A +AO was predominant during this time. Now as we enter a phase of predominant -AO temps will decline once again. Just earth's natural phases at work. Next.

The recovery of sea ice is in the Antarctic, not the Arctic. Although there is significant ice melt in the Arctic, the article does not mention the significant increase in sea ice in the Antarctic (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg). To call this Global Warming is a false statement. This is Arctic Warming. To mention the significant ice melting in the arctic without mentioning ice increases in the antarctic makes the whole article insignificant.

I read the Article...

#1 " The study reported by Dr Stroeve will be published in the journal Cryosphere shortly. "

The Study has not been published...No peer review yet.

#2 "Dr Stroeve and colleagues have now analysed Arctic autumn (September, October, November) air temperatures for the period 2004-2008 and compared them to the long term average (1979 to 2008)...."

No mention of PDO being in warm phase for
96% of 1979-2008 base period. No mention that both PDO AND AMO warm for the 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, the big ice loss years.

Hmmm, maybe they mentioned it in their Un-published study???

Not mentioning PDO and AMO being warm is like noting "The ice in melting in my freezer!!!" without pointing out the freezer door had been left open.

OMFG, STOP IT!

Ooops, also:

2009 ice currently doing a little better than 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, and, just behind 2004.

http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=346&page=2

Still a long way to go, but no one should expect recovery to be instantaneous.

The Artic of course is too high in latitude to recieve enough insolation to warm the ice. The Artic being mainly water, is warmed not from above but from below -namely through ocean currents. That being the case, researchers would do best to focus on the transportation mechanism(s) that carry warmer waters poleward.

I wouldn't be too concerned about increases in Artic temperature, as Mother Nature takes away what it gives. Despite what some believe the term "stable climate" is a misnomer, just as the term "climate change" is redunant. The climate of earth has never been "stable". This fixation or artic ice fetish only under scores the dwindling ammunition of the alarmists. In a few years no one will remember the fear and alarm of the melting artic. Despite the lower artic albedo and "significaant artic warming, the polar source regions this winter have produced a large mass of quite dense slug of artic air which produced temperatures as low as -68 deg F in Alaska. That air mass will be visiting the eastern half of the US this week.

If this is correct, it may be the only thing the computer models got right.

If you think a 58-year chart is "quite telling", why not compare it to a 58 hundred year chart in order to get a little honest perspective?

Reply: You have a copy of that 5800 yr chart Randy?

Brett I think the significance of the "recovery" of 2008 is that the warmers were predicting ice falling to a new record low or even disappearing.

Reply: Some scientists did indeed predict a record low and some thought that there was a chance that that the arctic sea ice could be gone as early as 2008. I do not know if that was a consensus prediction or not.

I think there is plenty room for fudging on this one since they went back into the pre satelite period but decided to not go back into the warm times of the 30's ... I wonder why? This is likely one study that needs peer reviewing by a sceptic instead of peer rubber stamping as is the norm in the science(?) of glo-bull warming.

Who you gonna believe?
Computer models with adjusted and smoothed data?
“Scientists say they now have unambiguous evidence that the warming in the Arctic is accelerating.
Computer models have long predicted that decreasing sea ice should amplify temperature changes in the northern polar region.”

Or Actual Data
http://www.barentsobserver.com/?cat=16149&id=4498513

“New data from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute shows that there is more ice than normal in the Arctic waters north of the Svalbard archipelago.”

"In mid-July, the research vessel Lance and the Swedish shp MV Stockholm got stuck in ice in the area and needed help from the Norwegian Coast Guard to get loose."

"The ice findings from the area spurred surprise among the researchers, many of whom expect the very North Pole to be ice-free by September this year."
Just keep the adjusted and smoothing data coming. It makes for quite a fairy tale.

Bob | January 12, 2009 10:06 AM --- Consider the history of the Northwest Passage.

