Ah yes. Once again, more tender juicey red meat for the employees of AGW Fear Mongering, Inc. to sink their choppers into. Let the games (lies) commence!!!! "See, you uneducated oafs! It's global warming, not (insert place of interest here) warming!!!! Blabity blabity blah!!!" Oh, and as pointed out in the previous (duplicate) thread on this subject, where does this say in this report that HUMANS AND C02 IS THE CAUSE OF THIS ALLEGED PHENOMENA?????

Love and Kisses,

THE MOB

****I urge each of you who is not an enviro-zealot propagandist to contact your State's U.S. Senators and DEMAND they VOTE AGAINST THE IRRESPONSIBLE CAP & TRADE WAXMAN MARKEY BILL when it comes up for vote later this year. Before they destroy this country's economy further.****

I farm in Ireland, this has been the wettest july on record at Valentia met station (over 100 yrs). I can not accept a warming trend over last decade,

Oh and one other thing. I like how most of Antarctica is beet red. What instead of -50 F degrees it rose all the way to -30???? LOL... What a CROCK!!!! But then again, consider the source. Way to cook those books, James Hansen... Again, let the LIES commence!!!!!

Thank you for keeping an eye on things.

Good work.

And this is still a solar minimum. What will the next solar max bring?

Thank you for the info. Looks like the USA is doing just fine, thank you very much. I am frozen up here in Minnesota this July, so no more baloney about Global Warming.

Wow. The data shows that the term "Global Climate Change" is indeed more descriptive to the Average Joe than the term "Global Warming", because of the cooler-than-usual spots. Being in the Washington, D.C. suburbs I already knew this year was cooler than normal, at least in my area, and the data bears that out. The downside is that I share the same weather patterns as lawmakers on Capitol Hill, so the point that we're cooking our planet may be lost on them...

Grain production down nearly 20% worldwide to to cold wet weather...Dr. Hansens minions of adjustments say it's the hottest July ever.
Must be time to begin ramping-up the hype for Copenhagen.
Hot weather for 1 month is climate, while crop failures due to a cold shortened wet growing season is just weather.
Once again proving that PT Barnum was right about a sucker being born every minute.

Whenever I see data like this or listen to the comments of scientists, I can't help but think the economy and health care are secondary issues. Those who worry that we will turn into Russia or China should be more concerned we will turn into the Sahara. There won't be jobs or freedom or doctors if we don't act quickly and decisively.

Where is your source info for this information? I wanna see it directly from NASA.

reply: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

And this is still a solar minimum. What will the next solar max bring?

REPLY: Hopefully a Real SUMMER, in places where that has been lacking in recent years. And very short winters. Quit whining, and bring on the Sunspots, baby!!!!

so the point that we're cooking our planet may be
lost on them...

REPLY: We can only hope. And we are NOT "cooking the planet."

Brett, Thank you for posting these graphs - they are fascinating. The comment that "Many more regions have seen a cooling trend [from July 2005 to July 2009] compared to the longer July 2000-2009 period" requires some additional context. July 2005 had the highest surface temperature in more than a century (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/). The cooling since then is due to a decline from a maximum point and the use of only 5 data points.

Reply: Fair enough Ryk.

I'm not overly political and/or environmental, and even I can see that the trends are more "global climate change" versus "global warming". Economics aside, it is important to consider how these trends affect other areas of the world - especially agriculturally.

For those who cast a skeptical eye toward the maps, I urge you to obtain some basic understanding of Geographic Information Systems. If you don't trust the science of projecting data into spatial parameters, I guess the "blue state/red state" maps must be incorrect as well?

But Chicago had a very cool month. Global warming is a hoax!

When are we going to read about the very inconvenient fact that most of the original data held by the CRU has been 'lost' subsequent to FOI requests by outsiders who did not accept the adjusted final reports as fact? It seems suspicious that the claims made for surface warming cannot be supported by actual evidence. Given the fact that all we are left with is the US surface data there seems to be a problem because the original US data shows that the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s and that no warming has been noted for around 700 years.

This is some interesting data for sure. I guess what the people who are telling us to contact our senators to vote against this clean energy and climate legislation clearly do not understand global climatic disruptions. When it is cooler, and more wet somewhere, such as Ireland, it will be warmer and more hot somewhere else.

And if you think drastically rising temperatures in the coolest part of the world is something to laugh at, just ask yourself, where is all of that melting ice going to go? Oh...that's right, the Ocean, which will then rise because more water is going into it.

What will happen then?

im curious as to what the smoothing mechanism is used for showing th above and below areas im confident the central valley of california may have been above normal but the coastal bay area iesan fran shows .2 to 1 degree above normal checking out the accuweater statistc my city was a cumulative -79 deg for jul div by 31 days we were 2 1/2 below normal i checked berkely and some other bay area cities and found most of them at least 1 degree below normal it would have been normal for us to be below normal when the valley is hot because of the increased marine influence caused by the sea breeze compotent some smoothing or general area modification must occur on these charts-anyone
loub

Alan Edmonson:When you listen to deniers, and their many woes it makes me think of children fighting over cotton candie. These are not scientifically oriented folks at all. They use disinformation, misinformation, stalling, and voodoo economics to win their way. They are more interested in where they live, and don;t see America as part of the Globe. They hate socialism, but love medicare, which is a small paradox. The reasons that they stall, is that quick and decisive action is the last thing they wan't and are most afraid of, change. Stephen Hawkings“Entropy is like a broken cup; we can see it smashed unto the floor but never can we observe the pieces gathered and reform its original shape.” Said Stephen Hawking; the greatest living theoretical physicist since Einstein. Reversing or undoing entropy or global warming in this case is therefore impossible. Moreover, another consequence of the law of entropy is the natural and irreversible decline of nature from the state of order to disorder which happens to be the case of the eventual collective effects of global warming. KIPP

Interesting to note that July was just one Month.

Anyone recall the numerous statements from AGW alarmists that "One Cold Month" does not indicate a cooling trend.

Well, as usual one warm month certainly indicates catastrophic global warming!

LOL...

Typical

Yes if you live in the Antarctica, it was one of the warmest... a balmy -35C. However if you are a plant creature, living where mankind is producing food... gosh, the poor little plant critters are shivering.

What should we worry about more?? The uncomfortable penguins or the shivering plants. I think, I will consider this while I chow down on my dinner tonight. GK

I see a fairly obvious correlation between individuals who do not (wish to) believe that global warming/climate change is happening at all..and those that cannot seem to understand that cool/wet local weather does not somhow disprove that global warming/climate change does not exist.

I think that everyone understands the word "warming" so the comprehension problem must be regarding the words "global" or "climate change".

Most of the warming in July was due to a warming of parts of antarctica. Accurate date from this part of the world has only been available for the last 30 years or so. So to say that this July was the 2nd warmest in hundred years, is highly disputable.

Can someone explain to me why the first trend map uses the 2009 anomaly versus the "1951 to 1980 base period"? Wasn't there a slight cooling trend from 1945 through the mid 1970s? Didn't this lead some to conclude that man's activities were causing the Earth to cool? Doesn't choosing this base period accentuate the 2009 anomaly? What would the map look like if the 1951 to 2000 period were used? Would there be more blues than yellows, oranges and reds?

gary: "Interesting to note that July was just one Month. Anyone recall the numerous statements from AGW alarmists that "One Cold Month" does not indicate a cooling trend. Well, as usual one warm month certainly indicates catastrophic global warming!"

Yes Gary, that is why I always try to get the deniers and skeptics to look at the bigger picture of long-term (30+ year) trends and not the cherry picked short-term, periodic 10-year temperature cycles.

Going to your original comment about July being "only one month", you cannot ignore the fact that July 2009 was the warmest July for the southern hemisphere within the overall bigger picture. How does that particular record breaking fact support the deniers and skeptics positions of the 10-year cooling trend they keep trying to sell and the supposed cooling effects due to the recent solar minimum?

