Why there can be no accord

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

from a recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters:

We find that the available observations are sufficient to virtually exclude internal variability and self-acceleration as an explanation for the observed long-term trend, clustering, and magnitude of recent sea-ice minima. Instead, the recent retreat is well described by the superposition of an externally forced linear trend and internal variability. For the externally forced trend, we find a physically plausible strong correlation only with increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Our results hence show that the observed evolution of Arctic sea-ice extent is consistent with the claim that virtually certainly the impact of an anthropogenic climate change is observable in Arctic sea ice already today.


Notz & Marotzke, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L08502, 6 PP., 2012

The attached graphic is worth a thousand words.

No attached graphic.

Did the 'scientists' perhaps explain how CO2 melted the ice near the Pole in the 1920s?

Quote

From NatGeo, 1922:
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/global-sea-ice-fifth-highest-for-the-date-on-record/

Sea Ice at record levels.

still focused on area instead of volume.

So just how thick do you think *sea ice* is supposed to be, pray tell?

Funny how that never matters when it's kallend bringing up the chart in a low-ice year.

From NSIDC

Arctic sea ice reached its annual maximum extent on March 18, after reaching an initial peak early in the month and declining briefly. Ice extent for the month as a whole was higher than in recent years, but still below average.

As the melt season begins, researchers look at a variety of factors that may contribute to summer ice melt. While the maximum extent occurred slightly later than average, the new ice growth is very thin and likely to melt quickly. Ice age data indicate that despite the higher extent compared to recent years, the winter sea ice continues to be dominated by younger and thinner sea ice.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/global-sea-ice-fifth-highest-for-the-date-on-record/

Sea Ice at record levels.

still focused on area instead of volume.

So just how thick do you think *sea ice* is supposed to be, pray tell?

Funny how that never matters when it's kallend bringing up the chart in a low-ice year.

From NSIDC

Arctic sea ice reached its annual maximum extent on March 18, after reaching an initial peak early in the month and declining briefly. Ice extent for the month as a whole was higher than in recent years, but still below average.

As the melt season begins, researchers look at a variety of factors that may contribute to summer ice melt. While the maximum extent occurred slightly later than average, the new ice growth is very thin and likely to melt quickly. Ice age data indicate that despite the higher extent compared to recent years, the winter sea ice continues to be dominated by younger and thinner sea ice.

Navy ice thickness measurements don't appear to agree.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skiskyrock 0]

You just attempted to refute a peer-reviewed paper with an account in a magazine of what our consul in Norway says some fishermen said? This seems rational to you? Bringing an anecdote to a data fight is usually a bad idea.

But to address your anecdote; the 1920's were a warm period. CO2 was increasing, but it was probably balanced by manmade sulfur aerosols. At the same time (since CO2 is not the only driver of climate) there was high solar activity and low volcanic activity. There may also have been a contribution from changes weather patterns. But the warming only lasted for a short period (about 15 years). Current sea ice extent has been on a downward trend for over 30 years.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/global-sea-ice-fifth-highest-for-the-date-on-record/

Sea Ice at record levels.

still focused on area instead of volume.

This is the difficulty. Arctic sea ice levels are some pretty difficult things, in my opinion, upon which to base matters. The Arctic had a banner year of sea ice extent. It turns out, also, that sea ice extent is the biggest thing for increasing albedo. Sea ice extent is also the easiest thing to measure - just take a picture.

Sea ice extent, however is also the most susceptible to weather conditions. Sea ice extent is primarily governed by winds. The DOMINANT factor with regard to sea ice extent is wind. This means a high variability that can almost always be attributed to oscillations. This past winter we had extent above normal, and the extent kept climbing even into April - which has never been recorded. (Not going to say it "has never happened before" or is "unprecedented" because we have millenia of unrecorded events when it could have happened and probably DID happen).

