http://capita.wustl.edu/namaerosol/Dust%20Bowl%20map.htm
Wake me when the “hottest decade on record” even begins to reproduce the dryest decade on record.
Unfortunately for NOAA no amount of adjustment to raw data will influence the real world. No dust bowl yet. Not even close. And even if we have another dust bowl then it will still only be a repeat of something that has happened before so there’s no basis for blaming it on CO2.
Pekka, yes activism draws attention, which is a benefit if it is done properly, but is negative if not. The majority of AGW scientists are like Mass and Nielsen-Gammon, who only occasionally if ever put forwards opinions on the policy, but usually stay out of it and are not activist. This silent majority just want to get the science right and are happy to just communicate within their community via papers and conferences rather than in public forums, and I think there is even a negative view of too much publicity seeking in that community. Press releases on the science are fine, but talking about policy is not unless you make it clear you are doing so as a private citizen, but Hansen still likes to add policy opinions to the end of his scientific papers, which is the exception rather than the rule. It is a problem that 99% of these scientists are never heard from outside their labs, because if numbers count to the public this would show the majority opinion more clearly than the IPCC can.
MattStat,
What is your evidence for the warming in recent decades being caused by non-human factors?
As for evidence of post WWII warming being due to GHGs, the well known and observed radiative properties of GHGs are themselves evidence. Even if someone provides evidence that some natural mechanism could have plausibly produced the amount of warming we have seen in recent decades that doesn’t make the argument for AGW just go away – we would still have to account for the warming effect of increased levels of GHGs.
Which is not to say there are not other lines of evidence. How about changes to observed levels of outgoing infrared radiation.
Wouldn’t it be accurate to write that “progressives” believe it is the role of government to control the behavior of individuals and/or to reduce individual freedoms if they feel the individual’s actions are not consistent with their view of how people should behave.
Which is an example of why slightly warmer does not mean that it is necessarily worse for people
I’m a progressive, Rob. That’s not how I feel.
Perhaps you should consider reevaluating your reasoning.
Here’s a suggesion, Robin Melville…
Why don’t you follow the that link I supplied to NCDC – and thereby discover that I am not “suggesting” anything.
Here –
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/
You will note that “hotest ever” means “since records have been kept” or since 1895.
”
This is supposed to be an intelligent blog.
”
Right.
I’ll remember that next time I encounter someone here who can’t be bothered to read a scientific report before they object to it.
” “Homeless will tell you they like it when it’s warmer, “
gbaikie uses the rationalization of caring about homeless bums to advance his argument !!!”
Hub paints me as sleazy democrat.
Such a sting.
If only he could feel my pain.
The mouth of a right-wing ideologue is the appropriate vehicle for these delusions.
Let us hope Rep Ryan’s ideas about climate science are as well received as his plan to replace Medicare with coupons.
“This kind of thing makes it clear that it’s not about climate, or even the environment. It’s about romantic primitivism.”
A bureaucratically controlled primitive tribe.
Or Occupy.
Must be one of levels of Hell.
“Let us hope Rep Ryan’s ideas about climate science are as well received as his plan to replace Medicare with coupons.”
Making Medicare be like Food Stamp program doesn’t sound like good idea.
“In the 2011 fiscal year, $76.7 billion in food stamps were distributed. As of March 2012, 46.4 million Americans were receiving on average $133.14 per month in food stamps. Recipients must have at most near-poverty incomes to qualify for benefits, and in Washington, D.C., and Mississippi, more than one-fifth of residents receive food stamps.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program
What could be next?
Coupons of for birth control?
Let’s look at our most recent past. For 150 years cosmic radiation was decreasing and that caused global warming. During the time the Earth was warming there was a 9 percent decrease in cosmic ray intensity. Why? Nominally, it’s the Sun, stupid. It was the continuous increase in solar activity over the last 150 years that shielded the Earth from cosmic rays.
An active Sun caused the decrease in cosmic ray intensity. A more active Sun meant fewer cloud-causing charged particles. This relationship that cosmic rays cause clouds is real: it isn’t a theory at all—it has been demonstrated in controlled scientific experiments in laboratories right here on Earth.
Let’s follow the logic. Less cosmic ray intensity results in less cloud cover. Less cloud cover reduces the Earth’s albedo. The effect of that is less solar radiation being reflected away back into the space and that is what causes the temperature of the Earth’s surface to rise. Consequently, more heat is stored in the oceans, the rivers and lakes and in clays below the Earth’s surface.
What happens to that stored heat? Eventually all of the stored heat is given back to the atmosphere when the climate changes and swings back to a global cooling trend. And, that is the trend we have now. The Sun has been anomalously quiet for a while now. With a less active Sun there has been an increase in cosmic radiation, causing more low clouds, leading to an increase in the Earth’s albedo, and that is reflecting away of more solar radiation. Consequently, the oceans are now giving up their heat; and, the oceans have been cooling for more than a decade.
no problem. see Lucia’s for another way of looking at the derivation.
I have been visiting your site regularly for some time now nearly two years and this is my first comment. I have been impressed by the level of knowledge and common sense exhibited by tour many posters. Recently some posters have started with the use of emoticons on every post. These posters may have some intelligence but appeared to be deficient in common sense so I avoid or skip their postings as they are lacking some important faculties to be taken seriously in discussions here at your excellent site.
I am requesting that posters limit the use of emoticons to clever jokes and other superfluous postings here as you have a serious approach and the multiple emoticons are not appropriate here. Some posters with low common sense may not accept my reasonable request as reasonable so perhaps you may wish to refine your posting policy.
Otherwise I thank you for your excellent discussion group and the many interesting ideas you present
Jim Daly
You can use nature’s alternative showing 3C/2xCO2 and the great benefits of global warming.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/00f.htm 
your many posters not tour
Probably one of my posts
Steven, I can’t beat dr.S or you at the science application, but intuition is a useful alternative. For professionals it is serious business, for me it is a spare time lark.
Tanks the for wind-up. Take a few days break.
No doubt Mosh, you wrote to NOAA and chastised them for quoting absolute temperatures of July 2012 and make it a comparison with absolute temperatures of 1936, isn’t it? I’m sure you must have got weary of distortions and I’m sure you must have pointed out to them as well as aired this in blogs right?
You and the two trolls here who go on and on about WUWT and talk how Anthony is wrong here somehow have not a peep to say about the fact that it was NOAA who compared two absolutes from two different systems and sent out a press release.
What a bunch of hypocrites you are!
