Death knell for AGW

If you'd looked at one of them the next nearest long warming period was about 130,000 years ago and didn't last nearly as long as this one has so far.

Now I can see why the global warming movement is losing so much support

*shrugs* Me, too. Most people can't even begin to understand the science of climate.

Right, here is the problem Walter. Folks like you love to throw out explanations for why the world is the way it is, and they aren't even consistent. If global warming is being caused by human proliferation of greenhouse gases, then there are some fingerprints we should expect. The oceans should acidify. You know that blather about world temperatures rising in de-glaciations before carbon dioxide? Well that's not happening. The oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide, and they're warming. That's unequivocally not due to sun spots, galactic rays, or undersea volcanoes.

The stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming. That is unequivocally not due to increased solar output, or volcanoes, or comic rays seeding clouds. It's a finger print of an atmosphere made opaque to the outgoing longwave (infrared) radiation.

You can throw as much spaghetti at the IPCC wall as you like, it won' stick. No explanation is as consistent in producing predictions based on good science as the anthropogenic model. No amount of blathering by your priests will change reality. To continue to believe that this model (in the classical science sense, not general circulation model) of the climate is falling apart is to be blinded by your denialist religion, in the face of strong facts.

Now run off and find some other's opinion to refute what I say here. Or at the very least, don't try to be an arbiter of what does and does not belong in this thread. It is old, and large, and with time all threads expand to cover more issues. In this case what Anna says is completely within the realm of this thread, as it is a direct supporting fact for why AGW is in no death knell.

'tis to laugh.

Still more crap found in the IPCC report. Don't these people read over their writing before handing it in.

When talking about Global Warming, everything is and should be on the table "ocean acidification or ozone or garbage" are definatly a possible reason either as a byproduct or cause.

The following article does suggest that the time may be coming of tall trees again, heavy primeval forests like we had in the past before man.

Basic biology suggests that plants might grow faster in a world with more carbon dioxide, and field experiments bear that out: when you pump extra CO2 into a field or a forest, trees and other vegetation tend to get bigger.
There are plenty of caveats attached: without other nutrients, the size and health of CO2-enriched plants can be compromised, and in some cases noxious weeds like poison ivy do better than the greenery you might prefer. But perhaps the biggest question of all is how closely such artificial situations translate in the real world. (Watch "Battle of the Endangered Species: Bats v. Trees")
That question is a long way from being answered, but a study published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences takes a small step in that direction. A team of researchers used 22 years' worth of carefully accumulated measurements of hardwood forests in and near the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, in Edgewater, Md., to show that their growth has accelerated significantly. On average, the stands were expanding at a rate of two extra tons of mass per acre per year, by the end of the study — the equivalent of a single two-foot-diameter tree, if you could grow a tree that big in a year. "We don't know exactly when it started," says co-author Geoffrey Parker, a forest ecologist at the Smithsonian. But the scientists do have an idea of the reason — or rather, three possible reasons, all of which are likely to be interrelated.
The first is a 12% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the study began — the same CO2 increase implicated in global warming. The second is the warming itself. And the third is an increase in the growing season, defined as the length of time between the last frost in spring and the first frost in fall, which is also a consequence of warming. "We couldn't narrow it down further than that," says Parker. (See the top 10 invasive species.)
What made the study possible in the first place was the fact that pretty much none of the forest in this part of the U.S. is virgin; it's been cleared for agriculture at various times, and then allowed to regrow in patches. The result: individual stands of similar trees ranging from about 225 years old to just five. "You could do this experiment by measuring a single stand of trees as long as possible," says Parker, "but a scientific career lasts only a few percent of the life of a tree." This way, he explains, you have a snapshot of the same forest at different ages."
Forest biologists already know that, all things being equal, trees grow more rapidly when they're young, then taper off as they mature, and that you can chart the standard curve of growth for a given forest type by looking at the kind of snapshots Parker and his colleagues used. It takes only a couple of years of measurements to figure out the overall growth curve. This study has been going on for 22 years, conducted largely by technicians and volunteers trained by the Smithsonian scientists. "We have a huge corps of volunteers," says Parker. "It's not rocket science but you need to do a lot of measurements and repeat them often."
Over that 22-year span, Parker and the others noticed that the growth curve gradually bends upward, meaning the regrowth was accelerating — a hint, anyway, that controlled experiments involving enriched CO2 levels were indeed a reasonable if rough proxy of what would likely happen in the real world as CO2 levels mount. Whether the forests' growth spurt might actually impact global warming by absorbing and storing more carbon is doubtful. While it's true that more trees suck up more carbon, they also produce more dark, heat-absorbing foliage, which somewhat counteracts the benefit. In addition, one extra tree per acre per year doesn't make much of a dent in the atmospheric carbon load, not to mention that it's still unknown what the effect would be in other kinds of forests.
The Smithsonian experiment will continue to see what happens next in terms of forest growth, says Parker. His suspicion: because the trees aren't getting a boost in nutrients to match the extra CO2 and warmer climate, "it probably can't go on much too much longer."
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1960567,00.html

Toles has some nice toons out there.

