I've read much better articles that address the stupidity of Al Gore and his Global Warming Circus.

Still, the more that's written the merrier.

Mr.Christy should stick to making cookies, and start spelling his name properly.

Otherwise, everything he said is pretty old hat. We've all heard it before, and the view from the other side of the aisle is that the risks are too large to ignore. They justify the current course of action.

Excellent comments by Christy. He's not alone in this assessment of the impossibility of concluding that CO2 is responsible for current climate change. I applaud his refusal to conclude that correlation (warming and CO2) is equivalent to causality.

ET: Correlation provides evidence of causation. The stronger the correlation, the stronger the evidence for causation. Where there are proposed mechanisms, the causation hypothesis is strengthened.

You can argue about the mechanisms and the strength of the evidence (the correlation), but we routinely infer causation between events using correlation as part of the evidence.

Let me translate what our "strawman" troll just said to the English language:

Even though there is no conclusive evidence that CO2 causes warming, because one occurs close enough to the other (and we're talking thousands of years), we can make up our own rules and say the opposite simply because of the vicinity of the two occurences.

Do you idolize Chomsky?

Oh, and strawman, when you get your article published in the WSJ or any other publcation for that matter, maybe we'll begin to take you more seriously. But for now, you're just am anonymous troll that I'm feeding....flame away!

thanks, kate.

Speaking of evidence of causation. IPCC has recently stated that mans CO2 emissions have gone up 35% since the 90's. Which they say will cause a huge acceleration of global warming.
But temperatures have flat lined since 1998 and have actually went down in the southern hemisphere. Sounds to me like the evidence of causation means that increased CO2 slows or even stops global warming.

Anon: and there is a correlation between churches and liquor stores...

Clearly Mr Christy, a member of the IPCC didnt get the consensus means no debate memo. He may be wrong, he may be right. But he points out valid criticisms of AGW mania.

I would like to see one predicition that the AGW crowd makes that doesnt either need to be revised later or falls within some reasonable range of error, i.e. not being quantum amounts off. Then I would like them to make another prediction using the same model and see if that one works.

To date, hasnt been done. Prove it or generate some workable models and I'll buy in.

The argument that "the risks are too large to ignore" isn't invalid in itself; I always found it a fairly compelling argument for taking down the Hussein regime in Iraq, for example, and truthfully, I think it's a good reason to do something about Iran's government as well. (It's the major basis of Ron Susskind's "The One Percent Solution", if I understand correctly.) So if we're willing to accept that even the chance Hussein had WMDs was reason enough to overthrow him, we should grant the prerogative of others to consider some other risks equally unacceptable no matter how remote they may be or how much mitigating them might cost.

The question, of course, all comes down to: At what point does a risk become "unacceptable," and how do we accurately evaluate the likelihood of the risk when we cannot controllably reproduce and test its context? Like "reasonable doubt," it's a concept that's almost wholly unreasonable, in that it tends to be decided more by individual intuition at best and reflex bias at worst.

I'm not a climate scientist or a modeller; I can't assess the likelihood of these claims. All the same, I can't help remembering a C.S. Lewis quote from Screwtape the Devil:

"We want a patient so haunted by memories of the past, or so tormented by visions of an appalling future, that he will gladly commit atrocities in the present if only he can be persuaded that by doing so he will somehow make amends for the one or forestall the other."

Nothing persuades people to make really really bad decisions so fast as scaring them with the threat that things will be even worse if they don't.

good video series from the guy behind coyote blog

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4506A18E60798509

main site

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/

I like this observation made after 4 different reconstructions of the last 100 yrs plus of Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies.

"Over a century, the mean hemispheric changes equal about 0.6 degree C, equivalent to a downward alteration in altitude of about 300 feet, or a southward move of about 60 miles" (closer to the equator).

I still think that we need a National Thermometer Registry to keep thermometers out of the hands of the socially dangerous lawyers and geneticists.

It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.

The stock market is complex too, which is why its easier to predict long term than short term. I suppose our economy could collapse and the markets crash, but hopefully you've all got advisors telling you to invest long-term anyway.

I can control climate. But I will need your money and your strict obedience. And no questions asked.

By the way, I'm still waiting for simple answers to simple questions:

1. During the reign of Mao, Stalin, Castro, Pol-Pot, Chavez, Mugabe, did anyone make a film critical of the regime and live to tell the world?

