It would appear to the least educated eye that La Nina has dispersed off the South America coast, however the 'anomaly', it appears, is in the greater part of the Pacific Ocean; it is cooler and not just 'slightly' cooler than as shown to be in the previous four compilations. In fact, La Nina seems to be dispersing off South America and a much cooler much more huge central band and further expanse of water is now in place. Much cooler sea is in place in the Antarctic region.

According to AGW theory, this should not be happening. Let's wait for Hansen's next apologetic. On the other hand, Mother Earth gives not a flip about AGW theory, its a good thing Al Gore can't buy her off.

“Overall, it looks like the blues are beginning to win out a little bit over the warmer-than-normal yellows and reds,”

Whoa! Not so fast. Real Climate has pasted judgment on this and prove that the Oceans are not cooling but heating up!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=436

Real Climate has found the problem and adjusted the temps and now they agree with the computer models.
You can’t keep a good story down and now with 300 million in advertising…..they will continue to shout down rational discourse. The sad thing is many children in the world actually believe this no matter what the science shows.
Question!Is there any scientific instrument that the “climatologists use” that is NOT subject to later upward revision?

ted:

Am I missing something? The RealClimate report you noted is for April 18, 2007 back when it was easier for them to bewilder the masses. Let's see what old Gavin comes up with for the 2008 data.

Back at it, though, reading the comments section below the article is even more telling...Hit dass Gleichschritt!

Brett: I am extremely curious as to what is happening in the upper left quadrant.

tkx, srr

Reply: It looks like some type of false reading, esp.since you can see it there each of the past 4 years, but I am not totally sure.

I want to thank Ted for highlighting the realclimate analysis of the ARGO data and how the problems in that data led Willis et al to correct their erroneous paper:

Two systematic biases have been discovered in the ocean temperature data used by Lyman et al. [2006]. These biases are both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated in Lyman et al. [2006], and appear to be the cause of the rapid cooling reported in that work.

Brett, it's probably worth updating your recent thread-starter to reflect this correction. Reply: Thanks BT.

When the lead author of a paper issues a correction like this, it:
1. Demonstrates the integrity of the author
2. Highlights the process of good science
3. Demonstrates why peer-reviewed literature is far and away the most reliable source of scientific information.

The Contrarian Church of Saint Patrick (and its patron saint) would do well to emulate this behavior.

The NINO1+2 Forecast (ensemble mean) is for a drop then gradual rise over the rest of the year.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst_history/200804/images/nino12SSTMon.gif

The NINO3.4 Forecast (ensemble mean ) looks like a gradual rise but still remaining at or below the threshold of -0.5 into next year.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst_history/200804/images/nino34SSTMon.gif

Will NINO3.4 continue to drive global temperature down, or will the lag in global SST response to solar continue to force global temp lower for the next few years?

Ted:
Here's a graph of the number of posts at RealClimate since its creation in December 2004. Note the rapid decline in the trend. Does it correspond to the drop in global temperature?

http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2ciepae&s=3&capwidth=false

What's this a graph of? The curve resembles global temperature anomaly, but it's not temperature. Hint: Look at the units in the Y-axis.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=73o5xc&s=3

But it's not Solar:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=f0oltd&s=3

Brett: There is a connection to today's post.

In his recent press releases, Dr. Hansen has described 2007 as having been "in the cool ENSO phase." The 2007 map above does not support his claim. Reply: Which specific map?

Also, in late 2006, Dr. Hansen predicted that 2007 would be a "Super El NIno."

Whichever way the wind blows......

Ted,
It wasn't Real Climate that made the correction, but the study's author Lyman himself. The correction was substantial as there was a change in the way bathy readings of the ARGO equipment. In the end, the 2003-2005 oceanic cooling was substanitally lowered.

The co-author of the 2006 study, Willis just completed a second round of readings, and reports that the slight global oceanic cooling continued into 2007.

Looks like March was the "Nth warmest month on record" in the US. Proving Gavin's claim that the world is heating up - even if it is cooling down.

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/MonthTDeptUS.png

Brett,

Kristen Byrnes at PondertheMaunder has commented elsewhere that this warming off the West coast of S. America is seasonal and La Nina will again gain strength in the fall.

Yeah, I know, she's just a high school kid, so much for our manly hubris. We're not in her league, friend.

BTW, congrats on your daughter. We also were so blessed March 11. Getting the flash cards ready. Reply: Congratulations to you!

Headline: April 8, 2008?

Is this a projecton of April 1st?

;-)

Reply: Whoops, my mistake, but hey, it's April Fools Day so I give myself a pass.

Hi Brett,

I took the most recent image and digitally removed all of the colors in the +/- 0.5 degree range. I personally don't believe anyone knows know what "normal" is within that precision.

The result looks very different. The vast majority of the ocean is below normal.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d3nhg5b_0ddz7swdc

Reply: Interesting Patrick, can I use the image in the blog? I will credit PH of course.

Yes, it does appears to be a "whole earth" effect. The poles of course, are tiny compared. Also if you look at land COLA has not changed much and most continents appears consistently cooler. The AMSU data for March at 4.4 and 7.5km is impressively cooler compared to all past data (yes March even more so) but let's wait for the official UAH RSS data
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Prediction: 2008 =year Global warming theory ended
This 300 million thing might bankrupt the AGW crowd in the end LOL

As Steve R pointed out, the Realclimate blurb is old news. The more recent data takes this adjustment into account and it still shows cooling to flat.

Hi BLT,

You say that peer reviewed literature is the most reliable source of information and in general I would agree with you.

But remember it does not a priori mean that the information is correct. I am sure you are aware that the consensus of hundreds (?thousands) of peer reviewed articles was that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and diet. Scientists could just not believe that bacteria could survive in the acidic environment of the stomach. But they were wrong!!

In other words the science is never closed and consensuses don't mean an awful lot.

The �What�s This?� graph is a function of total solar irradiance (TSI). Enter two sets of TSI data (I used Lean et al without background and ACRIM tacked on the end) in a spreadsheet and shift one down five years to represent the lag between LST and SST. (See, Brett, there�s the reference to oceans, so it�s not too far off topic.) Then average the two.

http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=9bg48o&s=3&capwidth=false

Looks close to global temp anomaly.

