2010 Global Temps

[WeatherRusty]

I propose using 1998 as "average". It is has been below average every other year in history.

That's a good one!!!!!!

I wonder how many get it?

[WeatherRusty]

This map is a year and a half old, when we had an El Nino. We now have a completely different ENSO phase, so this chart is irrelevant.

What is the relevance of ENSO to long term climate change? It is irrelevant since it is by definition an oscillation which impacts the long term trend not at all. That is it can not add to or subtract from the the Earth's energy balance long term.

[nzucker]

What is the relevance of ENSO to long term climate change? It is irrelevant since it is by definition an oscillation which impacts the long term trend not at all. That is it can not add to or subtract from the the Earth's energy balance long term.

It doesn't affect the energy balance much but ENSO can change how much warming occurs at the surface, where it causes the most effects on ecosystems, communities, and people's lives. A long period of -PDO/-ENSO in the next 30 years would bury much of the warming from accelerating CO2 emissions in the deep ocean, where it wouldn't have nearly as much of an effect. The slowing of the warming would also mean more time for adaptation and less chance of a sudden catastrophe.

Also, a strong downturn in ENSO could affect arctic sea ice and snow cover which do change the Earth's albedo, and then it is an issue of net energy balance. The effect is likely to be small but we won't know for a while anyhow.

[okie333]

I don't like it because base periods are entirely arbitrary and changing it only causes confusion. Now every data source uses a different base period and it is impossible to switch between them.

Not really... just take the average of the base period of choice manually, then correct the values appropriately.

[WeatherRusty]

It doesn't affect the energy balance much but ENSO can change how much warming occurs at the surface, where it causes the most effects on ecosystems, communities, and people's lives. A long period of -PDO/-ENSO in the next 30 years would bury much of the warming from accelerating CO2 emissions in the deep ocean, where it wouldn't have nearly as much of an effect. The slowing of the warming would also mean more time for adaptation and less chance of a sudden catastrophe.

Also, a strong downturn in ENSO could affect arctic sea ice and snow cover which do change the Earth's albedo, and then it is an issue of net energy balance. The effect is likely to be small but we won't know for a while anyhow.

Hi nzuker!!

Can't really disagree with this, but it is a case of wishful thinking that it turns out that way in my opinion.

One other thing. The science is not calling for a sudden catastrophe, just a gradual disruption to weather patterns as the globally averaged temp slowly rises. If you are referring to tipping points, they are nothing more than the locking in of a new equilibrium state with little to no chance of turning back.

[nzucker]

Hi nzuker!!

Can't really disagree with this, but it is a case of wishful thinking that it turns out that way in my opinion.

One other thing. The science is not calling for a sudden catastrophe, just a gradual disruption to weather patterns as the globally averaged temp slowly rises. If you are referring to tipping points, they are nothing more than the locking in of a new equilibrium state with little to no chance of turning back.

Hi, glad to see you made your way here despite my disagreements with some of your viewpoints. We'll see what happens in the next 30 years but I've been unimpressed with the temperature rise since 1998 and I can't imagine it getting much more dramatic with the strong La Niña, -PDO, and low solar activity. Interesting times ahead for sure.

[skierinvermont]

Also, a strong downturn in ENSO could affect arctic sea ice and snow cover which do change the Earth's albedo, and then it is an issue of net energy balance. The effect is likely to be small but we won't know for a while anyhow.

Unless you take a freshman college physics class.

[BethesdaWX]

Unless you take a freshman college physics class.

[nzucker]

Unless you take a freshman college physics class.

I'm sure a freshman physics class would tell you what to expect when we have a record-breaking solar minimum, strong La Niña with extremely -PDO, and a 4SD AO block. Meteorologists and climatologists have never before witnessed these conditions, so we don't know how they'll affect the cryosphere and global temperatures as well as the sensible weather where we live. Just look at how bad most winter forecasts are working out, now tell me we can model that 100 years down the line. Of course, the IPCC has attempted to constrain these variables based on past climates, but we really have only anecdotal/inferred evidence for exactly how those climates behaved, and we have a lot of unusual meteorological factors coalescing with the extremely cold Pacific, sudden drop in sunspots/geomagnetic activity, and the vast degree of high-latitude blocking which rebuilds the cryosphere both by retaining more sea ice and by distributing the cold so as to increase autumnal snow cover.

