And United States is one of the nations refusing to join.

Maybe you should wipe your own a** first eh?




I´ve been to China Ted, have you? No need to answer, i know it already.



So your excuse is "they dont do it, so i wont", similar to a 5 year old? Interesting. China has, once again, as noted, built a very good plan for their future together with, and help of the leaders of other nations (Oceania, Europe), and having 1.3 Billion people Ted, It should not exactly be a surprise that they will produce more then the U.S, with only 300 million people. But hey, "they dont do it", so "why should we" *imitating a 3 yearold*. Very mature of you Ted, why take responsibility for your own actions, right? Why take responsibility for what affects the world, right?



I am not interested in talking to you Ted. Its clear you know nothing about the world around you, nor will you care about the facts of the world, and decided tha the little bobble (or square) around you is the only thing that is "real", Your bigotry angers me, so please refrain from answering, thankyou.

What is there to debate? We have the consequences of global warming being visited upon us now! The polar icecaps are melting; there is wide-spread drought; and we are only one crop failure away from starvation. The real question is: How we can save ourselves? Debating the cause is like arguing over shuffleboard scores on the Titanic!

Why would I believe USA Today?

Here is a man I do believe and he has lots of company on the IPCC:

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Takes Shot at Global Warming Alarmists
Thursday, November 01, 2007
By Brit Hume

Unconventional Wisdom

A member of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says he and many other scientists do not see global warming as a developing catastrophe and there is no smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for the warming that does occur.

John Christy is the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. He and thousands of others on the U.N. panel share half the Nobel Prize also awarded to Al Gore. But he says he cringes when he hears 100-year weather forecasts when it is incredibly difficult to accurately predict the weather five days from now.

He writes in The Wall Street Journal, "Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us."

He points out that a recent CNN report on climate change made much of the shrinking Arctic sea ice cover, but did not mention that winter sea ice around Antarctica set a record maximum last month.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307456,00.html



Exactly James – a 5 year old smart enough to know that spending 400 BILLION a YEAR when there is no chance of success without China, India and others – who have NOT joined, is a bad idea. Sheer stupidity to throw money at a loser.


Bush proposed reductions to reduce CO2 and invited all to meet – including China. Let me know when you hear that China, and India plan to show up.




Ya sure James China is just doing soooooo much for the planet and the bad US nothing – sheer crap -give me a break – please.
I can understand your white wash of China here in that the trade agreement with them is valuable to your country. But please try to be more objective sir.

“BEIJING, Aug. 25 —
“as the speed and scale of China’s rise as an economic power have no clear parallel in history, so its pollution problem has shattered all precedents. Environmental degradation is now so severe, with such stark domestic and international repercussions, that pollution poses not only a major long-term burden on the Chinese public but also an acute political challenge to the ruling Communist Party. And it is not clear that China can rein in its own economic juggernaut.

Public health is reeling. Pollution has made cancer China’s leading cause of death, the Ministry of Health says. Ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Nearly 500 million people lack access to safe drinking water. “
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html

Great James as show above you seem to be missing a few points in your anti US tirade

This is typical Fox "Noise," claiming in a headline that Christy is a Nobel Prize Winner because he participated in the IPCC process. USA Today may not be a good source of scientific information but at least it doesn't systematically distort science to fit its owners preconceived notions as Fox does. Let's see, there were about 2,000 scientists who participated in the IPCC review of the scientific peer reviewed papers that were examined to complete the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Gore was awarded 1/2 the Nobel Peace Prize so that means Christy can claim a 1/4,000th share in the prize and that means we ignore the additional thousands who participated in the FAR, SAR, and TAR. The truth is that half the prize was awarded to the IPCC for a group effort and that it is illegitimate to assign any portion to individual participants. And of course, if we follow FOX's logic, Gore deserves 2,000 times the prestige as that claimed for Christy.

For those who haven't followed the development of the science, John Christy is well known for developing one version of the satellite records of the measurements of atmospheric temperatures. For many years those records didn't show the troposphere warming that GW theories predicted should track the measured increase in ground and sea level temperatures. As a contrarian, Christy used the discrepancy to claim that GW either didn't exist or wasn't serious. Finally, it was demonstrated in peer reviewed papers that there was a systematic error in the satellite records introduced by the decay in satellite orbits and that, when this was corrected for, the satellite records did show the predicted tropospheric warming as well as stratospheric cooling. Even Christy accepted that there was a systematic error but he still disputes just how much warming the corrected figures should show and, of course, disputes the cause. Christy continues to participate in the IPCC process in his area of expertise but it is obvious from the conclusions of the IPCC that his views were not accepted by other reviewers.



I agree. Unfortunately, many don't observe nature nor follow weather anomalies from around the world. That's what this topic was suppose to do - get people to observe what is happening already. Alas, many (particularly on this board) are so committed to previous positions that they can't objectively observe what is taking place.

