The Lindzen paper you refer to certainly seems convincing on the surface. His major claim is contested, however. For example, see here: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_on_lindzen/ (paragraphs numbered 12 and 13 are most relevant). That link is mainly concerned with refuting Lindzen's newsweek op-ed. The question is this: if Lindzen wants his research, such as the paper you refer to, to be taken seriously, why does he write things, such as that op-ed, that are so full of holes?

I was unable to access your reference on the satellite temperature data. I will try to find it another way later, although I must express serious skepticism concerning any mistreatment of the data in the official analysis.

Sorry, publicola, you’re the one spreading the BS with your marathon post.

The facts are:

Arctic sea ice made a major comeback last year, both in surface extent and in thickness.

The extent in May 2008 is where it was in May 1989.

Those are the facts, as reported in the studies cited.

All of your blah-blah doesn’t change the facts.

Hey delosgatos,

You wrote: “If ‘the CO2/temperature correlation is weak’, what do you make of Venus?”

Nothing. Also nothing of Mars. Venus is much closer to the sun than Earth; Mars is further away. Both have atmospheres high in CO2 concentration, although Venus has a much more dense atmosphere than Earth and Mars a much less dense atmosphere than Earth. What do you make of that?

The CO2/temperature correlation (on Earth, that is) is strong for the warming period 1976-1998 (IPCC’s “poster period”, poor for the cooling period 1944-1976, weak for the warming period 1910-1944 and extremely weak for the 1858-1879 warming period.

Check the records and you can confirm this for yourself.

Regards,

Max

Venus is much closer to the sun than Earth

And Mercury is closer still. So why is Venus hotter?

That said, it's really a segue to the real question. Do you think CO2 levels are unrelated to temperature?

The CO2/temperature correlation (on Earth, that is) is strong for the warming period 1976-1998 (IPCC’s “poster period”, poor for the cooling period 1944-1976, weak for the warming period 1910-1944 and extremely weak for the 1858-1879 warming period.

Care to either explain this or cite references?

And wouldn't bother to type in the four plataeu articles you referenced? One of which (the Hadley) states that the plataeu is a temporary trend before the temperatures continue to increase. One of the often-cited references (Anthony Watts) on the correlation of the flat plataues has even had to request that deniers and delayers stop mis-quoting him.

And, of course, a four-year kinda-stable (depending on how you want to parse it) period really doesn't mean jack compared to the long-term trends. What is it with you people?

And don't even get me started on your weak attepts with the antartic ice. Publicola called you out and schooled you way better than I ever could.

Every time I see the words "catastrophic climate change", I want to throw up. Does Romm and others with this global view want us to go back to living in caves? This kind of propaganda is reckless and irresponsible. There has been no increase in severe weather. There were more hurricanes in the 1940s than any other time since.

while the Antarctic penilsula is warming, the interior has been cooling and gaining ice. This interior cooling trend reverses a warming trend that had been occuring over the last 6000 years.

Many weather and temperature stations that were out in the countryside 40 years ago are now surrounded by cities, thereby indicating a higher temperature than they would otherwise.

Glaciers in Iceland were melting during the first half of the twentieth century; they grew during the second half the century, because the temperature is cooler.

While the levels of CO2 increased steadily during the entire twentieth century, the Earth actually cooled between 1940 and 1970.

While all the major developing countries are working like crazy to increase thier domestic oil production, the cleanest and most productive nation in the world seems intent on depriving itself.

one last thought: What's wrong with the USA using one fourth of the energy in the world? We feed one- fourth of the world!

There is something sinister about those who who would put this country in jepardy by depriving it of the energy it needs.

manacker: "Arctic sea ice made a major comeback last year, both in surface extent and in thickness."

So what part of the following National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) declarations:

• Arctic sea ice still on track for extreme melt
• The spring ice cover is thin
• Daily ice extents in May continued to be below the long-term average and approached the low levels seen at this time last year.
• Arctic sea ice extent for May... is still... less than the 1979 to 2000 average for the month.
• The thin ice that covers much of the Arctic Ocean is showing signs of early breakup
• Multi-year ice continues to be low

did you not understand, manacker?

manacker: "The extent in May 2008 is where it was in May 1989."

So what part of:

• The general trend since ice extant data has been collected has been a clear decrease of ice extant over time
• Trend rates are not calculated by picking one low point out of many on a graph and then extrapolating a trend line from it, they are instead calculated by taking the data set and doing a linear regression analysis on it

did you not understand, manacker?

rico suave: "Every time I see the words "catastrophic climate change", I want to throw up."

In 2003 the Pentagon commissioned a report declaring that "because of the potentially dire consequences" global warming "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."

Excerpts from the executive summary:

_________________

An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security

October 2003

There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during the 21st century... global warming could lead to a relatively abrupt slowing of the ocean's thermohaline conveyor, which could lead to harsher winter weather conditions, sharply reduced soil moisture, and more intense winds in certain regions that currently provide a significant fraction of the world's food production. With inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth's environment.

The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints...

As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount... Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor...

There are some indications today that global warming has reached the threshold where the thermohaline circulation could start to be significantly impacted...

This report suggests that, because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change, although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern.

_________________

http://www.global2000.at/files/Pentagon_Studie.doc