El Niño Lends More Confidence to Strong Global Warming
Richard A. Kerr

Summary
Some scientists have argued from observations that global warming will alter clouds in ways that will largely counter warming by greenhouse gases. But the overwhelming majority of climate scientists sides with the models, which show clouds changing in ways that amplify warming, not dampen it. Whom to believe? To help sort it out, a climate researcher looked at the example of El Niño and La Niña, naturally occurring weather patterns that cause warming (El Niño) and cooling (La Niña) in the tropical Pacific and around the globe. In a report on page 1523 of this week's issue of Science, he analyzes how they have actually influenced clouds and concludes that—at least on the scale of decades—clouds do not counter warming.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...30/6010/1465.summary

Podcast Interview

A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade
A. E. Dessler

Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.

Abstract
Estimates of Earth's climate sensitivity are uncertain, largely because of uncertainty in the long-term cloud feedback. I estimated the magnitude of the cloud feedback in response to short-term climate variations by analyzing the top-of-atmosphere radiation budget from March 2000 to February 2010. Over this period, the short-term cloud feedback had a magnitude of 0.54 ± 0.74 (2σ) watts per square meter per kelvin, meaning that it is likely positive. A small negative feedback is possible, but one large enough to cancel the climate’s positive feedbacks is not supported by these observations. Both long- and short-wave components of short-term cloud feedback are also likely positive. Calculations of short-term cloud feedback in climate models yield a similar feedback. I find no correlation in the models between the short- and long-term cloud feedbacks.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...0/6010/1523.abstract

It sure is hot in Atlanta today.
Not.
Larry there is a God.
There is NO Global warming.
Put the crack pipe down my son.

It's damn near winter Ronnie, what, your momma drop you on your head once too often or what? Of course it's going to be cold off and on; it happens most every year about this time. There is a difference between weather and climate you know, but I am sure the subtleties will no doubt always elude you altogether. Don't feel too bad, many others around here don't seem to be able to wrap their heads around the concepts of weather and climate and the differences, either.

You know Ronnie you make it quite difficult not to say things that are likely to insult your intelligence when you say such ridiculous things.

Now you and the Cowardly Lion can say you believe in spooks, "I do, I do, I do, I DO, believe in spooks", till you're blue in the face, but until you can come up with some repeatable verifiable evidence that one exists, as far as I am concerned, your spook is about the same as the stuff that comes out of the southern end of a north bound bull. In fact your sky pixie isn't even as good as decent bushel of bu11sh1t; at least with that you can get a good patch of vegetables to grow. Now if you want to argue about your Wizard of Oz fantasies, I will be most happy, just not here. Start a thread, and if I find it entertaining enough, I might stop by to abuse your childish fantasies there.

Anthony Watts (Watts up with that)

Misdeeds: Overnight, went from local TV weatherman to a climate "expert," constantly attacking scientific reports for groupthink, grant-seeking greed, and phony data. Sent his minions to photograph those US temperature stations which he claimed were too close to heat sinks, skewing temperature readings.

NOAA decided to take him up on his claim and analyzed the station data from all 1223 sites, and found no evidence of bias or distortion. Anthony instantly dropped the project with no mention of his error and simply began shouting, "Climategate!" -- the oil company e-burglary and nontroversy, which ultimately offered no evidence of scientific wrongdoing.



Corporate Teats: People contribute to the "cookie jar" on his loony blog, but oil and coal companies support him through former pro-smoking "researchers" at the Heartland Institute.

Most Egregious Lie: "The Hockey Stick is Broken!" Really? The hockey stick has been duplicated in over 20 charts from climate scientists, and vindicated in an exhaustive study by the National Academy of Sciences.

http://climatechangepsychology...for-worlds-most.html

quote:

Originally posted by ronnie davis:
http://greenwatchamerica.net/

Glaciers have grown in western Norway, New Zealand’s South Island, parts of Asia and the Tierra del Fuego in South America.

However, overall ice and snow on mountains has been retreating since the industrial age, according to scientists from around the world.

In some regions, it is very likely that glaciers will largely disappear by the end of this century, whereas in others ice cover will persist but in a reduced form for many centuries to come.

The largest losses have been recorded in Patagonia, which cover parts of Argentina and Chile, followed by glaciers in Alaska.