Alec:Ask Brett about the PDO and the AO.The PDO is in a cool phase, and the AO is net nuetrel.That is the dumbest reporting of such a simple scientific fact I have ever seen.
Here is a real quote from your Dr. Arctic Sea
Dr. Stroeve found that since 1953 the area of sea ice in September has declined at an average rate of 7.8 percent per decade. KIPP

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652. 7.8 per cent per decade.

Isn't temperature the proper data for determining whether a thing is warming or cooling? Call me reactionary, but I think your throwing a smoke screen for missing numbers.

Looking at that actual observations of the Arctic sea ice extent chart since 1950 and comparing it to the following chart showing temperatures and sunspot activity:
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/2738/1954temsolaractivityun5.gif

I would like someone on this skeptic dominated blog site please explain to me the cause of the relationship of decreasing sunspots and decreasing sea ice extent. If your skeptic theories on sunspots are correct, when does the predicted cooling effect of decreasing sunspots since 1950 actually kick in? A 58-year record should be providing us some semblance of a supposed relationship where the Arctic sea ice extent should be increasing and not decreasing as sunspot activity is decreasing, don't you think?

Responses like the one from Dean Burgher ("OMFG, STOP IT!") says it all, especially when you can't find any direct answers to these poor relationship dilemmas from your support groups like ICECAP or the Heartland Institute.

rd.You talk as though Global Warming doesn't exist.It's good that you discovered what an interglacial is. We are in one. Of course the Ice has a Glacial period and an interglacial in this Holocene Era.Now that we have entered the Anthropocene, things will keep warming as they have for over 150 Years.The PDO cooling could save the Arctic, for now, but as time goes on warming is the reality. Why don't you and all the other Skeptics take a tour of real scientific sites for a change. Anywhere in the world. All you guy's do is is live on internet sites, so Climate Audit can make you feel definitive.Honesty is the most important trait in Science,and I'm sorry that it is opposite of the sources you find. You won't argue one legitimate point, one honest fact,no hypothesis,therfore no synthesis.RD has been working on Ice, good. At least you want to learn. Steve Rowland, why post
all the time when your sources are free like wordpress or are only denialville like WATTTS.
How about real peer review or scientific Journals. Skeptic papers are offered,but most don't know where to find them. KIPP

Look at the data, the summer ice is going. The trend is down and much faster than the models predicted.

Do people want to return to the conditions of the mid Pliocene.

Looking only at September data while ignoring the other 11 months of Arctic sea ice extent is self-serving and ludricrous.

Reply: No it is not. September is a critical month for Arctic sea ice, as that is the month when the summer melt off reaches its peak.

If you look at the Arctic sea ice thickness data gathered for the last 50 years (Holloway and Sou, 2002), there is virtually no change.

If you look at the Northern Sea Ice Extent for the last 100 years, from 1900 to 1955 it was a straight line. Then, suddenly, a decrease ramp is detectable. This discontinuity cannot be due to slowly rising CO2 levels. A sudden ramp function output can only be caused by a sudden step function input, such as, underwater volcanoes and/or hydrothermal vents.

Finally, it is becoming common knowledge that the CO2 increases come about 800 years AFTER the temperature increases.

I copied the following Arctic sea ice discussion directly from Dr. Jeff Master's Weather Underground blog site:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1177

