Really?? So a slight overall incidence on the World average temperature, notably in Europe, but little or none to speak of in North America, what appears to be a natural is attributed to 'Global Warming.' Did acid rain actually kill the chestnuts in the Eastern US?

Brett: So much for the Arctic Ice:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Excerpt:
Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.

I would think temperatures down south in British Columbia would reflect the trend......

By the way, where's the evidence of the 'source'?

Lets act now and cut them down before they cause anymore harm.

I find it AMAZING that anyone can attribute changes to the Canadian forests to a theory that has yet to be proven.

Here is an article about Global sea ice coverage that is based on observable fact: http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

I am sure that the Global Warming propogandists will look at this article and tell us that increasing ice coverage is proof that Global warming is happening.

Let's see....I am getting fatter so I must be loosing weight....the team scoring more points is actually loosing....the person earing more money is actually getting poorer....it is raining harder so it is actually getting drier.....

Now I see how all of this works...glad I finally figured this out!

Didn't George Orwell describe this in 1984?

Since anybody has yet to show actual scientific proof CO2 has a major impact on global climate, I'll just file this away in the circular file under the topic "Big Deal", subtopic, "Who Cares"

I would say that this would all be very troubling, especially if one believed that carbon dioxide was indeed a problem. However, until Kipp and his merry band of AGWers show how carbon dioxide above the concentration of 100 ppmv is causing runaway global warming, I will continue to regard articles such as these as propaganda designed to scare John and Suzy Q. Public.

BTW, Kipp. How about providing some credible links instead of your usual incoherent ranting? Thanks, in advance.

Between carbon emitting forests and the tar sands projects, it looks like Canada will need to stop burning fossil fuels for transportation in order to stop global warming.

My understanding of these western pine forests is that they rely on a combination of pine beetle infestations and forest fires in order to regenerate on cycles of about 50 to 200 years. Drought is historically part of this cycle as well.

Part of the problem is that there was a half-century of aggressive forest fire prevention in both the Canadian and American West which is helping to create lots of available fuel. You mix drought with this and you literally have a highly flammable situation. however, the pine cones sitting on the forest floor are just waiting to pop open and release their seeds.

My understanding is that there are areas in Colorado where they would like to do prescriptive burns but can't because there are homes in the forest. It is just a matter of time before a lightning storm starts that burn anyway - it is natural.

The mountain pine beetle secretes natural antifreeze, and is killed off by some coldspells in the Fall (before the antifreeze gets going), or by deeper/longer coldspells in the Winter.

Hence, it's not so much that the average temperature rises (it does), but that coldspells are less frequent and/or less intense, which is of course a global warming signature.

Canada has a good website on the beetle, including nice animations to show historical beetle outbreak maps.

Somewhat similar is West Nile virus, and quite similar is Canadian worry about the potential growth, within a few decades, of a plant they don't want: kudzu, whose Northern boundary reflects coldspells.

Last paragraph of the article reads.
"Instead, some scientists argue for more extensive logging of the remaining commercial forests so that older forest stands, which are mosty vulnerable to insect infestations and have nearly reached their carbon-storage capacity,can be replaced with younger trees that will take in even more carbon during their growing years"

Let me translate,
1.SOME SCIENTISTS is another way of saying government employees
2.COMMERCIAL FORESTS is really purchased crown land or your land,the taxpayer.
3.REPLACED WITH YOUNGER TREES means a plantation of entirely one commercially viable species.Most likely genetically engineered species.

I found it very odd,that this was the final paragraph in the article.I guess its so the myth stays ripe in your mind.
When you log old growth, you lose beauty, biodiversity & the dense canopy which provides shelter & food especially through the winter months for animals.
For those who don't know, almost all of Western Canadas wood is now going to China.A word just came to mind "PARADOX".
-35 to -40 degrees C for 3days+ will kill this bug.In todays climate this is hard.

Bob Tisdale:
Here is a disturbing piece from Spencer Weart.The heating of SST's.The IPCC projections, based on their models, did not predict more CO2 from Canadian Forests, thus moving up the time for more melting. That is why Reagen and Bush, who didn't want to hear about Global Warming were more incompetent, then anyone realized.Now we can start to deal with this reality.About time!
Even Kerry Emanuel, who had explained in 1987 how a warmer sea surface would provide energy for greater storms, had not expected a noticeable change anytime soon. But when he analyzed decades of data on tropical storms, he found a disturbing trend. While the number of hurricanes and typhoons had not been increasing, the intensity of the worst storms had climbed in recent decades. The rapid increase in destructive power, so different from what experts had expected, correlated surprisingly well with the observed rise of sea-surface temperatures. "For the first time in my professional career," Emanuel recalled, "I got alarmed." In mid 2005 he wrote a warning of gathering danger. It attracted much attention three weeks later, when Katrina struck.
KIPP

The pine beetles only feast on old trees and require warm winters to survive. So, the bitterly cold winter this year should help and, contrary to the Greenies approach, more logging is needed to get rid of the old growth forest which harbours the beetles and the rot which contributes to CO2. Forest fires are also nature's way of clearing the underbrush so the larger trees get the nutrients; since we started 'managing' forest fires, we have reduced the natural balance. Incidentally, deer and such like the more open undergrowth as they can spot predators more easily and the new growth is more tasty. Again, it looks like we're going to try and manage something we don't understand and suffer the unintended consequences.

Oh yes, and CO2 isn't a problem anyway - the forests need it to grow, and so do our crops (both legal and illegal). We certainly need more global warming here in British Columbia anyway - it's been @#$%^ cold!

