The world is getting colder. Why not just admit the IPCC is bad idea
and disband it?

Mounting evidence of lower temperature trends despite rising
atmospheric CO2 levels is becoming a real problem for the greenhouse
gas crowd.

d.086 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote
Mounting evidence of lower temperature trends despite rising
atmospheric CO2 levels is becoming a real problem for the greenhouse
gas crowd.

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN

Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" = trend
line.

==

1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************=====o
2000 14.33 *****************======o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************==o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************===o
2007 14.57 *****************************

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VM

d.086 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote
Mounting evidence of lower temperature trends despite rising
atmospheric CO2 levels is becoming a real problem for the greenhouse
gas crowd.

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN

Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" =
trend line.

==

1998 14.57 *********************o***** 1999 14.33
*****************=====o
2000 14.33 *****************======o
2001 14.48 ************************o 2002 14.56
*************************o** 2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************==o 2005 14.63
*****************************o** 2006 14.54
***************************===o 2007 14.57
*****************************

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VM

temp <- c(14.57, 14.33, 14.33, 14.48, 14.56, 14.55, 14.49, 14.63,
14.54, 14.57)
year <- 1998:2007
summary(lm(temp~year))

d.... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
The world is getting colder. Why not just admit the IPCC is bad idea
and disband it?

   People like to conveniently fool themselves.
     http://edu-observatory.org/psd/2008/Global_Warming_Workshop.html

The world is getting colder. Why not just admit the IPCC is bad idea
and disband it?

May 05, 2008
Are Global Warmists Pulling a Cool Fast One?
By Marc Sheppard

The world is getting colder. Why not just admit the IPCC is bad idea
and disband it?

May 05, 2008
Are Global Warmists Pulling a Cool Fast One?
By Marc Sheppard

Mounting evidence of lower temperature trends despite rising

atmospheric CO2 levels is becoming a real problem for the greenhouse
gas crowd. And reports that the cooling appears to follow a period of
dormant solar activity aren't likely to ease their anxieties.

Indeed, without an immediate alarmist course correction, years of "the
science is settled" campaigning could prove for naught, as prolonged
temperature dips decimate the primary anthropogenic argument. After
all, Lord Gore has shouted the IPCC's proclamation of a 0.3°C warming
over the next decade from virtually every rooftop. Given new data
projecting the contrary, he and his green hordes will need to find a
way to not only explain the error, but keep the AGW dream alive.

And perhaps they have.

On April 21st, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory confirmed that an
impending phase shift in a natural climate event would likely bring
colder temperatures for as many as the next 20-30 years, noting that:

"The shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, with its widespread
Pacific Ocean temperature changes, will have significant implications
for global climate. It can affect Pacific and Atlantic hurricane
activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, marine
ecosystems and global land temperature patterns."

Well aware of the impact the news might have on the green-deity IPCC's
warming predictions, the JPL was quick to add that "Sea level rise and
global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases can be strongly
affected by large natural climate phenomenon such as the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation." JPL
oceanographer and climate scientist Josh Willis explained:

"The comings and goings of El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation are part of a longer, ongoing change in global climate. In
fact, these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global
warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite
effect of accentuating it."

Just 10 days later, the results of a model study on another
phenomenon, this time affecting the North Atlantic, were published in
the journal Nature [PDF]. Dr Noel Keenlyside et al, of the Leibniz
Institute of Marine Sciences in Germany, reported that the "conveyor
belt" of southern warm water known as the Meridional Overturning
Circulation is entering a weak cycle. As weak MOC cycles -- which can
last as many as 80 years -- are associated with cooler North Atlantic
temperatures, particularly around Europe and North America, the team
expects global surface temperatures to decrease over the next decade.
Oddly, a similar pattern between the 1940s and 1970s may explain the
cooling of global average temperatures during that period, so assuming
only the "next decade" seems an arbitrary call.

Nonetheless, the German scientists felt compelled to explain their
evident heresy against the church of the IPCC:

"Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase
over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North
Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected
anthropogenic warming."

In case "temporarily offset" proved too vague to the green brigade,
Keenlyside clarified when explaining to Bloomberg News:

"If we don't experience warming over the next 10 years, it doesn't
mean that greenhouse-gas warming is not with us. There can be natural
fluctuations that may mask climate change in the short term.''

And for the benefit of those still concerned, his associate Mojib
Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute, spelled it out in no
uncertain terms:

"Just to make things clear, we are not stating that anthropogenic
climate change won't be as bad as previously thought."

It certainly appeared to be merely a typical cover your green ass move

The Very Model of a Modern Solar Minimum

According to UK's Telegraph the report stemmed from "initial findings
from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades," and
readers were reminded that:

"The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of
such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino
cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been
behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998."