"Climate models have done a poor job predicting the recent record loss of arctic sea ice. None of the models used to formulate the official word on climate, the 2007 United Nations IPCC report, foresaw the shocking drop of 2007-2008. At the December 2008 AGU meeting, Wieslaw Maslowski of the Navy Postgraduate School hypothesized that the reason for this was the models' improper handling of ocean currents and how they transport heat. He blamed 60% of the melting during the past decade on heat brought in by ocean currents, and projected that summertime arctic sea ice would completely disappear by 2016. Dr. Jim Overland of NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory was more conservative, projecting a 2030 demise of arctic sea ice. He thought we would be "hanging around where we are for a while", and thought it would take two more unusual summers like the "perfect storm" of 2007 to push the system to an ice-free state. He further noted that while summertime air temperatures have been near record levels the past few years in the Arctic, there has been one period of comparable warmth, in the 1930s and 1940s. The year 1941 still ranks as the warmest year in the Arctic, though 2007 was virtually tied with it. However, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s was different than the current warming, and was caused by the Siberian High moving unusually far east over Europe, driving warm, southerly winds over Greenland. The warmth in the past decade, in contrast, is associated with a warming of the entire planet, and is not due to an unusual pressure pattern driving warm air into the region. This means that the current warming is accompanied by much warmer ocean waters, which have helped caused much of the arctic sea ice loss the past two years by melting the ice from beneath."

He also has a more refined Arctic sea ice extent chart that goes back to 1900 with the model run data:
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png

Tim I take it once Antarctica starts to melt you will be convinced that AGW is happening.

Only problem is it will probably be too late by then for us to do anything about the warming we enhanced.

This is 58yr graph with quite a recent average. If an average was taken over say the 100yr period it would be off the chart.

Tim | January 12, 2009 11:09 AM --- Global warming is occurring evrywhere with the possible exception of the Antarctic south of 60 degrees south latitude.

Since the southern hemisphere is mostly ocean, most of the warming is in the northern hemisphere, but not all of it.

I don't really doubtthe sad story being told by the graph. I have to be a little skeptical of ice figures from befor satellite masurement,though. I wonder what the source for those numbers are.

Reply: Ship, plane and submarine observations.

rick the arctic ice was at a minimum in 2008 - volume wise!

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1177

I'm beginning to feel vicarious embarrassment for these poor lemmings.
Don't they have any sense of dignity or self-preservation?
One of the results of this AGW carnival side show will be a serious loss of public confidence in science and its practitioners not to mention the political con artists they've been shilling for.

This is all B.S If anything ,we are entering another ICE AGE. Look at world temps just in the last two years. Record breaking snow and temps worldwide. Climate change yes, Global warming yes -if you listen to Al Gore and his cronies. C'mon. this is all about a carbon tax proposed by the NWO elitist's. Wake up people, your wallet is at stake!

Reply: World temps have still averaged above normal the past two years, just not as much as the 2001-2006 period.

Yes the melting is increasing rapidly. The way we've been going the last 30 years we'd better stop immediately there was so much more ice back then. With the impact humans have made on the Earth's climate we will never see a substantial rise in ice levels ever again. . .

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Wait. What was that?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

That can't be right. You mean the infallible Mr. Gore had his head up his butt this whole time. Who ever would have thought.

Oh yeah. Me, that's who.

I'll give y'all 3to1 odds that this doesn't stop the Obama and his fellow democrats in congress from pushing higher carbon emission taxes through, making gasoline and heating oil/nat. gas prices even higher than ever before.

Okay, that's it. This is getting ridiculous. I have been studying weather and climate for all of my life, and climate change since the late 1980's. The world has been getting consistently colder since 2002. The cold air is coincident with solar cycles (as it always has been). Most of the 'warmest years' have occurred since 1990, because this is when most of the rural weather stations were removed, resulting in a boost to the urban heat island effect. It is much warmer (almost a degree) than it was 100 years ago, but this is only because we are just coming out of a Grand Maximum of unusually intense solar radiation (from the 1940's to a few years ago). Global sea ice is actually stable or increasing slowly (decreasing rapidly in the arctic, but increasing in the much larger Antarctic oceanic zone). Of course, all the focus is on the Arctic and on the small portion of the Antarctic where there has been some unusual ice shelf loss. Global warming has become a religion, and my colleagues don't even realise it. I have been a skeptic since the 1990's, but as soon as I have tenure, I am going to out myself. I've had enough of the BS.

