There is a good site called, ice age now or www.iceagenow.com. RW Felix has a new book that`s now available. I need not say anymore. I just recommend you go there and read the good postings.

Welcome Mark.

Its good to have another Climate Specialist on board. May be some of the more skeptical of the bloggers here might think twice about some of the post you and Brett will be posting.

Hey Bob, did you not say that the sun's intensity was increasing? How does that rub with this interesting paper.

This is an interesting paper, there may well be something there. However, its a toss up whether we are going to have an extended min in sun activity or not in the immediate future.

He does not mention much about AGW. There is no doubt that CO2 is affecting the climate. If this is a minima and we pop out of it in 10-20 yrs then it become even more of a nightmare to adapt to the increasing temp.

It will definitely be interesting to watch SSTs and OHC if (big if) the present solar minimum continues for an extended period of time.

According to many scientists and meteorologists, so-called global warming is just a scare and a hoax. Easterling's theory certainly deserved to be looked at, even if it isn't politically correct.

Brett: Congratulations on adding balancing voice to the blog. Marks posting regarding a cooling trend is very interesting. All sides of the story need to be examined.
Good Job

Really? You don't know where he is getting his temperature data from? I'm suprised he didn't list it, but I am also suprised you are not aware of what satellite temperature measurement shows. Read up on the surfacestation project by Anthony Watts to get an idea of how much error there may be in terrestial based measurements and the shroud of "adjustment" that goes into the final numbers. I recommend you do a lot of reading on Anthony Watts site before you question seriously whether temperatures have gone down since 2002. I'd like to see a post about what you find after you have read up on the information.

Oh no!! Global cooling, run for the hills,raise taxes. Maybe some other rotund ex-vp should make a fact deprived mockumentary. The earth'g going to do what it wants to do and we have no say in the matter.

Mr.New Accuweather; There is a factor called the energy budjet, of the earth. The sun is a small factor in comparison to other forcings. CO2 radiative forcing is 1.8C more than the sun .12 C Scientists measure these energy sources, as well as other forcings, and internal forcings. Radiative forcings is measured in watts. These are measurements of temperature differences.
Best of luck in your new job. KIPP

Accuwweatherman: Of course the sun is the strongest force entering our Planet but in terms of temps, CO2 is warmer as a forcing. Greeenhouse effect. I mis-stated my first remark. Sorry.
KIPP

Could Palin have some thing to do with the chilling effect?

It can be all very confusing.
This all scares the hell out of me. Visit Climate Progress - ClimateProgress - for the latest from Joseph Romm .

Mark: Yes! For the next seven months we will here about the cooling trend! Did you here about the polar bear that swam two hundred miles to an iceberg, only to be found and saved by Japanese fisherman.
KIPP

This is a study worth to look at.
Sunspot activity is a very strong cause of global wamring and global cooling periods and cycles. As well as the 1500 year cycles of warming and cooling climate. Human contribution is quite significant and is playing with fire and should therefore be averted even if global cooling is on the way.

I have been reading that based on satellite data temps have been either steady or dropping since 2001, so I guess the question is where is the data coming from that says temps are continuing to go up? I know that the answer to that is ground based stations that are not spread evenly over the globe (i.e. oceans are not covered) and the data can be suspect due to station placement (i.e. urban heat islands).

Welcome to Mark Paquette! I am sure he will find this blog to be very spirited. For more than one reason. And incase you haven't noticed by my user name, Mark, I am in agreement with your assessment. We need sunspots....NOW!!!!!

"I think his theory needs to be looked at, but his methods may need to be scrutinized more closely." I would agree in principle, especially given the numerous factual errors in that article, but in practice I would disagree given that there's plenty of peer-reviewed research directly contradicting his claims (and see below). Easterbrook has been flogging this idea for at least two years now, but has yet to turn it into a published, peer-reviewed paper. The simple explanation would seem to be that he's a crackpot.

"Our more experienced readers may remember that in the 70's, there were many an article about global cooling and even an impending return to ice age conditions." Not so many, it turns out. Many of our experienced readers do indeed claim to remember this, but these claims seem to be a talking point acquired more recently. See here for details.

FYI, the present widely-held view among scientists is that the cause of the Little Ice Age was likely an increase in volcanism, although a smaller solar component can't be excluded on present evidence.

Interestingly there was a relevant peer-reviewed paper published today in Science. Note that they don't find a solar irradiance signature:

Ice core studies confirm accuracy of climate models

CORVALLIS, Ore. � An analysis has been completed of the global carbon cycle and climate for a 70,000 year period in the most recent Ice Age, showing a remarkable correlation between carbon dioxide levels and surprisingly abrupt changes in climate.

