So you're saying, based on this (and presumably, more), that global warming is not happening? At all?

Holocaust Denier!! I'm tellin on ya, Paul!!

They cant get a 5 day forecast right, yet we can predict 50-75 yrs into the future?

Some people need to lay off the glue!

Paul, The models might be ill-concieved, but precipitation will be high in the early stages of global warming. (man-made? not much) Snow is precipitation and 143 inches is a lot. Like the condensor of your air con. on a very hot day icing-over. Action, reaction.

You neglected to add the summary from the article which said;

Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.

"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.

Your banner of "Global Warming - It Ain't Happening" clearly misrepresents Bromwich's position on this issue. In fact, it's a disservice to your readers.

This January is starting out to be a record breaker as well. Last year, 2006 was a record breaking warm year, close to the record set in 1998. In fact the National Climatic Data Center had this to say about the period between 2006 and 1880;

In a statement, the center said the last nine years have all been "among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record." - MSNBC Jan 9th 2007

Also, just as an aside, the earth is not flat, it really does revolve around the sun, and humans did not live with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago.

Mantis-

Define "Global Warming"

Warming over 5 years, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 yeas, 10,000 years, 100,000 years, 1,000,000 years, 10,000,000 years.

Define your terms.

John that is not the summary of the article. That is some guy making excuses for being wrong.

Telling the truth is a disservice to my readers???

You're funny.

Also, just as an aside, the earth is not flat, it really does revolve around the sun, and humans did not live with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago.

I find it amusing that you use these examples. All things people believed where true but later found to be myths. Just like global warming.

Guess irony is lost on you huh?

Ok, do you believe that global climate is in a warming trend since the little ice age? If so, do you believe that warming trend has increased in the 20th century?

Sure bryanD it all fits so well...

If it's hot outside it must be global warming. If it's cold outside that's just more proof of global warming.

When you sent up arguments like that, you'll win them every time.

This is great news!
Does this mean I can go back to my old gas guzzlin', coal burnin', NASCAR drivin', electricity wastin', environment destroyin' ways?
I really didn't want to leave a livable world to the Grandkids anyway.

>Ok, do you believe that global climate is in a warming trend since the little ice age?

That's seems as sure as anything. We may be wrong but that seems like a very safe bet. (IOW 99.9% yes)

>If so, do you believe that warming trend has increased in the 20th century?

I do not believe that based on the data we have presently. (like this study for example)

For years Antarctica has been considered the touchstone for global warming evidence and this data says it ain't so.

Only a fool would "believe" it to be anything else in the face of contradictory evidence.

Well, I think Human-caused global warming is real. This article finally convinced me.

It covered everything I was wondering about - long-term orbital precession cycles, solar influx variability, and greenhouse gas level cycles as measured in ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years - and the conclusion they came to was about 5000 years ago, as agriculture really took off, methane levels rose dramatically.

And if they hadn't - a significant portion of northern and northeastern Canada would be under glaciers at this point.

So, after looking at all the facts - I'm a believer in global warming... and I think it's a damn good thing!

So do you think that the trend has not increased in the 20th century, or are you just not convinced that it has?

And by contradictory evidence, do you mean that the evidence contradicts the modeled predictions, or that the evidence proves that warming is not evident?

Paul,

Yes, it is the summary of the article, and the quote is not by "some guy" it's by the scientist reporting on this work. Your material came from his press release from his office, and the end of his article is exactly as I printed it.

Not only have you represented his work, and now you're trying to lie about it. So, no... You're not telling the truth, and yes, it's a disservice.

So we don't have to go around and around on this issue, here's the full article in it's entirity, including his origional title, and the articles conclusion.

How about you shoot the guy a piece of email directing him to your post, and ask him if "Global warming Ain't Happening". I'd like to know how truthful he finds your representation of his work.

Please do not post the whole article. it is very rare (mostly when they are short) that we do not clip things that are copywritten. I provided a link for a reason -Paul

It's funny...

Every time they find another gaping hole in the computer models, they first deny the new data, then explain that the new data must be incorrect because of some unexplained reason, then fiddle with the models until the new data is excluded for some reason or other.

So we end up with someone trying to tell us that lower temeratures in Antarctica is unimportant because it's "remote" (never mind that it was critically important to global warming when they thought it was going to be a lot warmer, and every time some big ice shelf fell off it was Another Dreadful Sign) but that the Arctic Ocean is very important because it has less ice (and temps that haven't really changed that much, either - it's the lowered precipitation that's causing the lessening of the ice cap) - even though Antarctica and the Arctic Ocean are about the same size, and are both pretty damned remote from most of the world.

I think that we do not have enough evidence for a *reasonable* person to conclude that the rate of warming is accelerating.

And I consider myself reasonable. Don't you?

==========

Further, the question you ask is really quite silly. You sit here, on a planet almost 5 Billion years old and want to discuss measurements of the last 50 years???

Let's just sharpen our darts and throw them at a dartboard, it's easier, faster and at least we'll all agree where the dart lands.

Well all except for Lee.

BryanD,

I really applaud your efforts to try and patiently educate these dolts but it's futile. They are dumb and dumber just like pappy and george. There is nothing you will say that will have them be anything more than funny, foolish fundamentalist fanatics.