Then area-proportion the data (30% for land and 70% for oceans) and run the graph again.

http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2a6l65v&s=3&capwidth=false

Note: The first three major spikes since 1950 could�ve been reduced by volcanic aerosols (2 volcanoes in 1962, 3 in 1983 though we only hear of El Chichon, and Mt Pinatubo in 1991). Kinda creepy that there�s even a remote correlation.

http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=vdg4y9&s=3&capwidth=false

Here�s the correlation between Global Temperature Anomaly and the TSI average that�s been land- and ocean-proportioned and shifted 5 Years. Not bad.

http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=10moi1d&s=3&capwidth=false

There�s no way I can account for the differences in land and ocean albedo, and there�s no way I want to try since land albedo changed over the term of the data.

What does it prove? Nothing. Makes you think, though.

BT,
you forgot 4) overpriced government sponsored thermometers are inaccurate, prone to error and subjectively adjusted 5) if the subjective corrections are in favor of warming, pontificate it proves AGW, before someone figures out the manipulation 6)place faulty and incomplete data into a crystal ball biased computer program and predict imminent doom 7) convince yourself you really think you have a clue about predicted the future 50 years from now based on above 8) propose idiotic solutions to solve the "consensusized" man induced Armageddon while lining your own pocket 9) sleep well at night in your make-believe carbon footless mansion, convinced you have saved the world, no matter how much suffering is caused by the SCAM...

Hi Brett,

Of course you can use the image.

BTW - I should have said that "the area of below normal temperatures is much greater than the area of above normal" rather than "The vast majority of the ocean is below normal."

My original statement was not correct.

I hope that I'm not stealing any of Bob Tisdale's thunder by referencing this plot of total solar irradiance and northern hemisphere surface temperature anomalies:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/images/science/solar_infl/Surface-Temp-w-paleo.jpg

BT:

In their 'peer reviewed' paper published September 20, 2006, Lyman, Willis, and Johnson made note:

Abstract. We observe a net loss of 3.2x 10/22 of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 to 2005. Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate of the entire 13 year is .33W/m2. A new estimate of sampling error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significantly and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.

In their 'peer reviewed' paper revised and resubmitted July 10, 2007, Willis, Lyman, and Johnson made note:

Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated upper (0-750m)ocean heat content anomalies (OHCA)between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. (2006) appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases recently discovered in the in situ profile data. Although Lyman et al. (2006) carefully estimated sampling errors, they did not investigate potential biases among different instrument types. One such bias has been identified in a subset of Argo float profiles. The error will be ultimately corrected . However, until corrections have been made these data can be easily excluded from OCHA estimates. Another bias was caused by expendable BathyThermograph (XBT) date that are systematically warm compared to other instruments(Gouretski and Koltermann, 2007). Both biases appear to have contributed equally to the spurious cooling.

I checked Argos and the float profile data is there.

Exactly what IS the data then? IN this age of advanced technology, is the most we can do to get a correct reading of temperature to walk outside and stick our fingers towards the sky to get outdoor readings or (excuse me) stick it where the sun don't shine to get a bodily reading? We can't make reliable instruments?

So, what are you actually saying about the article Bret put up recently on the robots? Is that data to be set aside? Curious that revisions and errors Always phase the data upwards.

It appears to me that the data is worthless in both temperature readings and your climete models.
Neither are worth a damn.

"A new estimate of sampling error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significantly and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling." .....error 'much larger' than estimated....

Your 'peer reviewing' make make for integrity, but as far as reputability it isn't worth rolling up and stickling it on the bathroom paper holder. I certainly hope to see that this is not so.

Hi Steve Rowland. I wonder if you could answer a question on your first comment. I was under the impression that La Nina was a weather event and not considered part of any climate theory [I'm probably wrong on this]. You state that, " According to AGW Theory , this should not be happening ....." I guess I'm not understanding your point, so could you please reiterate what exactly is it that's not supposed to be happening and more importantly could you be more specific as to why it should not be this way. Thanks a bunch , Dave.

Bob Tisdale,

Could you put together another graph plotting the temperature (HadCRUT) vs CO2 concentrations? I think many on this blog might find the correlation (or lack thereof) quite interesting.

Thanks, in advance.

Re the temps in the far upper left quadrant, that area of the ocean had historically been covered with ice (over most of the 20 year average period used to develop the figures). Since the ocean is warmer than ice, the area shows up as a high positive temperature.

Brookline Tom,

You are right but you failed to include the update
http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/Acpres_offset.html

“It has just been learned that Argo profiles from SOLO floats with FSI CTD (Argo Program WHOI) may have incorrect pressure values. Profile data may be offset upward by one or more pressure levels, resulting in a significant cold bias for these instruments. Problematic floats are mostly in the Atlantic Ocean (198 out of the 211 presently active FSI SOLO instruments). The problem does not affect any other combination of instrument and sensor. That is, SOLO SBE, PROVOR (FSI or SBE), APEX and all other instrument combinations are unaffected.”

Using standard non-Hansenian math that leaves the other 2789 floats found to be working properly, which is something you or Gavin failed to mention in the article. It just seems that the AGW side finds a correctable error in less than 10% of the instruments and extrapolates it to claiming the data is all wrong. Just think if we did that to all of Dr. Hansen’s and Mann’s math and statistics….well we’d probably have no need for this blog.
Please understand I am not opposed to real science. If something is wrong I want it corrected no matter what, where or who. Let the science to show us the truth. So far the science has me thinking a lot of things….none of which makes CO2 the Devil.
Conclusion: Until the adjustments start Argo seems to show that most of the oceans temps are NOT rising as the models predicated but cooling.
I am sorry if that makes your temperature rise or just a tad hot under the collar.

PH: Great work on the map. I agree that .5 is too little to mean anything (like 1 degree of warming over 100 years).

I'll write you back after the coming Hysteric-al baying to the moon over that map subsides.

Brett: By the way, I sent a message to RealClimate
this AM:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
# Steve Rowland Says:
1 April 2008 at 9:15 AM

Just look at the responses to this article�all marching in lockstep.

Here is an article you published in 2007 regarding ocean warming. AccuWeather has posted the latest temperature anomalies on Brett�s Global Warming blog and its certainly an anomaly. Reply: Steve, keep in mind, it is just a one day "snapshot".

This is your article from 2007:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=436

Lets see how you spin it for 2008.

Neanderthals hunting in SUVs killed off the mammoths

Arguments have raged over whether climate change or hunting by humans is what drove the beasts to extinction and the answer, it seems, is a bit of both. Climate change decimated the last remaining populations and hunters delivered the final coup de grace.

