Wait and see? Nonsense. Model it, and keep running the model "adjusting" the data until you get the result you want.

Polar bears in the North, and penguins in the South will ALL be extinct by 16:35 next Tuesday. Says so in Time Magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1712518,00.html?cnn=yes

All the best,

Aaron

Hmmm. Looks like it's frozen solid to me. But, who am I? Just a philistine! Unlike the great James Hansen and Al Gore and BT and Mark, et. al. Remember, the polar bears are suffering!!!!!

Love and Kisses,

The DENIER from Hades.

There you go - a fine example of the LAW of large numbers for stationary processes.

Beware predictions made based on short time series, in particular, positively autocorrelated ones.

We will see if those who focused so much on the dismal ice build up last Winter and ice loss last Summer will acknowledge that this report is equally important. I am sure that 60 Minutes will devote an hour special to this news worthy anouncement. That would be fair right? Oh wait, it doesn't fit their agenda, so don't hold your breath. Not saying that this ice report means much as climate goes, I don't really think it does, nor did I think last years minimums meant much either, but it sure is fun to see the AGW camp squirm a little.

This story raises a few interesting points.

First, Hansen shows essentially the entire country of Canada well above normal for January. As much as 4C above normal, Including the Yukon and the Northwest territories. And he seems to have recently lost his data for Nunavut. How did Hansen manage to miss the "very cold weather across far northern Canada" which the Canadian government reported?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_1200km_Anom01_2008_2008_1951_1980/GHCN_GISS_1200km_Anom01_2008_2008_1951_1980.gif

Second, this isn't supposed to be happening. The IPCC says that global warming is dominated by human generated CO2, and that warming effect is greatly exaggerated at the poles. CO2 is continuing to rise, yet Antarctica continues to cool and the Arctic is considerably colder than the 1930s, according to Hansen's data.

Third, the fact that Arctic ice is now on average three years old instead of ten years old, is an indication that ice used to take ten years to traverse the Arctic and melt in the Atlantic - and now it only takes three years. Strong evidence that wind patterns have been dominating the changes in the ice - not temperature.

BTW - I noticed that Hansen has cut back on his previous bad habit of smoothing maps across thousands of miles of no data. This is a step in the right direction.

Cyclic changes, just more of the same things that have happened for millions of years before. Can't wait to see how the doom-mongers spin this: "You can't just use one summer of north pole ice gain to discount global warming" Why not, you did it last summer with the record ice loss? "Well that was because it fits the trend"
Mark my words here, if and when the MSM reports not nearly as much ice loss this summer, it will have the standard pro-warming mouthpiece twisting it into his favour. More likely it will just be ignored for more heat records that are always being broken but will be spun to make us think we're burning up.

Follow up to the last post-

Hansen thinks most of northwest Canada and Alaska was hot during January.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_1200km_Anom01_2008_2008_1951_1980/GHCN_GISS_1200km_Anom01_2008_2008_1951_1980.gif

But RSS data shows that those locations were actually well below normal.
http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/graphics/tlt/medium/global/ch_tlt_2008_01_anom_v03_1.png

Hansen thinks most of the US was above normal. RSS shows most of the US normal or below.

Hansen thinks most of eastern and southern Africa was above normal. RSS shows them well below normal.

Hansen thinks South America was above normal. RSS shows it well below normal.

The earth doesn't have a fever, but someone else does.

What is the likely feedback? I think I have a (weak) understanding of the principles of negative feedback. Is it as simple to say that greater ice coverage, reflecting more sunlight; as compared to greater open water areas absorbing more sunlight; should result in cooler Summer temps?

Hey Guys,

You may have noticed I've been quiet lately. I have been dealing with an awful cold. Anyway, I was wondering if the concentrated cold in Northern Canada might have something to do with the La Nina episode. I remember reading someone saying that La Nina episdoes tend to strengthen some of the winds around the north pole. (I can't remember if they were refering to the circumpolar vortex.) The net result was that more of the cold air is kept bottled up around the north pole.