But volume is another weird one. It can be an indicator of old ice. You can have higher than normal ice volume with lower than normal extent. But the National Sea Ice Data Center revealed that the ice VOLUME is itself normal. this past winter, the ice extent was normal. The ice thickness was greatest along Canada and shifted west, where it was trapped and blocked at the Bering Strait.

Over the past several years, there was an easterly prevailing wind. This pushed ice down the Fram strait where it melted. That wasn't the case this year due to the negative oscillations in the North Atlantic.

There's been some recent controversy over PIOMAS - a computer model that sought short and midrange projections of ice. PiOMAS wasn't even close this year.

Here's what an eminent climate scientist said in 2009 about the VERY low Arctic sea ice extent in 2007 - and the near repeat in 2008. Climate scientists didn't see that one coming:

Quote

One of the interesting things about being a scientist is seeing how unexpected observations can galvanize the community into looking at a problem in a different way than before. A good example of this is the unexpectedly low Arctic sea ice minimum in 2007 and the near-repeat in 2008. What was unexpected was not the long term decline of summer ice (this has long been a robust prediction), but the size of 2007 and 2008 decreases which were much larger than any model had hinted at. This model-data mismatch raises a number of obvious questions – were the data reliable? are the models missing some key physics? is the comparison being done appropriately? – and some less obvious ones – to what extent is the summer sea ice minimum even predictable? what is the role of pre-conditioning from the previous year vs. the stochastic nature of the weather patterns in any particular summer?

The data mismatches are important on both sides. Why was this remarkably high level of sea ice extent] and volume ("remarkable" meaning "nomal" - which was not predicted) not seen? Is the same public questioning of the models when ice is low (we didn't think it would be THIS bad) shown when the ice levels are much higher than expected?

If politics are taken out of it, then one would expect to see no difference. But politics are crucial to this.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Good post

Which mades me to wonder

Given the age of the planet

How do we think we know what normal is?

There was a graph posted (in this tread I think) that showed overall warming with 10 year cooling cycles.

So, again, given the age of the earth, how do we know that what is happening now is not normal or, it is part of a correction getting us back to what the planet considers normal


What is the planets average temp ?

What is the planets average ice levels?

Seems normal is getting set based on a bit more than a short span of time in the existance of the earth AND a political agenda

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

From NSIDC

Arctic sea ice reached its annual maximum extent on March 18, after reaching an initial peak early in the month and declining briefly. Ice extent for the month as a whole was higher than in recent years, but still below average.

.

Take a look at the data, John. The Arctic Sea Ice Extent continued to increase into April - it moved up to average. March 18 was the predicted sea ice maximum. It's when they expected it, but the unexpected tends to happen when something as complex as weather and climate are involved.

Quote

As the melt season begins, researchers look at a variety of factors that may contribute to summer ice melt. While the maximum extent occurred slightly later than average, the new ice growth is very thin and likely to melt quickly. Ice age data indicate that despite the higher extent compared to recent years, the winter sea ice continues to be dominated by younger and thinner sea ice

No, kidding. It has not been contested that the Arctic Sea Ice has been of lower extent and volume the past few years, meaning that there is less older ice to go around. But then new ice is generated, bringing the levels to normal, and meaning that a higher level of young ice is shown.

One can look at that data and say, "Wow! All this ice is new. Sigh." Or, one can look at that data and saw, "Wow! All this ice is new. Nice."

A system dominated by old ice is a system on the decline (because it means that new ice isn't being accreted). And considering that Arctic ice isn't anchored, then one can see why it is that three year-old ice in the Arctic is like a 15 year old dog. Ice in the Arctic ablates. It moves south into warmer waters and can even sink a Titanic (though icebergs of that size come from glaciers).