And again, stop with the sarcasm. No one appreciates it and you don't even have a good sense of humor. Some people know how to use sarcasm in an entertaining way, but you just do it to be mean. So cut it immediately. I'd really like to see you suspended for this crap. Didn't you hear my request not to be so sarcastic before? Why didn't you heed it if you knew I found your tone offensive?

[nzucker]

It's amazing how arrogant and conceited skier is. He's really proven he can't engage in a debate in a respectful manner. He doesn't even try to make valid arguments anymore, just berates and mocks those who disagree with his strong AGW bent. Disgusting.

[skierinvermont]

It's amazing how arrogant and conceited skier is. He's really proven he can't engage in a debate in a respectful manner. He doesn't even try to make valid arguments anymore, just berates and mocks those who disagree with his strong AGW bent. Disgusting.

You know what I think is arrogant?

Thinking you can reinvent all of climate science and atmospheric physics from your laptop at home. What do you think you are the next Albert Einstein? You have absolutely nothing to back up your wildly fantastical predictions. They are contradicted by vast bodies of rock solid evidence, if only you took the time to understand it.

The most recent assertion I am mocking you for is your assertion that we can't know what the effects of changes in albedo due to a -PDO will do to the earth's climate. Basic physics can constrain any cooling effect this might have. Satellites have been measuring the albedo effects of changes in snowcover for decades. Simple studies, theoretical physics, and observations tell us how much greater the albedo of snow is than barren ground. This allows one to compute changes in the earth's energy balance and how much the earth would have to warm/cool to regain energy balance.

[BethesdaWX]

You know what I think is arrogant?

Thinking you can reinvent all of climate science and atmospheric physics from your laptop at home. What do you think you are the next Albert Einstein? You have absolutely nothing to back up your wildly fantastical predictions. They are contradicted by vast bodies of rock solid evidence, if only you took the time to understand it.

Haha

I've never laughed so hard at you until this post.

[BethesdaWX]

It's amazing how arrogant and conceited skier is. He's really proven he can't engage in a debate in a respectful manner. He doesn't even try to make valid arguments anymore, just berates and mocks those who disagree with his strong AGW bent. Disgusting.

Yep, agree 150%.

Taking snippets, giving faulty evidence, Putting words in my mouth (aka, greenland ice cools the entire ocean), Lying about posting "debunking"articles which he never did, nor ever will...

Ladies & Gentlemen, We Have Jim Hansen!

[skierinvermont]

Haha

I've never laughed so hard at you until this post.

Excellent post. If you're not going to argue the point, at least have a better comeback.

[BethesdaWX]

Excellent post. If you're not going to argue the point, at least have a better comeback.

LOL theres no substance for me to even make a "comeback", just flib-flab with no logical fallacy.

[beneficii]

LOL theres no substance for me to even make a "comeback", just flib-flab with no logical fallacy.

It's 34 years too early to try to convince you anyway.

[skierinvermont]

It's 34 years too early to try to convince you anyway.

I intend to invent the field of atmospheric physics in 34 years. Instead of the Arrhenius equation and Planck constant we will have the Bethesda-Zucker solar constant.

[nzucker]

You know what I think is arrogant?

Thinking you can reinvent all of climate science and atmospheric physics from your laptop at home. What do you think you are the next Albert Einstein? You have absolutely nothing to back up your wildly fantastical predictions. They are contradicted by vast bodies of rock solid evidence, if only you took the time to understand it.

The most recent assertion I am mocking you for is your assertion that we can't know what the effects of changes in albedo due to a -PDO will do to the earth's climate. Basic physics can constrain any cooling effect this might have. Satellites have been measuring the albedo effects of changes in snowcover for decades. Simple studies, theoretical physics, and observations tell us how much greater the albedo of snow is than barren ground. This allows one to compute changes in the earth's energy balance and how much the earth would have to warm/cool to regain energy balance.

