No doubt the alarmists are correct on all points.

Which explains the record Antarctic ice, record Northern Hemisphere snow cover, record Arctic ice recovery, and below normal worldwide temperatures.

An excellent summary. Switching away from fossil fuels should also minimize the amount of money flowing into the Mid-east with much of it being used for terrorism. Granted, this will not happen immediately, but more of an effort needs to be made to start using renewable fuels, and it would be beneficial if the government could at least take some small role in supporting that effort. As the price of gas increases, market forces will enhance that effort.

Paul:

I would like to point out that the source of this article, the BBC, has been shown to be an organization biased toward the belief in AGW. Therefore, their articles tend towards advertisement for AGW in lieu of actual neutral reporting.

I note this primarily because we have often experienced that when a thread starter presents a skeptical point of view, we are given a disclaimer that the source is either conservative or guilty of being a denier source of information.

As far as the article, the responses sure sound like the debate is over. In fact, it seems that the doth protest too much.

I mean look at the first counter response it sums it up... Warming is unequivocal. Really, then why go into a full paragraph?

I especially like the link under the picture of the sun, unravelling the sceptics. Yeah, that's not a biased statement. And why, if the sun plays NO part in the warming of the planet, put the statement under a picture of the full sun looking all hot and stuffy?

The responses would be persuasive if the reader didn't have the facts to show that they are false.
1. Lindzen just reported that the lower troposphere is not warming as the models predict.
2. McKitrick has reported that the urban heat island effect is not being accounted for fully.
3. Pielke has reported that none of the temperature measuring systems (except GISS) show as much surface warming as even the IPCC's lowest projection predicts.
4. In fact, the temperature trend is down if you go back 1 year, 3 years, 5 years or 10 years.

Ahhhh if only the counter points actually had a modicum of truth and science behind it or a relevant response .
Example
Point- “Ice-cores dating back nearly one million years show a pattern of temperature and CO2 rise has always come after the temperature rise, not before…..,”
Counter point
“This is largely true, but largely irrelevant. Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years …However, the situation today is dramatically different. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere (35% increase over pre-industrial levels) is from human emissions.”
LOL Absurdity ad infinitum! SO WHAT?
How is CO2 from Human emissions different from “natural CO2”?
How is Combustion different when it is from a forest fire or when Humans throw a log on the fire to keep warm?
How does the earth know the difference? And the AGW side wonders why people who spent their lives in a real science question the so called “peer reviewed science” that claims; ‘This time the CO2 rise is different from all the other CO2 rises’ in the earth 4.5 billion year history because humans made it! What is this guilt by observation?
Apparently the author of this article believes the public cannot differentiate between the usual AGW fictions and shear unadulterated fantasy. The counterpoint presented is not an answer. Saying because humans “produced it “(i.e. they controlled the combustion) it somehow causes CO2 to work differently in the atmosphere?
LOL Anybody with 3 attached and functioning neurons can see the sheer absurdity of that non-answer.
The sad part is somebody thinks these are answers
I am not even going to address the other nine.
Folks read, learn, ask questions, and think for your self….
Nonsense is nonsense no matter where you read it.

Who fact-checked the counter arguments? Why is the BBC gets to write both the skeptics arguments and their answers? And why no counter-point?

Here's my counter-point to the BBC's answers:

1. The UHI effect is probably much larger than accounted for. Many global warming advocates actually adjust temperature estimates up for urban areas, with little justification.

2. Is it still warming slightly, cooling slightly or staying about the same? Depends upon who you ask. But it's certainly not warming as predicted.

3. Many recent studies indicate the MWP is warmer than today. Many recent studies also indicate the MWP was not confined to just Europe and North America. The science is not settled and is open to debate.

4. The computer models are really the crux of the matter. Catastrophic consequences of future warming are all based upon computer models which are programmed to show that warming increases as CO2 goes up. However, the last decade hasn't warmed as predicted. It will be decades before the accuracy of these models can really be determined. There is little reason to believe these models are accurate, despite the good intentions of the modelers.

5. The atmosphere isn't warming as predicted. The models aren't being verified (see #4).

6. There is little to backup the unqualified statement "solar forcing cannot be responsible for the recent temperature trends". Some studies indicate the sun may be responsible for over 60% of the recent warming.

7. This answer is pure sophistry. Greenhouse
gases, especially CO2 have not been proven to be a major force in climate change. Perhaps the effect is inconsequential? The levels are high but the temps may be no warmer than other recent warm periods.

8. Hurricanes have not been shown to be stronger or more frequent due to global warming. Modelers are now scrambling to show that warming causes weaker hurricanes. (Or stronger, or both).

9. Here's another answer that is not well supported with facts. Water vapor is accounted for in climate models, but is it properly handled? A small increase in relative humidity traps a great deal of heat.

10. The objection and the answer are both matters of opinion, not science. Only if you believe the climate models which indicate a run-away greenhouse effect and global warming be considered a serious threat. If that's true, adapting to climate change may the best strategy.

1. Lindzen just reported that the lower troposphere is not warming as the models predict.

Can you post a cite for that, please? Has it been peer-reviewed yet?

2. McKitrick has reported that the urban heat island effect is not being accounted for fully.

We've gone over this at length. None of the claims of McKitrick or Watts change the facts reported in the thread-starter:

The urban heat island effect is real but small; and it has been studied and corrected for. Analyses by Nasa for example use only rural stations to calculate trends. Recently, work has shown that if you analyse long-term global temperature rise for windy days and calm days separately, there is no difference. If the urban heat island effect were large, you would expect to see a bigger trend for calm days when more of the heat stays in the city. Furthermore, the pattern of warming globally doesn't resemble the pattern of urbanisation, with the greatest warming seen in the Arctic and northern high latitudes.

a) No difference between windy and calm days -- i.e., no significant UHI effect.
b) No relationship between warming patterns and urbanization -- again, no significant UHI effect.

McKitrick, Watts, et all are distracting us by an argument about the fourth decimal digit of accuracy in a measurement whose noise has already been accounted for.