Arctic sea ice will ALWAYS be dominated by younger and thinner sea ice in the winter and thicker ice in the summer. You are taking a common sense idea and making it sound bad. In September 9, 2011, the Arctic sea ice extent reached its minimum of 1.67 million square miles. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/09/

The Arctic sea ice extent for March 2012 was (5.87 million square miles). Shocking that 4.2 million square miles of new ice added to 1.67 square million miles of ice would be "dominant.' I mean, wow. New ice dominates old ice in a system that routinely adds and subtracts 3-5 million square miles of ice every year. It also makes me wonder whether the ranks of students at your college have more 18 year-olds every September than in every May, leaving the freshman ranks continually dominated by minors.

And for a good idea of the, um, recovery, "Overall, the Arctic gained 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) of ice during March. Typically, March has been a month of net ice loss (an average of 260,000 square kilometers [100,000 square miles] for 1979 to 2000), but the last three Marches have had net ice growth."

Note - the United States has an area of 3,794,083 square miles. The Arctic added an area of sea ice greater than the size of the US in six months. At its minimum, the ice extent was six time the area of Texas. At its minimum, Arctic sea ice had an area of the sum total of Alaska, Texas, California, Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado. Or Taking Alaska out, Texas, California, Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Oregon, Wyoming, Michigan, Minnesota, Utah Idaho and Kansas (Nos. 2 through 15 of our largest states).

You are showing how spin is such a useful tool in politics. " the winter sea ice continues to be dominated by younger and thinner sea ice." Yeah. No shit. There's 3.5 times the amount of young ice as old ice assuming that the old ice stuck around.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Seems normal is getting set based on a bit more than a short span of time in the existance of the earth AND a political agenda

Right, the deniers keep harping on some cherry picked decade whenever it suits them. You can always find a short-term cooling trend if you look at the right set of years (due to cycles such as ENSO and the 11 year solar cycle). Which is why long term averages need to be used.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Seems normal is getting set based on a bit more than a short span of time in the existance of the earth AND a political agenda

Right, the deniers keep harping on some cherry picked decade whenever it suits them. You can always find a short-term cooling trend if you look at the right set of years (due to cycles such as ENSO and the 11 year solar cycle). Which is why long term averages need to be used.

Right
But you missed avoided the point

You and I have no idea what average or normal temp and ice extents are for the earth

Yet, you and the alarmists claim a starting point and go from there

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You just attempted to refute a peer-reviewed paper with an account in a magazine of what our consul in Norway says some fishermen said? This seems rational to you? Bringing an anecdote to a data fight is usually a bad idea.

He's bringing it up to show that anecdote is the same anecdote we are seeing now. Global climate muckraking is nothing new. Change the date of the article to today and it sounds just the same.

Quote

CO2 was increasing, but it was probably balanced by manmade sulfur aerosols. At the same time (since CO2 is not the only driver of climate) there was high solar activity and low volcanic activity. There may also have been a contribution from changes weather patterns.

True. May be. But then again, there may have been other factors at work. The sulfur aerosols were at LEAST balanced out by black carbon aerosols. There was high solar activity, yes. (Interesting that we're starting to take a better look at solar influence - the "input" portion of the climate equation).

The warming did only last a short period. However, there were regional variabilities. The 1930's were a hot and dry time in the US and also a big demonstration of how land use can affect local climate.

We don't understand the ENSO - the single largest terrestrial weather and climate effectuator that we know of now. This is why so much of climate is conjecture.

We have had a thirty year period of warming. Are there oscillations that last 30 years? 50 years? 100 years? If there's a 100 year oscillation, our data at this time would primarily represent "noise" and a signal will start coming through in another 20 or 30 years. We don't know.

We are still in the infancy stage of climate science. We are ignorant. Our climate models cannot be validated until a time far in the future. While GCMs are designed to filter out the noise through statistical methods (tried and trued - see quantum mechanics) we still don't know with much precision or accuracy the interplay between innumerable variables. It's a high factor more difficult than the n-body problem of gravitation.

