Interesting reading, but the comment I have is that the article 'assumes' at the outset of the paper the the observed warming during the period 1970 - 2004 (which is not in dispute) is anthroprogenic. I think they would have been better off simply referencing the 'observed warming'.

The other question I have is that the references to the 'lower Polar Bear numbers' seems odd in the face of other 'peer reviewed' studies that show Polar Bear populations increasing in 7 of the nine regions in to which they are divided, while falling in two. The two regions in which Polar Bear populations have decreased have observed temperature decreases during the period (the other 7 have observed warming).

This paper outlines an extremely robust case for linking a range of observed physical and biological changes to human-induced climate change, specifically warming," says Roger Jones of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research. "Unfortunately, the coverage of such data is not global and many regions of the world, including Australia, are not very well covered. Many of the regions that lack coverage are also thought to be highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change."

The climate is always changing and the climate is supposed to change. We can blame climate change on the extinction of the saber-tooth tiger. Or we can blame the saber-tooth tiger's failure to adapt for it's extinction. Species either adapt to changing conditions or become extinct. That's the way of the world.

Studies like these are designed to confuse, trick and scare the uninformed. Nowhere is it shown that climate-change is human-induced, it's just accepted by the authors without any supporting evidence.

Human-induced climate change through greenhouse gas emissions is not a demonstrable fact but an hypothesis that is invalidated by many facts and studies. It is irrelevant that many facts and studies support the premise; all facts and studies must support the premise for the hypothesis to be scientifically valid.

Your first paragraph employs the phrase " man-made climate change". Assuming that the planet is warming (which by the way is debated by those who cite that it is too brief of a cycle observation since 1850), are you totally dismissing those reputable scientists who theorize that natural causes such as solar activity are causing warming ?? It seems to me that the insertion of your subtle "man made" adjective is not only biased but Orwellian in that if one repeats something enough times, then the masses will eventually believe it.

Reply: I am just relaying what the article is saying. Read it!

We are having one of the latest springs on record here. Mid-May and most of the trees haven't leafed out yet. The mountains are buried in snow and it keeps piling up day after day. The southern hemisphere is having it's second coldest autumn on record. China had it's coldest winter in 50 years, and Baghdad had it's first snow in 100 years. The northern hemisphere set the record for most snow extent ever recorded this winter. Antarctica has the most sea ice ever recorded.

But why worry about minor details like "reality" when you want to get published and keep your funding going?

I agree with Bill. It's not hard to imagine that most biological systems will adapt somewhat to the natural warming and cooling of earth's climate over time. To report observations of these adaptations doesn't affect my view of AGW one way or the other. We're all in agreement that there has been at least some observed warming over the last few decades. The question that remains very much open is, "why?"

I wonder what the effect on the natural systems will be when the global climate experiences its next long term cooling phase?

DC

Bill's comments above are spot on. I would add thatplants will always react to climat whether warming or cooling. One does not need to spend thousands of dollars on research to prove that plants flower earlier when it is warm and later when it is cold. If this research was meant to prove global warming then it failed by its own admission and if it was meant to prove AGW it also failed because it was looking in the right places.
So, a lot of people spending a lot of money for absolutely no gain. Ah well, perfectly normal then.

Bill: The reason that the paper takes as a given that the observed warming is anthropogenic is that there exists overwhelming evidence that the observed warming is anthropogenic. Anyone who isn't sitting behind the smoke screen thrown up by corporate America is aware of this--and since Nature, a British publication, has a worldwide audience, the editors do not feel it necessary to pander to the American political right wing. A similar phenomenon can be seen in most of the news coverage of the Iran-contra scandal of the 1980s: everywhere but the US, the press truthfully stated that Pres. Reagan lied to the American public, whereas the American press felt it necessary to temporize.

The IPCC can provide biological evidence of climate warming but not manmade climate warming. They are indistiguishable biologically.

So they knew in advance what they would find? Please tell me how this evidence of "warming" equals evidence of GW?
I don't see anything that shows it wasn't a natural trend which might be linked to man's presence more than any causation due to man made GW.
It was 47 degrees here for the high last Sunday, does that prove Global Cooling?
No.
GW is a cult theory (dogma) and not science based.

Thanks once again for more of the voice of reason, and some facts to back it up.

quote:
In a news release, the Nunavut government said the U.S. decision is based on "misinformed public opinion which disregarded sound science and Inuit traditional knowledge."

"Our scientists in the field as well as Inuit elders have observed an overall increase in the polar bear population," Premier Paul Okalik said in the release.

"It is unfortunate the [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] has decided to disregard facts collected by those who have the greatest contact and longest history with polar bears. The truth is that polar bear populations are at near record levels."