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13569-humans-in-the-clear-over-mammoth-extinction.html

Steve Rowland / bt,

In my profession, many analytical measurements are made on a routine basis, both lab-based and field instrument-based. If we find a sampling bias or error in the analytical results (this can be due to a sampling bias, analytical, or human error), the results are discarded. The firm doing the sampling or the analytical lab end up eating the cost and are usually required to resample after correcting the problem be it human, analytical, or mechanical.

It seems to me that this same process should be initiated with AGW measurements. If the data are bad, throw them out and deal with it, instead of "cooking the books".

(BTW, "cooking the books" in the environmental field can land you in prison.)

There has to be a mistake, I could not see the expansion of the oceans from the sea level rise and please color the water red to make some of these folks happy. If you want to see this red map contact Al Gore at www.getrichfastandquickwithahoax.com

Hi Brett,

I discovered that the original map I generated was not quite right due to the fact that the yellow +0.5 +1.0 colors were closer together on the color wheel than the blue -0.5 -1.0 colors. This caused proportionally more yellow to be removed than blue.

I have updated the image in the same location with a fix to make the +/- symmetrical. It doesn't change things tremendously, but there is more yellow now than in the original image. Blues still dominate, so the overall message hasn't changed.

Please replace with the more accurate version.
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=d3nhg5b_0ddz7swdc

Thx,
Patrick

Reply: your killing me Patrick!!! LOL. I will see if I have time to do that, it is 1130 pm right now, I still have to finish these comments and post a blog for tomorrow before I drive out to Indiana again at 730 am to finally bring home my wife and new daughter. It's been a long day and tomorrow will be even longer. Take care, I'll be back Friday. Brett.

Jeff: No thunder stolen. TSI representations are not calculated the same.

PH's map is very useful. Thanks!

Studying it, I see an intriguing trend. Many of the warm anomalies occur close to land, while the cold anomalies occur in the deep sea or low-density areas. I notice pocket warm spots at the mouths of heavily industrialized rivers: the Mississippi, the US Northeast, the Sea of Japan, the Mediterranean, Caspian, Black, and Aral Seas, and the Persian Gulf. Hong Kong and the Koreas seem to be exceptions.

Does the Heat Island effect apply to sea temperatures, too? Maybe a real meteorologist could dismiss what I see as inconsequential blips. Please enlighten me.

Bob Tisdale,

What is your source for TSI? Your plot appears to differ from what NGDC and LASP show. Neither of them show the peak in the early 2000's as being larger than the circa 1980 and circa 1990 peaks.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irrad.html
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite.jpg

Steve Rowland,

In response to your comment relating to my comment on ICECAP:
"We don't have Skeptics stating conclusively that we are heading for a period of cooling, only that it appears so. AWG Hysterics, on the other hand, have already cast their lot that we are heading into catastrophic warming and they/we have to save the world."

I want to direct you to the latest ICECAP web site graph (March 31, 2008 story by David Archibald) of reported as well as predicted temperatures up until 2030:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ARCHIBALD_TEMPS.jpg

My point is this graph up to the present time shows the temperatures in the 1930's that seem to be higher than today's. This is in direct contrast to what we see in the CRU data I referenced in my earlier comments. That alone makes me question the reliability of that temperature information. Then looking at their forecast of temperatures for the next 20 years. They indeed are trying to indicate cooling trend is expected but it is only based on one variable - the sun's solar cycle. My problem with that is their arguments against AGW always seem to criticize the emphasis of AGW side on placing all of their cards on CO2 for their global warming yet those on the opposite side only seem to rely on one variable (i.e., the solar cycle in this case) to make their points. My biggest complaint is that both sides seem to ignore the fact that there are a number of complex variables that are affecting the global temperatures and not just one simple correlated variable. It's just not that simple.

The nearly level to slightly cooling temperatures since 1998 are due to the fact that natural cycles are trying to come down but the unnatural events like the addition of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and others (increasing urbanized landscapes) are countering that natural trend. The general temperature trend for the next several years is indeed slightly cooler, but as long as the downward trend does not compromise the general upward trend (simple drawing a line of the minimums of the 100+ CRU year record - by the way this is what Mr. D'Aleo has agree is more appropriate based on my emails with him) the increasing temperature trend is still in effect and validated. Then the issue becomes problematic when the natural and unnatural cycles begin to allow temperatures to rise again sometime in the future. Similar to two waves phasing into one large wave of increased temperatures which is what happened back in 1998. It won't happen right away but those cycles will again come into phase sometime in the next 10-20 years and we could see temperatures being much higher by 2030 if that happens.

Hi Ranger Chris,

It looks to me like a lot of the bright red areas can be explained through industrial pollution. There is a persistent area of red near Japan, which has a very high density of nuclear power plants that dump their heat into the ocean.

Another ongoing area of red is in the North Sea, which has a lot of oil drilling and is famous for a persistent layer of Arctic Haze - i.e pollution from the petroleum industry.

Certainly the industrial areas around New Jersey and up the eastern seaboard seem to contributing heat to the nearby ocean as well. Also the mouth of the Mississippi.

Human induced warming appears to take many forms besides CO2.

Hi Brett,

Enjoy your days off and your family!

The next frame (26 Mar 2008) of the animation can be found on page 8 of:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

and it seems to show an erosion of that warm finger of warmth poking out from the coast of Peru.

Jeff: The two links you provided start in the mid to late 1970s, where my data begins in 1860s.
It's not TSI data you're seeing in my graphs but an attempt to simulate "apparent" TSI. It's not TSI but average and weighted-average TSI based on a five year lag. That is: To simulate the different response times between land and sea, I listed two sets of TSI data in a spreadsheet, side-by-side, then shifted one down five years. Those are the thin lines on this graph.
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=9bg48o&s=3&capwidth=false
The bold curve is the average.

The second curve I illustrated was area-adjusted to account for the difference in sea and land surface areas. Where:
Area Adjusted TSI =
(TSI*0.3) + (TSI that's been Shifted 5 Years*0.7)

http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2a6l65v&s=3&capwidth=false

Source of the early TSI data is Lean et al:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

I used the data without the background.

Source of later data is ACRIM:

http://www.acrim.com/RESULTS/data/composite/composite_acrim.res

Dave H:
I'm' certain there are others who see it differently, but I perceive LaNina as a 'weather event'. Some would argue it is a climate event as it is a regular occurrence, although inconsistent.