Brett If CO2 Causes global Warming then why has the Global Mean Temperature dropped for 10 years strait as CO2 levels have increased?? Answer that.

Reply: Not true. The global mean temp as not dropped for ten years straight.

Bob Tisdale:Regarding your post.Temperatures have been colder off and on in the last five years.In fact it�s a rather stark sign of global warming that every year this century is on the top-10 hottest list. But the global average temperature for 2008 will not be as warm as it was for 2007. This is only natural, because global temperature shows both a man-made warming trend and natural fluctuations � noise � inherent in the climate system. While the temperatures are still warmer. We are in a interglacial, so it will just get warmer, as it has for 150 years. You must take the averages both negative and positive. Just like Baseball. KIPP

Sad to see the pine bark beetle causing so much damage.
What will it take to end the GW hysteria?
Really ticks me off to see the real problems of world wide pollution and lack of fresh water being forgotten so some devious politicos can dupe the public into giving them taxing authority.
Evidence won't convince them. They won't debate.
Logic won't work.
Perhaps they an get free public mental health treatment, even luxury vacations all at our expense to effect a cure.
Be a heck of a lot cheaper than allowing them to tax air..which is what their carbon tax really does.
Hopefully there is a cure for cultists.
You just know that even if they got everything they wanted it would never, could never, be enough.

Aviator:Your real Answer.........!!!?????????
The pine beetles have and are continuing their feast. They have caused a major sink,to give up it's Co2 enriched forest, to let the Co2 join the troposphere.
CO2 does nothing by itself!!
To have a photosynthesis you must have additional water, your blue lights(A71BLUEFILTERKODAK)(use magic marker)DAYLIGHT,way above daylight color temperature and old cow manure.Not enough Sun.Not enough water.An equal amount of each is optimum, but you can experiment with the best formula,by making 4 separated plants, they might go for Co2,or more methane,more light.Hydro or not,
always lime sparingly as it has an exact, opposite methane whose molecule goes into a diapole.(DIOPOLE IS TWO ATOMS jerking back and fourth.).Good Luck,Flying Man!See you as soon as you touch down? KIPP

Steve Rowland and Charles,

Really? REALLY? DailyTech? The article this year is practically a cut-and-paste job from what the same author said back in September (the last three paragraphs are almost identical) when he trumpeted 2008's massive gain in ice over 2007 despite the fact that there were two weeks left in the melt season. Asher has a long history of ill-informed Arctic analysis, and this article follows in those footsteps: "the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards." The apparent moral of the story is that Arctic warming is a sham despite the fact that Arctic air temperatures this year were about 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they were in 1979. Apparently that's what the two of you took away from his post.

Ice grows when the sun isn't out, and winter extent isn't a great predictor of summer extent. The glaring fact Asher conveniently ignores is that numerous studies have shown the thickness of the winter sea ice is significantly less than it was in 1979. This is consistent with the 2 degree increase in Arctic temperatures shown in satellite data (no not even from Hansen or NOAA--this is from RSS and UAH). Thus I'd wager that September 2009's minimum will be much closer to the 2008 numbers than those from September 1980.

The summer minimum following 1979 was about 5.5 million square kilometers. 2008's was right around 3 million. Perhaps Asher would like to explain in his next post how the two years could diverge so radically when he claims a single common number to be so important?

So-called "tech" bloggers that so blatantly twist statistics sicken me.

The hypocrisy of the GWA is amazing.
There is only praise for that 'carbon-neutral' island in Denmark, Samso. On that island they burn straw to heat the homes. Their claim - the straw is only emitting the same CO2 from burning that it absorbed while growing. Hmmm - aren't these forest trees doing the same? And that is only when they actually burn.
What do they think will happen to the forests if CO2 is removed from their source of nutrition?

When will AccuWeather stop promoting the spreading of the Global Warming Hysteria and stop publishing these one sided articles?

Reply: How is this a one-sided article? The research is about a particular carbon sink that has become a source.

A little point of interest. Most of these forests are only about 10,000 years old or less.

Here is a nice little representation of the continental glaciation extent at its maximum 18,000 years ago. I will leave it to your imagination to figure out how extensive these forests were at that time.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:CLIMAP_jpg

What has always astonished me is how rapidly these denuded regions recolonized and became "stable" ecosystems. After a glacier goes through there is no topsoil left. In some areas there is no soil left. Everything needs to be revegetated from scratch with pioneer species and then moving into more complex and mature systems. Mother Nature is remarkably resilient and adaptive.

It would be interesting to see if there are any records related to infestations and forest fire outbreaks in these forests during the great southwest droughts from 900 to 1400 AD.

I often wonder how truly able and willing folks are to extrapolate objectively (non-hysterically, apolitically) from a hypothetical.

The hypothetical: IF the planet IS getting warmer (regardless of the cause) and long-standing temperature and precipitation patterns ARE changing ---

What is the range of potential impacts on agricultural production? Energy production? Transportation?
What are the potential impacts on fresh water supplies - drinking water plus agricultural and hydroelectric supply?
What are the potential economic impacts on low-lying coastal communities - ports, fisheries, resorts, small businesses?

What are our adaptation options?
How would we want/need our governments (the governments that WE ostensibly own and control) to be involved in planning and implementing those options?
How much lead time might be required?

Do you simply reject the hypothesis as too remote to waste time even thinking about? Would you even go so far as to block minimal efforts to research potential impacts and develop contingency plans?