I am not reinventing climate science, I am simply questioning some of the more drastic/extremist ideas about global warming. Climatologists haven't proven themselves worthy of any respect in the arena of global climate change, so meteorologists and amateurs interested in climate studies have to take charge of forging new conclusions and casting doubt on mainstream IPCC views of how much the Earth will warm, how much of this warming is due to humans, etc. I study the weather intensely, and I think I have a better understanding of what the future holds than many of the so-called experts.

Here is one of my favorite quotes from an expert, Dr. David Viner, a senior climatologist at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he remarked in March 2002. David Parker, a member of the Hadley Centre, concurred, saying that young British folks would have to experience snow and cold through virtual reality programs on the computer. The Hadley Centre also called for a mild 10-11 winter in England despite how negative the NAO had been. Britain just had its coldest December in 100 years of record-keeping, it was the 2nd coldest December at the Greenwich Observatory since the mid 1600s, and the London metro area has had 20-30" of snow this season. So these are the people I want to trust with modeling the climate 100 years from now? These are the experts I should be listening to, never mind that they predicted a possibility of 5C of warming by 2060 despite the fact we've basically seen no warming since 1998? I think not!

And yes, I have read much of the IPCC 2007 report about constraining variable such as solar activity, and I've also read the articles regarding satellites' capturing the energy imbalance caused by excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I may not be as much a researcher as you, but I'm pretty up on the science. I understand that the PDO is mainly an internal mechanism that has small effects on the Earth's energy balance, although I do hypothesize that these influences could become larger when combined with a series of strong La Niñas and a dramatic solar minimum. I don't think this is unreasonable and I'm sure many meteorologists on here, such as Will, would agree with the basic idea. It is pure hubris to think we fully understand the climate and all its intricacies, and the failure of computer modeling of climate change has proven that. Hansen's 1988 predictions were much too high, and his theory that global warming would cause a permanent Bermuda high and incessantly hot summers in the East was pure garbage. The IPCC 2007 estimates of future warming also appear to be too aggressive, and from the Climategate emails one discerns a worry that these estimates aren't really verifying. And I used to be a hardcore alarmist about global warming, I can even show you some of the articles I wrote for the college newspaper about the desperate situation civilization was in. I definitely feel a bit duped by some of these "experts" and the movement in general. Take my personal conversion from an extreme believer to a skeptic as a sign that something is wrong with the way science is being done, and many complexities of the climate aren't being acknowledged by the mainstream.

Also, the global warming movement has changed its arguments so many times that one has to become skeptical. When I was growing up, I remember being told that winters would be largely mild and less snowy as the Earth warmed. This coincided nicely with the type of winters the US was experiencing in the late 1990s, so I believed it, hook line and sinker. Now Judah Cohen is trying to change the theory because we've seen harsher winters that don't fit in with the original concepts of climate change. According to this new analysis, small changes in Siberian snow cover caused by global warming are completely responsible for the brutal cold and snow we've seen in western Europe and the eastern U.S. the last three years. Most meteorologists don't agree with this idea at all, and yet it was allowed to be printed in the New York Times. Why weren't more meteorologists interviewed, and why weren't other factors discussed in an in-depth and honest manner? The article also failed to mention the strong influence of the solar minimum on the NAO/AO, the fact that global temperatures have fallen near the 30-year average this winter, and the strong correlation between the -PDO and colder US winters as we saw during the 1960s. So who is the expert here? A scientist who only adheres to a single theory and changes it constantly to fit the changing weather patterns? Or me, who's actually spent hours reading Landscheidt, looking at SST maps, reading D'Aleo's articles about the NAO connection to solar changes, etc,

And even if you disagree with me, there's no reason to mock. You're allowed to do it politely, which is something you fail to understand. I've told you this countless times and yet you still fail to conduct a debate in a responsible, educational manner...you always make it personal and nasty, and it's tiresome. Other people have complained about you too, it's not just I.

