2008 Coolest Year Since 2000, But Global Temps Still Expected to Rise

Brian

I will look at your reference, but I am sure that is an incorrect inference. That is not how CO2 works at all. Insulation works mostly by slowing conduction, and a greenhouse works mostly by slowing convection (trapping warm air). CO2 does neither. It directly absorbs energy radiation and then discharges it again. Since most of the energy comes from below, but the discharge goes in both directions, the net result is a warmer "below."

I find it strange that the global warming is something that is studied mostly by people with "Ph.D." after their name, but debated mostly be by people with no experience or training in the field of climate study...

I've worked directly for and with Ph.D's for neary 14 years. Far too often I've seen the fudging of data pay big dividends. When you have 6 figure student loans to pay, you tell them what they want to hear.

"most of the energy comes from below" Huh? You mean to say the earth radiates more heat than the sun? It certainly does not take a Ph.D to know that is not the case. A pulse will do.

CO2 absorbs and radiates equally in all directions, but when a degree of relative saturation occurs, the point is moot.

Open minds debate, scientists publish and religious zealots exclaim "the debate is over" and launch ad homenim attacks.

I disbelieve in human activity causing significant global warming since hearing a radio report that US Scientists measured gases released during the eruption of Mt St Helens were so extensive, human activity during the industrial age from the begining of that age to the eruption would have to be 500 times more extensive to even match those amounts of pollutants released by Mt St helens in 1981.
Let's cap the volcanos!!

Lloyd - That volcano story is completely false.

Brian - I was referring to the energy that is relevant to CO2 absorption. Incoming solar energy is not absorbed by CO2.

Calis
Dr. Roy Spencer does indeed have a Ph.D. after his name, so did the late Dr. Rhodes Fairbridge. In fact many skeptics are Ph.D. scientists. But the two mentioned above are specifically "climatologists". I suggest that you look a little deeper into the subject.

Ned
Spencer has some good papers explaining what has been happening on his site. His work on CO2 sensitivity and the PDO are of particular interest.

Lloyd
Volcanos can cause either cooling or heating depending on what gases are released, how much ashfall (change to albedo) etc. But one volcano does less than you think. The CAUSE of the volcano is what you shold look at. Plate Tectonics drive earthquakes and volcanos interactively. Plate Tectonics are considered to be the earths thermostat, and we entered an active phase with the onset of the last PDO that switched phases recently.

Jock
I realize that your own field must keep you quite busy. But you really need to read up on a couple of the new ideas behind climate change. The IPCC ideas are over 30 years old and already outdated. It's a failed hypothesis that they won't let go.

ps
That 20-30 year average can be just one complete PDO cycle (as it was in this case) or just one full solar cycle (as it was again in this case). The combination of a very active solar cycle (22-23 years) plus an extreme warm PDO cycle (20-30 years) occurring at the same time confused dome very smart people. Fortunately someone figured it out. Unfortunately the issue has become political and nobody is paying attention to the actual science anymore.

dome s/b some - sorry

Brian
Jock is correct in that CO2 acts the way he said. But Jack still accepts the IPCC models as correct which do not take into account saturation scaling.

Jock
I also am prepared to offer you proof of Michael's statement that I quoted recently. In a recent post at Skeptical Science the most ardent pro-AGW poster said (in one post) that equilibrium exists in planetary science (climatology) and that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to living beings. Now what does that tell you about his beliefs?

Hey Paul,

Some simple advice my friend, FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Just because someone has an advanced degree does not mean their data cannot be biased.

Also, there are just as many PHD's who say this is just a crock as there are those who claim "we" are destroying the world.

Real World Example for you

Tobacco Products! I tihnk we all agree heavy smoking shortens your life. YET, it is legal to do so!!! WHY...FOLLOW THE MONEY! Tobacco is one of the heaviest taxed items we have. If we follow the logical path, we would simply BAN them. Doing that would dry up a very big government revenue stream though!

I fully welcome a "return of science to its rightful place" and an age of openness and accountability. Let's put James Hansen's GISSTemp source code through a Department of Defense style peer review. Where is his DoD level requirements document? Where is his DoD quality detailed design document? Where are his DoD quality test cases? If we're going to create a new economy out of thin air based on carbon emissions trading, in turn based solely on something like the graphs and images produced in this article then certainly we should all be comfortable with ensuring the accuracy and legitimacy of the code that produces said graphs and images. Let's shine the bright light of disclosure on all the adjustments, extrapolations and modifications of past temperature in his code for all the world to see. Jock, wouldn't you agree? Oh, happy day!

It's sad to see the skeptics grasp at the notion that, It's just a phase we are in and not a true crisis. We see evidence everywhere. It really does not matter if it's man made CO2 or Solar cycles or deforestation, the truth is that sea levels are rising and the "free market" is going to lose BILLIONS on the real estate when our costal citys begin to flood. Sean Hanity will not be blamed, thats the beauty of being a nea sayer, you don't carry any responsibility for the outcomes. They don't want to spend the MONEY to save our planet. But they forget that someone must make the wind turbines and solar cell...jobs,jobs,jobs. We must help our planet keep this wonderful balance we have had for a few thousand years. Less CO2 in the air and much less in the oceans is much better for the planets health. Let America lead the way in converting away from fossil fuels and we will recapture the ideal that we can save the world.

Quietman: "The IPCC ideas are over 30 years old and already outdated."

Come on, you are better than that. As a blanket statement, that is both useless an obviously false. Which ideas? You are suggesting that the thousands of papers reviewed by the IPCC for their latest report (2007) are ...what? Irrelevant? Lies?

Jock
The IPCC was founded on the premise that AGW is both true and catastrophic.
It's mission is not to look for alternates, but to determine what the effects/consequences would be. In that, they have done a wonderful job. They have shown us what could happen if the basic premise of the hypothesis was true and it reached it's maximum capability. The problem skeptics have is the basic premise that is accepted by the IPCC as fact but by everyone else as a failed hypothesis.

ie. Irrelevant

pe
the thousands of papers reviewed by the IPCC for their latest report (2007) were cherry picked. (they lost some more scientists this year because of this political practice).