Here is a question for all.

How much are you willing to pay in energy to reach the goals. I have seen 3 times what we pay now for energy. I bet most would vote no.

funny how the temps in the last 90 days were 1.8 degrees f below normal.

plus do the models take in account for the economic slowdown world over.

did you no the coal in china is considered primo. less emissions?

I love cold bring on winter.

New 4 year schedule:: Mow grass only Wednesdays at 2 on even days.
Fines for anyone traveling alone
Mandatory solar panel too each house
One vehicle per family
Tax tax tax oil, coal companies
Shut down timberman
Take out power producing damns out west
Read your weekly flier on the disasters you cause if you are living the wrong way.
ZZZZZZZZZZ.........JOSH......JOSH........WAKE UP....WAKE UP.......HUH, all my what a horrible nightmare I just had. I'm glad you woke me up before the list grew longer.

"...global warming predictions from computer simulations has been overestimated"

If were lucky this gives us some breathing room.

Funny how flowers are still blooming here in the north west.

And the trend is still up...
Global Temperature Record
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Oh by the way is this correct now?...

2nd warmest October on record Dr. Jeff Masters, Weather Underground http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1158

Oh, there was this also...

Unexpected ocean cooling result found to be an error;
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1158

The new, corrected data show that no cooling of the oceans occurred in 2004-2006, in agreement with what the climate models were predicting. People often malign the accuracy of climate models, but sometimes they are more trustworthy than the data!

Bret,

THis is a no brainer . How can a model produce any good infomation when it alone has been monipulated ? When you move data loggers into the city limits you get what is known as island effect ! How can any data be good if that data is set based apoun two different principles. To get correct data yo would need to put all your station data loggers into the country side and leave them thier .Take them away from modern influences. Now then you have corre ct information going into the models but you don't have suffucient data now to run a model . hummmmmm. Another words if you correct the problems with thier models you would have to wait 50 years to run them .

Models may be Overestimating Global Warming Predictions

In other news, the sun came up in the east this morning.

Bret,
These sientist are simply usining there positions as sientist for means of propagating an idea that is more unfounded then a turkey speaking the English language.
These sientist have done noless then monipulated data to propagate political ideas and as such should be expelled from any reasonable sientific college.
Alabama
C. Stout

To accept the notion that we can competently forcast climate parameters far into the future requires one to believe that we fully understand how and why Earth's climate changes over time.

I don't think we do.

Oh, man, it's going to be a loooooonnnng 4 years. Talk about disinformation from the future leader of the free world, check that, semi-free world. I have already lost more than 1/2 of my 401k and 1/2 of the value of my stock, both of which were going to be my retirement. Now with the one's plan, it looks like the other half of my retirement is going to go away in the next 4 years. Maybe I can get a job installing solar panels or cleaning birds off windmill blades. I only wish I weren't afraid of heights.

I love global warming. California has been nearly as warm as the 1930's so far this month and it has been wonderful. I can excercise early in the morning, noon and the evening and be quite comfortatable. Arnold has blamed the fires on global warming but if he knew anything about the brush covering the hills in California he would know different. Well maybe he does know as his own Department of Forestry and Fire Protection acknowleges that the hills of brush burn, on average, every ten years. This stuff burns like gasoline when lit. Of course Arnold was raised in Austria and his wife in New England, what do they know about Santa Ana winds, California brush and fire.

A couple of months ago I watched and end of the world type global warming show on CB(x) and saw Greenland cover with black soot as far as I could see while the interviewee was talking about CO2 caused global warming and the melting ice sheet while the research station, that was at surface level, was buried many feet below ice. Go figure? The same show completely ignored the statement from an 80 something old man talking about how his Himolayian home used to be covered by forest was ignored while the reporter was blaming C02 for the melting of glaciers.

Hold on to your pocket books because the recent decline in the price of gasoline will be an opening for a huge increase in the tax on gasoline for the new President and his Congress.

