Not much global warming this June. If this trend keeps up AGW will be laughed at by all. Except for Gore and Hansen, they need more money. Global warming is DEAD!!!!!!!

June was plenty miserable. Cold and rainy and dreary. Not as bad as May, as we had a few nice hot sunny days, but still very below normal. Again, by looking at these maps, we can pretty much determine that there is more blue for 08 that for the other two. Boy, I really wish it were 1988 again. For more that one reason. That third map being one of them. By the by. Where have our "progressive" friends been lately? I am starting to miss there open minded, non-biased, non-political, ever compassionate rants.....:-DDDDD.....

(Reply: Oiznop, The June temperature data from Pittsburgh.......

PIT.......1.6 degrees above normal
Allegheny Cty. airport......1.7 degrees above normal

But it was indeed cloudier and wetter than normal. Two days at or above 90. )

May and June 2008. Proof that Glo-BULL Warming is a CROCK!!!!!!

RSS data just happens to start in 1979 during the ice age scare minima, so not particularly surprising that it has increased. What is more interesting are the satellite 10 and 20 year plots.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1988/plot/rss/from:1988

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998

The trend over the last decade is downward.

Reply: From what I see on their remss.com website the trend from 1998 to now is still slightly upward. Just look at the bottom graph on this post. The recent downward shift in temperatures is still too short a period to reverse the upward trend over the past 10, 20, 30 years. Now, that could change in a short amount of time if we continue to see similar readings like what we have have had over the past year.

Brian,

I find it interesting on how you look at the same data that Brett presents here and you come up with totally different perspective of what the data suggests than I do.

The graph shows a continually upward temperature trend of 0.171K per decade which equates to an overall temperature increase of 0.51K over the entire 30 year record since 1979.

This data is consistent with the RSS temperature data for the month of June, also for the same 30-year period of record:

1) 70S to 82.5N -> +0.44K
2) Continental U.S. -> +0.70K
3) 0 to 82.5N -> +0.65K
4) 20N to 82.5N -> +0.85K
5) 60N to 82.5N -> +1.20K
6) 20S to 20N -> +0.33K
7) 0 to 70S -> +0.24K
8) 60S to 70S -> +0.06K

All of these regions have shown an increase in temperature for the past 30 years.

Obviously the very far southern latitudes in the Antarctic region shows the smallest change, which again is consistent with the observed slight increase in the extent of ice cover down there.

Meanwhile the relatively large temperature increase of 1.20K in the far northern latitudes is also consistent with the 10.2% reduction in the sea ice coverage in the northern hemisphere:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

By the way, the RSS 0.44K rate of change of the global temperatures is also consistent with the rate of change noted in the CRU data set:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g6.htm

Just look at the RSS, MSU, and CRU data sets in comparison to each other and explain to me how the latest little cooling noted since 1998 really changes the overall pattern of increasing temperatures. Even if you draw straight lines through the minimums in each temperature graph, the latest minimum only meet or are just above that straight line, which means the overall upward trend since the early 1900's is still in effect.

Oiz,

Again we are talking about climate changes, not short-term localized temperature cycles. The same old arguments that you present in your short-term localized temperature reports are meaningless to this whole debate. Thanks to Brett, he shows you how incorrect you are in presenting your weather observations without any data to back up your statements.

If you choose the year 2000 as a baseline it appears temperatures may actually be dropping. (Reply: But we are not.) For the GBW enthusiast, the concern is not only the flattening of the temperature curve, but that there has been no similar hiatus in the rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. If the concentration of CO2 is the controlling factor or even a major factor controlling temperature change, it gives those few who remain objective some pause. Why the steady or accelerating rise in CO2 in the face of a relatively long period of global cooling? Perhaps there is more to climatology than certain fanatics would care to admit.
Of course, if you are the Savior and High Priest of the new lo carbon life style, you cannot afford to get too technical.

Dennis,

No one doubts that it is warmer now than it was in 1900. The problem is that the temperature increases have dropped below even the most conservative IPCC projections - invalidating the climate models.

PH: "RSS data just happens to start in 1979 during the ice age scare minima, so not particularly surprising that it has increased."

Wait one minute, wasn't it you that posted so many arguments in the past that the RSS data is the most reliable data out there, particularly for the far northern latitudes? I didn't see this caveat in your earlier arguments about the data starting in 1979 in regards to the trends we are seeing in the data set. Why is that beginning date of 1979 a problem now?

Does the same hysteria of global cooling back then apply to the skeptics in their current arguments since 1998? Trying to cherry pick the data to only look at 10 or 20 years is a method you obviously learned from the ICECAP group.

Dennis: Your list of temperatures versus latitudes illustrates very nicely that the trends increase as you travel north. This is also plainly evident in the last line of the UAH MSU data set, which lists trends.

What you fail to mention is the contribution of thermohaline circulation or meridional overturning circulation in the North Atlantic and the North Pacific and the impacts of ENSO on the Northern Hemisphere. The more I delve into the Smith and Reynolds SST data set, the less I see available for an AGW contribution over the past century or over the past 30 years.

Regards

Brett - something may be lost on the monitor but that trend line was perfectly straight when I put a ruler on it ( or is straight to the degree it resolves on my screen ) ... therefore what kind of a trend line fit is it?
Obviously it looks like there is no allowance for any sort of curvature since as another poster noted the trend is flat to down for the last decade.
Is this more of the GW communities fun with figures?
Cheers,
Rick.

Dennis,

The point that should be understood about the recent cooling is that it is happening while the atmospheric CO2 level has continued to increase. This implies that CO2 is AT MOST a minor player in atmospheric warming. There is NO logical reason to inject it into the ground. That money should be used instead to develop alternative energy.

Mr. Hinka:
It is fortuitous that you linked to the Hadley data which clearly shows that the slopes for temperature change for the periods 1910-1940 and 1980-2008 are nearly the same. For the latter, there was a small increase in CO2 concentration while for the former, there was a large increase in CO2 concentration. This is just one of the reasons why some of us, while acknowleging the plausibility of a large human signal, believe that a convincing argument for a large human signal has yet to be made.

Look at Northern China and Mongolia: warmer than average in all three images, particularly in June 2007 and June 2008. This is consistan with the forecasts provided by www.wxmaps.org, which most of the times show these areas warmer than average.

And for those who say global warming has ended... it only takes 5 sec. and a look at the graph to see it's nonsense to say GW has ended.

Does anybody believe they can really measure variations at the level of a thousandth of a degree?

OIZNUP: Did you believe in the Ozone Layer; following your logic, you did not. What Irony, some American businessmen are chomping at the bit to get into this new green technology, and here the compulsive deniers are railing against climate change. The leftover arch conservatives and wing nuts holding on beyond all hope, that it gets COLDER? AGW exists and Hansen was right. From the blue to the red goes Greenland, but it's not really melting.
KIPP

Am I the only one here that doesnt understand how the trend line is determined? Should it not start at the far left start temp line and end at far right end temp line? I guess if it did than the high 98 temps would'nt be brought into the graph.

You can imagine how confused I am that Brett says even measuring from 98 to present shows a slight trend upwards....Oh well you guys are the brains. :)

Reply: I learned it in statistics.

dennis not to start an argument but short term temperature changes such as being below normal/above normal does overall affect the long term i mean read what you just wrote thats like saying a warming trend in the near term doesnt affect the long term

sorry guys another 2-3 years of this trend and AGW is finished. This is most likely to happen. Have you not noticed the beginning maybe of an El Nino pattern? and yet temps continue falling?
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.7.10.2008.gif
and it looks like there will be one hell of a drop in temperatures for July 08
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
java 400-600mb heights

Dennis Hlinka:
Than you for your article and the work you put into it. The sccientific approach is usually the most honest.This is not always the case, and people use different yardsticks to judge your conclusions. Something�s are obvious to me, that everyone else is avoiding. Increased extreme weather events, the verified melting of old ice in the arctic Greenland and the tunnels in the Antarctic. But the most basic and obvious problem are the Greenhouse gases. From ice core we can tell when CO2 was present, when volcanoes occurred and what the levels of gases where for the last 760 million years. The correlation between CO2 and global changes is accepted science. The levels of CO2 today and in such a short time scale have risen dramatically. Sinks on Earths surface can no longer hold CO2 and they retain CO2 only to be respired back into the atmosphere causing a feedback and more warming. This might be mitigated by burning less fossil fuel, and we are playing with nature. In a natural cycle CO2 has always stabilized temperatures on Earth. Without CO2 we would be a planet frozen over and it is CO2 not water vapor that has kept our planet in its natural state. An increase in warmth would be due to an abundance of CO2. It is not an absorber of heat, and the more abundant it is the warmer we will be. George Bush gets it, John McCain gets it, and Obama gets it. I talk to conservative businessmen every day and they get it. America is loosing its opportunity to be the world leader in alternate energy. This is time to build our economy, and take advantage of new technologies, and sell them to other countries. It's time to climb on board, and stop this endless disinformation campaign!
KIPP

Goldfinger,

Am I the only one here that doesnt understand how the trend line is determined? Should it not start at the far left start temp line and end at far right end temp line? I guess if it did than the high 98 temps wouldn't be brought into the graph.

Most trend lines are determined not by simply drawing a line from start to finish; a trend line includes all data from the intervening years.

In this case, the decade starting in 1988 (to cite a commonly used date on this thread) was cooler than this past decade, hence the upward trend of the past two decades.

Similarly, though the time period 1998-2008 started out with a record warm year according to RSS data, the two years directly following it were the coolest of that decade until this year. The temperature anomaly generally increases as the graph gets closer to the present. Then comes the decline of the past seven or eight months.

Statistically speaking, while temperatures are significantly lower now than they were in 1998, the current conditions have persisted only long enough to balance the trend, not long enough to tip it significantly negative.

Hope that helps.

~Travis

Goldfinger: Am I the only one here that doesn't understand how the trend line is determined? Should it not start at the far left start temp line and end at far right end temp line? I guess if it did than the high 98 temps wouldn't be brought into the graph.

Goldfinger, it's a "least-squares regression line," which is the line that minimizes the sum of the squared errors. Which is to say, if you take all differences between the actual measurement for each particular time and the corresponding approximation given by the line, square them, and add them up, it's the line that produces the smallest sum. The reason you add up the squared differences instead of just the differences is 1) it makes them all positive so both positive and negative differences increase the error sum; 2) by the Pythagorean Theorem, the total distance is the square root of the sum of the squares, and minimizing the sum of squares also minimizes the square root of the sum of squares; 3) it leads an easily solved equation (which, for instance, using absolute values would not).

You can imagine how confused I am that Brett says even measuring from 98 to present shows a slight trend upwards.

Looking at the graph, I can't see how the line would be slightly upward, either. It looks like it'd be downward to me, though I haven't calculated the regression line. Perhaps Brett meant the 1988 to present line, which does look like it'd go upward.

The History of Climate Change according to those who don't believe in GW:

1st decade - Its getting warm - great for crops and vacation.
2nd decade - El Nina, its snowing outside - there's no such thing as global warming.
3rd decade - Warmer year than average - maybe global warming?
4th decade - Mt Shasta glacier is expanding, its raining and cold out side - absolutely no global warming.
5th decade - Warmer than usual - maybe global warming, not sure? probably not, because... blah blah blah.

Mean while:
Ice sheet as large as xxx are breaking off Antarctica; The Arctic ice cap is disappearing; California is burning; Coral reefs are dying; Sea level is steadily rising over the last 100yrs; Majority of world glaciers are receding/dissapearing; Perma-Frost is melting in Alaska swallowing houses;

What could be the cause of all this?
Maybe, just maybe, the average global temperature is going up and reeking havoc on our environment?
mmm Not sure...lets wait a few more decades, its been colder than average for the last few years.

20yrs or so later:
Most of ice is completely gone. We are in dire straits.
Sucks, I guess GW was occurring - We better find a new planet to live on.
Oh oh, we've run out of Oil!

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
Predicting 2009 NORMAL artic ice or greater.

I find it interesting that the "trend" line disects the temperatures that are plotted on the graph in the middle (average) of each temperature swing.