Keeping in mind that the US federal government committed to sucking roughly $1.5 trillion out of the US economy to invade and occupy Iraq based on a "1% chance" (Dick Cheney's words) that Saddam Hussein MIGHT have WMDs, how much would you be willing to spend on simple impact research and contingency planning?

Now, I'm not talking about major taxation changes or enormous geo-engineering projects or any GHG mitigation efforts or exotic "cap-and-trade" systems, just simple, common sense preparations that a NOLA resident might be expected to perform at the start of hurricane season - TO ADAPT - like planning evacuation routes, figuring out what to take and how to pack the car, where you're going to stay for the duration, figuring out when you should leave and at what point before that you need to start packing up - I mean, instead of just rejecting the idea that a hurricane will impact you at all and instead of simply expecting "the government" to save you from a catastrophe that's already befallen you.

Can anyone do this anymore without making it into some sort of moral or political big deal? Without drifting off into conspiracy theory?

Brett,

"why has the Global Mean Temperature dropped for 10 years straight"

I think what Jason meant is that over the past 10 years global temperatures have decreased, despite increasing amounts of CO2.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

I wonder if (wink-wink) the sun has anything to do with it? I suspect that as sun spot activity picks up again, so will temperatures.

HOWEVER...we are witnessing an 'eerily' quite sun. This may result in decreased amount of activity for SC 24. Fewer sunspots next cycle may result in a flattening or downturn of the recent temperature trend, depending on how far back you measure.

Our planet is a particle that absorbs and radiates the suns energy. The RESULT of this absorption is the atmosphere and biosphere. Everything is feedback from this mechanism of initial absorption. It is impossible for CO2 alone to destroy our progression, when our progression has been a result of CO2.

Question:

What is higher on the food chain, frogs or alligators?
-
-
-
-
Frogs are. They are plentiful, adapt and survive in various conditions. When humans stop cancer and disease, then and only then, will we be on the top of the food chain. Will we ever?

Think about this. The planet has already solved the cure for cancer. Through the light of God, our planet will always find a way to create life. A perfect self-stabilizing and life giving system. Did you think we could destroy the planet?

"The planet isn't going anywhere! We are."

-George Carlin

Hope this helps.

Sorry Brent it is true. 1998 was the latest Peak in the Global Mean Temp. The Temp has never exceeded that level and as of last year had fallen back to 1970 levels. Mean while CO2 continues to rise.

Reply: But it has not been in continuous decline. The decadal trend is still slightly upward.

Again if CO2 Drives Temperature then explain to me why Temps have never exceeded the 1998 levels for the last ten years.

Reply: There are always normal fluctuations in long term trends.

Kipp: Regarding your anonymous post on this thread that begins with, "Here is a disturbing piece from Spencer Weart.The heating of SST's.The IPCC projections, based on their models, did not predict more CO2 from Canadian Forests, thus moving up the time for more melting."

What do those three sentences have to do with one another? That part of your comment made no sense whatsoever.

Regarding the second paragraph, Kerry Emanuel has since recanted his predictions, or haven't you been paying attention? Maybe your reference is out of date.

Kipp: Regarding your second post on this thread that begins with, "Regarding your post.Temperatures have been colder off and on in the last five years."

Look up through this thread. I made no comment prior to your two comments. I have no idea what comment you're talking about. Please advise.

John Mashey:

"coldspells are less frequent and/or less intense, which is of course a global warming signature"

For your information Saskatoon (right next to the "Southern Study Area") is currently having the longest cold spell (below -25 centigrade) since records started in 1892. A global cooling signature perhaps?

Not too long ago, there was a discussion about whether higher latitude forests have a net warming or a new cooling effect. A forest has a different albedo than a plain or prairie, especially in winter when snow-covered plains reflect more light than a forest, which tends to absorb more light and energy.

Alas, this topic was discarded because the only cause for any climate change is always something man-made and it always must be a carbon-related greenhouse gas. Never mind that CO2 is an essential trace gas and more CO2 makes the forests grow faster -- it's all irrelevant.

But if you buy into the carbon hysteria, then logging old forests makes sense. New trees grow faster and absorb more carbon from the atmosphere. Old trees are mostly grown and the best of their carbon scrubbing days are behind them.

I am sure our host and moderator here is a very good meteoroligist but he admitted several blogs back he had no idea how much atmospheric CO2 was manmade and how much was from natural sources I was surprised to say the least.

Reply: I could not find the specific info on that actual ratio Jack.

Brett, in many ways reminds me of David Kay, a very honest UN inspector in Iraq. As many of you recall Mr. Kay took the place of Hans Blix and he was so sure that he would find WMD in Iraq that he completely ignored all the evidence to the contrary. Finally, in an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee he stunned the world with these seven words..." We were wrong, we were all wrong."

There is a mountain of evidence out there that global warming and cooling are natural events and mankinds efforts to alter or change these vast natural sources is not only futile but also can have vast negative unintended consequence like the rush to bio-fuels such as ethanol which has benefitted only the corn farmers and fertilizer producers.

I have no idea whether there is anyone out there in the warmist world that will be as honest as David Kay but if there are let your voices be heard now so we can stop this lunacy.

rd:It will be relatively soon that the southwest will become more desert like according to Natives People Climate Assessment2008.So you will see drought as the next sign(of which they are many) of antropogenic Global Warming.
Steve Rowland:
I think it would be easier for you if you concentrate on the science of warming to debate it.Anyone can grab an article from,WATTS,Climate Audit and all of those little,unscientific sites.Do you think that NASA is in a conspiracy against itself.Read through Real Climate where there are legitimate skeptics.Don't lower your argument with old news. KIPP

Al Gore, also, tried this Pine Bark Beetle scare nonsense in his book An Inconvenient Truth, stating that fewer days of frost allowed ppbs to thrive and devastate pine trees.

