Global Warming

[xyzer]

Here is another site..
A look at temperature anomalies for all 4 global metrics: Part 1 « Watts Up With That?

Note the rather sharp drop depicted in this.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Post your proof Pooey! Don't dodge the bullet with nit picks and unrelated blather. That silly blog about global warming myths wont cut it! Its an unscientific opinion. One of those blogs you say I shouldn't use. An yet you use it all the time. Give me actual proof. Your first offer(link) is invalid and doesn't even relate to the issue. What does the statement climate warming stopped in 1998 have to do with temps in the first decade of the 2000s?

See, you don't actually read the article! This isn't just a blog, it's part of an actual scientific magazine, though not a journal it's a completely different league. No matter, I linked it because it explains about this cooling claim and how it is incorrect.
At any rate, the article tells you that ocean heat content is not decreasing. Detailed in here and more recently in here.

Quote by: xyzer What does the statement climate warming stopped in 1998 have to do with temps in the first decade of the 2000s?

Let's see, if global warming stopped in 1998 then we're either cooling down or not warming? It's the same thing but said in a different way, are you seriously telling me you are going to be this picky?

Well done for once again, demonstrating that your vision is so narrow that you can't even review a single article that I've cited to you specifically!

[xyzer]

Come on Pooey? As usual you digress and insert other factors( now its ocean temperatures) and of all sources, you refer to Real Climate which is the Mann site..
Answer my question. Prove what you asserted, that global temperatures haven't leveled or gone down since 1998.
I've repeated that request several times and you still cant/don't answer it?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Come on Pooey? As usual you digress and insert other factors( now its ocean temperatures) and of all sources, you refer to Real Climate which is the Mann site..

This is directly relevant to the point at hand, you merely choose to ignore it. That's not my problem.

Quote by: xyzer Answer my question. Prove what you asserted, that global temperatures haven't leveled or gone down since 1998. I've repeated that request several times and you still cant/don't answer it?

Clearly, you are still playing the denial game. Ocean and air-surface temperatures are linked directly. If you'd bother to read my cited article in Newscientist, you'd understand that ocean currents can vary atmospheric temperatures dramatically as they transfer heat from different depths and parts of the world. The data gathered so far shows that ocean heat content is not decreasing or levelling off.
The variability of atmospheric temperatures is evident in the form of events like El Nino which caused anomalous hot temperatures in 1998 and La Nina with the cold spell seen in Jan 2008 (even your source mentions this).
More to the point, this is NASA's graphSource
Clearly, you cannot draw a cooling trend from that.

[xyzer]

Pooey
A chart depicting an ocean/heat index does not answer my request. Show me evidence that global surface temperatures have not leveled or fallen since 1998.

As usual you throw in an unrelated point to my request for global temps. Of course in the process you finally acknowledge that there are other natural (salient) influences to global climate and temperatures. Other than human generated influences that is?

Answer my query or lose face and reveal you are making invalid assertions.

Here is another site which indicates temps have fallen...and even solar iradiance has fallen..which would validate the suns influence.
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

How do you propose to spin this info?

[Matt W]

Unrelated? A chart entitled Global Temperature Land-Ocean Index is 'unrelated' to Global Temperature? I'm sorry, I must have missed something...

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey A chart depicting an ocean/heat index does not answer my request. Show me evidence that global surface temperatures have not leveled or fallen since 1998.

Actually, the graph I cited is Land-ocean index.

Quote by: xyzer As usual you throw in an unrelated point to my request for global temps. Of course in the process you finally acknowledge that there are other natural (salient) influences to global climate and temperatures. Other than human generated influences that is?

Let's get this straight here, so far it has only been YOU who's asserted that the link between CO2 and global temperature is a straight line of linearity. As evidenced in my citation graphs like this and the mention of events like El Nino, it's clear that I've always known that it isn't a linear relationship unless we were in a static environment where only CO2 was the variable.

Quote by: xyzer Answer my query or lose face and reveal you are making invalid assertions.

I think from the bit below, we'll see who's lost all dignity and his mind.

Quote by: xyzer Here is another site which indicates temps have fallen...and even solar iradiance has fallen..which would validate the suns influence. Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation How do you propose to spin this info?

Xyzer, you have just posted the same source that I cited in my last post. Do you actually read what you post??
Let's see what your source says

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle. Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

Wow, that really does say we're in a cooling period! My god, why didn't I see this? Oh wait...

