Global Warming backdown

[Shady]

Here's some new, ACTUAL science, and not peer-approved opinion.

Antarctic Glacier Melting Due to Undersea Ice Ridge Rather Than Climate Change

An underwater ridge could explain why a major glacier in the Antarctic is melting more quickly than ever before, according to a new study.

Scientists used a robot submarine to make a 3D map of the ocean under the ice shelf at the end of the Pine Island Glacier in western Antarctica.

They discovered that the ice was no longer resting on a subsea ridge that had slowed the glacier’s slide until the early 1970s.

The discovery means that the glacier’s more rapid melting in recent years could be due to the flow of warmer sea water beneath it rather than climate change, as had previously been believed.

Link

Uh oh, a dissenting study. Quick, alarmists unite!

[WIP]

Here's some new, ACTUAL science, and not peer-approved opinion.

So, where did you get the story from? David Icke or Climategate?

Regardless, when you get your latest package of claims that deny global warming you should read the complete articles that they have linked....especially if it is actually published in a science journal.

The report that the glacier had been resting on a previously undiscovered undersea ridge, does not impact one way or the other on the climate change issue! Not every high temperature, flood, hurricane or melting glacier, has been claimed to be solely due to what humans are adding to the atmosphere, and claiming that a natural cause is the primary source of the movement of the Pine Island Glacier does not disprove global warming! And the most crucial problem here is that natural causes to glacier melting provide no comfort anyway, since the results will be higher sea levels!

Another reason to read the source link is to get past the narrow conclusions that the writer wants to spin from the story. A little further down that story, I find one of the lead scientists stating that they are unsure what is causing the undersea ridge to melt, but it could have a human source:

Dutrieux said the ice may have started thinning because of some as yet-unknown mechanism linked to climate change, blamed mainly on mankind’s use of fossil fuels.

‘It could be a shift in the wind, due to a change in climate, that pushed more warm water under the shelf,’ he said.

Dr Dutrieux said: ‘We now know that there is relatively warm water beneath this floating ice so this warm water could have been able to melt the base of the ice shelf.

Uh oh, a dissenting study. Quick, alarmists unite!

Yes, we unite and actually read the story you linked and discovered that once again your information sources are misrepresenting scientific research. So what else is new? This is the same pattern that creationist experts use to claim they have proof against evolution.

BTW speaking of misrepresenting evidence, why don't post Phil Jones complete answer in your signature quote, instead of trying to misrepresent his opinions on the subject?

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#

Typical that fundamentalists assume that everyone else blindly accepts arguments from authority like they do, but this is not the case. Phil Jones and Michael Mann have more credence than Al Gore (another frequently mentioned name on AGW), but unlike fundamentalist religion, scientific concepts stand or fall based on the evidence, not their position in the scientific community!

[Keepitsimple]

BTW speaking of misrepresenting evidence, why don't post Phil Jones complete answer in your signature quote, instead of trying to misrepresent his opinions on the subject?

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#

We've been over this time and again and the Alarmist excuses have been refuted over and over. Not only is the temperature no longer going up....but it's actually cooling since 2002. This is in direct conflict with the predictions of the "models".....however there are so many of them now that there's got to be one that's been fudged to account for the "lack of warming". It was giddily funny that Kevin Trenberth's comment that "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." tied up the Alarmist community in Knots....and ultimately having them scampering to the theory of the Earth's heat budget and that pesky missing warming must be somewhere - we just can't find it. The theory was that CO2 is the major driver behind the warming - NOT natural variability. If that is so, why is the globe not continuing to warm up at the alarming rate that has us approaching a tipping point? Why? And why was it so important to issue a pronouncement that 2010 was going to be the warmest year ever - and that pronouncement was made when? The beginning of April!!!! I guess we need to take checkpoints every month.....or would that be just "the weather"?

Sceptics say it again and again but it appears that only time will solve the debate....the world is warming - has been for ages......temperatures go up and down but we're in an interglacial period where they are always going up over the longer term.....but temperatures are not driven mainly by CO2. I know I'll never gain any concessions from Alarmists.....but rational observations of what is actually happening with temperatures is the best way to support or disprove science....or maybe somewhere betwixed the two.