The increasing Antarctic ice has much more of an effect on the earth's albedo than does melting Arctic ice. Right now taken as a whole, the earth's albedo is increasing with respect to sea ice. The reduction of ice in the arctic over the past few years has more to do with shifting ocean and atmospheric currents than increasing ocean temps. Air currents have in recent years been pushing arctic ice into the north atlantic. Good news is that arctic ice is on the increase.
Reply: Let's wait and see on that.

Of course it's still less than the recent averages, but it's only common sense to understand that recovery isn't instantaneous. Where the real interest lies now is in watching the AGW crowd to see just how long it will take them to stop repeating their mantra. AGW is now a study in psychology rather than science.

dennis h in reference to your siberian high
comments here in n cal we often get whats known as the siberian express high pressure over the eastern pacific and low pressure over north western canada the perfect prescription for bring cold arctic air to the western us

during the past year i have noticed many times on the accuweater national map the presence of low pressure in souther canada north of minnesota
coupled with high pressure centered over eastern georgia and the atlantic the perfect prescription to take gulf air and transport it to the arctic-ive even noticed this scenario in the late fall

heres a bone for all you agwers from a 95/5 skeptic-record high temps where i live 60s and 70s twenty days into winter flat earth philistine-wish i could ship this to you so you could have the summer you missed

records are made to be broken in this case the fall diablo wind conditions continue similar to so cal santa ana winds we have been cursed with the pacific subtropical high continuing to hang on and give us beautiful weathe but alas no
rain if the next 5 or 6 januarys were like this then i might begin believing in climate change but not necessarily agw loub

New Danish study say's that the Earths magnetic field impacts climate. Climate science is never settled. Who knows for sure?

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_earths_magnetic_field_impacts_climate_Danish_study_999.html

Charles S. Opalek, PE | January 12, 2009 5:22 PM --- The CO2 decrease from 280 ppm to 260 ppm helped to cause the Little Ice Age. Read W.F. Ruddiman's "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum".

Joseph Cavaluzzi | January 12, 2009 9:25 PM --- If by ice age, you mean a stade (massive ice sheets), this cannot possibly happen for at least another 20,000 years and probably longer. As for current global temperatures, see the link below.

lulo | January 13, 2009 2:01 AM --- There is no statistically significant evidence of anything but continued warming:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/

Dennis,

You�re cherry picking data. While the average number of sunspots have been less since 1950, 1950 was a banner year for sunspots. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn

Take a quick look at this site. http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_Climate_Change.html TSI has increased since 1950. Can you argue that more energy into our system will not result in higher temps? This makes me wonder whether anyone has attempted to correlate the PDO with the 11 year Sun Cycle.

In any event, TSI is on it�s way down and temps are as well. I know smoothed data from NASA shows ever increasing temps, but I doubt this can be the case. Less energy from the Sun must result in a net loss of energy in the Earth�s thermodynamic system aka Climate.

A 58-year record should be providing us some semblance of a supposed relationship where the Arctic sea ice extent should be increasing and not decreasing as sunspot activity is decreasing, don't you think?

You�re looking at the wrong thing. TSI measures how much energy the Earth is absorbing, while sunspot number only indicates whether TSI should be up or down.

Responses like the one from Dean Burgher ("OMFG, STOP IT!") says it all, especially when you can't find any direct answers to these poor relationship dilemmas from your support groups like ICECAP or the Heartland Institute.

Ahh, if you only held yourselves to such high standards then AGW would be a theory filed under Forgotten. Not one measurement of CO2�s contribution to GW or GHE ever. Not once. I can see where the AGW confidence comes from, very active imaginations.

Obama is correct, we need change. Using the Scientific Method, all the steps, would be a great start.

