1) Sounds like scientists still don't know what causes climate change, yet all we hear is how we need to do this or that to change the climate.
2) Perhaps lets FIRST find out IF there is anything unusual going on, THEN whats causing it, THEN come up with solutions(If there are any)

There was a study last summer by the University of California which said that "up to 93%" of Arctic Warming was caused by soot on the surface of the snow. Let's suppose that airborne pollutants cause an additional 30% of Arctic warming. The IPCC and Hansen tell us that CO2 causes 100% of Arctic warming. So far we have accounted for 223% of the warming.

Changes in solar output probably cause another 50% of the warming, and Santa's workshop could probably throw in another 50 or 60%. We are up to 333% accountability.

Pretty soon the North Pole will be the "warm humid" place that Mark described last summer - comparable to Nairobi.

BTW - as we approach the summer solstice in about seven weeks, the northeast coast of Greenland is indeed experiencing balmy weather, averaging -4F this month.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04320/2008/4/28/MonthlyHistory.html

The interior of Greenland is averaging a genuinely tropical -23F this month.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04416/2008/4/28/MonthlyHistory.html

Reminds me of the Guardian pictures showing that last pathetic little ice cube remaining in the Arctic.

fauxrumors- or we can do what any normal person would do when they are traveling 80 miles an hour and warning lights on the dash begin going off- slow down til you get a competent mechanic's diagnosis. Certainly in the meantime you can discuss with your friends on this blog about how the lights probably don't mean anything. But, just on the off chance that they do, going slower makes sense.

Ahh, summer is approaching. And you know what that means. It's cherry-picking season for Patrick Henry!

Can't wait until we get our daily updates on Greenland weather this summer from good ol' PH.

As long as we're talking balmy weather, have a look at these:

http://www.wunderground.com/data/images/latest_monthlytempanomaly.gif

The Empire Strikes Back

Bill Gray is being pushed out of CSU for questioning global warming.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5736103.html

This is exactly the problem which Ben Stein's movie highlighted. Another black day for science.

Off Subject:

I'm stuck at Hilton Head for the next three weeks and most the time don't have a computer link up....

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5736103.html

Excerpt:

Hurricane forecaster's dispute with school focuses on global warming debate

By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

By pioneering the science of seasonal hurricane forecasting and teaching 70 graduate students who now populate the National Hurricane Center and other research outposts, William Gray turned a city far from the stormy seas into a hurricane research mecca.

But now the institution in Fort Collins, Colo., where he has worked for nearly half a century, has told Gray it may end its support of his seasonal forecasting.

As he enters his 25th year of predicting hurricane season activity, Colorado State University officials say handling media inquiries related to Gray's forecasting requires too much time and detracts from efforts to promote other professors' work.

But Gray, a highly visible and sometimes acerbic skeptic of climate change, says that's a "flimsy excuse" for the real motivation � a desire to push him aside because of his global warming criticism.

Among other comments, Gray has said global warming scientists are "brainwashing our children."

Now an emeritus professor, Gray declined to comment on the university's possible termination of promotional support.

But a memo he wrote last year, after CSU officials informed him that media relations would no longer promote his forecasts after 2008, reveals his views:

"This is obviously a flimsy excuse and seems to me to be a cover for the Department's capitulation to the desires of some (in their own interest) who want to reign (sic) in my global warming and global warming-hurricane criticisms," Gray wrote to Dick Johnson, head of CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences, and others.

The university may have moderated its stance since last year. Officials said late last week that they intend to support the release of Gray's forecasts as long as they continue to be co-authored by Phil Klotzbach, a former student of Gray's who earned his doctorate last summer, and as long as Klotzbach remains at CSU.

When Klotzbach leaves, he will either produce the seasonal forecasts at his new position, or end them altogether.

Not only does this internal dispute reveal a bit of acrimony at the end of Gray's long career at CSU; it highlights the politically charged atmosphere that surrounds global warming in the United States.

"Bill Gray has come under a lot of fire for his views," said Channel 11 meteorologist Neil Frank, a former director of the National Hurricane Center and a friend of Gray's. "If, indeed, this is happening, it would be really sad that Colorado State is trying to rein in Bill Gray."

CSU officials insist that is not the case.

T

Hi Adamant,

Nice graph! 1961-1990 was carefully cherry-picked as the baseline because it was a cold period and gave the author lots of opportunity to splatter red ink.

UAH and RSS both reported March as being the second coldest on record in the southern hemisphere, but that didn't stop NOAA from painting it red.
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/tlt/medium/global/ch_tlt_2008_03_anom_v03_1.png
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

You have once again highlighted the problem that NOAA climate related press releases tend to be dodgy at best.