My comment regarded the fact that per AGW doctrine, the world should be seeing continuous warming from CO2, oceans should be getting warmer (and sites such as real climate make every effort to use the data show that they are) thus my comment that "According to AGW proponents, this should not be happening". Accordingly, winters should be much milder and summers more scorching, etc, etc. The comment was in relation to the cooling oceans, not to LaNina. Tkx.

Paul:
I am certain you are aware of the old adage that 'one can quote statistics to make statistics say anything.' I would not dream of accusing anyone of 'cooking the books' per se, however, as PH has noted there seems to be some, ah, 'fudging' going on at least with Hansen whom PH seems to deride at every opportunity...:-)

Thus let's replace 'statistics' with 'data' and you get the same idea. When AGW proponents (I call them Hysterics) prattle on about the 'science is settled' and you can go to the following,

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

for an article that uses the same data but the scientist sees a different connotation, then you begin to get the idea....I'll leave the rest up to your own common sense.

I agree, if the data are bad, any conclusions drawn from that pod of data is worthless. Tkx.

I don't see how Jeff's post of the TSI image doesn't make people think twice about the influence CO2 has on the climate. The correlations are soooo much better and there's nowhere near the same amount cooking required...unless of course it's an April fools joke....

Hi Dennis,

Hansen reported in 1999 that the US was warmer in the 1930s
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif

Current GISS data shows that Greenland and Iceland were warmer in the 1930s.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040630003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040300000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

In order to understand upwards trends, have a look at the upwards manipulations in the GHCN database.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/rawurban3.5_pg.gif

As you can see, most of the claimed global warming over the last 50 years is due to artificial data manipulation. Even worse is that the UHI adjustments often go in the wrong direction.

It is incomprehensible to me that any technical person would take the warming data seriously. It is deeply and severely flawed.

Steve Rowland,

I've heard two different versions, both of which may have an application in the discussions.

1) Statistics, or How to Lie with Numbers

and

2) Remember, draw your line; then, and only then, plot your data.

Bob Tisdale,

Are you assuming that that LST lags 5 years behind the SST or that the SST lags 5 years behind the LST?

Dennis Hlinka:

Thanks for your response: I received an interesting e-mail from Mr. Bastardi a moment ago pertaining to your original post which I will copy and paste at the bottom of this message.

Possibly I did not make my point clear, so I will try to do it a little more in-depth: First let me say that I do not believe that either the AGW Skeptics or AGW Alarmists have a crystal ball which shows what the future portends. My comment was that the Skeptics are not saying "Thus Spake Zarathustra"...they are not sprouting off half-cocked crackpot schemes and scams to save the earth from the coming ice age. On the other hand, the AGW Alarmnists are sitting in corporate offices scheming upon how this scare/scam can be capitalized upon. The absurdity of carbon credits/offsets are so devoid of mind they don't even merit reference, also I understand that Al Gore now has solar panels on the roof of his energy guzzling home in Tennessee...did he actually hook them up to anything or are they just there for show?

The graph you reference is part of a complete report by Dave Archibald on the effects of solar cycles. I have read this interesting report several times and have made reference to it also in several posts. I certainly don't have the knowledge to indict the data used to create the graph, so I would ask you, is Archibalds conclusion erroneous? There are several other graphs there for addressing Mr. Archibalds work, are they also suspect? Since I cannot answer this, lets look at the 20 year projections.

As I said, I detest 'projections', they are normally the purveyance of fools who knowingly use suspect technology to create the path they believe the world roll along in the coming years. As I have said before, Mother Nature is fickle and her weather and her climate are fickle, and many times I believe she spouts outrage and creates weather to deliberately confound the soothsayers.

We have had one year, 2007 where the global mean temperature has shown a marked decrease. Of course, locally this has not been the case, but we are talking average. This is what I would think is a major thing considering the many governmental temperature kiosks set in urban area parking lots giving inaccurate readings to comprise an �average�. So what IS the �avarage�? What is the actual �zero� mean line on the graph where we can accurately establish just where the negative scale begins and the positive scale begins? Is the data really accurate? It the readings are from mostly urban areas, naturally one would see basically �average� temperatures in the winter-time and grossly above temperatures in the summer-time where the effect of surrounding structures and even the housings of the thermometers affect the readings.

�The nearly level to slightly cooling temperatures since 1998 are due to the fact that natural cycles are trying to come down but the unnatural events like the addition of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and others (increasing urbanized landscapes) are countering that natural trend.� I can agree that urbanized landscapes contribute to temperature increases, just how much is another one for the diviners. Take a look at the invited lecture by Tom.V. Segalstad to the KTH International Climate Seminar, Stockholm back in 2006. It is a PDF documant so you will need to do a Google search �What is CO2 Friend or Foe?� look for the pdf in relation to Segalstad.

What are �unnatural cycles� by what are these established? You seen to be saying that when the natural cycle �wave� and the unnatural cycle �wave� interact producing a resultant wave that is warming is the problematic cycle? But what actually is �unnatural�? Measurement of CO2 is highly suspect and is more and more coming under fire as the AGW debate expands. Certainly there is AGW out there, the problem is with only a 1 degree rise �projected� in the next 100 years, why should we go back to the days of horse and buggy?

On reference to the solar cycle, you thus basically seem to be saying that the cycle will not be as severe as in the past due to the affecting 'unnatural' cycle? Personally I simply don't beleiee that CO2 has that great an effect on any AGW and this position is held by some very reputable scientists. We can wait and see, but to hear the Hysterics tell it, half the population will be dead due to AGW.

This is the e-mail received from Mr. Bastardi: Mr. D�Aleo forwarded my e-mail to him in which I copied and pasted your original post:

I was forwarded an email by Joe D Aleo concerning someone ripping me for not debating.
This guy misses completely the point I am making, which IS CALLING FOR DEBATE which many including
myself have challenged the vice president to many times.

It is typical of people of his ilk to simply make up a story. If you wish let him know from me that I am currently
looking at sticking 44k of solar panels and wind power generators into my house. I dont know how he
doesnt understand my point is to flush Gore into debate and hopefully with me on this issue, not to run from
it.

Mr. D�Aleo and Mr. Bastardi both appear to dispute your comment that ICECAP is not open to dissenting opinion.

thanks, Steve Rowland

Steve Rowland,

Where is there this hatred towards one guy (Al Gore) coming from. This same hatred thing happened when I started talking with Mr. D'Aleo of ICECAP back in Novemeber. I never even brought up Al Gore's name in my scientific querries to Mr. D'Aleo but the initial responses I received would start tearing into Al Gore just like you did in your comments to me right now. Why is that? Is it the mantra of the anti-AGW group to villify Al Gore in order to make your points more valid? He is just a messenger and not a scientist. By the way I noticed you easily criticized Mr. Gore's intentions on his solar panels but did not questions Mr. Bastardi's. Why is it OK for you to question Al Gore's intentions of his environmental improvements, but it's assumed that Mr. Bastardi intentions are good without question. That seems a little hypocritical.

