contrary to their daily blathering.

There is a giant reporting bias in the MARA findings and I wonder if I am the only one able to spot it (or otherwise, if I am just very wrong on this point).

For example on "Human Health" there is no mention of the obvious reduction in cold-related deaths. (Reply: Are there really that many cold related deaths on an annual basis across the middle Atlantic region?)

At least, I hope there has been some reduction. Actually, if there has been none, THEN that would be a major finding on its own

The trouble is that one cannot simply say "let's look at the changes" and then report _any_ change that is seen, and especially the bad ones. There is lots that keeps changing every day every where, but each particular item may or may not be of any significance.

Observations should follow some underlying hypothesis. Otherwise, everything that changes is going to be a "finding": worse, there will be all the chance for a "pick and choose" of findinds in one direction or another.

Gettingwarm,

What huge temperature increases are you talking about?

Anyway, dont you love how the word EXTREME is so popular these days? It started out with extreme sports on ESPN 10 years ago. Extreme is now used for selling everything from weather to soft drinks to deodorant. Extreme rain AND droughts? I still dont get the drought thing with more moisture in the atmosphere? Columbia, Equador, Venezuela, Brazil and parts of the Amazon that run along the equator are lush, rich and green. No serious drought concerns down there despite being on the equator.

--A much more variable climate? (Is AGW entirely to blame for this? What about the Milankovitch Theory or other theories. Why dont we hear about these from the media? All we hear about is how evil carbon emmissions are. Fair and balanced my derrier.)

--Uncertain amount of water (This goes hand in hand with the AGW theory...UNCERTAINTY.)

--but uncertainties about weeds, pests and disease could alter that assessment (Again, UNCERTAINTIES that COULD happen are key words here)

--Ecosystems/Functions impaired (Ecosystems/functions IMPROVED, depending on where you live)

--Human health/heat mortality increase (Or human COLD mortality DECREASE.)

--Socioeconomic System/Regional economy resilient to climate change (Good to read)

--Some populations hurt, others are helped (The population is always increasing. Obviously the more people exposed to weather, the more people will be effected...duh)

Positive impacts on soybeans, corn, mixed forest growth, treefruit. (Thats all they came up with as being positive impacts of global warming? Where are all the offsets? All we read about are the doom and gloom, negative effects of AGW. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Dont the positives help to offset the negatives?)

For example; global waming COULD cost the world billions to trillions of dollars. Meanwhile... The COLD - IS - costing the world billions to trillions of dollars.

Please moveon.org with AGW scare tactics. Thank you.

Veets, FYI all of that is quite well-known.

As it happens the times you refer to were all within the geologic epoch called the Pleistocene, which covers about the last 2 million years and is characterized by frequent glacial cycles (less intense ones with about a 40,000 year period up until about 850,000 years ago, then more intense ones with about a 100,000 year period). The mechanism for these cycles is not perfectly understood, but it is uncontroversial that they are paced (triggered) by changes in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) that periodically result in much more (deglaciations) or much less (glaciations) sunlight at high latitudes.

It is also uncontroversial that intense glacial periods like the Pleistocene are fairly rare in the Earth's history, and that one of the factors that must be in place for them to occur is a relatively low level of CO2.

The level of CO2 we have now is enough to break the glacial cycle if it is maintained for very long. There's nothing wrong with the resulting climate as such, although it's not the one we evolved in and the transition to it (including among other things the loss of all of our coastal cities due to sea level rise) could be very unpleasant.

It is this "paleoclimate" evidence, BTW, that constitutes the strongest case for concern about AGW (and is what convinced most of those formerly skeptical scientists). What it can't tell us much about is the timing of the changes that will result from increasing CO2, which is where the models come in.

This Wikipedia article is a nice summary of paleoclimatology; follow the embedded links for more detail.

Like Brett says, daily weather is not climate change, and increasing numbers of unusual events whichthe denialists on board are pointing to, are one of the predictions of global warming theory.
We were in LA Christmas onwards 2004 for three weeks of solid rain, huge dumps of snow on Big Bear, flooding all round, trees down, homes washed away etc. Everything in the garden would be rosy water wise. The wildfires last year followed long drought and very little by way of water reserves. I think the water boys are right to be playing cautious and I see water supply as one of the genuine problems looming. All that's being said about the present snowfall was said back then, and could reverse just as quickly.
When you look at arctic ice, surprising as it may seem, we did expect it to freze over again during winter. It won't be very thick, though, and will melt fairly easily, so we'll be looking to see how far back it melts this coming summer, and summers in future, until a clear trend can be discerned.
When I am told that sea levels have risen by 8.5cm (can't remember the time period, but that rise did not take long) and the rise is "mainly due to thermal expansion of surface waters" then I find explanations which do not include global warming to be pretty tenuous.