Furthermore, let's look at that radiance chart
Oh look, there's peaks and troughs from 1980s to 2000s, representing the 11 year cycle of the sun but this has had no correlation with the temperature rise in the last 3 decades!
How the heck does that validate the sun's influence? Not saying that it doesn't have an impact but there's no way you can blame the majority of the last few decades of warming on the changes in solar activity, it simply does not add up.

[xyzer]

I am looking at the Goddard site I posted Pooey and even I can see the spike for the year 1998 and the subsequent drops in the years thereafter. Except for the 2007 record which was flawed.

Prediction for a specific year is a bit hazardous, as evidenced by an incorrect prediction of record global warmth made by the British climate analysis group for 2007. Such speculations are useful, as they draw attention to the mechanisms, and allow testing of understanding. Presumably part of the basis for their prediction was an assumption of a continued warming contribution from the 2006 El Niño. However, evidence of El Niño warmth disappeared very early in 2007.

4 of the postings on ther chart showed averages below the key year(1998) one equal to it and the other above it. Plus the chart does not differentuate whether there was a flawed measurement in 07 or possibly 06.
Since we are dealing with trends and adjusted data I conclude(along with others whose comments I've posted) that the graph indicates that the globe has cooled rather than warmed in the period since 1998.

Looking at the chart on solar irradiance I can see that it increased in the early 90s which was reflected in the surface temp measurments which went up...then it went down again after the year 2000 which has been reflected in the leveling and cooling over most of the subsequent years.

Then I read this...

Another analysis of the satellite data (not illustrated here) by Judith Lean has the 2007 solar irradiance minimum slightly lower than the two prior minima in the satellite era. The differences between the two analyses are a result primarily of the lack of accurate absolute calibrations and inadequate overlap of measurements by successive satellites.

You still haven't proved to me there was no cooling(cooler years) since 1998.

How is this statement relevent?

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

We are admitting that the earths temps climbed in the latter part of the 1900s ...but the base year is 1998 and my question was why have there been at least 4 cooler(than 98) years since 1998! This as CO2 has risen.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I am looking at the site I posted Pooey and even I can see the spike for the year 1998 and the subsequent drops in the years thereafter. Except for the 2007 record which was flawed.

1998 was an record breaker due to very strong El Nino effect, the strongest in 50 years of accurate data gathering!
If you account for that effect, you can clearly see that the warming has continued since with a recent plateau caused by La Nina effect.
Anyway, citing from the article you brought up

Figure 2, the surface temperature anomaly for July-December, shows that the La Niña equatorial cooling is strong in the second half of the year. The La Niña should thus continue to affect global temperatures into 2008.

Source

Quote by: xyzer 4 of the postings showed averages below the key year(1998) one equal to it and the other above it. Plus the chart does not differentuate whether this was in the flawed measuremnt in 07 or possibly 06.

Wait, you posted a source claiming that I have to explain myself and now you are claiming they may be using flawed data? On what evidence do you base these accusations on?
Edit; looks like that NASA source answered the question

Finally, we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. As shown in Figure 4 and discussed elsewhere, the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) and small even in its limited area. Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record.

Quote by: xyzer Since we are dealing with trends and adjusted data I conclude(along with others whose comments I've posted) that the graph indicates that the globe has cooled rather than warmed in the period.

How exactly can you conclude anything based on such limited data? Especially when fluctuations due to chaotic weather can bring bigger changes!

Quote by: xyzer Looking at the chart on solar irradiance I can see that it increased in the early 90s which was reflected in the surface temp measurments which went up...then it went down again after the year 2000 which has been reflected in the leveling and cooling over most of the subsequent years.

Actually, if you were actually able to read the graph properly you'd see that during 1998, the solar activity was still in the trough and that was during the record breaker year! This is the typical 11 year cycle which has predictable effect on global temperatures but by no means can be said to drive the current warming!!

Quote by: xyzer Then I read this... You still haven't proved to me there was no cooling since 1998.

Well, the data shows that the general trend is still warming. Just because you choose to stick your fingers in your ears doesn't change those facts! In fact, the onus is on you to prove that there has been actual cooling in the last decade. Perhaps you can somehow change the laws of physics make the oceans cool by tomorrow?

[xyzer]

As usual Pooey you do nothing but duck the facts. I notice now you insist the references don't show cooling? Your latest dodge.