Reply: Yes, that is what we anticipated with the strengthening la Nina this winter.

- It looks like we will have to wait and see.

NO!!! We must do something now! No more SUVs and we must implement carbon credits...immediately! No waiting! We must jump to conclusions in order to save ourselves! Didnt you hear, AGW could wipe us out! We didnt listen! Sound the alarm, we are headed for a global meltdown! Aghhhhhhhh!!! Here it comes, global warming....aghhhhhhhh!!!

LMAO! So much for the earths fever, a tipping point and all of that heat trapping CO2. Hahahaha!!! Have the wheels come off the wagon yet?

Save the earth - silence hypocrite fear mongers who dont know what the hell they are talking about. Alarmists who try to blind you with erroneous science in order to push their agenda. You might want to pipe down and get a life. Lets worry about more important things, ok?

Patrick Henry,

And he seems to have recently lost his data for Nunavut. How did Hansen manage to miss the "very cold weather across far northern Canada" which the Canadian government reported?

I think these figures for 1985, 2005, and 2006 may explain the lack of data in Nunavut.

Seems as though he's losing stations right and left up there and the world in general. Check out how many stations are being used to generate the maps for the western US.

yo brett,
since we're talkin cold, how about a piece on the record northern hemisphere january snowpack so we can argue how the AGW scam causes this too...have a nice day bro...

You know, if you review the ice rate of change over the last year, and extrapolate it out over the next 30 years, it appears that the world will be suffering a return to hemispherical glaciation in the near future.

I believe that since mankind was apparently the cause of the warming, we are indeed likely the cause of this cooling. Clearly, this is the first sign of Anthropomorphic Global Cooling otherwise known as AGC.

I can see Gore now stating in his new movie (up on the Mount, arms raised)"The Earth has CHILL and we must do something about it". I forget, do you "feed a fever and starve a cold" or is it the other way round?

I for one, have begun to stock up on canned goods.

OOP, cancel red alert, this is probably someone's backyard thereby negating any and all observations contrary to the party line.

I do wonder why he chooses the 30 year period from 1951-1980 instead of 1970-2000. Northern Illinois and north is CLEARLY below normal (1970-2000; which by the way should be even warmer according to AGW) the January mean according to the state meteorological sites.

Ever wonder if we aren't all missing a point in this debate that has been largely ignored but may be more important than climate change or global warming?
Maybe temperature is not a problem but CO2 is.
Here is an interesting article that suggests that the level of CO2 will become toxic very soon. By 2050 coincidentally.
It states that 426 ppm is the maximum healthy level with bad stuff happening at 600+.
Seems to have some substance to it.

Brett: Might This make an interesting topic to blog on just for a change? http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/jun252006/1607.pdf

Reply: That report is nearly 2 years old already. I'll check it though. Thanks.

Oh no now the ice is to thick and the polar bears are going to starve and it is all mans fault for causing global warming which is causing global cooling. We now need volunteers to go north and hand feed the polar bears. Contact Barbera Boxer to sign up.

Not related to the topic.

Brett-
If possible, you should add a number to each comment. When I go to look at a post with a hundred comments it takes a bit of time to find where the last one was that I read. If each comment had a number attached to it, it would make the process easier. I noticed they have that setup on the weather forums here, and it's very useful to me at any rate.

Reply: Makes sense to me, unfortunately we use an outside host for this comment section, so we really do not much control over stuff like that. I'll talk toe Jesse Ferrell. Brett

regards, Elliot

My first reaction to this map is so......

In the big picture what does one year mean? Not much I would say.

The normal temp for my town here in WI for the month of Feb is 28. This year we are averaging about 18 thus far according to our local weather, whereas last year we averaged a little over 1 degree. It was the coldest Feb in over 60 years here last year. So we are still below average for the month, but again what does 2 years really mean. Not much.