Steve

Amount of Arctic ice less then ever

TED:This from your site.If you can't be honest about your own sources,which are not really Science sources at all, then give up the denialism and obvious sale pitch for big OIL.
The amount of sea ice in the Arctic has never been lower than in 2008, according to UN organization WMO. One of the consequences from global warming is more extreme weather.
The World Meteorology Organization (WMO) is responsible for the United Nation's monitoring of climate change. In its latest report WMO states that globally 2008 has been the coldest year of this millennium. However, it is also the year with the lowest cover of ice in the Arctic.
http://www.barentsobserver.com/?cat=16149&id=4498513Teds site?
Kipp

Lulo:

Well put, but you better get your hip waders out because in two weeks, (give him a week to get settled in) the annoited one and his followers will begin the steady march back to $4.00 gas. Sadly, they will USE AGW as the sole reason for this move in spite of the horrendous damage it will wreak on the economy.

Sorry Eric, but you are absolutely correct nothing will stand in the way of their agenda, especially fact.

Can someone PLEASE remind me of WHY AGW is some sort of threat to humans?

Really THINK about it AGWers then write back.

CORRECTION!!!

Don't believe everything you read in the press!

The Wednesday, 17 December 2008 article said:
" The study reported by Dr Stroeve will be published in the journal Cryosphere shortly."

Well, the reporter must have had nothing to write about and dug through some old press release, as the study was "Published: 16 July 2008" in The Cryosphere!!!
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/2/601/2008/tcd-2-601-2008.pdf

PS: It will take a bit to read, but taking 1979-2008 as base period for temperatures, with PDO in warm phase 96% of time is still an issue.

If you do a word search, -0- entries for PDO, decadal, AMO

"I have been a skeptic since the 1990's, but as soon as I have tenure, I am going to out myself. I've had enough of the BS."

Presumably you refer to tenure in an academic position. Presumably, therefore, you also have or on track to attain a list of publications that you have authored for peer-reviewed journals. Presumably your institution's tenure committee (or its equivalent) will be very interested in how well-received your publications are, based on their citations by others.

You make several assertions that the scientific community will welcome if they are supported by your peer-reviewed publications:

1. The recent "cooling" (since 2000) is a result of insolation changes -- as opposed to, for example, the apparently mistaken attribution to oceanic effects such as La Nina.

2. The observed warming since 1990 is an artifact of a methodology change.

3. A warming trend since the 1940s is explained by more insolation changes (just in case 2 above turns out to be unconvincing).

4. The focus on Arctic sea ice changes is misplaced.

In order to reconcile these four assertions, you will need to:

A. Construct an explanation that resolves the apparent internal inconsistencies of these assertions (its been warming for 100 years, especially since the 1940s, but it wasn't warming during the 1990s, and actually its been cooling since 2000).

B. Demonstrate that the current explanations are wrong (especially regarding insolation). In particular, your refutation of Foukal et al, 2006
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html) will be particularly celebrated.

C. Explain why the focus on the source of most sea ice (the Arctic) is misplaced.

I hope that you'll be as eager to offer links to these peer-reviewed publications of yours on this site as you have been to share your informal summary, especially since you share the impatience of the scientific community with the "bs" that so often tends to dominate blogs like this.

Dennis, from what the CERTIFIED climatologist said on a show I was watching about the little ice age solar cooling if you will takes time. They said that there would have to be reduced solar output for 10 years straight for it to have noticeable effects in the high latitudes.

While I don't participate in the field of Gw science I do work in the power industry and believe as a whole carbon emission controls on coal fired plants is a neccesary step to take for the environment as a whole. Methyl mercury and NOX removal is beneficial for all of us and if it reduces Gw as a side effect..........

