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

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
379
Meteorologist Gary Shore, agreed with Waldenberger. "There's definitely global warming," Shore said on April 11, 2007. "No question about that. And it seems very likely that what we're doing has some part of that, some impact; but as to exactly how much of it is us and how much of it is other things, nobody knows," Shore explained. Waldenberger further commented, "But you know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas just like water vapor, which is actually the most efficient greenhouse gas. And that's why we're actually 60 degrees warmer than we would be without water vapor in the air. So if you're talking about the greenhouse effect, that's very real, and we need it to survive. But as far as carbon dioxide concentrations increasing over the last 100 years, they have about 30 percent. And temperatures have increased about a degree on average across the entire globe over the last hundred years as well. So it seems to be a reasonable argument." "So the debate now goes into, well, what does that mean? Are things going to keep going in the direction that they're going or does increased carbon dioxide sort of fertilize the air and does that create more plants which in turn digest more carbon dioxide and create more oxygen? You know, there's a wide variety of ways we can go from here. So the debate then becomes: What do we need to do now?" he added. (LINK)

http://biocab.org/TSI_Positive_Trend.jpg

http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
SI Tabulated Decreasing Trend
YEAR.....SOLAR IRRADIATION W/M^2
2000.....1366.67

2001.....1366.40

2002.....1366.37

2003.....1366.07

2004.....1365.91

2005.....1365.81

2006.....1365.72

2007.....1365.66

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif


Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010

During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F) 1910 to 2000,
AND DECREASED LESS THAN 0.1°C (0.18°F) 2000 TO 2010.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
# decimal average interpolated trend #days
# date (season corr)
YEAR..MONTH.....AVERAGE CO2 DENSITY
1958 3 ..............................315.71

1959 3 ..............................316.71

1960 3 ..............................317.58

1961 3 ..............................318.54

1962 3 ..............................319.68

1963 3 ..............................319.86

1964 3 ..............................320.76

1965 2 ...............................320.44

1966 3 ..............................322.39

1967 3 ...............................323.04

1968 3 ..............................323.89

1969 3 ..............................325.64

1970 3 ..............................326.87

1971 3 ..............................327.18

1972 3 ..............................327.75

1973 3 ..............................330.30

1974 3 ..............................331.48

1975 3 ..............................331.85

1976 3 ..............................333.46

1977 3 ..............................334.97

1978 3 ..............................336.61

1979 3 ..............................338.13

1980 3 ..............................340.04

1981 3 ..............................341.57

1982 2 .............................341.69

1983 3 .............................343.45

1984 3 ............................345.29

1985 3 ............................347.49

1986 3 ............................347.88

1987 3 ............................349.56

1988 3 ............................352.22

1989 3 ............................353.64

1990 3 ............................355.49

1991 3 ............................357.00

1992 3 ............................357.73

1993 3 ............................358.26

1994 3 ............................359.67

1995 3 ............................361.60

1996 3 ...........................363.91

1997 3 ...........................364.25

1998 3 ...........................366.95

1999 3 ...........................369.46

2000 3 ..........................370.38

2001 3 ..........................372.39

2002 3 ..........................373.87

2003 3 ..........................376.51

2004 3 .........................378.88

2005 3 .........................380.91

2006 3 .........................382.65

2007 3 .........................384.42

2008 3 .........................385.96

2009 3 .........................388.77

2010 3 .........................391.06

Leading climate scientist challenges Mail on Sunday's use of his research
Mojib Latif denies his research supports theory that current cold weather undermines scientific consensus on global warming
A leading scientist has hit out at misleading newspaper reports that linked his research to claims that the current cold weather undermines the scientific case for manmade global warming.

Mojib Latif, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany, said he "cannot understand" reports that used his research to question the scientific consensus on climate change.

He told the Guardian: "It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming."

He added: "There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases."

A report in the Mail on Sunday said that Latif's results "challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy's most deeply cherished beliefs" and "undermine the standard climate computer models". Monday's Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph repeated the claims.

