shoggoth

Try better ones. This one isn't broken, is the directory where they are all stored: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies There are land datasets, ocean datasets and land+ocean datasets. The ocean one comparible with junkscience.com's land one (90S-90N 1901-2000mean) is: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat

Sure there is uncertainty and error ranges involved, but that only means there are error ranges in the data, not that it is all random useless noise. Can you quantify how innaccurate they are? Otherwise couldn't it be that they are accurate enough? I can see how variable the temperature data is by going to the primary sources. I don't see any of that backs up the point you just made. If it is all too unreliable then how come 1998 comes out consistantly as a very warm year in all the records available? If it was totally inaccurate and unreliable we would expect 1998 to be a cold year in some records and warm in others. The upward trend over the past 30 years is a little too strong to be due to random chance. The evidence does strongly point to a warming trend in the last 30 years. If he was really exposing problems he would publish, not post them on some website. The urban heat island effect is not even a contensious area. Everyone knows it is a bias that must be corrected for. If he can show it's not being corrected right in a particular study then he could easily publish. The fact he doesn't more suggests his objections would not survive the scrutiny of the authors of the study he is critisizing. I suspect that he is nitpicking mainly. That while he is maybe raising some genuine problems in a few studies he isn't actually showing that the urban heat island effect as a whole can explain the recent warming trend. Certainly it would be interesting to see how he would explain rising satellite records in the past 30 years as biased by urban heat island effect, or rising ocean temperatures, or even temperatures rising from rural stations alone with urban stations removed. There have been plenty of studies done on the urban heat island effect that show it to not be a significant bias (as in not a bias that can explain the whole warming record, ie the recent warming is not an artifact of UHI effect) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf More often than not it's the opposing opinion coming from websites which are wrong.

It's not increasing enough to explain the recent 30 years of warming though. A lot of the links you post are about solar activity being higher this century than in the last few thousands of years. There is still a lack of significant upward solar trend in the past 50. The first link is the only relevant one, which I have seen before. But the increase isn't significant enough to explain the recent warming. It's nothing like the early 20th century solar increase, which is said to explain most of the warming then. This is just an example of junkscience.com's bias significantly affecting what they mention and what they don't. Junkscience.com has a pattern of jumping all over the problems and uncertainties with scientific explainations that doesn't afford their agenda (eg AGW), as well as quibbling over minor irrelevant details to muddy the issue. On the otherhand they uncritically accept any scientific explaination that does fit their agenda (anything solar in general) without a peep. And why they expect this paper to be mentioned by the media (are most papers?). In fact this one got quite a lot of coverage. Reading that article you would think galactic cosmic rays are a theory with absolutely no problems. They make no effort to explain the uncertainties and problems with the hypothesis (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ays-for-a-spin/), and I suspect that this is because they have no desire to want to do so.

Doesn't make any sense though. How can a ~20cm rise in sea levels last century possibly cause an island to sink? Is the island like only 10cm above sea level or something? Id have thought the tidal differences were more.

Thermal expansion of water contributes slightly more to rising sea levels in a warming world than ice melt.

That's not a workable strategy in the long term so it's hard to imagine any benefit of starting a deception like that. Afterall if they fudged 2005 to be warmer than 1998 to fake a continuing warming trend that didn't actually exist then it's going to be even harder for them to make years in the future look warmer than 2005. It's going to look especially suspicious when their trend goes up over the next 30 years while other trends compiled by other groups are flat. They will be making years about a half degree warmer than they actually were. Someone would notice. Also 1998 was warm because of an el nino. Without that 1998 probably would no doubt been cooler than 2005 anyway. As el nino events occur on top of the warming trend, and are not part of it, therefore there's no contradiction between 1998 being a record warm year so far and there being a warming trend. The CRU has 1998 as the warmest on record, mainly because they use a different method from ncdc. Notice the error bars though, around +-0.1C for recent years. Also at the bottom of the first link there is a graph showing the strong 1998 el nino that corresponds with the high temperature that year. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle...emperature.html http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif It's not suprising that different methodologies come up with slightly different temperatures for different years. That's why it's more relevant to look at the statistics involving multiple years rather than individual years. The running average lines on these graphs are probably the most useful thing for visualizing trends.