In contrast to your position, the warmest July on record in the southern hemisphere seems to confirm and more strongly supports the fact that long-term global temperatures are still in an increasing trend.

Since I like to look at the bigger picture, long-term trends, here is the long-term (139 year) record of global SST anomalies compiled by Bob Tisdale (from http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html):
http://i42.tinypic.com/iom6ab.jpg

Here is another one of Bob's latest plots of the same global SST's (from http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/): http://i25.tinypic.com/24g7kwj.png

Is there anything in those two plots from Bob Tisdale's site that contradicts the fact that current SST's are 0.6C higher than the minimum recorded in 1910 over that entire 139 year record?

Looking at it in another way, how does your continual argument of the supposed recent 10-years of cooling have any relative importance to that long term temperature change and to the warmest July in the southern hemisphere?

The NASA July 2009 anomaly map shown above clearly shows Britain in the 1C-2C above average band. Yet their own Met Office says that Britain had an average July with only parts of Scotland reaching 0.8C above.
What's going on? Mann-made global warming?

As pointed out in the article, there is a lot more red than blue in the map. So why do some people have such a hard time understanding that even though the eastern US was cooler than "normal," the rest of the globe was warmer.

The real issue isn't really temperature, but weather change - if some places are warmer and others are cooler, that will affect the winds and the rainfall....and food crops. I'm not nearly as concerned with my personal comfort as with how changes in weather will affect things like food production.

Absolute bunkham. The hyperbole of the AGW alarmists has so far proven totally unfounded and littered with lies and untruths. It the weather it changes all the time and has for thousands of years.

Further carbon is not a pollutant and does not contribute to AGW.

If Hanson had the guts to release the code for GISS, the folks had Climateaudit.org might find something different. We are only talking fractions of degrees and a little number rounding can turn a month from one of the hottest to one of the coolest on record.

Dana Linscott:Cool or wet weather could indicate
more strange weather.If you go to the site below it talks about rapid climate change, and what 150 years of warming can do. Weather is modeled to become more chaotic, like fall or spring all the time. I agree that Global is not a common denier phrase. KIPP

G.K.If it's moose you don't have to cook it.
Bon Appetite. KIPP

KevinN:Well Kevin,they say that one half of all species will die. Many can;t adapt northword, because there are farms,suburbia, and cities. That is a huge loss as species are thriving more than ever before. Some think that we will all just adjust to this new reality. Stephen Hawkings has said that once nature is taken apart it will be almost impossible to put the pieces together again. And we all know what entropy means.
KIPP

KevinN:Well Kevin,they say that one half of all species will die. Many can;t adapt northword, because there are farms,suburbia, and cities. That is a huge loss as species are thriving more than ever before. Some think that we will all just adjust to this new reality. Stephen Hawkings has said that once nature is taken apart it will be almost impossible to put the pieces together again. And we all know what entropy means.
KIPP

****I urge each of you who is concernd about the state of the union and human kind to contact your State's U.S. Senators and DEMAND they VOTE FOR THE CAP & TRADE WAXMAN MARKEY BILL when it comes up for vote later this year. Before they destroy this country's future.

In fact you should urge your representative to strengthen the bill.****

PS Brent your allowing irresponsible groups to high-jack your post with this sort of political broadcast.

New Film on Ocean Acidification Reveals Unseen Face of CO2 Pollution
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090810/new-film-ocean-acidification-reveals-unseen-face-co2-pollution

Sven Huseby.

Over the last two and half years he went around the world to investigate the face of climate change as he found it reflected in the oceans, a journey he undertook for the sake of his attentive five-year old grandson, Elias.

The story of the journey and the poignant dialogue between Sven and Elias were captured on film by award-winning director Barbara Ettinger, who has created a tale of moral justice out of the fabric of undeniable ocean science, a tale which vibrates with the deep question of what we owe to future generations.

The film is called A Sea Change, and even conservative audiences filled with aggressive global warming naysayers find themselves afterward caught up in humbling discussions, persuaded that “it really is about the CO2, isn’t it?” as many of them end up saying.

“Are we screwed? Ya, to a considerable extent. A world of 500 parts per million is a world of enormous environmental destruction. We ought to recognize that and say it.”

And why does GISS use the 1951-80 time frame for their reference line? It wouldn't be because that was a cooler period would it? Why not use 1979 to 2009? Or 1910 to 1940? Oops, that would make the map colors less red and more blue. It's obvious from reading some of the posts that most everyone is swayed by the colorizing effect.

Also note the lack of transition and larger areas of similar color in the polar zones. That's called a lack of data and subjective finger painting.

Why not use 70 year time frames, as their appears to be 30-35 year warming/cooling periods. That way no one is trying to cherry pick or paint by numbers.

Standing by with bated breath for NOAA's global analysis for July (considering that the U.S. coolness in July has already been touted by the skeptics).

If El Nino hangs in there for the rest of the year (http://tugpullpushstop.blogspot.com/2009/07/christmas-kid-is-back-but-will-it-last.html), it could make things really interesting for the skeptics to explain while the Sun is still quietly preparing for the next maximum. Especially if it's enough to break the 1998 record. That'd be fun!

The use of a Mercator projection is extemely misleading - it provides a gross exaggeration of scale at the poles resulting in far more red than would be apparent on a globe. The choice of projection is a deliberate action to distort the true picture.

Daily Chuckle: an AGW panic artist wrote to our local paper that, horror of horrors, it was raining in Antarctica. I checked the temperature at McMurdo station the same day and it was -53C. Some serious misunderstandings of basic science out there!

The data for Antarctica indicates that in the total July darkness the average temperature actually went up 4-8 degrees in a five year comparison? This is just too extreme for any kind of credibility.

Just how and where is the data derived?

'Climate Change'?

Now AccuWeather is changing it's stance(that it didn't have in the first place?).

By the way, the Pacific Ocean is immense! Any warming that is absorbed by oceans is going to last a lot longer than land based heating (heat sink=oceans). Perhaps that is why land temperatures vary so much, but ocean temperatures change more subtly. Crops are doing just fine in California,(thank you).

Dana- Beautiful analysis, but too simple for contrarians and skeptics to understand. They need aliens or a conspiracy to keep them interested.

Too bad X-Files went off the air.
"trust no one" is their mantra!

Take a big slice of "Climate Change", because "Global Warming" is too scary. Change MIGHT do you good, or not.

The Mob(y)-

So i lied. They change the name of the site, so i have risen from the ashes. No more "GloBULL".

IS AccuWx changing the name of the blog or did I blog on the wrong one? There are 2 different lead pages to the same information.

Reply: No, we have not changed the name at this time.

'Global Warming' vs. 'Climate Change'.

Excellent example of how the words, facts, figures, statistics, etc. FAIL to reveal what is really going on with the Earths' climate. The 'description' is NOT the 'described'. Our understanding is limited by our inability to see 'everything at once'. Therefore we can only 'piece-meal' an intellectual conception of what is going on. Perhaps our perception of the world needs to change to fully understand mans connection to it.

Nah! ....let the jousts begin!

I see a fairly obvious correlation between individuals who do not (wish to) believe that global warming/climate change is happening at all..and those that cannot seem to understand that cool/wet local weather does not somhow disprove that global warming/climate change does not exist.

REPLY: Yeah, and the first major heat wave to hit the Northeast and upper Midwest, and then who do we hear from???? In the ever so biased Media???Once, just once, can you people come up with something new for a change??? It's getting mighty old. Then again, whilest trying to defend a politically motivate FRAUD, I can see where it would be difficult. Bluh Bluh Bluh, it's not Chicago/Pittsburgh/New York, Seattle warming, it's Global Warming, bluh bluh bluh. Weather is not climate, climate is not weather. Bluh Bluh Bluh. Same old crap from you people. Keep it up. It only proves your desparation. Why just ask Ban-Ki Moon!....LOL!!!!