The only thing is that since CO2 continues to rise it does seem the temps don't necessarily follow which needs a long-term explanation. I mean if man is damaging the planet as Gore says we are doing daily, it would seem that the temps along with CO2 would steadily climb since CO2 levels are not dipping and skyrocketing, but we know this is definitely not true.

So maybe the earth knows how to naturally adjust what is naturally getting a bit skewed. I vote that nature knows how to re-balance and does not need man's interference. The past several years have been fairly dry here during the summer if not extremely dry for part of the summer. Back in 1998 very small pine seedlings were planted as a hedgerow on our property. The fist couple years those seedlings barely grew. I know I would accidentally mow them over when I was trying to trim around them. Some of those years the small trees would produce an amazing amount of cones which I interpret to mean the small tree felt stressed from the lack of water and hot temps. The years we got more rain the less cones those trees produced. Today 10 years later every last one of those seedlings(around 100 or more) that wasn't mowed down matured and are HUGE. I did not interfere and try to water each tree at the base hoping to get enough water to those shallow roots during the summers when we got almost no rain. I let nature take care of nature and minded my own business.

PH makes a good point. Hansen's findings that the northern stretches of Canada and Russia are so far above normal would be inconsistent with the findings reported in this story. Does anybody have a suggestion to reconcile the two (other than the usual political conspiracy blather)?

It'll be interesting to see what happens this summer. Mother Earth can humble a man really quick. Meteorologists have to deal with that all the time. No different with the climate. One day your in glory, the next your shot down in flames.

"Aaron:
Wait and see? Nonsense. Model it, and keep running the model "adjusting" the data until you get the result you want."

LOL Aaron

Interesting fact about P-bears. Thin ice is better for them.

where is that cool graph of ice compared to normal for this time of year, does anyone have the link. it show ice compard to 30 year norm, and i think ice extent compared to last year. also btw i hope this summer we see a record max ice extent in september, that would just confuse the hel* out of everyone and it would be funny lol. a record minima followed by a record max summer ice extent, im already laughing :)

Reply: you can find it at the University of Illinois cryosphere, just google that and you will find it.

Regarding CO2 toxicity and yet another panic, here's the quote:
"Amounts above 5,000 ppm are considered very unhealthy, and those above about 50,000 ppm (equal to 5% by volume) are considered dangerous to animal life." and the reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide. (this didn't show in my preview, hopefully it will show here)
The current 384 ppm is a long way from killing us off, but it's a great place to start another round of demonizing CO2. Let's divide 384 into 50,000 and see how close to death we are...

Big Ed,

Check out the graphs that I linked to above. I think that may answer your question.

Brett, mike,

Unfortunately Cryosphere Today is broken. They haven't updated their Arctic maps since February 11 and the graphs will most likely flat line tomorrow.

I have contacted the person in charge, but haven't gotten a response.

The difference between Hansen's data and RSS data has always troubled me. I know some Alarmists consult Hansen's data like the gospel, and trust him, and its not right for them to be misinformed, if that is the case.

Could the difference have anything to do with the period of time Hansen used as an "average?" I know Hansen's "average" begins in 1951, (leaving out the warmth of 1930-1950.) What time period does the RSS data use as its "average?"

Can anyone direct me to an overview of how this sort of freezing effects theromohaline circulation?

From my own experiences during harsh winters on the coast of Maine, I know sea ice somehow becomes less salty than the sea-water from which it is born. When temperatures are below the point where salt melts ice, I have actually seen a dust of salt blowing across the the top of smooth, new sea-ice.

If the salt seperates from the ice, it seems to me that a winter like this one would temporarily add more salt to the water just below the ice. Cold and salty water sinks. Therefore a winter like this one might add a sort of pulse to the rate of sinking, which might in turn translate into a sort of bulge or wave traveling through the cold thermohaline circulation at the bottom of the sea.

An increase in the amount of sinking water might cause other changes as well, perhaps pulling the Gulf Stream north faster, or perhaps decreasing the amount of cold water flowing down towards the West coast of Africa. I see many more questions than there are answers.

I think most computer models presuppose that the rate of sinking water stays roughly the same.

