I find it remarkable that someone in the UK can tell me that the freezing %$#@ weather we have had for the last year in Canada is above normal; our normal ten weeks of winter on Vancouver Island has extended to over five months this year (still frost yesterday morning...). Why does funding by DEFRA make these folks more reliable than folks funded by Exxon/Mobil? Oh wait, the UK fiscal year started on 1 April, so the new budget had to be justified! Maybe I'm just getting cynical (brought on by North America's first carbon tax).

Reply: They are looking at a much longer time period as a whole, not just last year.

Three questions in my little pea brain:

For what period of time do we have reliable, directly measured global records of this sort?

Is it possible for us to know whether or not the temperature trends referenced in this article are unusual compared to the actual variability in the last few thousand years or so?

Do we understand all the natural climate drivers well enough to confidently declare that recent tempurature trends cannot be attributed to natural variability?

Just wondering.

Not surprising that they picked 1950 as the start date, because it was near the bottom of a temperature dip. Nearly every temperature extreme record was set prior to 1950, and they conveniently ignore data which negates their thesis. The Canadian record high temperature was set in 1937. The Asian record was set in 1942.

The Met is batting close to zero on predictions (hot summer last year in the UK,) so now they have switched to rewriting history - brilliant use of public money.

Temperature records by continent
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html

World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya Sept. 13, 1922 - 136
North America (U.S.) Death Valley, Calif. July 10, 1913 - 134
Asia Tirat Tsvi, Israel June 21, 1942 - 129
Australia Cloncurry, Queensland Jan. 16, 1889 - 128
Europe Seville, Spain Aug. 4, 1881 - 122
South America Rivadavia, Argentina Dec. 11, 1905 - 120
Canada Midale and Yellow Grass,
Saskatchewan, Canada July 5, 1937 - 113
Oceania Tuguegarao, Philippines April 29, 1912 - 108
Persian Gulf (sea-surface) Aug. 5, 1924 - 96
Antarctica Vanda Station, Scott Coast Jan. 5, 1974 - 59
South Pole Dec. 27, 1978 - 7.5

Interesting note at the end of the press release:

"The 2003 European summer heatwave caused between 22,000 and 35,000 heat-related deaths and approaching 13.1 billion in agricultural losses."

Remember boys and girls: Weather isn't climate -- unless it's consistent with global warming.

'The total area exhibiting positive trends is significantly greater than can be attributed to unforced natural variability'.

Nothing untoward about this report. The planet has been warming since the last PDO/ENSO change but where oh where does the above statement come from. What they are saying here is that if the planet warms naturelly it warms only in patches. That's ridiculous. Why do they feel the need to alway stick in a human global warming phrase.

Oh I know, to keep the funds flowing.

Just of the top of my head, maybe this is cause by the urban island effect? How many of those temperature sensors used to be in rural areas are now in urban or sub-urban areas? Reply: Good question.

4. The total area exhibiting positive trends is significantly greater than can be attributed to unforced natural variability.
This is patently false. A cursory look at past climate variability shows this happened many times in just as short a time span.
The rest of what he says can just as easily be attributed to natural causes unless you have an agenda.

Received October 2006, Accepted December 2007, Published March 2008

Either the graphs which show no average global warming since 1998 are voodoo or someone is lying.

Besides the global evidence since the 'study' was submitted appears to contradict the study.

2005: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202498.html

Late last month, a team of University of Colorado and NASA scientists announced that the Arctic sea ice cap shrank this summer to 200 million square miles, 500,000 square miles less than its average area between 1979 and 2000. And a scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined that sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico were higher in August than at any time since 1890, which may have contributed to the intense hurricanes that struck the region this year.

"At this point, people shouldn't be surprised this is happening," said Goddard atmospheric scientist David Rind, noting that 2002, 2003 and 2004 were among the warmest years on record.

Many climatologists, along with policymakers in a number of countries, believe the rapid temperature rise over the past 50 years is heavily driven by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities that have spewed carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere. A vocal minority of scientists say the warming climate is the result of a natural cycle....

Global temperatures this year are about 1.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.75 Celsius) above the average between 1950 and 1980, according to the Goddard analysis. Worldwide temperatures in 1998 were 1.28 degrees Fahrenheit (0.71 Celsius) above that 30-year average. The data show that Earth is warming more in the Northern Hemisphere, where the average 2005 temperature was two-tenths of a degree above the 1998 level.

2/10 a degree 'warmer' back in 2005, head north guys, the sky is fallin'!

