BBC: What happened to global warming?

[Vicious]

A few changes in the sun spots and the human race is toast.. or frozen.

[Skins24]

The sea level rise is greater than 0.

Not disputed...

Again, it isn't relevant. You'd expect sea levels to go up after a glacial period. You'd then expect them to start to level off, which they did. Then the rate at which they are increasing went back up.

Ok shorten the time scale. I asked before, show me how this current rise is any different than any time pre LIA. The MWP was just as warm as today before the LIA which would account for any slow down in sea level rise. Since the LIA lasted to about the 1800s then of course you'll see a rise. In the long term however, the rise is no more significant than it was in the past.

Show me how the data is readily availible. If somebody looked at, then they must have compiled the data. That alone would be a valuable resource. I can give you links for where data has been collected w/ respect to cosmic rays, temperature changes, hurricane wind strengths, sun spot numbers, rictor scale measurements, the phase of the moon.

I got nothing for floods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_floods

http://www.usgs.gov/hazards/floods/

http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/index.shtm - tons of links and info inside

http://across.co.nz/WorldsWorstDisasters.html - you have this strange idea that we don't document natural disasters

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1254/ http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1254/pdf/circ1254.pdf - "The World's Largest Floods, Past and Present: Their Causes and Magnitudes"

etc.

I'll even cut you a break. I just want the data for the last 50 years, but I need the data consistently for a site. I need the high point of the flood, the average height of the water for the year of the flood, and what if any efforts were made to control flooding.

Since you won't give me one, I'll just pick the Potomac River.

http://md.water.usgs.gov/publications/ofr-97-200/ofr-97-200.html

Let me know if it's missing any info.

Report that talks more about flood control:

http://www.ncpc.gov/DocumentDepot/Publications/FloodReport2008.pdf

Again, if anything is missing let me know.

How do you expect them to show you data for the next 100,000 years? You want a scale on months. I mean we were talking about when the next glaciation would occur using thousands of years.

Exactly. Meaning this "peak" isn't a now type of thing. Or based on a year or two. This "peak" will last at least K of years.

Also from the text:

"All the models reviewed in Berger et al. (1991) concluded that, in the absence of anthropogenic disturbances, the long-term cooling trend which began some 6000 years ago will continue until 25 kyr AP, possibly interrupted by a slight warming at around 15 kyr AP, and will be followed by a major glaciation at 50 kyr AP possibly delayed to 70-85 kyr AP (Ledley, 1995)."

This is talking about arctic regions. For Earth overall though the trend has not been cooling for the past 6000 years sans the Little Ice Age and a few other similar bumps. And all recent studies (including some of your links) show that cooling shouldn't be a factor for a while (again except for a few bumps) with or without human intervention

1. If you count proxy measures, we have a much longer record.

If we count those then we aren't even close to the top 10,000 or more warmest years on record....

2. We aren't cooling (just so you know 2009 has been warmer than 2007 and 2008 for Jan-Sept).

Well we aren't warming. Haven't in a decade.

3. You are wrong as indicated by the quotes I gave in the text.

How about more recent studies?

(read citiations for the actual reports)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Present_level_of_knowledge

As for the prospects of the end of the current interglacial (again, valid only in the absence of human perturbations): it isn't true that interglacials have previously only lasted about 10,000 years; and Milankovitch-type calculations indicate that the present interglacial would probably continue for tens of thousands of years naturally.[32] Other estimates (Loutre and Berger, based on orbital calculations) put the unperturbed length of the present interglacial at 50,000 years.[33] Berger (EGU 2005 presentation) believes that the present CO2 perturbation will last long enough to suppress the next glacial cycle entirely.

[PeterMP]

Not disputed...

Ok shorten the time scale. I asked before, show me how this current rise is any different than any time pre LIA. The MWP was just as warm as today before the LIA which would account for any slow down in sea level rise. Since the LIA lasted to about the 1800s then of course you'll see a rise. In the long term however, the rise is no more significant than it was in the past.

