I recommend that you would go to "not by fire but by ice" at www.iceagenow.com for some very good postings of articles and comments by the editor of not by fire but by ice.
I have linked articles by Accuweather to him and he has posted some of those.
He has posted a recent article about the discovery of active volcanos at the bottom of the Artic Ocean along the Gakkel Ridge.
Interesting reading.
If your interested in Global Warming or Global Cooling this is a good site to go too.

Sea Surface temperatures are heating up.
Above average temperatures in all oceans.
As predicted by general circulation models, the Northern Hemisphere oceans are heating up the most.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/weekly-sst.php

Artic Sea Ice is below normal.

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

Not clear if we will see another record low, but the North Pole be could ice free.

Sea levels are continuing to rise and extreme precipition events are becoming more common.

Meanwhile, solar sunspots have yet to increase. So, all of this continued warming is despite the lack of sunspots.

Not much that deniers can reasonably cling to anymore.

12:25 pm, Monday June (again, emphasizing: JUNE-A SUMMER MONTH) 30, 2008, current temperature: 64 DEGREES F. Still waiting for GLO-BULL WARMING and still waiting for SUMMER TO START (and last for more than two weeks)!!!!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!!

(backyard weather, Oiz. Yada Yada Yada)

It looks like the Northern Hemisphere sea ice is holding on a bit better than last year. UIUC Cryosphere indicates about 0.5 million square kilometers more ice than at the same time last year.

The annual minimum is still at least 2.5 months away, so I don't think this is strong evidence in favor of any position yet. My own (not very risky) conjecture is that the minimum sea ice extent will be lower than the average for the 1979 - 2007 period of record, but not nearly as low as 2007.

Why is Accuweather reporting that California is both smoky and "scorching?"

In fact, the smoke is sufficiently reducing inbound solar energy that there is a measurable cooling effect. Sort of a mini nuclear winter. Why not report on that, as it is a serious negative consequence, occurring during a year of relatively late seed sprouting in many agricultural districts?

Reply: I am not at work, but maybe they are reporting about the smoke and it is hot elsewhere in the state away from the fires. Where are you located?

Where's the melt? End of June and the North Pole only has about four weeks left where the sun is high enough to do any melting.

Given the track record of press stupidity, I suspect we will be seeing North Pole melt predictions all the way till Christmas.

Why are we talking about global warming when the earth has COOLED in the last 5 years. How can anyone believe that man has the power to control the earth warming and cooling to any great extent. Things that sound good are being taken as facts. Let's hear a full debate with both sides being given equal time.

The liberal press discounts anything scientific that shoots holes in the global warming myth. Why won't Al Gore ever debate his propaganda? Even the clip that was manmade in the studio was used to "prove" his point. I have lived on the coast and keep being told of the rising sea level. I have not seen it rise during the 30 years that I have been watching.

We need to get to the money. Scientist get huge money for distorted "facts" and "results" to prove a predetermined conclusion. And what about sellers of carbon credits. Give me a break. ohhh
Gotta go had a great money making idea. I'll get back to you selling my carbon credits soon. Forget the above there is global warming!

"Underwater suspension Tunnels" reverse global warming while driving gas prices back to 30 cents a gallon..

Assuming AGW is true and it is caused by CO2 (a big IF), what do we need to do? I've heard we need to cut our carbon footprint by 90% and people are talking about how we should sacrifice. I think it's time we had a reality check. What are the real options, with real numbers of CO2 savings? Changing a light bulb isn't going to cut it.

Is the US going to force China to cut CO2, or is the US going to double the sacrifice to make up for China? Is the US going to tell Canadians that they can't heat their homes in the Winter? Are all Americans going to walk or bicycle? Ha!

So what shall we sacrifice? Ban beer, carbonated beverages, and even wine since making it produces CO2. Ban cars, but allow motorcycles. Bring back the 55 mph speed limit, enforced. Ban all non-electric vehicles from the core of large cities. Ban jet-skis and gas outboard motors, and any other personal boat that goes over 10 knots. Ban gas lawnmowers and weed-eaters. Ban all air travel, and all military jets too. Close down all coal and natural gas power generating stations. Build lots more nuclear power generating stations. Shut down all oil refineries. Implement China's one-child policy. Ban religions which are against birth control and abortion. Encourage more wars and promote disease. Commit suicide.

Did I leave anything out? Remember the war to end war? You can make huge sacrifices and still not accomplish a thing. Be careful what you ask for.

Did anyone else notice that the hype about the North Pole being ice free this year is because it is covered with first-year ice? Take note 'Anonymous', that there can't be first-year ice if there was ice cover at the North Pole last year. The press story is nonsense. All the supposed 'observations' in Anonymous' post at 10:58am are misrepresentations or outright wrong, except for the lack of sunspots. Yes, the 'deniers' do have something to hang on to.

Global warming? I wish! It's June 30, and it's only 69 degrees here. It's normally 85 deg this time of year! I wait all cold winter long for summer, and now it is June 30 and it still hasn't acted like summer! And this isn't the first year it's been like this. How can we get the Global Warming thing really heating up?!

