Global sea ice ends year at same level as 1979

Here's a site with a graphic comparison of volcanism and global temperature measurements. As you can see, the impact is immediate and short-lived, having little to no impact on the long-term warming trend over the past century.

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/05/21/volcanoes/

The graph below is Figure 1 in Chapter 8 of the latest IPCC report. The black line shows temperatures, the yellow lines show results from 14 different models, and the red line is the average of all the simulations. As you can see, the four biggest tropical eruptions over the past century had slight cooling effects.

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/files/2007/05/volcanoes_cooling.gif

Still going with the data and the scientists on this one, rather than the global warming denier camp.

simply follow the data. :-)

I'm sticking with the facts, ma'am.

You know, the ones that are receiving grant money to research global warming. And what would happen to their grant money if they said it was a hoax? Follow the money.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011128035329.htm

"n short, a lack of volcanic activity had some part in temperature rise over the first half of the 20th century. However, it has had little to no part in the modern global warming trend that began in the 1970's. On the contrary, relatively frequent volcanic activity in the late 20th century may have masked some of the warming caused by CO2."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

The real answer, without getting terribly scientific about it.

CO2 levels have never gone above 281 parts per million in 650,000 years of ice core data.

We're now at 380 parts per million

And the growth in CO2 emmisions correlates perfectly with our fossil fuel emmisions.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html

"It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970s, but a cursory comparison of those warnings and today's reveals a huge difference.

Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions, solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause, and it will worsen unless we reduce emissions.

In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion.

Quite simply, there is no comparison."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222

I'm sticking with 21st century science on this one.

First, ghod is an old u.g. comic term that, I think, captures to some extent the idiocy of exuberant girls who use it as a flavoring particle in their speech. If they actually meant to call upon the Deity, they would probably not use expressions such as OMFG! and omigod omigod omigod! would not pop up every sixty seconds on Friends and similar as a laugh line.

Second, the idea of "choosing" to become a conservative is troubling. In part, that means that many people who were raised as Christians make a conscious decision to embrace the schizophrenia of, on the one hand, professing the beliefs that,
-we are commanded to forgive those who do us ill seventy times seven times
-we are to love others as ourselves
-we are to gain salvation by works, not faith (yes, I know, Paul vs. James, Peter, Jesus and everybody else--I'll go with the majority on this one).

And on the other hand, we are beholden to no one but ourselves, should bomb, smite, and burn to the ground the houses of any who oppose our will, define sharply whom we hate and whom we embrace, store weapons to murder anyone who dares trespass on our property, and, in general, treat the least of these as the scum they are.

It's much easier to believe that conservatives are born, not made.

edith,

I must make one correction to your first post on this editorial, other than that God is not spelled with an h.

Conservatives are not born that way, it's a choice.

Good morning.

I appreciate your forthright response absent the condescending snippets that zealots like Winch insist on framing their responses with. I spent over 10 hours on the sites that you proferred last month and, obviously, remain unconvinced of the validity of AGW.

In that same window of time 17 scientists have come forward to deny their inclusion in the UN IPCC....one of the 3 major promoters of what I call the "urgent fear scam". I am more convinced than ever of a suspicious stink to the entire AGW scare.

To be sure their are very legitimate scientists and researchers who ascribe to the theory. There is also a nearly equal and growing number of scientists who believe it is bunch of hooey. I am also quite certain that scientists and climatologists are excited that the hubbub of the last ten years has created a "sexy", high profile aura that their community has never enjoyed. Follow the money here.

The easiest way to explain it is this: the same climatologists, scientists and researchers who advocate AGW are usually being paid quite good money to study it. if they want to continue their research ....and they do....on the dime of governments and vested interest based organizations you bet they are going to find evidence of AGW. Much as the cigarette company scientists for years concluded that their employers were not making anyone sick.

It is amazing what scientists will conclude when their pocketbooks are impacted. They are no different than politicians, doctors, lawyers or you and me in that regard.

One of the least publicised climate and temperature affectors is volcanic activity. Since 1991 we have been experiencing a 3 century low in said activity. We are due. Overdue, in fact. Virtually nothing affects the temp curve as dramatically as volcanic eruptions. The temperature drops are precipitous and immediate. We have also just gone through the lowest sunspot activity year since 1901. Those 2 facts joined to the stabilizing ice, cooling activity of at least 3 years (many argue 9 or 10) galvanize my position.

My conclusion then, having lived through the "virtual certainty" of the little ice age forecasts of the mid seventies, is to be respectful of both sides, skeptical of the zealots like Gore who completely exaggerate, lie and distort, completely disregard those like Walter who are filled with pejorative comments for any who disagree and to continue reading and exploring.

In so doing however, I will be a staunch opponent of government mandates in response to theoretical concluions regarding AGW. Yes, I support conservation of our resources. Yes, I believe it is necessary to find a path to energy independence. Yes, I belive it is very prudent to curb our carbon emissions. I believe all of thos things are important ......but not at the exclusion of economic stability or the cost of economic reengineering.

The Earth's climate has always been cyclic. It has alternately ranged from way to hot to way to cold, for us. The Earth is in no danger from this cyclic pattern.

The Human race may be in deep poo, but Earth Abides.

When you're addressing a liberal directly, as below, you use "liberal," which does indicate you're shaping your message to your intended audience. Good work.