[waldo]

We've been over this time and again and the Alarmist excuses have been refuted over and over. Not only is the temperature no longer going up....but it's actually cooling since 2002. This is in direct conflict with the predictions of the "models".....however there are so many of them now that there's got to be one that's been fudged to account for the "lack of warming".

your sad-sack simpleton denier presence accounts for the only excuses around here. Over these many months there have been repeated postings that highlighted your complete and absolute ignorance of temperature trending... you clearly choose to ignore fundamentals of trending and continue to revel in your cherry-picking short-term trending game. You actually have the nerve to, once again, continue your charade - this time presuming to proclaim cooling within the shortest of timeframes... this time an illegitimate short-term 7 year trending period. That being said, choke on this graphic presentation of a positive GISTEMP temperature trend over your cherry-picked short-term trend interval since 2002.

in your consistent baseless ramblings, you once again target model "predictions", while failing to substantiate anything. Just once... just once... step up and state what model(s) you're referring to - don't hesitate to offer contextual reference to, oh... "prediction" baseline references and trending interval periods. Such a foreign concept for Simple ton... to actually substantiate a statement. Of course, it would be most significant for you to step up and present your case for "fudged models" - hey, Simple?

[waldo]

It was giddily funny that Kevin Trenberth's comment that "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." tied up the Alarmist community in Knots....and ultimately having them scampering to the theory of the Earth's heat budget and that pesky missing warming must be somewhere - we just can't find it.

the surest sign of the vanquished... poor Simple ton is having to resort to recycled Hackergate nonsense... poor, poor pathetic Simple ton!

of course, this trumped up denier attempt to distort Trenberth's hacked email statement has been soundly dispatched - few deniers have the stones to actually bring it forward again... of course, that won't hold back the desperate Simple ton - hey? Within MLW we covered this piece of bogus Hackergate fluff - here - a few select quotes from that previous MLW post:

Within the hacked email thread, Trenberth offers a reply where he mentions his own paper, offers local weather anecdotes, names his paper (An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability) & provides a link to locate it... and then offers the much parroted quote:

From: Kevin Trenberth <[email protected]>

To: Michael Mann <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600

Cc: Stephen H Schneider <[email protected]>, Myles Allen <[email protected]>, peter stott <[email protected]>, "Philip D. Jones" <[email protected]>, Benjamin Santer <[email protected]>, Tom Wigley <[email protected]>, Thomas R Karl <[email protected]>, Gavin Schmidt <[email protected]>, James Hansen <[email protected]>, Michael Oppenheimer <[email protected]>

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.

..... it could be just as simple as omitting a single word... oh, like the word, "increased" - “the lack of increased warming”… but a word really unnecessary given the context of the email thread topic/discussion. But hey now!

So what did Trenberth really say... contextually say... in the context of his noted paper reference? The paper where he unequivocally states that long-term global warming is occurring; that the long-term trend shows an upward trend with strong decadal oscillations and that within this trend pattern are many natural variances, each at different timescales… … where the 90s had a greater rate of warming, partially due to the strong El Nino of 1998, while the 2000s have been of slower warming… still warming, but relatively less than the 90s.

The essence of Trenberth’s paper, the one his quote reflects upon (the paper he names/links, after the altered quote being parroted by the denialsphere)… is one that speaks to an assessment of that natural variability in terms of being able to track the natural variability energy that gets rearranged or changed within the climate system. Trenberth’s paper, his explanation of his own hacked email quote… has nothing to do with Riverwind’s continued unfounded slams toward climate models. Trenberth suggests the ability to track natural variances, the energy rearrangements/changes associated with them, is not robust… that developing improved methods of tracking the energy changes associated with natural variance is required… you know – because it might help to account for the “lack of increased warming” seen in latter years, relative to the 90s.

But hey now! Trenberth’s assertion that improvement in measuring/tracking natural variance energy “flow changes”, surely, can’t be good for the deniers who want to hang their hat on natural variance, if they even admit that global warming is occurring. You know, the denier bunch who themselves can’t provide any support around their natural variance claims… the denier bunch who can’t actually provide any evidence that measures and tracks radiative (heat) flux changes associated with natural variances (the “stuff” Trenberth says needs improvement)... the denier bunch who can’t actually provide any evidence to soundly refute AGW global warming. Surely, the denier bunch can’t be… won’t be… in favour of Trenberth’s assertion that would actually help them make their case in support of natural variance. Noooooo… they would rather anally line-by-line parse emails and sling mud… cause they can!