I want to make clear I never want to have his name mentioned again to me in any responses to my scientific questions to this web site. Just the facts. OK?

Going back to Mr. Archibald's temperature plot, and many other like that on the ICECAP site seem to adjust the temperatures by taking out the effects of urban environment, etc. and that appears to skew the results to make it appear that it was relativiely warmer back in the early 20th Century than presently. The problem I have with that is that when looking at the physical changes of glaciers and general icemelt based on historical pictures does not seem to support that argument.

There is evidence of more glacial retreat now when compared to back in the latest temperature peak back in the 1930's. So to try to show a graph that has warmer temperatures back in 1930's then currently is counterintuitive based on physical evidence. To arbitraily take out man's influence of urbanized landscapes does not match what the Earth's changing phusical environment is telling us.

The natural temperature cycles (due to solar, ocean temperatures, volcanoes, etc) I mentioned are quite evident in the CRU temperature record. There appears to be a general 50-60 year natural cycle. The wamer periods were in the 1930's and 1990's and the cool periods were around early 1900 and the 1960's. In keeping with this natural cycle, the present cooling trend will likely reach a minimum around 2020 and the next warming trend will peak around 2050.

The unnatural cycle again comes back to the influence of the CO2 increase and I envision it as a gradually increasing sloping curve with the increased concentration. There are obviously other natural and unnatural cycles but the idea is that as the natural cycle curves up and down and the increasing unnatural curve continues to increase (an amount that can be debated of course), there will be periods of higher lows and higher highs as the cycle curves (or waves) phase in and out together.

In other words the temperatures will generally cool (or remain flat if the unnatural influences increase) for the next 5-10 years. Using the approach approved by Mr. D'Aleo, drawing a straight line along the minimums from the early 1900 and 1960's, the minimum would fall down to around 0.1-0.2C range. If that is true then it would still only fall down to the maxes seen in the 1930's. If the temperatures remain at the level and not fall below them, then the upward trend would still remain intact and the next neatural move is upward.

After that minimum, temperaratures would increase (just based on the natural curve) again in the 2030 time period and maxing out around 2050. Using the same straight line approach but this time with the maximums in the 1930's and the 1990's, the temperatures would peak out near or above the 1.0C range.

Therefore fact that we are in a natural cooling trend for the past 10 years and that the actual temperatures have been steady to only slightly cooling during that time tends to make me believe that the increasing CO2 (and other man-made changes) is having an influence that tends diminish the natural minimums while enhancing the natural maximums.

This makes more sense to me when I look at the CRU temperature plot and not the plot I see from Mr. Archibald, espcially when I relate it to the physical changes of the glacial melt during that time period.

As to the comments from Mr. D'leo, I will just let it slide since both he and I know the actual emails that were sent.

Obama justl ost my vote. I read in the paper that he desires to have Al Gore head up his Global Warming effort.

I think I may not vote at all...

"Therefore fact that we are in a natural cooling trend for the past 10 years and that the actual temperatures have been steady to only slightly cooling during that time tends to make me believe that the increasing CO2 (and other man-made changes) is having an influence that tends diminish the natural minimums while enhancing the natural maximums."

Dennis,
There are some problems with your kind of thinking. First, the IPCC projections (taken from the General Circulation Model) did not project any cooling - whether the models runs were in 1998, 2002, or 2006. All showed warming that went well beyond any natural cooling cycles. Secondly, CRU is not the best fit for the IPCC projections - NASA GISS temps are. Either GISS is correct NOAA is correct or Hadley is correct. And why would we want to trust Hadley? Just last week they discovered an "uncorrected anomaly". This anomaly was present for at least 12 months, but they waited until now to readjust their findings. What else is going on? Who knows, for Phil Jones refuses to release his code.

The current La Nina induced cooling was something the IPCC said cannot happen. A 0.7 deg C drop in global temps over a period of 12 months caught the entire community off guard. The oceans have been cooling for 5 years according to Willis, an oceanographer from the Jet Propulsion Labs. This again goes against the prevailing AGW theories. It is very unscientific to say that AGW tempers natural cooling when natural cooling isn't suppose to be occurring at all. GHGs were suppose to trap heat energy in an endless loop of positive feedbacks, and were suppose to more than compensate for any natural cold spells.

mr hinka,

with all due respect, al gore is profitting from the AGW scam...Al gore says solar panels cancels out and justify's his excessive co2 lifestyle...Al gore wants to redistribute wealth causing unnecessary suffering to the masses, based on a theory with weak legs...Al gore and his ilk are lying, making false movies and books to promote the scam... al gore talks the talk, but doesnt walk the walk...in a supporting role, many AGW scientists are using faulty and inaccurate temperature data and hiding it, or refuse to debate "JUST THE SCIENCE"...MR. bastardi calls to question the science behind AGW, its promoters and benefactors, not profit from it...what i'm suggesting to you mr hinka is if you dont want to be associated with al gore, stop defending him...have a nice day dude...

Dennis Hlinka:

Since you brought up this �hatred� of Al Gore, I will address this first:
�Hatred� of Al Gore? I think it more a disdain. You are correct, Gore is a �messenger� and not a �scientist�, but if you seriously consider Al Gore a reputable �messenger�, then I believe that says it all. If you seriously believe that the modus for total capitalization upon this AGW scare towards continual warming is not already in place then your are surely na�ve, whether you are scientist or a climate educated layman. Al Gore, whatever his positives may be, is a charlatan and a scam artist, and if you want to consider what appear to be deliberate falsehoods in his �docudrama�, a liar. His excuse was that he needed to �over-dramatize� to convey the message of how serious the issue of AGW actually is. I don�t have any feeling for Al Gore other than a source of a good laugh and don�t put yourself in this category by suggesting that AGW Skeptics need to vilify Gore to make their points more valid.

I easily criticized Mr. Gore�s intent because the flip came about due to criticism of his �do as I say, not as I do� attitude Before he had the panels installed. How do you envision Mr. Bastardi is going to get wind power generators INSIDE his house? Ever heard of satire? So don�t presume to call me a hypocrite. Now that I�ve got that out of my system we will dispense with the mention of Gore�s name in any further discussion, just so you know where I stand on that.

