Global Warming backdown

[TimG]

all I ever initially emphasized was the associations of your two quoted/linked sources to well known skeptic/denier associations.

Useless semantics. You are making the claim that anyone with an association with groups that express opinions you do not like must be ignored because you do not like those groups. It is a pathetic ad hom argument. I only pointed out the ideological biases of your source to expose your hypocrisy on this point. The reality is the overwhelming majority of sources (including scientists) form an opinion on the policy based on the ideological convictions and then seek out evidence that supports their preferred policies. There are no unbiased observers in this debate.

As I said, I certainly have no problem holding up Tufts University's GDAE to your two widely labeled skeptic/denier sources.

Again. You claim, without any evidence, that being a 'skeptic/denier source' automatically means the source can be ignored. It is a nonsense ad hom that you use an excuse to ignore arguments you do not like.

the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and the Cato Institute... particularly in regards this overall discussions emphasis on climate change, notwithstanding the Cato Institute's past associations with 'Big Tobacco'.

Again, so what? You throw around "big tobacco" as an ad hom when I doubt you have any knowledge of what the Cato institute said and the state of knowledge at the time it was said. What's more, even if they were wrong on of the tobacco issue that has no bearing on what they might say today on climate. More importantly, it has absolutely no relevance when discussing Tol's opinions on economics.

I tire of this silly debate about 'associations'. Every source has 'associations' that suggest a bias one way or another because every source IS biased. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that only your preferred sources are unbiased.

Edited July 4, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

I'm wrong, with this, your latest reply, you appear to accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal cause of that warming

I do not exclude it as a possibility but I do not feel we have the data that allows anyone to make the claim that 'CO2 is the principal cause' of recent warming with any confidence. It is a hypothesis. Nothing more.

I actually was disappointed when you turned tail after your set-back in our initial discussion concerning the IPCC and sea-level rise.

Life outside of the cyberspace goes on and usually demands attention.

Last I checked you were forced to concede that the IPCC AR4 did not knowingly underestimate the SLR but that there was no consensus on how recent ice sheet data should be interpreted (i.e. some felt that the recent melt was transiant and would not continue - others felt it would accelerate). Studies published since AR4 have tried to quantify the acceleration but do not have any evidence that resolves the orginal point of contention (i.e. can you extrapolate recent data into the future).

[waldo]

Useless semantics. You are making the claim that anyone with an association with groups that express opinions you do not like must be ignored because you do not like those groups. It is a pathetic ad hom argument. I only pointed out the ideological biases of your source to expose your hypocrisy on this point. The reality is the overwhelming majority of sources (including scientists) form an opinion on the policy based on the ideological convictions and then seek out evidence that supports their preferred policies. There are no unbiased observers in this debate.

no, again, you pulled the ideological card. My reservations with your sources are simply their associations with well known skeptic/denier organizations... associations that only came forward through my noting them. You were quite content to infer an independent attachment. If you have qualms over being called on your use of non-independent biased sources, perhaps you should look for more independent sources/support. Ya think?

Again. You claim, without any evidence, that being a 'skeptic/denier source' automatically means the source can be ignored. It is a nonsense ad hom that you use an excuse to ignore arguments you do not like.

no - didn't say, didn't claim, anything of the sort. Recognizing the associations of your sources, apparently, has you distressed. As for actual arguments, you simply threw out a link to an article's abstract and would presume that's sufficient to support your position/claims. Really? I appreciate the MLW bar is, typically, set pretty low, but I'll make a mental note as to the level/degree of information you presume to qualify as adequate support for your arguments.

Again, so what? You throw around "big tobacco" as an ad hom when I doubt you have any knowledge of what the Cato institute said and the state of knowledge at the time it was said. What's more, even if they were wrong on of the tobacco issue that has no bearing on what they might say today on climate. More importantly, it has absolutely no relevances when discussing Tol's opinions on economics.

oh please, yes... take up the cause for the Cato Institute's past support for Big Tobacco. You can choose to discount that past association - others will not. What the Cato Institute does say, or more pointedly, what their principal spokesperson (Patrick Michaels) says concerning climate change, is well known, well publicized... it certainly speaks for itself. When you blindly quote from a Cato Institute source, without actually citing that quote and it's author (one Jerry Taylor, senior fellow at the Cato Institute), well, in the context of climate change, expect to have your sources associations to a well known, well recognized skeptic/denier organization, highlighted. Whether you like it or not... and, apparently, you don't like it, at all. You, apparently, preferred to infer a (falsely) independent attachment. As for relevance in discussing Tol's opinions on economics, so long as that opinion relates to the "economics of climate change", pointing out Tol's association with GWPF most certainly has relevance in evaluating his position... equally, as does your non-attributed quote from the Cato institute's Taylor's review of Tol's article. You really should back-off the adhom bandwagon, and accept your sources hold a predisposition.

I tire of this silly debate about 'associations'. Every source has 'associations' that suggest a bias one way or another because every source IS biased. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that only your preferred sources are unbiased.

in a climate change discussion context, pointing our your sources associations to well known skeptic/denier organizations is certainly apropos... whether you like it or not. My offering a counter peer-response to your sourced article, equally, brought forward your willingness to attach ideological associations. Don't hesitate to also substantiate any climate change bias you feel the Tufts University's GDAE holds. Again, all I did was offer a countering peer-response to your linked article... and, per the countering response, questioned the lack of inclusiveness in Tol's grouping of studies analyzed... notwithstanding his overwhelming penchant to self-analyze his own work - highly suspect in posturing a comprehensive meta-analysis... don't you think? And you would label offering that counter peer-response as "intellectually dishonest"? Really, and what would you call your, apparent, desire to (falsely) infer independence for your sources... notwithstanding the degree of fluster/bluster you've raised over being called on it. Oh my!

[waldo]

I do not exclude it as a possibility but I do not feel we have the data that allows anyone to make the claim that 'CO2 is the principal cause' of recent warming with any confidence. It is a hypothesis. Nothing more.

so you choose to ignore the data/analysis that positions anthropogenic sourced CO2 as the principal cause - your prerogative. As I said/requested previously, don't hesitate to bring forward and substantiate your proposed principal alternatives for the warming you accept... alternative(s) other than anthropogenic sourced CO2.

Last I checked you were forced to concede that the IPCC AR4 did not knowingly underestimate the SLR but that there was no consensus on how recent ice sheet data should be interpreted (i.e. some felt that the recent melt was transiant and would not continue - others felt it would accelerate). Studies published since AR4 have tried to quantify the acceleration but do not have any evidence that resolves the orginal point of contention (i.e. can you extrapolate recent data into the future).

cute! Particularly since it was I that first acknowledged and highlighted the IPCC's AR4 report position on SLR.

When the lead authors can't realize a consensus in terms of the available science, within that particular area of the reporting process, differing views are explained.

The trouble is the various CAGW advocates oversell what the the IPCC report actually says. The case of sea level rise is perhaps the best example where there was no consensus...

yes, sea level rise is a very good example. One where IPCC projections fell conservatively short... one of the reasons being the IPCC didn't include the full effects of ice-sheet flow melting (because of unknowns). Most certainly, when ice-sheet flow melting is included, the conservative IPCC sea level rise projections are significantly increased. In regards that lack of consensus, several IPCC lead authors unsuccessfully argued for inclusion of ice-sheet flow melting.

now, last I checked, you disappeared when it was pointed out to you the area within the report that included actual shrinkage/rates for Greenland/Antarctica. As I said,

now, we can nuance the subtleties as to why "unknowns/uncertainties" precluded the lead authors from including this recognized melting, but you can't discount the stated summation (accepting to applied caveats).

[TimG]

no, again, you pulled the ideological card. My reservations with your sources are simply their associations with well known skeptic/denier organizations... associations that only came forward through my noting them.

Your entire response was (losely translated) "Tol is a associated with evil (sic) people so I am going to completely ignore what he said". You only bothered to post a reply after I called you on your vacuous ad hom response. If you really just wanted note relevant associations then you would not have noted them until after you addressed the substance of argument.

My offering a counter peer-response to your sourced article, equally, brought forward your willingness to attach ideological associations.

Again - only to point your hypocrisy when it comes to these things.

notwithstanding his overwhelming penchant to self-analyze his own work - highly suspect in posturing a comprehensive meta-analysis... don't you think?

Tol addressed that criticism:

Second, she argues that the meta-analysis of the social cost of carbon contains a disproportionate amount of my own work. This is true. For that reason, I hesitated before writing my 2005 paper in Energy Policy. However, there was a clear demand for a paper like that, and no one was interested in writing it. I did do sensitivity analyses excluding one of the three dominant authors (Hope, Nordhaus, Tol), which showed that there is no overdue influence by any author.

The problem is there are not a lot of people doing the kind of quantitive analyses that he reviewed.

You also miss the most important point: even if you take Stern's estimates we are looking at 5% of GDP for 3 degC of warming. A price that I see as a bargin compared to the economically destructive policies being proposed for mitigation.

[TimG]

so you choose to ignore the data/analysis that positions anthropogenic sourced CO2 as the principal cause

I don't ignore it. I am simply saying the analyses is not conclusive and cannot exclude the possibility that the CO2 effect is being exagerrated. The real test will be the next 10-20 years. If it warms at the rate predicted the consensus view will be validated. If warms at a rate much slower than the consensus view then the consensus view will be repudiated.

the area within the report that included actual shrinkage/rates for Greenland/Antarctica.