The findings, to be published this week in the online edition of the journal Science, shed further light on the fluctuations in greenhouse gases and climate in Earth's past, and appear to confirm the validity of the types of computer models that are used to project a warmer climate in the future, researchers said.

"We've identified a consistent and coherent pattern of carbon dioxide fluctuations from the past and are able to observe the correlation of this to temperature in the northern and southern hemispheres," said Ed Brook, an associate professor of geosciences at Oregon State University. "This is a global, interconnected system of ocean and atmosphere, and data like these help us better understand how it works."

The analysis was made by studying the levels of carbon dioxide and other trace gases trapped as bubbles in ancient ice cores from Antarctica.

In the last Ice Age, as during most of Earth's history, levels of carbon dioxide and climate change are intimately linked. Carbon dioxide tends to rise when climate warms, and the higher levels of carbon dioxide magnify the warming, Brook said. These natural cycles provide a "fingerprint" of how the carbon cycle responds to climate change.

In contrast to the relatively low levels of carbon dioxide in the Ice Age, the burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution has led to levels of greenhouse gases that by comparison are off the charts. The level of atmospheric carbon dioxide today is about 385 parts per million, or more than double that of some of the lower levels during the Ice Age. These changes have taken place at a speed and magnitude that has not occurred in hundreds of thousands of years, if not longer. Past studies of ice cores have suggested that Earth's temperature can sometimes change amazingly fast, warming as much as 15 degrees in some regions within a couple of decades.

The question everyone wants to know is what all this will mean in terms of future climate change.

"Before humans were affecting the Earth, what we are finding is regular warm and cold cycles, which both began and ended fairly abruptly," Brook said. "This study supports the theory that a key driver in all this is ocean currents and circulation patterns, which create different patterns of warm and cold climates depending on the strength of various parts of the global ocean circulation system."

This issue is of more than academic interest � one of the primary circulation patterns is referred to scientifically as "meridional overturning circulation." When that current is moving large amounts of warm water from the equator to the north, it helps to warm the high latitude parts of the Northern Hemisphere, and particularly the North Atlantic region. When the system stops or dramatically slows, as it has repeatedly in the past, Greenland and Europe get much colder while the Antarctic regions become warmer, Brook said.

"In every historic sequence we observed, the abrupt warming of Greenland occurred about when carbon dioxide was at maximum levels," Brook said. "And that was during an Ice Age, and at levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide that are far lower than those we have today."

I know Professor Don Easterbrook and am surprised that such a back of the envelope, does not even rise to the level of a report, let alone a peer reviewed paper deserves even a moments attention. He is a glacial geologist, and a good one, not a climate scientist. Furthermore he lives near a range with many glacier, the North Cascades, and in fact since 2002 these very glaciers as well as those around the world have accelerated in their retreat. This is noted at great length by the most extensive and reliable glacier record compiled by the World Glacier Monitoring Service, which noted a peak for poor glacier performance for the 2003-2005 period. This led to a United Nations report just released last week that documents the dismal state of the glaciers, that this back of the envelope sketch is ignorant of somehow. http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/. As the researcher providing the most data on glacier changes to WGMS in North America, I have also observed five glacier disappear in the North Cascade range near Easterbrook's home. Lastly I would note that we do measured solar radiation output, it is not a mystery what it has been. We do not have to just rely on sunspots. I would also suggest that record ocean temp warmth and Arctic sea ice, note your previous post of the last two years, does not support any coolin trend. Your skepticism was well warranted.

BRETT: This is scientific fact. AGW
The number of vibrational modes (different types of vibrations) in a molecule is 3N-5 for linear molecules and 3N-6 for nonlinear molecules, where N is the number of atoms. So the diatomic molecule we just discussed has 3 x 2 - 5 = 1 vibration: the stretching of the bond between the atoms. Carbon dioxide, a linear molecule, has 3 x 3 - 5 = 4 vibrations. These vibrational modes are responsible for the "greenhouse" effect in which heat radiated from the earth is absorbed (trapped) by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.
Skeptics,Deniers and delayers. This is a known chemical reaction. Please disprove another scientic fact. Anyone please!!!! This is not a cult, a religion,or compulsive conformity. This a chemical fact. By the way if the Ozone layer can scatter blue, making our sky blue, why can't heat be trapped by CO2. Basic chemistry.Pure Science, 101. KIPP

Welcome aboard, Mark!

Uh....the Professor's name is Easterbrook.......Easterling?

Pursuant your articles theme, Old Farmers Almanac is predicting a cooler winter for the northern hemisphere this winter and says that global cooling may already have begun. While I don't put a whole lot of stock in such, they do have some complicated formulas for working out their predictions and I have to say that those predictions have beef far more accurate than the predictions of any climate 'model' thus far.