I like this recent one by Morten Morland:

A great article form an unassailable source.

Too cold for wind turbines to move. Too funny.
Attempt to Combat Global Warming Falls Victim to Cold Sting of Irony - Special Report w/ Bret Baier - FOXNews.com

Guess we can't count upon global warming to keep lubricants flowing.

Fred Singer was hired by tobacco companies to write a report contradicting the negative effects of second hand smoke and recieves funding from big oil.

Nice try old boy.

Must be getting some cold weather in Minn.

Keep trying old timer.

Don't worry, CO2 will lead to some global warming then along comes a massive methane release and it will be all over for us. How about we start tapping into the huge frozen methane reserves and using it for our energy needs?

Oh the irony.

Yep, postponed due to weather.

Walt is the gift that keeps on giving.

More snow records; must be AGW.

Snowstorm shatters local records in Chicago...
It's official: Baltimore Snow Record!

Sounds like bad weather.

Unassailable? You're the funniest science illiterate lemming of them all Walt. The man who took money from tobacco companies to deny the science of carcinogenic compounds in tobacco is impossible to dispute? If you say so.

It's not even the first paragraph and he's already leading sheep like you off a cliff.
The well established MWP? Here's required reading:
http://www.geofaculty.org:16080/figu...hange_1994.pdf

http://ambio.allenpress.com/archive/...47-29-1-51.pdf

If Singer had his way, the only graph one would need is the original graph Lamb made using temperatures collected in one location. You've seen it, it's this one:


Well, when you take multiple proxies from around the world, the warmth of Central England during the period labeled Medieval Warm Period disappears.

Unassailable. Unbelievable. Your standards apparently are quite low Walt.

Mr. Singer appears to be a scientist for rent. He will support any point of view given enough cash; even areas he is not qualified to comment on. You see "experts" like him on TV all of the time lending their support to everything from some mystical herbal remedy to some completely crackpot unscientific theory. I remember a film featuring Richard Karn (Home Improvement's "Al" in case you have forgotten)as an Egyptologist no less, claiming that the pyramids had been built by extra-terrestrials. One should always consider who these people are working for when they come up with their so called "scientific analysis." When these people are challenged they always accuse their attackers as being biased and unscientific. Then they laugh all the way to the bank.

Snowstorm: East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change

As the blizzard-bound residents of the mid-Atlantic region get ready to dig themselves out of the third major storm of the season, they may stop to wonder two things: Why haven't we bothered to invest in a snow blower, and what happened to climate change? After all, it stands to reason that if the world is getting warmer - and the past decade was the hottest on record - major snowstorms should become a thing of the past, like PalmPilots and majority rule in the Senate. Certainly that's what the Virginia state Republican Party thinks: the GOP aired an ad last weekend that attacked two Democratic members of Congress for supporting the 2009 carbon-cap-and-trade bill, using the recent storms to cast doubt on global warming. (See pictures of the massive blizzard in Washington, D.C.)


http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599196229400

So the scientists that suggest AGW is true are quacks and yet a scientist that you agree with isn't a quack? roflmao Especially since you can't tell a quack from a football? rotfflmfao

Um, Wally, it is winter. It gets cold in winter. That means temperatures drop. Even here in Beautiful British Columbia, winter caused the temperatures to drop.
BTW, I wonder if they checked to see whether there was any wind or not.

"The company that installed the turbines, which came from California, says it was not consulted on "climate compatibility." DUH! Geee, do you think that maybe things would bind if the temperature dropped below the lowest California temperature? Fallers here, have to loosen the chains on their saws during the colder weather so the chains don't bind up and stop cutting.

roflmao Inclement weather?
Raining too much? Too windy? Too unseasonably hot?

What? Cold temps in winter? No way!! Can't happen.


High fire danger in South Australia as temperatures soar « Watts Up With That?

The World Today - Australia set to get more extremely hot days 28/01/2010

What? Hot temperatures in their summer? No way!! Can't happen.

Yipes? Are you ok?

Yup. One quote from one quack deserves a quote from an opposing quack.