You keep missing the big picture. What we have is a short period of data were ice sheet shrinkage has been measured. The scientists that you prefer believe that this short period of data can be extrapolated into the future. Others feel such extrapolations cannot be justified with the data. What puzzles me is you get quite upset when sceptics extrapolate short term variation into the future but you have no problems when CAGW advocates do the same. Edited July 4, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

so you choose to ignore the data/analysis that positions anthropogenic sourced CO2 as the principal cause - your prerogative. As I said/requested previously, don't hesitate to bring forward and substantiate your proposed principal alternatives for the warming you accept... alternative(s) other than anthropogenic sourced CO2.

I don't ignore it. I am simply saying the analyses is not conclusive and cannot exclude the possibility that the CO2 effect is being exagerrated. The real test will be the next 10-20 years. If it warms at the rate predicted the consensus view will be validated. If warms at a rate much slower than the consensus view then the consensus view will be repudiated.

exaggerated? When you see fit to actually offering up and substantiating your alternative warming cause(s), don't hesitate to also support your latest exaggeration claims concerning the effect of CO2. As I said, you can choose to ignore the direct lines of empirical evidence that an enhanced greenhouse warming effect is being caused by increasing CO2 levels... whether that be, for example, satellite or surface based CO2 absorption wavelength measurements of longwave radiation. Certainly... surely... some wiseacres in skeptic/denier land should be able to show the exaggeration you speak of - hey?

now, last I checked, you disappeared when it was pointed out to you the area within the report that included actual shrinkage/rates for Greenland/Antarctica. As I said:

now, we can nuance the subtleties as to why "unknowns/uncertainties" precluded the lead authors from including this recognized melting, but you can't discount the stated summation (accepting to applied caveats).

You keep missing the big picture. What we have is a short period of data were ice sheet shrinkage has been measured. The scientists that you prefer believe that this short period of data can be extrapolated into the future. Others feel such extrapolations cannot be justified with the data. What puzzles me is you get quite upset when sceptics extrapolate short term variation into the future but you have no problems when CAGW advocates do the same.

again, per the above prior MLW post link, for example, I pointed out to you the area within the IPCC AR4 report that references Greenland shrinkage; specifically: Greenland, shrinkage of 50 to 100 Gt yr–1 for 1993 to 2003 and shrinkage at even higher rates between 2003 and 2005. Additional NASA GISS graphic - here: In any case, as compared to some of the numnut MLW usual suspects attempting to showcase their 4-to-7 year surface temperature short term (cherry-picked) trending games, a Greenland ice-sheet melt start point from 1993, relatively speaking, is a significantly longer period of time. Are there uncertainties concerning ice-sheet model projections? Yes... yes, there are; however, do you maintain this period of time, since 1993, hasn't allowed for a separation of fluctuation versus trend? Notwithstanding studies that show significant mass balance loss, particularly since the 70's, example - here:

more than likely the shorter interval period that has skeptic/deniers so perplexed reflects on the accuracy results returned from the relatively recent launched GRACE satellite... as it measures shifts in gravity fields. Yes, most certainly, skeptic/deniers have difficulty with the GRACE measurements of Greenland ice sheet mass:

by the way... your repeated use of CAGW speaks more to your parroting prowess - good luck with that.

[WIP]

I don't ignore it. I am simply saying the analyses is not conclusive and cannot exclude the possibility that the CO2 effect is being exagerrated. The real test will be the next 10-20 years. If it warms at the rate predicted the consensus view will be validated. If warms at a rate much slower than the consensus view then the consensus view will be repudiated.

Yeah, let's keep waiting....10, 20,30, 40 years...eventually it will be too late to do anything about it anyway! Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising more than 3% per year now. What CO2 effects do you consider to be exaggerated? I suppose it will make no difference when it goes above 400 ppm...500...600...even though atmospheric levels are already higher than they've been in 15 million years, and the full repercussions haven't been felt yet.

[Keepitsimple]

Yeah, let's keep waiting....10, 20,30, 40 years...eventually it will be too late to do anything about it anyway! Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising more than 3% per year now. What CO2 effects do you consider to be exaggerated? I suppose it will make no difference when it goes above 400 ppm...500...600...even though atmospheric levels are already higher than they've been in 15 million years, and the full repercussions haven't been felt yet.

No wonder you're a little worried......I think I can put your mind at ease a bit. CO2 is not rising at 3% per year....it's actually 6 times less than that - about one half of one percent per year. CO2 has been rising at about 2 parts per million for the past 10 or so years. Does this fact affect your thinking at all? I didn't think so.

Link: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

[TimG]

exaggerated? When you see fit to actually offering up and substantiating your alternative warming cause(s), don't hesitate to also support your latest exaggeration claims concerning the effect of CO2.

Try looking at the IPCC reports. They claim that CO2 sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5degC to 4.5degC but could be higher or lower. The generally accepted 'safe' level of warming is 2degC. If CO2 levels double to 800ppm and climate sensitivity is 1.5 (within the IPCC range) we would get a maximum temperature rise of 1.5-2.0 degC under the business as usual scenario. The problem is not the IPCC reports but the CAGW activists that insist on ignoring the uncertainty reported by the IPCC itself.

Greenland, shrinkage of 50 to 100 Gt yr1 for 1993 to 2003 and shrinkage at even higher rates between 2003 and 2005.

So? You prove my point. They do not have data for a climatically significant period of time (>30 years) which means extrapolating recent trends is not necessarily a valid thing to do. This debate was captured in the IPCC AR4 which made it very clear that there were 3 scientific opinions on the merits of extrapolating from the data available. It will take another 15-20 years of data from the GRACE satellite to determine if there is any real trend in the data. Claiming that we know there is a trend is premature at this point.

by the way... your repeated use of CAGW speaks more to your parroting prowess - good luck with that.

That is a bit rich coming from someone who uses the term 'denier' several times in each post. Personally, I think the term 'Catastrophic AGW advocate/activist' is a fairly neutral, non-judgemental term that accurately summarizes the position of people I disagree with. Edited July 5, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

What CO2 effects do you consider to be exaggerated? I suppose it will make no difference when it goes above 400 ppm...500...600...even though atmospheric levels are already higher than they've been in 15 million years, and the full repercussions haven't been felt yet.

Where is your evidence that the current climate is, in fact, the optimum climate for humans? After all, primates first appeared the in fossil record when the planet was much hotter and CO2 levels were around 2000ppm so there is no biological argument for claiming the current levels must be preserved at all costs. Life adapts. Polar bears and a few other over specialized species may die out but others will thrive. It all comes down to a cost benefit equation and I see no compelling reason to adopt the economically destructive and completely ineffective policies being pushed by CAGW activists given what we know of climate today.

BTW: here is alternative analysis based on the historical experience with fossil fuel reserves that suggests the IPPC has grossly exagerrated CO2 emissions in the future at that the levels will stabilize around 800ppm even if we do nothing.

Edited July 5, 2010 by TimG

[jbg]

We all know that the world has been gradually warming for centuries at the rate of about one degree per century, so it stands to reason that the hottest years would be those that are relatively recent.

of course, in terms of record warm temperatures, it's clear you're quite frustrated having these continual reinforcements of the long-term warming trends pointed out to you. Obviously, they put a real damper in your cherry-picked short-term temperature trending scam - hey, Simple?

Waldo, many seem to think we're in a long-term warming trend that started after the late 1700's. If indeed it is a natural phenomena should we play the role of King Canute with the tides.

[WIP]

No wonder you're a little worried......I think I can put your mind at ease a bit. CO2 is not rising at 3% per year....it's actually 6 times less than that - about one half of one percent per year. CO2 has been rising at about 2 parts per million for the past 10 or so years. Does this fact affect your thinking at all? I didn't think so.

Link: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Not really! That chart measures mean annual increase in CO2 rates, and one half of one percent is a Lot because the rate of increase over the last ten years is more than double what it was in the first ten years, from 1958 when the measurements began. And the most disturbing factor is that there has never been a drop in CO2 levels since 1958.

[WIP]

Where is your evidence that the current climate is, in fact, the optimum climate for humans?

CO2 levels were 280 ppm at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and never went above 300 during the previous millenia of human civilization. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

What you are asking me to do is prove a negative, and this is complete bullshit! Your side which wants to discount evidence for warming and evidence that a warming planet will have harmful consequences for us and other life on Earth -- are the ones who have the burden of proof! We know that the biosphere and ecological systems are extremely complicated. If you have evidence that climate will be more optimum for us as CO2 levels climb above 400, You have to prove that rising CO2 levels are perfectly safe!

After all, primates first appeared the in fossil record when the planet was much hotter and CO2 levels were around 2000ppm so there is no biological argument for claiming the current levels must be preserved at all costs.

You're just making up crap! Modern primates only branched off of a common ancestor 6 to 7 million years ago, and that article cited above, shows that modern, more accurate analysis of historic CO2 levels tell us that we have to go back 15 million years...long before there were primates, including us on Earth, before there was a time that CO2 levels were as high as they are now. The Earth at that time had no polar ice caps, higher sea levels, and like every other period of hot climate, it coincided with mass extinction of land and sea life that were living on Earth at the time.

Life adapts. Polar bears and a few other over specialized species may die out but others will thrive. It all comes down to a cost benefit equation and I see no compelling reason to adopt the economically destructive and completely ineffective policies being pushed by CAGW activists given what we know of climate today.

Why should they have to die out? And Bjorn Lomborg, and other con artists who have exaggerated the costs of fighting climate change compared to the costs of doing nothing, are misleading the public into the oil company-sponsored fallback position on climate change -- 'sure it's bad, but we'll find a way to adapt...just like the people and marine life in the Gulf of Mexico... but it's going to cost too much to make the switch from oil...so keep on burning that oil and go back to sleep'

BTW: here is alternative analysis based on the historical experience with fossil fuel reserves that suggests the IPPC has grossly exagerrated CO2 emissions in the future at that the levels will stabilize around 800ppm even if we do nothing.