Choices: A. YES B. NO

2. How are long term trends measured?

Choices: A. smaller (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, etc.) increments compiled and observed to reveal a possible long term trend. B. Ask Algore and the IPCC what the answer is and collect carbon credits.

Waiting......

Arthur A.,

You might read about "advisers" and how good they are at predictions.

http://biz.yahoo.com/hmoney/071025/062306_8380756.html?.v=3

"It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days."

And those who don't know the difference between climate and weather should limit their comments to the latter.

Climate is what we expect. Weather is what we get.

What do I win?

Both, by the by, are inherently unpredictable over time. 5 days out is about as good as it gets.

Centuries? Fageddaboudit.

I predict Ice Age commencing very soon.... will Gore be able to afford his home heating Oil??
Will we stop financing the UN and heating & lighting that monstrosity in NYC??

If everyone is so concerned about warming why are southern and coastal real estate prices going up faster than interior and northern?
Gore mansion monstrosity is where? West Virginia?
According to Goracle predictions that will be burned out by forest fires/ripped apart by tornados/ flooded by torrential rain/have NO water sources....... or maybe not!

Exception Alberta.....

Now, THIS

"I still think that we need a National Thermometer Registry to keep thermometers out of the hands of the socially dangerous lawyers and geneticists." by rockyt

has got to be the BEST 'one-liner' I have ever heard on the whole Kyoto fraud file !! Perfect.

Think Hansen, Strong and Suzuki. They have devoted their life to a fraud because they are nut cases ----- in the same way the Wacko from Waco was.

Doug: you said Even though there is no conclusive evidence that CO2 causes warming, you mean apart from the physics of the CO2 molecule which has been known for a hundred years of course.

Alan: do you have a reference for your statement. I want to know who you were quoting here "Which they say will cause a huge acceleration of global warming."

Mojo: you said Both, by the by, are inherently unpredictable over time. 5 days out is about as good as it gets. Tell you what, lets make a bet. You select a city and you predict what the average temperature for that city is in 3 day's time and I will predict what the average temperature will be for the globe for 2008.

Regards,
John

Here is another thought. Does anyone care to ask Dr. Christy what could cause warming in the troposphere yet cooling in the stratosphere? After all that is what his research shows.

Regards,
John

If naturally occurring events are causing climate change, doesn't that mean climate change is a natural ecological event? And if that's true, then WTF is the problem?

["Over a century, the mean hemispheric changes equal about 0.6 degree C, equivalent to a downward alteration in altitude of about 300 feet, or a southward move of about 60 miles" (closer to the equator).] rockyt

EXACTLY !!

The whole GW swindle is about panic. Trying to panick us into believing that we will fry.

As rockyt puts it ---- what is so scary about moving down the hill 300 feet ?? Where it is indistinguishably warmer. And where people are already living happily.

Or moving a couple of towns farther south ?? Every winter thousands of Canadians spend big $$s travelling 100s of towns farther south.

But ya, ya. The fear-mongers will say yabut --- other bad things will happen. Like what ?? Anything as bad as trying to live under a kilometer of ice ??

I wonder which climate those before us liked better --- the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period ??

So, JC, you can predict that the Earth's temperature, a hundred years from now, will be 15.8C not 15.2C ?? Ice Age rider with that ??

And we know that we cannot trust Hansen with the thermometer :)

John it was not a quote as there were no quotation marks.
How can you explain the flat line temperature increase?
The changes "characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing," the researchers report.
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/science/071022/g10229A.html

Hahaha!

"Mr.Christy should stick to making cookies, and start spelling his name properly."

"And those who don't know the difference between climate and weather should limit their comments to the latter."

Sterling comments from two of Canada's outstanding climate expert trolls about the balanced and scientifically-appropriate opinion of a climate expert. You both forgot to say that he was obviously in the pay of "Big Oil"...time to re-read your script, eh?

anon

correlation in absense of other causative factors is only grounds for further study to see if there is causative factors that cause the correlation

"""" Correlation provides evidence of causation. """"

NO IT DOESN'T

Alan: Good enough. It was the word "huge" that I was curious about anyway.

In regards to the climate over the last few years, I don't see the flat line. If you look at the GISS index you see that some years are warmer and some years are cooler, but the 5 year mean is constantly up in the last decade.

