“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.” President-elect Barack Obama, November 19, 2008
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.
• Yun Akusofu, Ph.D University Of Alaska
• Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
• Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D Anderson Materials Evaluation
• J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
• Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
• Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
• Colin Barton Csiro (retired)
• David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
• John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
• Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
• Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
• Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
• John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
• Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
• Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
• Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
• Roger Cohen, Ph.D Fellow, American Physical Society
• Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
• Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
• Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
• Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D Past-President, Italian Geological Society
• Susan Crockford, Ph.D University Of Victoria
• Joseph S. D’aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
• James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
• David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
• Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
• David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
• Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion The Ohio State University
• Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
• John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
• Upon Tyne (retired)
• Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology
• Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society
• Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates
• Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired)
• Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig
• Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics
• Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Director, Inttas (Paraguay)
• Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa
• James Goodridge, California State Climatologist (retired)
• Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford
• Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand=2 0Climate Coalition
• William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University
• Kenneth E. Green, D.Env., American Enterprise Institute
• Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University
• Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University
• Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut (emeritus)
• Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona (emeritus)
• Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy (retired)
• Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth
• Bernd Huettner, Ph.D
• Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo
• A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum Geologists
• Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change
• Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired)
• Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University
• Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
• Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University (emeritus)
• Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm20(emeritus)
• Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia (emeritus)
• David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General, Nz Dept. Scientific And Industrial Research
• Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado
• Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National ScienceTechnology Forum, South Africa
• Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
• Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus)
• James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University
• Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks
• Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting
• Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen
• Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegia n University Of Science And Technology
• James F. Lea, Ph.D
• Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist
• Peter R. Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
• David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware
• Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
• Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group
• Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri
• Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical School
• Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin
• Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus)
• Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation
• James A Marusek, U.S. Navy (retired)
• Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph
• Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia
• Timmothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc.
• Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Norway
• Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College
• Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University (emeritus)
• Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University (emeritus)
• David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada
• Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia
• Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania
• Alfred Peckare k, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University
• Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska
• Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)
• Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan
• John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals
• Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University
• Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop’s University (emeritus)
• Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service
• Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
• Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.
• Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
• Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
• Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of Reclamation
• George H. Taylor,MS, Applied Climate Services
• Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata (Argentina)
• Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D
• Dr. Anton Uriarte,Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
• Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
• Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg (emeritus)
• Gerd-Rainer Weber,Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate Change
• Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
• Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
• Miklos Zagoni,Ph.D Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
• Antonio Zichichi,Ph.D President, World Federation Of Scientists
Footnotes
1. Swanson, K.L., and A. A. Tsonis. Geophysical Research Letters, in press: DOI:10.1029/2008GL037022.
2. Brohan, P., et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006: DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006548.
3. Pielke, R. A. Jr., et al. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2005: DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-86-10-1481.
4. Douglass, D. H., et al. International Journal of Climatology, 2007: DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Yeah, but you lot haven’t programmed your GCMs right!
As Dennis Connor said to the Kiwi’s at the start of a certain America’s Cup challenge, “We got the cat, you got the dog”.
You seriously expect Obama to take note of an obvious nutter like Corbyn? Can’t you find better people to pad out the numbers?
Courtney is not a PhD, although he seems happy to let people think he is.
As long as deniers have to resort to ruses like this, I am content to ignore such lists.
“As long as deniers have to resort to ruses like this, I am content to ignore such lists.”
Lot of smart fellers on this list, old chap. Ignore away AYP!
I hope that Obama was just paying lip-service, with the intention of letting Anthropogenic Global Warming Disasterism die a natural death during our current global cooling cycle.
Jennifer,
Will the senate inquiry be receiving this sort of information?
Seriously – does this sort of list convince people or not. Once could probably produce another of scientists who say action is urgent. How does a mug polly choose?
Unless sceptics start engaging mainstream science fora – the prospects for getting anywhere is pretty slim. Despite Cohenite’s best assurance (trust me he said!).
Despite all sceptic activity – AGW science and policy has grown not shrunk.