Based on the fact that the rate of CO2 increase continues to accelerate, there is no way to have any confidence in their report. Until we see reductions in CO2 levels, it doesn't matter what the rate of increase is, we're going to get there eventually.

[Keepitsimple]

Not really! That chart measures mean annual increase in CO2 rates, and one half of one percent is a Lot because the rate of increase over the last ten years is more than double what it was in the first ten years, from 1958 when the measurements began. And the most disturbing factor is that there has never been a drop in CO2 levels since 1958.

As I said, I didn't think that would alter your thinking - you've been drinking Waldo's water. Yes, 50 years ago CO2 PPM was going up at half the rate it is today. The fact is, it's not going up by 3% every year as you so boldly stated.....it's going up by about 2 parts per million - 6 times less than what you claimed! And yet you are somehow very disturbed by that. By your calculation of 3%, we would have gone from 380 to 500PPM in 10 years while the reality is that even if we increased it to 3 PPM per year it would take 40 years to get to 500PPM! You could at least show some humility and admit that your claim was incorrect.

[TimG]

What you are asking me to do is prove a negative, and this is complete bullshit!

I asked you to show that the current climate is the optimum for humans. You admitted you can't which pretty much eviscerates your argument that CO2 increases are necessarily bad.

Your side which wants to discount evidence for warming and evidence that a warming planet will have harmful consequences for us and other life on Earth

No we don't have evidence. We have speculation, guesses and unproven hypotheses. The onus of proof rests with the people demanding massive changes to the global economy to show that the changes are necessary. It is not enough to assert that change is bad.

You're just making up crap! Modern primates only branched off of a common ancestor 6 to 7 million years ago, and that article cited above, shows that modern, more accurate analysis of historic CO2 levels tell us that we have to go back 15 million years.

See this paper. It claims that the PETM (55mya) was a trigger that allowed mammals spread across the globe.

The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[29] – which may (perhaps?) have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders – including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates – appeared and spread across the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM

This paper puts the CO2 levels in the PETM at around 5 times pre-industrial levels or ~1500ppm.

Why should they have to die out?

Why should a human starve to save them?

And Bjorn Lomborg, and other con artists who have exaggerated the costs of fighting climate change compared to the costs of doing nothing, are misleading the public into the oil company-sponsored fallback position on climate change

It is not misleading at all since NO ONE has any real idea about the costs of mitigation or adaption. It is nothing but guesswork in the face of uncertainty. How people deal with uncertainty is mostly a function of their values. It is not a question of logic/science/rationality. You are clearly a person who cannot deal with risk which would make you a rotten entrepreneur. Others are comfortable with the risk and there is nothing wrong with their opinion. The only problem is you feel you need to use the power of government to force people who do not share your aversion to risk to pay in order to make you feel better.

Based on the fact that the rate of CO2 increase continues to accelerate, there is no way to have any confidence in their report.

You did not even read it. It makes a compelling case that undiscovered fossil fuel reserves can be predicted based on past experience and based on those calculations CO2 levels cannot exceed 800ppm. Edited July 5, 2010 by TimG

[jbg]

Where is your evidence that the current climate is, in fact, the optimum climate for humans?

It may of may not be the optimum climate for humans. That being said for the first time we have largely unmovable population concentrations in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere temperate zones. If areas such as the NYC/Montreal/Toronto/Boston/Washington D.C. megalopolis, London, Paris, Berlin, Shanghai, Beijing or Tokyo in the Northern Hemisphere, or Sydney or Buenos Aires in the Southern Hemisphere become either uninhabitable or not conducive to productivity there are some serious problems.

During earlier climate shifts, the people were largely nomadic or otherwise lighter on their feet. I happen not to believe that global climate change, whether warming, cooling or a mixed bag (I happen to believe the latter) is man-made, there is no question that a massive climate shift in any direction could pose some massive practical difficulties. I asm not as sanguine as you, but I do not believe in Kyoto-type social or climate engineering.

Edited July 6, 2010 by jbg

[TimG]

If areas such as the NYC/Montreal/Toronto/Boston/Washington D.C. megalopolis, London, Paris, Berlin, Shanghai, Beijing or Tokyo in the Northern Hemisphere, or Sydney or Buenos Aires in the Southern Hemisphere become either uninhabitable or not conducive to productivity there are some serious problems.

Sure. Bigger problems would occur if the "big one" hit LA or if the yellowstone supervolcano blew its top or if the next ice age started.

The important question is such a drastic change likely to occur and if it is likely to occur is there really anything we can do about it. My feeling based on the science to date is if climate sensitivity is very high then we are screwed since it is impossible to reduce emissions significantly over the next 40 years. If climate sensitivity is low then a drastic change is very unlikely. The mitigation argument depends on a goldilocks scenario where CO2 sensitivity is high enough to cause damage but slow enough that modest reductions might actually make a difference.

[jbg]

Waldo complained that my posts of raw data were "eye-numbing". This makes the point that the heavily graphed and analyzed i.e. smoothed data from the IPCC does not match real-life station data.

I've fixed the problem that makes the data tough to read.

the discussion context was temperature trending... specifically, the tendencies of deniers to purposely cherry-pick short-term trending intervals keyed to specific start/end points... of course, this is countered by adherence to proper trending methodologies which rely on legitimate interval periods; intervals that, within a climate change context, typically extend beyond 20-25+ years.

I trust this set of temperature data, for New Brunswick, New Jersey, going back to 1893 (link), extends beyond "20-25+ years";

Monthly Mean Temperature

Station: New Brunswick (1)/New Brunswick Exp St./New Brunswick 3 SE (minor station moves and name/ID changes in 1912 and 1968)