LOL, Your own link clearly shows that from the 1930's the world warms up right along with the increase in the suns sunspot counts. It's known that the early 20th century warming is likely to be mostly solar caused given the significant solar increase then. But in a way that makes it harder to explain the last 30 years of warming given no such significant increase in solar activity in the past 50 years, but an equal amount of warming in the past 30. It's still believed to be true. The last 30 years is critical to this issue. If we were just talking about a warming from 1900-1940 and nothing since then solar could explain all of 20th century warming. But there's also an equal amount of warming from 1970 onwards. Solar models can explain the early 20th century warming, but not the late 20th century warming (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/m..._additivity.pdf). This suggests that something other than solar forcing is causing the late 20th century warming. Ie something else is the cause, and that's why AGW is accepted, not because it is proven, but because it is a good explaination using a well-known mechanism for an observation that currently has no other explaination. The CRU provides sea surface temperature data too: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat The sst data alone show an 0.15C/yr warming trend from 1998-2006 The greenhouse effect is an amplification of solar forcing so without the sun there would be no greenhouse effect. Sea surface temperature data is gathered from ships, and more recently also by satellites. Irregular coverage and urban heat island effect are two problems faced when compiling global average temperature trends, but these problems have been investigated and are being compensated for. Whether this is sufficient I don't personally know, but the scientific community seems to think so.

Here's plenty of different solar related trends, but none show any significant increase in the past 50 years: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/solar.htm

05 was not warmer than 98 and in fact look like they average out. According to NCDC, 2005 was warmer than 1998: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat 1998 0.8314 1999 0.6847 2000 0.5155 2001 0.7472 2002 0.8497 2003 0.7711 2004 0.7296 2005 0.9887 What they look like is subjective. Objectively though, linear regression shows there is a slight warming trend in that data, not a slight cooling trend as Tim Ball claimed.

Tim Ball is wrong then. There is a definite warming trend in that data for the years 1998 through 2005/2006 The yearly averages for the data the graph uses are here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat 1998 0.8314 1999 0.6847 2000 0.5155 2001 0.7472 2002 0.8497 2003 0.7711 2004 0.7296 2005 0.9887 A line of best fit (calculated from here http://www.shodor.org/UNChem/math/lls/leastsq.html) shows this data represents a 0.025C/yr warming trend. Including 2006 so far, which is looking similar to 2004 lowers it to about 0.02C/yr. That's equivalent to a 0.2C/decade warming. You can also see the increasing trend when the data is plotted crudely: 1998 *************************************************************** 1999 ************************************************ 2000 ******************************* 2001 ****************************************************** 2002 **************************************************************** 2003 ******************************************************** 2004 **************************************************** 2005 *****************************************************************************

Because of this. Which clearly shows a slight cooling. Does it not? http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanomLand.htm There's actually a slight upward trend since 1998 in that graph. This can be seen by looking at the troughs as well as the peaks and also seeing how the midline is rising. If you add each years monthly temps up in that dataset then 2002 and 2005 are warmer than 1998: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat

I don't know. But it seems to me from reading about the NAO that it's considered an effect of climate being driven, and is not a driver itself. It certainly doesn't look like anyone is trying to explain global warming as being caused by the NAO, or any other such oscillation

But if we stopped emitting 27 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere per year, how could co2 levels continue to rise about 15 billion tons per year? It's pretty much 100% conclusive A good question but a conclusive answer is evidently not coming from you. The evidence for the recent co2 rise being entirely anthropogenic is summed up well in this document: http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

This focus on NAO and PDO gives the "warming fanatics" apoplexy, since it provides an alternate and more readily believable explanation for climate change than the Chicken Little approach of the Kyoto fraudsters. Well this researcher wouldn't be convinced by that argument: http://www.esi-topics.com/gwarm/interviews...mesHurrell.html

But if we stopped emitting 27 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere per year, how could co2 levels continue to rise about 15 billion tons per year? It's pretty much 100% conclusive

The IPCC report you linked to says mankind's yearly contribution is 7.1 The 2001 IPCC report also says: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/097.htm#fig31 And mentions the 50% absorbed: And: Ie the oceans and land are a net absorber of co2, not a net emitter. But human activity is a net emitter as shown in data from this table - http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/097.htm#tab31 Contribution to atmospheric carbon during the 90s: Atmosphere increase = 3.2 ± 0.1 Emissons (fossil fuel, cement) = 6.3 ± 0.4 Ocean-atmosphere flux = -1.7 ± 0.5 Land atmsphere flux= -1.4±0.7 If you regard a 5.9 contribution as small, how small is the oceans contribution of minus 1.7 and the land's contribution of minus 1.4 compared to man's contribution of 6.3? And carbon is only increasing by 3.2 tons in the atmosphere, that's less than the amount of carbon we are putting into the atmosphere each year (which is why it is known that half is being absorbed and that nature is a net sink, not a net emitter)

You are stating a fact, a fact which I do not disagree with. But you are interpreting that fact to mean something it doesn't. Nature emits far more co2 than man does. But nature absorbs as much co2 as it emits. So the factor causing co2 levels to rise year on year in the atmosphere is not nature at all.