As I rebutted in my book A Convenient Fabrication:
a)the ppb mortality rate is normally 97.5%. If mortality drops by only 2%, populations can reach outbreak proportions, and vice versa.
b) factors that affect ppb population include threats from woodpeckers, wet summers, forest fires, nematodes, parasitic fungi, other insects, a lack of suitable pine trees, and tree 'pitching out'.
c) ppbs go thru a natural 30-40 year cycle.

Ice core data clearly demonstrates that the temperature increases come about 800 years before the CO2 increases. Higher temperatures is what drives CO2 out of solution of the world's oceans.

CO2 doesn't drive anything. It is water vapor that has supreme rule over the ghg kingdom. Take a look at the spectral absorption spectrum of CO2 and wv. The puny effect of CO2 is overwhelmed by wv by a factor of 26.

CO2 was 20 times higher 600,000,000 years ago and has decreased ever since. All the while the Earth's temperature has remained within a stable 10-degC range. We are now only 9% off the bottom of this range and, much to the dismay of Dr. Hansen, nowhere near any tipping point!

Canada has just experienced two of it's coldest years in decades. The six Canadian weather stations I monitor (Whitehorse, Yellow Knife, Calgary, Repulse Bay, Churchhill & Goose Bay) averaged 2.7 deg F cooler in 2007 than in 2006 and another 0.6 deg F cooler in 2008 than in 2007. If earlier warm weather was promoting pine bark beatles, I suspect that problem has been eliminated.

Regarding worldwide surface temperatures, I now estimate that the NCDC annual numbers for 2008 will come in about 0.075 deg C cooler than 2007, representing the lowest mean temperature since 2000. Those folks claiming that La Nina was responsible should be aware that average global water temperature in 2008 was virtually the same as in 2007. Land temperatures dropped by 0.26 deg C. Of the 83 weather stations I moniter around the world, 53, or 64%, recorded average annual temperatures below 2007.

Travis:

Really?? A few more relating to same:

Especially:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-back-to-its-previous-level-bears-safe-film-at-11/

http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/04/28/arctic-ocean-ice-free-in-2008/
Steve Bloom is on here a lot.

http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/04/28/arctic-ocean-ice-free-in-2008/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/14/global-sea-ice-trend-since-1979-surprising/

It also helps a lot to read the comments...

It is interesting that if you google arctic sea ice, the vast majority grab onto the so-called 'plummeting' ice of 2007 as well as it decreasing anywhere from 10% to 19%, since that's the perspective the media prefers to impart. There are different perspectives to the matter; yes, summer extent comparisons are legitimate, but not necessarily indicative of year end. And of course, winter extent is not an indicator of summer extent, we simply continue to monitor the situation, and see how it comes out in 2009 as this is the first winter lately that we have had a spot free sun so lets see if the predictions of a cold, cold winter holds together and how it impacts arctic ice in 2009.

Kipp Alpert:

Your impression of science appears to be: "You either define 'science' the way I do, or I will take my ball and go home." You have a very interesting way of outlining your science. Exactly what support do you have for "drought as the next sign(of which they are many) of antropogenic Global Warming." Drought is a relatively natural cycle so whats to say that CO2 is the culprit? CO2 is the goose that has laid the golden egg for you Hysterics.

Bob Tisdale: "Kerry Emanuel has since recanted his predictions."

Not so much, Bob. If I didn't know better, I'd say you've been getting non-factual information from wingnut sources. :) Well, to each their own.

Emanuel's present views can be read here, BTW.

These recent results are of note:

'The frequency of extremely high clouds in Earth's tropics -- the type associated with severe storms and rainfall -- is increasing as a result of global warming, according to a study by scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

'In a presentation today to the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, JPL Senior Research Scientist Hartmut Aumann outlined the results of a study based on five years of data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA's Aqua spacecraft. The AIRS data were used to observe certain types of tropical clouds linked with severe storms, torrential rain and hail. The instrument typically detects about 6,000 of these clouds each day. Aumann and his team found a strong correlation between the frequency of these clouds and seasonal variations in the average sea surface temperature of the tropical oceans.

'For every degree Centigrade (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in average ocean surface temperature, the team observed a 45-percent increase in the frequency of the very high clouds. At the present rate of global warming of 0.13 degrees Celsius (0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade, the team inferred the frequency of these storms can be expected to increase by six percent per decade.

'Climate modelers have long speculated that the frequency and intensity of severe storms may or may not increase with global warming. Aumann said results of the study will help improve their models.

'"Clouds and rain have been the weakest link in climate prediction," said Aumann. "The interaction between the daytime warming of the sea surface under clear-sky conditions and increases in the formation of low clouds, high clouds and, ultimately, rain is very complicated. The high clouds in our observations -- typically at altitudes of 20 kilometers (12 miles) and higher -- present the greatest difficulties for current climate models, which aren't able to resolve cloud structures smaller than about 250 kilometers (155 miles) in size."

'Aumann said the results of his study, published recently in Geophysical Research Letters, are consistent with another NASA-funded study by Frank Wentz and colleagues in 2005. That study found an increase in the global rain rate of 1.5 percent per decade over 18 years, a value that is about five times higher than the value estimated by climate models that were used in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.'

