Gas flaring from Siberian oil fields dumps huge amounts of soot on the snow, and lumber companies burn the forests (generating lots more soot) so they can legally log them.

Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that Siberian warming must be due to CO2 from Arnie's Hummer.

Looks like global warming is being accurately referred to as Siberia warming!

Since global temps are based on an average of local temps across the globe, it would seem obvious that without Siberia, temps in the majority of places have decreased.

This would clearly account for the many colder zones throughout the year while warming is supposedly prevalent.

Now, the real issue is WHY Siberia is warming at such an alarming rate!

Seems to me that scientists would produce more beneficial work by studying real warming in a specific area instead of theorizing why warming exists in areas that temps have been forced by a generalized average analysis.

Maybe then we could be treated to a REAL theory instead of an (as yet) unreproducible hypothesis!

The image is consistan with other sources of information I usually check.
Speaking of warming, and this is to Oiznop -who has repeatedly said that Buenos Aires' lows are proof of the global warming fraud- people woke up in Buenos Aires with a comfortable temperature of... 17 C in Winter! Today, temps are supposed to reach 29 C... Summer-like!

The Northern Hemisphere is warming faster than the Southern. Could be because of more extensive melting of seasonal snow in the North. The South, with less land mass, has less seasonal snow to begin with so there is less effect from greenhouse gas warming.

This year is the 8th warmest January to June for Land, which includes places like Siberia. The Warmest Jan to June was last year was just last year in 2007.

See the following for details.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jun/global.html#temp

Brett;

No urban areas in Siberia!

The polar regions are expected to warm more than the temperate and tropical zones, regardless of the cause of the warming.

Now how does this warming differ from the warming in the early part of the 20th century, the MWP or the Roman Warm Period? In none of those cases did the world climate reach a tipping point. Is there any reason to believe if global warming resumes, it will be any different?

It is an interesting point that there may likely be non-CO2 Anthropogenic effects on climate that would serve to warm locally and thus contribute globally.

But, everyone gets so enamored with CO2 which no one can show has any more than a fraction of a degree of warming effect, that they (media/public) lose sight of soot, aerosols, irrigation which causes increase in the #1 greenhouse gas (water vapor), land use changes to the radiative absorbance, etc.

The use of the acronym "AGW" has come to mean A-CO2-GW, and no one qualifies it...

PaulB: "Looks like global warming is being accurately referred to as Siberia warming!"

"Since global temps are based on an average of local temps across the globe, it would seem obvious that without Siberia, temps in the majority of places have decreased."

"This would clearly account for the many colder zones throughout the year while warming is supposedly prevalent."

Paul, Is there something in the 30-year RSS data that is not clear to you? Temperatures in all zones during that period have increased. This is not data manufactured by models, but is actually measured by satellites. You can refer back to my July 13 2:39pm posting if you need a refresher.

Paul B: "Now, the real issue is WHY Siberia is warming at such an alarming rate!"

"Seems to me that scientists would produce more beneficial work by studying real warming in a specific area instead of theorizing why warming exists in areas that temps have been forced by a generalized average analysis."

Paul, The fact that temperatures in the northern latitudes above 60N have increased by 1.2C and the tropical regions have increased by 0.33C is what global warming research has always stated would likely occur. A doubling or more in the temperature rate has always been predicted by those "terrible" climate models for the far northern latitudes compared to the lower latitudes. Seems to me that the climate research predictions are being proven correct by the actual data.

John Galt: "The polar regions are expected to warm more than the temperate and tropical zones, regardless of the cause of the warming."

"Now how does this warming differ from the warming in the early part of the 20th century, the MWP or the Roman Warm Period? In none of those cases did the world climate reach a tipping point. Is there any reason to believe if global warming resumes, it will be any different?"

Maybe the following chart can explain the differences between now and then:
http://www.esr.org/outreach/climate_change/mans_impact/co2_temp.jpg

Before everyone clamors to criticize the 0.8C temperature increase in the past 100 years in that chart, I refer you to the CRU temperature graph:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
that shows an increase of 1C since 1910.

This also is in basic agreement with the southern Pacific ocean temperature plots by Bob Tisdale:
http://i35.tinypic.com/250s2t2.jpg
showing a 0.6-0.8C temperature increase during the same time period.

This lower temperature increase in the southern Pacific relative to the whole world is also verified through the RSS satellite data where the world temperatures have increased by 0.44C while the southern hemisphere only warmed by 0.24C in the last 30-years. So the fact that world temperatures increased by nearly 1C since 1910, the southern hemisphere ocean temperatures increasing around 0.6C-0.8C during that same time period is very consistent with that data.