3. Pielke has reported that none of the temperature measuring systems (except GISS) show as much surface warming as even the IPCC's lowest projection predicts.

Again, a cite please.

4. In fact, the temperature trend is down if you go back 1 year, 3 years, 5 years or 10 years.

a) 1, 3, 5, and 10 years are not long enough periods to reveal any climatic change.

b) The AGW signal is superimposed on other contributors. The question is not whether the temperature has gone up or down on an absolute scale, the question is whether it has gone up or down more or less than it would have without an anthropogenic component.

All in all, ten canards -- very effectively rebutted. Again. Of the four objections that Mr. Sund raises, two (1 and 3) are, at the moment, unsupported by anything except by a claim on the blog. Item (2) has been argued at great length and is demolished (again) by the piece cited in the thread-starter. Item (4) is no more than thinly-disguised cherry-picking -- another favorite tactic of our contrarians.

Paul, thanks for reposting this. It would be great if we could keep these ten items permanently on the front page someplace and redirect comments to them, in order to clean up the noise and clutter of the rest of the threads on the blog.

Darren, the NY Times, BBC and Washington Post are perhaps the three best journalistic institutions in the world. You're grasping at straws if you want to compare the BBC with tabloid journalism like the NY Post.

Those who have been around the world realize that the American media is quite conservative. However, the Radical Right will never acknowledge this because, if they did, it would take away their ability to play the victim.

I guess that stock answers ....regardless the basis of the question, are better than insult, discredit and attack climate realists

Ever notice how alarmists always rephrase the statement to match a stock answer ......I've noticed a few here as well

Another strange aspect of these stock answers is that they rarely address the real questions !

What is normal temperature? Averages have nothing to do with this!

What is the ratio of man-made CO2 emissions and how does it fluctuate within natural CO2 emissions?

How does a carbon tax, offset or credit help AGW? If you notice carefully, all attemps in the last 20 years had the money directed toward anything but AGW.

Looks like global redistribution of wealth and power in its simplist form. The UN is at the base of all these "global" projects but no one appears to be responsible or accountable to anyone.

Doesn't anyone else find this strange?

The IPCC is an "appointed committee" to collect, standardize and report scientific data specically pertaining to AGW and AGW only! Other causes to climate change have to be discounted simply because they do not fall within their mandate.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

Is this what they call science?

We did beat this one to death before. My comment then, which still stands, is the AGW arguments should have been on the left with the 'sceptic' rebuttals on the right. Giving the alarmists the last word in every case is not balanced reporting. Incidentally, this is the same BBC that will not use the word 'terrorists' in case it implies a judgement on the perpetrators of violent acts. Political Correctness and AGW Alarmism go hand in hand.

BT.

The Lindzen cite is at www.ecoworld.com. Click on editor post -CO2 and global warming.

The Pielke item was blogged here on Jan 11.

The McKitrick report was not debunked. People just said it was wrong without addressing his findings.

4. Computer models are not reliable.
5. The atmosphere is not behaving as models would predict.

Aren't those sorta the same point?

I would be way more surprised if the models were dead-on. OMG, computer models can't 100% accurately predict the climate decades in advance, what a shocker!

Wait a minute. I hate to use the phrase, "the debate is over", but it sure seems close to over if in response to skeptics claims that CO2 amounts rise AFTER temps go up, is countered by the AWG crowd, that "this is largely true". Isnt what started the recent outcry the main result from the AWG crowd saying CO2 amounts rise BEFORE temps go up? If both sides NOW agree with this critical fact than what both sides agree upon is that CO2 doesnt cause temps to increase, but rather is the other way around.

Nothing else matters including hurricanes, ice sheets, coral problems, deaf fish, carbon taxes, Harry Potter developing asthma, etc. All of those are offsprings based on man causing temps to rise. Which both sides now agree isnt the case.

This is my 1st post, but I'm been reading them for a long time now and for me at least, the relationship to CO2 and temps has been the whole key to the debate. So now what is the debate? If its how to improve the environment, than fine and I'm all for it, but getting CO2 levels down isnt the problem. We agree now. Cool.

I provided a link to this BBC article a few posts back and JP posted a fairly through response, so I'm copying over to this thread:

JP:
Charles,

Here's my response(s) on the BBC article:

1)The UHI adjustments are flawed. The UHI has been demonstrably proven stronger than NASA's adjustments. NASA cannot even categorize correctly what constitutes an urban vs rural station. Over 35% of the audited USHCN stations do not even meet the USHCN minimum requirements.

2)Half of AGW trend since 1900 can be found in the TOB adjustments that NOAA, GISS, and HadCrut make. The TOBs adjust the 1930s downard and the post 1990 temps upward. Remove the TOB and you remove half of our warming.

3)The Franz Josef Glacier in New Zealand has signals of both the MWP and LIA. This can also be seen in the drought patterns in Arizona,cedar proxies from the Tidewater States of the US, as well as from ice cores in Peru. Only if you follow Michael Mann's MBH9X reconstructions can you say the MWP and LIA were only regional events.

4)The computer models cannot forecast the beginning or the ending of any major change in atmospheric teleconnections. A change in state in any of the major teleconnections has implications in regional climate that can be multi-decadal in scope.

5)The problem is that the AGW footprint for the tropics is aloft and not at the surface. The tropical tropesphere has shown no indications that AGW is occuring there. As a matter of fact, if anything the tropical tropesphere has slightly cooled in recent years.

6)Since the 1960s solar activity has been higher when compared to earlier centuries. However, there is a direct correlation between lack of sunspots and a cooling climate. During the LIA, 3 minimums occured (Sporer, Maunder and Dalton). There is a 200 year cycle known as the Gleissberg Cylce. During the last negative phase of the Gliessberg Cycle the 3 solar minima occured. The Gliessberg Cycle went positive in 1820. It is expected to go negative (according to the Russians) by 2030.

7)No arguement here.