Adamant-

Yes, noticing there might be a problem would be a good idea and then having it checked out if it continues would be ever better. I'd like to present a revised version though:

The person driving the car sees a warning light going off, say, the tire pressure monitoring system (anyone who owns a vehicle with one of these knows how they tend to flash even when you have no problem with your tires, they go off because of NATURAL changes in pressure due to temperature changes in the tire). So the driver panics and goes to the first dealership he sees, which is run by a greased up used car salesman looking to make a quick buck (insert AGW alarmist name here). There, the salesman convinces him that since his tire sensor has gone off, the whole car must be faulty (correlation is not causation). The salesman then warns him about how this flashing light will cause his entire family to die based on the word of his poodle (alarmism and computer models). Blindly trusting the salesman, the driver purchases a rusty Soviet Volga the salesman recommends as a better alternative (communism) and trades in his Chevy Malibu (capitalism). The driver then leaves the dealership happily thinking he has just improved his life considerably. However, on his way home, the faulty new car loses control and flies off a bridge (global economic collapse).

Caution is important, I agree fully. However, caution is not what is being advertised.

Hi Adamant,

Let's try another anology to your flashing light on the dashboard example.

A typical 80,000 lb 18-wheeler is starting to inch forward at 5 mph. Some warning lights start are going off indicating that something may be happening to the engine to cause it to overheat. The truck driver can stop the truck within a few feet and start to determine what has happened and whether or not he is able to repair the engine without any major damage.

Now lets take the another scenario of lights flashing on the dashboard while the same truck is now barreling down the highway at 70 mph. It will obviously now take a much longer distance before the driver is able to stop the truck. The question will be did he stop it in time to prevent any major damage or did the malfunction cause a complete engine meltdown?

We are at the point where we are just going 5 mph - or to put it another way a 0.5C in global temperature increase. But if we start going 70 mph (or 7C temperature increase - e.g., the result of melting of the tundra permafrost to emit all of the underground methane gas equating to about half the super greenhouse conditions of the Cretaceous period) then we may create a scenario that we may have no control of. Once the methane gas comes out, there is no way to put it back in.

I am not saying this is going to happen in the next decade or two, but when the natural temperature trendline begins to increase again in the 2020-2050 time period, the threat to the permafrost becomes greater. The dashboard lights are starting to flicker, are we planning stop the situation quickly to ascertain the problem or are we going to try to stop when we reach highway speed?

By the way, the truckers were pulling into DC today to protest the high diesel prices. The truckers are tired of all the government subsidies going to the hugely profiting oil companies while their actual livelihoods are being crushed under heavy transportation costs. They simply cannot operate any more and feel it is un-American. So who do those on the political right favor in this situation? The truckers or the oil companies?

Cultists Beware!
I live outside the DC beltway but know very well how the weather here influences the major media that live here.
A lifelong resident of Md I can not recall any April of my lifetime when it has been this cold for so long.
Normally it runs in the upper 70s to low 90s.
Yesterday at 10am it was 48 degrees.
Now those of you with working brain cells will say "so what? its a seasonal deviation with no long term
implications!" (which is much alike what I say when I disregard GW)
You are right.
Yet I know these guys and when tennis and golf is impacted they get upset.
So guess what banner won't be promoted in the near future?
Disaster looms if we don't admit our GUILT and appease the GW gods!
Nope, they won't run em.
In fact they have been taking so much flak over it lately that Earth day went by with a dull murmur and not like the crusade it was in years past.
So laugh all you want at Patrick Henry and scoff away at me.
But take a moment and wonder if the GW chickens aren't really coming home to roost.
Then you can start working on ways to claim the cooling is really due to GW!
Woops, you are already doing that aren't ya?

I'm confused again (a semi-permanent state with me these days). I thought the IPCC reports posited aerosols as having a cooling effect that was responsible for the failure of real world temps to match the GCM predictions?

If they cause warming rather than cooling shouldn't temps on the planet have exceeded the GCM predictions since the warming effect of aerosols is not accounted for in the models?

*sigh* Aren't these the same aerosols that are being proposed by some as the 'solution' to human CO2? Inject sulphates into the upper atmosphere to 'cool' the planet in the right amount and we can balance the 'heating' caused by CO2, right?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060727180326.htm

Of course, there are some minor problems with this approach, like destruction of the upper atmosphere ozone...
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0424-geoengineering.html

The BBC is no longer competent with their native tongue.

Present tense
Warming 'affecting poor children'
Climate change is already affecting the prospects for children in the world's poorer countries, according to Unicef.