COOP ID: 286053/286062/286055

Updated 5/2010

YEAR    JAN     FEB     MAR     APR     MAY     JUN     JUL     AUG     SEP     OCT     NOV     DEC     ANNUAL
1893 	21.4 	29.0 	37.3 	50.5 	61.4 	71.5 	75.0 	73.5 	63.9 	56.4 	42.2 	34.4a 	51.4
1894 	33.1 	29.1 	44.9 	50.3 	61.5 	70.8 	76.8 	72.1 	69.3 	56.0 	39.7 	34.9 	53.2
1895 	28.1 	24.2 	37.2 	50.1 	62.0 	73.5 	72.1 	75.5 	71.7 	51.0 	46.6 	37.3 	52.4
1896 	28.9a 	32.6 	35.9 	55.1 	67.2 	70.0 	77.3 	75.9 	67.3 	53.3 	48.9 	31.7 	53.7
1897 	29.6 	33.8 	42.2 	52.8 	62.9 	67.9 	76.2 	72.9 	67.5 	57.5 	44.8 	35.2 	53.6
1898 	33.4 	33.9 	47.1 	49.4 	60.9 	73.2 	77.8 	76.4 	70.9 	58.3 	43.0 	32.7 	54.8
1899 	30.2 	26.4 	39.8 	51.9 	63.2 	74.3 	76.0 	74.1 	66.4 	58.3 	44.6 	35.7 	53.4
1900 	32.4 	32.1 	37.0 	52.5 	62.7 	72.2 	77.9 	78.2 	71.7 	60.7 	48.1 	33.5 	54.9
1901 	32.2 	26.4 	40.3 	50.2 	60.1 	72.4 	78.7 	75.3 	68.2 	55.5 	39.4 	32.9 	52.6
1902 	28.7 	28.2 	46.0 	51.9 	61.4 	69.0 	74.1 	71.5 	65.4 	56.4 	49.2 	31.2 	52.7
1903 	30.1 	33.9 	49.4 	52.2 	65.2 	65.1 	74.3 	69.2 	66.0 	55.9 	40.6 	29.0 	52.6
1904 	22.8 	25.6 	37.9 	48.2 	65.9 	70.6 	74.2 	72.2 	66.4 	53.5 	40.9 	26.4 	50.4
1905 	27.1 	24.2 	40.9 	51.5 	63.1 	70.3 	76.8 	73.3 	67.6 	56.7 	43.2 	36.8 	52.6
1906 	37.0 	32.2 	35.2 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	73.5 	74.5 	68.9 	53.7 	42.9 	32.7 	-999c
1907 	30.7 	20.4e 	39.2d 	44.3 	54.8 	64.4 	73.0 	70.5 	67.0 	49.5 	42.3 	35.4 	49.3
1908 	31.8 	27.3 	-999g 	50.2 	61.0 	69.5 	75.9a 	71.0 	65.4 	57.0d 	42.7 	-999k 	-999b
1909 	32.4 	38.3c 	38.2 	50.2a 	59.8b 	70.2 	71.2 	69.8 	64.9 	50.2 	-999j 	-999h 	-999b
1910 	29.7b 	31.6c 	44.9d 	53.7a 	61.0 	67.2 	76.0d 	-999f 	68.3e 	-999i 	-999f 	26.1 	-999c
1911 	33.2 	30.6c 	37.4 	47.8 	65.7 	69.1c 	76.7 	72.1 	66.9a 	-999f 	-999f 	37.9e 	-999b
1912 	21.9 	27.6 	37.4 	50.6 	62.0 	68.8 	74.1 	69.5a 	66.2 	57.3 	45.1 	36.4 	51.4
1913 	39.6 	30.4 	45.1 	51.4 	59.4 	68.8 	74.4 	71.3 	63.7 	58.0 	44.3 	35.8 	53.5
1914 	28.5 	22.6a 	33.8 	46.6 	61.4 	67.0 	71.5 	72.1 	64.3 	58.8 	43.7 	30.9 	50.1
1915 	33.4 	35.8 	36.6 	55.1 	58.6a 	67.4 	72.7 	70.3 	68.2a 	56.3 	43.4 	31.4 	52.4
1916 	35.8 	28.4 	31.2 	48.3 	61.6 	64.7 	74.2 	73.5 	65.5 	55.0 	43.6 	32.2 	51.2
1917 	32.0 	28.7 	38.5 	48.4 	53.9 	69.0a 	74.0 	74.3 	61.4 	51.4 	40.3 	25.5 	49.8
1918 	20.2 	30.1a 	42.5 	50.1 	65.8 	66.9a 	73.3 	75.0 	62.8 	57.6a 	44.9 	38.0 	52.3
1919 	34.5 	34.1 	44.8 	49.9 	61.7 	70.2 	73.8a 	70.3 	66.3 	60.4 	44.5 	28.6 	53.2
1920 	24.0 	28.4 	40.7 	48.7 	57.8 	67.7 	72.1 	72.0 	67.1 	60.4 	43.7 	36.4 	51.6
1921 	34.2 	34.3 	50.0 	57.2 	59.6c 	71.5 	76.7 	70.3 	70.8 	54.7 	44.5 	32.9 	54.7
1922 	28.1 	34.0 	41.6 	51.1 	62.9 	71.1 	72.9 	71.1 	66.4 	56.9 	44.7 	33.0 	52.8
1923 	30.4 	25.9 	38.5 	50.6 	59.9 	72.9 	71.4 	70.8 	67.8a 	53.8 	43.3 	41.5 	52.2
1924 	32.6 	28.0 	38.9 	48.8 	56.6 	66.6 	72.0 	71.5 	62.3 	54.3 	42.5 	32.7 	50.6
1925 	27.2 	37.5 	43.9 	51.6 	57.9 	74.7 	72.6 	71.2 	68.2 	49.0 	42.3 	34.9c 	52.6
1926 	-999g 	29.1 	35.7 	46.7 	59.9 	64.9 	73.7 	72.9 	65.0 	53.2 	42.8 	28.3 	52.0a
1927 	29.3 	35.5 	41.9 	47.9 	58.3 	66.1 	73.3 	67.5 	66.1 	57.5a 	48.4 	35.9 	52.3
1928 	32.9 	32.2 	39.4 	48.9 	59.1 	68.0 	75.7 	75.3 	63.6 	57.3 	46.1 	37.2 	53.0
1929 	31.4 	32.1 	45.7 	51.5 	61.1 	70.7 	73.7 	70.7 	68.0 	53.5 	45.0 	33.4 	53.1
1930 	31.8 	36.2 	40.5 	48.2 	63.7 	72.0 	75.2 	71.8 	70.4 	52.6 	44.3 	33.8 	53.4
1931 	32.3 	33.8 	39.6 	50.7 	61.4 	70.4 	76.8 	74.0 	70.9 	58.4 	50.3 	39.8 	54.9
1932 	42.9 	35.6 	36.9 	49.3 	61.0 	69.6 	74.4 	74.4a 	66.7 	56.5 	42.6 	35.9 	53.8
1933 	38.8 	33.7 	38.1 	49.8 	63.5 	71.0 	74.1 	72.9 	68.3 	53.8 	40.9 	31.3 	53.0
1934 	33.6 	17.7 	36.8 	49.7 	62.8 	72.7 	76.8 	70.1 	67.5 	52.9 	47.7 	32.9 	51.8
1935 	28.5 	30.0 	43.9 	48.6 	57.8 	68.8 	76.0 	73.0 	63.5 	55.2 	48.4 	28.5 	51.9
1936 	26.9 	23.9 	45.5 	48.3 	64.0 	69.4 	75.3 	74.5 	67.2 	55.9 	41.5 	37.4 	52.5
1937 	39.4 	34.6 	35.9 	49.2 	63.0 	71.0 	74.9 	75.5 	63.9 	54.0 	44.0 	32.9 	53.2
1938 	31.0 	35.3 	42.7 	53.2 	59.0 	68.2 	74.1 	75.2 	63.8 	56.3 	45.5 	34.6 	53.2
1939 	30.2 	37.0 	39.7 	48.0 	63.0 	71.2 	73.4 	75.6 	66.7 	55.3 	42.1 	35.5 	53.2
1940 	22.2 	31.9 	33.5a 	45.0 	59.5 	68.4 	74.3 	69.7 	64.0 	51.7 	44.0 	36.8 	50.1
1941 	29.4 	29.8 	34.4 	56.1 	63.0 	70.0 	74.3 	71.5 	68.4 	59.7 	47.2 	37.5 	53.4
1942 	29.1 	29.7 	42.0 	53.1 	65.0 	69.8 	75.3 	71.6 	66.0 	56.3 	44.9 	30.3 	52.8
1943 	30.7 	33.9 	40.6 	46.7 	62.8 	75.2 	74.5 	74.2 	65.7 	54.4 	43.5 	31.8 	52.8
1944 	33.3 	33.1 	37.9 	48.7 	66.0 	71.4 	76.5 	75.4 	67.9 	54.8 	44.3 	31.0 	53.4
1945 	25.2 	32.7 	50.4 	55.1 	59.6 	69.9 	73.6 	71.7 	69.3 	54.1 	47.2 	28.9 	53.1
1946 	33.2 	32.5 	48.5 	50.6 	61.0 	68.8 	73.7 	69.9 	68.2 	59.0 	48.9 	36.9 	54.3
1947 	37.4 	28.9 	37.3 	51.4 	60.8 	67.8 	73.5 	74.5 	67.4 	60.0 	41.5 	32.1 	52.7
1948 	24.4 	30.0 	43.2 	51.0 	60.6 	69.2 	74.5a 	73.4 	66.9 	53.8 	50.6 	35.4 	52.7
1949 	38.5 	38.5 	42.8 	52.3 	61.9 	72.7 	78.0 	74.5 	64.3 	60.5 	44.2 	37.5 	55.5