It's estimated that there are about 25,000 polar bears in the world, about 15,000 of which are managed or co-managed by people in Nunavut.

end quote. That was from:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/15/bear-reax.html

DECREASE IN KRILL POPULATION-i recently read an article in one of the bay areas newspapers about the decling population-the article talked about an ice sheet that broke off in one of the bays and that the lack of the ice sheet for the krill to hide from their predators was a cause of the problem-of course the ice sheet was a victim of global warming. about 5 paragraphs later the article went on to discuss that humans began netting the krill in the 70s-it went on to say that now in 2008 that one ship can now capture as much krill in one haul as was capture durin an entire season in the 70s. DUHHHHHH!!!!!!
NEED I SAY MORE

The "conclusions" of this article are based on subjective and incomplete criteria, missing out on other factors that could cause the observed change in behaviour/environments. This alone renders this report meaningless. It also uses projections of future climate changes which have clearly been shown to be less than accurate.

Merely sounds like CYA work to back up their so called predictions. Have been doing my own research on the plant flowering times and have found it is what the weather is doing at the time as to when plants begin flowering. Cold springs and it has been later blooming while warm springs have caused earlier blooming. Once again their research here is not amounting to much in the way of science.

Jep:
How can you prove that these warming effects are not a part of the anthropocene, and that CO2 does not cause warming. Every time there is a raise in CO2 emissions there is an increase in warming. And please don't tell me about the water cycle that people love to refer to. We know there is a greenhouse effect and a water cycle that is a part of the natural Earth. How can you actually deny that from the beginning of the industrial revolution, there has been an egregious warming trend; born out from ice cores, and observed events. Can you tell me how much CO2 can be absorbed in the atmosphere before it to becomes part of the greenhouse effect. Can you tell me that when all of the snow melts, that has been observed, that the sun, the infrared spectrum, will not reflect, but be absorbed. Doesn't this mean warming. Please explain?
KIPP

I am surprised that the comments to this point don't mention the carefully cherry-picked dates. Starting the study when there was an impending ice age panic and ending it during the temperature plateau guaranteed that they would find exactly what they were looking for. This is not science, this is AGW public relations.

Mediocre and dull. These "predictions" have being published many times:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
yet the authors have the nerve to add their "me too" gibberish.

It is not like there no bright personalities, interesting events, breakthrough research around anymore. It is the media somehow tends to pick the lame ones.

HI Bill,

Can you provide the "peer reviewed studies" you refer to in your comment? "...the references to the 'lower Polar Bear numbers' seems odd in the face of other 'peer reviewed' studies that show Polar Bear populations increasing in 7 of the nine regions in to which they are divided, while falling in two. The two regions in which Polar Bear populations have decreased have observed temperature decreases during the period (the other 7 have observed warming)."

The reason I want to see those references because they seem to contradict an interesting story on the Polar Bear issue in the Washington Post this morning:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051401596_pf.html

"Part of the uncertainty surrounding the polar bears' fate stems from the fact that there are 19 sub-populations in five different countries -- Norway, Russia, Canada, Denmark and the United States -- and these groups are faring differently.

Researchers estimate that the world population of the bears ranges from 20,000 to 25,000, although the exact figure remains unknown. In Canada's western Hudson Bay, their numbers are declining, but in Norway they are on the rise.

Still, climate scientists are increasingly concerned that melting sea ice could lead to the polar bears' demise within decades. Northern latitudes are warming twice as rapidly as the rest of the world, according to a 2004 assessment, and some computer projections forecast that ocean temperatures in the Arctic may rise 13 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

In September, reports by the U.S. Geological Survey suggested that polar bears living in two of the four regions under analysis would be extinct by 2050, and in a third by 2075.

Steven C. Amstrup, a senior polar bear researcher at the USGS's Alaska Science Center, said scientists are beginning to see signs that polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea -- which stretches from Barrow, Alaska, to the Canadian border -- may be mirroring earlier declines in Canada's western Hudson Bay."

The following report backs up the estimate of the 20,000-25,000 polar bears in Washington Post story:
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/statusofthepolarbear_14thworkingmtg_iucn_pbsg.pdf

In regards to the Bush Administration's listing the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, the story quotes the Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne as saying the following:
"...the loss of Arctic sea ice in a warming climate could drive them to the brink of extinction in less than four decades.

"The fact is that sea ice is receding in the Arctic," he said. "As you can see, when we have looked at what is actually happening in the Arctic, we have found considerably less sea ice than the models are projecting. Because polar bears are vulnerable to this loss of habitat, they are, in my judgment, likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future -- in this case, 45 years."

I find the next comment by Sen Inhofe from that same story to be most interesting:
Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), a leading congressional skeptic on climate change, said that "the decision to list the polar bear as 'threatened' appears to be based more on politics than science," adding: "With the number of polar bears substantially up over the past 40 years, the decision announced today appears to be based entirely on unproven computer models."

