“As to your remark abut ENSO etc, it seems to me that by the way you ask the question you already have pre-decided that there is a continuing long-term trend.”
I’ve decided based on the trend in components that make up global temperature
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/
“So for us practical folks I guess it is the actual observed temperature that is the important piece of information, not the trend.”
Well prepare to be surprised when the observed temperature jumps up in coming years and you didn’t see it coming.
Because you didn’t listen. But don’t worry virtually the whole skeptic blogosphere will be shut down by that event. Hard to backpeddle after so many of you have pinned your colors to the mast of “no warming” only to have all those hated climate scientists ending up right.
Web
Why do you focus on the unimportant part of Dyson’s opinion on the issue vs. the broader perspective?
Dyson and arguably most others who have technical competence and have studied the issue also concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the IPCC’s conclusions that AGW is a problem requiring drastic and immediate action.
Earth has warmed since the little ice age, but it is all over now.
Michael -
Your mistaken generalisation gives the lie to your misunderstanding -
It depends on whose blog comments.
Rob your post is an appeal to authority and hence we are not allowed to accept it.
Just because Dyson reached a certain conclusion is apparently worthless.
JCH
Is there any evidence of dangerous sea level rise associated with CO2? No?
Is there any evidence that the general circulation models used by the IPCC have accurately forecasted current conditions or should be relied upon for predicting the climate for the next 50 to 100 years? NO
Is there ANY evidence that less developed nations will independently choose to dramatically reduce their rate of CO2 emissions growth? Is there any reasonable means to stop worldwide CO2 emissions growth for several decades? NO
Can the people who fear cAGW at least occasionally be realistic and address the world as it really is and stop pretending it is per their dreams?
Why don’t you and the other people who fear cAGW realistically address how the specifics of what they wish to do will actually be paid for and how it will impact the problem they fear?
And with the parting shot of
‘You’ll all be sorry you didn’t listen to me when you are all consumed by Thermageddon (in more than 17 years)’.
Lolwot flounced out.
I guess the discussion just got too hot for him……..
iolwot
I note your graph starts at 1958. The world has been (generally) warming in fits and starts since around 1650, with the early 1700′s being especially noteworthy for the rate of increase. This is also evidenced by glacier records.Whether the current 10/15 year virtual hiatus signals an end to this long slow thaw is as yet unknown.
tonyb
It is indeed interesting that contrary to the implication of
” There is an old saying (in the U.S., anyways) that if you ask the Teamsters what is needed to solve any problem, they will tell you ‘more trucks.’ ‘
Climate scientists say action and those who deny that the climate is changing say give the climate scientists more money to do research.
Interesting
Norm you write “The fundamental problem with ethanol is that the process of making it is very energy intensive ”
The problem with getting oil out of the tar sands is that it is very energy intensive also. This does not mean that getting this oil makes no sense. As long as one can make a profit who cares?
The point is that there is a huge untapped source for energy that is produced every year from agriculture. In order to grow food, you have to grow a lot of cellulose that, basically, gets wasted. If it can be economically turned into fuel, who cares about anything else? And it means that continental North America is just that little bit more fuel self sufficient.
Crucifix from the link: “As a climate scientist there is no benefit from engaging in discussion with an individual or group, if my authority is not acknowledged.” and “…experience tells us that eliciting authoritative opinions increase one’s chance of success in decision-making.”
Hmm… And I always thought that if the position, reputation, and pension of someone with an “authoritative opinion” depends on funding from powerful non-scientific political and financial “sugar-daddies” with an agenda, then one should be cautious in dealing with such useful tools and their “I’m the expert” pitch. Especially, if Mr. Authoritative Opinion just happens to consistently come up with nothing but the “right” answers all the time–ones that please the money-bags and politico heavies that fund the expert’s cushy life-style and hopes and dreams.
And if an “expert”, for example, “expertly” advises that we must reduce our carbon footprint, but then that same finger-wagging “expert”, himself, regularly takes high-carbon jaunts to CAGW conferences (of all things!), that could readily be held as video-conferences, then we should, again, be cautious since we are dealing with a little “expert” hypocrite.
You know I’d hoped we had all learned something from the the “tobacco scientists” example. You know, scientists who have a vested interest–position, reputation, and pension–in their “expert” advice. You know, scientists funded by make-a-buck big-shots with a scam that needs a little “science” to sell. But I guess the neo-”tobacco-scientists”–like Crucifix–get a pass. As long as the Big-Green bosses are happy, it’s O. K. to be a neo-”tobacco-scientist”, I guess. And everyone else is a “denier.”
Nice try Crucifix.
If you are not familiar with these measurements you should not be making comments. OLR stands for outgoing longwave radiation and the weather satellites launched in late 1978 have been making these measurements continuously since then. Prior to this there is about four years of OLR measurements from other satellites.
OLR is the thermal radiation from the Earth that people who have never worked with real data believe to be blocked by increased CO2 from escaping into space and causing the Earth to warm.
The satellite measurements refute this unfounded claim which is why the increase in CO2 since 2002 has not stopped the Earth from cooling.
For those who may be interested in my latest research:
N. Scafetta, “Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, in press. DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.005.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_models_comparison_ATP.pdf
One extended review was made by Dr. Carl G. Ribbing, professor at the Department of Engineering Sciences and at the department of Solid State Physics at Uppsala University in Sweden (I hope the link works)
Another one is on Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/01/10/global-warming-no-natural-predictable-climate-change/
Of course there is mine on Anthony Watt’s web site:
As I said above, Let us just hope that goodwill, but still uncertain people such as Judith Curry undestand what they really need to do.
lolwot writes “The above is a real dilemma for skeptics which is why they don’t like to play this game.”
Garbage. It is thought that the sun’s magnetic effects have a significant effect on climate. Assuming this is true, no-one has any proven mechanism as to how this happens. There are still major problems establishing a link between GCRs and climate; i.e Henrik Svensmark.
We are not talking about a change in the amount of radiation we get from the sun controlled by the solar constant.. Changes in this seem to have a negligible effect on climate. Something else that changes on the sun affects climate. When we know what this is, then we will be able to discuss the subject sensibly.
I wonder how all the freezing Europeans feel about the artificially high prices of energy? The unusual cold and snow there and over much of Asia and Alaska probably have increased the number of skeptics. The high price of energy due to taxes and environmentally based laws probably have many doubting the sanity of their politicians. Pretty snow in Rome, though.
Jim,
The energy used in oilsands production is only a small fraction of what is needed to make ethanol. The oilsands only need to be warmed to the extent that the heavy oil will flow compared to ethanol which must be distilled. It takes a lot of energy to boil off the alcohol to get 14% methanol up to the 95% pure state that is required for e95 fuel and even more energy to get it to the 99% pure level necessary for mixing with gasoline at 10% for e90 fuel.
Current ethanol, production to the 99% pure level requires 100 units of input energy to get 139 units of energy output from ethanol.
By comparison if you just burned the feedstock for ethanol and used the heat generated to produce electricity with a 50% efficient generator you would be much better off than converting the feedstock to ethanol.
Increased CO2 will reduce OLR in the CO2 blocking regions, but in response the atmosphere will warm and emit more OLR over the wider spectrum.
It won’t simply reduce OLR.
Do you have any idea about how ridiculous you sound?
Let”s not forget the now drenched Aussies who were reassured by government. appointed “experts” that floods would no longer be a problem…drought would.