This seems another case where it might be wise to go out and do some field work, (as Dr. Bill Gray has long urged,) rather than depending entirely on models.

If anyone can direct me to more information about this subject I'd appreciate it. The more I try to study thermohaline circulation the more I understand the knowledge has a lot of gaps in it. Also most of the papers are so technical they cross my eyes. An overview is needed.

Hi Paul,

From reading Hansen's writings, it is apparent that his belief system is based on theory, and that the actual data isn't important. He appears convinced that regardless of what happens this year or next, five years from now we will have a meltdown. (He has been convinced that we are less than ten years from a meltdown since the 1980s.)

Thus the huge holes in the extent and quality of his database or not important. He uses the GISS data as a vehicle to promote "awareness" (i.e. panic) and the only thing which is important is that the trend keeps moving upwards. No doubt we can expect to see further divergence between the GISS, and UAH/RSS data in the future as he becomes increasingly desperate.

Paul,
The lack of reporting stations doesn't really answer Ed's question. In my neck of the woods, GISS Temps have us at +2 deg F above the 1951-1980 mean (34 deg F). If GISS uses the Tmax and Tmin, for January, my area averaged 26 deg F. We had a few extreme highs/lows (59 deg and -9 deg F). As a matter of fact, there were 2 days in January where the temp dropped from the high 50s to below 5 deg in less than 5 hours. In any event, GISS temps had us for Jan at 36 deg F, and not 26 deg.

This is just too big an error bar. GISS adjustments raise reported raw temps too much. When there is sparse to no covereage, it is anyones guess. I do know that eastern Alaska and the Yukon had near record cold for January, but even this shows up as a .5 to 4 deg warm anomally.

I'm thinking that the key is the arbitrary time frame of 1951-1980 mean. Much of the 1960s through the late 70s was abnormally cold -much colder than the rest of the century. What GISS shows is a comparison of current temps against this backdrop. The graph would be totally different if Hansen used 1910-1940.

Re: The anonymous post about CO2 levels.

I've been saying that right along. Let's move to clean energy because it is clean and simplistically, that is "better" than dirty. It'll also create jobs here in the US if we create this clean energy ourselves. I'm not so sure it is the C02 though, there are a lot of toxins spewed into the air by pollution. Just look at the sky here in Long Island on an air stagnation advisory day in the summer when the wind is blowing from the SW (from NYC). The sky literally looks like the whole thing is on fire (yellowish-brownish disgusting color).

This report, while interesting, (not meant as a slam on you Brett) means as little as last years paranoia over "record" low ice cap levels. Following small changes in ice levels, temps, ocean temps, or even solar output is pretty well meaningless when it comes to Climate trends. Let the skeptics among us (myself included here) not partake in the same hyperbolic nonsense that the AGW media alarmists do yearly and even monthly. Nature has many feedback and adjusting measures which tend to "balance out" our Climate over the vast majority of time with occassional episodes of relatively short duration of cool and warmer. I suspect we have recently been in a warm episode due to factors largely beyond our comprehension and may be starting to get into a short term cooler cycle which we also will little understand. Time will tell, not computer models.

I find it highly interesting that our old friends BT and Mark have yet to respond to his thread. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes, eh???

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

JP,

It doesn't really matter that much what mean you use, it doesn't change much. Do the math yourself and run it back to 1850, it only changes it by a few hundreths of a degree. I use to wonder about that myself.

As far as answering Big Ed's question, the graphs actually do answer the question. Since Hansen uses data points within 1200 km of a station to average a grid area. For instance, for a station in northern Alberta, temperatures from stations in central Idaho would be average in to the equation.

As Steve Bloom has pointed out so eloquently, there will be weather anomalies before the Earth becomes consistently warmer. Like the law of average's or large numbers, there is a real physical principle that suggests "extreme weather"
before Anthropogenic Global Warming!,becomes more obvious. Unfortunately, all of your words won't change a thing! A little more Ice in one place for one season does not make an argument at all.All criticize, and know one has a single bit of evidence of cooling. What a waste of hot air.
Kipp
An iceberg sunk your titanic!