Love and Kisses,

Knuckles. Proud Member of THE MOB.

****I urge each of you who is not an enviro-zealot propagandist to contact your State's U.S. Senators and DEMAND they VOTE AGAINST THE IRRESPONSIBLE CAP & TRADE WAXMAN MARKEY BILL when it comes up for vote later this year. Before they destroy this country's economy further.****

It has been an very, very wet summer for us in Maine/Northeast. Also very unstable, many storms. Cool for normal summer, I still think the planet is warming, I do not have to deny reality to enjoy life. I suggest you all do the same, remember everyday on the highways are possibly your last day, now is all we will have. But still feel responsible for what is occurring, educate yourself, hold the disinformation lobbyists accountable for the evil deeds they have done to the planet and the ignorant, brainwashed child-like members of our race. Waaaah! The earth is changing because of our ignorance and now we have to deal with it. Pray for the children.

gary:
"Interesting to note that July was just one Month.

Anyone recall the numerous statements from AGW alarmists that "One Cold Month" does not indicate a cooling trend.

Well, as usual one warm month certainly indicates catastrophic global warming!"
---------------------------------------------

Hey Gary,

Your statement is true, except you failed to research NASA GISS for past temperatures. As you say, it's interesting to note...

May 09 - 3rd warmest May from historical records
June 09 - 2nd warmest June from historical records
July 09 - 2nd warmest July from historical records

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

To the Knuckle-Headed Philistine (Something to Be Proud of I'm Sure):

"we are NOT cooking our planet"

REPLY:

Why should we exert such profound skepticism regarding scientific data, and the global voice of hundreds of thousands of highly refined and educated scientists...and yet, so adamantly claim--with little or know evidence..aside from your "Knuckle Pounding...which as we know, is NO evidence at all!!---why should we claim we are NOT cooking our planet? Your facts please? Your highly refined data?

Second...as Kevin pointed out---a cooler, wetter summer somewhere else is a Typhoon in Asia, or a drought in Georgia, etc. YOU CANNOT BASE YOUR CLAIM FOR GLOBAL WARMING ON THE SIMPLE OUTCOME OF YOUR LOCAL WEATHER PATTERNS ALONE!

So the final question is: why are you so afraid of dealing with a problem that includes rethinking your whole ethical sensibility.
The ocean, other life forms, the planet itself that has support your "Knuckle Pounding", given you the food and resources to continue pouring forth your hot, hot air...our integrated place on the earth (which farmers of our beautiful world and country used to have a deep sense and respect for) these are issues to deal with, to develop further, and to DARE TO THINK ABOUT.

What is your political agenda in all this? What would you rather do with all the money you get for your short term desires? A new flat-screen TV? A bigger, badder car or truck? Another cruise? What would happen if we gave up a few things to put money toward an issue that is by definition, GLOBAL and not reducible to the propaganda machine of any particular political party.

Just something to consider.

Peace...and all my best,

Perri

To the Knuckle-Headed Philistine (Something to Be Proud of I'm Sure):

"we are NOT cooking our planet"

REPLY:

Why should we exert such profound skepticism regarding scientific data, and the global voice of hundreds of thousands of highly refined and educated scientists...and yet, so adamantly claim--with little or know evidence..aside from your "Knuckle Pounding...which as we know, is NO evidence at all!!---why should we claim we are NOT cooking our planet? Your facts please? Your highly refined data?

Second...as Kevin pointed out---a cooler, wetter summer somewhere else is a Typhoon in Asia, or a drought in Georgia, etc. YOU CANNOT BASE YOUR CLAIM FOR GLOBAL WARMING ON THE SIMPLE OUTCOME OF YOUR LOCAL WEATHER PATTERNS ALONE!

So the final question is: why are you so afraid of dealing with a problem that includes rethinking your whole ethical sensibility.
The ocean, other life forms, the planet itself that has support your "Knuckle Pounding", given you the food and resources to continue pouring forth your hot, hot air...our integrated place on the earth (which farmers of our beautiful world and country used to have a deep sense and respect for) these are issues to deal with, to develop further, and to DARE TO THINK ABOUT.

What is your political agenda in all this? What would you rather do with all the money you get for your short term desires? A new flat-screen TV? A bigger, badder car or truck? Another cruise? What would happen if we gave up a few things to put money toward an issue that is by definition, GLOBAL and not reducible to the propaganda machine of any particular political party.

Just something to consider.

Peace...and all my best,

Perri

"Alan Edmonson:When you listen to deniers, and their many woes it makes me think of children fighting over cotton candie. These are not scientifically oriented folks at all. They use disinformation, misinformation, stalling, and voodoo economics to win their way. They are more interested in where they live, and don;t see America as part of the Globe. They hate socialism, but love medicare, which is a small paradox. The reasons that they stall, is that quick and decisive action is the last thing they wan't and are most afraid of, change."
Mr. Edmonson refers to "deniers," psychoanalyzes them rather than examining their specific criticisms and misgivings, and throws in revealing non sequiturs ("socialism," "medicare," "voodoo economics"), all by way of disparaging those "not scientifically oriented folks" who dare offend his orthodoxy. Fundamentalists like Mr. Edmonson so despise infidels and heretics that they cannot refrain from treating them as if they were untermenschen or Christians or somesuch.

Gary writes:

"Well, as usual one warm month certainly indicates catastrophic global warming!"

I tend to agree (although it's been a few months now of new record global mean temperature). Climate scientists look at considerably longer time periods than the global weather watchers.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/fig3.jpg

Re: my just prior post
Oops...please substitute "Kipp Albert" for "Mr. Edmonson."

I refer ALL of you to GEORGE CARLIN'S "Religion is Bullsh..", same as GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY HUMANS... no such thing....how ARROGANT are these people to think that MOTHER NATURE really is changing because of simply grains of salt as small as human beings? It is warming up yes indeed, so let it be... I am NOT changing anything I am doing, not selling my car not changing how many hours I read per day to SAVE EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!! Earth has eternal cycles this just happens to be one of them, you all need to grow up already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Saharan dust storms curb hurricanes.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090807/ARTICLE/908071018/-1/NEWSSITEMAP

Serious Question:

To the Believers, What exactly made you accept the AGW theory?

In the years I have read this blog and others, I have seen many bold statements that AGW is real and is happening and is caused by man.

I have yet to see anyone provide good support for these claims however.

So.... If you know of any such decisive information, please post it.

If not, please indicate why you accept it.

Some possible reasons (ones I am aware of) could be:

- The "consensus" is enough for me.
- I trust the models and their assumptions.
- I respect "Scientist name" and they accept it.
- It seems morally right so I will support it.
- I don't trust "Business" so I will support it.
- I believe what I read in the papers.
- Al Gore is just an honest guy trying to help.

Of course, some bit of evidence would be best.....

Thanks

"Oh and one other thing. I like how most of Antarctica is beet red. What instead of -50 F degrees it rose all the way to -30???? LOL... What a CROCK!!!! But then again, consider the source. Way to cook those books, James Hansen... Again, let the LIES commence!!!!!"

Uh, did you actually study the graphics? Question the accuracy of the data if you want, but the graphics themselves say nothing of this sort. The colors represent deviations, not absolute.

If you are going to post a rant, at least make it a technically accurate one...

To non-scientific doubters: Warming in the polar regions results in the melting of the ice caps and glacier recession. The associated rise in sea level will eventually submerge many coastal areas unless this trend is arrested.

Obviously, all that red doesn't exist. The light blue over New Hampshire and Pittsburgh is all that matters! Remember, kids, Pittsburgh & Concord, NH are part of the globe; therefore, if they aren't warming up then there is no global warming!

"Dr. Hansens minions of adjustments say it's the hottest July ever."

Uh, the satellite record also confirms it was the 2nd warmest July on record. Must be those Communist satellites those Russians are putting up there, right Ted? We gotta love you Glenn Beck-worshiping, paranoid right-wingers.