Except for the very beginning.

Where the "trend" line starts at the lowest possible temperature.

It's rigged, what a crock.

Reply: It's not rigged.

Dennis' response does illulstrate the oppurtunity to "cherry pick" data. However, I must interject that much of the "noise" concerning weather events and thier relationship to AGW (or GW) has been partially caused by the constant media drumbeat. I first noticed it during that awful summer in Europe in 2003 when 35000 people died from heat related deaths. Until recently, a day did not go by without some new "study" pointing out that the drought in Austrailia, or the warm winter in New England, or a blizzard in Virginia was caused by GHG increases.

Dennis is both right and wrong. The data does show an upward increase since 1900, but this data has been sliced, diced, and adjusted by so many hands that not even the adjusters can tell you what it actually means. Since 2006, GISS temperatures have been adjusted no less than 60 times. I think most people realize that the UAH/RSS derived data has a much more negative anomally than both HadCrut and NASA. Everyone can pick and chose what they prefer, while understanding the limitations of each data set. One I find very ironic is that Hansen still prefers his human derived GISS data sets over the remote sensing devices delivered by satellites.

I think we can all agree that the trend since 1670 (the coldest decade of the LIA was 1660-1670) has been positive. That is, the earth has been generally warming for the last 450 years.

Hi Dennis,

Have a look at this GISS graph from Iceland. This is fairly typical of GISS Arctic data. See anything interesting about the pattern since 1979?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040300000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Had the RSS data extended back to 1930, we would know that temperatures are no higher now than they were during the hot years of the dust bowl. GISS US data shows the same thing (the 1930s was the warmest decade.)

Is there anyplace where I can go to get the satellite data in an downloadable/importable form for excel? I don't want to plug the numbers in myself, but I am curious how much flatter the trend line is if the exceptional year of 1998 is removed.

I counted the datapoints on the above graph and applied a trendline using the Tukey method beginning with the last valley before the 1998 spike. My trendline showed a decline since 1998, although I'll be the first to admit it is really little better than a wag without the actual data.

Goldfinger: The easiest way is to input the data into a spreadsheet and then let the computer do it, but to determine a trendline on a graph by hand: (1)Divide the data points into three equal sections by drawing two vertical lines. So for 1979-2008, the first line might cut through in 1988 or 1989 and the next through 98/99 - depending on when the dataset began and ended. (2) In the first and third section, find the intersection between the median data-point and the median time (that would be a month in our case) and put an "x" at the intersection. (3) Draw a straight line between the two Xs.

A. Fucaloro: "It is fortuitous that you linked to the Hadley data which clearly shows that the slopes for temperature change for the periods 1910-1940 and 1980-2008 are nearly the same. For the latter, there was a small increase in CO2 concentration while for the former, there was a large increase in CO2 concentration."

You bring up a good point and if you bear with me I will try to explain what I see is the reason for that pattern.

We have a 50-year record of CO2 concentrations from Mauna Loa from 1958 that shows a fairly steady increase in CO2 concentrations:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Since there is no formal record of CO2 concentrations prior to 1958 let's assume for this discussion that they were increasing at the same rate that is in that graph sicne 1958.

Let's now assume that there is a 1:1 correspondence of temperature and CO2 concentration. Based on that corrsspondence, one would then expect a similar looking increasing temperature graph if there were no other influences from other factors. The result would be like a steadily increasing wave over time.

As I have discussed before in previous threads, there is a 60-year natural cycle in temperatures due to the oscillations of the PDO (El Nino/La Nina) ocean temperature cycles. For each positive PDO the temperatures are in an upward trend. When there is a negative PDO, temperatures are in a downward trend. Overall the PDO causes relatively similar up and down periodicy of temperatures. A simple way to visualize this is in a simple wave pattern.

Now lets overlay that 60-year PDO wave pattern on top of the steadily increasing temperature wave pattern from the CO2 relationship. The combination of the two wave patterns would be an initial increase for about 30 years, followed by a 30-year pattern of steady or slightly falling temperatures (due to the PDO influence), then followed by another 30-year rise in temperatures. The overall plot shows this wavy pattern you see in the CRU temperature plot, with higher temperatures in the final period relative to the one in the earlier warmer period back in 1930-40.

Using this as a background, my interpretation is that CO2 is the overall guiding factor why temperatures are higher then they were 90-100 years ago and why the PDO ocean oscillations are causing the smaller warming and cooling cycles within that overall increasing temperature curve.

The current cooling trend since 1998 is another example of the negative PDO influence on the overall temperature curve. When the PDO switches back to being positive again in the next 10-20 years, and barring any unforseen influences like greater volcanic activity etc, we should see another increasing temperature trend beginning to evolve.

Dennis,

10 years is not enough, 20 years is not enough, but drawing conclusions from 30 years of data is juuuuuuuust right?

Thats what I gather from you, so what qualifies 30 years as being enough?

Donny: "dennis not to start an argument but short term temperature changes such as being below normal/above normal does overall affect the long term i mean read what you just wrote thats like saying a warming trend in the near term doesnt affect the long term"

I never said they don't affect the long-term trend, but you have to look at both the length of time and the magnitude of those short-term changes relative to the overall long-term trends. If the short-term changes are small both in time and magnitude, then those changes will not affect the long-term trend.

If, however, you have an increasing number of short-term changes then that group of short-term changes will affect the long-term. But that increasing number of short-term changes is itself creating long-term trend over a defined period of time.

Only when the long-term trend lines are broken through either to the upside or downside can you then say that a new trend has been initiated for that given period of time. In the case of the 30-year trend that Brett provided, the temperature in the latest cooling trend are still above the trend line that you would have if you draw a straight line through the minimums over that 30-year period. If the latest cooling trend falls down through that trend line, then you can say that the current 30-year period trend line has been changed to a new trend to the downside. The magnitude of that new trend will depend on the subsequent data over the next 10-30 years.

I wish the super El Nino event of 97-98 could be removed from the record books (I know it cant). It skews the numbers too much. It seems more of a fluke than the norm.

Both sides of the debate use it to prove their points. The AGW side always goes through that date with their charts to show how the temp trend is upward. The non-AGW side always starts with that event for their graphs to show how the trend is the same or even downward (it has been argued that its still upwards). Next year instead of saying the temps havent climbed for a decade they will still go back to that event and start saying its now been over a decade.

I've often wondered what any trend line would look without it.

What is funny to me is both sides always say you cant use a 1-2 year period to determine climate and yet they BOTH constantly do....I look forward to the upcoming years when we will use 1999 or 2000 to start the graphs.

Hi Veets,

30-years is the typical minimum time period that climatologists use to define climate in any given region. The temperature records in any city are compared to the 30-year average temperatures as to whether or not current temperatures are either above or below normal. In the case of today, the 1971-2000 period is being used by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html

The following is a simple explanation of the 30-year mean or average:
http://www.niwa.cri.nz/edu/students/climate-terms

"A standard 'normal' period is chosen to ensure that calculations of climate averages (the 'normals') are calculated on a consistent period. A 30-year period is considered long enough to calculate a representative average, and to reduce the impact that one-off, very extreme events (i.e. short term climate variability) have on the average. The most recent 30-year period is always used."

Again Veets, we are talking about climatology in regards to climate change and not short-term weather events.

PH,

Looking at your graph for Iceland, the current temperatures are about 1C higher then they were back in the early 1900's, which is basically the same thing the CRU temperature data graph indicates. So where's the beef?

Dennis,

"We have a 50-year record of CO2 concentrations from Mauna Loa from 1958 that shows a fairly steady increase in CO2 concentrations:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Since there is no formal record of CO2 concentrations prior to 1958 let's assume for this discussion that they were increasing at the same rate that is in that graph sicne 1958.

Let's now assume that there is a 1:1 correspondence of temperature and CO2 concentration. Based on that corrsspondence, one would then expect a similar looking increasing temperature graph if there were no other influences from other factors. The result would be like a steadily increasing wave over time."

The issue with this is that there are too many assumptions to allow anyone to draw a conclusion.

CO2 does not display a 1:1 correspondence (assuming by correspondence you mean correlation) with temp increases (since 2002 it is actually a slightly negative correlation) so I don't see what assuming that it does so does for your analysis. The correspondence is logarithmic, not linear. Because of this, in your example you would expect the CO2 increases in the 1920-30s to have a larger effect on temperature than the current increases (increase in CO2 is pretty close to linear) because there was less CO2 in the atmosphere at that time.

Goldfinger:

Here is an attempt to filter out that anomaly(???).

El Nino variability affects the global mean temperature

OK Bill,

OK so you don't agree with my interpretation. I would like you to go through your scientific reasons for the way temperatures have changed since the early 1900's. Please provide data support for your reasons of the oscillations and why temperatures are higher now then they were back then. I am always open to suggestions.

Bill in DC:

...CO2 does not display a 1:1 correspondence (assuming by correspondence you mean correlation) with temp....

This analysis provides very compelling evidence that there is a correlation....

Anthropogenic Global Warming is Absolutely Occurring

Dennis,

I agree, we are not talking about weather events. I point out when both sides use them. Obviously I do not point out every time, that would be too large an undertaking, especially trying to post after all of Oiznop's.

Who exactly are these people who decided on 30 years? 30 years is a horribly short period of time in comparison to the age of our planet, don't you think?

Do you think 30 years is more because of convenience of information. How does 30 years fit in with various cycles. It seems as if 30 years is far too short to fit in with enough significant cycles that can effect climate.

It seems as if their argument is just trying to make the shoe fit.

How many years of accurate data do we have in terms of climate?

Mark B, MJW, and Travis:

I thank all 3 of you for taking the time to help me understand how trend lines are determined. I had no idea there was such a complicated formula (well complicated for me).

Dennis is correct that 30 years is the standard agreed upon time frame used to determine a weather average. I dont understand why than the NCDC used 1971-2000 instead of 1978-2007. If every agency used the SAME 30 year time frame, and each year changed it out one more year, than we could compare like numbers and remove the spin. We all want the truth so lets make it possible to see it.

Another short term trend. Remember the Arctic see ice could all melt away this summer?

Graph vs last year...

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

Looks like about 800 sq Km more ice this July vs last year.

The press and attention mongering researchers would do better to lay off the alarmist hype and stick to the data. Then maybe we'd have a better chance at understanding climate complexities and variations.

Hi Veets,

You have me confused now. I thought your original question was about why short-term 10-20 year periods are not applicable, and now you are saying 30-years is apparently too short. I am not sure which way you are going with this argument.

According to my Glossary of Meteorology book, the 30-year "normal" period was decided at the International Meteorological Conference at Warsaw in 1935. At that time the years 1901-1930 were selected as the international standard period for normals.

I'm posting this here since I missed a couple of threads, but wanted to respond to an earlier post. Please forgive me for being off topic Brett.

Sorry Veets if you misunderstood what I typed. Let me explain - I was making an observation about the Arctic pictures, but then added that neither is unusual for the North Pole.

I beg to differ on the beration issue. I did not berate Patrick H. I criticized his inaccurate or incomplete information. BIG DIFFERENCE.

I'm a little confused, how is it that I berated him? Please explain, so I can be sure to not offend you in the future.

My information about Glacier NP comes from the National Park Service. They have all of the information about daily weather at that particular park. They have said that it has snowed there in July, August and September - which I recall are summer months. The NPS says that it can be sunny and warm one minute and snowing the next. Please visit the website and have a look for yourself.

http://www.nps.gov/glac/planyourvisit/gttsrfaq.htm

BobAZ and Patrick H - Going to the Sun Road is mostly an alpine area. There is a glacier along part of it. There will be snow there year round. There is information out there that shows that although there was more snow this year, it is not out of the ordinary to have snow there in the summer and it is not out of the ordinary to have to plow the road open, in July. (Reply: I agree, I have been on that road before.) What is your argument? The fact that there was snow on the road in July of 1943 tells me that it is not some freak event that shows us all that GW is not happening.

