sunsettommy

This type of exchanges is how we learn more. Did you catch the post about the IPCC's remarks about the near absence of the predicted hot spots?

The graph was from the Hadley centre. Go argue with them. I knew a long time ago that year 1998 was a hotter than usual year.It was also the biggest CO2 spike as well.Every year since has been cooler than 1998.Over all NO warming since 1998. The Satellite data shows no warming since 2003. I have not been able to find the press release.I will go ask a scientist who knows about it. Back to post this: HadCRUT3: Global surface temperatures HadCRUT3 is a globally gridded product of near-surface temperatures, consisting of annual differences from 1961-90 normals. It covers the period 1850 to present and is updated monthly. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle...a/HadCRUT3.html The chart clearly shows no warming since 1998.

You missed this part from the Monkton paper.

Good try. This time it is wrong because he is replying to Bob Carter who was wrong too. I had gone over this a while ago with B.Max. LOL Here from the IPCC's favorite climate data center.Hadley Centre. The image refuses to work here. They say there is no warming since 1998. They even made a press release admitting to it.

Stevoh: I agree that disparaging a persons background does not disprove that persons claims in an ESSAY. It was NEVER peer reviewed! Yet several people who found errors in her conclusions were not allowed to publish a counter reply.I think that is wrong. Meanwhile Monkton is correct that she was wrong in SOME of her conclusions.Despite the unwarranted swipe at her lack of a climate degree. It is a science based paper.Most of the data and the charts are from a science report.He made his own interpretation on it. Try taking AndrewL's example instead.Your whining get tiresome after a while. LOL

Golly a good rebuttal FINALLY show up. You did better than a few scientists of other forums who would not even do that. That was all I wanted was a counter to the Viscounts paper. It appears that he did not take note of the corrections. I am going to copy your reply and show up those nasty people at another forum and show that a layman can make a good post to counter the Viscount. Thanks.

It has been open for some time now in the summer time of the year. At this time there is no actual global warming going on.Has not been since 1998. Most skeptics accept that it has been warming since the 1850's.

But he did write it. Somehow YOU can not post a rebuttal. Where is YOUR scientific expertise? LOL I have posted this on 4 other forums and except for one person.There has been NO one else posting a rebuttal. That person does not address the central point either. Lets face it you guys can not offer a good rebuttal because most of the paper is based on PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE.Monkton refers to the IPCC and the CCSP 2006 report for most of the information. Pay attention next time and try posting a rebuttal and leave out your dumb smears.

Translation: I have no comments on the CONTENT of the posted paper written by Viscount Monkton. Instead post the usual smear against the writer. So typical of the AGW believer. WHAT ABOUT A REBUTTAL! Is that so hard for you to do?

Meanwhile still no meaningful rebuttal has been posted. I have posted this Monkton paper in 5 forums and so far NO rebuttals have been posted. I have seen smears and personal attacks against the Viscount,against the website the paper originated from. The AGW crowd simply have trouble being nice and just respond to the CONTENT of the paper. This is the second time I have done this and the second time I see are smears and namecalling against the author of the paper.No rebuttals in the meantime. The other paper was: The Aquittal OF CO2 . I have posted this a while ago in 4 forums.Including here.

This is nonsense because they are based on FUTURE projections.Those long range climate models have 50 to 100 year projections in them.Will we live long enough to find out? Not scientifically verifiable.Therefore worthless. Why do people get so excited over them?