Pertaining to your analysis of Mr. Archibalds temperature plot, my response is, and has been, that if any data adjustments being made that skewers the result up or down makes for a worthless study. If this is, in fact, what Mr. Archibald is doing, then I will try to get in touch with him and invite him to respond on this blog if he so desires. I believe ALL pertinent data should be considered to obtain a true picture of the matter. I believe Patrick Henry responded to your post also in the matter of the data graphs and how he feels they have been manipulated. I will let you respond to him concerning this.

Glaciers are advancing and retreating all the time. During the summer most will be retreating, during the winter most will be advancing. The world is not in a 'glacial advance or retreat' because each glacier is Independent. For example, the Antarctic �retreat� has occurred at a discontinuous rate over the past half century. According to reports, the past five years have seen claimed, rightly or wrongly to have been the worse, with glaciers moving back about 50 meters annually, faster than any other time period since 1955. There Were Some Exceptions, however, as 32 glaciers showed modest advancements. 32 glaciers show �modest� advancements. So notwithstanding reports, how can a �modest� advancement mean a retreat? Which glaciers are you conferring in your data as retreating? Cherry picking? Where did your data begin, we can go back to 1850, but that is not a positive for AGW so we usually only go back to the 1900�s. It is misdirection to suggest that �physical changes of glaciers and general icemelt� purports to ALL glaciers, if your do so, you are incorrect. Thus how does selecting the glaciers that �supports� AGW theory provide any real conclusions?

The Greenies told us coal power plants were terrible things because they reputedly caused methyl mercury poisoning. That morphed to carbon because, low and behold, to save the planet, we must use mercury-containing lights to save the planet. How do you dispose of yours? Corn was a terrible crop because it caused the dead zone in the Gulf. Now to save the planet, we are all for ethanol. Take a look at the whole biofuel craze. Not only is it at best energy neutral, it seems to result in dirtier emissions (but less carbon, by Al), the result is a serious increase in food prices. This doesn't really affect us �wealthy� Americans and Europeans, but it is creating serious problems in the third world.

I understand your reference to �natural� and �unnatural� cycles just wanted a better definition of your take. Is the CRU your �physical� evidence? Can�t comment until I know what you mean by �physical evidence�. Are you taking other data into account?

On the unnatural cycles, that is subject to debate already and there is plenty of dissent, especially that CO2 is the culprit. I will let this pass for now.

Pertaining to the balance of your response, what do I say? You are making a �projection�, so I am in no position to refute such. Basically projections are something to be debated ad nauseam as there are no winners or losers until the projection comes to pass. Climate �projections� are in a period of nearly zero reliability, I�de rather take a trip to Vegas and play the lowest odds slots before making one.

I won�t debate your conclusion, as it is similar to the generally held AGW theory. My only dissent is just which glaciers are you using for your �model�?

Thank you, Steve Rowland

Al Gore has just donated 2 million euro's for his project to spread the word, on Global Warming. That is all of the proceeds from his movie. He is already a succesful businessman, and has not taken a dime for himself. If you don't like the message, attack the messenger? This proves nothing and says less.
KIPP

Sammy k,

Dude, you just made my point. None of my comments to Mr. Rowland were stated in any fashion of defending Al Gore. All I was asking is why is there appears to be a double standard when it comes to questioning data? Mr. Bastardi is allowed to question data but I am not? I am trying to look at both sides of the scientific debate but it is really getting hard when all I keep reasing in the reponses to my questions are "Al Gore is the devil". How does that make me understand the issue better?

JP
Thanks for your fully scientific reponse. In regards to my comment on the tempering of the natural cooling, I thought I was hearing a number of points recently about the global temperatures generally leveling off since 1998 as being some sort of victory against the AGW crowd. My only point is that the trends and forecasts I read on the ICECAP site were all tending to indicate a more dramatic cooling would be occuring during this last 10 years. So my point was that since there is a recognizable natural cooling trend since the 1990's (based on the CRU curves) and the forecasts are for cooling, yet the actual temperatures have basically leveled off, wouldn't that sort of indicate an influence of some added heat to maintain a level temperature? I am just trying to look at the bigger picture and not trying to get lost in the minutia that tends to confuse more then enlighten.

If my conjecture is right and global temperatures only cool down to the 0.1-0.2C range in the next 10 years, it would more than validate the preposition of an added heat source and a continuing uptrend of the temperature graph through the next 30-50 years. I don't think the IPCC ever said that the natural cycles of temperatures were completely turned off. We don't have that much control of the climate yet.

JP,

In a follow up to your comment on using NASA GISS data instead of CRU data, I did some earlier research using this GISS data.

I wanted to look at representative surface station data without the potneital errors as the result of poor siting. I went to the web site called SURFACESTATIONS.ORG: http://www.surfacestations.org/USHCN_stationlist.htm
and identified all Class 1 sites in their compiled list of stations in the U.S. I was able to identify 16 Class 1 stations.

I then went to the NASA GISS web site: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data

From my review of the temperature graphs of these 16 Class 1 stations, I counted 11 temperature plots that trend upward, 4 neutral temperature plots, and 1 negative. An example of one of the plots is attached below for Ft. Myers, FL: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425747960010&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

The Ft. Myers temperature graph looks very similar to the CRU temperature plot I referenced in my earlier postings. It also clearly shows the natural 50-year cycle that I identified with the CRU chart. Despite all of the concerns about the CRU chart reliability, the basic pattern in both charts appears to be a good match both on a relative and temperature range basis.

My other point is that there was a clear majority of upward trending charts.

Steve Rowland,

An example of my physical evidence goes to picures of the Boulder Glacier and the Grinnel Glacier taken during the last warm period in the 1930's and the current period.

The first Boulder Glaicer photo is from 1932:
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=ig42_Boulder_Glacier_1932_02.jpg&title=Boulder%20Glacier%20(1932)&cap=BEFORE%3A+Shown+above+is+a+picture+of+Boulder+Glacier%2C+taken+near+Boulder+Pass%2C+Glacier+National+Park%2C+in+1932.++The+foreground+rocks+provided+an+excellent+reference+point+to+re-photograph+the+historic+photo.+NEXT+IMAGE%3A+Boulder+Glacier+%282005%29+Click+to+enlarge.