[ORH_wxman]

IPCC cannot be taken seriously until they actually acknowledge that ocean cycles are very important for global temperatures. They basically completely ignored it and said they were "insignificant" in the 2007 report. This is why they will look totally foolish in the next decade.

This is why I have very little respect for people who say "the climate scientists say this...you aren't a climate scientist"....its amazing that a group of seemingly the most brilliant "climate scientists" cannot even get the ocean cycle concept into the 2007 report before dummies like Steve McIntyer and Anthony Watts....merely "stupid" meteorologists and other professions. Its a clear sign of agenda.

Its a very very sad science right now...hopefully a big change is coming soon to shake it up...I think that change will be forced in the next decade as projections fail miserably.

[Harry]

IPCC cannot be taken seriously until they actually acknowledge that ocean cycles are very important for global temperatures. They basically completely ignored it and said they were "insignificant" in the 2007 report. This is why they will look totally foolish in the next decade.

This is why I have very little respect for people who say "the climate scientists say this...you aren't a climate scientist"....its amazing that a group of seemingly the most brilliant "climate scientists" cannot even get the ocean cycle concept into the 2007 report before dummies like Steve McIntyer and Anthony Watts....merely "stupid" meteorologists and other professions. Its a clear sign of agenda.

Its a very very sad science right now...hopefully a big change is coming soon to shake it up...I think that change will be forced in the next decade as projections fail miserably.

You are on a roll. Another great post! Yeah i saw the other to in the other thread about global cooling/Ice age stuff!

[WeatherRusty]

IPCC cannot be taken seriously until they actually acknowledge that ocean cycles are very important for global temperatures. They basically completely ignored it and said they were "insignificant" in the 2007 report. This is why they will look totally foolish in the next decade.

This is why I have very little respect for people who say "the climate scientists say this...you aren't a climate scientist"....its amazing that a group of seemingly the most brilliant "climate scientists" cannot even get the ocean cycle concept into the 2007 report before dummies like Steve McIntyer and Anthony Watts....merely "stupid" meteorologists and other professions. Its a clear sign of agenda.

Its a very very sad science right now...hopefully a big change is coming soon to shake it up...I think that change will be forced in the next decade as projections fail miserably.

The IPCC will not acknowledge something that is not true. They are not saying ocean cycles are not important to global temps. They are saying that ocean cycles add little to nothing to the Earth's energy balance long term. Ocean cycles represent internal variability in climate. They neither add nor subtract energy to the long term heat content of the oceans. Only external forcing such as the Sun, greenhouse effect and albedo changes can do that because they affect the balance of energy entering and exiting the Earth at the top of atmosphere long term..

The climate change we are concerned with extends beyond the short term influence of ocean cycles.

[skierinvermont]

IPCC cannot be taken seriously until they actually acknowledge that ocean cycles are very important for global temperatures. They basically completely ignored it and said they were "insignificant" in the 2007 report. This is why they will look totally foolish in the next decade.

This is why I have very little respect for people who say "the climate scientists say this...you aren't a climate scientist"....its amazing that a group of seemingly the most brilliant "climate scientists" cannot even get the ocean cycle concept into the 2007 report before dummies like Steve McIntyer and Anthony Watts....merely "stupid" meteorologists and other professions. Its a clear sign of agenda.

Its a very very sad science right now...hopefully a big change is coming soon to shake it up...I think that change will be forced in the next decade as projections fail miserably.

The IPCC will never acknowledge ocean cycles to have a major impact on long-term global temperatures, because they cannot, by the laws of physics, alter the long term energy balance of the earth which dictates the surface temperature.

The only plausible mechanism would be for ocean cycles to increase albedo, but I see little to no correlation at best and even if there were a slight increase in albedo the effect on global T would be negligible.

Ocean cycles will mask and exaggerate surface warming at times, but they will not change the physical imbalance that is causing our planet to steadily warm.