And this... this... is the kind of bullshit being trumped up through the denialsphere and on into the mainstream... and into MLW by the denier parrots.

[waldo]

The theory was that CO2 is the major driver behind the warming - NOT natural variability. If that is so, why is the globe not continuing to warm up at the alarming rate that has us approaching a tipping point? Why? And why was it so important to issue a pronouncement that 2010 was going to be the warmest year ever - and that pronouncement was made when? The beginning of April!!!! I guess we need to take checkpoints every month.....or would that be just "the weather"?

yes, that is correct... CO2 is the major driver; natural variability is, most certainly, also of consideration. Don't hesitate to step forward and make your case for natural variability accounting for the relatively recent significant warming, particularly that warming that has occurred since 1950. Of course, the sound of crickets will be the most damning indication of your ongoing charade - hey, Simple?

clearly, those periodic 2010 temperature updates are a most irksome thorn in your denier ass! Just so you're clear, they're typically presented in the context of a yearly reference... as in, for example, April 2009 to April 2010. Only a pompous denier charlatan, like yourself, would presume to conflate weather and climate.

[waldo]

Sceptics say it again and again but it appears that only time will solve the debate....the world is warming - has been for ages......temperatures go up and down but we're in an interglacial period where they are always going up over the longer term.....but temperatures are not driven mainly by CO2.

what would your denier self presume to know about legitimate skeptics?

interglacial period... always going up over the longer term!!! As before, don't hesitate to come forward, to step up and state what is, as you say, "driving temperatures" (if it's not, as you assert, CO2). Waiting... waiting... waiting...

[Pliny]

By your analogy, the modern version of the Nazi war criminal scientists are the small number of well payed scientists who are collecting generous remunerations either directly or indirectly from the oil, gas and coal companies who want confusing propaganda distributed to the public in order to prevent any governments from changing an economic system that is tailored to continuing use of fossil fuels.

What are you suggesting? Scientists with any connection to big oil are the same as Nazi scientists?

[Pliny]

What I want from the climate contrarians is an answer for why we should play Russian Roulette with the lives of future generations, all because they think they have found a few facts that don't fit the evidence for warming!

When it comes to politics the solutions are often worse than the symptoms.

The direction of science and technology is toward finding alternative energies and reducing pollution what more should be done?

You are suggesting we chain future generations to global taxation and wealth redistribution. Why should they feel any incentive to produce when production is not rewarded but punished with levies.

When there is little to no scientific condemnation of falsified facts such as presented by Pope Gore in his production, "An Inconvenient Truth" and he is instead held up on a pedestal then I know I am dealing with kool-aid drinkers on a crusade to save the world.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

The latest from the political world is that cooling will be the trend over at least the next several decades. It seems cooling is more feared than warming by most. Warming sounds too friendly.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's a website with a whole bunch more of "denier" information . I've specifically posted it for those people who still have an open mind on Climate Change. There are a lot of links that are provided and as much as there are pieces of dubious alarmist materials, I have no doubt that the odd link supplied here might be a bit dubious as well......but there's an overwhelming supply of observational information that supports the fact that the globe is no longer warming and most probably will be stabilizing or cooling for the next few decades. The theory that as CO2 goes up, global temperatures rise in relative lockstep has certainly lost any credibility it may have gained in the 90's.

Is There Global Cooling?

Welcome to my website where I will try to give you the answer to the question "is there global cooling?" As you are well aware there is a huge effort around the globe to counter the alleged impact of mankind on the world's climate. If in fact mankind will cause the seas to rise appreciably by causing CO2 induced global warming then certainly let's do something about it. But, what if global warming is not what they say it is? What if the world's temperature is headed in the opposite direction? Global temperatures increased for twenty years from the late 1970s to the late 1990s but have actually been cooling the last eleven years. The global warming and subsequent cooling were even predictable due to hundreds of years of historical trends and observation of the impact of variations in solar activity on global temperature.

Did you know that the Roman Period and Medieval Period were both several degrees warmer than today's temperature. The world then cooled at least four degrees from 1450 to 1850. This period was called the Little Ice Age (a period of glacial advance, the same glaciers that are in retreat today). These temperature variations were not caused by man. They were caused entirely by natural forces.