Realistically, the data doesn't exist for that, but generally, you wouldn't expect to see a rise 1000 years later from the end of the LIA. More importantly, it is all tied to temps. Temps aren't suppossed to be going up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_floods

http://www.usgs.gov/hazards/floods/

http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/index.shtm - tons of links and info inside

http://across.co.nz/WorldsWorstDisasters.html - you have this strange idea that we don't document natural disasters

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1254/ http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1254/pdf/circ1254.pdf - "The World's Largest Floods, Past and Present: Their Causes and Magnitudes"

etc.

Since you won't give me one, I'll just pick the Potomac River.

http://md.water.usgs.gov/publications/ofr-97-200/ofr-97-200.html

Let me know if it's missing any info.

Report that talks more about flood control:

http://www.ncpc.gov/DocumentDepot/Publications/FloodReport2008.pdf

Again, if anything is missing let me know.

Well, the report just talks about DC flood control. What about up river from DC? Find the samething for the whole river, and then you have one river down. We just need a lot more from all over the world for us to say something w/ respect to global warming.

I MAYBE could do DC w/ this, but a positive or negative result doesn't tell us anything about the larger situation.

Exactly. Meaning this "peak" isn't a now type of thing. Or based on a year or two. This "peak" will last at least K of years.

This is talking about arctic regions. For Earth overall though the trend has not been cooling for the past 6000 years sans the Little Ice Age and a few other similar bumps. And all recent studies (including some of your links) show that cooling shouldn't be a factor for a while (again except for a few bumps) with or without human intervention

Did you read the part where it said essentially from the present, or did you miss that part?

Cooling historically starts in the north. The north was cooling (They cite a paper that talks about Greenland. I've posted a paper in this thread about the Arctic). It cooled for several thousand years, until the 20th century, and then it started to warm.

That is the trend they are talking about. As glaciers form, the cooling, if part of the orbital pattern they are talking about, spreads to the rest of the world.

No argument based on historical trends explains the DECREASE in ice we've seen over the last 30 years or so.

Well we aren't warming. Haven't in a decade.

1998 was a particulary warm for several reasons. Mostly, it was a strong El Nino year. If you compare 1998 going into the future, you are right, but that isn't how warming is measured.

That is a statistically flawed approached. You can't compare one data point to another and draw any significant conclusions.

How about more recent studies?

(read citiations for the actual reports)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Present_level_of_knowledge

I've been quoting the study that they've cited in the wiki link. That study doesn't refute the 6000 year cooling trend (It is actually done by the same people. I'm quoting people in the paper that is cited in the wiki page. They are quoting their earlier work in terms of predicting the 6000 year cooling trend.). The newer work is just with respect to the amount of time it would take to get a new ice age. It just means the average slope of the line for building ice won't be as great as was thought previously, and of course, due to our CO2 output, it might never happen.

**EDIT**

I wanted to add w/ respect to that we aren't warming. Nobody ever said that ONLY CO2 was causing warming. I've already talked about what has happened to solar output in recent years in this thread. I've talked about orbital forcings having us in at the beginning of a cooling trend, BUT even staying where we are isn't a good option. Even if temps don't go up any more, the ice is going to melt. That is going to have drastic affects.

[Skins24]

Realistically, the data doesn't exist for that, but generally, you wouldn't expect to see a rise 1000 years later from the end of the LIA. More importantly, it is all tied to temps. Temps aren't suppossed to be going up.

So you're saying thermal expansion just stops after 1000 years?

And by all recent scientific accounts, we are still supposed to be warming.

Well, the report just talks about DC flood control. What about up river from DC? Find the samething for the whole river, and then you have one river down. We just need a lot more from all over the world for us to say something w/ respect to global warming.

You're joking right? The first links specifically talks about its tributaries. Not sure how you missed that.

I MAYBE could do DC w/ this, but a positive or negative result doesn't tell us anything about the larger situation.