There have also been large losses in the northwest United States and southwest Canada followed by the mountains of Asia, including the Hindu Kush of the Himalayas, the Arctic and the Andes.

In Europe the rate of loss is slower. In fact glaciers have been putting on mass since the mid-1970s, but this trend was reversed around the year 2000.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a separate science body attached to the UN, was forced to admit that a previous report was wrong to claim the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035.

However the new report made clear that glaciers are being lost in the region, albeit on a slower scale.

Achim Steiner, head of the UN’s Environment Programme, said loss of glaciers can have a severe impact on millions of people. For example in the Himalayas the glaciers are responsible for drinking water and irrigating fields.

“Accumulation of science shows us a clear general trend of melting glaciers linked to a warming climate and perhaps other impacts, such as the deposit of soot, reducing the reflection of heat back into space”, he said. “This report underlines a global trend, observed over many decades now in some parts of the globe, which has short and long-term implications for considerable numbers of people in terms of water supplies and vulnerability”.

As more than 190 countries meet in Cancun for the latest round of UN climate talks, Mr Steiner called for action to stop global warming and reduce the risk from melting glaciers.


Got this from your link ronnie.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


It sure is hot in Atlanta today.
Not.
Larry there is a God.
There is NO Global warming.
Put the crack pipe down my son.


......There is a difference between weather and climate.

Some posters don't know the difference as indicated in recent replies.

quote:

Misdeeds: Overnight, went from local TV weatherman to a climate "expert," constantly attacking scientific reports for groupthink, grant-seeking greed, and phony data.

Please tell me why Dr Hansen has been so wildly wrong with some of his "credentialled" predictions.

eg. While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

Read the rest of the above from Mr Watts own website..........................

http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...-by-dr-james-hansen/


If we shouldn't at least hear what people like Mr Watts has to say, we are left with only the credentialled ones like Dr Hansen. Considering the above, wouldn't that be a tradgedy?

If you dont believe the eye witness accounts in the New Testament of the Bible,there are other forms of proof that there was a man Jesus and him healing people,raising the dead etc.
http://defendtheword.wordpress...er-than-the-bible-2/
http://www.self-realization.co...ticles/proof_God.htm

My mother and father taught me not to be a Fool and think I'm here by some chance for X amount of years and then that's it.

But you believe what you wish as is your right.
My guess is when your facing your last breath you might change your mind,but maybe not.

Global warming is a man made fairy tale.
The earth has warmed and cooled since day One.
This summer we had cooler temps here,and yes its winter but its much cooler than usual.

Larry:
Is smarter than all of us conservatives.
Doesn't believe in any God.
Does believe in Global Warming.
Is Gay.
(I think he said he was,If that's not right,I apologize)
OK,that's fine with me....

I am Not a Bible thumper,I cuss,get mad,say things I shouldn't,will fight a the drop of hat (i'm not to old to fight,I'm to old to lose)
Dont attend church regular,like the women,Etc.
But you have made me look deeper into my faith,and for that "I Thank You".

I know with out a doubt that there is more to our life than here for a few years and gone like a the wind.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ronnie davis,

Care to provide a citation for the peer reviewed paper(s?) where in Dr. Hansen makes the statement(s) you via Andy Watts allude to? No, didn't think so.

What we have is Andy Watts's site posting third hand statements about remembrances of interviews from 20+ years ago.

The reality is that Dr. Hansen predicted pretty much exactly what we have today for global temperature increases, 22 years ago. That is the science, not hearsay. Not too damn shabby, considering that a meteorologist of Watts's caliber likely had difficulty predicting his next bowl movement, much less what would be going on 20+ years down the road.

Here is the abstract for the publication upon which Dr. Hansen's 1988 congressional testimony was based.

If you care to go further, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs...1988_Hansen_etal.pdf is the complete publication in PDF format.

If you would care to have some explanations about the paper, in a then and now format, and expert commentary by an actual climate scientist circa 2007, go here.

Further still, here is Dr. Hansen's 2007 paper that revisits the 1988 predictions.