Regarding the "Seven Wonders for a Cool Planet: etc"...Again, I don't want it to be cold, thank you very much! Why is cool good and warm bad? You can't grow very many crops in the snow.

Item #1 Bicycle (0 CO2 emmisions) - only when it's not being used. Once you start riding it you exhale CO2. Remember folks, every human being and animal exhale CO2. Should all living things stop breathing just to save the planet?!!

Anonymous wrote:
"Sea Surface temperatures are heating up.
Above average temperatures in all oceans.
As predicted by general circulation models, the Northern Hemisphere oceans are heating up the most."

What does the ARGO data (not included by NCDC or NASA) indicate from 2003 to present? How about lower trop. satellite data reported by UAH and RSS?

I don't think any of us on the skeptical side would argue that there has not been some modest NH warming or that Arctic ice has not been on a slowly decreasing trend in the last 30 years. These, of course, could be caused by the natural variations in global climate that have been occurring for millions of years.

My questions for you:
Do you honestly believe that current climate science is sufficiently advanced to confidently rule out natural variation leaving only man-made CO2 to explain the observed warming?

If so, do you honestly believe that even draconian CO2-reducing measures by the U.S. and the E.U. (leaving China & India out) will reduce the growth of atmospheric CO2 enough to make a significant difference?

Are you really ready to support the absolute wrecking of the U.S. and E.U. economies based upon the above?

All,

Instead of supposing what AGW Advocates or Skeptics believe, I'd like to be sure. Not jockeying for a debate, no injecting my opinions, I simply want to know why you all think the average global temp has risen in the last 200 years.

The exercise will to be to apply known Laws to the beliefs to see if they hold water. No opinion, just science and math.

What would you say is the major contributor to GW, anthropogenic or not? Second most? If CO2 is not in the top two where is it?

Why?

Is there any doubt that a device that can measure and record IR radiation in the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs and emits can be built and used to measure and record the amounts of IR that CO2 emits towards the planet?

If there are doubts, what do you think the constraints are?

Just in case, the argument "if we could, someone would have done it already" is already being considered.

Thanks,

Steve

Entire East Coast is way above average this month. Yet, Quiznop and his minions claim that summer hasn't started yet...LOL.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/tanal/montoday/mon2dayf.gif

This site has some cool climate change topic's updated everyday.

http://icecap.us/

Here were I live in PA, we have yet to see any global warming so far this summer. It is June and it is summer time, it is supposed to be HOT!!! Global warming is dead. If you look at the sea ice in June 1993 and the ice in June 2008,it looks very much the same.I welcome global warming.BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!

With last week being the 20th anniversary of Hansen's 1988 testimony before Congress, is it time to evaluate Hansen's results with the real world climate?

See http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html and
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/another-assessm.html

We can all see the actual climate is below Hansen's "C" prediction -- the one that shows a small amount of warming provided we cut CO2 emissions drastically. We can also see that based on the actual amount of current emissions/atmospheric CO2, the actual temperature should be somewhere between Hansen's "A" and "B" predictions.

* Why is it that so many people still hold Hansen in such high regard? It's certainly not for his predictive power.

* Is it time that we look beyond CO2 emissions for other possible causes of climate change?

* How is it that natural factors have overcome the power of CO2 in recent years?

* When will people realize that computer models do not output facts or scientific data?

* Is it possible to question the AGW hypothesis and not be branded a stooge for big oil or being accused of not wanting a clean Earth for our children or grandchildren?

Thank you

Artic Sea Ice is below normal.

Anonymous,

One of my Statistics classes taught me to be very skeptical of graphs and charts. One of the first things to look for is the range of time.

Take a look a the graph again. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

When is the Anomaly Mean relevant?

You do not recognize that your statement above is relative and subjective, or do you?

A more accurate statement would be "Arctic Sea Ice is below the 1979 to 2000 mean."

Look at July 2007 and today, July 2008. There is at least 500,000 km^2 MORE ice today than this time last year.

The 1979 to 2000 mean is no longer relevant. The first link you posted is based on 1971 to 2000, it is also out of date.

Not clear if we will see another record low, but the North Pole be could ice free.

Based on more ice today than this time last year, would you bet on it?

Sea levels are continuing to rise and extreme precipitation events are becoming more common.

Please quantify the first part of the sentence.

Extreme precipitation more common? This thought is a fallacy.

Subjective terms like Extreme are useless in debate, PR or Marketing is a better place for use of terms like these.

It is simply a higher population that has extended into previously low density populations and now the reports of extreme weather are more numerous simply because of higher population and better communication.

More people are affected by weather, good or bad, simply because there are more people.

Meanwhile, solar sunspots have yet to increase. So, all of this continued warming is despite the lack of sunspots.

It has cooled since 2000 and the graphs you presented to a trained eye are moot. I will elaborate further if you care to have an understanding.