You said the data isn't there. I showed you it is.

Did you read the part where it said essentially from the present, or did you miss that part?

Cooling historically starts in the north. The north was cooling (They cite a paper that talks about Greenland. I've posted a paper in this thread about the Arctic). It cooled for several thousand years, until the 20th century, and then it started to warm.

That is the trend they are talking about. As glaciers form, the cooling, if part of the orbital pattern they are talking about, spreads to the rest of the world.

And if you look at the bigger picture that cooling was no where near the trend. We've seen several cool downs like that since the last glacial period. Nevertheless, overall there has been a warming trend. And again, that warming trend is supposed to last for quite some time from present. We may see several more thousand year periods of cooling. Doesn't mean a thing in the long run.

No argument based on historical trends explains the DECREASE in ice we've seen over the last 30 years or so.

Que? How about the 20K year trend of a warming earth during interglacial?

1998 was a particulary warm for several reasons. Mostly, it was a strong El Nino year. If you compare 1998 going into the future, you are right, but that isn't how warming is measured.

That is a statistically flawed approached. You can't compare one data point to another and draw any significant conclusions.

We got progressively warmer until 1998. Since then there has not been any progression any way.

The newer work is just with respect to the amount of time it would take to get a new ice age.

I've quoted and linked. The newer studies state specifically that the WARMING should last another 20K years at least. The next ice age is irrelevant.

[InsaneBoost]

Global Warming, the greatest money making scheme ever.

[PeterMP]

So you're saying thermal expansion just stops after 1000 years?

And by all recent scientific accounts, we are still supposed to be warming.

Thermal expansion continues until warming stops.

You're joking right? The first links specifically talks about its tributaries. Not sure how you missed that.

What if anything along the river has been done to control bank erosion outside of DC?

What if anything w/ respect to storm drain improvements has been done outside of DC?

And if you look at the bigger picture that cooling was no where near the trend. We've seen several cool downs like that since the last glacial period. Nevertheless, overall there has been a warming trend. And again, that warming trend is supposed to last for quite some time from present. We may see several more thousand year periods of cooling. Doesn't mean a thing in the long run.

Que? How about the 20K year trend of a warming earth during interglacial?

We got progressively warmer until 1998. Since then there has not been any progression any way.

I've quoted and linked. The newer studies state specifically that the WARMING should last another 20K years at least. The next ice age is irrelevant.

There have been periodic reversals and times of slow growths during the over all warming trend. I previously noted some years where there was a substantial reduction in temperature. There have been other combinations of years that had consecutive years w/ lower temps. 1998 stood out as outlier at the time in terms of increase from the previous year.

Again, nobody is claiming that other things aren't also affecting climate. The thing is over time those things will average out. Comparing individual years is faulty. Not only are there yearly weather patterns that affect tempmerature in the short run (e.g. El Nino), but there is an 11 year solar cycle.

You misunderstand what you've been quoting. The newer study does not specifically state that they expect WARMING for the next 20,000 years. I've given you the link to the actual paper. Quote the statement from the paper. You've been quoting wikipedia. I've actually gone to wikipedia and found the reference they cited and given you quotes from the paper they have cited.

An intergalcial period does not mean there was warming during the whole period. You have warming, then you have cooling, then you have more glaciers ending the interglacial period. We should have reached the peak. We should start the slow slide into a period of glacier expansion. That doesn't end the current interglacial period though.

That paper clearly states two things:

1. That they essentially expect to see ice growth start NOW at low CO2 levels.

2. That we started a cooling phase 6,000 years ago.

I will point out that you haven't quoted ANYTHING that says ANYTHING about WARMING for the next 20,000 years. Much less that will happen in the absence of human induced CO2.

What you did post was a quote saying that the current warm period will last 50,000 years. I went to the paper and pulled explained the graph to you showing you that you misunderstood what they were saying that they didn't mean that temps would remain as they are now, just that we wouldn't have another ice age.