SJT “Can’t you find better people to pad out the numbers”?
John Christy, PH.D.
Fred Singer, Ph.D.
Nir Shaviv, Ph.D.
Joanne Simpson, Ph.D.
Roger Pilke, Ph.D.
Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph, D.
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin.
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist
William Lindqvist, PhD
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD
Timothy F. Ball,PhD
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD
Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr
Richard S. Courtney, PhD
Henk Tennekes, PhD
Get the point…or should I go on? You’re on the losing side, SJT.
SJT…how could I forget?
Kevin Trenberth, PhD
AGW is finally fading away in the public belief system – Earth Hour was a flop, and now this
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/3/29_Crunch_Time_for_%E2%80%98Global_Warming%E2%80%99.html
“Richard S. Courtney, PhD”
Gordon, didn’t I just say he hasn’t got a PhD. He does have a Diploma of Philosophy, not nearly the same thing. Why do supposedly serious scientists associate themselves with frauds? Of those scientists, very few are actually experts in Climatology. Nir has proven nothing so far with his ideas.
game, set and match?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/#more-6661
Why do supposedly serious scientists associate themselves with frauds? …why does anyone then associate themself with Mann and his hockey stick?
If the science is so settled, why do so many scientists question the dogma?
could it be because –
1. ocean temps have been declining for the last 5 years
2. oceans which have been rising since the end of the LIA have flattened off over the last 2 years.
3. The hot spot predicted by the models and the theory over the equator is not occuring.
4. temp has levelled of over the last decade despite more rapid increases in co2 emissions.
5. the models can still not forecast even remotely accurately and most mathematicians and modellers agree they can not and will not…..but this is really the bulk of “proof ” being provided
AND why do conventions like the one held recently at the copenhagen university actually write their summary of events before the event!…….How can they say AGW is occuring even more rapidly than the worst case scenarios predicted by the IPCC…when sea level, sea temp and air temp have not been increasing ??????? Seriously get a grip and be realistic. By all means you can believe in AGW, but don t chuck at us that there is no dispute over the science.
“”Gordon, didn’t I just say he hasn’t got a PhD””
still attacking the messengers SJT?
“Despite all sceptic activity – AGW science and policy has grown not shrunk.”
I’m afraid your’re right and it’s a sobering thought. Particularly when it has so little [none?] proof to support it let alone be settled beyond question.
Is it because the last couple of generations hold their “elders” in contempt for gratifying their every wish, their overconfidence and self assurance due to their [often self perceived] superior mastery of modern technology or the innate conviction of guilt for the state of the planet induced by the tertiary green movement that their parents generally did not have the luxury of?
Janama, thx a great link.Imagine doubling co2 causes a 1c increase in temp without feedack effects…something that surely is beneficial to humans.
But importantly a number of groups have infact had serendipity moments and shown infact that the feedback from this warming actually causes a negative feedback…..
“Note that these results were sufficiently surprising that they were confirmed by at least 4 other groups:
“Chen, J., B.E. Carlson, and A.D. Del Genio, 2002: Evidence for strengthening of the tropical general circulation in the 1990s. Science, 295, 838-841.
Cess, R.D. and P.M. Udelhofen, 2003: Climate change during 1985–1999: Cloud interactions determined from satellite measurements. Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 30, No. 1, 1019, doi:10.1029/2002GL016128.
Hatzidimitriou, D., I. Vardavas, K. G. Pavlakis, N. Hatzianastassiou, C. Matsoukas, and E. Drakakis (2004) On the decadal increase in the tropical mean outgoing longwave radiation for the period 1984–2000. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 1419–1425.
Clement, A.C. and B. Soden (2005) The sensitivity of the tropical-mean radiation budget. J. Clim., 18, 3189-3203.