Link: http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/

[waldo]

Here's a website with a whole bunch more of "denier" information . I've specifically posted it for those people who still have an open mind on Climate Change. There are a lot of links that are provided and as much as there are pieces of dubious alarmist materials, I have no doubt that the odd link supplied here might be a bit dubious as well......but there's an overwhelming supply of observational information that supports the fact that the globe is no longer warming and most probably will be stabilizing or cooling for the next few decades. The theory that as CO2 goes up, global temperatures rise in relative lockstep has certainly lost any credibility it may have gained in the 90's.

excellent!!! Now... we finally have the source of your repeated nonsense... a quick cursory review shows you've sourced that blog many times over in the past - one wonders why you never bothered to acknowledge it before. (from some unknown hack blogger named Palooka! )

ya, ya, Simple - Palooka blog science rules! Of course, I've purposely emphasized your own offered brazen caveat concerning dubious links in your own linked source - what's wrong... feeling a little gun-shy after I bounced back your last attempt to parrot Palooka's claim that the oceans are cooling? - debunking of Palooka/Simple ton claims that oceans are cooling - here:

among other things, Palooka blog science is filled with errors, misrepresentations and outright fabrications... we could have some real fun with his conflation of U.S. & global temperature records... or his sunspot cycle nonsense. Polar bear numbers? Really?

yes, truly the sign of the pathetic, desperate denier... Simpleton now coughs up his favoured go-to "blog scientist"... one Geoff Palooka!!!

[waldo]

speaking to another of Simple's favoured Palooka points of fabrication... that, as Simple's go-to blogger claims that, "Total global polar sea ice extent is largely unchanged over the past 30 years". Oh ya, Palooka blog science rules!

following up on an earlier MLW post, this Plenary lecture from Canada's David Barber, from the recent International Polar Year, Oslo Science Conference... a lengthy talk, well worth spending the time if you have any interest in understanding and appreciating the ongoing work that's occurring within Canada's Arctic region. Towards the end, Barber offers comment on some of the significant funding/sponsorship initiatives from government...

It has been recovering for two years now and several published "peer reviewed" science papers explained that it was the increased influx of warm north Atlantic water and "unusual winds" that pushed more ice out the Arctic region than usual.

care to cite those papers while, at the same time, commenting on what they may have to state in terms of the condition of Arctic seasonal versus multi-year ice extent.

=> NOAA - Arctic Report Card: Update for 2009 - Sea Ice Cover - Sea ice age and thickness

The age of the ice is another key descriptor of the state of the sea ice cover, since older ice tends to be thicker and more resilient than younger ice. A simple two-stage approach classifies sea ice into first year and multiyear ice. First-year is ice that has not yet survived a summer melt season, while multi-year ice has survived at least one summer and can be several years old. Satellite derived maps of ice age for March of 2007, 2008, and 2009 are presented in

Figure S3

.

In the past decade, the extent of multiyear sea ice rapidly reduced at a rate of 1.5 x 10E+6 km2 per decade, triple the reduction rate during the three previous decades (1970-2000). Springtime multiyear ice extent was the lowest in 2008 in the QuikSCAT data record since 2000

. QuikSCAT results in March 2009 showed a multiyear ice extent of 3.0 ± 0.2 million km2. This was 0.3 million km2 larger than the multiyear ice extent on the same date in 2008, even though the total sea ice extent was similar in the spring of 2008 and 2009. While the multiyear ice extent was similar in March 2008 and 2009, its distribution was quite different. More specifically, in 2008 there was a significant amount of multiyear ice the Beaufort Sea and in 2009 there was a large amount of multiyear ice the central Arctic Ocean.

Recent estimates of Arctic Ocean sea ice thickness from satellite altimetry show a remarkable overall thinning of ~0.6 m in ice thickness between 2004 and 2008 (

Figure. S4a

). In contrast, the average thickness of the thinner first-year ice in mid-winter (~2 m), did not exhibit a downward trend. Seasonal ice is an important component covered more than two-thirds of the Arctic Ocean in 2008.

The total multiyear ice volume in the winter experienced a net loss of more than 40% in the four years since 2005 while the first year ice cover gained volume due to increased overall coverage of the Arctic Ocean. The declines in total volume and average thickness (black line in Figure S4a) are explained almost entirely by thinning and loss of multiyear sea ice due to melting and ice export. These changes have resulted in seasonal ice becoming the dominant Arctic sea ice type, both in terms of area coverage and of volume.