This winter underscores my assertion that warming from anthropogenic co2 is stronger at mid latitudes. Since the effect is most noted below the cryosphere. That being the insolation where snow and ice are absent. There's no denying the warming, only its degree of impact. In the scheme of things, this is only the infancy of warming, for as long as homo sapiens can burn fossil fuels at near current rate.

Hello One and All,

I have to admit, the future looks grim!!! The gloom and doomer's WANT US LIVING UNDERGROUND !

Does anyone have any idea of how many generations of humans it will take staying out of the sun for them to lose the ability to go out at all?

I love the sun, spend weeks basking in it for the last 35 yrs at beaches up and down the east coast...If I were to contract skin cancer I would only be GRATEFUL I hadn't passed on my inferior genes to my offspring...It is survival of the fittest. Don't forget that...we are but mere pawns in GODS infinite scheme.

Now, for more of the rediculous self-richeous lefts house of cards...thats begining to crumble

Newsmax.com
Newsfront RSS

Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us

Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:55 AM

By: Phil Brennan Article Font Size

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly �lost� ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind�s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.

As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the one exception � Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.

Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.

Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.

AFP news reports icy temperatures have just swept through south China, stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts just as the area was recovering from the worst weather in 50 years, the government said Monday. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll in usually temperate Yunnan province, which has been struck by heavy snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial disaster relief office told AFP.

Twelve people have died there, state Xinhua news agency reported, and four remained missing as of Saturday.

An ongoing record-long spell of cold weather in Vietnam's northern region, which started on Jan. 14, has killed nearly 60,000 cattle, mainly bull and buffalo calves, local press reported Monday. By Feb. 17, the spell had killed a total of 59,962 cattle in the region, including 7,349 in the Ha Giang province, 6,400 in Lao Cai, and 5,571 in Bac Can province, said Hoang Kim Giao, director of the Animal Husbandry Department under the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, according to the Pioneer newspaper.

In Britain the temperatures plunged to -10 C in central England, according to the Express, which reports that experts say that February could end up as one of the coldest in Britain in the past 10 years with the freezing night-time conditions expected to stay around a frigid -8 C until at least the middle of the week. And the BBC reports that a bus company's efforts to cut global warming emissions have led to services being disrupted by cold weather.

Meanwhile Athens News reports that a raging snow storm that blanketed most of Greece over the weekend and continued into the early morning hours on Monday, plunging the country into sub-zero temperatures. The agency reported that public transport buses were at a standstill on Monday in the wider Athens area, while ships remained in ports, public services remained closed, and schools and courthouses in the more severely-stricken prefectures were also closed.

Scores of villages, mainly on the island of Crete, and in the prefectures of Evia, Argolida, Arcadia, Lakonia, Viotia, and the Cyclades islands were snowed in.

More than 100 villages were snowed-in on the island of Crete and temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C.

Temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C.

If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death.

� 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

I find it highly interesting that our old friends BT and Mark have yet to respond to his thread. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes, eh???

All I see in this thread is contrarian noise -- nothing that remotely merits a response.

As Brett says -- "we'll just have to wait and see."

This winter underscores my assertion that warming from anthropogenic co2 is stronger at mid latitudes

Hi Thor,

I love how you guys make it up as you go along. First it was the poles. Then it was just the north pole. Now it is the mid-latitudes. Like Asia and the Middle East which are having record cold.
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/tlt/medium/global/ch_tlt_2008_01_anom_v03_1.png

Hi Kipp Albert,

In the past few months we have seen record snow in the northern hemisphere, and record ice in the southern hemisphere. This winter has seen record ice gain in the northern hemisphere as well.

Last time I checked, snow and ice were associated with cold, not warmth. But keep those blinkers on and keep marching with the rest of the Lemmings. Remember cold equals hot, and all physical phenomena are due to CO2 and evolution.