In the last 50 years there was an ice age predicted. In the middle of the 20 century the world was going through a miny ice age, Dark Ages.
When temperatures are warmer man does better, health wise. Cold kills more than heat or warmth.
I hope its warming, man or sun.

folks check out Anthony W's latest post at climate audit for some interesting info on "adjusting" the temperature data.
I'm beginning to think that a lot of the temp data has no credibilty what so ever ... that is it can't be used to look for fraction of a degree changes when the range of error is +/- a degree or more.
Brett do you know if there is a euro equivalent to Anthony looking into the quality of the temp data in that part of the world? Reply: I am not aware of any.

From Dr. Jeff Mathews blog on Weather Underground:

Why did we see a cool winter, if global warming is occurring? (2 answers)

It is important to understand the difference between weather and climate. Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get. What we experience in one particular season or year is "weather". Weather has a large variation from year to year, with cool seasons and years mixed in with warms ones. "Climate" is the weather measured on scales of tens of years or longer. One cool winter or year is not an indication that the climate is cooling back to normal. The climate is warming, and unless we see a series of several years of cool conditions, this year's cool winter merely represents a normal fluctuation of the weather. Relatively cool weather is to be expected globally during a strong La Ni�a event in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, and relatively warm weather is expected during an El Ni�o event. We shouldn't expect to see record warmth for the globe unless an El Ni�o event is occurring.

Why did we see record snows this winter, if global warming is occurring?

Beware of global warming skeptics trumpeting record snowfalls this winter as an excuse to doubt that global warming is occurring. One should primarily look at global temperatures on a scale of decades to judge the validity of global warming. Dr. Ricky Rood, who writes our Climate Change blog, put it this way in his current blog, Creeping Onset of Spring and in an earlier blog, Water, water, water:

This year has been very snowy in the northern hemisphere. That it is snowy does not suggest that it is colder. If it gets warmer, it does not mean that we no longer see freezing temperatures in places like Michigan. If it gets warmer there is more water in the atmosphere, and when there is precipitation there will be more precipitation, and if it is below freezing, then that precipitation will be ice and snow. The high mountains near the coast, like the Cascades and the Sierra Nevada would expect more snow. This is also true for the high altitudes parts of Greenland and Antarctica. From a climate point of view it is more important to look at snow cover in the late winter and early spring. Is the snow melting earlier?

Obviously Dr. Mathews is not a skeptic, however, you guys might pay a visit to his blog and give him a bit of Skeptic....:-)...

EXACTLY what data are the Hysterics using to say we are still warming as opposed to the EXACT data the Skeptics are using saying the world has been cooling since 1998.....does one override the other? Dr. Mathews states its till warming even if it has been cooling.......

Everyone put up or shut up! This is getting ridiculous!

Hey, Brett, please drop those two Denver posts if you will, they were off subject and I would rather them not be there unless you see something worthwhile, otherwise, make them disappear. Thanks, Steve Rowland

Reply: Oh, now you tell me!! LOL

More proof of GW at NOAA

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/national.html

We have such a small set of climate data -- barely 120 years of actual measurement -- that it's very hard to support any claims of extreme weather being on the increase.

That 120 years of real data is for only a small portion of the earth. We have quite a bit less for most regions of the world and in fact we still have no direct weather data measurement for most of the earth's surface.

The fears of man-made climate changed are based on about 30 years of warming, but that warming stopped a decade ago. The last 10 years has shown a slight cooling, but that may be a meaningless short-term variation. The actual climate record during the last 120 years shows many up-and-downs. The frame of reference is much too small.

The 1950's were part of a cool period in the 20th century. Is that a good reference point? Would we have different results if we used the 1930's or 1920's as the starting point?

If we chart the estimated global temperature with the starting point approximately 8,000 years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum, the chart slopes downhill, with a noticeable and undeniable cooling trend.

Brett - Off topic:
I became aware of an effort by Friends of the Earth to pressure Houghton Mifflin into revising a high school textbook it publishes because it didn't declare man-made global warming as settled science. There is even a letter from Dr. James Hansen supporting Friends of the Earth which should erase any doubts as to his lack of scientific objectivity.

This might make for an interesting thread. I'm sure it will ignite the passions on both sides of the AGW debate.

Here are the links:
First Friends of the Earth press release:
http://action.foe.org/pressRelease.jsp?press_release_KEY=358

Second, Dr. Hansen's letter:
http://www.foe.org/textbook/Hansen_Letter.pdf

Reply: I'll check it out Rick. Thanks.