The recent satellite estimates were compared with the longer historical record of declassified sonar measurements from US Navy submarines (Figure S4b). Within the submarine data release area (covering ~38% of the Arctic Ocean),

the overall mean winter thickness of 3.6 m in 1980 can be compared to a 1.9 m mean during the last winter of the ICESat record—a decrease of 1.7 m in thickness. This combined submarine and satellite record shows a long-term trend of sea ice thinning over submarine and ICESat records that span three decades.

The contribution of the increasing fraction of first year ice to the long term thickness trend remains to be determined.

=> National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) - Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark

At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.

which itself has been supplanted with a more significant and timely update/study, as previously linked to and discussed within MLW:

=> 'Permanent' Arctic ice vanishing - Satellite images misled shocked scientists

Multi-year sea ice used to cover 90 per cent of the Arctic basin, Barber said. It now covers 19 per cent. Where it used to be up to 10 metres thick, it's now 2 metres at most.

The findings, soon to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters

, come as a shock to experts worldwide.

Although northern sea ice hit a record low in 2007, researchers believed it was recovering because of what they were seeing on satellite images.

But the images the experts relied on were misleading because the rotten ice looks sturdy on the surface and has a similar superficial temperature, Barber explained.

"The satellites give us only part of the story. The multi-year ice is disappearing and it's almost all gone now from the northern hemisphere."

NSIDC comments in regards Barber's study:

Dave Barber’s observations give the sort of on-the-ground confirmation of the situation that lends confidence to predictions that we’re headed towards a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean. Dave’s been up there looking at sea ice conditions for many years. He knows what he’s talking about.

The most interesting thing in the article is that the old multiyear ice is so broken up now. Even if there is a considerable amount, it is all in broken (or even rotten) floes of ice and not a largely consolidated pack like it used to be. That is a significant change in the character of the ice cover beyond the basic changes in extent and age distribution.

animation showing the loss of multi-year Arctic sea-ice extent - colours are an indication of the age of the sea ice. Lighter colours are older sea ice - white is ice 10 years old.

[Shady]

speaking to another of Simple's favoured Palooka points of fabrication... that, as Simple's go-to blogger claims that, "Total global polar sea ice extent is largely unchanged over the past 30 years". Oh ya, Palooka blog science rules!

following up on an earlier MLW post, this Plenary lecture from Canada's David Barber, from the recent International Polar Year, Oslo Science Conference... a lengthy talk, well worth spending the time if you have any interest in understanding and appreciating the ongoing work that's occurring within Canada's Arctic region. Towards the end, Barber offers comment on some of the significant funding/sponsorship initiatives from government...

[/indent][/size]

=> National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) - Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark

which itself has been supplanted with a more significant and timely update/study, as previously linked to and discussed within MLW:

=> 'Permanent' Arctic ice vanishing - Satellite images misled shocked scientists

NSIDC comments in regards Barber's study:

animation showing the loss of multi-year Arctic sea-ice extent - colours are an indication of the age of the sea ice. Lighter colours are older sea ice - white is ice 10 years old.

The meme of the sea ice disappearing has already been debunked.

[waldo]

A world-renowned Ellesmere Island fossil site has shed startling new light on how warm the Canadian Arctic was about four million years ago - and just how hot it could get in the coming decades.

Six researchers from Canada, the United States and the Netherlands have announced their findings after probing fossilized wood and the well-preserved remains of prehistoric plants and soil bacteria from Ellesmere's Beaver Pond site, a paleontological time capsule near the Eureka science station on Canada's northernmost land mass.

Based on three separate lines of evidence, the team has shown that the High Arctic locale once had a relatively balmy average annual temperature of 0 C - about 19 degrees warmer than today.

The clearer picture of the ancient Arctic has potentially important - and worrisome - implications for how quickly and severely the region could witness a temperature spike given current climate-change trends, the researchers warn.

"The Arctic climate system may be much more sensitive to greenhouse gas warming than previously thought, and current CO2 levels may be sufficient to bring about significant and irreversible shifts in Arctic ecosystems," states the study, to be published this week in the journal Geology.

"Our results indicate that a significant increase in Arctic temperatures may be imminent in response to current atmospheric CO2 levels."