How exactly can you conclude anything based on such limited data? Especially when fluctuations due to chaotic weather can bring bigger changes!

And you suddenly suggest that the data is "limited"? Your usual tactics ... argue around the obvious , never answer my question directly ,branch off into other factors?

I'm looking at the graph you just posted and it too shows a global temperature drop in the last few years.Disproving your original assertion.
Using 1998 as the base year, I notice there are 4 out of the 6 subsequent years showing a lower mean temperature?

Are you still trying to tell me what I see in the latest global charts is not a cooling trend?
You then attempt to pass this anomaly off on a stronger El Nino/La Nina than usual? Which in effect agrees with my contention that other natural factors can and are be involved.

However, lurking in the background is the fact AGW proponents are still trying to rationalize their conclusion that behind it all is human generated CO2. They are trying to convince everyone that the only thing left is the human factor...we are causing a rise even when there is a measured drop?

Another factor that you and the Goddard guys conveniently leave out is the fact that measurement by satellite didn't begin until about 20 or so years ago. Before that there was a scarcity of measuring points and as has been shown on this site measurement techniques were flawed.
With satellite techniques we are better able to measure temps at all levels and at vastly more places. So all this crap about 1998 being the warmest year in history is just that...smoke and mirrors. Plus the statements about how many warmer than usual years there have been since 1998 baseline is nonsense? We didn't have the means to accurately measure global temps until the satellite age. Goddards reports should be prefaced by an explanation that explains what we are comparing recent measurement data with when we use the terms warmest years.? The real answer is its been cooler 4 out of the years since the 1998 peak?...which gets us back to my question. How can this be if humans continue to spew out CO2? We can factor in known recurring natural weather influences but we can't predict solar irradiance...which by the way doesn't have an instantaneous effect on warming because there are so many other influences.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer As usual Pooey you do nothing but duck the facts. I notice now you insist the references don't show cooling? Your latest dodge.

Your denial knows no bounds, do they? Now you have the tenacity to accuse me of what YOU are doing, though not for the first time.

Quote by: xyzer And you suddenly suggest that the data is "limited"? Your usual tactics ... argue around the obvious , never answer my question directly ,branch off into other factors?

I haven't suddenly suggested it, I said it months ago when you first gassing off about this supposed cooling! Do you honestly want me to dig up my previous posts, because I will if that's what is needed. I branch off? Let's see, you move the goalpost every other post so that you never acknowledge points that I've countered. Clearly, you are the biggest hypocrite in the world.

Quote by: xyzer I'm looking at the graph you just posted and it too shows a global temperature drop in the last few years.Disproving your original assertion.

Again, your assessment is incorrect and ill conceived. It's a clear demonstration of your lack of understanding even though. Notice in the same graph, between 1980 and 1990, we see what appears to be a slight dip? Would you call that a cooling trend as well?

Quote by: xyzer Using 1998 as the base year, I notice there are 4 out of the 6 subsequent years showing a lower mean temperature?

You cannot use 1998 as a base year, it's got the strongest El Nino effect we've ever recorded so far! Are you honestly going to blanket that out of your mind again? Because ignoring reality won't win the debate.

Quote by: xyzer Are you still trying to tell me what I see in the latest global charts is not a cooling trend?

If there was a cooling trend, tell me why the ocean heat content is still rising?

Quote by: xyzer You then attempt to pass this anomaly off on a stronger El Nino/La Nina than usual? Which in effect agrees with my contention that other natural factors can and are be involved.

I did not attempt to pass it off, this is what the scientists are telling us. It is what the experts in NASA and climate research are saying. This is what the NASA source you initially cited said. But now you ridicule it because it doesn't show or say what you want.

Quote by: xyzer However, lurking in the background is the fact AGW proponents are still trying to rationalize their conclusion that behind it all is human generated CO2. They are trying to convince everyone that the only thing left is the human factor...we are causing a rise even when there is a measured drop?

Again, it is only you who insist that global temperature and CO2 have a linear relationship.
Climate scientists know that this is not the case and that's why we've had to so much resources to model the atmosphere! Do you honestly believe that you have out though the researchers?

Quote by: xyzer Another factor that you and the Goddard guys conveniently leave out is the fact that measurement by satellite didn't begin until about 20 or so years ago.

How did we leave it out? It has always been acknowledged. Are you telling me that all measurements prior to satellites are void and unusable?