When you misunderstood that graph and claimed that the graph showed no ice growth for the next 20,000 years, I pulled out a quote that specificially stated that at low CO2, they'd expect to see ice start growing essentially at the present, and other quotes in the paper talking about a 6,000 year cooling trend.

**EDIT***

Maybe this will help you. To these people, the mid-eviel warm period, the little ice age, and now are part of the same interglacial perion, and inter-glacial periods are warm. If we cooled for 6,000 years and even got above the ice levels of the little ice age w/o having a full blown ice age, they would still consider that part of the same intergalcial period and a warm period.

Their prediction is that is what should be happening.

[Skins24]

Ahh I get it now. You're only talking about arctic (not even Antarctic).

Well, I'm talking about globally!

So a couple things:

1) The arctic may have been cooling for the past 2000 years, but that has nothing to do with the rest of the world. I'd like to see any study that disputes that saying the Earth as a whole should be cooling.

2)

What you did post was a quote saying that the current warm period will last 50,000 years. I went to the paper and pulled explained the graph to you showing you that you misunderstood what they were saying that they didn't mean that temps would remain as they are now, just that we wouldn't have another ice age.

That quote had nothing to do with the graph!

3) Here's a more RECENT study:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8-m8nXB8GB4C&pg=RA1-PA453&lpg=RA1-PA453&dq=end+of+current+interglacial&source=bl&ots=hxjrC2qbK_&sig=STnc8mWFZ28p2NSeQg9UUQqZRto&hl=en&ei=UijaSrbmO5XR8Qa_mcC3BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

There is no evidence of mechanisms that could mitigate the current global warming by a natural cooling trend. Only a strong reduction in summer isolation at high northern latitudes along with associated feedbacks, can end the current interglacial. Given that current low orbital eccentricity will persist over the next tens of thousand years, the effects of precession are minimised, and extremely cold northern summer orbital configuration like that of the last glacial initiation at 116 ka will not take place for at least 30kyr (Box 6.1). Under a natural CO2 regime (i.e., with the global temperature-CO2 correlation continuing as in the Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores), the next glacial period would not be expected to start withing the next 30 kyr (Loutre and Berger, 2000; Berger and Loutre, 2002; EPICA Community Members, 2004)

(you keep referencing an older study, not their newer ones)

[Skeptic Overlord]

A few changes in the sun spots and the human race is toast.. or frozen.

[PeterMP]

Ahh I get it now. You're only talking about arctic (not even Antarctic).

Well, I'm talking about globally!

So a couple things:

1) The arctic may have been cooling for the past 2000 years, but that has nothing to do with the rest of the world. I'd like to see any study that disputes that saying the Earth as a whole should be cooling.

2)

That quote had nothing to do with the graph!

3) Here's a more RECENT study:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8-m8nXB8GB4C&pg=RA1-PA453&lpg=RA1-PA453&dq=end+of+current+interglacial&source=bl&ots=hxjrC2qbK_&sig=STnc8mWFZ28p2NSeQg9UUQqZRto&hl=en&ei=UijaSrbmO5XR8Qa_mcC3BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

(you keep referencing an older study, not their newer ones)

First, as I told you when first quoted the wiki section, the reference to the Science article is a review and does not present new data. They do reference the 2000 paper. Science has caused this a perspective:

" Science 23 August 2002:

Vol. 297. no. 5585, pp. 1287 - 1288

DOI: 10.1126/science.1076120

Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Perspectives

CLIMATE:

An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead?

A. Berger and M. F. Loutre*

Science 23 August 2002:

Vol. 297. no. 5585, pp. 1287 - 1288

DOI: 10.1126/science.1076120

Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Perspectives

CLIMATE:

An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead?

A. Berger and M. F. Loutre*

"

But it does say:

"Most early attempts to predict future climate at the geological time scale (6, 7) prolonged the cooling that started at the peak of the Holocene some 6000 years ago, predicting a cold interval in about 25,000 years and a glaciation in about 55,000 years."