FYI, Brett, I just now posted a comment with a couple of links.

Reply: Couldn't find it Steve.

I have moved from not reading any post by Kipp to not reading any post responding to Kipp as well. I get through the blog faster and don't think I miss anything of value.

Bob Tisdale:Yes,not well written. Spencer Weart, who you may know,wrote a piece about sst's. He said that the IPCC predictions from sinks, did not take into consideration,losses of more carbon sinks. With this loss (Candian forest), and buffering by the oceans surface,it would increase the likelihood of SST's warming. Not the most connected piece I've seen.
Bob,you posted statistics for only five years. I was making the observation, that many people can refute temperature records, if they are cherry picked like that. As I,m sure you know, to honestly take into account the amount of warming you must include 150 years, or at least 20 years, then average those out. Some people will hold up this year as being so cold compared to last year, that we are in a new Glacial. But by average,this year is still one of the tenth warmest, this century.I like the work you did on your new website. KIPP

Steve Rowland:

I can't speak to the rest of your post but the American Chestnut was decimated by blight accidently introduced in the early 1900s. This fact is well documented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chestnut_blight

I guess I have never seen allegations that acid rain was the cause for the disappearance of the American Chestnut.

Please don't take this as an attack. I have just never heard of that before.

Kipp Albert:

Excerpt from recent SAP 3.4

"Historic droughts over North America have been severe, but not nearly as prolonged as a series of �megadroughts� reconstructed from tree rings from about A.D. 900 up to about A.D. 1600. These megadroughts are significant because they occurred in a climate system that was not being perturbed in a major way by human activity (i.e., the ongoing anthropogenic changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, atmospheric dust loadings, and land-cover changes). Modeling experiments indicate that these megadroughts may have occurred in response to cold tropical Pacific SSTs and warm subtropical North Atlantic SSTs externally forced by high irradiance and weak volcanic activity. However, this result is tentative, and the exceptional duration of the droughts has not been adequately explained, nor whether they also involved forcing from SST changes in other ocean basins.

Even larger and more persistent changes in hydroclimatic variability worldwide are indicated over the last 10,000 years by a diverse set of paleoclimatic indicators. The climate conditions associated with those changes were quite different from those of the past millennium and today, but they show the additional range of natural variability and truly abrupt hydroclimatic change that can be expressed by the climate system."

The Medieval Warming period peaked around 1000 AD. By 1600 AD, the climate had cooled into the Little Ice Age. This appears to indicate that we have to be worried about megadrought in both warming AND cooling periods. I guess only a Goldilocks-Little Bear climate scenario will be acceptable.

I suggest a major research project to figure out how to pin the earth's global temperature to within 0.2 degrees of some norm (1950 maybe?) on a permanent basis. Alternatively, the research project could also evaluate how to equalize the Pacific and Atlantic SSTs to prevent North American drought. It could be a revolution of a similar magnitude as central air heating and cooling for houses!

From recent SAP 1.3:

"It is unlikely that a systematic change has occurred in either how often or where severe droughts have occurred over the continental United States during the past half-century.

It is likely that changes in sea surface temperatures have contributed to multi-year droughts that have affected North America during the past half-century.

It is likely that human activity has increased drought impacts over North America in recent decades through increased water stresses associated with warmer temperatures, but it is uncertain how large this effect has
been."

NOAA seems to think that maybe drought intensity is greater but its general incidence is not. However, the terms "unlikely" and "likely" apply to 66% to 95% confidence ranges. This is not exactly a conclusive conclusion when you take into account that they can't distinguish magnitude of effect and you compare it with the data regarding droughts a millenium ago in SAP 3.4.

tty: the climate system has plenty of noise. Focusing on that is the climate equivalent of being a day trader rather than Warren Buffett.

Open Mind often has very good tutorials on trends and noise.

Shouldn't AccuWeather have a "Global Cooling Center" under the Extreme Weather portion of its website, to balance the one-sided premise of the "Global Warming Center?" Hasn't Fox News taught you folks anything about being "Fair and Balanced?" How can you have an intelligent discussion about climate change when the basic premise is that the Earth is globally warming?

You can argue that the century-long trend is warming as we come out of the little ice age, or a 20,000 year long warming trend as be continue out of the last ice age, but the even longer term trend is that we will enter a new ice age as we leave the current interglacial period. In fact, the current interglacial period seems unnaturally long in an historical context.

The real threat to mankind, the really extreme weather, is the next ice age.

Kipp

What is unscientific about Climate Audit? For me it is probably one of the most scientific and technical sites related to global warming.

David

"Jason:
Brett If CO2 Causes global Warming then why has the Global Mean Temperature dropped for 10 years strait as CO2 levels have increased?? Answer that.

Reply: Not true. The global mean temp as not dropped for ten years straight. "

Brett is correct: See RSS graph for December
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/rss-december-2008.png

NOTE: Warming has been 1/10 of a degree C per decade. Gee, in 100 years, if the trend continues, it will warm 1 degree!

Also Note: Global Warming is Global...only the Northern Half of the Northern Hemisphere:
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/brightnessrss.html

CO2 theory does not match that.

So the Ministry of Truth, has declared that decreasing temperatures and increasing CO2 are evidence, of global warming caused by CO2.

Orwell did indeed have it right, after-all.

Once the text books are all changed, then the debate will end.

John Galt: "But if you buy into the carbon hysteria, then logging old forests makes sense. New trees grow faster and absorb more carbon from the atmosphere. Old trees are mostly grown and the best of their carbon scrubbing days are behind them."