[skierinvermont]

I am not reinventing climate science, I am simply questioning some of the more drastic/extremist ideas about global warming. Climatologists haven't proven themselves worthy of any respect in the arena of global climate change, so meteorologists and amateurs interested in climate studies have to take charge of forging new conclusions and casting doubt on mainstream IPCC views of how much the Earth will warm, how much of this warming is due to humans, etc. I study the weather intensely, and I think I have a better understanding of what the future holds than many of the so-called experts.

Here is one of my favorite quotes from an expert, Dr. David Viner, a senior climatologist at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he remarked in March 2002. David Parker, a member of the Hadley Centre, concurred, saying that young British folks would have to experience snow and cold through virtual reality programs on the computer. The Hadley Centre also called for a mild 10-11 winter in England despite how negative the NAO had been. Britain just had its coldest December in 100 years of record-keeping, it was the 2nd coldest December at the Greenwich Observatory since the mid 1600s, and the London metro area has had 20-30" of snow this season. So these are the people I want to trust with modeling the climate 100 years from now? These are the experts I should be listening to, never mind that they predicted a possibility of 5C of warming by 2060 despite the fact we've basically seen no warming since 1998? I think not!

And yes, I have read much of the IPCC 2007 report about constraining variable such as solar activity, and I've also read the articles regarding satellites' capturing the energy imbalance caused by excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I may not be as much a researcher as you, but I'm pretty up on the science. I understand that the PDO is mainly an internal mechanism that has small effects on the Earth's energy balance, although I do hypothesize that these influences could become larger when combined with a series of strong La Niñas and a dramatic solar minimum. I don't think this is unreasonable and I'm sure many meteorologists on here, such as Will, would agree with the basic idea. It is pure hubris to think we fully understand the climate and all its intricacies, and the failure of computer modeling of climate change has proven that. Hansen's 1988 predictions were much too high, and his theory that global warming would cause a permanent Bermuda high and incessantly hot summers in the East was pure garbage. The IPCC 2007 estimates of future warming also appear to be too aggressive, and from the Climategate emails one discerns a worry that these estimates aren't really verifying. And I used to be a hardcore alarmist about global warming, I can even show you some of the articles I wrote for the college newspaper about the desperate situation civilization was in. I definitely feel a bit duped by some of these "experts" and the movement in general. Take my personal conversion from an extreme believer to a skeptic as a sign that something is wrong with the way science is being done, and many complexities of the climate aren't being acknowledged by the mainstream.

Also, the global warming movement has changed its arguments so many times that one has to become skeptical. When I was growing up, I remember being told that winters would be largely mild and less snowy as the Earth warmed. This coincided nicely with the type of winters the US was experiencing in the late 1990s, so I believed it, hook line and sinker. Now Judah Cohen is trying to change the theory because we've seen harsher winters that don't fit in with the original concepts of climate change. According to this new analysis, small changes in Siberian snow cover caused by global warming are completely responsible for the brutal cold and snow we've seen in western Europe and the eastern U.S. the last three years. Most meteorologists don't agree with this idea at all, and yet it was allowed to be printed in the New York Times. Why weren't more meteorologists interviewed, and why weren't other factors discussed in an in-depth and honest manner? The article also failed to mention the strong influence of the solar minimum on the NAO/AO, the fact that global temperatures have fallen near the 30-year average this winter, and the strong correlation between the -PDO and colder US winters as we saw during the 1960s. So who is the expert here? A scientist who only adheres to a single theory and changes it constantly to fit the changing weather patterns? Or me, who's actually spent hours reading Landscheidt, looking at SST maps, reading D'Aleo's articles about the NAO connection to solar changes, etc,

And even if you disagree with me, there's no reason to mock. You're allowed to do it politely, which is something you fail to understand. I've told you this countless times and yet you still fail to conduct a debate in a responsible, educational manner...you always make it personal and nasty, and it's tiresome. Other people have complained about you too, it's not just I.

You do not appear to understand how science works.

It does not work by taking quotes of particular individuals (who you know nothing about) and using them to discredit an entire field.

Do you have any clue who Dr Viner is? What he has published? What his position is? What is his contribution to the field if any? How is he regarded within the field? Who else endorsed his statement? Was the statement the product of a particular study or was it simply a personal comment by an individual?