The preceding authors did not dwell on the profound implications of these results – they had not intended a test of model feedbacks! Rather, they mostly emphasized that the differences had to arise from cloud behavior (a well acknowledged weakness of current models). However, as noted by Chou and Lindzen (2005, Comments on “Examination of the Decadal Tropical Mean ERBS Nonscanner Radiation Data for the Iris Hypothesis”, J. Climate, 18, 2123-2127), the results imply a strong negative feedback regardless of what one attributes this to.”
So the IPCC admits to a lack of knowledge about clouds, a number of groups have shown inadvertently that their is certainly a case to suggest -ve feedbacks…and yet “THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED”….seriously get real.
It also comes just after Dr Spencer proposed negative feedbacks in his article 3rd story down the page.
Reality dudes is that the serious science effort just ignores the sceptics and keeps on rolling. Pity really – might some good stuff in there that just gets bundled up with the cranks and weirdos.
It’s about style. Ponder what the sceptic movement looks like. Right wing. Old. Retired. Geologists. Economists. Frothing. Ranting, Abusing. Big on conspiracy theories.
Would it sell Coca-Cola? How does it look to the market?
Which is why greenies now wear suits and talk “nicely”.
Sceptics avoid mainstream science functions and journals like the plague. How does it look?
So the real science effort just trundles on e.g. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25239908-11949,00.html quietly ignoring the entire sceptic movement.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629
Luke that is as close to an admission that there are grounds for sceptiscm that I have seen from you. Now if only we had the billions of dollars to promote some common sense. …….. its funny but i see plenty of frothing, ranting and abusing coming from the proagw side…..but the media fawns over them.
” It’s about style. Ponder what the sceptic movement looks like”…
Luke, time to sign up to “climatesceptics.com.au” and show the party how its done?
But the politics is very much settled and that is the more frigthening issue facing us.
Why is it that that warmists always resort to cheap abuse when seeking to discredit sceptics? Calling people “old” and “retired” and “right wing” may seem like a trump card to someone who is desperate to find credibility, but not to those who are genuinely interested in scientific inquiry – the old and the retired have an important perpsective that should be respected, provided it is based on experience, evidence and logic. And “right wing” thinkers have contributed enormously to science – political views do not discredit or invalidate genuine research.
The article that Luke pointed to in the Australian is anything but convincing. It provides no evidence whatsoever of the supposed reasons for Asutralia’s bushfires. I look forward to seeing the finished article, and will then evaluate it accordingly, but in the meantime, it’s yet another example of the MSM sensationalism.
The “global warming has stopped” thing is really incredibly boring. If it were true, then the trend from any given starting year to 1998 would be higher than the trend for the same starting year to 2008. So, look at this graph and tell me in what way global warming has stopped.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/to:1998/trend/plot/wti/trend/plot/wti
“So the real science effort just trundles on e.g.”
Luke,
How come you believe this CSIRO AGCM faecal pelletry is “serious science”?
“look at this graph and tell me in what way global warming has stopped.”
I like to look at that same data with curved lines. Seems more real somehow.
What is it? About normal variation for the last 30 years?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Robin – not abusive in the slightest. Do the demographic !
See Spanglers – a typically ignorant abusive response. You haven’t even read the work. And it will be published somewhere other than E&E.
The current stasis in temperatures is not only predictable but unremarkable. You guys are simply wiggle worm watchers.
And fancy putting up that dreadful graph of Spencer’s with it’s statistical bunkumness. It will be wrong if extended at the left hand end. Why not use a 20 degree polynomial. Desperate statistical sleight of hand. Suggestive and desperate.
“You haven’t even read the work.”
Luke, Did you read his lead up work on IOD? It was all done with CSIRO AGCMs.
Wanna bet they don’t consult the Oracle again?
” Desperate statistical sleight of hand.”
You got a problem with UAH?
” And it will be published somewhere other than E&E.”
The Oracle speaks, the peers review!