8)In light of recent TS seasons, there is no indication that AGW acts to a)diminish storm activty but b)cause more intense storms.

9)Europe's warming coincides with a peak in the positive phase of the AMO. The interaction of the AMO and NAO determines the North Atlantic storm track. To say Europe's warming is due to the positive feedback of water vapour is ludicrous. Just two Winters ago record lows were set, and last summer was unseasonably cool in most of Northern Europe.

10)Kyoto and the IPCC are incestiously linked. The IPCC give political cover to nations that sign Kyoto. To this date, none of the signees have even come close to meeting Kyoto standards.

BT said:

"a) 1, 3, 5, and 10 years are not long enough periods to reveal any climatic change."

How long is long enough BT? If we consider the time frames as a percent of the existence of earth, 1, 3, 5 and 10 years is a very tiny percent of time. As is the time frame of records we have, as is the time period of the industrial revolution. Does 150 years make a climate? It does for 150 year period of time.

To me, the time period of climate is infinte, and impossible to know what actual is, what is normal so to speak.

Yet you spout off about cherry picking and all that as if you are arrogant enough to know. This is all cherry picked information, you could go back in time and have this same discussion at any interval that temperatures were rising and create a holistic scare as to why it was being caused. Dinosaurs were large beings, they exhaled massive amounts of CO2, that caused global warming.

You want to know what AGW is, AGW is theory that constantly changes so that whatever happens on a day to day basis, AGW is right.

BrooklineTom:

a) No difference between windy and calm days -- i.e., no significant UHI effect.

Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Toshihisa Matsui cast considerable doubt on Parker's data and conclusion by showing that even without any UHI effect, temperatures should be significantly different on windy and calm days.

b) No relationship between warming patterns and urbanization -- again, no significant UHI effect.

The claim is refuted by Peterson's own data. Steve McIntyre graphed the temperature difference between the stations Peterson classified as urban and those he classified as rural. The result is a clear trend.

I think the article/list addresses the skeptics questions in a fair manner without getting into specific scientific discussions. Maybe they were trying to keep it simple and concise?

Hi Paul B,

I don't think that is what the IPCC mandate is saying.

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage

A key phrase is: "relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." I don't think that they are ruling out non-human induced changes. The IPCC isn't making policy decisions or conducting science. They report findings.

from the C.onventional O.n O.rganized enL.ightnment,

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
"Global warming" is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed 'consensus' among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend --

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as "An Inconvenient Truth."

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008

couldnt said it better myself...

Brookline Tom,

You say 1, 3, 5, and 10 years are not long enough to determine a climatic trend. I would have to agree on a logical basis that if it is global yearly average temperatures being compared, then certainly 1 year is not a trend, it is a data point. A point is not a trend. However, 10 years is 10 data points and one could certainly see a trend if it existed in those 10 data points. Most sources I see use a base data set of 1961-1990 or 1951-1980 to establish climate trends occurring today. Assume we use 1961-1990. If 10 years is not a trend and there have only been 17+ years since 1990 to gather data from, how can we call that a climatic trend? If the average temperature now is warmer than 1990, are the 7 years of upward movement (I don't dare call it a trend since 7 is less than 10), which are less than the 10 years of downward movement in temperatures (again not a trend), enough to make a "trend" out of the 17 years since then? At what point between 10 and 17 years does data become a climatic trend and not "noise?" If 17 years isn't a trend, how about 20, 30, 50, 100? Is there a non-arbitrary point where the data "reveals dramatic climate change?" If so, who decides what this point is and how? If you go back about 30-35 years, the previous 30-35 years were "trending" down and the previous 30-35 years before than were "trending" up. I theorize that if the next 30-35 years don't continue this pattern of up and down, we have a solid case that indeed the climate patterns are changing. This new phrase "climate change" really has no meaning to me. When does the climate not change?

Another point you made is that if there was significant UHI effect on temperatures, one would "expect" calm days would show it more than windy days. The use of the word expects demonstrates that you are saying this is a hypothesis, not a fact correct? There is more to UHI than wind; e.g., during summer heat waves in the northeast, the air is very stagnant with little or no wind, but the temperature might only range 2-3 degrees from New York City to the east end of Long Island (not much range and not much wind). This time of the year, on a still night, it is not uncommon to see a 25 degree difference between New York City and the east end of Long Island (a big range and not much wind). Clearly, there is more to UHI than wind, or lack thereof. You seem to be saying that since something you expect about the UHI effect is not true based on a study that shows it as such, then the effect does not exist.

Paul,

Yes, I find it very strange that the answers to "solving" AGW always seem to be a global redistribution of wealth starting right here in the good old USA, with us sending even more money out, as if there isn't enough debt already.

The fact is that global climate is GLOBAL. Winds, CO2, and temperatures do not know about man-made borders between countries. If the US stops polluting and sends money to India and China, and they have a free ride because of their developing status, all it will do is accelerate economic collapse in the US and promote economic growth there. Now, if China and India with their TWO BILLION people get a free ride and are allowed to develop as much as the US has, they will eventually produce far more CO2 than the US does. There are six times more people there!

So, if the real threat is CO2 and it must be reduced globally, everyone has to do it. It won't help for some countries to do it and not others. But, this topic starts leading into whether there is an agenda at hand to spread wealth to poorer countries. If in fact C02 is a real culprit and in fact it needs to be reduced globally, the earth doesn't know where it comes from, only that it's there.

Most countries that joined the Kyoto Protocol already admitted failure, and even if they had all succeeded, it still wouldn't have worked since not all countries joined it.

I believe there are plenty of things that AGW proponents say we should do to clean up the environment that are good ideas, but big idea about giving developing nations a free ride and just stopping developed countries from polluting is ludicrous and certainly not scientifically sound.

I haven't posted anything here before but I've been following the arguments on both sides for the last few weeks and I thought you might find this Uk news item interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7287988.stm

Extracts:
The UK's summer floods of 2007 were a freak event unrelated to global climate change, according to a report from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH)... The report said data does not support the notion that UK summer rainfall is increasing or rivers are showing faster flow rates than in previous years... "The river floods of summer 2007 were a very singular episode, which does not form part of any clear historical trend or show consistency with currently favoured climate change scenarios," said the report's lead author, Terry Marsh.