Looking at NCDC's website for anomalies for 2006 we see the following:

-coldest temperature in Moscow in 30 years
-Snow extent the greatest ever for January in Russia
-Annual temperature anomalies of -2 to 3 degrees C in Central Russia
-Record snowfall in New York City (February) and Buffalo (October).
-Annual temperature anomalies of 2 to 4 degrees C above normal in Central and Eastern Canada
-2nd lowest snow cover in North America
-Near average storm activity globally

This year (2007) to date we have (amonst other things):
-Unusual ice conditions in the deep south, including Texas and Oklahoma, Arizona and Southern California
-Temperatures dipped below freezing in Arizona since 1990.
-Unusually cold temperatures in Bangladesh in January, the coldest in 38 years.
-Record setting snow in Alaska.
-Draught and flooding were mentioned, but nothing about unusually high temperatures.
-Below normal global storm cycle.

If we look at yesterday's temperatures, we see a variety of colder than normal and hotter than normal tempertures throughout the US.

Can we gleen a trend here? I can: weather is unpredictable. It get cold in some places, it gets warm in others. It floods here, it is draught conditions there. Can we tell anything when watching animations like this?

Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?No

What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming Scientific.

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?On Fox News.

This link provides scientific proof that Al Gore and the UN is full of crap. http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?...=&Issue_id=

Take time to read it because it addresses each issue with a better scientific source than Al and the UN team. Watched this dude go up against Senator Feinstein on the Senate floor and she looked dumb in public and red faced when he finished with her. From polar bears to cooling of Greenland/Iceland every fact was challenged and refuted.

This does not prove anything Zack. It is the opinion of a very conservative Republican Senator from Oklahoma.

This is from his campaign page:



https://www.jiminhofe.com/Volunteer/Default.aspx

Your post is also misleading. I don't know whether this was intentional or not, but I watched every second of the 10 minute 48 second video. A man goes in a door behind Inhofe and comes back out. A man is also helping him with the charts. Diane Feinstein does not appear in the video looking "dumb" or "red faced." Perhaps you linked us to the wrong video. Thankfully, Inhofe is no longer a committee chairperson, since Democrats now control the Senate.

You do not help your credibility by linking us to partisan speeches and consistently telling us in thread after thread that "conservative" is good, "Republican" is good, "liberal" is bad and "Democrat" is bad.

Zack, perhaps you should do a little research on Senator James M. Inhofe before citing his speech as the fount of all knowledge on global warming. You might start out with this Wikipedia Article.





Actually this may be a Wikipedia error in that it is only in the last few years that errors in the satellite and balloon measurements have been corrected to show agreement with ground based measurements. I pointed the satellite correction out in my John Christy post above. Can you enlighten us as to where Senator Inhofe has acknowledged the use of faulty data?



Amlord, how you can look at The NCDC Map of Weather Anomalies for 2006 and reach the conclusion you did is beyond me. I hope everyone will link to it, enlarge it, and study it. By the way, the map says right in the lower left hand corner that,



You should have also included a link to the NCDC's Climate 2006 Annual Report which opens,



Remember, global warming theory and models predict an increasing number of anomalous weather events. Wetter, drier, hotter and even unusual regional cold snaps.

Since very few here actually trying to use mean old facts and even science(you can get at the stake for this in Kansas!) I would like to supply this link simply for the humor value. Also, I think I heard somewhere that Global warming is actually the product of pirate population decreasing, but then again it is the slimly noodle of the FSM at work.

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural [i]disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

Lies!!!


Needless to say about various facets of the reports teh pentagon no less falling for some hoax! I dont think we can trust such a source to defend our nation. Bush and Cheney need to make a new deal so they can really run America how they envision it regardless of stupid people claiming a hoax...

Listen. The scientists are all lying. Its really just cow farts that are doing it so it does not matter anyway. IF you really want to end global warming we just have to make china change, it does not have to be the U.S also. SUV's are gods gift for being good and banning same sex marriage, we should not squander such miracle with shoddy lies bent on supporting a U.N takeover of the world so we can be ruled by gay god hating communists. I mean how else could a scientist or even thousands of them reach such a conclusion, one word, communist conspiracy! Don’t let them fool our children, I aren’t no monkey!

Opinionum commenta delet dies, naturae judicia confirmat.
- Cicero, De Natura Deorum, II, ii: 5.

“Time obliterates the fictions of opinion, and confirms the decisions of nature.”

The comparison I made with the Senators from Oklahoma and California were made based on actual CSPAN viewing of the Senate floor. Over a two week period Senator Inhofe came to the floor and spoke on global warming and smacked down Al Gore and the UN group that received the Nobel Peace Prize. Two weeks ago he spoke for about a half hour and went down the list like lies about Polar bears going extinct as they cling onto icebergs and I started listening when he said that is an out and out lie. And he put up a reference, I think it was this:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...6A-5AF123A82298 :salute:

Anyway, I started listening and he went down the list of lies and after each one he cited science and the scientist that made the claim and then compared the UN and Al Gore and their sources to computer models based on data and possibilities inputted into the model. Each time he recognized a founded source. This speech was given two weeks ago and then last week Senator Feinstine came to the floor to rebut Senator Inhofe's speech from the week before. She presented similar data as Al Gore and the UN once again. Following her speech Senator Inhofe once again came to the floor and went down the list of items Senator Feinstine had just spoken to and, with science reference proved each statement she made to be untrue. She became frustrated because they are from the same committee and she is now in charge but can't provide substantial facts to back up her claims that global warming is caused by man or that it even exists.