Quote by: xyzer Before that there was a scarcity of measuring points and as has been shown on this site measurement techniques were flawed.

Which website? Do you have more accurate data to work with?

Quote by: xyzer With satellite techniques we are better able to measure temps at all levels and at vastly more places. So all this crap about 1998 being the warmest year in history is just that...smoke and mirrors.

It isn't crap, it's an established fact. If you want to contest that you're going to have to bring some evidence.

Quote by: xyzer Plus the statements about how many warmer than usual years there have been since 1998 baseline is nonsense? We didn't have the means to accurately measure global temps until the satellite age. Goddards reports should be prefaced by an explanation that explains what we are comparing recent measurement data with when we use the terms warmest years.?

You seem to have an issue with the past data but you have no evidence at hand to invalidate their accuracy. All you have is anecdotes about a science that you barely understand!

Quote by: xyzer The real answer is its been cooler 4 out of the years since the 1998 peak?...which gets us back to my question. How can this be if humans continue to spew out CO2? We can factor in known recurring natural weather influences but we can't predict solar irradiance...which by the way doesn't have an instantaneous effect on warming because there are so many other influences.

We can predict some of the solar irradiance, the 11 year cycle is well documented!! Again, the 1998 peak is due to El Nino effect, strongest seen in 50 years of proper data recording! This was known to cause a temporarily increase in global temperature. Do you dispute this fact? If so, on what basis?

[xyzer]

Answer my question Pooey.

Your last post is typical. You can't unless you admit the dreaded truth..AGW is proving to be a myth.
You argue all around the issue...Do the measured temps since 1998 show a warming or a cooling trend? Don't ask me to misread the factual evidence? Its right there on all the graphs. I would say 4 out of the 6 succeeding years(since 1998) show lower mean global temps than was recorded in 1998.(thats a cooling trend which you cannot deny.)

By the way if El Nino was the culprit in the late 90s can you and Gore tell us what the temps would have been without El Ninos influence?

Please no more wordy denials ..answer the question and back it with evidence?

[xyzer]

Pooey I don't like to let you off the hook because thats obviouly what you plan..fill the page with all sorts of unrelated blather and never answer the question directly.
But!!!This statement you just posted show how little knowledge you have.

If there was a cooling trend, tell me why the ocean heat content is still rising?

Because the ocean warms more slowly than land.(or land heats more quickly than water) If you can visualize it and are standing on an island, the land heats more rapidly,hot air rises and the breeze blows onshore. At night the land cools off and the ocean retains it heat longer resulting in an offshore breeze. Showers and thunderstorms over land during the day and the showers and thunderstorms occur over the ocean at night.

Obviouly the same thing occurs between the oceans and the larger land masses.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey I don't like to let you off the hook because thats obviouly what you plan..fill the page with all sorts of unrelated blather and never answer the question directly. But!!!This statement you just posted show how little knowledge you have.

I went through your post point by point but as usual, you fail to address most of it.

Quote by: xyzer Because the ocean warms more slowly than land.(or land heats more quickly than water) If you can visualize it and are standing on an island, the land heats more rapidly,hot air rises and the breeze blows onshore. At night the land cools off and the ocean retains it heat longer resulting in an offshore breeze. Showers and thunderstorms over land during the day and the showers and thunderstorms occur over the ocean at night. Obviouly the same thing occurs between the oceans and the larger land masses.

Let me give you another analogy

Imagine two people standing at the South Pole, one dressed in full Antarctic gear and the other wearing not much at all. Now imagine that you're looking through one of those infrared thermal imagers that show how hot things are. Which person will look warmest - and which will be frozen solid after a few hours? The answer, of course, is that the near-naked person will appear hotter: but because they are losing heat fast, they will freeze long before the person dressed more appropriately for the weather. The point is that you have to look beyond the surface to understand how a body's temperature will change over time - and that's as true of planets as it is of warm-blooded bipeds.

Source

Anyway, we know that water holds 1000 times more heat than air typically, hence, a sudden increase in air surface temperature can occur if the oceans transferred slightly more heat at any given time or vice versa. This is very evident in pacific oscillations that give rise to El Nino and La Nina.

You still haven't answered my question, in this graph;



We see that there's a slight dip between 1980 and 1985, can you call that a cooling trend? Or is a temporary event?

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer You argue all around the issue...Do the measured temps since 1998 show a warming or a cooling trend? Please no more wordy denials ..answer the question and back it with evidence?