You mentioned the northern hemisphere? Well, supposedly we have 'global' warming. Most Hysterics don't prefer the phrase 'climate change', as it infers something that is out of their control and something that they cannot foist onto the masses. People simply don't fall for this rot. There is no question that the climate has been changing....getting warmer, per se....although cooling for the last 9 years....but is it Man Made? That is is, is simply conjecture.

Off subject, but a little in line with your post:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html

Excerpt:"The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than �35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.

Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage � such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and could encourage further direct action.

Kingsnorth was the centre for mass protests by climate camp activists last month. Last year, three protesters managed to paint Gordon Brown's name on the plant's chimney. Their handi-work cost �35,000 to remove.

The plan to build a successor to the power station is likely to be the first of a new generation of coal-fired plants. As coal produces more of the carbon emissions causing climate change than any other fuel, campaigners claim that a new station would be a disastrous setback in the battle against global warming, and send out a negative signal to the rest of the world about how serious Britain really is about tackling the climate threat.

But the proposals, from the energy giant E.ON, are firmly backed by the Business Secretary, John Hutton, and the Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks. Some members of the Cabinet are thought to be unhappy about them, including the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and the Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn. Mr Brown is likely to have the final say on the matter later this year.

During the eight-day trial, the world's leading climate scientist, Professor James Hansen of Nasa, who had flown from American to give evidence, appealed to the Prime Minister personally to "take a leadership role" in cancelling the plan and scrapping the idea of a coal-fired future for Britain. Last December he wrote to Mr Brown with a similar appeal. At the trial, he called for an moratorium on all coal-fired power stations, and his hour-long testimony about the gravity of the climate danger, which painted a bleak picture, was listened to intently by the jury of nine women and three men. "

I would like to see the English create a world empire today with the citizenry they have in their midst. Like the Frogs across the pond, they are ready to abdicate any fight which has an impact on their feel-good mentality.

And Hansen has obviously transcended the path of science. He is aligned with Greenpeace (we all know those whacko's) and has also transcended the supposed neutrality of science in gathering the facts but not manipulating them into personally preconceived notions.

No one, absolutely no one can be so fanatical of their own puny attempts to "Save Mother Earth' than those Hysterics who believe they have the God-given right to decree to set forth how you and I may go about our lives than these Eco-fanatics.

The earth has been cooling since 2002, only briefly interrupted by El Nino in 2005??? That statement would certainly seem to be at odds with information from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies: (2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year, Jan. 16, 2008, http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/). That report stated, "Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century. 'As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases,' said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS."

One of the biggest mistakes which many global warmers make is refusing to accept that TSI is not the only important physical characteristic of the sun. The sun and earth's magnetic fields have a large impact on weather, which very poorly understood.

This is more of the silly attempt to say anything about 'climate trends' based on short periods of time. Climate is definded to be aperiod of at least 30 years. So to find a climate trend beginning in 2002 CE, one has to wait until at least 2017 CE.

With regard to the sun, the best paper I have seen states that variations in the pseudoperiodic sunspot cycle are a random process. So while the sun might enter a Maunder-type minimum, this is statistically rather unlikely.

Again, the ONLY place I heard about a recent report on sun spot inactivity the past month or so, was from Tom Skilling on WGN Chicago. He commented about in the past this has usually resulted in cooler temperatures and was speculating about the recent very cool readings for the season in Chicago. Of course, I heard and read about the report on warm oceans and stonger hurricanes. Rarely is other information offered by our slanted media.

ANY temperature projections by ANYONE are suspect....IPCC included (how the heck did they get their projections?) No one knows what the future holds. Study after study has proven that predictions by 'experts' are no more accurate than a prediction anyone would make.

Globally, 2005 is the warmest year.

2007 would have been warmer if not for the La Nina that started last fall.

Soooo, where does he get the idea that the earth has been cooling since 2002?????

It'd be interesting to know the dataset he's using for his graphs...I notice there's no listed support for them.

Welcome Mark, I am a simple layman when it come to climatology and meteorology but I love the debate going on in this blog as it is unusually civil for this type of debate (you know like calm debate about politics and/or religion.)

May I suggest reading the "Chilling Stars" for excellent review of hypothesis of sunspots, gamma rays and clouds connection. There is more to climate change than CO2. As a physician I have seen previous dogma such as treatment of extra heart beats and congestive heart failure turned on its head as new science comes on board. Anyone who thinks the science is all finished such as the CO2 global warming crowd is almost always wrong.

Mark Paquette, glad to see you here. You may be surprised at the overwhelmingly enthusiastic response. Please don't be misled, though. It is important to follow through and check sources on this kind of material. I'd strongly recommend a search through DotEarth which regularly provides analysis and response from a large scientific community (not the knee jerk respondents who are everywhere but the experts) in a format accessible to people who are not experts.