That's right, we started cooling 6000 years ago.

I don't know what the last reference is in your latest quote, but it isn't a peer reviewed journal (I'd guess a conference talk).

Let me make a few comments about referencing in general. You see how your latest quote as all three references in the same paranthetic comment. That is to indicate that all of them have the same info.

Now, I'll make a point that I'm not going to bother to ref, and I'm not going to argue w/ you about, but if you keep reading those wiki pages, I'm sure you'll find a page that says it. The Northern climate drives the global climate over long periods of time, especially w/ respect to major shifts in the climate (e.g. ending and beginning ice ages).

Now to meat of the argument:

1. Nothing you've posted says what you claim. Before you stated that you posted a link that said we were going to WARM for the next 20,000 years. You didn't, and the new quote you gave didn't say that either.

The quote you gave doesn't even indicate that we shouldn't be cooling. We can get a lot colder and not get to an ice. Again, to these people "warm" is not an ice age. To these people, the LIA is part of the same interglacial period as now and the midevieval warm period and is part of the same "warm" period.

2. Global warming is calculated as the average global mean temperature. That includes the Arctic. If the Arctic value should be negative (cooling), but is positive (warming), then it is affecting global warming, and there would be less global warming if the Arctic was cooling. (I will point out that most of the warming is in the Northern hemisphere. You mentioned Anarctica. Anarctica has warmed little to none (earliers studies said slight cooling, most recent say sligh warming)). I don't think anybody thinks the cooling that should be happening the Arctic would quickly affect elsewhere, but it would certainly by default change the global mean because the Arctic is part of the calculation to determine the global mean. If the Arctic was cooling for the global mean NOT to be going down that means ELSEWHERE there MUST be WARMING to off set it.

3. The Arctic isn't a closed system. It is going to affect the rest of the system. If the Arctic is warming when it should be cooling, that warm isn't saying, 'Well, I'm Arctic air, I'm not leaving the Arctic'. There are real rates and mechanisms by which the Arctic warming will affect the rest of the world.

4. It is really irrelevant. If you know the Arctic is warming when it should be cooling, and it is the result of CO2, then isn't it at least very likely that the same CO2 increase will cause warming else where, and the people you've been providing references too certainly think CO2 is causing warming.

From the Science paper:

"

Simulations with a two-dimensional climate model (14), forced with insolation and CO2 variations over the next 100,000 years, provide an insight into the possible consequences of this rare phenomenon. Most CO2 scenarios (15) led to an exceptionally long interglacial from 5000 years before the present to 50,000 years from now (see the bottom panel of the figure), with the next glacial maximum in 100,000 years. Only for CO2 concentrations less than 220 ppmv was an early entrance into glaciation simulated (15)."

"

The present-day CO2 concentration of 370 ppmv is already well above typical interglacial values of ~290 ppmv. Taking into account anthropogenic perturbations, we have studied further in which the CO2 concentration increases to up to 750 ppmv over the next 200 years, returning to natural levels by 1000 years from now (13, 15). The results suggest that, under very small insolation variations, there is a threshold value of CO2 above which the Greenland Ice Sheet disappears (see the bottom panel of the figure). The climate system may take 50,000 years to assimilate the impacts of human activities during the early third millennium. In this case, an "irreversible greenhouse effect" could become the most likely future climate. If the Greenland and west Antarctic Ice Sheets disappear completely, then today's "Anthropocene" (17) may only be a transition between the Quaternary and the next geological period. J. Murray Mitchell Jr. already predicted in 1972 that "The net impact of human activities on the climate of the future decades and centuries is quite likely to be one of warming and therefore favorable to the perpetuation of the present interglacial" [(1), p. 436]."

[Skins24]

"Most early attempts to predict future climate at the geological time scale (6, 7) prolonged the cooling that started at the peak of the Holocene some 6000 years ago, predicting a cold interval in about 25,000 years and a glaciation in about 55,000 years."