Future tense
The UN children's agency says that increases in floods, droughts and insect-borne disease will all affect health, education and welfare.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7372137.stm

Hi fauxrumours, I dont think we should be too critical of scientists coming out with this research. As I read it, this research doesnt take the usual approach of people advocating AGW but does suggest that there may be climatic change due to human activities releasing aerosols into the atmosphere. In my mind this is different to the narrow approach taken by scientists advocating AGW and I think it is positive that scientists seem to be increasingly looking at different factors in play.

Bill...

I dont know much about this but I think it depends on the altitude of the aerosols. Perhaps if the aerosols are lower in the atmosphere in the polar regions their effects are different?
As to the damage to the higher levels of the atmosphere would that not depend on the type of the aerosol?

Off topic but just wanted to know how in this age of global warming did we here in the central Appalachians just recieve 1 1/2" of snow here on April 29, here at almost noon time it is currently 35 degrees.

Reply: Not that unusual for the second half of April in the central appalachians Josh. I've seen it many times.

Global warming is a hoax. Everybody knows it. It is a myth propogated by leftists and socialists so they can gain more control.

"A lifelong resident of Md I can not recall any April of my lifetime when it has been this cold for so long.
Normally it runs in the upper 70s to low 90s.
Yesterday at 10am it was 48 degrees."

LOL!!!!! Uh, Ed, the average high for DC today is 70 degrees. The average low is 50 degrees. That "cold" 48 degrees you felt is about the average low.

April has been more than three degrees above normal in DC. If being three degrees above average is the "coldest" April you can remember, I'd say that's proof of global warming.

IF NOTHING ELSE, this reinforces the fact that the science is not "settled".

If we take our time and calmly analyze the data, we'll see that greenhouse gases are but one factor that contribute to our climate and that CO2 is not the primary force behind climate change.

One unresolved question: Do aerosols contribute to warming or cooling? I think that depends upon the composition of the aerosols and the altitude. Lower altitude aerosols may contribute to warming but the same aerosols at a higher altitude may have a net cooling effect because they scatter sunlight before it reaches the earth's surface.

Adamant:

fauxrumors- or we can do what any normal person would do when they are traveling 80 miles an hour and warning lights on the dash begin going off- slow down til you get a competent mechanic's diagnosis. Certainly in the meantime you can discuss with your friends on this blog about how the lights probably don't mean anything. But, just on the off chance that they do, going slower makes sense.
======================
There's no warning lights on the dashboard. You're looking at some gauges and assuming the engine's overheating, whereas somebody who knows something about the car knows it's normal.

When you take the vehicle to the mechanic's, he can tell you have no clue what you're talking about. Since he's unscrupulous, next thing you know, he's installed some regulator that slows down your engine but otherwise does nothing.
You're out a lot of money and the only thing that's changed is you're poorer, but not any wiser.

Hi Jep, I like the annalogy of the mechanic, presumably with the politician?

I know it is not unusual for it to snow here this late Brett, but I just wanted to some to see that this kind of weather still is happening, and for here it is fairly common to get a dusting or 2 of snow into early to mid May, just 2 years ago it happened, but at the same time it is late. Just seen for Pittsburgh their record high temp for this date was set back in 1899, Why????

dennis hinka,

which subsidies to the hugely profitable oil companies are you referring to?

Exxon alone pays more in taxes than the bottom 40% of the population of the united states. Also, refining margins are approximately 9 cents a gallon, gas stations make pennies a gallon, and the government makes 19 cents a gallon in taxes. Oil companies have very little influence on the price of crude oil, similar to how farmers don't set the price of corn. Its supply, demand, the falling dollar, and speculation.

Don't kid yourself in thinking that the oil companies are treated better than you and me. They work day in and day out to provide us with energy and do it against a constant backlash of people who do not understand what it takes and the expenses involved in getting oil out of the ground. Also, if the oil companies really had all this influence over the price of crude, do you think they would have left it at $8 a barrel when they were losing money left and right and companies were falling apart?

which subsidies to the hugely profitable oil companies are you referring to?

We could start with a trillion dollars for the war to protect and secure their Middle-East assets.

Mark,

In reply to your LOL, the poster lives in Maryland, not DC. I live in Annandale, VA, right outside DC and, according to weather.com the average high in April is 69, average low is 42. The problem with monthly averages though is that the spring warming pattern generally shows colder temps at the beginning of the month and warmer temps at the end of the month. That hasn't happened this year, with the end of the month showing high temps as much as 10 deg F below 'average' for the month (yesterday it was 61, low in the mid 30's for instance). It has indeed been the coldest April I can remember since the early 70's in this area. It has been uniformly colder in Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, & March and I haven't seen that kind of consistently cold weather as long as I've lived here (20 years + 6 years in the 60's - early 70's.

DC itself is generally warmer than the surrounding area due to the UHI (that doesn't really exist), it is usually 5-10 degrees warmer than Annandale both in the high and low cat