Of course, solar activity is also essentially ignored by IPCC models,
and it too saw an apex in 1998. Isn't it interesting how, not unlike
insects scampering from light exposed by a stone overturned, greenies
struggle desperately to avoid directly confronting the power of the
Sun?

Last year, Britain's Hadley Centre, whose decadal models actually do
incorporate sea surface temperatures as well as projected changes in
the Sun's output and the effects of previous volcanic eruptions,
predicted that global warming would slow until 2009 and pick up after
that, with half the years after 2009 being warmer than the warmest
year on record, 1998." Still, they stood solidly behind the IPCC by
predicting that "Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues
to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C warmer than 2004."

Then, this past January, the Centre predicted 2008 would be the
coolest since 2000, this time based upon the "strong La Niña in the
tropical Pacific Ocean" exclusively. Mysteriously, they completely
ignored recent news at the time that solar activity had all but come
to a stop -- a factor supposedly included in their modeling.

But last week, rather than disputing the Leibniz Institute oceans-
behavior-only model that suggests not only Hadley, but the IPCC itself
erred, the Centre's Richard Wood stated:

"We've always known that the climate varies naturally from year to
year and decade to decade. We expect man-made global warming to be
superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is
important to make sure we don't get distracted from the longer term
changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas
emissions)."

Seemingly taking a bullet for the green team, Wood ‘fessed up to last
year's bad prediction when he told reporters that "natural climate
variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the
next 10-year period."

Pretty slick -- by jumping aboard the new model's bandwagon, Wood
managed to again ignore the Solar factor (Cycle 24 is delayed) while
extending the bogus it's-part-nature-but-mostly-mankind safety-net his
group's models had strung by almost 10 years.

On the other hand, in addition to casting great doubt upon his own
group's models, Wood's admission bolstered the doubt that Leibniz's
would already cast upon those of the IPCC. And Wood notwithstanding,
as Dr. Roger Pelke Jr. pointed out in his April 30th Prometheus post
after reviewing the Nature piece:

"If global cooling over the next few decades is consistent with model
predictions, then so too is pretty much anything and everything under
the sun. This means that from a practical standpoint climate models
are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority
in the promotional battle over global climate policy."

Obviously, capitulating now meant accepting the risk of jeopardizing
whatever credibility all previous and future climate models may hold.
Bad move -- or chess move?

Does Anybody Really Know What Climate Is?

Prior to its official release, Keenlyside expressed concerns that his
report might be taken the "wrong way." The good doctor even attempted
to trivialize dissenters by invoking the name of a favorite eco-
boogieman when he lamely lamented "I hope it doesn't become a message
of Exxon Mobil and other skeptics." And just in case his and his
colleagues' tepid reaffirmations of their AGW pledges fell short of
the green mark, reinforcements were immediately dispatched.

Not surprisingly, the alarmist shills at the BBC wrote that the up and
down projections "did not come as a surprise to climate scientists."
No, according to these insufferables, only the ill-informed public
ever believed that "the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s
are a permanent phenomenon."

The New York Times rolled out Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at
the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, CO.
Tremberth told them that "the global climate will continue to be
influenced in any particular decade by a mix of natural variability
and the building greenhouse effect" and that "a cool phase does not
mean the overall theory of dangerous human-driven warming is flawed."

And then added what appears to be the latest greenie talking point:

"Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming
everywhere year after year. It does not happen that way."

Is anyone else noticing a trend developing here, beyond the "we never
said that warming patterns would be steady" shuffle? Each
explanation, whether by Willis, Keenlyside and Latif, Wood, or
Trenberth implies that some climate forces natural are more formidable
than those anthropogenic. This is yet another precarious admission,
indeed - one unlikely to be made were the alternative not somehow more
damaging to their cause.

Now consider this -- it remains an alarmist imperative to
disassociate falling global temperatures and speculation of a possible
impending "little ice age" with the yellow dwarf star we orbit in
general and the late start of Solar Cycle 24 specifically. For
indeed, if we are moving into another solar minimum cycle and global
temperatures continue to plummet while atmospheric CO2 levels continue
to rise, attendance at Al Gore's Scare-Story-Slide-Shows would quickly
drop to close friends and family only. And with boat loads of very
bad wealth-redistribution "climate change" legislation to pass in
coming the years, a sympathetically alarmed press and populace remain
essential during that time.
...

read more »

"Tom M" <tmil... at (no spam) umaryland.edu> wrote

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

  Tom needs to change the subject and fast.

  The KKKonservative claim was that temperatures have been falling.

  That claim is a lie.

Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" = trend
line.