So Much for Global Warming February 20, 2008
By Phil Brennan

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=552E34BF-D7DC-4F6B-B5DA-92F40FCFDFF6

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

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

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

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

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

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

more.....

Brett,
My tunnel idea can regulate these temperatures back down if we need to. Who do you know that may want to computer model the tunnels to prove it??? Reply: I don't know anyone in that particular field. Most of the people I hang out with are fellow meteorologists who are not computer modelers. Sorry Patrick, you are barking up the wrong tree in this case.

I have been watching some of the Al Gore`s group ads running on television and it is all about climate change. I find it disingenous and dishonest not using global warming in their wording. If they really believe that AGW is occurring why are they so reluctant? Also, I believe all temperature readings around the world that does not have credible supervision by licensed statisticians should be declared null and void.

Hey, Rick Ressler: (looks like i'm hogging the blog)

Thanks a LOT for the links, even though they are off subject as mine tend to wander, they are very interesting. Looks like ol' Hansen and others are not trying to pressure school systems, at least this one, to toe the politically correct AGW line. It is obvious from reading Hansen's letter that he and his ilk prefer NO contradictory media be given in the public schools that might cause students to QUESTION AGW.

As BT stated in am earlier response, he believes the science of AGW is 'settled' as "The point is that arguments put forward in support of AGW are, in fact, the best that the world's scientific community can offer in this first decade of the twenty-first century. If they are flawed, those flaws will themselves be demonstrated through good science."

I believe any open minded person would have to agree with this as far as the furtherance of 'science' is indicated, however, the problem is that AGW proponents are so certain of the certainty of global warming that they have thrown caution to the wind by insisting that not only that the world at large conform to their particular religion but that this religion be taught in the public schools without any counter arguments.

Since Skeptics have been branded as 'religious' and their arguments, even with evidence 'religious', looks like we are going to get the same position on AGW, 'can't teach religion in the public schools'.

PH has totally debunked this story. Also no reply= true

My biggest concern about reviewing previous temps worldwide is their accuracy. If somebody polled me I would have to say I have absolutely no faith that the system to measure temps is accurate at all. As an example, our local temps are taken at the airport. I do not know if this was always true, but at one point the airport was considerably smaller or not there at all. So if it was the same location all these years the environment around that measuring station is significantly different. I know without any doubt that the temps measured at the airport are no where near the same at my house on a daily basis. I live in a rural environment whereas the airport is now surrounded by large neighborhoods. In fact, I completely blow off any measurements taken from that airport with regards to weather at my house. As an example, our daily lows are much lower than at that airport. I can read -30 at my house whereas they might see -18. I check the weather during the winter around 11 each night before I check on all the barn animals. I can look at the sky and see every star in the universe and know the night will be extremely frigid.

If we can't have any certainty about the temps being used to build a case for global warming or even global cooling, we can then only be looking at short-term signs of change and making guesses. I have lived all over the US during my lifetime and at best all I can say is that I have seen yearly swings in the temperatures depending on where I was living at that time. Last winter we started seeing more seasonal temps during the winter. Feb was the coldest they said in 60 years. This year the winter came earlier and has stayed later and had considerably more time hovering in the frigid range and we had considerably more wind associated with the frigid weather. I would not expect in my lifetime to be able to string enough years together to see any cause and effect based on the existence of man. A human life is just too short.

I am always amazed when researchers make these sorts of pronouncements. It just seems so conceited since the data is over such a small time frame.

The sad thing is I know that these people know that the statement should be made with a gigantic asterisk. Yet, they are always treated as fact.

It really furthers my understanding that AGW is not about science but rather societal modification. To what end I am not certain.

Interesting study. I'm not sure how much the NAO can influence Siberia or the interior of Canada, but since we are talking of the NAO, it has been in a positive phase at least since the 1975, probably as early as 1968-70.

Since 1975 both the NAO and PDO have been positive. And since 1995, the AMO, NAO, and PDO have been positive.

a new quasi-global data set indicates that extreme daily maximum and minimum temperatures (>98.5 or <1.5 percentile)

Interesting choice of words taken directly from the abstract !

I wonder if a statement like ........... Normal range temperatures (>50 & <98.5 or <50 & >1.5 percentile) have remained statistically stable since the 1950's ............... would garner as much interest ? ? ? ?

After all, changes in anomolies in the both extreme 1.5 percentiles, is hardly significant with error margins exceeding +/- 3-5 ...............