1950 	40.9 	31.6 	36.4 	47.8 	58.3 	69.1 	73.8 	71.6 	63.3 	58.1 	47.8 	32.4 	52.6
1951 	35.1 	35.5 	42.4 	52.0 	62.0 	69.2 	74.0 	72.2 	66.1 	57.1 	41.5 	37.0 	53.7
1952 	35.4 	35.5c 	39.0 	54.0 	59.5 	72.1 	77.5 	72.9 	66.9 	52.9 	45.5 	37.2 	54.0
1953 	36.0 	38.0 	42.7 	51.0 	62.7 	70.5 	74.2 	72.1 	67.4 	56.2 	45.3 	38.1 	54.5
1954 	30.1a 	39.6 	42.0 	53.7 	59.4 	70.3 	74.6 	72.2 	66.2 	59.2 	43.2 	34.2 	53.7
1955 	29.5 	33.3 	41.5 	54.1 	64.5 	67.7 	79.7 	76.5 	65.5 	58.7 	43.5 	29.3 	53.6
1956 	31.8 	36.7 	37.6 	48.1 	59.2 	70.7 	72.1 	72.8 	63.8 	56.4 	46.0a 	40.1 	52.9
1957 	27.7 	36.3 	40.8 	53.2 	62.4 	73.2 	75.5 	71.5 	68.2 	54.3 	47.7 	38.9 	54.1
1958 	30.7 	27.5 	39.5 	52.8 	59.0 	66.4 	75.7 	73.0 	65.9 	54.5 	46.6 	28.2a 	51.7
1959 	31.2 	32.1 	40.1 	53.3 	64.9 	70.6 	74.7 	75.1 	69.1 	58.6 	44.9 	36.0 	54.2
1960 	33.0 	35.7 	32.9 	55.2 	61.0 	70.5 	72.9 	74.0 	66.7 	55.2 	47.2 	28.0 	52.7
1961 	25.1 	34.8 	41.7 	47.4 	58.5 	70.4 	74.8 	73.0 	71.4 	57.7 	46.7 	32.7 	52.9
1962 	30.7 	29.9 	39.8 	51.7 	62.4 	70.6 	72.6 	71.8 	63.0 	56.2 	42.3 	30.3 	51.8
1963 	29.1 	27.4 	42.6 	51.9 	60.3 	70.7 	75.1 	72.2 	63.4 	60.2 	49.7 	29.0 	52.6
1964 	33.3 	31.6 	43.5 	49.5 	64.0 	70.2 	75.2 	71.4 	67.9 	54.0 	48.3 	35.9 	53.7
1965 	28.1 	33.4 	38.5 	49.1 	66.0 	70.0 	73.9 	73.4 	68.9 	54.3 	44.7 	37.4 	53.1
1966 	30.1 	32.7 	42.3 	47.6 	58.8 	71.7 	76.9 	74.4 	64.8 	55.0 	48.0 	35.7 	53.2
1967 	36.3 	30.5 	38.8 	50.8 	55.5a 	71.7 	74.2 	72.5 	65.4 	55.8 	41.4 	37.6 	52.5
1968 	27.5 	30.0 	44.1 	54.7 	59.4 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	67.5 	57.0 	44.4 	31.4  	-999c
1969 	28.5 	30.9 	37.6 	53.5 	61.5 	70.1 	72.7 	74.0 	65.6 	54.3 	43.8 	31.7 	52.0
1970 	22.6 	31.7 	36.4 	49.6 	61.2 	68.5 	74.8 	74.6 	68.0 	56.5 	46.2 	33.4 	52.0
1971 	25.6 	32.2 	38.7 	48.5 	57.7 	70.6 	73.5 	72.1 	68.3 	59.8 	43.5 	38.6 	52.4
1972 	32.8 	28.4 	38.3 	47.5 	60.8 	66.0 	75.5 	72.3 	67.0 	50.5 	42.8 	37.3 	51.6
1973 	33.8 	30.8 	44.8 	51.7 	57.7 	72.1 	75.0 	74.6 	66.5 	56.3 	46.0 	37.2 	53.9
1974 	33.2 	29.8 	40.9 	52.9 	59.7 	67.1 	74.3 	74.1 	65.1 	50.9 	45.7 	37.3 	52.6
1975 	35.0 	34.0 	38.2 	46.1 	63.7 	69.6 	74.2 	73.4 	62.5 	58.0 	50.1 	35.1 	53.3
1976 	26.0 	36.9 	43.5 	53.2 	59.6 	71.5 	72.1 	72.1 	64.6 	50.8 	39.5 	28.3 	51.5
1977 	19.5 	31.3 	45.4 	52.9 	62.8 	67.7 	75.0 	73.1 	66.6 	52.9 	46.1 	32.2 	52.1
1978 	26.8 	23.6 	36.8 	49.3 	58.4 	69.3 	72.7 	74.3 	63.4 	53.2 	45.8 	35.6 	50.8
1979 	30.8 	21.2 	43.8 	49.6 	62.0 	66.7 	73.2 	73.0 	65.7 	53.5 	48.6 	36.4a 	52.0
1980 	30.8 	28.5 	38.0 	51.8 	62.2 	67.6 	76.7 	76.5 	69.0 	52.9 	41.3 	29.3 	52.0
1981 	22.7 	36.0 	38.3 	53.5 	61.4 	70.7 	76.2 	71.7 	64.8 	50.4 	44.0 	32.8 	51.9
1982 	22.0 	32.9 	39.0 	48.0 	61.9 	65.9 	74.2 	70.0 	65.4 	54.2 	47.1 	39.6 	51.7
1983 	31.4 	32.8 	42.6 	49.4 	59.0 	69.9 	76.4 	75.3 	67.7 	54.9 	45.5 	32.2 	53.1
1984 	25.5 	37.4 	34.1 	48.8 	59.8 	71.8 	72.7 	73.7 	62.8 	58.6 	44.3 	40.3 	52.5
1985 	25.9 	33.0 	43.1 	52.3 	63.1 	67.0 	73.6 	72.6 	66.8 	56.0 	48.0 	31.4 	52.7
1986 	31.1 	29.4 	42.0 	51.2 	63.5 	69.9 	74.7a 	70.6 	64.2 	55.5 	42.3 	36.1 	52.5
1987 	29.2 	29.8 	43.4 	50.9 	60.4 	71.2 	76.1 	71.6 	65.8 	50.5 	45.7 	37.0 	52.6
1988 	24.0 	32.3 	41.5 	48.2 	59.6 	68.9 	76.8 	76.2 	64.6 	51.1 	46.3 	33.0 	51.9
1989 	33.5 	31.8 	39.4 	48.4 	59.1 	71.1 	73.0 	71.9 	66.2 	54.9 	42.8 	22.6 	51.2
1990 	37.5 	36.4 	42.2 	49.7 	57.9 	69.3 	74.2 	73.2 	63.8 	58.7 	46.9 	39.6 	54.1
1991 	30.8 	36.7 	42.6 	52.3 	65.4 	71.1 	74.8 	74.2 	64.7 	55.2 	44.7 	37.5 	54.1
1992 	32.4 	34.1 	37.5 	47.5 	58.0 	66.6 	72.1 	69.3 	64.9 	49.9 	43.9 	34.5 	50.9
1993 	34.9 	27.9 	35.8 	50.4 	61.5 	69.3 	76.7 	73.6 	65.1 	51.9 	43.3 	34.2 	52.1
1994 	22.8 	27.2 	37.8 	52.7 	58.6 	72.7 	77.5 	70.7 	65.1 	52.5 	48.5 	38.9 	52.1
1995 	35.3 	27.4 	43.2 	49.0 	58.9 	70.0 	76.2 	75.0 	65.6 	57.7 	40.2 	29.4 	52.3
1996 	28.1 	31.3 	35.7 	50.8 	58.2 	70.3 	71.7 	72.6 	66.6 	54.5 	40.9 	39.2 	51.6
1997 	-999z 	38.0 	40.8 	48.6 	57.5 	68.0 	74.1 	71.3 	64.5 	54.2 	42.0 	36.2 	54.1a
1998 	39.0 	38.8 	43.2 	52.2 	63.0 	68.6 	75.1 	74.5 	68.2 	55.3 	44.5 	40.3 	55.2
1999 	32.2 	35.2 	40.1 	51.2 	60.2 	71.4 	79.7 	75.0 	67.4 	52.4 	48.4 	37.5 	54.2
2000 	29.6 	34.9 	45.6 	50.0 	61.9 	70.6 	71.3 	71.4 	65.1 	54.8 	43.6 	29.7 	52.4
2001 	29.5a 	34.8 	38.0 	51.1a 	61.7 	70.9 	71.4 	75.9 	65.5 	55.7a 	48.9 	41.5 	53.7
2002 	37.2 	38.3 	42.8 	54.5 	58.9 	70.7 	76.8 	75.9 	68.0 	53.9 	42.9 	33.3 	54.4
2003 	26.5 	27.3 	41.3 	47.8 	57.1 	67.5 	75.3 	76.1 	67.2 	52.3 	47.9 	35.7 	51.8
2004 	24.3 	32.2 	42.1 	51.5 	65.5 	69.5 	73.4 	73.3 	68.1 	53.4 	46.5 	35.1 	52.9
2005 	29.3 	33.9 	37.2 	52.9 	57.2 	73.3 	76.7 	77.7 	71.2 	56.4 	48.9 	33.5 	54.0
2006 	38.6	33.8	41.8	54.2	61.9	71.0	77.4	74.9	65.0	53.6	49.3	42.4	55.3
2007	36.2	26.4	40.8	48.0	63.3	70.9	73.3	73.7	68.1	62.4	43.6	35.5	53.5
2008	34.5	34.6	41.1	52.7	57.8	73.3	77.4	71.9	68.0	53.5	44.0	36.3	53.8
2009	26.7	34.3	40.4	51.7	61.4	68.1	72.6	75.8	65.8	53.2	49.9	34.9	52.9
2010	31.5P	31.3P	46.0P	55.5P	