BTW - If you want to see how completely insane the mainstream left has become, check out this BBC forum - where most people see Castro as a great hero and the United States as pure evil.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=4312&edition=2&ttl=20080220011537&#paginator

The Skeptics are now acting a bit like the Alarmists acted last summer. May I remind people this is but short-term data. Our world has a way of balancing things out; every action has a reaction; if Skeptics have parades every time it gets cold, and Alarmists have parades every time it gets warm, then very soon we will have a world-wide shortage of confetti.

What I am wondering about is why we didn't read a headline, eighteen months ago, that stated, "Record Melting To Be Followed By Record Rate Of Re-Freezing." As far as I can see, no model saw this coming, even though it was quite a dramatic event, as events go.

If Dr. Bill Gray didn't coin the phrase "garbage in, garbage out," he certainly popularized it. There is some weakness in the data they are feeding into the computers. Or perhaps it is an error of ommision, and the problems are due to data they are NOT feeding in. They need to replace the garbage with something better. "Fresh food in, fresh food out."

Either that, or all the billions we have spent on weather computers has been a complete waste of time. This I doubt.

I sometimes wonder if they are failing to do the field work which would supply the data which might make these computers work better. And why? I wonder if it could be for a petty and political reason: Such field work might make Dr. Gray happy, and he has offended the manager and boss, Dr. Hansen. Certain areas of reserch have become "don't-go-there" areas.

I hope I'm wrong. It seems impossible that such juvinile behavior could besmirch the hallowed halls of science, but humans are human, and such things happen.

In any case, the computers need an overhaul of some sort.

The Skeptics are now acting a bit like the Alarmists acted last summer. May I remind people this is but short-term data. Our world has a way of balancing things out; every action has a reaction;

Hi Caleb,

Sorry, your logic is flawed. It is the imperative of the alarmists to demonstrate what their models necessarily predict - steadily (or drastically) increasing temperatures as we increase GHG and approach and pass a tipping point.

Widespread cold, which may or may not be a trend, is very damning to the models that the alarmists rely on. It has not only been cold at the mid-latitudes, but it has also been cold in much of the Arctic. This is indicative of a lack energy in the system, which is contrary to what should be happening.

Paul,
You do make some good points. Another grid I always wondered about is in California. San Francisco and Palm Springs lie in the same gridcell. Yet, both have completely different geographies. Due to coastal upwelling, San Fran can be around 55 deg F in the summer. Palm Springs, being in the Desert can be 115 deg on the same day. However, if you go in the Valley, the temps are somewhere around 85; but again jump to Travis AFB, and again the temps spike (due to local geography to 105). All of these reporting stations have unique microsite enviorments, yet NASA treats them as a homogenious whole, and adjusts accordingly - of course the warmer surface stations take precedence, and San Fran and the Valley are adjusted upward.

To Kipp - global surface temps are about .015 deg C cooler than the 1998 Super El Nino year. When will AGW return? I can understand the Alarmist's point that there will be a downward trend following an abnormal ENSO event; however, it is now a decade of either no warming or a slight cooling. BTW, Hadley promises that AGW will return in force in 2009. They admit that the moderate to strong La Nina has temporairly stopped AGW. In doing so, they inadvertantly admitted that there are other forces in Nature that affect our Climate.

My question is: what if the Pacific continues to cool? Will a 15 year or 30 year abatement in GW change your mind?

All I see in this thread is contrarian noise -- nothing that remotely merits a response.

REPLY: The typical response from someone who knows that their politically motivated, capitalist hating line is dying a slow and painfull death, and from someone who can't see the truth with his own eyes.

I'd rather sweat and swelter, than shovel, shiver, slip, slide, scrape, salt, slush and slop. I NEED SOME GLOBAL WARMING!!! AND I DON'T MEAN MAYBE!!!!!

