That is just one of many disagreements. A couple others are how much now or how much warming later? What are the effects? What are (if any) the solutions?

__________________

This scientist kinda supports DM's sun theory.

Baliunas Says Global Warming Related To Sun

There are a lot of problems with the claims...so many it's hard to determine exactly what is going on. The 'science' behind all this relies on catastrophic numbers for continued funding, and they've been caught cooking the books more than once. I would go so far as to admit the earth is warming...but only slightly, and our contribution to that is, if anything, minimal.

The earth's climate is always in a state of flux, there's simply no such thing as a stable climate. There never has been, there never will be. Ten minutes reviewing data that goes back more than 1 billion years should convince anyone of this. CO2 level fluctuate, and do not track temperatures reliably, nor do CO2 concentrations precede changes in temperature.

Glaciers have been in decline since the 1700's, the 'mythical' northwest passage, which was made much of in the media lately, has opened a number of times since about 1800. And we just don't know how often prior to that it was navigable.

The IPCC goes so far as to admit that increases in CO2 can push worldwide temperatures up by approximately 1 degree by 2100. Which would be very difficult to isolate from random climate 'noise'. It would, at most, be a nuisance. Most people won't notice it at all. How they get the upwards of 9 degree C increases is by adding positive feedback mechanisms to their models. These are known collectively as 'forcings'. However, most are purely conjectural, and have not been measured. The IPCC also famously ignores negative feedback mechanisms, (which are MUCH more likely to exist), because a system dominated by positive feedback mechanisms is very unstable. Nuclear fission weapons are an easy to understand example. Negative feedback, in nuclear power plants is also easy to understand. In the former case, a run away reaction...positive feedback at work. In the later, no....fairly stable.

Another brief review of historical climate data will also demonstrate that the earth's climate is not dominated by positive feedbacks....if it were, this planet would resemble Venus, and it would have happened billions of years ago.

Damn it! I forgot to watch this! Wonder when the repeat comes on?

__________________
"TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE"

From the "You Just Can't Make This Shit Up" files, three current news stories:

Lake Mead Could Run Dry by 2021!

Study: Lake Mead could dry up by 2021 - USATODAY.com

In the "combination of factors", these scientists failed to include the El Nino, that we are no longer in. (which btw resulted in predictions of abnormally wet winters in the south west for the last two years. They had a drought instead). As Boe has noted a number of times, they don't call it 'global warming' anymore...now it's 'climate change'. I wonder why it needed a name change. Anyone?

Increasing human demands on the very finite supplies of water are what is sucking Lake Mead, (and other reservoirs on the Colorado River), dry. The areas served are desert, doncha know, and they have no where else to go for water. It's been a concern for years. They promised more water than the river can deliver. Do the math. Even in good years, the river system is taxed nearly to it's capacity.

Next up:

Record Snowfall in the Southwest

The Denver Post - Dry-winter forecasts miss mark

This boils down to Lake Mead, and other reservoirs on the Colorado being full in spring. And we see that 'climate change' snuck it's way into this story too. I know they want it both ways....but unfortunately, here in the real world, they can't. Either "Global Climate Warming Change" is going to steal all your water, or it isn't. It's not going to do both.

In addition to La Nina, which is making itself felt in the Pacific Northwest, (though not in the Southwest), we're seeing temperature anomalies in the northern, and southern hemispheres ranging from -0.08C to -0.15C. At the same time! It's hard to claim La Nina merely shuffles heat from here to there, or there to here, when it's getting colder both here, and there. This suggests one of two things, (and probably a combination of the two): We're losing heat through some as yet unidentified process, (that the IPCC will be shocked, SHOCKED, to find out about), or we're receiving less energy from the sun.


And finally:

Global Warming Blamed for Death of Mythical Creature

Veteran Loch Ness Monster Hunter Gives Up - The Daily Record

Ah yes, El Nino, caused by a slight warming of certain parts of the Pacific. Those El Nino years are great for us, they virtually assure us an above average snow pack....It's the la Nina (cooling off periods) that seem to cause droughts. Now tell me again why global warming is such a bad thing?

__________________

How's the snow pack in the Sierra's this year? I have'nt checked...though I've been assuming the wetter than normal weather in the Pacific Northwest results in more snow in CA.....but this is being a weird year.

1) January 2008 was the second coldest in 15 years and the temps between 70 degrees South and 82.5 degrees North (essentially global) over the past 12 months are down substantially:


2) Recent temps in the U.S. are neither warmer, nor more extreme than the long-term average. The same is true worldwide.

3) The earth probably has warmed: but only about 1 degree F over the past century, though little in recent years. There is genuine disagreement over whether that warming is man-made and, if so, whether it's caused by CO2 emissions or is merely a measurement artifact reflecting increased temps in "urban heat islands." Some of those claiming that the science is settled and immediate action necessary actually are trying to substitute authoritarianism for democracy.

4) There is little doubt that the solutions proposed by warming zealots would not halt warming and would cost more than adaptation and abatement; indeed, there's reason to think warming could save lives overall.

__________________
Carl

host,
No Oil for Pacifists

Carl,

I'm not so sure of point 2. Lately, the 'consensus' scientists, (Like Hansen, from NASA, of all places), have been excluding satellite records entirely, (which tend to be the most accurate, and globally encompassing direct measurements available), because they tend not to 'see' what other records tell us. They're also almost entirely free of secret algorithms, and fudge factors, and are free from all urban heat island effects. They measure without any of the suspected personal biases that are added to other ground based measurements, and can't easily be fudged after the fact, (without lots of people noticing, and asking potentially embarrassing questions).

Satellites also cover the entire globe, and eliminate the 'need' to extrapolate between measurement points, which has also proven to be an embarrassment....once the extrapolated data is eliminated, and the remainder combined with satellite measurements, the 'global warming' seems to go almost completely away. You're left with a rather average looking earth, with temp anomalies much lower than have been recently published...and the hot areas tend to be clustered near urban population centers, and heavily farmed land.

DngrMse: I'm no climate zealot, but -- to be fair -- the satellite records are subject to "peculiarities" that require some changes to the raw data. But, I agree that satellite data is free from urban heat island and surface station siting issues.

__________________
Carl

host,
No Oil for Pacifists