There is a dominant cadre here who passionately promote this kind of information, whether or not it is well founded in the real world and sound science. At the lowest end (morally) are those with connections to industry and the political advocacy favored by to the current administration. There is a varied middle ground of those who'd prefer not to believe what's going on, genuinely confused, etc. Some have real questions about the science and have promoted growth in understanding; one piece of this is an ongoing fight between observation and modeling. Accusations of material advantage have flown back and forth.

The IPCC, Dr. Hansen, and Al Gore have come in for the lion's share of insults, but I would suggest wariness about these. They appear to increase in vituperation as the credibility and influence of the source increases. For example, Dr. Hansen broke the silence about Bush/Cheney administration interference with science, and hell hath no fury like those who would prefer to bury this information (by the way, this is well documented, but be prepared for the liar liar stuff to follow). Al Gore has a huge staff and travels a lot and tries to compensate by using carbon credits. He made a small number of exaggerations and errors in his famous presentation, and this has been used to discredit everything associated with him (the BBC did some good coverage on this).

Sorry, I've gone a bit off topic, but thought others who are not part of the regular club here should be warned about the chorus, and not be misled into believing until they check sources.

I think that the farmer's almanac has already made this prediction also. In it they have said that the Earth is due for a cooling period, I guess a rebirth of sorts, that they suggest could last as long as 50 years. That seems very close to the prediction in your blog. I personally like to think that the Earth is just going through a cycle, which we all know as true, and that the doom sayers are wrong about Global warming. However let's not get our guard down we should still be doing all that is possible to be Green in our daily lives because we still only have one home and there are a lot of people to share it with.

Cooling since 2002? Where did you get that data from?
I really hope the Earth cools off a little, as I love cold weather, but I think it's unlikely...

With our Right Wing slanted media is is very difficult to get good information about what is going on with the Climate Change issue. All I know there is a lot of big money with a vested interest to keep the status Quo and a lot of Fundumentalist Christians, in power, who do not care because they are convienced Armageddon is coming. Not to mention an administration that censors the flow of scientific information. To make matters worse people who want to protect the planet are portrayed crazy extreamists. Given all this I tend to trust the scientists when they say the Earth is warming and it is caused by human activity. If we do get a cooling trend lets take advantage and get off of fossil fuel ASAP.

Cosmos: Please answer my post above. AGW, is not a cult, a paranoid reaction, or a prophecy. What kind of Dr. are you. A medical Dr? Then this is chemistry, with 600 billion tons of CO2, being absorbed in the atmosphere every year. The number of vibrational modes (different types of vibrations) in a molecule is 3N-5 for linear molecules and 3N-6 for nonlinear molecules, where N is the number of atoms. So the diatomic molecule we just discussed has 3 x 2 - 5 = 1 vibration: the stretching of the bond between the atoms. Carbon dioxide, a linear molecule, has 3 x 3 - 5 = 4 vibrations. These vibrational modes are responsible for the "greenhouse" effect in which heat radiated from the earth is absorbed. Absorbed by the IR (trapped) by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Water vapor 80%, of all gases, helps this cycle. Have you studied the carbon cycle. Well everyone knows that if we didn't originally have CO2 as a greenhouse gas, as a natural variant, the world would have no atmosphere. Without CO2 the Earth would be to warm and the water vapor would be extruded from the planet. This happened on Venus. The Earth can only sequester a certain amount of CO2. The more CO2 the less sequestration possible. Earth's absorption is not infinite at all. Scientists now are working to pump colder water up from the bottom of the Seas, to absorb more CO2. Scientists
are dropping(tree Bombs)large seeded darts, to grow trees where deforestation exists. For more sequestration of CO2. They can't just replace ecosystems, but they may be able to get more CO2 out of the atmosphere. They are Doctors too. Only they wouldn't call themselves, Universal, Absolute, Omniscient, or Cosmological. They are more concerned with our Planet, not there conflated talking points. Welcome, KIPP

Andrew is wondering why the author thinks it has been cooling since 2002. Maybe he looked at the data?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2003/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend

All four global temperature sources show a decline over the last five years.

British Environment Minister Discounts Global Warming as 'Pseudo-Religion'

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/world/story.php?id=430361

Excerpt:
Britain's environment minister on Friday discounted arguments that global warming is man-made and said instead that the phenomenon is a naturally occurring event.

Hmmmmmmm! Sanity returning?

Ross Meyer, Sep 12, 5.44pm.

You are spreading misinformation of a sort, quoting from the GISS site. The earth has cooled since 2002 but it is not statistically significant.