Regards,
John

It is worth while to read alan's CBC link --- just to see all the BS, falsehoods and downright lies. A case study.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/science/071022/g10229A.html

The correlation between increase of CO2 and higher temperatures... the higher temperatures cause an increase in CO2. Possible.

Was there not an article yesterday in the online Globe and Mail that outlined the possibility that the boreal forest in Canada may be releasing more CO2 than it consumes?

You guys must be so proud of your Conservative government, and their principled denial of climate change as a man-made phenomenon.

I constantly wonder if you people know your full of shit, or really believe all of this BS.

Christy says "...everything we've seen the climate do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall continually. The Arctic ice cap has shrunk before."...

Amen, Amen. The climate will continue to change forever--hot,cold,hot,cold--before humans appeared and long after we are gone.

Throbbin:
Read Christy! Who is full of s--t? It is obviously you.

"Sterling comments from two of Canada's outstanding climate expert trolls about the balanced and scientifically-appropriate opinion of a climate expert."
Wow. First post and I'm a climate expert troll. And one of Canada's most outstanding to boot. I'm truly humbled.
Let's break this down. As a climate expert, Christy has a valid point decrying the use of overblown and overwrought climate predictions, "...I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse." But then he goes to the other extreme by comparing Tuesday's forecast to the climate in 50 years. That's neither a balanced or scientifically-appropriate opinion, it's an attempt to minimise the issue by analogy. And someone should remind him Huntsville, Alabama is NOT the world, whether the temperature is increasing or not.

Hhttp://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07110105.html

Here are some people who believe science, and a whole lot more, is settled!

I can't even begin to express my disgust at their ignorance of SO MANY THINGS! Their own history, for one. How can these people even get any traction?!

Someone alert Gore to these charts that have been common knowledge for the rest of us to see how a Pissed-off fireball spews heat waves through a vacuum to end up hitting Earth and changing our weather models or "Climate Change"
by minor deviation that can be exploited if you are selective for the Chart Scale and Timeline windows.

I spent almost 2 years doing Stock Charts by hand for about around 60 different companies that covered the 14 Sectors of the Stock Market Index , so Al Gore can pull out any Chart he wants and unless I see the Scale for the Grid and the starting point for a Base 100 measuring tool for the + - deviations and ironically the " AlGorythmic compressions to reflect the % move .

http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/ast22jul99_1.htm

Next Gore will have a "Tide" tax for hydro power and insist the Moon has nothing to do with the Tidal changes and blmaes in to Humans flushing the Toilets at the same time and flooding the Earth .

anon- did you know that there is a high correlation between availability of seeds and the presence of chicadees? Do seeds CAUSE chicadees?

There is a high correlation between a fever and a disease. Does the fever CAUSE the disease?

GreyOne40 - nice one! It's possible!

Stephen j - nice quote from Lewis. Exactly. That's the real nature of AGW - it's an apocalpytic myth of Sinful Man.

b_nichol, it bears reiterating that Christy just won the Nobel Peace Prize. He is part of the IPCC.

John Cross
Looking at your graft I see it says temperatures have gone up 8 tenths of a degree since 1880 wow that is a scary temperature increase.
I went down to Mexico and it was 20 degrees warmer does that mean we have to wait about 2000 years before we do not have to go south to get some sun in the winter.

Senator Inhofe Speech Excerpt:

We are currently witnessing an international awakening of scientists who are speaking out in opposition to former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, the Hollywood elitists and the media-driven "consensus" on man-made global warming.

We have witnessed Antarctic ice GROW to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1970's. We have witnessed NASA temperature data errors that have made 1934 -- not 1998 -- the hottest year on record in the U.S. We have seen global averages temperatures flat line since 1998 and the Southern Hemisphere cool in recent years.

John Cross's comments about troposphere warming are incorrect, at least lately. The lower and mid troposphere have been cooling since the start of 2002. Surface temperatures have been flat in that same time period.

The issue with troposphere temperatures is significant since models show the troposphere should be warming faster than the surface, but the relationship is the inverse, at least for the last 6 years.

BRK

Alan: Whether the change is significant is another argument (although I will note that temperatures were only about 5C cooler in the last ice age).

I was pointing out that contrary to what you said the warming has not stopped.

Regards,
John

Brian: Do you have a reference? Thanks,

John

John

You cite the GISS data to show a temperature increase, but how credible is the data.

Meteorologists at www.surfacestations.org have studied a third of the surface stations in the USHCN network and found that more than half don't meet the organizations own standards. They are placed too close to asphalt and other sources of heat.

This of course is a function of increased urbanization encroaching on once rural stations. Cities give off heat and affect readings. That explains for example why stations in Albany, NY, have shown little increase in temperature in the last century while New York City has risen dramatically.

John:

You'll have to review the data itself.

My reference is the datasets found at NOAA: "http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html". Monthly anomaly data currently up to September of this year. There are a number of "flavours" of processing the MSU data(RSS,UAH etc.) but they all show the same trend over the last 6 years or so. Namely cooling of the lower and middle troposphere.

Linear regression of the anomaly data in the period 2002 to 2007 inclusive show the mid-troposphere temps to be cooling at a rate of 0.2 degrees per decade. Meaning in 3 decades at this rate they will lose all the temperature gain of the last century.

BRK

John:

One more point on the MSU datasets. Compared the surface temperatures they are a model of objectivity. Why?

While they don't cover the extreme polar areas, they do have otherwise unbiased spatial coverage, unlike the surface datasets which have sparse coverage in the far north and places like the interior of Africa. Also they aren't subject to the effects of urbanization over time as noted above. And finally they sample a much larger zone of the atmosphere, not just the 10 m next to the ground.

So for a number of reasons they represent a more objective view of global climate change, the only problem being they only go back to 1979.

BRK

May I suggest the following paper?

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Robinson, Robinson and Soon, in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 79-90, which is available at
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Anyone interested in the influence of the planets on the energy out-put of the Sun might visit http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot2.html#jupdis10

AL GORE is one of the worlds biggist liar and fruad i mean giving him the award they might as well give it to ASSAMA BIN LADEN since their both a couple of regigious fanatics the only difference is AL GORE is a big time gaia worshiper just like most of the eco-extremists

ET, I liked your analogy. About seeds and birds.

I take it if you had a kid that kept spilling juice under the fridge and not cleaning it up, and then you find that you had ants, you wouldn't yell at the kid and tell him not to spill juice, because he didn't "cause" the ants? Ant sex did, right?

;)

b_nichol, I made the comment I did because of the inannity of your comment. You, a nameless person of no specific qualifications writing into a blog, derides the Director of Earth Sciences at a university for what you seem to think is a silly opinion. If you were another IPCC researcher dismissing his opinions, then fine...if you want to dismiss one of the other commentators comments, then fine.

Your comment was silly. The concerns of the SDA-ers is with the claims by the researchers that the "science is settled" and that there is a "consensus", because science is NEVER settled and our understanding of science is NEVER complete or fully correct. So we will deride the researchers for saying THAT, not for publishing their educated opinions.

arthur a - no matter how much juice I stir into my cauldron, I'll never, ever, create an ant from it. Correlation and causation can't necessarily be linked.

So, saying that ant population and juice availability are correlated doesn't mean that the one causes the other.

Saying that climate change and CO2 emissions are correlated doesn't mean that one causes the other.

Basic logic and basic science.

Brian: OK, I see what you are saying. I misunderstood you before. Yes, if you calculate a trend over the last 5 years, you do get a negative slope. However when I did it I found the R2 value for the lower troposphere to be about 0.14! Thus it is not statistically significant.

However I did play around with the data a bit and I will note that there are at least 2 other regions of the graph where there is a 5 year cooling trend (warning I used the RSS data from their site). The first is starting in June of 1980 and it gives a 5 year cooling trend of -0.6C/decade with an R2 of 0.3 . The second starts in July of 1987 with a cooling rate of -0.16C/decade and an R2 of 0.02.

So I don't think we can really draw too much from a 5 year trend. William Connolly has an (a href="http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/upload/2007/05/5-year-trends.png"> excellent graphic showing the problem with 5 year trends. The top image shows the 5 year trends (black lines with the blue lines being the ones that are statistically significant. The middle one shows the 10 year trends that are statistically significant. And the last one shows the 15 year trends that are statistically significant.

Anyway, I shall keep an eye on the satellite measurements, but unless this keeps up for a couple of more years I will keep quoting the trend from 1979.

Regards,
John.

We are all going to die because Dion "Did'nt get it done"...And to think Citoyen declared himself Kyoto's CEO...What a load of puffins! ;-)

The coming decade (2010~15) will prove that this was all hysterics and lots of the snake oil drinkers will then complain that it's very cold, heating is too expensive, food is expensive, the poor are dying because of this and that Harper, now on his 3rd majority, will be blamed for all of this.
(My theory is based on data of peaks and valleys from the hottest 1930's to the coldest 1970's back to the hottest 1990's)

"Oh how good we had it back when it was hotter"

Suzuki's daughter, now married to Gore's son will be making tons of money off a fresh batch of gullible fools with their "An inconvenient ice age cometh".

Chip: re the GISS data, have you been following John V's work? From his analysis it appears to actually be pretty good.

Regards,
John

Three questions for the AGW crowd. First, since their faith in the climate models of the IPCC seems so absolute, could they please identify the model which produces accurate predictions of the the course of the monsoon (arguably the most significant weather pattern affecting humanity, a subset of the total global climate, and a phenomenon which credible scientists have been attempting for years to model)?
Second, since AGW purports to be settled science, a corollary of a scientific theory is that it must in some way be falsifiable. What phenomena could we observe that would falsify the AGW theory?
Third, for about the hundredth time and still without an answer, (do I need therapy?) according to the IPCC scientific reports, did the "little ice age" occur or not occur?

John Cross:

Your analysis is forgetting something. The 2 earlier cooling trends you speak about are driven by major volcanic eruptions (El Chichon and Pinatubo). That is clearly not true for the recent cooling. What do think is driving it?

As for your use of R2 statistic, I can comment that on such noisy data (assuming you are using monthly data) you won't find R2 meaningful. However, try this experiment. Take the annual data and attempt to get the correlation coefficient over various periods starting 5 years back. I think you'll find the 5 year number is better than say the 8 year number. Makes no sense right. Unless you admit there was some kind of transition about 2002. Which is my point.

And by the way, it's not just the troposphere data that show a non-warming trend developing, it's the upper oceans and surface temperatures too.

Regards, BRK

John Cross:

Your analysis is forgetting something. The 2 earlier cooling trends you speak about are driven by major volcanic eruptions (El Chichon and Pinatubo). That is clearly not true for the recent cooling. What do think is driving it?

As for your use of R2 statistic, I can comment that on such noisy data (assuming you are using monthly data) you won't find R2 meaningful. However, try this experiment. Take the annual data and attempt to get the correlation coefficient over various periods starting 5 years back. I think you'll find the 5 year number is better than say the 8 year number. Makes no sense right. Unless you admit there was some kind of transition about 2002. Which is my point.

And by the way, it's not just the troposphere data that show a non-warming trend developing, it's the upper oceans and surface temperatures too.

Regards, BRK

Hi Brian: You are correct I did forget the volcanoes, however on checking the data, I am not sure of the effect of them.

Pinatubo took place in 1991 which is just at the end of the 5 year trend I looked at. If I exclude that year and only look at the 4 year trend I still see a negative slope. Less than before but still negative.

In regards to El Chichon, this took place early in my 5 year analysis (my analysis was based on June 1980 to May 1985) but it is hard to see any effect from it. The temperatures seemed to be decreasing before it and continued to decrease for about 8 months after it, then increased for over a year then fell back to even lower levels.

Your trend analysis is an interesting idea and I will play around with it.

In regards to the surface and ocean temperatures, do you have references for these (especially the oceans)? I do not think we are seeing a substantial cooling in the surface and I think this year will be a new record (you heard it here first).

Regards,
John

Dr. D: I am not too up on models so I am not sure about your first point. But I will address your other two.

In my opinion, one thing that could easily falsify AGW is if someone is able to show that the CO2 molecule does not absorb IR. That would take away the theoretical basis in one fell swoop.

In reagrds to the IPCC and ice age, of course it did. From Chapt 1 of AR4, pg 108:

This period of low solar activity, now
known as the Maunder Minimum, occurred during the climate
period now commonly referred to as the Little Ice Age (Eddy,
1976). There is no exact agreement as to which dates mark the
beginning and end of the Little Ice Age, but from about 1350 to
about 1850 is one reasonable estimate.