Where’s my prayer mat?
janama; from Lindzen;
“The earth’s climate (in contrast to the climate in current climate GCMs) is dominated by a strong net negative feedback. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.3°C, and such warming as may arise from increasing greenhouse gases will be indistinguishable from the fluctuations in climate that occur naturally from processes internal to the climate system itself.”
So say Spencer, Braswell, Miskolczi, Steve Short etc For luke think Keenlyside, Vecchi and the recent spate of work on the Indian Ocean Dipole; in this respect Nerilie Abram’s article in Australasian Science, Volume 30, no 3 is interesting; the coral history shows that IOD events have increased over the 20thC; but then so has insolation and ENSO effects; Abram speaks of an increasing land-sea temperature gradient to explain the modelled increase in wind speeds held to be resonsible for the increased frequency and strength of IOD events; but how can that be;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1994/to:2010/scale:0.1/mean:10/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1994/to:2010/scale:0.1/mean:10/plot/uah/from:1994/to:2010/scale:0.1/mean:10
spangled drongo – why prefer curves? The more orders you put in your polynomial fit, the closer you fit each wiggle in the data, and the more physically meaningless your fit is.
If you prefer UAH specifically, the result does not change. Global warming, far from stopping, is accelerating. Another way you can see this is by looking at the ten hottest years in the instrumental records. According to UAH, these are 1998, 2005, 2002, 2007, 2003, 2006, 2001, 2004, 1991, and 1995.
RW, wouldnt it be nice to be able to go back to the MWP and start our graphs from there?! It is conveniently forgotten that if you were even to take the temp graph back to the end of the LIA you would see that the increase in temp from 1900-1940 is very similar in magnitude to the increase from 1975 until today. You will also see that despite co2 emissions increasing temp fell from 1940-1975….of course this is conveniently explained as being caused by particles blocking sunlight and hence reducing warming….but many studies have thrown doubt on this.
When it comes to time periods for study, warmers are even better in how they select the data in my opinion.
So the fall in ocean temps and sea levels don t make you even a little bit sceptical?
The findings that feedback effects are infact negative not positive also does not make you a teeny weeny bit sceptical and that maybe the science is not settled?>…can you fault the logic in the findings quoted in janama’s excellent link above?
For RW and his new toy;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1940
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1977/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1977
Well Toby – how can you fault the logic – the current stasis in temperature is completely unremarkable and predicted by individual GCM runs. When the temperature inevitably begins to rise again you’ll find yourself cut off behind enemy lines I’m afraid.
As for Spanglers – IOD and GCMs – err – wrong – off the the bottom of the class…
Thx Cohenite for those links…i am never very good at finding where i save all my links.
cohenite – plotting graphs is easy, interpreting them more difficult. Don’t do a mime act, tell us what point you are trying to make.
toby – yes, people have done that. It’s irrelevant to the point that global warming currently has shown no evidence of stopping or even slowing down.
this is the best graph available, puts it into perspective IMO
– thank you Ian Schumacher.
http://www.ianschumacher.com/img/temp_range.png
“still attacking the messengers SJT?”
If they can’t even tell the truth about their academic qualifications, seems fair enough. As I said, if the message is any good, why do they have to pad it out with fluff?
“this is the best graph available, puts it into perspective IMO”
Why not do it relative to absolute zero? The ice ages look like a squiggle on that scale, but the earth becomes mostly uninhabitable.
SJT – do a search for Richard Courtney, DipPhil. You’ll find that is how HE signs himself – what others do is understandable considering the similarity of the two degrees.
RW; the point I was making is that from the last 130 years the relationship between temperature and CO2 is very poor;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2010
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2HCNlongterm.jpg
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUvsCO2.jpg
but if you’re going to be touchy figure it out for yourself.