Caleb - thanks for the diatribe. I don't need to be lectured about patriotism, freedom and sacrifice. You have no idea who you are talking to when you make assumptions and assertions that you are the only person here who understands what this country stands for and the sacrifices made by men/women in uniform. Please don't lecture me about sacrificing during war time. You have no idea who you are talking to and you have no idea what sacrifices my family has made to keep this country free.

Back to what we were talking about - I didn't neglect the point that our nation was at war. It is a given, that our nation was more concerned with global events in 1943. My main point of repeating what the NPS stated on their website, was the fact that the road was closed until July 10, 1943. Whether they plowed it or not, doesn't matter, when you consider that for the road to be closed, there most certainly would have been measureable snow on the road.

For the road to be considered unsafe to drive upon, there must have been snow that was too deep for the road to be opened. To make a long story short, there was enough snow, into July, that it took until July 10th 1943 to melt by itself.

I would say that it must have been pretty cold then, that year in GNP. During your lengthy lecture, you failed to mention that GNP is mostly alpine and much of it is above 6000 foot elevation. Which means what? That it is cooler and has snow, sometimes all summer long. Nothing out of the ordinary.

So what is the significance of Patrick Henry's mentioning the road being closed?

I don't know how PH does it either. Maybe aliens? It's truly amazing that you and others visiting this blog so readily accept every scrap from PH as if it is fact. Yet you readily pick apart every AGW proponents comment. As if Patrick Henry is so much smarter than the hundreds of other scientists out there studying climate. Sure, and cows will be flying in the near future. (In reference to your cow methane article Brett.)

Sorry Caleb, but I'm going to chose to use my right to free speech to make comments here and if I chose to tell PH that his comments are getting old, oh well, it�s a free country, deal with it. I've never asked that PH should be censored. I actually enjoy his comments. It gives me a reason to research and learn the actual facts.

Have a great day.

kipp,

AGW science is a manipulation of adjusted data inputted from faulty thermometers...hansen, the I.nternational P.anel of C.limate C.onspiracy, al gore, and the greenies have duped the leading candidates for president...that will change with public outcry and voting because of blogs like this that give the facts, open the forum for debate and are not biased by an agenda driven media...your dream of alternative energy is just that, a dream...only nuclear energy can replace the energy efficiency of fossil fuels...yes, business leaders everywhere have been jumping on the bandwagon to pilfer green tax dollars from hard working citizens...this too will change with public outcry and voting because the public now recognizes AGW'rs want to change the american (god bless it) lifestyle without sound scientific reasons...by the way, the reason America will lose its chance to develop alternative energy is because it is uneconomic, costly, and cannot come close to the volume needed to maintain prosperity, freedom and the pursuit of happiness....how many happy people have you seen filling up their cars lately?...dude, alternatives like ETHONAL arent even in the same ballpark as compared to the benefits of yes, ENVIRONMENTALLY friendly fossil fuels...the last time i read, places like texas and louisiana are meccas for sportsmen, birders, and vacationers while these two states are near the top of fossil fuel production...any scientist that uses co2 and computer models, then blames natural oceanic fluctuations to account for the observational error (the earth has a cold, not a fever as the models predicted) in their hocus pocus imminent doom predictions refuse to admit their theory was wrong...these AGW hokesters and their supporters rely on fictional movies calling them documentaries, manipulate the data, invent magical future predicting programs, cherry pick trends in the manipulated data and scream politically and financially motivated environmental scare tactics to win over opinion...however, the cat is out of the bag, bro...the real science of climatic influences like variable solar output, variable planetary orbit, variable cosmic influences, variable oceanic circulation, volcanism, earth's axial wobble, albedo, and magnetic field is being brought to bare on the crapola that is being used to promote the AGW agenda...perhaps you should consider which side of the aisle you choose to look after your well-being...the side that loves the AGW farce or the side that is proving it was all just smoke and mirrors...have a nice day, dude!

Dennis,
I think what Bill is trying to say is that temperature increases due to increased GHGs are not linear. The function is logrithmic and regressive. The greatest temperature increases come at the early stages of CO2 doubling, but the RATE of change decreases with every increase of CO2. In that case, the temperature increase when CO2 is doubled from 60ppm to 120ppm is much greater than when CO2 goes from 400pm to 800pm. The temperature still will still increase when CO2 increases 400 to 800ppm, but that increase is tiny when compared to a much earlier interval.

" wish the super El Nino event of 97-98 could be removed from the record books (I know it cant). It skews the numbers too much. It seems more of a fluke than the norm."

Use the 2001 to current range if that makes you feel better. Remember, Hansen was the first to use 1998 as benchmark. From a statistical point of view, both sides can use 1998 to thier advantage. However, since 2001, temperatures have been about as constant as you will probably see them. This years La Nina has faded and ENSO neutral conditions will push temps back up a bit, and then the Alarmists will begin the chorus all over again.

Dennis: Your line of thought is faulty. I've been trying to explain this to you for months. It's the constant misuse of the PDO by you and others that drove me to investigating the Smith and Reynolds SST data set available through the NOAA NOMADS system.

The PDO is not what you make it out to be. It is statistically manufactured to pull an ENSO signal from North Pacific SST data. The following is a quote from an email I received from Nate Mantua of JISAO a number of months ago. "The full method for computing the PDO index came from Zhang, Y., J.M. Wallace, D.S. Battisti, 1997: ENSO-like interdecadal variability: 1900-93. J. Climate, 10, 1004-1020. They labeled this same time series 'the NP index' (see their figs 5 and 6)." A copy of that report should still be available at the JISAO website. Nate Mantua still uses this method to calculate the PDO today. Check out that report. See the gyrations they go through to extract an ENSO signal from the North Pacific.

The thermohaline circulation (THC) or meridional overturning circulation (MOC) that you allude to makes its presence know at upwelling points in all oceans. On a hemispheric basis, the oscillations are, however, most apparent in the data sets of the North Atlantic (AMO) and the North Pacific, though I'm not talking about the PDO.

As I said, Northern Hemisphere oceans aren't the only places where the THC/MOC signals show themselves. For example: While preparing a post on another subject today, I stumbled on a section of the Pacific Ocean, east of Australia, about the size of Australia, where SST anomalies rose more than 0.7 degrees from 1980 to 2001. Within a shorter time span, from 1993 to 2001, the SST anomalies in the same area rose 0.58 deg C. And those temperature rises are based on data that's been smoothed with a 7-year filter.

I will hopefully be finished with the post on my blogspot tomorrow. You can see the graph and area that I'm talking about then.

Or you can figure out how to download the data from NOAA and create your own graphs. Learn through doing.

In summary, your continued attempts to explain climate change with CO2 and the PDO are falling on deaf ears.

Regards

I actually had a scientific debate with GW Steve on the Venus temperature issue and he later acknowledged that there appears to be an actual relationship with CO2.

Dennis,

Absolutely there is, as well as size, albedo, convection, etc. But I also noted that applying phenomena in one planetary thermodynamic system to another is folly.

He did not come back and simply say my arguments are "nonsense". I have a higher respect for him as a result.

I have found that simply stating facts and asking questions is better way to explore this subject. That being said, I am not immune to my own ego nor to casting insults, I'm simply attempting to refrain.

However, it seems that less AGW Advocates engage me now. Where once my insults attracted many AGW Advocates to respond, facts and science seem to scare most off or perhaps bore them.

I am very interested in exploring CO2's role here on Earth, the similarities between CO2 on Earth and Venus stop at the molecular level.

Other than my debate with GW Steve, I did not see any other convincing arguments from your side of the debate and your type of response simply adds to that conclusion.

Is it not odd at all that not one measurement of AGW has ever been made? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that a double standard is being used.

AGW Advocates need only to make an assumption while AGW Skeptics are being held to making convincing arguments. I little subjective but I will make an attempt in another post.

Thanks,

Steve

Dennis,

Let's forget for a moment about AGW and just concentrate thermodynamic systems and how CO2 operates in Earth's thermodynamic System.

Our atmosphere is 380 ppm CO2. Let's take a look at how much energy is stored in 1 cubic meter of dry air at sea level.

The density of dry air at sea level is 1300g/m^3 of which .7 grams is CO2.

Dry air has a specific heat of 1.001 so for that air to be 300K (80 F), it must be storing 390,390 joules.

Of that CO2 with a specific heat of .846 is storing 177.66 joules/m^3. A tiny fraction. At 280 ppm it is only 131 joules.

The temperature of a given body of matter is always attempting to reach equilibrium so the temp of CO2 if it absorbs IR will rise however that energy will either be emitted as IR again or transferred to the surrounding body.

If .7 grams of CO2 absorbs enough energy to raise it, say 10K (50 Degrees F), it will have absorbed 5.922 joules.

If you apply all of that energy to the Cubic meter of air surrounding it will have raise the temp of that air .00455K.

In addition, CO2 only absorbs three narrow bands of low energy IR, of which two are also absorbed by H2O Vapor.

CO2 cannot be the cause of the .7K increase in temps that the Earth has experienced in the last 150 years. There is not enough of it nor can it absorb the energy to do so.

The Earth just experienced a cool period known as the Little Ice Age that just happened to be in a period of low Solar intensity.

If you turn down the only heat source a body of matter has, then the temperature of that body also decreases.

If you turn it up, then the temp goes up. TSI has gone up 2 W/m^2 since 1830. The Earth now (prior to this recent solar minimum) receives an additional 254,152,332,401,291 joules (in trillions) every second than it did in 1830.

Is any of the above unclear or wrong?

Thanks,

Steve

PAULM:
What I am not surprised by is the constant Lying, misinformation, disinformation that exists among the deniers. Well, one small thing that everyone just seemed to overlook are the temperatures on the maps. You are not interested in facts but short term feel good moments. You are not skeptics. Just people void of common scientific awareness. If you note the earliest map to the present map you will see where the warming is. Greenland and the Arctic circle. It is melting and CO2 is alive and well CO2 levels are increasing every day. If you can't be honest in your Science, get out your horoscope.
KIPP

paulm,

If you read the original blog entry in the Autism web-site, including the comments and responses, you will note that a reader pointed out that there was another input with a much better correlation and his terse response was that, he was not discussing any other inputs.

To repeat an often quoted statement: "Correlation doe not equal causation."

It amazes me to see someone tell someone that a cool spell, small location means nothing in the grand scheme of global warming, yet this global warming scheme in itself has been a brief period of time and is not affecting the globe as there are areas that have cooled as well as there areas that have warmed. So why do you only choose to focus in on the warm spots and ignore the cool spots, well really I don't need that answer because I along with most of the others already know. The earth is 5 Billion years old and has been through alot warmer time periods than now and most of the earths life has been warmer than now and now just because in "recorded" history this stretch that ended a few years back has been one of the warmer ones we sound off the distress alarms that we have a catastrophy at hand. Really come on, there is no evidence that we are in control of this, if anything the earths broad history has shown otherwise that this in fact could be natural and some just will not except that but will run down the ones who question it when maybe them themselves should also question it. There are unknown answers and nobody is denying that but to sound off your statements as facts and tell others they are wrong is crazy when there is more earth history to support a natural warming theory than man made warming, even it is man made perhaps it is meant to be to save us from the next ice age, who knows and no one can answer this with fact because it does not exist. Here where I'm at a few hours from Pittsburgh it has been one of the coolest springs that I have seen and one of the wettest and just now do we have some knee high corn and things are later this year but I know I live in a small area which means nothing to the rest of the world, its just a shame that the world is made up of small areas and each one experiences different weather patterns each year this has happened forever but I know ignore the cool times and focus on the warm and the disasters it is causing, again wake up warmer is better than frozen, correct?!

Goldfinger,

Dennis is correct that 30 years is the standard agreed upon time frame used to determine a weather average. I dont understand why than the NCDC used 1971-2000 instead of 1978-2007. If every agency used the SAME 30 year time frame, and each year changed it out one more year, than we could compare like numbers and remove the spin. We all want the truth so lets make it possible to see it.

It would be helpful, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen anytime soon. That's why I prefer to look at the trend lines rather than the monthly figures to give me an idea of how the global mean is changing over time. The slope of the trend line actually does not depend on the base period; only the magnitude of the anomaly does. Thus trends are directly comparable while the numbers each agency comes up with for monthly anomalies are not.