This is actually a fairly simple issue to resolve. Below is a plot of the GISTemp data* with a regression line added:



The data is clear: measured temps since 1998 show a well defined warming trend.



*(Available Here if you want to do this analysis yourself.)

[xyzer]

Let me again refer you to reality...

Comments on the CCSP Unified Synthesis Product Report | cooler heads

Here are pertinent comments about what is going on...

In mid July, the United States Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) released Climate Change Impacts in the United States: Unified Synthesis Product Report, a highly flawed document that might become the official U. S. position on the science of climate change. In the course of synthesizing many controversial conclusions, the Report violates research standards established by the Federal Data Quality Act. Yet the public was allowed only one month to comment on its accuracy.

If you read further into the reports in this rebuttal and questioningg of the alarmist AGW tactic..you will see evidences of a scam. This by Dr Singer..

b. The idea of a scientific consensus, which has been strongly promoted by former Vice President Al Gore, seems to stem from a study published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes [2004], a professor of history of science at the University of California San Diego. The study is based on sloppy research -- as evidenced by the fact that the author was forced to publish a correction [2005] admitting that she had overlooked 90 percent of the published abstracts whose examination led to her claim. In any case, her claim of “consensus” is contradicted by numerous polls of scientists, by declarations and petitions signed by hundreds and even thousands of scientists, and by actual studies of published abstracts. Specifically, we have polls taken by Bray and von Storch, declarations such as the Statement of Atmospheric Scientists [1992], the Heidelberg Appeal [1992], the Leipzig Declaration [1996], and the more recent Oregon Petition, originally by 19,000 scientists and now by more than 31,000 [www.oism.org], as well as a reexamination of published papers [Schulte 2008].

This on Pooeys "hockey Stick Graph" from comments by Singer...

It is somewhat surprising that the USP author-team would use a discredited graph in their report. It is well accepted that the hockey-stick result, published by Mann, Bradley and Hughes [1999], is simply wrong -- especially after a thorough investigation by the National Research Council and by testimony of statistics expert Prof. Edward Wegman. Its result is based on the misuse of statistical analysis and on the emphasis on a particular group of tree-ring data. McIntyre and McKitrick [2003,2005], who first uncovered some of the problems of the hockey-stick, have shown that even a random set of data inserted into the MBH methodology would create a hockey-stick curve.

Remember my question, which still remains unanswered...

d. We note that under natural forcings the USP considers only total solar irradiance. But TSI is small compared to the likely effects of changes of solar activity that lead to substantial changes in cloudiness [Svensmark 2007, Kirkby 2008, and other references]. Yet the USP, following the IPCC, completely ignores this major climate forcing. The importance of changes in solar activity is persuasively demonstrated in the observed detailed correlation between C-14 and O-18 in stalagmites [Neff 2001; see also figure 14 in NIPCC]. C-14 is produced by cosmic rays and can be taken as a proxy for solar activity, which modulates the intensity of galactic cosmic rays reaching the earth. O-18 is commonly taken as a proxy for temperature. e. Related to this discussion is the implied USP claim that natural forcings are not only very small but are so well known that any remaining change in temperature can only be explained by human activities. It will be interesting to know how the author-team can explain the lack of warming since 1998, using the same parameters of climate sensitivity that led to the top graph on page 26.

Singer would also like to know how the cooling period can be explained? However, Singer is not alone in his criticism of the junk that is coming out in support of AGW.
If you really want the truth read all the comments..

[xyzer]

Parrot posts from his perch ...

The data is clear: measured temps since 1998 show a well defined warming trend

I don't know whether 'well defined' will fit the bill parrot. If the units indicated are tenths of a degree then I'm not sure the regression is well defined?
Besides why does the line start at a lower value than 1998 which you believers claim is the hottest year ever? If I place a straight edge between 1998 and 2008, does it slope towards a cooler temp?

If you go back to the original reference Dr Lewis gets into graphs and how they can deceive? This one doesn't look right to me because I have just been referred to a couple that show the mean annual global temps measured since 1998 have in 4 years been lower, once been the same and once been slightly higher?

Remember we are dealing with alarmist forecasts from the IPCC than our ever increasing human contribution is driving temps up at an alarming rate and we may be doomed?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Let me again refer you to reality...

Seems more like a dream world to me.