We don't know. We do know that an extra 4 million (+/- a million) square miles of ice is added in the winter over 2 million (+/- 500k) square miles left over after the summer melt. And we know that this ice will be young, as well. (Damned kids taking over the place). That new young ice forms in the winter is so ridiculously obvious that to point to it as a problem is cause for scorn and ridicule.

Quote

Current sea ice extent has been on a downward trend for over 30 years.

Current sea ice has indeed been on a downward trend but that trend is upward in the last five years. 2007 was a BIG friggin drop in the minimum. Thin ice tends to melt more easily, therefore, if ice thickness was dominant in this then we'd see continuing drop. But WIND is the dominant player in ice extent. If the wind pushed west then you'll see ice thickness also increased at the westerly portions (or wherever a land mass blocks the ice movement.). The Fram Strait is wide open, so when wind blows ice eastward it flows through the Fram Strait where it disperses into warmer waters. Again, easy to understand.

We don't know how ice formation is going. That's tougher. We also knows that rough seas will cause more ice formation because it breaks up the ice, allowing more ice to form in the cracks. Etc,

But the recent trend is promising and hopeful. I hope the upward trend continues. What if the trend continues upward for the next, say, fifteen years? The 50 year trend will be down but the thirty year trend may be static or even a tick upward.

Will such a thing have any effect on climate science? On the policy relating to climate? Will a restoration of ice to the 1979-2009 mean levels have any impact on the science or policy?

We can't say that it will happen. We cannot say that it won't. We just don't know.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Right, the deniers keep harping on some cherry picked decade whenever it suits them. You can always find a short-term cooling trend if you look at the right set of years (due to cycles such as ENSO and the 11 year solar cycle). Which is why long term averages need to be used.

Well, how long term should the averages be? 100 years? 300 years? Yep - we're warmer. 1000 years? There's some debate. 15k years? Well, we're SIGNIFICANTLY warmer now than we were then. 100k years? We're a lot cooler now than then.

The 1979 timeframe has a good rationale - it's got the good satellite data. The 1860 timeframe is good, as well, because we've got some pretty nice global data starting about then. But we also know that those were toward the end of some colder periods, which leads to some issues.

If all sides acknowledged these things openly then it could lead to some better understanding of things.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Well, how long term should the averages be? 100 years? 300 years? Yep - we're warmer. 1000 years? There's some debate. 15k years? Well, we're SIGNIFICANTLY warmer now than we were then. 100k years? We're a lot cooler now than then.

.

Bah, of course in geological time all of these measurements are not really telling us anything. Maybe the 100k years starts to tell us something. That especially applies when we try to look at historical data--we have no idea what an average fluctuation is over a 10 year or 100 year period. Everything we are looking at could be noise.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I note neither you nor kallend care to take up the point of the 'accelerated movement toward the sea' of those supposedly shrinking ice masses.

Not my battle. I'm not fully on that side to start with. But I'd like to see it get away from terrible debate approach where a volume argument is countered with an area argument. That's just stupid.

See Lawrocket's postings for an idea. You don't have to be a lawyer to write this way (though if you can't, you'll never be a lawyer). This is a subject that is much more complicated then "all snow will be gone in 10 years" or "everything is fine."

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Well, how long term should the averages be? 100 years? 300 years? Yep - we're warmer. 1000 years? There's some debate. 15k years? Well, we're SIGNIFICANTLY warmer now than we were then. 100k years? We're a lot cooler now than then.

.

Bah, of course in geological time all of these measurements are not really telling us anything. Maybe the 100k years starts to tell us something. That especially applies when we try to look at historical data--we have no idea what an average fluctuation is over a 10 year or 100 year period. Everything we are looking at could be noise.

The measured rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and its excellent correlation with human CO2 output in the past 200 years is definitely not noise, neither is CO2's absorption spectrum.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The measured rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and its excellent correlation with human CO2 output in the past 200 years is definitely not noise, neither is CO2's absorption spectrum.