Some differences will still exist mainly because of the different data sources used (that's one of the main causes of differences between agencies), but what you see in the data from all the major agencies is an upward trend between +.12 and +.17 degrees Celsius per decade since complete satellite records began in 1979 (about 30 years ago). UAH shows the smallest positive trend and GISS generally shows the largest positive trend, so those are the ones that get thrown around the most. It's worth noting for controversy's sake that one is home to a prominent skeptic and the other is the domain of an outspoken AGW proponent. Is that relevant to the quality of the data that comes out of each? I hope not, and I don't think it does. Others will disagree with me, but such is life.

Kipp, looking at these maps assuming that I'm not colorblind it looks to me if there are less reds and more blues but also alot, not all of the locations of these have altered as patterns shift as they always have. Maybe for Greenland they can have a climate like hundreds of years ago before man invented the air conditioner,lol. Bottomline climate changes,patterns change, year in and year out, like a snowflake no 2 years alike. Also looking at this map some more even Greenland has "cooled" off some from last year, now there is a sigh of relief.
Dear Paulm,
THE HISTORY OF CLIMATE CHANGE FOR THOSE WHOM
BELEIVE IN GW
1st decade: Colder than crap, scream ice age
2nd decade: El NIno which is warm water, natural happening, just seems new as tv promotes it as such, but we hear mudslides, drought, pattern change, something must be happening
3rd Decade: Warmer than average, must be global warming.
4th decade: TV coverage expands, promotes for their benefit global warming and brainwashes millions of citizens who go into transe staring at t.v in amazement, Al Gore throws his 2 cents in and profits millions and his followers form a unit that this man of no knowledge is a genius and they listen to his every command, why? who knows
5th decade: Earth still going through pattern changes as history has shown it has all along and T.V reporters report on tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, floods as if they just started happening and pulls the agw cult members even tighter together as now they know it is real, why these events have never happened before.
6th decade: Gore and Hansen admit it was a hoax at there expense but they feel sorry that they fell victim to alzheimers and continue their lead although all these horrible events they predicted have not happened,
7th decade: Earth cools further due to no other than global warming, ice sheets expand, but this is only a small area and has to be only temporary as people still are driving cars.
Ozone hole has dissapeared, sea levels remain steady as they have for thousands of years, blah,blah,blah

MEANWHILE: Ice sheets in Antartica are actually expanding, California is burning as always, just more houses in these well thought out locations to be destroyed, no sea level change.

WHAT COULD BE THE CAUSE OF THIS: Natural Patterns, even though we have set 3 record highs recently, ity has 2 b co2

20 YEARS LATER: Same ol, same ol, no sea level change, cool years and warm years, still drilling in our oil reserves and also have mixed in alternatives where avalable and gas prices have fallen as we have weened off foreign oil..shoot can't believe it I thought the sea level would have covered New York by now, thought oil would be gone, I guess I don't need to find a new planet to live on.

LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL.........

re the chart-i have in excess of 25 years of chart analysis and i would analyze that chart as follows

draw a straight line across the chart useing as your connecting points the lows
a) above the n in 825n and
b) the low above the d in k/decade (ist d)
this line picks up all of the lows on the chart and is the uptrend line for this chart-you will notice that at the end of the chart this uptrend is broken and that and attempt to get back up above the line failed. this suggests that this uptrend is over and a precipitous drop should occur

fear not if your are an agwer pick up the low to the left of the word trend and connect it with the 2006 or 2007 low and thats your new uptrend
also connect the 1987 peak to the
last peak on the chart thats you downtrend line
these two lines if extend come together eventually whichever side it breaks out of is where we are going if it goes above the downtrend line the warming contines if it goes below the new uptrend line the cooling continues

paul m
antarctica ice is colapsing under its own weight
since carter gave away the panama canal we need a new route
california fires are a result of lightning
coral reefs are being attacked by some type of spiny starfish
havent noticed any difference in beach when i go
permafrost future hundreds of thousand of acres to grow future biofuels on

paulm,

Your words:

"This analysis provides very compelling evidence that there is a correlation...."

The authors own words from the article you posted:

"Now, I fully recognize that I'm only superficially familiar with the debate over anthropogenic global warming. I am also not versed in climatology. Therefore, I cannot be entirely sure that this type of analysis hasn't been done before."

You'd bet the entire scenario on this guy?

Your pulling at every straw you can in one direction and refuse to put the same effort in the other direction for balance. You have to quit losing sleep over this, my friend, or you'll end up a complete bag of sadness before too long and then none of it will matter to you.

This warming scare has everyone making scenarios in their own minds, as to how good or how terrible it will be. We can make the same scenarios about what may take place in the next few weeks with Isreal and Iran and go build a bunker underground, but until something really happens, not close to happening, but really happens, we're only guessing at the outcome.

Every scenario that eventually plays out, has a mixture of good and bad possibilities and final outcomes. Nothing ever turns out a perfect fit for everyone, but we adapt.

History and nature have repeatedly shown us that everything is very, very temporary, time and time again. The past is never wrong, but trying to forecast the future usually is.

Mr. Hlinka:
You seem to have your hands full so I'll be brief.

Your first assumption is wrong, especially for the sake of argument. The growth in CO2 began in earnest after WW II (1945). Before then, the CO2 concentration was not far above that of the pre-industrial revolution period. So, in looking at the Hadley data, we see what appears to be a cycle (PDO?) superimposed on a trend (AGW?). If so, a reasonable approach is to estimate the slope of the trend portion by comparing the crest to crest or trough to trough values. For the crest in 1940 to the crest in 2000, one obtains a trend with a slope of about 0.07 C/decade. As I understand the findings of the IPCC, this is about the value they estimate for first order CO2 forcing without (!!!) any positive feedback. This does not portend a climatic catatrophe.

Hi Josh,

I think my very first posting on this thread laid out the variation of temperature changes in broad areas defined by latitude, including the whole globe. I don't think I ever concentrated any of my discussions on localized warm areas.

In these discussions I am limited to the data provided to us by those agencies and groups that collect satellite data, which is presented in the form of latitude zones on the globe. I have never tried to indicate that a localized spot of either cooling or warming is an indication of global warming because that is a false claim. I have always looked at the bigger picture of what is happening over the entire world.

Global climate change means that over a long-term period, most areas in the world will experience changing temperatures. When someone refers to global warming, that means there are indications that the majority of the globe is warming, but does not mean there are no localized areas of cooling.

Weather patterns will always results in cold areas and warm areas due to oscillating (wave-like) jet stream patterns. The east coast can be warm while the west coast can be cold and visa versa. Where global warming comes into play is that over time even the localized cool spots will gradually warm but could still may remain cooler then the warmer spots on a relative basis.

In regards to your comment that Pittsburgh had the one the coolest springs I attach the following map of the average spring temperatures relative to normal:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/jun/Last3mTDeptUS.png

Based on that plot, there is indeed a pocket of slightly cooler than normal temperatures right over Pittsburgh and I can agree with you. But looking at that same temperature anomaly map, most of the east coast and the southern U.S. had above normal temperatures. The northern plain states and the Pacific NW had a much cooler spring then you did in Pittsburgh. The people in Texas would say to you, what spring? Summer arrived early this year. Even a localized spot near Erie, PA had a much warmer spring then normal.
This map again shows one region can be warm while another region can be cool at the same time. This same cold/warm pattern occurs all over the entire world. But based on the historical record, there are more regions of the world that have fallen into the warmer then normal category then in the cooler category over the past 50-100 years. So again to concentrate on just one localized spot does not give you a true representation of what is happening across the entire globe.

Hi Dennis Hlinka,

My point is that the Arctic is no warmer now than it was 70 years ago when CO2 levels were lower.

It is thus unsupportable for Hansen to claim that the rise in Arctic temperatures over the last 30 years was due to CO2. He must first explain what caused a similar rise in the 1920s.

If he can't explain that, then it is obvious that he doesn't yet have an adequate understanding of what affects Arctic temperatures to make any substantive claims, much less declaring the end of civilisation.

Kipp: Based on the output of AGW crowd's beloved GCMs, it would have taken a doubling of CO2 to create the polar amplification we are experiencing. Did CO2 double? No. Your argument has no substance: no basis in fact, no basis in theory, no basis in computer models, no basis in historic records.

You are misinterpreting, or misunderstanding, or misrepresenting the AGW statements that the present polar amplification is consistent with the output of GCMs. You're missing it one way or the other. Because the same polar amplification signal can be generated by three things in those GCMs. I've already told you about the first, which is CO2. Since it hasn't doubled, we can exclude it as the cause. The second possibility is a 2% increase in solar irradiance, which also hasn't happened. What's the third? El Nino.

Kipp wrote:
"What I am not surprised by is the constant Lying, misinformation, disinformation that exists among the deniers."

Kipp, even though I mostly disgree with your position on AGW, I have enjoyed most of your posts. Unfortunately the above is an ugly departure from your normally civil statements. I know that there are similar posts from some on the skeptic side as well, but if getting your perspective heard on this forum is your goal, please know that kind of rhetoric is not persuasive.

HI Bob Tisdle,

Sorry I keep going into the PDO in my comments, but I have yet to fully understand your Smith and Reynolds SST methodology and its relationship to global climate change. Even with my scientific background, I have to admit that a lot of the material on your blog site, while scientifically thorough, is a little hard to follow at times. Especially what the ultimate conclusion is and how the information relates to global climate change.

I am willing to learn more about it, but it would also help if you could explain it's global change relationship in more laymen's terms both for me and those on this blog since I never studied ocean circulations in any great detail. I always try to keep in mind when I explain things on this site that most commenters here do not have a scientific background.

I am an interested student, but make it easier for us novices to learn the material and what it all means. For example in your latest note to me about the apparently rapid increases in SST east of Australia since 1980. What is the cause of that SST increase and what is your interpretation of how it relates to global climate change?

Lastly, I am copying some material with links to the ICECAP web site that talk about the PDO and El Nino and La Nina frequencies as well and the North Atlantic SST for the past 150 years. Can you comment on those stories?
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/the_relationship_of_the_pdo_to_el_nino_and_la_nina_frequency/
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/north_atlantic_sea_surface_temperatures_of_the_past_150_years/

JP and GW Steve,

I have read both your comments and you both seem to be at odds with each other as to the ultimate temperature effects due to the increase in CO2 concentrations.

JP says: "The function is logrithmic and regressive. The greatest temperature increases come at the early stages of CO2 doubling, but the RATE of change decreases with every increase of CO2. In that case, the temperature increase when CO2 is doubled from 60ppm to 120ppm is much greater than when CO2 goes from 400pm to 800pm. The temperature still will still increase when CO2 increases 400 to 800ppm, but that increase is tiny when compared to a much earlier interval."

GW Steve: "CO2 cannot be the cause of the .7K increase in temps that the Earth has experienced in the last 150 years. There is not enough of it nor can it absorb the energy to do so."

So who am I to believe in this argument? It's hard to provide any comment when two different people are saying two different things about the same CO2 /temperature relationship.

Can you resolve this among yourselves first?

Gary B,

Don't be so defensive. If you chose to debate, of course you are going to hear counter-arguments. If you chose to bash Patrick Henry, of course you are going to experience some counter-bashing. We all tend to get bashed, on this site. It develops the thickness of our skins, sort of like walking barefoot during the summer.

I'm glad to hear you recognize there is a difference between 1943, when Going To The Sun Road was not plowed and only opened when the snow melted on its own, and 2008, when it was plowed by giant snow-blowers about four times bigger than any that existed in 1943.

I myself recognize that Patrick Henry's links are predictably one-sided. However do you think the media will show a picture of giant snowblowers chewing away at giant drifts in summer?

Patrick linked to a picture a while back of three submarines surfaced at the north pole in 1987, amidst water that was open, though dotted with many bergs. Do you think the media would post that, amidst all the hubbub about the pole melting this summer?

A picture is worth a thousand words. Did you catch that media picture of an Antarctic penguin, in a media story about arctic melting? It was swiftly removed, when there was an uproar (and much laughter,) on the web, but it does give you an idea of the sort of knucklehead that works for the press.