It seems that both Senators from OK have their stuff pretty well together because the other Senatorfrom OK constantly comes to the floor claiming there is still a lot of pork in bills that the House and the Senate leadership claim to have put an end to. It just looks like the Democratic party is full of liars and were proven wrong on both issues: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...f_earmarks.html

Zack, Senator Inhofe sprouts a bunch of nonsense drawn from the stable of industry influenced or contrarian scientists. Almost nothing that he references is peer reviewed research and that that is has been largely discredited. If you had followed the development of the science, as I have, you would be able to see the case for human induced global warming become more and more solid while skeptics jumped from denying GW entirely, to denying it was serious, to denying it was human caused, to saying it was caused by solar events, and to suggesting it was induced by fluation in cosmic rays. If you want to take Inhofe claims issue by issue I will discuss them in detail.

And he claims that hundreds of scientists in IPCC agree with him to some extent so you claim that it is 1/2000 is dead wrong. The models are too crude to give us data that is reliable for a long term forecast.

“Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is inadequate
Scientists in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[9]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[10]
Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Scientists in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.
• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[11][12][13]
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[14] Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content."[15]
• David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former botanist: "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed."[16] Bellamy later admitted that he had cited faulty data and announced on 29 May 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming"[17], but in 2006 he joined a climate skeptic organization[18] and in 2007 published a paper arguing that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 "will amount to less than 1°C of global warming [and] such a scenario is unlikely to arise given our limited reserves of fossil fuels—certainly not before the end of this century."[19]
• Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming



Se link – goes on and on…………….

I must have missed the part of the Global Warming hypothesis that says it will cause cold weather, sorry "unusual regional cold snaps", at least in the short term. I'd be interested in reading up on that line of reasoning. Global warming is just that--global.

The reason that I remain unconvinced by the anomaly data is the lack of a trend. I can see where increased temperatures will potentially bring increased drought in some places, increased flooding in others, increased temperatures by definition. I cannot see where it would cause abnormally low temperatures in Japan, Russia and Argentina.

I remain skeptical of computer models which predict the future and are unable to predict the past. I do not discount that the global temperature is rising, I doubt the source and the ability of scientists to predict that it will continue or to predict the outcomes if it does continue. The anecdotal data is so mixed (higher average global temperatures AND large areas experiencing lower than average temperatures) that I cannot draw a conclusion.

The ability to explain and predict El Nino/La Nina events would be a good start for me. I find it disingenuous to blame El Nino for lower temperatures and yet neglect to mention that El Ninos are traditionally responsible for drought effects in some areas and flooding in others. The ENSO condition is taken to be a natural variable and not man-made and the effect of the higher global temperatures on the El Nino cycle have not been proven.

Who is to say that the global weather anomalies are not El Nino-La Nina driven or even if they are anomalies at all? Our record of past weather events is sketchy, especially in the more remote areas of the globe.

For such a obvious “truth” it seems a lot of former believers in the scientific world are turned of f and changing sides.

Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is “no” and “yes”.
No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up against an “inconvenient truth”. Its research shows that since 1998 the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase.
Yes, because the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists has detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and become a political cause. Those of us who dare to question the dogma of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or worse as deniers.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle2709551.ece



“Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the "prophets of doom of global warming" of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" "Glaciers' chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories.

“Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a "Kyoto house" in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol's goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled "The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming."


Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, "I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics." "After that, I changed my mind," Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book "Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma," with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.

http://canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/

Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?
No, but I have had to adjust my estimates of the rapidity of its effects upwards. Just a couple of examples. The rapidity of the melting of the North Pole ice has outrun the most radical projections. A second would be the rapid increase of #5 hurricanes in the Atlantic ocean in recent times. From 1971 to 2002 there were 8 #5 hurricanes. From 2003 to 2007 there were 8 #5 hurricanes. Something is going on. I might add if you simply want to measure the total energy of cyclonic activity season after season there is something called the Acumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) for the Alantic ocean which shows a definite recent trend upward in energy output. Check this out.

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

Scroll down a little ways to a heading labeled "Atlantic hurricane seasons 1950-2007 by ACE index". You will notice the first 12 listing of seasons are labeled "hyperactive." Now count the number of these in the period of 1990-2007 that are included. I get 4 in the 1990's and 3 in the 2000s up to 2007. That's 7/12 over a period of 17 years leaving 5/12 over the previous 40 years.

What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming
AGW is pretty much a slam dunk at this point. Wouldn't one expect increased warming to add increased energy to the weather systems? As I've shown, at least in the Atlantic, they have. For the weather systems not to increase in energy output would be very strange leading to the question where did all that extra energy go? Presumably Newton's Laws on the conservation of energy are still in effect.

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?
I think on the Drudge Report. But I don't recall much disaster footage.