To see if this is true or false you need to look at the trends. A ready reference is Lucia's blog who keeps monthly track of the 5 main temperature series; GISS, HADCRUT, NOAA, RSS & UAH, since 2001.

Her brief is to check the trends against the IPPC AR4's projected central tendency of 2C/century for the first few decades of this century (thus starting from 2001). IMO she is objective in this role; she does not have any stake in the outcome.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-central-tendency-of-2ccentury-still-rejected/

Look at the link & scroll down to the 1st chart (includes temperatures to Jul 08). Look at the OLS (ordinary least squares for calculating linear trends) column. Even GISS is now negative (-0.2 +/- 2.2). The CO trend (another method which corrects for autocorrelation) is more negative (-0.5 +/- 1.9)

Now temperatures in 2002 were higher than in 2001, so the trends since 2002 will be more negative than from 2001.

I repeat again the negative trends since 2001 are not statistically significant (at 95%). However what is statistically significant (at 95%), since 2001, is that a composite of the five temperature series rejects the IPPC's projection of 0.2C/decade. I suspect even GISS by itself will reject this when August 08 data is added.

IMO the take-home from this is one needs to take with great dollops of salt what you read on the GISS website. Courtesy of our friend, Mr James Hansen, this site long ago ceased to be a site of objective & dispassionate observation of the world.

Skeptic about Denial:Your assessment is not exactly accurate but is generally true. Just to keep with science where do you stand. If you sound a little like Mr.Goodwrench, or are enamored by your "objective analysis", then perhaps you should be part of the answer, or the solution. Or are you just an undereducated critic.
AGW is extremely important, aren't there better things to do. If you don't like what you hear, why not join a blog over at The Onion. As they say, if it takes hundreds of years to melt a Glacier, it Takes a crevass, about five minutes.
KIPP

Greetings from Portugal.
Hello to all of you who care about weather like myself.
Well, last year was one of the warmest in last 10 years, and one of the dryest since many years. As many as I know 2003 was the warmst year in Portugal and western part of Europe in the last centuries. But this year of 2008 is the coolest since 1997 - especialy the summer with low temperatures in july and august. Now we have pleasant warm temperatures...
Maybe this is a new trend? Can`t say that but the melt in glaciers of Greenland and more coolest water from the melting of the sea pole ice may put the warm water away from the nothern parts of europe causing a little ice age in this places. Don`t forgettings about the effects of a much lower activity in the sun. And how much CO2 trapped on ice as been free in the last century?
I`m not an expert but i think that we can not just look for the sun, CO2, or sea ice melting appart. With all of them we may study it better and could see even farther than in present.

People no more follow a scientific and wise way of thinking.
A cooling trend since 2002 is no cooling trend. Since 2002 we just had the warmest summer for centuries in Europe in 2003, we had a very strong hurricane season in 2005 (warm oceans) and even with 2007 la nina, east europe had an incredible hot summer, with absolutely record temperatures.
There were cold freak events also in 2006-2008 such as those in china, buenos aires snow, israel and iran snow, etc.
I would say that some variability and extremes are natural. They may point to a climatic shift but even 100 years these freak events were already here, heatwaves, freak snowstorms, destructives hurricanes.

Why does everyone think only in such narrow terms?
If we have to stop the pollution, ok, thats a wise thing to do. We should and must do it.
If the climate is changing: yes, its always changing, its dynamic, but saying that global warming and global cooling is coming is simply sensacionalist. Maybe if we are stressed with the consequences that global climate change may bring, one way of another, we should first and instead focus in working to mend those possible faults in our life that could cause us our distress, be they, coastal building, unsustainable agriculture, food crisis, animal extinction...
That should be our worry and our working. Not wasting our time with saying "it will get warm" or "it will get cold"; thats surely stupid because sooner or later it will be warm and there will be times that it will be cold.

Please think wise.

Summer snow forecast for the Alps.
http://www.snow-forecast.com/maps/static/europe/next3days/snow

The Front Range of Colorado is already buried in snow, and we are averaging nearly 8 degrees below normal for September.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/maps/current/index.php?action=update_region&state=CO®ion=HPRCC

That map link probably won't work. This one is better.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/hprcc/MonthTDeptHPRCC.png