Well since Greenland isn't melting, got to move on ... Surely we can find something that's melting.

I have reached the point where I don't believe a word of what is being said by these warmists.

So we have six people that call themselves scientists studying something else they know nothing about to base their predictions, that they know even less about.

Maybe it's just fermenting.

Dennis:

I'm not sure what those links you gave are supposed to show me. They do not show any cause-and-effect between global average estimated temps and CO2 and they do not show why the consequences or results of this warm period will be any different from any other.

I added the emphasis because it appears I didn't make myself clear in my earlier post. However, it is true that nobody has shown how the causes of the current warm period nor how the consequences of continued warming will be any different from any past warming.

The current warming is within the natural variation of previous warm periods and previous warm periods did not lead to any run-away greenhouse effect and past warm periods also show any climate tipping point is purely hypothetical and speculative.

Dennis:Temperatures in all zones during that period have increased.

If we are looking at a global increase of .7 degrees and Siberia alone represents an increase of 5 degrees, I do not understand that YOU do not understand that to obtain an average, values have to be assorted ......obviously!

You appear to be reluctant to concentrate on the area in question where possibly many factors are at play ..........not only CO2.

Is this part of what they call talking points?

Put me in the camp that's glad scientists are studying the Siberia warming 'anomaly'. When a specific section of the globe leads the pack significantly in warming, it's worth studying. We might actually LEARN something.

Dennis Hlinka said: Paul, The fact that temperatures in the northern latitudes above 60N have increased by 1.2C and the tropical regions have increased by 0.33C is what global warming research has always stated would likely occur. A doubling or more in the temperature rate has always been predicted by those "terrible" climate models for the far northern latitudes compared to the lower latitudes. Seems to me that the climate research predictions are being proven correct by the actual data.

Reply: We seem to have a pretty good handle on what temperatures were like thousands of years ago when the earth was both warmer and cooler than the present. Many different scientists working in different fields have come to the same conclusions. So in the past (before climatology), these studies could confirm that as warming occured, it got warmer at the higher latitudes than it did at the equator. That's not exactly rocket science now is it? We don't need a climatologist and a computer model to make that prediction. You make it sound as though without the models this never would have been found.

Dennis Hlinka,

"Before everyone clamors to criticize the 0.8C temperature increase in the past 100 years in that chart, I refer you to the CRU temperature graph:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
that shows an increase of 1C since 1910."

Well so it does, but if you go back to 1850 when the graph begins the rise is much less than 1C. So obviously it all depends on the date you choose for your starting point.

Now what's really interesting is that the temperature apparently dropped between 1850 and 1910. What on earth could have caused that? Climate change of a natural variety perhaps?

I think that we are seeing a slow down in global temperature rise due to actions nations have been taking to reduce their carbon emissions.

In addition the recession we have been seeing in the US is probably contributing big time to the reduction of CO2 and therefore the temperature rise. (Reply: Actually, if there was a significant drop in CO2 it would take a very long time to see a cooling response according to what I heard at the Penn State global warming session I attended last year which included a few professors that co-authored a part of the IPCC report. )

In the last 1/4 alone the rush to swithch to smaller cars from SUV is definitely having an effect.

This is good news in terms of controlling the runaway effect of Climate Change due to human emissions. We are on the right track, we just need to keep going faster.

Dennis: Thanks for using one of my graphs, though I'm surprised the tinypic link made it past Brett's filter. Reply: It's not my filter, we use someone else's, but I can recover stuff that was wrongly junked.

What I see in that graph is a significant drop (0.35 to 0.45 deg C) then rebound in South Pacific SST at all latitudes from 1872 to 1935. There's a relatively flat to downward trend period from 1935 to 1990, after which time, SSTs rise 0.2 to 0.35 deg C. I think you're reading too much into my graph.

Two Big Questions: Why did South Pacific SSTs drop 0.4 deg C from 1870 to 1912? And why are you including that unexplained drop in your overall increase? It appears to be cherry picking.

I'll try to post a tinypic link of a South Pacific SST reconstruction in another comment. You of all people will enjoy this graph.

Sorry, but it may take an hour or two. I am so far behind in posting stuff on my blog. I'm having too much fun downloading and graphing and learning.