Science and Public Policy Institute Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming? Written by Christopher Monkton, 3rd Viscount Monkton of Brenchley Wednesday, 22 August 2007 EXCERPT: The fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse warming predicted by computer models is absent from real-world, observed trends in atmospheric temperature change..." THE FACT of warming tells us nothing of the cause. Yet the scientific “consensus” is that, though the rapid climatic warming from 1906 to 1940 was a natural recovery from the historically low temperatures of the Little Ice Age, it is we who are chiefly to blame for the equally rapid warming from 1975 to the present. Since some climatologists challenge this consensus, can we settle the debate by predicting with models and then detecting by observation a characteristic “signature” in the climate data that allows us definitively to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural warming of the Earth’s atmosphere? This paper answers that key question. To identify the distinctive signature of anthropogenic warming caused by greenhouse-gas emissions, we begin with a little elementary atmospheric physics. The surface of the Earth does not cool primarily by thermal radiation. The main greenhouse gas, water vapor, generally maximizes at the surface in the tropics and sharply decreases with both altitude and latitude. There is so much greenhouse opacity immediately above the ground that the surface cannot effectively cool by the emission of thermal radiation. Instead, heat is carried away from the surface by fluid motions ranging from the cumulonimbus towers of the tropics to the weather and planetary scale waves of the extratropics. These motions carry the heat upward and poleward to the “characteristic emission level” one optical depth into the atmosphere, known as τ=1. From here emitted thermal radiation can escape to space. Crudely speaking, the emitted thermal radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature at the characteristic emission level. In the diagram, lighter shading represents reduced opacity as water-vapor density diminishes with altitude. Largely because of the motions of the atmosphere, the temperature decreases with altitude to a level known as the tropopause. The height of the tropopause varies with latitude. In the tropics it is about 16 km, dropping to about 12 km near 30 degrees latitude, and 8 km near the poles. Beneath the tropopause, we have the troposphere. LOT MORE HERE

LOL, It ZOOOOOMED right over your head. I saw it right away.

Walmart is giving them our jobs? In CHINA............ LOL Does that mean you applied for a position in a Walmart store in China? It is clear you hate people who have the gall work in a Walmart store. You are of course welcome to pay attention to the origination of products you consider buying and boycott them accordingly.

The AUDIT is about the, MICROCLIMATE around the Surface weather reporting stations. Where the reporting stations are being installed. How they are maintained. The documentation quality on the maintenance of the stations.When they were moved or where they were moved to. How well the NOAA standards are being adhered to: Proper Siting http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/coop/standard.htm By now it should be obvious that UHI is not the issue.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/ Shoggoth, Why not start reading this blog about How not to measure temperature It is now up to part 22. It is from Anthony Watts. You will quickly see how dishonest Realclimate is.

The start of the the RealClimate article includes this: The new focus of attention is the placement of the temperature sensors and other potential 'micro-site' effects that might influence the readings. This is slightly different from the more often discussed 'Urban Heat Island' effect which is a function of the wider area (and so could be present even in a perfectly set up urban station) So perhaps you didn't read the link? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You still missed it! Realclimate are the ones clouding the issue by bringing in UHI into the discussion.It is a dishonest inclusion they are trying create into something that was not the issue. Anthony Watts and people like me are interested in the SURFACE weather reporting stations themselves and how they are designed and maintained.How they do their paperwork when the stations are moved or modified.And so on. It is amazing that you fail to see how Climate Science is exposing Realclimates ignorance and obtuseness on the issue. The Surface weather reporting stations are being AUDITED.You get it yet? Did you bother to look at Watts website telling us what the audit is about? It is an AUDIT! So please drop this city UHI misdirection gambit that Realclimate is trying to force in.It only makes you look foolish. One more time and hopefully you see how dishonest realclimate is.This time I will bold it for you. 1. Real Climate: “Mistaken Assumption No. 1: Mainstream science doesn’t believe there are urban heat islands….” Climate Science Response: The issue of poor siting is not an urban heat island issue, but is a question of the very local environment around each site regardless of whether the site is urban or rural. Real Climate’s bias is clearly shown in that they cite the Parker (2005,2006) papers, yet ignore the peer reviewed papers which rebut the Parker conclusions; Pielke Sr., R.A., and T. Matsui, 2005: Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same? Geophys. Res. Letts., 32, No. 21, L21813, 10.1029/2005GL024407. and Walters, J. T., R. T. McNider, X. Shi, W. B Norris, and J. R. Christy (2007): Positive surface temperature feedback in the stable nocturnal boundary layer, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L12709, doi:10.1029/2007GL029505 http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/07/02/...of-july-2-2007/ It was right there under your nose. I read through a number of comments on Realclimate and they never answered Doug Hughes questions.It was revealing because it made them look like dummies. LOL