GW steve i want to add on to your reply to dennis h regarding the 58 yr record.....dont
you think. this is a climate event that should fall under the category of lagging events ie

1 the sun is at its most overhead position at noon yet the highest temps of the day usually occur between 3 and 5 oclock

2 june 21 or therabouts the nh is at its closest point to the sun yet the warmest day of summer usually occur in july and aug

3 coldest night time temps dont occur at midnight but somewhere between 3am and dawn

4 dec 21 or so in nh furthest fm sun yet heart of winter usually occurs jan-feb

building and declining of sunspots on the sun
would also be subject to a lagging effect keep in mind if sunspots are the only effect than we should see cooling and ice buildup until we are 50-60 percent to the next sunspot max so just because we have a barren sun doesnt necessarily mean the ice will immediately recover the lag effect could take another 3-4 years keep in mind however this is only one of many cycles that affect the planet. loub

Brett....you're restraint is commendable! You answer the rants and ignorance with a calm and collected manner.....bravo! I'd be sorely tempted to deride these yahoos AND boot them off the site.....especially the ones who continue trying to justify their skepticism based on their backyard being colder than normal!

GW Steve: "...the average number of sunspots have been less since 1950..."

GW Steve: "TSI has increased since 1950"

Steve,

You have to explain to me how those two statements are possible. If the number of sunspots are decreasing, how can TSI be increasing?

You even state this relationship later in your same posting: "TSI measures how much energy the Earth is absorbing, while sunspot number only indicates whether TSI should be up or down"

Here is a posting put together by your compadre Bob Tisdale on the relationship of TSI and SST:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/dip-and-rebound-part-2.html

In this posting, Bob says the following: "Figure 3 illustrates monthly Sunspot Number from 1854 to 2008. The data is raw and smoothed with a 133-month filter. The period in question is marked. Since I have yet to find monthly TSI data over the term of the SST data, I'll use sunspot number as a proxy for TSI."

So even your buddy, Bob, is using the sunspot number and TSI relationship.

Bob goes further in his evaluation of the SST and TSI relationship:

"I wanted to determine the scaling factor required for the change in TSI to cause the drop in SST anomalies, so I took the comparison one step farther in Figure 7. To adjust the curve of the Sunspot Numbers, which have been scaled to SST impact, I needed to multiply the data by 22. Also, the period of 1950 to 1990 becomes difficult to explain."

"The thought that solar irradiance is the cause of the dip and rebound is fatally flawed."

If you have any problems in that TSI and temperature relationship, you will have to take that up with Bob.

To your point on my supposedly cherry picking the sunspot data, here is a longer term plot of sunspot data going back to 1600: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png/800px-Sunspot_Numbers.png

So based on this plot, the sunspot activity increased from the 1800's until 1950, which could possibly explain the temperature maximum in the 1930's, but what about the temperature dip in the 1950's and 1960's? Since then, as you so rightly noted in your posting, the sunspot activity has been decreasing since 1950. How does that decrease in sunspots relate to the temperature increases since 1975 of 0.13C per decade? Shouldn't the temperatures be lower then they were in the 1950's since sunspots have been decreasing over that period of time? How do you account for these apparent discrepancies?

You also stated in your posting: "Using the Scientific Method, all the steps, would be a great start."

Therefore, all is ask is from you is to give me your scientific method of reasoning regarding those discrepancies and how do they conform to your conclusion for your temperature/TSI relationship? Bob T didn't find any relationship, so maybe you can enlighten all of us with the data you are using and how does it all fit into the overall scheme of things.

GW Steve: "...the average number of sunspots have been less since 1950..."

GW Steve: "TSI has increased since 1950"

Steve,

You have to explain to me how those two statements are possible. If the number of sunspots are decreasing, how can TSI be increasing?

You even state this relationship later in your same posting: "TSI measures how much energy the Earth is absorbing, while sunspot number only indicates whether TSI should be up or down"

Here is a posting put together by your compadre Bob Tisdale on the relationship of TSI and SST:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/dip-and-rebound-part-2.html

In this posting, Bob says the following: "Figure 3 illustrates monthly Sunspot Number from 1854 to 2008. The data is raw and smoothed with a 133-month filter. The period in question is marked. Since I have yet to find monthly TSI data over the term of the SST data, I'll use sunspot number as a proxy for TSI."

So even your buddy, Bob, is using the sunspot number and TSI relationship.