2. IF THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS RISING, IT HAS NOW STOPPED
Sceptic
Since 1998 - almost a decade - the record, as determined by observations from satellites and balloon radiosondes, shows no warming.

Counter
1998 was an exceptionally warm year because of the strong El Nino event. Variability from year to year is expected, and picking a specific warm year to start an analysis is "cherry-picking"; if you picked 1997 or 1999 you would see a sharper rise. Even so, the linear trends since 1998 are still positive.

However, picking 1979 or 1970 or 1960 isn't cherry-picking. But, let's not bicker over that. What I'd like to know is why there is such a poor correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature. One would think that if CO2 was the strong driver that Gore and Company insist it is, that this huge annual increase in CO2 would overcome something like the current La Nina or the Sun and we would see steadily increasing temperatures. But alas, this appears not to be the case. CO2 just isn't living up to its reputation.

After reading the BBC article, it seemed to me there were a number of logical flaws made in the response to the skeptics' arguments.

First, the relevance of the historical record showing carbon dioxide levels following temperature rather than preceding them is that it negates the supposed historical demonstration that carbon dioxide can drive temperature. In fact, historically, the reverse has been true. This does not mean that carbon dioxide cannot drive climate change, it just means that there is no historical evidence for it, contrary to what many (e.g. Al Gore) have argued.

Second,after acknowledging that many eras in the past were warmer than today, due to various natural factors, it is asserted that these factors are no longer relevant today. Why? Has the earth stopped wobbling? Absent CO2 emissions would "natural" climate have reached some invariate stability? The statement is conclusory - it assumes that the causes of existing warming trends are not natural, without giving any coherent reason why this is so.

Third,statements about the sophistication and detail of existing climate models relative to past models says nothing about their reliability, which is the issue. Given that the relevant output of the computer models are trends that take decades to become observable over the background noise of weather, a quantitative estimate of the reliability of these models in predicting those trends simply cannot be calculated against observational data on time scales less than a century or so. Similarly, the statement that models are ways to "quantify the understanding of climate" is absurd. Today's understaining of climate can't be quantified, at least objectively. A model is a quantitative representation of how the modeler "thinks" climate behaves. Nothing more.

Fourth, the statement that data regarding arctic conditions and hurricane data began to be collected long ago says nothing about whether the data is sufficient to accurately reproduce trends in the historical record, with which to compare to present trends.

Finally, I'd point out that the debate over the relative contribution of water vapor and carbon dioxide is not adequately posited by either side. Water vapor and carbon dioxide each have absorbtion bands that overlap, meaning that much of the infrared radiation emitted by the Earth would be trapped anyway, even if one of these greenhouse gasses (assuming vapor is a gas) were removed. Nonetheless, the U.S. Dept. of Energy estimates that in the troposphere, water vapor accounts for 95% of the trapped IR radiation, but in the stratoshpere the ratio is largely reversed, with CO2 accounting for 80% of the trapped radiation. The relevant inquiry, separately posed with respect to each atmospheric layer, is how much available IR radiation, not already trapped by the existing combination of CO2 and water vapor, will be trapped by an additional marginal quantity of each of CO2 and water vapor, assuming a positive feedback of temperature on water vapor. Only after answering that question can you start talking about the effects.

Hi Paul Revere,

How about we cut back on oil usage and taxes at the same time? If cities would implement a few simple things like roundabouts and one way streets - they could make huge savings in lost time, gas usage and loss of life. In my city it is estimated that commuters typically spend more than three days a year sitting at red lights with their engines idling.

BT

10 years of cooling trend is not long enough to reveal climate change. It is however, surprising when it happens during a period of catastrophic anthropogenic warming.

The Lindzen cite is at www.ecoworld.com. Click on editor post -CO2 and global warming.

When Dr. Lindzen has something to add to the science of the lower troposphere, he'll publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. The piece you apparently refer to (The Fluid Envelope - A Case Against Climate Alarmism ) is repetitive right-wing rubbish.

Here's a clue -- when a piece uses the word "Goebbelian", it isn't science.

The Pielke item was blogged here on Jan 11.

I'll review it, I don't remember it.

The McKitrick report was not debunked. People just said it was wrong without addressing his findings.

Saying that his work is "irrelevant" is not the same as saying that it's "wrong". It doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong, it isn't material to the question at hand.

Here are two (of many) simple facts highlighted in the BBC piece:

a) There is difference between windy and calm days -- i.e., no significant UHI effect.

b) No relationship between warming patterns and urbanization -- again, no significant UHI effect.

Suppose McKitrick's reports were true: how would it change these two facts?

The point is that the evidence in support of global warming is NOT AFFECTED by the things McKitrick is asserting.

Uhg. I got through half the artical and couldn't take any more of it. Tripe. The counters were full of statements of finality and factual assurances that are in direct conflict with my own humble years of weather observations. UHI effects not being an issue with data collection? What BS! Many many weather stat data collection stations are located in totally wrong places, like airports for example. The AGW counters are worth an F- at best. I got a headache from it all. The last 12 month's have driven a spike in the AGW coffin, lets see what the next 12 month's do.

Regarding number three:

To deny the warmth of the MWP makes the BBC the Deniers. The evidence it occurred in Europe is overwhelming, and the evidence it was worldwide is increasing.

The evidence it didn't occur, or was less warm than modern warming if it did occur, seems to be based on nothing except Mann's interpretation of tree-ring data. His interpretation is being deeply questioned, not only because trees respond to rainfall as well as temperatures, but also because it hasn't been possible to replicate his data, even using tree-ring cores taken from the same grove of trees.

Why did the IPCC embrace Mann's data, and in the process trash the data of so many other hard-working scientists? Could it be they are threatened by the MWP, and need it eraced?