The second Boulder Glacier photo is from 2005:
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=ig42_Boulder_Glacier_2005_02.jpg&title=Boulder%20Glacier%20(2005)&cap=AFTER%3A+Boulder+Glacier+photographed+from+nearly+73+years+later+from+the+same+place+as+the+1932+photo.+The+foreground+rocks+provided+an+excellent+reference+point+to+re-photograph+the+historic+photo.+Click+to+enlarge.

The first Grinnel Glaicer photo is from 1938:
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=ig42_Grinnell_Glacier_1938_02.jpg&title=Grinnell%20Glacier%20from%20Mt.%20Gould%20(1938)&cap=BEFORE%3A+An+Oblique+view+of+Grinnell+Glacier+is+taken+from+the+summit+of+Mount+Gould%2C+Glacier+National+Park+in+1938.++The+relative+sensitivity+of+glaciers+to+climate+change+is+illustrated+by+the+dramatic+recession+of+Grinnell+Glacier+while+surrounding+vegetation+patterns+remain+stable.+NEXT+IMAGE%3A+Grinnell+Glacier+from+Mt.+Gould+%282005%29+Click+to+enlarge.

The first Grinnel Glaicer photo is from 2005:
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=ig42_Grinnell_Glacier_2005_02.jpg&title=Grinnell%20Glacier%20from%20Mt.%20Gould%20(2005)&cap=AFTER%3A+The+lake+continues+to+enlarge+as+the+glacier+recedes.+Icebergs+can+be+seen+floating+in+Upper+Grinnell+Lake+in+this+photo+taken+in+2005.+Click+to+enlarge.

My point is comparing the photos from two representive warm periods shows that this current warm period has had a much more dramatic effect on the glaciers. So the adjusted temperature records that try to show that this current warm period is cooler than the 1930's period does not appear to match the physical record.

Kipp

Gore is not a scientist, Gore will not debate anyone on this. In my opinion, if you will not debate what spews from your mouth, you should not be saying it. Him spending more money on ads, or euros for getting his message out is nothing more than an investment for him. Al Gore is absolute joke and a hypocrite.

Dennis Hlinka:

Thanks for the photo's, I need to look over them and will respond as I can. Spent too much time here today. :-)

I don't know why my posts are suddenly showing the $#^*&%#@$ sheesh! They are basically indecipherable.
Hope you were able to read it without to much trouble.

srr

Dennis Hlinka:

Well, from my own viewpoint, I can respect your conjecture based on the data you used if it is truly reliable data, I believe the question of reliable data is the basis for the entire debate thus if the data could be shown to be irrefutable, then a lot of this debate would disappear one way or the other. I will look forward to 2018 if I am still around as I will be 64.

You, of course, as everyone else is allowed to question data. I believe as more accuracy and more reliable data is obtained, a better understanding of the issue obviously will come about. There is AGW warming, this is irrefutable, but just what type and what is the forcing factor is the question.

We've agreed to leave Al Gore out of the issue in further discussions. :-)

mr hinka,

thanks for the response...i have never said you brought up al gore in your conversations with mr daleo...however, it does appear you defend him in your comments to mr rowland...at least thats how i read it...if that was not your intention, then i can accept that...as far as comparing glacial advance and retreat, glacier movement is extremely complex, resultant from a whole host of variables...simply, taking a picture from one time period and comparing it with another without knowing the extent of these variables is tenuous...assuming its temperature related could be mistaken...same can be said about drawing temperature comparisons from one time period against the other, specifically, when all the variables are not known....have a nice day, bro!

Dennis Hlinka,

On the surface, your analyses look fairly compelling. However, How much melting of these two glaciers had taken place prior to the 1930s? In other words, what did the glaciers look like in 1860? How far had the glaciers retreated from their maximum extent during the Little Ice Age?

There is a way of finding out and it has been done on other glaciers. This method has shown that numerous glaciers had retreated more prior to the 1930s than since.

Dennis:
What are the dates of the phots you link to?

Hi Dennis Hlinka,

The "adjusted temperature records" go in the opposite direction from what you are saying. GISS and GHCN adjust older temperatures downwards and recent temperatures upwards.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

Here is a quote from the US Weather Bureau - November, 1922.

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Patrick Henry,

The adjusted temperature graphs I was referring to are the one(s) that are typically placed onto the ICECAP web site like the one I am attaching (Mar5ch 31, 2008 story):

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ARCHIBALD_TEMPS.jpg

I seriously question the data in these graphs since they never seem to match the physical evidence like the melting of the glaciers in my earlier post. The idea that we had higher temperatures in the 1930's while the glaciers were much bigger than they are now flies in the face of reality. I just want to present this information for you and others to think about and to prove my ideas wrong if you find other contradictory evidence.

By the way I also found another interseting web site for the glaciers in the Swiss Alps:
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/glacierlist.html

The following site is for one of the glaciers:
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/glaciers/allalin.html

This site provides interesting time lines of the glaciers advances and retreats and espeically the cumulative retreat over time since 1881.

PDM,

I do not know the actual dates of the photos. Maybe they are presented somewhere on the site I attached, but I think they only have the years listed.

Paul,

Showing photos of the glaciers from the late 1800's, if they even exist, would be left open to question since worldwide temperatures were cooler than they are now. Look again at the attached CRU temperature curve: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

Also look at my comments to Patrick Henry above regarding the Swiss Alp Glaciers.

In my never ending search for more information I just discovered this summary graph of glacial retreat for a number of glaciers over the world over a range up to 400+ year record. In most cases, the glaciers were more advanced in the late 1800's (as expected during the Little Ice Age) compared to the recent time period. However, some of the glaciers in Norway and New Zealand did show some glacial advance in the recent 20 years.

Looking at the GISS temperature plot for Bergen, there was some notable cooling from 1990 to 2000:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634013170000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

But the overall temperature plot for the 100+ year record seem to match with the overall glaical retreat during that period. It's nice to see temperature and physical data match so well here.

However, the New Zealand temperature data does not to seem to match too well with the recent glacial advance, but it does still correlate with the overall temperature increase with glacial retreat over the long-term record:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=507939870000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Dennis, you may want to track precipitation patterns in New Zealand as well as temperaures. Temperatures can rise and fall, but without precipitation there can be no growth in ice. This is especially true for high altitude glaciers where the temps remain below freezing even when there is warming.

Dennis,

Let's try this again. In 1860, the earth was just beginning to come out of the Little Ice Age (with apologies to Dr. Mann) and the glaciers were most likely at their maximum recent extent (recent being in human terms). The maximum recent extent of the glacier can be found by looking at the locations of the terminal moraines.