Abstract: Temperatures in the Arctic have increased by an astounding 1 °C in response to anthropogenic forcing over the past 20 years and are expected to rise further in the coming decades. The Pliocene (2.6–5.3 Ma) is of particular interest as an analog for future warming because global temperatures were significantly warmer than today for a sustained period of time, with continental configurations similar to present. Here, we estimate mean annual temperature (MAT) based upon three independent proxies from an early Pliocene peat deposit in the Canadian High Arctic. Our proxies, including oxygen isotopes and annual ring widths (MAT = –0.5 ± 1.9 °C), coexistence of paleovegetation (MAT = –0.4 ± 4.1 °C), and bacterial tetraether composition in paleosols (MAT = –0.6 ± 5.0 °C), yield estimates that are statistically indistinguishable. The consensus among these proxies suggests that Arctic temperatures were ∼19 °C warmer during the Pliocene than at present, while atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ∼390 ppmv. These elevated Arctic Pliocene temperatures result in a greatly reduced and asymmetrical latitudinal temperature gradient that is probably the result of increased poleward heat transport and decreased albedo. These results indicate that Arctic temperatures may be exceedingly sensitive to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

[WIP]

your sad-sack simpleton denier presence accounts for the only excuses around here. Over these many months there have been repeated postings that highlighted your complete and absolute ignorance of temperature trending... you clearly choose to ignore fundamentals of trending and continue to revel in your cherry-picking short-term trending game. You actually have the nerve to, once again, continue your charade - this time presuming to proclaim cooling within the shortest of timeframes... this time an illegitimate short-term 7 year trending period. That being said, choke on this graphic presentation of a positive GISTEMP temperature trend over your cherry-picked short-term trend interval since 2002.

I guess if I plotted a graph of temperatures from July to February, I would also have evidence of global cooling! Even if there was evidence of a modest drop in global temperatures for two or three years, that would still not qualify as evidence that the Earth would keep cooling. A large volcanic eruption could cause a short term drop -- so could a return to a solar maximum in the sunspot cycle...which is where we will be in the next two years after a quiet period with few solar flares.

[WIP]

Sceptics say it again and again but it appears that only time will solve the debate....the world is warming - has been for ages......temperatures go up and down but we're in an interglacial period where they are always going up over the longer term....

Previously, you claimed that global temperatures were cooling, not trending upward, so which is it? If they are trending upward, why did you bother making a claim that there has been a recent drop in temperature, since that would have no bearing on long term debate over whether the Earth is getting warmer? This is like an evolution/creation debate because creationists also don't even bother making consistent arguments. Claims are just tossed out to create confusion and inhibit any opportunity to reach a consensus of opinion on the subject.

.but temperatures are not driven mainly by CO2. I know I'll never gain any concessions from Alarmists.....but rational observations of what is actually happening with temperatures is the best way to support or disprove science....or maybe somewhere betwixed the two.

Carbon dioxide's capacity to trap solar radiation has been known for decades, and we've been aware that atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing in recent decades. After millions of years staying under 300 ppm., CO2 levels are accelerating (even during the recent economic slowdown) and getting close to 400 ppm -- a level that hasn't been seen in 15 million years, a time when global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees hotter than today, and there were no polar ice caps. Yet somehow the don't-worry-be-happy crowd wants us to believe that staying at 400 and going even higher, will have no effects on the climate! It's an absurd claim to even begin with!

It should also be noted for the benefit of the geo-engineering crowd that wants to terraform our way to stopping a rise in temperatures; that this would do nothing to stop the most damaging effect of rising CO2 levels -- more than half of the extra carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere is absorbed by the world's oceans....raising the level of ocean acidification....killing off corals and other sea shelf creatures...and creating even larger anoxic dead zones in the oceans which can't support any life.

[WIP]

When it comes to politics the solutions are often worse than the symptoms.

The direction of science and technology is toward finding alternative energies and reducing pollution what more should be done?

You are suggesting we chain future generations to global taxation and wealth redistribution. Why should they feel any incentive to produce when production is not rewarded but punished with levies.

The one big reason why I jumped off of the libertarian bandwagon over the last few years is because the economic ideas of the right, which emphasize individual autonomy and oppose mandatory collective strategies, are no help in dealing with this and other crises that require a global effort. Free market economics may actually work to increase economic growth, but what if growth in consumption is something that the world can no longer afford! A recent analysis of resource consumption last year, concluded that it would take three planet earths to supply the resources for our population, if everyone reached the U.S. level of consumption. We live on a finite planet, so we are coming to the end of the period where we can grow our way out of economic problems like past decades.