You have so much more to offer than responding to these lunks yet I always enjoy reading your reasoned, informed, articulate debate. Along with Lee and arepuke you each contribute so much in solid inforamtion. I guess it's just so much disgusting stupidity on here and some of the right wing blogs that no matter how many times you try to teach they fail to learn.

Global warming is real and the scientific community knows it. The 30% deadenders in here will never be part of the solution only the problem. Let's just hope we can motivate enough other people who know it but are just as lazy as the righties to do much to reverse the CO2 contributions.

>Yes, it is the summary of the article,

No it is not, you're grapsing at straws.

The only "summary" we have is the headline "Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions"

Next.

I don't understand the fuss coming from the left over global warming. On the one hand, we need more water and all you guys seem to want to say is conserve (which isn't really a plan of action)...but if global warming truly is happening and the earth warms up a bit and melts a crapload of snow across the globe, creating lots and lots of water...what's the freaking problem then? No pleasing you left-tards, is there?

That and the fact we really,really can't stop the sun from warming up the planet, now can we...

Paul,

Stop spoofing my signature. That's twice now you've sent messages that eiether did not come from me, or you modified before it was posted, and used my name.

Also, stop editing my comments in order to support your point.

Jlawson........try aip.org....another great informative site

HUH?

Didn't spoof anything.

And as far as clipping copywritten material, sorry Charlie, you don't get to make that call, I do.

John, sorry, I see it.... I'm on a client machine so I do not check "Remember personal info?"

I was answering you but instead of putting your name in the body I put it in the top field. Typo, I'll fix it. -P

Looks like this politically driven global warming hysteria might be halted soon. Libs you'll have to come up with something else to scare the people into propping up your obvious agenda.

Did every conservative fail science class?

It must really suck to have to stick to a position just because the Politicians and Talking Heads on your side of the political spectrum are beholden to the billion dollar fossil fuel industries.

At least they're getting some kind of compensation for denying that man made global climate change is real. What are you fools getting out of it?

Sure Live@9 because you're calling names PROVES it is true. Sigh.

I love the fact we have HARD DATA, not pie in the sky predictions and all the lefties want to ignore it and just sling insults.

These are the same folks who claim science is on their side.

Irony so think you need Snow Shoes.

Paul,
Because you deny scientific data it makes it untrue?

ROFLMAO

I'm the one denying data? Where do you people come from?

At least they're getting some kind of compensation for denying that man made global climate change is real. What are you fools getting out of it?

So you think those scientists on the left are not gearing up to get compensated for this hysteria?

Bwhahahahahaha.....you guys aren't really that ignorant, are you?

mantis, I'm getting behind in my work tonight. Hate to miss another lively discussion but I might have to finish up this machine and get to bed. -- I'll be back in about 10 to check on you then I gotta go.

Paul,

Fair enough. Please accept my appology.

Anyhow, the professors report was a press release. I assume it's for distribution and we have fair use with proper credit.

I think it's an accurate statement to say that something on the order of 95% of the scientists that activley work in the field of global climate change are in agreement about human driven climate change. The "controversy" that the oil funded public affair shadow orgs "report" are mostly normal disagreements about which model best fits, but the concensus is really in on this issue.

Jo,
So you think the fossil fuel industries don't have a vested interest in denying global climate change?

Bwhahahahahaha.....you guys aren't really that ignorant, are you?

>Anyhow, the professors report was a press release. I assume it's for distribution and we have fair use with proper credit.

Actually you might be right. As a blogger, especially on a high traffic blog, we are just careful by nature. I did not notice it was a press release.

Either way, that's why bloggers link things.

=================

>I think it's an accurate statement to say that something on the order of 95% of the scientists that activley work in the field of global climate change are in agreement about human driven climate change.

WOW, where do you get that polling data? I'd love to see it....

Don't tell me you pulled it out your ass... I'll be very disappointed.

The only way one gets the temperature increases as predicted by the COMPUTER MODELS is for positive feedback mechanisms. The prime example of one of these is water vapor. Roughly speaking every 5 C increase doubles the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can carry. Water accounts for over 90% of the greenhouse effect. Increases in water vapor also increase the effective heat pumping rate of the atmosphere (as witnessed in cloud formation), and that is admittedly not well modeled in the code.

One of the real problems with the COMPUTER MODELS is that they adjust the models to make sure they match the temperature rise as known from the records. One human influence that has been known about, but not really considered in the models is the injection of aerosols/particulates into the stratosphere in the early to mid last century. Aerosols have a tendency to lower temperatures at the surface by reflecting incoming radiation. Concerted efforts to lower particulate emissions starting in the 50's through the 70's would increase the rate of warming attributed to CO2 if they were not considered in the models. Furthermore, the particulates would have reduced the impact of warming prior to the bulk of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. Natural warming that should have occurred over say, a century or so, would be relocated to the last couple of decades mimicking increases attributed to CO2.

Live, yeah it sucks to have such dissent from your so called "consensus" now doesn't it? And doubly irritating is that the dissent is backed by hard evidence.

Remember, dissent is patriotic. Isn't that what you guys tell us?

Ooops, all these new "questions" and doubts oughta set back your all consuming political agenda by at least a few years. Patience, boys, patience.