The BBC states, " As the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) puts it: "The idea of a global or hemispheric Mediaeval Warm Period that was warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect." "

I wondered who at NASA said that, so I googled the quote. There was no site at NASA given. I tried the NASA "Find it at NASA" site. Same result. If anyone can give me a link to a NASA paper that has this quote, I'd be interested.

What amazed me, when I googled the quote, was how many Alarmist sites have taken up this quote, which may not even exist at NASA. I try to keep an open mind, and visit Alarmist sites on a regular basis, but they just repeat the same thing over and over. It's boring, like a big echo chamber.

A similar echo chamber effect sometimes occurs on Skeptic sites, however there is also new stuff all the time. Climateaudit and Icecap have directed me to the work of many scientists who found evidence the MWP was indeed warmer than today. Also one comes across independant papers which do a fairly good job of explaining why Mann's denial of the MWP ought be questioned, such as this one:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

It would be nice if the BBC offered links to sites which offer the Skeptic viewpoint, however you will notice the sites they recommend at the end of their piece are all Alarmist or quasi-Alarmist sites. This leads me to conclude they are more interested in the politics, than they are in the peer-review process of pure science.

BT:
This rebuttal was penned by Gavin Schmidt.
He is still trying to support the hocky stick Fraud.
His credibility is not high.
Enough said.

Hope I don't get censored again.

What is truly remarkable about the cooling trend over the last ten years, is that it occurred during a time dominated by several El Ninos and no large volcanic eruptions.

It has been 17 years since the eruption of Pinatubo, and the stratosphere has become exceptionally clear - allowing unusual amounts of solar radiation to reach the surface.

One large volcanic eruption, and we will see temperatures plummet.

MIT names its top 10 emerging technologies for 2008

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/03/13/mit-names-top-emerging

Oddly enough, none of them have anything to do with CO2. Here is a great quote from the article -

some applications where precision isn't of paramount importance such as scientific computer modeling

It is NOT an answer to anything when you merely spout off GW dogma as a response!

Brookline Tom, you repeated the two "facts" about the UHI effect without responding to the points I made in an earlier (4:57 PM) comment showing: 1) Parker's data on windy and calm days is difficult to accept, given that even without the UHI effect there should be a significant temperature difference due to increased mixing of upper and lower air layers on windy days. Roger A. Pielke Sr. says that the lack of a trend shows "there necessarily must be some error in Parker’s analysis." 2) A graph of the difference between Peterson's urban and rural temperature data shows a clear trend, contradicting his claim that there was no significant difference in the two data sets.

Perhaps before you repeat the supposed facts a third time, you might want to address this contrary evidence.

I was searching NASA when I should have been searching NOAA. I have now tried to find the quote, "The idea of a global or hemispheric Mediaeval Warm Period that was warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect", at the NOAA site, and still no luck.

However the quote is spreading through the blogasphere, being picked up by other sites.

If my tax dollars are going to be used by NOAA to spread this sort of misinformation all over the world, I'd like to know who did it, and in what paper it appeared. Can anyone help me?

The BBC is supposed to be neutral, legally obliged to be neutral, in fact.

What this report fails to mention is the possible importance of solar cycle length. Solar cycles 21 and 22 had relatively high sunspot numbers, although not the highest, but they were also only 9-10 years long, not 11 - the shortest ever measured.

During the coldest years of the little ice age, not only were there very few sunspots, but the solar cycle was 12-14 years long.

Solar cycle 23 has been 12 years long so far (has 24 started yet(?!).

We shall see what effect this has on temperatures.

It is also true that the earth has had an atmosphere containing 20x the amount of CO2 it does today, whilst being slightly cooler than it is today. I don't think anybody has investigated sun strength or orientation tot he earth at that time.

Hi BT,

Many scientists are not as arrogant about their knowledge of the origins of life and the universe, as you would like to believe.

Carl Sagan, in his novel Contact, imagined a time when Earth scientists were sufficiently able to unravel enough of pi to find encoded messages from our creators

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7296224.stm

The fact that CO2 follows warming in the paleo record does not invalidate AGW.

1. CO2 is a GHG, and accounts for a substantial portion of the Greenhouse effect (best guess with feedbacks of around 13%). If you add more CO2, the temperature will rise, all else being equal.

2. For decades, paleo researchers could not figure out how slight orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles) could account for past glaciations. The discovery of CO2's influence fits into this theory quite well. CO2 outgassed by the oceans amplifies the orbital forcing, allowing the Earth to rebound from a glaciation.

3. James Hansen predicted that there would be a lag between temperature and CO2 before it was discovered. The lag is simply part of how we understand past climate.

4. The CO2 increase in the atmosphere today is caused by human emissions and not outgassing from the oceans. This is confirmed by simple accounting of fossil fuels burned and corroborated by carbon isotope evidence.

Hello Patrick,

I agree with you. There are many ways that taxes could be minimized and less petroleum used. Rail is a much more efficient way to move freight. Given the price of diesel, I'm not sure that market forces aren't going to push this country into using more rail and less truck transportation. Many of the folks at my workplace with long commutes are considering the benefits of having mass transit become more available. Finally, I was looking in the classified ads yesterday and noticed a significant drop in price on used SUV's, especially Hummers. Who knows, gas may exceed $4/gallon this summer and that will have everyone's attention.

The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming � which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.

In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html&template=nextpage

NOAA climate models get yet another failing score this month.

Compare six month Jan-Feb-March predictions vs. actual.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/archives/long_lead/gifs/2007/200707temp.gif
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/YearTDeptUS.png

The Climate Prediction Center model is incorrect at nearly every US location, yet our government uses these same models as the basis for policy.

Europe proves once again that they can't handle prosperity or success.

EU set to agree emission cut plan

Slovenia's PM, who is chairing the summit, said the leaders had approved a timetable to implement an agreed 20% cut by 2020, compared with 1990 levels.

He likened the EU's plans to move to a low-carbon economy to a "third industrial revolution".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7293436.stm

Quite a revolution they are starting - i.e. European jobs moving to Asia.