And the fact that a real and effective strategy to stop climate change would require a worldwide cooperative effort, is one of the big reasons why there are many pessimists who say that we are already doomed. Fact is global warming is an "inconvenient truth." Even the most modest solutions got shot down at Copenhagen. Specifically, the primary agents for climate change are the high consumption first world economies, but the nations that are already being the most at risk are the impoverished regions of the third world which have only contributed fractionally to global warming, and do not have the resources to deal with the droughts, floods, rising oceans etc. that threaten their survival. A modest proposal to provide compensation to developing nations to deal with these problems and to help them improve their standards of living with renewable energy sources, was given a drop in the bucket to deal with the problems. And most of these same first world nations (including Canada) are not making any serious attempts to control their own increases in greenhouse gases!

The failure of Copenhagen to provide any meaningful results leads many to pessimism, including many earth scientists. For example, yesterday we got a link to science website for a story on the Pine Island Glacier that was grossly misinterpreted by the deniers....nevertheless, another story I noticed on the site had this shocking analysis from retired microbiologist Frank Fenner: Scientist Claims Human Race ‘Will Be Extinct Within 100 Years’ Gee, even James Lovelock concludes that world population will shrink to 500 million in the next century, but this guy believes that the cascade towards human extinction won't be stopped! Let's just say that the 95 year old professor emeritus of Australian National University has drawn a very pessimistic conclusion about our chances, based on his past studies of species extinction and a few human examples of populations that consumed and polluted their way to environmental destruction...such as Easter Island.

When there is little to no scientific condemnation of falsified facts such as presented by Pope Gore in his production, "An Inconvenient Truth" and he is instead held up on a pedestal then I know I am dealing with kool-aid drinkers on a crusade to save the world.

I've noticed that some other earth scientists are pessimistic about our chances of dealing with global warming and other ecological challenges, but the mainstream prevailing opinion among science advocates and political allies like Al Gore, is that the movement has to stay upbeat and refrain from giving the impression that the situation may be hopeless. The simpleminded critics of Gore et al. may think they are hiding something...and it may turn out that what they are avoiding and scripting their language around, is that the problem is even more challenging than they let on publicly.

[Keepitsimple]

Previously, you claimed that global temperatures were cooling, not trending upward, so which is it? If they are trending upward, why did you bother making a claim that there has been a recent drop in temperature, since that would have no bearing on long term debate over whether the Earth is getting warmer? This is like an evolution/creation debate because creationists also don't even bother making consistent arguments. Claims are just tossed out to create confusion and inhibit any opportunity to reach a consensus of opinion on the subject.

I have always made the same claim - that the earth has been warming for centuries and that it warms and cools in cycles but it's continuing to warm at about 1 degree celsius per century. It appears that we are at the beginning of another stable or even cooling cycle - certainly that's what the observational temperatures have started to tell us since 2002. If history is our guide, then we're probably looking at another 20 years of very little warming or modest cooling....and then it will start to warm again. There is no debate that the Earth is warming in the longer term....but if the world is entering a stage of "a lack of warming" that lasts for 20 or 30 years while CO2 continues to rise - then that pretty well puts to rest the theory that CO2 is the major driver behind climate change - doesn't it?

[zhoot]

This is the delightful sound of top scientists associated with the IPCC backing down, and falling all over themselves to place the blame elsewhere ... Professor Watson is one of the Priests of High Science, and a member (and a defender) of the IPCC.

I'll give the man this -- he's a good sport, and he faces up to as tough an interviewer as he's likely to find.

really?! i am so glad to hear that!

[waldo]

Previously, you claimed that global temperatures were cooling, not trending upward, so which is it? If they are trending upward, why did you bother making a claim that there has been a recent drop in temperature, since that would have no bearing on long term debate over whether the Earth is getting warmer? This is like an evolution/creation debate because creationists also don't even bother making consistent arguments. Claims are just tossed out to create confusion and inhibit any opportunity to reach a consensus of opinion on the subject.