That's right, we started cooling 6000 years ago.

lol, read it again in context. Not talking about Earth. Talking about the arctic.

But since you insist it's talking the whole Earth, then please provide another source that says the Earth should be cooling right now.

I don't know what the last reference is in your latest quote, but it isn't a peer reviewed journal (I'd guess a conference talk).

Um...its the IPCC :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

Now, I'll make a point that I'm not going to bother to ref, and I'm not going to argue w/ you about, but if you keep reading those wiki pages, I'm sure you'll find a page that says it. The Northern climate drives the global climate over long periods of time, especially w/ respect to major shifts in the climate (e.g. ending and beginning ice ages).

Sigh...

Not necessarily. And if YOU keep reading those wiki pages, or better yet, the actual studies, you'll see why.

Hint: recent studies show that northern climates are more sensitive to certain things than other areas. Looking at an article on it now. I'll let you figure it out though...

Now to meat of the argument:

1. Nothing you've posted says what you claim. Before you stated that you posted a link that said we were going to WARM for the next 20,000 years. You didn't, and the new quote you gave didn't say that either.

20,000....30,000....whatever.

The quote you gave doesn't even indicate that we shouldn't be cooling. We can get a lot colder and not get to an ice. Again, to these people "warm" is not an ice age. To these people, the LIA is part of the same interglacial period as now and the midevieval warm period and is part of the same "warm" period.

Nor does your links or anywhere else indicate that we (the Earth as a whole) SHOULD be cooling. I've already agreed that yeah we saw cooling in the past 2000 years. But only in the arctic (overall.) I'm talking globally.

And yes I know it is all part of the same warm period. Which is why it is irrelevant in the long run. That cooling, whether it's supposed to be still going or not, doesn't change the fact that this current warm period is still going to last for a while.

2. Global warming is calculated as the average global mean temperature. That includes the Arctic. If the Arctic value should be negative (cooling), but is positive (warming), then it is affecting global warming, and there would be less global warming if the Arctic was cooling. (I will point out that most of the warming is in the Northern hemisphere. You mentioned Anarctica. Anarctica has warmed little to none (earliers studies said slight cooling, most recent say sligh warming)). I don't think anybody thinks the cooling that should be happening the Arctic would quickly affect elsewhere, but it would certainly by default change the global mean because the Arctic is part of the calculation to determine the global mean. If the Arctic was cooling for the global mean NOT to be going down that means ELSEWHERE there MUST be WARMING to off set it.

There are other factors (the SUN, ocean currents, etc.) that you're ignoring as to why the arctic can be seeing cooling why the rest of us does not. You're last sentence is absolutely correct. Since the Earth overall has been warming, then that means the rate of which the arctic was cooling was not significant enough to affect the overall average.

3. The Arctic isn't a closed system. It is going to affect the rest of the system. If the Arctic is warming when it should be cooling, that warm isn't saying, 'Well, I'm Arctic air, I'm not leaving the Arctic'. There are real rates and mechanisms by which the Arctic warming will affect the rest of the world.

Ok....

4. It is really irrelevant. If you know the Arctic is warming when it should be cooling, and it is the result of CO2, then isn't it at least very likely that the same CO2 increase will cause warming else where, and the people you've been providing references too certainly think CO2 is causing warming.

Not sure who's arguing this.

However all recent studies have shown that even without human enhanced CO2 contributions, the overall warming is too last.

[PeterMP]

Um...its the IPCC :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

The quote is from an IPCC report. The quote contains three references. The last reference there in.

Sigh...

Not necessarily. And if YOU keep reading those wiki pages, or better yet, the actual studies, you'll see why.

Hint: recent studies show that northern climates are more sensitive to certain things than other areas. Looking at an article on it now. I'll let you figure it out though...

I have it figured out. I'm not the one claiming Arctic temps are independent from global temps.

20,000....30,000....whatever.

You haven't posted anything that indicates warming over the next 30,000 years either.