Caleb:
I found the statement you are searching for at NOAA. Here is the link:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

Are we still talking about the *oxymoron* that is climate change? This nonsense "should" end as quickly as Spitzers governorship. Stop wasting so much damn money to tell us that the climate changes.

Mans contribution of CO2, .0087%, is a joke. It has no significant impact on warming the remaining 99.9% of earths atmosphere.

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe - March 13, 2008
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html

Climate panel on the hot seat.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html

Hi Gary B,

You mentioned "I don't think that they are ruling out non-human induced changes."

This is a great example of the basic problems in this "debate". Buracracies, while proficient in mumbo jumbo when practical, also know how to identify a MANDATE in clear and concise terms.

"...relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change" appears to be very clear and concise to me. Something that is relevent to "other"-induced climate change clearly falls outside of this scope.

This is often done to limit work done on a project that can grow exponentiallly and detract from the original goal....and we all know by now, proving AGW is/was always the orignal goal

Once this is clear in everyone's thought process, all the other debates become moot and obviously try to turn symptoms into a cause.(pun intended)

Don't you find it interesting that many of the historical "polluters" are warming (pun intended) to fighting CO2?

Not only do they have a great opportunity to increase revenue streams in support of a popular cause, they also relieve the pressures against their polluting activities in many cases. Case in point: Carbon credits, offsets and taxes provide great opportunities to the larger corporations in an environment where measurements are basically guesswork or estimates at best.

"Follow the money" used to be the cry against those large profit makers who had ulterior motives when supporting one side or the other. It is still true .........it is clearly more profitable to be part of the scam, dripping with subsidies and public guilt, than to be against it.

And all this time, public concern against pollution and resource management and associated costs are put on a back burner. Solutions for CO2 prey easily on public guilt and costs are transferred to them 100% .

If I was a large corporation in today's environment and need for profits, my choice is more than easy ......

1. CO2 is a GHG, and accounts for a substantial portion of the Greenhouse effect (best guess with feedbacks of around 13%). If you add more CO2, the temperature will rise, all else being equal.

Boris,

I am now attempting to prove that CO2 is causing the warming being blamed on it.

Does your statement above come from the results of any tests? I don't want to have to reinvent the wheel if someone else has already successfully shown CO2's role. I can simply verify the test by repeating it.

I am however disappointed to see you use the word guess, even if it was someone's best attempt. The results of the tests weren't confirmed with guesses were they? If so they must be excluded.

2. For decades, paleo researchers could not figure out how slight orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles) could account for past glaciations.

What is a paleo researcher? Milankovitch Cycles are not only comprised of changes in the orbit of our planet but also in obliquity and precession.

The discovery of CO2's influence fits into this theory quite well. CO2 outgassed by the oceans amplifies the orbital forcing, allowing the Earth to rebound from a glaciation.

Boris, you again mention CO2's influence, who discovered this and can you point me to the material they produced so I can reproduce the same effect using their methods?

3. James Hansen predicted that there would be a lag between temperature and CO2 before it was discovered. The lag is simply part of how we understand past climate.

Boris, I'm confused at your use here? Is this relevant in any way? Anyone with a knowledge of Henry's Law would make the same prediction. I don't see how the lag provides any understanding of past climate, can you elaborate?

4. The CO2 increase in the atmosphere today is caused by human emissions and not outgassing from the oceans. This is confirmed by simple accounting of fossil fuels burned and corroborated by carbon isotope evidence.

Boris, the above statement is mostly true but as a pure statement it is false. Henry's Law mandates that as temps go up, the ability for the oceans to contain CO2 goes down. There is far more CO2 in the oceans than in the atmosphere. Some CO2 will be outgassed as Ocean temps rise.

Not attempting to simply point out your errors. If the Denier community is ever going to be convinced of AGW, then we as AGW stewards must raise the bar and start providing them with concise measurements and methods so they can no longer complain about sloppiness. There is no reason to be sloppy anyway, it's science, it is supposed to be clean.

Please get back with me about the studies, I'm excited to get to work!

Thanks,

Steve

Caleb,

Here's a more recent study cited by NOAA on that topic:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/darrigo2006/darrigo2006.html

The abstract states that data reconstructions indicate the MWP in the NH was about 0.7C cooler than the late 20th century, but also cautions:

presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale.

Hi Travis,

A good read today on climateaudit about how the paleoclimatology data has been abused, in the ongoing effort to make the MWP disappear.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2852#comments

We haven't heard much from Emiliano recently. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that every day this month has been below normal temperatures in Buenos Aires?

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/SABE/2008/3/14/MonthlyHistory.html

Let's look at solar, Item 6, and a few things not on the list.

SOLAR

Let's assume that Scafetta and West are right: the sun is responsible for 69% of the warming of the second half of the 20th Century. Let's also assume that global temperature rose 0.5 deg C over the same period. The sun would be responsible for 69% of 0.5 deg C, or 0.345 deg C, leaving 0.155 deg C.

EL NINO

From the Trenberth (2000) "The Evolution of ENSO and Global Atmospheric Temperatures" Abstract: "For 1950-98, ENSO linearly accounts for 0.06 C of global warming." The abundance of El Ninos in the second half of the 20th Century lower the total rise from 0.155 deg C to 0.095 deg C.

AMO

From Knight et al (2005) "A Signature of Persistent Natural Thermohaline Circulation Cycles in Observed Climate": "The regression of simulated global and Northern Hemisphere mean decadal temperatures with the THC are 0.05 +/- 0.02 and 0.09 +/- 0.02_C Sv_1 respectively, implying potential peak-to-peak variability of 0.1 and 0.2_C." Peak to peak changes on the AMO are on the order of 0.45 deg C. If global temperature varies 0.1 deg C with a 0.45 deg C swing in the AMO, and if the AMO rose 0.3 deg C since 1950, the AMO raised global temperature 0.067 deg C ((0.1/0.45)*.3). The 0.095 deg C rise has been lowered to 0.028 deg C.