I have always made the same claim - that the earth has been warming for centuries and that it warms and cools in cycles but it's continuing to warm at about 1 degree celsius per century. It appears that we are at the beginning of another stable or even cooling cycle - certainly that's what the observational temperatures have started to tell us since 2002. If history is our guide, then we're probably looking at another 20 years of very little warming or modest cooling....and then it will start to warm again. There is no debate that the Earth is warming in the longer term....but if the world is entering a stage of "a lack of warming" that lasts for 20 or 30 years while CO2 continues to rise - then that pretty well puts to rest the theory that CO2 is the major driver behind climate change - doesn't it?

continued Simple unsubstantiated claims of 30-year cyclic temperature cycles! C'mon, Simple... how many times must I call you out on this. You continue your chicken-shit charade without having the balls to actually acknowledge who you parrot this nonsense from... one Don Easterbrook. Certainly, I can appreciate why you're so gun-shy in actually offering an acknowledgment to the soundly debunked Easterbrook... but, c'mon Simple... man-up and substantiate your nonsensical claims of global cooling. Give Easterbrook his due - then sit back and prepare to have your ass handed to you... nothing you're not used to though - hey Simple?

[waldo]

I guess if I plotted a graph of temperatures from July to February, I would also have evidence of global cooling! Even if there was evidence of a modest drop in global temperatures for two or three years, that would still not qualify as evidence that the Earth would keep cooling. A large volcanic eruption could cause a short term drop -- so could a return to a solar maximum in the sunspot cycle...which is where we will be in the next two years after a quiet period with few solar flares.

that's been Simple's game for months on end... cherry-pick while playing the short-term trending charade. Simple's latest spin has him fixated on 2002 as the start-year for global cooling (ala his favoured denier, Don Easterbrook). Of course, this plays into Simple's other parroting of Easterbrook's 30-year cyclic temperature nonsense... although Simple is rather reserved in actually substantiating, actually attributing his claimed 30-year cyclic temperature nonsense to anyone. Is it any wonder Simple won't actually step-up and cite who he credits the 30-year cyclic temperature cycles to?

as much as Simple presumes on the short-term trend game, I just had to spoil his cherry-picking with this positive GISTEMP trend plot from 2002 (positive... even from the ridiculously short trending interval period from 2002 to present). Of course, Simple (and Easterbrook) have serious reservations over this longer-term GISTEMP trend plot (from 1980)... such an inconvenient truth!

[waldo]

really?! i am so glad to hear that!

countdown to boobquake in 5... 4... 3... 2........

[waldo]

Uh oh, a dissenting study. Quick, alarmists unite!

Yes, we unite and actually read the story you linked and discovered that once again your information sources are misrepresenting scientific research. So what else is new? This is the same pattern that creationist experts use to claim they have proof against evolution.

BTW speaking of misrepresenting evidence, why don't post Phil Jones complete answer in your signature quote, instead of trying to misrepresent his opinions on the subject?

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Shady practices, ala the intellectually dishonest Shady, account for the lil' twerps signature distortion of the Phil Jones quote. Of course, it's a hoot to realize the idgit actually maintains that signature - even to this date... that he actually believes it/he makes a statement - what a maroon, what a rube!

[WIP]

I have always made the same claim - that the earth has been warming for centuries and that it warms and cools in cycles but it's continuing to warm at about 1 degree celsius per century.

Gee, one degree...that doesn't sound like a big deal! Except that when we're talking about planetary averages, five degrees will melt all land and sea ice, bringing the ocean conveyor system to a virtual standstill and kill off all living creatures in the equatorial zone. In the past, these warm spells have been closely associated with mass extinctions -- why should our age be any different?

It appears that we are at the beginning of another stable or even cooling cycle - certainly that's what the observational temperatures have started to tell us since 2002. If history is our guide, then we're probably looking at another 20 years of very little warming or modest cooling....and then it will start to warm again. There is no debate that the Earth is warming in the longer term..

According to reputable sources: NASA and the World Meteorological Organization 2009 was the 2nd hottest year on record, and so far the first decade of the new millenium has been the warmest decade ever. They're not seeing a cooling trend, where are you getting your's from?

..but if the world is entering a stage of "a lack of warming" that lasts for 20 or 30 years while CO2 continues to rise - then that pretty well puts to rest the theory that CO2 is the major driver behind climate change - doesn't it?

A lot of if's there! A lot of things would have to come together and cancel out the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, and it still doesn't deal with ocean acidification and other problems besides warming that will get worse with higher CO2 levels.