Bob goes further in his evaluation of the SST and TSI relationship:

"I wanted to determine the scaling factor required for the change in TSI to cause the drop in SST anomalies, so I took the comparison one step farther in Figure 7. To adjust the curve of the Sunspot Numbers, which have been scaled to SST impact, I needed to multiply the data by 22. Also, the period of 1950 to 1990 becomes difficult to explain."

"The thought that solar irradiance is the cause of the dip and rebound is fatally flawed."

If you have any problems in that TSI and temperature relationship, you will have to take that up with Bob.

To your point on my supposedly cherry picking the sunspot data, here is a longer term plot of sunspot data going back to 1600: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png/800px-Sunspot_Numbers.png

So based on this plot, the sunspot activity increased from the 1800's until 1950, which could possibly explain the temperature maximum in the 1930's, but what about the temperature dip in the 1950's and 1960's? Since then, as you so rightly noted in your posting, the sunspot activity has been decreasing since 1950. How does that decrease in sunspots relate to the temperature increases since 1975 of 0.13C per decade? Shouldn't the temperatures be lower then they were in the 1950's since sunspots have been decreasing over that period of time? How do you account for these apparent discrepancies?

You also stated in your posting: "Using the Scientific Method, all the steps, would be a great start."

Therefore, all is ask is from you is to give me your scientific method of reasoning regarding those discrepancies and how do they conform to your conclusion for your temperature/TSI relationship? Bob T didn't find any relationship, so maybe you can enlighten all of us with the data you are using and how does it all fit into the overall scheme of things.

Garret: "They said that there would have to be reduced solar output for 10 years straight for it to have noticeable effects in the high latitudes."

And the 58 years of decreasing sunspot activity (and it's relation to sun energy) is not greater then 10 years? If what you say is correct, then why did we not see a gradual cooling for the past 48 years and an increase in sea ice instead of the observed increasing rate of melting?

Alec, that's a different paper. Julienne stays busy.

Re the PDO etc., your search may have failed because you required "decadal." Anyway, see here for some relevant current science. This article is also informative.

Brett, apparently there's no trusting those darned meteorologists, and I'm not just talking forecasts here. :) It's a good post topic IMHO.

Oh, and reading farther down, EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors also seem to be in on the fraud.

Saaay... can any of these people account for their whereabouts on 9/11/2001? And I know Jim will claim to have been attending grad school in Iowa City on a certain day in November 1963, but we demand proof!

Thank you for that cogent reply, BT. The wishful thinking of the dedicatedly ignorant is bad enough, but people falsely claiming scientific credentials are truly hard to take.

Nathan: "The increasing Antarctic ice has much more of an effect on the earth's albedo than does melting Arctic ice. Right now taken as a whole, the earth's albedo is increasing with respect to sea ice. The reduction of ice in the arctic over the past few years has more to do with shifting ocean and atmospheric currents than increasing ocean temps. Air currents have in recent years been pushing arctic ice into the north atlantic. Good news is that arctic ice is on the increase."

Nathan, can you back up any of these statements with actual scientific references or are they just the result of your personal observations of the world as you see it?

First let's look at your statement on the Antarctic ice. Here is a graph of the Antarctic ice extent change since 1978:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png

So if the Antarctic ice has been increasing for the past 30 years, why is the earth's albedo still below the levels seen in the early 1980's?

Here is a graph on earth's albedo change (based on earth shine measurements) since 1985:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/earth_albedo_bbso.png

The following albedo change information (based on earth shine measurements) comes from:
http://www.spacearchive.info/news-2004-05-27-cit.htm

* The annual average albedo declined very gradually from 1985 to 1995, and then declined sharply in 1995 and 1996. These observed declines are broadly consistent with previously known satellite measures of cloud amount.

* The low albedo during 1997-2001 increased solar heating of the globe at a rate more than twice that expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This "dimming" of Earth, as it would be seen from space, is perhaps connected with the recent accelerated increase in mean global surface temperatures.