Nor does your links or anywhere else indicate that we (the Earth as a whole) SHOULD be cooling. I've already agreed that yeah we saw cooling in the past 2000 years. But only in the arctic (overall.) I'm talking globally.

And yes I know it is all part of the same warm period. Which is why it is irrelevant in the long run. That cooling, whether it's supposed to be still going or not, doesn't change the fact that this current warm period is still going to last for a while.

If you consider anything not an ice age warm.

There are other factors (the SUN, ocean currents, etc.) that you're ignoring as to why the arctic can be seeing cooling why the rest of us does not. You're last sentence is absolutely correct. Since the Earth overall has been warming, then that means the rate of which the arctic was cooling was not significant enough to affect the overall average.

For the short term, normally, those things can counter act orbital forcings, but not long term. On average, over the next 6000 years, you'd expect the Arctic to cool. Other factors will cancel out or look like noise in the system and that constant Arctic cooling will cool the world in terms of global means.

Now, we've short ciructed that and even Arctic isn't cooling.

Not sure who's arguing this.

However all recent studies have shown that even without human enhanced CO2 contributions, the overall warming is too last.

Again, only if by "warming" you mean the temperature can cool substantially as long as we don't actually enter a real full blown ice age. Yes, then the warming will continue.

I made the point that we are at a peak in terms of ice content. You seemed not to like that. You take the idea that we will be "warm" that ice won't grow, which is why I quoted the paper from before stating that ice will essentially grow from the present at low CO2 levels.

[The Evil Genius]

Hmmmmm...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling

AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer – 1 hr 44 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book.

Only one problem: It's not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller "Freakonomics." Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.

Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped — thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.

MORE AFTER LINK

[Skins24]

It's not that there is global cooling or that that temps are dropping, it's that they are other factors in play (namely the Sun) that have had a bigger role than some want you to think. If temps followed projections by some saying humans are to blame for global warming, then we should be getting warmer each year...but we're not.

[SnyderShrugged]

Hmmmmm...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling

[

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

MORE AFTER LINK

If they truly did this "blind data" approach, then the statisticians analysis is literally bunk. Without the proper temporal perspective, trends cannot be identified with any amount of precision.

[PeterMP]

It's not that there is global cooling or that that temps are dropping, it's that they are other factors in play (namely the Sun) that have had a bigger role than some want you to think. If temps followed projections by some saying humans are to blame for global warming, then we should be getting warmer each year...but we're not.

I don't know anybody that is REALLY claimed that. There is an ~11 year solar cycle that shows affects on temperatures. I don't think anybody ever thought that years that were the result of high points in the cycle would have lower temps than close subsequent years where temp is the result of lower solar output, even w/ CO2 increasing over time.

[PeterMP]

If they truly did this "blind data" approach, then the statisticians analysis is literally bunk. Without the proper temporal perspective, trends cannot be identified with any amount of precision.

I think they gave them the temporal data, without telling them data was global temps.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think they gave them the temporal data, without telling them data was global temps.

well, they could. but it still impacts the study if they had 10-20 years worth of data vs. hundreds and thousands. They would never have an understanding of long term vs short term.

[barefoot]

You can't deny that sea levels have increased. It is a fact. Increased sea levels by default mean that you are going to have more flooding, UNLESS you are going to claim that storms are actually going to be less severe as a result of warming.

Can I say that Katrina was influenced by warming? No, but 3 decades ago the flooding would have been less severe because sea levels would have been lower. That's a fact.

Dude, I've lived on the the water my entire life, probably spend 100+ days on the water, ocean and sounds every year. The sea level is NOT higher. Flooding in N.O. 3 decades ago would have been less severe because of less population, not sea level.

[PeterMP]

Dude, I've lived on the the water my entire life, probably spend 100+ days on the water, ocean and sounds every year. The sea level is NOT higher. Flooding in N.O. 3 decades ago would have been less severe because of less population, not sea level.

So the satelites that are used to measure sea level are wrong because....