Here's a quickie.

Stats is a pretty deep subject. Basically it teaches one how to manipulate data to influence an audience. The same data can often be used to show opposite findings depending on how it is presented, it can always be used to show different findings.

Subsets of data are most commonly used. Think of them as Halve Truths or Propaganda. This is why accurate and complete records and measurements are needed for science, massaged data, as in GISS, should be considered a subset of data and instantly recognized as propaganda.

Massaged data has influence behind it otherwise there is no need to adjust data.

If a Pro Natural GW statistician massaged the same data it would be different than those whose livelihood depends on showing a warming trend.

Not much that deniers can reasonably cling to anymore.

Cling to what? What is your argument? That is has warmed in the last 7 years? That can be refuted.

That is has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age?

Well, only how much and the cause of that seems to be in contention.

Do you wish to expand your comments or refute mine?

Thanks,

Steve

I want to say that global warming is not more than a myth but a sudden reality. I think that G'd when he first created the Earth he knoe that man was going to pollute the Earth by deforestation etc to build our "big cities". I also think that the Earth goes thorugh its natural changes in climate and etc. Right now we are really playing catch up because of the hole in the ozone layer that has grown bigger and has caused the Earth to heat up even more soo. This something we should be concern about because in the future u might be hearing more about skin cancer!!!!apply that sunscreen. In this recent age China has burned more SO2 emissions in 2000 then Europe and United States. This is something that needs to be addressed in the Oval Office and I think Barack Obama present that and surely not John McCain

While its open to anything I have some very important questions I need answered by an agw er. Thanks I really appreciate your time....well..
1. How old is the earth
2. Has the earth always been covered by the same amount of water
3. Why has previous ice ages melted
4. Why are alot of record highs from earlier last century or even late 1800's
5. Why has it been colder so far this year
6. Why has ice caps on Mars decreased
7. How if Mars is 99% co2 is there even ice that exist
8. Has there been droughts, fires, hurricanes, in the past that equal todays storms
9. Were there T.V stations back in the old days to report it
10.Are polar bear population getting higher
11.Does it matter if they are, have you seen any in person
12.Why was Greenland warm at one time
13.Do weather patterns shift naturally on there own, like one place warms as another cools
14.What are we saving out oil at home for
15.How do you get a zillion dollar grant to study the effect of warming on the tadpole
16.Why do you believe Fat Albert Gore
17.He looks like he is ready to explode, shoot that ain't a question just a fact
18.what is wrong if the earth warmed alittle, wouldn't that open new farmland
19.Do you drive to work in a hybrid
20.Why have you fallen for this money making hoax

Thanks for your time and look forward to getting these troubling questions of mine answered. Thanks again!

Last week NSIDC said that the Arctic was melting faster than last year. Too bad they didn't give their scientists some basic training about how to read maps. If they did, they wouldn't appear to be such idiots. Check out Hudson Bay in particular.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=29&fy=2007&sm=06&sd=29&sy=2008

G.W.Steve
In researching some of what you were referring to about IPCC predictions and absorption bands of CO2. I believe the IPCC has exaggerated their case. One thing I don't agree with is ambient warmth. They say the oceans are about full, that the sinks are almost saturated so isn't there a already ocean acidification, and more warming by convection. I see that a doubling of CO2 could actually mean less CO2. But what about the activity of CO2.The energy of the IR is transferred to the CO2 molecules causing them to tumble faster, and this transfers some of the energy formerly in the IR radiation to the other gases in the atmosphere by the collisions. They then move faster. This is commonly called being "warmer". This is the whole other hypothetical about radiative forcing.What are your beliefs about these topics.Keep it SIMPLE.
Thanks, KIPP

Anonymous: Click on the link attached to my name. That's my real name. I don't hide behind anomnimity. That'll take you to my blogspot post on global SST. Figure 1 illustrates global SST from two data sets. Sure doesn't look like SST is rising. Your link shows normal month-to-month fluctuations. It definitely doesn't show the warming you suggest.

With respect to your Arctic melt alarmist parroting, let me ask: What are the three things that cause polar amplification at the levels we've been experiencing for the last 7 or 8 years? Give up. First: A doubling of CO2. That hasn't happened, now, has it? Second: A 2% increase in solar irradiance. That hasn't happened either. What's left? Third: A major El Nino. Open up your EXCEL and plot Arctic temperature versus global temperature. When does the Arctic amplification increase? Right after the 97/98 El Nino. Remarkable. Guess what? General Circulation Models predict that, too. You're simply not reading the fine print.

Some day you'll figure it out. Maybe not.

I'm waiting to see if the killer super hurricanes will wash New York City into the Atlantic...I still say we are dealing with living entities called sea and sky and earth, and that technologies are used to geo-engineer planned event sequences (aka weather weapons or weather modification). I still say anyone can go outside and look at the clouds and see for themselves what goes on in the sky, chemtrails and cirrus clouds for example. Pollution is still a bad thing and regardless of agenda, r