Ah, but the science says otherwise. The abstract:

"Old-growth forests remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at rates that vary with climate and nitrogen deposition. The sequestered carbon dioxide is stored in live woody tissues and slowly decomposing organic matter in litter and soil. Old-growth forests therefore serve as a global carbon dioxide sink, but they are not protected by international treaties, because it is generally thought that ageing forests cease to accumulate carbon. Here we report a search of literature and databases for forest carbon-flux estimates. We find that in forests between 15 and 800 years of age, net ecosystem productivity (the net carbon balance of the forest including soils) is usually positive. Our results demonstrate that old-growth forests can continue to accumulate carbon, contrary to the longstanding view that they are carbon neutral. Over 30 per cent of the global forest area is unmanaged primary forest, and this area contains the remaining old-growth forests. Half of the primary forests (63108 hectares) are located in the boreal and temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere. On the basis of our analysis, these forests alone sequester about 1,360.5 gigatonnes of carbon per year. Thus, our findings suggest that 15 per cent of the global forest area, which is currently not considered when offsetting increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, provides at least 10 per cent of the global net ecosystem productivity. Old-growth forests accumulate carbon for centuries and contain large quantities of it. We expect, however, that much of this carbon, even soil carbon, will move back to the atmosphere if these forests are disturbed." (Emphasis added.)

You didn't even try to look this up, did you? Does the "wing" in wingnut stand for winging it? That would explain a lot.

BTW, there's a term for trying to make science conform to a pre-determined ideological framework. See this article for the details.

Brett, Jack McLaughlin's point above regarding natural vs. anthropogenic CO2 is thoroughly answered here (in terms understandable to laypeople, but with references to the scientific literature for anyone wanting more details). The Skeptical Science site is a good resource for refutations of most such talking points.

This page conveniently organizes denialist talking points according to popularity. Many will be very familar from the comments on this blog. Sadly, Jack's selection is only 25th on the list, which pretty much means that other denialists have found it to be ineffective.

Steve Rowland,

There are different perspectives to the matter; yes, summer extent comparisons are legitimate, but not necessarily indicative of year end.

True enough, but by focusing on whether summer is a good predictor or if winter is a good predictor of summer misses the more important point. Scientists (and the media, though the media is just looking for a good story and generally has no idea what they're talking about) fixate on summer area/extent because the trend in summer extent is a much better indicator of ice volume than winter extent.

Winter extent should not vary much from year to year; even assuming the GHG hypothesis is correct, there's no incoming solar radiation to "trap" for five or six months out of the year, so the maximum ice extent is likely to remain relatively constant from year to year. Consequently, it also means that your "spot free sun" isn't likely to be much of a factor either.

On top of that, as people here have previously mentioned, it gets extremely cold in the Arctic winter, and it doesn't matter to most of the Arctic if an increase in GHGs causes a temperature increase of 6 degrees when you start out at 30 below. Each winter you will have a relatively consistent ice cover, but not necessarily a consistent volume.

That's part of the reason scientists are more interested in summer extent; how fast and how much of the ice melts gives an indication of the volume of sea ice remaining. The thinner the sea ice, the more likely it is that that new season's minimum will be smaller than that of the previous year. It's the summer extent, not the winter extent, that informs scientists how much ice there really is in the Arctic.

Incidentally, the "cold, cold winter" you suggest started with temperatures 8 degrees Fahrenheit or more above normal throughout much of the Arctic maritime according to the RSS data for December.

Kipp: You wrote regarding your take on Spencer Weart's discussion, "Not the most connected piece I've seen."

At last we agree on something.

You also wrote, "Bob,you posted statistics for only five years."

Kipp: Did I make the comment you're referring to on this website? I did NOT post any statistics on this thread. You brought it up out of nowhere. Please identify the comment I made by the date of the thread and the date and time of the comment. Then I can respond.

Brett,

What are your standards for censorship? I refer to Obama as the messiah and it is censored. Bloom refers to anyone that disagrees with him as a "wingnut" or worse and it is posted.

Reply: I do not believe that Steve was refering to anyone in particular. Similar comments to yours have been removed on many occasions.

I once had "fascist" stricken from a post -- is that really worse than "wingnut?" How about nutjob, can I use that? Just asking.

Reply: You can use nutjob if it is not directed at anyone in particular, but I think there are better ways to express your opinion.

If anyone can figure out Kipp's logic, please let me know. The only part of his dissertations I can agree with is, "CO2 does nothing by itself!!" Even with other things, it doesn't do much regarding climate but surely is beneficial for photosythesis. Incidentally, WUWT and ClimateAudit are scientific and do accept contrary views, quite unlike the AGW sites that Kipp seems to frequent. I agree with the previous poster and will save time and frustration by ignoring Kipp's postings in future.

Why does Steve Bloom have to denigrate everyone when he responds to someone's post with some relevant and generally enlightening information about the topic. Why not just provide the additional information and leave out the ad hominem attacks?

There was a thread on this site back on May 20, 2008, "Should We Farm the Forests",

"Last year, the Canadian government commissioned a study to determine the quantity of carbon sequestered by the country's woodlands. To their surprise, etc........
idea of a tree farm would take huge amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere.........Clear the oldest trees and then take out dead trunks and branches to prevent fires; landfill the scrap. Plant lots of seedlings and harvest them as soon as their powers of carbon sequestration begin to flag, and use the wood to produce only high-quality durable goods like furniture and houses."

I am not agreeing with this since I don't think we should cut down old trees OR get rid of decaying trees because they provide the nutrients for future trees to grow from seed.