This is really geting to be crazy with all this made up stuff. The same people who act like they want to save the earth sure are not afraid of screwing up everything now. The Global Warming hoax has caused, increased fuel prices, food shortage, increase in food prices, increase in everything prices, blood pressure rise!, made the goofy people goofier, and pretty much are trying to overtake the country, enough already!! Countries record high temps anywhere from 30-100+ years old, why? Well lets ignore that and continue to march forward with the scam, du-duh-da-duh-duh-duh -duh-du-du-du/du-du/du.

Robert Buttery:
Your myopic view of the world is astounding. Anthropogenic Global Warming is here, and you are the first to welcome this. What about the farm belt becoming a desert, and the deaths due to disease from insects. We Americans only look out for ourselves, and the heck with the rest of the world. We are ten percent of the population, and use one fourth of the earths energy. So here is another article about warming trends and no one seems to notice.
KIPP

See what GISStemp has tried to do to influence a school text on climate
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/hansen_letter_paragraph2.png?w=510
There is no way the temp data issued by GISStemp can be trusted. The people in charge should be assigned other duties

I believe any open minded person would have to agree with this as far as the furtherance of 'science' is indicated, however, the problem is that AGW proponents are so certain of the certainty of global warming that they have thrown caution to the wind by insisting that not only that the world at large conform to their particular religion but that this religion be taught in the public schools without any counter arguments.

Since Skeptics have been branded as 'religious' and their arguments, even with evidence 'religious', looks like we are going to get the same position on AGW, 'can't teach religion in the public schools'.

Steve Rowland seems to making the very case he sought to dispute. Please note that it is Steve making the analogy between AGW and Creationism, not an "AGW proponent".

I hope it is safe for me to interpret Steve's comment to mean that Steve -- a self-described Creationist -- believes his religion should be taught in publicly-funded Life Science classes. The accusation that the theory of evolution is a religion is an old standard of the Creationists. Now, Steve seems to apply it to AGW.

I hope Damo is paying attention -- this is an example of why the AGW-contrarian = Creationist meme stays alive.

The only folks wanting to introduce religion into the teaching of Life Science are the Creationists. The reason that Creationism is not allowed is that it is religion, not science.

When skepticism about AGW is accompanied by good science, I am confident it will not only be allowed by welcomed. I invite Steve to offer evidence where good science, skeptical of AGW, was disallowed in any science classroom.

Steve Rowland:
I'm glad you found the links interesting. I think it is astounding that Dr. Hansen would support an effort to re-write text books whose content is really not controversial. AGW IS an unproven hypothesis; I'm sure Houghton Mifflin will be glad to re-write their discussion of it if Dr. Hansen would simply offer scientific proof. But, the fact is that he cannot.

Dr. Hansen and others act more like they are on a crusade to muzzle anyone who challenges their theory. That is certainly not a scientific approach as no new knowledge will be gained if we accept a hypothesis and revere it as though it were a physical law.

His letter clearly puts him in the "activist" camp and discredits him as a scientist.

Kricki,

I agree. Check this out.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-56/#comments

We only have a few decades of actual data. Before that, everything is estimated through various proxies. None of those proxies can show information about extreme weather events.

"Rick Ressler:
Brett - Off topic:
I became aware of an effort by Friends of the Earth to pressure Houghton Mifflin into revising a high school textbook it publishes because it didn't declare man-made global warming as settled science."

If the science is settled
why do they need a radical advocacy group?

Kip Alpert: One moment, please. You shouldn't be throwing stones. Your math is terrible, which only reinforces the silliness of your predictions of blight and pestilence.

U.S. Population (July, 2007) = 301 Million
Global Population (March, 2008) = 6.6 Billion

Let's see. Where's my pad and pencil? 301 divided by 6,600 equals what? Oops, forgot to carry the 2. That's 4.6%.

Please give us credit, where credit is due.

Regards

I would like to see the same study done on the previous 50 years to see how they compare. And one done for 100 years.

I'm sure someone out there reading this would be willing.

Kipp says Anthropogenic Global Warming is here.

My BEEF with AGW goes to the very heart of this debate - CO2. How much of a role (if any) has CO2 played in AGW? It should be a simple - yet important question to answer. Important because we are about to elect a President who believes in some sort of carbon offset.

But the problem is that it's not simple because nobody knows. So if we don't know how much of a role 0.0087% CO2 has contributed to global temperatures, how the heck can we determine how much $$carbon$$ to fairly offset?