I kind of enjoy all the fun and games that the deniers employ to get around the overwhelming evidence of AGW. A standard one is the general flattening out of the warming trend since 1998. That's sort of the equivalent of "well it's pretty cold in my neighborhood this year so GW couldn't be happening." The trends are longer term and ALWAYS subject to short term variations, that's why you'll notice graphs of trend lines are commonly based on a 5 year mean average. The long term downward period after around 1940 was apparently partly related to coal burning sulfides that had a counteracting effect on GW.

As to the small minority of non peer reviewed scientists that are deniers, when has there not been disputes in scientific circles about science when it breaks into new areas? The important point is the peer reviewed research overwhelmingly supports AGW and the skeptics are left with their "evidence" that is unable to pass muster when subject to interdisciplinary review. I notice most of them prefer increased radiation as the driver for temperature increase rather than carbon gas. Where is the evidence? The IPCC clearly factors in the changed solar contribution and in recent years it has been very small.

I think one would get the message from the recent brouhaha around 911 and all the so called experts that blindly signed on to a secret government conspiracy as opposed to recognizing it for what it was, an Al Qaeda attack, carried out by ME hijackers. There are plenty of historical examples of experts who go wacko for whatever personal reason. Three that come to mind are:
1. The guy who made the discovery of Java Man, which became the first evidence that we had ancestors that belonged to a class of human beings later to be called homo erectus; after getting confirmation from the scientific community through follow up confirming evidence he later relented and to everyone's shock concluded Java Man was some sort of early orangutan.

2. Michaelson and Morley did the famous experiments that showed light did not move relative to space but was absolute. That led to a rejection of Newtons fixed universe and instead to Einsteins relative universe. Apparently Michaelson, as a confirmed Newtonian, was so shocked by the conclusions that he spent the rest of his life trying to resolve the matter of their experiment in favor of Newton by applying all sorts of convoluted fixes.

3. David Irving was considered by many historians as doing important research based on newly recovered Nazi archives. However along the way he got side tracked into holocaust denial for reasons apparently having to do with anti-Jewish biases. Instead of a serious historian he became a notorious crank, spending more time with the justice system and anti-Semitic controversies than doing serious historical work.

The point being the experts are humans and therefore you can't rely on this or that expert for your opinions on a particular matter like say AGW. It is by an interdisciplinary process of review that the more accurate picture begins to emerge.

I try not to politicize matters of science, how the heck something like Global Warming became a right versus left issue is not something I understand, lol
As with everything I look at something for what it is before I become opinionated on it. In this particular case, I wont comment on Polar Bears specifically or the policy of folks like Al Gore, but this is something Ive researched a great deal, and there is little doubt in my mind that this planet is warming. Since thats obvious to most, the second argument seems to be whether or not humans are playing a role in this warming.

Here I couldn't say 100% that we are, but from everything Ive read that seems to be the case. We all know climate change is a natural process and we are constantly swinging in and out of Ice Ages, but people really have to consider the significant impact the human race has had on this planet particuarly in the last 100 years. I believe the factor getting the most attention however is not as significant as many think it is, that being Green House emissions. Its a problem that needs fixing but the biggest problem in my mind is deforestation and this is being highly overlooked in comparison to big industry. Most of us know that trees use photosynthesis to transfer carbon dioxide directly into oxygen. These plants and trees are the only reason we have an oxygen rich atmosphere to begin with.

Now I'm not a rocket scientist, but I read that the U.S. has lost 30% of its forrest in the last few hundred years, I read that many other eastern nations have experienced far worse than that. This being considered, less tress means the planet becomes less effective at recycling both artificial and primarily the naturally occurring CO2.

Ice core samples have confirmed CO2 to have a direct relation to prior climate shifts in many cases. We know this is a greenhouse gas although a very small fraction of people seem to disagree. To me if this were a forensics case it would be case closed, but since politics are involved for whatever reason you have people taking sides. Its weird. In most cases I fall far on the conservative side on issues, because that where my beliefs and research usually take me. Not here however, although not everyone on the right is taking this lightly it seems to be a bit of a trend, I not sure why that is.

Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?
Nope. Yes the earth is warming. No, carbon dioxide or the other 'anthropogenic' 'greenhouse gases' (different half-quotes since they are different political key words) are not mostly at fault for this. Natural cycles are mostly at fault. Yes, we pitiful humans may have some immeasurably small impact on global climate, but that impact is only noticeable when Al Gore says so.

What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming
Evidence that 'Global Warming' (the political topic, not the segment of a natural phenomena known as the "Ice Age Cycle") is what is actually influencing weather. IE somebody in some political office high up in the chain of command somewhere says "Global Warming will be the doom of our planet, an will cause the number of hazardous weather phenomena to increase at an unbelievable rate!", and in the following years he/she is right, just because of what he/she said. That's the evidence I will need, because that's the only scientifically sound explanation for what's going on. Mostly because science can't disprove it: science would be too busy peeing their pants laughing.

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?
Is the media ever right? Scientific journals are the only place where decent information can be found without spending too much money.