Regards

Meanwhile, back in Alaska-

The cool, gloomy weather is almost as hot a topic in town as steep gas prices....Normally, Anchorage has 14 or 15 days in the summer that reach the 70-degree mark, Albanese said.....This year, there have been two. And the city didn't see 70 at all until July 2. That threshold typically comes in early to mid-June, according to weather records.

http://www.adn.com/anchorage/story/464849.html

Dennis: Here's the South Pacific SST Anomaly graph I promised. Don't ya think it's great? It's from coral. No pesty, unreliable tree rings in this reconstruction. It shows that Southern Pacific SSTs dropped almost 2 deg C since 1750.
http://i25.tinypic.com/ru7ew1.jpg

Source:
Overview:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/linsley2000/linsley2000.html

Data:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/coral/east_pacific/rarotonga_sr-ca.txt

Regards

My "Tunnel" idea will actually cool Siberia off to those temperatures of 30+ years ago if we want them to. Computer modeling will verify this. The "Tunnels" can do a variety of good things for our planet.

Gas flaring from Siberian oil fields dumps huge amounts of soot on the snow, and lumber companies burn the forests (generating lots more soot) so they can legally log them.

If that is true, shouldn't the positive anomalies be smaller or non-existent in the summer when all the snow is usually melted anyway?

CU-Boulder Researchers Predict 59 Percent Chance Of Record Low Arctic Sea Ice In 2008

- April 30, 2008

http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/1fb96a0f5e60677e20ddafee67219e8d.html

We happened to be at a restaurant in Boulder across from CU on April 20, when one of my kids mentioned that there were hundreds of "zombies" walking away from the campus. Turns out it was National Marijuana Day and 10,000 staff and students had gotten stoned in public.

http://www.marijuana.com/drug-war-headline-news/98473-co-10-000-gather-cus-norlin-quad-4-20-a.html

Of course, there is no connection between these two Boulder news stories from late April.

Hold on, Hold on we can't base anything on a little localized area such as Siberia, we need to base it on the entire earth not Siberia. I believe thats what the AGWers preach we someone mentions its cold, like this morning, I had a low of 43 degrees but thats just here I know its not the worlds weather, I just can't figure out what world I live on because its never the one the GWers talk about. Back to the story, if true eventually the methane will lower as times moves on trees grow take in more co2 then it starts to go back the other way, wonderful how mother nature works isn't it.

Please don't forget to note the scale. That deep, deep red color is .6 degree. When was the last time you heard anyone say, "Gosh, it feels like it rose .6 degree; guess I'll take off my sweater."

HI John Galt,

Since I know a lot of the commenters here will give me a lot of h*** over using the "evil hockey stick" temperature graph (which I did on purpose to see what kind of reaction I would get), I want to present another bit of information that will still show how much warmer we are compared to the historical record for the past 2000 years.

Here is another historical temperature graph I copied from ICECAP web site that shows their temperature curve for the past 2000 years:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/loehle_fig3.jpg

You can use this ICECAP graph for your interpretation of the temperature variations over time that covers your periods of interest.

It shows a higher amount of temperature variation then my earlier graph that went back only 1000 years. They show a nice peak in temperatures around 800-1000 AD, which is about the beginning of my earlier graph. Then ICECAP's graph show a dramatic 1.0C decrease in temperatures to a minimum around the Little Ice Age period around 1500-1600 AD. My earlier graph only shows a 0.4C decrease in temperature near the same time.

However, I must caution you since I see a very big discrepancy in ICECAP's graph for the last 100 years compared to the data we know have from both the CRU data set and the highly detailed ocean sea surface temperature (SST) data sets collected by Bob Tisdale.

I point you specifically to the very small 0.2C temperature increase in the ICECAP is apparently showing in their temperature record since 1910. The CRU and Bob Tisdale's ocean SST data tell us that there has been a minimum of 0.6-1.0C temperature increase since about 1910. The bottom end of that temperature change occurs in the southern hemisphere based on the SST data.

So you have to wonder, if ICECAP's graph is not able to correctly address the latest known increase in temperatures that we now have through other independent sources, can you really place your trust their temperature record for the more distant past? You would think they would be able to more correctly show the latest temperature change since that record is most definable.

If you actually correct ICECAP's graph with the known 0.8-1.0C temperature change since 1910, their 3 graph lines would extend up to the range of 0.4C to 1.2C. This correction to their graph lines would place their two top graph lines well above the medieval warm period that occurred 800-1000AD.