I am constantly amazed by the knuckleheaded, revisionist stuff my youngest son brings home from highschool, including stuff about World War Two. I did not mean to suggest you yourself were a knucklehead, (though I don't deny you the right,) however I can't assume people who visit this site know what it was really like in 1943. To some degree I must assume I am writing to people who have been taught by knuckleheads.

Please do not deny me the right to talk about the sacrifices made by our nation in 1943. After all, I was writing on July 4. Also please do not deny that a lot of this Global Warming debate is politics, and not science. Therefore it often involves one-sided propaganda, rather than the careful weighing of evidence from both sides.

I do not object to carefully crafted (though one-sided) thought, such as Dennis Hlinka's. However I strongly object to my tax-dollars being used by Gavin S. to use NASA resources to create Realclimate, while he is punched in on the NASA clock. It provides a sort of bunker for Mann and Hansen to hide in, after it has been pretty much proven their ideas involving "tipping points" and "hockey sticks" are based on fudged data.

Hansen's idea was presented before a congress 20 years ago during a heat wave. (The revelation Hansen actually had the power and influence to turn the air-conditioning off in Congress before his presentation is something I find mind-boggling. I'd be very interested to find out who he spoke with, and who signed-off on shutting the system down.) There is a huge difference between the run-away warming he predicted, and the slight "trend" shown in the above chart.

We are being asked to make huge sacrifices, as a nation. Already the sacrifices are causing hunger, in the case of ethanol. In the end the suffering we will be asked to willingly accept will be like those our parents embraced in 1943. Don't you think we will feel a bit foolish if, rather than run-away warming, we are faced with a little ice age?

"arent even in the same ballpark as compared to the benefits of yes, ENVIRONMENTALLY friendly fossil fuels...the last time i read, places like texas and louisiana are meccas for sportsmen, birders, and vacationers while these two states are near the top of fossil fuel production"

LOL...you're always good for a laugh, sammy boy. Texas and Louisiana are environmental dumps. Houston smells like sweaty feet.

"by the way, the reason America will lose its chance to develop alternative energy is because it is uneconomic, costly, and cannot come close to the volume needed to maintain prosperity, freedom and the pursuit of happiness"

Ahh yes, fossil fuels are so economic that they may result in a global recession. Fossil fuels will never be cheap again. Get that through your head. They are not economic anymore. If you advocate the continued addiction to fossil fuels, then you also advocate global recession, totalitarianism, and strife. That's what the status quo will get you.

BTW, anyone else find Oiz's post hilarious? If a summer month being 2 degrees above average is considered "cold and miserable," that's the strongest proof yet of global warming. Just for the record, this July has been slightly above average (+0.5) where I live, but with an impending heatwave this week, that anomaly will go higher. Despite what the Denial Machine will have you believe, we've been having warm summers since 2004.

Dennis,

Ok so I now know that 1901-1930 is the agreed upon normal climate... the question is, what makes it normal? Humans decided that was normal, they decided something smaller than a blip in the climate time line was the baseline for the time.

30 years is really not that long, just because it is agreed upon does not make it a good measure. Given the new information since 1935, it seems that decision is archaic. According to Steve Bloom, papers from 1998 are archaic. 30 years gives us a nice standard to have, to compare things with, but we have to look at how good these comparisons are. I am not so much arguing against 30 years, as I am tryign to qualify it past "a bunch of scientists said so 70 years ago."

I think we would need to look at cycles, durations of those cycles, what kind of effect they have on cycles, baseline against the various oceanic phenomena, etc. We have a vast knowledge compared to 1935, don't you think it might be good to update, or at least qualify this 30 year norm?

What I'm not surprised about are alarmists calling others "liars" without citing anything specific they object to.

When people have no substance to their argument, they resort to personal attacks.

What I am not surprised by is the constant Lying, misinformation, disinformation that exists among the deniers.

Kipp,

Perhaps you'd like to provide an example? Do you think the above is limited to only "Deniers"?

Are AGW Skeptics, Zealots, and Advocates immune?

Have you ever provided a false statement here? Whether intentional or not?

How about Acidic oceans? If you parrot a lie, are you lying?

In addition, what do you think of my comments above to Dennis?

Does figuring out whether CO2 actually contributes anything to GW interest you, or are you still feeling confident in the guesses Hansen and likeness proffer?

If CO2 is contributing anything to GW, it can be determined, it just hasn't to date.

Is that not odd at all to you?

20 years and $50 Billion spent on AGW research and not one shred of proof that CO2 adds to GW.

That is very odd to me.

Thanks,

Steve

where SST anomalies rose more than 0.7 degrees from 1980 to 2001.

Does anyone know what "Sea Surface" refers to?

Meaning is it the top millimeter, inch, meter, etc.

Is it the temp of the air just above the Sea Surface or is it the temp of the water? Reply: Temperature of the water at the surface.

Thanks,

Steve

Dennis Hlinka you said earlier "Obviously the very far southern latitudes in the Antarctic region shows the smallest change, which again is consistent with the observed slight increase in the extent of ice cover down there." Please go here on Cryosphere and tell me how you can honestly say that there is a "slight increase" in SH ice extent http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg. If that was a graph showing ice decreasing (at the rate shown for this increase) in the Arctic you would be screaming we were doomed! BTW, you also just got owned by Bob Tisdale in his post. Brett, please do something about this Kipp Alpert chap who is calling all us who dare question the "consensus" of AGW as "arch conservative wingnuts". If that was Steve Bloom being called something similar, he would be having a hissy fit. The saddest part is Kipp Alpert sounds like a 14 year old who understands nothing about science when he posts stuff like that.

Dennis: For you I prepared a preliminary post for my blogspot. Click on the link attached to my name. I divided the Mid-Latitude South Pacific by 10 degree bands of longitude.

Since your theory is that the PDO and CO2 drive global temperatures, please identify the PDO and CO2 influences in each of the data sets in each of the anomaly graphs. Don't bother with the SST alone.

Thanks

"So who am I to believe in this argument? It's hard to provide any comment when two different people are saying two different things about the same CO2 /temperature relationship.

Can you resolve this among yourselves first?"

Dennis, I was speaking to you, alone. What I said is fairly well known and documented. I for one thought you would have known it; if you cannot respond to it, just say so.

HI Veets,

I think you have to go back and read my comments again.

The 1901-1935 climate period was directly related to the 1935 agreement back in Warsaw as being the 30-years reference point for their climate norms at that time.

I stated in my July 14 1:16 PM posting that the current 30-year climate reference period is 1971-2000 for today's cliamte norms. The 30-year period is updated every 10-years.

You can get back to me if you still don't understand.

Kipp,

I am curious, you look at that map, and you only talk about the red over Greenland and the Arcitc and call that proof of warming from CO2. Does the CO2 pool itself in those locations?

How do you explain the blue in the Arctic? Or the blue anywhere else? It seems as if Global warming is picking on Greenland... that would give personification to AGW now...

GW Steve:

Above you mention "How about Acidic oceans? If you parrot a lie, are you lying"

This is a topic of great interest since AGW is slowing dying and the hype seems to be shifting to Acid Oceans now to keep people scared.
Do you have any information the refutes the claim about CO2 causing Acidification?

Would love to read it.

Thanks

Dennis,
I can't speak for Pittsburgh itself as I am about 21/2 hours Southeast in the higher elevtions and for example there are plenty of times this spring when we would have a high of 40, cloudy east wind and you go 1/2 west and temps would be in the mid 50's and sunny so I don't really care about the data for Pittsburgh as here and there can be totally different, as this morning we had a low of 45, while the Pittsburgh area was 10-15 degrees warmer, anyhow you say global climate change means over a long term period but at the same time this "long term period" has not happened yet and if anything it has leveled to even cooled off the past few years. It has done this forever and will continue to do so, the earth has been much warmer in the past and much colder how can someone yell fire we we are stuck nowhere near either extreme of hot or cold. Its funny you say the northern plains, Pacific Northwest had a much cooler spring and for the longest time it was preached we could not base climate on our little neck of the woods, so its good to know you also see there has been alot of cool air around this year not only here but other places as well. Basing global warming from these maps you would never know it, there are less reds now than previuos maps, agreed?

So who am I to believe in this argument?

Dennis,

I have not and will not ask you to believe anything I state. Belief is not based on fact. Can you refute or possibly corroborate what I have stated?

If you can refute my statements, can you show me that there is enough energy in the 3 narrow bands of IR that CO2 absorbs and that CO2 is present in large enough quantities to absorb the amount of energy needed to keep the planet from cooling .7 K?

JP's statements are fine for laboratory calculations that only include CO2 and do not include convection in the method(s).

It's hard to provide any comment when two different people are saying two different things about the same CO2 /temperature relationship.

How so, the relationship is not the same? The calculation JP is using, in error in my opinion, is only useful in describing the thermodynamic properties of CO2 in a closed system.

Just as with Venus, it is folly to use measurements of CO2 in a closed system and then apply those measurements to a system that is open, highly varied, has convection, and has a well mixed gas with CO2 in miniscule amounts.

Can you resolve this among yourselves first?

JP, do you see any flaw in the above?

I may be wrong, but I don't see how a logarithmic function describing temp and CO2 in a closed system can be applied meaningfully to an open system, that is highly varied (temp, density, composition, energy input, etc), has convection, and is a well mixed gas that is only 380/1,000,000 CO2.

Heck, I've heard of this function, but never actually seen it nor know of it having any application other than theory.

Dennis, do you still take the position that JP and I are describing the same thing? If so, how?

Perhaps I can elaborate on something you find amiss in my thoughts or methods?

Thanks,

Steve

When people have no substance to their argument, they resort to personal attacks.

People who have a long history of posting and repeating documented lies generally whine first and loudest about being called "liar".

JP,

Since you don't wish to argue out your apparent disagreements of the issue with GW Steve, I found this link to be a good answer to both of you:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070919110220AAjuZrB

I will defer to this person's (Keith P) quoted comments since he has looked into this issue in much more detail then I have time to do:

"In the first place, climate forcing is NOT measured in degrees Celsius, it's measured in Watts per square meter (of the earth's surface). This is really the only convenient way to do it, as a climatologist must balance solar, greenhouse, aerosol, albedo, and other effects using a single consistent set of numbers. Also, it's pretty easy to compute energy balances in Watts per square meter, while the result in surface temperature can often be hidden in odd places in the environment. As a result, one of the key debates in climatological circles is the value called "climate sensitivity" -- which is NOT (as Motl incorrectly states) the temperature change you get from doubling CO2, but is instead the temperature change you get from increasing total climate forcing (from any source or combination of sources) by 1 Watt per square meter worldwide."

"Currently, the best estimates put the value of climate sensitivity in the range of 0.5 - 0.25 K W^-1 m^-2. That's a pretty unfirm number, but at least it puts us in some sort of ballpark."

"Second, regarding the effect of CO2 doubling. Yes, it's true that doubling the CO2 will not double the forcing, because the effect is logarithmic. No, Motl's equation (though logarithmic) is not correct. For one thing, it fails to account for the variation of CO2 absorbtion with frequency. There are at least three published equations in use by climatologists which do a better job. They can all be found here:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1...

"Using these equations, the forcing we get from doubling CO2 (to 560 ppmv) is 3.71, 3.98, and 3.97 W m^-2 respectively, which would lead to temperature increases of 0.9C to 3.0C, depending on the climate sensitivity factor one chooses to use -- with 2C being the central value."

"It should also be emphasized that, while the forcing is logarithmic, the increase of CO2 in the air has been exponential since the end of WWII. This means that CO2 is increasing at a faster rate than the forcing is slowing down -- so the EFFECT of CO2 increase, in terms of Watts per square meter per year, isn't slowing down at all."

Brett,

Actually, the general definition of sea surface temperature (SST) is that it is the water temperature at 1 meter below the sea surface:
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/cohab/hurricane/sst.htm

Reply: Fair enough.

"However, there are a variety of techniques for measuring this parameter that can potentially yield different results because different things are actually being measured."