Govenor Patrick Henry!
The people that march to the drumbeat are intelligent observers of reality. You are part of the 5%,that won't concede to Anthropogenic anything. Remember anthropogenic air pollution. Did you believe in smog. If it is colder now,as you know, it is a short term trend, weather variables will be more extreme. That is the science of it. Like when summer turns to fall, you have lightning and thunder storms, when colder gets warmer there will be many variables,and cycles, extremes and normalcy. My last name is Alpert,with a P. My dad was a well known Jazz Musician. I enjoy your Post's, haven't lost your sense of humor. Yet!
Kipp

JP
Long term cooling would of course prove,
that other factors than the increase of co2, cooling effect our climate. It has been proven that co2 and warming are married, and that obviously it will not slow down, until we realize that there is more at stake than our material interests. Flooding in Indonesia has increased, we are a degree warmer this century, and nobody in America will change, without a push!
Kipp

Kipp-

Would I be right in assuming your father was Herb Alpert? If I'm not mistaken he was with the Tijuana brass, I enjoy his music. I've always been a fan of blues and jazz, blues a bit more than jazz though.
-----------------------------

However as to your statement that co2 and warming are married, I disagree with what I think you were implying. Looking at, for example, vostok ice samples co2 levels increase or decrease following temperature increase or decrease. I use the vostok samples often because they're the ones that Gore chose to use in his slide show to demonstrate co2 and temp trend similarity. I figure if the data is backed by agw proponents it must be correct, and therefore is valid evidence that co2 in fact follows the temp. So in my opinion, yes they appear to be married, but not in the way that you are implying.

regards,
~Elliot

JP: "In doing so, they inadvertantly admitted that there are other forces in Nature that affect our Climate."

Nobody ever argued otherwise.

JP,

I remember one July day in 1998, we were baking in 100 degree weather in San Jose and decided to drive up to "the city" (San Francisco) to cool down. When we got to SF, it was 55 degrees, windy and completely miserable.

California climates vary drastically across the three north-south mountain ranges that traverse the state. Even a few miles difference in the South Bay (Mountain View->Saratoga) can be 10-20 degrees different.

JP, even in a warmer world, there will be ENSO events and areas of regional warming and cooling every year. Someone inadvertently misinformed you. Or you purposely just made stuff up.

Hi Kipp Albert,

I spent a number of years in the 1960s and 1970s in northern New Mexico, at a time when the air was so dirty from coal fired power plants that some days it was impossible to see the Sangre De Cristo mountains 20 miles away. I was a campaigner for the Clean Air Act, and occasionally testified at Congressional hearings. I also worked as a wilderness ranger in two New Mexico National Forests.

That was back in the days when the environmental movement was still sane, and dealing with reality. Bjorn Lomborg is spot on.

Regardless of any facts, the earth has been warming for 9000+ years (otherwise, I'd be living over [or under!] a glacier). Somehow, any FACTS contradicting the MSM and the Goreacle will only be ignored and buried.
Welcome to the land of the ignorant masses.

Patrick Henry,

I see your point.

I in no way want to seem like I support the extreme Alarmism which advocates measures such as the jailing of anyone who doesn't agree with the Alarmist "consensus." Such people ought be called "Goebbelists." They don't seem to comprehend such drastic actions destroy the freedom America stands for.

Of course, they believe America stands for very negative things. Where the old Liberals would point out our short-comings, and say we could do better, these newer, frightening Liberals basically feel America is evil, and needs to be torn down completely.

I in no way support any sort of "purge," to keep a "Counter-revolution" from resisting the "Revolution." Such extremism attacks the very premiss of a two-party system. It promotes the tunnel-vision of a cyclops, and kills the depth perception which having two eyes allows.

That being said, I will confess to you I was an Global-warming-alarmist, in a luke-warm manner, up until a year ago.

The point I was trying to make was that we should not make too great a deal about a short-term phenomenum, which Alarmists were guilty of doing last summer. That's all.

Mark, what has happened to our El Ninos? For a decade they've been weak and short lived. The last 10 years resemble the late 40s and early 50s as far as ENSO. If CO2 controls our global climate, why has it cooled when CO2 has increased?