        JAN     FEB     MAR     APR     MAY     JUN     JUL     AUG     SEP     OCT     NOV     DEC     ANNUAL
Mean* 	29.9 	32.2	40.4 	50.6 	60.5 	69.6 	74.7 	73.5 	66.1 	54.4 	45.2 	35.1	52.7
Median*	30.2 	32.3	40.8	50.9 	60.4 	79.9 	74.7 	73.6 	65.7	54.2 	45.1	35.6 	52.5
* For 1968-2009

Note: Preliminary values not used to calculate monthly means and medians

Data Flags:

-999 = Missing Data.

a = 1, b = 2, c = 3, ..., or z = 26 or more missing days in a month or missing months in a year.

P = Preliminary Data.

Or this set of snowfall data, with some gaps, also going back to 1892-3 (link):

Monthly Snowfall

Station: New Brunswick (1)/New Brunswick Exp St./New Brunswick 3 SE (minor station moves and name/ID changes in 1912 and 1968)

COOP ID: 286053/286062/286055

Updated 5/2010

SNOW SEASON     JUL     AUG     SEP     OCT     NOV     DEC  	JAN     FEB     MAR     APR     MAY     JUN     SEASON
1892-1893 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	17.5 	13.5 	5.0 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	36.0i
1893-1894 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	4.0 	6.2 	14.9 	0.0 	3.0 	-999z 	-999z 	28.1g
1894-1895 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	0.0 	3.0 	7.1 	10.9 	3.7 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	24.7g
1895-1896 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	0.8 	2.5 	-999z 	-999z 	0.0 	-999z 	-999z 	3.3i
1896-1897 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	6.7 	12.5 	-999t 	6.2 	1.0 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	26.4h
1897-1898 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	1.5 	3.1 	10.4 	2.5 	2.1 	4.0 	-999z 	-999z 	23.6f
1898-1899 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	16.0 	0.5 	6.1 	28.8 	5.0 	0.0 	-999z 	-999z 	56.4f
1899-1900 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	0.0 	0.4 	1.0 	12.2 	11.3 	0.0 	-999z 	-999z 	24.9f
1900-1901 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	0.0 	0.7 	3.3 	4.9 	0.0 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	8.9g
1901-1902 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	0.5 	1.0 	10.7 	15.5 	6.7 	0.0 	-999z 	-999z 	34.4f
1902-1903 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	0.0 	0.0 	9.3 	7.6 	9.5 	0.0 	0.0 	-999z 	-999z 	26.4e
1903-1904 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	0.0 	0.0 	7.8 	15.5 	5.9 	7.0 	0.2 	-999z 	-999z 	36.4e
1904-1905 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	0.8 	19.9 	15.3 	10.0 	4.7 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	50.7d
1905-1906 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	3.3 	4.0 	-999v 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	7.3d
1906-1907 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	0.0 	2.0 	3.0 	13.0 	22.0 	17.0 	7.0 	-999z 	0.0 	64.0d
1907-1908 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	1.0 	10.0 	11.1 	15.5 	5.0 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	42.6g
1908-1909 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	2.0 	9.0 	-999y 	3.0 	4.0 	0.0 	-999z 	-999z 	18.0g
1909-1910 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	14.0 	-999z 	-999z 	1.0 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	15.0j
1910-1911 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	1.5 	10.0 	7.0 	17.0 	8.4 	4.0 	-999z 	-999z 	47.9f
1911-1912 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	-999z 	1.0 	12.5 	14.1 	2.5 	4.8 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	34.9d
1912-1913 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.0 	12.0 	1.0 	1.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	15.5
1913-1914 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.7 	1.2 	18.9a 	13.6 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	34.4
1914-1915 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	2.7 	1.9 	2.7 	7.0 	10.5a 	0.0 	0.0 	24.8
1915-1916 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	10.7 	0.0a 	11.3 	15.5 	8.0 	0.0 	0.0 	45.5
1916-1917 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	14.0 	7.5 	10.5 	11.0 	7.3 	0.0 	0.0 	50.3
1917-1918 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0a 	0.5 	13.4 	16.7 	2.3a 	0.8 	2.5 	0.0 	0.0 	36.2
1918-1919 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.0 	0.8a 	1.8b 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	3.6
1919-1920 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	4.9a 	8.3 	16.7a 	5.2 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	35.1
1920-1921 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0a 	9.4 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0c 	0.0 	9.4
1921-1922 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	4.5 	6.6 	4.0 	0.0a 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	15.1
1922-1923 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	2.0f 	7.8 	9.3 	4.4 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	23.5
1923-1924 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.0 	0.0 	9.4 	1.5 	6.2a 	0.0 	0.0 	18.1
1924-1925 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	2.5 	0.2 	20.2 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	22.9
1925-1926 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.3 	1.0 	1.1c 	1.8g 	23.7 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	28.9
1926-1927 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	7.3 	10.0 	1.6 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	18.9
1927-1928 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.2 	3.0 	2.2 	7.8 	3.3 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	16.5
1928-1929 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.9 	0.5 	8.2 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	9.6
1929-1930 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	3.8 	2.3 	2.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	8.1
1930-1931 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	4.5 	1.7 	3.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	9.2
1931-1932 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	2.7 	0.0 	1.8 	1.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	6.0
1932-1933 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	9.8 	0.0 	10.8 	3.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	24.1
1933-1934 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.2 	8.8 	0.0 	26.5 	7.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	42.5
1934-1935 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	16.2 	8.0 	0.8 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	25.0
1935-1936 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	3.0 	8.2 	11.5 	10.0 	0.7 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	33.4
1936-1937 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	2.5 	2.5 	1.7 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	6.7
1937-1938 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	3.1 	0.5 	1.0 	4.5 	0.0 	0.0 	9.1
1938-1939 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	12.0 	0.5 	12.0 	3.5 	4.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	32.5
1939-1940 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.8 	2.6 	11.9 	5.0 	3.0 	0.0 	0.0 	24.3
1940-1941 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.5 	1.0 	5.0 	5.0 	5.5 	20.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	37.5
1941-1942 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.2 	5.0 	0.0 	1.7 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	6.9
1942-1943 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	7.2 	5.0 	2.9 	3.6 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	18.7
1943-1944 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.7 	9.9 	5.8 	1.6 	0.0 	0.0 	19.0
1944-1945 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	3.4 	14.6 	4.9 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	22.9
1945-1946 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	2.2 	13.3 	2.1 	4.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	22.1
1946-1947 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.4 	4.4 	18.3 	5.7 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	29.8
1947-1948 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	21.5 	11.4 	11.8 	1.7 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	46.4
1948-1949 	0.0a 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	23.1 	6.0 	5.7 	11.3 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	46.1
1949-1950 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.1 	1.8 	0.0 	5.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	6.9
1950-1951 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.8 	1.8 	3.4 	1.0 	1.4 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	9.4
1951-1952 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	6.0 	2.6 	0.0b 	5.3 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	13.9
1952-1953 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.5 	3.3 	5.8 	0.0 	1.6 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	12.2
1953-1954 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	2.8 	0.0 	10.3 	0.3 	0.0b 	0.3 	0.0 	0.0 	13.7
1954-1955 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	2.3 	6.6 	3.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	11.9
1955-1956 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	2.8 	1.3 	2.5 	1.5 	18.9 	1.8 	0.0 	0.0 	28.8
1956-1957 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0a 	0.0 	6.0 	10.8 	2.0 	2.0 	0.0 	0.0 	20.8
1957-1958 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.3 	10.2 	5.0 	11.9 	15.2 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	42.6
1958-1959 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	3.0a 	2.2 	0.0 	5.0 	0.0a 	0.0 	0.0 	10.2
1959-1960 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.5 	9.5 	1.8 	3.9 	9.8 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	25.5
1960-1961 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	20.3 	17.1 	21.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	58.9
1961-1962 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	9.5 	0.5 	11.3 	5.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	26.3
1962-1963 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.5 	0.0 	7.3 	5.5 	6.4 	1.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	22.2
1963-1964 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	9.0 	11.0 	15.5 	3.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	39.0
1964-1965 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	3.5 	19.0 	2.5 	7.0 	2.0 	0.0 	0.0 	34.0
1965-1966 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	13.0 	10.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	23.0
1966-1967 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	14.8a 	0.5 	27.5 	14.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	57.3
1967-1968 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	3.0 	6.5 	4.0 	0.0 	3.0 	0.0 	0.0 	-999z 	16.5a
1968-1969 	-999z 	-999z 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	8.8 	2.5 	17.9 	6.1 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	35.3b
1969-1970 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	9.0 	8.8 	4.8 	5.8 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	28.4
1970-1971 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	3.1 	11.8 	0.7 	2.4 	5.0 	0.0 	0.0 	23.0
1971-1972 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.7 	4.1 	14.5 	1.0 	0.1 	0.0 	0.0 	20.4
1972-1973 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.8 	0.0 	0.0 	1.3 	1.3 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	3.4
1973-1974 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	2.8 	6.7 	11.7 	3.0 	0.5 	0.0 	0.0 	24.7
1974-1975 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.1 	0.0 	6.1 	13.3 	1.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	21.0
1975-1976 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	4.0 	7.1 	6.1 	7.4 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	24.6
1976-1977 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	8.1 	14.8 	4.4 	0.8 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	28.1
1977-1978 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.4 	0.2 	21.2 	24.6 	9.9 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	57.3
1978-1979 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	2.1 	0.3 	9.7 	18.2 	0.0 	0.0b 	0.0 	0.0 	30.3
1979-1980 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	5.0 	4.4 	0.9 	6.5 	4.7 	0.0 	0.0 	21.5
1980-1981 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.4 	4.7 	8.3 	0.0 	7.8 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	21.2
1981-1982 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	6.5 	13.5 	1.0 	0.4 	9.5 	0.0 	0.0 	30.9
1982-1983 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	5.4 	5.1 	22.9 	0.0 	1.2 	0.0 	0.0 	34.6
1983-1984 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	3.0 	2.0 	15.8 	0.0 	16.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	37.3
1984-1985 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	5.8 	10.0 	10.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	25.8
1985-1986 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.3 	5.4 	3.7 	14.0 	0.0 	1.2 	0.0 	0.0 	24.6
1986-1987 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.0 	25.0 	17.4 	4.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	47.4
1987-1988 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.9 	3.0 	15.8 	5.2 	0.4 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	25.3
1988-1989 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.1 	3.1 	0.6 	6.7 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	10.5
1989-1990 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	6.1 	3.1 	4.2 	1.9 	1.1 	0.7 	0.0 	0.0 	17.1
1990-1991 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	8.0 	9.4 	2.5 	1.3 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	21.2
1991-1992 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.8 	1.2 	0.6 	6.4 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	9.0
1992-1993 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.0 	1.6 	9.8 	17.7 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	30.1
1993-1994 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	4.2 	12.4 	23.6 	11.1 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	51.3
1994-1995 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.6 	13.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	14.1
1995-1996 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	3.0 	15.7 	26.9 	18.1 	10.6 	2.2 	0.0 	0.0 	76.5
1996-1997 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	-999z 	5.8 	4.9 	3.7 	0.0 	0.0 	14.4a
1997-1998 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.2 	0.6 	0.0 	1.3 	0.0 	0.0 	-999z 	3.1a
1998-1999 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.6 	4.1 	1.7 	7.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	14.4
1999-2000 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	11.8 	4.1 	0.0 	2.8 	0.0 	0.0 	18.7
2000-2001 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	17.2 	8.4 	11.2 	4.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	41.3
2001-2002 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0a 	0.0 	0.0 	4.0 	0.1 	1.4 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	5.5
2002-2003 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.3 	11.2 	5.4 	28.4 	0.4 	5.4 	0.0 	0.0 	51.1
2003-2004 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	17.2 	10.3 	0.2 	9.4 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	37.1
2004-2005 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	1.6 	16.8 	10.9 	8.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	37.8
2005-2006 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	9.9 	1.1 	20.7 	0.0 	0.3 	0.0	0.0	32.0
2006-2007	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	3.3	1.8	5.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	10.7
2007-2008	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	2.5	0.6	6.4	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	9.9
2008-2009	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.5	0.0	3.1	7.3	4.8	6.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	22.9
2009-2010	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	12.2	1.9	37.4P	0.0P	0.0P			51.5P

	JUL     AUG     SEP     OCT     NOV     DEC  	JAN     FEB     MAR     APR     MAY     JUN     SEASON
Mean* 		0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.1 	0.4	4.4 	8.1 	8.7 	4.3 	0.9 	0.0 	0.0 	26.7
Median*		0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	2.9	6.7 	5.8 	3.0	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	24.6
* For 1968/69-2009/10

Note: Preliminary values not used to calculate monthly means and medians

Data Flags:

-999 = Missing Data.

a = 1, b = 2, c = 3, ..., or z = 26 or more missing days in a month or missing months in a year.

P = Preliminary Data.

Edited July 6, 2010 by jbg

[jbg]

The mitigation argument depends on a goldilocks scenario where CO2 sensitivity is high enough to cause damage but slow enough that modest reductions might actually make a difference.