Less than 6% of the total rise in global temperature could be attributable to anthropogenic causes.

ENSO accounts for 12% of the rise in global temperature during the second half of the 20th Century based on Trenberth's linear trend. (Not including peak-to-peak La Nina to El Nino) AMO accounts for another 13%.

Wonder why the AGW crowd squawk so loud about solar contribution?

John M.,

Solar cycle 23 has been 12 years long so far (has 24 started yet(?!).

In early January, there was one short-lived, high latitude sunspot that was supposed to herald the long awaited beginning of Cycle 24. But alas, of the few sunspots materializing since, all have been Cycle 23 equatorial sunspots. Still waiting for Cycle 24 to take off.

Travis,

Regarding this quote from the NOAA site, presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale.

I'm afraid NOAA has been hiding its collective head in the sand regarding paleoclimatic reconstructions regarding the scale of the Medieval Warm Period and the ensuing Little Ice Age. Both of these periods and their warmth (or lack thereof) are well-documented from studies conducted on every continent on this orb including Antarctica (definitely not NH)and the oceans. Do some Googling as these studies (in peer-reviewed journals, btw) are too numerous to list here.

Patrick,

Can you provide evidence that the long-range weather forecasting tools NOAA uses in those maps are the same models that climatologists use to study AGW? And, no, inferring that they are the same because NOAA's page is called the "Climate" Prediction Center is not evidence.

GW Steve,

Sorry to hear that you have gone to the Dark Side, but I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, eh?

Since you have decided to prove beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 is, indeed, the main player in the unprecedented rise in temperature over the last 150 or so years, maybe you could address a point that I'm having trouble reconciling.

Since the atmospheric CO2 concentation has been increasing relentlessly for the last 150+ years, why is the global temperature not in lockstep with the CO2 concentration increase? After all, CO2 is the only thing that can cause temperature increases, correct?

One more thing. How well does CO2 concentration correlate with temperature over the last 150+ years?

Thanks in advance.

As to picking one to ten I would pick Eleven. Aides, pollution, waste,land abuse, screwing with our own ecolgical system, too much CO4,CO2, et al.
We are destroying our home, for things we don't necessarily need. Ban SUV"S. Stop AGW,if that is what is making the ice melt,and te Earth warmer than normal(albedo).
KIPP

Giving the last word to Schmidt was unfair. At the very least there should have been the right of reply. The burden of proof should be on those who make the original hypotheses but somehow climate science turns this on its head and asks skeptics to prove their case. At the end of the day the whole theory turns on the idea that if we cannot explain the warming then it must be the fault of man via his CO2 emissions. Yet when the warming isn't as much as expected, why that's also man's fault via aerosol emissions. It's just not scientific. When we get real data which agrees with the models then the theory will be more robust but until then it's largely speculation. At the moment they too often just use models to prove other models. I admit though that Schmidt appears much less alarmist than many other scientists, who attempt to blame every natural weather event on global warming. He at least isn't that barmy.

Sorry to hear that you have gone to the Dark Side, but I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, eh?

:) Sort of. I had just recently recalled a lesson, I beleive it was Earth Sciences, where the best way to prove your theory is to try yourself to break it.

If you cannot break it using several different methods, it is probably safe to give to someone else to attempt to break.

If they cannot break it, then it is probably a good theory.

Sooooo. I figured I would use the time I spent lambasting BT & Friend's knowledge of this subject and attempt to prove AGW by attempting to break all the AGW theories out there.

But I need to be open minded and since I am attempting to prove AGW, what better way to be open and positive than be an AGW Advocate?

I'll tell you that, I already feel better. I am going to make a difference!

However, I will make a difference later, right now I have a date with a beer :)

Regards,

Steve

A question,

It has been stated here a number of times that UHI is not that important. If this is true why do Hansen & GISS go to some lengths to adjust for it?

"Boris, you again mention CO2's influence, who discovered this and can you point me to the material they produced so I can reproduce the same effect using their methods?"

You can start with Svante Arhenius in the 1890s and move on up through history. Read Spenser Weart's book The Discovery of Global Warming available online for free. He has all the relevant cites listed.

Thanks for the comment on Henry's Law, but as you must know CO2 levels in the oceans are rising as well, absorbing some of the anthropogenic rise.

GW Steve wrote:

"right now I have a date with a beer :)"

Oh no, think of all the CO2 that will be released when you open the can - oh, the humanity...

Thanks to Rick Ressier and Travis for the links to the NOAA sites likely refered to by the BBC in item 3 on their list.

Please note NOAA, in this circumstance, is still using Mann's MWP-eracing graph from 1999. (I believe Mann's first graph which eraced the MWP was in 1995, while Mann's graph in the 1990 IPCC report shows a MWP that is warmer than modern times.) Mann's sensational 1995 "hockey stick" graph is now over a decade old, and has been pretty much torn to ribbons. The fact the BBC still uses it, via an old NOAA entry, is revealing.

If you check out Climateaudit you can see a recent post refers to Mann's use of statistics as "the gift that keeps on giving," because whereever they look they find errors. In the world of statisticians Mann's use of numbers is apparently very funny. However a lot of this number stuff is completely over my head.

I prefer simpler proofs that the MWP was warmer than today. For example a core sample was taken from the sea-bed north of Iceland, and layers from the MWP showed plankton which requires waters warmer than they are today. Pretty obvious, eh?

Or take the birch and alder revealed last summer by a retreating glacier in Greenland. It radio-carbon-dated from the MWP. In other words, in the MWP a grove of trees was growing where we now have the edge of a glacier. Pretty obvious, eh?

Even more obvious is that Mann based his revision of all the work done by prior scientists on insufficient data. His tree-ring-data was from bristcone pines, which exist in an environment so harsh no other trees can compete, and which in fact keeps bristlecone pines themselves dormant 90% of the time.

This in turn means the bristlecone pines were only "collecting data" 10% of the time. How can this shred of data, from obscure mountains in the American west, be used to erace all the data gathered by other scientists in Europe, about Europe itself?