Dennis: My July 15, 2008 12:12PM comment was posted prior to Brett's approval of the comments for this afternoon. I'm not avoiding your questions. First, sorry about the dryness of and lack of conclusions in my posts on the ERSST data, but I'm trying to keep my personal climate beliefs out of those posts. I've never seen anyone attempt to document SST data before, so I don't want to muck it up by interjecting my climate skepticism.

What caused the drastic rise in SST east of Australia between 1990 and 2001? Your guess is as good as mine, but it's not CO2. Using today's post at my blog as an example, there are many unexplained sudden shifts in basin wide and local ocean climate. In an earlier post, I illustrated how the Southern Ocean SST climbed 0.2 deg C from 1960 until 1980, then turned around and dropped 0.25 deg C. As far as I can tell, it's still dropping. Why? Got me. I'm just an observer. But possibly: The Southern Ocean is a THC/MOC upwelling point. Was that 40-year blip in temperature a response to that, or did Southern Ocean currents change?

Globally, SSTs dropped from the late 1800s through the early 1900s. That drop occurs in SST data in most oceans and in most hemispheres. The timing of the drop varies as does the rebound period. Would the AGW crowd attribute those drops in temperature to CO2? Probably not, yet they use the rebounds in ocean temperatures from the lows (1900-1910) to the highs (1940-1960) to bolster the AGW theory.

Dennis: With respect to your Icecap links, there are much better sources of information on ENSO, PDO, and AMO. NOAA has a lot of information on ENSO and some info on the other two. Also, Google the phenomena of choice and start downloading PDFs of scientific papers. Read the abstract and conclusion, and if the paper provides something of value to you, read what's in between. I'm really surprised you continue to use Icecap as a reference.

mark,

its ok to say that you were duped for the AGW lie...alot of people were...pretending you know about texas, louisiana, oil and economics is however an AGW style tactic you really ought to consider abandoning...

Mark:

Glad to see you back. Was concerned you had some sort of issue. I love your take on things in response to us "evil doers".. Any news from your compatriot BT? Hope he's well.

Guess what? I got 24 mpg in my truck last week. I love saving planet earth every day that way.

Dennis:

Thanks for your explanations on the 30 year period. I really thought it was just a conspiracy schemed up between Gore and Hansen. LOL

But it does explain one thing, the global cooling scare of the late 70's. I would suppose that the 30 year period prior to then was warm inducing the thought that the planet was reverting to ice. Hence the massive push to elminate particulates and make sure more sunlight hit the planet. I seem to recall even a wild idea to paint the caps black with carbon. Thank goodness they didn't do that huh? Do you suppose that the warming in the late 80's and 90's was in response to the extra sun energy from cleaner air? And maybe, just maybe, the temps from that period are skewed because of it.

People who have a long history of posting and repeating documented lies generally whine first and loudest about being called "liar".

Tomboy,

You are doing exactly the same thing as Kipp. If someone has a long history of lies, it should very easy to find one of them to dispute. The problem that the alarmists have is that they don't have any material to work with.

July 15 - the Arctic Basin is frozen solid.
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?T081971210

Temperature is 0C (32F) at the pole.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg

Bob Tisdale,

I understand your point about keeping your opinions out of your web page. My personal opinion, and you can disregard my suggestion if you wish, is if anyone (particularly without a science background) comes to that site, it still would be good to have a little perspective about the overall scheme of things just so they could have an idea what it all those plots really mean.

In regards to the increase in SST east of Australia, I don't think I ever stated in any of my earlier postings on this thread that any ocean temperature change was directly related or caused by a CO2 increase. In my earlier posting, I was going through a simple exercise on the potential of two wave patterns of ocean temperature oscillations (incorrectly using PDO) and possible air temperature changes resulting from some assumed CO2 relationship (it can be linear, logarithmic or whatever). My overall point was to visualize the combination of those two wave patterns into a final wave pattern where the air temperature peaks in 1930's and 1990's could be possibly be explained as the ultimate peaks of those two wave patterns as they phase together at those times. The peaks just seemed to coincide with the 60-year temperature cycle that many have identified to be tied with the PDO (like ICECAP.US) and that is why I used it in my example. I never tied the ocean SST to CO2 in any direct manner.

I only look at ICECAP to understand the current point of view of the skeptics and what information they are trying to skew into their preconceived theories. I also like to review their articles and graphs and identify the errors in their analyses and use their information in many of my comments here to refute some of the viewpoints frequently presented here. It's always good to see the next talking points that are likely to come down the pike before they show up here on this blog site.

I just wanted to know what your opinion was of their two ICECAP stories I linked to, and I got my answer. Thanks.

Hi Darren,

I like your perceptions and thinking process. It's good to see someone actually put some thought into what you are observing and actually coming up with a logical reason.

Yes I have seen a number of articles that discuss that topic of the reduced particulates in the air resulting in more sunlight reaching the earth's surface. So the very polluted 1950's and 1960's were cooler and possibly an effect of that increased pollution. I have the feeling that many on this site were not born back then, but growing up in the rust belt of Ohio and Pennsylvania during that time, I recall how bad the pollution was. Lake Erie was also a dead lake and I remember all of the dead fish washing up onshore.

The cleaner air is obviously a key factor to the possible relationship of increasing temperatures that we are seeing since then. That is if you want to agree that the changes are result of the some atmospheric/environmental change by man. All I know is there have been a lot of the arguments on this blog that the concept of man being able to change the climate is totally bogus.

Back in the 1970's, the "normals" were based on the 1941-1970 time period, which was much cooler then say the 30-year period of 1931-1950 time period. I am sure this led people to say that the climate has changed and we may be heading into an ice age.

One could then foresee that in the next 10-20 year period, that our "current" temperatures will be relatively cooler then the past 30-years and will obviously be used to further emphasize that we are again going into an ice age again.

However, the issue will remain, what is the overall temperature trend since the early 1900's and is there any evidence that we have broken that trend of increasing temperatures despite the shorter periods of temperature oscillations? Did the strong cooling trend in the 1950's and 1960's break the upward trend in temperatures that we have observed since the early 1900's?

Just something to think about.

BTW, anyone else find Oiz's post hilarious?

REPLY: Mark! Old Buddy! There you are! I thought you abandoned us. Thank the LORD that your here. I was running out of AGW Panic mongers to debunk! Whew, thought we lost you. That was a close one.

If a summer month being 2 degrees above average is considered "cold and miserable," that's the strongest proof yet of global warming.

REPLY: Let the debunking begin. Gee a whole 2 degrees. GASP!!!!!. We have had nothing but rain where I am at, old buddy. Rain and temperatures well below normal since mid June. All that proves is that there have been changes (and NOT for the better) when it comes to the region's weather. Two weeks in early June ain't cutting it.

Just for the record, this July has been slightly above average (+0.5) (GASP!!! A WHOLE .5 DEGREES!!! QUICK SOUND THE ALARM!!!!) where I live, but with an impending heatwave this week, that anomaly will go higher.

REPLY: Hee Hee Hee. It's about bloody time! I;ll bet your looking forward to it too. I know I am. ;-DDDDDDD

Despite what the Denial Machine will have you believe, we've been having warm summers since 2004.

REPLY: We have NOT been having warm summers in the NE/Great Lakes since 2004. 2004 and 2007 had to be about the coldest most miserable excuses for summers that I can remember. 2005 was a nice long hot summer, and '06 was half & half. I will tell you when we have/had a hot summer, Marko. Since I have a completely different interpretation of what constitutes a hot summer than most people. (i.e. more than just two weeks every other month of the season of real summer weather. Again, that doesn't cut it!).

Northeast/Great Lakes Weather. Proof that Glo-BULL Warming is a CROCK!!!!!

Gary B,

I was expecting a counter-bashing from you, when I came in from work, and must confess I am bitterly disappointed. I learn a great deal from getting bashed, (especially when the bashing contains links, though the links to Realclimate always give me a toothache.)

Here's a couple of links to demonstrate what I mean about the political side of this debate, as opposed to the science.

This first link is to an CNN artical from August 3, 2007. It talks about how Lake Superior is warmer, and at lower levels, and how this is exactly what models predicted, and how it verifies fears about global warming.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/08/03/superior.puzzle.ap/index.html

The second link is to the blog-site of a weather man on the shores of Lake Superior, eleven months later. It talks about how the lake is colder, and how the water level has risen. It also sighs that CNN likely will not report this news.

http://wluctv6.com/news/news_blog_post.aspx?id=159186

This demonstrates what knuckleheads reporters have become. Once upon a time reporters took pride on telling both sides. Now they are so one-sided it is embarrassing. And the same can be said about what is taught in our schools.

The importance of "trend lines" is that they to some degree take both sides, the ups and the downs, and balance them, giving us a clearer picture of what is going on. Both the press and public schools are failing to do this, concerning the subject of Global Warming.

There. I have bashed both the press and public schools. If that doesn't earn me some counter-bashing, I give up.

But let me close by bashing "trend lines." The trend line of the Niagra River would give one no indication that the Falls lay just downstream. In the same manner, the above trend line can't indicate what the quiet sun may do to us.

You are doing exactly the same thing as Kipp. If someone has a long history of lies, it should very easy to find one of them to dispute. The problem that the alarmists have is that they don't have any material to work with.

BT has posted a number of comments documenting your own mis-statements here (stopping at Brett's request). Steve Bloom, Mark and others have offered similar refutations of many of your comments. Your repeated comments about Hansen a few months ago (while you participated in the failed "swiftboating" attempt) were an illustrative example.

You have, in fact, provided ample "material" for any honest contributor to work with.

GW Steve, this CO2 link might help you out:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm?renderforprint=1

Dennis and GW Steve,
Most of what I know about CO2 sensitivty comes from Dr Linzen at MIT (despite what his detractors say, he is still a leader in this field), and Dr Stephen Schwartz. We could go round and round on this as thousands of debaters have, but to what result?

Caleb,

Sorry if you thought I was being defensive. It goes with the territory at times on this blog.

I don't like it when people make assumptions about me when they don't know me. I am a huge history buff and love this country a great deal. Thomas Jefferson is one of my favorite presidents. He was a great man with many great ideas. Speaking of Jefferson, my family and I just visited Monticello last week on vacation.

So, to make a long story short, I am very familiar with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That doesn't have much to do with weather and climate, I know. I am mentioning it to show that I do know about US history and am humbled by the sacrifices that previous generations, including members of my own family, made for us to continue to enjoy our freedoms.

I wouldn't deny you the right to speak about sacrifices, your patriotism or love of country. Just don't assume that I am one of the "knuckleheads".

I am constantly amazed by the knuckleheaded, revisionist stuff my youngest son brings home from highschool, including stuff about World War Two.

It is our job as parents to make sure that we do a little teaching as well. I am amazed sometimes by what is taught in schools as well. But, I have to remember my that my own high school education was just the tip of the iceberg compared to what I have learned since, through college and life experiences. Sometimes we all need to just put things into perspective. Life is a continuing learning experience.

I may be overly critical of Patrick Henry, I'll admit it, but it does irk me sometimes when he posts meaningless information or downright propaganda and people here accept it as fact. My main point was that there has been snow on Going to the Sun Road in July in the past. If it's 70 feet of snow or a foot of snow, it's still snow in July. What does it prove? Nothing. If he's posting it to be informative, great. If he's posting it to prove that AGW is a farce, then it is no different then teaching revised history. Both only serve an adgenda. That's my main beef with his posts. The anti-government, anti-scientist, anti-establishment rhetoric. It does get old.

(The revelation Hansen actually had the power and influence to turn the air-conditioning off in Congress before his presentation is something I find mind-boggling.

If this is true I'd be interested in seeing a link to the information.

Jim Hansen is one person. Al Gore is one person. Granted they have a lot of influence on certain people. They do not define the climate science area as a whole. They do not issue marching orders for the thousands of other climate scientists in the world. Yet we constantly hear that on this blog.

I look at much of the information with skepticism, but cannot believe that USGS, NOAA, NSIDC, NWS and the myriad of other scientific organizations are conductng their research at the approval of Al Gore or Jim Hansen. It's hard to believe what Patrick Henry says here when he is constantly bashing these organizations.