It is just that there are various studies out there that come up with different conclusions, which is why you should keep your mind open to new ideas and discussions.

mrsund:
Good point, but I simply cannot resist...:-)

Gary: yeah, i know, it was sort of a 'tongue-in-cheek' comment....actually, acid rain weakened the trees (not selectively, mind you) which made them more susceptible to pests and 'the blight'...acid rain is a Real environmental problem that can be seen...i was up near clingman's dome recently and was appalled at the firs that are dying...it ain't global warming...

Steve Bloom: You wrote in response to my comment to Kipp about Emanuel recanting his earlier paper, "Not so much, Bob. If I didn't know better, I'd say you've been getting non-factual information from wingnut sources. :) Well, to each their own."

Actually, Steve, I was referring to a specific Emanuel et al paper, not some non-factual wing-out source. It was "HURRICANES AND GLOBAL WARMING, Results from Downscaling IPCC AR4 Simulations". (Cut and paste the following address to your browser)
texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/Emanuel_etal_2008.pdf

Refer to page 15 of 21. "We also calculated basin-averaged changes in sea surface temperature and potential intensity, defining the averaging areas to coincide roughly with conventional definitions of tropical cyclone main development regions. Curiously, there is no systematic correlation between changes in any of the metrics described in this section with changes in either sea surface temperature or potential intensity averaged over the individual basins. This contrasts sharply with the high correlation between variations in observed Atlantic tropical cyclone power dissipation and sea surface temperature, reported by Emanuel (2005a), and the relatively high correlation among year-to-year variability of power dissipation, sea surface temperature, and potential intensity in the simulations forced by reanalysis data in the years of 1980-2006. Deconvolving the various environmental factors responsible for the changes in the various tropical cyclone metrics described here is the subject of ongoing work and will be reported in the near future."

You knew which paper I was referring to, didn't you?

With regard to the global temperatures in the last decade:

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

With regard with those who pay any attention to Roy Spencer:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/

which covers much the same ground.

To Steve Rowland and Gary:

Yes, the chestnut blight is an imported infection that has nothing to do with acid rain, global cooling, or global warming. I have seen estimates that the American Chestnut used to make up 25% of the forests east of the Mississippi and were the primary food source for many forms of wildlife. It is now relegated to being a shrub or small tree in the understory because it will propogate through its roots and then the trunk is killed off before it achieves maturity.

Other imported diseases and bugs that are doing or have the potential to do tremendous harm without any acid rain or climate change input:

Emerald Ash Borer: currently in the upper MidWest and Southern Canada - apparently it produces 100% mortality to ash trees, the preferred wood for baseball bats as well as important trees for wildlife. There is a project underway to save ash seeds in case the ash tree becomes extinct due to this bug.

Asian Long-Horned Beetle: still relatively constrained in Northeast US but major infestation found recently in Worcester, MA. Kills maples, elms, willow, poplar, and sometimes hackberries. Could devastate New England fall colors and maple sugar industry.

Viburnum Leaf Beetle: doing tremendous damage to native arrowwood and mapleleaf viburnums in Northeast US. Viburnums are major wildlife species.

Dutch Elm Disease: fungus that kills elms before they reach maturity. The elm bark beetle is native to the US and used to live in harmony with the elms. They are now a vector that introduces the fungus to uninfected elms.

Sudden oak death: disease damaging and killing oaks on West Coast. It is still not entirely clear if it is actually imported, but its existence was unknown until 1995.

There are some others out there as well, but these are the main ones. They are quite enough. The loss of these tree species in the North American forests would be devastating ecologically. Very few forest types would be unimpacted.

Unlike the Eastern tent caterpillar and mountain pine bark beetles which are native and the trees have evolved to survive and/or regenerate after large-scale infestations, the North American trees are virtually defenceless against these other attackers.

Two of the primary causes of these bugs and diseases spreading so virulently are pallets and firewood being moved across national and state lines. Its the simplest things that are sometimes the toughest to manage.

There are lots of private and government web sites that discuss these various invaders. The chestnut blight and Dutch Elm disease have sensitized even policy makers to understand that things can get out of hand quickly with respect to these alien invaders.

The various exotic invasive plants out there would be another long list.

BTW, there's a term for trying to make science conform to a pre-determined ideological framework.

There certainly is: IPCC

It's going to be mighty rough on all you diehard AGWers when reality finally starts to set in that most if not all of the climate changes that have occured in the last 100 years are natural and nothing out of the ordinary, as the sciences have proven time and time again. No matter how hard you try to spin it, temperatures are going to rise after ice ages. If they didn't, there would be no warming globally and the cold would still be with us. But the fact of the matter is that the reality doesn't fit in with your liberal ideology so you have to make the everyday seem like a previously unexperienced event.
The co2 crusade will come to a stop when saner people stop regarding the media as the final word on information and realize the sky hasn't even started to fall after all these years. Open your eyes and look back at a little history. Humanity has never had it so good as we have in this day and age. Life expectancy has jumped dramatically in just the last hundred years, food worldwide has never been more plentiful, material support in global catastrophes has never been faster and more focused to alleviate the suffering.
Usually, the liberal minded become conservative with age and experience, but there are always the vocal few who never really grow up and because they yell the loudest, get listened to out of all proportion as they try and transmit all their fears and phobias to the rest of us. And like a typical spoiled child, they will never admit to any wrongdoing and will lie to cover up their many misdeeds. Those people should never be listened to on matters of importance but instead should be encouraged to get psychological help because they have real problems, not made up ones.