I simply cannot believe the number of people in a daze over global warming (the process this time, not the political topic), being that historical knowledge is so sparse and unreliable (correct me if I'm wrong there). The precision of compounded estimates (which is what is being worked with, here) is never reliable, and until there's some serious global surveying done in a perfectly consistent manner by a single organization devoid of political funding, even baseline observations are sparse in reliability and precision. The bottom line is that we have no idea what the average global temperature was hundreds or thousands of years ago to any more precision than half a degree or so Celsius, and there are lots of supposedly reputable sources for global warming theorists that contradict this precision limit.

On top of that, nobody has even slightly taken into account the fact that we humans put more water vapor into the atmosphere than carbon dioxide by far. Natural gas (mostly methane, CH4) produces twice as much water vapor when combusted than carbon dioxide, yet nobody ever talks about it. In fact, almost no combustion is efficient in converting chemical energy into kinetic and thermal energy that produces more CO2 than H2O. Water vapor is also magnitudes more potent a greenhouse gas (look up the EMR absorption spectra for both chemicals) than anything else that occurs naturally (or artificially) in any considerable quantity. On top of that, water vapor is several times more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2 will ever be.

Water is a self regulating greenhouse gas (higher temperature --> higher vapor pressure --> higher humidity --> more reflective white clouds), and is also all 3 phases on the surface of the earth. CO2 on the other hand is not volatile between the 3 phases on earth, and remains a gas until it is absorbed or changed chemically by a wide variety of natural chemical processes. As far as we know (science knows, that is) the self-regulating properties of CO2 in the environment relative to thermal retention are a mystery. Surprisingly there is almost no easily available info to justify that increased CO2 levels will not be compensated for by mother nature over a short period of time (half a century or so for a few things to rearrange). It is also very possible that CO2 may not be the cause of global warming, but one of its side effects.

Before anyone jumps on a political bandwagon, that person should be fully aware of all facets of that bandwagon's argument. Unfortunate that so many do so.

Fact: global warming is a natural cycle that human beings have little effect on or control over. The global temperature is a roller coaster, not an airplane.

.


The jury is still out on this because the experiments to prove or disprove it have yet to be done. And as pointed out the “models” that predict GW are complex and less than satisfactory. As Amlord pointed out a mathematical “model” that is accurate for predicting the distant future should be capable of working back and verifying itself by agreeing with the past. Please show me a model that has done this.

Fully 40 percent of atmospheric scientists don’t buy the “man is the cause” of global warming – and that is the question. Even if there is GW – is it CO2 or natural cycle.

An finally why would anyone spend 400 billion a year in a doomed effort to “reduce” CO2 as Kyoto certainly is?

Why would a country that is the biggest polluter on the planet not care about the world they live in? The U.S constantly claims to be in the forefront of technology, so why dont you show us this? Hybrid Cars, recycling the list goes on. We have a very advanced recycling system in New Zealand, but i´ve seen better, so should we give up? Or try to improve?

Take responsibility, but perhaps thats something you dont think should be done Ted? Its always "others" that should do that, never you, am i right? Why take responsibility for your own actions when you can blame others, am i right?

If you are going to ignore my posts I will stop replying to you. The US is no longer the “biggest polluter”. Do you get that now James? Read my posts above.

And we have more hybrid cars here I am willing to bet sir. That is not the point. The point is the “proof” that CO2 is the culprit is not sure and even if it was there is no way to reduce it under Kyoto when the REAL “biggest polluter” is out of the mix – clear James.

Would you explain what the influencing factors behind these natural cycles are? When temperatures go up some kind of increased forcing has to be involved. If it isn't carbon gasses then it would have to be solar radiation right? The only problem is the IPCC has controlled for increased solar influence and they say increased solar radiation is negligible. So what does that leave?


That's such a nebulous statement it can really only be called political. We know which are the greenhouse gasses. We know greenhouse gasses contribute to warming. We can even attach numbers to their relative contribution to the greenhouse effect. We know certain greenhouse gasses are increasing due to man's influence. We have records going back 100s of thousands of years showing a close correlation between CO2 and temperature. Enormous amounts of study and measuring and modeling have been done. We are well beyond the rain dance stage of understanding.


Half a degree 100,000 years ago aint bad for study purposes.


Why should we if it is not relevant? It is the carbon gas factor that is the forcing that we are concerned about. Talk about a red herring!


Again, of itself that is meaningless information. Where it becomes meaningful is as the increased carbon gas incrementally pushes the temperature up the amount of water vapor also increases causing an add on effect.


Correct and as I said when the carbon greenhouse gasses increase temperature they increase greenhouse water vapor.

According to Wikipedia each addition of a CO2 molecule remains additive for a long period of time although it may go through various incarnations(Plant or sea absorption etc.) but in the form of an exchange with other CO2 molecules.


It is obviously both. By the end of the 19th century CO2 had already been determined to be a greenhouse gas. Increase a greenhouse gas and they act in a greenhouse manner. I shouldn't have to argue a tautology


You don't have to know everything to make wise judgments. If we did require a full awareness standard, it wouldn't be worth getting out of bed in the morning.


Beyond a certain point that is just pure unadulterated denial flying right into the teeth of the evidence.