I wasn't answering your question. I was responding to your argument saying that man's small contribution to co2 emissions reduces mankind's role to the observed warming to a small amount: Man's role to observed warming is not dependant on contribution to co2 emissions. It's dependant on contribution to accumulation of co2 in the atmosphere. The oceans have a negliable contribution compared to man because rule of thumb for every ton of co2 the oceans emit, they also remove a ton. The diagram tells you how much carbon is being moved in and out of the atmosphere per year. Obviously if the oceans put 70.6 into the atmosphere but take 70 out then their overall contribution is only 0.6 In constrast if fossil fuel burning and cement production puts 5.9 into the atmosphere but takes 0 out. Then man's overall contribution from fossil fuel burning and cement production is 5.9 5.9 (man) is a lot bigger than 0.6 (oceans) But not the biggest contributor to the ongoing atmospheric co2 rise. That is due to man. my emphasis Now compare that with this: 55.5 is a lot bigger than 5.9 Tthe 57 GtC per year they are talking about here is carbon absorbed from the atmosphere, not carbon emitted into the atmosphere. Again you have to work out contribution, not just emissions to get the relevant data for explaining the recent and ongoing co2 rise in the atmosphere. The 55.5 you talk about goes from plants and soil into the atmosphere, and the 57 they talk about goes from the atmosphere into plants and soil. So overall plants and soil are contributing nothing to the recent co2 rise. They are in fact actually taking 1.5 out of the atmosphere per year. 5.9 (man) is a lot bigger than -1.5 (plants)

But clearly not enough. Recently however the northwest passage has become easier to sail through in summer months due to lower ice cover caused by melt. With continuing melt it might even become usable as a commercial shipping lane. Sure, but that doesn't equal saying the polar ice caps are not melting. The arctic ice cap definitely is. Greenland looks likely to be losing more ice than it's gaining per year too, although not a significant amount. Antarctica looks more balanced and the sign isn't even well known. The melting of arctic polar ice is a long term trend which makes most sense in light of the long term warming trend seen there. What you are describing above seems to be an explaination for why a given year or two might be warmer or cooler in the arctic that usual, rather than an explaination for a long term trend.

But there is a problem in the global warming utopia. The caps are not melting away. http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H The arctic cap certainly is Not really. There is nothing historically unusual happening. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...secret/#more-95 Greenland does not represent the entire arctic ice cap. Arctic sea ice is melting, fast enough to be obvious: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...ce_decline.html Recent satellite analysis from Greenland indicated it was losing ice overall too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6069506.stm So overall the arctic ice cap is definitely melting. Whether or not there is anything historically unusual happening

The running 5 year temperature average has increased almost 0.1C since 1998: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

But there is a problem in the global warming utopia. The caps are not melting away. http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H The arctic cap certainly is

You initially said this: The last sentence would only be true if man's contribution to rising co2 levels was less than nature's contribution. But man's contribution is actually near 100% for rising co2 levels. The contribution to co2 accumulation in the atmosphere is based on amount emitted minus amount absorbed, ie the net flux. Not just emissions alone. The diagram you posted in your first link demonstrates this: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/gcc.html You can see that man is overall adding over 5 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere per year (that's out of date - it's now around 7 billion tons). The diagram shows the ocean emits 70.6 billion tons. If you only use that figure then it looks like man has an insignficant contribution compared to the ocean - 7 vs 70.6. But you have to factor in the other figure in the graph which gives the amount of carbon the ocean absorbs from the atmosphere per year - about 70 billion tons. So overall according to that diagram the ocean adds 70.6 - 70 = 0.7 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere per year. So according to the diagram the ocean contributes 0.7billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere per year, while man contributes about 5 billion tons. The diagram says that plants and soil absorb more co2 than they emit. So they are a net sink of carbon rather than a source and therefore cannot be positively contributing to rising co2 levels in the atmosphere at all. Overall if you add up the natural sources and sinks in that diagram then you see that nature is a net absorber of co2, not a net emitter. The digram demonstrates that man, and not nature, is the cause of co2 levels rising in the atmosphere.

About 27 billion tons. Nature aborbs about 15 billion tons. So mankind release by percentage of the total net CO2 additions to the atmosphere yearly, about 100%

I would love to see what kind of stuff you consider outlandish