* 2001-2003 saw a reversal of the albedo to pre-1995 values; this "brightening" of the Earth is most likely attributable to the effect of increased cloud cover and thickness.

The following 2005 report failed to confirm this apparent increase in albedo noted for the period from 2001-2003:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5723/825

"The satellite data show that the last four years are within natural variability and fail to confirm the 6% relative increase in albedo inferred from observations of earth shine from the moon."

Meanwhile global temperatures continue to increase by 0.13C each decade:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1978/plot/rss/from:1978/plot/none

So where is your albedo increase and why are temperatures still rising for the past 25-30 years? There are just too many inconsistencies with your mantra arguments.

Brett,

Thanks and keep up the good work on correcting most of the non-scientific arguments out there.

Dennis

"The Artic being mainly water, is warmed not from above but from below -namely through ocean currents."

It's not rocket science, JP. Melting ice means more exposed water, which absorbs sunlight, heats up, warming the landscape and even "warming the ice from below," in your words.

"That being the case, researchers would do best to focus on the transportation mechanism(s) that carry warmer waters poleward."

Yep, let's blame everything on the Deniers' alphabet soup: the PDO and AMO. Put a feather in your cap and let's call you Joe D'Aleo!

"In a few years no one will remember the fear and alarm of the melting artic."

Sounds like a political statement on your part, rather than anything scientific.

"Despite the lower artic albedo and "significaant artic warming, the polar source regions this winter have produced a large mass of quite dense slug of artic air which produced temperatures as low as -68 deg F in Alaska. That air mass will be visiting the eastern half of the US this week."

Even JP falls into the typical Denialist claptrap of citing weather events as anecdotal evidence disproving AGW. I've never read any papers which claimed that a warming world was incapable of producing a cold airmass, or that weather would cease to exist. I doubt that you have, as well, but making up stuff on the fly does provide good dramatic effect.

Brett: With respect to this reply you posted above:

"Reply: World temps have still averaged above normal the past two years, just not as much as the 2001-2006 period."

First, there is no "normal" temperature. The temperature is what it is, and what you're referring to is nothing more than a "long term average" which is based on a number of years arbitrarily selected as being "long term" in the field of meteorology, but which does NOT imply a "norm" that renders any departure from it "abnormal," but rather simply "above" or "below" "average." Use of word games like "normal" temperatures just adds to the nonsense.

Second, while the past two years may have averaged above the "long term average" of the selected period, the fact remains that those temperatures declined, which is hardly what the "enhanced greenhouse effect" should permit to occur unless and until you accept the (painful for the Climate Fascist camp) fact that climate is not being driven by greenhouse gases. Yes, short periods don't indicate trends, but the same criticism is valid for the periods being used as so-called "evidence" of AGW.

Reply: With any temperature trend there are expected short term fluctuations. It's never a perfect line.

As Mick indicated above, the indicator of whether the Arctic is warming or cooling is temperature, not ice. Ice can recede when things are cooling and can expand when things are warming, depending on other factors like precipitation and humidity. Some ice is growing and some receding, and none of it is evidence of "global" climate warming or cooling. Of course, if the Arctic ice cap starts growing while the temperature goes up, then the temperature will be the evidence trumpeted by the Climate Fascists and suddenly the expanding ice will be meaningless. What a charade.

AGW is not Science | January 15, 2009 4:09 PM --- In meteorology, 'normal' means the average of some chosen 30 year period.

Let me see if I understand this. Actual observations do not match what a "model" has predicted out to 2050, but this raises no question about the predictive validity of the model. The model is assumed to be the Gold Standard for assessing what actual observations are showing.

Shouldn't it be the reverse -- testing the predictive validity of a "model" against actual observations?

Perhaps climate change scientists will someday rediscover the Scientific Method.

Pete28, the entire point of the paper and this post is that the models have indeed been found to be wanting relative to observations. How did you conclude anything else?