Sacrifices must be made if we are to progress as a nation. I don't advocate carbon taxes or offsets. I don't advocate corn based ethanol. There are other alternatives that work much better. Conservation, energy efficiency, less waste, more recycling. Cellulosic ethanol. Algae based ethanol. Coal derived diesel fuel. For any of them to work, we need to make a few small sacrifices instead of completely dismissing them and screaming drill drill drill!

Heck, I remember when a desktop computer cost $20,000 dollars. Now you can buy a super fast one at Wal-Mart for $500. The point of that statement is the fact that people still bought computers when they were $20,000 and the technology was in it's infancy. Climate change aside, we've got to take the steps needed and make sacrifices to become energy independent.

Don't you think we will feel a bit foolish if, rather than run-away warming, we are faced with a little ice age?

I think we would feel a bit foolish if we weren't prepared for either scenario.

John Adams,

"BT has posted a number of comments documenting your own mis-statements here (stopping at Brett's request). Steve Bloom, Mark and others have offered similar refutations of many of your comments. Your repeated comments about Hansen a few months ago (while you participated in the failed "swiftboating" attempt) were an illustrative example."

Is that you BT?

BTW, maybe you can point to where Mark refuted Patrick Henry's comments. All I see from him is the usual SUV's, oil companies, deniers, blah, blah, blah.

Caleb, you link to one story describing the long-term trend for Lake Superior and to another much more anecdotal one describing this year's weather. Looking over the weather of the last couple of months in the upper Midwest, can you perhaps think of a reason why Lake Superior might be a bit higher and colder just now?

From the CNN story: "Precipitation has tapered off across the upper Great Lakes since the 1970s and is nearly 6 inches below normal in the Superior watershed the past year. Water evaporation rates are up sharply because mild winters have shrunk the winter ice cap -- just as climate change computer models predict for the next half-century."

This focusing on the weather as a means of avoiding concerns about climate is rather dull, don't you think?

Caleb: "But let me close by bashing "trend lines." The trend line of the Niagra River would give one no indication that the Falls lay just downstream. In the same manner, the above trend line can't indicate what the quiet sun may do to us."

OK Caleb, then the same thing applies to the 10-year trend line that is continually being drawn from 1998 to represent the cooling trend everyone here is talking about. Maybe the temperature graph is simply saying the quiet sun is not making that much difference in the data right now. It's not a model saying that, it's real satellite data.

JP: "Most of what I know about CO2 sensitivty comes from Dr Linzen at MIT (despite what his detractors say, he is still a leader in this field), and Dr Stephen Schwartz. We could go round and round on this as thousands of debaters have, but to what result?"

I agree with you. I never claimed my expertise was in the molecular level of CO2 and its effects. It would take a more in-depth review of the data that I must admit I do not have the personal interest in or the time necessary to resolve it. Let's leave that research for the actual experts in that field to resolve, OK?

I will defer to this person's (Keith P) quoted comments since he has looked into this issue in much more detail then I have time to do:

Keith P's details do not add up. Let's examine.

"Currently, the best estimates put the value of climate sensitivity in the range of 0.5 - 0.25 K W^-1 m^-2. That's a pretty unfirm number, but at least it puts us in some sort of ballpark."

.5 -.25 K per W/m^2? There is a 100% difference in Temp per Watt. Pretty unfirm (sic) in a huge ballpark. What can be surmised here? Little if anything is known about climate sensitivity.

"Second, regarding the effect of CO2 doubling. Yes, it's true that doubling the CO2 will not double the forcing, because the effect is logarithmic.

Hansen and IPCC have CO2 forcing at 1.4 W/m^2 today at 380 ppm.

"Using these equations, the forcing we get from doubling CO2 (to 560 ppmv) is 3.71, 3.98, and 3.97 W m^-2 respectively, which would lead to temperature increases of 0.9C to 3.0C, depending on the climate sensitivity factor one chooses to use -- with 2C being the central value."

How can the forcing of CO2 at 560 ppm be more than 2.5 times than today if the effect of warming is logarithmic?

Furthermore, how can one be off by 2 K, 300% (.9 to 3) for the same forcing? Depending on the climate sensitivity factor one chooses? How many are there and if they have a difference of 100% how can any be used with confidence?

It gets worse. Not sure if you missed the below, but Keith P had more to say.

The primary feedback is water vapor, which is highly sensitive to atmospheric temperature. (Warm air holds more water than cold air). Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas -- less effective than CO2 per molecule, but much more abundant -- more heat means more greenhouse effect.

Completely wrong. Water Vapor is not less effective per molecule, it is more than double effective and 17 times more abundant at any given moment. Water vapor not only absorbs 2.45 times the energy as CO2, it absorbs nearly all of the IR the Earth emits, including two of the three narrow bands CO2 absorbs, and it clumps (sometimes to opaque).

I don't see how any of the above refutes my statement that there is not enough energy in the three narrow bands the Earth emits and CO2 absorbs nor is here enough CO2 to capture enough energy to cause the warming being attributed to it.

Do you see any errors in my calculations, here or in above posts?

I am happy to continue clearing up the ambiguities regarding "forcing" and log functions, but my statement remains firm . . .

There is not enough energy in the three narrow bands of IR the Earth emits and CO2 absorbs nor is there enough CO2 to capture enough energy to cause the warming being attributed to it.

Is there anything false in that statement? Do you have any questions regarding it?

Thanks,

Steve

Hey got a question, how do they come up with 380PPM or whatever the concentration is? How uniformly is CO2 spread out in the atmosphere? Could I take a measurement anywhere in the world and find around 380PPM (reply: No)or is it more like an average 440PPM here and 320PPM there?

Here is one of the most understandable theories of the climate that I have read to date:
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1562
I would like feedback on this article from anyone, but in particular GW Steve and Dennis Hlinka. You too Steve Bloom.

Dennis Hlinka and Steve Bloom,

Thanks, fellows. I knew I could count on you for feedback. However it hardly counts as bashing. You're far too polite for politics.

I miss Brookline Tom.

Gary B,

In my humble opinion you are right on, when you state we ought be prepared for both warming and cooling scenarios. (Cooling is more dangerous, in my humble opinion, especially with heating costs so high.)

In order to be prepared we need a clear idea of what the facts are. The reason I get so bent-out-of-shape about Hansen and Mann is they muddied the waters, and have made having a clear idea difficult.

I could go on, but it is hot and bone dry in southern New Hampshire. We are not usally forsed to irrigate up here. Drought causes a lot of extra work. ("Weather" is not boring when you grow stuff.) In any case, I'm too bushed to debate, at the moment.

The beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

This statement can be applied to the weather/climate as well.

Oiznop says that we haven't had a summer in years in the Great Lakes area. I beg to differ. I only remember 2003 being a year with a crappy cool summer. When you are used to temps in the teens and lake effect snow during winter, 80 degrees and partly cloudy is a heck of a fine summer day. But, that is my opinion.

So far, for the corner of PA that I live in, it's been a pretty nice summer. Reply: I live in central PA and I would say it has been a fairly "normal" summer so far.

Dennis Hlinka posted a good link to a temp map showing this fact.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/jun/Last3mTDeptUS.png

Maybe Oiz should consider moving to Texas or Arizona? They get days and days of temps in the hundreds during summer.

Oh, and our corn is waist/chest high and our potatoes are doing fine.

Caleb,

Sorry to disappoint. It may not look it at times, but my intention is not to bash people here.

Thanks for the links. I agree that this debate is highly political. It disappoints me that it has become "left" versus "right".

Yes I agree that Hansen and Mann have muddied the waters a bit. But, there are many other climate scientists out there, doing research that is answering a lot of questions. We have to be patient and keep an open mind, since, as many people have stated here, climate science is in it's infancy.

If it's true that the data, climate models and the experts themselves are as bad as some people say, then we truly are in trouble. If that's true, then we really don't know jack about what is going on with the climate.

Still hot and dry in New Hampshire. Another day to spend hopefully scanning the sky for a cumulous booming up, and then to try to wish the cloud in my direction.

Climate politics involves a lot of trying to wish things in certain directions, as well.

If temperatures move in the direction you wish, (doesn't matter if it is up or down,) you call it "A Long Term Trend." On the other hand, if they move in a disappointing way, you call it "A Short Term Fluctuation."

It is always possible to chose a time period which creates a "trend line" that supports your politics. If it is necessary to make temperatures drop, start your graph at the peak of the MWP. If it is necessary to make temperatures rise, start your graph at the bottom of the Little Ice Age.

Cast doubt on the other side's graph. If possible, "adjust" either the MWP or the Little Ice Age right out of existence.

I know; I know; I know. This isn't true science. But we are talking politics.

If you are truly passionate about your politics, it is like being in love with a bad person: Everyone tries to tell you the person is bad, but you are besotted with infatuation, and nothing anyone says can convince you that the bad person is anything other than a totally beautiful and perfect saint.

That is why we need a two-party-system. The two sides balance each other out, and the balance approaches a reality which neither side can see.

Of course, we could skip the politics, and instead embrace the discipline of science in an truly honest fashion.

Naw. It's much more fun to rave and storm and rip out our hair.

If it's true that the data, climate models and the experts themselves are as bad as some people say, then we truly are in trouble.

How so? Who is we? The folks who's lives depend upon bad science? AGW Advocates?

I am perfectly happy with exposing these charlatans. They have pilfered our coffers for far too long without producing anything of value.

If that's true, then we really don't know jack about what is going on with the climate.

I think you're wrong. I think we know a great deal about climate, it has just been hijacked by CO2 nuts.

Much time, money, and effort has been stolen from the advancement of climate science because of AGW'ers.

Not to worry, the waste will end soon as the AGW debate unfolds at the APS.

Have a good weekend,

Steve

Gary B., you say you think Hansen has muddied the waters. Could you explain why? Thanks.

GW Steve,

How so? Who is we? The folks who's lives depend upon bad science? AGW Advocates?

No Steve. Humans.

I am perfectly happy with exposing these charlatans. They have pilfered our coffers for far too long without producing anything of value.

Who are the charlatans? NOAA? NASA? USGS? NWS? Or are you talking about individuals specifically? Last time I checked, every entity on this planet that reports weather or studies climate, use data from all of these agencies. Are you saying that they are charlatans because they believe AGW is real?

You took my comments out of context and misunderstood what I meant. My meaning was, that if, according to a few people here on this blog, the information and data coming from NASA, NOAA, USGS is worthless, altered, manipulated, false, or (Insert adjective here), then we (humans, lay people, scientists, etc.) are in trouble, and we (humans, lay people, scientists, local TV weather people) really don't know jack about the weather/climate.

The key part of the sentence was "If that is all true, then...." I didn't say that I believe that we don't know jack about the climate.

GW Steve, do you really see the science behind climate change, AGW or whatever else you want to call it as a contest between us and them? Alarmist vs denialist? If AGW is so easily debunked as a fraud, then why do so many legitimate scientists still agree that it is real?

Steve Bloom,

Yes. The reason I said that, is because I haven't seen where Hansen has answered his skeptics. If he doesn't answer his skeptics, doesn't that just add fuel to the fire and make it look like he is afraid to defend his position?

I know that the science will speak for itself, but so many people believe that he is lying and a manipulator of data. That to me has muddied the waters - by adding that to his reputation, at least here on this blog. I don't know what it has done to his rep. in the scientific arena.

Gary B, you say "so many" believe he is lying, but as far as I can tell that group pretty much overlaps with those who think the entirety of climate science is a fraud. The reason Hansen gets singled out is because he's the leading climate scientist in the U.S.; if someone else was in that position they'd get the same treatment. (In fact, years ago Steve Schneider was more or less in such a position and indeed did get the same treatment. Look also at how Gore gets treated by these folks.) Hansen debating with such people would needlessly lend them legitimacy. FYI Hansen's reputation among other scientists is impeccable (although many think he's a little too bold when it comes to making public statements). I predict that there's a Nobel Prize in his future.