What calculation will we use to make a percentage based determination for these offsets? How much of a role EXACTLY has CO2 played?

As an emitter of carbon, and out of all fairness, I think this is an important question to answer. Don't you?

Is there any science to determine this?

Man-made CO2 has contributed (x) to global temperatures, therefore the offset will be (y).

There is no answer to (x). Therefore the science is NOT "settled."

Not only that, we are mired in cooler temperatures despite all of this (microscopic) man-made CO2.

So if 0.0087% CO2 is NOT effecting Kipp what so-ever, how can it have a "significant" effect on the rest of our BIOsphere? Anyone? ____________________________________________

-In 1816, physicians believed that bleeding our first President would help with his "simple cold."

-In 2006, a Vice President believed that bleeding our economy would help with the earths "fever."

What the heck were they thinking?

Go Bruins! Your Canadians are going down Brett. (Although I wouldn't bet on it ;) Reply: We will see. A lot of parity in the NHL this season.

jep, Kansas -- What are you talking about? There has been an exponential increase in extreme weather events since 1950.

http://www.environmenttimes.net/article.cfm?pageID=122

Most is climate related (no significant increase in volcanoes and earthquakes.

Heat waves, droughts (famines) floods, hurricanes, fire storms, etc. all way up. High correlation to climate change, while more data available also a factor.

It is those radical leftists, insurance companies, that are most concerned about climate related extreme weather. http://insurance.lbl.gov/

Or look at the cost of home owners insurance in Florida after the 2004 hurricane season.

I wonder is Hansen has shot himself in the foot (re letter to FOE above:rick). Its now impossible to have any credence in data produced/manipulated by GISSTEMP. The data dyscrepancies with all others (NOAA, HADCRUT, RSS UAH etc) indicate this to be the case but time will confirm it.

Rich, thanks for the link. That location sure is a confidence booster.

I have asked many times if the Al Gore supporters would feel better if the planet was cooling instead of warming. I hate the heat but would have to vote for heating over cooling. It is what the 10th of April and normally there would be a few signs of spring, but not this year. We didn't get the heavy snows with the latest blizzard, but did get the heavy rains. Thank goodness the frost was out or we would all be floating.

Creationism, Intelligent design, etcetra, are not 'science', thus have no place in a 'science' classroom, nor do they forward any better understanding of the matter than evolutionary science, notwithstanding. Creationism is religion. Unfortunately there is no scientific 'counter' to because the consensus decrees that new knowledge only furthers evolution. This is the only 'science' existing.

Evolution is the 'best science has to offer' which, and it is woefully inadequate but unfortunately it is all science has to offer. Evolution IS also a religion, period. It is a belief system where the proponents put their faith in 'analysis of the fossil record', sic, among other things, to tell us what happened during the so called millions and millions of years in the past. Just as there are anomalies in nature that completely defy evolutionary theory, there are anomalies in climate that completely defy climate theory based upon its 'analysis'. Creationists actually understand and have no real argument with evolution, per se. 'Kind' is a very simplistic but apt description of 'classes' of animals who do not 'evolve' into another kind. Horses do not become cows and cows do not become hogs. This is simplistic but it is the rule completely through the spectrum. The evolutionary 'tree of life' is a complete fraud. Adaptation within a kind is not evolution and evolutionists have shown no evidence whatsoever of one 'kind' evolving into another, or any transitional fossils other than their conjectured 'analytic observations' with evolution as its focus.

'Analyzing' data relative to evolutionary science is more than likely going to arrive at a evolutionary interpretation of that data. Analyzing data relative to pro AGW is more than likely going to arrive at a pro-AGW conclusion. Analyzing data relative to anti-AGW is more than likely going to result in an anti-AGW conclusion. Suggesting otherwise is simply belied by the observed results. THIS is observable.

The current 'save the world' from AGW crusade is exactly that: a crusade. Anyone who denies the religious fervor of that crusade and its proponents is simply naive. The environ mentalists are simply of that clique who were unable to get off the ground with other schemes of fear to get the populace to take notice of the worlds plight concerning the oceans, eliminating the rain forests, and the like. These are the primary problems we have in the world today and we should be focusing on THESE things, and things we can control and redemnify, rather than the fears that a 1 degree rise in temperature in the next 100 years might mean canibalizm will be prevalent upon our great grandchildren due to all the shortage food, etc.