Abstract
Formal Paper http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs...06_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Related news release
Data Set

Pretty tough to miss a prediction when you have hoaxer cohorts positioning the measuring instruments to record the desired results!
What happens when there isn't warmer places to locate the instruments?
Easy, they'll simply make up lies like they do now to support their unfounded theories!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

New Cold Blast Invading Eastern U.S. Even More Brutal

COLD, COLDER, COLDEST








Gene Simmons Military Tribute

Zell/Granny 2012

Send Your Thanks To the U.S.Military

Post a Message to our Soldiers

Of all the things I've lost,
I miss my mind the most
Grandpa Bob
Professional Fence Hanger / Spectator
Former Crew Chief
Grandma's Rocking Chair

quote:

......There is a difference between weather and climate.

Some posters don't know the difference as indicated in recent replies.

The saga continues..........

Ronnie says: "Global warming is a man made fairy tale."

For someone who professes that his parents didn't raise a fool, it seems really hard to see that from my point of view. Decades and decades of scientific research says AGW is real, yet you in your infinite wisdom come to the conclusion it's all a fairy tale, sans ever having looked at, or understood the even merest basics of climate science, which is concisely evidenced by the fact that you apparently don't understand the difference between weather and climate. That is part of what science is, using words in very precise ways and with very particular meanings, science is not some crap you read or heard from your favorite conservative talk show host, bought and paid for political mouth piece, or your local home schooled idiot preacher.

And back to your original post and I paraphrase you "its cold in Georgia tonight". This time I will try not to be so condescending. Weather is a highly chaotic phenomenon. That one short sentence is really a blockbuster, it is packed with meaning and in specific it is that word, chaotic, we must understand. In simplified terms it means that the "chaotic" nature of weather can not explain and no conclusions with regard to climate can be made from a single data point. Furthermore, chaos theory tells us that we may have in fact, outliers from the norm, such as the ones you're pointing out. But more to the point, you can not conclude global warming is true or false from a single data point, or even a limited data set of data points, a few days of cold or hot weather, even if they are unseasonable, i.e. chaotic outliers. So here are a few places you can choose to go and get a flavor for the meaning of chaos and chaos theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/.../noframes/chaos.html

Then go on to the basics of climate and how chaos theory applies:

http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/index.html
http://cpd.conted.ox.ac.uk/env...imate/interface.html
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/

Next download and read the science. To do a really good job of it you really need to read these and all the citations used in the preparation of these two papers, all that gobbledygook at the end of the paper, each one is a paper in and of itself. But still this would be the merest start in understanding what the science really means.

Download and read the SCIENCE
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs...1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs...06_Hansen_etal_1.pdf


Ronnie says: "The earth has warmed and cooled since day One."

Damn you got one right, what do you know!

But there is still more here than meets the eye. In the context of the discussions about AGW, I do not believe anyone in the scientific community has ever said that there has never been, or is not now, natural background warming and cooling cycles brought on by a whole host of forcing factors. Science has looked at and reconstructed thousands of years of past climate via various proxies and also has a few hundred years or so of direct measurements as well. The point they make is that given our current point in this natural warming and cooling cycle, we are significantly outside of the expected range of the statically average global temperature. It's getting warmer, which is the current trend for coming out of and ice age, but faster and sooner than one would statically expect given past history. Science has devised statistical models that do a tremendously accurate and precise job of reproducing past and current past observation. Running these stastical models into the future shows and increased deviation from what is expected if the models are run sans anthropomorphically added CO2. It's what the models predicted in the case of Dr. Hansen 20 odd years ago and what we are now seeing today, as predicted.


Ronnie says: "This summer we had cooler temps here, and yes its winter but its much cooler than usual."


This is basically the same point you tried to make above, it points out, once again, that you obviously do not know the difference between weather and climate, so, read or reread all the basic stuff I have provided above, you can't even begin to understand the science if you don't even understand the meaning of the most basic words and concepts used in science. Then read the science. You simply can not take a single point in space, "North Georgia" and a short period of time, "Last Summer" three months, and make any valid conclusions about climate in general and AGW in particular.

We have people here who are calming Dr. Hansen made some wilds statements, 20 years ago, about rivers being out of their banks in New York, by now. I can't tell you that he did or didn't say it; I kind of doubt it, but be that as it may. Irrespective of past off the record statements Dr. Hansen may or may not have made, he apparently didn't make that statement in a scientific journal; I do know that for sure. Also it appears that he did say and more importantly write in a science paper twenty years or so ago that we would have about .2 to .5 degrees centigrade per decade increase in average global temp above what we would expect at this point in time, given no anthropomorphically generated CO2 increase. But please don't take my word for it, read the science. There are mountains of repeatable verifiable data and evidence to support 10's of thousands of papers by thousands of scientist that all point to the same thing, AGW is real.

All this aside Ronnie, I'd be tickled pink if you just got your head around the concepts of weather and climate, that would be a great start.

quote:

Decades and decades of scientific research says AGW is real,

Larry,

the problem with your above post is that you started with this. The fact that a large portion of the "so called facts and data" that has been collected has been de-bunked. Alot of the guys have come out of the closet and shown that they are actually skewing the data, either by positioning their equipment in certian places, oversight of particular elements of the data collection, leaving data out or putting them in the mean area of the data so they actually don't count.

If you took statistics then you would know that you can take any data set and make it say almost EXACTLY what you want it to by the mean and standard deviation. That is why polls are not very accurate and the data can change on a dime.

The hoaxers don't use the general scientific approach going from hypothosis to theory to experiments and tests and then possibly FACT!
Their route is desired theory, WALLA, concensus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by The Bozman:

quote:

Decades and decades of scientific research says AGW is real,

Larry,

the problem with your above post is that you started with this. The fact that a large portion of the "so called facts and data" that has been collected has been de-bunked. Alot of the guys have come out of the closet and shown that they are actually skewing the data, either by positioning their equipment in certian places, oversight of particular elements of the data collection, leaving data out or putting them in the mean area of the data so they actually don't count.

If you took statistics then you would know that you can take any data set and make it say almost EXACTLY what you want it to by the mean and standard deviation. That is why polls are not very accurate and the data can change on a dime.

Boz seys: "the problem with your above post is that you started with this. The fact that a large portion of the "so called facts and data" that has been collected has been de-bunked."

Citations Please? Who debunked what, when, and in what science publications where these refutations published? I eagerly await the citations, should be some interesting reading.

Boz seys: "If you took statistics then you would know that you can take any data set and make it say almost EXACTLY what you want it to by the mean and standard deviation."

This statement is utterly farcical. You're babbling pure nonsense, nonsense that proves you to be the one that lacks an understanding of statistics.

Larry,
Google Global warming Hoaxes or misinformation, you will find all you can read.

Evidently you haven't taken to many statistical classes or else you would know that to be true. If not, then tell me what changing the mean and/or the standard deviation does in relation to the outcome.

It was 24 degrees warmer this morning than the past two mornings. Thank God for global warming..... that -22 degrees without the windchill was a bit too much to handle. The 2 degrees is better. But I guess 25 degrees below the average is just one part of the data.

You keep adding up one part at a time, and sooner or later its a big part.

quote:

Originally posted by The Bozman:
Larry,
Google Global warming Hoaxes or misinformation, you will find all you can read.

Evidently you haven't taken to many statistical classes or else you would know that to be true. If not, then tell me what changing the mean and/or the standard deviation does in relation to the outcome.

I guess you missed the part about "science publications" implying peer reviewed research papers, when I asked for citations. Not something written by some putz from South Dakota, that home schools his poor kids because he is afraid the school system might teach them EVILLUTION or that the earth is 4.5 Billion years old instead of his preferred 6000 years old, arrived at by counting up all the begets in his sky pilot handbook.

Boz you are a real ninny, Mean and SD, ARE THE OUTCOME, of applying simple statistical analysis to a data set. It doesn't work the other way around, you can't magically change the content of a data set by simply stating the mean or SD is something else.

The United Kingdom is experiencing the COLDEST winter ever since weather records have been kept!
This fits right in with the prognostications of the man-made global warming hoaxers, now referred to as "climate change by the hoaxers", in the year 2000 which were, "with warming occurring we are coming to the end of snow fall in the United Kingdom!"
How will the hoaxers spin this????????????????????????????????

Science 17 December 2010:
Vol. 330 no. 6011 p. 1623
DOI: 10.1126/science.330.6011.1623

News

Climatologists Feel the Heat As Science Meets Politics
Richard A. Kerr and
Eli Kintisch

Summary

Most insights come as a surprise: a burst of understanding, an elegant solution to a problem. This decade's main insight in climate science was a different breed. For 40 years, researchers had wrestled with three big questions: Is the world warming? If so, are humans behind the warming? And are natural processes likely to rein it in? In the past few years, climate scientists finally agreed on solid answers: yes, yes, and no—just as they had suspected.



http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...30/6011/1623.summary