By the look of the last three months being the 'so-called' warmest - does anyone else feel a Copenhagen conference coming on?

And what's with Britain showing a 1C-2C above temp anomaly for July? The Met Office records an average July for Britain. Who's right here?

Gary: After a year all that you can say is that there is a social or political motive behind people who believe that Global Warming is real. Try chemistry and think of CO2 absorbing outgoing infrared radiation.Think of the many proofs for this fact. The wavelengths between 5 and 30 micrometers are opaque. Co2 and some other greenhouse gases reside there. So the infrared is absorbed in the atmosphere and eventually half is emmited back to Earth.
Microwave, Spectrometers, that measure CO2 and infrared, can;t all be false. A cooling stratosphere, wouldn,t be cooling, if the troposphere wasn't expanding with warmer air.
Why don't you tell me what is false about these facts before you b.s. about what reality based people find true about this warming world. Speaking of hot air, did you let it all out.
KIPP

If you are going to post a rant, at least make it a technically accurate one...

REPLY: And if you are going to post a rant and criticize people, at least post with an actual user name or ID, instead of taking the cowards way out by remaining anonymous. Then maybe some of us will have respect for your opinion.

Why should we exert such profound skepticism regarding scientific data, and the global voice of hundreds of thousands of highly refined and educated scientists...and yet, so adamantly claim--with little or know evidence..aside from your "Knuckle Pounding...which as we know, is NO evidence at all!!---why should we claim we are NOT cooking our planet? Your facts please? Your highly refined data?

REPLY: NO! YOUR FACTS PLEASE! The burden of proof lies with you and your ilk, buddy. Because YOU are the ones who keep whining and moaning that the earth is warming and it's man's fault. All based ON AN UNPROVEN THEORY. TO DRIVE A POLITCAL AGENDA THAT YOU PEOPLE WON'T ADMIT TO. Because you are so nobel in your actions. YOUR FACTS PLEASE PERRI!!! NOW!!! PROVE IT!!!! You can't!!! Instead you will go running to the governments of the world to crack down on capitalism so your agenda gets rammed down our throats. THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD IT WITH YOU GUYS. EITHER PROVE IT OR CLAMP IT UP!

YOU CANNOT BASE YOUR CLAIM FOR GLOBAL WARMING ON THE SIMPLE OUTCOME OF YOUR LOCAL WEATHER PATTERNS ALONE.

REPLY: Oh really??? Why can't I??? Al Gore does it! But that's different, right Perri???? Again repeating. The first time a monster heatwave hits CHICAGO or the Northeast, AL GORE IS RIGHT THERE ON CNN AND CBS SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS......THE PLANET HAS A FEVER...THE PLANET HAS A FEVER..PEOPLE ARE SWELTERING...WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT GLO-BULL WARMING...NOW!!!!!.....Again, that's different right???

So the final question is: why are you so afraid of dealing with a problem that includes rethinking your whole ethical sensibility.

REPLY: Just what in the name of jumping judas are you talking about?????

The ocean, other life forms, the planet itself that has support your "Knuckle Pounding", given you the food and resources to continue pouring forth your hot, hot air...our integrated place on the earth (which farmers of our beautiful world and country used to have a deep sense and respect for) these are issues to deal with, to develop further, and to DARE TO THINK ABOUT.

REPLY: Oh, man. Can someone tell me what this person is saying???? In English???? I think I need a translator....

What is your political agenda in all this?

REPLY: To maintain the United States of America as the capitalist leader of the world. To maintain it's strength and it's sovereignty. For all Americans REGARDLESS OF THEIR APPEARANCE to prosper ON THEIR OWN AND NOT FALL VICTIM TO A WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION NANNY STATE. And to not change this country to a utiopian socialist mess that Obama and his criminal friends are trying to do. Can I be more clear, or is that too much for you America haters out there????

What would you rather do with all the money you get for your short term desires? A new flat-screen TV? A bigger, badder car or truck? Another cruise?

REPLY: Do you have a problem with that to??? Heaven forbid we American greed mongers actually enjoy the money we EARN. No we should just hand it all over to Obama and his hooligans, right Perri???? So he can lower the sea levels and give health care coverage to people who aren't even citizens of this country. Oh, right. Great idea. Tell us, just how much money do you make and what kind of lifestyle do you lead??? Do you live in a hut and eat tofu cauz you think that if you don't you may harm a twig or something??? My guess is that you don't.

What would happen if we gave up a few things to put money toward an issue that is by definition, GLOBAL and not reducible to the propaganda machine of any particular political party.

REPLY: YOU FIRST! That's what I like about you liberal hypocrites. You get on here and preach we have to give up more. Oh, but that doesn't apply to you, right??? That's for the little people. To make sacrifices. Again, YOU FIRST PERRI! Sorry, but I am not buying your liberal dreck. I haven't bought anyone elses on here, and I am certainly not going to cave into the likes of you. Again, Nice try.

Love and Kisses,

Knuckles, Proud Member of THE MOB

And as for you Mr. Mark (don't think I forgot about you). Regarding this: Obviously, all that red doesn't exist. The light blue over New Hampshire and Pittsburgh is all that matters! Remember, kids, Pittsburgh & Concord, NH are part of the globe; therefore, if they aren't warming up then there is no global warming!

REPLY: You and your lying ilk still haven't proven that CO2 HAS CAUSE THIS TO HAPPEN. And did you ever stop to think that maybe because IT'S SUMMER that these places were warm in July (duh!!!)???? I am glad some people were warm.

****I urge each of you who is not an enviro-zealot propagandist to contact your State's U.S. Senators and DEMAND they VOTE AGAINST THE IRRESPONSIBLE CAP & TRADE WAXMAN MARKEY BILL when it comes up for vote later this year. Before they destroy this country's economy further.****

By the look of the last three months being the 'so-called' warmest - does anyone else feel a Copenhagen conference coming on?

And what's with Britain showing a 1C-2C above temp anomaly for July? The Met Office records an average July for Britain. Who's right here?

Gary:
Serious Question:

To the Believers, What exactly made you accept the AGW theory?

This is an interesting question so I'll step on the AccuWeather soap box and give you my thoughts.

I can appreciate what would be required to compute the direct radiation imbalance associated with a change in CO2 in the atmosphere. I once wrote a simple code to compute the attenuation of neutral particles due to charge exchange and I think a radiation code would be similar. The errors would most likely come from uncertainty in the concentration of gases with height rather than anything intrinsic in the computation. This type of stuff is 30 years old.

The observation of a cooling stratosphere and a warming troposphere provides some compelling evidence of this effect. A solar influence alone would show both a warming stratosphere and troposphere.

So given the radiation imbalance, the key question is what is the response of the global system, i.e. what are the feedbacks. The global climate models are valuable as frameworks for testing theories but I don't know enough about them to say how well they can establish the climate sensitivity. So from my position of ignorance, the response of the climate from past ice ages, where the orbital forcing is known pretty well, probably provides one of the best ways to estimate the sensitivity. This assumes that the climate responds the same given the same top of atmosphere radiation imbalance. Based on past ice ages, a doubling of CO2 should produce about a 3 degC change in global temperatures after equilibration though there is a lot of uncertainty (1-4.5 degC) by this method alone. Other methods put it in the 1.7-4.9 range.

All of this gives me enough confidence that the climate scientists know where things are heading. From my experience, individual scientists are not very reliable nor are newly published research results. But when the concepts have had a chance to pass back and forth among them through papers and conferences the results are something you can depend on.

Lastly I'll add that I don't really care what people believe in with respect to climate. The debate is interesting from a scientific perspective, amusing from a social perspective, but ultimately futile from an economic perspective IMHO.

cheers...

Matt Smith:
To non-scientific doubters: Warming in the polar regions results in the melting of the ice caps and glacier recession. The associated rise in sea level will eventually submerge many coastal areas unless this trend is arrested.