The very appreciable difference between the above comparsion, notwithstanding the protestations of AGW proponents, nothing has been conclusively established that CO2 is the cause of global warming, nor climate change. Those proponents can shout their platitudes to the rooftops, but the end result is that they BELIEVE they are correct and Skeptics are not, and they believe this with a fervor, and they beleive the science is with them with a fervor. 'Peer reviewed' opinion is just that OPINION.

Hansen and his ilk prefer AGW to be taught in the public schools with no conflicts or counter points. This is obvious from Hanse's letter and the crusade of others to try to produce a change in the current textbooks in the noted link. Unfortunately for them, they appartently fail to note that those counter to AGW use the same science and data as those trying to further AGW. The analysis is simply different but no less scientific. Skeptics are acccused of deliberately lying, misinterpreting, and outright fraud to cloud the issue.

Unfortunately the 'contarians' message to counter AGW is 'science' notwithstanding the opinions of self-avowed Hysterics. However attempting to equate Skepticism with Creationism is an obvious attempt to suggest that contrary arguments and interpretations to AGW are not 'science', thus have no place in a science classroom. It's ALL religion, however, and environmentalism was a religion long before Skepticism came about.

THAT was the intended implication in my post above, and until the earth decides to conform to AGW theory, the matter is certainly not settled in any way shape or form.

Now, summer is nigh, let's see what happens this summer to the icepacks, the glaciers, lets see if the global average remains constant or cools further. Possibly the recent downswing is simply preparing to swing back up as the other peaks and valleys in the data....one thing is certain we WILL see one way or the other..

Kipp,

What about the farm belt becoming a desert, and the deaths due to disease from insects.(?)

What about the farm belt deserts and deaths due to disease from insects? How about some references documenting the desertification of farm belts and the insect-induced disease? Or is all this predicated on computer models? Hmmm?

We may have our 2nd sunspot of Cycle 24 coming over the sun's horizon. See here and here. Dos this signify the end of Cycle 23 or is this another false start? Stayed tuned for the exciting conclusion, climate change fans.

AGW hasn't brought extreme temperatures, but the IPCC has brought us extreme food prices.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=428913

In the US, AGW alarmists warn us that "global warming" will cause water shortages in the west.
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/clark/2008/april2008.jpg

Their solution is use huge amounts of western water to grow corn for biofuels, which depletes western reservoirs and starves the rest of the world.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein

For BrooklineTom,

http://www.comcast.net/news/articles/science/2008/04/08/God.Particle/

Temperature and observed effects of the patterns of weather of many centuries and epochs vary. Observe history and the mini ice age that occurred during the middle to latter part of the last century. One speculation is that Antarctica's iceberg melt-break off is from increasing oceans temperatures. How is anyone so certain that this is not just a localized phenomena in that part of the world such as El Nino/LA Nina? Antarctica's interior regions have been growing in ice-shelf thickness, not decreasing. Who is to say that geothermal ocean activity is not to blame down there, such has been observed in the Arctic's melting. The weather, geo-activity and the sun's activity are far more powerful than man. Scientists must rule these factors out 100% before sticking with the current global warming theory, which is just a theory like anything else postulated in this writing. Observations must continue before dogmatising a theory into a fact that needs to be quickly remedied. That could be compared to a doctor treating a disease to a healthy patient that has none!

The real environmental concern that should be focused upon by the world governments is the chemical injection of materials into the seas and rivers, the continued demineralisation of the soil, and the dilution of the health content of our food supply as a consequence thereof. These are tangible problems that can be corrected by going to holistic farm management, by prosecuting polluters and finally going to existing fuel alternatives that are being suppressed by powerful forces.

Hi BT,

I seldomly pay much attention to probably half of what is said here.

I thought we had agreed to disagree? Of course there are creationists debating the issue - just as there undoubtably are agnostics, atheists, deists, animists, rastifarians (well, probably not the rastas as the argument when blasted on skunk weed would be more likely to revolve around who pays for the pizza), etc. also debating it.

My point was that it is a meme repeated and hurled as an accusation regardless of the philosophical POV of the smearee and that scepticism of AGW itself (not the argumentative technique of the sceptic) is oftentimes (and frequently) compared to a creationist or "flat earther" argument. Just ask Al Gore.

Now we can chase each other's tale on this round and round or we can stick to the "agree to disagree". I'd prefer the latter as its becoming somewhat tedious.

I dont understand why accelerated global warming would lead to a more unpredictable climate. Having read a link on here which made sense, energy (heat) is transfered naturally by weather systems from the tropics to the poles, as the latter receives less energy from the sun.