Welcome to the frey Mark! Here again we have conflicting sets of data. Oceans warming, Oceans Cooling, Arctic Sea Ice an Island no waite, the Satelite sensors report surface melt water as open seas...but ships are stuck in sea ice. So I continue to see reports here and other places in contradiction to each other. I continue to take issue with all AGW skepticism as being denialist. To deny something is to know the TRUTH and LIE about it. I say BS. For example last NH winter was hell for China, snow and ice for months all the way to subtropics. Snow reccords smashed in New Hampshire...Friends in Vermont are terrified what this winter will be like after the pounding they got last year from snow. CO2 is not the ploblem. A question for the scientists. What does Atomic Wieght and Molecular weight of various gasses have to do with the Stratification or layering of gasses in the Atmosphere? The biggest problem with CO2 as agent of doom is its molecular weight. The altitude blamed for GW appears too high up for CO2 to be a meaningfull player. Why? Also , with more CO2 available, and rain and snow returning to many droughted areas globally...with this not increase O2 in the atmosphere? Then me asks...what about Nitrogen? Oxygen? Argon? Ozone? Hydrogen? What role do these gasses play? I give a hint, the heavier the gass molecule ... the lower it sinks in the atmosphere. Water vapour is the biggest heat battery in the atmosphere. So knowing that radio freaquency and other emf's cause water molecules to heat up (vibrate faster) combined with metal ions sprayed into cirrus clouds globally...what do you think the end result will be? This is why AGW does exist...but the TRUTH of what is causing it is the battle ground. Weather Modification and Weather Weapons via Chemtrails and other exotic tech is real and must be included in the discussion of Global Warming. The Earth is a LIVING THING. The Sky is ALIVE. Life is the rule in the universe not the exception.

Kipp Alpert:
Mr.New Accuweather; There is a factor called the energy budjet, of the earth. The sun is a small factor in comparison to other forcings. CO2 radiative forcing is 1.8C more than the sun .12 C Scientists measure these energy sources, as well as other forcings, and internal forcings. Radiative forcings is measured in watts. These are measurements of temperature differences.
Best of luck in your new job. KIPP

Posted by Kipp Alpert | September 12, 2008 1:28 PM

Really Kipp. Did you think about what you posted? So am I to believe you, even if the sun stopped shinning, since C02 has a greater forcing effect than the sun, the earth would continue to warm!

Great logic.

I just wonder how quick the earth would freeze if the sun stopped shinning.

"He does not mention much about AGW. There is no doubt that CO2 is affecting the climate. If this is a minima and we pop out of it in 10-20 yrs then it become even more of a nightmare to adapt to the increasing temp"

But PaulM, the IPCC 2007 TAR down played both teleconnections like ENSO and solar activity. Forcings from CO2 would overwehlm everything else. The year 2007 was suppose to be a continuation of the 2006 El Nino, and Hansen went as far as to predict a Super El Nino. Hadley forecasted 2007 to be even hotter than 2006. La Nina is appears did cool down 2007. How could this be when the peer reviewed literature said this was "very unlikey"? What else did the IPCC get wrong? The IPCC expects at least a 1 deg C rise by 2100. If there is a 10-20 year hiatus, will this prediction come true? I thought solar activty had no bearing on our climate when compared to GHGs. If the globe does cool, and the fact that 19 of the worlds riches nations will see a drastic drop in thier populations after 2030, what will be the forecast of GHGs?

BTW, with the exception of the US, Russia, Japan, China, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Holland, Greece, Spain, and the Benelux have birthrates of 1.6 or less per couple. You need people to grow the economy, and you need a growing economy to create industrial GHGs on the scale we've seen since 1945.

By 2050, the world will have forgotten about AGW.

Howard P Duffs; "With our Right Wing slanted media ???????????"

Just wondering what planet you post from?

Kipp, Kipp, Kipp:
Show a little humility man. Just once in a while throw in an "in my opinion", or an "it appears to me". You could even go so far as to use "the data appears to suggest". All this "fact" feces you're spewing has soiled my shoes. and the personal attacks ARE really wearing thin. "What kind of a doctor ARE you". Really now Kipp. Any type of doctor is about 6 years beyond your education level isn't it?, and you're so presumptuous as to give a chemistry quiz and DEMAND answers? Please. Can't we all just get a long?

The very term "fact" is suspect, because it implies that everything that can be known about something is. Precious few things like that. I know for a fact who my children's mothers are because I saw them born, but beyond that things could be a little murky. All we can really say is what we think and then try to prove it. It seems obvious (to me at least) that the AGW case has not been sufficiently made to convince an overwhelming number of people. Convinced a lot of people, and been institutionalized, but the debate (as they say) is far from over. We can't even agree on the data sets used to do the analysis and make the conclusions.

Better to just gird your loins for the coming debate.

All the best.

Aaron

The earth warms up and the earth cools off.

Everyone has seen the picture of Washington crossing the Delaware River with the guy pushing away the ice with the oar. But the Delaware River has not froze over since 1850, how can this be? Only 1.4 Billion people on the earth and not one single SUV, but the earth warmed up and stayed warm, how can this be?

Mars and Jupiter are warming up, but no SUV up there either and no people at all, but they are warming up too, how can this be?