It does not work by taking 20 year old experimental studies which acknowledge large uncertainties and have since been corrected, to discredit an entire field.

It does not work by taking the most extreme prediction you can find, declaring it busted, in order to discredit an entire field.

It does not work by seizing on particular individuals like James Hansen and personally attacking them.

It does not work by altering the statements of individuals like Judah Cohen and then claiming based on those altered claims that they are wrong.

Cohen never said Siberian snow-cover is the only factor... that is entirely in your mind.

These are the actions of somebody who does not actually understand the science, and so is forced to seize upon superficial arguments. Try reading the relevant peer-reviewed articles. Try to familiarize yourself with the characters involved.

I don't know where you have been but Cohen is widely respected for his work among meteorologists. Vawxman defended his work and stated that many are coming around to his research. He did not say Siberian snow cover is solely responsible for the blocking, he said it is a variable in his model. Your reading is a perversion of his position. How is one supposed to have a reasonable discussion with you when you essentially make up facts at will?

You asked who is the expert.. Cohen or you. That's a fairly easy question to answer given the above.

[tacoman25]

The IPCC will not acknowledge something that is not true. They are not saying ocean cycles are not important to global temps. They are saying that ocean cycles add little to nothing to the Earth's energy balance long term. Ocean cycles represent internal variability in climate. They neither add nor subtract energy to the long term heat content of the oceans. Only external forcing such as the Sun, greenhouse effect and albedo changes can do that because they affect the balance of energy entering and exiting the Earth at the top of atmosphere long term..

The climate change we are concerned with extends beyond the short term influence of ocean cycles.

Except that the IPCC's short/medium range predictions (and assessments of warming from the 1970s to 2000s) have clearly and repeatedly IGNORED natural/oceanic cycle influences. You can claim they are not important in the long term, and maybe they aren't, but the IPCC and others have used warming statistics over the past 30 years to support further warming without acknowledging much or any influence by natural cycles.

This is a mistake.

[WeatherRusty]

Except that the IPCC's short/medium range predictions (and assessments of warming from the 1970s to 2000s) have clearly and repeatedly IGNORED natural/oceanic cycle influences. You can claim they are not important in the long term, and maybe they aren't, but the IPCC and others have used warming statistics over the past 30 years to support further warming without acknowledging much or any influence by natural cycles.

This is a mistake.

What the IPCC gives as projections and uses as past warming statistics are running mean averaged temperatures which smooth out natural variability such as ENSO. Projections of future warming are based on physics and analysis of past climate change sensitivity to a given forcing. Climates don't just change for no reason, they are forced to change by the addition of or subtraction of energy. Ocean cycles influence local and regional climates, but very little to the overall global picture measured over decades and centuries. What we are doing will influence future climates for thousands of years.

Climate science acknowledges the natural component to modern day global warming when ~10% of 20th century warming is attributed to increased solar output or that some of the warming may be due to reduced volcanic activity and a reduction in aerosols.

[tacoman25]

What the IPCC gives as projections and uses as past warming statistics are running mean averaged temperatures which smooth out natural variability such as ENSO. Projections of future warming are based on physics and analysis of past climate change sensitivity to a given forcing. Climates don't just change for no reason, they are forced to change by the addition of or subtraction of energy. Ocean cycles influence local and regional climates, but very little to the overall global picture measured over decades and centuries. What we are doing will influence future climates for thousands of years.

Climate science acknowledges the natural component to modern day global warming when ~10% of 20th century warming is attributed to increased solar output or that some of the warming may be due to reduced volcanic activity and a reduction in aerosols.

This is incorrect. Large scale, multi-decadal oceanic cycles like the PDO and AMO do indeed influence global temperature trends over the course of decades. It is not unreasonable to assume that 40-70% of the warming from the mid 70s to the mid 2000s was due to natural cycles, based on previous history. I have not seen the IPCC even discuss this possibility, however...and this is why we are not seeing temperatures rise within the reasonable ranges of their previous predictions.