Brett: As a result of warming soils will release CO2. The largest release of CO2 is by the burning of fossil fuels. This happened in the last 150 years by industrialization. The second gas to be released is methane. CO2 is only released when plants die, ecosystems are destroyed, and by the oceans or biomass as carbon sinks. In most soil, organic matter resides. CO2 is not released from the soil per se, unless it is undergoing further degradation. Black Carbon's role as an important greenhouse player, in that it inhibits snow from reflecting the sun's heat out, and that it increases absorption of heat on the Earth. Here is another quote from Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University. He estimates that by switching to slash-and-char from slash-and-burn agriculture, which turns biomass into ash using open fires that release black carbon[60]and GHGs,[61] 12% of anthropogenic carbon emissions caused by land use change could be reduced annually. When you talk about global warming we are talking about atmospheric CO2. Not the CO2 that is part of our living planet. Thanks,Kipp

Brett: I know your a busy fellow, but it would be great if you would comment more on the blog.I'm sure you have a lot to say, and you are a working Scientist. Thanks,Kipp

Reply: I try to keep my opinions to myself for the most part since I am the moderator. If you have a particular question that you want my personal opinion then just ask it in this comment section and I will email you back.

So if "clean" energy is going to create 5 million new jobs, that means the cost of energy to the consumer is going to increase by what it costs to pay those 5 million people, plus overhead. The cost of increased energy will then kill 10 million jobs.

The left loves global warming. It means more government, higher taxes, more control of peoples lives, less freedom of choice. All using the excuse of solving a non-existent problem.

Obama is going to be a walking economic disaster. And he's going to steal more of the little freedom that we have left.

I am glad you posted this. There are 2 sides to the AGW argument and both should be heard. I am on the other side of "global warming" debate. I have no problem those who disagree with me, my problem is with those who are trying to silence me.

paulm
"And the trend is still up..."

No, it's not.

"http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/10/updated-11-year-global-temp-anomoly.html"

"The new, corrected data show that no cooling of the oceans occurred in 2004-2006, in agreement with what the climate models were predicting. People often malign the accuracy of climate models, but sometimes they are more trustworthy than the data! "

"Oh by the way is this correct now?..."

No, it's not. You have the wrong link. Beyond that, no one cares about GISS records. GISS is diverging badly from UAH, RSS, and HadCrut3. The latest error is simply one of many signs of the sloppiness of Hansen's works. If the numbers had just been made up instead of using the previous month data, this would never have been caught. And if the processing software is too dumb to recognise such large site disparities, then it is too dumb to give us an accurate world temperature.
The models are not correct. There was no cooling, but there was also no warming. The models predict warming.

Mary oh its been a long 8yrs and it still isn't over just quite yet. What a mess it has all ended up as.

paulm: You posted this quote, "The new, corrected data show that no cooling of the oceans occurred in 2004-2006, in agreement with what the climate models were predicting. People often malign the accuracy of climate models, but sometimes they are more trustworthy than the data!"

Brett posted a graph of the revised data from that NASA article back on Wednesday. See his post titled "Digging Hard to Find the Right Answers". Unfortunately, his copy clipped off 2002 to 2006, so you have to go to the link he provided and open page 4. The complete graph is there. Your source must have difficulty reading a graph, because the curve marked "revised" does show a decrease in ocean heat content during the last few years. It's simply not as pronounced as it was. Don't believe me? Go to page 4 or the NASA article and reread the paragraph above the second graph. The second to last sentence reads, "Since the revision, says Willis, the bumps in the graph have largely disappeared, which means the observations and the models are in much better agreement." "Largely disappeared" is not the same as "no cooling."

'Science' is supposedly nothing but a series of corrections of one 'scientific mistake' after the last. There is no 'set science' regards anything that has to do with science. Skeptics have disdained all along the 'projections' made by the so-called 'models', which generally take a pre-determined conclusion and work towards that end, reaching that determined end, and fighting like the dickens to hold to that pre-determined end once the 'data', in their biased opinions, support that end.

Here is one from Australia:
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/erl-happ_climatechange_wij_23_4.pdf

One from Engineering News:
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=145646

Excerpt:
In contrast, the argument that man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing warming does not fit the facts at all. Firstly, there was no indus- trial CO2 produced in vast quanti- ties when the Roman Warming period occurred, or when the Medieval Warming period occurred. Both are well documented in various archives, such as the historical and archaeological.

But there is more , global warming is extremely complex, and it is really naive to believe that a relatively simple theory will explain it satisfactorily. It is far too simple just to say: CO2 traps heat and, therefore, more CO2 means more heat, and so we have global warming.

As the makers of heat-seeking missiles know very well, the CO2 in the atmosphere has 'windows' in it. This means that certain 'heat frequencies' pass through the atmosphere easily but other frequencies are trapped. It is these windows that the missile uses to hunt its prey. As a consequence, there are 'frequency bands' related to the CO2 cover of the earth. In various 'bands', the infrared passes through easily, or not so easily.