People may say that they are "green", and some really do believe it, the same as some people really believe that the Earth is flat. But dig deep enough into a "greeny" and you will find out that they are Watermelons, green on the outside, but Red inside, they just want total Control over what the people do!

Gary: "Howard P Duffs; "With our Right Wing slanted media ???????????"

"Just wondering what planet you post from?"

Possibly he pays attention to things like a) who owns the media and b) small facts like Limbaugh being on 600 stations. Notice, BTW, how the latter constantly complains about the "liberal media"? If so I suppose we can say he's calling himself liberal. Well, as he's clearly fatter than Al Gore, perhaps that makes sense.

"BTW, with the exception of the US, Russia, Japan, China, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Holland, Greece, Spain, and the Benelux have birthrates of 1.6 or less per couple. You need people to grow the economy, and you need a growing economy to create industrial GHGs on the scale we've seen since 1945."

Wow, 12 countries out of a total of 195 have birthrates less than 1.6! And in case you didn't know: China has lots of people, regardless of birth rate.

"By 2050, the world will have forgotten about AGW."

Yes, hopefully -- but only because we'd have evolved towards a new energy paradigm which doesn't require 19th century fossil fuel technologies. By 2050, the world will wonder how stupid we were for allowing ourselves to rely heavily on a resource that is limited in supply and possessed largely by only a handful of countries.

"Just wondering what planet you post from?"

Pssst...here's a little secret: the media in this country is pretty right-wing. Don't tell anyone that, though. I mean, if people weren't brainwashed into believing otherwise, what would Rush Limbaugh and Hannity have to whine and moan about during their radio talk shows?

*Notice, BTW, how the latter constantly complains about the "liberal media"? If so I suppose we can say he's calling himself liberal. Well, as he's clearly fatter than Al Gore, perhaps that makes sense.*

Wow, Steve Bloom: Deep....

Probably one of your more insightful comments.
You do your mother proud.

Global cooling is off to an inauspicious start this Autumn. Tropical sytems Hanna and Ike introduced extreme humidity into the northeast. There's a strong correlation between such extreme humidity in Fall and winters that are less than severe. Must be the gas!

Reply; I have not heard that one. Also, the high humidity lasted a day or two with each one.

GW:
All scientists are prostitutes, don't believe me go to a courtroom and listen to expert witnesses, they each support the side paying them the money.
Right now the global warming climate change crowd is getting all of the money. No one scientist or bank of super computers can calculate how the global climate will change or what it will be like in 50 years. When it comes to the great natural cycles of the earth, solar system and universe we have no more power to predict or change our environment than the ants. We need to develop our own energy resources. We need to utilize fossil fuels to the best of our ability, to keep our economy strong and actually encourage alternative energy, (wind, solar and nuclear. In the haste to go green we have made a critical error in pushing biofuels and has resulted in billions of dollars of wasted effort and driven up food costs worldwide.. If we go cold turkey on oil use, we will have a third world economy nearly overnight. We cannot develop alternative energy when we are broke. I hope we have not waited too long to start

"...Green on the outside, Red on the inside..." . Reply: I like that , That's really good. Hey Brett, heard anything lately about Global Water Vapor Levels ?

Reply: No, I have not. The levels are in constant change.

Mark P. -
Dr. Easterbrook's homepage has several links. Two of them list global warming 'publications.' One is a title list, the other provides another set, as .pdfs.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/glopubs.htm

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/pubs.htm#global

Examine the pages. Notice that none of the GW 'publications' are in journals. There is no volume #s, page #s or journal title listed. So they can't be considered as published. They're just abstracts of some talks he gave at conferences. So what?

Anyone can mail in an abstract, get up and talk for 12 minutes. Grad student with only a semester under their belts do it all the time. There was no review or refereeing for those items.

If Easterbrook's ideas were novel or important, he'd have published them. He knows how that process works.

Steve Bloom:
I guess it depends on which side of the debate you are on. I see a liberal Media that won't mention anything that does not follow the AGW doctrine and he ( and you appearently ) see the opposite.
Interesting.

BTW: What was your take on the British Environment Minister?
I thought it was Ballsy of him to buck established doctrine. And in the uk NO LESS.

Seems the movement may be having issues.

To make matters worse people who want to protect the planet are portrayed crazy extreamists.

REPLY: Howie. Protect the planet. PUKE! And if a tree hugs you back, lets us know. I'd like to take a picture of that.

Given all this I tend to trust the (JUNK) scientists when they say the Earth is warming and it is caused by human activity.

REPLY: Then when the government, lobbied by your "scientist" friends, starts taxing us for exhaling, Howie, you can pay my share. Because I will refuse to. And I will go kicking and screaming too!

If we do get a cooling trend lets take advantage and get off of fossil fuel ASAP.