LOL......

And he calls realists "non-scientific"

Has Joe Romm send a bunch of brainwashed zealots out to spread AGW nonsense or somthing?

This will be amusing.

The "scientists" say that C02 is equally distributed throughout the atmosphere. If that is true, why does "global warming" look like regional warming/and cooling?

Bushlover;Perri

Want to read some real disinformation?

Mann does it again!!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/13/mann-hockey-sticks-hurricanes-hurricanes-in-the-atlantic-are-more-frequent-than-at-any-time-in-the-last-1000-years/#more-9894

The author of the most discredited pseudo Science in recent history, works his Mannian Math on storm frequency over the last 1000 years.

Guess what he claims to have found.

Another Hockey stick maybe?
LOLOL.....
And some people will actually fall for it.

In the mean time Austrailia wisely rejects Cap and Trade.
At least sanity is returning to "down under"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/12/australia-rejects-climate-cap-and-trade-bill/#more-9886

Oh... Just for anyone here that actually might fall for the Mann Schtick.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090811_tropical.html

Hey Kipp

I need some help explaining this outgoing radiation thing.

Where exactly is all that heat going to up there at the poles? If one analyzes the map and looks at the colors one see warm temps (lots of energy) at the poles.

So the questions should be where is that energy going to. We know from basic heat transfer that heat (energy) is transferred from area of high energy (temps) to areas of low energy (temps. Hence Kipp the only place that energy can go is into space thus cooling the region ( ICE ICE baby). The only questions are how long will that heat transfer happen? Once the Artic freezes over the heat transfer will drop right remember - Ice is an insulator. And one of the other questions is how much energy will be transferred into space? Even when CO2 cools the energy has to go somewhere and that somewhere is space.

So the poles are a little warmer! BFD. That energy will go into space and the earth will be cooler due to amount of energy that is transferred. Unless, the sun of course makes up the difference.

Mister.Bob: "A solar influence alone would show both a warming stratosphere and troposphere". This is a great point. KIPP

National Climate Data Center is out with their July global analysis. I was counting on the Asheville gang to get this out before the weekend. Very high SSTs; El Nino is pushing the limits.

I comment (risking an HTML link):

What does this image MEAN?

Ocean surface temperatures were also the hottest ever recorded.

****I urge each of you who is concernd about the state of the union and human kind to contact your State's U.S. Senators and DEMAND they VOTE FOR THE CAP & TRADE WAXMAN MARKEY BILL when it comes up for vote later this year. Before they destroy this country's future.

In fact you should urge your representative to strengthen the bill.****

G. Karst- Geo-centric, egocentric answers show your true colors about your fellow human beings. Time for some humble pie.

Bushlover- First time i've ever agreed with anyone who called themselves Bushlover.

Perri- You are correct. Caution, you are barking up the wrong tree(hater).

MisterBob- Hip, Kipp, Hooray! ! ! Absolutely stunning! ! !
Just wait for the backlash of misunderstanding.

Moby

Gary-
"Serious question"- Yeah right, a little fishing expedition perhaps?

A computer simulation is only as accurate as the AlGoreRhythm (algorithm) it is programmed with.

You trust nothing, so you believe no one. Have a nice life.

MOBY

Well golly gee Bushlover, thanks for the pick-me-up speech of encouragement. I feel so much better now. I know we deniers are still pond scum in your eyes and don't deserve to live, but we will try to educate ourselves to your level. It is going to be hard to wipe those smiles off our face, curtail our enthusiasm for life, and realize optimism for mankind is but merely a deranged way of viewing the world. But we will try to embrace your warning thoughts and chant that "woe is me" mantra, I know, we are not worthy, we are not worthy.

Hands up who puts the block caps rants of the deniers before the carefully compiled readings from many ground and nautical weather stations and satellites? Okay, that's saved me the task of laboring the obvious. Thanks, Brett.

This is another case of "Cold summer in some parts of the USA: global warming must be over." I can smell the desperation of the deniers.

MisterBob,

The observation of a cooling stratosphere and a warming troposphere provides some compelling evidence of this effect.

Why? The Troposphere and Stratosphere warm and cool for different reasons. The Stratosphere warms by O3 being energized from UV from the top down and the Troposphere warms from Conduction (contact with surface), Convection (transport of warm air skyward), and Radiation (Water vapor and trace CO2). So if the Ozone layer fluctuates as it does, you will see the temps rise and fall over seasons and other changes in Ozone. If Ozone is lower then more UV gets through to the surface which will increase surface temps. So a cooling Stratosphere is indicative of a warmer Troposphere.

So given the radiation imbalance, the key question is what is the response of the global system, i.e. what are the feedbacks.

What radiation imbalance? Thermodynamics teaches us that regions of different "energy pressure" AKA Temperature will attempt to reach equilibrium with each other. It is not Water Vapor or CO2 that stores most of the energy within our atmosphere, but rather O2 and N2 as they make up ~99.5% of the mass of atmosphere. If the temperature of the air just above the surface is the same as the surface temp then the cooling rate slows, if it is cooler, then the rate increases. Imbalances will always occur, but on average energy ALWAYS flows towards regions of lower energy pressure using the most efficient means possible. Conduction, Convection, and Radiation, in that order from greatest to least efficient.

While Radiation is the Primary means to warm the surface, Convection is the primary means to cool it and the temp of the air just above the surface determines the rate of cooling for both Convection and Radiation. Why do people blow on a hot cup of soup? If allowed to simply radiate the heat away, it would take far too long to cool to a desirable temp, by blowing one increases the rate of convection which cools it much quicker. Convection is much more efficient than radiation at transferring heat.

CO2 levels do not cause ice ages, ice ages cause CO2 levels. Henry's Law explains this thoroughly. The Milankovitch Cycle explains the Ice Ages very well.

What in your experience shows individuals being less competent, and who are they less competent than? Passing unverified works back and forth does not change the fact that they are unverified.

Steve

All of those maps above show that the largest temperature anomalies are in the antarctic. This is true for the month of July, and the 2000-2009 and 2005-2009 trends.

So how come the current southern hemisphere ice area has a positive anomaly. And the trend for ice anomalies for the past 30 years, for 2000-2009, and for 2005-2009 are all trending upward?

Reply: Because it is winter down there and it does not matter to the ice weather it is -30 or -50. There is much less variation down there compared to the Arctic.

It's almost like the ice doesn't know that the area it's in is, supposedly, warming. It's almost like somebody isn't accurately measuring the temperatures in the antarctic.

Serious Question:

Kipp responds with somthing scientific sounding but unintellegable.

Most ignore the question.

MisterBob alone elects to provide a serious answer. Thank you.

From your response, can I summarize that your acceptance boils down to a trust in the Scientists that support the theory?

Idecline declines to answer.
But asks; Fishing?

Well Yes.
I am actually interested in why educated intellegent people would accept this theory.

As in: Maybe I missed somthing.
If so, I would like to see it.

So far I can only point to theories and opinions that "seem" easy to refute.

BTW: on the topic of Trusting the Scientists.

Are any of you watching what is going on between Climate Audit and the UK Met office?

Seems that the publicly funded Climate Data used to produce the "Alarming" warming trend reports is SECRET.
Why is it SECRET?
One can only guess but I think we all know the answer.

Ted writes:

"Dr. Hansens minions of adjustments say it's the hottest July ever."

So do skeptic Roy Spencer's minions. In fact, his data is showing a large baseline-adjusted value than GISS. Global warming deniers remind me of 9/11 conspiracy theorists in their logic.

Mark writes:

"Obviously, all that red doesn't exist. The light blue over New Hampshire and Pittsburgh is all that matters! Remember, kids, Pittsburgh & Concord, NH are part of the globe; therefore, if they aren't warming up then there is no global warming!"