=
1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************=====o
2000 14.33  *****************======o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************==o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************===o
2007 14.57  *****************************

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs

On May 7, 2:43 am, "V-for-Vendicar"



Just... at (no spam) ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
"Tom M" <tmil... at (no spam) umaryland.edu> wrote

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Tom needs to change the subject and fast.

The KKKonservative claim was that temperatures have been falling.

That claim is a lie.

Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" = trend
line.

==

1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************=====o
2000 14.33 *****************======o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************==o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************===o
2007 14.57 *****************************

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs

hmmm... what do I see here.... ??? 1998 14.57.. then every year
from then is lower except for one that is higher (2005) and one that
is equal (2007)
Doesn't seem to be out of the normal range of variability to me.

Terrifying !!! We are all going to melt. lol Launch the
lifeboats the ship is sinking...
"The sky is falling... the sky is falling" - Chicken Little

On May 7, 8:13 pm, Cato <caton... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:





On May 7, 2:43 am, "V-for-Vendicar"

Just... at (no spam) ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
"Tom M" <tmil... at (no spam) umaryland.edu> wrote

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

  Tom needs to change the subject and fast.

  The KKKonservative claim was that temperatures have been falling.

  That claim is a lie.

Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" = trend
line.

=
1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************=====o
2000 14.33  *****************======o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************==o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************===o
2007 14.57  *****************************

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs

hmmm... what do I see here....  ???  1998   14.57.. then every year
from then is lower except for one that is higher (2005)  and one that
is equal  (2007)
   Doesn't seem to be out of the normal range of variability to me.

Somewhat luckily, the people who really matter seem to see it
differently - you (and I) are superfluous. Just hope they act faster
than they seem to be doing presently.

   Terrifying  !!!   We are all going to melt.  lol    Launch the
lifeboats  the ship is sinking...
   "The sky is falling... the sky is falling"  - Chicken Little

Your point being what exactly? That thousands of peer-reviewed
scientific papers are totally off the wall? What are the chances of
such a thing, given the outstanding success of science over the course
of the last hundred years?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 7, 8:13 pm, Cato <caton... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:





On May 7, 2:43 am, "V-for-Vendicar"

Just... at (no spam) ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
"Tom M" <tmil... at (no spam) umaryland.edu> wrote

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

  Tom needs to change the subject and fast.

  The KKKonservative claim was that temperatures have been falling.

  That claim is a lie.

Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" = trend
line.

=
1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************=====o
2000 14.33  *****************======o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************==o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************===o
2007 14.57  *****************************

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs

hmmm... what do I see here....  ???  1998   14.57.. then every year
from then is lower except for one that is higher (2005)  and one that
is equal  (2007)
   Doesn't seem to be out of the normal range of variability to me.

Somewhat luckily, the people who really matter seem to see it
differently - you (and I) are superfluous.

Just hope they act faster
than they seem to be doing presently.

   Terrifying  !!!   We are all going to melt.  lol    Launch the
lifeboats  the ship is sinking...
   "The sky is falling... the sky is falling"  - Chicken Little

Your point being what exactly? That thousands of peer-reviewed
scientific papers are totally off the wall?

What are the chances of
such a thing, given the outstanding success of science over the course
of the last hundred years?

d.... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
The world is getting colder. Why not just admit the IPCC is bad idea
and disband it?

   People like to conveniently fool themselves.
     http://edu-observatory.org/psd/2008/Global_Warming_Workshop.html

d.... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote

Mounting evidence of lower temperature trends despite rising
atmospheric CO2 levels is becoming a real problem for the greenhouse
gas crowd.

  MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN

Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" = trend
line.

=
1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************=====o
2000 14.33  *****************======o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************==o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************===o
2007 14.57  *****************************

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VM

On May 7, 8:13 pm, Cato <caton... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:





On May 7, 2:43 am, "V-for-Vendicar"

Just... at (no spam) ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
"Tom M" <tmil... at (no spam) umaryland.edu> wrote

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Tom needs to change the subject and fast.

The KKKonservative claim was that temperatures have been falling.

That claim is a lie.

Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" =
trend
line.

==

1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************=====o
2000 14.33 *****************======o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************==o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************===o
2007 14.57 *****************************

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs

hmmm... what do I see here.... ??? 1998 14.57.. then every year
from then is lower except for one that is higher (2005) and one that
is equal (2007)
Doesn't seem to be out of the normal range of variability to me.

Somewhat luckily, the people who really matter seem to see it
differently - you (and I) are superfluous.

Just hope they act faster
than they seem to be doing presently.

Terrifying !!! We are all going to melt. lol Launch the
lifeboats the ship is sinking...
"The sky is falling... the sky is falling" - Chicken Little

Your point being what exactly? That thousands of peer-reviewed
scientific papers are totally off the wall?

What are the chances of
such a thing, given the outstanding success of science over the course
of the last hundred years?