What Sen. Inhofe fails to recognize in making such statements is that modern methods of tracking polar bear populations have been implemented only since the 1980's. So the assumption that the polar bear population 40 years ago was so much smaller than today's is based on very skimpy and most likely unreliable population data. I think that the assumption was around 5,000 - 10,000 polar bears back in the 1950's & 1960's. Yet Sen. Inhofe puts it out there like it is based on factual information. Talk about putting politics over science.

If it wasn't for the protection already provided the polar bear by way of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the several international conservation treaties including the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management Act of 2006, as well as conservation, education, and outreach agreement with native peoples, the polar bear may have well become extinct already.

I suppose Sen. Inhofe would have opposed those polar bear protections as well if he was able to vote against them. But then he wouldn't be able to make those comments about the supposed increase in polar bear population that he so proudly hails about would he? Who is in favor of reducing the required senatorial population in the Senate by one, by only needing 1 senator to represent Oklahoma? That's the kind of protection I think we can all benefit from.

Rob: I, and many who post on this blog, can run you through a series of graphs, citing IPCC references as we go, and remove natural causes of climate change from 1970 to 2000, the poster boy period of your AGW crowd. At the end, there's at most 10 to 15% left for anthropogenic warming. Papers are nibbling away at that every month. Last month there was a big bite.

If you'd spend the time to research the subjects yourself, download the data, run the graphs, actually investigate the topics being presented in the AGW trade publications and do the math, you might have a different outlook on this.

Regards

Here in the Central Appalachians where I live no trees are out in full, most have just now begun to develop little leaves Oak tree have basically done nothing yet, very small maple leaves and this is slightly behing schedule, not that there is a schedule. High temps for the most part for the past month have been in the 40-65 range and from the sounds of it alot of the country has been like this. I know, I know, global warming causes cooling also, silly me. At least all the rain has pretty much kept the pollen to a minimum.

Reply: Josh, what is your elevation?

Brett:
After reading the article and the assessment part again I find it profound how lightly some of these bloggers regard the reality of what is being said, as well as who is saying it?
KIPP

In a warmed world, many plant species will not be able to adapt, which would mean lost crops, and a serious impact on our food supply. But don't panic yet. There is an effort underway to relocate our crops to areas where they will survive in the future. The orange trees of Florida will be moved to Georgia, the peach trees of Georgia will be relocated to apple country in Virginia, the apple trees in Virginia will be moved to Michigan, the cherry trees of Michigan will be moved to Canada, and so on. This project will be known as American Liberals' Growth Oriented Replanting Effort, or Project AL GORE.

Patrick,

China had it's coldest winter in 50 years.

The northern hemisphere set the record for most snow extent ever recorded this winter.

Isn't weather a funny thing?

"Typhoon Neoguri brought torrential rains and flash flooding to Hainan, China, April 18. This was the season's earliest and perhaps the strongest typhoon to strike China since 1949."

"Snow cover extent over Eurasia during April 2008 was the lowest on record for April, following a record low March extent, and a marked contrast to the record January expanse. For the Northern Hemisphere, this month was the eighth least extensive April snow cover extent in the 42-year historical satellite record."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/apr/apr08.html

Of course the eco-system adapts to warming and cooling periods. Is this news? It doesn't prove to me that man is to blame.

In the MWP some species of plankton survived north of Iceland, and when it died its tiny skeletons rained down to the muck on the bottom. It can now be found in core samples, and is used to prove it was warmer, north of Iceland, during the MWP than it is now. Why? Because the same plankton cannot survive the cold, north of Iceland, in the year 2008.

Of course, Mann ignored studies like this, in favor of select cores of Bristlecones, (disregarding the inconvenient ones,) although Bristlecones are dormant 90% of the time. Conclusion? There was no MWP. IPCC embraced this conclusion.

In New Hampshire there is concern because the Sugar Maples are dieing in Massachusetts, due to winters that are too mild. People fear they will die out in New Hampshire as well.

However here's an interesting fact. My Native American ancestors in New Hampshire did have a word for "sugar," and colonial writing reports they harvested maple sugar, however tribes south of the Monadnocks and east of the Berkshires had no word for "sugar." In fact they held the English in contempt for their addiction to sugar (and salt.) Why? They certainly were sophisticated enough to utilize all native vegetation, but it just so happened Sugar Maples didn't grow that far south.

Henry Thoreau in fact expresses surprise, in writing dating around 1850, on seeing a sugar maple in the Weston Woods, although by that time Sugar Maples had been transplanted to many Massachusetts farm-yards and property lines.

In other words, it was cold enough during the end of the Little Ice Age to expand the range of the Sugar Maple southwards. Now that range is retreating back north. It is natural and quite normal. However certain people pounce on such fluctuations, and use them to scare little children and foolish adults.

If the climate warms it will be what is called an "optimum," and be good for everyone, (except Massachusetts sugar farmers.) But if the climate cools, it will be very hard on humanity.

The only way to scare people, and spook them with talk of "tipping points" and "large sea-level rises," is to pinch the time-period you are looking at to thirty, forty or fifty years. If you have any sort of heritage, and a memory going back hundreds of years, this sophistry is transparent. Unfortunately many Americans have no past, and are therefore more gullible.

So?

What happens when plants respond to warm weather and bloom early, only to be hit by a freeze and snow?
Did they count that too?

How about birds nesting, and then hit with cold weather and have to nest again?

I thought these people believed in evolution?

If this planet and everything on it, was so damm delicate, nothing would be here.

Here is some solid evidence of climate change

The fictional Norwegian Blue parrot - famed as the star of Monty Python's iconic dead parrot comedy sketch - appears to have once really existed.

A fossil expert has established for the first time that parrots lived in Scandinavia about 55 million years ago when the area was covered in tropical forest.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1958285/Monty-Python%27s-dead-parrot-did-exist.html

Dennis Hlinka: Here's a link to the Proceedings of the 14th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, June 2005. I don't believe they've updated it since then. Happy reading. It's 198 pages long. More info on polar bears than you could ever want. I seem to recall that they expected a 30% reduction in population by 2050 IF projections by the IPCC played out. That's threatened, not endangered. At present, the global temperatures in the 21st century are not cooperating with the IPCC's projections of a 0.2 dec rise per decade. What that does to the studies I can't say.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/rsrc/Proc_Seattle05.pdf

And since everyone knows that the current batch of polar amplification is primarily a result of the 97/98 and subsequent El Ninos, the polar bear/global warming studies are pretty much bogus.

Hi Travis,

Have a look for yourself. No need to rehash the usual NOAA press propaganda.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_daily.php?ui_year=2008&ui_day=135&ui_set=2
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh

As you know, snowpack in the Cascades and Rockies is spectacular now. Spring snow in the Alps was also extremely heavy.

David,

My issue is that, if the idea that Polar Bear populations are 'decreasing' (even though, of the 19 areas, only three are reported to have evidence of decreased Bear populations while two show increasing numbers) based on a loss of Arctic sea ice, why didn't they go extinct the last time Arctic sea ice receded, during the 1920s (Washington Post, Nov 2nd, 1922 ,"Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt" and "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." Similar, tho more detailed information is available in Monthly Weather review (http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf)

Polar Bears seem to have survived that period (since the Arctic iced up again starting in the 40s). They also seem to have survived during the Holocene Optimum 8,000 years ago as well.

The projections cited by the US Geologic Survey are based on the current crop of Global Circulation Model projections of temperatures which have proved to be less than skillful at projecting temperatures in even the short term. I'm not sure why they are relied on to project temperatures 5o years from now.

Saly:
Your last remark emphasises the problem our planet is in.The fact that everything IS so damn delicate that anything we do that is against our own evolution,and ecosystem, and environment and atmosphere has a profound effect on our future existence or ultimate demise. Maybe God created the world to see if we could survive.
KIPP

"How can you prove that these warming effects are not a part of the anthropocene, and that CO2 does not cause warming."

Does CO2 always have its roots in the activities of man? If not, how much of the rise of CO2 can be linked to man? Can a full assessment be made by developing models that frequently need to be modified? How long should a study take place to be absolutely certain man is responsible for global warming? What is a trend worth getting our nickers in a bunch about? So even if during my entire lifetime the trend was towards warming, is this really significant?

"Every time there is a raise in CO2 emissions there is an increase in warming."

I think that has been disputed. CO2 is continuing to rise even though the warming trend has supposedly ceased. I say "supposedly" because the equipment and the locations used to take temps is faulty in that quality control seems nonexistent.

Last week I watched a program about Alaska which was fascinating. The scientists were dismayed by how much glacier change there had been from about 100 years ago. They had a picture taken then and compared it to a more recent one of the very same location. Clearly that had been a significant change.

I live in a region that was once covered with ice. I guess if we could have taken a picture of that time it would be really depressing now to see many gorgeous lakes and ponds, mature forests, and gently rolling farmlands. Yes we would be much better off if Wisconsin had remained covered with ice.

I guess McCain is right in saying that even if we are completely wrong about this global warming crisis, better we should at this time start weaning ourselves of our nasty thirst for oil.

I guess I am o.k. about that, except that I tend to like to be in step with the truth that comes from long and very hard work and probably tossing aside many early assertions.

Brett, when was the earth in perfect harmony so that we can look back at that time period to make some sort of comparison?

1. The climate is always changing. Duh. It changed before mankind ever existed.
2. If the IPCC could stop it from changing and set the earth's thermostat once for all, where would they set it--what temperature is "better" than another? For which species, which humans?
3. A cooler earth would kill more of us--and other species, including food crops--than a warmer earth. Far more people die during cold spells. But plants thrive when it's hot--that's why we have jungle growth near the equator but few plants near the poles. Let's let the earth warm!
4. Where is the PROOF that mankind is able to cause ANY climate change, good or bad?
5. I don't know about you, but this is May and I'm COLD. It used to be one of the hot months of the year but May has not been hot in years. Please, TURN UP THE EARTH'S THERMOSTAT!

David,

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/taylor_polar_bears.pdf

From Dr Michael Taylor. Dr. Taylor has worked on polar bears for the past 30 years, and was the polar bear biologist for the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Territory, Canada for over 20 years.
Dr. Taylor has been a continuing member of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group
and Canada�s Federal Provincial Polar Bear Technical Committee. Dr. Taylor has
published over 50 scientific papers on polar bear related topics, has worked in the field on
most of the world's polar bear populations.

"Although two polar bear subpopulations (Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea) no longer appear to be viable due to reduction in sea ice habitat, polar bears as a species do not appear to be threatened by extinction in the foreseeable future from either a demographic or an ecological perspective. Ecological perspectives that suggest the reductions to survival and recruitment rates for two populations (Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea) have occurred because of a long-term decline in sea ice due to climate warming. These populations occur where summer ice coverage is seasonal (WH) or divergent (SB). The perspective that the impacts of sea ice reductions experienced in WH and SB subpopulations can be generalized to the remainder of the polar bear subpopulations depends entirely on the IPCC GCMs that predict continued reductions to sea ice due to CO2 driven climate change. Current and historical polar bear subpopulation performance demonstrates that viable polar bear subpopulations have persisted and generally increased throughout the current period of climate warming. The mean generation time of polar bears as defined by the IUCN/SSC Redbook criteria and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is 12 not 15 years. The time-frame for three generations for polar bears is 36 not 45 years as indicated by the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group. Based on the assumption of a linear relationship of population numbers to sea ice habitat, extrapolation of IPCC GCM sea ice predictions over a thirty-six year interval does not support the contention that polar bears are threatened with extinction over the next three generations. Extrapolation of IPCC GCM sea ice predictions over a hundred year interval does not support the contention that polar bears are threatened with extinction in the foreseeable future. Population viability analyses (PVA), using demographic estimates from polar bear populations where the data are sufficient, indicate that population status is affected by both anthropogenic removals and vital rates. PVAs that employ current demographic and removal rates indicate that most polar bear populations could sustain the current removal rate indefinitely. Management action for populations where removal rates exceed the estimated sustainable levels has occurred and is ongoing."

jep:
How can you prove that these warming effects are not a part of the anthropocene, and that CO2 does not cause warming. Every time there is a raise in CO2 emissions there is an increase in warming. And please don't tell me about the water cycle that people love to refer to. We know there is a greenhouse effect and a water cycle that is a part of the natural Earth. How can you actually deny that from the beginning of the industrial revolution, there has been an egregious warming trend; born out from ice cores, and observed events. Can you tell me how much CO2 can be absorbed in the atmosphere before it to becomes part of the greenhouse effect. Can you tell me that when all of the snow melts, that has been observed, that the sun, the infrared spectrum, will not reflect, but be absorbed. Doesn't this mean warming. Please explain?
KIPP

Kipp, I don't have to prove anything. You have it backwards. The assertion that the changes are man-made have to be proven. It's like in a courtroom -- burden of proof rests with the prosecution.

Now we all know that absolute scientific proof doesn't really exist. It's always a little iffy whenever a layman uses the term "unproven theory" (or in this case, "unproven hypothesis") because technically a theory cannot be proven, but can be shown to not be true.

Likewise, I'm sure we can nitpick the analogy between science and the courtroom, but I think it's a pretty good illustration of the point.

You're also incorrect that I'm denying the obvious warming that took place in the previous centuries. Earth's climate has been warming since the peak of the little ice age. You don't have to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner to see that.

You assume a cause and effect when there is only a correlation between CO2 and warming. I could easily point out the studies that indicate first comes the warming and then comes the increase in CO2. This is a very big fly in the ointment of AGW and is supported by the Ice Core data you mention.

The warming trend is neither egregious nor unprecedented. Don't forget the Holocene Climate Optimum, where temperates rose very, very quickly and were much higher than many computer scenarios calculate for the end of this century. That warming, as with the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period occurred entirely through natural forces.