The reports attempted to link the Arctic weather that has enveloped the UK with research published by Latif's team in the journal Nature in 2008. The research said that natural fluctuations in ocean temperature could have a bigger impact on global temperature than expected. In particular, the study concluded that cooling in the oceans could offset global warming, with the average temperature over the decades 2000-2010 and 2005-2015 predicted to be no higher than the average for 1994-2004. Despite clarifications from the scientists at the time, who stressed that the research did not challenge the predicted long-term warming trend, the study was widely misreported as signalling a switch from global warming to global cooling.

The Mail on Sunday article said that Latif's research showed that the current cold weather heralds such "a global trend towards cooler weather".

It said: "The BBC assured viewers that the big chill was was merely short-term 'weather' that had nothing to do with 'climate', which was still warming. The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view."

Not according to Latif. "They are not related at all," he said. "What we are experiencing now is a weather phenomenon, while we talked about the mean temperature over the next 10 years. You can't compare the two."

He said the ocean temperature effect was similar to other natural influences on global temperature, such as volcanos, which cool the planet temporarily as ash spewed into the atmosphere reflects sunlight.

"The natural variation occurs side by side with the manmade warming. Sometimes it has a cooling effect and can offset this warming and other times it can accelerate it." Other scientists have questioned the strength of the ocean effect on overall temperature and disagree that global warming will show the predicted pause.

Latif said his research suggested that up to half the warming seen over the 20th century was down to this natural ocean effect, but said that was consistent with the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "No climate specialist would ever say that 100% of the warming we have seen is down to greenhouse gas emissions."

The recent articles are not the first to misrepresent his research, Latif said. "There are numerous newspapers, radio stations and television channels all trying to get our attention. Some overstate and some want to downplay the problem as a way to get that attention," he said. "We are trying to discuss in the media a highly complex issue. Nobody would discuss the problem of [Einstein's theory of] relativity in the media. But because we all experience the weather, we all believe that we can assess the global warming problem."

What happens when you get your "science" from Fox News, as okie does?

What happens when you get your "science" from Fox News, as okie does?

from a straightforward discussion of what the science shows,

how it's going to impact our lives and our childrens', and what we need to do about it,

the red herring that it's doomsday, which is not what anyone has said,

all a plot to create a socialistic one world government

Fox News is biased, clearly spin-driven, and crap science.

Your side are the ones that politicized it, okie, from a straightforward discussion of what the science shows, how it's going to impact our lives and our childrens', and what we need to do about it, to all the crap you throw in, the red herring that it's doomsday, which is not what anyone has said, the bullshit red herring that people are out to destroy the American economy and it;s all a plot to create a socialistic one world government. YOU are doing the politicizing.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
380
Atmospheric scientist H. Michael Mogil, a 30-year veteran of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), who is certified by the American Metrological Society and currently owns the "How the Weatherworks" consulting firm, questioned man-made global warming fears in 2007. "As a certified consulting meteorologist who has written extensively about weather, I am compelled to address the spate of stories that appear almost daily promoting climate fears," Mogil, who holds a masters degree in Meteorology, wrote in a commentary published on October 27, 2007 in the Napa Valley Register titled "Earth is Warming, but it's Not Our Fault." "Long-term climate studies show that the Earth goes through large- and small-scale weather and climate patterns. These are based on solar energy output and solar flare activity, wobbles of the Earth's rotation, changes in land locations (plate tectonics or continental drift, depending upon your age when the subject was taught), periodic melting and reformation of glaciers and much more. Humans are clearly affecting some of these typical variations, but we are not their cause," Mogil explained. "While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore claim that humans are almost certainly the cause of the changes, I disagree. The warming began as the last ice age waned some 500 years ago, not as humans started to industrialize," he wrote. "I'm not sure why so many of my meteorological colleagues who have similar feelings have not spoken up. Perhaps it is because the news media is presenting mostly a one-sided approach to the topic. So, in my new book, Extreme Weather, coming in November [2007], and in letters like this, I'm pushing for a more scientific examination of the evidence and a more balanced perspective," he concluded. (LINK)

the danger of plane windshield turning opaque after flying through a lot of that ash