And the lack of correlation between the expected temperature rise with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its known absorption spectrum with relation to longwave infrared radiation is problematic.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skiskyrock 0]

GRL attachment missing from previous post

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

And the lack of correlation between the expected temperature rise with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its known absorption spectrum with relation to longwave infrared radiation is problematic.

I'm dying to hear your opinion on the IR absorbance spectrum bit, please please expand on your comment.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

And the lack of correlation between the expected temperature rise with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its known absorption spectrum with relation to longwave infrared radiation is problematic.

I'm dying to hear your opinion on the IR absorbance spectrum bit, please please expand on your comment.

Why don’t you expand on the fact that there have been 19 warmer first quarters, while there have never been higher co2 concentrations? If there is a causal relationship between co2 and temps don’t you think it would be a bit warmer than it is?

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And the lack of correlation between the expected temperature rise with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its known absorption spectrum with relation to longwave infrared radiation is problematic.

I'm dying to hear your opinion on the IR absorbance spectrum bit, please please expand on your comment.

Why don’t you expand on the fact that there have been 19 warmer first quarters, while there have never been higher co2 concentrations? If there is a causal relationship between co2 and temps don’t you think it would be a bit warmer than it is?

As I have explained (and am getting tired of doing so) CO2 is not the only factor driving climate. We are seeing internal variability (el nino/la Nina) and other forcings (solar cycle, aerosols) superimposed on the increase due to CO2. There is a good article on the Houston chronicle website detailing the effects with respect to el nino. http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/

There is a great paper by Foster and Rhamsdorf that did multiple regression using solar intensity, aerosols, volcanic eruptions, and el nino/la nina. No models, just regression. They found a residual in the data that was increasing linearly over time, just like CO2, that could not be explained by any of the other factors. And the effect is the same for all five temperature datasets.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I'm dying to hear your opinion on the IR absorbance spectrum bit, please please expand on your comment.

Warming paused for a decade. CO2 emissions rose during that period. So, too, should have absorption and re-emission. It didn't. Apparently for no good reason - nothing that could be explained.

Realclimate discussed it extensively in about 2009. THey had a pause and couldn't explain it. This is not my words. These are serious discussions.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm dying to hear your opinion on the IR absorbance spectrum bit, please please expand on your comment.

Warming paused for a decade. CO2 emissions rose during that period. So, too, should have absorption and re-emission. It didn't. Apparently for no good reason - nothing that could be explained.

Realclimate discussed it extensively in about 2009. THey had a pause and couldn't explain it. This is not my words. These are serious discussions.

The IR absorbance of CO2 is an intrinsic property. It can't decide not to absorb in the mid-IR. The CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs more IR now than it did a decade ago since there is more of it (you do realize that the CO2 levels at Mauna Loa are measured by determining the IR absorbance of an air sample under controlled conditions).

As for the 2009 paper, I think you may be refering to Lindzen and Choi which compared top of atmosphere IR to sea surface temperatures. A paper, which to put it mildly, hasn't stood the test of time. Lindzen has described it himself as containing embarrassing mistakes.

Over suitably long time periods, CO2 tracks temperature very well. Again, take a look at the Foster and Rhamstorf plot from my last post. If you remove the contributions due to short term climate cvariability, it tracks well even over the last ten years.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The IR absorbance of CO2 is an intrinsic property.

I get that. The IR absorption of CO2 should have been a dominant forcing in the late 90's through mid 2000's and increased the temperature according to the increase in CO2. It didn't happen. It could not be explained by volcanoes, which explained the previous pauses in the fairly recent record that they could identify.

I am very specific: not "cooling." But a "pause in warming." And I note that GISS did not find any pause in warming. The Hadley and UAH data sets had it.

I also understand that the IR absorption of CO2 by concentration is non-linear. If you double the CO2 you do not double the IR absorption in the total budget. I get that.

Quote

The CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs more IR now than it did a decade ago since there is more of it (you do realize that the CO2 levels at Mauna Loa are measured by determining the IR absorbance of an air sample under controlled conditions).