So on a relative basis, if you want to assume that ICECAP's temperature record up to 1900 is accurate (even though they did not get the last 100 years correct), then our current world temperatures are about 0.4C warmer then the Medieval Warm Period.

In the overall scheme of things, that "evil hockey stick" graph is not that far off when you compare temperature from 1000 years ago and what they are currently if you apply the corrections to ICECAP's graph that accounts for the latest temperature changes in the last 100 years.

Paulm, co2 rose at the same steady rate during the great depression despite many tons less being emitted by idle factories worldwide. That fact alone should be enough for a rational person to doubt the manmade aspect to this scare. I did a search for the graph but can't find it now, I forget which site it was on.

Hi Bob Tisdale,

I think my link to your graph went through because I sent a message to Brett telling him that I had 3 links in my message. Since I know through past experience that any 3 links usually send the messages to the junk file unless Brett can intercept it, which he apparently did and I guess your graph went through as a result.

All I am trying to do is develop a relative comparison of the rate of temperature change noted on all three charts for a given time period. Yes you can say I "cherry" picked 1910 because that shows the biggest change in temperature from both the CRU curve and your SST curves. But if you look at the 1000 year record, something changed after 1900 that resulted in an obvious reversal of the earlier steady temperature decline from 1000AD to about 1900AD. That is why I felt that was a good starting point.

If you don't like the 1910 starting point, you can use 1880 as another reference point and the relative temperature difference between the global CRU graph (0.7C) and your southern hemisphere SST graph (0.2C-0.4C) still remains consistent with my earlier comments in regards to the RSS data. The starting point is irrelevant to my argument of how the temperatures changed across the globe.

paulm:
I think that we are seeing a slow down in global temperature rise due to actions nations have been taking to reduce their carbon emissions.

Say What????
Every Greenie out there will tell you that CO2 content continues to rise with no slowing.

Could this be the first small admission that something is amiss in AGW land?

paulm wrote:
"I think that we are seeing a slow down in global temperature rise due to actions nations have been taking to reduce their carbon emissions."

paulm, you're hearing mostly talk from eco posers - not real action. Perhaps there are some limited actions being taken here and there to reduce CO2 emissions, but the CO2 level in the atmosphere continues to rise just as fast. I'm afraid you will have to look at something other than CO2 to explain the recent temperature trend.

paulm:

"I think that we are seeing a slow down in global temperature rise due to actions nations have been taking to reduce their carbon emissions."

Are you kidding or is this wishful thinking? Are you saying that global anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been reduced. Are you not counting China and India and the United States?

Perhaps your statement is a talking point for the AGW cartels exit strategy? Al Gore is not stupid, and he's spending a lot of advertising dollars. If he sees the writing on the wall, he's got to move on to something that is more promising. I think their strategy is to say that they were successful and now they have seen model outputs showing an imminent ice age.

Perhaps the Danish Cosmic ray cloud formation research will be the impetus. Then the adds will show Al Gore in a winter jacket getting chased by Polar bears in Tennessee and the only way to stay warm and scare off the bears is for us to have giant outdoor coal fires form good old American Coal. And Al will be gladly be trading coal credits so we can get ours.

Anonymous | July 16, 2008 7:44 PM

"Gas flaring from Siberian oil fields dumps huge amounts of soot on the snow........ shouldn't the positive anomalies be smaller or non-existent in the summer when all the snow is usually melted anyway?"

I believe summer anomalies are influenced by the length of time that the snow is gone allowing for longer snow free period in which the ground can warm up.

Note: I didn't see seasonal data to be able to distinguish summer from winter anomalies. Did you see them somewhere else?

paulm: Do you live on the planet called Earth, aka the third rock from the Sun? There have been no global reductions in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Brett: How come? Dennis Hlinka posted a comment yesterday with a tinypic link to one of my graphs and it passed the filter, but one that I posted sometime between 7:30 and 8:00 last night got sent to trash.

Reply: Don't know Bob. I will dig it out.

Update: I found it, it is posted.

"paulm:
I think that we are seeing a slow down in global temperature rise due to actions nations have been taking to reduce their carbon emissions."

Paul, I'm sorry and not meaning to pick on you, but I had to laugh out loud when I read this.

Out of the three largest 'producers', Russia, China, India, and the US.

The US is the only one that has been suckered into doing anything.

The other three have increased their emissions.

Sorry meant to say FOUR largest producers, Russia, China, India, and the US.

Can't laugh and type.

I find it amusing that the Medieval Warm Period is dismissed as a regional or Northern Hemisphere event, but modern warming in the Northern Hemisphere is AGW.