[The_Global_Warmer]

If C02 output caused the Earths mean temp to rise 1c over any period of time.

The Earths Oceans would have zero impact on the 1c rise..only an impact on changing the mean.

for instance:

if 1c is mean temp...

in 2020 becuase of oceans cycles that decade may end up at .7c and then the next decade may end up 1.3c.

no matter what the mean is 1c because Co2 output causes the Earth mean temp to rise.

there will be factors like the sun, oceans, volcanic activity and so on that will influence the natural balance of things..but as long as Co2 and other green house gases increase we will increase in temp long term regardless.

why on Earth is this so hard to see? What skiier and Rusty are saying makes complete logic sense.

I worry the dead sun and climate patterns will end up masking the greenhouse effect and how we perceive it. Becuase these factos might lower the overall temp for a few decades but come 30 years or so when we were at 450PPM and rising...those climate factors will reverse, at some point the sun will get active and our temperature will go up...the only difference between then and now is that we will have pushed the AGW needle higher and temps will end up higher then they are today.

That is very reasonable sound logic.

If someone's issue is with climate scientist and some guy named Hansen whatever...it doesn't take much to see what is happening.

[tacoman25]

If C02 output caused the Earths mean temp to rise 1c over any period of time.

The Earths Oceans would have zero impact on the 1c rise..only an impact on changing the mean.

for instance:

if 1c is mean temp...

in 2020 becuase of oceans cycles that decade may end up at .7c and then the next decade may end up 1.3c.

no matter what the mean is 1c because Co2 output causes the Earth mean temp to rise.

there will be factors like the sun, oceans, volcanic activity and so on that will influence the natural balance of things..but as long as Co2 and other green house gases increase we will increase in temp long term regardless.

why on Earth is this so hard to see? What skiier and Rusty are saying makes complete logic sense.

I worry the dead sun and climate patterns will end up masking the greenhouse effect and how we perceive it. Becuase these factos might lower the overall temp for a few decades but come 30 years or so when we were at 450PPM and rising...those climate factors will reverse, at some point the sun will get active and our temperature will go up...the only difference between then and now is that we will have pushed the AGW needle higher and temps will end up higher then they are today.

That is very reasonable sound logic.

If someone's issue is with climate scientist and some guy named Hansen whatever...it doesn't take much to see what is happening.

The IPCC and other "climate authorities" have repeatedly said that rising greenhouse gases will overwhelm any influence from solar or other natural climate factors. The scenario you describe is not within their realm of possibility.

[BethesdaWX]

IPCC cannot be taken seriously until they actually acknowledge that ocean cycles are very important for global temperatures. They basically completely ignored it and said they were "insignificant" in the 2007 report. This is why they will look totally foolish in the next decade.

This is why I have very little respect for people who say "the climate scientists say this...you aren't a climate scientist"....its amazing that a group of seemingly the most brilliant "climate scientists" cannot even get the ocean cycle concept into the 2007 report before dummies like Steve McIntyer and Anthony Watts....merely "stupid" meteorologists and other professions. Its a clear sign of agenda.

Its a very very sad science right now...hopefully a big change is coming soon to shake it up...I think that change will be forced in the next decade as projections fail miserably.

Exactly. We can see what the warm oceans did in the 1930's & 40's, ships were going even further up into the arctic......a WWII sbmarine surfaced in the North Pole in the 1950's. Global temps were very warm in the 40's especially.

Only 52 scientists worked on the 2007 IPCC report......and they don't even know how much land is above sea level Or, taking magazine articles of the Himi Glaciers Melting in 35 years, Amazongate.......and the Faulty idea of "consenss"..... & the worst of all............Settled science

I laugh at the IPCC and I'll laugh even harder when they're booted out of our lives forever.

[Snow_Miser]

It's amazing how arrogant and conceited skier is. He's really proven he can't engage in a debate in a respectful manner. He doesn't even try to make valid arguments anymore, just berates and mocks those who disagree with his strong AGW bent. Disgusting.

I concur entirely. He called me a "12 year old scientist." Fortunately, that post has been deleted.