Yes. I understand that. Which is why the pause in cooling is odd and unexplained. One would expect there to be a comcomitant increase in temperature reflective of the increased IR absorption. There was not. It stayed stable. Increase IR absorption correlated with stable temperature. This didn't (and still doesn't) make sense, indicating that there is something else going on that either is not known or not adequately factored. I posted Gavin Schmidtt's comment about the unexpected.

Take a look at my thoughts on measuring IR absorption and albedo shift.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3614443#3614443

Note that this is my own idea of what I'd like to see. I haven't read this anywhere but it's my thought from a few years ago by educating myself on this thing. No, no classes taken but reading up on plenty of stuff.

Quote

As for the 2009 paper, I think you may be refering to Lindzen and Choi

No. It wasn't Lindzen and Choi. It was another one - a graduate student. I can't find it now at work but I'll see if I can pull it up.

Many years ago, JackC on these forums put it nicely into words. he said that the mechanisms of global warming are very well understood but that the interactions between them are chaotic, which makes the interactions difficult to predict and increases the margin of error the further you go.

The pause in warming is a reflection of the chaotic interactions. Those are what we don't understand and, in my opinion, it is bordering on dangerous to act like we do know these things with any degree of certainty.

I'll reflect my belief again. I think the earth has been warming. I think that anthropogenic forcings are a cause of this warming. I think that the warming will continue into the future. But I think the warming will be negligible in the future and not result in anything remotely near catastrophe.

Why have we not had a hurricane make landfall in the US since hurricane Ike in September, 2008? We were told again and again for years that more hurricanes making landfall in the US would be more frequent, stronger, bigger, and cause more damage. We're in record territory now and setting a new record every day. So there is something going on that we do not understand.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[winsor 236]

The science is thus settled.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

And the lack of correlation between the expected temperature rise with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its known absorption spectrum with relation to longwave infrared radiation is problematic.

I'm dying to hear your opinion on the IR absorbance spectrum bit, please please expand on your comment.

Why don’t you expand on the fact that there have been 19 warmer first quarters, while there have never been higher co2 concentrations? If there is a causal relationship between co2 and temps don’t you think it would be a bit warmer than it is?

As I have explained (and am getting tired of doing so) CO2 is not the only factor driving climate. We are seeing internal variability (el nino/la Nina) and other forcings (solar cycle, aerosols) superimposed on the increase due to CO2. There is a good article on the Houston chronicle website detailing the effects with respect to el nino. http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/

There is a great paper by Foster and Rhamsdorf that did multiple regression using solar intensity, aerosols, volcanic eruptions, and el nino/la nina. No models, just regression. They found a residual in the data that was increasing linearly over time, just like CO2, that could not be explained by any of the other factors. And the effect is the same for all five temperature datasets.

I see your study and raise you one.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

And the lack of correlation between the expected temperature rise with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its known absorption spectrum with relation to longwave infrared radiation is problematic.

I'm dying to hear your opinion on the IR absorbance spectrum bit, please please expand on your comment.

Why don’t you expand on the fact that there have been 19 warmer first quarters, while there have never been higher co2 concentrations? If there is a causal relationship between co2 and temps don’t you think it would be a bit warmer than it is?

As I have explained (and am getting tired of doing so) CO2 is not the only factor driving climate. We are seeing internal variability (el nino/la Nina) and other forcings (solar cycle, aerosols) superimposed on the increase due to CO2. There is a good article on the Houston chronicle website detailing the effects with respect to el nino. http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/

There is a great paper by Foster and Rhamsdorf that did multiple regression using solar intensity, aerosols, volcanic eruptions, and el nino/la nina. No models, just regression. They found a residual in the data that was increasing linearly over time, just like CO2, that could not be explained by any of the other factors. And the effect is the same for all five temperature datasets.

I see your study and raise you one.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Comment from the journal editor in question on this paper:

"In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously."

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf