[Conservative4Ever]

Can I be the first??? WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!

Red

[FlingWingFlyer]

Happens EVERY summer with these people.

[thoughtomator]

Big deal, move a few miles north, same weather.

[Jim_Curtis]

but now all of the data sets are in closer agreement due to some adjustments being published in three new articles in Science today.

Yup, adjustments always do the trick.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

I feel so guilty.

I'll have to buy a Prius.

[MassRepublican]

While there may be rock hard science that the globe is warming - that is not the same as PROVING that it is caused by CO2 emissions. There have been long cycles of heating and cooling before man ever left his cave.

[Straight Vermonter]

As always kudos to ancient_geezer for the info.

Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Brief Introduction to the History of Climate
by Richard A. Muller

Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle

Figure 1-1 Global warming source NOAA

 

Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years, source "GISP2"

 

 

Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years, source "GISP2"

Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years, source Greenland ice data

 

Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice data

 

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.252.html#1

INTERPLANETARY DUST PARTICLES (IDPs) are deposited on the Earth at the rate of about 10,000 tons per year. Does this have any effect on climate? Scientists at Caltech have found that ancient samples of helium-3 (coming mostly from IDPs) in oceanic sediments exhibit a 100,000-year periodicity. The researchers assert that their data, taken along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, support a recently enunciated idea that Earth's orbital inclination varies with a 100-kyr period; this notion in turn had been broached as an explanation for a similar periodicity in the succession of ice ages. (K.A. Farley and D.B. Patterson, Nature, 7 December 1995.)
Farley & Patterson 1998, http://www.elsevier.com/gej-ng/10/20/36/33/37/32/abstract.html
Farley http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~farley/
Farley http://www.elsevier.nl/gej-ng/10/18/23/54/21/49/abstract.html

 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr96/dec96/noaa96-78.html

ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE DURING LAST GLACIAL PERIOD COULD BE TIED TO DUST-INDUCED REGIONAL WARMING

Preliminary new evidence suggests that periodic increases in atmospheric dust concentrations during the glacial periods of the last 100,000 years may have resulted in significant regional warming, and that this warming may have triggered the abrupt climatic changes observed in paleoclimate records, according to a scientist at the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Current scientific thinking is that the dust concentrations contributed to global cooling.

 

Here Comes the Sun

"Carbon dioxide, the main culprit in the alleged greenhouse-gas warming, is not a "driver" of climate change at all. Indeed, in earlier research Jan Veizer, of the University of Ottawa and one of the co-authors of the GSA Today article, established that rather than forcing climate change, CO2 levels actually lag behind climatic temperatures, suggesting that global warming may cause carbon dioxide rather than the other way around."

***

"Veizer and Shaviv's greatest contribution is their time scale. They have examined the relationship of cosmic rays, solar activity and CO2, and climate change going back through thousands of major and minor coolings and warmings. They found a strong -- very strong -- correlation between cosmic rays, solar activity and climate change, but almost none between carbon dioxide and global temperature increases."

[patton]

So what's the bottom line? The UAH team finds warming of 0.123 degrees per decade. The balloon data tend to support the UAH team's findings. The RSS team finds warming of 0.193 degrees per decade. And the surface measurements show a warming trend of 0.15 degrees per decade.

Against what real-world event were these model results validated?

(..............crickets..................)

[taxesareforever]

All data sets--satellite, surface, and balloon--have been pointing to rising global temperatures.

SO WHAT? Are they going to put a shield on the sun? Who really gives a rip that nature takes care of itself? Just don't go blaming people for causing it. It is a fact of nature. Live with it.

[mtbopfuyn]

Anyone and anything that farts is a global warmer.

[Tax-chick]

Well, duh ... it's AUGUST!

[Texas Eagle]

I ain't worried. I remember back when I was in high school in the late 70s, the world was going to end because of a looming Ice Age.

I'm starting to think all this climate stuff is cyclical.

[TheForceOfOne]

We're All Global Warmers Now

Lights a match, lets it burn to his fingers, looks around with evil eyes, lets out a mentally unstable laugh and runs away into the darkness whispering Global Warming is coming, Global warming is here!!! Boo hoo ha ha ha ha! you're all doomed!


lol

[Braak]

Wake me when the world ends....(snore)

[Herakles]

And if the Yellowstone basin erupts, or there is an asteroid impact on the earth, or if there is a nuclear war, the warming rate will be –110 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

So what’s their point? If everything goes really, really well we will have only a 0.15-degree increase per decade??

[Publius6961]

Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up.

Some should certainly hang it up, but not the ones identified.

No technically informed person I know has denied global warming; just the cause of it.

No one with an IQ over refrigerator temperature can conclude that this rise in unique and not natural.
A casual glance at the temperature record for the last 400,000 years clearly shows the futility of being able to separate the confounding effect of man-made activities on the hundreds of recorded naturally occuring wide temperature fluctuations.

End of non-story.

[Boundless]

> "The new warming trend is still well below ideas of
> dramatic or catastrophic warming."

And slow enough to allow ample time to take steps, if
any steps are indeed indicated - irrespective of the
cause of the warming.

So what is the correlation between Earth temps and
Solar insolation?

Do we want to loft a giant sunshade?

[SpaceBar]

Predicting long time scale climatic trends using the data they cite is like extrapolating the entire contents of the Los Angeles Yellow Pages by the contents of the first page. Ice cores which still only record the geologically recent indicate that large climate swings both up and down are commonplace. Just another attempt to justify the removal of certain refrigerants from the market and the continued existence of the industry hampering nanny state.

[RJL]

Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up.

Remember the global cooling scare in the mid 70's?

Just think how bad off we'd be if we reacted to those scientists warnings and had spent $Trillions over the last 30 years trying to warm the planet.

I still am waiting for the environmentalists to use the same computer models to "predict" the past. We know a lot more about the past and it would give us great insight into how accurate their predictions for the future are.

[hinckley buzzard]

Reconciling model trends by making adjustments in basic parameters is unimpressive. And it is surprising that the article would reference the IPCC original projections, given that the IPCC's data are known to have been cooked and have been decisively discredited years since. This whole area of "science" (loosely termed) has been compromised by political Lysenko-ization. I wouldn't trust a one of these so-called "researchers." Sadly we just know too much these days about how scientists will readily lie for money, prestige, tenure, what have you.