Not directly related to climate change but there is a good NY Times article today on an initiative to make evaluation of "green" gardening and site development more scientific. These are important initiatives to improve overall ecosystem health which is vital to improving our resilience to whatever climate change occurs. More importantly, these are things that can be done at a personal and local level that can provide for good local as well as bigger picture improvement. Just reducing CO2 emissions doesn't do anything on a local basis unless the rest of the planet joins your party. The article has a link to the report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/garden/08garden.html

Bob, that's not in any sense a recanting. Note the last sentence you quoted, and this concluding passage on the same page:

"These results suggest potentially substantial changes in destructiveness of tropical cyclones as a consequence of global warming. But large model-to model variability and natural multidecadal variability within at least some of the models also suggests large uncertainty in such projections, reflecting the uncertainties of climate model projections in general and the influence of natural variability. Ideally, we would like to compare simulations driven by climate model data accumulated over periods long enough both to quantify and account for the effects of natural variability, but because such data are not currently available, this is left to future work."

In other words, everything in the paper is tentative.

IMHO you should read the summary, carefully, noting this passage in particular:

"It is noteworthy that simulated global tropical cyclone power dissipation increases by more than 60% in simulations driven by NCAR-NCEP reanalysis over the period of 1980-2006, consistent with deductions from best-track data, while global power dissipation increases somewhat more than that over the next 200 yr in simulations driven by climate models undergoing global warming. This suggests either that the greater part of the large global increase in power dissipation over the past 27 yr cannot be ascribed to global warming, or that there is some systematic deficiency in our technique or in global models that leads to the underprediction of the response of tropical cyclones to global warming."

The presence of such a deficiency in the models would be no surprise at all.

Also, even if it turned out to be the case that this modeling approach is validated relative to Emanuel 2005a, that would hardly constitute a recanting of Emanuel's views, especially since the TC-global warming connection would be firmed up (did you notice that?). In any event, Emanuel 2005a found a connection between Atlantic PDI and SSTs, not global warming, the point being that other work is needed to extract any global warming signal from the SST changes.

Also, Bob, had you read the Emanuel review paper I linked you would have noticed that it discussed both Emanuel et al 2008 and Emanuel 2005a without in any way repudiating the latter.

Mary, I'm not sure it's effective with everyone, but IMHO people who just make stuff up should be subject to derision.

I'm out of time just now, so I'll respond later regarding that previous post.

Chris F | January 7, 2009 9:53 PM --- For what science does actually show, read "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Review of above:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E7DF153DF936A35753C1A9659C8B63

And by the way, science never ['proves' anything, that is just in mathematics.

Well, Mary, amusingly enough this post and the May one refer to the exact same material. The May one was based on a hatchet job that appeared in Wired magazine. The Wired article did at least contain a link back to the relevant page on the Canadian government forestry site, which made it easy to confirm that the source was the same.

Travis:

Thank you. We can agree on your points. Yes, the winter may be started above normal this year, but my intent was to indicate that with a very inactive sun, and the cycle apparently coming to an end, some notable cooling should be on the horizon for this winter and for some years to come. Predictions have been made on the warming side, let's see if predictions for cooling come to pass.

Thank you for the information, rd.

Steve Bloom: I've spent way too much time defending the word recant. It related to the paragraph I quoted above in which he points to contradictions between his present and earlier findings. Why don't I change my comment to Kipp so we can end this? I'll replace the phrase "recanted his predictions" with "presented findings that contradict and reduce the confidence levels of his earlier findings as they relate to Atlantic tropical storms". My comment to Kipp would then read:

"Regarding the second paragraph, Kerry Emanuel has since presented findings that contradict and reduce the confidence levels of his earlier findings as they relate to Atlantic tropical storms, or haven't you been paying attention? Maybe your reference is out of date."

The paragraph I quoted in my January 7, 2009 6:01 PM comment, Steve, is still the focus of my statement. You can quote as many other paragraphs or papers by Kerry Emanuel as you like. They don't change alter or diminish that quote.

Regards.

Steve Rowland,

True enough. The next few years should prove interesting.

Sorry, Bob, you're *still* wrong to the extent that you imply that Kerry thinks any such thing. Of course you may choose to disagree with him as to the meaning of his results, just as I will feel free to point out how you're wrong and/or confused.

Trying to be helpful here, I think you may be reading that paragraph a bit carelessly. In particular, the noted "contrast" is between analyses of (past) observations and (future) model projections. He uses "contrast" because it's premature to speak of a contradiction.

BTW, saying that confidence levels were reduced sounds good, but means nothing in this context.

Since 97% of all carbon dioxide produced is from natural sources this would be a far greater source of carbon dioxide than that caused by humans.

Since this has not stopped the cooling of the earth that has been experienced for two years now it is further proof that fossil fuel burning does not cause global warming.

Pretending that temperatures are rising by the use of average comparisons of specific chosen time periods does not change the fact that temperatures have dropped dramatically during the past two years. This is undeniable and has, in fact, been recognized by the IPCC which in place of iron-clad guarantees of warming for 100 years, now states that cooling may occur into the middle of the next decade.

Solar activity is most likely the cause and this influence was determined by the IPCC's seven computer programs to be 100% ineffectual in overcoming the claimed influence of rising carbon dioxide levels. Warming was guaranteed for 100 years, now we are expected to believe the cooling we are experiencing is "weather" or the inane suggestion that warming is causing cooling.

You would have to be extremely naive to buy into this warped view of reality.