I should add that these attacks on Hansen are very much a component of an orchestrated smear campaign. The outspoken denialists you see here are for the most part the fairly clueless foot soldiers in that effort. They fear change, and Hansen is telling them if they don't voluntarily change to some degree now they'll be involuntarily changing a lot more later on. For the moment, denial is inarguably the easiest course.

Just in case you haven't seen Hansen's writings, they're available here, and in the first part of this article he addresses the issue you raise.

This article discusses another example of an attack on Hansen:

Swift-Boating

In 1976, with four colleagues, I wrote my first paper on climate (Science, 194, 685-690, 1976). Based on the suggestion of Yuk Yung, one of the co-authors, we examined, for the first time, whether several human-made trace gases might have an important greenhouse effect (until then, only carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons had been considered). We found that methane and nitrous oxide were likely to be important, though measurements of how these gases might be changing were not yet available. Starting then I became interested, very interested, in the Earth's climate; indeed, two years later I resigned as Principal Investigator of an experiment on its way to Venus so that I could devote full time to studies of the Earth's climate.

So it was a bit of a surprise when I began to be inundated a few days ago with reports that I had issued proclamations five years earlier, in 1971, that the Earth was headed into an ice age. Here is how this swift-boating works.

First on 19 September 2007 a Washington Times article by John McCaslin reported that a 9 July 1971 article by Victor Cohn in the Washington Post had been discovered with the title 'U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming'. The scientist, S.I. Rasool, is reported as saying that the world 'could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age'.

This is an old story: Rasool and (Steve) Schneider published a paper in Science on that day noting that if human-made aerosols (small particles in the air) increased by a factor of four, other things being equal, they could cause massive global cooling. At Steve's 60th birthday celebration I argued that the Rasool and Schneider paper was a useful scientific paper, an example of hypothesis testing, in the spirit of good science. But what is the news today?

Mr. McCaslin reported that Rasool and Hansen were colleagues at NASA and 'Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.'

What was that program? It was a 'Mie scattering' code I had written to calculate light scattering by spherical particles. Indeed, it was useful for Venus studies, as it helped determine the size and refractive index of the particles in the clouds that veil the surface of Venus. I was glad to let Rasool and Schneider use that program to calculate scattering by aerosols. But Mie scattering functions, although more complex, are like sine and cosine mathematical functions, simply a useful tool for many problems. Allowing this scattering function to be used by other people does not in any way make me responsible for a climate theory.

Yet as this story passes from one swift boater to another it gets juicier and juicier, e.g.:

---------------------------

Global Warming Scientist Once Warned of 'Ice Age'
By Doug Ware - KUTV.com

WASHINGTON - A NASA scientist, who is now sounding the alarm over global warming's threat to the planet, once believed that pumping too many greenhouse gases into the air would have the opposite effect - a modern day ice age.

James Hansen is currently among scientists who believe that carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet's atmosphere - posing a grave threat to the environment and humans' ability to adapt to it. Many others - like public preachers Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio - share the same view in what seems to be the 'hot button' issue of the moment.

But 36 years ago, it appears, Hansen had a completely different warning - in what may be the scientific equivalent of a grandiose political 'flip-flop'.

In a Washington Post story dated July 9, 1971, Hansen - then a research associate at Columbia University - warned of a modern day ice age, which would cause the planet's temperature to plummet as many as six degrees.

The reason, he said then, was a fine dust emitted into the air via carbon dioxide pollution that would eventually become so dense that it would block sunlight and result in cooler temperatures - a scenario exactly the opposite of what leading climatologists say is happening now, that greenhouse gases are trapping heat inside the Earth's atmosphere.

Hansen and one of his research partners believed that the problem was so severe that the 'ice age' could happen between five and ten years after the report - putting the prediction for extreme global cooling between about 1976 and 1981.

It didn't happen.

Now a scientist for NASA, Hansen is facing criticism by some for an immense change of heart. How could he have predicted something so importunate at the time - only to make a 180-degree turn 35 years later, and completely head in the opposite direction?

In fact the 1971 report even claims that Hansen and his associate dismissed the idea of global warming.

'They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide that fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere,' the Washington Post report said.

---------------------------

It is little wonder that I have been getting nasty e-mails the past several days.

Jim Hansen

BTW, Gary B, this particular canard seems to have originated in a 9/19/07 column in the Unification Church-owned Washington Times, but as we see from these search results it spread far and wide pretty quickly and continues to have some currency. It got spread around this site as well.

Steve Bloom,

Thanks for the links. My understanding of Hansen and his position is a bit clearer now.

...as far as I can tell that group pretty much overlaps with those who think the entirety of climate science is a fraud.

I agree.

Hansen debating with such people would needlessly lend them legitimacy.

True. I don't think that he should debate anyone, science is not a debate, but defend his position a little more vigorously maybe? He could explain his methods more clearly to the skeptical public to remove that air of suspicion about him. Also, many of his critics are climate scientists themselves, correct? So, not addressing their concerns/criticisms, is what I meant when I said that he has muddied the waters a bit.

I should add that these attacks on Hansen are very much a component of an orchestrated smear campaign. The outspoken denialists you see here are for the most part the fairly clueless foot soldiers in that effort. They fear change, and Hansen is telling them if they don't voluntarily change to some degree now they'll be involuntarily changing a lot more later on. For the moment, denial is inarguably the easiest course.

I can understand why some people fear change or the prospect of government forced changes. What I don't get is why some people here are so anti-science, anti-technology and anti-progress. Everything different is bad, evil, false, you name it! Trying to get your point across on this blog is frustrating at times.

Which, I might add, is why I hit Patrick Henry so hard sometimes. I think his main goal is to confuse and misinform those people here that don't know what's going on. Yet, even though he posts false or misleading information, people want to make him a saint.

What baffles me is that so many people are willing to trust and believe what they hear on a blog, from people who just might be janitors at Denny's, instead of what someone like Hansen says.

Like I should trust PH and distrust USGS or NSIDC? I don't think so.

Anyway, we've disagreed in the past, but I've come to understand your points of view more and more. Thanks for adding your perspective to this blog.

When I stumbled across this site I believe there were 104 posts on this one topic. It has been an enlightening, if disappointing experience to read these views.

First, briefly about me: I am not a scientist, I am a consulting engineer. I design large and sophisticated air conditioning systems for large and sophisticated buildings. I have designed a skyscraper over 1000 feet high, a lizard environmental chamber, a Class 10 microchip wafer clean-room factory, a low temperature/low humidity book warehouse, and so on. Additionally, I am LEED certified (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). Thus, I do know something about the properties of air, water vapor, CFCs, HCFCs, energy, etc. That said I am at most a moderately interested and modestly educated observer of climate change claims. But I also have a pretty good BS detector.

Thus, I am generally also a skeptic. About many things, but in this case I am a skeptic about global warming in general and man-caused global warming in particular.

I suppose my skepticism has roots about 45 years ago. I remember vividly reading in my Weekly Reader a pronouncement from some scientist that we could be on the verge of another Ice Age. Please, I did not at the time realize that I might need to document this, so I noted neither the date nor the author of the article. But I do remember being at once thrilled and concerned about the possibilities of woolly mammoths in northeast Texas.

So it was with great skepticism that I greeted reports a few years ago that we might be experiencing global WARMING!?! Huh? How can THIS be happening now? This called to mind to other skepticism-causing factors in my history.

One was a column written by George Will. You know George Will, the political columnist and commentator. [He also wrote a terrific book about baseball, Men at Work. If you like baseball, read the book.] But the column I remember concerned science, research funding and politics. Paraphrasing, he suggested that the best way for a scientist to get funding is to predict SOME disaster that is about to befall the planet. The time for this disaster should be about 10 years away for this to be most effective. If it is much quicker than 10 years, it is way too easy to be found out to be a fraud, and if it is much longer than 10 years, the American public just won�t focus on it at all. But 10 years is just right to get a nice fat research grant (and, if you are lucky, the fame and fortune that modern media can bestow on only a rock star or a scientist that accuses America of endangering the planet).

And I believe Mr. Will has hit the nail on the head. Scientists are no longer white-smocked, justice-is-blind, bespectacled pursuers of truth, doggedly trying and discarding concepts and theories, using laboratories as a means to access Occam�s Razor. These days, too often, the data is pencil-whipped to fit the theory. As example, I remind you of the data gathered to claim the horrendous dangers from second hand smoke. Apparently the data just didn�t meet the standard criteria necessary to make the claim, so the researcher �relaxed� the standard a bit. Then the data fit the theory nicely and the tobacco companies could remain villains�and the research grants could continue. Well, BS. I am not a smoker, detest the smell of smoke, and I believe I am allergic to it. But that does not give ME the right to claim health danger when the data doesn�t support it. What it does do, is give me the right to walk out of a smoky restaurant and spend my money elsewhere. But I digress.

Now, since scientists ARE no longer �white-smocked, justice-is-blind, bespectacled pursuers of truth� I look at scientific claims with a skeptical, perhaps even a jaundiced eye. Who says we are getting warmer? And I would like to see the proof. And, as I said, I am an engineer, so I really don�t want to see some esoteric, hand-waving claim. Science is science. I want hard numbers. So here are my questions:

1. I hear claims that the earth is growing warmer at a rate of about a degree a century. HUH? Exactly how is that determined? Just how many temperature reading stations were there in 1900, WORLDWIDE? How uniformly were they spread, how often were readings taken and how accurate was the equipment?

If there is not good data from say�every 100 square miles, worldwide, then there is simply not enough data to KNOW what change if any there has been over 100 years. And I guess that data should probably be taken and recorded at least once an hour, every day, and 24 hours a day.

Oh, and don�t forget humidity readings. I can GUARANTEE that there are not good humidity readings from 100 years ago. I do a lot of humidity calculations as an HVAC engineer, and I know how hard it is to get good humidity data today, much less 100 years ago. And in case you don�t know, there is much more heat stored in humid air than in dry air, so it makes a huge difference.

And, how DID they take the necessary readings in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, Antarctica, African jungles, the Sahara�.shall I go on?

I am here to tell you, if scientists claim that they have direct temperature/humidity readings from 100 years ago that can substantiate this claim of global warming, my BS meter is going to go off.

2. So, they have to make some secondary-effect kind of argument, and that just won�t wash. If you can�t show good data from every 100 square miles world wide, you just can�t have any real confidence level that you are accounting for all the weather, gas, environmental, see level, ice thickness, etc., etc. changes on a global scale. And if you can�t do that, then you are just spouting opinion.

3. And even IF there is some small change over 100 years do you have any real confidence that this is a continuing trend up, or perhaps is it a reversal of a cooling trend that happened the previous 100 years. If you don�t have good solid data for the last 100 years, then how can you possibly have any solid data for the previous 100 years? Now, I know there has been climate change in history, but this happens over thousands of years, not a hundred. And face it, you don�t know where we are on the cycle.

4. But let�s just say, for the sake of argument, that there is a slight up-tick in temperature on the earth. What in the world makes you think it is man-made? Was the PRREVIOUS warming-up out of the previous Ice Age man-made? Don�t think so! So why do you think this one is? The measly increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere just can�t explain it. CO2 is a very small part of the atmosphere and water vapor is a much higher component and is a much higher energy impact. If you look at the impact of CO2, methanol, and other so-called greenhouse gases from volcanoes, termites, cow-flatulence, etc. manmade sources just are miniscule. But nonetheless, the global warming crowd claims man is the responsible party and that CO2 is the culprit. They claim there is a correlation between CO2 levels and global warming. And that takes me to the crux of this whole missive.

I started to ask myself, what has man done over the last approximately 15 years that has increased significantly, at a rate that pretty much parallels the rise in CO2 and global warming? I worried about this for several days until finally, while watching TV the answer came to mind, and ironically, it was an oil man that gave me the answer.

T. Boone Pickens has ads all over the TV hawking his new plan to cut back on fossil fuels, to end global warming. His answer is a ruse, and there lies destruction.

Wind Turbines! As the use of wind turbines goes up, so does CO2 levels AND temperature! The correlation there is not deniable! Now, causal effect is a different story.

Just as it is with CO2 and global warming.