BTW: You should quit falling into the trap of calling everyone who disagrees with you a denier. Good science requires not only an open mind, but healthy skepticism.

Caleb,
That is an Excellent post that will fall on deaf ears. The real problem is most people in the US and Western Europe just do not understand just how strong nature is. As a farmer you try to get along with her but understand that in the end she does what she wants and wins. People living in the city, suburbs or have weekend country places cannot comprehend just how magnificent but cruel, fickle and uncaring (to us) she can be.
This article is as it says is a “Summary for Policymakers” not statements of science fact. It is absolutely invalid to make definitive statements of what the climate will be in 50 years when they can’t get a 96 hour weather forecast correct (Claims of rain for central NY this past week have been just plain wrong…but it could happen today and I suppose 1 out of 7 ain’t bad)
The real shame is that politics, the grab for power and the thought of making money have over taken science as the driving force in this entire debacle. That leaves the masses to be exploited for their votes because they don’t have the will to spend the time to understand the non-science this entire theory is based on. This is going to set real science back for 100 years once the truth is realized by the masses.
Everybody wants a clean planet but the CO2/AGW religion has nothing to do with pollution or a clean planet. It’s all about power, control and money. Other than schemes to make money, “cure us of our fever” and making a few extremely wealthy it will surely end up damaging and inflicting pain and suffering upon millions.
Folks, Read, Learn and ask questions! Listen to that little voice in your head that keeps saying, “This just doesn't make sense. Just how stupid do they think I am?”

Dennis H,

According to a book I've got (Bears: Rulers of the Wilderness by Robert Elman) polar bears evolved from Siberian brown bears between 250,000 and 100,000 years ago during the Pleistocene so they have survived through quite a lot of climate change over time.

Whilst it might have been difficult to get reliable numbers back in the 1950s and 1960s they were being seriously depleted by uncontrolled hunting at that time. Thus in 1967, Canada, US, Denmark, Norway and Russia agreed to a conservation treaty and so their numbers are very likely to have grown considerably in the last 40 years.

Travis, I think Patrick's point in "cherry picking" his cold weather events is that the AGW media is clearly selective in its extreme weather coverage. He's just providing some balance.

Many in the scientific community and most in the mainstream media have already made up (and closed) their minds that human emission of CO2 is pushing Earth toward climate disaster. It's simply human nature that when you believe something is true, you will have a preference for information that supports your belief. You will also tend to ignore information that appears to contradict your belief. That's why we don't see much extreme weather coverage that might contradict AGW. Indeed, what little media coverage of unusual cold weather we see always includes an effort to somehow triangulate it back to AGW. All roads lead to Rome.

Brett, I am at an elevation near 3000'.

Reply: That explains it!

This is not science this is rubbish. I work in the mining industry. Before you can develop an ore body into a mine you have to conduct an EIS (Environmental Impact Study). One aspect of an EIS is conducting a baseline study which will include, amongst other things, water sampling of streams in the area of the proposed mine site. The purpose of water sampling is to establish what are the conditions of the creeks with regard to a number of parameters including such things as clarity of water prior to mining. Thus when you commence mining operations you know if your mining activities are affecting the streams in the area because you have established a baseline for comparison. It appears to me that in this study they have no baseline to compare there observations with and thus there conclusions are wihtout merit. Furthermore they make the assumption that the climate change is man made wihtout providing proof. This reminds me of the "Scientific Creationists" who assume God created life and then attempt to "shoehorn" the history of life into their theory as opposed to build their theory from the data present.

Ummm...Can someone please call these researchers and inform them that the polar bear populations have increased in this period of climatic warming?

Not sure about the Krill, maybe they could do a census to check on them.

You know, some of us might have a wee bit more concern if the researchers did not spend so much time validating what they THINK should happen.

Caleb,

Interesting post. Not sure if you heard, but the maple syrup production in NH - 2008 was the highest in 5 years with 100,000 gallons of syrup.

Thanks Bob TIsdale for the link to the Proceedings. It appears that I already had a link to one of the papers in those proceedings in my earlier post:
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/statusofthepolarbear_14thworkingmtg_iucn_pbsg.pdf

From that paper, I pulled together the data regarding the status and potential risk of future (10-year) decline of the polar bear populations.

Of the 19 subpopulation regions defined in that paper, 2 regions showed a severely reduced population and another 4 showed reduced population. Of those 6 regions of reduced/severly reduced populations (representing 31.6% of the subpopulation regions), 3 are showing a potential risk of future deline, 1 has no estimate and the remaining 1 (from the already severely reduced population) has a low risk.