An argument I have heard by those who support the theory of AGW is that it will result in greater temperature rises in the poles than any other region of the Earth. If this is the case, the argument I read suggests that the energy gradient between tropics and poles will be lower which will reduce the occurence of systems such as hurricanes which help to transfer heat energy. Therefore, if temperatures more strongly in the poles then that should result in a more stable global system.

gettingcolder,
What evidence do you have that global warming has increased heatwaves,droughts,hurricanes,"firestorms?",flood,famines..a food shortage could be the effect of using food as an alternative fuel,"you think". Can you show some records of weather from 1800-1950. I bet that heatwaves, droughts, hurricanes, wildfires, famines have occured before the Global Warming Hoax came into existence. Maybe not as much was recorded, no T.V to blow a 2" snowfall into a blizzard, no T.V back then to show destruction of properties, no T.V to brainwash, no liberals on T.V saying look what you folks are doing to the earth and abide by our rules in this free country, point being it happened then to, just the commucation factor was not as it is now. Hey I'm going to have some ocean front property in the Appalachians and from my front porch you will see the sea and if you buy that I'll throw the Chesapeake bay bridge in free.

gettingcold,

The reason we hear about more disasters now is because we have 1,000 TV stations and the Internet.

When I was a kid, we had one or two TV stations. Every once in a while some news would come through about 50 or 100 million people starving to death in an Asian drought, or half a million people getting killed by a typhoon in Bangladesh.

Now we hear about it every time someone in Ohio thinks that they spotted a butterfly a day earlier than last year.

It is called information overload - not climate.

Greg, I wonder if warming would make both the tropics and the poles warmer, but the poles warmer by a somewhat greater proportion.
There would still be a substantial difference in temperature.
If that were the case, there would still be a lot of global weather systems transferring heat from the equator to the north and south, but over a warmer ocean.
Those systems doing their thing over warm water with a lot more energy available, could produce some powerful results. I'm not suggesting tropical cyclones specifically, but more heat energy from the water might make for some very interesting weather and a decidedly less stable climate.

Just my $.02

DC

rick,

thanks for the link...typical AGW style tactics...because they cannot convince anyone over 25 with an inkling of common sense to drink the snake oil, opting instead to try and traumatize litte kids who dont no better, just so they grow up fearing the earth will melt down if they dont drink the snake oil...that dude at the National Adjusters for Special Adjustments needs to get his Asparugus canned...have a nice day, bros

Here's an interesting site, chronologically listing extreme weather, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and such, worldwide, since 79 AD.

Extreme everything has pretty well been the normal way of life for folks on the planet for the last 2,000 years. Folks back then just took it in stride and carried on.

Today's fearmonging Left wouldn't have cut the mustard in those days and would have sat around, all depressed 'cause no one would pay attention the their "this just isn't the way it's supposed to be, so you better start thinking like I do" politically correct attitudes.

http://www.islandnet.com/~KPOLSSON/weather/weat1805.htm

I use both Accuweather and the Met for my local weather forecasts which works for me, usually.

Looking at the Mets seasonal prediction we get this:

UK forecast for Summer 2008

Temperature
Mean temperatures are more likely to be above the 1971-2000 average. However, there is a slightly enhanced chance of cloudier and cooler spells.

That is at first sight fairly unhelpful, but on reflection what would it read if it was the 1979-2007 average?

Anyone know?

Patrick Henry maybe?

Is this a case of spinning and misleading the public?

Josh and Patrick --
Josh, you asked for data. That is why I included the link to the graph. Clearly exponential growth in climate related extreme weather events.

Patrick -- The article discusses that a fraction of the increase is related to more info, but the control is that the number of volcanoes and earthquakes haven't increased.

I wonder if extreme deniers even read before denying?

How is the weather in Fort Collins today? It tells us all we need to know about global climate.

gettingcold:

Bogus analysis by the article attempting to sort of compare reporting of earthquakes and climate *disasters" to prove exponential increase in climate extreme weather events. More nonsense. Earthquakes can be reported by seismographs, which doesn't require eye witness accounts, i.e., humans. The first practical scale for measuring earthquakes was developed by geologist Charles Richter at the California Institute of Technology in the 1930s. Plus earthquakes, at least so far, aren't caused by us driving SUVs or are they????