Hi Dennis:

I wish you had linked the entire article from Icecap. As you may know Icecap posts many articles and blogs and since you posted that chart out of context I can't really comment much upon it. The graph may be one of the graphs from studies being debunked at Icecap.

Icecap isn't really an original source, either. Icecap is a portal and aggregator and doesn't conduct original resource (to the best of my knowledge). Is it misleading to call that Icecap's graph? Probably.

Many researchers are certain that the MWP was warmer than what we experienced in this century (so far) or last century. Others disagree. You and I can cherry pick sources all day as this is a source of contention among climate experts. Can we then at least agree the Holocene Climate Optimum was warmer than the climate in the last few centuries and the warming was quite rapid?

Even if we can't agree upon that, can you let everyone the entire URL for the post/article on Icecap that graph came from?

PaulM,

That may have been the best comment on this board ever.

Do you think Steve Bloom will come on here and accuse you of making things up? He would if PH said it. Your post shows a deep lack of understanding of the science. I used to be in the same boat as you, I tried to learn a bit, and be careful with what I say. I try to ask more questions and I am careful not to make bold statements like you did, because I am still learning.

I suggest to you to not make such bold statements any more, you ahve shown gross ignorance and need to correct that or not post. In other words, imrpove your knowledge or tone down the posts.

Dennis Hlinka: What's the smoothing on the ICECAP graph of the last 2000 years. As soon as you find that out, I'll be happy to smooth whatever data set I've posted so you're comparing apples to apples. Right now, you're not.

Brett: Thanks for digging out my post from last night.

That *is* good advice, Veets. Others here should follow it.

Re paulm's remark, Brett's note was a good response. All I would add is that global direct measurements of CO2 show an acceleration of the rise. We should bear in mind that a big component in the trend is the efficiency of the ocean sink (which we rely on to take up about half of what we emit). There are concerns that its rate of uptake may be slowing, although it's hard to know for sure since exact measurements are difficult. If it is slowing, that could explain the recent acceleration in the rate of rise of CO2, although emissions have increased overall as well.

Dennis: I don't believe anyone here is arguing with you about the Northern Hemisphere warming faster than the Southern. That's a natural effect. It happens every time the planet warms. Same thing with polar amplification; it's one of the natural effects that GCMs get right. I also don't believe that anyone is arguing with you that something "switched" around 1910 and that the planet has been warming since then.

But what initiated the change in trend? Could it be a lack of volcanic aerosols? The Dust Veil Index and the SATO Index are pretty close to zero from 1910 to 1960. Could it be natural ocean oscillations? Both the North Atlantic SST and the North Pacific SST rose from 1910 to 1940, after dropping from 1880-1890 peaks. Considering the existence of the Current Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, etc, could it be part of a natural oscillation that takes place over many hundreds of years? Actually, I believe it's due in part to all of the above, with a few parts solar contribution, a few parts land-use change, and very tiny smattering of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Then there are the things that no one has studied yet, because they haven't been identified.

Regards

Veets: If you read a book called Rapid Climate Change, it will tell you, although you are now a scientific guru, that the last rapid change was 10,500 years ago. Except for the last 150 years which I am sure you have read is the Anthropocene age.AGW is here and you can't insult the facts. Now that you are so scientific perhaps you cold tell us why new oxygen is ambient and why old oxygen is trapped in ice cores. Or isn't that your field. Could you tell me about the opacity of CO2, and how CO2 reacts to warmth. Did you know that water vapor is the greatest greenhouse gas and since much of the CO2 in the sea res pirates back into the Atmosphere, we have global warming. Did you know the more CO2 in the atmosphere the less heat will dissipate in the troposphere to stratosphere,you know,in the sky. What radiative bands do GHGs function in. Please let us know. Dennis Hlinka knows science. So does Steve Bloom. No comment. AGW is real.
KIPP

Paul: I know you have just been verbally repremanded but don't let it get you down. If have anything to say that even sounds like global warming they go into their deny,misinform,delay,and ignore. Yes people should put down their suv and by a normal car. Not made in America. I here toyotah has a nice hybrid and GM is going out of business. As the strange brew has suddenly discovered, CO2 doesn't just go away. and I thought they didn't believe in global warming?Sorry!!
KIPP

John Galt,

Here is another link on the ICECAP site that refers to the same graph I linked to in my other post:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_global_temperature_history_of_the_past_two_millennia/

The following is a quote directly from that article: "...it is our belief that Loehles curve is by far the superior of the two in terms of the degree to which it likely approximates the truth."