John Cross:

If you want to judge the effect of the volcanoes, take a look at the troposphere temperatures. You or I must be wrong about El Chichon. The troposphere effect peaks in early '83 which is not at the beginning of your period as you assert. As for the later trend analysis, the SOI index shows strong la Nina conditions, the effect of which peaks in mid '89. Without this "incident" I doubt you would have found a cooling trend in the period you discuss.

Finally, on your comment that SSTs+Surface temps will set a record for this year, you don't have a hope in hell of making that. You had a little spike from the dying El Nino at the beginning of the year, but since it's been down down down. Take a look at the current SST map. See a lot of "blue" out there?

Since you're making predictions, I'll make one myself. Based on the HADCRUv3 global dataset, 2007 will be beat by 2002,2003,2004,2005 and the all time champ 1998.

Regards, BRK

John Cross

Sorry, in my first sentence of the last post I meant stratosphere temperatures.

Regards BRK

John Cross:

The link for the subsurface ocean temperatures can be found

"http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf"

At one point there was an analysis of the data without the troublesome series X Argo floats, which also showed data into 2006, but I can't find that particular addendum, which seems to have disappeared.

Regards, BRK

John Cross, please give it up.

Your tactics of polite obsfucation may work on other blogs and at University seminar and Suzuki Foundation meetings but it will not work at sda.

Just too many high quality commenters here who can see through the bafflegarb. They know a logrithim and and a solar constant and gaseous transparancy when they see it.

You are comtinually being diagnosed by Dr D and run over by Jet and klipped by Klapstein.

However, because you are polite and the discussion civil, it is useful that, everyday thousands of sda readers learn or have their knowledge reinforce ----- The IPCC's Kyoto Protocol is the biggest fraud the world has ever seen.

Look how long we were fooled by the claim that the Crude Oil being drilled for was originally a graveyard for Dinosaurs .

We now know that Oil is found not only at ground level in Alberta tar sands , but under the Ocean floor in areas where Dinosaurs never lived unless a Massive Ice-Comet hit the Earth and killed them off , AND Then it fully melted to create at least 6000 ft. of water that caused the lowland areas to fill up and leave the Continents above the water level.

But then again , that kills the Pan-gea theory taught in Universities which are never Wrong...Right? .

John
"In my opinion, one thing that could easily falsify AGW is if someone is able to show that the CO2 molecule does not absorb IR. That would take away the theoretical basis in one fell swoop. "

Yes, and if anyone can falsify that the sun provides energy to the atmosphere, energy that the CO2 molecules will ultimately absorb (whether direct IR, blackbody IR, or molecular transition). That would take away the theoretical basis in one fell swoop.

I noticed on a different blog you quoted 1998 as the hottest year. Your posts were in May. Given your certainty in those posts to JMRSudbury and NASA's recent change of heart, are you at least willing to soften your stance?

Hi Brian: No disagreement about the effect of volcanoes on the stratosphere. I am just saying that it doesn't show up in the troposphere.

Re the 2007 temps, I am using the Global Land Ocean temps (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt)
I am willing to put my prediction up against yours. ;)

Re the ocean temps. I have not seen a re-analysis since they made the two corrections. However I know both corrections significantly reduced the cooling rate.

However, while I may not agree with your points, I have enjoyed the civil and thought provoking discussion.

Regards,
John

John

"Does anyone care to ask Dr. Christy what could cause warming in the troposphere yet cooling in the stratosphere? After all that is what his research shows. "

Decreased cloud formation?

8bEbgcBBi: I am not sure of the context for the post in may (was it in Back Seat Driving?) so I am not sure what softening would be required. The recent NASA correction was only for the lower 48 states so I don't think that is significant.

However my opinion is always changing based on what I read.

Regards,
John

John

"The recent NASA correction was only for the lower 48 states so I don't think that is significant. "

Why not? The predominance of the data sets have been for the lower 48 states.

Besides, do you have any refutation to

"if anyone can falsify that the sun provides energy to the atmosphere, energy that the CO2 molecules will ultimately absorb (whether direct IR, blackbody IR, or molecular transition). That would take away the theoretical basis in one fell swoop."

You asked this of others with regards to CO2 and I know that it can't be done for CO2 in a laboratory. Can you refute the Sun's contributions to IR and CO2 absorption?