Looks like Dr. Lindzen is being a bit one-eyed about his Iris Effect. Basing his paper on unrevised work,and not acknowledging the existence and reasons for those revisions.
luke; you say the current cooling period, which is happening, contrary to RW’s strange assertions, was predicted by the models;
http://i734.photobucket.com/albums/ww350/infomgr/FailedClimateModelPredictions.gif
Lindzen is not alone in concluding climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing is negligible;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/29/dr-roy-spencer-on-publishing-and-climate-sensitivity/#more-6648
then I suppose we can talk about Miskolczi; or would you prefer to come to a lecture by Miklos Zagoni?
“then I suppose we can talk about Miskolczi; ” At least you have forgotten about G&T. That’s some progress at least.
“As for Spanglers – IOD and GCMs – err – wrong – off the the bottom of the class…”
Luke, take a butchers at this lot!
In each case the result is from GCMs.
You accuse me of being selective.
http://search.arrow.edu.au/main/results?c_creator0=Cowan%2C+Tim&c_subject0=Climatology+(incl.+Palaeoclimatology)+(260602)&inst=University+of+
cohenite, that 6th paragraph says it all. [All 20 of the IPCC climate models now have positive cloud feedbacks]
“We don’t really understand what is happening or what we are doing but don’t worry, faith and our trusty GCMs will see us through.”
Sorry about that, mebbe this one:
http://search.arrow.edu.au/main/results?c_creator0=Cowan%2C+Tim&c_subject0=Climatology+(incl.+Palaeoclimatology)+(260602)&inst=University+of+Southern+Queensland&start=0
”
luke; you say the current cooling period, which is happening, contrary to RW’s strange assertions, was predicted by the models;”
You are using far too short a period of time, the models cannot predict when an ENSO event will occur. The noise from ENSO and other events is stronger than the gradual increase caused by CO2, but over a long time the CO2 forcing is clearly evident. It’s like the water dripping in a bucket, give it enough time, and the bucket fills up.
Nope!
That link to Cai and Cowan won’t transfer but if you google “indian ocean dipole-cai and cowan”, a lot of their stuff is available.
“It’s like the water dripping in a bucket, give it enough time, and the bucket fills up.”
SJT, this is the point you AGWers just don’t get.
It’s the drip in the bucket! Stupid!
The drip is happening anyway with our huge population regardless of CO2 but the pressures you lot are applying to cure an almost non existent problem are really the positive feedbacks.
You guys will manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Remember Jubilation T. Cornpone?
“With our ammunition gone and faced with utter defeat,
Who set fire to all the crops and left us nothing to eat?”
SJT – the drip is only .1C/decade – that’s 1C by 2100
same as the last century.
The science may not be settled but the AGW religion sure is.
Witness Kevin at St. Pauls Cathedral where ex Aussie bishop George Browning just proclaimed AGW accompanied by a choir of angels.
It sounded like God was telling us straight.
So that’s it then.
Might as well pack up, go home and become a muslim.
Luke wails:
“…the current stasis in temperature is completely unremarkable and predicted by individual GCM runs. When the temperature inevitably begins to rise again you’ll find yourself cut off behind enemy lines I’m afraid.”
Another action packed comment by Luke!
First, he nods to the creationist concept of a climate stasis, an oxymoron of logic encouraged by the tautological Orwellian newspeak of “climate change.” Obviously, if you want to stop “climate change” you have to believe that a climate stasis is possible, which it is not. This is anti-evolutionary thinking at its most profound.
Second, he reveals his faith in computer modeling over fundamental causal science and empirical evidence.
Third, he reveals the only way to even get the GCMs to support observational, objective T-data is to lie. The GCMs did not predict the global temperature “stasis”, or cooling of the last decade, quite the contrary. We should be well on our way to the apocalypse by now.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/05.24.jpg
Fourthly, Luke, the evangelist, prophesizes that temperature will begin to rise again. No evidence is required. This is an act of faith.
Fifthly, he reveals that he regards anyone who reasonably differs from his own (faulty) evaluation of the data as the “enemy.” This isn’t a remotely rational worldview. Welcome to the Inquisition.