6 subpopulation regions indicated that populations were not reduced (representing 31.6% of the total subpopulation regions), but 2 of those were indicated to have a very high potential of future decline while 3 showed a lower threat and 1 no estimate.

7 subpopulation regions were data deficient (representing 36.8% of the subpopulation regions) with 6 having no estimates and 1 having a low risk.

Based on my quick review of this data, it appears to me that a little less than 1/3 of the polar bear subpopulation region has a reduced population with another 1/3 having no estimates at this time. In regards to those areas with no estimates, who is to say that the 36.8% subpopulation "no estimate" regions don't fall into the reduced category as further ice melt continues? That would indicate that 2/3 of the polar bear population regions may be faced with further reduction in the future just based on those statistics and not even considering the results from supposedly questionable computer models?

The argument from Sen. Inhofe keeps referring back to that we should ignore all of this "hype" becasue the population has increased in the past 40 years due to conservation treaty/hunting agreements does not negate the fact that 25,000 animals could again be reduced by 2/3 back to those extremely low estimates back in the 1950's and 1960's. Doesn't that in itself warrant caution to everyone in regards to their potential extinction?

"Kipp Alpert:
Saly:
Your last remark emphasises the problem our planet is in.The fact that everything IS so damn delicate"

Kipp, you have no clue what you are talking about.

If you really believe that, then you are going to be in for a lot of huge disappointments.

The climate is not static, if it was static, we would not be here.

The paper by Rosenzweig et all appears to be a re-hash of chapter 1 of the IPCC AR4-WG2 report (Brett refers to the diagram at page 10 of the Summary for Policymakers of that report).

Now, there is one thing that is very evident: the vast majority of reported changes are about Europe. 28,115 observed biological changes out of 28,671 in total, in fact.

So the years are passing by, but the question remains: what if Global warming is just European?

They failed to make observations of a biological system very important to me - my pond.

The flyfishing for bass and bluegill gets really good in my pond at about the time the lilly pads appear. Normally they're here around the last week of April. We've had a very cool and wet spring in Arkansas and still no sign of the lilly pads. They've never been this late. Do you suppose they might add my pond to their list of natural system observations?

Anonymous:
Howdy: It seems since from your perspective I have the burden of proof, here is a link from Gary B. which explains global warming and more specifically the reason CO2 backs up in our atmosphere, and inevitably causes an unwanted warming,or AGW. But as a person could you explain to me why we are getting warmer at such an alarming rate. Do you have a lot of flies. Argumentum Pitium. Sorry.
KIPP

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0141

Saly:
At least you can give me the respect of my own convictions. And don't say that I ever was so dumb as to think that the Earth hasn't gone through cycles, or era's,or changes.Your right ,the climate and the Earth are not static.Imagine what is going on, that we can't even see. Like in a hundred years and there is not snow left in the arctic due to, Anthropogenic Global Warming. I agree with many things that Josh says about what humans will make of this,but I do believe in the Anthropocene reality.
KIPP

Have a look for yourself. No need to rehash the usual NOAA press propaganda.

Yes, why look at a long term trend when I can look at one day at a time?

Here's some more from Rutgers that agrees with NCDC:

March: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=4

April: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=eurasia&ui_month=4

I'm still not sure what to make of your link showing how Arctic sea ice extent is much smaller than it was back in 1980. I see on the map you linked that while there is more ice this year in the Bering Sea, there is drastically less in the Sea of Okhotsk, the Barents Sea, the St. Lawrence area, and near Scandinavia (not to mention the spots of low ice concentration in the Beaufort Sea). You're not helping your case any there.

Also worthy of note: four western Washington counties are under a flood watch due to melting snow...it was 80 degrees at my house today (Friday), and it's supposed to challenge record highs Saturday and Sunday with more 80+ degree temps. And to think it snowed here not much more than a month ago!

Isn't weather a funny thing?

D Caldwell,

I certainly am not going to argue that the media isn't biased toward AGW. It certainly is. NCDC is not the media. Patrick uses the cherry-picking data in attempts to discredit the NCDC analysis. NCDC does not issue statements that global warming is causing head lice or advocate that grocery stores charge a 10 cent fee per plastic bag. They analyze the weather and the climate.

When doing that, they have to make a lot of generalizations, and the examples they choose will support those generalizations (who writes a doctoral thesis and then proceeds to provide counterexamples to their own claims?). NCDC reports both cool and warm events in their climate summaries, and their April numbers ultimately did not differ much from the satellite data (and I speak of satellite data under the unproven assumption that satellite-based analysis is more accurate). NCDC had it 13th warmest, RSS had it 15th warmest, and UAH had it 17th warmest. Given the similarities, I take issue with Patrick's blatant disregard for the NCDC analysis.

"If not, how much of the rise of CO2 can be linked to man?"