Further, CO2 can trap incoming heat from space and outgoing heat being radiated from the earth. The frequency bands linked to the CO2 also become saturated , they cannot just keep sucking up more and more heat. Essentially, this CO2 argument is very complex.

Over the last century, the temperature changes in our planet's atmosphere, let alone ground and sea, just do not match the atmospheric CO2 concentration at all. This is cause for warning bells that, perhaps, this whole CO2 argument is not correct.

In comparison, the cosmic ray and sunspot information match well. However, as I have said, this whole atmospheric temperature issue is very complex, and no capable scientist in the field is going to say otherwise.....

So the basis of 'scientific mistakes' are that they were made in good 'faith' and a lot of people get rich. That's the 'means and ends' to this day and age.

Huh? What? Models "might" be incorrect?

Your kidding right? I thought that models are ALWAYS correct. I mean we are told that we should not just plan, but rather act, IMMEDIATELY upon the information put out by any of them saying that the planet has a fever.

Interesting that we also are told herein that soils emit 10 times more CO2 than humans. That implies that if we were to completely eliminate human CO2, the net result would be less than 10%. Considering an atmospheric dosage of 380 ppm, that amounts to 38 ppm. That tells me that once again, the AGWers are more concerned with agenda driven items rather than reality.

On Obama, I hope ALL of you are enjoying the LOW gas prices brought to you by our lame duck President Bush because from what I understand, Obama and his party would like raise the gas tax such that it is equivalent to the gas prices when oil is $100 a barrel. That works out to about $3.50 a gallon. I know Mark and BT will enjoy paying this as they have stated long ago, that high gas prices are a good thing.

Considering that we already pay roughly $.50 a gallon in tax right now, and gas in my area is at $1.69, that means that while BIG OIL will get about $1.19 a gallon, the OBAMA administration will get $2.31 a gallon. Thats nearly a 400% tax increase.

But no seriously, he's gonna save the world, lower sea levels, fix healthcare, etc, etc, while giving 95% of Americans a tax cut. What he conveniently neglected to tell those enthralled with the idea of Obama is that income tax, while maybe going down, will be replaced with usage and other "hidden" taxes.

I sincerely hope that BIDEN's prophecy does not come true, for ALL our sakes.

Gee, models overestimating Glo-BULL Warming??? Really? Wouldn't happen to have anything to do with it being BLOODY G-D FRIGGIN COLD OUTSIDE AND IT NOT BEING OFFICIALLY WINTER YET, WOULD IT????

As for this: new direction in climate change policy after he enters office in January.

REPLY: Yeah, a new direction. TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX, End Capitalism, TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX, Regulate, Enforce, and TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX!!!!!! Yep, can't wait for that "new direction"

Now with the one's plan, it looks like the other half of my retirement is going to go away in the next 4 years.

REPLY: That's OK, Mary! You will be left with knowing that you will be preventing the planet from furhter "peril" with your "contributions." Doesn't that make you feel so warm and fuzzy inside? I mean, who needs retirement when we all can pitch in and feel warm and fuzzy with our actions. Even though it's still BLOODY G-D FRIGGIN COLD OUTSIDE AND IT NOT OFFICIALLY WINTER YET!!!!!!!

Don't blame me, I voted for MCCAIN!

Watch all four of this gentleman's videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8SSqc7ekM

The climate 'cycles'

Sorry paulm, it was a good 8 years for this middle class worker, well except for the last few months when the government's (i.e.,democrats) disastrous idea of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraging loans to people who couldn't afford them with the result that the chickens came home to roost (which was predicted).

All the gains I received from my savings from working mega hours during the last 8 years gone in the past few months due to government interference which is only going to get greater and more disastrous.

I think it isn't going to make a twit of difference what climate models predict now, the future of climate and how to address it is now in the hands of politicians. If you are a scientist (like my husband) he says just smile, agree with the alarmists, make small clucking sounds, and figure out how to make the system work for you.

Well what does this mean for composting? Our backyard heaps are sespools of carbon dioxide producing greenhouse gasses???

p.s. Brett where can I find your story on the AMO each time I click on it, it does not appear?

Reply: I will look into why that is happening. I do not have an answer for you right now.