John Cross:

There's clear dips in the troposphere temps coincident with the stratosphere temperature rise of El Chichon and Pinatubo.

As for your prediction, I checked your preferred dataset and based on my calculations 2007 would have to have temperature anomalies of at least 0.7 for the last 3 months to beat the average for 2005 (the highest year in your dataset).

There's no realistic way that's going to happen given the current la Nina conditions. You haven't had a monthly number above .6 since May. Even last years El Nino only gave December 2006 a 0.69.

Even if you were right, that wouldn't be a good thing for the AGW cause. You can't keep setting records with the surface temperatures, while the troposphere temperatures fall and say with a straight face the models are "robust".

Regards, BRK

Brian: I still don't see the dips that you talk about regarding El-Chichon. The eruption took place in March of 2002 - the anomaly for this month was -0.239. The temperature stayed at essentially the same level for the next 6 months. Then it shot up above 0 for essentially the next 11 months and then in mid-1984 reached the lows similar to the temperature at the eruption time.

In regards to my prediction, I wouldn't put a lot of money on it but the chance is much more than a snowball's chance in 2100 ;-) . First, I am looking at meteorological years, and I think you calculated based on calendar years. From my calculations I would need O and N to come in at +0.65 which is possible. However, no matter how you slice the data it will be exceptional if the year finished below second warmest thus beating the famed 1998! The October numbers should be out in about a week so we will see then!

In regards to whether a record year would be a good thing or not, I don't see it as being either one or the other (hey, if the models are wrong, they are wrong). However it is a little premature to talk about this yet.

regards,
John

8bEbgcBBi: I missed this one last night Decreased cloud formation?

No, I don't see how that would manage it. I might see increased cloud formation, but could you explain how decreased cloud formation could manage it?

In regards to the data sets, while the lower 48 are important, the effect on global temperatures from the very small change we saw in the "correction" is not enough to change any rankings.

You asked this of others with regards to CO2 and I know that it can't be done for CO2 in a laboratory. Can you refute the Sun's contributions to IR and CO2 absorption?

Just to be clear I was responding to Dr.D who was asking for something that could falsify AGW. what I supplied was 1 point. In regards to the sun's contribution to IR, I am not sure what you mean, but the sun is obviously the source of 99.99999% of the earth's energy so I can't and don't see a need to falsify it.

regards,
John

John Cross:

"...Hey if the model's are wrong they're wrong.." A pretty cavalier statement since there's only really 2 trains of logic supporting AGW theory:

1. The models
2. climate history (as in: "this never happened before")

So if the models are wrong it is a big deal. And yes I was using calender years. No biggy. The anomalies just won't make your needed numbers in any case. And if I was you I'd switch to the HADCRUv3 dataset. Just friendly advice since the more the S&R GHCN/SST dataset deviates from the MSU data, the more suspect it becomes. And 2007 will not beat 1998 by any stretch of the fevered imagination in the HADCRU dataset, not even close.

"...However it is a little premature to talk about this yet..." I don't think so at all. The models are failing in temperature projections at Antarctica, the lack of troposphere temperature growth, precipitation and GHG growth rates among other things. I sense the scientific community feels no need talk about these things since any year now the problematic trends will turn around.

But what if they don't? How angry off do think the citizenry are going to be in 2012 after being loaded down with a bunch of new taxes and restrictions on lifestyle, on the basis it was a crisis, a crisis that never materialized? Especially when they find out that the "scary numbers" all kind of stopped happening around 2002?

As a final point, solar cycle 24 predictions are on the weak side (the longer 23 drags out the more the peak predictions for 24 seem revised downward), so if the sun has any effect, the likelihood of a turnaround soon is not good.

Regards, BRK

John Cross:

On final comment. Stand back and look at what you are doing with your 2007 prediction. You have chosen arguably the least relevant dataset, in terms of its coherence with other datasets. Not only that you've chosen the type of data most problematic in the objectivity department (surface stations). And you're trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat with your prediction of another "record" year.

And what would that get you if you were right anyway? Another year of avoiding dealing with what the majority of the evidence says?

The psychological terms that describe what is going on in the pro-AGW camp right now are "rationalize, minimize, and deny".