Krichi, we've risen from 280 ppm to 385 ppm of CO2. Virtually 100% of that increase is due to man.

Mark,

Regarding: "Virtually 100% of that increase is due to man."

I question your assumption. When the seas warm they can hold less CO2, and naturally release some into the atmosphere. Then when the seas cool, they can hold more CO2, and suck some CO2 out of the atmosphere. Therefore, in a case when the AMO and PDO are both in warm phases, one would expect CO2 levels to increase, even if there was not a single human alive on earth.

We are about to see this theory tested, with the PDO shifting to a cool phase, and the AMO moving past the peak of a warm phase, and likely moving into a cooler phase over the next ten years. According to theory we should see a significant blip in CO2 levels. Either the rate of increase should slow, or the levels should drop a bit, even if only for a year or two.

If this doesn't happen it is going to send both Skeptics and Alarmists scurrying back to the drawing board, as both sides have incorporated the sea's ability to release or absorb CO2 into their models.

One Alarmist theory incorporates the release of oceanic CO2 into a "tipping point" scenario, with the seas releasing huge amounts of CO2 as the world warms. Another Alarmist theory explains away recent cooling by stating the seas are sucking up the CO2 and hiding it a mile down, in the ocean's depths.

Meanwhile there are various Skeptic theories which employ the sea's power in various ways. One states that even as recently as 1940 the CO2 levels were higher than they are today, as shown by leaf stomata. (This theory suggests the ice core samples are suspect, as the bubbles of air within ice-cores are not as "pristine" as we all assume.)

In any case it isn't correct to state "all" of the CO2 increase is "manmade."

Mark:
"If not, how much of the rise of CO2 can be linked to man?"

Krichi, we've risen from 280 ppm to 385 ppm of CO2. Virtually 100% of that increase is due to man.

Can you provide proof to back this claim up? Didn't think so.
Can you provide proof that this will be harmful to humanity in any way and that no benefits will be realised because of it? Didn't think so.

"But as a person could you explain to me why we are getting warmer at such an alarming rate."

Kipp, no year since 1998 has been warmer, so while anomalies have been warmer than the average, to say we are getting warmer at an alarming rate is about as false a statement as you can make, once again, you have put your foot in your mouth with a horrible false statement, your posts probably hurt your cause more than help with the gross inaccuracies.

Caleb, sweetie, your "skeptics" don't have models. Not one. You're confused on multiple other points, BTW.

Chris F., do you have the faintest clue about climate science? Didn't think so. Why just say stuff if you don't know what the facts are?

Sorry, Veets, we are warming at an alarming rate. The short-term rate (measured over a few years) varies quite a lot, but the underlying climatological rate remains at a quite frightening +/- .2C/decade. You could look this up without too much difficulty.

we've risen from 280 ppm to 385 ppm of CO2. Virtually 100% of that increase is due to man

We've risen in population from 2 to 7,000,000,000. Virtually 100% of that increase is due to man and woman - except for the occasional cloning and virgin birth.

The number of Internet users has also risen substantially since it was invented, as has steroid use in the Major Leagues.

Every time any statistic changes, we should panic and raise taxes. I'm particularly concerned about the rise in the polar bear population. Those animals are big and aggressive. Think about the Eskimo children.

"Sorry, Veets, we are warming at an alarming rate. The short-term rate (measured over a few years) varies quite a lot, but the underlying climatological rate remains at a quite frightening +/- .2C/decade. You could look this up without too much difficulty."

Based on how many decades Steve? More than 3? More than 5? More than 5 would mean the temps have risen over 1C in 50 years. Has their been a relative rise compared with CO2 levels? Are you saying from 1999-2008 that temps are .2 higher on average?

.2C... just curious, is there a margin of error on that figure?

Also, do you think it is safe to assume that over he course of a decade(s) that temperature readings have become more accurate, and that any adjustment to correct that is merely a best guess?

And finally, the big question, what should I Google that proves without a doubt, with actual numbers and unbreakable logic and experiment, that the .2C is because of CO2?

Veets:

I believe the margin of error is .3 degrees C.

LOL

Steve Bloom, I checked out your link and concede that man is responsible for most if not all the increase in co2.
Sorry Mark.

Steve Bloom,

Your models don't work; not one.

It is better to study history. Harry Truman stated, "The only new thing under the sun is the history you haven't learned."

Examine the proxies you rely on, which form the basis of revised history. Bristlecones have been shown to be fairly useless, which discredits Mann's graph, and corrupts any model which uses his history.

The fact that results given by leaf stomata, as a proxy, differ from the results of ice-core samples, is especially unnerving, for who isn't relying on ice-core samples?

Keep an open mind.

(Real nice of you to call me "sweetie," especially as I've been shoveling out the pig pen.)