Extreme weather events as determined by humans need to affect humans otherwise they are not disasters. Basically, humans are living where they didn't before (do you think there is a population difference in the Western U.S. between 1900 and 2007?)and I don't have to tell anyone about the overhyping of weather events by the media. Now it is like OMG, OMG, there's 2 inches of snow on my driveway, what will I do! what will I do! I get calls during the winter (I live in PA) from my relatives on the west coast worrying about me being snowed in and will I make it through the *blizzard* because of the media reporting. I am then forced to look outside and report back we only have snow flurries. Pathetic.

Hi DC, that makes sense to me too, I hadnt thought about it like that previously. Do you think that would mean that the areas of water sufficiently warm to provide sufficient heat for perpetuate hurricanes cyclones would extend northward and southward from the equator?

gettingcolder,
Here in the Mid Appalachians today where I live it was white this morning and yesterday morning and that is from snow in April, sounds warm huh...

Hi gettingcold,

Volcanoes and earthquakes are huge events which generally occur in very limited areas that have been understood historically for as long as man has inhabited the planet. We have excellent historical records going back to Pompeii and earlier - with great amounts of detail. Of course the base line is stable for these types of events. Volcanoes don't pop up suddenly in the middle of Kansas.

On the other hand, floods can occur anywhere and anytime. I've seen them happen twice in one day in the southwest. It is ridiculous to compare reporting of these events to fixed entities like earthquakes and volcanoes.

The weather in Colorado is lovely today, though we have been averaging 5 degrees below normal this month and have been below normal 12 out of 14 days. BTW - there are more weather stations within 10 miles of my house than Hansen has for the entire Arctic.

Sometimes I wonder if AGW advocates bother to think.

Gettingwarm,
The Enviormental Times isn't what one would call an objective bystandarder. Ditto for insurance companies. The insurance companies would love to increase property insurance rates across the board -AGW would actually be a boon for them.

Also, the idea of AGW causing "extreme weather" is a rather recent fantasy; the IPCC never mentioned before the 2007 AR.

JP: 'Also, the idea of AGW causing "extreme weather" is a rather recent fantasy; the IPCC never mentioned before the 2007 AR.'

Really? Did you check that?

Similar to Adam Smith's observation that capitalists left to their own devices will inevitably conspire to fix prices, get a bunch of denialists together and they'll start making easily disproven factual claims.

Is a politically-motivated dislike of climate science necessarily linked to dishonesty? It would seem so.

Brett, it appears that the largest remaining Canadian ice shelf is poised to take a dive. Re Antarctica, there's a new paper describing how the large King George VI ice shelf (in the same area as the Wilkins ice shelf that lost a big chunk a few weeks ago) is being undermined by warm currents. If you did a post on this Patrick could entertain us by making up some explanation about how it could be happening what with all that sea ice in the way.

Steve Bloom,

By all accounts from the article you posted melting of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf is nothing new. BTW, temperatures in most of northern Canada were considerably below normal this winter.

Also,
Which appears more concerning, the fact that NH sea is around .25 million km below normal or that SH sea ice is around 1.5 million km above normal? NH sea ice is running around 1 million km above last year.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg

The point, iceman, is that they're going fast. I expect the shelf ice would have enough thermal inertia that it wouldn't respond quickly to a single cold winter as the sea ice apparently does. That would make the ice shelves a rather more reliable indicator of warming than the sea ice.

Re the sea ice, as I've noted before, the trend in the southern sea ice is both is slight and statistically insignificant while the more important statistic about the northern ice is that it's a lot thinner than last year (meaning that there's less of it even though the area may be greater at the moment).

Remedial glaciation lesson.

Glaciers move when enough snow falls at their head/center to generate the pressure needed to melt the layer contiguous to the earth beneath.

Antarctica is bounded by the ocean. Snow and ice at Antarctica are accumulating and nearing modern records.

Antarctic glaciers calve into the sea because they have nowhere else to go. Duh.

No Steve, the IPCC 2007 AR was relatively conservative in thier scnario estimates. "Extreme Weather" as defined by the Alarmists is so broadly painted it can cover about anything. Climate science use to have multi-decadal and multi-century timeframes. That is no longer the case. Now, seasonal or even monthly events are used as yardsticks. No longer is global warming the subject - Extreme Weather is. Dumpster diving for extreme weather events seems to be the order of the day.

No, JP, the order of the day seems to be more like prattling on about the IPCC's treatment of extreme weather without having looked to see what the IPCC actually said. Two points contrary to what you said:

1) Extreme weather was discussed in some detail in the 2001 TAR, not just starting with the AR4 in 2007. I suspect the prior assessments mention it as well, although I didn't check them.

2) The IPCC has used a consistent definition for extreme weather. You might want to look that up.