Highly unlikely. China's eliminated that possibility. See new thread (link).

[WIP]

I asked you to show that the current climate is the optimum for humans. You admitted you can't which pretty much eviscerates your argument that CO2 increases are necessarily bad.

Eviscerates my ass! Once again, the do-nothing advocates go to the wreckless, careless strategy: until we have all of the evidence of all of the changes in CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels, we just keep on doing what we're doing. We have never had a time in human history when CO2 levels are as high as they are now. And that's what counts -- what weather extremes have we dealt with during the course of human history. Going back before human history with sketchy paleoclimate data (such as below) tells us nothing about what we can handle as a species. All we know from past extremes is that enough life survived to carry on an re-establish diversity...mostly with entirely new species of plants and animals.

No we don't have evidence. We have speculation, guesses and unproven hypotheses. The onus of proof rests with the people demanding massive changes to the global economy to show that the changes are necessary. It is not enough to assert that change is bad.

To hell with the global economy! The global economy is based on deliberate strategies of globalization and specialization, which have benefited large multinational corporations, not the citizens of the world. They have engineered an economic system that suits their advantages, not the average person.

Why is it too costly to improve energy efficiency and develop new energy sources, while it is okay to keep subsidizing the industry that will kill off the human race if its quest for the last available oil isn't stopped:

Oil production is one of the most heavily subsidized businesses in America, with tax breaks available at almost every stage of the exploration and extraction process, according to an analysis by The New York Times. The tax breaks average about $4 billion a year, based on various government reports, and are preserved by the oil industry's massive political influence.

The many subsidies in BP's (BP) disastrous Deepwater Horizon drilling venture, which resulted in the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, are typical. Transocean (RIG), the owner of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform, registered the rig in the Marshall Islands, where it is subject to lower taxes and less stringent safety regulations. The company moved its corporate headquarters overseas from Houston in 1999, saving $1.8 billion in taxes in its years abroad. It is headquartered in Switzerland now, where it has far fewer employees than in Houston.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/oil-companies-billions-subsidies-tax-breaks/19541287/?icid=sphere_copyright

See this paper. It claims that the PETM (55mya) was a trigger that allowed mammals spread across the globe.

A major disruption in climate that caused large scale extinction provided an evolutionary advantage to mammals consolidating their dominance of the planet....now, how exactly does this prove any point you are trying to make? We are the entrenched, dominant species that will be upended and go extinct....but as long as some other group of animals retakes the barren planet, that's okay from this crazy logic!

This paper puts the CO2 levels in the PETM at around 5 times pre-industrial levels or ~1500ppm.

Wow, this is getting frustrating! You are citing evidence that proves that we shouldn't screw around with adding greenhouse gases! Research which claims that mass extinction and the rise of mammals coincided with high CO2 levels somehow makes it okay to do the same stupid thing again deliberately!

It should be noted that paleoclimate data doesn't correlate very accurately beyond a certain period of time, and a new method that I have linked several times already -- reported in Science last Octoberis the first to closely match the 800,000 year ice core sample data. And once again, that study shows that our present CO2 levels haven't been this high for 15 million years....which is also long before our time on earth.

Why should a human starve to save them?

Ever here of biodiversity? As the human population grows worldwide, and develops the planet for its own intents, an increasing number of plants and animals have become extinct. We are already into a period of extinction, and we have no idea what plants and animals we depend on for survival. Look at the collapse in honey bee populations for example! No one knows exactly why honey bees are dying out, but the consequences of losing one insect is already having a devastating effect on agriculture.

It is not misleading at all since NO ONE has any real idea about the costs of mitigation or adaption. It is nothing but guesswork in the face of uncertainty. How people deal with uncertainty is mostly a function of their values. It is not a question of logic/science/rationality. You are clearly a person who cannot deal with risk which would make you a rotten entrepreneur. Others are comfortable with the risk and there is nothing wrong with their opinion. The only problem is you feel you need to use the power of government to force people who do not share your aversion to risk to pay in order to make you feel better.

As long as you entrepreneurs want to do guess work with your own money, no one is going to complain about what you put at risk; but when you start risking the planet that everyone else lives and depends on, you are playing Russian Roulette with a loaded gun. We have Ex. A down in the Gulf of Mexico, of what happens when entrepreneurs are allowed to play Russian Roulette with the environment. The big oil companies, like BP, Exxon and Chevron, have collectively decided that, rather than let the party come to an end, they will drill deeper underwater into deeper sediments of rock, and the results are showing that little or no thought was given to what would happen if something went wrong! BP is a warning that we cannot trust corporations to do more than look after their short term interests. And we should take the rest of the barrels out of the chamber and bring deep sea drilling to an end, before the next disaster strikes.

You did not even read it. It makes a compelling case that undiscovered fossil fuel reserves can be predicted based on past experience and based on those calculations CO2 levels cannot exceed 800ppm.

You gave me a page to video links, and I wasn't in the mood to watch home movies! Besides, even if I can trust a study done at Tech school which is getting all of their new funding from energy companies, how much more damage will be done by allowing carbon dioxide levels to double?

[waldo]

exaggerated? When you see fit to actually offering up and substantiating your alternative warming cause(s), don't hesitate to also support your latest exaggeration claims concerning the effect of CO2. As I said, you can choose to ignore the direct lines of empirical evidence that an enhanced greenhouse warming effect is being caused by increasing CO2 levels... whether that be, for example, satellite or surface based CO2 absorption wavelength measurements of longwave radiation. Certainly... surely... some wiseacres in skeptic/denier land should be able to show the exaggeration you speak of - hey?

Try looking at the IPCC reports. They claim that CO2 sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5degC to 4.5degC but could be higher or lower. The generally accepted 'safe' level of warming is 2degC. If CO2 levels double to 800ppm and climate sensitivity is 1.5 (within the IPCC range) we would get a maximum temperature rise of 1.5-2.0 degC under the business as usual scenario. The problem is not the IPCC reports but the CAGW activists that insist on ignoring the uncertainty reported by the IPCC itself.

interesting… not sure which IPCC reports you’ve been reading… the one’s I’m familiar with state a very unlikely ‘likelihood’ of sensitivity being <1.5°C… with a best estimate of ~3°C (including only fast feedback processes). So… you would choose to target the most optimistic low-end of the offered study estimate ranges. Only in that you’re the one emphasizing to, as you say, “try looking at the IPCC reports”, one wonders why you choose to ignore the stated best estimate value of ~3°C.

more interesting… standard discussions of CO2 doubling reflect upon the starting reference point @280ppm… which puts the target doubling emphasis at the 560ppm level. Does your reference to doubling to 800ppm (which presumes to begin at today’s ~400ppm CO2 level), allow you to simply ignore the related 0.7°C temperature rise… along with the 0.5°C rise (associated with existing warming) expected to come forward from the within the slow feed-back pipeline… and consequently, to ignore all the effects of 0.7°C temperature warming as seen today and those yet to come forward associated with the 0.5°C temperature warming slow feed-back pipeline?

while you’re at it, particularly in the context of your IPCC report emphasis, in your use of the phrasing, “business as usual scenario”… just what scenario… is that?

since you seem quite accepting to what the IPCC reports state, in the context of how you’ve just thrown out the ‘CAGW’ label, just who is it you ascribe that acronym to… is it anyone who doesn’t accept your read on the 1.5°C low-end range of sensitivity… as distinct from the best estimate of ~3°C (including only fast feedback processes)?

again, per the above prior MLW post link, for example, I pointed out to you the area within the IPCC AR4 report that references Greenland shrinkage; specifically: Greenland, shrinkage of 50 to 100 Gt yr–1 for 1993 to 2003 and shrinkage at even higher rates between 2003 and 2005. Additional NASA GISS graphic - here: In any case, as compared to some of the numnut MLW usual suspects attempting to showcase their 4-to-7 year surface temperature short term (cherry-picked) trending games, a Greenland ice-sheet melt start point from 1993, relatively speaking, is a significantly longer period of time. Are there uncertainties concerning ice-sheet model projections? Yes... yes, there are; however, do you maintain this period of time, since 1993, hasn't allowed for a separation of fluctuation versus trend? Notwithstanding studies that show significant mass balance loss, particularly since the 70's, example - here:

more than likely the shorter interval period that has skeptic/deniers so perplexed reflects on the accuracy results returned from the relatively recent launched GRACE satellite... as it measures shifts in gravity fields. Yes, most certainly, skeptic/deniers have difficulty with the GRACE measurements of Greenland ice sheet mass:

So? You prove my point. They do not have data for a climatically significant period of time (>30 years) which means extrapolating recent trends is not necessarily a valid thing to do. This debate was captured in the IPCC AR4 which made it very clear that there were 3 scientific opinions on the merits of extrapolating from the data available. It will take another 15-20 years of data from the GRACE satellite to determine if there is any real trend in the data. Claiming that we know there is a trend is premature at this point.

most refreshing to see you acknowledge a longer-term timeframe for, as you say, “climatic significance”. Perhaps that might actually rub off on the usual cast of MLW numnuts who regularly trot out their 4-to-7 year cherry-picked short-term temperature trending nonsense….. or even those Shady practices that allow one particular MLW numnut to idiotically, to this day, quote the Phil Jones response concerning statistical significance and post1995 warming of CRU data, within his MLW signature.

now… that 30 year period is, in itself, a somewhat arbitrary WMO definition of climate arrived at prior to AGW even becoming an issue… a period of time that simply reflects upon the WMO settling upon 30 years as 2/3 of the stable value where the standard deviation of temperature anomalies stabilized at (45 years). As arbitrary as the use and adherence to a 30 year time period for, as you say, “climatic significance”, appears to be within the overall debate… I’ve typically seen its profiled use targeted primarily to temperature trending, proper. Certainly, the complexity of climate dictates longer periods of time are needed to separate signal/noise; however, with your specific reference to IPCC reports, is there a strict and rigid adherence to that somewhat arbitrary WMO 30 year period within IPCC reports?