Here is a wikipedia article to meditate on.

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





Related to the above graph.

In terms of methods being used its obvious we could be taking different approaches. I'm not 100% sure either if man is the cause. There are certainly people saying we are not the cause although I do have to consider it a strong possibility given the things I do know of.

Tedn5


Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?

What Ive learned in the last two years has strengthened my position. Including mostly things we knew of prior to two years ago. I do believe man is playing a role for a number of reasons. Ice core samples have been a big help in our understanding of prior climates, and atmosphere composition. I learned about those last year a good bit. Also I found out all the other things that are known to cause warming or cooling trends and learned that nothing really sticks out as much as some of the things we have done.


What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming.

I'm not sure we're to that point yet or not, we may be seeing certain trends starting to form but we're certainly in the early stages of that if its true. I have a felling this is a problem however which will introduce itself very rapidly once we reach a certain point. The earths oceans absorb a lot of thermal energy which buys us some time. The earth is so big and complex that any suttle changes made take years, decades, or even centuries to reflect significant climate change, but that being said more than likely by the time we are all convinced there is a problem it will be too late to prevent an all out climate shift, some argue that it may already be too late. I really don't know, but if I see some persistent new weather patterns take hold then I will be convinced. There is already some notable trends though. Just nothing consistent enough to say the weather patterns are spiraling out of control. Most notable things as of now are the temperature increases, the increase in CO2 levels, and the accelerated glacier melt. Which are certainly not to be taken lightly.

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?

Man, I'll tell you I use to follow Hurricanes every season in Louisiana until I moved up to N.C. in 2000. I didn't know about those two particuarly other than that they were bad storms. Hurricane Katrina resparked my interest however before it ever made landfall. A day or two after it got off the back side of Florida my dad said if that storm hits New Orleans, watch the levees fail. My mom was almost killed by hurricane Betsy in the 60's, she lived right on the levees in N.O. a poor area of the city. that storm was only a cat 3 but it caused a massive instantaneous failure of the levies, not a slow leak like from Katrina. Believe it or not we actually got lucky with Katrina, as it was not a direct hit. Betsy hit directly at the mouth of the Mississippi and followed it up causing the river to flow upstream rather than downstream, being part of the reason the levees failed so miserably.

Hurricanes can be bad and in that particular year you had another storm Rita that hit the opposite end of the same state, and it was another record breaker, at one point in the Gulf it had a barometric pressure similar to Katrina's which was also record breaking. Lot of bad storms recently no doubt, but its really hard to say at this point how less severe these storms would have been without our presence here. However while I say this, I also say we should try and make an effort at furthered research and possible prevention methods. Not to prevent climate change, but to prevent the human being from becoming this additional factor, that may help determine the time and severity of natural climate change. The planet's been doing fine without our help for billions of years.

I'm not sure what experiments you are talking about. It would seem to me measuring the total radiation that is hitting the earth from the sun is simply a testing procedure, like measuring to get the average temperature.


Let's at least state the issue accurately. Those who argue in favor of anthropogenic global warming are saying the principle increment of the recent increase in average world temperature is due to human contributions. Using that definition I would seriously doubt that your 40% would hold up but feel free to offer a link if you know otherwise.

"Natural cycle" I've noticed has become a cop out expression when denialists aren't prepared to come forward with a GW driver they can defend.


Once you accept AGW then the next question is what is the best way to confront it. Some folks say let it ride and we can eventually grow orange trees in Alaska. I think that is short sighted and parochial to say the least.

ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2003) — Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute,……………..

Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/...30321075236.htm


Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.
That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.
He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.
The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece



Right so the question remains how do you reduce it if you believe it is the main driver? Kyoto chooses to ask members to reduce output (has not worked yet) and they leave out the biggest AND fastest growing producer of CO2 – China – as well as India and many others. To say you cannot succeed with this strategy is an understement. So my question remains WHY waste money for a lost cause?

A very simple way of checking the radiation component of the temperature rise is the very clearly rendered graph from the IPCC. It showed when I last checked a very minute contribution coming from increased solar radiation. I'll run it down if you like.


Everything I've read indicates the sea ice is breaking up and diminishing around the antarctic but yes in some of the inland areas greater snow is causing an increase in thickness. A lot of this I understand is due to the GW warmed waters evaporating more and the moist air moving into the colder center and turning into falling snow. No question that the cooling trend of parts of the antarctic are a big question mark. But one should not ignore the rapid warming of other parts. One theory of that localized cooling sees it as a consequence of the wider opening in the ozone layer but that is just in the speculative stage now.


Is there anything magical about measuring temperatures year by year instead of according to a 5 year mean which is the usual protocol? That would seem a fairer way of establishing a trend line. Also one could factor in the human component that causes a reversal of the GW effect due to the burning of coal which releases a lot of aerasols. There has been a lot of that recently from places like China and India over the last few years.


Beyond a certain point this would cause cooling wouldn't it, not warming? And where does the sulfur come from? In part it comes from the release of contaminants in fossil fuel(The unclean burning of coal particularly) and in fact this is considered the main culprit in the notorious cooling period after 1940.