REPLY: You first Howie Baby! And let's see how your life "improves" as a result.

Possibly he pays attention to things like a) who owns the media and b) small facts like Limbaugh being on 600 stations.

REPLY: Jealous?....:-DDDDDDD LOL!......

Notice, BTW, how the latter constantly complains about the "liberal media"? If so I suppose we can say he's calling himself liberal. Well, as he's clearly fatter than Al Gore, perhaps that makes sense.

REPLY: Yep, but I hear Al is catching up to Rush. Old Al hasn't turned down many high brow limousine liberal meals lately. Especially with lots of MEAT, I am sure. That's OK, Steve. You keep saying what you say, through your childish insults. It only exposes your side for what you guys really are...;-D.....

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

BTW, with the exception of the US, Russia, Japan, China, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Holland, Greece, Spain, and the Benelux have birthrates of 1.6 or less per couple. You need people to grow the economy, and you need a growing economy to create industrial GHGs on the scale we've seen since 1945.

REPLY: Don't worry JP. Those countries will more than make up generating their greehouse gases because of their liberal immigration policies that will turn them into Islamic states in 30 years, if not sooner. Why it's already happening in AL-Brittania:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html

And then when they realize the error of their ways (when a green flag is flying over 10 Downing Street), who will they come running to? All in the interest of saving the planet. What a CROCK!!!!!

For those that care to review studies on media bias, here is a place to start.
www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp

Also, note that I leave the http:// prefix off my links. This seems to appease the filter. But, you must copy and paste them, after you manually enter the prefix in your browser.

I suppose that since we have been told by Mark and Steve Bloom that the media is "pretty right wing" it would explain why the people of the media tend to vote with the democrat candidate (whomsoever it might be) 80% of the time.

Are you guys implying then that the democrats are right wing? If you are, I bet Howard Dean will be by later to confiscate your card carrying status of his party (if you have one).

Oh, and the media conducted one of their "ever so important" polls on themselves at the start of this year.

The results: 55% call themselves liberal, 20% call themselves really liberal, 10% claim to be neutral and 15% claim to be conservative.

Seems to me that they provide their own evidence as to the means by which they report.

More importantly, I have gone back through this thread to assess how the discussion turned to politics.

Once again, a follower of the Goreacle starts it off by taking a jab at Palin. Oddly, not much of a response to that from those who likely would support Palin.

Then, about a day later, we are treated to a distribe in which the guest ACCUWEATHER poster is treated to an explanation of how many of the disagreements here are put forth by those who support the current administration. In that comment, we are also told that the more credible the source of AGW propoganda, the more vociferious the response.

And then, just a few hours later, the debate turns bluntly political with the comment regarding the "right wing media" not telling us about AGW. And even better, that the current fundamentalist Christian in power attempt to stifle scientific debate.

Reply: Darren it is time to move on. Thankyou

Once again, we are shown that those who decry political stances, and decry the "attacks" of one side are usually the first to bring it up.

Whatever side of the fence you lean on, drop it in this forum. Discuss the climate and the weather but to decide that this is a liberal or conservative issue only proves one thing...

The side that usually starts the argument is the one that is creating the issue in the first place.

You do yourself a disservice.

Gary: "What was your take on the British Environment Minister?"

My take is that your source was in error. If you're interested, a little googling will turn up the facts of the matter.

For anyone interested, here is the link to the original article by Environment Minister Sammy Wilson published 05 September 2008 in News Letter.

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/3425/SAMMY-WILSON-Debate-on-climate.4464059.jp

Environment Minister of what, Boondocks?

Global cooling is off to an inauspicious start this Autumn. Tropical sytems Hanna and Ike introduced extreme humidity into the northeast. There's a strong correlation between such extreme humidity in Fall and winters that are less than severe. Must be the gas!

Reply; I have not heard that one. Also, the high humidity lasted a day or two with each one.

REPLY: Brett, you stole my thunder. But with the short lived heat spell last weekend, I guess it was day or two too long for our tree hugging hysterical brethern.

Steve Bloom:

I do not know and believe it is not pertinent.

A cite was provided. You questioned its accuracy. I provided a link to the original article the cite referred to, so anyone interested could make their own determination of its accuracy.

No problem, Boondocks, as long as you don't think it's accurate.

For anyone who may be curious, the reason it's inaccurate is because Sammy is the environment minister of Northern Ireland. There is a "British" Environment Minister in London, but that's a different person entirely. Fortunately, Sammy's position doesn't allow him to have much of an effect on climate issues even in Northern Ireland.

I checked Dr Easterbrook webpage and I could not find any new refereed paper (none in 2007 and 2008 at least). So the scientific case presented in this so-called report has not been peer reviewed, that is pretty a bad sign.