It does take a certain type of combined ignorance and narcissism to believe that cold weather in one's backyard negates global warming.

idecline | August 14, 2009 5:41 AM

"Geo-centric, egocentric answers show your true colors about your fellow human beings."

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out, what part of my comment you are referring to. Perhaps you should start by explaining what my "true colors" are? Am I black, white, yellow or red?

If you have some humble pie for me... Serve it up. I have chowed down on lots of it over the years. If you just don't like me as a human being... well

Gary:If you read The History of Global Warming by Spencer Weart.This will explain the physics of the greenhouse effect. You don't explain a thing.Your elks new offense is to ask questions while Agw,ers study the science.Since you can;t understand my post, study atmospheric principles.
You and Box of Rocks should study more and make grown up scientific answers,not a bunch of questions.It is a good offense, but I don't trust those ,that don't understand a Government in the greatest country on Earth, and must ask the believers simple scientific questions that you should have learned. KIPP

Brett, I posted this morning (UK)time, but I don't think it made through. Anyway, has anyone else noticed that the GISS maps show a consistent cool anomaly over the Antarctic Peninsula. I thought it was supposed to be one of the fastest warnming regions on the planent!?

GW Steve:

MisterBob,

The observation of a cooling stratosphere and a warming troposphere provides some compelling evidence of this effect.

Why? The Troposphere and Stratosphere warm and cool for different reasons. The Stratosphere warms by O3 being energized from UV from the top down and the Troposphere warms from Conduction (contact with surface), Convection (transport of warm air skyward), and Radiation (Water vapor and trace CO2). So if the Ozone layer fluctuates as it does, you will see the temps rise and fall over seasons and other changes in Ozone. If Ozone is lower then more UV gets through to the surface which will increase surface temps. So a cooling Stratosphere is indicative of a warmer Troposphere.

It is my understanding that the stratospheric temperature is a balance between the absorption of ultraviolet solar energy by O3 and infrared cooling by greenhouse gases. An increase of greenhouse gases would lower the stratospheic temperature ("Principles of Planetary Climates", Pierrehumbert Ch. 4.3.5 though I only browsed this chapter).

So given the radiation imbalance, the key question is what is the response of the global system, i.e. what are the feedbacks.

What radiation imbalance? Thermodynamics teaches us that regions of different "energy pressure" AKA Temperature will attempt to reach equilibrium with each other. It is not Water Vapor or CO2 that stores most of the energy within our atmosphere, but rather O2 and N2 as they make up ~99.5% of the mass of atmosphere. If the temperature of the air just above the surface is the same as the surface temp then the cooling rate slows, if it is cooler, then the rate increases. Imbalances will always occur, but on average energy ALWAYS flows towards regions of lower energy pressure using the most efficient means possible. Conduction, Convection, and Radiation, in that order from greatest to least efficient.

While Radiation is the Primary means to warm the surface, Convection is the primary means to cool it and the temp of the air just above the surface determines the rate of cooling for both Convection and Radiation. Why do people blow on a hot cup of soup? If allowed to simply radiate the heat away, it would take far too long to cool to a desirable temp, by blowing one increases the rate of convection which cools it much quicker. Convection is much more efficient than radiation at transferring heat.

As you go up in height, the pressure decreases. If a parcel of air moves upward to a lower pressure, the volume increases and the temperature drops due to adiabatic expansion. If the parcel of air which moves upward ends up being colder than the surrounding air, it is less buoyant which tends to inhibit it moving upwards. So temperature tends to decrease with height according to the adiabatic expansion of the gas. This decrease in temperature with height is the adiabatic lapse rate and it differs for dry and moist air so there is a dry adiabat (arctic) and a wet adiabat (tropics).

The temperature decreases with height until the outgoing infrared radiation which can escape matches the incoming solar radiation. There would be an imbalance if nothing changed but the effect of adding greenhouse gases is to raise the height of the region of the atmosphere where this balance between outgoing long wave radiation matches the incoming solar radiation. The height increase where this radiation occurs translates to a warmer temperature at the surface. Brett, please correct me if this is incorrect.

CO2 levels do not cause ice ages, ice ages cause CO2 levels. Henry's Law explains this thoroughly. The Milankovitch Cycle explains the Ice Ages very well.

Sure. If the orbital forcing is known and the CO2 forcing is known then whatever is left over (water vapor, clouds, biomass) is the feedback which establishes the sensitivity due to the known forcing -- at least this is my understanding. Again, this assumes orbital and CO2 forcing has similar results. I imagine this causes some of the large uncertainty in calculating the climate sensitivity due to this method.

What in your experience shows individuals being less competent, and who are they less competent than? Passing unverified works back and forth does not change the fact that they are unverified.

Scientists love nothing more than to prove other scientists wrong. It is not just scientists -- whole blogs are devoted to this (climateaudit, wattsupwiththat). If they can't prove them wrong, then they extend the results to show what the other guy missed. It is a VERY competitive environment. The prize is respect and stature among your peers. They don't receive the salary that you would get in industry so that is their compensation though combined with an intrinsic love of the subject. This is of course just my opinion.

BobB | August 13, 2009 11:41 PM --- There are other influences on regional temperatures than just the CO2 global warming effect; surface heat is redistibuted as well as on average globally warming.

Gary:

From your response, can I summarize that your acceptance boils down to a trust in the Scientists that support the theory?

No.

BTW: on the topic of Trusting the Scientists.

Are any of you watching what is going on between Climate Audit and the UK Met office?

Seems that the publicly funded Climate Data used to produce the "Alarming" warming trend reports is SECRET.
Why is it SECRET?

I have not followed this and do not support secrecy of data obtained with public funds. I will point out that in the area I work in, which interacts with research groups in several foreign countries, only the UK groups require protection of their data and charge for data that other groups give out for free. Really weird -- maybe it's a cultural thing.

Kipp. Sigh.

I am well aware of the physics of the "Green house effect".
I am also well aware that the warming capacity of CO2 is nearly saturated already. So are most Cliamte scientists. (look it up)

The AGW hypothesis rests on feed backs that are "Assumed" to cause the bulk of the warming.
Theose feedbacks are very much in dispute and may even be negative.

There is just sooooo much mor to it than your little rant about the CO2 effect Kipp. It is just not that simple.

Your understanding of the topic is clearly much improved from last year, but you really need to continue study.

G. Karst-

I am not personally 'hating' on you. You just seem to forget(as does Oiz) that the world does not revolve around you. The weather in the center of the N.A. continent has been cold, farmers are suffering, but in other places it's fine. You are not the only farmer in the world, everyone of them has weather and water issues, But to belittle others plight or put yourself ahead of others in intelligence or knowledge is ignorance. You should be wishing all farmers etc. well, regardless of where they live and what they are growing. You are not the only person trying to feed the worlds hunger. And to assume that others have no experience in agriculture is also a mistake. I have either directly or indirectly worked with farmers, canneries, and a host of other 'food' industries in my 50 years. So my experiences in California are different than yours. To value one growing region over another is mistaken, and a warming world in my stance is NOT good for most agriculture in temperate zones. The upper midwest has always had issues with growing seasons, late frost, early winters etc.; it is NOT an optimal region for many species. We all have to work together to feed the increasing population of this world, not favor one type or region for production. A larger World view would be wise, and less presumptive arguments would be more productive; IMHO.

Thanks for listening- you need not fear ICE or the future, as Bushlover said "Now is all we will have"....make the best of it, we are in EDEN.

MOBY

G. Karst-

It wasn't just the one post that got me going. I've been reading your posts for several weeks now. FYI.

Look inwardly. Self knowledge is crucial.

THX- MOBY

To correct you:

It was the warmest july OCEAN SURFACE temperature , NOT the "warmest July globally" as you would have us believe.

Reply: This is was I got from NASA GISS, not NOAA.

Globally,(ocean and land) it was the 5th warmest july.

Just considering land,well, it was the 9th warmest(whatever that is suppose to mean).

