Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
316
Climate scientist Dr. Christopher L. Castro, a Professor of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona, expressed skepticism of a global warming catastrophe in 2007. "I believe the balance of evidence from the paleoclimate record, recent climate history (particularly since the 1980s), and the anthropogenic attribution GCM (Global Climate Models) experiments (e.g., Meehl et al. type studies) support the conclusion that recent climate change is due, in part, to anthropogenic forcing," Castro wrote on June 4, 2007. But Castro also said he generally agrees that "other possible forcings to the climate system besides CO2 (like land-use change, aerosols, etc.) are not accounted for well, if at all" and "models are highly sensitive to parameterized processes, like clouds, convection, and radiation, and these processes can have significant impacts on their results." Castro also said, "GCMs have very limited utility for climate prediction (i.e., seasonal forecasts) or climate projection (i.e., global warming projections) on the regional scale." (LINK) In an October 26, 2007 interview, Castro further explained his views. "In terms of climate-change projection, there are a lot of scary scenarios that have been published in the literature regarding what's going to happen with Arizona's climate in the future. But those predictions are based on coarse-resolution general circulation models, which can't even simulate some basic processes of Arizona climate, for example, the summer monsoon," Castro said. (LINK)

Arctic now warmest in 2000 years, researchers say

"I believe the balance of evidence from the paleoclimate record, recent climate history (particularly since the 1980s), and the anthropogenic attribution GCM (Global Climate Models) experiments (e.g., Meehl et al. type studies) support the conclusion that recent climate change is due, in part, to anthropogenic forcing," Castro wrote on June 4, 2007.

Indeed, and so far in 2009, the average so far of 9.96, with most of the hotter months done, is on track to come in below virtually all annual averages for the past 10 or 15 years.

Incidentally, you told me that Central England was such a small area that it didn't matter. Which is it now?

Since Centre England's temperatures are of special interest by some here, we shouldn't forget posting them as well

Are you aware that to get an average, data is required above and below the average ?

As for the standard deviation, datum can still be outside of that and not need any other factors like human influence.

Why does the ice age have to ended when most ice melted ?

The world does not usually have glacial ice,

and the Artic has melted before. It will melt again.

Are you familar with climate change or does your knowledge only go back to the start of industrial times ?

I think anyone with a modicum of knowledge of climatology knows:
increasing the amount of CO2 will increase the amount of infrared absorbed in the atmosphere. And, generally when one increases the amount of energy absorbed one increases the temperature.

parados wrote:

I think anyone with a modicum of knowledge of climatology knows:
increasing the amount of CO2 will increase the amount of infrared absorbed in the atmosphere. And, generally when one increases the amount of energy absorbed one increases the temperature.

Carbon dioxide is essential for plants. In fact, it is essential for almost all life. With no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there would be no photosynthesis, no plants, no animals feeding on plants, and no animals feeding on other animals.

The climate alarmists are claiming that CO2 has a large impact on climate and that we should worry. They are wrong. Carbon dioxide have a very small impact on climate.

New and better analysis of the Antarctic ice data, giving a better time resolution, have shown that first temperature rises, and then carbon dioxide levels increase. It is the temperature increase which causes the increase in carbon dioxide and not the other way around.

The main reason why CO2 can only have a small impact on the climate of the world is called saturation. An atom or a molecule does not absorb light and other electromagnetic radiation at all wavelengths. It only absorbs in narrow regions in the electromagnetic spectrum. These narrow regions are called spectral lines.
When the number of absorbing particles increases even further, however, they will start to screen each-other. This means that particles will receive less radiation than expected, because other particles have already absorbed the radiation heading their way. The radiation will eventually be re-radiated, but then usually at another wavelength, where the atom or molecule cannot absorb it. This screening also means that the total absorption of radiation no longer will increase as fast as the number of particles. It is in fact possible that the total absorption remains almost constant in spite of an increase in the number of absorbing particles.

So there is no need to worry about the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The climate alarmists are wrong.