Quote by: xyzer Comments on the CCSP Unified Synthesis Product Report | cooler heads Here are pertinent comments about what is going on... If you read further into the reports in this rebuttal and questioningg of the alarmist AGW tactic..you will see evidences of a scam. This by Dr Singer.. "Specifically, we have polls taken by Bray and von Storch, declarations such as the Statement of Atmospheric Scientists [1992], the Heidelberg Appeal [1992], the Leipzig Declaration [1996], and the more recent Oregon Petition, originally by 19,000 scientists and now by more than 31,000 [www.oism.org], as well as a reexamination of published papers [Schulte 2008]."

Yet again, we see the OISM petition being mentioned as proof of opposition, but we've already established that it is a farce of a petition. It is completely misleading and does not hold any water, but yet you persist in believing it has any validity. All recent major scientific organisations have issued their support of the IPCC's conclusions. The scam here is the misinformation that you try to pass off as fact.

Quote by: xyzer This on Pooeys "hockey Stick Graph" from comments by Singer. [i]"It is somewhat surprising that the USP author-team would use a discredited graph in their report. It is well accepted that the hockey-stick result, published by Mann, Bradley and Hughes [1999], is simply wrong -- especially after a thorough investigation by the National Research Council and by testimony of statistics expert Prof. Edward Wegman. Its result is based on the misuse of statistical analysis and on the emphasis on a particular group of tree-ring data."

This is a blatant lie, that graph by Mann et al is not simply wrong, it's been reinforced by later studies as concluded by the US National Academy of science.

Quote by: xyzer Remember my question, which still remains unanswered... "The importance of changes in solar activity is persuasively demonstrated in the observed detailed correlation between C-14 and O-18 in stalagmites [Neff 2001; see also figure 14 in NIPCC]. C-14 is produced by cosmic rays and can be taken as a proxy for solar activity, which modulates the intensity of galactic cosmic rays reaching the earth. O-18 is commonly taken as a proxy for temperature. Singer would also like to know how the cooling period can be explained? However, Singer is not alone in his criticism of the junk that is coming out in support of AGW. If you really want the truth read all the comments..

Cosmic rays and global warming again? I've already cited several many times in the last year when research so far has shown lack of correlation between cosmic rays and the current global warming.

Again, you have not answered my question, on the previous cited graph there was a small dip between 1980 and 1985, do you class that as a true cooling trend?

[xyzer]

Answer my question and quit prevaricating.

Your Eskimo with no clothes on example is ridiculous! Do realize how unrelated that is to diurnal heating of the ocean and land masses?

I don't understand your making an issue out of the cosmic ray study? The importance of clouds is not the issue. We know that on our liquid planet(around two thirds water) that there will be cloud formations and we know that they have a tremndous influence on climate and temperatures. Thats a given and I've referenced it several times. Who cares if cosmic rays don't have much influence on cloud formation?

We also know despite your advocacy that the "hockey Stick "graph was flawed.You latest reference doesn't come up. Dr Singer again makes reference to it.

And of course the OISM papers have no relevence (even though signed by over 30,000 scientists) because you say they don't . This even though the IPCC claims of all the scientists supposed to have approved their conclusions was farcical. I posted references showing the conclusions were forced on the public in spite of the compaints of some scientist involved.

Answer the question!

[xyzer]

Here is a good read parrot..
http://cei.org/PDFs/nationalassessment/Joseph%20DAleo%20comments%20on%20oceansandsolar.pdf

There are some graphs in it that refute your graph showing warming! And this conclusion makes sense to me..

Correlations of temperature data with CO2 and solar and ocean cycles shows that natural variability can not be dismissed. The on again off again correlation of temperatures with CO2 suggest this may not be an important climate driver though largely due to population increases globally from 1.5 to 6.5 billion in 100 years, man plays some role in observed temperature rises. Strong consistent correlation of temperatures with solar and ocean cycles suggest these are the primary drivers in decadal scale changes. They are likely not independent. The sun has a significant effect on global and especially tropical oceans and may itself the ocean cycles. Research into these factors is sorely needed. The cycles further offer an opportunity to anticipate and forecast forward in time much more accurately than we can with the climate models. Our own Climate Prediction Center is an example of that. 15 years ago, they were proclaiming their new climate models was the method of choice but found their skill was limited and moved to statistical methods focusing mainly on ENSO.

Note the evidence that while human causes are present they are minimal. The correlations come with the sun and ocean cycles(natural climate drivers).