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090814_julyglobalstats.html

Study the above map. All of the great food basket areas of the world have blue shading. This is what we are supposed to be discussing. Not the humanity of G. Karst.

Blue areas over the GLOBAL breadbaskets are a concern for everyone, whether you live in California or Greenland. Can you guess why?

The Antarctic and Arctic regions are NOT agriculture regions. I know of nobody, who ate penguins for supper last night. Just because you have not had to worry, about where YOUR food is coming from, does not mean our food supply is secure.

Idecline cannot philosophically create a chicken dinner if our agriculture does not provide it. Your complete disconnect from reality is leading you down the path of delusional fantasy NOT enlightenment. Such people disappear rapidly in times of shortages.

I have witnessed much horror and man's inhumanity to man, first hand. I have also seen poverty in the most wretched places, where a chicken's life, has more worth, than the life of some "california dreamer". I have watched people die who shouldn't have, their deaths rattles, in my ears, forever. I have images seared into my mind that cannot ever be erased. I certainly don't need California Dreamer Idecline version of smurfdom reality. These are hard words to hear, but you asked for it. The beer belly around your waist tells me, you have not gone one day without food. Starvation is only a concept for you. Manuel Labor is the name of your Mexican gardener. How does it feel to be judged??

You claim that I have said some inhumane statements, but give not one example. How am I supposed to deny your accusations, and defend myself from your vagueness. If you have nothing other than your understanding of my life to comment on... be quiet. GK

Gary | August 15, 2009 2:18 AM --- The warming capaccity of CO2 is far, far from saturated, as all climatolgist know. IPCC AR4 WG1 report has a section of the approximate forcing functions in use and the range of CO2 concentrations for which each is valid. Look it up.

MisterBob | August 14, 2009 11:42 PM --- I am under the impression it is a legal thing.

Hmmm?

It looks as if most of the "warming" has occured where there are fewest thermometers.

I'm very sorry, but I cannot help being incredulous. Second warmest July since records were kept, well over 100 years? Are we talking about instrument measurements, or more proxy fiddling? If instrumental, then the US and Europe are so heavily overrepresented in the data that "worldwide" really just means -or ought to just mean - "US/Europe" for the past 100 years. So, to make a proper comparison, look only at blue/orange balance across US/Europe on the GISS map. I'd say it's a wash - that is, zero net anomoly. And zero net anomoly = no breathless claims that we "are cooking the planet". For those who want to try to invalidate this fundamental truth by attacking me as eurocentric (a complete nonsequetur), I am very sorry that the worldwide temperature monitoring infrastruture is only a few decades old. I wish it were older. But, in the meantime, can we admit that we know wide-area temperature trends only for a small area of the planet (US/Europe)? Can we just admit that we have only just now begun to make global temp measurements, and that it will be another 100 years before we have data to get excited about? It's like judging a dart player's skill after watching one toss, for crying out loud. In both cases, we don't know jack-squat one way or the other.

You just seem to forget(as does Oiz) that the world does not revolve around you.

REPLY: Of course not, silly. It revolves around Obama!!! By the by, Decline. I thought you were no longer going to post on the AccuWx board any longer???? Like I said before. Promises, Promises!!!!....LOL....

Love and Kisses,

Knuckles, Proud Member of THE MOB

****I urge each of you who is not an enviro-zealot propagandist to contact your State's U.S. Senators and DEMAND they VOTE AGAINST THE IRRESPONSIBLE CAP & TRADE WAXMAN MARKEY BILL when it comes up for vote later this year. Before they destroy this country's economy further.****

MisterBob.
"NO"

OK... I won't then.

On the secrecy issue, you may be correct about the British.
However I would point out two realted issues.

The British are imposing the harshest rationing controls on carbon of anyone and have a stated Idialogical position on CO2 that goes back to the Thatcher days.
and
the US Pseodo Scientist Michael Mann is famous for hiding data.
Remember the FTP folder labled "Censored" that contained the incriminating data?

Anyway, I do appreciate your responses.
I really wish others would be as open about why they believe.
It is instructive.

Its important to realize that the "warming" shown on the graph compares recent temperatures with the 1951 to 1980 baseline, which was an abnormally cool period. If current temperatures were compared with 1980 to 2000 baseline, a cooling effect would be shown.

Gary sigh?: Co2 is not saturated. You have co2 as a carbon sink in the oceans ,which will be released sooner not later,you have co2 in the biosphere,which we a ruining by deforestation everyday,and the tropospheres expansion is caused by warming and more co2.When co2 goes to the atmosphere and is warmed by infrared radiation, it will pile on the top of the lower co2.The wings of the micrometers co2 resides in, have not been saturated yet, and will only expand from 19 to 22 micrometers of the electromagnetic wavelength, for which there is plenty more space for co2. Your other lesson is that methane is not twenty times stronger than co2, but because it is has barely effected
the atmosphere,when it starts to be absorbed it will have the effect of twenty times co2.These are not the only greenhouse gases anyway. Your phony superiority complex and you lack of atmospheric principles is obvious.So what are you bragging about? KIPP

Ok this stuff has to end. I kive in the central valley of california. Sacramento, vacaville, fresno, stockton, fairfield and so on and so on were all below normal for july. We only two thirds of the 100+ days and averaged 1.5 to 2.0 deg below normal. The hansen map shows this whole area in the above normal area. The bay area was even more below normal. Brett you can check your numbers but I have confirmed this with no less then 20 local papers who reported the same stats.

Reply: Fresno was well above normal and Sac was at normal. The other spots were slightly below. Due to low resolution, the GISS is probably just picking out the Fresno and SAC data. My guess.

This kind of false data must end. I am so tired of this manure. How could people be so blind to this odvious political agenda.

If I may ask a question...If humans are the cause of CO2 that is warming the environment why don't we see the impact of warming more where human's are concentrated? The bulk of the change in temperature is where humans are not ( at the poles)

Thanks so much,

Bob

David B. Benson | August 15, 2009 5:41 PM

"I am under the impression it is a legal thing."

A book could be written on your false impressions.

No non-disclosure agreements can be produced to date. "The dog ate them" has been the response... the same response for the data.

The data itself is not really that important... The response is! GK

David Benson;

As all good climatologist know, Co2's warming capacity reduces exponentially as it concentration increases.
The IPCC forcings assumptions are Very Much in dispute at this time and are very probably wrong by a factor of 10.

At best, a further doubling of CO2 would add .3 degrees (approximately) of temperature.

Kipp's borrowed diatribe on pressure not withstanding.

David Benson - Kipp;

CO2 Absorbtion new saturation

I picked this link because it was not on a Sceptic site. I could have linked to dozens on sceptic sites but I know Kipp would just claim it was paid for by Exxon or sonthing.

Cold Facts on Global Warming
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Excerpt:

Many people seem to be confused about the "saturation" argument. It's easy to calculate, using the known extinction coefficients [10], that 99% of the radiation in the CO2 absorption bands is absorbed within only a few tens to hundreds of meters of the source. These coefficients are derived from measurements in modern, high-resolution spectrometers. But strong absorption is also found even with older, lower-resolution instruments. So what does this mean? Is the global warming theory false? Or should older measurements not be trusted? Here is what it means:

The "saturation" argument does not mean that global warming doesn't occur. What saturation tells us is that exponentially higher levels of CO2 would be needed to produce a linear increase in absorption, and hence temperature. This is basic physics. Beer's law has not been repealed.

Some people have gotten the idea that water vapor, which is mainly present at lower altitudes, is somehow necessary for the CO2 to absorb infrared radiation, and that therefore at higher altitudes, CO2 is not anywhere near saturation. This is not true. The presence or absence of water vapor has no bearing on whether radiation is absorbed by CO2. That is because, for all practical purposes, the absorption bands of H2O and CO2 important for warming are different. (If they weren't, CO2 absorption would be so insignificant compared to water vapor that it wouldn't be a potential problem, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.)