Perhaps success isn't the right word. How about the mitigation of greater disaster? The major industrial nations were held to higher standard because their per capita output was higher. One can argue the particulars of Kyoto but ultimately the test is going to be carbon gas output per capita. Those that have a higher score have more cutting back to do. That seems fair.

But the “over time” component is not addressed.





Great since the GW crowd only cares about CO2 output we can “sequester” it and watch the power plants pour out the sulfur. And this is one of my big problems with GW. We will spend trillions to reduce it and forget that the real pollution coming from the power plant stack is what is killing a lot of us NOW.



“seems fair" but is NOT what the Kyoto Treaty is asking for. And this is my point. CHINA and INDIA are excluded(as well as all "developing" countries.. That’s right the biggest AND fastest growing CO2 producers is EXCLUDED.

So dream on about “mitigating” anything. Only the Bush plan which would include China and India has a chance and I have heard no news from China – have YOU?

I've been unable to visit this topic for some time. I see that Ted has been busy revisiting the topics of cosmic rays, solar irradiance, and natural variation as reasons to dismiss GH gases as the principal driver of recent climate change. I have addressed these topics repeatedly in other threads and, since they are off topic for this forum, I see no need to answer him in detail here. The IPCC's AR4 addressed them in depth. It is enough to state here that there is no observable trend upward in cosmic rays impacting the earth, that those who have advanced the cosmic ray theory have a long way to go in demonstrating any link to weather even if there were an increase, and that solar radiance trended upward in the 1st half of the 20th century but not in recent decades. If these topics interest you, I encourage visiting RealClimat and searching for the articles on these subjects.

Natural variation, on the other hand, is sort of what this topic is suppose to be about. Given the fact that there is a natural level of "noise" in weather, how do we detect when or whether changes have moved outside the natural variation? It is my contention that we are experiencing so many anomalous events that we have moved beyond the "noise." Here is an article on the Australian drought calling it the worst in 1,000 years. If our Southeastern or Southwestern droughts get this severe, will we be convinced?

At the risk of going off topic myself, let me link 2 recent articles I find particularly upsetting.

(See Ocean Carbon Sink).


(See Forests Carbon Sink)

Good links. I would think even a greater contributer to the loss of carbon sink characteristics would be the massive clear cutting that is going on around the world. This gives you a stark reminder of what it looks like.

http://travel.mongabay.com/deforestation.html



You want to see the solar radiation contribution "over time"? I'll give you the solar radiation "over time." Click the insolation button below the chart and note the direction solar radiation has been going over the last 10,000 years. If insolation is the leading factor controlling temperature then we would appear to be overcoming a cooling trend with our added GH gases.

To anyone who isn't in terminal denial, AGW and its multitudinous effects are all here.

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



Excuse the duplication. Unaccountably I referred to a link in my last post and now have discovered I forgot to include the actual link. Unfortunately the time window on my edit has run out so consider this strictly an add on edit. *Now I note the subsequent post has been added on to the previous post. I wonder what the trigger is? Curiously I can only edit the lower add on.

In response to Ted: "You want to see the solar radiation contribution "over time"? I'll give you the solar radiation "over time." Click the insolation button below the chart and note the direction solar radiation has been going over the last 10,000 years. If insolation is the leading factor controlling temperature then we would appear to be overcoming a cooling trend with our added GH gases."

http://www.mos.org/soti/icecore/studies.html

Interesting because the graph you posted here shows the Summit Greenland Temperature is actually lower than many points in the last 8,000 years. Kind of kills the GW is CO2 and our fault line of crap doesn’t it?

Looking carefully here I can also see the MWP which the Al Gore crowd would like us to believe did not exist.

Thanks for the data.


And this:

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-n...-the-millenium/


And I noticed you have joined TedN5 is refusing to address the stupidity and uselessness of a “treaty” that cannot lower cO2 output even if the US was in it and everyone met their “targets” since the largest CO2 producer and the fastest growing producers are left out. Nice move.

NASA's Goddard/GISS downward revision of the surface temperatures is a telling example of black box "science".

So called "skeptics" have pointed out for a long time the apparent error in the surface records that started in approximately 2000. The fact that the data is "massaged" (i.e. it is not raw data) always means that an error in the adjustment is possible. It seems that, once again, this has occured.

Again, this does not mean the world is not warming. It casts doubt on the "bullet proof" science and the dubious nature of "concensus science". One mistake in methodology can have a huge impact in results.

Interesting, in two sentences you managed to include a diversion and a strawman. No one who knows anything says that GW is only caused by CO2, just that in recent times human produced CO2 is the principal driver. And of course you completely abandoned your assertion, without acknowledgment, that solar radiation was the principal recent driver of GW "over time" when you were confronted by my graph. On both scores that's called being disingenuous.

The 1998 record temperature, when referred to, is 99% of the time based on GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. Michelle Malkin is talking about strictly American temperature records. Funny, this is the second time I've had to correct somebody on that confusion. Localized temperature patterns, even when corrected, have limited relevance when disconnected from a world measurement of GW temperature. That, by the way, is why you folks continue to get egg on your face when you talk about the warmer Medieval warming period. It was apparently warmer in the North Atlantic region. Word wide the estimate is that it was probably colder than today's temperature world wide.