as for my latest reference to post-1993 Greenland ice-sheet melting, it wasn’t in any context of sea-level rise and didn’t reference our prior discussions concerning IPCC exclusion of that ice-sheet melting in regards to IPCC statements on sea-level rise. Of course, this follows up on the direct question I posed to you; specifically, on whether or not you, ‘maintained this period of (Greenland ice sheet melting) time, since 1993, hasn’t allowed for a separation of fluctuation versus trend”. I somewhat anticipated your response… that’s why I linked to the post IPCC AR4 study, the one you’ve chosen to also ignore… again, the study that addressed the, ‘Mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet from 1958 to 2007’

We combine estimates of the surface mass balance, SMB, of the Greenland ice sheet for years 1958 to 2007 with measurements of the temporal variability in ice discharge, D, to deduce the total ice sheet mass balance. During that time period, we find a robust correlation (R2 = 0.83) between anomalies in SMB and in D, which we use to reconstruct a continuous series of total ice sheet mass balance. We find that the ice sheet was losing 110 ± 70 Gt/yr in the 1960s, 30 ± 50 Gt/yr or near balance in the 1970s–1980s, and 97 ± 47 Gt/yr in 1996 increasing rapidly to 267 ± 38 Gt/yr in 2007. Multi-year variations in ice discharge, themselves related to variations in SMB, cause 60 ± 20% more variation in total mass balance than SMB, and therefore dominate the ice sheet mass budget.

that’s a whole lotta >30 time period Greenland ice sheet shrinkage… that you’ve chosen to ignore – hey? So… in acting to reinforce the conclusions of that study, over the latter part of that studies period of investigation (1958-to-2007), I guess you also will choose to ignore the preciseness of the GRACE satellite measurements showing Greenland’s mass loss is increasing at an accelerated rate… for the latter part of that studies time period focus – hey? Notwithstanding this recent study, albeit short time period, that seems to be the first study combining analysis of the recently installed Greenland GPS Network (GNET) with GRACE satellite measurements - Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate: Observed by GPS and GRACE

Greenland’s main outlet glaciers have more than doubled their contribution to global sea level rise over the last decade. Recent work has shown that Greenland’s mass loss is still increasing. Here we show that the ice loss, which has been well-documented over southern portions of Greenland, is now spreading up along the northwest coast, with this acceleration likely starting in late 2005. We support this with two lines of evidence. One is based on measurements from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite gravity mission, launched in March, 2002. The other comes from continuous Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements from three long-term sites on bedrock adjacent to the ice sheet. The GRACE results provide a direct measure of mass loss averaged over scales of a few hundred km. The GPS data are used to monitor crustal uplift caused by ice mass loss close to the sites. The GRACE results can be used to predict crustal uplift, which can be compared with the GPS data. In addition to showing that the northwest ice sheet margin is now losing mass, the uplift results from both the GPS measurements and the GRACE predictions show rapid acceleration in southeast Greenland in late 2003, followed by a moderate deceleration in 2006. Because that latter deceleration is weak, southeast Greenland still appears to be losing ice mass at a much higher rate than it was prior to fall 2003. In a more general sense, the analysis described here demonstrates that GPS uplift measurements can be used in combination with GRACE mass estimates to provide a better understanding of ongoing Greenland mass loss; an analysis approach that will become increasingly useful as long time spans of data accumulate from the 51 permanent GPS stations recently deployed around the edge of the ice sheet as part of the Greenland GPS Network (GNET).

[TimG]

Eviscerates my ass! Once again, the do-nothing advocates go to the wreckless, careless strategy: until we have all of the evidence of all of the changes in CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels, we just keep on doing what we're doing.

We have all the evidence we are going to get. As far I am a concerned it is not enough to justify the policies being proposed. Now that does not mean would have to do nothing. A strategy focused on R&D into new energy production techniques without any prejudice against nuclear would work. I don't have a big issue with carbon taxes either. What I absolutely reject are emission targets/timetables, carbon inventories/trading, renewable mandates and subsidies for energy production. As long as any of those economically damaging policies are on the table I will say the doing nothing is a better response.

We have never had a time in human history when CO2 levels are as high as they are now. And that's what counts

Not unless there is evidence that it is actually bad.

To hell with the global economy! The global economy is based on deliberate strategies of globalization and specialization, which have benefited large multinational corporations, not the citizens of the world. They have engineered an economic system that suits their advantages, not the average person.

The average person has never had it so good and the wealth and technology that we have today is entirely thanks to fossil fuels.

Why is it too costly to improve energy efficiency and develop new energy sources, while it is okay to keep subsidizing the industry that will kill off the human race if its quest for the last available oil isn't stopped:

The claims that the oil industry is "heavily subsidized" are largely BS. The tax "breaks" are largely tax breaks that every corporation gets. For example, oil companies are global corporations so they claim the foreign tax credit which adjusts their income to take into account taxes paid to foreign governments. This break is absolutely necessary for any country that wishes to keep global corporations and has nothing to do with "subsidizing" fossil fuels. Another example are the tax deductions for capital investments which all companies get and the oil companies only qualify for more because the spend billions in capital investments. The fact that CO2 obsessives do not understand basic tax economics is one of the reason why they have zero credibility when it comes to estimating the costs of get rid of fossil fuels.

A major disruption in climate that caused large scale extinction provided an evolutionary advantage to mammals consolidating their dominance of the planet....now, how exactly does this prove any point you are trying to make?

Because we are mammals. We succeed because we are damn good at adapting and we will continue to do so as long as we do not deny ourselves access to essential tools like fossil fuels.

Ever here of biodiversity? As the human population grows worldwide, and develops the planet for its own intents, an increasing number of plants and animals have become extinct. We are already into a period of extinction, and we have no idea what plants and animals we depend on for survival.

There is no evidence that supports the claim of massive extinctions to date - the claims are nothing but the unverifiable extrapolation based on limited evidence. The world did not come to an end when the mammoths and sabre tooths died out.

Look at the collapse in honey bee populations for example! No one knows exactly why honey bees are dying out, but the consequences of losing one insect is already having a devastating effect on agriculture.

I would rather see money spent directly on the honeybee issue than piss way billions on a hypothetical problem.

As long as you entrepreneurs want to do guess work with your own money, no one is going to complain about what you put at risk; but when you start risking the planet that everyone else lives and depends on, you are playing Russian Roulette with a loaded gun.

There is risk no matter what we do. It is a question deciding what risks can be reasonably dealt and what risks must be ignored. We cannot do anything meaningful about CO2 emissions so targets/timetables are a waste of time and simply an excuse to expand the power of government and push people to come up with creative scams that circumvent the rules instead of actually producing useful innovations that will help humanity. Edited July 6, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

So… you would choose to target the most optimistic low-end of the offered study estimate ranges. Only in that youre the one emphasizing to, as you say, try looking at the IPCC reports, one wonders why you choose to ignore the stated best estimate value of ~3°C.

You are the one who keeps saying I need to show evidence that the CO2 effect is exaggerated. I pointed you to the optimistic low end of the IPCC estimates that shows that BAU could be nothing to worry about. The probabilities assigned by IPCC are nothing but subjective guess estimates that have no known connection to reality.

more interesting… standard discussions of CO2 doubling reflect upon the starting reference point @280ppm… which puts the target doubling emphasis at the 560ppm level

That is why I said 1.5 to 2degC. The logarithmic nature of CO2 response means that going from 560 to 800 is equivalent to going from 280 to 400. i.e. 280 to 560 = 1.5 + 560 to 800 = 0.6 = 2.1 degG. You also need to remember that the 2degC limit was plucked out of hat so it is not a 'hard' limit.

since you seem quite accepting to what the IPCC reports state, in the context of how youve just thrown out the CAGW label, just who is it you ascribe that acronym to… is it anyone who doesnt accept your read on the 1.5°C low-end range of sensitivity… as distinct from the best estimate of ~3°C (including only fast feedback processes)?

There is a huge difference between what is actually in the IPCC report and the public arguments presented. Just the other day I heard some pundit claim that 6degC of warming is a 100% guaranteed. Complete BS as far as the science is concerned but that does not stop them. That is why I call those people CAGW advocates.

thats a whole lotta >30 time period Greenland ice sheet shrinkage. that youve chosen to ignore hey?.

The IPCC 'ignored' that data as well when it stated that it could be a short term effect that cannot be extrapolated into the future. I don't reject the possibility - I just find it implausible that melt rates would increase exponentially with a couple degrees of warming. Edited July 6, 2010 by TimG

[Bonam]

The IPCC 'ignored' that data as well when it stated that it could be a short term effect that cannot be extrapolated into the future. I don't reject the possibility - I just find it implausible that melt rates would increase exponentially with a couple degrees of warming.

Actually melt rates are extremely sensitive to even very small temperature perturbations.

Consider an ice cube sitting in a room where the temperature is -0.1 C. That ice cube will last a very very long time. Now warm that room up to 0.1 C and the ice cube will be gone in short order.

When average temperatures increase even slightly, that means that ice/snow masses are exposed to above freezing temperatures for a significantly larger portion of the year, allowing for more melt. Additionally, once some of the ice/snow melts and generates water, that water can then substantially accelerate the warming of additional frozen mass in a sort of feedback mechanism, since it can both absorb heat more readily as well as carve its way through the ice masses, splitting them up into chunks that can melt more quickly, since they have a greater surface area to volume ratio.