CO2 is very nearly homogeneous throughout the atmosphere, so its concentration (as a percentage of the total) is about the same at all altitudes. Although the pressure is lower at high altitudes, there is also a much greater volume. That is why the ozone layer, which is around 30-90 km in altitude, is still able to absorb almost all of the shortwave UV, even though its concentration is only 8-12 ppm. So the importance of low concentrations of gases should not be underestimated. But water vapor is a red herring: it has essentially no effect on what CO2 does. Where water vapor becomes important is in the earth's response to CO2.

Some people also think that line broadening of the CO2 absorption lines by pressure, water vapor, or temperature provides an escape from the saturation dilemma. But in line broadening, the absorbance is peak is only smeared out; the total amount of energy absorbed is not affected. For the same reason, measurements with lower-resolution spectrometers, which slightly smear out the absorption lines, are still valid.

Zeke writes:

"Globally,(ocean and land) it was the 5th warmest july."

While you're quoting the NOAA press release correctly, I believe this part is in error. If you look at Monthly Global (land and ocean)... anomalies, July 2009 appears to be their 3rd warmest on record. GISS ranks it 2nd.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php#anomalies

Bob Mooney | August 17, 2009 8:20 AM --- Both carbon dioxide and methane are well mixed gases in the atmosphere. With six month days and six month nights, the temperatures at the poles respond fastest to global warming.

G. Karst-

Wrong, 6 FT. 3 IN. tall 175 lbs., no beer belly. You humbleness and self importance is in ? Your experience is worthy, your aggression and misjudging others is not. I still enjoy reading your statements, whether I agree with you or not.

G. Karst-

"Bread basket"- bread is mostly made from wheat. A huge percentage of the planets' population cannot digest wheat and its associated glutens. This is called "Celiac disease". Wheat can never provide for all the worlds food needs, it is a poison to many people, including Americans!

It has been a very warm year here in Austria, central Europe, most months ABOVE average.

There is a WARMING trend over the pas decades, that´s very clear here.

So this information, correlates with what I see happening.

Gary | August 17, 2009 2:39 PM --- For the fact that 2xCO2, all by itself, produces close to 1.1 K warming see any text on atmospheric physics. Varius amplifying feedbacvks increase this to about 2.5--3 K when neglecting albedo changes and maybe a few other factors; Charney equilibrium sensitivity. This value is not in serious question; see Annan & Hargreaves.

With Dr. James Hansen cooking the temperature books at NASA GISS, anything is possible.

If every one of the 4,000 gigatons of known fossil fuel reserves where burned and added to the 750 Gt already in the atmosphere, the resultant logarithmic temperature increase would be a paltry 1.4C. This would increase the present average world temperature from 14.5C to 15.9C. Since the temperature range over the last 550 million years has been between 12C and 22C, this would put us 39% above the bottom of this range, nowhere near any 'tipping point'.

So much for Dr. Hansen's claims of power plants being "factories of death". Game, set, match!

Charles S. Opalek,PE-

550 million years, who cares. That was then, this is now. Too bad human existence isn't just a bunch of #'s. OH, i forgot your an engineer. It's all a bunch of gamesmanship, nothing is real.

A bunch of letters after your name does not make your statement correct.

idecline | August 18, 2009 5:12 AM

idecline, don't get too hung up on the word "breadbasket". It really implies "grain". Corn, wheat, barley, oats, millet, mustard, canola, beans, peas are some off the top of my head.

What doesn't go directly to our plates is processed into animal feed, to raise swine, cattle beasts, and poultry for your bacon and egg breakfast.

The remainder is further processed for industrial chemical extracts and component feedstock (ie booze).

They are truly foodbaskets for all humanity. GK

idecline | August 18, 2009 2:52 AM

"Wrong, 6 FT. 3 IN. tall 175 lbs., no beer belly."

I am glad you do not fit the stereotype. That was the point of my comment. Do you really think I divined your physical appearance??

The point is that you know nothing about me or I you. To make assumptions on my character or celestial progress, compassion, empathy, self worth etc. is beyond your purview.

If I say something inhumane or uncaring on a thread then respond on the same thread. I will respond to most comments directed at me, as you should know by now. WARNING: You may not like the response and it may be injurious to ideology and mind sets.

I am here because I have something to say and I will damn well say it, whether you or anyone else likes it or not. It has nothing to do with humility. I am not here seeking approval or because I want to belong to a group. Entertainment is secondary.

Btw: We have basically the same body type. I'm 6'2" and 185 lbs. Humble pie is presently being served up aplenty, to me, over at the ocean acidification thread because of a perceived logarithmic gaffe. You might as well join the 'pile on' while the stomping is good. GK

Idecline:

It sounds as if you belive that wheat is not an optimal crop. Wheat is a crop that requires cooler temperatures in order to do well and flower:

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y4011E/y4011e06.htm

An alternative approach to wheat production in the cooler parts of North America and Eurasia would be to warm those areas so that otyher more desirable crops would flourish. The northern areas where wheat flurishes get oodles of sunlight during the summer months which is very helpful to growth if the temperatures would allow it.

But wait...that would officially be a very bad thing that must be prevented at all costs.

Charles S. Opalek, PE | August 18, 2009 10:00 PM --- GISTEMP, NCDC and HADCRUTv3 all give essentially the same global surface temperatures.

Lets pay attention to temperature ranges for the last 2.8 million years, hmmm? That's the interval of modern climate and also the time genus Hono has been in existence. Maybe we ought to keep temperatures in that range, doncha think?

REPLY: To maintain the United States of America as the capitalist leader of the world. To maintain it's strength and it's sovereignty. For all Americans REGARDLESS OF THEIR APPEARANCE to prosper ON THEIR OWN AND NOT FALL VICTIM TO A WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION NANNY STATE. And to not change this country to a utiopian socialist mess that Obama and his criminal friends are trying to do. Can I be more clear, or is that too much for you America haters out there????

Hey Knucklehead - since climate change is real, if we don't wake up and use American ingenuity to help solve the problem, there won't be a world for America to remain a capitalist leader, nor a socialist nanny state or a fascist dictatorship.

Ian George wrote on August 12:-

"The NASA July 2009 anomaly map shown above clearly shows Britain in the 1C-2C above average band. Yet their own Met Office says that Britain had an average July with only parts of Scotland reaching 0.8C above."

Try going to the NASA Goddard Insitute web site and changing the smoothing area of the July Map to 250 km. You'll then see the local regional variations more accurately.
August temperatures are coming in at about 1C above average for most of Britain.

What's wrong with you knuckle dragger? Are your eyes glued on? Global warming or not, one need only look at the state of the environment.

Here in sunny Perth Western Australia, the major rivers, the Swan and Canning, are polluted with toxic levels of cancer-causing heavy metals, pesticides and hydrocarbons. It's on life support according to the Swan River Trust.

A major tributary, the Helena River, has now received a groundwater plume of toxic chemicals leaked from a hazardous waste plant, which was closed in 2001.

Western Australia's creeping white death (salinity) is engulfing the equivalent of 19 footie fields per day.

Australian authorities say an acid problem in the Murray River's lower lakes and adjoining Coorong wetlands in South Australia is the worst seen anywhere in the world.

The magnificent Sydney Harbour is poisoned by dioxins from the industrial grim reapers and there's over 10,000 tonnes of hexachlorobenzene languishing in sheds at Botany Bay (for 20 years) which no country wants to dispose of (and why should they?) so it's currently indestructible.

I'm well aware of the foulness of the rivers and coastal areas in the United States too - same old same old - industrial rock apes on rampage yet you say: "THE IRRESPONSIBLE CAP & TRADE WAXMAN MARKEY BILL?"

Well you can't give some people more information than they are prepared to receive. In fact you can't give some people any information at all - particularly the grim reapers who wouldn't know the difference between a VOC and a sock nor do they want to know!

Cheers from OZ and may the force be with you.