No. It's because there's been a cycle between Ice Ages and Interglacial periods. Those cycles are not man made. The little ice age has nothing to do with interglacial and glacial periods, it was a period of cooler temperatures a few hundred years back, it wasn't an actual ice age Sure it does. It came in the interglacial time. lol

July 2, 2007 Climate Science Responds to Real Climate’s Web Posting Of July 2 2007 EXCERPT: Real Climate (specifically Gavin Schmidt) has chosen to respond to the approach to better document and assess multi-decadal land near-surface temperature trends by a set of argumentative statements (see the posting “No man is an (Urban Heat) Island”). Unfortunately, rather than engaging in a scientific discussion of the issues that are raised by the documentation of poor station siting by http://www.surfacestations.org, he has elected to communicate a defensive polemic on the subject on Real Climate. Here are his highlighted points, and the Climate Science response: 1. Real Climate: “Mistaken Assumption No. 1: Mainstream science doesn’t believe there are urban heat islands….” Climate Science Response: The issue of poor siting is not an urban heat island issue, but is a question of the very local environment around each site regardless of whether the site is urban or rural. Real Climate’s bias is clearly shown in that they cite the Parker (2005,2006) papers, yet ignore the peer reviewed papers which rebut the Parker conclusions; Pielke Sr., R.A., and T. Matsui, 2005: Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same? Geophys. Res. Letts., 32, No. 21, L21813, 10.1029/2005GL024407. and Walters, J. T., R. T. McNider, X. Shi, W. B Norris, and J. R. Christy (2007): Positive surface temperature feedback in the stable nocturnal boundary layer, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L12709, doi:10.1029/2007GL029505 http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/07/02/...of-july-2-2007/ LOL

This issue is addressed here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...an-heat-island/ As for satellite data, there have been many periods of 4 years in which temperature hasn't risen in the satellite record. Natural variation is enough that the rise isn't year on year, and you can get multiple years in which temperature doesn't appear to increase, followed by a few years of large increase. It's not a smooth line. Besides the satellite data does show warming in the last 3 decades, so do ocean surface measurements and boreholes. LOL, You completely misunderstood the purpose of the AUDIT.So has Realclimate. Gawd did you bother to read through the link? The Surface weather reporting stations THEMSELVES are the focus of the Audit.NOT the Urban Island Effect of a city or region that is different from the microclimate around the stations themselves. LOL

Gore has also ducked Christopher Monkton and Stephen Milloy in debates. I forget one other person he has ducked. For a would be planetary savior that is funny. Not that convinced and informed to do it. He is in it for the money.

Prove me wrong then. If YOU first post a number of examples to back your claims. Otherwise what you have posted are opinions. I merely stated that I thought you were overstating them. The ball is back in your court.

Who says the planet is not warming? Why are you playing this merry go round with me? Remember this post? That was from post # 47. You reply was ,............................................. well nothing really.You just ignored it and went on. I am fast developing a negative opinion of you. Actually, the world stopped warming in 1998 and has been getting cooler ever since. Another little tidbit your econazi zealots won't tell you. Actually by the Satellite data it was year 2003 that the warming stopped. Since 1998 the warming trend slowed to a crawl. I help run a Global Warming Skeptic forum.So I know all about SURFACE weather reporting stations warming bias right at the measuring devices locations.This is before the UIE is factored in.By assumptions of course since they do not really know what level of warming bias is since they did not account for the built in warming bias right at the sensors themselves. I simply hate dishonest postings that Xman has been posting in this thread.

That Bush lies to everyone when it is convenient for him? That Bush lies to everyone to cover the lies he made the day before? Bush will often say one thing one week, then the reverse of it the next, then reverse it back the week after. If any of you cannot see or hear that, then you really need to listen, not just hear. Pay attention, all in all the President is still a POLITICIAN and will act like one whenever it suits him. The President is not god, and neither is Cheney (ohh the lies he spews is just as bad) And it is a communication problem, because he always changes his story. If I did that at my job, I'd be fired and walked out the door instantly. But it seems ok when the President does it, over and over again. Write down the talking points he made today, then write them down tomorrow, and keep going for a week or two. I think you are overstating your claims here.

With how many women? giggle..... giggle..