Anybody who lowers their CO2 output despite what other folks do lowers the total future CO2 output. I think I would have gotten that in the second grade. Your math is weird. I did respond I thought in the appropriate way by saying the bigger polluters on a per capita basis should have a bigger responsibility. I didn't go any further because your interest in the subject seemed limited to a Bush pumping chauvinistic type of argument. I assumed you got that I thought everyone should, to whatever degree possible, do their part but the individuals who polluted the most had a greater responsibility. Apparently you are so invested in scoring one politically for Bush on the Kyoto matter that the reality of confronting the GW problem is pushed to the back of the room. Kyoto is dead, move on.

But the IPCC says its over 90% certain its man made CO2 and my look at the NASA data AND your graph throw serious doubt on that don’t they?

And I still think solar radiation has as much chance of being the “drover” as CO2




MY math? Which part of it cannot be done (if you believe its CO2) without China, India and others, do you dispute? Dispite throwing 400 BILLION + per year.

Sounds like a big fat waste of money to me.

I addressed this before but since deniers continue to make such an issue out of it I will add to Dingo's correct observations. GISS made a small error in combining 2 temperature data sets and corrected the error when it was pointed out to them. This happens all the time in science. It's why science is self correcting. In this particular case the error was insignificant but it did change the rank of warmest years in the US so that 1934 moved ahead of 1998 by a couple of hundredths of a degree. The ranking of warmest years for the whole world remained the same with 2005 warmest followed by the El Nino year of 1998 and all of other warmest falling in the 1998 to 2006 period. (See 1934 and All That)

As errors in data sets go, this one was hardly noticeable. Far more significant were the errors in satellite and balloon temperature measurements of tropospheric temperatures that allowed Christy and others to claim for years that ground measurements were incorrect. I didn't see many deniers suddenly embracing the consensus view when these systematic errors were corrected and satellite and balloon measurements showed consistency with ground based measurements. (There were a few real skeptics that came on board as a result of the corrections).

My point stands. Interpret as weirdly as you like. The evidence doesn't support you.


Yes. The rest is just a diversion-strawman from my point.



Darn, I was pegging the hottest worldwide temperature at 1998 when I knew from the 130 year graph I had looked at recently that it was 2005. To do penance I will post it here.

Ya right 1934 the warmest – show me the headlines? The massive news coverage correcting this Hugh gaff? Oh little exists – Right.

And then tell me how the CO2 increase is the major driver and that there was whet? In 1934??



You lost me sir. LOOK at your graph and show me the worldwide “hockey stick” increase in temperatures due to GW? LOL.


Then here is Coleman on GW.


Weather Channel founder John Coleman calls global warming the greatest scam in human history.
By Sara Smith

Published: Nov 8, 2007, 5:47 PM EST

"John Coleman says that he's amazed on how many people have fallen for the global warming claims. Coleman said that climate change is a big lie.
Coleman, a weatherman himself who founded the Weather Channel, claims to have read dozens of scientific papers and spoke with numerous scientists, and they also agree that there is no such thing as global warming.

http://www.halflifesource.com/news/2007/11...rticle10005.htm

And imo half the scientists are into this crap for the nice meeting they have at great expence in nice places.

IPCC: Scientists and officials gather in Spain, to put together the last U.N. report
Scientists and government officials gather in Valencia, Spain, to put together the fourth and last U.N. report. The document will include new data and will be issued Saturday November 17, 2007.

I just attempted to post an answer to Ted's attempt to grasp at straws with the 1934 and Coleman statements but lost it because of a wet satellite dish. I won't attempt to recreate the post except to point out the pending Weather Disaster in one of the most vulnerable places on earth.



Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?

Have you heard anything about Sidr on US media except possibly the Weather Channel? This kind of makes my point! This is the 14th or 15th category 4 or 5 tropical cyclone worldwide this year yet we hear almost nothing about them, let alone hearing them discussed in the context of the historical pattern. (Satellite Image).

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove, TedN5...

India and Bangaladesh have had severe cyclones in the past that apparently weren't caused by global warming. The 1970 Bhola cyclone killed over 300,000. The 1991 cyclone was stronger and killed over 138,000. In fact, at least six storms in that area have killed over 100,000 people. Why would this storm be newsworthy at this point?

As anybody who is remotely familiar with GW knows the hockey stick graph is not based on the last 130 years. It is generally based on the last two thousand years.

IMAGE

This should supply additional interpretive information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Ye..._Comparison.png

Yes and in the graph (you show)the medieval Warm period is not correct since data indicates it was HIGHER than 2004.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...qualitative.jsp

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...10/N45/EDIT.jsp

And then there is this bomb this week.
More nail in the coffin of Al’s GW nonsense.

11.13.07

“PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming. “

Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its weight and changing its circulation.

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,"

said http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1...?page=22Morison.


So much for this GW disaster prediction.

Now TedN5 tel