Regards, BRK

Brian: A pretty cavalier statement since there's only really 2 trains of logic supporting AGW theory:

Of course there is also the physics of the CO2 molecule and the fact that we are responsible for all the recent increase in CO2.

I will probably stick to the GISS for now anyway. A quick question about the satellite observations, do they incorporate Fu's correction into the results?

But what if they don't?

I don't like these "what if" scenarios. I could counter with But what if we don't take action and things turn out worse than we thought? All we can do is act based on what we understand.

In regards to the solar cycles, again - good. It will provide a test of the influence of the sun. If temperatures continue to rise - or even stay the same - it will show that the sun's influence is not as great as imagined by some.

Finally, about my prediction, all I can say is wait and see. I am not trying to pull rabbits out of anywhere or delay anything. It is just an off the cuff prediction by myself. I will note that I have not heard any expert say it will be a record year so I realize I am on a limb here.

Regards,
John

John Cross:

"...physics of the CO2 molecule..". Perhaps you weren't aware the level of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is enough to adsorb pretty much all outgoing infrared in the CO2 "bands". Meaning more CO2 will only move the capture lower, since you can't intercept more than 100%. Realclimate.org has an explanation of how the warming can continue even though this is so. By all means read up on it, but the physics of the atmosphere is not as clear cut as they would have you believe. And neither is the contribution of CO2 to ongoing warming. A good point to ponder is that CO2 has been way higher in the past then now, and so if CO2 has so much leverage, why didn't the "runawawy" greenhouse effect make earth permanently like Venus? By the way you're wrong about "us" being responsible for ALL the recent increase in CO2.

As for your question on the MSU data, some datasets incorporate Fu's corrections, some don't, but they all show a cooling trend over the last 5 years in any case.

You say you don't like "what if" scenarios. That's interesting since the whole AGW movement is based on a "what if" scenario.

A good idea to keep your eye on the sun, but you're wrong (again) about the "...if it stays the same part...". The theory states that global temperatures should peak on (or "about" considering lag) on solar sunspot peaks, which means even in a weak sunspot cycle you might still get some warming, just not near as much as the models would predict.

I'm surprised you haven't heard any experts predict 2007 as a record year. Dr. Phil Jones of the CRU did that back in January. Regrettably for the reputation of climate science, he jumped the gun, probably counting on the then current El Nino lasting a little longer.

Regards, BRK

Brian:

"...physics of the CO2 molecule..". Perhaps you weren't aware the level of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is enough to adsorb pretty much all outgoing infrared in the CO2 "bands".

I am not sure I follow you here. Some of the bands are saturated (and some aren’t) which is why the increases are fairly small (compared to the current greenhouse effect of 35 – 38 C). I am fairly aware of the physics of CO2 and have read the post at RealClimate but prefer my own explanation which I have posted here several times. But I am a little confused, are you saying that CO2 will cause a little warming or no warming? There is a large difference between the two statements.

In regards to CO2 concentrations being higher in the past, I am also aware of that but I don’t think it really tells us much due to two reasons. The first that the sun is the largest climate driver but its output varies over millions of years (it warms up as it gets older). Thus there was not as much solar radiation back then. The other is one that you are probably not aware of i.e. continental drift. While we can ignore this over 100’s of years, over millions this is very significant. So, I don’t think we can tell as much as you believe we can from higher CO2 readings.

By the way you're wrong about "us" being responsible for ALL the recent increase in CO2.

Why do you say I am wrong? I guess it depends on your definition of “recent” but there is no doubt that this is the case for the last say 40 years but probably at least another 40. That is one of the key points in the debate and there is no question of this.

In regards to Fu, can you point me to one that does incorporate his work? I am just curious. I looked at the stratospheric cooling and while it is continuing at a somewhat faster rate it is not significantly faster. Anyway, I was wondering if stratospheric contamination is part of the problem.

In regards to what if scenarios, I would differ a scientific case from a what if scenario. I can say, “what if the sun does not rise tomorrow” but there is not much scientific evidence to back it up.

A good idea to keep your eye on the sun, but you're wrong (again) Ouch!

In regards to Dr. Jones, thanks, I didn’t know that. Although what he actually said that there was a 60% chance that this would be the warmest year which is a fairly weak prediction. None the less, I would agree that this year he is likely wrong.

Regards,
John