For instance, look at Figure 6-1 in this reference. You will notice that circa 1760-1780, Glacier Bay was completely filled with glaciers. By 1860, the glaciers had receded some 50 km all without our help. Then in a mere 20 years, the glacier in Reid inlet had receded over 30 km back up the inlet. Again, this rapid melting was accomplished without the intervention of humans and large influxes of carbon dioxide.

What I'm getting at here, is that the retreat of glaciers has been going on for 250 years or more and for some reason only now is important. Looking at photos out of context and saying, "See how bad it is?" is disingenuous, since the retreat of the glacier was initiated over 200 years ago. Now you're trying to blame the entire process on humans.

Dennis,

Observation: If you take an icecube out of your freezer and put it into the refrigerator at 40F, it will begin to melt. Come back later, and the icecube is still melting. Would you conclude that the refrigerator got warmer?

Same is true for earth. As the ice ages ended, the glaciers (big icecubes) began to melt. In what is observable history, the ending of the Little Ice Age has caused glaciers in marginally cold areas to melt. The melting has been observed for about 150 years.

The ending of the LIA is like taking the icecube out of the freezer and putting it in the refrigerator. The melting will continue until an equilibrium is reached at the new temperature level, but that continued melting does not mean that the temperature level continues to rise. It only means that the equilibrium has not yet been reached. Obviously cyclical variations in temperature affect how much melting occurs in any time period, but I would contend that continued melting of glaciers since the end of the LIA is not evidence of continued warming, but merely the long period of time required for equilibrium to be reached.

Paul,

I don't think I ever said that natural occurrences are not happening and that everything we see, even in the current temperature oscillations, are only the result of man. In fact I think I have been going out of may way to make that point of a combined effect very clear. I am only trying to get you to think of us adding to those natural ocillations to a degree that is becoming noticeable in the recordable data and physical world.

Trying to put it another way, during the time of the world before man was ever around, yes the world temperatures and other geological events were changing all by themselves. As man has been added into the world, we have changed the landscape and added things into the atmosphere that were not there before, yet the natural events went on with little noteable influence. As time has gone on we have continued to inhabit other areas of the world and made ever more increasing changes to our environment, the weather patterns and events started to change in localized areas.

There comes a tipping point where the overall exponentially increasing population and pollution changes man has incorporated into the world that these previousluy localized weather changes will begin to have larger areas of influence. Whether or not we are at that tipping point is where the scientific debate can continue. But to simply try to say that all these temperature increases and glacial retreats that we are observing presently are all just due to natural occurrences alone because they were occuring all by themselves in the distant past is also being very naive.

Is it really that hard to picture an enhancement of the natural temperature oscillations with an added bias to the upside? Of course if we ever get hit by a naturally occuring asteroid, then all bets are off.

Steve Adams,

Would I conclude that the refrigerator got warmer?

I guess I would if I happen to have a thermometer in there that indicated that the temperature was rising. The thermomers of the world have been increasing over the last 100+ years along with the retreating glaciers. What other conclusion can I come up with?

Veets:
Well that was an intellegent assessment. Tell me why you hate Al Gore so much, and exactly how he stands to benefit from his sharing two hundred million Euros, or three hundred million dollar's is not a scientist, and may be wrong about Mount Kilimanjaro.But when the ice melts, and the heat is not reflected back , where does it go. To the moon?
KIPP

Dennis,

Man isn't the only creature/living thing/non-living entity that has contributed to the atmospheric chemistry for good or for bad.

Examples, the introduction of cyano-bacteria really screwed up the anoxic atmosphere of the Archean. Yes, we not quite sure what was living back then as they didn't leave much of record, if any.

Cambrian explosion. Amphibians. Terrestrial life (vs. marine prior to that time). Grasses. Dinosaurs. Volcanoes. Deccan Traps. Siberian Traps. Columbia Flood Basalts. Yellowstone Volcanics. Meteorites (especially the big ones). All of the above have contributed to the atmospheric chemistry in one way or the other.

In each and every example the earth adjusted. It's adjusting to the minuscule amount of carbon dioxide we are now contributing. The earth is dynamic, not static like the AGW crowd thinks, yearning for the good old days. Scare tactics are not going to help.

Dennis Hlinka,

Sorry I can't provide a link at the moment, but if you are as fascinated by the advance and retreat of glaciers as I am, you should try to find stuff about the retreat of a glacier in Greenland which exposed remains of a forest (or at least thicket) which dated from the MWP. It happened last summer and generated a brief buzz in the news.

My eyes pounced on the story because Mann's way of shrinking the MWP had effects on how people saw the Viking colonization of Greenland. I've always had a fascination with those crazy Norse sailors, and noticed a revision of history, regarding what was possible for them to achieve in Greenland. For example, it became sort of politically incorrect to say they somehow got cows there, because Mann's data said it was too cold for cows. Vikings went from being these big brawny guys in ships big enough to transport cattle, to these wimps and weenies transporting bleating sheep. I even read a thing which said the final survivors in Greenland were extremely malnourished, and were less than five feet tall.

I tried to be scientific and objective about this change in the status of Vikings, but down deep something in me objected to my heroes being turned into Hobbits. I suppose that is why my eyes lept at the news of a retreating glacier uncovering branches and stumps. I've done enough research to know trees are very rare in Greenland now. The fact trees could grow up this glacial valley during the MWP proved Mann might be wrong about how cold it was. This in turn raised the possibility Greenland Vikings might have been taller than five feet, which I approved of.

In any case, good luck with your research. It's amazing what you can learn from a hunk of ice.

I hate Al Gore because he is a politician that is parading around playing make believe that he is a scientist. He is acting like this is a noble cause for him, like he is tryign to save the planet, but that is BS, if he wanted to save the planet he would not be emitting so much CO2. His lifestyle does not match what he is saying. He uses scare tactics, clever photography, etc to convey his "belief." Whatever he spends he will make back and then some in royalties from his book or his movie, or in appearence fees, or in trading carbon credits or whatever. He has made himself the poster boy of this, how does he stand to not benefit from advertising? Wait to see the commercials and ads, see how much science is involved, or if they pull the ol' polar bear cub floating on a tiny chunk of ice bit.

When the ice melts (like it has in the past) the earth will do what it will do, and then it will get cold again, and then it will get warm again... there is a pattern. It happened before, how ignorant of us to think we can prevent it.