Don't ask me. Ask the IPCC, not me. If you ask me I will say some rude thing about some people being complete dunderheads, and I wouldn't want to do that.

I can understand that Mann's graph was so alarming, when first released, that it grabbed people's attention. However people now have had thirteen years to attend to it. If they haven't figured out it is not based on fact by now, then Mann's data indeed proves a fact:

You can fool SOME people ALL OF THE TIME.

Mann's paper was 1998. There was no graph from Mann in 1990.

Also, it is widely known that areas in the North Atlantic were quite warm. The European warm period was probably not global, however. Many studies since Mann have reached this conclusion.

Yes, Climate Audit hates Mann. Science isn't done on blogs, however.

I have been informed I have my dates wrong, and that the "hockey stick" which eraces the MWP did not become a central arguement to IPCC conclusions until 2001.

All I can say is that it was in the mid 1990's that I first became aware that a change was occuring in books I read about Greenland Vikings. A revision of history began creeping in, where the MWP became cooler. In fact it seemed "politically incorrect" to mention the MWP in such histories. It baffled me, as such excellent work had been done earlier. (For example, I had read about Vikings bringing cows to Greenland, but then I suddenly read it was scientifically proven it was too cold for cows, and Vikings only brought sheep.)

My study of Greenland Vikings was purely recreational, and I didn't even own a computor in those days, so at first I just assumed there must be some new data I didn't know about. However I'd been reading and asking questions about Greenland Vikings since the my boyhood in the 1950's, and the new data increasingly troubled me by asking me to forget what I'd already learned.

It is only in the last two years that I have begun the wonderful process of serching through the blogasphere, and finding answers without needing to wait for the next book to appear at the bookstores.

I find it shocking that there is evidence that it was decided by some, for reasons they felt were justified, that current warming needed to be exaggerated by down-playing the MWP. For example, read this autobiographical tale of a scientist:

" With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.'"

I found this in an artical which is now some five years old, which can be found at:

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

This is but one of many works which discredits attempts to lessen the MWP. It furthermore discredits Mann's "hockey stick."

The BBC should not have put this issue as number three on its list, for the fact of the matter is that Mann's "hockey stick" is central to the alarm of Alarmists. It should be number one on the BBC list, for, if the "hockey stick" is discredited, Alarmism falls like a house of cards.

And guess what? It has already happened. The emporer has no clothes.

Boris,

Where did the 13% number come from and I asked for tests that I can repeat, not hearsay of hearsay. Sorry buddy, but the bar has been raised ever since I joined the AGW camp.

You may not understand but I stand to win with either proving AGW due to CO2 exists or not.

If it does exist then we in the US and some allies will have to enforce Draconian measures to prevent the production of CO2 in order to avoid a "tipping point". We will by force, granted through Congress, make lots of people suffer and die in order to make sure we have a planet for some humans to inhabit.

We in the States can start by stopping all welfare and entitlements. If you need welfare, then guess what, more energy is being expended to raise you than others. We must make a stand somewhere if our species is to survive.

I'm not saying to kill anyone, we just have to quit feeding, housing, and caring for folks who just can't do it themselves. If CO2 is really the issue, WE HAVE NO CHOICE. If this alone does not cull the population enough, then well, someone else will have to make the tough decisions.

I win because my children will be smarter and more capable making them more valuable in the hellish world that awaits.

If it turns out that our theory is incorrect, then I will win because I won't have to expend any more energy or money on a theory that is really difficult to prove and really quite expensive.

I'm busy at work this week, so I'll give you the points our adversaries are sure to bring up later. First and foremost, in order for them to test our theory, we need to give them some tests to repeat.

Scientists, whether climate or not, are all held to this standard. Where are the tests? I would like to repeat them myself before I embarrass myself by approving and then sending them on only to get broken.

Regards,

Steve

Paul,

Sorry, no answer today. I am compiling what information I have found but most of the graphs I have found could be construed as being cherry picked/made in order to give the correlation weight to then allude to causation.

With the data I have found, I would not be convinced that the correlation had any weight other than the two events took place at nearly the same time.

While I can see how it may look that CO2 causes temp increases since they are occurring at nearly the same time, I have not seen any evidence of this. Conjecture based on the timing of the two events is all I could find, but calling that evidence would be failing science and the scientific method.

I don't believe that causation can be made simply because the two events occurred at nearly the same time. I believe more tests are needed to confirm the cause.

I will however compile what I have found and if it turns our that I am still in disbelief, I will attempt to let my brothers and sisters know why I am unconvinced and see if they can convince me.

I do however have an idea that would help confirm this correlation.

We could build IR meters, 1 square meter each, that would be able to measure the amount of Watts being generated by different spectra and record those strengths and times.

By building several and strategically placing them in arid areas where water vapor would not interfere, placing some in areas that are sometimes arid and sometimes humid, and in humid areas, we could get an accurate measurement of just how many Watts/m^2 CO2 is contributing by comparing all the results.

Since CO2 only absorbs and emits certain wavelengths.

I'll offer my services for $1 million dollars less than any US Gov't agency could do it for and do a better job. All methods will be available to the entire World's population via internet. NIST standards will apply, but I believe I can exceed most.

I have never accepted money from any Oil, Power, Or Enviro companies, in fact I have been giving them money for most of my life. I am a camper, hiker, kayaker, and love my planet.

In any event, I'll get you what I have found ASAP, perhaps my fellow AGWer's can explain how the periods picked would not be considered cherry.

Regards,

Steve

"Also, it is widely known that areas in the North Atlantic were quite warm. The European warm period was probably not global, however. Many studies since Mann have reached this conclusion."

Boris,
The only proof that the MWP wasn't global is Mann's PC1. The NAS said beyond 400 years, there is no way of knowing with any confidence. There is plenty of ancedotal evidence that the MWP was global -especially the subtropics and tropics, as long term droughts plagued many areas of South America and South Asia during this period.