Does that provide enough proof for you that directly links that graph to those in control of the ICECAP site and what they really believe?

Again, if you apply the known 0.8C to 1.0C increase in temperature since 1910, the result of that curve would reach the 1.2C temperature level and not the 0C level being shown.

Bob Tisdale,
In response to your question about the amount of smoothing used in the 2000-year ICECAP temperature chart, they apparently smoothed the data in each series with a 30-year running mean.

Kipp,

The globe has been warming. It does so every year until July, and then it starts cooling again.

Reply: You mean the mid and northern latitudes of the northern Hemisphere PH?

Steve Bloom:I am a Portrait photographer who has Photographed The Chief executive officers for Sony for many years. One was Akio Morita I believe the co-founder of Sony. I have also photographed actor Jason Robards and golfer Lee Trevino. I take full page photographs published for red book, The New York Times and Womans Wear Daily, and have photographed many Annual reports.
I realize that I am not a scientist, but if I new what you and bob Tisdail and others know, I would at least have the good taste not to slam someone who is trying as hard as he can to enter this blog and not be bombarded by pseudo guru's and others who take advantage of someone else's lack of knowledge. If it were in my profession, I would encourage these people as I was once encouraged.It is Not your lack of knowledge, but your lack of equanimity with others learning science that is not awe inspiring.
KIPP

As Dr. Hansen reported in his 2004 paper, soot not only causes a large pecentage of snow melt and warming in the Arctic, it also darkens the ground surface and causes continued warming after the snow is gone.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Hansen_Nazarenko.pdf

Brett,

Because of the disproportionate ratio of land in the Northern Hemisphere relative to the southern hemisphere, global temperatures in July tend to be warmest - as can be seen in the UAH graphs.

Reply: You are correct in that sense globally. I was not thinking of it that way.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html

select thLT from the drop-down menu.

Chris F:
...co2 rose at the same steady rate during the great depression despite many tons less being emitted by idle factories worldwide. That fact alone should be enough for a rational person to doubt the manmade aspect to this scare. I did a search for the graph but can't find it now, I forget which site it was on.

Interesting point. It would be good to see why this was the case. Any ideas anyone? Any luck with finding that graph?

gary:
CO2 content continues to rise with no slowing. ....
D Caldwell:

Yes, but it might have risen faster....

Veets:
That may have been the best comment on this board ever. ....

saly:
...I had to laugh out loud...

Glad you liked it. It was intended to be a provocative comment to raise a few smiles.

Kipp, I think you're confused about who I was addressing that first remark to. I try to reserve the insults for people who ought to know better.

Kipp,

I am sure reading comprehension is not a typical skill of photographers, but thank you for considering me a science guru (sarcasm noted) but if you reread my post, you would see me acknoledge how I am still learning, and how I have toned down my posts to reflect the fact that I know little and that I want to learn, and unlike you, I do not want to just throw around terms without having much of a grasp on what I am saying. I have done that on these boards, and that is not how I wish to be anymore.

What he said was outlandish and ridiculous, and the fact that he believed what he was saying did show gross ignorance on his part, that is not debateable.

All those scienctific things you asked me about, could you teach them to me, or would you have to copy and paste from some other website like usual?

Dennis:

Thank you for posting the complete URL. While it's accurate to say you found that article on Icecap, the original comes from CO2 Science, as it so clearly states.

The article and the graph also shows the MWP was much warmer than anything in the current warm period. It is also not the same graph as the original post and appears to not be the article for the original graph you published.

This doesn't support your argument at all.

Thank you

paulM, still haven't found the graph, but have a description of it...LOL:
Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, then levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slowly increasing arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. On this graph it starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e. 1.1 billion metric tons). It peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop. Hard times drove a tougher bargain than all the counsels of Al Gore or the jeremiads of the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). Then, in 1933 it began to climb slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.

And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That's the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, to 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it's at 380.There are, to be sure, seasonal variations in CO2, as measured since 1958 by the instruments on Mauna Loa, Hawai'i. (Pre-1958 measurements are of air bubbles trapped in glacial ice.) Summer and winter vary steadily by about 5 ppm, reflecting photosynthesis cycles. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=1

Chris F Its hard to figure out what was going on unless we can review the data....especially with graphs.

Have a look at these graphs and you can see almost immediately some relationships...

http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/07/hurricanes-and-global-warming-revisited.html