Rare is the commenter that can pack so vast a variety of pre-Enlightenment values into so few words. I’m impressed.
(1) nope and yep
(2) yep of course
(3) sorry they did – apocalypse by now – do wank on
(4) yep and nope
(5) no just fuckwits like you mate
cohenite – woodfortrees only gives us CO2 data since direct measurements began in 1958, but this is enough to show us that the correlation between CO2 and temperature since then is in fact excellent.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.4/mean:60
Another way of looking at the correlation is to plot annual temperature anomaly against CO2 concentration:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KfE5s-4q1s4/ScLVic4P0hI/AAAAAAAAAB0/IWBy3fClff8/s1600-h/fig4.jpg
You can plot your own graphs to find out that extending the data back 130 years using ice cores does not alter this conclusion.
What data, exactly, are you using to claim that there is no correlation?
Everyone seems to forget that even NASA is predicting many years of cooling temperatures. Cooling has been predicted for the next 6 to 25 years. This pattern is nicely documented in the land temperature record from 1940 to 1975. When you minus out the UHI, it gets even colder. Where will this cooling place the predictive power of the present GCM’s? My guess is that we will all be laughing about this “phase” in human stupidity in a few years. (If it weren’t so costly/tragic, I’d be laughing now.)
“the correlation between CO2 and temperature since then is in fact excellent.”
ROTFL.
……..
Oh, and for Luke (my new grlfrnd):
1. Sure?
2. Uh huh
3. OK
4. Kiss this
5. bend over
thnx, mate. we’ll do it again sometime.
Last week during the height of the floods in the Fargo area of ND. Obama made the ridiculous statement….”This is a wake up call to the damage that global warming can cause.” This howler even embarrassed his minders who made sure that he modified the statement, after it caused outrage among the Dakota citizenry.
They were enduring the worst floods in 117 years, caused by the coldest, and most prolonged winter in 80 odd years, with the heaviest snow/ice pack in that time.
It was the spring melt of that pack that was causing the Red River to flood so badly, and the problem was made worse by yet another blizzard/freeze snap in late March, dumping even more snow, and clogging the river with even more ice. The National Guard and emergency authorities had to revert to blasting the banked up ice in the river to stop it rising higher.
And Obama had the temerity to blame it on “Global Warming”.
“In a blaze of dazzling light from above, disciples witness the First Coming of Obama”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/G20/article6012472.ece
Sid Reynolds, I’ve not been able to verify that comment by Mr. Obama re or in Fargo. Can you provide a source by any chance, please? Thanks.
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/235048
Obama says flooding serves as warning
By: Janell Cole, INFORUM
WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Barack Obama acknowledged the current flood emergency in the Red River Valley on Monday, and warned that global warming could lead to similar disasters in the future.
Considering how bad the flooding is now in North Dakota, imagine what it could be if global warming exacerbates the issue, Obama said.
“I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating,” said Obama, who sat down Monday afternoon for a sit-down interview with six hand-picked journalists from around the country.
“If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?’ that indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously,” he said.
Hello Richard Ong,
My sister and her husband farm in South Dakota, and emailed several news items on the flooding around Fargo, ND. Apparently President Obama in a TV News grab on the floods made the offending statement I referred to. In a later ‘armchair interview’ with five journalists, he modified the comment on the floods, reportedly on the advice of minders, as the floods had nothing to do with “global warming”, but in fact the opposite. They were caused by a very cold winter, with much heavier then usual snow a nd ice cover.
This fact still made his modified commnet look silly, as with a 2deg. temp rise he mentioned, one would assume there would be a much milder winter with less snow and ice to flood the Red River. http://islandturtle.blogspot.com/2009/03/red-river-floods-global-warming-or.html.
Thank you kindly Wes and Sid. I had searched diligently, i.e., between 3 and 5 minutes, but just couldn’t find anything.
🙂